Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow. Drama much?

Logically, Rand is our only current hope for restoring Constitutional government. Not-Rand means continuing to descend into tyranny and despotism. So no. Not drama, logic.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

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.

lol, good talk bro. I will try harder to understand it.

 

[Chieppa1]

Logically, Rand is our only current hope for restoring Constitutional government. Not-Rand means continuing to descend into tyranny and despotism. So no. Not drama, logic.

So voting for the next president of a bought and paid for government is the only way to save America? It was like a "or the terrorists win" comment. Individuals can do more to change this nation through spreading knowledge positively than any election. I think some old guy from Texas told me that.

 

[Maltheus]

For me, it's not so much an issue of whether he really supports the deal or not, it's that he's been wasting his time pandering to all the wrong people. He spends half his time attempting to build up his cred on the left, who are irrelevant if he doesn't win the nomination, and the other half trying to win over neocons, when they're the last people on earth who will ever vote for him. He's lost the trust of the general public, in the process. The only thing that's worked for him, so far, are the stands he takes against the NSA. But unfortunately, most Americans don't care enough about that for it to make much of a difference.

As far as I'm concerned, give the climate out there, he should have never attempted the run. I once heard him say that he wouldn't, unless he thought he had a chance of winning. By the time he announced, his chances had clearly been diminished. I would have rather he focused on the Senate instead, and used his "neutral" position to garner more influence among those in the race.

 

[devil21]

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 ?

Afaik it's just a multi-lateral agreement of all (supra-)nations to agree to lift sanctions if Iran does what they agreed uppon. I don't think anyone can stop the US, or any other nation, from entering into those kind of conditional deals. They don't need any international authority because they don't force other nations with anything beyond keeping sanctions, which seems to not violate any international law.

That being said, one of the "best" things of this deal seems to be that by the time the US Congress could possibly overturn it, all other nations (and the EU) will already have lifted their sanctions (which are way more significant for Iran anyway) and they won't revert that just because the US chickens out. Meaning that any unilateral sanctions the US will (re-)impose on Iran will be a lot less impactful.

In any case, one of the best things the Obama administration accomplished, sad to see Rand opposing it. Kind of telling that the only three parties in the entire world with this position are US republicans, Isreal and Saudi Arabia.

As best as I can figure, based on reading up on how the sanctions were put into place, this is individual countries (working together, called P5+1) passing legislation that impact only those individual country's economic ties with Iran. The UN sanctions and EU sanctions are a different set of sanctions and are not directly related to this "deal". Congress originally passed the sanctions that this "deal" would repeal, so our Congressional actions only affects US ties with Iran. The other countries involved in this "deal" are free to do as they wish and repeal sanctions regardless of what our Congress does. If those sanctions are lifted then those countries will use their clout in the UN and the EU to remove those sets of sanctions. The reports of the '60 day' window for Congress to decide whether to pass it is the same as the 60 day day window as provided by the passing of the TPA, implying that it's a treaty.

This is really complicated crap.

I'm in the camp that Rand's listed reasons for voting against it suck really bad, however if one understands that this same "plan" has been used repeatedly over the years to manufacture excuses to bomb/invade countries (Iraq is a prime example) then it's easy to see how voting against it could be an attempt to avoid giving that "excuse" yet again.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So voting for the next president of a bought and paid for government is the only way to save America? It was like a "or the terrorists win" comment. Individuals can do more to change this nation through spreading knowledge positively than any election. I think some old guy from Texas told me that.

If you think Rand Paul is 'bought and paid for,' then the problem is clearly yours. not mine.

 

[Krugminator2]

As far as I'm concerned, give the climate out there, he should have never attempted the run. I once heard him say that he wouldn't, unless he thought he had a chance of winning. By the time he announced, his chances had clearly been diminished. I would have rather he focused on the Senate instead, and used his "neutral" position to garner more influence among those in the race.

There will likely never be a better time to run than right now. If he didn't run now, he would give up any gains from Ron Paul's run. Any mailing lists and campaign infrastructure would not be very helpful 8 to 12 years after Ron's last run. There is not an incumbent in 2016. Running for President is the best way to raise your profile and promote ideas. And not to mention the Senate is a graveyard. I don't even know the last time a two term or longer Senator won the Presidency if ever. This is likely going to be his best and only chance. The appeal of politicians is like a melting ice cube.

I just can't believe how myopic people are about this. The country could easily go another generation or more without a comparable libertarian candidate. A lot of the stuff people people whine about are votes that could go either way from a libertarian perspective. This Iran deal certainly is one of those.

 

[Maltheus]

Running for President is the best way to raise your profile and promote ideas.

Seems to me, his profile has diminished and nobody is quite sure what his ideas are.

 

[Krugminator2]

Seems to me, his profile has diminished and nobody is quite sure what his ideas are.

His profile has diminished? Obviously that doesn't make sense. You don't hear other first term Senators like Tim Scott, Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, Mark Kirk mentioned even a fraction as much.

What issue aren't you sure on? I would say he approaches things from a pretty standard libertarian perspective. Some issues don't have an easy libertarian answer so you get a nuanced answer.

 

[Jan2017]

As best as I can figure, based on reading up on how the sanctions were put into place, this is individual countries (working together, called P5+1) passing legislation that impact only those individual country's economic ties with Iran. The UN sanctions and EU sanctions are a different set of sanctions and are not directly related to this "deal".
. . .

I had that sort of impression all along too originally -
but the text of the agreement/deal is in several pdf files at the bottom of the page at :
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm

Only scanned them, but the last pdf gives insight into the role of the EU, the UN Security Council, and the United States from here on in,
some excerpts . . .

The Eurpoean Union will:
16.1. Terminate the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 and suspend the corresponding provisions of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP etc.

The United States will:
17.1. Cease the application of the sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1 - 4.5 and 4.7 of Annex II, with the exception of Section 211(a) of the Iran Threat Reduction andSyria Human Rights Act of 2012 (TRA);
. . .
17.4. Terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, 13645 and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628 as set forth in Section 4 of Annex II; and
. . .

UN Security Council (will):
18.1. In accordance with the UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA, the provisions imposed in UN Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737(2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015)will be terminated subject to re-imposition in the event of significant nonperformance by Iran . . .

D. Transition Day
19. Transition Day will occur 8 years from Adoption Day or . . .

21. The United States will:
21.1. Seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, the statutory sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1-4.5,4.7 and 4.9 of Annex II;

E. UNSCR Termination Day
23. UNSCR (UN Security Council resolution) Termination Day will occur in accordance with the terms of the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the JCPOA, which is 10 years from Adoption Day, provided that the provisions of previous resolutions have not been reinstated.
24. On UNSCR Termination Day, the provisions and measures imposed in that resolution would terminate and the UN Security Council would no longer be seized of the Iran nuclear issue.

I just hope Rand becomes the absolutely expert on this - and shows it in the precious few minutes he'll get to speak on this at the August 6 debate.
WOW us all on how much he knows about this - just like his Dad would do on just about every topic imho.

It will be Rand's Secretary of State that gets to follow through on all this, hopefully.

 

[Maltheus]

His profile has diminished? Obviously that doesn't make sense. You don't hear other first term Senators like Tim Scott, Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, Mark Kirk mentioned even a fraction as much.

What issue aren't you sure on? I would say he approaches things from a pretty standard libertarian perspective. Some issues don't have an easy libertarian answer so you get a nuanced answer.

He had that profile before he got in, but it's been downhill ever since he announced. The non-RPers out there, who used to defend him in article comments have been routinely slamming him as a flip-flopping neocon, for some time now. This has greatly exacerbated that. I'm still fine with most of his views, but he's made it too difficult to defend him. What am I suppose to say, when he straddles the fence on issues? "Oh, he doesn't really mean it." Why would people vote for someone, when they think he doesn't say what he means?

He can't sneak himself into the nomination. Especially not in a field so large. He needed to win hearts and minds, in order to grow his support.

 

[devil21]

I had that sort of impression all along too originally -
but the text of the agreement/deal is in several pdf files at the bottom of the page at :
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm

I certainly could be wrong, seeing how convoluted this is, but I think those sections mean that if the individual countries pass the "deal" in their own countries then they are to then take those sections to their respective globalist (ugh!) bodies for enactment. The lynchpin is that the P5+1 can't act unilaterally on behalf of the entire EU, the entire UN, etc regarding sanctions imposed through resolutions by those full bodies. Obviously, the US Congress itself can't pass legislation that repeals UN resolutions on behalf of the entire UN....

This is a prime example of why globalist one-world government sucks. If Americans can't even get our own Congress to pass or fail laws based on our opinions (see: TPA) then how can we even begin to influence P5+1, UN, etc? We can't.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

All this back and forth has not changed the bottom line for Rand: to get elected as a somewhat less interventionist President than the other Republican contenders, he feels he needs to have interventionist cover to minimize the "weak on defense" or "weak on Iran" tagging the neocons will plague him with.

So, empty gesture time: Congress votes on the Iran deal in two months, and one or both GOP-controlled houses votes it down. Obarry vetoes Congress, meaning it requires a 2/3rds vote to override him. Congress fails to override the veto, and the Iran agreement prevails. By next year, it appears that Iran is complying with all aspects of the deal, as monitored by the P5+1 and IAEA.

Meaning, since the deal is going through anyway, Rand can freely oppose it now, vote against it, and thus have cover as being "tough on Iran" through the GOP primaries. Then he can say he supports the deal later, since by then there will be evidence Iran is in compliance. Bottom line substance: The agreement prevents or greatly delays war, Iran remains independent and unmeddled with, and Rand can embrace the non-interventionist outcome as the coast becomes clear.

 

[twomp]

All this back and forth has not changed the bottom line for Rand: to get elected as a somewhat less interventionist President than the other Republican contenders, he feels he needs to have interventionist cover to minimize the "weak on defense" or "weak on Iran" tagging the neocons will plague him with.

So, empty gesture time: Congress votes on the Iran deal in two months, and one or both GOP-controlled houses votes it down. Obarry vetoes Congress, meaning it requires a 2/3rds vote to override him. Congress fails to override the veto, and the Iran agreement prevails. By next year, it appears that Iran is complying with all aspects of the deal, as monitored by the P5+1 and IAEA.

Meaning, since the deal is going through anyway, Rand can freely oppose it now, vote against it, and thus have cover as being "tough on Iran" through the GOP primaries. Then he can say he supports the deal later, since by then there will be evidence Iran is in compliance. Bottom line substance: The agreement prevents or greatly delays war, Iran remains independent and unmeddled with, and Rand can embrace the non-interventionist outcome as the coast becomes clear.

I can live with that! +rep!

 

[Brett85]

All this back and forth has not changed the bottom line for Rand: to get elected as a somewhat less interventionist President than the other Republican contenders, he feels he needs to have interventionist cover to minimize the "weak on defense" or "weak on Iran" tagging the neocons will plague him with.

So, empty gesture time: Congress votes on the Iran deal in two months, and one or both GOP-controlled houses votes it down. Obarry vetoes Congress, meaning it requires a 2/3rds vote to override him. Congress fails to override the veto, and the Iran agreement prevails. By next year, it appears that Iran is complying with all aspects of the deal, as monitored by the P5+1 and IAEA.

Meaning, since the deal is going through anyway, Rand can freely oppose it now, vote against it, and thus have cover as being "tough on Iran" through the GOP primaries. Then he can say he supports the deal later, since by then there will be evidence Iran is in compliance. Bottom line substance: The agreement prevents or greatly delays war, Iran remains independent and unmeddled with, and Rand can embrace the non-interventionist outcome as the coast becomes clear.

What's he going to say right now when he's asked whether he'll revoke the deal as President? If he says that he won't, then does he really gain anything at all from Republican voters by voting against the deal?

 

[Crashland]

What's he going to say right now when he's asked whether he'll revoke the deal as President? If he says that he won't, then does he really gain anything at all from Republican voters by voting against the deal?

That's a tough question, perhaps he can go the route of "I would have liked the deal to be different, but once it has already been agreed to it does not project strength to the world or foster trust from other nations when the US goes back on an agreement."

 

[Brett85]

That's a tough question, perhaps he can go the route of "I would have liked the deal to be different, but once it has already been agreed to it does not project strength to the world or foster trust from other nations when the US goes back on an agreement."

Yeah, maybe. But if he says that I don't really see how he gets any support from hawkish conservatives for voting against the deal. It seems like libertarians would still be mad at him for voting against the deal, and hawkish Republicans would be mad at him for refusing to pledge to revoke the Iran deal.

 

[wizardwatson]

deleted

 

[wizardwatson]

also deleted

 

[brandon]

Outside of economic issues, I''m honestly closer aligned to Obama than Rand Paul's rhetoric of the past couple years. What a serious disappointment.