Big Trumper here, but its probably best if he gets impeached, even if not legal

One thing I find funny, is that in Trump's first impeachment trial, many Republicans were claiming the impeachment was an attempt to overturn the prior election. Clearly that doesn't apply now, since he lost the election and isn't in office. Now it just seems to be a refusal to accept the objective fact that Trump's irresponsible rhetoric led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol. If THAT isn't worthy of impeachment, what IS? If a future Democrat does something equally bad, I'll be all for impeaching him. It sounds like you're putting your devotion to Trump above all else.

 

No, my devotion is first to my Country and to its Constitution.

I'm an Independent.

I voted for a Democrat in the primary, but Trump in the general.

Just take my words at face value and don't infer anything. I agree with Biden who says it's time for healing. I don't believe in the weaponization of the impeachment process. It's a stupid, short-sighted, emotionally driven, destructive path to take.

 

Constitutional law professor disagrees with your analysis. I smell the all too familiar reek of Trump hatred. But hey, carry on with the vitriol spewing. It makes him more popular by the day

 

Healing cannot occur when 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. The BEST way to heal would be for Republican leaders to acknowledge that this is a falsehood. They aren't likely to do that. An impeachment trial could force some of them to acknowledge it, even if they choose to acquit based on a convenient interpretation of the Constitution. I don't know that they'll do this, but it is an opportunity that does not exist if Trump's behavior is ignored.

 

"all conspiracy theories are irrational" is an irrational belief; that would say that suspecting anyone is conspiring with anyone else to accomplish something or to hide a reality and con people is a scenario that never proves to be true.

You either think the dossier was fully legitimate, (honest investigation) or you think that it was completely the invention of one person. (no conspirators) We know factually that neither of those are true.
People worked together with the objective of creating false evidence for a charge that could be used to attack the president. When proof is found, theory becomes fact. People conspired to do this. We have enough evidence to know that is absolutely true.

People write articles all the time trying to warp your analytical capacity so you only see what they want you to see- that doesn't mean any of it is true; that's just opinion on paper meant to influence you. When someone authors an article making false allegations and a publisher knowing it is false agrees to publish it- they have conspired to deceive the public.

Conspire means to plan together to achieve something; criminal conspiracy is the correct term if what they plan is criminal. Cops interrogating a suspect present false information for the purpose of misleading the suspect; tricking them. They do this cooperatively- they have planned it, "conspired" to do it. That is not illegal conspiracy, the police are allowed to lie. Criminal Conspiracy is nothing more than people planning or agreeing to do something wrong together. When they plan to do something good together- that too is the same process, just not with criminal objectives. Members of congress conspire all the time, for instance to slip some bit of legislation that could not possibly stand on it's own into the fine print of some must-pass bill, quietly, without notice if possible. They agree to vote for your sneaky insertion if you will vote for theirs. That is conspiring to create legislation without it being considered for what it is. It's not criminal- but it should be.

A conspiracy theory is very much like a scientific hypothesis; a construct of what the evidence leads the scientists to believe is probably true. The more evidence that supports it, the more the hypothesis is validated. Scientists, detectives, doctors- all look at issues they face and ask what factors might be combining to create the things they can see.

How much of what you think you can see is real depends on how good you are at putting the puzzle together- how much has a basis in fact, how much you are imagining. When your "theory" explains all the questionable points that an issue presents, your theory is almost certainly correct, and you have an answer that stands up.

Thus not all theories (including those which require cooperative conspirators) are true- but they are the starting point of every investigative process, of every inquiring mind working to reveal truth.

 

It is totally unconstitutional but who in the GOP can win? No one. So your idea will only get dems elected anyway.

 

IMO the GOP needs some ethnic people in there..only way to defend against the corrupt left race baiting 24/7

 

That’s not the purpose of the impeachment process.

If you want to eliminate fear of cheating in elections, strengthen the safeguards against cheating and don’t constantly resist them.

It’s time to move on, but Democrats, sadly predictably, want to keep beating this dead horse endlessly instead of focusing on the needs of the country.

If they keep this up, the Independent voters are going to flip on them, and they’re going to regret it.

 

The way to think about it is they are OK with not holding criminals accountable for their behavior for fear of pissing off the base.

 

There are many reasons for that. Many try, but when we can't tell them what we did with their child, what do you expect them to do?

It's an intentionally created chaos.

 

Good grief, talk about misinterpretation! Where did I say that all of the opposition are crooks? I'm just talking about one man, and my opinion of him was formed through my own research. I don't know what "advanced marketing" you mean.

As for Biden benefitting from dark money: I find it almost amusing when conservatives make such claims. The enormous amounts of money in our elections has grown exponentially due to the efforts of conservatives via the Citizens United SCOTUS decision. Conservative candidates benefit greatly, but let a liberal go through the door that's been opened and suddenly it's shameful, even corrupt. Seriously, did conservatives think that door was only going to be open to them?

What you said about Koch can also be applied to the right's biggest boogeyman, George Soros, but I've yet to find a rightie who'll admit that.

 

I could counter with other constitutional law professors, there's no shortage of those.

Keep spinning. I hear the dizzyness can be fun.

 

I didn't say all of any group were crooks either. The promotion of hatred that has caused people to disconnect from their moral values, to what ever degree they were present, has focused on one man. That's sure as hell no accident. The fact any person buys into it and starts corroborating it with no more knowledge than the key influencers on the internet give them puts them in the same position as the arm-chair quarterback, who's never played the game but feels totally qualified to tell them all what they did wrong and should have done right.

People are on one hand, a source of brilliant potential and creative intelligence, but also cursed with the fact that this same creativity allows them to be convinced that imagined things are real. We are in a time of unprecedented advances in technology- and at the same time, see retarding skills among a large portion of society. I've never seen people act as foolishly and stupidly as they are today. We are failing to improve the person at all, let alone keeping us growing at the pace of our technology. We're seeing even illiteracy grow as evidenced by people who can't spell nor correctly understand ordinary language. Comprehension declining in an increasingly complex world is making us far more gullible and easier to manipulate, and that is certainly being done.

You speak of how the conservatives have brought enormous amounts of money to their side, but don't seem to notice that the dems raised a great deal more in contributions than the republicans in this election. Dismiss the fact that Biden got $148 million in "dark money", untracable contributions, which is by far the most of anyone ever. That's not a republican rumor, it's data from the FEC- the Federal Election Commission. The story is supported by many sources- Bloomberg, NY Post, CNN, FOX, NBC, the Washington Examiner and more. You don't notice that the same tech giants who are eagerly manipulating internet content dumped huge donations on the dems too- nor ask why they would do that, and what they expect to gain in return.

IF you weren't fooling yourself, you would be looking at all the parts of the puzzle, not just the ones you like.

People of different interests can work and thrive together- but there must be basic rules between them that both sides agree to and honor. When one side starts a pissing match, they have violated one of those rules, and changed the game- and turning the blame on those you attacked for striking back is just an extension of the same abuse and lack of morality. That abuse started when Trump announced he would run, before he was elected- and the mockery and trash started flying. That can't be undone, but nothing is going to heal till it stops. Right now, they still strive to punish Trump for being Trump- but they also look for ways to silence and punish not only people who supported him, but anyone who disagrees with them. That's not politics- that's vendetta, hostility over not getting their way. Small children sometimes think that way- street gangs and thugs all think that way.... and those who do always rationalize it and excuse themselves.

Trump didn't make them what they are, didn't cause them to lose control or discard their morality- they did that themselves, by their own choices. They are the only ones who can change that, and until they do, things won't improve much. The argument that someone else is responsible is virtually retarded thinking, like the devil made me do it crap.

If you can't see that clearly (and it damned sure is clear) then you are the person responsible for your illusions.

 

I disagree. Impeachment has been used in the past to prohibit individuals from holding office.

That's sidestepping the issue of widespread belief in the falsehood that the election was stolen. I'm not opposed to efforts to make elections more secure, but if the effort is fueled by the falsehood that this election was stolen, it will only REINFORCE that false belief.

As I said, and you continue to ignore: most Republicans hold the false belief the election was stolen - and that will forever divide us if Republican leaders don't step up and work to dispel it.

Most Independent voters do not hold the false belief that the election was stolen.

 

No, but most Independents (30% of the electorate) want what’s best for the country, and endlessly beating the dead horse is not going to endear them to you. We Independents have no party loyalty, and it is we who decide elections. Just saying ...

 

The term "conspiracy theory" has taken on a specific meaning that entails irrationality - as I showed with the Wikipedia article. I don't know why you would ignore this. "Conspiracy theory" reflects a pattern of irrational thought that should be discouraged, and diluting the phrase with a more generic semantics that includes mundane criminal conspiracy, encourages the perpetuation of this irrationality.

 

You are looking for reasons to dilute legitimate views- to create illegitimate perceptions. Why would I "ignore" the way you want others to see your opinion, ie; agree with you?
Because your intent is narrowed to arrive at your own pre-determined conclusion.

The term conspire is usually used in regard to illegal or criminal purposes, but it's meaning is that people work together to make some event take place- normally without the process being visible, and to make the end result more acceptable. Every political speech you hear fits that. Speech writers, often marketing analysts, even psychologists conspire to develop a speech to trigger a perception in the listeners that is a half-truth, or perhaps has no truth at all- for the purpose of making you think that voting for them will get you something you desire.... usually knowing that's never going to happen.

I consider that conspiracy, and the probable explanation of how its done is a theory- meaning it's not documented with specific proof of each step. This is a ludicrous argument that serves no purpose.
Believe what you want- if that is that everything bad is accidental unless it can be blamed on Trump, the dems will confirm that for you. I won't.

 

I am doing nothing of the kind. You're arguing semantics based the original meaning of the individual words, while I'm simply pointing out that "conspiracy theory" is a modern, idiomatic expression that has a definite meaning - referring to a sort of irrational belief. I didn't make it up - the Wikipedia article explains it pretty well. A classic example is the belief that the moon landings were faked, which would require a vast conspiracy between many people in government, the media, and Hollywood to stage everything that we've seen over the decades. That is a "conspiracy theory", and I hope it's clear why it's irrational to believe such a thing.

It's unclear why you are so resistant to accepting this usage of the term. Did you read the Wikipedia article? Do you disagree with it? Do you take exception because you believe some of the theories they discuss in the article?

 

That wouldn't hurt but Trump actually brought minorities into the GOP.

 

No bu yu claimed that I did.

Funny how the brainwashed or uninformed always think those terms apply to the other guy. To me, Trumpism is a cult, and his supporters' response to him is mostly an emotional one. Not all Trumpsters are ignoramuses, so how else does one account for so many otherwise intelligent and reasonable people being in the thrall of such a blatant lying, cheating, flim flam man?[/QUOTE]

On all of that, I agree.

Like I stated, it's amusing that conservatives are complaining about the enormous amounts of money the Dems raised for this election, when it was conservatives who opened that door, created that opportunity. Don't like it? Urge your reps to get the SCOTUS to repeal the Citizens United decision ... that would be a start.

Back at ya.

Again, back at ya.

 

I understand that it's common for people to use the term in that fashion- and of course, it's a simple way to dismiss the indicators of things being wrong. However, that is the definition people wish to make stick on things they don't want to have any validity or be examined closely too- it's an evasion tool. All dictionaries do not attach the label of fakery to the term for example one defines it as " a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event." That is far more accurate because it does not automatically assume that such a belief is groundless.

We've seen the left gas-lighting the nation on a scale never seen in this nation, too. Look that term up; it speaks to the effort to blow off people's observations of wrongful things and make them think they are crazy- and experiencing a "conspiracy theory" or delusion, which is supposed to automatically make their suspicions invalid, if not crazy. Every person who has ever cheated on their spouse or significant other has used something like it. Just your imagination, honey.... This is so common it's like human nature.

I didn't read an article (if you referenced one) I did look up the definitions of the term wikipedia uses use. There are movements that just develop in a society- but when they happen in a coordinated, sequential fashion like a choreographed stage play, they are not spontaneous or without cooperation and collusion behind them. They don't wind up like a kid's connect the dots coloring book that define a specific outline that demonstrates their connections, and purpose either. Coincidences do happen- but they don't come in strings that all point to one cause, unless there is a cause... and then, they are not coincidences.

Way too many "coincidences" in the politics of the left over the last few years. You don't have to be Sherlock to see it.

 

Ahhh...this says it all. For those of us who actually understand the epistemological problems with them, it's a useful term. But I can understand why someone who pieces "coincidences" into a theory that "explains" so much, would feel offended.

Since you don't wish to read the Wikipedia article I linked to several times (once more: here), you might consider reading something more general about critical thinking skills, or epistemology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good starting place. The article on Abductive Reasoning is especially pertinent.

 

In the 80's, I taught reasoning skills to psychologists, corporate execs and secondary school teachers as well as individuals. I taught my own material, what I had developed, and psychologists came to figure out how I could do what they didn't know how to do- actually told me it was impossible while asking me how I did it, and I am not a psychologist. Of course, that was probably just some strange illusion, right?. Boeing had me do seminars for about 200 management people; maybe they weren't really there and I was just imagining it, speaking to empty seats. Still, I cashed their checks.

People at any level of understanding usually feel that those who disagree are somehow less knowledgeable than they are- and expect any new information that is worthwhile will fit neatly into what they already believe. That insures that nothing they are exposed to will make any significant change in their understanding of themselves nor change their capacity.

Now if you think about that, it will explain to you why, with all these people who already know everything, that our species in the only one in the world that can't manage itself worth a damn. Every living thing on earth can do what we cannot, and can thrive without poisoning or trashing the planet or using up all it's natural resources. I doubt you have ever asked yourself what they know that we don't, but you should- and If you ever figure it out, everything you think you know now will change for the better.

We look down on those we disagree with, and tell ourselves that those whose ideas actually work better are somehow cheating rather than knowing anything we don't. It's a sad fact about humanity that the biggest barrier to improving our minds, turning it into a precision instrument that helps you navigate life- turns out not to be the people you blame everything on; it turns out to be ourselves.

Unfortunately, you are not going to understand what I'm saying, and you feel compelled to support what you want to believe. I can't change that, I can only offer alternate ways to see things.
I'm done with this excursion into myopia.

 

Much of what you said in your post is reasonable, although the above attack seems unwarranted. Consider this reasonable comment of yours:

Why don't you apply this to yourself? I gave you a link to a Wikipedia article that defines the modern usage of "conspiracy theory". You didn't read it - seemingly resisting learning something new. Instead you objected to using the term because, "it's a simple way to dismiss the indicators of things being wrong". No, it's not* - and you'd understand that if you had read the article or otherwise understand the reasonable use of the term. Indeed, things can be wrong; there can be suspicious coincidences that rationally suggest there is more than meets the eye. That's not the problem. The problem occurs when one adduces a complex explanatory hypothesis that goes far beyond the evidence, so that it depends on numerous ad hoc assumptions that are collectively implausible. Consider the many assumptions that are needed to support the hypothesis that the moon landings were staged: the numerous organizations that needed to coordinate so perfectly, and executed so perfectly, while involving massive numbers of people - of whom 100% were so perfectly loyal that they were able to keep the truth concealed from so many. Do you not see the irrationality of this?

___________-
*It would be fair to complain when people apply the term too hastily. Pounce on THAT, but accept that there are reasonable uses of the term. In any given instance in which a conspiracy theory is being charged, it would be fair to challenge that.

 

Hardly an attack- just an observation of what I see as demonstrated.

As I have said, I understand and agree that many people hear "conspiracy theory" and simultaneously hear "crazy nonsense". So what? The way in which you apply a label doesn't change reality except in your mind. In this case, accepting that definition does exactly what those using it want to achieve- which is to get you to dismiss anything labeled that way. Not examine it, dismiss it. I don't have to study someone pleading the validity of that argument to know it's not rational, that is obvious on the face of it. If you are an intelligent and rational person, you should be able to examine things and draw a logical conclusion within the limits or the information and the reliability of it's accuracy. That may result in your accepting it, rejecting it, or anywhere in between- but if you automatically dismiss it because of a "Modern" use of a label someone hangs on it, you are not acting intelligently; you are letting others tell you what to think. We have a lot of people telling us what to think right now, and none of them have any credibility because they all want to dismiss your right and ability to consider and decide for yourself. No sale.

Words are just hot air or ink, and anyone can say or state anything. I long ago stopped giving those things much credibility. It is what we do that defines who we are- and people trying to manipulate us with buzz words and phrases are demonstrating their lack of character by that action... and there's nothing trustworthy about them.