People Rigging Election

By -
Roundly mock man for claiming election is rigged.

Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp11:16 AM

    Well, Trump and Clinton are both claiming the election is rigged, and for the same reason (so the one who loses has something to blame it on).

    Her claim is a little more subtle than his -- and a lot more dangerous, because she's blaming the rigging on a foreign power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:09 AM

      "Rigged" to me here means "set up so that no one out side the ruling elite can win."

      And it only takes manipulation of public opinion to rig it that way.

      Delete
  2. Adam Szczepanski5:47 PM

    It is hard to break into these parties, yes!? And they even rig the game for themselves and their own, in a myriad of ways! But I don't think the election is being thrown at a Post Office in Columbus Ohio! Hahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell7:43 PM

    Sort of begging the question? Who is doing the rigging and how is it being done and towards what ends?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:07 AM

      I think you mean "raising the question."

      But...

      "Who is doing the rigging..."

      The ruling elite.

      "how is it being done"

      Manipulating public opinion.

      "towards what ends?"

      Maintaining their rule.

      Delete
  4. Prateek9:02 AM

    To be fair, I don't see the practice of super delegates in DNC as rigging.

    The Democratic Party is a private organization that can nominate whomever it wants, whether or not they win the primaries or not. If people don't like it, they can run for another party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Keshav Srinivasan9:08 AM

    Gene, Trump is claiming more than that. He's not just talking about the media/elites manipulating public opinion. He's also talking about widespread voted fraud. That claim is what attracting so much derision. There is no reason to think that we have a significant voter fraud problem in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thomas L. Knapp10:13 AM

    The problem with that notion is that both major party candidates are members in good standing of the ruling elite; a win by either one would ensure continued maintenance of that elite's rule. Looks more like a final split between the two factions of the elite, an end to their 130-year "it's all good as long as ONE of us wins" bargain.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more