Ted Cruz poopstorm on FR (TPP)

[carlton]

Cruz just lost me!


2 posted on 6/11/2015, 9:26:36 PM by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

He is doing the RINO rounds.

I'm betting he won't go near Mark Levin right now.

Levin would give him Hell over giving more power to Obama.

7 posted on 6/11/2015, 9:31:05 PM by P-Marlowe (Saying that ISIL is not Islamic is like saying Obama is not an Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Cruz is busy going DC bush.... No other way to hope to win the nomination.


11 posted on 6/11/2015, 9:33:37 PM by Paladin2 (Ive given up on aphostrophys and spell chek on my current device...)

I’ve been a Cruz guy, have Cruz sticker on my car, on my shoppe window, on my wife’s car, and mention my enthusiasm for him on my FR profile page. But this is big and this is upsetting. Jeff Sessions is the worst public speaker in the Senate but he is sincere on this and Cruz appears too flippant. Cruz should look hard before he leaps again on this issue.

When Cruz votes for this abolish-the-borders bill, he loses me.


20 posted on 6/11/2015, 9:39:08 PM by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3299431/posts?q=1&;page=1

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

LOL! This is Ted's "oops" moment.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Cruz and Walker's decision to support Obamatrade can only be because their donors support it.

I haven't been following this, but I hope Paul is against it. Would be a fantastic opening.

[William Tell]

Ted posted on Facebook about it, the comments are not happy.

https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/videos/vb.69983322463/10153361899317464/?type=2&theater

[Brett85]

There may be valid reasons to oppose this trade deal from a libertarian perspective, but the large amount of protectionist rhetoric that I'm hearing from libertarians and even many conservatives is concerning. Should libertarians oppose free trade among the states as well? There may be valid libertarian reasons to oppose this deal such as the loss of U.S sovereignty, but one of those reasons shouldn't be "concern over job losses" in the United States. Ted Cruz is more libertarian on this issue than those who oppose free trade agreements for protectionist reasons.

[luctor-et-emergo]

There may be valid reasons to oppose this trade deal from a libertarian perspective, but the large amount of protectionist rhetoric that I'm hearing from libertarians and even many conservatives is concerning. Should libertarians oppose free trade among the states as well? There may be valid libertarian reasons to oppose this deal such as the loss of U.S sovereignty, but one of those reasons shouldn't be "concern over job losses" in the United States. Ted Cruz is more libertarian on this issue than those who oppose free trade agreements for protectionist reasons.

It's not about free trade. Other free trade deals aren't purely about free trade but this one is even worse. This so called 'trade deal' is much more. This deal turns the ability of states to enact laws as they wish. This deal also makes the taxpayers of said states liable for damages to international businesses for a loss of revenue that they perceive from those laws. At least that's what I got from reading the available media.

So why wouldn't conservatives be against this as well ? Liberals and progressives even.

[Brett85]

It's not about free trade. Other free trade deals aren't purely about free trade but this one is even worse. This so called 'trade deal' is much more. This deal turns the ability of states to enact laws as they wish. This deal also makes the taxpayers of said states liable for damages to international businesses for a loss of revenue that they perceive from those laws. At least that's what I got from reading the available media.

So why wouldn't conservatives be against this as well ? Liberals and progressives even.

As I said, if that's true than that is concerning, and that seems to be a valid reason to be opposed to the TPP. I never said I was for it, but just that I don't like all of the comments I've read that oppose the TPP on protectionist grounds. If you read the comments on Cruz's Facebook page that William Tell posted, you will see some of those comments.

[AuH20]

If Rand was stronger on ilegal immigration and the corporate malfeasance which accompanies it, he would be running away with this. It wouldn't even be close. The rest of the field is so meh.

[ClydeCoulter]

As I said, if that's true than that is concerning, and that seems to be a valid reason to be opposed to the TPP. I never said I was for it, but just that I don't like all of the comments I've read that oppose the TPP on protectionist grounds. If you read the comments on Cruz's Facebook page that William Tell posted, you will see some of those comments.

Maybe @William Tell is using tactics and language that those people can understand...

[William Tell]

Maybe @William Tell is using tactics and language that those people can understand...

I just linked Ted Cruz official page. I haven't posted on it.

If I did though, I would try to use tactics and language they understand. :)

[Brian4Liberty]

From another thread. This was mentioned by Rep. Earl Blumenauer on C-Span today:


This is in the TPA bill:


Section 908: Sets out U.S. policy identifying the importance of the bilateral U.S.-Israel trade relationship. This section states that among the principal U.S. trade negotiating objectives for trade agreements with foreign countries are to discourage actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. The section requires the President to report annually to Congress on politically motivated acts of boycott against, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel.



Yippee! Free Trade!

Related:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?476040-The-quot-I-love-Israel-more-than-you-do-quot-contest

[givemeliberty2010]

There may be valid reasons to oppose this trade deal from a libertarian perspective, but the large amount of protectionist rhetoric that I'm hearing from libertarians and even many conservatives is concerning. Should libertarians oppose free trade among the states as well? There may be valid libertarian reasons to oppose this deal such as the loss of U.S sovereignty, but one of those reasons shouldn't be "concern over job losses" in the United States. Ted Cruz is more libertarian on this issue than those who oppose free trade agreements for protectionist reasons.I don't think U.S. sovereignty is a libertarian concern.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the TPP brings about a net reduction in government interventions in the economy (in all likelihood it will end some and implement others, so these have to be weighed), then I'd be for it.

Since we don't know for sure what the final details will be, I'm in favor of cautiously proceeding with the negotiations, and then judging the final deal on its merit (Congress will get to vote, contrary to some of the rhetoric going around).

So, I disagree with Rand's opposition to TPA, but it's a point on which reasonable libertarians can disagree, and it is definitely working for Rand politically.

[William Tell]

If the TPP brings about a net reduction in government interventions in the economy (in all likelihood it will end some and implement others, so these have to be weighed), then I'd be for it.

Since we don't know for sure what the final details will be, I'm in favor of cautiously proceeding with the negotiations, and then judging the final deal on its merit.

So, I disagree with Rand's opposition to TPA, but it's a point on which reasonable libertarians can disagree, and it is definitely working for Rand politically.

Why? if TPA passes, Obama gets to negotiate. And then Congress only gets an up or down vote, and I believe without the normal required 2 3rds majority needed for actual admitted treaties. There is no cautious way to proceed. Congress should tell Obama to go stuff himself, and then come back with antreaty to vote on if he wants.

You are essentially proposing they pass it to see what's in it, because once they give TPA authority its a done deal, just a matter of time.

[dannno]

As I said, if that's true than that is concerning, and that seems to be a valid reason to be opposed to the TPP. I never said I was for it, but just that I don't like all of the comments I've read that oppose the TPP on protectionist grounds. If you read the comments on Cruz's Facebook page that William Tell posted, you will see some of those comments.

Did you see Massie's speech on the TPP? He said that American meat producers will not be allowed to put "Made in the USA" on their own products to differentiate them from meat products that come from other countries, which will go UN-labelled as such.

[francisco]

I'm loving it, seeing Cruz and his lemming-like followers caught in a poopstorm. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing to behold!

[r3volution 3.0]

Why? if TPA passes, Obama gets to negotiate. And then Congress only gets an up or down vote, and I believe without the normal required 2 3rds majority needed for actual admitted treaties. There is no cautious way to proceed. Congress should tell Obama to go stuff himself, and then come back with a legit treaty to vote on if he wants.

I don't see the problem with a simple majority vote sans amendments.


You are essentially proposing they pass it to see what's in it, because once they give TPA authority its a done deal, just a matter of time.

As you just said yourself, if/when TPA passes, TPP still has to receive a majority vote in both houses. So I don't know what you mean.

[Brett85]

You are essentially proposing they pass it to see what's in it, because once they give TPA authority its a done deal, just a matter of time.

It's actually the exact opposite. TPA contains language forcing President Obama to publicly release the text of the deal two months before the deal is voted on. Without the TPA passing, President Obama would've had the authority to keep the deal a secret permanently and never allow Congress to see it before it was voted on.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why? if TPA passes, Obama gets to negotiate. And then Congress only gets an up or down vote, and I believe without the normal required 2 3rds majority needed for actual admitted treaties. There is no cautious way to proceed. Congress should tell Obama to go stuff himself, and then come back with antreaty to vote on if he wants.

You are essentially proposing they pass it to see what's in it, because once they give TPA authority its a done deal, just a matter of time.

"Fool me once, we won't get fooled again."

How many times have we been through this? "We'll just pass this one little thing (cloture or some procedural vote) and then we'll really fight it tomorrow." Next thing you know, it's passed, and Boehner, McConnell and friends are saying "well, we tried to stop it", while Obama, Reid and Pelosi laugh.

[William R]

If Rand was stronger on ilegal immigration and the corporate malfeasance which accompanies it, he would be running away with this. It wouldn't even be close. The rest of the field is so meh.

Yep you're right. Trying to please the Silicon Valley big donor crowd on immigration has not helped Rand.

[Brett85]

Yep you're right. Trying to please the Silicon Valley big donor crowd on immigration has not helped Rand.

Maybe Rand just believes in liberty on the immigration issue.

[William R]

Maybe Rand just believes in liberty on the immigration issue.

Immigration and liberty?? Who are you kidding??

[Cleaner44]

I hope we see Cruz drop in the polls. Rand will benefit.

[TaftFan]

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2015/06/13/obamatrade-ted-cruz-is-dangerously-wrong-about-trade-promotion-authority-tpa/

[William Tell]

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2015/06/13/obamatrade-ted-cruz-is-dangerously-wrong-about-trade-promotion-authority-tpa/

Lol, the mod there is attacking you as a Ron Paul supporter.

[TaftFan]

Lol, the mod there is attacking you as a Ron Paul supporter.

He's right. He is also an asshole. Yep, Neil Stevens is the absolute worst.

Almost every "Tech at Night" post he publishes (which no one reads) he includes a jab at Snowden for being a traitor.

[William Tell]

He's right. He is also an asshole. Yep, Neil Stevens is the absolute worst.

Almost every "Tech at Night" post he publishes (which no one reads) he includes a jab at Snowden for being a traitor.

Yeah. I guess he doesn't have the power to ban you.

[roho76]

Lol, the mod there is attacking you as a Ron Paul supporter.

With Cruz's remarks and his supporters retaliation I don't see why that a bad thing. If one things for sure, Ron Paul was consistent and most would agree with him if it wasn't for that rascally media that everyone gets their infotainment from. But the more and more that the paid apologists point to the "Ron Paul" guy, with the backdrop of wishy washy politicians and an unhappy base makes the ideas that they attack more attractive. The only reason I looked into Ron Paul more was because everyone else was attacking him, especially his own party. It's like the establishment knew he'd start a brush fire. And they were right. Rand is just the continuation of Rons campaign with better camouflage. They know this as well. And they're right.

[Christian Liberty]

If Rand was stronger on ilegal immigration and the corporate malfeasance which accompanies it, he would be running away with this. It wouldn't even be close. The rest of the field is so meh.

Or we could advocate the government follow Romans 13:4 and only criminalize things that are sinful :p

[Brett85]

Immigration and liberty?? Who are you kidding??

Immigration is very much a part of liberty. You wouldn't be here if your ancestors hadn't been allowed to immigrate to this country centuries ago.

[Christian Liberty]

Immigration is very much a part of liberty. You wouldn't be here if your ancestors hadn't been allowed to immigrate to this country centuries ago.

Its amazing how a lot of libertarians who can identify the problems with regulation anywhere else suddenly start falling for the "dang Mexicans be taking our jobs" logic.

[Jan2017]

LOL! This is Ted's "oops" moment.
ahem . . . Cruz "oops" moment 2.0 maybe.

This is future President Cruz on the floor of the upper house of Congress - the United States Senate -
in another "oops" moment immortalized on youtube and The Federal Register


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-4FQAov2xI

[Brett85]

Its amazing how a lot of libertarians who can identify the problems with regulation anywhere else suddenly start falling for the "dang Mexicans be taking our jobs" logic.

Yeah, and I'm not entirely with you on this issue as I'm not in favor of open borders and unrestricted immigration, but I do agree with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that legal immigration should be expanded. I'm in favor of policies like creating a guest worker program or expanding work VISA's. I consider myself to be a moderate on the immigration issue.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, and I'm not entirely with you on this issue as I'm not in favor of open borders and unrestricted immigration, but I do agree with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that legal immigration should be expanded. I'm in favor of policies like creating a guest worker program or expanding work VISA's. I consider myself to be a moderate on the immigration issue.

I just don't see a Biblical basis for being "moderate" on it or for any regulation at all. And its funny that a lot of the same people (this may or may not include you, dunno) would see things that the Bible actually does command, like laws against blasphemy or adultery, as being more anti-liberty than immigration restrictions which the Bible DOESN'T support.