Election 2020

Ted Cruz's Legally Groundless Challenge to Biden's Electoral Votes Was a Disgrace That Should Follow Him Forever

Cruz plunged into the constitutional abyss while Rand Paul stepped back, refusing to sacrifice democracy and the rule of law.

|

There is a lot of blame to go around for the poisonous delusions that led to yesterday's riot at the Capitol, starting with a president who incited his followers with loony conspiracy theories and wild tales of a stolen election. But the disgraceful performance of Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) should figure prominently in histories of this shameful incident. By contrast, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), who also has reinforced some of Donald Trump's fraud claims and even toyed with the idea of objecting to electoral votes, stared into the constitutional abyss and stepped back.

Cruz was one of six senators who voted against recognizing Arizona's electoral votes for President-elect Joe Biden last night and one of seven who supported the challenge to Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Ostensibly, these objections were based on the claim that the votes were not "regularly given," as required by the Electoral Count Act. Yet Cruz offered no reason to think that was true, meaning he had no legal basis for his objections.

Cruz presented his challenges as an attempt to assuage the doubts of Americans who think the election was "rigged" by appointing an "electoral commission" charged with conducting "a 10-day emergency audit" to investigate unfounded claims of systematic fraud that have been decisively rejected by state officials and the courts. He knew there was no way that was going to happen, but he pursued his objections anyway, even after yesterday's pro-Trump chaos, vandalism, and violence led several of his erstwhile allies to reconsider their support for his plan. His pointless grandstanding lent credence to the unfounded accusations underlying the riot—accusations recklessly hurled by the same man Cruz himself has described as a "pathological liar" who "doesn't know the difference between truth and lies"—while forsaking his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

"Recent polling shows that 39 percent of Americans believe the election that just occurred was 'rigged,'" Cruz said when it was his turn to explain why he was objecting to Arizona's electoral votes. "You may not agree with that assessment, but it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country….Even if you do not share that conviction, it is the responsibility, I believe, of this office to acknowledge that it is a profound threat to this country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future."

Cruz insisted that he wasn't "arguing for setting aside this election." His concern, he claimed, was that "tens of millions of Americans will see a vote against the objection as a statement that voter fraud doesn't matter, isn't real, and shouldn't be taken seriously." Dismissing their concerns, he said, "jeopardizes, I believe, the legitimacy of this and subsequent elections."

What was missing from Cruz's little speech? Any mention of evidence indicating that Arizona's electoral votes were not properly certified, which is the only legal justification for rejecting them. A senator who takes his responsibilities seriously does not lodge an objection under the Electoral Count Act simply as an excuse for outlining a cockamamie scheme that supposedly will alleviate the doubts sown by a president whose fantasy that he actually won the election by a landslide is impervious to evidence.

Cruz's maneuver was cowardly as well as legally groundless. Eager to appease the Republicans who live in Trump's alternate universe without seeming like a kook, Cruz refuses to endorse or reject their beliefs. More than two months after the election, the closest he can come to admitting that Biden won is his concession that "our candidate may not have prevailed." At the same time, he presents the widespread "conviction" that Trump won not as his personal belief but as a "reality" that somehow justifies setting aside duly certified electoral votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) shares Cruz's concerns about voter fraud and election "irregularities." But as he noted before Cruz spoke, "nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale…that would have tipped the entire election." He added that "public doubt alone" cannot "justify a radical break" from historical practice "when the doubt itself was incited without evidence."

McConnell rejected the notion that humoring conspiracy theorists will somehow bring the nation together. "We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes," he said, "with a separate set of facts and separate realities, with nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share."

McConnell warned that "if this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral" and "we would never see the whole nation accept an election again." Instead, "every four years would be a scramble for power at all cost."

Cruz's claim that he was not trying to overturn the election results is impossible to reconcile with his original plan, which involved objecting to electoral votes from six swing states, enough to change the outcome. "This objection is for the state of Arizona, but it is broader than that," he said last night. "It is an objection for all six of the states." In point of fact, it wasn't. But if the Capitol Hill riot had not persuaded Cruz and his collaborators to scale back their objections, their efforts, if successful, would have done precisely what Cruz insisted he did not want to do.

Now consider what Rand Paul had to say about Cruz's machinations:

Should Congress override the certified results from the states and nullify the states' right to conduct elections? The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn the election!

Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what states' rights Republicans have always advocated for. This would doom the Electoral College forever. It was never intended by our founders that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections.

My oath to the Constitution doesn't allow me to disobey the law. I cannot vote to overturn the verdict of the states. Such a vote would be to overturn everything held dear by those of us who support the rights of states in this great system of federalism bequeathed to us by our founders.

The Electoral College was created to devolve the power of selecting presidential electors to the states. The Electoral College is, without question, an inseparable friend to those who believe that every American across our vast country deserves to be heard. If Congress were given the power to overturn the states' elections…what terrible chaos would ensue. Imagine the furor against the Electoral College if Congress becomes a forum to overturn states' Electoral College slates.

It is one thing to be angry. It is another to focus one's anger in a constructive way. That hasn't happened today, to say the least. We simply cannot destroy the Constitution, our laws, and the Electoral College in the process. I hope as the nation's anger cools, we can channel that energy into essential electoral reforms in every state.

Paul is by no means blameless when it comes to vague allegations of election fraud. During a December 16 Senate hearing on election "irregularities," he accepted the testimony of Christopher Krebs, who ran the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency until Trump fired him in a fit of pique on November 17, that vote-tabulating machines were not compromised, as the president has repeatedly alleged. But Paul said that does not mean "there was no problem in the elections." He said he was concerned that "people broke the absentee [ballot] rules." He also worried about votes by noncitizens and "dead people," both of which are rare.

Later Paul declared that "fraud happened," which no doubt is true, and "the election in many ways was stolen," which is quite a leap. He added that "the only way it will be fixed is by in the future reinforcing the laws."

In short, Paul has flirted with rhetoric similar to Trump's but nevertheless agreed with McConnell that fraud was not pervasive enough to justify rejecting electoral votes. Cruz, by contrast, wanted to throw out electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania without even bothering to allege that they were legally invalid. Whether or not you agree with Paul's views about the merits of the Electoral College, his refusal to compromise his principles by going along with Cruz's scheme shows that even loyal Trump supporters can find the courage to defy the president's demands.

NEXT: No, Antifa Wasn't Behind the Capitol Riot

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

  1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

    1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Makings 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 ABC earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can du this to and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..work92/7 online

      1. Jacob “Sullen Dick,” driven mad by TDS, frantically types at his keyboard desperate to find the words to describe a man who challenged Biden’s legitimacy, yes Biden, Sullen Dick’s new lover, whom just filled up Sullen’s left nostril with a monstrous jizz explosion. So supremely confident in the legitimacy of Biden’s win, yet somehow scared to death of what a commission might find, Sullen Dick pieces together a deluge of blather and hatred while periodically sniffling and sucking up the jizz that keeps dribbling down out of his nose into his cum and coke filled mustache and down onto the pages of reason.com.

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

        1. ░░░░█─────────────█──▀──
          ░░░░▓█───────▄▄▀▀█──────
          ░░░░▒░█────▄█▒░░▄░█─────
          ░░░░░░░▀▄─▄▀▒▀▀▀▄▄▀──OH─
          ░░░░░░░░░█▒░░░░▄▀──YEAH,─
          ▒▒▒░░░░▄▀▒░░░░▄▀──LET ME─
          ▓▓▓▓▒░█▒░░░░░█▄───SNIFF──
          █████▀▒░░░░░█░▀▄───YOUR ─
          █████▒▒░░░▒█░░░▀▄───HAIR─
          ███▓▓▒▒▒▀▀▀█▄░░░░█──────
          ▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░█─────
          ▓▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒█░░░░░█────
          ░▒▒▀▀▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀░░░░░░░█───

          1. ……..…. ▄▄ ▄▄
            ….……▄▌▒▒▀▒▒▐▄
            ..…. ▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
            ..… ▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
            ..….▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
            ..….▐▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
            ..…▄█▓░░░░░░░░░▓█▄
            ..▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ▀▄
            .▐░░░░░░░▀▄▒▄▀░░░░░░▌
            ▐░░░░░░░▒▒▐▒▒░░░░░░░▌
            ▐▒░░░░░▒▒▒▐▒▒▒░░░░░▒▌
            .▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▄▀▒▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▄▀
            ….. ▀▀▀▀▀…..▀▀▀▀▀

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

              1. ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
                ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠟⠉⠄⣀⡤⢤⣤⣈⠁⣠⡔⠶⣾⣿⣿⣿
                ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠋⠁⠄⠄⠄⣼⣿⠁⡀⢹⣿⣷⢹⡇⠄⠎⣿⣿⣿
                ⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠹⣇⣀⣡⣾⣿⡿⠉⠛⠒⠒⠋⠉⢸
                ⡿⠋⠁⠄⠄⢀⣤⣤⡀⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠙⠛⠛⠉⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈
                ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⢹⣧⡈⠿⣷⣄⣀⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⢀⣠⢄⣾
                ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠻⢿⣶⣌⣙⡛⠛⠿⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠖⣒⣒⣚⣋⡩⢱⣾⣿
                ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠻⠿⠿⠟⠛⠛⠛⠉⢉⣥⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿
                ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠒⠶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
                ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
                ⣿⡿⠛⠛⠛⢻⣿⠿⠛⠛⠛⢿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠛⠛⢻⡟⠛⣿⡿⠛⣻⣿⣿⣿
                ⡟⠄⣼⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣾⣿⣧⠄⢻⡏⠄⣼⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⡟⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿
                ⡇⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⣿⣿⣿⠄⢸⡇⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣀⠈⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿
                ⣿⣄⠈⠙⠛⢻⣧⡄⠙⠛⠉⣠⣿⣷⣄⠈⠙⠛⢹⡇⠄⣿⣧⠄⠻⣿⣿⣿

                1. ░░░░█─────────────█──▀──
                  ░░░░▓█───────▄▄▀▀█──────
                  ░░░░▒░█────▄█▒░░▄░█─────
                  ░░░░░░░▀▄─▄▀▒▀▀▀▄▄▀──DO─
                  ░░░░░░░░░█▒░░░░▄▀────IT──
                  ▒▒▒░░░░▄▀▒░░░░▄▀───FOR──
                  ▓▓▓▓▒░█▒░░░░░█▄───BIDEN──
                  █████▀▒░░░░░█░▀▄────────
                  █████▒▒░░░▒█░░░▀▄───────
                  ███▓▓▒▒▒▀▀▀█▄░░░░█──────
                  ▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░█─────
                  ▓▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒█░░░░░█────
                  ░▒▒▀▀▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀░░░░░░░█───

                  1. Suck it!
                    ______________________▀█▀█▄
                    _________________▄█▀____█____▀█▄
                    _______________▄█▀_______________▀█▄
                    ______________█______________________█
                    ______________█_____________________█
                    ______________▀█▄▄____█______▄█▀
                    __________________█____▄▀▄____█
                    __________________█__▀_____▀__█
                    __________________█_____________█
                    __________________█_____________█
                    __________________█_____________█
                    __________________█_____________█
                    __________________█_____________█
                    _________▄█▀▀█▄█______________█▄█▀█▄
                    ___▄█▀▀_________▀______________________▀▀█
                    █▀____________________________________________▀█
                    █________________________________________________█
                    █_____________________▄█▄_____________________█
                    ▀█_________________█▀__▀█________________█▀
                    __▀█▄___________█▀______▀█__________▄█▀
                    _______▀█▄▄▄█▀____________▀█▄▄▄█▀

    2. Signed Affidavit proving Dominion/Smartmatic Rigging the election for Biden. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Feehan-ED-WI-Lawsuit-Complaint1.pdf

  2. One would think Jacob’s hairy palm would get worn down by now.

    Fuck off and die, Reason

    https://twitter.com/CassyWearsHeels/status/1347192828804403205

    When President Trump was inaugurated, over 100 radical leftists were arrested for rioting, looting and violence.

    Democrats and the media didn’t condemn that.

    1. Fuck off, yourself, traitor.

      1. Awesome. Poor Chipper has fully embraced his authoritarian statist loving side.

      2. Hey White Knight. Let me introduce you to “Hunter” Biden. He’s been hunting for just the right ass, and he told me, yours is it. Biden approaches from behind – Cock in hand. White Knights “o” face:

        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠠⠄⠤⠐⠚⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠓⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠤⣖⣶⣭⣷⣼⣄⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣫⣭⣴⣶⣦⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⣪⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣿⣿⠻⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⣩⣿⣿⡟⣿⣠⣼⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⢸⣤⣼⣿⣿⠻⣿⣿⠀⠀
        ⠀⢀⣿⣿⡟⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⠏⠀⢹⣿⡄⠀
        ⠀⠈⢿⣿⡃⠀⠀⠀⠉⢁⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣀⠈⠀⠀⠀⢰⠟⡇⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠉⠗⠖⠀⠊⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠒⠀⠐⠆⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣒⣢⣤⣤⣤⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⣝⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣻⠎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⣈⡭⠭⣭⠴⠚⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

      3. Listen, you democrat piece of shit. You don’t call people traitors. You ARE a traitor. Just like every other worthless, filthy democrat. Cunts like you aren’t capable of patriotism and aren’t really Americans. So watch your time and your words with your betters.

        You’re lucky non democrats tolerate you. Or your existence would come to a rapid end.

        1. Mark, I served 12 years in the Army to defend your disgusting speech. So glad I did, soo, so glad. You “tolerate” people with differing views? Is that right? So you think having a different political view, if things were just, should be a capital crime? I tolerate your disgusting rhetoric. You undoubtedly have zero understanding of the Constitution (you’ve shown it by your response) or the liberties which it enshrines, including the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, requiring the state to prove claims of illegality before stripping people of their rights (in this case, their vote). Please read the 6th Amendment. I served to defend your ignorance, your threats demean you even more. Calling yourself better than anyone is pretty ironic considering your abject failure to understand the liberties which you claim you tolerate us all into allowing us to have.

          1. 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.Amr Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

    2. Watching their decline into progressive-lite has been tragic. One would think that a libertarian magazine of all things would understand how election processes can be corrupted or abused, ESPECIALLY one in which numerous states have all gone to mass mail-in voting for the first in just a few months.

      This election needed the most oversight, the deepest auditing and careful analysis given how new it was for nearly every state, and thus how open for fraud, negligence, or just plain innocent accident.

      This whole thing is like someone saying that a company shouldn’t do in depth crash tests on their new car even though it’s the first time they’ve built one from the ground up. Instead, just presume that it’s safe since other car companies have similar cars and they’re considered safe.

      The people who hated electronic voting machines due to possible corruption (intentional or not) and demanded paper trails are now saying that mail-in systems are fine despite lacking the chain-of-custody inherent in keeping machines and ballots on premises in secured locations, as well as the authentication issues that prompted a demand for a backup copy.

      The rejection rates alone cried out for investigation. Normally 2-3% of ballots are rejected due to error – now it’s 0.3%? With this many more people voting from wherever for the first time, there are fewer errors than ever?

      1. Amen AND Awomen!

        Good analogy with the crash test dummies.

        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. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
          COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

      2. Brendan, you invent a strawman ….”Watching their decline into progressive-lite has been tragic. One would think that a libertarian magazine of all things would understand how election processes can be corrupted or abused, ESPECIALLY one in which numerous states have all gone to mass mail-in voting for the first in just a few months.” and claim it’s anti-libertarian to allow that sort of vote to occur. Why? The methodology used was used widely across the country prior to 2020. There are no valid allegations of wide-spread abuse (there are always errors in every election, no more so meaningfully in 2020 than in 2018). Libertarianism says the people should be allowed to act in a certain way so long as their actions do not harm others…e.g. I want to smoke pot, I’m not hurting anyone and the government has NO business stopping me. Saying I can’t vote by mail when there is no evidence my doing so has lead to any harm falls into the libertarian’s realm, not allowing it is the mark of a statist.

        Either you agree with the presumption of innocence, that the government must show cause to strip rights, or you don’t. It seems like you don’t.

    3. Sullum needs to take a high dive into Reason’s own woodchipper.

      1. It almost makes me miss the days of the constant Shikha Dalmia immigration strawman articles.


      2. THE WOODCHIPPER!

    4. The nazisoviet converts have become quite enthusiastic.
      Dark times ahead.

      1. White Knight affected. Becomes Dark Knight.

        1. He was always dark night, ie a lefty. He just refuses to accept it.

          1. I think of him as an inane, raving faggot.

          2. So, encouraging people to storm the capitol, leading to 6 deaths, including a police officer who was beaten to death, is the light?

            Ok, I’m glad to be part of the dark side.

            1984 has got nothing on the modern GOP/rightwing in ‘Murka. Truth are lies, up is down, and dark is light.

            1. I thought it was 5 people and that (apart from the cop), they were all Trump supporters who died during their “attempted insurrection”.

      1. Done sucking cock?

    5. “When President Trump was inaugurated, over 100 radical leftists were arrested for rioting, looting and violence.”

      Radical leftists stormed into the Capitol by force, smashed down doors to Congressional offices, forced both Chambers of Congress to evacuate the building, and, finally, vandalized and looted property? I missed that story. I also missed the part where then current and former Democratic officeholders participated in the lawlessness.

      Well, as you pointed out, they were arrested and presumably punished.

      You realize this constant “But the leftists, the Democrats, Hillary’s Emails, the Deep State, or Lizard People” does your argument no credit unless your goal is to make me roll my eyes.

  3. You may not agree with that assessment, but it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country….

    Gone, Tedward, are the days when we humor for four years much less a few days a segment of the population’s election tampering concerns.

    1. Fuck off with your made-up claims of significant election fraud. Ascribing to this bullshit is being complicit in undermining American democracy. Fuck you, Fist of Etiquette and the horse you rode in on!

      1. We learned to talk about widespread fraud by watching your party for the last 4 years and from 2000-2008.

      2. I thought months-long bouts of political violence abetted by local authorities was undermining American democracy, but apparently not.

        1. Not even a months long direct attack on a courthouse, complete with extensive damage and vandalism to entire exterior and multiple arson attempts counted. Not the police stations burned to the ground, nor the hundreds of businesses, not the churches either.

          I can only imagine the reaction if these guys had torched a police precinct and declared the adjacent area an autonomous zone.
          Twitter would have collapsed under the weight of all the people condemning all Republicans if even one car or building had been burned.

          1. They also seem to forget the attempt to breach the SCOTUS before Kavanaugh was sworn in. Like pounding on the doors DURING the swearing in.

            I guess that ISN’T trying to interfere with constitutional government or something.

      3. Fuck you too.

        Am I doing it right?

      4. Lol. Chipper is off his meds. Go start a Maddow fan club.

      5. Let’s not bring Silver into this.

      6. It would be a damn shame if you had a stroke while chimping out here. But it’s going to be hilarious watching you get trolled for being such a piece of shit hypocrite.

      7. WK, it’s pretty much proven that there was massive election fraud. But you got away with it. Your kind really should be disposed of. You are rotting garbage. That should be thrown out. Just like every democrat.

    2. Fist, got proof? No? Yet you’re fine with the GOP disenfranchising voters all over the country. Talk about election tampering. The difference is, we have proof of your perfidy, while you.. have a handful of air and a mouthful of lies and nothing else

  4. Sullum….It was a mostly peaceful protest. That is, until the capital police managed to kill an unarmed woman.

    1. Fuck you!

      1. You and sarcasmoc hate having your masks exposed. Embrace it you pathetic biden cultists.

        1. TWK burning out a circuit has been one of the more entertaining parts of this entire debacle.

          1. Something snapped. I don’t get why this of all things made him flip a switch.

      2. It was peaceful outside of cops trying to murder people and launching tear gas INSIDE OF A FUCKING BUILDING.

        1. I’m sure you’re right, I mean when they beat that cop to death, they did it peacefully. When they tore up the building, and wiped excrement on the walls, they did it peacefully.

          Trump told his supporters to “be strong” and that weakness can’t win, told them Pence should/would stop this and when Pence confirmed he could not, does not have the power (because he does NOT), they went wild.

          Peaceful like a hand grenade.

      3. Don't be brash. They are peaceful protestors. Don't be a bigot. Acknowledge your "white" privilege, white knight. And let's have a moment of silence from you, to allow disenfranchised voices to speak.

        1. Bereft, I appreciate you being concerned about the disenfranchisement of blacks as they have been pushed to provide more and more proof of identity to be allowed to vote. Yes, that’s a crime and a needless set of regulation and I applaud you for standing up against “big gov’mint’s” solution to a non-existent problem. Kudos.

    2. Mostly peaceful tour of the People’s House.

      1. Yeah, wiping human feces is certainly peaceful. Beating a cop to death is peaceful, not obeying the orders of law enforcement is clearly peaceful. Tearing up the office of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader…. peaceful…

        Yep. Mostly peaceful.

        When that guy raped that girl, he said she mostly had a good time on our date too.

        Your point is irrelevant to the facts.

  5. https://twitter.com/ChrisRBarron/status/1347263585483976704

    Advocating for using the 25th amendment in violation of the express language of that amendment is attempting a coup. Since we like throwing that word around in the media, here’s an actual appropriate use of the word.

    1. A coup is an illegal overthrow of the lawful government. Unless the 25th is invoked unlawfully, it is not a coup.. Further, the President can object and Congress then officiates. It’s entirely lawful, and therefore, NOT A COUP. Learn the law.

  6. While more important events have taken place, has Reason weighed in on Kamala lifting a story from a 1960’s Playboy interview with MLK and claiming it as her own life?

    1. Nah, bro. Orange Man Bad.

    2. I’m pretty sure it was in one of the roundups, if not its own article.

      Thing is, when Reason posts a piece like that, the Trumpistas pretend it doesn’t exist. They won’t even comment on it to tell Reason to fuck off for not being critical enough. Then they say the article never existed. It’s almost as if they’re a bunch of disingenuous assholes. Did I say almost?

      1. You can cite it then sweetie. Can also cite you denouncing leftist violence anytime now.

      2. I think it was pointed out in the comment sections yesterday. As usual, Reason the last to know.

    3. She learned plagiarism is okay from the "Bidens."

    1. Fuck off! Own what your allies did yesterday, you traitorous asshole.

      1. Own what your allies did throughout all of last year, shitgobbler.

        And get up off of your knees.

      2. Sorter TWK: I am tired of arguing, so I am going to use this tiny episode as a reason to claim perpetual moral highground.

      3. Dude, you dropped a hinge.

        1. About fucking time. His transparent mask was off ages ago.

    2. Shame on the Trumpican Party for letting Antifa infiltrate their little ‘biggly voter fraud’ party through the back door they left open!

  7. So were the democrats equally disgraceful when they did the same thing as Ted Cruz?

    1. Shorter Ron: whatabout?!?!

      1. Ignore what we did for 4 years and then cry when fingers are pointed — convenient.

        1. The White Knight bot is broken — can get a code update?

      2. Shorter sarcasmic “ignore leftist hypocrisy waaahhhh”

        God damn son.

        1. I think you guys broke sarcasmic. Tulpa can carve a notch on his mouse, or something.

          Sad. Going to get cold up in Maine with what’s coming.

      3. Shorter Ron: whatabout?!?!

        And what is wrong that? Nothing is wrong with that. You seem to be thinking there is something wrong with making that argument. There isn't.

    2. Fuck off!


      1. FUCK IN!

        ……..…. ▄▄ ▄▄
        ….……▄▌██▀███▐▄
        ..…. ▐▒████████▌
        ..… ▐▒██████████▌
        ..….▐▒▀███████▀▀▌
        ..….▐▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▌
        ..….▐███████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..….▐░██████████▌
        ..…▄█▓███████████▄
        ..▄▀░█████████████▀▄
        .▐░█████▀▄▒▄▀░█████▌
        ▐░████████▐▒████████▌
        ▐▒████████▐▒████████▌
        .▀▄█████▄▀█▀▄▒████▄▀
        ….. ▀▀▀▀▀…..▀▀▀▀▀

        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠠⠄⠤⠐⠚⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠓⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠤⣖⣶⣭⣷⣼⣄⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣫⣭⣴⣶⣦⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⣪⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣿⣿⠻⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⣩⣿⣿⡟⣿⣠⣼⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⢸⣤⣼⣿⣿⠻⣿⣿⠀⠀
        ⠀⢀⣿⣿⡟⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⠏⠀⢹⣿⡄⠀
        ⠀⠈⢿⣿⡃⠀⠀⠀⠉⢁⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣀⠈⠀⠀⠀⢰⠟⡇⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠉⠗⠖⠀⠊⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠒⠀⠐⠆⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣒⣢⣤⣤⣤⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⣝⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣻⠎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⣈⡭⠭⣭⠴⠚⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

  8. I’d like to invite good faith discussion.

    Let’s acknowledge that both sides of the aisle have rioting groups that are more sympathetic to their political party and vice versa, but let’s also note the differences. Let’s also state up front that any individual, regardless of group allegiance, who participates in any vandalism or other crime during a riot or protest is guilty of that crime. There is no excuse.

    There is also justifiable self defense against the police in rare cases, and police often overstep their authority and violate other individual’s rights while doing what are their essential duties, both during the quelling of these riots and other times. Some of that can be written off as tactical errors or simple mistakes in judgement that can be dealt with internal boss-employee level discipline. Some of it is criminal and has gone unpunished. There are good cops, but it seems to me there is a culture problem in the police and their union leadership especially. That culture is about placing their rights and safety over those of the citizens they purport to serve.

    That all being said, back to the original point.

    One set of rioters was reacting to what they perceived, and often turned out to be (although often as not the other way) an unjustified homicide by the police for which the murderer suffered no legal consequence.

    This group is also far more widespread across the nation, numerous, and concentrated in urban/suburban areas. They have unarguably caused more death and destruction over this last year as their opposites.

    Now, I’ve seen people dismiss the BLM movement by arguing that essentially every police shooting is justified, from Daniel Shaver to 12-year-old Tamir Rice. I’m not going to address those people, because those people are not sane. I’m talking to people who can see that some of these shootings are obviously not justifiable, and the lack of consequences for those officers is a gross failure of justice.

    Those people have no legal recourse. The law is clearly biased against them, not on the merit of their complaint or the evidence for it, but on the self-serving interest of the members of the legal system. It is corruption. And people are dying over it.

    The other set of protestors believes, despite complete lack of evidence, that there is a vast international conspiracy to overthrow the election of the United States’ President (but not congressional seats, and not senate seats until just now). They think that 60 courts and 90 judges are all caught in a conspiracy. They insist that Trump only lost on procedural grounds, despite the simple and available record of how exactly those suits went down, and many of them were dismissed on the merits, withdrawn by the Trump campaign themselves instead of presenting their evidence, or yes dismissed because they were laughed out of court as being written by 15-year-old 8chan users.

    This mob is also a personality cult that responds incredibly emotionally to their messiah’s messaging. Again, I do not know how to state this in a way that is not inflammatory to some here. As the events of yesterday evidenced, those are the facts.

    These protestors have been given their audits, their recounts, their sixty, (60), five dozen lawsuits and still they persist in their beliefs. Now we are supposed to excuse a little light sedition and a homicide in the halls of congress to satisfy these demands?

    There simply is no legitimate complaint in the case of one group. And indeed, there is a very good case to end the escalating appeasement immediately.

    This is to say nothing of the fondness for Marxism among the self-described leaders and other aspects of BLM which I believe are not germane to the primary cause of these people being willing to join a mob and participate in violence, which is what I believe is the topic at hand. Nor the opportunist looters, who are clearly criminals.

    1. Did Fulton County do a signature audit of all the ballots?

      Were these other audits supervised by outsiders, did they look for fraud, forgery, etc., or were they just slightly dressed up recounts with any outside watchers too far away to see any relevant data?

      1. See Brendan, that’s the issue, no matter what Fulton did, no matter how carefully done, lead by GOP election officers, it will never be enough. Show proof of fraud, that’s YOUR obligation, no one is obliged to show proof of NON fraud. The burden of proof is on you because without that burden, the search never, EVER ends.

    2. TL;DR – You believe that people who don’t agree with you are less justified in protesting than people who you sympathize with.

      This is the problem with your dissembling. You start with the assumption that your “dispassionate” “objective” review of the facts is honest, when in fact it is just your bias.

      The people complaining about racial disparity have had 40 years of legislation, court cases, settlements by police officers, and yet they still have not gotten what they want. In this case you say that is the reason why they MUST riot. In the case of yesterday’s rioters, they had 2 months of court cases and did not get what they want- and to you that is the reason why they MUST NOT riot.

      Do you not understand how your normative judgement always comes back to whether you agree with the ends or not? Hundreds of court cases against cops is evidence FOR riots in one case, but 60 cases against states is evidence AGAINST riots in the other.

      You have a choice, DOL. You can say, “Look, I’m coming clean- I believe the ends justify the means and since I agree with the Anti-Racists, I’m going to give them a pass for rioting”. Alternatively, you could realize that preserving a right for only people you agree with means it isn’t a right at all.

      The former choice is where we end up with hate speech laws, churches shut down while restaurants remain open, and generally, politically-out-of-favor people being denied basic rights. That is fine, but it is not libertarian, and you ought to just own up to it.

      1. And to be clear here, I have said that violence is wrong and needs to stop, period. I haven’t said “Hey but these guys are really aggrieved…”

        Because when you actually look at who is being restricted, it is other private citizens who are paying the price. People lost their lives and livelihoods because the Anti-Racists didn’t feel they were getting the political satisfaction they demanded.

        I don’t care who you are, or what your cause. Do you believe kids are being raped in a pizza basement? Do you believe blacks are being harassed? Do you believe Uighurs are being harvested for organs? Do you believe Trump is stealing an election or being stolen from?

        IT
        DOESNT
        FUCKING
        MATTER

        Punishing private citizens for your political ends is no different from a government carpet bombing a city block as a form of collective punishment because its people won’t produce a terrorist. The **means** are wrong, and trying to hem, and haw about who is the most justified is a fools errand. None are justified.

        1. The protests last year were ridiculously out of place and inevitably punished the wrong people. How is blocking the freeway in Austin, TX a legitimate protest over the death of a man in police custody in Minneapolis, MN? It isn’t.

          At least the protest yesterday took place in the venue and was directed against the people responsible for the grievance. The protestors felt the election was fraudulent and the Capitol is where the election was being certified. Even if misguided, to protest there can be seen as ethical and appropriate. To riot, destroy property, or to give cover to rioters is never appropriate.

          That being said, interrupting the shit-show that is the US Congress is not an insurrection or domestic terrorism. That the media is choosing to portray yesterdays events as a crisis for the nation after everything they witnessed in 2020 says an awful lot about the loyalties of the media and nothing about the truth.

          1. The events of yesterday were, by definition and by legal code, sedition.

            “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

            https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384.html

            1. Technically, seditious conspiracy. And there is where it all falls apart. Try proving intent, DOL. To convict, you need intent, and the conspiracy. Good luck with that.

              1. My guess would be there is more than enough evidence of intent in some of these people’s social media communications. I’ve already seen unverified posts showing parler and twitter posts about breaking into the capitol, identifying security weaknesses, etc., and tying those accounts to real people seen in the footage. Unverified and circumstantial as of yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a motivated prosecutor could make it stick.

                1. And we have open articles from unelected bureaucrats stating they will resist the duly elected president from within their departments. The difference is you only give a fuck about one side. Because you are a partisan lefty.

                  1. Coward.


                    1. Get off your knees. Wipe that jizz off your face.

                    2. Dude, a little pussy pedo shitweasel like you shouldn’t be calling anyone a coward. Which is really what you are. Then there is your stolen valor, and your support of pedophile rights to be pedophiles

                      You are just loathsome. I hope your antifa buddies beat you to death.

                2. Like I said….good luck trying to prove intent. You never will.

            2. Protesting ones government isn’t sedition stolen Valor.

              1. What they did was sedition, or to put it more precisely, seditious conspiracy, and possibly rebellion. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of people far more qualified than you or I, and AG Rosen has given some indication he sees things the same way.

                18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection
                Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

                18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy
                If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

                1. That's bullshit. All bullshit. It was a peaceful protest. completely peaceful protest.

                2. You’re delusional if you think a US Attorney will bring either of those charges. The most I see here is unlawful entry.

            3. I am guessing you are referencing this specific part:

              “or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,”

              If that is the case, then you would agree that the rioters in Portland disrupting the Federal Courthouse, and attempting to destroy it, were guilty of Sedition. Right?

              1. I’m not a lawyer, but if they can be tried for it, then do so.

                1. Oh please. You just insisted that “by definition” the trumpaloos (whom you detest) were engaged in sedition. But when it is people you happen to sympathize with, you need a lawyer to be sure?

                  Come on DOL. You so easily called the Trumpers traitors, “by definition”. Which part of that definition clearly made them traitors? And would it not apply to the Portland people?

                  1. Overt, do you need to be told what good faith means? Because although you are engaging, you are repeating a pattern of assuming the worst intent from me, and repeatedly misstating my own words back to me. You seem more upset at my language style, that I do not mimic the language of your tribe, than the content I’m writing.

                    That said;

                    Yes, by definition, they conspired to commit sedition.

                    The crucial element is ” to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States”.

                    The Trumpists’ actions yesterday are clearly that. I’m not aware of any similar event or action in Portland, but if it happened, then get them for it.

                    1. It was a good faith peaceful protest.

                    2. ” You seem more upset at my language style, that I do not mimic the language of your tribe, than the content I’m writing.”

                      Au contraire. In fact you are the one who is using two language styles. Trumpers “by definition” are guilty of sedition, but people trying to burn down a courthouse…”Well, I am not a lawyer…”

                      Even your followup is a mash of weasel words:

                      “I’m not aware of any similar event or action in Portland, but if it happened, then get them for it.”

                      This would be a good time to talk about Good Faith arguments. It is absolutely unbelievable that you were aware that rioters in Portland spent close to 60 days laying siege to the courthouse there. We can go back and look at the articles written, and I am pretty sure that we will find your handle posting in the comment threads.

                      Bad faith conversations happen when you insist that you have no knowledge of an event so that you don’t have to deal with the argument. Bad faith argument is appearing to call them traitors (“Yes, by definition, they conspired to commit sedition”) then a few sentences later, adding a condition (“if it happened,”).

                    3. I know that they made themselves obnoxious, vandalous, and assaulted cops out there. I’m not disputing that. Whether or not that could be charged as sedition is not clear to me.

                      And because you clearly, clearly do not know what “good faith” means:

                      https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf

                    4. So let’s set aside the good faith sidebar.

                      “I know that they made themselves obnoxious, vandalous, and assaulted cops out there. I’m not disputing that. Whether or not that could be charged as sedition is not clear to me.”

                      Let me be clear then: Portland rioters attempted to burn down the Federal Courthouse, thereby impeding federal law- and by the way, also impeding the rights of citizens to a speedy trial. Is that an act of sedition “by definition”? We (including you) know that this exact thing happened during the summer. They weren’t obnoxious. They fired commercial grade fireworks into a federal courthouse.

                      Why is it so hard for you to say “Yes those people who did that were committing sedition by the same standard that I am judging the capitol hill rioters”?

                2. You’re not even an American.

            4. Then so was the CHAZ in Seattle.

              1. An abomination?

            5. Nice definition of sedition. Gasping at the idea the protesters were there to overthrow the Gov doesn’t make it so. The mock outrage in light of the year we had makes it laughable. What is more likely is the people behaved constitutionally by:
              ‘…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
              Government cowered in fear, which is their right. Now Nancy P wants Trump to pay … again … because her desk got teabagged.

              The argument is made that the people were not peaceable. Sorry, Anger and frustration will do that, as will allowing similar behavior to go unpunished for months on end.

              18% confidence level. Sedition my ass.

              1. That definition of sedition is the legal code of the US. Take it up with them, sparky.

                1. Doesn't apply. It was a peaceful protest.

                2. Sedition is what you leftists do. Not patriots.

            6. There’ your problem. You may be taking it too seriously. These idiots were there to overthrow the government. Get real. They were there to fuck around, take some pictures and get on TV.

              1. THERE’S and WEREN’T. Edit buttons are cool, thus not on this comment board.

        2. I agree with all of that. And if you somehow read my overly long post and still thought that I condone any rioting or other street violence, then let me state clearly that I am against BLM riots or anti-fa riots or trumpist riots. Anyone rioting, destroying public or private property should be prosecuted.

          1. Took you 9 months, kudos.

            1. No, it didn’t. I’ve been saying it since the get go. I said it after I went to the CHAZ and told you all what a bum camp it was. You just said I was lying and really antifa are my allies. You’re a drone.

              Why are you such a mendacious piece of shit?

              1. Look pal. It was a peaceful protest. There have been peaceful protests all over the US for a year now. Those were peaceful protests, and these were peaceful protests too.

      2. Well said.

      3. -“You start with the assumption that your “dispassionate” “objective” review of the facts is honest, when in fact it is just your bias. ”

        I stated the facts as I see them. If you would like to dispute those facts, then please do so specifically.

        -“In this case you say that is the reason why they MUST riot. In the case of yesterday’s rioters, they had 2 months of court cases and did not get what they want- and to you that is the reason why they MUST NOT riot.”

        On the contrary, this is a mischaracterization. I said that both sides must not riot: “Let’s also state up front that any individual, regardless of group allegiance, who participates in any vandalism or other crime during a riot or protest is guilty of that crime. There is no excuse.”

        -“You have a choice, DOL. You can say, “Look, I’m coming clean- I believe the ends justify the means and since I agree with the Anti-Racists, I’m going to give them a pass for rioting”. Alternatively, you could realize that preserving a right for only people you agree with means it isn’t a right at all. ”

        My, what a mouthful that you are trying to attribute to me. Once again, not something I said. I’m sure that this person would be very easy and fun to have a rhetorical argument against, but I am not that person. I’ve already stated, and restated that no one gets a pass. Full stop. Period. That’s it. So “admitting” to the things you keep attributing to me would make no sense. At worst, you can say I understand the motivation for one group and not the other. And that is actually my admission.

        -The former choice is where we end up with hate speech laws, churches shut down while restaurants remain open, and generally, politically-out-of-favor people being denied basic rights. That is fine, but it is not libertarian, and you ought to just own up to it.

        Again, not relevant to anything I have expressed.

        Thanks.

        1. “I stated the facts as I see them. If you would like to dispute those facts, then please do so specifically.”

          No, you have engaged in question begging. You have two parties that have attempted peaceful protest, legislative and civil suits to address their concerns. In the case of anti-racists, the fact that they still have grievances despite the due process of government is proof that the government is corrupt. In the case of the Trumpaloos, the fact that they still have grievances despite the due process of government is proof that they are wrong. You can only arrive at those two different conclusions if you start by assuming that one is true and the other false.

          That isn’t “facts as you see them”. It is fallacious reasoning. *shrug*

          “Again, not relevant to anything I have expressed.”

          Then what is your beef? Everyone here has said the rioters were wrong. Jesse has said it. I have said it. Pretty much everyone.

          So why write a big screed insisting that the Anti-Racist Marxists have a legitimate beef, while the Trumpaloos in Washington do not?

          It leads me to believe that in fact you do not want to have a good faith discussion. You want to spend another 300 characters demonizing people you disagree with, while providing rhetorical cover for people you sympathize with.

          1. I tried. Oh lord did I ever.

            1. Come on DOL. I engaged your good faith conversation and then you are going to bail?

              What exactly did you want me to conclude based on your argument?

              1. Accusing me of question begging is not good faith, nor is your other response upthread. I seriously suggest you look up the term good faith, because there is an actual meaning relevant for discussion like this.

                1. “Accusing me of question begging is not good faith, nor is your other response upthread.”

                  In fact, identifying fallacious logic is argumentation 101. That is why I specifically gave you the fallacy you were committing in order to address the argument.

                  And I followed up with a question to continue the conversation. If pretty much everyone from Trump to Cruz to Jesse to you, myself and whomever has condemned the rioters storming the capital, what was it you were trying to argue? Why did you bring up the anti-racist rioters?

                  To put it another way, if I had read your good faith argument and said “Wow, DOL, I never realized it but you are right. It really is true that….” how would you have expected me to finish that statement?

                  1. What do you call the repeated attempts to put words in my mouth? Words that are 180 degrees contrary to my actual stated opinions, available in the text just above?

                    And then call my responses “begging the question” without ever defining what question or how I am begging it.

                    Or assuming what I really mean, what I really need to “admit” to. You are trying to tell me what my position is, and it is something obviously repulsive and easy to argue against, not what I am saying.

                    I linked a cato piece for you to consider.

                    1. Please, DOL, educate me. What was your point. What were you trying to prove by comparing the cause of Anti-Racists to the cause of the Trumpers?

                    2. And by the way, I have now asked you 3 times to clarify your argument that you continue to say I have misinterpreted. Each time, you have responded with a complaint, but zero clarification of your position.

                      Go look at your Cato article. ” genuinely want to hear
                      what the other person thinks and has to say. ” I have asked specifically 3 times. Your first response was, (I paraphrase) “that was not at all what I was arguing”. Rather than clarify your position, you continue to complain that I am not engaged in conversation.

                      The only thing that I COULD confront was a set of argumentation that was fallacious. You compared and contrasted the motivations of Anti-Racist rioters with the Trumpers. I pointed out that you used the same class of facts to prove different conclusions, which only works if you are begging the question.

                      Remember that it was YOU who called to have a Good Faith discussion, and on your first reply to me you bailed on that. You essentially said “that wasn’t my point” and then refused every request to clarify it- as someone arguing in good faith would be expected to do. *shrug*

                    3. Overt, you attributed things to me that weren’t just not things that I had stated, but things that were 180 degrees opposite of what I stated. I repeatedly quoted my original comment back to you, because no other clarifications were necessary or better than what I had already written. You were either not reading my comments entirely, or were seeing what you want to see.

                      My point is that both “sides” are wrong to riot. One side does have a legitimate (in that it is real, not that it is an excuse for criminality) complaint, and the other is motivated by abject fantasy. In other words, one of these groups has been victimized, the other has not. One group was excluded from legal recourse through corruption, the other simply failed to make their case.

                      I point out other differences, too, but that was the main thrust.

              2. Isn’t he just an incredible shitweasel? I hope it ends very badly for him.

      4. Kudos on a good summary of all the cosplay libertarians here.

      5. Nobody has a right to damage other people’s property or to storm the US capitol in an attempt to overthrow the government.

        The only, and I mean ONLY people who are confused about this are the Trumpers.

        1. “The only, and I mean ONLY people who are confused about this are the Trumpers.”

          Everyone, including Trump, has condemned the riots and told them to stop.

          On the other hand, we just sat through 6 months of Democrats and the left dissembling and telling us that “sometimes protests need to make you uncomfortable” and asking “why do protests have to be peaceful”.

          1. If you want to talk about deep political theory and what forms of political violence are legitimate and righteous and what aren’t, we can save that for another day when it will be relevant.

            We’re talking about the attempted coup right now. You’re trying to make it about something else because you’re a brownshirt.

            1. Do you really think that makes you look smart? It is utterly transparent how hypocritical you are. And it is completely obvious that you realize it and have nothing to defend yourself, and so you say “well, there are reasons I’m not applying a double standard, but I don’t want to tell you.”

              “We’re talking about the attempted coup right now.”
              You are a moron. Nobody tried to seize power from the government. They tried to illegally disrupt it, and they should be punished for it.

              And I am not a brownshirt. I have declared this shit out of bounds for a republic since this summer. These assholes in washington should be prosecuted fully. Your desire to sanction violent protest for “legitimate and righteous” reasons while calling for the firing squad for those people that (coincidentally I’m sure) you’ve always hated makes you far closer to the brownshirts than me, kiddo.

              1. Excellent post, Overt.

              2. Except every single time I’ve been asked, I’ve explained that I do not support looting and rioting and violence. I don’t think I even believe in a righteous use of violence. I’m quite on the pacifist side of the spectrum. I’m not even solid on violence for self-defense.

                So we both could stand to assume less about the other.

                The brownshirt activity, and I’m happy to educate you, is bringing Antifa or BLM into this at all. It’s obviously a distraction, because any child knows that one crime does not excuse another. And one crime is not like the other, no matter how you feel about the righteousness of violence in protest of police abuse.

                And furthermore it’s a racist, evil distraction, because BLM has been the Trumper scapegoat for years. BLM didn’t actually vandalize anything. Criminals took advantage of protests, and Trump took advantage of hysterical rightwing propaganda about the protests, which in the end is bog-standard Republican ratfucking of progressive movements.

                You are on BLM’s side if you’re a libertarian. You’re supposed to be against cop abuse.

                And now the cops could barely be torn away from their donuts to bother with the people occupying and vandalizing the fucking US capitol building, while armies in riot gear are sure to round up black protesters for “blocking a highway.”

                BLM is a righteous, and libertarian, cause. So is Antifa for that matter. Or are you pro-fascist?

                Nobody supports the property destruction that happened and got blamed on them. By contrast, the president of the United States was behind these terrorists who broke into the office of the Speaker of the House and roamed around our houses of Congress like some scene from a horror movie.

                Just get more informed about what’s going on in reality, that’s all.

                1. I wouldn’t go so far to call the organization of BLM or the people who dress in black and call themselves antifa libertarian. Not by along shot. BLM the org seems to support some pretty explicitly leftist and marxist philosophy. Antifa quite obviously believes in the destruction of property and assault on the bodies of people they disagree with. Clear violation of the NAP.

                2. “The brownshirt activity, and I’m happy to educate you, is bringing Antifa or BLM into this at all. It’s obviously a distraction”

                  Oh please EDUCATE me, Tony! I was unaware that the term “brownshirt” is commonly used to describe someone who DISTRACTS. Silly me, I thought that the term brownshirt was used to accuse someone of being a paramilitary soldier committing violence on behalf of their political party.

                  And so not only are you transparently trying to back away from calling me a violent thug, you are also doing what lefties typically do when they lose an argument:
                  “And furthermore it’s a racist, evil distraction, because BLM has been the Trumper scapegoat for years.”

                  Ahh, the racist card.

                  But let’s be clear Tony. Not *once* did I bring up BLM. You did, so by your definition *you* are the racist. I called out the DEMOCRATS and lefty media who condoned and often supported actual rioting and rioters this summer. The fact that you assume I was talking about BLM is on you, kiddo.

                  But let me educate you, Tony. Bringing up the Dems and Lefty enablers is not a distraction. It is the whole fucking point. Democrats on the left were calling to “burn it down” all summer. Their mayors were standing by, calling off the police. Political leaders were contributing to funds that bailed out actual vandals and arsonists. They spent the whole summer insisting that politically backed violence is acceptable, no longer the realm of banana republics. They are absolutely part of the problem that led to yesterday’s storming of the capital building.

                  I have had no problem stating that Trump is cynically whipping up anger to increase his tip jar. Every time his team lost an election battle, he was there to offer another carrot so that his supporters would send in yet another dollar. Recounts! No, Court Cases- the big one! No Congress! VP Pence! He knows he is beaten. He doesn’t want a coup- he wants a trust fund.

                  Yes, Trump was stirring up anger. But it was the Left that normalized political violence. For them to wail now about it is hypocritical and it isn’t a distraction to call that out.

        2. The Left did attempt to storm the SCOTUS to prevent the swearing in of Kavanaugh. I mean, since you seem to have forgotten…

    3. The primary difference…

      The gop and trump condemned the violence immediately.

      You and the other leftists still defend BLM violence, antifa violence, and fail to note democrat politicians encouraging it.

      1. Jesse says, right under a comment where I state, “Let’s also state up front that any individual, regardless of group allegiance, who participates in any vandalism or other crime during a riot or protest is guilty of that crime. There is no excuse.”

        1. Yes. Yet you haven’t condemned them. Neither did sarcasmic. Neither did the media. Even yesterday Cuomo was protesting using his words from March against him.

          So fuck off with your attempts at placate an argument you know you’ve lost up front.

          You had the left commit 4 years of fraud on the president through the paid foreign dossier, a bullshit impeachment because vindman disagreed with the president, the ramrodding if a general on bullshit legal arguments, and active resistance inside the government actively working against the elected president.

          So fuck off with your attempts to ignore the last 4 year.

          One side actually denounces violence on their side, one side celebrates it.

          God damn man.

          1. Well you finally condemned it above. Baby steps.

            1. He thinks his side won. No harm now in disavowing what had to be done.

      2. And Trump did not condemn the violence right away. He was conspicuously absent from twitter or the TV after he whipped them up and set them loose. It was 50 minutes after his mob had actually breached the capitol building and lawmakers were barricaded that he issued any statements, and even then it was a single tweet.

        Sleepy old Biden made it to TV before Trump could even get off a second tweet. For a guy quick on the twitter trigger when he’s having a flame war with an autistic 14 year old, he sure took his time.

        1. 1) Trump specifically said in his closing statements that he expected them to peacefully march to the capital.

          2) 50 minutes is pretty fucking fast, considering how long these things take.

          3) So you are admitting that Trump actually reacted faster than Biden.

          4) The only reason Biden was on the TV faster than Trump was that he actually had a prescheduled speech to give, and it was already set up and ready to go.

          1. 1) Yes, we’ve all seen how talking like John Gotti or a king in need of ridding himself of a meddlesome priest is good enough cover for the blindly faithful.

            2) As I noted, he is much quicker with Twitter usually, and over far less geographically close and urgent matters. My example was a slap fight with Greta, but there are others.

            3) How so? Biden was on TV with a pretty good speech within the time that Trump could tweet twice.

            4) Ok, but the speech was not prepared ahead of time. Credit where it is due. Ol’ “Sleepy” Joe got on TV and looked presidential before the president, who set this chain of events in motion, could.

    4. In good faith, you’re not arguing in good faith.

      But let’s put that aside and simplify it without the rhetoric.

      One side has a problem with government policy and procedure, and decided to address their grievances to everyday folk, burning down their businesses and destroying their property over a period of months.

      The other side has a problem with government policy and procedure, and decided to address their grievances directly to the politicians they feel are responsible, breaking a window, stealing a podium, committing various other forms of vandalism, and the high crime of making politicians piss their pants for a period of about 3 hours.

  9. Denying election results has been Americas pastime for the last four years, why the sudden righteous indignation?

    1. Fuck off!

      1. Eat shit you little punk. You and your kind are subhuman garbage. You’re lucky Americans (non democrats) are on the side of good, and not evil, like you. This is why you’re allowed to draw breath.

        If Americans were like you democrats, you would all be wiped off the map in a week. Be grateful we’re so much better than you.

  10. There is nothing principled about Rand Paul here. He is perfectly OK flirting with the conspiracists and liars here. There is already a huge gulf between simply letting them speak and parroting some of the things they say. If he’s not willing to follow them into their rubber room well congrats I suppose.

    There has never been anything principled about Ted Cruz. The more time passes, the easier it is to understand the source of the rumors that he really is just a piece of shit who attracts maggots.

    1. Ted Cruz is the one of the biggest toadies ever.

      1. Let the hate flow through you, the mask is off now. No need for the fake sanctimony act.

  11. Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

  12. The entire Republican Party, minus a handful, has been complicit in all of this for 4 years. They turned a blind eye when Trump asked his AG to arrest and prosecute his political rivals. They said it was just Trump being Trump when he told everyone for months that he was never going to accept defeat and that his goons need to “Stand by.” They laughed it off when he defended white supremacists. And they never uttered a word when he got the AG to act as his personal lawyer, the one he always wanted.

    He told them all where this was going to go, that he was an authoritarian, and McConnell, Pence, his entire cabinet…all of them…ignored it. And now they’re concerned that the fire they helped light just might consume them too. And it’s laughable that guys like Mattis and Barr now find a voice to say how despicable Trump is, like they didn’t see it coming. Or even worse, that they knew and never warned the country. Phony patriots.

    And no pass to Reason either. It’s taken the last two weeks for Sullum to start screaming. Their criticism of this fascist has been tepid at best the last 4 years. When Obama said “you didn’t build that” there were about 10 articles written here about how that attitude would be the end of the republic. Even science guy Bailey wrote one! When Trump urged Barr to arrest political enemies, one…by Brown. Well, at least Sullum finally found his voice.

    1. He didn’t tell his AG to arrest political rivals, and he didn’t defend white supremacists.

    2. So, we’re still pretending Trump Russia wasn’t a thing huh. That that was tsill on the up and up?

      1. If you keep consuming rightwing media you’re going to be stupid for the rest of your life.

        It’s not a scandal that Trump got his feelings hurt because he was impeached for bribing a foreign official.

        It’s not a scandal that Trump got his feelings hurt because his own government found that Russia interfered in the election.

        You need to stop treating Trump’s own emotional problems as your own. It’s a little culty.

        1. That was all bullshit. In other words, typical Tony.

  13. I love when political analysis is conducted without regard to politics. It is so common anymore.

    Cruz was simply playing politics. He knew what he was doing was never going to be successful, that wasn’t the point of doing it.

    The goal was to grift money off of Trump supporters to fill his campaign coffers, to virtue signal for Trump supporters so as to wrap them into his orbit when he runs for president in 2024.

    It was a completely disingenuous political play. That’s it.

    1. Cruz was actually very clear in what he wanted. He wanted a 10 day commission to stop all of these election changes by the Executive or Judicial branches at the last minute. That’s literally what his letter to Congress stated a few days ago.

      1. And it’s smart because he will maintain some support from them.

        If these people do the GOP what they did to Fox – that is, quit the cold turkey – the party is done.

        It’s pretty amazing that just in January 2020 Trump and the GOP were poised for a dynasty. Now it’s unclear if they can maintain the momentum built up since the Obama years. It was almost a given they could get the House and Senate back in 2022.

        Now?

        Ciao baby. Enjoy Biden/Harris Jacob.

        There’s a very real possibility America changes for real. And not for the better. How can it with those two remedial hoodlums?

        These two losers should be shining shoes and asking what flavour Italian ice you want.

        1. “If these people do the GOP what they did to Fox – that is, quit the cold turkey – the party is done.”

          It’s got a puncher’s chance of happening. People are pissed. They were already, “What is the point of voting, anyway?” Now it’s, “What is the point of fighting for, supporting financially, and voting for these assholes specifically? When they won’t fight for their elected candidate?”

          Two years is a long time. We’ll see what happens.

      2. And he knew it would never come to fruition. Substantively it was pointless gesture just like his objection. The goal was to prep his brand, coffers, and support for 2024.

    2. Plenty of people commit treason for reasons of greed.

      1. Treason? Man, you are such an intellectually dishonest hack.

        1. Donald Trump has as much right to be president after Jan. 20 as any other random mental patient on the street.

          1. Uh huh. That’s not treason. Stop with the idiotic hyperbole.

          2. And he won’t be you fucking hack.

        1. Maybe it should have been straight fraud like the Trump foundation was before law enforcement shut it down.

      2. You’re correct Tony. One of those traitors will be usurping office on the 20th. In fact, most Congress critters from your party are owned by the ChiComs.

        Tony, democrats are evil, hate America, and have an easy time committing treason. Most of you lack any morality to begin with.

      3. You’re correct Tony. One of those traitors will be usurping office on the 20th. In fact, most Congress critters from your party are owned by the ChiComs.

  14. Yeah you libertarians loved Cruz when he was against droning during Obama’s reign of terror. You practically wanted to blow him.

    Seriously you’re so fucking stupid in how you analyze every situation. No consistency, no morals, no ethics, just a set of principles revolving around smoking dope.

    1. You don’t need to be a regular Kierkegaard to be against violent rightwing mobs trying to burn down the United States.

      1. I think the score on burned down cities is about 200 to 1 in favor of your side Tony.

        Even the capital building has been attacked more often by the left in it’s long history, once even by the group obama’s mentor belonged to.

        1. You’re a racist traitor cunt.

          The feds are investigating the insurrectionists, including the president.

          Tell me more about your brilliant insights into virology.

          1. Shorter Tony: Oh shit, you are right. I better drop to name calling!

            1. I would have noticed if 200 American cities were gone.

          2. Wow, when your little mind snaps, it’s kind of entertaining.

          3. Tony, democrats are traitors. None of us are. We are patriots. Your side is not capable of patriotism. You are a communist traitor.

            Case closed.

      2. Trumpistas were burning Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland?

        Who knew?

        The things we learn around here.

        1. No they attacked and occupied the US capitol in order to overthrow the presidential election.

          1. Lol. ‘Occupied’. It lasted a couple of hours. It’s the PEOPLE’S building. Feature not a bug.

            1. Not those people’s. Their new house has bars.

              1. Is this where we insert a paean about incarceration rates in Amurrica?

                1. Let the drug users out. Put the seditionists in.

                  A drug user isn’t a harm to me. A seditionist wants to steal my country. I paid a lot of taxes for this country.

                  1. You don’t have a country. This isn’t yours. You are not a real American. And since progressives don’t have souls, your personhood is in doubt.

          2. Cool story bro.

            Usually when people try to stage a coup, they bring weapons and start shooting people as they come in the door. They make a declaration that they’re the new government. They plant cells around the country to fight law enforcement and the army.

            All things considered, this coup gets an F-
            Didn’t last as long as CHAZ, but at least 5 more people were shot there, and sexually assaulted, so who can rate the relative success?

          3. Nope. Only a democrat would be dumb enough to think a few dozen unarmed people could ‘overthrow the presidential election’.

            You prog masters have really told you to be,I eve some stupid things today.

      3. And there it is. The telltale sign of a pure statist. The inability or unwillingness to separate the American people from the American government.

        They broke in to the capital. That is not the “United States.”

  15. Know those signs in warehouses ‘234 days since the last injury?’

    They should do a “Number of days TDS free”.

  16. “Seventy percent of Republicans say they don’t think that President-elect Joe Biden won a “free and fair” election, according to a new Politico/Morning Consult poll.

    The response marks a stark increase from the 35 percent of GOP voters who said they felt the election would not be fair before Election Day last Tuesday.

    —-The Hill

    https://thehill.com/homenews/news/525388-poll-70-percent-of-republicans-dont-believe-election-was-free-and-fair

    People turn violent when they have no other means to express themselves, and the disgrace of urging politicians to ignore the legal and constitutional concerns of their Republican constituents will follow Sullum forever.

    1. Open wider, clinger. You will comply. Or you will wish you had.

    2. So they thought the election was fair until they lost.

      What are we supposed to do about them again? Point and laugh at the stupid? No, that can’t be it.

      You want us to let Trump be president because his party is full of stupid, misinformed, assholes? Is that it?

      How much coddling do the real Americans need before we’re done?

      1. Many of us knew this would happen. Democrats are predictable in their villainy and treason.

  17. Sideshow Sullum strikes agian! It’s over bitch. Nobody gives a fuck about crap like that anymore. The nation’s got bigger problems dipshit. Namely, our system is infested with PARASITIC DEMOCRATS that utterly destroy the institution of law & order.

  18. Articles like these are the reason why the riots happened in the first place. And makes rebellion a necessity for American Conservatives.

  19. Sure is a lot of irrational horseshit in the “Reason” commentariat lately, and it’s not because the usual retarded leftist regulars have grown in ranks!

    1. Open wider, clingers.

      Your betters have even more progress to shove down your impotent, whining, right-wing throats.

      1. “Your betters?” And you think you are better than them HOW, exactly? A statist is a statist, and anyone who thinks that they have a right to shove ANYTHING down anyone else’s throat deserves to be removed from positions of power.

  20. Dear Reason readers:

    Donald Trump called our mommy a hideously ugly pig. Repeatedly. Publicly.

    Our Daddy responded by inviting Trump to a campaign rally, then licking Trump’s scrotum for four years.

    We are confused Is this how daddies are supposed to act? Mommy says no but Daddy says yes. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

    Sincerely,
    the Cuck Kids

    1. When the civil war escalates, it will be good when you’re executed for being the traitor you are.

  21. The reality TV show is over…cue the music. That said the idea around our federal govt was once an election took place you allowed the winner to govern until the next election. That doesn’t occur anymore and on Trumps defense (about the only defense I can give him) is the other side tried to kneecap him day one. Regarding the election…the simple fact is the Demos outthought and out hustled the GOP. Mail in voting is a huge opportunity to get votes from folks who are just too lazy or don’t care to go vote. Someone come to your house..register you if necessary and then advise you who to vote for is brillant. GOP voters tend to vote..many Dem’s don’t especially poorer folks who tend to live in Dem districts. Trump got outhustled because he was too busy with twitter. Ironic in a way.

    As for folks yesterday…arrest them on traspassing on federal property and tack on any property damages.

    That said we still a have a huge problem with the left in this country..and be prepared to have a full on attack on the Bill of Rights if you are a certain “tribe.”….head south if you want freedom.

  22. Cruz is proof that you can be very smart and mentally ill at the same time.

  23. Cruz is your typical phony opportunistic pol who barely managed to defeat Beto.

  24. lol “Libertarian”.

    sureeee, Reason.

  25. Not a fan of Al Franken, but like his line, “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz and and I hate Ted Cruz.” In the Soviet Union, Cruz would have been a communist and supporter of the FSB. In 1930s, Cruz would have been a Nazi and a supporter of the Gestapo. While Cruz appears to lack a human soul, I just can’t understand the Brokeback Mountain crush Reason has on Rand Paul. For his occasional libertarian impulse, the guy just sucks. A typical denizen of DC.

  26. “democracy and the rule of law” — Sullum you commie lefty-hack. Democracy isn’t the rule of law! And the rule of law was broken in multiple states; that is well established. IGNORANCE doesn’t make law….. I’m actually with Ted Cruz over Rand Paul on this one – push comes to shove Ted is about Law & Order while the rest of you hacks wave your ignorance flag.

  27. Paul is just as slimy as Cruz, but his political calculation led him to affirm the electors. It’s purely pragmatic.

    It was rich to hear Paul refer to the capitol mob as “anarchists” since his own father has often expressed his appreciation for the avowed anarchist Rothbard. Of course Rand was just engaging in demagoguery.

  28. What was missing from Cruz’s little speech? Any mention of evidence indicating that Arizona’s electoral votes were not properly certified, which is the only legal justification for rejecting them.

    Like the average American would be most interested in the legal technicalities? The points he brought up are the ones that would concern more regular folks.

  29. Recent History…

    In 2017 House Democrats challenged Alabama and Georgia votes for Donald Trump.

    In 2005 Democrat Barbara Boxer challenged Ohio’s votes for George Bush.

    Challenging the Electoral College votes is part of the system, but does not work very often. There are rules about how it is conducted, but this is certainly a legal maneuver that has been exercised before.

    You may have an opinion that this challenge was groundless, however there are over 50 million voters who would disagree. I personally do not like Trump, but do believe that he and his voters have every right to exercise legal challenges.

    I find it disgraceful that there has not been any court willing to hear the alleged evidence and instead hide behind technical reasons to avoid hearing the alleged evidence.

    I find it disgraceful that the corporate media and even the majority of alternative media and social media to discount and disparage this alleged evidence as baseless.

    I’m not saying that the election was stolen or not, just that the courts and media are avoiding the question, fail to investigate and attempt to shutdown any conversation that does not meet their narrative.

  30. “Cruz was one of six senators who voted against recognizing Arizona’s electoral votes for President-elect Joe Biden last night and one of seven who supported the challenge to Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. Ostensibly, these objections were based on the claim that the votes were not “regularly given,” as required by the Electoral Count Act. Yet Cruz offered no reason to think that was true, meaning he had no legal basis for his objections.”

    The House had over two hours of back-and-forth “debate” on this (it’s on CSPAN’s You Tube). The ones objecting to the acceptance of Penna votes stressed the fact that Pennsylvania’s Judicial branch and Executive branch materially altered the manner in which the Legislature prescribed elections should take place, and such alterations violated the specific requirement in the US Constitution that the Legislature is vested in established the conduct of elections.

    Still lost on all of these dimwits is the fact that mail-in balloting is not permitted by the PA Constitution. Act 77 of 2019 establishes it, but that Act first needs a PA Constitutional amendment to clear the way. That Amendment is SB413 Printers number 1453, but that is still only a resolution that has not completed the process to become an amendment.

    The opposition kept talking about the Constitution but their arguments demonstrated a lack of basic reading comprehension for this part of it.

    To me it seemed pretty much a slam dunk in favor of rejecting the votes from Pa, but politics, ya know.

  31. After january 20, 2021, Sullum will need something to do, so I suggest he gets on the Ashli Babbitt story (she was shot and killed by Capitol police Lt. ) as well as he did the Houston drug raid shooting that killed Rhogena Nicholas and Dennis Tuttle.
    https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/protester-killed-in-capitol-was-air-force-vet-from-california/

  32. Ted Cruz’s Legally Groundless Challenge to Biden’s Electoral Votes Was a Disgrace That Should Follow Him Forever

    Oh god. You’re so in love with your righteous anger. So now that Trump is on his way out you’re looking for another target to crusade against – look for another decade of TDS here – Ted Derangement Syndrome.

    Oh

    1. It wasn’t legally groundless. He’s a legislator. He can call for the Senate and House to look closely into how the election was conducted. That’s part of their job.

    2. Why, seriously, why, are you so scared of this? Why are you freaking out over the idea that maybe some effort should be put forth to reassure the rubes that everything’s kosher? What is with all this ‘shutupshutupshutup!’ writing you’ve been doing recently?

    1. Why didn’t Ted Cruz object to the Texas slate of electors? The Republican governor of Texas illegally extended early voting by 6 days. He was sued by the state legislature. The Texas Supreme Court incorrectly ruled for the governor.

      In answer to your #2, if a full investigation of ALL states and their handling of the election and events leading up to it was undertaken, I’d support it 100%. But challenging Arizona because Biden won while excusing Texas because Trump won is the height of hypocrisy.

      So, shut up.

  33. What was missing from Cruz’s little speech? Any mention of evidence indicating that Arizona’s electoral votes were not properly certified, which is the only legal justification for rejecting them.

    But . . . he didn’t call for them to be rejected. He called for a closer look at them. Which – if everything’s aboveboard as you claim – will just reassure people that things are good.

    1. What a stupid argument. “He didn’t burn the Constitution. He just poured gas on it and lit the match. He was a good boy.”

      A challenge to a state’s electoral votes is a call to have them rejected. “The joint session is suspended, the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each house meets separately to debate the objection and vote whether, based on the objection, to count the vote or votes in question.”

      I suppose you could say not counting the vote or votes in question is not the same as rejecting the vote or votes in question. But only if you’re not playing with a full deck. Not counting and rejecting have the same result.

      Bottom line: You lied.

  34. Republican losers are just pathetic. So weak and delusional.

    1. I think it goes beyond delusion. They think Trump won Michigan and Pennsylvania by 15% because that was his temporary lead at 3am before mail/absentee ballots were counted. Despite the fact that he only won MI by 0.23% and PA by 0.74% in 2016. And despite the fact that Dems outnumber Reps by 13% in MI and 7% in PA. And despite Trump’s awful handling of the covid pandemic and the Trump Recession that cost millions of people their jobs.

      That’s beyond simple delusion. That is insanity.

  35. I mean, I really hate to disabuse the writer of this piece of his erroneous perception of Cruz’s behavior, but his actions were a Constitutionally protected right. The state of Texas has elected Cruz to represent them in the Senate, so his ultimate responsibility is Texas, NOT the nation or “democracy.” Texas has made it clear that they are not okay with other states’ actions regarding their implementation of voting procedures. I’d think that a supposedly LIBERTARIAN journalist would recognize state’s rights and Cruz’s responsibilities to his state. He is not obligated to give in to the Feds and can voice objections as long as he works within his rights outlined in our Constitution (which he did).

Please to post comments