Mike Lindell, who's pillows I enjoy and who's got an inspiring story, is back in the news again. He's predicting that his lawsuit will be so explosive that Trump will be back in office by August. This is quite a claim, and is being met with skepticism, rightly in my opinion.
Not that I would object to Biden being litigated out of office, but I think that part of the problem here is the inability to shut up when it's appropriate. For all I know Lindell might have the smoking gun evidence that will do exactly what he claims, but I kind of doubt it. In this case, I think we've reached the point of "put up or shut up". Generally speaking strategic surprise is the single most important factor in any military engagement, and strategic surprise means that you don't announce your intentions before you act. Hell, it usually means that you hide your intentions before you act. But not Mike.
I fully support his right to file all the lawsuits he wants, part of me hopes that there really is some compelling evidence of voter fraud that will lead to increased election security. But the bigger part of me wishes that he'd have kept his mouth shut until the opening argument of the lawsuit in front of a judge.
The reality is that if he fails, as is likely, to follow through on his promise it likely means the end of his career as a politician or as a political influencer. I'm not making a value judgement on that, just wondering if blowing one's political aspirations on this is really worth the time and money.
Maybe the lesson is that knowing when to shut up is a good thing, or "Talk softly and carry a big stick.", or something similar.
12 comments:
See, the problem is you are taking crazy, loony bin, entirely loopy and obscenely, stupidly false accusations and saying, hm. I wish it were true, but it's probably not. And in so doing, you're treating the vile and false insane as possibly, potentially possible.
It's a way of condoning stupidly false claims. And it's why the Republican party today is a vast insipid obscene joke.
What responsible adults on the GOP side need to do is soundly condemn such nonsense as the dangerous threat it is.
Someday, maybe Dan will actually offer something more tangible than charges of "stupidly false claims". You know...like "hard data", evidence, proof that even one single claim of voter fraud...out of so many...is false, "stupidly" or otherwise. To date, he's offered exactly jack-squat. He's offered no explanation for any statistical anomaly, no proven exact total for how many dead people voted, how many voted twice or from outside their actual precincts.
What responsible adults (BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!) on the Dem side need to do is soundly refute with evidence the charges they pretend are nonsense given the threat to the nation allowing election fraud is.
Hell, I'd be satisfied if Dan's comments made sense in the context of the post he comments on.
The point of the post is pretty clearly that Lindell should simply shut up, go to court, and let the evidence, speak for itself. If there's no evidence, then he's shown to be an idiot, and if their is that that can be judged on it's merits.
But Dan has to come in with his ad homs blazing and sounding like he's deranged. As we're seeing in the Floyd case, the left isn't much concerned with evidence, they just wan their preferred outcome.
Art,
As we've seen, Dan has had ample opportunities to present "hard data", or to answer specific questions specifically. He's had the chance to provide an overwhelming amount of "DATA" that would be able to establish the superiority of his claims easily. Instead we got, nothing.
He thinks he's justified in making demands that we prove our positions, believing there's some "proving a negative" way out for him. Not true. The "positive" claim he's making is that the elections were not inundated with fraud, irregularities and unexplained anomalies. At the very least, showing how any single charge of fraud can be explained in a legitimate way should be relatively easy to do if the charge is truly without merit. Thus far, all we're hearing is that election officials simply contradicting charges. His one attempt was in reference to two women who insist they witnessed ballots being destroyed, the election officials claiming they weren't ballots after all, and that's the end of it. Hardly compelling.
The closest thing I've seen to an actual refutation...or at least attempt to that end...was from a guy named Les who appeared from out of nowhere after over a year since he was a regular visitor. While his argument remains unresolved, he did present a case how a specific allegation might be explained away.
But Dan? Nothing. Just whining about "stupidly false claims".
Craig's own stupid words... " For all I know Lindell might have the smoking gun evidence that will do exactly what he claims, but I kind of doubt it."
No. No. He does NOT have any evidence. The guy is a jerk, a moron, an idiot and a conspiracy theorist. He doesn't have jack shit. And everyone rational knows it.
But WAY TOO many conservatives are giving a pass to the conspiracy theorists by saying "well, MAYBE... but..." Instead of being upright prophetic and speaking clearly on behalf of truth and against lies, slanders and diabolical demonizations.
He has nothing because of course he has nothing. Say THAT. Not, "well, maybe... " as if it MIGHT be factual. It's not. It's insane, because of course it is. Don't give the Marshals of the world hope. That only helps to sell their souls to the Big Lie of That which you'd call the Tempter.
Craig, with words to appeal the lunatic and racist fringe... "Instead we got, nothing."
There is NOTHING to address. The Lindells and Trumps of the world are either liars or insane or both. If someone says, "The martians are sending purple and red striped Unicorns disguised as Democrats to be our lizardine overlords..." I DO NOT NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT STUPIDLY INSANE CLAIM. It is insane on the face of it.
But those who are on the side of the conspiracy theorists have the opportunity to respond... by denouncing insane lies and conspiracies for what they are.
Save your soul. Do the right thing.
"No. No. He does NOT have any evidence. The guy is a jerk, a moron, an idiot and a conspiracy theorist. He doesn't have jack shit. And everyone rational knows it."
Well, as long as "everyone" knows something then let's just presume it's true and save ourselves the time and trouble of allowing people their right to access the judicial system. Just think how much time and money we could save by simply putting Chauvin straight into prison because "everybody" knows he's a racist, murderer.
When I saw the Cjelsea Handler quote on this topic this morning, I had no idea that Dan would say virtually the same thing.
"Perhaps we skip trials when there is audio and video footage of the murder."
Handler
"No. No. He does NOT have any evidence. The guy is a jerk, a moron, an idiot and a conspiracy theorist. He doesn't have jack shit. And everyone rational knows it."
Ad hom.
"He has nothing because of course he has nothing. Say THAT. Not, "well, maybe... " as if it MIGHT be factual. It's not. It's insane, because of course it is."
This is amazingly persuasive. If only all arguments could be settled by some version of "Because I say so.", think how much easier life would be.
"Don't give the Marshals of the world hope. That only helps to sell their souls to the Big Lie of That which you'd call the Tempter."
Do souls exist?
Is there anything beyond the material world?
Does Satan exist?
Do you have one shred of actual proof of your claims?
"There is NOTHING to address."
Dan, it's kind of pathetic when you get so angry based on your misunderstanding of what people have said.
The "we get nothing", statement is much more of a general observation than a request for information on this specific topic. Your history of simply announcing that X, Y, or Z is reality without actually providing proof, or dismissing something with an ad hom attack is much more widespread than this post.
But if it makes sense to attack me for somewhat agreeing with you, you go ahead. I'm sure it helps your ego.
Again, you misunderstand fallacies. It's not an ad hom attack if the charges are factually correct. Lindale is espousing conspiracy theories. Period.
Let's see, you referred to Lindell as a "liar", "insane", "jerk", and a "moron".
In the absence of any proof of those things, it seems that ad hom (attacking the person not their position) is entirely accurate. As is, it seems slander. You see when you say that some one "is a liar or insane" that (by standard English grammar) is aimed at the person, not their ideas.
But very strong attempt there, Skippy. Impressive.
"See, the problem is you are taking crazy, loony bin, entirely loopy and obscenely, stupidly false accusations and saying, hm. I wish it were true, but it's probably not."
Actually, if one looks at what I said, the above statement is factually, literally, a false claim. It's simply concocted out of thin air and attributed to me as if it was True, when it is undeniably false.
You see, (much like those who defend Evolution) when you base your defense of (or attack on) something on falsehood you automatically invalidate your entire position. If you can't start from Truth, then who the hell cares what you think?
I would note the convenience of seeing complete comments versus seeing only what Dan says about someone's comments in order to judged what's true about what's actually
been said.
I would also note yet again a "stupidly false claim" should be, one would think, easy enough to demonstrate is false, yet Dan continues to provide nothing for the purpose. Here's how that would work if Dan was correct:
Leftist politicians, media sources (enemies of the people) and others of the lower life forms (Dan's troll) insist falsely that Georgia's beneficial new election laws deny voters life preserving water while standing in line to vote. The actual law not only doesn't do this, it specifically states the opposite in such a direct way as to validate the widely-held position leftist politicians, media sources and trolls are abject liars. There is no prohibition against providing water (as if anyone ought) to those waiting in line to vote.
Now, I could do the lefty's work and provide the actual law to support what I just said, but by Dan's constant example, I'm not obligated to do anything more than say it's a "stupidly false claim". Of course the difference here is that this claim is indeed stupidly false. Dan only makes assertions.
Art,
Given how badly he screwed up what I actually said in this thread, I agree that his aversion to in context quotes makes it difficult to determine accurately what people say.
It is interesting that Dan holds those who believe in what he calls "conspiracy theories" in such low esteem, but what's the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and a prevailing narrative that is false or based on a false premise.
For example everyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that "hands up, don't shoot" is a complete fabrication, yet many people still accept it as the Truth. Or this new notion that the "hatred" (read physical assault) of Asians by black folk is simply another example of "white supremacy". As if some magical "whiteness" forced the black guy with an extensive record to kick the crap out of an old Asian woman. I can hear Flip Wilson now, "The whiteys made me do it.".
It's almost like it's normal to accept something fictional as if it was fact, but insane to raise questions about something that to some degree actually happened.
I'm sure there's some of this on both sides, but the fact that the left is blind to it's own version of it is a bit concerning.
Post a Comment