# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  [Audio] Rand Paul on The Peter Schiff Show talking about endorsement

## McChronagle

Today Rand will be the second guest on Peter Schiff's radio show "explaining" why he endorsed Mitt. Schiffradio.com


[update] download mp3 here:
http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/schiff...aul_061212.mp3

----------


## green73

Tube:

----------


## phill4paul

Thanks for the  'heads up.'

----------


## schiffheadbaby

Hey can someone youtube this part?

I know it's a lot to ask for but I would greatly appreciate it

----------


## Sola_Fide

Bump for the tubes if possible

----------


## green73

> Hey can someone youtube this part?
> 
> I know it's a lot to ask for but I would greatly appreciate it


I'm sure somebody will, probably even Schiff himself.  

http://www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport

----------


## squarepusher

Schiff isn't known for giving people free rides.

----------


## McChronagle

If not they put the most recent show up for free to download until the next show. I haven't checked on the full site but the mobile site separates the interviews from the rest of the show.




> Schiff isn't known for giving people free rides.


I'm not sure if you are reffering to giving Rand a free ride of an interview or not but Schiff was very supportive of Rand's endorsement and for good reason in my opinion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Rand's in a tough spot here.  He could say something really good or something really bad right now.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

THe show is up... its free to listen to today from 10am-12pm...

Rand is the 2nd guest.

http://www.schiffradio.com/

----------


## eric_cartman

Rand Paul will be on the Peter Schiff Show today.  Peter said that he'll probably be on in the last half hour.

http://schiffradio.com/

However, Peter has been defending Rand's decision to support Mitt... so i'm not sure that he's going to ask him too many tough questions about his endorsement.

EDIT: SORRY, 11:30am EST is probably when Rand will come on.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

yea it will sadly be softball probably

----------


## eric_cartman

at least we'll hear rand explain himself.  and you never know... peter might play devils advocate and ask him a few tougher questions

----------


## Elwar

He will be answering questions of Daily Paul readers here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/239483/excl...your-questions

----------


## eric_cartman

here is the question i would ask: 

"Would you still have endorsed Mitt Romney if he ran on a platform of legalized paedophilia and allowed anyone to go into public schools to rape little kids?"

Rand would answer: "no"

"Well, Mitt Romney hasn't planned to legalize paedophilia... but he does want to go to war with Iran... which is also pretty bad."

So Rand would not be willing to compromise his principles with respect to paedophilia... but he is willing to compromise his principles with respect to starting a massive new war... as well as all the other crazy policies that Romney supports.

And people might think this question is a little bit extreme.... but potentially starting WWIII is almost as horrific as legalized paedophilia.

----------


## matt0611

> here is the question i would ask: 
> 
> "Would you still have endorsed Mitt Romney if he ran on a platform of legalized paedophilia and allowed anyone to go into public schools to rape little kids?"
> 
> Rand would answer: "no"
> 
> "Well, Mitt Romney hasn't planned to legalize paedophilia... but he does want to go to war with Iran... which is also pretty bad."
> 
> So Rand would not be willing to compromise his principles with respect to paedophilia... but he is willing to compromise his principles with respect to starting a massive new war... as well as all the other crazy policies that Romney supports.
> ...


Rand will probably oppose the war unless there is a declaration by congress.

Ron has endorsed a candidate for senate who is for preemptive war against Iran.

----------


## McChronagle

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Schiff-Radio

----------


## green73

on now

----------


## matt0611

Rand says he discussed it with his father beforehand.

----------


## tsai3904

Rand saying he had many discussions with Ron regarding this issue even right before Ron sent out his email about not having enough delegates.

----------


## phill4paul

Basically, Rand says that he was forced to endorse the nominee as part of the deal to become a Republican Senator.

----------


## TheGrinch

Well, there you go... If he didn't support the candidate, then it'd hurt us fighting the fights we can win in Tampa, and the door would close on support for bills he's working on like auditing the fed and industrial hemp.

Everyone needs to listen to this...  Whether you agree or disagree, there was very much a good reason that he and his father made this decision. Since 2010, they've been holding it against him that his dad didn't support the nominee, and so they weren't going to let them do the same to Rand, to paint him as an outcast.

Plain and simple, this is a small concession you have to make to work within the party and win fights we can win.

----------


## tsai3904

He also brought up an interesting question.

He said he thinks the Chairmanship of each state Republican party must endorse/support the GOP nominee.  Given that our supporters are the Chairmen of the Alaska GOP and Iowa GOP, what should we expect them to do?  Resign from their positions or support the GOP nominee?

----------


## ctiger2

> Plain and simple, this is a small concession you have to make to work within the party and win fights we can win.


Yep, all the Paul haters (Alex Jones) need to listen and re-listen to this.

----------


## tsai3904

> Yep, all the Paul haters (Alex Jones) need to listen and re-listen to this.


Most of them don't care what the reasons are.  I really think there's nothing that will ever change the minds of most of them.

----------


## jkr

the timing is what bothers me.
i wanted to see an actual VOTE at the convention, win or loose, i wanted to believe that somehow, somewhere our votes DO count.
what rand did confirms that our vote doesn't matter at all. he said it was over when we haven't gone to convention yet. this is admitting that bilderburg appoints our "president" not ANY of US.

got disenfranchisement?

write in RON

----------


## specsaregood

Well its clear now why schiff got his new nationwide radio gig.  /s

----------


## chronicaust

I think this interview proves Rand's intentions of pushing freedom in the Senate. Rand is obviously very depressed about the fact that we aren't understanding this. I don't think he is a traitor, I think he is looking at what Ron did and trying to improve upon it. Ron was a great philosopher, but not a great politician. Rand is trying to be both, and I think we should really stand behind him and trust his decisions. Ron is obviously on board with this decision and I think that we should trust the Paul family on this one. They have been working on this for decades and now that we have a real chance to make a change, some of us are leaving them behind over an empty political endorsement. Let us not rush to judgement. There is plenty of time before 2016 to decide whether or not to support Rand. I think he will prove to us in that time that he is in this for the long haul just as Ron was.

As an aside, I would like us to take a moment to pause and reflect on what Ron has done for, all the time and energy he has put into, all the lost time with his family he sacrificed for, all the various opportunities he's given up for this movement. For Liberty. He has done so much for this country and I sincerely believe when the history books are written, his name will be significant in the movement to swing this country politically toward the Constitution. Thank you so much Ron Paul, no one else was brave enough to do what you did.

----------


## ctiger2

> the timing is what bothers me.


Did you miss the part where KY had their convention on Friday and Rand HAD TO ENDORSE BEFORE THE KY CONVENTION? He did it Thursday night on the last show he could've done it on. In other words, he waited until the last possible second.

----------


## Sola_Fide

To me, Rand's explanation went above and beyond.  Peter had great points too.  Everyone here needs to listen to this.

----------


## tsai3904

> the timing is what bothers me.
> i wanted to see an actual VOTE at the convention, win or loose, i wanted to believe that somehow, somewhere our votes DO count.
> what rand did confirms that our vote doesn't matter at all. he said it was over when we haven't gone to convention yet. this is admitting that bilderburg appoints our "president" not ANY of US.
> 
> got disenfranchisement?
> 
> write in RON


How do words change reality though?  If Ron Paul supporters can vote for Ron Paul at the convention, you think they're not going to do it because Rand said it's over?  Even before Rand said it's over, most everyone knew that it would take an unforeseen miracle to win, and that can still happen.  Ron Paul delegates will still go to Tampa and vote for Ron Paul.  I'm not sure what's changed.  

We're positioned to win Iowa's state convention this weekend.  Even after all this, I'm still pretty sure we're going to win Iowa's state convention.  Nothing's really changed...

----------


## Bruehound

> the timing is what bothers me.


The timing is what indicates it was likely *Romney* who paid the price. If this were simply Rand playing the role of a good soldier it would have happened after the nomination was official. To me, the timing means we got something.

----------


## jkr

sure endorse him, wont effect my actions

but SAYING _the nomination process is over_ before it is disturbs me A LOT

its NOT over
people will be in tampa

 i used to race.
always race to the checkers



is the checkers in tampa or is it all a show?

----------


## ohgodno

Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government… just so we can have _influence_ on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore. 

Sounds smart to me, sign me up.

----------


## specsaregood

> The timing is what indicates it was likely *Romney* who paid the price. If this were simply Rand playing the role of a good soldier it would have happened after the nomination was official. To me, the timing means we got something.


Tie in all of what Rand said with what Amash posted yesterday:



> My short time in Congress has convinced me of this simple truth—a truth I did not fully appreciate when I arrived: No amount of congeniality can change the system. *A raw desire for power drives the Establishment. They respect you only when they fear you.*


I'd say it is encouraging.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government… just so we can have _influence_ on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore. 
> 
> Sounds smart to me, sign me up.


You're telling me you don't think Mitt Romney will change his tune on civil liberties or the FED because Rand is on his good side?

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government… just so we can have _influence_ on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore. 
> 
> Sounds smart to me, sign me up.


You didn't listen to the interview did you?

----------


## tsai3904

> Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government… just so we can have _influence_ on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore. 
> 
> Sounds smart to me, sign me up.


No one here is endorsing/campaigning for Romney....

Did you not listen to his interview?  You didn't get the impression that it's something HE had to do...not us?  Do you think if he wasn't a Senator he would endorse Romney?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You didn't listen to the interview did you?



Doesn't look like it.

----------


## V3n

I think the endorsement actually helps us in Tampa.  The Good 'Ol Boy party only wants to work with people who go along to get along.  Rand did that step for us!  They'll come expecting us to go along...

(so now we don't have to!)

----------


## TheGrinch

> Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government just so we can have _influence_ on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore. 
> 
> Sounds smart to me, sign me up.


First off, Romney not following the platform his constituents lay out only provides more leverage to go against him later... Why do you think Romney even has a shot at beating Obama? Because he hasn't fulfilled his promises....

But obviously you didn't listen to the interview, because this also has to do with things unrelated to the president and really could mean much more to the economy: his bills he's trying to get passed to audit the fed and legalize industrial hemp. If he hadn't made the endorsement, then the door would have been closed on support for those very important measures to get this country headed in the right direction.

But whatever, haters gonna hate... If this interview doesn't help you to see the big picutre and who we're up against, nothing will...

----------


## ohgodno

> But whatever, haters gonna hate... If this interview doesn't help you to see the big picutre and who we're up against, nothing will...


I see what Rand's "big picture" is… and you're right it won't change my mind. Because I don't agree with his vision. 

He's not about tearing down the corrupt system… he's about incrementalism. Sure we can all say "he's fighting for the right things though" and make ourselves feel better, but that isn't changing ANYTHING. The way to get change is to pull the rug out… show that the emperor has no clothes… not point out how nicely they make his figure look.

His vision is exactly the "progress" he spoke about in the interview (a success in his eyes, a failure in reality) - bringing a bill to the floor to lose 10-90. 

Compromising principles to get a bill to the floor is a losing battle. Sure he'll get us a vote for Audit the FED… and I'll email my corrupt Senators 100's of times, but that won't change anything.

Well… something will have changed I guess… the "leader" (as perceived - and we all know perception is reality in politics) of our movement will have been shown to sell out and play by the rules, to play into the ruling elites hands… to get the ability to maybe, somehow, _hopefully_ get something passed.

That's not something I can get behind, if you are… then go for it. Haters (without principle) gonna hate.

----------


## tsai3904

> He's not about tearing down the corrupt system… he's about incrementalism.


The problems are so bad you can't expect to change things on a dime.  Even Ron Paul doesn't want to end the Fed in one day.  Would you call that incrementalism?   What about Ron's plan for entitlements?  He doesn't want to end those in one day either.  What about Ron submitting a three year balanced budget?  Is that something we shouldn't get behind because it doesn't balance in one year?

----------


## TheGrinch

> The problems are so bad you can't expect to change things on a dime.  Even Ron Paul doesn't want to end the Fed in one day.  Would you call that incrementalism?   What about Ron's plan for entitlements?  He doesn't want to end those in one day either.  What about Ron submitting a three year balanced budget?  Is that something we shouldn't get behind because it doesn't balance in one year?


Some people just don't understand the uphill battle we face... You either take the gains that you can get and work towards making them the majority views of the party, or you stay destined to be an irate minority that they shun to the side as "fake republicans"..

And this talk like it's abandoning principle to make a meaningless token endorsement so that you can gain support to fight for your principles like ending the fed, well, that's rather ironic. 

To them it matters if you're "one of us". That doesn't matter to Rand one bit, if "us" can actually become *us*...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Tube or it didn't happen...

----------


## twomp

> He also brought up an interesting question.
> 
> He said he thinks the Chairmanship of each state Republican party must endorse/support the GOP nominee.  Given that our supporters are the Chairmen of the Alaska GOP and Iowa GOP, what should we expect them to do?  Resign from their positions or support the GOP nominee?


And if they don't? What happens? They get arrested? Maybe shot?

----------


## ohgodno

> The problems are so bad you can't expect to change things on a dime.  Even Ron Paul doesn't want to end the Fed in one day.  Would you call that incrementalism?   What about Ron's plan for entitlements?  He doesn't want to end those in one day either.  What about Ron submitting a three year balanced budget?  Is that something we shouldn't get behind because it doesn't balance in one year?


Those actions have a guarantee of results though - what Rand is talking about is bringing a bill to a vote—this is what he compromised the perception of the liberty movement for… A bill on the floor is a lot different that getting it passed… no progress is made there. NONE. Nothing actually comes of it… other than some great YouTube vids I can listen to while at work of Rand speaking in favor of it.

While we're on the subject… watch how fast the oil, corn, logging, paper etc lobbies are in the Senate once they get even the faintest rumor of a Hemp bill coming to the floor - I'm sure that'll lose 10-90 also. But it will be a great step forward for liberty… to see a bill debated on the floor.

All the while Goldman Sachs rakes in the money and Jesse Benton laughs all the way to the bank consulting for Romney endorsed candidates. It's a win-win for everyone.

----------


## kuckfeynes

You guys are forgetting that if Romney gets into office with our help, every destructive decision he makes will be tied to us as well. The blood will be on all of our hands. Congressional votes against those decisions (if they even go to Congress) won't matter; public perception will be that the GOP is the same as it ever was, and all this great rhetoric from Goldwater to Paul will be just that... rhetoric. Goodbye independents, goodbye Democrats, back to the margin we go, game, set, match.

----------


## tsai3904

> And if they don't? What happens? They get arrested? Maybe shot?


If the two options are (1) support the GOP nominee or (2) lose your position as Chairman of the State Party, what would you do?

----------


## twomp

> If the two options are (1) support the GOP nominee or (2) lose your position as Chairman of the State Party, what would you do?


Last I heard, the Chairman was elected. I didn't know the RNC had the power to just fire/hire a Chairman of a State Party. What if there was a 3rd option? The 3rd option is you say nothing. What would you do? Since we are playing the "what if" game.

----------


## TheGrinch

> NONE. Nothing actually comes of it… other than some great YouTube vids I can listen to while at work of Rand speaking in favor of it.


You clearly did not listen to the interview...

If he didn't make the endorsement, then the door would have closed completely for republican support... If he can now get some bipartisan support, it can actually happen... If he hadn't made the endorsement, the chances would have gone from not great to impossible.

Fine if you want to disagree, but the way some of you are treating him like scum without even realizing what he's trying to accomplish is completely short-sighted. He's fighting for our ideals the best way that he and his father know how to... Ron's seen with his own eyes how much steeper of a battle you face with 40 years of not playing the game at all... Ron worked to get us enough support for our ideals, but the time has come for someone who can actually work with the party to maybe get some things done, rather than just us bitching about getting done.

You speak of ripping the emperor's clothes off. I'm entirely curious how you propose to do that... It's really easy to be an internet tough guy and act like everyone is a sell-out, but our delegates also realize that you have to blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out, and then you're guaranteed to accomplish nothing.  I'll take slim chances to make gains over our current situation of no chance by refusing to even be civil with the party we're trying to take over.

You say principle over party, I say stakes over principle. I don't care how we have to do it, the stakes are too high to not try... You can remain ideologically pure as an outcast, while we try our best to save this country.

----------


## twomp

Btw any chance for a Tube on this? I would like to hear what he has to say. I am not a "Rand hater" nor am I a "Rand supporter". I just am against all this GOP "kissing the ring" stuff and I think the GOP has served its purpose and that DR. Paul should be the anchor of a 3rd party. Sure, he might not win but from what I hear, he aint going to win the Republican nomination either?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> the timing is what bothers me.
> i wanted to see an actual VOTE at the convention, win or loose, i wanted to believe that somehow, somewhere our votes DO count.
> what rand did confirms that our vote doesn't matter at all. he said it was over when we haven't gone to convention yet. this is admitting that bilderburg appoints our "president" not ANY of US.
> 
> got disenfranchisement?
> 
> write in RON


^^^ THIS ^^^ in case anyone thinks we are just whinning, we're not sore loosers and it's not that we won't play fair, we're tired of it being called before the end of the last quarter even by our own players !

----------


## tsai3904

> Last I heard, the Chairman was elected. I didn't know the RNC had the power to just fire/hire a Chairman of a State Party. What if there was a 3rd option? The 3rd option is you say nothing. What would you do? Since we are playing the "what if" game.


Some bylaws might state that they must support the GOP nominee.  If there was a 3rd option of say nothing, I would go with that option.  Now your turn.  If there were only those two options I mentioned, what would you do (for the third time)?

----------


## TheGrinch

> You guys are forgetting that if Romney gets into office with our help, every destructive decision he makes will be tied to us as well. The blood will be on all of our hands. Congressional votes against those decisions (if they even go to Congress) won't matter; public perception will be that the GOP is the same as it ever was, and all this great rhetoric from Goldwater to Paul will be just that... rhetoric. Goodbye independents, goodbye Democrats, back to the margin we go, game, set, match.


Not true... It gives ammo for Rand later to fire back at him that he didn't fulfill his promises that the party laid forth in their platform... If we make the platform, and he doesn't follow it, then you can very easily put that all on him.

Why do you think Romney even has a shot against Obama? Because he hasn't fulfilled his promises.... No one is placing blame on the Democrats that Obama hasn't lived up to his "hope and change" rhetoric.  If they didn't hate republicans so much in an election year, Obama's support would be continuing to drop like it has.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Tube or it didn't happen...


Yeah, who has a link.  After reading this thread I want to know what and how Rand said whatever he said in this interview.  I've actually pretty much come to the conclusion that Rand made the right strategically.

What I've come to the conclusion about is that there is a difference in what is strategically good for liberty and what is good for people's conception of the "movement".  I think a lot of us and me to some extent have been idolizing the movement and then faulting Rand for betraying it.  

But outside of our conceptions of the "movement" there's the inescapable fact that the movement has no real strategy for continuing beyond Ron outside of this Trojan horse strategy.  So we either jump on that wagon or be content to be wandering individualists and try to build something up from nothing.

This has become more clear to me since Rand's endorsement.

We can still build broad support for the movement outside of the Trojan horse scenario and I don't think people are really getting that.  The Trojan horse is the spearhead.

----------


## TheGrinch

> ^^^ THIS ^^^ in case anyone thinks we are just whinning, we're not sore loosers and it's not that we won't play fair, we're tired of it being called before the end of the last quarter even by our own players !


Both Ron and Rand have made it clear that the nomination is over, because we don't have the numbers... They know approximately how many we have, even stealth ones, and it's only about 1/2 of what we need (and that's assuming that somehow it even gets to second ballot. If Romney has 1144 like it looks like it's going to, then it really is over)

So rather than people fighting in Tampa for something that's not going to happen, they're going ahead and telling people to realize what to expect with the likelihood that the nomination is over, and to fight for the platform, rather than causing a huge damaging ruckus for nothing.

Listen to the interview. You probably won't like what you hear about the nomination being over, but it really is over. We fell short, and that shouldn't have been unexpected. This has always been an uphill battle, but we will continue to fight to bring our ideals and politicians to take over the party.

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> Yeah, who has a link.  After reading this thread I want to know what and how Rand said whatever he said in this interview.  I've actually pretty much come to the conclusion that Rand made the right strategically.
> 
> What I've come to the conclusion about is that there is a difference in what is strategically good for liberty and what is good for people's conception of the "movement".  I think a lot of us and me to some extent have been idolizing the movement and then faulting Rand for betraying it.  
> 
> But outside of our conceptions of the "movement" there's the inescapable fact that the movement has no real strategy for continuing beyond Ron outside of this Trojan horse strategy.  So we either jump on that wagon or be content to be wandering individualists and try to build something up from nothing.
> 
> This has become more clear to me since Rand's endorsement.
> 
> We can still build broad support for the movement outside of the Trojan horse scenario and I don't think people are really getting that.  The Trojan horse is the spearhead.


Exactly. As I said before, we can never really win if we are forever a mistrusted minority.

Rand did us a huge service, even though he surely knew many might not understand it. It takes a rare kind of courage to do such a thing. My respect for Ron and Rand has increased tremendously because of it.

----------


## ohgodno

> You clearly did not listen to the interview...
> 
> You speak of ripping the emperor's clothes off. I'm entirely curious how you propose to do that... It's really easy to be an internet tough guy and act like everyone is a sell-out, but our delegates also realize that you have to blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out, and then you're guaranteed to accomplish nothing.  I'll take slim chances to make gains over our current situation of no chance by refusing to even be civil with the party we're trying to take over.


I did, in fact, listen to the interview, and I implore you to not insult me any further with this remark. We simply have a disagreement on the tactics Rand is employing…

On to ripping the emperors clothes off… 

I say we keep doing what we are doing… take over the party apparatus from the local level. 

There is no need to "blend in" if we are the party. Then, all we need to do is be truthful. That's a dirty word in politics, but THAT is how you tear the clothes off — TRUTH.

We love to use the following quote: "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." Why don't we life by it - rather than bedding with the liars and cheats in hopes of getting what we want. I'll tell you this - I bet Rand gets lied to and cheated out of what we want: our liberty back.

With that said - I've said all I can on this…

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> You clearly did not listen to the interview...
> 
> If he didn't make the endorsement, then the door would have closed completely for republican support... If he can now get some bipartisan support, it can actually happen... If he hadn't made the endorsement, the chances would have gone from not great to impossible.
> 
> Fine if you want to disagree, but the way some of you are treating him like scum without even realizing what he's trying to accomplish is completely short-sighted. He's fighting for our ideals the best way that he and his father know how to... Ron's seen with his own eyes how much steeper of a battle you face with 40 years of not playing the game at all... Ron worked to get us enough support for our ideals, but the time has come for someone who can actually work with the party to maybe get some things done, rather than just us bitching about getting done.
> 
> You speak of ripping the emperor's clothes off. I'm entirely curious how you propose to do that... It's really easy to be an internet tough guy and act like everyone is a sell-out, but our delegates also realize that you have to blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out, and then you're guaranteed to accomplish nothing.  I'll take slim chances to make gains over our current situation of no chance by refusing to even be civil with the party we're trying to take over.
> 
> You say principle over party, I say stakes over principle. I don't care how we have to do it, the stakes are too high to not try... You can remain ideologically pure as an outcast, while we try our best to save this country.


*applause*

I'm beginning to see that some people are looking more for a god or gandalf type figure rather than an actual political leader. But here in the real world, the rest of us are realizing that political involvement means getting some dirt on you from time to time.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I did, in fact, listen to the interview, and I implore you to not insult me any further with this remark. We simply have a disagreement on the tactics Rand is employing…


My apologies for being rude. It's just been a long couple days with people not even trying to realize what's gonig on here. I'm fine with disagreement, but the disagreement with Rand has not been very civil with the "traitor" comments, so forgive me for getting defensive.

As for taking over the republican party without being civil in our disagreements, ask our delegates how well that works. The party will shun you if they see you as "taking over" rather than reforming the party.

A man is judged by the principles he fights for and his voting record, which is what we should continue to monitor when it comes to Rand... He should not be judged by being civil with those who he disagrees with. That is a necessary step to even getting his foot into the door to fight for our ideals... If you had a club, you would not take kindly to someone who says, "I hate your freaking guts and oppose everything you all do. Can I join?". Sounds alot nicer if you say "I want to bring back our party to the ideals it professes". Sounds a lot more friendly doesn't it?

You cannot gain foothold in a party to change it, by painting yourself as an outsider. It's really that simple.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I did, in fact, listen to the interview, and I implore you to not insult me any further with this remark. We simply have a disagreement on the tactics Rand is employing


Ok, it seems like we're getting somewhere...  You're right.  Each person is going to have a different idea about which type of tactics should be utilized.  One of the things that makes liberty great!  But we shouldn't ostracize a member of our own movement because we don't like his tactics.  If you don't like his tactics, use different ones.

But damn, just appreciate that someone is working hard to restore liberty using the tactics he finds most reasonable.

The Libertarian party always fights over tactics and they never move anywhere.  A little practicing of what we preach could go a long way.  To each his own.

----------


## twomp

> Some bylaws might state that they must support the GOP nominee.  If there was a 3rd option of say nothing, I would go with that option.  Now your turn.  If there were only those two options I mentioned, what would you do (for the third time)?


See that question actually has me in a bind. IF and only IF that was my only 2 choices, I would have to lean towards getting fired out of my disgust with the GOP. I feel like this is high school tactics. I remember an incident in high school (not that long ago lol) where I was hanging out with some folks and they wanted to have a "five finger picnic".  Basically it was a picnic based on what we could steal from the grocery store. I was told that I "couldn't be trusted" unless I stole something. I wish I could tell you that I'm a great saint that said no but that isn't true. I was about to go through with it but my uncle just happened to appear in the same shopping plaza and asked me to help him carry some stuff to the truck. 

I just went home with him afterwards and I was spared that decision. Definitely a character flaw of mine but I can tell you I have never stolen a thing since that day and I am definitely leaning towards getting fired rather then "playing along to get along". I hope to never be in a party or a chairmanship that would force me to do something I don't agree with.

----------


## fletcher

The show is always available for download on the schiff radio site a few hours after it is over.  http://schiffradio.com/  Should be up in about an hour.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The show is always available for download on the schiff radio site a few hours after it is over.  http://schiffradio.com/  Should be up in about an hour.


Thanks.

----------


## jct74

download mp3 here:
http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/schiff...aul_061212.mp3

----------


## Sola_Fide

> download mp3 here:
> http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/schiff...aul_061212.mp3


+rep

----------


## brooks009

This interview clears things up for me. Everyone on the forums should listen to this interview. Rand did what he needed to do to move forward(to liberty).

----------


## qh4dotcom

I can reluctantly accept the fact that Rand had to make the endorsement...but why did he have to endorse Romney's foreign policy? I doubt that he believes war is a last resort for a warmonger like Romney...and why did he say he was going to campaign for Romney?

----------


## jj-

I listened to the Peter Schiff show yesterday. He defended Rand consistently. He didn't attack Rand at all. If you want to listen to that, get yesterday's show and go to 42:42.

----------


## Brent H

Sorry, but Rand lied to the public when he said that Romney endorsed the idea of auditing the Fed.  The exact opposite is true -- Romney explicitly stated that he is opposed to an audit. Rand knew he was lying when he was lying, and I know he was lying. 

"LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE"

----------


## TheGrinch

> I can reluctantly accept the fact that Rand had to make the endorsement...but why did he have to endorse Romney's foreign policy? I doubt that he believes war is a last resort for a warmonger like Romney...and why did he say he was going to campaign for Romney?


Hard to say, but IMO, this along with us changing the platform, is to force Romney's hand, so it makes him look like even more of a hypocrite if he flip-flops on the platform he's getting endorsed and nominated on. Putting the ball in his court... May be a bit naive that it will actually change the actions of Romney and the banksters, but he did talk to him in private (and Ron with Bernanke), so maybe they do have hopes of getting Romney to budge on some things, who knows... There are things going on behind the scenes that we may never know about, but I trust Ron, and he signed off on Rand needing to do this.

You know how people here have said that compromise only leads to more compromises... Well, that may be even more true for the establishment, that the more you get them to concede for our growing support, then we begin to gain these same precedents that they used to take away our liberty. Once we start forcing them to make concessions, while all the while gaining republican voter support that have really only held back because of the stigmas the media has attached to his dad over the years (I know a few who actually like Rand and not Ron so much for this reason), then I'd say we stand to make real gains, rather than be stuck in obscurity that they can choose not to pay attention to. We're not far from being at the point to where we can't be ignored anymore.

It makes it even easier that their BS is easy to cut through because we all know it's BS. Remember that we're coming in with a rock that they gotta try to break: the Constitution and Liberty.

----------


## matt0611

> I can reluctantly accept the fact that Rand had to make the endorsement...but why did he have to endorse Romney's foreign policy? I doubt that he believes war is a last resort for a warmonger like Romney...and why did he say he was going to campaign for Romney?


Just to be clear, Rand never said "I endorse Romney's foreign policy". Rand said that after meeting with Romney he said Romney seemed like he will be a cautious command and chief, and agreed with Rand about the power to declare war coming from the congress. It was a bit more nuanced than you make it seem.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Rand says he discussed it with his father beforehand.


I tried to tell people he is doing what his dad has groomed him to do and he gets the ok from his dad first. But I'm a "conspiracy theorist".

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Well, there you go... If he didn't support the candidate, then it'd hurt us fighting the fights we can win in Tampa, and the door would close on support for bills he's working on like auditing the fed and industrial hemp.
> 
> Everyone needs to listen to this...  Whether you agree or disagree, there was very much a good reason that he and his father made this decision. Since 2010, they've been holding it against him that his dad didn't support the nominee, and so they weren't going to let them do the same to Rand, to paint him as an outcast.
> 
> Plain and simple, this is a small concession you have to make to work within the party and win fights we can win.


This.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I support Rand. He had his reasons (one of which was a promise that he would support the GOP nominee), and there's no doubt that he consulted with Ron. The timing is a little questionable, but once again, he probably had a reason for it, and it doesn't change a whole lot in the big scheme of things.

(And for those who are holding out against long odds that Ron will somehow become the nominee through a miracle at the Convention, remember that Rand has promised to support the GOP nominee. If that becomes Ron, I'll bet that Rand will be one of the first to announce that he is supporting the "new" nominee, per his promise.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I can reluctantly accept the fact that Rand had to make the endorsement...but why did he have to endorse Romney's foreign policy? I doubt that he believes war is a last resort for a warmonger like Romney...and why did he say he was going to campaign for Romney?


He specifically said in this interview that his endorsement was not an endorsement of the areas of disagreement.  Rand said this endorsement won't change the way he votes.  If Romney or Obama is president, he would work with either one when they agree with the Liberty position on things.

----------


## febo

Rand is a compromiser, Ron isn't, that's clear.
Rand you be Rand, and PLEASE you and those on Ron's campaign like you LET RON BE RON

I don't agree with Rand and Shiff that playing the I scratch you back if you'll scratch my back game in govt is the only option. Ron knows this and has taught us that ONLY a revolution will work.

----------


## matt0611

> Rand is a compromiser, Ron isn't, that's clear.
> Rand you be Rand, and PLEASE you and those on Ron's campaign like you LET RON BE RON


Do you think Romney will be better than Obama? Ron has stated that he thinks that numerous times. 

Ron has also voted for Newt for speaker and Boehner for speaker. Ron also endorsed Ted Cruz who supports preemptive war with Iran. And more...

Is Ron a compromiser too?

----------


## trey4sports

good interview. Rand has set many things straight in that interview.

----------


## Libertarian_Walrus

I bet Alex Jones, and all the other knee-jerkers, feel really silly right now.

----------


## trey4sports

> I bet Alex Jones, and all the other knee-jerkers, feel really silly right now.


Alex Jones lives in his own little sci-fi world. I'm sure he is rationalizing this as some sort of New World Order agenda as we speak.

----------


## specsaregood

> I bet Alex Jones, and all the other knee-jerkers, feel really silly right now.





> Alex Jones lives in his own little sci-fi world. I'm sure he is rationalizing this as some sort of New World Order agenda as we speak.


Guys, at this point there really is no need to provoke angry responses from other members on the forum.  Thats all your comments serve to do.

----------


## georgiaboy

great interview, well worth the listen.

I'll never pull the lever for Romney regardless of who endorses him, simply because he's a big gov't RINO.  When he loses, the blame for the loss will be the establishment and the GOP's for pushing another big gov't dem-lite.

It's interesting that Rand mentioned that supporting the nominee was something he agreed to back during his 2010 Senate campaign, before candidates announced or campaigning ever even started.  Makes me realize even moreso that endorsement of the top of the ticket by sitting Senators and Congressmen, as well as ranking (pardon the pun) GOP office-holders, pretty much comes with the territory for most of them.

I'm also beginning to see how Rand's endorsement is not just a case of him getting used by the establishment.  This is also very much a way for Rand to get political leverage, too, moving him further into the mainstream, allowing his legislation to get broader support, potentially opening pockets of a wider donor base, etc.  I trust he'll be sticking to his voting and legislative agenda -- making this move will bring others on board with that agenda -- exactly what I've been hoping to see happen.  If that's the case, then this endorsement will pay itself back manifold.

----------


## tsai3904

> It's interesting that Rand mentioned that supporting the nominee was something he agreed to back during his 2010 Senate campaign, before candidates announced or campaigning ever even started.


Without listening to the interview again, I think he was talking about his Senate primary campaign.  He pledged to support Trey Grayson if Trey won the primary.

----------


## anaconda

Funny how some people here act like Rand has 59 other like minded senators.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Rand Paul clearly has a different view than what Ron Paul set out to do from the start in 2007.Its a good sidestep for Rand in this interview to say that "we already lost" . Peter Schiff obviously sets Rand up with some fluffy questions and then supports Rand in saying it was all just "great fantasies"...hello our goal is not to compromise but change the party and we are ,and we don't need to give up our personal convictions. I completely disagree with Rands perspective/approach, he is seeing this more as a game of power rather than a pursuit of ideals.
*
to all you sports fans out there if your favorite baseball team or hockey team or football team or basketball team lost the championship does that mean you will support the team you hate the most in the league?ABSOLUTELY 0 sense.*

Sorry Rand, and Schiff I believe Ron Paul was a good man and did the right thing in Congress.

----------


## Butchie

I was never dilusional, I actually had lost most faith in Ron winning (or wanting to win) quite awhile ago, but that's when I changed gears and said OK, a door was shut, let's open a window. I thought the delegate strategy and supporting people like Massie, Amash, etc was a great way to start to take over the party.

I also knew Rand had said he would endorse, and I knew he would do it, and I wasn't so against it, my ONLY issue with all of this is the way in which it was done, the timing of it, Benton telling us to be respectful when we were the one's being abused, knowing it was over but STILL ASKING FOR DONATIONS!!!!! - announcing on the Hannity show, saying Romney was for auditing the Fed when he's been clear time and again he is not. I wouldnt' mind a low-key endorsement after, or even AT Tampa, but not now, not on Hannity.

----------


## anaconda

> I don't agree with Rand and Shiff that playing the I scratch you back if you'll scratch my back game in govt is the only option. Ron knows this and has taught us that ONLY a revolution will work.


Our back scratching ratio improves as we proceed with the Revolution and place more liberty people in office at the Federal, state, and local levels. Rand is only 1 of 100 but he is already doing a Herculean job of getting us a few actual votes and throwing monkey wrenches at the establishment's previous unfettered march toward tyranny. He is also single-handedly changing the national dialog every time he goes on CNN. Schiff is profoundly correct when he says Rand needs help in D.C.

----------


## wizardwatson

Schiff cut him off at perhaps the most important part of the interview before they cut to commercial.

Rand was saying that Ron is very respected by both sides in Congress.  The reason is because Ron is RESPECTFUL to all people even though he disagrees.

He was about to say, before being cut off, that THE WAY WE'VE BEEN CALLING RAND NAMES AND BEING DISRESPECTFUL IS VERY ANTI-RON.

That really needs to be hammered on the forums.  Not only are we being anti-Ron with all this name calling and traitor, neocon talk.  We're doing it to his son.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Listen to the man. Does he sound like the evil backstabber that he is portrayed as by the opportunists?

Glad Schiff is one board with this.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

I strongly disagree with Rand that warmongers should be respected

----------


## matt0611

> Schiff cut him off at perhaps the most important part of the interview before they cut to commercial.
> 
> Rand was saying that Ron is very respected by both sides in Congress.  The reason is because Ron is RESPECTFUL to all people even though he disagrees.
> 
> He was about to say, before being cut off, that THE WAY WE'VE BEEN CALLING RAND NAMES AND BEING DISRESPECTFUL IS VERY ANTI-RON.
> 
> That really needs to be hammered on the forums.  Not only are we being anti-Ron with all this name calling and traitor, neocon talk.  We're doing it to his son.


Yup, that's a very good point. Ron never goes after people personally in that way.

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> Schiff cut him off at perhaps the most important part of the interview before they cut to commercial.
> 
> Rand was saying that Ron is very respected by both sides in Congress.  The reason is because Ron is RESPECTFUL to all people even though he disagrees.
> 
> He was about to say, before being cut off, that THE WAY WE'VE BEEN CALLING RAND NAMES AND BEING DISRESPECTFUL IS VERY ANTI-RON.
> 
> That really needs to be hammered on the forums.  Not only are we being anti-Ron with all this name calling and traitor, neocon talk.  We're doing it to his son.


Yes, and how do people think that makes Ron feel? I imagine it breaks his heart. What a way to repay a great man who has done so much good for so long.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Schiff cut him off at perhaps the most important part of the interview before they cut to commercial.
> 
> Rand was saying that Ron is very respected by both sides in Congress.  The reason is because Ron is RESPECTFUL to all people even though he disagrees.
> 
> He was about to say, before being cut off, that THE WAY WE'VE BEEN CALLING RAND NAMES AND BEING DISRESPECTFUL IS VERY ANTI-RON.
> 
> That really needs to be hammered on the forums.  Not only are we being anti-Ron with all this name calling and traitor, neocon talk.  We're doing it to his son.


 That is also a "collectivist" statement to say when there are hundreds of thousands of voters who are not calling names but are very possibly disgusted by the endorsement. The interview seemed to be pretty well scripted in how peter and rand kept doing the question/answer /manipulate the viewer gig. I hate radio shows likes this. Maybe what Peter Schiff should have really asked Rand is :
Will you continue to vote in favor of sanctions of any kind against countries?
Will you continue to vote in support of United Nations actions?
Will you continue to support Romneys foreign policy including NDAA ?

Obviously Rand did lie to people in the endorsement when he stated that he agrees with Romneys foreign policy (that is called flip flopping) and he also lied about Romneys support for auditing the fed. An endorsement is one thing, a few bold faced lies are something worse.

----------


## wizardwatson

It was a great interview by the way.  I was never into Rand's campaign as I wasn't really on board with this whole Trojan horse, play nice to mold the platform strategy.  But after seeing Rand do this and seeing the so called "movement" tar and feather him without taking a breath, and subsequently hearing this interview, I have the same respect for this man that I do Ron, and I'm sold on this being the way forward.  

You see I've come to the conclusion that this "movement" is nothing without strategy.  Go have a looksey for yourself.  Where is C4L.  What are the meetups doing.  How much are we doing at RPF besides commenting on the news item of the day and calling Ron's son a traitor.  Hows that Ron Paul facebook page doin?  Jack squat that's what.

Point is, we have only ONE viable strategy that we can rally around.  The time for rallying around an icon has passed.  That one strategy is to work in transforming the GOP and getting our agenda in play.  Ron and Rand have thrown all their chips into this strategy.  That is the ship Ron Paul has built.  As Rand says in the interview if we are expecting the "movement" to just say $#@! you to the party then we are expecting the "movement" to trash all the capital Ron has built with his two campaign runs.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> It was a great interview by the way.  I was never into Rand's campaign as I wasn't really on board with this whole Trojan horse, play nice to mold the platform strategy.  But after seeing Rand do this and seeing the so called "movement" tar and feather him without taking a breath, and subsequently hearing this interview, I have the same respect for this man that I do Ron, and I'm sold on this being the way forward.  
> 
> You see I've come to the conclusion that this "movement" is nothing without strategy.  Go have a looksey for yourself.  Where is C4L.  What are the meetups doing.  How much are we doing at RPF besides commenting on the news item of the day and calling Ron's son a traitor.  Hows that Ron Paul facebook page doin?  Jack squat that's what.
> 
> Point is, we have only ONE viable strategy that we can rally around.  The time for rallying around an icon has passed.  That one strategy is to work in transforming the GOP and getting our agenda in play.  Ron and Rand have thrown all their chips into this strategy.  That is the ship Ron Paul has built.  As Rand says in the interview if we are expecting the "movement" to just say $#@! you to the party then we are expecting the "movement" to trash all the capital Ron has built with his two campaign runs.


 "Strategy" also has a different definition to different people. Rands idea of strategy is to flip flop, wow same thing Romney does big surprise it does enable a politician to win. Do we want a flip flop in office? Ask yourself that. My strategy is to have an honest person in office,someone not only honest to themselves but honest to the voters....but I guess that is not "Strategy" so some people would much rather call lying a strategy,and some even go further to calling it genius.Lying/being crafty/dishonest and two face are completely wrong. Rand did lie,there is no denying it when you hear him endorse Romney..and he also did flip flop on sanctions in the past.Not everyone who is disgusted about the endorsement of pre-emptive warfare/NDAA/TARP.Not everyone is name calling either, and some of the disenfranchised voters are just mad because of the dishonesty going on. I just quite frankly like to point out the obvious that someone is lying and its being justified by people around him. Justifying the end by the means.As for Rand saying that the delegates need to just do this or do that...sorry but thats not up to him to tell delegates what to do or how to act . I think certain people forget that they are just representatives,and the voice should come from the bottom up, not the top down. I am all for polite and civil action. Ron Paul has been civil, and still expresses his anger towards certain government actions and I tend to disagree completely with mr.schiff and rand paul on the subject of Ron Pauls accomplishments. Ron Paul is not a failure

----------


## green73

tube added to 2nd post

----------


## wizardwatson

> That is also a "collectivist" statement to say when there are hundreds of thousands of voters who are not calling names but are very possibly disgusted by the endorsement. The interview seemed to be pretty well scripted in how peter and rand kept doing the question/answer /manipulate the viewer gig. I hate radio shows likes this. Maybe what Peter Schiff should have really asked Rand is :
> Will you continue to vote in favor of sanctions of any kind against countries?
> Will you continue to vote in support of United Nations actions?
> Will you continue to support Romneys foreign policy including NDAA ?
> 
> Obviously Rand did lie to people in the endorsement when he stated that he agrees with Romneys foreign policy (that is called flip flopping) and he also lied about Romneys support for auditing the fed. An endorsement is one thing, a few bold faced lies are something worse.


Yeah, I get that.  He lied perhaps.  I watched the Hannity interview and I heard him say the things about Romney supporting Audit the Fed and the thing about Romney being on board with the idea that wars should be decided by Congress.

But in the light of everything I'VE seen so far they are little white lies, like when Forrest Gump did the ping pong paddle commercial to buy his shrimping boat, what did it really hurt?

In fact I've posted in multiple places on this board concerning Rand's decision that he's made himself a hard sell to the movement now.  I said either he's pro-establishment and thinks we should really endorse Romney or he's a liar, either way the "movement" can fault him.

But I've since come to the conclusion that the "movement" is largely idealized in people's heads.  People have burned Ron Paul's platform into their heads and are thinking in collectivist terms about themselves.  Rand has betrayed "us", Rand has hurt the "movement".

To me though the real movement, or any movement for that matter is a consensus on strategy for achieving the objectives of the movement.  The only real consensus the movement has on strategy is the "work inside the GOP" option.  That to me is the substance of the movement, and from that angle Rand is not only part of the movement he is a pioneer.

----------


## wizardwatson

> "Strategy" also has a different definition to different people. Rands idea of strategy is to flip flop, wow same thing Romney does big surprise it does enable a politician to win. Do we want a flip flop in office? Ask yourself that. My strategy is to have an honest person in office,someone not only honest to themselves but honest to the voters....but I guess that is not "Strategy" so some people would much rather call lying a strategy,and some even go further to calling it genius.Lying/being crafty/dishonest and two face are completely wrong. Rand did lie,there is no denying it when you hear him endorse Romney..and he also did flip flop on sanctions in the past.Not everyone who is disgusted about the endorsement of pre-emptive warfare/NDAA/TARP.Not everyone is name calling either, and some of the disenfranchised voters are just mad because of the dishonesty going on. I just quite frankly like to point out the obvious that someone is lying and its being justified by people around him. Justifying the end by the means.As for Rand saying that the delegates need to just do this or do that...sorry but thats not up to him to tell delegates what to do or how to act . I think certain people forget that they are just representatives,and the voice should come from the bottom up, not the top down. I am all for polite and civil action. Ron Paul has been civil, and still expresses his anger towards certain government actions and I tend to disagree completely with mr.schiff and rand paul on the subject of Ron Pauls accomplishments. Ron Paul is not a failure


Yes, everyone's butthurt because Rand is playing politics.

But you say your "strategy" is to have purity and principle and all that, no endorsement of neocons, no flip-flopping, etc.  But do we have a "consensus" on the purist strategy?  Didn't work out great for Ron.  The strategic consensus within the movement is around Rand's strategy.  We can argue whether that consensus is X % of the "whole" movement, whatever that is, as it's largely amorphous and unbounded, but ultimately there is no counter-strategy within the movement that has any kind of consensus.  

This is the boat we have built to carry us across the river.  Could a better boat be built?  Sure!  Is there another boat though?  Where's the other great idea?  We don't have one that has a consensus is my opinion.  

Anyway, we can discuss Rand's ideological deficiencies all day but after Tampa going forward when the dust clears my money is on Rand's strategy dominating what's left of the liberty movement, because there simply isn't another viable strategy out there.

----------


## twomp

> To me though the real movement, or any movement for that matter is a consensus on strategy for achieving the objectives of the movement.  The only real consensus the movement has on strategy is the "work inside the GOP" option.  That to me is the substance of the movement, and from that angle Rand is not only part of the movement he is a pioneer.


I guess that is where the disagreement with me occurs. I don't think the "work inside the GOP" option as a viable one. It has served us great to this point but as a tool, the GOP has served it's coarse. Dr. Paul has gotten everything and all the awesome supporters he can from the GOP. It's time he use his capital/power/movement to give birth to a 3rd party. Sure a 3rd party has never been able to succeed in modern politics BUT modern politics has never had a candidate like Dr. Paul.

As for Rand Paul, if he continues to vote the way he does, I will definitely vote for him if he runs for potus in 2016. What I won't do is donate money or sign wave or Register Republican for my primary as I did for Dr. Paul. There is only 1 Ron Paul and he's the only one that can make me switch to GOP. Now that his career is coming to a close, I can't wait to "un-register" as a Republican.

My only regret is that I didn't "discover" Dr. Paul sooner, DAMN YOU MSM for hiding a great man from me!

----------


## ProIndividual

Bottom line..if Rand got one person to vote for Romney with this endorsement he hurt our movement.

If Romney wins in 2012 we don't get a liberty candidate in 2016. If he wins we have to wait until 2020 or 2024 to run al iberty candidate. Anyone who says setting the movement back and extra 4-8 years in terms of Presidential runs is "helping us", "doing us a service", or "working within the Party" is either a sophist making an excuse because of some hero-worship nonsense, or they aren't very good at math.

Who gives a crap if he never gets a Bill to the floor for a vote? We need to run liberty candidates, and especially for the Presidency where the veto power lies, in 2016! This would force 2/3 majorities to pass anything unConstitutional! How do you guys not see this!?!

----------


## twomp

> Bottom line..if Rand got one person to vote for Romney with this endorsement he hurt our movement.
> 
> If Romney wins in 2012 we don't get a liberty candidate in 2016. If he wins we have to wait until 2020 or 2024 to run al iberty candidate. Anyone who says setting the movement back and extra 4-8 years in terms of Presidential runs is "helping us", "doing us a service", or "working within the Party" is either a sophist making an excuse because of some hero-worship nonsense, or they aren't very good at math.
> 
> Who gives a crap if he never gets a Bill to the floor for a vote? We need to run liberty candidates, and especially for the Presidency where the veto power lies, in 2016! This would force 2/3 majorities to pass anything unConstitutional! How do you guys not see this!?!


I agree! If Mitt Romney is elected and is in charge when the country collapses, it's going to be hard to get a REPUBLICAN Rand Paul in 2020. This is the FLAW with running a candidate in either party, everyone is expected to "fall in line." I honestly doubt we will ever have another chance at a credible 3rd party if Dr. Paul doesn't split from the GOP and run 3rd party. How many times in our life time will we have a chance to build a real 3rd party?

----------


## Nash

> Rand is a compromiser, Ron isn't, that's clear.
> Rand you be Rand, and PLEASE you and those on Ron's campaign like you LET RON BE RON
> 
> I don't agree with Rand and Shiff that playing the I scratch you back if you'll scratch my back game in govt is the only option. Ron knows this and has taught us that ONLY a revolution will work.


         I'd actually prefer we didn't completely blow up the government and start over from anarchy.   I guess I just have more to lose.  

         Ron the presidential candidate was different than Ron the congressman.   Even Ron the congressman didn't vote to get things passed or not passed, he often just voted to make a point. 

         Ron's tactics are very effective for starting a liberty movement and gaining a fund-raising base.   They are completely ineffective for actually getting elected President of the United States as we've now seen in 3 different presidential campaigns.

         Rand could be a serious nominee for President of the United States in 2016.   Not a guy on the stage proving points and raising money and winning the internet and then not getting votes, but a front-runner who actually wins states, a lot of states.    This could very well happen.  And although publicly they have different tactics, privately they have very similar political philosophies.

         Do you want Rand to have a shot at the whitehouse in 2016?  If so let's please support him playing this political game.  If you want the government to get completely blown up and deal with the months or years of anarchy that might follow (markets completely tanking, retirements totally wiped out, horrible unemployment far worse than what we already have) and seriously think that's the only answer, then I guess don't worry about.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

> I see what Rand's "big picture" is and you're right it won't change my mind. Because I don't agree with his vision. 
> 
> He's not about tearing down the corrupt system he's about incrementalism.


The thing is, this isn't about getting 10% (incrementalism) vs getting 100% (tearing down the entire system)... it is about getting 10% (incrementalism) vs getting 0-1% (what we get otherwise).

----------


## Aratus

peter schiff in his interview with rand paul touched on quite a few important points about this all.

----------


## PatriotOne

That was a really good and honest discussion.  I hope everyone listens to what Rand had to say before they write him off.  Breaks my heart to hear him sound so down though,  You can tell it affected his heart when so many people burned him at the stake for doing something he truly feels was good for our causes.

----------


## July

I respect Rand a lot for pointing that there aren't just good and evil people, and I think that is something that really needed to be said. Very true.

----------


## SilentBull

Funny how there are supporters talking about ending their support at the exact time that we can actually change things. Some people never really wanted change. They just wanted to feel special. If the party starts changing, they just won't feel so special anymore.

----------


## Paulite



----------


## jct74

> 


Thanks for the video (I merged with main thread), but that particular youtube has such a silly title, apparently the uploader's main takeaway from the interview is that Rand said something nice about John McCain and his military service (how dare he).  If anyone wants to share this interview, I would recommend the youtube version posted earlier in this thread.  (edit: appears to be longer also)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygwZHpTUmaI

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government… just so we can have _influence_ on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore. 
> 
> Sounds smart to me, sign me up.


Where could it go wrong?

Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.

Incrementalism hasn't repealed the PATRIOT Act, and it also loses the moral high ground. It's the jackass of all trades, master of none.

----------


## HigherVision

> Where could it go wrong?
> 
> Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.


As opposed to all the success Ron had doing so with his bills right?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> As opposed to all the success Ron had doing so with his bills right?


At least Ron can speak from the moral high ground and intellectually provide ammo to liberty lovers.

Besides, everybody knows Ron's approach isn't going to be successful legislatively - Fed audit notwithstanding. The argument is that Rand's approach will be more successful, and the proof so far is that it hasn't performed a damn bit different.

----------


## trey4sports

As much as I hate it..... Ron Paul didn't win ONE state. Not a single damn one. So maybe Rand's strategy will take us to the promise land? Hell, at least winning a state would be nice. As it stands John Stossel owes O'Reilly 10 grand.

----------


## Brett85

> Where could it go wrong?
> 
> Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.
> 
> Incrementalism hasn't repealed the PATRIOT Act, and it also loses the moral high ground. It's the jackass of all trades, master of none.


Ron's bills haven't done diddly squat to slow the growth of government either.  He never gets any of his bills passed.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ron's bills haven't done diddly squat to slow the growth of government either.  He never gets any of his bills passed.


Nobody has ever said that was the point of having Ron Paul in Congress.

Same can't be said of Rand's approach.

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> Funny how there are supporters talking about ending their support at the exact time that we can actually change things. Some people never really wanted change. They just wanted to feel special. If the party starts changing, they just won't feel so special anymore.


+ one million!

You nailed it right there. Some people are happier complaining about "the injustice of it all" and reject any effort to improve it - at least if it looks like that effort might actually succeed. Fear of success is a real thing.

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> At least Ron can speak from the moral high ground and intellectually provide ammo to liberty lovers.
> 
> Besides, everybody knows Ron's approach isn't going to be successful legislatively - Fed audit notwithstanding. The argument is that Rand's approach will be more successful, and the proof so far is that it hasn't performed a damn bit different.


Suggest you review all that Rand has accomplished since going to the Senate. Here's just one example:




> *Rand Paul Single-Handedly Halts a Potential Future Military Confrontation with Russia* 
> 
> Last week, Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274.
> 
> This week he has stopped another  amendment. This one would have significantly increased tensions with Russia and committed the United States to fight a war in Russia's backyard, if Russia attacked Georgia.
> 
> Senator Rand, as Brian Koening at The New American put it, "single-handedly thwarted an amendment proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) drafted to advance Georgia’s application for NATO membership...Paul firmly opposed Rubio’s amendment, suggesting that expanding NATO in this sensitive region could entangle the United States in Georgia’s affairs with a nuclear-armed Russia, potentially risking a U.S.-Russian war."
> 
> Here's Pat Buchanan on what Rand did:
> ...

----------


## Pisces

> Where could it go wrong?
> 
> Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.
> 
> Incrementalism hasn't repealed the PATRIOT Act, and it also loses the moral high ground. It's the jackass of all trades, master of none.


Not true. He stopped a provision of the NDAA that would have allowed a person found innocent of terrorism to still be indefinitely detained. That is something. Besides, he's a freshman senator in the minority party. Give him time. (I'm not directing this at you in particular since you've made it quite clear that you hate Rand and will never give him credit for anything.)

----------


## Brett85

> You guys are forgetting that if Romney gets into office with our help, every destructive decision he makes will be tied to us as well.


Utter B.S.  Endorsing a candidate doesn't mean that you endorse all of their positions.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Not true. He stopped a provision of the NDAA that would have allowed a person found innocent of terrorism to still be indefinitely detained. That is something. Besides, he's a freshman senator in the minority party. Give him time. (I'm not directing this at you in particular since you've made it quite clear that you hate Rand and will never give him credit for anything.)


Stopped a provision that will be used anyway, as the administration in power always takes a wider scope on legislation than what is stated in the bill.

----------


## Pisces

> Stopped a provision that will be used anyway, as the administration in power always takes a wider scope on legislation than what is stated in the bill.


It was still a legislative achievement.

----------


## Brett85

> I completely disagree with Rands perspective/approach, he is seeing this more as a game of power rather than a pursuit of ideals.


The only way you can implement your ideals is by gaining power.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> It was still a legislative achievement.


Ron got Audit the Fed passed. So far, Rand's approach works about as effectively with Ron's approach. Without the moral superiority.

----------


## Pisces

> Ron got Audit the Fed passed. So far, Rand's approach works about as effectively with Ron's approach. Without the moral superiority.


I don't want to get into a Ron vs Rand argument that just makes everybody angry. I never said Ron didn't achieve anything in the House. I believe he has and he has achieved much more outside of Congress. I was only responding to your false assertion that Rand's approach had yielded no results in the Senate.

----------


## CCTelander

> The only way you can implement your ideals is by gaining power.



Bull$#@!.

For example, there are dozens, probably hundreds of cases in US History wherein bad laws were repealed without ever getting a single person elected to office. I'll give you two simple examples.

Prohibition was repealed, primarily, because most juries refused to convict people charged under it. Nobody had to be elected to office for it to happen. People just had to be sick and tired of it, and they were.

It used to be illegal to broadcast using a CB radio without first obtaining an FCC license. The fines for violating this law were STIFF. However, starting in the 1970s CB radio became VERY popular. And almost NOBODY bothered to get a license to use them. Within a decade the law requiring licenses was quietly repealed, and that's where the situation sits to this day.

In both cases mostly passive resistance was more than enough to effect positive, lasting change. Electoral politics was completely unnecessary.

----------


## shocker315

Not sure if this has been posted yet...

----------


## MRoCkEd

Good interview

----------


## Adrock

He did well in that interview.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

He makes no bones about the fact that he was only endorsing to further his political career to keep fighting his fight for liberty.  I knew from the start it wasn't a sincere endorsement.  Good for him.

----------


## CUnknown

It was a horrible interview.  They never got to the real issue.  They kept bringing up straw men and knocking them down, such as "I think there are a lot of people who still thought Ron had a chance, they are in fantasy land."  Yes, this is true.  But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is Rand selling out.

The Ron Paul Revolution has power when it goes against the establishment.  When we join forces with the establishment, it doesn't matter what concessions we get as far as the platform, or chairmanships, or bills getting closer to being passed.  When we join with the enemy, we play by their rules and must obey their power structures.  That is a recipe for failure.  We must destroy their power and make up our own rules.

Think about the Democratic side.  There is a solid progressive wing of Democrats that exists in Congress.  They never get anything done, or shift the agenda to the left at all, because they are playing by the rules.  What they should do is attempt to DESTROY Obama's chances, to DESTROY the Democratic party even if that's what it takes to get listened to.  Once you hold someone's balls in your hand and start to squeeze -- they'll listen to you.

We had Romney's balls, held tightly.  We couldn't win the nomination, sure, but we could make it exceedingly uncomfortable for Romney and probably doom his chances of winning the Presidency.  We could have destroyed him.  We could have maybe even destroyed the entire party.  Once we make our intentions clear, that we will bring down the party unless it adopts SOME SOLID MEASURE of liberty as it's base -- not everything, but _something_ dammit -- then they'll either do it, or be destroyed if that's their choice.  Either way, we will benefit in the aftermath.  The Libertarian party would quadruple in size, easily, for example.  Any surviving remnant of the Republicans would be committed to our principles.

That is real progress.

What do we have now?  A timid leadership (Rand I'm talking about you) who will "play nice" and kiss a$$ when he needs to.  Who will say up is down and night is day if he needs to.  Who values a party's "platform" over it's core principles.  Who values getting along with the power structure that we should be trying to destroy.

Rand's way of being nice will give us nothing of any benefit.  The only benefit comes from the struggle, from the willingness to go against the grain, regardless of the cost.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Okay, now I have to speak, cannot hold my toungue.

We had a facebook event just not long ago with Weade, right?

He wanted SEO poeple to put out the word about the delegate strategy and how we were winning lot's of delegates and did NOT want American to freak out if Ron won.  right?

And we were winning all over the place, even when the establishment cheated and we even had to go to parking lots, and we have video, right?

And Benton said they were "hoarding cash" for Texas and California, right?

So, what's going on here?

----------


## AuH20

> It was a horrible interview.  They never got to the real issue.  They kept bringing up straw men and knocking them down, such as "I think there are a lot of people who still thought Ron had a chance, they are in fantasy land."  Yes, this is true.  But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is Rand selling out.
> 
> The Ron Paul Revolution has power when it goes against the establishment.  When we join forces with the establishment, it doesn't matter what concessions we get as far as the platform, or chairmanships, or bills getting closer to being passed.  When we join with the enemy, we play by their rules and must obey their power structures.  That is a recipe for failure.  We must destroy their power and make up our own rules.
> 
> Think about the Democratic side.  There is a solid progressive wing of Democrats that exists in Congress.  They never get anything done, or shift the agenda to the left at all, because they are playing by the rules.  What they should do is attempt to DESTROY Obama's chances, to DESTROY the Democratic party even if that's what it takes to get listened to.  Once you hold someone's balls in your hand and start to squeeze -- they'll listen to you.
> 
> We had Romney's balls, held tightly.  We couldn't win the nomination, sure, but we could make it exceedingly uncomfortable for Romney and probably doom his chances of winning the Presidency.  We could have destroyed him.  We could have maybe even destroyed the entire party.  Once we make our intentions clear, that we will bring down the party unless it adopts SOME SOLID MEASURE of liberty as it's base -- not everything, but _something_ dammit -- then they'll either do it, or be destroyed if that's their choice.  Either way, we will benefit in the aftermath.  The Libertarian party would quadruple in size, easily, for example.  Any surviving remnant of the Republicans would be committed to our principles.
> 
> That is real progress.
> ...


Alienation is not the route to victory, especially when you consider how unpopular Obama is. This is a very delicate situation that we must deftly play like Garry Kasparov. We will stand down on Romney's exposed right flank, ONLY if he offers in return X, Y, & Z concessions. If he does decide to alter the deal at a later date, we possess the moral high ground among a disenchanted public and then can move onto the scorched earth tactic you described. But right now there is no need to act like a barbarian and burn bridges. Completely counterproductive from where I'm standing.

----------


## S.Shorland

This is already on the Rand Paul forum.Don't know why it isn't in grassroots

----------


## Diashi

Rand is completely caught up in party politics now, and it's sad. Endorsing traitors who have spent their lives chipping away at liberty, who are members of illegal government central-planning groups like the CFR, and doing them favors like voting for bad legislation in hopes of making an influential return - it's a _complete contradiction_ of principles. Liberty isn't something you compromise on. It's one of the few things in life so sacred and pure, those who truly understand it know they must stand like a tree to defend it. 

Take your own path, Rand, and do what good you can. But the pulse of this movement disagrees with you, and I disagree with you. We will march on.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

When was the last time a principled man was elected to POTUS?...

----------


## Agorism

idk why they don't discuss foreign policy though.

Rand makes it sound like there are just petty differences between Romney\McCain\Bush and Ron Paul that can be set aside for some greater cause while the former actually is the problem.

Again, I don't understand why he would object so strongly to McCain as to do a write in, but now he thinks Romney is a great candidate. Who cares about some TSA bill when we're talking about invading new countries and continuing the "war on terror."

----------


## freedomordeath

It made me SO MAD LISTENING TO THIS. It is clear what happened, he thought he was being smart, I don't think he is a horrible or nasty person, I think he does have good intentions but he doesn't have his fathers nerve of steel to all the BS. He thought he would get further then his father by playing the game, he thinks its ok to play this game because he'll outplay the world's best poker players on OUR BEHALF to further our cause. Almost like a naive school kid with a den of robbers. He probably has Republicans swooning all over him seeing if he is ok, if there is anything he wants, if they can make him a cup of tea, signing any bill he wants... hell even the NWO scum bags will order Democrats to swoon all over him, suddenly they'll have open ears for any concenrns he may have. Like a scum bag road biker trying to seduce an innocent girl so are they with Rand Paul. 

Ron Paul does have a weak spot and that is his son, these scummy little diarrhea infested vomit bags have targeted Rand not in the way we think they would (ie death threats) but with cookies and cream, they know normal bribery will not work so they apeal to his cause for liberty.

They have stopped the Ron Paul train going into TAMPA, lets pray for the Paul family including Rand and when they drop him like a rock after TAMPA hopefully he'll come to his senses that this is ALL OUT WAR to defend America and that this movement will stay strong headed into TAMPA.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> It made me SO MAD LISTENING TO THIS. It is clear what happened, he thought he was being smart, I don't think he is a horrible or nasty person, I think he does have good intentions but he doesn't have his fathers nerve of steel to all the BS. He thought he would get further then his father by playing the game, he thinks its ok to play this game because he'll outplay the world's best poker players on OUR BEHALF to further our cause. Almost like a naive school kid with a den of robbers. He probably has Republicans swooning all over him seeing if he is ok, if there is anything he wants, if they can make him a cup of tea, signing any bill he wants... hell even the NWO scum bags will order Democrats to swoon all over him, suddenly they'll have open ears for any concenrns he may have. Like a scum bag road biker trying to seduce an innocent girl so are they with Rand Paul. 
> 
> Ron Paul does have a weak spot and that is his son, these scummy little diarrhea infested vomit bags have targeted Rand not in the way we think they would (ie death threats) but with cookies and cream, they know normal bribery will not work so they apeal to his cause for liberty.
> 
> They have stopped the Ron Paul train going into TAMPA, lets pray for the Paul family including Rand and when they drop him like a rock after TAMPA hopefully he'll come to his senses that this is ALL OUT WAR to defend America and that this movement will stay strong headed into TAMPA.


Won't it be funny if Rand is manipulating Establishment, but its actually the Establishment manipulating Rand... but really its Rand manipulating the establishment because the establishment allows itself to be manipulated so the establishment can manipulate Rand...

lol.. its some kind of crazy dream withing a dream within a dream.

----------


## freedomordeath

> When was the last time a principled man was elected to POTUS?...


The good Drs tactics are working, we have doubled trebeled out support and once the failures of the economy become apparant, millions more will be alot more open in 4 years, infact 4 years time could have seen the greates plotical force this world has seen take over not only in America but world wide. World MSM maintained a complete shutdown of the movement because they know the western world will latch on the message.

----------


## freedomordeath

> Won't it be funny if Rand is manipulating Establishment, but its actually the Establishment manipulating Rand... but really its Rand manipulating the establishment because the establishment allows itself to be manipulated so the establishment can manipulate Rand...
> 
> lol.. its some kind of crazy dream withing a dream within a dream.


lol.. yeah quite true I often wonder about the AJ, Adam Kokesh and Luke followers if they also need to pop a red pill becuase they don't realize they in a matrix within a matrix and trying to get everyone out of the 1st matrix without realising they are in a more complex matrix.

No with Rand its pure and simple, they swooning over him to get his support and they'll drop him like a rock. Ask any woman how they were seduced by some scum bag at some stage of their life.

----------


## MadOdorMachine

Did the Ron Paul Campaign actually come out after California and say that it was over? I don't recall getting that e-mail or seeing anything about it on the net. 

*So just to clarify, strictly on the topic of Rand Paul endorsing Romney - Are people angry that he endorsed him at all or rather just the timing of it?*

For me personally, I'm upset he didn't wait until after the convention and let Ron tell us when it's over. Announcing Romney as the nominee was the wrong thing to do imo.

----------


## Vessol

Speaking of email. Is Rand going to explain why I'm now suddenly getting emails from Romney?

----------


## Mordan

Rand is Saruman. He wants to beat fire with fire.

He will get corrupted. That's a near certainty.

Some say he is more like Tyrion. 

Whatever.

Power corrupts.

----------


## Dogsoldier

Ron endorsed Newt Gingrich?

----------


## kathy88

> Ron endorsed Newt Gingrich?


WTF are you talking about???????????????????????????????????

----------


## Dogsoldier

Rand said it not me...LOL

----------


## CPUd

I believe he's talking about how Ron voted for Newt, and later Boehner for Speaker.

----------


## Zatch

Ron Paul endorsed Lamar Smith who is worse than Romney.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Why the $#@! did he have to do this? Why couldn't he have AT LEAST waited until after Tampa?

----------


## MikeStanart

So sick of people whining about this.  We lost he Nomination battle guys, pull yourself together and lets get take the platform & Audit the Fed, etc.  There's a LOT we can contintue to fight for.

I agree with Rand.  Rand is about results.

----------


## EBounding

> Why the $#@! did he have to do this? Why couldn't he have AT LEAST waited until after Tampa?


My theory is it has something to do with the upcoming Audit vote, and maybe endorsements from Romney for all our Liberty candidates...I sure hope that's the case...

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> So sick of people whining about this.  We lost he Nomination battle guys, pull yourself together and lets get take the platform & Audit the Fed, etc.  There's a LOT we can contintue to fight for.
> 
> I agree with Rand.  Rand is about results.


Good luck with getting Romney to sign a Fed audit bill lololol

----------


## Working Poor

I feel better about Rand than I ever have from listening to this interview with Peter. Nobody is Ron Paul not even his son. But if anyone could put a Ron Paul move on the Senate and the republican party it might be his son who btw has spent a life time being influenced by and looking up to him.

I feel encouraged by the bills that have introduced this week and I think we owe it to ourselves and the message of Ron Paul to help get the public behind these bills right now. I am going to go to some of my other places that I blog at and start talking up the legalize industrial hemp  and also the TSA bill. Come on guys we have worked too hard for Ron Paul to get distraught over this endorsement.

Here is a list from Thomas of the Bills that Rand is sponcering and co sponcering in the Senate

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas


I cannot find anything on Hemp that he mentioned in the interview If anyone knows which bill contains it I would really appreciate you posting the bill number so I can do my part to get people behind it.

----------


## Matthanuf06

> Why the $#@! did he have to do this? Why couldn't he have AT LEAST waited until after Tampa?


Because there was no secret message in the campaigns announcement. It wasn't some huge blunder. The campaign is effectively over and they have conceded to Romney. The campaign solely exists now as a fundraising machine.

Our delegates can make waves but there is no campaign at this point.

----------


## tsetsefly

My takeaway from the whole situation is:

1. Yes we know RP lost, but no need to endorse Romney before the Convention.

2. I believe the decision to endorse Romney was a political move, one I completely disagree with but who knows what type of pressure he was under.

3. Rand's record in the senate has been pretty good, especially this year, he has fought or introduced bills that put him at odds with the GOP.

4. It has been clear for 2 years that Rand has a different strategy for changing the GOP platform than RP has, hopefully it yields results.

5. I still hate the fact he endorsed Romney, but my future support for Rand will depend on his voting record and so far it has been pretty good.

----------


## Liberty74

> When was the last time a principled man was elected to POTUS?...


It won't happen as long as the two party criminal system exists. Well, technically it's a one party dictatorship when you honestly think about it.

----------


## Liberty74

Just as I predicted, the co-opting has begun. The Republican party is using Rand Paul for that strategy. Anyone talking about the platform this or the platform that is being disingenuous and is using such issue to round up the Ron Paul supporters. Let me say it loud and clear - the platform doesn't mean $#@!!!! It's never followed. 

How is Rand Paul going to influence the Republican party when for 20 plus years Ron Paul couldn't? Rand can brag all he wants about introducing Bills that we might support but the Party in general does not. Winning the top spot is what is important.

----------


## BestVirginia

The platform means $#@! all. A speech at the convention means $#@! all. 

The real victory this election season has been the liberty movements takeover of the GOP in various states. THAT is the momentum that needs to be kept. People should be donating to the GOP in states that we've taken and furthering the cause of liberty candidates like Kurt Bills and Thomas Massie. This movement needs to continue overthrowing the power structures within party apparatus of every state we can. That is the only way to grow the revolution and ensure more victories in the future. We may have lost the battle for the GOP nomination, but there is much more work to be done, and many hands make light work. 

Rand is going to do what he's going to do, and we have no say over who he endorses or what bills he votes for. Maybe Kentucky should send him a message to let him know how he got here in the first place.

----------


## tsetsefly

> Just as I predicted, the co-opting has begun. The Republican party is using Rand Paul for that strategy. Anyone talking about the platform this or the platform that is being disingenuous and is using such issue to round up the Ron Paul supporters. Let me say it loud and clear - the platform doesn't mean $#@!!!! It's never followed. 
> 
> How is Rand Paul going to influence the Republican party when for 20 plus years Ron Paul couldn't? Rand can brag all he wants about introducing Bills that we might support but the Party in general does not. Winning the top spot is what is important.


It can change though, if we continue putting LIberty candidates in power it can certainly change.

If the movement is bigger than Ron Paul it is certainly bigger than Rand Paul and this is where people can't lose focus. We have to continue putting liberty candidates into all sectors of government.

----------


## EBounding

> How is Rand Paul going to influence the Republican party when for 20 plus years Ron Paul couldn't? Rand can brag all he wants about introducing Bills that we might support but the Party in general does not. Winning the top spot is what is important.


Ron wasn't able to influence the party before because he had no back up.  For 20 years, Ron wasn't building a political movement.  He was of course building a movement of education and principle, but not one of political activism.  The whole political activism didn't begin until recently (the past 4 years).  

But we're building that foundation now.  We're taking over state parties from the ground up, we're mobilized, and we're getting more liberty-minded people elected.  You don't have to like Rand, but that shouldn't stop you from being an activist.

----------


## PreDeadMan

Rand Paul= Compromise Paul while Ron Paul= Stay True to your principles Paul ::shrugs shoulders:: not to hard to figure out who to get behind a no brainer if you ask me. I don't like the Rand Paul apologists making excuses for his actions that go against the principles of his father. After this election cycle when Ron Paul is done so am I. Making changes in the political realm is pointless the only change we can make is through mass civil disobedience and of course in our own personal relationships (friends, family, etc...)

----------


## Carlybee

He should have communicated this directly to supporters rather than waiting a week and doing it via a radio show. I found some of the comments condescending and frankly find it disingenuous that this was in the works while the good little cash cows were here maxing out for that last money bomb.

Communication fail

----------


## ohgodno

> Good luck with getting Romney to sign a Fed audit bill lololol


Exactly and good luck getting any votes for it in the Senate. That along with the line of oil, paper, logging, etc lobbies that will be outside the office of every Senator if the Hemp bill might see the floor of the Senate. 

Rand has done some good. But undid all of it when he voted for an act of war with Iran.

This movement is being co-opted right before our eyes and we're being blinded by the allure of getting another token vote to Audit the FED (which will likely fail and wouldn't be signed if it passed). 

Come on, we're better than that.

----------


## Carehn



----------


## Agorism

House leadership and executive branch are totally different. There is more room to compromise on house leadership if Ron wanted to vote with the party.

Giving someone control of the U.S. military like Bush had is something totally different entirely, and we already know Romney is warlike in hi rhetoric from the 08 debates.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Good luck with getting Romney to sign a Fed audit bill lololol


Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he signs it...what was the last government investigation that actually resulted in anybody being prosecuted at a high level, and/or any real information being known that made a change? When most stories break, it's because a mole is leaking the information, not because the government is doing its honest job.
An "Audit the Fed" bill would probably even be signed on by Bernanke at this point. I mean, do we seriously not think they would cook the books, and move stuff around by now?

----------


## Agorism

Maybe Rand is going to too many cocktail parties with McCain lately. They convince him that some meaningless regulator of the EPA or some other agency is what it's all about, and that's why he needs to support Romney. 

Exon Mobile or whoever wants their man in there, and that's what this election is all about now.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

You guys think its us getting co-opted by the establishment...you don't realize that we are the ones co-opting them.

----------


## Agorism

> You guys think its us getting co-opted by the establishment...you don't realize that we are the ones co-opting them.


If we were the ones co-opting, Ron Paul's name would be at the TOP of the ticket not as someone who "needs" to endorse the nominee.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And people might think this question is a little bit extreme.... but potentially starting WWIII is almost as horrific as legalized paedophilia.


 If legalized paedophilia were an important core issue for Republicans, extremely important with a large number of active GOP voters and powerful media personalities, and a litmus test for whether they'd support you or not, and supporting legalized paedophilia were something they all loved Romney for, then I think in that situation Rand would do the exact same thing and endorse Romney.  He would have no choice if he wanted to be a contender in 2016.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If we were the ones co-opting, Ron Paul's name would be at the TOP of the ticket not as someone who "needs" to endorse the nominee.


Have you ever done anything that requires more than one step?  When you register for college, do you expect someone to hand you a diploma right then?  We ARE changing the party from the inside out.  It's going to take more effort on our parts to do all over the country, what our guys did in Minnesota and Iowa, but we are well on our way.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Man guys, don't you get it yet?  If Rand didn't endorse the eventual Republican nominee, any legislation that he offered would be sidelined.  Get it?

Yeah, we would have felt better had he not done it and maybe some would have preferred to just moan and groan and decry the evil neocons when none of Paul's bills were passed, but it also would have stalled any progress in turning some of this government crap around.

Ron and Rand have two different roles.  Ron is the purity gauge for our philosophy; Rand is the legislative implementer.  Not to mention the person who will likely be able to get conservatives to understand the message.  We need both roles.

----------


## VictorB

> Man guys, don't you get it yet?  If Rand didn't endorse the eventual Republican nominee, any legislation that he offered would be sidelined.  Get it?
> 
> Yeah, we would have felt better had he not done it and maybe some would have preferred to just moan and groan and decry the evil neocons when none of Paul's bills were passed, but it also would have stalled any progress in turning some of this government crap around.
> 
> Ron and Rand have two different roles.  Ron is the purity gauge for our philosophy; Rand is the legislative implementer.  Not to mention the person who will likely be able to get conservatives to understand the message.  We need both roles.


LibertyEagle, they are not going to get it.  People who are still railing against Rand after that interview are never going to open their eyes.  They want to put their heads down and charge straight into Washington and take the government back.  Unfortunate for those folks, that's not how it works in the real world.  This isn't a novel.  Ron Paul wasn't able to do it in almost 30 years, and if Rand behaved the same way he wouldn't be able to do it either.

Anyone who thinks that Ron wasn't advising Rand the whole way on this is wrong.  They've learned from their mistakes, and this time around they are going to do it the way that they can win.  

But hey, what do I know.  If you need me I'll be down on the corner sign waving.  That'll be sure to change things...

----------


## cheapseats

> Funny how there are supporters talking about ending their support at the exact time that we can actually change things. *Some people never really wanted change.* They just wanted to feel special. If the party starts changing, they just won't feel so special anymore.



Some this, some that...different strokes for different folks, yes?  NON REPUBLICAN Ron Paul Supporters were, or were NOT, pressured to become and vote Republican "just this once" FOR RON PAUL?  They absolutely WERE.

You are quick to equate Non Republican Supporters' disinclination to foster REPUBLICAN PARTY UNITY POST-RON with never having wanted the original mission.  THAT, Comrade, is intellectual dishonesty.  Fuhgeddabout LOGIC.

As for "some people never really wanted change", it seems quite fair to say that Ron Paul was never IN IT TO WIN IT, unless a miracle would land the UNWANTED presidency in his lap.

----------


## jay_dub

Much of Rand's rationalization is based on putting trust in Mitt Romney. Do we really want that type thing to become the model for future Liberty candidates? Rand has been seen as the heir apparent..the big fish. Co-opting him is a huge victory for the Establishment. For them, it's the path to watering down this movement. 

Ron is our only hope of injecting real Liberty and sanity into the system quickly. There is no other short cut within the GOP. Rand seems to think otherwise. I don't agree and I won't go along for the ride.

And yes, I listened to the entire interview.

----------


## freedomordeath

> LibertyEagle, they are not going to get it. People who are still railing against Rand after that interview are never going to open their eyes. They want to put their heads down and charge straight into Washington and take the government back. Unfortunate for those folks, that's not how it works in the real world. This isn't a novel. Ron Paul wasn't able to do it in almost 30 years, and if Rand behaved the same way he wouldn't be able to do it either.


didn't anyome notice the momentum from one election cycle to the next, did you not notice the doubling, trebling of support and that Romney couldn't get a crowd. SOME POEPLE WANT TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER, why give up this momentum, once Obama really starts an economic melt down poeple would be begging Rand to take over in 4 years, BUT NO HE DECIDED TO CUT A BIG MFKING CORNER. You do not make deals with criminals, they signing his bills now because they want to stop the train, after the election they'll drop him like a brick.

----------


## freedomordeath

Who knows how successful we would have been in 4 years time, you would have had Ron come out and campiagn for Rand and it would have broken critical mass, he destroyed this momentum.

----------


## misean

I just saw that Rothbard supported GHW Bush. Everyone seems to have gotten over that.  I am not sure how anyone could listen to this interview with Schiff and not be hugely impressed with Rand Paul. This guy really is an All Star.

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> Who knows how successful we would have been in 4 years time, you would have had Ron come out and campiagn for Rand and it would have broken critical mass, he destroyed this momentum.


 You've been to the future? Do we have flying cars yet? Please say yes....

----------


## belian78

> Much of Rand's rationalization is based on putting trust in Mitt Romney.


I think you are wrong in this.  

I've stayed out of this argument until now because I wanted to think it through, and of course hear from Rand himself.  The conclusion that I've came to is one that other have, even though it was hard for me to accept.  By uttering 6 words, "I endorse Mitt Romney for President" Rand has just taken a major smear against him away from the establishment.  Just by uttering those 6 words, they cant paint him as an 'outsider' or 'nonplayer' or what have you.  From here on out, Rand is the one that has something on the GOP establishment.  He can now say going forward.."Look, I supported the party.  I supported your guy when you wanted me to.  Look where it got us.  Maybe, just maybe this is the way we should go".  And when he says that, they wont have any attack to throw at him about not being a true republican or other such rubbish.  

Now, back to Rand trusting Romney.  Rand is a smart man, I don't think he really truly believes that Mitt is what this country needs, and I don't see Rand trusting Mitt on the concessions that he may or may not get from this endorsement.  From where I stand I see it as I stated it above, Rand uttered those 6 words to take the teeth out of any smear the establishment would try to throw at him as he tries to further liberty minded legislation.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> didn't anyome notice the momentum from one election cycle to the next, did you not notice the doubling, trebling of support and that Romney couldn't get a crowd. SOME POEPLE WANT TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER, why give up this momentum, once Obama really starts an economic melt down poeple would be begging Rand to take over in 4 years, BUT NO HE DECIDED TO CUT A BIG MFKING CORNER. You do not make deals with criminals, they signing his bills now because they want to stop the train, after the election they'll drop him like a brick.


What are you talking about?  The GOP establishment still hates Rand.  You keep talking about backroom deals; do you have any definitive proof of that?

Look dude, Ron Paul never endorsed candidates that were running against incumbent Republicans.  Do you know why?  He was told he would be kicked out of the Republican Party, that's why.  But, I don't notice you beating the $#@! out of him for "selling out".  Double standard, much?

They are doing the very best for us that they can.  If any of you think you can do better, get up from the Lazy Boy and get to it, "freedomordeath".

----------


## cheapseats

> ...The Good 'Ol Boy party only wants to work with people who go along to get along.  Rand did that step for us!  They'll come expecting us to go along...
> 
> *(so now we don't have to!)*



Um, er, ah . . . if Rand Paul can't deliver NEW VOTES, remind me how he stays in "Republican Good Graces"?  They already HAVE the votes of Republican Party Faithful.

THERE'S an oxymoron for ya, REPUBLICAN GOOD GRACES.

[Fear not, Mods & Rand Fans, I will not linger in this thread or this sub-forum, but I would be remiss in MY Civic Duties and disloyal to MY and MY ilk's best interests if I "simply" ignore lapses in logic, in order to be a "team player" and not piss on the GOP TAKEOVER parade.]

----------


## V3n

> Um, er, ah . . . if Rand Paul can't deliver NEW VOTES, remind me how he stays in "Republican Good Graces"?


By going on Hannity and endorsing Mitt Romney.

And now we've reached back to the top of the loop in this argument, unless you'd like to go for another spin.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You guys think its us getting co-opted by the establishment...you don't realize that we are the ones co-opting them.


Don't say we didn't try to warn you when you find out you're wrong. I hope you don't, but I'm really afraid you will.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...The strategic consensus within the movement is around Rand's strategy...


The strategic consensus within THE REPUBLICAN FACTION OF THE MOOVEMENT is around Rand's strategy.  Keep it REAL.

It doesn't matter HOW disgusted I am by the "turn of events" (or the revelation of previously decided events). For the same reasons that I didn't want Obamamaniacs led down a false garden path, and I didn't want NOBP's led down a false garden path, I don't wanna see RAND FANS led down a false garden path.

Rand's "evolving" thoughts have ABSOLUTELY caused a LOGICAL SPLIT in the Liberty Moovement.  Going forward, it would be DELUSIONAL of Rand Paul Supporters to presume that Libertarians, Independents, Etcetera will FALL IN LINE with Republicans.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What are you talking about?  The GOP establishment still hates Rand.


Really?

Is that why Sarah Palin endorsed him?

Is that why Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity keep telling him that they love him but strongly disagree with his Dad?

Or do you not see that Beck, Hannity, and Palin are all part of the establishment?

----------


## BenIsForRon

This interview should put to rest all the crying on this board. It won't, but it should.

Rand made it abundantly clear that he would undo all the inroads he's made into the party if he didn't endorse.

And honestly guys, this takes a lot of the burden on us to support Rand _financially_ in the future. This will trick many corporations into thinking he's a typical republican that they should give money to.

----------


## cheapseats

> Basically, Rand says that he was *forced*...





> ...this is a small concession *you have to* make...





> ...Rand *HAD TO* ENDORSE BEFORE THE KY CONVENTION...





> He said he thinks the Chairmanship of each state Republican party *must*...





> ...it's something HE *had to* do...





> ...*If* he hadn't made the endorsement, *then* the door would have been closed on...





> ...*If* he didn't make the endorsement, *then* the door would have closed completely for...
> 
> ...*you have to* blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out...





> ...Rand did what he *needed to* do to...





> I can reluctantly accept the fact that Rand *had to* make the endorsement...







> *...It takes a rare kind of courage to do such a thing...*






> *You guys think its us getting co-opted by the establishment...you don't realize that we are the ones co-opting them.*



When exasperated beyond endurance but wishing not to take the name of the Lord in vain, my father was wont to holler JIMINY CRIPES!!

----------


## cheapseats

> By going on Hannity and endorsing Mitt Romney.
> 
> And now we've reached back to the top of the loop in this argument, unless you'd like to go for another spin.



Maybe you, NOT me.

He ALREADY went on Hannity and endorsed Romney.

If Rand Paul can't deliver NEW VOTES, remind me how he stays in "Republican Good Graces"?

If Ron Paul (and new "Liberty Candidates") cease towing the line, they will fall OUT of grace.  Are we imagining that the GOOD kinda Compromisers will compromise and compromise while MORE Compromisers gain traction, until a critical mass of Compromisers all BREAK RANKS in one fell swoop?

Good luck with that...no, really.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Um, er, ah . . . if Rand Paul can't deliver NEW VOTES, remind me how he stays in "Republican Good Graces"?  They already HAVE the votes of Republican Party Faithful.
> 
> THERE'S an oxymoron for ya, REPUBLICAN GOOD GRACES.
> 
> [Fear not, Mods & Rand Fans, I will not linger in this thread or this sub-forum, but I would be remiss in MY Civic Duties and disloyal to MY and MY ilk's best interests if I "simply" ignore lapses in logic, in order to be a "team player" and not piss on the GOP TAKEOVER parade.]


You've made it abundantly clear that YOUR interests are not the same as those who stand behind Dr. Paul,. so why in the world would anyone listen to you about what's in OUR interests?

It's long been evident that you're here to undermine what we're doing, but enough already... You are not gonig to divide this movement jsut to serve YOUR interests.

----------


## cheapseats

> ... You are not gonig to divide this movement jsut to serve YOUR interests.



The Moovement IS divided...and it was NOT me who tore it asunder.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The Moovement IS divided...and it was NOT me who tore it asunder.


Agree....sad, but true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Man guys, don't you get it yet?  If Rand didn't endorse the eventual Republican nominee, any legislation that he offered would be sidelined.  Get it?
> 
> Yeah, we would have felt better had he not done it and maybe some would have preferred to just moan and groan and decry the evil neocons when none of Paul's bills were passed, but it also would have stalled any progress in turning some of this government crap around.
> 
> *Ron and Rand have two different roles.  Ron is the purity gauge for our philosophy; Rand is the legislative implementer.  Not to mention the person who will likely be able to get conservatives to understand the message.  We need both roles.*


+rep

We need both.

----------


## TheGrinch

> The Moovement IS divided...and it was NOT me who tore it asunder.


No, the movement is temporarily divided about how they feel about Rand, but the mroe who listen to this interview, the more evne those who disagree can understand.

However, opportunistic people liek you are as bad as the establishment and media in "not letting a good crisis go to waste". It's things liek that that stand to permanently divide us, so just stop already...  Your constant undermining has gone on for long before this endorsement, so don't act like you're doing anything but adding flames to the fire because you have alterior motives.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is that why Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity keep telling him that they love him but strongly disagree with his Dad?
> 
> Or do you not see that Beck, Hannity, and Palin are all part of the establishment?



Beck and Hannity praise Rand because they know he is the future of the party.  Rand is definitely still anti-establishment.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...opportunistic people like you...



LOL, if any of this were funny.

----------


## Carlybee

> Don't say we didn't try to warn you when you find out you're wrong. I hope you don't, but I'm really afraid you will.



I think a lot of illusions are going to be shattered rather quickly

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Beck and Hannity praise Rand because they know he is the future of the party.  Rand is definitely still anti-establishment.


That's not how I see it.  

First, let's say the jury is still out on whether Rand is or is not anti-establishment.

I think Beck and Hannity saw a younger version of Ron Paul making his first run for political office.  At 49 years old, Rand could spearhead the growing movement for 20+ years after Ron retires.  They decided right then to do what they can to use him to divide us (and it's working).  They kissed up to Rand, proclaiming him to be more palatable than his father.  They convinced Sarah Palin to endorse him. And in so doing, they made their listeners comfortable with the younger Paul.  Rand won his senate seat with the help of those of us in the liberty movement, as well as the co-opted Tea Party, and establishment GOP who hang on Beck's and Hannity's every word.  Last week, the establishment came for the pound of flesh Rand owed to them.  

What remains to be seen is whether Rand stays on the liberty course, or whether he gets sucked in with the GOP establishment.

----------


## Cdawg45

I wrote this in my June 8th thread: Rand Paul: Freedom Fighter in GOP Clothing...



> I honestly believe that Rand's actions are being orchestrated by the wise elder, Ron himself.


Rand confirmed it on the Schiff show...This isn't supposed to be the Ron Paul Movement, but rather the liberty movement. Ron Paul is like Michael Jordan...There never was anyone like him before and may never be anyone like him again...But life goes on and I think Rand is a damm good leader to follow. The Liberty Movement is screwed if everyone is going to shun anyone who isn't as pure as Ron.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's not how I see it.  
> 
> First, let's say the jury is still out on whether Rand is or is not anti-establishment.
> 
> I think Beck and Hannity saw a younger version of Ron Paul making his first run for political office.  At 49 years old, Rand could spearhead the growing movement for 20+ years after Ron retires.  They decided right then to do what they can to use him to divide us (and it's working).  They kissed up to Rand, proclaiming him to be more palatable than his father.  They convinced Sarah Palin to endorse him. And in so doing, they made their listeners comfortable with the younger Paul.  Rand won his senate seat with the help of those of us in the liberty movement, as well as the co-opted Tea Party, and establishment GOP who hang on Beck's and Hannity's every word.  Last week, the establishment came for the pound of flesh Rand owed to them.  
> 
> What remains to be seen is whether Rand stays on the liberty course, or whether he gets sucked in with the GOP establishment.


If it is the establishment's tactic is to promote Rand because he is more "palatable" than Ron, then fine, because there is no substantive difference between the two.  The only difference that I can see so far is that Rand will be more effective legislatively than Ron ever was.  

This is no slight on Ron, its just the final culmination of what Ron has worked for.  Ron's led to minds being opened and Rand's will lead to political action like never before.

----------


## RickyJ

> Basically, Rand says that he was forced to endorse the nominee as part of the deal to become a Republican Senator.


I didn't hear him say that. I don't think a party can force a damn thing, and if they try then to heck with them, they are not needed. No, he wasn't forced to give an endorsement, no one ever is forced or required to give an endorsement of anyone. His father stayed a republican yet endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008. What he did was not necessary and can only be seen for it is, sucking up to the expected nominee for possible consideration as VP. That is disgusting no matter how you try to spin it. Jesse Benton himself said he could "deliver Paul votes" for Romney if he gave them something, like VP. Jesse Benton is an idiot, and Ron Paul made a very bad choice by having him as his campaign manager.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I wrote this in my June 8th thread: Rand Paul: Freedom Fighter in GOP Clothing...
> 
> 
> Rand confirmed it on the Schiff show...This isn't supposed to be the Ron Paul Movement, but rather the liberty movement. Ron Paul is like Michael Jordan...There never was anyone like him before and may never be anyone like him again...But life goes on and I think Rand is a damm good leader to follow. The Liberty Movement is screwed if everyone is going to shun anyone who isn't as pure as Ron.


Of course.

This fantasy that Rand has "betrayed" Ron or is acting in hostility to Ron's plans is hilarious.  We have some fanciful characters in this movement for sure...

----------


## Cdawg45

This reminds me of hipsters or Indie Rock fans who love certain bands until they "go mainstream" and sell out... Once something becomes too popular they have to go find a new band to discover and the cycle continues. As stated by many here, Ron couldn't change the system with his approach in 30+ years. He has learned what it takes to make real changes in Washington and is helping to mold Rand into the perfect stealth Liberty candidate, who can win the mainstream media and GOP's heart...Now that we may finally have a chance, it's the Liberty movement who is turning there back not just on Rand, but on Ron as well, because these decisions are being guided by Ron.

----------


## wizardwatson

> This reminds me of hipsters or Indie Rock fans who love certain bands until they "go mainstream" and sell out... Once something becomes too popular they have to go find a new band to discover and the cycle continues. As stated by many here, Ron couldn't change the system with his approach in 30+ years. He has learned what it takes to make real changes in Washington and is helping to mold Rand into the perfect stealth Liberty candidate, who can win the mainstream media and GOP's heart...Now that we may finally have a chance, it's the Liberty movement who is turning there back not just on Rand, but on Ron as well, because these decisions are being guided by Ron.


+rep

People "get" the message, or so they say, but they can't grasp this simple strategy that is being pioneered by Rand.  Anyway, judging by a recent poll thread on here I saw it's a minority of the movement who doesn't support Rand so I think we've got solid support for the strategy.  This endorsement was actually a good test of that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If it is the establishment's tactic is to promote Rand because he is more "palatable" than Ron, then fine, because there is no substantive difference between the two.  The only difference that I can see so far is that *Rand will be more effective legislatively than Ron ever was.  
> *
> This is no slight on Ron, its just the final culmination of what Ron has worked for.  Ron's led to minds being opened and Rand's will lead to political action like never before.


If Rand continues that way, bravo for him.  Right now, I'm just a little concerned.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't hear him say that. I don't think a party can force a damn thing, and if they try then to heck with them, they are not needed. No, he wasn't forced to give an endorsement, no one ever is forced or required to give an endorsement of anyone. His father stayed a republican yet endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008. What he did was not necessary and can only be seen for it is, sucking up to the expected nominee for possible consideration as VP. That is disgusting no matter how you try to spin it. Jesse Benton himself said he could "deliver Paul votes" for Romney if he gave them something, like VP. Jesse Benton is an idiot, and Ron Paul made a very bad choice by having him as his campaign manager.


The chairmanships of these state parties are contingent upon supporting the eventual Republican nominee.  Should we relinquish all of our new seats at the table just because of that?

----------


## anaconda

> It made me SO MAD LISTENING TO THIS. It is clear what happened, he thought he was being smart, I don't think he is a horrible or nasty person, I think he does have good intentions but he doesn't have his fathers nerve of steel to all the BS. He thought he would get further then his father by playing the game, he thinks its ok to play this game because he'll outplay the world's best poker players on OUR BEHALF to further our cause. Almost like a naive school kid with a den of robbers. He probably has Republicans swooning all over him seeing if he is ok, if there is anything he wants, if they can make him a cup of tea, signing any bill he wants... hell even the NWO scum bags will order Democrats to swoon all over him, suddenly they'll have open ears for any concenrns he may have. Like a scum bag road biker trying to seduce an innocent girl so are they with Rand Paul. 
> 
> Ron Paul does have a weak spot and that is his son, these scummy little diarrhea infested vomit bags have targeted Rand not in the way we think they would (ie death threats) but with cookies and cream, they know normal bribery will not work so they apeal to his cause for liberty.
> 
> They have stopped the Ron Paul train going into TAMPA, lets pray for the Paul family including Rand and when they drop him like a rock after TAMPA hopefully he'll come to his senses that this is ALL OUT WAR to defend America and that this movement will stay strong headed into TAMPA.


Which ever way one tends to lean on this issue (I am a Rand supporter), this^ is an extremely well-written comment. But keep in mind that Rand may be well aware of this ploy and this treachery.

----------


## anaconda

Didn't George Washington compromise when he caved to the governor of Pennsylvania? The governor was to withhold military support until Washington caved to the governor's power battle with Benedict Arnold. Arnold had been a trusted and successful officer up to that point.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...there is no substantive difference between the two...



True or False...FALSE.

----------


## Aratus

heck, i can dissern the differences between FDR and norman thomas, or even LA's huey long!!! 
i try not to historically morph people together even though one can find these overlaps galore!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> True or False...FALSE.


Compare the voting records, compare the legislative agendas, compare the philosophy, etc.   No substantive difference.

Aren't you a troll by the way?

----------


## cheapseats

> Aren't you a troll by the way?



Mob Rule says resoundingly YES.

Just the facts, ma'am:




> Originally Posted by *Sola_Fide* 
> ...there is no substantive difference between the two...





> True or False...FALSE.

----------


## nutroll

We should stay in the republican party and work within it as before. But we should vote whoever is the LP candidate for President as many times as we are unable to get a true liberty candidate nominated. This will force the republicans to keep swining to LP positions to win their vote, while work within the party is more likely to make that happen. The LP candidate will not win, its just a show of force. Alternatively write in ron paul. Abandonding the party just loses the progress made and a 3rd party is unviable due to the electoral proocess. this movement must stay relatively leaderless, and must not look to Rand or Johnson but must find its own new voices. The idea of Ron Paul is more important than the actual Ron Paul, as good a candidate as he was. 

If Ron Paul runs 3rd party this election, it hurts the legitmacy of the movement within the GOP but also serves to give the advantage to ROMNEY the election. This is because the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters will not vote for Romney. However Ron paul will pull away more disillusioned independents and antiwar dems who might otherwise vote for obama as the less antiwar candidate. Attacking Obamas base is the only way to win this election because Romney will not inspire his own, despite anti obama rhetoric. Which is fine for the GOP establishment that is throwing this fight just like they did when they nominated McCain. 

The neoconservatives get the RINO candidate to ramp up the war rhetoric to gain their favor, when in actuallity it is more useful for them to silently support obama because hes doing everything they want with the added bonus of making it seem like he is not. Pushing the GOP candidate to an even more pro war position (check romneys proposed budget) makes obama seem more nuetral/center, in essence handing him the election while allowing him to work in the ME with a free hand formenting color revolutions in eygpt, libya, syria etc.... This is a more effective manuever than outright military occupation that the neoconservatives openly push for (only to be to the right of obama). in truth the neo conservatives have no problem with obama at all, and the GOP establishment keeps promoting weaksauce rino candidates to win big again in 2016-2020 when they can resume a more aggressive push against a weakened opponent. (remember iraq had sanctinos before we invaded to weaken them, no difference here. also syria must fall before an iranian invasion will take place). 

The big thing here is that although the republicans want to keep RP supporters numbers, they do not want RPs views to become mainstream. They also cant have a major outfflux of the Libertarian right from the party without losing their small gov credentials which keep the right/left political paradigm intact. To this end they co-opted the movement and are trying to re-steer it back using Rands political ambitions / naievete to break the spirit of the movement. Allowing Ron Paul and his supporters to kick up as much dust as they have was a Gambit they played and got slightly out of hand. Ron Paul was only ever meant to be a "speaker" at the convention, never the nominee. 

Finally all the stops have been pulled out to disillusion the idea that liberty was a serious one because of the betrayal. The Larouche circles are JUMPING on this, having called/started the prediction of a paul camps defection to Romney. The claim then becomes further made that since the movement was co-opted that the idea behind libertarianism itself was false. This is the victory meme and win condition for the establishment, because the LaRouche economic paradigm is no different than the one hamilton / FDR espoused.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> *
> to all you sports fans out there if your favorite baseball team or hockey team or football team or basketball team lost the championship does that mean you will support the team you hate the most in the league?ABSOLUTELY 0 sense.*
> 
> Sorry Rand, and Schiff I believe Ron Paul was a good man and did the right thing in Congress.


Nonsequitur.  The analogy would be if a member (Michael Young) of your favorite team (Texas Rangers) announced his support your least favorite team (the Yankees) to win it all, after your team was eliminated, would you still support your team and that player going forward? (yes)  Additionally, your favorite player is retiring.  In your case, you don't like the player who announced his support all that much, but he is still on your team.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Nonsequitur.  The analogy would be if a member (Michael Young) of your favorite team (Texas Rangers) announced his support your least favorite team (the Yankees) to win it all, after your team was eliminated, would you still support your team and that player going forward? (yes)  Additionally, your favorite player is retiring.  In your case, you don't like the player who announced his support all that much, but he is still on your team.


I'd still support my team, but I'd be pretty damned pissed at that player for supporting ANY other team than the one that is paying him millions.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> At least Ron can speak from the moral high ground and intellectually provide ammo to liberty lovers.
> 
> Besides, everybody knows Ron's approach isn't going to be successful legislatively - Fed audit notwithstanding. The argument is that Rand's approach will be more successful, and the proof so far is that it hasn't performed a damn bit different.


I'm glad you attribute value to the moral high ground.  I'll take voters and money though.  I know my dad, mom, two brothers, uncle, boss, and one coworker all were unwilling to donate a cent to Ron and I had to beg my dad and brother to get them to vote for Ron.  They are all excited by the prospect of a Rand presidency and will contribute both financial support and their votes.  Why?  They believe he can win and they don't think he is "extreme".  

That is just the shortlist of people I could think of in my personal sphere of influence.  There are a lot more people just like them and, in turn, they will influence those in their sphere of influence and we will have a Liberty President in 2016.  

Enjoy your moral high ground.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I'd still support my team, but I'd be pretty damned pissed at that player for supporting ANY other team than the one that is paying him millions.


Amen.  It is really hard to stomach, but when its clear the players intent is to siphon off the hated teams fan base and monetary advantage, it becomes easier to take.  Of course, the analogy breaks down here because sports fan are less fickle than your average voter (and with the amount of fair weather fans these days, thats pathetic).  Just like in sports though, only one thing seems to draw an adequate amount of support from the general public and that is the ability to win.  Everyone loves to be the people who liked something before it was cool, but we aren't gonna win a championship ever without the fanbase.

----------


## Aratus

i was wondering if dr. ron paul would go 3rd party up until halloween and then give mitt romney 
the nod after a string of three~way debates if tampa is a zoo and a major GOP disaster area...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Man guys, don't you get it yet?  If Rand didn't endorse the eventual Republican nominee, any legislation that he offered would be sidelined.  Get it?
> 
> Yeah, we would have felt better had he not done it and maybe some would have preferred to just moan and groan and decry the evil neocons when none of Paul's bills were passed, but it also would have stalled any progress in turning some of this government crap around.
> 
> Ron and Rand have two different roles.  Ron is the purity gauge for our philosophy; Rand is the legislative implementer.  Not to mention the person who will likely be able to get conservatives to understand the message.  We need both roles.


Wow, there are many that just wish he had waited until after Tampa, then endorse the nominee.   I would say that those that took positions within the Republican Party will have to also, right?

Why are we arguing for the sake of arguing.  It's the timing that sucks, just like the memo.

----------

