19 votes

Rand Paul Votes in Favor of $631 Billion U.S. 'Defense' Legislation

EPJ: Rand Paul's To Do List before officially running for president:

Visit is Israel (scheduled for January)
Make sure Military-Industrial Compex is funded (Check)

The Senate, by a 98-0 vote, authorized $525.3 billion in baseline military spending, trimming only a small chunk from the administration’s $525.4 billion request. Thebill also authorizes $88.5 billion more for ongoing wars."

Continue reading at: Economic Policy Journal

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand Paul is NOT Ron

Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul.

News Flash.

You can say that again

You can say that again

Never said he was.....

...LOL...

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

I Know Your Type

Ron Paul voted for Bush in 2000, and Rand Paul is 1000 times better than him. I don't agree with him on everything but I still support Rand in general. Mike Lee of Utah is similar. Not everything but in general we're more in line than not.

So every time you get the urge to remind us yet again how non-RonPaul Rand is, just remember that RON PAUL VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000. And last I checked Bush 2000 was NO LIBERTARIAN.

That is because Bush was

That is because Bush was promoting a humble foreign policy pre election. Bush was so incompetent, he hired dick Cheney to handle his business. That was as idiotic as putting Dracula in charge of the nation's blood supply.

because bush ran on a humble foreign policy

rand however went for romney who wanted an aggressive, policing of the world, nation building, drone war policy. see the dif?
of course bush lied as most politicians are wont to do.

I Am As Pro Rand Paul As You Get...

...not saying anything against him. I know he is not his dad and I respect him for making his own decisions...Those decisions happen to be generally lined up with mine and that is why I want him to be president in 2016.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

he has as much chance being president

as alfred e. newman.

Didn't the Feinstein amendment

go into this? Wasn't the purpose of Rand getting the Feinstein amendment put in to make the bill do that he COULD support it?

The final bill was still bad.

The final bill was still bad. Ron Paul would get an amendment added (such as the audit the fed) to a piece of legislation he knew would pass (such as dodd-frank) and vote against the final bill. I'd like to see him vote against it, but I understand why he didn't.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

How could he possibly say...

..."vote for this amendment although I still won't support the bill if you do", doesn't make much sense.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

That's exactly the point I

That's exactly the point I was making. Why would Rand want to vote against a bill that contains an amendment that he worked so hard to pass?

The amendment confirmed what

The amendment confirmed what Lindsey Graham and McCain wanted: indefinite detention.

Stop trying to rewrite the truth.

WWRPD

I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul would have voted against this legislation. I'd like to hear Rand Paul's explanation of his vote for it. Son <> father, but I'm not ready to throw him under the bus until he has a chance to explain.

SteveMT's picture

I'm 100% sure that Ron Paul would have voted against this bill.

There is no doubt in my mind that he would.

[all satire.]
Rand is in the fold of the republicans. How can you change things from the inside unless you get on the inside? You get on the inside by voting with them. He doesn't want to get thrown off of the committees that he sits on like the House Liberty republicans were thrown off by Boehner. You have to abandon your principles to get ahead in politics. Ron Paul didn't understand this, Rand does.

...but this isn't "defense"

http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison.aspx

...he voted FOR empire...not defense. Do you think Ron would have voted for it? Take your NeoCon BS and shove it up your evil azz!

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

Ron never once voted for a

Ron never once voted for a defense authorization bill the entire time he was in Congress, which was then used against him by neo-cons to label him as "anti defense." The neo-cons would always say something like, "he isn't just opposed to the Iraq War, he's also opposed to defense as well. He regularly votes against defense authorization bills." Rand supports a more humble foreign policy, but he doesn't want to get tagged as being "weak on defense" as his father was tagged. He wants to be seen as someone who wants a more humble and more sane foreign policy, but also as someone who believes very strongly in a strong national defense.

By never voting against the

By never voting against the Constitution, Ron Paul woke up a generation.

You advocate for more of the same. Exactly what Ron Paul has fought against his whole career.

Well, I for one am sick and tired with traitorous politicians who vote against the Constitution. Fire them all! Any one act against the Constitution is a traitorous act against America, and deserves to be punished: high, wide, and handsome.

Last time they primaried Ron that neocon opponent said Ron voted

against 'body armor for the troops'. The commercial actually said 'why does Ron Paul want the troops to die', never mind that there were billions of dollars at any time in the pipeline to get the troops out. If you vote to fund it, you are voting for war. Obama said the same thing as a Senate candidate - then changed his mind as a Senator and voted to fund.

The purse string is the only string Congress has left, and precious little of that the way they pretend Congress shouldn't earmark but give all money in a blank check to the executive.

I'm not taking a position on Rand's vote until I am clearer on the Feinstein amendment, because that as an accomplishment is one thing, but the idea that you need to vote for the annual NDAA to get along is sheer cowardice and abrogation of duty, to me.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

Let's keep in mind that Rand

Let's keep in mind that Rand voted against the NDAA last year when it contained the indefinite detention provisions. So he doesn't vote for it "annually," and he will vote against future NDAA's that contain problematic provisions such as indefinite detention. But, Rand simply isn't going to vote against every single defense authorization act like Ron did. He'll vote for some and vote against others.

Oh, so he will vote

Oh, so he will vote unconstitutional when it is politically convenient?

NO!

That is the problem with America. WAKE UP.

What sense

would it make to vote against this?

Is it the soldiers fault that they are sent out to unconstitutional wars? Should they not be given the basic necessities?
Do you allow the government to send them out there but then take away their supplies?

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

The basic necessities? I

The basic necessities? I live near Ft. Bragg. Lots of these soldiers are buying $350,000 houses and driving expensive cars. When my grandfather served, his rank was much higher and he made WAY less money even when adjusted for inflation.

I wish I could say I'm exaggerating, but I am not.

Isn't the bill specific though?

I thought it read that it supplies certain equipment to different branches of the military.

I agree with you in general that there is too much wasted in the name of "national defense" but this bill doesn't seem to have wasteful spending in it, unless I am missing something.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Brilliant.. so to sucker you all they have to do is

run shit along with soldiers pay and boom.. you'll bend over.

You and everyone else that thinks he has no choice are doing nothing but enabling the unconstitutional wars and the immoral deaths of not only our soldiers but many innocent civilians so you can satisfy some twisted sense of patriotism.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I'm not sure what version of

I'm not sure what version of the Constitution you all read. My version specifically authorizes national defense. Rand voted in favor of defending our country. The defense bill also contains an amendment calling for the transition out of Afghanistan, which Rand voted for. Rand has also introduced multiple resolutions calling for an end to the war in Iraq and an end to the war in Afghanistan. He's been solid on those issues.

It's not the national defense they're complaining

about, it's the funds to overseas occupation. I would have voted for it too if it contains an amendment to transition our troops out of Afghanistan within a year.

If Rand had voted against

If Rand had voted against this bill, you could actually say that he voted against a bill that would get our troops out of Afghanistan.

....

This is just wrong.

Funding ongoing wars = more blood of innocents spilled.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

How anyone can get excited

How anyone can get excited about Rand 2016 is beyond me. What a coward! And he still has yet to apologize for his nasty comment in which he said that "he didn't think Obama could be any gayer."