Post by ***@gmail.comPost by John McAdamsPost by ***@gmail.comOf course you don't buy into all the QAnon stuff. That's because you're an
intelligent person. But there is not an insignificant number of people who
believe not only all the QAnon insanity, but there are a host of other
fringe groups that fervently buy into the Trump cult.
Talking about the "Trump cult" is grossly intolerant.
How about the "Sanders cult" or the "Warren cult?"
Each candidate had their share of ardent devotees. That's nothing new.
That has always been the case. The reason I use the word "cult" is because
there is a "basket" of Trump devotees who literally, not figuratively,
would still follow him if he shot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
You are showing your biases here. Most Trump supporters simply think
he is the alternative to authoritarian elitists -- which are what the
Democratic Party has become.
Post by ***@gmail.comThere is almost nothing he could say or do that they would find a
deal-breaker. I do not think that's true with Sanders and Warren.
But it is.
Post by ***@gmail.comOne characteristic of a cult member is that they are completely incapable
of seeing the manifest faults of their leader.
Trump has his faults, but you are a very biased judge of what they
are.
Post by ***@gmail.comIt's was causes people to
move to Guyana and drink poison-laced Kool-aid. It's what causes people to
follow a hippie guru and brutally massacre five people in their Los
Angeles home. It's what causes people to take out alien abduction
insurance policies and commit mass suicide awaiting for the spaceship
following the Hale-Bopp comet to pick them up. It's what causes people to
stay loyal to their messiah and remain in a burning building.
Do you know how deranged this sounds?
What you are doing is like saying Sanders or Biden or Warren
supporters are all Communists.
Post by ***@gmail.comIt's what
causes people to be emboldened to storm our capitol building in an attempt
to punish those legislatures who are not in lockstep with their leader.
You don't like storming Capitol buildings?
Really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/14/democrats-were-occupying-capitols-before-they-were-against-it/
Post by ***@gmail.comBernie may have extremely progressive (OK, fine, let's call them
socialistic) policies - but that is not, in itself, CRAZY.
Yes he is.
Post by ***@gmail.comSanders is not
a mean-spirited, vindictive individual.
Yes he is.
Post by ***@gmail.comHe understands how government
works. He is not arrogant nor continually engages in self-aggrandizing
rhetoric.
Yes he does.
Post by ***@gmail.comHe is clearly capable of expressing empathy, a human emotion
that Trump gave us over four years to express and never could convincingly
do so.
"Convincingly" to whom?
Post by ***@gmail.comElizabeth Warren never had the following Sanders did.
It think you're widening the blanket of the definition of "cult" in
another engagement of false equivalency as if to say, "Cult? Aren't all
the followers of all these politicians members of a cult, of sorts?" No!
Post by John McAdamsPost by ***@gmail.comIf they were an
insignificant number of crazies then the Republican congressmen/senators
wouldn't be so petrified of crossing this group. It's a actually fairly
large "basket." This is a significant part of the Republican base. A
majority or Republicans are STILL buying into the "big lie" that Trump
actually won by a "landslide" and that there was widespread voter fraud -
How many Democrats still believe that Trump colluded with the
Russians?
Many people believe that the Trump campaign apparatus colluded with the
Russians because the Mueller Report proved EXACTLY that! Mueller made a
technical distinction between "conspiracy" and "collusion". The former is
a legal term whereas the second is not. There was definitely collusion.
What wasn't as clear was whether the Trump campaign actively played a role
in a conspiracy.
Glad you admit that.
Post by ***@gmail.comThey seemed more like knowing and welcoming recipients of
the hostile foreign assistance.
You mean like Democrats were knowing and welcoming recipients of
mainstream media bias?
Post by ***@gmail.comMembers of Trump's campaign had meetings
with individuals who were known to be connected with the Kremlin. They
discussed matters regarding the presidential election and how the Kremlin
could help. Trump KNEW that Russia was trying to help and idly sat by and
watched it happen and, in fact, encouraged it. The June 9, 2016 Trump
Tower meeting was collusion.
No, the Trump people *were* willing to get negative information on
Hillary.
Just like Democrats happily took and used information for anti-Trump
leakers.
Post by ***@gmail.comPaul Manafort sharing detailed polling data
with Konstantin Kilimnik, who was associated with Russian intelligence,
was collusion.
Sharing polling data? That's collusion?
If so, about anything you would say to a Russian is collusion.
Post by ***@gmail.comRoger Stone working with Wikileaks (Julian Assange) how
best to weaponize the most embarrassing of the emails was collusion. Is it
conspiratorial? Maybe - maybe not. But it's certainly collusion.
Wikileaks was not Russia. It was a recipient of Russian leaks. Just
like it was often a recipient of leaks from US sources designed to
embarrass the US.
But you didn't mind these, did you.
You didn't mind Bradley Manning in Julian Assange leaking stuff.
But only when the leads -- of accurate information -- harmed your
Hillary did you mind.
Did you even know about this?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
What do you think of that?
Post by ***@gmail.comTo this day, Trump would deny that Russia attempted to assist him. That is
categorically and provably wrong!
When Trump uses the term "The Russian Hoax", he means that Russia had no
involvement.
No, he means the Democrats using "collusion" in an attempted coup coup
d'etat
Post by ***@gmail.comThat's absolutely untrue. When more intelligent defenders of
Trump use the term "The Russian Hoax" (knowing full well that Russia DID help
Trump) they mean something very different. They are saying, "It has never
been proven that Donald Trump personally conspired with Russia." And that
may be true.
Glad you admit that.
Post by ***@gmail.comBut, to believe that Donald Trump was oblivious that Russia was
seeking to help him and that members of his campaign were having meetings
with Kremlin-connected Russians (collusion!) regarding election assistance
is beyond naïve.
They were willing to accept negative information about Hillary.
Would not CNN have been willing to accept negative information about
Trump from the Russians?
WAIT! They did! Remember the Steele dossier.
Post by ***@gmail.comI'm not going down your list of whataboutisms because each of them is a
false equivalency. You seem to be shrugging your shoulders with this
capitol insurgence and asking, "How is this any different than
[fill-in-the-blank]?" There's no intelligent debate to be had if that's
your standard and the premise of all your arguments.
You don't like whataboutisms because they show your leftist friends to
be horrid hypocrites.
It's dishonest to argue from premises you don't believe.
Is it bad to use violent rhetoric about people on the other side?
Will you condemn this?
https://twitter.com/mattmargolis/status/1358816190076960771
Is it bad to question election returns?
Will you condemn these examples?
Stacy Abrams didn't gracefully accept her defeat, did she?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/21/no-proof-voter-suppression-kept-stacey-abrams-gove/
So Trump incited violence by telling his supporters to "fight," eh?
Look . . . the Trump victory in 2016 was a symbolic kick in the teeth
for your tribe.
A lot of Americans said "we are unwilling to be ruled by you. You
folks who tell us we are all racists, when we can plainly see you are
the racists.
"You people who tell us we are bigots because we don't accept your
identity politics. Because we don't think kids with penises should be
allowed to run around in girls locker rooms.
"Because we do to church.
"So we are going to use the power we do have -- the vote -- to avoid
being ruled by you."
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm