Capitol Riot

Where Do We Go After the Trumpist Tantrum?

When people are no longer willing to lose at the polls, it’s time to make elections less important.


As Americans deal with the aftermath of the Trumpist riot and invasion of the Capitol on January 6, a difficult question looms for the citizens of a troubled republic: How do you maintain a political system when much of the population ceases to believe in its underlying principles? The problem is not just President Donald Trump—whose petulant refusal to accept his loss at the polls set the grounds for the violence that disrupted Congress's count of Electoral College votes—but also his cultists who are more interested in maintaining one thuggish politician in power than they are in how power is acquired and used. Beyond them are all too many Americans who have come to believe they can't afford to lose elections.

This moment didn't drop out of the blue. The country has suffered growing political polarization, harsh feelings between the political factions, and an increase in political violence in recent years. We saw that in the 2017 ambush of Republican members of Congress and their protective police detail, the violent "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the litany of riots that started as demonstrations against abusive law enforcement before taking on a life of their own.

Those concerns grew as the election loomed. "We are increasingly anxious that this country is headed toward the worst post-election crisis in a century and a half," wrote Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution, Lee Drutman of New America, Tod Lindberg of the Hudson Institute, Nathan P. Kalmoe of Louisiana State University, and Lilliana Mason the University of Maryland in an October 1 piece in Politico. "Our biggest concern is that a disputed presidential election—especially if there are close contests in a few swing states, or if one candidate denounces the legitimacy of the process—could generate violence and bloodshed."

They had good reason to fear a disputed election. "About three in 10 (29 percent) Republicans say it would be appropriate for President Trump to refuse to leave office because he claims that he has credible evidence of illegal voting," the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group warned last summer. "On the other hand, 57 percent of Democrats say that it would be appropriate for a Democratic candidate to call for a do-over election because they claim to have credible evidence of interference by a foreign government."

The election results didn't exactly sweep in an era of good feelings. Twenty-four percent of likely U.S. voters "think Biden voters are America's biggest enemy as 2020 draws to a close," Rasmussen Reports noted early in December. "Nearly as many (22%) regard Trump voters as the biggest enemy."

It's tempting to suggest that the Trumpist rioters in D.C. did a credible job of fulfilling their detractors' fears. But that overlooks the evidence from sources like the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group that neither dominant political tribe was prepared to accept a loss. Even the Biden-aligned Transition Integrity Project—which anticipated Trump's bogus claims of electoral fraud and unwillingness to concede—also warned of political chaos if Biden's supporters were disappointed. In the end it was the current president's fans who rioted, but an uneventful tally of ballots didn't appear to be in the cards.

Elected officials, like Trump, who defy constitutional constraints and sheer reason can be removed from office at the polls, by impeachment, or by processes such as those outlined in the 25th Amendment. But what do you do when many voters themselves think the only legitimate elections are those that they win?

One important step would be to make elections less consequential so that Americans aren't so fearful of the instruments of government in the hands of their enemies.

"It is more and more dangerous to lose an election," economist John Cochrane, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, wrote in September. "Regulation has supplanted legislation, and dear colleague letters, interpretations, and executive orders have supplanted regulation… The vanishing ability to lose an election and not be crushed is the core reason for increased partisan vitriol and astounding violation of basic norms on both sides of our political divide."

For example, Trump threatened that companies which displease him "will be taxed like never before" as punishment. He led supporters in chants of "lock her up" aimed at his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. His opponents have had every reason to fear that his tenure in office constitutes a real danger.

On the same note, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo strong-armed financial institutions into denying services to his political opponents in what the American Civil Liberties Union called a threat to "the First Amendment rights of all organizations to engage in political advocacy without fear that the state will use its regulatory authority to penalize them for doing so." The vast power he wields is perilous to people with whom he disagrees.

In its reach into all areas of life, government in modern America increasingly resembles what the Israeli historian J. L. Talmon called "totalitarian democracy." This approach "treats all human thought and action as having social significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action." Since there's no room for going your own way, contests for political power necessarily become existential fights that nobody can afford to lose.

By contrast, wrote Talmon, liberal democracy "recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavour, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics." If most of life is under the control of the people living it rather than subject to the whims of government officials, losing elections is disappointing, but not catastrophic. To lower the political stakes, we need much more of our thought and action to be "altogether outside the sphere of politics."

What does remain within the political sphere should be decided as locally as possible. Centralized decision making sets the stage for conflict in a vast country of diverse values and preferences. During the Trump presidency, his opponents spent much time and energy complaining that the Constitution gives his rural supporters too much power through the Electoral College and the Senate. With Biden in the White House, we're bound to hear renewed griping about the cultural and economic dominance of urban liberals. While tension between dissimilar groups is inevitable, it doesn't have to be poisonous—if those groups aren't battling to dominate each other.

So, while we're expanding the realm of human life that's beyond the reach of government, much of what it does should be devolved down the political food chain, closer to the people who are affected, to reduce the likelihood of subjecting them to policies they despise. Ideally, as much decision-making as possible should be returned to individuals.

None of this guarantees that the Trumpists who stormed the Capitol, or any other Americans who no longer believe in the peaceful transition of power, will suddenly regain faith in vote counts. But making election wins and losses less important should lower the political tensions that are consuming the country. And that might give us all a little necessary breathing room while we figure out, once again, how to get along with one another.

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

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. I don’t think we’re allowed to reference the Scalise shooting.

    1. Do you wanna earn money without investing money? That’s how I started this job and Now I YBE am making $200 to $300 per hour for doing online work from home.

      Apply Now here…….. Visit Here

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earningis 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

        1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office XYX job and even a little child KERD can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..READ MORE

    2. Local story. Peaceful protest.

      1. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…. USA ONLINE JOBS

    3. Isolated incident. Totally doesn’t reflect Leftist attitudes at all.

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

    4. It goes without saying that police are given a very hard job in these kinds of circumstances. They are tasked with protecting people’s First Amendment rights to protest and preserving others’ rights to not have their persons and property assaulted by violent demonstrators………..HERE THIS MORE INFORMATION.

    5. Definitely not insurrection, terrorism, or assault on democracy.

      1. How about just.. disgusting?
        Liberals salivate just thinking about ‘far right violence’ and this played right into their hands.
        The worst part about Trump is he’s knee capped true conservatism.
        Hearing young Trump declare “This isn’t their Republican party, it’s Donald Trump’s Republican party” send chills down my spine.

        1. For complex reasons having to do with their insistence on being a white majority party, Republicans have increasingly leaned to fearmongering as a tool for motivating their dwindling base. Over the last few decades, that has reduced their trust in democracy as they see a time when even gerrymandering and voter suppression laws won’t preserve their seats. You see this in comments like “we’re a republic and not a democracy” as they de-emphasize the democratic nature of our system.

          Unmentioned in the article is another remedy: make gerrymandering illegal. Eliminate “safe seats” and force politicians to represent all of their diverse constituents in order to get elected. Politicians should be less worried about being “primaried” by their own party for not being extreme enough and more worried about the possibility of an opposition candidate.

    6. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months bnu and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

  2. Wow, this really is just like reading Pravda.

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

    2. It is.

    3. It’s hilarious, and stunning, to see how completely freaked out the media class is by this.
      I’m not sure 9/11 received as much coverage and righteous outrage.

      1. Imagine what they’ll write if it gets personal.

      2. the media immediately defended all Muslims after 9/11 but today any one who voted differently is to be treated differently. Of course this summer they also defended all protesters until this week.

    4. What “this?” The article, or the comments?

      Hope you don’t mind my asking what you’re on about…

    5. If you want a libertarian website, you should be here:

      1. I’ll check it out. Thanks for the blurb.

        I’ve read articles there, but not comments.

      2. Mises is pretty good, and FEE, and AIER, and they don’t go all “Orange Man Bad REEEEE!!!!” To virtue signaling to get invited to cocktail parties.

  3. But that overlooks the evidence from sources like the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group that neither dominant political tribe was prepared to accept a loss.

    And I for one welcome our new skeptical overlooks.

    1. He’ll be out of office.

      Out of “power” is another thing entirely. As long has the GOP base is Trumpist, he holds on to political power within the party.

      Conservatives didn’t attempt violent overthrow of the election because the GOP lost. Overall, the GOP won seats. They attempted to keep Trump himself in power. The whole “hang Mike Pence” thing had nothing to do with support for the GOP in general.

  4. Reason exists in some kind of parallel dimension. Trump is a clown who will be out of power in two weeks. You people are insane.

    1. Whatch movies like “In the Mouth ot Madness” to see what happens when dimensions merge. Its one big parabola that uses cthulhu instead of politics to make a point.

      An emboldened left can now push harder and harder to get more of this. The capitol incident was just a trailer. You can cancel that movie by letting go of being a control freak.

      1. Watch, not whatch. That was a wheird typo.

  5. What we need to do is pack the Senate and court system so Dems always get what they want, so elections are meaningless. That will keep us safe.

    Fuck you, Reason.

    1. No, what the article is suggesting is shrinking the size and scope of government so elections matter less to peoples lives, that’s the polar opposite of “Dems always get what they want”

      1. It doesn’t matter what the article says. It only matters what the strawmen in people’s heads say

        1. And you drag a ton of them around.
          Tell us how the magic words would end the CA wildfires; you never seem to have gotten around to that.

      2. Good luck with that when everyone wants 2 grand.

      3. If they were serious about that then they would have taken a stand over the Georgia runoffs. They couldn’t even be bothered to look at the candidates.

        Actions speak louder than words.

  6. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning for more detail visit the given link…………. Here is More information.

  7. I do recall the Rs using the line “Elections have consequences” as their way of justifying doing whatever they wanted.
    Time is now that the Ds show the Rs what they can do.

    1. It was the democrats specifically Pelosi that said it you dumb cunt.

      Yeah you’ll see what they can do all right. You won’t like it as much as you think you will.

      But you are a fucking retard so I don’t expect you to understand.

      1. The Rs have said it also, including Trump just a few months ago.

        1. In mockery, yeah.

    2. Hahaha, they were mocking Pelosi and Obama who both said that, you ignorant cunt.

      1. It’s bizarre, Mother’s.

        Do they not have regular Internet news feeds wherever trolls like Molly are posting from? You have to control ALL of the news, Molly, before you can try out your MiniTru act.

    3. Ok. I will admit that this post was not as historically accurate as I normal try to be. You all may consider it retracted.

      1. not as historically accurate
        Newspeak for lies.

      2. I don’t see a big difference for this one.

      3. That was a gracious gesture on your part – I acknowledge it as such.

      4. “Ok. I will admit that this post was not as historically accurate as I normal try to be…”

        You’re a lying pile of lefty shit and everybody knows it.

      5. Yeah, no, sorry. It’s been seen, and noted, and we know you were wrong. And you know you were wrong. While trying to go for a “Gotcha!” And you were got. Good job!

    4. I believe it’s an expansion of Obama’s, “I won.”

    5. Go suck a D.

    6. Actually, Obama said it in 2009 when talking to Republicans in Congress.

    7. LOL

      They were quoting your lord and savior Obama.

      1. Yesterday I said you were either and idiot or a liar.

        You may still be both, but idiot is fully confirmed.

  8. Oh all the hand wringing from libertarians who said nothing during months of rioting looting and burning.

    Fuck. You. You weren’t against it then so who cares what you think now.

    1. The BLM/Antifa crowd burned half of DC down last May, and Kavanagh protesters decamped in the rotunda, but who cares because some MAGA broke a window and posed for selfies.

      Here’s a nice slideshow of the lefties burning the capital down 8 months ago. It was a 1000 times worse than yesterday and was egged on by Democratic politicians.

      I want to hear from MollyGodiva and Tuccille as to why that’s different.

      1. It was worse then anything we have seen before because they were there to stop the counting of EC votes and install an unelected president. They also beat up police, broke down doors and windows. They even set up gallows outside the capital building. Their stated goal on video was to overthrow the government. BLM just wanted for cops to stop killing black people.

        1. BLM just wanted for cops to stop killing black people.


        2. Every single bit of that, including a gallows and guillotine happened back in May, and police were actually beat up then, unlike yesterday you dishonest fuck. 100 fires lit and millions of dollars in damage vs a broken fucking window.
          And the Kavanagh protesters were there to stop the appointment of a Supreme court Justice.

          You’re such a dishonest fraud, Jeff.

        3. It was worse then anything we have seen before because they were there to stop the counting of EC votes and install an unelected president.

          How exactly do a bunch of unarmed people “install an unelected president”? How do you imagine that actually works?

          1. Pay no attention to Molly, she’s off battling straw men.

          2. I don’t know.

            However, since we’re talking about the insurrection last week, we aren’t talking about “unarmed people” but, rather, armed people with pipe bombs, hand guns, Molotov cocktails, a gallows, a very lethal fire extinguisher, crossbow, assault rifles, clubs of various sorts, etc.

            And this is a group of armed crazies, a good number of whom believe in the Qanon BS so it’s not much of a stretch for them to think their attack on Congress and our election system would have some desired result. Trump himself said Pence had the Constitutional authority to overturn the election by ignoring some of the electoral votes. That’s just insane. Literally. And that’s why how I imagine it might work isn’t the important thing. The rag-tag group of cultists living in their own “boogaloo” world believed it was possible and that’s all that matters.

        4. “BLM just wanted for cops to stop killing black people.”

          Yeah, stealing TV’s from target and then burning down the store really helps cops not kill black people.

          You are demented.

        5. No they weren’t. Everyone knows that storming the capital was a protest and there’s no way it would overturn the election outcome.

          It’s obvious this would have no impact on who the winner of the EC is going to be, and people keep repeating this lie because they want to demonize MAGAheads as much as possible.

          Stop making Tuccile’s argument for him. Stop being part of the problem.

          1. You’re going to have to prove “everyone” knew that. Or at least that the folks who stormed the capitol building knew that.

            Good luck trying to prove it, too, given the amount of Qanon cultists among them, the neo-nazis, and the boogaloo crazies. They believed Mike Pence could overturn a free and fair election because Trump told them so.

            When is a protest not just a protest? When it’s insurrection.

        6. Remember when BLM put up gallows in Seattle no big deal its free speech it’s not a threat bla bla bla. Now OMG they put up a gallows.

          Plus has anyone stated they were there to force the acceptence of Trump or were they there to force a real investigation into voting irregularities

          1. Mostly peaceful protestors in Portland dragged a literal guillotine down the street. The Oregon Teachers union tweeted in support.

          2. You did hear them chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” right?

        7. They wanted to delay the election certification until after an independent audit could be conducted.

          Are you that dumb? How in the world could a group I think between all of them had one gun going to force anything.

        8. And burning and looting was solved that. How’s the black murder rate going this year by the way?

  9. I think a significant part of the problem is that politics is more about holding power that serving people. Gerrymander districts mean only one party can win forcing candidates to extremes rather than a sensible middle. Once in power legislators avoid taking votes and push decisions they should make into the executive branch where the decision are made through regulation or executive order.

    1. Much easier to plunder & pass out the goodies that way…

      1. Yup.

    2. +1

      Voter suppression laws make this even worse.

  10. but also his cultists who are more interested in maintaining one thuggish politician in power than they are in how power is acquired and used.

    Do DOL/White Knight were Tuccillle’s sockpuppets all along.

    1. *So*

    2. Would it surprise you? I’ve thought Tony was an employee of theirs for awhile.

  11. The Democrats are working for an all powerful central government. Elections will have massive importance until they are convinced otherwise.

    1. They need to be disrespected and utterly disregarded. Sacking the Capitol building was an entertaining example to watch. Electing Trump at all was another example. Not believing their election fraud “because they said so” is another example.

      The tighter they squeeze their fist, the more that escapes through their fingers.

  12. This moment didn’t drop out of the blue.

    But it will be forgotten soon enough. Call me when we reach the level of political violence of the 1960s and 1970s. Assassinations, bombings, robberies, riots and hijackings – all politically motivated – marked those decades.

    We’ll be fine.

    1. While I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just the latest step towards a final partition, you do make a good point here that shit was FAR more violent in the late 60s and early 70s.

      “Days of Rage” by Bryan Burrough is a book I can’t recommend strongly enough, and should be in every non-leftist’s library–just so you can see that their tactics and their support base have not changed one iota in over 50 years.

      1. The sheer number of bombings in the 70s, and how blase people eventually became about them, is incredible to read.

        That said, and I definitely could be wrong, the hatred now is more visceral and widespread than it was then. Back then, it was confined to cadres of Far Left kooks, small in number. I guess we’ll see if the numbers are greater now and if their methods now eclipse what happened then.

        1. Just a quick reminder that Bill Clinton pardoned Susan Rosenberg, who participated in the 1983 bombing of the US Capitol and who went on to become one of the key fundraisers for BLM.

        2. the people who wrote the far left books in the 60/70 inspired those in power now that is why our government is more dangerous now and should be considered a danger to our constitution. those rioting on Wednesday were hoping to protect the constitution.

  13. I agree- we need to make elections worth less to the winners and losers.

    So, how do we gut government of most of its power? With nothing to fight over, there’s no riots in the seat of power.

    When will the libertarians and an-caps organize into something useful for liberty?

    1. The Boomers started this shit by making elections an existential struggle in the 60s, and Gen-Xers and Millennials have taken up the baton and sprinted with it over the last 20 years.

      I’ve proposed before that we really need more Congressional reps and more states carved out so right-wingers who live in Illinois, and left-wingers who live in Wyoming, don’t feel their vote doesn’t really matter. I know that’s not the “libertarian” solution, but it might lower the stakes a bit.

      1. NSC-48, and the recognition that the US was it as far as a global power, would have been my vote. It, and the centralization of power that I think is inherent with nuclear weapons, started us on the road to Imperial Washington. Add to it the Great Society, and suddenly, there was a whole lot of money worth fighting over in DC.

        9/11 just put the headstone on the grave. This election was the corpse stopping its attempts to dig out of the grave.

      2. I thought similar ideas were a bit loony when I first heard them through a Bednarik surrogate in college however many years ago (2000? 2004?). I ended up coming to the same conclusion by 2012.

    2. So, how do we gut government of most of its power.

      By opening borders, eliminating tariffs, promoting abortions, and wallowing in TDS, of course! It’s the Reason way!

      1. I left out: supporting the government/media/tech complex and granting them monopolies on public discourse! That’s definitely a libertarian position, according to Reason!

  14. When Reason interviews potential new employees, they only ask one question – “Are you now, and will you always be, driven batshit crazy from TDS?”

    If answered yes, then its “You’re hired!”

    1. “Do you feel that libertarianism is a philosophy or a fashion statement?”

      “Definitely a fashion statement”

      “Welcome to Reason!”

    2. You two are both way too honest and straightforward. There’s not enough confusion of lies and “civil” technicality with libertarianism.

      Q: Are you now, and will you always be, driven batshit crazy from TDS?
      A: No, I only suffer from TDS when my vote matters.

      Q: Do you feel that libertarianism is a philosophy or a fashion statement?
      A: For female sex workers it’s a philosophy, it has to be for them to survive, especially under right-wing leaders like Trump. For white males, it’s a fashion statement.

  15. “When people are no longer willing to lose at the polls, it’s time to make elections less important”

    Or…. maybe it’s time to stop politicians and pundits from exaggerating their importance.

    Seriously, how many articles and tweets have we seen, this election cycle, about how, if Biden wins, “there go the suburbs” or “it’s the end of America as we know it” or warning of soviet-style rationing, and they’re coming for your high-flow showerheads, and then your _guns_, and then your _kids_.

    People need to be called out for their hyperbole. If there’s no accountability for it, there’s no incentive to stop. Sometime before the election, I wanted to ask all of my conservative friends on FB to write out _exactly_ what they feared would result from a Biden presidency. None of this hand-wavy “rampant socialism” or “wealth redistribution” soundbite stuff that, to two different people, could be concluded to have or have not come true. I’m talking about specific stuff, like “The deficit will rise to X” or “Black-on-white violent crime will rise by X percent”. Something like that places pundits in a tough spot. If they stick to predictions which they really think are likely, the predictions are modest and they lose the votes that would have been motivated by fear. Or, they could go big with horrifying predictions, get votes _now_, and later be exposed for being pearl-clutching, angst-ridden over-reactors.

    1. Exactly. If you listen to the hysterical demagogues, we will have Soviet bread lines and gulags for anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton set up starting on Jan. 21. It is absurd.

      1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kicked things off on Friday with a tweet that terrified Trumpworld.

        “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?” she wrote. “I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”

        A group calling itself the Trump Accountability Project sprung up to heed AOC’s call.

        “Remember what they did,” the group’s sparse website declares. “We should not allow the following groups of people to profit from their experience: Those who elected him. Those who staffed his government. Those who funded him.”

        Sounds like the start of it. Apparently this is how it goes now huh. Go fuck yourself.

        1. So people shouldn’t be held accountable for insurrection?

          And how is this any different than GOP lists that track GOP politicians who vote for impeachment so they can be primaried?

          Or a mob of crazies roaming the halls of Congress with restraints looking for hated politicians so they could hang them?

    2. OK, I’ll agree to get called out on my hyperbole, if conversely, I get to kick you in the taint when we become serfs.

      Read Biden’s plans. They are, or were at his campaign website. Ken Shulz has gone over and over them in these pages. Nothing about them is business as usual.

      1. Because a moderate, establishment neo-liberal is just a trojan horse for a socialist takeover!

    3. Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House run, the former vice president promised to name the Texan as his point man on gun control.

      “I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

      “I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you,” Biden continued. “We need you badly, the state needs you, the country needs you. You’re the best.”
      “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

      Yeah, just sounds like hyperbole.

      1. Assault rifles have been banned in the past. This isn’t some new tyranny, even if some folks disagree with it politically.

        But, to your more general point, it isn’t at all unlike placing someone who owns for-profit schools in charge of the department of education or an oil lobbyist in charge of national parks.

    4. And if Trump had won, the leftists would have just gone home and said “the people have spoken, we’ll try again in 2 years at the ballot box….”

      1. Exactly like they did in 2016, right?
        Or when ‘W’ won.
        Or when ‘H W’ won.
        Or when Reagan won.

  16. This moment didn’t drop out of the blue. The country has suffered growing political polarization, harsh feelings between the political factions, and an increase in political violence in recent years.

    Yes, and you and your shitty rag certainly have done your part to stoke it, all the while dragging the term “libertarianism” through the mud.

  17. First, I think Trump’s pollsters had him winning 4 out of the 6 contested states, probably by several percentage points. So, rather than get mad at his pollsters for being wrong, he went out on the stolen election path.

    Second, why were polls so wrong? There were polls having Trump losing in a landslide, like Mondale in 1984. There were polls suggesting the Democrats would add 20 seats in the House. There were polls suggesting that the Republicans would regain the House.

    I think people now lie to pollsters. Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko suggested back in the 80s that people should lie. That would force political campaigns to work overtime until Election Day, and the media would have to call elections several hours after the polls close, instead of 10 minutes after closing, or several days before.

    But, when polls continue to be published, and election results don’t match predictions, voters will either be puzzled, angry, or some other emotion.

    And as candidates run farther from the middle, people who are somewhat to the right or left fear that a candidate at the extreme in the other direction will push for changes that are scarey.

    1. “Second, why were polls so wrong? ”

      Most polls predicted a Biden win. I don’t think they were all that wrong. They are a snapshot of an ever moving target. The trend though seemed to indicate a tightening of Biden’s lead in the last week or so. Biden peaked a little too early is all. Not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

      The ‘poll’ that I found most telling was the ratings of dueling townhall events last October. Everyone took for granted that tv celebrity Trump would beat Biden at the ratings game, but the opposite turned out to be the case. More viewers watched Biden than Trump. From that point on it was clear to me Trump’s presidential career was coming to an end. People were sick of his increasing lame and tiresome schtick.

    2. Most people just don’t answer the phone anymore.

  18. The picture proves it… windows were broken!

    1. The horror!

  19. “When people are no longer willing to lose at the polls, it’s time to make elections less important.”

    Very, very, very CORRECT! Frankly Obama’s massive government growth to “Fundamentally change America” made it so along with “free money” bailouts, etc, etc, etc…. There’s plenty of blame on both sides before Obama also but between National Socialism(Nazism) growths of the Wilson, FDR and Obama one thing should be well-know. Electing the [D] party is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is needed right now to get to a less important ‘federal’ election.

    When people start thinking that The POWER to STEAL = WEALTH or that the POWER to ENSLAVE = HEALTH or that POWER should be used for anything besides Individual Justice. All that’s left is a battle of POWER of which will never yield WEALTH and prosperity because those items comes from VALUE not POWER.

  20. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free.

    That is a quote by Hayek. But it does what ancaps and libertarians and R’s don’t do
    It phrases the classical liberal goal positively
    It recognizes that society is not hostile to individual
    It transcends existing partisan divides.

    1. Carry that strawman far, JFree? Was it heavy? Maybe you can get jackass to help you

  21. Where was this article in 2016?

    1. Trump won, so the people “protesting” were good patriots. Unlike the violent extremists who stormed the Capitol and shook our very democracy to its core.

  22. By all means returning decisions to lower levels is a good idea but not one most are willing to accept – they want their desires and beliefs forced on all. People are far too authoritarian to be willing to let others “go the hell in their own way.” Most people don’t have a live and let live mindset – they see the actions and choices of others as an infringement on their rights.
    We’re not going to be different from other cultures – there will be constant pressure to force people into the norms. Political parties fight to control defining the norms and this will continue. We’re not going to suddenly adopt a new model of government and stop trying to get everyone else to align to our version of truth.

    1. “By all means returning decisions to lower levels is a good idea but not one most are willing to accept ”

      The people of the Balkans would disagree. Former Yugoslavians not only accepted the idea, they fought a vicious civil war to make it a reality.

  23. I know what we should do: We need to start impeachment proceedings against Biden. We needed the FBI to fake a report of him being cozy with the Russkis, allowing the a warrant to investigate everything he’s done for the past twenty five years and everybody who has known him. We should have has a spy in his campaign to leak every word the man said. We need to take his every word as a deed and give it front-page coverage, and screaming broadcast news.
    IOWs, we should do exactly as we have for the last 4 years when the infantile left didn’t accept that the hag lost to Trump.

    1. Who is we? Dems have the house, the senate, the presidency. Your comment is a few years early. Just eat your crow.

      1. “We” = decent people, lefty shit.

        1. Your stage of dementia starts to get quite sad doesn’t it.

          Starts with Sevo of La Mancha tilting at windmills.
          Ends with Sevo of Depends yelling at clouds to get off his lawn.

          1. Ends with JFree claiming the magic words “fight climate change!” will end the CA wildfires, correct, lefty shit?
            Oh, and the best you got is some lame reference to my age? How…….
            fucking pathetic of you.

  24. Republican tantrum, not Trumpist tantrum. Trump has the vast majority of Republicans behind him, and he is really just their sounding board. The stink will not go away with Trump. Those people are still the party.

    1. Correct.

  25. I think the Trumpists were unwilling to accept the election results because they perceived (not without reason) that the system as a whole was rigged against them. The phony ‘Russian Collusion’ hoax was ginned up to try to remove Trump even before he took office (essentially an attempted lawfare coup). That did fail in the Senate, of course, but it was still effective in harassing and hampering Trump’s administration during nearly his entire term.

    And then large and powerful organizations that were ostensibly neutral and apolitical went all-in to prevent Trump’s re-election to the extent of very actively suppressing negative news about Democrats (particularly the Hunter Biden revelations). And voting rules were changed in various states — ostensibly because of Covid but also, coincidentally or not, exactly the sorts of changes Democrats have long been seeking (and that make voting inherently less secure and trustworthy).

    No, no convincing evidence of vote fraud has emerged, and I don’t doubt that Biden won, but I understand Trumpists feelings of distrust and their belief that the U.S. political ecosystem on the whole — including big tech, big media, and the permanent bureaucracy/’deep state’ — is rigged against them. At this point, it actually is. For the Trumpists it’s true that just because they’re paranoid doesn’t mean there’s nobody out to get them.

    1. “And then large and powerful organizations that were ostensibly neutral and apolitical ”

      These large and powerful organizations have never been neutral. It’s muddle headed to think otherwise. They are well within their rights to support or oppose political positions.

      1. They have never been neutral, but they always pretend they are neutral.

        1. It’s muddle headed to think that the Koch brothers, for example, have pretended to be neutral.

          1. Especially since they never pretended to be.

            1. So the Koch brothers have always pretended to be neutral and they never pretended to be neutral. Thanks for giving us an example of muddle headed thinking.

              1. “ And then large and powerful organizations that were ostensibly neutral and apolitical”

                Note the words “ostensibly neural and apolitical”

                The Kochs are blatantly political and say so directly.

                1. “The Kochs are blatantly political and say so directly.”

                  Of course they are. I said as much in my original post. So was Ted Turner, owner of CNN and husband to ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda. None of them pretended to be apolitical or neutral. Whining about how a candidate who runs on a populist platform can’t get the support of the nation’s elite is yet another example of muddle headed thinking.

                  1. No, CNN pretends to be an objective source of news frequently.

                    You can read it here.


                    1. You should watch a little CNN when you have the time. There is no mistaking their political slant. Same goes for MSNBC and FOX. It’s almost immediately evident. Most commenters here have no trouble spotting their lack of neutrality. They complain about it constantly. Same can be said of pretty much any media (or social media) outlet.

                      Objectivity is one thing, and it’s not surprising that media outlets claim to be objective. Neutrality is something else entirely. Since the founding of the first modern newspapers in New York City in the early 1800s, newspapers have always had political positions to promote. They were founded and financed by men with political agendas, and nobody expected neutrality from them.

                    2. Why do you think they say they’re objective when everyone knows they’re not?

                    3. “Why do you think they say they’re objective when everyone knows they’re not?”

                      CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc are constantly promoting themselves. They want ratings. I suppose a good portion of their viewership take their claims at face value. Objectivity means distance and separation. It’s necessary to get a full picture of the situation. Climb a hill or sky scraper and compare the view you get from this high vantage point with a view from the city streets. You will see objectivity at work.

    2. Their feelings were fed to them by a two-bit orange con artist and Republican Party propaganda. Their feelings, not being based in any facts, are only more relevant than their opinion on the existence of Santa Claus to the extent that they intend to murder people and commit treason over it.

  26. I’m surprised everyone is so willing to ignore the fact that these tactics have been incredibly successful for the Antifa, Oppo, etc. protestors / rioters in numerous major cities, while being more or less considered justified, if not outright celebrated, by most media outlets.

    Can you imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot? Those protestors would still be occupying the Capital building and this would all look a lot more like the Iranian Revolution than the ill-conceived effort by the throng of Trump supporters.

  27. Tuccel’s unfounded accusations towards anyone who questions the new authority in the first paragraph was enough for me to not read any further. Pravda would be so proud of our MSM’s which Reason has become a part of sad. Did outer space aliens take over and if not aliens please take over

  28. The author’s arrogance only adds fuel to this fire. Calling those who have serious questions about the fairness of the election ‘cultists’ places the author firmly among the urban elites mentioned in his article. I have questions about this election and I am no fan of the current President but I am a fan of fair elections and we didn’t get one. You can dispute the claims of actual voter fraud but no sane person can say Trump was given a fair shake by the media, big tech or most of big business. Google sent vote reminders to liberals but not conservatives. Trump’s tweets get flagged hundreds of times but Biden’s not once. For four years the media beat the ‘Russian Collusion’ drum and pushed for impeachment when they knew it was Dem opposition research all along. No retractions, no apologies for their blatant and proven lies. They then collude to cover up Hunter Biden’s laptop calling it ‘Russian misinformation;’ a claim even the Biden’s have dismissed. The list goes on and on. So yes, honest people are pissed off and have a legitimate right to be. Dismissing their concerns as cult-like adherence to a single person is dangerous. Trump is not the leader of a cult, he has exposed what is wrong with our government and has been wrong with it for a long time.

  29. Where do you go? You go to take the first step…hold those accountable for inciting the violence that led to an insurgency (Republican Romney called it that) and ultimately 5 deaths. That includes numerous thugs who took part in the insurgency as well Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani, and Brooks. And that means you start by impeaching Trump, who has been the prime instigator of the event for the past month. It was the “carnage” Trump predicted in his very first speech as President.

    It’s absolutely ridiculous to jump past holding those accountable to some sort of political system theory, like Tucille did.

    1. Your insistence on treating this as an isolated incident, divorced from society or the circumstances of the last year, is very, very understandable.

      1. Thanks!


        1. My pleasure.

          I seek to understand, rather than be understood.

          It’s all part of me being the change I want to see in the world.

          1. Very Zen!

          2. If only there were more people like me, the world would be a better place.

            1. Well, nothing wrong with the rest us aspiring in that direction! Listen Brian, have a great weekend!

              1. Thanks!


          3. I bes the change too!

  30. Both sides bad, we know. Vandalism, arson, assault, battery and murder should be condemned regardless of who commits it or their motivations.

    But if the loss in faith of election integrity is to blame, why not increase the integrity of the elections? Require a robust voter ID card, and match signatures. Who could be opposed to that, and if they are, why?

    1. I have the exact same sentiment. A ‘Great Reset’ makes some semblance of sense. I can understand the desire to turn it into a smouldering hole. I can understand the desire to do away with the pageantry and circumstance in favor of transparency and efficiency. What I don’t get is how/why statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are symbols of systemic racism and oppressive patriarchy but the marble buildings where the same system lives and breaths are sacrosanct. Why is a tank parade down Pennsylvania Ave. bombastic but certifying EO votes by hand and in person so that the Jan. 20th coronation can take place as scheduled critical to a functioning “democracy”? It’s like they’ve founded their own fundamentalist religious movement as nonsensical and aspirationally anachronistic as any conservative one.

      It’s like saying you oppose slavery and insist the system needs to be torn down but only if black people get to rebuild it using free labor. White people won’t do the labor for free and the Mexicans and Chinese will only do it at standards far lower than those we enjoy now. You aren’t going to get a system as good as the one you tore down by either absolute wealth or relative equalit metrics.

      1. People who claim to be beside themselves with grief and terror over a statue and then smear shot on the walls of the US Capitol don’t deserve to be heard anymore.

        You’ve had years to cry about your stupid childish FOX News grievances. Fuck you morons.

        1. Nobody claimed to be in grief or terror. They pretty categorically described it as unnecessary destruction of property, which it was. They described as criminal and intermittently violent, which it was. They said the perpetrators should be brought to justice and/or held accountable. Even the more extreme Trumpian voices said that the Armed Forces should be called in to defend life and property from arson and armed attacks.

          You’re the one calling people terrorists and saying the Armed Forces should be called in to liquidate unarmed. You’re beyond the insanity that you yourself ascribed as morally and intellectually unacceptable. And, as I said below, it’s not some one off outburst, you are iteratively supporting and advancing it. When they find your corpse with your Walther PPK in your mouth, none of us will be surprised.

          1. They want the state to murder people for vandalizing statues. I want the state to put down a domestic terror threat so I can leave my house not fearing for my life because of the Biden placard in my yard.

            Then these tearful symbol-worshiping patriots stormed the most important symbol of the country they claim to love and smeared shit all over its walls.

            You can understand why I’m confused about their ideology.

          2. Put another way: they proved their enemies right about the statues. They weren’t defending American principles, they were trying to appropriate American symbolism for their own fascist cause.

            I’m personally in the camp that says keep the statues and protect them from the people trying to desecrate them too. They can have Jefferson Davis though. They were carrying his flag after all.

    2. Fuck you get out of my country if you hate it so much.

      We have real problems. Lies about fake election fraud need not be one of them. We’re not going to bend over backward coddling people’s undying belief in the tooth fairy either.

      1. If you can believe in Russian Collusion, why can’t I believe in the tooth fairy? Both are equally as real.

        1. You don’t have thoughts, you have syllables supplied to you by a semi-illiterate orange man and talking tits doing propaganda for him.

          Have you read the Mueller Report or did you just have Hannity summarize it for you?

    3. “Election integrity” is mostly a canard, a trope posited by the losing side. It’s also the dog whistle for voter supression. A “robust voter ID card,” you say? Ah, so my identity and citizenship rests on submitting myself to a local (or the federal) government to prove I am who I am. And if I fill in the proper blocks and present the proper paperwork and travel to the governmental temple and submit myself, I may have the honor of paying for an ID card? How about a biometric tracking chip implanted under the skin of our forearms. Way more useful than the previously popular number tattoo in the same location. And by the way, signature matching is about as scientific as phrenology or bite marks.

      The reason people are questioning the integrity of the elections is not any kind of actual factual evidence that would have stood up in the 60 legal cases, but because the propandga machine has been bellowing “fraud” long before the election. The simple reality is that no amount of proof will convince Trumpistas their guy lost the election. And if he had won, the exact same people yelling the loudest about voter fraud wouldn’t have a damn thing to say. It would be 100 percent “the system worked” not because of the system, but because of the outcome.

      It really doesn’t matter much to me whether team red or blue wins. They are both groups of self-serving authoritarian assholes. I’m not a fan of giving the State even more power in the name of “election integrity,” particularly when I don’t think the real issue is the integrity of the elections at all.

  31. Another ripe one from the publication that could not be bothered to compare and contrast the candidates in the recent Georgia runoffs.

    We now have to raging statists giving a majority to the party that has never had a problem with more government.

    Toosilly is laughable.

    1. Owning Trump was more important than getting what they say they want.

  32. Although i do not think they are correct, the rioters were there not because they no longer believe in our democratic system,as Tucci says, but because they feel the election results were invalid. Tuccis failure to make this distinction shows that REASON has very low editorial standards. I am happy however that REASON acknowleges this by allowing me to comment without being a paid suscriber

    1. They’re wrong and now they’re terrorists.

      Next time be terrorists over something real.

      1. So you’ve got definitive proof of their ideological aims or do you long the the war boners of the W era and need more pictures of gooified corpses to jerk off to?

        1. No Iraqi ever invaded the US Capitol. No Iraqi did anything to the US at all except in self defense.

          Yes, I agree, Republicans are terrible people who hate Americans and want to ruin the country and make off with the loot. I’ve been saying it since I was a teenager.

          1. No Iraqi ever invaded the US Capitol. No Iraqi did anything to the US at all except in self defense.

            So you don’t care about any evidence, you just need to jerk off to the gooified corpses of unarmed civilians. Understood.

            1. You asked if I have definitive proof of their ideological aims. I sure do. I saw it on TV. Their aim was to overturn the government of the United States. What would you want done to them if they were ISIS? Same goals, same worldview, different version of Yahweh.

              1. You asked if I have definitive proof of their ideological aims.

                I did. You dodged. You don’t need nor care for proof. You just want to jack off to liquidated corpses worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney combined.

                1. There was proof all over my TV. It wasn’t tuned to Tits McGee on state propaganda talking about how pronouns are going to kill you, but it was on pretty much every other channel.

                  I’m not saying I’m ungrateful that these meth-addled yokels did more to destroy the Republican Party than I could have ever dreamed of doing myself.

                  You could however go to some effort to pretend that you care about something other than the political fortune of Republicans.

                  1. You could however go to some effort to pretend that you care about something other than the political fortune of Republicans.

                    Says the guy who wants to liquidate unarmed American civilians without regard for race, gender, or creed.

                    Again, you could’ve said “The information I was getting showed them to be armed.” or “I presumed the destruction and violence was on par with the other riots that DC has seen recently.”

                    Instead, you persist in defending your position that is worse than any President in recent history. My only real question is, what’s next? Are you going to call for drone strikes on these unarmed terrorists while they’re at their friends and relatives weddings? When the corpses of innocent adults don’t do it for you anymore are you going to move on to innocent children?

                    1. Should I ask terrorists their gender or creed before I suggest they be locked up or shot before they attack again?

                      You can just say you are with the terrorists. It’s going around apparently.

                    2. Tony the pussy thinks he has someone to do his dirty work for him because he’s afraid of his own shadow. It makes him feel empowered to talk smack on a message board. In reality my 12 year old nephew could draw and quarter him and his only reaction would be per his usual to crap his drawers while he draws his last breath.

  33. It’s not more dangerous for Trump traitors to lose elections. They just think that because they are fed a diet of constant hysteria about things that don’t exist.

    If you think communism, woke tyranny, or Satan-worshipping pizza pedos are a thing, you’re a fucking moron who shouldn’t vote.

    Sure we could calm things down if we just gave into all their policy demands, whatever those are.

    Of course life would be even simpler if we just let our superiors with a certain number of zeroes in their net worth make all the decisions for us. Don’t cream yourselves too much over the thought, libertarians.

    But since a whole faction that used to be relevant in American politics just outed themselves as a violent terrorist faction, we don’t have to listen to them anymore. They can try to come up with some cogent policy ideas from their cages. They’ll have plenty of time to think about it.

    1. You wanted the Armed Forces to gooify thousands of unarmed civilians. Any given alley cat is your moral and intellectual superior.

      1. They attacked the US Capitol and attempted to take elected representatives hostage and murder them. They smeared shit on the walls of the US Capitol. They were carrying the flag of a mortal enemy of the US. They committed an act of war. Perhaps we should treat them at least as gently as we treat black people for the crime of walking down the street.

        1. Perhaps we should treat them at least as gently as we treat black people for the crime of walking down the street.

          So gooifying unarmed American civilians not good enough for you and you want to gooify black people for walking down the street too?

          Please, call me out for intellectual dishonesty Mr. “The Armed Forces should gooify unarmed American civilians”. Because, giving you more honesty than you deserve; there are plenty of black and brown faces in the pictures of the protests and you still said ‘gooify them’.

          1. The US Armed forces kills fascists. It’s what we pay them to do. Their oath is to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. I didn’t make the rules, as I didn’t side against the most powerful military in the world because I’m a tiny-dicked meth-addled simpleton either. I saw people make war on my country. Forgive me if I have less sympathy for their internal organs than for your average person not committing war against me.

            1. I saw people make war on my country.

              Armed people with uniforms formally declaring war?

              Forgive me if I have less sympathy for their internal organs than for your average person not committing war against me.

              No. If you don’t care about murdering unarmed civilians en masse I don’t care about having to forgive you.

              1. They were carrying the flag of one of the most destructive enemies the United States has ever been attacked by. Cutting their organization out root and branch is self-defense. You wouldn’t make a peep about that principle if they weren’t white.

                1. “Gooify unarmed black people for carrying the flag.” – Tony

                2. You know what the funniest part of it all is? You could’ve walked it back. You could’ve said, “I was being hyperbolic.” or “I’m pretty sure the military would be more restrained, I just think they should be severely punished.” You haven’t, not once, said that in reply. You really are defending your position of gooifying innocent Americans without regard to race, creed, religion, gender or orientation. At this point, there can be no doubt.

                  1. Hell, “My account got hacked.”, “I was getting some bad information.”, “I was drunk.”, “I was distracted.”…

                    There are a million excuses that could ameliorate why you would call for the liquidation of innocent civilians and, still, you insist on defending your position that they be liquidated.

                    1. I suspect the Tonys of the US are going to get their wish quite soon.

                  2. People who commit terrorism against the United States should be expected to be turned into goo. Any idiot knows that.

                    You do nudge against an important problem though. The cops let them in. The cops are on the side of the enemy. But we both want to end their tyranny so that’s all good, and they are wearing uniforms.

                    Cops stood in formation by the hundreds in response to (yes) peaceful black protests in DC. They let the white Trumpers in.

                    If there’s a lot of goo to clean up it’s because there are so many people intent on destroying the United States. I fail to see how that’s my fault.

                    1. I’m not blaming you for other people’s actions. You called for unarmed American citizens to be turned to goo prejudicially. If someone turns you to goo under those principles, all I can say is that you got your wish.

                    2. I expect the US to turn people who commit acts of war against the United States into goo.

                      We can treat them like common terrorists though. Fine with me. Too hard to do a war on terrorists with no state anyway. Learned that from Bush.

    2. “calm things down if we just gave into all their policy demands”
      LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE! What’s so bad about that?

      “whole faction that used to be relevant”
      Oh they seem quite relevant today.

      “from their cages.”
      Look at you, wanting to lock everyone in cages! What a fascist fuck you are!

      1. LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE! What’s so bad about that?

        He doesn’t want you left alone. He wants the Armed Forces to turn you to goo simply for holding an ideology. He’s a slovenly warmonger that makes Bush look like Washington.

        1. Not for his ideology, for declaring war on them. What are they supposed to do, give them flowers and welcome them into the Pentagon to smear their shit under the banner of a foreign enemy there too?

          1. Not for his ideology, for declaring war on them.

            Whom did he declare war on? Can you cite this declaration?

            What are they supposed to do, give them flowers and welcome them into the Pentagon to smear their shit under the banner of a foreign enemy there too?

            Look Tony, you made it clear. Gooify them all with overwhelming force first, ask question later. It’s so sad that you sacrificed all your principles and probably won’t even get the chance to suck Trump’s dick in exchange.

            1. They carried the flag of the enemy in to the US Capitol building, vandalized it, and attempted to overthrow the presidential election.

              The only reason it’s not war is because they live among us.

              Chin up. The cops are full of Trumpers. Think how many birds we could kill with one stone. You’re libertarian right? What could be a bigger victory than ridding the world of fascists?

              1. “They carried the flag of the enemy in to the US Capitol building, vandalized it, and attempted to overthrow the presidential election.”


              2. “carried the flag of the enemy”

                He means MAGA flags.

      2. Only violent criminals who waged war against my country. It’s OK to lock them up.

        You never lifted a finger for any justice reform. You stood on the side of the incarceration state at every possible opportunity.

        You want to be left alone, stop playing like you have anything to contribute to politics. Because it sure doesn’t seem like you want to leave anyone else alone.

        1. It’s OK to lock them up.

          You didn’t say lock them up. You said “turn them to goo.”

          1. Even I believe in self defense. But I am on record for being in favor of submitting alleged terrorists to the criminal justice system if we don’t want to bother with the trappings (and moral flexibility) of war. Did you feel that way when Bush declared war on terrorists except couldn’t even locate the country they were in? Or were you licking authoritarian boot back then too?

            1. But I am on record for being in favor of submitting alleged terrorists to the criminal justice system if we don’t want to bother with the trappings (and moral flexibility) of war.

              Bullshit. You’re on record as wanting the Armed Forces to liquify them before they could get to trial.

              January.6.2021 at 4:33 pm
              No, but I didn’t ask anyone to storm the US capitol either.

              Someone declares war on my country I want them turned to goo. I’m old fashioned like that.

              Did you feel that way when Bush declared war on terrorists except couldn’t even locate the country they were in? Or were you licking authoritarian boot back then too?

              “Liquidate first, ask questions later.” – Tony

              1. We call acts of war committed by subjects of the state they are attacking “treason.” There’s plenty of law for how to deal with that. Glad to clear up any confusion.

            2. “(and moral flexibility) of war.”

              Look at you, showing your leftist authoritarian hand! The end justifies the means!

              1. I’m stating a fact that morality is more flexible in war than in normal criminal justice. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone who’s ever served in a warzone.

                1. And you are stating that fact because you want to deal with your political opponents in that zone. You are wishing for it.

        2. Oh HELL NO! I’m about as anti-cop as they come on probably 90% of their activity.

          That’s why I was so opposed to the two biggest cops out there: Sleepy Joe and his 47 years of crime bills, and Kamala Harris and her evil prosecutions for fun & profit.

          But YOU support those two monsters of criminal justice, Tony. YOU support them.

          1. Biden wasn’t my first choice.

            But the only alternative was a president who’s sucked more cop dick than all the other ones combined.

            1. You really are a retard. Biden has done more to inflate the coffers and unlimited powers of police in 47 years than Trump has done in 4, so no, YOU DID “vote for the president who’s sucked more cop dick than all the other ones combined.”

  34. If you don’t want elections to be disputed, then stop shutting down people who ask questions about how they are conducted and stop making excuses for why you cannot make any changes or improvements to the process.

    When you gaslight people all day, don’t be surprised when they get pissed off about your mind fuckery.

    1. Personal responsibility. Stop consuming lies and propaganda. If 60 court cases aren’t enough for you, then you aren’t interested in anything but undoing an election you lost.

      1. It’s not a court case if the court is to frightened to hear it, psycho.

        1. Afraid of what? The “globalists”?

          You people are so fucked.

      2. 60 court cases don’t mean shit when they say election laws are optional.

        The storming of the Capital was nothing but DESECRATION OF A CORPSE.

        1. You’re just mad the Republican Party lost the elections. That’s all this is about.

        2. Refer to my comments below.

      3. Personal responsibility.

        So, then you’ll simply say, “I understand.” when someone turns you to goo without hesitation.

      4. Been there done that, not rehashing it with a Dem shill who isn’t even libertarian.

        I’m definitely going to volunteer for Trump 2024 and I’ll try to change his tune. First thing he needs to do ASAP is double down on the fraud claims and fight this bullshit claim of incitement and insurrection. These people like you are delusional, batshit insane sociopaths and cannot be treated as normal, healthy people any longer. They’re sharks and they smell blood in the water. He needs to fight them with all the grit he has. I would immediately start running ads with video and audio of the ridiculous things Pelosi, Omar, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have said before and during race riots over the past decade. Trump has to realize that he can’t ignore the press. They have the freedom to say whatever they want and he has the freedom to remind the country of what they’ve said. He used to fight them aggressively and it worked for him until the RINOs around him sabotaged him. There are so many idiots who said he would be worse off with his incendiary tweet storms, but he’s being incendiary about shit that people are already angry about. He just needs to turn into the rhetorical equivalent of a tactical nuke and demolish these subversives once and for all. They’ve shown their true colors over the past few months and it’s time to expose them for what they really are. If people still vote them into power, so be it. America deserves whatever it gets.

  35. “Where Do We Go After the Trumpist Tantrum?”

    Go to where you can “hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your father, ‘cuz they’re rapin’ e’erybody out here!”

    1. husband, sorry.

    2. Ever notice how convicted sex offenders skew left? They do tend to turn up more often at BLM/Antifa riots.

      1. Between The Roman Catholic Church, The Southern Baptist Convention, The Latter-Day Saints, The Boy Scouts, and all the Hollywood #MeToo targets, sex offenders skew pretty evenly Left and Right.

        1. I’m saying look how many of those arrested at BLM/Antifa rallies have sex offender histories. Compare that to Trump rallies.

  36. The lyrics to Farmer Refuted.

    From the incredibly popular musical Hamilton, written by the amazingly popular Lin-Manuel Miranda, available now on Disney+:

    Hear ye, hear ye, my name is Samuel Seabury
    And I present “Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress”
    Heed not the rabble who scream revolution
    They have not your interests at heart
    Oh my God, tear this dude apart
    Chaos and bloodshed are not a solution
    Don’t let them lead you astray
    This Congress does not speak for me
    Let him be
    They’re playing a dangerous game
    I pray the king shows you his mercy
    For shame, for shame
    Yo, he’d have you all unravel at the (heed not the rabble)
    Sound of screams but the (who scream)
    Revolution is comin’ (revolution, they)
    The have-nots are gonna (have not your)
    Win this (interests)
    It’s hard to listen to you with a straight face (at heart)
    Chaos and bloodshed already haunt us (chaos and bloodshed are not a)
    Honestly, you shouldn’t even talk (solution)
    And what about Boston? (Don’t let them)
    Look at the cost, n’ all that we’ve lost n’ you talk (lead you astray)
    About Congress? (this Congress does not speak for me)
    My dog speaks more eloquently than thee
    (they’re playing a dangerous game)
    But strangely, your mange is the same
    (I pray the king shows you his mercy)
    Is he in Jersey?
    (For shame)
    For the revolution
    (For shame)
    For the revolution
    If you repeat yourself again I’m gonna
    Honestly, look at me, please don’t read
    Not your interests
    Don’t modulate the key then not debate with me
    Why should a tiny island across the sea regulate the price of tea?
    Alexander, please
    Burr, I’d rather be divisive than indecisive, drop the niceties

  37. If we assume that democracy is the best way to make decisions, ie, coming to an agreement on a group decision, as opposed to using violence to get our way, then this presumes that using violence to get your way is bad.

    For that democracy to then use violence as a tool to control otherwise peaceful people, is then itself an assault on the principles of democracy.

    The only way a principled democracy can function is to use violence only as a last alternative against violent people who are aggressive first.

    I’ll point out that this theory of democracy also gives room for people to fight against democratically elected Nazis that try to kill them with their governments. I really don’t know how the “assume democracy is the highest virtue” question-begging crowd answers that incredibly obvious problem.

    1. Why is it difficult? You don’t need to appeal to any principles when there’s law in place. You can’t kill elected lawmakers without consequence regardless of how much you don’t like them. You can certainly try though. You can even try to have a revolution. Just don’t expect people with different interests and bigger armies to sit back and welcome you.

      I guess there’s no time like the present for libertarians to learn the basics. All government is based on violence. Democracy is simply the means of distributing the authority to use violence to the people rather than a group of terrorists.

      If a democratic majority elected Nazis to power, Nazis have power. People would have a very strong moral case for resisting that government. Majorities can be tyrannical and evil. No doubt about it.

      That’s what public education and libraries and a guarantee against destitution are about, something the founders were correctly preoccupied with: calming passions so that the incentives to commit violence are few.

      It all breaks down of course when in lieu of being education people choose to soak their brains in authoritarian propaganda and take up arms against the state despite not being part of a democratic majority and despite being “small business owners” with no actual serious grievances.

      If you know how to deprogram a mass armed cult before it acts on its clear dangerous, I’m certainly all ears.

    2. I’m talking about the way the world works if you care about principles.

      If you don’t care about principles, feel free to explain how violence works. Even Neanderthals knew that.

    3. Based on principles, please tell me why it’s ok for the majority to use violence against peaceful people, but it’s not ok for minorities to use violence in response?

      Also, exactly how much violence against peaceful minorities is justice?

      1. I don’t believe it is OK to use violence against peaceful people. What peaceful people are you referring to?

        If you want to talk to someone about why it’s OK to use violence against peaceful people, ask one of the many, many commenters here who are participating in an Rwanda-esque hate campaign against black civil rights protesters while defending armed thugs trying to seize the US seat of government.

        1. “I don’t believe it is OK to use violence against peaceful people. What peaceful people are you referring to?”

          Then you would presumably support a political platform where we seek out laws that inflict violence on peaceful people and repeal them, correct?

          When can we start?

          1. Why do I have the impression that you’re going to start redefining violence to include things that are not violence?

            Anyway, sure. Finally some policy talk after years of the single conversion: “Is Trump Jesus, or the best Jesus?

            Cop reform is like number three on my list of personal political priorities. Well, it’s been bumped to number 4 now that we have this imminent threat of a coup to deal with. I am also quite interested in a post-violence foreign policy, pie in the sky though it might be.

            Also fewer weapons of mass murder in schools full of children.

            1. I’m not interested in your fantasies of arguments I haven’t made yet.

              I assume you’re also against using violence to disarm peaceful people, a principle supported by the highest laws in the land. Nation of laws not men and all, right?

            2. You agree that refusing to bake a cake is peaceful, right?

            3. Cop reform is like number three on my list of personal political priorities.

              1. Liquidate innocent civilians.
              2. Ask questions.
              3. Police reform.

            4. If someone only wants to send in half his income tax liability in a given year, that’s not violent, is it?

            5. “ Why do I have the impression that you’re going to start redefining violence to include things that are not violence?”

              Go on…

            6. …and he vanished in a cloud of cognitive dissonance.

            7. I’m not sure who you are describing as peaceful people. Surely not the terrorists who broke into the US Capitol in an attempt to hold members of Congress hostage and overturn an election.

              I realize perfectly well that a libertarian hates taxes because they are enforced by the threat of state violence, but is perfectly OK paying taxes for the state to arrest and detain criminals and wage war. You hate violence so much you think the only thing the state should do is shoot and cage people.

              Violence done to democracy is the worst kind, because it is violence against every voter, each of whom has a stake in the government the terrorists are trying to steal from us.

              If you want to explain how anarchy can work instead, that sounds like an interesting conversation that will go nowhere fast. We unenlightened statists have the silly notion that the entire point of a democratic state is to take violence out of the hands of mobs and thugs and put it where we can keep an eye on it.

              1. You said upthread “I don’t believe it is OK to use violence against peaceful people”.

                Then you said:
                “Why do I have the impression that you’re going to start redefining violence to include things that are not violence?”

                And then when I give you clear examples of peaceful people, you say:
                “I’m not sure who you are describing as peaceful people.”

                What is your definition of violence?

                1. I am a Merriam-Webster man:

                  violence. noun. The use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

                  What happened in DC was literal violence, I’m sure you agree.

                  Laws are laws. Do you not think we should have any laws? Yes laws are enforced. It’s OK for the state to do violence to enforce laws.

                  1. OK, so this implies that people aren’t being violent when they don’t want to bake a cake. They’re not being violent when they want to protect themselves with a gun, and they’re not being violent if they don’t give the government every cent of their income that’s demanded.

                    OK: can you explain why you’re not sure that’s not violence?

                    Are you absolutely sure you don’t think it’s OK to use violence against peaceful people? It kinda seems like you obviously do, but are haven’t a hard time admitting it. Are you sure you’re being honest with us?

                    1. Antidiscrimination law is law. Any old law can be enforced. It’s how we do things. To me there is no fundamental difference between a law requiring cake shop owners not to discriminate against customers for sexual orientation and a law requiring them not to poison people. They can move to Saudi Arabia if they hate gays so much and see how much cake they sell in a regime that better suits their taste. If they want access to the United States market, they obey United States laws. That’s how everything works.

                      Taxes are exactly the same. A tax is a law. Don’t want to pay a tax or be punished for not doing so? Move somewhere such a law doesn’t exist. Good luck finding an airport.

                      I’m sure I think it is OK for the government to use violence against peaceful people. The entire reason government exists is for that purpose. Jaywalking isn’t violence per se, but it’s still breaking the law.

                      Self-defense is interesting because it’s technically permission from government to use force in limited circumstances. It can’t be a “natural” right alone, because government investigates to make sure it’s actually self-defense. Government has an interest in making sure murderers don’t get away with it by claiming self-defense. Government is still the repository of all legitimate force.

                      Do I think all laws are good? Of course not. But that’s what politics is for.

                    2. “To me there is no fundamental difference between a law requiring cake shop owners not to discriminate against customers for sexual orientation and a law requiring them not to poison people.”

                      Well, enforcing one of them is violence against peaceful people, and the other is using violence against violent people.

                      “I’m sure I think it is OK for the government to use violence against peaceful people.”

                      Do you realize you said the opposite a few posts ago? Why the sudden change of heart?

                    3. “I’m sure I think it is OK for the government to use violence against peaceful people. The entire reason government exists is for that purpose.”

                      The entire reason government exists is to use violence against peaceful people?

              2. “Violence done to democracy is the worst kind, because it is violence against every voter, each of whom has a stake in the government the terrorists are trying to steal from us.”

                If democracy defines violence of the worst kind, then we’re back to the same problem I mentioned previously: resisting democratically elected nazis is “violence of the worst kind”.

                That’s absurd.

                1. Oh no, I agree with you that it’s a tricky problem.

                  If the state is not legitimized by democracy, then many people think it’s OK to oppose it forcefully. Jefferson comes to mind.

                  My feeling on the matter is that the only reason I’m not allowed to commit violence is because the law says so. And the only law that is legitimate is that made by democratic means. So if there is no law, then there are no presidents, only thugs.

                  So what do we do if a tyrannical regime is elected by democratic means?

                  Not so mysterious, since it’s happened many, many times. It’s happened many times in this country. We had a “democratic” government while 20% of the population was enslaved.

                  Then it’s just a matter of competing powers, as it always is. You can claim the moral right to overthrow that government. Obviously it’s a high bar to get history to agree with you. Obviously it’s preferable that reform is done by democratic means.

                  But if enough of your fellow citizens want to oppress you and have a government at their disposal to do so, there’s not a hell of a lot you can do about it. Look to the civil rights movement in this and other democratic countries for examples of successful methods.

                  That would be the BLM thugs you people want to collectively punish.

                  1. “The only law that is legitimate is that made by democratic means.”

                    Democratically elected nazis are not legitimate. The Nazi’s worst crimes were completely legal violence inflicted on peaceful people, and there’s no amount of voting that makes that OK.

                    This theory of legitimacy is absurd. I can’t embrace that.

                    1. You realize that slavery was a democratically supported institution for a long time, right?

                      How can your theories of democracy survive the most obvious scrutiny? Have you scrutinized this before?

                    2. I’m just not sure what you’re arguing. I addressed this issue. A democratically legitimized government can do evil things, and they usually do.

                      Evil things are bad. Sorry if there was confusion about my opinion on that matter.

                      But you don’t overthrow tyrants, democratically elected or otherwise, by being morally superior into a computer screen. You need an army. And when you start shooting, you start the process of erasing the moral distinctions between you and them.

                      In the end historians decide who was right. Best stick to peaceful protests and convince 50%+1 to come to your side on slavery or segregation or whatever your thing is.

                    3. What I’m arguing is that it’s difficult to hold democracy as the highest value when, as you say, democratic governments do evil things.

                      That’s what you questioned me of when you said “Why is it difficult?”

                    4. For example, if a democratically elected government passes an evil law, is that law legitimate?

                    5. I don’t know that democracy is the highest value. It’s just the worst form of government except for all the others.

                      I like to strip away philosophical mumbo-jumbo as much as possible. But for the moment I allow for the postulate that democracy makes a government legitimate, and without democracy I get to start shooting. I’m a bit of a softie for Jefferson, slaveowning tyrant though he was, self-serving propaganda though the Declaration of Independence was, petty though its grievances were (compared to, say, slavery), and better off never having declared independence in the first place we may have been.

                      Other people have different opinions on where governing legitimacy comes from, of course. Monarchists say God and DNA, fascists say tradition and authority itself, communists say from the “science” of communism or from being a member of the proletariat and winning a war against the state. Libertarians, I guess, think government derives its legitimacy only by having the correct policies.

                      I’m a (small d) democrat. It works for me. Since I think libertarian policy goals are incredibly stupid, it would be a stretch to get me to ditch that for their method.

                    6. I defined the conditions I think government is legitimate in my first post.

                      It sounds like you agree with everything I’m saying, but that it’s just not practical to have a government by principles.

                      What bothers me isn’t that we can’t have a perfect world, but that, in may ways, it’s getting worse. We don’t live in a society that would love to avoid using violence against peaceful people, yet are forced to. We live in a world where people thing violence is a great way to solve complex social problems, pursue violence almost to the exclusion of anything else, and spend great amounts of time coming up with ways to inject more systemic violence into society without much care at all to whether to not it’s necessarily. Heck, to large extent, people think about how to use government violence to get revenge on people for their violence when it was their turn to run the government. That’s toxic, and it has a lot to do with current events.

                      I really don’t think we create a better society by hand-waving all of that away because philosophy is hard and isn’t violent enough to change outcomes as quick as we’d like to.

                      Ideally, we would live in a world where we all agree not to use violence against peaceful people and work towards building a society where we can do that. And we can’t do that as long as we pretend that principles don’t matter when it’s our turn to have political power.

                      The status quo has all the support it needs already. I wouldn’t be making any change whatsoever if I just agreed to vote for one political party for the rest of my life and then argue for them until my last breath.

                    7. “Libertarians, I guess, think government derives its legitimacy only by having the correct policies.”

                      I think the best government is the one that has the most correct policies. I’ll take that position.

                    8. The problem with the libertarian concept of governing legitimacy is exactly that it has no taste for democracy.

                      Again, I think libertarian policy ideas are radical and self-evidently destructive of civilization.

                      So why do they get to say they’re right and I’m wrong? It’s just tyranny all over again. It may seem ironic that the anti-state people would be tyrants, but it’s an irony I’ve been pointing out for a long time.

                      We’re stuck with consent of the governed as the only remotely plausible system. Monarchy exists in name only, communism failed to even be a real thing before it collapsed, and fascism is equivalent to evil. What’s libertarianism going to be? The exception?

                      But you don’t have a choice anyway because the system of government you’re under is one built on consent of the governed, and they have an army.

                      I wouldn’t so much say it’s naive to even think about a world in which people are all voluntarily peaceful. I would say you study what causes peace and make more of it. Democracy and capitalism are #1 and #2 on that list.

                    9. “The problem with the libertarian concept of governing legitimacy is exactly that it has no taste for democracy.”

                      That’s not true. Democracy is just a method for a group of people to make a decision. Libertarians identically correctly that there’s little to no principle in that; a group of thugs can take a vote on exactly how to rape someone. It’s great that they’re sharing input from everyone involved, but no one’s impressed.

                      The difference between me and the people who seem obsessed with democracy is that democracy is just a way to make a group decision, while cooperating peacefully with the people we share a country with is a very, very good decision to make.

                      Sure, we can make group decisions with democracy. It’s probably a good idea to cooperate and coordinate. However, we should also respect each other and make room for disagreement. We all agree on a lot of things, but we also need to make room for people to say “count me out of this one”.

                      I don’t define tyranny as not giving democracy what it wants, for reasons already completely described. Yes, democratically elected nazi’s with power may not be resistible very well, but that doesn’t mean I become a tyrant when I try to resist. Tyranny is’t defined by democracy. It’s defined by higher principles.

                      And there’s no tyranny at all in pointing this out and suggesting that we as a country respect each other. I get it; it’s not required. If everyone wants to kill me, I can’t stop them, especially if they use the government, but I’ll still suggest they stop. I’ll still point out that it would probably be a good idea for us to find a better way to do things than kill each other.

                      Believe it or not, democracy can devolve into fascism. It’s happened before. Look at Weimer Germany. There’s no guarantee that everyone voting produces some wonderful society. Therefore, it’s imperative that we talk about principles, and incredibly dangerous when we pretend that it doesn’t matter.

  38. “You don’t need to appeal to any principles when there’s law in place.”

    You don’t need to appeal to principles to make a law, either, but it’s the definition of amoral.

    1. Amoral is attacking the United States because your boyfriend lost an election, and said boyfriend believes NOTHING. Trump and Trumpism is about NOTHING except Trump’s delicate feelings. That’s why it’s fascism, among other reasons.

      Forest and trees man. Liberals have lots of principles. Fascists only have one.

      But if they get elected legitimately then there’s nothing to do about it except submit or resist. Who acted rightly or wrongly gets to decided only by people who haven’t been born yet.

      1. Your straw men and adhominem fallacies aren’t very convincing. It’s also unprincipled and dishonest to falsely describe people as fascists and Nazis when they’re clearly not. There’s google and Wikipedia. You can learn about these things.

        Do you have a real argument?

        1. Oh there are literal self-identified Nazis all over every Trump crowd. Do your reading man. I know it’s not comfortable but it’s true.

          Thus, anyone cheering alongside them are Nazi collaborators. This is just definitions.

          The real scary shit is that Trump was seen by the neo-Nazi groups as a leader of sorts, one who gave them tacit permission to come out of the shadows and start joining mainstream society, including becoming cops and congressmen. It happened dude. All you have to do is a little research about the things you’re talking about.

          I’ve been ranting about this stuff for a reason. Because I believe Nazis are a bigger threat to freedom than pronouns and the income tax. And I’m smarter than the people who flip this around. You may just have to take my word for it, if the obviousness of the point alone isn’t enough.

          1. I’m not really interested in your existential threat fantasies from tiny minorities, and your dishonest claims that Trump is a Nazi even though his family is part Jewish.

            But I do understand how you’d rather talk about that than democracy.

            “Look! Over there! I swear he’s in the KKK! We don’t have time to talk about our democracy while our democracy is at steak!”

            1. You don’t get to accuse me of being chicken little when they fucking stoked the US Capitol!

              I thought I was chicken little at times. I wasn’t. It’s worse than I feared. There are almost enough of them to elect a president or Congress.

              If you care about anything else but stopping actual fascists, your priorities might be fucked. They’ve always been here by the way. Germany got it from us. Only now is the first time they’ve been empowered by a president.

              I don’t like how right I was about all this. But it happened on CNN and the entire world saw it. I don’t even know what you think you’re talking about anymore.

              1. I’m not interested in your false claims about racism and Nazis that are in complete disagreement with any serious consideration of what those words mean in any principled and historic context.

                1. Authoritarian movements are a dime a dozen in this world. They’re far more prevalent than democracy, historically speaking. That means democracy is more difficult to keep around.

                  If you don’t think this involves racism I don’t know what to tell you. Many or most of the terrorists are probably white supremacists. The Republican Party is a white supremacist party. It is its raison d’etre. It’s not a coincidence that they are slithering around trying to justify their coup attempt by whatabouting black civil rights protesters. It’s no coincidence that their big grievance in life is black people protesting for the right to vote and not get murdered by cops.

                  When do you think this country stopped being stuffed full of people trying to eliminate the political power of blacks? What year? Republicans we’re removing polling locations from black neighborhoods in Georgia last month.

                  As a person who claims to care about freedom above all you sure do turn a blind eye to fascism and apartheid.

                  But it’s not *everybody’s* freedom you’re concerned with is it?

                  1. I’m concerned with everyone’s freedom, but I’m not willing to put down my principles just because you’re scared of boogiemen in the closet.

                    The violence of our government affects many more people then fascism and nazis.

                    Racism does affect a lot of people. It should be denounced, and its completely appropriate to respond to their violence with violence.

                    However, I’m not going to pretend that means we can abandon all principles, as if every unjust law is an attempt to protect peaceful minorities against racists.

                    1. There’s not a boogieman in my closet, there were terrorists in my country’s capitol building.

                      You’re making an argument for the moral superiority of anarchy. Fine. I think it’s a consistent worldview. It stops being consistent when you pick and choose things you’re perfectly OK using state violence for, such as keeping trespassers off your property.

                      If you want to talk about the pros and cons of anarchy, I’d be happy to.

                    2. They’re not all Nazis and fascists. That’s boogiemen.

                      The idea that Nazis and fascists have controlled your government for the last 4 years is absurd.

                    3. I will admit, however, that violent people have controlled the government for your entire life, that they frequently, and that most laws are violence against peaceful people.

                      I have high standards, though. I don’t look at what the government’s done my whole life and say, “Whew! Thank goodness it’s not Stalin!”

                    4. But I think you do fail to see the real threats when they storm the US capitol building or willfully infect hundreds of thousands of people with a virus because you’re too busy preening about how they’re all crooks and you’re so above it all.

                      Even things that are always bad are worse at some times than at others. You think I am in love with Democrats? The only reason I care about Democrats is because they are the only thing standing between me and a takeover by radical theocratic fascists.

                      And I am using these terms technically. If Trump isn’t a fascist, what is? He has no ideology but power, relies on a vast rightwing propaganda machine and scapegoating leftists and other minorities to win power, appropriated national symbolism and mythology for his own ends, put undesirables in camps, separating parents from infants, and tried to overthrow the US government.

                      Don’t call him a fascist if you don’t want to, but don’t tell me it’s all of a piece with Bill Clinton’s trade policy.

                    5. You can read wikipedia if you want to know what fascism is. There’s a lot there, and I don’t think you could get through half of that and conclude we’re surrounded by fascists without going “Do you know who else?” on half of society.

                    6. You missed the part where I said I don’t care what words you use. He still is trying to overthrow my government with the help of his army of neo-Nazis.

                      I think we can safely conclude he’s not right for the job.

                    7. Oh he’s a horrible president.

                      I just wish we talked about good reasons why more often.

                      His policy proposals are much worse than the fact that one of his kids met with a Russian to talk about Hillary’s emails once.

        2. Tony has no principles and therefore no arguement other than the strawmen in his pointed little head. He hasn’t in 10 years, obviously never has so your attempt at reasoning with him, like every other person here who has tried over time, is pointless and will bear no fruit. He’s a fucking statist dirtbag who is afraid of his own shadow that wants to use state power to further his deluded agenda.

          1. tony got new kneepads for Christmas, he is ready for chinajoe, the demofascists and their chinese masters

          2. “Statist” is a particularly quaint libertarianismism these days.

          3. I’m not trying to change his mind. Of all the people here, he is only one.

  39. If you were defending BLM riots then yet appalled by this STFU

    1. BLM is a movement against state abuse of power.

      This was an attempt to seize control of the government.

      Ever wonder why you’re on a libertarian site taking the side of government jackboots on every possible occasion?

      1. Ever wonder why you’re on a libertarian site taking the side of government jackboots on every possible occasion?

        Says the guy insisting that the sitting President use the armed forces to gooify unarmed American civilians.

        1. The sitting president is a terrorist leader.

          I like the order part of law and order a lot. I’m fine if his successor’s attorney general prosecutes him for his crimes.

          Impeachment and removal would protect us from him running for office again, though.

          1. you gonna luv your leader’s masters……. course you will be required to learn chinese, but you will get new kneepads

            enjoy, cuz the Real Americans are done with bailing you mooks out and we’re not going to this time

            1. You’re going to have a terrible time taking back the country when you clearly can’t tell your elbow from your asshole.

              Do you hate the Chinese because of their human right’s abuses, or was it because a fat man told you they were the cause of all your problems?

  40. Twenty-four percent of likely U.S. voters “think Biden voters are America’s biggest enemy as 2020 draws to a close,” Rasmussen Reports noted early in December. “Nearly as many (22%) regard Trump voters as the biggest enemy.”

    That means 46%, nearly half, of “likely” voters thought those voting for the other candidate were “America’s biggest enemy”. If that is correct, we are in really BIG trouble. How reliable is this survey?

    1. And 54% of people in the middle that would like government to do what it is expected to do and to let us get on with our lives.

      1. living on your knees in front of your demomasters …….. new kneepads for YOU

  41. Since people are throwing around words like sedition, and calling out Trump for his reckless speech let us consider that Nancy Pelosi has just attempted to solicit a mutiny if the armed forces against the lawful commander in chief.

    “This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) wrote.”

    Look, either we hold people to the same standards, or we do not.

    If Reason does not call this out for what it is then they have no business calling out anyone else.



    Didn’t think so. You poseurs.

    1. Maybe she was just checking to be sure the generals wouldn’t follow an unlawful or monstrous order from the insane person currently soiling the White House with his diseased fat ass.

      All bets are off when nukes are in the picture. It’s a problem we’ve put off because most presidents haven’t been insane psychopaths.

      1. cuz crazy nan knows chinajoe got it covered for Prez Xi

    2. I believe we call they a “coup.”

  42. “Where Do We Go After the Trumpist Tantrum?”

    We smile and move on, knowing that democracy and the court system works. That’s where we go.

    1. on to the next election for more democrat wins by cheating

  43. Make elections less important?

    Where have you been the past year, Tuccille? The ruling class has just demonstrated how unimportant elections really are. It’s not the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes. The republic is done, but the zombie empire lurches on–Land of Free Shit, Home of the SAFE.

  44. If Trump ACTUALLY lost then maybe there wouldn’t be a “tantrum” as you put it. Similar to the “tantrum” the East Germans threw when they tore down the Berlin wall, huh!

  45. whose petulant refusal to accept his loss at the polls set the grounds for the violence that disrupted Congress’s count of Electoral College votes

    This is the media line that justified the ending of any fraud investigation. It’s all so transparent.

    Meanwhile in China, some folks are all to familiar with this playbook.

    Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University told the Global Times that the measure that Democrats and social media giants imposed on Trump and his supporters after the Capitol Hill riot is “a classic tactic for the US to overthrow a government overseas – using a conflict as an opportunity to incite the public by selectively spreading or muting specific information online,” to dominate the public opinion and create condition for a Color Revolution or a coup and eliminate a political force with made-up justification.
    “The result has proven that the tactic is very effective. Trump and his supporters are doomed,” Shen said.

  46. Trump literally won the election in a landslide, and those patriots had a right to be angry and storm that building.

    Come say this article to my face, you fucking subhuman.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.