Anarchism

The Election Is Rigged, But Not as Trump Would Have Us Believe

The outcome of the 2016 presidential election is predetermined for power and against liberty.

|

Congressional Quarterly/CQ-Roll Call, Inc./Newscom

Donald Trump says the presidential election is "rigged." Although he provides no evidence for his charge, lots of things can be said about it. For one thing, he equivocates over the word rigged to include voter fraud along with news-media/polling bias—two very different things. The former suggests that the outcome is predetermined, the latter only that influential organizations try to move voters in a particular direction. (Ignoring third parties is one flagrant way to do this, but that may redound to Trump's benefit in some cases.)

I might also point out that Trump has helped "rig" the election against himself with his inveterate estrangement from the truth and his braggadocio about and apparent penchant for sexual assault. These flaws have overshadowed what otherwise would have been damaging information about Hillary Clinton's political career and the WikiLeaks disclosures. Compared to Trump's antics and outrages, dry emails about Goldman Sachs speeches and the Clinton Foundation just aren't sexy enough to grab the electorate's attention. Cable TV's quest for ratings may adequately account for the seeming bias; viewers are more likely to reach for the remote when they hear about transcripts of speeches to Wall Street than when they hear "locker-room banter" and insults. Considering that Trump is partly a creature of the media, without whom he might not have won the Republican nomination, the case for sheer anti-Trump bias is not so straightforward.

Trump is also buffoonish, so let's face it: He makes better TV than the robotic Clinton does. A candidate without Trump's abundant baggage might have had an easier time prosecuting the case against his deeply flawed, state-worshiping opponent, even in the face of media bias.

But there's another side to the "rigged election" charge that's bound to go unnoticed. The American political system, like all political systems, requires a good deal of peaceful cooperation to operate. This is obviously relevant to the transfer of power, which gets so much attention nowadays. This cooperation goes on in two respects: first, between the government and the subject population—government cannot rule purely through force because the ruled always substantially outnumber their rulers—and second, among the many individuals who constitute the government's branches, agencies, and bureaus. Again, we cannot explain this process purely by the use of force. Even totalitarian states understand this, which is why they invest so much effort in propaganda ministries. Ideas, not force, rule the world.

Why does one government branch or agency or bureau or officer carry out orders from another? The answer cannot be the threat of force alone, for that would only set the question back a step: why would anyone carry out an order to use force against a defiant officer of the government? We can't have an infinitely long line of people with each person forcing the next one up to obey orders.

What ultimately explains compliance, or cooperation, with government is not coercion but ideology: government officers carry out orders because they and a critical mass of the community in which they operate believe the orders are legitimate and ought to be carried out. That's a matter of tacit if not explicit ideology. If those officers and enough members of that community came to have different ideas, the orders might be defied with impunity, if anyone were still giving them. On the other hand, if a private individual started giving the same kind of orders the state gave, no one would regard them as legitimate and sanctions against defiant persons would not be respected. (I briefly explore this idea in "Subjugating Ourselves." Michael Huemer has written the book: The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey.)

When enough time is added to ideology, the result is custom—another reason that people comply with the state without the need for force. As Étienne de La Boétie wrote in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (1576):"It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they were born…. [I]t is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection."

The point is that government requires an unappreciated degree of cooperation, without which it would break down. Force may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. If enough people refused to regard the outcome of an election as legitimate, it would not be treated as such. Why does a chief justice swear in a president-elect? Why does a former president vacate the White House and make way for his successor? Why does a president order the enforcement of laws passed by Congress? Why are those laws enforced by the people with the guns? The answer to all these questions and more is ideology. This is not to say that no one ever refuses to obey a government order. But an isolated defiant government officer would not herald a change in society's ideology; hence, someone else would be easily found to execute the order and the public would regard this as legitimate.

Now this of course does not mean that anarchists have achieved their goal of a society based purely on cooperation. An individual who refused to cooperate, say, by resisting taxation or regulation, would be subjected to aggressive force without real recourse because the state would be the judge in its own case. Besides that, the "consent" that the state enjoys is manufactured by its tax-financed virtual school monopoly, among other institutions, bolstered by a mystical nationalism and secured by the problem of collective action. (How many people would defy the state if they were fairly certain that many others would do so?) So although the political system can hum along without routinely using force, dissenters can "legitimately" be put back into line violently if necessary. That most people would passively watch this happen believing it was proper, only confirms that the state depends on something other than force for its day-to-day operations. If a freelance would-be tyrant were giving the orders, no sense of legitimacy would hold bystanders back from helping victims to resist.

Thus the much-touted peaceful transfer of power in the United States, which Trump is now said to jeopardize, is not the result of force or the threat thereof, but of ideology and custom.

Why bring this up now? It's relevant to the case for anarchism. Most people who reject anarchism do so largely because they believe (like Thomas Hobbes and to a lesser extent John Locke) that without the state as an enforcer of at least last resort, internally generated cooperation would be inadequate to sustain a peaceful and efficient society. Thus an ostensibly external agency—the state—is necessary to impose the minimum degree of cooperation required for society to run smoothly.

We've seen, however, that government also supposes internal cooperation—there is no superstate to police relations between the government and the people, or among the many individuals who constitute the government. Government is not an external agency to society. The standard objection to anarchism is thus blunted by the fact that it applies equally to statism, including minimum statism (minarchism). Ideology and custom are immensely powerful in both contexts. If the public's implicit or explicit ideology can sustain a state, we have no reason to believe it could not sustain a stateless society. If the real constitution of a society is its widely accepted code of conduct and resulting incentives (regardless of words on a piece of parchment, if that even exists), then a stateless society has a constitution fully as much as any other society with a state. The pertinent question, then, is not whether a society has a constitution, but whether the constitution is grounded in natural justice. (I have more to say about this matter in America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited. Also see Roderick Long's "Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism.")

Finally, I think we can say that the elections are rigged but not as Trump would have us believe. They are rigged in the sense that the outcome is predetermined for power and against liberty. It'll take a change in ideology to change that.

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

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.

171 responses to “The Election Is Rigged, But Not as Trump Would Have Us Believe

  1. It’s about time we got some Sheldon Richman around here. It’s been too long. Great article.

    1. Were you dropped on your head as an infant?

      1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http;//www.ImdbCash.TK

      2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.ImdbCash.TK

      3. Out of all the Reason writers, Sheldon Richman’s views align the most with my own. If that leads you to think I was dropped on my head as a kid, so be it.

        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 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $90 per hour. I work through this web site.. Go to tech tab start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

        2. I think the Republican meant it as a compliment, that you had been, and were thus more like himself and hence more godlike in your awesomeness. An insult would have been “Chipper-tard” or something just as incisive and no less formulaic.

      4. I disagree with a lot of his stuff, but this piece was pretty well-reasoned, I think.

        1. I don’t know, he lost me when he exaggerated Trump’s statements about women. His statements were piggish, gross, and unpresidential, but no where in anything I’ve heard did it elevate to “sexual assault”. He’s awful enough, there’s no need to mislead or exaggerate anything about him. Leave the actual assault accusations to WJC.

          1. I imagine he probably said that in the hopes that some of the more left-wing readers wouldn’t immediately dismiss him. You know, chant some dogma so the tribal will think “It’s okay to read this, he’s one of us”.

            That said, centuries of precedence set by Tammany Hall, the Chicago Machine, ballot box shenanigans in the Solid South, and the DNC screwing of Sanders, as well as the Democrats refusal to countenance voter ID (unlike every other first world country on the planet), or clean up voter lists; means the election is probably rigged exactly like Trump says.

            It’s never not been rigged.

        2. The truth is that since Lysander Spooner’s time the papers have been full of vote fraud–complete with confessions, indictments, trials and convictions. Sheldon completely ignores the cure–going back to verifiable voting. Secret ballots (unverifiable by them that casts them) have always been a looter ideal. But like all looter ideals it is a sucker ploy. If I could just once look up my own ballot as counted, that would prove or disprove massive fraud for my precinct. If others could verify their votes the way they secretly verify that the ATM credited their account properly, that battle would be won.

  2. “Donald Trump says the presidential election is “rigged.” Although he provides no evidence for his charge”

    Ummm….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

    Mr. “Rich” “Man” You are a really shitty journalist.

    I worked my way up as a dishwasher into thole position of Chef, and even I can see through your bullshit. hack.Journalism.

    I am the working class.

    Fuck You.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niqZnjPvwv0

    1. When Elizabeth Warren or Hillary say it’s rigged no evidence necessary.

    2. Don’t forget Chicago 1960.

      1. Or WA gubernatorial race 2004.

  3. Mr. Richman. Put that massive “Hillary” sign up on your yard.
    So your neighbors know who to egg, and toilet paper after Hillary’s coronation.

    1. Well, that certainly makes Trump supporters look like rational, reasonable adults. I guess it must be hard knowing your party threw away what should have been a winnable election by nominating an orange toddler who may be the one person in North America more disliked than that sack of corruption Hillary.

      (Note: I know this will be hard to comprehend, but this criticism of Trump does not constitute an endorsement of Hillary. I don’t hate America and therefore don’t think either of those bozos should be President.)

      1. The interesting question is “why do the republicans ALWAYS pick the candidates the Dems want to run against”. This time it wasn’t just party stupidity. The emails prove it was a concerted effor of the Dems and the media to elevate Trump. That’s what was “rigged”.

        1. Well, it’s only natural that either party will favor the weakest opponent will win the primaries. The media, just like they did with McCain, let Trump stumble to the finish line with little vetting, knowing they could/would start the true investigative reports/attacks in plenty of time before election day.

          1. We really need to start cleansing the press of partisan operatives.

        2. I wouldn’t necessarily called that rigging, I see it more as outmanuevering them in influencing the 40% of voters who are ignorant and can be influenced by bullshit promises and accusations.

      2. — I guess it must be hard knowing your party threw away what should have been a winnable election…

        Not sure it was ever winnable for the GOP, honestly. Hillary’s flaws & all.

        Not sure what this says about our country, but I think Trump’s defeat will be by a narrower margin than Bush/Cruz/Rubio would’ve.

      3. ” I guess it must be hard knowing your party threw away what should have been a winnable election by nominating an….. ”

        That statement has followed the last 2 elections. In 2008 it was blamed on Palin. In 2012 it was blamed on Romney losing the southern/social conservative vote.

        But that is all a bunch of BS. After W, the media and corrupt Dem-control IRS, FBI, etc, etc, has pulled back from any pretense of impartiality and gone full bore towards destroying whomever the Republicans nominate.

        Rubio, Jeb, Cruz, etc and the polls would be comparable or worse. There was no way in hell the establishment was not going to have Hillary elected.

        1. So, the Republican answer to media bias and a corrupt administration (when their party controls the legislative branch) is to nominate somebody half the country and many in their own party already can’t stand? There’s a brilliant plan.

          1. The real answer is a revolt by people who care about the country. At this point, it is doubtful that anything sort of a civil war will save the republic and the constitution.

    2. The fact that some of think I am a hardcore Trump supporter is laughable. =D

      1. Nah, you’re obviously a softcore troll, and like softcore porn offer only appearance without substance.

  4. Why does one government branch or agency or bureau or officer carry out orders from another?

    Because they each know eventually everyone’s pockets will be lined?

    1. One giant quid pro quo, as it were.

  5. A much-much-MUCH smaller Government Almighty could work out fine, yes.

    NO government at ALL immediately gets replaced by the local hoodlums or local watch-dogs society for local protection against hoodlums, crooks, murderers, and thieves, and government re-grows from there. Until we can accurately detect exactly who the evil folks are, and restrain them or convert them, we MUST have some sort of government to protect society against evil people… True anarchy cannot work with human nature as it is. How anarchists can advocate TRUE anarchy, with a straight face, I don’t know. Even chimps and gorillas have a tribal strongman to “serve” as local government.

    1. “NO government at ALL immediately gets replaced by the local hoodlums or local watch-dogs society for local protection against hoodlums, crooks, murderers, and thieves, and government re-grows from there.”

      This is the basic conundrum of libertarianism, isn’t it? Perhaps the magic bullet to resolve it is: ensure that the great mass of men become convinced that we CAN prosper as a civilization without government. That is, as long as 95% of the people think we need a strong government to protect us from everybody else rather than voluntary organizations and social structures, then we are going to “need” a strong government to protect us from everybody else.

      1. Libertarianism does not support zero government.

        1. That leads to Negan. And he takes half your shit.

    2. The only way anarchy ever works is if there is no resource scarcity, particularly energy.

      1. It wouldn’t work then. Anarchy has as much chance of success as communism and for the same reason: human nature. Both are silly-ass fantasies.

        1. Anarchy is kind of like the red words in the Bible. Good to aspire to but unrealistic in the real world.

          1. That’s a bad-ass trick.

        2. Yeh. Pretty much.

          You need the government. Government can be legitimate. But the argument then becomes how much of it and how much force (if any) should it have to rule people ostensibly by consent? Obviously, we fall in the camp of smaller, more efficient and accountable government. There’s too much redundancy and too many renegade departments and agencies at the moment. We also live in a time where there seems to be a tad too much over reliance on government. It’s rare to hear ‘I ought to’. More ‘government ought to’.

        3. Suthen, I think you are right. I was thinking of Banks’s Culture novels, specifically. One of the characters refers to the Culture as a Communist Utopia, but there’s not really much of a government, either. There was just literally so much of everything that everybody could have as much of whatever they wanted, and there was still more. I think Banks was making a small argument that that sort of abundance could inhibit our tendency to destroy ourselves.

          Of coursr, computer Minds did all the hard thinking. And the universe was still full of craazy, violent assholes. So I dunno.

    3. NO government at ALL immediately gets replaced by the local hoodlums or local watch-dogs society for local protection against hoodlums, crooks, murderers, and thieves, and government re-grows from there.

      I see government as an attack dog. It can be useful to keep bad guys away, but it will turn on you in a second if you let it. Government needs to be kept on a leash, or at least fenced in, to say ‘go this far, and no farther’. Heck, if you don’t trust it, you can even put it in writing. There’s no way government would break its promises and turn into a predator anyway.

      I wonder why no one’s ever thought of that.

      1. And everybody thinks they’ll be the Top Men using the government as predator.

      2. The problem with the constitution is that it has no teeth. Death penalties for all convicted of breaking it would go a long way to stem the overreach.

        (Only hall kidding).

        1. Which would revert into statists slaughtering dissenters who break their “interpretation” of it.

          No thanks.

          1. Except, the constitution only applies to government. Want to be safe? Don’t run for office.

        2. “It is time that equality bore its scythe above all heads. It is time to horrify all the conspirators. So legislators, place Terror on the order of the day! Let us be in revolution, because everywhere counter-revolution is being woven by our enemies. The blade of the law should hover over all the guilty.”

          This PSA was brought to you by the Committee for Public Safety.

      3. The problem is that once government is the predator, no one will do anything about it. When I even suggest it here, I am treated like a nutcase. All anyone here wants to do is 1. Shit pants. 2. Wring hands. 3. Bitch about it

        When government doesn’t back down over the above three things, everyone just keeps repeating the cycle hoping for change. Good luck with that.

    4. This is the problem with you baggers. Our government is already so small it’s in danger of just going down a bathtub drain any day now. That’s right, it could just vanish! There’s nothing left to cut, the cupboards are bare!

    5. “NO government at ALL immediately gets replaced by the local hoodlums or local watch-dogs society for local protection against hoodlums, crooks, murderers, and thieves, and government re-grows from there. Until we can accurately detect exactly who the evil folks are, and restrain them or convert them, we MUST have some sort of government to protect society against evil people…”

      So does government repress hoodlums, murders, and thieves for the greater good, or because it doesn’t like the competition?

      1. I know which one I go with.

    6. Except you always have a fighting chance against local hoodlums.

      Once you’ve legitimized the state’s monopoly of power, it’s game over.

      1. With my arsenal, local hoodlums don’t stand a chance.

        I will at least have a 10-1 kill ratio against tyrannical state agents.

        1. Good. You will be needed in overthrowing the DNC if Hillary ends up in charge.

  6. It is amazing that “progressives” say that we can’t trust the private sector not to screw us at every opportunity, yet they think we can pick people from that same pool of citizens and vote them into public office where, magically, they become altruistic and look out for our better interests. . . whether it’s bombing people on the other side of the world or outlawing sugary drinks here at home.

    1. The federal government, as it currently functions, exists primarily to direct money to appropriately connected parties, and to legislate favorably for those same parties. Kultur War nonsense is an effective, and meaningless, distraction.

      1. I hold the minority view that the corrupting influence of government is, for the most part, accidental. I’ve argued with fellow libertarians more than once that the current state of government wasn’t planned. It is organic and evolves. Like the free market, where individual actions and best interests serve to make the huge economic gains possible that benefit everyone, the personal decisions and deals between politicians don’t have a nefarious goal in sight. We went from a pretty darn laissez faire country of 200 years ago to today’s leviathan on a road paved with good intentions as well as personal greed.

        1. Perhaps, but it’s not about the corrupting influence of government. It’s about the corrupting influence of people. Government may not be corrupt by nature, but in reality, it becomes corrupt, every time (eventually).

          I think this is due to the nature of government and the nature of people. Government may not be corrupt by nature, but it IS a monopoly backed by force. This leads to lower quality and higher prices (and excess profits) in economic theory. These excess profits (and the power that emanates from them) will attract the type of people who are corruptible, and the people who are willing to ‘go farther’ to achieve that power will be the ones who get it.

          (I have two competing thoughts in my head with this, so it’s likely to be a bit jumbled)

          1. Leading to Reason’s (rhetorical) version of Jefferson’s quote:

            Occasionally, the tree of liberty needs to be mulched from time to time with the chips of tyrants.

        2. Transparency when it is ever implemented will cure all transgression.

        3. I agree, especially when it comes to gun control. I don’t think the issue is seriously moved by some people who want to disarm the populace to oppress them, but rather that there are sociologic & psychologic reasons that a mass tendency of good faith has produced pressure for such measures.

          I’ve said what appeared to be the opposite when it comes to drug control, but even there I don’t think that’s been a matter of some power-mongering conspiracy; rather, it’s that a small number of sadists control the issue. In that case, ironically, it’s unplanned bad faith that’s been controlling.

          When it comes to redistribution?the welfare state?there’s no serious cabal seeking to enrich themselves. People organized to try to do so would have much greater success enriching themselves by other means than overt redistribution.

          Even such corruption that does occur is mostly of a petty nature seeking personal gain. That’s what the Clintons are about.

          1. “When it comes to redistribution?the welfare state?there’s no serious cabal seeking to enrich themselves. ”

            I disagree.

            The cabal that wishes to enrich themselves aren’t the receivers of the redistribution directly.

            The cabal enriches itself buy buying power from those who receive the redistribution.

            Both political parties have their redistribution constituents .

            1. But it’s not a cabal, & they don’t get rich. In general, they make only about as much, give or take a factor of 2 at the very most, what they’d’ve gotten doing similar work in or for the private sector. It’s not a serious means of enrichment.

          2. “When it comes to redistribution?the welfare state?there’s no serious cabal seeking to enrich themselves. ”

            I disagree.

            The cabal that wishes to enrich themselves aren’t the receivers of the redistribution directly.

            The cabal enriches itself buy buying power from those who receive the redistribution.

            Both political parties have their redistribution constituents .

    2. And the only people we can pick from the private sector to responsibly and altruistically govern us are the ones power-hungry enough to stand up and volunteer to be the target of the other party’s relentless scorn for as many as the next eight years. Anyone else is unelectable, dontchaknow.

    3. “It is amazing that “progressives” say that we can’t trust the private sector not to screw us at every opportunity”

      Well, the progtards are right. There’s no way the corporashunz can screw us at every opportunity all by themselves. They need big government to force us to buy their shitty products at gunpoint. Progs approve of this message.

  7. I’m sorry, who’s jeopardizing what? I hate Trump, but when videos surface of Democrat operatives admitting to voter fraud and emails are released that demonstrate a coordinated and biased media, it’s hard to blame the guy who’s complaining about it.

    1. Nick just assured us yesterday that voter fraud does not exist.

      1. No existence of vote fraud at all. What tapes where top Demo douchebags admit to engaging in and actually promote voter fraud. Nothing to see here, move along bitches!

  8. These flaws have overshadowed what otherwise would have been damaging information about Hillary Clinton’s political career and the WikiLeaks disclosures.

    Like the way Mitt Romney’s disqualifying flaw was once putting a dog on the roof of his car and that overshadowed the fact that we all know the answer to the question nobody was asking: “Are you better off now than youe were four years ago?” to criticize Obama? You’re delusional if you think that had the GOP nominated somebody better we would right now be talking about some of Hillary’s flaws. It doesn’t matter who the GOP nominated, the media would have found something to hound him endlessly over as proof he was a fatally-flawed candidate. To a certain segment of his supporters, Trump is a big FU to the media – if we’re going to be accused of being racists, misogynists, homophobes, Nazis, troglodytes, whatevers, no matter what, why bother trying to argue or explain or excuse or apologize? Just tell ’em to go to hell because they’re obviously not arguing in good faith, they’re trolls and Rule One is: Don’t Feed The Trolls. Just point and laugh and tell them to eat a big bag of dicks.

    1. I agree. At least Trump lashes back rather than just rolling over to it as other nominees might’ve.

      1. I don’t like Trump, but his and his followers’ obvious middle finger to the media and their crowd is enjoyable.

    2. Romney was the most vanilla, milquetoast, status quo-y Republican candidate in a generation, and by election night he was literally Hitler raping Jew babies. That’s what the Fourth Estate did to Romney, fer Crissakes. They barely needed to try to make Dolan Trump look like such a gobshite, because 1) Trump is a gobshite and 2) Trump doesn’t care if he wins.

      1. Maybe just maybe, Trump is actually running to do something to help America. Maybe he didn’t think he would make it this far. He clearly has some bad ideas and some good ideas. Maybe he is trying to do the best he can. Maybe he does care if he wins.

        Hillary will imprison him if she wins.

  9. A fairly good article from Richman here that actually criticizes both candidates. Sure, he concentrates on Trump but the Clinton articles just don’t get the clicks.

    1. No…….it was total garbage and so full of failure. There are already instances of vote machine rigging documented. Likely with lots more to come. Plus all the documented collusion exposed by Wikileaks. I don’t know how so many of you can lack so much perspective at this point.

  10. Government is not an external agency to society.

    This.

    The vast majority of humans live under a government that they condone. This includes Americans, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and Venezuelans. We have a democracy here because people here want a democracy (constitutional republic, whatever).

    Of couse anarchy wouldn’t work if it was imposed on the populace this afternoon. People, right now, don’t support anarchy. But democracy doesn’t work when it’s imposed in the Middle East, and no one is using that as an argument against our current government.

  11. Behold the great SJW catfight over the groping-Trump Halloween costume.

    Jemima Goldsmith Khan, a British journalist with apparently impeccable SJW credentials, introduced the costume at a UNICEF benefit to showcase Trump’s supposedly anti-refugee position – after all, as Goldsmith says, “Donald Trump seems to be the ultimate horror.”

    Other SJWs think that making fun of sexual assault is officially Not OK, no matter how snarkily PC you’re trying to be.

    It’s quite a dilemma.

    1. The left predictably eats its own over minutiae, kind of like libertarians.

    2. “Jemima Goldsmith Khan”

      I just cannot take your post seriously now.

  12. These flaws have overshadowed what otherwise would have been damaging information about Hillary Clinton’s political career and the WikiLeaks disclosures.

    Hmm, I wonder why? I mean this couldn’t *possibly* be an excuse used by the media to explain away their limited coverage of the latter in favor of plastering the former all over the TV. This wasn’t a *choice* by members of the media. Its pretty obvious that ‘yet another stupid thing Trump said’ is more important to his credentials as a potential president than the stuff Clinton and her staff have said – even though we have recordings of both.

    Trump’s behavior is boorish and should be unacceptable – except to all the people who tolerated it because they hoped to gain something by letting him paw them. That’s still a pretty limited harm compared to idiots working in the other camp who allow themselves to be recorded while bragging about how they attempt to undermine elections in their candidates favor.

    Fuck man, even if you support them its bad – nobody wants incompetent conspirers running things.

    1. Let me check my Official List of Excuses for Ignoring Democratic Misconduct:

      1) The Republican is the worst candidate nominated by the Republican party since the previous candidate

      2) Foreign enemies want the Democrat to lose because Democrats believe in Standing up for America

      3) If Republicans win, women will be chained to kitchen stoves, unless they can buy a minority to be chained in their stead, but that will be difficult because all the minorities will have been deported

      4) Republican dirty-tricksters are taking the isolated acts of low-level campaign officials (who have already been fired) and linking those acts to the Democratic candidate even though there’s no evidence the Democratic candidate knew about any of the alleged actions

      5) Some of the people who support the Republican are extremists, unlike the case with, say, Democrats

      1. “If Republicans win, women will be chained to kitchen stoves”

        I will not stand for this. Women must be released from the stove to be chained to the bed and then unchained when it’s time to cook.

    2. Pummel one guy over his perceived faults, lightly criticize the other over her perceived faults, claim objectivity because you mentioned them both, rinse and repeat.

  13. What ultimately explains compliance, or cooperation, with government is not coercion but ideology: government officers carry out orders because they and a critical mass of the community in which they operate believe the orders are legitimate and ought to be carried out.

    IMO, not so much *legitimate* as they see themselves as two separate persons – the moral person who may consider a given action reprehensible and wrong, and the ‘official’ whose duty it is is to carry out these actions in the name of the state. The latter persona does not consider it their place to question the legitimacy of an order. They have no incentive to do so and several to just go along.

    Its not a feeling of legitimacy that gets cops to turn dogs and hoses on protestors, to pepper-spray college students sitting on a sidewalk, its consequences of *not* doings so once one has made themselves a cog in the machine that allows this to happen.

  14. Oh no, if there were no gov’t, there would be armed thugs running around stealing half of our things!!!! Please put the pearls down, as this is what happens with gov’t. already.

    Ancient Ireland lasted for many years (about 2,000) with no central gov’t. England warred with them, but never managed to succeed. Brehon law ended in around 1600. Medieval Iceland also lasted a couple of hundred years.

    Friend: BBBbbBpppUuuut DEFENCE BOSS…DEFENCE!!!!!!

    The one they’re going to build along Messico?

    Friend: Noooooo, Nooooo. DEFENCE like guantanamo, and Cleenton protecting freedom from those in leebiya.

    Ohhhhh. You mean like Privateers, and Corsairs? Private ships built withhout the blatant cost overruns and waste like gov’t contracted ships?

    Friend: Yessssss

    Ok, stop interupting……don’t you have some doughnuts to make?

    But if we are to look for some modern day areas where transactions are preety much free from gov’t involvement, there are many products and services that operate without gov’t interference, and even private arbitration, and even private codes like ASME, or the UL.

  15. When was the last time there was a shortage in the following, and how long did it last?: Cell phones, computers, watches, jewelry, clothing, shoes, firearms, knives, appliances, boilers (home, commercial or industrial), reciprocating engines, turbines, light switches, light bulbs, televisions, radios, kitchen cabinetry, bedroom sets, windows, doors, flooring, bricks, and finally the internet. Many of these things are free from gov’t involvement, and manage to operate without crisis, chaos or shortage.

    So would you rather be forced to pay for services, or have the choice in choosing a private security company like Threat Management Center, to include getting other products and services through free choice and competition.

    1. But, the patriarchy and white privilege. How can we manage these horrors without a ginormous huge government? You don’t care about the important issues.

    2. As with anything, its a matter of degree.

      The banditos would leave just enough to ensure that you didn’t starve so they could come and rob you again next season. Government used to take significantly less than that – the lesser of two evils.

      But now that the government has driven all the bandits off . . .

  16. Of course it’s been pointed out before that the state is imaginary. Ultimately it comes down to, in the example RAW gave, a policeman beating you over the head. All the supposed structural reasons for his doing so are imaginary; he’s doing something of his own volition, nobody is moving his arm.

    1. Huffpo? I’m sure that’s in no way a contrived story.

    2. Yet she walked into the Chastain Recreation Center gym in the upscale Buckhead neighborhood this week and cast her presidential ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton rather than Republican Donald Trump.

      Oh great, Buckhead. There’s no way these people are doing any social signaling is there?

      But [Jones] said the more she heard from him, the more disgusted she became. His recorded boast of being able to sexually assault women because of his celebrity was the last straw. “I’m embarrassed to be a Republican and have this nominee.”

      “He’s a misogynist. He’s a narcissist. And he’s not a Republican,” said Republican retiree Jack Hullings, 64, now an official Clinton voter. “I’m not sure I want his hand to be the one hovering over the red button.”

      1. Other than voting for Clinton as a response, it is hard to find much to argue with in that.

        If only there was another choice…..

    3. I can hear these idiots in two years complaining about how high taxes are, like the morons who said they supported Obamacare but didn’t know they were going to be the ones paying for it.

      Trump announces yesterday that he wants to repeal Obumblecare and won’t make new regulations without killing off two for one. He wants lower taxes and less regulation. So of course he is hitler and we get more hit pieces on him.

      It is stunning. Libertarian publication, my ass.

      1. Open borders uber alles.

      2. I feel your frustration. Not one effing mention of blatant vote fraud nor links to the videos. WTF is reason doing!!!!????

      3. There’s going to be some serious buyers remorse in a couple of years. The chocolate jeebus magic will not be at play. Instead people will see that creepy fake maniacal smile and hear that cackle.

      4. “Trump announces yesterday that he wants to repeal Obumblecare and won’t make new regulations without killing off two for one. He wants lower taxes and less regulation”

        Where was this last spring when the press was listening to him?

        And where is: “As Reagan said, the most frightening sentence in the English language is “I’m from the govt and I’m here to help.”

        He had his chance!

      5. If we had a constitutional a,end,emt outlawing communism and its ten pillars, and the advocation thereof, a lot of problems would go away.

    4. Who cares what Atlanta does. The majority of Georgia will go Trump, so trump gets Georgia’s electoral votes.

  17. So if Hillary Clinton is Satan incarnate and the biggest enemy to liberty in this country what do you call the guy who is doing everything he can possibly do to make sure she not only becomes president but also brings down the House and Senate GOP firewall that will protect the country from her?

    Trump’s bitching about the “rigged” election is going to depress GOP/conservative turnout which jeopardizes Republicans downballot.

    1. You may be right but it could also effect the other side who might get the idea that it’s in the bag. Trump’s supporters are likely to show up if he’s twenty points down or twenty points up. Clintons, not so much.

      1. “Trump’s supporters are likely to show up if he’s twenty points down or twenty points up.”

        I’m not sure that’s true.

    2. It cuts both ways. The GOP establishment has been doing all it can not to support Trump, even before the latest round of Democrat allegations. They have only themselves to blame if it depresses down ballot.

    3. You haven’t listened to CNN’s talking points from next week yet, have you? The big thing they’re going to be concern-trolling about in the last few days before the election is the danger that Hillary’s inevitableness might cause a significant number of Democrats to stay home. That, of course, will be the fault of Donald Trump making the election so ugly that he’s managing to subvert democracy by making Democrats stay home.

  18. Man, there’s gonna be a shitstorm of media frothing at that big bully Trump threatening Joe Biden with his remark that he wishes he were back in high-school where he could just take Biden out behind the gym. Isn’t that just like Trump, though? Somebody makes a remark he doesn’t like and he threatens to whip their ass. And Trump’s supporters are of course applauding Trump for threatening Biden with physical violence because they’re all jack-booted thugs who want nothing more than to beat up on people they don’t like. This is how scary things have gotten – Trump is a thug openly threatening to beat up people by “taking them out behind the gym” and somehow there are people who are just going to dismiss this as some sort of humorous hyperbole.

    1. Hey now, I would pay good money to see a Trump/Biden slap fight.

      1. I always wanted to see Bill O’Reilly beat the shit out of Paul Krugman.

    2. The funniest part is Trump has about 3 inches and probably 20+ lbs on Biden. Biden is an idiot for proposing this.

    3. I see Hillary’s record of violence is far worse. Benghazi, Libya, Iraq, and so on goes the list of policy disasters that have resulted in ppl being maimed, or killed.

      Trump used the gov’t to try and force a lady out of her home through eminent domain. It is indicative of what he would do when given power. Would he use the police or military against citizens? The guy has already said he would force the military to engage in unconstitutional acts, so I wouldn’t put it passed him.

      Clinton would do far worse, and raise your taxes on top of it.

      1. Shut up. Trump said mean things. Trump is Hitler. We don’t have time to talk about Hillary round here. She’s just a poor misunderstood sweet little granny. And that smile, it’s so authentic and charming.

        1. And that PANTSUIT…..OH……MY……..GOD!!! The off center buttons were so……AWESOME!!!

          1. Pantsuits are all the rage. Mao would be proud.

        2. Exactly, and so what if her husband is a serial rapist, and probable hebphile?

    4. That’s weird, when I read that story a couple of days ago, it was Biden saying that stuff, not Trump. Is my sarcasto-meter broken?

      1. Biden was the one talking about high school and how he’d like to take Trump behind the woodshed and have ass sex with him like they used to do in Biden’s high school days. He was on video saying it, not Trump, u r right.

        1. I assume it was sarcasm.

          1. Don’t assume. Cause me makes a mess of u ass

        2. Well, Biden does have ‘butt buddies’……………

    5. “if they bring a knife we will bring a gun”

      /Obama

      “so I know who’s ass to kick”

      /Obama as President after the Horizon oil spill

      Yeah. Trump has suddenly made things scary. Uuuh NO.

  19. Shellll-don!

    I wonder how Richman would rule Wayward Pines.

  20. Although he provides no evidence for his charge, lots of things can be said about it.

    No, but O’Keefe did.

    For one thing, he equivocates over the word rigged to include voter fraud along with news-media/polling bias?two very different things.

    How is collusion between the “free press” and one of the major political parties not “rigging”, exactly?

    The former suggests that the outcome is predetermined

    No. It suggests the outcome is illegitimately swayed.

    the latter only that influential organizations try to move voters in a particular direction.

    See above.

    1. Oh. Yeah. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1E100 times ^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  21. “For one thing, he equivocates over the word rigged to include voter fraud along with news-media/polling bias?two very different things”

    So, on the one hand, media bias isn’t really an example of rigging the election.

    “These flaws have overshadowed what otherwise would have been damaging information about Hillary Clinton’s political career and the WikiLeaks disclosures. Compared to Trump’s antics and outrages, dry emails about Goldman Sachs speeches and the Clinton Foundation just aren’t sexy enough to grab the electorate’s attention.”

    On the other hand, Hillary taking money from foreign governments while Secretary of State, the FBI unnecessarily giving Hillary’s cronies immunity and then destroying their laptops for them, and the Hillary campaign hiring thugs to instigate violence and shut down Trump events, those stories aren’t very interesting . . .

    . . . not when the media is covering a porn queen, whom both accuses Trump of being a “sexual assault apologist” and does bukkake and gang bang videos?

    To whatever extent the American people know about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, the FBI colluding with the Hillary campaign to preempt an election year criminal trial, and the Hillary campaign instigating violence at Trump events, I believe they know about those things despite the bias in the mainstream media.

    If different coverage would have changed the outcome of the election, then media bias is a legitimate topic.

    1. It’s not whether they know about it, it’s whether they focus on it. Look at what the hell they did to Johnson for Aleppo, and how hard they rode the story. Even some bullshit foreign leader question, they rode to no end. Then when rapist Bill Clinton’s victims, who have mostly stepped foreward long ago came about, there was no in depth coverage.

      Yet all of the sudden, these folks come out of nowhere and accuse Trump, and it is covered with such depth as tgey deflect anything and everything away from Clinton.

      Reason even did a “how unconstitutional Trump is” hit piece, while mentioning nothing of how anti constitutional Hillary would be and how many amendments she’s ACTUALLY violated.

      It seems to me even Reason is hell bent on getting Hillary elected. To not mention the O’Keefe video, and act like “vote fraud, nothing to see here, move along now sheep” is a slap in the face to everyone here.

      1. It’s going to be funny when the Clintonistas go after the Reason Foundation’s tax exempt status. Well, funny isn’t the right word but you know what I mean.

        1. I know whatchu mean dude. But that is also coming from a guy who laughs while stealing the toys Santa left.

      2. So why are the bloggers here so hell bent on getting Hillary elected? They do give the strong impression of wanting that. The only thing I’ve been able to figure is that they see themselves as part of the elite, & Trump is anti-elite.

        1. Commenters here kid about it by putting it in terms of cocktail parties, but I get what they mean in terms of the bloggers making themselves feel close to others who are considered experts or elite or leaders or whatever.

          1. It’s virtue signaling. Pure and simple. Trump is rude and boorish. These writers are elitists who are more concerned about how they appear to their ‘sophisticated’ friends than freedom.

      3. “even Reason is hell bent on getting Hillary elected”
        Maybe it’s that sweet, sweet Soros dough that Media Matters has been dolling out to cooperative journos as of late. Starving Reason writer’s just want a little taste of what the big boys get.

    2. I think we all need a national conversation on bukkake.

  22. It’s always odd to me how Sheldon is able to write a perfectly coherent article that challenges the assumptions and legitimacy of the American state, but will always bend over backwards to accept the assumptions and legitimacy of foreign states in any foreign policy article. The devil you know, I guess.

  23. You’re not going to see much for the next few years except for war, war, and more war. Just think about it. The GOP congress will go along with any new conflict Hillary wants to get involved with. Not that she’ll ask permission.

    Well, you would think that the GOP majority could stop her from raising taxes and trashing the 2nd amendment. You’d think they could stop her from starting new entitlement programs when we cannot even pay for the ones we have. You would think that. But what will they actually do? Go apeshit on culture war non-sense while she runs amok, that’s what.

    1. “Well, you would think that the GOP majority could stop her”

      You misogynist sexist pig.

      Why do you hate woymens soooo much ?

      You’re probably a racist as well, most misogynist rapey racist are.

  24. We would be much better off with a Trump presidency. Why? Because the GOP congress will actually check Trump and so will the media. Hillary will get a free pass from both. Also, I don’t think Trump will go after the 2nd amendment and I don’t think he’s a war monger. He’ll basically just blowhard on and on and get nothing done, which is a win.

    1. Even though I am voting for Gary (who was not even my 2nd choice) I agree with you.

      By the way, you have to make sure you take your vitamins, and invite me in later. Not sure if blood thinners will have side effects, so don’t take them. And please enough with the purple Flinstones vitamins!!!!! Eat every other color but freaking purple!!!

    2. That’s the best argument for Trump. The legislature and the media will roll over for Clinton but not for him. Not wanting to go to war with Russia and Syria is a close second.

  25. This election certainly is getting a lot of people to show their spots.

    1. Bitch, I told you not to unbutton your collar and show your bite spots!

  26. That most people would passively watch this happen believing it was proper, only confirms that the state depends on something other than force for its day-to-day operations.

    I’m guessing that most people in places like North Korea or Nazi Germany don’t observe the violence to dissenters and think, “This is right and proper!” rather than, “better knuckle under and keep it from happening to me”.

    You only need a small fraction of people willing to wield violence to keep the sheep under control, certainly not the majority of the populace as asserted here.

    1. Actually, I think it’s plausible that lots of Nazis were actually anti-Semitic themselves, and that Asians have a particular cultural deference to authority.

      Oh, and the Nazi story in WW2 was that Poland attacked.

      Practically no one starts a war without claiming to be acting in self-defense.

  27. Well, damn, I have to take back all my criticism about CNN not covering the Wikileaks e-mails – they are right this minute covering the issue in detail. They’ve got some guy named Robbie Mook explaining the whole thing. I’m not sure who Robbie Mook is, but I’m sure his impartiality must be beyond reproach if CNN trusts him to give us the straight dope on the situation. Now I feel bad that I’ve criticized CNN for being ludicrously in The Bag.

  28. Richman, I don’t think the threat to “ideology” is from elections being rigged for power. The real threat is from undemocratic legitimacy and what that does to our ideological preference for the rule of law.

    You can have legitimacy without a democratic government. Putin and Chavez both made a mockery of democracy and the rule of law, but they enjoyed a tremendous amount of legitimacy. They both held elections and won them, too, but it wasn’t the elections that were the source of their legitimacy. Their people and their government were willing to accept their rule despite them making a mockery of democracy and the rule of law.

    The greatest threat isn’t to the legitimacy of the President if Trump contests the fairness of the election results. The greatest threat is to the legitimacy of the rule of law if Hilary becomes President. Like I said, Putin and Chavez retained their legitimacy despite making a mockery of the rule of law, but under those circumstances and over time, the people’s legitimate support for the rule of law (Richman’s “ideology”) starts to break down under the weight of strong men.

  29. If another, better strong man presents himself to Venezuela, one who isn’t such an ideologue on the economy, the Venezuelan people aren’t about to reject him out of respect for the rule of law anymore. A critical mass of them no longer have any legitimate respect for the rule of law by itself. Once Putin is gone, he’ll be replaced with another strong man–if that’s what the Russian people want. And if they no longer have much legitimate respect for the rule of law, they certainly aren’t about to reject a strong man to keep the peace out of respect for the rule of law.

    Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has already made a mockery of the rule of law–and she hasn’t even made it into the White House yet. She took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. She sent thugs to instigate violence at her political rival’s speeches. Hillary Clinton made the FBI to quash a criminal investigation into her and her cronies. The threat to legitimacy isn’t from Trump refusing to endorse Hillary’s new government. The threat is to the legitimacy of the rule of law if we make Hillary Clinton our next President.

    What if Hillary maintains her legitimacy despite showing contempt for the rule of law? Isn’t that the worst possible outcome?

    1. It’s actually a stark choice between the serious contenders for prez. I’ve been saying for a while about Hillary for prez the same as you above: that if she’s elected, it tells everyone the way to succeed is to be a crook. OTOH, if Trump’s elected, it tells everybody you don’t have to be part of the favored elite to get elected to the highest office in the country. This election isn’t just about the candidates, it’s about what it says about what the nation will tolerate or even encourage. That’s why I’m for Trump.

      1. We give these people gold, and all they want to do is talk about porn stars.

  30. Well, this is anarchy. The world is a big game of Risk, played by the most successful thugs. Some people choose to root for their particular thug.

    1. I’ve seen anarchy, and that isn’t it.

      This is anarchy.

      http://tinyurl.com/jsh6fpd

  31. I disagree that the government requires our cooperation. The reason policing works is because they act as a team. If necessary every cop in the state will come to the defense of another cop. The same can not be said of ordinary citizens. Did any citizens come to Eric Garners defense? No they just watched as he was murdered. People don’t want to help strangers when they are being attacked by cops plain and simple. That’s the key to how they maintain control

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. my Aunty Kendall just got a nearly new cream Cadillac ATS Coupe just by some part-time working online with a lap-top
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  37. A bit of a stretch taking Trump’s rigged campaign claims to theorize about spontaneous cooperation in an anarchic state. Otherwise, I like the proposed concept – we submit to government not only from a fear of force, but also because we’ve chosen to cooperate by the rules and norms of a widely agreed-upon ideology, which this spontaneous and wide-spread ideological agreeing is exactly what an anarchic society depends on.
    Eeeeeenteresting!

  38. Sheldon makes a good point, but wastes it on the Sharia Law Shiites that have controlled the Republican party since 1932. If they can’t shoot teenagers over light beer, then weed will have to provide the pretext, and bullying of women is to them the shiny brass ring. Sheldon’s remarks endorsing anarchism, which culturally, legally and ideologically has for nearly two centuries been a euphemistic synonym for communism (with assassination as added seasoning) are immensely ignorant. The Second Amendment is an internal, not external generator of cooperation. Politically, the only way the current Christian Kleptocracy can stunt the LP is to convince the Sheldons that we are communist assassins, just as the other Christian kleptocracy convinced Germany that Jews were communist assassins and the Soviet kleptocracy told its captives that all foreigners were plutocratic assassins. Anarchist changed meaning in 1971 the same way and for the same reasons as Liberal changed meaning in 1932–but ONLY in easily-confused America.

  39. It’s funny, but all this bitching about MSM bias and the political corruption of the elites somehow forcing Hillary on the country proves Richman’s point.

    Nobody has to listen to the MSM, but a majority does, despite constant evidence of bias. Despite Hillary’s obvious corruption and Trump’s unsuitability for the office, no one doubts that one of them will be our next President. Sure, there’s election fraud here there, but that only works to push close races over the edge, not to cover a blowout for one side or the other when it would be just too obvious.

    How can this be? It’s because a majority of the people of this country are okay with the status quo and, despite being under no compulsion of violence (the media police don’t knock down your door if you turn off CNN) cooperate with the system. If the American people went to the polls en masse and refused to vote for anyone with an R or a D by their name, simply refused, this two party system would disappear overnight. But that’s not going to happen, because we get the government we deserve by cooperating with a corrupt system. When you say you’re voting third party nobody says you’ll be shot for it, they just accuse you of “throwing away your vote” as if the vote belonged to the system, not to you. That’s total buy-in to the state as it now stands.

  40. The egregious and most in-your-face suicidal corruption in the system is the Duopoly’s Committee on Presidential Debates prevention of the vetting by the mass of voters of ALL candidates they will find on all their ballots .

    The exclusion of the only sane , competent , HONEST candidate , Gary Johnson , removes us from the ranks of world class democratic governance .

    1. I’m not too sure Johnson is all that sane, he just sounds sort of coherent next to Trump and the White Witch.

    2. So did the mass of voters rise up and insist all voices be heard? Of course not. Why should the oligarchy do anything different? How is it suicidal (for them) if they come out without a scratch and get away with it, as always?

  41. God knows I tried. | Barnhardt

    Elections. For the love of God, if you don’t hear anything else I say for the rest of the evening, listen to this.
    Elections are no longer free. They are staged theater, designed to maintain the illusion of representative governance and to enrich the political class. This is despotism. If after this mess that we just went through, if you do not understand this, you are beyond hope. My God.

    And then you have election fraud on top of it. Here in Colorado ten counties had voter turnout in excess of the total adult population of the [county]. Not just the registered voters ? the total adult population of the county, excuse me, the county. And what did Romney do? Roll over. How can you not see this? How can you not understand? Do not talk to me anymore about elections. There are no elections. There are no more free elections. Just stand over that dead horse and beat it ? it is never going to get up. For the love of God.

    I’m sorry, but there comes a certain point where you have got to pull your head out of your ass and deal with reality. You cannot just keep going on with this over and over and over again, saying, “Well if I just give somebody some money and I put some signs in my yard I’m doing enough?”

    No, you’re not doing enough. You’re not doing enough at all. Not even close. In fact, if you’re participating in this, you’re part of the problem.”

    http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/…..s-i-tried/

  42. This will be the last presidential election for this century.

  43. Don’t get discouraged . . . Trump (and Hillary .. and Harry Reid) is (are) living proof that anyone can make it big ($-wise) in a corrupt system.

  44. This article has got to be the biggest crock of shit I have read in a long time. First, rigging an election is anything that keeps the voters from electing the candidate that most represents what they want, be it by lying, withholding the truth, illegal voting, programming the voting machines to cheat, staged events involving hired actors, cutting the feed at opportune times, partnering with the media, the list goes on. Trump’s “braggadocio” is absolutely NOT rigging the election, it is allowing the voters to see the person they are voting for (or against) as they really are.
    The election and inauguration is not about the transfer of power, but the illusion of it. Which is why the establishment doesn’t like Trump. Because in his case, there actually will be a transfer of power. The buffoons that typically occupy the White House are there because the establishment chose them much as a beauty queen is chosen, someone who will perpetuate the fantasy that we as a nation are squeaky clean, in spite of the shit we are up to our necks in.
    If Trump wins, there will be no cooperation. He will have to purge the leeches out of the government before he can think about trying to implement any changes. And the two-faced scum that think it’s their natural right to be corrupt slime will try to undermine his power at every turn. Thankfully, the majority of people in the govt., mostly the rank and file are still loyal to their country. (continued)

  45. (continued)
    Trump is a fighter, but it only takes one bullet to stop him. If they thought they could do it and get away, there would be a thousand volunteers inside the beltway. They dress nicely and are polite but don’t let that fool you, they will go for blood if someone threatens their lifestyle.
    Oh yes, you’re wrong, it’s not about ideology, it’s about trust. If you get an order from a superior you don’t agree with what do you do? If you refuse to do it, you can be at best fired, at worst, these days who knows? Perhaps taken to Egypt and tortured. There’s no one to go to because they might run back to your boss and tell him. He may agree with you, but the bone he will get from your boss outweighs the martyrdom he may get if he backs you up.
    The people at Reason don’t get it, this is not a gentlemen’s squash match, this is a mafia-style power grab.
    I’ve been reading Reason, off and on, since before Virginia Postrel was chief editor, and I don’t know if I’ve become smarter or Reason has gotten dumber, but the milquetoast shit they talk about now is so irrelevant that I barely can find anything in it worth reading. I’m an Alex Jones type libertarian (funny they never mention him in Reason), I guess he’s too “uncool” for their “highbrow” libertarianism.

  46. Reason is rigged.. but not as Reason would have us believe.. 🙁

  47. 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

  48. Seems to me that Trump has not raped enough women [if any at all] to be seriously considered as a president. 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree
    http://onebornfreesfinancialsa…..gspot.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.