General Discussion

TwilightZone

(25,534 posts)

45. Intentional ignorance is helpful when one starts with conclusions rather than facts.

Thu Feb 22, 2024, 11:34 AM

Feb 22

Just like with conspiracy theories, it's pretty easy to justify erroneous conclusions when one ignores all evidence that pokes holes in those conclusions. Some posters have even claimed that Garland is intentionally "destroying democracy", ignoring that Jack Smith might be one of the only people capable of saving it, outside of the voters in November, and ignoring that hundreds of the people who were trying to interfere with democracy have been charged and convicted. Blame for everything; credit for nothing.

It's kind of our version of the big lie. Repeat stuff often enough and someone might be convinced. The difference, of course, is that our version doesn't really accomplish anything other than discouraging people (and making us look a bit ignorant), while the right's version is destroying institutions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Garland hater ping [View all] Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 OP

we dont have endless time with this thing- there is the rub Blues Heron Feb 22 #1

It's largely out of their hands now Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #2

All I see are foot soldiers going to jail for 1/6 where are the higher ups? Blues Heron Feb 22 #17

What you see is not consistent with what has happened. Beastly Boy Feb 22 #41

There is no space between understanding the gravity of the event and. moving with urgency to protect the Republic TheKentuckian Feb 22 #72

DOJ is a tool of the government. They don't pass the laws, they follow them. Beastly Boy Feb 22 #78

I don't think I even implied that the DOJ was a legislative body. TheKentuckian Feb 22 #83

This is the persistent shortcoming that I see in critics of DOJ: Beastly Boy Feb 23 #89

Jerry Nadler asks DOJ to investigate former US Attorney Scott Brady for false testimony about Smirnov republianmushroom Feb 23 #90

It looks like you are trying to make a point. Beastly Boy Feb 23 #91

Judge Chutkan is doing a good job, has to wait on SCOTUS to rule on whether trump is immune on criminal charges. brush Feb 23 #88

Hasn't Smith gotten off the pot? live love laugh Feb 22 #13

Hard not to hate a guy trying to take down our democracy and rule of law. Irish_Dem Feb 22 #3

In the context of the OP, I find your conception of our democracy and rule of law puzzling. Beastly Boy Feb 22 #42

Former FBI spy hunter pleads guilty to working for Russian oligarch republianmushroom Feb 22 #77

I said "undermines, not "affirms". Beastly Boy Feb 22 #81

If he was not undermining our democracy or rules of law, then why was he arrested republianmushroom Feb 22 #82

Let's see if you can answer this riddle yourself, shall we? Beastly Boy Feb 22 #84

Non one here hates Garland. But from what most see he's doing as little as possible. Autumn Feb 22 #4

See Post #3. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #5

That says it's hard not to hate him doesn't say they hate him. The problem is he has gone after the low handing fruit Autumn Feb 22 #24

You are being too kind. comradebillyboy Feb 22 #6

I strongly dislike him Tribetime Feb 22 #16

There should be no pinning of roses on MOMFUDSKI Feb 22 #7

Nothing I see here praises Garland. It just confirms what most know. live love laugh Feb 22 #12

Sometimes deliberately. Think. Again. Feb 22 #62

I hate no one, gab13by13 Feb 22 #8

March 16, 2021, eh? Garland was sworn in March 11, 2021. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #9

And appointed Jack Smith edhopper Feb 22 #11

Appointing the Special Counsel was NOT the start of the investigation Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #14

Like Hur or Weiss? edhopper Feb 22 #18

Like Hur & Weiss were not the start of their investigations either. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #19

Like I said edhopper Feb 22 #21

So you want to censor me. Repeatedly. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #25

You simply don't know what you're talking about Fiendish Thingy Feb 22 #20

Garland is 0 fer 2 in appointing special counsels gab13by13 Feb 22 #26

Sounds like you don't understand how investigations work either Fiendish Thingy Feb 22 #38

True, but some people do. republianmushroom Feb 22 #74

Because i dislike cilantro, shouldnt i also dislike garlic? getagrip_already Feb 22 #10

President Biden's lawyers gab13by13 Feb 22 #27

Yes, but you forget that there is a dead horse that must be beaten. Ocelot II Feb 22 #15

Talk to us after the stall allows cases to linger MOMFUDSKI Feb 22 #22

My question is whether complaining about it ad nauseam will change anything. Ocelot II Feb 22 #23

Tim Heaphy, lead J6 investigator gab13by13 Feb 22 #32

Assuming all of this to be true, how does complaining about it constantly Ocelot II Feb 22 #35

its a message board - its why they exist, to bitch about shit and see if like minded souls are on the same page Blues Heron Feb 22 #48

If there is no complaining and ineptness isn't addressed, will get better ? republianmushroom Feb 22 #79

The answer is no, but more people will be aware of the ineptness of Garlands justus department. That's a good thing. Autumn Feb 22 #33

All I see is the perpetuation of the narrative which is favored by a certain faction on DU Beastly Boy Feb 22 #50

its a bitch sesh, we were asked by the OP specifically to come and bitch, here we are. Doesnt amount to a hill of beans Blues Heron Feb 22 #51

Sounds about right, but this bitch sesh has been going on for months without any invitations. Beastly Boy Feb 23 #86

How deep is that. Autumn Feb 22 #55

No words of wisdom intended. Beastly Boy Feb 23 #87

Intentional ignorance is helpful when one starts with conclusions rather than facts. TwilightZone Feb 22 #45

Haters? You're calling us haters? CrispyQ Feb 22 #28

If you don't self-identify as some level of Garland/Willis/Bragg hater then you are not being called out Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #31

I don't call people who disagree with me haters but have at it. -nt CrispyQ Feb 22 #37

Likewise, I don't call people who simply disagree with me haters. But further, I know Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #43

It is hard to debate with anyone gab13by13 Feb 22 #44

Funny you should say this. Beastly Boy Feb 22 #52

Yeah we don't hate. pwb Feb 22 #29

Oh, I see... Think. Again. Feb 22 #30

So you're an all-or-nothing black-or-white kind of person it seems Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #36

It is actually yes or no... Think. Again. Feb 22 #40

Partisanship is not black-or-white Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #47

Not similar at all... Think. Again. Feb 22 #49

Agree malaise Feb 22 #34

"Hur was appointed after there already was a Special Counsel for tRump documents, so it was an unusual situation." gab13by13 Feb 22 #39

I think its been explained to you that Special Counsels are appointed to investigate whether a crime has been committed onenote Feb 22 #46

And the FBI can't do that? gab13by13 Feb 22 #57

What is THAT supposed to mean? Beastly Boy Feb 22 #54

Nobody "hates" claudette Feb 22 #53

Comparing Garland and Willis seems utterly absurd to me BeyondGeography Feb 22 #56

Nice post, maybe you can answer this question I asked before, gab13by13 Feb 22 #60

You make some good points, starting with first one Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #63

This R House will impeach anything with a D next to it BeyondGeography Feb 22 #65

Yes, agree with those points and well stated. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #66

The fact that there are so many displeased with Garlands foot dragging is a sign that maybe you are flying_wahini Feb 22 #58

Your post starts with a false premise Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #59

I guess I read it wrong. You say that it takes time but Fani is running circles around them. flying_wahini Feb 22 #61

Agree, we don't have much time left, before the election. But that's not the final say-so on tRump Bernardo de La Paz Feb 22 #64

I don't hate Garland. I just hate his way of thinking about politics... ananda Feb 22 #67

This is the reality MorbidButterflyTat Feb 22 #68

*Snork!* What a crock. Scrivener7 Feb 22 #69

There is more republianmushroom Feb 22 #70

We are all Veruca Salt when it comes to justice Generic Brad Feb 22 #71

37 months and counting is not now, in my book. republianmushroom Feb 22 #73

Hate? No, I just don't grasp the adulation and find him dangerously worthless. TheKentuckian Feb 22 #75

I don't hate Garland, I just find his squeaking irritating. jalan48 Feb 22 #76

Garland wasn't slow about one thing: the Hassler Feb 22 #80

The problem is, Garland is still fucking up, unfortunately. We have to beg him to do his job ecstatic Feb 22 #85