Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley Is Not Doing His Party or 'Election Integrity' Any Favors by Supporting Challenges to Biden's Electoral Votes

The Missouri senator does not explicitly endorse Trump's loony conspiracy theory, but he can't escape its taint.


Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) plans to join the challenge to some of Joe Biden's electoral votes when Congress officially tallies the presidential election results next Wednesday. The support of a senator, along with the objections that some of Donald Trump's allies in the House plan to lodge, is enough to force votes in both chambers. But the effort to reject electoral votes, let alone stop Biden from taking office, is still bound to fail, since successful challenges require majority support in both the House and the Senate.

Hawley, a freshman senator with presidential ambitions and populist rhetoric similar to Trump's, has not explicitly endorsed the president's charge that Biden stole the election, which Trump has been unable to substantiate even while claiming to have "absolute PROOF" of "massive Election Fraud." The senator says he wants to make a statement about election procedures he considers illegal or deficient.

"Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections, Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes in order to raise concerns about election integrity," Hawley said in a press release he issued yesterday. "They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did. And they were entitled to do so. But now those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same."

Hawley said "some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws." He added that "I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden."

The first claim has some merit, as illustrated by the controversy over the extension of Pennsylvania's deadline for absentee ballots, which was challenged in court but did not affect the outcome of the election in that state. The second claim, which alludes to Hawley's oft-stated complaint that social media platforms discriminate against conservatives, has nothing whatsoever to do with the integrity of the election or the validity of any particular state's electoral votes.

Hawley is right that Democrats have a history of expressing their dissatisfaction with election practices by objecting to electoral votes. But leaving aside a controversy over a "faithless" elector who voted for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon in 1968, such protests have attracted a senator's support just once in the 133 years since Congress approved the Electoral Count Act, which established the procedures that Hawley intends to use.

In 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D–Calif.) joined Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D–Ohio) in objecting to electoral votes from Ohio, which they claimed had disqualified or discouraged voters through various improper policies and practices. Under the Electoral Count Act, that forced the joint session of Congress to adjourn for separate debates and votes. The challenge—which was not supported by 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, then a Massachusetts senator—failed by a vote of 267–31 in the House and 74–1 in the Senate.

Notwithstanding the resounding rejection of Boxer and Jones' objections, Republicans were not happy about the maneuver. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R–Texas) said the Democrats had a habit of "crying wolf" every four years. House Republicans ridiculed Democratic allegations of election fraud in Ohio, which George W. Bush won by about 120,000 votes. "This is a travesty," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R–Pa.). "They're still not over the 2000 election, let alone the 2004 election."

But that was then. Now that a Republican presidential candidate has lost, Hawley thinks it is perfectly appropriate to protest election procedures in Pennsylvania—and even, weirdly, the moderation practices of Twitter and Facebook—by objecting to electoral votes for the other party's candidate. And in this case, the losing candidate is enthusiastically backing the pointless exercise.

While Hawley does not assert that systematic fraud denied Trump his rightful victory, he says "Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections." His allies in the House go a bit further.

"Too many states have blatantly violated Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, violated federal election statutes, or willfully failed to obey their own state election laws, thereby opening the door to massive voter fraud, casting of illegal ballots, and election theft," Rep. Mo Brooks (R–Ala.) said in a statement welcoming Hawley's support. "The 2020 presidential election was one we'd expect to see in a banana republic, not the United States of America," Rep. Louis Gohmert (R–Texas) said on Monday, after he filed a federal lawsuit asserting that Vice President Mike Pence has the constitutional authority to reverse Biden's victory and keep Trump in office. "The fraud that stole this election," Gohmert warned, "will mean the end of our republic."

Brooks and Gohmert are two of the 126 Republican House members who unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to hear Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's quixotic lawsuit seeking to overturn the election by nullifying the results in four swing states. All of them agreed that "unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome"—meaning not just that certain procedures were suspect or that fraud occurred here and there but that the irregularities were massive enough to put Biden in the White House instead of Trump.

In other words, nearly two-thirds of House Republicans have lent credence to an extraordinary claim that the Trump campaign and its allies have conspicuously failed to back up with credible evidence in the scores of lawsuits they have filed. Gohmert claims "no court so far has had the morality and courage to allow evidence of fraud to be introduced in front of it." But that is flatly untrue.

Most of the 60 or so lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign or its allies did not allege actual fraud, which in itself is telling. But "in nearly a dozen cases," The New York Times notes, the campaign's fraud allegations "did indeed have their days in court" and "consistently collapsed under scrutiny."

While the campaign's lawyers claimed that more than 130,000 people voted illegally in Nevada, for instance, a state judge deemed the evidence unreliable; the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously upheld his dismissal of the case. When the Trump campaign tried to overturn Pennsylvania's election results, a federal judge noted that it had failed to present "factual proof of rampant corruption," instead offering nothing but "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations." Upholding that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in a blistering opinion written by a Trump nominee, noted that charges of election improprieties "require specific allegations and then proof," but "we have neither here."

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, who claimed to have so much evidence that she likened it to a "Kraken" and a "fire hose," has not fared any better. "Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume," a federal judge in Arizona wrote. "The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections." A federal judge in Michigan said Powell offered "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden."

Hawley may not want to directly associate himself with the loony conspiracy theory promoted by Trump, Powell, and Rudy Giuliani, but he can't escape its taint. Neither can all of the House Republicans who have treated Trump's allegations as credible. From now on, whenever Republicans raise the issue of voter fraud, even fair-minded people who otherwise might be open to their arguments will be inclined to roll their eyes.

Hawley, in other words, is not doing the cause of "election integrity" any favors. Nor is he helping his party, which can only suffer from a vote that will force Republican lawmakers to choose between recognizing reality and joining Trump in the alternate universe where he won the election. Keen to avoid the divisiveness of that spectacle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has urged his colleagues not to do what Hawley is doing.

Hawley is demonstrating his unquestioning fealty to Donald Trump, which presumably is also the point that his collaborators in the House are trying to make. Republicans are terrified of angering the president, who has a history of turning against stalwart supporters when they dare to deviate from his whims. After Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R–S.D.) belatedly acknowledged Biden's victory and observed that any challenge to electoral votes on January 6 will "go down like a shot dog" in the Senate, Trump declared that Thune "will be primaried in 2022," meaning his "political career [is] over!!!"

Republicans are betting that the political benefits of appeasing Trump and his supporters will outweigh the political risks of endorsing the president's self-flattering fantasy. They may be right, but I hope not.

NEXT: These Cities Built Minor League Ballparks With Taxpayer Money. Now They Don’t Have Teams To Play in Them.

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

  1. Are u free at home want to do some work at home and earn money then go to this site link its can provide u to work at home and earn money easy without any investment…I also do this work..
    Here is More information.

    1. Four swing states, all using Dominion machines, all had most of the votes in with Trump ahead by a large margin, all stopped counting at 3 a.m. and then suddenly Biden won. Yes, loony for sure. It’s exactly as Hillary predicted.

      1. 60 courtroom losses, loser.

        1. Could be 1000 courtroom losses based on lack of standing, laches, or whatever but that doesn’t mean that some guy didn’t hack into a Georgia voting machine yesterday in front of a room full of media and politicians.

          I thought Dominion and Krebs said that wasn’t possible. How could they get that wrong? Not to mention Solar Winds. Even Dr. Jill could spot the math problems with the Georgia adjudication rate and we all know she can’t add.

          1. Do you realize that you sound completely insane to the rest of us?

            1. Why are you sharing what your therapist said to you?

              1. JOIN PART TIME JOBS
                Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. And Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
                COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

                1. Josh Hawley implies that Pennsylvania broke their own election laws and likely will complain there were zero repercussions of breaking said laws. Sullem hears it and klapooosh! A colossal liquid shit of democrat jizz, smegma, and yesterday’s gluten free avocado toast and soy milk projectile launch from Sullen ass. Sullen smells the democrat jizz, his eyes roll to the back of his head, and a giant cloud of silverfish explode out his cock and crawl all over his body. The silverfish sit down and discuss with each other that Josh Hawley is a Trump sycophant and should accept the election and that Trump is the cause all problems and it’s Trump’s fault for everything. After agreeing that Trump is the cause of all problems in all endeavors across all human history, the silverfish have a giant orgy amongst themselves on Sullem’s face as he takes a nap at his computer. After jizzing and shitting all over Sullem’s face, they crawl back into Sullem’s cock hole and await the next article to be published.

                  ………………„-^*” : : „” : : : : *-„
                  …………..„-* : : :„„–/ : : : : : : : ‘\
                  …………./ : : „-* . .| : : : : : : : : ‘|
                  …………/ : „-* . . . | : : : : : : : : |
                  …………\„-* . . . . .| : : : : : : : :’|
                  …………/ . . . . . . ‘| : : : : : : : :’|
                  ………./ . . . . . . . .’\ : : : : : : : |
                  ……../ . . . . . . . . . .\ : : : : : : ‘|
                  ……./ . . . . . . . . . . . ‘\ : : : : : /
                  ……/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . *-„„„„-*’
                  ….’/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘|
                  …/ . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . .|
                  ../ . . . . . . . .’/ . . . . . . .’|
                  ./ . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . .’|
                  ‘/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’|
                  ‘| . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . .|
                  ‘| . . . . . . \„_^- „ . . . . .’|
                  ‘| . . . . . . . . .’\ .\ ./ ‘/ . |
                  | .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .” / . ‘|
                  | . . . . . . . . . . / .’/ . . .|
                  | . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|

                  1. ░░░░█─────────────█──▀──

                    1. ………………………………………._¸„„„„_
                      ………….…………………… („-~~–„¸_….,/ì’
                      …….…………………….¸„-^”¯ : : : : .:¸-¯”¯/’
                      ……………………¸„„-^”¯ : : : : : : : ‘\¸„„,-”
                      **¯¯¯’^^~-„„„—-~^*’”¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-”
                      .:.:.:.:.„-^” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-”
                      :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
                      .::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
                      :.’ : : ‘\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~”
                      :.:.:: :”-„””***/*’츒¯
                      :.’: : : : :”-„ : : :”\
                      .:.:.: : : : :” : : : : \,
                      :.: : : : : : : : : : : : ‘Ì
                      : : : : : : :, : : : : : :/

                    2. ……..…. ▄▄ ▄▄
                      ..…. ▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
                      ..… ▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
                      ..▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ▀▄
                      ….. ▀▀▀▀▀…..▀▀▀▀▀

                    3. ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿

            2. That only makes sense if ‘the rest of us’ is you and the voices in your head.

              1. You’re the only clinically diagnosed schitzo here, tulpa. Fuck off

                1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18576 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earning are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                  on this page…..work92/7 online

            3. Why? She’s talking about a security audit that was performed on a Dominion machine where the security specialist was able to demonstrate changing votes after hacking into it.

          2. standing is what the judge says when he doesn’t want to hear the case. It’s a catchall.

              Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. And Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. USA ONLINE JOBS

        2. They hacked all the judges, too!!!!

        3. How many were Trump campaign cases, and how many had the evidence heard?

        4. You do realize that none of them have made it into the court room. They have all been rejected before assessing the merits. When the political system goes into full CYA mode it does not appreciate it when people try to call it out.

          1. That is not true. Most were dismissed immidiately for lack of specific complaint, lack of standing, lack of injury, etc.. Basically lawyers filing anything at all just to make a bit of a stink, but having no case.

            At least one case was heard, and then dismissed as meritless.


            1. As you tend to be disingenuous, please don’t be shocked that I dismiss your democrat shilling out of hand.

            2. No, it was judges writhing and contorting to find excuses to not do their jobs. Trump tried to sue in the spring, they said he couldn’t claim damages since the election didn’t occur yet. Then when he sued after the election they pulled the latches bullshit. Neither were substantive excuses for dismissal.

          2. Untrue. The merits were assessed by the 65 judges and found wanting. The cases were then dismissed. This is what happens with frivolous lawsuits without merit.

        5. Drop dead, you blind clown.

        6. “60 courtroom losses”

          Still an imaginary number, loser. 5 suits by Trump, all ongoing. Fuck off back to hour Twitter circlejerk.

        7. What are you hiding? Why won’t Dominion share the source code publicly? If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear by being transparent. That way, we can verify whether there are functions or bugs that allow changing votes.

          Very suspicious.

      2. Many states used Dominion machines. How come only 4 are suspect. Oh, I see because Trump lost those states. Guess he figured he should win all states using Dominion equipment.

        1. Fraud efforts were targeted at swing states. Is this really confusing you, or are you just willfully obtuse?

          1. But there were many states that were close enough to swing. Why was it only in the ones that Trump lost, that it occurred. Did we really think GA was swing? Why not FL or TX as both were being listed as close before the election?

            I don’t think I am obtuse, I think you are rationalizing.

            1. I’m pretty sure the democrats knew that TX and FL we’re not actually close. Also, they may not have had the fix in at the polls to pull it off in those states.

              1. Conservative talk show host Mark Belling would talk about the need for everyone to have one good rationalization each day. You have had yours.

      3. “Four swing states, all using Dominion machines, all had most of the votes in with Trump ahead by a large margin, all stopped counting at 3 a.m. and then suddenly Biden won.”

        Rather than focus just on the swing states and a couple of other large states, why not do the same analysis for all 50 + D.C.?

        This guy is also relying on an assumption that the absentee votes counted after Election Day would be randomly distributed, but that is not likely to be true. Mail in ballots are sent to local offices, not a single state office. Different counties with different partisan voter populations were going to be counting on slightly different schedules and with different numbers of ballots to count. It makes absolutely no difference when votes are counted and reported, that is just a nonsensical thing to worry about and think is suspicious.

        From the link:

        “Since mail-in ballots tend to randomized/shuffled with regards to the order they are received, it would make sense that the percentage of votes for one candidate should stay relatively constant over time which does not appear to be the case here.”

        First, this is a misconception on what it means for something to be random. In truly random sequences of events, batches and streaks happen. I’ve seen YouTube videos where people break down these misconceptions quite thoroughly. If a person tries to generate a series of ‘random’ coin tosses, they actually avoid large streaks and try and make things seem more even. This is wrong.

        The best example of this I saw was when someone was asked to make up a list of 20 coin toss results. The person did not put in any stretches of greater than 3 of the same side. The mathematician showed that he could then guess, with better than 50% accuracy what the next coin toss in the person’s list was because he knew that the person wasn’t really thinking in a truly random way. He showed that it was actually unlikely to have a sequence of 20 coin tosses without a streak of 4 or more. Only 23% of all possible permutations of 20 coin tosses lacked a streak of 4 or more.

        Second, it is probably wrong to assume that the mail in ballots would be processed in a random way to begin with. Mail is not sent, delivered, and processed in a random way. It is picked up from discrete locations at specific times and processed based on when those deliveries were made. Mail personnel do not take all of the mail delivered that day and put into a giant bin to mix it all up before they process it further.

        The bottom line: Proof of voter fraud in any election is going to rely on finding fraudulent ballots or other specific actions. That is, you need to show that someone that was not eligible to vote cast a ballot, that a ballot was counted that was not filled out by an eligible voter, and/or that the count was actually fraudulent. I’m not talking about statistical likelihood (with amateurs doing statistics with incomplete data or flawed mathematical reasoning) when it comes to the counting. You need to show that the vote totals don’t match the number of actual ballots physically present or the like.

        The recent claims of a couple dozen Pennsylvania Republicans is an example of what not to do. They claim that the number of votes counted is about 200k more than the number of voters recorded as having voted in the state system, but they don’t say that the system they are relying on for the number of voters isn’t finished being updated yet. So of course it will come out short of the number of ballots counted.

        1. Fuck off Jeff

          1. Who is Jeff? Sorry “sockpuppet catcher”, but you are getting a false positive.

      4. You did see this sentence, “I will start with a disclaimer that I am a software engineer and not a statistician so what I am presenting is my own analysis and opinion and is not scientific.” I AM a statistician and the author is absolutely correct, it’s not scientific. It’s clap trap unceremoniously thrown into cyber space for unsuspecting adherents of Trumpliani’s conspiracy theory to latch onto in a desperate effort to assuage the realization that the stagnation they’re feeling in their lives is 100% on them and no matter who they vote for, they’re still going nowhere.

        1. “I AM a statistician and the author is absolutely correct, it’s not scientific. It’s clap trap unceremoniously thrown into cyber space for unsuspecting adherents of Trumpliani’s conspiracy theory”

          You’re NOT a statsistician and we can see it because you can’t even explain the issues you claim exist you just cry about Trump, Jeff

          1. Sorry, Din, but you’re my sockpuppet here

      5. The fsociety link is a single article back in November 16th.
        In the article they keep saying couting stopped at 3am. We now know counting didn’t stop. (I think Georgia stopped opening mail-in ballots).
        When you are doing time based analysis, you must be sure that the data flow is continuous. Its like looking at a car in traffic, one second he is at a red light, a minute later he is at 60mph. So he jumped from 0mph to 60mph… impossible without warp drive! What you need is to understand the measurements system. The author is making lots of assumptions about time stamps.

        Since you don’t know where the data came from, any analysis of the data (except looking at the beginning (0 vs 0) or final numbers). Slopes, and anomaly in slopes are meaningless.

        Comparison against other states is also meaningless. Each state reports in different ways and has different rules.

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly RTE make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier. Here’s what I do…>> Visit Here

    3. “Josh Hawley Is Not Doing His Party”

      Wait, Sullum is giving advice on how to succeed in politics?


      “Libertarians” giving advice on how to succeed in politics


      1. You win the thread.

      2. Plus, why should sullum care?? what is the libertarian take on this action…. is he free to take that stand? should we defend his freedom to take that stand? why worry if he does, unless you fear he might be successessful in some way? AND if you do fear, WHY?

    4. Yeah everything you don’t agree with is a conspiracy theory. As if nothing has ever been a cover up. It’s such a LAZY way to dismiss something you don’t believe. How about 10,515 dead people casting votes in Georgia for starters, how about Pennsylvania having more votes cast than people who actually voted.
      As far as I can tell REASON is not heat different from the MSM!

      1. “How about 10,515 dead people casting votes in Georgia for starters, how about Pennsylvania having more votes cast than people who actually voted.”

        Show us the proof of 10,515 dead people casting votes in Georgia. And Pennsylvania did not have more votes cast than people who actually voted, those Republican legislators failed completely. They either didn’t know or didn’t admit that counties were still uploading data into the system that they claim showed fewer votes. They look like either complete morons or malicious spreaders of disinformation, take your pick.

        1. liar
          try a fact, it might be convincing

          1. meant to reply to the above

    5. Are u free at home want to do some work at home and earn money then go to this site link its can provide u to work at home and earn money easy without any investment…I also do this work..
      click here link………online job.

    6. Find out how this single mom was able to earn $6k/monthly for working BFG at her home for a few hours a day and how you can do it yourself……….. Visit Here

    7. Find out how this single mom was able to earn $6k/monthly for working at FDV her home for a few hours a day and how you can do it yourself……….. Visit Here

    8. Find out how this single mom was able to earn $6k/monthly for working vxcd at her home for a few hours a day and how you can do it yourself……….. Visit Here

    9. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here……Click For Full Detail.

    10. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much XME better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. “But the Democrats did it first!” is all the moral justification one needs for stupidity.

    As my mom used to say, “Oh, all your friends are doing the Tide Pod challenge? I guess it’s okay then. Puke away.”

    1. That’s not his moral justification, dipshit. He’s only saying Democrats have no room to talk since they’ve pulled the same move with far less evidence.

      1. Uh, far less evidence? Same move? Did you read the article?

      2. No they didn’t. Stop making shit up to justify your confused and delusional worldview.

        1. UH OH YOU MAD SHREEK!

  3. Never complain. Just accept what was is given to you with a “thank you sir , may I have another “.

    1. Complain away. But if you want other people to take you seriously and do something about it, complain about something real with real evidence to back it up.

      1. Why the new sock WK?

        1. To explain again, I am not a sock puppet to anyone else. I’ve only ever used one name here.

    2. I guess the reason all the latent homos of the “libertarian” movement want to get fucked by Obama, Biden and other Democrats is because their “criminal justice reform” and “pacifism” commitments make them avoid men in uniform?

  4. And Sullum is cooking with spam, again. I thought he might have gotten over his obsession.

    1. Oh, has reason already done an article on a senator endorsing these electoral vote challenges? No.

      So blame the idiots perpetuating this farce, rather than the guy reporting on it. Or just don’t read.

      1. The crowd that complains about major media outlets gatekeeping important news stories and keeping them hidden away from public view are the first ones to complain when a media outlet reports on a story that they don’t like.

        “I don’t want media outlets to hide news from me! Also, I want all of my news to be stories that make me happy!”

        1. I, for one, love Whoopi Sullum’s Trump articles because he reveals his entire subjective viewpoint in every op ed right there in the headline. One needs to read no further to know exactly what he is going to say. HUGE TIME SAVER.

        2. SleepyJoe will take care of this problem. He will personally curate everything you see on the internet.

          1. Except they won’t give him a real tablet. Instead they give him an Etch A Sketch.

  5. I knew monkey boy Sullum had one more tds article in him. Hey a big fuck you to all liberaltarians and their left wing bootlickers. I learned to despise the craven left and Koch reason assholes after their shrieking misbehaviors these past few years. It turns out it was less resistance and more performance art. But whatever you have a new administration and likely a democrat majority in congress to worry about. Oh I don’t expect any of you credulous assholes to put up much of a fight. Anyway a happy new year to all and may fortune favor the foolish.

    1. The only ones with TDS are idiots like you and Hawley.

      1. +

    2. I can’t find the pot linkage in this article.

  6. Quelle surprise.
    In 2004, the crying babies having a temper tantrum because they lost was Team Blue.
    In 2020, the crying babies having a temper tantrum because they lost is Team Red.
    Morons, all of them.

    1. Bothsidez!

      1. It is wrong to assume that both sides are equal, just because they are both political parties motivated to win and ignore their own hypocrisies. This article actually does a decent job of showing how the situations in 2004 and 2020 are different.

        The first big difference is how much of the party is following along with these efforts. As Sullum shows clearly, Boxer got only insignificant support from her own party with her challenge. Even Kerry himself wasn’t supportive.

        Trump, on the other hand, was talking about fraud going back to 2016 as a way of explaining why he was 3 million votes short of Hillary in the election he did win. Members of the GOP have mostly refused to counter these challenges to the legitimacy of this election even when they aren’t wholly supportive of those claims.

        Second, the ‘evidence’ being presented by Rudy and Sidney does not hold up to any scrutiny whenever it is specific enough to be fact checked at all. No one is buying it besides Trump fans that aren’t looking at it with any skepticism.

        For those that are libertarian or any other flavor of independent, don’t get caught into a trap of assuming that both sides are equally wrong and/or corrupt. Judge each side independent of what the other is doing or has done. Hold each side accountable to the same standards. Don’t grade on a curve.

        1. Yeah the two sides are not equal in this case.
          In 2004, it was just a handful of nuts and cranks who were in favor of the whole DIEBOLD!!! conspiracy crap. The mainstream Democratic Party wanted nothing to do with it.
          In 2020, the MASSIVE FRAUD conspiracy mongers are completely mainstream within the Republican Party, enjoying widespread support.

          1. “Yeah the two sides are not equal in this case.”

            Yeah they never are for you. Weird.

          2. Yeah, only nuts and cranks like the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee, who responded to Boxer’s objection with “I commend the Senator from California for raising the objection.”

            1. A whole “commend”???? wow. That and a 10c and hmmm, still no cup of coffee.

          3. Greetings democrat shill. Your comments are unwarranted and unnecessary.

            Did you know that?

        2. Boxer got only insignificant support from her own party with her challenge.

          Senate Democrats on Barbara Boxer’s objection, Jan. 2005

          Hillary Clinton: “I commend the Senator from California for raising the objection.”

          Ted Kennedy: “I commend and thank our friend for giving us this opportunity”

          Harry Reid: “I applaud my friend”

          Dick Durbin: “I thank her for doing it”

          But yeah, sure, only “insignificant” support.

          1. Some senators made collegial comments about Senator Boxer. Still the vote was 74-1 against the objection.

            As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

        3. Does anyone remember 2000? The talk about “Bush stole the election” was going on for YEARS on all levels. Books written by Clinton staffers even talked about how enraged they were at the “theft” and the active sabotage of their workstations as the left is well documented.

    2. +

  7. Two weeks ago, I thought that Sullum was flogging a dead horse with this stuff.

    What do you call it someone flogs a dead horse for two more weeks after the horse is dead? There should be a different term for that. Here’s a likely candidate!

    “pornography” (noun)

    por·​nog·​ra·​phy | \ pȯr-ˈnä-grə-fē \

    1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

    2: material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

    3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

    Obsessing over the efforts to overturn the election results in a sensational manner has become pornography. It doesn’t appear to serve any useful purpose apart from savoring an intense emotional reaction. Nothing wrong with that, but it is pornography.

    1. He isn’t flogging a dead horse at all. As long as Trump and his allies continue to claim that the election is NOT over, then it is essential that people continue to present the truth. The horse is simply not dead yet.

      1. Why the new sock WK?

        1. Why have there been multiple posts with different user names using the exact same words to accuse me of being a sock puppet? Projection much?

      2. Trump is presenting the truth. Democrats are subverting it. As usual. As democrats are either corrupt filth. Or delusional idiots.

        1. “Trump is presenting the truth.”

          If Trump said it was noon, I’d look up at the sky to be sure it was at least daytime.

          I’ve seen this quote elsewhere, but Ed Koch (Mayor of NYC in the 80’s) is quoted as saying that he wouldn’t trust Donald Trump to tell the truth if his tongue was notarized.

          Donald Trump would piss on your shoe and tell you that its raining.

          Donald Trump and The Truth aren’t just strangers. When asked, The Truth replied, “Donald who?”

          I’d say that I wouldn’t trust Donald Trump as far as I could throw him, but even with his size, that overstates things by a few orders of magnitude. Plus, I’d really like to throw him.

          1. I find it amazing that Trump’s golf courses lose money. You’d think he’d be saving all kinds of money on fertilizer given how full of shit he is.

          2. You’re welcome to not believe anything you don’t want to. I, disappointed. As your opinion means SO much to me.

            1. “Trump is presenting the truth. Democrats are subverting it. As usual. As democrats are either corrupt filth. Or delusional idiots.”

              And you’re welcome to continue believing whatever makes you feel good. Just don’t expect people to listen to you when you simply assert that Trump and his fans are the ones telling the truth, and everyone else, including Republicans, that say that there was no evidence of significant fraud are the liars.

              The opinions of people that aren’t Trump fans like you must mean a great deal to you, given that you think about us so much that you assume that we are “corrupt filth” or “delusional idiots”. Not that I’m a democrat, but I’d doubt that you believe that or care. I don’t support your hero, so I might as well be, no doubt.

    2. So your comments are also pornography, then? Most boring porn ever.

    3. The more articles that say something didn’t happen floods google making it impossible to find articles of different opinion. The internets version of a lie told often enough makes it the truth

      1. I believe Google would consider this a virtual cycle … not to mention their useful idiots in the writing professions…

      2. But does anybody even read those articles? I gave up on Sullum a long time ago. All I need is to see his name and I already know what the article is about.

  8. It’d be nice if these traitorous fucks would just outright suck Trump’s dick on the floor instead of just doing it verbally. At least it would give their supporters a real image to go with the mental one.

    1. How are they traitors?

      1. They’re not. Libertarians who think people questioning Big Government and Big Media are “traitors” are just Democrat Socialists in disguise. Anyone who disagrees with the Cabal is a traitor, or crazy, or should be cancelled, or should be fired, or should not be allowed to travel. You see where we are heading, but they don’t. They want to be told what to do by Dementia Joe and his Swamp Squad.

        1. There is a difference between “a person who questions authority” and “paranoid whackjob”. Go right ahead and question every institutional power structure that you like. That is a terrific idea. Just make sure that your interrogations are well grounded in reality and not just rantings based on non-falsifiable paranoid claims.

          1. When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – You may know that your society is doomed.
            Dumbjeff: You don’t get to define reality.

            1. Ayn Rand would be the first person to believe in the concept of an objective reality. So why are you quoting her again?

              1. Because she would think that was is happening in America looks an awful lot like Russia, Venezuela, and China, and she would laugh at the “journalists” and Big Government leeches who are claiming there was no voter fraud.
                I mean getting rid of “white supremacist Hitler?” Any means are justified. Now let’s all get our vaccine chips implanted in our arms, and if we won’t then they will lock us in the country.
                Joe Biden’s tweets remind me of IngSoc messaging.

                1. “vaccine chips implanted in our arms”

                  Okay, that’s enough.

              2. But still though the question “how are they traitors” goes unanswered.

                1. Progressives pretty have a monopoly on treason and sedition. Not a single prog capable of patriotism.

        2. raspberry isn’t a libertarian.

      2. Anyone who opposes Sleepy Joe, and his glorious, sleepy regime, are traitors!

      3. They swore an oath to the Constitution which set the protocol for an orderly peaceful transition of power. They are attempt to over throw that protocol to make one person happy.

        1. very weak sauce

        2. The election was crooked. Period.

      4. How are they traitors?

        In the exact same way that Barbara Boxer was in January 2005, when Hillary Clinton commended her action.

    2. What’s with all the homoerotic imagery all the time? Or is it homophobic?

      1. Dick sucking references are the domain of dumbos.

    3. Stop eating Biden’s ass you treacherous bastard.

  9. Josh Hawley is a modern-day Joe McCarthy, and needs to be hit in the face with a shovel, covered in grease and set on fire.

    1. Dumbfuck. The Venona decrypts show that McCarthy was right.

      1. They hate when you point that out to them. That and Alger Hiss’ conviction for perjury, etc.

      2. Oh? So every single person named as a “communist” by McCarthy turned out to be working for the Soviets? And even if so, what damage did his trampling on the presumption of innocence, due process, and freedom of speech and association do to the actual cause of fighting communism?

      3. I can’t find any document to back that up except some proposed edits to Texas social study books in around 2009.

        Can you find me an original source?

    2. Hey pussy, why don’t you go try that.

  10. “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” – Ayn Rand

    1. I know, right?
      The massive fraud is so obvious!
      Why can’t everyone see it?

      I mean, if you start with the premise that Biden is a senile loser who couldn’t have possibly won because he has the charisma of a dish rag, then all of the fraud becomes obvious to see.

      1. That’s not a “premise.” That’s a fact.

        1. Oh I agree with the senile loser part and the charisma of a dish rag part.

          But presidential re-election campaigns are almost always a referendum on the incumbent. It didn’t really matter who the D nominee was. It was always going to be an up-or-down vote on Trump.

          1. He got more votes than last time. He won 18/19 bellwethers and 2497 counties. Far more than Obama ever won, and far more than Biden (477). So, clearly, Trump was more popular across the country. Biden was just magnificently popular in certain counties that all use Dominion machines and stopped counting at 3 a.m. together. Explain.

            1. 1. Bellwethers change over time. Missouri used to be a “bellwether state” but is now solid red. At one point in time, Utah was a “swing state”. Citing bellwether counties as purported evidence of fraud is baloney. Besides, bellwethers are only bellwethers because they conform to traditional ideas about politics and politicians. Trump by his own nature is a nontraditional politician and of course he is going to defy the norms that old bellwethers established.

              2. No one cares how many counties a person won. Votes are decided by people, not counties.

              3. That Trump won bellwethers (conforming to historical ideas of politics) and a bunch of sparsely populated counties does not *prove* that he was vastly more popular than you are claiming he was. In fact, Trump’s own approval ratings were never above 50%

              4. Biden was popular in traditional Democratic areas. This is not a surprise. Fraud or no fraud, mail-in ballots or no, he was going to win big in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh anyway. Because that is what Democrats have historically done.

              5. Lots of places use Dominion machines and lots of places stop counting early in the morning so that the workers can go to bed. Why is it so mysterious that poll workers too need to get some sleep?

              Now for you:
              Trump barely won Pennsylvania in 2016, a state that hadn’t gone red for 20+ years, when running against a very unpopular D candidate. Why is it so surprising to believe that Pennsylvania voters now, in 2020, return to more “normal” voting patterns by going blue again, like they had for years and years prior to 2016? Why is this so unbelievable? Same for Michigan and Wisconsin.

              Trump was ahead in the count of in-person ballots, but fell behind once the mail-in ballots were all counted. Some have said that this is evidence of fraud. Why is it so hard to believe that this is simply the result of Team Red emphasizing voting in-person on election day, while Team Blue emphasizing voting from home via mail-in ballots, and the ballot distributions reflecting those general strategies by either team?

              1. It’s not surprising that Biden won Pennsylvania, but the state’s Supreme Court’s valiant efforts to stop observers from having any meaningful access to the vote counting process was kind of fishy.

          2. So the hottest economy and lowest unemployment doesn’t get you reelected in the 21st century? People chose higher taxes, national lockdowns and selling us out to China?

            1. Exactly. That’s what we are supposed to believe. That for the first time in history, voters turned out in droves to vote for higher taxes and more government lockdowns and a “dark winter” from an 80 year old career politician with a racist streak who has severe dementia and who was selling himself to China and the Ukraine. And if you don’t believe that: You’re a traitorous nut.
              OR: Soros, Zuckerberg, Clinton, and the Davos crew did exactly what it looks like they did. Biden beat Trump by the exact same percentage on every single Dominion machine….

              1. How many people pay income taxes? About half of eligible voters? How many gullible voters believed Biden when he promised income taxes would only impact those earning $400,000 or more? Trump barely won in 2016 – and he lost the popular vote then. He’s an asshole, his trade war with China failed (although his intentions were good), he’s a self-centered asshole, he first debate performance was an utter disaster, he’s thin-skinned petulant asshole – and a lot of people were tired of his bullshit. None of this is to say I don’t appreciate his corporate tax cuts, help with Israel’s diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East, his role (overstated) in helping the unemployment rate drop to the lowest in 50 years, the increase in wages for lower income workers (also overstated, but still good), or his efforts to drain the swamp. It’s just that I don’t understand why you think it’s a surprise he didn’t win. (About the “same percentage on every single Dominion machine” – I will have to look that up – is there proof?)

                1. Because Biden is a senile old fool who can’t put two sentences together, has a communist running mate the Dems rejected, promised to raise taxes, couldn’t get ten people to rally and basically didn’t campaign. The guy got 15 million more votes than Obama and flipped five states by hiding in his basement. Where is Jen Dillon his campaign manager? A female who ran the greatest campaign in history is no where to be found. I’d love to hear how she came up with such a winning strategy.

                2. “How many people pay income taxes? About half of eligible voters?”

                  You are echoing Mitt Romney’s statement about 47% of people not ever voting for them (Republicans), which was taken from a bunch of memes about 47% of people that file federal tax returns having $0 tax liability (or even getting a net payment from the Earned Income Credit). Note that this was probably as damaging to Mitt as the line about “deplorables” was to Hillary.

                  This is an attitude that hurts conservatives and libertarians among minorities especially. That is because it is perceived as a belief that minorities (Black and Hispanics being way over-represented among the poor) vote Democrat in order to get “free stuff” from hard-working (white) taxpayers. There are probably even a significant enough number of people on the right that actually believe that to give that perception a basis in reality.

                  People on all parts of the political spectrum want more from government than they are willing to pay for. Libertarians come the closest to truly wanting fiscal balance, but maybe that is why they can never break more than a couple percent of the voting population. How is someone telling you that you need to live within your means going to compete with two sides each telling you to simply put what you want on Uncle Sam’s credit card?

                  The core of our fiscal problem is that solid majorities of the country want spending to stay the same or increase on virtually all government priorities, when those priorities are separated. People that want more defense spending think that they can pay for that while cutting taxes at the same time by cutting welfare programs that they don’t use. People that want more funding for education think that they can get people wealthier than they are to pay the higher taxes or by cutting military spending.

                  Extreme partisanship has killed the ability of Congress to actually make the compromises necessary to keep a budget from exploding. Republicans get in and they cut taxes without actually cutting spending. Democrats then take their turn and add in all kinds of new spending, raise taxes a little on the wealthy, but they don’t actually cut military spending. They just don’t let it grow as much as Republicans would have wanted.

                  Basically, with each party viewing the power of government as such an all-or-nothing proposition, where being out of power is the worst thing that could happen, all restraint and discipline is lost when they do have power. They have to go all out in order to either take advantage while it lasts, or do so in order to convince their base to keep up its enthusiasm to keep them there.

            2. The economy doesn’t look very hot right now, does it?
              “Oh, but it’s not Trump’s fault!”
              Presidents historically get blame, and get credit, for the economy even when they have very little to do with it. That is just reality.

              And, as is usual, people chose higher taxes *on someone else*, not on themselves of course.

              The Democratic message was, essentially, “if we do what it takes now to beat the virus, then the economy will naturally recover and we won’t need any more lockdowns”. Disagree all you want that this is what they actually intend, but that is the message that they promoted. And it is not such a terrible message to believe that if we endure some temporary sacrifice now, that things will get better as a result. After all that is the same message that we were promised back in March.

              1. Huh? Is this actually Chemjeff? Did someone hack into your account or what? I feel like everything you’re posting today is just strings of words that have very little semblance to an actual coherent thought. You usually have such refined posts, this is kind of out of weird.

                If you weren’t actually hacked I apologize, maybe you’re just having an off day. Either way (if it’s actually you) hope you’re well and feel better soon. If it’s an imposter, then f**k off and stop tarnishing Jeff’s name.

                1. “…if we endure some temporary sacrifice now, that things will get better as a result” has been used by every government in history as they slowly take away everything that matters from people while keeping those things for themselves.

                  Pretty sure Bezos and Gates and Zuckerberg aren’t sitting home alone any more than Pelosi and Feinstein and Newsom and Cuomo were. They living it up! Like Obama in Hawaii. He seems to be alive and well too.

              2. Right the Dems lied. California has the most new cases and the most restrictions. The economy is fine in my state because we didn’t lock down.

          3. Meh, if this election were a court case, it would have been overturned and sent back for retrial weeks ago.

          4. If you were right (you’re not) Trump would not have received over 11 million more votes than he did in 2016.

            1. “If you were right (you’re not) Trump would not have received over 11 million more votes than he did in 2016.”

              The problem, Mark, is that Joe Biden got over 15 million votes more than Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

              This seems to be a common problem among Trump fans talking about this election. They keep using incomplete information to try and make a point, rather than analyzing all of the facts in full context. Like the PA Republican legislators that did an “analysis” that there were 200k more votes than voters. Only, the system that they were pulling their data on the number of voters from hadn’t been fully updated yet. So, duh, of course it is going to look short.

              1. Honestly, I don’t fully believe either of those numbers, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there was massive fraud on both sides and the Dems just pulled it off where it counted.

                1. “Honestly, I don’t fully believe either of those numbers…”

                  There are plenty of people in this country that don’t “fully believe” that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, preferring to believe a number closer to 6000 years.

                  The difference between skepticism and denial is that skeptics want to know what is true and will work to find out the truth on a topic that matters to them. They will accept what is most likely to be true once they see sufficient evidence and they will withhold belief until sufficient evidence is available. Denial occurs when someone isn’t really interested in truth, but in maintaining a preferred belief. That motivation is what lets in all of the conspiracy thinking, confirmation bias, and other forms of motivated reasoning.

                  You and other Trump fans are misusing skepticism. You are only aiming it at that which would challenge what you want to believe, while hardly using it at all on things that reinforce what you want to believe.

                  In the last three decades or so, there have been no investigations of federal elections or elections for statewide offices that have uncovered organized voter fraud on the scale necessary to affect this election. Even in 2000, which came down to 547 votes in one state, did not involve any allegations of fraud. The legal battles were almost entirely over how to adjudicate the punch-card ballots that may not have been counted due to the method of marking them.

                  The null hypothesis here is that the election results are as reliable as they always have been in the last three decades. Mail in ballots were far higher than normal, but it isn’t as if mailed ballots are a new thing or were a small portion of all ballots before. (Over 20% of ballots in 2016 were mailed in.)

                  Believing that the Presidential election this year was significantly affected by fraud, but not the Congressional races, and only in the states that went against Trump, is an extraordinary claim that would take extraordinary evidence.

                  Bottom line: It isn’t about what you believe about the numbers, but what you can prove.

    2. It’s much more plausible to think that Pennsylvania voters churned out their votes in record numbers for the candidate who wanted to obliterate their economy because of the other candidate’s mean tweets.

      1. ^this was supposed to be a reply to chemjeff

      2. It is entirely plausible to believe that Pennsylvania voters had 4 years to decide whether to re-elect Trump or not, and Trump had ample reasons, not just “mean tweets”, for perfectly reasonable voters to decide that he shouldn’t remain in office.

        1. Like what?

          1. Like:
            Kids in cages
            “Fine people on both sides”
            His constant need to make everything about him
            The cult of personality that he has built up around him
            The poor response of the government to COVID-19
            The perception that he gave tax cuts to billionaires while ordinary people were only left with measly $1200 checks
            The generally poor state of the economy right now
            His general reality-TV-show approach to politics, where it’s not “let’s compromise and get something accomplished”, but instead, the other side are EVIL and LOSERS and HATERS and are SOCIALISTS who HATE AMERICA.
            And yes, the mean tweets don’t help.

            Now you are going to say that many of those things are not his fault, and you’d be right, but presidents are historically judged by those things anyway. Team Red got a lot of blame for the economy in 2008 even though it really wasn’t Bush’s or McCain’s fault. Team Blue got a lot of credit for the economy in 2000, which almost gave victory to Al Gore, even though neither Clinton nor Gore had much to do with the dot-com economy at the time. It’s not entirely fair but it is what it is.

            I think a lot of people are just tired of the drama, frankly.

            1. Kids in cages was Obama, remember? That photo and those cages were from Obama’s Presidency.
              You’re a Big Government Socialist Democrat, not a radical individualist.
              As for me, I like whomever the MSM hates the most.


                An explanation of the different policies.

                It is not a morally praiseworthy position that “Obama did it, so that means it’s OK for us to do it but worse.” Have higher standards.

                1. Lol. Have higher standards? As high as Obama’s? Or as high as Trump’s? Or higher than both of them? Personally, I wouldn’t put a child in a cage. I also wouldn’t use a child for a front to get into a country and then sell them into sex trafficking. But some people will, and some people do. And a border policy that pretends that this does not happen is a ridiculous border policy.

                  1. Yes, higher than both. At least higher than Trump’s, which aren’t motivated by a desire to achieve any policy outcomes but on lizard-brain racist paranoia. A hyena could do better than Trump.

                    I’m here to advocate for the libertarian position as usual. Even South Americans have rights to dignity and freedom of movement. And you don’t have to be a libertarian at all to believe they have rights to asylum, because that they do according to international law.

                    1. To, when you cry ‘racist’ you lose any possible credibility you could ever have. Granted, that isn’t much, but still…….

                    2. Why? Because it makes you feel sad in your pee hole when someone discusses racism? Yes all those uniformly white Trump rallies are just chock full of multiculturalists I’m sure.

              2. MJK, you’re missing the point. Even if all the stuff against Trump was a lie. It’s a lie that was widely believed.

            2. So, all the lies that were told about him then. The corporate press spent 4 years telling lies to make him look like a monster, and that’s why people voted against him? And you think that’s a good thing?

              1. I am saying it is a more plausible reason for Trump’s loss than MASSIVE FRAUD DOMINION MACHINE HACKING.

                1. And you’re getting mocked mercilessly for it.

            3. Wow you tell a lot of lies. You must be a Biden supporter.

            4. So, literally lies told by the same media Reason is demanding we trust now.


              Shorter Sullum: BE NICER TO MY BAE!!!

              1. Look, you all wanted legitimate reasons that people would vote against Trump. I gave you some. YES some are based on lies. I even alluded to that myself. But those lies become beliefs, and those beliefs turn into reasons to vote against Trump, FAIRLY OR NOT. Which is more believable – people voted against Trump because they thought he put kids in cages, or MASSIVE FRAUD ELECTION THEFT and Trump rightfully won?

                And boo hoo that Trump is being judged by the same standard as every other president. Let me know the last president who wasn’t lied about by the press.

                1. Obama. Jeez give me a hard one.

                  1. I take that back Obama was lied about by the press, they said he was great.

                    1. I laughed out loud. Thank you. They actually pretended he was better than Jesus and Buddha and Santa, all rolled into one.

            5. Cult of personality? Were you asleep between 2008 and 2016? The other side is evil? Were you asleep between 2016 and 2020 when the Mueller probe and impeachment based on a fake dossier paid for by Hillary took place? No President has ever faced as much vitriol as Trump has. I don’t like him either but pretending like the Dems are the good guys is self delusional beyond belief.

              1. I’m not pretending that the Dems are the good guys. ONCE AGAIN a presidential re-election campaign is almost always a referendum on the incumbent. It mattered far less who Biden is, than who Trump is. It was TRUMP’S cult of personality on the ballot in 2020, not Obama’s. It was TRUMP’S divisive polarization on the ballot in 2020, not Obama’s.

                1. So people hated Trump rallying in the thousands and defending himself from Dem attacks that started before his inauguration. Right.

                  1. So a lot of people hate Trump. Yes I think that’s fair to say.
                    A lot of people don’t hate Trump. Fine.

                    But as I’ve tried to say, Trump has had four years of bad behavior to convince people not to vote for him. It is FAR more believable that any one of Trump’s antics finally turned enough voters against him to deny him re-election, than any wild MASSIVE FRAUD conspiracy. And these states were already swing states in the first place so Trump didn’t have to piss off all that many people in order to make a difference in the outcome. For instance, don’t you think that Trump’s constant drumbeat of nativism and xenophobia would eventually cost him electorally? Well here the chickens have come home to roost.

                    1. ” It is FAR more believable that any one of Trump’s antics finally turned enough voters against him to deny him re-election, than any wild MASSIVE FRAUD conspiracy. ”

                      If you’re an idiot I guess.

                    2. Except the nearly 20% increase in votes…

              2. The dossier was actually paid for by Right wing “Free Beacon” (in support of Rubio). Hillary’s lawyers only paid for a copy.
                And technically the dossier itself wasn’t fake. In intelligence circles, you collect everything – even the BS and sort it out later. The dossier was the collection, no sorting, no verification.

                1. “And technically the dossier itself wasn’t fake. In intelligence circles, you collect everything – even the BS and sort it out later. The dossier was the collection, no sorting, no verification.”

                  Absolutely was false. And was used to generate the retarded Russian collusion claims.

            6. I mean, you’re sort of right Jeff, but like I think you sort of allude to many of the criticisms you make of Trump are easily attributable to his opposition as well. They aren’t interested in compromise either, as they consider their opponents to be FASCIST NAZI RACISTS. Remember “is it ok to punch a Nazi?”

              And the “tax cuts only for billionaires” is pure bullshit.

              So his opponents are no more likable than him and their policies are much much more radical, some even ruinous.

              1. For those of us that make money on a 1040, the tax cuts definitely went to the millionaires who make money on capital gains. But tRump had little to do with it except he signed off on it.
                And in 2025, the tax cut for the little people goes away.

                1. It didn’t just got to them:

                  And your friends in congress could always, I don’t know, actually help the little guys they’re always trying to con and extend the tax cuts for us.

            7. lol.. It’s funny you cannot see for yourself how pathetic that list is.

            8. And here we see Jeff repeat a retarded story that is plainly refuted by the transcript.

              A story that Real Clear Politics, Snopes, and Politifact even admit is false.


              This is why people here shit on Jeff.

              1. The “fine people on both sides” comment should be clear who the two sides were, then.

                The rally was called “Unite the Right” and was organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer centered around opposition to removing Confederate statues and symbols, such as the statue of Robert E. Lee at the park in Charlotesville.

                While Trump did say in that interview that he condemned white supremacy, he either didn’t know or ignored that the nature of the rally was to support those ideals. Perhaps he just thought it was about the statues alone, without realizing that many, if not most, of the people present to protest the removal of those statues view Confederate leaders as heroes. Their ‘heroism’ was based on being willing with make war against the United States (perfectly fitting the definition of treason in the Constitution) in order to resist abolitionism. The “states’ rights” that the Confederates wanted to protect were the “rights” to own Black people and otherwise oppress them.

                The most charitable view of what Trump was saying is that he believes that people in the South that support keeping monuments to Confederate leaders and keeping military bases and schools named after them are “fine people”. But the truth is that none of the heritage that white Southerners that feel this way want to protect is worthy of any such honors. Naming a United States military base after someone that fought against the United States in a war to keep slavery as an institution is perverse and should be called out as being perverse. You don’t have to consider all of those fighting the removal of these statues and iconography from public spaces of honor to be racist or evil, but Confederate apologists should not be called “fine people” for holding those views.

          2. What kind of propaganda-addled sheep couldn’t figure out why Trump is considered a failure by a majority of Americans.

            Go ahead, hand-wave away the hundreds of thousands of people dead from a pandemic that Trump so spectacularly mismanaged he couldn’t have done worse if had a deliberate strategy to infect the maximum number of people.

            Oh? That was his deliberate strategy for a time (perhaps still is)? The herd mentality strategy, as he called it? Oops. Guess you lose a few voters when you deliberately kill Americans.

            NYT has good reporting today on how Trump spent every moment of the crisis worried not about dying Americans but how he could wring some good PR for himself out of it.

            He failed at that too, like he fails at everything, because he is incredibly stupid, and probably extremely mentally ill.

            Siding with Nazis at every opportunity is probably also a bad look for an American president.

            1. “What kind of propaganda-addled sheep couldn’t figure out why Trump is considered a failure by a majority of Americans”

              You. You couldn’t.

              1. I have a pretty good grasp on most things. I’ve had a lot of time to study what with spending an entire year confined to my house thanks to your president trying to magically think a virus away instead of doing anything about it.

                1. Now explain Europe. What role did Trump have in the Europe deaths? But be sure and include China in your explanation, because they created the virus in a lab, just like Epstein Island Bill Gates said would happen.

                  1. The Chinese government did mishandle the beginning stages of this rather badly, as is being reported just today.

                    I presume you’re interested in letting Trump off the hook for literally everything that went wrong, even if he had his tiny fingers all over it, and frankly that’s just boring to me at this point.

                    I’ll err on the side of maximum blame in case it helps prevent his kind from ever being considered for high office again.

                    1. His kind”

                    2. I would put an Oompah Loompah in charge any day of the week. They are hard working and wise.

                2. “I have a pretty good grasp on most things.”


            2. Trump is the most admire man in America, Tony.


              Oh, and Biden’s numbers are dogshit for a guy who allegedly got more votes thanChocolate Jesus.

              1. Yeah. 18% of respondents consider him to be the most admirable man in America. Such a ringing endorsement.

                This is how he won the GOP nomination. By competing against a lot of other people, so that his fervent support from a minority resulted in plurality win. His first majority victory in the primaries was in April with New York, when only Cruz and Kasich were still actively running against him. Prior to winning NY, he had about 37% of the primary votes cast. He finished with 59% of the delegates from 45% of the votes.

                This is the Trump phenomenon in a nutshell. The devotion of his fans makes them more effective than their actual numbers would otherwise allow. Having broad support was never part of his strategy, despite that being necessary to actually governing well and effectively.

            3. “Trump so spectacularly mismanaged” — What’s funny is you think the President of the (Union of States Government) USA is suppose to be your own personal Gov-God savior. You lefties sure do LOVE to worship the president like a monarchy king’s position that dictate’s your own being.

              In the correct ‘plan’ (Constitution) for the Union of States; The president isn’t a Gov-God to be bowed-down to and begged for gifts of personal *entitlement*. He’s elected to manage INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS like national defense as was the entire purpose for creating a Union of States Government.

              But hey; Each person to their own.. If you think the USA President is your almighty God by all means beg of him to be your puppet-master and dictatively save you from a virus. JUST DON’T FORCE EVERYONE TO JOIN YOUR STUPID RELIGION!

              1. “What’s funny is you think the President of the (Union of States Government) USA is suppose to be your own personal Gov-God savior. You lefties sure do LOVE to worship the president like a monarchy king’s position that dictate’s your own being.”

                This is just so full of hypocritical shit as to be almost funny. Trump has hailed himself as the only one that could “Make America Great Again”, and his fans wholeheartedly agree. “Trump wins or the Republic is doomed” is the core message of all of this fraud conspiracy BS. QAnon is based explicitly on the notion that only Trump can fight the Deep State of Satan-worshiping Democrat pedophiles. Even Obama didn’t have anything close to the cult of personality that Trump has built around himself.

                The chief executive/head of state of a country is always going to get more blame and credit than they deserve for whatever goes wrong or right. That is just the nature of having one person at the top. President Truman understood this and accepted it as correct, though. He had the famous sign on his desk in the Oval Office: The buck stops here. He knew that being the one to make final decisions put the responsibility on him to make the best possible decisions. And, leaving things to the states rather than having a stronger coordinated effort is a decision.

                Trump, on the other hand, accepts no responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Speaking to Bob Woodward, Jared Kushner stated the Trump plan on the pandemic clearly. He said that the states (especially governors) would own the shutdown, but then Trump would own the reopening. The cynical politics of this is obvious. ‘Let the states take the unpopular steps necessary to actually curb the spread of the virus, then when things are looking better, we can step in and declare victory and take credit for that victory.’

                If nothing else, the President is expect to show leadership. But leading means taking the risk of being held responsible when things don’t go as well. Remember when Trump said that he thought that his administration would have done very well if the COVID death toll came in at between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths? By his own measure, his administration has not done “very well”. The actual death toll will be nearly double the high end of that range by the time he leaves the White House.

                Even if you start from a premise of federalism, where the state governments have the primary responsibility for public safety, contagious diseases are inherently a problem that won’t respect borders between countries very well, and so they certainly won’t respect borders between states within the U.S. In a federalism view, the federal government’s job was to facilitate and coordinate what the states were going to do. It was to help get them what they needed that they couldn’t get on their own, collect and share data that all states would need, and so on. They failed on many of those points.

                1. Did you just write 6-paragraphs on how the President is suppose to be a Gov-God? I think you did! Without all the excuses and babbling your summation was, “If nothing else, the President is expect to show leadership.”

                  Some of us expect to have the ability to lead our (as in personal liberty) own lives instead of being puppeteers of the President.

                  Your first paragraph quoting me is the only accurate point in your whole essay.

  11. Sullum apparently thinks Hawley should put the interests of the party (from Sullum’s GOP-hating perspective) ahead of representing voters.


    1. Hawley is running for president in 2024. This bit of theater is the beginning of his election campaign in earnest.

      1. So going along with the crazy fringe conspiracy theory is also a viable long-term strategy for appealing to mainstream voters? Choose a lane.

        1. To win the Republican nomination, he doesn’t have to appeal to mainstream voters. He’s appealing to the Trumpist contingent within his own party with this little stunt.

          1. Chemjeff, I usually agree with you on most issues but I have to say you are so out of your element on this one it’s not even funny. I hate to agree with lap83, but seriously choose a lane, your arguments seem just like disagreeing for arguments sake and have virtually no coherence. Not to be harsh, but it seems like you come here just to stir up trouble and, sadly, you might not actually be all that bright.

            Again, not trying to be a jerk, I truly usually agree in whole or in part with you, but this thread has been pretty embarrassing for you. Hope you have a good new year, Jeff.

            1. That’s cute, Tulpa.

              1. What does this mean?

              2. I wasn’t trying to be rude, sorry. I was just giving my opinion, like I said you are usually pretty spot on, and I always feel like I learn a lot from your posts, but today and the past few days or so it just seems like something’s off. Again, please take no offense, I do not mean this to be a jerk in any way, just thought I’d share my two cents.

              3. Rereading it, I can see now that I came off a little harsher than I had intended. I didn’t mean to go after your intelligence like that.

                Obviously you’re smarter than probably 95% of the people that comment here (not that that’s a high bar), but compared to myself it’s like asking the deformed guy from the Goonies to play chess against Gary Kasparov. And again, I say this knowing full well that you are very smart, especially compared to commenters like Unicorn Arbiter, Red Rocks White Power and sarcasmic (who used to be a thoughtful commenter and then something changed this past week, not really sure why).
                Just like sarcasmic, you’ve changed this last week and I’m really hoping it’s not permanent and it’s just that you guys are going through a little funk. Anyways, please don’t stop commenting here, I’m starting to like this place and it would be very empty without you. I think we have a good alliance against the nut job far right conservatives that infest these threads; the more of us there are, the stronger our movement becomes.

          2. Those are mainstream voters.

        2. The crazy fringe conspiracy theory helps divide the country.
          It also helps energize your voter base (gets them to actually vote).
          Unfortunately for tRump he drew the line a little too far on one side and couldn’t pull the votes together.
          tRump is polarizing.

      2. Why would he help Trump if he’s about to run against him in 2024?

        1. Trump actually running in 2024 is far from certain, and there are plenty of reasons to think it will never happen. The fact that without actually having the power of the Presidency and the attention that commands, he won’t be in the news as often, no matter how often he tweets. He won’t be able to bully as many GOP elected officials, or have a DoJ that will run interference for him on investigations into him and his business’s finances.

          He is clearly going to try and position himself (and his kids) as having influence over who runs for what offices, with almost all of that money he has raised to fight the “fraud” going to retire debt from his campaign and a general political slush fund.

          He is now a loser, just like he always said of Mitt Romney and John McCain. (He lost by more votes than Mitt did in 2012, and at a slightly larger percentage as well.) That will dampen enthusiasm for him to run again over time.

          1. The party out of power needs a reason to be “outraged” at the party in power. This new presidential cycle; that “outrage” is closely linked with Trump. So there is a strong chance he will be able to keep the party coalesced around him until 2024, but a lot can change in four years.

            “He is now a loser, just like he always said of Mitt Romney and John McCain.”
            Neither of those two clowns actually won. Nor were they “loved” by the Republican base, but simply accepted begrudgingly.

  12. Can you explain the Georgia video?

    1. For lap83. Stupid Reason comments.

    2. That lady stubbed her toe and dropped “legitimate” suitcases of ballots under the covered table, told everyone to go home because her toe hurt but later decided it felt better so those few hard-working counters stayed till 4AM counting “legitimate” perfectly dotted and unfolded “mail” ballots…………..

      The way perfectly legitimate citizens dotted their cards – praise the perfection of voters!
      The way USPS mailed UN-folded ballots to the counting facility – praise the perfection of USPS!
      The way they stayed after hours to count ballots – praise the perfection of election workers!

      For anyone to think otherwise would be a conspiracy theory.

      1. So the total number of votes cast, from polling to mail-in sorters didn’t add up to the total number of votes counted?
        The audit didn’t find this discrepancy?

        1. con_fuse9,

          That is a good name to match your comment. You do seem confused. Clearly, if ballots were counted multiple times, as they say the videos show, then the machine counted totals would have many more votes than there were actual ballots to be counted by hand in the two audit/recounts that Georgia did. Someone genuinely interested in the truth would immediately go to see if this is how things turned out with those recounts. If the machine and hand counts do line up, then the allegation is not true. There would have to be some other explanation for why it might look like someone was running the same ballots through the machines multiple times. We would then want to know how those machines work, what the workers were actually doing, and so on in order to understand what we were seeing in the videos.

          But the point isn’t to make a testable hypothesis out of an allegation of fraud. It is to simply make an allegation and then assume that it is true. This is also why there are so many allegations and affidavits. Debunking one doesn’t do you any good, as there are so many others. Conspiracy theories don’t rely on the credibility of those spreading the conspiracies, which is undercut each time an individual part of the conspiracy is debunked. Any information you present against a conspiracy is just proof that the conspiracy runs that much deeper than imagined.

          If you really wanted to convince a large portion of the public, or judges and election officials that actually have the authority to hear and rule on the allegations, then you would narrow down the allegations to whichever few are the most credible and present those only. Five instances of purported fraud or irregularities that hold up to scrutiny are far more convincing than 1000 affidavits and videos that get shared on the internet when many of them are easily debunked when cross-examined and most of the rest are simply untestable or hearsay.

        2. Just to be clear, since I didn’t include a smiley or anything, I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said you were “confused”. I meant that you were “confused” because you expected TJJ2000 to have thought through what he was alleging and to look for the follow up evidence to see if things were what he thinks they are.

        3. Actually the ‘audits’ flagged many discrepancies, as did the hand-count, as did the voting system audits by EVERY single independent auditing company (Including Symantec).

          Just about every attempt made to prove authenticity has thrown up multiple red flags – maybe knowing where to start is the biggest battle. It’s like catching car thieves when the entire car-lot got robbed at the same time; which car to chase.

          BUT YA KNOW — A MISSING CAR isn’t evidence of car theft!!!! said the courts.

    3. Someone forgot to get someone into the Arena Security/Surveillance area and stop recordings.

      I love that people just accept the flip-flop of ‘everyone was sent home due to a water main break’ to ‘no one was sent home or even told to leave’.

    4. No, they can’t explain it. But you still shouldn’t question it. C’mon man, just take their word for it, nothing suspicious there!

  13. No one will explain the Georgia State Farm Arena video. They just say it has been “debunked”. And then follow that up with “shut-up you racist!”.

    There is a great video at The Epoch Times setting out how and where the fraud happened.

    Once again, people refuse to watch it and instead trash the source saying that info has been “debunked”. It’s a great video and well worth the watch.

    1. Here is the explanation for the Georgia State Farm Arena video.

      1. This is not about fact checking it is about loyalty. Remember the Trump, God and then maybe you family or your drink buddies, or who ever.

        1. You really have a tiny, stunted mind, don’t you? You must make an excellent drone for the democrat collective.

          1. As do you for the Trump collective. By the way have you sent him money to help in the fight? If not get to it.

      2. That doesn’t explain it at all it’s just more “Everything is fine. Nothing to see here. Move along.”

        “the employees thought that they were done for the night and were closing up and ready to leave. When the counting continued into later into the night, those boxes were opened so that the ballots inside could then be counted.”
        Why would they think that and why did counting continue?

        “observers and media were not asked to leave. They simply left on their own when they saw one group of workers… also leave.”
        People there said they were told to leave because counting was going to stop. The previous statement doesn’t reconcile with this one.

        If the urinal leak didn’t effect counting why was it reported by election officials that the counting was halted do to a water main break?

        1. But Frances Watson, the chief investigator in the office of Georgia’s secretary of state, testified on December 5 that “our investigation and review of the entire security footage revealed that there were no mystery ballots that were brought in from an unknown location and hidden under tables as had been reported by some.”

          1. Hey Chemjeff, not sure if you noticed but I did leave some comments under our previous conversation apologizing to you. Check them out and reply if you feel inclined. Again, very sorry, hope I didn’t spoil your day or anything. Take care.

          2. About as meaningful as when the cops investigate themselves and find nothing wrong.

            1. So you think Frances Watson is lying then? Fine. What is the rational basis for that claim?

              1. Probably the various contemporary Official Media reports that counting was being stopped for the night due to a water main/pipe burst

          3. See Jeff? If you ignore all of the testimony that is harmful to the fraud allegations it becomes clear that massive fraud occurred.

            1. Just like in the Epoch Times video linked to above!

              It is a 1.5-hr recitation of fraud allegations. That’s it. Not even an attempt to take a look at what actual vote counters and Secretaries of State were handling the vote counting.

          4. You mean we can’t take a single snipet of video and make an entire narrative around it? Weird!

        2. Most Americans didn’t want to take the word of barely literate frizzy-haired dupes who watch too much FOX News that Trump probably wouldn’t destroy the US in eight years. He destroyed enough in four.

          Sorry people don’t like your boyfriend. But he is the world’s least likable person, after all. If what you allege is true, that means even his own judicial appointees are in on the scam.

          You guys just want an excuse to treat Biden as illegitimate the same way you did Obama, only you don’t have a racist lie to fall back on, so you make up new lies.

          It’s all lies with you people and you damn well know it. God, I hate liars.

          1. Good God Tony. Overwrought much? Trump hasn’t destroyed a fucking thing.

            Meanwhile your side is out there burning cities to the ground and is about to take a wrecking ball to our electric grid.

            Probably best you don’t talk about destruction.

            1. I believe that you believe that. Except I don’t know if it counts as belief so much as unthoughtful regurgitation of half-sentences, and that’s good enough for you.

              We’re in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And if “my side” “burned down cities,” that happened on Trump’s watch too. Do you ever hold Republicans responsible for anything? Or is it all whiny bitch tween logic with you folks?

              1. You’re the one parroting the “Trump has destroyed so much” line. Not me. Trump is a piece of shit but you couldn’t name anything that he’s destroyed. This isn’t the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, 2008 was. Are you go into hysterics over everything every day or do you save it for your online persona?

                And if you’re referring to the electrical grid stuff, I understand that shit several orders of magnitude more than you do.

                And we’ve been involved in conversations in the last week in which I’ve blamed Republicans for stuff.

                Your problem is that you’re a fucking zealot, unlike me, and you can’t even try to be intellectually honest or objective even for a minute at a time. Adios Tony, tired of wasting my time on someone who can’t or won’t try.

                1. But no cities were burned to the ground (your words).

                  If you’re going to regurgitate Republican lies, why do you expect me to consider you a neutral good-faith participant in this conversation?

                  For future reference, in order to have a good grasp of what’s really going on in the world, if a Republican is trying to distract you by exaggerations of what black people are doing somewhere you don’t live, they’re probably trying to fuck you over.

                  1. Stop lying. I was there. I personally observed the rioting…with my own eyes. So you can stop the gaslighting right now.

                    Tony reminds me of the CNN “journalist” declaring they were peaceful protests while standing in front of a burning building. LOL

              2. So you want Trump to declare martial law and take control of those cities using the National Guard? Because that is his only option. Your fellow travelers running those cities refused his assistance.

                Face it Tony, it’s all your fault. Just admit it.

                1. Sounds like a situation where your opinion isn’t required anymore than Trump’s domestic war boner.

              3. “And if my side burned down cities, that happened on Trump’s watch too.”

                So if Republicans start burning down cities, you’re going to blame Sleepy Joe, right?

                (not that Republicans do that sort of thing because we are more moral, but still just wondering if you’re consistent with that)

            2. Well, there is the foreign policy issues … North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq. Then there is calling much of Africa s**t hole countries, and publicly calling out Europe (basically everything Russia wanted).

              As for home policy, there is tarrifs on raw materials – so that we couldn’t compete against foriegn countries. The hit on farmers.

              How about the leadership on COVID? Could have asked everyone to wear a mask, socially distance, wash hands. Instead suggest maybe we should investigate drinking bleach. or COVID is a liberal ploy or some other excuss. So instead of controlling this from day 1, we are slammed at day 300.
              Testing and tracing (trying to get ahead of the spread) is the way to fight COVID.
              Note, an interesting statistic is infection rate per day per 100,000. Its not the big cities ….

              1. “publicly calling out Europe (basically everything Russia wanted).”

                Funny…what Russia wanted was for us to stop fracking. Which Biden wants to do.

                1. “Funny…what Russia wanted was for us to stop fracking. Which Biden wants to do.”

                  Russia wants us to doubt the legitimacy of our own government so that we become paralyzed with internal strife. They want us to not back up Eastern European countries on their borders as they work to subvert the governments of those countries by pushing the Russian diaspora living there to support Russia over their own interests.

                  *This actually turned into civil war in Ukraine when the ethnically Ukrainian majority wanted better relations and economic ties to Europe and they pushed out the corrupt puppet of Putin in 2014. The more heavily industrial eastern part of the country with a large Russian-speaking population is where the ‘separatists’ are, which are backed by Russian forces and equipment. This is what ended up getting Trump impeached, as he bought into Putin’s insistence that it was Ukraine, not him, that was behind the attacks on the 2016 election, and that they were against Trump. Remember him talking about “Crowdstrike” and the conspiracy theory about the hacked DNC server being smuggled to Ukraine in his “perfect” phone call? This also probably came from Manafort as well, as Manafort had worked for that ousted Ukrainian president and his party for years.

          2. You guys just want an excuse to treat Biden as illegitimate the same way you did Obama, only you don’t have a racist lie to fall back on, so you make up new lies.

            “Us guys” treated Obama as legitimate: as a legitimate, lying, authoritarian buffoon. And we will do the same with Biden.

            And we are grateful to the left for teaching us a thing or two about resistance and media; maybe we can even stage an impeachment or two of Biden. The next generation of Republicans is not going to be as polite or genteel as Romney or Bush were.

            1. “The next generation of Republicans is not going to be as polite or genteel as Romney or Bush were.”

              Right-wing talk radio was the beginning of the end for conservatism as an intellectual political movement. It’s rise in the 80’s took what was mostly a pragmatic, but conservative, Reaganite wing of the party and morphed it into Newt Gingrich and the Republican “Revolution” of 1994 to stand against ‘creeping socialism’ embodied by the bungled attempt at reforming health insurance (HillaryCare).

              Instead of arguing the details of policy and showing how Republicans would govern the country better and make American’s lives better, they became the party of outrage over anything to their left. George H.W. Bush had been too squishy, and his son was plenty conservative, but was too ‘nice’ to play the outrage card. McCain didn’t excite this new base that conservative media had been cultivating, and neither did Mitt Romney. Republicans had come to realize that it was easier in our convoluted constitutional system to obtain and keep power with a fervent and loyal near majority than to actually try and appeal to a broad majority of the country.

              The post-2008 and 2012 election loss analysis from the thoughtful parts of the party that suggested trying to appeal more to minorities was swept aside by those that realized that going even further into divisive politics and hyper-partisanship would work better AND they wouldn’t have to do any compromising.

              Note how the GOP under Trump didn’t deliver on anything good for the average American except as a side effect of benefiting the investor class. No replacement for Obamacare and no significant effort to do so. A tax cut plan that promised that corporations would take their windfall and invest it in the U.S. instead of keeping it overseas, only for most of it to go to stock buy-backs. They rammed through a ton of conservative judges that the Evangelicals wanted so badly because of abortion and gay marriage. Now, those conservative judges will rule in favor of corporate interests at every turn and against voting rights.

              The Republican Party is only about holding power away from Democrats. It isn’t about trying to present a positive vision of the future. Rush Limbaugh and the like started this more than 30 years ago when they would spend their hours on the radio ranting about how the left was evil and anti-American. That outrage and negative partisanship is all that animates the current GOP. Trump was the logical outcome of that movement.

          3. If you thought people treated Obama as illegitimate, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

            And the birther stuff was generally confined to the solid base of the Republican party, so that issue never got nearly as widespread public support as Biden’s voter fraud allegations. This time around, there are A LOT of people who think you guys are shady as fuck, and we aren’t going away just because you throw a hissy fit. You ass eaters are going to be on nothing but defense over this issue for the next four years, and you deserve it.

            1. “And the birther stuff was generally confined to the solid base of the Republican party, so that issue never got nearly as widespread public support as Biden’s voter fraud allegations.”

              The voter fraud allegations are self-reinforcing in a way that the Birther crap couldn’t be. Look at how the dozen or so GOP Senators are calling for a commission to ‘investigate’ claims that they have been supporting. It’s a feedback loop. Trump claims that there will be massive fraud with mail in ballots in the Spring. (When virtually no one in the GOP had ever suggested that mail in voting fraud was a big issue prior to COVID. It was all about purging voter registration and requiring IDs for voting in person.) The following months saw people all over the internet looking for reasons to justify Trump’s claims, and then Trump would retweet what they said as ‘proof’ that it would be something to worry about. That strategy got magnified by orders of magnitude once the results started actually coming in.

              And no, I don’t think that they are getting nearly as much support outside of Trumpville as you seem to believe.

              1. “had ever suggested that mail in voting fraud was a big issue prior to COVID”

                Wrong. It’s been historically well known since the 1970’s that mail in voting was susceptible to fraud, which is why it’s been banned by most of the Western world since that time. That method of voting was adopted this year not because of Covid, but because the potential for fraud was so big and well known.

                They needed a way to force Trump out by hook or crook, and they knew, based on history, that mail in voting was the way to get that done.

        3. Don’t you get it? The media never announced that voting was going to be halted there and other places. And the media never reported on a plumbing leak that would delay the count by days. If you remember those things it’s just the Mandela Effect.

          1. “Don’t you get it? The media never announced that voting was going to be halted there and other places. And the media never reported on a plumbing leak that would delay the count by days. If you remember those things it’s just the Mandela Effect.”

            But, but, there were thousands of Muslims in Jersey dancing in celebration on 9/11! I saw the video!!!

      3. Your so-called “fact check” doesn’t even dispute the accusations. It just tries to attribute “innocent” explanations.

        That’s a standard tactic of leftists: use a lot of words to say absolutely NOTHING, then declare to have “refuted” the claims. Nothing substantive in that link.

        1. Nothing substantive offered in court by the plaintiffs after 50 tries either.

          You do know that you don’t get to find people guilty of crimes without proving it in court, yes?

          1. Challenges to the election are not criminal trials. In fact, Congress can throw out the election if they choose.

            The burden of proof should be in room officials showing that the election was conducted properly. If they can’t do that convincingly, all votes from that district should be thrown out.

            1. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

              You’re making the error of assuming that a Republican deserves to win unless the Democrat can prove how many angels are on the head of a pin. There was nothing wrong with the election, and it’s been examined to death, more than any other, more than he deserves.

              And you are alleging crimes. Major ones. Your other problem though is you think “two wrongs make a right” is good morality, so you excuse the outright sedition that’s taking place now in response to fake crimes. It’s all fascism of the most boring kind.

              1. One of the major issues isn’t even the allegations of major crimes. It’s the legalization of formerly major crimes. Voter fraud is now legal in many states thanks to you sick fucks.

                There was both illegal as well as “legal” fraud in this election as ruled by the PA supreme court. Let me educate you on morality, Tony: it’s not OK to legalize voter fraud…period. So stop fucking defending it.

                1. “Voter fraud is now legal in many states thanks to you sick fucks.”

                  What sort of bullshit are you peddling now? You are the sick fuck that is ready to tear down our democratic republic because you can’t handle the fact that 7 million more people wanted Biden than wanted Trump.

                  A core fact to how we keep a democratic republic in this country: the losing side has to acknowledge that it lost. The extraordinary claim that an election was illegitimate after 150 years of peaceful transitions requires extraordinary evidence.

                  I’ve spent years arguing online with people and very, very rarely devolve to profanity. But this is just ludicrous. Put up with real evidence that will hold up to scrutiny in court or shut the fuck up.

                  1. The PA supreme court explicitly stated that following election laws on the books was optional. In multiple states they specifically selected voting procedures because of their historically known potential for fraud.

                    Another core fact to how we keep a democratic republic: by ensuring the integrity of our institutions and maintaining the rule of law. Two things that were obliterated by liberalism this election.

                    1. “The PA supreme court explicitly stated that following election laws on the books was optional. In multiple states they specifically selected voting procedures because of their historically known potential for fraud.”

                      How about you be specific enough so that I can be sure of what you are talking about? Quote the PA Supreme Court if you’ve actually read their decision.

                      Besides, what historically known potential for fraud? In the last 30 years of election history in this country, what “massive” fraud has ever been discovered and prosecuted that might add up to the tens of thousands of votes needed to change anything in this election?

                      Again, be specific. No one can argue against your vague assertions of fraud, which I suspect is the point of them being so vague.

                    2. @JasonT20:
                      “Pennsylvania Supreme Court eliminated the statutory requirements with regard to the following: signature verification of mail-in ballots; the campaign’s right to challenge invalid mail-in ballots; the rights of campaign watchers to observe the mail-in ballot canvassing process; and the mandate that voters properly sign, date, and address the mail-in ballots.”

                      “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decisions “resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature.”

                      2.6 MILLION ILLEGAL VOTES

                    3. @JasonT20:
                      “what historically known potential for fraud?”

                      Lookup Corsica, France 1975…until now, that was the most egregious example of mail in voter fraud. These events are well understood and studied by political scientists. It was known that adopting these methods would be ripe for fraud, and that’s exactly what they wanted.

                    4. John,

                      Those quotes in the first reply look like they came from some opinion article. You don’t say where they came from, and a quick Google search wasn’t helpful, so I’m not going to spend any more time than that on it. You are the one that needs to cite sources well enough for me to know where you get something.

                      Besides, I suggested quoting the PA Supreme Court decision directly as a way of backing up your statement that “The PA supreme court explicitly stated…” If they explicitly stated something, then quote them, for Christ’s sake.

                      Corsica, France? In 1975?

                      “In the last 30 years of election history in this country…”

                      Your replies deserve nothing further from me. You have failed completely to address the issue with specifics. You must not have anything useful to say.

    2. You should think twice before sharing anything from the Falun Gong Times. No different from when the Moonies owned the Washington Times.

      1. Even a broke clock is right twice a day

        1. Unless the broken clock starts working again at some point during the day and then it’s just perpetually out of touch with reality. Which could be said for many of the commenters here.

          1. Specifically you, and your progressive friends.

      2. Those horrible Falun Gong bullies should stop picking on the poor CCP

      3. Why? What do you find so objectionable about Buddhists?

    3. Oh good heavens. That video is pure propaganda. The guy says he’s an “investigative reporter” but he only interviews one side of the story. I hope no one takes that video seriously.

      1. ….so he should call himself a “fact checker” instead?

  14. Trump is still fighting. Remember to send him money lots of money. Sell your house and move in with mom. Trump need the money.

    1. + Funny

  15. Josh Hawley Is Not Doing His Party or ‘Election Integrity’ Any Favors by Supporting Challenges to Biden’s Electoral Votes. The Missouri senator does not explicitly endorse Trump’s loony conspiracy theory, but he can’t escape its taint.

    Reason is doing itself any favors by unquestioningly accepting the Democrat party line, despite substantial indications of election irregularities.
    While Reason doesn’t explicitly endorse election fraud, it can’t escape its part in potentially supporting it.

    Seriously, guys, grow a pair and examine and review the data. You’re looking foolish.

    1. Yes, they are. I used to turn to Reason for balance, a Libertarian perspective. They used to be the “controlled resistance”. Now all they are is another wing of the Democommie party.

  16. I cannot imagine this is going anywhere, and it seems pointless at best. That said, the hysterical shrieks I hear from some quarters that “Trump is destroying democracy!!!” are a bit much. The electoral system includes processes for challenging election results. Even if the challenges are ill-founded they don’t destroy the system; they’re part of that system. If the system is worth a shit then any ill-founded challenges will fail and that will be that.

    1. I agree with you that too much is being made of this, and Trump’s allies are not going to destroy the democracy. On the other hand, if Trump didn’t keep fanning the flames in this “Neverland” he currently resides, then maybe this effort would die a deserved, early death.

    2. +10000000000… It’s ironic how much media attention there is directly proposing the thwarting of the legitimacy of election process while claiming itself to be the upholder of the legitimacy of the election process.

      1. No one has ever answered a particular question: If this is all for naught, and Trump is just making himself look like a fool in this, why is there so much resistance to just letting him file court cases?

    3. Since all the challenges have failed, clearly the Trump supporters are moving on with their lives and not dismissing the legitimate incoming government before it takes power.

      There’s a good reason people care about “norms” of American democracy like losers conceding defeat (which Trump has yet to do). It’s about being a mature country instead of a tinpot shithole. But it requires mature people.

      The question isn’t why do tyrannies emerge, but why do democracies persist. That’s the anomaly in human history. Trump tried six ways to Sunday to overturn the election. In doing so he has damaged national security by refusing access to the incoming government to information as well as normal transition processes. During a global crisis.

      He doesn’t have to succeed at a coup before people can have legitimate criticisms. The fact that he is so emotionally weak that he expects us all to give him space to work his feelings out is reason enough.

      1. Who was it that was saying Russia hacked the election?

      2. moving on with their lives and not dismissing the legitimate incoming government before it takes power

        Fair to say they should. Of course they’ve got a lot of examples to follow; they’re not the first to say “not my president!” are they?

        1. They’re the very first to say it officially using congressmen on the normally routine electoral college count.

          1. So, uh, what happened in 2004? And 2016?

            1. Were you people raised by wolves? Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yet you’re fabricating false equivalences by the dozen to excuse your poor behavior. This sedition wouldn’t be excused even if the equivalence weren’t false!

              In 2004 there were suspicions of vote tampering. In fact Dominion systems were held with suspicion, by Democrats, long before Trumpers latched onto the cause. But Republicans blocked their effort to oversee. So who has the real excuse to wonder about cheating?

              Because in 2016 the popular vote loser won by a tiny number of votes in the right place, with documented foreign help, and Hillary nevertheless conceded by phone the night of the election. No equivalence.

              Stop excusing worse behavior by bringing up non-existent bad behavior. Do better.

              1. “Two wrongs don’t make a right”

                When something wrong becomes inconvenient for Democrats they just change the definition of right and wrong. You sick fucks do that for everything in life. Clearly conservatives hold the moral high ground here, and you amoral liberals need to be educated. You need to learn that just because you legalize voter fraud, doesn’t make it “moral” to cheat, EVEN if it’s YOUR GUY.

                Do better Tony.

    4. “A republic, if you can keep it.”

  17. It’s obvious to me as a mathematician that there is much wrong with this election, and not just in the disputed stated. The US voting system is a mess and a large fraction of the public thinks the 2020 election was rigged.
    Elections have to have credibility in the eyes of the public – that’s the point.

    1. There is a baseline of rationality expected of participants in a democracy. Semi-literate goobers who follow the world’s most ridiculous strongman wannabe are not healthy for a democracy. If no amount of facts presented in the single most adjudicated election of all time can convince people, isn’t that their problem? And shouldn’t I be pissed if they make it my problem?

      1. “Semi-literate goobers who follow the world’s most ridiculous strongman wannabe are not healthy for a democracy.”

        Neither is namecalling.

      2. [S}ingle most adjudicated election of all time…“, except by the ones supposed to adjudicate, who are either corrupt or cowards and never even looked at the evidence.

        1. Hard to look at something not presented. We’re judges supposed to do Rudy’s work for him?

          1. “Hard to look at something not presented.” — It’s so awesome how things right out in the open are ‘not presented’ by lefty standards.

            90% mail ballots all in Biden’s Favor in suppose to be ‘swing’ states? Huh?, what?, Look-a Unicorn — No, no; That’s not evidence. Georgia video showing suitcases pulled out from a COVERED table, Multiple ‘stalls’ on voting machines all at the same time…. No, no; That’s not evidence.

            Frankly; The fact is people have been executed with less evidence.

            1. If you want this country to be run like a tinpot shithole, why do you think the people currently committing sedition would automatically be safe?

              If we’re clever enough to steal elections, what makes you think we’d let you shoot first?

              1. “If we’re clever enough to steal elections”…but not clever enough to get away with it.

          2. Judges also said the laws on the books were optional in PA. Fuck your lawlessness, Tony. PA doesn’t even have a functioning court system.

            Democrat states are banana republics, where even Burkina Faso’s recent election had less fraud.

      3. You created your own problem by cheating Tony. And since you failed to get away with it, you’ll need to put up with the consequences of your treachery for the next four years.

        Seriously, you sick fucks legalized fraud, and YOU’RE the one who is upset? You Democrat ass eaters have a lot of nerve.

  18. Fuck you Jacob.

  19. I am disappointed with the use of the term “conspiracy theory” in this article and the reliance on the New York Times as a source. That publication has shown itself time and time again to function as an arm of the state. Even folks at The Intercept lambasted it as a “former newspaper.”

    So we have a number of hypotheses alleging conspiracies. Explain what parts of them are true, and persuade us of what parts are false. Throwing a colorful term at them isn’t going to work, except for audience members who already agree with you. We don’t have time to dive in ourselves. That’s why you have a job.

    1. You don’t want to be persuaded or you would have been persuaded already.

      The rest of the world doesn’t have to change the way facts and evidence work to accommodate emotional idiots who can’t handle being wrong.

      1. Saying that the wide variety of allegations are collectively unsubstantiated simply isn’t persuasive. I appreciate that you don’t have the burden of proof per courtroom or debate standards, but I’m just a guy on the street who is still agnostic about the issue. I don’t know – maybe most of the claims are fabricated, maybe a lot of them are legitimate problems that might not change the election outcome but are still long-term election security issues. I’m not convinced after seeing far too many Sullum pieces that seem to say the same generic things.

        1. You’re trying to talk sense to a a far left shill who fantasizes about forcing the rest of us to live according to his progressive (Marxist) whims.

          1. Fuck that, he fantasies about lining anyone who disagrees with him up against the wall.

      2. Also, the ad hominem “emotional idiots” reminds me of the Peterson “mean white man” meme, good job

        1. Should I care more about

          A) Hundreds of thousands of dead innocent people
          B) Jordan Peterson getting his feelings hurt because he’s not as smart as he wishes he were?

          Talk about a cult. But don’t get me wrong, I would enjoy little more than talking more about Jordan fucking Peterson.

      3. Willful ignorance is not a valid defense against the overwhelming evidence presented. You got caught eating ass and now you’re just hoping this all goes away.

        Now, anybody with a D after their name has the stench of corruption on them, so you can suck my D, your party will never be trusted again.

  20. I’m actually more interested in the Wal-Mart social media person who used Wal-Mart’s official Twitter account to criticize the Senator. And Wal-Mart’s apology. How stupid was that person to send his/her view out via the corporate channel? I know Wal-Mart set up in the Bay Area their online business and most likely have their social media folks there as well. Did this person lose their job? Who was this person? Was it a typical Ivy League liberal art major (“gender studies”) little bolshevik type who somehow is overrepresented at Social Media Companies…seriously that is the more interesting story here. The lack of diversity in corporate marcom/social media..NYC far left types from wealthy backgrounds seem to dominate..why?


    Isaac has good grounds to argue that Section 230 is irrelevant to his lawsuit because his claim of libel is not based on anything Twitter did “to restrict access to or availability of material.” Rather, according to Isaac, Twitter defamed him when it explained why it had blocked the Post’s articles on Hunter Biden: It was Twitter’s “clarification” that defamed Isaac by publicly branding the emails and photographs culled from his hard drive “hacked” material.

    Now, Twitter will counter that the statutory grant of immunity applies broadly to “any action,” which it will maintain would include explaining the basis for restricting access to the Post’s article. That argument is a stretch, but it is a question of statutory interpretation for a court to decide as a matter of law and is likely one of first impression.

    But Isaac’s case will then present a second question—and this question will be a factual one potentially for a jury: Did Twitter act in “good faith” in claiming the Post’s article included “hacked” materials? Here, Twitter may have a difficult time establishing it acted in “good faith” in banning the Post’s article for including “hacked” materials, given that it allowed The New York Times to promote, and users to share, the Times’ article on President Trump’s supposed tax returns.

    Here’s a small business getting fucked by a mega corp attempting to use federal law to insulate itself from liability. Where’s the libertarian outrage Jacob?

    1. Sorry, we don’t have time for libertarian viewpoints here.

  22. Joe Biden Estimated 250,000 COVID Deaths This Month. He Was Off By 178,000
    Your candidate Jacob.

    1. Democrats really need to get on the same page with their various fraudulent numbers. The deplorables are beginning to catch on.

  23. I can imagine nothing worse than being unable to escape a taint.

  24. So Hawley is like Adam Schiff?

    I wonder if Sullum ever criticized Schiff for claiming that “Russia hacked the election”.

  25. When Reason doesn’t care about the 12th Amendment and just becomes another part of the “controlled resistance”. I think we all want true election results. There should be more objections based on the evidence if one is objective. I didn’t vote for either but by God the Democommies need to have their noses buried in it if it’s true.

    1. We have true election results. Eighty-one million popular votes and 306 electoral votes says unequivocally that Joe Biden won the election.

      There is not evidence of widespread fraud. The affidavits attached to the lawsuits are full of mistakes, untruths, speculation, and nonsense. Even the people who signed them, like the guy Spider, have since disavowed them.

      1. Is there any evidence of non-widespread fraud? Like in the six swing states?

        It would only take a little fraud in a few, key, swing states, in a few counties, in a few precincts to change the outcome of the election for the entire nation.

        And that there is!

        If you are interested in compelling evidence of fraud, then watch the Georgia’s Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections on YouTube. It is shocking and appalling at what went on.

        If you don’t have a full 5 hours to spare, then pay particular attention to the witnesses at the time marks for:
        Jovan Pulitzer
        1:13:24 – 2:00:50
        State Farm Arena Multiple Scans (This one is egregious!)
        3:41:15 – 3:49:00
        Analyst Team
        4:38:35 – 5:00

  26. What. The. Fuck. Reason

    1. Fuck censors

    1. Are we supposed to be concerned that there were adjudicated ballots? Why precisely, Nardz?

      1. It doesn’t seem super odd to you that they supposedly adjudicated 132k out of 137k? That beggars belief for your average person.

        1. You’re right! It’s conclusive proof of MASSIVE FRAUD! Stop the presses, install Trump as ruler for life!

          1. That’s not even implied in my comment. But thanks for proving you’re nothing but a straw man building mendacious fuck who won’t broker any dissent or disagreement. Again.

    2. Okay so I scrolled down more in that Twitter thread.

      The lady testifying at the hearing seems to be complaining that some workers were using the copy machine while unsupervised therefore MASSIVE FRAUD. I can’t believe it’s come to this.

      I don’t know what you all will accept when it comes to a valid election. I really don’t. If you are going to scream FRAUD when some staffer uses the copy machine without a Republican and a Democrat looking over his shoulder, then it is hopeless.

      1. You really are willfully rounded at the free end.

    3. Let’s form a committee of Nardz, LC1789, and Shithead to personally inspect every single ballot in the country to make sure it is legitimate. That will work I’m sure!

    4. Oh also.
      So evidently the military ballots that the state of Georgia uses are incompatible with the ballot scanners that the state uses. So those ballots have to be “adjudicated”. Which evidently now is a synonym for FRAUD. Why did the state use military ballots that were incompatible with the scanners that therefore had to be adjudicated? IF there was fraud with this adjudication process, then it was directly enabled by the state’s choice of ballots. Why did the state enable fraud, Nardz?

      About 99% of these screams of FRAUD are really just examples of government incompetence. Duh.

      1. >>government incompetence

        that’s redundant

  27. Almost seems like this guy is talking about you doesn’t it Jacob? Not that a real reporter would bother to read your tripe.

    1. I know, right, If only more principled conservatives had voted for Jo Jorgensen, this whole mess could have been avoided. Now, we are stuck with Biden.

  28. Is Mo Brooks really a United States Congressman? He claims Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution was violated. That section applies to Congressional elections, not Presidential elections. You’d think a member of the House of Representatives would know at least a little bit about the U.S. Constitution.

  29. Anyone, who says this sham of an election has any level of integrity, needs either electric shock therapy or a complete frontal lobotomy.
    And I think a great many of the LieCheatSteal party know how fraudulent it was, yet are fine with it being that way.
    The way this election was stolen is what has destroyed democracy, because treating it like it is democracy completely eviscerates the concept.

  30. “Hawley said ‘some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.’ [snip]
    The first claim has some merit, as illustrated by the controversy over the extension of Pennsylvania’s deadline for absentee ballots, which was challenged in court but did not affect the outcome of the election in that state.”

    Apparently Sullum cannot see the mountain because of the molehills in the way.

    It’s not that the PA Supreme court pulled a ruling out of their collective butts, with no basis in PA election law or the PA constitution, allowing late-arriving mail-in ballots to be counted ( a ruling which was countermanded by Justice Alito acting in his 3rd Circuit capacity)—that was only 10,000 +/- votes so in the case of the Presidential race would not have been the decider.

    The 800 lb gorilla in Pennsylvania is the approx. 2.6 million ballots cast using a method that is NOT in the PA constitution, namely mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s electoral votes should not be accepted until a “do-over” election is held.

    1. It seems so cut and dry to me.

      Blows my mind Jacob is ignoring all this. Disappointing.

  31. Look at it this way. Any kind of shenanigans will waste time. And ANYTHING that wastes time in Congress is good.

  32. You The author’s take is erroneous! There have been many fraudulent actions that should be looked at prior to making a decision. One example is the illegal voting process changes in PA, not approved by the state legislature.

    1. no, those have been reviewed, there were not illegal votes, just ones against your hero

  33. There was no fraud. Sssssure.

  34. Pretty simple. There’s been a widely shared concern that, although Trump was too stupid and narcissistic to make happen the dangerous things he really wants to happen, what if a “Smart Trump” comes along? It might be as simple as being just as willing to baldly, unashamedly lie, but only when it advances goals.

    Hawley wants to be that Smart Trump.

  35. So, when is deranged, lying propagandist hack Jacob Sullum gonna write his big “WAH NUH UH” piece on the huge news regarding the fallout from the real time of Dominion voting machines in Georgia?

    Or does the lying shitbag still have to meet his, “WAH CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE SEDITION” quota first?

  36. Sullum’s tears will be especially delicious after Trump wins January 6th.

  37. Democrats cheated in multiple states. Hopefully the Senate will hold the line and deny Biden those electors, but probably not.
    Hawley is doing what we want him to do. Given his statements on election Fraud I’m expecting the same thing from Rand Paul.
    But if Biden prevails that will signal the beginning of four years resistance towards him and his fraudulent administration including early removal from office in any way possible.

    1. I think 99.9% you guys are going to chicken shit out and keep feeding your unhealthy habits, media diet and alcohol and the occasional amphetamine and all, while maybe a handful of nutcases blow up a building or two.

      With any luck you’ll be just terroristy enough to discredit Republicans forever. But for the most part the Trumper is middle class and middle aged. Not prime terrorist stock. I think it’s mostly bluster, but we’ll see. Your kind have blown up plenty of babies before.

      1. Fuck off

        1. It’s hilarious(?) to me that you don’t take a moment to look around and notice that it’s you and a bunch of neo-Nazis talking about committing acts of terrorism. Maybe you’re the bad guys? Like by definition?

          1. That’s right fuck-tard, we’re “neo-Nazis” for doing the same thing your team did for the last four years.
            Makes perfect sense to anyone with an IQ less than 60

            1. Oh, Nazis always accuse their targets of what they themselves are guilty of.

              Notice how you just assume “two wrongs make a right” is accepted ethical motivation.

              Then you go on to do something your enemies never did to try to eliminate a threat that doesn’t actually exist.

              Meanwhile a lunatic gets his power boner, the corporate vampires sink their fangs deeper, and you raise your children to be stupid and dependent on authority just like you.

  38. I’m still voting to re-elect him.

  39. If anyone is interested in compelling evidence of fraud, then watch the Georgia’s Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections on YouTube. It is shocking and appalling at what went on.

    If you don’t have a full 5 hours to spare, then pay particular attention to the witnesses at the time marks for:
    Jovan Pulitzer
    1:13:24 – 2:00:50
    State Farm Arena Multiple Scans (Clear visual evidence)
    3:41:15 – 3:49:00
    Analyst Team
    4:38:35 – 5:00

    1. It was not at all clear or convincing to, well, anyone

  40. Jacob Sullum either watches ALOT of CNN or is a big China guy from the tone of this article.

  41. Good article..
    V88 adalah slot online terpercaya dan mudah mendapatkan jackpot. Download di v88

  42. Sullum eats ass…there, I said it!

  43. Yes, the hundreds of eye witness depositions filed under oath about voting irregularities are all just part of Trump’s “loony” conspiracy theory but a two-year Russian-collusion investigation based on a totally fabricated dossier was totally above board. Yeah, right.

    1. Yes they are

      fact free delusions

      dealt with on the merits by trumpski appointed judges

      deal with it, your guy lost, and no amount if whining will change it

      only a coup, which 11 traitorous senators are all in for

  44. When is this old news going to be updated with the current news that a dozen Senators and dozens (plural) of Representatives are going o object to the fraudulent votes?

  45. This thread is hilarious. By shilling and apologizing for Trump for the last four years, Reason has enabled the inmates to take over the asylum. It’s a fitting, disgraceful intellectual dead end for this formerly respectable publication. Bad things happen to bad people.

  46. Trump’s personality gets in the way, but in the last 30 years he’s closer to anything Reason used to stand for than any of the other presidents. The fact that you guys are now trying to call the election legitimate just makes this formerly good website, useless!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.