I really cannot tell if you believe the stuff you are posting.
Looks to me like you are part of a large number of plants / trolls who have been activated against Cruz to minimize his momentum going into the presidential race.
Won’t work. Freepers will ferret you out even if you are a deep cover mole.
Maybe you really believe what you are saying and have just been conned into believing it. I don’t know.
But Cruz has a long track record. True conservatives are looking for conservative candidates.
Cruz may not be Jesus Christ. When Jesus comes back, we will not need to have these debates or these elections. Until them, we need to support the best leaders we can.
If you do not support Cruz I would like to know who your top three picks for president are. If you do not have a presidential pick then you better have a revolution planned because that is the only alternative to participating in a flawed system with flawed human candidates.
Please get back with me on your preferred presidential picks who represent your conservative views.
There are 2 candidates that the establishment are full-stop against, and that's Cruz and Walker. That makes me give them the bigger benefit of the doubt than some of the others, who I already know aren't nearly as conservative as they pretend to be as they campaign (I'm talking to YOU Gov. GoodHair) The trolls for the establishment, and their liberal fellow travellers will try thier best to destroy the utility of sites like FreeRepublic, because honest debate does not help their cause.
There has been way too much misinformation about this entire trade thing from both sides. All kinds of red herrings have been thrown around to confuse the issue.
For myself, I'm generally of the opinion that some type of "fast track" authority is necessary with treaty negotiations. You pretty much can't have the Senate amending an already negotiated treaty when they are voting on it, because then you'd have to go back to the other treaty partners and essentially renegotiate it again.
However, I absolutely disagree with the idea of calling these things "trade agreements" to get around the Constitutional requirement of a 2/3 majority vote for ratification. IMO, this should have been the hill that Cruz stood on with this. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it doesn't make any sense to call it a chicken. Call it a duck and require the 2/3 majority ote for ratification. That will make sure that you'll end up with a better treaty, because you know up front the hurdle it will be necessary to clear.
It is supposed to be difficult to pass a treaty. That's why the requirement is in the Constitution in the first place. Getting around the established law of the land for political expedience is dishonest at best.
I'm glad to see Cruz voted against it, but his reasoning isn't as pursuasive as one grounded in the Constitution would be. Saying "I'm Shocked! Shocked! to find backroom dealing going on around here" isn't what I expect from him.
I'm still in the Cruz and Walker camps. (either one will work for me, though I personally prefer Cruz) The alternatives are far worse.