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

[Natural Citizen]

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...

[Brett85]

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]

Ron, take your boy out to the woodshed and "adjust his attitude".

[sparebulb]

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.

$#@! your "free trade".

[thoughtomator]

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]

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]

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]

This is completely inexplicable.

[sparebulb]

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 isn't it?

[Brett85]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[H. E. Panqui]

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]

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]

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

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

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

[Natural Citizen]

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

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

[Brett85]

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

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

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

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

[jjdoyle]

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

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

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

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

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

[twomp]

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

[presence]

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

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


$#@! that.


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

[twomp]

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...iclei#section8

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

[presence]

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

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

[Brett85]

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

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

[Brett85]

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

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