Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Invent your own conspiracy theories

- - - - - conspiracy theory trump clinton election russia logic

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic



    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

I thought it would be fun to come up with my own conspiracy theories about politics and the election.  However, unlike actual CTers, I admit right up front that this is pure speculation for the sake of satire, and I have no concrete evidence.  I want these to be convincing enough to make people wonder, but also obviously facetious.



Trump was a plant by the Clintons


Given how much Donald and Hillary were at each other's throats during the campaign, it would be hard to tell that the Clintons and Trumps were longtime friends.  Bill and Hillary attended the wedding of Donald and Melania.  In 2008, Donald endorsed Hillary for president, and has donated to the Clinton Foundation.  This is why, even though it shocked a lot of people when Trump said he wouldn't prosecute Clinton once he'd won the election, it didn't surprise me at all.


Why would the Clintons do this?  To destroy the Republican Party from within.  Trump himself used to be much further to the left on many issues, but when he sought the Republican nomination, he went full flop.  There is evidence that the DNC elevated Trump.  Sure, you're supposed to think it's because they thought he'd be an easier opponent for Hillary to beat, but you have to wonder if they had ulterior motives, especially given that Hillary still somehow managed to lose to him.


This directly ties into my second conspiracy theory.



Hillary threw the election to screw Bernie


How exactly did Hillary lose the general election to the most easily beatable candidate in history?  It's not like she didn't know how to run for office, and it's not like she didn't have firsthand experience with two successful Democratic bids for the White House.  Yet for some strange reason, she ignored the warnings of the Sanders campaign, ignored the Rust Belt states despite Obama telling her to campaign there, and she sat on her ass trying to "run out the clock" in the leadup to Election Day.  Sure, she had Bernie, and Liz, and Obama running around campaigning on her behalf, but she was nowhere to be seen.


I think it's because there was something more important to her than winning.  Even if it meant she had to lose the election, Hillary was not going to let a single shred of Bernie's platform pass.  Prior to the convention, Bernie had helped her draft the Democratic Party platform, the most progressive platform in history, as he put it.  This meant that many elements of Bernie's agenda were now promises Hillary would have to keep, and this went against everything she stood for as a corporate Democrat.  The one thing Hillary did not want to do was piss off the biggest donors to the party, because in her mind, this would cause immeasurable harm to the Democrats.  She ran her campaign was under the rationale that she needed lots of corporate money in her war chest to combat the Republicans who do the same.  This is nothing new; time and again, corporate Dems will ignore the people in order to appease their donors.


If you listen to the things the corporate Dems have been saying since, and the constant attacks on progressives such as blaming the voters for not falling in line behind Hillary, they are still completely hopeless.  They will do anything to avoid having to change their ways, to the point where money is even more important than actually winning elections.  If they cared about winning elections, they would have run on single-payer, free public college, ending the wars, and a New New Deal a long time ago.


And speaking of how stupid the corporate Dems are:



Trump is purposely fanning the flames of the Russia scandal


The Russia scandal has been the first and usually only talking point of the corporate Dems and MSNBC since the election.  One of the biggest criticisms progressives have of the mainstream / corporate media is they keep beating you over the head with, "Russia, Russia, Russia!" all day long, at the expense of talking about other events or issues.  They rarely talk about healthcare, except in terms of defending the ACA from Trumpcare.  They rarely talk about the environment, except maybe when a hurricane hits.  They rarely talk about all the military engagements the US is tied up in, except when Trump launches missiles or gets into a dick measuring contest with Kim Jong Un.  This absolves the corporate Dems of having to actually promise anything or stand for any principles, and this kind of reporting is detrimental to the country given how misinformed most voters are already.


However, I think this is exactly what Trump wants.  Sure, on the surface he might say that he just wants the Russia investigation to go away, but his actions show otherwise.  He might look like a bumbling idiot who can't keep information from leaking out, or his family and staffers from revealing information on Russia, but I think it's deliberate.  What's the one thing Trump is good at aside from lying?  He is a master at manipulating the media and getting them to pay undue attention to him.  He wants them to focus almost exclusively on Russia, because it's actually the least horrible thing he's done.


Yes, he is most likely guilty of collusion with Russia.  We already know he's guilty of obstruction of justice by firing James Comey.  Yet when taken in context with everything else he's done since taking office (and even before) it's a fairly minor offense.  His economic policies are all aimed at screwing over the middle class and making the rich even richer.  His foreign policies are all aimed at dragging the US into even more wars, while at the same time supporting regimes that fund terrorism.  His environmental policies are beyond simple negligence or denial, as he seems to be actively trying to kill as many people as possible.


Yet as long as Russia is all his opponents are focused on, there's no way they can beat him in an election, and he knows this.

  • JadeBlackOlive likes this

The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.

Cousin Ricky

Cousin Ricky

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,799 posts
  • LocationSt. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

Your second CT sounds entirely true, as does the 1st paragraph of your 3rd CT. If there are two things evident about Trump-era corporate Democrats, they are that Bernie absolutely, positively must not succeed, and that Russia is the single most important issue facing the country. And Russia serves as a convenient distraction from the fact that the corporate Democrats have not only lost touch with Americans who are not billionaires, but are now doubling down on kissing billionaire asses, as if they think they can beat the Republicans at their own game, despite the years of electoral loses resulting from this strategy.

“Facts seem to roll off a Christian like water off a duck.” —Great Ape

“How much can you actually doubt something and still maintain that you believe it?” —Josh K, “Alpha and Omega”

“You don’t understand. My crisis of faith is over.



    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
I was thinking recently about what makes some people more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Kyle Hill of Because Science has a good episode on this.
Mark Lorch of The Conversation has a useful article.
How to argue with a conspiracy theorist.
The more uneducated and economically desperate people are, the more inclined they are to believe in CTs.  Now, the corrupt government has done such a terrible job running the country, they've left many people uneducated and economically desperate.  So maybe the government is intentionally keeping people that way, so that they'll believe in CTs, because all CTs benefit the establishment.  After all, they deflect from real criticisms, distract from real issues, take resources away from legitimate investigations, and discredit any critics of the establishment by association.
Consider that Alex Jones is friends with Donald Trump.  Trump himself has used many a CT to attack his opponents, and actively encourages people to believe in such things.
Therefore, I believe the government wants people to believe in and chase after conspiracy theories, because it keeps them too distracted and stupid to actually fight back against real oppression and corruption.

Edited by Frozenwolf150, 13 May 2019 - 07:51 PM.

The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.



    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 21,688 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
Your argument appeals to me.

Join our religion of love and peace or burn in hell!



    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

On a related note, have you ever noticed that most of the popular conspiracy theories fall apart if you think about what kind of conspiracy would actually be necessary to achieve the desired effect for the conspirators?


For example, 9/11 trutherism doesn't make any sense if you stop and think what must have been going through Bush's pea brain if he were planning to orchestrate the attacks.  The government would need to rig explosives to the outer struts of the towers without anyone noticing, place several tons of thermite without being caught, supply fake airplane parts for the Pentagon site, silence the families of the 3,000 victims (since they're faking death), etc.  Furthermore, if the attacks were meant to be used as justification to attack Iraq, why in the hell did the Bush admin never say that the hijackers were Iraqi?  Instead, we got a few statements that Saddam has ties to Al-Qaeda, until Bush retracted that, saying publicly there's no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11.  If the government needed a setup to justify invading Iraq, it would have been orders of magnitude easier to just plant fake WMDs in Iraq.


Well, it turns out a lot of CTs work this way, in the sense that the conspirators would need to have done the exact opposite of what the conspiracy theories say.  Here are some examples of what I mean, and you'll see why I'm adding it to this particular topic.



Sandy Hook


Alex Jones and other right wing gun nuts argue that the mass shooting was faked in order to justify taking away people's guns.  The government still has not come to take away anyone's guns, and there are several mass shootings every week.  (There's also the irony that gun nuts idolize the police and military-- if the government were coming to take away guns, who do you think they would send to do it?)  Rather, what you see after every highly publicized mass shooting, including Sandy Hook, is that sales of guns increase.


Therefore, if anyone were setting up mass shooting hoaxes, it would be the gun lobby and NRA, since they would benefit most.  Want to drive up sales?  Stage another fake mass shooting.  It's practically guaranteed no new gun legislation will come from it.



Climate Denial


People who deny the existence of global warming think similarly to creationists, in that they believe there's a vast conspiracy among the majority of scientists, who are paid off by the government.  They'll point to the government grants that climate scientists receive, arguing that these scientists are living it up, and being paid to scaremonger about climate change.  Never mind that annual government spending on climate research amounts to $2 billion, whereas annual subsidies to already-profitable fossil fuel companies amount to $20 billion and the companies make an average annual profit of $200 billion.  Donald Trump and others like him have said that climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to trick the US into giving up fossil fuels.  Never mind that China is smoggy as hell, and is desperately trying to set up more green energy tech at a rate that already outpaces the US.


Therefore, if there is a Chinese hoax, it would be climate denial itself.  Due to massive investments in clean energy, China's economy would benefit far more if they tricked the US into staying on fossil fuels so that there's no competition.  This would create a Chinese monopoly on green energy tech, and eventually force the US to buy it from them.



Chemicals in Water


Different variations of this CT exist on the far right and far left.  Alex Jones claims that the herbicide atrazine is being intentionally put in the water to turn the frogs gay, and that it has similar effects on humans (because obviously frogs and humans have identical physiology).  The study he "cites"  by UC Berkley's Tyrone Hayes has been discredited since the results could not be replicated.  On the left, people claim that fluoridated water is a mind control method, since fluorine is similar to antidepressant drugs (fact check, it's not the same thing).  To be fair, Alex Jones is also one of the leading proponents of this CT, so just like with 9/11 you've got idiots on the left agreeing with Alex Jones.  Both of these groups are ignoring the very real water contamination crisis, as in, you might have heard of what's going on in Flint and thousands of other cities across the US.


Therefore, if the government wanted to purposely contaminate the water to make people sick and prevent them from organizing, it would make a lot more sense to just take advantage of the existing lead pipe infrastructure.  Treatments for lead poisoning cost low income people a lot of money, which drains their resources, and lead poisoning causes brain damage which reduces cognitive function.  There's no need to use other chemicals to do this.




What other conspiracies would need to be done differently to get the desired effects?

The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: conspiracy theory, trump, clinton, election, russia, logic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users