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

[Brett85]

Generally I like Amash, Massie, Rand, and Trad-Con. That doesn't mean I always agree with them, nor does it mean I won't vehemently damn their lack of commitment to US soverienty.

I do not support any endeavors into "trade agreements" that appoint

third party supranational arbitration panels with binding influence on US trade policy.

Fair enough, but some people are taking it beyond criticism and are saying that Rand "lost their support" simply because they disagree with him on this one issue.

 

[jjdoyle]

Interesting. I don't remember anything about that.

No?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...on-involved-in-any-capacity-in-Rand-Paul-2016

You voted according to that picture, but maybe you didn't vote HARD enough, and that's why don't remember it? I don't know, several of the accounts that voted with you in that poll have since been banned for reasons unknown, so maybe a few were simply sock puppet accounts trying to boost Jesse's numbers here on the forums, which clearly didn't help?

Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when you are making $160-180K a year, doing nothing.

 

[CaptUSA]

I think we may want to take a step back on this... I'm not sure we're all getting the true picture of what this is.

Based on reports, it sounds like a bad thing, but I have to question why Bernie Sanders and Paul Krugman are so vehemently against the TPP.

Add to the list of anti-TPP:

Robert Reich
Economic Policy Institute
Joseph Stiglitz
CEPR
Noam Chomsky


Generally, when these folks oppose an economic program, I'm intrigued because there must be something good about it. Of course, it's hard to tell the final analysis of this because the details are largely secret. And you know secrets lend themselves to all sorts of conjecture.

Anyway, I'm withholding judgment for a while on this. Gotta see what's really going on.

 

[presence]

Fair enough, but some people are taking it beyond criticism and are saying that Rand "lost their support" simply because they disagree with him on this one issue.

Rand makes my teeth hurt but he has my support long. I suspect Rand, like many of today's politicians, simply doesn't grasp the issue at hand. He supports this for the same reasons you do.... and for the same reasons I too would be inclined...

"lower trade barriers" are inherently good, are inherently libertarian, are inherently pro freedom...

but not if they come at the cost of loss of soveriegnty

 

[kahless]

..

What did you expect the responses to be here? Do you really expect people here to have to swallow secret trade policy that overrides the Constitution just because his last name is Paul? I am surprised to see you defend Rand considering there is nothing traditional or Conservative with such policy.

 

[kahless]

Rand makes my teeth hurt but he has my support long.

I expected to over look some things and that Rand would have my support but come on. If I wanted Jeb Bush for President I would be supporting Jeb not some imitation that is running to be a 3rd Bush presidency.

 

[Brett85]

What did you expect the responses to be here? Do you really expect people here to have to swallow secret trade policy that overrides the Constitution just because his last name is Paul? I am surprised to see you defend Rand considering there is nothing traditional or Conservative with such policy.

Conservatives and libertarians have historically supported free trade agreements. The Cato Institute and Reason both support free trade agreements. The Cato Institute even gives out score cards rating members of Congress based on whether or not they voted for free trade agreements.

 

[CaptUSA]

Doesn't it give anyone pause to be on the same side of this argument as Paul Krugman? Bernie Sanders?! Robert friggin' Reich?!

 

[Brett85]

I expected to over look some things and that Rand would have my support but come on. If I wanted Jeb Bush for President I would be supporting Jeb not some imitation that is running to be a 3rd Bush presidency.

I don't quite understand that logic. So Rand is now equivalent to Jeb Bush because he agrees with him on one issue? Jeb Bush also supports tax cuts. I imagine you do too. Does that mean that your political views are exactly the same as Jeb Bush's political views?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Conservatives and libertarians have historically supported free trade agreements. The Cato Institute and Reason both support free trade agreements. The Cato Institute even gives out score cards rating members of Congress based on whether or not they voted for free trade agreements.

I don't really care for Cato or Reason. They were on one of my lists some place around here.

 

[Brett85]

No?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...on-involved-in-any-capacity-in-Rand-Paul-2016

You voted according to that picture, but maybe you didn't vote HARD enough, and that's why don't remember it? I don't know, several of the accounts that voted with you in that poll have since been banned for reasons unknown, so maybe a few were simply sock puppet accounts trying to boost Jesse's numbers here on the forums, which clearly didn't help?

Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when you are making $160-180K a year, doing nothing.

That's all pretty irrelevant. I think I was probably just joking around by voting that way. I honestly could care less whether Jesse Benton manages Rand's campaign or not. It won't factor into my support for Rand one way or the other.

 

[Brett85]

I don't really care for Cato or Reason. They were on one of my lists some place around here.

Just pointing out that libertarians are not monolithic on these issues. There should be room for debate and disagreement.

 

[twomp]

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.

So if Congress passes a bill saying that the President has the authority to declare war whenever he wants, that means it's no longer unconstitutional for him to declare war when he wants? Kind of like I dunno, an authorization of use for military force? I mean the Constitution says that only congress can declare war and Congress then passes an AUMF. That means the president can declare whenever he wants right? Hi Sean Hannity, is that you?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just pointing out that libertarians are not monolithic on these issues. There should be room for debate and disagreement.

Yeah, I know what you were doing. Traditional Conservative, I'm going to take you off of my ignore list. I don't remember why I had you on there in the first place but I find myself interested enough in your discussion to keep clicking on your contributions. Plus I really do loathe censorship. Although my hypocrisy, it would appear, seems to know no boundaries given the fact that I had you on ignore in the first place. And I do like a good debate, for sure.

 

[Brett85]

So if Congress passes a bill saying that the President has the authority to declare war whenever he wants, that means it's no longer unconstitutional for him to declare war when he wants? Kind of like I dunno, an authorization of use for military force? I mean the Constitution says that only congress can declare war and Congress then passes an AUMF. That means the president can declare whenever he wants right? Hi Sean Hannity, is that you?

I'm not sure about that. That's really not an issue that libertarians are monolithic on either, since both Rand and Amash seem to think that the AUMF is sufficient, while Ron believes that only a full declaration of war is Constitutional. (Even though Ron voted for one of the AUMF's)

 

[jjdoyle]

That's all pretty irrelevant. I think I was probably just joking around by voting that way. I honestly could care less whether Jesse Benton manages Rand's campaign or not. It won't factor into my support for Rand one way or the other.

No, it's exactly relevant. You have a history of running around trying (BUT FAILING MISERABLY) to defend some absolutely stupid positions of Rand. Knowing that history, I doubt your vote was "just joking". Like you trying to defend in the past Rand voting to send Israel millions/billions of funds, making us less safe. Especially when Israel doesn't need it and we don't have the funds to give them that money without borrowing it.

BUT, nobody that is serious about Rand winning in 2016, should want Jesse Benton near Rand or his campaign.

 

[kahless]

Conservatives and libertarians have historically supported free trade agreements. The Cato Institute and Reason both support free trade agreements. The Cato Institute even gives out score cards rating members of Congress based on whether or not they voted for free trade agreements.

You are speaking of people or politicians that misuse those labels. You cannot call yourself a Conservative if you support trade policy that sacrifices national sovereignty to international government organizations and support trade agreements that supersede state laws.

If an organization supports trade policy that violates the Constitution and serves special interests and big business, not citizens, then they they are disingenuous if they refer to that position as being Conservative.

 

[CaptUSA]

I gotta tell ya... I'm not done educating myself on this, but I think there may be more to this story. Methinks Wikileaks may be taking their journalism into advocacy.

If I were you, I'd reserve a little judgment on this.

 

[presence]

"The opposition to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) rights is a case in point.

ISDS has been a feature of nearly all US-backed trade agreements

and many of Australia's free trade agreements. It is similar to rights granted in bilateral investment treaties

which enable commercial entities
to initiate international arbitration

if provisions for freedom to invest are not respected.


"If the TPP -- and by extension a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific
which is now being considered by APEC -- is to succeed,
ISDS is an essential part of this architecture."

http://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/2014/11/07/alan-oxley-tpp-will-morph-into-an-apec-trade-agreement

"A comprehensive, rules-based system has been the key to the success of the WTO's architecture,"

[]

"It's vital that this be continued in the TPP."

THAT my friends is what this is all about.


Its not about "free trade"; its about giving the WTO, World Bank, and UN authority to override what our Constitution says is Congress' duty alone.



ISDS
Revolution is Action upon Revelation!

 

[Brett85]

No, it's exactly relevant. You have a history of running around trying (BUT FAILING MISERABLY) to defend some absolutely stupid positions of Rand. Knowing that history, I doubt your vote was "just joking". Like you trying to defend in the past Rand voting to send Israel millions/billions of funds, making us less safe. Especially when Israel doesn't need it and we don't have the funds to give them that money without borrowing it.

BUT, nobody that is serious about Rand winning in 2016, should want Jesse Benton near Rand or his campaign.

I've defended some of Rand's positions and criticized some of his other positions. I just call it like I see it. I even said earlier in this thread that I disagree with Rand's support for sanctions on Iran and North Korea.