Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 96

Thread: How will Rand vote on Iran nuclear deal?

  1. #1

    Default How will Rand vote on Iran nuclear deal?

    Reports are that the nuclear deal with Iran is almost complete and will be announced tomorrow. Assuming these reports are true, I don't think this will be good for Rand. I don't like to be negative, but it seems like Rand is in a lose lose situation here. If he votes in favor of the deal, that will hurt him badly with conservative Republicans in the primary. There's almost universal opposition to the deal among conservatives. Going along with Obama and being accused of "supporting Obama's foreign policy" wouldn't look good. I think it would be near impossible for Rand to win the GOP nomination if he voted for the Iran deal. On the other hand, he's likely to lose more of his libertarian supporters if he votes against the Iran deal. People like Justin Raimondo will likely abandon Rand for good if he votes against the deal. Many libertarians who previously donated to him may stop donating. Voting against the deal might also hurt him among swing voters in a hypothetical general election. So unfortunately, it seems like a lose-lose situation to me. I was hoping that the deal with Iran would fall through so that Rand wouldn't be forced to vote on the issue. Now that he has to vote on it, it seem like a major problem. What are everyone's thoughts on this?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default How can Rand justify voting for an agreement that the public isn't allowed to read?

    Rand has stated that he would be in favor of a "good" deal. How can a deal be considered good if the details aren't disclosed?


    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Reports are that the nuclear deal with Iran is almost complete and will be announced tomorrow. Assuming these reports are true, I don't think this will be good for Rand. I don't like to be negative, but it seems like Rand is in a lose lose situation here. If he votes in favor of the deal, that will hurt him badly with conservative Republicans in the primary. There's almost universal opposition to the deal among conservatives. Going along with Obama and being accused of "supporting Obama's foreign policy" wouldn't look good. I think it would be near impossible for Rand to win the GOP nomination if he voted for the Iran deal. On the other hand, he's likely to lose more of his libertarian supporters if he votes against the Iran deal. People like Justin Raimondo will likely abandon Rand for good if he votes against the deal. Many libertarians who previously donated to him may stop donating. Voting against the deal might also hurt him among swing voters in a hypothetical general election. So unfortunately, it seems like a lose-lose situation to me. I was hoping that the deal with Iran would fall through so that Rand wouldn't be forced to vote on the issue. Now that he has to vote on it, it seem like a major problem. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

  4. #3

    Default

    Voting against a deal doesn't equal voting for a war with Iran. He can just say he's voting against it because he wanted it to be better.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaymur View Post
    Rand has stated that he would be in favor of a "good" deal. How can a deal be considered good if the details aren't disclosed?
    If they complete a final deal tomorrow, the deal will be in writing, and every member of Congress will be able to read it. The reports are that it's about 100 pages long.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Voting against a deal doesn't equal voting for a war with Iran. He can just say he's voting against it because he wanted it to be better.
    Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I'm just hoping that some of his libertarian supporters don't go nuts if he votes against it.

  7. #6

    Default

    he has to vote against it. every Republican will. the base demands a no vote, and there is no upside to voting yes. but it may not even get to the senate. getting 2/3 of the house will not be easy. I have no objection to Rand voting no on this one.

  8. #7

    Default

    Obama can use his veto, and then 34 votes in favor of the deal will be enough. If there are enough senators who favor the deal anyway, then Rand can vote against it. I expect him to vote for the deal however. I expect Flake and a handful of other republicans will do the same.

    Even if congress "kills" the deal, most countries will resume trade with Iran, while Iran presumably keeps the deal. Then all congress will do is to vote shut out american buisness from Iran. Which is a shame since Iran prefers western companies to asian ones. There will be a UN security council vote, which will make the deal official in the eyes of the world.
    Last edited by Foreigner; 07-12-2015 at 07:48 PM.

  9. #8

    Default

    Rand is voting no. He isn't with us on Iran and he's made it clear. His position has changed and I don't think it's politics.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Rand is voting no. He isn't with us on Iran and he's made it clear. His position has changed and I don't think it's politics.
    He's said all along that he supports negotiations with Iran and wants peace and not war. The question is whether or not he will vote for a deal that the entire GOP field and entire Republican Party will describe as being a "terrible deal." I don't think there's any way he could get away with that politically, which is why I think he'll be forced to vote against it to have any chance at all to be the GOP nominee.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    He's said all along that he supports negotiations with Iran and wants peace and not war. The question is whether or not he will vote for a deal that the entire GOP field and entire Republican Party will describe as being a "terrible deal." I don't think there's any way he could get away with that politically, which is why I think he'll be forced to vote against it to have any chance at all to be the GOP nominee.
    He wants peace, but uses sanctions. He's negotiating from a threatening position. That's not a good thing in my idea.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    He wants peace, but uses sanctions. He's negotiating from a threatening position. That's not a good thing in my idea.
    If there is no threat of sanctions then there is nothing to negotiate over. Both countries are threatening to do something that the other country doesn't want, and the negotiation is to get both countries to not do it.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  13. #12

    Default

    I don't even think Flake will vote yes. but it might never get to senate. first there will have to be a vote in the house, then a meaningless vote in the senate. Obama will of course veto it.

    then the real vote to override takes place. and it will fail in the house.

  14. #13

    Default

    Any 'deal' concocted by the Obama Admin is bound to have reams and reams of reasons for opposing it. I suspect that Rand will oppose it and have a huge lists of fully proper (non warmongering) reasons why, once he is allowed to actually read the thing.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    I don't even think Flake will vote yes. but it might never get to senate. first there will have to be a vote in the house, then a meaningless vote in the senate. Obama will of course veto it.

    then the real vote to override takes place. and it will fail in the house.
    Why would the House vote on it? They are not among the advise and consent requirement for foreign treaties.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Rand is voting no. He isn't with us on Iran and he's made it clear. His position has changed and I don't think it's politics.
    What on Earth makes you think Obama's deal would be "with us?"

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Reports are that the nuclear deal with Iran is almost complete and will be announced tomorrow. Assuming these reports are true, I don't think this will be good for Rand. I don't like to be negative, but it seems like Rand is in a lose lose situation here. If he votes in favor of the deal, that will hurt him badly with conservative Republicans in the primary. There's almost universal opposition to the deal among conservatives. Going along with Obama and being accused of "supporting Obama's foreign policy" wouldn't look good. I think it would be near impossible for Rand to win the GOP nomination if he voted for the Iran deal. On the other hand, he's likely to lose more of his libertarian supporters if he votes against the Iran deal. People like Justin Raimondo will likely abandon Rand for good if he votes against the deal. Many libertarians who previously donated to him may stop donating. Voting against the deal might also hurt him among swing voters in a hypothetical general election. So unfortunately, it seems like a lose-lose situation to me. I was hoping that the deal with Iran would fall through so that Rand wouldn't be forced to vote on the issue. Now that he has to vote on it, it seem like a major problem. What are everyone's thoughts on this?
    Nicely summarized.

    GOP media will violently attack the deal and anyone who supports it, no matter what it says.

    While a sizable fraction of libertarians will hate Rand if he votes against it, not understanding or caring about the political difficulty of the situation.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-12-2015 at 10:56 PM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    If there is no threat of sanctions then there is nothing to negotiate over. Both countries are threatening to do something that the other country doesn't want, and the negotiation is to get both countries to not do it.
    Yes there is. Iran isn't threatening anything against us directly.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Nicely summarized.

    GOP media will violently attack the deal and anyone who supports it, no matter what it says.

    While a sizable fraction of libertarians will hate Rand if he votes against it, not understanding or caring about the political difficulty of the situation.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    I don't understand why any 'libertarian' would imagine that a deal crafted by Obama would be good, never mind a secret deal governing foreign intervention.

  20. #19

    Default

    it won't just be the GOP (Fox) media. it will be CNN, Trump and Israel all piling on. but I don't think libertarians will care if Rand casts a no vote. one can always say a better deal is possible, and Iran doesn't really care if the USA won't trade with them. They will have Russia, China, Germany, and maybe France to sell them all they need.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I don't understand why any 'libertarian' would imagine that a deal crafted by Obama would be good, never mind a secret deal governing foreign intervention.
    They assume that failure to reach a deal makes war more likely, which is probably true.

    If Rand could change the outcome by supporting the deal, I too would be insistent that he support it (and I think he would).

    But if not, then I see no point in Rand dying on this hill just for the principle of the thing.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    They assume that failure to reach a deal makes war more likely, which is probably true.

    If Rand could change the outcome by supporting the deal, I too would be insistent that he support it (and I think he would).

    But if not, then I see no point in Rand dying on this hill just for the principle of the thing.
    Most folks associated with this movement are not consequentialists, but deontologists. Deontologists believe that actions may be innately morally right or wrong quite apart from the actual consequences of such actions.

    A treaty could be horribly wrong even if it did end up preventing a future potential war, or a treaty could be morally right even it it eventually caused a war.

    There is also no reason to believe that a treaty fashioned by the Obama admin would do anything whatever to stave off a war even if that's what the liar in chief claims it would do.

    Say for an ad ridiculum in order to illustrate the point, this treaty says "If you sacrifice the first born child of every family in Iran for the next 20 years, the United States will never go to war with Iran." Acceptance of this treaty may well prevent war, but would ANY right-minded liberty advocate approve of such a monstrosity? Of course not.

    The evil part of this impending treaty will of course not be as obvious as sacrificing children, but that does not mean that there will not be something horrific buried in this treaty. Given the Obama Admin's track record, I would be more surprised if there weren't something horrific in it than I would if there were.

    I presume that Rand will be rejecting the treaty on principled grounds, not political, and that he will be doing the right thing when he does.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Most folks associated with this movement are not consequentialists, but deontologists. Deontologists believe that actions may be innately morally right or wrong quite apart from the actual consequences of such actions.

    A treaty could be horribly wrong even if it did end up preventing a future potential war, or a treaty could be morally right even it it eventually caused a war.

    There is also no reason to believe that a treaty fashioned by the Obama admin would do anything whatever to stave off a war even if that's what the liar in chief claims it would do.

    Say for an ad ridiculum in order to illustrate the point, this treaty says "If you sacrifice the first born child of every family in Iran for the next 20 years, the United States will never go to war with Iran." Acceptance of this treaty may well prevent war, but would ANY right-minded liberty advocate approve of such a monstrosity? Of course not.

    The evil part of this impending treaty will of course not be as obvious as sacrificing children, but that does not mean that there will not be something horrific buried in this treaty. Given the Obama Admin's track record, I would be more surprised if there weren't something horrific in it than I would if there were.

    I presume that Rand will be rejecting the treaty on principled grounds, not political, and that he will be doing the right thing when he does.
    I think it is safe to assume this treaty would result in a reduction of force, otherwise why would Iran sign it? It is a shame this isn't a question of 'how would you vote on this' vs being an actual vote. I'll give him all the rope he wants though.

  24. #23

    Default

    why would it make war more likely? Obama is commander in chief and he won't order a unilateral strike. congress would never declare war without the president asking for it. if they attempted it then it would be the end of the GOP. so the sanctions stay on, for the USA only, and Obama just ignores them.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Any 'deal' concocted by the Obama Admin is bound to have reams and reams of reasons for opposing it. I suspect that Rand will oppose it and have a huge lists of fully proper (non warmongering) reasons why, once he is allowed to actually read the thing.
    Yeah, that's true. In a 100 page deal, there could be something like the UN small arms treaty hidden somewhere in the bill.

  26. #25

    Default

    I think Rand should not vote for the deal. Just like Brett85 said their is probably many hidden stuff in there we dont know about and it will make many libertarians happy if he voted against the deal.
    Last edited by rg17; 07-13-2015 at 07:46 AM.

  27. #26

    Default

    He's screwed either way. Obama's deal will be negotiated from a position of force and we will always have the last say. If Rand votes no, he will look like a hawk. If Rand votes yes, he will lose any chance at the nominee

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    why would it make war more likely? Obama is commander in chief and he won't order a unilateral strike.
    Are you...familiar with this President? He's been quicker on the 'unateral strike' draw than Bush was.

    congress would never declare war without the president asking for it. if they attempted it then it would be the end of the GOP. so the sanctions stay on, for the USA only, and Obama just ignores them.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Why would the House vote on it? They are not among the advise and consent requirement for foreign treaties.
    My understanding is that the deal Obama is negotiating with Iran pertain to the promise of a UN vote that will end international sanctions and reversing past Executive Orders. There is no new "treaty" to vote on or anything. What the House and Senate will be voting on is Resolutions saying they disapprove of what he's doing. And he'll just veto that. Basically, the bulk of the Iranian Sanction regime were built on a foundation of UN Security Council bullcrap and Congressional Resolutions that granted the Executive full discretion in terms of how they are carried out.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Yes there is. Iran isn't threatening anything against us directly.
    The only thing that has to be true for negotiations to take place is that both countries are either threatening to engage in, or are already engaging in, a behavior that the other country does not want. Iran developing a nuclear weapon is a behavior that the US does not want, and economic sanctions are a behavior that Iran does not want. If you remove half the equation there is no reason for Iran to negotiate anything. If you're okay with that then that is a different question, but the idea of negotiating with Iran doesn't make sense at all unless the assumption is that we don't want Iran to have a nuke and that Iran doesn't want us to use sanctions.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    The only thing that has to be true for negotiations to take place is that both countries are either threatening to engage in, or are already engaging in, a behavior that the other country does not want. Iran developing a nuclear weapon is a behavior that the US does not want, and economic sanctions are a behavior that Iran does not want. If you remove half the equation there is no reason for Iran to negotiate anything. If you're okay with that then that is a different question, but the idea of negotiating with Iran doesn't make sense at all unless the assumption is that we don't want Iran to have a nuke and that Iran doesn't want us to use sanctions.
    I'm still a pretty hardcore libertarian on these issues as I take the position that Ron took, that we shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and shouldn't tell Iran what weapons they can and can't have. But I don't believe for a second that I could ever get elected to any federal office running on that platform. I don't think there's any chance that we'll ever have a President who believes in Ron Paul's foreign policy, and I'm beginning to doubt if we'll ever get a President who is even as restrained as Rand on foreign policy. I hate to be pessimistic, but it's hard to be optimistic when the American people have just been brainwashed by mainstream media propaganda for so many years.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Israeli Nuclear Panel Supports Iran Deal
    By jct74 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2015, 03:39 PM
  2. Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal
    By T.hill in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 08:12 PM
  3. Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program
    By Zippyjuan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-15-2015, 09:43 AM
  4. Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible? - Pat Buchanan
    By Origanalist in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-10-2012, 09:05 PM
  5. Iran Rejects Nuclear Deal
    By sevin in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-31-2009, 12:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •