That's the definition I use for crackpot theories, but there are conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. There was a period in the 70s where we didn't know why the CIA broke into the Watergate Hotel, but people had a lot of ideas and some of them turned out to be right. It was only a theory at the time, but it was vindicated.
Theories about conspiracies that turn out to be true aren't capitalized.
Also, while Watergate was once a theory of a conspiracy, there was a known test to find evidence, and investigating journalist looked for the evidence and found it. It was less a theory and more of a hypothesis that was tested.
I feel like there's a grey area too. For instance, it's been over 100 years since the USS Maine sank, but documentation on whether it was sunk by the Spanish, by accident, or by sabotage is still spotty and debated. Is that a conspiracy theory or a Conspiracy Theory?
I feel like there's a grey area too. For instance, it's been over 100 years since the USS Maine sank, but documentation on whether it was sunk by the Spanish, by accident, or by sabotage is still spotty and debated. Is that a conspiracy theory or a Conspiracy Theory?
I would say neither. I would say that the evidence is inconclusive at this time - we don't have enough evidence to prove it was a conspiracy, so it's not a conspiracy(that we can prove, at least), nor do the current theories explain away the evidence against them or lack thereof, so it's also not a Conspiracy Theory.
Unless there is, of course, Conspiracy Theories about it that I'm unaware of, which is in all honesty really fucking likely since I know bugger-all about the USS Maine, apart from what we've already said - Sank, spotty documentation, we don't know quite what's up.
Edit - Man, Jeb seems to have a pretty good share of the bald demographic:
The Maine's a bit more fun than that, since it sank due to a large explosion while at port in Havana. According to Wikipedia, the US officially claimed the explosion was caused by a mine, but Occam's Razor suggests that it was probably actually caused by a fire in a coal bunker getting into the magazine.
To use another term, the sinking of the USS Main is a suspected conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. Watergate was a suspected conspiracy before it was proved, and was never a conspiracy theory. 911 trutherism started as a conspiracy theory, and has never really approached being coherent.
This is the fourth or fifth article comparing Donald "I promise I will never be in a bicycle race" Trump to Andrew Jackson I've read. I'm not sure whether I'm more offended when they advertise it as a bug or a feature -- but they never get it right. This one gets to me because it's the New York Times which I'd expect to be less disgusting than the rest, but it's not. They don't know a damned thing about Andrew Jackson. The assertion that Jackson executed disobedient subordinates is a gross misstatement. A particularly drunk subordinate opened fire on Jackson in 1813, nearly costing Jackson his left arm, and was subdued with gunfire but not killed. The claim that Jackson made his fortune in real estate is just confusing. Living on the frontier, land wasn't worth much. The Federal government had massive incentives for people to take that land. You couldn't raise a fortune in real estate in Tennessee at that time. The notion that his conquest of Indian lands was significantly beneficial to him personally is foolish. When he took land from Cherokees it was for the Federal government to sell, not Jackson. Jackson's success was built on his career as a politician, a judge, and a soldier. His ventures in private business were only possible because of compensation for his service to his country. And the idea that Jackson somehow joined the elites because he amassed wealth is foolish. The enemies he made when he was poor stayed his enemies when he was rich. His dedication to the Eatons during the Petticoat Affair and his opposition of Nicholas Biddle's National Bank ought to be sufficient evidence of that.
Furthermore, on the occasion that the author is right on the facts, the logic is broken. What does it matter that Donald Trump's supporters are in the same region that Jackson's were? It's been nearly 200 years. The significance of that demography and that geography is nil in this comparison. I'll cede that Jackson was in favor of an America dominated by white people, but who could you have voted for in that period who wouldn't have been? Henry Clay was an open white supremacist. John Calhoun wanted to incite insurrection to protect slavery (he was ahead of his time in some ways). John Quincy Adams was comparatively progressive in that he was a very early abolitionist, but he then loses points for being the most adamant proponent for expansion in Monroe's cabinet. Unless you wanted to go full on John Brown, there wasn't a way to advance people of color through the ballot in that period.
In closing, here's what Jackson had to say last time he read one of these:
My normally republican friend, thanks to a combination of shit options on the republican side and a healthy dose of talking up on my end, will be caucusing for Bernie in Nevada tonight. I'm so proud!!
Donald Trump will lock up the nomination after Super Tuesday.
Political pundits are too optimistic about Marco Rubio's chances at winning. He's a weak candidate being pumped up because he's the consensus "establishment" candidate.
Donald Trump will lock up the nomination after Super Tuesday.
Political pundits are too optimistic about Marco Rubio's chances at winning. He's a weak candidate being pumped up because he's the consensus "establishment" candidate.
Eh. The GOP doesn't have a winner take all primary with a lot of delegates at stake until March 15 if I'm remembering the schedule correctly. Until then it's still anyone's game.
Trump benefits from Rubio and Cruz splitting most of the electorate between them. His ceiling seems to only really be 35-40 percent of the vote, but as long as it's a three-way race he gets to build a lead. Rubio has a bit of an edge on Cruz because Rubio's got more winner-take-all states that are likely to go his way, but it's sort of a matter of if one of them will drop out with enough time for the other to catch up to Trump. But betting markets agree that Trump is currently the most likely candidate.
The important thing is to not go quietly into that good night. I'm voting either Rubio or Fiorina in the Caucus here shortly because fuck Trump and fuck Cruz.
Well this was strange. I know it's empty talk and that Koch Industries doesn't oppose what he says they do, but the fact that he's willing to say it in the first place is pretty weird and amazing.
Well this was strange. I know it's empty talk and that Koch Industries doesn't oppose what he says they do, but the fact that he's willing to say it in the first place is pretty weird and amazing.
Well this was strange. I know it's empty talk and that Koch Industries doesn't oppose what he says they do, but the fact that he's willing to say it in the first place is pretty weird and amazing.
“It’s all part of a very well-conceived strategy to change the image of the Koch brothers as dark and plotting oilmen ideologues,” Axelrod said. Seitel, the public-relations expert, observed, “They’re waging a charm offensive to reset the image of the Kochs from bogeymen shrouded in secrecy to philanthropists who are supporting black colleges and indigent defense.”
Well this was strange. I know it's empty talk and that Koch Industries doesn't oppose what he says they do, but the fact that he's willing to say it in the first place is pretty weird and amazing.
“It’s all part of a very well-conceived strategy to change the image of the Koch brothers as dark and plotting oilmen ideologues,” Axelrod said. Seitel, the public-relations expert, observed, “They’re waging a charm offensive to reset the image of the Kochs from bogeymen shrouded in secrecy to philanthropists who are supporting black colleges and indigent defense.”
David Uhlmann, who is now a law professor at the University of Michigan, argues, “The Koch brothers are not interested in criminal-justice reform because they suddenly became interested in the number of poor and minority Americans who are in prison. By their own admission, they became interested because they were prosecuted in Corpus Christi. They and their allies want to take us back to 1970, before the regulatory state.”
If you're going to do a tl;dr (and essentially discourage further reading of the article), at least get the entire gist of the article, as in, questioning how superficial the PR campaign is.
Comments
Also, while Watergate was once a theory of a conspiracy, there was a known test to find evidence, and investigating journalist looked for the evidence and found it. It was less a theory and more of a hypothesis that was tested.
Unless there is, of course, Conspiracy Theories about it that I'm unaware of, which is in all honesty really fucking likely since I know bugger-all about the USS Maine, apart from what we've already said - Sank, spotty documentation, we don't know quite what's up.
Edit - Man, Jeb seems to have a pretty good share of the bald demographic:
This is the fourth or fifth article comparing Donald "I promise I will never be in a bicycle race" Trump to Andrew Jackson I've read. I'm not sure whether I'm more offended when they advertise it as a bug or a feature -- but they never get it right. This one gets to me because it's the New York Times which I'd expect to be less disgusting than the rest, but it's not. They don't know a damned thing about Andrew Jackson. The assertion that Jackson executed disobedient subordinates is a gross misstatement. A particularly drunk subordinate opened fire on Jackson in 1813, nearly costing Jackson his left arm, and was subdued with gunfire but not killed. The claim that Jackson made his fortune in real estate is just confusing. Living on the frontier, land wasn't worth much. The Federal government had massive incentives for people to take that land. You couldn't raise a fortune in real estate in Tennessee at that time. The notion that his conquest of Indian lands was significantly beneficial to him personally is foolish. When he took land from Cherokees it was for the Federal government to sell, not Jackson. Jackson's success was built on his career as a politician, a judge, and a soldier. His ventures in private business were only possible because of compensation for his service to his country. And the idea that Jackson somehow joined the elites because he amassed wealth is foolish. The enemies he made when he was poor stayed his enemies when he was rich. His dedication to the Eatons during the Petticoat Affair and his opposition of Nicholas Biddle's National Bank ought to be sufficient evidence of that.
Furthermore, on the occasion that the author is right on the facts, the logic is broken. What does it matter that Donald Trump's supporters are in the same region that Jackson's were? It's been nearly 200 years. The significance of that demography and that geography is nil in this comparison. I'll cede that Jackson was in favor of an America dominated by white people, but who could you have voted for in that period who wouldn't have been? Henry Clay was an open white supremacist. John Calhoun wanted to incite insurrection to protect slavery (he was ahead of his time in some ways). John Quincy Adams was comparatively progressive in that he was a very early abolitionist, but he then loses points for being the most adamant proponent for expansion in Monroe's cabinet. Unless you wanted to go full on John Brown, there wasn't a way to advance people of color through the ballot in that period.
In closing, here's what Jackson had to say last time he read one of these:
Political pundits are too optimistic about Marco Rubio's chances at winning. He's a weak candidate being pumped up because he's the consensus "establishment" candidate.
But betting markets agree that Trump is currently the most likely candidate.