Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 61

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

  1. #31
    Should there be free trade between the States?
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    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?
    Both

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    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.
    I'm afraid you're the one rewriting the dictionary David.

    "Protectionism" has always and everywhere meant the erection of barriers to international trade, to protect domestic industry from competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    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.
    I vote for the latter.

    But eliminating barriers to trade is beneficial to the US whether or not those damaging regulations are in place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Should there be free trade between the States?
    Or counties...

    Or municipalities...

    Or individuals....



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I know of no prominent free market person not associated with Ron Paul in some way who opposes it.
    People of integrity tend to associate with one another.

  6. #34
    Defining tariff as protectionism is defining tariff in a narrow and pejorative manner. To restrict the synonyms for tariff to protectionism is to rewrite the dictionary and redefine the language.

    Reversing the reduction and/or elimination of scientifically applied tariffs will be needed as one tool if the US decline is going to be turned around. The US became great with tariffs. It has been steadily deindustrialized as tariffs have been reduced and/or dropped.

    Rand needs to strongly oppose TPP while pointing out that:
    1) Trade 'agreements' are in fact complex trade 'regulations'
    2) 'Free' trade is an ideal to never be achieved. We should strive for Fair trade for that benefits American citizens while minimizing adverse impact upon trade.
    3) The US is suffering because it is at a disadvantage in trade regulations that prevent it from imposing scientifically applied tariffs which would level the playing field in international commerce.
    4) The factors of trade deficits, lost manufacturing, lost jobs due to globalist 'free' trade regulations have severely impacted the US national security and the standard of living of its citizens. It has led to a an absurd corruption to the English language yielding such oxymorons as, "jobless recovery."

    It would not take more than 5 minutes using a PowerPoint presentation showing a table that compares production costs of the US to selected trading partners to convince the average non-government employee, working audience (white collar, blue collar, small business, service) that tariffs are needed and that they are not 'protectionism.'


    NOTES:

    List of tariffs in the United States

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Yes. Though I am sure some pollution rules make sense b/c no one owns the water and air.
    Do you think Rand, or anyone for that matter, can be elected by advocating the dismantling of US clear air / clean water, land reclamation, OSHA, minimum wage, social security, unemployment, workmen's comp and child labor laws as well as outlawing collective bargaining to become more competitive on the global scene? Do you see a ground swell among the people to do away with these things?

    On the other hand, we do see a ground swell for ending foreign intervention and foreign wars; closing the borders and enforcing immigration laws; returning manufacturing to America; ending surveillance state activities targeting US citizens en masse.

    Which set of issues would you suggest Rand embrace to move out in front of the pack and to get America back on track?

  8. #36
    In the first quarter of 2015, in the sixth year of the historic Obama recovery, the U.S. economy grew by two-tenths of 1 percent.

    And that probably sugarcoats it.

    For trade deficits subtract from the growth of GDP, and the U.S. trade deficit that just came in was a monster.

    As the AP's Martin Crutsinger writes, "The U.S. trade deficit in March swelled to the highest level in more than six years, propelled by a flood of imports that may have sapped the U.S. economy of any growth in the first quarter."

    The March deficit was $51.2 billion, largest of any month since 2008. In goods alone, the trade deficit hit $64 billion.

    As Crutsinger writes, a surge in imports to $239 billion in March, "reflected greater shipments of foreign-made industrial machinery, autos, mobile phones, clothing and furniture."

    What does this flood of imports of things we once made here mean for a city like, say, Baltimore? Writes columnist Allan Brownfeld:

    "Baltimore was once a city where tens of thousands of blue collar employees earned a good living in industries building cars, airplanes and making steel. ... In 1970, about a third of the labor force in Baltimore was employed in manufacturing. By 2000, only 7 percent of city residents had manufacturing jobs."

    Put down blue-collar Baltimore alongside Motor City, Detroit, as another fatality of free-trade fanaticism.

    --snip--

    First, TPP will cover 37 percent of world trade. But 80 percent of that is trade between the U.S. and nations with which we already have trade deals. As for the last 20 percent, our new partners will be New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Japan.

    Query: Who benefits more if we get access to Vietnam's market, which is 1 percent of ours, while Hanoi gets access to a U.S. market that is 100 times the size of theirs?

    The core of the TPP is the deal with Japan.

    But do decades of Japanese trade surpluses at our expense, achieved through the manipulation of Japan's currency and hidden restrictions on U.S. imports, justify a Congressional surrender to Barack Obama of all rights to amend any Japan deal he produces?

    Columnist Robert Samuelson writes that a TPP failure "could produce a historic watershed. ... rejection could mean the end of an era. ... So, when opponents criticize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they need to answer a simple question: Compared to what?"

    Valid points, and a fair question.

    And yes, an era is ending, a post-Cold War era where the United States threw open her markets to nations all over the world, as they sheltered their own. The end of an era where America volunteered to defend nations and fight wars having nothing to do with her own vital interests or national security.

    The bankruptcy of a U.S. trade and foreign policy, which has led to the transparent decline of the United States and the astonishing rise of China, is apparent now virtually everywhere.

    And America is not immune to the rising tide of nationalism.

    Though, like the alcoholic who does not realize his condition until he is lying face down in the gutter, it may be a while before we get out of the empire business and start looking out again, as our fathers did, for the American republic first. But that day is coming.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...1995971/page/2

    I agree with Pat Buchanan here. All of these so called "free" trade deals have left America weaker, poorer, and worse off. Sure multinational corporations have been greatly enriched as has China but America has taken a beating. Ron Paul knew this, yet so many libertarians are devoted to the free trade and open borders religion that they don't understand how both those ideas are ruinous to a nation.
    “When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
    ― Andrew Jackson

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    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?
    Late reply, but I simply had not heard of any grassroots movement making a big push for it. But I had heard Marc Levin, Laura Ingraham, Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Ron Paul, Jeff Sessions, Pat Buchanan, fringe groups like the Birchers and Alex Jones, and now good ol' Huckabee all voicing skepticism.

    I guess it depends how you define the GOP base, but I'd say right wing populists and talk radio are included. I wasn't talking about Chamber of Commerce types when I made that comment, so maybe it was poorly worded.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    Gun Owners of America has come out aginst TPP because it would apparently empower global government to restrict and regulate the gun trade.
    Just more regulation without representation.

  11. #39
    Rand Paul is just another mainstream Republican.
    Do not be fooled.
    There is no choice in this election.
    Hillary Clinton will win anyway.

  12. #40
    Senator Warren hits back at Obama in Pacific Rim trade fight
    Reuters
    May 11, 2015

    "Senate Democrats want the bill to be coupled with three other trade measures, including legislation providing training to U.S. workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals. They also want to link it to a measure stopping China from manipulating its currency to get a leg up on trade."
    Train American workers displaced by these 'free' trade regulations to do what? Wake up, Rand. We need to resurrect scientifically applied tariffs as one tool to level the global trade playing field.

    Obama Moves Closer to Inking Pacific Trade Deal
    TIME
    5/11/2015

    President Obama may move closer to a career-defining Pacific Rim trade deal Tuesday that could permanently alter the balance of power between the White House and Congress on trade issues.

    The Senate is expected to approve a bill to give the president “fast track” authority to make trade deals, reducing Congress’ role to approving or rejecting the entire deal. Members of Congress would not be allowed to filibuster a vote on a trade pact, add amendments, delete parts or otherwise tweak the final version of a trade deal.
    Last edited by David Sadler; 05-11-2015 at 09:07 PM. Reason: Expand



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    FAST TRACK? HOW ABOUT A PRO-AMERICA TRACK?
    Phyllis Schlafly: TPP means Congress giving away its authority to 'global busybodies'

    wnd.com
    2015/05/11

    Congress, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is preparing to betray American workers, and the grass roots should rise up and say, “No, you don’t.” The secretive underhanded deal is called “fast track,” and that’s an appropriate title because, indeed, it puts Americans on a fast track to lower wages and fewer available jobs.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., one of the few Members of Congress who has actually read and studied fast track plus its companion trade bill called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has compiled a list of objections to it that are downright frightening. They should be read by all who care about their own future and the future of our once-prosperous nation. Here are some of the ways fast track and TPP will betray us.

    The text of TPP emphasizes that it is a “living agreement.” Translated out of bureaucratese code language, that means the text of TPP can be changed in major and minor ways by executive action after Congress OKs the document. The TPP could, for example, add additional countries such as Communist China, which for years has been cheating America coming and going.

    TPP will facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the United States. TPP opens the door to more waves of illegal immigrants and allows Obama to make future changes without any congressional oversight or expiration date.

    Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council calls this “another power grab” that will let Obama and his employees rule by executive action. By not calling TPP a treaty (even though it involves 12 countries on three continents), the globalists induce the Senate to abandon the 67-vote threshold for treaty ratification and even the 60-vote threshold for important legislation.

    Fast track consolidates power in the executive branch and eliminates Congress’ constitutional power to amend or even debate trade legislation. Fast track allows only a specified up-or-down vote on this momentous international agreement without any public oversight or ability to amend it or filibuster it.

    Attacked, debased, maligned and vilified: This foundational institution is fighting for its life. Order Phyllis Schlafly’s latest book, “Who Killed the American Family?” along with her updated classic, “A Choice, not an Echo”

    Fast track will increase our trade deficits, which reduce economic growth. Economists have estimated that the last trade deal, which we made with South Korea and which is the template for TPP, wiped out 50,000 American jobs.

    Sen. Sessions called on Obama to rewrite the deal. Sessions said, “We don’t need a fast track but a regular track” so we can evaluate the false promises.

    Fast track turns over some of our authority as a sovereign nation to international authorities, which is a major longtime goal of the internationalists, the so-called kingmakers, and big business lobbyists. The code language that hides this in TPP is the statement that calls it a “living agreement.”

    This means Obama and his executive-branch pals can take all kinds of actions Article I of the U.S. Constitution reserves to the legislative branch, such as ratifying or changing a treaty and controlling immigration.

    Why should we trust the Obama administration and its foreign partners to rewrite international agreements without congressional approval? Is Congress simply giving away its constitutional authority to global busybodies?

    Is Congress using secret agreements to cede our once-remarkable American prosperity to Asia? As former Nucor Steel Chairman Daniel DiMicco said, free trade is really “unilateral trade disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism.”

    Most presidential candidates are trying to avoid this issue, but Mike Huckabee was blunt, warning of “dire consequences if we let Obama have this victory.” Huckabee said he opposes trade agreements that push wages “lower than the Dead Sea.”

    Huckabee also reminded us that “The last time we really fast-tracked something was Obamacare. Why do we want to believe that the government fast-tracking something without thoroughly understanding the implications is the best way to go?”

    Another possible presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who literally wrote the book on “The Art of the Deal,” tweeted that TPP is a “bad, bad deal” in part because it fails to address Japan’s outrageous currency manipulation, which has caused many U.S. steel plants to shut down this year, idling thousands of American steelmakers. Yet Japan’s prime minister was recently honored with the rare privilege of addressing a joint meeting of Congress (at which he openly lobbied for the TPP) and entertained at a White House state dinner.

    Another likely presidential candidate is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who declared, “I’m for free trade, but I am not for giving more authority to a president who ignores the Constitution, the separation of powers and will of the American people.”

    “This particular president must not be given any more power to do anything else to harm this country,” Jindal continued. “He cannot be trusted.”

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Rand Paul is just another mainstream Republican.
    Do not be fooled.
    There is no choice in this election.
    Hillary Clinton will win anyway.
    Protectionism is not consistent with libertarian principles. Rand is taking the libertarian position on these issues, not people here. There are legitimate reasons to oppose TPP such as the sovereignty issues, but when so called "libertarians" like John Galt above openly admit to being protectionists, it needs to be pointed out that that's a blatantly anti liberty position to take.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  17. #44
    Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
    RT

    Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
    People Demand Action

    "In a 52-45 vote on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate opposed moving forward for now on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A procedural vote required at least 60 “ayes” in order to let the Senate host discussions on whether or not to give the president so-called “fast track” authority on the matter."

    See the Roll Call here.

    Rand voted 'Yes' to move towards Fast Track in support of the TPP.

    [The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..." "
    -- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism?
    Last edited by David Sadler; 05-12-2015 at 03:54 PM. Reason: expand

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Protectionism is not consistent with libertarian principles. Rand is taking the libertarian position on these issues, not people here. There are legitimate reasons to oppose TPP such as the sovereignty issues, but when so called "libertarians" like John Galt above openly admit to being protectionists, it needs to be pointed out that that's a blatantly anti liberty position to take.
    I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement. Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others. I don't give a damn what other counties do, I want to see my nation in a position of strength, and I'm tired of watching sell out corporatists sell my nation down the river to benefit multinational corporations and 3rd world countries. American workers have been sold out and screwed over systematically since 1965 when Congress flung open the borders.

    It's interesting that you claim that Rand is taking the "liberty" position when he is taking the position that Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and every other corporatist in this country is taking meanwhile Ron Paul is against these trade agreements. Seems like Ron Paul just isn't "libertarian" enough for you.
    “When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
    ― Andrew Jackson

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
    RT

    Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
    People Demand Action

    "In a 52-45 vote on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate opposed moving forward for now on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A procedural vote required at least 60 “ayes” in order to let the Senate host discussions on whether or not to give the president so-called “fast track” authority on the matter."

    See the Roll Call here.

    Rand voted 'Yes' to move towards Fast Track in support of the TPP.

    [The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..." "
    -- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism?
    "Ron Paul is a protectionist! Liberty lies with managed trade agreements drawn up in corporate backrooms secretively!" -So many here on RPF sadly.
    “When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
    ― Andrew Jackson

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post
    I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement. Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others. I don't give a damn what other counties do, I want to see my nation in a position of strength, and I'm tired of watching sell out corporatists sell my nation down the river to benefit multinational corporations and 3rd world countries. American workers have been sold out and screwed over systematically since 1965 when Congress flung open the borders.

    It's interesting that you claim that Rand is taking the "liberty" position when he is taking the position that Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and every other corporatist in this country is taking meanwhile Ron Paul is against these trade agreements. Seems like Ron Paul just isn't "libertarian" enough for you.
    Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post
    I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement. Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others. I don't give a damn what other counties do, I want to see my nation in a position of strength, and I'm tired of watching sell out corporatists sell my nation down the river to benefit multinational corporations and 3rd world countries. American workers have been sold out and screwed over systematically since 1965 when Congress flung open the borders.

    It's interesting that you claim that Rand is taking the "liberty" position when he is taking the position that Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and every other corporatist in this country is taking meanwhile Ron Paul is against these trade agreements. Seems like Ron Paul just isn't "libertarian" enough for you.
    Fair enough. I'm not for open borders, but I'm for free trade. Ron Paul is opposed to these trade agreements on the basis that they take away U.S sovereignty, not because he's opposed to lowering tariffs. He supports free trade in theory. He's in favor of unilaterally reducing tariffs. He thinks that we should just reduce if not eliminate the tariffs that we place on goods irrespective of whether or not other countries reduce their tariffs. So it doesn't seem to me like you oppose these trade deals for exactly the same reasons that Ron opposes them.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Edit: Another duplicate post. It seems like this website is having problems.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    ... I'm not for open borders, but I'm for free trade ...
    I'm for free and fair trade. I'm also for national sovereignty, national security, personal liberty and prosperity.

    International trade regulations which drop US tariffs without considering other factors that put US exports at a disadvantage is not 'free' trade. It is unfair trade. This unfair trade decimates domestic manufacturing which degrades the nation's national security.

    Associating tariffs with 'protectionism' and 'isolationism' is a globalist propaganda which evidently has taken deep root in the Libertarian party.

    If membership in the Libertarian party has not yet peaked, it can be predicted that it will as the realization begins to proliferate regarding the similarity between the policies of globalists and Libertarians with regards to trade and national sovereignty.

    The tyranny of oppressive government and groups is only one form of tyranny. Poverty is a vicious tyrant as well. Maintaining a high standard of living for a large middle class is essential to personal liberty.

    NOTES:



  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
    RT

    Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
    People Demand Action

    "In a 52-45 vote on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate opposed moving forward for now on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A procedural vote required at least 60 “ayes” in order to let the Senate host discussions on whether or not to give the president so-called “fast track” authority on the matter."

    See the Roll Call here.

    Rand voted 'Yes' to move towards Fast Track in support of the TPP.

    [The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..." "
    -- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism?
    Thats the dead opposite of what I heard. I heard Rand voted for cloture to kill Fast Track. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell voted against cloture in favor of Fast Track. Only a few people have claimed Rand's vote was for Fast Track, and every one of them have hated Rand.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Thats the dead opposite of what I heard. I heard Rand voted for cloture to kill Fast Track. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell voted against cloture in favor of Fast Track. Only a few people have claimed Rand's vote was for Fast Track, and every one of them have hated Rand.
    Rand voted with the rest of the Republicans to proceed to the fast track bill, but it was merely a procedural vote. It wasn't a vote on the actual bill. Rand will vote "no" when the actual bill comes up for a vote.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Rand voted with the rest of the Republicans to proceed to the fast track bill, but it was merely a procedural vote. It wasn't a vote on the actual bill. Rand will vote "no" when the actual bill comes up for a vote.
    Then what's with all the whining?

  28. #54
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00176

    Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1314 )
    Vote Number: 176 Vote Date: May 12, 2015, 02:32 PM
    Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
    Measure Number: H.R. 1314 (Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act )
    Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
    Vote Counts: YEAs 52
    NAYs 45
    Not Voting 3

    (Alphabetical by Senator Name: )
    Alexander (R-TN), Yea
    Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
    Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
    Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
    Bennet (D-CO), Nay
    Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
    Blunt (R-MO), Yea
    Booker (D-NJ), Not Voting
    Boozman (R-AR), Yea
    Boxer (D-CA), Nay
    Brown (D-OH), Nay
    Burr (R-NC), Yea
    Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
    Capito (R-WV), Yea
    Cardin (D-MD), Nay
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Casey (D-PA), Nay
    Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
    Coats (R-IN), Yea
    Cochran (R-MS), Yea
    Collins (R-ME), Yea
    Coons (D-DE), Nay
    Corker (R-TN), Yea
    Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
    Cotton (R-AR), Yea
    Crapo (R-ID), Yea
    Cruz (R-TX), Yea
    Daines (R-MT), Yea
    Donnelly (D-IN), Nay
    Durbin (D-IL), Nay
    Enzi (R-WY), Yea
    Ernst (R-IA), Yea
    Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
    Fischer (R-NE), Yea
    Flake (R-AZ), Yea
    Franken (D-MN), Nay
    Gardner (R-CO), Yea
    Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
    Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
    Grassley (R-IA), Yea
    Hatch (R-UT), Yea
    Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
    Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
    Heller (R-NV), Yea
    Hirono (D-HI), Nay
    Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
    Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
    Isakson (R-GA), Yea
    Johnson (R-WI), Yea
    Kaine (D-VA), Nay
    King (I-ME), Nay
    Kirk (R-IL), Yea
    Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
    Lankford (R-OK), Yea
    Leahy (D-VT), Nay
    Lee (R-UT), Yea
    Manchin (D-WV), Nay
    Markey (D-MA), Nay
    McCain (R-AZ), Yea
    McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
    McConnell (R-KY), Nay
    Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
    Merkley (D-OR), Nay
    Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
    Moran (R-KS), Yea
    Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
    Murphy (D-CT), Nay
    Murray (D-WA), Nay
    Nelson (D-FL), Nay
    Paul (R-KY), Yea
    Perdue (R-GA), Yea
    Peters (D-MI), Nay
    Portman (R-OH), Yea
    Reed (D-RI), Nay
    Reid (D-NV), Nay
    Risch (R-ID), Yea
    Roberts (R-KS), Yea
    Rounds (R-SD), Yea
    Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting
    Sanders (I-VT), Nay
    Sasse (R-NE), Yea
    Schatz (D-HI), Nay
    Schumer (D-NY), Nay
    Scott (R-SC), Yea
    Sessions (R-AL), Yea
    Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
    Shelby (R-AL), Yea
    Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
    Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
    Tester (D-MT), Nay
    Thune (R-SD), Yea
    Tillis (R-NC), Yea
    Toomey (R-PA), Yea
    Udall (D-NM), Nay
    Vitter (R-LA), Yea
    Warner (D-VA), Nay
    Warren (D-MA), Nay
    Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
    Wicker (R-MS), Yea
    Wyden (D-OR), Nay

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Then what's with all the whining?
    I think some people just like to whine.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I think some people just like to whine.
    LOL I think you are right sir.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    I've called the state and national offices of both of my US Senators and Representative. It's clear that the Republicans are all-in on this globalism - without constraints and without consideration for what it is doing to our national security and standard of living.

    It's also clear that for the most part they don't even know or understand the ramifications.

    [The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..."
    -- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism?
    "Corporations have gone global. And by going global, governments have lost some control of corporations regardless of whether the corporation can be trusted or can not be trusted. Governments today do not have over corporations the power they had and the leverage that they had fifty or sixty years ago. And that's a major change. Governments have become powerless compared to what they were before."
    -- Sam Gibara, former Chairman & CEO, Goodyear Tire, in the short video: Major General Smedley Butler & The Fascist Takeover Of The USA - A Warning From History
    "Capitalism today commands the towering heights, and has displaced politics and politicians as the new high priests and are reigning oligarchs of our system. So capitalism and its principle protagonists and players - corporate CEOs - have been accorded unusual power and access which is not to deny the significance of government and politicians, but these are the new high priests."
    -- Ira Jackson, Director, Center for Business and Government, Kennedy School, Harvard, in the short video: Major General Smedley Butler & The Fascist Takeover Of The USA - A Warning From History

  33. #58


    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  34. #59


    Higher drug costs ... More internet controls ... "proposals show a deal moving more toward protection than free trade, one more about corporate benefits than boosting economies and development"


    Secrecy around TPP trade deal fuels suspicions and worries / AFP, 2015.07.26

    Higher costs for needed generic drugs. Longer copyright protections than the global standard. Foreign investors empowered to overrule governments. A more tightly-regulated Internet.

    Those are just some of the potential pitfalls from any deal that could emerge from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 12-country free-trade and investment pact shrouded in secrecy as negotiations head into the final stage in Hawaii next week.

    A handful of draft chapters of the TPP, leaked via Wikileaks, have highlighted the proposed treaty's heavy emphasis on expanding protections for corporate rights and assets like intellectual property -- patents, copyrights and databases -- that are far more valuable to advanced economy corporations than traditional cargo trade.
    Last edited by David Sadler; 07-26-2015 at 01:58 PM.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post
    I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement.
    Libertarians have always been for free immigration and free trade (because they understand economics).

    Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others.
    Then you should favor free trade and free immigration, as they increase the living standards of Americans.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •