So we are looking at 24 hours of debate then?
— Subtle Clever Username (@Noneya_Mindyers) January 3, 2021
Maximum of 2 hours of floor debate per objection
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
@greg_doucette sure you've answered this question somewhere down the line but is there a 2 hour recess for EACH objection or are all objections handled under one 2 hour recess?
— ReediculousS (@Rbd9787) January 3, 2021
And each person only gets 5 minutes to speak (also probably per objection), so the long-winded halfwits (Gohmert) won't be able to drag it out very long.
— Mithras Angel (place blue checkmark here) (@mithrasangel) January 3, 2021
Who gets discretion on who talks. Is It just objectors or counterpoints may also be allotted time?
— WillisisCray (@WillisisCray) January 3, 2021
can pelosi just ignore everybody
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
who adopts the rules in the senate
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
In the past 20ish years, everything has been done in under an hour. That included verbal objections in 2001 and 2017, and written objections in 2005 https://t.co/VdznPJuVY9
Given the time required to debate, vote, and resume the count, how long could a single objection take to resolve?
— Nomads of The Fourth Turning (@generationalize) January 3, 2021
But if there isn't an individualized reason – just that they're each "illegitimate" – then individual objections would be dilatory / out of order https://t.co/0Mqcs1qmhx
Could they object to each elector or are the forced to to object to the entire slate?
— OgieOgilthorpe (@OgieOgilthorpe9) January 3, 2021
He's got a flight to catch though so won't let this drag on, or he'll hand it over to Grassley https://t.co/j3Edvj6Azn
Curious who gets to decide that objections to individual electors without reason is out of order? If its Pence then he has the power to drag this out if he wants to.
— Kathy Vullis (@KathyVullis) January 3, 2021
His statement today pretty clearly says he's not going to do anything outlandish https://t.co/T1YY369dpj
— Jrome G (@jrome56) January 3, 2021
More from T. Greg Doucette
We all have a merry chuckle as they're voted down and we watch preparations for Biden's inauguration continue
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
What would the legal result of the proposed objections by the six Senators (need House & Senate) be?
— Alexa O'Brien (@alexadobrien) January 2, 2021
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
And if they do manage it Pelosi takes over? Is that right?
— Phil Wheatley \u26bd\ufe0f (@philski68) January 3, 2021
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Cruz\u2019s call for a ten day audit/election committee... there no legal authority for this to even occur correct?
— Justin Rakowski (@JustinRakowski) January 3, 2021
**********
6TH ANNUAL
BULL CITY FOODRAISER
FINAL METRICS THREAD
**********
Going to fill this thread with the updated final numbers
Prior threads are here –
➡️ Foodraiser history thread: https://t.co/Hz0jxFrswF
➡️ Initial 6th Annual data thread: https://t.co/XkK4oWE9iT
➡️ 6th Annual results photos + video thread:
You'll recall that we had to buy a sh*tload of grocery bags that were not included in our initial data thread
And then had to buy another sh*tload the next day 🤦♂️
Those paper bag runs added $386.94 to the expenditures ($193.47 x 2)
That put the grand total spent at $55,426.68:
➡️ $10 for cashier's check
➡️ $55,029.74 for food
➡️ $386.94 for bags
The Bag Fund donations exceeded what we needed though, so we capped 2020's #'s at actual expenditures and will hold the rest for 2021 (more on that down-thread)
Counting the new donors who contributed to The Bag Fund, and de-duplicating the folks who'd already donated to the main fundraiser, we ended up with 825 total donors
6TH ANNUAL
BULL CITY FOODRAISER
FINAL METRICS THREAD
**********
Going to fill this thread with the updated final numbers
Prior threads are here –
➡️ Foodraiser history thread: https://t.co/Hz0jxFrswF
➡️ Initial 6th Annual data thread: https://t.co/XkK4oWE9iT
➡️ 6th Annual results photos + video thread:
We have a few new people here since our December 2019 event, so let's start things off with some background \U0001f62c
— T. Greg "'Constitutional Lawyer'" Doucette (@greg_doucette) December 4, 2020
You'll recall that we had to buy a sh*tload of grocery bags that were not included in our initial data thread
And then had to buy another sh*tload the next day 🤦♂️
Those paper bag runs added $386.94 to the expenditures ($193.47 x 2)
That put the grand total spent at $55,426.68:
➡️ $10 for cashier's check
➡️ $55,029.74 for food
➡️ $386.94 for bags
The Bag Fund donations exceeded what we needed though, so we capped 2020's #'s at actual expenditures and will hold the rest for 2021 (more on that down-thread)
Counting the new donors who contributed to The Bag Fund, and de-duplicating the folks who'd already donated to the main fundraiser, we ended up with 825 total donors
Strongly desirable, but 0% likelihood IMO
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
@greg_doucette What's the likelihood and desirability of a new constitutional amendment which says that presidents cannot pardon anybody in the last 100 days of each term?
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
What's the chances we ever see a Constitutional Amendment in our lifetimes, at this rate?
— Jeremy (@11JustBreathe11) December 24, 2020
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
This one maybe: https://t.co/apWQyLD2i3
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
If you could unilaterally add an amendment, what would it be?
— KJJBAA (@KJJBAA) December 24, 2020
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
Yes Wyoming rule. No on 3 senators. The senate is broken now that CA has 39M people and Wyoming has 500k. Adding more senators doesn\u2019t fix that. Need to add some semblance of balance.
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 24, 2020
The midterm Congress doesn't matter; it would be the Congress elected in 2024 that takes office on 3 January 2025
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
So if the house had a Republican majority\u2014which it may well in 2022, especially given the gerrymandering and structural minority bias\u2014would they legally be able to stop the transition in 2024 of a Democratic president-elect? https://t.co/L2o4ZVdfXO
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 2, 2021
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
Historically, why is this sort of outcome allowed to be a thing? Maybe it's a failure in my imagination, but why would congress be allowed such power?
— Pogman42 (@Pogman42) January 3, 2021
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
It\u2019s just weird to me that we\u2019re able to elect senators and congressman themselves without this level of confusion but the electors create some kind of unique challenge requiring resolution by congress in some instances
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) January 3, 2021
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
What about the NPVIC? https://t.co/arg8V3QPih
— Phil Traum (@TraumPhil) January 3, 2021
More from For later read
Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
28. Before moving on to DARPA, let's look at DTRA:
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) July 31, 2020
A must read!
It is astonishing the number of pies they had their dirty little fingers poking into:
Note John Epstein and Kevin Olival from EcoHealth Alliance are key figures in DTRA:https://t.co/O4QwVWrm7m pic.twitter.com/cnNGZ7AApj
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
24. DTRA Network for Collection of Viruses
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 9, 2021
7. DTRA - Metabiota - One Health - Ecohealth
Bat Research Networks and Viral Surveillance: Gaps and Opportunities in Western Asia pic.twitter.com/SOqSSXF3pa
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
That is the key question
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 5, 2021
1. DARPA/DTRA use NGOs like Ecohealth or Metabiota to collect new pathogens
2. They are sent to US labs (Mailman, Rocky Mountain, Atlanta CDC, UNC, USAMRIID) for GOF work by Lipkin, Nichols, Rasmussen, Baric, Dension, Munster, etchttps://t.co/wqhHK7uZO6
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
1. I wonder why Dr. Angela Rasmussen is so so upset & full of almost palpable venom about a Hypothesis and a "What if" question by @nicholsonbaker8 in the @NYMag https://t.co/a6lxtJLpKR
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 5, 2021
Did I hear someone say "DARPA"?
Did I hear someone say "DTRA"?https://t.co/i27mpxJDw2 pic.twitter.com/x4X3QPnTMS
The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
"propaganda is often not used for indoctrination, but rather to signal the government\u2019s strength in being able to afford significant resources and impose on its citizens...not meant to 'brainwash', but rather to forewarn the society about how strong it is" https://t.co/mFAurhEHeO pic.twitter.com/WXKKJaPqWQ
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 18, 2020
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Authoritarians do not use propaganda for brainwashing, "but to demonstrate their strength in social control...propaganda may need to be dull and unpersuasive, to make sure citizens know it is propaganda when they see it and hence get the implicit message" https://t.co/PqRpxjaIPL pic.twitter.com/1y67d2RCjB
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 19, 2020
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
Excited we finally have a draft of this paper, which attempts to provide a 'unifying theory' of the long economic divergence between the Middle East & Western Europe
As we see it, there are 3 recent theories that hit on important aspects of the divergence...
1/
One set of theories focus on the legitimating power of Islam (Rubin, @prof_ahmetkuru, Platteau). This gave religious clerics greater power, which pulled political resources away form those encouraging economic development
But these theories leave some questions unanswered...
2/
Religious legitimacy is only effective if people
care what religious authorities dictate. Given the economic consequences, why do people remain religious, and thereby render religious legitimacy effective? Is religiosity a cause or a consequence of institutional arrangements?
3/
Another set of theories focus on the religious proscriptions of Islam, particular those associated with Islamic law (@timurkuran). These laws were appropriate for the setting they formed but had unforeseeable consequences and failed to change as economic circumstances changed
4/
There are unaddressed questions here, too
Muslim rulers must have understood that Islamic law carried proscriptions that hampered economic development. Why, then, did they continue to use Islamic institutions (like courts) that promoted inefficiencies?
5/
As we see it, there are 3 recent theories that hit on important aspects of the divergence...
1/
New CEPR Discussion Paper - DP15802
— CEPR (@cepr_org) February 14, 2021
Culture, Institutions & the Long Divergence@albertobisin @nyuniversity, Jared Rubin @jaredcrubin @ChapmanU, Avner Seror @SerorAvner @amseaixmars @univamu, Thierry Verdier @PSEinfohttps://t.co/lhs6AJb7jE#CEPR_DE, #CEPR_EH, #CEPR_ITRE pic.twitter.com/FtMzAELljJ
One set of theories focus on the legitimating power of Islam (Rubin, @prof_ahmetkuru, Platteau). This gave religious clerics greater power, which pulled political resources away form those encouraging economic development
But these theories leave some questions unanswered...
2/
Religious legitimacy is only effective if people
care what religious authorities dictate. Given the economic consequences, why do people remain religious, and thereby render religious legitimacy effective? Is religiosity a cause or a consequence of institutional arrangements?
3/
Another set of theories focus on the religious proscriptions of Islam, particular those associated with Islamic law (@timurkuran). These laws were appropriate for the setting they formed but had unforeseeable consequences and failed to change as economic circumstances changed
4/
There are unaddressed questions here, too
Muslim rulers must have understood that Islamic law carried proscriptions that hampered economic development. Why, then, did they continue to use Islamic institutions (like courts) that promoted inefficiencies?
5/
You May Also Like
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.
THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN
If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.
In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
Beautifully read: why bookselfies are all over Instagram https://t.co/pBQA3JY0xm
— Guardian Books (@GuardianBooks) October 30, 2018
THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN
If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.
In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
