Rand Paul explains vote for Iran sanctions

[Brett85]

This is roughly what I had surmised regarding Rand's motivations, as I wrote in the "Explanation..." thread. I still strongly doubt that Rand sincerely believes the sanctions are right; I think he decided it would be "spitting in the wind" to try to wage this battle, and went along with them to position himself as more of a "moderate" and "reasonable" person in the eyes of the mainstream.

And the thing is that this really isn't going to bring him any favor with the neo-cons. The neo-cons are going to criticize any Republican Senator who doesn't want outright war with Iran. So what Rand has basically done is take a position that the neo-cons will attack him for, and those of us in the liberty movement criticize him for supporting the sanctions. He ended up taking a position that really pleases no one.

 

[Brett85]

Food and medicines were exempt from the Iraq sanctions as well. The sanctions we placed on Iran are almost a copy/paste of the Iraq sanctions from the 90s. The sanctions weren't just placed on Iran's central bank. To wit:

1) Prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account on foreign financial institutions engaged in non-petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 60 days; 2) Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions, including central banks, engaged in petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 180 days with 180-day special exemptions tied to the availability of non-Iranian oil on the market and a country’s significant reduction in purchases of Iranian oil;

Thanks. I didn't realize that.

 

[XTreat]

I really, really, really, hate to say it, but he dodged the question and talked about pre-emptive war instead of sanctions. Instead he pandered to those in the crowd who probably want war and fear Iran. He missed a educational opportunity, jesus he isn't up for re-election for 5 years.

 

[Jeremy]

...and talked about pre-emptive war instead of sanctions. Instead he pandered to those in the crowd who probably want war and fear Iran.

I believe you have made a contradiction?

 

[Brett85]

I believe you have made a contradiction?

Yeah, he pandered to a pro war crowd by opposing pre-emptive war with Iran?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmm. While I disagree with the vote for sanctions (it seems like it was politically motivated obviously), you still have to give Rand credit for arguing the case against war for 90% of his answer. Where else are run-of-the-mill conservatives going to hear this stuff? It takes balls to go up in front of neocons and tell them everything they believe is wrong.

Rand has proven to be

1. not as good as Ron, but

2. better than every other politician at the national level

So, each one of us has to decide for ourselves where we come down on our mix of principles/politicking.

 

[tsai3904]

So, each one of us has to decide for ourselves where we come down on our mix of principles/politicking.

If Ron supports Rand, should we give Ron the benefit of the doubt since he knows more than we do?

 

[ryanmkeisling]

What's sad to me is that if Rand does run in 2016, a lot of people here will be refuse to support him even though he would be the best chance ever of getting a liberty candidate in office. I admire their principles, but it would be a shame if they supported a libertarian or third party candidate that can't win instead of Rand Paul.

I am not saying I WOULD NOT SUPPORT HIM BECAUSE OF THIS, JUST THAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE SOUND REASONING, if he is going to cause the death of other human beings. His own father has called this an act of war. His video statement is not sound reasoning, he nonchalantly sidestepped the question and attempted to mitigate his vote by saying basically, "at least its not a military strike." They have done nothing to us! I do not want another president who thinks it is ok to preemptively punish people for something that is at this point purely hypothetical, that is neoconservatism defined.

 

[Danke]

 

[Sola_Fide]

If Ron supports Rand, should we give Ron the benefit of the doubt since he knows more than we do?

Good question. I'm sure you will be lambasted for even proposing it.

 

[iGGz]

\/\/O\/\/

 

[Harryhaller]

Rand should stand up to Israel and try to do what is right for the U.S.A.. All the politicians should. He is in a position to sort through the Mossad and C.I.A. blather and stand for peace. But only if he wants to stand for peace.

 

[Brett85]

I do not want another president who thinks it is ok to preemptively punish people for something that is at this point purely hypothetical, that is neoconservatism defined.

People still don't understand what the word "neo-conservatism" actually means. Every single U.S Senator voted for this sanction bill. Does that mean that all of them are "neo-conservatives," including far left lawmakers like Barbara Boxer and John Kerry? The fact is that neo-conservatism has a very narrow definition. It refers to people who believe that it's the role of the U.S government to "spread freedom and democracy around the world." Supporting sanctions against a foreign country has nothing to do with that principle. It just means that Rand isn't a 100% non interventionist.

 

[Shane Harris]

what's rand's positions on social issues such as the drug war, prostitution, etc?

 

[Brett85]

what's rand's positions on social issues such as the drug war, prostitution, etc?

That those issues should be handled by the states rather than the federal government.

 

[specsaregood]

Rand has proven to be
1. not as good as Ron, but

I disagree with that assessment. As a Senator he has already caused more havoc with the legislative agenda of DC than his father ever has in his role as a Congressman. He has arguably landed stronger blows against big government in an official manner than his pops.

A lot has been riding on his shoulders, both parties would love nothing more than to have Rand screw up in anyway.

 

[specsaregood]

what's rand's positions on social issues such as the drug war, prostitution, etc?

He's currently got 2 bills shutdown singlehandedly that increases these types of things.

 

[Crotale]

I'm extremely dissapointed that Rand Paul voted for the sanctions. That oversteps the line in the compromise between integrity and political pragmatism. I just hope the apple hasn't fallen too far from the tree.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

People still don't understand what the word "neo-conservatism" actually means. Every single U.S Senator voted for this sanction bill. Does that mean that all of them are "neo-conservatives," including far left lawmakers like Barbara Boxer and John Kerry? The fact is that neo-conservatism has a very narrow definition. It refers to people who believe that it's the role of the U.S government to "spread freedom and democracy around the world." Supporting sanctions against a foreign country has nothing to do with that principle. It just means that Rand isn't a 100% non interventionist.

I understand what it means completely. Neoconservatism is a bipartisan effort, it is the merging of the two parties on the fundamental ideologies that are used to govern the country, taht is why every single senator voted for it. It sounds as if you are saying since they all voted for it it must be right? You haven't been listening to Dr. Paul through the years have you?

There is absolutely no difference in the two parties when it comes to anything truly important, Ron Paul has been telling the world this since 1988, yet people still don't understand. If you take Ron Paul's definitions of neoconservatism and hold them up to both parties, you cannot tell which is which. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You keep trying to mitigate how bad this vote for sanctions is, or you agree with it, either way you continually try to argue and obfuscate the problems many of us have with this vote. Do not try and paint us as ignorant of the main political ideologies that are driving this country into the truly sad state it now exists within.

I have spent my whole adult life watching these politicians, from the left and the right, bomb the fuck out of the rest of the world and innocent people in those places. Most modern world conflict is created, and driven by the USA and its policies which have turned out after all this time to be a complete failure. We are no more or less safe than we were 50 years ago, yet many around the world and our own citizens have died so that these animals can spend money and play war. The value of our currency has suffered as well as our prosperity not to mention our future generations keep getting trillions in debt piled on their shoulders, but I guess to you it is just politics as usual. I wonder why you even support Dr. Paul, you don't seem to agree with him that these sanctions are an act of war nor that there is little fundamental differences in our two parties fueled largely by the neoconservative push of the last 20 years?

That or you just like continual trolling?

 

[Brett85]

I understand what it means completely. Neoconservatism is a bipartisan effort, it is the merging of the two parties on the fundamental ideologies that are used to govern the country, taht is why every single senator voted for it. It sounds as if you are saying since they all voted for it it must be right? You haven't been listening to Dr. Paul through the years have you?

There is absolutely no difference in the two parties when it comes to anything truly important, Ron Paul has been telling the world this since 1988, yet people still don't understand. If you take Ron Paul's definitions of neoconservatism and hold them up to both parties, you cannot tell which is which. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You keep trying to mitigate how bad this vote for sanctions is, or you agree with it, either way you continually try to argue and obfuscate the problems many of us have with this vote. Do not try and paint us as ignorant of the main political ideologies that are driving this country into the truly sad state it now exists within.

I have spent my whole adult life watching these politicians, from the left and the right, bomb the fuck out of the rest of the world and innocent people in those places. Most modern world conflict is created, and driven by the USA and its policies which have turned out after all this time to be a complete failure. We are no more or less safe than we were 50 years ago, yet many around the world and our own citizens have died so that these animals can spend money and play war. The value of our currency has suffered as well as our prosperity not to mention our future generations keep getting trillions in debt piled on their shoulders, but I guess to you it is just politics as usual. I wonder why you even support Dr. Paul, you don't seem to agree with him that these sanctions are an act of war nor that there is little fundamental differences in our two parties fueled largely by the neoconservative push of the last 20 years?

That or you just like continual trolling?

-Rep. I wish I could give you a hundred -Reps for that ridiculous post. I don't support sanctions, and you and the other ridiculous people who call others "trolls" need to get a life. Just go away.