How will Rand vote on Iran nuclear deal?

[cindy25]

Rand has an easy way out. just say he will support the deal if (and only if) Iran releases the Americans unjustly held in Iran. if Iran releases them, Rand has to honor his word and support the deal. if not, he has a legitimate excuse. and he would get credit for the Americans being released.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Rand will vote against the deal. No entangling alliances.... He will then issue some tough meaningless rhetoric as will almost all the other GOP senators who will also vote against it.

Easy vote and a win-win situation.

 

[Brett85]

Rand has an easy way out. just say he will support the deal if (and only if) Iran releases the Americans unjustly held in Iran. if Iran releases them, Rand has to honor his word and support the deal. if not, he has a legitimate excuse. and he would get credit for the Americans being released.

It would definitely make it a lot easier to vote for the deal if it included the release of the Americans who are currently imprisoned in Iran.

 

[David Sadler]

Iran's national security is the business of Iran -- not the POTUS or US senate. Rand needs to keep that in mind. Iran is surrounded by nuclear nations. If Iran feels that it needs to be nuclear in order to protect itself in the ME surrounded by hostile forces, then who are we (on the other side of the world) to tell Iran it can not provide for its self defense?

We have no idea if the held Americans are spies or not. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I would advise Rand to stay out of the whole mess and allow it to work itself through the intel/state apparatus.

Rand should instead concentrate on dismantling the police / surveillance state here in the US; bringing our troops home; securing our border; turn 'free' trade into fair trade.

=== NOTES ===

Wesley K. Clark, Council on Foreign Relations

"Six weeks after 9/11, I went down to the office of one of the joint staff generals, and he said, sir -- I said you told me a couple -- three weeks ago we're going to invade Iraq. And that didn't make any sense. Are we still invading Iraq? By this time, we were bombing in Afghanistan.

"He said, "Oh, it's worse than that," he said. He held up a piece of paper. He said, "This is a memo that says, you know, all the countries on the target list; it's a five-year campaign plan, and it's Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

"... So as soon as we finished off with Iraq, we have, you know -- we might have a victory parade down Constitution Avenue or not, but we would then move into Syria. It was logical. And then we could go from Syria -- you know, that would open up Lebanon. Then we'd circle back and eventually come back to Iran. These countries in the region knew it. Their ambassadors knew it. It was all over the world that Iraq was the first stop."

-- Wesley K. Clark, President and CEO, Wesley K. Clark and Associates, LLC; former Supreme Allied Commander, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1997-200) and former Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff (1994-96), Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark [Rush Transcript; Federal News Service, Inc.], Council on Foreign Relations, February 10, 2006, www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-way-forward-c...ush-transcript-federal-news-service-inc/p9845 --

===

"... We shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home [from the Middle East] ..."
-- Retired Gen. John Abizaid, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, Abizaid Warns of 50-year U.S. Presence in Middle East --

===

"America's global primacy is directly dependent on ... its preponderance on the Eurasian continent. ... [The] Eurasian Balkans are [an] economic prize ... of natural gas and oil reserves. ... [America’s] primary interest ... [is to] ... ensure no single power ... controls this geopolitical space ... to prevent the emergence of a ... coalition that could ... challenge America's primacy. ... The three grand imperatives of IMPERIAL GEOSTRATEGY are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the VASSALS, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the BARBARIANS from coming together. " (emphasis added)
-- Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter Administration National Security adviser in his book " The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives")

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Iran's national security is the business of Iran -- not the POTUS or US senate. Rand needs to keep that in mind. Iran is surrounded by nuclear nations. If Iran feels that it needs to be nuclear in order to protect itself in the ME surrounded by hostile forces, then who are we (on the other side of the world) to tell Iran it can not provide for its self defense?

We have no idea if the held Americans are spies or not. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I would advise Rand to stay out of the whole mess and allow it to work itself through the intel/state apparatus.

Rand should instead concentrate on dismantling the police / surveillance state here in the US; bringing our troops home; securing our border; turn 'free' trade into fair trade.

As a sitting U.S. Senator, having no opinion will not be an option. Advise and consent is the duty of the Senate for all foreign treaties.

 

[David Sadler]

As a sitting U.S. Senator, having no opinion will not be an option. Advise and consent is the duty of the Senate for all foreign treaties.

Rand should vote against imposing any restrictions or pressure upon Iran or vote present and take a neutral position.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand should vote against imposing any restrictions or pressure upon Iran or vote present and take a neutral position.

I suspect he will in all likelihood vote against the treaty, because it will be a bad treaty. Therefore it will not even need come to that.

 

[Inkblots]

Well, the agreement has been announced.

I agree with you all that this is certainly a politically fraught moment for Rand. On balance, I think that, unless he would be the deciding vote to confirm the president's veto when Congress rejects the deal, Rand should vote 'no'. It's always a bit weaselly when a legislator votes a certain way to protect his record once he' confirmed his vote won't make a difference, but a 'yes' vote would irreparably damage Rand's campaign. He has no other choice, that I can see.

 

[rg17]

When is the senate voting?

 

[thequietkid10]

What he should do is say "I think that this is a good deal if it is enforced. I think it will be enforced because whoever wins the next Presidential election will be a Republican and he/she will enforce the law"

Something to that effect. Bargain for peace while not turning off the base.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It won't be voted on for likely at least a week. We will soon hear the details of the plan. It will be interesting seeing the public and partisan reactions as the details come to light.

 

[jkob]

I've pretty much given up on Rand showing courage on any particular issue, Rand isn't going win trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator since the Fox News crowd will literally have like 15 other candidates to choose from. Rand needs to sure up his base.

 

[Jan2017]

It won't be voted on for likely at least a week. We will soon hear the details of the plan. It will be interesting seeing the public and partisan reactions as the details come to light.

As I mentioned above, I read that it can not be voted on until after September 7 return from the summer (August) recess.

A certain debate topic at the crowded August 6 debate . . .
and fwiw, I also heard/read that Fox debate could have 11 on stage making even fewer minutes available for Rand, as whatever polling was used
- after sufficient rounding manipulation of polling data - showed a tie for that precious last spot . . .
I recall it as Santorum and somebody else (or is Faux News just making sure Trump doesn't bump someone off stage)

At least Lindsey Graham appears unable to make the cut.

 

[specsaregood]

I've pretty much given up on Rand showing courage on any particular issue, Rand isn't going win trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator since the Fox News crowd will literally have like 15 other candidates to choose from. Rand needs to sure up his base.

except in a situation like this there is no way to shore up his base as they wont even agree. half will argue he should vote no because its immoral to put restrictions on another country; the other half will say he should vote yes for "peace".

Me, well I trust Randal to be a good to great president; so I also trust that he will vote in whatever manner he thinks is best.

 

[cindy25]

When is the senate voting?

there will be two senate votes, the first to disapprove the agreement, which Obama will veto. Obama has 15 days to veto, and will run the clock as much as he can. then the house will vote to override-no sure thing as they will need 50-60 Dems, almost all in safe pro-Obama districts, and except for the districts in and around New York City, not that pro-Israel.

then, if they get 290 votes in the house they need 67 in the senate. that is 13 Dems assuming all 54 GOP vote with Likud.

I would not be surprised if in the next few weeks Iran releases one or more of the Americans held unjustly as a goodwill measure, perhaps by having a Senate or Congressional delegation in Tehran to facilitate it.

key in the senate will be Sanders and Schumer. all the GOP candidates will be noisy. Hillary is also a question mark. if she goes against Obama then Obama backs Biden. and costs Hillary the black vote.

 

[cindy25]

When is the senate voting?

there will be two senate votes, the first to disapprove the agreement, which Obama will veto. Obama has 15 days to veto, and will run the clock as much as he can. then the house will vote to override-no sure thing as they will need 50-60 Dems, almost all in safe pro-Obama districts, and except for the districts in and around New York City, not that pro-Israel.

then, if they get 290 votes in the house they need 67 in the senate. that is 13 Dems assuming all 54 GOP vote with Likud.

I would not be surprised if in the next few weeks Iran releases one or more of the Americans held unjustly as a goodwill measure, perhaps by having a Senate or Congressional delegation in Tehran to facilitate it.

key in the senate will be Sanders and Schumer. all the GOP candidates will be noisy. Hillary is also a question mark. if she goes against Obama then Obama backs Biden. and costs Hillary the black vote.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Rand will not stick his head out without any practical or political gain. He is not his father. There are not enough votes in Congress to stop this deal, so the Yes side doesn't need his vote. Therefore, he will vote "No" and avoid the overt wrath of the Israel Lobby and their MSM puppets for a bit longer.

 

[Brett85]

Rand will not stick his head out without any practical or political gain. He is not his father. There are not enough votes in Congress to stop this deal, so the Yes side doesn't need his vote. Therefore, he will vote "No" and avoid the overt wrath of the Israel Lobby and their MSM puppets for a bit longer.

He did vote in favor of confirming Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, so he doesn't always just do whatever is politically expedient.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

there will be two senate votes, the first to disapprove the agreement, which Obama will veto. Obama has 15 days to veto, and will run the clock as much as he can. then the house will vote to override-no sure thing as they will need 50-60 Dems, almost all in safe pro-Obama districts, and except for the districts in and around New York City, not that pro-Israel.

then, if they get 290 votes in the house they need 67 in the senate. that is 13 Dems assuming all 54 GOP vote with Likud.

I would not be surprised if in the next few weeks Iran releases one or more of the Americans held unjustly as a goodwill measure, perhaps by having a Senate or Congressional delegation in Tehran to facilitate it.

key in the senate will be Sanders and Schumer. all the GOP candidates will be noisy. Hillary is also a question mark. if she goes against Obama then Obama backs Biden. and costs Hillary the black vote.

All of this is such an enormous and blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution that I am literally in awe that they would even attemp this procedure.

According to to the US Constitution there is no majority vote, veto, override, or US House involved. Just one vote by the Senate only with a 2/3 advise and consent threshold. And the idea of vetoing a 'no' vote. Seriously WTF is that? How do you veto a Congressional no vote?

None of this makes any sense, and none of it has even a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution.

Do do you have a source for all of this? I know the U.S. Government has slipped pretty far but this is absurd.

The he house has no input on treaties AT ALL. Only the Senate. Advise and consent in the Senate is ⅔ and it's yes or no. There is no 'vetoing' a no into a yes, and there is no 'overriding' a yes back into a no.

This is absurd and offensive to anyone who believes in the Constitution. If I were Rand I would vote 'no' even if the deal were good, simply to refuse to justify the total destruction of American Constitutional government.

 

[phill4paul]

All of this is such an enormous and blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution that I am literally in awe that they would even attemp this procedure.

According to to the US Constitution there is no majority vote, veto, override, or US House involved. Just one vote by the Senate only with a 2/3 advise and consent threshold. And the idea of vetoing a 'no' vote. Seriously WTF is that? How do you veto a Congressional no vote?

None of this makes any sense, and none of it has even a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution.

Do do you have a source for all of this? I know the U.S. Government has slipped pretty far but this is absurd.

The he house has no input on treaties AT ALL. Only the Senate. Advise and consent in the Senate is ⅔ and it's yes or no. There is no 'vetoing' a no into a yes, and there is no 'overriding' a yes back into a no.

This is absurd and offensive to anyone who believes in the Constitution. If I were Rand I would vote 'no' even if the deal were good, simply to refuse to justify the total destruction of American Constitutional government.

It's news to you that the Fed acts Un-Constitutionally? At this point if the voted in the majority to make Obama president for life I would not be surprised.