1) A person made the QAnon posts, hence some person somewhere is responsible for them. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that person should be considered the head of a bunch of insurrectionists and treasonists. So why isn't there a MASSIVE manhunt for this person?2) I have never espoused anything relating to QAnon. The fact that you think I have is due to your own crappy reading comprehension and inability to process information.
You claim that what took place was an insurrection, sedition, and terror. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that makes the QAnon original poster someone inciting all of those crimes and they should be hunted down and prosecuted,
If someone is posting QAnon stuff (as in they're the original writer, not just sharing or reposting) within the government, then shouldn't there be some sort of massive rooting out?
Perhaps in your state of mental retardation where 2 + 2 = 15 this could be true. However, it's a little more than a claim though Marti.
Nonetheless, the fact that an insurrection took place does not prove that is was incited by a conspiracy theory, sorry Marti and this is in no way a definition to any sane person.
why would there be a massive rooting out?
Prosecutors charge people with crimes that they can readily prove in a court of law and make cases that they are fairly sure they can win.QAnon is not being "largely ignored." The right continues to pander to its followers, under the new administration the FBI is much more focused on domestic terrorists of this sort, Congress is holding hearings about the attempted coup and the media reports on it with regularity.
what're you gonna charge them with? it would create more problems than it'd solve and, as you've said, they aren't very effective (or dangerous) anyway (yet?).
but i wouldn't count out the "useful idiot" explanation either ("whose useful idiot?" logically follows and is interesting but perhaps not immediately relevant)
Well if you can't even get an indictment for it, you probably shouldn't declare it to be that.
Getting an indictment and a conviction are two different things.
I"m genuinely curious as to what coup you were referring to....
Now, an academic center that was the major resource for our analysis — the Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research— has made a determination that had not been made at the time we wrote our initial article.Specifically, the group has decided that the events of Jan. 6 do fit the definition of an “attempted dissident coup.” under the group’s taxonomy.The storming of the Capitol “was an attempted coup d’état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election,” the center announced on Jan. 27.
There was no serious attempt to displace the power of Congress. Also, Coup D'etat Project declaring something to be a coup is rather predictable. I do think they should be transparent about where their research grant money comes from, as well as partisan affiliation of its members. I mean, if it's University of Illinois, the strong arm of the Chicago Machine is not far off...Only an idiot would accept such a group's proclamation without any scrutiny of their claims.
So you just decided that they are not transparent about where they get their funding from? It's actually all right there on their website--which only an IDIOT would fail to consult it before making that statement. You think their staff are not transparent about their affiliations? Of course, it's very poor form for professors to put up on their webpage stuff like "I'm a Nazi sympathizer"--even that Butz guy doesn't do that.
So you're expecting something that is unethical--only an IDIOT would expect professors to proselytize within the bounds of their faculty space.
However, most of the people at the Cline Center have a bio or webpage that people who are NOT AN IDIOT probably would have checked before questioning them.
e only way a person making a claim of this predictability would NOT BE AN IDIOT would be if he read the five criteria and agreed the event matched them, thus making their declaration predictable--because it was correct*.
3. There must be a credible threat to the leaders' hold on power.
If it involves a partisan issue, they should make clear their partisan affiliation.
STOP TRYING TO OVERSELL THIS.