Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: What is Rand Paul's position on the TPP?

  1. #1

    Default What is Rand Paul's position on the TPP?

    I know his father has strenuously denounced it.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    I had to find the answer for myself. Unfortunately, it appears he supports the TPP

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

  4. #3

    Default

    I really don't understand this position.

    There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

    He's getting a bunch of campaign money from Club for Growth, but they oppose it too.
    Last edited by milgram; 05-08-2015 at 11:17 PM.

  5. #4

    Default

    "prioritize negotiating", though he may have clarified since then.

    Here is a thread:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ic-Partnership

  6. #5

    Default

    He's opposed to the "fast track" method of passing an agreement, so maybe he's just playing this like he's playing the iran deal. Force a real vote to make it look good for the one side and possibly oppose the bill when it does come to a vote on the other hand.

    I mean, without "fast track" senators will be able to filibuster and offer amendments. Maybe that's what Rand wants a chance to do...offer some amendment.

    Maybe it's still too early to get mad about this one?
    Last edited by amartin315; 04-18-2015 at 12:03 PM.

  7. #6

    Default

    More on the TPP from the GMO labeling angle. I don't know much about Food Democracy Now, but I was sent this link because of my interest in seeing GMO foods labeled.

    ... the TPP could make make it illegal to label GMOs is the U.S. and Europe.
    ... so secret that most members of Congress have never even been allowed to read the details of the agreement.

    Source: Food Democracy Now

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milgram View Post
    I really don't understand this position.

    There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

    He's getting a bunch of campaign money from Club for Growth, but they oppose it too.
    Club for Growth supports TPP. They dinged him pretty hard for hedging on it in their white paper they just put out on Rand. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/scoreca...tor-rand-paul/

  9. #8

    Default

    I suppose the idea behind 'playing' issues such as TPP and Iran is to gain the support of the status quo who adhere to the 'mainstream' GOP talking points. Someone should have objected to this approach, because the reverse is also true. By appearing to support the 'mainstream' GOP talking points on issues such as the TPP and Iran, it costs a candidate the support of those who vehemently oppose globalism, imperialism and the agenda behind The Grand Chessboard / Pax Americana.

  10. #9

    Default

    Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama's trade pact
    By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
    5/4/2015

    If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

    If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.
    Story Continued Below

    And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.


    Read more here.
    The only criticism of the TPP in the article is from Dems. POLITICO is a highly partisan propaganda rag, but I've not heard any GOP criticize the TPP. One would think Rand and Ted would be out front on such criticism.

    Oh, that's right. Ted's wife, Heidi:
    Is or was a Goldman Sachs vice president in Houston.
    She served as an economic adviser for the Bush administration.
    According to a Cruz campaign spokesman, Heidi is “an expert on North American trade.”
    She was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
    In other words, Heidi is a card-carrying globalist up to her neck in the deindustrialization of the USA.

    But what is Rand's excuse other than this nebulous and ill-fated strategy of 'playing' the system?

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    The only criticism of the TPP in the article is from Dems. POLITICO is a highly partisan propaganda rag, but I've not heard any GOP criticize the TPP. One would think Rand and Ted would be out front on such criticism.

    But what is Rand's excuse other than this nebulous and ill-fated strategy of 'playing' the system?
    Maybe you should ask yourself why it tends to be liberals who oppose it.

    You might also consider another possibility instead of immediately thinking it is some Goldman Sachs conspiracy theory. Maybe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz support it because they believe reducing tariffs is a good thing. The issue of breaking down trade barriers was settled in the 1700's by Adam Smith.

  12. #11

    Default

    In the last interview he had with Laura Ingraham, Rand seemed a bit wary of the TPP. I sure hope he votes against it.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  13. #12

    Default

    How can Rand be for or against it if he doesn't know the details?

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    How can Rand be for or against it if he doesn't know the details?
    How could he even begin to be favorable towards it if he doesn't know the details?

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Maybe you should ask yourself why it tends to be liberals who oppose it.

    You might also consider another possibility instead of immediately thinking it is some Goldman Sachs conspiracy theory. Maybe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz support it because they believe reducing tariffs is a good thing. The issue of breaking down trade barriers was settled in the 1700's by Adam Smith.
    We don't know that only Dems oppose it. All we know is that POLITICO only quoted Dems as opposing it.

    The US did quite well with tariffs. We should impose new, scientifically calculated tariffs to regain our manufacturing base for national security reasons. In today's world, tariffs are needed to bring a level playing field between those nations that have costs built into economy to protect workers and the environment and those that don't. Laws such as clean air / water, land reclamation after mining, OSHA type worker safety, child labor laws, collective bargaining, unemployment, workers compensation, social security. Even before the first dime is paid to workers, these types of laws, rules and regs increase the cost of production. Nations that don't have one or more of these laws are at an unfair trade advantage from the start. Scientifically applied tariffs would help level this playing field. America became the world's most powerful nation with unions, tariffs and laws ensuring worker safety, prosperity and a clean environment.

    NAFTA / GATT / TPP are not about 'free' trade anymore than the PATRIOT ACT is for the liberty of the American people. These globalist trade regulations are destroying the US manufacturing base and the jobs and national security that go with it. 'Free' trade regulations need to be abandoned and fair trade agreements need to replace them.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milgram View Post
    There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.
    Source?

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Maybe you should ask yourself why it tends to be liberals who oppose it.
    It also tends to be liberals who support it.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milgram View Post
    I really don't understand this position.

    There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

    He's getting a bunch of campaign money from Club for Growth, but they oppose it too.
    What's so hard to understand about his position? He supports lowering and eliminating tariffs, which is the libertarian position, and what the TPP does. He realizes there are some bad things in the bill but believes that the good things in the bill outweigh the bad things.

  19. #18

    Default

    If the net benefit will be that this bill opens up trade and takes down barriers, Rand will be for it.

    By supporting it initially, it shows that he is serious about reaching a 'good' trade agreement that will open things up and so when he opposes specific portions of the bill later on he has more ground to stand on than if he took a hard line position like his father. That may not be the optimal solution to our economic problems, I'm sure Ron would advocate something more along the lines of repealing trade agreements and returning it to the market... Rand's is a more realistic approach from a political standpoint and it gives him more traction to help align the bill constitutionally somewhat.
    Last edited by dannno; 05-06-2015 at 11:37 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    What's so hard to understand about his position? He supports lowering and eliminating tariffs, which is the libertarian position, and what the TPP does. He realizes there are some bad things in the bill but believes that the good things in the bill outweigh the bad things.
    'lowering and eliminating tariffs' without consideration and calculation of the many other economic factors adding costs to trade is a knee-jerk and ill-considered position to take. I would hope that Rand Paul is not so simplistic in his approach to economics, the costs of production and simple math.

    The US needs to establish scientific tariffs to level the playing field, or it needs to begin to dismantle the laws established over the last several decades that promote worker safety, security, retirement and a clean environment.

    Please post/publish those sections of the TPP that you are citing with regards to tariffs.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    How can Rand be for or against it if he doesn't know the details?
    Then he should definitely be against it. Just like congress not reading the Patriot Act--most of them should have decline to vote for it without reading it.

    Transparency is what we want...nothing good comes from secrecy and usually nothing good for our liberties that is for sure.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Please post/publish those sections of the TPP that you are citing with regards to tariffs.
    As far as I know no one has seen the text of the TPP. It's being negotiated in secret. That's one of the problems. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm in favor of passing the TPP but still understand that there are both pros and cons to these types of trade agreements. In my opinion either vote is right from a liberty perspective. Most libertarians are at least in favor of free trade as a concept. That's the libertarian position. I understand that these types of trade deals are not what most libertarians would consider "free trade," but many libertarian organizations such as Cato, Reason, and others support these types of trade agreements on the basis that they make the trade more free than it would be without the agreement.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    As far as I know no one has seen the text of the TPP. It's being negotiated in secret. That's one of the problems.
    Exactly, but the poster I was replying to indicated that he knew what was in the regulation. I was asking for citations and quotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Most libertarians are at least in favor of free trade as a concept. That's the libertarian position. I understand that these types of trade deals are not what most libertarians would consider "free trade," but many libertarian organizations such as Cato, Reason, and others support these types of trade agreements on the basis that they make the trade more free than it would be without the agreement.
    On trade and national sovereignty issues these days, it's getting difficult to tell a Libertarian from a Globalist. Calling these 'agreements' is misleading. They should be called complex trade regulations on par with the US tax code granting privileges to globalists.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    On trade and national sovereignty issues these days, it's getting difficult to tell a Libertarian from a Globalist. Calling these 'agreements' is misleading. They should be called complex trade regulations on par with the US tax code granting privileges to globalists.
    I agree with you entirely.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    On trade and national sovereignty issues these days, it's getting difficult to tell a Libertarian from a Globalist.
    Well, I'm not an isolationist, and neither is Rand. I'm opposed to foreign military intervention but believe that we have to be part of the global economy. I'm not exactly sure how you define "globalism," but simply being a part of the global economy can be called "globalism." Is that what you're referring to? I'm very much in favor of eliminating tariffs between countries and trading freely. If I read the TPP and found that there was just of terrible stuff in it, then I would likely vote against it, but I certainly favor the concept of free trade in general, of eliminating tariffs between countries.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Well, I'm not an isolationist, and neither is Rand.
    I'm not an isolationist either. Are you implying that using tariffs to level the playing field in international trade = isolationist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I'm very much in favor of eliminating tariffs between countries and trading freely.
    There is no such thing as 'free' trade. We can strive to achieve fair trade in our global commerce, but free trade is an ideal that can never be achieved.

    Country A mandates that its manufacturers adhere to clean water and clean air regulations. This adds to the cost of production in country A.

    Country B has no clean air and no clean water regulations. The cost of such regulations is not added to the cost of its products.

    Countries A and B pay their workers exactly the same. All other production costs and taxation are the same. Neither country has tariffs.

    Which country wins in your 'free' trade scenario? To which country will those wishing to maximize their profits move their manufacturing?

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    It also tends to be liberals who support it.
    It is almost exclusively progressives and liberal economists who oppose it. I know of no prominent free market person not associated with Ron Paul in some way who opposes it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    I'm not an isolationist either. Are you implying that using tariffs to level the playing field in international trade = isolationist?

    Country A mandates that its manufacturers adhere to clean water and clean air regulations. This adds to the cost of production in country A.

    Country B has no clean air and no clean water regulations. The cost of such regulations is not added to the cost of its products.

    Countries A and B pay their workers exactly the same. All other production costs and taxation are the same. Neither country has tariffs.
    I would say supporting tariffs is protectionist. It is the definition of the word.

    The arguments you made to support your point are the arguments I would use for why eliminating trade restrictions is a good thing. If another country has more competitive work rules then they should be the ones producing the products. Trade is a way for market forces to pressure changes in regulatory policy. Tax havens, for example, are putting political pressure on Congress to lower the corporate tax rate.

  28. #27

    Default

    Gun Owners of America has come out aginst TPP because it would apparently empower global government to restrict and regulate the gun trade.

    Maybe Rand can use this new revelation to evolve and pivot to a no vote.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I would say supporting tariffs is protectionist. It is the definition of the word.
    That's the definition globalists would use, but not me. I also don't allow the politically correct to rewrite the dictionary and restrict my language and principles. Scientifically applied tariffs are an economic tool to build national security and quality of life for a nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The arguments you made to support your point are the arguments I would use for why eliminating trade restrictions is a good thing. If another country has more competitive work rules then they should be the ones producing the products. Trade is a way for market forces to pressure changes in regulatory policy. Tax havens, for example, are putting political pressure on Congress to lower the corporate tax rate.
    So you favor dismantling US clear air / clean water, land reclamation, OSHA, minimum wage, social security, unemployment, workmen's comp and child labor laws to become more competitive? Do you also favor outlawing collective bargaining to become more competitive on the global scene?

    Such philosophies sound like surrender to many.
    Last edited by David Sadler; 05-07-2015 at 07:41 PM. Reason: expansion of idea

  30. #29

    Default

    Pacific Partnership Will Further Damage America's Borders, Constitution, and Citizens
    by William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
    www.alipac.us
    April 7, 2015

    Source here.
    GOP candidates will support the TPP at the expense of the support of Americans who are tired of the 'legal plunder' America is being subjected to.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    So you favor dismantling US clear air / clean water, land reclamation, OSHA, minimum wage, social security, unemployment, workmen's comp and child labor laws to become more competitive? Do you also favor outlawing collective bargaining to become more competitive on the global scene?
    Yes. Though I am sure some pollution rules make sense b/c no one owns the water and air.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Would you accept a position with President Rand Paul?
    By robertwerden in forum Ben Swann Q&A Event
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-13-2013, 08:06 PM
  2. Rand Paul and BP: What's his position?
    By K466 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-24-2010, 05:46 PM
  3. Rand Paul's Position on GM Bailout
    By Vettezuki in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-18-2009, 10:06 PM
  4. What is Rand Paul's position on labor?
    By johnkyblue in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 07:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •