Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?

[kylejack]

Ron can't have it both ways. Sanctions can't be both 1-an act of war and 2-something that leads up to wars. War is war.

But if they are an act of war, would Ron take action if Iran enacted a sanction by blocking the strait of hormuz?

For the most part, occupy was filthy and I would never support it.

Days later and you're still playing this semantics game?

 

[ExPatPaki]

Note the date of the article I posted below. 2011.

Still doesn't explain why Shia Iran would want to supply IEDs to Sunni insurgents who kill Iraqi Shia police officers and military personnel working for the Iraqi Shia government.

 

[AuH20]

Still doesn't explain why Shia Iran would want to supply IEDs to Sunni insurgents who kill Iraqi Shia police officers and military personnel working for the Iraqi Shia government.

I think you have a valid point but this is not an argument you want to engage in at the political level. It's lose-lose proposition because your adversaries will be painting you as sympathetic to a state sponsor of terrorism. I think this unshakable perception is eluding some of the more ardent members of our congregation. This is not the hill to die on, unless it's the decisive vote, which alters the decision process completely.

 

[Mini-Me]

I don't always like how Rand plays the game, and I don't see how voting as he did had any political benefit with respect to future elections (at the very least, I would have abstained). However, a single "no" vote would have accomplished nothing more than making a statement. I LOVE when Ron does this, because statements need to be made, and I greatly prefer his open defiance to Rand's shrewd calculations...but it's quite possible that Rand views principles slightly differently from some of us, in that he only feels that he'd be compromising his principles if his vote may actually affect the outcome. If so, I don't think that picking his battles in that way necessarily makes him less principled, and it gives him latitude to spread the liberty message from another angle:

Whereas Ron takes every opportunity to drastically reshape the discussion and preach the gospel from the rooftops to an audience that often doesn't care to listen, Rand seems to be much more subtle in the way he approaches things. It's quite possible that Rand may have seen an intangible benefit in this vote that many of us don't; for instance, he has been working hard to persuade his Republican colleagues to take baby steps in his (and Ron's, and our) direction. Voting no couldn't have hindered this legislation in any way, but voting as he did might be a way to keep communication lanes open with colleagues who are overly paranoid about Iran. His efforts to move the other Senators in his direction may be futile, or they may bear fruit some years down the road. It's still too early to tell, but in the extreme case, Rand's consistent dialogue with the other Republican Senators may eventually mean the difference between coming back from the edge or plunging into complete tyranny. It's dirty business, and it's risky business, and Ron's approach definitely speaks to me more...but I can recognize and appreciate what Rand seems to be attempting, and for all I know it might help save this country someday. Given a choice between their approaches, I'd pick Ron's every day, but I'd like to think they're complementary in the end.

Ultimately, I'm disappointed in Rand's vote, but considering a "no" vote would have accomplished nothing, I'd much rather withhold judgment, give him the benefit of the doubt, and let his other efforts justify my patience.

 

[HigherVision]

I don't always like how Rand plays the game, and I don't see how voting as he did had any political benefit with respect to future elections (at the very least, I would have abstained). However, a single "no" vote would have accomplished nothing more than making a statement. I LOVE when Ron does this, because statements need to be made, and I greatly prefer his open defiance to Rand's shrewd calculations...but it's quite possible that Rand views principles slightly differently from some of us, in that he only feels that he'd be compromising his principles if his vote may actually affect the outcome. If so, I don't think that picking his battles in that way necessarily makes him less principled, and it gives him latitude to spread the liberty message from another angle:

Whereas Ron takes every opportunity to drastically reshape the discussion and preach the gospel from the rooftops to an audience that often doesn't care to listen, Rand seems to be much more subtle in the way he approaches things. It's quite possible that Rand may have seen an intangible benefit in this vote that many of us don't; for instance, he has been working hard to persuade his Republican colleagues to take baby steps in his (and Ron's, and our) direction. Voting no couldn't have hindered this legislation in any way, but voting as he did might be a way to keep communication lanes open with colleagues who are overly paranoid about Iran. His efforts to move the other Senators in his direction may be futile, or they may bear fruit some years down the road. It's still too early to tell, but in the extreme case, Rand's consistent dialogue with the other Republican Senators may eventually mean the difference between coming back from the edge or plunging into complete tyranny. It's dirty business, and it's risky business, and Ron's approach definitely speaks to me more...but I can recognize and appreciate what Rand seems to be attempting, and for all I know it might help save this country someday. Given a choice between their approaches, I'd pick Ron's every day, but I'd like to think they're complementary in the end.

Ultimately, I'm disappointed in Rand's vote, but considering a "no" vote would have accomplished nothing, I'd much rather withhold judgment, give him the benefit of the doubt, and let his other efforts justify my patience.

You vote no defiantly in hopes that others will follow your example. That's why we love Ron and support him so much, because he's willing to take a stand. And ultimately I believe we will win because it impresses and inspires people who are typically disgusted with politics and don't get involved. So I disagree, it is important. If I wanted the status quo and representatives who just go along to get along I'd be fine with things as they are. I mean if that's what people want to do, okay I guess, but I don't see why we should even bother to have a liberty movement if that's the case.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

not surprising.the man who ran on a platform of "I wont compromise".

 

[Matt Collins]

An epiphany on why Rand voted to sanction Iran:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?383961-Epiphany!-Why-Rand-Paul-voted-to-sanction-Iran...

 

[Agorism]

Ron gave a speech against new sanctions\wars against Iran today

ps- Collins you have some twisted logic as to why he endorsed Romney before the primary even ended?

 

[kylejack]

Wow, pretty cool that it was Kucinich that yielded the time to him.

 

[Matt Collins]

ps- Collins you have some twisted logic as to why he endorsed Romney before the primary even ended?

Ron had conceded the race at that point.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

An epiphany on why Rand voted to sanction Iran:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?383961-Epiphany!-Why-Rand-Paul-voted-to-sanction-Iran...

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/08/09/new-york-declares-war-on-iran/

You f—king Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with the Iranians?

 

[Matt Collins]

Sanctions |= blockade.

Please learn the difference.