• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP leaders confirm Friday trade vote

assholes, all of them.
 
I did. 'Less so in support of the bill' Answers your question. Not my fault you have reading compression problems.
So your in favor of something passing but not in not in favor of it at the same time?
 
So your in favor of something passing but not in not in favor of it at the same time?

No, glad to see the Senate doing the people's business. Not sure if I support this particular bill or not.
Why is reading my posts and understanding them so hard for you?
 
No, glad to see the Senate doing the people's business. Not sure if I support this particular bill or not.
Why is reading my posts and understanding them so hard for you?

So you dont know if you support it or not, have no opinion on the matter, but you call it "the people's business".... Wow....
 
So you dont know if you support it or not, have no opinion on the matter, but you call it "the people's business".... Wow....
I have to admit, I'm less than thrilled with the idea of Obama and his admin being out maneuvered and out negotiated once again in the international arena once again.
 
I have to admit, I'm less than thrilled with the idea of Obama and his admin being out maneuvered and out negotiated once again in the international arena once again.

It's always about Obama ain't it? Even when it's not... it's still gotta be redirected back to Obama.
 
It's always about Obama ain't it? Even when it's not... it's still gotta be redirected back to Obama.

Obama is why GOP House Leadership hasn't been able to have a vote yet.
The "Freedom Caucus" of 50-70 some renegade TEAts doesn't want to give Obama anything.
This would have passed long ago with a President Romney .
 
It's always about Obama ain't it? Even when it's not... it's still gotta be redirected back to Obama.

Well, who's gonna negotiate and write the TPP with the other country's representative s?
 
Well, who's gonna negotiate and write the TPP with the other country's representative s?

I'm actually pissed with Obama about this. Yet in a thread about a particular policy going through I don't redirect every comment towards him in attempts to derail the thread. But I digress.
 
But it was okay for McConnell to use the filibuster for the previous six years, right?

Pretty amazing when Harry Reid doesn't gum up the works, isn't it? :lamo
**** actually gets done.

Too bad you don't know it's the 50-70 GOP "Freedom Caucus" TEAts who are gumming up for the works for Boehner.
Just as with the DHS in February--remember ?
 
It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. The TPP has not been agreed. Negotiations are ongoing. Instead, the legislation concerns fast-track authority for Congressional and Senate review should the TPP be agreed. From the Politico.com story, this will be a "vote to grant President Barack Obama fast-track authority to negotiate a massive Pacific Rim trade deal..."

Will Congress be able to amend whatever Obama negotiates?
 
I have to admit, I'm less than thrilled with the idea of Obama and his admin being out maneuvered and out negotiated once again in the international arena once again.

So..... Does this mean the Senate should just pass laws, regardless the consequences, and regardless the understanding on them because its the "peoples business"?
 
Bought and paid for... but why the hell not when money considered "free speech" huh?

Citizens United was a piss poor ruling.
 
They do this, and I and my family are done with the GOP, especially establishment types.
 
Will Congress be able to amend whatever Obama negotiates?

No. It will either be an up-or-down vote. If the deal is rejected, it's possible the parties might try to make adjustments, depending on how badly they want the deal or how large the gaps are between the arguments made in Congress and the interests of the other parties.
 
Paul Ryan was someone who I had enormous respect for. Unfortunately I read today that he's said that we can read the bill after it's passed. Sound familiar? When did he turn into Nancy Pilosi?

Paul Ryan
 
For those looking for the fast-track trade legislation:

The current version: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr1314eas/pdf/BILLS-114hr1314eas.pdf

The bill status: Bill Summary & Status - 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) - H.R.1314 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The rule (H.Res. 305) that will guide the debate: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hres305rh/pdf/BILLS-114hres305rh.pdf

Contrary to misleading statements on some radio shows, the fast-track legislation is not "secret." It is available and one can read it in the first link.

What is not yet available is the TPP text. That's not because of some nefarious desire to hide things, but because there is no agreement right now. Once there is agreement, that text should be made available and, almost certainly will be published in the lead-up to the Congressional debate on that agreement. There remains some possibility that agreement won't be reached.
 
No. It will either be an up-or-down vote. If the deal is rejected, it's possible the parties might try to make adjustments, depending on how badly they want the deal or how large the gaps are between the arguments made in Congress and the interests of the other parties.

Wouldn't you agree that the up-or-down vote is a mere formality, since TPP is a "conservative" issue as cpwill has pointed out.

TPP has already cleared it's greatest hurdle, the filibuster in the Senate--the next vote will require only 51 votes.

If the GOP were President, the so-called "Freedom Caucus", led by Rep. Jim Jordan from Ohio with 50-70 members depending on the issue,
would already be on board and this vote tomorrow would be a formality .
 
Do you believe there should be this vote before an agreement is reached.
I found it interesting that Eric Cantor has entered this fray on behalf of his Wall Street Bank employer.

Eric Cantor: Democrats in 'civil war' - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

Btw, I put up a thread several months ago endorsing a DEM 'civil' war--it didn't seem to hurt the GOPs in 2010 and 2014 .

For those looking for the fast-track trade legislation:

The current version: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr1314eas/pdf/BILLS-114hr1314eas.pdf

The bill status: Bill Summary & Status - 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) - H.R.1314 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The rule (H.Res. 305) that will guide the debate: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hres305rh/pdf/BILLS-114hres305rh.pdf

Contrary to misleading statements on some radio shows, the fast-track legislation is not "secret." It is available and one can read it in the first link.

What is not yet available is the TPP text. That's not because of some nefarious desire to hide things, but because there is no agreement right now. Once there is agreement, that text should be made available and, almost certainly will be published in the lead-up to the Congressional debate on that agreement. There remains some possibility that agreement won't be reached.
 
Wouldn't you agree that the up-or-down vote is a mere formality, since TPP is a "conservative" issue as cpwill has pointed out.

TPP has already cleared it's greatest hurdle, the filibuster in the Senate--the next vote will require only 51 votes.

If the GOP were President, the so-called "Freedom Caucus", led by Rep. Jim Jordan from Ohio with 50-70 members depending on the issue,
would already be on board and this vote tomorrow would be a formality .

Based on the composition of the Congress, odds certainly favor its passage.
 
Do you believe there should be this vote before an agreement is reached.
I found it interesting that Eric Cantor has entered this fray on behalf of his Wall Street Bank employer.

Eric Cantor: Democrats in 'civil war' - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

Btw, I put up a thread several months ago endorsing a DEM 'civil' war--it didn't seem to hurt the GOPs in 2010 and 2014 .

Fast track authority has typically been in place during major trade negotiations. At the same time, an alternative path would have entailed debate on a rule to govern debate on an actual trade agreement once such an agreement has been reached. A closed rule (which precludes amendments) could have been adopted to govern the debate. Such a rule would accomplish what the fast track authority is supposed to achieve. Obviously, the risk involved is that once an agreement is in place and if the Congress doesn't like one or more major provisions, it could choose to adopt a modified closed rule (which would permit some degree of amendments).
 
They do this, and I and my family are done with the GOP, especially establishment types.

Lulz. One thing I learned after the GOP nominated Romney is that the base will shut up and do as they're told.
 
I like how the pro TPP politicians say that it won't take jobs from the US but right there in the middle of it there is the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to retrain workers who lose their jobs due to the TPP.

I especially am interested in how they can justify having a corporate tribunal solve all disputes rather than a court that is bound by the constitution. As with all these free trade pacts... sovereignty is what dies first.
 
So..... Does this mean the Senate should just pass laws, regardless the consequences, and regardless the understanding on them because its the "peoples business"?

Of course not. You're being silly and taking it a far extreme.
 
Back
Top Bottom