Donald Trump

Donald Trump Has No Respect for the Democratic Process

The GOP candidate's warnings that the election will be rigged are more evidence of his authoritarian leanings.


Gage Skidmore / Foter

It has been clear for years that Donald Trump looks up to authoritarian governments and political leaders, and in particular that he respects them specifically for their use of force and violence, and their rejection of the central tenets of the democratic process.

In 1989, for example, Trump told Playboy that although the Chinese government's massacre of student protesters at Tianamen Square was "vicious," it was also a show of force used to put down a "riot." For Trump, the incident provided a useful contrast between the way China handles dissent and the way the United States responds to critics. "They put it down with strength," Trump said. "That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak." China, according to Trump, is strong because it puts down critics with violence, which not only crushes dissent but serves as a demonstration of its power. The United States does not, and is therefore weak.

Trump has praised numerous authoritarian leaders using similar language.

Last year, he lauded Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, "I've always felt fine about Putin. He's a strong leader, he's a powerful leader," while defending Putin against charges that the Russian government has been involved in the killing of critical journalists.

In January, Trump expressed admiration for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, after labeling him a "maniac," for the strong and violent hand he employed when taking power. "You gotta give him credit. How many young guys — he was, like, 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden … he goes in, he takes over, and he's the boss," Trump said. "It's incredible. He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn't play games." Kim Jong Un had the husband of his father's sister executed following a special military tribunal four days after his arrest.

On the campaign trail earlier this year, Trump praised former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein for killing terrorists "immediately" and not worrying about legal niceties. "He would kill them immediately. He didn't do it politically correct; he found a terrorist, and they were gone within five seconds, okay. With us, we find a terrorist, it's going to be 25 years and a trial," he said on the campaign trail earlier this year. The idea of a trial and due process seems to offend him. Trump has also made statements suggesting a similar sort of respect for the brutal effectiveness of authoritarian leaders like Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and Syria's Bashar al-Assad.

The most obvious conclusion from these remarks is that Trump has an abiding reverence for authoritarian leaders and their actions, which he believes to be both effective in narrow terms and more broadly useful as illustrative shows of force. A corollary is that he has little if any respect for many of the components essential to a functioning democracy: the acceptance of internal dissent, the peaceful handoff of power, the balanced and methodical application of justice.

So it is hardly surprising to see that Trump, who increasingly looks to be starting the post-convention presidential race at a significant disadvantage, has already begun to question the legitimacy of the election itself.

Over the weekend, he suggested that the presidential debates were scheduled in such a way as to give Democratic rival Hillary Clinton an advantage. (The debate dates were chosen last year, by an independent commission.) And yesterday, Trump he declared that he was "afraid the election's gonna be rigged, I have to be honest."

One prominent Trump surrogate has gone even further than the candidate. In an interview posted late last week, longtime Trump adviser and supporter Roger Stone warned that voter fraud is "widespread" and that there could be serious consequences if the upcoming vote is marred by fraud. "If there's voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate," he told Breitbart, "the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."

Now, in one sense, it is obviously true that rampant, outcome-changing voter fraud would represent a serious crisis for the government. But virtually all the evidence suggests that voter fraud is so rare that it can be practically said that it never happens in the U.S. One study, for example, found just 31 cases of identifiable voter fraud out of more than a billion ballots cast between 2000 and 2014.

However, it is a mistake to treat these sorts of statements by Trump and his surrogates strictly as narrow concerns about voter fraud. Instead, they are better understood as attempts to delegitimize the orderly and peaceful democratic process of electing a president.

Although it is common for ardent supporters of a candidate to believe that a lost election was rigged, it is unusual for candidates themselves to stoke that belief—and in particular for them to preview it months before the election is held. But that is exactly what Trump is doing.

In addition to expressing his personal admiration for authoritarians, Trump has also displayed his own authoritarian tendencies, hinting that he will use the power of the federal government to attack rivals and critics, promising numerous actions that would violate Americans' civil liberties, and repeatedly rejecting concerns about the constitutionality of his ideas. He lies constantly and flagrantly, because truth and trustworthiness, which are crucial to the maintainence of a functioning liberal society, are not things he values.

This is just more of the same. Trump is selling skepticism about the democratic process because he does not believe in it himself.

NEXT: Louisiana's Licensing Laws Nearly Destroyed This Woman's Eyebrow Threading Business. Now She's Fighting Back.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Over the weekend, he suggested that the presidential debates were scheduled in such a way as to give Democratic rival Hillary Clinton an advantage

    He buried the lede about how the “debates” were rigged to exclude the LP and Green candidates entirely.

    1. That is just good politics. Don’t let it distract you from Suderman’s panic over off the cuff statements made 25 years ago.

    2. Just like the Donkey debates on Saturday nights!!

      Trump should sponsor his own in prime time on a Tues, and debate a stuffed witch in an orange jumpsuit.


    1. “Never go full Warty”

  3. Holy shit already.

    I am certainly concerned about election fraud and would prefer to read about that than yet another Trump Sucks stream of consciousness.

  4. I have come to enjoy Suderman’s daily meltdowns about Trump. When you consider the fact that we know that Hillary happily rigged the Democratic Primaries against Bernie, I don’t see why her fixing the election is exactly an unreasonable worry on Trump’s part.

    Who is being authoritarian here; the candidate who actually did rig an election or the one worried she might do it again? In Suderman’s world of course it is the latter. If Trump does win this election, Suderman’s ensuing meltdown is going to be epic.

    1. Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, it’s true.

      1. yes but a stopped clock will also never tell you its 13pm while Suderman can go out of bounds and make shit out of nothing

        1. Also true, but I was referring to Trump ^_-

    2. I’m too lazy to go look, but did Reason offer up any take downs of John Kerry when the Dems were getting the vapors about Bush rigging the voting machines in Ohio?

      Shit, it looks like Kerry was still claiming he was robbed in Dec of 2015. Does that mean that he is with Trump in hating democracy?

      1. Work with a guy from Washington State. The open and obvious rigging of the 2004 Governor election is the stuff of legend there.

        1. Al Franken’s win is the race here that demonstrates how an election can be won. Coleman won at first, but every precinct “correction” seemed to go Al’s way.

          Now there is a lawsuit going on and one of the exhibits is a list of 900+ ineligible felons who voted in that election. Al won by just over 300.

          1. All this is impossible. I have been told numerous times by Democrats that voter fraud does not exist.

            1. I know you were being sarcastic, but a link with more numbers.

              The best part of it is that our Sec of State won’t share data with any group looking for voter fraud. Wonder why?

              “The 1,366 identified felons who have been permitted to vote is believed to be only a fraction of the true total,” the 110 page court petition filed by MVA and former Rep. Kirk Stensrud states. “Cooperation from the Secretary of State would have allowed for a more complete accounting of the number of ineligible persons who have been permitted to vote.”

              1. If it helps just one handicapped minority grandmother to vote it’s worth it! /what my annoyingly liberal brother actually believes

        2. The open and obvious rigging of the 2004 Governor election is the stuff of legend there.

          But Michael Hihn insisted WA elections were the epitome of light and beauty. Now you’re telling me he’s just a clueless, often incohorent moron?

      2. What was reason’s take when FL stole the election for W? I wasn’t around then.

        1. when FL stole the election

          I think the consensus is that the Supreme Courts is who dun that one

        2. They didn’t steal the election, assuming you are not being sarcastic here. All of the subsequent recounts showed Bush would have won no matter how you did the recount.

          What reason never talked about was the election fraud that went on in the Senate races in Washington and Minnesota. Al Franken won the election after a bunch of absentee ballots were mysteriously found in a car trunk. And reason shrugged.

          1. I was being sarcastic, but really did want to know what the take was around here.

            1. Hipster, I can’t recall the details, but I don’t recall Reason accusing Gore or Kerry or anyone else carping about how an election was stole from them of being anti-democratic.

          2. I don’t think they had anything as nefarious as a trunk full of absentee ballots.

            What won the election for Al was same day registration and no requirement for ID. A lot of students from Wisconsin (who also voted back there with an absentee ballots) registered the same day and voted for Al. As I said above, 900+ ineligible felons voted.

            For fuck’s sake we aren’t Chicago! We have enough class to be subtle in our vote rigging.

            1. I don’t think they had anything as nefarious as a trunk full of absentee ballots.

              An account of some early shenanigans does, indeed, include absentee ballots somebody had in their car that they “forgot” about for 72 hours.

              For example, there was Friday night’s announcement by Minneapolis’s director of elections that she’d forgotten to count 32 absentee ballots in her car.


              Personally, I don’t think there’s any real question that the Dems defrauded Franken into office.

              1. All pikers compared to “Landslide Lyndon” whose 87-vote 1948 Senate margin of victory was provided by 200 votes from voters in alphabetic order, all in the same handwriting.

          3. I thought it ended with Gore’s people trying their best to get another recount is very specific locations and excluding others? At which point the whole thing was mercifully shutdown. I could be misremembering.

            1. Yeah, Gore tried to use an army of lawyers to deprive people of their vote being counted (the military) while hoping these same lawyers could sway the count in three cherry picked districts where his people expected he could “materialize” a ton of disqualified votes in his favor based on ever changing standards, leading to him getting the presidency. Luckily someone decided to shut that shit down. Bush sucked, but ManBearPig would have been far worse.

    3. When you consider the fact that we know that Hillary happily rigged the Democratic Primaries against Bernie

      WHAT SAY YOU??


  5. Show me on the doll where Trump touched you, Pete.

  6. On the one hand, we have a private citizen who has expressed an opinion about foreign leaders who “get things done”. On the other hand, we have a government official with a known track record of deceit and disregard for the democratic process.

    It’s a conundrum, I tell you.

    1. and has arrested a person to shift blame from what really happened in Bengazzi and has arrested the person who informed the world that she had a private email server and wants to arrest Julian Assange for telling the truth about her.

    2. “On the other hand, we have a government official with a known track record of “… getting things done. Evil things.

  7. So, let me see if I have this right: Reason writers can write infinite numbers of anti-Hillary articles, but no anti-Trump articles. Any time an anti-Trump article pops up all I see is “what about Hillary’s history of ____”, or “why don’t you write bad things about Hillary, like, evar??” Engaging in the same false dichotomies and blindness exhibited by the likes of Tony. Motherfrackin’ TONY, people. That’s who you sound like. Tony.

    They both suck so hard, and I’m glad Reason displays hatred for both.

    Keep up the good work, writers!

    1. There are totally legit articles ripping Trump, and then there are Peter Suderman’s daily, breathlessly hysterical tantrums. One is fine, the other is embarrassing.

      1. I have yet to see an anti-Trump article where certain sections of the commentariat don’t lose their shit and say “BUT HILLARY!”

        Sounds a lot like “BUT BOOOOSH!”

        1. “I have yet to see an anti-Trump article where certain sections of the commentariat don’t lose their shit and say “BUT HILLARY!””

          That just shows that you’re willing to claim stupid shit, such as your belief that the handful of articles you’ve perused encompasses the sum total of Reason’s output.

          1. Ignore KK,her heads up her … whatever.

        2. I only lose my shit when it’s the same goddamn post every day, with one new bit tacked on at the end of OMG LOOK WHAT HE DID NOW.

        3. The opinion page of the WaPo in the last 24 hours

          There is something very wrong with Donald Trump
          He is a defective candidate who can’t even control himself.
          By Robert Kagan

          The doom loop of Donald Trump’s foreign policy musings
          Daniel W. Drezner?2 hours ago

          Democrats, stay out of Trump’s gutter
          We need a big debate about serious issues, not a new Cold War.
          Katrina vanden Heuvel?1 hour ago

          Dear Republican leaders: It’s not too late to dump Trump
          The GOP nominee and his supporters are degrading the American story written by Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.
          Michael Gerson?15 hours ago

          Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?
          His bullying and lying have become so shameless as to disqualify him for the presidency.
          Eugene Robinson?15 hours ago

          The Democratic convention’s surprising message: Trump is not a real Republican
          Catherine Rampell?15 hours ago

          With his comments on Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Trump sinks to a new low.
          Richard Cohen?15 hours ago

          The facts behind Donald Trump’s many falsehoods
          Dana Milbank?15 hours ago

          Joe McCarthy was brought down by attacks on his decency. Trump will lose the same way.
          Harold Pollack ? 1 day ago

          Is the GOP turning on Mr. Trump?
          Editorial Board?The Post’s View?14 hours ago

          1. There were ~4-5 non-trump related pieces there. Depending on how you define that. e.g.

            It’s not just the DNC. Activists all over the world are hacked, and the results are deadly.
            Ron Deibert?5 hours ago

            The progressive victory nobody’s talking about
            Deficits and debt hardly came up at either the Democrats’ or Republicans’ conventions.
            Jared Bernstein?5 hours ago

            Bring cyberwarfare further out of the shadows
            The Democratic National Committee hack is another reminder of the need for more openness.
            Editorial Board?The Post’s View?16 hours ago

            Cases from North Carolina and elsewhere reveal ongoing threats to this foundational right.
            Vanita Gupta?17 hours ago

            Because are editorials praising Democrats for their “Newfound Patriotism”, or musing about the awful horrible nastiness of those damn russians and their hacking ways, really “unrelated”?

            This ratio of pants-shitting to “news” @ the WaPo has been the same going on weeks, months now. I’ve posted the same ‘joke’ multiple times in PM links.

            Reason has been effectively doing the same thing. People bitch because they are just echoing what is already a fucking tidal wave of media hysteria about how Trump represents the end of the world as we know it.

            Its ridiculous and people are right to complain. I think the mooing of the same “WHYCOME NO HILLREY” is tedious; but the frustration isn’t unjustified.

            1. People bitch because they are just echoing what is already a fucking tidal wave of media hysteria about how Trump represents the end of the world as we know it.

              That’s me in a nutshell.

              And its all done in the service of getting Hillary (Hillary!) into office.

        4. I’m with ya KK. The Trump defenders are really kind of disturbing. There are legitimate defenses of Trump (in so few areas it really doesn’t matter but none the less) but the knee jerk defense of an imbecile just reeks of culture war bullshit. It IS the same as TONY only coming from folks who typically have a better head on their shoulders.

          Do Pete and Rico go overboard, possibly, but SO WHAT!? Trump and Clinton are both so despicable that arguing which is worse is like claiming whose shit smells better…ITS ALL SHIT!

          NOW, us libertarians like Gary but at least we are intellectually honest enough to accept/draw criticisms of him when due. Trumpistas and Hillbots have no such integrity.

          1. I’m not sure that complaining about repetitive, hyperbolic coverage is “defending trump”

            the people actually ‘defending’ the guy seem to be countable on one hand. The dozens who moan like the undead with every new trump post aren’t necessarily *disappointed Trump-fans*; they’re disappointed Reason-readers. I personally don’t think they’re adding anything new most of the time.

            Or do you think Suderman introduced some fascinating new angle here?

            1. No I don’t think he did, but people are losing perspective here. Everyone should get grip. Look at the numbers below.

          2. Some Data:

            Past Month on Reason
            allinurl: Clinton OR Clinton’s OR Hillary OR Hillary’s source:Reason.
            Results – 32 articles, some expository most opinion (none I found non critical)

            allinurl: Trump OR Trump’s OR Donald OR Donald’s’s source:Reason
            Reuslts – 53 articles, some expository most opinion (none I found non critical)

            Past Three Months on Reason
            Clinton – 78
            Trump – 99

            Does this demonstrate a leaning or focus? Yes. Is it a critical failure of the journalistic integrity of an ostensibly libertarian magazine? FUCK NO!

            While Suderman may need a Midol and Valium, the Trump nuts need to smoke a few dozen bowls…or get some edibles. And if you come to Colorado I promise I will take you to some awesome places to do that.

            1. As noted in the next thread where you bring this up = those numbers aren’t remotely reflective of the reality of the coverage here.

              The actual split is more 2-to-1 trump/hillary, (70/35 in the past month alone – since 6.30 or so)

              If you really wanted to talk about disparity of coverage, i think it would need to look at the nature of what’s being covered (or not) as well. The fact that the DNC emails have basically gotten zero coverage here (1 or 2 posts?) is notable for their absence

        5. I have yet to see an anti-Trump article where certain sections of the commentariat don’t lose their shit and say “BUT HILLARY!”

          Perhaps because there is very little bad to say about Trump, that Hillary isn’t actually worse ?

          Perhaps its a knee-jerk reaction to Reason’s disproportionate attacks on Trump (5x as many anti-Trump as anti-Hillary articles after their respective conventions)?

          1. (5x as many anti-Trump as anti-Hillary articles after their respective conventions)?

            This is not even close to accurate.

        6. I generally agree with you here, KK, but both you and Chipwooder can be correct.

    2. Choose the form of your destructor!

    3. “So, let me see if I have this right:”

      You don’t.

      1. Yes, I do.

        1. WOW SOLID RETORT!!!!

          1. Looks like there’s a new tard in town.

            1. Bold of you to claim the title like that.

              1. Ooooh, the old “I know you are but what am I?” defense. Very solid.

                1. How about the old “You know I am but what are you?” inversion?

    4. Hey it’s a PUMA!

    5. I don’t get too hugely worked up about it. But, I think you’re not entirely describing what people are complaining about.

      * The anti-Trump articles far outnumber the anti-Clinton articles.
      * The anti-Clinton articles make a point of observing how awful the alternative is more often than the anti-Trump articles do.
      * The anti-Trump articles use much weaker standards for damnation than the anti-Clinton articles do.

      I don’t like Donald Trump. I won’t be voting for him. But, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to note the Reason staff do tend to show a bias. And, in a way, that’s okay. There are liberal-leaning libertarians and there are conservative-leaning libertarians. I’d just prefer the liberal leaning libertarians be a little more reticent about questioning other libertarians’ legitimacy.

      1. Reason needs more libertarian leaning libertarians among its cadre of hacks.

      2. The only thing I would add is that Reason, which obviously prefers Hillary to Trump, hasn’t made their case (other than joining the stampeding media herd, which I find unpersuasive).

        If you’re going to pick sides (and Reason has on the binary Hillary v Trump), then at least do a good job of it, already. I can get TDS anywhere, and find it worse than useless. Reason has a yuuuge market opportunity here to do something not many other people are doing, and is blowing it.

        1. This hand-waving bullshit about how Reason prefers Hillary is part of the stupidity.

          Printing more shit critical of Trump is not an endorsement of or preference for Hillary, unless you’re an idiot.

          I’ve seen multiple articles on Reason that were complimentary of Trump – I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the same for Hillary. That says more than having more articles about the man who is clearly and without argumwnt more flamingly, explicitly, outwardly a shit-heel. Hillary may indeed be a worse person and bigger threat, but she’s at least smart enough not to say something stupid or anti-liberal almost every fucking day.

  8. If the Democrats were to run Serpentor and the GOP Jefferson, Reason would spend 80% of its time screaming about Jefferson’s slaves.

    Reason isn’t recognizably libertarian, Randian, or even right-wing anymore; I’m out. Maybe catch up with some of you later.

    1. They’re getting left wing. Don’t be out Knarf. Or at least give me your email so we can trade dick pics.

  9. Oh, and Suderman?

    If my dog had a face like yours I’d shave his butt and teach him to walk backwards.

  10. I don’t think the election is rigged, but if it were, it seems much more likely that it would be rigged by some NSA-like entity than by the Hillary campaign.

  11. “The GOP candidate’s warnings that the election will be rigged are more evidence of his authoritarian leanings.”

    Really?? Most people here are third-party supporters. We’re all quite aware the system is rigged. The statement doesn’t magically become false when Trump says it.

  12. Who knows- maybe that authoritarian bastard Trump will do something really crazy, like conspire with the leader of the Senate to engage in procedural chicanery which allows them to circumvent debate and amendment in order to get a Bill on his desk for signature.

    That would probably justify impeachment proceedings, right?


  13. You know, Donald Trump says a lot of things.

  14. I generally agree with this premise, and I’m still thinking Christ, Suderman, take a Valium.

    1. ^^I’m right there with you.

    2. What are you, new here? Butt chug some hash oil.

  15. So, is there a pool for when Suderman goes full Weigel?

    1. Dude, you can’t have a pool for something that’s already happened.

  16. 300 million people in this country, and the “system” pukes up Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’d say the system is rigged.

  17. It’s not about respect for the process of democracy, it’s about saving face when he loses and giving his cult members something to whine about. Suderman is actually giving Trump too much credit here.

    1. Well, yes.

    2. I’m hoping they bring back early 20th century racism and blame it on the wops and micks.

      1. Can I watch steam boat willy in peace then?

        1. The Jazz Singer approves.

        2. Amos ‘n’ Andy back on TV?

      2. Real hipster sort of racism. They pickle, they play the banjo and they hate the Irish.

        1. How far back does ‘artisanal mayonnaise’ go?

          1. I’m waiting for normcore to bring back 1950s food. A vegan, all-raw jello salad will be hilarious.

            1. I had a vegan friend who ate jello and I asked her why she is okay with animal collagen but not honey. I accidentally ruined jello for her. Oops.

              1. wait vegas don’t eat honey?

                I mean come on…it is bee excretion…not like you are killing the bee.

                1. You’re not killing a cow either, and they don’t drink milk.

                  Oddly, they do eat fruits and nuts pollinated by bees, but I guess that not exploitation or something.

                2. You are enslaving the bee and stealing his labor!!!

              2. Ouch that was ignorant, even for a vegan.

    3. Pretty much this.

    4. Don’t worry the latest polls show Hillary with a small lead. It is not over yet. She still has a good chance. Don’t panic.

      1. Yes, if you don’t love Trump, you must be for Hillary. You have a brain-damaged toddler’s grasp of logic.

        1. If Trump wins I will laugh my ass off. And if he loses, I will do the right thing and congratulate you on Hillary winning. It will be a great day for you. Don’t worry, i won’t be a dick and ruin it.

          1. The really cute thing is that in a couple of years you’ll say you never acted like this.

            1. You are such a humorless baby. You give me shit about supporting Trump. But oh my God let anyone give you shit about being a closet Hillary lover and that just isn’t cricket.

              Lighten up for God’s sake. Do you charge rent to Trump for living inside your head? Why have you allowed his candidacy to make you so humorless and butt hurt all of the time?

        2. One of the more depressing things about this election is seeing how many people I thought were smarter have turned out to be binary thinking retards. On the “bright side”, the small, tiny bit of hope I had that maybe we weren’t doomed as a society to descend into Idiocracy levels of retardation and DERP has been completely and utterly rushed. So I’ve got that goin’ for me… which is nice.

          1. *crushed*

          2. There’s no doubt we’re going down the Idiocracy route. There is a positive correlation between one’s stupidity and the effort with which the government facilitates that person’s breeding and bad life choices.

            1. Trump’s first jobs program will be hiring many, many people to build a BRAWNDO factory.

    5. Agreed. There’s not much point to say it beforehand except to establish “credibility” when you say it later, after you’ve lost. Of course, that doesn’t make him wrong, and it doesn’t make him an authoritarian. We’ve got lots of other evidence for that.

    6. But just noting that Trump is a loud mouth doofus isn’t really news. And it doesn’t allow you to call him “authoritarian”.

  18. Four years ago, I was rooting for Mitt Romney, specifically in the hope Chris Matthews would slit his wrists on live teevee. Now, I have reached that point with Trump. He’s a jabbering, erratic (possibly dangerous) nutcase, but seeing Suderman’s obituary on Hit n Run after the election night murder-suicide of Clan McArdle would be worth it.

  19. The system is rigged I tell ya. Rigged! Gonna be demonstrations! Gonna be protests! Gonna be deep-friend oreos!

  20. Suderman?


  21. 300 million people in this country, and the “system” pukes up Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’d say the system is rigged.


    *takes extraordinary long pull off corn liquor jug*

  22. Thank god the election season is almost over– *checks calendar*

    Oh, fuck!

  23. PMS’s PMS is flaring up once again.

  24. A little early to be lighting the signal, isn’t it?

  25. “The GOP candidate’s warnings that the election will be rigged are more evidence of his authoritarian leanings.”

    Oh Jesus.

    That’s some high grade TDS you got going there.

    Better have a bex and go lie down. Maybe take some yoga classes or something.

  26. if you don’t love Trump, you must be for Hillary.

    *click, bzzzt whirrrrr, clonk*


    1. The Manichean Candidate.

  27. “Kim Jong Un had the husband of his father’s sister executed following a special military tribunal four days after his arrest.”

    So, like, his uncle? Hey, some uncles are assholes.

    1. I hear it runs in the family.

  28. Suderman, for your own sake, take some time off and write about something else. For your health man.

  29. Wait… the election isn’t rigged? When did that happen?

  30. If only we has a candidate who respects the Democratic Process – like, say, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

  31. Troll is my favorite band.

  32. “One study, for example, found just 31 cases of identifiable voter fraud out of more than a billion ballots cast between 2000 and 2014.

    Stuffing the ballot box is a great American tradition.

    It’s like baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie–but it’s older than two of those three.

    From the link Suderman gave:

    “Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.

    Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot.”

    Apparently there were 31 cases of someone pretending to be someone they’re not.

    That study did not include fake registration forms, ballot stuffing by officials, etc.

    1. Voter fraud is a solution looking for a problem.

    2. That study did not include fake registration forms, ballot stuffing by officials, etc.

      Yeah, I find it laughable that Suderman’s latching onto this one study as proof positive that Trump is wrong about voter fraud. Unfortunately it can be very difficult to actually prove the more sophisticated forms of voter fraud that, I’m 100% sure despite the lack of evidence, has been going on since democracy was invented by the Greeks. Every election in history has most likely had some amount of fraud associated with it, but we’re supposed to pretend that’s not the case.

      1. Proponents of the proposition that voting fraud either does not exist or is rare in US elections bear the burden of proving so.

        If anything, the presumption should be that voter fraud is the rule, rather than the exception. It is also entirely logical given the humongous conflict of interest present with government controlling and presiding over the elections themselves.

        How about resorting to analogy to the law governing fiduciaries? The beneficiaries of a Trust do not bear the burden of producing an accounting of the Trustee’s distributions and expenditures and they do not bear the burden of producing invoices and receipts evidencing such expenditures and they do not bear the burden of justifying the payment of expenses incurred by the Trustee.

        Applied to the conduct of the government regarding its handling of elections, should not the burden be upon the state to prove that there were no shenanigans?

      2. A bunch of years ago, a liberal friend of mine proudly and openly admitted to me that she voted in two different states shortly after she moved. And she’s a fairly standard issue democrat, so I know if she did it, that there are PLENTY of other people doing the same exact kind of shit every election.

    3. I think its correct that the vast majority of the fraud (and yes, there is fraud) is in the absentee ballots and, in the real hardcore Dem enclaves, the ballot counting.

      You could easily flush a lot of the absentee fraud by requiring that they be picked up in person, with a voter ID requirement.

      1. “…in the real hardcore Dem enclaves, the ballot counting.”
        Get rid of Republican votes in heavily demoncrap districts.
        No one notices, because the demoncrap, still wins, by a lot.
        The lack of Republican votes does affect the number of state-wide votes, which go into the Senate and Electoral College tallies.
        This way, all you need is a relatively few crooked demoncrap precinct workers to keep their mouths shut – ends justifying the means, and all that – instead of lots of fraudulent ballot-box stuffers.
        How many districts, in 2012, had ZERO republican votes counted?

  33. While I can’t stand Trump, he does have a point that doesn’t get much observation by the electorate. I went to my county seat and asked to see who I voted for and found out I voted for Obama when I know I voted for Johnson. The other points were right but not the presidential. I urge people to snap a picture of their filled out ballot with their phone. Maybe a little proof will help when it comes to investigating fraud. Like Gary said, the smartphone is the new form of crime fighting.

    1. I know for a fact the vote fraud is not incredibly rare. On the local level it can be seen often. If you run a campaign and DONT have a poll watcher at every polling station you are asking for an ass kicking.

    2. I went to my county seat and asked to see who I voted for and found out I voted for Obama when I know I voted for Johnson.

      Holy shit, I’m thinking maybe I should do the same thing.

    3. In the most crooked big dem enclaves like Philthadelphia and Chicago, many of the districts end up with more ballots case than people who actually live in the districts.

      Anyone who believes the stuff spewing out of PMS’s mouth vagina is an idiot.

    4. Now I’m paranoid too, I need to check.

  34. Hillary would never rig an election, but even if she did I’m sure it was an accident and it’s ok because she is the most qualified president. So why don’t you want the most qualified president ever to win, just because she’s a woman and accidentally did some voter fraud that Bush did first?

  35. “However, it is a mistake to treat these sorts of statements by Trump and his surrogates strictly as narrow concerns about voter fraud. Instead, they are better understood as attempts to delegitimize the orderly and peaceful democratic process of electing a president ”

    ^ This. Is the shit that the Putins and the Erdogans of the world use to gain power among other tactics.
    Trump is just the newest authoritarian candidate on the block in a long line of predecessors.

    Hitler himself that “all you need to do is control people’s emotions and you have them” He also said that “people believe a big lie before they believe a small one” much like the Trumpkins in this country in their blind belief in dear leader. Look at Trumps tactics with Mexicans, he is constantly bloviating about all these rapists and killers when most of it is pure nonsense but the Trumpkins are so blinded by their dear leaders brilliance.

    1. Trumpkins are so blinded by their dear leaders brilliance.

      You can replace with “Trumkins” with “Obamatons.” That’s the danger with these cults of personality that we seem to be developing around presidents and presidential candidates. Even if Trump doesn’t turn out to be an “American Hitler” or something, it’s only a matter of time until someone does, or at least tries to do something like suspend the Constitution and declare martial law in some kind of big emergency (like a terrorist attack that’s 9/11 X 2356), and their mouth breathing followers become their brown shirts. Next thing you know, people are being loaded onto cattle cars…

      1. Yup, I totally agree. It’s only a matter of time and really it won’t matter if it’s a left wing or right wing dictatorship, they’re all the same.

      2. There’s one legit difference between Hillary and Trump.

        Hillary ain’t noways turning into a cult of personality. I mean, I hope not. There were people crying and carrying on like children at the convention, sure, but surely that’s not a budding cult of personality.

        Trump, OTOH, actually has generated a cult of personality. Not like the one Obama still has, I don’t think, but still.

        So, its cult of personality v corrupt apparatchik.

        1. Trump, OTOH, actually has generated a cult of personality.

          That is probably the strongest argument against Donald Trump. But then people should stop fueling the cult by martyring the asshole.

        2. I would also say that Hillary has something resembling a cult around her. I don’t know if’s a cult of personality, or just a carefully selected batch of sycophants, or just the miasma of the people she’s compromised, but she absolutely gets people to do what she wants, and that is also dangerous.

    2. The problem is not with the people who rightly figure that the Democrats would steal the election if they could. The problem is that the media and the Democrats have shit all over the electoral process for so long people have reasonably come to believe they would steal an election.

      You act like it is completely unreasonable to think the Democrats would steal an election. What fucking planet do you live on because ti clearly isn’t earth.

    3. Trump isn’t brilliant. If anything, it is exactly his lack of brilliance that defines him and much of the support for him. Trump makes news by saying whatever the fuck comes to mind, unlike most other politicians, which often includes “inconvenient truths” and rhetorical traps that honestly any simpleton should be able to think of and employ but only he is willing to. It also includes a lot of stupid and offensive shit.

      The problem is that Trump is being judged by the allegedly impartial and unbiased media not by what the things he says actually mean or by what any “reasonable” person would interpret it to mean, but by whatever interpretation affords the least flattering image of him. Which is ironic because the man’s own words and actions already paint an unflattering picture. But in the quest to turn him into Satan incarnate when he is only merely a low-level demon, he’s coming off as a targeted victim of unfair assault.

      It doesn’t help that the only “real” competition is a woman who should be a couple years into her life sentence in supermax prison by now.

      1. by whatever interpretation affords the least flattering image of him

        The classic TDS symptom: when he says something good, he’s lying; when he says something bad, he will absolutely make it happen in the worst possible way. Dalmia provides good examples of the latter today. The article yesterday on his shortlist for SCOTUS provides examples of the former.

  36. My wife and I bought our home in Prince George’s County MD twelve years ago. The previous owner of the house is still registered at our address (we still get voter info for her). There is no ID check in Maryland; all the election officials ask is your name and birthday. Therefore we could provide her info and cast an extra vote, or she could vote in MD AND her new residence in VA. Don’t tell me there’s no voter fraud in the US. That is why voter ID is absolutely necessary.

    1. or she could vote in MD AND her new residence in VA

      And I would bet thousands of dollars that this is exactly what she’s doing in every election, because why the fuck else would she still be registered at an address she left 12 years ago? It’s a complete joke.

    2. The problem is that Hillary Clinton would win MD without any fraudulent votes. And that I think is the biggest reason why it’s never going to be seriously addressed; “it doesn’t really matter” so we’ll continue the charade while acting like every election is a goddamn mandate to do whatever the fuck we want.

  37. Peter, really, go back to focusing on healthcare and budget issues. If there’s no news there to report, maybe start a Summer Rewind series, reviewing old movies or TV shows. Sit the rest of this election out.

    1. That’s good advice. It’d be better for us and him.

  38. Donald Trump Has No Respect for the Democratic Process

    Meh. Neither do I.

  39. I i get paid over $86 per hour working from home with 3 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing:==>==>

  40. you think he would have learned from the primaries to shut up about the election being rigged to after you lose. What an asshole.

  41. “This is just more of the same.”

    He waited to the end to tell us that.

  42. From my viewpoint (80 years of life, 16 years of growing up in and around Washington, DC, 58 years of NRA membership, and 56 years of voting), it seems we face two very different bad choices. Hillary will be “same old same-old” on steroids, a completely cynical Bill Clinton/Obama copy. That is a bad choice, but we have seen it before and survived. She will try to run roughshod over things we most love about this country. She will try to emasculate the First and Second Amendments*, and will, to some extent (largely determined by the tenor of Congress), succeed. She will make bad decisions and do bad things, but she will not destroy the system, willfully or negligently, because she lives in and profits from it, and her foreign policy, however incompetent, is unlikely to be totally disastrous. And, of course, a Republican Congress would lessen the damage.
    (To be continued)

  43. We (or at least I) have absolutely no idea what a Trump regime would be like. He would do some things I approve of, but a great many more that will disappoint, disgust, anger, even terrify me. But above all, and more than any other political figure in our history, he is unknown and unpredictable, a bull in a china shop, the little boy whose daddy left the keys in the ignition. His policy toward both our allies and opponents would likely be embarrassing at best, and more probably some degree of ruinous. What if, for worst-case example, North Korea turns up the heat, increases the number and viciousness of its threats, arrests, convicts, sentences, perhaps executes American citizens, maybe even destroys or captures an American ship or airplane. How fast would Trump insult Big Kim into a fit of missile launching or reach for our own nuclear codes? On the other hand, relatively few in the next Congress will be strong Tromponists, and I see little chance of him ordering the 101st Airborne Division to occupy the Capitol, much less of them obeying such an order.
    With such discouraging prospects, I intend to vote Libertarian for President and Veep, Republican for Congress, and hope that the fear of a third party will push both major parties toward our center. I think I will also keep all my fingers crossed for the rest of my life.

    *The First Amendment secures the rest of them; the Second Amendment secures the First.

  44. Voter fraud RARE? Suderman, you have your head in a dark place if you haven’t been aware of the MASSIVE voter fraud permeating the last several elections.

  45. I guess all Republicans should expect the press to do this but I don’t recall them doing much of this with Obama. Trump said a lot of things almost 30 years ago that he probably doesn’t believe today, I know I did. However, that isn’t my major problem with this. when you talk about someone not respecting the legislative process the poster child for that would be Barack Obama. Once he lost the House, he stopped going through the legislature. He can say they stopped him, but realistically, he didn’t even try.

    Trump is a deal maker, which used to be what part of putting the sausage together was all about. Just a little honesty would be good and I don’t think I’m asking for much.

  46. lol…barry end runs the process at every turn, showing his contempt for the process.

  47. Interesting misspelling of “Tiananmen Square” in this article. It should be (hyphenated for clarity) Tian-an-men, but here, it’s Tian-a-men. The former means “Gate of Heavenly Peace”; the latter means “Gate of Heavenly Actinium.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.