Greene has been Stripped

What do you mean? It isn't a conspiracy theory when there is ample evidence it happened.

"As a shorthand, we may use the term “collusion” to refer to these kinds of activities, which would be implicated in a counterintelligence analysis—though, as Asha Rangappa and I have written, the more analytically precise issues to consider are whether Trump Campaign associates “coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support” to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. Those are important questions regardless of whether such activities amounted to crimes, regardless of whether individuals’ actions and intentions can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of whether Americans acted as unwitting Kremlin assets in support of Russian operations, and regardless of whether individuals and organizations can be prosecuted without endangering First Amendment interests.

Although the Mueller Report does not squarely address these questions of “collusion” that fall outside the scope of potential criminal liability, it can be mined for substantive information that provides some meaningful answers.

What follows is a detailed guide to the Mueller Report’s evidence on collusion."
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

 

So, to you Jewish laser forest fires promoting mass transit, killing congressmen, the slaughter in schools being designed by poliltical interests, white supremacist terrorism, attempts to overthrow our democracy from terrorist groups within, etc., are comparable to the investigation of Russian assaults on our infrastructure and democracy, cases that definitely have serious evidence?

 

Perhaps then, she is the looney toon she portrays in public.
And republicans in power are actually worthless as leaders.
We voted out 1 incompetent republican that was worthless as a leader. And impeached him 2X.

R's and D's should hold their own accountable. And the voters should as well.
Given that she is a rep of a tiny section of country, it would stand to reason, folks in that part of the world also believe in looney conspiracy theories.

 

I actually also have disdain for our political process in the USA.
But I'm not so looney to believe lies about election fraud. Or want violence to overturn legit elections.

I would like nothing better than term limits. But the congress has to vote themselves out of office if they vote for term limits.
They will never ever do that. Its too cushy and they make tons of money in the system.

We need to change the system. We the voters can put in term limits. Vote out all incumbents all the time.
Eventually they will get the message.

Our system is corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Money is power. Money belongs to the incumbents.

 

There are many on the right side of politics, as witness in many thread here, that think melanin makes people more violent and prone to crime.
I don't think melanin works in either case.

 

I'm comparing conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory. I've found if you believe one, you probably believe in others. Oh and please stop trying to white wash the Russian collusion conspiracy. It wasn't about infrastructure, it was the idea that Trump teamed up with Putin to overthrow the 2016 election in exchange for never specified favors. Somr variants include a belief that blackmail was involved. Sorry, but that's crazy.

 

I'm going to keep pushing on the FACT that Ms. QAnon has on SEVERAL occasions promoted the killing of congressmen.

How can we have a serious debate in our legislature when congressmen promote the execution of those they don't agree with?

Tell me how such a legislature can EVER become functional.

 

Uh no, but the "American intel network" never said that Trump teamed up with Putin to overthrow the 2016 election in exchange for never specified favors. Unless you have a 3 hour video that says that.

OK what was the quote where Greene promoted the killing of a congressman?

 

See post #60

 

You very well know that conspiracy theories are NOT created to be equal in ANY WAY.

And, you are totally warping the issue of Russian interference in our election, while dodging the facts of the case. And, in the case of Ms. QAnon, there are NO FACTS OF ANY KIND backing the garbage she spews.

Tell me the "facts" surrounding the claim that there were political interests opposed to Republicans who slaughtered all those children as a false flag attack.

Tell me the "facts" that support killing congressmen - related to ANY conspiracy theory to which you ascribe that.

Tell me the "facts" about Jews using space lasers to start forest fires that would encourage mass transit - which she strongly tied to Jewish defamation.

This fact free crap fest is NOT to be compared with our intel agencies examining Russian attacks on our infrastruture and/or our democracy.

 

She did it on facebook.

She did it by wearing her t-shirt with selected comgressmen she hates.

She did it by supporting the insurrection that clearly had murderous intent.

The facts are NOT the point here.

She had special remarks directed at Omar and AOC.

The point is, she did do this, and that should be a flat out disqualification.

We can't have a legislature where members threaten the lives of those they don't agree with.

 

I never said their were any facts supporting Qanon. I've always said it was a baseless conspiracy theory. Feel free to search the history here if you don't believe me. So I don't know why you are trying to get me to defend it when I thought it was nuts the whole time. It's just that your Russian collusion theory is nuts too and I feel I've been more than patient over the years in engaging with you tin hat folks about it.

I think criticizing one nutty conspiracy while still promoting your own more than makes my point. It's pointless to engage with you types over this because you are too far gone to ever see reason.

 

So no quotes huh? Frankly, I thought that was a pretty low bar.

 

This is ALL OVER the press and in the news.

I'm not going to quote just to have you deny.

So, how about this:

Do you believe that if a US representative threatens the life of an opposing representative multiple times, that should lead to expulsion?

 

I DO NOT agree that death threats are "nuty conspiracy".

The death threats may well be couched in racial hatred, conspiracies, etc., like Ms. QAnon's definitly were.

But, that is not adequate camo for threats on the lives of our (ad MY) representative.

If someoe in ANY WAY suppojrts or condones the killing of our representatives, THAT is a direct and lethal assault on our democracy.

NOBODY should be allowed to serve as a congressman while threatening the very principle on which our legislature is founded.

 

The Mueller investigation was not prompted by an irrational conspiracy theory, it was prompted by suspicious facts. Mueller "evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of 'collusion,' but through the lens of conspiracy law" Ultimately, Mueller's investigation "did not establish that the contacts ...amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law". (Mueller Report, p 180-181)

A conspiracy theorist would not be dissuaded by such a finding - they'd insist there was a conspiracy and rationalize Mueller's failure to make the case. Who exactly has done this, and what specifically did they say?

Although there's no basis for asserting there was a criminal conspiracy, the Mueller report...
... shows that the Trump campaign was reasonably aware of the Russian efforts, at least on the hacking side. They were aware the Russians sought to help them win. They welcomed that assistance. Instead of warning the American public, they devised a public relations and campaign strategy that sought to capitalize on Russia’s illicit assistance. In other words, the Russians and the Trump campaign shared a common goal, and each side worked to achieve that goal with basic knowledge of the other side’s intention. They just didn’t agree to work toward that goal together. (link to source)

Some people might label this sort of behavior "collusion". You could argue the semantics of this term (which is not a legal term), but you can't reasonably claim that labeling this behavior as "collusion" constitutes conspiracy theory.

 

If anyone, a US representative or not, threatens the life of anyone, that's a felony.

That's why I asked for a quote. If she had really threatened to murder someone, she would have already been indicted, and we wouldn't be talking about simply losing committee seats.

 

So you totally ignored my comments in this reply to continue your comments from #66. Well I already responded to that on post #69.

 

An interesting comment you've supplied here, "A conspiracy theorist would not be dissuaded by such a finding - they'd insist there was a conspiracy and rationalize Mueller's failure to make the case."

Indeed.

A casual perusal of Russian Collusion threads since the release of the Mueller report will confirm.

 

Right. That's an old trick - just pretend like I said something I did not say.

And, I didn't ask whether she should be locked up, or whatever.

The point is, should such an individual who took the actions I specified be allowed to continue as a member of our federal legislature.

 

Yes - you stated something I did not say and then responded to that.

Some boards would allow a name for that.

 

You had said, "a nutzo Russian Collusion conspiracy theory dominating the Congress". Back it up. Show that members of congress did this.

While I wouldn't be completely surprised that people on an internet forum might make that assertion, I can't find someone doing so on the forum. Since you are so sure it's easily found with a "a casual perusal", please do so - point me to some people who've done so.

 

What are you arguing that I am pretending you said that you didn't say?

I'm genuinely curious.

 

You seriously couldn't find anyone on this forum who supported the Russian Collusion theory? It brings your mastery of the "Search" function into question. However, I'll be a good sport anyway and respond to your first part, a member of Congress who supported "a nutzo Russian Collusion conspiracy theory:"

Eric Swalwell.

 

Plenty of people believe Trump "colluded" with Russia in his 2016 campaign, consistent with the definitions I gave you in my last post - which does not entail "conspiracy theory." Find posts by people that are consistent with conspiracy theory.

Here's an article from the Washington Examiner (link), in which Swalwell makes statements about "collusion" consistent with what I said previously:

"There's evidence of collusion and coordination there, it doesn't go beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean this a good guy," Swalwell said. "I mean, we know the Russians helped him, he asked the Russians to help them, the campaign expected to benefit from it. What we don't know yet is why he won't show us his taxes, why he won't show us his finances."

This quote, at least, doesn't suggest Swalwell is in denial about Mueller's conclusions, because it's consistent with what I described. Unless you can provide evidence that Swalwell insists Trump was involved in criminal conspiracy, I can only conclude that your problem is that your misuderstanding is due to your conflating "criminal conspiracy" (a crime) with "collusion" (not a legal term, and subject to subjective interpretation). It would be helpful if you acknowledge the distinction in future discussions. Semantic disagreements seem such a waste of time.