Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

[thoughtomator]

I don't really see any reason to debate an issue with someone who can't engage in a civil and constructive debate. That goes for you as well as many others here.

You're not "debating" anything. You're spewing someone's talking points, and are not being honest with us about your motivations.

Anyone who is actually trying to debate you is wasting their time, since your participation is in bad faith.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you have a problem with his position then why not contact him and let him know why?

Try his facebook page. Light that thing up like a 4th of July firecracker.

 

[Brett85]

Traditional Conservative Rands: I would reduce the size of the federal government by 70-80%, back to its Constitutional size. I would bring all of our troops home from around the world, end the war on drugs, end unconstitutional government surveillance policies, and end the Federal Reserve. So I really have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

LOL, the darling hero of your stinking 'conservative' 'movement' is Ron Reagan...who signed virtually every stinking $pending bill put before him on the way to a doubling of the budget and a tripling of the debt!...to say nothing of escalating the miserable GD fool 'drug war,' etc. scumbaggery ad nau$eam...

..(i sense too much republican radio time for the conservative mullets)...

A label is just a label. I chose that user name four years ago when I signed up, but I certainly don't agree with conservatives on everything. I'm certainly not a fan of Reagan and oppose his expansion of the drug war and his interventionist foreign policies.

 

[jjdoyle]

If you have a problem with his position then why not contact him and let him know why?

Because it's the weekend, and I just saw this. But yes, I will CALL harder on Monday if anybody is in the office in DC, and then try Kentucky.

Not that I should have to tell a sitting Senator what the Constitution says about turning powers over to the United Nations and foreign governing bodies.

Not everyone who claims to be a Constitutional Conservative agrees on every Constitutional issue. Rand obviously feels this trade agreement is Constitutional; otherwise he wouldn't support it. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

This isn't the only crap position Rand has taken, there is one much more serious than this; but Congress can't regulate what they give over to the United Nations or other foreign governing bodies. It is then out of their hands.

 

[twomp]

Since this issue would fly over the heads of the common rank and file GOP member. You have to question why Rand Paul is pushing this deal through? Who is Rand Paul pandering to? Who would benefit from this agreement? Follow the money...

 

[presence]

It pretty much eliminates all tariffs between 11 different countries. That certainly makes the trade far more free than it would be otherwise.

Yeah until the US is a accused by some foreign nation of "violating" some arbitrary rule and the World Bank fines us trillions and the UN decides to enforce the sanctions with the force of arms.


Fuck that.


"More Free" NEVER involves management by a supranational organization.

 

[twomp]

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

Can you show me the part where it says Congress will forgo that power and hand it to a foreign entity?

 

[presence]

Can you show me the part where it says Congress will forgo that power and hand it to a foreign entity?

I can't for TPP (because the negotiation is secret) but NAFTA (whose negotiation was also secret) certainly works that way. Since we agreed to NAFTA, if Canada or Mexico accuse the US of some contractual wrong, the arbitrator is the World Bank and the enforcer is the UN; congress can suck it.

 

[Brett85]

Can you show me the part where it says Congress will forgo that power and hand it to a foreign entity?

The TPP still can't be passed without approval from Congress, and the Constitution gives Congress the power to enter into trade agreements.

 

[Brett85]

Since this issue would fly over the heads of the common rank and file GOP member. You have to question why Rand Paul is pushing this deal through? Who is Rand Paul pandering to? Who would benefit from this agreement? Follow the money...

It's part of his push to make people realize that he's not an isolationist, even though he generally supports less intervention overseas. He views free trade agreements as being an alternative to foreign military intervention.

 

[presence]

the Constitution gives Congress the power to enter into trade agreements.

The Constititution does NOT allow Congress to cede the authority to exit these agreements to China, Russia, or France; and certainly not to a supranational organization.


The issue with NAFTA, TPP, etal is not the terms and conditions... its is WHO ARBITRATES the violation of the terms and conditions.

 

[Brett85]

The Constititution does not give Congress the authority to cede the authority to exit these agreements to China, Russia, France... and certainly not to a supranational organization.

Why is that? The language in the Constitution says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. It doesn't say exactly how they have to do it, that they can't involve other countries or organizations in the regulating of trade. Congress still authorizes the regulation of the trade when they vote to authorize the trade agreements.

 

[Carlybee]

Un freakin believable

 

[presence]

The language in the Constitution says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations.

The language of NAFTA (and presumably the TPP) says that the WORLD BANK has the power to regulate our trade with foreign nations and the UN has the authority to enforce those regulations.

 

[jjdoyle]

Why is that? The language in the Constitution says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. It doesn't say exactly how they have to do it, that they can't involve other countries or organizations in the regulating of trade. Congress still authorizes the regulation of the trade when they vote to authorize the trade agreements.

Is this like Sean Hannity's unconstitutional historical position of original intent of the phrase "declaration of war"? "Congress passed an AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE! THAT'S WHY WE DUN ATTAKED IRAK!"

Considering the GARBAGE that comes out of the Senate and the House, why would anybody assume that this bill would increase free trade? Is that like those Americans that believed the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT would lower healthcare costs? Or that the Patriot Act is patriotic?

Again, if Rand is supposed to be a greater constitutional orator and better speaker than Ron in general, we should expect him to be MORE constitutional in EVERYTHING, because he should be able to explain his positions when sticking with the Constitution. But, this is just one more example of the exact opposite being the case.

 

[muh_roads]

What have we learned in this thread? We've learned that Traditional Conservative likes central planning by un-elected officials.

I agree with Anti-Federalist. You just need to vote harder...lol

 

[Brett85]

What have we learned in this thread? We've learned that Traditional Conservative likes central planning by un-elected officials.

I agree with Anti-Federalist. You just need to vote harder...lol

First, I said repeatedly that I'm undecided on how I would vote on this if I were in the Senate.

Secondly, if I voted for it I would simply consider it to be better than the alternative, better than regulated trade with high tariffs, which is what we have now. But it's obviously not the ideal form of free trade that I would ultimately like to see.

 

[presence]

I would simply consider it to be better than the alternative, better than regulated trade with high tariffs, which is what we have now.

I strongly disagree. Regulation and high tariffs imposed by Congress are FAR BETTER than no regulation and no tariffs imposed by the World Bank.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Traditional Conservative Rands: 'It's part of [Rand Paul's] push to make people realize that he's not an isolationist,'



But he and the rest of the stinking conservatives ARE 'isolationists'...they/?you want to 'isolate' Americans from trading etc. with Iranians, Cubans, North Koreans, etc..

As one wag put it, 'With these stinking Republicrats, whatever is not forbidden is mandatory..

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Un freakin believable

What's unbelievable is that this thread has festered for 4 pages and has not yet been disappeared into the dungeon. Must be something to do with the anti-globalist --yet not necessarily anti-militarist--aspect to this particular populist issue. It doesn't matter, here's my comment for as long as it lasts:

Follow the money. Just as he assured the generals that when it comes down to it, he will never stop or even slow down the spigot of money that flows to the MIC,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?452874-Rand-Assures-Military-Junta-Generals-Cash-Pipeline-Will-Continue-Unabated

here he is signaling to the world banksters that he will not interfere with their system. Imagine how embarrassed he will be if Anti-Fed and his disrupters show up at his campaign rallies chanting "End the Fed!"