Posted on 04/19/2016 7:40:31 AM PDT by xzins
And because you don’t like Sundance, then that means that Ted Cruz really didn’t support TPA, TPP, and the like?
Sundance skews everything he touches. Everything he writes is extremely biased. I don’t trust a single interpretation of his.
And his name is Mark Ivor Bradman, not sundance.
Fine. BUT, the facts remain that Ted Cruz was one of the originators of TPA/TPP.
DT does know how to buy politicians and is also connected to wall street.
While I’m at it I did a little research into DT’s investments...
Title:Study: Trump investments underperformed in 2015
“Trump also argued that several of his individual stock picks, like Apple and Goldman Sachs, have done very well for him.
“I hit the market exactly perfectly,” he said.”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/274178-trump-investments-underperformed-in-2015
Title:Know Who Else Has Received Loans from Citibank and Goldman Sachs? Donald Trump.
“He’s made the nonsensical claim repeatedly that Ted Cruz can’t “protect people” from Citibank or Goldman Sachs or whoever, because he has taken out loans from them or personally guaranteed loans to his campaign from them.”
“As for Goldman Sachs, Trump is himself a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, which means he has a direct financial interest in its success. One would think that would make Trump even less enthusiastic about protecting me from Goldman Sachs (whatever that means) than Cruz would.”
[DT is super owned by the banks. In fact I think his fear of losing everything is the biggest motivations for running, the other is another psychotic reason]
Same stuff different day.
ICYMI: Cruz: TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making
Cruz News | June 23
Writes op-ed in Breitbart
HOUSTON, Texas — Today, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote an op-ed in Breitbart explaining why he cannot continue to support TPA, specifically stating, “TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.” Full op-ed may be read here or below:
ObamaTrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings
Breitbart
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz
06/23/2015
The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress. And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.
Both President Obama and Republican leadership are pressing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, or “fast-track.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) both oppose it.
As a general matter, I agree (as did Ronald Reagan) that free trade is good for America; when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.
But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.
Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.
First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.
Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to be fast-track.
When TPA last came up for a vote, both Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law. Two other Republican senators objected, and we were both denied votes on our amendments. Instead, the House inserted substantially weaker language in related legislation.
At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.
Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.
When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.
After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.
At lunch that day, I asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA. Visibly irritated, he told me and all my Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever; rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.
Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, I voted yes on TPA because I believe the U.S. generally benefits from free trade, and without TPA historically there have been no free-trade agreements.
But then the vote went to the House. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to the surprise of many, led House Democrats to oppose TPA en masse. (Technically, they voted against TAA, which was wrapped into the deal on TPA.)
At that point a group of House conservatives went to Speaker Boehner and said they could support TPA if Boehner agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats on Ex-Im, and just let the bank expire.
Boehner declined. Instead, it appears he made the deal with Democrats, presumably tossing in the Ex-Im Bank and also increasing tax penalties on businesses.
Moreover, the Speaker punished conservatives, wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.
Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats? Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?
Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but vote no.
There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.
Why invest? To make money. Why borrow? To pay it back. hmmm.
That post, like many others before it, by you and other Cruz supporters(?) exhibits a number of intersting things.
01. no actual rebuttal of the information in the article
02. the non specific charge of lies...
03. the non specific charge of intellectual dishonesty...
04. insults toward a candidate other than Cruz, despite that candidate not being the source of the charges
05. insults toward a candidate other than Cruz, despite that candidate not having done the same things Cruz is documented as having done
06. insults toward the supporters of another candidate, despite them not being the source of the charges
07. a charge another candidate screwed up...
- a. the other candiate didn’t make these charges
- b. the other candiate was not mentioned in this article
- c. the other candiate didn’t make the mistakes mentioned in this article
- d. the other candidate didn’t provide any trivia here
- e. the other candidate didn’t do anything reported here that was petty
08. there is an assumption on your part Trump is running to enhance his chance at greatness
09. no evidence of Trump blowing it was included in the presentation
10. your indifference to the view other FReepers would have of you, for such a clear propagandist approach to responding to the information
11. humans don’t act the way you are here, with no reason behind it
An investor can disinvest.
A lendee must PAY BACK borrowed money.
The investor is free, the man who borrows money is not.
You, of course, know the difference between having a savings account in your favorite bank and having a car loan from that same bank.
TPA is serious bad news for the USA, as bad as anything else you can name. Or worse. Cruzers refuse to even know what it is and what it consists of and what the consequences will be.
Of course, 99.999 out of every 100 Cruz supporters could not provide one coherent fact about TPA. The just don't care. Globalist tools of Ted and Heidi, Obama and the globalists.
Will this thread even hit 50 posts? Cruzers: determinedly, proudly uninformed.
Yes, for some it appears their dislike for Sundance means that Ted Cruz is not married to Heidi if Sundance writes that Cruz is married to Heidi.
There are two other similar contradictions, or examples of `cognitive dissonance’ (among many other examples), held by Cruzers.
Many of the resident Cruz supporters argue vehemently now that Cruz is a “natural born citizen.” However, even Cruz himself admitted back when he was running for the Senate that a NBC was “of two American parents and born on American soil,” as argued then as well by his supporters here, although the international man of mystery then was Obama. You can bet your boots the transcript of that interview will be used.
Next, they take the position that their guy is the Underdog fighting for the average American conservative, and that if he can just deny Trump the 1,237 delegates he needs for the nomination, at a contested convention Cruz will receive the nomination.
This is a two-pronged contradiction. If Cruz is as hated by the GOP establishment because he wants to right the milquetoast GOP as Trump—as evidenced by the herculean efforts they are making now to deny Trump the nomination (a zest for battle they never showed against the left wing of Uniparty), then why in the name of all that is reasonable would they give it to Cruz if things go sideways in Cleveland in second and third votes?
If Cruz is the standard bearer, then for whom? He is pwned now by McConnell, Ryan and Priebus. The GOP, which is ordinarily supposed to be neutral in primaries and which agreed to be “fair” to Trump as long as he agreed to support the eventual nominee, is actively assisting Cruz with money and party assets.
Many of us Trump supporters have been accused of anarchism, of wanting to “destroy the GOP”. No.
All we want are two parties.
Who do you think is more likely to effect change for the better to reverse the type of change that Obama promised and delivered upon by aiding the ongoing, deadly invasion of our country by third world extremists, killing jobs with Obamacare and draining the pocketbooks of productive Americans, degrading our military, ending government subsidies to the practice of infanticide and retailing aborted body parts, ending the practice of “War is Peace” Who will spur-on our economy on instead of doing everything possible to cripple it through arrogant, overweening federal bureaus and agencies?
So finally, and perhaps most importantly, the ultimate goal is to win back the White House. If Cruz cannot win contested primaries, particularly Florida and others critical to victory, relying on GOP-led caucuses and counting on delegates committed to Trump on the first vote, but inveigled by GOP Ring wraiths—how is he supposed to prevail in November?
Because the GOP will instruct them to vote for Cruz? Because angry Trump supporters will flock to him?
Those are negligible concerns because if Trump is blocked due to the efforts of the GOP, through its use of the ever hopeful Ted Cruz, you can be sure we will be expected to cast yet another vote for yet another GOP designated loser.
No mention of TPP/TPA? For many of us who are supporting Trump, this issue is the battlefield. Those who favor these global trade deals are the ESTABLISHMENT, and this thread is suggesting that Cruz, despite any positives which you have mentioned, is on the wrong side.
Whoever wrote this must have been a student of the Phd’s in academia that re-wrote the history of the new world and the evil white man conquering the poor native peoples.
Trump knows how to form a narrative over the heads of the media.
He has demonstrated he can beat the media.
He brings in the Reagan democrats for the first time since the eighties.
I take exception with the following cons, they are untrue, this one belongs in the pros IMHO:
inherited wealth and power He didn't inherit his wealth. He used some inherited wealth and built it to be huge. It's the same with his power. Both grew from small to huge under him, it's a big positive.
The idea that he is not bright is untrue, and far from a negative.
I think you should revisit Jim Robinson's last two posts about who Trump is, and rethink.
One sided trade is not good. Besides, why did he vote for it, and then say he was lied to and washed his hands of it?
________________________________
that was about reauthorization of the export import bank..
No, my point is that once you get to a contested convention, they are all competing. Ryan has said so. Priebus has said so. If you don't have 1,237, it is up to the convention. Rubio is not releasing his delegates.
If you adhere to rule 40b, then only Trump and Cruz are eligible to compete. I suspect that the rules committee that meets a week before the convention begins will seek to modify it. Each change must be approved by a majority of the total delegates. Most of them are GOPe types and will probably agree to a change that allows others to compete as well.
Cruz and Kasich are the stop Trump candidates. They have no way of reaching 1,237 thru the primary process. Once Trump is defeated on the first ballot, if we get to a contested convention, then it is a free for all. Trump will be cast aside and the horse trading will begin. It is imperative that Trump win on the first ballot, otherwise we will get a GOPe candidate. If Cruz were really an outsider, he would have dropped out after FL.
And my sense is that there are 3 remaining. The others have quit. They’re out. Then there are those who didn’t run at all.
In my mind, if someone other than Trump gets it, then I’m looking for fraud. Definitely if someone other than Trump or Cruz. But Ryan, Romney, Bush, etc. In my mind it’s fraud.
As I’ve said frequently the last few weeks, just because you have rules doesn’t mean the rules aren’t crooked.
Jeb said he could lose the primaries and still get the nomination at the convention. Cruz is doing what Jeb planned to do.
isn”t Trump for the same trade deal?
Cruz is still the best choice.
Thats intelectual honesty
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.