Quote of the Day: Conspiracy or Incompetence?

 

“Whenever you’re faced with an explanation of what’s going on in Washington, the choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always choose incompetence.”  — Charles Krauthammer

I still miss him. Charles Krauthammer was able to observe the political landscape with savvy and insight, and often nailed the Washington scene accordingly. But when I read this quotation, I wondered if Charles would make the same observation, given the events of the last five to ten years.

I think today he would come to a different conclusion.

Instead, he would likely say that rather than choose between incompetence and conspiracy, an astute observer would need to say that both incompetence and conspiracy apply.

A person wouldn’t have to go far to recognize that several events, to be described accurately, would include both attributes:

  • The Russian hoax—clearly the plans of the FBI were insidious and lawless—a conspiracy extraordinaire—but the sloppiness of their efforts has also damaged the agency’s reputation forever.
  • Hillary’s efforts to take down Trump were baked into the conspiracy pie, and her explanation for covering her deletion of 30,000 emails was laughable.
  • The Great Reset continues to proceed in the background, with the international set conspiring with our own elites(so to speak), already wreaking havoc on our economy.
  • Modern monetary theory (MMT) is lauded as the most progressive approach to managing the economy, defying reason and common sense, while its proponents continue to defend it with misguided hopes, expectations, and dreams.
  • Marxism is raising its ugly head again (called only “socialism”), pushed by the elites in their attempt to control society, while choosing to ignore the disastrous results of the Marxist agenda in the past.
  • COVID-19 management has been a farce, as Washington bureaucrats bumbled and stumbled in their efforts to figure out how to protect the population, yet using strategies that are obvious attempts to increase their control over our citizens.
  • The commission investigating the January 6 “insurrection” is an embarrassment to anyone who knows what actually happened. This group is conspiring to ensure that Donald Trump is punished for having been our President, and they are dragging out their investigation with irrelevant interviews of people, just to smear as many people as they can along the way. Their efforts are an insult to our country and the world.

The list could be much, much longer, but it’s clear to me that we are governed by ignorant and incompetent bureaucrats who have exaggerated views of their own competence, and who are determined to unite in an effort to destroy the freedoms that we treasure.

What do you think of my analysis?

Feel free to add to the list!

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 201 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    It used to be a conservative criticism of the left that they saw us as evil while we simply saw them as wrong.

    Which has proven to be a delusion on our part; the majority of the Left might have been well-intentioned statist 20 years ago, but the hardcore base has long since mainstreamed and cemented neo-Marxist, Orwellian racist woke fascism as the guiding ideology of the Democrat party, and their informed supporters have either embraced or collaborated with this agenda.  For all practical purposes, good faith from the Left does not exist anymore, just factions who realize people (not on the Right) they care about are now targets of the inevitable purges, or else uninformed voters who are slowly beginning to realize they were fed lies, and migrating away from the Democrats (such as the people who would have voted against Biden had they known about Hunter’s laptop*).

    *Speaking of bad faith, Jonah Goldberg-alongside a panel of open Democrats in what was presented, in Orwellian fashion, as a conference against disinformation, dismissed this as unimportant.

    But hey, I suppose dozens of intelligence officers dismissing what even the New York Times now admits is true as ‘Russian disinformation’ isn’t evidence of bad faith either, right?  Oh, and what happened to their copy of the contents of the Laptop again?  There is quite a pattern of ‘incompetence’ going on there….

    • #61
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    • #62
  3. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    It used to be a conservative criticism of the left that they saw us as evil while we simply saw them as wrong.

    Which has proven to be a delusion on our part; the majority of the Left might have been well-intentioned statist 20 years ago, but the hardcore base has long since mainstreamed and cemented neo-Marxist, Orwellian racist woke fascism as the guiding ideology of the Democrat party, and their informed supporters have either embraced or collaborated with this agenda. For all practical purposes, good faith from the Left does not exist anymore, just factions who realize people (not on the Right) they care about are now targets of the inevitable purges, or else uninformed voters who are slowly beginning to realize they were fed lies, and migrating away from the Democrats (such as the people who would have voted against Biden had they known about Hunter’s laptop*).

    *Speaking of bad faith, Jonah Goldberg-alongside a panel of open Democrats in what was presented, in Orwellian fashion, as a conference against disinformation, dismissed this as unimportant.

    But hey, I suppose dozens of intelligence officers dismissing what even the New York Times now admits is true as ‘Russian disinformation’ isn’t evidence of bad faith either, right? Oh, and what happened to their copy of the contents of the Laptop again? There is quite a pattern of ‘competence’ going on there….

    No, being wrong is not evidence of bad faith and this country will never rid ourselves of our current poisonous politics until we accept that.

    Also, https://perceptiongap.us/

    • #63
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    They met with the attorneys to find out what they wanted, and when it turned out that they were only there to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act, the meeting was essentially over. There was no dirt shared. There is no evidence that there was any dirt to share. No crime was committed.

    Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Rub some dirt on that.

    No, they met with the attorney who they believed to be the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    ”The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”.

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no colusion because there was no collusion.

    • #64
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Anyone who doesn’t like an exchange can ignore it. A conversation can be annoying and not violate the COC. 

    • #65
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Someone justifying or rationalizing their decisions in a manner you find unpersuasive or even factually inaccurate isn’t evidence of bad faith. The conflict between security and liberty is one of the most basic in politics. People accept different levels of risk and that is not going to change and when you add the natural political CYA impulse most public officials are going to err on the side of security. That isn’t evil but human. It takes a certain level of courage for a political leader to do otherwise.

    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign? What about the investigation is problematic?

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith. If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    If you want to back up and see what the substance of the lies are, let’s take the first one: The Russia hoax.  Are you suggesting that fabricating evidence to accuse someone is not two lies?  First the fabrication of false evidence, and second the accusation based on the confabulation?  The Steele report was completely fabricated and it was known to be fabricated from the first.  Secondly, the Trump Tower server that was supposed to be engaging in corrupt communications with a Russian bank server was a lie.  Those are just two of the lies that were leveled at Trump and his associates that played into the Russia hoax.  And this does not even include that CIA and FBI’s involvement with Mifsud and Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

    Clearly a conspiracy.

    • #66
  7. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Anyone who doesn’t like an exchange can ignore it.

    Most discussion platforms have an “ignore user” button.  This is particularly useful when the most prolific and least interesting poster doesn’t edit his responses, so they are huge.

    • #67
  8. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    It used to be a conservative criticism of the left that they saw us as evil while we simply saw them as wrong.

    Which has proven to be a delusion on our part; the majority of the Left might have been well-intentioned statist 20 years ago, but the hardcore base has long since mainstreamed and cemented neo-Marxist, Orwellian racist woke fascism as the guiding ideology of the Democrat party, and their informed supporters have either embraced or collaborated with this agenda. For all practical purposes, good faith from the Left does not exist anymore, just factions who realize people (not on the Right) they care about are now targets of the inevitable purges, or else uninformed voters who are slowly beginning to realize they were fed lies, and migrating away from the Democrats (such as the people who would have voted against Biden had they known about Hunter’s laptop*).

    *Speaking of bad faith, Jonah Goldberg-alongside a panel of open Democrats in what was presented, in Orwellian fashion, as a conference against disinformation, dismissed this as unimportant.

    But hey, I suppose dozens of intelligence officers dismissing what even the New York Times now admits is true as ‘Russian disinformation’ isn’t evidence of bad faith either, right? Oh, and what happened to their copy of the contents of the Laptop again? There is quite a pattern of ‘competence’ going on there….

    No, being wrong is not evidence of bad faith and this country will never rid ourselves of our current poisonous politics until we accept that.

    Also, https://perceptiongap.us/

    Our poisonous politics are the direct, and purposeful, result of the now-dominant Leftist ideology, and its institutional support structure.  It will be with us for decades to come due to entrenched progressive control over national institutions that has resulted in tens of millions of Millennials and Zoomers not only buying into that ideology (albeit loosely, in most instances), but not knowing any other way of thinking.  Hard-fought and bitter effort (which will not come as a result of cooperation between the Republican and Democrat parties) can begin to undo much of the damage, but the majority will retain the ideological beliefs and assumption they were socialized to hold throughout their childhood and early adulthood.

    Assuming good faith where it doesn’t exist will simply make us lose each new iteration of game theory that develops.

    • #68
  9. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    • #69
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Headedwest (View Comment):
    Most discussion platforms have an “ignore user” button.  This is particularly useful when the most prolific and least interesting poster doesn’t edit his responses, so they are huge.

    They won’t provide it. I’m counting on people having the discipline to just pass over them.

    • #70
  11. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    They met with the attorneys to find out what they wanted, and when it turned out that they were only there to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act, the meeting was essentially over. There was no dirt shared. There is no evidence that there was any dirt to share. No crime was committed.

    Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Rub some dirt on that.

    No, they met with the attorney who they believed to be the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    ”The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”.

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no colusion because there was no collusion.

    Not through lack of trying.

    • #71
  12. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Someone justifying or rationalizing their decisions in a manner you find unpersuasive or even factually inaccurate isn’t evidence of bad faith. The conflict between security and liberty is one of the most basic in politics. People accept different levels of risk and that is not going to change and when you add the natural political CYA impulse most public officials are going to err on the side of security. That isn’t evil but human. It takes a certain level of courage for a political leader to do otherwise.

    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign? What about the investigation is problematic?

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith. If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    If you want to back up and see what the substance of the lies are, let’s take the first one: The Russia hoax. Are you suggesting that fabricating evidence to accuse someone is not two lies? First the fabrication of false evidence, and second the accusation based on the confabulation? The Steele report was completely fabricated and it was known to be fabricated from the first. Secondly, the Trump Tower server that was supposed to be engaging in corrupt communications with a Russian bank server was a lie. Those are just two of the lies that were leveled at Trump and his associates that played into the Russia hoax. And this does not even include that CIA and FBI’s involvement with Mifsud and Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

    Clearly a conspiracy.

    Who “knew” either of those things were false and when? 

    • #72
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    • #73
  14. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    It used to be a conservative criticism of the left that they saw us as evil while we simply saw them as wrong.

    Which has proven to be a delusion on our part; the majority of the Left might have been well-intentioned statist 20 years ago, but the hardcore base has long since mainstreamed and cemented neo-Marxist, Orwellian racist woke fascism as the guiding ideology of the Democrat party, and their informed supporters have either embraced or collaborated with this agenda. For all practical purposes, good faith from the Left does not exist anymore, just factions who realize people (not on the Right) they care about are now targets of the inevitable purges, or else uninformed voters who are slowly beginning to realize they were fed lies, and migrating away from the Democrats (such as the people who would have voted against Biden had they known about Hunter’s laptop*).

    *Speaking of bad faith, Jonah Goldberg-alongside a panel of open Democrats in what was presented, in Orwellian fashion, as a conference against disinformation, dismissed this as unimportant.

    But hey, I suppose dozens of intelligence officers dismissing what even the New York Times now admits is true as ‘Russian disinformation’ isn’t evidence of bad faith either, right? Oh, and what happened to their copy of the contents of the Laptop again? There is quite a pattern of ‘competence’ going on there….

    No, being wrong is not evidence of bad faith and this country will never rid ourselves of our current poisonous politics until we accept that.

    Also, https://perceptiongap.us/

    Our poisonous politics are the direct, and purposeful, result of the now-dominant Leftist ideology, and its institutional support structure. It will be with us for decades to come due to entrenched progressive control over national institutions that has resulted in tens of millions of Millennials and Zoomers not only buying into that ideology (albeit loosely, in most instances), but not knowing any other way of thinking. Hard-fought and bitter effort (which will not come as a result of cooperation between the Republican and Democrat parties) can begin to undo much of the damage, but the majority will retain the ideological beliefs and assumption they were socialized to hold throughout their childhood and early adulthood.

    Assuming good faith where it doesn’t exist will simply make us lose each new iteration of game theory that develops.

    No, our poisonous politics are the result of both sides catering exclusively to their base and the resulting purity tests each base imposes on elected officials.  It is not the left alone that has made compromise a disqualifying feature in our politics.

    • #74
  15. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    The laws?  As adjudicated by?

    • #75
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    The laws? As adjudicated by?

    I don’t know what precisely that means, although I could name a court in PA and another in WI that would probably answer you.

    How about “As known by”? I can answer that question much more easily.

    • #76
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith. If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    If you want to back up and see what the substance of the lies are, let’s take the first one: The Russia hoax. Are you suggesting that fabricating evidence to accuse someone is not two lies? First the fabrication of false evidence, and second the accusation based on the confabulation? The Steele report was completely fabricated and it was known to be fabricated from the first. Secondly, the Trump Tower server that was supposed to be engaging in corrupt communications with a Russian bank server was a lie. Those are just two of the lies that were leveled at Trump and his associates that played into the Russia hoax. And this does not even include that CIA and FBI’s involvement with Mifsud and Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

    Clearly a conspiracy.

    Who “knew” either of those things were false and when?

    Of course, the liars knew.  That’s what makes it a conspiracy.

    • #77
  18. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    The laws? As adjudicated by?

    I don’t know what precisely that means, although I could name a court in PA and another in WI that would probably answer you.

    How about “As known by”? I can answer that question much more easily.

    Which court in PA or WI invalidated a sufficient number of ballots to overturn the results in that state?

    • #78
  19. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith. If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    If you want to back up and see what the substance of the lies are, let’s take the first one: The Russia hoax. Are you suggesting that fabricating evidence to accuse someone is not two lies? First the fabrication of false evidence, and second the accusation based on the confabulation? The Steele report was completely fabricated and it was known to be fabricated from the first. Secondly, the Trump Tower server that was supposed to be engaging in corrupt communications with a Russian bank server was a lie. Those are just two of the lies that were leveled at Trump and his associates that played into the Russia hoax. And this does not even include that CIA and FBI’s involvement with Mifsud and Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

    Clearly a conspiracy.

    Who “knew” either of those things were false and when?

    Of course, the liars knew. That’s what makes it a conspiracy.

    That is not responsive.

    • #79
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    The laws? As adjudicated by?

    I don’t know what precisely that means, although I could name a court in PA and another in WI that would probably answer you.

    How about “As known by”? I can answer that question much more easily.

    Which court in PA or WI invalidated a sufficient number of ballots to overturn the results in that state?

    None did. They only said that the votes were illegally cast or illegally counted.

    Do you still want to know which courts?

    • #80
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith. If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    If you want to back up and see what the substance of the lies are, let’s take the first one: The Russia hoax. Are you suggesting that fabricating evidence to accuse someone is not two lies? First the fabrication of false evidence, and second the accusation based on the confabulation? The Steele report was completely fabricated and it was known to be fabricated from the first. Secondly, the Trump Tower server that was supposed to be engaging in corrupt communications with a Russian bank server was a lie. Those are just two of the lies that were leveled at Trump and his associates that played into the Russia hoax. And this does not even include that CIA and FBI’s involvement with Mifsud and Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

    Clearly a conspiracy.

    Who “knew” either of those things were false and when?

    Of course, the liars knew. That’s what makes it a conspiracy.

    That is not responsive.

    You ignore the whole story.  Are you unaware of it all?  These accounts have been known and documented and argued for years now, and I’m not going to reargue them here.

    But to answer your criticism that I was unresponsive, yes, the real answer is: the conspirators — those who concocted the falsification of evidence around all these folks and instances — knew.  And that’s what makes the conspiracy.  That we found out about it later does not alter the fact of the conspiracy.

    Are you coming from the position that none of these things ever happened?  Because that’s an untenable position.

    • #81
  22. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    The laws? As adjudicated by?

    I don’t know what precisely that means, although I could name a court in PA and another in WI that would probably answer you.

    How about “As known by”? I can answer that question much more easily.

    Which court in PA or WI invalidated a sufficient number of ballots to overturn the results in that state?

    None did. They only said that the votes were illegally cast or illegally counted.

    Do you still want to know which courts?

    Yes, I would like to know the basis for the ruling.  Did the court find the procedure by which the votes were cast defective in some way or did it find they were fraudulent?  If the former, that doesn’t call the integrity of the election into question.

    • #82
  23. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith. If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    If you want to back up and see what the substance of the lies are, let’s take the first one: The Russia hoax. Are you suggesting that fabricating evidence to accuse someone is not two lies? First the fabrication of false evidence, and second the accusation based on the confabulation? The Steele report was completely fabricated and it was known to be fabricated from the first. Secondly, the Trump Tower server that was supposed to be engaging in corrupt communications with a Russian bank server was a lie. Those are just two of the lies that were leveled at Trump and his associates that played into the Russia hoax. And this does not even include that CIA and FBI’s involvement with Mifsud and Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

    Clearly a conspiracy.

    Who “knew” either of those things were false and when?

    Of course, the liars knew. That’s what makes it a conspiracy.

    That is not responsive.

    You ignore the whole story. Are you unaware of it all? These accounts have been known and documented and argued for years now, and I’m not going to reargue them here.

    But to answer your criticism that I was unresponsive, yes, the real answer is: the conspirators — those who concocted the falsification of evidence around all these folks and instances — knew. And that’s what makes the conspiracy. That we found out about it later does not alter the fact of the conspiracy.

    Are you coming from the position that none of these things ever happened? Because that’s an untenable position.

    I’m not ignoring anything.  I am asking you who lied about those things and when.

    • #83
  24. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Collusion:

    noun

    1. An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose.
    2. Secret agreement for a fraudulent or harmful purpose; a secret or crafty understanding for unworthy purposes.
    3. Specifically, in law, a secret understanding between two or more persons to act or proceed as if adversely or at. variance with, or in apparent defiance of, one another’s rights, in order to prejudice a third person or to obtain a remedy which could not as well be obtained by open concurrence.

     

    Is it illegal or improper to meet with someone to hear negative truth about an opponent? I never thought so, but I can go along with the idea that it’s improper and maybe even that it should be illegal in some cases. The problem with this story of Russia Collusion, from the start, is that this accusation was brought to us by a political opponent who purchased this information from foreign agents, all for the purpose of harming a political opponent and influencing an election.

    So if actually colluding is accepted from the “right” people and then used as the basis for a silly witch hunt for non-existent collusion, then I take that to be bad faith. Especially after it was pointed out.  

    That’s what we knew back then, right at the start. We’ve since learned that this went beyond mere bad faith. It was fabricated. The only unknown is who all was involved. The DNC, the FBI both knowingly fabricated and advanced this. The CIA and their lying about the assessment that Putin was out to get Hillary and Help President Trump. 

     

    • #84
  25. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    At some point repeated or egregious incompetence becomes a choice and it becomes bad faith at a minimum. Jack from Law and Order made a career out of such cases with charges of Depraved Indifference. I’m sure there are other such concepts for varying circumstances and degrees of competence or knowledge.

    • #85
  26. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does. 

    • #86
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    The laws? As adjudicated by?

    I don’t know what precisely that means, although I could name a court in PA and another in WI that would probably answer you.

    How about “As known by”? I can answer that question much more easily.

    Which court in PA or WI invalidated a sufficient number of ballots to overturn the results in that state?

    None did. They only said that the votes were illegally cast or illegally counted.

    Do you still want to know which courts?

    Yes, I would like to know the basis for the ruling. Did the court find the procedure by which the votes were cast defective in some way or did it find they were fraudulent? If the former, that doesn’t call the integrity of the election into question.

    There are scores of plausible election shenanigan claims, many of which are probable, and some of which are confirmed.  Not all of them involve fraud, which is only one variety of illegality.  These particular two in WI and PA involve illegalities that enable fraud.

    What technical definition you may have in mind for the term “integrity of the election,” I do not know.  But I say: An election in which illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the margin of victory in just one swing state is a national disgrace.

    Now, as for this particular Wisconsin problem, you may go to this post and follow the links in the first paragraph to find which court.  You can read the whole post to find an introduction to the problem and also to, if you are willing and able, join me among those who know about this illegality (with or without “adjudication,” whatever precisely that may be).

    As for this particular problem in Pennsylvania, it was the PA Commonwealth Court; you may go to my big post and do a Ctr-F search for the phrase “offer to vote” to find seven short paragraphs that introduce the problem.

    • #87
  28. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    It certainly proves a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power.

    • #88
  29. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Even if the political left had started out with good faith so many years ago (which I do not grant), the position that they thought us evil while we merely thought them wrong has led to justification of extreme measures. Morality and right reason compels these people to Resist, By Any Means Necessary. Of course many of them would reject the very idea of objective morality and right reason based on flawed assumptions can lead to monstrous outcomes. 

    I have no appetite for any both-sides-ism. The story of at least the last 80 years is the progressive march through the institutions destroying tradition, morality, and truth along the way. This has been accomplished in Alinsky fashion, in other words, embracing bad faith. It makes little difference if that embrace was maliciously intentional or incorrectly justified by pointing to desired ends.

    In many ways this march was begun by and aided by direct enemies like the USSR. I suspect that such involvement has continued through the CCCP.

    • #89
  30. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    That would sure simplify FBI entrapment, wouldn’t it?

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.