Posted on 08/23/2015 7:27:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I realize that a lot of you clowns who crawled up out of the slime to attack Ted Cruz aren’t terribly bright but It doesn’t take a genius to understand that McConnell and Boehner themselves aren’t congress.
Considering he got a lower % of the vote there in 2012 than Mediocre Mitt, is anybody surprised?
I’m not positive, but I think you might have left someone off the address bar.
I’m thinking of the fable about the tortoise and the hare —While I like Trump, he’s the hare —will he make it to the finish line? But Cruz (who is my personal favorite) has been making steady, steady progress —like the tortoise..... Hope this fable is a harbinger of good things!
I think you’re right. Not enough coffee...
 |
 |
 |
| Budget, Spending & Debt |  |
 |
| Civil Liberties | |
 |
| Education | |
|
| Energy & Environment | |
|
| Foreign Policy & Defense | |
|
| Free Market | |
|
| Health Care & Entitlements | |
|
| Immigration | |
|
| Moral Issues | |
|
| Second Amendment | |
|
| Taxes, Economy & Trade | |
|
More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
This chart is for people with an 8 year old political mentality. The last time I saw colors like this was in the second grade.
How can they say Trump is bad on “Free” market.
After all it was Cruz that voted for the TPA and is for the TPP.
Absolute rubbish!
That one went on a smack-talking binge to Marcella the other day. IMO Marcella is a lady who deserves respect, especially from mouthy noobs.
Might be worth nothing that ballearthout and GoneSalt, another big mouth, signed up on the same day and were tag-teaming Freepers at one point.
Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President. Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President’s lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority.
Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.
There have been a lot of questions and concerns about the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations. Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Let’s unpack the issues one by one.
What are TPA and TPP?
TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”. TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.
TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.
Some Key Facts:
Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?
No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.
Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?
No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?
Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?
Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.
Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.
TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.
Is TPA Constitutional?
TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.
Does TPA give the President more authority?
No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.
Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.
How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.
Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?
That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.
But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?
No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.
Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.
Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.
Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?
No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.
Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws.
Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.
And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.
Some have discovered that its easy to troll FR if they pick a large crowd, pretend to be one of them and attack conservatives who agree with the full approval of the people they hide among.
I don’t see a lot of pro Cruz noobs, let alone those who survive more than a post or two critical of saint Donnie.
Yep.
Heidi Cruz...
She's the daughter and granddaughter of Christian missionaries; as a child, she lived in Africa for several months on one of those missionary trips.
Her grandfather was a doctor/missionary who built an entire African village.
Her brother is a a missionary and an orthopedic surgeon who provides medical care for kids in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Heidi was SIX years old when she and her brother started a business---a home-based bakery. They spent hours after school baking bread, and on the weekends they sold it---two hundred loaves a week.
Heidi was able to earn and save almost fifteen thousand dollars, which she used for college tuition years later.
Even though she's a saver, she instantly said "yes" when her husband was behind in his Senate race and proposed liquidating their savings to give his campaign a financial boost.
Yeah, Heidi Cruz and her whole family sound like crap to me./S
I wonder how some of the other candidates' wives would stack up against her.
That’s exactly right.
The two in question decided they would push the pro-Trump line and see how far they could get. Their little troll behinds have been emboldened so far, but I can see them going back to whatever site they came from and laughing their butts off.
If she gets into the white house and tries to dictate policy she’ll be fair game. Till that happens, she’s just the candidate’s wife.
I remember some pretty low sleazeball attacks on Marcus Bachmann and Santorum’s wife from her college days.
I’m not even comfortable commenting on the Obama daughters today.
Oh, little girl, I’m nobody’s victim. Least of all someone like you.
Those ruffled panties of yours must be awful wadded up for you to follow me onto the Fear The Walking Dead thread, LOL.
You keep wanting my atfention, I’m just trying to step around Miss Foul like everybody else. Sorry God hates your candidate ;)
I leave the kids out of it, as well. And I remember those attempts to smear Bachmann’s husband and Santorum’s wife.
Most of it smacks of desperation...none more than these pathetic attacks on Heidi Cruz.
Thank you, I’m so sick of that chart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.