The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
I Win or You Cheated
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The sample was drawn from the San Diego metropolitan area so sentiments by partisan affiliation skew a little further to the left than they would in flyover country, but the pattern must be broadly in line with that of the country as a whole:

 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Are any of these elections “fair and square”? Trump lost by 2.9 million votes, and got 306* Electoral College votes; Biden wins by 7 million, and gets… 306 EC votes. There are arguments in favour of the EC, given that the US a federal republic, but when wildly different vote tallies produce the same result, one side will always feel aggrieved.

    *This doesn’t even include faithless electors, who disregard the will of the majority.

    • Replies: @Hannah Katz
    @Nodwink

    Yeah, I was pretty miffed when my team ran up more total yards, and yet the officials awarded the game to the other team just because they had more points on the scoreboard. Not fair! Maybe my team should have refused to leave the field until they were given the win. Intimidating referees might have been tried too. Whatever it takes, as the Democrats like to say.

    Replies: @Marty

  2. Well,well.Only dims and rebs in the wrong majority.Go figure.
    Maybe,just maybe,we don’t need these people.
    It’s worth a try,isn’t it?
    We used to raise the bar on intellect, what happened?
    “fair and square”? This is getting scary. More drugs,anyone?

  3. Problem is that in 2016 those with a low fairness ranking thought fairness meant staying within the media’s Overton window. Many didn’t learn until Trump came along that you were allowed to say things the media doesn’t like. Was quite a revelation.

  4. Now show the mirrored graphs where libs think Trumpers are violent burning rioters and vice versa.

  5. H.R.1

    A BILL

    To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box

    States and localities have eroded access to the right to vote through restrictions on the right to vote including excessively onerous voter identification requirements, burdensome voter registration procedures, voter purges, limited and unequal access to voting by mail, polling place closures

    PROHIBITING STATE FROM REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE MORE THAN LAST 4 DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

    o person, other than a State or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to register to vote in an election for Federal office

    SEC. 307. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL

    the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by absentee ballot by mail

    A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot

    A State may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication (other than voter attestation) as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot

    PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT

    if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot …the State shall permit the individual to meet the requirement… by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity

  6. So basically both sides no longer recognise the legitimacy of any election unless their guy wins.

    From now on every single election result will be disputed by the losing side.

    At least we now know that nobody on either side wants democracy. The myth of democracy would seem to have been irretrievably shattered. It’s now just a naked struggle for power.

    The sad thing is that the supporters on both sides are equally deluded in their expectations of what their “side” is actually going to deliver. The supporters on both sides are still unaware that even if their guy wins they will still lose.

    So we’re dealing with multiple layers of delusional thinking. Meanwhile the neoliberals consolidate their power, regardless of which side “wins.”

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    Actually, it's not from now, it's just inside baseball seeping out into the general culture. Struggles and accusations over voting and fraud go back to the 60s if not earlier but were usually confined to activists. (Was the "election stolen for Kennedy" mainstreamed at all? (I don't know.) )

    Then in 2000, you had Bush vs Gore and a lot of Democrats still think Gore's victory was stolen from him, despite multiple recounts (post-SCOTUS) showing Bush won Florida. 2004: Ohio. 2008: "Obama's birth certificate"

    Douglas Murray has made a good point that one of the necessary outcomes from an election is the losing side knowing they lost so they can process their loss psychologically and adjust for the future. I think no one wants to adjust now, and election fraud is a mechanism that allows people to avoid having to adjust. For rank and file voters, I don't know what dynamic is driving that desire, but for more involved minds, it is clear that the problem is that the stakes have been raised above policy choices. The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon's "Imagine" demonstrate what's going on. Many on the right see their country literally being stolen from them through immigration and globalization, while the left can almost taste their coming utopia.

    Replies: @Marty, @Adam Smith, @Curle

  7. From ‘Mexican Leftists Fear Biden More than Trump’ by Rio Grandito:

    Mexico’s fine President Andrés Manuel López Obrador or ‘AMLO’, a democratic, socialist, but very libertarian figure, is himself both a victim of election fraud, and a victim of ‘fake news’ media slanders, AMLO one of Trump’s major sympathisers amongst G-20 leaders; AMLO privately considers it likely that Trump was cheated of his victory.

    Recognising portents from their own history, many Mexican leftists see the USA as now being pushed into a civil war scenario by the belligerence and arrogance of the USA Democratic party of Biden-Harris. They see a horrible potential for totalitarian tyranny by this fraudulent ‘Left’.

    In poorer Mexico, with its often religious, often traditional and family-loving people, leftists reject and do not even have time for all this ‘woke’ bolshite like fake leftist Americans. But we can see the internal USA war coming. Mexico will be greatly affected, and will be a haven for escaping Americans.

  8. I would imagine Biden’s gang are setting retired General McChrystal up to be their modern-day Belisarius to crush a series of ‘Nika Riots’ in red-state America.

    • Replies: @Neuday
    @The Alarmist

    I think the Right Wing has learned that mass demonstrations are a bad idea. What you'll eventually see are isolated or loosely coordinated "accidents" and disruptions that will be portrayed as purely coincidental if they're mentioned at all. That AT&T bombing sure dropped off the pages quickly, didn't it. There are far too many high-value soft targets and the system can't defend even a fraction of what's needed to keep themselves viable. There are a whole lot of guys who spent time in the ME and saw up close what an insurgency looks like and how it's done. Not too hard to bleed out a bankrupt Leviathan that's lost all legitimacy.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @The Alarmist

    The demes won't be unarmed this time around.

  9. @The Alarmist
    I would imagine Biden’s gang are setting retired General McChrystal up to be their modern-day Belisarius to crush a series of ‘Nika Riots’ in red-state America.

    Replies: @Neuday, @Audacious Epigone

    I think the Right Wing has learned that mass demonstrations are a bad idea. What you’ll eventually see are isolated or loosely coordinated “accidents” and disruptions that will be portrayed as purely coincidental if they’re mentioned at all. That AT&T bombing sure dropped off the pages quickly, didn’t it. There are far too many high-value soft targets and the system can’t defend even a fraction of what’s needed to keep themselves viable. There are a whole lot of guys who spent time in the ME and saw up close what an insurgency looks like and how it’s done. Not too hard to bleed out a bankrupt Leviathan that’s lost all legitimacy.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Neuday

    Unfortunately, that is the wrong lesson. Actually, what is needed right now is more demonstrations. As Trump said, we are the side of law and order. The Capitol riot broke that brand, and it needs to be built up again through peaceful right-wing demonstrations. Instead, what is happening is that the right wing is letting the media and deep state portray it as a threat, and that image is going to allow them to curtail speech and association freedoms, indirectly if not directly.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  10. anon[201] • Disclaimer says:

    It looks like Dems were less likely to say Trump’s 2016 was stolen back in 2017 when they were first asked this question than in 2021. Clearly, jmedia agitprop has pushed the leftoid contingent further to the hysterical left in the years of Trump.

    The bottom line is that Trump’s 2016 win was in actuality the first “people’s president” win since Reagan, maybe since long before Reagan. Trump defied Uniparty machinations to win *despite* a system rigged against outsiders. The establishment was caught with its pantsuits down in 2016; by 2020, they made sure that wouldn’t happen again.

    Fake President Biden won nothing, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that. 2020 was not the first stolen American election, but it was the most brazen, utilized the most widespread vote fraud tactics, and relied on the most insidious pretext (dems should thank their fraud ex machina, the wuhan flu).

    • Agree: Dutch Boy, Mr. Rational
    • Disagree: Supply and Demand
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Fake President Biden won nothing..."

    Perhaps you can explain these matters.

    1) Why did American Thinker apologize for false Dominion Voting articles?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/15/american-thinker-conservative-blog-apologizes-for-/


    “These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims,” reads the rest of the statement. “It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.”

     

    2) Why did Sydney Powell drop her suit in Georgia when asked to submit evidence, considering she claimed she had bombshell revelations how the U.S. Army seized servers in Germany that switched voters from Trump to Biden?

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/534953-sidney-powell-withdraws-kraken-lawsuit-in-georgia

    3) Why didn’t Trump lawyers in their court cases around the nation did not claim sweeping fraud?

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nevada/articles/2020-12-09/trump-camp-loses-nevada-high-court-bid-to-nullify-election

    “Appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none,” the justices said.
     
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

    For example, they sought have the Bucks County (PA) Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 supposedly “defective ballots” that were counted after a review by the Board of Elections. Trump lawyers agreed to sign documents saying that there was zero evidence of fraud or misconduct when it came to said ballots. Attorneys for both sides signed a “joint stipulation of facts—an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action—which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth’s fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct.” The joint statement literally reads: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” Additionally, both sides agreed that election observers from each party were allowed full access to view the pre-canvassing and canvassing processes.
     

    Replies: @anon

  11. The very concept of a democracy is idiotic. All governments and democratic governments in particular’s sole purpose is to ask a question and then demand a single answer for how to set policy that shouldn’t even exist.

    If the question weren’t asked and people didn’t vote on it, then both sides could choose their own way in life.

    Why must there be a strict law that rewards and punishes things that in many cases are just opinions. We can all agree on the golden rule and the non aggression principle but that’s not where the law stops. We get drug laws, speeding laws, money laundering laws, lock downs that are a euphemism for imprisonment without benefit of charge or trial, all run by sociopaths whose only skill is getting elected by a corrupt party system that predefines a winner no matter which way the votes go. And people cooperate in this scam by voting. Please stop cooperating in your enslavement.

    Now, there’s one thing you might have noticed I don’t complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.’
    George Carlin

    I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.
    George Carlin

    Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.
    George Carlin

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @RoatanBill


    We can all agree on the golden rule and the non aggression principle but that’s not where the law stops.
     
    While you and I, and indeed most of us, agree on the non-agression principle, there are some among us who obviously do not. The people masquerading as "government" believe very much in violence to achieve their goals. Everything the so called "government" demands from the people involves the very real threat of violence, including deadly violence. Authoritarian followers love violence against anyone they consider to be a member of the outgroup. If people really believed in the non-aggression principle the world would be a very different place.

    , @Realist
    @RoatanBill


    The very concept of a democracy is idiotic.
     
    Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.

    Democracy: The God That Failed

    Replies: @dfordoom

  12. It seems relevant here to point out that there is some actual evidence for the 2020 election having been rigged. One may not find that evidence compelling, I suppose, but it’s not difficult for a neutral observer to understand the basis of Republican grievances in this regard.

    Whereas I have never heard anyone claim that Donald Trump didn’t really carry Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or whatever (in 2016). Everyone seems to acknowledge that Trump got more votes in those states. But his votes were cast my big meanies with White skins who are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex (and may actually believe in God!), so they shouldn’t count, or something. I think the formal argument is that somehow (it’s unclear how this was accomplished), the Russians persuaded a bunch of mean, rotten Americans to vote for Trump. Of course, even if that extremely dubious assertion were correct, it’s not clear that a human action (such as voting for a candidate) becomes illegitimate, merely because it was undertaken on the advice of a Russian.

  13. The symmetry is not surprising. This is often true of AE’s postings, though we thank him for providing some confirmation of the obvious that we already know via our somehow magical intuition.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    The symmetry is not surprising. This is often true of AE’s postings, though we thank him for providing some confirmation of the obvious that we already know via our somehow magical intuition.
     
    What I have noticed recently is a particularly stubborn refusal to consider actual facts, regardless of one's political opinions.

    The WWC has been deeply and bitterly divided by Trump, with most thinking he was a Great Hope for something new, and others thinking he was a conman who would govern just like any other basic b!tch Republican. The latter turned out to be the case, but well before that became clear, they were flat out refusing to entertain the possibility that there was no Russian interference. They refused to even debate the evidence. Now, they are equally convinced (a priori) there was no voter fraud.

    This is a thing that is just incomprehensible to me. It seems to me that things were different during the divisive ML scandal. Democrats didn't so much flatly deny that it happened as minimize its importance. Now, people are either totally unwilling or unable to separate questions of fact from their partisan loyalties. I have had to basically avoid family members because they won't listen to reason and won't shut up.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  14. @RoatanBill
    The very concept of a democracy is idiotic. All governments and democratic governments in particular's sole purpose is to ask a question and then demand a single answer for how to set policy that shouldn't even exist.

    If the question weren't asked and people didn't vote on it, then both sides could choose their own way in life.

    Why must there be a strict law that rewards and punishes things that in many cases are just opinions. We can all agree on the golden rule and the non aggression principle but that's not where the law stops. We get drug laws, speeding laws, money laundering laws, lock downs that are a euphemism for imprisonment without benefit of charge or trial, all run by sociopaths whose only skill is getting elected by a corrupt party system that predefines a winner no matter which way the votes go. And people cooperate in this scam by voting. Please stop cooperating in your enslavement.

    Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'
    George Carlin

    I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.
    George Carlin

    Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.
    George Carlin

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Realist

    We can all agree on the golden rule and the non aggression principle but that’s not where the law stops.

    While you and I, and indeed most of us, agree on the non-agression principle, there are some among us who obviously do not. The people masquerading as “government” believe very much in violence to achieve their goals. Everything the so called “government” demands from the people involves the very real threat of violence, including deadly violence. Authoritarian followers love violence against anyone they consider to be a member of the outgroup. If people really believed in the non-aggression principle the world would be a very different place.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
  15. @Nodwink
    Are any of these elections "fair and square"? Trump lost by 2.9 million votes, and got 306* Electoral College votes; Biden wins by 7 million, and gets... 306 EC votes. There are arguments in favour of the EC, given that the US a federal republic, but when wildly different vote tallies produce the same result, one side will always feel aggrieved.

    *This doesn't even include faithless electors, who disregard the will of the majority.

    Replies: @Hannah Katz

    Yeah, I was pretty miffed when my team ran up more total yards, and yet the officials awarded the game to the other team just because they had more points on the scoreboard. Not fair! Maybe my team should have refused to leave the field until they were given the win. Intimidating referees might have been tried too. Whatever it takes, as the Democrats like to say.

    • Replies: @Marty
    @Hannah Katz

    If Tucker somehow gets canned, I hope you get the job.

  16. Millennials want participation trophies even if they lose, boomers want to pretend that they’re always winning even when they’re losing, otherwise it’s “cheating” or “stealing”. Trump was boomercon catnip because he fed them L after L but said they were Ws.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  17. According to your link, slightly different picture emerges when looking at total number of responses:

    37% of adults today say Trump won the 2016 election “fair and square,” down slightly from 41% in 2017. 32% today say Trump was helped across the finish line, down from 40% in 2017. The number of San Diegans who today are unsure what happened in that election is 32% — up sharply from 19% 3 years ago.

    When the same question is posed about Joe Biden’s 2020 win, a different set of numbers: 63% say Biden won fair and square; 23% say he was helped across the finish line; 15% don’t know enough to say.

    In other words, while perceptions surely correspond with political affiliations (would you expect otherwise?), on the whole there is a broad consensus that 2020 election was more fair. And as you said, those results might “skew a little further to the left than they would in flyover country, but the pattern must be broadly in line with that of the country as a whole”.

  18. @Buzz Mohawk
    The symmetry is not surprising. This is often true of AE's postings, though we thank him for providing some confirmation of the obvious that we already know via our somehow magical intuition.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The symmetry is not surprising. This is often true of AE’s postings, though we thank him for providing some confirmation of the obvious that we already know via our somehow magical intuition.

    What I have noticed recently is a particularly stubborn refusal to consider actual facts, regardless of one’s political opinions.

    The WWC has been deeply and bitterly divided by Trump, with most thinking he was a Great Hope for something new, and others thinking he was a conman who would govern just like any other basic b!tch Republican. The latter turned out to be the case, but well before that became clear, they were flat out refusing to entertain the possibility that there was no Russian interference. They refused to even debate the evidence. Now, they are equally convinced (a priori) there was no voter fraud.

    This is a thing that is just incomprehensible to me. It seems to me that things were different during the divisive ML scandal. Democrats didn’t so much flatly deny that it happened as minimize its importance. Now, people are either totally unwilling or unable to separate questions of fact from their partisan loyalties. I have had to basically avoid family members because they won’t listen to reason and won’t shut up.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Rosie

    Thank you, Rosie, for your reply. You know, just as an aside, I have observed around this site what you have accurately described as a rather large number of douchebags who seem to enjoy some weird anti-female animus. They are misguided. I can enjoy my maleness without correspondingly denigrating its complement, but they seem oblivious to the fact that there is any complement at all.

    Replies: @anon

  19. The WWC has been deeply and bitterly divided by Trump, with most thinking he was a Great Hope for something new, and others thinking he was a conman who would govern just like any other basic b!tch Republican. The latter turned out to be the case,

    Of course, now I get to be the one to say “I told you so” for the next four years.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/01/24/neoliberal-joe-abandons-2000-checks-for-immigration-radicalism/

  20. You could write a history of the world based on the evolution of what “playing fair” means. Democracy was just about possible when all we had to do was teach the kids how to use the bow and arrow of Reason. Alas, the bow quickly became obsolete, even dismissively quaint, in an age of ideological gunpowder.

    Progress is always about might, never right. Advantage always trumps ethics and morality, or any other kind of thinking that isn’t based on winning in the immediate future. There’s always an imminent crisis to force your hand; the beauty of an accelerated technological culture is that the crisis is baked into simply living your life.

    As long as you keep the current generation focused on the wrongs of previous generations, they’ll be more than happy to call their own wrongs necessary, even preferable. It’s fair to use any means necessary. It’s necessary to become as bad as the enemy if you want to defeat them. And in the end, whoever wins gets to write history. We’re so advanced now that sometimes the winners get to write it before it even happens.

  21. Man, independents are stupid.

  22. My favorite take on 2016 is from one of my co-workers who told me just last week that Hillary lost only because Russians hacked and released through Wikileaks Democrat emails and that there was absolutely nothing negative in the emails. These came in back-to-back statements.

    (He is also of the opinion that the Mueller Report left out lots of damning material about the Russians and about Trump because they didn’t have the resources to investigate thoroughly. And he is also of the opinion that he is a reasonable centrist, not one of those “crazy” leftists!)

    My own reaction to AE’s post was that I guess I am in the majority of independents with regard to 2016–that election was not fair and square. It was rigged by the bureaucracy and media in favor of Hillary.

  23. @Neuday
    @The Alarmist

    I think the Right Wing has learned that mass demonstrations are a bad idea. What you'll eventually see are isolated or loosely coordinated "accidents" and disruptions that will be portrayed as purely coincidental if they're mentioned at all. That AT&T bombing sure dropped off the pages quickly, didn't it. There are far too many high-value soft targets and the system can't defend even a fraction of what's needed to keep themselves viable. There are a whole lot of guys who spent time in the ME and saw up close what an insurgency looks like and how it's done. Not too hard to bleed out a bankrupt Leviathan that's lost all legitimacy.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Unfortunately, that is the wrong lesson. Actually, what is needed right now is more demonstrations. As Trump said, we are the side of law and order. The Capitol riot broke that brand, and it needs to be built up again through peaceful right-wing demonstrations. Instead, what is happening is that the right wing is letting the media and deep state portray it as a threat, and that image is going to allow them to curtail speech and association freedoms, indirectly if not directly.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    The Capitol riot broke that brand, and it needs to be built up again through peaceful right-wing demonstrations.
     
    There's no way you can ensure that peaceful demonstrations remain peaceful. You only need a tiny number of nutjobs to ignite violence. And the Right (like the Left) has an ample supply of nutjobs.

    Peaceful demonstrations are quite a risk to take at the moment.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  24. @dfordoom
    So basically both sides no longer recognise the legitimacy of any election unless their guy wins.

    From now on every single election result will be disputed by the losing side.

    At least we now know that nobody on either side wants democracy. The myth of democracy would seem to have been irretrievably shattered. It's now just a naked struggle for power.

    The sad thing is that the supporters on both sides are equally deluded in their expectations of what their "side" is actually going to deliver. The supporters on both sides are still unaware that even if their guy wins they will still lose.

    So we're dealing with multiple layers of delusional thinking. Meanwhile the neoliberals consolidate their power, regardless of which side "wins."

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Actually, it’s not from now, it’s just inside baseball seeping out into the general culture. Struggles and accusations over voting and fraud go back to the 60s if not earlier but were usually confined to activists. (Was the “election stolen for Kennedy” mainstreamed at all? (I don’t know.) )

    Then in 2000, you had Bush vs Gore and a lot of Democrats still think Gore’s victory was stolen from him, despite multiple recounts (post-SCOTUS) showing Bush won Florida. 2004: Ohio. 2008: “Obama’s birth certificate”

    Douglas Murray has made a good point that one of the necessary outcomes from an election is the losing side knowing they lost so they can process their loss psychologically and adjust for the future. I think no one wants to adjust now, and election fraud is a mechanism that allows people to avoid having to adjust. For rank and file voters, I don’t know what dynamic is driving that desire, but for more involved minds, it is clear that the problem is that the stakes have been raised above policy choices. The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon’s “Imagine” demonstrate what’s going on. Many on the right see their country literally being stolen from them through immigration and globalization, while the left can almost taste their coming utopia.

    • Replies: @Marty
    @Chrisnonymous

    Go back and read what you wrote - it’s self-cancelling.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Adam Smith
    @Chrisnonymous


    The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists...
     
    So the CIA is going to start giving libertarians weapons and bags of cash?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @Curle
    @Chrisnonymous

    “ The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon’s “Imagine” demonstrate what’s going on.”

    That Brennan, alleged former communist, and by alleged I intend to emphasize the indeterminacy of the word ‘former’ not the word ‘communist’, thinks this establishes that Brennan is still mentally ill.

  25. @Rosie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    The symmetry is not surprising. This is often true of AE’s postings, though we thank him for providing some confirmation of the obvious that we already know via our somehow magical intuition.
     
    What I have noticed recently is a particularly stubborn refusal to consider actual facts, regardless of one's political opinions.

    The WWC has been deeply and bitterly divided by Trump, with most thinking he was a Great Hope for something new, and others thinking he was a conman who would govern just like any other basic b!tch Republican. The latter turned out to be the case, but well before that became clear, they were flat out refusing to entertain the possibility that there was no Russian interference. They refused to even debate the evidence. Now, they are equally convinced (a priori) there was no voter fraud.

    This is a thing that is just incomprehensible to me. It seems to me that things were different during the divisive ML scandal. Democrats didn't so much flatly deny that it happened as minimize its importance. Now, people are either totally unwilling or unable to separate questions of fact from their partisan loyalties. I have had to basically avoid family members because they won't listen to reason and won't shut up.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Thank you, Rosie, for your reply. You know, just as an aside, I have observed around this site what you have accurately described as a rather large number of douchebags who seem to enjoy some weird anti-female animus. They are misguided. I can enjoy my maleness without correspondingly denigrating its complement, but they seem oblivious to the fact that there is any complement at all.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    https://booksrun.com/image-loader/350/https:__m.media-amazon.com_images_I_41wP1+yDCJL.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  26. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Rosie

    Thank you, Rosie, for your reply. You know, just as an aside, I have observed around this site what you have accurately described as a rather large number of douchebags who seem to enjoy some weird anti-female animus. They are misguided. I can enjoy my maleness without correspondingly denigrating its complement, but they seem oblivious to the fact that there is any complement at all.

    Replies: @anon

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @anon

    Okay, okay. I get it. From now on, I just won't like girls at all. They have cooties, after all. (When is the last time you got laid, asshole?)

    Replies: @anon, @nebulafox

  27. @Hannah Katz
    @Nodwink

    Yeah, I was pretty miffed when my team ran up more total yards, and yet the officials awarded the game to the other team just because they had more points on the scoreboard. Not fair! Maybe my team should have refused to leave the field until they were given the win. Intimidating referees might have been tried too. Whatever it takes, as the Democrats like to say.

    Replies: @Marty

    If Tucker somehow gets canned, I hope you get the job.

  28. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    Actually, it's not from now, it's just inside baseball seeping out into the general culture. Struggles and accusations over voting and fraud go back to the 60s if not earlier but were usually confined to activists. (Was the "election stolen for Kennedy" mainstreamed at all? (I don't know.) )

    Then in 2000, you had Bush vs Gore and a lot of Democrats still think Gore's victory was stolen from him, despite multiple recounts (post-SCOTUS) showing Bush won Florida. 2004: Ohio. 2008: "Obama's birth certificate"

    Douglas Murray has made a good point that one of the necessary outcomes from an election is the losing side knowing they lost so they can process their loss psychologically and adjust for the future. I think no one wants to adjust now, and election fraud is a mechanism that allows people to avoid having to adjust. For rank and file voters, I don't know what dynamic is driving that desire, but for more involved minds, it is clear that the problem is that the stakes have been raised above policy choices. The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon's "Imagine" demonstrate what's going on. Many on the right see their country literally being stolen from them through immigration and globalization, while the left can almost taste their coming utopia.

    Replies: @Marty, @Adam Smith, @Curle

    Go back and read what you wrote – it’s self-cancelling.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Marty

    In what way?

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Marty

    Political insiders have always seen politics are something of a naked struggle for power, but recently, especially since the late 1990s--maybe as a reaction to Bill Clinton?--that view has been seeping into the general discourse, which used to give the other side more benefit of the doubt.

    This was on display in the recent Stephanopoulos-Rand Paul interview in which Steph. kept saying there was no evidence that the election was stolen and Rand Paul kept saying there was evidence of fraud, without either refuting the other directly. Essentially, Stephanopoulos, the political insider, is saying, "look, everyone knows about fraud, but we outsmarted you this time, so you can't go around telling people the election was stolen".

    The adjustment I'm talking about is political adjustment, as in "why did we lose that demographic or region and what do we do next time to win it back?" instead "we did everything right, but they stole it from us!" I think Murray's point was that this is how a functional democratic political system serves people--losing signals need for change and realignments, and not accepting a loss results in inability to make necessary changes that both help you get back in power but also respond to voters. According to Murray, Rand Paul needs to accept his loss and just agree with Stephanopoulos so that he can go back to the drawing board and figure out how to appeal to more voters next time instead of getting stuck psychologically on the issue of fraud.

    But I think now many elites in the Democrat party, are not really focused on the long-term health of a system that looks like today's system because they are focused on things like regime change abroad and bringing in new global political orders, and they don't think the US of even 2032 is going to be the same as today's. They're not interested in accepting any loss because it's just a roadbump on the way to the future.

    I don't know what's going on with people at lower levels of involvement in the political system--your common voter who is watching eveything on TV but can't accept that their side lost. I suspect it is just picking up talking points from Rachel Maddow or whoever keeps up the constant drumbeat.

  29. @Marty
    @Chrisnonymous

    Go back and read what you wrote - it’s self-cancelling.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Chrisnonymous

    In what way?

  30. @Chrisnonymous
    @Neuday

    Unfortunately, that is the wrong lesson. Actually, what is needed right now is more demonstrations. As Trump said, we are the side of law and order. The Capitol riot broke that brand, and it needs to be built up again through peaceful right-wing demonstrations. Instead, what is happening is that the right wing is letting the media and deep state portray it as a threat, and that image is going to allow them to curtail speech and association freedoms, indirectly if not directly.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The Capitol riot broke that brand, and it needs to be built up again through peaceful right-wing demonstrations.

    There’s no way you can ensure that peaceful demonstrations remain peaceful. You only need a tiny number of nutjobs to ignite violence. And the Right (like the Left) has an ample supply of nutjobs.

    Peaceful demonstrations are quite a risk to take at the moment.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    Yes, but look what happened with the recent coordinated state-level demonstrations. There were warnings, and then nothing happened and the media and law enforcement appeared to have overreacted. That is the PR we need. Not only the right wing, but the whole country, to fight the Domestic Terrorism legislation, which is already in process.

  31. @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    The Capitol riot broke that brand, and it needs to be built up again through peaceful right-wing demonstrations.
     
    There's no way you can ensure that peaceful demonstrations remain peaceful. You only need a tiny number of nutjobs to ignite violence. And the Right (like the Left) has an ample supply of nutjobs.

    Peaceful demonstrations are quite a risk to take at the moment.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Yes, but look what happened with the recent coordinated state-level demonstrations. There were warnings, and then nothing happened and the media and law enforcement appeared to have overreacted. That is the PR we need. Not only the right wing, but the whole country, to fight the Domestic Terrorism legislation, which is already in process.

  32. @Marty
    @Chrisnonymous

    Go back and read what you wrote - it’s self-cancelling.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Chrisnonymous

    Political insiders have always seen politics are something of a naked struggle for power, but recently, especially since the late 1990s–maybe as a reaction to Bill Clinton?–that view has been seeping into the general discourse, which used to give the other side more benefit of the doubt.

    This was on display in the recent Stephanopoulos-Rand Paul interview in which Steph. kept saying there was no evidence that the election was stolen and Rand Paul kept saying there was evidence of fraud, without either refuting the other directly. Essentially, Stephanopoulos, the political insider, is saying, “look, everyone knows about fraud, but we outsmarted you this time, so you can’t go around telling people the election was stolen”.

    The adjustment I’m talking about is political adjustment, as in “why did we lose that demographic or region and what do we do next time to win it back?” instead “we did everything right, but they stole it from us!” I think Murray’s point was that this is how a functional democratic political system serves people–losing signals need for change and realignments, and not accepting a loss results in inability to make necessary changes that both help you get back in power but also respond to voters. According to Murray, Rand Paul needs to accept his loss and just agree with Stephanopoulos so that he can go back to the drawing board and figure out how to appeal to more voters next time instead of getting stuck psychologically on the issue of fraud.

    But I think now many elites in the Democrat party, are not really focused on the long-term health of a system that looks like today’s system because they are focused on things like regime change abroad and bringing in new global political orders, and they don’t think the US of even 2032 is going to be the same as today’s. They’re not interested in accepting any loss because it’s just a roadbump on the way to the future.

    I don’t know what’s going on with people at lower levels of involvement in the political system–your common voter who is watching eveything on TV but can’t accept that their side lost. I suspect it is just picking up talking points from Rachel Maddow or whoever keeps up the constant drumbeat.

  33. @anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    https://booksrun.com/image-loader/350/https:__m.media-amazon.com_images_I_41wP1+yDCJL.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Okay, okay. I get it. From now on, I just won’t like girls at all. They have cooties, after all. (When is the last time you got laid, asshole?)

    • Replies: @anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    http://img.picturequotes.com/2/853/852428/the-most-basic-of-conservative-principles-is-that-if-you-reward-bad-behavior-you-get-more-of-it-quote-1.jpg

    , @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    IMHO, it's a truly damning indictment of my generation that so many of us can't laughingly accept the foibles of the opposite sex without illusions, but also with a knowing, happy smile. Aren't we supposed to be... you know, attracted to each other because we're different?

  34. @Buzz Mohawk
    @anon

    Okay, okay. I get it. From now on, I just won't like girls at all. They have cooties, after all. (When is the last time you got laid, asshole?)

    Replies: @anon, @nebulafox

  35. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    Actually, it's not from now, it's just inside baseball seeping out into the general culture. Struggles and accusations over voting and fraud go back to the 60s if not earlier but were usually confined to activists. (Was the "election stolen for Kennedy" mainstreamed at all? (I don't know.) )

    Then in 2000, you had Bush vs Gore and a lot of Democrats still think Gore's victory was stolen from him, despite multiple recounts (post-SCOTUS) showing Bush won Florida. 2004: Ohio. 2008: "Obama's birth certificate"

    Douglas Murray has made a good point that one of the necessary outcomes from an election is the losing side knowing they lost so they can process their loss psychologically and adjust for the future. I think no one wants to adjust now, and election fraud is a mechanism that allows people to avoid having to adjust. For rank and file voters, I don't know what dynamic is driving that desire, but for more involved minds, it is clear that the problem is that the stakes have been raised above policy choices. The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon's "Imagine" demonstrate what's going on. Many on the right see their country literally being stolen from them through immigration and globalization, while the left can almost taste their coming utopia.

    Replies: @Marty, @Adam Smith, @Curle

    The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists…

    So the CIA is going to start giving libertarians weapons and bags of cash?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Adam Smith

    Meme material. Somebody should make it if it hasn't been made already.

  36. Cheating in 2016 and massively in 2020.

    Dems learned from their inadequate 2016
    cheating to do massive, in-your-face cheating
    in 2020. No holds barred. No lie not used.
    Full court corruption.

    Deep ShitState made sure Trump not
    gonna win a second time.

    Hillary Hagwitch will go to her grave
    cursing her weak level of fraud.

    Trump had no team to cheat for him
    so crooked Dems did all the cheating.

    And murdering.

    5 dancing shlomos

  37. @Buzz Mohawk
    @anon

    Okay, okay. I get it. From now on, I just won't like girls at all. They have cooties, after all. (When is the last time you got laid, asshole?)

    Replies: @anon, @nebulafox

    IMHO, it’s a truly damning indictment of my generation that so many of us can’t laughingly accept the foibles of the opposite sex without illusions, but also with a knowing, happy smile. Aren’t we supposed to be… you know, attracted to each other because we’re different?

  38. @RoatanBill
    The very concept of a democracy is idiotic. All governments and democratic governments in particular's sole purpose is to ask a question and then demand a single answer for how to set policy that shouldn't even exist.

    If the question weren't asked and people didn't vote on it, then both sides could choose their own way in life.

    Why must there be a strict law that rewards and punishes things that in many cases are just opinions. We can all agree on the golden rule and the non aggression principle but that's not where the law stops. We get drug laws, speeding laws, money laundering laws, lock downs that are a euphemism for imprisonment without benefit of charge or trial, all run by sociopaths whose only skill is getting elected by a corrupt party system that predefines a winner no matter which way the votes go. And people cooperate in this scam by voting. Please stop cooperating in your enslavement.

    Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'
    George Carlin

    I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.
    George Carlin

    Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.
    George Carlin

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Realist

    The very concept of a democracy is idiotic.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.

    Democracy: The God That Failed

    • Agree: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Realist


    Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.

    Democracy: The God That Failed
     
    It's an interesting book. Like most libertarians he's good at pointing out the flaws in the current system. But like most libertarians when it comes to suggesting workable alternatives all he comes up with is utter nonsense.

    He did manage to convince me that monarchy is the most workable system of government. That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing. His arguments in favour of libertarianism are embarrassingly silly.

    Replies: @Realist

  39. @Realist
    @RoatanBill


    The very concept of a democracy is idiotic.
     
    Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.

    Democracy: The God That Failed

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.

    Democracy: The God That Failed

    It’s an interesting book. Like most libertarians he’s good at pointing out the flaws in the current system. But like most libertarians when it comes to suggesting workable alternatives all he comes up with is utter nonsense.

    He did manage to convince me that monarchy is the most workable system of government. That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing. His arguments in favour of libertarianism are embarrassingly silly.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @dfordoom


    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.
     
    I'm not so sure that wasn't his intention.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  40. @dfordoom
    @Realist


    Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.

    Democracy: The God That Failed
     
    It's an interesting book. Like most libertarians he's good at pointing out the flaws in the current system. But like most libertarians when it comes to suggesting workable alternatives all he comes up with is utter nonsense.

    He did manage to convince me that monarchy is the most workable system of government. That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing. His arguments in favour of libertarianism are embarrassingly silly.

    Replies: @Realist

    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.

    I’m not so sure that wasn’t his intention.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Realist



    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.
     
    I’m not so sure that wasn’t his intention.
     
    That's an interesting take. Maybe Hoppe is really a monarchist at heart? Maybe he realises that libertarianism is just la-la land stuff?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Realist

  41. @Realist
    @dfordoom


    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.
     
    I'm not so sure that wasn't his intention.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.

    I’m not so sure that wasn’t his intention.

    That’s an interesting take. Maybe Hoppe is really a monarchist at heart? Maybe he realises that libertarianism is just la-la land stuff?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom

    Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He's not hiding it and he's not pretending.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Realist
    @dfordoom


    Maybe Hoppe is really a monarchist at heart?
     
    That's kind of the impression I had.
  42. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    Actually, it's not from now, it's just inside baseball seeping out into the general culture. Struggles and accusations over voting and fraud go back to the 60s if not earlier but were usually confined to activists. (Was the "election stolen for Kennedy" mainstreamed at all? (I don't know.) )

    Then in 2000, you had Bush vs Gore and a lot of Democrats still think Gore's victory was stolen from him, despite multiple recounts (post-SCOTUS) showing Bush won Florida. 2004: Ohio. 2008: "Obama's birth certificate"

    Douglas Murray has made a good point that one of the necessary outcomes from an election is the losing side knowing they lost so they can process their loss psychologically and adjust for the future. I think no one wants to adjust now, and election fraud is a mechanism that allows people to avoid having to adjust. For rank and file voters, I don't know what dynamic is driving that desire, but for more involved minds, it is clear that the problem is that the stakes have been raised above policy choices. The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon's "Imagine" demonstrate what's going on. Many on the right see their country literally being stolen from them through immigration and globalization, while the left can almost taste their coming utopia.

    Replies: @Marty, @Adam Smith, @Curle

    “ The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists and, especially, the one saying Navalny would soon replace Putin and that then the world would be able to unite in peace a la John Lennon’s “Imagine” demonstrate what’s going on.”

    That Brennan, alleged former communist, and by alleged I intend to emphasize the indeterminacy of the word ‘former’ not the word ‘communist’, thinks this establishes that Brennan is still mentally ill.

  43. @dfordoom
    @Realist



    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.
     
    I’m not so sure that wasn’t his intention.
     
    That's an interesting take. Maybe Hoppe is really a monarchist at heart? Maybe he realises that libertarianism is just la-la land stuff?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Realist

    Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He’s not hiding it and he’s not pretending.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He’s not hiding it and he’s not pretending.
     
    In that case my respect for him has just increased substantially.

    The most popular argument against monarchism is the "what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic" argument. Which is rather amusing when you look at the abysmal quality of leaders that democracy has produced.

    But most ordinary people are convinced by the "what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic" argument. To make monarchism a viable option a powerful counter-argument needs to be found. What form do you think such as counter-argument could take?

    Ron has contributors who are all over the map politically. Maybe it would be possible for him to find someone who could present a viable monarchist perspective? I think that would count as an "Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspective Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media."

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  44. @dfordoom
    @Realist



    That was not his intention but his arguments in favour of monarchy are convincing.
     
    I’m not so sure that wasn’t his intention.
     
    That's an interesting take. Maybe Hoppe is really a monarchist at heart? Maybe he realises that libertarianism is just la-la land stuff?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Realist

    Maybe Hoppe is really a monarchist at heart?

    That’s kind of the impression I had.

  45. “Are any of these elections “fair and square”? Trump lost by 2.9 million votes, and got 306* Electoral College votes; Biden wins by 7 million, and gets… 306 EC votes. There are arguments in favour of the EC, given that the US a federal republic, but when wildly different vote tallies produce the same result, one side will always feel aggrieved.”

    Only if you miss the point of the elctoral college. One of the most effective and innovative aspects of our democratic process.

    If not for the conduct of the changes to the process in sertain states outside of the legistalaive process, and the sudden shifts in votes, the tactics regarding vote count supervision and accountability I would not have little to be concerned about the result.

    if you undertsnad the electoral college and its purpose, then its clear why popularity is different from represntative choice by the population of th states themselves to avoid some tyrrany of the majority.

    Laugh, though currently, that oe not matter much.

  46. @anon
    It looks like Dems were less likely to say Trump's 2016 was stolen back in 2017 when they were first asked this question than in 2021. Clearly, jmedia agitprop has pushed the leftoid contingent further to the hysterical left in the years of Trump.

    The bottom line is that Trump's 2016 win was in actuality the first "people's president" win since Reagan, maybe since long before Reagan. Trump defied Uniparty machinations to win *despite* a system rigged against outsiders. The establishment was caught with its pantsuits down in 2016; by 2020, they made sure that wouldn't happen again.

    Fake President Biden won nothing, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that. 2020 was not the first stolen American election, but it was the most brazen, utilized the most widespread vote fraud tactics, and relied on the most insidious pretext (dems should thank their fraud ex machina, the wuhan flu).

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Fake President Biden won nothing…”

    Perhaps you can explain these matters.

    1) Why did American Thinker apologize for false Dominion Voting articles?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/15/american-thinker-conservative-blog-apologizes-for-/

    “These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims,” reads the rest of the statement. “It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.”

    2) Why did Sydney Powell drop her suit in Georgia when asked to submit evidence, considering she claimed she had bombshell revelations how the U.S. Army seized servers in Germany that switched voters from Trump to Biden?

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/534953-sidney-powell-withdraws-kraken-lawsuit-in-georgia

    3) Why didn’t Trump lawyers in their court cases around the nation did not claim sweeping fraud?

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nevada/articles/2020-12-09/trump-camp-loses-nevada-high-court-bid-to-nullify-election

    “Appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none,” the justices said.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

    For example, they sought have the Bucks County (PA) Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 supposedly “defective ballots” that were counted after a review by the Board of Elections. Trump lawyers agreed to sign documents saying that there was zero evidence of fraud or misconduct when it came to said ballots. Attorneys for both sides signed a “joint stipulation of facts—an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action—which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth’s fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct.” The joint statement literally reads: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” Additionally, both sides agreed that election observers from each party were allowed full access to view the pre-canvassing and canvassing processes.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus


    Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden recently bragged that Democrats have created the “most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
     
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-says-democrats-created-the-most-extensive-and-inclusive-voter-fraud-organization-in-american-history/

    The fraud, corruption was total. Probably includes youself along with many republicans
    and admin officials, eg Barr and reporting organizations.

    5 dancing shlomos

    Replies: @Corvinus

  47. anon[601] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Fake President Biden won nothing..."

    Perhaps you can explain these matters.

    1) Why did American Thinker apologize for false Dominion Voting articles?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/15/american-thinker-conservative-blog-apologizes-for-/


    “These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims,” reads the rest of the statement. “It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.”

     

    2) Why did Sydney Powell drop her suit in Georgia when asked to submit evidence, considering she claimed she had bombshell revelations how the U.S. Army seized servers in Germany that switched voters from Trump to Biden?

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/534953-sidney-powell-withdraws-kraken-lawsuit-in-georgia

    3) Why didn’t Trump lawyers in their court cases around the nation did not claim sweeping fraud?

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nevada/articles/2020-12-09/trump-camp-loses-nevada-high-court-bid-to-nullify-election

    “Appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none,” the justices said.
     
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

    For example, they sought have the Bucks County (PA) Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 supposedly “defective ballots” that were counted after a review by the Board of Elections. Trump lawyers agreed to sign documents saying that there was zero evidence of fraud or misconduct when it came to said ballots. Attorneys for both sides signed a “joint stipulation of facts—an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action—which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth’s fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct.” The joint statement literally reads: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” Additionally, both sides agreed that election observers from each party were allowed full access to view the pre-canvassing and canvassing processes.
     

    Replies: @anon

    Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden recently bragged that Democrats have created the “most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-says-democrats-created-the-most-extensive-and-inclusive-voter-fraud-organization-in-american-history/

    The fraud, corruption was total. Probably includes youself along with many republicans
    and admin officials, eg Barr and reporting organizations.

    5 dancing shlomos

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    How about actually answering the questions I posed?

    Replies: @anon

  48. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom

    Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He's not hiding it and he's not pretending.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He’s not hiding it and he’s not pretending.

    In that case my respect for him has just increased substantially.

    The most popular argument against monarchism is the “what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic” argument. Which is rather amusing when you look at the abysmal quality of leaders that democracy has produced.

    But most ordinary people are convinced by the “what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic” argument. To make monarchism a viable option a powerful counter-argument needs to be found. What form do you think such as counter-argument could take?

    Ron has contributors who are all over the map politically. Maybe it would be possible for him to find someone who could present a viable monarchist perspective? I think that would count as an “Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspective Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media.”

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    But most ordinary people are convinced by the “what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic” argument. To make monarchism a viable option a powerful counter-argument needs to be found. What form do you think such as counter-argument could take?
     
    Most ordinary people have uncritically absorbed the whole Whig-historical narrative. I think the arguments in favor of monarchy are actually pretty simple and straightforward, but ordinary people believe that every king in the past must have been a bloodthirsty tyrant because they've accepted the myths of Protestantism, the Reformation, the revolutions, republicanism, democracy, freedom of speech, equality---the whole nine yards. It's not that they can't understand the arguments, it's that they won't. If they followed the logic where it leads, it would eviscerate all their priors and blow their minds.

    I'm not sure how to effectively argue against such a mindset other than to point out real-world examples. Every ship has a captain because ultimate responsibility has to rest with someone, but every captain has an officer corps to assist and advise him. Similarly, every king has a court full of princes, dukes, barons, clerics, diplomats, and ministers who represent the competing interests of the nation. Moreover, a king also has a legal and sacred duty to preserve the laws and the country that was handed down to him. Monarchy has always been the gentlest and most effective way of not fixing what ain't broke. It is a strange age we live in when the "conservatives" harken back to the ideals of classical liberalism and the "liberals" have gone full-blown absolutist.

    It should be observed that there are no arguments against monarchy that don't end up destroying the idea of authority altogether. Likewise with capital punishment; all the arguments against it are really just arguments against punishment simpliciter. If you point this out to people, then honest people will note it and begin to change their perspectives, but it will take time.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  49. @anon
    @Corvinus


    Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden recently bragged that Democrats have created the “most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
     
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-says-democrats-created-the-most-extensive-and-inclusive-voter-fraud-organization-in-american-history/

    The fraud, corruption was total. Probably includes youself along with many republicans
    and admin officials, eg Barr and reporting organizations.

    5 dancing shlomos

    Replies: @Corvinus

    How about actually answering the questions I posed?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    Biden did an excellent job of confirming/corroborating
    massive fraud by Dems/deep state.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  50. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He’s not hiding it and he’s not pretending.
     
    In that case my respect for him has just increased substantially.

    The most popular argument against monarchism is the "what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic" argument. Which is rather amusing when you look at the abysmal quality of leaders that democracy has produced.

    But most ordinary people are convinced by the "what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic" argument. To make monarchism a viable option a powerful counter-argument needs to be found. What form do you think such as counter-argument could take?

    Ron has contributors who are all over the map politically. Maybe it would be possible for him to find someone who could present a viable monarchist perspective? I think that would count as an "Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspective Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media."

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    But most ordinary people are convinced by the “what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic” argument. To make monarchism a viable option a powerful counter-argument needs to be found. What form do you think such as counter-argument could take?

    Most ordinary people have uncritically absorbed the whole Whig-historical narrative. I think the arguments in favor of monarchy are actually pretty simple and straightforward, but ordinary people believe that every king in the past must have been a bloodthirsty tyrant because they’ve accepted the myths of Protestantism, the Reformation, the revolutions, republicanism, democracy, freedom of speech, equality—the whole nine yards. It’s not that they can’t understand the arguments, it’s that they won’t. If they followed the logic where it leads, it would eviscerate all their priors and blow their minds.

    I’m not sure how to effectively argue against such a mindset other than to point out real-world examples. Every ship has a captain because ultimate responsibility has to rest with someone, but every captain has an officer corps to assist and advise him. Similarly, every king has a court full of princes, dukes, barons, clerics, diplomats, and ministers who represent the competing interests of the nation. Moreover, a king also has a legal and sacred duty to preserve the laws and the country that was handed down to him. Monarchy has always been the gentlest and most effective way of not fixing what ain’t broke. It is a strange age we live in when the “conservatives” harken back to the ideals of classical liberalism and the “liberals” have gone full-blown absolutist.

    It should be observed that there are no arguments against monarchy that don’t end up destroying the idea of authority altogether. Likewise with capital punishment; all the arguments against it are really just arguments against punishment simpliciter. If you point this out to people, then honest people will note it and begin to change their perspectives, but it will take time.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Most ordinary people have uncritically absorbed the whole Whig-historical narrative.
     
    I agree. Monarchy is seen by many people as hopelessly outdated even though it's a system that had a track record of actually working.

    Democracy is often defended as being "flawed but the alternatives are worse" but when you put people on the spot about why those alternatives are worse they usually can't come up with anything better than that the alternatives are undemocratic!

    There's also the idiotic idea that democracy and freedom are synonymous. In fact it's democracy that tends towards totalitarianism because democracy politicises every aspect of life, which makes every aspect of life the government's business.

    It is a strange age we live in when the “conservatives” harken back to the ideals of classical liberalism and the “liberals” have gone full-blown absolutist.
     
    Yep. It's been said before but it's true - the only thing conservatives want to conserve is liberalism.
  51. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    But most ordinary people are convinced by the “what if the king turns out to be evil or a lunatic” argument. To make monarchism a viable option a powerful counter-argument needs to be found. What form do you think such as counter-argument could take?
     
    Most ordinary people have uncritically absorbed the whole Whig-historical narrative. I think the arguments in favor of monarchy are actually pretty simple and straightforward, but ordinary people believe that every king in the past must have been a bloodthirsty tyrant because they've accepted the myths of Protestantism, the Reformation, the revolutions, republicanism, democracy, freedom of speech, equality---the whole nine yards. It's not that they can't understand the arguments, it's that they won't. If they followed the logic where it leads, it would eviscerate all their priors and blow their minds.

    I'm not sure how to effectively argue against such a mindset other than to point out real-world examples. Every ship has a captain because ultimate responsibility has to rest with someone, but every captain has an officer corps to assist and advise him. Similarly, every king has a court full of princes, dukes, barons, clerics, diplomats, and ministers who represent the competing interests of the nation. Moreover, a king also has a legal and sacred duty to preserve the laws and the country that was handed down to him. Monarchy has always been the gentlest and most effective way of not fixing what ain't broke. It is a strange age we live in when the "conservatives" harken back to the ideals of classical liberalism and the "liberals" have gone full-blown absolutist.

    It should be observed that there are no arguments against monarchy that don't end up destroying the idea of authority altogether. Likewise with capital punishment; all the arguments against it are really just arguments against punishment simpliciter. If you point this out to people, then honest people will note it and begin to change their perspectives, but it will take time.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Most ordinary people have uncritically absorbed the whole Whig-historical narrative.

    I agree. Monarchy is seen by many people as hopelessly outdated even though it’s a system that had a track record of actually working.

    Democracy is often defended as being “flawed but the alternatives are worse” but when you put people on the spot about why those alternatives are worse they usually can’t come up with anything better than that the alternatives are undemocratic!

    There’s also the idiotic idea that democracy and freedom are synonymous. In fact it’s democracy that tends towards totalitarianism because democracy politicises every aspect of life, which makes every aspect of life the government’s business.

    It is a strange age we live in when the “conservatives” harken back to the ideals of classical liberalism and the “liberals” have gone full-blown absolutist.

    Yep. It’s been said before but it’s true – the only thing conservatives want to conserve is liberalism.

  52. @Corvinus
    @anon

    How about actually answering the questions I posed?

    Replies: @anon

    Biden did an excellent job of confirming/corroborating
    massive fraud by Dems/deep state.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    Again, I ask, how about answering the questions I posed, rather than obfuscate.

  53. @anon
    @Corvinus

    Biden did an excellent job of confirming/corroborating
    massive fraud by Dems/deep state.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Again, I ask, how about answering the questions I posed, rather than obfuscate.

  54. Confession will get prison also the electric chair.

    You and notpresident Pure as Snow Joe enjoy.

    5 dancing shlomos

    • Replies: @anon
    @anon

    For posterity:

    https://hereistheevidence.com/

    5ds

  55. @anon
    Confession will get prison also the electric chair.

    You and notpresident Pure as Snow Joe enjoy.

    5 dancing shlomos

    Replies: @anon

    For posterity:

    https://hereistheevidence.com/

    5ds

  56. @The Alarmist
    I would imagine Biden’s gang are setting retired General McChrystal up to be their modern-day Belisarius to crush a series of ‘Nika Riots’ in red-state America.

    Replies: @Neuday, @Audacious Epigone

    The demes won’t be unarmed this time around.

  57. @Adam Smith
    @Chrisnonymous


    The recent tweets from John Brennan saying that libertarians need to be considered domestic terrorists...
     
    So the CIA is going to start giving libertarians weapons and bags of cash?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Meme material. Somebody should make it if it hasn’t been made already.

    • Thanks: Adam Smith

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS