Sidney Powell Declares Conservaties to be Unreasonable

Adam Jensen

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
248
190
48
If you can't identify the Democratic Party as the populist party of America, you can't identify it as anything.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The Democrats are center-right at best. The populists like Bernie and ACO are few and far in-between.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,491
609
118
Country
United States
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The Democrats are center-right at best. The populists like Bernie and ACO are few and far in-between.
I'm just sitting here imagining Joe "The Populist" Biden and laughing to myself.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,531
1,004
118
Corner of No and Where
So she's claiming no reasonable people would take her seriously and what she was offering was simply opinion, also she wasn't knowingly lying because she fully believed what she was saying, and that her actual lawsuits before actual Judges were political theater for the public.
Yeah, that sounds like something she thinks is a brilliant defense.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,987
390
88
Country
USA
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.
You do understand that the basic, on-topic point I was making in this thread that you are responding to is "Democrats have pulled this crap too, stop making it partisan." That wasn't my point directed at you, that was my point directed at the thread itself. And now you're arguing with me, along with many other people. Do you actually disagree, or are you all just desperate to try and get one over on me?
"Obtain wealth by any means necessary; all else is of minimal importance".
I don't think that's a valid description, but I won't tell you that you have to agree with Republican principles. Acknowledging their existence would be a huge step in the right direction.
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.
But you are defending the Democrats. This entire argument is because "Trump employee does same thing as Adam Schiff" is apparently a controversial take. That I criticize Trump and Democrats in the same sentence sets off alarms for people.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The Democrats are center-right at best. The populists like Bernie and ACO are few and far in-between.
Well, there was the period where Democrats were the common rural folk against the elite cities. And the period where they were the southern rebels against the elite northerners. Then the period where they were the common laborers against the elite business owners. (Then a brief hiatus to fight the communists.) Now we're at the period where it's women, LGBT, and racial minorities against the cis-white men. Every era of the party is seemingly divorced from all the others, with the single connection that they always, always have a villain to try and unite a popular majority against. That's populism.

Democrats aren't center-right, but there's no need to get caught in those weeds here. Being a different sort of populist than you want doesn't make them not populists.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,686
1,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't think that's a valid description, but I won't tell you that you have to agree with Republican principles. Acknowledging their existence would be a huge step in the right direction.
That'd be an acknowledgement that you're singularly unwilling to extend to your own political opponents; to entreat others to do so seems a bit odd.
 
Last edited:

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,718
2,717
118
Country
USA
You do understand that the basic, on-topic point I was making in this thread that you are responding to is "Democrats have pulled this crap too, stop making it partisan." That wasn't my point directed at you, that was my point directed at the thread itself. And now you're arguing with me, along with many other people. Do you actually disagree, or are you all just desperate to try and get one over on me?
Except your argument includes the idea that such things are what makes Trump a “Democrat,” or at the very least that he is one. This irritates me as a person who believes reality is a thing that matters.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,059
3,157
118
But you are defending the Democrats. This entire argument is because "Trump employee does same thing as Adam Schiff" is apparently a controversial take. That I criticize Trump and Democrats in the same sentence sets off alarms for people.
Schiff made statements such as “Yes, there’s ample evidence of collusion in plain sight. But that is not the same thing as proof of a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt”.

The thing is, Schiff's claim is not unreasonable. He's certainly putting a strong spin on it, but an unavoidable conclusion in the Mueller report, stated in black and white, is that Trump could not be clearly absolved of the accusations against him either. There really is some evidence there that, at face value, supports an accusation of "collusion", even if potentially well short of a standard of legal proof. One might also consider that in comparison, Schiff is certainly no worse than William Barr's highly imprecise and dubious interpretation of the Mueller report (so imprecise that Mueller felt the need to publicly protest it). Either are better than, for instance, Devin Nunes explicitly claiming Hillary Clinton committed crimes over her email server, despite her not being even charged with a crime, never mind convicted.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,805
1,144
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
So she's claiming no reasonable people would take her seriously and what she was offering was simply opinion, also she wasn't knowingly lying because she fully believed what she was saying, and that her actual lawsuits before actual Judges were political theater for the public.
Yeah, that sounds like something she thinks is a brilliant defense.
Its a defense that has worked before, although not for something like this. There is way too much evidence of her trying to use her arguments in court.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,987
390
88
Country
USA
That'd be an acknowledgement that you're singularly unwilling to extend to your own political opponents; to entreat others to do so seems a bit odd.
It's not an equal situation. One is the party of principled leadership, the other the party of popular representation, and there are reasonable arguments for and against either perspective. But you can't have fixed party principles if your shtick is being Democratic since democracy doesn't have fixed principles.
Except your argument includes the idea that such things are what makes Trump a “Democrat,” or at the very least that he is one. This irritates me as a person who believes reality is a thing that matters.
It's difficult for me to respond to this beyond reminding you that you're a communist. Upon further consideration, I consider that sufficient, since most communists can't distinguish between the two major parties anyways.
Schiff made statements such as “Yes, there’s ample evidence of collusion in plain sight. But that is not the same thing as proof of a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt”.

The thing is, Schiff's claim is not unreasonable. He's certainly putting a strong spin on it, but an unavoidable conclusion in the Mueller report, stated in black and white, is that Trump could not be clearly absolved of the accusations against him either. There really is some evidence there that, at face value, supports an accusation of "collusion", even if potentially well short of a standard of legal proof. One might also consider that in comparison, Schiff is certainly no worse than William Barr's highly imprecise and dubious interpretation of the Mueller report (so imprecise that Mueller felt the need to publicly protest it). Either are better than, for instance, Devin Nunes explicitly claiming Hillary Clinton committed crimes over her email server, despite her not being even charged with a crime, never mind convicted.
I gave you a more damning Schiff quote earlier. Longer version: "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."

He claimed specifically that the case was more than what was in plain sight, said he couldn't go into particulars to suggest his info was classified, and claimed to have direct evidence, implying heavily of a crime. You can say "well, he never said he had evidence of a criminal conspiracy, he only implied it", to which I say the whole thing is a lie, so who cares. "There is ample evidence in plain sight" is not a justification for claiming to have classified evidence. He lied. He lied to string along people heavily invested in partisan conspiracy theories. It's not different than Sidney Powll.

And Devin Nunes was 100% accurate that Clinton violated the law with her email server. You can call it a petty complaint, you can agree with her not being prosecuted, you can say the controversy was heavily and deliberately overblown, but you can't say she was following the law. "She wasn't charged so she must be innocent" is not a serious standard.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,718
2,717
118
Country
USA
It's difficult for me to respond to this beyond reminding you that you're a communist. Upon further consideration, I consider that sufficient, since most communists can't distinguish between the two major parties anyways.
You ever really think about the space shuttle? I really think about the space shuttle a lot. Space shuttles I guess, but I’ve only seen the one at the museum in LA so whatever.

But yeah, they’re basically man made Old Gods, true embodiments of sublime terror. Beasts of alloy. You look at the exterior and there’s just thousands of tiles, each one with a unique code to identify it. The clear reason? Because each of those is unique. If it’s damaged they can’t just measure to the gap left when it’s removed then machine a new tile, that wouldn’t be precise enough. They have to machine it to the original specifications, somewhere in a drawer. Unique for every. Single. Tile.

Who could do that? What single person could manage such a thing? No. It was the work of a machine no less intricate and complicated than itself. A machine of people, made by people, making machines. If one tile is wrong, corrections must cascade up and down the chain. But this is not incomprehensible, too complex to change, to modify, to improve. It is itself the result of many modifications, changes, and improvements. The self-improvement of the scientist who learned the fundamentals of propulsion, the revolutions of science to define those fundamentals, the changes in communication and social organization that make such a massive collective effort possible, all in flux, all manipulated, all manipulatable. At every step alternatives existed, and where the wrong steps were taken we can retrace and learn.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,059
3,157
118
I gave you a more damning Schiff quote earlier. Longer version: "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.

He claimed specifically that the case was more than what was in plain sight, said he couldn't go into particulars to suggest his info was classified, and claimed to have direct evidence, implying heavily of a crime."
Okay, so doing a search, to give context, I can see Schiff goes on to say in response to another question "I don't want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation." So firstly, you are misrepresenting him. Secondly, nor have you actually demonstrated he is wrong and there was no evidence better than circumstantial.

This certainly is different from Powell. The legal argument she now advances implicitly relies on the rationale that she cannot have had reasonable evidence to support her claims in the first place.

And Devin Nunes was 100% accurate that Clinton violated the law with her email server. You can call it a petty complaint, you can agree with her not being prosecuted, you can say the controversy was heavily and deliberately overblown, but you can't say she was following the law. "She wasn't charged so she must be innocent" is not a serious standard.
There are strict and proper processes to determine whether someone has broken the law. Or have you forgotten the principle "innocent until proven guilty"?
 

Exley97

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
110
108
48
Country
United States
This one is going to be a significantly tougher for Dominion Voting to win, for a variety of reasons. The suit is similar to the Smartmatic claims against Fox, Lou Dobbs, etc., though this complaint seems far more extensive and broad.


Though it's an uphill battle, it's possible Dominion and its attorneys expect this to never reach a courtroom. As in the recent settlement with Seth Rich's parents (which, quite honestly, Fox News probably *should* have won) the network may simply settle for a large amount of money to avoid discovery, which may cause Fox News and associated personalities further embarrassment and legal liability.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,686
1,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's not an equal situation. One is the party of principled leadership, the other the party of popular representation, and there are reasonable arguments for and against either perspective. But you can't have fixed party principles if your shtick is being Democratic since democracy doesn't have fixed principles.
This is a very bizarre argument. Any party that contests elections in a representative democracy is "democratic". Both the Republicans and Democrats in the US are small-r republican (because they intend to form a presidential government) and democratic (because they intend to form a government which offers elections).

Both parties also attempt to some degree to represent the wishes and priorities of their constituents, and both parties also attempt to some degree to hold an overarching party-political philosophy. Both parties have evolved and mutated rather than existing representing a "fixed" position; and both parties have shifted to cater to the changing priorities of their constituents.

There is no fundamental difference between how the two parties operate which would indicate that one holds fixed principles and the other doesn't. You seem to have concluded that from... the name of one of the parties, and that's it.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,183
947
118
Country
United States
Wait, didn't Kraken go to court to try and argue these claims they're now saying nobody could possibly seem reasonable?

Isn't that contempt of court at a minimum?