• Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:24 PM
    Good going for Johnson. He's doing well enough to be drawing attacks from a desperate Hillary machine. More at: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/298183-democrats-target-libertarian-ticket
    4 replies | 94 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:56 AM
    Putting aside our disagreement over Trump, WHAT IS YOUR EFFECTIVE PLAN for how a true national liberty candidate can defeat the establishment blackout or win in the primaries? Are you really saying you have no idea, or in fact, no desire to see our candidate bother to win over any voter blocs, because you regard everybody outside the liberty base as authoritarians? Do you just want to commit the movement to running educational campaigns (only within the GOP, not the LP) forever more, while America burns?
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 10:56 PM
    What it means is Massie, or whoever else our real, consistent liberty candidate is will need to have the ability to bypass the blackout factor. They couldn't block out a super famous person who could self-fund, from Perot to the Donald. Whether one supports Trump or not, or views him as an alternative or not, the fact remains he had the ability to get around that obstacle, and to put together a winning vote coalition. Yes, we need to be thankful a case example exists for how to do so. A major party nomination will not be handed to our liberty candidates, they will be fought and marginalized ferociously. We can bemoan the institutional obstacle all we want, but we still have to have a credible plan to deal with it. We will NOT overcome it by running the same exact one-dimensional candidate as before, who is right on the issues, but has no effective means of defeating the blackout or winning primaries.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 10:34 PM
    Your approach to the debate is mainly issue or argument focused, instead of attentive to other factors. Again, the end game is winning the election, not to show one was better prepared to debate. Trump was trying to look rational enough to win in November, not to win points for one evening. This counter view---that Trump performed as he did to 1) avoid 'bad optics' traps designed to hurt him regardless of what he did, and 2) to reserve his fire for the follow-up debates, where the negatives of being more aggressive will not nearly be as big a factor---is backed up by prior behavior of the campaign, and analysis by several observers of his "rope-a-dope" approach. By letting Hillary be on offense, she can't play the "he unfairly beat up on a woman" card from the outset. And by giving her the floor in the first debate to run through all her arsenal of tricks, he's betting she'll run out of gas in the debates going forward. Both Bob Wenzel, Scott "Dilbert' Adams, and even Michael Moore concur on the latter point: http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/09/why-donald-trump-will-destroy-hillary.html http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/09/27/michael-moore-donald-trump-won-first-presidential-debate This is exactly parallel to how, for example, Trump let Team Clinton burn through a hundred million in cash during the summer, thereby wasting money running ads before the months where voters make up their minds, so he could fight the ad war with her in the fall, when the spending and ground game actually counts. He's likewise saved his fire or 'axe' for the later debates, instead of wasting his ammo in the first round.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 09:16 PM
    I see an establishment who at first mistakenly blew off Trump as a passing amusement, then realized too late he was a threat to both Jeb and Hillary. Trump kept HIMSELF front and center, as he couldn't be blacked out because of his ability to self-fund his primary campaign, and his 30 years of branding in the culture made him too compellingly high profile a figure to suppress. In this fashion he has provided a solution to the establishment's marginalization of alternative candidates that could not be overcome by the Pauls, and one that we should be thankful for.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 03:27 PM
    And now this: http://truthfeed.com/bombshell-hillarys-lawyers-rigged-debates-working-out-debate-deal-that-included-no-cross-examination-questions-for-hillary/26121/
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 10:35 AM
    I would have stopped combatively blasting that candidate with loaded questions, and frequent interruptions that were causing him to go over time, and cut into the other candidate's time.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 08:52 AM
    You can clean it up all you want to but the true, main fact is even simpler: It's easy to lose, and be thrown off your game when you're being double teamed. It's easy to win, if you get the softballs while the other candidate gets the hardballs, with follow-ups. Hillary didn't get asked about her real/alleged scandals or flaps, but Trump got hammered on his. Despite this, viewers saw through the unbalanced charade and found Trump reasonable, as indicated by the preponderance of the online polls (including liberal sites like Slate). Hillary proved she could win on debate points when the issues presented are deeply tilted towards her. All Trump had to do was prove he could survive being double teamed, while not making a fatal gaffe, not prove that he was optimally prepared. He just needed to show he could weather Hillary's best engineered storm, and he succeeded.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 08:08 AM
    The candidates are supposed to combat each other, including frequently breaking the other's flow. The moderator is not supposed to do so.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 07:40 AM
    When you combatively interrupt somebody over 40 times in the roughly 40 minutes Trump had time to speak, yes, you are trying to make him incoherent. Selectively applied frequent interruptions are a classic technique of media bias.
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-27-2016, 07:32 AM
    Exactly. If Trump had gone all in guns blazing on Hillary at once, the media would have given him the Lazio treatment, and would be calling him un-Presidential. Clearly Team Clinton "got to" the moderator, possibly even threatening his job hosting the NBC evening news if he didn't play ball. A check of associated stories listed at the top of Drudge this morning tells the story: LESTER HOLT: THE THIRD DEBATER... Asked Trump 6 follow-up questions, did not ask ANY of Clinton... Interrupted Trump 41 times, Clinton 7... 'Fact-checking' becomes opinion journalism...
    571 replies | 8871 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    56 replies | 898 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-26-2016, 10:23 PM
    Kodak moment here, but I agree with Zippy's summary. Overall, the exchange was a draw. But that means Hillary lost, because she didn't blow Trump out of the water. The real point of the debates is not over establishing who won on the issues (by that measure, Quayle won his debate with Bentsen in '88), or who was on top of the details (by that measure, Ryan won the debate with Biden in '12). We're not electing the best debater, or the most informed policy advisor, we're electing a President. Trump appeared capable of being "Presidential" and of doing that job, and Hillary did not shake that impression. So Trump got the most out of the first debate.
    56 replies | 898 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-26-2016, 12:02 PM
    Trump has spoken of taking similar measures in relation to using profiling, meaning most people would not be subject to this engagement. Since his campaign has focused on vetting Muslims for possible terrorist ties, or Mexicans over possible illegal status, I used those two examples.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-26-2016, 11:57 AM
    So you bought the MSM's 'deplorable' narrative that most of the tens of millions of populist opponents of government and the PC regime are kooks or bigots. Agreeing to such mass demonization is not the way to reach any sizeable bloc of voters, and it keeps people mentally shackled to the same frameworks that have made it impossible to overcome the institutional obstacles to liberty. Rand's approach was perceived as too accommodating to the statist status quo for him to be accepted as an effective alternative. For this same reason. nor did Rand have an effective solution to the blackout tactics, which as you pointed out were being practiced on him BEFORE, and APART from Trump. If Trump had never entered the race, Jeb would have dominated the primary coverage as per the establishment's actual plan, and the elite would have still blocked Rand out. So the crucial issue remains, the Pauls did not have an effective counter to the kingmakers' tactics, or a viable outreach plan to get votes outside the liberty wing of the GOP, whereas Trump did. Reaching out, and effectively reaching out are different things. Reaching out in the entirely PC, let's-play-nice way with the MSM that Rand tried, turned out to be ineffective. Boldly confronting or denigrating the media, mega donors, and party leadership, while appealing to a populist or nationalist dynamic among voters, turned out to be the more successful route.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-26-2016, 11:22 AM
    Hillary, at best, will take almost everybody's guns. Trump, at worst, will just stop and frisk, or take guns from some Muslims and Latinos. Clear choice.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-26-2016, 09:10 AM
    Perpetual Educational Campaign Libertarians: Building coalitions is a two way street. If Rand wanted to build a coalition with Republican voting blocs then he should have made the effort. He did not, and that's why he was not nominated, not because those factions were not reachable. Trump did reach out to them, and that's why he's winning. Johnson has built a niche 5-10% election coalition from LP voters, some millenials and disaffected Sanders supporters, but that does not equal an election winning political bloc.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-25-2016, 09:29 PM
    You described the opposite of what I want, in order to promote a straw man that is the opposite of what I said. I don't want lip service, and my faction is the Founding Fathers, whose intent was to have a government that actually recognizes the rights we innately have, and could be actually countered if it did not. Is it too much to expect to enjoy the rights we already have, AND expect the explicit acknowledgement of them in a country's Constitution to be upheld, or redress to be available if it does not? It's a both-and, not either-or. If the SC comes up with an unconstitutional ruling on guns or other rights, what I "want" is for the decision to be overturned, AND for Congress to remove the Court's jurisdiction if it's not, AND for the states to secede if the Courts or Congress won't restore recognition, AND for the People to stand up for their gun rights in any event. That's NOT "abiding," despite your mis-description. Blowing off institutional safeguards that affirm your liberties is not a good thing, as we need as many checks against state overreach as possible. Resisting seeing the checks eroded is part and parcel of a "I don't abide" mindset. Just saying, as a practical matter, without such formal remedies, allowing the Court to get stacked such that it vacates the 2nd amendment will lead to massive restriction of gun ownership and access. The personal remedy of "from my cold dead hands" may NOT be enough to retain it, as it has shown to be not enough in most countries. The state will NOT let you go about your day, no matter what dude you are.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-25-2016, 06:26 PM
    Translation: Cap is straw-manning again. I'm voting LP/Johnson, while knowing he does not have any realistic shot of winning. The topic is neither Hillary or Trump, but the ISSUE that a gun control interpretation of the 2nd amendment is about to be christened by the Supreme Court, depending on who the next Justice is. That is not fear-mongering, that is just the news. Despising Trump does not change the facts. The fact is, the difference on this issue IS consequential, even if you despise both major candidates. It's not "justifying" voting for a certain candidate to simply point out what's about to happen, if that candidate does not win. Just don't complain afterwards---got that through your heads?
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-25-2016, 05:40 PM
    To repeat, no government can take our rights away. But most governments do not honor or recognize basic human rights, and free countries that stop doing so no longer function as free countries. You can preen "let them come and try to take them" all you want. Tell that to the Australians, 30% of whose gun owners lost their guns when draconian laws, sold as "common sense gun control" led to them being taken from them in the '90's. Tell that to most people in most countries, whose governments never protected their right to gun ownership to begin with. Yes, they will always have gun rights, but yes, the state came and took their guns anyway. I want our country to remain free, as demonstrated by the nation defending the gun rights of its people, not the nothing burger of "knowing I have gun rights," while having no access to guns, in an unfree state. I want a something burger, not liberty that is all hat and preening, but no cattle.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-25-2016, 12:47 PM
    The issue is not the SC taking rights away (they can't). The issue is the government taking their protection or recognition of those rights away. A SC ruling to overturn Heller will give the state cover to do just that.
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-25-2016, 08:06 AM
    This issue is not theoretical, as the choice, on this issue, is real. There is a case headed for the SC THIS YEAR, where five gun control freak votes WILL overturn Heller, which affirmed the historic or original intent meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as protecting the right of individual gun ownership. The intent of the overturn side will be to re-brand the amendment to mean it is only about recognizing the right of states to regulate militias. Once in place as a SC precedent, fortified by additional liberal justices Hillary would appoint, it's lights out for individual gun rights, and lights on for unlimited gun grabs: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/supreme-court-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/
    112 replies | 1378 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-21-2016, 08:08 PM
    As discussed before, the criteria references strategic benefits only in the "projected" or future sense, not the ALREADY DEMONSTRATED strategic benefits, as with the case of the outsider trend, thus making it structurally useless for fairly assessing all candidates based on the current evidence. That's rigging things such that only the one-dimensional aspect of issue purity or liberty base appeal can be currently evaluated---when the critical deficit of our recent preferred candidates is their LACK of demonstrated ability to appeal to those outside the base. Since that basic dynamic is slyly excluded, it is designed for failure in helping us accurately define more fully qualified candidates, so I decline to participate in it.
    84 replies | 1848 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-21-2016, 03:08 AM
    No thanks, I prefer non-kangaroo courts. If a candidate "evaluation" leaves out the strategic aspect, the thematic aspect, the populist aspect or any other relevant political dimension to liberty other than positions, it is fatally flawed and worse than useless. Trump is an anti-establishment candidate. If you believe otherwise, feel free to make your case with Nigel Farage, Chuck Baldwin, Phyllis Schafly, Pat Buchanan, millions of pro-outsider primary voters, etc. As for the topic, I will be voting for Johnson, also due to his campaign being overall helpful to liberty and the LP, even though his positions can certainly also be questioned.
    84 replies | 1848 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-19-2016, 04:31 PM
    Trump WON OVER support of most of Congress, who now back him out of necessity (he won the nomination, and is on track to winning the election). That's different from their hearts being in it.
    84 replies | 1174 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-19-2016, 04:24 PM
    I don't believe the Ron Paul campaigns of 2008 would have exploded into being without the kind of "wake up" preparations of the grassroots that LP campaigns had seeded in the years/decades prior. This kind of contribution can't be measured across a single election cycle. Newcomers in 2007 had missed the LP's developmental years, and the prior excitement of the Harry Browne years, etc. Not noting this, too many in the Paul movement adopted a kind of microwave construct that with the right national candidate, all the other problems could be solved in short order. Paul supporters just said to the long-slaving and broader liberty movement, "hi, we'll take it from here," and presumed a superiority and competence over the rest of the grassroots they never established in fact. What excited people about Paul was he was a solid libertarian running a "third party' style campaign in a major party race, thus his message could not be shut out, marginalized or compromised. The establishment stopped him by simply porting the marginalization techniques they had used on the minor parties over to soft-or-hard blacking out Paul in the GOP primary race. This backfired on the elite, however, because the higher visibility of the major party race caused more people to notice what was going on. That in turn woke more people up to the issue of what does the movement need to do, to defeat this establishment? The LP, like all other third parties in America, is mainly constrained from growth by this kind of structural suppression of political alternatives built into the election system by the elite special interests. This elites controls both major parties, monopolizes power through them, and alternative movements are either compromised/co-opted into one of the majors, or marginalized into irrelevance. In the post Paul era, I see the LP serving as a major vetting system for fielding liberty candidates, in addition to running educational campaigns. From this available pool of vetted with campaign experience, the movement could run them in fusion candidacies (e.g., LP/CP/GOP) that overcome the structural barriers to getting alternatives elected (mainly by running them in open seat or special election situations). This kind of leapfrogging over the system requires at least a loose alliance between liberty people across the major party and minor party spectrum, with the grassroots cooperating with each other regardless of their party preference, and intellectual libertarians working with populist liberty trends. Such a coalition existed under the unity provided by the Pauls, but has become frayed by the current cycle, with much of the LP and RP universes retreating from engaging the populists. If this continues, the movement will either disintegrate altogether, or the populist alt-right might decide to invade and take over the LP, as one means to re-forge the alliance.
    40 replies | 884 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-19-2016, 02:30 PM
    Stein is simply doing the opposite of Gary Johnson, that is, she's largely triangulating Trump voters in an attempt to get votes from the populist side of the electorate. She's doing so to amplify her anti-elitist attacks on Hillary (mirroring Johnson's beat down of Trump, while triangluating Hillary supporters). Only she has to say something mildly critical of Trump ("he's dumb" is mild compared to the demonization of Trump being done by Clinton and her kept media) to stay credible with her Green supporters. She nonetheless is otherwise trying to sweet talk as many outsider votes as she can from his supporters. The fact that Trump out-foxed the entire GOP field to win the primaries, neutralized the calculating Never Trumpers to secure the nomination, out-witted the scheming media time and again (as most recently shown last week with the Rick Roll), and seems on track to winning a strong electoral and popular vote victory, somewhat refutes the "he's too dumb to succeed" meme. So while Stein may be able to peel a percent or two off him following her current approach, it will not change the outcome of his pending victory. But her beating up Hillary partially balances out Johnson criticizing Trump in the fall campaign.
    84 replies | 1174 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-19-2016, 08:04 AM
    The GOP leadership cares because the breaking of the pledge by so many senior Republican candidates cracks up the party, in terms of containing future alternative candidates and movements. The Never-Trump guys have now made it easier for a future liberty candidate to break with the GOP and run third party, if they don't win the nomination. Our candidate can cite their rebellion as a precedent, to justify not staying 'loyal' to any new milquetoast moderate insider they try to foist on the rank and file. But the point is, we don't have a fair press. The fact of the matter is, there IS an establishment that protects the statist order, and they in fact HAD "done their job" by suppressing Ron Paul or any other threat to the current regime. This opposition has to be fought, outwitted and overcome, and not be expected to lie down and let us win. Ron/Rand gained no traction because he had no resources or plan to fight, outwit and overcome this establishment, and lacked a campaign strategy to acquire or build voting blocs beyond the liberty base.
    103 replies | 1905 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-19-2016, 02:17 AM
    That article's about efforts to protect the party's loyalty pledge, not Trump in articular.
    103 replies | 1905 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    09-18-2016, 09:45 PM
    You really think Trump was the one the kingmakers gave the inside track to, as opposed to Jeb, Walker or Rubio? He was NOT their choice, thus was NOT given an inside track, meaning he was a NON-insider. Not the end result, but he is a productive case study on how to overcome elite obstacles to alternative candidates, and how to build winning coalitions from voter blocs that our "real" liberty candidate should have reached. Think less "Trump and his policies," and more "Trump and his strategies."
    103 replies | 1905 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...eft-and-right/
Political Director, Libertarian Party of NY

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
5,002
Posts Per Day
1.55
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
08-04-2014 03:04 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 10:11 PM
Join Date
11-29-2007
Referrals
0

6 Friends

  1. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  2. j3nn j3nn is offline

    Member

    j3nn
  3. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

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

    Member

    TommyJeff
  5. TomtheTinker TomtheTinker is offline

    Member

    TomtheTinker
  6. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline

    Member

    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 6 of 6

09-04-2016

  • 08:30 PM - Hidden

08-13-2016

  • 10:42 AM - Deleted Posts

05-25-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 30 12311 ... LastLast

09-28-2016


09-27-2016


09-26-2016


09-25-2016



Page 1 of 30 12311 ... LastLast