Trump Defends Nancy Pelosi From the Racism Charge of the "Disrespectful" Alexandria Donkey-Chompers

This will make the feud even worse, as Donkey-Chompers will now allege that Nancy Pelosi has a racist attacking a Latinx Congressperson on her racist behalf.

"I think [Ocasio] Cortez is being very disrespectful to somebody who's been there a long time. I deal with Nancy Pelosi a lot and we go back and forth and it’s fine, but I think that a group of people is being very disrespectful to her and you know what? I don't think that Nancy can let that go on," Trump said before departing the White House on Friday. "She is not a racist. Okay? She is not a racist. For them to call her a racist is a disgrace."

I mean, this proves Nancy Pelosi is a racist, right? That's how it works. David Duke endorsed Donald Trump, which means, somehow, that Donald Trump also endorses David Duke by the Principle of Implied Reciprocal Endorsement.

This means that Nancy Pelosi must also endorse Donald Trump, and must reciprocally believe that Trump is not a racist.

By the Transitive Property, this means also that Nancy Pelosi endorses David Duke.

That's how the Geometry of Racism works, at least for Republicans.

It's possible Trump knows this is just adding gas grenades to a fire.

It's also possible he doesn't know that, and that this just all works out for him for some reason. Possibly just because if you drive your enemies crazy, they will react like crazypeople to everything you do.

Sort of like AllahPundit.

AllahPundit is one of the NeverTrump Twitter Human Centipede feeders who cheerleads the deplatforming of people based on whether they are the dreaded sort known as CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, even though these people vigorously push all the Conspiracy Theories invented by their leftwing Twitter friends.

He's just gotten off his three year promotion of the RUSSIAN COLLUSION Conspiracy Theory, and I guess he's missing his preferred liquor, because now he's pushing not one but two conspiracy theories:

1, That Jeffrey Epstein has a steel vault filled with blackmail material which he uses to pressure money out of people and keep himself out of jail. This isn't the most implausible of conspiracy theories, but it is a conspiracy theory. Evidence-free, as his friends at CNN would say.

2. That Trump is obviously on this blackmail list, because Trump didn't "say anthing" about Epstein. Except for Trump's allusion to Epstein liking women, "some very young," and except for Trump saying that Bill Clinton would have big problems due to his involvement with Epstein.

And what more could Trump say, if he didn't have sex with Epstein's sex slaves? That he heard from a guy what a guy heard from another guy -- the same thing that everyone in NYC, DC, and Palm Beach heard?

But AllahPundit is jonesing for a new Conspiracy Theory high, so he's just assuming -- evidence-free, as his good Twitter pal Jake Tapper would chryon it -- that Trump actually was in massive orgies with underage girls and so could tell the whole world about it, but compounds his sin by keeping quiet.

Say, did they happen to have these orgies at any DC Pizza Parlors, AllahPundit? Did Trump order what sort of underage sex slave he would like by using "code phrases" such as "hot dogs" and "buns"?

What exactly is the difference between your latest conspiracy theory and Q Anon's Comet Ping-Pong conspiracy theories, apart from your leftwing allies all endorsing it

In fact, what is the difference between your previous conspiracy theory-- that the President is under the positive control of RUSSIAN intelligence operatives in Moscow -- and the conspiracy theory that got the John Birchers excommunicated from National Review?

Remember? You and your "Buckley Club" friends were so proud that WFB, Jr. kicked out the Birchers for believing that Eisenhower was a RUSSIAN agent.

But it's... what, more enlightened to peddle the same conspiracy theory about Trump?

Why?

Because you're an open borders anti-Christian lunatic who's upset that the majority of voters in the party have wrested control from the tiny coterie of rich socially-liberal corporatists who used to dupe it/rule it?

And you want your archlibertrarian corporatist party back, despite the fact that only 4% of the voting pool is both socially liberal and corporatist?

Apart from the fact, which apparently is highly salient with you, that your leftwing friends endorse the some conspiracy theories and icky Christian Conservatives believe in the others -- how do you tell the "good, smart conspiracy theories" from the "icky, dumb conspiracy theories"?

On Conspiracy Theories:

Moron Robbie asked: Ace, why are you shy about acknowledging potential possibilities the way you accept definite facts?

I answered:

you mean about conspiracy theories?

well, I have a nuanced take. First of all, I am on guard against them because they are always something constructed to suit a purpose or reinforce an already-held belief. but even though they are backwards-created from an already-held belief, they are then used to justify that belief.

The conspiracy theory generates the "evidence," and then the evidence is used to prove the conspiracy theory.

And the already-believed idea suggest the conspiracy theory, and then the conspiracy theory is used as "independent evidence" to support the already-believed idea.

This is circular logic, which is to say: Not logic.

Conspiracy theories are just a form of wishcasting, a term I use instead of "forecasting." Wishcasting doesn't involve forecasting the future from evidence, but from working backwards from the worldview you'd like to see vindicated.

That said, it's a blurry line where "informed speculation" shifts into "pure speculation" and then shifts into "conspiracy theory."

I take the scientific view of these things. Scientists do not dismiss pure speculations. They engage in them. Pure speculations may spur experiments which yield interesting information (including the possibility that the pure speculation is actually correct).

However, they are careful to always wall off their pure speculations from stuff with evidence behind it. They note it's just a pure speculation. They will freely discuss and propose pure speculations, but always with the caveat "this is a pure speculation," and they do not treat is more than an appealing hunch.

I think when a pure speculation hardens into something like a dogma, and people treat it as a fact, and defend it as if it were a fact, and yet no evidence has yet been produced to support it, then I say that's a conspiracy theory or an irrational belief.

But I'm a realist about conspiracy theories or these sorts of intuitions/irrational beliefs/quasi-religious revelations. EVERYONE HAS THEM. Including strict rationalists like myself. So I can't get too arrogant about them.

What I'm pointing out is that there is a contingent of Fake Intellectuals who derive much of their internal/group validation from the idea that they are anti-conspiracy theories, and yet believe ALL OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES designed to flatter their egos and confirm their worldviews.

That's... well, that's a sign of weak and feeble minds incapble of actual thought or self-reflection.

Correction: Moron Robbie wasn't asking me about conspiracy theories -- he was parodying a troll trying to prove that Trump must be more involved with Epstein than Clinton.

But my eyes don't permit me to see trolls, except when I choose to. FNORD.

posted by Ace of Spades at 04:22 PM

| Access Comments