The evidence is mounting that what we witnessed yesterday was an attempted coup (related terms are “insurrection” and “sedition”). 1/10
More from Thomas Wood 🌊
It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose the TX case, but why did he say “This is the big one?” 1/9
Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9
and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9
This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9
In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9
We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2020
Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9
and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9
This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9
In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9
More from For later read
A name has caught the radar of agencies investigating #GretaToolkit- FRIEDRICH PIETER. Delhi Police expressed shock over the appearance of Pieter's name as "Who to Follow" in g-doc as he is under cops' scanner since 2006 for his Anti-India activities. Some shocking details..
1/9
Pieter is close associate (read hired by) Bhajan Singh Bhindar, founder of OFMI (Org for Minorities of India) that considers itself an anti-Gandhi 'crusader' & is Pro-Khalistan. They also campaigned to free Bhullar (convicted Khalistani terr0r!st) & lobby against Modi in US.
2/9
Bhinder has alleged connection with ISI & had records of owning inter-state drugs cartel & DVD piracy for terr0r funding. They also took control Fremont Gurudwara, US back in 2003 for millions of donation. Details of this 'Info-War' by @DisinfoLab
https://t.co/oIDFSoaDX2
3/9
Back to Pieter. Take a glance at his work. His TL is filled with anti-BJP/RSS/Modi propaganda. From his speeches to articles, everything have few keywords in common- RSS/Fascism/gen0c!de/k!ll!ing/Kashmir/Hindutva, as if running a non-stop unrest in India is his bread & butter
4/9
He picks every topic with an extreme narrative that potentially hurts integrity of nation, be it Kashmir,CAA,1984 & with his recent projects- Farmer protest & campaigning heavily against Sri Kulkarni. Despite all, Kulkarni appointed as Chief of Ext Affairs at Biden admin.
5/9
1/9
Pieter is close associate (read hired by) Bhajan Singh Bhindar, founder of OFMI (Org for Minorities of India) that considers itself an anti-Gandhi 'crusader' & is Pro-Khalistan. They also campaigned to free Bhullar (convicted Khalistani terr0r!st) & lobby against Modi in US.
2/9
Bhinder has alleged connection with ISI & had records of owning inter-state drugs cartel & DVD piracy for terr0r funding. They also took control Fremont Gurudwara, US back in 2003 for millions of donation. Details of this 'Info-War' by @DisinfoLab
https://t.co/oIDFSoaDX2
3/9
Back to Pieter. Take a glance at his work. His TL is filled with anti-BJP/RSS/Modi propaganda. From his speeches to articles, everything have few keywords in common- RSS/Fascism/gen0c!de/k!ll!ing/Kashmir/Hindutva, as if running a non-stop unrest in India is his bread & butter
4/9
He picks every topic with an extreme narrative that potentially hurts integrity of nation, be it Kashmir,CAA,1984 & with his recent projects- Farmer protest & campaigning heavily against Sri Kulkarni. Despite all, Kulkarni appointed as Chief of Ext Affairs at Biden admin.
5/9
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?