Warlord
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2013
- Messages
- 11,694
That's the GOP for you. It's still pretty pro-war and neocons like Rubio will be employing that rhetoric and relying on it.
Hunting for votes is not evil. It's what you do with power that counts.
Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday
- Thread starter tsai3904
- Start date
That's the GOP for you. It's still pretty pro-war and neocons like Rubio will be employing that rhetoric and relying on it.
Hunting for votes is not evil. It's what you do with power that counts.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
True. I just read this over, if he votes for it I'm honestly probably done...
I initially thought it was just a "Defend Israel if they get attacked" resolution and I can live with that even though I don't like it. But advocating premptive war is just too much.
Rand: NO! Do not do this, or I am not going to vote for you. Period.
It will... Ron might be forced to do something he doesn't want to.
Independents can also vote in many of the primaries and caucuses in 2016.
My fear is that Rand will vote for it since I read that it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "unanimously," and Rand is a member of that committee. But, I'm not exactly sure what that means. Sometimes it simply passes by "voice vote" and there is no actual vote on a bill.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I can't in my state. I may want to watch this one before I register to vote because I'm only going to register Republican if I actually have something to gain from doing so. And I will not support Rand if he votes for this. Supporting actual preemptive war (I did state that I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if he supported DEFENDING an ally, even though I don't agree with that, but I have consistently stated that I will not tolerate a vote for outright initiating war) has always been my line in the sand. If Rand does this and he still wins, good for him, especially if he really is using the whole Leninist strategy, but I can only go by what he says and what he does. If he votes for this, I will assume the worst. I can't openly vote for evil.
Second time someone's said this and still don't understand this logic.
If he votes against this non binding resolution, you'll still support him even though he's voted for actual sanctions?
Would you still support Rand if he votes against this non-binding resolution but knowing that he's voted for sanctions?
FYI, Rand voted against the last non-binding resolution (he was the only NO vote) because he was afraid it was a vote for pre-emptive war.
http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/
http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I don't like sanctions, but that's a compromise I can live with. I can't live with support for actual war for any reason.
Opposition to free trade sucks as a policy, but isn't nearly equivalent to supporting outright murder. Rand would be implicitly supporting murder by government (Which is even worse, for the record, than supporting a mere "Right to murder" like the pro-choice, Roe v Wade advocates do). I can't vote for that. It would be evil.
If Rand really is undercover, good luck. He's not going to win or lose on one vote. I'm standing on my principles on this issue.
If Rand decides the neoconservatives are more important than people like me, he's losing me. I gave him a little leg room with the sanctions comments and the "We'll protect Israel if they actually get attacked" comments, but to outright support actually attacking anyone is not something I'll vote for.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Good for Rand. If he doesn't do it again, that means DC is starting to control him.
Rand Paul is the best senator we have but I will not vote for ANYBODY who supports outright preemptive war.
Rand doesn't support pre-emptive war, whether he votes for this resolution or not.
The last time he voted against an Iran resolution was because he's against a pre-emptive war. He also spoke for an hour against it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtdY9SGPq5E
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
If he votes for this, he's voting for preemptive war. In my opinion its immoral to vote for someone who supports that, no matter the reason.
If he spoke for an hour in the past, and now he votes for it, he should get out of the senate NOW because the District of Criminals is getting to him. There is a thing called "Corruption" and I don't think anyone other than Ron Paul has total immunity. Immunity isn't genetic either.
If he spoke for an hour in the past, and now he votes for it, he should get out of the senate NOW because the District of Criminals is getting to him. There is a thing called "Corruption" and I don't think anyone other than Ron Paul has total immunity. Immunity isn't genetic either.
RonPaulFanInGA
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,749
Oh Lordy, it's already starting and the vote is two days away. Think I'll avoid this website on Wednesday and Thursday to get away from the inevitable bickering. Even if he votes against this resolution, the arguing will probably still happen.
Last edited:
That's your opinion.
When Ron voted for the AUMF, Ron was voting to go into Afghanistan and get out. He wasn't voting for this 11 year war and drones into Yemen, Pakistan, etc. Many people interpret bills differently.
Rand has made it abundantly clear he is against pre-emptive war through hours of speeches and this vote won't change it. He may see that his changes prevent a pre-emptive war.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
You know, in one breath the Randroids say that Rand Paul is playing the game with his words, but votes like a libertarian, so disregard what he says, his votes reflect his Ron Paulian values. In the next, they say, it doesn't matter how he votes because he says the right things.
See how silly this is?
The bottom line is that the Randroids are nepotists, will never believe that Ron Paul could even exaggerate about his own son (These same people frequently make up actual compromises by Ron Paul that never actually happened, or bring up the stupid newsletter crap). Honestly, you guys are just making me even less confident that Rand is outside the system with the cognitive dissonance.
I can live with a vote for sanctions, I think its stupid, but it doesn't outright murder anyone like war does. I won't tolerate Rand voting for real war whatever phony justifications the Rand Paul Worshippers can create.
See how silly this is?
The bottom line is that the Randroids are nepotists, will never believe that Ron Paul could even exaggerate about his own son (These same people frequently make up actual compromises by Ron Paul that never actually happened, or bring up the stupid newsletter crap). Honestly, you guys are just making me even less confident that Rand is outside the system with the cognitive dissonance.
I can live with a vote for sanctions, I think its stupid, but it doesn't outright murder anyone like war does. I won't tolerate Rand voting for real war whatever phony justifications the Rand Paul Worshippers can create.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
If he votes against it, I'll completely support that choice. He has a chance to get me to trust him here.
As much as I'm not really a fan of Afghanistan here, at least we were KIND OF attacked. We weren't really attacked by Afghanistan, but the original intent of the AUMF as Ron Paul understood it was to get the terrorists that attacked 9/11. Honestly, considering blowback, I'm not sure that was a good idea, but there was nothing wrong with it on principle.
Bombing Iran, on the other hand, is wrong and murderous on PRINCIPLE. There's nothing "Defensive" about that.
If this bill was worded like "If Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel" or "If terrorists fly in from Iran and attack us" or something that might be different. But this bill clearly states that if Iran even tries to BUILD nukes we can attack them. No. you vote for this crap, I'm not voting for crap.
And yes, one vote can define crap. Not in every circumstance, but with something this serious, yes.
Who said it doesn't matter how he votes?
The argument is how you INTERPET the bills...
You may see this as a vote for pre-emptive war while others will not...
