2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e

https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”

No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:

1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.

2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
3. If you honestly think that McConnell would have sat quietly waiting 4 whole years without putting a judge on the court with Trump in office, you’re delusional. Harry Reid or no Harry Reid, McConnell was going to blow up the SCOTUS filibuster.
4. Don’t think for a single second that McConnell wouldn’t have gotten rid of the legislative filibuster had it been advantageous for him to do so. There just wasn’t a need to do it. (The major pieces of legislation they tried to pass during Trump’s term were being pushed...
... through reconciliation. Once Dems won the House back, that dashed GOP hopes for their legislative agenda, so again, it wasn’t to his advantage to get rid of the filibuster then.)
5. The GOP governing philosophy has always been “If we can legally get away with doing it, we will do it.” Don’t believe this “But the institution!” nonsense they constantly pull. They’re liars.

More from Parker Molloy

If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa

The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.

And in fact, this predates Trump.

In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop


That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the

In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
This is what pisses me off about the constant bad faith victimhood crap people on the right do:

1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).

2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.


This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.

Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...

... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”

It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.

And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.

From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
When Biden talked about unity, he was very specific about what he meant, and the insistence of right-wing tools like @Kredo0 to try to frame stuff like this as “betraying his own ‘unity agenda’” (what is that even a quote from?) shows how pointless it is to try to work with Rs.


Guys like @Kredo0 want to a.) put the onus of unifying the country entirely on Biden and Dems, b.) pretend that “unity” is the same as capitulation, while c.) not giving an inch on their end.

No. No, no, no. Nice try.

Really, get all the way the fuck out of here with that take. “Biden didn’t keep Trump’s POLITICAL APPOINTEES in their position, therefore Biden isn’t unifying the country.” Fuuuuuuck off with that bullshit.

When Biden said “unity,” he was talking about trying to help ALL Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. This, sadly, needed to be said after the Trump administration repeatedly tried to screw over people who didn’t support him.

Remember when the Trump administration INTENTIONALLY let the virus rage out of control (really should have been a bigger scandal, but 🤷🏻‍♀️) because it was mostly hitting states that voted for Dems?
This is a good piece by @AaronBlake. I've been scratching my head over claims that there was something in this trove of emails that implicated Fauci in something bad because pretty much everything matched up with what was being said publicly at whatever time the emails were from.


One thing that's occurred to me over the past few years is that there's a sense that the mere *existence* of emails is seen as evidence of wrongdoing, which is obviously nonsense.

It played out that way when it came to the DNC and Podesta emails in 2016, the Hunter Biden e-mails in 2020, these e-mails in 2021. It wasn't that there was much that was damning in, say, the DNC emails that helped sink Clinton's candidacy, but just their existence ...

... gave off a sense of corruption/scandal/etc., that weighed more heavily on people's perception of them as the result of them taking the form of a leak/data dump.

And it's kind of similar with the Fauci e-mails (which weren't leaked, but were FOIAed).

Anyway, again, @AaronBlake's post is a good and methodical breakdown of some of the bizarre claims being thrown about. If there's anything we didn't already know contained in those e-mails, I haven't seen it.
There are a number of reasons bills like these are wrongheaded. One is that it tries to implement the same kind of one-size-fits-all solution that opponents of trans inclusion claim to oppose.

But let’s get nuanced for a minute...


Do trans women and girls have an advantage in sports over other women and girls?

I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.

What sport are we talking about?

How old are people competing in it?

What sort of hormone treatment has the person in question had and for how long?

Those are all factors that play into the fairness question.

Trying to implement broad policies in the name of ensuring fairness can actually have the opposite of the intended effect.

Take the case of Mack Beggs.

A few years back, Beggs was a high school student in Texas. He was a wrestler, and wanted to do it at the college level.

Beggs is a trans man, meaning his birth certificate said female on it. Like many trans guys, he takes testosterone as part of his medical transition.

He wanted to wrestle. Specifically, he wanted a spot on his school’s boys team.

He wasn’t allowed.

More from Government

I am going to take the context for this thread from this piece by my good brother @mabziz in 2018-3 years ago. One thing I am so perturbed about is the response of our Attorney General's office to issues of state security. I have no personal grouse against @MalamiSan, but


2. I do have a professional grouse against him. I feel he is not alive to his duties. I feel that he is also not empowering his Director of Public Prosecutions or his Solicitor General. There is clearly a lot that befuddles me and this is because I am a seasoned lawyer and can't/

3. understand why law is not being used as the instrument it was designed for-to enforce law and order. Let us take the case of Nnamdi Kanu-this man was arraigned in Nigeria on a charge of treason/treasonable felony-he was on bail & he jumped bail. Why has he not been extradited?

4. Is it that Kanu is somehow bigger than Nigeria? What has happened to his surety who failed to produce him? Who is prosecuting him? Our Federal Ministry of Justice? Should Malami not explain to Nigeria why Nnamdi Kanu is still taunting Nigeria daily & still actively destroying/

5. our unity everyday. He is putting the lives of many people at risk and stoking ethnic dissent easily. The Fulani herdsmen dilemma, the burning of Lagos State and his coordination of same on phone-in radio channels, his videos are all stoking a Yoruba/Igbo carnage. Same with/
I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.

This will go pretty in depth FYI.


The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:

1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.

2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.

Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.

These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.

It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.

This is where one of the first red flags comes up.

The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.

When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.

You May Also Like