Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?

[AminCad]

Apparently the bill to impose sanctions on any company that deals with Iran's central bank was passed unanimously in the Senate:

http://www.dailypaul.com/190014/senate-passes-treasonous-defense-authorization-bill-rand-votes-for-iran-sanctions

Does that mean Rand voted for it?

[realtonygoodwin]

Probably a voice vote.

[Brett85]

Unfortunately, yes. It's not surprising since he signed a letter supporting sanctions against Iran. Rand is still great overall, as was proven this week when he proposed an amendment to end the Iraq War and prevent the government from detaining U.S citizens. But he simply isn't a pure non interventionist on foreign policy issues like Ron is. He's more of a non interventionist than any other member of the Senate, but apparently he feels that he can't vote against Iran sanctions and have any kind of a political future. On the other hand, he may support Iran sanctions philosophically as well. He hasn't really spoken about the issue.

[Brett85]

Probably a voice vote.

No, it's right here.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00216

[Brett85]

He also may not have wanted to stick his neck out on this since it passed overwhelmingly anyway. If Rand would've voted against this, it would've passed 99-1 anyway, and his lone "no" vote wouldn't have really accomplished anything.

[AminCad]

Strategically, he's not going to get neocon support if he's not the biggest warmonger, so I don't see why he wouldn't just stick to principle and vote against it, so I think philosophically he probably supports sanctions.

I'd guess he convinced himself that the US must intervene against Iran during his Senate campaign so that he could counter his opponent's claims that he's soft on foreign policy.

[Brett85]

Strategically, he's not going to get neocon support if he's not the biggest warmonger, so I don't see why he wouldn't just stick to principle and vote against it, so I think philosophically he probably supports sanctions.

I'd guess he convinced himself that the US must intervene against Iran during his Senate campaign so that he could counter his opponent's claims that he's soft on foreign policy.

Yes, but at least this way the neo-cons can't claim that Rand "wants to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons." He has this to point to if try to claim that he's weak on Iran. Again, I don't support his amendment, but it's still probably a good strategic move by Rand.

[AminCad]

It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.

[Brett85]

It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.

We really need to get Jack Hunter into the Senate. He's really an "old right" conservative on stuff like this. He's strongly opposed to sanctions on foreign countries.

[AminCad]

Yea Jack Hunter is great..

[Feeding the Abscess]

We really need to get Jack Hunter into the Senate. He's really an "old right" conservative on stuff like this. He's strongly opposed to sanctions on foreign countries.

He needs to get a haircut first. Nobody is going to vote for Zorg.

Oh, and thanks Rand, now I finally have voting-record proof that I can't fully trust you to vote liberty across the board. Nor can I trust someone who intervenes internationally to stay neutral domestically (as if the market were able to be divided into international and domestic markets).

[Brett85]

He needs to get a haircut first. Nobody is going to vote for Zorg.

Oh, and thanks Rand, now I finally have voting-record proof that I can't fully trust you to vote liberty across the board. Nor can I trust someone who intervenes internationally to stay neutral domestically (as if the market were able to be divided into international and domestic markets).

There's also a very real possibility that these sanctions could significantly raise the price of oil, which would be a further detriment to our economy.

[tsai3904]

Oh, and thanks Rand, now I finally have voting-record proof that I can't fully trust you to vote liberty across the board. Nor can I trust someone who intervenes internationally to stay neutral domestically (as if the market were able to be divided into international and domestic markets).

You're not going to wait for an explanation? Doesn't he at least deserve that?

Just yesterday everyone was jumping on Mike Lee's back for his vote against the detainee amendment but he later clearly explained that he didn't support the policy but didn't think the amendment was the right way to get it done.

[Brett85]

You're not going to wait for an explanation? Doesn't he at least deserve that?

Just yesterday everyone was jumping on Mike Lee's back for his vote against the detainee amendment but he later clearly explained that he didn't support the policy but didn't think the amendment was the right way to get it done.

I doubt if Rand can actually claim here that he doesn't support the policy, but it would be nice for him to explain his position on this issue. Either way, I'm not going to throw him under the bus because of one vote. I'm never going to agree with every single politician on every single vote.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You're not going to wait for an explanation? Doesn't he at least deserve that?

Just yesterday everyone was jumping on Mike Lee's back for his vote against the detainee amendment but he later clearly explained that he didn't support the policy but didn't think the amendment was the right way to get it done.

Affirmatively voting for something is not comparable to voting against something because you disagree with the ascribed procedure.

And no, voting for sanctions - an act of unprovoked war - does not deserve an explanation.

[low preference guy]

This is part of Rand's strategy to compromise on a few issues. We'll see if it works. Once he gets in the White House, he can choose to not attack Iran.

[tsai3904]

I doubt if Rand can actually claim here that he doesn't support the policy, but it would be nice for him to explain his position on this issue. Either way, I'm not going to throw him under the bus because of one vote. I'm never going to agree with every single politician on every single vote.

Maybe this has to do with his views of central banks. He obviously doesn't believe in the idea of a central bank and thinks that preventing central banks from doing business is not that big a deal. If another county sanctioned the Fed, that would be a good thing, but the end does not justify the means and I can't agree with getting involved in another county's affairs. I would like to hear an explanation before I pass judgment.

[Fox McCloud]

The words "epic" and "fail" both come to mind, sadly =/

[LibertyEagle]

This is part of Rand's strategy to compromise on a few issues. We'll see if it works. Once he gets in the White House, he can choose to not attack Iran.

Damn. Stop it. I have to agree with you again. :p

[cindy25]

being the only no vote would have hurt him short term, but long would yield benefits.

and the neo-cons will primary him anyway in 2016

[josh.schisler]

It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.

it would make a good attack ad in 2016.

[ZanZibar]

This is part of Rand's strategy to compromise on a few issues. We'll see if it works. Once he gets in the White House, he can choose to not attack Iran.This assumes that Iranians don't retaliate first and provoke further action.

[low preference guy]

This assumes that Iranians don't retaliate first and provoke further action.

It doesn't assume anything, it says "we'll see if it works".

[SL89]

I don't know, it is so contrary to a non-interventionism ideal that I am having a hard time understanding his logic. Besides, this could come back against Ron. Some of you have said that is shows Rand is willing to compromise thus setting himself up for a run in '16. First of all, I don't want a person who compromises over foreign meddling at the expense of us. Second. In light of the legislation passed recently on top of the notorious Patriot Act, I don't think we will have a chance at elections come 2016. It has to be Ron Paul now! It would not surprise me one bit if they took this forum down before the elections anyway. They are passing anti-liberty/pro-socialistic/dictatorial legislation at a blinding pace. If you haven't noticed, it is exponentially worse than just a few weeks ago. Half of the shit we called conspiracies over the last several years are coming to fruition.

I will let him give his reasoning before passing judgement.

[LibXist]

Oh, Rand... :(

[anaconda]

Unfortunately, yes. It's not surprising since he signed a letter supporting sanctions against Iran. Rand is still great overall, as was proven this week when he proposed an amendment to end the Iraq War and prevent the government from detaining U.S citizens. But he simply isn't a pure non interventionist on foreign policy issues like Ron is. He's more of a non interventionist than any other member of the Senate, but apparently he feels that he can't vote against Iran sanctions and have any kind of a political future. On the other hand, he may support Iran sanctions philosophically as well. He hasn't really spoken about the issue.

I called Rand's office many weeks ago asking about the letter he co-signed to Obama encouraging sanctions. The lady on the phones knew nothing. I told her her to tell Rand that the Ron Paul Forum members were pissed and wanted an explanation.

[bluesc]

This assumes that Iranians don't retaliate first and provoke further action.

Hey, so what happened to "That's irrelevant, a letter to the President doesn't have the power of law behind it"? A Yea vote does.

Personally, I'm a little pissed about this, but Rand has been kicking ass on a lot of other things lately. Amash would have voted Yea on this if he were in the Senate, so we'll have to deal with what we've got. All the more reason to elect Ron.

[Brian4Liberty]

He also may not have wanted to stick his neck out on this since it passed overwhelmingly anyway. If Rand would've voted against this, it would've passed 99-1 anyway, and his lone "no" vote wouldn't have really accomplished anything.

That is the only acceptable reasoning. Thus, we will accept it.

[jtstellar]

two things--

it's politics

and

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

[bluesc]

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

Most didn't vote for an act of war against Iran either. The Senate, including Rand, just did.

[Xenophage]

That is the only acceptable reasoning. Thus, we will accept it.

It's kind of what I was thinking.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Hey, so what happened to "That's irrelevant, a letter to the President doesn't have the power of law behind it"? A Yea vote does.

Personally, I'm a little pissed about this, but Rand has been kicking ass on a lot of other things lately. Amash would have voted Yea on this if he were in the Senate, so we'll have to deal with what we've got. All the more reason to elect Ron.

Where did Amash say this? I've asked him a couple times in recent updates, and he hasn't answered. I get the feeling from what he's said that he would vote for the sanctions, I just want confirmation.

[bluesc]

Where did Amash say this? I've asked him a couple times in recent updates, and he hasn't answered. I get the feeling from what he's said that he would vote for the sanctions, I just want confirmation.

He has said in comments before that he disagrees with Ron on Iran. Considering he either sees Iran as a threat, or is too afraid to publicly acknowledge that they aren't, I'm pretty sure he would vote for sanctions if he were in the Senate.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He has said in comments before that he disagrees with Ron on Iran. Considering he either sees Iran as a threat, or is too afraid to publicly acknowledge that they aren't, I'm pretty sure he would vote for sanctions if he were in the Senate.

Ah, gotcha. I came to the same conclusion after reading those comments a few weeks back.

[Brett85]

being the only no vote would have hurt him short term, but long would yield benefits.

and the neo-cons will primary him anyway in 2016

Yeah, I really don't think that the Bill Kristol types will like Rand no matter what he does. This vote probably won't help him out any with them. So it might be entirely possible that Rand actually does support sanctions philosophically.

[Brett85]

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

But the thing is that it may cause much higher oil prices for us. That's what I'm afriad of. We have a global economy.

[Feeding the Abscess]

two things--

it's politics

and

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

What right does the United States have to inflict the citizens of Iran with a lower standard of living (to say nothing of the damage that may be done to people around the world) and virtual guarantee of war being waged in their country?

[bobbyw24]

It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.

Hyperbole. SELL OUT? Are you kidding me? Get readl

[Feeding the Abscess]

Hyperbole. SELL OUT? Are you kidding me? Get readl

Last cycle, Rand was echoing Ron's foreign policy, even saying that Iran is not a threat to us if it obtained a nuclear weapon. Violating the non-intervention principle for power is a textbook case of selling out of one's philosophical viewpoint; to take this further, it leads me to the conclusion that Rand never believed in what Ron has said in foreign policy matters, and that Rand is actually interventionist.

[trey4sports]

Jack 2016! or 2014 or whatever. Just get in the damn Congress Jack.

[Matthew5]

Confused by this as well. I can't see this as a political move to stroke the neo-con's ego because why would he be one of the lone voices (initially) in fighting against the detainment policy in the Defense bill? Seems that the neo-cons would love to have terrorists locked up forever. So if he stuck his neck out on that, why not Iran? This leads me to believe that he supports sanctions philosophically as well.

Figured Mike Lee would join him in a "Nay" vote at least.

[MRoCkEd]

Can someone post the details?

[specsaregood]

But the thing is that it may cause much higher oil prices for us. That's what I'm afriad of. We have a global economy.

I don't see how it really affects them much at all; they can just do an end-run around it via chinese and russian banks. This DOES hurt the US petro-dollar though...

[mczerone]

What right does the United States have to inflict the citizens of Iran with a lower standard of living (to say nothing of the damage that may be done to people around the world) and virtual guarantee of war being waged in their country?

What right does the US govt have to tell American people that they cannot trade with the people of Iran? What if I was supporting Iranian businesses that were lobbying the Iranian govt to stay peaceful? What if I were selling them cheap electrical power to try to convince them to stay away from all things nuclear? What if I were subsidizing family in the region until they could save enough to try to emigrate?


Sanctions are just a way for politicians to look like they're "doing something" about a problem, when they are actually creating incentives to exacerbate the problem, and reducing our liberties.

[Feeding the Abscess]

What right does the US govt have to tell American people that they cannot trade with the people of Iran?

Nailed it.

[Fredom101]

He also may not have wanted to stick his neck out on this since it passed overwhelmingly anyway. If Rand would've voted against this, it would've passed 99-1 anyway, and his lone "no" vote wouldn't have really accomplished anything.

So essentially, he's not a man of principle. :(

[anewvoice]

Rand is not Ron. When Rand runs, we can scrutinize his voting record and he'll have a few more years under his belt. I do know that people I know who do not like Ron Paul, do in fact like Rand Paul.

On the point though, sanctions can be argued to be an "all other alternatives" considered for a just war. Would be awesome if we tried diplomacy once in a while as the alternative.

[tsai3904]

What right does the United States have to inflict the citizens of Iran with a lower standard of living (to say nothing of the damage that may be done to people around the world) and virtual guarantee of war being waged in their country?

The sanctions are trying to prevent banks from doing business with the Central Bank of Iran. How will that lower the standard of living of their citizens? If all banks in the US were forced to stop doing business with the Fed, would that lower our standard of living? Yes, maybe in the short run, but we would be way better off in the long run.

I'm not justifying Rand's vote because I wouldn't get involved with other county's affairs but you have to understand these sanctions are dealing with a central bank.

[Fredom101]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass. It's no different than the Obama apologists who blame all his acts of war on Bush. "Obama can't just pull troops out!". This is hypocrisy at its finest. Please, think about principles before a letter next to someone's name, or, a certain last name.

Rand is no libertarian and this proves it, sadly.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The sanctions are trying to prevent banks from doing business with the Central Bank of Iran. How will that lower the standard of living of their citizens? If all banks in the US were forced to stop doing business with the Fed, would that lower our standard of living? Yes, maybe in the short run, but we would be way better off in the long run.

I'm not justifying Rand's vote because I wouldn't get involved with other county's affairs but you have to understand these sanctions are dealing with a central bank.

Statement of Purpose:


To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran

Let's assume they were all aimed at the Central Bank of Iran (even the Statement of Purpose refutes this, one can only imagine what kind of crap is in the full bill). How does that give the US authority to place sanctions against an institution of a sovereign country?

[tsai3904]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass. It's no different than the Obama apologists who blame all his acts of war on Bush. "Obama can't just pull troops out!". This is hypocrisy at its finest. Please, think about principles before a letter next to someone's name, or, a certain last name.

Rand is no libertarian and this proves it, sadly.

No one is apologizing for him. What we want is an explanation. Until then, it's hard to judge his intention on just a roll call vote with no context of why he voted for it.

[Brett85]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass.

That's not why we're giving him a pass. We're giving him a pass because he fought hard to kill the Patriot Act, fought hard against indefinite detention of U.S citizens, and has introduced amendments to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you simply ignore all of the good things that he's done. This is really the only vote Rand has taken that anybody here should disagree with him on.

[Brett85]

So essentially, he's not a man of principle. :(

He's been very principled in support of our civil liberties. He simply has a different point of view on this particular issue. Even libertarians don't always agree with each other on all the issues.

[Romulus]

Rand is just more of a politician, than Ron. I don't agree with it, but he stands up for individual liberty here at home and that counts for a lot.

[low preference guy]

So it might be entirely possible that Rand actually does support sanctions philosophically.

That's hard to believe. Someone right on almost everything is not likely to hold a position so obviously idiotic. My bet is that he is compromising. Just like Ron compromises when he says he would support a national ban on abortion. They have different ideas on what they would compromise on. Rand compromises a lot more, of course.

[specsaregood]

That's hard to believe. Someone right on almost everything is not likely to hold a position so obviously idiotic. My bet is that he is compromising. Just like Ron compromises when he says he would support a national ban on abortion. They have different ideas on what they would compromise on. Rand compromises a lot more, of course.

What if one thinks the petro-dollar is a longterm threat for this country; would not supporting legislation that slowly eats away at that be "good medicine"?

[AuH20]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass. It's no different than the Obama apologists who blame all his acts of war on Bush. "Obama can't just pull troops out!". This is hypocrisy at its finest. Please, think about principles before a letter next to someone's name, or, a certain last name.

Rand is no libertarian and this proves it, sadly.

Thank god.

[AuH20]

That's not why we're giving him a pass. We're giving him a pass because he fought hard to kill the Patriot Act, fought hard against indefinite detention of U.S citizens, and has introduced amendments to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you simply ignore all of the good things that he's done. This is really the only vote Rand has taken that anybody here should disagree with him on.

Bingo. He's never going to appease the zealots. It will always be something while Ron's tacit support of earmarks doesn't really bother them one bit. Double standard? You betcha.

Secondly, he's a U.S. senator and privy to intelligence that Ron wish he had access to. So everyone should calm down with the traitor nonsense.

[cdc482]

He's also for Gitmo. I will never get as excited for Rand as I am for Ron.

[AuH20]

He's also for Gitmo. I will never get as excited for Rand as I am for Ron.

That's completely fine and understandable. But to insinuate that he's working for the other team is (a) disrespectful (b) insulting (c) paranoid.

[bluesc]

Bingo. He's never going to appease the zealots. It will always be something while Ron's tacit support of earmarks doesn't really bother them one bit. Double standard? You betcha.

An act of war is a little worse than earmarks. You just consistently bash Ron while praising Rand. How are you any different?


Secondly, he's a U.S. senator and privy to intelligence that Ron wish he had access to. So everyone should calm down with the traitor nonsense.

Nope.


Committee assignments

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

[AuH20]

An act of war is a little worse than earmarks. You just consistently bash Ron while praising Rand. How are you any different?

I bash Ron out of frustration, thanks to his incompetence during this primary. Pawlenty pulled out. Perry imploded. Cain was destined to fail. This was the opportunity of a lifetime for the old man, but he couldn't hold onto the ball. All these loser retreads keep grabbing the favorite role because Ron's been type-cast!

Ron has the right message, deep financial support and impeccable ground game, but is better known for his memorable sound bytes which live on in infamy in the 24/7 media echo chamber. Great principled guy but horrible politician in this day and age.

[bluesc]

I bash Ron out of frustration, thanks to his incompetence during this primary. Pawlenty pulled out. Perry imploded. Cain was destined to fail. This was the opportunity of a lifetime for the old man, but he couldn't hold onto the ball. All these loser retreads keep grabbing the favorite role because Ron's been type-cast!

Ron has the right message, deep financial support and impeccable ground game but is known for his memorable sound bytes which live on in infamy in the 34/7 media echo chamber. Great principled guy but horrible politician in this day and age.

Yeah, but there's only one problem.. The media decides when people surge. He could meet your ridiculously high standards and the media would still dismiss him.

[AuH20]

Yeah, but there's only one problem.. The media decides when people surge. He could meet your ridiculously high standards and the media would still dismiss him.

No, that's not completely it. There have been alot of self-inflicted wounds along the way. Secondly, his age and appearance is another strike against him sadly. Americans are shallow.

[specsaregood]

Bingo. He's never going to appease the zealots. It will always be something while Ron's tacit support of earmarks doesn't really bother them one bit. Double standard? You betcha.


It isn't a double standard, Ron is 100% correct on earmarks. if the budget is set in spring and earmarks are added during the summer, there is no way earmarks increase the budget and no way eliminating earmarks decreases the budget.

[low preference guy]

That's completely fine and understandable. But to insinuate that he's working for the other team is (a) disrespectful (b) insulting (c) paranoid.

He voted to impose sanctions on Iran. He helped the neocons on that. There might be strategic reasons to explain that, but it's not paranoid to believe he is working for the enemy when he helps them.

[AuH20]

It isn't a double standard, Ron is 100% correct on earmarks. if the budget is set in spring and earmarks are added during the summer, there is no way earmarks increase the budget and no way eliminating earmarks decreases the budget.

Earmarks are fundamentally wrong. Arbitrarily grabbing revenue for local pet projects reeks of cronyism and poses a major conflict of interest for the representative who signed off on them. Strangely enough Rand is against earmarks.

[specsaregood]

Earmarks are fundamentally wrong. Arbitrarily grabbing revenue for local pet projects reeks of cronyism and poses a major conflict of interest for the representative who signed off on them. Strangely enough Rand is against earmarks.

They are wrong if the budget is based on earmarks. But if the budget is already set before a single earmark is added then they can't possibly be wrong. I don't think the executive branch is supposed to decide spending.

Rand is against them for political reasons.

[AuH20]

He voted to impose sanctions on Iran. He helped the neocons on that. There might be strategic reasons to explain that, but it's not paranoid to believe he is working for the enemy when he helps them.

Let's take that conclusion further. Why did he submit a bill to end the Iraq war? Vehemently fought against the renewal of the Patriot Act as well as illegal detention? His actions speak much louder than this particular sanction issue. It's all smoke, where his detractors are looking for ammunition to besmirch him, so they can feel better about not supporting him during the Kentucky primary. Look Rand isn't perfect. Ron is far from perfect as well. But what I have problem with is the largely unfounded accusations that he's a neocon establishment politician, when all the facts point otherwise. That's what drives me up a wall.

[AuH20]

They are wrong if the budget is based on earmarks. But if the budget is already set before a single earmark is added then they can't possibly be wrong. I don't think the executive branch is supposed to decide spending.

Rand is against them for political reasons.

That's semantics. If a Brinks truck crashes in front of me and bags of money fly out of the back, do I have a right to claim my alleged share for home improvement costs? From a perspective of principle, grabbing your alleged share from that earmark pool looks extremely shady. If Rand is wrong on sanctions (which I agree), then Ron is wrong on earmarks. Plain and simple.

[specsaregood]

That's semantics. If a Brinks truck crashes in front of me and bags of money fly out of the back, do I have a right to claim my alleged share for home improvement costs? From a perspective of principle, grabbing your alleged share from that earmark pool looks extremely shady. If Rand is wrong on sanctions (which I agree), then Ron is wrong on earmarks. Plain and simple.

No its more like going to a strip club that requires to spend a minimum of $200. Then giving you the choice of paying it as a cover charge, or getting to choose which strippers panties to put your money down. Earmarks are the latter choice.

You see in your example it isn't money coming from you or the people you represent, taxes however is money coming from your own pocket or being put as debt on your back.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are probably two reasons that Rand voted for the Iran Central Bank sanctions: they are purported to fund terrorism, and it's an alternative to dropping bombs.

The fact that it helps the Western bankers destroy a competitor is just a coincidence. :rolleyes: Powerful interests are very good at coming up with seemingly reasonable alternative justifications for government actions that directly help them.

Of course it would not work out if they pushed for their true desires without subterfuge. If they had one of their minions in Congress propose a law that stated "the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the Head of the Iranian Central Bank must be replaced tomorrow by selected former Goldman Sachs employees", it might not pass the Congress. Then again, maybe it would...

[Brett85]

He's also for Gitmo. I will never get as excited for Rand as I am for Ron.

He's not actually for Gitmo either. He just made it sound like he was during the campaign. But he voted in favor of trying terrorists in civilian courts.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00186

[Brett85]

I bash Ron out of frustration, thanks to his incompetence during this primary. Pawlenty pulled out. Perry imploded. Cain was destined to fail. This was the opportunity of a lifetime for the old man, but he couldn't hold onto the ball. All these loser retreads keep grabbing the favorite role because Ron's been type-cast!

Ron has the right message, deep financial support and impeccable ground game, but is better known for his memorable sound bytes which live on in infamy in the 24/7 media echo chamber. Great principled guy but horrible politician in this day and age.

I agree completely. I love Ron's message, but he doesn't seem to care about getting elected. He cares more about staying pure to his message than tweaking it a bit and trying to win an election.

[Brett85]

There are probably two reasons that Rand voted for the Iran Central Bank sanctions: they are purported to fund terrorism, and it's an alternative to dropping bombs.The fact that it helps the Western bankers destroy a competitor is just a coincidence. :rolleyes: Powerful interests are very good at coming up with seemingly reasonable alternative justifications for government actions that directly help them.

Of course it would not work out if they pushed for their true desires without subterfuge. If they had one of their minions in Congress propose a law that stated "the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the Head of the Iranian Central Bank must be replaced tomorrow by selected former Goldman Sachs employees", it might not pass the Congress. Then again, maybe it would...

Yep. I think that's probably the main reason. Though I still disagree with his reasoning.

[bluesc]

I agree completely. I love Ron's message, but he doesn't seem to care about getting elected. He cares more about staying pure to his message than tweaking it a bit and trying to win an election.

What do you suggest? "Tweak" his foreign policy message to sound more like Huntsman's? He's supposed to be the moderate alternative, yet he wants troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, and people here like that :eek:.

Ron is working on delivery, and he's doing well in the early states. Get him a suit that fits and he's golden.

[AuH20]

What do you suggest? "Tweak" his foreign policy message to sound more like Huntsman's? He's supposed to be the moderate alternative, yet he wants troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, and people here like that :eek:.

Ron is working on delivery, and he's doing well in the early states. Get him a suit that fits and he's golden.

Stay away from the crap which sticks to your shoes. The Bin Laden garbage, Palestine, and the discussion of all the other complex, behind-the-scene machinations which do nothing but aggravate the American public. He should simply say that our current foreign policy is not in our best interests and that we're hopelessly broke. That's it. Like a robot.

[bluesc]

Stay away from the crap which sticks to your shoes. The Bin Laden garbage, Palestine, and the discussion of all the other complex, behind-the-scene machinations which do nothing but aggravate the American public. He should simply say that our current foreign policy is not in our best interest and that we're hopelessly broke. That's it. Like a robot.

He gave better than that. He has been giving an example in which he would actually use the military in defense. He is working on it. The Bin Laden comments were taken way out of context by the media. Once again, you blame Ron when you should blame the media. If he is asked, he shall answer.

[Matthew5]

He should simply say that our current foreign policy is not in our best interests and that we're hopelessly broke. That's it. Like a robot

Yeah, because repeating 9-9-9 like an idiot was a great political strategy. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Yeah, because repeating 9-9-9 like an idiot was a great political strategy. :rolleyes:

That's 9-9-9. This is common sense. The country has rapidly diminishing resources and simply cannot play the role of the world's policeman. America first.

[Brett85]

What do you suggest? "Tweak" his foreign policy message to sound more like Huntsman's? He's supposed to be the moderate alternative, yet he wants troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, and people here like that :eek:.

Ron is working on delivery, and he's doing well in the early states. Get him a suit that fits and he's golden.

Don't say that "fences could be used to keep us in," don't say "killing Osama Bin Laden was completely unnecessary," etc. Also, Ron never talks about actual homeland security issues. He never talks about what his plans would actually be to keep America safe.

[CaptainAmerica]

Im tired of people defending Rand Pauls idiotic statements and decisions.He is not Ron Paul,and he doesn't talk or act at all like Ron Paul and because of that I will never vote for Rand,not even if he ran for president.

[Brett85]

Im tired of people defending Rand Pauls idiotic statements and decisions.He is not Ron Paul,and he doesn't talk or act at all like Ron Paul and because of that I will never vote for Rand,not even if he ran for president.

And Rand's opposition to the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean anything at all to you? Who is better than Rand in either the Senate or the house? (Other than Ron.)

[bluesc]

Don't say that "fences could be used to keep us in," don't say "killing Osama Bin Laden was completely unnecessary," etc. Also, Ron never talks about actual homeland security issues. He never talks about what his plans would actually be to keep America safe.

He said the raid and the way it was conducted was unnecessary. The media spun it. When he was asked again about his fence comment, he killed the answer and had huge applause, and it actually sounded very rational.

He talks about the Panama Canal and how it could be a national security threat
He talks about the 2nd amendment as the alternative to the TSA
He talks about securing the border (albeit in a vague way)

You can tell that he is working on improving the delivery. The debates are going to begin focusing on the economy again anyway.

[Brett85]

He talks about securing the border (albeit in a vague way)

Yes, he isn't ever specific about that at all. I'm not convinced that he's totally committed to securing the border. Also, he needs to explain what we would use our military for if we brought them all home. I believe a majority of Americans could be convinced to bring all of our troops home if there was a good plan for what to use them for here at home.

[misconstrued]

This is part of Rand's strategy to compromise on a few issues. We'll see if it works. Once he gets in the White House, he can choose to not attack Iran.

Yeah, I agree. Rand is much better at playing politics than his father. For better or worse.

[Matthew5]

That's 9-9-9. This is common sense. The country has rapidly diminishing resources and simply cannot play the role of the world's policeman. America first.

Why make Ron Paul repetitive? Rudy was a joke in '08 because his response to everything was 9/11...Cain was laughed at in the debates because of his 9-9-9 answer to the most nonsensical stuff. Why would you want Ron to be like that?

Does he bring a truth nuke to a knife fight sometimes? Sure, and it's created some cringe worthy moments. But I think people can forgive that alot quicker than sounding like a complete moron.

[AuH20]

Why make Ron Paul repetitive? Rudy was a joke in '08 because his response to everything was 9/11...Cain was laughed at in the debates because of his 9-9-9 answer to the most nonsensical stuff. Why would you want Ron to be like that?



Stonewall the press and his critics. They can't criticize something you don't give them.

[bluesc]

Stonewall the press and his critics. They can't criticize something you don't give them.

"Will you run 3rd party?" "So there's a chance?" "Ron Paul plans to split the vote and guarantee the reelection of President Obama."

Don't be so naive.

[AuH20]

"Will you run 3rd party?" "So there's a chance?" "Ron Paul plans to split the vote and guarantee the reelection of President Obama."

Don't be so naive.

In other news today, Ron Paul confidently stated that he would not have ordered the operation into Afghanistan to capture worldwide terror fiend Osama Bin Laden. :) Right there is a self-inflicted wound. You're not going to wipe the American people's memory that Bin Laden was the chief culprit in the orchestration of 911. Don't even go there. Don't even try to explain the sovereignty issue. Just pass off the question or downplay it.

[CaptainAmerica]

And Rand's opposition to the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean anything at all to you? Who is better than Rand in either the Senate or the house? (Other than Ron.) He half ass opposed the Patriot Act renewal.try again.

[bluesc]

In other news today, Ron Paul confidently stated that he would not have ordered the operation into Afghanistan to capture worldwide terror fiend Osama Bin Laden. :) Right there is a self-inflicted wound. You're not going to wipe the American people's memory that Bin Laden was the chief culprit in the orchestration of 911. Don't even go there. Just pass off the question or downplay it.

"I won't answer that".."That's a ridiculous question and I won't dignify it with a response."

How would that be any better? It would generate that ridiculous media buzz and he would be hounded because the media would know they could expect a juicy answer to attack him with.

[MikeM39]

Stay away from the crap which sticks to your shoes. The Bin Laden garbage, Palestine, and the discussion of all the other complex, behind-the-scene machinations which do nothing but aggravate the American public. He should simply say that our current foreign policy is not in our best interests and that we're hopelessly broke. That's it. Like a robot.

I like his position that Bin Laden should have been brought to trial.

[AuH20]

"I won't answer that".."That's a ridiculous question and I won't dignify it with a response."

How would that be any better? It would generate that ridiculous media buzz and he would be hounded because the media would know they could expect a juicy answer to attack him with.

Here is how you answer. "Frankly, I'm not in the business of musing about hypothetical. Bin Laden is dead and we need to start focusing on the issues here at home." Bomb defused. A big middle finger to the Mainstream media. Ron has as much political acumen as Alvin Greene some days, on the account that he's too nice and honest around bloodthirsty sharks that all want a bite.

[bluesc]

Here is how you answer. "Frankly, I'm not in the business of musing about hypotheticals. Bin Laden is dead and we need to start focusing on the issues here at home." Bomb defused. A big middle finger to the Mainstream media.

You think the media would accept that? Maybe in another universe where the media aren't trying to destroy him. It's either all-out support for the policy or you give them something they can make a headline out of.

[MikeM39]

Don't say that "fences could be used to keep us in," don't say "killing Osama Bin Laden was completely unnecessary," etc. Also, Ron never talks about actual homeland security issues. He never talks about what his plans would actually be to keep America safe.

Killing Bin Laden was completely unnecessary, he should have been brought to trial in America. Why did the U.S. capture Saddam Hussein alive? Why has the entire world complained that Gadaffi was executed by the rebels rather than bringing him to trial alive? If your claim is that Americans wanted Bin Laden executed on the spot, my question is....why? Why did they want that?

[AuH20]

You think the media would accept that? Maybe in another universe where the media aren't trying to destroy him. It's either all-out support for the policy or you give them something they can make a headline out of.

The media isn't running the campaign. He is. He controls the information, not the other way around. They hate him anyway regardless.

[bluesc]

The media isn't running the campaign. He is. He controls the information, not the other way around. They hate him anyway regardless.

Ron controls the information?! He says he would decriminalize drugs at the federal level and a week later every Republican voter acts like he endorses Heroin. Suggests bombing a nation and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians may lead to resentment? TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER! Sensationalist headlines are what the media is all about. They control the information, not Ron.

[MikeM39]

Stay away from the crap which sticks to your shoes. The Bin Laden garbage, Palestine, and the discussion of all the other complex, behind-the-scene machinations which do nothing but aggravate the American public. He should simply say that our current foreign policy is not in our best interests and that we're hopelessly broke. That's it. Like a robot.

How could Ron Paul avoid the issue of Palestine? Fox News and NeoCon Am radio talks about Israel non-stop.

[AuH20]

Ron controls the information?! He says he would decriminalize drugs at the federal level and a week later every Republican voter acts like he endorses Heroin. Suggests bombing a nation and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians may lead to resentment? TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER! Sensationalist headlines are what the media is all about. They control the information, not Ron.

But Ron gives them those kernels of truth which morph into those sensationalist headlines! It's not like they are fabricating a completely false narrative out of thin air. He's his own worst enemy at times.

[bluesc]

But Ron gives them those kernels of truth which morph into those sensationalist headlines! He's his own worst enemy at times.

The media can spin anything. They choose what to spin. Some of the stuff that Cain came out with and the media called anyone that criticized him for it a racist. They target Ron, and he will always be treated this way, no matter what he says.

[AuH20]

The media can spin anything. They choose what to spin. Some of the stuff that Cain came out with and the media called anyone that criticized him for it a racist. They target Ron, and he will always be treated this way, no matter what he says.


That's why I'd be a low-key candidate and laugh all the way to the White House. Sorry ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox but I won't be a willing participant in your games.

[bluesc]

That's why I'd be a low-key candidate and laugh all the way to the White House Sorry ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox but I don't participate in your games.

That only works for Romney because he gets positive coverage every 5 minutes. The media would love for Ron to go silent, because that would justify completely ignoring him.

[AuH20]

That only works for Romney because he gets positive coverage every 5 minutes. The media would love for Ron to go silent, because that would justify completely ignoring him.

Ron's problem is that for a long time, he has ceded ground to the MSM and let them define him. He's commonly known as the kook LIBERTARIAN doctor who wants to deliver a nuclear device to Tehran. I'd be hopping mad as soon as the interviewer started castigating me as some kind of fringe, out-of-touch player but Ron being the consummate gentleman just lets them walk all over him. He needs to be more like Buchanan or Thomas Woods who are bulldogs at turning the tables on their adversaries.

[Brett85]

He half ass opposed the Patriot Act renewal.try again.

"Half ass opposed?" You've got to be kidding me. Rand railed against the Patriot Act constantly and led a one man effort to filibuster it. What more could he have possibly done? Light the Capitol on fire?

[Brett85]

Killing Bin Laden was completely unnecessary, he should have been brought to trial in America. Why did the U.S. capture Saddam Hussein alive? Why has the entire world complained that Gadaffi was executed by the rebels rather than bringing him to trial alive? If your claim is that Americans wanted Bin Laden executed on the spot, my question is....why? Why did they want that?

I agree that we should've tried to capture Bin Laden alive rather than killing him, but there still wasn't a thing wrong with the actual operation. We had every right to either kill or capture a man who killed over 3,000 of our own people.

[Brett85]

Ron controls the information?! He says he would decriminalize drugs at the federal level and a week later every Republican voter acts like he endorses Heroin.

That simply isn't true. In that debate, Ron flat out said that Heroine should be legalized. That was another time that he screwed up in a debate. He should've just made the states' rights argument, but he didn't do that. I agree with Ron that all drugs should be legalized, but you can't sell that to most GOP voters. It has to be framed as a 10th amendment issue.

[bluesc]

That simply isn't true. In that debate, Ron flat out said that Heroine should be legalized. That was another time that he screwed up in a debate. He should've just made the states' rights argument, but he didn't do that.

My point was that the voters and media acted as if he endorsed the use of heroin. My point was the hysteria that the media creates from an answer that they knew they would get is ridiculous. He got caught up in how awful Wallace made him look by flat out asking "you REALLY think heroin should be legalized?" I agree he could have answered it better, but he did not endorse the use of heroin.

[AuH20]

My point was that the voters and media acted as if he endorsed the use of heroin. My point was the hysteria that the media creates from an answer that they knew they would get is ridiculous. He got caught up in how awful Wallace made him look by flat out asking "you REALLY think heroin should be legalized?" I agree he could have answered it better, but he did not endorse the use of heroin.

You have to wonder why the media digs around Ron Paul for destructive, poorly worded sound bytes more than any other candidate. I'll tell you point blank why. It's because he serves them up with regularity, so like an eager dog scratching on the door of the butcher shop, they're looking for more delicious scraps. It's Ron's fault. Don't feed the animals.

[Matthew5]

You have to wonder why the media digs around Ron Paul for destructive, poorly worded sound bytes more than any other candidate. I'll tell you point blank why. It's because he serves them up with regularity, so like an eager dog scratching on the door of the butcher shop, they're looking for more delicious scraps. It's Ron's fault. Don't feed the animals.

I think you're confusing him with Perry. :p

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree that we should've tried to capture Bin Laden alive rather than killing him, but there still wasn't a thing wrong with the actual operation. We had every right to either kill or capture a man who killed over 3,000 of our own people.

Without charges or a trial?

KSM, by all accounts the guy who actually planned and put together the 9/11 attacks, was not assassinated, but arrested with Pakistan's assistance. We flubbed after that, but there's no reason we couldn't have done the same with OBL.

[Brett85]

Without charges or a trial?

KSM, by all accounts the guy who actually planned and put together the 9/11 attacks, was not assassinated, but arrested with Pakistan's assistance. We flubbed after that, but there's no reason we couldn't have done the same with OBL.

Pakistan hasn't been a very good friend to the United States for quite some time. All the evidence points to Pakistan harboring Bin Laden. They most likely would've tipped him off if we had involved them in the operation.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Pakistan hasn't been a very good friend to the United States for quite some time. All the evidence points to Pakistan harboring Bin Laden. They most likely would've tipped him off if we had involved them in the operation.

Perhaps, but if we stopped drone attacking its citizens, who knows how it would have gone down? The only way the raid would have been proper is if we had declared war on Pakistan. Which, obviously, is not a wise way to behave internationally.

[Brett85]

Perhaps, but if we stopped drone attacking its citizens, who knows how it would have gone down? The only way the raid would have been proper is if we had declared war on Pakistan. Which, obviously, is not a wise way to behave internationally.

The authorization of the use of military force gave the government the legal right to kill those who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks, such as Bin Laden. That resolution didn't even contain the word "Afghanistan." It was specifically meant to authorize the kind of operation that killed Bin Laden.

[ZanZibar]

Hey, so what happened to "That's irrelevant, a letter to the President doesn't have the power of law behind it"? A Yea vote does.Sadly, you are correct. Rhetoric is one thing, a vote is another. :(

[ZanZibar]

He needs to get a haircut first. Nobody is going to vote for Zorg.LOL I didn't get the reference but I looked it up and can't stop laughing HA HA HA HA


http://fullmetalpatriotblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jean-baptiste-emanuel-zorg.jpeg

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4ebd48bbecad04637600001d-400-300/jack-hunter.jpg

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/imager/ron-pauls-republican-war/b/original/1129660/281c/Jack-Hunter-IMG_8974.jpg

[MaxPower]

Now, I know this amendment is referred to as imposing "sanctions," but the only thing I see listed in terms of actual specific policy it imposes is that it stipulates that the US won't do business with Iran's central bank. Quite frankly, I feel perfectly fine with the idea of the US government not "doing business" (as we know they so love to do) with Iran's central bank (which shouldn't even exist anyway); I would oppose "sanctions" of the variety that, say, force US companies not to sell to Iran, resulting in the unnecessary starvation and withholding of medication from citizens.

[nayjevin]

Can someone post the details?


Now, I know this amendment is referred to as imposing "sanctions," but the only thing I see listed in terms of actual specific policy it imposes is that it stipulates that the US won't do business with Iran's central bank. Quite frankly, I feel perfectly fine with the idea of the US government not "doing business" (as we know they so love to do) with Iran's central bank (which shouldn't even exist anyway); I would oppose "sanctions" of the variety that, say, force US companies not to sell to Iran, resulting in the unnecessary starvation and withholding of medication from citizens.

now we're cookin with oil

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Yeah its not a good vote at all.

You know what? I actually don't give much of a damn.

I'm sorry, I just don't.

If there can be a politician that is right on just about everything, like 99%(No, not the Hannity definition of 99%), then I will take him all the time.

All these people saying he is a traitor or whatever, I don't have any sympathy for you.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Now, I know this amendment is referred to as imposing "sanctions," but the only thing I see listed in terms of actual specific policy it imposes is that it stipulates that the US won't do business with Iran's central bank. Quite frankly, I feel perfectly fine with the idea of the US government not "doing business" (as we know they so love to do) with Iran's central bank (which shouldn't even exist anyway); I would oppose "sanctions" of the variety that, say, force US companies not to sell to Iran, resulting in the unnecessary starvation and withholding of medication from citizens.

Does more than that, bro. Not to mention, under what authority does the US government restrict me from trading with any entity with which I wish to interact?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/senate-passes-iran-sanctions-100-0-obama-objects-really/2011/12/02/gIQA7yELKO_blog.html


1) Prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account on foreign financial institutions engaged in non-petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 60 days; 2) Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions, including central banks, engaged in petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 180 days with 180-day special exemptions tied to the availability of non-Iranian oil on the market and a country’s significant reduction in purchases of Iranian oil; 3) Provide a humanitarian exception for food, medicine and medical devices; and 4) Provide the president with an unclassified (with classified annex, if necessary) national security waiver authority every 120 days.

[Echoes]

Dissapointed in you Rand. This might gain you favor in neocon circles but you're gonna loose base support from paleocons/libertarians if you keep this shit up.

Anyway, i second getting Jack Hunter in office. Guaranteed he wouldnt buckle like this.

[MaxPower]

Does more than that, bro.
As you've backed this up with a source, I concede; the content you've quoted is objectionable.


Not to mention, under what authority does the US government restrict me from trading with any entity with which I wish to interact?
Again, I was operating under the premise (based on having read brief summaries of the bill as simply a statement that the US government would end financial ties with Iran's central bank) that it simply meant the government would not trade with, subsidize or otherwise interact with Iran's central bank, which would be perfectly fine, in my estimation- in fact, I would very much like it if they would never interact with any central bank anywhere. Prohibiting private businesses from interacting with Iran's central bank, however, is another matter. It isn't unconstitutional, since it does in fact, consist in regulating "commerce with foreign nations," but it is unlibertarian and beyond any role I believe government should validly take. I disagree with Rand on this issue, though I will say in his defense that he hasn't violated his oath of office.

[Slutter McGee]

I love Rand for this. Play the fucking game man. This is why I gave him money. So he could make a stand when he could make a difference, either in a vote or public perception. But more so because I want him to be in a position to really truly bring about change.

You people always talk about always standing on principle. I respect that. I love Ron for doing it. But even he has played the game before. Look at ear-marks. Yes, I understand the logic of his argument, but you can't deny that bringing back funds to your district from my fucking tax money is playing the game some.

I have given up trying to change America's hearts and minds. I am all for manipulation of the political environment now to save my future. That is what Rand is doing.

Stop bitching about the second best person in Congress,

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Galileo Galilei]

So essentially, he's not a man of principle. :(

Rand cut a deal with another senator, he agreed to make a worthless vote now, in exchange for an important vote in favor of civil liberties later. Some people have principles and other people have "principles".

[jtstellar]

So essentially, he's not a man of principle. :( the real principled human beings who refused to live under a tyranny are all now long dead, including their families. their genes no longer remain to make a difference. if the fight for liberty comes down to 2016 and rand manages to win and reveal himself a principled guy after all, and he merely sacrificed some short sighted grandstanding you propose here--if all that is indeed proven true, just make sure you move out of the country. we aren't doing work while getting spitted on on our back just so you can sit comfortably and enjoy the fruits of victory.

to others less stupid: persevere to fight another day. as long as you know his heart is in the right place and he hasn't been corrupted, it's about enduring and picking fights that make a difference. yes it takes people-read and ability to judge whether someone is corrupted. if you think rand is corrupt at his core, then we're arguing about different things altogether. the question is simply whether he should play politics, when voting no amounts to grandstanding and nothing else. the answer is absolutely yes, he should play politics. if you think none of this matters and he's really just proving he's a corrupt person, there's nothing that can be said to you. you are hopeless.

[pen_thief]

It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.

THIS ^

[pen_thief]

Jeez, I might not have been around here for a long time but some of the disrespect for Ron Paul from his own supporters amazes me. Ron Paul will always be one of my heroes, whether he gets into the White House or not. I know he would not vote for something like this just as a "strategic" move. Principles still mean something to me. I guess there are few left who agree.

Note: Yes, slightly old thread. I found it after I watched a Young Turks video claiming the Senate unanimously voted for sanctions. I had to see if Rand would really vote that way, given his father's views. Disappointed.

[danbeaulieu]

Yeah unless Rand reads a lot of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises in the next 4 years... I'm not sure he'd get my vote.

[JuicyG]

Ron Paul said sanctions are an act of war. This means Rand Paul voted in favor of war with Iran basically.

I`ve seen Rand speaking about occupy movement and he sounded very much like Fox news. He`s only concern was occupiers damaging private property. That`s was what he had to say. Can`t say I like what I see in him. Seems like half neocon, half libertarian. Perhaps there`s something I`m missing, but would be nice to get some clarifications.

The Machiavelian road is a slippery slope and once you embark on it there`s not telling what you gonna end up doing and where you gonna end up.

[nasaal]

People need to get over this idea that Rand is somehow his father. He isn't, he never will be. Yes he is very good on some stuff, but to support both you really have to be willing to compromise on some issues.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Ron Paul said sanctions are an act of war. This means Rand Paul voted in favor of war with Iran basically.

I`ve seen Rand speaking about occupy movement and he sounded very much like Fox news. He`s only concern was occupiers damaging private property. That`s was what he had to say. Can`t say I like what I see in him. Seems like half neocon, half libertarian. Perhaps there`s something I`m missing, but would be nice to get some clarifications.

The Machiavelian road is a slippery slope and once you embark on it there`s not telling what you gonna end up doing and where you gonna end up.

Ron can't have it both ways. Sanctions can't be both 1-an act of war and 2-something that leads up to wars. War is war.

But if they are an act of war, would Ron take action if Iran enacted a sanction by blocking the strait of hormuz?

For the most part, occupy was filthy and I would never support it.

[Justinfrom1776]

You don't make the connection that something that always leads up to war is in fact an act of war? I do.

[Brett85]

I still don't understand the people who say that they won't support any candidate that they don't agree with 100% on the issues. Who are people going to support if Ron doesn't become President and retires from Congress?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I still don't understand the people who say that they won't support any candidate that they don't agree with 100% on the issues. Who are people going to support if Ron doesn't become President and retires from Congress?

Better yet, how do they expect people to vote for Ron Paul.

[bluesc]

I wish people would drop this. Right now Rand is arguably doing a better job campaigning for Ron than Ron is. I don't want him to go back to the Senate. He has earned my support in 2016 twice over.

Now, let's focus on Ron.

[John F Kennedy III]

Rand Paul for President 2016!

[ExPatPaki]

The US-Iran economic war
By Pepe Escobar (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA07Ak01.html)

NEW YORK - Here's a crash course on how to further wreck the global economy.

A key amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act signed by United States President Barack Obama on the last day of 2011 - when no one was paying attention - imposes sanctions on any countries or companies that buy Iranian oil and pay for it through Iran's central bank. Starting this summer, anybody who does it is prevented from doing business with the US.

This amendment - for all practical purposes a declaration of economic war - was brought to you by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), on direct orders of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.

Torrents of spin have tried to rationalize it as the Obama administration's plan B as opposed to letting the Israeli dogs of war conduct an unilateral attack on Iran over its supposed nuclear weapons program.

Yet the original Israeli strategy was in fact even more hysterical - as in effectively preventing any country or company from paying for imported Iranian oil, with the possible exceptions of China and India. On top of it, American Israel-firsters were trying to convince anyone this would not result in relentless oil price hikes.

Once again displaying a matchless capacity to shoot themselves in their Ferragamo-clad feet, governments in the European Union (EU) are debating whether or not to buy oil from Iran anymore. The existential doubt is should we start now or wait for a few months. Inevitably, like death and taxes, the result has been - what else - oil prices soaring. Brent crude is now hovering around $114, and the only way is up.

Get me to the crude on time

Iran is the second-largest Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) producer, exporting up to 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Around 450,000 of these barrels go to the European Union - the second-largest market for Iran after China.

The requisite faceless bureaucrat, EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Ottinger, has been spinning that the EU can count on Saudi Arabia to make up the shortfall from Iran.

Any self-respecting oil analyst knows Saudi Arabia does not have all the necessary extra spare capacity. Moreover, and crucially, Saudi Arabia needs to make a lot of money out of expensive oil. After all, the counter-revolutionary House of Saud badly needs these funds to bribe its subjects into dismissing any possibility of an indigenous Arab Spring.

Add to it Tehran's threat to block the Strait of Hormuz, thus preventing one-sixth of the world's oil and 70% of OPEC's exports from reaching the market; no wonder oil traders are falling over themselves to lock up as much crude as they can.

Forget about oil at an accessible $50 or even $75 a barrel. The price of oil may be destined to soon reach $120 a barrel and even $150 a barrel by summer, just as in crisis-hit 2008. OPEC, by the way, is pumping more oil than at any time since late 2008.

So what started as an Israeli-concocted roadside improvised explosive device has now developed into a multiple economic suicide bombing targeting whole sections of the global economy.

No wonder the chairman of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, Ala'eddin Broujerdi, has warned that the West may be committing a "strategic blunder" with these oil sanctions.

Translation: as it goes, the name of the game for 2012 is deep global recession.

Obama rolls the dice

First Washington leaked that sanctions on Iran's central bank were "not on the table". After all, the Obama administration itself knew this would translate into an oil price hike and a certified one-way ticket for more global recession. The Iranian regime, on top of it, would be making more money out if its oil exports.

Still, the Bibi-AIPAC combo had no trouble forcing the amendment through those Israel-firster Meccas, the US Senate and Congress - even with US Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner expressly against it.

The amendment just passed may not represent the "crippling sanctions" vociferously demanded by the Israeli government. Tehran will feel the squeeze - but not to an intolerable level. Yet only those irresponsible people at the US Congress - despised by the overwhelming majority of Americans, according to any number of polls - could possibly believe they can take Iran's 2.5 million barrels of oil a day in exports off the global market with no drastic consequences for the global economy.

Asia increasingly will need more oil - and will continue to buy oil from Iran. And oil prices will keep flirting with the stratosphere.

So why did Obama sign it? For the Obama administration, everything now is about electoral calculus. Those terminal wackos in the Republican presidential circus - with the honorable exception of Ron Paul - are peddling war on Iran the moment they're elected, and substantial swathes of the American electorate are clueless enough to buy it.

No one, though, is doing some basic math to conclude the American and European economies certainly don't need oil flirting with the $120 level if some minimal recovery is in the cards.

Show me your balls

Apart from that self-defeating, terminally in crisis euro/North Atlantic Treaty Organization bunch, everyone and his neighbor will be bypassing this Israeli-American declaration of economic war:
- Russia already said it will circumvent it.
- India is already paying for Iranian oil via Halkbank in Turkey.
- Iran is actively negotiating to sell more oil to China. Iran is China's second-largest supplier, only behind Saudi Arabia. China pays in euros, and soon may be paying in yuan. By March they both will have sealed an agreement about new pricing.
- Venezuela controls a bi-national bank with Iran since 2009; that's how Iran gets paid for business in Latin America.
- Even traditional US allies want out. Turkey - which imports around 30% of its oil from Iran.
- Will seek a waiver exempting Turkish oil importer Tupras from US sanctions.
- And South Korea will also seek a waiver, to buy around 200,000 barrels a day - 10% of its oil - from Iran in 2012.

China, India, South Korea, they all have complex two-way trade ties with Iran (China-Iran trade, for instance, is $30 billion a year, and growing). None of this will be extinguished because the Washington/Tel Aviv axis says so. So one should expect a rash of new private banks set up all across the developing world for the purpose of buying Iranian oil.

Washington wouldn't have the balls to try to impose sanctions on Chinese banks because they will be dealing with Iran.

On the other hand, one's got to praise Tehran's balls. After a relentless campaign of covert assassinations; abductions of Iranian scientists; cross-border attacks in Sistan-Balochistan province; Israeli sabotage of its infrastructure, with viruses and otherwise; invasion of territory via US spy drones; non-stop Israeli and Republican threats of an imminent "shock and awe"; and the US sale of $60 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia, still Tehran won't balk.

Tehran has just tested - successfully - its own cruise missiles, and in the Strait of Hormuz of all places. Then when Tehran reacts to the non-stop Western aggressive barrage, it is blamed with "acts of provocation".

Last Friday, the New York Times editorial board was totally in love with the Pentagon's threats against Iran, as well as calling for "maximum economic pressure".

The bottom line is that average Iranians will suffer - as average, crisis-hit, indebted Europeans will also suffer. The US economy will suffer. And whenever it feels the West is getting way too hysterical, Tehran will keep reserving the right to send oil prices skyrocketing.

The regime in Tehran will keep selling oil, will keep enriching uranium and, most of all, won't fall. Like a Hellfire missile hitting a Pashtun wedding party, these Western sanctions will miserably fail. But not without collecting a lot of collateral damage - in the West itself.

[AuH20]

Ron crumbled on the AUMF Afghanistan vote thanks to internal pressure within his staff, which I don't necessarily have a problem with since he wasn't the deciding vote. The same can be said for Rand in this instance. We have dead and legless GIs, thanks to IEDs being created in Iran and the last thing I want to see is Rand Paul being thrown into that future type of maelstrom which is ruled by emotion as opposed to logic.

[ExPatPaki]

Despite Charges, No Evidence Iran Sending IEDs to Iraq
by Gareth Porter
(http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10339)
For 18 months now, the George W. Bush administration has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms.

But in the past, high administration officials have always admitted that they have no real evidence to support it. Now, they are going further. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on her current Middle Eastern trip, "I think there is plenty of evidence that there is Iranian involvement with these networks that are making high-explosive IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and that are endangering our troops, and that's going to be dealt with."

However, Rice failed to provide any evidence of official Iranian involvement.

The previous pattern had been that U.S. and British officials suggest that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate U.S. armored vehicles is the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admit that they have no evidence to support it.

That charge serves not just one administration objective but two: it provides an additional justification for aggressive rhetoric and pressures against Tehran and also suggests that Iran bears much of the blame for the sectarian violence in Baghdad and high levels of U.S. casualties from IEDs.

The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of U.S. troops from shaped charges fired at armored vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

The U.S. command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On Jun. 21, 2005, Gen. John R. Vines, then the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army.

A Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs also told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infrared detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents' "resourcefulness," according to the Pentagon source.

But sometime in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On Aug. 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to NBC and CBS that U.S. troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been "smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week."

The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were "convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government."

These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

But the administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the enemies of the militant Shi'ite parties in Iraq that were aligned with Iran.

British troops in Shi'ite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shi'ite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armored vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told BCC on Oct. 5, 2005, that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah." But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

Privately British officials said that the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006, that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south.

However, the U.S. administration continued to push that accusation, and Bush himself raised the theme for the first time at a press conference Mar. 13, 2006. "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today," he said, "came from Iran."

Bush quoted the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to building improvised explosive devices."

No reporter has followed up on what Negroponte meant by providing the "capability" to build such devices or why the militias would need to go outside Iraq to find that know-how.

The day after Bush's press conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq. Rumsfeld, appearing with Pace, said, "All you know is that you find equipment in a country that came from the neighboring country."

Last November, as the release of the Iraq Study Group report approached, administration officials again planted the story of intercepted Iranian-made weapons and munitions it had leaked in mid-2005. ABC News reported Nov. 30 that a "senior defense official" had told them of "smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand new weapons fresh from Iranian factories."

The new twist in the story was that the weapons allegedly had manufacturing dates in 2006. The story continued, "This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market."

The assumption underlying the anti-Iran defense department spin that a private market for weapons or, more likely, components, could not move them from Iran across the porous border to Iraq in a few months is far-fetched.

At about the same time Bush apparently gave orders that the U.S. military should seize any Iranians in the country in an effort to get some kind of evidence to use in support of its propaganda theme. The first such operation came in central Baghdad just before Christmas, and a second raid against Iranian diplomats in Irbil was carried out to coincide with the president's speech last Wednesday.

These raids, presented to the public as part of a campaign against targets supposedly identified through good intelligence, were clearly aimed at trying to substantiate an anti-Iran line for which the administration has no credible evidence. Those raids now create a requirement to produce something new to justify them.

[AuH20]

Despite Charges, No Evidence Iran Sending IEDs to Iraq
by Gareth Porter
(http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10339)


Note the date of the article I posted below. 2011. Regardless, Rand Paul is not going to win a national conversation on proving that the Iranians are not involved in the creation of IEDs:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/five-charged-in-iranian-smuggling-network-linked-to-iraq-ieds/


The Justice Department has charged five people, including an Iranian man, and four companies with illegally exporting specialized transmitters from a U.S. company to Iran that later were found in unexploded improvised explosive devices in Iraq.

The indictment charges Hossein Larijani, an Iranian citizen, with illegally exporting the radio frequency transmitters through companies and individuals in Singapore who then forward the items to Iran.

Police in Singapore arrested four others who have been indicted in the case — identified as Wong Yuh Lan, Lim Yong Nam, Lim Kow Seng and Hia Soo Gan Benson — for their alleged role in conspiring with Larijani to obtain the transmitters from the Minnesota wireless company Digi.

The indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy, smuggling, false statements, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, and violations of the Arms Export Control Act and Iranian Transaction regulations.

According to the indictment unsealed today, between August 2007 and February 2008 the transmitters were sent to Singapore and then sent to Iran by Larijani’s company, Opto Electronics Ltd. The indictment alleges that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq recovered unexploded IEDs in Iraq in May 2008, December 2008, April 2009 and July 2010.

“These defendants misled U.S. companies in buying parts that they shipped to Iran and that ended up in IEDs on the battlefield in Iraq,” Ronald Machen, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, said in a statement.

[kylejack]

Ron can't have it both ways. Sanctions can't be both 1-an act of war and 2-something that leads up to wars. War is war.

But if they are an act of war, would Ron take action if Iran enacted a sanction by blocking the strait of hormuz?

For the most part, occupy was filthy and I would never support it.
Days later and you're still playing this semantics game?

[ExPatPaki]

Note the date of the article I posted below. 2011.

Still doesn't explain why Shia Iran would want to supply IEDs to Sunni insurgents who kill Iraqi Shia police officers and military personnel working for the Iraqi Shia government.

[AuH20]

Still doesn't explain why Shia Iran would want to supply IEDs to Sunni insurgents who kill Iraqi Shia police officers and military personnel working for the Iraqi Shia government.

I think you have a valid point but this is not an argument you want to engage in at the political level. It's lose-lose proposition because your adversaries will be painting you as sympathetic to a state sponsor of terrorism. I think this unshakable perception is eluding some of the more ardent members of our congregation. This is not the hill to die on, unless it's the decisive vote, which alters the decision process completely.

[Mini-Me]

I don't always like how Rand plays the game, and I don't see how voting as he did had any political benefit with respect to future elections (at the very least, I would have abstained). However, a single "no" vote would have accomplished nothing more than making a statement. I LOVE when Ron does this, because statements need to be made, and I greatly prefer his open defiance to Rand's shrewd calculations...but it's quite possible that Rand views principles slightly differently from some of us, in that he only feels that he'd be compromising his principles if his vote may actually affect the outcome. If so, I don't think that picking his battles in that way necessarily makes him less principled, and it gives him latitude to spread the liberty message from another angle:

Whereas Ron takes every opportunity to drastically reshape the discussion and preach the gospel from the rooftops to an audience that often doesn't care to listen, Rand seems to be much more subtle in the way he approaches things. It's quite possible that Rand may have seen an intangible benefit in this vote that many of us don't; for instance, he has been working hard to persuade his Republican colleagues to take baby steps in his (and Ron's, and our) direction. Voting no couldn't have hindered this legislation in any way, but voting as he did might be a way to keep communication lanes open with colleagues who are overly paranoid about Iran. His efforts to move the other Senators in his direction may be futile, or they may bear fruit some years down the road. It's still too early to tell, but in the extreme case, Rand's consistent dialogue with the other Republican Senators may eventually mean the difference between coming back from the edge or plunging into complete tyranny. It's dirty business, and it's risky business, and Ron's approach definitely speaks to me more...but I can recognize and appreciate what Rand seems to be attempting, and for all I know it might help save this country someday. Given a choice between their approaches, I'd pick Ron's every day, but I'd like to think they're complementary in the end.

Ultimately, I'm disappointed in Rand's vote, but considering a "no" vote would have accomplished nothing, I'd much rather withhold judgment, give him the benefit of the doubt, and let his other efforts justify my patience.

[HigherVision]

I don't always like how Rand plays the game, and I don't see how voting as he did had any political benefit with respect to future elections (at the very least, I would have abstained). However, a single "no" vote would have accomplished nothing more than making a statement. I LOVE when Ron does this, because statements need to be made, and I greatly prefer his open defiance to Rand's shrewd calculations...but it's quite possible that Rand views principles slightly differently from some of us, in that he only feels that he'd be compromising his principles if his vote may actually affect the outcome. If so, I don't think that picking his battles in that way necessarily makes him less principled, and it gives him latitude to spread the liberty message from another angle:

Whereas Ron takes every opportunity to drastically reshape the discussion and preach the gospel from the rooftops to an audience that often doesn't care to listen, Rand seems to be much more subtle in the way he approaches things. It's quite possible that Rand may have seen an intangible benefit in this vote that many of us don't; for instance, he has been working hard to persuade his Republican colleagues to take baby steps in his (and Ron's, and our) direction. Voting no couldn't have hindered this legislation in any way, but voting as he did might be a way to keep communication lanes open with colleagues who are overly paranoid about Iran. His efforts to move the other Senators in his direction may be futile, or they may bear fruit some years down the road. It's still too early to tell, but in the extreme case, Rand's consistent dialogue with the other Republican Senators may eventually mean the difference between coming back from the edge or plunging into complete tyranny. It's dirty business, and it's risky business, and Ron's approach definitely speaks to me more...but I can recognize and appreciate what Rand seems to be attempting, and for all I know it might help save this country someday. Given a choice between their approaches, I'd pick Ron's every day, but I'd like to think they're complementary in the end.

Ultimately, I'm disappointed in Rand's vote, but considering a "no" vote would have accomplished nothing, I'd much rather withhold judgment, give him the benefit of the doubt, and let his other efforts justify my patience.

You vote no defiantly in hopes that others will follow your example. That's why we love Ron and support him so much, because he's willing to take a stand. And ultimately I believe we will win because it impresses and inspires people who are typically disgusted with politics and don't get involved. So I disagree, it is important. If I wanted the status quo and representatives who just go along to get along I'd be fine with things as they are. I mean if that's what people want to do, okay I guess, but I don't see why we should even bother to have a liberty movement if that's the case.

[CaptainAmerica]

not surprising.the man who ran on a platform of "I wont compromise".

[Matt Collins]

An epiphany on why Rand voted to sanction Iran:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?383961-Epiphany!-Why-Rand-Paul-voted-to-sanction-Iran...

[Agorism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn1o2p9VBiw&feature=youtu.be

Ron gave a speech against new sanctions\wars against Iran today

ps- Collins you have some twisted logic as to why he endorsed Romney before the primary even ended?

[kylejack]

Wow, pretty cool that it was Kucinich that yielded the time to him.

[Matt Collins]

ps- Collins you have some twisted logic as to why he endorsed Romney before the primary even ended?Ron had conceded the race at that point.

[Feeding the Abscess]

An epiphany on why Rand voted to sanction Iran:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?383961-Epiphany!-Why-Rand-Paul-voted-to-sanction-Iran...

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/08/09/new-york-declares-war-on-iran/


You f—king Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with the Iranians?

[Matt Collins]

Sanctions |= blockade.

Please learn the difference.