Yes, that is rare, especially in relation to the number of times people think there's a conspiracy going on when there really isn't. And this shouldn't be a right vs left thing either. Lots of political leftists are into conspiracy theories as well, I'm sure.
Not surprised sgrlndkid and Mojoman are the first two posters touting conspiracy theories in this thread though. They love their fake news.
So it is not possible that Donald Trump conspired with the Russians then, right? Or do the rules change based on your partisan preferences for a certain conspiracy theory?
But that is a conspiracy right there. The leaks. I thought that doesn't happen in you guys view. Too complicated and such.
"Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! ... " --Kevin Costner as D.A. Jim Garrison in "JFK"
Who said a conspiracy is impossible? When the weight of the evidence points in a certain direction and there are no plausible alternate explanations that fit the evidence, then you believe what's most likely. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they have a difficult time discerning what is a probable explanation for the evidence and what isn't. They also tend to latch on to questionable evidence if it fits a certain narrative. A lot of people obsessing over the Russia thing in the media fit this kind of thinking, IMO, and I agree that it's not fully rational. But there is a considerable amount of available hard evidence showing cooperation (e.g. Don Jr emails).
I have no idea whether Trump conspired or not. I do know that the possibility is already an exposed secret, so if he did, then it was not possible to keep it a secret. That's just it. Trump colluding with the Russians would only be further evidence that it isn't possible to keep secrets.
Keeping open the possibility of several people working together on something like this is not the same thing as endorsing all conspiracy theories or all conspiracy theorists everywhere. There are nutball theories that do not involve conspiracies as well as nutball theories that involve conspiracies. There are nutball theorists who engage in theories of both kinds, and who also engage in legitimate factual theories as well. So it does not follow that all theories or all theorists are therefore disqualified as wrong because in the past some have been wrong. But that is the logic that backs the kind of thinking that a lot of leftists carelessly toss around about this subject. Any thoughtful, intelligent person knows better.
What? Leaks will always happen if there are enough people involved. That's what the evidence shows. The number of people needed to pull off this FBI story is insane so there would definitely be leaks, and it wouldn't be able to stay a secret for long at all.
A reasonable person would look at the evidence and studies on the subject and either find better evidence to contradict it or accept that the studies are most likely accurate based on the evidence we have at this point.
If you are going to conspire and set up a patsy, wouldn't you find a more convincing patsy? I mean, Lee Harvey Oswald had that Marine Corps training and at one point qualified as marksman. This guy seems like the last choice for a convincing patsy. The conspiracy seems to have been mailing it in on this one.
You have to give the conspiracy some credit: they convinced the dude to purchase all these guns and then to rent the hotel room before they dumped his body there.
... that the Earth is round. ... that we landed on the Moon. ... of Evolution. In the internet world, you will always have an enormous minority position that just does not accept a whole load of facts. I'm not saying, at all, that this case is closed. I'm saying your phrase submitted as evidence of anything is evidence of nothing.
So what was the "get" for this false flag operation? If Clinton had won, the anti-second amendment angle would have been the obvious connect-the-dots for the conspiracy nuts. But what's the goal here? A convincing conspiracy theory needs a motive, specifically one that is trite and facile to bring the rubes on board. If you don't come up with a motive, the conspiracy talk will burn out pretty quickly beyond of Alex Jones and associates.
