• Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 03:45 AM
    Oh yeah. That video definitely proves that Black people cannot be racist...
    28 replies | 769 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:04 AM
    The neocons are not leaving the GOP, though.
    9 replies | 224 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:34 AM
    The GOP is not worth saving. We can build better parties, and field candidates from them into local, county, and state positions.
    9 replies | 224 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 09:36 AM
    The article continues here.
    9 replies | 224 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 01:24 PM
    Which Ur? The Bible describes Abraham as coming from the Ur of the CHALDEES, which traditionally was understood to be Urfa, near Haran in Southern Turkey. This is an area north the more southern region where the SUMERIAN city of Ur was more recently discovered (from excavations in the latter 19th century onward). The scriptures describe Abram/Abraham as nomadic, and from Ur wandered from Mesopotamia to Eygpt, but that does not mean he started from southern Ur, which was linguistically, ethnically, socially, politically, and geographically very different from a northern Mesopotamian culture. Sumer Ur is not associated or ascribed expressly, in the many thousands of cuneiform records from that site, to the Chaldeans. This is why I do not affirm that Abraham is from Sumer, or to other dogmatic assertions made about the Sumerians, since there are different available interpretations of the evidence. Believers should use the mind God gave us to not discount the history He gave us, but to discern the truth by critically evaluating competing views about the data. IOW, don't reject the OT because the 'secular' data looks a little different here or there. Upon review, our understanding of that data can be shown to be defective, and the best interpretation will match the Bible.
    59 replies | 1052 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 07:18 AM
    Okay, waited a few hours. As per the latest polls (which do not reflect the new DNC email scandal): CNN--- Trump 44%, Clinton 39% LA Times--- Trump 45%, Clinton 41% CBS--- Trump 42%, Clinton 41% Morning Consult--- Trump 44%, Clinton 39%
    114 replies | 1159 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 02:32 AM
    No, I'm looking for a candidate who has a proven record of keeping his vows, and fidelity in marriage is one of the best ways to verify that. Sure, many people can keep their affairs secret for a little while, but in the providence of God, their affairs are usually found out, just as it has happened numerous times to politicians (such as Mark Sanford). My point to Smitty was that I don't need to delve deeply into the sexual lives of politicians in order to know whether or not they've been faithful to their vows. If a person is a habitual cheater, then that behavior has a way of surfacing itself, especially through their political duties. It's almost inevitable. But my original point still stands: if a person (like Donald Trump) cannot keep his vows to the woman he claims to love with all of his heart, then what do you think he will do to strangers as a President? What you do in your private life reflects how you behave in your public life, especially with keeping one's word.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 08:49 PM
    I don't know if Bernie 'sold out' to Hillary, thus he doesn't need to disavow. Clearly he got many platform changes he wanted, perhaps some additional secret conditions like a promised Cabinet spot, and most notably, he didn't share his fundraising lists with her. Endorsing the candidate who went over the top in needed delegates to win the nomination is a standard expectation in major party politics. IOW, I would cut Bernie the same pass we do Rand for doing so. So in light of the above factors, his endorsing the nominee is not necessarily to be construed as a cave in to Hillary, but as a general concession to party loyalty. Since he has clearly made gains to improve the influence of the progressive wing of his party, and has been smoking gun proven right on the rigging of his primary defeat, he's in a position to quit while he's ahead, by giving a standard anti-Trump speech in primetime at the con. Then he can wait for Hillary to lose in November, in order to assert his emerged position as chief power broker for the millenial Democrats post 2016.
    26 replies | 470 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 07:07 PM
    If it's not true, I'm sure she will be back in politics in less than a year when the smoke clears. They need a single patsy to take the fall for the whole situation so the Dnc doesn't crumble and after a short time im sure the patsy will be well compensated as a way to say thank you.
    20 replies | 367 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 07:04 PM
    That's like a drunk driver blaming Mr Jack Daniels
    78 replies | 280 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 10:34 AM
    To repeat, yet again, the basics: Trump ran a campaign that is thematically and strategically helpful to liberty. The Pauls failed because they could not or would not seriously engage the voting blocs needed to win the primaries, and would not aggressively confront the elite leadership, donors and media who obstruct alternatives to the 'mainstream' agenda. Trump showed the movement how to do both, which can be customized to our purposes in future cycles. As pointed out before, on several particulars Trump is definitely the net less statist alternative in the election. At least for 2016, strategically, he has been the best thing to happen to the liberty movement.
    114 replies | 1159 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 02:21 AM
    1097 replies | 55457 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 12:48 AM
    But what did Mark Sanford do once his affairs were made public? Did he reason, "Well, I've been advocating for smaller government in my state, so I'll stay in office, even though I was caught cheating on my wife"? No, of course not. Sanford knew that his credibility as a principled governor was shot in the public's eye, so he resigned (and rightfully so). He understood the correlation between his infidelities to his wife and the ramifications of them in holding a public office in his constituents' trust.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 11:06 PM
    Yes, and that metric is simply a matter of public record. We all can find out how many times a candidate has been married or when his sexual infidelities have been exposed to the public. That's all I'm touching on when I mention Trump's multiple marriages as a basis for questioning his fidelities to the American people and the States. Obviously, I can't find out every instance of sexual deviancy from a candidate, so I can only stick with information that is known in the public domain. And to that point, I can generally say that Darrell Castle's marital commitment is much better than Trump's, as evidenced here.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:57 PM
    The irony of this (to use imagery from The Dark Knight Trilogy) is that Donald Trump serves more of a role as "The Joker," to his libertarian supporters because, for them, Trump is "destroying the establishment within the GOP," thus, weakening the two-party political structure, supposedly. So, in a sense, Trump's supporters "want to watch the world burn."
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:47 PM
    I'm in Japan right now, and I'm not planning to vote by an absentee ballot, only because the candidate I would support is not on the ticket in my state--Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. But, of course, sexual purity is just one of the prerequisites that I look for in a candidate of my choosing.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:36 PM
    A person's sexual purity is one of the most important factors about a person's character because it deals with his deepest commitments to intimacy. While I agree with you that Washington D.C. is filled with hedonism, that's all the more reason why we need a President (or any political figure, for that matter) who does not give in to his sexual desires that violate his commitment to his spouse, just as we want him to resist the temptation to take power that he is not authorized to have by the Constitution. The two are linked. The more we ignore the truth that what a person does in his private life comes to light in his public life, the more we will continue to allow corrupt people to sit in seats of public office because those people hide themselves under empty promises and false allegiances to correct principles and policies. I'm going to be crude here and say that, on a basic, ethical level, where a person chooses to stick his dick in at night determines how he uses his pen in the daytime.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:17 PM
    The Trumpeteers in this forum will remain silent, I'm sure.
    53 replies | 932 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:13 PM
    Exactly. Generally speaking, we all look for some sort of credentials from a person before we trust them to perform a service to us, which in this case, we're investigating ethical credentials. Ethical credentials do matter, especially when a person is seeking the most prestigious office in America. If someone believes that it's okay to break sacred bonds whenever it's convenient for himself, then it's more than likely he will act on that in other areas of his life, such as in business or in civics.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 09:52 PM
    I would not be surprised if Donald Trump used their headlines to springboard himself as "The Dark Knight," coming to "save Gotham " from the evil, liberal villains...
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 09:34 PM
    Yes, I understand that there have been Presidents who were faithful in marriage, and yet they did not uphold their oaths of office, betraying the American people and the States. But those Presidents were hypocrites. The point I'm driving at is that Donald Trump has a history of breaking his vows to love someone for all of his life, and that says a lot about himself as a person. If he were elected, then it would make sense for him to not be faithful to his oath because he has done that throughout his life with people who were supposed to be his highest object of love. As lilymc so eloquently put it: All I'm saying is that, at the outset of the general election, there is no reason to expect Trump to do any of the things that he claims to do (whether it's abolishing trade deals, having a sensible foreign policy, or anything else that members of this forum praise him for) because he does not honor oaths in his own personal life.
    69 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 06:42 PM
    Look beyond this thread and see where the name calling started--hint, it wasn't on the Trump side. To repeat, this thread topic was not even about Trump, yet in came the Trump bashers to make it one. Your doubling down on the personal attacks doesn't make your point, it reinforces mine.
    82 replies | 1504 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 05:16 PM
    Trump recently went rogue on the elite, while Romney did not. The difference between the two over the last year has been stark, indicating one remains establishment while the other is not. And note the invective and personal attacks, from the side that has recently been running the narrative that Trump defenders have been engaging in 'name calling.' By pushing back the anti-liberty establishment, and advocating for a MUCH less interventionist foreign policy, among other examples: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/07/21/trump-enrages-war-party/
    82 replies | 1504 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 04:30 PM
    So the fact that Jones got the info from a solid anti-establishment source, and was in profound anti-establishment mode this week, means nothing because he supports Trump. The facts don't matter, only attacking Trump and anybody who supports Trump matters. This is the umpteenth post topic or thread that had NOTHING TO DO with Trump that got turned into an attack session by the anti-Trump cabal. You have an agenda, and it is not libertarian.
    82 replies | 1504 view(s)
  • TommyJeff's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 08:22 AM
    Is this true? Can you offer links? I'd really enjoy reading more
    9 replies | 258 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 07:41 AM
    The framework is flawed and part of what is under dispute, as I have expressed before. But you seem to not understand this is mainly not about a evaluating a particular candidate, but about the direction of the movement in general. I have several times talked about leaving Trump out of the issue, but found many here do not want to address it even apart from discussing a given candidate. Ron Paul's "right way to win" plan from 2012 was about growing or maximizing the core liberty base, which I believe he did from 5% to 10% across 2008-2012. Rand arguably shrunk the base back to 5% in the past year. But winning elections is about engaging voting blocs beyond the base. Emphasizing our core issues can grow the liberty base, but it cannot by itself create voting coalitions that win elections, nor displace the statist establishment. With or without a Trump in the picture, showing us an example as to how to do it, the movement still needs to do those two things. The movement has been splintering because many are failing to move towards incorporating those other two dynamics. They remain stuck at being exclusively Paul and issue-centered, having learned nothing from the last three failed campaigns. Engaging in 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. It’s not about our 5% base and beating up the other candidates, it’s about attracting more voters to us. It’s about connecting with them, not insulting them by bashing everything about the candidates who DO connect with them. It’s not about the Paul following, or about viewing either Paul as the perpetual center of the liberty universe, it’s about reaching beyond the following to show how the liberty approach engages the concerns of most voters.
    114 replies | 1159 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 06:56 AM
    No I don't, as the liberty mission and movement does not revolve around RPF, or the Pauls, as they are just subsets of it. I was relating the larger truth about where the grassroots needs to go to make progress, not redecorating the chairs on a policy statement. With all due respect to Ron Paul, he didn't win in 2012. The movement needs a strategic component, as well as candidates who have mostly great positions. Otherwise it has merely moved the LP's "educational campaign" concept into a corner of the GOP, and not much else. We can't win elections with just the 5% base, or without disrupting the establishment, so we either seek to fight that fight and build winning coalitions to get to 51%, or we don't make progress. Can we do so in an overall more pro-liberty way than Trump did? Of course, or at least probably. But being in denial about the need to do so, will lead to the same defeats as experienced in 2008. 2012, and 2016.
    114 replies | 1159 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 04:00 AM
    I do not accuse the Trump critics of all being Hillary shills (though granted, case by case, a few might be). What I do suggest is that most of them have been divisively self-serving in describing themselves as the exclusive "true libertarians," or in laughably over-selling Trump as having a "radically anti-libertarian record and agenda." It has been pointed out time and again that he has in fact many net anti-statist positions, that his candidacy has strategically benefited the liberty movement, and has many leading libertarians supporting him. The trouble is not only that the critics have been unreasonable, by not accepting that libertarians do reasonably disagree over Trump, but have also avoided acknowledging the same benefits concerning the anti-establishment trend, even when Trump is excluded from the discussion. This is the clearest sign that the real issue is they do not want to advance the movement by applying the lessons learned across 2007 to present. They don't want to because of 1) their inability or unwillingness to build winning voting coalitions beyond the 5-10% liberty base, and 2) they don't want to effectively confront the institutional barriers set up by the special interest run establishment, who control the major parties and media. The Paul movement has become divided because, post Paul, there is no agreement over, or ability to acknowledge, how to address the other, above two dynamics. Recognizing that the anti-elite or outsider trends in general, and Trump in particular, have been more successful for liberty on both strategic fronts is not something they want to face, because applying that to running more consistently pro-liberty candidates means we have to admit the approach of the Pauls was UNsuccessful, or insufficient. They just want to evaluate people based on their being near 100% correct on the issues, even if they can't win a primary, into perpetuity. That approach is inadequate for those of us who want to see policy changes for liberty in our lifetime. We're willing to support somebody imperfect in demeanor who's closer to an alpha "William Wallace" to help get us there. Ultimately, we will have to incorporate more dynamics than merely scoring people on their positions to field successful contenders, and to forego relying on only one model of candidate, in order to further the liberty mission.
    114 replies | 1159 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...ll-on-the-lam/
Political Director, Libertarian Party of NY

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,846
Posts Per Day
1.53
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
08-04-2014 03:04 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 05:49 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

05-25-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast

07-25-2016


07-24-2016


07-23-2016


07-22-2016



Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast