Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, If he votes like one in the senate just to get elected, that's just as bad.

If you think Rand Paul votes like a 'war hawk' in the Senate, then you need to lay down the crack pipe.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Its funny how all these people that have been calling Obama a warmonger for years suddenly think he want to push a treaty for peace. lol

Not to mention "promoting Bernie Sanders."

I see this treaty as a setup for war.

Inch deep thinkers, the lot of them. Heaven help us we are beset on all sides by inch deep thinkers.

 

[Sam I am]

I really need to take a break from this forum for a bit.

When I first heard Rand's comments I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he actually did believe that by voting against the deal, that a more peaceful situation with Iran can be reached. I was willing to extend that benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know all the nitty gritty details of the deal and their implications.

It's the comments in these threads that are turning me against Rand. Every time I read a comment that says "Well, Rand had to vote against it to win the primary" I'm imprinted more and more with the idea that "Rand wants to vote against peace with Iran to get elected President", and that's driving me away from Rand, a lot.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

When I first heard Rand's comments I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he actually did believe that by voting against the deal, that a more peaceful situation with Iran can be reached. I was willing to extend that benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know all the nitty gritty details of the deal and their implications.

It's the comments in these threads that are turning me against Rand. Every time I read a comment that says "Well, Rand had to vote against it to win the primary" I'm imprinted more and more with the idea that "Rand wants to vote against peace with Iran to get elected President", and that's driving me away from Rand, a lot.

Well, what's "driving you away from Rand, a lot" is actually the product of your imagination, considering that not a single soul in these forums (except for maybe you and those who have basically always opposed him) is claiming that Rand is now, or has ever "voted against peace."

Therefore,

I really need to take a break from this forum for a bit.

May be a very good ideal, in order to regain your perspective.

 

[specsaregood]

Every time I read a comment that says "Well, Rand had to vote against it to win the primary"

Well I find that claim insulting to Randal. I think he I voting against it because he thinks the treaty is flawed and will lead to a worse situation than the current one.

 

[specsaregood]

Inch deep thinkers, the lot of them. Heaven help us we are beset on all sides by inch deep thinkers.

Do you think the current situation makes war with Iran likely? I don't, nobody really has the appetite for it.

But approve a treaty; then later claim that Iran is violating the treaty and suddenly americans will feel they were wronged and get war hungry again.

 

[Brett85]

It's the comments in these threads that are turning me against Rand. Every time I read a comment that says "Well, Rand had to vote against it to win the primary" I'm imprinted more and more with the idea that "Rand wants to vote against peace with Iran to get elected President", and that's driving me away from Rand, a lot.

It's just the reality of the situation that the Republican Party is so far gone that anyone who even supports a foreign policy of reasonable limits on intervention can't win the GOP nomination. So it's a choice between either pandering to idiots and having some chance to get elected, or running a purely educational campaign with no chance to actually win, like Ron did. I understand the latter strategy and fully supported Ron in his Presidential campaigns. But Rand has chosen the former, and I understand where he's coming from. It's becoming harder to get excited about Rand's campaign though, and it's just sad that the Republican Party has become such a corrupt and evil party that Rand was essentially forced to either take this position or drop out of the race.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Well, since you are too much of a coward to engage in debate out here where you can be answered, if Rand Paul had 'supported gay marriage' (whatever that means) I sure as hell wouldn't be promoting Bernie Sanders. Neither would I be pissing and moaning about how "Rand isn't the one" and removing my bumper sticker.

For the billionth time, I am not a 'libertarian,' I am a Constitutionalist. The more you ignorant dingbats open your mouth, the less I ever want to ever be identified as a 'libertarian.' I am perfectly consistent in my political platform. I support those who support the Constitution, and I oppose those who oppose the Constitution. You can love it, you can hate it, but if you think I am a hypocrite then you can get bent.

Rand Paul, but opining on a US foreign treaty with Iran, whether you like his opinion or hate his opinion, is fulfilling his Constitutional duty.

I get it. You want to abandon our only shot at Constitutional liberty because Rand Paul does not think Obama's plan for Iran relations is a good one.

Maybe Rand is right, and maybe Rand is wrong, but either way, you and your ilk are idiots.

Do you know what my entire facebook feed looks like right now?

So fine, you go ahead and abandon Ron Paul's son because he won't side with Obama on Iran against grassroots Republicans during a Republican Presidential Primary, but don't come crying to me when we elect an actual tyrant and a warmonger to the Oval Office. I'm the one trying to talk sense into you numbskulls.

lol. Such misrepresentations. One, dirty laundry does not need to be aired for prospective Rand supporters to see. Two, the hypocrisy is that when individuals are upset over an issue you don't find so pressing- non-interventionism for instance-, they are the reason we will end up worse than Hitler's Germany. But when the issue is important to you and TC and your republican friends- Gay marriage for instance-, Rand needs to be called out and be forced to change his opinion (even before he opines). This isn't the Gunny and TC show, other individuals should be allowed to express their opinions on Rand's campaign without being treated like they are the enemy.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well I find that claim insulting to Randal. I think he I voting against it because he thinks the treaty is flawed and will lead to a worse situation than the current one.

Pretty much what I've been saying

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nuclear-deal&p=5921122&viewfull=1#post5921122

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nuclear-deal&p=5921181&viewfull=1#post5921181

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nuclear-deal&p=5922234&viewfull=1#post5922234

Out of rep ammo...

 

[Brett85]

lol. Such misrepresentations. One, dirty laundry does not need to be aired for prospective Rand supporters to see. Two, the hypocrisy is that when individuals are upset over an issue you don't find so pressing- non-interventionism for instance-, they are the reason we will end up worse than Hitler's Germany. But when the issue is important to you and TC and your republican friends- Gay marriage for instance-, Rand needs to be called out and be forced to change his opinion (even before he opines). This isn't the Gunny and TC show, other individuals should be allowed to express their opinions on Rand's campaign without being treated like they are the enemy.

I don't think that I've been that critical of the people who oppose Rand on this and say that they can't support him. I understand where they're coming from. I'm personally in favor of the deal with Iran. I've just stated that I'm personally going to take a chance that Rand is a Trojan horse candidate and is just doing what he has to do to get elected. If other people don't want to go along with that and be a part of that, that's fine. I'm not attacking them.

On the gay marriage issue I am just concerned about the religious liberty aspect of the issue, about the fact that religious liberty is under attack in America. I think that Rand has been far too silent on that issue and is still far too silent. Yet despite that, I still support him, because I just don't know what other options we have. I'm just going to take a chance that a President Paul would be better than the candidate that he's campaigning as right now.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

lol. Such misrepresentations. One, dirty laundry does not need to be aired for prospective Rand supporters to see.

Looking through this thread, your ideological brethren are laying out more 'dirty laundry' than I have ever laid out in my life. And given that sunlight is the best disinfectant, maybe this is how we sanitize this movement from the immature children and actually get a real Constitutionalist elected.

Two, the hypocrisy is that when individuals are upset over an issue you don't find so pressing- non-interventionism for instance-, they are the reason we will end up worse than Hitler's Germany.

Abandoning Rand Paul because he thinks Obama's deal with Iran is flawed, is precisely what will lead America to something worse than Hitler. It will not be the fault of the 2% of psychopaths that we end up starting the ovens up again, it will be the fault of the 50% +1 who stood by and let it happen because they were too childish and immature to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done.

But when the issue is important to you and TC and your republican friends- Gay marriage for instance-,

If you think I care about gay marriage, then you need to lay down the crack pipe. All I care about is getting government out of the marriage business, period.

Rand needs to be called out and be forced to change his opinion (even before he opines).

If you want to force Rand to lose the election by taking the wrong position, that's fine, refer to post #110.

This isn't the Gunny and TC show,

Actually, this is the Rand Paul and the Constitution Show, and I'm not the one bitching and moaning about it.

other individuals should be allowed to express their opinions on Rand's campaign without being treated like they are the enemy.

When y'all are calling out Rand Paul as if he were the enemy, on Rand Paul Forums, exactly WTF do you expect?

 

[asurfaholic]

I've always been very supportive of Rand and understand that there is going to be some strategy to appeal to those who do not view the world the same way I do. This is very unlike some people in this thread who I have never seen before coming in acting all like Rand shit in their cereal and for this issue they cannot support Rand. Like they ever would....

THAT SAID I do have to admit I am pretty much feeling uninspired lately not so much because Rand is opposing the legislation, but the reasons he lists go against principles I hold. Rand says that Iran would be left with the ability to purchase advanced weapons, and we would not be able to monitor their "compliance" in adhering to the nuclear deal. What a crock of ...

I suppose he is doing the right thing by opposing the deal, but honestly why not just oppose it because it is wrong either way and we are so far off the path to fixing things that a no vote is the only option? I can no longer decide how sincere Rand is when it comes to his foreign policy, and this hurts me.

Also his stance on the confederate flag bothers me. Not that I give a rats dick about the stupid flag, but it is not "inescapably" a symbol of slavery or whatever nonsense he doled out.

I don't want a president I can't trust and if you are too PC to take issues like these on, then I can't get excited enough to want to donate my time or money. I need encouragement, I don't want to see principles get put in a box and stored simply because it is not what some groups want to hear.

 

[Sam I am]

When y'all are calling out Rand Paul as if he were the enemy, on Rand Paul Forums, exactly WTF do you expect?

last I checked, the domain was still "ronpaulforums.com"

 

[GunnyFreedom]

last I checked, the domain was still "ronpaulforums.com"

You are here:

 

[Brett85]

I don't really have a problem with the content of the deal, but I think it could be argued that the deal should be voted down since it's blatantly unconstitutional. It should take a 2/3rds vote to approve the deal, not a 2/3rds vote to disapprove of the deal. The Constitution requires that all treaties receive a 2/3rds vote to go into affect.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't really have a problem with the content of the deal, but I think it could be argued that the deal should be voted down since it's blatantly unconstitutional. It should take a 2/3rds vote to approve the deal, not a 2/3rds vote to disapprove of the deal. The Constitution requires that all treaties receive a 2/3rds vote to go into affect.

As a strict Constitutionalist, that is my objection. I've been hollering about the 2/3 advice and consent since this whole mess started. Rand's given rationale for opposing the deal is kinda meh, but it's red meat for the base. Would I prefer that his stated reasons were the same as my actual reasons for opposing the deal? Sure, but at the same time I can't argue with the right conclusion getting spiced up with a dash of 'getting elected.'

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you think the current situation makes war with Iran likely? I don't, nobody really has the appetite for it.

But approve a treaty; then later claim that Iran is violating the treaty and suddenly americans will feel they were wronged and get war hungry again.

I agree with that in it's entirety. This was the same exact same justification the government gave for invading Iraq.

 

[thequietkid10]

So I'm listening to the Obama presser and off the top he is arguing that it would be difficult to put the genie back into the bottle re sanctions if Congress overruled the President.

IF, if that was true, won't it make sense to oppose this deal. It's not as if nuclear restrictions and UN inspections whenever they damn well fell like it is a libertarian position Now we are talking about US sanctions on Iran vs UN inspections and control of their nuclear supplies.

If you are looking at it that way, it's not so bad.

 

[jkob]

I think you guys are really stretching on a lot of these rationalizations, the fact is that Obama is trying to move us away from war with Iran and Rand with his support of sanctions is moving us closer. If that is strategic then It's cowardly and will get Rand no where, he will NEVER win by pandering neoconservatives as they will NEVER trust him. It wouldn't of matter if he went full neocon these last last 5 years because he's still his father's son and they hate him! Rand needs to double back on his efforts to court the liberty movement and independents because the "they don't have anywhere else to go so **** em" attitude has me wanting to explore other options and why wouldn't I if I think Rand has no chance with his current strategy? Rand has to create his own coalition of voters, he isn't going to win trying to pander to the same tired old ideas that drew me away from the GOP to begin with.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I really need to take a break from this forum for a bit.

When I first heard Rand's comments I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he actually did believe that by voting against the deal, that a more peaceful situation with Iran can be reached. I was willing to extend that benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know all the nitty gritty details of the deal and their implications.

It's the comments in these threads that are turning me against Rand. Every time I read a comment that says "Well, Rand had to vote against it to win the primary" I'm imprinted more and more with the idea that "Rand wants to vote against peace with Iran to get elected President", and that's driving me away from Rand, a lot.

Perhaps Rand also has non-interventionist reasons to vote against the agreement, but he didn't explicitly list them?

It's just the reality of the situation that the Republican Party is so far gone that anyone who even supports a foreign policy of reasonable limits on intervention can't win the GOP nomination. So it's a choice between either pandering to idiots and having some chance to get elected, or running a purely educational campaign with no chance to actually win, like Ron did. I understand the latter strategy and fully supported Ron in his Presidential campaigns. But Rand has chosen the former, and I understand where he's coming from. It's becoming harder to get excited about Rand's campaign though, and it's just sad that the Republican Party has become such a corrupt and evil party that Rand was essentially forced to either take this position or drop out of the race.

Once again, perhaps he would vote against it for other reasons too.