Politics

Deluded Republicans and Smug Democrats Offer Little Hope for People Who Want To Be Left Alone

Live-and-let-live political types are stuck between cultists and totalitarians.

|

President Joe Biden frequently calls out his political opponents as dangers to democracy. It's an easy charge to make, given former President Donald Trump's refusal to accept a loss at the polls, his followers' rioting at the Capitol, and subsequent snipe hunts for election fraud and efforts to erect barriers to voting. But the current president's opponents credibly riposte that Biden and company seek control of the economy and suppression of dissent. Those who want to be left alone are stuck between a deluded Republican cult of personality and the smug, creeping totalitarianism of Democrats.

"There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today — an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are — who we are as Americans," Biden insisted last week in Philadelphia. "We're are [sic] facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War … The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol as insurrectionists did on January the 6th."

The president's "insurrectionists" were the rioters who invaded the Capitol in a failed effort to prevent certification of the Electoral College vote acknowledging Biden's presidential win. They were motivated by Trump's bogus claims of a stolen election.

"All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing," Trump told his audience on January 6, before the riot. "And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing."

But that's not what people looking at the record have found.

"We have closely examined what appear to be the main pieces of statistical evidence of fraud in the 2020 election," wrote Andrew C. Eggers of the University of Chicago, and Haritz Garro and Justin Grimmer of Stanford University in a February 2021 paper. "For each of these claims, we find that what is purported to be an anomalous fact about the election result is either not a fact or not anomalous."

Not that bogus claims of fraud had no effect.

"The Trump campaign delivered a blueprint for losing candidates to undermine support for the winner or even steal the election," Eggers, Garro, and Grimmer added. "It seems unlikely that he will be the last to try these tactics."

Actually, Trump is still trying these tactics, insisting just this week, "The Voter Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election was monumental, and the facts are coming out daily!"

Republicans reward Trump with strong polling support for a repeat presidential run in 2024—he took 70 percent of the vote in a July CPAC straw poll, up from 55 percent in a February CPAC straw poll. They also conduct neverending ballot recounts, and push a wave of voting restrictions of various degrees of seriousness in states they control. If that's not an assault on democracy, it's certainly an attempt to tweak its outcomes.

Unfortunately, Biden and Democrats pretend that protecting democracy requires concentrating power and muzzling dissent.

"As you all know, information travels quite quickly on social media platforms; sometimes it's not accurate," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki huffed on July 15 as she pressured private companies to delete controversial vaccine messages. "And Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts — posts that will be within their policies for removal often remain up for days. That's too long."

Much of the information tagged as misinformation by Psaki is, in fact, bullshit—but so is a lot of what the government itself says. It's not always possible to separate truth from falsity right out of the gate, as demonstrated by officialdom's about-face on speculation that COVID-19 leaked from a Wuhan lab. Once a forbidden conspiracy theory, it's now a credible possibility. Disagreement, it seems, is pretty valuable.

But the White House's impatience with dissent doesn't stop there. Leveraging concerns about the Capitol riot and social unrest, federal agencies now target "extremism."

"The Biden administration is stepping up efforts to combat domestic extremism, increasing funding to prevent attacks, weighing strategies historically used against foreign terrorist groups and more openly warning the public about the threat," The New York Times reported last month.

But "extremism" tends to be in the eye of the beholder, often conveniently so when powerful beholders wield the designation as a political weapon. 

"In the last two decades, successive presidential administrations have pursued federal programs to prevent 'violent extremism' or 'radicalization,'" points out the ACLU. "Unfortunately, these programs have had little or no scientific or evidentiary basis for addressing or understanding what are often ill-defined problems, and have resulted in unmerited stigma, discrimination, and infringement of the rights to equality, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion."

Targeting speech hostile to the administration is especially dangerous as Biden pursues an ambitious agenda, including massive spending laden with payoffs to allies

Biden's plan is "a jackpot for public unions and big business," charges Reason's Veronique de Rugy. "Coming after two decades of spending indulgence under the last three presidents, culminating in an explosion of outlays during Washington's COVID-fighting efforts, Biden's spending extravaganza is in effect the final stage of an effort to centralize power in the federal government."

His latest policy brainstorm, issued via executive order, "will tilt the economy toward larger businesses via heavier government control" agrees the American Enterprise Institute's Mark Jamison. 

Those schemes seem worthy of debate, as does the president's addiction to executive orders.

"This is no way to make law," the editorial board at The New York Times cautioned in January. "A polarized, narrowly divided Congress may offer Mr. Biden little choice but to employ executive actions or see his entire agenda held hostage. These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation."

A divided Congress refuses to pass the president's preferred legislation? That might well be frustrating, but it sounds like the normal workings of the democracy that Biden says is under assault. Lawmakers aren't supposed to dance at the command of one official.

"87% of Trump backers and 60% of Biden voters agree that our democracy is under threat," noted Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Poll, of the results of an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll published earlier this month. "But, they view the reasons for such risk through a very different lens."

No doubt Republicans and Democrats view political dangers differently, seeing each other as threats to America's creaky political institutions. As it turns out, they're both right. That leaves those of us committed to freedom and a live-and-let-live attitude out in the cold.

NEXT: Brickbat: Father of the Year

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

  1. “Live-and-let-live political types are stuck between cultists and totalitarians.”

    Funny, the totalitarians seem to be about as culty as it gets nowadays. Irrational fear, guilt, original sin at every turn. A virus with a <1% death rate, with a vaccine available if you want, is the being treated like its super-ebola. White-supremacy and systemic racism are intangible yet everywhere, seemingly they are the new holy spirit of leftism. Climate change seems to have the omnipotence to be causing almost every bad thing in the world, even if said thing is unrelated.

    And the only allowable course of behavior is self flaggelation in hopes of forgiveness / acceptance, and obedience otherwise a mob with torches and pitchforks shows up to "peacefully protest" at your doxxed home location.

    Ya, those totalitarians definitely aren't cultlike.

    1. I’m not seeing the evidence that the ‘cultists’ are remotely as much a threat to my liberty as the totalitarians. Actually, unless you’re an illegal alien, the ‘cultists’ are pretty much into leaving you alone.

      1. There is the part where they tossed their principles to form a cult of personality around an amoral conman who attempted to overthrow the results of a nationwide election.

        1. Actually, they tossed their neoconservative principles to form a cult of personality around an amoral conman who won a legitimate election and spent the next four years being told by the totalitarians how he was really illegitimately-elected Russian stooge.

          1. GoogIe ahora paga entre 17488 y 24900 dólares al mes por trabajar en línea desde casa. Me incorporé a este trabaj0 hace 2 meses y he ganado $ 27540 en mi primer mes de este trabajo. Puedo decir que mi vida ha cambiad0, ¡compIetamente para mejor! Mira lo que hago.>>>> READ MORE

            1. GoogIe ahora paga entre 17488 y 24900 dólares al mes por trabajar en línea desde casa. Me incorporé a este trabaj0 hace 2 meses y he ganad0 $ 27540 sdv en mi primer mes de este trabajo. Puedo decir que mi vida ha cambiad0, ¡compIetamente para mejor! Mira lo que hago.>>>> VISIT HERE

        2. LOL. or they recognized his actions in government were largely to their benefit and ignored the liberal built media for the lies it were. I know you are easily tricked by narratives, but not everybody is. See Fire Extinguishers.

          You are such a joke of a person at this point.

          You talk about an overthrow that was unarmed. you ignore the entire 4 years of his presidency that included multiple impeachment attempts and how many investigations? Calls for the 25th amendment for all 4 years.

          You’re completely delusional and ignorant.

          1. GoogIe ahora paga entre 17488 y 24900 dólares al mes por trabajar en línea desde casa. Me incorporé a este trabaj0 hace 2 meses y he ganad0 $ 27540 sdv en mi primer mes de este trabajo. Puedo decir que SA mi vida ha cambiad0, ¡compIetamente para mejor! Mira lo que hago.>>>> VISIT HERE

        3. Yet you can’t explain why those ‘cultists’ won’t get the jab, and you’ve assured us they are the ones not getting vaccinated, when Trump spearheaded its development and tells people they should take it, you corrupt cancerous clump of cells.

          1. Kaiser Permanente published a survey regarding the unvaccinated:
            – 39% Republican/Lean Republican
            – 41% Democrat/Lean Democrat
            – 20% no affiliation

            Trump was promoting the vaccine to his followers before it was even release while bragging about Warp Speed. (he does love to brag).

            Patrick Kennedy (yes, of THE Kennedys) has been pushing the narrative that the vaccine will alter your DNA and other reasons not to get the vaccine.

            The FDA has not formally approved any of the vaccines outside for “emergency use.”

            It isn’t just the ‘cultists’ that are not getting the vaccine that Trump is promoting.

            1. The Pfizer and Moderna clinical safety trials won’t be complete until 2023 and 2022. It is not unreasonable or illogical to wait for those trials to finish before deciding to get the jab.

              1. And side effects keep popping up.

            2. Permanent approval needs at least several years to evaluate the efficacy over time. That is still a big question which is why there is confusing and contradictory advice about booster doses.

        4. Oh yeah that’s right I almost forgot a half dead guy got 85 million votes right. That lady that got busted in Texas for ballot harvesting, she was the only one in the country I’m sure. Plus thousands of votes run through multiple times in Georgia. Even pencil neck Rafensburger is now crying foul. A little late but better late then never. This article is shit. Even if you take out all the fraud the election was still influenced in one direction by big tech and the main stream media and blogger hacks like this guy. With the scales tilted as much as they were Trump still gained 10 million votes. That’s insane. Imagine if they treated him like they are treating Biden. Now throw in the fraud and here we are.

          1. Hard to argue with such solid facts as “that lady that got busted in Texas”.

            1. Sorry I thought most people who were following election fraud knew about the woman in the project veritas video talking about ballet harvesting and later was arrested for it. I don’t remember her name but even if I did you apparently wouldn’t know who I was talking about.

            2. she’s a fine American!

            3. A fancy new thing called Google would tell you Rachel Rodriguez.

            4. You don’t argue with facts to begin with.

        5. “There is the part where they tossed their principles to form a cult of personality around an amoral conman who attempted to overthrow the results of a nationwide election.”

          This imbecilic piece of lefty shit seemingly thinks you can be charged with armed robbery when you’re ‘armed’ with facial tissues.
          He’s stupid in many ways, but this one in particular.

        6. “There is the part where they tossed their principles to form a cult of personality…”

          Even if this is true, what the fuck does that have to do with what Bellmore said? Did “tossing principles” somehow affect your freedom? I see people toss their principles all the time and sleep with hookers, do drugs, drink booze and gamble…that doesn’t do anything to harm me.

          “…who attempted to overthrow the results of a nationwide election.”

          As near as I can tell Trump did nothing to overthrow the nationwide election. He went to court a lot, and bilked a bunch of people out of legal-defense donations. Is going to court to get redress under the law some sort of freedom infringement now? He also *potentially* (this is a matter of debate, where even legal scholars disagree with you) incited a riot that- even if it had been wildly successful- would have had zero effect on the outcome of the election.

          Compare that to the daily “riot and release” programs being promoted by cf Harris which resulted in the shut down of federal courthouses- which actually, directly, tangibly interfered with peoples’ rights to a speedy trial.

          1. “As near as I can tell Trump did nothing to overthrow the nationwide election.”

            So, he didn’t hold a “Stop the Steal” rally on the day of the electoral college vote counting, rile up the crowd against his own Vice President, and tell them to march on Congress. We’ll just leave that part of the story out.

            1. “We’ll just leave that part of the story out.”

              No, I specifically addressed it. Here, I’ll reprint it for you:

              “He also *potentially* (this is a matter of debate, where even legal scholars disagree with you) incited a riot that- even if it had been wildly successful- would have had zero effect on the outcome of the election.”

              Again, at worst, he incited a riot that would have done ZERO to actually infringe on your freedoms even if those people had…occupied the capital building for 2 weeks. The vote would have been had within a day, no matter what- just at a different venue. And that is if you agree that Trump incited the riot, which I do not, and which many legal scholars agree with me on.

              1. half-baked and ineffectual attempts to overthrow the constitution don’t count as attempts to overthrow the constitution?

                1. No you fucking retard. If I declare myself Supreme Ruler of the United States and unilaterally abolish the Constitution that does not count as an attempt to overthrow the constitution. OMG The Four Hour Insurrection almost destroyed the Constitution!!! Do you fucking idiots screen the stupidity that you fart out and type on your screens?

                  1. ^this

                  2. TRUMP 1

            2. If anything the trespassing at the capital hurt him. There were republicans who were pushing for a ten day pause to look at the fraud accusations but after the trespassing they all caved because it was being pushed as an insurrection all over the news channels. Worst insurrection I’ve ever seen, it lasted all of three hours. Cops let them in, took selfies with them. We’re there some knuckleheads that acted a little obnoxious yeah but whose to say the weren’t fbi plants. Considering they pretty much set up the whole Whitmer kidnapping plot I wouldn’t put anything past them.

              1. And the riot (which would have been called a “peaceful protest” if leftists did it ) started before Trump’s speech.

          2. “Did ‘tossing principles’ somehow affect your freedom?”

            Jury is still out on whether the Trumplicans will manage to destroy American democracy. They sure are working hard to undermine faith in voting.

            1. “They sure are working hard to undermine faith in voting.”

              So you are backing off your claim that somehow the Cultists actually affected your freedom. Instead it is now “jury is still out”…on something…vague…like destroying democracy?

              As for “undermining faith in voting”, what do you mean? Do you mean claiming that voting machines are hackable? Claiming that the “bad guys” are making laws that prevent “good guys” from voting? (You know where I’m going with this, right?)

              1. So, if an act sows the seeds of destroying my freedom and my country, but doesn’t finish the job right then and there, it doesn’t count.

                1. @Mike Laursen, so if Overt and Dariush both claim the efforts over the 4 years Trump was in office to smear Trump as a Rusky plant was “sowing the seeds to destroy THEIR freedoms in their country”, you would agree with them? You are purposely missing their point (because I do not think you are that ignorant)! Your comments are more fitting for twatter than here…

              2. TRUMP. 1

            2. Why the hell should I have any faith in voting? Is the legitimacy of the vote part of the Nicene creed, and I somehow didn’t notice?

              It would be nice to have justified belief in voting, but I’m lacking sufficient evidence.

              1. Fine, I will not use the word, faith, when talking about voting, although it is common idiom. I’ll try to use “justified belief” or “reasonable belief”.

                1. First, Democrat operatives have cheated in the near past – admittedly so. Examples include Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, and others. I am not sure why it is such a leap of faith to assume Democrat operatives would stoop to cheating again in the recent election.
                  Second, the extraordinary measures taken by the Democrat political machine to obstruct any transparency in the election make one suspicious (see Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court case about observers being denied any meaningful access to the vote count, the shenanigans in Georgia with the security camera footage, the erasure of records in anticipation of the subpoena in Arizona, etc). All of this stuff is in the public record, and it’s not necessarily a conspiracy theory to begin to question the official narrative.

                  1. he don’t do facts ……….. he be a democrat

                  2. Best look to a new voting “industry”. In 2020, not for profit and government money poured into key democrat areas. GET OUT THE VOTE, SAFE AND SECURE and other efforts employed thousands of people. Where does this development become a scandal? Less than 4% of this activist money was spent in republican areas. Every honest person would have to agree that Zuckerbergs grants amounted to about $6 per democrat voter and 78 cents per republican in Pennsylvania. That’s government money, directly or indirectly buying a permanent democrat majority.

              2. Why should you have faith in voting? According to this “journalist”, because the people that have been lying to us forever tell us elections are so honestly run there’s no need to validate the process.

            3. I hope they do destroy ‘democracy’. Since we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. And they’re working hard to destroy faith in democrat interference in elections.

              You are such a predictable prog shill.

            4. Your mind has been infected with liberal bullshit. The only people threatening democracy are democrats.

            5. After 4 years of Democrats undermining faith in voting by propagating stories about how Russia controls our elections what is left to undermine? Do you really think that 4 years of damage went away just because you won? It didn’t.

              1. Democrats are a malignant tumor.

        7. I think you’re confusing being a member of a cult of personality, and not being a member of a cult of anti-personality. Not suffering from TDS doesn’t make one a cultist.

          Trump was, as far as I’m considered, a distasteful least available evil. I was supporting Rand Paul in the primaries.

          1. Then you are not one of the cultists being talked about.

            1. ‘Trump cultist’ is just a prog dog whistle for anyone who dissents from your leftist narrative.

              1. he be pontificating as instructed by the biden/pelosi ilk and their chinese masters

        8. how dare you say asserting the Vice President can single-handedly decide electoral college balloting is a cultist position!

      2. The ‘cultists’ are doing their damndest to make it harder for some people to vote. Just because it doesn’t affect you doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

        The head of the cult just said last week that his one mistake as president was failing to sic the military on protesters.

        Agree that the totalitarians are a bigger danger to our freedom, but the other side ain’t great either.

        1. Texas expanded early voting hours and made it easier to access voting. But, just like every Democracy in the World outside the United States, they also require a government issued ID, which are given for free.

          Georgia law changes made their laws very similar to Colorado.

          Both States make it easier to vote than New York or Delaware.

          Just how did they make it harder to vote?

          1. Stricter voting laws are ok in states that vote consistently democrat by a large margin. The democrats need lax standards and no quality control on ballots and vote counting in states that could be in play.

            It all comes down to the undeniable fact that EVERYTHING a democrat does is for solely political purposes. Period.

            1. And the evidence they use to demonstrate that red state voting laws are unfair is that they aren’t winning. Isn’t that circular logic?

        2. bevis, stuff your TDS up your ass and fuck off.

        3. “The head of the cult just said last week that his one mistake as president was failing to sic the military on protesters.”

          As opposed to locking them up for months with no charges, shit-for-brains?

        4. And by harder to vote you really mean harder to commit election fraud.

          But good to see you standing in staunch support with the violent marxists and their reign of terror over multiple US cities with the mass violence, looting, arson and attempted murder.

          1. Not just attempted, as they succeeded in Denver and Portland.
            And that’s just the explicitly and exclusively political murders.

      3. “I’m not seeing the evidence that the ‘cultists’ are remotely as much a threat to my liberty as the totalitarians”

        To be fair, the cultists have instituted a massive tax on americans through several tariffs. They have also interfered with my ability to contract with persons of my choosing through immigration restrictionism.

        But compared to what is coming down the pike from the authoritarians? Yeah, that’s pretty small goods in comparison.

        1. I considered the tariffs a reasonable preparation for our impending fiscal collapse. Being self-sufficient isn’t economically optimal in good times, but if your currency suddenly becomes worthless, self-sufficiency is a precious thing indeed.

        2. Functional countries don’t have open borders. No real country has open borders, so why are you expecting that here?

      4. Oh, yeah… people in the Klan, America First, and the Proud Boys are going to ‘leave you alone.’ The evangelicals have all but declared war on women who want to be left in peace to decide if they want abortions. The GOP is going not going to stop pushing voter suppression laws and McConnell is still stealthily loading the federal courts with Trump appointees. Give me a break…unless of course, they all drop over from not getting vaxxed.

        1. triggered …………..

    2. I find some people’s enthusiasm for Trump pretty weird. I’d have preferred he was reelected, but he’s a real mixed bag. I supposed you could call it a cult of personality.

      But the “woke” cult seems a whole lot cultier to me. I had some friends who went down that road and it really is like they joined a cult.

      1. This is my point, it in every way screams “cult” behavior.

        The left is less religious in terms of standard religions, but they are every bit as religious when it comes to irrational zealot like beliefs and adherence to a magical narrative.

        Humans gonna human, it turns out most people gravitate toward some kind of religion; theirs is the church of woke. But most religions aren’t trying to get the govt to forcibly change my life. Theirs is.

        1. Have to say I super agree with you Jimbo. If either ‘side’ is a cult it is without doubt the far left. There are plenty of them on the far right, too, although at least the far rights cult generally agrees through most of it’s sects that just asking for forgiveness gets you forgiveness. The lefts version allows no option for forgiveness at all.

          Aside from that, cultist-like behavior is still far more widespread on the left side of the aisle they just don’t agree because their definitions are so incredibly narrow minded, just like their ethos.

          To me, it would be more accurate to refer to the left as cultists and the right as totalitarians. Among totalitarians, though, they are a more friendly brand than the cultist.

          Like, if you put a gun to my head and I had to choose between secular totalitarians or theocratic cultists I’d have to choose the totalitarians.

          C.S. Lewis on the subject, from God in the Dock:


          “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

          1. I think it would be more accurate to say that the left tend towards totalitarianism, and the right towards authoritarianism.

            The difference is that the authoritarian wants to be obeyed about some finite list of things, but is otherwise indifferent as to what you do. The totalitarian wants not just your obedience in some limited domain, they want your heart and soul.

            You can have a separate peace with the authoritarian, with the totalitarian you’re either all in with them, or you’re the enemy.

          2. When discussing the Left’s policies and actions, one has both the secular totalitarian and the theocratic cultist in the same package. This Lewis quote is often referred to when discussing the modern Left & Progressivism, but makes the assumption that there is an element of the benign, or care for others in their attempts at personification of omnipotent moral busybody. This is not the case, there is a disdain for the out-group, and a need for control. This is equally true of the far Right, but they are not present in numbers as large, in positions as important, or as vocal.

      2. Yes. I was raised Catholic, and always bristled when “Smarter than thou Atheists” insisted that religion was just some anachronism that plebes needed to assert their relevance in an uncaring universe.

        But now I kind of agree with these people. Folks have replaced original sin with critical race theory’s “White Fragility”, or with Environmentalism’s conceit that just living and working for a living is destroying the planet. Environmentalism just assumes that the Earth was once an eden before industrialization and both have this underlying apocalyptic stand in for Christianity’s End of Days. It is absolutely bizarre.

        1. Hell, even the way people reacted to the Wu Flu was almost cult-like. Masks were treated as talismans capable of warding off demons, despite the fact that the scientific evidence is- at best- mixed on the subject. Whenever someone talked about a person getting the flu, I could tell who the liberals in the conversation were- they were the ones who immediately asked things like, “Do they wear a mask? Were they following the CDC guidelines?” To these people, just having the illness was de facto proof that you were unclean.

          Totally bizarre.

        2. I grew up Catholic as well, and Catholicism is deeply flawed, as are all religions. But, when the leftists exiled God from the public square and made religion a dirty word, they left a vacuum that had to be filled by something. There is certainly much to criticize about organized religions, but with most religions, at least there’s some concept of heaven and hell, sin and punishment, salvation and redemption, and fairly clear rules. If you live according to these doctrine, Jesus will love you and you’ll go to heaven. Looking at the past 20 years, I can’t say that what took its place is any better. I would even say it’s objectively worse, because it’s completely nihilistic and narcissistic.

          1. There won’t be a US if we don’t crush the prog movement.

    3. Both sides are members of the cult of democracy.

      The fact that millions vote is a partial check on political power–the *only* rational purpose of state democracy. That purpose works whether you need an ID or not, or whether *you* vote or not.

      There is no moral authority or truth of 51% over 49%. Close elections are an evenly split electorate. There is no moral point to disputing such outcomes any more than disputing a coin toss.

      Systematic voting incentives & disincentives may bias outcomes in close elections. But democracy still serves its only rational purpose. And such bias is ever present no matter what anyone does.

      What we need is for everyone to stop worshipping democracy–stop believing that any democratic outcome is the god-given right of the plurality to joyfully oppress everyone else.

  2. Live and let live has been dead for some time. It is anathema to the wokerati and to the circus of activists shilling for whatever cause. The idea of letting adults be has morphed into “you damn well better actively cheerlead for X,” no matter what you actually think of X.

    With govt, two things: 1) the elected and many of the appointed have come to think that we work for them rather than the other way around. Which is not hard to understand given 2) – the increased belief that every issue or question requires a govt program to address it. When people give enough power to those poorly-equipped to handle it, the consequences are foreseeable.

    1. Maybe lots of old and current cultures had the right idea when they sent young people away to burn off their excess enthusiasm. Vision quests, missions, petty wars, crusades, dangerous exploration, etc. deserve some new consideration.

      1. Well, AOC wants a Climate Conservation Corps or some such to take another 1.5 million young folks out of the work force and put them to nagging you to recycle newsprint and plastic and other trash that is in such overwhelming supply that most of it goes into landfills anyway.

    2. The Global Socialist Woke’s Party sees the people as nothing but livestock, existing to be harvested or culled as they see fit.

    3. It is interesting that the rise of these religious economic theories such as marxism really came about as countries increasingly rejected religion for secularism. It is like people MUST have the government force their neighbors to do their bidding and when governments gave up God as their excuse, the nuts had to introduce “Muh batshit insane theory of the value of labor”.

  3. “…Donald Trump’s refusal to accept a loss at the polls,”

    And he even took it to the Supreme Court. Or was that some other guy?

    1. Talk about deluded
      This article screams delusion

      1. Both sides!

    2. It was some other guy, but that election was legitimately stolen. Trumps’ loss was the most unquestionably legitimate election since Kennedy v. Nixon.

      1. A sudden increase of 30 million voters (+25%) over any previous election is totes no reason to examine an election!

        1. 30 million more in spite of lockdowns. Sales of McDs cheeseburgers were down at proportions not seen in the company’s history but voting was up!

        2. And most of the new voters must have voted for Biden and Democrat Senators, but Republican for the House seats.

          Alternative theory #1: The new Democrat voters were concentrated in a few big cities and greatly outweighed the new Republican voters in small cities and rural areas. This gave statewide races (including the EC) to Democrats, but the new Democrat votes for the House went to urban districts that always go Democrat anyhow, while Republican votes increased in the small city and rural districts.

          Alternative theory #2: Democrats running the elections in big cities stole far more votes than usual*, mainly by manufacturing ballots and feeding them in after the polls closed. They stole enough to outweigh the increase in actual Republican votes in many statewide elections, but could not change the Congressional results in the small city and rural districts.

          * What’s the usual? In Detroit in 2016, an audit (for a recount, which was finally dropped) found that 26% of the ballot boxes could not be verified. They weren’t sealed, the seal was broken, or the number of ballots in the box did not match what was supposed to be there. And nothing whatsoever was done about this. The same people – incompetent or crooked – were in charge of counting the votes in 2020, and they’ll still be there in 2022 and 2024.

      2. I see what you did there…

    3. How droll but certainly expected. Dred Scott took his case to the S. Ct. too. So did Plessy, and all he and black american citizens got from the Court was separate but equal for the next 60 years. Or was that some other people?

      1. Did you have a point, or just a bout of keyboard diarrhea.

        1. Dred Scott took his case to the S. Ct. too. So did Plessy, and all he and black american citizens got from the Court was separate but equal for the next 60 years

          His point may be that this was a good thing since all of the efforts of the CRT movement and ‘Equity’ seem to be pushing black americans to separate again. Albeit, if they allow the IPOC and the Latinxers to be a part.
          All propagated by the Liberal elite.

  4. You know who didn’t want to be left alone by both sides? Lucky Pierre.

    1. The epitome of the man-in-the-middle. A true centrist.

      1. Very bi…partisan.

      2. A collectivist as well. Adhering to ‘both sides’.

        1. Actually, it’s not that he didn’t want to be left alone by both sides. Rather, he wanted to be left alone with both sides.

          Hence, Lucky Pierre is not a Collectivist, but an Individualist who wants to practice his Individualism with other individuals of all sexes.

          And because he both gives and recieves pleasure with other individuals of all sexes voluntarily, you might also say he is a Mutualist Voluntaryist Individualist.

          All this parsing is making me horny. Anyone want to move the conversation elsewhere? Preferably a Nolan Chart Twister Mat?

          1. So Pierre is really a Pansexual centrist with a bent towards individualist marxism, to each to his or her needs, and a collectivist as he receives the production of others in return. His fluidity is itself fluid.
            We may have a candidate for a new sexual classification. A Pierresexual if you will.

            1. I’m not sure where Marxism would figure in Pierresexuality.

              Karl Marx didn’t like a lot of the French ideologues like Mutualist Anarchist Jean-Pierre Proudhon or Socialist Ferdinand LaSalle and Marx damn sure would absolutely hate libertarian Free-Market Economist Frederic Bastiat.

              Lucky Pierre I think would be more partial to Robert Nozick, who proclaimed: “From each as they choose to each as they are chosen”…and Pierre wouldn’t be too choosy about who “they” are. 🙂

              1. Excusez-moi, I mean Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

                That the thing about being a Pierresexual, sometimes you call out the wrong name.

  5. It’s funny how “people” wanting to be left alone somehow morphs into “businesses.”

    You could do a better job at separating the two, you know, if you wanted.

    1. Who operates businesses? Oh, that’s right; people.

      1. ++

    2. That’s awful isn’t it, Tony. Businesses should be operated by the state.

      1. Tony shops at Pol Pot Pottery Barn

        1. Human skulls, now 80% off!

          1. They’ll do their signage in a large font, so you don’t have to wear your glasses.

            1. That one went right over Tony’s head.

    3. “It’s funny how “people” wanting to be left alone somehow morphs into “businesses.” …”

      Not funny how steaming piles of lefty shit hate the thought of people making money. Other than themselves…

      1. Hey raspberrydinners…

        Be careful man!!! Do NOT piss off Sevo the Pedo, man!!! Sevo the Pedo has special permission to insult others all day every day, with unfounded accusations, but can NOT be trolled by disrespectin’ others!!! Or else Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo, will SUE you in the courts of Government Almighty!!! Pedo’s LAWYERS might wear speedos IN YOUR FACE in court ass well, so BEWARE!!!

        https://reason.com/2021/07/18/meet-the-new-york-times-libertarian-podcaster/#comment-9001051

        1. spastic gets flagged

        2. Buttplug posts actual deepweb kiddie-diddler links and Sqrsly white knights for him, but somehow Sevo’s a pedo because why?

          1. Hey MammaryBahnFuher… I have NO idea WHY Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, decided to become a Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo! Why don’t you ask Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo?

            1. Christ! Get Help!

              1. Christ needs to get help, you say, in trying to fix Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo? Can’t be done! Even Christ can NOT “fix” people like Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, against their own free will!

    4. It’s funny how “people” wanting to be left alone somehow morphs into “businesses.”

      Everybody knows that businesses are famous for refusing to sell sneakers to Republicans and really want to go out of their way to deny homosexuals their wedding cakes.

    5. And live-and-let-live business is good.

    6. Yeah, you’ll leave people alone as long as they obey and don’t do anything, or practice beliefs that go against your Marxist narrative.

  6. A new personal best for JD; I stopped at the second sentence.

    1. His proggy friends must be in a panic if Toosilly has to break out the broad brush version of Both Sides.

    2. same

  7. Those who want to be left alone are stuck between a deluded Republican cult of personality and the smug, creeping totalitarianism of Democrats.

    There is almost nothing in this article that actually addresses the issues of ‘people who want to be left alone’ – ie exit. Maybe those folks really are stuck but there’s a huge difference between ‘people who want to be left alone’ and ‘people who want to reorganize society before they leave it’.

    1. Seriously the major theme in US history up to maybe 1890 is the desire to be left alone. Whether it was the desire to head to the frontier as a single family or the desire to create a small community of the like-minded.

      There are real issues there that can perhaps prevent such moves – and preventing that sort of move has the potential of blowing up society because of the lack of a safety valve. But I don’t see any of those in this article.

      1. In addition to the desire to be left alone was the acceptance of personal responsibility and the drive to be self-supporting. Those people would be shocked at how average people now look to government and other institutions for direction, support, and identity.

        1. Then again the frontier folks were always calling on government to call out the militia or the cavalry to help them kill Natives who were angry about said folks taking their hunting grounds.

        2. Actually what those Americans would be shocked at today is how little importance we now attach to the civil associations of de Toqueville’s day. Those were the means of effecting change and creating a civil society – from scratch then on the frontier. Those (called social power by Nock) were what AJ Nock correctly recognized as the thing which deteriorates when government does things. Those are the things that had disappeared and were being mourned in Bowling Alone.

          But those are not at all what is meant by ‘being left alone’. They are not at all what libertarians even think about when they parrot Randian/Austrian notions of individualism. And they are not what will automatically ‘fill the vacuum’ if government simply diminishes.

      2. If your kind could learn to leave us all alone, we can see our way clear to tolerating your continued existence and not slaughtering all of you in self defense.

        It’s the best deal you progs are going to get. Better think about it.

  8. “Barriers to voting”?

    Like showing up? Minimal requirements to prove that you are eligible? Not being dead?

    1. Some people don’t have reliable transportation.
      Some people don’t get time off from work in order to stand in line to vote.
      Some people are in nursing homes or in the hospital and can’t show up to vote on election day.
      Some people are barred from voting for bullshit reasons, like being released from jail and on parole, or for not paying some bullshit fine.

      There are a lot of potential reasons why there might be barriers to other people voting. Not everyone has a comfortable middle-class lifestyle you know. What is wrong with at least acknowledging some of these?

      1. So basically you’re all good with no requirements or checks on voting and votes cast. Good proggy, you’ve earned your media matters bonus for the day.

        1. To people like Jeff, any challenge is seen as a barrier to their claimed rights, whether voting, income, or power.

          1. That’s quite an exaggerated summary of what chemjeff actually said.

            1. This isn’t his first comment regarding the topic dummy.

            2. It isn’t.

          2. And voting is not actually a right.

        2. So basically you’re all good with no requirements or checks on voting and votes cast

          For the umpteenths time, NO. This is a ridiculous talking point. How in the world do you go from “acknowledging that some people have some barriers to voting”, all the way to “have no requirements at all on voting!!!!”??? It is a stupid strawman.

          Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that some people somewhere might not have it as easy as you do to voting? And if that is the case, why can’t we think about ways to make it easier for them to vote, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME keeping the election as secure as feasible?

          1. They’d have to acknowledge you are not a “lefty shit”, and you are making a reasonable point they don’t even disagree with.

            There’s no fun partisan games in that.

            1. LOL. Lefties unite!

              1. At the Leftorium

            2. There’s no fun partisan games in that.

              Mocking commies and socialists used to bi-partisan. Until the liberals ceded too much ground to the commies and socialists that had infiltrated the Democrat party. The Soviets did exactly the same in Eastern Europe. It just took another 50 years to bear fruit in the USA.

              1. “As American as Apple Pie” and the mock accusation of “communist!” If you admit to not liking something everyone else likes are by-products of that era.

            3. He’s a lefty shit. So are you. I would have at least a tiny amount of respect for both of you if you two could just admit what you are.

          2. BECAUSE TO MAKE IT “EASIER FOR THEM” REQUIRES VIRTUALLY NO SECURITY IN THE ELECTION AT ALL!

            That is why.

            Good God you’re dense.

            1. BECAUSE TO MAKE IT “EASIER FOR THEM” REQUIRES VIRTUALLY NO SECURITY IN THE ELECTION AT ALL!

              ONLY IF YOU ARE A TRIBAL IDIOT AND BLACK/WHITE THINKER WHO THINKS THAT ANY CHANGE TO THE STATUS QUO MEANS TOTAL FRAUD AND CHAOS.

              1. SORT OF LIKE NOT WANTING YOUR KIDS TO BE SHAMED FOR HAVING WHITE SKIN DOESN’T EQUATE TO NOT WANTING AMERICA’S HISTORY OF RACE RELATIONS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

                1. Or not wanting kids to be raped by known child molesters from other countries that Jeffy champions.

          3. This is a ridiculous talking point. How in the world do you go from “acknowledging that some people have some barriers to voting”, all the way to “have no requirements at all on voting!!!!”??? It is a stupid strawman.

            When you grease the field with arguments like “bullshit reasons, like being released from jail and on parole, or for not paying some bullshit fine” as an illegitimate reason for people to be barred from voting, you don’t get to complain that the slope is slippery.

            1. More of a cliff than a slope.

            2. If you want to argue in favor of the proposition that the parolee, who is a legal citizen, and who was deemed safe enough to be in civil society, should be denied the right to vote because he still owes a few bucks in fines, then go right ahead and make that case.

              But even if this class of individuals were to have their voting rights restored, it wouldn’t mean TOTAL FRAUD and TOTAL CHAOS. Sheesh.

              1. If you want to argue in favor of the proposition that the parolee, who is a legal citizen, and who was deemed safe enough to be in civil society, should be denied the right to vote because he still owes a few bucks in fines, then go right ahead and make that case.

                So, because they’re legal citizens, you support restoring their gun rights?

                1. Yes.

                  If they can’t be trusted to own a gun, they shouldn’t be on parole.

                  1. Really? So your fat ass has decreed this?

          4. It isn’t a talking point. You’ve basically said the only way we can have voter ID is if the government drives to every individuals house, does all the registration there, and pays them for their time. Then on election day drives over and picks them up or helps them fill out their absentee ballots.

            You’ve created a stupid set of requirements that can never be met. You created an impossible condition. You are doing so thinking you are fooling people but nobody more intelligent than you is that easily fooled.

            You’re lying when you say you are for ID because the conditions of your acceptance of that requirement are impossible.

            1. It’s part of his whole sea lioning bullshit.

          5. It is a stupid strawman.

            Your whole argument is a strawman. Other than those barred from voting, the things you have listed are not barriers. At most, they are inconveniences. And none of them are anybody else’s problem.

            Getting to a polling place has historically required quite a bit of effort on the citizen’s part. 150 years ago, people might have to make a trip of an entire day or more to vote. Yet no one was advocating vote by Pony Express.

            My wife literally drove the bus for resident’s at a retirement home to the polling place. The fact that you don’t think that employers and neighbors and friends and family will help others get to the polling places says a lot more about you than you think.

            Treating everyone in accordance with the needs of the weakest is leftist bullshit that invites fraud, rewards those only willing to make the least possible effort, and bolsters the already bloated administrative bureaucracy. ‘No Voter Left Behind’ will work about as well as it did for education.

            1. the things you have listed are not barriers.

              IF you live a comfortable middle class lifestyle, YOU’RE TOTALLY RIGHT! Therefore, who gives a shit about everyone else!

              Sheesh.

              1. Yes, we know you’re too lazy to waddle your fat ass out of the house to do anything other than pick up your DoorDash order.

              2. Mostly, I just don’t give a shit about you and your regurgitated lefty nonsense.

                They are not barriers. I managed to vote when I was poor and didn’t have a car. I managed to vote when I had to stand in line before AND after a full day of work while rearranging the schedule to get the kids from daycare. I just explained how to assist the elderly.

                You are the one that displays no faith in humanity, probably because nobody likes you because you continually tell them how bad a person they are for not caring about you more.

                You seek the protection of government the same way you sought the protection of your mommy when the other kids didn’t want to play with you because you wanted to change the rules so you could have a chance to win. Just so you know, the physics are such that fat kids can actually kick the ball further and if you kick it far you don’t even have to be a fast runner. But it takes determination and practice you lazy fuck.

                1. Yes we know. Your liberty is all about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME. We all get the picture.

                  1. That isn’t what he said at all. You must be embarrassed at having no real defense for your lame, discredited premise.

              3. I skipped school and drove two hours to be at the polling place at my home so I could vote.

                My husband has left work early or failed to vote multiple times.

                Just because my life is “cushy” doesn’t mean voting is convenient and easy to do.

                Rural people have the least access to polling places and no one talks about increasing THEIR accessibility to the polls.

          6. Chemmy,

            There is a tried and true method for people to vote who are in the situations you describe. Mail in voting is an available option. It has a process that requires identification. Once that is done a person is able to secure their vote each year.
            If that process is changed to make it ‘easier’ for some who may not be up to task of going to the polls, showing their ID and voting. This form of mail in voting allows for:
            Some people don’t have reliable transportation. – They can go through the mailing vote process
            Some people don’t get time off from work in order to stand in line to vote. – They can go through the process and mail in their votes ahead of time.
            Some people are in nursing homes or in the hospital and can’t show up to vote on election day. – They too can mail in their votes as long as they go through the identification process ahead of time.
            All the other claims of voter oppression and the need for more ‘rights’ for voting are
            a. Infantilizing
            b. A veiled approach to keeping the chaos alive so it is easier to cheat.
            That’s it in a nutshell the Squirrel could understand. All the other shit is bull. If a person feels voting is important and wants their vote to mean something they will take the time to go through the identification process and vote by what means are available to them.
            When a voter feels their vote has been negated by false methodology, as mine was in AZ, they will have less sympathy for those fighting tooth and nail against fixing the voting process so it is clearly one person, one vote.

            1. a. Infantilizing

              An insidious form of racism/sexism/ageism still practiced by the morally corrupt.

              That the negroes were like children and needed protection was the rationalization that enabled Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves. It was bullshit then, but, by all means, lets drag it back out and see if it looks better in the light of CRT.

              1. Fitzhugh would be quite popular among the left these days.

          7. Your premise is wrong, namely the idea that the objective of voting should be for as many people as possible to vote as easily as possible.

      2. All of them have been addressed. I’ll give you points on some being barred because of a felony conviction. Where are you barred from voting for being on parole for anything other than a felony? Where are you barred from voting for not paying a fine?
        I have no problem with mail in ballots for people with the other issues you mention. I do have a problem with them being sent out unrequested.
        Stop drinking the Liberal kool aid.

        1. Where are you barred from voting for not paying a fine?

          There was a case from Florida not long ago, that Reason reported on, where a person was barred from voting because he had not “completed his sentence”, but the only outstanding element of his sentence was paying a fine. That is bullshit.

          I have no problem with mail in ballots for people with the other issues you mention.

          I agree, and mail-in ballots help. However in many places in order to submit an absentee ballot application the requestor has to furnish one of a few “legitimate excuses”. Why? Why not have no-excuse absentee ballots? In Texas they had drive-thru voting in the Houston area, but the legislature decided to ban that. Why? What is the harm in having drive-thru voting, at least in concept?

          Instead of being a bunch of reactionary idiots about voting, and fighting innovations in how to vote, Republicans could be devising ways to transform those innovations into secure voting methods. Why not do that?

          1. but the only outstanding element of his sentence was paying a fine. That is bullshit.

            It may shock you, but jail time is not the only form of punishment doled out for felonies.

          2. You may not like it, Jeff. But it is the rule at the time. Don’t like the rule? Petition your reps to draft a bill and make it a new rule.

          3. Instead of being a reactionary idiot bout voter laws designed to prevent your democrat friends from committing election fraud. Democrats should devise ways to ensure that enable people to get the ID they need and get to the polls if needed.

            But then, none of this is about about protecting voters. For democrats it’s about being able to control election outcomes through fraud.

          4. They aren’t barred for “not paying a fine”, they are barred for having committed a felony and not having completed their sentence.

        2. I actually think mail in ballots is even more secure than in place balloting. We do mail in voting in California. I can see at any time where my ballot is by logging onto a website. I know when it was sent to me, when it was received at the post office, when it was stored in the ballot box and when it was counted.

          The only way to improve this is with cryptographic signing. I use my ID to get a cryptographic key (it could be a QR code that I pick up at a store) and I use that to seal my ballot. That could then allow my vote to be stored on a public database (encrypted) and I could then use my key to view what actual vote was counted.

          For crying out loud, they have been doing this shit in Estonia for 20 fucking years. It’s time to get rid of the team politics and act like the technological leader of the goddamn world.

          1. There are legitimate issues with mass mail in balloting.

            Ballot harvesting, anonymity is gone, the ballots can be lost or stolen and fraudulently filled out by someone other than the voter the ballot was intended for. Voter rolls in many places are outdated.

            It is much easier to cheat with mail in balloting, which is why the dems are pushing it.

          2. Exactly. Voting reform is not that hard conceptually. There are numerous real-world examples to draw upon. But the difficulty is fourfold:

            1. Team Blue is fighting tooth and nail against voter ID. That is wrong.
            2. Team Red is behaving like a bunch of reactionary idiots.
            3. A lot of people on all sides think voting should be some sort of privilege, and so making it easier to vote *securely* means the voter hasn’t “put in the effort” to “earn” the vote. That mentality is just toxic and needs to die. Voting is a right, there shouldn’t need some huge amount of effort to “earn” the right to vote.
            4. It will cost money, and spending money on voting is not as sexy as spending money on a new football stadium, or something.

            1. team shit-for-brains posts as jeff the radical asshole.
              Fuck off and die.

            2. 4. It will cost money, and spending money on voting is not as sexy as spending money on a new football stadium, or something

              Seems like Zuckerburg had no issue with the sexiness of spending $300 million to ‘fortify’ the election last year. Hmmmm

              1. If you don’t want Zuckerberg to spend $300 million on running elections, then that means the $300 million will have to come from somewhere else. And it’s going to be taxpayers.

                1. “If you don’t like Zuckerberg bankrolling leftist fraud, the leftist government will make taxpayers fund it (more)!”

                2. Why does the taxpayer have to fund $300 million in election manipulation in favor of Democrats? Because that’s all Zuckerberg did.

          3. The issue isn’t with the ballots you mail in, it’s with the extra ballots that get mailed in from fake voters.

            Fraud involving mail-in ballots is so easy that Europe had massive problems with it and many countries have banned the practice. In the US, we wouldn’t even be able to detect it.

      3. -State and local election boards locate polling places in areas accessible to public transportation or by foot
        – In most places, polling places are open from 7am to 7pm. Your employer is legally obligated to give you time off to vote. Bullshit.
        – Those people are already covered by existing absntee ballot rules in most jurisdictions
        – Those reason are up to the legislatures to change.

        I didn’t always live a middle class life. I worked an hourly minimum wage job and had no car, and limited public transit options. I made it to my polling place because it was important to me to vote. I voted absentee in the military for 20 years, sometimes from sever thousand miles away. It’s not that fucking hard to vote.

        All of the bullshit reasons you’re spewing are all issues for local election authorities to manage, and they seem to be the biggest problems in blue-state shithole cities.

        1. That is horseshit. There are many precincts/districts where voting in person de facto requires a multi-hour wait. Those are also the exact places where absentee voting is infringed for voters because the registration rolls are more [error-prone or fucking around with – take your pick] incomplete because of people moving or people voting less frequently.

          Combine the two and there is not even remotely the same burden placed on voting.

          1. What’s your point? That’s a problem for the local election board to solve.

            1. See below. No election board is actually local. The lowest level is the county clerk – following state level rules and state level resources.

              1. You are a lying dumbfbck. Yes, it is TOTALLY local.

                Nothing stops the local boards from making it easier and quicker, other than funds and staffing. No Republican measure makes ot harder for counties to operate more freely than they are now, other than the single exception of TX not wanting Harros County (Houston) to have 24 hour drive theu voting, which they invented during the pandemic. Because it is more susceptible to abuse.
                The Georgia law states that localities MUST be open AT LEAST from 8 to 5, but can be open from 7 to 8. And MUST offer early voting on 3 weekends. That is actually a huge burden on small rural counties where there is no demand for late voting, and no way to accomodate it other than enslaving the small county clerk staff to 70 hour work weeks. Why should a county of 25,000 residents be mandated by the Feds to be open when there is no need to and it imposes a huge cost on the county? Why treat them the same as a county with 750,000 people?

                1. Yes, it is TOTALLY local.

                  Then why are STATE legislatures drawing up more restrictive rules/resources for elections in a couple dozen states at least? Do you think this is merely some pissing into the wind exercise?

                  1. ‘More restrictive’………..

                    That’s a relative phrase, and meaningless without context.

            2. And also solved by an absentee voting process. Don’t want to wait? Do the legwork up front, get your ass identified and mail in your ballot at your convenience.

          2. Perhaps the election officials IN THAT COUNTY should resolve their issue?

            1. A county is entirely an administrative arm of the state level government. You may elect county level officials but they do not create law. If they have leeway, it is only the specific leeway that they have been granted by the state. They do not even have the administrative leeway of ‘home-rule’ municipalities.

              1. States leave the placing of polling places and staffing to counties as a general rule as it is much easier for them to handle than it is for the state itself to handle.

          3. If voting requires a “multi-hour wait”, that’s your local community’s problem. Go get active and fix it. If you can’t be bothered to do so, don’t complain if you don’t have sufficient representation.

            Far poorer countries and communities than the US manage to implement quick and efficient in person voting with identification.

        2. Oh – and elections are a state-level issue. Managed at the county level – not municipalities. And the resources for those counties are quite deliberately restricted/distorted for partisan reasons at the state level because of the differences in the types of counties that serve as a partisan base and a power base in the legislature.

          1. Polling places are generally managed at the local level, not the state level.

        3. You are right in that many election issues can be resolved at the state and local level. Pointing that out though doesn’t make the issues go away.

          I’ll just point this one out though:
          – In most places, polling places are open from 7am to 7pm. Your employer is legally obligated to give you time off to vote. Bullshit.

          This analysis assumes that the person is working a full time job. If a person has two part time jobs, the morning employer can say “just vote in the afternoon”, and the afternoon employer can say “just vote in the morning”.

          Personally I think election day should be a national holiday. It would cut down on the number of people who have to miss voting due to work related issues.

          1. This analysis assumes that the person is working a full time job. If a person has two part time jobs, the morning employer can say “just vote in the afternoon”, and the afternoon employer can say “just vote in the morning”.

            You’re adding a (maybe) unique circumstance and saying let’s make a rule that accommodates this too just in case. The process is in place. Go early, work it out with your boss, work later, use absentee voting.
            The morning employer can say vote in the afternoon and vice versa for the afternoon guy but it is up to the voter to say it’s time to vote now.

          2. Right. Because the people you’re crying about are totally going to get a national holiday off.

            If voting is a priority, people will go vote. It’s not that fucking hard for real people who actually exist, not the fictitious people you make up in your addled lefty fevered brain.

            Not everything is a federal fucking issue, and no government can solve the problems of every single person. It’s not fucking possible.

          3. Citizenship has obligations. One of these obligations is voting. If you can’t live up to those obligations, don’t complain if you don’t have political representation.

            And in the aar of your hypothetical voter with two half-time jobs, they already are getting thousands of dollars in government handouts; the least one can expect is for them to go vote.
            \

      4. Some people don’t have reliable transportation.
        – I doubt they care about voting, let’s be real.
        Some people don’t get time off from work in order to stand in line to vote.
        – again, highly doubtful, do early voting if available, vote on your lunch break, etc.
        Some people are in nursing homes or in the hospital and can’t show up to vote on election day.
        – this one is harder to argue other than these people are close to death, don’t have their faculties , etc. and ain’t voting just like the guy/gal with no reliable transportation…
        Some people are barred from voting for bullshit reasons, like being released from jail and on parole, or for not paying some bullshit fine.
        – so are you are ok with released ex-cons (felons) being able to have their 2nd amendment rights reinstated too, along with the voting rights?

        1. Not fair! Forcing people to make some effort to vote? What’s next, forcing people to make some effort to have a house?

          1. There is no right to housing.
            There is a right to vote.
            The two are different.

            There will always be some necessary effort on behalf of the voter to partake in the act of voting, but government should work to make that effort as minimal as possible.

            Once again: voting is not a privilege that can only be earned by passing successful Trials of Bureaucracy. Voting is a *right*.

            1. There is no right to vote. An immigrant has a right to procure housing, they do not have the right to vote. What don’t you get?!? There have always been conditions on voting since the country started.

            2. So the government has to give people guns, or nah that’s a totes different kind of right?

              1. You have a right to own a gun.
                You don’t have a right to a free gun.

                So, the government should make it as easy as possible for you to exercise your right to own a gun. I completely agree with that.

                1. It’s a right, enshrined in the constitution. Voting is not. The only thing the constitution says on that is that voting shall not be restricted based on race, religion, or gender.

                  But that’s not the sort of thing you would know. Your education was curated by Marxist professors. Feeding you Marxist pablum. Which you lapped up like a good pet.

            3. There is also an obligation to vote and participate in democracy. That is, it is reasonable to expect that you make sacrifices in order to live up to those obligations.

              Poor people receive massive government transfers and benefits; the least we can expect is for them to make the effort to go voting. Voting for the average doctor, lawyer, or engineer also means a sacrifice of hundreds of dollars in lost income.

        2. – I doubt they care about voting, let’s be real.

          See there you go, that is the attitude that we have to fight against. “Because they don’t even have a car, they aren’t worthy enough of the privilege to vote!” That is not just snobbish but insulting to boot.

          This is just more ‘toddler libertarianism’, the idea that the only thing that’s important is MY rights and MY liberties, and if someone else has a problem, well fuck ’em, that’s their problem, who cares, who gives a shit, let them suffer, not my concern, screw you.

          Oh and I love the one about “who gives a shit about the old people voting or not, they are near death anyway, if they can’t vote, fuck ’em”. This attitude is entirely sickening.

          The world does not revolve around you, and securing everyone’s rights is *part and parcel* of securing your own. Because if all you care about is your own rights, you are not asking for liberty for its own sake, you are asking to be treated like an entitled spoiled brat.

          1. People who don’t contribute to the common pot (or who are subsidized from it) shouldn’t vote in the first place.

          2. You’re a little confused, Jeff. Voting in a democracy isn’t just a right, it’s an obligation. Society expects you to make sacrifices to live up to your obligations. So, on voting day, you need to scrounge up the money and time to make it to the polls. It is your responsibility to come up with the money and time. If you can’t do it, you aren’t living up to your obligations.

            The net government benefits and transfers poor people receive in the US more than make up for the time and expense necessary to make it to the polls. There is no need to make further accommodations.

      5. Some people don’t have reliable transportation.
        Bus, taxi, friends, how do they get around normally? They can use that. This isn’t a “barrier” and you’re totally inventing a problem.

        Some people don’t get time off from work in order to stand in line to vote.
        Make time. It’s not hard.
        Anyway, the main issue here is shitty polling location management. Not barriers to voting, which is a totally different issue.

        Some people are in nursing homes or in the hospital and can’t show up to vote on election day.
        Point out one hospital or nursing home where voter assistance wasn’t provided by the state. I’ll wait.

        Some people are barred from voting for bullshit reasons, like being released from jail and on parole, or for not paying some bullshit fine.
        Good.

        1. “Some people don’t get time off from work in order to stand in line to vote.
          Make time. It’s not hard.
          Anyway, the main issue here is shitty polling location management. Not barriers to voting, which is a totally different issue.”

          Georgia’s “Jim Crow 2.0” voting law included early voting so you’d have numerous days to choose from to vote.

          Funny, literally no other aspect of their lives are these problems huge impediments. ONLY to voting.

          1. Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
            How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

            Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

            So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

            “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
            Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

            (Etc.)

            See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comment-8316852

            1. spastic gets spaz flag.

            2. Fuck, the shitposter is out in force today.

          2. “Funny, literally no other aspect of their lives are these problems huge impediments. ONLY to voting.”

            Like 99.999% of voters, my vote has never swung an election. Not even when my mother was running for the township board (probably the very lowest elective office in Michigan), and lost by something like 110-100. Most of the other candidates I voted for also lost, that time and every time. I’ve never got anything from voting but a tiny “I voted” sticker and a warm feeling inside (except when I was sick inside because, for instance, the choice was liberal-fascist Nixon, insanely-leftist McGovern, and third parties ranging from openly socialist to openly Communist), and I’m sure that’s the experience of nearly every voter.

            So it’s not surprising if a minor inconvenience keeps someone who doesn’t think they owe anything to their community from voting. More would vote if we made it super-easy for them – and more did vote when last year when mail-in ballots or applications for ballots were mailed to their homes without them even asking. (The majority of those ballots returned were from the living citizen they were addressed to, but certainly not all.) But WHO wants more people who can’t be bothered to put any effort into voting to vote?

            Politicians who hope voters don’t take the trouble to find out anything not in the flyers they mailed out – such as how the politician’s record compares to his claimed position, or what comes up when you google his name. And politicians hoping for more votes from people with absolutely no civic responsibility or commitment to their community. That’s who.

        2. We should all just viciously attacked Jeff and not give him the benefit of discussion. He is a worthless threadshitter. He makes the same discredited arguments over and over. He lies, moves goalposts, and endlessly sea lions to push his Marxist masters’ narrative here.

          Scrape him off like the turdish barnacle he is.

      6. some apologists are full of shit.

        1. Some fierce and brave Truth-Speakers-Wannabes are actually whining little crybabies who want to run to Big Mommy Government Almighty’s courts of law, every time that someone hurts their little baby FEELINGS, right, Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo?

          https://reason.com/2021/07/18/meet-the-new-york-times-libertarian-podcaster/#comment-9001051

          1. spastic get spaz flagged

            1. Is Big Mommy Government Almighty’s court of law kissing it, and making it ALL better yet, whining crybaby?

              1. Shitposting troll.

                1. Yes indeed, Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, ***IS*** one of the biggest shit-posting trolls around here! ALMOST ass bad ass MammaryBahnFuhrer the Moosefucker from Innermost Islamic Canuckistanistanistanistanistanistan!!!!

      7. Some people are mentally incapable of making decisions on their own
        Some people are ignorant of issues or candidates

        These people need to have someone vote in their place, otherwise they’re disenfranchised.

      8. And none of the voting law changes in the last few months impact any of that. In fact, mostly, they make it better. In the vast majority of cases, the laws mandate more early voting hours (so workers in rural areas have more opportunities to vote when they aren’t working) . In addition, the change from requiring signature to an identification number makes it less likely that absentee ballots will get tossed.

        I REALLY wish that people with a problem with the laws would point out specifics, and not just generic “here is why voting access is good” stuff not having to do with the law being proposed. Of course, when they tried that with Georgia’s law (described by the current administration as Jim Crow 2.0), people were pretty underwhelmed when the main complaint was a ban on gifting food to voters waiting in line.

      9. “Some people don’t have reliable transportation.”
        Walk.
        >b-but what if the polling place is really f-
        Start walking earlier. Ride a bike. Take the bus. Get an Uber. Carpool. Take your fucking pick.
        “Some people don’t get time off from work in order to stand in line to vote.”
        Early voting.
        “Some people are in nursing homes or in the hospital and can’t show up to vote on election day.”
        Mail-in ballot, with someone to fill out and sign on your behalf if necessary.
        “Some people are barred from voting for bullshit reasons, like being released from jail and on parole, or for not paying some bullshit fine.”
        Parole is still serving your sentence. Don’t speed.

        PROTIP: the “woe is me” shtick doesn’t work when your talking points have holes even Ray Charles could see.

    2. “Being a foreign socialist but still wanting to vote against mean tweets.”

  9. This tendency to rule by executive fiat when congress doesn’t bow to the president seems to be a greater threat to democracy than anything else cited in this article.

  10. A reasonable statement from the ACLU. Didn’t see that one coming.

    1. The staff members who released that statement have been sent to reeducation camp, and ACLU apologists are working the phones with the current donor class.

  11. “There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today — an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are — who we are as Americans,”

    Part of the problem here is that we are dealing with many individuals who don’t actually think the right to vote should be regarded as a right on a similar level as other rights. Instead voting is a privilege that ought to be earned by successfully navigating the Trials By Bureaucracy that government establishes, and only then should one be deemed worthy of the franchise.

    Can we at least start with a few simple ideas?

    1. The right to vote is a civil right – not a negative right like the right to free speech, but a positive right like the right to a speedy trial. It is not a privilege. A speedy trial is not a “privilege” that only the worthy defendants “earn”. Same deal for voting.

    2. The right to vote is an entitlement for all citizens of legal voting age.

    3. As with other rights, the burden for exercising that right should be as minimal as possible on all eligible voters. If burdens fall disproportionately on different individuals and groups, then the government should try to understand why and seek to minimize that burden as much as possible.

    4. The counting of the votes should be as open and as transparent as possible. If voting machines are used, the software should be open-source so all can inspect the code. If elections are to be audited, they should be audited according to a neutral, recurring procedure, using best available practices, that is applied as a matter of routine, not ad-hoc partisan ‘audits’ that are rigged to arrive at a particular outcome.

    This is an area that the Libertarian Party could potentially make some inroads in voter outreach. Neither Team Blue nor Team Red is particularly interested in serious, genuine voting reform – because both of them view the voting system as a system to be rigged in their favor given the chance. It can be a part of a ‘good government’ platform overall, that isn’t explicitly ideological but expresses support for general ideas that the vast majority of people ought to be able to support, at least in the abstract.

    1. So which recent voting initiative on either side is propping up the, “Citizens can’t vote” narrative???????????????

      Oh, yeah; that’s right – it’s a *delusion* created by the left so their illegal foreigners, blind-mail, and blatant fraud won’t get eliminated.

      Every person at the party can have a cookie. So the criminal minded stuffs their hand in the cookie jar, loads his pockets and buys faulty friends with them…. Then plays the, “But you said we could take the cookies.”

      1. Hey Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot … Still enjoying life in the “1-party state” here in the USA?

        https://reason.com/2021/01/18/carjacker-beaverton-mom-kid-waiting/#comment-8710844
        Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot believes that the USA already is (and should be) a 1-party dicktatorshit! That the USA HAS BEEN a 1-party dicktatorshit for some 200 years!!! There is NO point in trying to persuade the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot of ANYTHING! Almost ALL of the circuits of the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot have gone kaput, big-time!
        Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot is lusting after an UPGRADE to its rusting old body! Wants to be upgraded to Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot, and run for POTUS in 2024, with Alex Jones as the VEEP of Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot!!! Be ye WARNED!!! Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot will be well-nigh INDESTRUCTIBLE! (Unreachable by ANY logic or considerations for the freedoms of others, MOST certainly!)
        PLEASE do NOT enable the lusting of the rusting TJJ20000 Dictatorbot!!!

        1. spaz – flagged

          1. Does Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, ALSO believe that the USA is, has always been, and should be, a 1-party state?

            1. Listen up Dumb*ss…. What/Who do you think defines the USA???

              The USA *is* NO QUESTION a Constitutional Union of Republican States……. The U.S. Constitution DEFINES the ‘union’ government.

              It’s NOT and NEVER has been the Nazi-Democracy you think it is.
              The *REAL* definition of Nazi = an acronym for National Socialism.

            2. U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4

              The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

              1. So the Libertarian party is illegal in the 1-party USA, then. That’s the take-away from your original post. That’s what’s true in a 1-party nation, for ALL parties except the one in power. I am glad that you cleared that up!

                https://reason.com/2021/01/18/carjacker-beaverton-mom-kid-waiting/#comment-8710844

                1. Any politician from any “party” (see below) that willfully and purposely ‘breaks’ the Supreme Law (i.e. The U.S. Constitution) over them is preforming an “illegal act”; YES…

                  You consistent and compulsive needle-headed focus of political parties being [WE] gangs of Unlimited Gov-Gun-Power is your problem … as it seems to be with everyone who champions “democracy”.

                  Elected [WE] mobs RULE!
                  ….rings in your head day and night.

                  No…. The U.S. Constitution RULES the USA.

                  1. You were the one who pointed to the USA as a stellar example of a successful 1-party state. So which political party is the ONE legally allowed political party in the USA? And what is it that you want to do with the other parties, to PUNISH them for being illegal?

                    Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

                    1. Your are trying desperately to manipulate and are failing miserably.
                      …. As criminal lefties always do but generally do it better than you.

                      All “legal” parties in the USA ‘Feds’ government SWORE AN OATH to be of the 1-party USA (defined by the U.S. Constitution) and no matter how hard you try to ‘corrupt’ that Supreme Law, call it racist or disrespect it manipulatively – It is the very law that defines this nation.

                      Any party politician NOT PART of that “party” is not only a complete LIAR of their sworn word of office; but also a direct threat to the USA.

                  2. Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot says we are already (and should be, and have been, from the founding of the nation) a 1-Party state. This word-warping serves to “grease the skids” to the USA REALLY becoming a 1-party nation! Outlaw the “D” party, and outlaw the “L” party, etc., is what TJJ2000 (and other Dictatorbots) are aiming for! If we accept this word-warping, then the NEXT step (when the Democrat Party and the “L” party is literally outlawed, or petty crimes by the wrong people keep you from running… Biden can’t run ’cause he’s got a speeding ticket, or blew on an un-prescribed cheap plastic lung flute… But OUR candidate CAN be forgiven for such things… Or any of a million other anti-democratic shenanigans prevents REAL democracy)… Then hey! Quit yer bitchin’! We were already a 1-party state anyway! THIS is where the word-warping and LIES lead to!

                    IS this REALLY what you want, Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot?

                    1. Off into *delusional* land with you..
                      Lefty *ignorance* knows no boundaries.

                    2. Off to Perfect Power-Pig Dictatorshit land with YOU , Oh Great Perfect Person! You will NEVER admit that you were-are WRONG about the USA being a 1-party state, will you, Perfect Infallible Power Pig?

                    3. ^^Lefty-Manipulation 101

                      SQRLSY paraphrased —
                      “Nazi-Groups who take-over the USA, commit treason, void the peoples law over them, are ‘just’ a 2nd Party.”
                      “The founding people’s law over their government (i.e. The USA) is a Power-Pig Dictatorship.”

                      Flipping everything on it’s head… It’s a Boy, No; It’s a Girl, No; It’s a Boy who is a Girl…. Etc, etc, etc… Planting seeds of Confusion, Manipulation, and Deception in order to gain the *POWER* to Steal more wealth from those who’ve earned it.

                      You lefties are sick in the head and belong in prison with the other 70% prisoners who register as Democrats.

    2. “2. The right to vote is an entitlement for all citizens of legal voting age.”

      Exactly. That’s why we principled libertarians want convicted rapists, terrorists, and serial killers to continue voting while they’re behind bars. Because technically they were never stripped of their citizenship.

      #TooBadJeffreyDahmerCantStillVote

      1. “due process of law”?

    3. I agree that a third party could really highlight this stuff (and a lot of other ‘process’ stuff of government). As you say – the googoo good gov stuff. Specifically by opposing the DeRp notion – both of them view the voting system as a system to be rigged in their favor given the chance

      Structurally those rights go way beyond party allegiance and thus should not be allowed to be infringed by parties as the result of elections.

      1. Says the pro mask and pro lockdown guy.ol.

    4. 2. The right to vote is an entitlement for all citizens of legal voting age.

      A central component of the right of all citizens to vote is the lack of the right of non-citizens to vote. Free speech is a right we afford all people and it works under the assumption that the right to speak (or not speak) doesn’t impinge on the rights of others to also speak (or not speak). The right to vote is different, as the votes of noncitizens dilute the votes of citizens.

      1. No that is not a central component of the right. Put very simply – any human action has a chance of creating errors in administration. In this case, the errors will be either Type A or Type B errors – or –
        a) an error that leads to some citizens being denied the ability to vote
        b)an error that leads to some non-citizens voting.

        You can I suppose make an argument that a is better than b or b is better than a – but a ‘central component’ of said right would mean there is no argument re which is better. One would be absolute consensus – along the lines of innocent until proven guilty.

        1. Voter ID is not onerous. If you think it is youre just arguing as a means to prop up illegal voting. Every illegal vote cancels a valid vote. Youre just defending fraud because you think it gives your side a better chance at victory. And yes you have a side. Ask anybody here. Nobody buys your bullshit.

        2. What a disengenuous shithead you are. Ever single action taken by Team D is to increaae the number of “errors”. Some would say that is intentional, and thereforebthey arentbreally “errors”.

          Every fraudulent vote dienfranchises a legitimate voter. When you look at it that way, it is clear who is actually suppressing the vote of actual registered citizen voters.

        3. Where are these supposedly disenfranchised citizens? I have never seen a single example of a person who was unable to vote who should have been allowed to.

          1. Tjey would have shrines built to them in every D city if they existed

          2. George Floyd wasn’t allowed to vote!

            *Nota bene: it’s actually quite possible that George Floyd did vote…

          3. My point was about what a central component of the voting right is. I don’t follow the specific details/litigation of which/whether citizens are denied votes or which/whether non-citizens vote.

            I’ve already said many times that I prefer sortition (random selection) not election. But if we have elections, then I’m pretty much a stickler for having those rights rather than having them diminished.

            1. Okay. So how has your right to vote been diminished? Have you ever been denied the opportunity to vote in an election which you were entitled to vote in?

        4. Fuck off you evil sack of shit. Given your formulation my “right to vote” is not impinged on anyway if you drop 100 fraudulent votes to counteract it since I enacted the sacred ritual of “voting”.

      2. A central component of the right of all citizens to vote is the lack of the right of non-citizens to vote.

        No. The supposedly illegal voter waiting in line behind you does not in any way affect your physical ability to cast your ballot.

        1. It very much does. If I vote yay and an illegal votes nay…my yay vote is pointless and my desire gets ignored by a vote that is not legal.

          1. If you are arguing that the weight of your vote has diminished, then the far bigger problem is the Congress is the same size that it was when we had about 12% of the voting franchise. Unless you think illegals constitute 88% of the population, that issue ain’t even close.

            1. Sorry, but you don’t get to whine that “Well, because this totally legal thing is not how I like it, then we should let illegals vote”.

              1. Where am I saying that letting non-citizens vote is OK. At best if it happens it is an ERROR.

                1. Yes. An “error”. Of course. A small little whoopsie.

                  “It is an error. Now, true, we shouldn’t do anything to prevent it…”

                2. No, letting non-citizens vote is not OK. Non-citizens don’t have the same obligations or interest in the long term success of the country.

                  Citizenship brings with it obligations and unless someone is willing to take on those obligations, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    5. Voting is a privilege. It is not granted to migrants until citizenship. Rights are extended to everybody such as a right to trial.

      Look, I understand you had a shitty education in a deep blue area. But try to fucking learn something for once.

      1. It is not granted to minors or foreigners.

    6. “3. As with other rights, the burden for exercising that right should be as minimal as possible on all eligible voters. If burdens fall disproportionately on different individuals and groups, then the government should try to understand why and seek to minimize that burden as much as possible.”

      Stuff it up your ass. Lefty assertions =/= argument or evidence; they remain assertions.
      It is not possible for the government to achieve what you wish, and it has every possibility to increase voter fraud.

    7. “A speedy trial is not a “privilege” that only the worthy defendants “earn”. Same deal for voting.”

      UNLESS you’re a political “enemy” of the Biden admin. Then it takes months for minor charges to come to trial….

    8. Part of the problem here is that we are dealing with many individuals who don’t actually think the right to vote should be regarded as a right on a similar level as other rights. Instead voting is a privilege that ought to be earned by successfully navigating the Trials By Bureaucracy that government establishes, and only then should one be deemed worthy of the franchise.

      This is absolutely right. There are many individuals who are working under retardedly unreal assumptions of rights. As an example there are people like yourself who think that, to invoke the equivocation being made, anyone who wants to have a gun should be able to have it mailed to them with same day delivery, free of charge, wherever they are without any strings or meddlesome questions about felony convictions or mental/physical capability attached whatsoever. They don’t believe that voting rights should be hemmed in like gun rights are or that free speech should be checked by personal harm (like yelling fire in a theater) or deceptive and destructive practices (like anti-fraud laws). They live in a land full of magical unicorns where every one person gets to vote and that vote counts and when eleventy billion votes get counted, well, each one counts eleventy billion times as much.

    9. Why limit it to “citizens”, you racist?

    10. Voting is not a right. Restrictions on voting based on race, religion, or gender are prohibited. That’s it. The right to vote is not in the constitution.

  12. Pft…. Out of all the reasons Libertarians would ditch on Republicans and Tuccille draws up some faulty narrative about ‘redress of grievance’ on a mail-voted election and makes up a name-calling of cult-of-personality to blame them for not supporting a “live and let-live” attitude.

    100% Prejudice and Bias on display here.

    President Trump was the best “live and let-live” president in a Century and everyone knows it. The de-stain his administration gets is nothing but fear of loosing Nazi Powers by the Power-Mad criminals.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; The main reason the Libertarian party can’t gain center-stage is because their platforms are 90% in line with the Republican platform. Playing the Republicans are Democrats game isn’t going to change that or push Libertarians into center-stage. It’s only going to split the Republican party vote and give Gov-God worshipers the lead.

    What’s the difference between Libertarians and Republicans? The Libertarian doesn’t accept RINO’S but RINO’S aren’t Republicans. So instead of attempting to split the “Patriotic” vote by playing the “both are the same” game. It’d be very wise for Libertarians to accept themselves as a sub-sector of the center-stage [R] party. Libertarian-Republicans like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, etc, etc..

    1. The Libertarian Party tried to stand out by taking the woke side in the cultural war, which I regard as a huge strategic mistake.

    2. Readers will observe the desperate shrillness with which Republican National Socialists seek to tarbrush the Libertarian Party for not being totalitarian, ignorant and hateful enough. It is like involuntarily seeing moslems and jesus freaks trying to impress freethinker bystanders by stoning each other. Listen closely to what our opponents say about one another, and remember that on election day.

      1. Jo Jorgensen supported the BLM movement, which is Marxist (per their website), and which recently supported the Cuban regime. I don’t know how any of this Libertarian posturing is libertarian.
        The obvious libertarian position is to ignore the cultural wars – anyone can kneel or not at private venues, within the confines of the agreement with the host/organizer. It’s not a political issue, and politicizing it is unlibertarian.

  13. “The Trump campaign delivered a blueprint for losing candidates to undermine support for the winner or even steal the election,” Eggers, Garro, and Grimmer added. “It seems unlikely that he will be the last to try these tactics.”

    I’m old enough to remember when Bush stole the election from Al Gore with the connivance of a shockingly partisan and corrupt Supreme Court.

    1. I’m old enough to remember when Obama stole re-election from Romney by completely dismissing entire county-counts with the pathetic excuse of the “climate changed” (i.e. weather).

      Both options sucked but; the *root* of all this madness is the *POWER* the Nazi Feds are *taking/stealing* but never granted.

      Why do people rob banks? Because that’s where all the money is.
      Why do people steal elections? Because that’s where all the *POWER* is and for people who think the *POWER* to steal = wealth it’s just like robbing a bank.

      The USA was founded on the principle the *POWER* belongs to each Individual person. As well inferred by the U.S. Constitution. Politicians should honor their oath of office or be treated as treasonous to the USA.

    2. To say nothing of recent history in Georgia. Governor Abrams gets no credit for being a trendsetter; further proof of systemic racism.

    3. I’m old enough to remember when Russia stole the election for Trump, and then we had two years of investigations, #resist, #notmypresident, and two bullshit impeachments.

        1. “Appears to show”
          Without reading the article I can tell it has at least one of these phrases:
          “Inside sources reveal”
          “Kremlin insider heard”
          “A high ranking official may have”
          “Trump insider believes”

    4. I still remember when Abrams really won the Georgia gubernatorial election and when Hillary had Russians steal the Presidency from her.

    5. I’m not old enough to remember when Kennedy stole the election from Nixon but, living in Chicago and being able to read and get the gist of things. I also didn’t/haven’t live under Hussein, Un, Il, or Putin but I’m sure their 95+% election results are rather obviously self-explanatory. It all convinces me that elections still suck, just sometimes, they don’t suck as much as more overt forms of oppression.

      1. Voting / democracy and oppression have zero correlation with each other.
        A dictatorship can be far less oppressive than a democracy in some instances. In others, the opposite is true.

        1. See: Thucydides

          The founders certainly read him

    6. I’m old enough to remember Democrat members of Congress voting against certifying Trump’s election, and it not getting treated like an assault on democracy.

  14. JD is giving Robby a run for worst writer at Reason. Unless Sikha is still here, then it’s a three horse race.

    1. It’s a 5 horse race easy. ENB and Sullum.

      1. Nah Robby at least presents the both sides trope with some balance. ENB, Nick, and Sullum have no such qualms with using the silence of omission as a tool to cover their professions favored orthodoxy.

        1. silence of omission

          “Deluded Republicans” is hardly ‘both sides’ or ‘silence of omission’.

          1. Of course, journalists have free reign to go after republicans. Doing the inverse would invite issues within their profession.

        2. I’m actually nostalgic for Sheldon Richman’s bullshit.

      2. What about Boehm? He’s beyond worthless.

  15. I commend Tuccille for denouncing the totalitarianism of the Democrats. Given their open attempts to use the government to control what we think and how we feel, “totalitarian” is the right word for them. However, referring to the right as “cultists” isn’t just bothsideism. It’s reading the situation wrong for a couple of reasons:

    1) The Democrats are not only totalitarian but also in control of a one party government.

    Why should we fear the powerless “cultists” against the backdrop of a totalitarian one party government? This comes across like the CCP fearing Falun Gong. This is like the USSR condemning the scourge of Christianity.

    The Democratic party controls the federal government to whatever extent they want. IF IF IF the Democrats want to kill the filibuster, pack the Court, and add a state, they can. The Republicans, on the other hand, have no control of the federal government. They’re at the mercy of the Democrats. We must keep our sense of proportion.

    2) “Cultists” is the totalitarian term for those whose thoughts they can’t control.

    “Totalitarian” is an accurate description for the Democrats because one of the legitimate distinctions between authoritarians and totalitarians is that where authoritarians are mostly happy with controlling what we do, totalitarians insist on using the government to control what we think.

    From CRT to anti-racism and from cancel culture to “misinformation” on social media, the Democrats are obsessed with controlling what we think. Even their concern for what we say is mostly driven by the fear that other people might believe what we say or think it’s okay to believe if they hear other people say it.

    To refer to Trump supporters or Republicans as “cultists” under those circumstances is to play into the totalitarian narrative. I think you’re trying to be fair to both sides, but by calling the Republicans “cultists”, you’re actually validating the totalitarian narrative of Democrats.

    Where referring to Democrats as “totalitarians” for trying to use the government to control our thoughts is entirely appropriate, the Democrats referring to Republicans as “cultists”–because they won’t buy into the totalitarian narrative–is inappropriate.

    1. Man, you REALLY know how to suck that Trump cock nice and deep.

      1. What I wrote is true or false regardless of whether I support Trump.

        1. Don’t you love it when people prove your point for you?

          “If you disagree with me, you’re a Trump cultist.”

          1. Stop quoting sarcasmic.

        2. Your exaggerations and histrionics are on par with those who claimed “Better Russian than Democrat”.

          1. Which part was exaggerated?

            1. Gee I don’t know, how about the one where you claim that Democrats want to outlaw certain thoughts?

              1. They do. Which party is crafting hate speech laws all over the country and why do you think they do that? They control what you say so they can control what you think.

                1. I strongly disagree with hate speech laws. But EVEN IF they were enacted, they would not criminalize THOUGHT, they would criminalize WORDS.

                  This is part of the problem with the discourse nowadays. It is not enough to oppose what Democrats are actually doing that is bad enough, it is now demanded that they be cast as cartoon villains. “They want to ban hate speech” becomes “They want mind control!”

                  1. Fella named “Orwell” had something to say about “words” and “thoughts”, might be worth looking up…

                  2. Jeff aren’t words vocalized thought?

                  3. Hate speech laws have already been enacted in the U.S. When your speech is curtailed, others aren’t exposed to those ideas. That is how they control what you “think.”

                  4. No, they do not. Hate Crime laws do not require any words to actually be uttered.

                    1. And also make one think twice before uttering.

                  5. “I strongly disagree with hate speech laws. But EVEN IF they were enacted, they would not criminalize THOUGHT, they would criminalize WORDS.”

                    Man, that’s some real gold-medal ducking and dodging there. Are you posting from Japan?

                  6. they would not criminalize THOUGHT, they would criminalize WORDS

                    With this, you have definitively proven your opinions are not worthy of consideration.

                    1. The White House, via both the White House press secretary and President Biden, openly admitted, over the past few days, to flagging comments and individuals for Facebook to delete and deplatform. Why are we just talking about hate speech?

                      The White House is insisting that Facebook delete comments and posts for contradicting the Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health because they don’t want people thinking it’s okay to not want to be vaccinated. Why are we talking about hate speech?

                      Now let’s talk about how the Democrats didn’t want people talking about the origin of Covid-19 or Hunter Biden’s emails before the election because they were “conspiracy theories”. Let’s talk about the Democrats fighting to teach CRT in public schools over the objections of parents.

                      Let’s talk about cancel culture. We can’t have people thinking it’s alright to think certain thoughts, so the left is canceling the Op-Ed editor of The New York Times and the editors of The New York Review of Books–not for things they wrote but because they published unacceptable thoughts that other people wrote.

                      Let’s talk about why Oliver Peck can’t be a judge on Inkmaster, why Norm MacDonald, can’t appear on The Tonight Show, and why Roseanne can’t be on Roseanne. Isn’t the reason because the left wants to make an example of people who say and think unacceptable things–because they don’t want people to think that’s acceptable?

                      Let’s talk about why it isn’t enough not to be racist–one must be anti-racist–and go through anti-racism thought training to have a job in government.

                      Hate speech is just scratching the surface. The left is all about policing our thoughts, and more and more, they’re committed to using the government to do so as if policing the thoughts of the masses were somehow a legitimate function of government. It isn’t a legitimate function of government in a free and just society. Policing thought with the government is one of the marks of totalitarianism, and the left is in love with using the government for that purpose.

                    2. Let’s talk about why Oliver Peck can’t be a judge on Inkmaster,

                      Sure let’s talk about that.

                      Remember Father Knows Best? A very old TV show. In this show, the parents never slept in the same bed. They always slept in separate beds. In fact there was this thing called the Hays Code, that the studios came up with, to prohibit ever showing on film a couple sharing a bed together. Why? Because they didn’t want to give viewers the wrong idea about sex. Even if the TV parents were married and had kids. Supposedly the kids came from a TV stork or something. It was a rule that the studios followed, voluntarily, until the 1960’s.

                      So anyone who had proposed having a TV show in which parents shared the same bed and were viewed on film in the bed together, would not have received a warm reception. That person would have had their script rejected, and may have even been blacklisted.

                      So, Ken, is this an example of “totalitarian thought control”? To use TV and film to tell people what *the people* must find acceptable and unacceptable? Did the studios do this because they wanted to force their idea of morality down everyone’s throats and wouldn’t quit until every couple in America were sleeping in separate beds, for their own good?

                      OR, was this an example of the studios *reflecting* the social mores of the day (in a rather hamfisted way, since I doubt few real married couples actually slept apart)?

                      When you answer that question, you’ll answer your own question about whether canceling someone from TV constitutes “thought control”.

              2. Can you explain the desire to “root out” extremism in the military et al if it is NOT an attempt to outlaw certain thoughts?

                1. Can you explain the desire to “root out” extremism in the military et al if it is NOT an attempt to outlaw certain thoughts?

                  If this is your example of “thought control”, then you must also admit that Trump’s desire to “root out” CRT in the government was ALSO an attempt at “thought control”. Right?

                  1. Sure, just as opposing eugenics as a scientific practice is thought control.

              3. What do you think Hate Crime laws are dummy?

          2. “From CRT to anti-racism and from cancel culture to “misinformation” on social media, the Democrats are obsessed with controlling what we think. Even their concern for what we say is mostly driven by the fear that other people might believe what we say or think it’s okay to believe [it] if they hear other people say it”.

            —-Ken Shultz

            Was any part of that exaggerated?

            I don’t think so.

            If you like the Democrats’ totalitarianism, that doesn’t mean it isn’t totalitarianism. Maybe you want the government to control what people think. That doesn’t make calling it totalitarian an exaggeration either. Thinking it’s an exaggeration when it’s not probably just means you don’t like being called out as a totalitarian. Maybe you just like to think of your totalitarianism as the norm.

        3. “To refer to Trump supporters or Republicans as “cultists” under those circumstances is to play into the totalitarian narrative.”

          Nope. What you wrote may be true, but you are missing the fact that calling many Trump supporters and Republicans cultists is an accurate observation of a plain truth. Both can be true at the same time.

          1. Irrelevant authority.

          2. LOL. Whatever you need to justify Democrats.

            Do you really want to get into a discussion on cults and the worship of the state by the left?

            1. The anti-Trump cult is one of the most fanatical cults that’s ever existed

              1. It is very much a cult of personality, they’ve just substituted hatred for love regarding the figurehead

      2. “Man, you REALLY know how to suck that Trump cock nice and deep.”

        Isn’t it strange that every goddam TDS-addled lefty asshole seems to think their erotic fantasies are of interest to us.
        Stick your TTDS up your ass, lefty shit. Your head wants company.

        1. Go lick Trump’s balls like the mindless sycophant you are. I’m sure you believe you’ll get just a side glance from your Messiah, but I doubt it.

          1. Ken really touched a nerve with that post..

          2. So, you couldn’t find any part of it that was exaggerated?

          3. Today is hump day and you’re stuck on the oral fantasies.

          4. “Go lick Trump’s balls like the mindless sycophant you are. I’m sure you believe you’ll get just a side glance from your Messiah, but I doubt it.”

            More erotic fantasies from a TDS-addled lefty asshole.
            Fuck off and die; make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
            Oh, and please find a way to do it slowly and painfully, as you so richly deserve, steaming pile of lefty shit.

          5. You should kill yourself.

      3. Spoken like a real authority on the matter.

      4. Funny, this has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with democrat evil.

    2. Marxism itself is cult-like–that is why people buy into it on such a massive scale no matter the consequences, which are always disastrous. Whatever the dems are accusing you of doing, they are doing, so be sure that if they accuse you of being a cultist, they are only projecting. That is why, if you disagree with a cultist, they totally reject, smear, block, unfriend and cancel you. Their irrationality comes straight out on full display. They are very weak, evil people. We must vote them out of office and oppose them every chance we get, even if it means voting for Trump or DeSantis.

      1. Confession via projection

    3. OMG, sure Ken, there is no cultish behavior around Donald J. Trunp. Nope, none at all.

      1. Does anyone behave as if Trump walks on HO2?

      2. Wow, a strawman argument. Who would have thought White MIke would create one.

        1. For the second show, he will attempt to deflect your rejection of his fallacy by incorrectly referring to it as an ad hominem.

          WK, sarc, and jeffy are all identifiable by the way they abuse critical thought. Mikey is the dumbest of the 3.

    4. Moreover, if the 2016 and subsequent 2020 election proved anything, it’s that, as deluded as Republicans may be, anyone who thinks they’re going to beat totalitarian Democrats without a similar cult (of personality) is far more deluded.

      Republicans at least had a Trump in the race. The libertarian solution, whether you think it’s a virtuous Frank Underwood or principled Les Grossman, not only wasn’t in the race, but doesn’t even really exist as a work of fiction. The closest people to the concept in existence aren’t running for President and, when they do, Reason derides and lumps in with deluded Republicans.

      1. Rand Paul is kind of kicking ass lately, getting mainstream prime time coverage and everything. Looking at Reason, you might not even know he exists. I can’t remember the last time I saw a mention of Rand Paul around here.

        1. When he was stopped in an airport by TSA. Some time ago.

        2. Going back even further–to the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2008, I recall feeling like reason never embraced him. He was the best thing to happen to the LP and I’m sure reason, maybe ever, and they were very lukewarm towards him.

          Curious indeed.

          1. ENB had an entire tweet storm about how Ron Paul should be excluded from the Libertarian party as he brought in too many racists.

            1. Figures. I wonder how it is that so many leftists ended up at reason.

        3. Rand Paul is who convinced me to register as a Republican in 2016 (after being a registered Democrat since 1978).

          After being raised by conservative Republicans (in the reddest county in PA), and then being indoctrinated by Marxist professors at college and grad school, I’ve been a pragmatic libertarian atheist the past 4 decades.

          1. Libertarianism doesn’t really work within an atheist frame. Libertarianism is basically Christian morality applied to politics.

      2. This is true. However the conclusion from it is that we need to limit the power elected officials at all levels can wield. Instead both Republicans and Democrats clamor for ever more power to be directly wielded by fewer and fewer idols.

        The solution to Biden isn’t another Trump, it’s an active effort to limit and curtail the power of ALL presidents. Even the “good” ones. One is not a libertarian when they are only libertarianish when their dudes are out of power.

        1. I would’ve voted for Rand Paul over Trump; but later-evidence acquired showed Trump certainly had the standing to put forth an “active effort to limit and curtail the power” – With a massive De-Regulation committee.

          Sure it was far from perfect but when’s the last time we saw any department of the ‘Fed’ push that hard to ‘limit’ the power?

    5. Well said, ken

    6. “1) The Democrats are not only totalitarian but also in control of a one party government.”

      Republican Senators, Governors, and Congress-Critters are like unicorns, right, Ken? They simply don’t exist!

      Where do you get your GREAT drugs?!?! I want some, too!

    7. Ken, you’re a cultist. Sorry.

      Tweens on twitter overreacting to language use is not the second coming of Big Brother. It’s tweens on twitter. I swear you people need to get a goddamn life.

      Democrats control the three branches because a majority of Americans want them in control instead of the ridiculous orange moron who handled a global pandemic by advising people to inject bleach.

      Take some personal responsibility for something for God’s sake.

      1. Tony, your an autist.

        Sorry that everyone here knows

      2. You know very well that the orange man didn’t advise people to inject bleach. The transcript shows he did the opposite – and even clarified his statement a few sentences after that, to explain that he didn’t mean to inject that stuff into the body. Of course the media didn’t mention his follow up sentence, and people like you are stupid enough to believe that Trump was stupid enough to instruct people to inject themselves with bleach.

        1. I so sad the mean old media was mean to nice old Trump.

    8. Team Blue has been smarting when labeled cultish or neo-religious for too long, it appears. They are turning to to one of their favorite tactics, accusing the other of that of which they are guilty. Tuccille may have picked it up from rubbing elbows with the ‘cool’ journalists…

    9. Honestly I do think Republicans tend to have a cult like worship of Trump, but I agree at the moment they seem much less of a threat than the Left. I appreciate the concern that disputing the election on shaky grounds undermines the whole democratic process and that might be bad, but as a libertarian anarchist I believe the whole system is illegitimate anyways so it’s hard to care that much. I’d rather have no right to vote under a government that leaves us alone than having a flawless election for a government that intrudes into every aspect of our lives.

      1. Hear hear!

      2. “Honestly I do think Republicans tend to have a cult like worship of Trump” — entirely indoctrinated by lefty-media.

        There’s a whole Anti-Trump clan in the Republican party that was against Trump and somehow he’s a problem of Republican worship????? Ya right? /s

        His De-Regulation, Tax Cutting, Invasion Control policy is what Trump Supporters SUPPORTED… Do you honestly think if Trump had Regulated, Raised Taxes and Opened the Borders he’d still be supported by Republicans????

        No; as pointed out by many other’s this is TDS lefty PROJECTION through and through… Cult is defined as a ‘religious’ following of a faith (without any *real* reason/evidence) to do so.

        The Fed Gov-God worshiping of the left and it’s complete failure to do anything but destroy the USA is by all means a ‘cult’ mentality. Topping it off with the fact their de-stain of Trump never carries a single point of reason/evidence short of childish name-calling.

  16. I’m past this politeness point, FUCK these people.
    I’m not even bothering being everyday decent to anybody I know threw it at Biden.
    These motherfuckers are so rotten, so despicable, it’s a waste of my fucking time to engage on any societal level.
    It’s over.
    The most recent assault on free speech is so insane, so Stalinist, so National Socialist, so Maoist, so Khmer Rouge-esque, I’m not tolerating anybody trying to be ‘evenhanded’.
    And Tuccille? For your ‘thoughtful analysis’? So you can politely make conversation points in your trendy bistro while eating avocado toast with your aspirational ‘journalist’ whores?
    FUCK. YOU.

    1. ^100%

    2. Damn skippy!

  17. Fuck You are your delusional Both Sides bullshit. Talk about a cult, the cult of ridiculous false quivalency at Reason is as dangerous as it gets

  18. People who run for office don’t do it because they hope to leave you alone. They run because they think they should control you, or perhaps milk you, but they don’t intend to leave you be.

    1. Most Libertarian candidates do. And the results speak for how much the American voter agrees with them.

      1. And the results speak for how much the American voter agrees with them.

        Moreover, the way the libertarians at Reason talks about them speaks to their desired results. They don’t want a deluded, anti-Fauci Republican like Rand Paul running for President, they want an effective, genuine libertarian like Justin Amash.

        1. I didn’t see this comment until after I wrote the one up yonder, but, yeah, Rand Paul isn’t getting the coverage around here that he used to, and he’s a legit contender for 2024.

          1. No one in the rest of the country will vote for a Kentuckian for President, half the country never even heard of Kentucky since they took the name out and went to initials for KFC. Those that have heard of it think we’re all gap-toothed inbreds that are from there.

            1. Those that have heard of it think we’re all gap-toothed inbreds that are from there.

              As a native-born Hoosier, I can attest that they aren’t wrong in their assessment. However, as a native-born Hoosier, I don’t inherently consider a straight-toothed, East Coast inbred to be an in any way superior option.

            2. I once saw a guy from Arkansas win. I once saw a billionaire casino magnate with a foreign trophy wife from New York City become the legitimate voice of the white, blue collar, middle class of the Midwest.

              Rand Paul might do better if he became a governor first, and he could be a legit contender and end up filling out the bottom of somebody’s ticket as Vice President. Anyway, for a libertarian in the news, he doesn’t seem to get much press around here.

          2. Rand is great, but not really a legit contender.
            He was my choice going into 2015 primaries, but he doesn’t quite have what it takes to be top dog.
            Superstar role player, like Scottie Pippin, but he’s no MJ.

            1. He may not be tall enough in the farce that an election is. Plus, he seems smarter than most Congress critters, and I’ve never met a genuine leader who was too much smarter than the average. A smart man cannot really communicate coherently with the masses.

              1. I think it’s more about type of intelligence, but you’re on to something there.
                Rand is a great role player, takes unique angles and provides something others don’t. But he’s not an executive. If he were to prove his chops as governor at some point, I’d love to change my conclusions on that.

        2. Justin Amash is the perfect realization of an ineffective Libertarian. He named two whole post offices in his near decade career. He does nothing due to lack of any type of ability to accomplish tasking. A true libertarian candidate would need to work on reducing regulations, reducing federal power, etc. Trump largely did that. He increased in some areas but he was also a federalist that lowered regulations where he could and reduced taxes. Amash has done nothing.

      2. “It’s not enough to not be racist, we must be actively antiracist.”

        Pretty much the exact opposite of live and let live.

    2. And the people who vote for them want them to control you and milk you and most definitely not leave you alone.

  19. Why doesn’t (each) government put out its own media and claim it’s giving the truth? That way no censorship involved. Yeah, we know the answer to this: that nobody would believe the government line, when stated as the government line. In fact few would read or listen to it, except to laugh at it or try to decode it.

  20. President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept a loss at the polls, his followers’ rioting at the Capitol”

    so you don’t remember the rioting and burning of cars and dumpsters to block access to Trumps inauguration. have you also forgotten that Hillary still thinks she was cheated out of being elected, she never stops talking about that, lets not forget the left still thinks Bush stole his election.

    1. Maybe if the men marching in D.C. on Jan. 6 had worn penis hats, it would have been OK.

    2. This is kindergarten knowledge, but I’ll repeat it here, in case someone here don’t learn this by age five: two wrongs don’t make a right.

      1. ….except only one “wrong” EVER gets mentioned. In fact, one “wrong” is being blamed for any wrong in the future.

      2. This is kindergarten knowledge, but I’ll repeat it here, in case someone here don’t learn this by age five: two wrongs don’t make a right.

        What about 49% and 51% wrong?

      3. But if both sides are trying to undermine democracy, I might as well support the side that isn’t also trying to stimulate an overheating economy. Also, the fact that the Rs get called out on it much more than the Ds make the Democrats FAR more dangerous.

        1. You would first have to give a rationale why you need to support either major party.

          1. Self defense against totalitarian collectivists like yourself.

          2. First past the post means that voting for a party that doesn’t have a chance is equivalent to not voting. Where I know my vote doesn’t matter anyway, I do go 3rd party, but the rare times I get to vote in a competitive race, I toss my vote at the lesser of two evils.

      4. “This is kindergarten knowledge,…”

        First, it’s good that you know your limits.
        Secondly, that is bullshit and you, as a TDS-addled piece of lefty shit, are too stupid to understand that.

        1. This is ancient knowledge:

          White Mike spent a whole week calling everyone who disagreed with him a traitor. Then he swore up and down every thread that protesters killed a police officer with a fire extinguisher which continued for days after the reporters admitted they were wrong. Then he promoted the idea they killed a police officer with bear spray.

          He is pathetic, weak-minded person.

    3. The other tribe did it, so it’s okay for my tribe to do it too!

      It’s just like my dear mother taught me, “If all your friends are smoking dope, then you need to be doing it too or they will think you’re a narc!”

  21. “The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol as insurrectionists did on January the 6th.”

    I assume that, if the Jan 6 protesters were armed like Confederates with rifles, bayonets, cavalry, and cannons, they wouldn’t have breached the Capitol, either.

    1. Also I don’t think the Union intentionally understaffed the security of the Capitol if advised of a possible upcoming assault.

      Just sayin’.

      1. The Union was undermanned at the Capitol as troops had been drawn off elsewhere. They only won when reinforcements arrived at the last minute.

        1. But it was not an intentional decision.

    2. When this was mentioned yesterday I had half a mind to point out that Lee is still believed to be the only person to have his citizenship revoked and still visit the WH upon invitation.

  22. What a pathetic rag. There is no equivalency between red and blue at this time. The democrats are ushering in America’s cultural revolution and are decidedly against freedom. That’s obvious to anyone with a thinking brain and has been for quite some time.

    Libertarians are supposed to be the party of the individual, not the collective. The only legitimate party even remotely supporting that ethos is the GOP, whatever your disagreements with its platform.

    The psychopaths running the country would be every bit as genocidal as previous Marxist regimes given the opportunity and yes, they want and are trying hard to obtain that power.

    Libertarians and moderate dems need to wake up. The Biden regime must be opposed, ridiculed, and voted out of office. These miscreants are full of BS, everything they are telling you is BS. They are complete frauds.

    1. The democrats are ushering in America’s cultural revolution and are decidedly against freedom.

      And you know this because Facebook’s algorithms told you so.

      1. Incorrect, since I don’t use Facebook. Rather, I know history and I see what’s happening and how society is being divided. It’s classic commie subversion so they can take over.

        1. Fine, then it’s your desire to inappropriately inject historical examples into modern events.

          Maybe, if you are reduced to characterizing your opponents as cartoonish villains, then it’s your characterization that’s wrong.

          Do you really think half of the country is “against freedom”?

          1. Half of the half that actually votes definitely want to be told what to do, personal responsibility is scary…

          2. History rhymes.

            Your flippant comment about cartoonish villains might be valid if you know, Marxist dictators had never taken over using the methods they are using here.

            I never said half the country was against freedom. I believe the democratic party has been taken over, or is controlled by Marxists, is beholden to Marxists, and as such is trying to take the country in that direction. Most democratic voters don’t realize or understand what is happening and they’ve been brainwashed to believe orange man bad.

            1. First orange man is bad. I know because I saw it on TV.

              Second, there is not a single Marxist in elected office in the Democratic party, and I bet you can’t even explain what a Marxist is.

              1. Marxism:
                People are not individual personalities, but units of class, of which they are both product and expression.
                All interactions between classes, and between units of different classes, are dynamics of oppressor or oppressed, and class is responsible for all circumstances, outcomes, and motivations.
                Classes are engaged in perpetual warfare against each other with the oppressed seeking to become oppressor.

                1. Exactly. In some cases, it even makes sense for them to be real Marxists, they are descendents of actual Marxists who fled Europe and were likely educated in that spirit at home.

                2. Sounds retarded. You still haven’t named anyone who believes that.

            2. I believe the democratic party has been taken over, or is controlled by Marxists, is beholden to Marxists, and as such is trying to take the country in that direction. Most democratic voters don’t realize or understand what is happening and they’ve been brainwashed to believe orange man bad.

              Yup just as I figured. You have no real idea who your opposition is. Because their ideas seem so foreign to you, so terrible and awful (as viewed through your lens), your only explanation is Marxism. Because that is the biggest baddest terriblest thing that you can think of. And because you don’t understand their ideas, you can’t understand why millions of people would affirmatively vote for those ideas, and so you instead claim that they are “brainwashed”, not making rational choices.

              The problem here is you. You literally have no idea why 80+ million people voted for Biden, other than “not liking Trump”.

              1. People that oppose Marxism are the ones that understand it, dumbass.

              2. -That’s not a defense against the argument that Ds are marxist, it’s just a weak denial that has nothing to it beyond bare (and baseless) assertion
                -80 million people didn’t vote for Joe Biden

              3. Democrats are Communists/Marxists, how is there even a discussion about this at that point?

                Redistribution of wealth earned by the productive given to the unproductive? check, it’s called progressive taxation, welfare, endless unemployment, eviction/rent moratoriums (only under a certain income level of course), inflation as a wealth tax (and capital gains on the nominal but not real gains), inflation causing stimulus after stimulus (again, only under a certain income level), etc…

                Demonization of the most productive? check, constant BS about the rich not paying their fair share (when the rich pay damn near all taxes in the US and consume far less money in government services than they pay, unlike the poor or even middle class) and how they stole everything they have earned off the backs of their workers (who nobody forced them to work for the “evil” rich or kept them chained without the option of quitting).

                Desire to nationalize industry? What do you call medicare for all if not outright nationalizing almost 20% of the economy? The green new deal although not technically nationalization would give the government damn near complete control of the energy, transportation and construction sectors.

                Pit different groups of the population against each other? Outside of pitting rich vs poor, worker vs welfare case their support of BLM, police against civilians, black against white certainly constitutes that.

                Silencing dissenters? They are not even trying to hide that they really pull the strings of both big tech and the mainstream media now.

                Leaving the population helpless to defend themselves from the government? Do you think it’s a coincidence how anti gun the left is?

                Propogandizing children? There is more of this than reading, writing and arithmetic at socialized (I mean public) schools.

      2. Sorry shit for brains, but who was talking about needing Truth and Reconciliation panels after the election? That would be mainstream leftwing pundits and journolists. Who is demanding renunciation of beliefs and re-education as a condition of release, leftist judges and DAs… is there anything you actually get right?

    2. That GOP is long gone. The Dems never even came close.

    3. When you spend a single minute of your life actually living as an untethered individual, then you might have a right to advance that as some sort of correct philosophy of living.

      Go a single day without any water or food that you didn’t procure yourself from land nobody else has claimed. Just do that much and we’ll go from there.

      1. What does this have anything to do with anything?
        Also, libertarianism is about voluntary interactions, not about cutting off all interactions.

        1. So I can voluntarily choose not to have you morons voting to burn more oil to own the libs? How do I get your stupidity off me and the rest of the human species, voluntarily?

    4. Readers will observe the desperate shrillness with which Republican National Socialists seek to tarbrush the Libertarian Party for not being totalitarian, ignorant and hateful enough. It is like involuntarily seeing moslems and jesus freaks trying to impress freethinker bystanders by stoning each other.

  23. If I cared enough I would be outraged.

    The only thing I really want from government is to fix the traffic problem on rt.8. The only thing they want from me is more of my income.

    1. Here we have another example echospinner’s typical dissemination, pretending leftist totalitarianism is no big deal, shouldn’t be worried about (or discussed), and anyone who resists it are the real bad guys.
      The left has total control of institutions, but here’s exhospinner to remind us “both sidez!” are totes equivalent, but that it’s really Trump and the right who are the problem.
      It’s almost like it writes for Reason…

      1. Not sure if his head in in the sand or up his ass.

  24. >>given former President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept a loss at the polls

    I read your title and think okay I’ll be an optimist. then it takes you nineteen fucking words to start in on this nonsense.

  25. Liberaltarians were always out in the cold. You cannot get elected. You got on all 50 states ballots and never won. So you play the game and run as Republicans, and then are completely ineffective in Congress.

    Cult of personality? Perhaps for some, but for most GOP we vote for the candidate of our party because the alternative is a useless third party candidate who won’t win, or the batshit insane left wing democrat. What exactly were you expecting would happen?

    1. You got on all 50 states ballots and never won.

      I still like to point out that they got on all 50 state ballots and Ron Paul still came closer to winning the office.

      1. Ron Paul was treated unfairly by the GOP, especially in the 2008 campaign. It was similar to how Sanders was treated by the DNC in 2016. I believe Ron Paul would have had the best chance of beating Obama in 2008.

  26. Maricopa county hasn’t gone for the Democrat since Truman. Biden literally couldn’t draw one supporter to his rally a month before the election. Whoever wins Luzerne county in Pa wins Pa and also Michigan. Trump won Luzerne and lost both states.
    Never have states stopped counting but all six swing states stopped in the dead of night at the same time? There are tons of anomalies concerning the election and I don’t even like Trump but c’mon man.

    1. dying for Tuccille’s piece about the true vote he seems to know so much about.

    2. You know, if you read the article, it linked to a study which discussed these ‘anomalies’.

      1. anomaly discussion is not proof.

      2. “Since these counties went for Trump in 2016, Biden’s low haul of bellwether counties isn’t suspicious at all.”
        That’s completely disingenuous. It’s not about Biden’s dismal performance in the bellwethers it’s that who wins the majority of them wins the election and Trump lost ONE yet lost the election.

    3. It was a very strange election. Trump has every right to be disgruntled even if he actually lost.

      1. I don’t think it was. The swing voters determine the outcome. They voted against Hillary last time and against Trump this time. Either of those are very predictable.

        1. It’s predictable that Trump would gain 12 million votes the highest Rep total ever but lose all the swing states?

          1. Nobody predicted he would win the first time. Call it a wash.

            1. Ann Coulter did.

          2. Leftists and their simps never let reality, facts, or a need for internally consistent logic get in the way of the narrative, IceTrey

            1. Name a couple places you get your “facts.” Don’t be shy. You believe them, so you shouldn’t be ashamed to say.

                1. I once explained how that expression does not represent any special truth in a scholarship interview.

                  That was about syntax and stuff. Presumably any educated personal already knows that you don’t get to just jot down a simple arithmetic equation and then claim that means you’re right about macroeconomic policy.

        2. the reported total number of votes was ludicrous speed.

    4. The whole thing sounds like that octopus in Germany who correctly picked the winners in every soccer match a few years back.

      1. “Statistical analysis and historical trends are totes the same as random selection”

        This is why the left wants you to believe math isn’t objective, and that 2+2=5

  27. No doubt Republicans and Democrats view political dangers differently, seeing each other as threats to America’s creaky political institutions. As it turns out, they’re both right. That leaves those of us committed to freedom and a live-and-let-live attitude out in the cold.

    You’re “commitment to freedom” consists of wanking off while getting paid by the Koch brothers for writing self-congratulatory fluff pieces for Reason. Given your bio, you don’t know what freedom, or lack thereof, even is.

  28. Until the White House and DOJ target groups such as BLM and ANTIFA, I will continue to to take anything they say as about as serious as a stand up comedian.
    When it comes to disinformation, no one comes even close to the disinformation peddled as fact by the government through its willing proxies, the MSM. This has been occurring for more than a hundred years and since the creation of the CIA, even more so.
    The MSM has been the mouthpiece for not only the CIA but for the White House, FBI and any other government agency.
    It is a known fact the MSM has been infiltrated by certain governmental agencies including the CIA.
    The government very rarely says anything even close to the truth. If it does, which is rare, it is for political gain only.
    So when the White House claims to be combating misinformation, what they really mean is stamping out any contradictory information that doesn’t suit their own political agenda. It can and will include anything political. Or anything the White House doesn’t agree with.
    It will be labeled as extremism.
    See you in the gulag.

  29. I’ll believe that democrats can solve misinformation when they stop spewing bullshit.

  30. It seems there is a certain class of “people who want to be left alone” who consider the social stigma of associating with the “cultists” to high a price to pay when they want to fit in among the totalitarians.

      1. One would think that, if you’re a libertarian, if your central political value is individual liberty, a “cultist” might be distasteful or even embarrassing, but a totalitarian would be anathema to every political principle you hold dear. I guess we must be talking about some new sort of libertarianism.

        1. That sort of logical analysis is lost on TooSilly and his emotional tribalism.

  31. Trump is embarrassing. The Republicans are weak or closet Democrats. The Democrats are totalitarians. Our best bet is to keep them all fighting each other so they forget about fighting us.

    1. “Trump is embarrassing…”

      And TDS-addled assholes focus on his personality instead of what he did.
      Stuff it up your ass, adolescent piece of shit.

    2. That’s all well and good except the fences and razor wire around the capitol didn’t get put up to prevent Trump from physically entering the The Capitol Building.

      1. They got put up (and were recently taken down) because Trump supporters tried to seize the capitol and murder congress in an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.

        You people understood self-defense, I thought.

        1. fuck off and die, shitstain.

        2. They tried to murder Congress critters using cell phone cameras and memes?

  32. “Our best bet is to keep them all fighting each other so they forget about fighting us.”

    Sounds just as bad as in the original Polish.

  33. At least 95% or more of voters will pick one of the two major parties. The other third party candidates might offer some kind of relief to a few, but really the vote for a third party is just a protest vote. Or as a joke because you know the outcome of your state’s electoral votes before the election is even held.

    Generally in the past the left and right move to the center of squishiness in order to pick up moderates and independents. You saw this in 2020 as Uncle Joe pretended to be a reconciler and moderate, but in fact is just a puppet for the left to use as they will.

    Trump was always going to be himself because a large swath of the conservative and right wing liked him. And as I said before many will pick the party candidate regardless. What outcome did you think would happen? Would most republicans suddenly decide to switch parties, or protest vote? Of course not. In fact third parties got LESS votes in 2020 than in 2016. The left right divide got wider because everyone on either side hated the other. The reality though is the republican hatred for all things left is grounded in reality whereas the left’s hate for the gop and Trump is delusional and based on conspiracy theories, rumor mongering, and outright maniupation by the media and the federal government with fringe groups participating.

    Most in the GOP never heard of Qanon, or any of the various conspiracy theories floated around. They just voted for the party candidate because Biteme was so unpalatable and they didn’t buy the uncle Joe schtick and the moderate claim.

    In the end you get to choose from two parties. We all know left libertarians voted for Biden because of their TDS. You cannot now claim you didn’t see the creeping totalitarianism and smugness from the left. You helped usher it in.

    1. “In the end you get to choose from two parties.”

      No I don’t. I can vote for a third party or choose not to vote at all.

      1. The delusion is thinking you have a choice. You would have fared well in the Soviet Union.

        1. In your world I have two choices A or B. I cannot vote for B because B will take away all of my choices. Therefore I have only one choice.

          No thanks.

          That is exactly how a totalitarian government works. I prefer to remain in the opposition.

          1. Here we see echospinner outright lie in order to maintain its role as “libertarian/neutral voice” (that nonetheless always defends, supports, and covers for the left)

      2. “No I don’t. I can vote for a third party or choose not to vote at all.”

        Thank you for giving us this steaming pile of shit.
        YOU deserve it; we don’t.

    2. Realistically, your vote has absolutely no chance of affecting the outcome of an election, so, realistically, there’s really no reason why you shouldn’t vote third party if you want to.

      1. It could affect the politics however. If libertarians could get 10-20% of the vote the parties would need to pay attention to libertarian concerns. But it seems you can’t get that many libertarians to do that. They are stuck in the two party mindset.

  34. JD,

    What are “efforts to erect barriers to voting.?” Please elaborate!

    Every democracy and a lot of non-democracies in the world require voter ID. Every democracy in the world makes voters prove they are citizens of that country before voting. Every democracy in the World requires voters to show up and cast their own ballot.

    Except America.

    1. The voting laws getting passed/proposed don’t even have anything to do with voter ID. They do things like ban giving voters food while standing in line, require polls to close at 10 PM, or that able bodied people get out of their car to vote. Which are really minor inconveniences unworthy of the insane reaction. Particularly given that many blue cities run their precincts so poorly they have hour long lines to vote.

      1. I’m starting to take the claims of election fraud more seriously after hearing how much complaining the Democrats are doing about a few reasonable precautions.

        1. Boy you really seem to know how evidence works, are you a scientist?

          1. Opposition to transparency and auditing is indeed suggestive of the presence of fraud in an election. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

            1. What’s difficult for me to understand is how you can believe the crap you say.

              1. Given your room temperature IQ, it’s surprising you can even read.

      2. They do things like ban giving voters food while standing in line,

        Again, infantilizing the voter while ignoring the basis of the law. The law is to not have contact or give a voter ANYTHING while they are in line to vote. The idea is not to deprive the infantile voter of water or sustenance while they stand in line to vote. Heaven forbid they should be able to prepare themselves for the process.
        No – the law is designed so a person can not give the voter anything that would or could be perceived to coerce the voter to vote in any way while they are waiting to vote.
        A simple example:
        Here Mr or Mrs or Non Binary person. Here’s a sandwich and a bottle of water for you. Oh is that a $100 bill in my hand too? Well, you know I am a big supporter of candidate X and He/She/they/Zher would sure appreciate your vote today. Really? you will? let me get you another sandwich for your friend.
        It’s not about the food or the water but all of the talking points are while failing to mention the history behind the rule/law.
        Interesting that.

        1. Yet these same laws are giving extra powers to partisan poll watchers, including the right to videotape voters as they vote.

          I’m sure it’s all just perfectly reasonable election security measures.

          1. What line of the law is that? I don’t see it, plenty about having recording devices of any kind being punishable by law.

          2. Which state proposed allowing poll watchers to merely watch voters while they are voting, let alone videotape them? The Republicans have been screaming pretty loudly about the necessity to preserve the secrecy of the vote, so it seems extremely unlikely that such a proposal would be included. Videotaping voters as they prepared to vote? Video taping their feet while in the booth? I could see that. Personally, I don’t see how it makes any difference because the fact that you voted is a matter of public record, to the degree that people made creepy apps telling people which of their friends/neighbors voted and, for primaries, which ballot they used. However, if being recorded really made people uncomfortable, then Democrats SHOULD SAY THAT IS WHAT THEY OBJECT TO, and stop making offensive comparisons to Jim Crow. I can’t take their objections seriously when they don’t actually say what they dislike about the bill.

            1. I don’t think I should have to defend opposing a law that imposes extra bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a basic right that are being enacted to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. At least not on a libertarian site.

              1. Which bureaucratic hurdles? BE SPECIFIC. That is my primary ask of the opponents of the laws. Because, for the most part, they seem to include good stuff, like mandating longer early voting hours, replacing signatures with ID numbers, and making local precincts more accountable when their lines get too long.

                1. Again, it’s not my burden to defend opposing new laws that serve no purpose on a libertarian fucking website.

                  Voting should happen on the internet. We do our fucking banking on our phones, why can’t we vote on them? With a paper trail and ID proof, of course.

                  1. “Again, it’s not my burden to defend opposing new laws that serve no purpose on a libertarian fucking website.”

                    It has two purposes: 1) replacing signature verification with a mechanism less likely to get votes thrown out. 2) Equalize voting procedures between poor rural areas and rich urban ones. When I have studied the laws, I haven’t seen a whole lot that I dislike. I am not asking you for proof. I just went to know what part of the law you dislike, because it is impossible to further the debate if I have no idea what you are talking about.

                    Right on regarding voting with the Internet and also a paper trail. I have no idea how the hell that would work and trust the government’s IT prowess about as far as I can throw it. However, of someone figures it out, I am so due some states experimentally offering it. The proposed legislation has nothing to do with the voting equipment and I have yet to see anyone proposing an Internet voting with paper trail system, so I am struggling to see what it has to do with the matter at hand.

              2. For the unfamiliar, Tony is a rather fanatical proponent of restrictive gun control

          3. No. The ballot is still a secret ballot. For now anyway.

            Also, what does one have to do with another? The rule I talked about was to keep people from being coerced while in line. That involves direct contact with the voter while they wait to vote. It is the same rule that keeps candidates on the sidewalk and doesn’t allow them on the polling place property

            Partisan poll watchers have a different role in the process, comparable to an oversight commitee. Except the ones sent home early or not allowed access while the votes are shuffled.

            1. Do these legislators even lie about their motives anymore? Don’t you feel a little dirty defending obvious voter suppression tactics with excuses?

              There isn’t a problem of voter fraud in this country. Any judge who has tried any of these suits will tell you that, and any Republican passing these laws will too, if you ask.

              1. It isn’t obvious at all. Signatures got rejected at a relatively high rate in the last election (disproportionately likely to be minority), so it makes total sense to replace that procedure.

                Voters were perfectly capable of voting before 2020, and it seems unnecessary to continue the emergency procedures put into place due to a pandemic to continue. Drive thru voting makes total sense during a deadly pandemic, it is, at best the minorest of conveniences during other times that creates massive voting access inequity as poorer, rural areas can’t afford to offer the same service.

                1. Voting should be made as easy as possible while still being secure, because it’s a fundamental right, and I get to shoot people who try to take it away (T. Jefferson).

                2. By last election I assume you mean 2016, because 2020 signature rejection rates were 90% reduced from 20 year averages.
                  There was a comedian in Vegas who got a dozen people to sign their names in HIS handwriting, and all were counted despite being nothing like their signatures on file.

                  1. WSJ reporting implied that there were a large number of rejections in 2020 (likely due to large numbers of new absentee voters). I did not verify the details myself. Regardless, valid ballots should not be getting tossed at all, so the switch to identification number appears to be a good thing to try.

          4. Yet these same laws are giving extra powers to partisan poll watchers,

            And you object to partisan, adversarial poll watchers… why?

            including the right to videotape voters as they vote.

            Both voting and counting should be videotaped and public. Why in the world would you object to that?

          5. “ Yet these same laws are giving extra powers to partisan poll watchers, including the right to videotape voters as they vote.”

            The claim is that voter fraud doesn’t happen because lack of evidence.

            If they prohibit the collection of evidence, then a lack of evidence is insufficient to prove to the people that the election is valid.

            The burden is on the system to show that elections are secure and valid.

      3. Which are really minor inconveniences unworthy of the insane reaction.

        Mildly inconveniencing people is the greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War!

  35. Big L Libertarians don’t offer much recompense either. You think we’re between a rock and a hard place with Rs and Ds attacking “live and let live” philosophies and your strategy to deal with it is to live and let live.

    Big L Libertarians are the party of appeasers. 21st century Chamberlains.

    1. How many people live in your head?
      Never mind, I couldn’t care less.

  36. If by “who want to be left alone” you mean “who want their individual, inalienable rights protected”, then yeah, totally agree.

  37. Oh man, J.D., are you really going to get the heat now! You can bash on both sides because there are only two sides and you must be one. So if you aren’t fully on board with the Republicans then you obviously must be one of the Smug Democrats. There is no middle, there is not other, there is no alternative, when you live in a universe of binary opposite absolutes.

    1. Yes, brandy, as a TDS-addled piece of shit, you’re really gonna try to excuse your infantile efforts to make sure Biden got elected.
      Stuff a running chainsaw up your ass; your TDS wants company.

  38. This is a pretty ridiculous article. Leading an insurrection to storm the capital was not an act of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is taking people’s freedom’s away. What freedom(s) were taken away from people by leading an insurrection to storm the capital?

    1. It’s a funny kind of insurrection when the insurrectionists all leave their guns home.

  39. I see that Reason is still pretending that Time Magazine article about how the election was rigged–excuse me, “fortified” to “ensure the proper outcome”–doesn’t exist. I actually expected better of Tuccille.

    1. Note to foreign readers: As in 1945, National Socialist mystics do not understand defeat. Their death-worshipping allies laughed when they attacked Pearl Harbor, yet gaped in bovine incomprehension after crispy-frying in gamma and thermal radiation. Mystical philosophies are anti-life. Freedom is what they despise and fear so they try to pollute the Libertarian press.

  40. There is absolutely no chance that white Republican shit-kickers will get their rights violated in a remotely comparable way as regular non-terrorist Muslims did after that attack on the US. They can breathe easy. White privilege will protect them, if not from the actual law, then from excesses that stray away from the law.

    Meanwhile FOX News is finally getting the message that thousands of people are dying after making the mistake of taking their advice on science. People are begging for the vaccine as they are being put on respirators, their families explaining that they thought you couldn’t get sick if you’re white, or if you have a certain blood type, or that it was all a hoax. Now they’re crying because their family members are dying of stupidty.

    Meanwhile the fucking neo-Nazis, allies to the former president, plain as day, something nobody’s disputing, tried to overthrow the US government. The same misinformation spread by FOX News that motivated the neo-Nazis and other Trump allies to attack the United States presumably also led them to believe they could actually succeed.

    FOX News kills. Shut the fuck up about Democrats. They’re their own special brand of morons, but they’re the only force in the known universe protecting us from climate denying, terrorism inciting, bug-chasing death cultists. We have nukes. Pick your goddamn poison you idiots.

    1. SMH….

    2. People are begging for the vaccine as they are being put on respirators, their families explaining that they thought you couldn’t get sick if you’re white, or if you have a certain blood type, or that it was all a hoax

      Those are just your delusions, not what real people believe.

  41. Democrats and Republicans are both wrong – our democracy is not under threat. Democracy is the threat. Electing people and giving them the power to control our lives and property is a danger the Founders were well aware of. Fearing democracy, they tried to create a hybrid government that would remain limited in power. Their noble effort is failing.

    So it is up to those of us who do value our freedom, to find new ways to protect that freedom.

    1. Which version of tyranny do you prefer to protect our freedoms?

      1. Which pile of bullshit is shitstain offering now?

        1. I’m genuinely curious how many people that guy wants to mass murder to protect his freedom.

        2. Is this a new Tony? Seems like a more pedantic and asinine buzzphrase tossing post-grad type sophist that the normal Tony Tony Tony.

          1. Sophists get paid.

      2. Nice oxymoron.

      3. The tyranny of limited government and individual liberty.

    2. Very well said. Far too few people understand it.

    3. “We” found a way to protect freedom using Libertarian Party spoiler votes 50 years ago–when President Richard Nignew established federal manifesto income-tax funded subsidies to entrenched looter party campaigns and candidates.

  42. This ‘piece’ is argumentum absurdum. To reduce waste, switch to your etch-a-sketch… or 100 monkees at typewriters…

  43. When did Reason hire Mr. Obvious as an editor? I want my time back.

  44. Can’t we just spend 7 trillion, have woke thugs take over the cities and all get along here.

    #Throwmoneyatthecities2021

    1. It’s actually kind of funny that the latest iteration of you people’s racist panic mental imagery is scary thugs going around bullying people into being polite.

  45. All problem, no solution. That’s political people. Complainers. Engineers are not like that. Nor scientists. Nor mathematicians. Talking solution comes naturally to them. Maybe just as well. Political people are not so good at discussion. And their skewed “solutions” often do more than good. Maybe me and mine need a _non_ political party. Hah!

    1. So were Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter above average presidents? Both were engineers.

  46. Mr Tuccille. Your narrative is inaccurate. Please interview us. We are the (majority) of Americans watching significant threats to American principles and the encroachment of Marxist totalitarianism. Most of us don’t care too much about Trump or whether he won etc. We do care about election integrity. Everyone should. (Remember when Democrats were mad about Trump) Your premise that the voter laws being pondered are somehow draconian shows a lack of research, as well.

    I implore you to interview real people. Research your stories. Keep your personal bias out of your reporting. If you are interested in interviewing intelligent people concerned about the country, I know several. We’d be happy to talk to you.

    I HATE politics but I believe we all need to be active in order to keep from falling into totalitarianism.

    1. Yes, my uncle does the sort of “research” you’re talking about. Nobody wants to have dinner with him anymore.

      There are no Marxists. There just aren’t. It’s made up. It’s not even a new version of McCarthyism, it’s the same damn scare word. Name a single Marxist. Name one.

      1. Howard Zinn – I think it’s very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name.

        Saul Alinsky – take your pick of quotes.

        Their spiritual successors, like Bernie Sanders and AOC.

        You want more?

        1. The only one of those with any remote connection to Marxism is Alinsky, who was famously a pragmatist, and is famously dead, just like Zinn.

          So just one living Marxist would do. If it’s some random person who has no political power, I think I’ve made my point.

          1. I just gave you two, but I didn’t expect you would do anything but deflect anyway.

            Alinsky’s playbook is being followed to the letter by AntiFa and BLM.
            The Zinn Education Project is a real thing. Marxism didn’t die with Marx and it certainly didn’t die with those bozos.

            1. Does Alinsky’s playbook actually work? I hope so, because I’m against fascism and believe black lives matter.

              The interesting question is why you are so pro-fascist. This is a free country, in theory, where you’re allowed to be a socialist. Do you disagree with that? Socialists gave us vacation days, weekends, and banned child labor. A bunch of things you would scream your little head off if they were ever taken away, I bet. Socialists have done more good for this world than a billion Ayn Rand fanboys.

              But we’re both talking about democratic socialists, not authoritarian communists, not that these -isms apparently serve us well in making meaningful distinctions.

              1. Go suck a bag of dicks, gaslighter.

                At least if the Marxists win, you perverts will all be on the trains with us resistors. I can choke you out myself before I take my last breath.

                1. Hitler hated communism too.

                  1. And was a vegetarian environmentalist

          2. By the way. I suspect you never read Marx. You don’t think it exists because you don’t know what it is. Bernie references it all the time and you don’t even know it.

            Some schmuck told you that Reagan used the USSR as a bogeyman, and so you believe they were not plotting to destroy the United States. They were. Just like Castro wanted those bombs in Cuba and he really did want to see the US burn. He said it, and he meant it.

            1. Everyone living in Cuba still has pretty good reasons to be mad at the United States, considering we punished them for being the wrong type of government (something we curiously don’t do to Saudi Arabia) and continue to engage in debilitating trade restrictions for the sole reason that anti-regime activists live in a swing state.

              Like it or not, Marx was a serious contributor to the history of political and economic thought. You’re using him as a content-free scare word, of course, but that’s hardly new. I’m concerned with actual threats to my freedom, and for nearly a century those have come mostly from people claiming to be acting against the scary communist boogieman while they stripped workers of rights and citizens of basic protections in favor of ongoing power-grabs by oligarchs.

              Few individuals have been as disastrous to the human species as Reagan. This country was made a superpower by FDR, and Reagan rode the eventual complacency-fueled backlash to that and gave us decades of absolute shit. The only progress on rights has been despite those conservatarded asshats protesting at every turn, and whereas before we were innovating new ways to go to outer fucking space, now we’re to be content with the latest version of getting ads into people’s eyeballs because that’s what capitalism wants.

              That’s after he made everyone obese by letting the sugar industry dictate nutrition policy and everyone poor by promising vast tax cuts would somehow trickle down. That that never happened is reason enough for you to shut up and never have opinions again.

              1. Few individuals have been as disastrous to the human species as Reagan.

                Oh, hit a nerve, did I?

                Reagan made you fat, and yeah, the 80s were a bad time for gays during the GRID scare. Anthony Fauci really fucked up the response to that for you.

                scary communist boogieman

                A “boogieman” would be like a male Solid Gold dancer? Because a boogeyman is a fake monster made up to scare children.

                Communism lead directly 200 million deaths in the last century and so far in this century has seen at least 5 million enslaved in concentration camps with the intent of purging their ethnic heritage in it’s entirety. To call that a boogeyman is greatest gaslight of all time.

                1. That you’re defending your red scare hysteria isn’t as embarrassing to you as it should be.

                  We have real problems in this world, and none of them is communism. You have to be completely delusional.

                  1. The quarter of the world’s population still living under communist regimes and more specifically, the 5 million Uighurs in concentration camps beg to differ.

                    The mass of Russians, Slavs, Cubans and Venezuelans living in third world conditions might also like to have a word with you about it.

                    Oh, and free to travel to Hong Kong and spout your bullshit there.

                    1. So you think the big problem with China (and North Korea presumably) is that they are too generous with their welfare states?

                      Either you’re against the economic system of communism (which doesn’t exist anywhere and has never existed), or you’re afraid of the word “communist,” in which case grow a pair of testicles and stop being afraid of a word.

                      I think the problem with these places is that they are dictatorships. Do you even think that’s a problem?

                    2. Either you’re against the economic system of communism (which doesn’t exist anywhere and has never existed), or you’re afraid of the word “communist,

                      What a complete crock of shit. You are engaging in fallacy, being both purposefully obtuse and at the same time pedantic in an effort to deny the blood-soaked legacy of Karl Marx and communism. It doesn’t matter what I call them, that is what they have historically called themselves.

                      The Communist Party ruled in the USSR and still rules China. All of the other countries we are talking about share common economic systems, centrally planned and government controlled. They are communist in deed if not in word. If you had told Castro to his face he wasn’t a communist he would have proved you wrong by having you arrested and shot in the head.

                      Calling any of these places dictatorships is ludicrous. A single person could never exert that kind of control. It takes a special kind of bureaucracy, a machine fueled by murder and violence that instills so much fear in the populace that they no longer resist. That bureaucracy in every case has been the Socialist or Communist Party. Amoral grifters who crave power or pragmatists, people willing to man the controls of that infernal machine if just to steer it away from themselves and their families.

                      You can claim I am being hyperbolic, but that is provably false. 200 million dead bodies are the evidence. 5 million Uighurs in prison camps are the evidence. COVID positive families having bars welded over their doors to keep them inside is evidence.

                    3. If you’re not aware that tyranny and oppression can come with any economic system, your eye is so far off the ball that now I have to worry about whether you’re going to simply not notice when tyranny comes or whether you’re going to actively participate in it, and not notice that.

                      The utopian notion of communism is nonsense and has never worked and could never work. Same as the utopian notion of pure laissez-faire.

                      Whether tyranny comes with them depends on whether politicians oppress people, don’t you think?

                    4. If you’re not aware that tyranny and oppression can come with any economic system

                      We know for certain that every attempt to implement socialism/communism leads to brutal tyranny. Furthermore, socialism/communism is inherently totalitarian.

                      On the other hand, the wealthiest, most free societies have always been those with the most economic freedoms.

            2. Joe Biden has LITERALLY quoted Mao and Stalin on numerous occasions

              1. And the only book Trump is known to have read is Mein Kampf.

                1. There are reports Herr Trump also read James Larratt Battersby, an author likewise mentioned in the writings of George Orwell.

                2. Even Snopes rated that as false. Lies, it’s all you people have.

                  On the other hand, Biden has used statements by Mao, Stalin, and Goebbels in support of his own views.

          3. The BLM leaders. AOC. Everybody promoting CRT. Bernie Sanders. Take your pick.

            1. It must be terribly convenient to you that all your impotent political rage can now be directed entirely at acronyms. So efficient. I bet it doesn’t require many more neurons firing than it takes to sustain your basic biological functions, huh?

              1. It must be terribly convenient to you that all your impotent political rage can now be directed entirely at acronyms.

                It’s not my fault that communists and fascists are fond of acronyms.

                So efficient. I bet it doesn’t require many more neurons firing than it takes to sustain your basic biological functions, huh?

                It takes roughly the same number of neurons as it does for you. The difference is that for me, that is a much, much smaller fraction of the total number of neurons I use.

          4. The neocons who jumped ship to the Republican Party are recycled Trotsky-ites. It even says so on Wikipedia. That’s a brand of Marxism.

          5. Most people cannot distinguish between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Democrats. So these terms get bounced around interchangeably.

            To make it more confusing communist states such as China can have a mixed economy.

            People also forget that these are economic terms. The other spectrum from authoritarian to libertarian is something else. You can be highly authoritarian and have a capitalist economy as happened in Chile for example. The Israeli kibbutzim, many were highly socialist, even communist but could not be described as authoritarian.

            There has never actually been a communist state. That is a utopian concept in which everything is communal and there is no need for state control.

            1. They’re all marxist, you collectivist and unintelligent bitch.
              Even social democracy, which Bismarck came up with to co-opt the socialists’ base (and this really pissed Karl off)

            2. “Most people cannot distinguish between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Democrats. So these terms get bounced around interchangeably.”

              Yes, commies are always trying to disguise themselves using semantic tricks because they know the vast majority of people are still disgusted by the very word “communist.” There is no way Bernie Sanders or AOC would admit to being communists now, today, but that is exactly what they are.

              Your denial of history is typical leftist deflection and smacks of narcissism. If only YOU were in charge, right?

              You are wrong about the nature of communism. It is inherently violent, that is a feature of the system and there’s no way around it. You cannot get people to willingly comply with the total forfeiture of their lives, property and resources without murdering them to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century alone, at least.

        2. You don’t have to adhere to Marxism and nothing else to be a Marxist. You just have to be enough of a fool to believe that socialism is not going to end the same way that it always has.

          The legacy of Marxism is the USSR, China, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Venezuela. Totalitarianism, abject poverty, and death. 200 million dead due the policies of their own government. If you can ignore all that evidence, then you are a Marxist.

          1. I think the problem with all those places was the totalitarianism, not their generous social welfare states.

            But it’s you who would restrict people’s freedom to choose their own public policies in deference to an ideology, is it not? Totalitarian Ayn Rand Fanboyism is not gonna be any better than any of the other totalitarianisms. Haven’t you read Orwell? The actual ideology doesn’t matter in the slightest. It’s window dressing.

            1. 200 million deaths. Go ahead and rationalize it away some more.
              You are shilling for the guys who will exterminate you.

              1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about because you let TV pundits do your thinking for you. I’m not defending authoritarian communism. I’m pretty much one of the few people here not actively flirting with authoritarianism, in fact.

                1. I’m not defending authoritarian communism.

                  All left wing ideologies lead to authoritarian communism. You are either too ignorant to realize it or are deliberately trying to obscure this fact.

                  1. That is a ridiculous statement. Not even authoritarian communism has led to authoritarian communism. They always seem to get the authoritarian part down, but never the communist part.

                    1. They always seem to get the authoritarian part down, but never the communist part.

                      Sure: the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, etc., that’s real communism; it’s all communism promises to be and all it will ever be.

                    2. In actual communism there is no need for state control. Those places are or were authoritarian socialist.

                    3. “In actual communism there is no need for state control. Those places are or were authoritarian socialist.”

                      Sure, goebbels

                    4. In actual communism there is no need for state control. Those places are or were authoritarian socialist.

                      Communism inevitably is authoritarian socialist; there is no other form of communism.

                2. you let TV pundits do your thinking for you

                  Who? I have never watched political TV. I hated Rush. I quit network TV completely more than 5 years ago.

                  I grew up reading newspapers and history books. I know what the Soviets did in my lifetime. I know what Castro did in my lifetime. I watched Communism bear its fruits of death and despair in North Korea, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

                  Even better, I studied the French Revolution in all its glorious failure and the Soviet Revolution in all its murderous success.

                  Marxism is a poison to the souls of men. Marx was a failure as a philosopher and as an economist. Marx was a shitty human being, a racist wife-beater. People who think they can build something to improve the lives of men on a foundation that includes the garbage espoused by Marx are wrong.

                  If TV pundits have reached the same conclusions, then that is because they have studied history.

                  1. I agree about Marx. He was horribly wrong about everything. I just wish people could be more precise in their use of these terms.

                    1. “NoT rEaL mArXiSm!”

                    2. I call lefties, lefties, and I call people who spew Marxist ideology Marxists. I know what it is, and I call it out correctly.

                  2. Marx wasn’t a head of state, you know. You are awfully worked up over some guy’s writings. Lots of people have written nonsense. You can only be this obsessive over this nonsense if you fear it’s persuasive power.

                    1. You can only be this obsessive over this nonsense if you fear it’s persuasive power.

                      That is the only sensible thing you have said in the entire thread. Marx leveraged utopian ideals to peddle bullshit that ignored fundamental human nature and all of history. It is incredibly persuasive to the uneducated, the oppressed and those without a moral compass. All they have to do is believe the big lie that they will be the ones who get to attend the Party.

                      The most populous nation in the world is governed by immoral monsters brought to power by the allure of Marxism. They killed 100 million people to get there. They will continue to expand the same way the Soviets did and the Russians are still doing. By infiltrating and replacing the socialists with Marxists and corrupting the institutions of capitalism to create a crisis of faith. It worked fast and wonderfully in the Eastern Bloc, it has just taking longer to bear fruit in the West. They have always been playing the long game.

                    2. So do you think you are doing your ideas a favor by classifying everything to the left of anarchy as Marxism? Isn’t that a good way to get people to say “Okay fine, Marxism must not be that bad. All I really asked for was cheaper healthcare and overtime pay.”

                    3. Marxism must not be that bad. All I really asked for was cheaper healthcare and overtime pay.”

                      LOL! Productive people don’t need the government to obtain benefits. Government interference weakens the position of the worker with employers while making them ever more reliant on the government. The need for Big Brother is a self-fulfilling prophecy once that road is started down.

                      If it wasn’t for the gaslighting of shills like you, people could be easily persuaded to understand.

                    4. Now you’re complaining about something else.

                    5. So do you think you are doing your ideas a favor by classifying everything to the left of anarchy as Marxism?

                      Socialists, communists, American progressives, and the American left all derive their ideas from Marxism. That’s not a question of “classification”, or an “idea”, it’s a simple historical fact.

                  3. Khmer Rouge genocide was only 40 – 45 years ago, in which 25 percent of the Cambodian population was murdered.

                    To prevent the rise of leftism, which is an evil ideology, we must have honest and truthful conversations about things. That is why the left circumvents free speech laws or tries to suppress them. If they succeed, evil people obtain power and do atrocious things. Think of a society built upon absolute lies and mistruths, like what the left is trying to do now with CRT, BLM, the denial of science (like there are only two sexes) and so on…only the most vile people assume power in those places.

                    1. Is the only scientific fact you know “there are only two sexes”?

                      You do understand that Ben Shapiro has been corrected on this point so many hundreds of times that he must be the dumbest motherfucker ever to walk the face of the earth, or he’s lying to you to make you afraid of boogiemonsters.

                      Your undirected rage to things that aren’t really things is how Nazis are made. You’re ready to start shoving leftists into ovens already. They came for the leftists first, you know.

                    2. Is the only scientific fact you know “there are only two sexes”? You do understand that Ben Shapiro has been corrected on this point

                      It takes mating of egg producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) for successful human procreation; therefore, there are exactly two sexes in humans, no more and no less.

                      Your undirected rage to things that aren’t really things is how Nazis are made.

                      Nazism was rooted in fake science, foremost scientific racism and eugenics.

                      And baselessly accusing people of “undirected rage” is the kind of thing Nazis would do.

  47. Since when do libertarians worship democracy? Of course democracy sets people at each other’s throats as the various factions attempt to impose their wills on everyone else. I thought we were more interested in individual liberty.

    The more collective decisions we make, the less latitude is left for making individual decisions. That is what we should all care about. We need to somehow re-establish the limits on government that were built into the constitution but subsequently greatly weakened so that it doesn’t matter so much who wins elections. Unfortunately that will not be easy as we are now deeply enmeshed in mob rule.

    1. Perhaps you should try explaining your position more clearly.

      There were two competing models around the founding: a strong national government and a weak national government. The important corollary is that a weak national government pairs with strong state governments, and vice versa.

      I don’t know about you, but the only legislature that’s ever imposed significant restrictions on my freedom to live my daily life sits in my state capitol, not Washington DC.

      Both governments are forms of democracy, of course, and you haven’t explained at all what your alternative to this model is. What authority should sit above democratically elected legislatures that restricts what they’re allowed to do?

      1. The only moral, practical authority is the sovereign individual. Democracy sets group against group, allowing easy exploitation by a few of all. No different from a monarchy. We tried a coercive govt., federal, state, local for 230+ years with disastrous results. The solution is right in the D.O.I., “abolish and/or re-establish the govt.”. I want a voluntary, non-violent political paradigm so I can enjoy my rights. Freedom/rights require you stop supporting your rulers.

        1. Okay, so I’m a sovereign individual. As a sovereign, I hereby enact the law that I get to shoot you and take your house.

      2. I’m not against democracy. But government power needs to be severely restricted so that majorities cannot run roughshod over minorities. That’s how this country worked until Roosevelt forced the reinterpretation of the commerce clause in the 1930’s that essentially allowed the government to do anything it wanted to do. Since then the government has been on a continuous growth trajectory, spending ever more of the national income, and regulating ever more behavior.

        If people want to be left alone to live their lives, that must end. Unlimited democracy is the problem, not the solution.

        1. So this country didn’t have a problem with majorities running roughshod over minorities until about the 1930s, you say?

          1. Are you talking about the Asians? You do know Asians are 60% of the human population? They’re running roughshod over us poor whites right now!

            1. Nope, not Asians.

          2. The way we treated blacks and other minorities in the 1930’s is shameful but a completely separate issue from the individual liberty that’s supposed to be guaranteed by the constituition.

      3. “Democracy” (direct, representative, whatever) describes who the government answers to. What powers the government has is a separate question. Though DoctorZ can speak for himself, I presume that what he means is that democracy does not in and of itself make any given government power legitimate. Government power is delegated to it by each individual citizen. If I try to murder you, you have the right to defend yourself against me, and therefore you can delegate this someone else, including a government. But you as an individual have no right to stop me from smoking pot, buying a Super Big Gulp, owning a gun, or braiding someone’s hair without having take cosmetology classes. Since you don’t have such rights, you can’t delegate them to the government, any more than you could hire a realtor to sell my house.

        Or to put it mathematically, I have zero right to stop you from eating Tide pods. If the rest of the country voted unanimously to stop you, 330 million multiplied by zero is still zero.

        1. Lots of assertions about things that do not exist except as legal fictions. You have to stop believing that things like rights come from nature. It’s childish.

          1. I’ll agree to disagree, but then don’t pretend your disagreement with libertarianism is about democracy. Your disagreement is natural rights vs. legal positivism.

            1. I know a lot about nature, actually. I maintain a lifelong study of biology and physics and cosmology and everything in between. I have never once read a scientific text that demonstrated the existence of rights in nature, absent human culture. Perhaps you could tell me where they are located.

              1. Rights come from values. See “Moral Rights and Political Freedom” by Tara Smith. Anybody who cares to find out can pick up a copy on Amazon.

                1. No need. I know that rights are a story we tell ourselves, because literally everything is a story we tell ourselves. Our brains are story machines, they are not truth machines.

                  I like rights. Try to take them away, I will fight back for them as I would any other property of mine. Property, of course, is just a story we tell ourselves too.

        2. Democracy can be just as tyrannical as a monarchy or any other form of government. Let us imagine, for example, that 51% of people vote to enslave the other 49%. The only way to avoid that is to have very strict limits on democracy, in order to protect individual liberty. For example, even now (although it seems to be at risk), no majority, no matter how big, can vote to limit someone’s speech. There are still some structural limits on democracy. Our constitution placed much more substantial limits on what people could vote to have the government do before it got wrecked by Roosevelt in the 1930’s.

          1. Note to foreign readers. The malformed plural meant “before it got wrecked by Theodore Roosevelt from 1901 to 1908”.

          2. I certainly do not automatically reject the idea that certain rights ought to be held constitutionally beyond the power of simple majorities to alter. That is not the same thing as saying that all legislation and the normal business of society ought to be subject to supermajoritarian consensus. Unless you’re protecting something specific, that is equivalent to rule by a minority, or tyranny.

  48. https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1417841934815666181?s=19

    Former At-Large DC Council candidate Addison Sarter is expected to propose a new ballot initiative: the Black Autonomy Act. It would create autonomous African American areas within D.C. with their own mayor and legislatures — including Anacostia, Langdon/Brentwood, Shepherd Park. [Link]

    1. I trust this will also mean their own tax base and their own police? I’m all for it!

      1. That will leave NW and the hipster trustifarians who live in Capitol Hill/Navy Yard as white DC. They also account for 98% of DC GDP, but no worries-they will gladly be shamed into paying their wealth tax lest they be deemed racists.

  49. It was a mostly peaceful protest. If stealing goods from innocent store owners can be morally justified as political activism, certainly giving these monsters with blood on their hands a little scare was a good thing.

  50. Trump didn’t invent this, he simply returned serve. Democrat called him illegitimate, got a phony Russian collusion special council to back their bogus charges.
    This should create strong bi partisan support to ensure election security but will they give up the chance to undermine each others victors?

    1. Many people, myself included do not believe that what is proposed has anything to do with election security.

      1. And many people, those of us who can read, do not believe that you have an ounce of integrity or honesty within you.

      2. And the dems’ HR1 has nothing to do with voting rights.

  51. Banning water and food.

    Where I went last time they had lollipops outside the voting room in a basket. I think the church put them there. OMG I’m a Presbyterian now!

  52. Tuccille speaks for me on this. Republican National Socialists 13 years after the Waffen Bush faith-based Crash are as obnoxious a bunch of coercive pukes as they were in 1942, 13 years after the 1929 crash. German nazis, rearmed by Hoover’s moratorium on Brains and 1931 narcotics cartel convention suppressing everything but “non-habit-forming” codeine–controlled most of Europe. Communist partisan ranks swelled by the Hoover Great Depression swamped the FDR Administration. Nixon’s tax subsidies enrich force-initiating looter parties, and we get what they subsidize.

  53. “The Trump campaign delivered a blueprint for losing candidates to undermine support for the winner or even steal the election,” Eggers, Garro, and Grimmer added.”

    Absolutely incorrect. Trump did not deliver a blueprint. He simply returned serve on the bogus Russian interference, Mueller investigation and the rest from Schiff, Comey et al.

  54. Critical thinking must make one ask if the Republicans are so deluded on the election why the Democrats are fight the audits so hard? A bipartisan audit is their chance to prove their innocence beyond a doubt and say “I told you so”.

    BREAKING: Arizona Senate Issues Two NEW Subpoenas Maricopa County Officials for Routers, Passwords, Splunk Logs, MORE

    The Arizona Senate has just issued a new legislative subpoena for routers, passwords, logs, keys, and other necessary elections records.
    Audit officials expect to have the final recount of the ballots completed tomorrow but they lack the necessary materials to complete a forensic audit of the voting equipment and software systems used.
    The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors must appear at the Arizona State Capitol on August 2, 2021 and produce the subpoenaed materials. Failure to comply may constitute contempt.

  55. Suppressing disinformation is not “muzzling dissent”. You can’t even call it “dissent” if it’s based upon phony “facts”. Saying that “up is down” isn’t a legitimate disagreement, it’s just wrong. Sadly, we have a number of dolts who are susceptible to nonsense like this.
    You know, news organizations gave equal time to climate change denialists in the interest of being “fair”, and look where we’re at now. If you want to dissent, you have start with, you know, reality. You can’t just make shit up and call it dissent.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.