MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

It's Not a Lie If Trump Believes It

Journalists struggle to distinguish between deceit and delusion.

Trump campaign videoTrump campaign videoThis week Donald Trump revived his post-election claim that he would have won the popular vote if it weren't for millions of fraudulent ballots cast by noncitizens. Trump said so during a meeting with members of Congress on Monday, and the next day his press secretary, Sean Spicer, confirmed that the president thinks "3 to 5 million people could have voted illegally." Yesterday on Twitter, Trump promised "a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD."

Trump's renewed claims about voter fraud raise a question we will be grappling with for the next four years: Is the president deceitful or delusional? Are his "alternative facts" lies or misconceptions? There is evidence to support both conclusions, and the more charitable one is not necessarily better for the country.

While illegal voting does happen from time to time, there is no evidence that massive fraud of the sort described by Trump occurred in last fall's election. Voting by noncitizens seems to be a rare phenomenon. Ohio, for example, reported 667 allegations of fraud in the 2012 and 2014 elections, when 8.4 million votes were cast. Of those reports, 149 were credible enough to be investigated. Ohio's review found that 44 unauthorized immigrants had voted in those two elections. Election officials from around the country, including members of both major parties, say they have seen no indication that large numbers of illegal residents voted in the 2016 presidential election.

By broaching this subject again, Trump presented news organizations with a familiar challenge: how to describe the gap between his statements and reality. Two months ago, The New York Times reported that Trump had "no evidence" to support his assertion that "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," a claim it described as "baseless." This time around, the Times used the L-word: "Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers," the headline read. A follow-up story the next day was headlined "Trump Won't Back Down From His Voting Fraud Lie. Here Are the Facts."

The difference between an unfounded claim and a lie, of course, is that a lie requires an intent to deceive. The problem is that no one can read Trump's mind to confirm his intent. That is why other news organizations continue to refrain from calling Trump a liar. "Without the ability to peer into Donald Trump's head," observes NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly, "I can't tell you what his intent was. I can tell you what he said and how that squares, or doesn't, with facts."

Although I have tended to describe Trump's untrue statements as lies, I may have been too hasty. There is reason to believe, in this case and others, that Trump's false assertions are fantasies rather than fabrications.

Trump, perhaps the most openly narcissistic man ever to occupy the White House, clearly wants to believe he won the popular vote, just as he wants to believe his historically narrow Electoral College victory qualified as a "landslide." It is therefore plausible that he credulously latched onto crackpot claims about widespread voting by illegal immigrants, just as he credulously latched onto crackpot claims about vaccines and autism. You could argue that his refusal to back down in the face of persuasive debunking shows he is now consciously lying about voter fraud. Presumably that was New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet's reasoning when he approved the use of the word lie. But Trump's stubbornness also can be explained by his emotional attachment to a flattering fiction, a general reluctance to admit error, and a tendency to dismiss information from sources he views as hostile, which seem to include pretty much anyone who questions him.

The Times notes that Trump's lawyers, while resisting the Michigan recount demanded by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, seemed to dismiss the idea that the election was tainted by fraud:

On what basis does Stein seek to disenfranchise Michigan citizens? None really, save for speculation. All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.

Trump himself described Stein's recount efforts as "a scam," even while maintaining that millions of people had voted illegally. His explanation for this apparent inconsistency is that any fraud benefited Hillary Clinton, not him, and that it was not a significant factor in the states (such as Michigan) he happened to win. That is an awfully convenient thing for him to believe, but that does not mean he doesn't believe it.

Further evidence that Trump is sincere comes from an anecdote he reportedly shared with members of Congress who were skeptical of his claims about voter fraud. Depending on whose account you believe, the story involves either pro golfer Bernhard Langer or a friend of Langer's. This fellow, whoever it was, supposedly was standing in line at a polling place in Florida when he noticed people ahead of him and behind him who did not seem like citizens to him. The protagonist of the story was therefore all the more outraged when officials prevented him from voting (although that would have made perfect sense if the protagonist was Langer, who is a legal U.S. resident but not a citizen). The anecdote, of course, proves absolutely nothing, not even about this one particular incident. But the fact that Trump thought it should carry weight with skeptics makes him seem more delusional than dishonest—the sort of person who passes along any evidence, no matter weak, that supports his preconceptions while ignoring any evidence, no matter how strong, that points in a different direction.

A similar dynamic could explain Trump's wild claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. Looking out at his audience, he would have seen the most tightly packed part of the crowd (the part closest to him) and may have erroneously extrapolated that density to the entire National Mall. In his CIA speech on Saturday, he described the crowd as "packed," saying, "Honestly, it looked like a million and a half people. Whatever it was, it was. But it went all the way back to the Washington Monument." That may very well have been the honest impression of a grandiose billionaire who has always been prone to self-flattering hyperbole. Sticking with that initial impression, even in the face of contradictory photographic evidence, would be natural for such a man, especially if he saw admitting error as a surrender to people who despise him.

Or consider Trump's insistence that he saw footage showing "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in Jersey City cheering when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. No such footage has ever been identified, and it seems clear that nothing like the mass public celebration Trump described ever occurred in New Jersey. But he has never conceded his memory may have been faulty. Is his story of a celebration that never happened a lie or an ideologically convenient fantasy?

Trump is now calling for an investigation of something he previously presented as a fact: that "millions of people...voted illegally" in November. If such an investigation actually happens, will he accept its conclusion, as he eventually conceded (four months ago!) that Barack Obama was born in the United States, or will he continue to insist he was right all along, as with the phantom post-9/11 revelers in New Jersey? And if he persists in his baseless assertions, will that be a calculated lie or a sincere delusion?

Assuming Trump is honestly mistaken gives him the benefit of the doubt, but it is hardly good news for the rest of us. A man who draws conclusions so haphazardly and sticks to them so stubbornly presents obvious dangers as president, even with the best motives. All things considered, I think I would rather have a liar in the White House than a self-deceiving egomaniac.

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.

  • Rich||

    Is the president dishonest or delusional?

    "Is the president's general election opponent dishonest or delusional?"

    "Is the president's predecessor dishonest or delusional?"

  • The Grinch||

    Are journalists dishonest or delusional? Is Sollum dishonest or delusional? Trump isn't some paragon of virtue but come on.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Exactly.

    It's Not a Lie If Sullum Believes It.

    In fact, it's headline news if Sullum believes it.

  • Quixote||

    Indeed, the accusations of mendacity and incompetence raised in this article are highly inappropriate and unpresidented; our national leader does not lie, nor does he "draw conclusions haphazardly." I would remind Mr. Sullum that his proper duty as a syndicated columnist is to portray the President in an appropriately flattering manner, and to inform the public whenever he chooses to present alternative facts in one of his important tweets. Soon, hopefully, we will begin to establish certain limitations with respect to the "expressive" capacities of those who do not understand how this works. Surely no one here would dare to defend the outrageous "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at: http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    We have rules here. When you're on drugs, share.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Hey, he really believed there wasn't a skid gen of corruption at the IRS and that if people liked their doctor and their plan they could keep their doctor and their plan.

    Also, you're a racist.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Smidgen

  • Rich||

    Actually, sloopy, "skid gen" is not too bad!

  • prolefeed||

    Is the president dishonest or delusional?

    Yes. Both.

    Next?

  • Zeb||

    Yes, yes and yes.

  • paranoid android||

    "BUT OBAAAAMAAAAA"

    I'm sure hearing that deflection constantly for the next four years won't get grating at all...

  • Squinja||

    Did the constant refrains of 'Bush' get old for you?

    There's a difference between pointing out what someone did wrong (and was allowed to get away with) vs still blaming the guy that's been gone for 8 years.

    Pretty sure trump will be held to standards that would have seen Obama impeached. Fairly or not Trump will be blamed when all the little fires Obama either started or encouraged finally blow-up.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Or consider Trump's insistence that he saw footage showing "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in Jersey City cheering when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. No such footage has ever been identified, and it seems clear that nothing like the mass public celebration Trump described ever occurred in New Jersey.

    Yet John Lewis and the rest of the CBC get a pass when they say they were called niggers and got spat on while walking through a well-recorded Tea Party demonstration...when not a single utterance of the word or a second of video involving spit can be produced.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    But he's a "hero of the civil rights movement" so he gets a pass on tarring an entire movement as racist by way of outright lies.

  • Billy Bones||

    John Lewis suffers from CTE after getting his skull bashed in 50 years ago, so we must excuse his ignorance as a health condition.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Waaaaaah,, he did it first, Mommy.

  • bacon-magic||

    Aggresion noted. Bully!

  • bacon-magic||

    *Aggression

  • PapayaSF||

    But it is known that smaller public celebrations did take place in New Jersey, and mass celebrations did take place elsewhere (e.g. the Gaza Strip). Trump seems to have been conflating the two.

  • Bandito Blanco||

    @Sloopy

    How is this similar? Yes, I suppose, John Lewis could be lying. But Lewis' case wouldn't be a candidate for misremembering.

    Also, we KNOW Trump is wrong about the thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 comments, we do not know if John Lewis is lying.

    In short, they are not analogous. At all.

    I'm never impressed by Whatabout Warriors, but this is was a particularly weak attempt at redirection.

  • The Elite Elite||

    "Trump, perhaps the most openly narcissistic man ever to occupy the White House"

    Have you forgotten about Obama already!? (I wish I could). Anyway, if voter fraud is such a small, insignificant deal, why do you care if Trump is going to investigate it? He'll simply find that our elections are, for the most part, legit, right? I'm curious since I wasn't here eight years ago. Was there this much fear mongering and pant shitting about Obama from Reason? Or is this some Trump exclusive?

  • AlmightyJB||

    The left really, really, really do not want voter id.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    And I wonder why...every other civilized nation has it. Hell, most nations have it. But for some reason it's racist here. Or sexist. Or [insert protected class and -ist ton the end of it].

  • commodious rebrands||

    People showing up to vote in a country where polling stations were targeted by suicide bombers and voting itself could get one killed were nonetheless required to stain their fingers to avoid double-counting.

    But showing identification at a polling station in the US is a bridge too far.

  • Tits & Ass||

    I suspect the left would really, really, really like universal mandatory voting and the right would fight that.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Well it's wrong to compel a person to participate, no?

  • Tits & Ass||

    You could incentive the participation. Carrot not stick.

  • Tits & Ass||

    "Come pick up your $100 check today at the polling office".

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Reverse poll tax? I like it, but wish it were based on our progressive tax structure instead of it being a flat fee. I'd love to see the look on the snowflake art history graduate barista's face when he gets a $5 check and I get a $250 check at the table beside him.

  • ||

    While you're omitting some of the inside details, that is essentially what happens when welfare recipients vote for politicians who promise to raise welfare benefits.

  • Ron||

    you are going to pay someone who will randomly check boxes thats a brilliant way to run a country

  • Jimbo||

    Or your handle. That would incentivize me. (well, not your tits & ass, necessarily. Need pics in order to know for sure).

  • Squinja||

    Except for health care, gay weddings, goat rapings, and whatever else the left decides is the thing to do on any given day.

    And the other side is fascist? I'd say they're confused but we were talking leftists.

  • Cloudbuster||

    The left will take low-information, easily-manipulated voters any way they can get them -- through fraud or force.

  • BigW||

    Generally universal mandatory voting systems lead to elections where only one choice is on the ballot....

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    "Vote for Kim...or DIE!"

    Something like that, no?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Why would I vote for that ass?

  • Squinja||

    If we're taking about the same Kim she has a great one.

  • cavalier973||

    Vote Elaine Marley for governor. When there's only one candidate, there's only one choice!

  • Zeb||

    "Openly". Obama made a bit more of an effort to hide his narcissism.

  • Swiss Servator||

    - a whole bunch of pictures

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "I" "I" "I" "I" "I"....

    Not much of an effort.

  • GSL in E||

    Really? The guy wrote two autobiographies before he was elected President.

  • Homple||

    Before he was elected President? He wrote two biographies before he'd done anything.

  • Zeb||

    And Trump has been promoting himself as a brand for what 30 years?

  • Azathoth!!||

    And Trump has been a brand for what 30 years?

    FTFY

  • Bandito Blanco||

    GSL in E:

    How many "Autobiographies" has Trump paid people to write for him?

    Idiot.

  • Squinja||

    How? When? The press hid his narcissism.

  • R C Dean||

    See, every time I think I"m suffering from Reason Derangement Syndrome, they publish a corker like "Trump is more narcissistic than Obama, amirite?".

    Journalists struggle to distinguish between deceit and delusion.

    The DemOp Media gave up that struggle a long time ago.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Have you forgotten about Obama already!?

    Dude, this is the new and not at all improved Reason. Most of the guys writing here worship the Obamessiah.

    And they never once called him either delusional or an outright liar. Not even after the Benghazi shit where he ludicrously claimed it was all about a YouTube video.

  • Bra Ket||

    it is certainly an extremely competitive field.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing) It was Trump who went batshit crazy about voter fraud.
    Obama never said it because ... ummmm.... HE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

  • The Elite Elite||

    You forgot your meds again.

  • Not an Economist||

    The data doesn't exist that can tell us how prevalent voter fraud is. Anybody who makes a comment on how much voter fraud there is is guessing.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And the reason the data doesn't exist is because the Democrats do everything they can to block any attempt to investigate voter fraud and compile data on it.

    Then they claim there is "no evidence" of any significant vote fraud in the country.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    The vote totals in certain precincts of Philadelphia, Chicago, and other deep blue shitholes are pretty good statistical evidence that the fraud taking place is widespread and significant.

    Unless you're such a complete and total hack that you're going to seriously claim with a straight face that there is legitimately 100% eligible voter participation in those places when the national average is around 50%.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have to agree. There's a lot of smoke that shouldn't be ignored--least of all by libertarians.

  • ||

    You misspelled 110%

  • Jimbo||

    What's very interesting is seeing how many votes the D's get in congressional districts that have large "immigrant" populations. The vote totals are always way down, from what I see.
    Now that may point to the fact that not a lot of illegals are voting, but I'd still like to investigate it...just to be sure.

  • Jimbo||

    To clarify: In CA, my home state, when I see the vote totals for congressional districts I know have a large immigrant population, it seems the overall vote total is much smaller than in districts that are not known for having large immigrant populations.
    Could be they are not as interested in voting.

  • Michael Hihn||

    CONSPIRACY!!!!

    KENYANS!!!!!!!!

    PROGGIES!!!!!!!!!!1

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    HIHN!!!!!!!!!!11!!

  • Michael Hihn||

    The vote totals in certain precincts of Philadelphia, Chicago, and other deep blue shitholes are pretty good statistical evidence that the fraud taking place is widespread and significant.Shameless bullshit for the nodding bobbleheads.

    Back in reality. In a WSJ video interview, some wacko from Heritage is cackling because they found MASSIVE voter fraud .... 7000 ... nationwide.

    Trump is right. He could shoot somebody to death in broad daylight ... and not loser a single cult follower.

  • Bandito Blanco||

    Citation please.

  • Jimbo||

    I live in CA, which has the "motor voter" act. I'd love to see how many illegals are voting in Fed elections in CA. Also, at least one city, SF, wanted to let illegals vote in city/county elections.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do they pay taxes? Why did we revolt against Britain?

  • Jimbo||

    So as long as they pay, they can vote?
    Paying for Indulgences is back too!

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    just as he wants to believe his historically narrow Electoral College victory

    Now who is being delusional? 1/3 of the elections since 1960 were closer electorally than this one. And 20% of all electoral votes were closer.

  • R C Dean||

    More fake news, I suppose.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Sure, but it *felt* historically narrow, and that's what matters.

  • BigW||

    Yep, generally getting over 300 electoral votes is considered a pretty crushing electoral defeat.

  • Bandito Blanco||

    @Sloopy

    Of 58 presidential elections Trump's Electoral college victory margin ranked 46th. In other words, historically narrow.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And being wrong is not always the same as lying.

  • Swiss Servator||

    ^THIS^

  • Tits & Ass||

    Delusional types and liars both lack credibility.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Speaking of delusional types and liars, hey Tulpa.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Every human in existence lies to themselves and screws up. Credibility ought to be assigned to the folks who figure that out and try harder; instead we assign it to those who make the same mistakes as we do and believe the same happy lies. Credibility isn't an indicator of accuracy, it's an indicator of how content our confirmation bias is when we listen to them.

    Such complex. Much insanity. All the social discord. Fucking humans, right?

  • Bandito Blanco||

    That was the exact point of the piece.

  • Bandito Blanco||

    That was the exact point of the piece.

  • John||

    Trump claims there was massive voter fraud. If there wasn't, then go prove it. It shouldn't be hard. Which person is more delusional, the guy who says that millions of illegal votes were cast in a nation with very uneven voter ID laws or the person who dismisses the possibility out of hand without any investigation?

    Trump is of course playing idiots like Sullumn. He is the master of media manipulation and owning the larger message. If Sullumn had any brains, he would consider what impression is being left on the public by all of this. Trump says there was voter fraud, the media takes the bait and dismisses it out of hand. The public is left with the impression that Trump is the only one who cares about fair and honest elections.

    So please Jacob, continue to take the bait and lose your mind whenever Trump waives his cape in front of you. You are just insuring that Trump will face no effective opposition as President.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    If there wasn't, then go prove it. It shouldn't be hard.

    Yeah, proving a negative is easy.

  • John||

    You are not proving a negative. You are proving the positive that the people who voted in the election were lawful voters. IF you are going to troll, just troll. Trying to make arguments is beyond your limited intellectual capacity.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Do you get any exercise besides moving goalposts?

  • John||

    Do you do anything except post words the meaning of which you don't understand? I didn't move the goal posts. I just explained to you what is necessary to disprove Trump and why that is a positive. Moving the goalposts is changing the standard of proof not explaining the one that is there.

    You need to use smaller words and stop trying to use words and phrases you don't understand.

  • commentguy||

    John, the reason people expect Trump to provide some proof of his claims is manifold. 1) He insisted for years on end that Obama wasn't a US citizen, without any proof. 2) In-person voter fraud is extremely risky and low reward. Personation, for example, requires the real voter not to vote, otherwise it's immediately obvious that a crime has been committed. 3) So many of the past claims of voter fraud have turned out to be bogus. Like the 110% turnouts that arose because some dumbass miscalculated, not understanding that two page ballots doubled the number of ballot cards cast, or using the number of registered voters instead of the number of votes. Or the districts with no registered Republicans, where amazingly nobody voted for Mitt Romney. 4) 2 - 3 million alleged illegal votes is far less than the almost 130 million votes cast so to most people it makes more sense to try to find proof of the smaller number, rather than verifying every single vote.

  • Tits & Ass||

    Please bitch.

  • thom||

    I watched the ABC interview with Trump last night and the interviewer just couldn't stay away from the practice of trying to take him down with gotcha questions.

    Trump, of course, responded the way he always has to questions meant to really take him down, which is, in so many words, to tell the reporter to take his question and go F himself. He'll just double down on his answer, or dismiss the reporters question as arrogant elitest conjecture, or answer honestly in a way that the reporter didn't intend.

    When will the press realize that the old journalist games don't work with Trump? That he's not really playing the petty game of Washington politics?

    Someday, some interviewer will actually solve Trump. That's what I'm looking forward to.

  • John||

    The way to solve Trump is not to take his bait and not try and ask him gottcha questions. You ask him reasonable questions that require him to flesh out his position. Do that and his strengths turn into weaknesses. Being combative and telling the reporter to fuck off is good when the reporter is being combative and asking gotcha questions. It makes Trump look strong and the reporter look petty. Being that way in response to reasonable questions makes Trump look unreasonable. And it forces Trump to give detailed answers, which he is not very good at.

    The problem is that the media is so conditioned to ask gottcha questions, they have neither the ability or basic knowledge necessary to ask them. Moreover, their egos are so big they can't let Trump telling them to fuck off go. All they know how to do is take the bait and write pieces like this.

  • BigW||

    They're only conditioned to ask gotcha questions to Republicans and Libertarians (Aleppo...).

    Ironically I think if they treated Trump like they treated Obama, Trump would have no idea what to do next....

  • John||

    I completely agree. Without an enemy to play off of, he would be much less effective.

  • ||

    "I watched the ABC interview with Trump last night and the interviewer just couldn't stay away from the practice of trying to take him down with gotcha questions."

    What are you talking about? Asking the same questions over and over trying to get the answer you want is legitimate, honest journalism.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's obvious what Trump is doing, but they can't help themselves, any more than the bull can.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think either side is really delusional. But they are all just speculating. Both sides need to make some effort to prove their contention.
    And if you are going to claim that serious criminal activity like voter fraud is going on, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the accuser to provide some evidence. As long as both sides are just asserting that they are correct, the debate will be pointless.

    If Trump does initiate some serious investigation into possible voter fraud, I think that will be a good thing. At least get some kind of evidence backed answer, one way or the other.

  • John||

    The problem is the system is set up to make evidence impossible to find. The answer to Trump's claim should be "we should look into that and make sure it isn't true" not "how dare you", which is all Sullumn is saying here.

  • Ron||

    for the lazy and corrupt disproving voter fraud is easier than proving voter fraud since proving takes efffort.
    the lazy will just call the local official who will always claim there is no fraud otherwise they would prove they weren't doing their job. it takes sources and outside investigators to prove fraud and i for one am glad that Trump may actually do something about it.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I guess we're not going with "voter fraud doesn't exist." anymore

  • John||

    Trump says it does, so Sullumn must of course say that it doesn't.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    While illegal voting does happen from time to time
  • John||

    Once every three or four elections an illegal immigrant from Ireland will vote in the Boston mayoral election. Those Irish are mischievous like that.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    The correct response was, "Sorry, I'm a lying sack of shit."

  • John||

    So you have no response. Thanks. It is always nice when someone on the internet concedes an argument.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    You certainly are, but at least you are aware of it. The first step on the road to recovery.

  • Jimbo||

    Why are you picking on the Irish? I thought it was all Messicans doing the illegal voting (that may or may not exist).

  • BigW||

    To be honest, Trumps take on it is more likely to be true than "Russians HACKED the election", that line was complete bullshit, but our oh so honest press wasn't bothered by that.

    Again to the mainstream media: GO. TO. HELL.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    videoThis week Donald Trump revived his post-election claim that he would have won the popular vote if it weren't for millions of fraudulent ballots cast by noncitizens.

    And this claim can be disproved how, exactly? By referring to the cross referenced voter lists and IDs presented at the polls when voters checked in?

    I am not by any stretch of the imagination a member of the Trumpista anti-immigrant faction, but allowing any old stumbling bum to wander in and cast one or more ballots is a recipe for mischief.

  • Bandito Blanco||

    I don't think you get how claims work. If you make a claim, you provide evidence. The more extreme the claim, the more evidence you need.

    If you claim 5 million people voted illegally for your opponent, you have to base that on something. Saying "this claim can be disproved how, exactly?" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. You should be asking, "where is your evidence for this claim?" "What makes you think that?"

    What if he said 10 million? 20? All of Hillary's votes were cast illegally?

    It wouldn't matter because he is basing his current claim on the same evidence he has for those.

  • Swiss Servator||

    +1 flips bird with both hands and walks off grumbling

  • John||

    Is Trump just this lucky or is he just that much of a genius at manipulating his opponents into making fools of themselves?

  • John||

    You don't win in politics or wars by being a nice guy. The left understands that. The right never has. That is until Trump.

  • John||

    What it should be doesn't matter. What matters is the way it is. And yes, the world sucks and it always has. If you want to live by a strict moral code and never compromise, go join the church. Pounding your head against your desk about how hard life is and how it doesn't allow to succeed and also live by your precious morality, doesn't change anything.

  • John||

    The world belongs to the devil sparky. People are sinful and nasty, even when they try to be good. In fact, they are that way especially when they try to do good. Human nature will never change.

  • John||

    No I don't dig. There is a fine line between "I don't want to be an asshole" and cowardice. What you don't dig is standing around doing nothing and letting the assholes run things because you can't lower yourself to do what is necessary to stop them is moral cowardice on your part.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yes, you're a moral coward who deserves the ignominious state you've chosen for yourself.

    Having and expressing principles in the hopes of making things better is what people should be doing

    In the hopes of making things better?

    Hopes?

    You don't 'hope', you do, to paraphrase Yoda.

    Trump, gods damn him, is, as a boorish asshole, DOING more for libertarian hopes than every elected libertarian has ever done. He IS gutting the regulatory state. He IS reining in out of control bureaucrats. He IS recognizing the primacy of the individual.

    For the first time in your life, they served you something besides shit--but you're wanting some tasty corn filled turds.

    You can't fight this with politeness. We needed someone willing to be the asshole who would smear the shit back on their faces. Your way didn't work.

  • Azathoth!!||

    exactly. We can't do it 'this way'--your way-- anymore, Sparky. This time, we kick them when they're down, and keep kicking till they're dead.

  • mr simple||

    "Fuck you. Fuck you. You're cool. Peace, I'm out."

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    While illegal voting does happen from time to time, there is no evidence that massive fraud of the sort described by Trump occurred in last fall's election.


    Here's merely plowing the ground to seed it with justifications for deporting "illeguls"; one type of flower he's planting being "Dem Illeguls Takum Er Elections!" There are other types, of course, all to make a spectacular bouquet to woe his gullible supporters.

  • John||

    Tell us more about how he had no chance of beating Hillary Mexican. The new stuff is good but it is good to hear the classics sometimes.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    So on the one hand we have the theory that millions of illegals voted but not in any of the states that Clinton actually needed to win nor for any of the downballot Democrats that could have probably used the votes.

    And on the other is the theory, bolstered by multiple accounts from inside the White House, that Trump is obsessed with his image and is furious that he's not getting the amount of respect he feels entitled to from the media and American people. This motivates him to strike back at the media and make outrageous claims like voter fraud cost him the popular vote.

    Which seems more likely?

  • John||

    So on the one hand we have the theory that millions of illegals voted but not in any of the states that Clinton actually needed to win nor for any of the downballot Democrats that could have probably used the votes.

    No, they voted in states where there were loose ID laws, a large immigrant community and a large liberal activist community to get them to the polls. They didn't vote in places like Wisconsin or North Carolina because those states have ID laws. So you end up with huge vote totals in states like California and New York. Yes, that didn't help Hillary win the election. But that just means the Prog activist groups were not very smart and wasted a lot of time and energy running up the score in states she would have won anyway.

  • ||

    California- many illegals. Wisconsin- very few illegals.

    So although evidence is lacking, it's at least plausible.

  • John||

    Is it that hard to imagine Progressive groups mistakenly believing that running up the score in California would make a difference?

  • ||

    I don't believe that the Trump hypothesis is true, but I firmly believe that it's not terribly important to find out whether or not it is.

  • John||

    I think the integrity of the election system is important. And thus it is important to know how much fraud if any is going on out there. If the answer is none or not anything significant, that is important to know because it gives the results of elections more credibility. It does not good to have honest elections if the public doesn't perceive them as honest.

  • ||

    The subset of "people actually worried about election integrity because Trump tossed out some brain lint" is a limited one.

  • John||

    It doesn't matter. The point is that we should know that the elections are honest and not rely on faith that they are.

  • ||

    So if the government investigates and issues a report, you have faith in that report?

    It's faith all the way down.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    It seems to me the results of Stein's recount for Detroit would add credence to the illegal votes side. Not everywhere, but certainly in cities like Detroit and Philadelphia where lax voter laws make it easier for the large urban areas to dominate state vote totals.

  • ||

    When Obama got 120% of the voter rolls in 2012 Ii began to suspect that something might be amiss!

    /Sherlock Holmes

  • Cloudbuster||

    As I understand it, California takes little or no measures to ensure that illegals do not vote, and in fact, incentivizes it through its policy of giving licenses to illegals and motor voter laws. Of course you're not going to find fraud if you don't look for it.

  • PapayaSF||

    Exactly.

  • R C Dean||

    Are his "alternative facts" lies or misconceptions?

    Well, the ones that started the alt-facts meme, are around his inauguration crowds. Those alt-facts were in response to a blatantly misleading and dishonest pair of pictures, which Reason happily propagated. The alt-facts were that his inauguration had a bigger audience, both in person and viewership, than Obama. There's a decent case for the latter, although the difficulty of measuring on-line viewership makes it hard to validate (or invalidate). In person? Probably not the 2009 inauguration, but maybe the 2013 - hard to say, since no one seems to want to publish apples-to-apples photographs.

    If I'm scoring, I probably call it more or less even, maybe edge to Trump because the mainstream story was completely misleading.

  • mr simple||

    The two photos were shot at approximately the same time on inauguration day, while the president was being sworn in. What is misleading about that?

  • R C Dean||

    There's testimony from a news people that areas that look open in the Trump shot were packed when he was speaking. There's also photographs from different angles during his speech that show the Mall much more crowded.

  • mr simple||

    Do you know where I can find these photos? Apparently my google-Fu is weak, and no mainstream media site will carry them, obviously.

  • R C Dean||

    This is the best one, I think.

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive.....gigapixel/

    Its hard to compare because the angle and elevation is very different, but you can zoom in on the back of the crowd and it sure looks a lot more crowded than the side by side picture.

  • mr simple||

    Point proven. That's a good shot. Definitely more than the other photo showed. It doesn't look like as many as the Obama inauguration, but it's impossible to tell, not that crowd size matters at all.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    There is reason to believe, in this case and others, that Trump's false assertions are fantasies rather than fabrications.


    Yes. For instance, who can truly believe America is being 'raped' by China through trade? Who can believe there are millions of Mexican rapists amassing at the gates? Who can seriously think Mexico (the country, it seems) will pay for the wall? All of these are fantasies.

    Except... We don't know if he believes any of them and only says these things to bamboozle the knuckle-dragging xenophobes and closeted right-wing Marxists into supporting him - you know, the "Dem Illeguls Takum Er Jebz!" crowd and such. Because the emperor does have clothes - it is those people who see something else entirely.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I've noticed a new trend on local radio. "Trump said '.......', but he has no evidence to back that up." Or something to that effect about everything Trump says.

  • Rich||

    Maybe Trump will appoint an "Evidence Czar".

  • Cloudbuster||

    Next from Sullum: "Has Trump stopped beating his wife yet?"

  • Rich||

    Trump has a wife named "yet"?!

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Soon.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Soon.

  • GILMORE™||

    So basically, this is the president's retort to "Russians Hacked the Election"? 'Invisible Mexicans Stuffed Ballot Boxes for Hillary'?

    i guess what i hope for is a news-media that stops incentivizing this bullshit by gleefully amplifying and echoing (or indignantly disputing) the silliest stuff that comes out of politicians mouths. I think the most interesting news of the last few days has mostly been stuff about 'cutting budgets' - boring, unsensational, but actually 'sort of factual' and material to the issue of 'smaller govt', something i vaguely recall people caring about.

  • BigW||

    Simple thought experiment:

    1) Assume Voter Fraud Exists
    2) Implement procedures to fight Voter Fraud (ok to start with just one, ID Verification)
    3) Implement ID Verification
    4) Compare voting trends/outcomes of the past to the new voting/registration results
    5) Discover if there was fraud or not

    This is incredibly simple to do. And it would prove if Trumps assertion was a lie or not.

    Why don't we just go ahead and do this then...?

    The reason we don't do this is that the Progressives throw shit fits whenever voter ID verification is proposed. Absolute total hissy fits. We know from the video where the interviewer asks progtards at Berkely why voter ID is bad and gets almost unanimous responses of "it disenfranchises black people!!!" and then goes to Harlem and FAILS to find a black person who does NOT have ID, that this argument from the Dems is complete bullshit.

    So what are we left with. Why would the Democrats be soooo resistant to Voter ID laws. The ONE SINGLE CASE they use to argue against it is an obvious, proven fabrication. So why do they fight SO HARD to stop this.

    ..... could it be that they are encouraging, and getting massive amounts of votes from people who CAN'T get a legal Id indicating that they are a citizen????

    The Fact is that Trump is right. The lefties are cultivating the votes of people who should not be allowed to vote and THEY KNOW IT.

  • chemjeff||

    "So what are we left with. Why would the Democrats be soooo resistant to Voter ID laws. The ONE SINGLE CASE they use to argue against it is an obvious, proven fabrication. So why do they fight SO HARD to stop this."

    To whip up their base and drive them to the polls out of an emotional fear that if they don't, Republicans will destroy democracy and institute fascism. That's the big reason.

    ".... could it be that they are encouraging, and getting massive amounts of votes from people who CAN'T get a legal Id indicating that they are a citizen????"

    They could be. But there is no evidence that they are getting "massive" amounts of illegal votes.

  • ||

    I agree that Voter ID should be a requirement. That would stop attempts by individuals to vote illegally - if the individual is not entitled to vote, or is voting multiple times. But do be aware that there are other forms of voter fraud than that perpetrated by individuals, or groups of fraudsters.

    There is also the registration of people who are not qualified to vote, or registering in the name of someone else (ie, a dead person). Recently they caught someone in Roanoke, VA trying to do that - fortunately the name they were trying to register was that of a recently deceased but well-known local politician. The college kid doing the registration was from out-of-town and didn't realize the name he was using would be recognized by the government election officials.

    The last form of possible voter fraud, and possibly the most difficult to detect, are inside jobs perpetrated by local election officials. This is the sort of fraud that many people allege happens in Chicago and Philadelphia. The mechanism for that is old-fashioned ballot box stuffing with forged ballots, etc. That is going to be hard to prove unless you can get one of the corrupt officials to turn state's evidence.

  • ant1sthenes||

    ID verification prevents voter fraud, but it doesn't prevent vote fraud. Meaning, it prevents one means for the individual voter to scam the voting system (but not, e.g., voting in multiple states), but it doesn't stop fraud that is either perpetrated, or actively permitted, by the authorities.

    There's no way that large scale fraud is being committed without official complicity, so if your system doesn't address that, it's pointless.

  • chemjeff||

    "While illegal voting does happen from time to time, there is no evidence that massive fraud of the sort described by Trump occurred in last fall's election."

    This is a true statement as far as we know, even if the Trump partisans with their "alternative facts" believe otherwise. I don't know if Trump is lying about his claims, but I do believe that certain partisans on the right are lying - deliberately intending to deceive - in creating hysteria and fear about the "furriners" and "illeguls" voting. Stoking fears about voter fraud is just another item in the flag-waving nativist political strategy that the right has devolved into lately, along with stoking fears about all sorts of untoward behavior about foreigners and people who aren't "real Muricans".

    That being said, I favor photo ID for voting, not out of fears of Mexican illegals stealing the election, but because it is simply stupid nowadays not to. If we were to start at square one and design a voting system from scratch, there would be no doubt that it would include some sort of photo ID requirement for identification purposes. This is because other systems that require authentication of a person's identity all require photo ID - bank transactions, buying liquor, flying on airplanes, etc. The only reason we don't have photo ID for voting is because of the left's spreading of fear and hysteria about photo ID being some sort of nefarious scheme to keep minorities down and oppressed.

  • Rich||

    other systems ... all require photo ID - bank transactions, buying liquor, flying on airplanes, etc.

    That's why it's next to impossible for poor people, minorities, and "illegals" to do bank transactions, buy liquor, fly on airplanes, etc. And don't even get me started about getting public assistance!

  • Homple||

    I wondered why I never saw a black person get on an airplane, drive a car, buy beer or use a credit card. Never saw one at an ATM either, now that I think of it.

    It's because it is impossible for them to get any form of ID.

  • ||

    Glad that Sullum is obsessing about important and meaningful issues instead of silly stuff like multiple wars, domestic spying, drugs, and gun control.

  • John||

    It is almost as if Trump wants it that way and gives the media shinny objects to play with so they don't talk about the things that matter.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Chaff, a proven technique to deal with flak and flacks.

  • Rebel Scum||

    historically narrow Electoral College victory,

    Hm. 304-221 = 83 = 31.6 % dif. = "narrow"...

  • John||

    That is one of the more curious claims in this piece.

  • California socialist||

    Yeah, he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes too.

  • John||

    And that means exactly nothing.

  • California socialist||

    He seems to be terribly embarrassed by it. That's why he is either a.) lying or b.) delusional. I'm hoping for a., but really can't discount b. It's good though to watch you disassemble. Carry on, Trump flunkie.

  • John||

    It isn't embarrassed by it because it doesn't matter. The fact that NY and California voted in huge numbers for Hillary doesn't change the reality that he is President and most of the rest of the country voted for him. The popular vote means nothing in this context.

  • California socialist||

    Yeah, most of the people voted for him in Midwestern shitholes. It's going to be great to watch him bitch about elites while he gives those same elites a tax cut. will rubes ever learn?

  • Zeb||

    If he's not embarrassed by it, he's at least annoyed by it. Otherwise, he should be content that he won the election in the only way that counts.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't know if he's embarrassed or not, but he sure has used it to leverage an investigation of voter fraud.

  • kbolino||

    He seems to be terribly embarrassed by it.

    How would you even know what embarrassment looks like? Half the time you post numbers here you make a complete ass of yourself.

  • waffles||

    That's spooky.

  • lafe.long||

    Conflating "illegal voting" with "illegal immigrants voting"...

    Priceless.

  • R C Dean||

    there is no evidence that massive fraud of the sort described by Trump occurred in last fall's election

    The system is designed and operated to make evidence of fraud very difficult to obtain, you know.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Ohio, for example, reported 667 allegations of fraud in the 2012 and 2014 elections, when 8.4 million votes were cast.

    While I don't doubt your overall conclusion that there was little evidence of voter fraud is true, This stat and the subsequent narrowing don't do much to advance that claim. Even if there were massive voter fraud, it is likely that the degree of reported voter fraud would be low. Fraudsters would be very likely to conduct most of their activities within friendly precincts where, unsurprisingly, the rate of reporting would be low.

  • John||

    The logic on Sullum's part is a bit curious. He is saying that Trump is delusional for claiming voter fraud and demanding an investigation into it because there is no evidence of voter fraud, which of course couldn't exist without an investigation to find it.

    And Sullum conveniently ignores the recount in Michigan. There we took an entire state and put it under the microscope to see how its election went. And low and behold, half of the votes in Detroit were fraudulent and Detroit cast more votes than it had registered voters.

    http://www.freep.com/story/new...../95570866/

    But there is no evidence of voter fraud and no reason to look for any.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And I think it's perfectly reasonable to launch an investigation. We know of enough situations even in the last twenty-thirty years where voter fraud has been uncovered (boxes of ballots showing up in people's trunks, more votes than voters, new batches of ballots showing up at the last minute) to suspect it isn't entirely rare.

    Sullum would have been perfectly correct to say there isn't sufficient evidence to say there was massive voter fraud. But, absent investigation, it's impossible to go from there to "delusional".

  • John||

    Exactly. And if Sullumn is so sure there isn't, he should want an investigation. What harm could come from an investigation? If there is no fraud, it would just show as much and increase people's faith in the election system and make Trump look foolish for claiming otherwise. Its almost as if Sullumn is afraid that investigation might uncover facts that don't fit the narrative or something.

  • Homple||

    It's amazing how many things you can't find when you don't want to look for them.

  • John||

    Funny that.

  • DaveT1000||

    That linked article doesn't say anything like "half the votes in Detroit are fraudulent". The discrepancies are on the order of less than 1% in certain precincts.

    But I do agree it's worrisome that the ballot totals don't match the number of signed-in voters. At the absolute best, it's a sign of incompetence. At worst, it's evidence of stuffing ballot boxes or throwing away ballots with the "wrong" votes.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There were 667 allegations of vote fraud in a state that is actively fighting against it.

    That's a lot when you write it like that.

    What's it like in states that proudly proclaim that they will not be fighting vote fraud?

  • California socialist||

    Hey look everyone. John has gone crazy in addition to being dumb.

    So much Trump worship on this libertarian website. Have you guys built your mandatory busts yet?

  • John||

    Its always nice to have a fan club, even if they are mentally unstable retards. Actually, I think we have one mentally unstable retard on this board and a lot of sock puppets. You need to use fewer sock puppets and be more judicious about them. You are getting comically obvious.

  • John Titor||

    Hey look everyone. John has gone crazy in addition to being dumb.

    Oh boy, that's projection of a whole other level.

  • California socialist||

    Where's your papers, citizen?

  • DOOMco||

    Right? Every time i just want to get a beer, i have to put up with some third degree!

  • lap83||

    Voting twice is my right, dammit!

  • kbolino||

    Somehow "one man, one vote" was a good enough justification to destroy bicameralism at the state level, but it's not a good enough justification to ensure elections are honest.

    Consistency is difficult for your kind to understand, huh?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Trump's renewed claims about voter fraud raise a question we will be grappling with for the next four years: Is the president deceitful or delusional? Are his "alternative facts" lies or misconceptions?"

    I suspect they're diversions.

    While the press is obsessed with crowd sizes, and phantom voters, Trump is busy getting people confirmed and abolishing ObamaCare.

    Trump seems to be looking at the press and saying, "Here boy, get the stick! Go get the stick, boy! You want the stick? You want the stick? Go fetch!", and then he throws the stick--and the press goes and fetches it like a good boy.

    Meanwhile Trump locks them in the back yard.

  • John||

    They are diversions. Trump just keeps gaslighting them and they keep falling for it. At some point you would think they would wear themselves out. Trump has been in office less than a week and the media is more insane now than they were after 6 years of Bush.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Trump has been in office less than a week and the media is more insane now than they were after 6 years of Bush.

    Between the left on one side losing their shit over everything he does, and some of his more sycophantic supporters screeching about TDS* anytime anyone says anything even remotely critical of him, it's gonna be a long, tough 4 years. I'm already sick of everyone.

    It's fuckin' Obama all over again where all criticism was dismissed as "racist." No need to actually engage with people who disagree with you if you can just dismiss them as racists, or unhinged TDS sufferers. Time to start drinking heavily.

    *It doesn't help that many of the more insane leftist twits really do have TDS, but the charge is thrown around too much. Just as the left accuses anyone to the right Trotsky of being "Nazis," Trump sycophants accusing anyone who criticizes Trump, even when the criticism is legitimate and well deserved, of being unhinged "TDS sufferers" is going to make the term lose all meaning.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, there's some false positives of TDS out there. But in a disinformation-packed environment, its hard to know who's crazy and who's just badly informed.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That does seem to be a pattern.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Obligatory*

    *Probably already been posted, but I don't have time to dig through 100+ comments worth of monkey shit fights at the zoo, so sorry if this is a repeat:

  • Ken Shultz||

    You love monkey shit fights, and you love the zoo.

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • John||

    Never were truer words spoken. And the scene in that episode where Jerry takes the polygraph on whether he watches 90210 is one of the best in the history of television.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    It's Melrose!

  • John||

    My mistake. It is still funny as hell though.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    All things considered, I think I would rather have a liar in the White House than a self-deceiving egomaniac.

    I KNEW IT!!1!!!!! YOU WERE "WITH HER" THE WHOLE TIME!11!!!!!! CUCK!!!!!!!! FAGGIT!!1!!1!!!1!!! TDS!11!!!!!!!!! KOOOOOZZZZZZZMMMMMMOOOOOOOO!!!!11!!111!!!!!!! /I assume at least 50% of the comments in this shit show of a thread

  • R C Dean||

    Its not like they are mutually exclusive, or even new on the scene.

    The thing about Trump is, I believe he is more or less consciously adopting personas for strategic purposes. That can be a useful tool, but also a dangerous game, especially when you live in a bubble like the President does. Sorting "strategic persona" from "delusional nutter" is not easy.

    The more people he has in his immediate circle who aren't academic/government insiders, though, the more permeable the bubble might be. Obama's bubble was hermetically sealed. We'll see about Trump's.

  • John Titor||

    Um, is it bad if I have to ask which is which?

  • Ron||

    Massive voter fraud just google Michigan recount you morons.
    Just because someone told you it doesn't exist is foolish when you can get multiple examples online.
    who is doing the real Lying here, it sure isn't Trump.

  • mr simple||

    There is a lot of bending over backwards to excuse Trump fantasies in this thread, more than I would think among a libertarian crowd. You guys do realize that "Obama did it, too," is no more of an argument than the "Bush did it, too," we've heard the last 8 years, right? They can both be bad. And yes, sending his mouthpiece out in a special session just to argue crowd size, a worthless topic, is indicative of narcissism. It seems to be very important, more than normal, to him that he never be shown in a negative light. So much that he's willing to push false narratives and/or beliefs. Appointing a couple potentially good department heads and promises of some minor department/budget cuts aren't really enough to go around defending everything he does and decrying everyone who speaks against him.

  • R C Dean||

    You guys do realize that "Obama did it, too," is no more of an argument than the "Bush did it, too," we've heard the last 8 years, right?

    Its not really the same. The "Obama dun it, too" is deployed, so far, to point out the grotesque double standard. It wasn't some much "Bush did it, too" as "Its all Bush's fault", to blame him for everything that didn't go right during the Obama administration.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    There is a lot of bending over backwards to excuse Trump fantasies in this thread, more than I would think among a libertarian crowd

    From a libertarian point of view, why would Trump's fantasies concern me? If he believes there is massive voter fraud and wants to investigate it, why would I have a problem with that?

    It seems to be very important, more than normal, to him that he never be shown in a negative light. So much that he's willing to push false narratives and/or beliefs.

    Again, so what? He's a bit of a prima donna. Why should I care? On the scale of personal presidential failings, from blowjobs in the oval office to "gone fishing" type presidents, that seems hardly like more than a blip.

    Now, I don't particularly like Trump, and I disagree with a lot of his policies. But I could have said the same for every president I have ever lived under. People who want that job just don't tend to be nice people.

    So far, Trump has done two kinds of things. (1) He has said a lot of stupid things, (2) He has been doing what he promised during the campaign. If anything, that's a better track record than his predecessors.

  • ||

    "Journalists struggle to distinguish between deceit and delusion."

    No they don't. They are experts at both.

  • The Fusionist||

    Apparently other posters have made this same point...the Democrats should simply call Trump's bluff and demand a full investigation of the election, just to show the public that there wasn't any fraud (or not much, anyway).

    What better way to show how delusional Trump is? What better way to score political points?

    I mean, the Dems have nothing to hide, right?

  • The Fusionist||

    I have a Cathy Youngish suspicion (the truth's in the middle!) that Trump is exaggerating but that there *have* been shenanigans the Dems don't want uncovered.

    I could be wrong on either point, of course.

  • R C Dean||

    I think that's right. Trump has maneuvered them into a place where, by challenging his exaggeration, they set themselves up for an investigation that will confirm that he exaggerated, but will also show there's a crapload more fraud than we have been led to believe. That's a win for Trump.

  • The Fusionist||

    HILLARY GOT MORE POPULAR VOTES, ACCORDING TO INVESTIGATORS

    /NY Times headline, p. A1

    "the investigation also showed what it called 'troubling' patterns of voter fraud"

    /continuation of story on p. B17

  • lap83||

    It's so nice for her how investigations always go her way. Just goes to show how upstanding she is.

  • The Fusionist||

    Just to be clear, that was a hypothetical headline.

  • mr simple||

    What, at this point, does it matter?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    It's so nice for her how investigations always go her way. Just goes to show how upstanding she is.

    However, it doesn't matter. Hillary is history. She is decrepit, massively disliked, and she has had her balls cut off (or whatever the non-sexist female equivalent is) when the Clinton Foundation closed.

    I'm secretly hoping that she runs for mayor of NYC, but I don't think she's even up for that anymore.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yep. There's "no evidence" of voter fraud because no one has really put in the effort to find it, and the people best positioned to do so are the ones who are benefiting from it.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Even if it finds nothing, the howling and screeching among progressives would make great press for Trump: a) they fall back on their already invalidated accusations of racism, which at this point is hurting them much more than it hurts anyone else, and b) it paints them as fundamentally shrill and unreasonable, opposing common-sense (really common-sense, not slow-walking nationwide gun confiscation common-sense) requirements for voting.

  • Michael Hihn||

    C'mon, Jacob. It's obvious. Trump is autistic, from a vaccine administered by Pamela Geller and the current ruler of Kenya.

    I'm seeing a total lack of conscience which --- along with personally charming -- is the definition of a psychopath.
    He'll be impeached as soon as the GOP Congress sees the threat of losing power in 2018. But that gives us Pence, an extreme socon who will also doom them.

    Almost 10 million voted against him. Plus as many as 5 million anti-Hillary votes.
    He was nominated with less than 40% of the GOP vote -- about the same as Republican birthers.
    His Electoral "landslide" was the third lowest on history.
    And -- so far - his party suffers the same arrogance of power as the Dems in 2009.

    If only Johnson/Weld had run on an actual policy platform -- instead of sucking up to the libertarian establishment.
    Trump was elected by Ron Paul, Nick Gillespie and Michael Tanner.

  • ||

    List, Hihn. Tick-tock.

  • John Titor||

    He already provided it Tonio, like a dozen times. You placed 3rd, you bastard, I got 4th.

  • bacon-magic||

    Complete one. Not that partial piece of crap. We all want to be famous.

  • The Fusionist||

    No, just rich.

  • kbolino||

    Maybe his sockpuppet accounts will post the rest of the list. We'll have to wait until "John Galt II" and "David Nolan" chime in before we'll get the whole thing.

    Also, I guess I'm just one of the nameless stalkers.

  • bacon-magic||

    Ve muzt havz da LIST™!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    It's obvious. Trump is autistic

    And you're senile; that isn't stopping you now is it?

  • PapayaSF||

    Why wouldn't this work?

    1) Get the list of illegals in California who have been issued drivers licenses, and given the Motor Voter opportunity to register to vote by checking a box without showing proof of citizenship.

    2) Get the list of people who voted in California.

    3) See how many people appear on both lists.

  • Radioactive||

    what a strategy...say something outrageous, and watch the media and pundits heads spin around and their eyes bug out...I swear he does it just to get this kind of reaction, I mean it is serious entertainment

  • KLV||

    A Peer-Reviewed Study in the journal, Electoral Studies, entitled, "Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?", found that over 1 MILLION non-citizens voted in the 2008 Elections. That is not nearly as much as Donald Trump claims but it is hardly a "rare phenomenon" as the article claims.
    ..........
    From the article: "While illegal voting does happen from time to time, there is no evidence that massive fraud of the sort described by Trump occurred in last fall's election. Voting by noncitizens seems to be a rare phenomenon."
    --------

    Electoral Studies Journal
    Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?
    Jesse T. Richman a, *, Gulshan A. Chattha b, c, 1, David C. Earnest b
    a Department of Political Science, Old Dominion University, BAL 7000, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
    b Old Dominion University, USA
    c George Mason University, USA
    journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/electstud

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/w.....-et-al.pdf

  • Rational Exuberance||

    While illegal voting does happen from time to time, there is no evidence that massive fraud of the sort described by Trump occurred in last fall's election

    We wouldn't have to worry about how much evidence there is if our voter registration and identification systems were up to international standards.

    And you have to wonder about the motivations of people who object to having reasonable identification requirements for voting.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    All things considered, I think I would rather have a liar in the White House than a self-deceiving egomaniac.

    I happen to disagree. I very much prefer the president whose lies are transparent to the president whose lies are carefully constructed to successfully deceive voters.

  • Toots shor||

    In other words, don't confuse a salesman's puffery with fraud (lying).

  • Lowen||

    Obama opened the borders and told every state not to prevent illegals from voting. HUM!!!!!!

  • Lowen||

    It works been doing it for about 6 months

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online