Trump and QAnon gang remain the most influential power

[seanD]

Let's hope that is correct (that QAnon support has dropped). Given they 'prophesied' trump would be back as president again a few times this year, you'd hope people would wise up.

That doesn't change the fact we have two QAnon followers (former?) in DC in congress. And they are STAUNCH Trump supporters (and purveyors of all sorts of odd and unfounded conspiracy theories). Nor does it change the fact the GOP has become a cult of personality centered on Trump.

The fact is, you linked to an article that clearly misrepresented a study for an ideological purpose. The fact is, Ox, you help propagate a lie, and were happy to do it. I may have adamant sentiments against BLM and leftist marxism, but I wouldn't partake in lies and deception to admonish it.

[oxmixmudd]

I looked for the Pew Research poll Newsweek cites and, as I suspected, the article title is deceptive. I've seen that type of deception before in related Qanon polls where they don't actually mention Q specifically. If this is the poll Newsweek is citing (interesting they don't provide a direct link), the poll is not based on Reps holding "favorable" views about Q, but whether or not they've heard of Q. According to other polls, actual Qanon support has plummeted since January.

Let's hope that is correct (that QAnon support has dropped). Given they 'prophesied' trump would be back as president again a few times this year, you'd hope people would wise up.

That doesn't change the fact we have two QAnon followers (former?) in DC in congress. And they are STAUNCH Trump supporters (and purveyors of all sorts of odd and unfounded conspiracy theories). Nor does it change the fact the GOP has become a cult of personality centered on Trump.

[seanD]

At least in it's early stages Trump was a central Element as 'Savior' in the QAnon lore, so I would tend to think outside cherry picking from rare anomalies, it unlikely QAnon itself would have appeal outside Trump supporting circles, at least prior to his election loss. As it evolves over time, who knows. Certainly all the QAnon affiliated and friendly Polititians in DC are also Trump supporting, as are (almost?) all local QAnon friendly political candidates and elected officials.

A few headlines/titles about QAnon that include the Trump cornerstone to the cult:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is...ry-11597694801

Source: above

Adherents of a right-wing group that believes former President Donald Trump was under assault by Satan worshipers were among the mob that stormed the Capitol

© Copyright Original Source

https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-qanon.html

Source: above

What Is QAnon, the Viral Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory?

© Copyright Original Source

And here is a really scary one:

https://www.newsweek.com/quarter-rep...s-poll-1577221

Source: above

A Quarter of Republicans Hold Favorable Views of QAnon Supporters: Poll

© Copyright Original Source

It is my opinion that being a leader and supporting Trump requires such compromise of moral integrity that such people effectively lose their moral compass and capacity to think independently for themselves outside what Trump demands of them. Certainly Cohen knows what that is all about, and so do I think a good many others who finally found the courage to walk away. And Liz Cheney and Mike Romney also know what it is as well, only they never lost themselves in Trumpism to start with.

Trump is a cult. There really is no two ways about it.

I looked for the Pew Research poll Newsweek cites and, as I suspected, the article title is deceptive. I've seen that type of deception before in related Qanon polls where they don't actually mention Q specifically. If this is the poll Newsweek is citing (interesting they don't provide a direct link), the poll is not based on Reps holding "favorable" views about Q, but whether or not they've heard of Q. According to other polls, actual Qanon support has plummeted since January.

[Gondwanaland]

It is documented that by far the majority of QAnon believers support Trump, Trump enthusiastically supports those candidates that embrace QAnon since before the 2020 election. Trump has never condemned QAnon, nor even objected to it. There are no Democratic candidates nor elected officials that support QAnon.

Some reference to others outside the Republican Party that support QAnon, but nothing has been provided to support this to any extent. It is likely that some registered Independents support QAnon, but by the polls they vote for Trump, and conservative Republican candidates.

No one here has provided any sources to document anything other than the above.

Unsure why you responded to this post again but another poster (bill iIRC) linked to a survey showing support for QAnon across both extremes, leftand right. But sure, I dont know that there are currently any Democratic candidates or officials that officially support qanon. on the other hand there are numerous who support blueanon that are on the left who are candidates and or officials

[oxmixmudd]

It is documented that by far the majority of QAnon believers support Trump, Trump enthusiastically supports those candidates that embrace QAnon since before the 2020 election. Trump has never condemned QAnon, nor even objected to it. There are no Democratic candidates nor elected officials that support QAnon.

Some reference to others outside the Republican Party that support QAnon, but nothing has been provided to support this to any extent. It is likely that some registered Independents support QAnon, but by the polls they vote for Trump, and conservative Republican candidates.

No one here has provided any sources to document anything other than the above.

At least in it's early stages Trump was a central Element as 'Savior' in the QAnon lore, so I would tend to think outside cherry picking from rare anomalies, it unlikely QAnon itself would have appeal outside Trump supporting circles, at least prior to his election loss. As it evolves over time, who knows. Certainly all the QAnon affiliated and friendly Polititians in DC are also Trump supporting, as are (almost?) all local QAnon friendly political candidates and elected officials.

A few headlines/titles about QAnon that include the Trump cornerstone to the cult:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is...ry-11597694801

Source: above

Adherents of a right-wing group that believes former President Donald Trump was under assault by Satan worshipers were among the mob that stormed the Capitol

© Copyright Original Source

https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-qanon.html

Source: above

What Is QAnon, the Viral Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory?

© Copyright Original Source

And here is a really scary one:

https://www.newsweek.com/quarter-republicans-hold-favorable-views-qanon-supporters-poll-1577221

Source: above

A Quarter of Republicans Hold Favorable Views of QAnon Supporters: Poll

© Copyright Original Source

It is my opinion that being a leader and supporting Trump requires such compromise of moral integrity that such people effectively lose their moral compass and capacity to think independently for themselves outside what Trump demands of them. Certainly Cohen knows what that is all about, and so do I think a good many others who finally found the courage to walk away. And Liz Cheney and Mike Romney also know what it is as well, only they never lost themselves in Trumpism to start with.

Trump is a cult. There really is no two ways about it.

[Cow Poke]

It is documented that by far the majority of QAnon believers support Trump, Trump enthusiastically supports those candidates that embrace QAnon since before the 2020 election. Trump has never condemned QAnon, nor even objected to it. There are no Democratic candidates nor elected officials that support QAnon.

Some reference to others outside the Republican Party that support QAnon, but nothing has been provided to support this to any extent. It is likely that some registered Independents support QAnon, but by the polls they vote for Trump, and conservative Republican candidates.

No one here has provided any sources to document anything other than the above.

We schooled you on The Great Bludgeoning Lie --- that should be worth something!

[shunyadragon]

THIS^^^^^ I've actually talked to several different, quite serious QAnon people who did not like Trump and actually placed him as part of that satanic cabal of pedophiles, etc..

It is documented that by far the majority of QAnon believers support Trump, Trump enthusiastically supports those candidates that embrace QAnon since before the 2020 election. Trump has never condemned QAnon, nor even objected to it. There are no Democratic candidates nor elected officials that support QAnon.

Some reference to others outside the Republican Party that support QAnon, but nothing has been provided to support this to any extent. It is likely that some registered Independents support QAnon, but by the polls they vote for Trump, and conservative Republican candidates.

No one here has provided any sources to document anything other than the above.

[Ronson]

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I was very angry at the way the situation was being characterized - but that is no excuse. My apology stands - I was out of line in my response to you.

Well, thanks.

[Mountain Man]

I still find there is sufficient uncertainty as to make it unwise to proclaim one or the others story 'true or "false'.

Which simply proves that you're out of touch, which is actually the more charitable conclusion. The less charitable conclusion is that you are willfully ignoring the facts in favor of your preferred narrative; in this case, you wish to continue to impugn Judge Kavanaugh's character by suggesting that his innocence remains in doubt. Either way, it's not a good look for someone who claims to love truth.

[oxmixmudd]

Fair enough.

This was the thread, btw.
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cism#post23054

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I was very angry at the way the situation was being characterized - but that is no excuse. My apology stands - I was out of line in my response to you.

[oxmixmudd]

Which is why I also mentioned that there was evidence supporting Kavanaugh's innocence, not least of which were the wild inconsistencies and gaping holes in Christine Fraud's ever-changing testimony but also her four named eyewitnesses who denied that such an event ever took place. Like I said, that you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.

It doesn't show im 'out of touch, it shows we disagree. As for debate, I still find there is sufficient uncertainty as to make it unwise to proclaim one or the others story 'true or "false'.

But I will note that while you are willing to cast my position as evidence there is something wrong with me, I will cast your position simply as 'we disagree'.

[Ronson]

We agree the time I spent composing my analogy was wasted.

IIRC that is not a completely accurate description of how that went down, but you obviously took it personally. And I can apologize if I directly called you despicable. I am actively trying to avoid that sort of thing and will gladly apologize for any time I've said such things in the past.

However, if I said an opinion or idea was despicable and the statement was not aimed at you directly, that's a little bit different in that I can be sorry it offended you but may still agree with the assessment of the idea or opinion.

Fair enough.

This was the thread, btw.
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cism#post23054

[Gondwanaland]

Which is why I also mentioned that there was evidence supporting Kavanaugh's innocence, not least of which were the wild inconsistencies and gaping holes in Christine Fraud's ever-changing testimony but also her four named eyewitnesses who denied that such an event ever took place. Like I said, that you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.

BlueAnon at full display there in Ox's posts.

[Mountain Man]

A lack of evidence is not "evidence that it wasn't".

Which is why I also mentioned that there was evidence supporting Kavanaugh's innocence, not least of which were the wild inconsistencies and gaping holes in Christine Fraud's ever-changing testimony but also her four named eyewitnesses who denied that such an event ever took place. Like I said, that you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.

[oxmixmudd]

No, sorry. Your long-winded example was justification for judging the investigation based on prior beliefs. In almost any situation you look at, people have incentives to lean one way or another. So you needn't have bothered with your Santa Claus example (which was an obvious ploy to introduce a ridiculous conclusion against all other conclusions).

We agree the time I spent composing my analogy was wasted.

And my response was neither "hostile" nor "derogatory." Coming from the person who called me "despicable" for merely pointing out that Howard University discriminates enrollment based on race, I find your delicate sensitivities unconvincing anyway.

IIRC that is not a completely accurate description of how that went down, but you obviously took it personally. And I can apologize if I directly called you despicable. I am actively trying to avoid that sort of thing and will gladly apologize for any time I've said such things in the past.

However, if I said an opinion or idea was despicable and the statement was not aimed at you directly, that's a little bit different in that I can be sorry it offended you but may still agree with the assessment of the idea or opinion.