Posted on 06/14/2015 12:28:21 AM PDT by familyop
"I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. The something I ought to do, I can do. And by the grace of God, I will." - Edward Everett Hale
I guess you don't believe that the Constitution is a document designed to place specific limits on the three branches of government, do you?
Where in the constitution does it allow the Congress to give "added powers" the Executive branch? Was this a recent amendment?
give the president added powers to negotiate trade agreements.
The President has all the powers he needs to negotiate "trade agreements" (Treaties) with foreign governments. That is one of the specific enumerated powers given only to the President. Congress does not have any authority to "negotiate" any treaties or "trade agreements". The Senate has exclusive power to either ratify or reject any trade agreement (treaty). The Senate does not have the power or authority to amend any treaty or trade agreement. It must be an up or down vote.
Essentially the President has always had "fast track" authority on treaties. He simply submits them to the Senate and the Senate is then duty bound by the express terms of the Constitution to have a vote on it - up or down - no changes.
TPA is simply an unconstitutional way to delegate powers to the House which it doesn't have and to eliminate the specific requirement that these agreements must have 2/3 of the Senate approval.
Again, you are just trying desperately to use this ridiculous issue to drive a wedge between conservatives the two real conservatives in the race (Cruz and Walker) while time and time again refusing to say who you support.
Right now I am undecided. Walker has one strike against him - his ignorant position on TPA. Cruz has two strikes against him - a 500% increase in H1B visas and his knowing and inexcusable support for TPA.
The first one to strike 3 will probably be the loser in my book. We'll wait and see what strike 3 is. Obviously if Cruz votes for TPP, then he is done in my book. I'm praying he repents and comes back to the Tea Party fold. I'm not holding my breath.
The real question is who will be left standing after the Florida primary. There is a lot of weeding out to do. Personally, I wish the candidates would do it themselves, because a lot of them know they’re not winning the presidency.
Without his entire base of conservative support, I think Cruz killed his chances. Time will tell.
My version of pragmatism says that Rubio, Bush, Fiorini, and Walker will be left standing. Bush because of his money, Fiorini because of the female vote, Rubio because of the Hispanic vote, and Walker because of the base.
JMHO.
Cruz was my first choice but now I'm looking at Jindal.
I guess Cruz’s past matters not to you. Poor baby...you deserve Hillary.
Your head is buried so far up hillary's butt that you're hypoxic.
You're going to need a bigger shovel. By directing the comment to me, you were associating me with said "bandwagon" unless specified otherwise. I'm not on anybody's wagon as I have not picked a candidate. Therefore, it was a slander, whether intended or by mistake.
Moreover, my comments were directed to Mr. Cruz' contention that enacting what is in every other respect a treaty by statutory law is constitutionally legitimate. The contention is logically absurd and historically duplicitous given the history of the enforcement of such "agreements" and the manner of their passage. To the latter, we know very well that they were passed by statute because they would never have been ratified as treaties. Thus, to contend this is a legitimate process is both legally and historically false. Given that I know the man to be well educated, I must suspect an ulterior motive. Hence the rhetorical question as to how he could support the process.
"Hell" is mentioned 54 times in the Bible. It is therefore neither an expletive nor blasphemous. To declare it unmentionable is therefore to change what it says, which the Bible specifically prohibits.
It was not so specified. Therefore I must conclude it was directed at me because it was clearly inclusive in construction. I am on record on this forum defending Cruz. I am also on record taking issue with his policy preferences and his tactics. I could thus have no way to know you are associating me with his supporters or not. It is up to you to make that clear. You did not. I am thus within the set of those who could be on said 'Cruz bandwagon' and can legitimately conclude that you were so associating me.
The comment was to you, not at you.
Apology for your error in ambiguous communication accepted. You have mine for not requesting clarification.
That doesn't make sense.
Please. Are you are accusing me of being unclear? If so, I'd suggest you get a bigger pair of tweezers.
Look up some information on the bandwagon approach. Learn something.
Here’s the point that I was making (besides politicians being crooks).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
It’s a child of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
[There are better sites and books on the fallacies, but I don’t have time to dig and cite those now.]
I was really being tactful and mild about it. Because if the group is often using insults, false statistics, false analogies, implied threats and political speech with no record or other evidence to base a politician’s words on, then the group’s approach is more like that of a fantasy steamroller that’s going to roll over anyone who questions or disagrees with it (fantasy, or crime, if it happens in any instance).
That’s a sure way to lose an effort in politics. Many political activists may be ignorant enough to believe that most voters will fall for it, but most of the voters aren’t so ignorant. Or maybe many political activists are impulsively evil and simply enjoy insulting readers and listeners. Either way, voters are disgusted or even angered by such approaches and will reject the effort, the group and the politician.
If and when enough voters do fall for such propaganda approaches, we’ll probably see another fascist nation and war. Guaranteed, that a mob of fat and happy bureaucrats who couldn’t make or replace a useful part to save their lives won’t win.
“Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason.” —José Maria de Eça de Queiroz
“There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.” —Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville
Well everyone else running has about a million strikes
It's still early. Sarah Palin could decide to run. She is against both H1B increases and TPA. She has zero strikes. Cruz has 2 and Walker has one.
LOL...yes, my head is buried up Hillary’s behind. Nice retort...very smart of you. LOL.
Supporting a man who is the most Conservative in DC really is supporting the Marxist...man, you must dig common core if that is the way you think.
That being said, I like Jindal a LOT. He is a good man...he ain’t Cruz though, but he is my 2nd
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.