Donald Trump

It's No Surprise That Trump Might Not Accept Election Results. He's Never Accepted Democratic Norms.

The GOP candidate's personal vanity is inseparable from his authoritarian outlook.

|

Foter / Gage Skidmore

At last night's final presidential debate, the GOP presidential nominee refused to say that he would honor and accept the results of the election. Instead, he said he would "keep you in suspense."

This is, indeed, horrifying, as his opponent Hillary Clinton said. But it should come as no surprise. It has been clear from the beginning that Trump does not accept small-d democratic norms.

In the first Republican primary debate last August, Trump, running as a Republican, refused to say that he would support the eventual nominee. That's fair enough, on its own, especially considering that several of the other GOP candidates eventually refused to do so. But it was also a warning: Trump would honor the norms of the electoral process; he would not, as a matter of course, accept its legitimacy.

The rejection of both the norms and legitimacy of democracy has been a consistent theme throughout Trump's public career. In 2012, after Barack Obama won the election, Trump went on a long twitter rant, arguing that the election was "a total sham and a travesty" and that "we are not a democracy."

Throughout the campaign, Trump has treated the norms of democracy—peace, acceptance, respect for the electoral process and for the limits of presidential power—with disdain if not outright hostility.

At his rallies, he has explicitly encouraged supporters to engage in violent acts against protesters. Since winning the nomination, he has repeatedly declared that the election is rigged, raising the specter of voter fraud that has been consistently, repeatedly proven to be almost entirely imaginary. Before that, he warned darkly that if his nomination did not go through at the Republican convention there might be riots.

Over and over again throughout his campaign, Trump has disrespected the Constitution and promised to violate its most essential rules. He has dismissed the idea of free speech, promised to seize the assets of foreign nationals, and suggested that Muslims should be forced to register in a federal database. He has repeatedly promised to order the military to commit war crimes. He has derided core constitutional principles, arguing, dismissively, that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Trump, who clearly does not understand the Constitution, does not believe in the sanctity of its provisions, or even in its general guidance. He believes only in his own ill-informed whims.

Trump's lack of respect for the Constitution is matched only by his praise for the strength of authoritarian dictators. He has been fulsome in his praise for Russian leader Vladimir Putin's strength, and has similarly expressed his admiration for other authoritarian leaders such as Saddam Hussan, Muammar Gaddagi, and Bashar al-Assad. At last night's debate, he repeatedly dismissed the notion, confirmed by multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, that Russia was behind the hack of democratic emails, and seemed to side with Putin for having outsmarted the United States. All the available evidence indicates that Trump is not a fan of the imperfect democracy that is the United States, but quite admires foreign authoritarians specifically for their authoritarian tendencies.

Over and over again, Trump has expressed his desire to implement authoritarian, unconstitutional policies in the U.S.—banning Muslims from entering the country, closing down Mosques, retaliating against media outlets that publish critical reports about Trump, and their owners. One of Trump's favorite lines is that "only I can solve" the problems he says ail the country.

Part of the problem is that Trump perceives himself as an eternal winner. Therefore, any loss can only be someone else's fault. That is how we ended up with a presidential debate in which Trump interrupted his opponent to declare, again, that he should have gotten an Emmy for his reality TV show, The Apprentice. Trump had insisted that the Emmy awards were also rigged against him. The man's vast personal vanity is inseperable from his authoritarian outlook.

At this point, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump is not really running for president of a democratic republic; he is running to be its unchecked and unaccountable leader, free from the shackles of constitutionally limited democracy he so clearly despises.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump, Clinton Slug it Out Over the Narcissism of Small Differences

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ohmygherd! Nobody’s done something like that since… um, Al Gore. Hyperventilate much, Suderman?

    1. Especially rich given the recent revelations about Democratic vote fraud from those O’Keefe videos.

      1. I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $120 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. Go to this web site and click Tech tab to start your work…. http://www.ImdbCash.tk

    2. Hey, Peter’s just following the same meme as all the other noble rags like NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Salon, LA Times, etc. He obviously suffers from temporary amnesia like the rest too. Machadagate took up a week, Pussygate another, fake assault accusers the next,now this faux controversy non-story will chew up this week’s news cycle. After that only two fake Trump scandals to go to divert the masses’ attention away from Wikileaks and Veritas revelations before Election Day! Nice to see all of the “free thinkers ” at Reason sticking to the script!

    3. Still nothing on those Project Veritas videos?

      1. Guffman will show up before Reason does a write-up on the Project Veritas videos. Hell, they repeatedly trot out pieces (mostly by Bailey) that voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

        1. New York to Blaine takes awhile.

          1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

            go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.highpay90.com

    4. The 2000 election results were questionable in a variety of ways & a recount was legitimate & lawful. The eventual Supreme Court decision granting Bush the Presidency may have been as questionable as the election results themselces, but Gore accepted the decision & urged his supporters to do so as well. There were no pre-election accusations of election rigging, and no US presidential candidate in history has refused to submit to the will of the electorate.

      Support your authoritarian corporatist buffoon if you must but have the self respect to stop claiming his behavior during this campaign trail is business is usual. Leaving aside Trump’s complete lack of public decorum for a moment, the handful of ideas he has managed to coherently articulate in public (other than bragging about his history of perverting the electoral system with bribes, using his money & influence to facilitate sexual predation, etc) are antithetical to any notion of liberty or inalienable human rights. While Trump is surely not alone in his naked lust for power, most pol’s have historically given lip service to that whole freedom fantasy.

      1. Because of the level of liberty destruction that will ensue from either a Hillary or a Trump presidency, I hope that his lack of concession does damage Hillary’s “mandate” and leaves her significantly weaker. The less she can do to damage this country and the liberties of its people, the better.

      2. Gore’s lawsuit driven approach to cherry picking results was not legitimate under Florida law — that’s why he LOST his case at SCOTUS. I don’t support Trump at all, but he’s not the one firebombing offices of his opponents or labeling them deplorable. If you want to see naked lust for power, look at Hillary.

      3. “Support your authoritarian corporatist buffoon…”

        Are we talking about Hillary Goldman-Sachs Clinton?

    5. Al Gore did not dispute the results of the election before it happened. Do the Republican talking points come intravenously or what?

      1. So far, Trump has not disputed them, either — as the election hasn’t happened yet it is impossible to dispute results that don’t exist at this time. You want to see a talking point, it’s this crap about how disputing the result of an election is unprecedented.

    6. Give Suderman a break. Like much of the Reason staff, they are working tirelessly to get the greatest libertarian ever, Hillary Clinton, elected.

  2. Man refuses to make promise for how he will react to an unknown future. Outrage at 11.

    1. “Promise you won’t get mad…”

    2. Of course, the election is rigged (past tense). The fact that Trump is the nominee is part of the rigging. It took out great candidates like Rand Paul first. Imagine the debate if Rand Paul was the nominee.

      The Hilllary emails talk about collusion with lamestream media wanting Trump.

  3. Given that the government, aided and abetted by Enlightened Cosmopolitans? such as yourself, has essentially elected a new people over the last several decades, I’d consider any election result illegitimate. Stuffing the ballot box and then turning around and telling us we have to accept it, “because, democracy, maaaaan!” has to win some kind of an award for chutzpah .

  4. At the risk of leaving my pearls un-clutched, AL Gore didn’t conceded the 2000 election and some how the Republic did not implode. I think we can withstand anything that comes our way this election.

    What has become of Reason?

    1. Um what? Al Gore did ultimately accept the election results after SCOTUS handed down its decision.

      He didn’t concede the election to GWB while the Florida recount was going on, obviously, but that’s not what Trump is talking about doing. He could lose by 10 percentage points and still refuse to accept the results.

      1. What difference does it make, anyway? He can refuse to concede, but the Constitution does not require his concession. If at least 270 electoral votes are cast for Clinton/Kaine, the result does not hinge on Trump’s approval. Nor vice versa.

        1. Yes. But if he incites unrest by claiming the election was rigged, that will be bad for everybody.

          1. Not necessarily. An uncooperative electorate might be just what we need. The people resisting overreaching govt is a common theme right here on HnR.

          2. But if he incites unrest by claiming the election was rigged, that will be bad for everybody.

            Given recent history, I’m more inclined to believe Hillary voters would burn the cities down if she loses than the other way around.

            1. ^THIS.

              I’m so tired of people projecting that conservatives, tea partiers, and/or Trumpists are going to bring on Civil War II because they don’t get what they want. There’s been no evidence to indicate it, and despite some of their ideological shortcomings, they respect property rights and the law. OTOH, it’s the leftists that riot, pillage, and assault people but it’s okay bc principles.

              1. It won’t happen….until it does.

              2. And if it does, MikeP2, it will be an actual war against government forces, including states seceding, and quite frankly, if driven to that point, I think that it will have to end up with a permanent split.

            2. Let them. When the frogs push too hard, they will find out how outclassed they are by all those heavily armed and trained people in red states. Being lazy, weak, cowardly, untrained pussies will not work to their advantage if shit ever gets too real.

          3. If. The bed wetting if.

            As opposed to actual incitement carried out during the campaign by Hillary operatives against his campaign events.

            That couldn’t possibly have any effect on the outcome or it’s legitimacy…

          4. You want to see unrest? See what happens if Trump actually wins.

          5. Do you really think there won’t be “unrest” no matter which authoritarian wins? With the absolute worst candidates (in terms of popularity) in American history, there are going to be seriously upset losers despite who wins. I personally will not recognize either of these dolts as my leader, not that that matters for a hill of beans. But consider some of the violence encountered during the primaries. Do you believe that will abate once the results come out? I don’t.

            1. The only leaders I recognize are tour guides. No I don’t believe the right would cause unrest (unless they are Soros funded plants.) The ideology of the right is far more respectful of the law and private property. 99% of the violence this cycle has come from leftists and their paid henchmen. Obama was elected twice without one pip of violence from the right. Consider that empirical evidence.

            2. The rigging of the election started with the choice of the candidates: ultimate corporatist shill Clinton and the only Republican who could lose to her.

        2. His counsinfucking following is armed. That’s the problem.

          1. Then the left shouldn’t be completely discounting their points of view, referring to them as “despicable” and “irredeemable”, and insulting them at every turn. When you are viewed as completely disposable by one political party, is it any surprise that you would hate, to the point of considering violence, that political party?

            1. People who consider violence to resolve political differences are deplorable and deserve to be ignored.

              1. You mean like the Hillary operatives inciting violence at Trump rallies?

      2. Trump didn’t talk about actually doing anything — all he did was refuse to state, at this time, that he would accept the results. He did not say he would not, or that he would pursue any particular course of action. You have no basis for your claim.

        As for Gore, he obviously didn’t accept the results at first, or he wouldn’t have filed lawsuits in selected counties (to, among other things, prevent the Florida Secretary of State from certifying the results so that a statewide recount could then be requested — Gore had no standing to request a statewide recount under Florida law until he had, in fact, officially lost, but he didn’t want a statewide count, just selected counties). How do you know Trump wasn’t talking about filing Gore-like lawsuits or that he wouldn’t accept a Supreme Court decision as the final word? You don’t. Hell, Trump probably doesn’t know what he really means.

        And even if Trump did wander the Earth forevermore muttering about how it was all rigged and he should have won, like he does when it comes to the Emmys, so what? He still wouldn’t be president, and he wouldn’t bring down the Republic just because he lives in delusionland anymore than his birther obsession brought down Obama. The country survived Al Gore, it survived the Clinton impeachment, and it survived a bloody civil war. It can survive Trump.

      3. Actually…..no.

        Al Gore’s tantrum was stopped by the Supreme Court–hence the ‘selected not elected’ mantra that Democrats have pounded Bush with ever since.

        1. Without once mentioning the Econazis getting a 500% slice of spoiler vote…

      4. “He could lose by 10 percentage points and still refuse to accept the results.”

        Really? Trump said that or are you just making shit up?

        “He didn’t concede the election to GWB while the Florida recount was going on, obviously”

        Yeah, that’s called ‘not accepting the election results’. He and most democrats still and never will accept those results. Gore was forced to accept it. Can’t sue much after scotus made a decision.

    2. Reason is beginning to hark back to the days when it was libert?rio con cojones, menh…

  5. let me know when the Orange Man accepts money from foreign govts while holding a govt position, and using his position to push for decisions favorable to those giving him money.

    1. You are describing his entire career.

      1. Which govt position has Trump held for his entire career or any subset of his entire career?
        Can you not stop lying?

        1. Bootlicker. This is a crouching position in which one petitions for eminent domain and other privileges.

          1. Bootlicker. Still not a government position.

            Trump is a pile of shit, but wareagle made a legit post and Tony lied (as usual).

  6. The dumber you are the more you go Trump.

    From CNN:

    “Aside from partisanship, the poll suggests one of the sharpest demographic divides among debate-watchers is education among whites. White voters who hold college degrees said Clinton won by a 58% to 33% margin, while those who do not have a four-year degree say Trump won by a 48% to 41% margin. And the gap between these voters on which candidate agreed with you on the issues that matter most to you is even larger, with 59% of white college debate-watchers saying Clinton does while 61% of whites without degrees say it’s Trump.”

    Awesome.

    1. I wonder how many of those with degrees are working in their field of credentialing as opposed to those other slobs who show up someplace every morning. For all their vaunted education, you would think those degreed people might be swayed by all the Wiki business.

      1. It gets more skewed when you figure in the ph.Ds

        1. You realize government agencies and public schools subsidize their (heavily left wing) employees getting garbage graduate degrees to up their pay scale, right?

          1. People with PhDs are smart. You know this because they have PhDs. There is no such thing as circular reasoning.

            1. Boy if you guys don’t switch from moralists to relativists at a moment’s notice.

              How do you credential intelligence? Whether you believe in some specific brand of fringe rightwing horseshit?

              1. Tony, my mom has a doctorate in Marine BioChemistry. She’s a very smart lady, but because of that, and possibly some autism spectrum disorders (which I inherited a bit of too), she has trouble relating to people, and, therefore, understanding rational political discourse. A lot of times, she falls back on what she feels will be the best thing, even though it generally leads her to vote Republican, she supports certain policies I think are negative for many people in this country. If you are a hard worker, and have the money, a PhD is not out of reach. It does require a certain baseline intelligence, but most academics lack any kind of real world experience, and their views are based on viewing life as a “problem” or a series of “problems” that can be boiled down to predictable patterns, and that the right “Top Men” can solve those problems if only the obstructionist individuals would get out of the way. That’s my mom’s view, and why she’s much more of a Mitt Romney, technocrat type supporter than supporting Rand Paul or Gary Johnson. It’s literally a construct from working in regulatory for most of her career, and her academic background.

        2. Starts ranting about Trump supporters being stupid, doesn’t know how to capitalize Ph.D.

          Why does this keep happening?

          1. I know hundreds of people with PhDs. Some of them really are smart, many can barely tie their shoelaces. A degree says a lot about persistence and self discipline, very little about being smart.

        3. The ones bartending or the ones waiting tables?

        4. It’s been that way for decades. Dems always poll well with the high-credentialed and the uneducated. Republicans always poll well with the moderate-credentialed and low-educated.

          This is nothing new.

    2. Your first mistake is thinking college has anything to do with education.

      1. Or being smart.

      2. This place is really going downhill. And that’s saying something.

        1. Once the desperate antiabortion christianofascists retire to sulk in their klavern things’ll get back to NORML. How would you feel if you were happily dipping pigtails in the inkwell and some blonde Aryan female were to kick sand in your face, bend your halo and bloody your snout?

    3. Yep, because all those people who know how to actually do things like fix your car or weld undersea oil platforms are idiots, while the freshly minted Women’s Studies B.A. who makes your coffee at Starbucks is a genius. A more accurate proxy for intelligence is your agreement with either Trump or Clinton: if you can’t see that both of them are full of crap you qualify as dumb regardless of education level.

    4. The tolerant and loving left on full display!

    5. You lost credibility at “From CNN”.

    6. Yes, because we all know that a gender studies/theatre arts/sociology majors are soooo much smarter that small business owners/technicians/carpenters because DUGREEZZZ!

    7. So a college degree=intelligence. Man that is a woefully ignorant position(not to mention your intimation that CNN is “news”.) Coming from a self-identifying socialist troll I’m hardly surprised.

    8. Education does not equate to intelligence. Any absolute moron can eventually graduate from college. As a matter of fact, many of our greatest modern innovators are college drop-outs. All a college degree states is that you paid vast amounts of money to jump through pre-ordained hoops to earn a piece of sheepskin.

    9. I would vote for a rotting truck full of rat shit before I would vote for a clinical psychopath monster like Hillary Clinton.

      Also, I wouldn’t trust a fucking thing from CNN, as they are polluted with worthless marxist drones, much like you.

  7. At his rallies, he has explicitly encouraged supporters to engage in violent acts against protesters. Since winning the nomination, he has repeatedly declared that the election is rigged, raising the specter of voter fraud that has been consistently, repeatedly proven to be almost entirely imaginary. Before that, he warned darkly that if his nomination did not go through at the Republican convention there might be riots.

    Suderman, the MSM already has a glut of hacks like the ones you aspire to be. And those folks have the advantage of not being southern hicks by upbringing. After the O’Keefe’s videos, it’s kind of reprehensible to bring up the issue of violence at Trump’s rallies when we know that it was orchestrated by Clinton’s operatives. Seriously, your wife knows how to cope with this much better than you do.

    When I want to read drivel like this, I check the NYT or the WaPo. At least their “journalists” went to Columbia.

    1. Kind of ridiculous to also state that voter fraud is almost entirely imaginary given the O’Keefe videos showing ample evidence to the contrary as well. Is Suderman really this dishonest, or is it just stupidity?

    2. Sad I have to go to Reason’s comment sections to hear anything about ACTUAL scandal and corruption (Wikileaks, Veritas.)

      1. I thought the articles were just to fill the space between the topic and the comments section. You mean people read that stuff?

  8. Ever heard the phrase “selected, not elected?”

    I’ve been hearing it off and on continuously for over 25 years.

    I think we could survive a disgruntled Trumpey-Poo.

    Geesh. The democracy true believers are a jumpy bunch: very squeamish about their own brand of heresy. Makes me question their confidence.

  9. uh-hunh uh-hunh uh-hunh… Sniff, sniff… Waaaaa waaaa waaaa waaaa… Sniff sniff… [tantrum]

    Libertarian magazine mean to asshole who wants to build border wall, police immigrants, impose religious tests, outlaw abortion.

    You guys are fucking worse than my 4 year old.

      1. *wiping coffee off screen*

        bastard.

    1. You must be tired of getting your ass kicked in arguments with your child.

    2. Do you make him pay his fair share?

    3. uh-hunh uh-hunh uh-hunh… Sniff, sniff… Waaaaa waaaa waaaa waaaa… Sniff sniff… [tantrum]

      An excellent impression of your behaviour the last couple weeks whenever someone dares to mention Clinton’s corruption. Throw a hissy fit about how we’re all stupid, brilliant insight there.

      And let’s be real Amsoc, you 4 year old is probably smarter than you.

  10. raising the specter of voter fraud that has been consistently, repeatedly proven to be almost entirely imaginary.

    We have videotaped proof that it’s going on right the fuck now, and I’ll bet everything that ever existed that this is not the first time nor the last time that it’s going to happen.

    You’re a naive fucking fool, and that’s about the nicest thing anyone could say about you.

      1. Nothing you’d accept. Go back to your room and play with your toys.

        1. going to a DT rally equals electoral fraud. I know I know.

      2. What proof?

        The recorded confessions of Bob Creamer, Scott Foval, Cesar Vargas, Alan Schulkin, Wylie Mao, Trevor Lafuaci, et. al.?

    1. almost entirely imaginary

      It’s either imaginary or it’s not.

      Gotta love the Reason phrasing. The system is set up so it’s nearly impossible to detect voter fraud, and when it is detected the left and their cosmo fellow travelers claim it’s an isolated incident. Reason taking another page from the book of corrupt police departments.

      1. The only thing that is imaginary is the presumed disproofs of the existence of voter fraud. How can something be disproven when nobody is bothering to measure it in the first place?

        1. Yep, that’s about it.

          “There’s no proof that X exists” is only a valid argument against X existing if X’s existence would generate proof of X’s existence.

          1. It’s like a reverse invisible pink unicorn argument.

            “Hey, I’ve got an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, want to check it out?”
            “Naw, I trust you.”

      2. And to think I used to love and respect this publication. My heart has been weeping for a year now.

  11. I missed the debate, I’m assuming Trump won from the hyperventilation by Suderman using CNN’s talking points.

    1. They are probably the DNC’s talking points, but your point stands.

      1. I can just see what Podesta’s emails contain right now!

    2. In a slap fight between petty, geriatric partisans, yes Trump won.

      Clinton pointed out he’s rude, hypocritical and wrong, Trump pointed out she’s rude, hypocritical, wrong and incompetent.

      If a broken clock is right twice a day, then Trump had a few moments. Hillary tried claiming she was a broken clock, and therefore correct twice a day, but turns out she’s just an old, rusty $$$-laundering machine.

      I wish they’d both stop arguing and just fuck already.

      1. Webster Hubble turned her off of men. She doesn’t like men now, not even orange ones.

  12. I’ve never accepted winning a popularity contest as being a legitimate justification for Presidents to do the evil shit they do.

    If I ever do what Hillary Clinton tells me to do, I assure you, it will only be out of fear. She took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. She has held herself above the law. She sent thugs to disrupt her political opponent’s speeches by provoking violence,

    Out moral duty to follow the law, our reverence for propriety, and our respect for our leaders is all predicated on our leaders likewise following the law and reverencing propriety. If they fail at that, then we are under no moral obligation to respect our leaders or laws. And I don’t think I’m being absurd or radical for saying that.

    It’s the whole basis of the Declaration of Independence.

    I’ll always retain a moral duty to respect other people’s rights, but I’ll never have any duty to respect the authority of Hillary Clinton–certainly not because she won a popularity contest.

    1. You may not accept that Hillary’s presidential powers extend to certain areas that she (and the federal courts) claims, but you wouldn’t deny that she legitimately holds the office when she wins the election. Would you?

      1. “…legitimately holds the office…

        If she legitimately holds the office, fine.

        If there are good reasons to question the legitimacy of her election (e.g. illegal campaign coordination, illegal campaign contributions, criminal acts by her campaign against her opponent, an orchestrated coverup of prior illegalities, etc.) then your loaded question sort of answers itself now doesn’t it?

      2. Since she should legitimately be in prison, or better yet, dead and buried after execution for treason by the feds, she cannot be legitimately be president.

    2. Out moral duty to follow the law, our reverence for propriety, and our respect for our leaders is all predicated on our leaders likewise following the law and reverencing propriety. If they fail at that, then we are under no moral obligation to respect our leaders or laws. And I don’t think I’m being absurd or radical for saying that.

      So when a gang breaks into your house, kills your children, rapes your wife, and finally kills you after making you watch the whole thing…. you’ll believe it was all OK because Hillary had an illegal email server and took speech payments from countries she had official business with?

      1. Kinda absurd non-sequitur, don’t you think?

        1. He’s trying to get him to concede some point that by merely winning an election Hillary is entitled respect as leader or something. Clearly not going as he hoped, so now there are hypothetical killer gangs.

          Also think he’s trying to say that corrupt money from other countries is ok, as long as in her official government capacity she was doing business with them. Also email server is just words or something.

          Rick Stands in pile of shitty logic.

        2. Ricks Sands’ response screams Tulpa.

          Just for the record, . . .

          “In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a r?gime . . . Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular r?gimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential ?lite.[1] . . . . In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy” is often positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government’s actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government.[2]”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Legitimacy_(political)

          Legitimacy is typically measured in terms of the police per capita necessary to maintain law and order. The more police required, the less legitimate the government.

          Because Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments, because she paid thugs to instigate violence and shut down opposition to her rule, she has sacrificed a tremendous amount of legitimacy. We’ve had plenty of unpopular Presidents, but we haven’t seen an illegitimate President since Reconstruction.

          If Hillary tries to implement an unratified climate change treaty or go single payer or if we have a recession, etc., things will get interesting.

      2. No, it will be alright when he shoots them and buries the bodies.

  13. We get it Suderman, you’re voting for Clinton.

    Jeez….

  14. And this is different from Hillary … how?

    Oh yeah. He’s a clown with ADHD who will change what he wants daily, who the media hates with a passion, and who even Republicans hate so much that they won’t be very eager to kowtow to him.

    But Hillary has the focus to do real damage, the press will ask her what brand of kid gloves to buy, and even a Republican Congress will roll over for her just like they did for Obama.

    1. Dude. The president doesn’t need cooperation from Congress anymore to cause incredible damage. Obama has shown that.

      As scary as Hillary would be as president, at least she knows not to touch the hot iron. Trump is too stupid or too crazy to even protect himself.

      1. What, you think there’s a red button on the wall, like a fire alarm — “break to start nuclear war”?

        Even Trump can’t start a nuclear war that easy. It requires cooperation from lots of people who don’t like or trust the guy.

        1. Apparently you have not seen the Clinton ad running in Virginia. The one with a retired launch officer explaining how he fears Trump because he might ‘push the button’ all by his lonesome.

          So yeah, hillary is grossly dishonest, and so are her supporters.

      2. As scary as Hillary would be as president, at least she knows not to touch the hot iron. Trump is too stupid or too crazy to even protect himself.

        Last week, HRC reiterated her unreserved support for both a “no-fly zone” and “safe zones” in Syria.

        However in her Goldman Sachs speech she said:

        “They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk?you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,”

        Yeah, Trump’s the crazy one and Hillary wouldn’t “touch the hot iron”.

      3. As scary as Hillary would be as president, at least she knows not to touch the hot iron.

        There isn’t a military intervention in the last 20 years that she hasn’t supported, and now she’s accusing Russia of trying to prevent her coronation. “Unhinged” doesn’t even begin to properly describe her.

  15. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this link

    ???????????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  16. Why did no one at Reason mention anything about GJ appearing on Jimmy Kimmel?

    1. What’s a Kimmel?

    2. Why did nobody at Reason notice that Gary at 33 to 1 has been deleted. Paddypower bookies are now finding it more profitable to offer 250 to 1 odds against McMuffin.

  17. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  18. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  19. You’re a fucking hack Suderman. Anyone who rightfully points out Trump’s problems with the constitution while ignoring Clinton’s is lying by omission.

    1. LOUDER! The wailing and gnashing of televangelist molars is about to give me a schadenfreudegasm! Holler “force them bitches to squeeze out Lebensborn Hitlerjugend!” Moan about how the “war against Christianity” is balking efforts to edit “free” out of the First Amendment! Whine about how “All persons born” should really mean “All ova fertilized!”

      1. I don’t know whether I agree with this or not, but this is just awesome.

  20. This is the most ridiculous take of all time. The democrats not only make such complaints, they have entire industries that make their living off of telling us that elections are rigged. Every single election, the progressives trot out their race-baiting surrogates who claim that people of color are “disenfranchised”, completely skewering the meaning of the word.

    During the 2000 election there were completely ridiculous claims that Jeb Bush sent state troopers to block black voters from reaching the polls. Every traffic accident and every bit of road construction was touted as proof that racists were keeping blacks from the polls. (Nobody mentioned the incompetence of the elected democrat Broward and Palm Beach county election supervisors who ended up keeping polls open far past their closing times to ensure that “everyone gets to vote”)

    I don’t recall the media hyperventilating at any point over the last 28 years as the various progressive surrogates for the Democrats wailed about a stolen election – or over the last 16 years as democrats consistently claimed that Bush stole the 2000 election. Where exactly was this outrage when Gore did exactly what people are pretending to worry that Trump will do? People even had bumper stickers made up saying that they don’t accept the 2000 election results.

    People forget that Gore lost the recount…. and then wanted a different recount… and kept on suing until the supreme court ended it. Then he conceded.

    1. And just so everyone is clear, I was against Trump when he was hosting the first season of “The Apprentice” . I don’t need any stupid wordplay games to find reasons to oppose Trump.

      Please, stop being idiots so that I’m not cornered into defending that doofus. Of all of the things to attack Trump with, this is the hill you choose to die on? “Horrifying!” Really Pete?? Horrifying?

      Nothing else in there was horrifying? Just a refusal to pre-ordain the election results in an effort to make him repudiate his own claims that he is fighting against a rigged system, that’s the thing that is horrifying?

      I realize his bizarre word-salad responses are difficult to parse and make for poor fodder for real discussion, but is this really “horrifying”? Or is it just kinda dumb?

      Certainly the over-stated “this has never happened in the history of ever” take is silly. If you are going to recoil in horror, at least get the context correct.

    2. They also seem to have forgotten the threats that ‘cities would burn’ if Obama wasn’t elected.

      Well, ‘forgotten’ is probably too strong a word since those threats were pooh-poohed by the same media that’s been caught colluding with the DNC to insure that the news–all of it–is favorable to the DNC.

      What else has been pooh-poohed?

      The fight against vote fraud–which the Dems have been caught admitting they practice with regularity.

      The violence of the left–which the Dems have been caught admitting they practice with regularity.

      Accept the results? When it’s already so clear that every single vote ANY Democrat gets is questionable at best–and utterly fraudulent at worst?

      What has that ever gotten for this country that’s good? Al Franken? Christine Gregoire? How many people are sitting in office right now–right this very second–who got there through election fraud? How can a single Democrat victory ever be trusted again?

      Keep your pants and your powder dry.

    3. To this day no Democrat mentions that Nader’s Econazis got 500% of the difference between winner and loser in the popular vote in the Y2k election. That would alert potential libertarian voters to the law-changing leverage of spoiler votes and explain why the Dems are suddenly sooo invested in climate pseudoscience. If the LP gets 500% of the gap, God’s Own Prohibitionists will tar, feather and run their televangelist ward heelers back into the Klaverns of the Tea and Consta-too-shun parties or got the way of the Federalists and Whigs.

  21. Reason’s response to the last debate is to repeat DNC talking points. What a shower of shit.

    1. What part of Suderman did you not expect to see?

  22. I think I am done with this site. I mainly have been coming here for the comments anyway. I can’t stand hacks like this who just say the same thing over and over.

    Substance would be desired…this is turning into a gossip magazine

  23. The U. S. Government is not a democracy. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid the failures of a democracy. Voting is not necessarily a trait of democracy. The USA is unique in our governance. Too bad you’ve missed the historic significance. I will grant that people have attacked and watered liberty in the USA. The 16th and 17th Amendments are a testament to being sold out by our ancestors and the miguided 20th Century legislation and SCOTUS rulings.

  24. The U. S. Government is not a democracy. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid the failures of a democracy. Voting is not necessarily a trait of democracy. The USA is unique in our governance. Too bad you’ve missed the historic significance. I will grant that people have attacked and watered down liberty in the USA. The 16th and 17th Amendments are a testament to being sold out by our ancestors and the miguided 20th Century legislation and SCOTUS rulings.

    1. I’d argue that the one of the problems with representative democracy is that it’s insufficiently democratic. Certainly, no one should look at the choice between Hillary and Trump and think that our next President represents the will of the American people.

      Hillary is the more popular of the two, and, according to Gallup, she hasn’t had a favorable rating above 50% since July of 2014.

      The best thing about democracy is that we periodically get an opportunity to kick our leaders to the curb. Democracy doesn’t mean we get what we want. We get what we want from participating in markets, not democracy. We don’t get what we want from elected politicians. We get what we want by shopping online.

    2. Few states allowed women the vote when the income tax was transplanted from the communist manifesto to the Constitution. Same goes for the 18th Amendment–but women formed associations to Repeal Prohibition once they understood the economic disaster and political injustice of it all.

  25. Jacket, Matt, Reason Mag:

    Jesus F. Christ. This is getting fucking embarrassing. Whose cock is Suderman sucking that you continue to print his dogshit articles?

    Your organization is called REASON. Take a minute to look up the definition.

    1. They all take turns with Hillary. Didn’t you see the Enquirer article?

  26. Where’s Sevo to tell me what an idiot I am for insulting Reason’s lack of integrity in their election coverage, again?

  27. This is the such a ridiculous controversy. Elections are contested all the time. Candidates refuse to concede. Recounts are done. Sometimes multiple recounts. And further still, the election “outcome” sometimes changes.

    Why are we supposed to blithely accept some pleasant fiction where this is not the case?

  28. Replace Trump with Hillary in that article and it remains pretty much true.

    Hillary’s conduct throughout this election has been horrible: she picks her positions according to focus groups, demonizes her opponents, colludes with the press, colludes with foreign governments, posts of voting blocs, and has sent agents provocateurs to opposing rallies.

    Hillary’s entire premise of government is undemocratic, namely for her to get into per at any cost and through any less, and then do whatever the hell she thinks is right.

    Hillary had made a mockery of democracy and the Democratic process. Hillary, not Trump, is what the Greeks warned us of when talking about oligarchy.

  29. Correct, it’s not a surprise.

    In addition, it’s not a surprise at all that the GOP and its electorate nominated him for the highest office in the land. They have pandered to the non-existent occurrence of voter fraud for a long time. It’s why so many GOP governed states have instituted voter ID laws.

    GOP consultant David Frum accurately said years ago that right wing media has become the tail wagging the dog. And they have been screaming about this (as well as other Trump-held positions) for years. And it’s forced the Party itself to pander to this paranoia.

    No one should be surprised that the GOP candidate for President says elections are a fraud, Muslims should be banned, climate change is a hoax, the media is lying, and more. It was only a matter of time.

    Cue all the GOP apologists. I’ll start it for you…”oh yeah? HILLARY!”

    1. “non-existent occurrence of voter fraud”

      bwahahaha

      That’s funny.

      1. From the Brennan Center study:

        “The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.00004 percent and 0.0009 percent.”

        Statiscally non-existent.

        1. Prosecuted fraud is really hard to obtain. This is like saying those who got speeding tickets are the only ones who have sped

          1. Actually, it’s even worse than speeding as the police actively operate speed traps and proactively seek out speeding drivers, while there is little to no enforcement of voter fraud laws.

  30. After the 2000 election fiasco I read a weird article.

    Seems there was this guy who wanted to know how you ‘dimpled a chad’.

    See, the little poke out bits on the ballot–the chads were designed to be easy to pop out–it didn’t take much pressure at all to pop one out. The chad would pop out before the surface would be able to permanently deform(dimple)

    So how were people managing to dimple all these chads?

    Or ‘hang’ them, for that matter. In the standard processing of the ballot , if the chad wasn’t punched wholly out, the movements of the ballot out of the machine would tear off anything hanging underneath.

    So what happened?

    After much experimentation, the guy discovered that if you put 5 ballots in the machine at the same time and marked them in the standard way you would get two good ballots, one or two that might have ‘hanging chads’, and one or two that might have dimpled chads.

    It was an odd little article, and it (naturally) didn’t get much play, but it was really interesting when taken with the fact that the Mayor of Miami was removed from office for vote fraud right before the 2000 election.

    1. You mean non-existent voter fraud that never happens because democracy.

  31. Supposedly Nixon rejected his advisers’ advice to challenge the obviously fraudulent Ill. returns in the 1960 prez election, because he thought it would be bad for the nation. I don’t believe such a reason coming from Nixon, but is that the way the Republican is always supposed to be now? Like, oh, you know those Democrats in the cities, have to allow them their cheating or people will get upset, you know?

    1. This is the same Nixon who helped force “Under God” into pledges, print “God” all over our currency, enforce the involuntary servitude of conscription, ramp up prohibitionism, and use the tax code to subsidize looter party campaigns within 72 hours of the LP filing its papers as a political party. The same who lied about bombing Laos and Cambodia? Nixon said it, I believe it, that settles it!

  32. So like 80% of the people here are defending Trump. Just thought I’d point that out.

    1. Who are they exactly?

    2. This post is dishonest

    3. Shitting on Suderman is not the same as defending Trump.

      1. Exactly. I’m not defending Trump — his xenophobia, economic stupidity, general personality disorder, and millions of other flaws are obvious. I’m just disgusted by Suderman’s embracing the DNC’s hypocritical talking points and phony pearl clutching.

  33. The Grand Old Prohibitionists want everyone to show ID to buy a beer. But the receipt also serves to remind the drinker where that money was spent. The Republicans’ Interstate Voter Registration Cross Check Program is clearly a Kristallnacht pogrom to keep blacks, browns, catholics, jews, hippies and libertarians from voting. But newspaper archives are proof that unverifiable secret ballots are an invitation to fraud that the Democratic and Republican soft machines have not resisted at all well these past 156 years. I want a receipt containing a QR code I can use to look up how my ballot was counted. This is no more complicated than getting a receipt for a six-pack or check deposited through an ATM.

  34. Well duh! Bookies are betting 6 to 1 The Antichoice loses, so of course the election is rigged! The outcome was rigged in 1928 when God’s Own Prohibitionists joined by the Prohibition Party and Klan declared war on cocaine negroes, Demon Rum’s Possession of Youth and made beer a felony. This and opposition to contraceptives rigged the elections of 1932, ’36, ’40, ’44, and ’48. Ballots, like bank deposits, can be secret and still verifiable. But remember Lysander Spooner: The secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Elections with check-you-ballot QR code receipts could finally eliminate vote fraud.

  35. Trump didn’t say what this article says he did

  36. “The man’s vast personal vanity is inseparable (sic) from his authoritarian outlook.”

    Nailed it! That’s pretty much Trump in a nutshell.

  37. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  38. You know who else are thugs? The Democrats that Project Veritas caught on tape admitting to rigging elections and facilitating voter fraud. Where’s your report on that, Suderman? Or does your Trump Derangement Syndrome keep you from forming any coherent thoughts as you froth at the mouth over The Donald?

  39. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  40. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

    see……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  41. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  42. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  43. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.