Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 233

Thread: Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

  1. #61
    And nowhere in Rand's statement did he say that he wants war with Iran. He just said that he wanted a better deal.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Their probably is a lot of secrets in the deal we may not know about. Still disappointed about Rand Paul comment on Facebook.

  4. #63
    Rand chose his strategy long ago, he is willing to sacrifice immediate principled stances in the short-run for real libertarian outcomes in the long-run. For the most part Rand values and probably always has valued the consequences of an action over it's abstract meaning.

    That is probably the biggest point of difference between Rand and Ron.

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/14/ra...l-david-frum-d

  5. #64
    All of the comments that I've seen on the Rand Paul Facebook pages are in agreement with the position Rand has taken on this. A lot of people who describe themselves as libertarians are opposed to the Iran deal. I personally support it but understand Rand's reasoning and strategy.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    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.
    Again, it's debatable as to whether Ron actually won in some of the early primaries but was denied the win through vote fraud.

    How is it that Ron was able to stay in the race so long when others faded pretty quickly? It's because Ron had a clear message to his base and showed a purist devotion to his principles which countered the globalist agenda in so many ways. This principled stand caused Ron's base to stick with him and fund his campaign in ways that itself made news. We hear none of that with Rand for the reasons being expressed here today.

  8. #66
    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. I've been fine with him playing the game somewhat, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Given the climate out there, I always thought he should stick to the Senate, where he could at least do a little good. All he's done so far, has been to destroy the positive reputation he worked so hard to build up. And for what? To lose to Bush or Trump? At least Ron managed to educate people during his run and NOBODY could call him a flip-flopper. Even the people who hated where he stood, respected the man for his consistency.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    All of the comments that I've seen on the Rand Paul Facebook pages are in agreement with the position Rand has taken on this. A lot of people who describe themselves as libertarians are opposed to the Iran deal. I personally support it but understand Rand's reasoning and strategy.
    I personally would support the deal, because free-trade is universally beneficial in any circumstance. However, some should consider that not every person who attempts to explain Rand's actions are excusing him or are trying to hold onto a delusional vision of Rand as the next Ron, but are simply coming to conclusions about Rand that seems reasonable considering the situation and other factors not being accounted for.

    It's easy to get disappointed when not taking account for practical alternatives because petty moral absolutism has clouded your judgement.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    Rand chose his strategy long ago, he is willing to sacrifice immediate principled stances in the short-run for real libertarian outcomes in the long-run. For the most part Rand values and probably always has valued the consequences of an action over it's abstract meaning ...

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/14/ra...l-david-frum-d
    It's a flawed strategy for two reasons:

    1) It makes him betray his own principles (if he actually holds them) during the campaign calling into question whether or not he would betray his principles once in office,
    2) It costs him a base built up by Ron

    Rand isn't Ron. Plain and simple. Rand isn't playing the establishment with his foreign policy. It seems pretty clear that this is his foreign policy.

    People who want to change the way Washington works must begin with their own actions.

  11. #69
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Text of the different parts of the agreement found at bottom of page here:
    http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm


    UN Security Council has a say . . . and presumably the United States Ambassador to the UN Ms. Power
    will be instructed not to veto in the UN Security Council - although Secretary of State Kerry could replace her as a higher authority of the United States government.
    EU, I will guess, will approve, but whatever stand by Rand, the US legislative approval wasn't going to happen.

  12. #70
    he had an out by saying he would vote yes if the hostages were released, but he was too timid to go even that far. still, I am surprised by how harsh Justin Raimondo is:

    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/14/r...ses-iran-deal/

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    Again, it's debatable as to whether Ron actually won in some of the early primaries but was denied the win through vote fraud.

    How is it that Ron was able to stay in the race so long when others faded pretty quickly? It's because Ron had a clear message to his base and showed a purist devotion to his principles which countered the globalist agenda in so many ways. This principled stand caused Ron's base to stick with him and fund his campaign in ways that itself made news. We hear none of that with Rand for the reasons being expressed here today.
    Ron was able to stay in the race so long because his didn't care about winning. Ron believes that educating the public about liberty is the foremost priority, which gives him a totally different motivation than the other candidates. Nobody else believes in anything, so once it becomes apparent they can't win, they drop out.

    Rand did what he did today because the Iran deal doesn't need his vote to pass, so he figures why stick his neck out? Don't create an open break with Israel and the Neocons unless absolutely necessary.

    I agree Rand's campaign is foundering, but he played this particular issue right.

  14. #72
    I correctly predicted what would happen in the thread I started two days ago. I knew that this deal was a bad development as Rand was bound to make a lot of people angry regardless of which position he took. It's simply a lose-lose situation for him.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    Rand did what he did today because the Iran deal doesn't need his vote to pass, so he figures why stick his neck out? Don't create an open break with Israel and the Neocons unless absolutely necessary.
    But how is he going to answer the question of whether or not he'll revoke the deal with Iran if elected President? That's the real issue.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I correctly predicted what would happen in the thread I started two days ago. I knew that this deal was a bad development as Rand was bound to make a lot of people angry regardless of which position he took. It's simply a lose-lose situation for him.
    Before I even opened this thread, I could absolutely predict the responses.

    If Rand votes the way you want, he is doing fine. If he doesn't, he is super awful and unprincipled and is just a rotten no good sellout. And, of course, no thread with a controversial topic would be complete without the usual Rand is no Ron, because Ron Paul is just the North Star of purity.

  18. #75
    I still do not understand why so many people think this treaty will receive 2/3 approval in a Republican dominated Iran-hating US Senate.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by David Sadler View Post
    It's a flawed strategy for two reasons:

    1) It makes him betray his own principles (if he actually holds them) during the campaign calling into question whether or not he would betray his principles once in office,
    2) It costs him a base built up by Ron

    Rand isn't Ron. Plain and simple. Rand isn't playing the establishment with his foreign policy. It seems pretty clear that this is his foreign policy.

    People who want to change the way Washington works must begin with their own actions.
    I'd say your wrong at least on one account

    1) If Rand sincerely believes in free-trade and diplomacy over war, then in his opinion he is doing what is practically necessary to avoid war by rejecting this deal over one that may be accepted by more of his party. Whether that is possible, I'm not sure, but Rand has made it clear he wants to avoid war and has said the same in his statement about the current nuclear deal. By emphasizing peace as the ultimate end he has already differentiated himself from the rest of the field.

    You may be right about alienating some of his base, but he can nullify a lot of that with future actions as he has done in the past. Rand's libertarian positions will stand out more as the elections heat up and during the debates. He will be the only presidential contender in the Republican field calling for peace.

    One thing you are right about is Ron and Rand differ on sanctions, Ron believes in absolute terms that they are an act of war, Rand on the other hand believes that although they have often acted as a preclude to war they can in certain situations be utilized for beneficial reasons. Ron sees sanctions and war as one in the same, while Rand delineates peace, sanctions, and all out military action as 3 distinct things.
    Last edited by T.hill; 07-14-2015 at 06:49 PM.

  20. #77
    One also needs to remember that there are 15 other candidates, something Ron didn't have to deal with. Rand needs to keep his brand unique. It is on many other issues, but there are a solid chunk of Republicans who would be firmly in his corner if he endorsed the Iran deal.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    It is on many other issues, but there are a solid chunk of Republicans who would be firmly in his corner if he endorsed the Iran deal.
    Unfortunately they don't actually show up to vote in Republican primaries.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    One also needs to remember that there are 15 other candidates, something Ron didn't have to deal with. Rand needs to keep his brand unique. It is on many other issues, but there are a solid chunk of Republicans who would be firmly in his corner if he endorsed the Iran deal.
    Republicans who actually vote in Republican Primaries (ie more than just 2008 and 2012) hate Obama and hate Iran and will not trust any deal achieved between those two parties.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I correctly predicted what would happen in the thread I started two days ago. I knew that this deal was a bad development as Rand was bound to make a lot of people angry regardless of which position he took. It's simply a lose-lose situation for him.
    He voted for the sanctions in the first place, in general I think any 'votes' in the GOP primary he lost for taking this position are only lost temporarily. Not to say that he didn't lose some that will not come back, but obviously much less so than if he had taken the 'correct' position. Best thing to do is let people vent, and move on. I think discussion on the topic is healthy, it will help strengthen principles within our base, but when the discussion is centered around the way the candidate we are supposed to be supporting voted, prolonging and 'justifying' (or as seen in a thread focused on the principles of the matter: playing devils advocate or arguing the opposite) only reinforces or more hopefully superimposes that this is the position that the candidate is taking, that this is the position the movement is taking, and that should the candidate obtain the office, the position they will continue to maintain. Just my $.02 of course my good sir.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I still do not understand why so many people think this treaty will receive 2/3 approval in a Republican dominated Iran-hating US Senate.
    From what I understand is that the Republicans will have to muster a veto-proof majority to strike down the deal. This was done by the compromise Corker-Menendez bill that was passed earlier if I recall correctly.

  26. #82
    "Disappointed, but sadly not surprised."

    My thoughts exactly. It's politics and I understand it on that level and if has to be Obama to advance U.S.-Iranian relations to start with perhaps Rand can do more and better in the White House. He certainly isn't going to do so while being target practice at the Fox debate by nine other candidates all opposed to the deal and being called an Obama Republican. There's no need for excuses, it is what it is but it also goes to show how terrible the GOP position on foreign policy and how little we've done to change it. If we had done more, perhaps Rand might have braver, who knows? or other candidates would have been.

    Howard Baker would have made an excellent President. But because he voted for the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977, he made sure he'd never win the GOP nomination and when he ran for President in 1980, he was an afterthought. Rand is not going to make that mistake, like it or not. I don't like it but I understand why he's doing it. Damn politics!

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    There's no need for excuses, it is what it is but it also goes to show how terrible the GOP position on foreign policy and how little we've done to change it. If we had done more, perhaps Rand might have braver, who knows? or other candidates would have been.
    Right now the Republican Party's foreign policy is as bad as it's ever been. It's as bad as it was even right after 9/11. I know that I and other libertarians/small government conservatives have done everything possible to explain to conservatives on Facebook and other venues that an interventionist foreign policy is the antithesis to conservatism and limited government, but for whatever reason we've completely failed to move the Republican Party at all on foreign policy issues.

  28. #84
    Ted Cruz opposes this deal, also; what are all of you people going to do now!!! I thought he was your hero.

  29. #85
    he won't lose any primary VOTES by voting no, as they have nowhere else to go.Rand is still the most libertarian of the 15. but he might lose enthusiasm and/or money. he was forced into a box. and the hell of it is that Obama will win the veto vote anyway.

    the next one will be the Ambassador to Cuba vote. or aid to Ukraine. or boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
    and at some point Rand has to break with the pack.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Right now the Republican Party's foreign policy is as bad as it's ever been. It's as bad as it was even right after 9/11. I know that I and other libertarians/small government conservatives have done everything possible to explain to conservatives on Facebook and other venues that an interventionist foreign policy is the antithesis to conservatism and limited government, but for whatever reason we've completely failed to move the Republican Party at all on foreign policy issues.
    The big bad boogy-man ISIS came along....

  31. #87
    Well I guess he is serious about trying to win the nomination.

  32. #88
    Hmmm......choices.......

    The only true answer here is that it's not America's job to police Iran's nuclear program.

    Having said that, if the deal passes Congress (and the other nations involved), Israel will start WW3. If it doesn't pass, they may still start WW3. We've seen it over and over where some "deal" is brokered and then suddenly there's screams of "They violated the deal!!! Bomb them!!", which usually ends with bombing.

    Toughie there...
    Last edited by devil21; 07-14-2015 at 08:32 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    I'm so disappointed in Rand. I understand that he is voting no for political reasons but if he can't support a deal with Iran that goes a long way towards making Iran farther away from making a nuclear weapon and a long way towards peace then I don't know what to say. I'll probably still vote for him come the primaries but I can't see myself donating time and/or money because foreign policy is really all I care about when I am voting for President...

  35. #90
    Nothing says non-intervention like a huge, back-room agreement that dictates what other nations can and can not do, and which nations they can and can not trade with, and which goods can and can not be traded, and which favored businesses can do business with whom, and which persons, buildings, papers, and effects can be searched at will without probable cause, and which international organizations will Police this new law.

    What's wrong with Rand? Let's sign this deal!
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "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-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
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •