Erratic speculation on Vote regarding TPP

What does "selling out" mean anyway? Even if Rand did end up voting for the TPA, he would likely do so just because he thought it was a good idea, and he would just have a difference of opinion with some here. I guess so called grassroots "purist libertarians" come up with some kind of vast litmus test for how they believe that Rand should vote in the Senate, and if Rand doesn't meet every single one of their demands, that means that he's "selling out?" There can't just be a difference in opinion from time to time?
 
GunnyFreedom said:
This. I am sick and tired of the hyper-purists just pulling BS out of their caboose and trying to hurt Rand with it. Doesn't matter if the thing is good, bad or indifferent, if it can be spun up and made to LOOK bad, then they will use it to try and hurt Rand.
Click to expand...



this happens literally everyday here and elsewhere


"LOOK WHAT RAND DID HE SOLD OUT!!!! except I don't really know what he did or what it means but it looks bad so waaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!"

just stop with this shit.
 
Brett85 said:
What does "selling out" mean anyway? Even if Rand did end up voting for the TPA, he would likely do so just because he thought it was a good idea, and he would just have a difference of opinion with some here. I guess so called grassroots "purist libertarians" come up with some kind of vast litmus test for how they believe that Rand should vote in the Senate, and if Rand doesn't meet every single one of their demands, that means that he's "selling out?" There can't just be a difference in opinion from time to time?
Click to expand...

Well, Rand is not Ron. Ron can get away with things like voting for authorization of force in Afghanistan, Rand couldn't. Because he's Ron Paul's son and should know better. Doesn't this make sense to you?

s/
 
Robert Wenzel also says that Rand Paul wears a toupee on his head. Don't pay much attention to that guy.
 
GunnyFreedom said:
This. I am sick and tired of the hyper-purists just pulling BS out of their caboose and trying to hurt Rand with it. Doesn't matter if the thing is good, bad or indifferent, if it can be spun up and made to LOOK bad, then they will use it to try and hurt Rand.
Click to expand...

I've become so bored by all the bellyaching of these "purist" folks that I either don't bother engaging such people in discussion or I ignore whatever point they think they are making and just mock them as if they were typical left-wingers. It might be counterproductive, but then again, so is trying to reason with fanatics.
 
We, the public, do not know what's in the TPP. This is because (a) it's still being negotiated, and (b) what has been settled already has not yet been made public. This does not mean it is some vast conspiracy against us. You must understand that rational negotiation between governments, be it on economic or security policy, is virtually impossible once public opinion gets involved - because the people don't know anything and can wreck a perfectly good deal out of confusion, media hype, etc.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the TPP will be a bad deal in the end. It is being described as a NAFTA-like agreement to lower or eliminate certain tariffs and others barriers to international trade. IF it achieves those things, without any major offsetting negatives, it's a good deal and all libertarians should (dare I say must, as "libertarian protectionist" is an oxymoron) embrace it. If not, not. There is no good reason for libertarians to oppose the continuation of negotiations on the mere assumption hat the final deal will be bad.

As for TPA, thats something else entirely. The TPP (trans-pacific parternship) is the trade deal. The TPA (trade promotion authority) is a procedural matter designed to make it easier to reach a final deal on TPP. IF you're for the TPP, at least in concept; if you want to let negotiation continue, you should be for the TPA as well. But if you're a protectionist, then by all means join with Richard Trumka and the Wobblies and oppose the whole thing.
 
CPUd said:
Whoever wrote that article is either trolling or has no understanding of what goes on in the legislature and what cloture means.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cloture requires a 2/3s vote to pass [edit: it requires 3/5 (60 in the Senate), not 2/3]. After that, doesn't the legislation only require a 50%+1 to pass?

If someone really wants to stop legislation dead, they will vote against cloture. The RINO republicans played this game over and over when Harry Reid was running the show. They would vote for cloture, and then vote against the bill, but it would pass because the threshold drops after cloture. It's nothing but a charade.
 
Last edited:
Brian4Liberty said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cloture requires a 2/3s vote to pass. After that, doesn't the legislation only require a 50%+1 to pass?

If someone really wants to stop legislation dead, they will vote against cloture. The RINO republicans played this game over and over when Harry Reid was running the show. They would vote for cloture, and then vote against the bill, but it would pass because the threshold drops after cloture. It's nothing but a charade.
Click to expand...

Cloture requires 60 votes, the Republicans had the votes to block a filibuster with or without Rand. If people want to whine about Rand cutting his loses and not giving the Neocons fodder to attack him during the debates, I have a nice big box of tissues right here for you, just do me a favor and sob in the corner as it does give me a slight headache.
 
Last edited:
Brett85 said:
There is a libertarian component to these free trade deals when they lower or eliminate tariffs, and some argue that it's necessary to pass the TPA to get a final agreement on the TPP. Free trade is very much a libertarian principle, and while I know these are not "free trade" deals in the purest sense, there is a libertarian argument for them since they lower or eliminate tariffs.
Click to expand...

Wish I could find a recording of this, but Rand stated last week after he read the 800 page monstrosity that he could find no mentions of tariffs in the TPP...

Brian4Liberty said:
Rand was on Hannity radio today. He talked about reading the 800 page monster. He pretty much said it is an incomprehensible bunch of government legalese. Obviously, that is intentional.

He also said he found no where in the "agreement" where tariffs were lowered or even mentioned.
Click to expand...
 
There are basically three votes to pass legislation.

1) The vote to proceed to legislation, which requires 60 votes.
2) The vote to cut off debate, which requires 60 votes.
3) The final vote to pass the legislation, which requires 50 votes.

When Rand said that he was going to vote against the TPA, I imagine he meant that he was going to vote against cutting off debate and vote against the bill on the final vote.
 
hells_unicorn said:
Cloture requires 60 votes, the Republicans had the votes to block a filibuster with or without Rand. If people want to whine about Rand cutting his loses and not giving the Neocons fodder to attack him during the debates, I have a nice big box of tissues right here for you, just do me a favor and sob in the corner as it does give me a slightly headache.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not taking sides on what Rand did on this particular vote. I'm talking about the general idea of voting for cloture on an issue, and then voting against it later (as CYA when it passes with a lower threshold). McConnell and the RINOs helped Obama and Reid for years using this trick.

Rand probably had good reasons to vote the way he did on this. Not a single (R) voted against it. It's not like there was a "tea party" block of GOP Senators that voted against it. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and every other GOP Senator voted for it too.
 
Brett85 said:
There are basically three votes to pass legislation.

1) The vote to proceed to legislation, which requires 60 votes.
2) The vote to cut off debate, which requires 60 votes.
3) The final vote to pass the legislation, which requires 50 votes.

When Rand said that he was going to vote against the TPA, I imagine he meant that he was going to vote against cutting off debate and vote against the bill on the final vote.
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah, it's 3/5s (60), not 2/3s.

So the vote to cut off debate 2) is a cloture vote. The vote that Rand voted for last week was just to begin debate, not a cloture vote to end debate. That makes more sense.

But theoretically, if no one filibusters, then it automatically will come to a simple majority vote after the amendment and debate process is complete. Cloture just forces the final vote, but a cloture vote is not always necessary.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Yeah, I'm not taking sides on what Rand did on this particular vote. I'm talking about the general idea of voting for cloture on an issue, and then voting against it later (as CYA when it passes with a lower threshold). McConnell and the RINOs helped Obama and Reid for years using this trick.

Rand probably had good reasons to vote the way he did on this. Not a single (R) voted against it. It's not like there was a "tea party" block of GOP Senators that voted against it. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and every other GOP Senator voted for it too.
Click to expand...

Indeed, my box of tissues comment was intended for people who want Rand to pull a Kamikaze before the primaries even get started, and it's really starting to annoy me. Being the only Republican to vote with Democrats on a highly publicized vote is very risky, and this doesn't strike me as something worthy of making a so-called point about, whatever point that would be. Picking our battles is the rational way to go, the problem is that there are some in our movement that don't strike me as terribly rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump Lifts Commercial Fishing Ban In Central Pacific
Replies
1
Views
36
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Swordsmyth
Dispute Over EU Censorship Law Delays Trade Deal With The EU
Replies
2
Views
82
TheTexan
TheTexan
Swordsmyth
Only President Trump could get the Canadians to vote for an exit to the USMCA, and he did it brilliantly
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
716
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
"We're going to be buying ships from South Korea," Trump said. "We love their ships."
Replies
10
Views
144
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Are Tariffs Good for American Workers?
Replies
11
Views
252
69360
6
Back
Top