Attention Continued:
What We Have Now.










ATTENTION:
7/ 27 /16











Correction: '18' (8/23/16)



- Links Index-



Before continuing we make one more point concerning the addendum in the previous 'Attention Continued' installment to this entry. There, we proposed that the electoral college use the range vote to chose a president when there is no majority candidate nor a 269-269 tie between just two potentials. We referenced this to be a part of any Article V state convention(s), such convention going towards the strengthening and protecting of our constitution's original intent.


Our proposal ensures against any lack of coalescing in such electoral college incarnations which would be thrown to the House. It can also be seen as getting to the point quicker which may come in handy if similarly applied to party conventions as opposed to using multiple rounds. The last sentence of our proposal said:


'Yet if that outcome is a less likely tie of victors then from the list of those victors not exceeding three, the House shall choose a president via a state-by-state quorum.'




Such a quorum is described in Amendment XII of the Constitution.

You may ask what should happen if a very unlikely case of greater-than-three tied victors occurs in the electoral college's range vote. In that case, the House would first whittle down to three victors by a regular vote yielding the highest three candidate tallies or if occurs any further embedded, stumbler ties the House eliminates them from there in like manner. They may also option for a range ballot or to call for drawing of lots by the campaigns involved. After that, a state-by-state quorum would follow based on those three final candidates.





ONWARD TO INTERPARTY DEBATES




Unfortunately for the 2016 election, we have not even a reformed binary electoral system in place nor a general election, presidential range vote which could be translated into the electoral college. Instead we are stuck with the outmoded two-party, majority-plurality system with the nominal electors going all-or-nothing, state-by-state. Yet due to the high unfavorability ratings of the two main-party candidates, there is a bit more attention going towards third-parties and there have been speculations over whether Democrat & Republican conventions would be more contested this time around. However they turn out, the pressing question should be whether or not the debates will include third-party candidates. The 15% poll share - media conundrum - and Presidential Debate Commission's general resistance to inclusion of third-party candidates should be overridden. A suit has been filed against the commission for this cause.


Wouldn't it be nice to see the interparty debates having more than just a Democrat and Republican? The networks were fine with carrying a slew of intraparty debates with several or many candidates on stage. Can't we now handle 4-5 candidates participating in a few interparty debates as well? If they want to limit the participants to say three, then the candidates could rotate based on their parties through several debates giving an absent candidate or two a break to campaign elsewhere and commenting on a particular debate the next day.


If the stronger third-parties or independents are excluded in order to protect the Democrat-Republican paradigm then there should be a release-valve of follow-up debates consisting of the thirds and independents where clips from the two-party debates are played and the true outsider candidates can then respond to the questions that were posed and comment on the Democrat and Republican responses. Such a debate should not be relegated just to small venues but carried on the major networks. PBS/NPR should be drafted by the people to carry this out nationally should no other major networks do so. PBS/NPR are funded by the government and by donations of the people and therefore owe it to the electorate to provide such service nationally. We do recognize and appreciate that local carriers of public broadcasting do allow minor candidates to engage the public in debates.




HEARSAY MEDIA




Talking of networks, we do wish to expose some of the biased coverage concerning the violence at Trump rallies. Depending on the broadcaster or presenter there were instances of obvious editorializing of those events. It was acted as if the violence was totally Trump's fault because of his America-first positions or bombastic delivery and therefore his rhetoric is what is to blame. No, the truth is that radical leftists invaded those rallies and disrupted them while attacking Trump supporters. HEY - Trump and his supporters have right to peaceably assemble and speak their own views.


Obviously the disruptors where invasive leftists who favor candidates like Clinton and Sanders. The older, institutional hearsay media wants to explicitly or by insinuation conclude that Trump supporters are inherently violent and that his rhetoric makes otherwise rational people go violently beserk and so his ideas and presence are justifiably denied. Again no -- if all attendees at those rallies were Trump supporters there would have been no major incidents. The Trumpers' real problem is that they are likely too trusting of Trump's record. We lay all this on the psychological conditioning of the populace further down this page.


We do recognize the controversy with his then campaign manager shoving the reporter and the attendee sucker-punching the detainee, but those were more isolated and reactionary instances as opposed to the premeditated leftist/anarchist rent-a-mob types who want to quell any free speech or campaign that is in oppostion to them and their sacrosanct views. However, we are not clearing the Trump campaign of thuggish tactics as we will discuss delegate intimidation in the Trump sections to follow.




THE TWO MAIN OVERPOWERING OPTIONS




Now if we do not open the electoral process more for the 2016 election then you will have only two main, overpowering options concerning president:




CLINTON: Despite the claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy always plotting against her -- the preponderance of the evidence and the situations and accounts of people who have had to deal with her favor that the long list of improprieties and scandals about her are usually and likely true. The delays, redactions, lack of transparency and word-smithing indicate a constant state of cover-up. The electorate trust her less and less. The latest revelations concerning the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi and the illicit private server emails exclaim all of this. 33,000 deleted emails should eclipse 18 or so missing minutes on a Nixon tape.

On the political spectrum she is a crony collectivist -- enriching herself with money ($X00K speeches) and power using the system while rewarding her cohorts, punishing opposition and concurrently putting forth a confiscatory nanny-state under the guise of compassion. On some social issues she operates within a tunnel-lens of a Mao-like feminism though perhaps more so rhetorically according to next-generation feminists.

A woman without any scruples whatsoever, she definitely will not fix the country nor restore individual freedoms and constitutional governance.



TRUMP: While it is refreshing that a non-politician from the business world has been considered for president; his record, stances and personality ultimately counter this. It was fun to see the more established types get made fun of, but eventually his own character comes into question after bearing false witness against the more acceptable of his opponents and totally assassinating characters. His lack of specifics, contradictions, changes of mind along with his own history of espousing and donating to liberal causes and candidates indicate more than just a need for a business person to pay protection money to both sides of the two-party mafia. He seems more a closet Democrat playing as Republican now to get into office.

His tacits and recants over abortion/Planned Parenthood, that unreleased interview where he is alleged to dismiss his border-wall promise, romancing Bernie supporters instead of constitutionalists, to some extent his opaqueness on tax returns and threatening Smoot-Halley like tariffs do not bode well for those looking for trust, stability or center-right stances. Promising to punish/control certain corporations deemed to him unpatriotic in their business practices make him sound more of an intended tyrant than a reformational outsider. One serious red flag is that his campaign was reported to be threatening delegates in order to ensure his nomination. Does such racketeering sound like law and order to you? All of this warns that he would be a difficult executive to deal with.

Politically he is more a Bull Moose candidate that embraces a dangerous pop nationalism that could invoke an international trade war or worse. The world is unstable enough as it is without Trump carrying out some bumbling diplomacy somewhere. Hoover was a business person too who got us into a lot of trouble. It is too bad Trump has not lived up to his expectations from the Apprentice though he has such talents.






WHAT TO DO?




We don't expect perfection but these candidates are far from a good option to solve the nation's problems and they will not preserve our freedoms so there is not much to really lose by fully attempting a third-party approach. Hopefully the third-party candidates will get greater exposure and become better options though they still may not be fully reservist in their stances and approach. If one or two of them can muster just a 2-3% weekly growth rate in the polls from August to election day, then they will be competitive with the two-main party candidates in the electorate leanings. To ensure this we have to start giving money to the alternative candidates. It takes money to carry out a campaign and just $15 a month from each of the many independent-oriented voters will make quite a difference. Buy their campaign signs, bumper stickers and apparel. Spread the word to your friends about them. Greater exposure has a snowball effect.


Keep in mind that we are dealing with psychological conditioning of the population as much as politics. The diehard supporters of Clinton and Trump are cultists who are in denial of all the evidence about Clinton's corruption and Trump's contradictory record and both of their characters. No matter what red flags, facts or situations these candidates have on their records -- the diehards will accept any weak, dubious, incomplete, unfactual or absurd reasoning or excuse to still believe in the rhetoric of their candidate. It's the two-party mentality of 'my-party-always-right' and 'other-party-always-wrong'. All a society needs is a mixture of some authority, habitual thinking, apathy and gullibility plus the overriding desire for the diehards to win at all cost to achieve this state of affairs. This is why we would rather risk having governance of a lesser perfect, third-party outsider than a polished two-party candidate that will lead in many wrong directions while not being held to account for their failing approach or promises.


We emplore citizens in the time remaining to lobby their state and local governments to ease ballot access for true outsiders -- the simultaneously non-Democrats and non-Republicans. If you are ignored then it is time for rebellion. Gather in the squares and demand an end to the two-party electoral system. Just sitting back and voting the habitual, "safe" & convenient way will only yield the same results we keep getting which is taking us to destruction.


Near term don't be unaware of all the choices you have on the ballot already, including the better of the two-party candidates. One place you can research all state and federal candidates is at Politics1. Please do your homework on congressional and local races as they will be important to counter or balance the possible effects of the presidential outcome - which while important receives too much of the attention.




SAMPLE BALLOT




To further push these electoral ideas, we leave you similar as in the last installment with a sample ballot that this time represents a direct range-vote election for president. Where some parties have yet to determine a nominee as of this posting, the party name was entered instead. Pass it around to your friends to enlighten them as to what we are missing due to our enslavement within the two-party, majority-plurality electoral system. And don't forget - you can play with the ballot buttons.







RANGE BALLOT OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES


[ Rate your own selection of candidates from lowest to highest favor. ]

Under current system: A best average meeting the threshold of inputs all via your state's voters wins your state electors. Electoral college then coalesces a winner.


Castle (Con.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Clinton (Dem.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Johnson (Lib.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Keniston (Vet.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Nichollet (Idc.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stein (Grn.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Trump (Rep.) No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Better America No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bull Moose No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Commonwealth No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Justice No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reform No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whig No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
~ write-in No Opinion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10







-Index- -Top- -Bottom-





















-Top- -Bottom-





















Inclusive Debates:



'Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has joined forces with his 2012 rival, President Obama, to fight a lawsuit charging the Commission on Presidential Debates with antitrust violations.' ~ By SEAN HIGGINS • 1/15/16 5:02 PM

This article demonstrates the arseholes Obama and Romney really are. They and their party elites are nothing but a bunch of anti-representative government goons! THEY ARE AGAINST THE PEOPLE!!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/romney-obama-join-forces-in-lawsuit-against-debate-commission/article/2580665




'Yet, the private Commission on Presidential Debates, created in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties, has created a debate duopoly that makes it virtually impossible for candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to participate. '

Don't take to the streets to support cop-killers. Instead take to the streets to open up our debates and ballots in this country!

https://www.ouramericainitiative.com/presidential-debate-commission.html




'They do so by using a rule excluding every candidate who fails to poll at at least 15% support in five polls chosen by them (which often only ask about the two major party nominees).'

'Internationally, few places use a polling threshold to exclude candidates for office, and those that do set polling thresholds lower than 15% – in fact, 5% is more typical.' ` ~ Drew Spencer, originally published on FairVote’s blog on April 15, 2016


Note that thwarting the votes of the people and excluding all but a few parties has been cause for revolution in other countries.

http://ivn.us/2016/04/15/fairvote-joins-lawsuit-to-open-presidential-debates/




'The issue has taken on a new life in 2016 as polling data has borne out Americans’ frustration with the two-party system.'

'There has been a movement of people registering as independents, with several states now boasting pluralities — or in the case of Massachusetts, a majority of registered voters unaffiliated with any party.' ~ By Jonathan Easley and Ben Kamisar - 05/12/16 06:00 AM EDT

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/279624-third-party-candidates-face-uphill-climb-to-get-place-on-presidential







-Index- -Top-











Scapegoating Trump Rally Violence:



'San Diego police reported that approximately 300 to 400 protesters gathered outside of Trump's event, which led to four arrests for "for incidents including assault with a deadly weapon and unlawful assembly," Officer Albert Morales said in a statement.' ~ By JOHN SANTUCCI, CANDACE SMITH, DAVID CAPLAN | Jun 3, 2016 - 5:50 PM ET


The keyword this case is 'outside'. Yet whether inside or outside of the Trump events the disruptors are obviously of the leftist inclination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437




Their justification of violence at Trump rallies:


'Violence that takes place at Trump rallies—in support or opposition—is a reaction to the tone he’s set, and the blame for it should land primarily on his shoulders.'

'Understanding European anti-fascists use of violent tactics to shut down large rallies from White Supremacists can be illustrative here.' ~ Jesse Benn - 06/06/2016 05:08 pm 17:08:14 | Updated Jun 06, 2016

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html




“He set a bad example,” Clinton said on CNN. “He created an environment in which it seemed to be acceptable for someone running for president to be inciting violence, to be encouraging his supporters. Now we are seeing people who are against it respond in kind.” ~ By ALLEGRA KIRKLAND | Published JUNE 4, 2016, 11:12 AM EDT


Or is it more the other way around? It first started with leftists coming into his events and then having to be thrown out for heckling and disrupting. Trump then began to react to their tactics which got more and more intense. Any group or individual should be able to advocate for use of reasonable force against those who disrupt the right of peaceful assembly.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-san-jose-trump-rally-violence-unacceptable




'I have previously defended nonviolent protests that disrupt Trump rallies, like when Bernie Sanders supporters and Black Lives Matters activists flooded into a rally in Chicago, singing songs and chanting slogans, which caused Trump to cancel the rally in fear.' ~ Ryan Cooper June 6 2016


The keywords here are 'disrupt' and 'fear'. Note also 'flooding' and 'chanting'. In today's America, leftists are usually the ones who impede the right of others to peaceably assemble and discuss their views.

http://theweek.com/articles/627995/why-america-better-prepare-onslaught-violence-trump-rallies




'The Establishment on both the left and the right, who want to disenfranchise the millions of Republican voters who support Donald Trump, have blamed the staged riots near Trump rallies on Trump or on Bernie Sanders. That’s like blaming the Russians for the Reichstag Fire. Bernie has little to do with these manufactured protests. This is a Clinton operation, a faux protest.' ~ ROGER STONE | 9:48 AM 03/21/2016


With Clinton's record of tactics we would not be surprised if her operatives were to blame behind at least some the scenes.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/








-Index- -Top-











Clinton Record:



'Clinton Foundation donations have also been linked to State Department favors for weapons manufacturers and foreign governments. Peter Schweitzer’s book, Clinton Cash, cites four trustees of the Clinton Foundation charged with or convicted of financial crimes. Aside from the security risks her private email server posed, evidence suggests Clinton’s intent was not convenience, but rather to circumvent FOIA laws.' ~ By Michael Sainato • 07/13/16 8:00am

http://observer.com/2016/07/up-next-for-the-fbi-clinton-foundation-corruption/




“Schweizer lays out compelling patterns in which the timing of policy decisions or international deals relative to donations, transcends coincidence - or at least, merits closer inspection. He narrates with crisp prose and illuminating detail.” ~ Forbes review

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288




'People don't have a lot of "impromptu meetings" in private jets sitting on airport tarmacs. As ABC15 Arizona reported, [Bill] Clinton arrived to the airport to depart, heard Lynch was en route to that airport and then waited for her arrival. Maybe it was just dumb luck that this happened only a day before the Benghazi report was released by Congress, and a few days after the Associated Press published another 165 pages of emails then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent via her unsanctioned and unsecure private email server and did not want anyone to see. ' ~ David Harsanyi | July 1, 2016

http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/01/clinton-and-lynchcorruption-not-optics




'According to the official statement of FBI director, James Comey, agency experts were unable to recover information from Clinton’s wiped-clean server, and Clinton’s legal team claims there are no backups. Thus the contents of the 30,000 deleted “private” emails are not known unless they are in the hands of foreign intelligence hackers, who could deploy them to influence the 2016 election, blackmail a President Clinton once in office, or to embarrass her and the United States.' ~ Paul Roderick Gregory - JUL 9, 2016 @ 11:46 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/07/09/its-the-30000-wiped-clean-clinton-e-mails/#472ff2d2467f




'And former CIA director David Petraeus has stated that the US government ascertained that the Benghazi massacre was a coordinated act of terrorism "almost immediately." State Department documents and Hillary's own virtual paper trail affirm this. The Secretary of State understood the truth, with clarity. She shared it with her own daughter and with foreign diplomats, while serving up a fiction to the American people, including heartbroken family members of the deceased.'

'The Obama administration claimed that all relevant information had been provided years ago, and Democrats have assailed the current investigation as redundant and partisan -- yet the Benghazi Select Committee is just now receiving these emails from Patrick Kennedy, a high-ranking Clinton subordinate at the center of this and several other controversies. In fact, State officials are saying that are so many previously-unreleased, relevant documents in need of review that they were unable to fully comply with the federal judge's orders on time. ' ~ Guy Benson | Posted: Jan 04, 2016 10:25 AM

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/04/hillary-im-not-lying-so-the-benghazi-families-must-be-n2099353




'Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.'

'The Clinton campaign has been noncommittal about releasing transcripts of the paid speeches and Clinton has told reporters that she will "look into" making her remarks public.' ~ By Robert Yoon, CNN Updated 1:15 PM ET, Sat February 6, 2016

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/




'Hillary Clinton's speaking fees have been the subject of much political debate.'

'What's more, the investigation revealed that many of the groups had federal contracts or lobbied the Clinton State Department. Some even had direct contact with Clinton or her top aides while she was secretary of state.'

'See all the fees the AP discovered in the graphic....' ~ By Lindsey Cook | Data Editor April 22, 2016, at 11:32 a.m.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-paid-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees




'Mrs. Clinton’s financial disclosure forms show that she reported personal income of more than $11 million for 51 speeches in 13 months. Yet she has not defined how she and Mr. Clinton decide which fees are personal income and which go directly to charity. Normally, the IRS doesn’t let taxpayers pick and choose. But this is no normal family, nor is it a normal charity.' ~ FEB 9, 2016 @ 08:42 AM | Robert W. Wood

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/02/09/hillarys-wall-street-speech-fees-hers-or-clinton-foundations/#6c85e0946232




'It is difficult to imagine no breach of ethics when a high-profile, presumptive candidate for president is paid more than $21 million in less than two years for almost no work from corporate, healthcare, investment banks and other concerns, only to announce one month after the speaking tour has ended that she is indeed running for president. ' ~ Published on Monday, February 22, 2016 | By Howard Friel

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/22/hillary-clintons-pay-play-speaking-fees-disqualify-her-presidential-candidate




'She did not intend to break the law and would not be prosecuted even if the evidence showed she did – a precedent coming about three days too late for a U.S. Navy seaman who pleaded guilty Friday to using his cellphone to take pictures inside restricted areas of a nuclear submarine and keeping them, in violation of the rules for handling classified materials.'

'The most troubling thing, which will ultimately be left to the voters to work out for themselves, is how she and her minions lied to the public at just about every turn. She wanted everything on one device. There were no private servers. There were private servers but no classified materials were sent through them. There are as many excuses and denials as there are emails – some of which have probably been destroyed, contrary to the provisions of federal record-keeping acts that are in place just to prevent things like this from ever happening.' ~ By Peter Roff | Contributing Editor July 5, 2016, at 6:00 p.m.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-05/fbi-email-investigation-shows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it




“When my mother says she’s going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, to me that is identity politics at its worst,” Soldati tells Quartz. “It’s putting the value of a female president over the value of a president with your values.”

'And as far as they’re concerned, Clinton stands at the apex of the establishment pyramid, one that is entrenched in the power politics of Washington, far removed from the average young American. She’s just another politician, and that class as a whole should not be trusted.'

'Hillary fans say that having a woman at the helm in the White House would provide much stronger support for policies that are critical for women, like equal pay, paid maternity and family leave, universal child care, and reproductive rights.' ~ Hanna Kozlowska February 24, 2016

http://qz.com/623503/why-young-women-reject-hillary-clintons-brand-of-feminism/




'Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was forced to resign after Wikileak unloaded thousands of e-mails including some that proved top DNC staff plotted to sabotage Sanders’ presidential hopes'.

'But then Hillary Clinton issued a statement extolling Wasserman Schultz’s tenure and announcing thst she would become honorary campaign chair of her presidential campaign.' ~ By Steven Rosenfeld / July 24, 2016

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/chaotic-start-dnc-wasserman-shultz-resigns-disgrace-only-be-elevated-clinton-key







-Index- -Top-











Trump Record:



'As for Trump's Cruz-is-a-politics-as-usual D.C. insider lie, Mr. Trump cannot have it both ways. Remember when Trump said both parties in Washington hate Cruz, citing Cruz's outsider status as a negative, making him unable to make deals?'

'In reality, Trump is the D.C. insider, hiring lobbyists and paying politicians for decades. Trump admits being friendly and ready to make deals with extreme partisan Democrats. ' ~ April 28, 2016 by Lloyd Marcus

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/trumps_three_huge_lies_about_cruz.html




'He called Ted Cruz a liar in debate after Cruz said Trump supported funding Planned Parenthood – but Trump does support funding Planned Parenthood’s “non-abortion services,” a completely nonsensical position'

'Trump says that Cruz lied about Ben Carson dropping out of the race in Iowa; we’ve dealt with the entire timeline here. Suffice it to say, that’s nonsense. Carson gave indicators he was dropping out to CNN, which reported it, and the Cruz campaign told people about it. End of story. ' ~ BY: BEN SHAPIRO | FEBRUARY 17, 2016

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3451/so-whos-real-liar-cruz-trump-or-rubio-ben-shapiro




'Donald Trump agrees with the liberal SCOTUS majority and The New York Times that eminent-domain for corporate gain is marvelous Trump loves eminent domain for limousine parking lots and other corporate projects.'

'All Democratic presidential candidates for decades have supported mandates and subsidies for ethanol. The most conservative Republicans — Cruz and Rand Paul — opposed them. Trump was the most pro-ethanol of the major GOP candidates.' ~ By TIMOTHY P. CARNEY (@TPCARNEY) • 2/26/16 - 5:15 PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-trump-is-the-liberal-republican-in-the-race/article/2584381




'And yet Trump still believes in a critical Washington role. He’s backed a proposal to create a national health-care system — Trumpcare anyone? — similar to one offered to federal employees that is government run.'

'Yet if American companies continue to move to Mexico or other countries, Trump repeated his promise in Las Vegas to slap a 35% tariff on any goods they try to send back to the United States.' ~ Published: Feb 24, 2016 10:36 a.m. ET | By JEFFRY BARTASH

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-is-the-most-liberal-republican-on-economics-since-nixon-2015-12-14




'But what does Donald Trump really believe on policy? It’s hard to tell — his campaign will identify no policy director, he has no “issues” tab on his campaign website and he hasn’t given any substantive policy speeches on the campaign trail.'

'Given an opportunity earlier this month to revise his view of unions, Trump did not. “I have great relationships with unions,” he told Newsweek’s Matthew Cooper. Trump is himself a union member, collecting a $110,228 annual pension from the Screen Actors Guild, according to his financial disclosure.'

' Trump proposed a 35 percent tax on “every car and every truck and every part” manufactured by American automakers in Mexico that crosses into the U.S. Trump also favors a 20 percent tariff on all imported goods and a 15 percent tax “for outsourcing jobs.” ~ By TIMOTHY NOAH 07/26/15 | 07:47 AM EDT

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-stand-up-120607




'Donald Trump was a registered Democrat for a number of years, and has frequently contributed to the campaigns of liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, while rarely contributing to Republicans. He favors policies that all but the most left-wing Democrats shy away from, like socialized medicine.' ~ POSTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2016 BY JOHN HINDERAKER

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/is-donald-trump-a-liberal-democrat.php




'He said the New York Times has a "secret tape" of Trump saying that "he doesn't believe what he's saying on immigration."

"That all of his promises to secure the borders are not real and if he's president he doesn't intend to do what he says," Cruz said.'

"Donald Trump should ask The New York Times to release the audio of his interview with him so we can see exactly what it is he truly believes about this issue that he has made the cornerstone of his campaign," Rubio said in a news release.' ~ February 29, 2016, 04:46 pm - By Rebecca Savransky

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271187-new-york-times-refusing-to-release-off-the-record-tape-of-trump-on




'Throughout his wildly inconsistent presidential campaign, the erratic billionaire has routinely taken one position one day and the opposite the next. And in many cases, observers can wait a week or so and find that the Donald has reversed himself a few more times.'

'Then, just last week, he appeared to further throw any notion of fiscal conservatism out the window, asserting that the U.S. won’t ever default on its debt because it can always print more money.' ~ BY ADAM EDELMAN Updated: Saturday, May 14, 2016, 5:20 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/trump-flip-flops-small-handful-donald-policy-shifts-article-1.2637066




'Trump has often channeled Sanders as a kindred spirit, arguing that both were being kept down by a "rigged system" and applauding his stance on trade.' ~ June 07, 2016, 09:25 pm - By Ben Kamisar

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282619-trump-welcomes-sanders-supporters-left-out-in-the-cold




'Up until now, of course, candidates have just released their tax returns as a matter of good practice. The public and pundits are used to it. But only tradition requires releasing the returns. It is part of the ’nothing to hide’ candidate vetting.' ~ JUL 13, 2016 @ 09:08 AM - Robert W. Wood

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/07/13/man-offers-5-million-for-trump-tax-returns/#298099a36475




'Another Utah delegate, Stefani Stone Williams, received an intimidating email from Carl Paladino, the co-chairman of Trump's New York campaign..... "You should be hung [sic] for treason Stefani," Paladino wrote. "There will not be a Republican Party if you attempt to replace Trump. I'll be in your face in Cleveland." ~ By THOMAS BURR | The Salt Lake Tribune - Jul 18 2016 07:29PM

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4130621-155/you-should-die-trump-supporters-threaten





'It’s a noticeable shift away from the slash-and-burn approach of Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who some party insiders blame for cultivating, or at least enabling, Trump’s brasher tendencies. One state party leader, who requested anonymity, described the intimidation tactics coming from Trump supporters as part of “Corey culture.” ~ By Eli Stokols and Kyle Cheney 04/22/16 05:06 AM EDT

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/delegates-face-death-threats-from-trump-supporters-222302#ixzz4EqszoOeJ







-Index- -Top-











Items of Reference:





Psychological Conditioning

It would seem that psychological conditioning of the populace keeps them surrendering to the two-party electoral tactics despite the parties taking us to our obvious doom:


All you need is some authority and habitual thinking in order to manipulate people into submission to the powers that be as Milgram's obedience experiment showed.

https://youtu.be/fCVlI-_4GZQ

We see how the two-party mentality of ' Us vs. Them ' is a systemic extension of Zimbardo's infamous prison experiment at Stanford.

https://youtu.be/oAX9b7agT9o








Hoover

'Far from being a bystander, Hoover actively intervened in the economy, advocating and implementing polices that were quite similar to those that Franklin Roosevelt later implemented. Moreover, many of Hoover's interventions, like those of his successor, caused the Great Depression to be “great”—that is, to last a long time.'

'Hoover proposed, and Congress approved, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. The Revenue Act of 1932 increased personal income taxes dramatically, but also brought back a variety of excise taxes that had been used during World War I.'

'On top of that increase, the Act placed a large surtax on higher-income earners, leading to a total tax rate of anywhere from 25 to 63%. The Act also raised the corporate income tax along with several taxes on other forms of income and wealth.'

'Roosevelt’s own advisors understood that much of what they created during the New Deal owed its origins to Hoover’s policies, going as far back as his time at the Commerce Department in the 1920s.' ~ by Steven Horwitz

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HooversEconomicPolicies.html




'In response to the stock market crash of 1929, however, protectionism gained strength, and, though the tariff legislation subsequently passed only by a narrow margin (44–42) in the Senate, it passed easily in the House of Representatives. Despite a petition from more than 1,000 economists urging him to veto the legislation, Hoover signed the bill into law on June 17, 1930.'

'Smoot-Hawley contributed to the early loss of confidence on Wall Street and signaled U.S. isolationism. By raising the average tariff by some 20 percent, it also prompted retaliation from foreign governments, and many overseas banks began to fail.'

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act






Mao

'Mao was the leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from 1935 until his death, and he was chairman (chief of state) of the People’s Republic of China from 1949 to 1959 and chairman of the party also until his death.' ~ Written by: Stuart Reynolds Schram

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mao-Zedong






Bull Moose Party

'True to Roosevelt's progressive beliefs, the platform of the party called for major reforms including women's suffrage, social welfare assistance for women and children, farm relief, revisions in banking, health insurance in industries, and worker's compensation. The party also wanted an easier method to amend the constitution.'

'Roosevelt shared many of the progressive policies of Wilson yet his core support came from Republicans who defected from the party.' ~ By Martin Kelly American History Expert

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/politicalparties/p/bull_moose.htm




'But the most clear parallel is to 1912, when, then as now, a celebrity candidate swept in and threw the GOP establishment off balance. It was Theodore Roosevelt, a showman if ever there was one, like Trump today.' ~ By Kenneth T. Walsh | March 11, 2016, at 6:00 a.m.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-11/will-trump-launch-the-next-bull-moose-party




' We can take the reins of power away from the ruling elites. We can rewrite the rules of the game, resurrect the middle class, and fulfill the people's vision of the American dream. Join with us today, and together we—the new Progressive Bull Moose Party—will clean out the U.S. Congress and sweep away the political and economic tyranny that the Democratic and Republican parties have proven so utterly incapable and unwilling to stop.'

http://www.progressivebullmoose.party/







-Index- -Top-

















TOP



Commonwealth Party
What We Have Now.