Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 211 to 233 of 233

Thread: Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    Finally have a preisdent with the balls to stand up to the Israel lobby and bring in a new era of peace negotiations. Paul comes out against it and a seeming majority of this board support him. Is this bizzaro world or what?

    The reason I worked so hard to make Ron Paul president is so he would do something exactly like what Obama is doing.
    I'll put this in liberal terms for you since you seem to lean that way, Hillary is campaigning for Hispanics, she says she will go BEYOND what Obama did for immigration reform, but then says that she will do everything that she can legally do as a president. Now think about what she is saying, Obama already says he had dispatched his war chest of lawyers to do everything they can legally do.

    So in short Rand is saying he would one up Obama and do a "better" job, when the astro turf campaign has already started saying that this is the absolute best that we as a nation can possibly accomplish. His no vote in spirit only just means that they cant run Rand is the same as Obama on Iran ads; and wont have any effect on the president vetoing anything that they try to pass. I'll jump ship with you when he says some on day 1 i will start war with Iran BS.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I'll put this in liberal terms for you since you seem to lean that way, Hillary is campaigning for Hispanics, she says she will go BEYOND what Obama did for immigration reform, but then says that she will do everything that she can legally do as a president. Now think about what she is saying, Obama already says he had dispatched his war chest of lawyers to do everything they can legally do.

    So in short Rand is saying he would one up Obama and do a "better" job, when the astro turf campaign has already started saying that this is the absolute best that we as a nation can possibly accomplish. His no vote in spirit only just means that they cant run Rand is the same as Obama on Iran ads; and wont have any effect on the president vetoing anything that they try to pass. I'll jump ship with you when he says some on day 1 i will start war with Iran BS.
    Also, is it simply a coincidence that Rand has yet to vote in favor of any war throughout his tenure as a senator? Even when it comes to ISIS, which he publicly has stated should be militarily addressed, he has yet to actually vote for any bill that would involve us in war. Rand has extremely strict pre-requisites for going to war that he has explicitly laid out (formal declaration of war with congressional approval, codified temporal limits, concrete goals directed towards a specified enemy), so strict in fact that he is unlikely to ever vote for a war that isn't a response to an imminent threat to the United States.

    I choose to believe that Rand has set these requirements so high precisely because he knows it will give him cover to vote against preemptive wars on conservative and constitutional grounds.

  4. #213
    So much stupid in this thread. Sigh. How many of you have even read the "Deal"? Just because there is a diplomatic deal on the table doesn't mean it is good for America. It's good we're likely going to avoid a war, but it doesn't mean we have to bow down to the rest of the world either.
    SUPPORT LIBERTY IN 2016

  5. #214
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    "Take a Stand, Rand" was what I thought the proponents of a present/non-vote in the Senate might need to hear.
    Any US Senator not voting on this in the future when it comes up - after due consideration - will and should be looked on unfavorably by his/her constituents imho.

    Ron Paul is already critical of the neocons - and he used the term radical neocons - who think allowing Iran any weapons
    to be sold to them is reason to deny the lifting of sanctions as per the agreement. But, it is Rand's reason #3 nonetheless.

    Rand's first reason is that there should be compliance before sanctions removal.
    It seems with the 10-year time structure which the agreement could be rescinded if Iran chooses non-compliance
    is what they did come up with in negotiations.

    Now, reports are that Putin likes the deal. which seems odd, especially with it economically hurting Moscow to have the nation with the second largest natural gas reserves - Iran - back on the market in competition with them.

    Which brings me to discussing Rands reason #2 to not support the deal - leaving Iran with substantial nuclear capability.
    In looking for what he meant exactly - which no one else explicitly mentioned - I ran across this seemingly odd provision.

    Annex I Nuclear-related measures
    59.
    Russian designed, fabricated and licensed fuel assemblies for use in Russian supplied reactors in Iran
    do not count against the 300 kg UF6 (Uranium Hexafloride) stockpile limit.
    OMG - am I reading that right ?

  6. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    So much stupid in this thread. Sigh. How many of you have even read the "Deal"? Just because there is a diplomatic deal on the table doesn't mean it is good for America. It's good we're likely going to avoid a war, but it doesn't mean we have to bow down to the rest of the world either.
    I haven't read the deal. I admit. But I did read the OP. And I can't see any way to defend Rand's own words in it.

  7. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    How many of you have even read the "Deal"?
    I'm sure none of us have including you. It's a 160 page technical legal document. I feel fine forming an opinion on the general gist of it. I don't do this for a living.


    If anyone wants to read a few pages.... http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ear-deal/1651/


    I skimmed it and page 64 might peak some interest... talks about ending the sanction on Iran's gold and precious metals trade.
    Last edited by brandon; 07-16-2015 at 10:39 PM.
    Waiting for the day the classical liberals drive the hateful alt-right out of the republican party, and the libertarians can rise again.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    Also, is it simply a coincidence that Rand has yet to vote in favor of any war throughout his tenure as a senator?...

    I choose to believe that Rand has set these requirements so high precisely because he knows it will give him cover to vote against preemptive wars on conservative and constitutional grounds.
    not snide, but have there been any real war votes? Libya maybe?
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions - and the [un]official football club of RPF

  10. #218
    I've been wondering lately. My neighbor is building a lot of stuff. I saw a pile of dirt near my border, so I think they may be building a swimming pool. I don't have one, and it's not really threatening, but, ya never know.

    We had a zero turn radius mower, but they were using a tractor with a belly mower for years. Our ZTR mower was definitely superior, but recently they purchased an EXMark commercial ZTR. I'm concerned. Really concerned. But, it would cost me at least 4k to upgrade to a used commercial ZTR mower. Damn.

    Then, I thought, WTF am I doing even looking at my neighbor to see what he has or doesn't. We could work together, if there anything common, but I'm not sure what that would be execpt to defend one another in a SHTF scenario. So, I offered to teach him about weapons. I hope he never uses them on me...wow life is complicated.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  11. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by surf View Post
    not snide, but have there been any real war votes? Libya maybe?
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...resolution/124

  12. #220
    Rand has to stand up to Israel at some point-not on this issue, as its not a great deal anyway. but Rand will never be able to do enough to please Adelson and Israel. so better off to be contrarian and stand up at some point. abolishing all foreign aid, no exceptions, would be a good start. force Graham and Walker to defend aid to Pakistan and Gaza and Ukraine. BB would scream and beg-so be it.

  13. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    Rand has to stand up to Israel at some point-not on this issue, as its not a great deal anyway. but Rand will never be able to do enough to please Adelson and Israel. so better off to be contrarian and stand up at some point. abolishing all foreign aid, no exceptions, would be a good start. force Graham and Walker to defend aid to Pakistan and Gaza and Ukraine. BB would scream and beg-so be it.
    I don't think that's the right approach to take. His argument should be, as his dad's always was, that American interventionism does more harm than good for the people of Israel. Adelson and lots of others will hate hearing that. It sure won't win them over. But positioning himself against Adelson et al shouldn't be conflated with positioning himself against Israel.

    If someone asked any given American, "What would be the best way for me to show my love to the people of America?" can anyone imagine the answer being, "Give money to, and do the bidding of, the corrupt politicians in our federal government."
    Last edited by erowe1; 07-17-2015 at 08:30 AM.

  14. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    If he believed that and acted accordingly, then he would vote to end sanctions. He just told us he won't vote to end sanctions.
    That's inaccurate. He's voting against he way sanctions are being lifted. He think they should be lifted gradually as Iran complies with the agreement. It's a variant of his "trust but verify" policy which he uses in the border security/immigration reform debates.

  15. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Free Radical View Post
    That's inaccurate. He's voting against he way sanctions are being lifted. He think they should be lifted gradually as Iran complies with the agreement. It's a variant of his "trust but verify" policy which he uses in the border security/immigration reform debates.
    But that is to agree with the sanctions in principle. If I want to buy something from, or sell something to, someone in Iran, it's none of Rand's business. Even if their government were indisputably producing nuclear warheads (like the ones our government and Israel's already have), it would still be none of his business.

  16. #224
    I learned from you guys that sanctions are an act of war, that economic war inevitably leads to shooting war so how can we defend Rand on this? It doesn't even matter to me if Iran does get nuclear weapons, is Rand going to want to bomb and invade them if that is what they're doing?



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by jkob View Post
    I learned from you guys that sanctions are an act of war, that economic war inevitably leads to shooting war so how can we defend Rand on this? It doesn't even matter to me if Iran does get nuclear weapons, is Rand going to want to bomb and invade them if that is what they're doing?
    Can't speak for others but voting against the same "deal" excuse that was used repeatedly to bomb and invade other countries makes some sense to me. There is no good answer here other than "it's not our business". So, leaving sanctions in place is an act of war yet agreeing to the deal also creates a scenario that has historically been used to start wars. No lose situation for the warhawks.
    "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

  19. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Free Radical View Post
    He think they should be lifted gradually as Iran complies with the agreement. It's a variant of his "trust but verify" policy which he uses in the border security/immigration reform debates.
    But that's exactly what the deal does. Sanctions are lifted post-compliance, but Rand is lying about it on his FB page and in the media. In fact, all three bullets Rand listed as his reasoning for opposing the deal are blatant lies, with the third bullet really being a non-issue as Iran can't begin buying weaponry for five years. That, or he just didn't bother reading the actual agreement.
    Last edited by mit26chell; 07-17-2015 at 02:59 PM.

  20. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by surf View Post
    not snide, but have there been any real war votes? Libya maybe?
    Yeah, Libya could be one and Syria is another, but outside of voting for emergency military aid to Israel (which was a bummer) he hasn't voted for any kind of military action. Any military response is war according to Rand, regardless of it's size. The fact that Rand requires an actual declaration of war and an actual declaration of war hasn't been voted on since WWII, well I'd say that only reinforces my belief.

  21. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Can't speak for others but voting against the same "deal" excuse that was used repeatedly to bomb and invade other countries makes some sense to me. There is no good answer here other than "it's not our business". So, leaving sanctions in place is an act of war yet agreeing to the deal also creates a scenario that has historically been used to start wars. No lose situation for the warhawks.
    The difference is that the sanctions are an actually existing evil which is manifest today - whereas the notion that the deal might be used as a future excuse for warmongering is at worst no more than an unactualized potential. IOW: It's "real evil now" versus "maybe evil later."

    And in any case, if we're going to predicate our decisions about supporting things like this "Iran deal" upon whether warmongers are gonna monger war, then there is no conceivable "deal" that we could ever possibly support - because the warmongers are always gonna monger war ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 07-17-2015 at 07:44 PM.

  22. #229
    This makes me like Rand more as it shows he actually wants to win the primary. Glad he voted against it.
    Last edited by DisneyFan; 07-17-2015 at 07:43 PM.

  23. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyFan View Post
    This makes me like Rand more as it shows he actually wants to win the primary.
    Well, as far as that goes, Jeb! et al. "actually wants to win the primary," too ...

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyFan View Post
    Glad he voted against it.
    He didn't. Not yet. There hasn't been any vote on it.

  24. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyFan View Post
    This makes me like Rand more as it shows he actually wants to win the primary. Glad he voted against it.
    Being the same as all the other Republican candidates on this issue, rather than being the only one to differentiate himself from the rest and angling for a large number of Republican primary voters and potential voters who oppose sanctions against Iran, makes it harder for him to win the primary, rather than easier.

  25. #232
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by mit26chell View Post
    But that's exactly what the deal does. Sanctions are lifted post-compliance, but Rand is lying about it on his FB page and in the media.
    In fact, all three bullets Rand listed as his reasoning for opposing the deal are blatant lies, with the third bullet really being a non-issue as Iran can't begin buying weaponry for five years. That, or he just didn't bother reading the actual agreement.
    That's a stretch . . .

    "Adoption Day" followed years later by "Implementation Day" then "Termination Day" 10 years later counting from the start of Adoption Day (?)
    . . . and all only if Iran is in compliance and behaves.

    I do read it as sanctions coming off technically before any verified compliance since there is alot to inspect,
    though the sanctions do get stuck back on Iran for non-compliance when they get caught.

    No. 3 of Rands' reasons is - I'll agree - kinda dumb of an issue or sort of a non-issue.

    But . . . No. 2 reason - of substantial nuclear capability - I have found Rand dead-on right -
    if you consider how much the Russian-leased and run nuclear reactors can do inside of Iran without being part of the stockpile limits.

    It's a slam dunk for Putin - I don't have any idea why Kerry and the USA could think that is gonna be cool with anybody.



    .



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #233

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678


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
  •