I'll be the first to say it

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You believe that all elections have been fake. Good grief.

Lol

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Were our Founding Father anarchists?

Yes.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Apples and oranges. God has placed us in a Condtitutional Republic whose existence is due to the the struggle of armed Christisans. Nobody during the Revolution was going around ringing their hands saying "Oh this is sin for a Christian to be a part of." It is no more wrong for us to preserve by arms the nartural rights God has given than it is for us to defend our homes by force against an intruder.

Wow! Clinging to your guns and your religion!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

What do you think would happen if only 25% of Biden voters showed up to vote?

What is 25% of 6?

Anyway, it's already been proven beyond any possibility of dispute that nobody has any possible way of knowing if any election result is valid.

Further, it has been proven over and over again that BOTH parties routinely commit election fraud, along with the complicit lame stream media.

Further, it has been proven that modern elections using electronic vote machines are ridiculously easy to hack, subvert, reverse, twist, tweak, and remote control.

Further, it is documented and proven that both parties are controlled by very wealthy and very powerful and totally amoral people.

Further it is well documented that wealthy, powerful, amoral people are prone to fraud and crime to further their various agendas.

What is the Assault Triangle for 300, Alex?

Motive, Ability, and Opportunity. If a person has motive, opportunity, and ability to commit a crime, it is almost certain they will commit a crime.

There are no such things as real, bona fide, free, fair elections in the western world.

"If voting worked it would be illegal." - Unknown author.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yes.

Not according to Dictionary.com.

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
3. anarchism (def. 1).
4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:
5. confusion and disorder:

The framers never intended us to be lawless, they were rebelling against the concept of an overreaching government that refused to represent the people being taxed by it. They never sought to abolish government, merely to rein it in. In the end, the only means to do that was to attain independence and create a new government.

That was their motivation in fighting the war of independence, not the idea of abolishing all forms of governance.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yes.

If you believe that, then you do not know what anarchy is by definition.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

If you believe that, then you do not know what anarchy is by definition.

Without rulers

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Without rulers

Or against rulers.

an·ar·chy - /ˈanərkē/

noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

[coksiw]

Yesterday my wife saw that the owner of a small shop had a trump sticker. They began to talk and she found out that the owner hadn’t ever voted, in 50 years. However in this elections she, the owner, decided to pay attention and said that people have to be crazy to vote for Biden, and that she is voting ALL republicans in the ballot

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Or against rulers.

an·ar·chy - /ˈanərkē/

noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Then by the definition you posted, the Colonials were anything but anarchists. They believed in government. As united independent STATES, they preserved their governments. Thus, no anarchy.