Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate – Reason

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on December 8, 2019. It featured Walter Block arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate. That means the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most groundmostly by picking up votes from the "undecided" categoryis victorious. Block prevailed by convincing 13.85 percent of audience members to change their minds. Baldwin was not far behind, picking up 12.31 percent of the audience.

Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prolific author on Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He's the author of Defending the Undefendable I and II, among many other books.

Kerry Baldwin is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Her work can be found at MereLiberty.com and at the Libertarian Christian Institute.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.

Filaments by Scott Buckley https://soundcloud.com/scottbuckley Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0

Read more from the original source:

Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate - Reason

Thanks for the judges, Harry Reid, and other commentary – New York Post

Conservative: Thanks for the Judges, Harry!

With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells help, President Trump has appointed federal judges at about twice the rate of his three predecessors, notes The Washington Examiners editorial board. But Trump should be thanking McConnells predecessor, former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. In 2013, with President Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid made the fateful and short-sighted decision to change Senate rules so that a bare majority was enough to confirm a judge, instead of 60 votes, as before. During his campaign, Trump regularly and energetically promised to appoint well-credentialed conservatives with excellent character and scholarship to judgeships a promise he has kept, much to his credit.

Culture critic: From Woodstock to Populism

Middle class in Britain was once defined by a safe, lifelong career, allegiance to the Conservative Party and defending tradition but now, Jonathan Rutherford sighs at The New Statesman, it has lost its role and the authority invested in it and has been overtaken by a new middle class fraction forged in the cultural revolution and university expansion of the 1960s. The Woodstock generation went into politics, eschewing traditionally left-wing populist economic democracy in favor of a libertarian identity politics of gender, race and sexuality. Left-wing parties became parties of the new liberal middle class, increasingly contemptuous of lives and experience of mainstream working-class voters. Yet working-class voters pushed back and voted for Brexit and their historic class enemy: the Tories. Back in 1969, no one could have believed it would turn out like this, but liberal elites have only themselves to blame.

Foreign desk: Hurrah for the US-UK Marriage

Among elite opinion-makers, Brexit is destined to turn Britain into an isolated backwater. Not so, says Brandon J. Weichert at American Greatness. The island nation had extraordinary power on its own, and subordinating British national sovereignty to the supranational government in Brussels was always a mistake. Now that its almost out, Britain should forge a stronger relationship with the United States, an Anglo-American marriage that would ensure that Brexit is meaningful and real and not at all damaging to Britain. The good news is that President Trump has already promised a new free-trade agreement with London which will allow Britain to shake off the sclerotic superstate that is the European Union.

Libertarian: A Year of Peak Entitlement

If you listen to many politicians and pundits, you would think the United States is doing terribly while the government isnt spending a dime yet the truth is the exact opposite, argues Reasons Veronique de Rugy. Among other things, the economy is entering its 11th year of expansion, while poverty is at an all-time low, and the unemployment rate hasnt been so low since 1969. Meanwhile, the government is racking up gargantuan budget deficits, largely because both political parties are spending on a whim and condemning our free-market economy the very system that has produced the wealth that everyone takes for granted. The problem, she insists, isnt that free markets dont work, but that we may have reached peak entitlement mentality.

Urban beat: Calis Homelessness Hopelessness

Despite Californias homelessness crisis, Sacramento and city halls across the Golden State are mired in the we-need-more-money mindset a mindset, sighs Issues and Insights editorial board, that has never worked. In fact, despite all the spending, and the pleas and plans for additional money, homelessness has spiked 30% since 2017 in San Francisco, 16% in Los Angeles and a whopping 43% in San Jose. As a result, nearly half of the nations homeless who sleep on the streets today do so in California. Instead of feeding government bureaucracies with taxpayers money, government officials should follow the example of San Diego, where the city took a tough-love approach that rejected widespread street camping and watched its homeless population fall. The shift in thinking and in acting is paying off.

Compiled by Karl Salzmann

See the rest here:

Thanks for the judges, Harry Reid, and other commentary - New York Post

Bob Gibbs now unopposed in 2020; other candidates removed from ballot – Massillon Independent

The Stark County Board of Elections denied to certify two candidates in the race the 7th Congressional District due to petition signature issues.

CANTON U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville, is now the only candidate for Congress to represent the 7th Congressional District on the March 17 primary ballot.

On Monday morning, the Stark County Board of Elections certified a ballot that didnt include the names of the Democratic and Libertarian candidates for Congress representing the 7th. The board staff said they had failed to submit enough valid signatures.

However, a Knox County elections official said her office mistakenly designated 10 signatures submitted by a Libertarian candidate as invalid.

Brandon Lape, 38, of Danville, filed a formal request Monday afternoon asking the Stark County Board of Elections to reverse its decision to kick him off the ballot.

Three candidates met Wednesdays filing deadline to seek their partys nomination to be congressman for the 7th District, which includes most of Stark County.

They were Gibbs, Lape and Democrat Patrick Pikus, of Plain Township, who also ran in 2018.

Gibbs and Pikus, as members of major parties, had to submit 50 valid petition signatures by registered voters in their party who lived in the congressional district.

Lape, 38, as a member of a minor party, had to submit 25 valid petition signatures.

Pikus submitted the minimum of 50 but board staff found nine signatures to be invalid.

Pikus, 54, a business manager for the Timken Co., said he accepted responsibility for "rookie mistake. ... I thought I had 50 good ones."

He said he had been reluctant to run again, but when he saw that no other Democrat was apparently interested in running, he started collecting signatures and "took them at their word that they were registered (to vote)."

"Nobody is at fault besides me for not double checking," he said, adding that he would review his options.

Because all of the people who signed Lapes petition lived in Ashland and Knox counties, the Ashland and Knox county boards of election verified the signatures. Stark County, as the most populous county in the 7th District, decides whose candidacies to certify.

Elections staff in Ashland and Knox counties initially invalidated 23 of 42 petition signatures submitted by Lape, leaving him with only 19, six short of the minimum. They found two signatures were by people not registered to vote, two were not registered to vote from the addresses provided and one signature was invalid because it was by the petition circulator. They found 18 were signed by voters who had voted in a recent Republican or Democratic primary, which made them ineligible to sign Lapes petition.

But Kim Horn, the director of the Knox County Board of Elections, said hours later her office mistakenly concluded that 10 of candidate Lapes signatures were invalid. Horn said her offices voter registration database wrongly designated several voters as Republican or Democratic voters when they hadnt voted in a Republican or Democratic primary since 2016.

By law, a person ceases to be affiliated with a political party if they dont vote in that partys primary for at least two calendar years.

Regine Johnson, the Stark County Board of Elections deputy director, said the board would choose whether to hold the hearing of reconsideration. If it takes place, it would likely happen by Jan. 13.

Stark County Commissioner Janet Weir Creighton, a Republican whos not up for re-election in 2020, said in an interview about the petition process this month that she always advises candidates to get more signatures than the minimum. And to have an official at party headquarters check the signatures against the rolls of registered voters.

"If youre required to get 50 good signatures, you dont get 50. You get more than what you need," she said. "If you cant follow these rules then I question why youre running for office. ... I would be sick if it cost my candidacy because of an error."

Creighton added the earlier petition filing deadline made it harder to get signatures as people were more focused on the holidays.

Write-in candidates have until Jan. 6 to file for the March 17 primary. They have to fill out a form but do not have to submit signatures. They are not listed on the ballot. In the Democratic primary for 7th Congressional District congressman, which now has no candidates, the write-in candidate who has at least 50 voters write in their name on the ballot and wins a plurality of the write-in vote would then become the Democratic candidate. That persons name would be listed on the ballot in November along with Gibbs name, said Travis Secrest, an administrative assistant for the Stark County Board of Elections

Non-partisan candidates who wish to run for Congress and be listed on the November ballot have until March 16 to file, said Secrest. They must submit at least 2,616 valid signatures by any registered voters in the district.

Candidates denied a place on the ballot due to signature issues are not eligible to run as write-in candidates or non-partisan candidates.

The Board also chose to leave off the ballot liquor options for Aldi Ohio in the Canton 6-C precinct and the Palace Theatre in Canton 2-B due to both entities submitting an insufficient number of valid petition signatures.

In addition, the Board also declined to certify three candidates seeking party committee positions due to an insufficient number of valid signatures. That included Patrick J. Glasgow, who was seeking to be the male member on the Libertarian Party State Central Committee for the 7th Congressional District. Glasgow would have been unopposed. And also denied a spot on the primary ballot were Gloria Ann Jeter of precinct Canton 6-C and Patrick Hoch of Canton 7-F for Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

Patrick Dorosky is now the only candidate for the Canton 6-C Stark County Democratic Party Central Committeeman. No one else sought the Canton 7-F seat. Eligible write-in candidates may seek the spot or if no one does Stark County Democratic Party

Chairman Samuel J. Ferruccio, whos also the chairman of the Stark County Board of Elections, can appoint any Democratic registered voter in Canton 7-F to fill the seat.

Reach Repository writer Robert Wang at (330) 580-8327 or robert.wang@cantonrep.com. Twitter: @rwangREP.

Read more from the original source:

Bob Gibbs now unopposed in 2020; other candidates removed from ballot - Massillon Independent

Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile – Terre Haute Tribune Star

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cell phones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cell phone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely that the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is that when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-through. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is a columnist for Indiana Policy Review, a magazine published by the conservative think tank Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is headquartered in Fort Wayne. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.

See the original post:

Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Terre Haute Tribune Star

Lincoln Chafee is coming back to Iowa, with yet another party affiliation – The Gazette

The most interesting candidate from the 2016 presidential race has a new political home, and hes making plans to visit Iowa next year in what appears to be another shot at the White House.

Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafees campaign last cycle was widely mocked by political elites. He appeared in just one Democratic presidential debate, where his most memorable TV moment was telling the CNN moderator that he was being being a little rough in criticizing Chafees vote in the U.S. Senate to repeal banking regulations.

Chafee dropped out of the race fewer than two weeks after the debate. Now hes back in politics, under a new political banner.

Chafee changed his official residence to Wyoming this year, and took the opportunity to update his party registration after being a Republican, and independent and a Democrat at various times in his political career. Chafee said the Libertarian Partys values aligned most closely with his own.

Anti-war, anti-deficit, in favor of the 4th Amendment and gay rights, anti-capital punishment. Thats me, Chafee told me in a recent phone interview.

Chafee is scheduled to attend the Libertarian Party of Iowas state convention next February, alongside at least three declared Libertarian presidential candidates. For now, Chafee says hes only getting involved and meeting new people, but he has made zero effort to refute media speculation that hes planning another bid for the presidency, this time as part of a third party.

The two leading leftist candidates for president Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both faced questions about their loyalty to the Democratic Party. Warren was a Republican until the 1990s, while Sanders has identified as and run for office as an independent for most of his life. Another Democratic candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has been accused by party elites of being a Republican plant.


On the Republican side, President Donald Trump has previously been registered as a Democrat and an independent, while donating to candidates from both major parties. One of his challengers for the 2020 GOP nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, was a Libertarian Party candidate for vice president last cycle.

Trump challenger is part of great American party-switching tradition

But nobody running for president has as peculiar a political history as Chafee, who has run for state or national office as a Republican, a Democrat and an independent.

Chafee was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1999 as a Republican after the seat was left vacant by his own fathers death. He won reelection as a Republican the next year, served one full term, and was defeated in 2006 by a Democratic challenger.

After leaving the Senate, Chafee registered as an independent and endorsed his former Senate colleague Barack Obama for president in 2008.

In 2010, Chafee was elected governor of Rhode Island as an independent, with a narrow plurality over the Republican and Democratic candidates, making him the countrys only no-party governor at the time.

As governor, Chafee switched again to be a Democrat, in part because there was no national political support for independent governors. However, he was seen as a vulnerable incumbent and ultimately decided not to seek reelection.

Chafee is quick to point out that his registration has varied, but his position on important issues has stayed the same: I have not waffled or changed.


To the extent Chafee is discussed in national politics at all these days, he is defined by his quirks the poor debate performance, the unauthorized Lincoln Chafees Dank Meme Stash page on Facebook, or his weirdly intense dedication to transitioning the United States to the metric system, to name a few.

Its an unfortunate and unfair characterization for a political figure who is saying something different from anyone else on the national stage. His prosperity through peace platform from 2016 emphasized a realistic foreign policy, not so hellbent on policing the world and raising tension with foes.

Chafee hopes polarizing and unpopular candidates nominated by the major parties in 2020 will propel a third-party candidate to greater success.

This 2020 has potential to be very, very unique depending on who the Democrats nominate. Certainly, President Trump has his base core, but with the daily chaos I think the potential is going to there for something to be very different, he said.

Comments: (319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com

See the rest here:

Lincoln Chafee is coming back to Iowa, with yet another party affiliation - The Gazette

As Texas elections get tighter, more third-party candidates are making inroads – Houston Chronicle

Surrounded by fellow Libertarians during a 2018 election night watch party at a rented Airbnb in Fort Worth, Eric Espinoza, who was running for state Rep. Jonathan Sticklands seat, saw a Facebook message notification pop up on his phone.

Its people like you who are preventing other candidates from winning, he recalls the message saying, though he doesnt recall which candidate the sender supported.

I was like, Hey, guys, look I think I finally made an impact, Espinoza remembers saying, as he passed his phone around to others in the crowded living room.

That to me was like, OK, cool, I was able to affect something so much that somebody who knows nothing about me, and nothing about why I ran, blames me for somebody losing when its not the votes. Its not that I took votes from them; its that people didnt want to vote for that person, and they had a better option.

Republicans and Democrats alike will blame third-party candidates for siphoning votes from traditionally two-way races. Espinoza not only took votes that might have gone to Stickland, a Republican, but he had more votes than Sticklands margin of victory. Stickland beat his Democratic challenger by fewer than 1,500 votes, and Espinoza, in third place, had racked up more than 1,600.

Its still rare for third-party candidates to capture enough votes to potentially sway an outcome in the past three general elections, there have been just six such instances, according to a Hearst Newspapers analysis. But the number is growing, in a sign of tightening Texas elections.

Tight races getting tighter

As races in Texas become tighter, more third-party candidates are having an impact on elections. Over the past three general elections, there were six races in which a third-party candidate won more of the vote than the margin of victory.



Highest-Scoring Third-Party Candidate


Third-Party Candidate's Percentage of the Vote

Margin of Victory


U. S. Representative District 23 (Democrat Incumbent Democrat Pete P. Gallego and Republican Will Hurd)

Ruben Corvalan





U. S. Representative District 23 (Republican Incumbent Will Hurd and Democrat Pete P. Gallego)

Ruben S. Corvalan





Member, State Board of Education, District 5 (Republican Ken Mercer and

Democrat Rebecca Bell-Metereau)

Ricardo Perkins





State Representative District 132 (Republican Mike Schofield and Democrat Gina Calanni)

Daniel Arevalo





Member, State Board of Education, District 12 (Republican Pam Little and Democrat Suzanne Smith)

Rachel Wester





State Representative District 92 (Republican Incumbent Jonathan Stickland and Democrat Steve Riddell)

Eric P. Espinoza




In 2014, one third-party candidate had the potential to affect a races outcome. In 2016, there were two such races. And in 2018, there were three. (None won an election.)

Two of the six races were Republican U.S. Rep. Will Hurds victories in Congressional District 23 in 2014 and 2016. Two were State Board of Education races.

Only one of those third-party efforts could be considered an outright spoil, when Libertarian Daniel Arevalo got 1,106 votes in a Texas House race in 2018 that saw Democrat Gina Calanni beat Republican incumbent Mike Schofield by just 113 votes.

In all six races, the margin of victory was low, most at about 2 percent or less, and the third-party candidates were Libertarian.

A year after some of the most competitive state-level races in decades, Texas Republicans moved to make it easier for third-party candidates to receive and maintain a spot on the ballot. In doing so, they returned ballot access to the Green Party after it lost it following the 2016 election.

Maybe Republicans are just kind of viewing this as, either you could call it an insurance policy or maybe its a way to subject the Democrats to things theyve been subjected to on the part of the Libertarians, said Phil Paolino, an associate professor of political science at the University of North Texas who has studied the effect of third parties on presidential races.

As elections get tighter, Paolino said, you might see a few more races where third-party candidates are able to cover the margins whether itll have the effect of altering the results is a big question.

During a more competitive election, with the stakes higher, some voters may be less likely to vote for third-party candidates and risk a major partys chances, Paolino said. In the six recent cases where third-party candidates drew more votes than the margin of victory, its impossible to know the outcome if they hadnt run whether their supporters would have voted for a Democrat, Republican or skipped going to the ballot box at all, he said.

For subscribers: Texas Green Party has qualified for 2020 ballot and welcomes Democrats climate change focus

If the Republicans behind the bill were hoping to hurt their Democratic competitors by allowing Green Party candidates, who typically pull votes from Democrats, onto the ballot, that appears unlikely from a historical standpoint, at least. Green Party candidates never came close to tipping a race when they were on the ballot in 2014 and 2016.

Whitney Bilyeu, a representative to the Libertarian National Committee for a five-state Southern region that includes Texas, said she thinks Republicans and Democrats in Texas are getting very afraid of us.

When we see things like this, which we expect them to continue to happen, it is a sign that people are finally figuring out, No. 1, they have other options, Bilyeu said. And No. 2, that third option, which is us, is the only one that actually gives them what they want and are about what they claim to be about.

Bilyeu said both major parties have reacted to Libertarian candidates success by trying to limit their access to the ballot.

The Texas Green Party did not respond to requests for comment.

Another voice that is pushing ideas

Republican Rep. Drew Springer, who sponsored the bill, said he hadnt studied third-party election results until a reporter presented him with an analysis. The North Texan has run unopposed since he was first elected in 2012.

Springers bill required that third-party candidates either pay a filing fee or submit a petition to run for election, just as major party candidates are already expected to do. Filing fees range from $300 for a State Board of Education seat to $3,125 for a U.S. House race.

Prior to Springers bill passing, Republican Rep. Mayes Middleton had tried to pass a bill, HB 4416, which would have doubled the threshold for parties retaining ballot access by requiring candidates receive 10 percent of the vote in the previous general election.

An amendment Springer later added to his own bill reduced the ballot access threshold to 2 percent of the vote in the previous five general elections. Springer said its purpose was not to impact election results but to bring more voices to the table.

The biggest effect is the fact that you have another voice that is pushing ideas during the campaigning process, Springer said. Democrats and Republicans have to factor those policies into what theyre doing; I think that helps the whole process.

Of the presidential races that Paolino studied, third-party candidates did guide presidential priorities in some cases, such as in 1992, when Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote, the most won by any independent or third-party candidate since former president Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.

Perots campaign about the dangers of the deficit did create some motivation for the two major parties to think about ways to reduce the deficit and ultimately, as we saw by the end of Clinton administration, produced a surplus, Paolino said. Its the idea that if 19 percent of the voters out there might be concerned with this, then its going to be better if we can show were doing something about it.

While Libertarians success in Texas has mostly been in local elections, Bilyeu said she still thinks the direction at the Legislature has been influenced by the partys platform, including its advocacy for marijuana legalization. The Legislature added several more conditions to the states medical marijuana program in its most recent session.

We are impacting elections one way or another, whether were covering the spread (between Democrats and Republicans) or not, because were getting messages out there that would not be heard otherwise and were putting candidates from these old parties on notice, Bilyeu said.

For subscribers: Libertarian, Green parties sue Texas over ballot requirements

Ballot-access battle

The Texas Libertarian and Green parties, as well as other minor party groups and some individuals, in July sued the state over its ballot requirements, including those imposed in Springers bill.

They argue that ballot access requirements one of which calls for them to track down thousands of voters who did not cast ballots in a primary election and get their signatures create a financial barrier to candidates. A federal judge denied the states motion to dismiss the suit Monday but declined to temporarily block the requirements.

Also on Monday, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen requested that the Committee on Elections during the interim period until lawmakers next meet in 2021 monitor the bill, among others, to ensure intended legislative outcome.

Espinoza, the Libertarian candidate in the 2018 race won by Stickland, said laws that restrict third-party ballot access wont prevent them from spreading their message and getting through to voters.

You can do all the political posturing you want to, but if the public does not see the change they want, thats not going to matter, Espinoza said. Theyre going to try to vote for someone outside the two-party system whos going to do what they say theyre going to do and enhance the individual freedoms of each voter.

Data reporter Stephanie Lamm contributed to this report. taylor.goldenstein@chron.com

Excerpt from:

As Texas elections get tighter, more third-party candidates are making inroads - Houston Chronicle

Bill Weld: Everything you need to know about the 2020 presidential candidate – ABC News

Former two-term Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld became the first Republican to mount a long-shot primary challenge against President Donald Trump. He announced his candidacy for president on April 15, 2019. The 2016 Libertarian vice presidential candidate told ABC News he would have been "ashamed" if he'd passed up on running against the president for the Republican nomination. Weld has touted his bipartisan record and ability to court independent voters in early voting states as his pathway to the White House.

Name: William "Bill" Floyd Weld

Party: Republican -- with a stint in the Libertarian Party from 2016-2019

Date of birth: July 31, 1945

Age: 74

Hometown: Smithtown, New York

Family: Weld has five adult children -- David, Ethel, Mary, Quentin and Frances -- with his first wife, Susan Roosevelt Weld, a great-granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt. Now, Weld lives in Canton, Massachusetts, with his wife, author Leslie Marshall, and has three adult stepchildren.

Education: Weld graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College with a bachelor of arts degree in Classics in 1966. He received an international economics degree from Oxford University the following year, before returning to Harvard Law School and graduating in 1970.

What he does now: After announcing his candidacy, Weld took an unpaid leave of absence from Mintz Levin law firm. He is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an associate member of the InterAction Council. He also sits on the board of directors of cannabis company Acreage Holdings, alongside former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and on the board of Just Energy Group Inc.

What he used to do: Weld ran as the vice presidential nominee on the 2016 Libertarian ticket. He served as governor of Massachusetts from 1991-1997. He previously served at least seven years as a federal prosecutor, first as U.S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts from 1981-1986 and then as U.S. assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department from 1986-1988. Early in his career, Weld participated in the Watergate impeachment inquiry as legal counsel on the House Judiciary Committee.

Key life/career moments:

Weld began his legal career as junior counsel on the House Judiciary Committee's staff in the Watergate impeachment inquiry. After working as a staffer in Congress and then as a private attorney in Boston, President Ronald Reagan appointed Weld as U.S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts in 1981. Five years later, Reagan promoted Weld to assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.

Weld was elected governor of Massachusetts in 1990, becoming the first Republican to win a gubernatorial election in the state in 20 years. During his governorship, Weld cut taxes 21 times, led 16 international trade missions, oversaw six upgrades for the state's bond ratings, expanded abortion access and broadened LGBTQ rights, according to his campaign website. He was regarded as one of the most fiscally conservative governors in the country.

In 1996, Weld ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate, losing to John Kerry. Weld resigned as governor in 1997 to pursue a nomination by President Bill Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to Mexico but withdrew his nomination after former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., effectively blocked it in committee. For the next decade, Weld worked a variety of legal and financial jobs including a stint as the chief executive officer of Decker College in Louisville, Kentucky. He re-entered the political sphere in 2005, in an unsuccessful bid for governor of New York.

Weld ran for vice president of the United States in 2016 on the Libertarian ticket with Gary Johnson. He returned to the Republican party in early 2019 when he announced his presidential exploratory committee.

Where he stands on some issues:

Weld has positioned himself as a Republican who blends fiscal conservatism with social liberalism. His campaign told ABC News that getting their candidate on a debate stage with the president is a top priority -- but that's unlikely to take place.

"The RNC and the Republican Party are firmly behind the president. Any effort to challenge the president's nomination is bound to go absolutely nowhere," a RNC spokeswoman told ABC News in July.

In his first 100 days in office, Weld said he would first tackle cutting spending and rebuilding relations with close U.S. allies.

Weld strongly opposes Trump's tariffs and his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal but has agreed with him on wanting to remove troops from Afghanistan, according to Axios. His website indicates that on the economy, Weld supports tax cuts and reigning in spending. On social issues, Weld supports gay marriage, abortion rights and marijuana legalization.

Weld's campaign website prioritizes the issues of "income inequality, debts and deficits, and climate change." He said he would have the U.S. rejoin the Paris climate accord.


As of July 2019, Weld's campaign told ABC News that since entering the race in mid-April, they raised nearly $700,000 from 7,000 total donors. On top of supporter contributions, Weld gave at least $181,000 of his own money to the campaign, bringing the second quarter total to $869,000. The average donation for the quarter was $98, according to the campaign.

Weld reported $208,043 cash on hand following the third quarter deadline in mid-October.

During the 2016 presidential race, when Weld ran on the Libertarian ticket, he accepted donations from super PACs.

What you might not know about him:

In 1994, Weld was reelected as Massachusetts governor with 71% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in state history.

Weld's family traces its history back to America's early days, with one of his ancestors' graduating from Harvard College in 1650 and another, William Floyd, signing the Declaration of Independence.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller's sole federal contribution on record went to Weld in 1996 -- two checks totaling $450 during Weld's U.S. Senate race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In his time between serving as Massachusetts governor and running for New York governor, Weld published three novels.

ABC News' Will Steakin contributed to this report.

Read more:

Bill Weld: Everything you need to know about the 2020 presidential candidate - ABC News

Voters who say they want a third-party option need to actually vote for one – Southgate News Herald

According to an October Rasmussen poll, 38 percent of likely voters say they intend to vote for "someone other than President Trump or the Democratic presidential nominee" in the 2020 US presidential election.

In a three-way presidential race, 38 percent constitutes a winning plurality, assuming it's distributed among the states such that the Electoral College outcome reflects it.

As a longtime activist in America's largest "third" political party, the Libertarian Party, I'm prone to find that number encouraging.

On the other hand, I've seen numbers like this before and I've watched them not pan out on Election Day. Here's why:

Pluralities or majorities of independent, "swing," and even Democratic and Republican voters always respond positively to polls asking them, generically, about the desirability of a "third party" in American politics.

But generically and specifically are two different animals.

America already has numerous "third parties." In addition to the Libertarians, we have the Greens, the Constitution Party, and a wide assortment of ideological parties across the spectrum, from openly socialist to openly fascist. Even the Prohibition Party, founded in 1869, still nominates a presidential slate every four years.

But most voters who perennially say they don't want a Democrat or Republican for president next time don't agree on a specific alternative. They either vote for the Democrat or Republican for president, or just stay home, when Election Day rolls around.

Even in 2016, when the "major" parties each chose widely disliked and distrusted presidential candidates, only about 5 percent of those who voted strayed outside the major party fold.

Why don't third-party candidates do well, especially at the presidential level? A number of factors play into the poor results.

One is that third-party candidates, already far outspent by the Democrats and Republicans, have to spend lots of the money they raise just getting on ballots. Their actual campaign budgets amount to rounding errors compared to those of their major party opponents. Even those who might prefer a mouse to a whirlwind have trouble hearing the offerings of the former over the din of the latter.

Another is a "fear factor," naturally occurring but energetically encouraged and cultivated by the big players. Don't "spoil" the election. Vote against the major party candidate you fear most, rather than for the minor party candidate you like best. Your only "real" alternative is "the lesser evil."

A third problem is bad voting systems. Ranked choice voting would allow those fearful voters to choose the candidates they prefer while remaining confident that if their first choices failed, their second choices wouldn't be eliminated.

Next year, voters will be told by the major parties that they must choose either four more years of the banana republicanism they chose in 2016, or a buffet of microwaved and reheated 50- and 80-year old New Deal and Great Society programs doused with supposedly "progressive" sriracha.

That won't be the case. Third-party options will likely be on offer in all 50 states. The 38 percent of voters who claim to want one should actually choose one instead of finding reasons not to.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

Go here to read the rest:

Voters who say they want a third-party option need to actually vote for one - Southgate News Herald

True conservative views are not fringe – The Mass Media

Conservatives are often slandered as being racist, classist and misogynistic as a result of their traditional political views. While there are certainly conservatives who may display some of these traits, they are generally condemned by the mainstream conservative movement as being too extreme. Recent months have seen fringe conservatives attempt to legitimize themselves by claiming to be the future of the conservative movement in the United States. These fringe conservatives represent a far-right threat to the conservative movement. In reality, the fringe conservatives and their allies attempt to slander the conservative party by incorrectly claiming that they represent the right-wing of American politics. They are what liberals conflate with the moderate conservatives that make up nearly 50 percent of U.S. citizens.

At the core of the conservative movement is constitutional rights, personal freedoms and economic stability through capitalism. While people may disagree with these political stances, these are in no way fringe ideologies. These are mainstream political agendas held by many politically active individuals. The fringe that exists within the right-wing is a loud but small minority that is used to smear anyone right of the center.

In recent months, far-right provocateurs have flooded mainstream conservative events in a desperate attempt for attention and recognition. These far-right individuals are outright rejected by the mainstream conservative movement for their radical, racist and overly nationalistic rhetoric. Led by an individual who hosts a podcast called America First, these far-right young men believe in an America for white Europeans. This is by no means the mainstream conservative perspective. The mainstream conservative movement focuses on individual rights, constitutionalism and strong state governments. None of these are in any fringe.

One of the largest conservative organizations, Young Americas Foundation, recently distanced themselves from Michelle Malkin, who previously was associated with them. This individual had ties to far-right extremists, and the organization immediately excommunicated her. The firing comes as a result of Malkin's vocal support for 22-year-old far-right provocateur and his allies. YAF gives a platform to a broad range of speakers with a range of views within the mainstream of conservative thought," wrote YAF. "Immigration is a vital issue that deserves robust debate. But there is no room in mainstream conservatism or at YAF for holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists." YAF, which is often smeared as being supportive of white supremacists, has made it clear that they will not associate with such figures.

As far-right groups continue to push for recognition and legitimacy, it is essential that both liberals and conservatives alike condemn the far-right for its fascist ideology, illegitimate support base and weak arguments. The true voice of the conservative movement boasts classical liberalism, libertarian economic ideology and a weak federal government that allows local governments to govern their people. Any ideology acting upon race, class or ethnicity, should not and is not welcome in the modern-day conservative movement.

To conclude, there are several key organizations that represent the conservative movement on college campuses. On heavily liberal campuses, such as the UMass system, these organizations are weak in their appearance due to limited membership. Young Americas Foundation represents a conservative movement with an emphasis on free speech and a strong military presence. Young Americans for Liberty is a more libertarian-minded organization with a strong emphasis on prison reform, drug legalization and a weak federal government. Many of their positions promote liberal ideology as well. Turning Point USA promotes capitalist economies, supports a border wall and exhibits heavy support for President Donald Trump, which oftentimes contradicts their small government philosophy. College Republican clubs often exist on college campuses; however, they can push loyalty to the Republican Party rather than the conservative movement. Each of these organizations do have flaws, however, I would suggest true conservative students involve themselves with YAF and YAL in order to truly see how the conservative movement exists within the frame of a college campus.

Young America's Foundation Excommunicates Michelle Malkin for Defending Nick Fuentes


Read the original here:

True conservative views are not fringe - The Mass Media

BRADLEY R. GITZ: What is ‘left-wing’? – NWAOnline

The term "right-wing" is largely meaningless in an ideological sense, invoked over time to refer to such dissimilar, even antithetical movements as monarchial conservativism, Reagan Republicanism, European fascism, and contemporary libertarianism.

Right-wing therefore has meaning only in the sense of opposing a "left-wing" historically united by the goal of socialism.

If "right-wing" is meaningless except as a term of opposition, "left-wing" can be more precisely depicted in increments moving leftward from roughly American Progressivism/New Deal liberalism all the way to Marxism-Leninism.

The problem comes with the failure in common discourse to distinguish between the different strains of leftism. Perhaps because our chattering classes tend to see no enemies on the left, there is no effort made to clarify what left-wing actually means.

The ideological confusion this produces has been on full display in media coverage of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, wherein it is suggested that the further one moves to the left, the more liberal one becomes, as in Elizabeth Warren is more liberal than Joe Biden, and the self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders is more liberal than Warren.

All of which raises the rather obvious question of what would be more liberal than Sanders. After all, if liberalism and socialism are indeed different things, as American liberals have always insisted, how far left do you have to drift before you stop being more liberal and become socialist?

Are self-proclaimed socialists actually more liberal than liberals? And by such logic wouldn't Fidel Castro be more liberal than Sanders, and Pol Pot still more liberal than Castro?

Clearly, this isn't a formulation contemporary liberal Democrats should be comfortable with, yet that is the inescapable logic inherent in the fuzziness of the labels they apply to themselves and that are applied to them by sympathetic media.

To clear up a bit of the ideological mess, it might be useful to think of the left as containing four basic positions.

The first and least radical, in the sense of being closest to center, would be American Progressivism/New Deal liberalism, which has championed the welfare state and the principle of redistribution over the last century as a means of reforming the generally unregulated capitalism endorsed by classical liberals.

The central ideological difficulty of this relatively mild form of leftism has always been the failure to identify some kind of logical stopping point in welfare-state growth that prevents the ideology from ratcheting leftward toward more radical, overtly socialist positions.

The most obvious counterpart of American Progressivism/New Deal liberalism in the contemporary European context is what has come to be called "social democracy," represented by the Labor Party of Great Britain, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and the French Socialist Party.

Social Democracy is an increment further left of American Progressivism by virtue of being originally derived (unlike the American Democratic Party) from Marxian socialism, historically favoring nationalization of certain "commanding heights" of the economy (infrastructure, energy, and heavy industry) and advocating an even larger "cradle to grave" welfare state than American Democrats.

Stepping still leftward, we find "democratic socialism," most conspicuously associated with the Democratic Socialists of America movement of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib and the radical left journal Jacobin. The primary difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is that whereas the former permits a still capacious (but increasing regulated) private sector, the latter seeks to abolish capitalism altogether on the grounds that genuine democracy is incapable of functioning under it. For Democratic Socialists, the goal of democracy is undermined by the oppression and inequalities inherent in capitalism.

Furthest to the left is Marxism-Leninism (communism), which, as originally formulated by Marx, replaces private ownership of the means of production with public ownership operating under a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (meaning, in practice, a dictatorship of the party acting on behalf of an incapable proletariat).

Think at this point, the most radical leftward point, of all those misnamed "People's Republics" under the control of revolutionary "vanguard" parties in places like the Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam and once united under the banner of the Moscow-based Third International (Comintern).

The different strains vary in terms of willingness to tolerate capitalism and respect for liberal democracy, with both declining as you move further left.

The contrast with the political right is striking. Whereas classical liberals and contemporary conservatives and libertarians seek to protect by limiting--more specifically, to protect the blessings of the American founding by limiting the power of the state--the left represents perpetual, frantic movement, constantly seeking to expand state power to combat a never-ending series of problems, however trivial and rooted in the flaws of human nature itself.

Classical liberalism (and its contemporary conservative and libertarian manifestations) is constant in its Madisonian principles, the left entirely fluid, incapable of stopping, with radicalization inherent in its fluidity.

The right is about limits; the left by its very nature can acknowledge none.


Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Editorial on 12/02/2019

Print Headline: BRADLEY R. GITZ: What is 'left-wing'?

See original here:

BRADLEY R. GITZ: What is 'left-wing'? - NWAOnline

Lesson from the London Bridge attack: Once a terrorist, always a terrorist (opinion) – SILive.com

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. Some people just belong in jail. Terrorists in particular. And if they ever see the light of day again, it should be after a long, long incarceration.

Thats the lesson to take away from what the world saw in London last week.

Authorities said that Usman Khan, 28, killed two people in a stabbing spree on London Bridge.

Even more shocking is the fact that Khan had been released from jail a year ago, after serving only part of a sentence he received in 2012 for being part of a cell that planned terrorist attacks.

Some of the terrorists working in cahoots with Khan wanted to carry out attacks on the London Stock Exchange. Khan is said to have wanted to foment terrorism in his ancestral homeland of Kashmir.

Khan, who was killed by police during the London Bridge attack, was a terrorist. His associates were terrorists. He was released from jail after seven years, according to CNN, without even a Parole Board review, as part of an initiative that saw other terrorists released early as well.

Khans lawyer said that there was no indication that Khan, who was 19 years old when he was charged in 2010, would re-offend. Hed recanted his radical views at trial. In a jailhouse letter, hed asked to take part in a de-radicalization program.

And yet there he was, carrying out a knife attack on London Bridge. CNN pointed to speculation that recent events in India-controlled areas of Kashmir, where the Delhi government has launched a security crackdown, might have radicalized Khan all over again.

So it looks like Khan hadnt buried his jihadist beliefs all too deeply after all.

By the way, five of Khans 2010 accomplices were among around 70 other convicted terrorists who have also been released early by the U.K., CNN said.

One of them, Mohibur Rahman, was re-arrested after planning a mass-casualty attack on a British military or police target. Hes back in jail, where he clearly belongs. Thankfully, nobody had to die before the error of his release was rectified.

The U.K.s early release of all those terrorists is now being reviewed. Given that radical Muslim terrorists can often become even more radicalized by prison jihadist networks, and grow even more dangerous, its a smart move to just keep them in jail. Or to make sure that theyre segregated from other jihadis while incarcerated. Let the civil libertarians object all they want.

More convicted terrorists are set to be released from across Europe. Can the world really take that risk?

Its important to determine just who can be rehabilitated and who cannot. And to keep close, close track of convicted terrorists if they are paroled. Thats another problem highlighted by the London Bridge bloodshed: Khan was wearing an ankle monitor, but was still able to travel to London to carry out his attack. Whos watching these dangerous parolees?

Knife attacks overall, by the way, have been on the rise in the U.K. in recent years. Knife-related homicides took 285 lives in England and Wales from March, 2017 to March, 2018, according to USA Today. Thats a record amount since data collection began in 1946, the paper said. And the data does not include knife deaths in Scotland or Ireland.

Its another lesson to keep in mind. The United Kingdom has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Private ownership of handguns is banned. Police officers generally dont carry firearms. So offenders have found other ways to carry out their mayhem. Because you cant legislate against murderous actions by unhinged people.

Thankfully, the number of fatalities per incident are far lower than whats seen in some mass shootings.

Still, there continues to be a price to pay. Maybe we should ban knives too. We should surely keep convicted terrorists behind bars. And for a long time.

See more here:

Lesson from the London Bridge attack: Once a terrorist, always a terrorist (opinion) - SILive.com

Cryptocurrency News: This Week on Bitfinex, Tether, Coinbase, & More

Cryptocurrency News
On the whole, cryptocurrency prices are down from our previous report on cryptos, with the market slipping on news of an exchange being hacked and a report about Bitcoin manipulation.

However, there have been two bright spots: 1) an official from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said that Ethereum is not a security, and 2) Coinbase is expanding its selection of tokens.

Let's start with the good news.
SEC Says ETH Is Not a Security
Investors have some reason to cheer this week. A high-ranking SEC official told attendees of the Yahoo! All Markets Summit: Crypto that Ethereum and Bitcoin are not.

The post Cryptocurrency News: This Week on Bitfinex, Tether, Coinbase, & More appeared first on Profit Confidential.

The rest is here:

Cryptocurrency News: This Week on Bitfinex, Tether, Coinbase, & More

Ripple Price Forecast: XRP vs SWIFT, SEC Updates, and More

Ripple vs SWIFT: The War Begins
While most criticisms of XRP do nothing to curb my bullish Ripple price forecast, there is one obstacle that nags at my conscience. Its name is SWIFT.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is the king of international payments.

It coordinates wire transfers across 11,000 banks in more than 200 countries and territories, meaning that in order for XRP prices to ascend to $10.00, Ripple needs to launch a successful coup. That is, and always has been, an unwritten part of Ripple’s story.

We’ve seen a lot of progress on that score. In the last three years, Ripple wooed more than 100 financial firms onto its.

The post Ripple Price Forecast: XRP vs SWIFT, SEC Updates, and More appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read the rest here:

Ripple Price Forecast: XRP vs SWIFT, SEC Updates, and More

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETFs, Andreessen Horowitz, and Contradictions in Crypto

Cryptocurrency News
This was a bloody week for cryptocurrencies. Everything was covered in red, from Ethereum (ETH) on down to the Basic Attention Token (BAT).

Some investors claim it was inevitable. Others say that price manipulation is to blame.

We think the answers are more complicated than either side has to offer, because our research reveals deep contradictions between the price of cryptos and the underlying development of blockchain projects.

For instance, a leading venture capital (VC) firm launched a $300.0-million crypto investment fund, yet liquidity continues to dry up in crypto markets.

Another example is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETFs, Andreessen Horowitz, and Contradictions in Crypto appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Visit link:

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETFs, Andreessen Horowitz, and Contradictions in Crypto

Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack

Another Crypto Hack Derails Recovery
Since our last report, hackers broke into yet another cryptocurrency exchange. This time the target was Bithumb, a Korean exchange known for high-flying prices and ultra-active traders.

While the hackers made off with approximately $31.5 million in funds, the exchange is working with relevant authorities to return the stolen tokens to their respective owners. In the event that some is still missing, the exchange will cover the losses. (Source: “Bithumb Working With Other Crypto Exchanges to Recover Hacked Funds,”.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read the rest here:

Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack

Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week

Cryptocurrency News
Cryptocurrencies traded sideways since our last report on cryptos. However, I noticed something interesting when playing around with Yahoo! Finance’s cryptocurrency screener: There are profitable pockets in this market.

Incidentally, Yahoo’s screener is far superior to the one on CoinMarketCap, so if you’re looking to compare digital assets, I highly recommend it.

But let's get back to my epiphany.

In the last month, at one point or another, most crypto assets on our favorites list saw double-digit increases. It’s true that each upswing was followed by a hard crash, but investors who rode the trend would have made a.

The post Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week appeared first on Profit Confidential.


Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week

Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens

Cryptocurrency News & Market Summary
Investors finally saw some light at the end of the tunnel last week, with cryptos soaring across the board. No one quite knows what kicked off the rally—as it could have been any of the stories we discuss below—but the net result was positive.

Of course, prices won’t stay on this rocket ride forever. I expect to see a resurgence of volatility in short order, because the market is moving as a single unit. Everything is rising in tandem.

This tells me that investors are simply “buying the dip” rather than identifying which cryptos have enough real-world value to outlive the crash.

So if you want to know when.

The post Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read more here:

Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETF Rejection, AMD Microchip Sales, and Hedge Funds

Cryptocurrency News
Although cryptocurrency prices were heating up last week (Bitcoin, especially), regulators poured cold water on the rally by rejecting calls for a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). This is the second time that the proposal fell on deaf ears. (More on that below.)

Crypto mining ran into similar trouble, as you can see from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:AMD) most recent quarterly earnings. However, it wasn't all bad news. Investors should, for instance, be cheering the fact that hedge funds are ramping up their involvement in cryptocurrency markets.

Without further ado, here are those stories in greater detail.
ETF Rejection.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETF Rejection, AMD Microchip Sales, and Hedge Funds appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read the rest here:

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETF Rejection, AMD Microchip Sales, and Hedge Funds

Cryptocurrency News: Vitalik Buterin Doesn’t Care About Bitcoin ETFs

Cryptocurrency News
While headline numbers look devastating this week, investors might take some solace in knowing that cryptocurrencies found their bottom at roughly $189.8 billion in market cap—that was the low point. Since then, investors put more than $20.0 billion back into the market.

During the rout, Ethereum broke below $300.00 and XRP fell below $0.30, marking yearly lows for both tokens. The same was true down the list of the top 100 biggest cryptos.

Altcoins took the brunt of the hit. BTC Dominance, which reveals how tightly investment is concentrated in Bitcoin, rose from 42.62% to 53.27% in just one month, showing that investors either fled altcoins at higher.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Vitalik Buterin Doesn’t Care About Bitcoin ETFs appeared first on Profit Confidential.


Cryptocurrency News: Vitalik Buterin Doesn’t Care About Bitcoin ETFs

Cryptocurrency News: New Exchanges Could Boost Crypto Liquidity

Cryptocurrency News
Even though the cryptocurrency news was upbeat in recent days, the market tumbled after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rejected calls for a Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund (ETF).

That news came as a blow to investors, many of whom believe the ETF would open the cryptocurrency industry up to pension funds and other institutional investors. This would create a massive tailwind for cryptos, they say.

So it only follows that a rejection of the Bitcoin ETF should send cryptos tumbling, correct? Well, maybe you can follow that logic. To me, it seems like a dramatic overreaction.

I understand that legitimizing cryptos is important. But.

The post Cryptocurrency News: New Exchanges Could Boost Crypto Liquidity appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Continue reading here:

Cryptocurrency News: New Exchanges Could Boost Crypto Liquidity