Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?

[josh.schisler]

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.

it would make a good attack ad in 2016.

 

[ZanZibar]

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.

This assumes that Iranians don't retaliate first and provoke further action.

 

[low preference guy]

This assumes that Iranians don't retaliate first and provoke further action.

It doesn't assume anything, it says "we'll see if it works".

 

[SL89]

I don't know, it is so contrary to a non-interventionism ideal that I am having a hard time understanding his logic. Besides, this could come back against Ron. Some of you have said that is shows Rand is willing to compromise thus setting himself up for a run in '16. First of all, I don't want a person who compromises over foreign meddling at the expense of us. Second. In light of the legislation passed recently on top of the notorious Patriot Act, I don't think we will have a chance at elections come 2016. It has to be Ron Paul now! It would not surprise me one bit if they took this forum down before the elections anyway. They are passing anti-liberty/pro-socialistic/dictatorial legislation at a blinding pace. If you haven't noticed, it is exponentially worse than just a few weeks ago. Half of the shit we called conspiracies over the last several years are coming to fruition.

I will let him give his reasoning before passing judgement.

 

[LibXist]

Oh, Rand...

 

[anaconda]

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.

I called Rand's office many weeks ago asking about the letter he co-signed to Obama encouraging sanctions. The lady on the phones knew nothing. I told her her to tell Rand that the Ron Paul Forum members were pissed and wanted an explanation.

 

[bluesc]

This assumes that Iranians don't retaliate first and provoke further action.

Hey, so what happened to "That's irrelevant, a letter to the President doesn't have the power of law behind it"? A Yea vote does.

Personally, I'm a little pissed about this, but Rand has been kicking ass on a lot of other things lately. Amash would have voted Yea on this if he were in the Senate, so we'll have to deal with what we've got. All the more reason to elect Ron.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

That is the only acceptable reasoning. Thus, we will accept it.

 

[jtstellar]

two things--

it's politics

and

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

 

[bluesc]

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

Most didn't vote for an act of war against Iran either. The Senate, including Rand, just did.

 

[Xenophage]

That is the only acceptable reasoning. Thus, we will accept it.

It's kind of what I was thinking.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Hey, so what happened to "That's irrelevant, a letter to the President doesn't have the power of law behind it"? A Yea vote does.

Personally, I'm a little pissed about this, but Rand has been kicking ass on a lot of other things lately. Amash would have voted Yea on this if he were in the Senate, so we'll have to deal with what we've got. All the more reason to elect Ron.

Where did Amash say this? I've asked him a couple times in recent updates, and he hasn't answered. I get the feeling from what he's said that he would vote for the sanctions, I just want confirmation.

 

[bluesc]

Where did Amash say this? I've asked him a couple times in recent updates, and he hasn't answered. I get the feeling from what he's said that he would vote for the sanctions, I just want confirmation.

He has said in comments before that he disagrees with Ron on Iran. Considering he either sees Iran as a threat, or is too afraid to publicly acknowledge that they aren't, I'm pretty sure he would vote for sanctions if he were in the Senate.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

He has said in comments before that he disagrees with Ron on Iran. Considering he either sees Iran as a threat, or is too afraid to publicly acknowledge that they aren't, I'm pretty sure he would vote for sanctions if he were in the Senate.

Ah, gotcha. I came to the same conclusion after reading those comments a few weeks back.

 

[Brett85]

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

Yeah, I really don't think that the Bill Kristol types will like Rand no matter what he does. This vote probably won't help him out any with them. So it might be entirely possible that Rand actually does support sanctions philosophically.

 

[Brett85]

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

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.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

two things--

it's politics

and

we aren't voting for the well being of iran

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?

 

[bobbyw24]

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.

Hyperbole. SELL OUT? Are you kidding me? Get readl

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Hyperbole. SELL OUT? Are you kidding me? Get readl

Last cycle, Rand was echoing Ron's foreign policy, even saying that Iran is not a threat to us if it obtained a nuclear weapon. Violating the non-intervention principle for power is a textbook case of selling out of one's philosophical viewpoint; to take this further, it leads me to the conclusion that Rand never believed in what Ron has said in foreign policy matters, and that Rand is actually interventionist.

 

[trey4sports]

Jack 2016! or 2014 or whatever. Just get in the damn Congress Jack.