Bowsite.com

This is a pretty scary thought. Regardless of who is in the White House, dem or repub, do we really want one person to have this level of power? Scary indeed.

Haven't you been told on several occasions right here on CF, by very smart individuals, that the Republicans cannot do everything at one time? They must pick their battles, you know that!!

Be quiet and wait patiently while McConnell (and Boehner) makes his pick. That's what I'm doing.

Republicans are nothing but lipservice traitors.

This is the straw that breaks the camels back. Never again will I vote for these ahols, period.

1. It's a free trade bill, or at least that's what it's being called. I'll always support free trade, no matter who is the author.

2. Elizabeth Warren and the clueless, economically illiterate, 'never took Econ 101' clowns oppose it.

That in itself is reason to support it!

Spike. You are disqualified. Nazi or Hitler in any discussion eliminates the contestant. You know that

It's not 'free trade?'

Then why are all the anti-capitalists in the Senate opposed to it?

IMHO, the vast secrecy of the agreement is reason alone to NOT support it in any manner. The entire process reeks of the same politics that brought us Obamacare. The only real difference is that O-care was there to be read and wasn't and the trade bill is so secret that the few who have actually looked at it cannot even reveal what it in it and how it affects American citizens.

I'll try to see if I can locate some of the articles I have read and post them here.

Related to a past thread, what we are seeing is the same old story where the eGOP (NDCP)has sold its supporters a tale of conservatism/resistance to the proregressives and then rolled over. Heck, as the title of this thread states...Reid is still in control of the Senate in spite of the GOP win last November.

I've got more homework to do but at the moment I'm not sure this is as bad as some appear to think at first blush.

I listen to supposed conservatives here tell how the Shill in Chief has never supported anything that is positive for America. Now that the large multinationals and Republicans support the same thing this is different.

I suspect, because of the secrecy that is all we can really do, that those libs that support it do so because of their Union constituents. In this rare case, both Unions and TP leaders are opposed to the legislation over it's secrecy.

If all it is, IS free trade, why no transparency? Last I heard, only two Senators have actually read the legislation.

The opposition to the agreement state concerns over sovereignty and jobs. Both becoming endangered species for those who care to take a look around.

When trade agreements need to be kept behind closed doors and hidden from public view, it is most certain, the public won't benefit. Just who will? It doesn't take much imagination to know this is another step toward corporatism or what's the other word for it?, oh yeah, Fascism and it is unlikely to be good for the average American.

Every damaging piece of legislation that comes out of Washington has some kind of liberating title given to it, just like "Free Trade", "Affordable Care Act", "Patriot Act", "National Defense Authorization Act", heck just pick any one and weigh it's benefit to it's expense and unintended consequences.

By default, I call BS on the agreement if it can't be transparently shared for all to analyze and understand. This attitude in Washington is elitist, authoritarian and dishonest.

I for one, won't be drinking the Kool-Aid.

ROTFLMAO!

That's got to be the Bowsite headline of all time.

Harry Reid voted NAY! on the bill, as did Warren, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Sanders and every single other left wing Dem senator!

Senators voting 'AYE" included Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Ron Johnson and most, although not all, of the Conservative senators.

At this point, giving Obama more power is crazy, IMO.

The bill reduces or eliminates Congress' power to amend trade agreements, allowing for an up or down vote only, without debate.

How much more of it's Constitutional power will Congress shrug off to the executive? AND with the blessing of so-called conservatives!

From Breitbart:

"Trade Promotion Authority or TPA contains fast-track provisions would allow Congress, under strict timelines, to consider trade deals with a simple up-or-down vote without any amendments or requirements of a Senate super-majority to end debate."

From U.S. Senate Website:

The Senate's Role in Treaties The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.

"TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR"

This bill eliminates the 2/3 requirement.

"AND SAFEGUARD THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES"

The bill would not allow input from Congress, but a simple majority vote.

Note: An Executive Agreement carries the same Congressional approval requirement as a Treaty.

How can conservatives be in favor of this?

Good grief!

Even liberal Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley is worried about the current unopposed executive power grab.

Not everything's a conspiracy, Spike.

Lee and Cruz are 99.9% in agreement on almost everything. Yet while Cruz voted, 'Aye,' Lee voted 'Nay.'

But you know that. And specifically speaking, the bill WAS mostly unopposed.....by Senators calling themselves conservatives.

Wow!

BTW, by those standards, Ronald Reagan was a HUGE RINO!

The word Republican no longer necessarily means Conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's go with Conservative In Name Only.

But darn it.....I clean forgot that the current crop of Republicans simply cannot do everything at once! They gotta pick their battles, right?

When does the pickin start, Kyle?

Changing the subject is the way liberals do it.

OTOH, based on the title of this thread, you apparently thought Harry Reid supported the bill.

NO liberals voted for the bill. Not ONE. Not even Harry Reid!

Doesn't that cause you any concern?

OTOH, Sessions, Paul and Lee sided with Schumer, Boxer, Warren, Feinstein, Sanders, et. al. I guess that makes THEM Rinos!

Does that cause concern? Just sayin'.

WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN AND ADOPTED, THE SENATORS ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THE STATES and were NOT the "super" representatives that they have become. Senators were appointed by each individual state...and not elected by the general populace. The Senate was the body that protected the states from encroachment by an all powerful central government.

The Senate, as constructed today, is not the Senate of our Founding Fathers. This has been demonstrated again and again as the elected elite in DC impose their will on us more and more.

Any piece of legislation that has to be kept secret from the governed by definition is bad and should not be passed.

I believe you are correct,Sir.

In 2014, the U.S. ran a $24,858,700,000 trade deficit with Vietnam, according to U.S. government trade data published by the Census Bureau. U.S. producers sold $5,724,900,000 in goods to purchasers in Vietnam. At the same time, producers in Vietnam sold $30,583,600,000 in goods to purchasers in the United States.

Documents related to the TPP are currently classified. Members of Congress can only review them in a secured room. But a report published in March by the Congressional Research Service—“The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress”–describes the basic purpose of the deal the administration is seeking. (read more)

Obama has said (maybe lying) that he would veto the bill if it punishes currency manipulation. Of course he will try to protect China from the evil old U.S.

From link:

Sessions said:

As a part of this trade agreement that I’ve mentioned before that I’m very concerned about, that’s gotten very little discussion and it needs to be discussed, and I want to take a minute to discuss it. According to the Congressional Research Service, our own group, the TPP's Living Agreement provisions is unprecedented. Indeed, I’m one of the few I think that went to the secret room to read the secret document, and when it described the Living document, it said it was “unprecedented.” I presume I won’t be arrested for making that quote from the secret document.

The United States Trade Representative’s website is very candid about the purpose of this living agreement provision. It is to "enable the updating of the agreement as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries."

It creates a commission, another commission, consisting of representatives from each member nation, which has vast powers to govern the agreement, and govern, to some degree, the countries who participate in it. Among the power given to the commission is the authority to consider any matter relating to implementation and operation of the agreement and to consider amendments and modifications.

What we have to understand is that this is a new entity, an international entity of which we are a member and it gets to meet and vote and set new behaviors, unlike what we approve in the Senate. But it can be amended as time goes by. And it’s unprecedented. This has not been done before.

You have now indirectly called Kyle a CommiE

Really Spike. A patriot who was flying SAC missions while you were perfecting God knows what

You are wearing that word out and more importantly you are using it incorrectly.

At the very least you owe Kyle a simple apology

And if this proposal is offensive to the constitution, I find it hard to believe that Ted Cruz would have voted for it.

The other question I have is whether this is a good idea, but bad because Obama's in the White House, or a bad idea. I can't tell if we do not know what is in the damn bill.

I find this very troubling.

Obamacare begets Obamatrade.

I am sure it will be as successful and as popular.

Senator Jeff Sessions is very concerned about this bill and what it means to future American sovereignty, as well as further loss of Congressional Constitutional powers.

The water is being muddied to create a distinction between Treaties and Executive Agreements. This is being done to skirt the Constitutional requirement of a 2/3 vote for Senate approval. They have created the term "Executive Agreement" and required a simple majority approval. In addition, under this bill, the Senate would only be allowed an up or down vote.....no allowances for debate or amendments.

In other words, another trashing of the US Constitution by the Obama administration.

Sessions said that he is one of a very few that entered the secure space to read the bill. He is probably right.

Why self-described conservatives like Cruz voted for this bill remains a mystery.....to me, at least. Perhaps House Conservatives will stand for the Constitution and circular file this garbage.

The rest of us are watching closely what our politicians are trying to do, mainly usurp more power, and having a grown up conversation about it.

While you are name calling and thinking the truth is of less importance than your team.....