Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?

[Matthew5]

Confused by this as well. I can't see this as a political move to stroke the neo-con's ego because why would he be one of the lone voices (initially) in fighting against the detainment policy in the Defense bill? Seems that the neo-cons would love to have terrorists locked up forever. So if he stuck his neck out on that, why not Iran? This leads me to believe that he supports sanctions philosophically as well.

Figured Mike Lee would join him in a "Nay" vote at least.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Can someone post the details?

 

[specsaregood]

But the thing is that it may cause much higher oil prices for us. That's what I'm afriad of. We have a global economy.

I don't see how it really affects them much at all; they can just do an end-run around it via chinese and russian banks. This DOES hurt the US petro-dollar though...

 

[mczerone]

What right does the United States have to inflict the citizens of Iran with a lower standard of living (to say nothing of the damage that may be done to people around the world) and virtual guarantee of war being waged in their country?

What right does the US govt have to tell American people that they cannot trade with the people of Iran? What if I was supporting Iranian businesses that were lobbying the Iranian govt to stay peaceful? What if I were selling them cheap electrical power to try to convince them to stay away from all things nuclear? What if I were subsidizing family in the region until they could save enough to try to emigrate?


Sanctions are just a way for politicians to look like they're "doing something" about a problem, when they are actually creating incentives to exacerbate the problem, and reducing our liberties.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

What right does the US govt have to tell American people that they cannot trade with the people of Iran?

Nailed it.

 

[Fredom101]

He also may not have wanted to stick his neck out on this since it passed overwhelmingly anyway. If Rand would've voted against this, it would've passed 99-1 anyway, and his lone "no" vote wouldn't have really accomplished anything.

So essentially, he's not a man of principle.

 

[anewvoice]

Rand is not Ron. When Rand runs, we can scrutinize his voting record and he'll have a few more years under his belt. I do know that people I know who do not like Ron Paul, do in fact like Rand Paul.

On the point though, sanctions can be argued to be an "all other alternatives" considered for a just war. Would be awesome if we tried diplomacy once in a while as the alternative.

 

[tsai3904]

What right does the United States have to inflict the citizens of Iran with a lower standard of living (to say nothing of the damage that may be done to people around the world) and virtual guarantee of war being waged in their country?

The sanctions are trying to prevent banks from doing business with the Central Bank of Iran. How will that lower the standard of living of their citizens? If all banks in the US were forced to stop doing business with the Fed, would that lower our standard of living? Yes, maybe in the short run, but we would be way better off in the long run.

I'm not justifying Rand's vote because I wouldn't get involved with other county's affairs but you have to understand these sanctions are dealing with a central bank.

 

[Fredom101]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass. It's no different than the Obama apologists who blame all his acts of war on Bush. "Obama can't just pull troops out!". This is hypocrisy at its finest. Please, think about principles before a letter next to someone's name, or, a certain last name.

Rand is no libertarian and this proves it, sadly.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The sanctions are trying to prevent banks from doing business with the Central Bank of Iran. How will that lower the standard of living of their citizens? If all banks in the US were forced to stop doing business with the Fed, would that lower our standard of living? Yes, maybe in the short run, but we would be way better off in the long run.

I'm not justifying Rand's vote because I wouldn't get involved with other county's affairs but you have to understand these sanctions are dealing with a central bank.

Statement of Purpose:

To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran

Let's assume they were all aimed at the Central Bank of Iran (even the Statement of Purpose refutes this, one can only imagine what kind of crap is in the full bill). How does that give the US authority to place sanctions against an institution of a sovereign country?

 

[tsai3904]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass. It's no different than the Obama apologists who blame all his acts of war on Bush. "Obama can't just pull troops out!". This is hypocrisy at its finest. Please, think about principles before a letter next to someone's name, or, a certain last name.

Rand is no libertarian and this proves it, sadly.

No one is apologizing for him. What we want is an explanation. Until then, it's hard to judge his intention on just a roll call vote with no context of why he voted for it.

 

[Brett85]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass.

That's not why we're giving him a pass. We're giving him a pass because he fought hard to kill the Patriot Act, fought hard against indefinite detention of U.S citizens, and has introduced amendments to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you simply ignore all of the good things that he's done. This is really the only vote Rand has taken that anybody here should disagree with him on.

 

[Brett85]

So essentially, he's not a man of principle.

He's been very principled in support of our civil liberties. He simply has a different point of view on this particular issue. Even libertarians don't always agree with each other on all the issues.

 

[Romulus]

Rand is just more of a politician, than Ron. I don't agree with it, but he stands up for individual liberty here at home and that counts for a lot.

 

[low preference guy]

So it might be entirely possible that Rand actually does support sanctions philosophically.

That's hard to believe. Someone right on almost everything is not likely to hold a position so obviously idiotic. My bet is that he is compromising. Just like Ron compromises when he says he would support a national ban on abortion. They have different ideas on what they would compromise on. Rand compromises a lot more, of course.

 

[specsaregood]

That's hard to believe. Someone right on almost everything is not likely to hold a position so obviously idiotic. My bet is that he is compromising. Just like Ron compromises when he says he would support a national ban on abortion. They have different ideas on what they would compromise on. Rand compromises a lot more, of course.

What if one thinks the petro-dollar is a longterm threat for this country; would not supporting legislation that slowly eats away at that be "good medicine"?

 

[AuH20]

I'm sick and tired of the Rand apologists around here. Just because his last name is Paul should not give him a pass. It's no different than the Obama apologists who blame all his acts of war on Bush. "Obama can't just pull troops out!". This is hypocrisy at its finest. Please, think about principles before a letter next to someone's name, or, a certain last name.

Rand is no libertarian and this proves it, sadly.

Thank god.

 

[AuH20]

That's not why we're giving him a pass. We're giving him a pass because he fought hard to kill the Patriot Act, fought hard against indefinite detention of U.S citizens, and has introduced amendments to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you simply ignore all of the good things that he's done. This is really the only vote Rand has taken that anybody here should disagree with him on.

Bingo. He's never going to appease the zealots. It will always be something while Ron's tacit support of earmarks doesn't really bother them one bit. Double standard? You betcha.

Secondly, he's a U.S. senator and privy to intelligence that Ron wish he had access to. So everyone should calm down with the traitor nonsense.

 

[cdc482]

He's also for Gitmo. I will never get as excited for Rand as I am for Ron.

 

[AuH20]

He's also for Gitmo. I will never get as excited for Rand as I am for Ron.

That's completely fine and understandable. But to insinuate that he's working for the other team is (a) disrespectful (b) insulting (c) paranoid.