I was Trump-tolerant right up until the November 2020 election. But his refusal to concede was unacceptable, in my view. I make a strong distinction between disliking the electoral process and refusing to accept the electoral outcome.
I should point out that I had the exact same reaction in 2000. I actually voted for Al Gore, but as soon as he challenged the Florida results I turned against him. I have hated him ever since. My visceral reaction is to treat challenging an electoral outcome as selfish and destructive.
A statesman in Mr. Trump’s position would have called for a bipartisan commission to suggest reforms to the electoral process to make it more reliable and to enable more rapid, secure counting of votes. Improve the process, but don’t try to overturn the results.
My concern with Mr. Trump centers around the issue of personal loyalty. He appears to me to demand unquestioning loyalty. If you express such loyalty, you can be a knave or a fool and still earn his support (“fine people”). If you fail to express such loyalty, he will cast you aside as cruelly as he possibly can.
I watch 0 television, so I had never seen Mr. Trump until I watched his talk at CPAC this year. I was put off by the narcissism of his remarks. But what really disturbed me was the intensity of the cheering of his supporters. These were not farmers and blue-collar workers doing the cheering, which probably would have disturbed me less. They were affluent, white-collar urbanites, who should have been taught to treat politics with some degree of detachment.
My wife often says that she fears charismatic leaders. She was bothered by people who worshipped Barack Obama. I believe that she is right that everyone should have a healthy skepticism of political leaders. But I think that it is even more important for leaders themselves to be able to accept that other people treat them as fallible. Mr. Trump struck me as the very opposite in that regard.
Mr. Trump’s supporters fault other Republican leaders for being too elitist or too conciliatory. Those complaints are often valid. But I would rather look for a different leader who is empathetic with ordinary voters and is willing to take firm stands that are unpopular inside the Beltway. But we should look for someone who does not possess such a single-minded focus on personal loyalty.
DeSantis 2024.
He’s got the education, experience and proven record. He doesn’t demand blind loyalty and the media absolutely hates him, which just helps to turn out the red base.
Time to move on from Trump. Everything that Arnold and Ms. Kling said were spot on.
Trump phoned it in for at least the last two years of his presidency. His CPAC speech was just a boring replaying of his greatest hits album.
When are we going to get a guest post from Ms. Kling? We are waiting 🙂
“I actually voted for Al Gore”
What if he had won? Interesting counterfactual to ponder. Would there have been endless wars in the Middle East? Silly claims of democracy building?
Come visit the GWB library at SMU in Dallas, TX if you want to witness what the true believers think.
I voted for Bush both times, but by the time I pulled the lever the second time, I wished Gore had won. I don’t think anything would have prevented us going to Afghanistan- the blood lust was just too high for any politician to withstand- but Iraq was a different kettle of fish, and I think Gore might well have never been talked into it.
Not much would change. Hillary still loses a general election, but maybe wins the 2012 primary.
The middle east would still be a conflagration, China still grows, Russia still collapses, the US military presence over the world still declines to where it is now.
The 2008 financial crisis still happens, the US economy still grows, the EU still stagnates and muddles along, the internet still becomes the focus of life, Apple Google Facebook Amazon and Tesla still do what they did, the media still divides along partisan lines and collapses. There is still a plague of the same general scope. Shale oil is still developed and a big deal; climate change is still talked about in grand terms.
US politics still drifts leftward, with the unelected Federal executive taking the reins from merely performative elected politicians, evenly divided between parties. The Republicans coatlition still collapses as career politicians and business leaders fall out of favor with the conservative cultural factions. Red state are red, blue states are blue, and the Rust Belt still decides Presidential elections. There is similar governance of health care, and it is similarly divisive. Academia is still way out Left and pushes out the unorthodox.
I’m w/ you – if somebody steals an election, it’s his, fair & square. Absolutely outrageous to complain about the results! Sure, Biden cheated, but pointing that out can only undermine our confidence in government, and less confidence in government can only lead to less government – nobody wants that! The key thing to remember here is that supporting government & experts is more important than anything, so anything that undermines faith in either is verboten! Let’s all be good Germans, I mean Americans, and believe everything the government tells us. That’s the key. Good for you to bravely speak out in favor of the government! There just aren’t enough of us willing to support the government’s positions w/o question, and it takes real bravery to agree w/ the government while criticizing those who dissent. It’s those damn dissenters that cause all the problems! Obedience is the key to freedom.
Any evidence for your claims of a stolen election?
We are still waiting for evidence on how widespread fraud would have flipped the balance to Trump in 3+ purple, but independent states. Statistically speaking, you’re going to have a lot of trouble getting there.
A lot of the argument for Trump boils down to three facts: The Democrats have a single-minded focus on party loyalty with much the same toxic effects, the Republicans traditionally don’t, and Republicans lose political struggles with Democrats because Republicans are more willing to compromise unity when there is a good argument for the other position.
As an example, take the recent House vote on funding for Capitol security measures: “the squad” split their votes between against and present to maintain a one-vote majority for the bill, with members who repeatedly argued to disband — not just defund — police voting “present”.
This strict unity enables Democrats to push through the measures preferred by their leadership, even when they hold the slimmest of majorities, and Trump’s demand for personal loyalty is analogous. One relevant difference is that an individual president is term-limited, and can be voted out; given our election system, the major parties change extremely rarely, and so they have effective mechanisms for demanding loyalty over decades.
If one thinks politics is downstream of culture, perhaps the better way to resolve this kind of log-jam is to encourage better intellectuals and thought leaders. That can seem like a Sisyphean or at least long-term task, though, and I understand why people compromise and provide personal loyalty to a leader who demands too much of that when they see imminent risk of irreparable political damage otherwise.
Roughly agree.
I hope for Trumpism without Trump.
An end to globalist dominance in DC, and some sort of sanity against wokeism.
The GOP has a path forward, but will likely fumble.
The Donks?
Watching these two parties is like watching an NFL game in which neither team can score. Just a lot of fumbles and punts.
The essence of Trumpism is that Donald Trump is better for the country than the Democrats, due mainly to a low opinion of the Democrats (you can throw in a very low opinion of RINOs if you want too).
#Nevertrump was a movement started by establishment conservative who felt it would be better for a Democrat to win than Donald Trump. Being #NeverTrump means you think the Democrats are better than Trump.
And yes, you do have to vote for one of the two parties. Them’s the breaks. Ideas don’t vote on laws, politicians and their parties do.
You can think that the ideas that attracted people to Trump would do better championed by some alternative non-Trump personality. That may well be true. That person did not seriously run in 2016 or 2020, therefore its not relevant. It may be relevant in 2024 and I would certainly prefer a De Santis over Trump. But if Trump won, same choice set.
I view #NeverTrump as fundamentally endorsing the idea that #Demsnotthatbad. It is a kind of endorsement of the left. If you don’t think Trump is that bad, then the logical conclusion of #NeverTrump is #Demsnotthatbad.
I didn’t find that very compelling in 2016, but in 2020 I consider it a complete joke. The last several years, and in particular the last year, have caused me to dramatically increase my alarm over the left.
#Demsnothatbad is without doubt – if you’ve been paying the tiniest bit of attention – the entire point, which is why it is an immediate disqualifier.
#DemsRreallythatbad. And anyone who can’t see that can’t see the forest for the trees.
Did you consider that #NeverTrump figures on the right are “signal boosted” by Democrats motivated in confusing, frustrating, and fracturing the right-wing?
“But I would rather look for a different leader who is empathetic with ordinary voters and is willing to take firm stands that are unpopular inside the Beltway. But we should look for someone who does not possess such a single-minded focus on personal loyalty.”
Uh huh. Who?
This is such an obvious bad faith argument it underscores exactly why Republicans should ignore libertarians and learn to be responsive to independents and faithful to their base.
At the beginning of his administration Trump undertook an effort to introduce integrity to the electoral process but was resisted at every turn by Democratic governors and sabotaged by the devious federal career bureaucracy.
Trump did much that deserves resounding criticism but his mortal, unforgivable sin was to break the Iron Law of the Presidency which is that you run as a centrist and govern as a leftist. Now that President Adult Diaper Biden has restored that Law there is order in the establishment universe and all is well in the world inhabited by think tankers, federal bureaucrats, diversity, inclusion, and equity consultants.
There is nobody who meets this “Kling “ standard and in the next election libertarians are going to throw in with Harris regardless of who the Republicans nominate and regardless of the resulting shambles and impoverishment.
It is often said that people who identify as libertarians are just Democrats but too ashamed to admit. And that is understandable with President Adult Diaper leaves much to be ashamed of turning everything he looks at into fecal matter that his swarms of coprophilic worshippers immediately claim is gold. Not even bothering to do the simply stuff like greet the leader of Japan when he visits the White House.
The proud and brazen irrationality of anti-Trumpism concludes against all the obvious evidence that there is nobody worse than Trump. One might wonder though if there is anything worse than a never-Trumper.
You don’t seem to know the first thing about libertarians. I can only assume you are being willfully ignorant.
Hint: there is a reason that they are called losertarians. Open borders, ending qualified immunity and drug legalization are big losers politically. At this point, those are the remaining elements of your secret sauce vs. the conservatives.
I guess we could add “no knock” warrants to the list, but like 99.9% of the population isn’t really impacted by these anyways and doesn’t really care. Not to say that there aren’t some merits in evaluating this.
Drug legalization is definitely a political winner. Conservatives who still oppose pot legalization are one of the best examples of an obviously lost cause that exists in modern American politics.
“Drug legalization is definitely a political winner.”
No it’s not. Anything beyond pot is completely DOA and for good reason. Good luck!
Well, the red flag for me was “in the next election libertarians are going to throw in with Harris regardless of who the Republicans nominate and regardless of the resulting shambles and impoverishment.” If that happens, I’ll eat my hat!
Arnold, I agree with everything you wrote, but President Trump still may be preferable to President Harris if we are faced with a choice between these two.
“…still may be…”
How does that even warrant apprehension? Why the contingency?
In my view, they are all extreme narcissists, as are most folks in the public light. Politicians and celebs become adept at fooling folks to thinking they are not. That’s part of the show.
Once you make this your base assumption, you can more clearly consider which extreme narcissist will do the things you want and not be upset when they prove to be the extreme narcissist that you already know they are.
Since you brought it up, Arnold, I am very curious about what you think the proper response to apparent or suspected electoral fraud would be. I was rather surprised you didn’t seem to favor investigations at the time in favor of calling the election for the nominal winner despite the very bizarre voting outcomes.
Myself, it seemed like a very bad idea to leave the investigation of an election to a future time, particularly if that time would be dominated by the winner who (presumably) has a strong incentive to show nothing was wrong. There isn’t a great solution, of course. A re-election, perhaps minus mail in ballots, might be the minimal procedural correction, but that’s tricky. It is very strange to me that there is no official process for dealing with an election with contested validity in general; you’d think someone designing such a system would have seen this coming at some point.
So, what is the Kling prescription for investigating electoral misconduct?
There was an attempt to push electoral reform early in the Trump presidency, but it got law-fared by the left into shutting down.
The impression I get from Kling is that he wants elections to not matter. If they don’t matter then you don’t have to pick a side and it doesn’t even matter if it’s fraudulent. If 2020 was fraudulent, he would prefer a world where it was effectively covered up rather than exposed. Not necessarily because he cared whether Trump won, but because he cares more that people believe in the process than the process itself.
“If 2020 was fraudulent”
BTW – there is exactly zero evidence for this, primarily because it probably didn’t happen and because, if it did happen, it’s incredibly difficult to detect.
If you wanna stop fraud, then you’re gonna need to do it at the front end of the process vs. the back end. It’s way too late at the back end.
The red states have already fixed this. The MSM calls this Jim Crow v2.0 as have many corporations and MLB.
The real issue is whether the purple states will follow the red in making the front end process more legitimate or whether they will continue to infantilize black voters who somehow cannot produce an id, although they can somehow fly on commercial flights , drive a car and order a drink in a bar.
What fraud? Voter fraud gadfly Ken whatever his name is from KS had 2 years following 2016 to find any kind of evidence of any fraud on a scale that would change outcomes. He failed. The whole aparatus of the Republican party cant find any. Oh, theres the occasional “I didnt know it was illegal to vote Trump for my wife” fraud but theres no “millions of bamboo china ballot” fraud.
So yes, what does happen when the Georgia state legislature throws out Atlanta ballots and declares the election for the Republican next time? That’s precisely what their new laws are designed to allow. You ok with this?
I don’t have a position on election fraud in 2020. I don’t trust the authorities, which leaves doing my own research. But that is a monumental undertaking I have absolutely zero chance of doing accurately. I also suspect that I would end up asking questions like “a Dem judge in this state allowed voting practice X at the last minute over the objections of the state GOP, and while that is technically legal because a judge did it perhaps it shouldn’t have been.” I don’t want to get into the weeds here, only to say that the weeds themselves would need to be examined personally by me to have an opinion and there are too many weeds.
We live in a world where:
1) The realities of genetics, which touch every aspect of our lives, are denied by all the great and good daily.
2) The realities of the coronavirus were denied by the great and the good. Every fucking day in every damn thing I had to do.
3) Where NINJA loans are welcoming our Hispanic brothers into being natural republicans.
4) Where Iraq was going to be a successful western democracy (composed of low IQ clannish cousin fuckers who all hate each other).
5) Where gender doesn’t exist and mutilating children and pumping them full of hormones is love rather than some grotesque modern version of the Carthaginians burning their own children to Moloch.
Yeah, I’m going to fucking TRUST AUTHORITY on this one. Why not. They never lied to me before.
Underpinning all this is that there is nothing about my life that would change if there was fraud versus if there wasn’t. What exactly would I do if there was fraud? Storm the capitol? That didn’t work out. Do you think the result would have been any different if there was fraud?
I don’t mind Jan 6th because I don’t like anyone the people Jan 6th targeted. I wouldn’t like those people even if there was no fraud. Those people are still responsible for all of the above even if there was no electoral fraud. Their whole lives are a fraud. What’s a few votes thrown on top of the pile.
Well, your nihilism aside, we still do vote, and apart from culture war trivialities, the Republican platform is not all that popular. Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 out of the last 8 contests, so why not try to appeal to more people as opposed to winning by nullifying city peoples votes?
“So yes, what does happen when the Georgia state legislature throws out Atlanta ballots and declares the election for the Republican next time? That’s precisely what their new laws are designed to allow.”
??? You have some sort of evidence for this??
Before the November 2020 election I was a ‘probably never’ Trumper, but since Jan 2021 I am now a ‘not-this-lifetime-or-any-future-lifetime’ Trumper.
I voted for a third party presidential candidate and was bumbed when the Democrats won, but I’ll take woke authoritarianism over the real thing. It’s a spectacle to watch Republicans, you know the people of the Law-and-Order party, protest the formation of a Jan 6 commission.
Woke authoritarianism is very much the real thing. That is a large part of why a January 6th commission is such a disturbing prospect. Think back to Adam Schiff and how Congressional Democrats behaved during Trump’s administration, how little facts mattered to them, how quick they were to demonize Republicans, and how much due process they discarded. Now imagine what they would do without anyone to check their abuses.
The Left has spent years creating racial identity politics, creating a cult of personality with Obama, creating an Imperial Presidency, demonizing both whites and males.
What did you think would happen next? Trump’s followers are tampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.
What is sad is that no other Republican leader was able to address the issues that Trump addressed. Trump could have been defeated.
” But I would rather look for a different leader … ”
Looking for leaders is the problem. That is playing to your opponents’ strengths and giving them an obvious “attack surface”, easily targetable by their most powerful weapons. Personal is centralized and fragile; impersonal is decentralized and robust. You want your leader to be “Satoshi Nakamoto” – pseudonymous, fictional, irrelevant, uncancellable.
Capable leaders are important for the highest level of success, but you want The Union to continue to be able to stand up to Management whether or not somebody whacks Hoffa.
You need an organization that can function with without any special geniuses or unique individuals at the helm, otherwise your opponents will just throw everything they have at cutting the head off your snake. If your football team depends on its star quarterback for its success, then the other team’s defense is going to focus on hurting him bad enough to take him out of the game.
The problem is that, as in all instances of having to maintain group cohesion, solidarity, loyalty, unity, and asabiya, you face a terribly difficult coordination problem when it comes to getting people to toe the party line, take orders, make sacrifices, and not desert, surrender, or defect. You need a focal point and flag to rally around, and personal loyalty to a charismatic Big Man who conspicuously has lots of other loyal followers is the one most consistent with the instincts of human social psychology.
But you can’t have a Big Man now, and ethnicity does not form an acceptable focal point, so history tells us that the next best thing is The Cause, The Faith, The Party.
But allegiance to The Cause requires the application of particular complex of social technologies and cultural infrastructure to keep adherents organized, unified, and obedient. You could use “Social Credit System” in an abstract, generic sense to refer to any such system that gets the job done, Woke Cancel Culture is the SCS for the progressives. The right … doesn’t have one. Yet.
Taking the big problem seriously means abandoning the quest for idiosyncratic leaders and instead building The Party which can be staffed with generic cadres. And The Party will need an equally powerful rival SCS to keep its members in line and able to participate in deterring and conspicuous collective actions when necessary: scrupulously legal and nonviolent, but nevertheless intimidating enough to get the job done.
As China has already proven, this can be done right now. We already have the technology. It’s just a matter of implementing it, and convincing people to adopt it by explaining that the alternative is the disappearance of what they care about.
It seems to me that Trump appeals to certain personality type.
Here is Glen Loury interviewing Jon Shields the author of “Trump’s Democarts” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Cip76JgV8
They like brawling style.
Still I think some will leave him because he appears to be a sore loser.
Trump implied long before 2020 that he would not accept results of an election that he lost so I’m shocked so may people were influenced by his refusal to do so.
Kling says it’s disqualifying and egregiously out of bounds to reject the validity of an election loss. He compares Trump’s reaction to 2020 to Al Gore in 2000. I can agree with that; however Al Gore’s challenge in 2000 was benign and tame compared to the Democrats in the last three years.
When Democrats weren’t getting their favored political outcomes in 2020 they stoke waves of organized political violence in cities across the nation! This is such a drastic escalation beyond anything that Al Gore did in 2000 or Trump in 2020. Al Gore never (AFAIK) stoked widespread political violence and neither did Trump.
In 2018, during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the left organized crowds of protesters to physically intimidate and harass Republican politicians in the Capitol Building. They launched a coordinated effort to brand Kavanaugh as a serial sexual predator or even a gang rapist because he wasn’t loyal to their poltical cause. The left organized crowds to intimidate right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson at his family home. This is so extreme compared to anything Al Gore or Trump ever did.
Even the prominent #NeverTrump Republicans featured in media like National Review and The Dispatch: they pumped air into the absurd Russia collusion charges and mounted charges against the validity of Trump’s 2016 election win through the majority of his term. That is a grotesque escalation beyond the sins of Al Gore or Trump.
The Democratic Party have launched messaging campaigns to brand voter ID, the filibuster, the electoral college, and several other political outcomes they dislike as legacies of Jim Crow and White Supremacy. The criticisms leveled that Democrats exploited the pandemic to alter election laws regarding ballot harvesting in their favor seem comparatively reasonable challenges.
Mr. Kling, do you play any sports? Or gambling games? Would you stop favoring or following a team because it was the victim of cheating or poor officiating in an important match, and its coach complained about it rather than meekly let himself and his team be cheated?
The biggest difference between this hypothetical and the election scenario is that Trump’s letting himself be cheated would result, is resulting, in unacceptable collateral damage to a large number of innocent people. If you don’t think he had business going to court over it, you have a very wrong set of priorities. If he did as you would have liked, I would have lost all respect for him.
You hate Gore? How do you feel about Trump?
I’m sorry. This is just libertarian posturing. Like Bryan Caplan talking about never getting his hands dirty. You inevitably choose. There were only two choices, and in my view Biden is inescapably worse. He can do much more harm because all the elite institutions back him.
There is no way to say, you choose NO ONE. If you didn’t support Trump, you supported Biden. I don’t see how anyone can argue in good conscience that what is happening under Biden is much worse than what we would have seen with Trump.
Charles Murray wrote in May 2016 at AEIdeas, as he tried to persuade Republicans to vote for Hillary, that Republican presidents hadn’t made much of a difference in the preceding 50 years, Reagan being the exception. Now, we have Trump who made a difference. People like a real fighter, even if they are arrogant about it.
As for the 2020 election, there was every appearance of impropriety, and a concerted effort to deny reality. The reality being that there is always fraud and error in elections. The only question is whether it is enough to alter the initial count. But even the thought of checking the voting was declared verboten. Some might just not have wanted to face reality, but they gave every appearance of fearing a clear accounting, and still do. The institutions appeared less than worthy of trust, but also violently against being verified.
Being too polite to fight was how the classical liberals lost the fight against the Third International in 1920s Germany, provoking the people to swing toward the militaristic/nationalistic supporters and we all know how that worked out when Hitler and his merry band of sociopaths got control of the party that represented the ideas the German professors had taught the German population for more than 70 years. Trump was in many ways, a relief valve and may be one again.
beautiful comment. bravo!
I was NeverHillary in 2016, but became Trump 2020 – because of Trump’s policies, and the success of those policies.
And the lies of those who hate him.
Arnold “was put off by the narcissism of his remarks. But what really disturbed me was the intensity of the cheering of his supporters. ”
As usual with Trump-haters, virtually no discussion of policies or likely outcomes. I don’t like listening to Trump, nor Obama, Bush 43, Clinton (neither), Bush 41, and not even Reagan, who I never voted for (being a Libber then! Ed Clark, David Bergland; then Ron Paul).
What I look for in a politician is their policies, and results.
What most people seem to look for is (I hear Paul Simon singing):
“There’s only one thing I need to know,
whose side are you on, whose side are you on.” (Paranoia Blues)
Then it becomes a horse race – who did you bet on.
Or a never ending set of protests – Hooray for side (Steven Stills)
Or a sports team – Go Team Go.
Folks who love sports teams get excited about their teams.
Folks who go to rock concerts get excited about the singers and songs they love.
Folks enjoy being excited about things they feel good about, since:
“Everybody wants to change the World.”
If any think that politics should be more serious than sports or concerts, I agree – but that’s because of policies & laws & results, not because of personal narcissism, bragging, and bad-mouthing of the other team.
On the electoral process – how many affidavits by election observers, signed by identified human beings, do there need to be before you question the process? In CA, some 20% of those who signed Newsom’s recall petition are having their signatures rejected – the mail in ballots had a rejection rate of less than 1%.
The process of signature verification and distributing and counting of mail-in ballots is highly vulnerable to illegal voting- once in the pile of counted votes, it’s just another ballot (too late for recounts).
I believe the election was stolen – liars who lied about Russian collusion for years, and about the mostly peaceful Jan 6 protest being an insurrection rather than a trespassing with some minor violence, and claiming as true the false report of Officer Sicknick being killed by fire extinguisher attack as reported by the NYT quoting 2 secret police officials – such liars claiming “no evidence” of fraud do not convince me. The officer died of heart trouble. Only unarmed and non-threatening Ashli Babbitt was a victim of violence, shot to death by the Secret Police. SCOTUS voted 7-2 to NOT hear the evidence; so of course, those with eyes covered don’t see any problem.
Audits with reports on how many signatures do not match, and reports on how many batches of ballots failed to have complete chains of custody, with such irregular numbers being less than the Biden-Trump difference would be a big step to convincing me Biden won. Since Dems strongly oppose all such audits, I conclude they believe there was more cheating than they want confirmed by audits.
Pro-Biden censorship.
It was known since the true Hunter Biden laptop stories of bribery were censored before the election that the election was not “fair” – in fair elections, the truth is not censored. Just because it’s not 100% fair doesn’t mean it was stolen.
But if an election isn’t fully fair, what is it? “mostly fair” means a bit of cheating.
I remain outraged by this. But mostly don’t think about it.
Since Trump IS a huge narcissist, and the Rep Party might be better off with some other leader. But it was stolen.
And Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Epstein probably killed himself. Any evidence Ashli Babbitt was shot by secret service? She was shot by an anonymous office, that I presumed was from the Capitol Police.
I emphatically agree with everything else you said.
Looking forward to the post on how you became a #neverFauci.
Would you say I first became #neverFauci here or here?
I was Trump-tolerant for a while. I can’t say the same about Fauci.
It became unequivocal with this. You would absolutely disagree with me, but probably one of your best virus posts. Fauci and the rest of the bureaucrats were completely winging it and you were willing to call it what it was – complete bullsh*t.
https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/signing-off/
Question: why so much reticence to call a spade a spade in 2021? Why are those folks still around? They need to go.
Related…f*ck the MSM and their fact checkers too. They called the reasonable easing of restrictions in the red states as “experiments in human sacrifice” and “Neanderthal thinking.” No corrections will ever be issued. Where were the mainstream libertarians in coming to our defense? Crickets.
***
Good fact-checkers are there to help perpetuate the illusion of competence — professional ass-coverers who keep it from being obvious that your favorite reporter only just learned terms like “hanging chad” or “herd immunity.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/fact-checking-takes-another-beating
To use the phrase genius with Iblis and Asmoday is short altering these two “enzymes”. Then, there should be something deserving about the game following all. Here you can consider your time towards a pc and research your strategy.