The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Politics]

No, I will not vote for a party folks.

No, you must not vote for a "party."

Nor can you support any party that does something like this.

Party leaders in Virginia and North Carolina told Politico.com that they are considering a push to require candidates entering their respective Republican primaries to pledge their support for the eventual nominee and not run a third-party candidacy — a pledge Trump, the current frontrunner, would not make when asked to during the Fox News debate earlier this month in Cleveland.

“Anybody who wants to seek the Republican nomination should have to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee,” Virginia’s former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told Politico. “I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

Oh really?

So what you're saying is that if even one of the candidates contending for the Presidential nomination is unacceptable to another candidate that second candidate must pledge to support someone they find unacceptable as a President?

There is no defense possible of such a position, and any party that argues that this is required of any candidate or member of the party has lost all legitimacy as they have placed party before principle and candidate.

The electorate does not vote for a party; they vote for a candidate.  While the parties may wish it otherwise the Constitution defines this, not political party "Dons."

Any party that espouses or permits such a policy must be abandoned by the electorate and destroyed as such a position is directly contrary to the founding principles of this nation and that of a Constitutional Republic.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh this sounds delicious....

Clinton's lawyer David Kendall recently told a Senate committee that emails and all other data stored on her computer server were erased before the device was turned over to federal authorities.

...

Asked repeatedly by Fox News whether it was wiped, she joked: "What, like with a cloth or something? I don't know how it works digitally at all."

The FBI is apparently trying to recover the contents. An intelligence source familiar with the review told Fox News that investigators are confident they may be able to recover some of the deleted files.

If investigators found anything that looks like a filesystem structure on the disk then the person doing the "wiping" didn't know what he was doing.

While the Clintons certainly have the money to pay bright people the really smart ones are also probably smart enough to know that if things go sideways they'll be thrown under the bus, covered in diesel fuel and set ablaze.

That's the problem with being someone like Clinton -- actually hiring someone who knows what they're doing is hard, because while the Clintons may believe they're immune from prosecution the people who they hire most-certainly are not and Clinton has never protected anyone else.

Monica anyone -- or worse?

If the so-called "wipe" was a simple format then the file structure is largely intact -- and so is the data.  That, if true, will prove to be truly delicious.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Bill Still on Trump:

What's left unsaid thus far is why.

I'll say it: Immigration and what it means for jobs among the lower-skilled workforce, particularly black and (legal) hispanic workers.

The very people that both parties try to pander to with words but have repeatedly assaulted, (financially) raped and robbed via offshoring and illegal invaders that both sides of the aisle not only coddle but encourage.

There are a number of others issues similar to this, with two of the biggest in working America being health care and trade.

Those are, in my opinion, up next; Trump has already alluded to the correct solution on trade, and while he has tiptoed into the health care debate when he throws his weight on that matter, if he does so correctly, I predict he will win a sizable percentage of the Democrat vote.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Janet says it well....

Those of you who read my last post, "Wall Street Tale of Sex, Suicides, and Skullduggery," know I have experience working with aggressive men. At the start of the debate, Megyn Kelly brought up some unflattering comments that Mr. Trump made about a few women, and Kelly said some might feel this is part of a "war on women." Really? It seems to me that people who categorize brash remarks as "war" have no sense of proportion.

Of course not.  But a fair question is who crafted -- and approved -- the question?  Notice that there has been zero exposition on that point.  Gee, I wonder why.

I've had some experience with actual war on women. (See: "Fundamentalist Islam and the Roots of Terrorism.") In Iran, men brutalized women about their clothing. Men took away women's rights to appear in public, play public sports, and participate in many areas of public life. As for women controlling their own bodies, a woman can be stoned to death for adultery. The marriage age was lowered to nine for girls, then raised to thirteen, and now there is a proposal to lower the age to nine again. Moreover, there is a proposal to allow men to adopt girls, and as their "father," they can give consent for their adopted daughter to marry them; it is a pedophiles dream. That is my idea of a war on women. Yet I have heard no criticism of President Obama for doing an Iran Deal with men who wage physical war on women.

Of course not.  Nor is anyone going after our government (on both sides of the aisle) for all their "deals", including selling and giving arms away, to Saudi Arabia which has a long and current history of brutalizing and belittling women.  That too is an actual, physical war.

It seems that Mr. Trump is correct that national policies need to be changed. While only a small percentage of illegal immigrants may commit crimes, if illegal immigration were completely stopped, the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants would drop to zero.

My point exactly, as put forward here.

As for Trump's point on H1Bs, tell me again why you use and buy products advertised on Facebook given the revelation that the firm's CEO is actively trying to triple the number of foreigners who will take high-paying jobs from Americans?  

Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

How has that revelation not resulted in an immediate detonation of the firm's userbase and organization of advertiser boycotts?

ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID, AMERICA, AS TO SIGN YOUR OWN LAYOFF NOTICE?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It's about damn time we had a Presidential Candidate who puts the United States and her citizens first!

When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

You really ought to read this.

This is a detailed, on-point proposal.  It will stop illegal immigration and force Mexico to pay for the wall and enforcement.

It will bring 15 million new jobs for Americans -- as the illegals are removed or leave -- with most going to minorities and poorly-educated individuals, exactly those who need jobs the most.

And finally, it will open the door for highly-skilled, good people who immigrate legally.

For those who think Trump has "no plan", you're wrong.  He does, and further, he is calling out the US-destroying CEOs such as Zuckerburglar -- and by the way, what the **** are you doing patronizing Facefart and their advertisers as they seek to DESTROY YOUR JOB, REPLACING YOU WITH A H1B JACKASS FROM INDIA?

Bill Still also has a video up on this should you prefer it "in pictures" smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.