Below is my column in USA Today on the need for a federal commission on the 2020 election. While I opposed the challenge and the call for the ten-day commission, I do believe that a real commission is warranted. Indeed, the violence yesterday only further shows the deep divisions in this country over these lingering questions. However, there must be the commitment to a real commission — not another placebo commission
Here is the column:
I hate federal commissions. I have always hated federal commissions. Federal commissions are Washington’s way of managing scandals. They work like placebos for political fevers, convincing voters that answers and change are on the way. That is why it is so difficult for me to utter these words: We need a federal election commission. Not the one proposed by some Senate Republicans. And not like past placebo commissions. An honest-to-God, no-holds-barred federal commission to look into the 2020 presidential election.
With the challenge to the certification of election votes, some Republican members of Congress are calling to delay the proceedings for 10 days and impanel a commission to “audit” the results. There is precedent for such a commission. Just not good precedent. Indeed, citing the Electoral Commission of 1877 as a model of good constitutional process is like citing the Titanic as a model of good maritime navigation. The commission was an utter disaster.
The 1876 election commission
The commission was formed after the contested 1876 presidential election of Democrat Samuel Tilden and Rutherford Hayes. Tilden won the popular vote and was just one vote short of the electoral votes needed to win the White House. The election was marred by open fraud, including South Carolina certifying a vote of 101% of the eligible voters.
As a compromise, the commission was formed and consisted of 15 members: five Supreme Court justices and five members from each chamber of Congress. The key was that it was supposed to be composed of seven Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent. However, in a move that seemed calculated to secure his vote for Tilden, the Illinois legislature then moved to appoint the independent, Justice David Davis, to the Senate. If they wanted to buy his vote, it was a colossal failure when Davis decided to take the seat and leave the commission. He was replaced by a Republican, and the commission voted along strictly partisan lines to install Hayes, not Tilden.
In many ways, the Electoral Commission was a model for most federal commissions, which are designed for good politics and not good government.
An example is the 9/11 Commission, which was stacked with reliable allies to guarantee that no one — and no party — would be blamed for the negligence leading to up to the attacks.
The commission spent two years and millions of dollars. It went to almost a dozen countries, interviewed more than 1,000 people and archived over 2.5 million pages of documents. The result was a report that blamed no one specifically and since concluded that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were “not well served,” in the words of the commission’s chairman, by the FBI and CIA.
You see, if everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. Despite showing that the attacks could have been prevented under existing laws and powers, the budgets and powers of both agencies were then massively increased.
That is not what we need. There are three reasons why the need for a real commission is needed:
►First, and most important, this was an unprecedented election in the reliance of mail-in voting and the use of new voting systems and procedures. We need to review how that worked down to the smallest precincts and hamlets.
►Second, possibly tens of millions of voters believe that this election was rigged and stolen. I am not one of them. However, the integrity of our elections depends on the faith of the electorate.
Roughly 40% of that electorate have lingering doubts about whether their votes actually matter. Most of the cases challenging the election were not decided on the merits. Indeed, it seems they haven’t even been allowed for discovery. Instead, they were largely dismissed on jurisdictional or standing groups or under the “laches” doctrine that they were brought too late. Those allegations need to be conclusively proven or disproven in the interests of the country.
►Third, there were problems. There was not proof of systemic fraud or irregularities, but there were problems of uncounted votes, loss of key custodial information and key differences in the rules governing voting and tabulations.
We have spent billions to achieve greater security and reliability after prior election controversies. Indeed, we had a prior election commission that failed to achieve those fundamental goals.
The importance of having a commission
A real commission will take a couple years to fully address these allegations. It will be meaningless if it’s stacked by the same reliable political cutouts used historically in federal commissions. It should be formed on a commitment of absolute transparency with public hearings and public archiving of underlying material before the issuance of any final report. That way, the public at large can analyze and contribute to the review of this evidence.
There is one other task for Congress. It should rescind and replace the Electoral Count Act passed after the Hayes-Tilden election. It is one of the worst conceived and crafted federal laws on the books. The constitutionality of that act has long been challenged, including some who argue that Congress has nothing but a purely ceremonial role in opening state certifications and counting them.
Courts are likely to recognize that Congress has a more substantive role, particularly when rivaling sets of electors are presented or there is clear evidence of fraud. However, the validity of such electoral votes should be left largely to the courts in challenges in the given states. That is why the current challenge is unwarranted. There is no serious basis to challenge the validity of the electoral votes certified by the states.
Reality check for Trump’s fantasies:Judges aren’t his pawns on election lawsuits.
The main challenge, however, remains the same: Whether Congress can appoint a real federal commission without rigging the result by appointing partisan members. In 1877, to quote from a speech of Ohio Sen. Allen Granberry Thurman, “It was perfectly clear that any bill that gave the least advantage, ay, the weight of the dust in the balance, to either party, could not become the law of the land.”
Nothing has changed. The stakes are too high to allow even a dust particle to tip the difference on the ultimate findings. The dust-free option requires a dependent, not independent, commission. Otherwise, the public will be the loser.
So, let’s have a commission, but let’s make it a real one.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
get real about the 9-11 commission. Trump broke his promise to disclose the classified stuff about Saudis didn’t he.
Now let’s look at the biggest lie from the past 2 decades and boy have there been some whoppers but this one takes the cake. wtc 7
a building that was not hit by an airplane, burned for 45 minutes on just a few of its 32 floors, collapsed suddenly on its own footprint in 11 seconds, with its many reinforced concrete load bearing pillars all failing simultaneously, and the government refused to admit that was a controlled demolition
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1oj8d8
it’s going to be fun watching the Democrats shred what remains of their credibility as supporters of the First amendment now., I mean they really had almost no cred to begin with but now we will watch them go hard and fast at silencing all their critics, demonizing their rivals, and punishing people with crimes for things that are either trival or were at one time believed to be essentially legal.
not that Republicans deserve any support, because they don’t they are weak pukes and sissies
the First amendment deserves to die, in the future regime if we ever have one, we will silence our foes too. Simple as that. always was that way and it’s been the biggest fattest lie of American history that we don’t do this either. boy America sure has silenced its rivals with war I tell you that
We had insurrection all summer long and the fake Democrats said nothing. Well, now they had a riot with white people and the Democrats go nuts over it. and rather than make excuses for their errant supporters, Republicans trip over themselves and cry lock them up.
Suddenly, I am revolted by the Republican and by Trump, who are the weakest pukes ever. One can only swear it all off and watch it burn now. Done!
F the fake elections, F the fake parties, and most of all, F all the fake lying slogans we’re supposed to be worshipping, like democracy, law and order, free speech, equality, and all this other phony BS. One thing rules, that’s money, and it’s America’s one god and always has been
Don’t need no friggin” Commission to investigate how the States go about conducting a slate of EC votes The citizens, legislatures and courts of ea state are capable of investigations into their specific voting issues, which they capably did in 2020.
Does Turley look to a FEDERAL Commission to deprive the states of their Constitutional rights? Odd, if he does!
I do not expect anhything but a whitewash from federal commisions.
As to your claim that states are capable – state legislatures have incestigated this – and their investigations are damning.
State courts have aided and abetted the fraud since before the election.
The violence was wrong.
Democrats’ concerns about the allegations that Trump colluded with Russia were taken so seriously, that they were investigated for years, yielding more than one official report. It turned out to be a fabricated allegation paid for by Hillary Clinton.
Republicans’ concerns over election integrity are getting blown off. Democrats mock allegations of voter fraud and meddling that they themselves supported just a year ago.
Since we did not receive the thorough investigations and audits of voter rolls that we needed, we do not have trust in the election process. Pelosi herself made similar arguments when Bush was declared the winner over Gore. Since we do not feel our concerns were given sufficient investigation, and instead many suits were dismissed for lack of standing, then there will be simmering resentment.
I do not agree wit how that resentment exploded into violence by a few individuals. If it had been a BLM protest turned riot, it would have been deemed “mostly peaceful.” I think all such violence should be condemned equally, without regard to politics.
Personally, while I believe voter fraud and mistakes did occur, I have no idea if it was enough to change the election. It’s a concern. Some of these allegations will not ever be able to be proven, since ballots were destroyed. Also, how can you pick out which ballots were backdated? Which ones were filled out by election workers on behalf of those who are in elder care facilities? Some whistleblower complaints just cannot be rectified.
I also think that many people who did not feel strongly enough about Biden to actually drive to a polling place would be willing to check a box and mail a ballot. Nationwide vote by mail will net more votes from people who have no interest in politics. That’s not a good thing. There should be some sort of exertion on behalf of most voters. Apathetic voters make bad decisions.
Karen, you obviously need to read the GOP led Senate Intel Comm report on Trump and Russia (spoiler alert – Hillary had nothing to do with it):
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
Of course you think the election was rigged because Trump has been claiming that since 6 months before the election and yet there is no proof of any SIGNIFICANT irregularities and no conspirators named. Who did this? Names please.
Watch the video I posted below: Biden won. Trump lost. That’s what happens in a democracy. Trump didn’t even win the popular vote in 2016 and no one was pulling this “It was rigged!” BS. Hillary conceded the next day and showed up at the inauguration out of respect for the country and our government. Trump respects nothing. NOTHING!
Spoiler alert – we KNOW that is wrong.
We KNOW who the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier was – someone the FBI has listed as a russian operative for years.
We KNOW the Steele Dossier was paid for by Clinton and
We KNOW that CIA intelligence from Russia in June 2016 has Putin feeding Clinton Russia conspiracy naratives.
This was such a big deal that Comey and Obama were both briefed on it.
And this was hidden from everyone until AFTER the Horrowitz report, the mueller report and the senate report.
Joe – you have been lied to.
And you still do not grasp that.
BEFORE we can even discuss the outcome of the election we must first look at whether it was conducted lawfully – following the laws and constitution of the states.
It was not. That really should be the end. We should not trust an election where government can not follow the law and constitution.
Trump did not create this mess – he did not cause governors and election officials to violate their own state laws and constitutions.
I have posted a few clips of various democrats warning of mailin voting – until they realized it was the only possible way for Biden to win.
Just about every major democrat – who today is telling us we must accept the results of a lawless election was telling us that mailin voting is a really bad idea only a few years ago.
As noted before – 28 states have provisions in their state constitution REQUIRING secret ballots – and mailin elections can not ever meet that criteria.
Joe – what kind of an idiot do you take us all to be.
You rant about Trump russia collsion at the start of your post and then conclude by claiming no one on the left said the 2016 election was rigged.
Really ? All the rioting and violence in DC in 2017 – that was nothing ?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html
The violence was wrong. It was also TINY – except for that by the police who definitely killed on unarmed woman and appear to have killed three other protesters.
But the left needs to take care – the only response when the law fails is lawlessness.
The rioters killed Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who was hit with a fire extinguisher and died last night.
First – anyone who engaged in actual violence should be prosecuted. Antifa, Trump supporter, Police officer.
Next the capital police were CORRECTLY ordered NOT to engage the protestors – Just as they had been advise on numerous other protests – including the 2018 Kavanaugh protests.
The officer you cite disobeyed that order. That does not make him culpable, but the purpose of not engaging was to avoid violence.
Unlike Antifa and BLM there is no reason to beleive that the election protestors would actually be violent – they have not been in the past.
AAnd even yesterday there is strong evidence that some – possible all of the consequential violence was perpitrated by antifa infiltrators.
Regardless – not merely capital police – but police all over this country have been ordered not to engage with protestors.
This officer disobeyed that order and it did not end well. Those responsible should be prosecuted.
But the left had better figure out what the standard for protests is.
This nonsense that only the protests of those on the right should be met with force is farcical.
Further it will end badly.
Ruby Ridge resulted in the Oklahoma City Bombing.
That does not make McVeigh a good person – but it is very dangerous when government behaves lawlessly.
These protestors would not have been in DC but for the lawlessness with with the 2020 elections were conducted.
We can quibble over how much fraud occured. But there is zero doubt that the governors and those administering the elections in atleast 6 key states did not follow either the election laws or the constitution in their states.
When government is lawless people are likely to resort to violence.
“the capital police were CORRECTLY ordered NOT to engage the protestors”
Link to the order.
“The officer you cite disobeyed that order.”
Prove it.
“there is strong evidence that some – possible all of the consequential violence was perpitrated by antifa infiltrators.”
Present that evidence.
Your say so is worthless.
According to you, were these police engaging the protestors? That one officer is clearly being injured by protesters’ actions.
““the capital police were CORRECTLY ordered NOT to engage the protestors”
Link to the order.”
This is widely reported in the left wing nut media – and it is being criticised by Pelosi and company.
Why do I have to prove to you something that most on the left accept.
BTW this was not merely the order at the capital in 2021, but the order in 2018, and the order generally in the capital, and the order with respect to protesters generally accross the country.
To be clear this is a GENERAL order. There are specific instances in which it does not apply.
““The officer you cite disobeyed that order.”
Prove it”.
Look at YOUR video. The protestors were trying to break through a door to a lobby that was empty except for other law enforcement.
The protesters had no visible weapons, and were no threat to anything but the door. Your own video shows NUMEROUS confrontations with capital police where the officers do NOT use force to stop protestors merely delaying them while the building is being cleared.
That was proper procedure – in 2021 and in 2018 and in general.
““there is strong evidence that some – possible all of the consequential violence was perpitrated by antifa infiltrators.”
Present that evidence.”
Already been done – several “protestors” have been identified as members of antifa using facial recognition.
And the most prominent figure of the protests – the face painted horned dude that sat in Pence’s chair in the Senate chambers is an actor who has been paid by BLM, Antifa, and other Sorros affliated groups in other protests.
“According to you, were these police engaging the protestors?”
For the most part they were not – and should be lauded for that.
The overwhelming majority of capital police did exactly as they were supposed to.
The shooting of the airforce vet – YOUR video shows procedure was not followed,
The MSM reporting of the officer hit in the head with the fire extinguishor states that the Officer was engaged in a fight with protestors at the time.
Maybe that is false, but I tend to trust the media when their reporting is against their own interests.
Regardless, you are free to check it out. Maybe there is video.
I have already condemned that protestors actions.
Nor is the officer responsible for his own death purely because he engaged.
But the FACT – universal to 2018, 2020 summers, and 2021 at the capital is that the GENERAL order is for police not to engage with protestors.
Just to be clear – a general order is not absolute. The police are allowed to engage protestors under a variety of circumstances – including where specifically ordered to, After the Fderal courthouse in Portland was repeatedly occupied and vandalized and set fire, Federal agents were given limited ability to use force against force and to defend the property.
But the general rule is that police use only limited force against protestors – even where they are violent.
If you wish to choose to change those rules of engagement – that is fine by me.
Had police used deadly force this summer the Floyd riots would have ended more quickly and fewer people and property would have been damaged and the election almost certainly would have been radically differently and certainly the capital protestors would have behaved differently.
Regardless, if you do not have the same standards for the same thing – you are a hypocrit.
And clearly you are.
You want to quibble over mostly incorrect differences between 2021 and 2018.
Even if you were correct – which you are not, it would not matter.
What happened a few days ago was not at all unprecidented – except that it was the first consequential act of violence by any group on the right for the past 25 years. And it was pretty tame compared to this summer.
And yes you should be worried – the right is far far far harder to provoke into violence.
But one thing the left does understand correctly – the right is FAR more dangerous if they do become violent.
And you have spent the past 12 years pushing and poking at them.
Calling them racist hateful, hating haters, lying to them, attacking them physically, and now going lawless in elections.
Burning and looting. destroying their businesses.
Eventually they are going to become violent.
The police killed Babbitt. They didn’t kill the 3 other people who died.
One stroke one heart attack – why are we counting those at all.
Given the number of protestors that seems to be a normal death rate.
We have the ability to conduct elections such that fraud is near zero. It is not even hard.
Tulsi Gabbard proposed a measure that was a step in the right direction in the last congress – it was a small step, but better than what we have.
Biden saying the quiet part out loud.
Democrats on mailin voting.
Smartest Senate speech of the day from the guy with proven guts:
https://youtu.be/itLyC5oVbGU?t=226
Video worth watching and not all of it is quoted in the press release form the Senator’s office, below
““We gather today due to a selfish man’s injured pride and the outrage of his supporters whom he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning. What happened here today was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States. Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy. They will be remembered for their role in this shameful episode in American history. That will be their legacy.
“The objectors have claimed they are doing so on behalf of the voters. Have an audit, they say, to satisfy the many people who believe that the election was stolen. Please! No Congressional led audit will ever convince those voters, particularly when the President will continue to claim that the election was stolen. The best way we can show respect for the voters who are upset is by telling them the truth. That is the burden, and the duty, of leadership. The truth is that President-elect Biden won this election. President Trump lost. Scores of courts, the President’s own Attorney General, and state election officials both Republican and Democrat have reached this unequivocal decision. I’ve been there and it’s no fun.
“We must not be intimidated or prevented from fulfilling our constitutional duty. We must continue with the count of electoral college votes. In light of today’s sad circumstances, I ask my colleagues: Do we weigh our own political fortunes more heavily than we weigh the strength of our Republic, the strength of our democracy, and the cause of freedom? What is the weight of personal acclaim compared to the weight of conscience?”
The left has been ranting about treason and insurrection forever.
This is nonsense.
Though I would note – that if you continue the lawlessness – there will be an insurrection.
This country was born from the lawlessness of the british government.
If those on the left continue to behave like King George they too could face Lexington and concord all too soon.
I would further note that democrats have objected to every single republican president since 1985.
This speech was the rantings of a hypocrit.
You’re deluded if you think Mitt Romney is on the left.
Nope Romney is a Nazi – that is what those like YOU told me in 2012.
I didn’t call him a Nazi then and don’t call him one now. I’m not sure what your point is, since Nazis are far-right.
Again, anonymous demonstrates his ignorance. This has been pointed out by others.
If one wants to place the Nazi’s in a spectrum they have to be placed on the left with socialists, and Italian fascists.
The most basic items prove that to be so. I’ll take a few.
Big government: Nazi, fascist, socialist, leftist, Democrat
Small government The right
Loss of freedom of speech: Nazi, fascist, socialist, leftist, Democrat
Freedom of speech Most of the right
Derived from socialist roots: Nazi, fascism
Nazi: National socialist
There are myriads of problems with linear political assignments.
Antifa is anarchistic – are they left or right ? Most anarchist tend to be on the left. But many are on the right.
Anarcho-capitalism is right not left.
But even there left and right are unclear.
I listened to Prof. Haidt recently commenting on the rise of authoritiarism as well as the rise of the woke left.
Haidt painted authoritariansm on the right – which sometimes it is.
There MIGHT be a few authroitarians in the modern right, but to a very large extent the modern Tea Party/Trumpist right is more libertarain than the right that preceded it.
Censorship is authoritarian. Today that is a feature of the left.
Acheiving political goals through force – even government force – is authoritarian – again primarily the left today.
Most of those on “the right” today want to be left alone. Most of those on the left want to impose their will on others by force.
That makes the left far more authoritarian.
If you look at the Nazi’s 25 point manefesto – the first 10 points look like they are right out of Trump. Nationalism, Make Germany great again, secure borders, clear citizenship, restricted immigration.
But the next 15 points look straight out of AOC
“I didn’t call him a Nazi then and don’t call him one now.”
Your posting as anonymous – there is no way to know if you are telling the truth abotu that.
Regardless, the left did call Romney a Nazi, as they have every single republican candidate since Nixon.
“I’m not sure what your point is, since Nazis are far-right.”
https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/10/yes-nazis-were-socialists.html
“I didn’t call him a Nazi then and don’t call him one now. I’m not sure what your point is, since Nazis are far-right”
right.https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform
National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.
Adolf Hitler
After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.
Adolf Hitler
In socialism of the future…what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed—he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it.
Adolf Hitler
You are clueless about credibility.
I do not know if YOU personally called Romney a Nazi – but many certainly did, as they have every republican candidate since Goldwater.
Then you make this stupid claim about the Nazi’s.
The Nazi’s were socialsist.
National socialists.
They despised individuality and individual rights. They embraced massive central planning.
You can play games with what is right and what is left.
But the Nazi’s have very little in common with the modern right and a great deal with the modern right.
In socialism of the future…what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed—he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it.
Adolf Hitler
If you want to be treated as credible – do not write stupid nonsense that is easily refuted.
Thanks Professor, it needs to be said every day that this election needs a forensic evaluation. We were literally asked not to believe our own eyes when the cheater states all pretended to close up shop in the middle of the count when Trump was ahead, and the media acted like it was the most normal thing in the world. This is third stage Orwell if we don’t get it corrected.
If your candidate loses, that doesn’t mean that your voice wasn’t heard. Nominate a better candidate, and your candidate may win.
While that sounds simple enough, when there are 205,000 more votes than voters for the other guy, my vote was meaningless.
Present evidence that there are 205,000 more votes than voters. Show me it’s true.
That is the current data in PA. There are some reporting issues that Might explain that – though the reports were due in weeks ago.
But the fact is that in PA the current official total number of voters who voted is 250,000 less than the total number of votes cast for president.
And No I am not going to prove to you things you can look up yourself.
And yes there MIGHT be an explanation for that – well except that the voter information was due to the state over a month ago.
And even if we presume that when it all finally arrives – I beleive only Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties are outstanding, that the numbers will be much closer.
There is still a fundimental problem – why should we trust election results from places that are so obviously incompetent that they can not provide election information 2 months after they claimed they new the winner of the election ?
In this poll a plurality of voters beleive there was sigificant fraud in this election.
https://www.newsmax.com/mclaughlin/electors-voters/2020/12/15/id/1001650/
If you do not understand that government is in very deep trouble if even half that number of people do not trust election results.
Trust in elections is not created or destroyed by what is SAID.
Trust is a consequence of what people DO.
If you want elections to be trusted – if you want govenrment to be trusted – you must run elections in a fashion that fraud is difficult to impossible. that is not hard. This country spent much of the 20th century trying to improve the quality of elections.
Democrats have spent much of the 21st century – often with the complicity of republicans trying to destroy that trust.
Your say-so isn’t evidence.
Telling us “That is the current data in PA” isn’t evidence, it’s only your say-so.
You repeatedly have difficulty presenting evidence when asked for evidence.
If I ask for evidence, and you don’t have any, you’re just wasting your time replying to me.
If you have evidence, link to it.
“Your say-so isn’t evidence.”
Correct.
You are able to verify anything I have posted, if you care to.
“Telling us “That is the current data in PA” isn’t evidence, it’s only your say-so.”
Telling you is not evidence – the actual data – which you are free to look up is.
“You repeatedly have difficulty presenting evidence when asked for evidence.”
The way you define evidence – no one can provide evidence.
“If you have evidence, link to it.”
The internet is your friend. You are an adult. These are clearly important issues.
My say so is not evidence, nor is a counter claim by you, the NYT, waPo, or CNN.
If you actually cared about whether the results of the election were trustworthy – you would actually look into the data.
Not what your favorite talking – right or left said. Not what purported experts or people in authority said – espeicially those who have an interest in the outcome or a reputation for false statements.
You should not beleive Trump – or me just because or words. Nor should you beleive those who only offer words or as you like to say – hearsay – either anonymous sources or those with an interest in the outcome
Actually check the data – yourself. Otherwise YOUR opinion is worth nothing.
I would further ask you – if you are so uniquisitive that you have no interest in verifying for your self the truth of allegations made about the candidates or government – why should you vote ?
It is not my job to educate – you – I can’t. You can only do that for yourself.
It is not my job to spoon feed you.
Frankly – you are not my audience anyway – just a convient left wing nut foil. Your lack of inquisitiveness is an asset to me – not a liability.
It makes you look foolish – especially to those who do care about election integrity.
The amazing thing is no matter who anonymous talks to he always looks foolish, but you are right he is an asset. He demonstrates to the borderline folk how the left lacks scruples and those like anonymous are dumb as well.
I am glad you take these people on. The amount of information you are able to present is quite high and is a mountain to the content-less anonymous.
Anonymous would be funny if not sad.
ONCE A national guardsmen shoots and active shooter – and that purportedly refutes the claim that police did not kill a protestor ?
Then he links a 40 minute video that is pretty tame – it is nothing like the video’s of the MSM of the violent protests over the summer
No one Ransacked the capital. There was no burning and looting. No graffetti.
Protestors occupied a public building – they did so by force – but using pretty much the lease force possible.
They negotiated with capital police every step of the way BEFORE pushing forward.
There was absolutely no indication they intended to harm a person, or vandalize anything.
All they did was push through barriers.
I expected much more violence than this.
And In anonymous;’s video the police officer shoots the protestor from the other side of the door from the safety of a corridor that is empty except security.
The officer was defending no one.
Neither he nor anyone else was being threatened with violence.
Absent his shooting the worst that would have happened is protestors would have gotten into another hallway.
And Anonymous’s great claim ? You needed a badge to enter ?
I’m not going to do your work for you.
The next time you ask me for evidence, I’ll just repeat back to you what you say here, since this is what YOU believe, “It is not my job to educate – you – I can’t. You can only do that for yourself. It is not my job to spoon feed you.”
“I’m not going to do your work for you.”
It is not for me, it is for you.
“The next time you ask me for evidence, I’ll just repeat back to you what you say here, since this is what YOU believe, “It is not my job to educate – you – I can’t. You can only do that for yourself. It is not my job to spoon feed you.””
I rarely ask you for evidence. You rarely make claims of any consequence.
Further you have established no basis by which one should trust you.,
You are still posting as anonymous.
When you are posting under an identity.
When you have established a reputation for accuracy and truth in that identity – then and only then can you expect to beleived when you assert something.
I have made several recent assertions that you have claimed were lies.
In each instance you have been WRONG.
And yet you continued to falsely claim I was not only wrong, that i had lied.
An active shooter is not a protestor.
If the airforce Vet was firing a gun at the time she was shot – no one would fault the police officer.
Nor is the National Guard the police. They have entirely different rules of engagement.
You say the election was not rife with fraud lawlessness and error.
Prove it – to my satisfaction – provide links to real data – not hearsay, Not claims from those who have proven untrustworthy.
Elections are the means by which government gains legitimacy and power.
There is not merely an absolute requirement that they be trustworthy – but that they be PROVEN trustworthy.
No one has done that.
You say Trump has persuaded tens of millions of people to beleive something false –
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Justice Brandeis.
If those claiming fraud, and lawlessness in this election are spreading falsehoods and fallacies – the remedy is for YOU to provide evidence.
Absent evidence the plurality of people who beleive this election was stolen are not going away.
And they may not remain peaceful.
You’re an astounding hypocrite, John. You refuse to provide evidence yourself, but then demand it of me. I’m not going to play by your double-standards.
Almost the only content produced by anonymous that is not pure ignorance is laced with a double standard or directly linked to a source that he doesn’t understand and may not agree with him.
“You’re an astounding hypocrite, John. You refuse to provide evidence yourself, but then demand it of me. I’m not going to play by your double-standards.”
No hypocracy – no double standards.
Credibility and integrity are EARNED – you continue to post and anonymous – you have not nor can you earn credibility as anonymous.
So long as you post as anonymous you will ALWAYS have to prove everything you claim.
You can not establish a reputation for honesty accuracy or credibility as anonymous.
Beyond that you HAVE NOT. Presuming that we can sort out which anonymous posters are who, there is an enormous amount of obviously false nonsense in your posts.
When you post things that are obviously false – you burn your credibility and integrity.
When you establish a reputation for accuracy and integrity – you ear credibility and trust.
Do you expect to come into a bank and demand a 100,000 loan ? Without providing a name ?
Without demonstrating a history of good financial conduct ?
Is it a “double standard” for banks to expect that you identify yourself before they loan you money ?
Is it hypocracy for banks not to lend money to gamblers who are deeply in debt or others who have behaved irresponsibly with money ?
Exactly the same it true of FACTS and accusations, and opinions, and predictions.
I have made many many predictions here. A suprising large number of them have been correct.
I have been more accurate about political predictions than the pollsters. I have been more accurate about Covid than most experts accepted by the left.
But I have also been wrong in many predictions. If you do not wish to rely on my predictions – that is fine. I do not care.
Further if I were capable of perfect prediction – I would be richer than Elon Musk.
I have also made numerous statements of fact. I have only been wrong rarely and i have admitted error when I made one.
BTW that is easy to accomplish – just check your facts before asserting them.
You have challenged me regarding facts – and you have univerally proved wrong.
I make very very few moral accusations. I do not often call people liars. But when I do I am prepared to back that up.
Being wrong is not the same as lying.
Generally – though not exclusively I reserve calling someone a liar for those that have made false claims of moral failure about others.
The requirements and standards of proof when you allege the moral failure of another are high. The burden of proof is on you.
I generally do not call others liars unless they call someone else a liar and fail to prove it.
Opinions are not facts, but that does not mean they are all equal. I base my opinions on evidence.
That dramatically increase the odds they are correct or trustworthy.
None of that is hypocracy. None of that is a double standard.
If you want treated with respect – EARN IT!.
Come out from the shadows of anonymity where your identity is protected from the consequences of its errors.
Post under a name so that you can establish a record of credibility or error.
And expect to be judged accordingly.
No one is every required to provide proof.
But those without a reputation can not expect to be believed without providing proof.
I would further note that a “Link” is not proof.
What is at the other end of that link MIGHT be proof, though often it is merely an appeal to the authority of others.
I could really care less what the NYT or WaPo say some anonymous source said – that is not a fact. It is not evidence and the MSM has done an increasingly crappy job of vetting sources. As I have noted repeatedly – Alex Jones is more trustworthy.
And that is bad.
Proof is more than an article from the MSM. It is facts and evidence that holds up to scrutiny.
“If your candidate loses, that doesn’t mean that your voice wasn’t heard. Nominate a better candidate, and your candidate may win.”
That only works if elections are conducted lawfully.
When they are not those in control of the election get to decide who wins.
That is the entire point.
Regardless, this is simple – fix the elections such that people can trust the outcomes.
If you do not there will be a response – but not one you will like.
You will get dueling fraud or you will get violence or you will get both.
When government does not follow the law – we have anarchy or totalitarianism.
I’ll get to your other posts to me later, but for now what anonymous doesn’t understand is throughout the world we have had many more elections where the “good guy” lost. The reason for the loss was criminality, force, lies and bribery. You have pointed out these things pretty well but some are unable to get past the simplest of ideas.
It is almost hopeless to discuss what has happened. Most of the people talking from the left have no principles. How can one find agreement with another absent principles and absent the rule of law.
Those so hopelessly deceived today and totally happy will be finding a future (if this continues) that is more miserable than it had to be. Most on this blog are older so they won’t face the future but their children or their grandchildren will. It is pure selfishness to destroy the future of our children by today’s glutinous behavior.
Once again, Allan, you resort to some of your favorite trolling strategies:
Insult.
Pretend to read someone’s mind and attack the person on the basis of your made up attribution.
Attribute your own failings to others.
Once again a response from anonymous that has absolutely no content and can’t even address a person correctly.
Criticism of your comment IS content, Allan.
I’m addressing you correctly, by the name you used up until the election.
Your criticism is void of content and repetitive like almost everything you say. That is what is important for anyone to know before reading what you write.
Can you pick out anything you have said in the past several comments that has significant content and is not repetitive? The answer is no. In other words what you say is of no significance.
Olly and I are having an exchange that’s neither void of content nor repetitive.
You find my responses repetitive, Allan, because you troll a lot and you have some favorite trolling strategies, and I’ve identified them more than once. If you stop trolling, I’ll stop repeating my criticism.
“Olly and I are having an exchange that’s neither void of content nor repetitive.”
Is that what you call it? Maybe I missed your comments to Olly if they are as you portray, but that is highly unlikely. I note you couldn’t copy anything of significance. Maybe you are blabbering mistruths or other things you know nothing about.
Hopefully, your desire to engage me (under any of your choices of name) will not persist. It’s sickening and self-degrading.
You’re a troll, Allan, and I’ll call you out on it whenever I want. But I should probably feed you less often.
Go right ahead, anonymous, I love laughing at your ignorance and showing children what they look like when they have no content.
It’s always good to be able to compare a hard working student with a dummy.
Anonymous, I should have added this. You are constantly trying to get my attention by making dumb comments to me when I am having a serious discussion with another. You got my attention. Do you like it? A little lesson for you.
The left acted very badly and will now try to take away the rights of those on the right. Do you think repression will work? Repression has a tendency to require more repression and that repression spreads to your freedoms even though you are on the left. You won’t like that either nor will you like the reaction on the right.
Never mind. You have provided children a new meaning for the phrase “wealth of knowledge”. It can now promote laughter when they reflect on everything you say. They can use that phrase to denote stupidity instead of intelligence.
This is not about “goof guys” – republicans think Biden is the bad guy, Democrats think Trump is the bad guy. Both are going to be sure the bad guy won if their candidate did not.
The governments rule in conducting elections is NOT to ensure the “good guy wins”, but to ensure that the election is conducted lawfully.
When it fails – government itself has no legitimacy.
I am having problems with the claims of “violent protests” at the capital yesterday.
There was some misconduct, but even yesterday the misconduct was inconsequential compared to what occured over the summer
https://image-cdn.parler.com/e/J/eJNIMenluY.jpeg
John, we note conservatives condemning the violence in DC. I condemn the violence. Take note how the left never condemned their own violence. Take note how Chris Cuomo’s voice changes from absolute approval when the cities were burned to treason when it appears to be coming from the other side.
They are hypocrites. How can anyone discuss anything with hypocrites that are weighed down with underlying stupidity.
Watch our civil liberties that have been eroding markedly disappear. Democrats used to stand behind civil liberties. Today they stand on top of them preventing them from rising. Eventually that will negatively affect everyone on the blog no matter which party they support.
I am not all that far from NOT condemning violence – atleast some of it.
Looting burning are always wrong – there is no context that justifies them.
But taking up arms to overthrough a govenrment that does not secure the rights of the people – is quite litterally the founding principle of this country.
I do not YET think we have exhausted all lawful means to thwart lawless govenrment.
But we get closer all the time.
Lawless elections are a BIG DEAL.
They are just plain not valid period. It does not matter if the results are “correct” whatever that means.
When government does not follow the law – it violates the social contract. Government that is not lawful is not government.
And absent valid government we have anarchy and violence is permissible in anarchy to restore legitimate government.,
Today it appears we have more lawlessness from government than in 1776.
I would further note that before we move to legitimate acts of violence to restore lawfull government we will see illegitimate acts of violence.
The left should be deeply concerned about another Timothy McVeigh. While nothing excuses his actions. He responded to a far less consequential act of lawless govenrment at Ruby Ridge.
This is a great article on why the distrust of the bureaucracy is reasonable.
For example, if Trump supporters are unwilling to accept that the vote count in Georgia was fair—in a state where Republicans control both the legislature and the governor’s mansion—this means skepticism goes well beyond mere distrust of the Democratic Party. For Trump’s vote-count skeptics, not even the GOP or the nonpartisan election officials can be trusted to count the votes properly.
Moreover, unlike the general public, Trump supporters appear to have adopted a keenly suspicious view toward these administrators and the systems they control. This is all to the best, regardless of the true extent of voter fraud in 2020. After all, government administrators—including those who count the votes—are not mere disinterested, efficiency-obsessed administrators. They have their own biases and political interests. They’re not neutral…So, if the FBI and the Pentagon have already demonstrated their officials are willing to break and bend rules to obstruct Trump, why believe the administrative class when they insist elections are free and fair and all above board? Many have found little reason to do so.
https://mises.org/wire/why-trump-voters-dont-trust-people-who-count-votes?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=d27bc390a4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-d27bc390a4-228626821
Trump supporters only suspect those events they lose. That’s not awareness, that’s being a baby.
Grow up loser.
Trump supporters only suspect those events they lose. That’s not awareness, that’s being a baby.
Grow up loser.
LOL! Spoken with the class I’ve come to expect from you and your ilk. Once again you have no counter-argument. Just chock your comment up to a long list of your comments that have no intellectual value.
Did you actually read the article ?
Clearly you did not ?
Those you call Trump supporters – many of whom like myself did not vote for Trump have been suspicious of the “deep state” all out lives.
We did not reach the conclusion that those in government could engage in election fraud suddenly on November 5, 2020.
One of the things the article points out is that this group of people – you call “trump supporters” – are not inherently republican or democrat.
They are made of people who do not trust government.
These are the people who were angry because they were lied to about going to war with Iraq.
These are the people who were lied to by Obama about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Again these are not specifically republicans or democrats.
But they are people who for very very good reason do not Trust government.
They are not going away. You had better get used to that.
Other than themselves, who DO they trust?
Who should they trust? And why?
I asked you first.
I don’t care. You’re assumption is they trust anyone, especially themselves. Why would you assume that?
I assume they trust someone. If they didn’t, then I would expect the article to say “For Trump’s vote-count skeptics, no one can be trusted, not even themselves and Trump” rather than what it said, which was “For Trump’s vote-count skeptics, not even the GOP or the nonpartisan election officials can be trusted to count the votes properly.” If they don’t trust anyone, then they’d be “vote-count skeptics” no matter who wins or what the count is.
Is there anything about human nature that assures you anyone should be trusted? Reagan had it right; Trust but verify.
The point that you’re missing is that while Republican voters wouldn’t trust Democrats, they couldn’t trust “fellow” Republican officials or so called non-partisan officials. In other words, there is no one within the government establishment that can be trusted to run the franchise…period.
We’re a social species that depends on trusting some others. That’s part of how we evolved. Infants die if there is no one trustworthy to feed and care for them. Trust but verify doesn’t imply that no one is trustworthy.
I didn’t miss that point. You’re confusing “don’t trust” with “can’t trust.”
If they don’t trust anyone in the government establishment, do they trust someone outside of the government establishment?
God, not this stupid argument again.
Humans CHOSE to socialize. It is not a requirement.
Trust is not automatic – nor should it be.
Every single mammal and every bird and several other major anumal groups care for their young.
Some are social, most are not.
Yes, you entirely miss the point.
“I assume they trust someone. ”
Why ?
“If they didn’t, then I would expect the article to say “For Trump’s vote-count skeptics, no one can be trusted, not even themselves and Trump” ”
Why would you expect that ?
The fact that they do not trust those counting the vote tells you nothing about who they trust or whether they trust anyone else.
You are trying to pretend that a block of individuals who are only certain to share one thing – distrust of those counting the vote are somehow all of a single mind about everything else.
Only those on the left manage that degree of conformity.
No one is entitled to be trusted.
Trust is earned. It is also easily lost.
Is there some reason we should ever automatically trust anyone other than ourselves ?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
James Madison
Federalist 51.
For example, if Trump supporters are unwilling to accept that the vote count in Georgia was fair—in a state where Republicans control both the legislature and the governor’s mansion
The legislature, the governor, and the secretary of state (or the latter two in defiance of the legislature) bought sketchy vote tabulation equipment and promoted mail-in voting schemes which ruined ballot security. The Secretary of State also put restrictions on elections observers and made silly excuses for facially suspicious events. How about (1) doubles down on bad decisions or (2) bribed.
Yes, that is an excellent article – I read it on ZeroHedge.
I would note that these voters who are deeply suspicious of government – are inherently libertarian – they just do not know it.
I would note that these voters who are deeply suspicious of government – are inherently libertarian – they just do not know it.
Perhaps they know it and have absolutely no interest in having a label stamped on their foreheads.
Then classical liberal
That was supposed to have been posted as a reply to Olly’s 4:19 PM comment, where he said “If 75+ million voters have no hope future elections will give them an opportunity to have their voices heard …”
Their voices were heard.
Wait, I believe I’ve heard this one before. It’s not that women outraged about being sexually assault aren’t being heard. They just need to stop dressing like hookers and they just might prevent being assaulted.
🙂
You hit the nail on the head while others are trying to figure out what the nail is.
Thanks Barb!
Olly, if you think losing an election is analogous to sexual assault, you’re more troubled than I’d assumed.
LOL! As Barb said, you have no idea what the nail is.
You don’t know what a valid analogy is.
Right. I’ll wait for you to tell me what a valid analogy is. 😉
A valid analogy works as follows:
The source and target are similar in certain known respects, let’s call them X1, X2, … Xn.
The source has some additional feature, Y, that’s clearly connected to the known similarities.
Therefore, the target also has a feature similar to Y.
Anonymous has been nailed and doesn’t know it.
🤔 Voters concerned about their rights = Women concerned about their rights.
Both being told they deserve to suffer for their own poor decisions. So suck it up, buttercup. In other words; elections have consequences. I won, you lost. Deal with it.
Notice how you’ve moved away from your invalid analogy about being heard, and you pretend that me saying “If your candidate loses, that doesn’t mean that your voice wasn’t heard. Nominate a better candidate, and your candidate may win” is somehow equivalent to “they deserve to suffer for their own poor decisions.” What BS.
Their voices were heard, just like the voices of Clinton’s voters were heard in 2016. But they lost, despite their voices being heard. If you suggest that they only way for a voter’s voice to be heard is for their candidate to win, then tens of millions of voters don’t have their voices heard in every election. Maybe you believe that. I don’t.
What I’ve noticed is if you don’t understand something, then you assume it’s invalid. That’s on you. That lack of humility was also apparent in your feeble attempt to insult a retired Navy Chief. And it has once again been exposed in this thread , as you cannot just admit you didn’t understand my analogy.
That’s sad.
BS.
You aren’t even honest enough to admit that Trump’s voters had their voices heard, just like Clinton’s voters did. Their candidates lost. That doesn’t mean their voices weren’t heard.
I don’t know what retired Navy Chief you’re talking about. (See, when I actually don’t understand something, I say so.)
This is not about being heard.
No one is entitled to win an election.
They are entitled to a lawful election whether they win or not.
They are entitled to an election in which only the ballots of other live adult citizens of the state are counted.
And they are entitled to elections conducted such that they can be certain of that.
Trust me – is NOT an acceptable answer.
Because you say so ?
Regardless both X and Y are violations of state laws.
The analogy is valid – by YOUR argument.
John, according to Olly, the source is “Voters concerned about their rights” and the target is “Women concerned about their rights.” Tell us what “violations of state laws” you think X1, …, Xn, and Y are in HIS analogy.
Damn! Give it up already. You didn’t interpret my analogy the same way I intended it. I don’t give a $hit.
It is only necescary for your analogy to work in one consequential way for it to be valid.
It works in several.
Anonymous is trying to find the one grain of sand on the beach that is inconsistent with your sand dune of an analogy.
Pretty small of him.
I was talking to John, Olly, and you apparently still don’t understand why your analogy failed to do what you said it did, which was support your claim that “75+ million voters have no hope future elections will give them an opportunity to have their voices heard” despite having had their votes counted.
Language exists so people can communicate with one another. Olly has made more than one good analogy the seemed to ring with some other people that provided smart followups. Those comments probably hurt your feelings, but that is why you should concentrate on writing content instead of trying to get ahead by pulling everyone off the ladder so you can get ahead. That is why after all this time you remain on the bottom rung.
Anonymous – your argument against Olly’s analogy failed.
Let go and move on.
Further your argument is specious.
Analogies are not proofs – though they are arguments.
Allan, you are a troll. Maybe you’re too stupid to understand why Olly’s analogy fails, or maybe you can’t be bothered to think about it because your goal is to troll, and I’m your target.
Anonymous, such stupidity of yours keeps making me laugh. Right or wrong, Olly made his point and you failed to make yours. LOL
I have already demonstrated the analogy is valid.
You do not seem to grasp that an analogy is valid if it works meaningfully in ANY way.
I provided a means the analogy worked – and an important one.
I need do nothing else to demonstrate your error.
Are you right about Olly’s specific application – I do not know and I do not care.
Further I do not know that you are correctly representing Olly’s claims – you continue to post as anonymous and you therefore do not have the credibility necescary for me to take your representations of other seriously.
You are not dealing with some issue that is important – such as the trustworthiness of the election – you do not seem to grasp that government exists at the consent of the governed and absent the trust of nearly all of the people government is weak or lawless or both and violence is likely.
Whatever your issue with Olly’s analogy – is not an issue of consequence.
If you actually prevailed – and I have already demonstrated a valid domain for his analogy – you still would have accomplished little.
Yet you continue a losing fight over something of no consequence in the hopes of a minor face save by pretending that inside of a small domain Olly might be wrong.
Are you this small a person ?
There is nothing invalid about the analogy, the only question is how good it is.
Perfect ? No, no analogy is perfect, but it is pretty good.
That you fail to grasp that speeks poorly of you.
sexual assault is a violation of the laws of the state.
This election was conducted in violation fo the laws and constitution of these states.
The analogyu works.
+10