90 votes

Peter Schiff Speaks With Rand Paul About Romney Endorsement

http://youtu.be/ygwZHpTUmaI

I think Rand does a great job explaining why he chose to endorse Romney and I support his decision. But I want to hear from you. Vote up or down or comment on how you feel about his explanation.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You got that right.

You got that right.

It was a FOOLISH thing Rand did & a HUGE miscalculation~~~

It was a foolish risk he took! Someone on this site said, "he was nothing without us. We 'made' him."

The irony is how true that statement became, at least & especially now--how it must be in the mind of Rand Paul after all that's happened.

You see, we overlooked his vote on sanctions against Iran, as he was still fighting for other issues. We knew after that vote that he could never be our leader, but we gave him a "pass" on that vote. So, give us some credit for being tolerant.

Why was it foolish? Because he really didn't believe he needed us---which is proved by the fact he "expected" some backlash. It was a HUGE MISCALCULATION on his part. As a result of our huge outpour of disgust & feelings of ultimate betrayal, he lost the very appeal that had elevated him politically and made the GOP take notice of him in the first place!

Now, he has lost all our support and hence, all credibility in the eyes now of the GOP, imo. He's a watered-down Senator, and I daresay he is damaged goods now. Sure the fellow RINOS will "say" things to him by putting RP Americans down, but IT WILL BE HOLLOW SYMPATHY assuredly.

What a sad, sad situation this has become~~all of it!

I'm ready, and I think we're ready to move on from this now.

I say we find and support people like RonP who will support the

freedom message across the board, or we go and find some other candidates from amongst our ranks, rather than support and finance people who don't support liberty as one complete unit!!

Your point ...

... is that Romney is better than Obama because he is not Obama.

My point is that, at the end of the day, they BOTH will violate YOUR rights and YOU will not see a trend toward liberty, which I presume YOU want or YOU would probably not be posting on THIS forum.

Yes and I conceded all the

Yes and I conceded all the above to you. But I am saying that Obama has done all the things Bush did only worse. Peter Schiff is right when he says "its unfortunate one of these two are going to win" but that Romney is the lesser of two evils.

Also, I am defending Rand Paul for his decision. He only came out to support Romney once his father admitted he did not have the delegates to win. And it is clear from this interview that this is something Ron and Rand discussed before Rand made his announcement. The guy is the most conservative Senator we have right now and I'm disgusted at people raking him over the coals because he knows he needs to retreat to avoid slaughter, the hallmark of any good general.

If the choice is between Obama and Romney,

you simply don't vote. In East Germany before the wall came down, the powers that be would give you five candidates to choose from in elections. The only honorable thing to do then, is don't vote, or hand in a blank ballot.

Obama=Romney=Goldman Sachs, et al. Ron Paul or no one.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from.

But how have those tactics worked in the past?

When Obama had both the House and the Senate, with Pelosi and Reid, did they "take it easy" on those who disagreed with them? Hell no. They pushed WAY beyond what anyone thought they would and did something RADICAL.

Rand Paul is trying to walk a tight rope. And it will get him -- and us -- abolutely NOWHERE in the final analysis.

Rand is a senator, not a representative. Do you know that the GOP has ACTIVELY tried to unseat Ron Paul for YEARS? One of the reasons there is bad blood between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich is that Gingrich actively tried to get Ron Paul out by agressively supporting his primary opponent. But Ron Paul became so popular in his district, that the GOP gave up.

Finally, this year because of the census redistricting, the GOP has succeeded in making it very likely that Ron Paul will not be able to win his district again. THAT is why Ron Paul is not running for his House seat anymore.

But Rand Paul is NOT a member of the House. He is a senator. If the liberty movement does not take hold within the next 4 years, RAND PAUL WILL LOSE HIS SENATE SEAT AT THE NEXT ELECTION.

So ultimately, what is there in it for Rand to play the GOP game? What's in it for Rand? Or Ron? Or us?

The Libertarian Party has been in existence for 40 years -- FORTY FRIGGIN' YEARS -- and what have they accomplished. Not a DAMN THING, that's what.

The LP was taken over by the neocons the past several years, and maybe now it is being taken back by real libertarians. We'll see.

The point is this: Romney is just ANOTHER in a long line of BIG GOVERNMENT-LOVING politicians. Bush. Gore. Obama. Romney. ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH.

THERE. IS. NO. DIFFERENCE.

That is the funamental disagreement we have. You think there IS a difference and I say there is NOT.

For you to be right, though, you will have to show me some EVIDENCE that Mitt Romney has actually WALKED THE WALK (not just spouted some empty rhetoric) that he believes in LIBERTY ... that he believes in SMALLER GOVERNMENT ... and that he WILL ACTIVELY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

At least Rand Paul is trying to walk the walk. I will grant that. But he is taking a BIG step backwards by endorseing someone who HAS NEVER -- NOT ONCE -- WALKED THE WALK ... and there is NO reason to believe that Mitt Romney will suddenly get religion. There is EVERY reason to believe he will continue down the SAME path as those who came before him.

Do you have any EVIDENCE to the contrary, or do you just umm ... HOPE ... for CHANGE?

Mitt Romney / Dr. Ron Paul

Only if people like Dr. Ron Paul, you and me give up and don't take over the Republican party. If Romney wins don't give him a free ride like Republicans of the past and every time he steps out of line, smack him with a ruler.
grant

#1, I do not accept your

#1, I do not accept your premise that Rand Paul cannot win re-election. He has actually voted the way he campaigned, a rare feat, and Kentucky is a fairly conservative state. Not to mention, he has great political promise and people will not vote out a politician that wields power and could be President. Don't under estimate people's pride in having a person from their home state being in the oval office. Look at Ted Kennedy. He killed a girl in the 70s and still stayed in office for 30 years.

#2, I am not arguing that Obama and Romney are not cut from the same cloth. If anything, everything I have said has said that Obama and Romney are both two very bad options and that neither will turn out country around. All I am saying is that Romney is the lesser of the two evils and that Rand's point on Romney's appointees is one with merit. You are implying that if I said Hitler was the lesser of two evils vs. Stalin because Hitler killed 6,000,000 people and Stalin killed 20,000,000, that Hitler was a good guy and that is not at all what I am getting at. My main point is that Rand could be President one day, he campaigned that he would support the nominee, whoever it is, and he has followed up on that promise, just like all his campaign promises. He deserves our utmost respect for going against the grain and supporting his dad throughout the entire primary process. But now that Ron has said he does not have the delegates to win, Rand is keeping his word and supporting the nominee against Obama. We owe Rand thanks and should be proud for him keeping his word.

Okay ...

... I can't stay and debate, but will leave you with this. We may have to agree to disagree.

(1) Time will tell regarding Rand's re-election. Certainly, the "Tea Party" types have continued having an effect on elections. Walker won his recall in Wisconsin. However, the power behind the scenes is not going to support Rand Paul. You can bet they will put up a GOP candidate in the primary and, if Rand beats their guy, they will not support him in the general. Rand is fighting a much tougher fight to stay in the Senate than Ron did in staying in the House. So, if Rand wants a future in politics, he should do what he's doing. But that means, by definition, he has compromised his principles. How much MORE will "they" demand from him before he decides not to play? How far will his proposals go? So far, they have gone nowhere. It will be difficult for him to get re-elected. Overall, he is still someone on the side of liberty, and I respect that. But he is using tactics that compromise his principles, and that has never worked before.

[EDIT: And by the way, WHY should Rand Paul WANT a "career in politics?" Why not SIX SOLID YEARS FOR LIBERTY, and then go back to private life????]

(2) As you know, the lesser of two evils is evil, by definition. That game has been played for YEARS ... no, DECADES. Election year after election year, we are told that we "have to" vote for the "lesser of two evils." And where has it got us? It has got us EVIL. Doing the same will result in the same.

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result. It is insane to think that playing the GOP insiders' game, when the GOP is controlled by neo-cons (who are socialists at heart) is going to result in any kind of advancement of liberty.

It will not.

Please understand, I am not attacking you personally. I was once insane, too. ;-)

But at some point, we have to look beyond the same-old lame-old rhetoric and look at the EVIDENCE.

MY primary objective is to advance the cause of liberty. I no longer believe that is Rand Paul's PRIMARY objective. It is important to him, sure, but it is not his PRIMARY objective.

What is YOUR primary objective?

Trust me, I take no personal

Trust me, I take no personal offense to differences in opinion. Healthy debate is vital.

My goal is to promote the cause of liberty and I do believe that is Rand's goal as well. Rand did not compromise from the beginning. I encourage you, and everyone, to listen to his Daily Paul Radio interview. Rand was knocking on doors for his Dad at age 11 and I challenge anyone here to say they were doing that at age 11 for Ron Paul. Rand has done more than all of us for liberty, and he doesn't owe us a damn thing. Furthermore, the best thing Rand can do for liberty now that Ron has admitted he won't get the nomination, is to stay in office. He is not going to stay in office breaking campaign promises, which, if you listen to his Daily Paul Radio interview, includes him supporting the republican nominee against Obama whoever it is. Look at Rand's voting record, compare it to all other current Senators, and tell me his primary goal isn't liberty. This man deserves our thanks and people among us are making death threats? Encouraging violence? Posting addresses online? Such action should never be taken by libertarians.

Overall ...

... I agree with you.

minor tweaks in our country's current victor are still going to

take us over the cliff, Ron Paul has said just this week that we are going to have bankruptcy in our country for sure, and we need to wake as many Americans up to the facts of the matter so they know what is up!!! It won't mean two flying fucks if we have a few liberty candidates in the machine if the roaming masses don't have a fucking clue when the wheels fall of this con game of the politicians!!! This is why Rand's endorsement besides all the other obvious issues which have been stated before annoy me to a large extent!!

We are all annoyed by this.

We are all annoyed by this. There isn't a person here who didn't devote precious time and money to Ron's campaign. Every person here believes with their whole heart that the best, and really only, hope for our country is Ron Paul. My point is that yes, while Romney will not be a good president, he would appoint less radical people to regulatory positions, Supreme Court Justices, perhaps a more conservative Fed Chairman than Ben Bernanke. There will be bumps in the road. He would do several things we will all take issue with, probably every other week. But, he is still the lesser of two evils.

Btw, I'm writing in Ron Paul's name if I even vote.

In this video RonPaul is prettyconfident thatwe can get an audit

of the Fed and he says that we will for sure go through a bankruptcy!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beHoyjpUGcI

And another thing ...

Why the h*ll did Rand have to endorse Romney BEFORE the GOP convention in Tampa -- when his father IS STILL IN THE RACE ???

There must be a story behind the story on that one.

If my father was running for office, one of only two remaining active candidates, then even if he was at less than 1% of the vote, I would WAIT until after the other guy was OFFICIALLY declared the nominee.

THEN, if I wanted to, I might enorse that other guy.

WHY NOW, RAND?

There is something he is not telling us.

Did you listen to the

Did you listen to the interview? Rand discussed this with his father before doing it. They discussed the email Ron sent out conceding he does not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to take a step forward. Let's focus on the big picture here.

I want tohear the story from Ron paul himself 'cause that is the

only guy in the campaign at this stage who I really trust to tell me it strait!!!

Hence allthespecualtion ofadeal beingmade, because itone doesn't

make any since and his actions were way too coordinated and synchronized with the campaign's actions to be a shear coincidence!!! Hence the million dollar question!!

I reallyfeelthat RonPaul is kindofbeing isolated by his campaign

because look how he interacts with his supporters, same as always!! Why doesn't someone interview him after these speeches and ask him some quesitons??? I don't think it's Ron Paul who has changed at all but rather his inner circle, the campaign, and the opportunistic people in the campaign and in Ron's own family are wrongly influencing and directing our campaign. Thank God almost all of us work completely independently of them!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beHoyjpUGcI

"In any compromise between

"In any compromise between food and poison, only poison wins."

~ Ayn Rand

*RAND* Paul, of all people, should take that quote to heart.

Endorsing Mitt Romney, who NOBODY knows anything about in terms of his political ideology (they only know he was a "businessman"), is a compromise of PRINCIPLE.

It is okay to compromise TACTICS. I want to cut the budget 99%; you say, no let's only cut it 50%; we compromise by cutting 60%. That is a compromise of TACTICS without a compromise of PRINCIPLE.

But if I want to cut the budget 99% and you say, no let's increase it 20%, and then we compromise by increasing it 10%, that is a compromise on my part of PRINCIPLE. That is NOT okay.

An endorsement of Romney is a compromise of PRINCIPLE. That is eating "just a little poison."

Not okay, RAND.

The message

that one can take out of this interview, especially from what's being said around the 10th minute, is vote for lesser of two evils. If you are for freedom, then you cannot possibly get in bed with and endorse evil. Given this fact and the "superb" timing of the endorsement, Rand Paul backlash from the freedom movement is well deserved. On Peter Schiff suggestion to vote for Romney/Paul ticket in 2012? You must be kidding me!!! Gary Johnson 2012!

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

Agree

There is no lesser of two evils. They are just evil. Is it not the whole point that we reject this false reasoning? If all the effort just reduces to the 'lesser of two evils' then the effort was in vain.

PR

The takeaway from 2008 & 2012

The takeaway from all of this is that we can now say we have the "RON PAUL STANDARD."

Throughout his career, Ron Paul as stood on PRINCIPLE. He may have switched from Republican to Libertarian and back to Republican. He may have co-sponsored and voted on proposed legislation along side people he fundamentally disagreed with BUT ONLY WHEN THOSE PROPOSED LAWS DID NOT VIOLATE HIS PRINCIPLES.

In short, Ron Paul may have "compromised" by utilizing different TACTICS along the way, but he NEVER COMPROMISED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY. That is the Ron Paul Standard by which we can judge future politicians.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, has violated the principle of liberty because he thinks the tactics of party over principle will somehow eventually get him to acheive his principles. He will have to do it within a den of vipers, though, and that is highly unlikely.

In 2008, nobody knew what the f*ck Obama really stood for. They simply drank the Kool-Aid, held their nose, and voted for Mystery Man X. They could have been voting for Hitler, for all they knew. THEY HAD NO CLUE WHO THEY WERE REALLY VOTING FOR. They just wanted to vote Anti-Bush.

In 2012, we have the exact same thing playing out with Romney. Nobody knows what the f*ck Romney stands for BECAUSE HE DOENS'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE WHAT HE STANDS FOR ... OR HE'S PURPOSELY HIDING WHAT HE STANDS FOR.

Any endorsement of Romney is equivalent to saying, "OK, I'll drink the Kool-Aid and hope for the best."

It is naive at best. And it is certainly not a way of upholding the principle of liberty ... at least, for those of us to actually HOLD the principle of liberty dear.

The lesser of two evils is, by definition, evil.

Having said that, Rand Paul is still trying to move the ball in the right direction. I would support his efforts as it relates to the legislation he votes on.

However, I would support the next candidate who proves to uphold the "Ron Paul Standard" over Rand Paul in a heartbeat.

Rand is both part of the solution and part of the problem.

Well, well, spokenTommy Paine!!!!!! I tip my hind to your wisdom

and your ability to articulate your wisdom so effectively!!

Well

It's obvious the Rand must be reading a lot of the online comments in regards to his endorsement seeing that I have noticed that over the last week or so he has taken some digs at the online community with comments like "They think they rule the Internet" I guess we'll see the truth in that come next election time for him.

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

1

sorry double post

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

listening to this interview

I am more annoyed than I was not having listened to it.

he goes on and on about people on the internet , he needs to know without us people on the internet he would not be in the SENATE!!!

Also he seems to think he is going to influence romney

just like Rand speaking out against bilderberg and then saying "no comment" a few weeks later , come on dude , he has sipped way to much of the RINO kool aid as they say.

Willard will not be influenced by RAND , I THINK RAND IS DELUSIONAL THAT THE DELEGATES ON THE CONVENTION FLOOR WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR RON!!

WHY HASNT HE BEEN VOCAL ABOUT THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE PRIMARIES AND CAUSCUSES , ALL OF WHICH WILL COME OUT IN COURT EVENTUALLY.

RAND IS GOING TO BE LOOKING STUPID FOR HIS DECISIONS AND THE PAUL CAMPAIGN IN GENERAL FOR NOT MAKING THE FRAUD MORE OF A MAINSTREAM ISSUE!!!!!!!!!

PLAY ALONG TO GET ALONG , NO THAT IS NOT GOING TO WORK

SORRY

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

You know if Rand had any taste or class he would of at least

picked a good looking whore to have an affair in public with!LOL!! I mean if he would of came out with his endorsement on someones show like Peter Schiff who has been a friend of our movement and who's dad is a true living patriot, then I think there wouldn't have been so much vitriol toward him. And if he had a little bit of shame he would of never of said that he was "happy to endorse and would campaign for" Mitt Romney. Poor, poor, choice of words there!! And he would of done this after the Convention in Tampa in order to let the super hard working freedom fighters in the trenches(mainly the delegates) execute their hail marry pass attempt at the convention to get a brokered convention without trying to take the wind out of their sails nor sabotage them like this. If he would of had any sense, taste, and class as a career politician I think most RP supporters would of wished the career politician well with his logrolling schemes, and there would of been very little in the way of real negative comments hurled at him, even though a lot of freedom fighters would of definitely of taken the move badely!!! Plus one had to love the shout out he did to the "RP supporters who think they own the internet, maybe they do maybe they don't" oh, the same people who funded, supported you, and financed your campaign solely thanks to the Net!! If it wasn't for the Net I believe there is almost no chance Rand would of been elected, and without the name recognition thanks to his dad and support of his Dad's supporters there is absolutely no way in hell he would of won his seat!!! Nice shout out Rand, to the people who made you politically speaking!!

I'm over him

It doesn't matter to me anymore. The problem I have with Rand is the fact that he not only endorsed Romney, he went beyond the pale to say he would "happily CAMPAIGN for him" BIG DIFFERENCE. Also the fact that Rand said these things on Hannity, the neocon that kept bringing up and accusing Dr Paul of racism. I will NEVER forgive the neocons for such hateful accusations!

Let Rand go, it no longer matters. Let him feel good about trying to introduce bills that will never pass. IF they would pass by some miracle then I would give him kudo's and my respect. But I have a news flash for Rand, if he thinks that the PTB and the neocons are going to support him on bills for auditing the fed, sopa, cispa, TSA, NDAA etc he is living a fantasy just like he and Peter accused us. These issues and presidential directives that were shoved down our throats are not going to be reversed by a group of corrupt and devious politians. If they were to even try, the lobbists, big bankers and special interests would want their bribes and insider trading money back. How do you think that a Congressman can go from wealth of 1 million to 100 million by being in office 4 years?? And we are the ones that live in a fantasy? lol