Explanation of Rand Paul's Vote For Iran Sanctions

[jmdrake]

Why do people on these forums keep saying this? American sanctions were put on Japan after they invaded China. Sanctions may not have been the best response but these sanctions were not the cause of WWII.

Straw man argument. Centure7 said: "US sanctions on Japan were an act of war that provoked Japan to attack, dragging us into WWII." Japan invading China (which the British, French, Russians and the U.S. had also done) is not what drug us into WW II. If it was we would have attacked Britain, France, Russia and ourselves before attacking the Japanese.

[jmdrake]

Bin Laden claimed credit for the attacks multiple times, and we know for a fact that he was responsible for the World Trade Center bombings in 1993.

There's stronger evidence linking the FBI to the 1993 WTC bombing.

[Galileo Galilei]

The fact that Rand appears to have fooled Galileo means he is doing it right. He has fooled millions of gutless, principle-less lamestreamers that he is "one of them" (see Hannity, Levin, Palin, etc.). I did hear that he traded the vote somehow in exchange for some kind of concession in the NDAA. His answer above doesn't disprove that.

Rand is, I believe, playing a deep undercover game. He is going to say lots of things we liberty-lovers will not like. He will make a few votes we will not like. He might vote for foreign aid to Israel, for instance. Anything to convince the establishment that he's safe, that he's no threat. In the future, it will be a hot question: do you trust Rand? Kind of like "Do you trust Snape?" in the Harry Potter world.

I trust Rand.

No one fools Galileo. But I agree 100% with your assessment of Rand Paul. Rand is the real deal.

[Feeding the Abscess]

One reason I like Rand over Ron is that Rand is not afraid to make unpopular votes to promote liberty. Ron keeps everyone happy by losing a vote 434-1, but by doing this he throw away political capital that could be used to promote liberty.

Rand is willing to get outvoted 95-5, but draws the line at a popular vote losing 99-1. Rand will not throw away political capital that can be used later to promote liberty. Ron has no qualms about doing that. Rand is willing to make a very unpopular vote like supporting sanctions on Iran in order to make our society more pro-liberty and anti-empire.

Rand has real principle.

Let's break this down.

1. Rand is better than Ron because Rand is unafraid to make unpopular votes to promote liberty
2. Ron votes as the 1 in 434-1, the most unpopular you could possibly get
3. Rand may go 95-5, but he won't make an unpopular vote if he's the lone dissenter
4. Re-read 1 through 3 again
5. By voting for empire and anti-liberty, Rand Paul votes for liberty and dismantling the empire
6. Scratch head

Dude, seriously.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm not sure I fully understand the complexities of this issue, but what business do we have doing business with an Iranian central bank in the first place? Shouldn't we be working to get rid of central banks? If it contains bans on the economic activity of free people, that is definitely bad and Rand should be let to know that it isn't the type of vote we like, but if its only against a central bank (which would de facto meana ban on taxpayer funds getting sent there ultimately as that seems to be our relationship with other central banks) I'm not sure whether that is good or bad.

I doubt any US citizen or corporation has some type of direct credit line from the Iranian version of the fed.

We may rightly oppose central banks, but under what authority can the United States government forbid the rest of the world, let alone any single citizen of the US, from doing business with Iran's or any country's central bank?

That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[centure7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LzzBOVsIFk

+Rep for finally showing Rand Paul's response to the Iran sanctions. Clearly Rand Paul did carefully consider his sanctions vote. Clearly Rand Paul did honestly support Iran sanctions. He is relaxed in the video and seems to have no idea that he has greatly disappointed his strongest base on that vote. If that is pandering, he's better at it than anyone else in politics. If he felt he was pandering I would have expected him to point blank bring up something having upset his base. He never mentions an upset base, so I don't think it really occurred to him that his supporters would strongly reject his thought process in the vote.

Even though he says point blank that he "took the middle ground", I don't really think he considers it a compromise at all, but rather considers it the decision that makes the most sense. I also believe Paul was not trying to pander to anybody when he supported the sanctions because if he did he would offer at least some slightest clue to that. He seemed to honestly want that middle ground he was talking about for the reasons he outlined.

In my initial posting I said quite simply that I believed Rand Paul simply does not have as advanced of a set of principles as his father. One poster said I was "arrogant" to say such a thing. But clearly this video shows I was exactly right about that. It explains his vote clearly. And just like the sanctions leading to WWII were at the top of my thoughts with the Iran sanctions, those same thoughts were clearly in Rand Paul's head as well. So, I feel vindicated on that. He took a calculated risk on the sanctions on Iran, which is something I find completely unacceptable.

The past couple weeks after watching the video I wasn't sure whether I would find the video sufficient. After consideration, the video does not seem satisfactory because it does not address a lot of different issues found within the text of the law, and is a very basic response. Therefore I will write a letter to the Paul office and continue to request a response for as many times as needed to get one... as many as just over 100 requests will be made over the next few months, starting Friday when I mail the first letter to his office.

[rcandrews]

The cause of WWII was WWI, with all due respect.

[Galileo Galilei]

The cause of WWII was WWI, with all due respect.

WWI was caused by the Franco-Prussian war.

[rcandrews]

To be more precise yes but my comment still stands, no?

I mean after all as I am sure you know, the First Indochina War ultimately becomes The Vietnam War in that regard.

Bottom line as we both know is war begets more war and WWII was nothing more than those who make war tidying up the loose ends of WWI and now they want to have a WWIII to try and "clean up" everything they made a mess of in the first place, they being those who make war.

Times are changing and it does feel good but feeling good doesn’t cut it when it comes to horseshoes and hand grenades, eh.

Peace when you can get, love when ya can't *)

[anaconda]

Rand's explanation for his Iran sanctions vote couldn't have been any gayer.