The hopes that QAnon will disappear with Biden’s inauguration will unfortunately be dashed.
Some followers will decamp. But a lot will be hardened.
How did we get here? What will happen? Why? And what can we do about it?
A🧵about cults & persuasion
A very personal thread about this story and why I increasingly believe addressing the rot caused by QAnon will be one of the Biden administration\u2019s most important and most difficult tasks. https://t.co/oe1jNGYG4R
— Lauren Camera (@laurenonthehill) January 17, 2021
More from Biden
THREAD: There has been a lot of criticism levied against @BernieSanders recently following his comment about "working within the context of what Biden wants" as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. This thread will explore why this really isn't all that surprising.
Over the last 20+ years, Bernie has endorsed every establishment Democrat running for President: Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, and most recently, Biden. These candidates and what they represent largely contradict much of what Bernie says he stands for.
Chris Hedges theorized in 2015: "...All that energy and all of that money goes back into the Democratic party. [Bernie] functions as a sheepdog to corral progressives, left-leaning progressives, back into the embrace of the Democratic
Bernie's foreign policy positions are also telling. While he *did* vote against the US invasion of Iraq, he still voted to fund it once underway, & also backed the US bombing of Kosovo, US sanctions against Iran & Libya, & the Iraqi Liberation Act of
Bernie called closing the torturous gulag at Guantanamo a "complicated issue" and supported a proposal in 2009 to "prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States."
https://t.co/4p64SgeD1x
Over the last 20+ years, Bernie has endorsed every establishment Democrat running for President: Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, and most recently, Biden. These candidates and what they represent largely contradict much of what Bernie says he stands for.
Chris Hedges theorized in 2015: "...All that energy and all of that money goes back into the Democratic party. [Bernie] functions as a sheepdog to corral progressives, left-leaning progressives, back into the embrace of the Democratic
Bernie's foreign policy positions are also telling. While he *did* vote against the US invasion of Iraq, he still voted to fund it once underway, & also backed the US bombing of Kosovo, US sanctions against Iran & Libya, & the Iraqi Liberation Act of
Bernie called closing the torturous gulag at Guantanamo a "complicated issue" and supported a proposal in 2009 to "prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States."
https://t.co/4p64SgeD1x
"Ban" is a verb meaning to "officially or legally prohibit" something. If the Biden administration is not approving new fracking permits, how is that not "officially or legally prohibiting" new fracking permits?
The economy is bleeding, and the Biden administration's response is to cripple one of the few industries that has been consistently employing people throughout this crisis.
But, his allies in the media don't want him to take that PR hit, so they run cover and play word games. Biden's exact words were "We are not going to ban fracking. Period." The "Period." there would imply that ANY ban is off the table.
If you are going to prohibit via executive order - which is nothing more than a law passed outside of the normal legislative process - anything, you are "legally" prohibiting it. There are legal consequences to violating that regulation.
So yes, definitionally, Biden has "legally prohibited" fracking in some way, shape, or form, which is the opposite of his campaign statements.
In other words, he lied.
In the campaign, Biden said he would not approve new fracking permits on federal lands. But he would allow existing fracking to continue on federal property and existing and new fracking to continue on private land. .... https://t.co/EDVj7RQdFs
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 26, 2021
The economy is bleeding, and the Biden administration's response is to cripple one of the few industries that has been consistently employing people throughout this crisis.
But, his allies in the media don't want him to take that PR hit, so they run cover and play word games. Biden's exact words were "We are not going to ban fracking. Period." The "Period." there would imply that ANY ban is off the table.
If you are going to prohibit via executive order - which is nothing more than a law passed outside of the normal legislative process - anything, you are "legally" prohibiting it. There are legal consequences to violating that regulation.
So yes, definitionally, Biden has "legally prohibited" fracking in some way, shape, or form, which is the opposite of his campaign statements.
In other words, he lied.
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
