PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul: Fraud, Failure, Liar



Ethereal
07-29-2015, 01:39 PM
Rand Paul: Fraud, Failure, Liar (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/07/28/rand-paul-fraud-failure-liar/)

This time, he’s crossed the Rubicon

by Justin Raimondo (http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/), July 29, 2015

(Antiwar) - As the smoke wafted up into the already smoggy Los Angeles air, a group of young libertarians watched as Jayel Aheram burned his “Stand With Rand” t-shirts. He had two of them, a token of his former esteem for the “libertarian-ish” presidential candidate and Senator from Kentucky, whose father had inspired young Jayel to identify as a libertarian and become active in the movement. A former Marine and Iraq war veteran, the now 31-year-old Aheram had phone-banked for Rand, and enthusiastically retweeted the Senator’s pronouncements on Twitter. He had even forked out $35 for those T-shirts – and now they were going up in flames as he and a group of young libertarians sat on the roof of Jayel’s Los Angeles apartment, drinking beer and glumly contemplating what had brought them – all former supporters of Rand Paul’s presidential campaign – to this point. As Charles Davis writes over at MondoWeiss:

“So what prompted such a fiery stunt on a Saturday night? Simple: The son of Ron opposes the deal with Iran over its nuclear program, faulting the agreement for lifting sanctions on the Islamic Republic before ‘evidence of compliance.’ Paul still insists he prefers peace to war – who doesn’t? – and that he favors a negotiated settlement to the West’s standoff with the Islamic Republic, he just doesn’t support the only one that will ever happen, functionally making him pro-war. Worst of all: He’s lying to do it.”

Aheram and his friends had stood by the Kentucky Senator for many months, even as Rand occasionally waffled and made some statements that didn’t sit well with them by any means: the military budget proposal that actually called for an increase in what is laughingly referred to as “defense” spending, and his signing of an “open letter” to the Iranian government authored by neoconservative warmonger Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Strauss), who made no bones about his determination to scotch the looming deal with Iran. These things had disturbed them, but not enough to extinguish all hope that Sen. Paul – who had, after all, been brought up by a father whose dedication to liberty and peace is unquestioned – could and would serve as an admirable spokesman for their cause.

But it was the lie that vanquished that hope.

In questioning Secretary of State John Kerry at a hearing on the Iran deal before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Sen. Paul cited what he said were the Ayatollah Khamenei’s words:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true.”

Claiming that this contradicts the administration’s contention that the deal “would prevent [the Iranians] from getting a nuclear weapon,” Paul averred that “the Ayatollah is saying the opposite.”

But what did Khamenei really say? Here’s the entire quote:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

This was no mistake on Rand Paul’s part. It was a lie, and he repeated the lie to Fox News in an interview with Lou Dobbs:

“I made a point that the ayatollah is now saying that the deal does not prevent them from having a nuclear weapon and I thought that’s precisely what the deal is supposed to do, so I don’t know how we can have an agreement that President Obama says means one thing, John Kerry says means one thing, but the ayatollah says doesn’t mean that at all.”

So Rand Paul is now repeating AIPAC’s dishonest talking points. This is reminiscent of the same sort of propaganda that led the US to invade Iraq: “factoids” ripped out of context and promulgated by the Bush administration and its pet neoconservative pundits to create an entirely false picture of an Iraq that was seeking nuclear weapons.

Rand Paul continues sucking up to neo-cons who hate him and will never support him, losing his crucial base of support in the process.

Now he is brazenly lying about the Iranian government's public position on nuclear weapons, causing him to lose even more support among his young base of supporters.

I stopped supporting him a while back when he voted to send $200 million of American taxpayer money to the Israeli government while the Israeli military was committing war crimes against the Palestinians.

Just remember that even Rand Paul says he's not a libertarian. That goes for his supporters and detractors. Rand Paul does not represent libertarians.

Chris
07-29-2015, 01:52 PM
He's turned from mildly hawkish to full blown neocon hawkish.

He's definitely not libertarian but many libertarians still support him, which is hard to believe. http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/ for example seems mixed. There's a thread there now, http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/3exozb/libertarian_donors_put_up_6_million_for_rand_paul/. About the only real libertarian comment is the following:


Rand need to actually sound like a libertarian. Then I'll actually donate to him.
"I'll lower taxes, fuck Iran, help poor people, I don't want to be spied on"... what about this message is libertarian? It sounds like the most middle-of-the-road bullshit campaign you can dream up.

kilgram
07-29-2015, 01:57 PM
Just he is showing his true face before time :)

The Xl
07-29-2015, 01:59 PM
I called this back in 2013. I was opposed by many fellow libertarians, including an infamous sock puppeteer.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

Ethereal
07-29-2015, 02:10 PM
He's turned from mildly hawkish to full blown neocon hawkish.

He's definitely not libertarian but many libertarians still support him, which is hard to believe. http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/ for example seems mixed. There's a thread there now, http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/3exozb/libertarian_donors_put_up_6_million_for_rand_paul/. About the only real libertarian comment is the following:

Maybe he thinks the neo-cons will change their minds after they see how amenable he is to being molded by them. I don't really know. All I know is that his biggest opponents going forward are likely to be libertarians.

Chris
07-29-2015, 02:13 PM
I called this back in 2013. I was opposed by many fellow libertarians, including an infamous sock puppeteer.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

I was fooled for a while. But you and ethereal set me straight. :yo2:

Chris
07-29-2015, 02:14 PM
Maybe he thinks the neo-cons will change their minds after they see how amenable he is to being molded by them. I don't really know. All I know is that his biggest opponents going forward are likely to be libertarians.

He can have votes like ransom's. Then no one will doubt!

Ethereal
07-29-2015, 02:15 PM
Just he is showing his true face before time :)

Part of the problem is that nobody knows what his "true face" is. One day he is talking up libertarian values the next day he is lying through his teeth about Iran.

Ethereal
07-29-2015, 02:17 PM
I called this back in 2013. I was opposed by many fellow libertarians, including an infamous sock puppeteer.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

I wanted to give him a chance, and for a while he seemed to walk the line, but he's betrayed the movement too many times at this point. I still support a lot of his domestic policies on criminal justice reform and domestic spying, but on foreign policy he is an adversary to the libertarian movement.

kilgram
07-29-2015, 02:37 PM
I was fooled for a while. But you and ethereal set me straight. :yo2:

I said the same also in the same time as XL or even before.

Отправлено с моего GT-S6500D через Tapatalk

Bob
07-29-2015, 02:53 PM
/fail

Chris
07-29-2015, 02:59 PM
Part of the problem is that nobody knows what his "true face" is. One day he is talking up libertarian values the next day he is lying through his teeth about Iran.

Way politics works these days. Depends on which group you're talking to, what part of the country you're in, down to a science, of sorts. Those who hear what they want to hear get all excited and stop listening while he says something else, and just about the time they start listening again, going wait a darn minute there, he rolls back to saying what they want to hear. There's too much information, no one can put it all together. Same for any politician. Am I cynical? :)

Safety
07-29-2015, 03:29 PM
I called this back in 2013. I was opposed by many fellow libertarians, including an infamous sock puppeteer.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

Politician....what else needs to be said?

PolWatch
07-29-2015, 03:35 PM
Way politics works these days. Depends on which group you're talking to, what part of the country you're in, down to a science, of sorts. Those who hear what they want to hear get all excited and stop listening while he says something else, and just about the time they start listening again, going wait a darn minute there, he rolls back to saying what they want to hear. There's too much information, no one can put it all together. Same for any politician. Am I cynical? :)

Where does being a cynic stop and being a realist start? I think I'm a cynic because I'm a realist.

Green Arrow
07-29-2015, 04:03 PM
There's a reason I'm throwing my full weight behind Sanders now.

Common
07-29-2015, 04:08 PM
Some here used to get angry with me, when quite a while back before any talk of presidential runs I said Rand Paul was a chameleon and he lied and flipflopped often.

I also said Rand Was not Ron Paul and hes nothing even close to being similar. Rands flipflopping had to catch up to him.

The Xl
07-29-2015, 04:13 PM
I knew Rand was a fraud from go when he was talking about an attack on Israel is an attack on America. What utter nonsense.

Peter1469
07-29-2015, 04:16 PM
I support Rand. He is a conservative with some libertarian leanings. Particularly in fiscal matters.

He may be pandering to neocons be he is clearly more of a realist in the Reagan stripe as opposed to the warmongers.

donttread
07-29-2015, 05:03 PM
Rand Paul continues sucking up to neo-cons who hate him and will never support him, losing his crucial base of support in the process.

Now he is brazenly lying about the Iranian government's public position on nuclear weapons, causing him to lose even more support among his young base of supporters.

I stopped supporting him a while back when he voted to send $200 million of American taxpayer money to the Israeli government while the Israeli military was committing war crimes against the Palestinians.

Just remember that even Rand Paul says he's not a libertarian. That goes for his supporters and detractors. Rand Paul does not represent libertarians.

If everyone bailed on a candidate for disagreeing with one point we'd have no candidates left. I personally believe that whomever wants nukes and can build them should have them. History tells us countries in possession of nukes don't tend to get invaded
. So if Rand disagrees on this one issue it is not a deal breaker for me

Chris
07-29-2015, 05:09 PM
I think it all comes down to whether or not you're libertarian or how strongly you identify as libertarian. More so, you resent that he in a way hides behind his father's libertarianism, less so, his conservatism is more acceptable.

birddog
07-29-2015, 05:30 PM
I don't believe Rand Paul will be nominated, but if he is, he would be far better than Hillary!

The Iran Agreement certainly is a bad deal, but most "sheepies" don't believe it. Sad! It potentially gets us very little, but gives Iran everything they wanted. The imbecile Obama is even giving them billions of dollars! What an idiot!

donttread
07-29-2015, 05:40 PM
I think it all comes down to whether or not you're libertarian or how strongly you identify as libertarian. More so, you resent that he in a way hides behind his father's libertarianism, less so, his conservatism is more acceptable.

I myself differ from Libertarians in two major ways
1) I believe that for freedom to live the megacoprs must die.
2) I strongly people is some, well evaluated , hand up programs social problems at the state level.

Chris
07-29-2015, 05:51 PM
I myself differ from Libertarians in two major ways
1) I believe that for freedom to live the megacoprs must die.
2) I strongly people is some, well evaluated , hand up programs social problems at the state level.

Lower case l libertarian. :)

1) In a free market megacorps would not exist.
2) You're a Hayekian libertarian. Hayek accepted that level of the state.

Chris
07-29-2015, 05:52 PM
I don't believe Rand Paul will be nominated, but if he is, he would be far better than Hillary!

The Iran Agreement certainly is a bad deal, but most "sheepies" don't believe it. Sad! It potentially gets us very little, but gives Iran everything they wanted. The imbecile Obama is even giving them billions of dollars! What an idiot!


Sanders would be better than Hillary. Hell, Obama would be better. :D

Green Arrow
07-29-2015, 07:46 PM
In slightly related news, my Bernie Sanders bumpersticker came in today :D

donttread
07-30-2015, 07:54 AM
Lower case l libertarian. :)

1) In a free market megacorps would not exist.
2) You're a Hayekian libertarian. Hayek accepted that level of the state.

Good to know. Does that have anything to do with Selma Hayek?