"Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being destroyed by the Democrat Party and the media. ... We're standing at the precipice and we're looking into the abyss." https://t.co/jOlcM6dMD4
Not sure who needs to hear this, but if you're continuing to baselessly argue that there was widespread fraud and/or that the election was somehow "stolen" from Trump, you're encouraging people to attack again.
It's time to stop lying to your audiences, to your constituents.
"Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being destroyed by the Democrat Party and the media. ... We're standing at the precipice and we're looking into the abyss." https://t.co/jOlcM6dMD4
More from Parker Molloy
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.
Analysis: The alleged Fauci \u201csmoking gun\u201d emails https://t.co/DH0EOElMii
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 3, 2021
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.
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
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.
Shot/Chaser pic.twitter.com/NwAZg7TTrL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 2, 2021
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
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.
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.
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.
Sen. @JohnCornyn on budget reconciliation: "Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you now. But you're sure to regret that someday." pic.twitter.com/12wwUkq43r
— The Hill (@thehill) February 1, 2021
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.
More from News
This week marks 12 months since Josephine Cashman supplied Andrew Bolt with a letter falsely attributed to a Yolngu lawman that Bolt published via NewsCorp on Jan 26 as parcel of his persecution of Bruce Pascoe. Cashman & Bolt still haven’t provided a satisfactory explanation
Terry Yumbulul didn’t write the letter and didn’t agree with its content. He said so himself in a video published the next day https://t.co/IJ6ricZeRi and in a written statement published later the same day
The weird thing was, it soon emerged that large sections of the letter had been cribbed from other sources. Weird because as a Yolngu lawman, Terry didn’t need to borrow his knowledge from unrelated, alternate sources ... pretty much verbatim
The fallout was swift. Bolt was compelled to do a correction on his column and Cashman was just as swiftly dumped from her position of the Morrison government’s Senior Advisory Group for an Indigenous Voice to Government
There was no apology from either of them or from NewsCorp tho, and with the assistance of Sky News After Dark they desperately attempted to obfuscate the reality that everybody involved had been caught out and left red faced
Terry Yumbulul didn’t write the letter and didn’t agree with its content. He said so himself in a video published the next day https://t.co/IJ6ricZeRi and in a written statement published later the same day
The weird thing was, it soon emerged that large sections of the letter had been cribbed from other sources. Weird because as a Yolngu lawman, Terry didn’t need to borrow his knowledge from unrelated, alternate sources ... pretty much verbatim
The fallout was swift. Bolt was compelled to do a correction on his column and Cashman was just as swiftly dumped from her position of the Morrison government’s Senior Advisory Group for an Indigenous Voice to Government
There was no apology from either of them or from NewsCorp tho, and with the assistance of Sky News After Dark they desperately attempted to obfuscate the reality that everybody involved had been caught out and left red faced
Is this the second BOOM?
video
Gaza strip being bombed ~ 1 hour ago
— Nabeel Yakzan (@MarxistBastard) December 26, 2020
Absolutely 0 media coverage locally or internationally pic.twitter.com/ZLwWcQDwXb
video
\u0647\u0644 \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0647\u0648 \u0627\u0644\u0633\u0644\u0627\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0630\u064a \u062a\u062f\u0639\u0648 \u0639\u0644\u064a\u0647 \u0625\u0633\u0631\u0627\u0626\u064a\u0644 \u0645\u0646\u0630 \u0627\u062d\u062a\u0644\u0627\u0644\u0647\u0627 \u0644\u0647\u0630\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0623\u0631\u0636\u061f
— \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0648\u064a\u062c\u064a (@mohammed500s) December 26, 2020
\u0627\u0644\u0642\u0635\u0641 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0631\u0627\u0626\u064a\u0644\u064a \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u063a\u0632\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064a\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0627\u0636\u064a\u0629#\u063a\u0632\u0629#\u0627\u0644\u062a\u0637\u0628\u064a\u0639_\u062e\u064a\u0627\u0646\u0629_\u0644\u0644\u0627\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629
Is this the peace that Israel claims to have spread since its occupation of this land?
The Israeli bombing of Gaza last night#Gaza#\u063a\u0632\u0629_\u062a\u062d\u062a_\u0627\u0644\u0642\u0635\u0641 pic.twitter.com/8ouV1nuXc7
To mark the occasion of @mtgreenee entering Congress, I’m going to delineate her history with QAnon, based on two livestream videos and her own tweets.
This thread will clarify why I believe it’s fair and accurate to describe Greene as a “QAnon follower” or “QAnon believer.”
This thread will clarify why I believe it’s fair and accurate to describe Greene as a “QAnon follower” or “QAnon believer.”
Earlier, I filmed new Congresswoman @mtgreenee.
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) January 3, 2021
She is wearing a mask that says \u201cTrump Won.\u201d
(Photos of playback from my videocamera.) pic.twitter.com/YaWs3eXQCz
You May Also Like
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
