Posted on 06/18/2015 6:07:51 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If you had to vote in your state primary/caucus today, knowing what you know now about the various declared and probable candidates, who would you vote for? Why? Who would you like to see as the running mate for your preferred candidate? If you could help staff your candidates cabinet and other top appointments, who would you choose? If you could recommend different congressional leaders than we have now, who would they be? And who would you like to see on the Supreme Court and why? And finally, feel free to donate to Free Republic.
The ungracious rhetoric appears to be mostly in your posts.
No to both Cruz & Rubio for voting “Aye” on TPA.
Senators are great for giving speeches. What have these two actually accomplished in the senate? Please name those bills sponsored by them which became law.
No to Rand Paul because he is weak on foreign policy.
No to Trump until I watch his performance in 1st debate.
Yes to Jindal because he is the only governor with balls to push for religious freedom and not back down. He implemented school vouchers, reduced size of government employees, reduced taxes. Has better record of actual accomplishments than any other current crop of congress critters.
Yes to Walker for his proven record as governor, and winning 3 elections in 4 years in a purple-blue state.
Yes to Fiorina for doing fabulous job on campaign trail.
267 posts and not a single vote for Rubio nor Jeb !!
Obviously you know absolutely nothing about Walker’s positions on any issue.
Walker has made it clear that he supports all of the trade bills.
.
You do not understand the difference between ACTUALLY recording your vote in US Senate as the horrible middle-class job killing bill and “supporting” a trade bill in some other form, which would make an attempt to protect middle-class jobs.
Cruz, because I think he has the deepest understanding of conservatism of the bunch. He reminds me of Reagan or Goldwater in the way he approaches politics from a thoroughly worked out set of ideas. Policy-wise, if he can follow through on simplifying the tax system and gutting the IRS...oh man, that would be huge and so good for the country.
This is one of those times when it would be nice if FR did official Freeper polls like back in the day. It’s probably been seven or eight years since I’ve seen them do one of those.
Cruz for President
Right now? None of the above. Everyone jumps in saying a few right words and the herd follows them. Then, alas, their true colors show. I have pulled my support for Cruz and am now taking a wait-and-see approach. Tempted to ask the campaign for my money back, even reverse the AmEx charges. Yep, none of the above. Maybe Trump will force some honest transparency from the candidates.
BS. Nobody ever heard of that guy until he appeared on some web site where someone claimed he was supposedly running the show. Talking points trying to give the weasels who voted for it some cover.
I personally am against TPA because it is unconstitutional. The main opponent of the TPA bill is the Constitution and the Founders of the Republic.
It was even mentioned here on FR. Go look it up
Maybe you should look up the Treaty Clause and the discussion of it in the Federalist papers.
Wow, you should also read what the other side says too...before you claim to know so much.
First, tell me WHY it is unconstitutional. Then, tell me when TPA first came to be.
Then, try to deny that the guy didn’t plant the story so that people like you would freak out.
I have read the other side. I have also read the constitution. TPA and the Constitution are at polar ends here.
First, tell me WHY it is unconstitutional. Then, tell me when TPA first came to be.
Because it removes the 2/3 Senate requirement for the ratification of treaties. By all measures and in accordance with the definition of treaties as understood by the founders, TPP is a treaty and TPA violates the Constitution by allowing a simple majority vote on the treaty.
What the hell do you mean by "tell me when TPA first came to be"?
This bill or the first attempt by Congress to bypass the Constitution?
Congress is always looking for ways to bypass the Constitution. Congress hates the Constitution for the simple reason that it limits their powers. They have done it since the First Congress. They will continue to do it as long as we let them. Obama hates the Constitution because it limits his power. Obama wants the powers that TPA gives him. But the Constitution does not grant him those powers, so he wants TPA so he can do an end run around it.
The Constitution is basically a dead letter at this point despite the fact that 535 Senators and Congressmen have taken an oath to uphold and defend it. And yet those people are the enemies of the very document they have sworn to protect.
Then, try to deny that the guy didn’t plant the story so that people like you would freak out.
I never heard of him before the Ted Cruz's people started posting articles about him here and claiming that he is the general in charge of the opposition to this bill.
Honestly had anyone on Free Republic ever heard of him before?
Will you swear on a stack of Bibles that you knew all about him before Ted Cruz's campaign came on here and tried to point the finger at him for being in charge of the opposition?
What a bunch of crap.
TPA is unconstitutional. Anyone who voted for it violated their oath.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Posted on tedcruz.org:
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.
Tariffs are taxes. Hence, the House needs to be involved.
More boilerplate talking points from TedCruz.org.
Regardless of what is in a treaty, if it is an international agreement that binds the United States, then it needs 2/3 of the Senate to agree on it.
Just because a treaty mentions taxes and tariffs does not make it something other than a treaty.
All the other nations in this agreement have to go through their own processes to ratify this as a treaty and those countries all refer to this as a “treaty.”
At least one commentator called this a “MEGA-TREATY”.
If Congress doesn’t want to abide by the 2/3 requirement, then they should amend the constitution rather than redefine the word “treaty.” Calling TPP anything other than a Mega Treaty is dishonest.
Well I thought you were in Trumps court????
..."I wouldn’t vote at all if the election were held today, and probably won’t vote in Nov 2016 in any case"....
The usual anti-Obama rhetoric.
I sent it back and wrote on it 'you sold us out'.
So be it......If that is true, I apologize.
I think my time at FR is over.
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.