Today, if Johnson bothers to show up for the impeachment trial, he’ll hear a flimsy defense of the indefensible. Then he faces an existential, character-defining choice: Country and Constitution, or party and personal power. We have a guess. But first, let’s review some clues.
https://t.co/vIV0nvYv4y
https://t.co/4v8uCmdpZF
Sen. Ron Johnson's defense of Trump is, What about Hillary?
— Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) February 10, 2021
"One thing that's definitely being left out.. and I think is going through all Republicans' minds is, but what about Hillary Clinton, saying and telling Joe Biden never concede."
via @LisaDNews
Reporter: "Senator, have you congratulated Vice President Biden yet?"
— The Hill (@thehill) November 10, 2020
Sen. Ron Johnson: "No."
Reporter: "Why not?"
Johnson: "Nothing to congratulate him about." pic.twitter.com/Is7APE2frx
https://t.co/h96pwPv6W9
'If we buy this radical argument that Pres. Trump\u2019s lawyers advance, we risk allowing January 6 to become our future\u2019 \u2014 Listen to Rep. Jamie Raskin\u2019s opening statement to begin Trump\u2019s second impeachment trial pic.twitter.com/mkqaumQwaZ
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 11, 2021
Chip in to help us do it: https://t.co/hr8sJFWiza
President\u2019s lawyers blew the House Manager\u2019s case out of the water. Legally eviscerated them.
— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) February 12, 2021
More from Government
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.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
I couldn't possibly guess why Six Days in Fallujah is being revived at a time when US army recruitment is at an all time low.
— Daniel Ahmad (@ZhugeEX) February 11, 2021
This reboot is from the same people that worked with the FBI and CIA on training systems and is basing its game on excusing US war crimes. pic.twitter.com/5H8vVqKh9s
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.
Which metric is a better predictor of the severity of the fall surge in US states?
1) Margin of Democrat victory in Nov 2020 election
or
2) % infected through Sep 1, 2020
Can you guess which plot is which?
The left plot is based on the % infected through Sep 1, 2020. You can see that there is very little correlation with the % infected since Sep 1.
However, there is a *strong* correlation when using the margin of Biden's victory (right).
Infections % from https://t.co/WcXlfxv3Ah.
This is the strongest single variable I've seen in being able to explain the severity of this most recent wave in each state.
Not past infections / existing immunity, population density, racial makeup, latitude / weather / humidity, etc.
But political lean.
One can argue that states that lean Democrat are more likely to implement restrictions/mandates.
This is valid, so we test this by using the Government Stringency Index made by @UniofOxford.
We also see a correlation, but it's weaker (R^2=0.36 vs 0.50).
https://t.co/BxBBKwW6ta
To avoid look-ahead bias/confounding variables, here is the same analysis but using 2016 margin of victory as the predictor. Similar results.
This basically says that 2016 election results is a better predictor of the severity of the fall wave than intervention levels in 2020!
1) Margin of Democrat victory in Nov 2020 election
or
2) % infected through Sep 1, 2020
Can you guess which plot is which?
The left plot is based on the % infected through Sep 1, 2020. You can see that there is very little correlation with the % infected since Sep 1.
However, there is a *strong* correlation when using the margin of Biden's victory (right).
Infections % from https://t.co/WcXlfxv3Ah.
This is the strongest single variable I've seen in being able to explain the severity of this most recent wave in each state.
Not past infections / existing immunity, population density, racial makeup, latitude / weather / humidity, etc.
But political lean.
One can argue that states that lean Democrat are more likely to implement restrictions/mandates.
This is valid, so we test this by using the Government Stringency Index made by @UniofOxford.
We also see a correlation, but it's weaker (R^2=0.36 vs 0.50).
https://t.co/BxBBKwW6ta
To avoid look-ahead bias/confounding variables, here is the same analysis but using 2016 margin of victory as the predictor. Similar results.
This basically says that 2016 election results is a better predictor of the severity of the fall wave than intervention levels in 2020!
