Even repeating the false narrative

[Farmergene]

Even repeating the false narrative about the Bidens to debunk it or explain it's falsehood propagates it. There are those who will selectively hear the dirt part and dismiss the debunk parts as Democrats trying to cover for corruption. I feel this is a double edged sword that cuts us when first told, then again while trying to assert its falsehood.

I'm not sure exactly how to handle that, except to let others explain it's falseness. Or perhaps just refer to it as "that now debunked corruption theory"

Gah! Do they really want us to feel as dirty as we perceive them to be?

[lunatica]

1. Who's mind do you think it will change?

People have already taken sides, drawn the lines in the sand, and are on immovable sides.

Worrying about this is a waste of time.

[Farmergene]

5. It could

Change the minds of people on the edge of deciding to vote any Democrat for President, instead of the POS they voted for last time

[lunatica]

7. If those minds haven't already been made up by now

nothing will make a difference.

Do you really think there are people who doubt how they feel about Trump right now, whether they love or hate him? Enough to make some kind of difference in an election? Do you think anything could change their minds now?

[phleshdef]

2. Trump wanted Ukraine to FRAME the Bidens.

Thats the best way I can put it that is easy and simple.

[Farmergene]

3. But thats just it.

By giving it air time, even to debunk it, does his heavy lifting for him.

[royable]

4. I don't even think it should be called a corruption theory.

I could say that I think we should investigate whether elk calves in British Columbia are responsible for the death of Mozart, but that does not make it a theory. It's just nonsense, the unsubstantiated pairing of two unrelated things. There is no cause and effect. Call the Biden-Ukraine tale a smear, call it a fabrication or lie, but calling it a theory gives it credence it does not deserve.

Similarly, I don't think we should talk about how drumpf wanted Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens. That implies there may be dirt to dig. What he wanted was for Ukraine to SAY they were investigating the Bidens, following the narrative of the fabrication about Biden. Cause there's no there there.

[Farmergene]

6. Exactly

!

[Beartracks]

11. "What he wanted was for Ukraine to SAY they were investigating the Bidens"

That's it right there.

===========

[Qutzupalotl]

12. +1

[Sugarcoated]

8. I strongly disagree

A lie unchallenged becomes the truth to the people who aren't paying as close attention.

[caraher]

9. I think this is the core of Republican strategy on impeachment

McConnell seems to be planning to drag out the Senate trial, and if Trump fears Biden most then that seemed unwise - why not get the trial over with quickly, declare victory, and tell the brainwashed that it was all a witch hunt?

But now I think the plan is to try both to disrupt the campaigns of Biden AND the senators running for the nomination. It's clear that leashing the senators to Washington during key primaries will harm their ability to campaign effectively. What just clicked for me was the Biden part. Since Republicans hold the votes to block a conviction in the Senate, there is no need to mount even a vaguely plausible defense. They'll instead use an artificially drawn-out process to repeatedly air baseless charges intended to damage Biden. They'll combine "what-about-ism" and mad conspiracy theories to muddy the truth about Biden even though they're ultimately irrelevant to Trump's abuses of power. It will be the 2020 version of the swift-boating of Kerry.

[Hekate]

10. I have appreciated how carefully the people I watch have been to refer to "a political opponent"...

...instead of using the Biden name. That would be primarily Nicolle Wallace, Rachel Maddow, and their guests. That puts the emphasis where it belongs: that Trump was going after his strongest political opponent at the time, on the pretext of stamping out corruption in one country, but "going after corruption" nowhere else. As I say, it takes the onus off the Bidens and puts it on Trump, where it belongs.

This week the Biden name has to come up again because of the hearings. Careful questioning by Schiff and Golden has elicited the truth: that there is no evidence whatsoever against either Joe or Hunter Biden. So there's that.

As for the dirtying effect of Trump's smears -- yes, that is exactly how Trump has always operated. He heads for the gutter and drags others into the mud. It's very hard to counter, because it puts things in people's minds. Just asking an innocent man: "Mr. Smith, when did you stop beating your wife?" means Mr. Smith has to deny a vile accusation, with the knowledge that doubt has been put into the minds of anyone who heard it said.

I think all we can do is be alert and correct people with the truth: that Trump singled out his strongest opponent and went after him. If he succeeds in knocking Joe out, Trump will go after the next Democrat in line. This is exactly how he won the GOP nomination: in a very large field, he picked them off one by one by one until no one was left, using vile smears. No one's favored Dem candidate is safe -- so stick up for Joe Biden, regardless.