Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 233

Thread: Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

  1. #31

    Default

    You can argue that libertarians should support the deal because it may help avert war, but it certainly has nothing at all to do with "non intervention."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    You can argue that libertarians should support the deal because it may help avert war, but it certainly has nothing at all to do with "non intervention."
    That argument would only work if you think the current situation is likely to end in war. I think the opposite is true; this "deal" would be more likely to result in war.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chieppa1 View Post
    We already stole their money. Half a trillion dollars. And the actual innocent human beings living under the government of the State of Iran can't buy $#@! because of our sanctions. Lift the sanctions. Vote to lift the sanctions. He will not. His politics and how the overall deal will effect the Government of United States is more important than actual human beings living in a country surrounded by United States military bases.
    I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.

  5. #34

    Default

    I just wish he would've included the fact that Iran still hasn't released the U.S citizens that are still imprisoned there. Libertarians would have less of a problem with that reason I believe.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.
    I get all that. But a vote like this will not help him get over the top and bring "new blood" into the GOP. The main reason "new blood" doesn't get into the GOP to vote is because the candidate for "new blood" keeps voting like the rest of the GOP. If that makes sense.
    The Voluntary Exchange Podcast

    Twitter

    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"

    "I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."

    "The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

    "My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cocrehamster View Post
    This is too bad. I'll still vote for rand as the least bad candidate but his sticker is coming off my car and he won't be receiving any future contributions from me.
    This is exactly what I said in the post that I created, that Rand was in a lose-lose situation and was going to lose support no matter how he voted.

  8. #37

    Default

    I'd rather Rand go down to defeat with some dignity and honor rather than go down being a weasel. He's going to get attacked regardless.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chieppa1 View Post
    I get all that. But a vote like this will not help him get over the top and bring "new blood" into the GOP. The main reason "new blood" doesn't get into the GOP to vote is because the candidate for "new blood" keeps voting like the rest of the GOP. If that makes sense.
    He still doesn't vote like the rest of the GOP when he votes against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, drug laws, foreign aid, etc. He's certainly not as different from the GOP as Ron but is still significantly different.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    I'd rather Rand go down to defeat with some dignity and honor rather than go down being a weasel. He's going to get attacked regardless.
    But it's not like he's actually advocating war with Iran. He just said that he doesn't support the details of this particular deal.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    He still doesn't vote like the rest of the GOP when he votes against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, drug laws, foreign aid, etc. He's certainly not as different from the GOP as Ron but is still significantly different.
    Again, agreed. But the majority of voters decide what the important issues are by what TV tells them the important issues are. If their favorite blogger or personality on Twitter writes something about the warmongering Rand Paul, any of those semi-liberal 25-30 year olds that voted for Obama but hate Clinton will turn and run. I am friends with these people. They have loyalty to something for 24 hours at a time.
    The Voluntary Exchange Podcast

    Twitter

    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"

    "I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."

    "The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

    "My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    This deal interferes in Iran's national security decisions. The deal is all about intervention.
    Of course it is. Iran is buying time by 'winning' this 'negotiation.' But Rand's points for voting against the deal are even a worse form of intervention. His points makes this case.

    CNN and Wolf Blitzer are criticizing the deal and making arguments against it from Israel's perspective.

    CNN will have Trump's response shortly. Naturally, Trump is against Iran as well. Is there a single candidate arguing to stay out of Iran's business?
    Last edited by David Sadler; 07-14-2015 at 04:31 PM.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Of course it is. Iran is buying time by 'winning' this 'negotiation.' But Rand's points for voting against the deal are even a worse form of intervention. His points makes this case.

    CNN and Wolf Blitzer are criticizing the deal and making arguments against it from Israel's perspective.

    CNN will have Trump's response shortly. Naturally, Trump is against Iran as well. Is there a single candidate arguing to stay out of Iran's business?
    Bernie Sanders. He is too busy getting himself into every aspect of your business.
    The Voluntary Exchange Podcast

    Twitter

    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"

    "I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."

    "The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

    "My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.
    If Rand allows the establishment to form his campaign policy, the establishment will also form his administration's policy. Rand's foreign policy is basically, Israel's and the neocons.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I just wish he would've included the fact that Iran still hasn't released the U.S citizens that are still imprisoned there. Libertarians would have less of a problem with that reason I believe.
    What if those US citizens are authentic spies? Do you know their status in this regard, and if so, how do you know?

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Rand's foreign policy is basically, Israel's and the neocons.
    I don't think so. He just knows that in today's political climate anyone who advocates Ron Paul's foreign policy will be doomed in a Republican Primary. He knows that and has chosen to give himself a chance to win the GOP nomination rather than running a purely education campaign. That should be clear to everyone. Just look at his quotes from 2007.

  17. #46

    Default

    Justin Raimondo weighs in and I can't disagree:

    In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

    “The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

    “1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

    “I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

    “While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

    This comes as no surprise, as the Senator has long been abandoning the anti-interventionist stance adopted by the movement started by his father and which his own campaign has depended on for contributions and boots on the ground (so to speak). It does, however, cross a red line for many libertarians, who have wanted to give Paul the Younger the benefit of a doubt. And one wonders at the paucity of his statement in opposition to the Vienna accord, which is wrong in every particular.

    “Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance” – this assertion contradicts the actual text of the accord, which clearly states:

    “The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue – 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) – simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V.[1]

    The EU will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation, as subsequently amended, implementing all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions, including related designations, simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran as specified in Annex V, which cover all sanctions and restrictive measures in the following areas, as described in
    Annex II:


    In short, sanctions will be lifted when the Iranians have upheld their part of the bargain and this is verified by resident IAEA inspectors, whose presence in Iran will be continuous for the life of the accord.

    Sen. Paul’s second contention is equally baffling:

    “Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity.”

    Patently untrue: the Iranians have agreed to cut their uranium stockpile by 98 percent: furthermore, they’re locked into an enrichment of a mere 3.9 percent, way below what would be necessary to create a nuclear bomb. And they will no longer have the centrifuges required for the enrichment process: they’ve agreed to reduce their working centrifuges from nearly 20,000 to 6,104 – and those remaining are outmoded, inefficient, and in the event the Iranians would try to use them to produce highly enriched uranium would soon be identified by on site inspectors as in violation of the accord.

    Paul’s third objection, that the agreement lifts sanctions on sales of advanced arms to Iran, is frankly absurd. What sovereign government would ever agree to such sanctions? The answer is: none. And, again, the sanctions on any and all items listed in the agreement will not be lifted until IAEA inspectors verify compliance.

    Writing in the Atlantic hours after the Vienna accord was announced, neoconservative David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, gleefully predicted that the Iran deal would spell the effective end of Rand Paul’s presidential ambitions:

    “In the middle of Obama’s tenure, Rand Paul achieved for himself a standing within the GOP that eluded his father by focusing less on international security and much more on domestic surveillance. So long as Congress was debating NSA and TSA, rather than Russia and Iran, Paul found a considerable constituency inside the party for his distinctive ideology. Now the spotlight shifts to Iran, Russia, and nuclear proliferation. Paul will either find himself isolated with the old Ron Paul constituency—or he’ll have to find some nimble way to jump to the ‘anti’ side of the Iran deal. (Perhaps he will emphasize the slight to Congress it represents?) If he opts for the latter approach, however, he becomes just another Republican voice among many competing to voice their opposition, and one less powerful and credible than, for example, Ted Cruz will be.”

    While Frum is wrong that supporting the deal would’ve confined Paul to his father’s constituency – polls show 65 percent of Republicans supported the negotiations, and a third support a deal – he is dead right about the consequences of Paul opposing the deal. The “libertarian-ish” Senator from Kentucky is just another Ted Cruz, albeit less loud (and with less book sales) than the Canadian performance artist-cum-poltician.

    Yeah, he could’ve been a contender….
    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/14/r...ses-iran-deal/
    The Voluntary Exchange Podcast

    Twitter

    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"

    "I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."

    "The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

    "My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    I'd rather Rand go down to defeat with some dignity and honor rather than go down being a weasel. He's going to get attacked regardless.
    Agreed. In the neo-speak of trendies, "The optics isn't good for Ron Paul's brand."

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    What if those US citizens are authentic spies? Do you know their status in this regard, and if so, how do you know?
    I know that Pastor Abedini is in prison simply for trying to convert people to Christianity.

  20. #49

    Default

    I actually argued with people on Facebook today who claimed that Obama was "giving money to Iran" with this deal. Given that ignorance it's not possible to win the GOP nomination and run on reasonable policy positions.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.
    You understand, that some people will take that as an argument against Rand's decision.

    Right now, being a senator is Rand's job, and it's his duty to vote for what is best for this country.

    This Iran deal isn't a political test. It's a bill that actually effects US foreign policy.

    If you're arguing that Rand is voting on whether or not he'll get the nomination, then you are arguing that Rand Paul is a sellout.
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    But it's not like he's actually advocating war with Iran. He just said that he doesn't support the details of this particular deal.
    Rand is advocating for the disarmament of Iran. Iran has a natural right to defend itself. Given the reality of nuclear proliferation and the constant threats it faces, having a nuclear capability is Iran's best defense.

  23. #52

    Default

    Trump just said on CNN that he would have not done the deal. He would have doubled or tripled the sanctions. So we gain nothing with Trump on this issue.

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chieppa1 View Post
    Bernie Sanders. He is too busy getting himself into every aspect of your business.
    Sanders is not an option, so I guess the answer is no. No matter who is elected, aggressive intervention into Iran's internal affairs will continue. Iran can not be blamed for accelerating its defense program.

  25. #54

    Default

    Hmmm. Wow, Rand screwed either way here. Only a 1/3rd of republicans support a deal. How could he come out ahead either way in this?

    What a mess.

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I don't think so. He just knows that in today's political climate anyone who advocates Ron Paul's foreign policy will be doomed in a Republican Primary. He knows that and has chosen to give himself a chance to win the GOP nomination rather than running a purely education campaign. That should be clear to everyone. Just look at his quotes from 2007.
    Ron Paul made the final three, right? And a case can be made for electoral fraud in the early primaries causing Ron to eventually fade. I think Ron's policies were winning. Ron was defeated by hook and by crook. He didn't fight the electoral fraud to his discredit and eventual failure.

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I know that Pastor Abedini is in prison simply for trying to convert people to Christianity.
    At least they didn't cut his head off like ISIS would do. Is it against Iranian law for Christians to attempt conversion or proselytize on the sidewalks of Iran like it is in Israel? And is it unheard of for spies to be diplomats, journalists, humanitarian workers or even men of the cloth? We really don't know the facts, do we? What about the others?

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Ron Paul made the final three, right? And a case can be made for electoral fraud in the early primaries causing Ron to eventually fade. I think Ron's policies were winning. Ron was defeated by hook and by crook. He didn't fight the electoral fraud to his discredit and eventual failure.
    Ron was one of the last three candidates in the race, just because he decided to stay in the race until the end. That doesn't mean that he had the 3rd most amount of support. He didn't win a single primary or caucus.

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Rand adopted the position of the Bill Kristol, his neocons and Israel.

    Why is Rand so intent upon intervening in Iran's national security decisions?
    He's taking a page from Donald Trump's playbook. Don't you know the Donald is hot $#@! right now?

  30. #59

    Default

    If Rand won't show courage on stuff like this then he isn't going win, he isn't going to persuade anyone. There are 15 other candidates that want war and Rand can't find the nuts to make a stand. Rand needs to start respecting the base or he'll lose it.

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jkob View Post
    If Rand won't show courage on stuff like this then he isn't going win, he isn't going to persuade anyone. There are 15 other candidates that want war and Rand can't find the nuts to make a stand. Rand needs to start respecting the base or he'll lose it.
    He wasn't going to win if he voted for the deal either, so he was screwed either way.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. How will Rand vote on Iran nuclear deal?
    By Brett85 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 07-22-2015, 05:02 PM
  2. 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
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 08:16 AM
  4. 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
  •