Ted Cruz Ping! If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
Posted on 05/08/2015 8:26:49 AM PDT by Jack Black
As many of you know, I'm a big fan of Ted Cruz, but when he does something wrong, it's important to call him on it. In this case he, along with Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, voted for a bill that will effectively allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran.
Normally, here's how treaties work: the President negotiates a treaty with another country, like the deal he is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons development. Once the treaty is negotiated, it's submitted to the Senate. Two thirds of the Senate has to vote to approve, or ratify, the treaty. If two thirds do not support it, it is not binding.
But the bill the Congress sent to the President turns things on its head. It will allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran, and unless Congress objects with a 2/3 vote within 30 days, the President's actions are allowed to stand. See the reversal? Formerly, the President needed a 2/3 vote to act, and now the Congress needs a 2/3 vote to stop him from acting. And be assured the Democrats will never let the Republicans get that many votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
He seems to be bucking the received conservative wisdom.
If the power of God is in it, even a “folding” can result in a victory (unlike for when it happens in a purely worldly realm, in which case evil just keeps trucking on and on). However all eyes are upon this. It would be seemly if all prayers would be, too.
Huh? A pure invective posting. Read the article, look at the bill. Respond to the article’s points, if you can.
What “procedure” can he use now that Obama has flipped this to require 2/3 majority to stop him from ending sanctions.
If they had voted against the bill, the author of this article would have lambasted them for not voting to give the Senate the power to reject the treaty - that they had given Obama the power to do what he wanted without their approval. This is not a perfect world.
“On the surface it makes no sense. I’d want to know why, because frankly it is NOT in character for Ted Cruz.”
Makes perfect sense. When you say no, you lose all credibility when you start commenting about it. Cruz made his case on cloture and voted the correct way.
Now when this starts getting bantered about in committee, Cruz can say his piece and offer up constructive criticism without coming off as one of the two people who voted no on this.
Call it strategery on Cruz’ part.
Not stupid, not obviously corrupt. That still leaves "holds positions I disagree with", though.
Soon, I may need to get out the red ink and start appending these to every Cruz post, like SoConPubbie does every time Rand's name is mentioned on FR.
The proof of the pudding is not in the recipe or in the theory or in the ad copy. It is in the tasting.
Because Cruz has otherwise done so well, he merits the patience to watch this play out. But if it fails it could kill him, politically speaking.
This is not a treaty and is not legally binding.
When the muslim faggot in the WH is gone, sanctions can be reimposed.
What stage in the legislative passage process is this even AT? I’m seeing conflicting accounts.
Democrats commonly win on apple pie legislation because they attach all manner of bizarre strings to it.
Can this shoe be put on the other foot. Liberal measures be tied to conservative principles?
Yes, and that is the same thing said by two strangers, visiting Lot, about Sodom and Gomorrah.
“What stage in the legislative passage process is this even AT? I’m seeing conflicting accounts.”
Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but I think the bill now goes to the House.
More surprised by Rubio. Foreign policy was supposed to be a strong point and this takes some wind out of that sail.
Not a popular position among the libertarians that reside here.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Pretty sure the Constitutional requirements are still in place.. This bill would let the Senate “ratify” the treaty, but it’s still not actually ratified, unless they get the 2/3 approval.
Not really sure what this bill is even trying to do? Confuse people?
“I voted no on cloture because we should have insisted on amendments to put real teeth in this bill. Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal. I will continue to lead the fight to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to protect the national security of America and our allies.”
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-why-i-voted-yes-for-corker-iran-bill/#ixzz3ZZ5P2odk
Count me as a Cruz voter."
Agreed. Is there anyone who agrees with his or her spouse 100% of the time?
No...?
Then you shouldn't expect to beat that when it comes to elected officials.
Corker and McConnell are both Full of Shitte, up to their eyebrows.
Ted Cruz Ping!
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.