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/sena...iran-sanctions
Does that mean Rand voted for it?
Probably a voice vote.
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.
No, it's right here.Originally Posted by realtonygoodwin
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00216
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.
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.
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.
Yea Jack Hunter is great..
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).
Last edited by Feeding the Abscess; 12-01-2011 at 11:05 PM.
The epitome of libertarian populism
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.
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.
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.
The epitome of libertarian populism
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.
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.
The words "epic" and "fail" both come to mind, sadly =/
Damn. Stop it. I have to agree with you again.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
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
it would make a good attack ad in 2016.
Last edited by josh.schisler; 12-02-2011 at 03:42 PM.
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".
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 $#@! we called conspiracies over the last several years are coming to fruition.
I will let him give his reasoning before passing judgement.
“The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.” ~ Utah Phillips
Oh, Rand...
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.
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.
That is the only acceptable reasoning. Thus, we will accept it.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
two things--
it's politics
and
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us