Sidney Powell Declares Conservaties to be Unreasonable

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,059
1,721
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
....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.

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.
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.

* 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.
"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.


*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.
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.

*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.
"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.

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.
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.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,379
508
118
Country
USA
....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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,059
1,721
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
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.


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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.


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.
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.

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".
It's a very apt way to describe dramatically increasing bombing in Afghanistan, though, or in Yemen.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,919
3,059
118
Country
USA
Powell is a know-nothing clown.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,251
1,872
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Powell is a know-nothing clown.
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.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,194
442
88
Country
The Netherlands
Powell is a know-nothing clown.
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.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,694
3,843
118
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.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,379
508
118
Country
USA
Dems do it, so Reps can do it too, then.
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.
So, some protesters did a bad thing, which justifies tear-gassing other protesters?
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.
He "intended to leave"... but he didn't fucking leave, did he?
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,059
1,721
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
Absolute bollocks.

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.
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.

Yes. Nixon did pull us out of Vietnam.
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.

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.
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?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,694
3,843
118
Yes. Nixon did pull us out of Vietnam.
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.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,379
508
118
Country
USA
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.
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.