Twits, by definition are unable to think things through, see beyond their own narrow viewpoint, understand opposite views. Their responses display a twit's natural lack of reasoning and tend to give indication of a knee jerk support/hate mentality.
There are far more that these. But here are six talking points that might indicate someone is a twit...
1.There's nothing here because the Russians had no effect on the election. They've been doing this for a long time- Yes, and when a bank robber is unsuccessful there's "nothing there" so cops should just let it go. A potential murderer fails in his bloody quest? Forgive and forget. And "this is nothing new?" Oh, that makes it OK? If that robber keeps trying you'd just laugh like you would at the coyote bungling his attempt to get the road runner. After, they certainly would never succeed, despite so many attempts, so doing something about it would be a wasted effort? Oh, and there really is nothing behind the curtain, Dorothy, no matter what you see. Toto's just being a bad dog. Punish him.
Hence investigating it all is crucial. A decision of guilt comes later.
2. The disaffected lefties who voted third party elected Trump- Utter balderdash. Do you really think any significant number of these folks would ever have voted Hillary? Every election there have been those on the left who vote other because they don't care for the party's candidate. You can't just hand their votes over as if it's some foregone conclusion they would have voted for whom they went out of their way not to vote for. Do you really think many of these folks would ever have voted Hillary? Every election there have been those on the left who vote other because they don't care for the party's candidate. If you ignore the fact that the actual number of those who did this that actually might have voted Clinton are probably small your reasoning is no "reasoning" at all.
They didn't vote Trump, and their numbers were small in comparison to those who voted for the two major candidates. Every election: lost or won, this happens. That doesn't make them "guilty" of Trump, and do you really think this kind of guilt tripping will help with future elections?
3. Bernie would have won- Be aware this depends on exactly what's claimed beyond that. Replaying history is a tricky; less than predictable, business. There would be variables due to changes made. But many who just assume Bernie would have won without any caveats would be, by definition, a "twit;" especially when out of the other side of their mouth they claim Hillary cheated and it was unfair. So... once Bernie was in the general you assume none of this would have come into play again, Trumpie and his minions would have played fair? It would have replayed exactly as it had under Clinton v. Trump, only with Super Bernie to trounce Trump? You think the Republicans would have been helpless and just laid down in front of the invincible Bernie train, you know the one so "invincible" it couldn't get beyond Hillary? You think gerrymandering, the press puppy dogging Donnie and ignoring Bernie far, far more than they did Hillary, couldn't have had some affect? You think studies that base results on what didn't happen, so therefore don't take any changes into account of strategy, games played, gerrymandering, election fraud etc. prove anything?
It's common sense: no, not really. There's a good chance Bernie would have lost both the popular vote and the College, if for no other reason than getting far less press than even Clinton got, and at least as much coverage of Trump's every insult laden, Commie-calling, bad mouthing BS spewed throughout the media. Remember most polls were predicting a Clinton victory, just like some polls claimed Bernie would have won. The damn shame is those who claim any of this ignore what's unfair about the system are now reasons we should get together to solve these things, not participate in circular firing squads.
4. Hillary was a terrible candidate- "Terrible candidates" don't get 2.8 million more votes than who they run against. Not the best candidate, or a candidate with problems? I'll go for those. But "terrible?" No.
5. Lock her up/prison/jail chants/demands- You can tell a twit is posting, tweeting or talking when they go straight to this without at least some nod to a trial, a conviction and rule of law. Even suggesting they "should be" is problematic because it still skips over, well: a fair trial, conviction and rule of law. That goes for Hillary, Trump: anyone.
6. "The impeachment clock is ticking!"- All the branches of government are Republican. With little effort to push against election fraud and caging, exactly when do you think the clock might run out? If anything it has stopped. More likely the hands are running backwards and time is running out on representative governance. A slide into permanent one party rule is more likely than impeachment and that one party certainly ain't the Democratic Party. Certainly even less so progressives.
You may notice I used "might indicate someone is a twit." If the intent in spewing these things is actually, to quote a previous president; "to propel the propaganda," the "twit" label doth not apply. Labels that might apply to Goebbels, Pravda and Guy Montag's job would be more apt.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved