Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections

 

Rigged CoverMollie Hemingway applies her talent—rigorous and thoughtful old-school journalism—to documenting the 2020 assault against America perpetrated by the evil alliance of the progressive movement, the entrenched bureaucracy, modern “journalism”, and big technology firms. Yes, the election was rigged. But the core of Rigged is the story of years of lawfare, private takeovers of election boards by well-funded progressives, ill-considered and/or uncontested consent agreements, the flouting of long-standing election law, and the shielding thereof by a twisted judiciary.

This book does not lay out specific proof that Trump won on November 3, 2020. It does show how the unprecedented surge in mail-in voting, and the suppression of the anti-fraud measures that are supposed to accompany it, made 2020 a perfect storm for untraceable fraud. Meanwhile, the media’s four-year campaign to oust Trump by any means necessary ground on, with regular assistance from an entrenched bureaucracy willing to do anything to avoid draining the swamp. Add in a huge assist by abrupt changes in the censorship practices of big social media firms, and you have the tools to lift a mediocre basement-dweller over the most energetic and energizing politician of my lifetime. (I’m 54, fwiw.)

My copy of Rigged, pictured, is festooned with Post-It flags for the statements and quotations that were new to me or struck me as particularly significant. I can’t possibly mention them all in this review—I placed 77 of these markers. But I can hit the highlights of each chapter.

Mollie sets the stage with a brief prologue, letting you know that you aren’t crazy if you think Trump’s victory was stolen.

The first chapter is a discussion of the changes in voting laws over the history of the United States, from pre-colonial times to the present. Some of this was completely new to me, especially that the secret ballot wasn’t really all that secret until late in the 19th century, with the introduction of “Australian-style” ballots printed by the government. Fully public and partially public voting practices prior to this were shockingly prone to coercion and fraud, especially in the form of vote-buying. The reforms of the time were particularly focused on abolishing voting by mail, and eliminating long time periods for voting. Election day was established by amendment to be the Tuesday after the first Monday of November to avoid influencing the outcome of states that voted later in the calendar based on reports of the outcome in other states. Mollie’s exposition shows how we (these United States) are going backward to known-abusive voting procedures.

The second chapter discusses how Trump’s enemies were strewn through the establishment, and included antagonistic Republicans. Trump’s policies are poison for big-government enthusiasts in both parties, and those policies’ successes across a variety of topics were embarrassing to the failures that preceded him. His foreign policy successes, like Peace in the Middle East, demonstrated the bankruptcy of the establishment’s own policy preferences. Meanwhile, Trump’s economic policies were so successful, across all classes and among minorities, that re-alignment of traditional Democratic constituencies was in full swing. The establishment desperately needed to stop Trump.

The third chapter lays out the impact Covid-19 had on the presidential contest. And how every twist and turn in the course of events was portrayed in the media in the worst possible light for Trump, and the best possible light for his antagonists (particularly Cuomo in New York), regardless of the hypocrisy. The politicization of science, already a grave problem in any topic that lives on public research funds, reached new heights in 2020 (and continuing today, I might add). Mollie doesn’t really dwell on the scientific details of Covid-19, as that isn’t really relevant to the theme of Rigged. Her presentation is focused on the excuse Covid provided for activists to push a huge expansion of mail-in voting—precisely the tool needed to enable untraceable fraud on a grand scale.

Chapter four moves on to the horrifying violence that engulfed major cities in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd at the knee of Derek Chauvin. The initial impressions of Floyd’s demise, now known to be not quite so simple, were seized by anti-police activists in the black community to advance their agenda. An agenda that is Marxist to its core, and contemptuous of American standards of justice. Mollie lays out point after point showing how the progressive movement’s vested interest in stopping Trump’s gains in minority communities led its politicians, media apologists, and social media censors to do everything they could to keep tensions simmering. And to hide the truth about Antifa and BLM activist behavior.

Chapter five covers the convention season, and how the lackluster “virtual” convention held by the Democrats was outshone by a very unconventional Republican convention. Unconventional because all the usual players were unavailable, and the Charlotte host site was effectively sabotaged by North Carolina’s Democrat governor. The good news for Trump could not be allowed to stand, and the mainstream news media leveraged conveniently anonymous sources to gin up a controversy over a canceled visit to a military cemetery in France. That numerous eyewitnesses contradicted the “sources”, insisting that Trump did not defame any soldiers, was ignored. Corrections to the record were naturally held until they could help Trump anymore. No apologies from Fake News, of course.

Chapter six describes the debate season and the journalist malpractice that surrounded it. Mollie highlights the shameful conduct of the Commission on Presidential Debates and points out that it is likely to have no future.

Chapter seven is a deep dive into Big Tech’s assistance to the progressive movement, with a particular focus on the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), Mark Zuckerberg’s vehicle for buying elections. Specifically, CTCL gave huge sums, with strings attached, to election boards around the country. The strings were basically to push mail-in voting to the max, and eliminate the signature matches, address checks, witness requirements, and any other anti-fraud measure that normally accompanies mail-in voting. And “cooperate” with CTCL “advisors”. Mollie documents how that meant CTCL running some elections. Georgia was the biggest recipient, at $31 million. More on that in chapter ten.

Chapter eight is all about Hunter. And all the trouble he creates for the Biden family while leading the family’s worldwide grift. Trouble that reflects poorly on his father, and so must be suppressed. Especially the classic October surprise: Hunter’s abandoned laptop with oodles of embarrassing and incriminating content. The journalistic malpractice (or to be more honest, malice) was breathtaking. Major media, big tech, and bureaucrats closed ranks to silence all news about this event. At least until the election was safely in Biden’s pocket. Yes, anyone inclined to bypass major news media for more trustworthy sources knew all about it, but the general public doesn’t do this. Numerous polls, after the fact, show that earlier knowledge of this scandal would have changed many Biden voters’ minds. More than enough to flip the result.

Chapter nine is about the legal and judicial shenanigans used in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to suppress the Green Party and candidates that would siphon voter support on the left, plus an account of similar legal and judicial misconduct to suppress poll-watchers and post-election challenges to signature verification misconduct. The election boards in both states flouted state laws with impunity, thanks to sympathetic judges. Mollie throws stones at Rudy Guiliani, too. He disrupted Trump’s legal efforts quite badly, as Mollie explains.

The tenth and final chapter focuses on Georgia’s Fulton County and Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensburger. As a Georgia resident myself, much of this has been covered locally ad nauseam. However, one bit about Raffensburger’s stonewalling on FOIA requests, requests needed by Mark Davis, a local election integrity expert, for Trump’s legal challenges, left my jaw on the floor. I was already upset at Raffensburger for the outrageous consent agreement that changed mail-in ballot handling, but the sheer malice towards conservatism shown by the post-election conduct Mollie documents has me furious. Not to mention the mind-boggling revelation that Raffensburger’s right hand in the office is a clear Democrat activist.

Mollie adds a brief epilogue to tie it all back together.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mollie’s writing, and learned a few things I’d missed in the past year or so. I highly recommend you get your own copy.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 315 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    philo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    “My point is that complaining after the fact is for losers.”

    After throwing a four year temper tantrum, the clown has the nerve to toss around faux-machismo like this now. Funny stuff, I tell you…

    “Clown”? The Code of Conduct prohibits the following:

    • Personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against people, groups, or classes. Public figures may be exempt from this rule, provided the comment otherwise adheres to the CoC.
    • Defamatory, gossipy, or rude comments. Imagine you’re a guest at a dinner party with a group of seemingly nice people you don’t know… how would you handle yourself?

    Not a personal attack at all, just a perfect description of someone who alters their true character behind a Reagan costume:

    Also worth noting, your conspicuous thread jacking once the post was promoted to the front page. Again.  Your need for attention is rather juvenile…and pathetic.

    • #151
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™

    • #152
  3. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Free speech does not give you the right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater.

    Yes it does.

    • #153
  4. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    “My point is that complaining after the fact is for losers.”

    After throwing a four year temper tantrum, the clown has the nerve to toss around faux-machismo like this now. Funny stuff, I tell you…

    “Clown”? The Code of Conduct prohibits the following:

    • Personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against people, groups, or classes. Public figures may be exempt from this rule, provided the comment otherwise adheres to the CoC.
    • Defamatory, gossipy, or rude comments. Imagine you’re a guest at a dinner party with a group of seemingly nice people you don’t know… how would you handle yourself?

    Not a personal attack at all, just a perfect description of someone who alters their true character behind a Reagan costume:

    Also worth noting, your conspicuous thread jacking once the post was promoted to the front page. Again. Your need for attention is rather juvenile…and pathetic.

    Two points.  First, I ordered the book from Amazon and did not receive the book until after the post was promoted to the Main Feed.  I think that Phil did a good job in his review, but I pointed out some weaknesses in Mollie’s book.

    Second, you calling me “juvenile…and pathetic” both violate the Code of Conduct which prohibits:

    • Personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against people, groups, or classes. Public figures may be exempt from this rule, provided the comment otherwise adheres to the CoC.
    • Defamatory, gossipy, or rude comments. Imagine you’re a guest at a dinner party with a group of seemingly nice people you don’t know… how would you handle yourself?
    • #154
  5. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I don’t think that it is my head that is exploding.  

    They never do.

    • #155
  6. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally. 

    Pennsylvania did. 

    • #156
  7. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally.

    Pennsylvania did.

    What Court held that Pennsylvania acted unconstitutionally?  Please provide the case citation.

    • #157
  8. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment): Second, you calling me “juvenile…and pathetic” both violate the Code of Conduct which prohibits:

    Stop whining to me about it and contact the proper authorities. This is your chance…likely my third and final strike. Go for it, bud.

    • #158
  9. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    philo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment): Second, you calling me “juvenile…and pathetic” both violate the Code of Conduct which prohibits:

    Stop whining to me about it and contact the proper authorities. This is your chance…likely my third and final strike. Go for it, bud.

    Philo, you are a smart guy.  I really hope that you don’t get a final strike.  

    It is easier said than done, but play the ball, not the man.

     

    • #159
  10. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally.

    Pennsylvania did.

    What Court held that Pennsylvania acted unconstitutionally? Please provide the case citation.

    There is an interesting thing about constitutions. They are written for laymen to follow. You know, the rest of us – hoi polloi et al.

    One does not need a court to rule to see whether an action by the State is unconstitutional or not, one can read the plain language.

    In fact – it requires a lawyer (family or not) to twist constitutional requirements in such a manner to get to the opposite meaning.

    Case in point. A right to keep and bear arms “may not be infringed” yet, today I may go to Texas from Louisiana, purchase a car and drive it home the same day. Thanks to lawyers, I may not do the same with a gun. Somehow my constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” has been infringed to the degree that of all the property I might own, only the one that I have a constitutional right to own is infringed if I travel outside my state.

    So I can read the requirements for absentee voting in Pennsylvania and I can read the process to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to permit mail in voting and I can see that the process wasn’t followed. Then I can assert that such changes were “unconstitutional”.

    That’s spelled “U”-“N”-“C”-“O”-“N”-“S”-“T”-“I”-“T”-“U”-“T”-“I”-“O”-“N”-“A”-“L” for you family lawyer types.

    You can cite me on that.

     

    • #160
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Who wants to refute him this time?

    Actually for once Gary has done us a service. If Gary thinks poorly of it (the George Castanza rule) then maybe it’s better than I suspected. Maybe I will check this one out.

    Good point, in that sense. But there’s so much NON-sense in what he wrote, it should be refuted. But a) I don’t have that kind of word limit, and b) I’m sick of it happening over and over.

    You can become a Reagan member, or you can take me on one paragraph at a time. Your choice.

    If I were channeling you, I would just point out that you don’t get to decide what choices I have.

    That’s fair. I apologize.

    For now, maybe I’ll just suggest that you liked her other book because you didn’t disagree with it. You don’t like this new book because you DO disagree with it. Your “analysis” is pointless in both cases.

    I think that you will like both books. I think that most people at Ricochet will like both books. However, I have pointed out some weaknesses in her reasoning. And I am relieved that she is not arguing that Trump was “cheated” only that the rules were rigged against him, perhaps due to his own negligence before the election. As for the pandemic, both Trump and Biden have shown themselves unable to distinguish themselves with this rare event like Republican Governors DeSantis or DeWine.

    And, you voted for the guy who has been bashing DeSantis and making a mess of things himself.

    Nice going.

    Ah, the “Scarlet B.” You are ignoring arguments and attacking the person who has pointed out that Republicans blew the election before it occurred.

    You put up a picture of yourself, in a t-shirt, that you were a proud voter for Biden. We did not pin anything on you.

    It is pathetic that you were so, so proud to vote for Biden, and went on at length about how happy you were to do it, and now, when we remind you of that behavior you try to make us the bad guys. That is the act of a man unwilling to face his own errors.

    You voted for Biden. You did it proudly and of your own free will. At no time did you think it was a sin or did you think doing it in your heart was wrong. Nope. You did it proudly. And now, now, you are upset that we keep reminding you of it. 

    Hester Prynne was a sympathetic protagonist. You are not. 

    • #161
  12. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally.  How do I know that?  Because the Republicans never got their act together to have a Court declare what the Democrats did “illegal” or “unconstitutional.”  

    And OJ didn’t kill his wife, because no court said that he did.

     

    • #162
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I am going to have to get and read this book. 

    It seems the bottom line is that lots was done ahead of time to change the rules of the game to win. 

    The best I can tell, America has moved aware from fair elections, back towards old school rigging. And it is also clear that Never Trump is for that. Never Trump wants stronger party leaders, who can stop the voters from getting what they want, and put their wisdom into place. That is why Never Trump and conservatism, Inc. is on board with the rigging. It all adds up to stopping the ordinary American from getting his say. 

    I think this foul elitism has been part of America from the beginning. I am against pure mob rule. I am also against rule by the elites. 

    • #163
  14. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally. How do I know that? Because the Republicans never got their act together to have a Court declare what the Democrats did “illegal” or “unconstitutional.”

    And OJ didn’t kill his wife, because no court said that he did.

    You know, I don’t know that a court has ever ruled on the Law of Gravity either. Must not exist.

    • #164
  15. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally.

    Pennsylvania did.

    What Court held that Pennsylvania acted unconstitutionally? Please provide the case citation.

    There is an interesting thing about constitutions. They are written for laymen to follow. You know, the rest of us – hoi polloi et al.

    One does not need a court to rule to see whether an action by the State is unconstitutional or not, one can read the plain language.

    In fact – it requires a lawyer (family or not) to twist constitutional requirements in such a manner to get to the opposite meaning.

    Case in point. A right to keep and bear arms “may not be infringed” yet, today I may go to Texas from Louisiana, purchase a car and drive it home the same day. Thanks to lawyers, I may not do the same with a gun. Somehow my constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” has been infringed to the degree that of all the property I might own, only the one that I have a constitutional right to own is infringed if I travel outside my state.

    So I can read the requirements for absentee voting in Pennsylvania and I can read the process to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to permit mail in voting and I can see that the process wasn’t followed. Then I can assert that such changes were “unconstitutional”.

    That’s spelled “U”-“N”-“C”-“O”-“N”-“S”-“T”-“I”-“T”-“U”-“T”-“I”-“O”-“N”-“A”-“L” for you family lawyer types.

    You can cite me on that.

    By a citation I mean 567 F.2d 1234, or 876 A.2d 987.  You know an actual case that I can look up, keeping in mind Reagan’s formula of “Trust but Verify.”

    • #165
  16. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I am also against rule by the elites. 

    Who, most often, are not.

    Elite, that is – FYFL types.

    • #166
  17. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Who wants to refute him this time?

    Actually for once Gary has done us a service. If Gary thinks poorly of it (the George Castanza rule) then maybe it’s better than I suspected. Maybe I will check this one out.

    Good point, in that sense. But there’s so much NON-sense in what he wrote, it should be refuted. But a) I don’t have that kind of word limit, and b) I’m sick of it happening over and over.

    You can become a Reagan member, or you can take me on one paragraph at a time. Your choice.

    If I were channeling you, I would just point out that you don’t get to decide what choices I have.

    That’s fair. I apologize.

    For now, maybe I’ll just suggest that you liked her other book because you didn’t disagree with it. You don’t like this new book because you DO disagree with it. Your “analysis” is pointless in both cases.

    I think that you will like both books. I think that most people at Ricochet will like both books. However, I have pointed out some weaknesses in her reasoning. And I am relieved that she is not arguing that Trump was “cheated” only that the rules were rigged against him, perhaps due to his own negligence before the election. As for the pandemic, both Trump and Biden have shown themselves unable to distinguish themselves with this rare event like Republican Governors DeSantis or DeWine.

    And, you voted for the guy who has been bashing DeSantis and making a mess of things himself.

    Nice going.

    Ah, the “Scarlet B.” You are ignoring arguments and attacking the person who has pointed out that Republicans blew the election before it occurred.

    You put up a picture of yourself, in a t-shirt, that you were a proud voter for Biden. We did not pin anything on you.

    It is pathetic that you were so, so proud to vote for Biden, and went on at length about how happy you were to do it, and now, when we remind you of that behavior you try to make us the bad guys. That is the act of a man unwilling to face his own errors.

    You voted for Biden. You did it proudly and of your own free will. At no time did you think it was a sin or did you think doing it in your heart was wrong. Nope. You did it proudly. And now, now, you are upset that we keep reminding you of it.

    Hester Prynne was a sympathetic protagonist. You are not.

    Bryan, I suggest that you play the ball, not the man.  Meet the arguments head-on, and avoid attacking the person making the arguments.  To quote one of the Mod’s who deleted some of your comments:

    “I’ve removed some comments. This post is not about Donald Trump, nor does it concern members and how they voted in the last election, whether it was for Trump, or for Biden.”

    • #167
  18. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally. How do I know that? Because the Republicans never got their act together to have a Court declare what the Democrats did “illegal” or “unconstitutional.”

    And OJ didn’t kill his wife, because no court said that he did.

    Actually, the civil case found that OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman.

    • #168
  19. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am going to have to get and read this book.

    Good.  I think that you will enjoy the book.

    It seems the bottom line is that lots was done ahead of time to change the rules of the game to win.

    Trump got the Dems napping in 2016, and the Dems got Trump napping in 2020.

    The best I can tell, America has moved aware from fair elections, back towards old school rigging. And it is also clear that Never Trump is for that.  Never Trump wants stronger party leaders, who can stop the voters from getting what they want, and put their wisdom into place. That is why Never Trump and conservatism, Inc. is on board with the rigging. It all adds up to stopping the ordinary American from getting his say.

    No.

    I think this foul elitism has been part of America from the beginning. I am against pure mob rule. I am also against rule by the elites.

    Fair enough.

     

    • #169
  20. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally.

    Pennsylvania did.

    What Court held that Pennsylvania acted unconstitutionally? Please provide the case citation.

    There is an interesting thing about constitutions. They are written for laymen to follow. You know, the rest of us – hoi polloi et al.

    One does not need a court to rule to see whether an action by the State is unconstitutional or not, one can read the plain language.

    In fact – it requires a lawyer (family or not) to twist constitutional requirements in such a manner to get to the opposite meaning.

    Case in point. A right to keep and bear arms “may not be infringed” yet, today I may go to Texas from Louisiana, purchase a car and drive it home the same day. Thanks to lawyers, I may not do the same with a gun. Somehow my constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” has been infringed to the degree that of all the property I might own, only the one that I have a constitutional right to own is infringed if I travel outside my state.

    So I can read the requirements for absentee voting in Pennsylvania and I can read the process to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to permit mail in voting and I can see that the process wasn’t followed. Then I can assert that such changes were “unconstitutional”.

    That’s spelled “U”-“N”-“C”-“O”-“N”-“S”-“T”-“I”-“T”-“U”-“T”-“I”-“O”-“N”-“A”-“L” for you family lawyer types.

    You can cite me on that.

    Note that both the question that solicited your fine response and the follow-up comment to it were not intellectually serious and clearly not in good faith…the former was pure trolling and the latter was non-responsive. Funny how he hides behind the CoC mandated presumption of good faith…

    • #170
  21. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Who “rigged” the election were the Democrats who figured out the rules and strategy quickly and adapted to the pandemic. The blame should be put at the feet of the state, and national parties and the Trump campaign for not adapting to the pandemic and filing their own lawsuits.

     

    Nice of you to put it more fairly. The problem is nobody could respond to Zuckerberg. It was too different and he did it in the middle of September. It’s terrible. If you don’t think of it any other way I absolutely don’t get it. Billionaires renting the election system.

    And, they didn’t just “figure out the rules and strategy and quickly adapted…” They changed the rules illegally/unconstitutionally for their benefit.

    In the big picture, Gary is making the argument against Principles First and for Trump.

    If you make his head explode, I’m not cleaning it up!

    Not to worry. It’s too thick to explode, if we assume that the obtusity isn’t deliberate and strategic in the first place. I stopped assuming that long ago, so either way your mop is safe.

    • #171
  22. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Who wants to refute him this time?

    Actually for once Gary has done us a service. If Gary thinks poorly of it (the George Castanza rule) then maybe it’s better than I suspected. Maybe I will check this one out.

    Good point, in that sense. But there’s so much NON-sense in what he wrote, it should be refuted. But a) I don’t have that kind of word limit, and b) I’m sick of it happening over and over.

    You can become a Reagan member, or you can take me on one paragraph at a time. Your choice.

    If I were channeling you, I would just point out that you don’t get to decide what choices I have.

    That’s fair. I apologize.

    For now, maybe I’ll just suggest that you liked her other book because you didn’t disagree with it. You don’t like this new book because you DO disagree with it. Your “analysis” is pointless in both cases.

    I think that you will like both books. I think that most people at Ricochet will like both books. However, I have pointed out some weaknesses in her reasoning. And I am relieved that she is not arguing that Trump was “cheated” only that the rules were rigged against him, perhaps due to his own negligence before the election. As for the pandemic, both Trump and Biden have shown themselves unable to distinguish themselves with this rare event like Republican Governors DeSantis or DeWine.

    And, you voted for the guy who has been bashing DeSantis and making a mess of things himself.

    Nice going.

    Ah, the “Scarlet B.” You are ignoring arguments and attacking the person who has pointed out that Republicans blew the election before it occurred.

    We shouldn’t have to get rich people to game the system to have fair elections. No amount of fixing the biased media coverage against Trump would have worked with so many knuckleheads willing to fall for every lie. If his record wasn’t good enough for those who placed tweeting over outcomes, then what’s to be done ahead of time. Sometimes silly societies get the government they deserve. 

    • #172
  23. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    They didn’t act illegally nor unconstitutionally. How do I know that? Because the Republicans never got their act together to have a Court declare what the Democrats did “illegal” or “unconstitutional.”

    And OJ didn’t kill his wife, because no court said that he did.

    Actually, the civil case found that OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman.

    Ackshullly the civil case found him “responsible”, not that he “killed” them. Because that would be “murder”.

    Really, counselor – you ought to know the difference.

     

    • #173
  24. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Who “rigged” the election were the Democrats who figured out the rules and strategy quickly and adapted to the pandemic. The blame should be put at the feet of the state, and national parties and the Trump campaign for not adapting to the pandemic and filing their own lawsuits.

    And illegally changed them.

    You must work very hard to keep ignoring things that have been pointed out to you over and over. Lawsuits WERE filed, and dismissed for lack of “standing.” Because no “damage” had yet occurred. After the election they were dismissed as “moot.”

    Well, the Democrats found a way to file lawsuits to open up absentee ballots before the election. Why the heck didn’t the Republicans file their own lawsuits to increase security before the election? Why the heck didn’t the Republicans file motions to intervene in those lawsuits before the election.

    Child Protective Services (now the Department of Child Safety) and take children from negligent or abusive parents, and file Dependency Petitions, only to have grandparents represented by Gary Robbins file motions to intervene to force their way into those lawsuits. When CPS tried to stop me, I went to the legislature to create a right of participation by foster parents and relatives. When CPS filed a Special Action to stop me, I won in the Court of Appeals.

    Motions to intervene are not easy, but they are not impossible. Time for the Republican Party to get its act together before the election, and to not whine after the election.

    What am I missing here? The man just said/wrote that lawsuits were filed, and yet you ask “why the heck didn’t the Republicans file their own lawsuits”? What about “lawsuits were filed” was not clear to you?

    What you’re missing is that there is nothing productive in this pursuit. It’s been given many chances, but the result is always the same. He knows what he’s doing.

    • #174
  25. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    philo (View Comment):
    Note that both the question that solicited your fine response and the follow-up comment to it were not intellectually serious and clearly not in good faith…the former was pure trolling and the latter was non-responsive.

    Thanks Brother!

    philo (View Comment):
    Funny how he hides behind the CoC mandated presumption of good faith…

    I know, it is a shame too. Such a generous spirit, wasted.

    • #175
  26. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I am off to visit with my 90 year old mother for the rest of the week.  I really think that most members of Ricochet would enjoy this book, and we are indebted to Phil for his review.  

    • #176
  27. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Who wants to refute him this time?

    Actually for once Gary has done us a service. If Gary thinks poorly of it (the George Castanza rule) then maybe it’s better than I suspected. Maybe I will check this one out.

    Good point, in that sense. But there’s so much NON-sense in what he wrote, it should be refuted. But a) I don’t have that kind of word limit, and b) I’m sick of it happening over and over.

    You can become a Reagan member, or you can take me on one paragraph at a time. Your choice.

    If I were channeling you, I would just point out that you don’t get to decide what choices I have.

    That’s fair. I apologize.

    For now, maybe I’ll just suggest that you liked her other book because you didn’t disagree with it. You don’t like this new book because you DO disagree with it. Your “analysis” is pointless in both cases.

    I think that you will like both books. I think that most people at Ricochet will like both books. However, I have pointed out some weaknesses in her reasoning. And I am relieved that she is not arguing that Trump was “cheated” only that the rules were rigged against him, perhaps due to his own negligence before the election. As for the pandemic, both Trump and Biden have shown themselves unable to distinguish themselves with this rare event like Republican Governors DeSantis or DeWine.

    And, you voted for the guy who has been bashing DeSantis and making a mess of things himself.

    Nice going.

    Ah, the “Scarlet B.” You are ignoring arguments and attacking the person who has pointed out that Republicans blew the election before it occurred.

    You put up a picture of yourself, in a t-shirt, that you were a proud voter for Biden. We did not pin anything on you.

    It is pathetic that you were so, so proud to vote for Biden, and went on at length about how happy you were to do it, and now, when we remind you of that behavior you try to make us the bad guys. That is the act of a man unwilling to face his own errors.

    You voted for Biden. You did it proudly and of your own free will. At no time did you think it was a sin or did you think doing it in your heart was wrong. Nope. You did it proudly. And now, now, you are upset that we keep reminding you of it.

    Hester Prynne was a sympathetic protagonist. You are not.

    Bryan, I suggest that you play the ball, not the man. Meet the arguments head-on, and avoid attacking the person making the arguments. To quote one of the Mod’s who deleted some of your comments:

    “I’ve removed some comments. This post is not about Donald Trump, nor does it concern members and how they voted in the last election, whether it was for Trump, or for Biden.”

    And yet, you posted comment #135. Talk about ad hominim. Everyone can have moments of being photographed they look bad. Why, I bet Biden has some of those moments. Like falling up the stairs on Air force one. Three times in a row.

    But to your topic: It seems to me, in a thread about rigging the vote in the election of Trump vs. Biden, how people voted is actually germane. You voted for Biden and wanted him to win. It stands to reason that you are not going to like a book that points out in such great detail how much the Democrats worked to rig the system for your guy to win. To date, you have been a Biden cheerleader, and you have little to say on what most conservatives see as violations of our liberty and freedoms. That has bearing on the topic at hand. It sets you up to reject this book because to believe it will require a significant cognitive adjustment that you are clearly unwilling to engage. As such, your voting for Biden proudly and publicly, in my mind, calls into question you ability to accept the facts in this book. I think any rational person would look at that and agree.

    In short, your proud vote for Biden goes to the question of motive and it is relevant.

    • #177
  28. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I’m not sure if I’ll find the time to read this particular book.  I do plan to listen to some of Hemingway’s interviews on the issue.

    I greatly appreciate your review, Phil, and the comments by many others.

    My main take-away is that President Trump’s claim that the election was “stolen” is a reasonable and viable position.  Maybe it’s correct, maybe not, but it’s not frivolous and it’s not nuts.

    There were plenty of legitimate issues raised, with various irregularities, dubious and sometimes outright illegal votes cast and counted (and upheld on the basis of “laches”), court cases that did not resolve the issues on the merits — even some on appeal, Gary — as well as various underhanded funding of official election activities by the Zuck (and perhaps others).  Some of this may or may not be illegal.  It certainly stinks like an Italian fish market on a late summer afternoon.

    My conclusion, which remains unchanged from my prior analyses in the month or two following the election, is that I cannot determine whether or not the election result was correct.  I have serious doubts in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Michigan.  (Maybe Nevada, too, but I haven’t looked at Nevada very closely.)

    The appalling thing, to me, was the reaction of the NeverTrumpers, notably at National Review and, I imagine, at the Dispatch and the Bulwark also.  There were serious questions raised here.  They were not resolved by the courts in a fair and acceptable fashion.  Yet many supposed Republicans and Conservatives joined the Left-wing bandwagon, treating legitimate questions as kooky or malicious conspiracy theories.

    The more I write, the more I think that I ought to get the book.

    • #178
  29. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    My conclusion, which remains unchanged from my prior analyses in the month or two following the election, is that I cannot determine whether or not the election result was correct.

    Which is telling, all by itself.

    • #179
  30. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Free speech does not give you the right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater.

    Actually, it does, as a matter of case law. Especially if there really is a fire, but even if there isn’t.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

    How did he not know that?

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.