Could Donald Trump be the Americans Elect nominee?

Ballot Access News reports that Donald Trump, who just changed his voter registration from Republican to Independent, won several Reform Party primaries in 2000. He had also changed his registration to Independence Party (allied with the Reform Party) back in 1999, and at various times has been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican.

Earlier this year Trump has at various times suggested he might run as a Republican or independent. However, ballot access laws now preclude him from appearing in at least some Republican primaries, and a nationwide independent ballot access effort separate from Americans Elect would be difficult to pull off at this stage, especially with Americans Elect working in numerous states at the same time.

Most speculation about billionaires that may run with Americans Elect has swirled around NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Since Americans Elect is precluded from spending large amounts of money on behalf of its presidential ticket after the nomination, a billionaire candidate would be able to make Americans Elect more competitive in the general election if he or she is willing to self finance a chunk of the campaign.

A recent Public Policy Poll polled votes about theoretical three-way match-ups against Obama and Romney:

Donald Trump 19%, Ron Paul 17%, Jon Huntsman 11%, Gary Johnson 9%, Mike Bloomberg 8%, Bernie Sanders 7%, and Rocky Anderson 4%.

Given that the Commission on Presidential Debates has set a 15% threshold for inclusion, only Trump or Paul is polling well enough to get into the debates. Bloomberg would have to nearly double his current poll numbers to make the cutoff.

Ballot Access News (first link above) says Trump has already said he may seek the Americans Elect nomination. Since both Trump and Bloomberg live in New York, they can’t both be on the ticket since under the US Constitution New York presidential electors would not be able to vote for both of them should they win that state. UPDATE from Richard Winger in the comments: The U.S. Constitution does not bar two residents from the same state from running jointly for President and Vice-President. All the Constitution does is say that New York presidential electors could not vote for that ticket. But that is no problem, because after the November 2012 election, if a ticket of two New Yorkers ran as a team, one of them would just move to another state before the electoral college votes in mid-December 2012. This is how the Republican ticket handled the problem in 2000. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were both registered voters in Texas when they were nominated. After the November 2000 election, Dick Cheney canceled his voter registration in Texas and registered to vote in Wyoming.

Of the candidates polled by PPP, Paul and Huntsman are the only two included among Americans Elect most tracked candidates. Americans Elect currently reports This week’s tally is 2,313,079, an increase of 60,042 signatures in the past week. The eventual goal is about 3 million signatures. Recently, they cleared their biggest hurdle when California ruled that it has enough valid signatures for the ballot. Americans Elect has a goal of 30 state ballot access by the end of 2011 and 50 states plus DC in 2012.

69 thoughts on “Could Donald Trump be the Americans Elect nominee?

  1. richard winger

    The U.S. Constitution does not bar two residents from the same state from running jointly for President and Vice-President. All the Constitution does is say that New York presidential electors could not vote for that ticket. But that is no problem, because after the November 2012 election, if a ticket of two New Yorkers ran as a team, one of them would just move to another state before the electoral college votes in mid-December 2012. This is how the Republican ticket handled the problem in 2000. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were both registered voters in Texas when they were nominated. After the November 2000 election, Dick Cheney canceled his voter registration in Texas and registered to vote in Wyoming.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    The whole “electors from a state may not vote for both candidates from that state” provision is vestigial. If the Constitution and the electoral college are going to be kept, it should be amended out.

    Circa 1787, if you were from a state you were likely to live in that state for life. People didn’t really move that much. Also, there was political loyalty attached to your state in a way that hasn’t really been the case since the Civil War.

    These days, people pick up and move across the country on a pretty regular basis, and if they have any “state loyalties” it’s to the football team from their original state’s most prominent college or university,.

  3. Tom Blanton

    I wasn’t kidding, Darryl. A Trump-Root campaign would be a juggernaut of bombast. Can you imagine tag team debates with both Presidential and VP candidates? How about a multi-level marketing campaign strategy where bundlers would get a percentage of the funds raised by their downline?

    They could open their own polling company, consulting company, fundraising company, and printing company to handle all facets of their campaign while pocketing some spare change. They could even open a catering company to put together fundraising dinners.

    They could also create a production company to film the entire campaign and turn it into a reality TV show and also sell DVDs. The could both write books, published by Trump-Root Publishing, Inc.

    This would be a campaign like no other.

  4. Jeremy C. Young

    I think Trump is thinking about it. But Trump has thought about it before, without deciding to pull the trigger. I’m just not convinced he has the discipline to run for president, no matter what his ego says.

  5. Kleptocracy And You

    Yes, insider Trump could be the nominee. I hate to take all the “fun” away but AmEl is a fraud front so the CFR can have “the third party choice” against THEIR R & D candidates. These people control things. The quicker everyone understands, maybe the quicker something can be done to CHANGE things for the better !

    In case you missed this very important artical about America Elects: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/12/15/americans-elect-candidate-ejection-committee-chaired-by-fbi-cia-military-research-chiefs/ , you need to read it. The Council on Foreign Relations run the USA, how many examples do you need to be awaken from your slumber ?!!!!!!!!!

    ” Who the Candidate Ejection Committee is”
    So who will be sitting on this candidate ejection committee? Americans Elect has just named the first three committee members. They are:

    Larry Diamond
    — Professor of Sociology and Political Science, Stanford University
    — Member, Council on Foreign Relations

    William Webster
    — Former Chairman of the Board, RAND Corporation
    — Former Director, FBI
    — Former Director, CIA
    — Chairman, Homeland Security and Advisory Council to the United States Goverment
    — Member, Council on Foreign Relations

    James Thomson
    — Former staffer, National Security Council and Department of Defense
    — President of RAND Corporation until last month
    — Member, Council on Foreign Relations

    What is the RAND Corporation? It’s an ostensibly independent non-profit organization that was founded by the U.S. Air Force, is funded by seven different units of the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security, and houses three different federally funded research and development centers on military matters. (a CFR corp. member)

    All on the Council on Foreign Relations. One a major intelligence chief. Another a major player in military policy and research contracts. What interesting choices to decide what presidential candidates the rest of us should be able to choose between. ”

    FYI – the CFR has picked your “choices” all your lives, but you might not have realized it. Know your enemy my friends!

    “I am delighted to be here in these new [Council on Foreign Relations] headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” – Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, 7/15/2009
    `~CFR – Council on Foreign Relations Hillary Clinton tells who gives the orders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-sUywS0FJ4&feature=fvwrel

    “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” – Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address), In his book “Tragedy and Hope” speaking of the Globalists’ American political strategy since the early twentieth century.

    “There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” – Carroll Quigley.
    (Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address)
    Hence Communist China’s rise to “lead” the world for Klep’s interests.

  6. Rob Banks

    “Don’t believe quotes you see on the internet. Many of them are total bullshit that unknown modern day people pull out of their ass, which other people pick up and spread around.” – Josef Stalin

  7. Rob Banks

    “Some of you would find it astonishing how easy it is for a body to power up their computer, go on the internet and claim some famous person said whatever words one wishes to shove in their mouth” – Ben Franklin

  8. Robert Capozzi

    I don’t think Trump (or Paul!) is the sort that AE had in mind. Huntsman or Petraeus would be more in keeping with their thinking, is my sense.

    Romney or Huntsman get the nod, no AE. Otherwise, we might see it.

  9. Rob Banks

    @11 AE will happen one way or the other regardless of who Republicans nominate.

    Maybe if the Republicans are moving in the direction they like (I don’t think that includes Romney though I could be wrong) they will fake left and go with a Bernie Sanders, Rocky Anderson or someone like that. Assuming they can script it that tightly, which is not necessarily true.

    Perhaps the point is not whether Democrats or Republicans win, but where those not willing to vote for either go – especially if Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian or independent.

    Or, maybe they do want one or the other to win, in which case they may indeed let Trump or (IMO much less likely) Paul run on their ticket, depending on how they see that swinging the election.

    Another possibility may be that the presidential campaign is not the point at all, but rather that they may want to elect people to Congress or swing congressional races in 2014 or perhaps build for a winning race in 2016. This presidential race could just be to establish the ballot access and name recognition for that.

    Or, they could be aiming to actually win this time.

  10. Rob Banks

    They are getting ballot access all over the country and are recruiting people to sign up online to pick a presidential ticket.

    How do you see them telling all those people to forget it? I don’t see that happening.

    If the Republican ticket is to their liking, it is possible that they could recruit a left leaning candidate and/or one that does not have a lot of financial backing.

    However, I’ll bet that there is no way they have gone through all they have and then just not run anyone.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@13,

    “what makes you so sure that AE is a go, regardless of the R/D lineup?”

    They’ve already got ballot access in a number of states.

    In some states, that implies a state organization which is both answerable to the election authority and empowered to submit a nominee to that authority for the ballot line, even if the national organization pulls the plug for some reason.

    But I doubt that the national organization will pull the plug. If its financial backers suddenly decide that they prefer one of the major party nominees, their big money might not be forthcoming for the general election campaign, leaving it to sink to “minor factor” status, but there’s a degree to which the effort takes on a life of its own regardless of its creators’ intent or decisions.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    14 rb, I haven’t focused on the mechanics of AE. I know they are working on ballot access. Apparently there’s some monied interests involved.

    But, if they pick a candidate online, the candidate has to agree to run, yes? If they fall short of gaining ballot access in a critical mass of states esp., who’s gonna take that plunge?

    Seems to me there’re a lot of ways AE can fizzle, my dizzle.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    17 my TK-izzle, so, say they pick Bloomie. Bloomie sez, Y’all be lunching.

    Then what?

  14. Rob Banks

    Candidates have to affirm they want the nomination before the final round of online voting. They will have 30 states or close finished in the next few days and are working in a bunch more. No chance of ballot access fizzling.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    So far, AE (per the most recent statements on Wikipedia) has ballot access in states with 173 electoral votes.

    That’s 64% of the electoral votes required to win the election, and for damn sure more than enough to affect its outcome if AE follows through with credible nominees and a real general election campaign.

    I suppose it’s remotely possible that there’s a group in control of outcomes that could just pull the plug and let the thing die … but even if that’s the case, why would they? Seems like an awfully expensive form of entertainment.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    20 rb: Candidates have to affirm they want the nomination before the final round of online voting. They will have 30 states or close finished in the next few days and are working in a bunch more. No chance of ballot access fizzling.

    me: OK, so let’s say they get 45. Let’s say that those states rep enough electoral votes to be competitive. Again, I don’t know much about their nominating process, but if no one qualified sez Yep, let’s do this, then AE amounts to nothing, would be my guess. Now, for my money, I’d love Jimmy McMillan to go for it, since I cannot get enough of his rap. Still, unless some serious player steps up and wants the AE nomination and serious gwap floods in to fund him or her, the best AE can hope for is LP-type numbers.

    Since AE has a centrist, moderate vibe (correct me if I’m wrong), it’s only folks like Bloomberg who can make AE into an interesting experiment. Otherwise, it’s USA Parliament time in direction.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@22,

    Yes, AE styles itself centrist (IMO, centrists are very immoderate, but yes, some people use the terms interchangeably).

    As far as “qualified” goes, several candidates far more qualified in terms of executive political experience (Bloomberg, Roemer, et. al) than H. Ross Perot circa 1992 have expressed interest in the AE nomination.

  18. Robert Capozzi

    23 tk, right. If Romney doesn’t get the nomination, Mayor Mike might seriously look at it. Trump might, but what moves him is not obvious to me. Roemer – whom I kinda like – doesn’t seem like someone who could get the big buck support to be a serious contender. Think John Anderson more than Perot, in his case.

    AE still feels like USA Parliament to me, though, political dungeons and dragons. It’s reason for being is largely technical; it’s MO is technical, too. I see no real ideas there.

    Centrists strike me as “moderate” in the sense they don’t advocate radical change from the status quo.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@24,

    “AE still feels like USA Parliament to me, though, political dungeons and dragons. It’s reason for being is largely technical; it’s MO is technical, too. I see no real ideas there.”

    Well, except that USA Parliament is an Internet game, while AE is an organization that has already banked tens of millions of dollars and looks set for something close to 50-state ballot access within a year or so of its founding.

    “Centrists strike me as ‘moderate’ in the sense they don’t advocate radical change from the status quo.”

    Well, that’s the thing — as a status quo disintegrates, it requires more and more extremist behavior to maintain.

  20. George Phillies

    @25 I think there should be concern about someone who cannot tell the difference between AE (a many million dollar investment at this point, with a considerable number of prominent people involved) and USA Parliament. At this point, the number of people who have put down $ and reputations is sufficiently large that it probably cannot be stopped by its founders.

    George, sitting down after a full day of house cleaning.

  21. Hugh Mann

    OK, so let’s say they get 45.

    They got over 1.6 million signatures in California alone. There are no remaining states nearly as difficult, in fact they have over 2.3 million signatures nationwide out of about 3 million projected (75-80%) already. So, yes, they will have all 50 states plus DC. I don’t see them failing anywhere. They are already well under way in most of the difficult states and have easily enough resources to get on everywhere.

    if no one qualified sez Yep, let’s do this, then AE amounts to nothing, would be my guess.

    Roemer has already expressed interest, an ex-Governor. Others may pop out of the woodwork: Ventura, for example. With all that ballot access it seems that it would draw candidates.

    If Romney doesn’t get the nomination, Mayor Mike might seriously look at it. Trump might, but what moves him is not obvious to me.

    I don’t know why you think Romney has anything to do with it.

    They may whether Romney gets the nomination or not.

    Roemer – whom I kinda like – doesn’t seem like someone who could get the big buck support to be a serious contender. Think John Anderson more than Perot, in his case.

    Anderson did pretty well, didn’t he? I don’t feel like looking it up but I seem to recall something along the lines of 6 or 7%, more than Nader, and far more than any other non D or R not named Perot in the 30 years since then?

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    OK, if Perot is going to keep coming up, we should probably put his “qualifications” in context.

    His qualifications were:

    1) He was flamboyant, self-promoting and able to get himself in the media (sound familiar, LPers?);

    2) He’d made a lot of money, much of it taxpayer money (EDS’s big break was getting the contract for processing Medicare claims);

    3) He was willing to spend a bunch of that money ($60 million on his 1992 campaign — ~$92 million in 2010 dollars); and

    4) He’d sat on two “blue ribbon commissions” (the Texas War on Drugs Committee and the Texas Select Committee on Public Education).

    Bloomberg and Roemer certainly excel Perot on the “executive political experience” line, which is likely to appeal to “centrists.”

    If someone of their stature is the AE nominee, I expect that money at least similar to Perot’s campaign spending, inflation-adjusted, will be available. Bloomberg could easily self-finance that much and a lot more, the folks who’ve already pumped $20 million plus into the thing are likely to double down to the extent that they can under campaign finance laws, and lots of big money can be used to attract even more little money.

    So the only real question facing AE is whether they can find a presidential nominee who can outdo Perot on the “I’m all ears, look at this pie chart” front (or make up for the inability to do so with additional promotional spending), and a VP nominee who doesn’t look into the camera and say “who am I? Why am I here?”

  23. Robert Capozzi

    tk and gp, when I liken AE to USA Parliament, I don’t mean it literally. I would have thought that was obvious. Sorry I wasn’t clear about that.

    AE might be of some consequence in the 2012 elections. Or it might not.

    TK, yes, Roemer certainly has more qualifications than Perot did. My only takeaway from Perot I (and to a lesser extent II) was that there is a hunger for “another way” in the country. Perot tapped into that hunger pretty well from a messaging perspective.

    Roemer might be able to do so, but I’ve not seen evidence of that ability on the national stage. Bloomie might. Ventura probably does for a certain subset of the population, though at this point I think he’s likely to have created a ceiling for himself.

    I guess my main point is I don’t see AE as being all that interesting UNLESS they get a candidate who can put on a Perot-type show. Even if they do, since I see no real theme there, my guess is they amount to no historical significance. I don’t see the course of history changing with AE’s current formulation.

    I do see the LP as having that potential, since there is a powerful underlying theme: liberty. So, for me, I’m half hoping that someone with deep-pockets like Bloomberg goes AE, while the LP fields the ticket of Paul/Johnson. I could imagine 4-way debates even more than a 3-way debates of R/D/L. Such a (long shot) event could be historically significant, as it could lead to some sort of lasting re-alignment.

    HM, yes, Anderson got 6% as I recall. Then he left the stage, with no legacy that I can discern.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    25 tk: Well, that’s the thing — as a status quo disintegrates, it requires more and more extremist behavior to maintain.

    me: Agreed, although that’s the point…it doesn’t appear to be extreme. Our conversation mostly revolves around* the ways and means for Ls to inspire a reversal of this downward spiral**.

    * When I say “revolves around,” I don’t mean that our bodies are literally revolving around each other while we communicate.

    ** When I say “downward spiral,” I don’t mean that the economic and legal configuration in the US is physically spiralling. Neither has mass as an institution.

    🙂

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@29,

    I’m skeptical that AE can win this year, of course.

    My guess is that Bloomberg intends to send the GOP the way of the Whigs.

    AE runs a “credible” 2012 candidate who has good ballot access, good funding, touts a “pragmatic, centrist” economic platform, and loses, but racks up double digit percentages.

    Then when the next deficit/debt/spending fight erupts and produces nothing of note, Bloomberg personally recruits a number of “moderate” sitting Senators and Representatives to form a new caucus and change their party identification to AE.

    In 2016, he runs for president and wins, as do those incumbent party-changers. A slate of carefully selected non-incumbents also run for Congress on the AE ticket, and some win. At that point, there’s another stampede to the AE line among remaining incumbents. AE ends up one of the two major parties, the GOP goes the way of the Whigs.

    At least, that’s what I think the aim is. Whether they can pull it off, who knows?

  26. Hugh Mann

    So the only real question facing AE is whether they can find a presidential nominee who can outdo Perot on the “I’m all ears, look at this pie chart” front (or make up for the inability to do so with additional promotional spending), and a VP nominee who doesn’t look into the camera and say “who am I? Why am I here?”

    If they can avoid having a candidate who “drops out” and then back in that would make them real players. Perot was leading in the polls before that stunt.

    And the disgust with Democrats and Republicans has grown a lot since then. Most people only vote for them because they see no one else capable of winning and are afraid of one or the other. Once a third candidate gets within striking range as Americans Elect is likely to do, they might very well win.

  27. Hugh Mann

    And yes I did say win, as in beat Obama and his Republican opponent.

    Any reason why they can’t?

  28. Hugh Mann

    HM, yes, Anderson got 6% as I recall. Then he left the stage, with no legacy that I can discern.

    He set the stage for Perot.

    And Perot may have set the stage for Bloomberg, Trump, Ventura, Patraeus, or someone else to actually become President as the Americans Elect candidate.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    34 hm: [Anderson] set the stage for Perot.

    me: Hmm, that’s an interesting theory. 12 years elapsed, and I don’t recall Anderson being a deficit hawk, and that seemed to be the key Perot message. That’s from memory, though, so make your case.

    31 tk: My guess is that Bloomberg intends to send the GOP the way of the Whigs.

    me: Interesting. Possible. I’d like a bit more evidence that this is MB’s intent.

    Generally, I’d like to see this, if for no other reason than I’d like to the “system” get opened up. A “Liberty Party” stands a better chance than the LP does in the current, Balkanized configuration….

  30. George Phillies

    @31 An interesting objective, though Bloomberg is socially tolerant, and that will not budge the GOP south of the Mason-Dixon line. However, Southern Democrats have been there before, and may end up there again, except called Republican this time, and with no natural party to which to link elsewhere.

    If Bloomberg played it a particular way, we could end up in the position that no party can get a majority in the electoral college.

  31. Hugh Mann

    Anderson was a “centrist” third party candidate so in a sense he set the stage for Perot, regardless of individual issues.

  32. Hugh Mann

    A “Liberty Party” stands a better chance than the LP does in the current, Balkanized configuration….

    You could try starting one. Tho I think Phillies already has.

    Southern Democrats have been there before, and may end up there again, except called Republican this time, and with no natural party to which to link elsewhere.

    They might be called Libertarians, if Ron Paul goes that way, and if they can get over his dovishness on foreign policy.

    If Bloomberg played it a particular way, we could end up in the position that no party can get a majority in the electoral college.

    Another interesting thought. That might be the only way for Romney to win, since he is likely to be well behind Obama. This would send it to the Republican controlled US House to decide the winner, iirc.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    39 hm: You could try starting one. Tho I think Phillies already has.

    me: S’pose that’s true, but the path of least resistance is to share ideas to correct the unworkable deontological absolutism buried in the LP’s foundation. That continues to be the indication… 😉

  34. Robert Capozzi

    41 p, thanks. Good point. What bucket DOES The Donald go in? Donald-ology? China-Bashing-ology?

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@36,

    An assertion requires evidence.

    A guess is just a guess.

    But I’ll be glad to share the basis for my guess.

    I think Bloomberg wants to be president.

    But, he’s a “moderate New York Republican,” and that political species does poorly in internal GOP contests (see Rockefeller, Giuliani, et. al).

    Nor would a change back to Democrat be a dog that would hunt. He was a lifelong Democrat who changed parties to get elected mayor of New York. As Bob Barr is now learning, once you make the switch, it’s hard to engender trust/support when you try to switch back.

    So, he needs a new party.

    I think AE has the potential to hurt the GOP more than the Democrats — to essentially destroy it by recruiting its moderate bulk away from its conservative base — because I see the GOP as more internally fragmented and institutionally fragile.

  36. George Phillies

    Bloomberg is not able to win Republican Presidential primaries. His ‘switch back to Democrat” is a bit easier than Barr’s switch was, or than Johnson’s switch back to Republican will be, because he can reasonably say ‘New York has very heavy ethnic voting, and for reasons having nothing to do with me or my wonderful likely opponent, who is a fine Democrat, count the noses and there was no way I could win the Democratic primary.’

    Of course, Bloomberg would have the problem that there are major Democratic states where ethnic voting is close to incomprehensible. When I lived in California, I had otherwise intelligent people who simply could not believe that there had been voters who voted for X or Y in the Massachusetts primary because X or Y was Irish or Italian.

    In Bloomberg’s case, buying himself a political party was the cheapest answer.

  37. George Phillies

    @39 I have not started a new political party. Liberty for America is not currently a political party.

    Southern conservatives are the authoritarian opposite of Libertarians.

    Note that the House vote for President, if it gets there, is one vote per state; I do not know off hand who that favors.

    Also, there have been otherwise intelligent pollster-analysts suggesting that 2012 might see a triple flip, in which the Presidency and both houses of Congress flip control, not all in the same direction.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    44 gp, wow, GP hasn’t even switched to the LP and it appears you are CERTAIN that he will switch back again to the GOP. WOW!

    I’m not certain what you’re suggesting about MB…that NY Ds don’t vote for Jews? Can’t be that. That MB only became a R for tactical reasons, and now he can’t go home. Please restate….

  39. Kleptocracy And You

    Whoever heard of a” Candidate Ejection Committee ” outside maybe Communist Party activity ? The GOOD OL’ LP doesn’t openly EVEN have such things. {“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” – Noam Chomsky , Noam is alive call him and ask him if he said this! Mr.Banks}

    As for Mr. Banks for whose panties I must have caused to WAD, I link a youtube to Hillary saying the VERY words. As for Georgetown Law Prof. Quigley I list the BOOK in which he writes the QUOTES I use from him. I know it’s awful HARD for many to clean the horses&*# from their eyes, ears and BRAIN. [ They feed mushrooms with it. You know “in the DARK and fed HORSE&#^% regularly” !?! ]

    AE is a front to quell the unease through another POTUS election cycle (perhaps even future cycles?!) plain and simple. John Anderson was a CFR member, he went into teaching after then still working for the Kleptocracy (you know, filling those young minds full of mush…excuse me I had a Rush Limbo flashback…). As Albert tried to tell the people – “The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.” – Albert Einstein
    and
    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” – Albert Einstein
    As for money, it is NO object with these people. Hell they control the printing of the money in the majority of the world! To hold power they will have 51 ballot access NO SWEAT (if they want it that way)! Roemer, Ventura,etc.? I don’t think Roemer has sold his soul to the company store (yet?) or he would be on stage in each R debate ! Jessie V lives part of the time now in an off the grid self-powered villa with no TV or radios in Mexico to escape the FRAUD for brief periods of time! No the candidates of the AE will be puppets of the Kleptocracy just like the D & R. ( Whoever heard of a “Candidate Ejection Committee ” !?!} One more time – “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” – Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address), speaking of the Globalists’ American political goal since the early twentieth century.
    and VERY importantly –
    “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” – Carroll Quigley (speaking of the globalists’ American “”Strategy”” since the early twentieth century)
    So if they (the American people) aren’t happy with the two parties, WAALAA the powers that be produce a “third choice” the “Center”. Which will receive $ MILLION$ of $ of FREE media (which they own and control) coverage. Making Joe Six-Pack and Jane Doe think well GREAT, I can show those R & Ds this time I vote for (CFR controlled) #3 on the AE “centrist” line. Please use your brain friends.

    One more for Mr. Banks (it’s in the BOOK friend) – “There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” – Carroll Quigley.
    (Prof.Quigley speaks of twenty years of observation and two years of study of their SECRET papers. He taught thousands at Georgetown including one Bill Clinton who used him as his mentor. And the beat goes on and on and on…….)

    Proofs in the puddin so to speak

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-sUywS0FJ4&feature=fvwrel

    have a HAPPY NEW YEAR, I plan to have one(TGLW)………

    Explaining the left-right paradigm to a co worker!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw7j4lbDB4

  40. George Phillies

    “GP hasn’t even switched to the LP” whatever you say.

    In New York, Bloomberg faced the inevitable collision in the primary with a long time Democrat who was iirc Puerto Rican, and who had solidly lined up other important parts of the ethnic vote, for example the African American parts (there are some bizarre New York City historical bits here). There are more Hispanics and African Americans that there are Jews, and so polling showed he had no chance. So he switched parties. If you do enough of a historical search there were long New York Times articles about this at the time.

  41. paulie Post author

    Note that the House vote for President, if it gets there, is one vote per state; I do not know off hand who that favors.

    That would make it more lopsidedly Republican, since lower population states tend to be more Republican than higher population states.

  42. paulie Post author

    I have not started a new political party. Liberty for America is not currently a political party.

    There’s also the Liberty political designation in Mass, and saying not currently a political party leaves the impression that it may become one.

    Southern conservatives are the authoritarian opposite of Libertarians.

    Most of them claim to be for less taxes and spending, although only for some things (they tend to for more spending on military, police, jails and the like). They are mostly war hawks and coercive social conservatives.

    Also, there have been otherwise intelligent pollster-analysts suggesting that 2012 might see a triple flip, in which the Presidency and both houses of Congress flip control, not all in the same direction.

    That’s plausible, although the Republican field looks weak at the moment and if it’s one vote for state it would probably still be majority Republican.

  43. paulie Post author

    Noam Chomsky , Noam is alive call him and ask him if he said this!

    Might be a cool interview. What’s his number?

    Speaking of Chomsky check him out in the latest Rap News:

  44. Common Tater

    “I link a youtube to Hillary saying the VERY words. ”

    You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdKeufB0Pbs

    “As for Georgetown Law Prof. Quigley I list the BOOK in which he writes the QUOTES I use from him. ”

    In Professor Mohammed Said’s book “Global Situational Analysis” he says “Kleptocracy And You, a political commentator on the internet, is known to consume a great deal of beans on a regular basis and is a prodigious producer of methane.”

  45. George Phillies

    Liberty is not yet a “political designation” (legal term of art) in Massachusetts, though I have heard that the required signatures are being gathered. “Liberty” was used by several candidates in years past, including Joe Kennedy, but it is not currently a designation.

  46. Pingback: Could Donald Trump be the Americans Elect nominee? | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  47. Robert Capozzi

    49 gp: “GP hasn’t even switched to the LP” whatever you say.

    me: Dude, I corrected 46 with 47 “GJ, not GP, hasn’t…”

    So, today’s the day when GJ is to switch to the LP. @44, it appears your crystal ball tells you that GJ will go back to the GOP, I guess based on 2 observations, RP and BB. (Although, I’m not sure whether BB has re-registered R. Has he?)

    Again, 44gp said “…or than Johnson’s switch back to Republican will be,….” That sounds completely unqualified. Did you mean “would be”? Or are your “sources” telling you that GJ plans to return to the GOP in short order?

  48. Rob Banks

    I’m not sure whether BB has re-registered R. Has he?

    He said he may run for Congress as a Republican, although he decided against it (probably because he could not muster enough support), and then endorsed Gingrinch. I don’t even know if they have party voter registration in Georgia, but I’d say he is effectively back in the GOP.

    If he had endorsed Ron Paul there would be wiggle room, since Paul once ran as a Libertarian, is supported by many Libertarians, is an LP member and has good things to say about the LP. But Newt? The guy says all third parties only help Obama. He is not close to being a libertarian on any set of issues. Clearly Barr’s sojourn to libertarianism was brief if it was ever genuine at all.

  49. Kleptocracy And You

    @60 I don’t see how in the world it could work. From what I understand MB has more money than DT, so why should he be a VP for DT or for anybody! DT’s ego seems too large for him to be a VP.

    That’s what would be a concern about Gary Johnson, would he accept the VP spot of the LP. If Paul jumped in with $20 million to spend. He certainly should, but who knows.

    IMO look for the AE to nominate a BIG name and match a General or a Ambassador, maybe a retired Senator with him. That Huntsman guy might be the VP. But he could be the chosen one in the R race, that’s yet to be seen. Bloomberg or Trump, but not together!

    Something to watch for in the R race, if Romney wins Iowa that race won’t last long. For Ron Paul to do well he needs for it to remain a bunched field with 3, 4, 5 or even 6 opponents dividing the warmonger votes and delegates into the Spring. The more opponents the better for Paul until later. (which is hard to happen with the “horserace” mentality always present, the media is always in a rush to narrow the field to 2 candidates. If Paul was one of just two he loses badly, ie, his 10 to 25% does better against the other 75 to 90% divided among a half dozen opponents instead of losing 75% to 25% to just one.)

    The AE could very well win this election. IMO this will be one of the most interesting POTUS races in our lifetimes. Does the new Justice Party have the juice to gain enough ballot accesss? Who gets the Green nomination? Former US Rep. Virgil Goode has shown some interest in the CP nom. Ron Paul could seek the LP or CP nom. A Jesse Ventura etc. could decide to get into the fray.

    If the media coverage was anywhere near fair there could actually be a 7 or 8 way race this time, the DP, RP, AE, LP, GP, CP, JP and even an Indie. The alternatives must find someway to hold a series of debates that can be seen by a majority of the voters. The current debate system controlled by the Ds and Rs is totally unexceptable. There is enough turmoil in the world and the U.S. for the people to be turned on to real solutions. Open to multiple options.

    All downticket alternatives should run to WIN this time. The people will listen to the message because many are concerned about their futures! Raise money, run to WIN.

  50. Humongous Fungus

    I don’t see how in the world it could work. From what I understand MB has more money than DT, so why should he be a VP for DT or for anybody

    Trump is polling at 19%, Bloomberg at 8%. That’s at least one reason.

    That’s what would be a concern about Gary Johnson, would he accept the VP spot of the LP. If Paul jumped in with $20 million to spend.

    I believe he already said he would in a Republican debate. It would be smart of him to do so, since he can’t beat Paul for the presidential nomination and being the VP candidate would position him to be the P candidate in 2016.

    IMO look for the AE to nominate a BIG name and match a General or a Ambassador, maybe a retired Senator with him.

    Who do you think the big name is likely to be?

  51. Humongous Fungus

    The AE could very well win this election.

    I agree.

    IMO this will be one of the most interesting POTUS races in our lifetimes.

    It certainly won’t be dull.

    Does the new Justice Party have the juice to gain enough ballot access?

    IMO no.

    Who gets the Green nomination?

    Looks like probably Jill Stein.

    Former US Rep. Virgil Goode has shown some interest in the CP nom.

    He might have the same problem as Alan Keyes, IE pro-war/neocon.

    Ron Paul could seek the LP or CP nom.

    LP, maybe, though most likely not. CP, I very highly doubt it. He gains nothing; far less ballot access and he has to make the jump earlier as CP nominates before LP. For those of you who think Paul’s money overcomes all ballot access issues,
    you haven’t dealt with his Republican ballot access management. Would love to see those folks try to deal with the higher ballot access requirements and multiple simultaneous states they would have to deal with.

    There are some issues on which Paul is closer to the CP, but overall I would say he has at least as many differences with them as with the LP, and he’s already run LP before so it would be more of a natural fit.

    A Jesse Ventura etc. could decide to get into the fray.

    That remains a possibility, although he’s talked about it several other times and never pulled the trigger.

    If the media coverage was anywhere near fair there could actually be a 7 or 8 way race this time, the DP, RP, AE, LP, GP, CP, JP and even an Indie.

    It won’t be fair. There will be only 3 or 4 max that will get media coverage. The rest will be about where they have been in the last few elections.

    The alternatives must find someway to hold a series of debates that can be seen by a majority of the voters.

    Good luck!

  52. paulie Post author

    It looks like the Democrats will have Obama/Biden again, and the Republicans seem likely to end up with Romney. I expect Gary Johnson will ultimately win the Libertarian nomination, and Ron Paul will not run as a third-party or independent candidate.

    Agreed. However, I’m least sure about that last part.

    While I think Bloomberg would like to be president, he has faded significantly as a national figure since 2008, and he is no longer seen as a centrist figure.

    What is he if not centrist? And, I was not aware he was more prominent in 2008 than now.

    I think there’s about a 30% chance Trump will go for the AE nomination — and if he does, maybe 50-50 that he’ll get it.

    At the moment I think it looks like more than 30%, but I guess we’ll see.

    I also think Ventura misses the spotlight and might want to inject the civil liberties issue back into the national debate by making a run. Under what banner, who knows?

    Plausible as well. He has talked about running Libertarian. If he goes for AE he needs to affirm interest by April or May, and the same goes for LP. He usually stays in Mexico until Memorial Day, so we’ll see if he shows up in the US earlier this year.

    With all the Wall Street/CIA/CFR people on the candidate ejection committee, he may not survive screening for AE candidates, so he may be better off seeking the LP nomination if he decides to run.

    I don’t see him getting ballot access as anything other than LP or AE.

  53. Kleptocracy And You

    Please don’t down play MB. The media can have him back to 30% in three weeks if “they” want it. The media makes heros and chumps in SHORT order. MB could be back into it in a week and as stated polling well within 3 weeks. You have lived long enough to see how the media MAKES and BREAKS people ! Trump is a egomaniac IMO, I think he LOVES to see his face on TV and his name in the mags and papers. I may be mistakens but didn’t his money come from slumlording ? He has expanded, but his dad was a slumlord wasn’t he ? What qualifies a real estate tycoon to be POTUS anyway?

    I have enjoyed most of my time here. I wish each of you a great weekend and the best year of your life in ’12. It’s time to PARTY !

    See ya next year, maybe………..

  54. California's previous warnings ............

    Per Richard ‘Da Man’ Winger: hope you got my new years’ greetings. I think you and I are just pissing into the wind, but I appreciate the effort to keep the #&@%$# Dems and GOP honest. At least a ‘written trail’ has been laid down.

    Robert Capozzi: Mister Anderson / Mayor Lacey were closer to double figures, in a rigged electoral environment.

    As the number three official in Arid Zona in 1980, the hunger for some thing different and the bitterness toward ‘Jimmy, the Olympics Killer’ and Ronnie, the U of California Berkeley fascist police state thug and actor, was palitible.

  55. Be Rational

    @ 67 John Anderson’s runningmate was actually former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey.

    Anderson had the opportunity to keep his new party alive in the 1984 Predidential race. A group of activists and donors was all set to run a serious independent campaign using the ballot status Anderson had earned in numerous states and a new candidate. But, Anderson got cold feet at the last minute and pulled the plug.

  56. paulie Post author

    Please don’t down play MB. The media can have him back to 30% in three weeks if “they” want it. The media makes heros and chumps in SHORT order. MB could be back into it in a week and as stated polling well within 3 weeks.

    True.

    Trump does have a head start though.

    I still think it is possible Bloomberg would prefer the “Cheney” role in the operation…leading from behind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *