[thread]

I am going to do a thread on several numbers

1

2,996

4,494

43,730

106,158

[thread]

As we approach "the last throw of the dice"

I would like to do something I haven’t done enough of

Congratulations to 37.4% of the electorate

On the 23rd June 2016 you won

Congratulations

No one can take that away from you

You

Indeed I would like to be the first one to congratulate Boris Johnson

Whatever happens in the next few days

Well done Boris

Whether he gets as a deal

Or indeed no deal

Congratulations on the "win"

You will desperately sell what you won was a "win"

If a deal then with a sale of a side measure of scapegoating narrative as to why it wasn't better

If no deal then the side sale will be the scapegoating as to why

As it will always be someone else's fault

Can I firstly apologise - its obviously because I didn't believe enough or talked the country down

I am not certain which will be sold more desperately

A really shitty deal

or no deal

[thread] I would be able to move on from brexit if......

We had been told the UK holds some cards and not all of them

That it would be a difficult deal and not the easiest deal in history

That we would have liabilities to pay and these would be a substantial amount and that they are not zero and they do not buy us a trade deal

That we do not have "many solutions" to the NI border and that at the last having exhausted drones, blimps, random country examples that don't solve it and oh yes unspecified technology instead a border in the Irish Sea that no unionist can support is the answer

[thread] on the state of 👇

"I think endless talk about a referendum without any clear description of what the constitutional situation would be after that referendum is completely irrelevant now to the concerns of most people"

(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?

🚨 Thread: It’s Happening!

1. This may be the most important thread I’ve put together, yet. This is truly an exciting time for America. We are about to witness history in the making. It will, in fact, be Biblical. Not just for Us, but for the world.

Election Litigation Update - Gohmert.

Reply brief is in. Let's have a look. They are, mercifully, underlength. They had 50 pages available, the PDF is 43 and some of that is cover page, signatures,

Interesting table of contents. Looks like they're packing a lot in, until you realize that much of the material that's important - like their response to the "you sued the wrong person" material and "injury in fact" take up very little space.

Looks like they decided to skip the table of authorities. Presumably GoogleDocWord ate it too bad for them to fix. This will certainly further endear them to the judge.

This is going to be interesting - leading off a reply brief with a "here's what our cause is about" is certainly a strategy. It's even a bold strategy.

Shall we dig deeper, Cotton?

"We live in a democratic republic in which the Vice President, who will more often than not be a candidate in the election, has the sole and unchallengeable power to decide who wins the election" is a hellofa take.

Congratulations to Jacobin for, the day after Lula's defense team filed it's 2nd motion to dismiss due to illegal US involvement in Lava Jato, its timid reference to the US DOJ partnership. This relationship has been public knowledge for over 5 years but better late than never.

When William Barr, from the US DOJ, responded to the 13 democrat's congressional inquiry into US involvement in in Lava Jato last year, he responded that they have been posting information about this partnership on their website since 2016 and linked this.

Strongly endorse everything in this @OsitaNwanevu piece. One of the key mistakes I see among Dems, both online & in the real world, is thinking that people believe right-wing nonsense because they are unintelligent or uneducated.

In the area I know best, climate change, it's been found repeatedly that climate denialists & skeptics have, on average, MORE higher education than those who accept the science. They know MORE about climate science. They have, on average, HIGHER verbal intelligence.

What they do is adopt the conclusion that best serves their social tribe and then use their intelligence & education to build a case for it. It's called "motivated reasoning" & everyone is subject to it, very much including the smartest people.