Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Infini · 08-03-2021 9:16am

Detritus70 wrote: »

And every single POS republican voted against it.
If the Dems don't act now by eliminating the filibuster and reforming the electoral system, they are as useless and evil as the republicans.

They need to limit the filibuster sure, its an abuse of power but remember that they got rid of it on the SCOTUS appointments only for the republicans to ram through their nominees. Thing is to be rid of it they need a clear majority in the senate anyways to have the room to do so. One or 2 of the Dem side are squarely against its removal so that limits their options.

Tell me how · 08-03-2021 4:38pm

Infini wrote: »

They need to limit the filibuster sure, its an abuse of power but remember that they got rid of it on the SCOTUS appointments only for the republicans to ram through their nominees. Thing is to be rid of it they need a clear majority in the senate anyways to have the room to do so. One or 2 of the Dem side are squarely against its removal so that limits their options.

Saw a tweet late last night that suggested that Biden is not going to push to end the filibuster.

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1368778349284388864

Detritus70 · 08-03-2021 6:10pm

The last vote has demonstrated that working with republicans is not an option.
Every single vote will.go this way, with every republican voting squarely against every democrat bill.
Should the Dems lose the senate, republicans will simply brickwall again.
It is idiotic to think otherwise.

Leroy42 · 08-03-2021 6:40pm

The theory of the filibuster makes perfect sense. Having to get bipartisan support for big changes makes stops the back and forth that would happen, such as we see with EO's. POTUS A (GOP) pushes through a law, requiring massive changes and huge resources to enact, followed by POTUS B (Dem) who then reserves everything and leads to most costs and more time wasted.

The problem is not the filibuster, it is that Senators are only acting in the interests of their party and not the country.

It works (a simple majority) in most other countries because overall the political parties tend to agree on the big-ticket items. Universal health care, control on guns, abortion, schools etc. The problem in the US seems to be that the two parties are almost diametrically opposed to one another.

Take Judges for example. It seems that one of the main advantages to winning POTUS is that you can appoint a rake of judges that follow your particular view on certain legal issues, rather than appointing judged based on merit.

Headshot · 08-03-2021 8:10pm

This guy is going to spoil alot of Democrats work

https://www.thewrap.com/john-oliver-democrats-dont-seem-remotely-prepared-to-fight-republican-threats-video/

He's excuse for defending the filibuster is ridiculous

Water John · 08-03-2021 10:08pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Saw a tweet late last night that suggested that Biden is not going to push to end the filibuster.

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1368778349284388864

It quite clearly states Biden's preference, as it always has been, doesn't say the won't do it.

aloyisious · 09-03-2021 2:43pm

One way to limit the damage filibustering does to actual debating on the content and aims of a bill would be to limit the time given to each "contributor" to speak from the floor would be 10/15 minutes top in a continuous speech, no breaks or prevarications, no long-windedness to prevent the business of the house proceeding. It can be done when the parties agree, as shown in the impeachment trial. Change the rules of the chamber to outlaw the practice as it's an abuse of privilege.

We hear examples of filibustering every day here in Ireland when a politician is interviewed on the news as he/she keeps prattling to the interviewer knowing there is a time-limit imposed for each interview as the programme has to cover a lot of items in a 40 minute slot and the interviewer has to walk away from the politician business unfinished.

aloyisious · 09-03-2021 2:52pm

On the issue of blocking free speech to Trump, and Texas AG Ken Paxton decision to launch an investigation into Twitter barring Trump from accessing the site after the Capitol insurrection attempt, Twitter has sued Paxton in Federal Court in California asking for a temporary restraining order against Paxton's ordered investigation into Twitter's decision.

banie01 · 09-03-2021 3:37pm

aloyisious wrote: »

On the issue of blocking free speech to Trump, and Texas AG Ken Paxton decision to launch an investigation into Twitter barring Trump from accessing the site after the Capitol insurrection attempt, Twitter has sued Paxton in Federal Court in California asking for a temporary restraining order against Paxton's ordered investigation into Twitter's decision.

One would hope that someone who has finished law school has a better grasp on the 1st amendment than Mr Paxton and his stance that twitter bad!

Trump is free to say what he likes, noone has impinged upon his ability to bluster and screech.
There is no guarantee to a platform, particularly one that's managed by a private company!
Nor an audience.

Those cases that reinforced the rights of business to refuse service are all going to bite any litigant taking a right to service on their arse stateside.

Retr0gamer · 09-03-2021 5:27pm

aloyisious wrote: »

On the issue of blocking free speech to Trump, and Texas AG Ken Paxton decision to launch an investigation into Twitter barring Trump from accessing the site after the Capitol insurrection attempt, Twitter has sued Paxton in Federal Court in California asking for a temporary restraining order against Paxton's ordered investigation into Twitter's decision.

Twitter:

Ticket completed. Freedom of speech functioning as intended.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-03-2021 5:43pm

Something that will come as a surprise to only a few, the grift will continue.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1369116751338893312?s=19

So who is a RINO? Will these be people Trump will lable as he sees fit when they disagree with him in future?

aloyisious · 09-03-2021 8:33pm

banie01 wrote: »

One would hope that someone who has finished law school has a better grasp on the 1st amendment than Mr Paxton and his stance that twitter bad!

Trump is free to say what he likes, noone has impinged upon his ability to bluster and screech.
There is no guarantee to a platform, particularly one that's managed by a private company!
Nor an audience.

Those cases that reinforced the rights of business to refuse service are all going to bite any litigant taking a right to service on their arse stateside.

Ta. Platform was the word I was looking for, couldn't remember it to properly describe Trump being denied free speech via Twitter. Like with print newspapers and this platform, there is always an editor to ensure proper respect and behaviour is followed by writers.

Infini · 09-03-2021 10:36pm

Water John wrote: »

It quite clearly states Biden's preference, as it always has been, doesn't say the won't do it.

My guess is he'll give the republicans enough rope so when the time comes to hang them for their constant stalling they'll have no leg to stand on. They'll have to play hardball at some point but they also need to make sure those who are hesitant have some sort of polical cover against trumpulicans trying to undermine em.

They will likely have to change the filibuster if they've a hope of routing the republicans as they're hardly a democratic party anymore and are listing dangerously into authoritarianism.

Itssoeasy · 10-03-2021 5:01pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Something that will come as a surprise to only a few, the grift will continue.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1369116751338893312?s=19

So who is a RINO? Will these be people Trump will lable as he sees fit when they disagree with him in future?

Well that’s clearly trump and his ego not wanting anyone to use his image to make money. Let’s see how much the GOP pushes back.

Itssoeasy · 10-03-2021 5:08pm

And sorry if this has already been said but even my Normal American news podcasts are going on about that interview with Harry and Meghan and while it’s okay to cover it, it’s two days after it.

Anyway, I see that the Feds have gotten all the phone records from the January 6th event and so anyone in that building be they congressperson or ****ehawk now know that if there was any communication between let’s say a senator or congressperson of a certain party with the people invading the building it will become known. Which makes josh hawleys questions to the FBI director even more interesting.

Brussels Sprout · 10-03-2021 5:32pm

aloyisious wrote: »

One way to limit the damage filibustering does to actual debating on the content and aims of a bill would be to limit the time given to each "contributor" to speak from the floor would be 10/15 minutes top in a continuous speech, no breaks or prevarications, no long-windedness to prevent the business of the house proceeding. It can be done when the parties agree, as shown in the impeachment trial. Change the rules of the chamber to outlaw the practice as it's an abuse of privilege.

You're not going to get the Republicans to agree to change the rules in that way while they're not in power. The reason both parties agreed on the Impeachment trial rules is that they both had their own reasons for wanting it to be over with as fast as possible.

Also, you're unlikely to get Manchin to vote for those rule changes since it would effectively be the same as voting to get rid of the filibuster (he's not stupid).

StringerBell · 10-03-2021 6:00pm

Headshot wrote: »

This guy is going to spoil alot of Democrats work

https://www.thewrap.com/john-oliver-democrats-dont-seem-remotely-prepared-to-fight-republican-threats-video/

He's excuse for defending the filibuster is ridiculous

Joe Manchin I presume?

Manchin is a centrist, ploughing a lonely furrow at the moment but he is important to the party and to plenty of Moderates right now. The changes he extracted for his support are pretty minor when you look at it, and especially compare it to what Republicans extracted in the Clinton administration and even in George Bushs one in 2011 I think it was but the year may be out, some gop got him to reduce the plan by 25% or they wouldn't support. In this case Biden asked for 1.9 trillion and he got it it, that's incredible. A fantastic achievement and hopefully just a start.

Manchin also isn't actually against removing the filibuster point blank, but given his comments on it he wants to try bang his head off the wall.and work with Republican's first. He was pretty clear I thought giving the impression on one of the opinion shows this week that he would vote to remove it push came to shove.

Biden is a centrist too, and removing the filibuster wouldn't be his preference either but they are damn sure going to continue to ride the momentum and get things through. They have the public support to do so.

The thing is, particularly in American politics, messaging is so important. Manchin has to be seen to want to work with the other side and be apart from the progressives even if he does ultimately go with them because he needs to be re-elected, and when he makes his run for president he needs support of Moderates because he won't get it from the left of his party.

The test for the filibuster is to come, with HR1 etc.

For the democrat it's a no lose situation, once they do decide to go through with it, makes most sense to show the American public that they simply cannot work with the Republican's to get things passed because they refuse to work with them. Build up that message and shift as much blame to them as possible for when they get rid of the filibuster.

That's the game, it is what it is.

The filibuster in theory is good, in theory it serves a very important function actually, but with today's GOP something needs to change with it, that is clear.

StringerBell · 10-03-2021 6:04pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Something that will come as a surprise to only a few, the grift will continue.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1369116751338893312?s=19

So who is a RINO? Will these be people Trump will lable as he sees fit when they disagree with him in future?

I hope, and will enjoy watching him tear that party apart.

They deserve everything they get, and the US citizens deserve a genuine conservative leaning party to represent their interests, you need both. Whatever you political persuasion I would hope it can be agreed that you need both sides to strive and improve in the long run.

Still, it will be so enjoyable watching him take a big wrecking ball to the party to reward them for licking his toes and having zero backbone. Well deserved.

Itssoeasy · 12-03-2021 8:04am

We have new audio of trump phone calls to Georgia and he’s stepping in it again but saying the quiet part out loud.

Rjd2 · 12-03-2021 8:00pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Joe Manchin I presume?

Manchin is a centrist, ploughing a lonely furrow at the moment but he is important to the party and to plenty of Moderates right now. The changes he extracted for his support are pretty minor when you look at it, and especially compare it to what Republicans extracted in the Clinton administration and even in George Bushs one in 2011 I think it was but the year may be out, some gop got him to reduce the plan by 25% or they wouldn't support. In this case Biden asked for 1.9 trillion and he got it it, that's incredible. A fantastic achievement and hopefully just a start.

Manchin also isn't actually against removing the filibuster point blank, but given his comments on it he wants to try bang his head off the wall.and work with Republican's first. He was pretty clear I thought giving the impression on one of the opinion shows this week that he would vote to remove it push came to shove.

Biden is a centrist too, and removing the filibuster wouldn't be his preference either but they are damn sure going to continue to ride the momentum and get things through. They have the public support to do so.

The thing is, particularly in American politics, messaging is so important. Manchin has to be seen to want to work with the other side and be apart from the progressives even if he does ultimately go with them because he needs to be re-elected, and when he makes his run for president he needs support of Moderates because he won't get it from the left of his party.

The test for the filibuster is to come, with HR1 etc.

For the democrat it's a no lose situation, once they do decide to go through with it, makes most sense to show the American public that they simply cannot work with the Republican's to get things passed because they refuse to work with them. Build up that message and shift as much blame to them as possible for when they get rid of the filibuster.

That's the game, it is what it is.

The filibuster in theory is good, in theory it serves a very important function actually, but with today's GOP something needs to change with it, that is clear.

I keep saying this, but Manchen is rarely the deciding vote when it comes to anything. The only person he has voted no on was Tanden who was awful and I suspect he was told that Bernie was also a no thus her nomination was dead on arrival.

His strategy is mainly, wait for the Dem policy, tut, demand bipartisanship,and then ultimately vote it through.

With the fillibuster, their is other Dems who are opposed to removing it thus why he can be so vocal about keeping it, once they fold he will also.

Its how he rolls and for one of the reddest states in America, the Dems get good value from Manchen. He is never going to vote ala a California Democrat, but ffs he doesn't vote with Mitch etc than often.

Rjd2 · 12-03-2021 8:05pm

Paula Jean Swearengin has ran as an AOC type progressive last few years its gone as well as you'd expect in WV.

So yeah its Manchen or nothing in West Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jean_Swearengin

gimli2112 · 13-03-2021 8:22pm

I've never understood how Nazi Germany happened, how so many people followed such a corrupt regime. I put it down to desperation, ignorance and a different time. Watching something on Discovery at the moment about their rise to power and three words just stand out, their "simplistic nationalist slogans".
Maybe this is not a relevant thread to post such musings and maybe it is.

amandstu · 13-03-2021 10:20pm

gimli2112 wrote: »

I've never understood how Nazi Germany happened, how so many people followed such a corrupt regime. I put it down to desperation, ignorance and a different time. Watching something on Discovery at the moment about their rise to power and three words just stand out, their "simplistic nationalist slogans".
Maybe this is not a relevant thread to post such musings and maybe it is.

Play to your audience's most degraded tendencies?

Don't dream of telling them they could be wrong and have a line-up of scapegoats to take flack.

Yes ,who would have thought a civilized,cultured nation like Germany would roll over like that.

In comparison USA is an easy target . Problem is they have it so easy it is that bit harder to arouse their inner victimhood.

salmocab · 14-03-2021 8:09am

gimli2112 wrote: »

I've never understood how Nazi Germany happened, how so many people followed such a corrupt regime. I put it down to desperation, ignorance and a different time. Watching something on Discovery at the moment about their rise to power and three words just stand out, their "simplistic nationalist slogans".
Maybe this is not a relevant thread to post such musings and maybe it is.

There’s a need to blame others for where they are.

Tell me how · 14-03-2021 8:49am

amandstu wrote: »

Play to your audience's most degraded tendencies?

Don't dream of telling them they could be wrong and have a line-up of scapegoats to take flack.

Yes ,who would have thought a civilized,cultured nation like Germany would roll over like that.

In comparison USA is an easy target . Problem is they have it so easy it is that bit harder to arouse their inner victimhood.

That is no longer the case.
Ever since Raegan abandoned the Fairness Doctrine which forced News outlets to present a true and unbiased version of the news, opinion media has run rampant. If you were to say that both sides are at it in this respect, the left has been focused on a need for more social equality, issues with race that need to be tackled and the impending climate issue. This has led to their viewers marching for a need for action on climate, in support of BLM and calling for affordable healthcare.
Over the same timeframe, conservative media has radicalized their viewers to look at others as threats and enemies and that the Democratic party is leading America in to communism via the path of socialism and that they are going to take away Americans guns.
The result of this narrative has led to 74M people voting for a serial liar who was impeached twice while proving he could not do the job he was elected to.
And while conservatives frequently harp on about the good old American values of fairness, honesty and hardwork from the post war period, if you suggested now that the Fairness doctrine should be reinitiated, they would go buck ape over losing their freedom of speech or if you suggested going back to the higher top rate taxes for uber wealthy they would talk about government over reach and unwanted involvement in the free market. And while they are vehmently against government involvement in their lives with respect to these areas, Arkansas Republicans just effectively enacted a total abortion ban even in the cases of rape and incest and have done so with the explicit desire that it will ultimately bring Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court and that abortion in America will be outlawed.

It's hard to see the American project working out well in the short term of the next 5-20 years. Republicans had a chance to recalibrate after Trump lost and his behaviour after the election pretty much gave them a Get out of Jail Free card with their electorate in terms of cutting him loose. But, because of the inflamed sense of victimhood from viewers of Fox, OAN and Newsmax and listeners to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Steve Bannon, and Alex Jones, they instead sent Kevin McCarthy to Mar-A-Lago to massage his ego, gave him the keynote at CPAC and initiated coordinated attacks on those who tried to hold him responsible for his actions in damaging America. This final point being the epitome of cancel culture which these same people would cry and moan about as being a tool of the 'Woke' and a Liberal agenda.

As before, it is all very entertaining, and simultaneously, very worrying.

Detritus70 · 14-03-2021 11:14am

amandstu wrote: »

Play to your audience's most degraded tendencies?

Don't dream of telling them they could be wrong and have a line-up of scapegoats to take flack.

Yes ,who would have thought a civilized,cultured nation like Germany would roll over like that.

In comparison USA is an easy target . Problem is they have it so easy it is that bit harder to arouse their inner victimhood.

My theory is that it's even easier.
Find a target audience of relatively privileged white folks and plug into their fears about minorities, women, lefties, socialists, eco nuts, Muslims, atheists and all those other countries in the world.
Tell them all the above have been taking slices out of "their" pie and that you will make sure that won't happen again.
"Make America Great Again" just means make America white and Christian again.
The more someone has, the easier it is to convince them that someone else wants to take it away.
Of course today's modern racist has learnt never to directly state that "X minority is bad and wants to take your stuff", they do this very cleverly by alluding to some mystical golden age where white dad would eat a bloody steak for breakfast, kiss his white wife goodbye, jump into his V8 truck and work at an assembly line making more V8 trucks all day.
They just don't say "and all those libtards and minorities won't be part of this new golden age".
Hence the supporters can say "he's not a racist, show me a single racist thing he said". Of course when you do, the answer is "no not like that".

BonnieSituation · 14-03-2021 12:49pm

It's been wonderfully refreshing to see this thread wallow at the bottom of my followed threads the last while.

Even reading it, I have no idea what he's been up to. I didn't even get to see any pictures of him from that conference. It really has been a great 2 months.

amandstu · 14-03-2021 1:21pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's been wonderfully refreshing to see this thread wallow at the bottom of my followed threads the last while.

Even reading it, I have no idea what he's been up to. I didn't even get to see any pictures of him from that conference. It really has been a great 2 months.

That is true and welcome.

The Trump effect was closely related to the miasma effect (the one they believed at the time caused the plague in London)

https://deathscent.com/2020/01/21/the-rise-of-miasma/

Still ,as said often he is also a symptom and we all all victims.

amandstu · 14-03-2021 2:52pm

Tell me how wrote: »

That is no longer the case.
Ever since Raegan abandoned the Fairness Doctrine which forced News outlets to present a true and unbiased version of the news, opinion media has run rampant.

Only remember that vaguely now.

Should there be stricter laws against obviously mendacious coverage of news events?

3 strikes and all that..

Forced to listen to Trump "speeches" on a loop?

amandstu · 14-03-2021 3:01pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

.
The more someone has, the easier it is to convince them that someone else wants to take it away.
".

Yes,I disregarded that.

Itssoeasy · 16-03-2021 8:56pm

I must say the court filings for the people arrested for the riot on the 6th of January which were largely fuelled by the lies told by trump and his allies over the election are interesting to read. These lads are in full on medal of honour cosplay mode, and not the brightest bulbs in the box when you look at their social media postings and interviews after the fact. Maybe it’s just me but if I was involved in a riot at a parliament building, I’d be keeping the head down and not bragging about it.

duploelabs · 16-03-2021 9:15pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I must say the court filings for the people arrested for the riot on the 6th of January which were largely fuelled by the lies told by trump and his allies over the election are interesting to read. These lads are in full on medal of honour cosplay mode, and not the brightest bulbs in the box when you look at their social media postings and interviews after the fact. Maybe it’s just me but if I was involved in a riot at a parliament building, I’d be keeping the head down and not bragging about it.

One of those bulbs actually shaved a Hitler moustache and wore it around work prior to the riot

Itssoeasy · 16-03-2021 9:32pm

duploelabs wrote: »

One of those bulbs actually shaved a Hitler moustache and wore it around work prior to the riot

I saw that. Did you see the pictures of him looking like a gowl into the camera and looking like he was about the give the salute ?

16-03-2021 10:03pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I must say the court filings for the people arrested for the riot on the 6th of January which were largely fuelled by the lies told by trump and his allies over the election are interesting to read. These lads are in full on medal of honour cosplay mode, and not the brightest bulbs in the box when you look at their social media postings and interviews after the fact. Maybe it’s just me but if I was involved in a riot at a parliament building, I’d be keeping the head down and not bragging about it.

Their a bit like the Irish np lads, not the sharpest tools in the box, like to assault members of the gardai all while claiming to be tough on crime.

amandstu · 17-03-2021 3:38am

It is "be nice to Trump " now .:D

He just told his supporters to get vaccinated(with expected caveats)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56424614

Hope he doesn't blow this by reverting to kind too soon

Brian? · 20-03-2021 7:59am

4 people arrested for election fraud in Texas, including a Justice of the Peace. They were harvesting votes for Trump, in a district he won by 40 points. They deserve a spot on America’s dummest criminals.

I think that makes the third confirmed case of election fraud by GOP supporters and zero from Dems.

serfboard · 20-03-2021 1:12pm

Brian? wrote: »

I think that makes the third confirmed case of election fraud by GOP supporters and zero from Dems.

Standard Operating Procedure from the Trumpists - do that which you accuse others of doing.

Itssoeasy · 20-03-2021 2:54pm

I see that Fox News is going all out in their putin love fest. Imagine going back to the 1970/80s and telling republicans there that in 40 years your party will rooting for russia against your own country. They’d look at you stupid.

Cody montana · 20-03-2021 2:56pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Fox News is going all out in their putin love fest. Imagine going back to the 1970/80s and telling republicans there that in 40 years your party will rooting for russia against your own country. They’d look at you stupid.

You'd wonder how low they can go.
There seems to be no bottom.

20-03-2021 8:43pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Fox News is going all out in their putin love fest. Imagine going back to the 1970/80s and telling republicans there that in 40 years your party will rooting for russia against your own country. They’d look at you stupid.

They may have, but they are the ones wearing the I'd rather be Russian than democrat tops, which says more than enough about their cognitive reasoning abilities, and many other traits.

Itssoeasy · 21-03-2021 1:50pm

I see that 12 GOP voted against giving the capitol police medals for their efforts during the January 6th mess because the word “insurrection” was used in the resolution of it. What the hell do they want the event to be described as exactly ? A misunderstanding ? It’s not even subtle at this stage.

Quin_Dub · 22-03-2021 9:33am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that 12 GOP voted against giving the capitol police medals for their efforts during the January 6th mess because the word “insurrection” was used in the resolution of it. What the hell do they want the event to be described as exactly ? A misunderstanding ? It’s not even subtle at this stage.

A lot of the same characters voted against the recent resolution condemning the ongoing activities in Myanmar as well , for similar reasons.

They thought it was a Democrat plot for a "gotcha" for them.

They were terrified of going on record condemning a legitimate vote being overturned because it make them look like hypocrites or something.

22-03-2021 10:41pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that 12 GOP voted against giving the capitol police medals for their efforts during the January 6th mess because the word “insurrection” was used in the resolution of it. What the hell do they want the event to be described as exactly ? A misunderstanding ? It’s not even subtle at this stage.

Haven't looked up the list yet, but I wager a few of them have also been complaining about the heightened security (metal detectors) and covid safety measures.

aloyisious · 23-03-2021 12:11am

In a sign that court cases cause change in defendants positions, Sidney Powell is claiming that her statements [on the Dominion Co being involved in electoral fraud during the Presidential election] were opinion and not fact. She told the judge hearing the defamation case brought against her by Dominion that the case should be dismissed as, quote: no reasonable person would believe her well publicized comments about an international plot against former President Trump were statements of fact; unquote. It sounds something like the line being run out by people linked to Trump that no one should believe that Trump's words during the post-election period were the actual reason the insurrectionists invaded the capitol building in Washington on 06 Jan, that Trump's words have no actual connection with the mindset of the insurrectionists on the 06th Jan.

Nody · 23-03-2021 11:32am

aloyisious wrote: »

In a sign that court cases cause change in defendants positions, Sidney Powell is claiming that her statements [on the Dominion Co being involved in electoral fraud during the Presidential election] were opinion and not fact. She told the judge hearing the defamation case brought against her by Dominion that the case should be dismissed as, quote: no reasonable person would believe her well publicized comments about an international plot against former President Trump were statements of fact; unquote. It sounds something like the line being run out by people linked to Trump that no one should believe that Trump's words during the post-election period were the actual reason the insurrectionists invaded the capitol building in Washington on 06 Jan, that Trump's words have no actual connection with the mindset of the insurrectionists on the 06th Jan.

It's been used before successfully as well to defend Fox TV host Tucker.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-03-2021 11:36am

Nody wrote: »

It's been used before successfully as well to defend Fox TV host Tucker.

Yes but Carlsom is an "entertainer" on a TV network, Powell is a lawyer making these accusations at a press conference. I see where she is going with her defense and trying to use such previous rulings as a get out clause but it will be interesting to see if she can persuade a judge that she didn't mean what she really said especially since she has only made this claim after the law suit came flying in.

Also, when Dominion sent a cease and desist letter not only did she refuse to comply but doubled down and tweeted out that she would "retract nothing" because she had "#evidence" that Dominion was committing fraud.

aloyisious · 23-03-2021 11:56am

Mindful of the fact that Powell was a member of Trump's legal team at one stage, she may never be able to break her link to his campaign and his claims that the election [result] was rigged and he [in his mind] actually won it. Probably to her detriment, Trump repeated his claim that he won the election and how the result was rigged yesterday. I reckon that Sidney has the sense to avoid being obliged to answer questions from Dominions lawyers about anything she said in defense of Trump which read/sounded as statements of fact [not opinion] similar to her attack on the character of Dominion as a trading enterprise.

Itssoeasy · 23-03-2021 12:12pm

I’m not saying this is in the same league as Sidney Powell but Dr Debra Birx is doing a redemption tour to cleanse herself of being part of the trump administrations coronavirus response(and I use that word lightly) and that infamous moment regarding injecting bleach.

amandstu · 23-03-2021 12:58pm

aloyisious wrote: »

In a sign that court cases cause change in defendants positions, Sidney Powell is claiming that her statements [on the Dominion Co being involved in electoral fraud during the Presidential election] were opinion and not fact. She told the judge hearing the defamation case brought against her by Dominion that the case should be dismissed as, quote: no reasonable person would believe her well publicized comments about an international plot against former President Trump were statements of fact; unquote. It sounds something like the line being run out by people linked to Trump that no one should believe that Trump's words during the post-election period were the actual reason the insurrectionists invaded the capitol building in Washington on 06 Jan, that Trump's words have no actual connection with the mindset of the insurrectionists on the 06th Jan.

Might be a good name for an up and coming pop group "Donald and the Enablers"

Tell me how · 23-03-2021 2:25pm

aloyisious wrote: »

In a sign that court cases cause change in defendants positions, Sidney Powell is claiming that her statements [on the Dominion Co being involved in electoral fraud during the Presidential election] were opinion and not fact. She told the judge hearing the defamation case brought against her by Dominion that the case should be dismissed as, quote: no reasonable person would believe her well publicized comments about an international plot against former President Trump were statements of fact; unquote. It sounds something like the line being run out by people linked to Trump that no one should believe that Trump's words during the post-election period were the actual reason the insurrectionists invaded the capitol building in Washington on 06 Jan, that Trump's words have no actual connection with the mindset of the insurrectionists on the 06th Jan.

She also said later in the same submission that she believes the claims that the election was impacted by fraud.

So, 'no reasonable person would believe that........ I believe that'.

One more nail in the 'We're going to hire the best people' coffin.

Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Comments