The NEW Political Party
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

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.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

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.

2022-11-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 672 references Ignore this thread
The NEW Political Party
[Comments enabled]
Category thumbnail

The GOP cannot win in its current incarnation, and none of the people running it and in leadership positions today -- none of them, including Trump, DeSantis, Noem and others -- will face this and change it.

Therefore it will die, and the question is what displaces it, since America has always been a two-party system.

The Whigs disappeared awfully fast when the point break came.

So it will be this time.

Thus let's get positioned for it -- if you're politically-inclined then here's the opportunity.

We'll name the party too: Federation, and those running under it Federationists.

That's what America is supposed to be, after all: A Federal Republic.

Yes, I know, I talked about this years ago.  It is more-pressing now than then.  Let's start the debate here with a platform upon which we will demand candidates adhere, no exceptions.  This in turn means we must be sparse with said platform because that is the only way to be "big tent" and at the same time protect everyone's rights.

Thus I propose a platform that is relatively simple and has no cheats.  In no particular order:

  • The Constitution sets the boundaries for both the Federal and State governments, without exception.  Any political group that asserts a desire to change things on a 50-state basis, where same either "stretches" or outright violates the Constitution must change it.  We shall not permit end-runs around this process and any attempt to do so, no matter what it is is comingled with, shall be turned away.

  • The people have the right to retain the fruits of improved productivity.  This, in turn, means that the government may not spend what it does not first tax, and no private party, including banks, may violate published credit to capital ratios nor may they be changed capriciously as they were in 2008.  The former 10% "reserve" ratio is to be restored immediately and enforced.  Violations are to be treated as counterfeiting because they are.  The sole exception under which deficit spending is permitted is during a time of declared war.

  • The Federal Government has no right to mandate the bodily invasion of a person who is a citizen and present in the United States.  There is no federal power granting this authority within the United States with respect to a person.  The regulation of interstate and international commerce, on the other hand, does rest with the Federal Government.  Your personal travel for non-commercial purpose is not commerce; this has long been decided by the USSC.  As such federal "mandates" within the US for any vaccine or medical prophylaxis, for any purpose, are unconstitutional.  Period.  This does not prohibit isolating a person who is actually infectious until said time that they no longer are.  We did this years ago with TB and it was both successful and constitutional.

  • The Constitution clearly delegates to Congress the right to declare war -- and nobody else has that power.  Exigent circumstances may well arise but unlike 200 years ago the capacity to call Congress into session and have it actually meet with a quorum is now, absent an event such as a nuclear strike, possible within 48 to 72 hours in essentially every case.  As such no executive action that is otherwise within the domain of Congress, including war assistance or other declared "emergencies", will be permitted to stand beyond the time required for Congress to be called into session and we demand a Constitutional Amendment that codifies that all declared "Executive" emergencies expire 72 hours after Congress can convene, whether or not the House and Senate choose to do so.  If an event demands authorization beyond that point Congress remains the only legitimate place in which it may rest and must originate from.

  • The First Amendment means what it says, part 1.  No branch of the Government may collude with or set policy of any element of the private sector as pertains to restrictions on speech.  Any such attempt is both void and renders the seat(s) held by the persons who do so within the Government vacant, and we shall enforce this irrespective of who is doing so or why they claim they should.  Further, we support a private right of action against all who collude in such a fashion, enforceable against said person in their personal capacity.

  • The First Amendment means what it says, part 2.  No law at the federal or state level may compel a person to violate their religious beliefs through forced association of any sort.  You may no more be forced to shoot photographs of a gay wedding if you are opposed to same than you may be compelled as a Baptist to have your sermon delivered by a Satanist -- or vice-versa.  It is all fine and well to provide that full faith and credit applies to marriage across state lines however such a power does not extend to compelling a private, religious agency to associate with those who openly and deliberately violate their religious tenets, and seek through said forced association to compel the commission of what said persons and institutions define as "sin."  You may no more compel a Church to marry two women or two men than you may compel a Southern Baptist or Mormon to serve alcohol at a church function, or forbid the Catholic Church from using wine in the context of the Eucharist.

  • 15 USC Chapter 1 means what it says.  If you collude to fix prices or monopolize markets, irrespective of the means in any good or service that crosses a State or National boundary all persons in the United States who are so-involved will, in each and every case, go to prison.  Period.  If the DOJ will not bring said cases their budget will be zeroed until they do.  The entire medical system in this nation consumes 20% of our economy and three quarters of that, at least, is effectively stolen due to these acts.  They are not alone in this regard, "social media" firms and corporations monopolize on the basis of what opinions are deemed "acceptable" as well.  This ends now and forever; it was codified as a criminal felony over a hundred years ago and Congress was right to do so.

  • The Federal Government shall not use the power of federal funds to compel actions within a state or locale's jurisdiction.  This is flatly unconstitutional as it is a clear dodge around the separation of delegated powers.  This in turn means "national" speed limits, BAC or "national" drinking or smoking ages and similar, never mind paying for procedures during an epidemic of dubious effect rather than for outcomes shall no longer happen.  Period.  Close to a million people are dead as a direct result of CMS mandates in this regard since 2020 and every bit of that was and remains improper.

  • As regards abortion it is within the realm of the 50 States and their respective legislatures.  Period.  The Constitution clearly delineates the point at which Constitutional protections attach and that is at the moment of birth.  To change this you must amend the Constitution.  Until that occurs this is where the line is at a federal level.  This does not prohibit the 50 States from having disparate laws however all states must, under full faith and credit, respect the laws of all others and thus no person may be punished in any way, and the Federal Government shall protect all citizens from same, should they seek a procedure legal in one state but not another.  The good answers to this question will succeed and the poor ones will fail and be replaced; exactly where these lines wind up is not knowable at present and should have debated and figured out 50 years ago.  We get to do it now because we tried to short-circuit that process then; we were wrong and we admit it.

  • The border shall be secured.  Period. Those actions unconstitutional prior to now will be ended and, to the extent people must leave and then apply for entry and residency, that is what they must do.  Those who attempt to enter the United States unlawfully or remain without authorization are invaders and shall be treated as such.  America is a nation largely comprised of lawful immigrants and we shall never disrespect that heritage or the efforts made by persons desiring to come to this nation and become citizens, but we insist that all do so with respect for and adherence to our laws.  A person who, as their first act when coming here, violates the law has proved their depraved indifference to our citizens, our land and our legal system and shall not be permitted to stay.

That's it.  We can debate the rest as the party forms together.

There is no way to fix either the GOP or Democrat parties and both have hard-core crazies in control of the funds.

Therefore one or both must go, and the obvious target is the GOP.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments on The NEW Political Party
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 4  First1234Last
Cmoledor 1k posts, incept 2021-04-13
2022-11-18 07:36:44

Well good sir. Im down with it. Sign me up. This is what a reasonable party should and could look like. Cheers.

----------
The whole world is one big fucking scam
Why are you giving a vulgarity warning here? Our genial host is an advocate of both skullfucking and sodomy via rusty chainsaw. Credit to Rollformer
Apotheoun 4k posts, incept 2009-08-14
2022-11-18 07:36:44

I love it. How do we start?

----------
Waiting for the third box, I'm done.
Cyben 55 posts, incept 2022-10-21
2022-11-18 07:36:44

One of the oldest party breaks, Federalists, as in The Federalist Papers.
Neuro 1 posts, incept 2022-11-18
2022-11-18 07:36:44

I feel those are all great ideas, but I have very little hope the majority of Americans are interested. Most Americans now, on both sides of the isle, want a Federal Govt that solves all problems. I still remember how Ron Paul shocked everyone, in a presidential debate, when he had the audacity to say he would not have done anything about Hurricane Katrina as President as it was not a Federal issue. Gasp! People want a govt that overspends... and I believe you tend to get the govt you want. Very few really believe in personal freedom anymore. They do, but in a much more limited way than Americans thought about the issue historically. Americans have spent the last 100 years dismantling the system of checks and balances established by the founders...and I don't see them coming back....sadly.
Troymt 28 posts, incept 2021-08-15
2022-11-18 07:36:44

Looks like a good start to me.

Our current 2 party system is a total clusterfuck/reach around shit show. This is existential for our nation.

I would like to see the election of senators returned to the State assemblies. The States no longer have representation in our current form of government, and I believe that needs to be corrected.
Statman6 18 posts, incept 2021-04-19
2022-11-18 07:44:43

We must get back to the Constitution being the standard against which all laws and actions of government are measured to determine their validity. A party which articulates such an approach and lives by it will have my support. The challenge will be to find citizens and more importantly politicians who will commit to that standard.
Eaandkw 86 posts, incept 2014-11-22
2022-11-18 07:49:00

Would there be any way to prevent the same A-holes in the GOP from becoming Federalist?

If not I don't think anything would change.

----------
Winding it down
Flyingscotsman 43 posts, incept 2012-02-27
2022-11-18 08:05:35

Hmmm, has a way of "burning it all to the ground" with the possibility of keeping the blaze inside the fire-ring.

Better then the Blackpill, do nothing, its all pointless talk I've been hearing lately.

----------
post tenebras lux
Takewhatyoucan64 85 posts, incept 2022-08-30
2022-11-18 08:11:21

end the dept of education and no govt unions that use my tax dollars against me......AND TERM LIMITS
Boredfree 924 posts, incept 2021-09-15
2022-11-18 08:11:27

This is a great idea!

Unfortunately...

Cue government crazy-makers to begin their assault upon this new party.

Tea Party two electric Boogaloo.

The entrenched parties are not going away without a fight. The money at stake is HUGE, and the political ramifications even larger.

The weasels will be unleashed to throw everything and the kitchen sink to prevent a new party from gaining traction.

Conspiracy theorist, radicals, unamerican, fascist, communist, socialist and all the other words and phrases the PTB use to divide the cattle into their pens so the herd won't stampede together.

The new political party is a good idea, hence this is why it won't happen.


----------
The problem is most people want to point a finger rather than their thumb when dealing with challenges.
Phils 164 posts, incept 2018-02-07
2022-11-18 08:18:45


It's the citizens, not the political parties that have made the USA into a great nation.

Both political parties are a drag on the nation with their bickering, maneuvering, financial games, etc. The Biden family is a good example of the rot at the top.

I registered as an independent forty some years ago because both parties sucked even back then.

The Dems have moved far left and the Repubs are slow and inept when they get power. Big hole in the middle ground for a replacement party.












Merlin 141 posts, incept 2017-07-25
2022-11-18 08:21:23

@Karl

Will you be our first Presidential Candidate?


----------
We've tried the Soap Box, They censored that.
We've tried the Ballot Box, They stuffed that.
We've tried the Jury Box, They tamper with that.
All we have left is the Cartridge
Djsnola 320 posts, incept 2009-03-16
2022-11-18 08:31:55

I think this is a great start. One thing I think we should add is an inflation target as a party.
Jacksparrow 189 posts, incept 2016-04-15
2022-11-18 08:32:00

Works for me. Where do I send my donations?
Mshifman 4 posts, incept 2019-03-20
2022-11-18 08:32:06

That which can't happen won't. The money and its associated influence has already reached critical mass and it will never reverse through peace. Change will only be had through chaos from economic collapse or war. Unfortunately the only rebirth that leads to any semblance of your outline would need to come from the creation of multiple countries. You can't fix evil or infinite stupidity but those folks would otherwise be a part of any rebuild. Starving them or shutting off their energy won't make them think differently. They will simply be a cancer within any newly formed system.
Kgavitt 33 posts, incept 2022-01-03
2022-11-18 08:34:10

Quote:
. . . one or both must go, and the obvious target is the GOP.


That might work.
Therefore it won't be done.
Nadavegan 606 posts, incept 2017-05-03
2022-11-18 08:59:22

This is awesome, right up until the carpetbagging shitweasels take it over and ruin it.
Twainfan2 1k posts, incept 2018-12-04
2022-11-18 08:59:27

I like it so far. Keeping the current Republicans from hijacking the platform would be an issue. But many are old and will be pushing up grass soon.
Nickdanger 1k posts, incept 2011-06-12
2022-11-18 09:25:58

Excellent proposal! Sign me up.

----------
-- I'm in the control group

-- In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Capcomp 340 posts, incept 2009-09-10
2022-11-18 09:26:04

As usual @TG's post makes you think and dig around. Never really knew much about the short life of the Whig party. This was interesting https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whig-Pa....
Wd 67 posts, incept 2021-11-02
2022-11-18 09:53:14

@Mshifman
Quote:
Change will only be had through chaos from economic collapse or war. Unfortunately the only rebirth that leads to any semblance of your outline would need to come from the creation of multiple countries.


Karl's solution would work with Americans because of the kind of people they are. But the majority of people in the United States are no longer Americans. They're there for what they can extract from the system but they will never become part of traditional American culture. We have the same problem here in Canada and it's only getting worse with mass immigration. The only outcome I can see long-term is Balkanization. And there is an ocean of blood, unfortunately, to cross before we get there.
Neal 236 posts, incept 2014-01-09
2022-11-18 10:28:07

Not sure why you specify US citizen in bodily autonomy. Surely a legal resident who is a non citizen has already satisfied the health and good character requirements to be inside the properly secured borders? Why leave them vulnerable to that which you and others find objectionable?
Also I get that your ire is directed at the jab mandate in particular in regards to bodily autonomy, but as with everything there are many examples of where the federal government has a valid reason to impinge on bodily autonomy. For example should prisoners in Club Fed have bodily autonomy when it comes to denying cavity searches? What about the visitors to prisons? Can service members refuse a medical? These exceptions will be the camel nose used to mess with the simplicity and cause divisions with what is the aim of your points. And if a supporter of your aims can find faults then the enemies of liberty will find even more.
Veeger 875 posts, incept 2013-02-13
2022-11-18 10:28:29

Wonderfully, simply, elegant.

I'd go for it.

How do you keep the crazies and the 'just change/add this one little thing' crowd from hijacking it?

I really, REALLY don't want to be a wet blanket on this. However, the Constitution (per John Adam's) was only adequate for a religious and moral people. That's not what/who America is in the 21st century, thus I am somewhat conflicted.

For sure, I am done with ever hoping for anything good to come from the existing Uniparty.

----------
I remember the Diamond Princess.


Slowly at first, then all of a sudden.
Cyben 55 posts, incept 2022-10-21
2022-11-18 10:30:29

Like the idea, excellent thought exercise. Don't have much hope for its success though.

I consider our most fundamental problem a scaling problem. We have 330m+ people. Even the largest, most coherent and high performing Euro countries have about 100m, and they're far more consanguine and older than us.

We're on this population scale, Russia>USA>India>China. I can't speak knowledgeably for Russsia, but India and China have had literally millennium after millennium to break up, then unite, then break up again, and so on. They have more practice than us at this at a genetic level, in two different ways.

In this light and with understanding of the tragedy of the commons and bad-actor problems, it's not only understandable but expected that China would be the pioneer of a social credit system. This is not to say that their system is good or legeitimate... I don't know, but a system that fits that name is a predictable necessary scale infrastructure.

Our primary advantage was that we at least had a single language, not so much any more. A large and increasing proportion of us are functionally illiterate, and we have a lot of people now who neither speak English nor ever intend to learn.

Once you lose coherence due to scaling and generative divergence, decievers, parasites, and predators propagate and can't be effectively checked anymore.

I will in closing point out that a fair few of the people seen as being black pill really are not. They've simply no intention of broadcasting their intentions/preparations and so on into the very low-trust society we are rapidly becoming. Particularly over electronic media that are less riddled-with than composed-of hostile infowar systems.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 4  First1234Last