• 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!

Senate Approves Fast-Track, Sending Trade Bill to White House

The procedures for negotiating trade agreements are common knowledge. I don't provide links to confirm water is wet, either. Your ignorance is a problem that can't be solved at DP.

Yes yes... everyone everywhere who knows water is wet also knows that "Fast Track" hands over all legislation of said agreement to the executive branch. Source your claims.
 
What? YOU brought up that it was used before and then didn't cite a damn thing. I bring in something showing where it was used before, again because you didn't after making the claim, and now you are saying I'm moving the goal posts? :lol:

Here's a tip for you... SOURCE YOUR CLAIMS for a change... instead of bitching about everyone else's who do your work for you.

To the point, the procedural aspect is still stupid and bullcrap. It's the legislature handing over their responsibilities to the executive branch all while bitching for the last six years about the executive branch having too much power.

btw... NAFTA sucked just as Ross Perot predicted it would and this will likely follow in the same vein. Congrats on applauding the loss of our sovereignty to foreign tribunals via the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause.

I just wonder why such folks that support the TPP hate America so much?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)
 

Congrats on finally sourcing something. I applaud you. Now lets use your source:

Congress started the fast track authority in the Trade Act of 1974​

And tie that to one of your comments:

poweRob said:
Fast track authority means congress cannot debate or amend anything pertaining to this trade deal. It's pretty much all in the preview of the executive branch.

Yes, just like every previous trade deal. And like most other treaties as well.

I guess the United States was just isolationist and traded with no one ever prior to 1974.

Wow... water IS wet.
 
All 535 members of the House and Senate have had access to the full text. Treaty language is never made public until the text is presented for ratification.

"Congress is being so secretive about Obamatrade that Congressional authorities are not only keeping the text of President Barack Obama’s various trade deals secret, they’re also keeping the log that lists which members of Congress went to go read the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) private as well." (ObamaTrade Secrecy: Log of Which Members of Congress Actually Read Bill in Secret Room Also Private - Breitbart)

People may have read it, but we don't know who :/
 
Greetings, Mr. Invisible. :2wave:

I can sort of understand not making it available to the public, since many people probably wouldn't understand it even if they had any interest in reading it in the first place, but are you saying that Congress may have just voted on something they haven't read? :shock:

I'm not saying they have not voted on something they haven't read. Rather I am saying that we, the public don't have access to it, and also that we don't know who has read it.

"Congress is being so secretive about Obamatrade that Congressional authorities are not only keeping the text of President Barack Obama’s various trade deals secret, they’re also keeping the log that lists which members of Congress went to go read the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) private as well." (ObamaTrade Secrecy: Log of Which Members of Congress Actually Read Bill in Secret Room Also Private - Breitbart)

People may have read it, but we don't know who :/
 
No trade agreements, at least not any that remain in force.

So it's your contention that all trade agreements/treaties prior to 1974 have all expired or have been made null since?
 
OK... doesn't actually answer the fact that you are saying no trade happened prior to 1974. :lol:

Sorry, but I never said no trade before 1974. I said the authority has been continuous since 1974 and the list of treaties in force includes none before 1974. Trade does not require trade agreements.
 
Sorry, but I never said no trade before 1974. I said the authority has been continuous since 1974 and the list of treaties in force includes none before 1974. Trade does not require trade agreements.

no... no you didn't. You recently have been trying to revise your statement in the goal post moving effort... nice try though. If that is actually your position, ok. But it's not what you said initially. It's ok to clarify, but it's not really ok to make a claim you never said something that you did say.
 
no... no you didn't. You recently have been trying to revise your statement in the goal post moving effort... nice try though. If that is actually your position, ok. But it's not what you said initially. It's ok to clarify, but it's not really ok to make a claim you never said something that you did say.


I have no idea what your point is, but my position has not changed.
 
Back
Top Bottom