Trump our most effective president? At conspiracies.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/13/republican-legislatures-trump-conspiracy-458507?cid=apn

“Like other Republicans, [State Senator, Alaska] Coghill places blame for what he called a “revved up” political climate on Democrats as well as Republicans. Despite courts finding no evidence of widespread fraud, he said that in the absence of a more rigorous examination of the vote, “conspiracy theories, accusations, they can run rampant.”

Sadly, there will never be enough “examination” of the vote for the conspiracy folks. The only proof needed was Trump saying so. A “revealed truth”. How many wrongly convicted prisoners had access to 90 judges over a period of 60 days? Answer is, of course “none”. Maybe an appeal or two. “Closure” is the word law and order folks like to use.

Refusal to accept so many rulings from so many venues in 6 states is refusal to abide by the Rule of Law. And that is the position the insurrectionists and their enablers adhere to.

38 thoughts on “Trump our most effective president? At conspiracies.

  1. Well, since we have had the most “rigorous examination of the vote” in the history of our (and maybe ANY) Country I have to agree with your conclusion.

    However, since truth and logic do not matter to cultist it is moot at this point.

    We’ll just have to see if Mitch’s attempt to throw the trump stench out of the GOP boat works…

    Liked by 2 people

  2. RE: “Refusal to accept so many rulings from so many venues in 6 states is refusal to abide by the Rule of Law.”

    How so?

    I’d argue that people are entitled to their opinions no matter what judges and courts say. The rule of law doesn’t produce truth. It produces only a shadowy facsimile called justice.

    Large numbers of people currently believe the courts failed to do justice with the 2020 election. The challenge is to convince them otherwise, if you believe the election was fair. The idea that the courts discovered the truth will never convince the disbelievers, because the courts failing to do justice is a matter of common experience.

    Like

      1. I cannot be “convinced” by personal attacks, such as yours. I can, however, be “convinced” by substantive commentary. Here, for example, I made a point about the rule of law. You could address that, if you want to say something useful.

        Like

          1. IDK. “Merit” is in the eye of the beholder.

            I made it clear that providing an endless stream of facts to refute your position on anything is an exercise in futility.

            Frankly, I’m sorry you can’t see any perspective other than your own.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. The rule of law? Only when it benefits or supports the side you agree with do you believe it is important.

          Invoking the “rule of law” phrase in the face of the lawlessness last week by T**** supporters and the sycophants on the stage, revving them up for “trial by combat” and “kick ass and take names” and be willing to spill blood in the name of overturning a free and fair election would be laughable if only it weren’t so damned dangerous.

          Jimmie’s saying you cannot be convinced is a realistic observation , When in the face of actual facts, you find alternatives to support your narrative. PJM, Zerohedge, and BDP have apparently eaten your common sense. Tis true the most delusional of people never see their own demise.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. In my experience the most delusional people are those who practice psychoanalysis without skill.

            Like

        2. But Jimmie was correct. And that is my point, too. The diehard Trump fans can never get enough evidence to please them.

          Recount? Do it again. And again. Beside recounts of paper ballots means nothing.

          Hugo Chavez is dead? No matter, he still rigged the machines by proxy.

          Dominion doesn’t have machines or even an office in Frankfurt Army Base? Irrelevant.

          Postal worker lying about pre-dating ballots? He was pressured.

          Dead voters? Oh, Republicans? So what?

          It is not a matter of evidence. Rather, the hard to accept fact that Trump lost among his own supporters while gaining Republican seats.

          And to satisfy a delusion, we are in the midst of an attempted autogolpe with more violence planned.

          And Trump fans couldn’t be more proud of those efforts by gangs and murderers.

          You still don’t believe there are penguins in the Antarctic.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “The diehard Trump fans can never get enough evidence to please them.”

            That may make your work more difficult, if you are so determined. My point was that you can’t succeed with the approach you are taking.

            Like

          2. RE: “Succeed at what?”

            Trying to prove that the election was fair because the “rule of law” says so.

            Like

          3. My job is not to educate the voters who lost.

            That is a fool’s errand.

            The attempted preemptive overthrow of the president elect’s administration by violence was the go to plan from the beginning. The assumption being that courts would not buy fabricated evidence or bad filings.

            “Stand back and stand by” is proof of a preplanned effort. Get “wild” is the command. Which is why our own president is guilty.

            And his Congressional followers are complicit.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “Trying to prove that the election was fair because the “rule of law” says so.“

            Try reading your own words without the sedition colored glasses on..

            Thanks for making my point in a fashion that I could never conceive of..

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Sorry, you are wrong…again.

      As Americans we accept the system of jurisprudence or we accept anarchy.

      We have a robust system that, unfortunately, favors money, but that wasn’t the issue here. Trump presented his evidence dozens of times to a huge number of courts and judges and they all agreed the evidence was crap or that there was no standing.

      Unless you believe, and you might, that all those court officials, judges, election officials, governors and legislators were all in on the fix the rulings say that the election was fair.

      Which is why Trump and his fans tried to overturn the election by force.

      And it seems they are going to try again this weekend.

      George Washington used militias to defend the new nation against a rebellion. He the pardoned the perpetrators.

      I am not sure we should be so generous. Those who tried to kill police in the insurrection should spend a decade or two in prison.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Trump presented his evidence dozens of times to a huge number of courts and judges and they all agreed the evidence was crap or that there was no standing.”

        That’s where YOU are wrong — again. You are committing the same fallacy that environmentalists often do, the fallacy of confusing consensus with fact.

        You are also missing the key point, which is that courts of law are not truth-seeking bodies. This very concept is central to understanding the phrase, “rule of law,” which you have attempted to leverage.

        Under a rule of law where the Bill of Rights is protected, no one is under any obligation to agree with judicial decisions.

        Like

        1. So what the hell is your point. That we skip legal remedies so you can feel better as mobs kill?

          Vindication for heinous crimes has a narrow focus but broad appeal to mobs.

          And we have a situation in which our president long ago recruited “bad boys” as his go to group for power. Then he gave them a logo and a command to “stand by”. Then he invited them to DC and told them to fight.

          This is Third World politics from a fourth rate president.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “So what the hell is your point.”

            My point — clearly stated — is that you misrepresent the concept of the rule of law. It is NOT true that we must accept the election outcome because the rule of law requires it.

            It MAY be true that must avoid civil war because the rule of law requires it, but that’s a different issue. And, in any case, I don’t see a lot of people trying to cause civil war.

            Like

          2. You may not like the election outcome and you might not accept in in your mind.

            But to support overturning the election illegally and with violence, which you are doing, is a problem. At least for me in my country.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “But to support overturning the election illegally and with violence, which you are doing, is a problem.”

            That’s a lie.

            Like

          4. No. You are supporting the lies and refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the attack. “A bungle”?

            I’d go so far as to suggest that you would have been OK with some hostage taking or even hanging Pence. Nothing you have posted suggests otherwise.

            Sad, really.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. “… the fallacy of confusing consensus with fact.”

          That is exactly what you and Trump and is minions are doing. The consensus is that the election was rigged, facts say otherwise.

          But that means little so long as murder is an option.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “The consensus is that the election was rigged…”

            You assume too much. Trump supporters are more nuanced than you give them credit for. Many went to the protest just to support the Ted Cruz proposal for an election audit, for example. Do you really mean to lump them all together as murderers?

            Like

          2. There are murderers and there are those who are complicit.

            Thousands of screaming fans, interspersed with probably a few thousand who planned the attack. All invited to be wild. All ready to “kick ass…”, “trial by combat”.

            And now we get the “oh my, I didn’t know”.

            We’ve heard this rationale before and it got really ugly. Hundreds of thousands of Americans shed blood to prevent the victory of a dictatorship based on racism and ethnic hatred.

            And folks like you see past that because Americans are so oppressed? “What choice did they have?”

            A lot of choices other that violence. And obeying a psychopathic president is not one of them in a free society.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “Many went to the protest just to support the Ted Cruz proposal for an election audit,”…

            Then why didn’t “Lyin’ Ted” (Remember, I did not give him that name) greet them at the doors with open arms?

            Liked by 1 person

        3. …” the fallacy of confusing consensus with fact.”…

          Each individual judge ruled the evidence to be garbage. That does NOT make it a consensus in the manner you are attempting to equate it.

          Your word salad wilted.

          Like

    2. “Large numbers of people currently believe the courts failed to do justice with the 2020 election”

      You should ask the question, “Why is that?”.

      Short answer: Because T**** said before the first ballot was cast that if he lost it would be because of fraud and cheating. All of which has been proven to be a BIG LIE.’

      You bought it the first time he said it and you continue to try and say the “BIG LIE” was the truth.

      Courts review evidence and deem it worthy of consideration or bullshit. Every bit of evidence of fraud presented in the courts was deemed BULLSHIT.

      The only reason people won’t be convinced is because they believe T****’s BIG LIE. Cult members have drunk the kool-aid before and they have done it again. Including yourself.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Yet you don’t even attempt to refute my answer tot the question.

          I don’t see anti-T****ers storming the Capitol because Mike Pence won’t invoke the 25th Amendment. Or because not all GOP Senators will vote to impeach.

          And your projection attempt is duly noted and dismissed out of hand as the ravings of a T**** cultist. What flavor was the kool-aid?

          Like

  3. I read his pre-riot speech and alot of it was in fact true. Some I don’t know but sounded plausible in light of other truths. One question I have is how could the Penn Supreme Court find in favor of defying the US and Penn constitutions in allowing changes to voting protocol that only the legislature had the power to do. Maybe it sounded like the right thing to do but still illegal!! Challenges to SCOTUS apparently lacked standing but that doesnt mean it wasnt illegal. Another question is, we know thousands of dead people voted but were those votes counted? Another is how could ballots be counted with no date stamp, no signature or any means of voter verification. This election was a complete mess. It is no wonder why a large portion of the US has a raised eyebrow and saying hmmmm.

    Lastly, Trump did not call for anyone to storm the capital building. In fact he called for a peaceful and patriotic march to the capital for voices to be heard. Was there room for misinterpretation, maybe, but he NEVER called for violence no matter what posturing liberals say. This whole exercise by Pelosi and company is a pathetic sideshow. Yep, a glimpse of the idiocy to follow.

    Like

    1. …” we know thousands of dead people voted but were those votes counted?”

      We do? Really? Where is your proof of this allegation? The only dead person that knowingly voted was some idiot who used his mother’s ballot to vote TWICE, for T**** nd was planning to do the same with his mother-in-law’s

      This lie has been debunked so many times, it is NOT worth repeating. But here the cultist is repeating it.

      …” no matter what posturing liberals say.”…

      Funny how Liz Cheney felt otherwise. AND stated it quite clearly. As did Adam Kinzinger and 8 other GOP representatives. Let’s call them the “I-Have-A-Spine Caucus.”

      Like

      1. Dead people voting Democrat with names, districts, birth dates, etc have reported too many times to repeat and NO they were not debunked. Were they counted as valid or not? How many got through? Here is one.
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.businesstoday.in/lite/story/did-dead-people-vote-in-us-elections-american-media-reports-multiple-cases/1/421151.html

        Election fraud has been going on a very long time in EVERY election. Heritage foundation compiled a sample of 1100 cases with convictions by state and it’s just a sample. The link goes directly to a pdf so I can’t share it. It is YOU who has been debunked.

        Like

        1. The article highlighted a couple of votes from deceased. Where are the other 4998 that Trump was claiming in GA? And that was debunked by GA Republican officials after combing through databases and obituaries.

          I think they found two that merited investigation.

          1100 convictions since 1982. Maybe 25 a year or so in a nation of 330 million.

          So yes, fraud exists. But it obviously is not a major issue by any stretch, plus those folks were caught and convicted.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s