Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 108 of 108

Thread: Ted Cruz joins the establishment on TPP important article. Rand's position?

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Ron Paul is right though. Free trade agreements are not free trade. He is also right that some select people get a better deal with these agreements. But neither of those points actually matter when it comes to voting for a trade deal. Reducing trade barriers is always good, even if they are reduced for select people. It always good from an economic perspective. Always.
    Key point

    +1



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The average person is economically illiterate. Thom Hartmann, the host in your video, is literally a Marxist dunce. 90% of voters support minimum wage laws. The average citizen thinks free trade is bad and the evil Chinese are stealing jobs. I don't want the opinion of the average person or Thom Hartmann.

    Ron Paul is right though. Free trade agreements are not free trade. He is also right that some select people get a better deal with these agreements. But neither of those points actually matter when it comes to voting for a trade deal. Reducing trade barriers is always good, even if they are reduced for select people. It always good from an economic perspective. Always.

    Maybe they give up sovereignty and that is a bad thing. I don't know. But reducing trade barrier is always good from an econ 101 perspective.
    I don't have to agree with that guy on everything to agree that TPP is bad in a number of ways.

    There are certain issues that the 'left' and the 'right' (I hate using those labels, but for lack of a better word) can agree on, for different reasons.

    But if you want to stand with Obama and Hillary, and the other NWO puppets, who also believe the serfs average people shouldn't have a say, go right ahead. Elitism is in the air right now, that's for sure.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    .

    But if you want to stand with Obama and Hillary, and the other NWO puppets, who also believe the serfs average people shouldn't have a say, go right ahead. Elitism is in the air right now, that's for sure.

    In this case I am with Obama along with every free market economist and libertarian groups like the Club for Growth and Cato . The people and groups opposed are Josepth Stiglitz, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, the Daily Kos, and a few (well meaning) Ron Paul supporters.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    In this case I am with Obama along with every free market economist and libertarian groups like the Club for Growth and Cato . The people and groups opposed are Josepth Stiglitz, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, the Daily Kos, and a few (well meaning) Ron Paul supporters.
    You sound proud of yourself. I don't need a list of who is opposed to it or what "libertarian" groups are for it, I think for myself. I've been against these so-called "free trade" (great name, sort of like the Patriot Act) agreements since the early 90's.

    It's just another step toward globalism and the end of national sovereignty, and it's sad to me that some liberty supporters can't seem to see that.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    What you're describing is bad policy by the US government, not the US government losing sovereignty.



    No, the Feds are choosing to follow (or, really, are controlling) global entities.

    As long as they are the one's making the choice, there is no loss of sovereignty.

    Of course that doesn't mean that I'm endorsing anything the UN is doing, it's mostly bad. I'm just saying that sovereignty is not the issue.





    Alright, so you can't cite a single example of how a free trade deal restricts trade. Gotcha.

    Just to be fair, I'll cite you an example of how the Canada-US FTA eliminated barriers to trade:

    http://www.international.gc.ca/trade...s/cusfta-e.pdf

    See Article 401: Tariff Elimination

    Virtually all of the tariffs on goods traded between the US and Canada were eliminated.

    Now, your turn, show me how the above, or NAFTA, or CAFTA or any of the others created new barriers to trade.

    People, beware. This sort of trolling will only continue to increase, the closer we get to the election. Happens here every two years, like clockwork. Another election cycle, more shills come out of the woodwork. Notice how this one's MO for this thread has been to introduce strawmen and red herrings in as many places as possible, and attempt to get people arguing over definitions and semantics. His intent is to distract from the real issue and hand, derail the discussion, and shill for the globalists while claiming to be in defense of the free market.

    Again, go back to what Ron Paul has said on the issue of so-called "free trade" agreements, and don't be gullible enough to fall for the globalist shill trojan horse arguments.
    Last edited by invisible; 04-23-2015 at 08:04 PM. Reason: typo
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  7. #96



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Didn't read the entire thread so sorry if repost but Rand voted against providing trade promotion authority in 2011.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00141

    Summary of amendment:

    To provide trade promotion authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and for other trade agreements.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Didn't read the entire thread so sorry if repost but Rand voted against providing trade promotion authority in 2011.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00141
    Summary of amendment:
    That was 2011, here is 2014

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

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

    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."...more
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ic-partnership

    Who knows where he stands today, or yesterday, or tomorrow. Is that why he's selling flip flops?

    It's a bit shocking to see all the support for this abortion of a so called "free trade" bill here of all places. But par for the course. We even have Rand saying Russia invaded Crimea and people are defending that. Rand is the worst thing that ever happened to Ron, along with that clown/scumbag Benton.

    Has Rand ever once come by his own forum to converse with his fans? Seems like he and Ron both treat their supporters like they don't exist - except to ask for money, money money. Enough with the pauls. Before Ron's legacy is gone forever.

    Why has Ron not made a statement on the TPP? Because his priority is getting his kid in the white house?

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace Piper View Post
    That was 2011, here is 2014

    Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
    There's two separate issues:

    1. Providing trade promotion authority (fast track) to the President

    2. The Trans-Pacific Partnership

    It seems like Rand supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership but opposes fast track. The two positions are not at odds with each other.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You sound proud of yourself. I don't need a list of who is opposed to it or what "libertarian" groups are for it, I think for myself. I've been against these so-called "free trade" (great name, sort of like the Patriot Act) agreements since the early 90's.

    It's just another step toward globalism and the end of national sovereignty, and it's sad to me that some liberty supporters can't seem to see that.
    Good point about the names. "Free trade", "Patriot Act". It's all about the marketing. If they had named Obamacare the "Free and Competitive Healthcare Market Act" it would have had far more support.
    "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.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Read these threads for more information:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ion-on-the-TPP
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...TPA-Trade-Deal

    Here is Ron Paul's position:

    If only some people on Ron Paul's own forums would listen to his wisdom. These "free" trade deals are a bill of goods. Oh "free trade is always good" oh yeah, look at how awesome our economy is doing since NAFTA.

    These deals are about promoting globalism and eventually erasing borders. Same with those who promote mass immigration. The people flooding the country from south of the border are NOT coming here to vote for liberty, property rights, Austrian economics, and the non-aggression principle. They overwhelmingly vote for socialism and big government. Oh "but if only we pandered to them like the leftists do, then maybe they would vote for principled conservatives/libertarians" is what is often said. As if importing more immigrants who will in turn vote for more socialism will somehow turn the ship around. Those who call for open borders are wolves in sheep's clothing in my mind. We don't need a bunch of new laws or a fence even, just enforce the laws on the books now and cut off the magnets. Let self-deportation happen and deport known illegals. By flouting our laws and crossing the border illegally or over staying their visas they have already proven that they do not respect property rights or boundaries and they do not respect the rule of law.

    Seriously, a nation without borders is no nation at all. We have the right to have national boundaries and the right to enforce those boundaries. Instead of being shouted down by Hispanic activists (many of whom are died in the wool socialists) who are never going to vote for us anyway, why don't stand on that principle? I view these so called "free" trade agreements much in the same light. These agreements have been nothing but bad for our country and its economy. I'll be very disappointed in Rand if he votes for this latest one. It's not a deal breaker to but it is very disappointing. He should listen to his father. Who cares about falling down on the same side of an issue with Elizabeth Warren? That's a juvenile reason to vote for a bill. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader stood together against NAFTA. Rand has no problem hooking up with Democratic senators when it comes to criminal justice reform either.
    “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

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post

    These deals are about promoting globalism and eventually erasing borders. Same with those who promote mass immigration. The people flooding the country from south of the border are NOT coming here to vote for liberty, property rights, Austrian economics, and the non-aggression principle. They overwhelmingly vote for socialism and big government. Oh "but if only we pandered to them like the leftists do, then maybe they would vote for principled conservatives/libertarians" is what is often said. As if importing more immigrants who will in turn vote for more socialism will somehow turn the ship around. Those who call for open borders are wolves in sheep's clothing in my mind. We don't need a bunch of new laws or a fence even, just enforce the laws on the books now and cut off the magnets. Let self-deportation happen and deport known illegals. By flouting our laws and crossing the border illegally or over staying their visas they have already proven that they do not respect property rights or boundaries and they do not respect the rule of law.

    Seriously, a nation without borders is no nation at all. We have the right to have national boundaries and the right to enforce those boundaries. Instead of being shouted down by Hispanic activists (many of whom are died in the wool socialists) who are never going to vote for us anyway, why don't stand on that principle? I view these so called "free" trade agreements much in the same light. These agreements have been nothing but bad for our country and its economy. I'll be very disappointed in Rand if he votes for this latest one. It's not a deal breaker to but it is very disappointing. He should listen to his father. Who cares about falling down on the same side of an issue with Elizabeth Warren? That's a juvenile reason to vote for a bill. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader stood together against NAFTA. Rand has no problem hooking up with Democratic senators when it comes to criminal justice reform either.
    You keep spouting about the evils of socialism and yet you want to steal my money in order to fund protectionist policies while at the same time tell me who I can and cannot interact with on my own property.

    Yeah, the anarchists are the ones that are fighting against the free market and property rights

  15. #103
    Ted Cruz knocks Scott Walker's immigration position

    By David M. Drucker | April 24, 2015
    BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
    Rand Paul 2010

    Booker T. Washington:
    Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
    fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by NIU Students for Liberty View Post
    You keep spouting about the evils of socialism and yet you want to steal my money in order to fund protectionist policies while at the same time tell me who I can and cannot interact with on my own property.

    Yeah, the anarchists are the ones that are fighting against the free market and property rights
    Well anarchy is a pipe dream in my personal estimation. Anarchists are utopians similar to Marxists. Open borders are pushed by leftists and socialists while "free" trade agreements are pushed by corporatist fat cats and globalist minded politicians. That pretty much tells me all need to know about those two ideas, even if I didn't see the negative consequences before my very eyes. Don't worry though, the globalists are clearly winning so you'll get your wish as U.S. sovereignty is ceded and as Pat Buchanan puts it:
    "the Third World treks north to claim the estate."

    We'll see if the globalists and the third world immigrants support your anarchist dreams and will up hold property rights, individual liberty, and freedom of association. Spoiler alert: they won't.
    “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



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post
    Well anarchy is a pipe dream in my personal estimation. Anarchists are utopians similar to Marxists. Open borders are pushed by leftists and socialists while "free" trade agreements are pushed by corporatist fat cats and globalist minded politicians. That pretty much tells me all need to know about those two ideas, even if I didn't see the negative consequences before my very eyes. Don't worry though, the globalists are clearly winning so you'll get your wish as U.S. sovereignty is ceded and as Pat Buchanan puts it:
    "the Third World treks north to claim the estate."

    We'll see if the globalists and the third world immigrants support your anarchist dreams and will up hold property rights, individual liberty, and freedom of association. Spoiler alert: they won't.
    Have you ever noticed that quite often the "open borders" advocates only the want the borders of the US to be opened? Never any other nation. And quite often it is non-US citizens who advocate for open US borders. Speaking of leftists and socialists, there is an aspect of class warfare involved. It's as if the US as a nation is considered the top ten percent, and everything that America has needs to be shared and redistributed.
    "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.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post
    Well anarchy is a pipe dream in my personal estimation. Anarchists are utopians similar to Marxists. Open borders are pushed by leftists and socialists while "free" trade agreements are pushed by corporatist fat cats and globalist minded politicians. That pretty much tells me all need to know about those two ideas, even if I didn't see the negative consequences before my very eyes. Don't worry though, the globalists are clearly winning so you'll get your wish as U.S. sovereignty is ceded and as Pat Buchanan puts it:
    "the Third World treks north to claim the estate."

    We'll see if the globalists and the third world immigrants support your anarchist dreams and will up hold property rights, individual liberty, and freedom of association. Spoiler alert: they won't.
    So I take it you don't deny that what you're advocating is the same socialist bs you claim to rail against?

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Have you ever noticed that quite often the "open borders" advocates only the want the borders of the US to be opened? Never any other nation. And quite often it is non-US citizens who advocate for open US borders. Speaking of leftists and socialists, there is an aspect of class warfare involved. It's as if the US as a nation is considered the top ten percent, and everything that America has needs to be shared and redistributed.
    Why would I be opposed to other nations opening up their borders? The whole point of the free market is to allow commerce and interaction with anyone, thus negating the purpose of restrictive arbitrary lines (borders) in the first place.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by NIU Students for Liberty View Post
    So I take it you don't deny that what you're advocating is the same socialist bs you claim to rail against?
    I live in the real world, not in the pipe dreams of anarchists. In theory, free trade sounds great, in practice it is ripping the United States apart. The U.S. is less free, less powerful, and less sovereign after NAFTA, GATT, etc. I'd rather not sacrifice our hard won independence at the altar of "free" trade. I'm not against nations trading with one another but these "free" trade agreements are anything but free. The United States is paying a heavy price for foolish adherence to globalist dogma.

    As for unrestricted immigration...that works if you assume that everyone thinks like a liberty minded American. If you assume that all people are just blank slates and their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, cultural upbringing, etc. plays no part in the formation of their ideals or voting patterns I guess that open borders wouldn't matter. The people flooding from the southern hemisphere by and large are not coming here to increase my liberty or vote to limit the government. Overwhelmingly, time and again, once they can vote they vote for greater socialism, bigger government, and more wealth redistribution. Not to mention they vote for increased immigration. The globalists know this and that is why they continue to push for open borders, they are importing voters.

    Anarchy is just as utopian as Marxism. In anarchy the world always ends in one great open paradise with free movement, no borders, and happiness. The worker's paradise is swapped out for the stateless paradise in which somehow by removing all government human nature would be fundamentally transformed and we would all live in peace. I understand the allure of anarchy and how logically consistent it sounds, but I have no delusions that it will ever happen, or that it would work if somehow the conditions came about to establish it.
    “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

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Koran-burning pastor joins Rand Paul, Ted Cruz in race for presidency
    By Natural Citizen in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2015, 02:46 AM
  2. Article: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, the warrior wimps
    By Brett85 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 09-21-2014, 03:06 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-25-2013, 02:20 PM
  4. Ted Cruz Joins Rand Paul for Breakfast. Only $75
    By SteveBierfeldt in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2012, 04:14 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2011, 06:57 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
  •