Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?

Unfortunately, yes. It's not surprising since he signed a letter supporting sanctions against Iran. Rand is still great overall, as was proven this week when he proposed an amendment to end the Iraq War and prevent the government from detaining U.S citizens. But he simply isn't a pure non interventionist on foreign policy issues like Ron is. He's more of a non interventionist than any other member of the Senate, but apparently he feels that he can't vote against Iran sanctions and have any kind of a political future. On the other hand, he may support Iran sanctions philosophically as well. He hasn't really spoken about the issue.
 
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.
 
Strategically, he's not going to get neocon support if he's not the biggest warmonger, so I don't see why he wouldn't just stick to principle and vote against it, so I think philosophically he probably supports sanctions.

I'd guess he convinced himself that the US must intervene against Iran during his Senate campaign so that he could counter his opponent's claims that he's soft on foreign policy.
 
AminCad said:
Strategically, he's not going to get neocon support if he's not the biggest warmonger, so I don't see why he wouldn't just stick to principle and vote against it, so I think philosophically he probably supports sanctions.

I'd guess he convinced himself that the US must intervene against Iran during his Senate campaign so that he could counter his opponent's claims that he's soft on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at least this way the neo-cons can't claim that Rand "wants to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons." He has this to point to if try to claim that he's weak on Iran. Again, I don't support his amendment, but it's still probably a good strategic move by Rand.
 
It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.
 
AminCad said:
It's just disappointing that he still has to sell out principles for strategy. The whole point of winning a Senate seat is that then you can vote for what's right without having to worry it'll be turned into a 30 second attack ad.
Click to expand...

We really need to get Jack Hunter into the Senate. He's really an "old right" conservative on stuff like this. He's strongly opposed to sanctions on foreign countries.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
We really need to get Jack Hunter into the Senate. He's really an "old right" conservative on stuff like this. He's strongly opposed to sanctions on foreign countries.
Click to expand...

He needs to get a haircut first. Nobody is going to vote for Zorg.

Oh, and thanks Rand, now I finally have voting-record proof that I can't fully trust you to vote liberty across the board. Nor can I trust someone who intervenes internationally to stay neutral domestically (as if the market were able to be divided into international and domestic markets).
 
Last edited:
Feeding the Abscess said:
He needs to get a haircut first. Nobody is going to vote for Zorg.

Oh, and thanks Rand, now I finally have voting-record proof that I can't fully trust you to vote liberty across the board. Nor can I trust someone who intervenes internationally to stay neutral domestically (as if the market were able to be divided into international and domestic markets).
Click to expand...

There's also a very real possibility that these sanctions could significantly raise the price of oil, which would be a further detriment to our economy.
 
Feeding the Abscess said:
Oh, and thanks Rand, now I finally have voting-record proof that I can't fully trust you to vote liberty across the board. Nor can I trust someone who intervenes internationally to stay neutral domestically (as if the market were able to be divided into international and domestic markets).
Click to expand...

You're not going to wait for an explanation? Doesn't he at least deserve that?

Just yesterday everyone was jumping on Mike Lee's back for his vote against the detainee amendment but he later clearly explained that he didn't support the policy but didn't think the amendment was the right way to get it done.
 
tsai3904 said:
You're not going to wait for an explanation? Doesn't he at least deserve that?

Just yesterday everyone was jumping on Mike Lee's back for his vote against the detainee amendment but he later clearly explained that he didn't support the policy but didn't think the amendment was the right way to get it done.
Click to expand...

I doubt if Rand can actually claim here that he doesn't support the policy, but it would be nice for him to explain his position on this issue. Either way, I'm not going to throw him under the bus because of one vote. I'm never going to agree with every single politician on every single vote.
 
tsai3904 said:
You're not going to wait for an explanation? Doesn't he at least deserve that?

Just yesterday everyone was jumping on Mike Lee's back for his vote against the detainee amendment but he later clearly explained that he didn't support the policy but didn't think the amendment was the right way to get it done.
Click to expand...

Affirmatively voting for something is not comparable to voting against something because you disagree with the ascribed procedure.

And no, voting for sanctions - an act of unprovoked war - does not deserve an explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tod
This is part of Rand's strategy to compromise on a few issues. We'll see if it works. Once he gets in the White House, he can choose to not attack Iran.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
I doubt if Rand can actually claim here that he doesn't support the policy, but it would be nice for him to explain his position on this issue. Either way, I'm not going to throw him under the bus because of one vote. I'm never going to agree with every single politician on every single vote.
Click to expand...

Maybe this has to do with his views of central banks. He obviously doesn't believe in the idea of a central bank and thinks that preventing central banks from doing business is not that big a deal. If another county sanctioned the Fed, that would be a good thing, but the end does not justify the means and I can't agree with getting involved in another county's affairs. I would like to hear an explanation before I pass judgment.
 
being the only no vote would have hurt him short term, but long would yield benefits.

and the neo-cons will primary him anyway in 2016
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Second Trump Term and the “Sanctions Industrial Complex”
Replies
0
Views
1K
PAF
PAF
jmdrake
Rand Paul introduces "REINS" act to rein in the administrative state
Replies
13
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
jct74
Techdirt credits Rand for helping to kill internet censorship bill
Replies
1
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Matt Collins
Rand releases statement on Rubio nomination to Secretary of State:
Replies
16
Views
2K
osan
osan
jct74
Fox News’s Kilmeade clashes with Rand Paul over TikTok’s ownership
Replies
5
Views
2K
Snowball
Snowball
Back
Top