Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MichaelCorleone
I sometimes wonder if the TPP and H1B issues are what’s keeping Cruz in single digits.

I'm waiting for a very persuasive explanation from TC regarding his stances on these matters. It gives some of his supporters, such as I am, pause. And I don't mean two Clemson Tigers logos.
18 posted on 09/13/2015 8:25:05 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Resettozero

“I’m waiting for a very persuasive explanation from TC regarding his stances on these matters. It gives some of his supporters, such as I am, pause.”

I think A LOT OF US are with you. We want to think that Cruz has some damn good reasons for supporting Corker, TPP, and H1B’s.

We want to think that.

But he’s leaving us out to dry. Perhaps he could put an explanation on his website...or perhaps some of the Anti-Trump people here (who are mostly pro-Cruz) can help us?

...or else, maybe, Cruz is no different on these issues than the other Republicans who have also sold us out. Cruz is still much better than just about anyone else in the Senate on just about every other issue...but perhaps he is starting to ripen a bit in there?


74 posted on 09/13/2015 9:16:42 AM PDT by BobL (REPUBLICANS - Fight for the WHITE VOTE...and you will win (see my 'profile' page))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Resettozero

I thought his explanation of the vote on TPP was wuite clear. What the vote was about was to set the ground rules for when the treaty comes to the senate after negotiations have been completed, and the entire agreement is submitted. What Cruz was supporting was the same setup other recent presidenta have had with multilateral trade agreements. Basically, that once presented to congress, that the bill would be submitted for a straight up or down vote without amendments. This is because if you add any amendments to the bill you would essentially be throwing it out because those changes would then have to be renegotiated with all parties to it.

I actually agree with this position pretty much completely, because it makes sense with this type of treaty.

What I absolutely disagreed with was the entire concept of calling this treaty an “agreement” rather than what it is, in order to subvert the constitutional requirement of 2/3 approval for treaties.

The first part is necessary, whereas the second part is not.


100 posted on 09/13/2015 12:58:16 PM PDT by zeugma (Zaphod Beeblebrox for president! Or Cruz if Zaphod is unavailable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson