Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Rand is about as nutty as a squirrel's turd.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

I'm not sure how this disproves anything that's been said or pointed out previously.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Not even sure what your point is here. The Feds undermine state law all the time. If that's your point I agree with it, but I don't see how it relates to Rand Paul's obviously erroneous statements.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul is opposed to the agreement?

Wait, wait, wait. Let me guess:




He's a Republican.







What do I win?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

So you're just ranting in a delusional manner.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

There was no question Rand would never get neocon support. His paltry fundraising bears this out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Literally whines about people taking sides, and then throws in some partisan nonsense. Hilarious.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I find it interesting that many of those who oppose the Iran deal haven't read it yet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul gets it right.

 

[Liminal]

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.

The same is true for all Republicans, we shouldn't expect anything but a political response to what they don't know.

 

[dblack]

Ron Paul gets it right.

I've been wondering if Ron Paul would endorse Rand Paul, should he win the nomination?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Don't think you'll have to worry. We'll probably get bush and clinton again.