October Surprise #1

[Dr Exiled]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

It’s to protect witness intimidation. Funnily, the Trump camp wanted the titles of those involved to be redacted, presumably to sow confusion.

[canpakes]

https://www.mediaite.com/news/11-most-s ... tion-case/

“The 11 Most Shocking, Damning, and Weird Revelations From the DOJ’s New 165-Page Bombshell Motion in Trump’s Election Case”



Read the article for the rest. Yowza.

- Doc

Some of this has been known for a while. Recordings of Bannon talking about the premature declaration of victory strategy surfaced years ago. Audio is at the link below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqxD5gQgVug

It’s all blatant and ridiculous, and a great example of how the folks screaming “Fraud!!1!” were the actual fraudsters, but none of this would matter to someone already planning to vote for Trump. Those voters long ago tossed their moral compass into the trash bin.

[Xenophon]

Still a lot more to chew through but I'm left feeling rather disheartened. One, that we got so close to an even darker day than we already had. Second, that it likely won't make a difference to most people. I know we've known a lot of this for a while now but seeing it all stacked together in order like this is something else.

Also in case I haven't said it yet, thank goodness for Pence's principled stance.

[canpakes]

It's a good illustration of the difference between a conspiracy and what we label "conspiracy theory."

"Conspiracy theory" - allegations made by the "wrong" group against the "correct" thinking group. It tends to be narrative destroying and has been successful for years to squelch dissent. It's useful in defense of alleged criminals to call the allegations lodged these alleged criminals "conspiracy theory." It supplies those who want to be in the "correct" thinking group the fuel to deride, ridicule, and point the finger of distain at the "wrong" thinking group. It divides instead of aiding in actual fact finding.

Res, how do you decide what is a mere conspiracy as opposed to a "conspiracy theory?" It seems it's just a team concept as in "our" team needs to discredit our dirty laundry and so let's resort to name-calling.

Doctor:

Wouldn’t the difference be rooted in what is viewed as a ‘legal’ definition? Asking because If I recall correctly this is your profession.

In other words, one is defined by the presence of facts, whereas the other is lacking:

1. Fake electors were set up to be substituted within the actual slate after the 2020 election: Proof exists, therefore this is legally defined as a ‘conspiracy’.

2. The Earth is flat and NASA is hiding that truth: No proof seems to exist, therefore this is colloquially defined as a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Please expand/correct as needed. My IQ varies with the temperature and may not, at any moment, numerically exceed it, so I could use the help.

[Dr Exiled]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

It’s to protect witness intimidation. Funnily, the Trump camp wanted the titles of those involved to be redacted, presumably to sow confusion.

Well, it looks like Trumptard's team wanted to stop the document from being made publicly available or redacted to the point on non-recognition. I am sure they are remembering the laptop and the benefit they got from Comey's last-minute about face in 2016.

[Res Ipsa]

It's a good illustration of the difference between a conspiracy and what we label "conspiracy theory."

"Conspiracy theory" - allegations made by the "wrong" group against the "correct" thinking group. It tends to be narrative destroying and has been successful for years to squelch dissent. It's useful in defense of alleged criminals to call the allegations lodged these alleged criminals "conspiracy theory." It supplies those who want to be in the "correct" thinking group the fuel to deride, ridicule, and point the finger of distain at the "wrong" thinking group. It divides instead of aiding in actual fact finding.

Res, how do you decide what is a mere conspiracy as opposed to a "conspiracy theory?" It seems it's just a team concept as in "our" team needs to discredit our dirty laundry and so let's resort to name-calling.

Nonsense. A "conspiracy theory" involves the assumption of an undefined conspiracy as an explanation for alleged anomalous facts. A conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable because facts that contradict the theory are reinterpreted as evidence of the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are not driven by the totality of evidence but by claims that there are factual anomalies in the evidenced. Rather than accepting that our knowledge of the totality of facts is certain to be incomplete in any given situation, the conspiracy theorist elevates what they think is an anomaly over the actual evidence.

An actual conspiracy is based on evidence that demonstrates the agreement among the conspirators to bring about an intended result. There is actual evidence of what the conspirators agreed to do, what they did, and how they did it. That evidence is what is painstakingly set out in the government's brief. That kind of direct evidence that shows who the conspirators are, what they agreed to do, and what they did is what is absent from a "conspiracy theory." The conspiracy theorist will always conveniently attribute the absence of evidence to a coverup by the conspiracy.

A good rule of thumb: if you find yourself making arguments in the form of "Oh yeah, how do you explain X," with X being some fact that you think is an anomaly, you're very likely caught up in a conspiracy theory. When you find yourself crying persecution and repression of dissent instead of providing evidence, you are almost certainly caught up in a conspiracy theory.

[Res Ipsa]

"Conspiracy theory" - allegations made by the "wrong" group against the "correct" thinking group. It tends to be narrative destroying and has been successful for years to squelch dissent. It's useful in defense of alleged criminals to call the allegations lodged these alleged criminals "conspiracy theory." It supplies those who want to be in the "correct" thinking group the fuel to deride, ridicule, and point the finger of distain at the "wrong" thinking group. It divides instead of aiding in actual fact finding.

Res, how do you decide what is a mere conspiracy as opposed to a "conspiracy theory?" It seems it's just a team concept as in "our" team needs to discredit our dirty laundry and so let's resort to name-calling.

Doctor:

Wouldn’t the difference be rooted in what is viewed as a ‘legal’ definition? Asking because If I recall correctly this is your profession.

In other words, one is defined by the presence of facts, whereas the other is lacking:

1. Fake electors were set up to be substituted within the actual slate after the 2020 election: Proof exists, therefore this is legally defined as a ‘conspiracy’.

2. The Earth is flat and NASA is hiding that truth: No proof seems to exist, therefore this is colloquially defined as a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Please expand/correct as needed. My IQ varies with the temperature and may not, at any moment, numerically exceed it, so I could use the help.

Is that Fahrenheit, Celsius or Kelvin?

[Res Ipsa]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

Why do you think it is anomalous that that the names were redacted?

[Dr Exiled]

"Conspiracy theory" - allegations made by the "wrong" group against the "correct" thinking group. It tends to be narrative destroying and has been successful for years to squelch dissent. It's useful in defense of alleged criminals to call the allegations lodged these alleged criminals "conspiracy theory." It supplies those who want to be in the "correct" thinking group the fuel to deride, ridicule, and point the finger of distain at the "wrong" thinking group. It divides instead of aiding in actual fact finding.

Res, how do you decide what is a mere conspiracy as opposed to a "conspiracy theory?" It seems it's just a team concept as in "our" team needs to discredit our dirty laundry and so let's resort to name-calling.

Doctor:

Wouldn’t the difference be rooted in what is viewed as a ‘legal’ definition? Asking because If I recall correctly this is your profession.

In other words, one is defined by the presence of facts, whereas the other is lacking:

1. Fake electors were set up to be substituted within the actual slate after the 2020 election: Proof exists, therefore this is legally defined as a ‘conspiracy’.

2. The Earth is flat and NASA is hiding that truth: No proof seems to exist, therefore this is colloquially defined as a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Please expand/correct as needed. My IQ varies with the temperature and may not, at any moment, numerically exceed it, so I could use the help.

1. Is it possible and I know you love your J6 picture, but is it possible that perhaps there is a bit of an overreaction to Trumptard's actions surrounding the 2020 election? He bitched, his supporters trespassed, then he left. Clinton whined and still believes that Trumptard's election in 2016 was Russia fueled, despite the evidence to the contrary. Hell, her team made up the dossier that started Russiagate.

2. Yeah, trying to compare whatever to the flat-earthers, a really small group of people from my understanding, seems to be the go-to comparison to whatever one doesn't like.

How about looking at the evidence and asking oneself, you know like the golden rule, what would I do or how would I interpret the evidence if my team was on the other side? For instance, how would you defend J6 if you supported Trumptard?

Can you cite some of Kamala's weaknesses?

I'll start. Trumptard worships the State of Israel to the point that I fear if he gets elected we will be in a war with Iran that will do no one any good, except the military contractors. He is untrustworthy. He murdered Soleimani, the Iranian general, and should be tried in the Hague for that.

Now your turn.