Let's face the facts: Trump is not lying about election fraud

No, I oppose murder and assassination.

 

Is it 'murder' when a soldier kills someone on the battlefield?

 

That depends.

 

On what?

 

So you're unable to answer!

 

No, I can answer. Trump's belief in conspiracy theories is uniquely bad for a President. It is even bad for a right wing pundit, because the President has access to more information than, say, Alex Jones.

A couple days ago, John Bolton was asked to react to a report that Trump hasn't had an intelligence briefing since October. He responded, "the fact that he isn't scheduling the briefings doesn't materially change the level of information he gets, since he didn't pay much attention to the briefings to begin with. I don't think he's ever fully understood how to accept the information or the process. It's just not relevant to his view of his decision making: how he feels in his gut on any given day; and mere information doesn't really affect it that much."

If you disagree, then please explain why we should trust the judgment of someone who believes and spreads conspiracy theories.

 

Democrats believed and spread the conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Should we trust their judgement?

 

You keep avoiding answering my question, and posing new ones. This question of yours implies you don't understand the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and the crime of "conspiracy". I'll try to help you understand.

The crime of "conspiracy" (see this) is committed when 2 or more people conspire to commit a crime.By contrast, a "conspiracy theory" refers to a hypothesis of a large scale criminal conspiracy, involving a large organization acting secretly for malevolent purpose. Real criminal conspiracies, even very simple ones, are difficult to conceal and routinely experience unexpected problems. In contrast, conspiracy theories suggest that conspiracies are unrealistically successful and that groups of conspirators, such as bureaucracies, can act with near-perfect competence and secrecy. Conspiracy theories are conclusions that are jumped to on very little evidence, and perpetuate based on faith. The false belief of a conspiracy provides a ready answer to everything one deems wrong: nearly all observations are explained as having been deliberately planned by the alleged conspirators. They are incorrigible, because contrary evidence is dismissed (the conspiracy theory and the evidence cannot both be true, so the evidence is deemed false), or the evidence is deemed manufactured by the group behind the conspiracy.

It's true, there was a suspicion that member of the Trump campaign conspired with Russians to commit one or more crimes, but insufficient evidence was found to prosecute. The case for criminal conspiracy by Trump and/or his associates is closed. Some Democrats may still believe Trump conspired with Russia, but although that may both wrong, it's not a conspiracy theory - because it doesn't entail the assumption of an implausible massive scheme.

 

Which is exactly what it would have been if Trump conspired with Russian to influence the 2016 election.

 

I agree with you! There were a lot of irregularities.
If you examine closely all elections, there are irregularities. In 2016, there were a ton of irregularities. They all have some malfeasance involved. Nothing shows a widespread effort to sway the election, and the small amount of miscounts, cheating and so on wouldn't make the difference in the election anyway. Just saying something is doesn't make it true.
To accuse is easy, proving it seems to be the difficulty.

 

Nope. If Trump or Manafort had encouraged Russians to commit a crime, like hacking into DNC servers, that would have been criminal conspiracy. It would not have entailed some big coordinated, perfectly loyal, clandestine network, just one or two people being involved with crimes by Russians.

Conspiracy theory entails a hypothesis that a series of unexplained events are explained by a complex organization' coordinated activity, without direct evidence. It also entails clinging to the theory even after innocent explanations are available. Example: clinging to an "election fraud" theory as an explanation for supposed anomalies; then extending it to include judges who rule unfavorably, and even governors who defy pressure to overturn results they are confident of.

 

Which is exactly what you said a 'conspiracy' is and which I said describes what it would have been if Trump conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

Did I say that it WOULD have entailed that?

 

I wonder if they ever got that water main break fixed in Fulton County Georgia. One of the biggest epicenters of voter fraud in the country.

Some ballots will not be counted until Wednesday in Georgia following water main break

https://www.wvlt.tv/2020/11/04/some...nesday-in-georgia-following-water-main-break/

Nearly 40,000 absentee ballots will not be counted for the state of Georgia until at least Wednesday after a water main break, Fulton County officials said.

According to officials, a water main break at State Farm Arena caused a pipe to burst. The burst pipe was discovered around 6 a.m. Counting of the ballots began at 11 a.m.

Officials said no ballots were damaged as a result of the water main break.

 

Yes - that's what a "conspiracy" is, but it's not what a "conspiracy theory" is. Contrast it with Trump's assertion of a conspiracy theory about election fraud. A conspiracy entails an act to commit a specific crime. A conspiracy theory entails assuming there's a conspiracy in order to explain various events.

 

Yes, in order to explain various events, like Trump's election! Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) promoted the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory as a way of explaining how Trump could have won! How are you NOT getting this?

 

We shouldn't, but this isn't limited to Trump. What politicians CAN be trusted?

 

So you're under the impression that these three guys were against the withdrawal from the Iran Deal?

 

Suspecting, and investigating a possible criminal conspiracy is something very different from a conspiracy theory.

The hypothesis that Russian interference made the difference in his election is speculative and debatable, but it does not entail a conspiracy theory. There's no implausible, massive coordination involved. There's just an unprovable assumption that voter suppression resulted in a sufficient loss of votes, and/or that Russian crimes (disinformation and email theft) helped change some minds. No conspiracy is involved.

 

I'm discussing trusting a person's judgment, not trusting every bit of political spin they utter.

 

Yes, so it's a good thing nothing of the sort happened.

That is, it would be, if it had actually happened.

 

What politician's judgement CAN be trusted?

 

When I talk about the media and the Democrat's Trump/Russia conspiracy theory, do you think that I'm saying that there was a conspiracy WITHIN the conspiracy THEORY?

 

When I vote for a Presidential candidate, I am placing trust in that person's judgment. That doesn't mean they won't make mistakes, or that I agree with everything they do. It means I expect them to put the country first, seek expert advice, and carefully weigh the consequences.

 

And Trump did NONE of those things?

 

No. I think you simply don't understand why belief in conspiracy theories is irrational, and that you don't understand the difference between the crime of conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.