Third Party & Independents Archives

European Diplomats Need Americologists

European diplomats are worried about Trump and what a Trump presidency would mean for America’s foreign policy. European diplomats love Obama’s foreign policy. Or at least consider him a member of their civilized, squishy-progressive club, and can’t understand why his policies are not favored by an overwhelming majority of voters in the U.S. They share the president’s embarrassment at his fellow countrymen’s attitudes.

Should Washington worry about the foreign entanglements Trump may lead the nation into? Should America worry because Brussels is worried?

Hopefully not. Americans should worry if they honestly disagree with Trump's bare-bones (or knuckles) stands on issues like trade and the Middle East. And some in America clearly do, and clearly express this fact. And Trump is clearly isolated from the elites - both the neocon hawks, and the liberals - in terms of his foreign policy. As well as from a significant minority of the general population. Perhaps a majority. Perhaps not.

But before the press turns on a post-nomination Trump to expose his apparent lack of depth on foreign policy, we have to get through the convention. And if Trump rips the nomination from the establishment's clutches, then we now have the Third Party Option being readied to be rolled out of the bunkers.

And TPO might mean yet another devious strategy to deny Trump, not the nomination, but the presidency. And to deny Hillary as well, in one magnificent, prince-of-darkness move reminiscent of Niccolo Machiavelli.

Forget about 1,237. The new number is 270, the majority needed to win in the Electoral College. And some are suggesting a conservative take over of the Libertarian Party with a pro-pot, pro-prostitution, pro-gay-marriage, social and fiscal conservative candidate. Ask Ben Domenech. And this candidate - this mythical golem made from the clay of despair - will be one who is able to gain electoral votes in a few key states. And this would mean that neither Hillary nor Donald will reach 270 electoral votes.

And that apparently means that the House of Representatives gets to elect the president, through the state delegations. The vice president is voted on by the Senate.

And European diplomats are worried about foreign policy? Never mind Chinese Communist Party gatherings by the seaside or who shakes whose hand in official Beijing congress lineups. Never mind sovietologists hoping the Putin takes Russia back to the good old days so they can be consulted more often. Europe will need Americologists, pronto, to decipher exactly how the GOP convention rules work; exactly how the Electoral College works (can electors go rogue??); and who might be left standing after November 8, 2016. Sorry. After early January 2017? March? June?

2016 will be a year for case studies and history books galore. But we first have to get through it. And we're not even a quarter of the way there yet.

Posted by AllardK at March 18, 2016 3:12 PM
Comments
Comment #403762

I think the greatest possibility of a third party candidate would be from Trump if he is denied the Rpblcn nomination. I doubt it will come to that. They’re going to have to bear with Trump. The problem with third parties is that they tend to be small factions of the two major parties, people who think the Dems aren’t liberal enough, and people who think the Rpblcns aren’t real conservatives. If someone from one of these factions get enough support, the opposite side usually wins.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 18, 2016 3:58 PM
Comment #403772

LOL AllardK, that was fun.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 18, 2016 7:20 PM
Comment #403779


I think it’s likely that the corpocracy will keep him at bay to the point where he has little support for a second term.

This might encourage Trump to make a 3rd party run for a second term. Although, it’s hard to imagine anyone with that much ‘energy’.

I wouldn’t be in favor of that. Any 3rd party must be built from the ground up w/a/dif/pol/att, Founded in rules that shut out corpocracy and designed to achieve CFR.

Otherwise, a run of the mill 3rd party will soon be coopted by corpocracy just like the dem/reps.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 18, 2016 9:38 PM
Comment #403780

First of all you have to figure out how the liberals keep getting elected when they are only representing about 35% of the electorate.

We should look at how Bill Clinton got elected. Ross Perot took 18% of the vote. Only 7% of that needed to be Republican votes in order for Bush to lose. Clinton wins.

Then look at how Obama gets elected. The Republicans put up a sure-to-lose guy in John McCain. He couldn’t compete and Democratics blamed Republicans for destroying the economy, just like Roosevelt did.

Then look at how Obama gets his second term. Republicans cook the rules to freeze out any opposition (Ron Paul) and immediately nominate Mitt Romney. He had a chance and blew it. The Republican quit! They gave up. I never thought he had a chance to begin with. He was another John McCain, a loser from the start. But they give the election to the Democratics and elect Obama again.

Now look at Trump. There’s no Republicans involved with his campaign and he’s running away with it. In fact, Republicans are trying their damnedest to get him out of the way. Why?

That’s a good question. One that gets answered like this:

Since liberal policies aren’t accepted by the majority of people there must be an alternative to keeping people in office who will support those liberal policies. That’s where the Republicans come in. They have to run a patsy that is sure to loose the election and keep the Democratics in power. They were hoping for another Bush, because another Bush isn’t going to get elected,(maybe)((wouldn’t matter either way)) but Trump shows up and steals the show right out from under their noses!

So now the Republicans are in a panic. How do they they keep the people in power to entrenching the ACA, like Roosevelt did with SS? How can they get 3 more liberal judges that will give the Democratic party more and more power, like Roosevelt did?

They do it with a third party. They pull out the Ross Perot play book, siphon off enough votes from Trump and voila! An Obama third term, just like Roosevelt did.

It’s getting pretty obvious there is only one party in Washington D.C. I’m surprised so many think there are two. They’ve almost achieved their goal of dominating the political atmosphere. All they need to do is get elected to a third term, just like Roosevelt did.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 18, 2016 10:29 PM
Comment #403783

WW, I am the one known as the great conspiratist and here you are stealing my thunder.

Howsumever, I don’t believe there is the parties are conspiratorial as you suggest. There very well may be complicity thru the unspoken word. To what extent that is successful, I don’t know.

But, you can plainly see that the dems set up their candidates so that Hillary would come out the ‘winner’. The party chose to run Bernie and the Maryland Governor in opposition to Hillary. The Governor’s personality is not conducive to being presidential and everybody knew that ‘Bernie the Socialist’ w0uld never get any votes. It was in the bag. It is in the bag but Bernie is giving Hil a pretty good race.

Much the same on the rep side. With the party and the corpocracy behind the ‘establishment’ candidates one was sure to win. They were sure Trump wouldn’t run and if he did he would garner few votes.

They were suprised and so was I. I still find it hard to believe a good number are rising up against corpocracy.

But, it is easy to see where the dems and reps have been playing the voters for suckers for 50 years or so. All this social stuff, gays, religion, tax rates and so on is just noise to the oorpocracy. Hanging on to the perks of globalisation is their cash/sacred cow.

Where the parties can be seen pandering more clearly is thru their effort to break the back of working folks. The parties worked to get globalisation in place. The next big push was to streamline globalisation, maximize efficiency thru doing away with borders, bypassing sovereign nations thru international trade regulations, and normalizing worker wages around the world.

Both parties pushed to globalise and the folks didn’t object. The effort to bring down worker wages thru open borders immigration raised some concern. The dems pandered to their supporters favoring open borders. The reps pandered to their supporters by threatening to secure the border and limit immigration. But, from the Regan admin forward there has been no serious effort to control immigration.

Wages have gone down over the last 15-20 years and the folks are feeling the pressure. Even as the 1% have been living big as in the gilded age. Then, along comes Trump who threatens to secure the border. He wasn’t expected to run and wasn’t expected to do well if he did.

Trump is threatening to gore their sacred cow by starting a trade war or some such thing.

I don’t believe Trump is a ringer for the corpocracy but in laying out a great conspiracy theory; the corpocracy may be able to achieve lowering worker wages by playing off Trump against the corpocracy and blaming a bad economy on that sour relationship.

Time will tell. But, that’s about as well as I can do for a conspiracy, WW.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 18, 2016 11:44 PM
Comment #403785
Then look at how Obama gets elected. The Republicans put up a sure-to-lose guy in John McCain. He couldn’t compete and Democratics blamed Republicans for destroying the economy, just like Roosevelt did.

Seriously Weary you forget the truth so much but let me enlighten you a bit “You can fool some of the people all the time” obviously talking about conservatives, “But you cant fool all the people all the time” obviously talking about the rest of us.

McCain was the best choice available to the repubs. He did the truly unthinkable to most rational Americans and chose Sarah Palin as the “heartbeat away from the presidency”. He thought he would win with team but the American people saw thru this dumbing down ruse of the country that is Sarah Palin.

The economy was tanking, jobs were being lost by the millions, the repubs were at fault, their principles, their ideology, their actions were directly responsible for the economic collapse, make no mistake. Anything else is gibberish promoted by the far right to justify their screwed up principles and ideology.

Stop swilling the kool aid my friend, pull your head out of your a** and face reality.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 19, 2016 12:52 AM
Comment #403792

roy ellis, I think you’re agreeing with me. You’ve delved deeper into the motive and the mechanics, but the premise is the same. The two parties are working together to pull the wool over our eyes and consolidate their power.

j2t2, why do you need to insult people? And you wonder why I throw jabs at your party. If you think all conservatives are fools you are one yourself. I suggest you take a look at how you’ve been shilling for the Democratic party the entire time I’ve been reading your posts. You can’t see any error in their ways and blame every problem on Republicans. If anyone should pull their head out of an ass it’s Democratics. (get it? Ass..Democratic.. get it? Hahaha)

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 19, 2016 10:00 AM
Comment #403801

Absolutely agree, WW. We don’t have government by dems and reps, we have government by corpocracy. One entity. As Trump relates, he gave money to both sides of the equation.

It wasn’t dems and/or reps that drug us down the road to globalism. It was big business interests.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 19, 2016 11:32 AM
Comment #403804

Yea, and Trump wouldn’t be in the position he is in now if he didn’t take advantage of the laws on the books. He should be commended for drawing attention to them.


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 19, 2016 12:16 PM
Comment #403809

Following is a link to an interview with Trump 25 years ago. What he said then is what he is saying now. Interesting

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOKi5YeNtRI

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 19, 2016 1:41 PM
Comment #403844

I knew about the full page NYT ad, but it certainly is more impressive to hear him talking about his mercantilism on camera. Trade policy is certainly his baby. It’s probably the only issue he can actually be relied upon.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 20, 2016 1:06 PM
Comment #403873

True and mostly true- Clinton 52%, Sanders 51%, Kasich 50%, Cruz,22% and Trump 9%

http://www.startribune.com/assessing-the-candidates-overall-truthfulness/372603041/


Posted by: j2t2 at March 21, 2016 2:08 AM
Comment #403911


No amount how you attending at it, 3 ages payday loans are absolutely article to consider. Think about how accessible and how accent chargeless this accommodation can be. Anybody should booty advantage of this blazon of loan. It does not amount if you charge to fix article in your home or if you demand to booty a baby vacation, this is your solution.

Posted by: check cashing at March 23, 2016 1:07 AM
Comment #403912

Instant payday loans are offered instantly to the applicants 24 hours and 7 days. This affectionate of accommodation has been fabricated accessible because lending institutions of this accommodation do not ask or appeal the loaner or borrower to abide accommodation accompanying abstracts immediately.

Posted by: online cash advance in fresno ca at March 23, 2016 1:08 AM
Comment #403924
Clinton 52%, Sanders 51%, Kasich 50%, Cruz,22% and Trump 9%

So Clinton is the most truthful of the liars, and trump is an even bigger liar than cruz, or probably just even less connected to reality.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 23, 2016 2:02 PM
Comment #403940

It is interesting to get into the details of Politifact on their truth/false meter.

Cruz is called a liar because he used the word “ensure” rather than “assured” when speaking about Ukraine and their nuclear weapons.

Trump is called a liar because he said Iran will have nuclear weapons as soon as enrichment limits expire. The truth, according to politifact, is that it will take “months”.

Politifact has SIX pages of Obama broken promises (lies).

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2016 1:53 PM
Comment #403941

“Trump is called a liar because he said Iran will have nuclear weapons as soon as enrichment limits expire. The truth, according to politifact, is that it will take “months”.

That is ridiculous. Jut because a country enriches uranium does NOT mean it is within months of building a nuclear weapon that works. It is not like you just take a mason jar and pour a little plutonium into it and voila! Mushroom cloud! Building a nuclear weapon is a very complex technological task, and once built, it has to be tested. Does that make a Trump a liar? I don’t know about that. I doubt Trump knows what he is talking about in the first place. He just says things. He makes them up on the spur of the moment.

Cruz, or “Lying Ted,” has already been called a liar by fellow Republican presidential candidates such as Marco Rubio. When confronted, such as Wallace did during a FOX interview, Cruz will simply repeat the lie. (Wallace was PISSED, repeated what he said and backed it up with evidence, but Cruz serenely repeated the lie. What else could Wallace do?) Cruz is brazen about lying. He knows he is a liar, and even when informed with facts contradicting it, he will repeat the lie. He is a bald-faced liar. Worst I have ever seen.

Posted by: phx8 at March 24, 2016 2:59 PM
Comment #403942

phx8, take your complaint to Politifact…I am using their analysis.

How about the six pages of broken promises by Obama? Any comment?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2016 3:25 PM
Comment #403943

I saw the Politifact. My favorite one is where Obama was lying because ‘Fast and Furious did not start during the Bush administration- it started in 2009.’ Therefore Obama is lying. In fact, the exact same program existed during the Bush administration, but it went by a different name. The only difference between the programs was the name.

Compare this with Lying Ted. During a CNN townhall, Cruz- a lawyer by training- called Planned Parenthood a “criminal enterprise.” The moderator, Jake Tapper, immediately corrected Cruz and informed the audience PP was NOT a “criminal enterprise.” But this is what Cruz does. He lies through his teeth.

Posted by: phx8 at March 24, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #403944

I find it interesting phx8 how easy it is for you to discern the difference between an innocent Obama falsehood and anyone on the other side. Pick and choose is the name of the game for lib/soc.

A big deal was made from Cruz calling for more policing of Muslim mosques in NY. The program began under Bush and was continued under Obama.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2016 4:31 PM
Comment #403945
Cruz is called a liar because he used the word “ensure” rather than “assured” when speaking about Ukraine and their nuclear weapons.

That wasn’t the issue at all. While the treaty was entitled “Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994” nowhere in the text is there an obligation or promise that the US would intervene if Russia violated Ukraine’s sovereignty. The “security assurance” granted by the US was a promise that the US would never invade Ukraine. It would be a lie to claim we did not hold up our end of this bargain.

This was all explained in the original Politifact article, which you obviously didn’t comprehend when you read it.

How about the six pages of broken promises by Obama? Any comment?

Obama broke 28% of his promises and kept 45% of them, which I think is pretty good for a politician. For comparison, Congressional Republicans kept 38% and broke 32% of promises.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 24, 2016 6:23 PM
Comment #403946

Warren…read, comprehended, and stated correctly. He used the wrong word…big fu*king deal.

Obama has a lousy record. You gloat about his poor record and then compare one person to all Republicans. I guess this must be the same logic used on MMGW.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2016 6:53 PM
Comment #403947
He used the wrong word

No. He used the wrong meaning. That’s a big fucking deal. At face value, Cruz claimed that the US had violated its agreement with Ukraine. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 24, 2016 6:58 PM
Comment #403948

What a clownish response.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2016 7:13 PM
Comment #403949

RF,

Did the US ever say, “we will assure your territorial integrity from Russia?”

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 24, 2016 8:50 PM
Comment #403950

Maybe you will believe The American Conservative on Cruz’s statements on Ukraine. “I doubt Cruz could be so clueless that he actually believes that the U.S. has treaty obligations to Ukraine, so I have to assume that he intends to deceive people when he says this….there is no doubt that the U.S. is not required to provide any assistance to Ukraine. There is no treaty that commits the U.S. to defend Ukraine or to aid in their defense, and to claim that there is one is thoroughly dishonest.”

“It doesn’t surprise me that Cruz said something that he must have known to be false on national television.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/cruzs-demagoguery-on-ukraine/

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2016 10:03 PM
Post a comment