• Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    Today, 04:19 PM
    Similar in essence to how the MSM sought to fractionalize the Paul movement over 9/11. Earth to MSM, and the Trump-dumpers/grumpers: Trump's immigration stance remains closer to Coulter's than to Jeb/Rubio. Build a wall, no amnesty, deport the rapist and killer illegals, insist all the others follow the law, etc substance hasn't changed---just the tone towards most of the immigrants, to assure them he doesn't rope them in the same category as rapists and killers. He also shows he's capable of distinguishing between granting expedited or other "legal status" (which he opposes) and not giving them any legal status (meaning they might remain here, but under an illegal status, that does not change until they submit to following the lawful naturalization process, without either deporting them or granting them amnesty). The point of the "softening" was to show he is able to acknowledge the logistical problems, and to make his policy less subject to demonization by the Hillary/MSM narrative. This humanizes the substance of his plan, and causes its opponents to go from having a perceived high ground (Trump is insulting all immigrants, and offers an unworkable plan) to a petty low ground (Trump isn't describing his plan or intentions clearly enough). Net win.
    106 replies | 739 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:39 AM
    So I've gone from "having no credibility" to being a barrel of laughs, well at least that's progress. Now you indicate that citing the facts surrounding his capture doesn't matter---hilarious. McCain's F-Troop flying history led to the incident that got himself shot down, which led to his capture. This supports my view of Trump's hero-questioning aside to mean "I prefer those who didn't get themselves captured," which Trump confirmed by his subsequent comment that same week. Had he made the same exact comments about Bergdahl, there would have been no controversy---the flap was squarely over his attacking McCain. All of which you deny, and are projecting your denial onto me. What Trump means by "do the same thing" is not clear to me, other than getting rid of lots of people (which sounds like the opposite of keeping lots of people, or amnesty). When Trump and his campaign specifically declare it means "we support full amnesty" then get back to me, and not before. I'm outta this exchange, "and you know it."
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:15 AM
    This is definitely a "must-see" video for everyone:
    7 replies | 206 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 05:50 PM
    http://www.pythiapress.com/wartales/McCain-Shootdown.htm As I said, Captain Parmenter. I didn't say Bergdahl was a deserter, which he may not be (all facts considered) in comparing him to McCain. The point was that both of them became POWs under similar (but separable) questionable circumstances, and their behavior under that status is questionable, with one deemed not a hero while the other deemed a hero. Trump did not automatically deem McCain untouchable from being questioned, or bow to a war party icon, and that's why there was a row over the matter. You have now made clear that this context doesn't matter, you'll still smear Trump as "attacking all POWs" anyway. Trump provided more context in comments he made later that week: “People that fought hard and weren’t captured and went through a lot, they get no credit. Nobody even talks about them. They’re like forgotten, and I think that’s a shame, if you want to know the truth.” Call that what you will, but that's not attacking all POWs. That's merely Trump asking why one guy gets 28 medals for flying 23 missions, far eclipsing his fellow pilots from the same ship, while infantrymen who put in 1000's of hours facing much more continuous peril got nothing. Another unfortunate confusion of characterization with evidence. Your take on "rapidly" is an INTERPRETATION, not what Trump actually said. I already stated what bringing them back "rapidly" means, which is based on the actual proposal. You want the Trump plan to mean what you are demonizing it to mean, not what the policy says, and not what the campaign has repeatedly said this week, namely that the policy hasn't changed.
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 02:27 PM
    The context of Trump's remark was about McCain, period. McCain was near last in his class at West Point, crashed his planes frequently, and so his career needed constant protection by his admiral father. If you are not competent and your record resembles less Captain America, but more like Captain Parmenter of F-Troop, are you a hero? Again, the full record (review the articles cited) indicates he blundered his way into becoming a POW, and from there betrayed other POWs. Incompetence is not heroism. There is room to debate this alternative view of McCain, but not to deny the case for the counter view exists. There is no comparison between Bergdahl and McCain because the media and cover-up operation keeps telling us not to make one---only to declare one is crazy, and the other is a hero. Trump (heroically) did not buy the mainstream establishment line, and said so, even standing his ground when the MSM deflected the issue by framing it as if he had attacked all POWs. Fighting, even glancingly, those narratives is part of the solution to disrupting the establishment's power. You accept the narrative, and that's part of the problem. Trump never said "good illegals" means "they can cut in line" either, so by your standard you are the one putting words in Trump's mouth. Not subjecting the illegals to a 10 year penalty under current law would defacto make their processing to return "rapid," but not with regard to going ahead of the rest of the immigrants who are being processed. His campaign rhetoric is shifting to emphasize deporting the criminal or "bad illegals," while describing the rest more positively, but the policy statement on the Trump website remains the same, only more filled in as to its details.
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 12:12 PM
    For the sake of your blood pressure, I have corrected the line to say "regrets" statement, instead of "no regrets." I stand by the rest, and it still makes perfect sense. :) What I know is your omni-sniping attitude towards Trump is increasingly distorting your considerable intelligence, to the point of virtual cursing and calling people dishonest or liars if they disagree with you. The fact remains that Trump was asked about McCain while he was talking about something else, so the comment he made was an aside with reference to McCain, not all POWs, "and you know it." Other POWs have questioned McCain's hero status, so are they insulting all POWs too? Please. Given Trump's reputation for imprecise language, and his known objections to Bergdahl, his comment is best understood to mean "I like people that don't get themselves captured." The existing evidence on Mac, noted by LRC and non-LRC sources, points to a 'he UN-heroically blundered himself into prisoner status' scenario, and later even cooperated with the enemy. Pointing out his later record on covering up real, unrescued POWs simply re-emphasizes that the original heroic narrative about him is likely manufactured (LRC has posted articles on both shaky ends of McCain's career).
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 08:47 AM
    It's the same reasoning used to justify voting for the lesser of two evils. We hear it over and over during every Presidential election cycle. Donald Trump is evil, just as Hillary Clinton is evil. Nothing is going to change with either of them in the Oval Office, and even Dr. Ron Paul recognizes that.
    114 replies | 1775 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    08-22-2016, 08:23 AM
    Like phill4paul, I'm anti-Trump, too, but if Trump loses and we end up with Hillary as our next gun-grabbing President, then it will be the fault of the Republican Party and Republican voters who continue to tolerate, endorse, support, and vote for unprincipled, big-government candidates just so we don't end up with a stinking Democrat in the Oval Office. The GOP should have promoted Sen. Rand Paul when it had the chance because he would do far better against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump can. And, of course, Sen. Paul has a much better record on gun rights than Donald Trump has.
    66 replies | 1226 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-21-2016, 05:31 PM
    It had nothing to do with just playing to the base. The point of the "regrets" statement was to ADD a humanizing aspect to his past comments, not reverse them. He realized he can't keep letting the Hillary camp spin his every aside into demonizing him, so he has taken away their phony high ground: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149174780261/trumps-regrets Directly brawling with the establishment's frameworks has been a successful strategy to overcome it, but does draw return fire, whether Trump does it or Paul does it. Trump took punches and delivered punches in this battle---the MSM did not cut him a pass on his comments on McCain, they tried to push him out of the race over them, apart from the immigration comments, and you know it. In fact, Trump did not "insult every POW ever," and you know it. He questioned specifically whether McCain deserved hero status, given the details of his case (just as people question whether Bergdahl deserves the status, given the details of his case). Not automatically deifying every veteran holding a POW title is not the same thing as having "insulted every POW ever"---and you know it.
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    08-21-2016, 06:28 AM
    Danke, I heard you got fired from a calendar factory for taking a day off.
    217 replies | 4562 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    08-21-2016, 06:14 AM
    I was writing down a joke with my pencil, when, suddenly, the tip broke. Then I realized there was no point to it.
    217 replies | 4562 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-20-2016, 11:05 AM
    The battleground state polls are subject to the same defects identified in the national polls, so the same turn out dynamics will be reflected in most of them by November (i.e., Trump will win most of them). The reason for putting "mean things" in quotes is to point out that was a characterization, whereas the actuality is Trump is simply talking sharply to break biased mainstream narratives, including those that diefy the military. Those memes are enforced by the entire establishment in the primaries and election, so Trump continuing to challenge it past the primaries is a good strategy. As stated before, conflating the "touchback" concept with expedited amnesty does not prove the two are identical, especially since touchback is not even in current immigration law. As per Trump's actual proposed policy, immigrants return to their country of origin and apply to lawfully emigrate from the local consulate, as per normal procedure. Applicants would also certify they could financially support their own housing and living expenses---an anti-welfare feature that would delay, not expedite the processing of immigrants. But since the current polls are inaccurately sampled, they are not recording the temperament responses accurately in any case.
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-20-2016, 03:42 AM
    If you believe that and want them set aside, fine. But if a 'real' poll incorporated the more representative independent sample of 40% of respondents, would the results be any different? SO TO REPEAT, verbatim, what about not setting aside the points made about the defects of most of the polls?: Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc)... End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people?
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-19-2016, 08:08 PM
    I did previously identify the 50,000 survey as an 'amateur' poll. The second one is not necessarily fake. If the Daily Wire blog (referenced in two more well regarded sites, WRH and IWB) is another example of an amateur effort, it still begs the question as to why the defective samples are being used in the "professional" polls. All my points about those sampling issues stand. Are high-authority polls with false metrics superior to non-authoritative polls using true metrics?
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-19-2016, 06:53 PM
    This poll is different than the one done on 50,000 respondents, as this one was done with about 1500.
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-19-2016, 06:07 PM
    Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc), thus the temperament answers cannot be trusted. End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people? A new poll that more accurately reflects the turnout electorate shows Trump is ahead by six points: http://investmentwatchblog.com/trump-up-6-in-new-poll-proof-that-a-poll-based-upon-a-realistic-voter-turnout-trump-wins-34-d-33-r-33-i/
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-19-2016, 08:51 AM
    I noted the same thing about Obama's convention remarks, that from the point of view of delivery, its soaringly elegant, positive rhetoric about hope and the future made it the best speech of the convention. He had to talk that way, because he couldn't straightforwardly list his accomplishments, or state how he had improved much of anything while in office. Ultimately, substance matters more than rhetoric. Trump and Hillary have similar high negatives, but the reason people find Trump unfavorable (insulting remarks, overly vague or negative sounding proposals on Latino and Muslim immigration, alpha male egotism, etc) pales in comparison to Hillary's negatives (a failed record as Senator and Secretary of State, constant lying, constant scandals, that body count, etc). The latter has much worse substance to recoil from. The voters will ultimately choose his sometimes bad manners, over her always bad everything.
    116 replies | 1831 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-19-2016, 07:51 AM
    Other than Jeb/Rubio, TPTB did not have a back-up plan, since the entire scheme (just like 2008) was to get Hillary elected, or failing that, another establishment insider (Obama, or McCain) to continue the spending, bailouts, debt and war programs. THEY DIDN'T SEE TRUMP COMING, to have a Trump back-up plan, just as they didn't see the outsider trend, or Brexit, or the defeat of their regime change war plans for Syria or Iran coming. The TPTB are formidable, but they are not omniscient, and can be beaten. Events and new precedents they did not forsee have overtaken them, which has put them mostly in disarray. The forced economic collapse scenario also can't be pulled off for the same reason---events have made bursting the bubble implausible to blame on the American public, or a President Trump. Again, the outsider trend has already spread abroad, and evidenced itself in Europe with Brexit, with more such de-couplings from the globalist machine coming. Because a gigantic Mideast war with Syria/Iran has been scuttled or at least stalled, a sudden financial meltdown can't be blamed on the 'towel heads.' And if a meltdown is tried anyway, to create a full martial law situation, that would DISABLE the "reset button," as the government would be frozen in place with Trump in power. What are the chances of a lurch towards more global big government with a pro-sovereignty, America first administration locked in power?
    35 replies | 696 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    08-19-2016, 07:46 AM
    Well, if Trump loses, then blame the Republican Party for it. For years in these Presidential races, the leaders of the party (with the help of the mainstream media) have shunned, isolated, humiliated, lied, ignored, and ridiculed principled, moral candidates like Dr. Ron Paul and Sen. Rand Paul. Then when those candidates finally drop out of the race (to the GOP's delight), then conservatives are left with establishment-friendly, unprincipled, flip-flopping, egotistical, power-hungry candidates that are used to vote against the excrement that comes out of the donkey's ass on the Democratic side, always with the reasoning that if we don't vote for the Republican candidate, then a Democratic victory will spell the doom for us all. Thus, we always get enticed to vote for the lesser of two evils. So, you know what? If Trump loses, then we all deserve the consequences of it, especially the Republican Party. Don't expect me to vote for the Republican when the Republican Party does all it can to rid itself of statesmen who rightly deserve the title as "President of the United States," like Drs. Ron and Rand Paul, and then uses scare tactics to try to force the public that a Republican douchebag is now better than the Democratic douchebag. Enjoy your chains. You wear them well.
    35 replies | 696 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-18-2016, 05:27 PM
    Of course it's the individual vs. the collective, the intellectual substance has not changed. The relevant political issue on RPF and the liberty movement, has been how to dialogue about liberty to the public for the purposes of winning a national campaign. Given the defeats of Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 trying to do so in the straightforward rational way, Rand Paul attempted a careful rhetorical approach, especially on foreign policy, that stressed pragmatic maneuvers, verbal compromises or empty gestures, etc, to produce a conciliatory relationship with the 'mainstream' political leadership and media (or statist establishment) towards promoting liberty. But while effective in minor instances, this approach failed to gain votes or to reach what should have been friendly voting blocs, and failed to succeed in changing the media's coverage or leadership's statism-driven policy framework. What did appear to work was the approach of the 'outsiders,' who did reach the voting blocs the Pauls should have reached, and engaged in open opposition to the MSM's biased practices and marginalization tactics. In the case of foreign policy, Trump got farther in advancing a mainly non, or less interventionist policy by "dressing it up" with nationalism, which was his version of finessing the issue, than Rand got with the rhetorical approach. Nationalism also appeared to work well as a presentation vehicle for non-collectivist trade (anti-TPP) and migration policy, for the purposes of engaging more voters. Liberty opposition to statism is intellectually persuasive to us, but is not emotionally compelling enough to overcome the statist frameworks influencing most of the public. We need neither embrace nationalism, nor demonize it, in order to use it as a tactic to get votes for liberty candidates and policies. Its use in foreign policy, as one example, "sells" intervention in a manner a straightforward anti-war appeal does not, because 'America First' displaces the emotional memes pushed by the War party to prioritize foreign meddling. Our movement reached a maximum 10% plateau with the Pauls pursuing an issues-only, rationalistic approach in defacto educational campaigns. Absent solving the framework-changing dynamic above, we apparently can only educate that 10%, or liberty base vote. Going beyond that base will require getting past the status quo frameworks, and getting past the establishment obstacles that set and enforce those frameworks. That is why the future of the movement depends on adding such strategic political competences to our efforts, not just concentrating on the intellectual factors. At the least, we can't just keep ridiculing the LP for being a failure because they supposedly lack those competencies, while giving the failures of the Paul candidacies a pass, because we want to ignore developing those competencies. The answer is not to demonize Trump, but to take cues from his and similar successful case examples to learn how to engage reachable voting blocs, how to win primary contests, and how to defeat media bias.
    86 replies | 1418 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-18-2016, 09:40 AM
    Some counter points: 1) As of mid August, the RCP average (from the poll numbers alone) is Clinton 47%, Trump 41%, most of which screened only for registered voters, not likely voters, and all of which do not factor in energized/'monster' voters. By most analysis that has factored that in, 5% should be added to Trump's totals, and 2% subtracted from Hillary, meaning the real numbers are 45% Trump, 45% Hillary. Any race that is five points or less by the polls, should be won by Trump by one point or more in November. 2) Much of Trump's support comes from independents, who are both under sampled and under weighed by most of the current polls. Independents are 40-42% of the electorate, but this percentage is simply not significantly reflected in most current polls. The one recent (amateur) poll that better sampled independents to 33% showed a landslide for Trump of 67%. 3) The most recent (mid-August) recent LA Times poll shows the race roughly tied at 44%, and Rasmussen has it as a two point race (Clinton 41%, Trump 39% among likely voters). 4) Hillary spent $61 million in recent months in ads in battleground states, compared to Trump spending almost none, yet Trump is still in recoverable distance in those states, or within the margin of error/statistically tied in several. If one side spends over $60 million dollars without contest, they should be squashing them, not just up by a few points here and there. HIllary has basically wasted her money.
    25 replies | 310 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 11:09 PM
    I had read it. It's still not what the libertarian economists had in mind, so they didn't advocate for it.
    151 replies | 2422 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 11:04 PM
    It's not a cake, it's a package, hence nothing to slice. Trump has repeatedly stressed he wants to engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of cutting a new deal, not broadening a war. That's less interventionist compared the empire building policy of the neocons.
    35 replies | 602 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 07:51 PM
    THE CARBON TAX aspect is the relevant part that has "no reputable libertarian resource that advocates for such an abomination."
    151 replies | 2422 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 06:43 PM
    Here's more you need to know about the context of the remarks: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1508/14/se.01.html The remarks are from August of last year, when the two were first campaigning against each other, with Trump responding to Rand's criticism. Notice the transcript shows the comment "he's a disaster on military and defense" was made with reference to how Rand's campaign approach was working for him ("he's being decimated") and how Rand's position was being received (it wasn't making our military strong), not on the substance of the non-intervention position. Trump was saying Rand's stance or rhetoric was not working to gain him support, was not succeeding in projecting "peace through strength" to mitigate or balance the 'isolationist' image, and gave the impression of being ultimately too aloof, establishment or do-nothing to change anything. Rand may have the better positions, but appeared to lack the urgency to follow-through on them---which led to him not connecting with the anti-establishment dynamic of the cycle.
    35 replies | 602 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 04:05 PM
    Will Dr. Drew be getting fired in 5...4...3...
    93 replies | 2572 view(s)
  • TomtheTinker's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 02:52 PM
    Did they really make this up? Is that picture from freedom fest?
    30 replies | 1276 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 01:48 PM
    By a digit or two. The overall average of roughly 28-30/28-30/40-42 has been stable for years. The preponderance of polls do not even partially incorporate the average for independents in the voting population, that's just a fact.
    35 replies | 602 view(s)
  • Peace&Freedom's Avatar
    08-17-2016, 12:27 PM
    I worked at the Harris poll. Party identification percentages were one of the factors weighed because it is stable over the short to medium term---it may change over years, but not "from one day to the next":
    35 replies | 602 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...low-the-money/
Political Director, Libertarian Party of NY

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,947
Posts Per Day
1.55
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
08-04-2014 03:04 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:42 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

08-13-2016

  • 10:42 AM - Deleted Posts

05-25-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 28 12311 ... LastLast

08-23-2016


08-21-2016


08-20-2016


08-19-2016


08-18-2016


08-17-2016



Page 1 of 28 12311 ... LastLast