Peter Schiff Announces U.S. Senate Run

All the best to him...

Certainly worthwhile having someone espousing save and invest policy. I wouldn't want to see his social policies enacted but never hurts to a have a liberal economic voice in there.
Independent I presume?

From talking to his manager, he has little chance of success running as for the Libertarian Party or as an Independent, due to how the Electoral College works, so he is running for the Republican Party and has made a call to other Libertarians to help him pull the party away from the Neo-Cons.

The people heeding the call are lining up too. I am witnessing a strong revolutionary undercurrent and I think it's a good thing. Ive been following this movement with keen interest.

Well selling out to the Republicans just to win a seat is hardly standing up for liberty and denoucing the corruption of the political process now is it

I don't see it as selling out principles, although I think you are being "tongue in cheek". However this strategy is how Ron Paul has infiltrated the Republican Party. Not to mention it's the same strategy the Neo-Conservatives have employed, which have achieved this goal in both the Republican Party and the Democrats.

Ron Paul calls them out by name.

He does then to rabbit on a bit.

He will have to learn how to make his point far fewer words if he wants to get anywhere in politics.

Probably a valid point, he can be a little self absorbed sometimes. However if he actually gets into power, he is going to friggen own everyone, including his own party members. Just watch.

He may end up as a key player in the Republican Party actually. Here is an opinion piece worth reading.

http://www.schiffforsenate.com/index.php/site/news_detail/opinion_could_peter_schiff_lead_the_republican_party_in_2010/


Lots of online support and campaign contributions in the form of Money Bombs. It seems all the political action is being conducted through the internet these days, especially via You Tube and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter et al.

Some cool video edits being put together by fans. I suspect we will eventually see this kind of thing generated around New Zealand politics.

no he wont

*yes he will*

And people wonder why some are no longer contributing towards and actually leaving biggie? Neil you and many of the other radical socialists on this site are a prime reason why. Personally I'm having more fun with my American friends on Facebook these days, the conversation is far more stimulating and I don't have cheap shots or baiting attempts being made, simply because I share an opposing political ideology. In truth this forum has become increasingly juvenile over the years, maybe you should reflect on that.

Regardless of this aspect it doesn't really mater if Peter Schiff is not a key player of the Republican Party, any number of these other candidates will help turn the tide. The more of them that stand up, the bigger the movement will become. It seems to be expanding every month from the amount of activity I am observing too.

A promotional piece exposing some of the other key players involved, for those interested.

you do beat the fanboy drum a lot though rival so you can expect some ribbing

rival,

you can't just say, oh he's gonna be a major player, without providing any basis for that claim and then expect me to provide a detailed critique of your statement.


And who you calling radical? pot, kettle, black

The same "activity" that surrounded ron paul? that turned out to be nothing more than over-active internet buzz with no carry over to the off-line world?

The republicans are still in the grips of the religious right. No libertarian will get anywhere without pandering to them. Simple fact. And if a libetarian does pander to them, well then he's not a very good libertarian.


Oh, any you're welcome to go play will your american buddies on facebook. You seldom contribute anything interesting, expect incoherent verbose rants about whatever extremist position is taking your fancy at the time.

Stop pretending like this is really your underlying intention. If you wanted me to detail some reasons why I think Peter Schiff will become a major player, you would have asked.

Admitting that it's not exactly etiquette to answer a question with another question, why shouldn't Peter Schiff become a major player in the Republican Party? What is your reasoning? In my opinion he is one of the only people, economically literate enough to be a key player.

I'm pretty sure Neil explained why he won't be (not why he shouldn't be -- that's a different argument entirely): The republican party has been (or continues to be) over-run by the talkback radio nutjob crowd.

Peter Schiif won't be a major player in the republican party for the same reasons Ron Paul did so horribly in Republican primaries last year.

That's over simplifying things, most of Ron Pauls support came after the 2008 election.



That religious element is problematic and somewhat disturbing as we both know, but it should be noted that Ron Paul is both a Christian and a Libertarian, and he still manages to deflect a good portion of their "value system" back towards focusing it on the state level rather than the federal. Such as espoused in the political philosophy of subsidiarity, which is popular amongst various libertarians.

A lot of that has to do with a lack of exposure due to the media and the Republican Party black listing him. But his popularity has grown so much since then and is still developing. One interesting aspect is that he broke the record for the largest money bomb in 24 hours and received more campaign donations from soldiers than any other candidate.

Placing aside the Alex Jones conspiracy nutjobs, I do think you guys underestimate these peoples potential. Of course I am open to criticism regarding over estimating their potential too; and I have no effective rebuttal against that, other than "time will tell".

while rival is a little bit sensitive at times his original comment was 'he may' not 'he will'. Obviously it is an opinion which hes allowed to have/state. I dont think it was at the heart of the discussion so didnt really need proving.

Rival i think youre going to have to learn to not take the bait.

My inital impression was that he does not really appear to possess the character or charisma of someone I would expect to go far in American politics.

And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong him at all. he may well have some very good ideas but lets face it, American politics is a bit like a celebrity game show where charm wins out over brains 9 times out of 10.

I know he was baiting me, his actual post doesn't really interest me, I was just making a point, that it's this kind of behavior which is contributing to biggie loosing its popularity. I know it has picked back up in recent times and Mike et al. don't really care for us older cats, due to his target demographic. But still, what's the point in contributing on here?

Little to no incentive...

The amusing thing is, how bored will they become when all they have is the same tired jerk circle?

True that, I suspect times are changing though. Politics seems to be moving away from traditional media sources and increasingly towards the internet. I am noticing an increasing trend, especially over the last year. Here is another article I just read today.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carney-obama-we-need-to-bailout-newspapers-or-blog-will-run-the-world-2009-9

CA has always been a little bit different but even the lounge isnt about getting rid of 'older' people its about making sure they dont put off younger people by being grumpy jaded cunts like Neil and myself.

CA is a good place to test your theories though i dont agree with arguments with no rationale.

of course he can give his opinion... and I can disagree with it

sure but you two have a history and yours is of being fairly err succinct.

I like the stuff Rival posts for a different view on things, particularly as its in areas i dont necessarily read up on otherwise. id like it you posted stuff related to your leftist leanings too but so often it seems to be about sniping other peoples opinions rather than making your own topic/argument.

I don't claim to have all the answers bob.

I certainly don't wanna come in here and post long diatribes about why my philosophy is best and why people should believe my point of view.

I can critique without claiming to know the *right* answer...

While Schiff claims in one of those videos that America's greateness was built on free trade, i'm not convinced. To what period does he refer? Maybe it was in the 19th Century when the British free trade regime (and navy and empire army (which fought colonial wars with Indian manpower) and imperialism and exploitation of India and half the rest of the world) reigned supreme? It certainly wasn't the most recent golden age of capitalism (1950 - 1970), when America reaped the advantage of its continental isolation from two world wars in Europe of unprecedented destructiveness (and cost), to promote twenty years of capitalist expansion driven by governmental organisations such as the IMF. During this time the World Trade Organisation under American leadership acted only as a forum for discussing the liberalisation of trade - it did not create a world of free trade, and America certainly never practiced what it preached.

America's greatness being built on free trade is more or less an opinion, however a lot of amazing developments did come from having relatively free markets. Golden age may be strong language too, but the mild west did have very libertarian ideas. The east coast however government was expanding. But the innovations didn't seem to really happen till the 1900's. A lot of groundwork however was established prior to this.

1. The gold rush (a large amount of new monies)

2. Oil rigs had been installed and are producing, pipelines started.

3. Settlements had settled (namely they killed most natives, bears, birds, and buffalo)

4. And fiat currency centrally established (massive credit expansion)

5. Railroads had connected East and West, and almost equally important communications technologies... ie phone, morse code

These points to me led to lots of innovation. But also to lots of speculation. Namely in the 20's.

I personally don't think the US was completely built on free trade. But compared to today it may seem to be free trade, the government was roughly 1/10th it's present size. "free banking" existed (though it was still fractional-reserve). There was very little regulation or taxation (compared to now). There are better examples in history though, China in the 15th and 16th centuries, under the Ming Dynasty.

This dynasty was influenced by Taoism. The government did not issue banknotes, which were entirely privately issued; the tax rate was reduced from about 7.5% to 3.3%, and there were no regulations or tariffs (only one tax on imports that yielded about 40,000 taels a year on a trade of millions), unlike European mercantilism. Many people, especially the educated, were exempt from taxation whatsoever. Unfortunately, this ended with the conquest of China by the Manchus.


Going back to America however:

Point 3. Was subsidized. Gov't army did much massacring, and bullets were handed out freely to citizens in order to kill undesired things.

point 4. Obviously gov't involvement

point 5. Gov't subsidized