Sidney Powell Declares Conservaties to be Unreasonable

[Agema]

You have to understand, the title of the thread is "Sidney Powell declares conservatives to be unreasonable", and you're all gonna act like I'm the partisan.

Most people are partisan.

But it's one thing to mock a lawyer for a defence that implicitly does suggest large number of Republicans are unreasonable (because they did apparently believe said comments). It's another to describe a president as a Democrat when he is supported fervently by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

I surmise the reason you do so is because you find him embarrassing and unappealing in various ways, and you have an unrealistic ("partisan") idealisation of the Republicans. You need to explain away why this venal, mendacious incompetent has captured your fellow party supporters heart and soul, and refuse to come to the conclusion that it's because the Republican Party isn't the bastion of uprightness and responsibility you want it to be.

 

[tstorm823]

I surmise the reason you do so is because you find him embarrassing and unappealing in various ways, and you have an unrealistic ("partisan") idealisation of the Republicans. You need to explain away why this venal, mendacious incompetent has captured your fellow party supporters heart and soul, and refuse to come to the conclusion that it's because the Republican Party isn't the bastion of uprightness and responsibility you want it to be.

I do so because I'm a big big fan of both words having meaning and honest history that makes sense. Trump is a populist. Which is both how he was successful and why I call him a Democrat. If you can't identify the Democratic Party as the populist party of America, you can't identify it as anything. It's just a hodgepodge collection of nonsense positions that flips positions wildly every 10-20 years, often with the same politicians in place.

The Trump era is not a proud moment for most Republicans, but not because he captured the hearts and souls of people. It is entirely a "turnabout is fair play" moment, and Republicans loved watching a politician get on stage and treat the media and the Democratic politicians like crap the way they treat Republicans like crap all the time. You make it sound like Trump's ideas will shape the view of the Republican Party moving forward, but Trump's ideas were to do whatever policies Republicans told him to but with the meanness and aggression that Democrats would do it.

 

[tstorm823]

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

Two decades of voters consistently identifying as R’s at between 25 and 35 percent.

Halfway through your first sentence is already, and you've already missed the mark. The first year of that data range averages near 35, the last year averages closer to 25, calling it consistent when you've dropped more than 1/4 of your supporters is a pretty fantastical interpretation of the data.

My issue isn’t that you’re “too Republican,” it’s that you are wrong and prone to fantastical thinking. As I’ve obviously made abundantly clear, I don’t classify that as a “Republican” trait.

You shouldn't, because you are the prime example, my friend.

 

[Silvanus]

It is entirely a "turnabout is fair play" moment, and Republicans loved watching a politician get on stage and treat the media and the Democratic politicians like crap the way they treat Republicans like crap all the time.

This is a frankly hilarious rewrite. Republicans have been treating political opponents like absolute shit for decades. And we're supposed to buy that this is all a very Democrat thing to do, and Trump just dug into their MO? Pull the other one; I have actually noticed being constantly denigrated by the Republican Party for years, it hasn't gone over my head.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

It is entirely a "turnabout is fair play" moment, and Republicans loved watching a politician get on stage and treat the media and the Democratic politicians like crap the way they treat Republicans like crap all the time.

The mental image I have of Republicans these days is an angry white man in body armor and jackboots, stamping on the faces of minorities while shrilly screaming "Stop oppressing me! You're always oppressing me!".

 

[Agema]

I do so because I'm a big big fan of both words having meaning and honest history that makes sense. Trump is a populist. Which is both how he was successful and why I call him a Democrat. If you can't identify the Democratic Party as the populist party of America

This is a false assessment, though. There have always been right-wing populists, and Republican populists. In one sense, no party exists without at least some populism, and populist sentiments tend to wax and wane within them. McCarthy was a Republican and a populist. Theodore Roosevelt was (at least at times) undeniably populist, and many more.

But one can hardly look at the Republicans since about 1970 and not realise its creeping latch onto populism. Nixon's "silent majority"; the explicit folksy appeals of Ronald Reagan. By the time we get to the Tea Party, we see right-wing populism in full rampage, fed by its precedents, and with Trump it's taken over the party. Anger against the Hollywood elites, the media elites, the tech elites, and the intellectual (often east coast) elites, and the political elites in "The Beltway". And now, of course, much to the distress of more traditional Republicans, they are in ways turning on the business elites, too.

Thus to say the Republican Party is not populist is to ignore all the times and ways it has been populist; it's not an aberration, it's something that has always been there. And the current swell is not some bizarre and sudden shift, it's a natural progression of a path it started travelling before you were born.

 

[tstorm823]

This is a frankly hilarious rewrite. Republicans have been treating political opponents like absolute shit for decades. And we're supposed to buy that this is all a very Democrat thing to do, and Trump just dug into their MO? Pull the other one; I have actually noticed being constantly denigrated by the Republican Party for years, it hasn't gone over my head.

The mental image I have of Republicans these days is an angry white man in body armor and jackboots, stamping on the faces of minorities while shrilly screaming "Stop oppressing me! You're always oppressing me!".

Are either or you talking about politicians, or just somebody's crazy uncle who votes Republican? I was talking specifically about politicians, and I said that a redundant number of times in the blurb you both quoted.

This is a false assessment, though.

No it's not. And nothing you said after this addresses my point. Yes, politicians from everywhere try to sway the majority to vote for them. Yes, the majority is regular people rather than elites. No political party could avoid sounding populist at times, especially since sometimes (as with Teddy Roosevelt), there is factually a situation where elites are making the decisions in spite of the common person. The Democratic Party goes beyond this. They aren't just populist in rhetoric, nor populist by circumstances, they are populist in policy. They do not stand on a principle and try to convince others it is right, they change their stances specifically to match what they perceive as the popular opinion.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

God, I wish the Dems were populist in policy. If they were, we'd have universal healthcare right now

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

In shocking news, SHOCKING I tell you, Sidney Powell's lawyers are trying to defend her promotion of the "rigged election" by stating that her statements were clearly not based in fact, and that nobody who was reasonable would believe them.

Sidney Powell gives up the game, admits Trump’s election conspiracies weren’t factual

Which, considering that she went on every conservative talk show, flat out saying they had concrete evidence, means that basically the conservative party is unreasonable. It also means she's a massive fucking liar, but I love that it also so clearly illustrates the idiotic gullibility of the conservative, republican party.

They manufactured a bullshit story to stir up their base, ran around declaring it with the utmost of confidence and certainty, telling their worshippers to fight and resist on behalf of a complete LIE, but when faced with actual ramifications for their claims, they fucking backpedal and admit they were fucking lying on trump's behalf. And then those fuckwads storm the capitol, galvanized by these charlatans, and then wonder why we don't fucking trust them with anything more dangerous than a nerf bat.

Who can we really trust anymore though? It’s been proven time and time again throughout history that both sides lie, especially when desperate. After all, most modern governments could be defined by a bunch of flawed people seeking power over others, often doing the bidding of higher powers for a smaller cut themselves. It’s practically a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Their stances are merely semantics in the grand scheme of things.

If we hypothesized what would happen if it were ever proven that there was election interference, the only outcome would be that the Democratic Party would be finished. Same would go for the Republican Party, as might have been the case four years ago with Russia.

I suppose we just continue on like we always have, because “the people” are pretty much powerless to do anything about it except bitsch and moan. Social media has turned us into bonafide professionals at that.

 

[tstorm823]

God, I wish the Dems were populist in policy. If they were, we'd have universal healthcare right now

If you'd like me to correct my statement, I could say "in expressed policy". Cause I will concede they often refuse to enact the policies they claim to support, but they do certainly position themselves as the party of universal healthcare.

 

[Hades]

Are either or you talking about politicians, or just somebody's crazy uncle who votes Republican? I was talking specifically about politicians, and I said that a redundant number of times in the blurb you both quoted.

These days Republican politicians are probably worse than someone's racist uncle. After all their dominant political leader is Donald Trump and regardless of how extreme other Republicans are or aren't, they almost fall fell into line rather than resist him. Two times the Republicans had a golden chance to remove Trump and thus the stain on their party but they refused to do it. Even the ones saying Trump was responsible refused to vote accordingly.

No it's not. And nothing you said after this addresses my point. Yes, politicians from everywhere try to sway the majority to vote for them. Yes, the majority is regular people rather than elites. No political party could avoid sounding populist at times, especially since sometimes (as with Teddy Roosevelt), there is factually a situation where elites are making the decisions in spite of the common person. The Democratic Party goes beyond this. They aren't just populist in rhetoric, nor populist by circumstances, they are populist in policy. They do not stand on a principle and try to convince others it is right, they change their stances specifically to match what they perceive as the popular opinion.

I doubt it. Populism isn't just doing what you think the people want in exchange for votes. It also relies on an artificial divide in society between a pure, united and benevolent people on one hand, and a nebulously defined group of dastardly ''elites'' who seek to swindle and oppress ''the people''. Biden the self proclaimed moderate automatically does not fit this description. But Donald Trump does. He has always styled himself as the champion of ''the people'' opposing those gosh darn elites. Despite Trump being an elite who's administration chiefly benefited the elites. Things like the moral majority also fall in line with this type of thinking.

 

[Exley97]

Oh, so she's trying the Tucker Carlson defense?

Yes, basically. It's actually just one of many plays, in terms of defamation law, her attorneys made in her defense here. And it could work! Even if cases where libel and slander appear to be *glaringly obvious*, like Elon Musk calling some guy a pedophile on Twitter, it's extremely hard to prove in U.S. courts because there's a heavy burden on the aggrieved party to prove the claim, and it's even heavier with public figures/entities.

In its defense of Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro , etc. in similar cases, Fox News is currently arguing that Smartmatic and Dominion are public figures, and under defamation law, the defamation can't simply be a mistake -- public figures have to prove "malice," which means either defendant knew the information was false or showed reckless disregard for the truth. In essence, Fox News is saying "Hey, we got it wrong, but we didn't do it with malic, and that's what you have to prove." Powell's lawyers made a similar claim in her motion (not unconvincingly, I might add). The motion also challenges the venue, claims her statements are "protected political speech" and makes other defenses, some of which are cringe-worthy and others not so much.

The points are 1) while the "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact" defense seems silly and worthy of ridicule, it *could* potentially work -- if Powell commits to it and the protected political speech argument. However, if doesn't appear based on her latest statements that she is committing to it because she's still insisting much of what she said is factual. And as Reason states below, ya can't have it both ways.

Sidney Powell Says She's Not Guilty of Defamation Because 'No Reasonable Person' Would Have Believed Her 'Outlandish' Election Conspiracy Theory

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell yesterday responded to the $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed after she

reason.com

And more importantly, 2) this may seem like a slam dunk for Dominion and Smartmatic, but again, defamation cases are *extremely* hard to prove and heavily tilted toward the defendant and free speech (as the Musk case demonstrated, you can absolutely call a private citizen a "pedo" on Twitter and get away with it as long as you can convince judges and juries that you didn't mean it and no one took you seriously anyway). So yes, we can all have a laugh about what Powell allegedly thinks of Fox News viewers and Trump supporters, and we can throw ridiuclous what aboutisms around to deflect from the matter at hand, but the reality is Dominion and Smartmatic have an uphill battle, and this defense could potentially work.

 

[Agema]

No it's not. And nothing you said after this addresses my point. Yes, politicians from everywhere try to sway the majority to vote for them. Yes, the majority is regular people rather than elites. No political party could avoid sounding populist at times, especially since sometimes (as with Teddy Roosevelt), there is factually a situation where elites are making the decisions in spite of the common person. The Democratic Party goes beyond this. They aren't just populist in rhetoric, nor populist by circumstances, they are populist in policy. They do not stand on a principle and try to convince others it is right, they change their stances specifically to match what they perceive as the popular opinion.

With all due respect, that is gibberish. Responding to popular will is just basic democracy in action. So as the views of society change, so do the positions of parties that represent them. Various demographic groups drift in and out of allegiance to parties, etc.

Populism is the characterisation of the "the people" against some other force in society, usually with the implication that the will of "ordinary people" is overlooked in in favour of or even suppressed by some form of minority interest that has an unfair grasp on society and governance.

 

[Silvanus]

Are either or you talking about politicians, or just somebody's crazy uncle who votes Republican? I was talking specifically about politicians, and I said that a redundant number of times in the blurb you both quoted.

Politicians and right-wing American news media primarily, but it also applies to commentators I've argued with online.

No Republican uncles, because I live in the UK, and even the Conservative Party supporters I know are generally disgusted by the US Republicans.

 

[Revnak]

Halfway through your first sentence is already, and you've already missed the mark. The first year of that data range averages near 35, the last year averages closer to 25, calling it consistent when you've dropped more than 1/4 of your supporters is a pretty fantastical interpretation of the data.

Except there’s extended periods averaging lower than 2020 (late Bush admin) and higher than that start (several periods of the Obama admin). Also, 25 is the average for the last “year” if that year is 2021, which is hardly a complete year and is primarily being affected by reactions to the insurrection. In the run up to the actual election it was low 30’s again.

You shouldn't, because you are the prime example, my friend.

So let’s follow the logic that led to your playground reversal here. You accuse others of calling you “partisan,” I clarify that’s nobody’s issue with you, you evade. Not even a token defense of your original persecution complex. Seems you’re prone to making shit up to fit an unreal image of reality as it suits your fancy.

 

[tstorm823]

With all due respect, that is gibberish. Responding to popular will is just basic democracy in action.

Democracy in action requires the action. We're talking about a party that caters their rhetoric to popular will just to get elected and then ignores any mandate from the people, even given effectively full control of the federal government. Republicans have principles, whether you like them or not. If the people in power oppose those principles and the common person supports them, you'll see what looks like populism. That's different in kind to following whichever way the wind blows

Not even a token defense of your original persecution complex.

I mean, you're all very passionate in your defense of the Democratic Party that you all allegedly don't like.

 

[Silvanus]

Republicans have principles, whether you like them or not.

"Obtain wealth by any means necessary; all else is of minimal importance".

 

[Asita]

The points are 1) while the "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact" defense seems silly and worthy of ridicule, it *could* potentially work -- if Powell commits to it and the protected political speech argument. However, if doesn't appear based on her latest statements that she is committing to it because she's still insisting much of what she said is factual. And as Reason states below, ya can't have it both ways.

Sidney Powell Says She's Not Guilty of Defamation Because 'No Reasonable Person' Would Have Believed Her 'Outlandish' Election Conspiracy Theory

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell yesterday responded to the $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed after she

reason.com

That's the thing that really makes this stick in my craw. The "no reasonable person" defense seems terribly misapplied here. This wasn't some random schmuck in a pub yelling "It's not possible, yo! Biden must have cheated! I can prove it" This was a lawyer claiming that the lawsuit she was filing would show beyond reasonable doubt that Dominion was part of an international conspiracy to steal votes from Donald Trump and give them to Joe Biden. Moreover, it was part of a broader narrative that the courts were dismissing these cases not due to merit but due to technicality (which, for clarity with the viewers at home, was another false claim. The court documents frequently pointed out that 'evidence' presented by the plaintiffs was almost purely speculation, presumption, and hearsay), because they also wanted to suppress 'the truth'.

Even setting aside Powell continuing to claim (despite her defense) that the aforementioned perspectives are - in fact - truth, it feels exceedingly dishonest to say that no reasonable person would believe a massive campaign crafted to influence public opinion. Let us not forget that this campaign included press conferences, publicity stunts that tried to convince the audience that the stunts were actually trials with legal weight, filing of actual cases, appearances on news networks on which they bragged about mountains of alleged evidence that was to be submitted in those trials, and repeatedly repackaging and refiling those cases to create an illusion of severity and pervasiveness. Never mind the perceived difference in credibility between some drunk in a bar making a claim and a lawyer filing the same claim in court. It's like saying "yes, I defrauded those people by pretending to be a Nigerian prince, but really, can anyone who'd send money to such a sketchy stranger really be considered a reasonable person? If they fell for it, they obviously aren't reasonable and thus I cannot be held accountable for my con."

For fuck's sake, one of the most common reasons that people cited for believing that bullshit was that - to paraphrase - "nobody would be dumb enough to lie to the courts, therefore the affidavits and filing of the court case is proof that the case is reasonable, and probably compelling". So really, it feels less like "nobody reasonable would fall for it" than it does "I took advantage of the presumptions of a reasonable person, but they really shouldn't have made that presumption in the first place (oh, and don't mind me while I continue to try and convince them of it)..."

 

[Revnak]

I mean, you're all very passionate in your defense of the Democratic Party that you all allegedly don't like.

I’ve not defended them in this entire thread. My only mention of “Democrats” was saying they did not support Trump at all, who I view as a symptom of the bipartisan failure of the Obama era. You need to stop making shit up.

Edit- Really should go back to just replying to you with excerpts from the pro-Milone given actual argument with you is roughly as coherent and effective.

 

[Agema]

Democracy in action requires the action. We're talking about a party that caters their rhetoric to popular will just to get elected and then ignores any mandate from the people, even given effectively full control of the federal government. Republicans have principles, whether you like them or not. If the people in power oppose those principles and the common person supports them, you'll see what looks like populism. That's different in kind to following whichever way the wind blows.

No, democracy is the two components of a) winning votes and b) enacting policy. It is not necessarily a given that the party must carry out the policies they won votes for promising, but it may hurt their chances of re-election not to.

And indeed they frequently don't carry out policy, particularly in a sclerotic, two party system with extremely high barriers of entry to third parties and fiddling such as gerrymandering; such a system is likely to accentuate complacency and low responsiveness to public will, because re-election can be secured on the basis of being the "lesser evil" rather than genuine accomplishment. Both the Republicans and Democrats are very poor at enacting policy voters want, precisely because it's so easy for vested interests and big money to capture political attention when politicians are almost unremovable.

I mean, you're all very passionate in your defense of the Democratic Party that you all allegedly don't like.

I'm disagreeing with your hagiographic idealisation of the Republican Party because it is obviously divorced from the reality on the ground, not defending the Democrats.

You want to think of it like it's the party of Eisenhower. Unfortunately, it's changed a lot since then.