Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And gets the details wrong because he hasn't read it.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

“1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

“I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal -- News from Antiwar.com

His posing as a neocon to fool warmongers into supporting him has backfired, because they've got far more credible candidates to support than Rand, and all he's succeeded in doing is alienating his natural libertarian base. So what does he do? He doubles down on a strategy that's proven to fail. It's almost painful to watch.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. I'm to the point where if hell indeed did freeze over, and the race was between Sanders and Paul, I'd be sorely tempted to vote Sanders.

 

[konradv]

What a clown!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah. I'm to the point where if hell indeed did freeze over, and the race was between Sanders and Paul, I'd be sorely tempted to vote Sanders.

I wouldn't vote at all, but definitely wouldn't take Bernie over Rand.

 

[gipper]

And gets the details wrong because he hasn't read it.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

“1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

“I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal -- News from Antiwar.com

His posing as a neocon to fool warmongers into supporting him has backfired, because they've got far more credible candidates to support than Rand, and all he's succeeded in doing is alienating his natural libertarian base. So what does he do? He doubles down on a strategy that's proven to fail. It's almost painful to watch.

It is too bad Rand wasn't more like his daddy. He will go nowhere in the race for POTUS.

 

[dblack]

And gets the details wrong because he hasn't read it.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

“1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

“I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal -- News from Antiwar.com

His posing as a neocon to fool warmongers into supporting him has backfired, because they've got far more credible candidates to support than Rand, and all he's succeeded in doing is alienating his natural libertarian base. So what does he do? He doubles down on a strategy that's proven to fail. It's almost painful to watch.

It is too bad Rand wasn't more like his daddy. He will go nowhere in the race for POTUS.

Well, that would actually be more like his daddy. The difference is that, while Ron Paul had no real shot at the White House, he made the case for real libertarian ideals, Rand does have a shot, and he's not making an honest libertarian argument.

The calculus from Rand's view, I'm assuming, is that the reason he still has a shot is that he's waffling on hls true ideals, that he's not making the case for freedom like his dad did. And that that's a necessary ploy to have a chance at winning. But I'm reminded of a quote from Lawrence of Arabia:

"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it."

 

[gipper]

And gets the details wrong because he hasn't read it.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

“1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

“I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal -- News from Antiwar.com

His posing as a neocon to fool warmongers into supporting him has backfired, because they've got far more credible candidates to support than Rand, and all he's succeeded in doing is alienating his natural libertarian base. So what does he do? He doubles down on a strategy that's proven to fail. It's almost painful to watch.

It is too bad Rand wasn't more like his daddy. He will go nowhere in the race for POTUS.

Well, that would actually be more like his daddy. The difference is that, while Ron Paul had no real shot at the White House, he made the case for real libertarian ideals, Rand does have a shot, and he's not making an honest libertarian argument.

The calculus from Rand's view, I'm assuming, is that the reason he still has a shot is that he's waffling on hls true ideals, that he's not making the case for freedom like his dad did. And that that's a necessary ploy to have a chance at winning. But I'm reminded of a quote from Lawrence of Arabia:

"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it."

Not sure what you mean.

Ron would approve of better relations with Iran. Rand appears to be taking the neocon approach of condemning this deal without knowing its details, because of a dislike for BO and to support the military industrial complex.

Do not get me wrong. I would gladly vote for Rand over nearly all the other candidates. However that does not mean I don't have my reservations. He does appear to be trying to straddle the fence.

 

[dblack]

And gets the details wrong because he hasn't read it.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

“1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

“I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal -- News from Antiwar.com

His posing as a neocon to fool warmongers into supporting him has backfired, because they've got far more credible candidates to support than Rand, and all he's succeeded in doing is alienating his natural libertarian base. So what does he do? He doubles down on a strategy that's proven to fail. It's almost painful to watch.

It is too bad Rand wasn't more like his daddy. He will go nowhere in the race for POTUS.

Well, that would actually be more like his daddy. The difference is that, while Ron Paul had no real shot at the White House, he made the case for real libertarian ideals, Rand does have a shot, and he's not making an honest libertarian argument.

The calculus from Rand's view, I'm assuming, is that the reason he still has a shot is that he's waffling on hls true ideals, that he's not making the case for freedom like his dad did. And that that's a necessary ploy to have a chance at winning. But I'm reminded of a quote from Lawrence of Arabia:

"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it."

Not sure what you mean.

Ron would approve of better relations with Iran. Rand appears to be taking the neocon approach of condemning this deal without knowing its details, because of a dislike for BO and to support the military industrial complex.

Do not get me wrong. I would gladly vote for Rand over nearly all the other candidates. However that does not mean I don't have my reservations. He does appear to be trying to straddle the fence.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. It's hard for us who know his background, and his father's politics, to know for sure if he's merely "hiding" his true libertarian values, or forgotten where he's put them.

 

[gipper]

And gets the details wrong because he hasn't read it.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook page, “libertarian-ish” GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has come out against the recently signed accord between the P5+1 and Iran, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Here is his statement in full:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

“1) Sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

“I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal -- News from Antiwar.com

His posing as a neocon to fool warmongers into supporting him has backfired, because they've got far more credible candidates to support than Rand, and all he's succeeded in doing is alienating his natural libertarian base. So what does he do? He doubles down on a strategy that's proven to fail. It's almost painful to watch.

It is too bad Rand wasn't more like his daddy. He will go nowhere in the race for POTUS.

Well, that would actually be more like his daddy. The difference is that, while Ron Paul had no real shot at the White House, he made the case for real libertarian ideals, Rand does have a shot, and he's not making an honest libertarian argument.

The calculus from Rand's view, I'm assuming, is that the reason he still has a shot is that he's waffling on hls true ideals, that he's not making the case for freedom like his dad did. And that that's a necessary ploy to have a chance at winning. But I'm reminded of a quote from Lawrence of Arabia:

"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it."

Not sure what you mean.

Ron would approve of better relations with Iran. Rand appears to be taking the neocon approach of condemning this deal without knowing its details, because of a dislike for BO and to support the military industrial complex.

Do not get me wrong. I would gladly vote for Rand over nearly all the other candidates. However that does not mean I don't have my reservations. He does appear to be trying to straddle the fence.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. It's hard for us who know his background, and his father's politics, to know for sure if he's merely "hiding" his true libertarian values, or forgotten where he's put them.

Hiding your true values may work for Ds, since the media will cover for them. It will not work for Rs because the media will expose them.

Rand has already alienated his base with this foolish neocon positions. Without his base, he is done.

IMO he had a strong base already in place, because of his daddy. Instead of expanding that base, he appears to have shrunk it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Scribd
What's Voluntary?

Iran will abide by its voluntary commitments, as expressed in its own long-term enrichment and enrichment R&D plan to be submitted as part of the initial declaration for the Additional Protocol to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.

 

[Mad Scientist]

In your glee to hammer ONE person, looks like you guys skipped over something. The paragraph RIGHT BEFORE your "Money Shot".

20. The EU will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation implementing all EU proliferation-related sanctions, including related designations, 8 years after Adoption Day or when the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier,

So the Sanctions will remain in effect for another 8 years or when the IAEA reaches a "broader conclusion"? Isthatrite?

 

[Faun]

Rand who?

 

[Mad Scientist]

What Executive Orders are these?

xix. Terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, and 13645, and Sections 5 –7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So this deal trumps State Law?

25. If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States (Feds) will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities,with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and torefrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

But then again, Policy does NOT equal Law!

I remember a time when Reporters used to do what I'm doing now. You know, READ something BEFORE commenting on it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Hmm. Looks like there's a difference between " Implementation Day", "Transition Day" and "Termination Day".

Hint: Words have Meaning.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Here's the "Snap Back" provision that you guys want Lurch to get the Nobel Prize for:

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM 36.
If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same.

Sounds reasonable right?

The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member).

That means any THREE members of the U.N. ANY member. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

That means Iran can complain, get ONE other country to agree, then it has grounds to cease compliance.

I'm not even past page 20 of 159 and I can ALREADY see how f*cked this thing is.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It sure looks to me like Rand Paul read the agreement.

It sure looks to me like Rand Paul understands the agreement.

But hey, he stands in the way of the Old Blue Waffle getting elected so he must be destroyed no matter the cost right?

 

[bendog]

He's turned into the non-serious gadfly he was suspected to be, and fallen into the neocon line to be accepted by the GOP neocon donors. A lot of us didn't take Reagan seriously, and he proved us wrong, but he did so by sticking to his principles and convincing his doubters. And even then, the neocons were literally horrified when he negotiated with Gorby. It was like .... "but we thought he was FOR war!" LOL

 

[Mad Scientist]

This is the problem with America. You want to discuss something and all most people know to do is to take sides.

American League/National League
Coke/Pepsi
CNN/Fox
Republican/Democrat

Discuss actual problems? Look for solutions? Nope. We only care about Bruce Jenner, Homosexuals and Sports.

Iran will sign this then do what they want. But by that time you'll have had Lurch get his Nobel Prize and you'll have the Old Blue Waffle in the White House.

And the worst part is: You'll think you've actually won something.

 

[charwin95]

Since when Rand Paul agreed on anything with the Obama administration.