thank you for taking this stand. I just saw a report from @CNN that James Clyburn said Democrats might wait until after Biden's first 100 days to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. I think this is a mistake for several reasons. /1

First, the armed insurrection incited by the President is an immediate national security threat. Each day he is in office increases the threat.

Any talk of waiting undercuts the immediacy and seriousness of this threat. /2
Second, the Senate should be given the opportunity to act immediately. If Republican leadership fails to take up impeachment proceedings immediately, that failure is on them. This president has demonstrated that a single day with him left in office is dangerous, every arm /3
of the Democratic party should move as quickly as possible to reinforce this idea and to ensure it has done everything possible to remove him as a threat to our democracy. /4
It's one thing for Republican leadership to once again refuse to hold him accountable, it's quite another for Democratic leadership to accede to *their* desire to move slowly. /5
*I understand that parliamentary procedures make it difficult for the Senate to convene before January 19th. But this is not an impossibility, and the Republicans refusal to move this date and move more quickly should not be a reason for Democrats to slow down this process /6
/7 **This is the message: Democrats have moved as quickly as possible to ensure this president cannot do more harm in his remaining time in office. Our republican colleagues should do the same. If the Republican led Senate *fails* to convict the president before he leaves /8
office, *then* the Democratic led senate *can* wait until after Biden's first 100 days. Trump will no longer have access to the vast powers of the presidency. Until that happens, Democrats should move with one voice to ensure his removal. /end
@threadreaderapp unroll please.

More from Government

The People's Twitter.
And it would definitely not selectively censor unfashionable opinions if it were run by a government bureaucracy.
Because public sector bodies only ever maximise The Common Good.
Could even call it The International Common Good Association, just to make sure


"I don't like the fact that Twitter is so subservient to the woke elites. Let's create a massive state regulator, so that the woke elites, which have a stranglehold on most institutions... oh no, wait..."

(I mean, he's not entirely wrong. His solution may be rubbish, but there is an issue here. Twitter really does have a substantial amount of market power.
Still: There are people who I just will not ever side with, even when they have a point. And that includes Communitarians.)

As far as I can see, there are no good solutions here.
5 years ago, I would have said "Lol, Twitter is just a private company, like any other. The Guardian wouldn't publish anything by me, but that's not "censorship". They're just not letting me use their platform."
However...

...Twitter really does benefit from substantial network effects. We are on Twitter, because everyone else is also on Twitter. You can set up a rival platform, but that would be like being the only person who has a telephone: not very useful, because there's no one you can call.

You May Also Like

I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:


Hiring efficiency:

How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?

What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?

How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:

* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work

How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.

(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)

How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.