As debate looms, Rand Paul sees a chance to be the GOP dove

[JoeBags7277 734]

He's seeing the light, and not a moment too soon with Thursday's debate coming up. Quit trying to make nice with the warmongering imbeciles who hate and distrust you, and give your realist base something to be excited about, rather than more contortions we're tired of having to explain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-debate-looms-rand-paul-sees-a-chance-to-be-the-gop-dove/2015/08/02/f1b4450e-3927-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

[homersapien 11,353]

This would be a very interesting development. Of course, the big question is are there enough primary voting Republicans who agree with this perspective. If so, it would greatly enhance his chances in the general.

What's his position on the Iranian nuclear weapons agreement?

[JoeBags7277 734]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

[Strychnine 1,802]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

If he indeed wants to separate himself from the pack, that would be a good foreign policy issue to do so with.

[homersapien 11,353]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

As Weagle1787 said, I'm inclined to think he is still playing politics on it. His position may change if he sees results from shifting toward being a dove. Considering that Ron Paul supports it, I suspect Rand Paul's true opinion of it is more in line with that.

[homersapien 11,353]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

I don't know. But I think one could believe this is a bad agreement without being labeled a warmonger.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

I don't know. But I think one could believe this is a bad agreement without being labeled a warmonger.

Agreed!!!

[cooltigger21 0]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

I don't know. But I think one could believe this is a bad agreement without being labeled a warmonger.

Agreed!!!

Of course you can call this agreement a bad one and oppose it without being in favor of war. It's not an either/or situation with this.

[homersapien 11,353]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

I don't know. But I think one could believe this is a bad agreement without being labeled a warmonger.

That may work for you as a response but it sure doesn't work for Paul.

If you are a "dove" regarding the ME then you are either obligated to accept this agreement or come up with a definitive alternative that would achieve more than what this agreement does.

The only other argument is to insist the rejection of this agreement alone will result in a less dangerous dynamic than we have with it.

I am all ears.

[JoeBags7277 734]

This would be a very interesting development. Of course, the big question is are there enough primary voting Republicans who agree with this perspective. If so, it would greatly enhance his chances in the general.

What's his position on the Iranian nuclear weapons agreement?

As to the other major clause in there (enough primary voting Republicans...), sadly the answer there is a resounding no. If there were, Paul would have no reservations hitching his wagon to a foreign policy of true nonintervention, and there would be a major fight betwixt himself and perhaps two or three others- Cruz, Carson, perhaps- as to which is the "real" noninterventionist in the mix. Instead, in the post-9/11 GOP those of us who desire less bloodshed are left shaking our heads as the guy we have to trust makes all sorts of stomach turning overtures to bloodlusting neocons his father rightly condemned in the strongest of terms. All the while vividly remembering Bush 43 being elected during my teenage years on a promise of a more humble foreign policy.

I despise what Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and their death cult have done to the GOP.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

That may work for you as a response but it sure doesn't work for Paul.

You weren't talking to Paul. You were talking to me.

If you are a "dove" regarding the ME then you are either obligated to accept this agreement or come up with a definitive alternative that would achieve more than what this agreement does.

And perhaps he does. But that's a separate thing from your assertion that one can't be a dove and not support the agreement. That's simply not so.

only[/u] other argument is to insist the rejection of this agreement alone will result in a less dangerous dynamic than we have with it.

Did you fail logic class? There are other options, such as, we should have pushed for a different agreement and that we settled for one that isn't going to accomplish what the people who agreed to it says it will.

The options are not "this" or "nothing" when arguing that an agreement isn't a good one.

Have you never in your life been able to recognize that a certain idea or course of action isn't going to work, even if you didn't have an alternative option?

I am all ears.

Well, try being all eyes and order this book:

http://www.amazon.co...&keywords=logic

[homersapien 11,353]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

I don't know. But I think one could believe this is a bad agreement without being labeled a warmonger.

Agreed!!!

Of course you can call this agreement a bad one and oppose it without being in favor of war. It's not an either/or situation with this.

You guys keep saying that, but it is a matter of either/or. We either have the agreement in place or we kill it.

Now explain to me how killing it would make us better off than we are with it.

[homersapien 11,353]

That may work for you as a response but it sure doesn't work for Paul.

You weren't talking to Paul. You were talking to me.

Yes, and the above statement is directed at you regarding our discussion of Ron Paul.

[homersapien 11,353]

If you are a "dove" regarding the ME then you are either obligated to accept this agreement or come up with a definitive alternative that would achieve more than what this agreement does.

And perhaps he does. But that's a separate thing from your assertion that one can't be a dove and not support the agreement. That's simply not so.

Well, I say it is so. At the very least, this agreement will halt current development and defer any renewed development for 10 plus years. The worst that can happen is Iran violates the agreement. That takes us back to status quo ante, only we will clearly hold the political and moral high ground.

But like I said, I am open to any argument that explains how killing this agreement is more likely to preserve the peace, or at least prevent a greater war. How would it leave us in a better position.

In other words, on what logical basis could a ME "dove" oppose this agreement?

[homersapien 11,353]

Did you fail logic class? There are other options, such as, we should have pushed for a different agreement and that we settled for one that isn't going to accomplish what the people who agreed to it says it will.

The options are not "this" or "nothing" when arguing that an agreement isn't a good one.

Have you never in your life been able to recognize that a certain idea or course of action isn't going to work, even if you didn't have an alternative option?

1.) Citing what we might or could have done is not an option. (Do I need to explain the logic on that? :-\ )

2.) The options most certainly are "this or nothing". And those options are independent of the quality of the current agreement.

3.) Yes, I have frequently recognized that a certain idea or course of action is not going to work regardless of alternatives. That's certainly a possibility with this agreement. So what's your point?

[homersapien 11,353]

Well, try being all eyes and order this book:

http://www.amazon.co...&keywords=logic

I think you are confused. I understand the logic here.

I am asking for a logical reason why rejection of this agreement would promote peace more than by keeping it.

To put it another way, the mere possibility of a logical reason to reject the agreement means nothing unless one can produce it.

That's because the complete lack of a logical reason is just as possible, and in fact, is the prevailing reality until an example is proffered.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Logic says this "deal" means nothing....signed or not. Iran will do as Iran wants.

How Obama's Iran agreement repeats history (and not in a good way).

Posted by PragerU on Monday, August 3, 2015

[homersapien 11,353]

Logic says this "deal" means nothing....signed or not. Iran will do as Iran wants.

https://www.facebook...20225584686965/

No, that would be opinion.

And writing off the value of the Iranian agreement based on the concept of Iran's evilness is logical enough, it's just irrational.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Well, try being all eyes and order this book:

http://www.amazon.co...&keywords=logic

I think you are confused. I understand the logic here.

I am asking for a logical reason why rejection of this agreement would promote peace more than by keeping it.

But you are asking me, then counting it against Rand Paul because I don't know. I am not a ME expert. I haven't studied the ins and outs of this stuff. But logically speaking, one could believe this particular agreement is a bad one for various reasons and that we should have pushed harder for a better one. That's a third option that you are not allowing for.

To put it another way, the mere possibility of a logical reason to reject the agreement means nothing unless one can produce it.

While true in a practical sense (especially for a political candidate), that's not true when you make blanket statements that one cannot even "possibly" be a dove and oppose this particular agreement. You simply cannot make such a claim that you either support this or wish to do nothing and keep the status quo.

[homersapien 11,353]

Well, try being all eyes and order this book:

http://www.amazon.co...&keywords=logic

I think you are confused. I understand the logic here.

I am asking for a logical reason why rejection of this agreement would promote peace more than by keeping it.

But you are asking me, then counting it against Rand Paul because I don't know. I am not a ME expert. I haven't studied the ins and outs of this stuff. But logically speaking, one could believe this particular agreement is a bad one for various reasons and that we should have pushed harder for a better one. That's a third option that you are not allowing for.

Exactly. That's why I said "I don't know" works for you but not for him.

And again, the fact we might have done something differently does not represent a current option outside of the existing agreement.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It's a bad deal.....PERIOD.

[homersapien 11,353]

To put it another way, the mere possibility of a logical reason to reject the agreement means nothing unless one can produce it.

While true in a practical sense (especially for a political candidate), that's not true when you make blanket statements that one cannot even "possibly" be a dove and oppose this particular agreement. You simply cannot make such a claim that you either support this or wish to do nothing and keep the status quo.

I have yet to hear a logical or rational reason why reverting to the status quo ante would be preferable for avoiding war.

And I certainly can claim that a "dove" would logically have to accept the existing agreement. There are many compelling reasons to support that; I have yet to see a single logical or rational reason to disprove it.

That's because there aren't any.