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

[LibertyEagle]

As usual, you are just seeing what you want to see. This call to move the TPP was before it was even drafted. The moment he looked at it, he rejected it entirely. That is called exhibiting a rational role in politics. But then I understand you are not a big fan of reason in politics.

I have seen where he was against the TPA, but hadn't seen yet where he made a decision on the TPP. Do you have a link, or would you prefer to just do what you do best, insult?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I have seen where he was against the TPA, but hadn't seen yet where he made a decision on the TPP. Do you have a link, or would you prefer to just do what you do best, insult?

The TPA was fast track authority for the TPP. Rand Paul opposed the TPA because he read the TPP and disagreed with it. If you recall, his argument against Rubio et al was that they hadn't even bothered to read the TPP which they were agreeing to let Obama implement.

It's like the TPP is a road and the TPA is a stoplight. Rand Paul voted to keep the stoplight red (TPA), because he had reasoned the road ahead (TPP) was a bad idea.

But that's the key, you see, reason. This is not nearly as attractive or as popular as rhetoric.

 

[RandallFan]

I thought he rejected not being able to read it?

People who want free wheeling globalism may still support it; once read.

 

[nikcers]

The TPA was fast track authority for the TPP. Rand Paul opposed the TPA because he read the TPP and disagreed with it. If you recall, his argument against Rubio et al was that they hadn't even bothered to read the TPP which they were agreeing to let Obama implement.

It's like the TPP is a road and the TPA is a stoplight. Rand Paul voted to keep the stoplight red (TPA), because he had reasoned the road ahead (TPP) was a bad idea.

But that's the key, you see, reason. This is not nearly as attractive or as popular as rhetoric.

IIRC the TPA rewrote the vetting process and put it at a simple up or down vote. I don't think Rand Paul ever said something like he was specifically against the TPP, but the TPA process because it ceded power from the senate. The TPP was something that was designed to stave us off the crash Ron Paul is talking about. There were too many economists that were predicting that China was going to cause the whole world economy to crash, and some are still saying that they will.

China was even divesting from us into this BRICS thing, that didn't pan out too well when the world market reacted from China's divesting and monetary policy. This whole EU thing is designed to encourage people to diversify their investments, and that's exactly what the TPP is. Rand Paul just didn't want the TPP to be changed on the cutting room floor without the senates influence, and therefore without our voice being heard.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

IIRC the TPA rewrote the vetting process and put it at a simple up or down vote. I don't think Rand Paul ever said something like he was specifically against the TPP, but the TPA process because it ceded power from the senate. The TPP was something that was designed to stave us off the crash Ron Paul is talking about. There were too many economists that were predicting that China was going to cause the whole world economy to crash, and some are still saying that they will.

China was even divesting from us into this BRICS thing, that didn't pan out too well when the world market reacted from China's divesting and monetary policy. This whole EU thing is designed to encourage people to diversify their investments, and that's exactly what the TPP is. Rand Paul just didn't want the TPP to be changed on the cutting room floor without the senates influence, and therefore without our voice being heard.

That doesn't make sense if so why was he criticizing everyone for accepting a bad deal without reading it? Specifically referring to the TPP, which you had to access in a secret vault? I remember crystal clearly when he read it came back out of the vault and said that he was not going to support the TPA. He made that decision because he went into the vault, read the TPP, came out and called it terrible.

In light of that clear memory, what you are saying does not make sense.

 

[nikcers]

That doesn't make sense if so why was he criticizing everyone for accepting a bad deal without reading it? Specifically referring to the TPP, which you had to access in a secret vault? I remember crystal clearly when he read it came back out of the vault and said that he was not going to support the TPA. He made that decision because he went into the vault, read the TPP, came out and called it terrible.

In light of that clear memory, what you are saying does not make sense.

I am pretty sure the problem is when you go into that secret vault room to read it, they also make sure you don't bring anything with you so you can't write anything down to study the legal jargon and make you sign some sort of non disclosure. Not because its a secret, but because nothing has been set in stone, its basically a lobbyist candy store.

They could write anything in there at the last minute without anyone knowing so there is too much incentive, and profit motive to write rules in there to create "legal" monopolies. With the TPA the senate would only be able to cast a up or down vote, while they sell the argument that you are against saving the economy from crashing with Chinas, and that you are against free trade.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The TPA was fast track authority for the TPP. Rand Paul opposed the TPA because he read the TPP and disagreed with it. If you recall, his argument against Rubio et al was that they hadn't even bothered to read the TPP which they were agreeing to let Obama implement.

It's like the TPP is a road and the TPA is a stoplight. Rand Paul voted to keep the stoplight red (TPA), because he had reasoned the road ahead (TPP) was a bad idea.

But that's the key, you see, reason. This is not nearly as attractive or as popular as rhetoric.

I know the difference between TPA and TPP. Rand was opposed to TPA, but the last I read, the said he might vote for TPP. Just hadn't read it.

If you think you know that he is now opposing it, provide a link instead of pontificating.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I know the difference between TPA and TPP. Rand was opposed to TPA, but the last I read, the said he might vote for TPP. Just hadn't read it.

If you think you know that he is now opposing it, provide a link instead of pontificating.

Okay, so he hasn't opined on the actual cotents of the TPP at all, apparently on threat of a disclosure lawsuit. But since he universally opposes the authority for the President to even make such agreements in the first place, and since neither you nor I have actually read the TPP either, why is this position being subject to attack today when it was largely found brilliant at the time?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ainst-obamas-secret-trade-deal-amid-collapse/


“Regarding Paul’s secrecy argument, it’s worth noting that TPA will last into the next administration and cover future trade deals negotiated during its life,” Ponnuru wrote. “A vote for it is, and always has been, a commitment to an up-or-down vote on trade deals that nobody has yet seen.”


To make his argument, Ponnuru cites how Paul voted against an 2011 amendment from now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, then Minority Leader, that would have done the same thing as the current TPA, then cosponsored the “Jobs Through Growth Act” which contained many things, including that McConnell amendment in it, a month or so later.


Paul’s comments are also in line with the vast majority of 2016 Republican presidential candidates. Former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Dr. Ben Carson, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and real estate magnate Donald Trump all support free trade in principle but are opposed to this deal for the same reasons as Sen. Paul.


Paul’s comments against the deal came shortly before Senate Democrats bucked Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s efforts t0 rush the trade deal to the floor of the Senate, stalling McConnell for at least a few days–maybe a week–while he works to appease them to drop their blockade. Now firmly opposed to his powerful Kentucky colleague–and on the side of most voters nationwide, Republican and Democrat, according to polls even from the pro-secret-trade-deal Wall Street Journal–Paul stands a chance at helping lead political outsiders’ rebellion against the permanent political class and Wall Street elites on trade.

This sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Are you complaining that Rand Paul is not outing portions of the TPP under which he is bound by a disclosure agreement? Either way he is doing, and continues to do everything in his power to stop it. so..... what's the beef here? You don't like the way he sets his jaw when he does it?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Okay, so he hasn't opined on the actual cotents of the TPP at all, apparently on threat of a disclosure lawsuit. But since he universally opposes the authority for the President to even make such agreements in the first place, and since neither you nor I have actually read the TPP either, why is this position being subject to attack today when it was largely found brilliant at the time?

This sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Are you complaining that Rand Paul is not outing portions of the TPP under which he is bound by a disclosure agreement? Either way he is doing, and continues to do everything in his power to stop it. so..... what's the beef here? You don't like the way he sets his jaw when he does it?

I asked you a simple question whether Rand had decided for or against TPP and to cite a source. You then proceeded to lose your last marble.

You have claimed quite vociferously, in more than one thread, that Rand was against the TPP, and you still have not shown a source to back that up. What you cited above is about TPA; not TPP. So, perhaps you should stop insulting everyone who asks about it, because you do not know, either.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I asked you a simple question whether Rand had decided for or against TPP and to cite a source. You then proceeded to lose your last marble.

You have claimed quite vociferously, in more than one thread, that Rand was against the TPP, and you still have not shown a source to back that up. What you cited above is about TPA; not TPP. So, perhaps you should stop insulting everyone who asks about it, because you do not know, either.

lol queen insult the snot out of everyone who disagrees with her herself is talking about insults lmao

lol you got problems lady, and you need help.

ETA - oh I'm so hurt by your neg rep. lol

 

[anaconda]

Ever since he voted for sanctions on Iran I have hardly followed the guy.

This seemed like a turning point from my perspective as well.

Then later he made it sound like droning Americans was okay with him until he had to back-peddle on it.

In fairness, that one was simply malicious spin by Rand's political enemies. Rand only criticized the executive for not pledging to never drone Americans on American soil without due process. Commensurate with his argument, he pointed out that a drone used by domestic law enforcement in hot pursuit was a completely different scenario and theoretically constitutional. The latter example was intended to underscore the specific transgression by the executive in the former. A clarification that was obfuscated by opportunists and lost on a low information public.

 

[silverhandorder]

As usual, you are just seeing what you want to see. This call to move the TPP was before it was even drafted. The moment he looked at it, he rejected it entirely. That is called exhibiting a rational role in politics. But then I understand you are not a big fan of reason in politics.

You mean kinda like Trump? I guess great people think alike. Maybe that is why a lot of people have material here to misrepresent Trump.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You mean kinda like Trump? I guess great people think alike. Maybe that is why a lot of people have material here to misrepresent Trump.

It seems more likely to me that all these people you think are "misrepresenting" Trump are in fact telling the truth, and that your own perceptions are so warped as to see a hero in the guy where in fact there is nothing but zero, which is why you are so vehemently opposed to people who are telling the truth.

 

[Natural Citizen]

China was even divesting from us into this BRICS thing, that didn't pan out too well when the world market reacted from China's divesting and monetary policy.

Be careful not to conclude anything on that note. Major developments continue to evolve on that front. Geo-political game changers, too.

 

[silverhandorder]

It seems more likely to me that all these people you think are "misrepresenting" Trump are in fact telling the truth, and that your own perceptions are so warped as to see a hero in the guy where in fact there is nothing but zero, which is why you are so vehemently opposed to people who are telling the truth.

I love you Gunny. Not your "truth".

 

[erowe1]

Every time Trump criticizes a trade deal, it's always because he thinks it doesn't let the government charge us high enough tariffs. And he always twists it around and acts like it's just other countries he want's paying "us" that he wants.

He never seems to care about any added regulations they bring. And he couldn't care less about any loss of sovereignty.

For him, it's as simple as thinking that lower tariffs are bad, when they're actually good. And whatever other problems any of these trade deals have, if they lower tariffs, then at least that's a point in their favor.