Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[jllundqu]

We asked for a statesman, we got a politician.... what more is there to say?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

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.



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.



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.



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



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



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

No, the system that has been devised is such that detractors from Rand's positions when Rand's position is in alignment with the republican base of RPF are 'enemies'. When it is the republican base that detracts from Rand's position they are doing so in order to help Rand win. As I said in this thread or another on the topic, I don't think detraction in either way is helpful to the campaign, and these debates should be focused -by a moderator or someone else involved in the campaign- on the principles of the matter and not on Rand's position. And a 'what do you guys think of Rand's vote on Iran sanctions' thread in HT could provide the venue for individuals to let off some steam.

If you love someone let them go, and call them the enemy and sling feces at them as they leave, and if they don't return, you can be assured it wasn't because you called them the enemy and threw feces at them.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.'

Exactly. There may be very good reasons to vote no on this other than the given rationale.

Which leads me to another point. What is important is the vote. When a Democrat (for example, Kucinich or many others), votes the way we want, yet does it for all the wrong reasons, they get praised by some people here. Hell, they often get quite a lot of support. Yet when Rand's given explanation does not meet the absolute criteria of some people, it's time to throw him under the bus. Not very consistent.

Budgets are a prime example. A fiscal conservative votes against it because it spends too much, the big government people vote against it because it doesn't spend enough. When the votes are counted, praise often goes to all of the no votes, even though it's likely that many of those no votes are due to completely opposite reasoning.

 

[Chieppa1]

The only reason I would have accepted Rand coming out against the Iran Deal would be to bring the Americans still be imprisoned in Iran. Now, I know that this is a separate issue entirely from a nuclear deal. But if he wanted to get a political bump, that is the red meat to throw at the Republican base. Not the reasons he listed which are easily destroyed by anyone without a fanboy bias.

 

[jkob]

I remember back in 2012 how people blasted Gary Johnson on here for not being sufficiently libertarian enough for the right reasons(he took more of pragmatic, this works best stance rather than the moral this right one) so how can anybody be happy with Rand? In a vacuum would anybody vote for 2016 Rand over 2012 Gary based on their beliefs? I wish Gary had run this time instead of 2012, that way Rand wouldn't feel free to try totally abandon us. **** he's a better candidate anyway. Rand needs to make some big changes to his campaign because he's losing me with the current path.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The only reason I would have accepted Rand coming out against the Iran Deal would be to bring the Americans still be imprisoned in Iran. Now, I know that this is a separate issue entirely from a nuclear deal. But if he wanted to get a political bump, that is the red meat to throw at the Republican base. Not the reasons he listed which are easily destroyed by anyone without a fanboy bias.

The reasons he listed will get him praise on the Hannity show, and most other so-called "conservative" media shows. At a minimum, it will not give them ammo for criticism.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No, the system that has been devised is such that detractors from Rand's positions when Rand's position is in alignment with the republican base of RPF are 'enemies'. When it is the republican base that detracts from Rand's position they are doing so in order to help Rand win. As I said in this thread or another on the topic, I don't think detraction in either way is helpful to the campaign, and these debates should be focused -by a moderator or someone else involved in the campaign- on the principles of the matter and not on Rand's position. And a 'what do you guys think of Rand's vote on Iran sanctions' thread in HT could provide the venue for individuals to let off some steam.

If you love someone let them go, and call them the enemy and sling feces at them as they leave, and if they don't return, you can be assured it wasn't because you called them the enemy and threw feces at them.

If you don't want to be called out as being harmful to Rand (and by extension America), then don't step up in Rand's forums and whine about how Rand is the enemy. I don't know why this is such a hard concept.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I remember back in 2012 how people blasted Gary Johnson on here for not being sufficiently libertarian enough for the right reasons(he took more of pragmatic, this works best stance rather than the moral this right one) so how can anybody be happy with Rand? In a vacuum would anybody vote for 2016 Rand over 2012 Gary based on their beliefs? I wish Gary had run this time instead of 2012, that way Rand wouldn't feel free to try totally abandon us. **** he's a better candidate anyway. Rand needs to make some big changes to his campaign because he's losing me with the current path.

I blasted Gary Johnson for pissing on the Constitution. Rand is upholding the Constitution. I am a Constitutionalist.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The neoconservatives will vote against the agreement because they would rather bomb Iran today.

Who here believes that is what Rand wants to do?

 

[Chieppa1]

The reasons he listed will get him praise on the Hannity show, and most other so-called "conservative" media shows. At a minimum, it will not give them ammo for criticism.

I agree. Just pointing out which excuses for saying "no" I would be acceptable with. My example would still give the Hannity crowd their meat. His reasons listed can actually be debunked and pulls him down to the blowhard level in the eyes of independents.

 

[Chieppa1]

If you don't want to be called out as being harmful to Rand (and by extension America)

Wow. Drama much?

 

[Chieppa1]

The neoconservatives will vote against the agreement because they would rather bomb Iran today.

Who here believes that is what Rand wants to do?

Not me. My stance has been clearly stated. He could have been against the deal for more intellectual reasons. His list is debunkable (?).

 

[jkob]

The neoconservatives will vote against the agreement because they would rather bomb Iran today.

Who here believes that is what Rand wants to do?

I believe he wants to be president

Would Rand go to war with Iran if that was the only way he could be president?

 

[Chieppa1]

I believe he wants to be president

Would Rand go to war with Iran if that was the only way he could be president?

If he went to war with Iran, he wouldn't be president.

 

[Sam I am]

The neoconservatives will vote against the agreement because they would rather bomb Iran today.

Who here believes that is what Rand wants to do?

If Rand want's a peaceful relationship with Iran, voting to renege on a deal we made with them is an odd way to accomplish that.

 

[Chieppa1]

If Rand want's a peaceful relationship with Iran, voting to renege on a deal we made with them is an odd way to accomplish that.

He actually is not voting to renege on a deal. The deal has not been made yet, since it has to be voted on by Congress. Obama I'm sure makes a lot of deals we would like to renege on. I don't fault Rand for disagreeing with the deal, I just find his excuses sad and intellectually lazy.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Israel lobby much? We need a liberty minded candidate with some backbone. This is so disappointing. I don't want to hear the excuses that he needs to win the Republican vote. This is about aggression, just war theory and morality. Rand is playing politics to the point that his presidency will barely move the meter if he panders this much in office.

The Israel lobby has a very strong interest in not getting blown off the face of the world. I think Rand is doing a great job trying to keep the match out of the tinderbox here.

I really believe we can't let Iran get nukes. They could easily pass it off to an anonymous terrorist group. If not now, then 50 years from now. Who knows what that region will look like in the course of time?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree. Just pointing out which excuses for saying "no" I would be acceptable with. My example would still give the Hannity crowd their meat. His reasons listed can actually be debunked and pulls him down to the blowhard level in the eyes of independents.

Agree. Rand could have added that reason, with the only possible criticism being that it's a separate issue.

 

[Sam I am]

The Israel lobby has a very strong interest in not getting blown off the face of the world. I think Rand is doing a great job trying to keep the match out of the tinderbox here.

I really believe we can't let Iran get nukes. They could easily pass it off to an anonymous terrorist group. If not now, then 50 years from now. Who knows what that region will look like in the course of time?

So I take it that you're in favor of the deal then? since passing this deal will make it harder for Iran to get nukes without us noticing.

 

[Chieppa1]

The Israel lobby has a very strong interest in not getting blown off the face of the world. I think Rand is doing a great job trying to keep the match out of the tinderbox here.

I really believe we can't let Iran get nukes. They could easily pass it off to an anonymous terrorist group. If not now, then 50 years from now. Who knows what that region will look like in the course of time?

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.