Ted Cruz Channels Paul Ryan: ‘A Lot of Misinformation’ on Obamatrade That ‘You Can Get on the...net’

Breitbart ^ | 11 Jun 2015 | Matthew Boyle

[P-Marlowe]

The TPA says 51 Senators can stop ANY fast tracked agreement.

The Constitution says that 2/3 of the Senate must approve any treaty and every agreement between nations that binds the United States of America is a "treaty".

But then nobody cares what the Constitution says anymore.

I guess I'm just beating a dead horse and the Constitution is that horse.

[P-Marlowe]

Most trashing Cruz were likely never Cruz supporters. Feels like Paulbots.

I'm sure you were 100% on board with the TPA and giving Obama fast track authority on the TPP and any other treaty he wants to bind the United States into before Ted Cruz ever weighed in on the subject, right?

[Tzfat]

You can be for the TPA but not the TPP.

You see, just like Cruz, you think that being factually correct is the same thing as being honest.

Let's assume that TPP is a stinker (and assuming Obama is negotiating it, that is a good assumption). You COULD have killed it in its tracks by killing TPA, but you took the CHANCE that Obama would not negotiate a bad deal for America? And you think Cruz can say "I tried to amend it" but then voting for it after all is enough? So, Cruz is trusting Obama, when he could have voted "no" on TPA. And he could have used his influence with the House to kill TPP for sure. If he wanted TPA later, then wait 16 months - instead he doubled down. That is not principled - that is the definition of political tone deafness.

[ConservativeMind]

But all spending bills need to go before the House, so getting both houses of Congress involved on a trade agreement makes sense. If I recall properly, even trade bills must go to the House, so doesn’t this seem appropriate? It’s not a treaty.

[Tzfat]

Most trashing Cruz were likely never Cruz supporters. Feels like Paulbots.

Not I. I can't stand Paul, the Huckster, or the Donald. I was sold behind Cruz until he stepped, unnecessarily, into this mess. He just showed us that he is neither invincible or savvy.

[odawg]

‘you personally agreed you were responsible for posting a lot of TPA/TPP “Internet misunderstandings” here on Free Republic:”

A LOT? I merely said that I was WRONG about what the Senate passed, which was the TPA. I did that because I read about four news dispatches about it; TPA and TPP were used interchangeably, or some just said TPP WAS PASSED. These were newspaper articles. However, that certainly does not change any of my views on the subject, and there is nothing else I will retract, and I stand by what I have posted. I just finished watching Fox News Sunday, and some of the panelists were lauding the benefits of free trade. Sometimes they would just say “trade”. Who is against trade? And free trade, the way it has been rigged, has demonstrably hurt the American worker to the benefit of corporations. No one likes to mention that Ford plans to build a new plant in Mexico, courtesy of free trade (NAFTA). Now who does that move help? I like to use that because it is a metaphor for what have been going on with manufacturing for years. American workers CANNOT compete against the low wages of Asian countries. Brit Hume said TPP/TPA would create new jobs. Well, those won’t be manufacturing jobs for sure, because the industrialists will move all the manufacturing jobs overseas because of cheaper labor costs. And, certainly, the biggest elephant in room is we have to TRUST OBAMA to further American interest. Can you cite one example where that has occurred since he became president? We all can cite many examples where the opposite occurred.

[ConservativeMind]

What don’t you understand about the word “misinformation?” It literally means “wrong information.” You just admitted “misinformation” is out there, then said that doesn’t matter.

[P-Marlowe]

So what about Walker and Perry?

What about them?

You tell me. I'm not hawking anyone.

Frankly I'd like to see Ted Cruz repent and come back to the fold. I was supporting Ted Cruz 150% until he came out for a 500% increase in H1B visas and then signed off on an unconstitutional granting of power to Obama that fast tracks a bunch of binding treaties that should be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate rather than a majority of the house and senate.

I only wish Ted Cruz had backtracked on these issues. Instead he has doubled down and at this point he has lost my support.

[ConservativeMind]

You posted a great many posts that were all saying the stuff for which you apologized.

I am cool with people being against the TPA or the TPP, but I abhor misrepresentations or lies in an effort to “win” arguments.

[P-Marlowe]

But all spending bills need to go before the House, so getting both houses of Congress involved on a trade agreement makes sense.

Spending bills must ORIGINATE in the house.

This "Bill" originated in the Senate, but in fact it originated in the white house. It is not a "bill" anyway, it is a TREATY.

The president negotiates treaties and is supposed to submit them to the Senate for ratification. Once a treaty is signed by the president, the Senate has no authority to change even one word of it. They must pass it by a 2/3 majority or it is dead.

BTW the Congress doesn't care much for the "origination clause" either.

f I recall properly, even trade bills must go to the House, so doesn’t this seem appropriate? It’s not a treaty.

It's a banana.

[Tzfat]

What don’t you understand about the word “misinformation?”

What don't you understand about political suicide? Cruz killed a large portion of his most ardent support by not listening to what his supporters were saying, and assuming that he could fake it by issuing a fact sheet that obfuscates the reality that TPP will now be a done deal, even if it is bad (and it will be). All while he could have worked to kill it early by helping to kill TPA.

He can jump up and down when TPP comes out, vote against it, and even lobby against it. But he could have helped kill it by not supporting TPA. Being technically correct is not the same thing as being honest.

The funny thing is, his "fact sheet" about his support for TPA is made to sound like it is the way to make TPP better. We have never seen anything come out of Obama that can be made better. It is far better to kill any potential treaty while you can, rather than attempt to make it better.

[Jane Long]

The comments on ALL of the sites that I’ve read articles about this on, are running 90% against this *agreement*.

Sarah Palin is against this....she represents Tea Party conservatives more than anyone I know.

[9YearLurker]

Walker and Perry are at least as bad.

Fiorina has at least been speaking out to say that the actual deal should be made public before Congress votes on greasing the skids.

And, she’s the most impressive candidate in interviews. I know she’s not perfect either—e.g., backing amnesty like they all do—but I’m starting to think she may actually be the best candidate in the race.

[ConservativeMind]

None of these bills is a treaty. They can't be, or they would need 2/3rds of the Senate. These are simply trade bills with entities with which we already trade.

Question for you: Did the Senate make treaties for all other trade bills currently in place which allow our present trade?

[9YearLurker]

These aren’t your father’s trade bills.

[cripplecreek]

I actually like the idea of her as a VP choice. Or possibly even SOS.

While slapping Clinton she made a pretty good case for herself as SOS when she said that she had been one of those who sat down and made deals across a table while the SOS went out for photo ops.

[odawg]

“You posted a great many posts that were all saying the stuff for which you apologized.”

_____”all saying the stuff for which you apologized”_____

NO. I narrowed my apology down to ONE detail, and that detail is just a technicality. As I just posted to you, if TPA passes, TPP is automatic, hence my chagrin with Cruz and the Republicans. Lying is saying something meant to deceive. If I were trying to deceive, why did I bring up the point to you when I learned I had it wrong. I am not trying to best someone in an argument as much as to explain why I think what I think. The Obama agenda, and the Republican promotion of it, has me greatly worried.

[9YearLurker]

Yeah, but it’s also looking like she’s got depth in all areas—and can make the case on all issues.

Each clip I see of her raises my estimation of her potential.

She may think she’s running for a veep selection, but I really think she may be the best of the bunch.

Of course, we’ll have to see a lot more. At this point she hasn’t even made the top-10 cut in polls. But last time around every candidate had his or her day, and they faultered when they couldn’t hold up under greater scrutiny. I don’t see her wilting like a Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc.

[parksstp]

Congress is not ceding any power to the Executive. If the one piece of garbage is enough to kill it, vote it down.

A wise Executive in negotiating the trade deals for bringing to Congress on an up or down vote would probably work to have open discussions with them along with making the proposals of the trade agreement fully public so that it would be known beforehand whether the deal would survive an up or down vote through both Houses or not. A bad executive would probably just try to pump whatever trade agreement with enough goodies to get the votes needed to clear. In either case, this would explain why in the past a TPA has allowed all trade deals to pass. Why would an Executive waste their time negotiating a deal they know couldn’t clear Congress?

Yes, it would be easy to remove garbage with amendments but then many will want to add stuff to it which then could present and pass a bill that wasn’t actually negotiated or agreed to by the foreign nation resulting in no trade deal at all.

Friday’s vote showed that Cruz was right about the timing of the bill. If Cruz were elected President, the Dems will vote lockstep to prevent giving him a TPA and given the make-up of the Senate, it would be virtually impossible to get a 2/3 vote to approve any trade deal whether beneficial or not. This is why TPA has been around since the 60’s.

Obviously people don’t trust Obama, but 1 question that should be considered if TPA passed is this: “What would it take for Obama to stuff in TPP to get the leftist Dems beholden to the Union bosses to vote for it?” I don’t really know how you buy these people off. Like other politicians, they enjoy their power and if they go against the Unions with their votes, they’ll get labeled a sellout and replaced just like we would get rid of a RINO.

I know enough of both to know that if TPA passed, TPP would not be passed before Obama left office because there’s no way he has the votes in his own party and if there’s enough garbage in TPP, the House and Senate Repubs will vote kill it. That’s why I don’t buy the whole “TPA is a cloture vote” nonsense. If the left really believed that and thought Obama could pump enough crap in there to support TPP there would have been no reason to deny him TPA. Bottom line, the votes aren’t there.

TPA is Constitutional and should be passed. TPP looks suspect and I highly suspect it would fail whether TPA is renewed or not.

[P-Marlowe]

None of these bills is a treaty. They can't be, or they would need 2/3rds of the Senate.

LOL. Talk about circular reasoning. That's my point. They do need 2/3 of the Senate!

Any agreement that binds the United States and which has been signed and agreed to by a foreign country is a treaty. You can call it whatever you want, it is a treaty.

These are simply trade bills with entities with which we already trade.

Do other countries sign off on "bills" or is it just Congress and the President who sign off on "bills"? IIRC the United States is a Sovereign country and no other country has any say in any "law" passed by our congress.

The president has the sole power to negotiate treaties. Obama negotiated this treaty. Congress did not draft it and Congress has not signed it. Only the president can sign a treaty and then only the Senate can approve it with a 2/3 vote in favor of it.

Did the Senate make treaties for all other trade bills currently in place which allow our present trade?

Any agreement between the United States and any other country that binds the United States and which has been signed by any other country is a treaty. The Senate has no power to "make treaties." That is the sole responsibility of the President. The Senate can only ratify treaties.

Those "trade agreements" that were signed by the president and representatives of foreign countries that were not passed by a 2/3 vote in the Senate are not valid or constitutional. They may be in effect, but they are not constitutional.