Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[supermario21]

My beef is that Rand is going to be the punching bag on most things anyways. He should stand strong and not be weak and appear muddled. It damages his whole message. He's got the polls on his side. He should be aggressive not cowering in a bunker. Jeb Bush wants to play the electable card but right now Rand has the most crossover appeal and is very competitive with Clinton.

[Brian4Liberty]

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...

We've seen this movie already. Just like Iraq, there will be screams of "they violated the deal", with no evidence, at which point a "coalition of the willing" will violate said deal and a whole host of other agreements to unilaterally execute a first strike.

[devil21]

Perhaps I need to brush up on my globalism 101 doctrine but what exactly is a "deal" or "agreement" or "accord", in this case?

I see no mention of a formal treaty or involvement of the UN or similar. Media only calls it an "agreement" or "deal" or similar variation of those vague terms.

What exactly is this? And if it was negotiated by 7 countries, how can the US govt single-handedly veto a "deal" (again, whatever the hell that means) that the rest agree to? What legislative authority does the US govt have to engage in "deals"? Treaties, yes. Deals? No.

[Brett85]

My beef is that Rand is going to be the punching bag on most things anyways. He should stand strong and not be weak and appear muddled. It damages his whole message. He's got the polls on his side.

No, he doesn't. This isn't 2011 anymore. The whole ISIS thing happened and the American people became war hungry again.

[devil21]

No, he doesn't. This isn't 2011 anymore. The whole ISIS thing happened and the American people became war hungry again.

It's ok, just make it up as you go along Traditional Conservative.

[Brett85]

It's ok, just make it up as you go along Traditional Conservative.

Shut up.

[Feeding the Abscess]

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/

Why? Antiwar's entire existence is based on taking hardline stances on foreign policy.

[Badger Paul]

" The whole ISIS thing happened and the American people became war hungry again."

Indeed they did, but again what does that tell you? Paul correctly said ISIS is a direct result of the failure of interventionism from both parties and all that got was sharp drop in the polls he's just now recovering from.

What did the CFL do with all the money sent to it by Paul supporters lo these past seven years? Clearly it wasn't to change minds in GOP on foreign policy or if they tried they failed miserably. One beheading and American want to pull the covers over themselves? Saudi Arabia beheads people every day.

What Rand has to campaign on is removing the fear which prevades so much of American society because its that fear which fuels the national security/war state/drug war. That's your big government right there! Reduce that and you do bring America back to a constitutional republic. The disappointing thing is the fear is very much in the Paul campaign taking the stance they have on the deal. Until they realize this, they will fail and we all will fail.

[Jan2017]

I see no mention of a formal treaty or involvement of the UN or similar. Media only calls it an "agreement" or "deal" or similar variation of those vague terms.

What exactly is this?

Great question, that media folks like Faux News might seem to gloss over.

I'll ask that - Isn't this an enforcement of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT ?

[Brett85]

The disappointing thing is the fear is very much in the Paul campaign taking the stance they have on the deal. Until they realize this, they will fail and we all will fail.

Why? You just admitted that Rand's poll numbers started going down after he correctly pointed out that U.S intervention led to the rise of ISIS. The American people are stupid and don't want to be told the truth. The only option Rand has left if he wants to have any chance to win the GOP nomination is to pander to stupid people and act somewhat like a neocon.

[jkob]

Why? You just admitted that Rand's poll numbers started going down after he correctly pointed out that U.S intervention led to the rise of ISIS. The American people are stupid and don't want to be told the truth. The only option Rand has left if he wants to have any chance to win the GOP nomination is to pander to stupid people and act somewhat like a neocon.

There are 15 other neocons out there if that's what the voters want

the only chance Rand has is to distinguish himself and to come off as honest, rand is going the other way.

If Rand can't keep his base, he is finished. He better start acting more like his dad or people will start looking elsewhere.

[Brett85]

There are 15 other neocons out there if that's what the voters want

the only chance Rand has is to distinguish himself and to come off as honest, rand is going the other way.

If Rand can't keep his base, he is finished. He better start acting more like his dad or people will start looking elsewhere.

Republican voters agree with Rand's domestic policy, and voters may view him as the best bet to actually cut government spending and balance the budget. (Of course they bizarrely don't yet realize that you can't cut spending and balance the budget if you have trillion dollar wars overseas) But Rand's goal isn't to get voters to choose him because of his foreign policy, but rather to not make his foreign policy so unacceptable to Republican voters that it causes people who strongly agree with his domestic policy to not vote for him.

[Vanguard101]

Paul deserves to lose. Taft and Goldwater are rolling in their graves

[Brett85]

Paul deserves to lose. Taft and Goldwater are rolling in their graves

Lol. Goldwater was 10 times more pro war than Rand is. People feared that Goldwater was going to start a nuclear war if he became President.

[specsaregood]

Despite the naysayers; I trust that Randal is voting his conscience and thinks that this deal is bad for peace.

[Liberty Commentary]

Just took the Rand Paul for President 2016 sticker off of my car

This is a very sad day. I might just stop participating in politics unless another Ron comes along. I think Scott Horton said it best: "When Ron Paul's son stinks on foreign policy, you know it's time to stop playing the game."

[Liberty Commentary]

Say what you will, but the grassroots campaigns for guys like Bernie Sanders don't have to deal with this sort of betrayal. Rand can pander all he wants, but he shouldn't expect people like me to stick by him.

[Brett85]

Say what you will, but the grassroots campaigns for guys like Bernie Sanders don't have to deal with this sort of betrayal.

No, they just have to deal with proposals for 90% tax rates and the loss of all of the freedoms that we still have left in America.

[CPUd]

Say what you will, but the grassroots campaigns for guys like Bernie Sanders don't have to deal with this sort of betrayal. Rand can pander all he wants, but he shouldn't expect people like me to stick by him.

Pretty sure he wrote people like you off a long time ago.

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand isn't the one.

Just took the Rand Paul for President 2016 sticker off of my car

This is a very sad day. I might just stop participating in politics unless another Ron comes along. I think Scott Horton said it best: "When Ron Paul's son stinks on foreign policy, you know it's time to stop playing the game."

Say what you will, but the grassroots campaigns for guys like Bernie Sanders don't have to deal with this sort of betrayal. Rand can pander all he wants, but he shouldn't expect people like me to stick by him.

aaaand this, ladies and gentlemen, is why America continue to slip ever further into the jaws of despotic tyranny until we end up running the ovens even worse than Hitler's Germany.

[Danan]

Perhaps I need to brush up on my globalism 101 doctrine but what exactly is a "deal" or "agreement" or "accord", in this case?

I see no mention of a formal treaty or involvement of the UN or similar. Media only calls it an "agreement" or "deal" or similar variation of those vague terms.

What exactly is this? And if it was negotiated by 7 countries, how can the US govt single-handedly veto a "deal" (again, whatever the hell that means) that the rest agree to? What legislative authority does the US govt have to engage in "deals"? Treaties, yes. Deals? No.

Afaik it's just a multi-lateral agreement of all (supra-)nations to agree to lift sanctions if Iran does what they agreed uppon. I don't think anyone can stop the US, or any other nation, from entering into those kind of conditional deals. They don't need any international authority because they don't force other nations with anything beyond keeping sanctions, which seems to not violate any international law.

That being said, one of the "best" things of this deal seems to be that by the time the US Congress could possibly overturn it, all other nations (and the EU) will already have lifted their sanctions (which are way more significant for Iran anyway) and they won't revert that just because the US chickens out. Meaning that any unilateral sanctions the US will (re-)impose on Iran will be a lot less impactful.

In any case, one of the best things the Obama administration accomplished, sad to see Rand opposing it. Kind of telling that the only three parties in the entire world with this position are US republicans, Isreal and Saudi Arabia.

[Danan]

No, they just have to deal with proposals for 90% tax rates and the loss of all of the freedoms that we still have left in America.

Yeah, but they support that crap.

[Sam I am]

aaaand this, ladies and gentlemen, is why America continue to slip ever further into the jaws of despotic tyranny until we end up running the ovens even worse than Hitler's Germany.

Because people won't vote for a war hawk?

[Krugminator2]

Paul deserves to lose. Taft and Goldwater are rolling in their graves

I don't think the middle of the road Republican who voted to put Japanese people in concentration camps or the guy who advocated using "low radiation" nuclear weapons to decimate Vietnam are awakening from their dirt nap over Rand Paul making what is a perfectly reasonable vote.

[GunnyFreedom]

aaaand this, ladies and gentlemen, is why America continue to slip ever further into the jaws of despotic tyranny until we end up running the ovens even worse than Hitler's Germany.

Well, since you are too much of a coward to engage in debate out here where you can be answered, if Rand Paul had 'supported gay marriage' (whatever that means) I sure as hell wouldn't be promoting Bernie Sanders. Neither would I be pissing and moaning about how "Rand isn't the one" and removing my bumper sticker.

For the billionth time, I am not a 'libertarian,' I am a Constitutionalist. The more you ignorant dingbats open your mouth, the less I ever want to ever be identified as a 'libertarian.' I am perfectly consistent in my political platform. I support those who support the Constitution, and I oppose those who oppose the Constitution. You can love it, you can hate it, but if you think I am a hypocrite then you can get bent.

Rand Paul, but opining on a US foreign treaty with Iran, whether you like his opinion or hate his opinion, is fulfilling his Constitutional duty.

I get it. You want to abandon our only shot at Constitutional liberty because Rand Paul does not think Obama's plan for Iran relations is a good one.

Maybe Rand is right, and maybe Rand is wrong, but either way, you and your ilk are idiots.

Do you know what my entire facebook feed looks like right now?



So fine, you go ahead and abandon Ron Paul's son because he won't side with Obama on Iran against grassroots Republicans during a Republican Presidential Primary, but don't come crying to me when we elect an actual tyrant and a warmonger to the Oval Office. I'm the one trying to talk sense into you numbskulls.

[GunnyFreedom]

Because people won't vote for a war hawk?

If you think Rand Paul is a 'war hawk' then you need to lay down the crack pipe.

[Sam I am]

If you think Rand Paul is a 'war hawk' then you need to lay down the crack pipe.

Well, If he votes like one in the senate just to get elected, that's just as bad.

[specsaregood]

If you think Rand Paul is a 'war hawk' then you need to lay down the crack pipe.

Its funny how all these people that have been calling Obama a warmonger for years suddenly think he want to push a treaty for peace. lol

I see this treaty as a setup for war.

[rg17]

Its funny how all these people that have been calling Obama a warmonger for years suddenly think he want to push a treaty for peace. lol

I see this treaty as a setup for war.

Its probably is. +rep!

[William R]

Paul’s Shoddy Arguments Against the Nuclear Deal

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-nuclear-deal/