• Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:43 AM
    Please restore the context, which was about the three things the liberty movement must do to make advances, (promote the liberty positions, win elections, confront the establishment), not a random "any candidate." Many people here are stuck at just the first part. And note I didn't mention specific candidates other than Paul. Strategic candidacies who are not in our camp ideologically, but did reach out to voting blocs as we should have done, indirectly help the movement by showing us how to do likewise. Where they have successfully taken on the elite and MSM while we have not, they have set the stage for us to benefit in later cycles. Adding those strategic aspects is what will advance liberty politically, whereas only dwelling on our positions while calling that "a direction," will not.
    95 replies | 1494 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:02 AM
    Exactly how is winning elections and overcoming establishment barriers to liberty, going in the opposite direction? The problem is you believe any consideration of advancing liberty that goes beyond its positions, is going "in the opposite direction of liberty." That is, you think "the right direction" is to go on preaching to the choir, while demonizing anything else as being "anti-liberty." That's not merely disagreeing about strategy, that is having no strategy. It's another manifestation of the binary mindset that refuses to to acknowledge the usefulness of strategic campaigns or trends for the movement. I stand undeluded, and uncorrected.
    95 replies | 1494 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 05:24 PM
    No, they are not hijackers, they are suppliers meeting the demand of the "liberty for all" marketplace. After three Paul defeats, that market ideally wants 1) progress in moving the country on "the direction of liberty," not just more educational campaigns, 2) candidates who try to win, not just more educational campaigns, and 3) progress in busting up the establishment barriers to liberty, not just more educational campaigns. The TP, OWS and the outsiders have actually had some success on points 2 and 3, whereas the Pauls did not. Moving the country in the direction of liberty requires addressing the strategic aspect, not just the liberty positions. If you only want to fixate on the latter, and ignore achieving anything on the strategic front, join or rejoin the LP. The LP runs educational campaigns all the time, to ensure it provides a real liberty option on the ballot, without regard for anything other than representing the true "direction of liberty," position wise. But the point behind the Paul movement was supposed to be getting such a candidate elected President, not just representing the 5-10% liberty base. That was the point behind supporting the candidate running within the major parties. But if the candidates could not succeed on both the position and strategic fronts (in building the coalition, and effectively taking on the elite), that didn't eliminate the demand for somebody to succeed on those fronts. Demonizing everybody who have recognized the strategic progress being made by candidates and movements in those areas, is not productive. We can't sell liberty for all if we don't do outreach beyond the choir.
    95 replies | 1494 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 01:13 PM
    They were not hijackers, they are voting groups the Pauls did not pursue, thus were abandoned or orphaned. We never had most of them to begin with, in order for them to be hijacked. Your position is Paul-centric, and exclusively oriented around the issues, at a time when we are past the Paul candidacies, and now understand that emphasizing our core issues can grow the liberty base, but it not by itself create voting coalitions that win elections, nor displace the statist establishment. The movement is splintering because many are failing to move towards incorporating the other two dynamics. They remain stuck at being exclusively Paul and issue-centered, having learned nothing from the last three failed campaigns. Engaging coalition building and the anti-establishment voters is not going in the opposite direction, it's about going in a liberty-building direction by not staying stuck in 2007, and acting like the 2008, 2012, and 2016 defeats didn't happen.
    95 replies | 1494 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 11:11 AM
    More accurately, circa 2007 the emerging Paul candidacy coalesced around the grassroots liberty movement, and performed an amicable takeover in leading it while Ron was a available mainstream Presidential candidate. The movement existed long before that, seeding the liberty and truth message for decades through the educational campaigns of the LP, CP, and the alternative or patriot media. Virtually all agreed upon Ron Paul as a unifying candidate based on his consistent voting record, distinguished image and credentials, as well as his ability to grow the base of liberty supporters (producing the harvest from the liberty seeding that had occurred prior). But, truth be said, we didn't win a single primary in three tries, with either Paul. In football terms, we never got a single first down. The Ron Paul movement is fragmenting because Ron (and Rand) Paul is no longer a candidate, not because the LP and other grassroots folks "never really understood" liberty. The Pauls are not the center of the liberty movement, they were simply the best vehicles the movement adopted for attempting to run a real liberty candidate for President within the major party system. In the wake of three failed national campaigns, two major dynamics driving those defeats have been identified: 1) the Pauls' inability or unwillingness to build winning voting coalitions beyond the 5-10% liberty base, and 2) the institutional barriers set up by the special interest run establishment, who control the major parties and media. The Paul movement is now divided because, post Paul, there is no agreement over, or ability to acknowledge, how to address the other, above two dynamics. And without a Paul being in the picture, there is no reasonable basis for continuing to center the liberty movement around the Paul movement, which was just a subset of it. So some voters we could have reached or retained have gravitated toward other elements, from the Tea Party to Occupy, to the outsider trend, that they perceive are engaging their concerns, and are confronting the elite establishment. To succeed going forward, we need candidates who stand for liberty, and who can/will put voting blocs together to win something, and who will confront the elite. Fixating on liberty positions alone, is not enough. We need to pursue a fuller or more correct strategic direction, not just the correct policy direction.
    95 replies | 1494 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-28-2016, 05:45 PM
    It would influence Trump to follow through on the non-interventionist direction indicated by his recent speeches, and put Rand in a stronger position (as VP) to run for President again in '20 or '24. It would protect the VP position from being occupied by a neo-con in waiting, who would use it as a launching pad. And, of course, it would protect Trump from being assassinated.
    32 replies | 706 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-28-2016, 05:37 PM
    If it's true, it's probably happening because Trump has clarified his foreign policy enough to make it easier for Rand to endorse him. Could Trump even be wooing Rand as a possible VP? Their general rhetorical stance on the subject has converged somewhat, being basically non-interventionist in substance, but with a Jacksonian/Reaganite "peace through strength" wrapping to keep the warbots happy.
    32 replies | 706 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    04-28-2016, 06:27 AM
    National Enquirer :rolleyes:
    77 replies | 1630 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    04-28-2016, 06:22 AM
    Why would I want to help Donald Trump get elected? I hope YOU know, that's not the mission of this message board.
    42 replies | 129 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    04-28-2016, 06:20 AM
    Me, too. Always have been...and very proud of it.
    42 replies | 129 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    04-27-2016, 06:24 PM
    Nope. I'm done with "going crazy" over politicians.
    113 replies | 1858 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-27-2016, 08:53 AM
    Motivation to vote for someone is always a stronger trigger for turnout than motivation to vote against someone. In 2008, black voters came out in droves for Obama, because of the impression it was "their one and only shot" to elect a black President. The desire to put "the first woman" in the White House is just not as strong among Democrats, especially younger women who strongly prefer Sanders. The huge number of new Republican enrollments, as well as hours-long lines of people waiting to vote at GOP primaries or to attend Trump rallies, suggest far more people are energized to vote for Trump than against him. I wouldn't be surprised if he won by a Reaganesque landslide, given the demographics of his support is shaping up along similar lines.
    27 replies | 359 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-27-2016, 07:45 AM
    As of November 2015, this same site had Trump's odds of winning the nomination at 12.4%: https://electionbettingodds.com/GOP_chart_maxim_lott_john_stossel.html Numbers in campaigns can fundamentally change over 5-6 months.
    27 replies | 359 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    38 replies | 551 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 06:12 PM
    Says the person not eligible for president.
    94 replies | 1427 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 06:11 PM
    Trump already takes MD, PA & CT hillary takes MD
    94 replies | 1427 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 04:49 PM
    He's not even constitutionally eligible
    26 replies | 351 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    113 replies | 1858 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 03:23 PM
    Haha. So he he voting for Hillary?
    26 replies | 351 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 03:14 PM
    Sanders is favored in RI the 17 delegates in PA are a near lock for trump. The question becomes, did he notify his followers about the 3 delegates to also vote for in enough time?
    94 replies | 1427 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    26 replies | 351 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 10:20 AM
    Not only delegates but US Congress and the other seats. A candidate would have to take note if they were running unopposed and yet a Write In person achieved even something like 1% of the vote. I see no harm for those who are registered. Do you?
    3 replies | 98 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    04-26-2016, 06:54 AM
    With Hillary, we have her actual track record (encouraging Bill Clinton to bomb Kosovo in the '90's, supporting the Iraq war in the '00's, urging Obama to bomb Libya and expand operations in Syria as Secretary of State, etc). As has been often said, there is no war that she has said no to. Trump has no track record in office, but expressed opposition to the Iraq war (he claims before it started, but certainly by 2004 and since), wants to reduce our involvement with NATO, wants to negotiate a fair deal between the Israelis and Palestinians (instead of demonizing the latter), supports having a non-belligerent relationship with Putin, stays independent of pro-war mega-donors, etc. IOW, Trump is a "Jacksonian" interventionist, who believes in projecting strength and fighting short term conflicts that are directly in America's interest, but is not a neocon interventionist, who subscribes to their full agenda of regime change, nation-building, global empire, belligerent diplomacy, Israel-first mania, and no-exit/no-win wars. Hillary, by many miles, is more pro-war.
    35 replies | 437 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-25-2016, 06:13 PM
    I'm asking about a vote in the primary. Are you too? GJ write-in at the primary?!
    26 replies | 351 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-25-2016, 06:11 PM
    I agree with this. Which is why i vote 3rd party, or write in. But I might make an exception if the vote offers the possibility to fracture the 2 party system. Would you make such an exception, ever?
    26 replies | 351 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-25-2016, 06:07 PM
    my apologies
    79 replies | 917 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-25-2016, 06:07 PM
    Very true about the 9 year citizenship
    79 replies | 917 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-25-2016, 04:00 PM
    I think most here would agree that trump and Hillary(front runners) are horrible options for president. I think many would also agree that Cruz nor Kasich offer a better alternative. But could there be a reason, in the upcoming primary states, to vote for Cruz or Kasich and keep trump shy of the magic number? For however likely or unlikely it may be, to see the Republican Party select someone other than Trump in their contested convention might be enough to anger some Republican voters to the point that they support a 3rd party or leave the party for future years and elections. Without a doubt this is a far fetched plan that may never come to fruition, but it's an idea. Anyone agree? Disagree?
    26 replies | 351 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    04-25-2016, 03:53 PM
    Are any of the people found here: http://www.lppa.org
    5 replies | 239 view(s)
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Hey, I'm kind of getting ticked off at the whole prostitution thread myself. And frankly, I'm getting a little frustrated with the libertines.

    I want prostititution legalized because I think its wrong to threaten government violence on people just because I don't approve of their behavior, because I don't want to pay to lock peaceful people (even if they're bad people) up, and because I think the best way to deal with sin (Unless its violent) outside of the church is to preach the gospel to sinners. Keep in mind how the Pharisees were angry with Jesus for eating with the prostitutes. He didn't ask the Roman government to criminalize them either.

    Some people here want prostitution legalized so that husbands and wives can cheat on each other. Its disgusting, and I don't condone that line of thinking At all I speak only for myself in that thread, and not every libertarian wants to legalize prostitution for the same reasons. SOmething to keep in mind.
  2. View Conversation
    Please help! I'm counting on RPF! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251175
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About Peace&Freedom

Basic Information

Signature


-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...hrough-moment/
Political Director, Libertarian Party of NY

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,613
Posts Per Day
1.50
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
08-04-2014 03:04 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 08:44 AM
Join Date
11-29-2007
Referrals
0

7 Friends

  1. cajuncocoa cajuncocoa is offline

    Member

    cajuncocoa
  2. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  3. j3nn j3nn is offline

    Member

    j3nn
  4. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
  5. TommyJeff TommyJeff is offline

    Member

    TommyJeff
  6. TomtheTinker TomtheTinker is offline

    Member

    TomtheTinker
  7. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline

    Member

    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 7 of 7
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

04-30-2016


04-29-2016


04-28-2016


04-26-2016


04-24-2016


04-19-2016



Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast