Regarding the specific issue of whether people will not be allowed to be in the same space, go to polling booths. In relation to that. Me, I think the US is an oligarchy. So, I do not think such an election is possible. However the fear around the conspiracy theory that has not happened in your OP seems to think that Trump will undermine something on grounds that would need to be taken care of REGARDLESS. The article is presuming some kind of fairness that this not yet happened conspiracy theory will undermine.
And notice how you do not respond to my post. You go tangential.
[/quote]
Which I obviously agree with in a general way.
BUT IT’S NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY.
What you have in the OP is a conspiracy theory, and one about the future.
One can put forward such economic critiques of the system, even radical ones, without getting classed as a conspiracy theorist.
But what you put forward in the OP is a conspiracy theory about events that have not happened. So far I have seen no real interest in or taking seriously any CT about events that have happened. But now you are putting out - as is the Times, obviously - a conspiracy theory about something that has not happened yet.
IOW one can believe and put forward theories that imbalances in power and weakness and loopholes in a system lead to injustice. Because that isn’t a conspiracy. It’s actually a bunch of separate agents all following greed and weaknesses in the system. Certainly there is some collaboration, but basically they are gaming the system. Write a letter to the Times describing what you do in the link above and you may get called a socialist or commie, but you will not get labelled a conspiracy theorist. You are tracking general patterns in a general society. Conspiracy theories are more focused, generally around specific events or introductions of tech. They do not track mere fallouts of weaknesses or injustices in a system. They are based on the idea that specific people in collaboration introduced or did something with a very specific goal in mind, did this in secret and with malicious intent.
Nice try. Or, really, your distractions and tangents not presented as tangents is tiring and disingenous.
I’ve put forward such critiques of what gets called capitalism and never got dismissed as a CT.
I also note that you do not respond to the core proactive question in my post. The article begs the question of what would allow for general suffrage in a lockdown. Bemoaning a potential conspiracy without then saying what, for example, Trump, The Supreme Court, Congress should do given that a lockdown prevents democratic participation, is pathetic. Especially given the participants history in relation to conspiracy theories.
If suddenly you are acknowledging that what get called conspiracy theories actually are possible, then you and the NYT and Meno need to own up to the fact that these things are possible and mainstream media and Snopes are not necessarily rebuttals to them.
For you anyone believing in a CT is someone hallucinating from a political agenda. And then you come along and pass on a CT about something that hasn’t even happened.
I know, you couldn’t understand this. Consider that it might be because it would be less than comforting to notice what you do here in interaction with other people.