Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[mit26chell]

It's a good thing this deal will pass despite the lies the republicans, including Rand, are telling about it.

 

[Wilf]

Outside of economic issues, I''m honestly closer aligned to Obama than Rand Paul's rhetoric of the past couple years. What a serious disappointment.

Really?

 

[rg17]

We shouldn't have been never been in theses stupid foreign aid thing to begin with!

 

[Krugminator2]

Outside of economic issues, I''m honestly closer aligned to Obama than Rand Paul's rhetoric of the past couple years. What a serious disappointment.

He should be disappointing you. He isn't for increased domestic surveillance, intentionally droning Americans without a trial, arming Syrian Rebels allied with ISIS, attacking Syria and Iraq without a declaration of war, raiding pot dispensaries, intervening in Libya, increased gun control, foreign aid and promoting appointees who abuse civil asset forfeiture like Obama.

Rand is for none of those things because he is a libertarian.

 

[wizardwatson]

deleted again

 

[Krugminator2]

You can't list "things" Obama does and then "label" Rand. We're specifically talking about how in this moment, for this deal, Rand is not a libertarian. His father's opinion is far more libertarian than Rand's. You don't just get to say, "he is, he's just not acting like it right now". You could say the same thing about Obama. Maybe Obama is part of a secret mission you know nothing about, and every horrible decision actually saved 1000's of lives.

The facts are that sanctions will be relieved and inspections will be allowed. That alone should make a libertarian happy. It does not make Rand happy because his position on this is pro-Israel, not pro civil rights for Iran.

I see.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

You guys should just wait for teh Collinz to explain it...you're just pissing in the wind until then...after all, you don't get how it's played.

 

[erowe1]

Rand is for none of those things because he is a libertarian.

Says who? Not Rand.

 

[erowe1]

It does not make Rand happy because his position on this is pro-Israel, not pro civil rights for Iran.

He may be doing the bidding of people who pretend to be "pro-Israel." But ending sanctions against Iran isn't bad for the people Israel any more than putting sanctions on Israel would somehow be good for the people of Iran.

 

[wizardwatson]

deleted

 

[erowe1]

My point is simply that he's not consistently supporting "rights" and "liberty". He's picking a side.

Both of those things are true (although unrelated to one another). What I'm saying is that, whatever side he's picking, it's not the side of the people of Israel, or any other ordinary people in any country. He may say that he's acting in their interest. But he's not.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Both of those things are true (although unrelated to one another). What I'm saying is that, whatever side he's picking, it's not the side of the people of Israel, or any other ordinary people in any country. He may say that he's acting in their interest. But he's not.

I agree, governments aren't representative of their people.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Yeah, maybe. But if he says that I don't really see how he gets any support from hawkish conservatives for voting against the deal. It seems like libertarians would still be mad at him for voting against the deal, and hawkish Republicans would be mad at him for refusing to pledge to revoke the Iran deal.

Rand doesn't have to duplicate every aspect of the hawkish stance, just display enough of one to deflect critics during the primaries. This time next year, should he be the nominee, he will be able to "move to the center" as they say, and not have to worry about what the hawks want him to do.

Rand otherwise will be perceived as the peace candidate between now and the election, which may even be more important than his winning or not. While a Paul is in play, the war hawks cannot crank up another war out of fear the public will react by voting for the peace candidate---this is the "18 month freeze" effect Ron Paul had from mid '07 to '08, and from mid '11 to '12, and so Rand is expected to repeat this role this cycle.

 

[Jan2017]

. . . It's an "entangling alliance".
. . .
Israel is as much a terrorist supporting and murdering nation as Iran or the U.S.

Maybe more so really - and they can hardly be called a "democracy" with such a significant Muslim population without (real) representation.

I read probably National Geographic article from a year ago talking about the city of Jerusalem . . . 35% Muslim 2% Christian . . .
but any parliament seats of the minority religions are someway squashed from actual participation.
We would ostracize any other authoritarian theocracy that does that.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

They aren't attempting to get nukes. Manufactured Crisis by Gareth Porter.

We just keep repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Iran's focus on terrorism is Israel.

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants? Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

 

[fr33]

By choosing to be on the side of sanctions multiple times, as a Senator, that puts blood of innocent people on Rand's hands. I've tried reasoning that he was lying about this stuff to get elected but there's a limit I won't go past. This is the type of diplomacy many of us have been pushing towards and Rand is on the wrong side of it.

 

[Brett85]

...

 

[nikcers]

By choosing to be on the side of sanctions multiple times, as a Senator, that puts blood of innocent people on Rand's hands. I've tried reasoning that he was lying about this stuff to get elected but there's a limit I won't go past. This is the type of diplomacy many of us have been pushing towards and Rand is on the wrong side of it.

Time will tell who is on the wrong side of history, this deal sounds too good to be true because it is. This is mission accomplished "affordable" care act all over again. We get to play the good guy of "trusting" Iran, but the cronies will make sure that there is no possible way to "trust" Iran. How would you ever trust our government to tell you about a country building WMD? The media spin machine is amazing, mark my words.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Time will tell who is on the wrong side of history, this deal sounds too good to be true because it is. This is mission accomplished "affordable" care act all over again. We get to play the good guy of "trusting" Iran, but the cronies will make sure that there is no possible way to "trust" Iran. How would you ever trust our government to tell you about a country building WMD? The media spin machine is amazing, mark my words.

I don't think 'breaking a treaty' would hold much weight with the American people as to why we should go to war. If people can be convinced to go to war in the presence of a broken treaty, I think the people could be convinced to go to war over the actions that broke the treaty, whether the country took those actions or not.

 

[fr33]

Time will tell who is on the wrong side of history, this deal sounds too good to be true because it is. This is mission accomplished "affordable" care act all over again. We get to play the good guy of "trusting" Iran, but the cronies will make sure that there is no possible way to "trust" Iran. How would you ever trust our government to tell you about a country building WMD? The media spin machine is amazing, mark my words.

Well, I mean, you are asking my opinion about trust, treaties, and WMDs. I would trust Iran over the USA. I have history to back up my opinion. The USA stockpiles WMDs and violates treaties more often than Iran does. I was just talking to some Indians this past weekend about treaties...