listen...

if you're an american planner right now, and you're broadcasting belligerence against china, it's almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that you're going to need a trade pact around the pacific rim. you can get granular as fuck on the details, but the basic premise is unavoidable.

and, why is that?

because if you don't have a trade pact around the pacific rim, the chinese are going to pick them off one by one. and, the chinese trade model explicitly forbids american imports. this is a policy of self-isolation, but by accident rather than by design.

again: i don't like this agreement. i don't like the isds-mechanisms. i don't like the way it treats labour. it's not the deal i'd sign. but, if no deal exists at all, the future is going to be a pacific rim that is closed for american exports - just like china is - and has military bases to protect their exclusive market access.

it would be one thing if trump had campaigned on a different set of priorities. sanders ultimately wanted labour deals put in place, not the end of cross-pacific trade. there isn't a brilliant plan hidden under the surface here, there's just a glaring contradiction in policy brought on by a fundamental misunderstanding of the agreement.

he can prove me wrong, still. i've given him choices. but, i'm just being rigorous. the right answer is the first option.