Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[devil21]

Voting isn't "strategy." You can maybe say that rhetoric and endorsements is part of "strategy," but taking anti liberty votes should be off limits when pursuing any kind of strategy.

Of course it is, particularly when it comes to votes on resolutions that mean nothing. No action required, no spending, no deployments, no resource allocations, nothing. If a resolution like today's is offered for strategic purposes (assuming my AIPAC angle is correct), then why not vote strategically in response? It's clear to me that Rand is playing chess while you're playing checkers.

Right, and that was a better explanation than Devil's claim that Rand simply votes for these kind of resolutions because "they have no force of law." The fact that this resolution has no force of law is completely meaningless since Rand has voted against other resolutions that also have no force of law.

Once again you are avoiding my point entirely. This resolution, imho, was specifically targeted to give ammo to media and pundits to smear Rand and other Senators as being "anti-Israel". No other reason. Im pretty sure you're a fan of Israel and intervention on it's behalf so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand LOST my vote.

So leave the Rand Paul forum and move onto your next abomination. This is a place for supporters and activism, not wedge sowing trolls.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Are you saying that Ron Paul is lying when he says that he and Rand are 99% in agreement?

It's weird watching people compare a 12 term Congressman to a first term Senator when it comes to strategy.

Lying? No. I think he's being diplomatic and a good father.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Of course it is, particularly when it comes to votes on resolutions that mean nothing. No action required, no spending, no deployments, no resource allocations, nothing. If a resolution like today's is offered for strategic purposes (assuming my AIPAC angle is correct), then why not vote strategically in response? It's clear to me that Rand is playing chess while you're playing checkers.

Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".

 

[cajuncocoa]

So leave the Rand Paul forum and move onto your next abomination. This is a place for supporters and activism, not wedge sowing trolls.

I get that Rand is given special treatment in this subforum, but I don't think any subforum should be off-limits to any member here. Furthermore, when Rand casts an anti-liberty vote such as the one he cast today, it should be open to the criticism it deserves....in this subforum or any other. Just my opinion.

 

[devil21]

Lying? No. I think he's being diplomatic and a good father.

But that means it's still a lie. Right?

Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".

Nice. Your choices:

1) Stay purist on everything and guarantee a loss in 2016 after media smears Rand to high hell as an anti-semite, then say hello to Hillary and possible war with Iran regardless.
2) Recognize that politics is a game and having a chance to win requires making some choices on votes that carry no weight, other than the complaints of the purists that would lose the election anyway if they had it their way. At least then there's a chance to avoid a war.

 

[Brett85]

Once again you are avoiding my point entirely. This resolution, imho, was specifically targeted to give ammo to media and pundits to smear Rand and other Senators as being "anti-Israel". No other reason.

And like I said, you can say the exact same thing about the other resolution, which Rand voted against. It seems clear that Rand didn't vote for this resolution for political reasons, but because he supported it. I'll give him credit for not voting this way for political reasons, because I don't think he did. If Rand voted according to what would help him politically, he would've voted against confirming Hagel. I just think that his ideology on foreign policy issues is wrong. It's nowhere close to the foreign policy Ron advocated.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Of course it is, particularly when it comes to votes on resolutions that mean nothing. No action required, no spending, no deployments, no resource allocations, nothing. If a resolution like today's is offered for strategic purposes (assuming my AIPAC angle is correct), then why not vote strategically in response? It's clear to me that Rand is playing chess while you're playing checkers.



Once again you are avoiding my point entirely. This resolution, imho, was specifically targeted to give ammo to media and pundits to smear Rand and other Senators as being "anti-Israel". No other reason. Im pretty sure you're a fan of Israel and intervention on it's behalf so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying.

Devil21 understands the way this game is played.

 

[cero]

Keep writing off the youth...

lmaoo 24 year old here, I'm balls deep into Rand.

 

[Warlord]

Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".

Iran is a distraction. The establishment do not want that fight and they made it clear today in that resolution. Regime change isnt even mentioned.

Obama says 'Assad must go'. He's not running round saying 'Ayatolla Kohmeni must go'. We need to fight against intervention in Syria.

 

[cajuncocoa]

But that means it's still a lie. Right?

It's really a meaningless statement since opinions aren't measured quantitatively.

 

[cero]

Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".

but he voted against preemptive war with Iran....

 

[cajuncocoa]

Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".

Rand could murder someone and some here would still make excuses for him.

 

[cajuncocoa]

lmaoo 24 year old here, I'm balls deep into Rand.

TMI.

 

[ican'tvote]

I didn't read this whole thread but I'll just say this.

Rand voted for sanctions on Iran a while ago. If this non-binding resolution is what makes him lose your support, you haven't been paying attention.I'm not disputing the awfulness of this resolution, or making excuses for him voting yes. I'm just saying that he's voted for worse stuff so this crap shouldn't come as a surprise.

Personally, I'd still gladly vote for him but I'm not interested in contributing my time and money like I did for Ron.. Unless I become seriously rich in the next two years.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.

That's simply not cool, for the same reason that a nonbinding resolution recommending that parents kill their two year old children would still simply not be cool. And the reason for that is NOT because utilitarianism dictates that 99% of people wouldn't like it, its because its wrong! And so the same principles apply. Man up and vote principle. Don't vote for Rand Paul.

Seriously, GTFO of Rand's subforum!!

 

[klamath]

I get that Rand is given special treatment in this subforum, but I don't think any subforum should be off-limits to any member here. Furthermore, when Rand casts an anti-liberty vote such as the one he cast today, it should be open to the criticism it deserves....in this subforum or any other. Just my opinion.

Including attacks on RP in the RPforum?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I get that Rand is given special treatment in this subforum, but I don't think any subforum should be off-limits to any member here. Furthermore, when Rand casts an anti-liberty vote such as the one he cast today, it should be open to the criticism it deserves....in this subforum or any other. Just my opinion.

If you wish to bash Rand join the Daily Paul or Dailykos. There are plenty of places on the internet to bash, this is the only place where Rand SUPPORTERS to brainstorm how to get Rand in the victory column.

 

[devil21]

And like I said, you can say the exact same thing about the other resolution, which Rand voted against. It seems clear that Rand didn't vote for this resolution for political reasons, but because he supported it. I'll give him credit for not voting this way for political reasons, because I don't think he did. If Rand voted according to what would help him politically, he would've voted against confirming Hagel. I just think that his ideology on foreign policy issues is wrong. It's nowhere close to the foreign policy Ron advocated.

THE OTHER RESOLUTION DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE WORD "ISRAEL" IN IT! Are you dense?

Ron never intended to win but that's for another thread.

 

[cajuncocoa]

If you wish to bash Rand join the Daily Paul or Dailykos. There are plenty of places on the internet to bash, this is the only place where Rand SUPPORTERS to brainstorm how to get Rand in the victory column.

Daily Kos? LOL