Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[LatinsforPaul]

Rand adopted the position of the Bill Kristol, his neocons and Israel.

Incorrect. This is not Bill Kristol and the Neocons position...

"I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war" Rand Paul

 

[ChiefJustice]

I'm not surprised but it just further proves that Rand Paul is spineless. Unlike his father he is a pandering weakling. There is almost no excuse for a libertarian to oppose a reasonable and realistic deal which can avert war.

 

[erowe1]

So wait, this was apparently a lose-lose scenario, regardless of how he voted, yet there's still disappointment?

What are you talking about? Every single point in the OP is offensive. How could you expect anyone here not to be disappointed?

Granted, it's not surprising. But there's no upside to this.

 

[erowe1]

Incorrect. This is not Bill Kristol and the Neocons position...

"I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war" Rand Paul

If he believed that and acted accordingly, then he would vote to end sanctions. He just told us he won't vote to end sanctions.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

giveth el ropeth

 

[Brett85]

If he voted for the deal, it would signal to me that he gives a crap about morality and the idea of just war. But in a campaign, political sense; yeah I guess this is a lose-lose.

How far the expectations have fallen.

What exactly is moral about telling Iran that we'll steal their money unless they do exactly what they tell us to do? I understand that Rand didn't give a libertarian reason for opposing the deal, but there certainly are libertarian reasons for opposing the deal.

 

[Chieppa1]

The excuses for Rand are annoying and worse, they are a waste of time. His campaign strategy is failing. He is not going to pull the votes we all believe because he can't pick a message. He stands for nothing. He stands for whatever stance will make the least enemies. Of course in this cause, he is deciding it is better for him to have less enemies in Washington D.C., than Americans to have less enemies aboard.

 

[cocrehamster]

This is too bad. I'll still vote for rand as the least bad candidate but his sticker is coming off my car and he won't be receiving any future contributions from me.

 

[Brett85]

Rand adopted the position of the Bill Kristol, his neocons and Israel.

Why is Rand so intent upon intervening in Iran's national security decisions?

This deal interferes in Iran's national security decisions. The deal is all about intervention.

 

[Chieppa1]

What exactly is moral about telling Iran that we'll steal their money unless they do exactly what they tell us to do? I understand that Rand didn't give a libertarian reason for opposing the deal, but there certainly are libertarian reasons for opposing the deal.

We already stole their money. Half a trillion dollars. And the actual innocent human beings living under the government of the State of Iran can't buy shit because of our sanctions. Lift the sanctions. Vote to lift the sanctions. He will not. His politics and how the overall deal will effect the Government of United States is more important than actual human beings living in a country surrounded by United States military bases.

 

[Brett85]

You can argue that libertarians should support the deal because it may help avert war, but it certainly has nothing at all to do with "non intervention."

 

[specsaregood]

You can argue that libertarians should support the deal because it may help avert war, but it certainly has nothing at all to do with "non intervention."

That argument would only work if you think the current situation is likely to end in war. I think the opposite is true; this "deal" would be more likely to result in war.

 

[Brett85]

We already stole their money. Half a trillion dollars. And the actual innocent human beings living under the government of the State of Iran can't buy shit because of our sanctions. Lift the sanctions. Vote to lift the sanctions. He will not. His politics and how the overall deal will effect the Government of United States is more important than actual human beings living in a country surrounded by United States military bases.

I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.

 

[Brett85]

I just wish he would've included the fact that Iran still hasn't released the U.S citizens that are still imprisoned there. Libertarians would have less of a problem with that reason I believe.

 

[Chieppa1]

I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.

I get all that. But a vote like this will not help him get over the top and bring "new blood" into the GOP. The main reason "new blood" doesn't get into the GOP to vote is because the candidate for "new blood" keeps voting like the rest of the GOP. If that makes sense.

 

[Brett85]

This is too bad. I'll still vote for rand as the least bad candidate but his sticker is coming off my car and he won't be receiving any future contributions from me.

This is exactly what I said in the post that I created, that Rand was in a lose-lose situation and was going to lose support no matter how he voted.

 

[supermario21]

I'd rather Rand go down to defeat with some dignity and honor rather than go down being a weasel. He's going to get attacked regardless.

 

[Brett85]

I get all that. But a vote like this will not help him get over the top and bring "new blood" into the GOP. The main reason "new blood" doesn't get into the GOP to vote is because the candidate for "new blood" keeps voting like the rest of the GOP. If that makes sense.

He still doesn't vote like the rest of the GOP when he votes against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, drug laws, foreign aid, etc. He's certainly not as different from the GOP as Ron but is still significantly different.

 

[Brett85]

I'd rather Rand go down to defeat with some dignity and honor rather than go down being a weasel. He's going to get attacked regardless.

But it's not like he's actually advocating war with Iran. He just said that he doesn't support the details of this particular deal.

 

[Chieppa1]

He still doesn't vote like the rest of the GOP when he votes against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, drug laws, foreign aid, etc. He's certainly not as different from the GOP as Ron but is still significantly different.

Again, agreed. But the majority of voters decide what the important issues are by what TV tells them the important issues are. If their favorite blogger or personality on Twitter writes something about the warmongering Rand Paul, any of those semi-liberal 25-30 year olds that voted for Obama but hate Clinton will turn and run. I am friends with these people. They have loyalty to something for 24 hours at a time.