It could happen to a nicer piece of Sh!t.
“No we’re voting on a procedure,” Ryan said. “How does Congress consider trade agreements? Then in the fall, probably in the fall, we’ll consider a trade agreement—which hasn’t been completed yet. That’s why we don’t know what’s in it because it doesn’t exist yet.”
What part of this process do people criticizing Ryan not understand? Or is everyone criticizing just against free trade with other nations?
Repeating Ryan, this is not a vote on a negotiated trade agreement. This is a vote establishing how an up or down vote on the trade agreement that is finally negotiated between several nations will be handled in the U.S.
The final result agreed to between participating nations will be published for all to read, and lodge objection to, before it is voted on by a GOP-controlled Congress. If the final agreement is as bad as people are implying, Congress obviously won’t ratify it.
But again, if you’re just against free trade on principle, why not just say that and object on that basis, instead of objecting to provisions that aren’t before Congress for a vote. Those provisions, if they end up in the final, negotiated, agreement, will get plenty of discussion when the time comes but, as Ryan states, Congress in this authorization bill is trying to prohibit certain items from even being negotiated, i.e., climate change provisions and immigration provisions.
I don’t get the outrage, unless it’s just anti-free-trade, in which case just say so.