Sidney Powell Declares Conservaties to be Unreasonable

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
No, Sidney Powell is effectively arguing the conservative party is unreasonable. She argues she made claims no reasonable person could believe. And yet many tens of millions of Americans appear to have believed those claims: therefore, according to Sidney Powell, they are not reasonable people.

I am arguing that Sidney Powell is not reasonable.
But nobody has said that Sidney Powell is reasonable. I specifically said Powell exhibited "awful, horrible behavior". The one possible exception may be the original post, which accidentally suggests that Powell's current claim is reasonable by using it as evidence of "the idiotic gullibility of the conservative, Republican party." Which is the total non sequitur I was referring to: if people were "idiotically gullible" to take Powell's words in a court of law as evidence of something then, why would we use Powell's words in a court of law as evidence of anything now? Alternatively, if we are to insist people are idiotically gullible for taking Powell's statements in court as belief evidence existed regardless of what is said now, why would we not apply that same judgment on tens of millions of Americans that appeared to believe Schiff was just waiting to drop his bombshells on Trump?
Cool, but that's still not what the word "republican" actually means. The modern Republican Party still has bugger all in common with the founding principles; and it appeals to constitutionality in much the same fashion as right-wing parties around the world do. It's evocative, good-old-days myth-making, and appeals to conservative attitudes.
So my argument does not align with your perspective, so no matter how strong my case, it can be dismissed without real consideration. I've got historical references, and you're just like "nah, screw history, all right-wingers are the same."
Disagree with you somewhat Nixon was like Roosevelt in that they both love invading countries to make them more civilised.
Wat? Are you... like what? I'll concede that Teddy isn't completely innocent in this sense, but like, you're describing Wilsonian foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson (D) got his name attached to exactly the behavior you're describing, and they followed the Wilsonian mantra into Korea and Vietnam, which was handed to Nixon by Lyndon Johnson (D), and Nixon has his name attached to the policy of removing US forces from direct engagement in foreign countries.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,767
1,407
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Some people who say they oppose communism sure seem to like getting publicly owned.
Communism is only when people get national healthcare, silly.

Also Something Something BLM Something Something.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,630
1,103
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Wat? Are you... like what? I'll concede that Teddy isn't completely innocent in this sense, but like, you're describing Wilsonian foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson (D) got his name attached to exactly the behavior you're describing, and they followed the Wilsonian mantra into Korea and Vietnam, which was handed to Nixon by Lyndon Johnson (D), and Nixon has his name attached to the policy of removing US forces from direct engagement in foreign countries.
Teddy, appart from a lot of things, created a whole country just so he could ship things faster.

I am not a Woodrow fan. I would call him worse than Teddy. But Teddy did way worse on invading places than Trump

Edit: Maybe I need to makeself clear. I'm including CIA etc operations as part of this 'invading' term I used. We did a lot of those operations from the 60s to the 80s trying to install puppets everywhere
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,050
3,146
118
if people were "idiotically gullible" to take Powell's words in a court of law as evidence of something
I would strongly suspect Powell is being hit by a defamation suit over what she claimed in press conferences and on Twitter, not any claim she got to a court. If you want to send something to be looked at by the courts, it should be covered by court procedures.

Alternatively, if we are to insist people are idiotically gullible for taking Powell's statements in court as belief evidence existed regardless of what is said now, why would we not apply that same judgment on tens of millions of Americans that appeared to believe Schiff was just waiting to drop his bombshells on Trump?
So, I had a read around, and noticed something in all the right-wing news outlets' reporting of Schiff. They repeatedly state that he was lying with claims he had "proof" of Trump's guilt. Then they quote Schiff and what we get is stuff like:

"I think what you see in the public record is direct evidence. When the Russians, through an intermediary, offered dirt on the Clinton campaign as part of what’s described as the Russian government effort to help the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump’s son — who played a pivotal role in the campaign — says, ‘if it is what you say it is, I’d love it,' and sets up a meeting to receive that. That is very direct evidence of collusion"
And:
"Whether it’s criminal or not, it’s deeply unpatriotic, unethical, and corrupt.”

Note, for instance, he doesn't use the word "proof" at all. So, in fact, he very clearly hasn't claimed he had "proof" that Trump has committed a crime, has he? He says in his opinion there is direct evidence of collusion, but it might not meet the standard of a crime. He lays out a rationale you can evaluate for yourself. Is the Trump campaign signalling to Russian agents they are interested in the dirt they have evidence of "collusion" - secret agreement for underhanded purposes? It might not be a perfect argument, but it's surely not an unreasonable argument either, is it?

I'm quite happy to agree that Schiff is pushing an angle and rhetorically it up. But the press claims of his "lies" here appear to be a straw man, by inflating his claims beyond his own words. Must be that shitty press you complain about and why you consequently tell us to check the source material, which you have evidently neglected to do on this occasion.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
So, I had a read around, and noticed something in all the right-wing news outlets' reporting of Schiff. They repeatedly state that he was lying with claims he had "proof" of Trump's guilt. Then they quote Schiff and what we get is stuff like:

"I think what you see in the public record is direct evidence. When the Russians, through an intermediary, offered dirt on the Clinton campaign as part of what’s described as the Russian government effort to help the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump’s son — who played a pivotal role in the campaign — says, ‘if it is what you say it is, I’d love it,' and sets up a meeting to receive that. That is very direct evidence of collusion"
And:
"Whether it’s criminal or not, it’s deeply unpatriotic, unethical, and corrupt.”

Note, for instance, he doesn't use the word "proof" at all. So, in fact, he very clearly hasn't claimed he had "proof" that Trump has committed a crime, has he? He says in his opinion there is direct evidence of collusion, but it might not meet the standard of a crime. He lays out a rationale you can evaluate for yourself. Is the Trump campaign signalling to Russian agents they are interested in the dirt they have evidence of "collusion" - secret agreement for underhanded purposes? It might not be a perfect argument, but it's surely not an unreasonable argument either, is it?

I'm quite happy to agree that Schiff is pushing an angle and rhetorically it up. But the press claims of his "lies" here appear to be a straw man, by inflating his claims beyond his own words. Must be that shitty press you complain about and why you consequently tell us to check the source material, which you have evidently neglected to do on this occasion.
First: Are you reading the dates of these statements? It's not as though the statements you cite were part of the same interview. Those were his rationalization years later. He lied, and then tried to explain the lies away. And people waited for years for the investigations to drop the sort of bombshell they were assured existed.

Second. I say again, the issue isn't really anything to do with Trump-Russia. The issue is saying he'd seen direct evidence that he couldn't speak of. If someone leading an election fraud conspiracy shows the things in plain sight and people aren't convinced, and then they say "don't worry, there's more evidence, we just can't show it to you yet", that is sick and disgusting and manipulative. When Schiff says Trump totally colluded with Russia and sees he is losing his audience, so he comes back with "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars", that is a sick and disgusting lie. You and he can point at the evidence in plain sight until the sun burns out, the lie was the claim that he knew more than what was in plain sight.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,675
1,379
118
Country
United Kingdom
So my argument does not align with your perspective, so no matter how strong my case, it can be dismissed without real consideration. I've got historical references, and you're just like "nah, screw history, all right-wingers are the same."
You don't have "historical references". You've got a quote from a long-dead Sec of State, whom you're willing to let characterise your political opponents and unwilling to let characterise your political allies. You'll consider it authoritative when it helps your case, and then outright dismiss it when it doesn't.

The truth is, if you want people to believe Republicans are the party of unchanging principle, you're going to need more than "they talk about constitutionality" and "it's in the name (sort of)!" You're going to need to actually point at the principles and how they're unchanged.

But that's not the case. The modern Republican Party would be alien to the Founders.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,050
3,146
118
First: Are you reading the dates of these statements? It's not as though the statements you cite were part of the same interview. Those were his rationalization years later. He lied, and then tried to explain the lies away. And people waited for years for the investigations to drop the sort of bombshell they were assured existed.
No, I think the minute that the Mueller report came out and Republicans found that that Trump could be made safe by their inaction, they launched a PR blitz against Schiff, itself part of a wider PR campaign to sure up Trump and team from what were still damaging revelations. If you want to say Schiff lied, it was no more than Republicans lied about how much he lied, and...

Second. I say again, the issue isn't really anything to do with Trump-Russia. The issue is saying he'd seen direct evidence that he couldn't speak of. If someone leading an election fraud conspiracy shows the things in plain sight and people aren't convinced, and then they say "don't worry, there's more evidence, we just can't show it to you yet", that is sick and disgusting and manipulative. When Schiff says Trump totally colluded with Russia and sees he is losing his audience, so he comes back with "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars", that is a sick and disgusting lie. You and he can point at the evidence in plain sight until the sun burns out, the lie was the claim that he knew more than what was in plain sight.
😂

Again, the selectivity you operate here is just incredible. You've got nothing to say about the absurd and overblown "investigation" into Clinton's emails, dragged out far, far, beyond any realistic severity and outcome, just for public show. You could consider the Senate chasing and drawing up an 87-page report on Hunter Biden of no significant worth whatsoever except political smear. Never mind the godawful stream on non-stop bullshit and lies from your president, which you've spent four years handwaving away and excusing.

I mean, it genuinely is hilarious and pathetic what you want to pick and choose as "sick" and "disgusting".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
You don't have "historical references".
I literally cited the sentence where the Republican Party was named, and you said "that's not what it means" and ignored it. You're just not interested in any information that doesn't conform to your world view.
You've got nothing to say about the absurd and overblown "investigation" into Clinton's emails.
I said it was "petty" and "heavily and deliberately overblown" two pages ago. Come on.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,050
3,146
118
I said it was "petty" and "heavily and deliberately overblown" two pages ago. Come on.
But for some reason, not "sick" and "disgusting", such that the offenders are a disgrace to their office who should resign. Nor the constant and extreme stream of bullshit from ex-President Trump for four years, all of which had to be time-consumingly explained away and defended: that stuff was all totally fair. Culminating in him whipping up a mob to sack the Capitol, but hey, that's no big deal either, TRUMP 2024!!!

No, just Adam Schiff, who for some reason is orders of magnitude worse than these other clownshoes by spinning some accusations against Trump. He's the guy who's really gone beyond the pale.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
But for some reason, not "sick" and "disgusting", such that the offenders are a disgrace to their office who should resign. Nor the constant and extreme stream of bullshit from ex-President Trump for four years, all of which had to be time-consumingly explained away and defended: that stuff was all totally fair. Culminating in him whipping up a mob to sack the Capitol, but hey, that's no big deal either, TRUMP 2024!!!
I'm calling Schiff crap as a direct comparison to Trump and Powell's treatment of the 2020 election. Previous things by Trump were way more defensible, and you had ridiculous takes on all of them. That is not a defense of questioning the election, which I've never done.

And like, you compare to Nunez with the Clinton servers, but that isn't the same thing. He overblew. He exaggerated. What he didn't do, to my knowledge, was say "I've seen evidence that I can't speak about publicly that will incriminate Clinton further." I am not saying no Republicans have ever acted like Schiff or Trump, but your example isn't comparable.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,675
1,379
118
Country
United Kingdom
I literally cited the sentence where the Republican Party was named, and you said "that's not what it means" and ignored it. You're just not interested in any information that doesn't conform to your world view.
Perhaps, then, you should base the position on something a little more compelling than... the party's name.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
Perhaps, then, you should base the position on something a little more compelling than... the party's name.
The parties' names, words of experts, centuries of history... these things are irrelevant in the face of "right-wing bad!"
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,675
1,379
118
Country
United Kingdom
The parties' names, words of experts, centuries of history... these things are irrelevant in the face of "right-wing bad!"
The parties' names, and the words of two figures... whose words you then dismiss outright once they conflict with your position. And nothing else from "centuries of history" at all.

Look, fundamentally you're making an argument about the parties' principles, ideals and political positioning. Your basis should rest on those, then. How has it remained unchanged? How does it more accurately reflect the founding principles of the republic? Because, as has been pointed out numerous times, the modern Republican Party would be alien to the Founders, and it's evolved and changed a lot since its inception.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
Because, as has been pointed out numerous times, the modern Republican Party would be alien to the Founders, and it's evolved and changed a lot since its inception.
Yeah, but that's what you do. You just "point it out". None of you seem to feel the need to justify your perspective, you just state it. Like, you say your opinions, and a bunch of people are like "yeah, pwnd, we disagreed", but like I know you disagree. Why? You say Republicans call out founding principles because they're just appealing to tradition like right-wing groups around the world. Who? Who are these groups? In what way are they similar? What practices by other groups parallel the rhetoric of modern Republicans better comparing Republicans now to Republicans prior. You say Republicans would be alien to the founders, and even suggest a break between Republicans now and Republicans in the past. What would the disagreements be? What policies or principles do you think have been lost or gained? What criticism would you apply to Republicans now that you wouldn't then? (and if you say something about selling their souls for money, that attack has been coming at Republicans since the 1800s.)
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,050
3,146
118
I'm calling Schiff crap as a direct comparison to Trump and Powell's treatment of the 2020 election.
And yet here you are fulminating against Schiff for an exaggeration, as if that's remotely similar to Powell's utterly bizarre claim:

"What we are really dealing with here and uncovering more by the day is the massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China in the interference with our elections here in the United States. The Dominion Voting Systems, the Smartmatic technology software, and the software that goes in other computerized voting systems here as well, not just Dominion, were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out."

That's an outright fantasy from top to bottom. It has no significant relation to truth whatsoever.

Trump, plus through his many associates such as Powell, led an assault on the election that left about three-quarters of Republicans believing the election was fraudulent and has probably damaged confidence in US democracy for many years. Plus of course Trump attempting to use lies to pressure state officials to overturn their state elections. Is that not "sick" and "disgusting" to you?

These have been colossal lies, expounded aggressively and maliciously, smearing huge numbers of people from basic election officials up to national politicians with massive and damaging ramifications. But what makes you angry is Adam Schiff over-egging some evidence against Trump.

Previous things by Trump were way more defensible,
Some, maybe, others definitely not. Trump was a genuine tidal wave of non-stop dishonesty, and you have never adequately acknowledged that. Trump's dishonesty towards issues surrounding covid-19 has likely contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens, even hundreds of thousands of Americans. Again, this is the appropriate time to employ adjectives like "sick" and "disgusting". You have done virtually nothing but defend him or try to fob the blame off on other people.

And like, you compare to Nunez with the Clinton servers, but that isn't the same thing. He overblew. He exaggerated. What he didn't do, to my knowledge, was say "I've seen evidence that I can't speak about publicly that will incriminate Clinton further." I am not saying no Republicans have ever acted like Schiff or Trump, but your example isn't comparable.
Here we go, from March 2017:

"We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation," Schiff said. Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just "circumstantial evidence of collusion," Schiff said, "I do think that it's appropriate to say that it's the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation. It's not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you're trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we're at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation."

So he wasn't just covering his backside in 2019/2020. He was far more moderate than later Republican manufactured outrage portrayed.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,675
1,379
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yeah, but that's what you do. You just "point it out". None of you seem to feel the need to justify your perspective, you just state it. Like, you say your opinions, and a bunch of people are like "yeah, pwnd, we disagreed", but like I know you disagree. Why? You say Republicans call out founding principles because they're just appealing to tradition like right-wing groups around the world. Who? Who are these groups? In what way are they similar? What practices by other groups parallel the rhetoric of modern Republicans better comparing Republicans now to Republicans prior.
I actually already gave a few examples of this: the UK Conservatives invoke the "good-old-days" all the time.

I don't quite grasp why the responsibility rests on me to prove the Republicans don't represent founding principles, when you were first claiming that they did, and you haven't bothered to provide any actual similarities or points of continuation. But I'll have a quick look:

* Sidney Powell attempted, late last year, to have entire states' Electoral College votes discounted, conflicting egregiously with the founding principle of democratic elections;
* The last Republican President held numerous private financial interests, and enriched himself from his office in various ways, in contravention of the spirit of the emoluments clause;
* The Republicans' longstanding efforts to restrict immigration would seem at odds with the founding intention for the US to act as a welcoming nation of immigrants fleeing tyranny overseas;
* The Constitution clearly intended all budgetary decision-making to come from Congress, yet the last Republican administration aimed to fund the border wall by... diverting the security budget?
* The Constitution envisages the Judiciary as a distinct branch of government, outside political influence of the others; yet both parties have transformed the Supreme Court into a political tug-o'-war;
* The right to free protest is, of course, a founding principle. Yet Republicans have long supported extensive crackdowns on protests, and the last Republican President famously had peaceful protesters cleared with tear-gas so he could set up a photo op.
* The separation of Church and State is a founding principle, yet we have numerous instances of the Republicans pushing that back.
* The US was founded explicitly on the Rule of Law, but law-breaking has been common, from Nixon to the breaking of international law through arms sales and indiscriminate bombings.

Finally, I very much doubt the Founding Fathers envisaged the US as a global swat-team, toppling democratically-elected leaders in Latin American countries, installing puppet regimes, or launching invasions to bring about regime change.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,980
388
88
Country
USA
I actually already gave a few examples of this: the UK Conservatives invoke the "good-old-days" all the time.

I don't quite grasp why the responsibility rests on me to prove the Republicans don't represent founding principles, when you were first claiming that they did, and you haven't bothered to provide any actual similarities or points of continuation. But I'll have a quick look:

* Sidney Powell attempted, late last year, to have entire states' Electoral College votes discounted, conflicting egregiously with the founding principle of democratic elections;
* The last Republican President held numerous private financial interests, and enriched himself from his office in various ways, in contravention of the spirit of the emoluments clause;
* The Republicans' longstanding efforts to restrict immigration would seem at odds with the founding intention for the US to act as a welcoming nation of immigrants fleeing tyranny overseas;
* The Constitution clearly intended all budgetary decision-making to come from Congress, yet the last Republican administration aimed to fund the border wall by... diverting the security budget?
* The Constitution envisages the Judiciary as a distinct branch of government, outside political influence of the others; yet both parties have transformed the Supreme Court into a political tug-o'-war;
* The right to free protest is, of course, a founding principle. Yet Republicans have long supported extensive crackdowns on protests, and the last Republican President famously had peaceful protesters cleared with tear-gas so he could set up a photo op.
* The separation of Church and State is a founding principle, yet we have numerous instances of the Republicans pushing that back.
* The US was founded explicitly on the Rule of Law, but law-breaking has been common, from Nixon to the breaking of international law through arms sales and indiscriminate bombings.

Finally, I very much doubt the Founding Fathers envisaged the US as a global swat-team, toppling democratically-elected leaders in Latin American countries, installing puppet regimes, or launching invasions to bring about regime change.
You know my stance on Trump, so I'm going to bypass the Trump-dependent claims here. It doesn't do us much good for me to say "I don't think Trump is representative of the Republican Party" a bunch of times.

The other points:
* Republicans have a century+ of trying to manage immigration. That is not always to limit it, it's only limit in the sense that at certain times, the flow of immigration to the US has been beyond management. But other times, managing immigration involves things like a path to citizens for undocumented immigrants, which Bush wanted to do, and Reagan actually did, and hell Trump would have gotten DACA into actual legislation if they let him have a wall. I don't think the Republican Party is anti-immigrant.
* Democrats made the Supreme Court into a political tug-of-war. Prior to the Roberts Court was the Rehnquist Court, which had as many as 8/9 Republican appointees on it, and yet remained politically independent. The Court declared school prayer unconstitutional, upheld affirmative action, and struck down state laws banning late-term abortion, and it was 7-8 Republican appointees deep. But it maintained political independence because Bush, Reagan, and Nixon appointed good, impartial justices (excepting Clarence Thomas, but I'm not gonna complain about that). Republicans started fighting to get judicial appointments when Democrats made clear that their appointees were not going to be impartial, although that fight was mostly held on the lower courts.
*The right to peaceful protest is in the Bill of Rights, yes. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. They did not write peaceably by accident, so I have no doubt at all that the people who wrote that would have no protest against laws against violent assembly. Yes, including property damage.
*The separation of church and state exists in the founding principles for the protection of the church from the state. It's there to ensure people's free exercise of their religious beliefs. Republicans hammer on about protecting people's religious freedom constantly. That's basically a 1-to-1 transplant, and I do not see the distinction.
*Law breaking is common, I will concede that. But everyone falls short of their ideals. I will not argue the Republican Party is successful and enacting, or even personally practicing, the Republican image of government. But in the end we are all sinners, nobody is the ideal version of themselves, so I would never say that the ideal doesn't exist because it isn't reached.

And finally, the US as a global swat-team is mostly a Democratic thing, that outside of Bush seems misplaced to aim at Republicans, especially now when the push to get out of foreign military entanglements is strong on the right.