- Austria Presidential Election Take II: Nice, Turkey Should Help Anti-Immigration Hofer On October 2
Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
Austria presidential election take II is coming up on October 2.
It’s a rematch of the May 22 runoff that pitted anti-immigration candidate Norbert Hofer of the FPÖ party against Alexander Van der Bellen of the Greens.
In Austria, the top two candidates go to round two of the elections if no one wins a clear majority in round one.
Round two of the election was the first since World War II in which both the center-right and center-left candidates were knocked out in the first round.
Hofer vs. Van der Bellen Replay
Election evening, Hofer appeared to have won the election, but after mail-in votes were counted the next day, Van der Bellen was declared the winner.
On 1 July, the results of the second round of voting were annulled after the Constitutional Court of Austria found that electoral rules (as stipulated in federal election law) had been disregarded in 14 out of 20 contested administrative districts (from a total of 117), resulting in over 77,900 absentee votes being improperly counted, however without any indication of votes having been fraudulently manipulated.
Events Favor Hofer
Events in Nice and Turkey should help anti-immigration candidate Norbert Hofer. If so, the election will be another hair-raising event for Brussels.
The role of president is largely symbolic, with real power being held by the chancellor. However, the president can call for new national elections and it’s possible Hofer would do just that.
- If Trump Tries To Remove ISIS, Will He Be Removed?
Donald Trump accused his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton of enabling Islamic State’s emergence with “her stupid policies” in a joint interview with running mate Gov. Mike Pence, while pledging to “declare a war” on the terror group. “Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS,” Trump said launching a scathing attack on Clinton’s legacy as US Secretary of State while speaking to CBS’s “60 Minutes” show host Lesley Stahl in an interview aired on Sunday. -RT
Saying that Hillary Clinton enabled ISIS, is an almost incomprehensible statement.
Doesn’t Donald Trump realize that Hillary is not alone?
She represents the most massive military and monetary forces available on this planet.
Does he not realize they can crush him?
Is he somehow doing their bidding?
We know what to think of Hillary based on her associates and history. As we wrote here, she represents corporatism and militarism – the coming technocracy, in other words.
We are less certain about Trump.
He may have decided to run for president on his own and thus opened up possibilities for personal and political manipulation.
But when Trump speaks bluntly about Hillary’s role in creating ISIS, he is basically making statements rarely heard in large – mainstream – venues before.
Mitt Romney never said anything like this.
GOP leaders, despite their supposed antagonism to Democrats, have never made such statements.
Many GOP-ers are pro-war. Any war. Just like Hillary.
Congressman Ron Paul was anti-war, and as a result he was eventually marginalized as a presidential candidate.
Some of Trump’s statements have Ron Paul-like resonances.
True, in this interview he said he would “declare a full-blown war on the group.” On the other hand, he clarified his statement.
“I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We’re going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don’t have,” he said.
Trump also said negative things about NATO, as he has in the past, stating that the organization had an overly prominent role in the “war on terror” and that other nations should do more.
If Trump really does try to wipe ISIS out – or drastically reduce the power of NATO – will he be risking his own health and well-being?
The US is run by corporatist and military entities. Will they hesitate to intimidate or remove Trump if he tries to end ISIS?
Western war-interests always need an enemy after all.
When Russia began to bomb ISIS, its officials said that the Pentagon had been lying about its attacks on ISIS. Officials maintained that the US bombing was really aimed at Syrian infrastructure and thus at destroying the current regime rather than terrorist groups.
Russian officials also said there were no moderate “terrorists” in Syria and that the Pentagon had just made it up to justify a lack of aggression in certain areas.
This is certainly possible. After all, from what we can tell, ISIS (and Al Qaeda before it) were essentially CIA inventions, created with the help of others: London’s City, Israel and Saudi Arabia, etc.
At the center of the current horrible Islamic extremism is Wahhabism, jointly advanced by the US and Saudi Arabia.
We’ve written about that here: The Internet Just Debunked the NY Post’s War on Terror.
You can see another article here: Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State. We don’t endorse the article but find it interesting.
Trump is currently attacking the West’s modern foundation. It is a combination of technocracy and authoritarianism and enormously profitable for those in control.
Conclusion: In blaming Hillary, Trump did not fully explain how ISIS came to be. But by blaming her (when coupled with his other statements) he is opening up a “Pandora’s box” of issues relating to Western warfare. This is dangerous to those who stand behind “endless wars for endless peace.” It might be dangerous to Donald, too, if he pursues the issue to its logical conclusion.
- 'Pokemon Go' Bubble Bursts: Nintendo Tumbles As Indonesia Issues "National Security Threat"
Indonesian officials have warned that 'Pokemon Go' is a "national security threat," and military headquarters have banned personnel from playing the game while on duty, according to Jakarta Post. It appears the 'Pokemon Go' bubble is bursting, after surging 120% in 8 days, Nintendo is down over 12% today (as the bubble passes over to McDonalds Japan, which is up 12%, after reports of sponsoring 'Pokemon Go' in Japan).
As Bloomberg reports,
Indonesian Military headquarter has banned personnel from playing ‘Pokemon Go’ game while on duty, Jakarta Post reports, citing spokesman for Indonesian Armed Force, or TNI, Tatang Sulaiman.
TNI says cautious as app could encourage gamers to go to restricted military facilities, record activities and post details online.
And the bubble is bursting… tumbling 12% after doubling in 8 days…
As UBS warns the rally is "hard to explain"…
Nintendo’s market cap. expansion to more than 2t yen is “hard to explain” even when “substantial” billing rev. and reasonable vol. for Nintendo Plus is factored in, writes UBS analyst Sumito Takeda (sell) in note earlier.
Estimates Pokémon Go Plus toy may generate direct earnings when released in future.
Some expectations Nintendo may shift from hardware to software after seeing other cos. are using Nintendo IP to create popular games; believes co. should continue to invest in hardware.
Maintains sell rating, 12-month price target 15,000 yen.
But McDonalds Japan is surging…
This follows reports from The Wall Street Journal that the company will be a sponsor of Pokemon Go in Japan, participating in the game’s release in the country and making its restaurants key locations for game players.
- Terrorism Death Count Since 2015: The West 658 – 28,031 The Rest Of The World
And the 'winner' is…
Since the beginning of 2015, the Middle East, Africa and Asia have seen nearly 50 times more deaths from terrorism than Europe and the Americas.
As The Washington Post reports, The Middle East and northern Africa account for over two-thirds of terrorism deaths since January 2015, with multiple attacks occurring daily, each claiming on average at least a dozen lives.
Outside large attacks in France and Belgium, attacks in eastern Ukraine account for most terrorism casualties in Europe, according to Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center. In the Americas, recent Islamic-State-inspired mass shootings make up the lion’s share of the terrorism-related deaths. Aside from that, a few scattered attacks from guerrilla groups in Colombia and Peru and some scattered violence in the Caribbean caused a handful of deaths.
Simply put, the death tolls of attacks in Western countries pale in comparison to daily attacks in other parts of the world.
- Who Really Won The Oil Price War?
Authored by Global Risk Insights via OilPrice.com,
The rise in oil prices over the past six months has come as a blessing for the battered U.S. shale producers. Oil prices have risen more than 50 percent since January, giving a glimmer of hope to the U.S. oil industry that the worst of the oil crisis might finally be behind them. Moreover, it forced the shale producers to adapt by reducing production costs and increasing efficiency.
According to data publicized by Reuters, the decline rates of oil wells in the most productive fields in the U.S. – the Permian and Bakken Basins – were almost halved over the past several years. In practice, this means that shale people will get more bang for their buck; due to slower decline of the wells, they will have to drill fewer new wells to sustain output and therefore lower their capital demands.
After months of consecutive falls, the number of rigs has been increasing since May and companies expect additional growth if oil prices remain at $50 levels. In addition, Norwegian energy consultancy Rystad Energy’s newest estimates reveal that the U.S. holds more recoverable oil reserves than Russia or Saudi Arabia. More than 50 percent of reserves belong to unconventional shale oil.
Low oil price has been both a blessing and a curse for the shale industry
The key for the survival of the U.S. shale industry currently lies in its ability to raise money to finance its renewed activity. One of the shale’s weak spots was always its dependency on capital inflow and high level of debt. In the world of high oil prices and lax capital markets this did not matter so much. However, since the oil price crashed two years ago, financing has become the industry’s central problem. Bond sales of U.S. independent energy companies is currently at its lowest level in more than a decade, and the markets are still not convinced enough to devote fresh capital to new energy projects, despite the brighter outlook that came with higher prices of oil.
A breath of fresh air could come from another side though. After the slump in prices, many oil giants such as Exxon and Chevron mothballed expensive offshore and Arctic projects and turned their attention towards cheaper and more feasible shale projects in the United States.
No clear winner of the oil price war
So who has won in this war of oil giants after all? It is probably a tie.
Although the Saudis caused damage to the U.S. shale, they also hit to global oil industry hard, while they managed to preserve their market share, they paid a heavy price in terms of oil revenues. The real question however, is not whether the House of Saud is able to keep oil prices (and consequently U.S. shale production) subdued for a prolonged period of time, but how long they can do it without endangering fiscal and social stability of the Desert Kingdom and other OPEC members. Despite its ambitious Vision 2030 programme, Saudi Arabia will stay dependent on oil income to subsidize its social programmes for many years to come. Achieving restructuring at $50-60 price levels without swift and potentially painful reforms would prove a real challenge to the Saudi regime.
On the other hand, Riyadh has done a huge favor to the U.S. shale industry by forcing it to adapt and change its business philosophy. OPEC will remain an important, and hopefully responsible, factor in oil markets, but it will have to accept the fact that the circumstances have changed over the past five years. Both the ascent of shale oil, and initiatives to reduce global carbon footprint will impose an enormous strain on the Cartel and its members, which are still a long way from having diversified economies.
- Obama Administration Explains Its Own "Plagiarism" Was Merely "Inspiration"
With the 'p' word being lobbed around by Republican and Democrat today as Melania and Michelle battled to the death over who is the plagiarizer-est, we are reminded that it wasn't too long ago that the media turned a blind eye when President Barack Obama was busted plagiarizing from Deval Patrick… and today The White House press secretary explained "Obama didn't plagiarize… he was 'inspired by'" the former Massachusetts Governor.
In 2008, then-candidate Obama was found to have plagiarized the speeches of former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick on a number of occasions.
"I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me, I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations," Patrick said in a speech delivered in June of 2006. Obama repeated the line verbatim in a speech in South Carolina in November of 2007.
In addition, Obama's famous refrain of "just words" in a 2008 speech was lifted directly from a speech Governor Patrick delivered in October of 2006.
When the Clinton campaign cried foul, The New York Times reported:
With the next round of voters set to weigh in on the Democratic presidential race, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign on Monday accused Senator Barack Obama of committing plagiarism in a weekend speech. Mr. Obama dismissed the charge as absurd and desperate.
Mr. Obama told reporters he should have credited Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a friend, for a passage in a speech he delivered on Saturday in Milwaukee. But Mr. Obama said his rival was "carrying it too far."
While the Obama campaign might have been dismissive of the charges, the video evidence made it absolutely clear that the then-Illinois Senator did indeed lift passages directly from Governor Patrick. Take a look for yourself:
Perhaps the left should heed the advice that those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.
But, it appears, given today's Melania-Michelle melee, the media is suddenly interested again…
And White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained to the great unwashed and ignorant masses that "the president was in fact inspired by Governor Patrick's words."
In other words, when we do it, it's "inspired thought," when you do it "it's blatant plagiarism."
- We Need More Borders And More States
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
In the context of trade and immigration, borders are often discussed as a means of excluding foreign workers and foreign goods. In one way of thinking, borders provide an opportunity for states to exclude private actors such as workers, merchants, and entrepreneurs. On the other hand, borders can also serve a far more endearing function, and this is found in the fact that borders represent the limits of a state's power. That is, while borders may exclude goods and people, a state's borders also often exclude other states.
For example, East Germany's border with West Germany represented the limits of the East German police state, beyond which the power of the Stasi to kidnap, torture, and imprison peaceful people was far more limited than it was within its native jurisdiction. The West German border acted to contain the East German state.
Similarly, the borders of Saudi Arabia delineate a limit to the Saudi regime's ability to behead people for sorcery or for making critical remarks about the blood-soaked dictators known as the House of Saud.
Even within a single nation-state, borders can illustrate the benefits of decentralization, as in the case of the Colorado-Nebraska border. On one side of the border (i.e., Nebraska) state police will arrest you and imprison you for possessing marijuana. They may kill you if you resist. On the other side of the border, the state's constitution prohibits police from prosecuting marijuana users. The Colorado border contains Nebraska's war on drugs.
Certainly, there are ways for regimes to extend their power even beyond their borders. This can be done by cozying up with the regimes of neighboring countries (or intimidating them), or through the organs of international quasi-state organizations. Or, as in the case of the US and EU, imposing broader policies upon a number of supposedly sovereign states.
Nevertheless, thanks to the competitive nature of states, many states will often find it difficult to project their power into neighboring states, and thus borders represent a very-real impediment to a state's power. This can then open the door to greater freedom, and even save lives as certain states impoverish or make war on their own citizens.
The Case of Venezuela
This principle was illustrated yet again this week as the Venezuelan regime opened its border with Colombia to allow Venezuelans the opportunity to purchase food and other supplies on the Colombian side of the border. The Colombian regime is by no means perfect, for all its problems, the Colombian regime has not reduced the country's population to desperate poverty amidst collapsing economic and social institutions.
Thus, it is rather easy to buy food and provisions in Colombia while store shelves sit empty in Venezuela.
Fortunately for Venezuelans, Venezuela is contained by the borders of the surrounding nation states, and the ability of the Venezuelan regime to arrest small-time entrepreneurs and and shopkeepers for being "class traitors" ends where Colombian territory begins.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Venezuelan border with Colombia has been closed for some time. Apparently, the Venezuelan state felt there was too much freedom going on in the borderlands — where smugglers and black-market operators were able to use the frontier with Colombia to get around Venezuela's harsh anti-market policies. The closed border, of course, has only meant that law abiding citizens are excluded from free movement between the countries. Violent criminals, however, function freely in the area, making the Colombia-Venezuela border region especially hazardous.
In spite of all of this, the Colombian border has become a lifeline for Venezuelans now that it has become a source for basic supplies and food, and a partial escape from a life of deprivation forced on the population by the socialist policies of Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez.
Fortunately for the people of South America (and the world), Venezuela is only a medium-sized state, with a total area one-third larger than Texas. One can only imagine how much greater misery could be inflicted on a larger population were Venezuela the size of Brazil or Russia or — worst of all — were it a world government.
The fact that Venezuela is physically limited in size and scope brings relief to those who are able to benefit form the proximity of the border, and those who might trade with foreigners and black-market merchants.
As the AP notes, though, one's "proximity" to the border can be defined according to the desperation that one endures, as illustrated by the fact that some people have traveled ten hours to the border in order to buy food.
The Benefits of Decentralization and Secession
The physical realities of size and distance once again show us the benefits of political secession and decentralization: those who live a mere two hours from the border will have more opportunities to purchase food than those who live ten hours away. Those who live close to the border might also enjoy more opportunities to physically escape from Venezuelan territory were the need to arise.
This situation would be improved were even more decentralization realized and the western provinces of Venezuela were to secede from Venezuela, effectively moving the border eastward.
Imagine, for example, if the state of Zulia in western Venezuela were to expel the Venezuelan military and fully open the border with Colombia. Goods and services would immediately begin to flow into the newly liberated Zulia territory and goods would become far more plentiful.
But this wouldn't just benefit the people of Zulia. The new reality would also mean that the Venezuelan border would stop at Zulia's eastern border making the freedom of the border areas now more accessible to the neighboring states of Trujillo and Mérida, as well. Residents of Trujillo state, who might have been many hours from an external border before, may be now a mere hour from the border, thus allowing more people the ability to travel to the border or make more extensive use of black markets or even legal markets outside the reach of the Venezuela regime.
Ludwig von Mises understood the benefits of this type of piecemeal secession, noting with approval the possibility of allowing provinces and villages the opportunity to secede from one state and join another, or remain independent. The larger a state is, the more resources it controls, and the greater is its ability to impose higher costs on those who might seek to emigrate or escape the central state's rule.
Writing on "self determination," Mises wrote that nations do not have a right to self-determination, but people do, and Mises supported "the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong." In practice, Mises reminds us, this often means breaking up states into smaller pieces:
Whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
Certainly, adopting Mises's plan in this respect would bring nearly immediate relief to many communities currently on the wrong side of the Venezuelan border. Unfortunately, the Venezuelan central government — like most national governments — has rarely shown much hesitation when it comes to brutally repressing "dissidents." Unless a significant ideological change takes place in Venezuela, it's unlikely any such local movement toward "self determination" is likely to be respected.
More States = More Choice
In practice, if we favor free choice, free movement, and the opportunity to escape from overbearing regimes, the answer lies in the creation of more borders and more states. While borders can often work to inhibit the movement of goods and human beings, they can also offer opportunities for greater freedom by limiting the power and reach of existing states.
Moreover, since smaller states have greater trouble regulating markets and peoples beyond their borders, smaller states are more likely to have to rely on open commerce with other states in order to survive and thrive.
Were Venezuela smaller and with more international neighbors, the people of Venezuela would have more opportunities for interacting with areas outside the control of the Venezuelan regime while facing greater opportunities in emigration and trade. In other words, the monopoly enjoyed by the Venezuelan state would be weaker, and the residents there would have more freedom of choice.
The answer really does lie in decentralization which leads to more choice, and thus more freedom:
[T]he practical answer to any current lack of choice (i.e., lack of "self-determination") lies not in the immediate abolition of all states (as no one has ever convincingly described how this might be done) but in the breaking down of existing states into smaller and smaller states…
What Mises describes above refers to formal votes and declarations of independence, but the same effects, in practice, can be obtained through the methods of local nullification and separation as suggested by Hans-Hermann Hoppe here. And, of course, de facto secession, for practical reasons may often be preferable.
The claim is often made by some doctrinaire and impractical anarchists that secession is a bad thing because it "creates a new state." This is a rather simplistic view, however, given the realities of geography on planet earth. Unless one is forming a new state completely in international waters or in Antarctica or outer space, the creation of any new state will have to come at the expense of some existing state. Thus, the creation of a new state, in say, Sardinia, would come at the expense of the existing state known as "Italy." Deprived by secession of tax revenues and the military advantages of territory, the state that loses territory would be necessarily weakened.
In addition to weakening states, the advantage from the perspective of the individual, then, is that he or she now has two states to choose from where only one existed before. The individual now has more options from which to choose a place to live that best suits his or her personal lifestyle, ideology, religion, ethnic group, and more.
With each additional successful act of secession, the choices from which each person has to choose grow larger and larger…
If there's anything the people of Venezuela need right now, it's more choices.
- Prominent Gold Skeptic Willem Buiter Says "Gold Looks Pretty Good"
Back in November 2014, Willem Buiter, who has so far been wrong in his recent gloomier forecasts about the fallout from the Eurozone mess, or his predictions about a global economy, decided to become a commodity expert and announced that “Gold Is A 6,000 Year Old Bubble.” The irony is that while virtually every other asset class in the span of these 6,000 years has risen, risen more, in many cases indeed formed a bubble, burst, fallen, and ultimately turned to dust and forgotten, gold remains and furthermore has seen its value in recent years soar.
What is interesting is that almost two years later, Buiter may have realized just that, and in an interview with the Epoch Times’ Valentin Schmid, the Citi strategist admits that he “would hold gold” due to the global tidal wave of negative interest rates:
“I will never argue with a six thousand-year-old bubble. So gold, in times of uncertainty and especially in days of uncertainty laced with negative rates looks pretty good.”
Looks like we have another post-conversion Alan Greenspan on our hands. Here is his full interview, courtesy of the Epoch Times.
* * *
Citigroup’s Willem Buiter Says ‘Would Hold Gold’
Famous gold skeptic says gold wins against fiat currencies in negative rate environment
In the books of most gold lovers, Citigroup’s chief economist Willem Buiter is noted down as the man who thinks gold is a “6,000 year bubble.”
However, in a recent interview with Epoch Times [Skip to 38:00 in the video], he presented a much more nuanced position and said he would even own gold as part of a diversified portfolio of currencies.
“It competes with other fiat currencies, the dollar, the yen, the euro. And if these currencies now yield negative interest rates or are at risk of negative yields in the U.K. and the United States, then the currency that at least has a zero interest rate, looks better.”
Gold, in times of uncertainty and especially in days of uncertainty laced with negative rates, looks pretty good.
He still maintains that gold is a fiat commodity that has limited intrinsic value because it doesn’t have many industrial uses, and only has value because people say so. But he admits this is true of all paper currencies and bitcoin as well and gold may even have an advantage right now.
“I will never argue with a six thousand-year-old bubble. So gold, in times of uncertainty and especially in days of uncertainty laced with negative rates looks pretty good,” he said.
Bubbles are the essence of fiat money economies.
His definition of a bubble is also interesting and he again includes all fiat currencies in this category.
Citigroup Chief Economist Willem Buiter at an interview with Epoch Times
“The fundamental value of an intrinsically valueless good is zero. For every fiat currency if it’s value is positive, it’s a bubble. There are good bubbles when they are stable. There are bad bubbles when they are exploding upwards and downwards.”
And he says there is some positive value to having fiat money or gold for transactional purposes.
“There is nothing wrong with a bubble. Fiat money as a positive value is a very beneficial bubble. It’s much more efficient of course to produce paper money without cost if it can be managed well, rather than the costly way to extract and store gold. But bubbles are the essence of fiat money economies.”
Maybe what Buiter means is exactly what Scottish economist John Law explained in his work “Money and Trade Considered” in 1705.
Instead of calling gold, paper money, or silver a “beneficial bubble” Law simply stated that precious metals (in this case silver) have value because they are the best at being money, not because they are used as a metal in industrial processes.
“The additional use [as] money silver was apply’d [sic] to would add to its value, because as money it remedied the disadvantages and inconveniences of barter, and consequently the demand for Silver encreasing [sic], it received an additional value equal to the greater demand its use as money occasioned,” writes Law.
This is true of gold and paper money as well with the notable difference that paper money gains superior value as money by government decree (fiat) and because people are forced to use it. Gold and silver have been in use as money because of their natural properties (scarcity, malleability, divisibility, and durability).
Out of the 118 elements in the periodic table, gold and silver win as monetary instruments according to University College London chemistry professor Andrea Sella. The have just the right degree of scarcity and a low enough melting point to make them into coins he told the BBC.
Another advantage: “Gold is unbelievably beautiful.”
Willem Buiter agrees: “You can’t increase [the supply], maybe an advantage for those who like it … It is costly to store and all that but yes, you can put it in your nose and that makes it good.”
- It's Official – Donald Trump Clinches Republican Nomination For President
Millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced…
The Hill reports, The Republican Party officially nominated Donald Trump for president on Tuesday, capping his remarkable rise from political outsider to the standard-bearer of the GOP.
Trump officially secured the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination after his home state of New York cast 89 delegates for the businessman.
Trump’s adult children joined the New York delegation to cast the decisive vote that put Trump over the top. Donald Trump, Jr. was given the honor of making the announcement, and he promised his father would put the Empire State in play in November.
.@DonaldJTrumpJr puts his dad, @realDonaldTrump, “over the top” to secure GOP nomination https://t.co/3hKBjSDPSf https://t.co/7DC04aLkgY
— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 19, 2016
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions officially offered Trump’s name into consideration for president to huge rounds of applause.
Sessions, who is Trump’s top ally on Capitol Hill, lauded the billionaire as a disrupter who has tapped into the unease felt by Americans across the country.
“The American voters heard this message and they rewarded his courage and leadership with a huge victory in our primaries,” Sessions said. “He dispensed with one talented candidate after another, momentum started and a movement started. Democrats and Independents responded. He received far more primary votes than any Republican candidate in history.
“Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and great pleasure to nominate Donald J. Trump for the office of president of the United States,” he said.
The Quicken Loans Arena exploded into cheers and chants of “Trump.”
And finally…
Out: Speculation about Never Trump stealing nomination from Trump at convention
In: Speculation about Trump turning down nomination
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) July 19, 2016
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...