Update - Gary going to be in the debates? My main points are still the same.
Infowars Speaks with Jill Stein who's Marching with BLM
Democrat Party Breaking Apart, Says Green Party Leader
In my opinion third parties are a good idea but not nearly as revolutionary the idea of having no parties at all. The latter is a very lofty goal and the former is more realistic, but never going to happen without ongoing political activism.
Petition: Allow third party candidates into the general election debates
There is many more I'm quite sure, but the two major ways of thinking duking it out here in 2016 is nationalism vs globalism.
Please see:
Reply: Don’t Believe Trump’s Claims to Be Anti-War
Republican Voters More Antiwar then Democrats? Yes
And we were offered up 21 presidential candidates via the primaries. These two other parities offering up two more that could have easily fit in with the other 20 is not that big of a deal. Gary Johnson could easily have ran as a Republican or a Democrat as evinced by expert political strategist Roger Stone's analysis that he will likely have votes cast for him split fairly evenly among both parties. Jill Stein is very much akin to Sanders and could have ran as a Dem.
All that being said, I'm all for third parties but their viability is unrealistic until they are allowed into debates. And it would be fine and dandy to try and help that to happen by increasing their percentages if I thought the evidence indicated that Trump was the lessor of two evils, I do not. Hillary on the other hand is a proven liar, criminal, war-monger, and totalitarian globalist, to anyone willing to study the facts. My top post on my Trump blog provides a slew of evidence to support this contention and debunks a great deal of disinformation about Trump.
When the bunkum is out of the picture, what you are left with is a man who wants to audit the federal reserve and who has exposed: the rigged voting system, the controlled media, the Iraq war lies, and a bit of 9/11 truth with some promise to perhaps expose more. As argued by David Knight at Infowars and myself his raising of the missing 28 pages issue likely had a large role in the 28 pages being released.
And as mentioned before and most important of all, what you are left with in Mr. Trump is a strong proponent of national sovereignty, which is the antithesis to the tyrannical globalism the world is facing. The globalist policy of allowing droves of unassimilable radical Muslims into European counties has led to rape epidemics and too many terrorist incidents to count. One in France every other month for the past 18 months is one stat I've heard that comes to mind. This disastrous policy is either mainly an ideologically driven failure to recognize some cultures are better than others. Or, it's a nefarious plot enabled by totalitarian globalist policies that consolidated the power of nation states, as to more easily enact the extreme immigration policies that according to Hungary could bring in 35 million migrants, all in an attempt to foment order out of chaos. Allowing this savagery to continue on and on, as they offer solutions to the problems they created with globalism by enacting more totalitarian globalist policies! A crack down at home and abroad with attacks on civil liberties and more foreign wars.
I think there is merit to this latter scenario and there is likely a mix of these two options. In this context, Trump's views on national sovereignty are thus: anti-tyranny, anti-war, anti-rape, anti-terrorism, anti-crime, and pro-american economy. We need a successful nation state not brought down to third-world status by unchecked and illegal immigration. It is of no service to those nations to no longer be a place to run to from tyranny by acquiescing to it. Law and order allows for healthy amounts of vetted immigration and verified immigrant workers. The New World Order favors importing third world crime and terrorism while crying racism to implement statism.
The reason why anyone would vote for Trump is apparent from his speeches. Outside of his bombastic rambling style, Trump has identified the wealth draining policies that have impoverished the USA. He actually has a plan to bring jobs back into the country. He talks about the political corruption that has hurt the US economy (where the real unemployment rate is around 20%):And this way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_a4mEl-lp0
There are other speeches where Trump better explains his plan on using tariffs to bring back industry.
Like him or hate him, Donald Trump is the most anti-war candidate left. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders generally supported the 'humanitarian' intervention in Libya (that handed the country over to extremists), they continue to call for regime change in Syria (that would hand the country over to ISIS), they backed the coup in Ukraine that installed out-and-out fascists in Kiev (and are still 'standing strong against Russia'), and they backed the recent 'self defence' attack upon the people of Gaza.
Hillary is a neocon hawk. While Sanders, who rails against the disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, keeps essentially the same position on other conflicts as President 'proxy war' Obama.
Does this mean that Trump can be trusted at face value when it comes to war? Obviously not. However, the neocons and the establishment (pro-war) media hate him and are doing everything they can to undermine his campaign.
