Jesus. I just watched the Ashli Babbitt video that the Washington Post has, and if I'm following the conversation happening, the people at the front of the mob trying to break into the room told the police to leave, offering to "make a path" and saying...

I think about the reports that Trump was excited by the invasion of the capitol because he thought it would derail the count, and it makes me think of a quote from the movie Boondock Saints: "Television. Television is the explanation for this. You see this in bad television."

In reality, there was zero chance that a violent assault on the capitol would have changed the outcome of the election, unless it was our own military doing it. An actual *physical* coup without military support? No.

And in fact, in reality, the more "successful" the assault was, the less likely it would be to affect the outcome. Had they succeeded in executing a congressperson on TikTok or whatever? They'd have killed their movement.

I believe that if they hadn't interrupted the process, the objections and debate would have been more successful in prolonging the process. But because of them, half the senators got cold feet and the remaining ones didn't even use their debate time.

Because they were attacked in their own chambers, because they were interrupted, it became a point of patriotic pride for Congress to finish the vote last night. Without that push, the objectors could have stretched it out, potentially for days.

So, I got an email recently from someone thanking me for having pointed out that it's okay to PayPal a dollar, because that's usually what they have and they'd always thought of pledging/tipping a dollar on social media as rude, like tipping a waiter a penny.

It really isn't.

Some people have the impression that with transaction fees a dollar isn't "worth it", and might even effectively cost the person who receives it money. Also not the case.

The difference between a digital performance or service, like I provide on Twitter dot com, and the labor done by a waiter or bartender or driver, is that they're doing the job each time for each and every person who receives it. I do the same job for everybody who receives it.

It's worth it for me in the sense of being a sustainable way to spend my time if the money I bring in, in aggregate, is enough make it worth it. That works out the same if it's one generous patron dropping a ton of money at once or a crowd of appreciative audience members with $1

And in fact, in terms of long-term sustainability and independence, it's better to have lots of small patronage than a few high rollers.

So let me tell you another reason we need to not back down, not sit down, not be quiet: coward that he is, Donald Trump is at his most dangerous when he feels like he's on top of the world.

The horse race headlines are saying that Donald Trump had his best day as president, and I'm sure he felt it. He just came through a knock-down, drag-out fight and won a battle that people had been telling him to drop for weeks, so right now no one can tell him anything.

If he gets it in his head that maybe he should fire Rosenstein? No one's going to be able to talk him out of it. He might even do it just to extend the high, or see how far he can take it.

When he's afraid and uncertain he'll lash out and that can be dangerous, but his insecurity causes him to both seek approval and fear traps in that state. But when he's invincible, he will indulge his worst impulses freely.

The same people who have been telling him not to mess with the investigation until after the midterms were among those telling him it would be so much easier to just replace Kavanaugh with someone less contentious. And what did they know? Nothing, he thinks. So why listen?

@cain_nate My friend Nate Cain and I have worked hundreds of hours with various politicians and legal groups trying to explain the election laws and how they fit together. There are many misperceptions of what happened during this election and what it means.

Simply put, our election laws are an intricate tapestry designed to ensure accuracy and prevent fraud. They work together like parts of a car. But when certain parts fail, the car is just a hunk of scrap iron and plastic. In this case critical parts failed.
2/

You do not have to prove fraud or intent, you just have to show that the election officials were unable to conduct an election that met the law and relevant certification requirements. In this case, the election does not come close to meeting accuracy requirements.
3/

These specifications are found deep in laws like FISMA, HAVA, and state adoptions of EAC guidance. 1 ballot error out of 125,000 or 1 position read error out of 500,000. Just look at the discrepancies between incoming ballot counts and total votes, the system fails.
4/

It is worse in the the swing states in Democrat strongholds but it is bad in many places. You add the apparent losses of ballots through the Mail and error rates in the ‘system’ are staggering. Why do we have these rules? Sure it is to prevent fraud, but......
5/

You wanna know the real reason WHY the "Old Guard" (Evil Powers that once ruled this world) wanted all of you dumbed down?
Your brains are supposed to work like mine does. You All are supposed to be able to see into the future etc. They poison all of you with foods that keep

you asleep.
Certain Daily products that all of you use like toothpaste,Deodorant,soaps etc do harm to you without you even knowing that harm is being done. Those who don't know these things are just so used to being the way they are and think it's all "Normal" when it's really

not. Your minds are designed for so much more and they know/knew this. THEY want all of you dumbed to so you just fall in line to what they say. They want you to follow all the latest Trends, They want you to follow the "Stars". Most of the stars advertise products but I

guarantee you that they themselves don't use 90% of what they are advertising on the market today.
They are being used as puppets, thinking all of you will just follow them blindly falling into all the traps they have had set out for you ALL THESE YEARS..

Look at Portland for

example, They are legalizing all recreational drugs. Allowing Young adults who's brains aren't fully developed to just poison themselves. What happens in 5-10-15 years from now? Our entire youth is poisoned more than they already are? All our adults that the children look up too

@RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays @TherealzCRS Meaning to do this anyway. Strap in.

My main concern with masks is their ability to force filter droplet (with a predictable 6 foot arc) into aerosol, which has an 18-20 foot trajectory, remains aloft for gravity. It remains aloft for hours, and doesn’t respond predictably 1/🧵

(PART 3) Angels - Izingelosi | Izithunywa of the 1st Sphere 🕯

[A Smallanyana Thread]

On Part 1 and 2, you will notice that we covered Angels that somehow also resemble human physical/ manifested features.

Part of the classic examples of how we as humans always depict these Celestial Beings through our works of art.

As we move up to the 1st Sphere of the Christian Angelology Hierarchy we get introduced to another breed of Izithunywa.

Let's Begin 📖

THRONES:

Also known as the Elders, they are a class of Celestial Beings mentioned by Paul the Apostle in Colossians 1:16, and they are also mentioned in the Book of Revelations as the 24 Elders.

They are the living symbols of God's justice and authority, symbolised as Thrones.

They are also associated with the Ophanim from the Jewish Angelic Hierarchy (Which we will still cover in detail within this series of Threads).

The Ophanim are referenced as Wheels seen in Ezekiel's vision of the Chariot in Ezekiel 1:15 - 21.

Also refer to Elijah's ascension.

My morning thought. I think what's most incompatible about the way I think and the journal article format as a means of capturing and validating thought is that I have a completely different sense of the relation between tentativeness, rigor, and informatic compression.

The characteristic Pete thought is: wait a minute, this whole area is dominated by an assumption that no one seems to be questioning, and I've got two options to express that: i) outline the logic of the issue in a quick and compressed way, ii) write a small book with references.

The discipline seems to want something in between these poles every single time, and this makes me extremely anxious because I feel (with good reason) like any partially referential engagement with the issue will get instantly torpedoed by anyone outside its referential remit.

To repeat something I've said before: I'm actually quite good at being *concise*, I just find it very hard to be *brief*, because most of the thoughts I have don't permit brevity. Consider what your (referential) reactions are to this brief piece:

One of the main genres of publication I've actually excelled in over the years is dictionary articles, which I take a lot of joy in writing, and include some of the pieces of which I'm most proud. Consider this one on the crux of Meillassoux's project: