Can We Please Be Done with This Already?

I wish I could vote for Republicans again, but every day Trump sticks around makes this less likely.


Kevin Williamson urges everyone to read Noah Rothman, and I agree.

From Noah Rothman:

[Trump's] plan is as diabolical as it is nonsensical. It is somehow more disdainful of the conventions that have preserved American comity than even progressive schemes to pack the courts, destroy the character of the Senate, and add new states to the Union. At least those advocating such harebrained schemes acknowledge the institutional obstacles in their path. For Trump's allies, the biggest impediment to achieving their objective—the votes of hundreds of thousands of Americans—are simply waved away….

There is no modern analog for the display Republicans are engaging in—no parallel to which the right can point and claim their actions are justified by the standards of decency Democrats violated long ago. This is new. And though it may soon become more dangerous than it is today, the flailing tantrum in which the president's final phalanx is engaged isn't frightening as much as it is pathetic.

And from Kevin Williamson:

And what we are seeing now, in the twilight of Trump's kookery, is the merger of QAnon, the Republican Party, and the large part of the conservative movement that earns its bread by peddling miracle veggie pills to gullible elderly people on the radio…. Rather than ask whether conspiracy kookery is relevant to Republican politics at this moment, it would be better to ask if there is anything else to Republican politics at this moment. And maybe there is, but not much.

I'm a Georgia voter who -- as a believer in the benefits of divided government -- could have been persuaded to vote for the two Republican candidates for Senate in their runoff elections. I came of age politically in the era of Reagan and fusionism, my resume screams Fed Soc, and I've always felt most at home in the Republican party. As a Biden voter who's been feeling happier about that choice every day since the election, I'm already looking forward to all the anti-Biden-Administration blog posts I'll write next year. I must be the most un-Democratic of the Democrats these days. I'd love to be able to vote for Republicans again, maybe for the first time since 2014, if the party ever rejects Trump and Trumpism. (I say "maybe" because I can't remember whether I voted for a Republican down-ballot in 2016.) But that's not going to be this year.

NEXT: Amicus Brief in the Congressional Apportionment Case Currently Before the Supreme Court

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

  1. Remember how the Democrats just went ahead and admitted that Hillary lost? Yea, I remember that time too.

    1. I remember Hillary's concession speech on November 9:

      1. Well if the Dems win and turn this country into a single party state, I look forward to seeing you in the unemployment line.

      2. Ah, I see you moved from the general to the particular. A nice lawyer slight of hand.

        Hillary may have made a concession speech (never mind she participated 3 recounts as well, did you forget about that), but the Dem party went from being the "loyal opposition" to convincing the half the country that Russia hacked the election.

        1. Yeah, no fair, you're not allowed to use concrete evidence to support a point around here! You can start making generalized and unfalsifiable assertions about "the Democrats" and "the Left" (and conflating the two at every opportunity), or you can GTFO.

          1. I'm not allowed to say that the Democrats effort to de-legitimize Trump was successful? A majority of Democrats, today, yes, think that Russia changed voting tallies in 2016.

            That's funny that you are unaware of that.

            1. No, this is a strawman. The majority of Democrats do not believe that the Russians literally changed voting tallies.

              They believe that the Russians hacked the DNC. They believe that Russians leaked the emails they obtained to Wikileaks, and sought to coordinate releases of embarrassing emails with the Trump campaign, in order to help distract from several embarrassing scandals that Trump's own behavior and statements got him into. They believe that Russians sought to target American voters, including in particular Black and idealistic white voters, in order to get them to vote third party or stay home. They also believe that the Russians attempted this again this campaign cycle, including by promoting COVID denialism.

              All of this is true.

              1. It sounds like you're a Democrat already.

                1. I disagree with Democrats on a number of issues. I'd be a Republican, if it weren't for the fact that it's currently going all-in on idiocy and corruption. I wish they stood for ideas again.

                2. SimonP : All of this is true.

                  Which is true per the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee :

                  "We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats"


            2. They get to deny anything and make up an alternate story and believe it.

            3. Sure you're allowed to say it, but how could anyone possibly go about trying to decipher what it means, or determine whether it's true or not? Who are "the Democrats" - are we talking about elected leaders, every Dem voter, random people on twitter who are identified with Democrats? And what does it mean to "de-legitimize" Trump? Are you suggesting that someone tried to keep him from taking office after he won, or are you objecting to people opposing his policy objectives?

              The point is that these sort of claims are vague and slippery on purpose, so that you can obfuscate and pretend that the actions of some random activists and media people are equivalent to those taken by the president and other high-level elected leaders.

            4. Comey and McCabe are Republicans and they were the ones that threw a hissy fit and attempted a coup against Trump with the help of other Republicans like McGahn and Rosenstein and Mueller.

            5. "A majority of Democrats, today, yes, think that Russia changed voting tallies in 2016."

              Bullshit claim detected, source required.

              1. "Bullshit claim detected, source required."

                I don't know about today, but here's a yougov poll from 2018 that says

                "Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the President – something for which there has been no credible evidence."

            6. Mad_kalak makes stupid assertion is immediately slapped down by evidence. Chooses to make a new stupid assertion and is immediately slapped down by evidence. Conclusion: Mad_kalak is a masochist.

        2. Mueller report and the Republican Senate report both clearly said that the Russians interfered with the election. There is no sign that they changed any votes after they were cast and we may never know if they did swing the election. There is no comparison to what is going on now

          1. Yeah, there was never an election in my entire life, (I'm in my 60's now.) that the Russians didn't interfere in. Until the USSR collapsed, they even had their own puppet US political party, the CPUSA. It collapsed when they stopped funding it.

            They didn't much care who won, they were were running ads on BOTH sides of the election. The anti-Hillary ads just got more official attention because they contributed to the desired narrative. The goal wasn't to dictate who won, it was to make the nation ungovernable regardless of the winner.

            I'd say they were pretty successful at that, with a lot of help from the Democrats being sore losers.

            Well, Republican's are probably going to be sore losers, too, going forward.

            1. I still maintain a lot of the neo-Nazi online saying Trump is our guy are actually Trump opponents trying to poison the well.

              As Vernor Vinge said in "A Fire Upon the Deep, it's the "Net of a Million Lies."

            2. Brett Bellmore : "They didn’t much care who won..."

              Here's one detail from Mueller's report : Russian Intelligence hacked John Podesta and stole a massive trove of email. Then they sat on that illicit gain for over six months. So when did they decide to release the first messages?

              Less than one hour after the Access Hollywood (grab'em by the....) story was first posted online, sending the Trump campaign into a tailspin. This was understandable on the part of the Russians: Their boy was in trouble and they rushed to help.

              So remember - when Brett tells you the Russian's didn't promote trump's candidacy, that's because he's either a dupe or dishonest (who cares which). Here's a finding from the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee report in April :

              "The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office"


              1. OK, we've established that Mueller cared who won. But who doubted that?

                1. We've also established your readiness to ignore facts on non-existent grounds. Your contempt for the truth. That you find lies like a warm soothing bath.

                  But why, Brett?
                  Doesn't your dishonest nonsense get wearying after a while?

                2. Conveniently ignoring that GOP investigations into Russian meddling also determined that Russia wanted Trump to win....

                  I have to second what grb asked you:

                  Don't you ever get tired of spewing bullshit?

                3. It's not just (Republican) Mueller who said Russia wanted Trump to win. It's not just the Republican-led SIC that said Russia wanted Trump to win. Putin said Russia wanted Trump to win.

                  Sometimes I don't get you, Brett. You're not dumb. You know we're not dumb. So what gives when you deny something as incontrovertably true as this?

                  1. leo, this. Brett clearly isn't stupid. I know people like this in real life. They say something stupid based on dubious sources (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.), get presented with facts which absolutely and unequivocally disprove their assertion, so they double down? Why? As Leo says, you aren't stupid, certainly not stupid enough to see that your point is just wrong, and you know we aren't stupid enough to be duped by your mere assertions over evidence, so why do these people just stick with an obvious lie which is also an obviously stupid lie.

                    Do they not realize that their credibility actually increases by admitting they were wrong, they relied on bad sources? I hate to speculate, but, in real life, I suspect it is a combination of:

                    1. They actually have massive insecurities about their intelligence;
                    2. They are abnormally concerned with status and humiliation;
                    3. Therefore, they see admitting error as admitting what they fear: that they aren't as smart as they like to think.

                    Well, news flash. None of us are as smart as we would like. Most of us are wrong about most things, unless we are the first generation in the history of the world not to suffer that fate. So, buck up, Brett, and fucking admit when you are wrong. It is far, far less humiliating for you than sticking to lies. Really. Much less humiliating. Sticking with stupid lies just makes us question both your intelligence and your integrity. Being wrong affects neither of those things. We've all been wrong.

            3. They didn’t much care who won, they were were running ads on BOTH sides of the election.

              If they didn't care who won (pretty much a disproven proposition) why bother?

          2. Yes they posted some weak memes on Facebook. No one saw or cared.

            1. I saw a report listing some of those memes, and could remember seeing them. Does laughing hysterically qualify as caring? They were a hoot.

              But, the point is, they were running them on both sides. The "Russian collusion!" narrative required pretending they were all in support of Trump.

              1. Brett,

                "The “Russian collusion!” narrative required pretending they were all in support of Trump."

                You are smart enough to know that statement is self-evidently untrue (setting aside the framing).

                The Russians quite clearly had at least two goals:

                1. Sow dissension in the U.S.
                2. Damage Hillary (and conversely help Trump).

                Every remotely credible source (from the Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to Mueller, to the CIA, NSA, FBI, DNI) found those two things.

                Also, you are limiting your universe to Facebook memes and social media posts. First, they were disproportionately pro-Trump. Second, Russia was also involved in the hacking of DNC, etc., emails. And the release of those hours after the "Access Hollywood" tape was far more significant than the Facebook ads.

                If all there were were Facebook ads, sure, it was much less significant. But that's not all they did, by any stretch. Stop pretending that was (a) entirely benign and (b) the primary focus of the Russian effort. You are smarter than that and, I continue to believe, a better person than to knowingly promote a lie.

            2. Can I has vodka?

        3. In other words, you concede that Democrats did in fact admit that Hillary lost.

          You're now arguing that Democrats argued that Trump lacked some legitimacy because he would not have won without Russia's interference in the election.

          And yes, Trump DID lack some legitimacy because he would not have won without Russia's interference in the election.

          In a way it reminds me of 2000.

          More Floridians with the right to vote, and who would have voted, would have voted Gore (wrongfully disenfranchised black people).

          More Floridians who did vote, intended to vote for Gore (the confusing Buchannan ballot).

          Of the votes that were cast, if they were counted using the same standard across the state, Gore probably would have won.

          And yet, Democrats conceded because by the agreed rules of the game Bush won.

          It's appalling how US Republicans keep claiming to the victim when they are repeatedly the beneficiaries of profound injustices.

        4. I'm glad you brought up "Russian interference" ... Because Trump Republicans now are doing exactly what Hillary and Deocrats did 4 years ago. Made an outrageous claim, claiming they have the proof, but they are not going to show us. But that we should take them at their word. Bullshit. I can't stand trump, but if his team provided convincing proof of their claims the election was stolen I'll be right there with the trump supporters demanding this clown serve his second term. But saying you have proof is not itself proof. I hardly even circumstantial evidence

      3. So that's one Democrat, how about the rest?

        Honestly, if you thought there was any outcome to this election that wouldn't result in 4 more years of "illegitimate" and "not my president" you haven't been paying attention

        1. That's not one democrat, that's the candidate herself, conceding the election.

          I'm beginning to think the republicans who hang around here, or hang around the GOP in general, are not interested in the truth.

          1. They have zero interest in the truth, and zero integrity.

            1. They have zero interest in the truth, and zero integrity.

              That becomes more obvious with every day, with every post. Zero integrity.

      4. I wonder why she conceded, when she didn't think the election was legitimate

        1. Maybe because she thought Trump had won legally, and was using the word "illegitimate" in a figurative sense?

          That couldn't possibly be it, on your planet, could it?

          Tell me about the crackpot lawyers she hired to file dozens of lawsuits and go on camera talking about Venezuelan algorithms switching votes.

          Give me a fucking break.

          Yeah. Democrats were unhappy. They didn't try to burn down the house, as Trump is doing.

          1. Then why did she continue the legal challenges after her "concession"? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion about whose challenges are crackpot, and I might even agree with you about a lot of Trump's, (He's really throwing stuff at the wall in the hope some of it sticks at this point.) but candidates who've genuinely conceded the election don't demand recounts in swing states.

            1. She joined in a recount demanded by Stein. In this case I agree with Trump, who said:

              "This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than one percent of the vote overall and wasn't even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount," Trump said. "This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing."

              Clinton herself launched no recounts, no lawsuits, no claims that Venezuela had hacked voting machines.

              Tell us, Brett. What do you think of the Giuliani/Powell press conference on these matters? Credible?

          2. And Obama invited Trump into the White House as President-elect. And the GSA authorized funding for the transition. And the departments throughout the executive branch began coordinating with Trump's people on the change-over.

            Neither Obama or Clinton tried to destroy the foundation of democracy to sooth a child-man's bruised ego.

            1. So, it was the same rule the GSA followed in 2000, 2008, 2016, and is following in 2020: Cut loose the funds as soon as one of the candidates has conceded, or the EC votes.

              1. Brett,


                Brett first: "Who cares that Hillary conceded and Trump hasn't?"

                Brett now: "The Trump is just following the very well established rule...not that the loser concedes, no, the norm is that the transition doesn't start until the candidate concedes and Trump hasn't conceded."

                The two Bretts need to talk to each other to come up with a coherent position.

              2. That is not the statutory requirement, and hence not the rule anyone followed. The statutory requirement is that the GSA begin the process once there is an "apparent" winner. Which there was by the end of Election Day in every election (including this one) except 2000.

          3. "Maybe because she thought Trump had won legally, and was using the word “illegitimate” in a figurative sense?"

            Sure, OK. Trump used a lot of words figuratively too, I guess.

            1. You're not this much of a dullard.

              The connotations are fundamentally different because the underlying arguments are fundamentally different.

              1. He is that much of a dullard. You give him too much credit. But he is also that dishonest that, even though he probably knew better, he made the stupid point anyway.

  2. Rather than playing games over the Presidency, states should peacefully secede from the Union.

    1. As a Californian, I agree 1000 percent but I don't use the word "secede" as it has a bad history. We should separate and have independence. In California, where we are a very Democratic State, but not a very liberal one (see the results of all the initiatives), I would expect to see a revived Republican party (or replacement for it) if it could just get away from the stain of Trump and the national Republicans.

      1. I live in the north of the state. Perhaps Jon will remember how West Virginia came to be. An independent California would be a lot smaller than the current state, and be missing most of the parts with drinkable water.

        1. If locally voted on, the new Republic of California would consist of a strip about 50 miles deep, consisting of maybe 2/3 of the coast. Everything else would vote to stay.

          1. Yes, the economically productive and growing parts of the state would secede. The farms, exurbs, and mountains would vote to state.

            This preoccupation with land area is such a strange fixation of the American right. Yes, yes, liberals grasp that the cities are largely fed and watered by redder parts of the country. Blue staters will gladly pay market rates for these resources and commodities. The question is, who's going to pay for your rural hospitals, bridges and highways to nowhere, and public school systems?

            1. Yes, the economically productive and growing parts of the state would secede

              ...from the larger nation, to whom sales make them rich. Like Wall Street banking severed from most of the nation, good freaking luck maintaining your lifestyle.

              Again, those businesses made themselves successful. Gigantic, overbearing state governments grew up like parasitic growths around them, then had the fraudulent temerity to claim their blubbery growth was why these companies were a success.

              1. Besides, your outrage is just one golf club in the bag of the power hungry politicians. They don't want secession because graft is harder with less money to throw around.

                But they are happy for you to rage around.

            2. How much of the GDP you liberals gloat about consists of parasitic financial services and Bigtech, neither of which produce anything of value?

              1. Then why do people pay so much for those services? CA also has the largest agricultural sector in America, despite it being a tiny contributor to its GDP.

            3. Simon, just wait until you and your thriving megalopolis citizens are forced to pay to subsidize free health care and child care for the 30% unemployed plus reparations for every aggrieved minority group and a huge carbon tax. Y’all be running for flyover country.

          2. about 50 miles deep, consisting of maybe 2/3 of the coast.

            And what share of the population?

            Yet another version of the Bellmore "Acreage deserves representation too" theory.

            1. By your theory of representation, China should rule all of the Asian continent and nearby island chains, because they outnumber everybody else.

              1. Oh stop this bullshit argument. It's utterly idiotic, even for you.

                China and the rest of Asia are not in a political union. They haven't agreed to a common decision-making process that affects everyone living there.

                And if they had so agreed, it wouldn't be "China" ruling, but the people of China maybe outnumbering others.

                Your obsession with "California" ruling is ridiculous. Where people live is not relevant to how much weight their voices should have in a democracy.

                Get that through your head.

                1. "China and the rest of Asia are not in a political union. They haven’t agreed to a common decision-making process that affects everyone living there."

                  And the Red and Blue states are in a political union that includes checks on the political power of the more populous states. So what?

                  1. So Brett's point about China is ludicrous. That's what.

                    He insists on trotting it out every so often to see if he can find anyone to buy it. No luck, so far.

            2. What percent of the 50 mile strip consists of semi-retarded mestizos of Mexican descent?

              1. Still waving your "I'm a racist" flag eh?

                Stand tall and proud. That makes it easier for people like you to get smacked down back into the gutters where you belong.

            3. If only the Republicans could get SCOTUS to rule dirt is a citizen too, the GOP would totally rule. Given Trump is dumb as a box of rocks, he's probably already got that geologic segment of the electorate sewn-up.

              And the Supreme Court already has corporations as people, so how much further would they have to go?

      2. Thank you Jon S. I strongly support California declaring independence, because I believe in self-government, which we do not currently have.

        1. You're a pathetic wishful Confederate.

          It's not going to happen. We're not built like that anymore.

    2. "Rather than playing games over the Presidency, states should peacefully secede from the Union."

      This wouldn't be the first time bigotry and backwardness precipitated an attempt.

      Take your best shot, clingers, at emulating those traitors, bigots, and losers. I sense you have what it takes . . . to try.

      1. As with the civil war, Democrats again speak of secession. And it will end the same, because simple majorities, if that can even be achieved, are insufficient to drag large majorities with them out of the union.

        1. You know that secession talk is not predominantly coming from the left. Even on this thread, look who started it.

          So why are you pretending?

          1. Because, having abandoned ideas to throw their lot with Trump, dishonesty is all they have left. They barely even try to appear honest anymore. It remains shocking, but it is damn near undeniable at this point.

    3. I actually suspect that a breakup of the US into separate countries may be the only solution to our current divisiveness.

      If there is a sensible way to accomplish this it may be best all around.

      One difficulty I see is that the West Coast and the Northeast should probably, ideologically, be one country, but geography gets in the way. So let them be separate, and let the south create a new Confederacy, and so on.

      1. While my perspective is usually radically-different than yours, on this I regrettably agree. (Not regrettable because I am concurring w/ you, but because of the probable necessity of it.)

        For much of this decade I have conceived that a confederacy - squawks will probably be elicited because of the problems w/ the pre-1787 experience - of a number of federations may be the only effectual resolution. For example, one might have a federation of the Northeast States, the Middle Atlantic States, the old Northwest Territory States, the Southern States, the West Coast (and maybe Nevada), and them some division of the remainder; I haven't expended the time for an exact division, as well as this being best left to the sentiments of the respective States. Then all of the federations could form a confederation thereof.

        The polarization seems so unfortunately irreconcilable that I doubt anything short of this would suffice.

  3. "I'm already looking forward to all the anti-Biden-Administration blog posts I'll write next year."

    If the Georgia Senate candidates lose, you'll get to write lots of posts about new justices, too!

    1. No he won't. Not with the Dem hostility to 1A rights of their opposition.

      1. That's true. He's probably not diverse enough to get a blogging permit. As Justice Lhamon will have explained, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that marginalized voices are heard on the internet, so the Blogging Diversity Act passes strict scrutiny.

        1. That's the right call, lean in to stupid arguments. Now how about all those guns Obama confiscated? Or that time he just refused to leave and stayed in office for life? This is just one more stupid, overreaction that you have chosen to parrot. But, unlike bernard, I am under no illusion that you are smarter than to lean into utter idiocy.

  4. Basing your vote on whether or not you like Trump is silly. Regardless of how rude and crude he is, how economically ignorant, or how xenophobic, the Democrats are far worse in spending and nannyism and judicial nominees and civil rights, no better in foreign matters, and just as ignorant economically. About the only thing Democrats are better at is being less xenophobic, except even there, Obama was worse on immigrants than Trump has proven to be.

    1. It's an interesting thing to attack the Democrats as "far worse" on "civil rights" under an article about how the Republican president is openly attempting to use Republican state legislatures to hand him another term in office notwithstanding the voters electing his opponent.

      1. notwithstanding the voters electing his opponent

        Kinda begs the question, doesn't it? The Trump people are arguing that, while a lot of bogus ballots might give that impression, in fact the voters *didn't* elect his opponent.

        1. Of course, except that the next piece of actual _evidence_ they have for this claim will be the first. You may as well claim that the Bengals actually won the Super Bowl last year, because reasons, so the refs should give it to them anyway, and we'll get around to explaining why eventually.

          1. Is a sworn affidavit by an eyewitness "evidence"?

            1. Not if the claim made by that affidavit is that someone in the tabulation room was wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt, or that the PA system was too loud, or that someone called them "Karen," or that someone told them they saw something, or that they weren't allowed to stand closer than six feet away, or that they saw a van dropping off ballots on election night.

              1. You should go look up the definition of "evidence".

                Or just keep repeating talking-points knowing that they are false. That’s what most of you guys would do.

                1. What did I say that was false?

                  1. The part about evidence not existing.

                    1. Remind us again what the Trump campaign's legal results stand at?

                      How many cases have they lost with their 'evidence?'

                      Courts keep looking at your silly cases, and they continue to throw out the lawsuits left and right. That's how credible your 'evidence' claims are.

                    2. Ben, Glaucomatose pointed out what the "evidence" was and it is not evidence of fraud or changing of votes. Maybe you should look up Fed.R.Evid. 401, then get back to us.

                    3. I’m not interested in dumb word games to defend the false "no evidence" talking point.

                      Stop using facially false talking points.

                      Comments about what the evidence represents are opinion. "No evidence" is simply a lie.

                    4. Ben,

                      You are the one saying untrue things.

                      Glaucomatose: Of course, except that the next piece of actual _evidence_ they have for this claim will be the first

                      You: Is a sworn affidavit by an eyewitness “evidence”?

                      Glaucomatose: Discussed what the affidavits said and pointed out they did not tend to show voter fraud, much less massive voter fraud, at all.

                      You: Avoid citing any affidavit that goes to the issue of whether there are fraudulent votes and, in particular, enough fraudulent votes to change the outcome, but just saying "I said evidence, but I didn't say evidence of what!" Yeah, that's stupid.

                      Affidavits may be evidence, but these affidavits are evidence of what? Nothing that will change the score of the game. You are just arguing that the Bengals should be named Super Bowl MVPs because of an allegedly missed call in Week 1 of the season that didn't change the outcome of that game, much less the season.

                      Evidence of t-shirts and rudeness is not evidence that there were " a lot of bogus ballots". That was the claim. No evidence has been cited to support that proposition. Guiliani waiving around a binder full of affidavits most of which he hasn't submitted to a court (is my understanding) is not evidence of a "a lot of bogus ballots."

                      Be honest about that and stop claiming other people are making dishonest arguments. If you know of evidence, cite it. Otherwise, stop playing.

                    5. So you acknowledge the "no evidence" talking point is false.

                      I just want people to stop brazenly telling lies just because that's what Dems always do when they are trying to get away with criminality or other bad behavior.

                      I didn’t read the affidavits. But they exist.

                    6. If you want people to stop telling lies, the first order of business should be for you to stop posting.

                      The courts have weighed the 'evidence' your crying about, and found it to be not even worthy of holding a trial.

                      The cases have been THROWN OUT because the supporting evidence is a joke and non-credible.

                      That's not opinion - that's fact.

                    7. Ben,

                      Nobody said "no evidence."

                      So you acknowledge the “no evidence” talking point is false.

                      So, no. First, that isn't the talking point. Stop lying about that. Second, the evidence produced thus far is not of massive voter fraud, if it even addresses voter fraud at all. Stop lying that there is actual evidence of massive voter fraud as opposed to a few individual affidavits about non-fraud improprieties and, if they exist, fraud affecting one or two ballots (at least one of which I know was withdrawn).

                    8. More judicial opinions regarding the 'evidence' of widespread voter fraud:

                      "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

                      Unsupported by evidence.


                      LOL Winning!

            2. Are you talking about that Hopkins guy who can't make up his mind what he saw? I hear he works part-time in that computer repair shop in Delaware.

              1. Hundreds of witness affidavits

                1. Which are evidence of Detroit poll workers being hostile to Republicn watchers/challengers. But there is a paucity of actual evidence of significant chicanery.

                2. Witness to what?

                  Lots of the ballots were for Biden. Wow. What a surprise.

                  Someone was rude. BFD.

            3. Ben_ : Is a sworn affidavit by an eyewitness “evidence”?

              Who doubts a Trump cultist would write a sworn affidavit of eyewitness testimony to the Bengals' Super Bowl win last year?

              It was YUGE !!

              1. If they did, it would be "evidence" and a claim of "no evidence" would be false.

                1. If they did, it would be bullshit. Just like all Trump's claims.....

                2. But that's not even what the evidence is. The evidence is that one of the referees was wearing an Eagles t-shirt under his striped jersey. That may be evidence of impropriety, but it isn't evidence that the Bengals won anything.

                  1. Just don’t lie by saying "no evidence".

                    1. Literally nobody said "no evidence" Ben. Plenty have said not evidence that tends to prove the news conference allegations of massive fraud, not evidence that tends to prove the massive fraud required to change the election results.

                      So you stop lying and saying there is actual evidence to support overturning the apparent results of the election.

                      And stop lying by putting "no evidence" in quotes when no one said that in this thread.

                    2. Bernard11 said it below as "evidence-free" and it was said above as "the next piece ... will be the first".

                    3. Ben,

                      You are lying.

                      Both of your quotes were about Seamus posts alleging there was no effort to overturn the will of the people because there was fraud involving "a lot of ballots" sufficient to change the outcome of the election. There is not evidence of that. Evidence of t-shirts and rudeness and viewing distances is not evidence of fraud affecting "a lot of ballots". (You dishonestly try below to pretend this isn't the discussion by retreating to: You have to prove no fraud anywhere, by either a Biden voter OR a Trump voter. That's not the discussion. The Trump campaign is making specific allegations with respect to massive voter fraud and they have not produced evidence of that alleged fact.

                    4. Not enough evidence for you isn't "evidence-free".

                      Your word games are becoming Clintonesque. I’m going to stop reading your nonsense about this.

                      People who care about honesty know the difference between "evidence-free", a factual falsehood, and some dumb, corrupt partisan opinion where there could never be adequate evidence — because Orange Man Bad.

                    5. Ben,

                      You are the one playing Clinton-esque word games. The assertion is that there were "a lot of ballots" affected by fraud such that the will of the voters is not that Biden won. That assertion is evidence-free. It is without support. Cite the evidence that supports that assertion or just cop to lying about your whole, semantic "no evidence" game.

                      And there is an easily surmountable burden of proof, it is the one found in court, it is, as Guiliani would have it "normal scrutiny"......but in this case evidence admissible in court that proves that, at least as likely as not, tens of thousands (or, in most states, hundreds of thousands of ballots) were affected by fraud such that Trump would have won in at least three states in which Biden is currently the apparent winner.

                      Cite that evidence or stop with your "no evidence" semantic dishonesty. (Below, you try to change to saying the proof has to be zero ballots were affected by fraud. That isn't the assertion that was called "evidence-free". Be honest about that.)

            4. Is a sworn affidavit by an eyewitness “evidence”?

              It can be. Kind of depends on what the contents of that affidavit are.

    2. Is your dislike of Ds reason to overturn a legal and clean election?

      1. Clean as the election in Venezuela or North Korea.

        1. Another gullible fool.

    3. This isn't about principles, it's about fitting in his social circle at Emory.

      1. Does it strike you as odd he would pick the folks at Emory over a bunch of delusional, disaffected, uneducated, superstitious, conservative bigots?

    4. Look at what Trump is doing right now. He's accelerating a withdrawal from Afghanistan with no concrete strategy for handing off security to the weak and failing government. He's decapitated our national security leadership in a fit of pique. He's letting Scott Atlas dictate the terms of our pandemic management, which is, "shoot for herd immunity and hope for the best." His Treasury Secretary is looking for ways to sabotage our economic recovery. And he's golfing, while whining loudly about losing an election for which he couldn't even be bothered to come up with a plan for another four years of the presidency.

      I agree that the Democrats are "nanny-staters," and big spenders, and whatnot. I am not enthusiastic about how they typically approach governance. But Trump is not a president. He doesn't want to do the work, and he's completely incompetent whenever he even tries. What do we have to show for his four years? A big, expensive tax cut that didn't boost the economy in any appreciable way, that boosted the deficit when the economy was growing, and that has now cornered us in a recession with even less tax revenue? A few half-baked trade deals that haven't addressed fundamental problems with our relationships with key trade partners? A weaker NATO, and crippled WTO? Regulations replaced by old-fashioned cronyism? A new raft of judges who are eager to expand executive power?

      You want to talk about "nanny-staters"? What do you call a president who seeks to use federal spending to force state and city governments to support unrelated policy goals? Another four years under Trump would have meant having to sue in order to void every lawless assertion of power that enters his meager little imagination. And you're worried about an unconstitutional mask mandate?

      1. Why is it our job, or anyone but the Afghanis' job, to prop up a weak and failing government? How can you possibly think getting out of there is a failing, after 20 years? How much longer would you consider the minimum stay to save face?

        "Decapitated ..." shows you just don't like Trump's choices. Combine that with your next comment ....

        "He's letting Scott Adams dictate ..." shows an absolute appalling ignorance of executives and delegation. Do you actually think the President should personally do everything himself and not delegate anything to anybody else?

        Those two statements contradict each other. On the one hand, you complain he hasn't let his subordinates do things he doesn't want. On the other hand, you complain he has let his subordinate do something he does want. Make up your fucking mind.

        As for NATO and WTO, those are political decisions, and votes have consequences. You really don't like Trump, that's what it comes down to.

        1. Why is it our job, or anyone but the Afghanis’ job, to prop up a weak and failing government?

          The question isn't, "Whose job is this," but, "Remember what happened the last time we cut and run from Afghanistan and let the Taliban take over?"

          I don't think there are any easy answers about this, but I don't think we should stay in Afghanistan out of any humanitarian impulse. We are there in the first place because the Taliban provided cover for al-Qaeda, which used their base to attack the U.S. Now, we have a smattering of half-promises from the Taliban that they won't do that again, as we're rapidly withdrawing and all but ensuring that the Taliban will take over. Do we have to wait for another attack, before you'll see what the consequences may prove to be?

          Never mind that Afghanistan plays a role in the Pakistan-India conflict - where tensions are sure to grow more intense with India's recent nationalistic moves on the Kashmir. So maybe we'll have another major terrorist attack, maybe a nuclear war. Who knows! Trump has really left everything on the table.

          “Decapitated …” shows you just don’t like Trump’s choices.

          You mean, creating a lot of uncertainty and chaos in our national security apparatus, during the transition to the next administration? Yes, I think that's a pretty damn bad choice. Our enemies can see we're weak and exposed. Trump has exposed our flank.

          “He’s letting Scott Adams dictate …” shows an absolute appalling ignorance of executives and delegation. Do you actually think the President should personally do everything himself and not delegate anything to anybody else?

          No? I'm saying, maybe don't delegate responsibility for formulating and conveying a message on the coronavirus to a radiologist spouting theories that just bolster your conviction that this is no longer your problem to worry about.

          As for NATO and WTO, those are political decisions, and votes have consequences. You really don’t like Trump, that’s what it comes down to.

          NATO and WTO are institutions that have allowed America to project military and economic power beyond the reach of its own military and economy. We designed those institutions to serve our interests, and they paid handsome dividends as long as we play along. You need to understand that "America first!" has meant, under Trump, "America, alone." We are profoundly weaker than we were before Trump, and that is damage that Biden is unlikely to be able to undo. Trump really just threw away decades worth of work developing American hegemony.

          So, yes, elections have consequences. But I don't think you realize what the consequences have actually been.

          1. Your Afghan comment makes no sense. Asking why it is not our job does not ask whose job it is. You did not answer why it is our job. All you claim is it might prevent another 9/11, I guess. Which is weird, because almost as many US soldiers have died in Afghanistan as were killed on 9/11. Is that how you measure the success of Bush's war?

            The rest of your excuses do not answer anything, and you never addressed your contradictory claims about delegation.

            1. That's a stupid response. Answering why there are reason we were there to start with and reasons why leaving abruptly at this moment would have negative consequences is answering why it might be considered our job. You are either dishonest or stupid for pretending you don't understand that. Stop trolling.

              If you have to pretend you don't understand an answer to your question to avoid engaging on substance, maybe don't ask questions or don't expect anyone to respect your opinions. You're just a troll.

        2. Why is it our job, or anyone but the Afghanis’ job, to prop up a weak and failing government? How can you possibly think getting out of there is a failing, after 20 years? How much longer would you consider the minimum stay to save face?

          It may well be a good idea to end the war in Afghanistan. That does not make it a good idea to pull out all our troops on a few weeks' notice. (For one thing, our NATO allies have thousands of troops there working with us that we're screwing with such behavior.)

      2. "Look at what Trump is doing right now. He’s accelerating a withdrawal from Afghanistan with no concrete strategy for handing off security to the weak and failing government."

        Yeah, what part of "Afghanistan isn't part of the US" don't you get?

        1. What part of, "A Taliban-controlled Afghanistan may once again pose a direct national security threat to the United States" don't you get?

          1. What part of tit-for-tat do you not understand? What part of matching the 9/11 death toll by dead soldiers do you not understand? What part of minding our own business do you not understand?

            1. Are you and Brett on record opposing the war in Afghanistan in the first place? If not, stfu.

              If so. Why is now an acceptable time to up and leave? We have obligations beyond our borders, particularly when we upset the status quo. That doesn't mean we stay forever, but it requires a more honest and nuanced argument than Afghanistan "isn't part of the US." That's just a dumb statement.

    5. Good thing that's not what it's based on

  5. (From

    There is no more doubt that President Trump is going to take the battle to the fraudsters in the aftermath of today's press conference.

    "We will not back down, we won't be intimidated, President Trump will not be intimidated. You the American people should not be intimidated... this is not a court of law, we will get there, and we have time, and we have constitutional provisions that will step in when we show the corruption and the irredeemably challenged and overturned votes that are absolutely corrupt."

    -Jenna Ellis, Senior Legal Advisor to the Trump Campaign

    The Nine Key Points detailed today:

    1. Observers were allegedly prevented from watching mail-in ballots being opened. Giuliani said that many mail-in ballots were opened without observers being able to check that they were properly signed, a key protection against fraud. Those votes, he said, were “null and void,” especially where the envelopes had been discarded, making recounts useless.

    2. Allegedly unequal application of the law in Democratic counties. In Pennsylvania, whose state supreme court created new, relaxed voting rules before the election, Giuliani alleged that absentee voters in Democratic counties were allowed to “cure” defects in their ballots, while voters in Republican counties, which obeyed the state law as written, were not.

    3. Voters allegedly arrived at the polls to discover other people had voted for them. Giuliani said that many provisional ballots cast in Pittsburgh were submitted by people who showed up to vote in person, only to be told that they had voted already. He alleged that Democrats had filled out absentee ballots for other people, hoping they would not show up.

    4. Election officials were allegedly told not to look for defects in ballots, and to backdate ballots. Giuliani cited an affidavit from an official who swore she was told not to exclude absentee ballots for defects, and to backdate ballots so they would not appear to have been received after Election Day, to avoid a Supreme Court order to sequester those ballots.

    5. Ballots casting votes for Joe Biden and no other candidates were allegedly run several times through machines. Giuliani said that there were 60 witnesses in Michigan who would attest to ballots being “produced” quickly and counted twice or thrice. He said that a minimum of 60,000 ballots, and a maximum of 100,000 ballots, were allegedly affected.

    6. Absentee ballots were accepted in Wisconsin without being applied for first. Giuliani noted that Wisconsin state law was stricter regarding absentee ballots than most other states are, yet alleged that 60,000 absentee ballots were counted in the Milwaukee area, and 40,000 in the Madison area, without having been applied for properly by the voters who cast them.

    7. There were allegedly “overvotes,” with some precincts allegedly recording more voters than residents, among other problems. Giuliani said there was an unusually large number of overvotes in precincts in Michigan and in Wisconsin, which he alleged was the reason that Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers had refused to certify the results there this week. He also alleged that there were some out-of-state voters in Georgia, and people who had cast votes twice there.

    8. Voting machines and software are allegedly owned by companies with ties to the Venezuelan regime and to left-wing donor George Soros. Sidney Powell argued that U.S. votes were being counted overseas, and that Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software were controlled by foreign interests, manipulating algorithms to change the results. Powell noted specifically that Smartmatic’s owners included two Venezuelan nationals, whom she alleged had ties to the regime of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. The legal team alleged that there were statistical anomalies, such as huge batches of votes for Biden, that could not be explained except as manipulation — which, they alleged, happened in the wee hours of the morning as vote-counting had stalled. (The companies have disputed these allegations vigorously.)

    9. The Constitution provides a process for electing a president if the vote is corrupted. Jenna Ellis argued that the media, had usurped the power to declare the winner of the election. She made the point, citing Federalist No. 68, that the constitutional process of selecting a president had procedural safeguards against corruption and foreign influence. Giuliani said that the campaign believed that enough votes were flawed — more than double the margins between Biden and Trump in key states — that the president had a path to victory.

    As Giuliani himself said, anyone who says there is "no evidence" of mass voter fraud is lying.

    UPDATE: We will not back down, but Tucker Carlson appears to have cucked.

    Tucker Carlson says Trump campaign unwilling to provide evidence to back their claims.

    Forget the legal definitions of evidence. These people are not even speaking English correctly.

    1. Delusional, disaffected, vanquished, whining clingers are perhaps my favorite culture war casualties, if only because mocking them is such fun.

      And they constitute the carefully cultivated following of a White, male, censorship-shackled movement conservative blog with a scant legal veneer.

      1. That reminds me : I read an article on Alito's speech which quoted his disdainful snip at one Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School professor. Per Alito, Tushnet wrote, “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won.”

        The Justice did not approve & said as much, so the article asked the Professor to respond. He said this :

        “The very intensity of Justice Alito’s remarks seems to me to confirm my judgment about who won the culture wars. His are, in fact, the observations of a person who hasn’t come to grips with the fact that he’s been on the losing side of many culture war issues.”

        Made me think. Could this Tushnet guy be Kirkland's secret identity? After he's parked the Batmobile in the Bat Cave, does he assume the identity of a mild-mannered professor ?!?

        1. Probably not. I've read Tushnet's writings. And while I'm not fond of his ideological position, or his desire to crush his enemies and hear the weeping of their women, on a bad day he's a better writer than Kirkland on a good day.

          Ideologically they may be two peas in a pod, but Kirkland is a very tiny pea.

          1. You would know good writing.

    2. Yeah, right. If there is all this evidence then why doesn't it ever show up in court? I don't care what the "great man 9/11" has to say what can he show?

      Going by the record so far: nothing. nada. zilch.

      Big talk is cheap. Presenting evidence to a judge so that a case can proceed is hard. So far the record is more than 20 cases dismissed for lack of evidence. And it will stay that way as long as you cannot present any.

      1. Pretty much this. Everyone can have their day in court, so produce the evidence in court, where it matters. It seems like they're generating background memeage for use in an ongoing new four years of constant attacks against Biden, rather than actually trying to win this fight.

        Which isn't a bad idea, strategically, because of the last four years. But that itself just cloned the previous from Fox News. It's all a shame. News needs to get back to at least pretending to not be hucksters for this or that party.

    3. I appreciate your compiling the "kraken." I have been wondering what the Trumpers have been crowing about. It's helpful to see that it's all kind of what's already been said.

      Most of these claims have been tested in court, and thrown out. Affidavits that are vague on relevant details. Admissions that assertions were based on inferences rather than direct observation. Lots of hearsay and statements by people who are almost laughably bad at their jobs. The assertions about Dominion and Smartmatic are factually inaccurate and straight out of loonie-ville.

      At this point, I have to surmise that a lot of people repeating these claims know, on some level, that the assertions have been tested in court, and failed. So at this point they don't care about the truth. They just want to "win" by illegitimate means. What I can't understand, though, is why Trump is the man you would choose to throw out our democracy over. Couldn't you have chosen a more charismatic, appealing, and competent Dear Leader? Why would you cast your lot with such an obvious and incompetent con man?

      1. What I can’t understand, though, is why Trump is the man you would choose to throw out our democracy over. Couldn’t you have chosen a more charismatic, appealing, and competent Dear Leader? Why would you cast your lot with such an obvious and incompetent con man?

        This is what has me baffled. He despises the type of people who most love him. His whole life is an example of the moral degradation caused by transfers of massive intergenerational wealth.

    4. Voting machines and software are allegedly owned by companies with ties to the Venezuelan regime and to left-wing donor George Soros. Sidney Powell argued that U.S. votes were being counted overseas, and that Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software were controlled by foreign interests, manipulating algorithms to change the results. Powell noted specifically that Smartmatic’s owners included two Venezuelan nationals, whom she alleged had ties to the regime of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. The legal team alleged that there were statistical anomalies, such as huge batches of votes for Biden, that could not be explained except as manipulation — which, they alleged, happened in the wee hours of the morning as vote-counting had stalled. (The companies have disputed these allegations vigorously.)

      I mean. You believe this? Really? You don't get that it is completely bonkers?

      1. The distinction between the Volokh Conspiracy and (1) RedState, (2) FreeRepublic, (3) Stormfront, (4) 4chan, (5) Gateway Pundit, and (6) Instapundit is diminishing steadily.

        I expect a few more Conspirators to bail relatively soon.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : I expect a few more Conspirators to bail relatively soon.

          Rick & Ilsa will always have Paris.
          We'll always Josh Blackman......

        2. It was better before it got hitched to Reason. Its time with Washington Post was ok, but it was best early on when it was independent.

  6. I am listening to Alan Dersbowitz's latest YouTube video. He says he would currently vote for either Dem running for the Senate in GA.

    1. Well, duh. He would have anyway, were you under the impression he was a Republican?

      1. He's made his publicity the last few years being a Trump supporter. Haven't you heard?

        1. Yeah, by current Democratic party standards, if a lawyer agrees Republicans are entitled to legal representation, and every legal question shouldn't be resolved against them, that makes the lawyer a Republican.

          "You're either entirely with us, or you're against us." is a very destructive approach to politics.

          Dershowitz doesn't let his preferences color his legal judgments or who he'll represent, and he's a classic civil libertarian, which puts him at odds with the modern left. But I don't think there's much doubt that he votes Democratic.

  7. Don't let the door hit you...

  8. Personally, I don't vote for Republicans anyway, never have. I'm kind of surprised you have.

    I vote against Democrats.

    For most of my life I voted *for* Libertarians, but a combination of campaign 'reform' making 3rd parties an exercise in futility, and the LP losing its way made me give that up. Now I just vote for Republicans to keep Democrats out of office, because voting 3rd party certainly doesn't help do that.

    It really sucks that all I can hope to do with my vote is limit the damage, but there you go.

    I can understand not personally liking Trump. I find him offensive in many ways myself. But I prefer the offensive guy who will largely leave me alone, to the less offensive guy who favors political censorship, gun control, wants to force me to pay for abortions, and favors all sorts of partisan entrenchment measures.

    I'm definitely in damage minimization mode, I'm surprised you don't care more about that.

    1. One of the few "laws" in political science is Duverger's Law. In a system with winner take all elections, then the politics will default into a two-party dominant system. Even in proportional representation systems, you still end up with two dominant coalitions on either side of the spectrum. Therefore, you will never find a party or coalition that fits everyone's niche views of X, Y, and Z.

      Moreover, if we take a step back, it's not hard to see that the left has gone leftward and the right rightward. If you want to get back to "normal", you need a common ground. Very little common ground exists. There is so little overlap in the views of our political elites, aside from them all being stationary bandits, it's frankly amazing there is not MORE disunity than the rather minimal amount we have now.

      1. Duverger's law makes 2 parties the default that first past the post tends to, but it's just a tendency. It doesn't prevent which parties are the two from changing from time to time.

        Decades of so-called "campaign reform" have transformed a tendency into an all but inescapable prison. I watched it happen in real time as a Libertarian activist. Escalating ballot access requirements that exempt the major parties. The League of Women Voters having the Presidential debates taken away from them when they decided a 3rd party candidate had qualified. Campaign finance laws designed to starve us of cash. It goes on and on.

        If the major parties thought Duverger's law was an invincible shield, they wouldn't have bothered with any of this. They knew it wasn't, all it was, was a tendency, with no guarantee who'd be in the top two at any given time.

        1. There are no escalating ballot access requirements, and the LWV did not have the debates taken away from them when they decided a 3rd party candidate had qualified.

      2. There is little political overlap because governments meddle in so many areas that there is no principle except "expand government" by both sides, and that is not what voters want.

        The only solution is radically less government, and let the socialists contract with each other to hand over control of their income and property. But that will never happen, because governments have no free market and no competition to encourage efficiency and customer satisfaction.

    2. "But I prefer the offensive guy who will largely leave me alone, to the less offensive guy who favors political censorship, gun control, wants to force me to pay for abortions, and favors all sorts of partisan entrenchment measures."

      This is an interesting list. I understand why gun control is on your list, but what do you mean by political censorship? Exclusively red states (SC, AR, MO, IA, NE, ND, UT, and MT) have passed ag-gag laws. Anti-BDS laws have passed in a few blue states, but is primarily a conservative phenomenon. What other kinds of political censorship are going on right now?

      It's my observation that Republican officials are far more reliable in calling for the use of force against political speakers than Democrats. See, e.g., Tom Cotton's NYT op-ed from this summer or the host of red-state laws reducing penalties for motorists who run over protestors.

      Paying for abortions? who is proposing to make you pay for abortions?

      Partisan entrenchment is the last truly bipartisan activity. And if you think Republicans will save you from it take a look at the current supreme court's handling of gerrymandering or voter suppression.

      Trump is trying to remain president even though he lost the election. Why is this tolerable for you?

      1. "but what do you mean by political censorship?"

        Democrats would refer to it as "campaign reform". But it really boils down to political censorship. They've even proposed amending the 1st amendment, to enable censorship.

        "See, e.g., Tom Cotton’s NYT op-ed from this summer or the host of red-state laws reducing penalties for motorists who run over protestors."

        Here's a pro-tip on avoiding being run over as a protester: Don't protest in the middle of the road, or attack cars. It's pretty reliable, I've been to plenty of protests, and we held none of them on roads, so none of us got run over.

        Blocking traffic isn't political speech.

        "Paying for abortions? who is proposing to make you pay for abortions?"

        Biden's come out in favor of repealing the Hyde amendment.

        1. Here’s a pro-tip on avoiding being run over as a protester: Don’t protest in the middle of the road,

          Because, for some reason, you think that if a protestor is in the road you have right to run into him with your car.

          Guess what. You don't. Ask Fields.

          1. Because, for some reason, you think that's a cogent leap from Brett's comment, does not make it so.

            1. Brett's comment implicitly defends the assaults by automobile, by suggesting they are the victim's fault. He'll crawfish away now, like he always does. "Oh. I never said..BS, BS, BS. " It's a favorite approach of his.

              He was a defender of Fields, the Charlottesville murderer. So yeah, it's a cogent response.

        2. I think you have a peculiar way of viewing things, but that's fine.

          The question I'm really interested is why do you find it tolerable that Trump is trying to remain president despite losing the election?

          1. The question I'm not at all interested in is why you think the election is over before it is over?

          2. I think it is tolerable for Trump to pursue all legal avenues for challenging the claim that he lost the election. I don't see why he has to concede before all his bullets are spent.

            And given some of the crap arguments that prevail in courts, I put the bar pretty low on a challenge being legitimate.

            If he starts doing something crazy, like threatening the families of electors if they don't switch their votes to him, then I'll change my mind. As it is, he's no worse than Gore was in 2000.

            1. Brett Bellmore : "If he starts doing something crazy, like threatening the families of electors..."

              Everyone here has long wondered where Brett would draw the line. After all, even the ardent lickspittle cultist has to have some standards left, right?

              Now we know. Brett is prepared to frown at Trump if the latter threatens the families of his political enemies. Those of you who thought Brett has abandoned all ethics, morality, and integrity owe the man an apology!

              1. Well, I certainly think Trump is legally entitled to pursue all legal avenues. Trivially so. So far he's not doing anything monstrous, like, oh, threatening the lives and careers of anybody who dares to provide Biden with legal services. Or threatening Democrats with reeducation camps or a truth and reconciliation commission. He's not even muttering about keeping lists.

                As far as I can see, he's on the clean side of this fight for now.

                1. Spreading lies about the election, and attempting to sway/bribe/intimidate State lawmakers to usurp their constituents' votes so that he can win instead sure sounds like 'clean.'

                2. threatening the lives and careers of anybody who dares to provide Biden with legal services

                  As opposed to threatening the lives and careers of anybody who dares to point out there is no evidence of fraud or that, in some way, Trump isn't the greatest ever? (Vindman, Krebs, Esper, Sessions (good riddance on that one), the Khans, etc., etc.) Don't pretend Trump doesn't attack people who, in his mind, cross him. He is easily the most vindictive public official we have had since Nixon.

            2. As it is, he’s no worse than Gore was in 2000.

              This is laughable.

              Gore's claims were in one state, where the count was, as you surely recall, extremely close. He wasn't claiming massive, nationwide, fraud. He didn't make up bogus stories of Venezuelan algorithms shifting votes. He didn't try to get state legislators to overrule their election results. He didn't file 20 some odd lawsuits with no evidence. He wanted votes recounted.

              You're so caught up in the cult you've taken leave of your senses.

          3. When did the electors vote?

    3. Brett, you said something that captures where I am also: I voted against Team D. The last Team R POTUS candidate I ever affirmatively voted for because I believed in the candidate's agenda was Reagan (1984 was my first time voting). After Reagan, I cannot say that. It has always been a Team L vote ever since for POTUS candidates. Down ballot, different story. Not many Team L candidates.

      I read many of the comments and just shook my head. My response to them is to just follow the process the Framers left us, and chill out. The Framers knew what they were doing. There is a period between the vote of the people and the Electoral College vote for good reason. If Team R wants litigation during this period over vote irregularities, this is the only time to do it. There is a defined termination date here, December 8th. Meaning, any litigation has to be concluded. Why? The Electors are chosen that day. There are literally 16 days between now and then. That's it.

      Do I personally think that there is some vast manipulation of votes cast by the IT voter systems [presumably by network administrators or power users] used by 30 states? No, I just do not see that. But POTUS Trump's legal team can present their evidence before a judge and have the case adjudicated in a court of law. So far, the evidence is not there.

      Here is what I do know: I don't want 4 more years of sore loser-ism. If the way to avoid sore loser-ism is via taking the time to adjudicate Team R litigation in the next 16 days, it is a small price to pay. Just let the process the Framers designed play out and let civic passions cool.

      1. XY,

        But POTUS Trump’s legal team can present their evidence before a judge and have the case adjudicated in a court of law.

        People keep saying that. But Trump has done it, and he has no fucking evidence. He's just throwing crap against the wall. How many times does he get to do that? Isn't there some sort of rule that you have to actually have something before you can sue?

        I mean, they can't even tell the difference between Michigan and Minnesota.

        Look at how crazy these people are. Powell says she had evidence of a massive Venezuelan/Cuban/Chinese plot to use a Hugo Chavez-designed algorithm to shift millions of votes to Biden. Really. She said that. She'll produce it in two weeks. I guess she'll include Trump's health care plan. Come on. Is this woman sane? Does any sane person believe that? Yet that's the level of the allegations.

        Here's another one. someone claims a Biden-Harris campaign van pulled up outside a polling place, and people got out, and in broad daylight, started opening boxes of ballots and marking them, right there in the open. Sure. That happened. yet that's one of those affidavits Ben is goes on about.

        All Trump is doing is stoking the sore-loserism you say you want to avoid. It doesn't matter how many court cases get thrown, or how irrational the allegations are. He's going to keep claiming he was cheated and his cultists are going to continue to believe it.

        If you really don't want it then just admit that the whole case is BS, and Trump should just STFU and let Biden start the transition. And his cultists should get in touch with reality.

        1. I will look forward to December 9, Commenter XY and Brett and see what you are saying then, when Trump is still yapping about having won the election and massive voter fraud. Will you stand up for democracy then? Or are your policy preferences more important to you than our system of government? And, if so, do you really think your policy preferences will survive when our system of government doesn't?

          Weakening our democratic system pushes towards a Venezuelan political system far more than universal health care (which every other first world country has) or abortion (which every other first world country allows and pays for in at least some circumstances) ever would. Stop pretending that your policy preferences are so obviously right that it doesn't matter how you get to impose them.

          1. NOVA...Not to worry, I'll be around. If there is nothing provable [e.g. massive fraud, not legal votes] in a court of law that changes the fact that Biden won, so be it. The EC votes on 12/14 and we will have a POTUS-elect. I'll simply have to get used to using POTUS and the name Biden and in the same sentence. He will take the oath of office and after that, God help him, because he will need it in DC.

            The Framers left us a great system, NOVA. Quite flexible, when you think about it. And they discussed exactly the scenario we have now (contested election). Just follow the process and the law, and we will come out the other side.

        2. Bernard11...There is a defined termination date, December 8th, for this litigation to end. Fifteen days. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the merits of the cases. The judiciary will evaluate, and if there is nothing there, unceremoniously dismiss them.

          Al Gore had his spate of litigation; POTUS Trump gets to have his. Stay tuned.

  9. It’s ok if you don't. Personal vanity is really important to some people and if you want to vote based on that then you are a natural Democrat. Democrats have the advantage of denial and dishonesty with themselves and others. Tell yourself you’re a hero.

    If you decided to want people to actually be better off and to help people instead of indulging personal vanity and social-climbing, then the GOP might be a better home.

    Realistically, any individual's personal vote isn't very meaningful. No reason to pretend otherwise. But go ahead and disagree — because, you know, vanity.

    1. All the emotional responses (that amount to not much but a "nah uh, you are!") from the people who are supporting a conman's assault on the constitution is my favorite part of this post.

      1. As opposed to other politicians. Every last one of them a humble truth teller, meekly submitting to constitutional limits and ideals, always thinking only of fulfilling their oath of office.

        On a non-sarcastic note, Trump has governed more constitutionally than other recent presidents.

        Go ahead and disagree — and proclaim yourself a hero for your Orange Man Bad talk if you want. I am glad to help with that. Congrats in advance for your heroism.

        1. Can you remind us what other recent presidents have tried to literally overturn the results of an election to give themselves an extra term despite the voters giving it to the other guy?

            1. That's odd. If they tried to overturn the results of the election, why did they both immediately concede as soon as the results of the election were determined?

              1. You should read what actually happened on Wikipedia or somewhere.

                It's cool if you want to make up a story where they meekly conceded and didn’t try to undo the election though. Your story could have an evil Russian villain — very dramatic.

          1. Also the Obama Administration's crooked prosecution of Ted Stevens comes to mind.

            1. Is there one single fact Right-wing types can't bungle in their all-embracing stupidity? Even one ?!?

              Gotta little assignment for you Ben_ : Go check the chronology of Ted Steven's mess of a trial. Write down the dates with your crayon. Then go check the dates of Obama's presidency. Write down those dates as well. Then look from one piece of paper to the other.

              Get back to us with what you find......

              1. You are correct. My apologies to the Obama Administration. The Ted Steven’s prosecution was not part of their crookedness.

                  1. Why wouldn't I admit a factual error?

                    If I were a Democrat maybe I'd insist that you were wrong and stupid for believing something factual and obvious. That’s Democrat style.

                    Honest people don't like it, but this is America and honestly is decades out of fashion.

                    1. Absolutely. Hilarious.

                      Up & down these comments you defend crude lies. You are toady to a president who is the most grotesque liar to ever hold the office. But you didn't care and you don't care.

                      You're currently whoring for a lie that attacks the very heart of democracy, but you don't care. Over at the National Review, columnist after columnist are pleading with the readership not to abandon themselves to phony conspiracies & scams - begging them to keep that rot out of the core of their precious Right. But they don't care.

                      Then you peddle your hilarious nonsense above. Up is down; black is white. But - hey - its just another lie to you. What's one more?

                    2. Yeah, Orange Man Bad. Got it.

                      Your team's obvious hatred of 70+ million Americans is based on made up stories and delusions.

                      If you don't want democracy attacked, stop attacking it with fraudulent votes.

                    3. If you don’t want democracy attacked, stop attacking it with fraudulent votes.

                      Stop lying about that, unless it is ever proven. As it is, it is a mere fever dream. You get your own opinions, not your own facts. The most recent cases of known, proven voter fraud tend to be Republican and/or pro-Trump.

                    4. Pretty sure there’s at least 1 fraudulent vote. We will find out if there are more.

                      If it's conclusively proven that there are exactly zero fraudulent votes, I will apologize. If the number turns out to be more than exactly zero, you should apologize.

                    5. Why wouldn’t I admit a factual error?

                      Habit? Lack of character?

                    6. So you are on record as asserting, not that there is any voter fraud of any significant amount, but maybe a handful spread across the nation? Nobody has disputed that, including that at least equal numbers of them are likely in favor of Trump, not least because he (unintentionally?) asked his voters to vote twice.

  10. notwithstanding the voters electing his opponent

    Kinda begs the question, doesn't it? The Trump people are arguing that, while a lot of bogus ballots might give that impression, in fact the voters *didn't* elect his opponent.

    1. The Trump people are arguing that..

      If you call evidence-free claims an "argument," rather than BS.

      1. There’s that talking point about evidence again.

        1. Yeah. It's kind of important.

  11. I question why you would ever have wanted to vote Republican in the first place. The problems with that party didn't start (and won't end) with Trump.

    It was obviously not as extreme, but we saw similar of lawlessness and dirty politics in the Regan and both Bush presidencies. Not to mention Nixon.

    One party relies on vote suppression.

    One party is where white nationalists find home.

    One party has the highest number of federal prosecutions resulting in convictions in each and every administration.

    Seriously. Where is this "I'd like to vote Republican again?" coming from.

    1. Yeah, one party relies on vote suppression, the other on manufacturing votes.

      One is where white nationalists find home, the other where everybody favoring official racial discrimination, so long as the beneficiaries aren't white, hangs their hat.

      One party is willing to prosecute it's own bad actors, the other isn't.

      Like I said, I don't see why somebody would vote for Republicans, but against Democrats? Why you'd do that if you value your enumerated liberties is quite obvious.

      1. Brett Bellmore : "....the other on manufacturing votes"

        Citation needed. (just so you don't forget)

        1. See, for instance, opposition to purging old voter rolls, and the insistence on permitting people to register to vote without any evidence of citizenship.

          1. You very well know the arguments.

            Quit making stuff up. It's the most tiresome of Internet arguments.

            'You don't like this policy? You must support it's most outlandish cost!!'

            Dems aren't manufacturing votes. As you yourself admitted last week.

            1. I will concede that Democrats are no more manufacturing votes than Republicans are suppressing them.

              And no less.

              1. Your attempt at a parallel based on...both sides are badism and nothing more, it seems, are a flimsy attempt at tu quoque and you know it.

                There are actual quotes and letters from GOP folks about seeking to suppress the vote.

                1. Over at the National Review there seems to be an effort by multiple columnists to steer the body-Right away from hokum-conspiracies theories. It's kinda of like changing the course of a super-tanker though; they've got the wheel hard-over but there seems no immediate effect.

                  One of their go-to tactics is whataboutism. Trump's claims may be lies & his actions a disgrace, they say, but (stay with me now) here's something bad about Obama. Like the song says : A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

                  Unfortunately, Brett seems to be on an all-sugar diet....

    2. You forgot to mention some of the other bogeymen. What about Russia and QAnon?

      You could also congratulate yourself for being against them.

    3. Even granting that all of your partisan talking points are true, there’s a simple reader to consider voting republican. To protect myself from the oppression and racism of the progressives.

      I guess open talk of Truth Commissions and Deprogramming Camps don’t bother you. I won’t speculate as to why.

      1. I’ll speculate: denial. They get to ignore anything and make up an alternate story where they’re the heroes.

        All the others in the cool kids club will go along with the story. They’re all heroes. Why can’t you see that? If you agreed with them on whatever story, you could be a hero too. Don’t you want to be a hero?

        1. Ben_ : "All the others in the cool kids club.... (etc)

          There's no need for jealously. You've got Rudy Giuliani with his running hair dye, Sidney Powell spraying spittle on Soros & Chávez, a screeching Jenna Ellis and the day-glo-diety himself, Trump.

          And how cool is that?

  12. The Trump campaign says it has affidavits of witnesses who saw Mayor Daley old-fashion political machine of manufacturing of ballots on behalf of people who had not voted. Has the media vetted these claims? Given that signatures verification was not used in PA, should not the campaign be allowed to have a court evaluate these claims- affidavits are evidence?

  13. Well, I don't know what you were expecting Sasha, given the type of audience your brother courts, but here it is in all its glory.

    I don't know how you reform a country with a population as ignorant as ours. THings were better when most people paid no attention and didn't vote. Now the leviathan that so many years of hardly spending money on education has created has risen. I have little hope for the future. You are speaking to a small, select group that read the ancient greeks and romans and knows how all this will play out. I wish you well good sir.

    1. Why bother reforming? You get to hold yourself above the ignorant. Isn’t that what matters?

  14. It is a guilty pleasure to see exactly how shallow the republicans are during this time.

  15. "Sticks around"? Really? And you are supposedly a law PROFESSOR?

    For the record, Trump has every goddamned right to stick around until 12 noon, January 20 2021. Because THAT'S the fucking LAW.

  16. I'm a liberal who would love to have a sane opposition with which to engage again. Traditional conservatism emphasizes legitimate, important values--values I often tend to weigh less than Republicans, but that nevertheless make an invaluable contribution to public discourse. As ugly as the 2008 and 2012 elections got, the candidates presented meaningfully distinct visions of the social good, and they shared in what Rawls would call the overlapping consensus of reasonable comprehensive viewpoints. The same can't be said for Trump and the Trumpists, and I shudder to think where this is all headed if it doesn't quickly fade away.

    1. "As ugly as the 2008 and 2012 elections got, the candidates presented meaningfully distinct visions of the social good"

      As much as we can expect from a guy who gave a woman cancer, right?

      1. I have no idea who that's even supposed to be referring to but it sounds like the kind of partisan bullshit on both sides that made Trump possible in the first place.

  17. Trump's approval rating in Israel was above 70% while Netanyahu’s is below 30%. It is clear that Trump should run for PM of Israel.

  18. I wish I could vote for Republicans again, but every day Trump sticks around makes this less likely.

    So, you're less likely to vote Republican because Trump is . . . serving out the remaining two months of his Constitutionally-specified term?

    Trump blovating for a few weeks in November 2020 about how he actually won the election is no more a threat to the Constitution, the republic, and the peaceful transition of power than Al Gore doing the same in November 2000. Especially given there's so far no evidence that there's a GOP equivalent to 2000 Florida's all-Democrat state supreme court (which blatantly re-wrote the state's election certification laws in an effort to put their favored candidate in office).

    Seriously, you need a major dose of perspective.

  19. Cutting off the nose to spite the face, Lyosha!!!

    Clearly, appearances matter more to you than the actual policies. There are multitudes of reasons to vote straight Republican regardless of any other considerations. Since you are a "lawyer", weren't Trump's judicial appointments not enough of a reason for you?

  20. What Trump really should do is promise a full pardon to anyone who carries out any criminal act against any portion of the leftist apparatus. As long as he could issue the pardon before he was impeached and removed, there's NOTHING anyone could do about it. And if it happened in D.C., there wouldn't even a state prosecutor who could do anything about it.

    That would piss the left off so much LOL

    1. I wonder. The pardon might be legal, but soliciting criminality probably wouldn't. Like that Texas case against Perry where they discussed that even bribery would not make a veto reversible by courts, but the bribe would still be illegal and prosecutable.

      1. As long as Trump was doing the solicitation in D.C., it also would be not subject to any state prosecutor, and he could pardon himself.

    2. That sort of thing is only permissible when Democrats do it.

      1. No Democrat has done it.

        You're really around the bend.

        1. Democrat DAs let their team off on rioting.

          Eric Holder let the Dem team get away with voter intimidation in the New Black Panthers case. It wasn't arranged in advance though.

          Of course we all saw Comey let Hillary have a pass on gross negligence with multiple classified documents. And the investigation helped make sure there was no evidence to look at later.

          We saw Kamala send investigators to raid the offices of whistleblowers for her political allies: Planned Parenthood.

          No proof that Dems arranged in advance to let people get away with committing crimes yet. Maybe if the news media investigated Dems instead of covering for them we'd have that proof.

          1. Read the post you replied to, and then try again.

            1. No need. My reply was on point.

              Dems let other Dems get away with committing crimes. As I said though, there’s no good indication that outcome was ever arranged prior to the crime being committed which is what the original comment suggested.

              When Dems finally cross that bridge and openly pre-arrange for crimes, I expect to see CNN and all the Dem politicians and pundits just deny it happened and pull a Benghazi maneuver where they mock anyone who doesn’t endorse the crimes and congratulate them for their brazen criminal success.

              1. This is just not true. I don't know what cloistered world you live in, but in the real world politicians you don't like not getting arrested isn't a partisan conspiracy that allows you to rationalize fascism by your own side.

                1. And you guys make up stories about "fascism" and create imaginary bogeymen to justify routinely lying to everyone, committing crimes, harming innocent Americans intentionally, and conspiracies against constitutional and human rights.

          2. Name one person who rioted and was let off this way. Just one. So we can look up whether it was really determined they destroyed anything or hurt anyone, as opposed to just not dispersing.

  21. Sasha, didn't you get indoctrinated at Harvard? Sorry. Dismissed, big government, Deep State, scum bag, America hater. There is no way to overcome your indoctrination. The Top Tier law schools must lose all government privileges, subsidies, and grants. At some point, they must close by force. Name a social pathology, it is driven by lawyer rent seeking and betrayal of our nation.

  22. This is just an amazingly obtuse position to take.

    Trump, however much you loath him, (And you'd have to be new to this site to not have figured that out.) will likely be gone on January 20th. At which point Biden will be President, and those two Senatorial elections will have determined whether his party is hamstrung in its efforts to pursue some very nasty goals, such as Court packing, or is free to go hog wild.

    It's totally irrational to decide that you want Biden to have free rein just because you dislike Trump.

    1. Look at this thread and pretend there are no consequences.

      1. Except you appear to be one of the casualties.

      2. Could you elaborate on your reply? (I have scrolled past most of the posts - as the majority are people yelling at each other - in order to locate any posts addressing the question of maintaining divided government, and so don't have the benefit of the background to which you are apparently referring.)

        Brett here seemed to be critiquing the putative inconsistency of Prof. Sasha's preference for divided government w/ his apparent inclination to not support either Perdue or Loeffler because of the actions of a third party, viz, POTUS. This seems to me also to be a non sequitur.

        I may be especially obtuse today, but I am unsure of to what consequences you are referring.

        1. A 50-50 Senate, with Harris as the tie-breaker, isn't going to able to go "hog-wild," especially with a narrow margin in the House.

          Brett's deep fears will not be realized.

          Meanwhile, a 52-48 Senate, with McConnell as Majority Leader, will be able to accomplish nothing. Nothing. The Republican objective will be to make things as bad as possible, with the hope of pinning the blame on Biden.

          In addition, voting for Perdue and Loeffler is an endorsement of Trumpism. They've gone all in on Trump cultism. If you want to rid the party of that it helps to show candidates that it doesn't pay.

          1. I see ... Your last paragraph appears to be the answer I sought from Sarcastr0. I haven't followed the pronouncements of Perdue or Loeffler sufficiently (or really at all) to classify them as having "gone all in or Trump cultism." If one wants to repudiate of whatever "Trump cultism" consists, then I suppose non-support of them might make sense.

            As to the first three paragraphs, I am inclined to agree. Neither of the two main parties are sufficiently-monolithic to prevent defections on certain issues of signal importance to an individual Congressman (or Congresswoman) or Senator - which of course is just as it should be. I wonder if these close margins (whatever they will turn out to be) will encourage adjustment and compromise or, more likely, further yelling and screaming from both sides - leading, in the latter eventuality, to the necessity of the type of solution we both addressed earlier.

  23. Reading you Trump supporters whine and moan and clutch at straws here is just as enjoyable as I thought it would be. Thank you!

  24. In the name of God, go!

  25. I'd love to be able to vote for Republicans again, maybe for the first time since 2014, if the party ever rejects Trump and Trumpism.

    Forget it, Sasha. Trump is not an anomaly. He didn't drop from the sky. The GOP has been trending toward Trumpism for decades, and it had sold its soul to the movement now. The "sensible conservative" party you are looking for doesn't exist.

Please to post comments