Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[Brett85]

And nowhere in Rand's statement did he say that he wants war with Iran. He just said that he wanted a better deal.

 

[rg17]

Their probably is a lot of secrets in the deal we may not know about. Still disappointed about Rand Paul comment on Facebook.

 

[T.hill]

Rand chose his strategy long ago, he is willing to sacrifice immediate principled stances in the short-run for real libertarian outcomes in the long-run. For the most part Rand values and probably always has valued the consequences of an action over it's abstract meaning.

That is probably the biggest point of difference between Rand and Ron.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/14/rand-paul-opposes-iran-deal-david-frum-d

 

[Brett85]

All of the comments that I've seen on the Rand Paul Facebook pages are in agreement with the position Rand has taken on this. A lot of people who describe themselves as libertarians are opposed to the Iran deal. I personally support it but understand Rand's reasoning and strategy.

 

[David Sadler]

Ron was one of the last three candidates in the race, just because he decided to stay in the race until the end. That doesn't mean that he had the 3rd most amount of support. He didn't win a single primary or caucus.

Again, it's debatable as to whether Ron actually won in some of the early primaries but was denied the win through vote fraud.

How is it that Ron was able to stay in the race so long when others faded pretty quickly? It's because Ron had a clear message to his base and showed a purist devotion to his principles which countered the globalist agenda in so many ways. This principled stand caused Ron's base to stick with him and fund his campaign in ways that itself made news. We hear none of that with Rand for the reasons being expressed here today.

 

[Maltheus]

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.

Agreed. I've been fine with him playing the game somewhat, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Given the climate out there, I always thought he should stick to the Senate, where he could at least do a little good. All he's done so far, has been to destroy the positive reputation he worked so hard to build up. And for what? To lose to Bush or Trump? At least Ron managed to educate people during his run and NOBODY could call him a flip-flopper. Even the people who hated where he stood, respected the man for his consistency.

 

[T.hill]

All of the comments that I've seen on the Rand Paul Facebook pages are in agreement with the position Rand has taken on this. A lot of people who describe themselves as libertarians are opposed to the Iran deal. I personally support it but understand Rand's reasoning and strategy.

I personally would support the deal, because free-trade is universally beneficial in any circumstance. However, some should consider that not every person who attempts to explain Rand's actions are excusing him or are trying to hold onto a delusional vision of Rand as the next Ron, but are simply coming to conclusions about Rand that seems reasonable considering the situation and other factors not being accounted for.

It's easy to get disappointed when not taking account for practical alternatives because petty moral absolutism has clouded your judgement.

 

[David Sadler]

Rand chose his strategy long ago, he is willing to sacrifice immediate principled stances in the short-run for real libertarian outcomes in the long-run. For the most part Rand values and probably always has valued the consequences of an action over it's abstract meaning ...

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/14/rand-paul-opposes-iran-deal-david-frum-d

It's a flawed strategy for two reasons:

1) It makes him betray his own principles (if he actually holds them) during the campaign calling into question whether or not he would betray his principles once in office,
2) It costs him a base built up by Ron

Rand isn't Ron. Plain and simple. Rand isn't playing the establishment with his foreign policy. It seems pretty clear that this is his foreign policy.

People who want to change the way Washington works must begin with their own actions.

 

[Jan2017]

Text of the different parts of the agreement found at bottom of page here:
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm

UN Security Council has a say . . . and presumably the United States Ambassador to the UN Ms. Power
will be instructed not to veto in the UN Security Council - although Secretary of State Kerry could replace her as a higher authority of the United States government.
EU, I will guess, will approve, but whatever stand by Rand, the US legislative approval wasn't going to happen.

 

[cindy25]

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/

 

[RonPaulMall]

Again, it's debatable as to whether Ron actually won in some of the early primaries but was denied the win through vote fraud.

How is it that Ron was able to stay in the race so long when others faded pretty quickly? It's because Ron had a clear message to his base and showed a purist devotion to his principles which countered the globalist agenda in so many ways. This principled stand caused Ron's base to stick with him and fund his campaign in ways that itself made news. We hear none of that with Rand for the reasons being expressed here today.

Ron was able to stay in the race so long because his didn't care about winning. Ron believes that educating the public about liberty is the foremost priority, which gives him a totally different motivation than the other candidates. Nobody else believes in anything, so once it becomes apparent they can't win, they drop out.

Rand did what he did today because the Iran deal doesn't need his vote to pass, so he figures why stick his neck out? Don't create an open break with Israel and the Neocons unless absolutely necessary.

I agree Rand's campaign is foundering, but he played this particular issue right.

 

[Brett85]

I correctly predicted what would happen in the thread I started two days ago. I knew that this deal was a bad development as Rand was bound to make a lot of people angry regardless of which position he took. It's simply a lose-lose situation for him.

 

[Brett85]

Rand did what he did today because the Iran deal doesn't need his vote to pass, so he figures why stick his neck out? Don't create an open break with Israel and the Neocons unless absolutely necessary.

But how is he going to answer the question of whether or not he'll revoke the deal with Iran if elected President? That's the real issue.

 

[Krugminator2]

I correctly predicted what would happen in the thread I started two days ago. I knew that this deal was a bad development as Rand was bound to make a lot of people angry regardless of which position he took. It's simply a lose-lose situation for him.

Before I even opened this thread, I could absolutely predict the responses.

If Rand votes the way you want, he is doing fine. If he doesn't, he is super awful and unprincipled and is just a rotten no good sellout. And, of course, no thread with a controversial topic would be complete without the usual Rand is no Ron, because Ron Paul is just the North Star of purity.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

 

[T.hill]

It's a flawed strategy for two reasons:

1) It makes him betray his own principles (if he actually holds them) during the campaign calling into question whether or not he would betray his principles once in office,
2) It costs him a base built up by Ron

Rand isn't Ron. Plain and simple. Rand isn't playing the establishment with his foreign policy. It seems pretty clear that this is his foreign policy.

People who want to change the way Washington works must begin with their own actions.

I'd say your wrong at least on one account

1) If Rand sincerely believes in free-trade and diplomacy over war, then in his opinion he is doing what is practically necessary to avoid war by rejecting this deal over one that may be accepted by more of his party. Whether that is possible, I'm not sure, but Rand has made it clear he wants to avoid war and has said the same in his statement about the current nuclear deal. By emphasizing peace as the ultimate end he has already differentiated himself from the rest of the field.

You may be right about alienating some of his base, but he can nullify a lot of that with future actions as he has done in the past. Rand's libertarian positions will stand out more as the elections heat up and during the debates. He will be the only presidential contender in the Republican field calling for peace.

One thing you are right about is Ron and Rand differ on sanctions, Ron believes in absolute terms that they are an act of war, Rand on the other hand believes that although they have often acted as a preclude to war they can in certain situations be utilized for beneficial reasons. Ron sees sanctions and war as one in the same, while Rand delineates peace, sanctions, and all out military action as 3 distinct things.

 

[supermario21]

One also needs to remember that there are 15 other candidates, something Ron didn't have to deal with. Rand needs to keep his brand unique. It is on many other issues, but there are a solid chunk of Republicans who would be firmly in his corner if he endorsed the Iran deal.

 

[Brett85]

It is on many other issues, but there are a solid chunk of Republicans who would be firmly in his corner if he endorsed the Iran deal.

Unfortunately they don't actually show up to vote in Republican primaries.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

One also needs to remember that there are 15 other candidates, something Ron didn't have to deal with. Rand needs to keep his brand unique. It is on many other issues, but there are a solid chunk of Republicans who would be firmly in his corner if he endorsed the Iran deal.

Republicans who actually vote in Republican Primaries (ie more than just 2008 and 2012) hate Obama and hate Iran and will not trust any deal achieved between those two parties.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I correctly predicted what would happen in the thread I started two days ago. I knew that this deal was a bad development as Rand was bound to make a lot of people angry regardless of which position he took. It's simply a lose-lose situation for him.

He voted for the sanctions in the first place, in general I think any 'votes' in the GOP primary he lost for taking this position are only lost temporarily. Not to say that he didn't lose some that will not come back, but obviously much less so than if he had taken the 'correct' position. Best thing to do is let people vent, and move on. I think discussion on the topic is healthy, it will help strengthen principles within our base, but when the discussion is centered around the way the candidate we are supposed to be supporting voted, prolonging and 'justifying' (or as seen in a thread focused on the principles of the matter: playing devils advocate or arguing the opposite) only reinforces or more hopefully superimposes that this is the position that the candidate is taking, that this is the position the movement is taking, and that should the candidate obtain the office, the position they will continue to maintain. Just my $.02 of course my good sir.