Actually myself & a few others were contacted by a Bernie FO to help find captains for districts & it got done. Bad actors in the campaign said “I made them look bad,” bc it was about optics, even if I was asked. Their anger went as far as forcing my # from my friends.

I was traveling to Iowa to cover the primary & kept getting calls incessantly demanding I take a tweet down. They badgered my friends until they gave my PERSONAL #. I refused to it was my gd right. Especially since I was asked to use social media to find help. The job got done.
There was absolute 0 “leaking of documents”. I have two other people who were also helping and someone very high up in the campaign who had to apologize to me & was angry I was harassed, bullied, emailed, & threatened via social media. We wrote a letter that never got an answer.
This was AFTER several on the ground activists knew there were bad actors in the campaign but were trying to work w it & stay silent for Bernie. One of the many mistakes the campaign made was put optics over honesty, & that was bc it was largely directed by DC consultants.
Ultimately I came to find out this whole “making us look bad” took precedent over listening to seasoned field organizers, Bernie 2016 volunteers, & many grassroots activists who had a different approach. It was all about the top dogs looking good & not very #NotMeUs.
Oh and they harassed & bullied other people involved to get my number. My friends were genuinely scared and worried bc they did not stop getting phone calls & were freaked out about how the campaign could possibly get their number.
Here is the tweet I posted after I was told to get this done. Now people in the campaign may have miscommunicated with each other which showed later on with several contradictions of hiring & firing & endorsing or un-endorsing people. https://t.co/nykZQ2aYBn

More from Government

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.

You May Also Like

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.