Why did Justin Amash vote for Iranian sanctions?

[Matt Collins]

Here is the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politi...ran-sanctions/


here is the roll call (H R 6297):
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll577.xml



Thomas was the ONLY one to vote against it.

[Matt Collins]

Rand and everyone in the Senate (except for Bernie) voted for it too apparently:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00155

[Krugminator2]

Wasn't the reason to bring Iran to the negotiating table to have leverage in a deal?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

[AZJoe]

Hurrah for Thomas Massie.
Justin Amash was just wrong this time.

[H. E. Panqui]

....looks eerily similar to the roll-call on more illion$ in foreign aid to iZrael...

....puppet$..EVERY stinking one of them...

[could someone paste up the best picture of the dozens of US military bases surrounding iran?]

[tsai3904]

Justin is not 100% opposed to sanctions. He's supported some sanctions and opposed some sanctions on Iran.

Here are some of his past vote explanations:

Here's the roll call for the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 1905, Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to our country's security, and I support economic sanctions against Iran. I am concerned by this bill's authorization of federal funding for "pro-democracy" groups within Iran. The federal government has a mixed record of funding these types of groups. Some of the funding has undermined the groups' efforts; some has gone to groups that turned against the U.S. I voted no. It passed 410-11.

Here's the roll call for the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 2105, Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act of 2011. The bill authorizes sanctions against foreign-based companies that have traded with the sanctioned countries in nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology. Also, the U.S. government is prohibited from cooperating on nuclear technology with countries that have helped the sanctioned countries with that technology. I voted yes. It passed 418-2.

I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 850. I have supported sanctions against Iran that are aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, this bill imposes new sanctions that are targeted at Iran's automotive, construction, engineering, and mining sectors—sanctions that hurt innocent Iranian civilians more than they hurt the Iranian government or thwart Iran's pursuit of weapons. In addition, the bill states that it is the policy of the United States "to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons *capability*." My staff and I repeatedly requested clarification from leadership and committee staff on the word "capability" but received none. As written, with this undefined term, the bill seems to authorize the United States to take military action against Iran simply if the country has the resources to produce a weapon, even if it is not producing one. Furthermore, this bill was taken up just days before the newly elected president of Iran was to be sworn into office. If our goal is peaceful reform within Iran, it would be wise to give the new president an opportunity to talk before turning to new threats. It passed 400-20-1.

[LibertyClick]

[could someone paste up the best picture of the dozens of US military bases surrounding iran?]

https://www.libertyclick.org/u-s-mil...rounding-iran/



https://www.libertyclick.org/countri...e-u-s-vs-iran/



https://www.libertyclick.org/?s=iran

[Ender]

This is just wrong.

We have been meddling in Iran for decades- the reason?

OIL.

Israel is the one that ignored the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is said to have at least 400 nuclear war heads. Iran signed everything but is the "bad guy."

[PierzStyx]

There is no way to positively spin this if you believe in free markets. The only thing sanctions do is starve the poor in teh sanctioned country and drive them into the arms of the very governments we dislike.

[Ender]

There is no way to positively spin this if you believe in free markets. The only thing sanctions do is starve the poor in teh sanctioned country and drive them into the arms of the very governments we dislike.

1000% agreed!

[Jesse James]

even a working clock is broken once a day (or something like that)...

[jmdrake]

Here is the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politi...ran-sanctions/


here is the roll call (H R 6297):
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll577.xml



Thomas was the ONLY one to vote against it.

Rand and everyone in the Senate (except for Bernie) voted for it too apparently:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00155

Why are you surprised or even upset about this? I told you this would happen back in 2010. I said that if Rand pushed took on too much of the teocon agenda in order to get elected he would have to keep pushing it to stay in politics. I told you and others that was the risk of Rand saying crap he didn't need to say like "If the Gitmo prisoners are tried in civilian court instead of a military tribunal then testimony from torture might have to be thrown out and that would be a problem." Oh....but Rand's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers. That "he's playing chess" argument I first saw you raise is now raised by Trump supporters to justify the bat guano crazy stuff he says. Trump will throw in a few good things with all the bat guano and it's like "See? 4D chess!" So....how to we hold anybody accountable once we compromised on principles? "Oh look at how they vote instead of what they say." The problem with that is the teocons are looking at how they vote as well. Rand lost the teocon vote to Trump, Cruz and Carson and the idealist / millennial vote to Bernie Sanders. Oh....but it's infinity-D chess that I just don't understand. Okay.

[PierzStyx]

Why are you surprised or even upset about this? I told you this would happen back in 2010. I said that if Rand pushed took on too much of the teocon agenda in order to get elected he would have to keep pushing it to stay in politics. I told you and others that was the risk of Rand saying crap he didn't need to say like "If the Gitmo prisoners are tried in civilian court instead of a military tribunal then testimony from torture might have to be thrown out and that would be a problem." Oh....but Rand's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers. That "he's playing chess" argument I first saw you raise is now raised by Trump supporters to justify the bat guano crazy stuff he says. Trump will throw in a few good things with all the bat guano and it's like "See? 4D chess!" So....how to we hold anybody accountable once we compromised on principles? "Oh look at how they vote instead of what they say." The problem with that is the teocons are looking at how they vote as well. Rand lost the teocon vote to Trump, Cruz and Carson and the idealist / millennial vote to Bernie Sanders. Oh....but it's infinity-D chess that I just don't understand. Okay.

You filthy purist! How dare you have principles and stick by them! How dare you suggest that compromising liberty to be like every other neocon out there just makes you a neocon! /s

[Cutlerzzz]

There's only one Ron Paul.