Rand Paul turned into a hawk on Iran and libertarians are burning his stuff

brandon

brandon

SINO
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
15,414
“I fucking love Ron Paul so much,” he told me on the roof of his apartment building in downtown Los Angeles, “but I just don’t have the same admiration for Rand.” Indeed, my token libertarian friend then set fire to a pair of the Kentucky Republican’s “Stand with Rand” t-shirts, estimated value: $35. A handful of 20-somethings drank beer as the senator’s merchandise went up in flames. These were not normal people, to be sure: they were libertarians and, just a couple months back, several of them were phone-banking for the Paul campaign, while Aheram just had his selfie with the presidential hopeful, taken during a campaign stop in Irvine, featured in The New York Times: The two had just connected over their shared opposition to the NATO war in Libya right before he took it, Aheram told me. They looked so happy.

So what prompted such a fiery stunt on a Saturday night? Simple: The son of Ron opposes the deal with Iran over its nuclear program, faulting the agreement for lifting sanctions on the Islamic Republic before “evidence of compliance.” Paul still insists he prefers peace to war – who doesn’t? – and that he favors a negotiated settlement to the West’s standoff with the Islamic Republic, he just doesn’t support the only one that will ever happen, functionally making him pro-war. Worst of all: He’s lying to do it.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/turned-libertarians-burning#sthash.pGeINsXQ.dpuf
Click to expand...

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/turned-libertarians-burning
 
a libertarian. burn it bitch and continue to live in a dream.....or he could do some research and not take everything as the headlines read. Some people are so fast to judge. This person sounds like they have trouble coping with reality as disturbing as it is.
 
I took down Rands photo on FB. He lost my support by not supporting the deal. He is way too hawkish and pro Israel for me.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
delete your account here too please.

Too hawkish and pro israel LOL...some peoples kids...IQ of a box of skittles
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not asking this sarcastically I am being genuine, how are you justifying Rand's position on this deal? I was always fully on board with the notion that to some extent Rand has to play the game, and I was prepared to stomach some vocal red meat being thrown around here and there, but this isn't just words.

My big issue with Ron was tho he had courage in spades, he wasn't always very good at phrasing things the right way and he wasn't very assertive. Rand seemed more assertive and better able to articulate his positions so I had high hopes.

Some pandering is expected, but I also think there has to be a line, and to me Rand has crossed it more than once. No matter what ill people may speak of Ron, one thing everybody would agree on is you always knew where Ron stood, I just don't know where Rand is.
 
Last edited:
Lightweis said:
I took down Rands photo on FB. He lost my support by not supporting the deal. He is way too hawkish and pro Israel for me.
Click to expand...

All 17 GOP candidates are NOT supporting the deal. If you can't tell the difference between Rand's policy towards Iran and the rest of the GOP's take on Iran, then please do NOT leave the forum as you as well as some others around here need some more enlightenment.

Ron Paul backs the Iran deal and you do not see him dropping his endorsement of Rand nor disparaging him.
 
Burning his stuff? Isn't that a bit over the top?
 
Hawk?

I get why the purists are all upset and this current quote Rand missted is bothersome.....but him being a Hawk is bullshit.
 
I don't have any sympathy for this argument. These people are like clients that take up all your energy and will run you into the ground. If Rand is pleasing the mondoweiss crowd, then he is failing.

And if you think Rand is a hawk, then you aren't logical person. Focusing on nearly impossible to please people would not only lower is chances of winning to 0%, it is just bad for the growth of libertarianism in general.
 
HankRicther12 said:
Well, I'm not asking this sarcastically I am being genuine, how are you justifying Rand's position on this deal? I was always fully on board with the notion that to some extent Rand has to play the game, and I was prepared to stomach some vocal red meat being thrown around here and there, but this isn't just words.

My big issue with Ron was tho he had courage in spades, he wasn't always very good at phrasing things the right way and he wasn't very assertive. Rand seemed more assertive and better able to articulate his positions so I had high hopes.

Some pandering is expected, but I also think there has to be a line, and to me Rand has crossed it more than once. No matter what ill people may speak of Ron, one thing everybody would agree on is you always knew where Ron stood, I just don't know where Rand is.
Click to expand...

At the very basic level....Israel is our legal ally, whom we swore to have their back.

While I may not agree with being in that alliance...at the end of the day, we are.

Your options are:

a) Tear the alliance down
b) Back the alliance

Paul COULD say "We will be dropping Israel as an ally"...thats his only other option besides supporting Israel and supporting the US holding itself to its word that it already committed.
 
puppetmaster said:
Some people are so fast to judge.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the build up has been longer than that. The libertarian remnants that have been supporting Rand because of his dad was knowingly living a lie until they snap out and accept reality. Rand is not Ron. He wants to be defined by his own actions, not his father's legacy.

Too bad for him, the playing field already has an influx of me-too conservatives. Now we have pretty much two main choices between status-quo vs status-quo (Jeb/Hil) or nationalist vs socialist (Trump vs Bernie). The grassroots youths pick Bernie and the neo-reactionaries choose Trump. The Status-quo majority can live with either Hilary or Jeb, it doesn't matter to them. So who is Rand's message targeting to? Nobody at this point.

Reason magazine has an article defending Rand by saying that he will shine in the upcoming debates and that's where he'll pick up. I'm not so sure, Rand speaking skill isn't the most convincing and people already see him as not trustworthy. Whereas Trump is a straight shooter and people like that. Ron was the same, without the vulgar. People liked Ron because he says what he thinks. Rand just doesn't give that same confidence.
 
Last edited:
I would like to know who they have found that's better than Rand.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
At the very basic level....Israel is our legal ally, whom we swore to have their back.

While I may not agree with being in that alliance...at the end of the day, we are.

Your options are:

a) Tear the alliance down
b) Back the alliance

Paul COULD say "We will be dropping Israel as an ally"...thats his only other option besides supporting Israel and supporting the US holding itself to its word that it already committed.
Click to expand...

How are those the only two options? His dad said let Israel make it's own decisions, we can trade, but that is all.

Nolan said:
I'm sure the build up has been longer than that. The libertarian remnants that have been supporting Rand because of his dad was knowingly living a lie until they snap out and accept reality. Rand is not Ron. He wants to be defined by his own actions, not his father's legacy.

Too bad for him, the playing field already has an influx of me-too conservatives. Now we have pretty much two main choices between status-quo vs status-quo (Jeb/Hil) or nationalist vs socialist (Trump vs Bernie). The grassroots youths pick Bernie and the neo-reactionaries choose Trump. The Status-quo majority can live with either Hilary or Jeb, it doesn't matter to them. So who is Rand's message targeting to? Nobody at this point.

Reason magazine has an article defending Rand by saying that he will shine in the upcoming debates and that's where he'll pick up. I'm not so sure, Rand speaking skill isn't the most convincing and people already see him at not trustworthy. Whereas Trump is a straight shooter and people like that. Ron was the same, without the vulgar. People liked Ron because he says what he thinks. Rand just doesn't give that same confidence.
Click to expand...

Would be nice if Ron had Trumps money and assertiveness, or Trump had Ron's integrity and consistency.
 
Last edited:
This is what Senator Paul claims Ayatollah Khamenei’s words were:

"The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true."

This is what he REALLY said:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

Distorting a statement to keep a peace agreement from being signed. Does Senator Paul WANT war with Iran? AIPAC thanks you for supporting their lie Senator Paul.
 
twomp said:
This is what Senator Paul claims Ayatollah Khamenei’s words were:

"The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true."

This is what he REALLY said:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

Distorting a statement to keep a peace agreement from being signed. Does Senator Paul WANT war with Iran? AIPAC thanks you for supporting their lie Senator Paul.
Click to expand...

nice try...so their religion forbids it but up until 2003 they were said to be building one per the IAEA and starting back up in 2007, the IAEA said they were researching it.

But hey, its "forbidden" so we should trust Muslims that will blow themselves up for religion.

None of this matches up, thus rand leaving off the last part of the statement changes nothing.
 
HankRicther12 said:
How are those the only two options? His dad said let Israel make it's own decisions, we can trade, but that is all.
Click to expand...

You cannot uphold our current agreements and revert to trade only.

here is a list of SOME of the US-Israel agreements.

MUTUAL SECURITYAgreement relating to assurances and economic assistance as authorized in the Mutual Security Act of 1951.
Exchange of notes at Washington December 7, 1951.
Entered into force December 7, 1951.
3 UST 2874; TIAS 2462; 157 UNTS 53.


PEACEKEEPING


Memorandum of agreement concerning assurances, consultations, and United States policy on matters related to Middle East peace.
Initialed at Jerusalem September 1, 1975; signed at Washington and Jerusalem February 27, 1976.
Entered into force February 27, 1976.*
32 UST 2150; TIAS 9828.


Memorandum of agreement concerning the United States role at any future Geneva peace conference.
Initialed at Jerusalem September 1, 1975; signed at Washington and Jerusalem February 27, 1976.
Entered into force February 27, 1976.*
32 UST 2160; TIAS 9829.


Memorandum of agreement relating to assurances concerning Middle East peace.
Signed at Washington March 26, 1979.
Entered into force March 26, 1979.
32 UST 2141; TIAS 9825; 1252 UNTS 77.


Agreement relating to implementation of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of March 26, 1979.
Letter signed at Washington March 26, 1979.
Entered into force March 26, 1979.
32 UST 2146; TIAS 9826.
Click to expand...

Breaking or upholding are Rands only 2 options because the agreements already exist.

Its the same way when we purchase a property...we have to assume the leases of the tenants and uphold the leases. We cant just change them willy-nilly because we're new landlords and didnt make the original leases.

Same with Rand, as President, he cannot CHANGE our obligations to Israel. He can break them or uphold them.

Would you prefer he campaign on breaking them or upholding them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top