Why So Many Conservatives Accept the WC or Just Don't Care

[Joe Elliott]

A JFK conspiracy will always appeal most to both the far right and the far left. Because an extreme CT position will maintain that democracy was taken over in 1963 and we have since been controlled by a deep state, which uses the threat of assassination to maintain control of the government. If one can get people to believe this, their support for democracy will be greatly diminished. From there it is only a small step to say that no only does a deep state control us today but that a democracy will always be vulnerable to being taken over by such a conspiracy. If this is the case, one might as well accept an authoritarian government, which at least does not rule in secret. Both the far left and the far right would like his, provided the right people are left in charge.

It is always possible for a supporter of democracy to believe in a conspiracy. Particularly if they don’t hold an extreme view, that the conspirators took permanent control of the government in 1963 and have control to this very day. But the CT position will always be most appealing to those on the extreme left and the extreme right and who, deep down, don’t really believe in democracy.

[John Iacoletti]

One can equality be a nonpartisan skeptic when questioning what is for the most part the crackpot absurdity of JFK conspiracy theorists.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. LNers are a dangerous monolithic lot to be painted and smeared with a broad brush.

Sounds like what you are doing with “conspiracy theorist”.

[Michael T. Griffith]

In my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to accept the word of authority more readily than liberal folks do.

I think that greatly depends on who or what the authority is. Conservatives tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of authority when it's in the form of the military, the police, an intelligence agency, or an elected official whom they like. On the other hand, liberals tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of authority when it's in the form of the traditional news media, liberal foreign governments, and elected officials whom they like.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here's a fellow who's to the extreme right of most American conservatives. Yet he's an "Independent." Next he'll be telling us he's a "Skeptic" rather than a JFK conspiracy theorist.

Oh my goodness. Why are you always out to lunch? Many staunch conservatives have bitterly condemned my websites on the Pacific War and the atomic bomb and on earl Harbor. For that matter, the majority of conservatives reject my belief in a JFK assassination conspiracy, in an RFK assassination conspiracy, and in an MLK assassination conspiracy.

Also, just FYI, I support universal healthcare, affirmative action for federal contracts, red-flag gun control laws, expanding background checks for gun purchases, banning rifle sales to anyone under 21, and federal infrastructure spending, to name some of my positions that oppose those of purist conservatives.

In fact, I was afraid that someone who has followed my postings on the major political boards would challenge my self-description of "conservative Independent." I debated whether to say "centrist Independent" instead, since I actually hold a number of views that are left-of-center.

Compare with American Conservative CTs who think the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen by the US government.

What??? Most of the "9/11 Truthers" are liberals, not conservatives. The vast majority of those who claim that WTC 7 was destroyed with planted explosives, that a missile and not a jetliner hit the Pentagon, etc., are liberals. Yes, there are a few conservatives who peddle the theory that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen, or that government operatives even took part in it, but the vast majority of people who peddle this stuff are liberals.

[Dan O'meara]

I think that greatly depends on who or what the authority is. Conservatives tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of authority when it's in the form of the military, the police, an intelligence agency, or an elected official whom they like. On the other hand, liberals tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of authority when it's in the form of the traditional news media, liberal foreign governments, and elected officials whom they like.

Obviously this thread concerns the official narrative of JFK's assassination as peddled by the FBI via the WC. So you would appear to agree that conservatives "tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of" the WC, FBI and DPD. Simply because they are the authorities.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The roots of WWII Pacific War conspiracy theory trace back to conservatives. How do you know whether "staunch" conservatives "bitterly condemned" your websites? Your sites have no Feedback. You may be criticized on the lack of scholarship by moderate conservatives.

How do I know? Well, there are these things called politics forums/boards, such as USMB. Thereon many, many ardent conservatives have bitterly/virulently condemned my websites on the use of the atomic bomb and on Pearl Harbor. They've also condemned my website on O.J. Simpson, because I argue that he did not murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend.

Go to USMB and read my exchanges with conservatives who've attacked my The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb website. The "lack of scholarship" is on their side, not mine. The majority of scholars who specialize in the Japanese surrender have long concluded that nuking Japan was not necessary.

Those are issues that have merit for conservatives, depending on their state or region.

Name me one prominent conservative who supports universal healthcare. Let's see a name. When the recent gun control bill went to conference, Republicans adamantly insisted on dropping the provision that banned rifle sales to people under 21. Name me one conservative who supports affirmative action for all federal contract jobs. Let's see a name.

"Left-of-center"? Add delusional.

I named several positions of mine that are left-of-center. I could name several more.

And how many conservatives think OJ is innocent? Can you name me one? 

The OP said you were "a volunteer for the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2020";

Yes, that's right, and many, many centrist Independents voted for Trump. Do you not live in the U.S.?

the same OP has you "blaming the victim" in the racial-motivated murder of George Floyd.

You know nothing about George Floyd's death beyond what your liberal news sources have told you. Why did the police arrest George Floyd? Because he had used counterfeit currency. Here are some other facts that you obviously don't know but that were established at Chauvin's trial--many of these facts are documented on the police bodycam footage:

* Floyd began ignoring police instructions while he was still in the car he was driving when the police first approached him outside the store where he had used the counterfeit money. The police were called to the scene because a store employee called the police after he realized that Floyd had used a fake $20 bill. The employee and another employee had twice asked Floyd to just return the cirgarettes that he'd "bought" with the fake money, but both times Floyd refused--and that's why the police were called.

* The police repeatedly asked Floyd to get into the back of the police car so they could take him to the police station for questioning about where he got the counterfeit money. Each time, Floyd refused.

* Floyd began claiming he could not breathe before the police ever even tried to put him in the police car.

* Officer Chauvin even offered to roll down the windows for Floyd and to sit next to him to help him feel at ease on the way to the station.

* After it became clear that Floyd was not going to get into the police car, even though he said he would, the police tried to put him in the car. Floyd fiercely resisted and was so strong that it took three officers to finally get him in the car.

* But once in the car, Floyd immediately scooted out the other side of the car and again resisted. Only then did Chauvin decide to pin Floyd on the ground.

* When Floyd was resisting, he kicked two of the police officers and knocked Chauvin's body camera off him.

* When Floyd again began to claim that he could not breathe, naturally and logically, none of the officers believed him because he had said the same thing just before and during his fierce resistance to being placed in the police car.

* It came out in the autopsy report and was established at trial that Floyd had taken nearly 4 times the lethal dosage of fentanyl. The medical examiner admitted that if Floyd had died in an apartment with that much fentanyl in his blood, his death would have been ruled as an overdose.

* One of the known side effects of the *normal* dosage of fentanyl is slowed and even halted breathing.

* Floyd had a serious heart condition and suffered from hypertension. But of course the police officers did not know any of this, nor did they know that Floyd had ingested nearly 4 times the lethal dosage of fentanyl.

* If Floyd had simply gotten into the police car, he would not have been pinned. If Floyd had simply returned the cigarettes that he got with the fake currency, the police never would have been called in the first place. If Floyd had not taken such a massive dose of fentanyl, having a 180-pound man put his knee of Floyd's upper back would not have caused his death.

* Floyd had a long criminal record, including armed robbery. Floyd had also been a porn actor and in one scene had sex with a girl young enough to be his daughter.

[John Iacoletti]

Last time I checked, suspicion of passing a counterfeit bill is not punishable by death by suffocation. Stop blaming the victim.