Conspiracy Theories redux

[dneal]

I saw an Atlantic article I'll get to in a moment, but the accusations each side hurls at each other is well described in this Politico article from September, 2016.

The most dangerous conspiracy theory of 2016
Trump and Clinton feed the rigged-election charge to their peril.

...Of course, conspiracy theories and wild rumors have long had a home in American presidential politics, from unsubstantiated claims advanced by Thomas Jefferson’s supporters that John Adams was plotting to attack France to Harry Reid’s inaccurate statement on the Senate floor in 2012 that Mitt Romney had been dodging tax payments for more than a decade...

The Politico piece does a decent job of describing both campaigns insinuation of corruption. If Hillary loses, it's Russian Conspiracy. If Trump loses, it's "a sham election".

As noted, none of this is new. The level of vehemence is, and it's detrimental to our society. Each side offers their boogey-man, and calls the other side crazy "conspiracy theorists". Examples of each are plentiful, as is the hyperbole on why one side's conspiracy is truth, and the other is a lie.

So yesterday this piece from The Atlantic caught my attention.

TRUMP’S NEXT COUP HAS ALREADY BEGUN
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election.

Technically, the next attempt to overthrow a national election may not qualify as a coup. It will rely on subversion more than violence, although each will have its place. If the plot succeeds, the ballots cast by American voters will not decide the presidency in 2024. Thousands of votes will be thrown away, or millions, to produce the required effect. The winner will be declared the loser. The loser will be certified president-elect.

Donald Trump hasn't even declared whether or not he will run in 2024, but the political battlefield is already being prepared with narratives.

This article specifically creates doubt on the electoral process, the same thing the right does/did. The article is already asserting that the GOP is going to cheat, and if they win it is illegitimate. This is the same 2020 Trump narrative, from the left.

Does anyone else find this disconcerting?

[Bold2013]

After the coming red wave in 2022 I don’t think people will be surprised by who gets elected in 2024

[dneal]

I think many (maybe even most) of his policies were beneficial to the country, but I hope he-who-must-not-be-named doesn't run in 2024 - for the good of the country.

But that's not the point of the thread.

To be more clear, does anyone find it disconcerting that The Atlantic, a major publication, would print a piece like that? What purpose does it serve other than to inflame and/or galvanize? "Click-bait" of a sort, for revenue?

There's no historical shortage of "yellow journalism". "If it bleeds, it leads". "Plane-crash reporting", or whatever descriptor one wants to use. The Spanish-American War was started because of it. You would think "journalists" (left and right) would be aware of the dangers of inciting mob-mentality, demonstrated by Antifa, BLM, and the "patriots" rioting at the Capitol on 6 January; to name a few.

[Chuck Naill]

After the coming red wave in 2022 I don’t think people will be surprised by who gets elected in 2024

"Hope for the best, expect the worse" Mel Brooks

[dneal]

And The Atlantic is still at it. Their newsletter references the article above, and expounds on it.

Former President Donald Trump’s antidemocratic campaign to overturn the 2020 election failed. Next time—and there will be a next time—American democracy might not be so lucky, our staff writer Barton Gellman argues in our latest cover story.

This isn’t the first time Bart has predicted such an attack on the democratic system: Six weeks before the last presidential election, he accurately anticipated, in detail, that then-President Trump would try to undermine the results. Now he reports that Trump and his allies are better prepared to do so in 2024. Here’s why.

They have the numbers.

The Big Lie has radicalized tens of millions of Americans—some to the point of violence. The former president “has built the first American mass political movement in the past century that is ready to fight by any means necessary, including bloodshed, for its cause,” Bart writes.

“This really is a new, politically violent mass movement,” Robert A. Pape, who studies such violence—including the January 6 attack—told Bart. Pape compared this period in America to the late 1960s in Northern Ireland, at the beginning of the Troubles.

And, this time, they may have the means.

“Republican acolytes have identified the weak points in our electoral apparatus and are methodically exploiting them,” Bart reports. They’ve rewritten election statutes to wrestle partisan control over ballot counts. They’ve aimed to fill key positions with more sympathetic allies. And they are organizing around a doctrine that could give states a legal basis to throw out votes and may prove appealing to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

This is irresponsible rhetoric, sowing the seeds of conspiracy, not in some dark corner of the internet but in a major publication.

[Chip]

I'm curious. The Atlantic is "sowing the seeds of conspiracy" yet somehow Trump and his heavily-armed lunatic devotees are blameless?

This miserable creature (with family and murder weapons) represents Kentucky in the US House.

[dneal]

Chip, many folks here complain about that type of response as "whataboutism".

I concede that hyperbole exists on the right as well. Do you think the two articles in The Atlantic represent responsible journalism?

[Chip]

Not only responsible, but timely.

There's not much doubt that the Republican party, having lost the presidency, is doing everything in its power to suppress votes, gerrymander voting districts, and in sum, to steal elections they are unable to win by fair means. Trump, the de facto leader of the party, attempted to subvert the last election and incited a riot with fatal consequences.

Or did you miss that?

[dneal]

Did I miss what? Your and The Atlantic's assertions? Not at all. I even started this thread on it.

Are Republicans the only party that gerrymanders? and how exactly do they suppress votes? Sounds a little "conspiracy theorist-ish".

[Chip]

If you don't know the answers to your bad-faith questions, I'm not going to waste time bringing you up to speed.

[Chuck Naill]

I'm curious. The Atlantic is "sowing the seeds of conspiracy" yet somehow Trump and his heavily-armed lunatic devotees are blameless?

This miserable creature (with family and murder weapons) represents Kentucky in the US House.

Wow. What's their point?

[Chuck Naill]

Not only responsible, but timely.

There's not much doubt that the Republican party, having lost the presidency, is doing everything in its power to suppress votes, gerrymander voting districts, and in sum, to steal elections they are unable to win by fair means. Trump, the de facto leader of the party, attempted to subvert the last election and incited a riot with fatal consequences.

Or did you miss that?

I don't think he's missing it, but like everything else, overlooking or rationalizing it if it gives him what he thinks is something good he wants.

[kazoolaw]

If you don't know the answers to your bad-faith questions, I'm not going to waste time bringing you up to speed.

Thank you.

[dneal]

If you don't know the answers to your bad-faith questions, I'm not going to waste time bringing you up to speed.

Was post #6 in good faith?

[dneal]

It's curious how some can so easily see propaganda on one side, but not the other.

There are two echo-chambers. If you only see one, you're in the other.

PNG image 3.png

[Chuck Naill]

Believing either is not necessary. I am certainly not immune, but with a little effort, the truth can be had. So, if you know that over 1000 people are dying per day and the hospitals are full, and some still insist not to get a preventative measure or other more mechainical practices, is there anything about that that's propaganda?

[dneal]

You're confusing recognition with belief. I see both, and believe neither.

Your argument from emotion on "people dying" and "hospitals are full" lacks data. Certainly there are regional highs and lows.

Perhaps try this data set from HHS.

[Chuck Naill]

You're confusing recognition with belief. I see both, and believe neither.

Your argument from emotion on "people dying" and "hospitals are full" lacks data. Certainly there are regional highs and lows.

Perhaps try this data set from HHS.

Don't start out suggesting I am confused. You're either stupid or a troll if you do.

Nope, I've posted actual numbers of death and dying plus hospitals. You don't need me to educate. The data is readily available.

Be nice to me, I am the only one that does not have you on their ignore list.

[dneal]

I remarked about a side being able to "see", not to believe. To point out that your use of the word "belief", and confusing it with what I said; is not saying you are "confused" in the general term. You're either stupid or a troll if you conflate (is that better?) those ideas.

You make many claims about numbers of deaths and dying plus hospitals. Those are assertions. Feel free to substantiate them, or not. I merely offered you a credible source. The burden of proof does not lie on me.

I will respond to you in kind. I couldn't care less if you put me on your "ignore" list. If it prevents you from derailing threads, it might be a benefit to us both; but me in particular.

Here's a 15 minute YouTube video related to the topic. Some people (particularly liberals) being unable to see anything other than what is present in their echo chamber.

Since it's Van Jones, an African American; if you do not watch or do not agree, you're a racist. That's the way it works, right?

[Chuck Naill]

The only reason I say anything is because you're always a cry baby about my posts.

Death and dying are occuring. Perhaps you need to get out of the Fox News Closet more often.