I’m saying when fat old guys apparently have heart attacks there’s really not a lot of reason to go carving them into pieces over the objections of their family. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... speaking of which I’ve seen indications he was a smoker, more reasons to suspect normal death.
It does actually clear it up if you’d bother to think things through. Because if you still think he was offed you have the brilliant idiot problem. On the one hand the people who conspired to kill him must be brilliant to pull it off so cleanly with nobody who can do anything suspecting anything. And yes they’d have to be complete idiots to time this so poorly, not only will they probably not get the nominee they wish, this whole thing is likely to inspire conservatives and lead to an even worse beating for Dems come November. If you conspiracy theory requires the conspirator to be both geniuses and morons you’ve really just shown why your conspiracy theory is wrong, and a simpler, less interesting, explanation is the right answer.
I’m saying when fat old guys apparently have heart attacks there’s really not a lot of reason to go carving them into pieces over the objections of their family. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... speaking of which I’ve seen indications he was a smoker, more reasons to suspect normal death.
________________________________
So you’ve seen indications that Scalia was a smoker, and you suspect a normal death. There’s a big leap from your suspicions to confirmation, wouldn’t you say? Why would you object to an investigation that would prove you - and others - right or wrong?
Please note: I never said I think there was foul play involved here. You assume too much. I do support an investigation BECAUSE Scalia was an extremely important man whose death has mammoth political implications. Again, why are you opposed to such an investigation? What harm could it possibly do?
______________________
On the one hand the people who conspired to kill him must be brilliant to pull it off so cleanly with nobody who can do anything suspecting anything.
______________________
Well, you know there are people who suspect something. I believe you’ve called them stupid. But you mean people in positions of authority who can do something? Who would those people be, and how would they be expected to know something without an investigation, which you believe to be unwarranted - because nobody in authority has said anything to the contrary. Does that just about sum it up?