-35 votes

Rand Paul interview regarding Iran and immigration


Published on Feb 2, 2013
Senator Rand Paul discussed immigration reform, the Iranian nuclear situation and the Benghazi terrorist attack on WMAL.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I guess everyone prefers Rand bashing

And war is OK.

Free includes debt-free!

Whats next rand? killing

Whats next rand? killing children with drone strikes is just part of "national security"


Maybe he is still just pretending, so he can get the votes of the Neo Cons. *rolls eyes* I'm sorry, I know Rand has done some good things, but being open to preemptive war, wanting to raise the pentagon budget, and supporting Romney before Ron Paul had fully dropped out of the race, is just too much for me to support him for a presidential run. I'm sure I'll get plenty of down votes, but I have to be honest with myself.


I will say it again because people here dont remember but pretend they know what theyre talking about.

Ron dropped his bid in an email to us on Tuesday, 3 days after the violent La convention and 2 days before the Texas Republican Convention, where he was scheduled to speak and Romney, the presumed nominee never showed his face and was in Nevada.

Ron dropped his bid at 11am on tuesday by email, and Rand came out "supporting governor romney " on the sean hannity show that night, saying "I endorsed my dad, Ive always ENDORSED my dad but he is no longer in the race so now I am supporting romney".

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

no he didn't. Here is a youtube from Jack Hunter the night

the email saying he wasn't spending money to campaign more in upcoming primaries but would still be fighting for delegates came out - when media immediately tried to spin it as Ron's 'suspending' his campaign:


and the next day Ron gave a tremendous speech at the Texas Gop convention - asked to speek about Republicans Uniting he said they should unite behind the Constitution, not behind bad ideas, and spoke of when he was a delegate for Reagan at a divided convention with two on the ballot, and that it was the last time that happened. He also spoke of what he would do were he president.

The facts are the facts.

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


That was published on May 14.
Ron pauls second email was on tuesday june 5th. (I received it)

Yes, youre right- those pesky facts again.
"all though this is not enough to win the nomination".


"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Having enough to 'win the nomination' and 'be nominated'

were not the same or why did the same email say they were still fighting for delegates?

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

"all though this is not

"all though this is not enough to win the nomination" was Pauls way of saying its over. He wanted delegates to make the changes to the GOP that are needed, and to gain influence in the party but he essentially ended his campaign with that email and 6 hours later rand went on hannity to say he was "supporting gov romney".

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

clearly since that exact email you are quoting ALSO said Ron was

still fighting for delegates, and the very next day BEFORE Rand went on Hannity Ron spoke at the Texas state Gop convention and clearly WAS still fighting for delegates, he obviously hadn't 'dropped his bid'. And if you have that email in hand saying he was fighting for delegates, it seems odd you could say so.

I do seem to have been wrong about the date of that video I posted, however. I remembered it and pulled it up and didn't check the date. The rest is still accurate, though.

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


yes he was fighting for delegates, but he dropped his bid by saying
he did not have enough to win. He admitted it and that is case closed.
Many including myself, did not believe it and kept fighting, but I remember clear as a bell many supporters broke away and took paul at his word that he clearly did not have enough delegates to win.
Personally I think he sent that email because of what happened at the La. Convention- He sent a shot around the establishment admitting he did not have enough delegates.
Ron Paul effectively ended his campaign that day, but told us to continue the fight.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016


Rand PUSHED FOR DIPLOMACY, said Russua and China (and India) need to be part of the conversation concerning Iran.

All options are on the table.. Nothing wrong with that BECAUSE he made it clear that DIPLOMACY AND TRADE ARE HIS OPTION.

Rand is changing the GOP and that's what the Rand HATERS HATE about Rand. They hide behind Ron Paul (as if their $20.12 was support, it was chump change) and they employ it as if that's some sheild or excuse for their HATE. But all they do is expose themselves for being no better than the closed minded HATERS in this world.

IF DIPLOMACY FAILED, all options are on the table.

Rand has PRIORITIZED, made it clear, DIPLOMACY AND TRADE are what he wants. GO RAND GO. RIGHT ON.

The smart folks here will learn from Rand and together we are the ones who will be the change we want for a peaceful prosperous America.

PS I downvoted the POS post because it's title is a lying hit peice.

SHAME ON YOU.. so desperate.. pathetic really.

Non-aggression is key here

This is my question for you, what has Iran done to the US? Would Iran's possession of a nuke constitute an act of aggression toward the US? Was the US aggressive toward USSR by pointing nukes at them and vice-versa? If so, would that justify an act of war by that nation?

In defense of your defense of Rand, he has stated that for the president to go to war, it should require a declaration of war. I think if Rand was president, he would follow the constitution better than anyone else in the running.

I appreciate your dissenting voice. Dissenting voices are important in an honest discussion. Just as we would not benefit from a congress of "yes men", we would not benefit from a forum of "no men".

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Iran sells it's oil to Russia and China and India

Iran also trades oil for uranium. Russia, China and India use that oil to build their militaries, which are advancing technologically. We are still ahead.. but if Russia, China and India, with Iran's help, went against the USA, I can't say that we would win. And the USA being #1 makes us a target.

The interesting thing about nukes, such as Israel, is bombing Israel would make that area a grand canyon of black glass, create a nuclear holocast, and fortunately, no one in power wants that.. for now.

Thank you for the last two paragraphs. I am willing to be wrong because I am willing to be educated. I don't have to be right. I will stand for the underdog, like Ron Paul, and now Rand Paul, because I know, many of those who oppose Rand, really oppose the GOP and wished that what Ron Paul did would help their party, truth be damned. This post upset me because it not honest. Rand Paul did not ever say he wanted pre-emptive war. He stated three times he wanted diplomacy and trade, and IF that failed, than all options are on the table. How could they not be?


Change is NOT playing by a neocon rule book. Messages are being sent. They are being sent to the American people and people around the world.

"IF DIPLOMACY FAILED, all options are on the table."

I will not entertain that reasoning. It has bit us before, and it will bite us again. There are innocent lives at stake. It is past time to grow up and stop playing games. It is past time to take the lead. It is past time to truthfully educate everybody about the truth. It is past time to take our nation back and restore to what is right, and into prosperity.

Do you honestly believe that if Rand IS playing a game of chess, that the neocons do not know this? Do you honestly believe that the neocon statists will magically come around and change their minds and let Liberty win over their objectives?

There are mid-terms coming up. It is time to replace ALL those who oppose Liberty and replace them with VETTED individuals who will represent us with integrity and honesty.

Sorry Granger, but I had to vote your post down :-( Please try to clear your mind and rethink this.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I seee no Neocon rule book


A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.

You don't like Rand that's fine by me. You're a big boy. I like Rand and I like what he said HIS OPTION IS DIPLOMACY AND TRADE.

And IF that doesn't work why not all options? He's far more honest than your Obama.

By the way,, got your guns ready for the civil war?

Because your neocon rule book is written on the fly.

Leaving that """option""" OPEN also leaves the option to fail. Then what. We invade yet ANOTHER nation who has done us no harm.

Sorry Granger, but I call things as I see them. As for your distasteful and uncalled for comment "than your Obama".. YOU voted for that nwo neocon reject obam-ney. I voted my conscience and voted Ron Paul. Facts are in the puddin', sweetheart.

You are quite accomplished at giving mixed signals. I strongly suspect that your goal here is to do the same for next election. Yes, I am a big boy. I ain't buying your or anyone elses anti-Constitution rhetoric. Grrrrr!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


Rand's option is diplomacy and trace FIRST, adn if it fails then what?

Then what options do you want him to limit himself to????

No mixed signal from me.. I'm willing to be wrong because I'm willing to learn, and so far all I'm learning is the LP resents Rand because they were hoping to ride on Ron Paul's coat tails.

I voted as I agreed I would with the loyalty oath I had to take to be a Ron Paul delegate.. NO ONE on my committee voted for Romney in the primary, so we are all equals now, except I have Rand Paul and they got Rubio. Who have you got? No one.

You're happy, I'm happy.. and know this.. I'm not going to agree with you in an attempt to be your friend, I'm going to call it as I see it because friendship isn't threatened or weakened by disagreements, but stronger for surviving them in the name of LOVE.

TRUE LOVE ((((((PAF)))))) TRUE LOVE can take it.


I have taken a deep a breath and decided that we are both right on certain things. Can we not use obama and romney against each other anymore?

As far as riding RP's coat tails, that is what I am expecting all elected to do, no matter what party he/she may belong. If it raises the bar only slightly then it becomes higher than it was previously.

I am hugely disappointed...grassroots pushed for RP to run without support of the establishment (see Ron Paul Recut video). Since then, this grassroots has grown leaps and bounds beyond any other. My hope was that this was out time, and we would continue to grow and prop our own Liberty candidate without relying on establishment to choose for us. It has become obvious to me that this will no longer happen.

TRUE LOVE can take it. Yes, Granger, you are very right and the feeling is mutual :-)

I was going to put something mushy and nice for you (I will make it up to you), but this how I am feeling because of this entire thread:


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


I agree to the Obama/Romney truce.. it fits neither of us. I'm sorry I went there. Bad Granger.

Forgive me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFNqj3RGUuM

Diplomacy with Iran...

over WHAT!?!?!?! What has Iran done that is illegal or conflicts with a treaty that Iran is party to that requires diplomacy? Who have they attacked or are poised to attack?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

The sale of Oil for Uranium to China and Russia/India

Let me begin by saying it takes a lot of oil to run a military. Miltary consumes far more oil than we the people, and in China and Russia they spend far more oil on their military than their people.

So when China and Russia trade oil for uranium with Iran, we have a problem, because what you are seeing is not these countries lifting their people out of the dark ages, but enforcing their military.

That said, who built the oil indistry in the ME. Americans.

American technoloigy, equipment, labor, investments.. When Carter was in office and we had the embargo it's because the Arabs decided to TAKE our technology, equipment and investment, break their deal.. say No thanks and get out, this is ours now.

Well, we aren't going to stand for that. Why should we? Now we have Rissua and China trading with Iran for uranium (which is a limited reasource) and if it was for their people, that's OK, but they proove repeatedly, it's not for the people, it's for their military.

We should not have to be the police of the world, nor should we have to protect what is ours, but they have proven that if we don't.. they will take. No country gives more than the USA. The USA is a wonderful Nation and absolutely our politicaian have made BAD BAD BAD mistakes..

Rand Paul is making it very clear DIPLOMACY and TRADE are his option, and if HIS option did not work, well, then why wouldn't all options be on the table?

Russia and China/ and India have advanced weapons, star wars, nukes.. They have advanced technology and if you think they care and love America so much that they wouldn't take our investments and leave us a puddle of black glass, you are seriously mistaken.

No.7's picture

((((The Granger)))) Riddle me this

If terrorists really want to nuke an American city then why the hell won't we secure the border????

I think that's the million dollar question we should be asking Republicans. I think the clear answer is to move resources overseas home to secure the border. This would neutralize the terrorist threat, eradicate Mexican drug running, and fight illegal immigration.

I think this could become part of Republican's thinking if we campaign for it right. Merle Haggard just made a song called America First (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodJB1tRNVE).

America First seems like a great slogan for securing the border that could catch on with typical Republicans to me. What do you think?

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

I agree about the border

But Iran is not about the border, it's about our investment in the ME oil that we developed. We made a deal, did our part, and they pose a threat to taking our investment and making us like rural China.

I think Rand's thinking is becomming main stream Republican and I think that upsets Libertarians and the basis of the arguments on DP.

Sound to me like your turning to the dark side.

Your very own version of the Niger Yellowcake deception. WMD,WMD scary Russian, scary Chinese. Be very afraid.

I think the GOP is washing your brain but good.

Free includes debt-free!

Fear is not part of my mojo

Nothing scary about it.. We built the oil industry in the ME and unfortuantley until we are free from oil, we're going to have to fight to keep the deals we made in good intentions (led to hell,, here we are.. wars wars wars).

Then who are your trying to scare?

The whole oil dependency thing is propaganda for war.

While were drooling over the oil they bring us they are putting us trillion dollars in debt.

So we can have the oil, when we can pay for it.

Free includes debt-free!

No one

What have we got to replace oil?

We do pay for it, we developed it, it's our technolgy, our equipment, our investment and our agreements that they want to break so we will pay more for it.

If I wanted to live in rurla China I would move there.

WE did not. Why are we protecting their foreign assets.

Why are taxpayers protecting the assets of foreign or international companies?

Why we fight, There are four goals oil companies have:

Control extraction/production

Control deliveries

Control distribution

Eliminate competition.

None of them do the consumer a whit of good.

So why should we pay for the privilege of paying a monopoly supplier too much for their product.

There is plenty of oil. Why did they want to take Iraq offline. Kuwait offline, Libya offline. Why do they want to take Iran offline. To create a Saudi monopoly?

During the early years 2002-2008 the strategy worked when priced in gold.

Then our war expenditures broke the economy and gasoline use plummeted. That means more wars to create more shortages to bolster the prices.

The free market can produce what government wars can't or won't. That is lower prices for consumers.

Governments fail. Markets come and go but tend to give consumers the most bang for their buck

Free includes debt-free!

In other words...

you are a Kissinger-esque realist neocon. Your reasonings and the resulting foreign policy positions are identical.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

The reason the LP is nowhere doing NOTHING

is moochers like you.