Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The Democratic Party is not some sort of religious sect, it's a political party. Viewing it as a type of religion, as keepers of the Truth (with a capital "T") while opponents are evil heretics is both wrong and dangerous and is a direct threat to the liberal tradition that we all say we believe in. And yes, substitute Republican for Democrat and this type of thinking occurs as well. This is not just one party doing this. Too many good people - and they are good people - on both sides think like this. Trump has made it worse but it didn't start with him and won't end when he leaves.

This type of thinking, this quasi-Manichaean worldview, is why in large part the country is so divided (although I'm not sure among "ordinary" folks the divisions are so great; at least I hope not). Each side views the other as simply evil, as malevolent, as members of a dangerous tribe that must be destroyed. They have no legitimate point of view and any accommodation with them is a compromise with evil. This destroys the "liberal tradition" that has worked, that has helped us make a better country  (and world). The US had done some terrible things; but we've tried to fix them.

Good grief, we have to stop this type of thinking. It'll destroy us.

[Martin Weidmann]

The Democratic Party is not some sort of religious sect, it's a political party. Viewing it as a type of religion, as keepers of the Truth (with a capital "T") while opponents are evil heretics is both wrong and dangerous and is a direct threat to the liberal tradition that we all say we believe in. And yes, substitute Republican for Democrat and this type of thinking occurs as well. This is not just one party doing this.

This thinking, this quasi-Manichaean worldview, is why in large part the country is so divided (although I'm not sure among "ordinary" folks the divisions are so great; at least I hope not). Each side views the other as evil, as malevolent, as members of a dangerous tribe that must be destroyed. They have no legitimate point of view and any accommodation with them is a compromise with evil.

Good grief, we have to stop this type of thinking. It'll destroy us.

Good grief, we have to stop this type of thinking. It'll destroy us.

The voice of reason! 

Let's hope reason will prevail in 2021.

[John Iacoletti]

Those conspiracy theories, both of which are backed by lots of evidence,

No, they are “backed” by a lot of claims and no demonstrable or verifiable evidence.

pale in comparison to the wholly fictional, totally bogus Russian collusion conspiracy theory that the Democrats peddled for the first half of Trump's presidency (until the tale got destroyed by the Mueller report, and then got destroyed even more thoroughly during the Senate impeachment trial).

The Mueller report did nothing of the kind.

[John Iacoletti]

Nothing here about a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.

“Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy” is your qualifier, not anybody else’s.

Is Richard suggesting a large group of people conspirer together to made bogus ballots? Or a bunch of people, independently of each other, submitted a bogus ballot from a dead relative? Richard doesn’t say. Although his saying this should not be called “fraud” strongly implies he does not go along with the conspiracy possibility but leans toward the second possibility. How could he think there was a conspiracy to mail in bogus ballots and not consider it fraud?

He claimed that election laws were changed in order to change the election results (neither of which is demonstrable), and by the way conveniently ignores that election laws were changed in states that Trump won too.

[John Iacoletti]

As an aside, I noticed that Richard Smith made 106 posts in December so far. It appears you had to make a large search to find anything that could be construed as being a conspiracy theory. And failed.

It’s not a “failure” merely because you’ve fashioned a narrow concept of “conspiracy theory” that would exclude it.

It takes more than one person to (as he charges) deliberately change election laws to sway election results.

[John Iacoletti]

There. I can effortlessly find quotes from Griffith and Fritzke where they talk about the massive evidence for a 2020 election conspiracy theory. Where is the Richard Smith quote that is remotely like this?

When did I ever claim that Griffith and Fritzke aren’t conspiracy theorists?

[John Iacoletti]

To me, there is nothing suspicious in the large number of ballots or the large number of mail-in ballots. Making it easier to vote would naturally bump up the numbers a lot, especially if long voting lines, common in urban area, where Democratic candidates tend to do well, were suppressing the voting in the past.

I agree completely. But to “Richard”, there is something wrong or shady about taking steps to ensure that people have the opportunity to safely vote in the midst of a deadly pandemic.

[Allan Fritzke]

That would explain why, after many days of asking, no one ever points to me a specific post by Richard Smith. Just a lot of claims about what a big conspiracy believer he is as far as the 2020 election is concerned. But no reference to any such posts. Maybe I should stop asking for an example, but as long as they post about Richard’s belief in the 2020 stolen election, I’ll keep asking.

This all sounds reasonable and plausible. I guess my kneejerk reaction is, that with Trump pushing this narrative, I tend to be skeptical. But certainly, Hunter Biden could be involved in the common sort of shenanigans that the rich get themselves involved in.

And what made Hunter so rich?  Was it his father's influence to gain position in Ukraine and China?  What about Tony Bobulinski? He was interviewed and stated that he knows the "big guy" Joe and that his brother stated deniable plausibility as the way to avoid indictment?   Less than 30 seconds on MSM I supect!   At the very least,  Joe Biden should come clean and say that he never met Tony Bobulinski and that Hunter did not have a laptop.    Instead he says it is all Russian misinformation  - oops I guess that falls into plausible deniability.  Don't make a statement that will incriminate you and don't make a comment that can be used against you.  Why doesn't he sue Bobulinski who went on record?   Of course that story never gets aired by MSM - total propaganda pushers.

MSM ignores these stories and fails to nail Joe down on the issue.   "What kind of ice cream do you like Sir Joe?"   Twitter and Facebook are all in the same bed and answer Joe Biden's denials for him.  Pretty sad when a 78 year old man can't make his own statements!