All the talk lately about who may run for mayor and the possible appointment of Erickson had me thinking. Even though Huether has been out of office for 8 years, there is plenty of ‘bad press’ surrounding his previous term that is still fresh. I guess what I am trying to say it will be hard for him to defend his reputation.
So what is my conspiracy theory? I don’t think he is running, BUT, I think he has been mentoring a candidate and will likely run their campaign. If this person wins (I have NO guesses, but I’m sure it’s some stuffed shirt banker) this would set up an opportunity for Huether to be chief of staff (which basically means he would be running the city like the current COS does).
I base my theory on NO evidence, but a gut feeling about how he operates.
I will admit though, if he does run again, I would rather listen to him talk every night on TV instead the Orange Menace.
I’ve heard of a parallel universe, but what about a parallel conspriacy theory? I believe Trump plans to do the same in ’28 by having his daughter-in-law Lara Trump run for president. Current rumors have her replacing Rubio in the Senate for Florida after he becomes Secretary of State….. AND, some of us remember, when George Wallace successfully ran his wife for governor of Alabama because of term limitations…. #BananaRepublic
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/11/14/lara-trump-for-senate-more-gop-lawmakers-want-trumps-daughter-in-law-to-take-rubios-seat/
Let’s talk about conspiracy theories, shall we? I think the key word is “conspiracy”, which means a CT has to involve more than one when dealing with a theory, right? If it’s a singular theory, then it’s not a conspiracy. But then again, many credible scientists have theories, and often later, they are proven correct, but until they are, they are called a theory, but they are never given that infamous title of “conspiracy” theory, but why? Because often, scientific theories involve more than just one actor. For instance, the Theory of Relativity involves the relationship between time and space, which are two actors. So, there you go, the TofR is actually a “conspiracy” theory, yet credible to most because Einstein has not yet been proven wrong, but why isn’t the TofR called a “conspiracy” theory still the same? Is it because Einstein is more credible than most? But what about an obscure scientist with a theory, would his/her theory be a conspiracy theory, assuming there is more than one actor involved, or just a theory? So, in conclusion, why is there a favorable bias when it comes to theories involving science, while theories from the political science sphere, for example, are sentenced with the title of “conspiracy” theory?