Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[lakerssuck92]

I still do not understand why so many people think this treaty will receive 2/3 approval in a Republican dominated Iran-hating US Senate.

From what I understand is that the Republicans will have to muster a veto-proof majority to strike down the deal. This was done by the compromise Corker-Menendez bill that was passed earlier if I recall correctly.

 

[Badger Paul]

"Disappointed, but sadly not surprised."

My thoughts exactly. It's politics and I understand it on that level and if has to be Obama to advance U.S.-Iranian relations to start with perhaps Rand can do more and better in the White House. He certainly isn't going to do so while being target practice at the Fox debate by nine other candidates all opposed to the deal and being called an Obama Republican. There's no need for excuses, it is what it is but it also goes to show how terrible the GOP position on foreign policy and how little we've done to change it. If we had done more, perhaps Rand might have braver, who knows? or other candidates would have been.

Howard Baker would have made an excellent President. But because he voted for the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977, he made sure he'd never win the GOP nomination and when he ran for President in 1980, he was an afterthought. Rand is not going to make that mistake, like it or not. I don't like it but I understand why he's doing it. Damn politics!

 

[Brett85]

There's no need for excuses, it is what it is but it also goes to show how terrible the GOP position on foreign policy and how little we've done to change it. If we had done more, perhaps Rand might have braver, who knows? or other candidates would have been.

Right now the Republican Party's foreign policy is as bad as it's ever been. It's as bad as it was even right after 9/11. I know that I and other libertarians/small government conservatives have done everything possible to explain to conservatives on Facebook and other venues that an interventionist foreign policy is the antithesis to conservatism and limited government, but for whatever reason we've completely failed to move the Republican Party at all on foreign policy issues.

 

[squirl22]

Ted Cruz opposes this deal, also; what are all of you people going to do now!!! I thought he was your hero.

 

[cindy25]

he won't lose any primary VOTES by voting no, as they have nowhere else to go.Rand is still the most libertarian of the 15. but he might lose enthusiasm and/or money. he was forced into a box. and the hell of it is that Obama will win the veto vote anyway.

the next one will be the Ambassador to Cuba vote. or aid to Ukraine. or boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
and at some point Rand has to break with the pack.

 

[lakerssuck92]

Right now the Republican Party's foreign policy is as bad as it's ever been. It's as bad as it was even right after 9/11. I know that I and other libertarians/small government conservatives have done everything possible to explain to conservatives on Facebook and other venues that an interventionist foreign policy is the antithesis to conservatism and limited government, but for whatever reason we've completely failed to move the Republican Party at all on foreign policy issues.

The big bad boogy-man ISIS came along....

 

[69360]

Well I guess he is serious about trying to win the nomination.

 

[devil21]

Hmmm......choices.......

The only true answer here is that it's not America's job to police Iran's nuclear program.

Having said that, if the deal passes Congress (and the other nations involved), Israel will start WW3. If it doesn't pass, they may still start WW3. We've seen it over and over where some "deal" is brokered and then suddenly there's screams of "They violated the deal!!! Bomb them!!", which usually ends with bombing.

Toughie there...

 

[lakerssuck92]

I'm so disappointed in Rand. I understand that he is voting no for political reasons but if he can't support a deal with Iran that goes a long way towards making Iran farther away from making a nuclear weapon and a long way towards peace then I don't know what to say. I'll probably still vote for him come the primaries but I can't see myself donating time and/or money because foreign policy is really all I care about when I am voting for President...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing says non-intervention like a huge, back-room agreement that dictates what other nations can and can not do, and which nations they can and can not trade with, and which goods can and can not be traded, and which favored businesses can do business with whom, and which persons, buildings, papers, and effects can be searched at will without probable cause, and which international organizations will Police this new law.

What's wrong with Rand? Let's sign this deal!

 

[supermario21]

My beef is that Rand is going to be the punching bag on most things anyways. He should stand strong and not be weak and appear muddled. It damages his whole message. He's got the polls on his side. He should be aggressive not cowering in a bunker. Jeb Bush wants to play the electable card but right now Rand has the most crossover appeal and is very competitive with Clinton.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Hmmm......choices.......

The only true answer here is that it's not America's job to police Iran's nuclear program.

Having said that, if the deal passes Congress (and the other nations involved), Israel will start WW3. If it doesn't pass, they may still start WW3. We've seen it over and over where some "deal" is brokered and then suddenly there's screams of "They violated the deal!!! Bomb them!!", which usually ends with bombing.

Toughie there...

We've seen this movie already. Just like Iraq, there will be screams of "they violated the deal", with no evidence, at which point a "coalition of the willing" will violate said deal and a whole host of other agreements to unilaterally execute a first strike.

 

[devil21]

Perhaps I need to brush up on my globalism 101 doctrine but what exactly is a "deal" or "agreement" or "accord", in this case?

I see no mention of a formal treaty or involvement of the UN or similar. Media only calls it an "agreement" or "deal" or similar variation of those vague terms.

What exactly is this? And if it was negotiated by 7 countries, how can the US govt single-handedly veto a "deal" (again, whatever the hell that means) that the rest agree to? What legislative authority does the US govt have to engage in "deals"? Treaties, yes. Deals? No.

 

[Brett85]

My beef is that Rand is going to be the punching bag on most things anyways. He should stand strong and not be weak and appear muddled. It damages his whole message. He's got the polls on his side.

No, he doesn't. This isn't 2011 anymore. The whole ISIS thing happened and the American people became war hungry again.

 

[devil21]

No, he doesn't. This isn't 2011 anymore. The whole ISIS thing happened and the American people became war hungry again.

It's ok, just make it up as you go along Traditional Conservative.

 

[Brett85]

It's ok, just make it up as you go along Traditional Conservative.

Shut up.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

he had an out by saying he would vote yes if the hostages were released, but he was too timid to go even that far. still, I am surprised by how harsh Justin Raimondo is:

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/14/rand-paul-opposes-iran-deal/

Why? Antiwar's entire existence is based on taking hardline stances on foreign policy.

 

[Badger Paul]

" The whole ISIS thing happened and the American people became war hungry again."

Indeed they did, but again what does that tell you? Paul correctly said ISIS is a direct result of the failure of interventionism from both parties and all that got was sharp drop in the polls he's just now recovering from.

What did the CFL do with all the money sent to it by Paul supporters lo these past seven years? Clearly it wasn't to change minds in GOP on foreign policy or if they tried they failed miserably. One beheading and American want to pull the covers over themselves? Saudi Arabia beheads people every day.

What Rand has to campaign on is removing the fear which prevades so much of American society because its that fear which fuels the national security/war state/drug war. That's your big government right there! Reduce that and you do bring America back to a constitutional republic. The disappointing thing is the fear is very much in the Paul campaign taking the stance they have on the deal. Until they realize this, they will fail and we all will fail.

 

[Jan2017]

I see no mention of a formal treaty or involvement of the UN or similar. Media only calls it an "agreement" or "deal" or similar variation of those vague terms.

What exactly is this?

Great question, that media folks like Faux News might seem to gloss over.

I'll ask that - Isn't this an enforcement of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT ?

 

[Brett85]

The disappointing thing is the fear is very much in the Paul campaign taking the stance they have on the deal. Until they realize this, they will fail and we all will fail.

Why? You just admitted that Rand's poll numbers started going down after he correctly pointed out that U.S intervention led to the rise of ISIS. The American people are stupid and don't want to be told the truth. The only option Rand has left if he wants to have any chance to win the GOP nomination is to pander to stupid people and act somewhat like a neocon.