Martin Armstrong: Republican Party Splitting In TWO – 3rd Party Rising for 2016

[Lucille]

Republican Party Splitting In TWO – 3rd Party Rising for 2016
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/02/15/republican-party-splitting-in-two-3rd-party-rising-for-2016/


http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/president-popularvote.png?w=584&h=317

Economic Conservatives have lost their representation. There is only the Marxist left and the Religious Right that care more about abortion and gay rights than the economic survival of themselves and their posterity. Our computer has been warning that there will be a huge spike in Third Party activity for 2016. There is a high risk that the Republican Party will split. Look at this chart carefully. You will see two previous big Third Party spikes. This is what is coming in 2016 and it is being driving by the impractical rise in taxation mixed with the decline in economic growth.

There is a middle ground – the economic conservatives who have lost their voice. They were the people who put Reagan in office. But the Republican Party began in the early 1980′s to court the Religious Right. I warned them at that point in time the Religious Right would do a reverse takeover. They laughed. Bush, Jr. did precisely that. The focus became abortion, gay rights, and just about anything but sound economics. The Republican Party had me meet people who desired running for President. I would fly out to meet them to brief them on the global economy. At the same time, I was asked my opinion about their capabilities. When it came to George Bush Jr, I was asked to meet with him but I was told this was “different” and they wanted me to be an adviser because I was told he was “stupid”. I was stunned. When I asked why would they make such a person President, I was told he had the “name”.

[...] This is why Dick Cheney really was President pulling the actual strings – not Bush, Jr.

Needless to say, tons of emails have been coming in since there has been public comment confirming there is talk about the Republican Party splitting up. It is INEVITABLE because John Boehner has virtually destroyed everything the economic conservatives stood for. This is the man that retaliated against any Republican that supported Ron Paul. This is the man who sees business as usual as the path to power with no purpose. Boehner has done more to destroy the Republican Party than perhaps anyone in history. The childish retaliation against Economic Conservatives demonstrates they have no party. This will be the source of the Third Party movement leaving the Religious Right and the Marxists on the fringe as they try to resurrect a more sensible approach down the middle based upon practical economics.

Consequently, the computer is the computer. It forecasts trends without human bias. It has been my privileged role as that of Adam Smith – to simply observe and record. Instead of trying to prove a theory, I have only sought to understand how everything ticks...

[erowe1]

The reason economic conservatives have no representation isn't because of the religious right. It's because of the GOP establishment moderates who look down on the religious right as much as they look down on economic conservatives.

[UpperDecker]

We can only hope. The "two" parties have been pushing for the extreme views and it will start going against them and it can't happen soon enough. People need to stop being so damn complacent with the crap candidates that constantly get trotted out there.

[Romulus]

I've read cases of the D party funding the L party.... divide and conquer .. that want to shred the R party as much as they can.

[CT4Liberty]

I've read cases of the D party funding the L party.... divide and conquer .. that want to shred the R party as much as they can.

I dont know why they would rather the L over the R... the L will actually change things...the Rs at least go along with the bipartisan spending...

[supermario21]

The Rockefeller Republicans say they are "fiscal conservatives" but the libertarian, small government message has long been hijacked by the Chafees, Todd Whitmans, and Christies of the world.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Vermin Supreme 2016!!!

[thoughtomator]

We have a party, we just need to thoroughly clean house. Operation is in well under way, and it's already gotten to the point where the other side is watching their careers blow up when they attack us - we have critical mass, we are the kingmakers in the GOP. Just watch McConnell dance to Rand Paul's tune and you will see what I mean.

[Romulus]

Just imaging if all the L's and Const party members just showed up at these R party meetings, dug in and refused to budge... we could probably root out the neocon establishment within it.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I dont know why they would rather the L over the R... the L will actually change things...the Rs at least go along with the bipartisan spending...
Because the L wouldn't win. They have never been elected to higher office.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Vermin Supreme 2016!!!

[erowe1]

I dont know why they would rather the L over the R... the L will actually change things...the Rs at least go along with the bipartisan spending...

It's not that they want Libertarians in office. They're not worried about that. The LP can't win, and they know it. What they do is help the LP draw votes away from the GOP.

That definitely happens, in 2010 I received a mailing paid for by the Dems urging me to vote for the Libertarian for Congress because it said he was a true conservative.

[parocks]

I dont know why they would rather the L over the R... the L will actually change things...the Rs at least go along with the bipartisan spending...

L's never win. Never ever. Ds have nothing to worry about from the L Party. Ls in the R Party are a matter of concern.

[WarAnonymous]

Vermin Supreme 2016!!!

THIS!!! I want my free donkey.

[Occam's Banana]

Consequently, the computer is the computer. It forecasts trends without human bias.

What a load of crap! :rolleyes:

Computers forecast socio-political trends (or anything about the future that involves human action) using two things:
(1) models that incorporate "human bias" (confirmation biases, assumptive simplifications, etc.)
(2) data that incorporate "human bias" (selection biases, etc. - IOW: "garbage in, garbage out")

So not only has "human bias" not been eliminated - it's been "squared". The biases that go into construction of the model are amplified and multiplied by the biases present in the inputs.

Computers are NOT Delphic oracles.

[idiom]

Also the logical conclusion is not the rise of a third party, but of a leadership struggle.

The OP completely rules out the possibility of factions within one party, and of the powerbase switching factions, both of which are far more likely in a system built for two parties with factions than a third party arising.

[itshappening]

It's not that they want Libertarians in office. They're not worried about that. The LP can't win, and they know it. What they do is help the LP draw votes away from the GOP.

That definitely happens, in 2010 I received a mailing paid for by the Dems urging me to vote for the Libertarian for Congress because it said he was a true conservative.

very interesting

[Romulus]

It's not that they want Libertarians in office. They're not worried about that. The LP can't win, and they know it. What they do is help the LP draw votes away from the GOP.

That definitely happens, in 2010 I received a mailing paid for by the Dems urging me to vote for the Libertarian for Congress because it said he was a true conservative.

Yep, this.

[Lucille]

What a load of crap! :rolleyes:

Computers forecast socio-political trends (or anything about the future that involves human action) using two things:
(1) models that incorporate "human bias" (confirmation biases, assumptive simplifications, etc.)
(2) data that incorporate "human bias" (selection biases, etc. - IOW: "garbage in, garbage out")

So not only has "human bias" not been eliminated - it's been "squared". The biases that go into construction of the model are amplified and multiplied by the biases present in the inputs.

Computers are NOT Delphic oracles.

From a NYer piece on him:

"Some call him a genius (http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/the-new-yorker-article.pdf), others a crank and a con man."

I'm with the former!

Here is a paper (http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/cycle-theory-sixth-dimension-909.pdf) he wrote on how he discovered it.


Based on a study of historical gold prices and financial panics, Armstrong developed a cyclical theory of commodity prices, which lead to the pi-cycle economic confidence model (ECM), used to make long term forecasts. Using the ECM, Armstrong predicted both the high-water mark of the Nikkei in 1989, months ahead of time, and the July 20, 1998 high in the U.S. equities market, as well as a major top in financial markets on February 27, 2007. The ECM was called "The Secret Cycle" by the New Yorker Magazine and Justin Fox wrote in Time Magazine that Armstrong's model "made several eerily on-the-mark calls using a formula based on the mathematical constant pi (http://mises.org/community/blogs/hera/archive/2012/07/01/martin-armstrong-on-the-sovereign-debt-crisis.aspx)." (Pg 30; Nov. 30, 2009).

I find it all fascinating. I also enjoy his history lessons (http://kondratieffwinter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/martin-armstrong.pdf).

http://www.martinarmstrong-movie.com/


Already in the 70s he discovered that the global economy appeared to be based on the 8.6-year cycle. He multiplied the cycle by six which gave him 51.6 years and it all fitted perfectly: Black Friday in 1869, the commodity panic in 1920, and the Second and Third Punic Wars. 8.6 years equaled three thousand one hundred and forty-one days: 3,141, the magic number pi times a thousand. With his secret knowledge Martin Armstrong predicted the exact date of the October crash in 1987, the decline of the dollar in 1986 and the Nikkei crash in 1989. He was named economist of the decade. In Japan he became so popular because of his predictions that they just called him Mr. YEN.

But in 1999 he was arrested on charges of fraud which he still disputes to this day. Martin Armstrong refused to play along with the bankers’ game. He made powerful enemies: New York investment bankers, hedge funds managers, Salomon Brothers and the Goldman Sachs in this world. The FBI and the US Securities and the Exchange Commission wanted him to deliver his secret model. They accused him of manipulating the world economy. He was incarcerated for seven years for contempt of court. Now Martin Armstrong is back – released from prison after 12 years.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's not that they want Libertarians in office. They're not worried about that. The LP can't win, and they know it. What they do is help the LP draw votes away from the GOP.

That definitely happens, in 2010 I received a mailing paid for by the Dems urging me to vote for the Libertarian for Congress because it said he was a true conservative.
Divide and conquer; this is politics 101.

[Lucille]

Y'all are bumming me out! I pray the Republicrat party die together.

Martin linked to this in his blog post:

Republican Leaders Worry Their Party Could Divide in Two
As Rand Paul mulls a presidential campaign, GOP frets over impact of disaffected voters and shifting coalitions. Democrats should worry, too.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/republican-leaders-worry-their-party-could-divide-in-two-20130214


And yet, the heart of the matter extends beyond the GOP. My conversations this week with two Republican officials, along with a Democratic strategist's timely memo, reflect a growing school of thought in Washington that social change and a disillusioned electorate threaten the entire two-party system.
[...]
A third voice joined the conversation when Democratic consultant Doug Sosnik released his State of the Union memo, a remarkable document warning both Democrats and Republicans about the increasing likelihood of a third-party presidential bid.

“And even though the Republican Party is in free fall, the Democratic Party’s position among the electorate has only marginally benefited from its misfortune,” Sosnik wrote. “The broad sense of alienation leaves a very wide door open for a third party presidential candidate in the future.”
[...]
Sosnik noted “the staggering pace of economic, demographic, and technological change,” a period of social tumult that rivals the first years of the industrial revolution. “All the upheaval and uncertainty have taken a toll on Americans’ confidence in their government and institutions to solve the nation’s problems,” Sosnik wrote, touching on a topic I explored in a 2012 National Journal magazine feature, “In Nothing We Trust.”

“This disaffection shows no signs of dissipating any time soon,” Sosnik continued. “There’s little doubt that it will continue to be a major challenge for both political parties and future presidential aspirants as the clock continues to tick on President Obama’s presidency.”

In a telephone interview last week, Sosnik said voters are wary of the leadership pool in U.S. politics. Business or even religious leaders could find traction in future presidential races.

“I think we will have a great debate with third and even fourth parties” vying for traditional GOP voters as well as Democrats now aligned with Obama, he said.
[...]
“I’m not surprised Republicans in this town are telling you they’re worried about the declining influence of their party and the potential for a third-party bid,” Sosnik said, adding with a chuckle: “Democrats should worry, too.”

[Romulus]

There really is nothing pulling D's away from their party... they seem to be blindly loyal.

[Bastiat's The Law]

L's never win. Never ever. Ds have nothing to worry about from the L Party. Ls in the R Party are a matter of concern.
When we get a seat at the table and the Ds actually have to deal with someone of true small-government conviction, coupled with the intellectual heft to back it up, they collectively lose their marbles.

Look at how livid liberals become over Rand. They are absolutely terrified of the man. I think on some subconscious level they know Rand could almost single-handedly destroy their ideology given a bigger speaking platform.

[GunnyFreedom]

Republican Party Splitting In TWO – 3rd Party Rising for 2016
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/02/15/republican-party-splitting-in-two-3rd-party-rising-for-2016/


What a load of crap! :rolleyes:

Computers forecast socio-political trends (or anything about the future that involves human action) using two things:
(1) models that incorporate "human bias" (confirmation biases, assumptive simplifications, etc.)
(2) data that incorporate "human bias" (selection biases, etc. - IOW: "garbage in, garbage out")

So not only has "human bias" not been eliminated - it's been "squared". The biases that go into construction of the model are amplified and multiplied by the biases present in the inputs.

Computers are NOT Delphic oracles.



To one of the paragraphs from the section Lucille quoted:



"Consequently, the computer is the computer. It forecasts trends without human bias."

This rationale is very problematic. Nothing about the above statement is true. There is always bias, if not in direct manipulation, then in what data you choose to feed the computer or not feed the computer. Even in the programming of the basic predictive algorithms there is a bias in determining what kinds of things are more important and what kinds of things are less important.

The thing is, what Armstrong is saying here is not only wrong, it's outright dangerous. Biases become more impactful when they are hidden from view. When they are fundamentally interwoven into the fabric of a worldview, and that worldview is promulgated as 'the only rational view' you open such a society up to direct manipulation by minor adjustments in underlying predictive and analysis code.

The above quote is a door to a dystopian tyranny that we can scarcely imagine.

I understand that it is a 'quote of a quote' and I am pretty sure that almost nobody here holds Armstrong's quoted view that computers are somehow immune to human biases. I just really want to hilight right now how terribly terribly dangerous that view really is.

[GunnyFreedom]

From a NYer piece on him:

"Some call him a genius (http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/the-new-yorker-article.pdf), others a crank and a con man."

I'm with the former!

Here is a paper (http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/cycle-theory-sixth-dimension-909.pdf) he wrote on how he discovered it.



I find it all fascinating. I also enjoy his history lessons (http://kondratieffwinter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/martin-armstrong.pdf).

http://www.martinarmstrong-movie.com/

This statement of his that computer models are free of human biases is all I ever need to know about the man. Maybe he predicts everything right for 90 years because he is some kind of weird idiot savant, but ANYBODY, (given a direct working knowledge of computers, programming, and modeling fundamentals, which Armstrong surely does) who makes the claim that computer models are free of human biases is an idiot, period. Every word he breaths could be the best predictions in human history. I don't care, he's still a quack for that one belief all by itself.

[pcosmar]

http://www.american-buddha.com/ahitch513d.jpg

[Warlord]

The GOP is not going to splinter... such a thing is practically impossible on a national level.

They have always elected moderates or whatever they call themselves especially in the North East. These people like conservatives and libertarians who want to win will continue to run on the GOP line

[69360]

The GOP won't split for the simple reason the Republicans don't want a country ruled by Democrats and a split guarantees that happening.

[LibertyEagle]

The goal is to get YOU to splinter off and make you benign. You are the greatest risk to their plans and they want you sidelined.

[Lucille]

To one of the paragraphs from the section Lucille quoted:

This rationale is very problematic. Nothing about the above statement is true. There is always bias, if not in direct manipulation, then in what data you choose to feed the computer or not feed the computer. Even in the programming of the basic predictive algorithms there is a bias in determining what kinds of things are more important and what kinds of things are less important.

The thing is, what Armstrong is saying here is not only wrong, it's outright dangerous. Biases become more impactful when they are hidden from view. When they are fundamentally interwoven into the fabric of a worldview, and that worldview is promulgated as 'the only rational view' you open such a society up to direct manipulation by minor adjustments in underlying predictive and analysis code.

The above quote is a door to a dystopian tyranny that we can scarcely imagine.

I understand that it is a 'quote of a quote' and I am pretty sure that almost nobody here holds Armstrong's quoted view that computers are somehow immune to human biases. I just really want to hilight right now how terribly terribly dangerous that view really is.[/COLOR]


This statement of his that computer models are free of human biases is all I ever need to know about the man. Maybe he predicts everything right for 90 years because he is some kind of weird idiot savant, but ANYBODY, (given a direct working knowledge of computers, programming, and modeling fundamentals, which Armstrong surely does) who makes the claim that computer models are free of human biases is an idiot, period. Every word he breaths could be the best predictions in human history. I don't care, he's still a quack for that one belief all by itself.

Um, wow. Thanks so much for giving me your opinion on him, again and again and again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420084-Study-Republicans-Leaving-Party-tired-of-two-evils-argument&p=5107182&viewfull=1#post5107182), Gunny. I can see you feel very strongly about MA. A lot of people do. I've been criticized before for posting about him (as you can see), so it's nothing new. Someone actually put OB's Delphi oracle crack in their sig line for a long time! LOL

He's pretty popular in liberty (http://libertymastermind.us/speakers/) and financial (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-13/guest-post-brief-history-cycles-and-time-part-1) circles actually (most recent). Someone should try to warn them about how crazy and dangerous he is. ;)

Coming Oct. '13:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9mr_dhl55I

http://www.martinarmstrong-movie.com/

http://www.bukerapictures.com/en/films/the-forecaster

[William R]

bump

[Occam's Banana]

I've been criticized before for posting about him (as you can see), so it's nothing new. Someone actually put OB's Delphi oracle crack in their sig line for a long time! LOL

Just for the record: please don't think I was criticizing you, Lucille. I apologize if it seemed that way. I assure you I was not. In fact, I generally love the stuff you post.

I was responding only to the (ridiculous and nonsensical) claim that computers make forecasts without human bias, which was contained in the article you quoted.

[69360]

The goal is to get YOU to splinter off and make you benign. You are the greatest risk to their plans and they want you sidelined.

Any split off of any faction of the GOP absolutely means the Democrats rule the country for a generation or 2 at least.

[GunnyFreedom]

Um, wow. Thanks so much for giving me your opinion on him, again and again and again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420084-Study-Republicans-Leaving-Party-tired-of-two-evils-argument&p=5107182&viewfull=1#post5107182), Gunny. I can see you feel very strongly about MA. A lot of people do. I've been criticized before for posting about him (as you can see), so it's nothing new. Someone actually put OB's Delphi oracle crack in their sig line for a long time! LOL

He's pretty popular in liberty (http://libertymastermind.us/speakers/) and financial (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-13/guest-post-brief-history-cycles-and-time-part-1) circles actually (most recent). Someone should try to warn them about how crazy and dangerous he is. ;)

Coming Oct. '13:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9mr_dhl55I

http://www.martinarmstrong-movie.com/

http://www.bukerapictures.com/en/films/the-forecaster

I don't even KNOW MA, never heard of him before your post. My reaction is based off of the one statement he made that we make computers do the predicting because they are free of human bias. If you are smart enough to know how to make a computer model, they you are smart enough to know that is a lie. I don't like people who lie. Guy could make every prediction 100% right but I still won't trust him because he's a liar.

You don't seem to understand what I am getting at. That idea isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. I am talking about a radical dystopian level of dangerous. The fact that he says other stuff right just makes that one assumption all the more dangerous, because then people will swallow it.

And it's not like he's saying it in ignorance. If he's clever enough to construct computer models, then he's either clever enough to know that his statement about computer modeling is a blatant lie, or he's a psychopath who thinks himself perfect. In either case, I want nothing to do with whatever he has to say.

[GunnyFreedom]

Just for the record: please don't think I was criticizing you, Lucille. I apologize if it seemed that way. I assure you I was not. In fact, I generally love the stuff you post.

I was responding only to the (ridiculous and nonsensical) claim that computers make forecasts without human bias, which was contained in the article you quoted.

This. I made special effort to make it clear that I was not criticizing Lucille in any way, but this Armstrong guy (who like I said I'd never even heard of until Lucille's post) is extraordinarily dangerous. Either he's an outright liar, or he's some kind of narcissist who thinks himself to be perfect. In either case this computer thing is far more dangerous of a seed than people realize.

Maybe the guy goes down to his grave with a 100% perfect predictive accuracy. Irrelevant, because this will have planted that seed of computer perfection and we'll be 1000 times worse off 50 years from now than we are today.

[anaconda]

The GOP won't split for the simple reason the Republicans don't want a country ruled by Democrats and a split guarantees that happening.

Why would Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Pfizer, etc. etc. etc. spend money on a party that will hurt their profits and influence? They will happily accept a permanent Democratic Party rule. It's Pepsi vs. Coke. If the GOP is rebuilt with liberty people, it will no longer be Pepsi vs. Coke.

[cindy25]

the primary system, and ballot laws protect the two parties. otherwise a 3rd, and 4th party would have risen a long time ago.

[paulbot24]

Just for the record: please don't think I was criticizing you, Lucille. I apologize if it seemed that way. I assure you I was not. In fact, I generally love the stuff you post.

I was responding only to the (ridiculous and nonsensical) claim that computers make forecasts without human bias, which was contained in the article you quoted.

Exactly my thoughts as well. Computers are only as intelligent as their human programmers which means you cannot remove human bias. Even if an AI self-learning computer could become "self-aware", it would still only be "aware" based on its own human programming. Now, if it eventually chose to chuck the entire existing human programming model it was based on in favor of something it thought was more intelligent, well......who knows. The word "FUCK" comes to mind.

[pcosmar]

Any split off of any faction of the GOP absolutely means the Democrats rule the country for a generation or 2 at least.

What is the difference. They do the same as the GOP.
or maybe the GOP does the same as the Democrats,, It's hard to tell. :(