Ronna McDaniel and the Media's Election Denial Double Standard
The former RNC chairwoman is in good company.

Ronna McDaniel's tenure as an on-air commentator for NBC News is already over: The network fired the former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman this week after enduring a full-on mutiny from other staffers and hosts. MSNBC pundits Chuck Todd, Joe Scarborough, and Rachel Maddow all criticized network heads for bringing McDaniel on board. Todd suggested her commentary would be suspect, since she had only recently departed the RNC; Scarborough said he "strongly objected" to her; and Maddow said the network hiring McDaniel was like hiring a mobster to work at a district attorney's office or a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener (imagine that!). Watch:
"Bad decisions will inevitably happen. Mistakes will be made. But part of our resilience as a democracy is going to be us recognizing when decisions are bad ones and reversing those bad decisions." Rachel Maddow encourages her colleagues at NBC News to 'take a minute' on their… pic.twitter.com/T1FVMh5KIP
— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) March 26, 2024
I criticized Todd's objections to McDaniel earlier this week. If McDaniel's proximity to the RNC means her credibility as a commentator is suspect, then MSNBC host Jen Psaki should be considered a major liability; Psaki served as White House press secretary under President Joe Biden while negotiating her role at MSNBC. There's nothing particularly new or stranger about this—political communications officials frequently move from government to campaigns to cable news and back again. Anyone who pretends that this was the major issue with McDaniel is lying.
Maddow's criticism of McDaniel gets to the actual heart of the matter: Progressives at MSNBC think that McDaniel's political views and actions with respect to former President Donald Trump are disqualifying. They say that McDaniel was part of Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and for that reason, she has committed an unforgivable sin.
The truth, however, is that McDaniel played an "ambiguous role" in promoting Trumpian election denial, explains Reason's Jacob Sullum. She initially gave credence to wrongful claims by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, and supported Trump's efforts to re-litigate the outcome, but as promised evidence of fraud failed to materialize, she increasingly distanced the RNC from Stop the Steal—infuriating Trump in the process.
Not Just a River in Egypt
In its write-up of McDaniel's sudden rise and fall at NBC, The New York Times credited her for rejecting "Mr. Trump's most far-fetched election-theft scenarios." Nevertheless, the Times chided her for casting any doubt on the validity of the outcome whatsoever, reminding readers that she once said Biden hadn't "won it fair" and had gestured at various fraud allegations.
In merely whining about the supposed unfairness of election, McDaniel is in good company, of course. Indeed, much of the mainstream media seems to have completely memory-holed the fact that numerous Democratic officials and progressive pundits said the 2016 election—won by Trump—was unfair due to alleged Russian interference, voter suppression, and hacks and leaks emanating from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Clinton herself infamously declared Trump an "illegitimate president."
" I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories—he knows that—there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did," she said in a 2019 interview.
Clinton was hardly alone in that belief. When Trump was sworn in as president in 2017, nearly 70 congressional Democrats slipped the inauguration; many of them did so because they viewed the election as illegitimate. The late Rep. John Lewis (D–Ga.), a beloved civil rights icon, explicitly said he would not attend the inauguration because "I don't see the president-elect as a legitimate president." The reason he cited was Russian election interference.
"I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians and others," said Lewis.
He made these remarks during an interview with…NBC's Chuck Todd, who somehow failed to assail Lewis for indulging in election-denying conspiracy theories. In fact, Todd's response was downright agreeable. "That's going to send a big message," said the host.
Then there was Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate for governor of Georgia in 2018, who repeatedly and brazenly claimed her Republican opponent, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, had stolen the election. Those claims were echoed by current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre—before she took that job—who had also called Trump's win illegitimate.
To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court. But they did gripe about their losses, and help inspire public doubt in the validity of their outcomes. According to Roll Call, 62 percent of Democrats believe Trump's 2016 win was illegitimate because of Russian interference—even though the most sensational claims about vast foreign influence on social media were substantially debunked.
Would NBC hosts rise up in fury if any of these election deniers were offered plum gigs at the network? Of course not.
What's the Story?
I found myself completely baffled by this New York magazine profile of Andrew Huberman, a Stanford University professor of medicine and popular podcaster. Writer Kerry Howley—formerly of Reason—tears Huberman apart for dating multiple women at once (without their knowledge, according to them); the piece reads like an attempted #MeToo-ing, but falls short of offering up anything bad enough to be worthy of such a brutal takedown.
That was my take at least, and Glenn Greenwald and Saagar Enjeti expressed similar sentiments. My Rising co-host Briahna Joy Gray felt differently, however, and we argued about it on the show.
Worth Watching
Did you catch the debut of Free Media TV? Watch below. We're just getting started.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's like the staff writers are 3-5 years behind the comments.
Probably a large scale part of the reason th they're shutting down the comments with a paywall. Can't push the progressive narrative with any sensible counter narrative on offer.
I will be sad when it's just me and Fist. Nothing against Fist, obvs.
Words and ideas are dangerous
And THAT is why they couldn’t stomach Ronna. She would be calling them out every night, exposing their ignorance, bias, and hypocrisy. Those MSNBC snowflakes can’t stand the heat! F those Donkeys!!
You, too, Brandon!
There's nothing admirable about hiring an election denier. They made the right decision to revoke her offer.
Has your handle always been capitalized?
No. Could be an imposter
Must have escaped from a zoo...
No grey box on it, likely a new sock or imposter.
"The truth, however, is that McDaniel played an "ambiguous role" in promoting Trumpian election denial"
This is a false statement.
You're full of shit.
How many of the MSNBC crew denied that Trump legitimately won the 2016 election?
Better question is how many still believe that the Steele Dossier has been corroborated, and that Hunter's Laptop was planted by the GRU?
How many of their air staff believe that trump told people to literally inject bleach? How many of those can square that belief with the fact that not a single person even out of the "deep MAGA" set who would supposedly do anything that trump told them to do (or possibly whatever a third-party told them that trump said to do)?
Zero?
I didn't see where she denied an election happened. Trump contested the election by going to court which is a thing that happens all over the country by both sides every election. In fact, if you remember, Dems filed lawsuits in state after state during 2020 to change the rules. Nothing illegal about that.
All in all, a whole lot of money for one five minute interview - - - - - - - -
To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court.
He went to court?!
Oh.
My.
GOD!
The absolute madman. We can't possibly let him get any where close to the nuclear codes.
I feel much better with Brandon in charge of the football. I won't be surprised to wake up one morning to a story of where he thought it was an Atari and destroyed Guiana.
Right. "They" didn't have to take Trump to court. The GOVERNMENT (Swamp) prosecuted Trump for election interference.
Apparently just using the court of public opinion is way more moral than going to actual court.
Yeah, I don't really see why going to court somehow makes Trump morally worse than Clinton or Abrams, who just stuck to whining about it. If anything, I think one could argue that whining and whinging was worse. Trump had his day in court, wasn't able to produce enough evidence to convince the courts, and lost. Meanwhile, by whining about it incessantly - and having a friendly media pick up and repeat those lies and false claims about "RuSsIaN iNtErFeRaNcE" for four straight years - probably did far more to promote an unhinged conspiracy theory among certain member of the public (stupid people) than going to court and losing ever could.
IOW, Trump, who attempted to litigate his claims in an actual court instead of relying solely on "the court of public opinion" to smear the winner of the election should be on more solid ground, morally speaking, than people who peddled conspiracy theories and Russian interference fever dreams for 4 years without ever attempting to prove those theories in a real court.
Of course, Clinton was worse than Abrams, in that she actually got the law enforcement and intelligence establishment to lend the illusion of credibility to her claims.
Clinton and her acolytes tried to persuade Electors to vote for her - not an attack on Our Democracy apparently
Right, Hillary just instituted a soft coup behind the scenes within major segments of the civil service. But at least it wasn't in court.
Yeah, using courts is the first step to fascism. Everybody knows that.
This is, indeed, quite the libertarian take.
It does, however, make THIS a bit more baffling.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/election-lawsuit-backed-by-stacey-abrams-goes-to-trial-in-georgia
Democrats 2016 insurrection was just smaller “The states were counted, but three protestors started yelling from the visitors’ gallery of the chamber. ”
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.
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.
1:28 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.
Todd suggested her commentary would be suspect, since she had only recently departed the RNC; Scarborough said he "strongly objected" to her; and Maddow said the network hiring McDaniel was like hiring a mobster to work at a district attorney's office or a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener (imagine that!).
And here I thought it was because nobody wants to look at her. Silly me.
Maddow?
Madcow just looks like a dyke. This woman’s hands look extra tiny because of the rolls of fat on her neck. Who wants to look at that? Even if she had a nice bod, which she doesn’t, she’d still be a butterface. Can’t tell if she’s using lip gloss or just finished chowing on some fried chicken.
You sound a bit like Trump describing Fiorina all those years ago.
"It's different when I do it" - sarc
"It's ok when Trump does it, but bad when you do it." -BG
Where did I say it was bad when you do it? I only said it was trump-like.
Where did I say it was bad when you do it?
Oh I don't know, when you called me a hypocrite?
The fact that you're a hypocrite is obvious to anyone who reads your posts.
And to those who read only the replies to the slimy pile of lying lefty shit.
Only to people who believe JA and ML. As in morons. If you read what I actually write, in context, without bad faith inferences, then I’ve shit more integrity then they’ve got in their entire being.
Most of their accusations of hypocrisy consist of "You didn't say what you think or believe about this subject, therefore this is what you think and believe. If you argue then you're the liar!" Only a liar or someone with a room temperature IQ could believe that shit.
You can't keep your lies straight in a single thread. You have no integrity to maintain but I guess that lack shields you from charges of hypocracy since it's just whatever you have to say for the attack at hand.
You do t have more integrity than any of us. Maybe more than your pedo pal Pluggo. I’ll let you have that.
You ARE a hypocrite. And a liar, and a drunk, and a pussy, and a rageaholic, and a scumbag, and a little bitch, and….. well you get the idea.
Dehumanizing language
To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court.
Certainly, Clinton was worse.
She commissioned a fake dossier to frame Trump, and hid the source of the funding.
Her campaign admitted this, and paid a fine to the FEC.
this dossier was central to the Department of Justice lending its credibility to the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign.
who took active steps to contest his loss in court.
Petitioning courts is now morally wrong? Elias has 53 concurrent election related lawsuits just this year.
So Reason supports farming election lawsuits to third parties as long as the primary candidate doesn't file them?
Reason supports whatever Koch says, or they don’t get his support.
My state was one of the "sue and settle" states Elias went after in 2020 in collusion with the Progressive AG. That is what people should worry about, those elected officials that can't get done what they want through the legislature being in collusion with a progressive attorney and doing it behind closed doors with the result being taken to court but the outcome is always too late to affect the election results. Obama perfected this technique with the radical environmentalists.
Morally, those all pale in comparison to defending yourself in court, apparently.
https://reason.com/2023/05/16/for-6-5-million-durham-report-finds-fbi-didnt-have-solid-dirt-on-trump-and-russia/
Remember:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/election-lawsuit-backed-by-stacey-abrams-goes-to-trial-in-georgia
And Hillary had several of her own as well as worse antics regarding electors. Is it that they have a bad memory, are uninformed, or just shitty partisans?
This is absurd. Griping about losses based on legitimate issues is a way different from engaging in an attempted coup and lying about the election for years. And now making lying about the election a litmus test to work for the RNC.
Only unarmed coup attempt in history, because the left hasn't been hyperbolic about the entire thing for years.
LOL
So Democrat funded fantasies about Russia investigated by the Obama deep state with perjury submitted to the FISA court that even their hand picked enforcer Mueller couldn't prove were legitimate issues?
Go read the Senate Report on Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. It was very real.
ask H how much uranium she sold to Putin.
Yeah those Facebook ads nearly destroyed our beloved democracy.
Go stuff your head up your ass; that will be very real.
It was real in that it existed. From what was listed in the Mueller report, there was a bot farm on twitter which re-tweeted a bunch of nonsense, and which by some reports also organized the "#resistance" rally in Washington Square Park after the election results were in, and a campaign which bought something like $100k worth of ads on Facebook which were generally targeted at far-right evangelical Christians and implied that HRC was literally in league with Satan (something which almost certainly cost her far fewer votes than publicly and repeatedly calling those same people "deplorables").
There's a reason why out of the indictments which supposedly proved that the Mueller investigation was "productive", all of the indictments for anything related to the election were of foreign nationals, and every indictment of any US citizen or Trump Campaign/Administration member was based entirely on evidence which was known to DoJ before Mueller was appointed.
There was never any need for trump to collude, or in any other way interact with Putin's operatives. Putin had a pre-existing beef with HRC originating from US State Department propaganda operations in Ukraine during the 2014 elections there (oriented toward the defeat of candidates deemed to be "Putin-friendly"). Putin had nothing invested in trump, and would have done the same against Hillary if the GOP candidate in 2016 had been Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush, or John McCain.
As George Carlin (among others) said, when interests coincide there's no need for conspiracy.
There is also legitimately zero evidence that Putin supported Trump over Hillary.
Oh fuck off you dumb cunt.
You really don’t deserve more than that.
Aww, sweet-heart, you forgot your key phrases. You're supposed to call it a "deadly insurrection" that attempted to prevent a "peaceful transition of power."
Also, something about voting against your own economic interests, but you can free-ball that one.
Remember how the street riots surrounding Trump's January 2017 inauguration made J-6 look like a slumber party?
There was no coup.
"...engaging in an attempted coup..."
This is an obvious tell regarding the depths of this lefty shit's stupidity.
The only coup attempt was perpetrated by the politicians you worship.
Right. An attempted unarmed coup after Trump offered up 10,000 National Guardsmen to help law enforcement, was turned down by everyone from Pelosi to Bowser and then told everyone to march peacefully to the Capital to protest. Strange coup that was.
Former Reason contributor David Harsanyi
Jen Psaki Lies About Lying
https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/27/jen-psaki-lies-about-lying/
To be abundantly clear, Clinton and Abrams and ALL these other figures are morally inferior to Trump.
He took active steps to contest his loss in court, and he was probably right, but there is no way he could prove it.
“They” didn’t have to take Trump to court. They fabricated evidence, illegally spied on Trump, invented crimes, and then had the GOVERNMENT (Swamp) prosecute Trump for election interference for practically his entire term. Exactly which is worse, which damaged the US more, and which cost us more money?
Not even close! Get your head out of your ass!
"To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court."
Are you fucking kidding Robby?
https://www.axios.com/2022/09/30/stacey-abrams-lawsuit-2018-georgia-governors-election
Filing lawsuits is the outlaw's way to contest elections.
The bizarre contortions the writers here have to go to in order to say an auto de fe so they are not branded a heretic in journalism circles.
...so they are not branded a heretic in journalism circles.
It's worth selling out for those cocktail party invites.
And hair appointments.
>>Anyone who pretends that this was the major issue with McDaniel is lying.
props for posting a truth
>>To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court
oh, wait ...
It's not like Al Gore took his loss to court or anything, either.
went to a Halloween party as a Hanging Chad.
They are really making a big deal out of this Romney McDaniel firing. She was rightly fired, but for the wrong reason:
In today’s society it is not appropriate to hire people who choose to attend a church founded by a sexual predator. Especially when that church has a huge abuse problem that it refuses to acknowledge or try and fix.
Members don’t have to tithe, but in order to go to the temple they do. So a father can’t attended his daughter’s wedding if he hasn’t payed his tithing. They also believe you don’t get into the best Heaven if you don’t tithe.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
That's pretty god-damned Islamophobic of you, KARtikeya.
Hey, Kill All Rednecks! I don't understand your new name, but I recognize you. You’ve come back with more anti-LDS stuff I would like to address.
First: I would definitely disagree with your suggestion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by a sexual predator. Since members believe the Church was founded by Christ, that is actually super insulting. I assume you are instead talking about Joseph Smith, who was the Prophet through who God restored His church to the earth. Accusations of him being a sexual predator are clearly meant to be provocative, but are actually unfounded.
I am not sure what abuse problem you are alluding to. Of course, there are people who engage in terrible behavior- and one person is too many- but actually, the church is widely regarded as impressive in religious circles for its low levels of abuse. (Interesting discussion of that here- https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/home-page/current-events/abuse-and-the-church).
Finally, it sounds like you are hurting about tithing laws in the Church. You are absolutely correct that paying tithing is one of the requirements for being worthy to attend the temple. That is because the temple is a sacred place in our religion, and like any religion, we believe that there are requirements for attending sacred ceremonies. We also believe that, while God loves all of His children and wants us all to be as happy as we can, there are eternal laws decreed, and that disobedience to those laws will limit the blessings which a person will obtain.
I hope this is helpful! Let me know if you have any other questions.
“ First: I would definitely disagree with your suggestion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by a sexual predator. Since members believe the Church was founded by Christ, that is actually super insulting.”
I’m aware your church believes that, but that’s not true. The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the same Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus in the Book of Mormon is a fictional character. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham have both been disproven. The dozens of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon show it is not an ancient record of the inhabitants of North America. The idea of Native Americans being from Israel was quite common in Joseph Smith’s time and he was not the first person to write a book about it. View of the Hebrews is the most well known example.
“Accusations of him being a sexual predator are clearly meant to be provocative, but are actually unfounded.”
Fanny Alger, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, and Helen Marr Kimball would say otherwise. Joseph Smith told Mary when she was 12 God told him to take her as a plural wife. If you claim that 14 year olds marrying was common back then it wasn’t common. It happened, but it was not common. 20 year age differences were even less common. Also a man in his mid 30s taking a 14 year old as a twentieth wife was not common and was considered wrong back then.
He had immense spiritual and economic power over his plural wives. For how much Latter-day Saints talk about free agency, these women had little to no agency in being married to Smith.
The reason the Latter-day Saints moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois and finally to Utah is partly because the people already living there didn’t appreciate the Saints trying to make their wives and daughters concubines essentially.
Fair Latter Day Saints is the church’s apologetics institution.
Are you aware of the Boy Scouts of America lawsuit involving the Latter-day Saints. Also the Church’s abuse hotline has been in the news after a bishop in Arizona could have prevented a man from raping his daughters, but didn’t. The abuse hotline went to the church’s law firm Kirton and McConkie. It was designed to reduce civil and criminal liability for the church. Not prevent abuse or help victims. Outside the Utah/LDS bubble the church is actually known for having a long history of abuse and cover ups. The case of Adam Steed has been in the news lately. In that case the church and BYU retaliated against him and his family for reporting he was abused and lobbying for tougher laws. I know your church likes to tout how much they care about preventing abuse and helping victims, but the facts say otherwise.
When I lived in Utah the Latter-day Saints seemed to spend a lot of energy on children. Now the majority of members are not predators and are just ignorant of the fact predators take advantage of their church. Many predators see that abuse is commonly tolerated and covered up in the church. They also see how trusting these people are of “priesthood holders” because their leaders have the “power of discernment.” It’s a church that attracts predators and always has.
I respectfully disagree with your claim that the Book of Mormon has been "disproven." You may not believe it- there are plenty of people who don't believe the Bible as well- but that's hardly a matter of 'disproving.'
I recognize you don't like FAIR, because you disagree with them, but that hardly changes your anecdotal claims- and again, even if you go to the BSA lawsuit, you can see that the rates of alleged abuse are actually far lower for church-connected troops than the other troops (this doesn't excuse the actions, nor does it change that I hate the BSA).
I don't think I will convince you that the suggestions about Joseph Smith are incorrect; it seems like you have decided the side you will believe and will disagree with any counterevidence. That's pretty common for people, but I would still explicitly deny the veracity of your argument. While polygamy is an emotionally charged discussion, there are plenty of well-researched defenses of Joseph Smith; but my guess is that what this really comes down to is that you personally have such antipathy towards the Church.
I am sorry that it sounds like you had a hard time in Utah.
I know that with a lot religion it is a matter of faith and that’s great. I am not against religion and think it does a lot of good. However, your church claims the Book of Mormon is a historical record, but no historian, archaeologist, Egyptologist, or anthropologist outside of your Church regards it as one. There are simply too many animals, technology, and people described in it that could not have possibly existed in the Americas at the time it claims to describe. Horses, Steel, Elephants, chariots, barley…
The cases of abuse are anecdotal, but I personally believe there is an institutional problem with abuse in your church. The abuse reporting hotline shows that your church cares more about liability and reputation than preventing abuse, helping victims, or holding abusers accountable.
The Warren Jeffs and Samuel Bateman’s of today are simply emulating your early prophets and leaders actions. Polygamy is a sensitive subject and your church refuses to be honest about how your early members practiced it. It was not to take care of widows or to help families. In many cases it broke up existing marriages and families.
Why do you hate the BSA? Your church chose not to disassociate from the BSA even after years of documented abuse and cover ups in scouting. It only ditched the BSA when it started accepting LGTB scouts. That speaks volumes about what your church’s priorities are.
Neither of us are going to convince one another that we may be wrong. I believe there is ample evidence showing your church is a force for evil on this earth.
However, I admit the majority of Latter-day Saints are good people who are just trying to do what they think is best. I believe they are arrogant and misguided, but they aren’t trying to cause harm.
I hope your family and you are having a nice Holy Week and have a happy Easter.
So…. Your Mormon scout leader didn’t even bother to lube you up first, did he?
Fuck off you America hating groomer.
Oooh, how about you voting and shilling for a guy who molested his preteen daughter in the shower, and then violently raping one of his own senate staffers?
Explain that.
Where have I shilled for Biden? You shill for Mr. “grab ‘em by the pussy.”
Alright so I tried to get through the link about this Andrew Huberman guy. Seems to just more evidence that no matter how emancipated, liberated, educated or intellectual women become they are still primal beings. Hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned. These days they can use surrogates and mass communication to exact their revenge but that underlying instinct is as ancient as the species. Don't get me wrong, I love women. But it's kind of silly to be surprised when women act like women always have. Why Robby and Glenn have bothered to notice and amplify this rather esoteric story is what puzzles me. And I don't see any libertarian angle here whatsoever.
"...neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court."
Stacey Abrams led a lawsuit filed just weeks after she lost her election in 2018. She lost on all the claims:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-judge-rules-stacey-abrams-group-voting-rights-lawsuit-rcna50287
Has Robby corrected his article yet?
You would think you could trust a journalistic entity like Reason would get basic facts like this right. Alas...
Are you new here or just out of a 15 year coma? When was the last time anyone here had any journalistic integrity outside the comment section?
Maddow's explosion has but one cause; she was frightened that McDaniel's ratings would make Maddow look like the washed-up pile of lefty shit which she is.
BINGO!
Double standard at NBC? LMAO. They have no standards whatsoever.
Todd, Scarborough, and Maddow. Like any of them are credible.
Stacey Abrams did have a point, inasmuch as her opponent, Brian Kemp, as Secretary of State at the time, was the chief election official. That doesn't rise to the level of proof, of course. But there's not a right-winger here who would accept an election result where the Democratic winner was also the person running the election.
Now do Kari Lake and Arizona.
Has there been a presidential election won by a republican in the last 30 years that the democrats didn't cry foul about?
"...But there’s not a right-winger here who would accept an election result where the Democratic winner was also the person running the election."
Assertions from TDS-addled lefties are worthless.
Hey shrike... hobbs was SoS in her own election in Arizona that had a ton of election issues. Please try again.
To be perfectly consistent, it was wrong when Kemp did it and it was wrong when the AZ governor (can’t remember her name) did it.
Or wasn't, in both cases...
Sorry guv’na Shrike, your friends are consistently the villains.
"To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court."
Abrams certainly did the same. She lost.
https://sos.ga.gov/news/raffensperger-defeats-stacey-abrams-stolen-election-claims-court
Trump had the security state running cover for his opponent with shutting down discussion of the Biden corruption (the FBI me with Facebook, they got Twitter to shut down the NY Post account and the famous letter said that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation). There's nothing scarier than the secret police being involved in politics. I'm for whatever side they are against.
The 51 were former secret police, actually, and here’s the part of their letter you have obviously never read:
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”
Well, the good news is that NBC will lose viewer share as a result of this move. The few people who still want integrity from their news sources would be put off by this. The left wing audience that might have abandoned NBC will not make up for the increasing loss of network news self exiles. The few minutes of actual news during a half-hour show is not worth trying to ignore the twenty minutes of hemorrhoid and diarrhea commercials. The feel-good segment at the end of all these shows is usually transparent propaganda, like “Making a Difference” actually documents any actual differences made … and so it goes …
Fuck.
Saying the difference between Trump and the others was his taking it to court is actual bullshit.
Others have mentioned Abrams so I won't go there. Hilary didn't take the court route herself, but she used the Green candidate to test the waters of going to court. Al Gores run to the Supreme Court was mentioned as well in passing.
I was hoping that finally an article that would at least place both Trump and Hillary on equal levels of wrong but you guys did find a niggling detail where you can wiggle out of being balanced. I get that going full election fraud isn't worth the shower of bullshit you'd face but has Hillary put horses heads in your beds or something? To say she is morally superior to anyone is just pure insanity.
Hillary Clinton has no morality. She is almost certainly a clinical psychopath.
Not sure why they object to Romney, errr…, McDaniel being on their network. She did everything she could to turn the Republican Party into the Loser Party, either through direct intent or stupidity and incompetence. Only RINOs supported her.
That's a good point: they should be honoring her for her efforts to make the GQP into the virtually unstoppable election-losing machine that it has become since 2016.
The party which distributed "Re Elect Al Gore in 2004" bumper stickers looking to criminalize "election denial" is a special flavor of stupid.
Since the current leader of their party's US House Caucus continues to call the 2016 election result illegitimate, their notion that such denial amounts to the kind of "seditious activity" which should disqualify someone from elected office under the 14th Amendment is fascinating in its own way Not to mention that most or all of their members in Congress who called for rejection of Electoral Votes eleven times (and were overruled by then-VP Biden every time) in Jan 2017 because "Russian interference had made the election itself illegitimate" continue to hold the same seats in the U.S. Congress is interesting in light of their insistence that members of the opposing party attempting the same (and getting the same reaction from VP Pence) in Jan 2021 should be viewed as an attack on the Republic itself.
If the "fake electors scheme" charges ever come to trial, it'd be interesting if the witness list could include the hundreds of electors selected by the Biden Campaign in states where trump won, and the hundreds selected by the trump campaign in states such as California, New York, Illinois, and all of the other states which went to Biden without any dispute, or any of the three hundred and sixty eight electors selected by the Libertarian Party, and by the Green Party as part of the normal conduct of the electoral process. Any quick scan of the papers filed by the States and Certified by the US Congress for any modern presidential election will show that those forms include the names of a full "slate" of electors named by every campaign which had a candidate on the ballot in each State, along with a designation by the State issuing the document which candidate's electors are the recognized ones to cast the electoral votes for that state in that electoral college for that year. Unless the trump campaign was assembling a different group of "electors" other than the ones named in the papers submitted to the National Archives by the State of Georgia, it's hard to see what actual criminality should be assumed to have been afoot in the course of an activity which is actually a routine and symbolic part of the electoral college process (but one which doesn't get a lot of media/public attention).
“Progressives at MSNBC think that McDaniel's political views and actions with respect to former President Donald Trump are disqualifying. They say that McDaniel was part of Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and for that reason, she has committed an unforgivable sin.”
I for one am shocked, shocked! that the Democrats believe in persecuting wrong thinkers. Who could have ever foreseen this?
Not sure who this Sarah Jones is nor what The Intelligencer is, this was random feed item today. But she has faithfully engorged herself on the "threat to democracy" canard. Seriously, it's like she's a huge fat tick and the only thing she's sucked in from the DNC talking points is that one item.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/nbc-forgot-what-journalism-is-for/ar-BB1kHIoO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=c878902235044e65abd7051937bbaed0&ei=60
There is only one way for the network to extricate itself from the trap it is in, and that’s by embracing journalistic integrity. It can be necessary for a reporter to interview subjects who hold conspiratorial or anti-democratic views. But reporters can push back and provide context that makes it clear these views are inaccurate — and perhaps even dangerous. (Perhaps it’s unfashionable to call any point of view dangerous, but the attack on the Capitol should put to rest the argument that ideas exist in some sort of vacuum.) NBC, meanwhile, had hired McDaniel as an on-air contributor, which allowed her a substantial platform to spread her views to the public. That was the entire point of her hire. She was there to provide her perspective. In that capacity, McDaniel would certainly express views that many Americans hold; they’re just wrong and carry the potential to weaken our democratic structures.
"neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump"
To be sure, Hillary was urging Biden to be prepared to do EXACTLY what Trump did: not concede, file legal challenges, agitating for a “battle” before the 2020 election...
Aug. 26, 2020, 7:44 AM EDT
By Rebecca Shabad
WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances,” anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome.
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton said in an interview with her former communications director Jennifer Palmieri for Showtime’s “The Circus,” which released a clip Tuesday.
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee predicted that among several scenarios, Republicans are going to try to “mess up absentee balloting” so that they could get a potentially narrow advantage in the Electoral College.
“We’ve got to have a massive legal operation, I know the Biden campaign is working on that,” she said. “We have to have poll workers, and I urge people, who are able, to be a poll worker. We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places. This is a big organizational challenge, but at least we know more about what they’re going to do.”
She also suggested that Biden should be more aggressive in his fight against Trump.
“I loved hearing Joe Biden talking about bringing people together and leading us into the light,” she said about the former vice president’s speech at the Democratic National Convention last week. “But, you know, it’s a battle and fear is really powerful.”
Ronna McDaniel was hired by NBC News so she could be fired. This is nothing more than a stunt. Ronna McDaniel should sue NBC News for the entire pay and for defamation of character. If there is any justice, NBC News should be punished on top of this.
Personally I don't like Ronna McDaniel, but actions of NBC News are appalling.
I detest being forced to defend her, but NBC is a much bigger villain.
Must destroy democracy to protect it...and not just from Trump.
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voting-north-carolina-raleigh-48f1e61c1988c7083edcdc7bb1eace4a
Democrats sue to keep Green Party off North Carolina ballot
The North Carolina Democratic Party argues the board’s decision to approve the Green Party petition amid an ongoing investigation into some signature gatherers could elevate candidates “backed by an invalidly recognized political party,” which would “directly harm” Democrats’ electoral prospects and their right to compete in fair elections.
Arizona Democrats sue to keep ‘No Labels’ candidates off ballots
The Arizona Democratic Party said Thursday it is suing to keep the business-friendly centrist group “No Labels” from being recognized as a political party with the ability to place candidates on the state’s ballot.
The lawsuit is an effort to keep a third-party candidate from playing a spoiler role in 2024, when Arizona – where President Joe Biden edged former President Donald Trump out by just 10,000 votes in 2020 – is poised to be a critical presidential swing state.
Democrats have also fretted that independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party last year, could also seek reelection on the “No Labels” party line, reducing the number of signatures she would need to qualify for the ballot.
Pennsylvania high court knocks Green Party off the ballot, blocks possible spoiler for Biden
SC Democrats sue to keep Labor Party candidates off ballot
Democrats will 'break all the rules' to keep RFK Jr. off 2024 ballot American Values co-founder reacts to the Democratic National Committee filing a federal complaint over his super PAC's effort to put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on state ballots
Salon.com: Democrats wage legal offensive to kick Green Party candidates off ballot in high-profile Texas races
How the Wisconsin Election Commission Kept the Green Party Off the Ballot
2 Florida Democrats sue to keep Sanders off primary ballot
Democrats Eye New Way to Get Trump Off Ballot After Supreme Court Loss
To be abundantly clear, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor any of these other figures are morally equivalent to Trump, who took active steps to contest his loss in court.
Sorry, Robby, but you are pushing an equivalence.
Indeed, much of the mainstream media seems to have completely memory-holed the fact that numerous Democratic officials and progressive pundits said the 2016 election—won by Trump—was unfair due to alleged Russian interference, voter suppression, and hacks and leaks emanating from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Clinton herself infamously declared Trump an "illegitimate president."
You apparently don't see much difference between Democrats whining about an election being "unfair" and Trump and Co. claiming that an election was "stolen" because of "massive fraud" that they wouldn't and couldn't back up when pressed to bring their fire hoses of evidence forward where it would be subject to cross-examination. McDaniel giving credence to Rudy and Sidney's bullshit claims showed a serious lack of judgement. Voting fraud and election fraud are fucking crimes. Politicians and pundits should not be making those kinds of accusations without being ready to present evidence sufficient to charge people of those crimes right then. Instead, we kept getting promises from the Trump clown car of legal minds that any day now, they would unleash the Kraken and Trump's sacred landslide victory would be known.