Can someone explain to me(probably not smart enough person to understand) what trans-pacific partnership is about?Is that so bad?

I'll give you some quotes.

"The short answer, as it has been throughout the process, is that we don’t know. The negotiations were conducted in secret and the final text remains secret. What we have are two kinds of leaks: deliberate leaks from government officials, seeking to put the most favourable spin on the deal, and the unauthorised leaks of negotiating drafts, obtained and published by WikiLeaks... Still, it’s already clear that, considered as a trade deal, this agreement is very small beer." (the rest of the article is about Australia).
http://insidestory.org.au/the-tpps-one-way-ratchet

"The reality is that the vast majority of the trade between the countries in the TPP is already covered by trade agreements as can be seen [see the chart]... This doesn't mean that the TPP can't have an impact. It will lock in a regulatory structure, the exact parameters of which are yet to be seen. We do know that the folks at the table came from places like General Electric and Monsanto, not the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club. We also know that it will mean paying more for drugs and other patent and copyright protected material (forms of protection, whose negative impact is never included in growth projections), but we don't yet know how much."
http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/that-massive-tpp

“pharmaceutical companies would effectively be allowed to extend – sometimes almost indefinitely – their monopolies on patented medicines, keep cheaper generics off the market, and block “biosimilar” competitors from introducing new medicines for years... That is how the TPP will manage trade for the pharmaceutical industry if the US gets its way.”

“Similarly, consider how the US hopes to use the TPP to manage trade for the tobacco industry… Under these investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems, foreign investors gain new rights to sue national governments in binding private arbitration for regulations they see as diminishing the expected profitability of their investments.”.

“Imagine what would have happened if these provisions had been in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered.... Taxpayers would have been hit twice – first to pay for the health damage caused by asbestos, and then to compensate manufacturers for their lost profits when the government stepped in to regulate a dangerous product.”
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trans-pacific-partnership-charade-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-and-adam-s--hersh-2015-10

"I’ve described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don’t share the intense dislike of many progressives, I’ve seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that."

"What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/

For decades now we've been signing these agreements for 'globalization'. The results have not been good, except for corporations and employers. Basically these agreements have allowed capital to roam the world in search of the cheapest labor and other resources, the weakest environmental laws, etc., but labor has to stay put. This results in a 'race to the bottom' and workers around the world have to compete with the cheapest, poorest workers.

Take NAFTA for instance, a treaty between US, Canada and Mexico. The first president Bush tried for his whole term in office to get it passed but he wasn't able to. But Clinton passed it easily. (And then of course the Republicans decided it was just the worst idea ever!) NAFTA has had a downward pressure on wages and working conditions in all three countries! How could it do that? It was DESIGNED to do that.

The Repubs characterize Obama as extremely liberal, a socialist, a Marxist, etc. But in the recovery of the economy we've seen under Obama, 90% of the gains have gone to the top 1%. He's served the REPUBLICAN goal of further concentrating wealth in the US. TPP is mostly about that.

Trade agreements reduce obstacles to trade (like tarriffs and certain regulations) between the signatory parties. The idea is to promote economic growth of each participating nation by allowing businesses to reduce costs and access wider markets. Trade agreements do not let companies change laws or "take over."

A trade agreement generally benefits each member country -- and is usually a plus. Like any international treaty, it can be good or bad depending on the terms of the accord.

It basically entrenches the right to profit as an international law.

It sets extremely dangerous precedents that threaten to destroy national sovereignty.

Under these provisions, a company that argues a regulation is costing it profit could sue the government for compensation for the supposed loss of profit. In other words, it opens the doors for all laws to be set by unaccountable, unelected commercial tribunals.

The TPP is a broad trade agreement between most of the pacific-rim nations, excluding China, and has been undertaken somewhat to try and counter China's influence over trade in the region. The details are still coming out, as the agreement was only finalized a short time ago.

Ultimately, It's a negotiated agreement, and like all negotiated agreements, it involves give-and-take. The US didn't get everything it wanted, but it did get some of what it wanted. Of course international trade can be disruptive to domestic economies, and there are usually winners and losers. In general, international trade has been a boon to the U.S. economy, and consumers alike, but it hasn't been without fallout. However, if you look at countries that have been heavily isolated from international trade, they generally haven't fared well.

In general, whether you support or oppose the TPP will depend to some extent whether your industry/region stands to gain or lose because of it. Agricultural interests, where the U.S. enjoys a substantial trade surplus, generally praise the deal. Industries that are less globally competitive (whether due to labor costs or other factors) generally oppose it.

It still needs to go through a skeptical congress, and the hearings are bound to be contentious. But most of the "doomsday" rumors and innuendo are exactly that.

It is not really a trade agreement. Read for yourself whats wrong with it.