A Book about the Anti-Trump Conspiracy

Two TV comedians talking about another TV comedian.

There's almost as good money writing conspiracy books as in living off the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Faith, you are simply singing the motto of the Bandar-Log.

quote:

---

We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true.

---

Faith writes: It would also be nice if some of those on the left might recognize that there really are a lot of us who see things this way and consider that maybe there's something to it.

We do recognize that there are lots who see things as you do and we have considered that there might be something to it but the overwhelming conclusion is that it is just the chatter of the Bandar-Log.

Beliefs are not evidence of anything other than the fact that someone claims to hold a particular belief.

That is NOT evidence of any conspiracy.

Faith has not provided any evidence to support any position beyond the fact that the book exists.

Faith writes: The evidence is everywhere, open your eyes.

If that were true you might be able to actually produce some evidence.

Please present the evidence that is everywhere and not just in conspiracy nutjob books.

Faith writes: I'm not defending Trump, I refuse to have an opinion about him because of the way he's being treated. I don't care what his flaws are, the attack on him is so ridiculously out of proportion I don't want to feed it even a crumb.

Yet you present no evidence to support your position while there is overwhelming evidence that Trump really is simply a boor.

Faith writes: The demand for evidence is just a way of calling your opponent a liar.

No Faith, that once again is simply another of your incorrect assertions.

Focusing on the book by demanding evidence for the assertions made in the book is what separates the civilized from the barbarian, the wise from the ignorant, the sane from the delusional, the truth from the fiction, reality from fantasy and the facts from the cultist dogma.

Faith writes: No, if anyone wants to discuss any of this you have to discuss it as if there is real observation and good judgment on the side of your opponents.

Real observation and good judgement are supported by real evidence and good facts.

Please present the evidence that supports the assertion that there is an anti-Trump Conspiracy.

What is the evidence to support the assertions made in the second paragraph of the book? In particular, what is the evidence to support an assertion that "If the first family had a dog, they would probably call it a Russian bot."

So you offer no evidence, just more unsupported assertions.

Specifically, what is the evidence to support the assertion that "If the first family had a dog, they would probably call it a Russian bot."

Again Faith; where is the evidence to support your assertions and the assertions made in the second paragraph of Chapter 1 of the book?

Faith writes: Second, I want to ask if you think the incidents in which Trump family and staff have been accosted by the public or turned out at restaurants and that sort of thing have anything to do with the press and if you think that's all acceptable treatment?

The family and staff being accosted by the public are the direct result of the Presidents behavior and in particular his constant public comments that are either provocative, vile, racist, or down right lies. Such accosting (is there such a word) is not just acceptable but rather the duty of all US citizens. Even the President is not above the law and certainly should not be above common decent social behavior and Trump is simply unfit to be in polite company.

Asking the press secretary to leave the restaurant may well be understandable but is definitely NOT acceptable behavior and may have been illegal.

Faith writes: In general do you believe there is an unusually high level of public animosity against this President and those associated with him generated by the press and do you approve of it?

No. I do not see any signs on animosity against Trump but there definitely is, as there should be, responses to his behavior and posts. That is as it should be. The President of the US should be responsible for his behavior.

Faith writes: I think the press has a basic obligation to serve the public peace but that since Trump was elected they seem determined to whip people into a frenzy of hatred against him and against the half of the country that voted for him. Agree or disagree?

No, I most definitely do not agree that the " press has a basic obligation to serve the public peace" and in fact the very idea that the press has a basic obligation to serve the public peace is destructive and entirely foreign to any concept of Democracy. The press has a basic obligation to serve the public; PERIOD. If that means reporting things that disturb the general peace then that is what should be reported.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

If the topic is about The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy might it not be wise to first provide the evidence there is some anti-Trump conspiracy?

Wouldn't the way to do that be by providing actual evidence of an anti-Trump conspiracy?

Taq writes: In fact, most presidents were smart enough to avoid nepotism.

While most US Presidents seem to have avoided direct nepotism a significant number have not.

Remember Bobby Kennedy and Sargent Shriver?

According to an article in Constitution Daily on the subject:

quote:

---

Back in 1797, incoming President John Adams retained his son, John Quincy Adams, as a diplomat and appointed him as the United States minister to Prussia, over public criticism.

More vexing was William Stephens Smith, the President’s son-in-law, whom Adams nominated for several government positions. Smith had been involved in land speculation schemes, but President Adams was eventually able to appoint Smith as a customs agent in New York. In 1806, Smith was implicated in a scandal to invade Venezuela with 200 men. Adams also appointed his brother-in-law as a postmaster and named his son John Quincy’s father-in-law as superintendent of stamps.

Other Presidents retained relatives at the White House in secretarial roles, including James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler and James Buchanan. Zachary Taylor kept his brother and son-in-law on the government payroll, using military commissions, as unofficial presidential advisers. President Ulysses S. Grant had many direct family members on the government payroll or at the White House. His brother, Orvil, was implicated in scandals involving Indian trading posts.

In later years, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower had family members as secretaries or aides. Kennedy also appointed his brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, as the first head of the Peace Corps.

---

Faith writes: No, it's those who disagree with me who need to hear the opposing point of view.

Agreed, so why do you never bring anything but unsupported assertions, innuendo, misrepresentation and patently false material?

To convince anyone you need to bring something with substance and worth.