I Win or You Cheated
RSS
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:
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.
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?
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.
Now show the mirrored graphs where libs think Trumpers are violent burning rioters and vice versa.
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.”
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
From ‘Mexican Leftists Fear Biden More than Trump’ by Rio Grandito:
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.
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.
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).
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-/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-electionhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267Replies: @anon
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
Democracy: The God That FailedReplies: @dfordoom
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.
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.
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
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.
☮
*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.
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.
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”.
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.
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/
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.
Man, independents are stupid.
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.
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.
Peaceful demonstrations are quite a risk to take at the moment.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
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: @Audacious Epigone
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.
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.
If Tucker somehow gets canned, I hope you get the job.
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.
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.
In what way?
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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
So the CIA is going to start giving libertarians weapons and bags of cash?
☮
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
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?
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
Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote an interesting book on that subject.
Democracy: The God That Failed
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
Democracy: The God That FailedReplies: @dfordoom
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.
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
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?
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.
Yes, Hoppe is well known to be an actual monarchist. He’s not hiding it and he’s not pretending.
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
That’s kind of the impression I had.
“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.
“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-/
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
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267
The fraud, corruption was total. Probably includes youself along with many republicans
and admin officials, eg Barr and reporting organizations.
5 dancing shlomosReplies: @Corvinus
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-/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-electionhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267Replies: @anon
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
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.”
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
The fraud, corruption was total. Probably includes youself along with many republicans
and admin officials, eg Barr and reporting organizations.
5 dancing shlomosReplies: @Corvinus
How about actually answering the questions I posed?
massive fraud by Dems/deep state.Replies: @Corvinus
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
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.
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.Yep. It's been said before but it's true - the only thing conservatives want to conserve is liberalism.
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
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.
Yep. It’s been said before but it’s true – the only thing conservatives want to conserve is liberalism.
Biden did an excellent job of confirming/corroborating
massive fraud by Dems/deep state.
massive fraud by Dems/deep state.Replies: @Corvinus
Again, I ask, how about answering the questions I posed, rather than obfuscate.
Confession will get prison also the electric chair.
You and notpresident Pure as Snow Joe enjoy.
5 dancing shlomos
https://hereistheevidence.com/
5ds
For posterity:
https://hereistheevidence.com/
5ds
The demes won’t be unarmed this time around.
☮Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Meme material. Somebody should make it if it hasn’t been made already.