Posted on 03/11/2016 3:46:36 AM PST by Helicondelta
At Thursday night’s Republican debate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Kasich, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) all parroted talking points about trade that do not seem to match their prior legislative records and statements on the critical issue.
While Donald Trump has articulated his vociferous opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda in practically every GOP debate, tonight marked the first debate in which all of the other candidates were asked about their previous support for trade globalism.
...
Jake Tapper then asked Cruz: “You were a supporter of the Pacific trade deal [TPP], but after taking some heat from conservatives, you changed your position. Why should these voters who don’t like these trade deals trust that you will fight for them all the time and not just in election years?”
In response, Cruz said:
Actually that’s incorrect. There are two different agreements. There’s TPA and TPP. I opposed TPP and have always opposed TPP, which is what you asked about. And when it comes to trade, look, free trade, when we open up foreign markets, helps Americans. But we’re getting killed in international trade right now. And we’re getting killed because we have an administration that’s doesn’t look out for American workers and jobs are going overseas. We’re driving jobs overseas.
However, Cruz voted to fast-track the TPP by voting for TPA on the first go-around.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Cruz Glue Sniffers are on the way to twist the truth.
Cruz also voted for the Corker Bill.
‘Would you consider Cruz entering the convention with less delegates than Trump, attempting to convince the unbound Kasich, Rubio and Carson delegate to vote for him, to be ‘causing discord’?
Yes.
A statesman would unite his party during a convention. Someone selfish and unpatriotic puts ambition first. It is unreasonable to oust the frontrunner if his support is genuine and not astroturf-establishment.
Notice how they are planning for riots. Link above.
I don’t think there will be riots, but there is no way to appease supporters of a frontrunner if he is ousted by unknown delegates and replaced by someone who lost in popular votes.
Could this have been the purpose of the Bush meeting, give them the questions, told them to lie
He voted for The Corker Bill which allowed the Iran nuke deal.
Cruz is a islam supporting globalists
Another and better way is to cut taxes across the board.
CORKER BILL
Did Cruz ever voice regrets?
I heard Rush talk about that. Even NRO hates it ...
Congress Must Ditch the Corker Bill and Treat the Iran Deal as Either a Treaty or Proposed Legislation to be Voted Up or Down
— AndrewCMcCarthy
It is time to end the Kabuki theater. The Corker Bill and its ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So should Congress.
Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself — at least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed (piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution, however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White House.
Enough is enough — way beyond enough.
The Congress, particularly the Senate, has not only a clear justification but a constitutional duty to scrap the legally defective and, now, factually nigh-irrelevant Corker review process, codified as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. I am proud of having been an adamant opponent of the Corker Bill since it was first proposed, but that is neither here nor there at this point. Even supporters of the Corker Bill must now see that the legislation anticipated and is designed to address an international agreement that is fundamentally different from the one the Obama administration has struck with America’s enemies.
Obama’s Iran deal has thoroughly marginalized the Corker Bill. Congress should treat it that way, too.
It is manifest that the Corker Bill prescribes a process for congressional review only of “Agreements with Iran Related to the Nuclear Program of Iran.” In fact, it is even narrower than that, addressing only review of “the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran” (see, e.g., Sec. 135(b)(3), (4), (5) and (6)).
But Obama’s Iran deal is not limited to sanctions enacted by the United States Congress in connection with Iran’s nuclear program. Not by a long shot. Obama’s deal extends to Iran’s ballistic missiles programs and other weapons activities — including the lifting of international arms embargoes covering, as Kagan notes, both “any material or technology that might be useful to a ballistic-missile program,” and “battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or missile systems.” [snip]
Allow drilling offshore and on all federal lands.
Sure, allow drilling. But our current oil investors should not get buried by this price war.
That’s why the Donald calls them all Liars on matters of importance:-)
About fifteen years ago, I told people, “I won’t be happy with gas until it reaches $1.50 a gallon.”
People thought that was impossible.
Well, we’re here. But factoring in inflation, I don’t want our oil industry to suffer. At the same time, tariffs instead of domestic taxes.
The guys who met with Bush were obviously all on the same sheet of music at the debate -so draw your own conclusions
It cannot be ruled out though that a Trump mole from those meetings made sure the Boss had a copy of the score, cause he was cool,detached and very presidential compared to the rest of them
“TPA is not TPP. Protectionists refuse to acknowledge the distinction. This is intellectually incompetent and politically irresponsible, but it has become par for the course.”
TPA is NOT TPP, but TPA makes TPP possible. So when Cruz voted for TPA, he was in fact voting for TPP, a bill that was unread and top secret when he voted for TPA.
If there were no TPP in the works, there would not have been nor needed a TPA.
I listened to an economist yesterday describe TPP. It truly does end the United States as a sovereign nation. I mean, we are truly over as an independent nation.
Also, TPP is a “living” document which means the international cartel, once it is passed, can change it at will.
People who have read TPP comment on how much less there is about trade than there is about setting up the organization that will control the member countries. TPP turns the United States into just one of the member states, subservient to foreign masters.
Sessions as Senate Majority Leader. How about that?
Palin would be an interesting VP unless internal polling says otherwise. [Trump should internally poll regarding his VP choice.] I would not be thrilled with Kasich, but he’s top notch fiscally.
“Ted tried to educated the ignorant by explaining the difference between FREE trade and NEGOTIATED trade.”
That is a nonsensical way to describe it, because the negotiations have been the vehicle that enables “free trade”. It just so happens that the end results are destroying this nation economically.
Free trade agreements means all those products pour into the United States untaxed while all our goods are supposed to pour into other countries untaxed. The only problem is, those people in other countries, due to their slave labor wages, do not have any money to purchase our goods.
“A kick in the teeth to Big Ethanol. It’s ultimately doomed now.”
If only, if only, Big Ethanol was the only thing we had to worry about. We would be blessed above all the nations in world history.
“Cruz also voted for the Corker Bill.”
Wonder why Trump does not mention that, when Cruz started getting hysterical and blaming Trump for the Iranian deal.
And I don’t think Cruz will get very far with telling voters that there is no difference between Trump and Hillary.
Palin would not make a good running mate, he needs an elder statesman type running mate at this point, with whom he also sees eye to eye. Sessions would also likely be followed by a conservative, which is probably not the case with a number of other running mates (Scott Walker, f'rinstance).
If we don’t reduce government, eliminate the IRS, eliminate oppressive regulations, bust the labor cartels, eliminate entitlements, repeal 0bamacare, stop illegal immigration, deport parasitic illegal immigrants, bust up K Street, start sending Wall Street crooks and their bought and paid for politicians to jail then a 50% tariff wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
You know as well as I do that a tariff that will be selectively applied and enforced by corrupt politicians in Washington who don’t want to anger their offshore contributors would be a failure because as it currently stands, Washington is a failure.
There is a slim possibility that a president with strong conservative values who knows and believes in the Constitution could turn this mess around. A very slim possibility.
Misreading the Trump-Evangelicals Link
Ignorant of election history, the chattering class is abuzz about the supposed hypocrisy of evangelicals.
By Ralph Reed
March 10, 2016 6:56 p.m. ET
Of all the bizarre aspects of the 2016 presidential campaign, none has been more puzzling to many observers than the embrace of Donald Trump by evangelical Christians. After losing the evangelical vote (and first-in-the-nation caucuses) to Ted Cruz in Iowa, Mr. Trump won a plurality of evangelical votes in a string of primaries. He did so again in Michigan and Mississippi this week, and a Fox News poll shows him with a 17-point lead among evangelicals ahead of the March 15 Florida primary. Mr. Trump would not be the Republican front-runner today without his ability to compete for evangelical votes.
The vision of Jerry Falwell Jr. and Sarah Palin endorsing the twice-divorced Manhattan real-estate developer while evangelicals pack arenas to cheer his unique brand of politics-as-performance-art has caused some jaws to drop. For the chattering class, the odd alliance is like a plot twist from “Elmer Gantry,” offering an irresistible opportunity to bash the Republican front-runner and the party’s evangelical base.
New York Times columnist Frank Bruni recently faulted evangelicals for supporting a man who “personifies greed” and “radiates lust,” proving “how selective and incoherent the religiosity of many in the [Republican] party’s God squad is.”
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Board Member Joe Rago with an analysis of Tuesday’s primary results and a look ahead to the Florida and Ohio contests. Photo credit: Reuters.
This consternation is shared by more than a few evangelicals. Former George W. Bush White House aide Pete Wehner has bemoaned his coreligionists’ joining Mr. Trump in an angry politics of grievance that seeks “scapegoats to explain their growing impotence.” Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore offered a simpler, half-in-jest explanation in a Washington Post op-ed: Many evangelicals “may well be drunk right now.”
But something larger and more interesting than resentment (or spirituous liquor) explains Mr. Trump’s performance among
Read at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/misreading-the-trump-evangelicals-link-1457654169
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.