Elections

Bad Politicians Think Elections Are Illegitimate if They Don't Like the Winner

Democracy means accepting results you're not happy about.

|

President Joe Biden probably met the low bar set for his rare press conference this week by not face-planting into a pudding cup, but he also uttered a few eye-openers during his meandering performance. Among them was the claim that the 2022 midterm elections might be illegitimate if his party's voting bill doesn't pass. It was yet another reminder that former President Donald Trump has plenty of company in accepting the political process only if things go his way. So, if you're looking for a respite from disputed vote tallies, don't hold your breath.

Asked about the possibility of disputed elections this year, Biden first raised the danger of Republicans discarding votes. But then he set his own conditions for accepting results.

"I'm not going to say it's going to be legit," he added. "It's — the increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these — these reforms passed."

Of course, the voting bill Biden favors failed later the same day. So, without his preferred rules in place, does he think the midterm elections are likely to be rigged? "Rigged," after all, is the word thrown around by another prominent Democrat who cast doubts on vote tallies that delivered unwelcome results. Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams famously refused to concede the 2018 election she lost to Brian Kemp.

"I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right," she announced in 2018 as she dropped her legal challenges only because "the law currently allows no further viable remedy."

"The game is rigged," she insisted the following year.

That's not as dramatic as a riot and invasion of the Capitol by political cultists attempting to prevent the certification of presidential election results, as happened on January 6, 2021, by Trump supporters. It's hard to top that (at least in the United States) for refusing to respect the process unless you have a modicum of competence. They didn't succeed, but they also didn't drop the claim of corrupt shenanigans. Two weeks ago, on the anniversary of the riot, the former president fumed at the legislators investigating that day's events for not "discussing the rigged Presidential Election of 2020."

(Do Trump and Abrams share a public relations team? You decide!)

But a denial of election results unless they go your way is a political temper tantrum over unwelcome democratic outcomes whether it's carried out in the streets or through sniffy pronouncements. It frames legitimacy as defined only by a win. It appears to be working for them, too. Trump keeps drawing in the crowds to hear his tall tales about the high office that was stolen from him, while Abrams wins plaudits for her planned repeat run for Georgia's top office.

Denying the legitimacy of elections is obviously a crowd-pleaser in modern America.

Disturbing as that is, rejecting election tallies isn't the end of challenges to normal processes. Unhappy with (some) decisions by the United States Supreme Court, Democrats propose to pad the bench with as many new justices as it takes to assure themselves wins on hot-button legal issues.

"With each move, the court shows why it's important to restore America's faith in an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued last month after the court showed signs that it might revisit the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision. "To do that, I believe it's time for Congress to yet again use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court."

While the idea of adding sympathetic justices to the court is traditionally termed "packing" and considered shady, Warren insists it's nothing of the sort because such "concerns do not reflect the gravity of the Republican hijacking of the Supreme Court." Basically, she argues that packing is OK if it involves the right people. Besides, "this Supreme Court has hit record lows in the eyes of the public."

It's true that approval for the Supreme Court fell to a new low of 40 percent, according to Gallup. But Chief Justice John Roberts has the highest numbers of any federal official at 60 percent. And that "record low" 40 percent support for the court overall is roughly double the approval Americans voice for Warren and her fellow lawmakers. Unpopular members of Congress aren't going to improve the standing of better-respected justices with a politically motivated court-packing scheme.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters are keeping their eyes on ballot boxes—literally in the case of the candidates who endorse the former president's bogus claim of a stolen election and are vying for positions that put them in charge of counting votes.

"In addition to statewide roles, Trump's acolytes are pursuing local election posts, even trickling down to the precinct level, and seeking to gain more prominent roles in state GOP parties and state legislatures ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign," CNN noted in December. "In Michigan, for instance, several new Republican appointees to county canvassing boards who have said they wouldn't have certified the 2020 election are replacing the GOP members who did certify the election result."

Even before we get to a do-over that few people want (70 percent of Americans dread a rematch between Biden and Trump) the two major political factions have already positioned themselves as ill-disposed to accept outcomes from the process that don't go their way. Republicans reject disappointing results loudly, through riot, lawsuit, and bluster. Democrats more quietly deny that the system can ever legitimately go against them, insisting that rules and institutions be reshuffled until they're guaranteed the outcomes they're convinced they deserve.

And now the president of the United States joins his predecessor and possible future opponent in election denial. Biden sounds an awful lot like Trump when he insists that the midterm elections may be illegitimate if they aren't conducted according to his preferred ground rules.

The idea that a system is legitimate only if it hands you a win every time isn't much of a basis for running a functioning democracy in which power is supposed to change hands on a regular basis. But that's what passes for principle with America's dominant political tribes.

NEXT: The U.S. Export-Import Bank Is a Cesspool of Crony Capitalism. Biden Wants To Expand It.

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

  1. Yeah but when Democrats lose it's because of factors like JIM CROW 2.0 and RUSSIAN HACKING.

    #Resist

    1. The fact that republicans are even allowed to run is a threat to democracy. The ballot should be a choice between which democrat you like best, because they're all pretty great.

      1. Like in California!

        1. Exactly! If the rest of the states could just be more like California, we'd already be living our progressive utopian dream.

          1. A tent on a shit stained chunk of sidewalk for everyone!

            1. Hey now! That’s asking a lot of our privileged overlords. The cost of those tents might keep important people like Gavin Newsom from having a helicopter or a yacht.

              1. As I predicted.....a MASSIVE welfare programs been under way.

                Admission:

                "The Federal Reserve doesn’t seem to “get” asset bubbles, said Grantham, pointing to the “ineffably massive stimulus for COVID” (some of which he said was necessary) that followed stimulus to recover from the bust of the 2006 housing bubble. "

                https://www.marketwatch.com/story/good-luck-well-all-need-it-u-s-market-approaches-end-of-superbubble-says-jeremy-grantham-11642723516

                You think people hate Biden now? Let this come unwound...

                Stock up on ammo NOW.

            2. Don’t dys our topia!

      2. Marc Elias is working on that issue. Trying tog et the GOP kicked off ballots like they are the green party.

        1. “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
          ― Joseph Stalin

          Joseph Biden approves of this message

          1. In 2020 those that count the ballots that were paid millions by Zuckerberg rejected over 562,000 mail in ballots. In Pennsylvania over 372,000 applications for mail in ballots were rejected by election officials. Democrats are waging court battles to keep anyone from examining the ballots, envelopes or applications. Those that count the ballots do decide elections.

      3. For presidential elections, states can determine their electors without voting...

        "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

        If the elections are federalized, it would be interesting if a number of states determined that they would not hold Presidential elections to allocate their electors and instead left it to the legislator or governor, or pre-allocated them say, matching with sitting Reps and Senators (e.g., a state with 10 R reps and 2 D reps plus 2 R senators might just send 12 R electors and 2 D electors).

        Indeed, I'd like to see California do this right now, just let their D governor send their 55 electors to democrat candidate without all the bother and expense of elections. There's no chance of any R votes anyway. But by not having a California election, and the 11M D votes (net about 5M D relative to R) the whole notion of the "popular vote" is exposed as the sham that it is.

        I also notice that people who are complaining about the electoral college being "unfair" never EVER propose reallocating their own states electors, say based on the percentage each candidate earned... California gave all 55 of theirs to Biden, effectively ignoring the desires of some 6M Californians who voted for Trump. If California had given 66% of their electors (37) and the remaining 34% to Trump (18), that would seem "fair" to me.

    2. Agree - this is literally the silliest article I've read. When people can dump ballots off with no id of verification and literally hundreds of thousands of ballots so far have been determined to be fraudulent - and 46 out of 47 European countries require ID to vote. Our supreme court won't even take a decent challenge of this issue. Our votes are being diluted by people who fraudulently vote and violate the law by ballot harvesting. Read Rigged by Mollie Hemingway. This country is literally awash in voting fraud back to the mid 1800s. And now large tech organizations and rich men can dump money into swaying elections and Russia and China can plop in advertising to Google to spread misinformation and sell fake garbage? I am stunned Reason who even take this direction in a serious article. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. This is about the sanctity of citizenship and the sovereignty in the US which Reason benefits every day especially its editors - but apparently they don't care about that either.

      1. Reason absolutely rejects concepts like citizenship and sovereignty.

    3. Piece A Cake OTO – Piece A Cake Review Bonus OTOs Upsells Links https://4u-oto.com/piece-a-cake-oto/

  2. What's REALLY going on here is a proxy war between the Amphibian People on the "R" side, and the Lizard People on the "D" side. The Amphibian People are currently leading in the "All votes not for MEEEE are fraudulent" race, but the Lizard People will now copy their "winning" tactics, and might even catch up!

    Let me point out to you, that the Amphibian People ARE indeed “benevolent”, per the “R”-Party yardstick (“R” good, all other parties BAD!).

    Let me give you a VERY prominent Amphibian Person with the CORRECT thoughts and attitudes! I give you Pepe the Amphibian Person, stolen-IP-4Chan-Frog! Racist frog, NAZI frog, yaya-yada!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog

    1. If only we had space lasers to thwart them both!

      1. Maybe we could get Marjorie Taylor Greene to talk the "Jewish community" into letting us use or borrow their laser technology?

        https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-wildfires-space-laser-rothschild-execute.html

        1. Which which part of her tweet do you have problems with?

          It is correct that Rothschild has been financing a project to beam solar power back to earth.

          It’s a ludicrous project, born in an irrational obsession with “green energy”. It wasn’t responsible for the wild fires (since it doesn’t really work).

          Calling that “Jewish space lasers” is more a reflection of your own ignorance and racism than of hers.

          1. Hey Noy-Boy-Toy... Here is imported below, an out-take from the link. If this "Greene" babe is your idea of a "hot babe" with "hot ideas", I probably can't help you! I don't know if ANYONE can help you, or her!

            Greene’s views are just a bit more controversial. They include, but are by no means limited to, the following:

            • The QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds that Donald Trump is secretly fighting a worldwide child-sex-slavery ring that was supposed to culminate in the mass arrest of his political opposition, is “worth listening to.”

            • Muslims don’t belong in government.

            • 9/11 was an inside job.

            • Shootings at Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Las Vegas were staged.

            • “Zionist supremacists” are secretly masterminding Muslim immigration to Europe in a scheme to outbreed white people.

            • Leading Democratic officials should be executed.

            1. All you are doing is trying to deflect from your own ignorance, racism, and bigotry.

              1. You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right?

                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
                From the conclusion to the above…
                These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

                SQRLSY back here now... So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an asshole! You do NOT need to push me down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

                1. It's really sad to see that folks like NOYB2 even waste their time engaging people like you. But I understand why they do it. Sometimes I can't resist as well.

                  You are so pathetic and irrelevant and obsolete, please take your antipsychotics again.

                2. What does "doing good" have to do with you? Do you think that pushing progressive propaganda on Reason amounts to "doing good"?

                3. Biden voters have no critical thinking skills and should never be taken seriously.

              2. You are right. He's the classic - if I deflect by attacks that have no facts and name calling - then they run away. Its garbage. He can paste his articles all he wants - most of it isn't evidentiary support for his many claims. And then brings the 'old Jackhole attack out. Ignore.

          2. The green energy from Oan power rings is more real than what we get from the left’s bullshit.

      2. Laser Cats!

        ????

        1. Like Thunder Cats, but more lethal?

          1. Decidedly. And cuddlier...just avoid their eyed

  3. What Basement Bunker Biden said was that without the democrat federalization of state election functions, the votes would be illegitimate. And the last election was held without that federalization, so Trump was right; 2020 was illegitimate.

    1. Title:

      "Bad Politicians Think Elections Are Illegitimate if They Don't Like the Winner"

      Oh. HILLARY.

      Shes STILL Gaslighting about her losing SIX years later.

      Note how as Bidens popularity goes as low as Pelosis tits sag to her knees the Media start attacking Trump.

      Reason: "Orange Man Bad."

      Children.

      Speaking of the present Presidents failures, the next disaster- crypto currencies crashing and the Fed wants to....ISSUE ONE!!!

      Talks about digital currency.

      That should finish off what little that Team Groper hasnt destroyed yet.

      Fuck Joe Biden.

      1. Cyrpto 'crashing' isn't bad, it's a flash sale 😀

        1. Exactly. The false meme iscthat value disappears.

          Not. It gets rearranged.

          The SUCKAS that put real money in to get laundry machine tokens out will not have to worry about doing laundry anymore..

          HA!

      2. Democracy means accepting results you're not happy about.
        Except, if the election really was stolen.
        That's not democracy, at all.
        After all the shit the left pulled to get rid of Trump, in his years in office, and before, it is really so hard to believe they would go as far as to steal the election, using hundreds of thousands of phony mailed-in ballots, counted later than any past election has seen votes tallied?
        And then refuse, across the board, to let anyone do a full audit?
        Shit, if they were so sure the election was legitimate, you would think they'd do everything they could to prove it, instead of steadfast stonewalling.

  4. Oh, and, fuck Joe Biden.

  5. When are midterms again?

    1. For Biden, hes already been replaced and lost.

      Priceless. Nero drools while Rone burns.

  6. The idea that a system is legitimate only if it hands you a win every time isn't much of a basis for running a functioning democracy ...

    Feature, not a bug.

    The notion that the country can only be saved by one party and, in order to do so, the safeguards of federalism must be systematically abolished in order for that one party to obtain unbridled power is an authoritarian political philosophy that the Democrats are openly wielding.

    It is the progressive march toward dictatorship that defined much of the twentieth century, but repurposed for a millennial generation of morons. I am convinced that every hundred years or so, collective memories fade so thoroughly that bullshit like this inevitably find its way back into circulation. And, true to form, here we are.

  7. Out of one side of his face Biden says the election could be rigged while out of the other he charged people with sedition for saying the election was rigged.

    We just watched the sitting president get prevented him from addressing the nation being banned, censored, canceled and deplatformed, along with everyone else who witnessed and shared election irregularities.

    1. Clearly the Jews are to blame.

      1. According to Rob M, only 3 were killed by the Nazis, and that was by accident while they were trying to help them across the street.

        1. All you have is insincerity.

          I have truth that can’t be refuted.

          Fool you once, shame on Jew.

          Fool you 166 times, shame on you.

          1. Careful, he's about to bring out his ubermention. Irrefutable proof that he is not a depraved lunatic!

        2. No, those were false flag operations.

  8. As government gets bigger and more powerful, people get more desperate about who wins elections.

    These problems won't relax until government starts getting smaller.

    Unfortunately, the Rs and Ds want to make government even bigger and more powerful.

    1. Government needs a cold shower. It needs some shrinkage.

    2. BOWF SIDEZ are totally corrupt. Thats the Bug.

  9. Are there any good politicians?

    1. Came here to say this!

  10. The founders of the constitution recognized that we need government and that those leaders need to be virtuous, acting in accordance with truth and righteousness.

    Like punks, they all lie, coercing is to their advantage and our detriment.

    Criminalizing lying is what we NEED to do to bring back virtue and the spirit of the constitution.

    1. But what happens when you think you're Reich but they say it's a lie?

      1. To the showers to rinse off the badness.

        1. Badness doesn’t rinse off so easily.

          Lying isn’t my religion, is it yours?

          1. Hard to be religious and a faithless Nazi socialist simultaneously, true.

            1. Lying is your satanic religion.

              Here is the Kol Nidre text. Your wannabe holiest prayer is clearly a plan to lie. The faithful can lie for another year with the comfort and blessing of your religion

              “All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas [curses]which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect: they shall not bind us nor have any power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligations; nor the oaths be oaths.”

              That and 166 pathetic fake claims of holocausts of six million Jews around the world between 1900 and 1945. To coerce pity and money and power from the gullible. Only fools don’t recognize such obvious lies.

              1. Oy ve, he really Goebbels that von Kuhl-Aid up.

                Follow your leader, Sturmfag.

                1. Insincerity is all you have.

                  I have truth.

                  1. Germany just needed room to breathe, and those six million Jews were crowding the country, right?

                    1. I’m demonstrating that you’re a holocaust denier,

                      Does that make you a Nazi, an anti Semite?

                      I mean unless you believe the Jewish leaders and media who claimed no less than 166 times between 1900 and 1945 that there were so many holocausts of 6 million Jews…YOU ARE DENYING JEWISH CLAIMS OF HOLOCAUSTS OF 6 MILLION JEWS.

                      Hahaha

                      http://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/repeated-claims-of-6-million-jews-dying-decades-before-hitler-vs-ignored-soviet-death-camp-tolls/

                    2. Fool you once, shame on Jew.

                      Fool you 166 times, shame on you.

                    3. Just a couple of excerpts from the link. Embedded within the lying jew statements are some telling perspectives

                      “The Chicago Tribune on July 20, 1921 published an article headlined: “Begs America Save 6,000,000 in Russia.” This article claimed that “Russia’s 6 million Jews are facing extermination by massacre. As the famine is spreading, the counter-revolutionary movement is gaining and the Soviet’s control is waning.” The United Jewish Campaign of New York in 1926 set a fundraising goal of $6,000,000 to help the “dying” Jews of Europe. On December 29, 1931 a Montreal newspaper ran a baseless claim from Rabbi Stephen Wise that 6 million Jews faced starvation in southeastern Europe.[7]”

                      ” the counter-revolutionary movement is gaining and the Soviet’s control is waning.” tells us that Jews perceived waning Jewish Bolshevik communist control of Russia to be a threat” Jews for communism, secret police and the Cold War.

                      “The New York Times on May 31, 1936, published an article headlined “Americans Appeal for Jewish Refuge.” This article appealed to Great Britain to “…throw open the gates of Palestine and let in the victimized and persecuted Jews escaping from the European holocaust.””

                      “ throw open the gates of Palestine and let in the victimized and persecuted Jews” tells us that 6 million Jews were waiting at the perceived “gates of Palestine” to be ushered in by the allies a full 12 years before the Middle East conflict. So much for the Arabs being the aggressors.

                      You are a 166 times holocaust denier and a one time stupid holocaust believer. Shame on you.

                2. !Vaccine will make you free.

                3. SPRINGTIME FOR MISEK

    2. The founders weren’t as stupid as you. They realized that political leaders were frequently not virtuous. That’s why they created checks and balances, and why we have the 2A

      1. The founders weren’t as stupid as you.

        "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."

        I have been thinking about this a lot lately. At what point does a cause become serious? When the Legislature refuses to stop the federal police from seizing property without warrant or trial for actions within a single state where such actions are perfectly legal using 'interstate commerce' as an excuse? When the Executive President mandates an unproven vaccine? When the courts say that holding unresisting children at gunpoint and handcuffing them is not an arrest and that doing so without reasonable cause is valid?

        How many times is it permissible to for the government to engage in such violations before they are no longer transient?

        When do we get to say, 'I am not your subject and will tolerate no more of your rule'?

        1. Not there yet. If they manage the fortifications, it's getting close.

        2. When we demand our state legislators call a convention of states to reign in the federal government and return the power to the people and states. Our Founders knew the federal government would grow and become corrupt and put Article V in the Constitution as a remedy. 16 states have already signed on and it is only a matter of time before people begin to demand their state legislatures take action.

  11. if only minorities were smart enough to get the internet and photo ID's or at least that is what Brandon and his border czar VP told me.

    1. Lack of ability to get a photo ID is all that's holding the super predators back.

  12. Viagra has made some erections illegitimate. And probably a few kids too.

    1. Buttigeg likes large and free Erections.

      1. Toobin is pulling for him too.

      2. He likes to come from behind to provide help with those erections.

        1. Dick Hardwood popped in.

  13. Brandon meant exactly what he said, what was not clear here? If Dems don't pass the election overhaul, fortifications will continue to be illegal.

    C'mon man, we've got the most inclusive voter fraud organization ever and we can't fully use it!

    1. The same assholes who are normalizing the censorship of their political opponents are trying to normalize their ballot harvesting, of course rebranded in newspeak as “voter rights”.

      The chimps won’t care as long as the free shit keeps rolling. Frankly, they probably won’t care once the free shit stops, either. That’s the truly terrifying part.

      Welcome to single party control.

      1. It's unbelievable, except it's happening.

  14. "The idea that a system is legitimate only if it hands you a win every time isn't much of a basis for running a functioning democracy in which power is supposed to change hands on a regular basis. But that's what passes for principle with America's dominant political tribes."

    Plenty of my fellow libertarians have problems taking this idea of a functioning democracy to its principled conclusion. We are not only required to accept the legitimacy of elections when the politicians we don't like win them. So long as the policy in question is within the proper purview of democracy, we are also required by democratic principles to accept the legitimacy of policies we don't like--just because the American people support them--even if the American people are wrong about what they want.

    One excellent example of this is immigration. I support a constitutional open borders treaty with Mexico, to be duly ratified by the U.S. Senate, which would grant access to the United States without a visa to Mexican citizens without criminal histories, much like U.S. citizens can enter Canada without a visa. I believe such a treaty is in the best interests of the United States in terms of both our economy and border security. The American people, however, do not share my opinion, and it would be wrong of libertarians not to respect the will of the American people--simply because I don't like the popular consensus.

    It is wrong to support executive orders that defy the public will as expressed through our elected leaders in Congress on an issue like immigration, that is well within the proper purview of democracy, simply because we don't want what the American people want. It is exactly like refusing to accept the legitimate outcome of an election because we don't like the candidate that won. I will not support an executive order to protect people from deportation that was signed by the president specifically because Congress willfully refused to protect them from deportation--and that is because I respect democracy in its proper purview.

    Ultimately, libertarians are required to respect the choices of other people, even when they make choices that we don't like. I could have written the above argument about any issue within the proper purview of democracy, be it a climate treaty, a spending bill, or a war. We need to accept and respect the legitimacy of the American people's right to have their way on these issues--even when they want the wrong thing. The appropriate response to the American people wanting the wrong candidate and the wrong policies is the same within the proper purview of democracy. In both cases, we are simply obligated to persuade the American people to change their minds.

    Reason is at its best when it takes this obligation seriously.

    1. Your open border pass is completely unrealistic.

      Getting any sort of reliable information on it would be nigh-impossible, not to mention the corruption.
      Additionally, the welcome unless proven guilty policy would incite a flood of economic migration that would eclipse anything we are seeing now; the US cannot welcome all the poor dreamers of Mexico and South America and remain a functioning nation.

      If you want to talk about giving foreign nationals citizen level access to the union, I'd prefer to first discuss adding another state instead.

      1. Thats M/L what wrecked Europe.

        The cry was " cant have Free Trade without Open Borders."

        Their Open Borders brought Illegal Boarders.

        1. EU tried to do America lite.

          1. Less filling

        2. Maybe they were just bored.

      2. I didn't want to turn this into an immigration discussion. Suffice it to say that the system that the system we have now, which lets millions of people sneak across the border in the middle of the night without any checks at all, is the worst possible system from a border security perspective. In this case, "open borders" would mean people being able to cross by showing an ID--rather than a visa. We could institute our own system to identify wanted and convicted criminals and make Mexico's cooperation a necessary prerequisite.

        And even if the system were imperfect, it would make our border more secure than it is now. If Mexican citizens without a criminal conviction or ties to a cartel could get across the border simply by showing an ID at a checkpoint (just like we do when we cross into Canada), the only people sneaking through miles of desert at night would be wanted criminals, convicted criminals, smugglers, and the cartels. It would make them much easier to catch when they didn't have a multitude of job seekers to hide behind, and it would make our border more secure than it is now.

        1. last paragraph, total lie.
          Dismissed out of hand.

          Just an excuse to deflect attention from illegals flooding in by 10,000s not at border crossings.

          1. You are wrong. Economics dictates that as the market for illegal crossing decreases the cost of doing so rises. Same risk, less profit, means less illegal immigration.

            Just as prohibition creates crime syndicates, illegal immigration incentivizes a huge apparatus to transport people across the border.

            The foolish thing is to continue to pretend that you can stop people determined to get here. A 'War on Illegal Immigration' will only line the pockets of the most evil people on both sides.

        2. More to the point, I want a treaty with Mexico that is ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. I want the American people to support this treaty so overwhelmingly that they elect a president to negotiate the treaty with Mexico and they elect a Senate that wants the treaty ratified to the extent that two-thirds of them vote to ratify it. That's the real obstacle--as well it should be.

          I'm not here to inflict this open borders treaty with Mexico on the unwilling using the coercive power of the state or an executive order. I am not a threat to the constitution, the separation of powers, or the legitimate purview of democracy. The only threat I pose to you is that I might change your mind. Ultimately, we can't advance on most of these issues so long as we're threatening to impose our will on the American people over their objections.

          Surely, we can agree that inflicting unpopular policies on the American people using undemocratic means is wrong within the proper purview of democracy, and that's really all I'm insisting on here. Democracy isn't just about the legitimacy of who wins an election. It's about respecting the will of the American people when it comes to an issue within the proper purview of democracy. The original sin of progressivism is their contempt for the opinions of average Americans.

        3. No argument that our immigration system is a mess, but that wasn't exactly my angle.

          Open pass with Mexico is infeasible because of rampant corruption and inherent unreliability of the data sources south of the border. Hell, north of and within too - not something you can implement without massive societal tracking.

          Additionally, it would be wildly abused abused if implemented.

          1. These are issues that need to be addressed. I'll concede that. I do not believe they are insurmountable obstacles, and I think our current system is both unacceptable and unsustainable.

            1. "...current system is unacceptable and unsustainable."

              Agreed, unless you're a campaigning politician. Not fixing issues has kept so many folks in office.
              Would love to see an earnest debate working towards changes.

              1. "Would love to see an earnest debate working towards changes."

                And half the people in that debate won't even listen when they can correctly assume that the other side is trying to inflict policies on them over their objections and against the will of the American people. If you tried to use force on guys in a sports bar--to force them to watch football, drink beer, and eat buffalo wings--they'd resist! Before we can persuade the American people of anything, we need to tell them that we're trying to persuade them because we care about their opinion. Disparaging the opinions of average Americans is not the road to immigration reform from a principled perspective--but it's also unlikely to succeed.

                1. Don't tell me what beer to drink.

                  Contrarianism is possibly genetic.

        4. They would have to apply for and be vetted to get the ID. They can now apply for a visa and be vetted and come into the US. They come in through the ports. Those sneaking in across the border usually can't get a visa because of their records. They pay cartels large sums of money to get around the legal entry ports. If the border was secured with barriers and controlled only people able to come in legally would be coming in through the ports.

      3. especially when 'birthright citizenship' is in play.

        1. I really wasn't interested in turning this into a discussion of immigration policy, but if you think our current system stops illegal aliens from coming here and having children, you're wrong.

          The system Canada implements, that lets Americans cross into Canada without a visa, prevents Americans from taking advantage of Canada's social services. Having more native born Americans isn't a problem to my eye. Preventing Mexican citizens from taking advantage of American social services in the open borders treaty I'm proposing, however, would also make our immigration system better than it is now--from a libertarian and capitalist perspective.

          I think a lot of people have a weird relationship with the term "open borders". An open border in this case would be the ability to cross without a visa so long as you're not a convicted criminal, wanted by the police or the U.S. government, so long as you're vaccinated against certain communicable diseases, etc. A wall along our southern border would be in perfectly harmony with this kind of an open border. An open border would simply mean being able to cross with an ID rather than a visa.

          1. I live along the border, and there is not a huge difficulty for folks to cross back and forth as things stand (minus Covid restrictions, which change seemingly hourly).

            Sundays you will see a 7am convoy from Mexico hitting the edge of town. By 830 they have dispersed to every yard sale in town. Around 10 or 11 they head back to unload and make lunch.

            Ditto from our side - you can get towed to a mechanic south of the border for cheaper rates.

            I appreciate your lack of jackboots and support of coalition decisions, but I strongly believe a more open pass would bring much greater harm than benefit.

          2. "Preventing Mexican citizens from taking advantage of American social services in the open borders treaty I'm proposing, however, would also make our immigration system better than it is now--from a libertarian and capitalist perspective."

            Replace "Mexican citizens" with "non-citizens" as a starting point, then let's discuss reducing or even eliminating those expensive social services.

            1. I think we need to address Mexican citizens because we're talking about a treaty between two nations that needs to be ratified by two thirds of the U.S. Senate. Congress can pass any immigration law they like. The visa arrangements across the border between the U.S. and Mexico need to be addressed as a treaty between two democratic nations--with Mexico's obligations clearly spelled out.

              1. Many of the immigrants crossing the border illegally now are not from Mexico.

                1. Hecho en Mexico

                2. Because a solution doesn't solve every problem in one swoop doesn't mean it isn't a necessary part of the solution or the best option available.

                  "A proposed solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. In other words, that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect, even though it is the best option available."

                  ----Perfect Solution Fallacy

                  https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

                  A couple of point I maintain.

                  Before DACA, there were less than a thousand people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that sought asylum in the United States every year--combined. That number steadily increased after DACA to the point that, during the Trump administration, there were more than 150,000 a month.

                  While it's true that correlation doesn't equal causation, one of the interesting aspects of that 150,000 asylum seekers from the three Northern Triangle countries is that, at the time, some 80% of those 150,000 were either children or adult family members traveling with children. It is not unreasonable to suspect that when Obama promised not to deport anyone who came here as a child, people started sending their children to the U.S. to live with relatives or traveled with them--with the expectation that their children wouldn't be deported.

                  No, securing the border with a treaty with Mexico won't completely eliminate the problems at our border of being flooded with child asylum seekers from Central America. That being said, DACA is clearly unconstitutional, even Shika Dalmia conceded that, but just because DACA needs to be officially declared unconstitutional doesn't mean that we can't secure the border against illegal immigrants from Mexico--which was a problem for decades, long before Obama inflicted DACA on the world.

                  You're not suggesting that we shouldn't address the problem of a flood of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--because it doesn't solve the problem of illegal immigration by Mexican citizens, are you? Securing the border requires address the real causes of both problems, and if the border will never be secure until Mexican citizens are able to cross with an ID and without a visa, then that's the way it is--regardless of whatever other problems we have at the border.

                  incidentally, DACA was an elitist attempt to inflict immigration policy on the American people--specifically because Congress refused to protect those children. Ultimately, we're talking about an unconstitutional attempt to suppress democracy. The rules of naturalization are clearly an enumerated power of Congress, according to the Constitution, and immigration rules would be well within the proper purview of democracy even if it wasn't. I appreciate that immigration from Central America and immigration from Mexico have different causes; I hope you appreciate that the solution to both problems needs to be handled democratically (in Congress).

                  1. "The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate. It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House. The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Background

                    DACA was an unconstitutional executive order that was specifically intended to undermine the democratic process.

                    I'd also argue that it harmed immigrant children in some important. The reason Congress hasn't taken action on the Dreamers is because they'd rather not take a controversial stand (either way). If they had to protect immigrant children from being deported en masse, they probably would.

                    No one can fault moderate Democrats for granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens and causing Americans citizens to lose their jobs because it hasn't come back up for a vote because of DACA. Meanwhile, no one can fault Republicans for doing nothing while children are deported--because DACA is protecting them.

                    If DACA weren't protecting these children from deportation, Congress would act--the very next day. If the Supreme Court hadn't kicked the can down the road, and just ruled DACA unconstitutional, democracy would have kicked in, and the Dreamers wouldn't be in legal limbo because of an unconstitutional executive order. They'd probably be protected by the full force of thoroughly constitutional law today.

      4. I too responded to the *topic* he chose as his example, before I realized he was making more of a meta-argument.

        1. I had no disagreement with his policy of 'you do you,' only the position he expressed as an example.

    2. Canada may let American into Canada to work, but it's not a free-for-all...

      Americans Working in Canada

      If you are an American citizen, you may be eligible to apply for a Canadian work permit or apply to work in Canada under the Skilled Worker Program, which could eventually lead to permanent residency.
      Obtaining a Canadian Work Permit for Americans

      Thanks to the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), it is much easier for a United States citizen to obtain a work permit in Canada. However, there are still requirements that must be met. These requirements include:

      You must have a job offer from a Canadian employer
      The job offer must be listed in the USMCA agreement
      You must be able to prove you are a United States citizen
      You must be able to demonstrate that you have work experience and education that make you qualified for the job you’ve been offered.

      You may also be required to obtain a positive LMO. This is also called a Labour Market Opinion, and your employer will obtain this on your behalf while giving you a copy for your work permit application. This assures the Canadian government that there are no Canadians available to fill the job you’ve been offered.
      Americans Applying Under the Skilled Worker Program

      If you would like to work in Canada but would like to use your work experience as a pathway to permanent residency, you could also consider the Skilled Worker Program. To be eligible for the Skilled Worker Program, you will need to have at least one year of full-time work experience in a management occupation, a professional and related occupation, a technical occupation, skilled trade or paraprofessional occupation. You will also need to determine your eligibility based on the program’s point system, which measures certain criteria such as your language proficiency, work experience and age.

      1. The important distinction for me is that American citizens can't cross the border and expect to get free healthcare, free rent, and free food. Because you're allowed into the country, doesn't make you eligible for social services. I see low wage labor as a good thing for the economy--like low cost energy. Making people eligible for social services is another question entirely. If we can address that issue by treaty, it will be a capitalist improvement to what we have now.

        1. I agree to that extent. But a treaty with Mexico

          a) doesn't solve the problem with Guatemalans, Haitians, Ecuadorians, Nicaraguans, Iranians, Saudis, Russians...entering illegally or overstaying a legal visa.

          b) would not matter at all if the US government chooses to ignore the limitations imposed by the treaty and allows Mexicans (et al.) to partake of public schools, healthcare, rent, food, and other welfare and/or allow them to work without meeting the standards set per the treaty.

          c) would not matter if the US government does not enforce the terms the treaty sets out for filtering people entering the US from Mexico (e.g., agents are instructed not to check IDs, etc.)

          These are not fanciful issues, because we already have the US government not enforcing laws we already have, being ensconced in a treaty would not make any more difference than the laws currently being ignored do.

  15. Anybody notice that there was no mention of the Democrats not accepting the results of the 2016 election? Reason has gone down the shitter lately. They used to be pretty even, not any more.

    1. Ah you beat me to it.

      This is pre positioning for Hillary 2024.

      Shes at LEAST 2024...all those bags under her eyes and scowl- lines.

      If they fail to get Trump shes gonna get pavement stomped, as she deserves

      Shes a criminal after all. Comey admitted her crimes then Obstructed Justice to keep her out if prison.

    2. I'll call bothsidism out either way. If Republicans are wrong about this, whataboutism with the Democrats also being wrong adds nothing. Especially when progressives are openly contemptuous of democracy (the opinions of average people), we should probably expect the Republicans to be better than the Democrats.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

  16. Are you daft? People didn’t protest because they were unhappy with the outcome, people protested because they believed that the election was not carried out properly.

    1. This was my immediate thought. I pretty flatly stated at the time that even if the votes were 100% accurate and legit, the whole process of declaring an emergency and then fucking with election law months before elections is, even if it is/was legal, utter bullshit rife for abuse by anyone at any time. Especially in the background of all the other election laws that's kept waiting in the wings.

      ERMAGAWD! It's 80 degrees outside the polling place and an obese 80 yr. old fainted in the heat! Quick somebody get some party representatives to hand out water bottles. Election laws be damned, it's an emergency! -- Uh, no. Fuck the outcome, fuck you.

      1. In fact, it clearly wasn’t legal. It’s just that the courts didn’t see any remedy.

        Republicans have been padding laws in order to try to address that.

        1. Yeah, I've convinced myself that along with the "all subsequent laws should sunset, always" Amendment, a "No one can pass a law which affects an election they participate in and no law shall affect its next immediate election." Amendment are two absolutely crucial pieces of ethics/law the FF failed to deliver on.

    2. Come on! You can't let a little thing like facts screw up JD's narrative.

    3. People can protest about getting their assholes probed by Zeta Reticulans, but those ones don’t get constant play on major cable news channels.

  17. Even if you say "it's not as bad as Jan 6" you're still comparing them as if they're at all the same.

    One side wants only their people to vote while the other wants everyone to vote and have it be easy enough without jumping through hoops or having a party shut down every other polling place near them, make them wait in line for hours, etc.

    Voter suppression is real. Electoral fraud of any significance is not. One side is right, the other is clearly just "rigging" it in their favor and have been for some time.

    So kindly fuck off with your comparisons that each side is "bad" in this case.

    1. Thanks for allowing me to be dumber for reading that pile of stupid.

    2. One side favors voter ID laws like the majority of Americans, as European nations like France have.

      The other side smears that majority of racism and bigotry in a dishonest attempt to guilt them into supporting undemocratic policies.

      Yep.

      1. Saying this is all about voter ID laws is a pretty disingenuous take, Brian. It’s almost like you’re tweezing out the least objectionable Republican voter suppression tactic and pretending all the others don’t exist.

        1. So what are those other systems? Come on inform us of they are so I insidious.

    3. Midterms are gonna hit you really hard. Better start stocking your liquor cabinet, shortages will continue, comrade.

    4. Voter suppression is real.

      Basing an argument on a completely unsupported statement while claiming the opposing argument is insignificant is the debate equivalent of kicking the opposing boxer in the nuts, counting to 10 and claiming victory.

      You lose despite the opposition having never landing a blow.

    5. Can you provide the name of one person who was suppressed from voting in the last election?

      1. There's this guy...

        “I had a birth certificate, a photo ID, and utility bills proving my residency. But Tennessee decided that wasn't good enough,” Winkie opines in an essay titled, “What It Feels Like to Be Disenfranchised by a Voter ID Law.”

        I had my:
        • valid driver's license
        • student ID
        • voter registration card
        • a copy of my birth certificate
        • my lease

        and that still wasn't enough. I couldn't vote.

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/vice-shocked-to-discover-student-id-and-a-copy-of-a-lease-dont-work-as-valid-voter-id-in-tennessee

        “I didn't know it was possible, but I came away a little more cynical about the voter registration processes and the ways that various states make it harder to vote rather than easier,” he writes. “[W]ithout a doubt voter ID laws are being used [to] specifically target vulnerable groups of would-be voters. I really, truly came to realize that because of my experience.”

        Winkie explains he and his wife ignored Tennessee’s law requiring that new residents “obtain a Tennessee driver license no later than thirty (30) days after establishing residency” because their insurance agent said it would be cheaper to keep their Georgia IDs and to leave their cars were registered in their Georgia-dwelling parents' names. He also says he didn’t apply for a U.S. passport because it would’ve been too costly. Lastly, he explains he didn’t apply for a free Department of Safety and Homeland Security-issued photo ID because it "would have necessitated that I surrender my GA driver’s license."

        “Voter fraud, which studies have shown to be very rare, is being used as a pretext to strip people of the vote. [S]tories such as mine really show that. I'd like to challenge state legislatures to start acting in good faith and taking common-sense measures to protect the vote while also encouraging it, rather than swindling Americans out of one of their most basic rights,” he concludes.

        At this point, I'd like to call your attention to a separate but similar article Winkie authored in 2016, just days before the presidential election, wherein he first alleged Tennessee had denied him his right to vote.

        In that article, he wrote that he and his wife, “planned to maintain our voter registration and residency at my parents’ home, our permanent address in Georgia, so I kept my Georgia driver’s license when moving to Tennessee. … we also continued to pay Georgia state income tax.”

        He added, “Recently, when my parents moved from what we considered our permanent address, my wife and I decided to become residents of Tennessee, so on October 11, we registered to vote in Davidson County. Our voter registration cards came in the mail about a week afterwards.”

        This can't possibly be true. The state of Tennessee didn't implement its online voter registration system until 2017.

        For those of you keeping track, the Vice essayist claims he decided in the summer of 2016 that he wanted to become a resident of Tennessee, but without changing a single thing about his lifestyle. He didn’t register his vehicles in Tennessee and he didn’t apply for a driver’s license. He didn’t even apply for a free State-sponsored photo ID from one of Tennessee’s driver centers. The only effort he put into meeting the state's requirements for voting was when he supposedly registered online, but even that claim is doubtful given it'd be another year before this was even an option for state residents. Basically, he was a Georgian who thought he should be allowed to vote in Tennessee simply because he said so. The Volunteer State didn’t accommodate his whims and he has been crying foul ever since.

        If the point of the Vice article was to get readers to take allegations of voter disenfranchisement seriously, I'm not sure an essay written by a guy who's outraged Tennessee wouldn't accept his Georgia driver's license is the way to do it.

        1. I must call BS.

          When I came to TN, that the lady at the Registrars who knew my neighbor saw I was missing one ID piece to apply for a DL transfer, she said " thats OK dont worry about it."

          I knew who my neighbor was. Good enough.

          And I WASNT A DAMN YANKEE.

    6. You know, don't you, that the places with the longest lines tend to be run by local election officials who are almost exclusively and for a long time been urban Democrats?

      I want every single person who is eligible to vote be able to do so if they choose to do so.

      At the same time, I want to be able to verify that each ballot cast is cast by an eligible voter, who is voting their own ballot, in the district in which they legally reside as citizens, and that they are voting once and only once.

      I want the counting methods to be repeatable and auditable, to help ensure that only valid ballots cast by actual eligible voters are counted.

      I want the people doing the counting (or running the counting machines) to be impartial or at least honest; if there can be no such thing, at least have equal number of partisans working each step (sort of like solving the problem by "one of you gets to cut the cake, the other gets first pick", which tends to result in *precisely* even slices).

      When you have a football game and it seems that the announcers are all pulling to the other team and it seems like the officials all have $10K riding on the other team, and the conference has just ruled 2 of your best players ineligible for something you know they didn't do (because it might be in the conference's best interest to have the other team win), it's very hard to stomach that seemingly inevitable loss. But if you play your best and believe you got a fair shake all around and the other team was just better than you that day, you can shake hands and say "good game".

    7. I wonder if you could answer a number of questions in your next rant against voter ID requirements.

      In most of your complaints, only "people of color" are likely to be impacted, because they are poor, uneducated, and more likely not to have a driver's license. Are you saying that poor, uneducated white people are not going to be impacted equally or are poor black folks disproportionately less likely to drive a car? Or are you implying that only people of color are likely to be be poor and uneducated? I'd hate to think that your passionate support of voting rights only extends to poor people of color.

      Can you provide a real estimate for the number of otherwise eligible voters who do not possess one of the six-plus forms of photo ID and who are for some reason unable to obtain a free voter identification card? Perhaps there are some people who have never boarded a plane or rented a movie, and maybe they also never bought beer, wine, liquor, or cigarettes, never cashed a check nor opened a bank-account. These days, since ID is required with your COVID vaccination, it seems even less likely...I suppose there could be people like that, I just wonder how many could possibly be that completely isolated from our society. And what is preventing them from obtaining one of the free IDs states provide to people for just this situation (don't drive, etc.).

      Can you explain how--even supposing someone manages to fit this profile--they will be denied their franchise? It is my understanding that in that event, they may still cast a provisional ballot. Granted, they must still validate their ballot within two days, and even then provisional ballots are usually not counted unless there is a likely hood that they impact the outcome, much like absentee ballots are not counted unless they might impact the outcome.

    8. Everything you said is complete bullshit and you’re not worth listening to. Just another traitor democrat.

    9. LOL. One side is Evil Incarnate and the other side are Wise and Benevolent Angels sent from Almighty God Himself. Again, all credibility lost.

    10. in 2020, it was your LieCheatSteal party tha did all the "rigging".
      Hundreds of voting regulations were changed, using the excuse of COVID to let less-than verifiable votes be cast and counted, contrary to what had been in existence. There were people like Suckerberg, that "donated" millions of dollars to organizations. to "help" local election offices and boards, almost all with leftist leanings.
      SHIT! This was all laid out in an article published just after the election, as if they felt a little guilty about how they managed to pull of what was obviously a stolen election.
      As I said, earlier in another thread; the extent to which the left had gone, in the time Donald Trump was holding office, was a clear indication that stealing the next election was not outside the realm of what they would pull.
      What the illegitimate recipient of this rigging is complaining about is legislatures, who were usurped to get many of the regulations changed, using their rightful authority to put them back the way the were.
      Fuck off! You communist piece of shit!

    11. How would one party make it easy for their voters to vote without it making it easier for the other party voters to vote? How do you close down polling places without affecting everyone that votes at that polling place. In your delusion our country is divided into Democrat and Republican neighborhoods and precincts.
      By law polling places are by the number of registered voters. If a county closes them a court will open it back up when it is challenged.
      The only incidents of long lines were when voters started lining up hours before the poll opened and it was used as a photo op. Loading up buses and arriving at a poll will also invariably cause a line. If there are problems with voting machines or equipment you can either stand in line and wait or leave and come back. If you want to wait in line for a photo op for the Dems you can do it. The average wait time for normal voting is 2 minutes. Most people that vote early walk in and vote with no line. Fools wait until late on election night and line up at the polls to vote.
      No one is going to make special arrangements for fools.

  18. The latest Covid spin...people are sick of hearing about the FaucXi- demic and now the Politburo Broadcasting Systems running a show about " Pandemic Amnesia."

    Always Attack the Victim/ Messenger.

    Anything that doesnt agree with The Message must be destroyed.

    Its Over- todays musical selection: Retro.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ceb5OVG7k

    1. Oops..."Pandemic Amnesia" is the title.

    2. It's really getting to be one of those really sort of sad situations where a crazy religious nut is still in the fetal position in the middle of the street, 10 min. after he said the world was going to end. As Good Samaritans or mental health professionals help him up he's like "No! The world ended and you all have amnesia!" and the jaded Samaritan or grizzled EMT who's seen the same psychosis 20 times over is like "Sure buddy, we've all had amnesia for, lemme guess, two weeks, right?. Whatever you say."

      1. Word.

        Concurrent headlines today on Dredge- Covid abating and People dont care anymore.

        Messaging fail. ENd of drug co Gravy Train.

        Its OVAH.
        .And now, the stocks markets implode.

        I call 14, 200 DJI

  19. Let's see. The Democrats say the 2020 election was completely fair, so we need to change all the election laws because otherwise elections aren't fair.

    Perfectly clear, to some people.

    1. Yes. They breathe paint fumes.

  20. Bullshit. Democrats have legitimate identifiable grounds for their complaints. Voter suppression is real and Republicans are trying to suppress votes by restricting the opportunities to vote. Republican complaints are almost completely fake and insane. We need universal and mandatory voting in this country. "No thank you I don't want to vote for anyone" can be an option but you got to show up and say that. We need to insure every mfer is paying attention when it comes to our govt even if that's just for the day they vote.

    1. Voter suppression is real

      Voter suppression is real! Birds aren't!

    2. provide an example of voter suppression.

      1. Admitted by the Black Panther activists...

        Anyone recall that? DoJ buried it.

      2. Dude, I just drove past an entire graveyard of suppressed Democrat voters.

    3. Voter suppression is real

      Here are Lord of Strudelz and dingleberrydinners both making the same claim with no support. You would think that one of them could provide a shred of proof. Coincidentally it is the same argument jeffy makes over and over. The talking points have finally made the rounds.

      I do like the addition of the outright fascist 'mandatory voting'. It's an extra layer of distraction.

      1. With the same phrasing. It's almost like they're trying to convince people that they're ActBlue plants.

      2. The real voter suppression is when a legitimate vote is canceled out by an illegitimate one.
        Strazele's LieCheatSteal party wants to ensure there are far more of the latter, than the former.

    4. "No thank you I don't want to vote for anyone" can be an option but you got to show up and say that.

      Show up? WTF? All of a sudden you're not in favor of letting me mail in my non-vote? I can't drop off my non-vote at an anonymous drop box? What if I want to let some person who knocks on my collect my non-vote with a promise to turn it in?

      If you want to have a universal basic right to decline to vote for anyone you have an obligation to make it accessible to all.

    5. Another brainwashed democrat moron. They all need to go.

      1. Yrs. Down " Muslim Elevators"

        Roof to street level all at once.

    6. Does this mean you support transparant elections and audits?

    7. In the 2020 election election officials paid millions by Zuckerberg rejected over 562,000 mail in ballots. Yes, the vote by mail scam suppressing votes is real. In Pennsylvania alone over 372,000 applications for mail in ballots were rejected.
      What we must worry about is the two or three that may have lost their ID and have to vote using provisional ballots. That is voter suppression in action.

  21. Along the lines of sunsetting laws, it seems like it should be pretty fundamental to democracy that you can't make a law that affects an election you're participating in or the election immediately following the enactment of the law. If you're going to fuck with your voting scheme it should be important enough for you to wait several election cycles to do it and still go ahead.

    1. that's exactly why the us constitution clearly states that all election laws must be created & passed by state legislatures.

  22. Thanks for the master class in both-sides journalism. I'm not sure if Tuccille is just naive or blinded by propaganda. It is perfectly reasonable to complain about voting processes before an election and even after. Hey, not many people were happy with the 2000 presidential election and it is still reasonable to believe Gore should have won, but that's a large difference between mobilizing large amounts of people to "stop the steal". It's the difference between playing with fighting with nukes and fighting with knives.

    The reporter straight up asked Biden if the election would be legit. The reporter brought that line of argument up. What is Biden supposed to say? "Oh sure, if the Republicans purge voters, limit voting for urban poor, and make it hard to vote and then use their appointed commissioners to make one-sided decisions everything is okay"? What words or words do you use to describe the process the Republicans are doing? You can quibble over whether or not it is "legitimate" but it is certainly cynical and not right. And claiming Biden is pushing us into dangerous territory is just another form of the GOP cynicism at play. It's gaslighting at its finest. "No problem here. Oh, you see a problem? What, are you trying to steal the election!" Tuccille is very naive or a tool.

    1. no one is making it harder to vote. total bullshit. here's how voting should work, and it did so for 2 hundred years: there is election day and if you want to vote you get your ass to the polling place and cast your vote. that's it -- very simple. you have years to plan your time for election day and if you don't do so then that's on you. no mail in ballots, no early voting, no harvesting -- none of that shit. if you're too lazy or unorganized to get to the polling place then screw you, we don't want nor need your vote. and proof of citizenship should be required to register and photo id should be required to cast your ballot.

      1. I don't see a problem with requested and mailed-in absentee ballots.

        1. Didnt hear about the gross fraud, or dont want to recall it?

          1. You must not be distinguishing between unsolicited mail-in ballots and requested absentee ballots.

            1. Requested absentee ballots are OK...if there is ample way to prove that the person, who voted, and mailed it in, is the one, who requested the ballot.
              That's all the Georgia laws are requiring for mailed-in ballots.
              And, of course that they must be received on, or before election day.

              1. sure as long as it is the exception. good examples are the infirmed, military personnel, people without transportation, etc. but the normal, 90% case should be go to the polls.

  23. This is one of those weird situations where both Biden and Trump are right, but probably don't agree on the exact problems with our elections. Elections are nowhere near as secure or free as they should be.

    I actually like most of the Ds reforms for elections. Election day should be a national holiday. It's ridiculous that we want people to participate while also giving them an incentive not to. I also like the idea of increasing the number of ways you can vote. In my town, my polling place is very convenient, but I can understand why it might not be for everyone. I'm all for people voting by mail. I even entertain online voting as a concept, but concede that there are serious risks with anything conducted online.

    I also think that our current procedures are too lax. Almost every country except America has a voter ID equivalent. Voter rolls are notoriously out of date and poorly maintained. Ds never want to remove anyone and we all know the risk this poses. Almost every case of proven voter fraud, to some extent, relies on casting fraudulent votes for people that fraudsters do not expect to vote that year. 2020 exposed a litany of issues with chain of custody, complete inability to audit, lack of transparency, conflict of interest with state election boards auditing their own corruption, perverse incentives to commit fraud, shadow money coming from god only knows where, captured news agencies printing pravda, etc.

    Real election reform is dire, but I doubt it will look anything like what either party currently imagines.

    1. you may have identified a problem, but your solution is wrong. maybe there are places with not enough polling places but solving that with mail in ballots is ridiculous. the obvious solution is to simply provide more polling places. decreasing election security to make is easier for lazy people is totally wrong.

      1. I think mailed ballots can be done securely. I don't think they were conducted securely in the past election, but physical infrastructure feels unnecessary.

        I don't think that people are lazy for wanting easier options to vote, and even if it is pure laziness, I don't particularly care. More people voting means more people who can be reached and more votes to win. I understand the desire to filter out voters who don't take things seriously, but I can't shake the elitist feeling. We used to have poll taxes and literacy tests to filter voters. Requirements should be there for security, not to ensure a certain quality of voter. Rights shouldn't be conditioned on how they're used. We don't say take away 2A because some people are stupid with their guns.

        1. i don't hear anyone talking about making it easier to buy a firearm. the goal should not be to make it easier to vote. the goal should be a secure & equally accessible voting system for everyone. mail in ballots should be a last resort for anyone and reserved for exceptional conditions.

        2. Look, I want as many people who are eligible to vote and who chose to vote to do so.

          On the other hand, I want to feel strongly confident that each ballot cast represents one-and-only-one legal voter, who is casting their own one-and-only-one ballot. Further, that the voter is casting their ballot properly in the one state and district in which they legally reside. In person voting with ID requirements, plus strong ID verification to prevent multiple voting (or dipping a finger in indelible ink like less-connected countries often do) seem minimal level for this.

          I'd also like to feel that the counting of the votes is being done in a fair, honest, open, and transparent manner. The counting should be audited by a separate duly authorized group as soon as is practical (having the same clowns count and recount doesn't inspire confidence), and the auditors should be at least somewhat adversarial rather than obsequious to the primary election officials (think like accounting auditors who come in assuming that it is quite possible that someone is cooking the books).

          One aspect of this is that we need mechanisms that minimize the potential for piles of ballots to simply disappear (or get shredded) or appear from trunks of cars or back rooms.

          1. i would prefer informed people voting. if you are clueless about civics, government, the candidates and the issues then please stay home. otherwise we end up with a biden in office. you've seen the man on the street interviews asking about the basics of our history and government. seriously, i don't want those people voting.

    2. Let me opine that I don't relish the idea of Postal Employee's Union Members being the primary handlers of ballots. It seems quite easy and virtually untraceable for a postal worker who might collect mail from predominantly Republican areas to simply throw away hundreds, thousands of ballots that pass through their hands (assuming that a USPS union member is more likely to be on Team Blue). Sure some D votes might be lost this way too, but that's a risk they might be willing to take.

      I also do not want to see mass-mailing of mail-in ballots. Ballots should only be sent upon request of a registered voter. Multiple accounts of apartment dwellers getting 4 or 5 different ballots representing former tenants when states mass-mailed. How many of those were filled in by the current tenant is hard to say, but the danger of someone other than the designated voter having the ballots in their hands seems ripe for abuse.

      Also no need for yet another federal holiday, since forty-four states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands offer early in-person voting. The average number of early in-person voting days is 23. That should be plenty of opportunity for people to find themselves a slot in their schedules to cast an in-person ballot.

    3. Our entire processes are from and basrd on eras with much lower population densities.

      Look at the original concept andcpractice if Representation with small populations more or less centralised, and the massive sprawling populations now.

      With mass communications they didnt have or need back then, theres no Representation now.

      The systems a total failure

  24. were all those chicks with pink hats in DC in 2016 tailgating Nats fans?

  25. This has been our modus operandi for quite a long while. Hillary claimed her victory was stolen by Russia and Facebook. Trump claimed it was eebil voting machines. Now Biden is already setting the stage to claim election theft.

    We have a Republic if we can keep it. But the Democrats and Republicans are taking it away from us.

  26. It is interesting that 70% of people don't want 2024 to be Biden vs Trump. Question is what are they prepared to do to change that possibility? I very much suspect that Republicans will dump Trump after the midterms. That in itself may convince President Biden to defer in 2024. At least I like to think so.

    BTW - while we have never had a case of people not accepting a Presidential election, we have had that happen at lower levels. We do have cases, 1989 Wilmington N.C. a white mob threw elected black officials out of office. So yes this could happen in America.

    1. Could you give us a citation for that? The only event I could find that came close was in 1898.

    2. This is not it, but

      Louis C. Wyman (R-New Hampshire) was declared the victor of the US Senate contest in 1974 in New Hampshire by a narrow margin on Election Day (355 votes). A first recount gave the election instead to John A. Durkin (D-New Hampshire) by ten votes, but a second recount swung the result back to Wyman by only two votes. The state of New Hampshire certified Wyman as the winner, but Durkin appealed to the Senate, which had a sixty vote Democratic majority. The Senate refused to seat Wyman while considering the matter. After a long and contentious debate in the Senate, with Republicans filibustering attempts by the Democratic majority to seat Durkin instead, a special election was held, with Durkin winning handily and becoming Senator.

      1. If either truly represented the People, it wouldnt matter whom was voted in.

        They dont. Theyre 99.9999 % owned by the RNC or DNC.

        Until TRUMP.

      2. Different voters or different counters?

    3. Also this one:

      In 1984, Republican Rick McIntyre ran for the U.S. House of Representatives against freshman Democrat Frank McCloskey. Initial returns put McCloskey in the lead by 72 votes,[5] but after a tabulation error was found a month later McIntyre took the lead by 34 votes and was certified a winner even though a recount was still underway.[6] The recount was still underway when the new House was sworn in, and so the Democratically-controlled House voted, along party lines, to seat neither contestant, but to pay them both as though they were Congressmembers. Normally the House seats a certified winner on a provisional basis, but not if a recount is underway.

      The recount was completed by the end of January 1985; the final result had McIntyre ahead by 418 votes. He was again certified the winner and, after Republicans forced a vote on the matter, again denied a seat, though the House Administration Committee promised to resolve the matter in 45 days.[7] A federal recount, led by the Government Accounting Office under rules that were mostly agreed upon on bipartisan basis, found that McCloskey won by four votes, though the task force made several controversial decisions which led the task force's lone Republican to compare it to being raped.[8] Republicans then sough to seat neither candidate and have a new election, but the House, on a party-line vote chose to seat McCloskey causing House Republicans to stage a symbolic walkout, protest with procedural delays and declare the race stolen.

    4. Both of these modern era de-seatings were Democrats denying certified elections that Republicans had won.

      1. If you think that’s bad, wait till you hear about Jim Crow.

    5. Most Republican politicians find Trump repulsive and existentially damaging to the party. But they can’t oppose him without getting constant death threats from their own voting base. It’s a pickle.

      Democrats’ pickle is that Biden is not well loved by anyone and is very old, but it might be even worse to give up the advantage of incumbency.

      Trump has foiled everyone’s plans again by being contrarian to his own supporters and getting vaccinated and boosted, staving off death for a little while longer when his party is waiting around and praying for him to succumb to his lifestyle, even Trump creations like DeSantis.

      1. Some, surely, possibly maybe even "most" but I think you just pulled that out of your ass.

      2. Most establishment political elite find Trump unacceptable. If they don't get to pick who you vote for, they are not going to accept the will of the common folks. They feel the masses are not capable of picking their leaders. They base this assessment on how weak-minded they are and easy to influence. At this time they are outraged and actually attempting to get revenge for the actions of the racist, fascist, deplorables that refuse to bow to their wishes.
        Most people in the US have the government they deserve. When they were given the chance to change the status quo they bowed to the wishes of their masters, promptly bent over, grabbing their ankles and whimpered more please. The people had a chance to stir up and even break the hold of the establishment and political elite and instead they bowed in compliance to their wishes. The chance is slim of another outsider running again after the ongoing treatment of the only one brave enough and will ensure the people continue to moan and complain but ultimately bend over, grab their ankles and whimper more please. Disgusting.

  27. Don't forget Pelosi's post 2016 election tweet:

    "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts."

    Since Trump was banned from Twitter, this tweet was re-evaluated by Twitter...here's some text from somewhere else on this:

    "This tweet by @SpeakerPelosi from 5/7/17 is an illustration of how months after the 2016 election, leading Dems were still sowing doubt about the integrity of the election just as they did after FL 2000. This rhetoric paved the way for the other side to do the same," political commentator Yossi Gestetner wrote.

    Twitter declined to respond to Fox News' inquiry about whether Pelosi's tweet violates its policies on misinformation and election integrity.

    Last week, Twitter concluded that allowing Trump to return to Twitter risked "further incitement of violence."

    Highlighting two relatively tame tweets from the president, one of which stated he would not attend Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, the company argued that they had to be viewed in a wider context.

    "These two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks," the company said. "After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service."

  28. And don't forget that Iowa Democrat Rep who wanted Spkr Pelosi to seat her anyway even though she lost her election...

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims she “has the authority” to possibly expel Iowa Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, despite state officials certifying her victory by six votes — after saying that it was her “right as speaker” to not seat Miller-Meeks in the House.

    Pelosi (D-Calif.) leads the House with a narrow, eight-seat advantage, making it appealing to add another ally, even though Democrats recently called Republicans “seditious” for objecting to electors for President Biden from two states.

    “If you had lost a race by six votes, wouldn’t you like to say, there must be some way that we can count this?” she said at a Thursday press conference. “Now the House of Representatives has the authority to do that under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, to determine, to determine that.”

    1. That would be Subversion.

      Fuck Pelosi

  29. One more...remember in 2016 when multiple Democrats challenged electoral college result?

    1:09 P.M. ET: Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts rose to object to the certificate from Alabama.

    “The electors were not lawfully certified, especially given the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia,” McGovern said.

    Biden denied McGovern on the grounds that he didn’t have a senator’s signature on his written objection.

    1:14 P.M.: Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland rose to object to 10 of Florida’s 29 electoral votes.

    “They violated Florida’s prohibition against dual office holders,” Raskin said.

    Again, despite the fact that Raskin pointed out that he had his objection in writing, he failed to get a senator’s signature.

    1:15 P.M.: No sooner had the Florida question been settled than its neighbor to the north was the subject of another objection, when Washington’s Rep. Pramila Jayapal objected to Georgia’s vote certificate.

    “It is over,” Biden told the congresswoman.

    1:21 P.M.: Rep. Barbara Lee of California brought up voting machines and Russian hacking when she objected following the counting of Michigan’s votes.

    “People are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our election,” Lee said.

    Once again, her objection was denied for the lack of a senator’s signature. They also turned off her microphone.

    POOL

    1:23 P.M.: After New York’s tally was read, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas stood up to object.

    “I object on the massive voter suppression that included –” Jackson Lee began.

    “The debate is not in order,” Biden interrupted. Again, the congresswoman lacked a senator’s signature.

    1. So Russian Agents put Disappearing Ink in someones pens...

  30. 1:28 P.M.: Arizona’s Rep. Raul Grijalva rose to object after North Carolina’s tally. He tried to object on violations of the Voting Rights Act, but Biden shut him down.

    As you may have guessed, he didn’t have the signature of a senator.

    Once he gave up, Jackson Lee tagged him out and tried to object to the votes herself. They cut off her microphone, too.

    “There is no debate. There is no debate. There is no debate,” a visibly agitated Biden said as he gaveled.

    1:31 PM: Jackson Lee made another appearance minutes later after South Carolina’s certification.

    “There is no debate in the joint session,” Biden said, shutting her down once more.

    1:36 PM: Biden must have thought, after five minutes of peace and getting through the state of West Virginia, that the House members might observe the rules. Lee wasn’t even able to make it through her objection before Biden said, “There is no debate.”

    They cut off her microphone again.

    1:37 PM: Wisconsin’s votes had been read. With just Wyoming to go, the finish line was in reach.

    Jackson Lee once again tried to make an objection on the grounds of Russian interference in the election.

    “The objection cannot be received,” Biden said.

    1:38 PM: The final state’s votes had been read. Then entered California Rep. Maxine Waters.

    Taking a play from her own book – she objected to the certification of George W. Bush’s 2000 election – Waters admitted that she didn’t have a senator’s signature on her objection.

    “I wish to ask: Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?” Waters asked. Through House Speaker Paul Ryan’s chuckle and boos from the rest of the chamber, it was clear that there was not.

    1:40 PM: The states were counted, but three protestors started yelling from the visitors’ gallery of the chamber. At least one of them was reciting the Constitution as he was taken away by security.

    Biden did not look thrilled.

    But at the end of the day, despite the objections, Trump’s election was certified by Congress.

    Just like Biden's election was certified by Congress 4 years later.

    1. Then Trump went on to be worse than anyone imagined.

      1. That was weak. Like you.

        1. He infected the entire executive branch with a virus as an expression of his manhood.

          The only difference between him and a bug-chasing homosexual giving the entire executive branch AIDS is that the latter would require a touch more stamina.

          1. And Tony, although a constant whiner of how our government is running, promptly bent over, grabbed his ankles and whimpered, more please and voted for Biden as instructed.

  31. Pretty shallow column which confuses Trump's ego driven election complaints - he personally voted by mail and stated early that the test for a good 2020 election would be whether he won - with Biden's principled objection to targeted rule changes by GOP state legislatures and the age old gerrymandering fucking up voters and now a House locked into polarized incumbents.

    If this writer doesn't get that, he's too fucking stupid to fish.

    1. It’s hard to believe you say these things seriously. It’s just too ignorant and buffoonish. But then, your entire party is predicated on ignorance, stupidity and buffoonery.

    2. Fact: Oct. 24, 2020 during early voting, before embarking on a packed day of campaign rallies, President Trump stopped at a library in Florida's Palm Beach County on Saturday to cast his ballot.
      "I voted for a guy named Trump," he told reporters.
      Propaganda: To keep the sheep riled the left and their ally the fake news told the sheep to think Trump voted by mail.
      Are you sure about the rest of your rant?

  32. Not to mention, that there were riots in D.C. after Trump was elected...

    Police injured, more than 200 arrested at Trump inauguration protests in DC

    Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested Friday after a morning of peaceful protests and coordinated disruptions of Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony gave way to ugly street clashes in downtown Washington.

    At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said the officers’ injuries were considered minor and not life threatening.

    Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad “antifascist” protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk. Officers responded by launching smoke and flash-bang devices, which could be heard from blocks away, into the street to disperse the crowds.

    “Pepper spray and other control devices were used to control the criminal actors and protect persons and property,” police said.

    Anti-Trump protests also broke out Friday in US cities, including New York, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Authorities in Seattle say one person was in critical condition at a hospital with a gunshot wound. Demonstrations also took place overseas in Hong Kong, Berlin and London.

    In Washington, Newsham told CNN the several hundred demonstrators who actively confronted police were vastly outnumbered by the thousands of nonviolent protesters who swarmed the nation’s capital for Inauguration Day and Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington.

    “We have been pointing out all along that this is a very isolated incident, and by and large, everything is going peacefully and a lot of folks have come to the city to enjoy this historic day, not only the Capitol but walking all around the city,” he said.

  33. The violence surrounding Sec. Clinton's loss and the subsequent claims of invalid elections was not limited to just Washington, D.C., either...

    In Florida, protesters swarmed the Capitol rotunda, one hoisting a “Trump Is Too Rusky” sign featuring a hammer and sickle. In Wisconsin’s statehouse, a heckler shouted, “We’re all going to go to war and die thanks to you,” during the formal meeting of the Electoral College.

    And in New York, an elector by the name of William Jefferson Clinton cast his vote for his wife and then came out to make plain that he believes Donald J. Trump won the presidency only because of outside interference in the election.

    “We had the Russians and the F.B.I., and she couldn’t prevail against that, but she did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes,” Mr. Clinton said, his determined smile belying his fury.

    The meeting of the Electoral College after presidential elections has long been little more than a tradition-bound formality, with political insiders gathering to ratify the preferences of their state’s voters and distribute 538 electoral votes. Yet as with so much else in this turbulent election year, even that civic ritual was punctuated by anger and dissent.

    Democrats were unable to persuade enough electors to withhold their support for Mr. Trump. He easily cleared the 270-vote threshold needed to defeat Hillary Clinton, with only two Republican electors declining to cast their vote for the president-elect. But the protests at state capitols across the country offered a preview of a tumultuous inauguration and first 100 days of the new administration.

    Leaders of groups that were lobbying the electors had privately believed they had a chance to sway enough Republican electors to defect, denying him an Electoral College majority and throwing the election to the House of Representatives.

    As for whether Mr. Trump would now begin to offer a hand of friendship to his critics, Ms. Conway noted that he had met with multiple Democrats and spoken with President Obama “several times.” “He said, ‘I’ll be president of all people,’ but the left is trying to delegitimize his election,” she said. “They’re trying to deny him what he just earned. So why is the burden always on him?”

    Democrats vow that burden will only increase.

    “There’s not going to be a grace period this time because everybody on our side thinks he’s illegitimate and poses a massive threat,” said Adam Jentleson, a top aide to the retiring Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada.

    1. The news of the lefties like Michael Moore and others that were sucked in by Russian operatives that led anti-Trump marches across the country proudly leading the march for Putin was a hoot. They colluded with Russian against the US government and the duly elected president. Like the violence and chaos by the left after the Trump win this is not to be talked about.

  34. A Wisconsin judge has ruled ballot drop boxes were illegally used in the election so there were shenanigans in 2020.

    1. this is my shocked face

    2. To be clear, your big problem with elections is that it’s too easy to vote?

      1. Nope. Just too easy to cheat.

      2. Voting should be as secure as banking.

      3. what's wrong with making sure the voter can prove their identity?

        I've never been able to undrestand why this is considered terrible by democrats...

        Actually I DO understand... hah

        1. If by having legitimate elections you could not win, would you not be pissed also?

  35. There are many many cases of election fraud all around the country every year.

    There are many people serving jail time for the frauds that were exposed.

    "DemocracY", whatever that means, doesn't mean you sit back and let the people get cheated.

  36. There is not a single Democrat who would challenge the election of a single Republican who won by getting the most votes. Obviously, the same cannot be said for the reverse.

    That’s even true if a Republican wins by radically suppressing the vote in minority neighborhoods. That we also have ample evidence for already.

    Both sides! is for making beds. In politics it is for bland centrist mayo sandwiches like Meet the Press and, I guess, radical free-thinking libertarian know-it-alls.

    1. "There is not a single Democrat who would challenge the election of a single Republican who won by getting the most votes."

      I snorted my soda out of my nose reading that one.

      1. So name one instance of it.

        1. There's several upthread. You know, Democratic Congressmen objecting to results in individual states.

          That we also have ample evidence for already.

          Yeah, ok.

          1. Trump never got a majority of the votes.

            1. Sure he did. There were 51 elections, and several Democratic Congressmen objected to the result of several of those elections. You may not like that system, but it is the system.

              1. We could also bring up 2004 if you like, where the Republican won the majority of the popular vote as well and there were objections, but I don't think you'd appreciate it.

                1. Your point being that because Democrats sometimes (vocally) object to elections, the laws Republicans are passing are all OK?

                  Why does it always seem it’s OK if Republicans do it but not Democrats, lest they be hypocrites? Do you think hypocrisy is worse than voter suppression?

                  This is the quintessential Republican ratfuck. Republicans do engage in election meddling, most likely outright stole 2000, and every instance of voter fraud you can actually find is a Republican acting on their Trumpist delusions.

                  But if anyone says so, they claim to be justified in all of their nonfactual election cheating claims, because facts don’t matter, what matters is that two wrongs make a right.

                  1. Everything you wrote is total bullshit. You’re either lying or delusional at any given point. Sometimes both. Your fundamental stupidity and sociopathy explain this, and also your status as a drone for the democrats.

                    1. It’s just that the American Democratic party is the greatest champion of capitalism in the world.

                    2. No, it's just that the "American Democratic", AKA the LieCheatSteal, party, is the party of lies, doing the bidding of the father of lies.

                    3. Tony, agree. They couldn’t exist without capitalists from which to steal and then redistribute.

              2. Democrats had an emotional day and moved on with their lives. Trump is still trying to overthrow the 2020 election, and it’s 2022.

                But both sides it’s all the same nothing to see here also Republicans should probably just be installed as permanent rulers.

                1. Democrats had an emotional day and moved on with their lives. Trump is still trying to overthrow the 2020 election, and it’s 2022.

                  Oh yeah, they didn't do anything in response. Just moved on with their lives. The Trump presidency unfolded with little animosity directed by Democrats towards the new president, and the 2020 election was conducted exactly like prior years!

                  it’s all the same nothing to see here also Republicans should probably just be installed as permanent rulers.

                  No, it's that conflating Trump's asshattery with incremental changes whose recommendation predates Trump is rather silly. There's no reason why Democrats can't compete in a more-secure environment, or Republicans in a less-secure one, but the fact that Democrats are contemptuous of any increase in ballot security is a bit suspicious, no?

                  1. Where is it written that Democrats are not allowed to express animosity at the worst president in history?

                    Democrats are suspicious of “increased ballot security” because it is not a secret to anyone that “increased ballot security” is a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist and is plainly an attempt by Republicans to disenfranchise people of color, students, and the elderly. They’ll admit it to your face these days.

                    1. Where is it written that Democrats are not allowed to express animosity at the worst president in history?

                      Yes, they were already aware that he was the worst President in history as of January 23, 2017. They had moved on from 2016 after a very emotional, cathartic day, after all, and were in no way stewing with resentment over having lost a contentious election that they expected to win in an embarrassing fashion.

                      it is not a secret to anyone that “increased ballot security” is a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist

                      This was hashed out ad nauseum in the links yesterday morning. The long and the short of it is you don't care about process, hold those that do in contempt, and are projecting your own cynicism and zero-sum absolutism onto literally everybody else.

                    2. The LieCheatSteal party is not allowed to express animosity at the worst president in history, because every one, that has held that title, from Jimmy Carter, supplanted by Barack 0blama, and, now, Zhou Bai-dung, has been from their own ranks.

                2. Newsweek, 2017:

                  Sure, it's been more than 340 days since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, but there's still one very narrow, highly unlikely and entirely unprecedented way that Clinton could become president.

                  But you never know...

                  If number 1: If Trump is definitively found to have colluded directly with Russia, he would be forced to resign or be impeached.

                  If number 2: If Trump is removed, Vice President Mike Pence would become president.

                  If number 3: If Pence becomes president, he should resign too, given that he benefited from the same help from Mother Russia.

                  If number 4: If Pence resigns before appointing a vice president, Ryan would become president.

                  If number 5: If Ryan becomes president, he should do the right thing and choose Clinton for vice president. Then he should resign.

                  Various groups of democrats were encouraging electors to not cast their votes according to their state's demands.

                  "The Hamilton Electors believe Trump is unfit for the presidency for a variety of reasons and so they believe they can use their positions in the Electoral College to keep him from becoming president— if enough of them agree to help.

                  Their plan is this: Persuade enough fellow electors to join them in rallying around someone else. Because more national electors are Republicans, they assume the alternative would have to be a Republican. And even as Democrats they are OK with that because it’s likely a Republican they might choose— Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s name was at the top of the list — would be better than Trump. (Kasich shot down a trial balloon already, saying in a Dec. 6 statement that while the effort is well-meaning, he thought it would divide the country even further. “The election is over,” he said. “Now is the time for all of us to come together as Americans.”)

                  “I think we all agree that Mr. Trump is a danger to this country,” says Polly Baca of her elector colleagues in Colorado. “I have been involved in every presidential race since 1960 and this is the first time that I am literally in fear for my country because of this particular person.”

                  [In an ironic twist, there were more electors who chose to cast their votes for someone other than Sec. Clinton as instructed than there were faithless Trump voters.]

                  Democrats didn't just give up in 2020 either...

                  Hillary Clinton to Biden: Don't concede if the election is close

                  "Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out," Clinton warned.

                  Biden said in July that Trump would try to "indirectly steal" the election by attacking mail-in ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic, The Washington Post reported at the time.

                  During the Democratic National Convention, Clinton said Trump would try to "sneak or steal" his way to a second term in office. She urged voters to swell polls with "overwhelming" turnout to ensure there is no room for doubt.

                  Campaign lawyer Matthew Morgan said Clinton was "unashamedly trying to lay the groundwork for Joe Biden to deny the election results when President Trump wins."

                  Morgan cited Democratic court efforts to advance mail-in voting as record numbers of voters are expected to cast their ballots by the Postal Service this year because of the pandemic.

                  Morgan said Democrats are "rushing to radically change the way Americans vote 70 days before a general election," and Trump's allies have said widespread mail-in voting would lead to a logistical mess that could botch the election.

                  Democrats "believe they can sue their way to victory, and there’s no telling what other shenanigans Democrats will pull once polling locations are open,"

              3. You only like the electoral college because it lets Republicans win without actually winning. You can pretend like you support it for some other reason, or give me a civics lesson, but life is short, so let’s dispense with the charade.

                1. A nation is more than just the people that reside within it, and the people closest to a land deserve more say over its use than those far removed. The EC takes this into account.

                  If I had my druthers the entire country would use the Maine/Nebraska system and electoral districts would be both cleaner and more competitive, but c'est la vie.

                  1. I’ll not bother asking you to explain why it’s wise for “people closest to the land” to be more equal than others but not, say, people with college degrees.

                    1. People with college degrees who reside in a given locality are given exactly the same weight as those who literally work the land there. It's a statement in support of localism, you dolt.

                    2. Eh, it’s a concession to slave owners.

                      We all have to live under the same president, so there is no rational reason for him not to be the guy most of us want instead of the guy we don’t. I’m not sure there ever was.

                    3. Ah yes, all those dastardly slave owners in CT and NJ.

                      We all have to live under the same president, so there is no rational reason for him not to be the guy most of us want instead of the guy we don’t. I’m not sure there ever was.

                      The state governments have to live under that president as well. Which is something you guys don't seem to think matters despite their presence being fundamental to the very existence and operation of the country.

                  2. If I had my druthers we would aggressively criminalize the practice of Marxism and we wouldn’t have huge clumps of morons like Tony anymore.

                    1. Make political opinions you don’t like illegal, just as the founded wanted.

                    2. Yes, thered just be little Tony Fragments...

                    3. No, that’s what YOU are trying to do. We need to criminalize Marxism. It’s antithetical to our constitutional republic. Therefore it’s practice is intrinsically treasonous. There are plenty of other things I detest. But they aren’t treasonous, so therefore should not be Illegal.

                      As for the founders, if were a horde of Porto Marxists threatening to Subvert the constitution, they would have hung them all.

                    4. "Make political opinions you don’t like illegal, just as the founded wanted."

                      New Rasmussen poll: Democrats polled, by a 48 percent margin, support “a proposal for federal or state governments to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.”

                      45 percent of Democrats like the idea of COVID camps, where governments could require citizens “to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.”

                      47 percent of Democrats are fine with governments “using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others.”

                2. The electoral system goes back to the founding of this country. If you don’t like it, get out. Go to Venezuela. They do things the way you like, and it’s really made that country a huge success.

                  1. I am allowed to believe that the electoral college should be abolished. I’m allowed to believe whatever I want and agitate for it politically. The founders were not perfect, and they’d be the first to find ridiculous the notion that what they built should never be changed. They’d be the last to expect to be worshiped. They knew full well their system was a Frankenstein’s monster compromised at every level by concessions to slave owners.

                    1. You can believe anything you want. Outside of a constitutional amendment, you’re a traitor if you try and subvert it. And it wasn’t a,l about stopping slavery. A lot of it was to prevent faggots like you from making America not something worse than British oppression. Which is what you want to do.

                      Tony, matter how you slice it, you’re a goddamned traitor.

                3. The President of the EU is elected in virtually the same manner. The only significant difference is that MEPs directly vote instead of electors. Elections in each member country are held, and MEPs cast votes for President in a special meeting of the EU Parliament. The MEPs are allocated based on population, but even the smallest member countries have 6 MEPs. It seems that smaller countries in the EU do NOT always want the President of the EW to be decided solely by Germany or France (the countries with the most MEPs, 96 and 79 respectively).

                  The allocation works out to 864,783 per MEP in Germany (96) down to 82,260 per MEP in Malta (6).

                  There is no notion of summing the raw population votes into some sort of aggregate "popular vote", perhaps because the Europeans understand that's not how it works and are happy with the reasoning that led to the allocations.

                  1. I made a statement stronger than I meant. "It is customary that the European Council uses the result of the last European elections to guide their nomination." There is not a separate election specifically for the President.

                    I was more focused on the apportionment, the voting by MEPs, and the lack of an aggregate popular vote as being strongly similar to the US Electoral College.

            2. "never got a majority of the votes"

              Neither did Clinton, for that matter.

              It is true that Sec. Clinton received more "popular votes" than Trump. But not a *majority* (as many have claimed), at 65.8M (48.18%) to 62.9M (46.09%) with about 6M "other".

              But again, so what? EC votes are all that count in the rules of the game. Which she knew going in. She lost 5 states that Obama carried twice.

              If this were a football game, an analogous case might be: Clinton had 658 yards of total offense while Trump had 629 yards. But Clinton lost by 4 touchdowns after having 5 turnovers. She simply failed to do the things necessary to put actual points on the board.

              The rookie Trump strategically and tactically outplayed the veteran--her, the master politician and "most qualified person to ever run for the office"?!

              And he is perhaps the most vilified person (and not without cause) ever to run for the office and before the election Mr. Obama had campaigned more for Democrat Hillary Clinton than any modern sitting president had for his party’s nominee.

              And she still couldn't muster the win?

              And all her supporters can do now is crow about her 658 yards of offense?? Somehow ignoring the fact the the other team had 629 yards of offense, too, didn't fumble the ball, and put points on the board.

        2. I named two up the thread. And there's that Democrat from Iowa who wanted Nancy Pelosi to not seat the Republican who beat her in the last election. Fortunately the Speaker listened to her wiser colleagues and refused that opportunity, all the while insisting that she could do just that. We also had Tenney/Brindisi fiasco in upstate NY this year.

          NYT: Ms. Tenney held a mere 109-vote lead over her opponent, Anthony Brindisi, a moderate Democrat who was seeking re-election in New York’s 22nd Congressional District, following months of litigation and a series of twists and turns over how hundreds of contested ballots should be counted. The Brindisi campaign has argued that several hundred ballots that were rejected should have been counted and it has signaled that it could appeal the election results. Mr. Brindisi could also seek recourse in the House of Representatives, which has the power to order a new election or recount in the race, and potentially unseat Ms. Tenney.

          Is this going to devolve into a no true scotsman kind of thing, where you argue that those instances don't count because the "real" votes were not counted "correctly"?

          1. I’m just wondering if you object when Republicans do shenanigans or if you’re actually justifying that with a handful of examples of Democrats doing stuff, none of which could possibly compare to Jan. 6 and the ongoing attempt to overthrow the presidential election of 2020.

            I’m against all undemocratic election rigging, and I don’t care who knows it.

            1. Certainly I care about when R's break the rules. You started off with "No Democrat would ever..." I used that as a starting point. Providing examples is often the easiest way to demonstrate to someone that their statement is incorrect. If you said "No Republican would ever..." I'd give examples to disprove that statement if I felt it was made in error.

              I voted L for every office on every ballot they appeared on between Reagan and Trump (I voted for Reagan in his 2nd term, which was my first election; I voted for Trump because of the SCOTUS vacancy and in anticipation of more vacancies, set against Sec. Clinton's staunch claim to fill the court with anti 2nd-amendment jurists). Other than those two, I've seldom seen a candidate I supported get elected to any office. The joint shenanigans of both parties in Georgia, plus the Georgia Courts, to keep Liberatarians off of ballots truly makes me mad.

              But see, I went looking for members of Congress de-seated in the modern era, and only 2 were removed for winning close elections (a few were removed for criminal offenses), and 1 more was almost de-seated by Spkr Pelosi. All 3 of those were Democrats.

              Historically, Republicans did unseat or refuse to seat elected Democrats from Congress: "From 1869 to 1900, the House of Representatives refused to seat over 30 Southern Democratic candidates declared the winner by their states. In some cases they weren't seated because the House Elections Committee concluded that fraud, violence, or intimidation had been used against black voters, or, in some cases, that the election statutes of the states themselves were unconstitutional."

              More recently, Republicans initially refused to seat a Democrat. Roland Burris (D-Illinois), due to the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges, was initially refused a seat in the Senate in 2009. On December 30, 2008, Governor Blagojevich announced that he was naming Burris to the seat, and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White registered the appointment in the official records of Illinois on December 31, 2008. However, Secretary of State White declined to sign the Senate's certification form. Burris appeared in Washington at the January Congressional swearing-in ceremony on January 6 to claim his seat, but was denied entry into the Senate chambers.[10] Following an Illinois Supreme Court ruling on January 9, 2009, White provided Burris with a certified copy of the appointment's registration, and Burris delivered that copy, bearing the State Seal, to the Secretary of the Senate.[11] On January 12, 2009, after the Secretary of the Senate announced that she and Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin deemed Burris's new credentials valid, Senate leaders decided to seat Burris.[12] Burris was sworn in by President of the Senate Dick Cheney on January 15, 2009.

            2. For once, I'd like one of these idiots to tell us just how it could have transpired that the protesters of January 6 could have "overthrown" the 2020 election.
              For fuck's sake...even if they had killed every one of the members of the House and Senate, would the nation have just acquiesced to re-installing Donald Trump as President?
              Or would every governor have called on their National Guards to regain control of the Capitol and delay, until new Congresscritters were appointed, the certification of the election of Zhou Bai-dung?
              The ridiculously hyperbolic description of the protest, by the left, is astounding, yet none of them are ever called on it.

              1. “Oh no! Some asshole in a headdress got Pelosi’s gavel! According to the runes inscribed by Odin, now he has the power of the Speaker!”

        3. Stacy Abrams.

          1. Doesn't count because voter suppression is real! It is known.

          2. If you say that name five times in the mirror it will appear. Unless your poll numbers have really tanked.

        4. Governor of Georgia race was not won by Kemp according to his challenger who has never conceded, the 2020 House race in Iowa and New York, Hillary Clinton still insists she won and was cheated. Is that enough? That is just from memory and a quick search would have kept you from making such an embarrassing post. You voted for Biden didn't you.

      2. Power Navage!

        New ASOT product.

  37. So.... The democrats have said every election in the last 20 years was fixed.. if they lose. Or might lose.

    In 2000 the Palm Beach County supervisor of elections (an elected democrat) said they would keep counting until Gore was declared the winner. Democrats pushed forward with multiple unlawful recount schemes designed to advantage their candidate... And when they lost, they said 'not my President'.

    Despite the much larger margin in 2004, they went to the same playbook. In Broward County Florida, Brenda Snipes, the elected democrat supervisor of elections was among the last in the nation to report results, despite electronic voting. She said the election she ran was corrupt because of voter supression. There was road construction on a city street only a mile and a half from a polling place. So racism. In a county with no elected Republicans. It was silly. But she got national coverage.

    The only real case for large scale voter supression I can think of in the last 50 years was 2000, when national media called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle (Republican territory). They said Georgia was too close to call (it went 60/40 for Bush). They said this made a Gore win inevitable, hours before polls closed in the mountain and west time zones.

    Hillary's team not only didn't accept the election results, they organized a protest march. They also initiated a fraudulent claim that the Trump team was working with Russia to rig the election, as a ruse to justify impeachment.

    So now Trump complains (badly, and incompetently) about irregularities. And now we worry.

    But did you consider that maybe they know something we don't? They have a phrase "confession through projection". Why do you suppose Clinton and her team were so adamant that the Trump team must have rigged something? Was it because of their tight ties to the Google Chairman (who set up a whole company, The Groundwork, specifically to manipulate online information from the backend of the big tech companies to favor Clinton)?

    Going in to 2020, Democrat operatives were aggressively making changes to election rules in battleground states. Why? In August, when Biden was up 16 in the polls, Democrat strategists told us that on election night it would look like Trump won in a landslide. But in a few days, after recounts and court cases, Biden would win in a landslide. Why would he do that? Who would even remotely suspect that it would look like Trump was close.. let alone winning big?

    Maybe Biden knows a thing or two about what really goes on. Maybe the things they keep worrying about are telling us more than the words coming out of their mouths. Maybe he knows how important the methods they used in 2020 are to their chances going forward, even though they would be illegal in most states.

  38. Or maybe if:
    -illegal rule changes are unilaterally introduced by partisan officials just prior to the election which severely increase both the opportunity and likelihood of fraud
    -oligarch donors flood partisan districts with hundreds of millions of dollars to bolster the capabilities of party activists
    -one party tells you they're going to get crushed on election day, but in subsequent days enough votes will magically appear in key states to swing the margin of victory
    -the candidate announces he has "the most extensive and inclusive vote fraud team in history"
    -vote counting is mysteriously "stopped" in the middle of the night at the same time in a half dozen "swing" states across the country with one candidate enjoying a large lead, only for the vote counting to resume in large enough numbers with a large enough spread (90%+) to overcome the lead that existed prior to the mysterious pause
    -1/19 "bellwether" counties were won by the announced winner, when no candidate in the previous 60 years had won carrying fewer than 15 of those "bellwether" counties
    -the signature match rejection rate fell from an average of 2-3% to 0.2% despite the massive increase in mail in ballots
    -Time magazine writing an article about a cabal of partisans, corporations, activists, and officials admitting to (bragging about) "fortifying" electoral procedures and information availability to ensure the "proper outcome"

    Those are just a couple reasons someone might suspect, or even claim, substantial fraud. There are more.

  39. Headline: "Biden claims results of 2022 election will be illegitimate unless congress passes election laws"

    All of them, including ones Democrats win? Or all of them, except for any elections Democrats win?

    CNN "Fact-checkers" as usual bent over backward to quash the notion that he said that or anything close to that...

    First, here's what Biden said in response to that first question about whether the 2022 results will be legitimate:

    "Well, it all depends on whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election. ... I think if, in fact -- no matter how hard they make it for minorities to vote, I think you're going to see them willing to stand in line and -- and defy the attempt to keep them from being able to vote. I think you're going to see the people who they're trying to keep from being able to show up, showing up and making the sacrifice that needs to make in order to change the law back to what it should be."
    So, Biden appears to be answering two different questions here -- neither of which are the one he was asked.

    In the first part of his answer, he is suggesting that the legitimacy (or not) of the election is tied to his (and his party's) ability to make the case to the public about the restrictive voting rights measures passed in the wake of the 2020 election in places like Florida and Georgia.
    Then Biden pivots to say that, no matter what, minority voters will show up to vote in 2022, which has zero to do with the original question about whether the election might be illegitimate.
    Because of the questions that first answer raised, another reporter follows up with Biden. Here's that exchange:
    Reporter: "A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of these state legislatures reformed their voting protocols. You said that it depends. Do you -- do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?"
    Biden: "Oh, yeah, I think it easily could be -- be illegitimate. Imagine -- imagine if, in fact, Trump has succeeded in convincing Pence to not count the votes."
    Reporter: "In regard to 2022, sir -- the midterm elections."
    Biden: "Oh, 2022. I mean, imagine if those attempts to say that the count was not legit. You have to recount it and we're not going to count -- we're going to discard the following votes. I mean, sure, but -- I'm not going to say it's going to be legit. It's -- the increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these -- these reforms passed."
    So, Biden is asked to clarify his view on 2022, but appears to misunderstand the question -- answering instead about the possibility that the 2020 election could have been illegitimate. Biden's line --"I think it easily could be -- be illegitimate" -- that is being quoted everywhere today is clearly a reference to 2020 as he follows it with "if...Trump had succeeded in convincing Pence to not count the votes."
    The reporter interjects to make sure Biden knows the question isn't about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Biden course corrects -- "Oh, 2022" -- then gives what is, at best, a confusing answer. He uses an odd phrasing -- "I'm not going to say it's going to be legit" -- and then directly links the legitimacy of the 2022 election to getting major voting reform legislation passed at the federal level. Legislation, it's worth noting, that has no chance of passing before the 2022 election.
    What, then, can we conclude? A few things:
    1) Biden never said the 2022 election would be illegitimate. His quote about an election "easily" being illegitimate is quite clearly him referring to the 2020 race.
    2) Biden never really answers the question he was asked in any sort of definitive way.

    3) Biden ties passage of federal voting rights legislation to the likely legitimacy of the 2022 election.

    In short: Biden was vague and unclear at just the wrong moment. As the former president of the United States seeks to undermine faith in American elections, the current occupant of the White House needs to affirm free and fairness of the vote in the most blunt terms possible. Biden didn't come close to doing that on Wednesday.

    1. CNN also had this:

      What he did say has ignited a debate about whether Biden believes that the 2022 election could well be illegitimate -- so much so that White House press secretary Jen Psaki was forced to clarify via tweet on Thursday morning: "Lets be clear: @potus was not casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 election."

      Methinks the lady and all the talking heads trying to dig the President out of the hole he dug doth protest too much.

  40. "It was yet another reminder that former President Donald Trump has plenty of company in accepting the political process only if things go his way."

    "Yet another"? Unless you mean other REPUBLICANS, then yeah, otherwise, GIVE US A BREAKL BREAK. That comment is COMPLETELY absurd.

  41. OK, conservatives, pop quiz: Who won the 2020 United States presidential election?

    1. We'll never know.

    2. We’ve been trying to find out for over a year, but the democrats have obstructed all efforts to do so.

      1. Bwaa-haaa-haaa!! The audit here in Arizona proved Trump lost.

        1. Not even a little. But feel free to continue writing your progtard slash fiction. It will give you something to jack it too, along with your 8x10” glossy of Trump.

    3. Pfizer executives.

    4. Who won the 1919 World Series?

  42. "Reason" continues to disappoint with its naive views of Democrats. So, Dems "quietly deny the system's illegitimacy"? Wait until Antifa starts burning down federal buildings if Trump gets elected (but not if the Dems win). You miss the fact that conservatives can't even invite speakers to campus without threats of Antifa violence (check out Dartmouth this week). Your dubious distinction between "quiet" Dems and noisy Republicans also missed the pink-hat march against Trump's "illegitimate" win in 2016, and four years of Russiagate lies to disrupt his presidency. Dems are not as "quiet" as you'd like to paint them.

  43. I think part of the problem that is being missed is that the republic backlash against voting didn't start after the election. It started before, there were lawsuits filed in several states prior to the first votes being cast due to the changes in the RULES of the election that they thought were damaging to the election system.

    And you want to know what the results of those suits were? They were dismissed as the courts claimed there was no harm yet as there was no victim as no election had happened.

    Then after the election, voters filed suits, trump filed suits, and states filed suits over the RULES of the election, and the courts managed to hand wave them all away because it's not the courts job to oversee elections, but the legislatures.

    The question boils down to WHO and WHEN do they common people get to say ANYTHING about the RULES that are used to govern voting? Is our only recourse to trust that the people who MAKE the RULES are not structuring the RULES to server themselves? And every time we as the court to say anything about them, they just hand wave it away as non important.

    It's easy to claim that no one brought up issues with the rules until after the election, but that is simply not the case. When we cannot even agree on the rules to use to follow in a democratic election we are in a no win situation. Both sides will simply continue pretending like the rules are broken, but not doing a thing to reach consensus on what the rules should be.

    1. Let's also point out what rules each side think are being exploited.

      Democrats complain things like showing an ID, requesting a mail in ballot, delivering them to a secure location, a signature match are all such burdens that we cannot expect them to be used in an election process. But we accept that in order to buy beer you have to provide an id, to but a house you need about 30 signatures from 1 person, and if you want to get a drivers license you need to show up for your exam.

      Republicans were complaining that not having those security measures makes it easier to tamper with the results, thus harder to trust the results.

      So which side is really complaining about outcomes, and which is once again concerned with the process used being fair?

  44. Also, a very under-reported story is how George Soros funded a PAC aimed at installing more Democrats in Secretary of State offices around the country, to assist that party in winning close elections.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_Project

    https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_Project

  45. This is some funny s..t. MAGA fools convincing themselves that " "Democrats" tried to overturn the 2016 election, when Biden himself as VP squashed the few backbenchers who objected, just like Gore did in 2000. Compare that to 20202 when MOST of the GOP House members voted against accepting the electoral college results. In fact, Hillary called trump late the night of the election to congratulate trump and wish him well, Obama opened the WH and administration to his advance team - as is standard practice - and Hillary who had no official obligation to be there, attended Trump's inauguration, all in the long tradition of honoring our important peaceful transition of government tradition. But unlike Trump, Hillary had balls to face the music proudly while he skulked, and hide and lied - and still is. He would not open up to the Biden transition team until very late, didn't have the ovaries to show up at Biden's inauguration, and continues to this day to admit he's a f..king loser in fact and spirit.

    How you guys stomach this a..hole is beyond belief. How you willing try to rewrite history is doubly so.

  46. When you live in Illinois, particularly in Cook County, you always question results. When Jane Byrne won the 1983 Democrat primary for Mayor of Chicago, the head of the Cook County Democrat Party, George Dunne (president of the Cook County Board), was incredulous. He couldn't believe the Byrne campaign could overcome the number of votes that the Machine had stolen.

    That said, the problem is that candidates often get high-priced pollsters. So, pollsters start making educated predictions as to both the split between candidates and turnout. I think that pollsters can get the split correct, but they can miss on turnout. So, if a stronghold for one candidate is light, and a stronghold for another is heavy, it can throw off the anticipated tall.

    I read a WSJ article that said Donald Trump's campaign thought he did better than they expected. But, since he was 1 for 1 on elections, he couldn't accept losing.

  47. disclaimer: I am not and have never been a Trump or a Biden supporter. JD Tucille I am seriously at the point where I will just not read your articles. Anyone who spent three hours of their time researching voting machines used in the majority of the country would agree. We will continue to have corrupt elections if we refuse to fix the most basic issues. Will Biden's bill fix it? Probably not. Was his rhetoric idiotic? Sure. But your subheading is absolutely atrocious. In our REPUBLIC, we better damn well fix our process if we want to keep it. Furthermore, your commentary on January 6th? READ GLENN GREENWALD. Better yet, hire him. I think he does a better job of presenting an objective libertarian viewpoint, hands down.

  48. "Bad Politicians Think Elections Are Illegitimate if They Don't Like the Winner"

    Nothing truer could be stated, except that 75-80% of Americans disagree. (This is not intended to be a partisan comment).

  49. Never-mind the F'en Elephant in the Room.

    Bad Politicians think The U.S. Constitution is a Joke as well as the entire USA... It's not UN-American to not like politicians who HATE the USA so when those Democratic Nazi's win elections EVERY GD American who loves the USA should HATE those winners.

    Oh what? Too obvious of an answer; needs to be butt rubbed in a Prom Queen contests? The founders didn't base the country on Prom Kings or Prom Queens so get over your democratic nonsense.

  50. Since I'm a libertarian I judge the politics by: Violent or Peaceful, coercive or voluntary, force first or reason first?
    Democracy is brute force of the majority, not reason, not logic, not rights, not choice. Therefore, I am undemocratic, anti-consensus as justification for repression, suppression, tyranny.

  51. If you’ve been wondering about the extent of voter fraud in America, we may be seeing a staggering amount of either fraud or grotesque negligence in Wisconsin voter rolls. A review of the state’s voter roles showed that 569,277 voters registered on January 1, 1918. Of that number, 20% of these people, all of whom must be at least 124 years old, voted last November. Biden “won” in Wisconsin by 20,682 votes….

    If you want people to see elections as free and fair, then clean up the election process and follow the laws as written. If you want change follow the state constitution, which in Wisconsin is only the legislature can change elections laws by a plurality of the vote of the legislature. The executive (Governor) a lone partisan should never under any circumstance, even a pandemic, be allowed to change voting laws.
    This is what gives the election loser not only the right, but the responsibility to challenge the results. If not for themself, for future election integrity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.