Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Michael T. Griffith]

You don’t think claims of a “rigged” election or a Hunter Biden coverup qualify as conspiracy theories?

Those conspiracy theories, both of which are backed by lots of 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).

[Martin Weidmann]

Those conspiracy theories, both of which are backed by lots of 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).

Mueller not pursuing certain parts of the investigation isn't "destroying the tale"

And the Senate impeachment "trial" was a joke. The Republican hacks were too afraid to even call witnesses and the fix was in before the "trial" even began...

[Joe Elliott]

Yes, I agree with this.  Trump made a mistake framing this as "fraud."  There may have been some of that but the election was stolen not by fraud as it is commonly understood but by changing the rules of the election at the last minute without adequate safeguards in place for mail in ballots.  There was no way to confirm who was voting.  The numbers suggest that something odd happened during this election.  And there are enough of those votes in this election to change the outcome.  It won't happen, though.  The Supreme Court is not going to overturn the results of the election.  At best, they will place some reasonable limits on the ability of local officials to alter the rules for an election at the last minute in a way that is most advantageous for their preferred political party.

Nothing here about a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. 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?

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.

As an aside, there was a case or two of people submitting an illegal ballot for a dead relative. Ironically, I believe this was only done to summit a vote for Trump. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Republicans have been alleging this sort of fraud for a while, so I guess some looney Republicans feel the need to counterbalance this “fraud”. Conversely, the Democrats have not been accusing the Republicans of this sort of fraud so Biden supporters see no need to do something similar.

Again, I see no sign of Richard Smith believing in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy, the sort Allan Fritzke and Michael Griffith believe in.

[John Tonkovich]

Nothing here about a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. 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?

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.

As an aside, there was a case or two of people submitting an illegal ballot for a dead relative. Ironically, I believe this was only done to summit a vote for Trump. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Republicans have been alleging this sort of fraud for a while, so I guess some looney Republicans feel the need to counterbalance this “fraud”. Conversely, the Democrats have not been accusing the Republicans of this sort of fraud so Biden supporters see no need to do something similar.

Again, I see no sign of Richard Smith believing in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy, the sort Allan Fritzke and Michael Griffith believe in.

You're arguing semantics. Richard Smith repeats Trump propaganda ( lies) constantly.

[John Tonkovich]

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, has just figured out a clever way to curry favor with the voters. If he doesn’t object to the Electoral slates, Trump voters will be mad at him, or at least have no enthusiasm for him. It he does object to the Electoral ballots, because Trump is the “real winner”, moderate Republicans and Independents will be mad at him for attempting a coup.

But, if he objects to the Electoral College slates, not on the basis that “Trump really won” but on the basis of “highlighting alleged irregularities” in the Election, the Trump fanatics will be grateful to him and the moderates won’t be mad at him.

Well, not all moderates. I will never vote for Josh Hawley for any office. I won’t tolerate any kind of support for Trump’s steal the election effort. Nice try Josh.

He's throwing red meat to the base.

[Joe Elliott]

There were something like 80 million votes for Old Joe.  A person who largely decided not to campaign.  A frail, old white guy who has run for president several times and never generated more than one percent of the democrat votes before dropping out of those races.  But suddenly he receives more votes than Reagan, JFK, Clinton, Obama or anyone who ever ran?  LOL.  And not by a small margin.  He exceeded Obama - a wildly popular and dynamic candidate - by something like 15 million votes.  Was it "fraud"?  Maybe not.  But the change to mail in voting was a significant alteration of the election process.   

Those changes demonstrably favored Old Joe and he would have lost in a landslide if most most states had not used the pandemic as an excuse to fundamentally change the election process in a way that most favored the dems.  Old Joe received 60-90% of the mail in votes.  And the CDC and Fauci - those trusted "scientists" dems love so much - both confirmed that it was safe to vote in person.  There was no health-related reason to change the established voting requirements.  That was done for purely political purposes as were many decisions made during the pandemic.   But that is water under the bridge. I've never seen winners cry so much.  Old Joe won.  Enjoy four years of nothing getting done, the economy collapsing under higher taxes, and rampant crime.  When it is all over in 2024 just blame the failures on the republicans like Obama did.

Again, here Richard seems to accept it was probably not fraud but changing the rules before the election. Which they did change the rules before the election. Which I see no problem with. For one, they had valid reasons to change them, the pandemic. Yes, going to the polls is no more dangerous than going grocery shopping, assuming the lines aren’t too long. And secondly, making it more convenient to vote is something that I see as a plus. Particularly since voting at the polls is not equally challenging for everyone. It is generally more difficult in urban area where long lines are more common.

So, I don’t think Richard would disagree with me that in 2020, making it potentially equally convenient for everyone to vote allowed the Democratic candidate to do better than he would in a more typical election. Where we do disagree is that he seems to think of this as being a bad thing.

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.

So, despite your attempt to shoehorn Richard Smith into the Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy camp, he really doesn’t belong there. Instead, in our extremely small sample size, it appears that JFK LSE-CTers are more likely to be 2020 Election LSE-CTers than LNers. Which makes logical sense.

[Joe Elliott]

You're arguing semantics. Richard Smith repeats Trump propaganda ( lies) constantly.

Repeating Trump propaganda lies does not make one an LSE-CTer as far as the 2020 Election is concerned. Not all of Trump lies are conspiracy theories. Does Richard say that hundreds of programmers working for Dominion Voting Systems coded the machines to allow a Biden win? Does he say that poll workers throughout the country smuggled in bogus ballots to count? Richard would have to repeat certain lies of Trump, not any old lie, to be an LSE-CTer.

Again, where is the post by Richard Smith that talks of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theory?

[Joe Elliott]

You don’t think claims of a “rigged” election or a Hunter Biden coverup qualify as conspiracy theories?

Those conspiracy theories, both of which are backed by lots of 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).

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?