DemonRat Candidates: Meh (Again)
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-07-01 11:49 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 143 references Ignore this thread
DemonRat Candidates: Meh (Again)
[Comments enabled]

Meh, once again.

Have a good look folks -- it's roughly six months, more or less, before the "primary season" really begins in earnest, but of course before you run you must campaign, and that's started.

Biden remains in front but until he breaks materially under 30% he's still in the game.  My bet is that he loses: He's not crazy enough.

The interesting one is Sanders; he is crazy enough, but like Biden has a lot of baggage.  He's also an old bastard (along with Biden) and that doesn't appeal to the primary voters very much.  Four years ago he would have beaten Trump; he's only gotten more-strident and insane since, but I doubt he can win the primaries, say much less the left seat in the general.

Then there's the whole bunch of "under 1%ers."  If you can't poll more than 1% at this point you have no chance, especially if you were previously over the 1% threshold, and many of them were.  Get out.

Buttgieg is likely mortally-wounded by the shooting incident in his town.  Like it or not you can't win as a Democrat without the black vote.

The obvious two among the remaining field are Harris and Warren.  Harris is, from all ability to determine, ineligible.  I know, I know, people will say "oh no she's not" based on being born in the US.  Sorry, not so simple.

Both her parents were non-citizens at the time of her birth.  They came to the US in 60/61, according to her.  She was born in 1964.  It takes five years of continuous residence before you can apply to be citizens, then 12-18 months, typically, before you can take the oath.  Therefore at the time of her birth she was nothing more than an anchor baby.

There's plenty of argument on both sides in this regard but the purpose of the natural-born citizen requirement is clear: Divided loyalty is unacceptable in a President.  Harris has been very cagey about exactly when her parents were naturalized, and with good reason; she doesn't want to entertain this debate at all as it's likely fatal to her campaign in the general election and she knows it.  Never mind her incessant lying in matters related to this; she went after Biden in the last debate claiming she was a victim of busing he ordered.  That was a bald-faced lie; virtually her entire formative year period was spent in Canada with her mother after her parents divorced when she was 7.  She was never bused -- by order of Biden or anyone else.

Not that this is the only example.  Remember Kavanaugh?  Here's a woman who, from her history, swore to seek the truth as a Prosecutor.  Well now..... accusing someone of serious life-sentence felonies -- multiple occasions of forcible rape, I remind you -- was part and parcel of her attack on Kavanaugh.  She has never apologized nor (obviously) resigned for that outrageous, unwarranted series of attacks nor has she called for the proved liars she solicited and supported to be prosecuted for perjury, despite it being quite clear that happened and in fact multiple criminal referrals came out of that sordid mess -- a mess she not only applauded but actively encouraged and participated in.

Of course we all remember Obama, right?  You think Harris wouldn't seal her records on the first day?  And why, may I ask, does America permit this sort of crap?  Is not whether Obama truthfully registered for the Selective Service material?  It sure as hell is.  Is not whether he was using another person's Social Security number material?  It sure is; that's federal fraud.  So is whether he attended college on a foreign student scholarship, never mind whether he intentionally renounced his American citizenship while traveling as a young adult when renewing a foreign passport in a nation that did not recognize dual allegiance.  Speaking of which, isn't preventing dual allegiance by a President the entire point of that clause in the Constitution?

It's not like Congress hasn't seated people who are ineligible before, or that parties haven't run facially ineligible candidates.  They have, including House members who weren't old enough at the time of the election but had a birthday before the new House gaveled in.  Further, you almost-certainly can't sue over this; the courts have repeatedly dismissed such suits for lack of standing.  It therefore falls on the electorate to make clear that ineligible persons shall be deemed a violation of the Constitutional Contract and the people will not abide same, or any federal office, law or otherwise, if it happens.  Yeah, that means secession and, if not allowed, well, we know what comes next.  You ready to stand up and make that statement?  If not then the American experiment, as envisioned by the Founders, is over so on July 4th go stick your flagpole up your ass where it belongs.

Warren, for her part, is a proved liar as well.  She got caught last time around with her nonsense about being "native American" when she was no such thing.  Yet she's benefited mightily from that claimed "status", taking from others who really are native American in the process.

Which brings me to the salient point here: Is it a qualification for office that you be a massive, public, open and notorious fraud, thereby demonstrating you're willing to suborn, provoke, excuse and maybe even commit felonies in order to hold high office -- so long as you bestow the benefits of said outrageous and even felonious behavior on the right people?

Really?  This is what our nation has become?

It appears so, given the so-called "front-runners."

Who else do we have?  Booker and O'Rourke?  Oh please.  At 3% or less neither of them is doing anything other than producing GloBull Warming in the room.

It would be nice to think that the Democrats could come up with a candidate that is both "Progressive" and not crazy.  One who understands that so-called "free trade" is nothing more than a sop to screw middle-class Americans blind, that monopolies are not just bad they're felonious, that equality before the law actually means something and that leaving the people hell alone no matter their personal lifestyle, right up until they do actual harm to someone else is the foundation of this nation's legal system.  In short, recognition that rights can never force another to provide something so says the 13th Amendment that all of these so-called Democrats claim to stand for (after all, they do want the black vote, right?)  Never mind that first principles are behind both the First and Second Amendments and both are in fact the highest law of the land; claims to be "against gun violence" are facial frauds when in fact it is all the Democrat strongholds where the vast majority of the murders take place, all with highly-restrictive gun laws and most of them, by far beyond their representation as a percentage of the population, are committed by young black males.

Such a person could beat Trump -- quite handily.

But no such person is running for the Democrat nomination.

All aboard the crazy train folks.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info DemonRat Candidates: Meh (Again) in forum [Market-Ticker]
Peterm99
Posts: 6456
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
While the Dems have this crop of rabid crazies, the Reps propose Trump as an antidote? WTF??

It used to be primarily California that was home to the "fruits, nuts, crazies, and illegals", now much of the rest of the country has been infected, and the condition is likely to be terminal.

Cthulhu and/or the huge meteor are looking better and better as time goes on.

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Stee_man
Posts: 78
Incept: 2011-12-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
What about Oprah swooping in at the last minute to *save* the day? She's got all the right demographics, the media attention, can't attack her or it's "raciss".

I'd like to hear more from Howard Schultz. Perhaps the adult in the room... which means no chance in this crazy world.
Tickerguy
Posts: 158071
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I can't see Oprah coming in. Frankly, I doubt very much she wants the job and wants the scrutiny either. As someone who lived in Chicago for more than a decade there's a LOT of dirt there and Trump would have an absolute ****ing field day rubbing every single orifice she has in it for three months straight.

----------
Winding it down.
Amused
Posts: 71
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Gabbard and Yang are the candidates you are asking for.
Tdurden
Posts: 780
Incept: 2015-01-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It wouldn't surprise me if we ended up in a situation where the House decides the next president. There is bound to be one or more states doing something stupid with that brings the legitimacy of their electoral votes into contention, leaving Botox Nancy to choose the next president.

In any event, after the way the left/democrats have behaved for the past 2+ years, I can be pretty confident in saying that I will NEVER accept any democrat as a legitimate president ever again. That may or may not be true for any of the republicans in the future as well, but if outright, full-throated sedition is deemed to be acceptable if committed by the left, don't ever expect me to bend the knee to one of theirs.

----------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high of a price." -Vir Cotto Babylon 5
Tickerguy
Posts: 158071
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Amused - Meh. I'm not a Democrat Primary voter (although I might become one to vote in the primary; we have a closed primary in Florida, assuming I still live here at the time, which is doubtful at present.)

The problem with the ENTIRE FIELD is that none will take on the social issues rather than simply putting a "no guns" / "2nd Amendment doesn't exist" platform plank. **** anyone with a chainsaw that does that, ESPECIALLY anyone who was in the military.

----------
Winding it down.
Jack_crabb
Posts: 5950
Incept: 2010-06-25

Peoples' Republik of Maryland
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
I'd like to hear more from Howard Schultz. Perhaps the adult in the room...


If the way he let politics rule at Starbucks, a publicly traded company where he wasn't afraid to******off any conservative-leaning customer, I don't think he is the adult in the room, regardless of his saying he is a centrist.

----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
How many are willing to pledge this? We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor
Tickerguy
Posts: 158071
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Tdurden - That's a problem though in that IF the election goes to the House each state gets ONE VOTE, not one per Representative.

The Democrat's plurality in the House is not dispositive in this instance for her by any means. California, for example, gets exactly ONE vote as does Montana; in such a contest they're exactly equal.

----------
Winding it down.
Amused
Posts: 71
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is really no way to be fair in process, we would be better off as seperate republics that better reflect local regional values.

In the case of a contingent election, where a majority of States carry the election we will face a station where the rights of the minority are protected by showing favoritism to the minority at the expense of the majority of the population.

There just isn't a perfect system and our framers knew this by trying to make accomodations and checks and balances but they never could foresee the nation being as large and diverse a culture.

We would be better to have a New England Republic, a Liberal West Coast Republic, a Southern and Heartland Republic, each with their own government that represents their own values.

The House was supposed to be a populist body but we ****Ed that by hard setting it's members at 435
Tickerguy
Posts: 158071
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Amused -- Note that the number of Representatives is set by law, not the Constitution. It can be changed by a law, as a result -- Constitutional Amendment is not required.

At the time (1929) there was some logic to this, in that a huge Parliamentary-style House would be very hard to accommodate and actually tally votes from. Not any more; both House and Senate vote electronically now, so it's trivial. In addition the population was MUCH smaller (about a THIRD of what it is now)

I have long argued that the House should be set as "One Representative per X Citizens, but no fewer than two or 1/50th of the number of the largest Representation, whichever is greater." Setting "X" to 200,000 would lead to a House of about 1,600 Representatives, which is not unreasonable. This could be combined in the same law with a requirement to more-or-less fix gerrymandering by requiring districts to be drawn with lines that, with exception for the boundaries of states or national borders, conform to a best-fit-to-square geometric requirement.

I have no faith that any such law could pass in today's House and Senate, but it should.

----------
Winding it down.

Tdurden
Posts: 780
Incept: 2015-01-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I stand corrected on that one.

Still isn't a lot bread in this **** sandwich to mask the taste. Way too many times where mystery bags with thousands of "uncounted ballots" magically show up after the fact that get counted with republicans doing little more than quietly shaking their tiny little fists in frustration. The Arizona senate race last year being a prime example I expect to see all over the country next year.

----------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high of a price." -Vir Cotto Babylon 5
Stee_man
Posts: 78
Incept: 2011-12-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"We would be better to have a New England Republic, a Liberal West Coast Republic, a Southern and Heartland Republic, each with their own government that represents their own values."

Amused, it's even worse than that. Every state has liberal cities and conservative rural areas. There is no way an entire region could have one set of values.

We are simply ungovernable, especially with the way the media tries to divide us for their amusement and profit.
Amused
Posts: 71
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Tickerguy: of course, that is what I meant, by hard setting it with the Apportionment Act of 1929 we ****Ed ourselves.

None of the 435 will ever vote to dilute their powerbase and make it affordable for you or I to buy a congressman.
Radiosity
Posts: 245
Incept: 2009-03-05

Sunny UK
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Meanwhile, Facebook have just released a statement outright stating that they're going to meddle in the election and census. They're not even pretending any more, not that they ever did much of that in the first place. They know they can get away with it.
Gonewest
Posts: 112
Incept: 2015-02-26

PacificNW
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't think any of the candidates entering the race this early will be on the ballot. It gives the opposition way too much time to find something, anything, to upend the candidate.

My bet is that Michelle Obama is going to be the Democratic nomination. All the libtards will get on board as it puts Barak back in the White House and checks the minority and female check boxes.

I hope I'm wrong but we'll see.
Tickerguy
Posts: 158071
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Mooshelle has a dick

----------
Winding it down.
Fumei
Posts: 59
Incept: 2019-01-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl, then she'll get the sexual DeGenerate vote.
Peterm99
Posts: 6456
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Tickerguy wrote..
Mooshelle has a dick
I would assume then that she's got a lock on the "T" (as in LGBTQetc) vote!

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Tinman
Posts: 457
Incept: 2008-02-16

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Stee_man "There is no way an entire region could have one set of values."

Your right. A united nation with a number of independent city states (walled in if need be) might be a workable solution. It's been done in the past. In fact Singapore is a good example.
Idiom
Posts: 196
Incept: 2015-02-20

New Zealand
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You could have 8000 reps and it would still be smaller than the average mega church. ****ing expensive to lobby that ****storm.

America's current pressing issues should be a ****ing lay up for the democrats but they are in such an ideological cluster****. How the hell is this the best they have? Trump is stomping them as the champion of the *******n working class.

If Trump went to Flint and sorted their water out the race would be over.
Elkad
Posts: 638
Incept: 2009-09-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'd like to take Representatives even farther. Though it would require an amendment. Getting more Reps seated is the first goal.

Don't even link reps to geographic areas. Just elect them all at-large. Then even the smallest fringe political group could have a rep if they banded together. Libertarians would start off with ~5% of the seats. Greens and Constitution and Mountain and Modern Whigs and Communists and Rent is Too Damn High and everyone else that can gather 50k votes or so could have a seat.

Nearly everyone would get a representative they actually voted for, instead of the current system where maybe 30% of us got our preferred candidate.

Even if you did it districtless but by state, we'd still win out. With 1 rep per 100k people, you'd need to band together 0.25% of fellow Californians to get a Rep, and 20% of Montana

The argument that you need to know your local rep has gone away in the era of modern communications.
Tickerguy
Posts: 158071
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
That's actually not bad at all, and removes the gerrymandering issue entirely. You DO want to have them by state, since there ARE divisions within states and they DO matter politically.

But all at-large within a state? Yeah, I could go for that.

----------
Winding it down.
Elkad
Posts: 638
Incept: 2009-09-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
So now we need to figure out how to seat 3300 reps (1 per 100k sounds right to me). I don't think the current chamber will hold that many, though taking the seats out and making them all jam in like the floor of an Ozzy concert might work.

I say we put them in an open-air structure. Since they have paperwork and electronics to keep dry, I'll let them have a roof, but they don't deserve walls.

DC's abysmal weather should encourage them to be prompt in their deliberations.
Wearedoomed
Posts: 4409
Incept: 2009-01-14

slightly red state
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I think an even better idea is:

The Senate goes back to election by state legislatures, and state/county/etc. Senate equivalents do the same.

For the House, each state gets n Congressmen in proportion to the state's population, as today. However, for House elections, every citizen of the state gets n votes (same as the number of Congressmen for the state), and the citizen gets to cast those votes however they like. You think Congressman Boozer is the greatest ever? Cast all n votes for him. Boozer's pretty good, but Belcher's decent too? Maybe Boozer gets n-2 of your votes, and Belcher gets the other two. A bunch of candidates are all OK in your book? Each of them gets one of your n votes. You want to write in KD? n votes for KD!

----------
Non expedit!
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last