Posted on 01/03/2016 5:07:32 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
“Stoppin’ by,” young’un?
Been here a sight longer than you, but with less vitriol.
So do you agree that there are significant dangers inherent with parody and smears within the conservative ‘big tent’? Circular firing squad and all? Adding to the narrative of the leftist opposition?
Show me the vid or the tweet.
TPP hasn’t been brought to the he vote, hasn’t passed, is not law. TPA gave fast track powers same as other GOP presidents had. Cruz is fiercely opposed to TPP. That’s what counts.
Obama was going to make the US a signatory to the deal without Congressional input. Read the link I posted to you.
1. Ted Cruz is a Reagan Republican: he believes in free trade as a powerful weapon to spread democracy and increase American influence— but he wants Congress to have a role in trade agreements. TPA has been used by every President for the past 50 years to expedite the negotiation of trade deals. Our allies, and enemies, know that the US Congress is a fickle beast that just loves to tack on poison pill amendments in order to kill a bill/treaty. TPA sets a time period and the mandate of an up or down vote— no amendments, no denial of cloture, no foot dragging. If Congress members do not like the details of the bill, they have to vote no and send it back to the drawing board. Furthermore, unlike the Constitutionally mandated treaty process, TPA allows for the House of Representatives to get a vote on a trade bill. (The Constitution says that the Senate must ratify a treaty— the House gets no vote.)Now I think we would all agree that Congressmen who have to be re-elected every 2 years are far less likely to sign onto a damaging treaty than Senators, who are only elected every 6 years— so letting the House have a vote is a good idea.
2. The TPA bill that originally hit the Senate floor was all but identical to the TPA used by the aforementioned Presidents of the past half-century. Senator Sessions was (rightly) concerned that immigration language would be added to the bill in the House, but no such language existed in the first Senate version. Conservatives were further worried that TPA would be used to re-authorize the Export-Import bank. McConnell gave assurances that the Export Import bank not only would not be added to the TPA, but that it was dead for the rest of the legislative year.
3. To end debate on any bill, that does not fall under specific budget rules, in the Senate you need unanimous consent OR 60 yes votes during what is called a cloture vote. When the cloture vote for TPA—the Senate version— was held there were 62 yes votes. Cruz did not cast the 60th, 61st, or 62nd vote. In fact, he had already voted yes to end the debate because he had been assured by House and Senate leaders that immigration codicils would not be added and that Ex/Im was dead. Then McConnell, realizing he would not get cloture (he only had 54 votes) made a deal with 8 Senators to put Ex/Im on another bill. You can read about those shenanigans here: http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/trade-promotion-authority-senate-roll-call-vote/
4. After cloture was obtained the deal McConnell made became public and Cruz was pissed as hell. To make matters worse, the House TPA bill included the very immigration language Sessions warned about. So, both Boehner and McConnell lied to conservatives (not just Cruz) in order to garner support. Because the House and Senate bills were different, they had to be combined in what is called a “Conference Committeeâ€. That bill then had to be passed by both the House and Senate.
5. It was during the vote for cloture on the newly edited joint bill, (TPA-2 if you will) that Cruz and several others rebelled and voted no. Cruz has explained that the version of TPA that was passed was not the version supported by Reagan conservatives and he could not, in good conscience, vote for it.
6. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)deal has been sent to Congress to vote on under the rules outlined in TPA. This means that TPP cannot be amended or filibustered. All members of Congress will have a chance to vote and must either vote yes or no.
bump!
Cruz's comments about "slowing down" Obama and "chance to review" are beyond thin and feeble.
Not only that, but the Obama-will-do-it-anyway is the worst of the worst lame excuses. That is like saying... well, let's give illegals amnesty because Obama will do it anyway.
Or, how about... let's give Obama everything he wants because he will do it anyway. Come to think of it, the Republican establishment (and Cruz 500% incr. H1B/TPA/Corker bill) does that anyway.
Did they get the $150,000,000,000.00?
The conventional wisdom or "Black Legend" has been discredited by modern historians.
The Real Inquisition --National Review
Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.Protestants promoted and perpetuated the "Black Legend" for obvious reasons.During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe.
As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful.
During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless.
Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands. Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened.
It's hard to nail Jello to the wall.
WWE level rhetoric is easier.
There
Would
Not
Have
Been
A
Vote
In
The
Senate
At
All
“Cruz is fiercely opposed to TPP”
Not really. TPA was put forward specifically to enable TPP. He will never be able to put forth a good reason to vote for TPA. TPA was one of Obama’s favorite agenda items because it set the momentum to pass TPP, the target legislation that ends American sovereignty. That should have alerted sentient being to the perils of TPA/TPP.
Cruz, in explaining his vote for TPA, would go off into a long spiel about how much we all depend on trade. Yes, we all should love trade, but these trade deals have resulted in the de-industralization of the American economy. American manufacturing cannot compete with slave labor wages in foreign counties. But there is very little about trade in TPP, according to the leaked copies, it is mainly about establishing a supra-national governing cartel. TPA and TPP was kept under secrecy until the last minute. Why?
TPA/TPP are favorite components of the Obama agenda. When has Obama advanced any program that furthered the interests of the United States?
Please cite just one.
"Go Trump...Go Cruz 2016!"
My sentiments entirely! Cruz & Trump's candidacies complement each other nicely. One brings in the most philosophically Conservative; the other millions of patriotic main stream Americans, who are instinctively Conservative, but simply have not learned to explain their instincts philosophically.
If those who want to engage in promoting antagonism between natural allies succeed in efforts like this thread's initial smear by association & gross exaggeration, to divide those who must come together in November, 2016, to restore hope to America, succeed in dividing us further; the future will be bleak indeed.
William Flax
You mean "please" show you the video, especially considering your last post.
SH
Yep feelings trump reality every time.
Now I know how we keep losing.
“Senator Sessions was (rightly) concerned that immigration language would be added to the bill in the House, but no such language existed in the first Senate version.”
Mark Levin interviewed Cruz and Cruz explained his vote for TPA, and his vote against it the second time.
According to Cruz, the immigration language was in the bill he voted on, but had been assured by “leadership” that it would be taken out after he voted for it. He said leadership lied, so he voted against it.
McConnell elaborated on how much power the bill would give to Obama. Cruz certainly knew that aspect.
TPP is not about trade. It is about establishing a supra-national trade cartel that would override the sovereignty of this country. That is why it has been kept super secret, and was why TPA was kept super secret.
Do you really believe Cruz, or any other politician other than Sessions, went down to the basement and read all those thousands of pages of the TPA bill? Or the much larger TPP bill?
Under the rule they only have an opportunity to vote against it nothing more. If the have the guts to actually vote against it Obama will simply veto it and congress will never over ride it and any fool with more than two brain cells knows that. It was the plan from the beginning.
.
The money was their money, in their bank accounts, that Obama had already released before congress had any shot at it.
Your trolling is weak.
No, TPP cannot be passed with a Presidential veto. The TPA language mandates an up or down vote for affirmation. A presidential veto does not apply to a confirmation or a treaty affirmation— or, in the language used in TPA, a trade deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.