Ted Cruz 2016 : Demands TPP Public Disclosure -- REFUSES Obama-Boehner-Ryan Secret TPP Treason !

Kuhner Radio Report ^ | 2015-06-13 | Patton@Bastogne

[Diogenesis]

The lack of honesty was by Sen. Cruz.

And his odious impugning Sen. Sessions who spoke up for America
WAS an attack, and helpS(ed) Obama.

By his own choice, sadly this is Sen Cruz today:

[DesertRhino]

Cruz is not a Normandy soldier. He is a politician. Its sick to pretend he is of the same cloth as a soldier about to storm a beach.

He is a politician I agree with 99% and hope he straightens up. This was a sellout to his money masters.

[TNMOUTH]

Ah, Diogenese...still supporting Rand are we?

[philman_36]

FACT SHEET: Transparency and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Transparency is a two-way street, and increasing the amount of information flowing from stakeholders to the government does not lessen the government's obligation to provide information about its activities and proposals to the public. That said, the USTR's efforts to help stakeholders engage with negotiators and make their case before the negotiating countries is promising.”
Jodie Griffin, Public Knowledge Policy Blog

It’s declassified and made public once it’s agreed to. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Outlines of TPP
As one would imagine it's full of boilerplate.

[Junk Silver]

“Those with an agenda will see to it that he is destroyed.
Never mind that they NEVER give us a good alternative.”

You want a good alternative?

How about the Constitution of the United States?
How about Congress actually using its power to oversee treaty negotiations?

How about jailing for treason anyone who attempts to undermine the sovereignty of this nation by attempting to push through a secret treaty?

There, now you have some good alternatives. You can’t say that we critics NEVER give you any.

[philman_36]

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL
The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between ''treaties'' and ''agreements'' or ''compacts'' but does not indicate what the difference is. ³⁸⁸ The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.

Sorry, nothing in there about 2/3 no longer needed. Got anything else?

[Principled]

That is very instructive. Thanks for posting that.

It is one example of why we do not trust. And should not trust.

[jjotto]

You miss the forest for the trees.

If Congress agrees it is an agreement, then treaty requirement of 2/3 Senate vote doesn’t apply.

[Thidwick]

I am not disagreeing with you, and you may (or may not) have a legitimate argument. I am asking questions, and at the same time trying not to get sucked in by the few on this thread that clearly intend to undermine. I hadn’t considered that to be you, should I?

[philman_36]

The TPP is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s economic policy in the Asia Pacific. The large and growing markets of the Asia-Pacific already are key destinations for U.S. manufactured goods, agricultural products, and services suppliers, and the TPP will further deepen this trade and investment. (an assertion, not a fact) As a group, the TPP countries are the largest goods and services export market of the United States. U.S. goods exports to TPP countries totaled $698 billion in 2013, representing 44 percent of total U.S. goods exports. U.S. exports of agricultural products to TPP countries totaled $58.8 billion in 2013, 85 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports. U.S. private services exports totaled $172 billion in 2012 (latest data available), 27 percent of total U.S. private services exports to the world. America’s small- and medium-sized enterprises alone exported $247 billion to the Asia-Pacific in 2011 (latest data available).

Never mind that they NEVER give us a good alternative.

How about we manufacture more goods and they'll find their way to market on their own? You have to remove some regulatory hurdles first though, don't you.

[astroaddict]

Agreed.. I’ve been saying it for a couple weeks now: Obama WANTED the TPA to fail. This played out perfectly for them. The people on here who fell for this ruse should be embarrassed.

[astroaddict]

You were duped. Obama and the Dems WANTED TPA to fail, that’s why he embraced it, he knew he could create revolt among the Republican constituents.

You and others who were railing against the TPA were pawns in the White House’s game. You fell for their game. Hook, line, and sinker.

[TNMOUTH]

Funny, but didn’t Sessions support CAFTA?

[ncalburt]

Let me introduce you to Heidi Cruz ?

A Goldman Sachs VP who specialty is Trade Agreements ,

Goldman Sachs has been doing the Biggest a
lobbying on K Street ,

They Will make Billions and destroy our country in return.

You have been suckered by two DC insiders who plan to reap millions on the Trojan Horse !

[Thorliveshere]

I think this is the case. It sure is doing the trick of making us turn on each other. Pelosi’s reaction are just so not her... her being opposed to giving Obama more power... how odd.

I think I’m going to hear Cruz out on this one. My gut instinct tells me to trust him.

[Moorings]

Has Scott Walker been standing against TAA and TPP?

[philman_36]

If Congress agrees it is an agreement, then treaty requirement of 2/3 Senate vote doesn’t apply.

No shi kidding, Sherlock? Tell me something I don't know or can't find out on my own.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 11—Political Affairs
11 FAM 723.2-1 Treaties
(CT:POL-44; 05-26-2006)
International agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after the Senate has given its advice and consent are “treaties.” The President, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, may enter into an international agr eement on any subject genuinely of concern in foreign relations, so long as the agreement does not contravene the United States Constitution.

11 FAM 723.2-2 International Agreements Other Than Treaties
(CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)
International agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties.” (The term “sole executive agreement” is appropri ately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitution al authority of the President.) There are three constitutional bases for in ternational agreements other than treaties as set forth below. An in ternational agreement may be concluded pursuant to one or more of these constitutional bases:

(1) Treaty;
(2) Legislation;
(3) Constitutional authority of the President.

You miss the forest for the trees.

You still haven't proven your assertion, to wit...Treaties do not require 2/3 anymore. The senate voted that power away this spring.
Can you even find a tree, much less a forest,or is distraction your only tool?

[jjotto]

You are simply lying about my “assertion”. Why?

[philman_36]

Funny, but didn’t Sessions support CAFTA?

Jeff Sessions on the Issues
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)

Wasn't Reagan once a Democrat?

[ducks1944]

We all need to hold out support and see how each of these people come down on things. When a person changes view over and over to get votes I’m done with them. To me stick with UR core believes and let chips fall where they may.