Sidney Powell Declares Conservaties to be Unreasonable
- Thread starter happyninja42
- Start date
....And so we come to merely ignoring examples that don't comfortably fit. "Only X do Y (I presuppose)" -> "Z does Y" -> "therefore, Z cannot be X". I may as well say that Democrats don't start wars, and therefore all those Democratic Presidents who started wars were truly Republicans in disguise.
Laughable; Trump never would have endorsed DACA, and spent years whipping up his base against immigrants. But, to broaden this beyond Trump, anyone paying attention will notice that restricting immigration has been a rhetorical point for the Republicans for numerous electoral cycles. And the voters' attitudes reflect that: observe how little Republican voters value taking in refugees escaping war and violence, in comparison with Democrats.
"They started it". And this justifies the Republican Senate refusing to consider Garland on the grounds that the next President should pick the justice, and then filling the spot with Gorsuch as quickly as possible even though Trump was in the same position? Don't make me laugh. Republicans have been knee-deep in despicable partisan court-stuffing regardless.
So, no words on the violence directed at peaceful protesters, then, and no words on Trump tear-gassing people to clear the way for the photo-op. Just presumption of guilt towards the protesters.
"Everyone falls short"! They've fallen pretty fucking short, all things considered, breaking international law, the Geneva Convention, the emoluments clause, counter-espionage laws... after a while, one starts to think that they're not even trying to uphold it at all. It's all fucking talk: empty, manipulative exhortations from conmen and crooks.
About 5 years ago, I could believe that a good number of Republican Reps genuinely believed in the rule of law. But then I watched as they fell into line to make excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse for their leader's snout being so deep in the trough. If they had principles, they went cheap. Exceptions would be people like Murkowski, who must be feeling pretty damn lonely as they realise the party they signed up for isn't what it said it was; it was just a front for the racket.
How about Nixon bombing Laos? The covert regime-change operations in Latin America? The intensification of the war in the Middle East under the last administration? No, Republicans have been heavily involved; and whataboutism isn't a defence, because I'm not sitting here claiming the Democrats have upheld the founding principles either.
No proper analysis of anything focuses exceptionally hard on the outliers. This not ignoring what doesn't fit, it's excluding it so that conclusions are possible.
There was a bill on the table that included permanent DACA, endorsed by Trump, and Democrats said no because it funded half the wall. These things happened. And then you link a source saying the majority of Republicans support taking in refugees. Yes, it's less than Democrats, that doesn't make Republicans anti-immigration, that means neither party is anti-immigration.
Sort of. Not considering him was a bad look, but if they had considered, they would have voted him down. They would have wasted a bunch of time just voting against confirming Obama appointees. The Senate Democrats were packing the courts under Obama, they expanded courts to win decisions and killed the filibuster rule on their appointments to do so, and Mitch was justified in hitting the big red "no" button when he got the power to, he didn't have to be such a troll about it though.
The photo-op was at a church the protestors had set on fire the night before. They should have been cleared long before that photo-op.
Unfortunately, you can't just decide to stay out of things every other administration. Nixon was handed a war that he intended to leave. He had some questionable views on what he should do before leaving, thinking he had to seen strong before pulling out, but pulling out was the intention. And like, Bin Laden got involved with CIA operations under Carter, and decades later planned 9/11. History has a continuity that doesn't break with every presidential election.
And intensification of war in the Middle East? That's an odd way to characterize "inheriting multiple conflicts and signing a peace deal with the Taliban".
I would be tempted to believe he was an outlier if he wasn't enthusiastically supported again in 2020 by the vast majority of the voters who originally chose him in 2016, and if almost the entire Republican Party didn't line up behind him to support his initiatives and excuse his behaviour.
Don't act as if Trump's proposal was in any way an acceptable compromise. 25 billion for a useless anti-immigrant vanity project; termination of family green card applications; and the chance to become a citizen... in 12 years, for a proportion of Dreamers. And this after he terminated the existing DACA program.
And if 58% of Republicans/ Rep leaners value taking in refugees and those fleeing war (though a tiny proportion place much importance on it, as the article shows), that still means ~40% of Reps/ Rep leaners don't give a toss about that founding principle of the Republic.
Dems do it, so Reps can do it too, then. So much for one being the party of principle. Particularly since the specific reason McConnell gave was exposed as a charade as soon as he nominated Gorsuch, showing it was never about principle in the first place.
So, some protesters did a bad thing, which justifies tear-gassing other protesters?
If you're expanding guilt-by-association to justify brutality towards anyone who engages in protest, then you've effectively turned your back on that founding principle, too.
He "intended to leave"... but he didn't fucking leave, did he? He, in fact, massively expanded the bombing campaign, to cover another uninvolved country. Republicans have a funny way of following through with their peaceful intentions.
It's a very apt way to describe dramatically increasing bombing in Afghanistan, though, or in Yemen.
Is anyone like actually talking about the event anymore or did we have some conservative drop by to derail with whataboutism as usual
No, you see this is just the idea behind the topic of the thread being worked out in real time.
I really do enjoy seeing your posts many pages into a thread that has been thoroughly consumed by bullshit just directly addressing the topic in a simple and bland way like this. It’s comparatively refreshing.
That's insulting to clowns.
Clowns may be terrifying and have a bizarre choice of careers, but most of them are probably not inherently awful people.
I don’t know why but for one horrible moment I thought you were talking about Colin Powell and I was wondering how the hell he got caught up in this shit.
I heard she actually had a respectable career before this. So she probably does know plenty of stuff but just ignores all her knowledge for the sake of fame and profit.
Always bear in mind that competence in a certain area does not necessarily translate to competence in other areas, or preclude that person from bizarre, irrational, or extreme ideas.
It's like the way people assume a top businessman will necessarily make a good president. There's actually no particularly good reason for this to be true at all. It's not even true that the businessman will necessarily understand the economic dimension well, because what it takes to run a business is substantially different from what it takes to run a national economy.
But Republicans still don't do it, since we keep putting forward judges that aren't partisans meant to create a deliberate voting block in our favor.
You mean the same protestors. It was still the same protest. If you go to a protest and people light a church on fire, leave, or risk being tear gassed.
Yes. Nixon did pull us out of Vietnam.
The protocols by which we have that information didn't exist until Obama's last year. All the talk of Trump setting records deliberately ignore that the comparison is to one single year of Obama.
Absolute bollocks.
You don't actually have a shred of proof it was the same people; you're just assuming because they were in a similar spot many hours later, which is paper-thin justification. The ultimately relevant detail is that they weren't engaged in anything of the kind when they were attacked.
You know, full well, that it was a photo-op. Everything else is deflection and presumed guilt.
Oh, yes-- after it had become politically toxic at home, and following his expansion of bombing campaign into neighbouring neutral countries, which you've still not addressed.
Your defence is... about how the data is counted and analysed? So we both agree it's accurate that he bombed this much, but... you just don't like the term "record"? Is it better if I just restate the argument as "he bombed an enormous amount", without the reference to Obama?
Technically true, but a little whitewashed.
First he sabotaged Johnson's attempt to end the war so that the Democrats couldn't get credit in an election year. Hmm.
Then, he actually tried to end it in large part by winning, i.e. with plenty more fighting. The USA still had over 100k troops in Vietnam in 1972. The US withdrawal, first from combat operations and then wholesale, was in large part forced by the collapse in morale that tanked army discipline and caused mass protests at home than Nixon's planning.
"We pledge a program for peace in Vietnam—neither peace at any price nor a camouflaged surrender of legitimate United States or allied interests—but a positive program that will offer a fair and equitable settlement to all, based on the principle of self-determination, our national interests and the cause of long-range world peace.
We will sincerely and vigorously pursue peace negotiations as long as they offer any reasonable prospect for a just peace, We pledge to develop a clear and purposeful negotiating position."
Republican Platform - 1968
Getting out of that war through negotiated peace was a campaign promise before Nixon was elected, not something they decided to do later because it became toxic. I am not denying that this was a thing Nixon did, he definitely tried deterrence through ultra-violence, but the goal was to communicate that he "might do anything to stop the war." There's no argument that Nixon was for the Vietnam war, none at all.
...shortly followed by vastly expanded bombing, including of neutral countries.
Wasn't one of those called Operation Freedom Deal? How could you go against that
Well, we had to destroy the freedom in order to save it.
This sounds like the motivation of a Final Fantasy villain. It's pretty close to Seymour or Barthandelus.