@adamkokesh, I understand your dismay and discouragement. You would think that people who have so much in common, could use that commonality to overcome their differences. While I agree with you when you say we should: "Be loving towards everyone. Be as forgiving as possible. Be accepting and understanding”, I’m not so sure about keeping divisive points out of the platform. I fear that this approach will lead to more candidates like Gary Johnson, who are libertarian on the surface, but as soon as you scratch it, the statism comes oozing out.
Do we want to build an organization bound by the lowest common denominator? Or do we want an organization built upon the moral principles of individual human rights, with members who all agree with those principles and work toward them, whether that be in the political arena, or daily life? Do we want to compromise on those principles, keeping the disagreeable parts out of the platform, just to give us a little more critical mass so that we can be more effective at winning elections? Or do we want to fight even harder to demonstrate why our principles are superior, and increase membership through education and setting the example?
I guess what I’m saying is, yes, I agree with your philosophy of love, forgiveness, acceptance and understanding, but I do not agree with the idea of bringing back “The Dallas Accord”.
RE: A New Dallas Accord to Unify The Freedom Movement