Three-quarters of Republicans are not reasonable people

Trump's former lawyer, Sidney Powell, argues in a court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims. (Apparently she did not believe her own claims of widespread election fraud.)

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

However, three-quarters of Republicans believe that the election was widely fraudulent and that Trump won.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/04/politics/2020-election-donald-trump-voter-fraud/index.html

Therefore, three-quarters of Republicans are not reasonable people.

I rest my case.

When Republicans get sued for their lies they plead idiocy.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/329071-alex-jones-playing-a-character-says-lawyer
Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer

@vivify


Quoting from the first article you linked:


Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

Just read 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[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."

end quote.

Not actionable--there's the crux of the biscuit. Now, replace "Carlson" by "Trump" and make the same argument. What did then-President Donald Trump say to his supporters on January 6th? "Walk to the Capitol . . . Fight like hell." Bloviating, yes, but not actionable?

@moonbus said
"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Tucker has the highest rated show on Fox News. Which means we can legally state that most Fox News viewers are not reasonable people.

@vivify said
Tucker has the highest rated show on Fox News. Which means we can legally state that most Fox News viewers are not reasonable people.

Yes, I think that is a valid conclusion.

What still surprises me a little is, why on Earth would a lawyer defend herself against a charge of defamation by saying that no reasonable person would believe her unfounded claims of widespread fraud? I mean, this is a trained lawyer -- does she really believe it's not defamation if reasonable people don't believe it? Can she really be that ignorant of the law?

Can this woman really believe that it is not defamatory to say "Jewish people eat babies" -- if no reasonable person would believe that? Can this woman really believe that it is not defamatory to say "Black people are genetically less intelligent than White people" -- if no reasonable person would believe that?

To save her own butt in a defamation suit, she is prepared to throw three-quarters of Republicans, and a fair number of Independents too, under a bus and declare them all unreasonable people. Wow! Just, wow! Can this woman really be that bad a lawyer? This is a person then-President Trump considered designating special prosecutor to investigate (read "find" ) election fraud. "Nothing but the best." Ya, right.

@moonbus said
Yes, I think that is a valid conclusion.

What still surprises me a little is, why on Earth would a lawyer defend herself against a charge of defamation by saying that no reasonable person would believe her unfounded claims of widespread fraud? I mean, this is a trained lawyer -- does she really believe it's not defamation if reasonable people don't believe it? Can she real ...[text shortened]... l prosecutor to investigate (read "find" ) election fraud. "Nothing but the best." Ya, right.

More importantly, how broken is the U.S. legal system when you can claim "I'm just a goddamn idiot" as a defense?

If these people are admitting, as their defense, that they are unreliable and not to be trusted, hasn't that person just proven they should've lost their case?

Only in America.

@moonbus said
Trump's former lawyer, Sidney Powell, argues in a court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims. (Apparently she did not believe her own claims of widespread election fraud.)

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

However, three-quarters of Republicans believe that the electio ...[text shortened]... index.html

Therefore, three-quarters of Republicans are not reasonable people.

I rest my case.

Yeah, I saw that and I couldn't believe that was actually her defense.

"Well, you shouldn't have listened to me!!"

@vivify said
More importantly, how broken is the U.S. legal system when you can claim "I'm just a goddamn idiot" as a defense?

If these people are admitting, as their defense, that they are unreliable and not to be trusted, hasn't that person just proven they should've lost their case?

Only in America.

It's not necessarily broken since we haven't seen the court outcome yet. With Dominion filing these lawsuits as "defamation" we should wait to see how this plays out. I don't think it matters legally whether the target audience of your defamatory language are reasonable people, but maybe I'm wrong. It'd be interesting to see an analysis of how other defamation suits have been argued in the past and whether this defense has worked successfully.

More importantly, Fox could avoid future lawsuits by adding a disclaimer reading "We are not telling the truth" prior to each segment.

@wildgrass said
It's not necessarily broken since we haven't seen the court outcome yet.

It worked for Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, both of whom are conservative nutcases like Powell. We'll find out soon enough.

@suzianne said
Yeah, I saw that and I couldn't believe that was actually her defense.

"Well, you shouldn't have listened to me!!"

Replace "her" by "Trump" and make the same argument. How broken is America when you can't trust what the POTUS says, but roughly a third of the voting public actually does?

@wildgrass said
It's not necessarily broken since we haven't seen the court outcome yet. With Dominion filing these lawsuits as "defamation" we should wait to see how this plays out. I don't think it matters legally whether the target audience of your defamatory language are reasonable people, but maybe I'm wrong. It'd be interesting to see an analysis of how other defamation suits have be ...[text shortened]... future lawsuits by adding a disclaimer reading "We are not telling the truth" prior to each segment.

Trump could avoid future acts of sedition by having his son stand next to him, saying/posting, "He's not telling the truth" prior to each utterance and 'tweet' (on whatever platform hosts him).

Her defense is completely bonkers.
And many the republican who should take note.

As for the law suit itself. The US courts or lawmakers need to do something about these sorts of claims. 1.3 billion?
If I was a judge I’d have chucked it out from the start and said: if she’s found guilty, you get an apology.

And I give you QB VII as evidence of rationality (it’s a Leon Uris book).

@moonbus said
Yes, I think that is a valid conclusion.

What still surprises me a little is, why on Earth would a lawyer defend herself against a charge of defamation by saying that no reasonable person would believe her unfounded claims of widespread fraud? I mean, this is a trained lawyer -- does she really believe it's not defamation if reasonable people don't believe it? Can she real ...[text shortened]... l prosecutor to investigate (read "find" ) election fraud. "Nothing but the best." Ya, right.

Furthermore, a good logical extension of her argument would be that she didn't believe her own schtick.
I.e. lying