- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,699
- Reaction score
- 58,404
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
I guess the United States was just isolationist and traded with no one ever prior to 1974.
Wow... water IS wet.
Please note the dates of the agreements in force. Wet, indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements
Or you can make a point.
All are since 1974.
Yes, just like every previous trade deal.
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.
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:
"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 :/
yes... so in your statement...
... the US never traded with anyone prior to 1974.
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?
Delegation of authority to the President goes back at least to 1934.
http://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-1984/comment-us-trade-policy-history-evidence
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?