PDA

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




Pages : [1] 2

Peace Piper
11-08-2014, 10:44 AM
thenewamerican.com 03 November 2014

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. In presidential politics, the cozy compromises with the unconstitutional seem even more unsettling.

http://s2.postimg.org/amefsog7t/secret_tpp.jpg

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact.

Paul’s speech coincided with the TPP ministerial meeting conducted October 19-24 in Sydney, Australia.

Speaking at the Center for the National Interest dinner in New York City on October 23, Senator Paul said:

Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

Why would Rand Paul, a man who has in the past demonstrated a remarkable adherence to the principles of the Constitution, make his own “pivot” away from those doctrines and toward a pact as pernicious as the TPP? Perhaps the answer is found in this paragraph from a story on Paul’s speech printed in The Diplomat: "As a Republican presidential hopeful, Paul likely recognizes that his and the party’s interests are best served by trying to find some issues on which Republicans can cooperate with the administration. This would give the American electorate confidence that the Republican Party is interested in governing, and would make it harder for Democrats to use disgust with the Republican Party to mobilize the Democratic base in the 2016 election."...SNIP

...While the TPP grants corporate giants such as Walmart and Monsanto the power to bypass Congress and the courts, the elected representatives of the American people are kept from even seeing the draft version of the agreement...SNIP

...Republicans, Democrats, and Americans of all political persuasions need to understand particulars of the TPP that threaten not only the economic vitality of the United States (contrary to the claims of Senator Paul in his speech), but the fundamental principles of elective government, as well.

In November 2013, portions of the TPP draft agreement published by WikiLeaks contained sketches of President Obama’s plans to surrender American sovereignty to international tribunals.

Another WikiLeaks disclosure in January 2014 revealed that the president was attempting to surrender sovereignty over U.S. environmental policy to international bureaucrats interested in lowering those standards to mirror those of our TPP partner nations. Naturally, the green lobby criticized this concession, organizing demonstrations opposing the agreement...
SNIP

Full Article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19439-rand-paul-to-obama-prioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

From the comments:


chthompson • 5 days ago

It's official, Rand Paul sold out to the globalist mafia. I want a refund for all of the hard-earned money I sent his lying campaign for senator and I will actively campaign against him in 2016 if he chooses to run.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Deals with the devil are never worth it Paul. I'm so disappointed in you I don't even know where to start. Shame on you for betraying your base. You know as well as all of us that these fake "free" trade deals are not "free" in any sense.

Once this becomes more widely known in the Liberty Movement, you will be left without a single donor or supporter that first got you in office. Shame on you!

Please reconsider your misguided support for this Obamanation!

***************************

Related: Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/trans-pacific-paternership-intellectual-property

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'

The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations

...But the TPP and its promoters are full to the brim with ironies. It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress

****************************

Candidate Obama the Con Man lies to prospective voters about NAFTA, like he lied about not supporting the Heritage Foundation mandate to buy health insurance.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF9gpvI2UfU

sparebulb
11-08-2014, 10:51 AM
Until such time that this is shown to be inaccurate.....

FUCK YOU RAND

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 10:51 AM
Joy, another "managed trade" deal.

Nice going Rand.

Lucille
11-08-2014, 10:54 AM
!!!

That does it. I'm out.

Natural Citizen
11-08-2014, 10:56 AM
I had shared my thoughts on the TPP elsewhere. Basically this is how it works...

What the TPP does is that it empowers corporations to sue governments abroad and even here at home in ad hoc arbitration tribunals to demand compensation from governments for laws and regulations they claim undermine their business interests. The TPP allows for multi-national corporations to use the TPP deal to bypass domestic courts and local laws and would allow corporations to go after governments before foreign tribunals to demand compensation from protections that they claim would undermine their expected future profits. TPP would allow private investors to directly file claims against governments that regulate them, as opposed to a WTO-like system where nation states decide whether claims are brought. Human rights will basically be tossed out the window given restructuring of personhood and the way that we understand it. A kind of repatriation as it were. Of, by and for a different brand of people.

This is one of the most malicious pieces of US corporate lobbying that we have ev er seen. And so it is no wonder that it's been kept quiet. TPP is about world domination for US corporations. Nothing else.

We're seeing Argentina, Ukraine, Russia and some others (actually a long list of nations) fighting back against the initial onslought or the foundations for this tyranny as it occurs in their repective corners of the world as these economic hitmen begin to try to plant their feet. Manipulate media and that kind of thing during the initial stages. Of course, we won't hear about it from legacy/corporate media. As it is, they also have much to gain here with the TPP.

No doubt about it, we're going to see some folks left really red faced with this thing in the end. Should probably emphasize red faced just from a point of irony alone but that's another debate, I suppose. And it just comes down to incompetence in the Foreign Policy department and a lack of grasp on the history of the world and the way that various nations historically function with one another. I think that some fairly good people in the business of representation are going to end up taking a big hit and end up looking really dirty when this thing evolves and the rest of the world responds to the marcantilist opportunists who have penned this thing.

Of course, if anyone is paying attention, the U.S. has lost practically all international support from the 11 other Pacific Rim nations who have been previously engaged in TPP discussions. And so it is no surprise to see trustees in this kind of malicious legislation to want to hurry it up while other nations rebuild economic infrastructure that suits their own interests and health as nations.

And what I've mentioned here is very vague but a fairly clear overall picture of what this so called trade deal is all about.

presence
11-08-2014, 10:58 AM
The bottom line with these supposed "Free Trade Deals" are that arbitration is done by the World Bank and the United Nations. Their decisions are BINDING.


ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TRADE.


Fuck the World Bank
Fuck the UN

and Fuck any politician, including Rand, if he supports this bullshit.

Peace Piper
11-08-2014, 10:59 AM
I had shared my thoughts on the TPP elsewhere. Basically this is how it works...

And what I've mentioned here is very vague but a fairly clear overall picture of what this so called trade deal is all about.

The Guardian Links in the OP do a pretty good job of explaining this assault on what is left of our Constitutional Republic

presence
11-08-2014, 11:01 AM
this topic really belongs here:


National Sovereignty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?201-National-Sovereignty)
News on matters of U.S. national sovereignty. Topics include: Trans-Pacific Partnership, United Nations, World Trade Organization, trade agreements, treaties and other dealings with multinational "authorities".

muh_roads
11-08-2014, 11:06 AM
This is exactly why I haven't paid attention to Rand and why I lost the enthusiasm I once had for his father. Ever since he voted for sanctions on Iran I have hardly followed the guy. Then later he made it sound like droning Americans was okay with him until he had to back-peddle on it. I remember it was this board that called him out on it even.

Making plans to leave the US is a possibility everyone should start considering. The USSA is a communist country. The only people who think we are still a free country are brainwashed blue-collar serfs that aren't a threat to the aristocrats power.

Now we have the TPP. Oh goodie. And on that note, fuck politics...I'm out.

Peace Piper
11-08-2014, 11:06 AM
this topic really belongs here:

I posted it here so more would see it. How many here ever actually go to National Sovereignty?

The TPP requires immediate attention. It will probably be passed right away, due to the results of the last election.

sparebulb
11-08-2014, 11:09 AM
Evidently, Rand and his handlers have decided that they don't need the 2% libertarian leaning voters in the next election.

If Rand were to endorse war on Syria, Russia, and 10 other countries to be named later, he could really lock up his chances for the nomination.

His nomination would be cemented if he were to endorse more banking "reform" and co-author an Obamacare Reform (protection) Act.

I'm now hoping that Jesse Benton will be part of Rand's '16 dream team.

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 11:21 AM
Ya'll need to vote harder.

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 11:26 AM
There are few things that could cause me to abandon Rand as my 2016 favorite, and this is one of them.

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 11:29 AM
Evidently, Rand and his handlers have decided that they don't need the 2% libertarian leaning voters in the next election.

The Official Organ of "Rand 2016" on this board, The Collinz, has already made that perfectly clear.

They'd prefer all us weirdoes to go away, that we are not really wanted or needed and are just an embarrassment to the insiders, the "professionals", the cocktail party and wife swapping crowd in DC.

I'm torn: whether to walk away in disgust or hang around to fuck up their scene?

William Tell
11-08-2014, 11:30 AM
Rand has better clarify how he feels about the worst parts of it. In other words, is he pleased with the language, or does he just support the vague idea. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462312-Rand-supports-TPP

Working Poor
11-08-2014, 11:31 AM
damn it man.:mad:

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 11:36 AM
Rand has better clarify how he feels about the worst parts of it. In other words, is he pleased with the language, or does he just support the vague idea. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462312-Rand-supports-TPP

He'd better wake the F up because if he goes into those 2016 primaries without his father's base voters, his chances of winning are zero.

sparebulb
11-08-2014, 11:37 AM
The Official Organ of "Rand 2016" on this board, The Collinz, has already made that perfectly clear.

They'd prefer all us weirdoes to go away, that we are not really wanted or needed and are just an embarrassment to the insiders, the "professionals", the cocktail party and wife swapping crowd in DC.

I'm torn: whether to walk away in disgust or hang around to fuck up their scene?

Great minds think alike.

I was contemplating whether to make a general shout-out to Teh Collinz to explain to us how this is a winning strategy for Rand. Then, I thought, what a stupid question. Of course it's a winning strategy. Part of winning is selling us the fuck out.

Let's stay around AF. If my grotesque demeanor and character costs Rand the nomination, all the better. Let's get Hillary, Romney, Christy, or zio-con to be named later in there and let's get on with it......

William Tell
11-08-2014, 11:43 AM
He'd better wake the F up because if he goes into those 2016 primaries without his father's base voters, his chances of winning are zero.

Indeed. The link I posted showed where he was actually speaking about it, he only mentioned it in brief passing. He should be asked to state his position on it more clearly.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 11:47 AM
Amazing that this is such a big deal here, especially when most people would consider Rand's position on this to be the libertarian position.

William Tell
11-08-2014, 11:49 AM
Amazing that this is such a big deal here, especially when most people would consider Rand's position on this to be the libertarian position.

The issue is not so much trade, as it is this SPECIFIC deal, which a number of us are all too familiar with.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 11:49 AM
He'd better wake the F up because if he goes into those 2016 primaries without his father's base voters, his chances of winning are zero.

Most of his base voters aren't going to refuse to support him because he supports free trade.

Lucille
11-08-2014, 11:50 AM
No clarification is needed:


President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxvdvj11cA

Brett85
11-08-2014, 11:50 AM
The issue is not so much trade, as it is this SPECIFIC deal, which a number of us are all too familiar with.

Rand probably feels that the lower tariffs trump some of the other things in the deal which aren't so good. I don't see how it's as clear cut as everyone here makes it out to be on this forum.

William Tell
11-08-2014, 11:53 AM
No clarification is needed:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxvdvj11cA

Of course clarification is needed, Rand needs to explain his position on national sovereignty. That does not mean you need to support him, but he must do so for his own good. Talking about negotiating trade does not have to mean total endorsement of the deal as written. Although it could.

philipped
11-08-2014, 11:55 AM
:(

Southron
11-08-2014, 12:07 PM
Rand probably feels that the lower tariffs trump some of the other things in the deal which aren't so good. I don't see how it's as clear cut as everyone here makes it out to be on this forum.

If the article is correct, then tariffs are the least of our worries.

Peace Piper
11-08-2014, 12:12 PM
Most of his base voters aren't going to refuse to support him because he supports free trade.

The TPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership) and the TTIP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership) are NOT about "Free Trade". They say they are, to fool those who don't bother to educate themselves.

These articles can help you understand why:

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/trans-pacific-paternership-intellectual-property

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress

Any idea why it's kept so secret?

And they're called "Agreements" so as to bypass the legal requirements for TREATIES just like NAFTA is the "North American Free Trade AGREEMENT"

Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement
Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TTIP)

Lucille
11-08-2014, 12:13 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/patrick-j-buchanan/first-the-wave%E2%80%A8/


The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

Lucille
11-08-2014, 12:25 PM
More here: Rand supports TPP?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462312-Rand-supports-TPP

I just posted something on it the other day:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462448-The-TPP-and-a-Republican-Congress

Brett85
11-08-2014, 12:30 PM
The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

That sounds like nativism/protectionism rhetoric to me, not just opposition to managed trade. That's surprising coming from Lew Rockwell since he's supposed to be an anarcho capitalist.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 12:33 PM
The TPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership) and the TTIP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership) are NOT about "Free Trade". They say they are, to fool those who don't bother to educate themselves.

They are not "free trade deals" as we understand free trade to be, but they are managed trade agreements that contain lower tariffs. My guess is that Rand supports it because he supports lower tariffs, just like he supports lower taxes and wants the government to have less money.

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 12:44 PM
The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

Lucille
11-08-2014, 12:44 PM
That sounds like nativism/protectionism rhetoric to me, not just opposition to managed trade. That's surprising coming from Lew Rockwell since he's supposed to be an anarcho capitalist.

It's Buchanan.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 12:48 PM
It's Buchanan.

Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

cajuncocoa
11-08-2014, 12:52 PM
The Official Organ of "Rand 2016" on this board, The Collinz, has already made that perfectly clear.

They'd prefer all us weirdoes to go away, that we are not really wanted or needed and are just an embarrassment to the insiders, the "professionals", the cocktail party and wife swapping crowd in DC.

I'm torn: whether to walk away in disgust or hang around to fuck up their scene?hang around....it'll be more fun

Brett85
11-08-2014, 12:53 PM
It's still unclear to me what exactly Rand's position on trade is, because he's voted against trade promotion authority in the past and is on record as opposing it. It seems like maybe he supports these trade deals as long as Congress gets a say and gets to vote on amending it.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/rand-paul-warns-of-obama-fast-track-to-global-trade-zone/

GunnyFreedom
11-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Most of his base voters aren't going to refuse to support him because he supports free trade.

You don't...seriously...believe the TPP has anything whatever to do with 'free' trade, do you?

GunnyFreedom
11-08-2014, 01:09 PM
They are not "free trade deals" as we understand free trade to be, but they are managed trade agreements that contain lower tariffs. My guess is that Rand supports it because he supports lower tariffs, just like he supports lower taxes and wants the government to have less money.

You don't...seriously...believe that the TPP is "more free" than our current system...do you?

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 01:11 PM
Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

There is a One World Order / Globalist wing of libertarianism that I am most certainly NOT a part of.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 01:11 PM
You don't...seriously...believe the TPP has anything whatever to do with 'free' trade, do you?

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

Brett85
11-08-2014, 01:13 PM
There is a One World Order / Globalist wing of libertarianism that I am most certainly NOT a part of.

There's no libertarian argument for higher tariffs. I understand the opposition some libertarians have to "managed trade," but actually supporting the concept of high tariffs can't be defended from a libertarian perspective.

A Son of Liberty
11-08-2014, 01:13 PM
There is a One World Order / Globalist wing of libertarianism that I am most certainly NOT a part of.

What brand of libertarianism is that, exactly?

ZENemy
11-08-2014, 01:15 PM
http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/213916/anarchy-perfect-black-A.jpg

twomp
11-08-2014, 01:25 PM
Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

Usually libertarianism means following the constitution. Do you realizes there are parts of this bill that run counter to that? Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul. But it's consistent with you evangelical christian types. Running around saying life is precious and you are pro-life then in your next breath say it's okay to kill innocent civilians in foreign countries if we kill a few bad guys next to them. Life is only precious when YOU folks decide it is.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 01:27 PM
Usually libertarianism means following the constitution. Do you realizes there are parts of this bill that run counter to that? Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul. But it's consistent with you evangelical christian types. Running around saying life is precious and you are pro-life then in your next breath say it's okay to kill innocent civilians in foreign countries if we kill a few bad guys next to them. Life is only precious when YOU folks decide it is.

Whatever. You can change the subject if you want, but I've been very anti war in the positions I've taken here, opposing the vast majority of wars and U.S military interventions.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 01:33 PM
Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul.

Rand may not be a libertarian, but he's far more libertarian than those who advocate high tariffs.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 01:40 PM
I don't know whether I would vote for this if I were a member of Congress or not. There are good parts to it and bad parts to it, and I would have to determine whether or not the good parts out weighed the bad parts. But I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for a libertarian to support a trade deal that dramatically lowers or eliminates tariffs between 11 different countries.

twomp
11-08-2014, 01:45 PM
I don't know whether I would vote for this if I were a member of Congress or not. There are good parts to it and bad parts to it, and I would have to determine whether or not the good parts out weighed the bad parts. But I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for a libertarian to support a trade deal that dramatically lowers or eliminates tariffs between 11 different countries.

Lowering taxes for foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Ceding power away from Congress towards the UN is.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 01:57 PM
Lowering taxes for foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Ceding power away from Congress towards the UN is.

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

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 02:03 PM
Most of his base voters aren't going to refuse to support him because he supports free trade.

The TPP is the antithesis of free trade.

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 02:05 PM
Rand may not be a libertarian, but he's far more libertarian than those who advocate high tariffs.

Unless you can demonstrate someone advocating high tariffs, spare us the insulting strawman arguments.

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 02:08 PM
That sounds like nativism/protectionism rhetoric to me, not just opposition to managed trade. That's surprising coming from Lew Rockwell since he's supposed to be an anarcho capitalist.

"Nativism"?

Are you being paid to write this stuff, or are you a volunteer propagandist?

Peace Piper
11-08-2014, 02:13 PM
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


The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations

But the TPP and its promoters are full to the brim with ironies. It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism.

Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.

All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines...

One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country's judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Why is it so secret, if it's a good thing for everyone?

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 02:24 PM
There's no libertarian argument for higher tariffs. I understand the opposition some libertarians have to "managed trade," but actually supporting the concept of high tariffs can't be defended from a libertarian perspective.

If tariffs were the only means of supporting a limited central government, like the constitution states, and income and corprate and "user" taxes were eliminated, bet your ass I would be in favor of tariffs.

What I am not in favor of is ceding even more regulatory authority to foreign interests.

We already have enough "Regulation without Representation".

devil21
11-08-2014, 02:24 PM
My question is whether Rand really knows what the TPP is or was he just reading his speech that someone else inserted that language into? Im still going to see how he votes before throwing him under the bus. Rhetoric doesn't mean much these days, regardless of the content, it's the votes that matter. Im just too jaded by politician-speak (say one thing, do another) to get worked up by speech snippets anymore. ymmv

Brett85
11-08-2014, 02:24 PM
Unless you can demonstrate someone advocating high tariffs, spare us the insulting strawman arguments.

There were several people on this thread promoting a Pat Buchanan article where he used protectionist rhetoric. I've also seen comments from a lot of people here that trade agreements cost Americans jobs. That's a protectionist argument and an argument against free trade.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 02:45 PM
The TPP is the antithesis of free trade.

I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.

NewRightLibertarian
11-08-2014, 02:56 PM
Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.

Natural Citizen
11-08-2014, 02:57 PM
From another discussion here on the forum... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458609-The-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Trade-treaty-in-Congress-can-SHUT-DOWN-the-Ron-Paul-Forum-and


...Trans Pacific Partnership being negotiated between the United States and 12 other mostly Communist Asian Nations . First off why would this destroy the Ron Paul forum because this treaty has sneaked in it INTERNET CENSORSHIP and we mean EXTREME internet censorship. Please read this link just posted today from the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/0...get-seats-back (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/lobbyists-get-seats-back) & http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...ic-partnership (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/17861-sopa-dead-in-congress-alive-in-trans-pacific-partnership)

Not only that this Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty or TPP puts an end to affordable generic drugs http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...the-drugs.aspx (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/19/could-the-trans-pacific-partnership-hurt-the-drugs.aspx) & http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_...01-100314.html (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-100314.html)

Puts an end to MADE IN THE USA on all food products including products made in America and allows unregulated food with NO INSPECTION into the US Supermarkets without ANY REGULATIONS http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/trans-pac...trade-madness/ (http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-madness/) & http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_FoodSafety.html (http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_FoodSafety.html)

There is plenty more that the Trans Pacific Partnership will do to both the left's and right's values and that includes Libertarian and Ron Paul beliefs. As you can see the Trans Pacific Partnership will end US Sovereignty as we know it and will allow the creation of New Courts that will ignore and US laws and US Constitution http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...omestic-courts (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/16820-trans-pacific-partnership-takes-legal-authority-away-from-domestic-courts) & http://www.alternet.org/world/trans-...orporate-power (http://www.alternet.org/world/trans-pacific-partnership-extends-tentacles-corporate-power)

The end of free speech online and censoring content and so much more will happen if the Trans Pacific Partnership becomes law and Congress wants to debate the Trans Pacific Partnership after the August recess.

Sadly many Republicans favor this horrible trade treaty and many do not know what is even in this treaty, but like Congressman and minority leader Nancy Palosi the Republicans just want to pass it and then the American citizen can find out what is in it which will not be good. President Obama also favors the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty and is at odds with Democrats over this bad trade treaty. http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/gop-set-t...ld-order-pact/ (http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/gop-set-to-fast-track-new-world-order-pact/)

Now as the link above states, how the Republicans plan to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP without debating the TPP trade treaty is to use a method called Fast Track and let me explain Fast Track or it's NEW name Trade Promotion Authority

What Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority for the Trans Pacific Partnership is, it is usually in Congress when an international trade treaty is agreed to such as this one the Senate votes on Trade Treaties and it must be heavily debated and in order to become ratified it needs 67 votes in the Senate in order to pass and there are usually amendments or changes put into place on an international Trade Treaty. If Congress (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE PASS TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY) Then an international Trade Treaty only needs 51 votes and there can be NO AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE TREATY AND NO FILIBUSTER OR STOPPING THIS TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP TREATY ONCE IT HITS THE SENATE FLOOR)


Read this link for more details on how Trade Promotion Authority or Fast Track is meant to SCREW the American people with this trade deal.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/th...c-partnership/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/the-trampling-pacific-partnership/)

I urge you all to call Congress 2022243121 and tell them No to the Trans Pacific Partnership and Trade Promotion Authority before it is too late. You can also e-mail Congress www.house.gov (http://www.house.gov/) or www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov/)

Please as well sign this petition from the Electronic Frontier Foundation in order to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and Trade Promotion Authority before it is TOO LATE PETITION>> https://act.eff.org/action/demand-an...ht-trade-deals (https://act.eff.org/action/demand-an-end-to-secret-copyright-trade-deals) <<

Please as well Facebook and Twitter this petition to friends and family alike. Let us not let the liberty movement which is promoted mostly by a free and open internet, let us not let this movement slip away. You can bet if TPP goes through the first sites that will be shut down by the Establishment Republicans and Democrats will be the liberty movement websites and Ron Paul Forum as well.

Please help stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority.

Natural Citizen
11-08-2014, 02:59 PM
I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.

The issue is much, much broader than the argument that you are sticking with here.

I'll chit chat with you later, though. Busy, busy...:cool:

Brett85
11-08-2014, 03:12 PM
Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.

Maybe Rand has just come to the conclusion that it's impossible to get the support from people who demand that he vote the way they want him to vote 100% of the time. It's an impossible standard to meet.

Ronin Truth
11-08-2014, 03:14 PM
Ron, take your boy out to the woodshed and "adjust his attitude".

sparebulb
11-08-2014, 03:39 PM
Rand may not be a libertarian, but he's far more libertarian than those who advocate high tariffs.


Because of the simple fact that there is NO ONE in Congress that is advocating higher tariffs, I pronounce your statement to be full fail.

Ron Paul many times has done interviews in front of the Capitol mentioning about how that building, specifically, and the government used to be funded by tariffs and not by income taxes. Ron Paul tacitly implied that tariffs are a legitimate policy.

Fuck your "free trade".

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 03:43 PM
I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.

And I think I would argue that you are fully aware you are lying through your teeth.

Now the question is, why are you deliberately lying? What's in it for you?

Brett85
11-08-2014, 03:55 PM
Because of the simple fact that there is NO ONE in Congress that is advocating higher tariffs, I pronounce your statement to be full fail.

Again, there were people on this forum who were promoting Pat Buchanan's position on trade. Pat Buchanan is a major protectionist on trade issues. That's what I was referring to.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 03:55 PM
And I think I would argue that you are fully aware you are lying through your teeth.

Now the question is, why are you deliberately lying? What's in it for you?

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.

idiom
11-08-2014, 04:00 PM
This is completely inexplicable.

sparebulb
11-08-2014, 04:06 PM
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.

It's a real shame that people don't respect Faith, Family, and Freedom (http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/) isn't it?

http://hucksarmy.com/images/img_03.gif

Brett85
11-08-2014, 04:09 PM
This is completely inexplicable.

I don't see how you can say that. Rand has been saying since he's been in the Senate that he's not an isolationist. This just goes along with everything he's been saying, that he generally opposes military intervention but believes that we should engage foreign countries through free trade.

Natural Citizen
11-08-2014, 04:20 PM
Again, there were people on this forum who were promoting Pat Buchanan's position on trade. Pat Buchanan is a major protectionist on trade issues. That's what I was referring to.


Is empowering corporations to sue governments abroad and even here at home in ad hoc arbitration tribunals to demand compensation from governments for laws and regulations they claim undermine their business interests what we call free trade? Allowing for multi-national corporations to use the TPP deal to bypass domestic courts and local laws and would allow corporations to go after governments before foreign tribunals to demand compensation from protections that they claim would undermine their expected future profits is what we call free trade? Allowing private investors to directly file claims against governments that regulate them, as opposed to a WTO-like system where nation states decide whether claims are brought is what we call free trade? I think that his is one of the most malicious pieces of US corporate lobbying that we have ever seen.

GunnyFreedom
11-08-2014, 04:26 PM
I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.

It doesn't matter if tariffs are eliminated altogether....in exchange for what? A loss of federal authority in one of the few areas given them by the Constitution? The adjudication of US Trade interests should never rest in foreign hands.

I'm all for ending the drug war, but mandating that every American soul snort bolivian cocaine on Thursdays is in no way "more free" than our current drug policy. Managed trade initially appears "freer" on the surface, but it's not about tariff levels, it's about control and authority.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 04:28 PM
Is empowering corporations to sue governments abroad and even here at home in ad hoc arbitration tribunals to demand compensation from governments for laws and regulations they claim undermine their business interests what we call free trade? Allowing for multi-national corporations to use the TPP deal to bypass domestic courts and local laws and would allow corporations to go after governments before foreign tribunals to demand compensation from protections that they claim would undermine their expected future profits is what we call free trade? Allowing private investors to directly file claims against governments that regulate them, as opposed to a WTO-like system where nation states decide whether claims are brought is what we call free trade? I think that his is one of the most malicious pieces of US corporate lobbying that we have ever seen.

No, and I understand there are some bad things in the agreement, and I never even said that I support the agreement. But I've been pointing out that there are also good things in the agreement, and I think it's highly likely that Rand supports the agreement because of the good things in it, primarily the lower tariffs between 11 different countries. Also, the point I was making is that most of the rhetoric I've seen on this forum is protectionist rhetoric, people claiming that free trade costs American jobs. People were agreeing with an article by Pat Buchanan, and Pat Buchanan is a huge protectionist on trade issues. So while some libertarians may be opposed to the TPP because of the issues you raised above, others are obviously trying to redefine libertarianism to be an ideology that advocates high tariffs as a means to protect American jobs.

GunnyFreedom
11-08-2014, 04:28 PM
Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.

Truth be told, I don't suspect either one. I suspect he is playing the role of supporter because he knows it will happen with or without him, and he wants to position himself to reduce some of the uglier aspects of it. This, of course, will make pretty much everyone upset, so I hope if that's what he's doing (and I suspect that it is) it flies off the radar in a hurry.

H. E. Panqui
11-08-2014, 04:32 PM
Yikes, 'Traditional Conservative' has some awful problems....Why would anyone admit to being a 'conservative?'

I get a hoot out of you 'conservatives'...dictionary (not the stinking Glenn Beck/Rush Windbag definition): "People who favor the status quo" "Opposed to change"

...Yet many of your heroes and fellows are always complaining about how things are...So, you 'conservative' peckerheads, let me get this right: ?You hate the way things are, but you don't want to change them!!

...the philosophy of a GD masochistic fool...

Brett85
11-08-2014, 04:35 PM
Yikes, 'Traditional Conservative' has some awful problems....Why would anyone admit to being a 'conservative?'

I get a hoot out of you 'conservatives'...dictionary (not the stinking Glenn Beck/Rush Windbag definition): "People who favor the status quo" "Opposed to change"

...Yet many of your heroes and fellows are always complaining about how things are...So, you 'conservative' peckerheads, let me get this right: ?You hate the way things are, but you don't want to change them!!

...the philosophy of a GD masochistic fool...

I'm certainly in favor changing things. 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.

jjdoyle
11-08-2014, 04:41 PM
Maybe Rand has just come to the conclusion that it's impossible to get the support from people who demand that he vote the way they want him to vote 100% of the time. It's an impossible standard to meet.

Well, I guess we can flush the "constitutional conservative" talking point off our Rand Paul 2016 flier.
I didn't realize that people SUPPORTING a candidate were demanding much, when they simply expect said candidate to follow his oath of office.

It's not an impossible standard to meet, even on important issues like Thomas Massie (and even Justin Amash) has demonstrated pretty well, but it is one Rand Paul is failing at, and in some very serious issues.

For Rand being some supposed great constitutional orator that Ron wasn't, he sure is having to take some crap positions.

Rudeman
11-08-2014, 04:42 PM
If you have a problem with his position then why not contact him and let him know why?

H. E. Panqui
11-08-2014, 04:43 PM
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)... ;)

Brett85
11-08-2014, 04:44 PM
Well, I guess we can flush the "constitutional conservative" talking point off our Rand Paul 2016 flier.
I didn't realize that people SUPPORTING a candidate were demanding much, when they simply expect said candidate to follow his oath of office.

It's not an impossible standard to meet, even on important issues like Thomas Massie (and even Justin Amash) has demonstrated pretty well, but it is one Rand Paul is failing at, and in some very serious issues.

For Rand being some supposed great constitutional orator that Ron wasn't, he sure is having to take some crap positions.

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.

thoughtomator
11-08-2014, 04:47 PM
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
11-08-2014, 04:49 PM
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
11-08-2014, 04:52 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:02 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:12 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:12 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:15 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:17 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:34 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:41 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:46 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:48 PM
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
11-08-2014, 05:51 PM
Un freakin believable

presence
11-08-2014, 05:51 PM
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
11-08-2014, 06:03 PM
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
11-08-2014, 06:10 PM
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
11-08-2014, 06:41 PM
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
11-08-2014, 06:49 PM
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
11-08-2014, 06:52 PM
Traditional Conservative Rands: 'It's part of [Rand Paul's] push to make people realize that he's not an isolationist,'

:confused:

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
11-08-2014, 06:55 PM
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
(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!"

Brett85
11-08-2014, 07:05 PM
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..

That's a legitimate point. I disagree with Rand when it comes to placing sanctions on those countries.

H. E. Panqui
11-08-2014, 07:09 PM
Traditional Conservative, it sounds like you need to change your screen name...someone might confuse you with one of those GD fool traditional conservatives... ;)

Brett85
11-08-2014, 07:10 PM
Traditional Conservative, it sounds like you need to change your screen name.

I don't think they let you do that here. :)

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 07:11 PM
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.

That's the weasel and the wiggle and the dodge.

Here's how it works:

"We" sign on to a UN treaty or multilateral "trade agreement".

The treaty or agreement states that we must bring our codes and regulations into compliance with what has been decided at the agreement's administrative board meetings.

So, ICE or OSHA or USCG or FAA or NHTSA or EPA or any one of hundreds of alphabbet soup agencies writes the new code mandated by the international agreement.

This "code" now has the force of federal law, and will put you in prison for non compliance.

But not once has this been voted on or debated by any legislative body accountable to the people of the United States.

And if "fast track" status is given to the executive, even the treaty itself will not be debated.

So, tell me, who did you "vote" for on the TPP board of directors?

Regulation without Representation.

It's how you are going to lose your gun rights, property rights, economic rights and civil rights in the 21st century.

It's how Agenda 21 is going to rule you.

And all you'll be "voting hard" for are the puppets in DC orchestrating this.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 07:14 PM
Rand actually voted against the fast track authority for trade agreements, if that means anything. It seems like he at least wants to debate it in Congress, unless he's changed his position on that.

kahless
11-08-2014, 07:17 PM
I had no doubt in my mind I would be supporting Rand this cycle. This is mind blowing. I am totally disgusted.

At this point if Buchanan or someone like him on these trade deals was going to run I would support Buchanan over Rand in the primaries over this very issue. Before this I had no doubt in my mind I would be supporting Rand. This is a deal breaker.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 07:24 PM
I had no doubt in my mind I would be supporting Rand this cycle. This is mind blowing. I am totally disgusted.

At this point if Buchanan or someone like him on these trade deals was going to run I would support Buchanan over Rand in the primaries over this very issue. Before this I had no doubt in my mind I would be supporting Rand. This is a deal breaker.

He previously voted for the trade deals with Korea, Panama, and Columbia. I don't see why people are surprised about this now. It just seems like people haven't really been paying attention to how Rand voted previously on this.

Suzu
11-08-2014, 07:47 PM
Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.

We see Rand saying a lot of things that we wish he would not say -- things he needs to say so he has the best chance of winning the nomination. What if these are also the views on which he will change positions once elected POTUS?

Carlybee
11-08-2014, 07:52 PM
We see Rand saying a lot of things that we wish he would not say -- things he needs to say so he has the best chance of winning the nomination. What if these are also the views on which he will change positions once elected POTUS?


Are you saying that if he promises support for certain things, he can back out of them if elected? I'm not so sure it works that way.

presence
11-08-2014, 08:14 PM
He previously voted for the trade deals with Korea, Panama, and Columbia. I don't see why people are surprised about this now. It just seems like people haven't really been paying attention to how Rand voted previously on this.


KORUS FTA

is arbitrated by ICSID which funded by the World Bank.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41779.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_ Disputes

KORUS FTA arbitration is BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Korea and is Unconstitutional


Panama TPA


Unless the Parties otherwise agree,
the roster shall include up to seven individuals
who are nationals of each Party and up to six individuals who are not nationals of either Party.
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file460_10398.pdf


It allows investors alleging a breach in investment obligations to seek binding arbitration against the state through the dispute settlement mechanism defined in the

BINDING arbitration against the state
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32540.pdf

Panama TPA arbitration is BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Panama and is Unconstitutional


Columbia TPA



Chapter Ten provides a mechanism for an investor of a Party to submit to BINDING international arbitration claim for damages against the other Party.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt222/html/CRPT-112srpt222.htm


ALL of these "free trade agreements" and "trade promotion agreements" subvert national soveriegnty.


Congress should never be bound by a supranational authority to subvert is constitutional duty to regulate trade.

Peace Piper
11-08-2014, 08:14 PM
The White House Blog: The Road Ahead- President Obama Travels to the Asia Pacific
November 07, 2014

America’s security and prosperity are increasingly and inextricably linked to the Asia Pacific. Tomorrow, President Obama will head to Asia for the second time this year and his sixth time as President.

Monday, November 10:
President Obama travels to Beijing, China.
In Beijing, the President participates in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Meeting and the APEC CEO Summit, and delivers remarks.
President Obama then holds bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Abbott of Australia, and President Widodo of Indonesia.
Later, the President participates in a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Leaders Meeting in Beijing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/07/road-ahead-president-obama-travels-asia-pacific

****************************

Obama Heads to Asia Amid Growing Opposition to Fast Track for the TPP
Friday, 07 November 2014

Washington, DC — As President Obama prepares to leave for Asia in another attempt to finalize the stalled Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, a broad coalition of labor, environmental and consumer groups delivered over half a million petition signatures and letters to key Congressional leaders today opposing Fast Track authority for the pact.

"CWA activists are focusing all our efforts on stopping Fast Track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Millions of labor, environmental, community and human rights activists are fighting back and demanding that the White House and Congress put U.S. citizens ahead of the corporate and financial interests that already define and dominate the global economy," said Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen.

"Fast Track is as dead in the water post-election as it was before it," said Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign. "After all the secrecy and back-room dealmaking surrounding the TPP negotiations, there's no way the public, civil society or responsible policymakers will allow the pact to be rushed through Congress."

President Obama is heading to Asia this weekend for a week of summits and meetings aimed, in part, at bringing the TPP to conclusion. The TPP is a twelve-nation pact that would set rules affecting approximately 40% of the global economy, covering not only tariffs and quotas, but everything from financial regulations and public procurement to medicine patents and environmental policy. While various leaked texts from the TPP negotiations have been published by Citizens Trade Campaign and WikiLeaks, none of the U.S. proposals or composite texts has every been officially released for review by the public.

The White House and various corporate lobby groups are calling for to TPP be approved under "Fast Track" trade promotion authority, an expired, Nixon-era policy-making process that would allow the pact to circumvent ordinary Congressional review, amendment and debate procedures.

A total of 663,674 letters, email actions and petition signatures opposing Fast Track were delivered to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden today, from 350.org, AFL-CIO, Citizens Trade Campaign, Communications Workers of America, Corporate Accountability International, CREDO, Democracy for America, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, Firedoglake, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MoveOn.org, Organic Consumers Association, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, SumOfUs.org and others...SNIP
MORE: http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/27316-obama-heads-to-asia-amid-growing-opposition-to-fast-track-for-the-tpp

***********************

The O Dude isn't wasting any time...

Brett85
11-08-2014, 08:22 PM
KORUS FTA

is arbitrated by ICSID which funded by the World Bank.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41779.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_ Disputes

KORUS FTA arbitration is BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Korea and is Unconstitutional


Panama TPA


http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file460_10398.pdf


http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32540.pdf

Panama TPA arbitration is BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Panama and is Unconstitutional


Columbia TPA



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt222/html/CRPT-112srpt222.htm


ALL of these "free trade agreements" and "trade promotion agreements" subvert national soveriegnty.


Congress should never be bound by a supranational authority to subvert is constitutional duty to regulate trade.

So where are all of the comments about how Justin Amash is a sellout and can no longer be supported? He has the same position as Rand on this.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

"Here's the roll call for H R 3078, United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. The bill approves the text of the trade agreement and makes corresponding changes to U.S. customs law. Like the other trade agreements in this vote series, the Colombia agreement reduces government interference in trade. The agreement does not move as quickly as I'd prefer, but it's a good first step. It will ensure that our producers have a level playing field when selling in Colombia while also giving Americans access to a greater variety of products and services. I voted yes. It passed 262-167."

Suzu
11-08-2014, 08:23 PM
Are you saying that if he promises support for certain things, he can back out of them if elected? I'm not so sure it works that way.
It has for just about every politician lately. Maybe in this case flip-flopping could be a good thing.

John F Kennedy III
11-08-2014, 08:28 PM
Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.

Anyone that supports him now isn't supporting liberty. This being yet another example.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 08:33 PM
Anyone that supports him now isn't supporting liberty. This being yet another example.

Then why aren't you consistent and say the same about Amash? They have the exact same positions, including on this issue.

jjdoyle
11-08-2014, 09:01 PM
So where are all of the comments about how Justin Amash is a sellout and can no longer be supported? He has the same position as Rand on this.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

"Here's the roll call for H R 3078, United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. The bill approves the text of the trade agreement and makes corresponding changes to U.S. customs law. Like the other trade agreements in this vote series, the Colombia agreement reduces government interference in trade. The agreement does not move as quickly as I'd prefer, but it's a good first step. It will ensure that our producers have a level playing field when selling in Colombia while also giving Americans access to a greater variety of products and services. I voted yes. It passed 262-167."

Still trying to move goal posts I see, after your points/propaganda get repeatedly destroyed.

You were one of the few (most others apparently duplicate accounts) RPF members that voted Jesse Benton should, "manage the campaign" for Rand in 2016. Are you Jesse Benton? Or, just always trying to excuse horridness around Rand Paul for some other reason?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Walter Jones voted no. Maybe he is one of the few that finally realizes that when the government says a bill is going to do something, usually the opposite thing occurs?

cajuncocoa
11-08-2014, 09:16 PM
Are you saying that if he promises support for certain things, he can back out of them if elected? I'm not so sure it works that way.
And even if it did work that way....how is that a good thing?

pcosmar
11-08-2014, 09:22 PM
Ya'll need to vote harder.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amwZW96V9Tk

Brett85
11-08-2014, 09:25 PM
You were one of the few (most others apparently duplicate accounts) RPF members that voted Jesse Benton should, "manage the campaign" for Rand in 2016.

Interesting. I don't remember anything about that. If I did that, I was probably just joking around.

presence
11-08-2014, 09:25 PM
Then why aren't you consistent and say the same about Amash? They have the exact same positions, including on this issue.

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.


supranational? binding?

NO

Brett85
11-08-2014, 09:26 PM
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
11-08-2014, 09:38 PM
Interesting. I don't remember anything about that.

No?
http://i.imgur.com/t7Rnk6Z.jpg?1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447940-Do-you-want-Jesse-Benton-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
11-08-2014, 09:38 PM
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
11-08-2014, 09:44 PM
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
11-08-2014, 09:47 PM
..

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
11-08-2014, 09:50 PM
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
11-08-2014, 09:51 PM
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.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 09:52 PM
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?

CaptUSA
11-08-2014, 09:52 PM
Doesn't it give anyone pause to be on the same side of this argument as Paul Krugman? Bernie Sanders?! Robert friggin' Reich?!

Natural Citizen
11-08-2014, 09:54 PM
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
11-08-2014, 09:55 PM
No?
http://i.imgur.com/t7Rnk6Z.jpg?1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447940-Do-you-want-Jesse-Benton-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
11-08-2014, 09:56 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:01 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:03 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:06 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:09 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:17 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:21 PM
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
11-08-2014, 10:26 PM
"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!


http://s.likes-media.com/img/8047dc095df105cedbde6558598bc0dd

Brett85
11-08-2014, 10:26 PM
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.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 10:28 PM
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.

So I guess Pat Buchanan is the only true conservative left.

kahless
11-08-2014, 10:28 PM
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?

This is not simply just about trade. It that he is willing to support a secret agreement that overrides the Constitution and state laws. If he is willing to compromise on that then what else is he going to compromise on. Support for these kind of trade agreements I would expect from someone with the last name Bush or Clinton, I do not expect it from a Paul.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 10:30 PM
This is not simply just about trade. It that he is willing to support a secret agreement that overrides the Constitution and state laws. If he is willing to compromise on that then what else is he going to compromise on. Support for these kind of trade agreements I would expect from someone with the last name Bush or Clinton, I do not expect it from a Paul.

Who says he supports it being done in secret with no input from Congress? He's voted against the trade promotion authority in the past, which means that he wants Congress to debate the issue and have a chance to weigh in on whether changes need to be made to the agreement.

Brett85
11-08-2014, 10:38 PM
When it comes to free trade, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., appears to be following in his father’s footsteps.

If President Obama attempts to get “fast-track authority” to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, through Congress before attending the summit meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, in October, he can anticipate strong opposition from Rand Paul as well as from the senator’s father, former Republican congressman Ron Paul of Texas.



However, granting to the president fast-track authority violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, charges Washington-based attorney Bruce Fein, an adviser to Sen. Paul.

In a letter addressed to Rep. Walter Jones, R-S.C., Fein wrote that the “constitutionally illicit purpose of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation is to endow the President with a decisive vote over international trade legislation in violation of the separation of powers by usurping the power of the House to determine its own rules.”

“The Trade Promotion Act would give the President an overruling influence over Congress in exercising its power to regulate foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 3, and thus would be unconstitutional,” Fein wrote.

Ron Paul has a long history of opposing attempts by Congress to grant the president fast-track authority, or “Trade Promotion Authority,” as it is euphemistically called.

In 1998, he made a statement on the House floor opposing the granting of fast-track authority to President Clinton.

“The fast-track procedure bill,” he said, according to the Congressional Record, “in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, reauthorizes ‘Trade Adjustment Assistance’ welfare for workers who lose their jobs and businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of United States Trade representative.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/rand-paul-warns-of-obama-fast-track-to-global-trade-zone/

Anti Federalist
11-08-2014, 10:44 PM
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.

I'm thinking their opposition is strictly an "anti business" or "anti corporation" bias.

I know they give don't two shits about national sovereignty or independence or middle class jobs.

CaptUSA
11-08-2014, 10:51 PM
I'm thinking their opposition is strictly an "anti business" or "anti corporation" bias.

I know they give don't two shits about national sovereignty or independence or middle class jobs.

See that's what gets me. They're the biggest globalist apologists around. If this truly did what Wikileaks seems to be suggesting, these guys should be 100% on board. Something seems amiss here. It's late, but I'm going to dig a little deeper later this week.

CaptUSA
11-08-2014, 10:52 PM
Dup

Natural Citizen
11-08-2014, 11:00 PM
It's late, but I'm going to dig a little deeper later this week.

This forum is the best place to start. Just have to know what yer looking for is all. Key word search os okay but not great.

jjdoyle
11-08-2014, 11:02 PM
See that's what gets me. They're the biggest globalist apologists around. If this truly did what Wikileaks seems to be suggesting, these guys should be 100% on board. Something seems amiss here. It's late, but I'm going to dig a little deeper later this week.

Walter Jones voted no on it when it was first up for vote in the House, but Amash voted yes. Seeing why Jones voted no, might give a good idea as to why some others did. The votes on it did appear to be split pretty much down party lines, minus a few like representatives like Jones.

kahless
11-08-2014, 11:24 PM
So I guess Pat Buchanan is the only true conservative left.

and the Constitution party it seems.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/free-trade-undermining-defense-sovereignty-and-the-american-job-market/


Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC) wrote a letter to their House colleagues stating: “Free trade theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves to see pacts like President Obama’s Korea Agreement called ‘free trade.’ It includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals. This act is a sneaky form of international preemption, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of many rights to the people or state governments.”
....
Now we’re negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a deal that sets rules on non-trade issues such as food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation, and the environment. TPP binding regulations would require the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, and other Asian nations to conform their domestic policies to its rules. This time, incredibly, it is being cobbled together in secret: 600 corporate “trade advisors” are withholding the text from Members of Congress, governors, state legislators, the press, and the public. In an appearance on the Bill Moyers program, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research stated, “This really is a deal that’s being negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.” Yves Smith, an investment banking expert who runs the Naked Capitalism blog added: “There would be no reason to keep it so secret if it was in the interest of the public.”

As far as Rand this quote from him below pretty much says it all. He is a full GW Bush trade policy supporter. I do not see how he can recover from this. I guess today is the day I get off the Rand train.


President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

I will see who the Constitution Party runs, it is a long way off yet, maybe there will be other options. This cycle will probably be rigged in favor of Jeb Bush anyway so not sure why I even bother.

GunnyFreedom
11-08-2014, 11:29 PM
Walter Jones voted no on it when it was first up for vote in the House, but Amash voted yes. Seeing why Jones voted no, might give a good idea as to why some others did. The votes on it did appear to be split pretty much down party lines, minus a few like representatives like Jones.

Amash always posts his reasoning. Wonder why he voted yes?

jjdoyle
11-08-2014, 11:46 PM
Amash always posts his reasoning. Wonder why he voted yes?

Traditional Conservative posted it (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462733-Rand-Paul-to-Obama-quot-Prioritize-quot-Passage-of-Trans-Pacific-Partnership&p=5695367&viewfull=1#post5695367) a few posts back:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

CPUd
11-09-2014, 01:36 AM
Title misleading, he never said anything about 'passage'.



Speaking at the Center for the National Interest dinner in New York City on October 23, Senator Paul said:


Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

GunnyFreedom
11-09-2014, 02:06 AM
Traditional Conservative posted it (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462733-Rand-Paul-to-Obama-quot-Prioritize-quot-Passage-of-Trans-Pacific-Partnership&p=5695367&viewfull=1#post5695367) a few posts back:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

Thank you. It may have been a bad vote, but apparently it's a bad vote with liberty company. :-/

kahless
11-09-2014, 07:27 AM
Title misleading, he never said anything about 'passage'.


President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

This is an endorsement of the Bush trade policies. That last sentence may as well mean passage.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 08:07 AM
I will see who the Constitution Party runs, it is a long way off yet, maybe there will be other options. This cycle will probably be rigged in favor of Jeb Bush anyway so not sure why I even bother.

My guess is that they'll nominate Rand if Rand ends up being the GOP nominee, despite the disagreement they have on the issue of free trade. (I know the TPP isn't "free trade" in the sense that we understand free trade to be, but the CP doesn't even support our concept of free trade.)

Brett85
11-09-2014, 08:09 AM
As far as Rand this quote from him below pretty much says it all. He is a full GW Bush trade policy supporter. I do not see how he can recover from this. I guess today is the day I get off the Rand train.

I'm glad I'm not a purist. I don't think I could ever support a politician for any political office if I had to agree with them on every single issue in order to support them.

kahless
11-09-2014, 08:25 AM
I'm glad I'm not a purist. I don't think I could ever support a politician for any political office if I had to agree with them on every single issue in order to support them.

I am not a purist and this is much more than trade policy. He is showing that he is willing to support policies that override the Constitution and state-local laws.

kahless
11-09-2014, 08:36 AM
My guess is that they'll nominate Rand if Rand ends up being the GOP nominee, despite the disagreement they have on the issue of free trade. (I know the TPP isn't "free trade" in the sense that we understand free trade to be, but the CP doesn't even support our concept of free trade.)

Oddly the trade issue hurts Rand more than it does Jeb Bush due to Bush voter ignorance, those willing to over look it and the media will give Jeb a pass on it. The same cannot be said for Rand and the average voter willing to sample Rand. The media will likely beat him over the head with it.

If the sheep and the media want a Bush they will be voting for Jeb Bush anyway not someone that endorses the Bush trade policies that polls show the people are overwhelming against. I can sit home or write-in someone else in if there is not a 3rd party option. If Rand wants to be Mitt Romney this cycle and lose by the few percent that sat home then good for him.

H. E. Panqui
11-09-2014, 08:53 AM
As one wag put it, "It's pretty simple..for obvious, selfish reasons, people who already have a lot of money strongly tend to want no/much less new money creation...people who are relatively poor want/need more new money creation"..

These stinking Republicrat scumbags are speaking for the rich...who want cheap goods/labor...and the monetary slaves needed to produce them..

Btw, 'Free-traders'..stfu...any honest understanding of 'our' stinking money/economic system reveals there is no, and has never been, any 'free market'...the wealthy have all kinds of control mechanism$ for themselves...occupational licensure, bankster privilege$, etc. ad GD nau$eam..

I NEVER hear the loud stoooooooooooooopid 'free-traders' uttering a peep about any of thi$...

acptulsa
11-09-2014, 08:57 AM
As one wag put it, "It's pretty simple..for obvious, selfish reasons, people who already have a lot of money strongly tend to want no/much less new money creation...people who are relatively poor want/need more new money creation"..

And do you agree with this wag?

H. E. Panqui
11-09-2014, 09:05 AM
And do you agree with this wag?


(how could i disagree?..he's the most brilliant wag i know!)​ ;)

acptulsa
11-09-2014, 09:12 AM
And do you agree with this wag?


(how could i disagree?..he's the most brilliant wag i know!)​ ;)

Well, one could disagree with said tongue wagger by merely refraining from being, for lack of a better term, 'stoooooooooopid.'

After all, those with money don't care what happens to the value of that money, because they can afford to pay brokerage fees to buy stocks, and they can afford to pay the brokerage fees to convert those stocks to bonds and/or gold when the time is right. If they do care about the value of that money, they generally want it to get devalued, as you said in your second paragraph, so the wages they pay are degraded. And there's nothing more 'stoooooooooooid' than denying that their favorite way to create those 'monetary slaves' is to debase the currency in which they are paid.

Or, to put it another way, anyone who says the rich want the value of the currency maintained because they have some money is a republicrat scumbag speaking (actually propagandizing) for the rich. And that includes '...the smartest wag you know.'

Oh, and free-traders do tend to talk more about trade than monetary policy. Nothing new in that.

If you don't know what the difference is between wealth and money, I've got good news and bad news for you. The good news is you've found the right place to get educated. The bad news is you've found the wrong place to lord your allegedly great knowledge and wisdom over the unwashed masses.

A Son of Liberty
11-09-2014, 09:26 AM
Well, one could disagree with said tongue wagger by merely refraining from being, for lack of a better term, 'stoooooooooopid.'

After all, those with money don't care what happens to the value of that money, because they can afford to pay brokerage fees to buy stocks, and they can afford to pay the brokerage fees to convert those stocks to bonds and/or gold when the time is right. If they do care about the value of that money, they generally want it to get devalued, as you said in your second paragraph, so the wages they pay are degraded. And there's nothing more 'stoooooooooooid' than denying that their favorite way to create those 'monetary slaves' is to debase the currency in which they are paid.

Or, to put it another way, anyone who says the rich want the value of the currency maintained because they have some money is a republicrat scumbag speaking (actually propagandizing) for the rich. And that includes '...the smartest wag you know.'

Yep. And those with REAL money (FRNs) LOVE monetary (FRN) debasement, because they are first in line at the printing press, allowing them to spend the FRNs before the concomitant increase in the price of other goods.

Carlybee
11-09-2014, 10:36 AM
I'm glad I'm not a purist. I don't think I could ever support a politician for any political office if I had to agree with them on every single issue in order to support them.


I don't have to agree on every single issue either...just the important ones.

jjdoyle
11-09-2014, 12:08 PM
I don't have to agree on every single issue either...just the important ones.

Exactly, and it's one of the most important issues that a President can influence, and where Rand is severely lacking in policy and positions IMO. Foreign policy.
How we are more than a decade after 9/11, and even 6 years after the 2008 election cycle with Rudy Giuliani's READING ASSIGNMENT, and some politicians are taking foreign policy positions that make us more likely to be attacked again is beyond me.

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 12:16 PM
A word to the wise. A storm is coming. In fact, we could say the clouds are rolling in as we speak and some would do well to watch the radar in a realistic way instead of just assuming that tomorrow always brings sunshine and rainbows.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rfMbw-3e0

PaleoPaul
11-09-2014, 12:40 PM
Beautiful. This is just what his father wanted. Engaging nations through free trade, as opposed to military adventurism and violence. Go Rand! :D

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 12:52 PM
Beautiful. This is just what his father wanted. Engaging nations through free trade, as opposed to military adventurism and violence. Go Rand! :D

Yeah? Well. I don't know. Seems to me that this is what happens when sovereign people produce blowback toward economic hitmen and the almighty coup d'état that proceeds them.

'Slaughterhouse': Civilians die in Kiev's ruthless military attacks (GRAPHIC) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?452897-Slaughterhouse-Civilians-die-in-Kiev-s-ruthless-military-attacks-(GRAPHIC)&p=5545100&viewfull=1#post5545100)

Pappa Paul also knew that sanctions directed toward countries who oppose the actions of these economic hitmen would also lead to war of the physical flavor. Statesman is a man ahead of his time, for sure.

Of course, I'd agree with you if we were discussing honest to goodness free trade here. We're not discussing honest to goodness free trade in the form of this TPP. Arguing against it and saying that it is honest to goodness free trade will prove futile and we'll be left with red faces for all.

milgram
11-09-2014, 02:02 PM
We see Rand saying a lot of things that we wish he would not say -- things he needs to say so he has the best chance of winning the nomination. What if these are also the views on which he will change positions once elected POTUS?
This question is an intriguing one, as it often comes up when contemplating someone's pragmatism vs. their idealism.

I think when a candidate takes the "easy path" in a low-stakes situation (pre-campaign for president), the candidate is likely to take the same easy path in a high-stakes situation (occupying the Oval Office). Perhaps that's not true every time, but as one ascends the steps of power it become increasingly difficult to push back against certain compelling forces.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 02:07 PM
The same cannot be said for Rand and the average voter willing to sample Rand. The media will likely beat him over the head with it.

Lol. Who in the media is opposed to trade agreements like the TPP?

Brett85
11-09-2014, 02:09 PM
Exactly, and it's one of the most important issues that a President can influence, and where Rand is severely lacking in policy and positions IMO. Foreign policy.
How we are more than a decade after 9/11, and even 6 years after the 2008 election cycle with Rudy Giuliani's READING ASSIGNMENT, and some politicians are taking foreign policy positions that make us more likely to be attacked again is beyond me.

Trade agreements make us more likely to be attacked? How so?

jjdoyle
11-09-2014, 02:22 PM
Trade agreements make us more likely to be attacked? How so?

Read it again:

Exactly, and it's one of the most important issues that a President can influence, and where Rand is severely lacking in policy and positions IMO. Foreign policy.
How we are more than a decade after 9/11, and even 6 years after the 2008 election cycle with Rudy Giuliani's READING ASSIGNMENT, and some politicians are taking foreign policy positions that make us more likely to be attacked again is beyond me.

I wasn't talking about this, but his other positions on foreign policy.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 02:31 PM
Read it again:

I wasn't talking about this, but his other positions on foreign policy.

I see. I think Rand's position that we shouldn't go around overthrowing foreign dictators and implementing regime change will make it less likely that we'll be attacked.

idiom
11-09-2014, 03:52 PM
Okay, try this, New Zealand has basically no tariffs on anything. Whats in it for us? From what I have seen NZ ends up becoming a Vassal state of the US.

Rather than the US giving up sovereignty, on balance it will basically steal it from the other signatories.

Its Imperialism without bullets.

jjdoyle
11-09-2014, 04:15 PM
I see. I think Rand's position that we shouldn't go around overthrowing foreign dictators and implementing regime change will make it less likely that we'll be attacked.

That wasn't one of the three reasons given for why we were attacked on 9/11, that Rand is 100% ignoring and not addressing.
Rand is 100% making us less safe and more likely to be attacked again by Muslim extremist, because of one of his publicly stated positions. Unless you don't believe the extremists and the recruiters of the extremist as to why they attack us and what they use to recruit more people to do just that.

Which is the even more important position than this one, IMO. And Rand is failing at it.

kahless
11-09-2014, 05:11 PM
Lol. Who in the media is opposed to trade agreements like the TPP?

I never said the media is opposed to trade agreements. Selective memory on your part or have you not been paying attention to the anti-Ron/Rand media coverage over the years.

On the right the media will not touch someone like Jeb Bush for supporting the same trade policies but they will attack Rand for it. On the left Rand will of course be lumped in with Jeb as a continuation of the Bush trade policies that sent jobs overseas and lowered wages.

pcosmar
11-09-2014, 05:21 PM
Some of you guys must really love NAFTA, CAFTA,,and FTAA.

TPP is yet another really bad idea. :(

jjdoyle
11-09-2014, 05:38 PM
Some of you guys must really love NAFTA, CAFTA,,and FTAA.

TPP is yet another really bad idea. :(

I love and trust EVERY law and bill that comes out of Washington DC.
The Patriot Act is a fine example. Not only was it designed to keep us safe, but it was named to help us FEEL patriotic!
The Affordable Care Act was not only designed to give everyone healthcare, but to make it MORE AFFORDABLE for those already with it!
No Child Left Behind? Well, we know of the excellent results showing in our education system!

If a government politician tells me the TPP will increase free trade, I'm not one to argue or question that. They have history on their side.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 06:53 PM
On the right the media will not touch someone like Jeb Bush for supporting the same trade policies but they will attack Rand for it. On the left Rand will of course be lumped in with Jeb as a continuation of the Bush trade policies that sent jobs overseas and lowered wages.

I've never heard any member of the right wing media criticize anyone for supporting free trade agreements. They all support the free trade agreements. (Yes I know you argue that these aren't actually "free trade" agreements, but I'm just referring to the name of these bills)

Republicanguy
11-09-2014, 06:59 PM
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

What happened to those tribes. Yeah...Rand is just doing what he has to do. I see this guy as a moderate to get elected. His Dad was zealous.

presence
11-09-2014, 07:04 PM
Okay, try this, New Zealand has basically no tariffs on anything. Whats in it for us? From what I have seen NZ ends up becoming a Vassal state of the US.
Rather than the US giving up sovereignty, on balance it will basically steal it from the other signatories.
Its Imperialism without bullets.

Doubtless (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/chris-trotter/7754934/NZ-still-member-of-secret-club) that New Zealand is a vassal state. The thing that most people miss: The US is a vassal state as well.



Contract by contract... each binding under "International Law", we're all bowing to this flag:

http://www.theangrypandashow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Screen-Shot-2011-10-26-at-9.24.55-AM.png

Brett85
11-09-2014, 07:14 PM
Some of you guys must really love NAFTA, CAFTA,,and FTAA.

TPP is yet another really bad idea. :(

I don't know. I'm undecided, but I think there's a libertarian case to be made for supporting these "free trade agreements" because they lower or eliminate tariffs between the countries involved.

presence
11-09-2014, 07:33 PM
I don't know. I'm undecided, but I think

there's a libertarian case to be made for supporting these "free trade agreements" because they lower or eliminate tariffs


Similarly...

there's a right-to-life case to be made for a global ban on abortion where violators will face a United Nations military tribunal






http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UgKD80-YZ5M/TcuFpayrZ9I/AAAAAAAAAV8/wrlZwDHocag/s1600/26.png

NorfolkPCSolutions
11-09-2014, 07:52 PM
The bottom line with these supposed "Free Trade Deals" are that arbitration is done by the World Bank and the United Nations. Their decisions are BINDING.


ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TRADE.


Fuck the World Bank
Fuck the UN

and Fuck any politician, including Rand, if he supports this bullshit.

presence said it better than I could, so...

To contribute: Hey, you folks that work with Rand Paul and lurk here, keeping a pulse on the roots (I hope you're here, I hope you lurk) - are you listening?

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 08:20 PM
presence said it better than I could, so...

To contribute: Hey, you folks that work with Rand Paul and lurk here, keeping a pulse on the roots (I hope you're here, I hope you lurk) - are you listening?

Well. If they are then best to give them a show that they'll not soon forget. Is how change is done. Of course, it may be safe to assume that many in the business of elections themselves can't/don't particularly have a general grasp of the depth of much of the things that are discussed here. As well, many are open enough to even say that they have no desire to bother because political power itself is their goal. Is the difference between just trying to hurry up and get elected and working toward changing the course of history itself I suppose.

But then again you never know who you'll run into. I once started discussing political issues in a rather long line at the store around Christmas time with someone based solely upon a magazine cover there in the way and they blew my mind. Well informed feller, he was. Was a pleasant delay.

presence
11-09-2014, 08:42 PM
the difference between just trying to hurry up and get elected

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs39/f/2008/357/4/d/Pinky_and_the_Brain_by_predator_fan.jpg

and working toward changing the course of history itself

GunnyFreedom
11-09-2014, 08:45 PM
TPP has really horrible problems, and a lot of liberty AND Tea will bolt over it if Rand comes out wrong on it. So far we have one vague statement indicting Obama. For all we know it could just be a jab at the man and the TPP was just a handy flagrum. Bottom line is the TPP is more dangerous than someone might expect, and Senator Paul needs to get right on this or face some real erosion of his base.

presence
11-09-2014, 08:53 PM
So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty Posted: May 2, 2014 | Author: insidejbs (http://insidejbs.org/author/insidejbs/) | Filed under: Uncategorized (http://insidejbs.org/category/uncategorized/) |Leave a comment

(http://insidejbs.org/2014/05/02/so-called-free-trade-costs-sovereignty/#respond) So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty

by JBS President John F. McManus



A friend who favors free trade agreements (such as those now being negotiated by U.S. officials and their European and Pacific Rim counterparts) insists that these “partnerships” pose no threat to our nation’s sovereignty. He likens the proposed agreements to the beneficial free trade arrangement existing among our 50 states. But, without him realizing it, my friend’s argument actually made the case for my real concerns about such agreements.


http://insidejbs.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/cf-stfta-web-issue_banner-300x345b1.jpg?w=260&h=300 (http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/stop-the-free-trade-agenda)

In 1955, Dow Chemical executive Lewis Lloyd wrote a book calling for protectionism. Formerly a solid cheerleader for free trade, he found through experience that, if free trade among nations is actually conducted — such as what exists among our 50 states — eight conditions must be present. And the final of his eight conditions was the need for

“world government” and a loss of sovereignty.


In his Tariffs: The Case For Protection, Dr. Lloyd stated that there must be comparable taxes, a single monetary system, uniform business laws, similar business ethics, freedom of movement by workers from place to place, freedom from the threat of war, and an overseeing world government.


All of what Lloyd saw as necessary can be found in the state-to-state relationships within the United States — except a world government. Here, unencumbered trade is regulated by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, and there’s no loss of national sovereignty. Should free trade be established nation-to-nation, claimed Dr. Lloyd, there would be a need for an overall governing body with a superior constitution superseding the government structure established in each nation. In other words, there would be a need for a world government superior to each national government and it would function just as our own federal government does vis-ŕ-vis the states. But the national sovereignty of the nations involved in this free trade would have been canceled.


Consider the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), two pacts that U.S. leaders are now hammering out with equivalent foreign officials. Approval of the TTIP would tie the U.S. with the EU that was sold to Europe’s mostly unsuspecting national leaders as a pact designed merely to enhance trade. But it has become dominant over its 28 formerly independent nations. Consider: In 2003, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus warned that the EU was leading to “no more sovereign states in Europe.” In 2004, EU leaders proposed an overall constitution which claimed that it “shall have primacy over the law of member states.” In 2004, a leader of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party stated that the EU “has turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.” And in 2007, former German President Roman Herzog lamented that “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels.” The EU has become a super government dominating Europe’s once-sovereign nations.
Should Senate ratification of the TTIP be accomplished, the U.S. will have duplicated Europe’s catastrophic blunder and essentially joined the EU, losing its national sovereignty in the process. Ratification of the TPP would likewise be a huge mistake, and lead to a corresponding loss of U.S. national sovereignty. But the interesting point here is that the beneficial state-to-state relationships within our nation do not support my friend’s claim that nation-to-nation free trade agreements will be similarly beneficial. They would instead constitute a severe dilution of national sovereignty, as the EU has accomplished in Europe. The relationships generated by so-called “free trade agreements” prove that sovereignty will be lost. Americans should let their representatives and senators know (https://www.votervoice.net/JBS/campaigns/35307/respond) that free trade partnerships must be rejected (https://www.votervoice.net/JBS/campaigns/35305/respond), along with rejecting Trade Promotion Authority (https://www.votervoice.net/JBS/campaigns/34937/respond) that would facilitate congressional passage of any such free trade partnerships.

http://insidejbs.org/2014/05/02/so-called-free-trade-costs-sovereignty/

presence
11-09-2014, 08:58 PM
This diary is detailed and technical. It's intended to provide an illustration of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a feature of the TPP and TTIP free-trade agreements.


[]


the most important lesson to be learned from the case is this:

The tribunal didn’t issue the initial ruling on the matter. It's decision came after the decision of Ecuador’s Supreme Court. The tribunal knew that a decision had already been made by the sovereign court of Ecuador and it inserted itself into the decision and overruled it. By doing so, it pushed the boundaries of the ISDS process beyond the established definition.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/12/1269202/--CRUDE-How-TPP-TTIP-free-trade-agreements-could-threaten-sovereignty

juleswin
11-09-2014, 09:00 PM
I really don't know what TPP is all about and that is why hurrying up to pass it worries me. If he was asking for it to be debated and parts of it passed instead of the whole thing as a package? then I think I will be OK with it. Right now, this feels like a bad dream that I really want to wake up from

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 09:01 PM
TPP has really horrible problems, and a lot of liberty AND Tea will bolt over it if Rand comes out wrong on it. So far we have one vague statement indicting Obama. For all we know it could just be a jab at the man and the TPP was just a handy flagrum. Bottom line is the TPP is more dangerous than someone might expect, and Senator Paul needs to get right on this or face some real erosion of his base.

Is possible that he's just daring Obama and these elites to show their cards. He is the son of the statesman after all. I wonder if that is the case, though, considering his position on sanctioning Russia after that coup d'etat in Ukraine. One almost wants to excuse that based upon the notion that he doesn't know the history of these nations. And it's not just him. It's most of them which leads me to wonder who is advising him (Rand) at the moment. Those economic hitmen who we hear scribbled up that thing in the Ukraine are basically the same factions who are interested in this so called trade deal and there is a recorded time line back to when that thing broke open. I don't know that the TPP has a leg to stand on at the moment given the way the world feels about these western monopolies and by forcing someone to say so or demonstrate so would be slick. All one has to do is look at what these nations are doing at the moment. They aren't hiding anything. At all. They're just doing what they are doing.

presence
11-09-2014, 09:02 PM
Oregon Legislators Warn of Trade Deal’s Threat to State Sovereignty

Posted on August 31, 2010 (http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/oregon/2010/08/31/oregon-legislators-warn-of-trade-deals-threat-to-state-sovereignty/) by CTC

(http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/oregon/author/ctcfairt/)

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, August 31, 2010


Bipartisan Group of Legislators Ask Sen. Wyden to Defend Oregon Laws from Attack in International Tribunals

The Korea Free Trade Agreement Poses Serious Threat to State Sovereignty



Salem, Ore. — A bipartisan group of Oregon State Legislators sent U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) a letter today urging him to use his position as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade to strip provisions from a pending trade agreement that threaten to expose Oregon laws to attack in international tribunals.


According to the letter, the pending Korea Free Trade Agreement “includes


investor-to-state enforcement mechanisms


that enable foreign corporations to directly challenge American laws, regulations and even court decisions as trade violations through international tribunals that completely circumvent the U.S. judicial system.”

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/oregon/2010/08/31/oregon-legislators-warn-of-trade-deals-threat-to-state-sovereignty/

presence
11-09-2014, 09:05 PM
‘Free’ Trade and the Sovereignty SqueezeMercantilism in trade agreement rules-setting makes weaker economies slaves to the interests of economic hegemons.

By Ji Xianbai
October 28, 2014





The U.S.–Peru FTA (PTPA) marks the very first success of Washington’s attempts to subordinate other countries’ sovereignty to its own national interest by squeezing non-trade-related provisions into a bilateral trade liberalization agreement and overriding foreign national laws. To provide a level playing field for American companies, the PTPA lays out detailed measures that Peru is obliged to take to govern its forest sector. The Forest Annex (http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/UNITED-STATES-PERU-TRADE-PROMOTION-AGREEMENT-strengthening-forest-sector-governance.pdf) of the PTPA requires Peru to set up an independent forestry oversight body and even enact new Forestry and Wildlife Laws to legalize key provisions of PTPA. The U.S.–Colombia FTA (http://www.ustr.gov/uscolombiatpa) (CTPA)’s labor provisions represent an “even more blatant assault on another country’s sovereignty (http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredsmith/2013/07/09/memo-to-the-u-s-and-eu-free-trade-is-decidedly-not-war/).” Meanwhile, Colombia was forced to agree to establish a dedicated labor ministry; endorse legislations outlawing interference in the exercise of labor rights; double the size of its labor inspectorate; and set up a phone hotline and an internet-based system to deal with labor complaints. Examples of similar provisions abound: Don’t forget that the U.S.-Panama FTA has “helped” revamp Panama’s tax policy on behalf of Panamanians.


In a similarly coercive fashion, the EU has never been shy of imposing its own will on other countries in trade. Last week, a November 2011 diplomatic cable (https://data.awp.is/ecuadortransparente/2014/10/08/10.html) between Ecuador’s then-ambassador in Brussels, Fernando Yepez Lasso, and the Ecuadorian vice minister for Foreign Relations, Kintto Lucas Lopez, was leaked. The confidential communication suggests that Ecuador was “bullied into a EU trade agreement.” Denouncing it as “biased,” Ecuador was convinced the agenda was set to prioritize the trade liberalization component of the agreement that was able to accrue immediate gains to the EU over two other pillars of the EU-Andean Association Agreement, namely, an economic cooperation agreement and a forum for political dialogue, which were of more long-term significance to Andean states. So Ecuador pulled out of the talks in 2009. To compel Ecuador to return to the negotiating table, the EU resorted to stark threats of economic isolation as the Ambassador admitted in the cable that “[t]he proposal of the European Commission, which includes criteria that could exclude Ecuador from the preferences framework [...], is an element of pressure on Ecuador to join the free trade agreement.” Afraid of being left out and sustaining a $1.2 billion loss to its economy if trade ties with EU was disconnected, the Ecuador government crumbled and finally inked the agreement on July 17. This painful experience has taught Ecuador a lesson that what governs trade negotiations is the law of the jungle and prompted Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to comment in an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhruGQsYmEM) after signing the FTA that free trade “is the most anti-historical thing that exists; almost no developed country used it.”



http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/free-trade-and-the-sovereignty-squeeze/

presence
11-09-2014, 09:06 PM
Friday, 15 June 2012

TPP Secret Trade Agreement Puts International Tribunal Above U.S. Law

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/itemlist/user/52-joewolvertoniijd)

Wednesday morning a document was leaked (http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tppinvestment.pdf) that reveals President Obama’s plans to surrender American sovereignty to international tribunals. This is one of several frightening provisions of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/CHL_Asia_e/mainAgreemt_e.pdf)(also known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP) being negotiated in secret by American trade representatives.

In the now-public document, as part of its membership in the TPP, the

United States
would agree to exempt
foreign corporations
from our laws and regulations,


placing the resolution of any disputes as to the applicability of those matters to foreign business in the hands of an international arbitration tribunal overseen by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The leaked information confirms the fears of many who have opposed this trade agreement from the beginning. Several groups from the Left and the Right have decried the shroud of secrecy covering the TPP negotiations and are now vindicated by Wednesday’s revelations.

One of these valiant organizations defending the sovereignty of the United States is Americans for Limited Government (http://getliberty.org) (ALG). On Thursday, ALG released a statement drawing attention to the leaked TPP agreement, as well as ably pointing out some of the most noxious aspects of it.

These new trade agreements
will place domestic U.S. firms
that do not do business overseas at a
competitive disadvantage.

Based on these leaked documents, foreign firms under this trade pact could conceivably appeal federal regulatory and court rulings against them to an international tribunal with the apparent authority to overrule our sovereignty. If foreign companies want to do business in America, they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. No special favors.

It is telling that the only apparent way these Pacific nations will enter a free trade agreement with the U.S. is if they are exempt from our onerous environmental and financial regulations that make it cost-ineffective to do business here. Instead of making these foreign firms exempt from these burdensome rules, they should just repeal the regulations and make it cheaper to do business here.

This poses an even wider problem, though. Obama is negotiating a trade pact that would constitute a judicial authority higher than even the U.S. Supreme Court that could overrule federal court rulings applying U.S. law to foreign companies. That is unconstitutional. The U.S. cannot be allowed to enter a treaty that would abrogate our Constitution.

It is telling that the only apparent way these Pacific nations will enter a free trade agreement with the U.S. is if they are exempt from our onerous environmental and financial regulations that make it cost-ineffective to do business here. Instead of making these foreign firms exempt from these burdensome rules, they should just repeal the regulations and make it cheaper to do business here.

This poses an even wider problem, though. Obama is negotiating a trade pact that would constitute a judicial authority higher than even the U.S. Supreme Court that could overrule federal court rulings applying U.S. law to foreign companies. That is unconstitutional. The U.S. cannot be allowed to enter a treaty that would abrogate our Constitution.

This tribunal needs to be removed from this agreement, and no foreign company doing business on our soil should have a competitive advantage, created by some dumb agreement, over American companies. What is Obama thinking? He is placing international organizations above the interests of our own country. [Emphases in original.]



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11736-tpp-secret-trade-agreement-puts-international-tribunal-above-us-law


Less regulations if you're a big corporation based in some other country... but you and I? Spring water in our own back yard gets regulated by the EPA.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 09:07 PM
presence said it better than I could, so...

To contribute: Hey, you folks that work with Rand Paul and lurk here, keeping a pulse on the roots (I hope you're here, I hope you lurk) - are you listening?

I don't work for him. I'm just a supporter. But I don't see why you and others don't just call his office and voice your opposition to his position on this, and ask why he supports it. Maybe if he got enough push back from members of the liberty movement on this he would be open to changing his position.

phill4paul
11-09-2014, 09:08 PM
Stand with Rand! He's our man!! Yay, Rand!

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/022011/1297772586_cheerleader-backflip-fail.gif

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 09:08 PM
Mercantilism in trade agreement rules...



There you go. That's the word we're looking for here. We tend to confuse mercantilism with a free market. Or simply never knew what mercantilism was and just reffered to it's function as a free market system. It is not. What Mercantilism does is that it protects these folks from the free market. And we are beginning to see these monopolies pen legislation and try to enforce it by way of our very own representatives that they're lobbying at the domestic level.

Alas, I must spread some rep around, presence. Sorry...

Brett85
11-09-2014, 09:09 PM
I've contacted his office before when he's said something that I didn't agree with, when he gave an interview on CNN where he sounded pretty soft on the abortion issue. A day after I called, Rand's office put out a statement clarifying what Rand said in the CNN interview and his position on abortion.

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 09:14 PM
I've contacted his office before when he's said something that I didn't agree with, when he gave an interview on CNN where he sounded pretty soft on the abortion issue. A day after I called, Rand's office put out a statement clarifying what Rand said in the CNN interview and his position on abortion.

Yeah, this isn't cookie cutter stuff where we can just tell you what you want to hear and send you on yer way, tc. This is big boy stuff. Global consequences. Domestic too but you get the idea.

presence
11-09-2014, 09:14 PM
How a WTO challenge of a U.S. state or federal law works:

The other 152 WTO signatory countries are empowered to challenge nonconforming federal and state policies as a violation of the international trade agreement before trade tribunals in a binding dispute resolution system.

State government officials have no standing before these tribunals and thus must rely on federal officials to defend a challenged policy.

The tribunals are staffed by trade officials who are empowered to judge if state policy violates WTO requirements.

Policies judged to violate the rules must be changed, or trade sanctions can be imposed.

The federal government is obliged to use all constitutionally available powers – for instance preemptive legislation, lawsuits and cutting off funding – to force state and local governments
to comply with trade tribunal rulings.http://www.citizen.org/documents/sovereigntyfactsheet09.pdf

presence
11-09-2014, 09:18 PM
http://www.bloggerme.com.au/files/images/tpp-thug.jpg

presence
11-09-2014, 09:19 PM
Indonesia has just announced (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3755c1b2-b4e2-11e3-af92-00144feabdc0.html) that it is terminating over 60 bi-lateral trade agreements due to its concerns about ISDS clauses in those agreements.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 09:20 PM
Yeah, this isn't cookie cutter stuff where we can just tell you what you want to hear and send you on yer way, tc. This is big boy stuff. Global consequences. Domestic too but you get the idea.

I would think he could at least explain in detail why he supports the TPP agreement.

jjdoyle
11-09-2014, 09:28 PM
I would think he could at least explain in detail why he supports the TPP agreement.

He can't explain in detail voting on giving Israel several hundred million dollars in foreign aid, the only thing he could say that is honest is, "I'm pandering for votes in 2016, and trying to ward off attacks I know are coming."

I would expect the same response here. So much for being such a great constitutional orator.

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 09:28 PM
I would think he could at least explain in detail why he supports the TPP agreement.

Yep. How much attention to detail any given explanation would contain is the question, TC. Those are dangerous waters to tread. No? Folks who are asking for an explanation about this particular thing aren't your average mundanes. Foreign Policy is a big deal for most folks who are active these days and those folks have a rather firm grasp. Of course, there are domestic repercussions which we've mentioned minimally. And so that is what it is and I'll leave it at that.

If it's worth anything, I'm rooting for him. Let's hear it.

Brett85
11-09-2014, 09:38 PM
He can't explain in detail voting on giving Israel several hundred million dollars in foreign aid, the only thing he could say that is honest is, "I'm pandering for votes in 2016, and trying to ward off attacks I know are coming."

I would expect the same response here. So much for being such a great constitutional orator.

I think he's explained that. He's explained that the position he's taken is that we should give out foreign aid to Israel as long as we're giving out aid to Israel's enemies. He doesn't want to cut off aid to Israel before we cut off aid to Israel's enemies. He's said that we should cut off aid to Israel's enemies and countries that are hostile to us first, and then eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel as well. Even his position that we should eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel is going to be seen as controversial and will be used against him in the GOP primary.

presence
11-09-2014, 09:38 PM
no investment treaty allows other parties who have an interest in the dispute,
other than the claimant investor and respondent government,
to obtain standing in the adjudicative process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement



Currently, the legal protection of Foreign Direct Investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Direct_Investment) under public international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law) is guaranteed by a network of more than 2750 bilateral investment treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_Investment_Treaty) (BITs), Multilateral Investment Treaties, most notably the Energy Charter Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Charter_Treaty) and number of Free Trade Agreements such as NAFTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA) containing a chapter on investment protection. Most of these treaties were signed by states in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before the current explosion of investor claims under the treaties began in the last 1990s.


The majority of these legal instruments provides foreign investors with a substantive legal protection (including the right to "fair and equitable treatment", "full protection and security", "free transfer of means" and the right not be directly or indirectly expropriated without full compensation) and access to ISDS for redress against Host States for breaches of such protection.



The "old fashioned" sovereign way?


Under customary international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law)

a state can vindicate injury caused to its nation by the host state by exercising diplomatic protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_protection),

which may include retorsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retorsion) and/or reprisals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisals).


consular action, negotiations with the other State, political and economic pressure, judicial or arbitral proceedings or other forms of

peaceful dispute settlement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_protection

jjdoyle
11-09-2014, 10:16 PM
I think he's explained that. He's explained that the position he's taken is that we should give out foreign aid to Israel as long as we're giving out aid to Israel's enemies. He doesn't want to cut off aid to Israel before we cut off aid to Israel's enemies. He's said that we should cut off aid to Israel's enemies and countries that are hostile to us first, and then eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel as well. Even his position that we should eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel is going to be seen as controversial and will be used against him in the GOP primary.

Rand is for continuing to make us less safe, by continuing to give foreign aid to a country that doesn't need it, and possibly even knew about us being attacked on 9/11 and kept it to themselves. It's a stupid position, and completely inexplicable to someone from a logical and reasonable position.
And let's not forget the fact that Israel was (and probably IS) spying on us.

I would say Israel views us as hostile, why else didn't they warn us about 9/11 and why were they spying on us? Israel should be at the top of the list as far as I can see to be defunded. Rand's positions on this are garbage, and not constitutional, and even much less conservative.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 10:19 PM
I would expect the same response here

I don't think so. We're dealing with an entirely different demographic here. Historically we like to place all of our eggs in one basket and refer to that basket as the base in whole in the grassroots movement and then we model our memes conforming to our perception of said base. That's no longer the case when we get into something like this. There is a HUGE libertarian leaning demographic out there to be had who have relatively firm grasp on how the world is working at the moment and, really, I just don't think they know it. Seems like they just assume everyone is uninformed and reside in that basket with the other egges. Uh-uh. Nope. Not true. But we continue to get the "focus on the black vote", "focus on the Hispanic vote", focus on this cookie cutter issue or that one model in a way that stimulates a usual or generic political response from our representatives. Have to pay attention to trends. It's important. Especially along the lines of media viewership. People are turning off legacy/corporate media and questioning more elsewhere. So there is a different model trending hard and heavy. It's real. It exists. As well, they'll be the folks who just show up to vote. No debating the issue(s) on social networks or tweeting memes or any of that pablum. And it's a dangerous phenomenon for both establishment parties given the fact that they both want to ram this thing through. Even though, technically, I believe that it's impossible given the geo-political state of affairs at the moment.

idiom
11-09-2014, 11:03 PM
Why is America basically the only country that consumes High Fructose Corn Syrup? Because "free" trade has made sugar insanely expensive.

There are like 4 states you are not allowed to buy a Tesla in due to state protectionism of dealers.

Americans wouldn't know freedom if it bit them in their red white and blue.

H. E. Panqui
11-09-2014, 11:08 PM
Acptulsa riffs: After all, those with money don't care what happens to the value of that money, because they can afford to pay brokerage fees to buy stocks, and they can afford to pay the brokerage fees to convert those stocks to bonds and/or gold when the time is right. If they do care about the value of that money, they generally want it to get devalued, as you said in your second paragraph, so the wages they pay are degraded. And there's nothing more 'stoooooooooooid' than denying that their favorite way to create those 'monetary slaves' is to debase the currency in which they are paid.

:eek:

(lol! ...maybe he ^^^studied at the Aqua-Buddha School of Socio-Economics! I was merely trying to point out the fact that when most people possess/control some key 'commodity,' etc., they tend to want to limit the supply...for example, do you think people who possess law degrees/BAR approval or medical licenses want more or less new people acquiring said occupational licenses?...do you think people who possess an apple orchard want more or less new apple orchards/owners springing up?...now again, do you think people who possess lots of money TEND to want more or less new money created?..)

"If you don't know what the difference is between wealth and money, I've got good news and bad news for you. The good news is you've found the right place to get educated. The bad news is you've found the wrong place to lord your allegedly great knowledge and wisdom over the unwashed masses."

:rolleyes:

"Wealth" is another squishy, subjective Republicrat term...like 'value,' etc..What isn't squishy and subjective is the hideous reality of money creation and issuance here in Republicratville...and unfortunately I sense you are yet another in a looooooooooong line who can't even honestly describe/answer basics such as, "What is it we use as money?" How is it created and destroyed? etc..In other words, you yack about illion-'dollar' economic issues absent an honest understanding of the origin and nature of even one 'dollar.' Don't you think?

H. E. Panqui
11-09-2014, 11:21 PM
Traditional Conservative Rands: A day after I called, Rand's office put out a statement clarifying what Rand said in the CNN interview and his position on abortion.


(Oh goody, finally i can get an answer...Somewhat precisely, what abortion laws does he want enacted and what does he want for penalties for violation of his laws?)

GunnyFreedom
11-09-2014, 11:28 PM
Why is America basically the only country that consumes High Fructose Corn Syrup? Because "free" trade has made sugar insanely expensive.

There are like 4 states you are not allowed to buy a Tesla in due to state protectionism of dealers.

Americans wouldn't know freedom if it bit them in their red white and blue.

I use Muscovado and Turbadino in my coffee and wouldn't touch corn syrup if you paid me. Well, unless they use any of it making old Kentucky Bourbon. For that I would make an exception.

Natural Citizen
11-09-2014, 11:31 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by H. E. Panquihttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5696220#post5696220)

Traditional Conservative Rands:A day after I called, Rand's office put out a statement clarifying what Rand said in the CNN interview and his position on abortion.

(Oh goody, finally i can get an answer...Somewhat precisely, what abortion laws does he want enacted and what does he want for penalties for violation of his laws?)




Acptulsa riffs: After all, those with money don't care what happens to the value of that money, because they can afford to pay brokerage fees to buy stocks, and they can afford to pay the brokerage fees to convert those stocks to bonds and/or gold when the time is right. If they do care about the value of that money, they generally want it to get devalued, as you said in your second paragraph, so the wages they pay are degraded. And there's nothing more 'stoooooooooooid' than denying that their favorite way to create those 'monetary slaves' is to debase the currency in which they are paid.

:eek:

(lol! ...maybe he ^^^studied at the Aqua-Buddha School of Socio-Economics! I was merely trying to point out the fact that when most people possess/control some key 'commodity,' etc., they tend to want to limit the supply...for example, do you think people who possess law degrees/BAR approval or medical licenses want more or less new people acquiring said occupational licenses?...do you think people who possess an apple orchard want more or less new apple orchards/owners springing up?...now again, do you think people who possess lots of money TEND to want more or less new money created?..)

"If you don't know what the difference is between wealth and money, I've got good news and bad news for you. The good news is you've found the right place to get educated. The bad news is you've found the wrong place to lord your allegedly great knowledge and wisdom over the unwashed masses."

:rolleyes:

"Wealth" is another squishy, subjective Republicrat term...like 'value,' etc..What isn't squishy and subjective is the hideous reality of money creation and issuance here in Republicratville...and unfortunately I sense you are yet another in a looooooooooong line who can't even honestly describe/answer basics such as, "What is it we use as money?" How is it created and destroyed? etc..In other words, you yack about illion-'dollar' economic issues absent an honest understanding of the origin and nature of even one 'dollar.' Don't you think?


This stuff is really off topic. And the crap of it is that once we insert cookie cutter stuff into this discussion we stimulate responses that turn into sticks and stones and that further stimulate less meaningful dialogue which then buries the subject at hand. It disrupts the terms of controversy. And then it gets moved to Hot Topics. So....stop it, please.

H. E. Panqui
11-10-2014, 12:11 AM
This stuff is really off topic.

:rolleyes:

I was merely responding to some poorly-thought-out assertions...sorry if it causes you any distress..

But, in reality, most/all political issues, SURELY including this one, revolve around 'money'...and i believe the reality is that VERY VERY VERY few, if any, Rand Paul supporters, or any other Republicrats here, have any honest understandings as to even the basics of 'their' stinking rotten money system...the rottenness/insanity of 'our' money system trumps/supercedes all issues 'economic'...it seems to me talking about these other relatively trivial economic issues when your unit of account has been debauched is really really stoooooooooooooooooooooooooopid...you 'flail at the leaves of the tree of evil, never striking the root$'...

GunnyFreedom
11-10-2014, 12:20 AM
This stuff is really off topic.

:rolleyes:

I was merely responding to some poorly-thought-out assertions...sorry if it causes you any distress..

But, in reality, most/all political issues, SURELY including this one, revolve around 'money'...and i believe the reality is that VERY VERY VERY few, if any, Rand Paul supporters, or any other Republicrats here, have any honest understandings as to even the basics of 'their' stinking rotten money system...the rottenness/insanity of 'our' money system trumps/supercedes all issues 'economic'...it seems to me talking about these other relatively trivial economic issues when your unit of account has been debauched is really really stoooooooooooooooooooooooooopid...you 'flail at the leaves of the tree of evil, never striking the root$'...

Pretty sure the folks here understand monetary policy and the current problems with the Federal Reserve. If anybody in the uiverse understands it, it's the people on these forums. You may be barking up a tree frog that turns out to be just gas.

devil21
11-10-2014, 03:37 AM
Obama is on a TPP promotion trip right now. NBC News pieces on the trip tonite all called him "Mr. Obama" instead of President.....

H. E. Panqui
11-10-2014, 07:46 AM
GUNNYFREEDOM, I took the liberty of using your last comment to me over at my exciting new thread, "Exposing Republicrat Monetary Ignorance...."..I laid out a simple challenge there...thank-you for encouraging focused debate...

limequat
11-10-2014, 11:04 AM
I'm getting a little tired of the way this forum is ready to crucify Rand after every little soundbite. Dude's in campaign mode. He's gonna say some repulsive things. He even gonna DO some repulsive things.
This I know: Rand has been working in the liberty movement since I've been in diapers. I know he's the real deal because I've seen his videos when he was campaigning for Ron. I know he's the real deal because the Establishment came out HARD against him in his senate race. I know he's the real deal because he almost made the DOE cry over low flow toilets. I know he's the real deal because he came out swinging against some big names like Janet Yellen, David Barron, and John Brennan.
Rand Paul is the Christ of politics. He's doing the work that is so disgusting and filthy, that none of us will do it. It's going to take some lying, some cheating, and all around nastiness - while we sit behind our keyboards and act pious.
Rand Paul sold out the liberty movement? Christ on a cracker, Rand *IS* the liberty movement. He is our Trojan horse. If anybody wants to try the direct method talk to Ron Paul and see how that works out.

jmdrake
11-10-2014, 01:52 PM
Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

Let me get this straight. You trust Barack Obama over Pat Buchannan? Because, like it or not, Obama is president and will be doing the negotiation on this crap. Goodness, don't be stupid! Don't blindly follow anyone! Peter Thiel, member of the Bilderberg group, gives "our cause" a bunch of money. All of a sudden being anti Bilderberg is a problem. (Never mind some years ago they supposedly didn't exist). And now Rand's maybe supporting a global managed trade agenda, something Ron has always been against, and we're supposed to support it because it's Rand?

jmdrake
11-10-2014, 01:54 PM
I'm getting a little tired of the way this forum is ready to crucify Rand after every little soundbite. Dude's in campaign mode. He's gonna say some repulsive things. He even gonna DO some repulsive things.

Yeah. But what this? How is supporting another farce trade deal going to help him in the primaries when most Tea Party types are against NAFTA?

jmdrake
11-10-2014, 01:56 PM
This stuff is really off topic.

:rolleyes:

I was merely responding to some poorly-thought-out assertions...sorry if it causes you any distress..

But, in reality, most/all political issues, SURELY including this one, revolve around 'money'...and i believe the reality is that VERY VERY VERY few, if any, Rand Paul supporters, or any other Republicrats here, have any honest understandings as to even the basics of 'their' stinking rotten money system...the rottenness/insanity of 'our' money system trumps/supercedes all issues 'economic'...it seems to me talking about these other relatively trivial economic issues when your unit of account has been debauched is really really stoooooooooooooooooooooooooopid...you 'flail at the leaves of the tree of evil, never striking the root$'...

Leaves feed roots. Kudzu is the hardest weed in the world to kill. You can kill it by digging up the roots (very hard) or you can kill it by cutting off it's food supply through covering up its leaves with black plastic (very easy). A word to the wise is sufficient.

Carlybee
11-10-2014, 02:56 PM
I'm getting a little tired of the way this forum is ready to crucify Rand after every little soundbite. Dude's in campaign mode. He's gonna say some repulsive things. He even gonna DO some repulsive things.
This I know: Rand has been working in the liberty movement since I've been in diapers. I know he's the real deal because I've seen his videos when he was campaigning for Ron. I know he's the real deal because the Establishment came out HARD against him in his senate race. I know he's the real deal because he almost made the DOE cry over low flow toilets. I know he's the real deal because he came out swinging against some big names like Janet Yellen, David Barron, and John Brennan.
Rand Paul is the Christ of politics. He's doing the work that is so disgusting and filthy, that none of us will do it. It's going to take some lying, some cheating, and all around nastiness - while we sit behind our keyboards and act pious.
Rand Paul sold out the liberty movement? Christ on a cracker, Rand *IS* the liberty movement. He is our Trojan horse. If anybody wants to try the direct method talk to Ron Paul and see how that works out.


Whoa...hyperbole much? The "Christ" of politics? Next you'll be calling him The Messiah.

Natural Citizen
11-10-2014, 03:05 PM
Whoa...hyperbole much? The "Christ" of politics? Next you'll be calling him The Messiah.

Yeah, I bit my tongue and didn't respond to that. I wanted to, though. Heh. Is very brave to say something like that among folks here given the pride that people have in the movement in whole and what they have done to advance in synergy. Ron, through his own voice, was very clear to say and understand that it was never about him, the man, and that it never would be. To assume otherwise, as was shown in that post with regard to Paul junior and the liberty movement being about him and him alone, is guaranteed fail and we would do well to acknowledge this.

helmuth_hubener
11-10-2014, 04:26 PM
Unless you can demonstrate someone advocating high tariffs, spare us the insulting strawman arguments.

"If I had my way, I'd do four things:

Slap a 30% import duty on everything." -- Anti Federalist, May 23rd, 2014.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?452245-A-neutral-look-at-police-brutality-What-the-police-have-to-say-Graph&p=5540184&viewfull=1#post5540184

devil21
11-10-2014, 04:31 PM
Whoa...hyperbole much? The "Christ" of politics? Next you'll be calling him The Messiah.

Yeah that's hyperbole but it's also true in the sense that Rand is as close to 'taking the next step', politically, as this movement is going to get for the foreseeable future. He is a game changer.

limequat
11-10-2014, 09:46 PM
Whoa...hyperbole much? The "Christ" of politics? Next you'll be calling him The Messiah.

Jesus went to hell to pay for our sins (allegedly). Rand is going through hell to pay for our freedom. This is what I meant by the "Christ of Politics".

Carlybee
11-10-2014, 09:57 PM
Jesus went to hell to pay for our sins (allegedly). Rand is going through hell to pay for our freedom. This is what I meant by the "Christ of Politics".

I wouldn't use that metaphor. We really don't know what he's going through, his motivations, his thoughts etc. He 's already made some compromises on freedom that he may not be able to take back. Unless you are somehow privy to information that we aren't. I think most people understand the game playing aspect, but comparing it in any way to the crucifixion of Christ is a bit over the top.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 05:47 AM
I wouldn't use that metaphor. We really don't know what he's going through, his motivations, his thoughts etc. He 's already made some compromises on freedom that he may not be able to take back. Unless you are somehow privy to information that we aren't. I think most people understand the game playing aspect, but comparing it in any way to the crucifixion of Christ is a bit over the top.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carlybee again.

^This. I can't stand the hero worship aspect of the Obama cult where everything wrong he does is explained away by "the republicans made him do it" or some other lame excuse. I haven't yet asked any of my Obama supporting friends what they think about him sending troops back to Iraq. Anyway, back to Rand. I support the "Frodo" analogy. Frodo and Sam disguised themselves as orcs to sneak into Morodor and destroy the ring of power. Gandalf and the rest of the fellowship did a frontal assault to distract the enemy from Frodo's infiltration. Ron is Gandalf. Rand is Frodo. Jesse Benton is either Sam or Gollum, I'm not sure which.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 05:50 AM
I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.

Ron Paul has spoken out against this agreement. Do you trust Ron or Rand more?

Rand Paul spoke out against this agreement in 2013. Do you trust Rand or Rand more?

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 06:00 AM
I've contacted his office before when he's said something that I didn't agree with, when he gave an interview on CNN where he sounded pretty soft on the abortion issue. A day after I called, Rand's office put out a statement clarifying what Rand said in the CNN interview and his position on abortion.

http://i.imgur.com/ZnqQ5.gif

Good for you. I hope you will educate yourself enough on the TPP to understand that tacit support for it is just as bad as being soft on abortion. Seriously. The TPP is worse than high tariffs. It's giving up (more) national sovereignty.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 06:11 AM
I'm glad I'm not a purist. I don't think I could ever support a politician for any political office if I had to agree with them on every single issue in order to support them.

Is there any one issue that Rand could lose you on? If Rand said "I fully support a woman's right to choose and will never try to undermine Roe v. Wade" would you still support him? Oh I know you'd call his office, but would you still support him? Say if Rand said "While I support the 2nd amendment, we have to stop these mass shootings. Therefore I support mandatory GPS tracking for all newly manufactured guns." Would you still support him then? I get that this issue isn't as important to you as others. But if there isn't some issue that you're not willing to compromise on then you need to re-examine yourself.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 06:18 AM
So where are all of the comments about how Justin Amash is a sellout and can no longer be supported? He has the same position as Rand on this.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

"Here's the roll call for H R 3078, United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. The bill approves the text of the trade agreement and makes corresponding changes to U.S. customs law. Like the other trade agreements in this vote series, the Colombia agreement reduces government interference in trade. The agreement does not move as quickly as I'd prefer, but it's a good first step. It will ensure that our producers have a level playing field when selling in Colombia while also giving Americans access to a greater variety of products and services. I voted yes. It passed 262-167."

I take it you don't understand the difference between a bilateral trade agreement and a multilateral trade agreement? One inevitably includes some new international governing body. The other most often does not.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 06:44 AM
If tariffs were the only means of supporting a limited central government, like the constitution states, and income and corprate and "user" taxes were eliminated, bet your ass I would be in favor of tariffs.

What I am not in favor of is ceding even more regulatory authority to foreign interests.

We already have enough "Regulation without Representation".

I agree. External taxation >>>>> internal taxation. I've made this argument before but some here have drunk too long on the fake free trade kool aid to get it. Imagine a world where internal taxes were zero. No IRS to hassle you about your income. No sales tax enforcers to hassle you about your sales. No interface with the gubbit revenoors until you were ready to import something, and then the guy from the other country is having to do the interfacing. Arguably a much freer world. But what we have is increasing internal taxes and regulations (internet sales taxes are on the horizon as is "tax by mile" highway taxes) coupled with the idea that we must "free" the rest of the world. I will say this. I know it's an unpopular opinion around here. But it's interesting that in the war between the states, the states with the slave labor force were the "free traders". Why are there no serious proposals about internal free trade?

GunnyFreedom
11-11-2014, 07:19 AM
To be fair, of course, if you actually look at the words Rand actually SAID, you can't really tell whether he supports the TPP or NOT. I generally like TNA, but this article and headline is pretty misleading.

specsaregood
11-11-2014, 07:42 AM
To be fair, of course, if you actually look at the words Rand actually SAID, you can't really tell whether he supports the TPP or NOT. I generally like TNA, but this article and headline is pretty misleading.

That's pretty much the modus operandi around these parts, read an article and attribute what the writer said to Randal saying it.

Brett85
11-11-2014, 08:06 AM
Let me get this straight. You trust Barack Obama over Pat Buchannan? Because, like it or not, Obama is president and will be doing the negotiation on this crap. Goodness, don't be stupid! Don't blindly follow anyone! Peter Thiel, member of the Bilderberg group, gives "our cause" a bunch of money. All of a sudden being anti Bilderberg is a problem. (Never mind some years ago they supposedly didn't exist). And now Rand's maybe supporting a global managed trade agenda, something Ron has always been against, and we're supposed to support it because it's Rand?

Well, you support Paul Krugman over Rand Paul on this. As someone else pointed earlier, practically all of the hardcore "progressives" oppose the TPP.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 08:23 AM
Well, you support Paul Krugman over Rand Paul on this. As someone else pointed earlier, practically all of the hardcore "progressives" oppose the TPP.

And you support Barack Obama and Rand Paul over Ron Paul and Rand Paul. I'll take Ron Paul and (last year's) Rand Paul. :rolleyes:

presence
11-11-2014, 08:43 AM
krugman on TPP for reference


The Opinion Pages (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html) | Op-Ed Columnist

No Big Deal

FEB. 27, 2014

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/10/30/opinion/krugman-new-1114/krugman-new-1114-thumbLarge.jpg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html)
Paul Krugman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html)


Everyone knows that the Obama administration’s domestic economic agenda is stalled in the face of scorched-earth opposition from Republicans. And that’s a bad thing: The U.S. economy would be in much better shape if Obama administration proposals like the American Jobs Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act) had become law.

It’s less well known that the administration’s international economic agenda is also stalled, for very different reasons. In particular, the centerpiece of that agenda — the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or T.P.P. — doesn’t seem to be making much progress, thanks to a combination of negotiating difficulties abroad and bipartisan skepticism at home.

And you know what? That’s O.K. It’s far from clear that the T.P.P. is a good idea. It’s even less clear that it’s something on which President Obama should be spending political capital. I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away.

The first thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that they aren’t what they used to be. The glory days of trade negotiations — the days of deals like the Kennedy Round of the 1960s (http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm), which sharply reduced tariffs around the world — are long behind us.

Why? Basically, old-fashioned trade deals are a victim of their own success: there just isn’t much more protectionism to eliminate. Average U.S. tariff rates have fallen (http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/AVE.PDF) by two-thirds since 1960. The most recent report (http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4440.pdf) on American import restraints by the International Trade Commission puts their total cost at less than 0.01 percent of G.D.P.

Implicit protection of services — rules and regulations that have the effect of, say, blocking foreign competition in insurance — surely impose additional costs. But the fact remains that, these days, “trade agreements” are mainly about other things. What they’re really about, in particular, is property rights — things like the ability to enforce patents on drugs and copyrights on movies. And so it is with T.P.P.

There’s a lot of hype about T.P.P., from both supporters and opponents. Supporters like to talk about the fact that the countries at the negotiating table comprise around 40 percent of the world economy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/), which they imply means that the agreement would be hugely significant. But trade among these players is already fairly free, so the T.P.P. wouldn’t make that much difference.

Meanwhile, opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy.

What the T.P.P. would do, however, is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think drug patents and movie rights.

Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of property rights we’re talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies. True, temporary monopolies are, in fact, how we reward new ideas; but arguing that we need even more monopolization is very dubious — and has nothing at all to do with classical arguments for free trade.

Now, the corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But this doesn’t mean that the T.P.P. is in our national interest. What’s good for Big Pharma is by no means always good for America.

In short, there isn’t a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view. Nor does there seem to be anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home.

Abroad, the news from the latest meeting of negotiators (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/02/trans-pacific-partnership-0) sounds like what you usually hear when trade talks are going nowhere: assertions of forward movement but nothing substantive. At home, both Harry Reid (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/harry-reid-barack-obama-trade-deals-102819.html), the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/198297-pelosi-comes-out-against-fast-track-bill), the top Democrat in the House, have come out against giving the president crucial “fast-track” authority, meaning that any agreement can receive a clean, up-or-down vote.

So what I wonder is why the president is pushing the T.P.P. at all. The economic case is weak, at best, and his own party doesn’t like it. Why waste time and political capital on this project?

My guess is that we’re looking at a combination of Beltway conventional wisdom — Very Serious People always support entitlement cuts and trade deals — and officials caught in a 1990s time warp, still living in the days when New Democrats tried to prove that they weren’t old-style liberals by going all in for globalization. Whatever the motivations, however, the push for T.P.P. seems almost weirdly out of touch with both economic and political reality.

So don’t cry for T.P.P. If the big trade deal comes to nothing, as seems likely, it will be, well, no big deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0




Krugman's essential point is that supporting TPP is pandering to Hollywood, Big-Pharma, etal. interests in global "legal monopolies" on intellectual property. It has very little to do with tariff reduction.

He also concedes to "Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions"; which is my primary concern. I do NOT believe Foreign Corporations should have ANY legal recourse in "International Law" against our government beyond diplomatic negotiations, or domestic court proceedings.

specsaregood
11-11-2014, 08:48 AM
And you support Barack Obama and Rand Paul over Ron Paul and Rand Paul. I'll take Ron Paul and (last year's) Rand Paul. :rolleyes:

Maybe I missed the reference, can you cite for me where this year's Sen. Paul is different from last years Sen. Paul on this subject?

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 09:36 AM
krugman on TPP for reference

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0




Krugman's essential point is that supporting TPP is pandering to Hollywood, Big-Pharma, etal. interests in global "legal monopolies" on intellectual property. It has very little to do with tariff reduction.

He also concedes to "Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions"; which is my primary concern. I do NOT believe Foreign Corporations should have ANY legal recourse in "International Law" against our government beyond diplomatic negotiations, or domestic court proceedings.

After reading this it sounds like Krugman is being more libertarian than some RPFers on this issue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 09:42 AM
Maybe I missed the reference, can you cite for me where this year's Sen. Paul is different from last years Sen. Paul on this subject?

I posted that yesterday and you commented. If your point is that Rand is vague enough each time that anyone can read into it whatever, then fine. That said his emphasis last year was on slowing things down by denying fast track approval. His emphasis this year is on Obama making "negotiating this" a priority. Well...fast track authority would make this treaty a priority for Obama. (After all, you don't get "fast track" approval from Congress and then sit on it.)

Anyway, my main point is that the idea put forward by Traditional Conservative that somehow if you are against the TPP you are "progressive" just because some progressives are against the TPP is idiotic. As someone else just pointed out, Krugman really isn't all that against the TPP. He's just shown some mild skepticism of it. So if anything, Rand is siding with Krugman.

CaptUSA
11-11-2014, 09:44 AM
After reading this it sounds like Krugman is being more libertarian than some RPFers on this issue.


Seems like you might need to check your premises. All the economic socialists are against this thing. Krugman always disguises his one-world socialist central-planning in "love of the free market".

This has to make you laugh:
I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away.

specsaregood
11-11-2014, 09:54 AM
I posted that yesterday and you commented. If your point is that Rand is vague enough each time that anyone can read into it whatever, then fine. That said his emphasis last year was on slowing things down by denying fast track approval. His emphasis this year is on Obama making "negotiating this" a priority. Well...fast track authority would make this treaty a priority for Obama. (After all, you don't get "fast track" approval from Congress and then sit on it.)


Actually I reread that WND article this morning and there isn't a single quote or statement from Randal on the subject of this treaty. I doubt he would approve fast track, and I disagree with the implication that making something a priority means giving it fast track authority.

Deborah K
11-11-2014, 10:01 AM
There were several people on this thread promoting a Pat Buchanan article where he used protectionist rhetoric. I've also seen comments from a lot of people here that trade agreements cost Americans jobs. That's a protectionist argument and an argument against free trade.

But don't you see? It's "free trade" according to the multinational corporations at the expense of our sovereignty? How does that make the individual the winner?

presence
11-11-2014, 10:12 AM
One of the most fundamental questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction


ISDS gives international tribunals supreme "Jurisdiction" over international trade disputes; the only parties with standing before the tribunal are the complaintant corporation and the defending nation.


Without ISDS Federal, State, and Local courts retain "Jurisdiction" over international trade disputes; any party with interest has standing. Complaintant corporations can also pursue consular action.

Deborah K
11-11-2014, 10:41 AM
Seems like you might need to check your premises. All the economic socialists are against this thing. Krugman always disguises his one-world socialist central-planning in "love of the free market".

This has to make you laugh:

I cringe at the thought of agreeing with Krugman on anything. But is it, or is it not true that this would take authority away from congress and our court system, and put it into the hands of an international court system which would circumvent our sovereignty?

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 10:44 AM
Seems like you might need to check your premises. All the economic socialists are against this thing. Krugman always disguises his one-world socialist central-planning in "love of the free market".

This has to make you laugh:

Seems like you need to check what I actually wrote and respond to my actual point. The particular points Krugman was making against the TPP, that it expands government imposed copyright protection to be international, is a typical libertarian talking point. That said Krugman is no more "against" the TPP than Rand (apparently) is.

specsaregood
11-11-2014, 10:45 AM
I cringe at the thought of agreeing with Krugman on anything. But is it, or is it not true that this would take authority away from congress and our court system, and put it into the hands of an international court system which would circumvent our sovereignty?

Just for the sake of debate, anytime you have an agreement between two parties, you want to have a neutral 3rd party to sit as judge/mediator if there is a dispute over the agreement, yes? Where else should a dispute over an international agreement be judged than an international court system?