BC POLITICS
Saved by @Alex1Powell

So the SCOTUS said no. They won't hear the case. Cue crazy leftists and their inane celebrations. You're probably pissed off by now because you thought the SCOTUS was going to take this case. Trump never needed them to begin with. This is an easy one to explain.................

 When it comes to elections there is no HIGHER or FINAL authority than the state legislatures. No, not even the Supreme Court has the final say in this, believe it or not. Trump knew this case would get thrown out..because Texas filing was weak.
Their argument was REALLY weak, so weak that both of the Levin's would have told Trump days ago that this case wasn't going to get heard.

In fact...Mark Levin DID say it wasn't going to get heard on his radio show...all week long and he was right.
Justice Alito was right in his decision. He argued that the state of Texas wasn't, in so many words, as serious about a resolution as they pretended to be. He said there weren't "interested" in real resolution...and he was right.
He stated that just as in Arizona vs California 589 U.S. where they disputed over the distribution over the water from the colorado river, the actions of what state cannot disenfranchise the actions of another.
In other words Texas can't say they were wronged because they voted for Trump and PA voted for Biden, even if the laws were illegal. One state cannot dictate the actions of another state otherwise we would have precedence for no individuality of states.
They would all dispute over matters until EVERY state had the same laws...therefore simulating a federal regulation where it becomes national. The SCOTUS cannot set that precedence. What would be next?
... California suing Nevada for having more favorable tax breaks, drawing California businesses to register there instead of California, disenfranchising the other taxpayers and programs in California that need the tax dollars (for example)?
Do you have any idea how bad it would be to make that precedence? When there is no competition there is tyranny.
The state of Texas produced a weak argument. Trump knew this but he still pushed it. Why? Legal strategy. Here's what I mean...
The accuser has the greatest amount of pressure in the case. The accused is innocent by default so all of the pressure of proving their side rides on the accuser. At the same time, if the Judge throws the case out with prejudice, the accuser can't bring that complaint up again.
What I'm saying is the GREATEST risk to a case is to become the prosecutor. As a matter of fact, it's easier to DEFEND yourself than it is to PROVE that the person you accused is guilty. Stay with me. It's long but I'm going somewhere...
So whoever brings the case first runs the highest risk of losing before they even have a chance to fight. Why is that important? Because Trump stands a better chance of winning this as a defendant than he does as an accuser.
Trump doesn't need the courts to win! He only needs for the state legislatures to do their jobs! And...if he gets a SCOTUS hearing that's just icing on the cake. Now let me tell you what is about to happen.
The state legislatures will be pissed. They will feel as if THEY have been disenfranchised, and either on Monday or January 6th (when Congress count the votes) the state legislatures will CHANGE their certifications to Trump, those 4 states (maybe even AZ and NV too).
This will cause an internal legal battle within the states. By article 2 second 2 of the constitution, the state legislatures have the final say on who they want to certify as the winner of their states. Well this will piss off the
Governors who all have illegally certified the states and illegally passed state laws that strip the state legislatures of their article 2 section 2 powers.

The states will say "we have the right, we're not backing down" and the Governor's AG will say "see you in court."
The SCOTUS is in a pickle. They don't have the authority to tell the state legislatures to ignore the constitution and follow federal law. Federal law is automatically overridden by the constitution. So they can do one of two things.
Take the case and no matter what they ruled, the state legislatures can ignore it since they have constitutional rights. Or the SCOTUS can do what I THINK they're going to do....throw the case out.
Now you can't say the SCOTUS was politicized since they threw out both cases. But in throwing OUT the case, they legitimize the state legislature's decisions. Trump wins.
But what if they take the case? Ok. Remember when I said that it's harder to win as an accuser than it is as a defendant? Well the AG of PA (for example) will have to explain why and how any federal law can override the constitution.
I'm betting 5 of those Justices will disagree with that and they can LITERALLY cite the constitution as precedence and final authority. Trump wins. I believe that the SCOTUS will keep out of this for sake of not showing partiality.
But if they DO get involved, it will be after January 6th where a constitutional crisis will exist and then they would need to step in and settle the matter in 3 possible ways.
1. Ignore the complaints, Trump wins...
2. Take the case, invalidate the elections, give it to the states to vote...Trump wins as we have a state majority of 26 or...
3. Take the case, order a nationwide audit and recertification. With all the fraud.....Trump wins.
In the end, Trump will win. You can roll these dice as many times as you want. The Constitution will win this election for Trump.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Politics

David Rothkopf
David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf
Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.
POLITICS
Werise
Werise
@We_Have_Risen
I was working on something before the election that became the election...

Color revolutions are real and we just witnessed one live and direct...

1.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Steve Stewart-Williams
Steve Stewart-Williams
@SteveStuWill
39.1% of Democrats think that it's wrong to negatively stereotype people based on their place of birth... AND that Southerners are more racist. https://t.co/yp1hviLuBB


65.2% of Republicans think that people shouldn't be so easily offended... AND that Black Lives Matter is offensive. https://t.co/znmVhqIaL8


64.6% of Democrats think that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body... AND that selling organs should be illegal.

48.5% of Democrats think that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body... AND that prostitution should be illegal.


57.9% of Republicans think that people should be free to express their opinions in the workplace... AND that athletes should not be allowed to sit or kneel during the national anthem. https://t.co/ds2ig1NJFr


Democrats: Men and women are equal in their talents and abilities. Also, women are superior. https://t.co/bEFSmqQguo
POLITICS
Caroline - Real Feminists XX \U0001f1ff\U0001f1e6
Caroline - Real Femini...
@radicalhag
Transition, 'inclusion' etc all have political ramifications. Instead of buying into the remarkably masculinist assumptions of queer theory that the dissolution of boundaries is always good, we should be examining them from the point of group power relations.

Transactivists try to conflate identifying as trans with gay marriage, in attempts to demonstrate the progressiveness of their cause, but the comparators are actually transracialism, trans-abledness, identifying as w/c etc.

The diagram shows the asymmetrical nature of such identifications. Identifying down is colonisation. Identifying up is impossible. The most you can do is improve your individual status relative to your class of origin, which leaves everyone else behind.


It also shows that the classes are occupied. If you identify as disabled, or as a woman, or as black, you are demanding access to spaces and facilities which were set aside for people based on a characteristic which you don't share.

How well tolerated this is gives us a clear insight into which oppressions are tolerated. We're rightly paying a lot more attention to racism, so Rachel Dolezal was fired by the NAACP. Other white women in the US who've tried this have been heavily criticised.
POLITICS
Demola Olarewaju
Demola Olarewaju
@DemolaRewaju
The death of Alhaji Lateef Kayode Jakande brings to my mind the triumph of excellence in political leadership as well as rebellion against the political order.

A lot has been said about LKJ since he died yesterday and I hope only to contribute my perspective to enrich all said.

My emphasis with history has always been to draw out lessons relevant to the present, to show how trends repeat themselves and to show certain hypocritical contradictions within the present system.

Only few others qualify as well as LKJ to do all the three - I hope I do justice.

One area pundits have largely missed out in the Jakande story is the very beginning - both of his life and of his politics.

LKJ's parents were from Omu-Aran in present day Kwara State but he contributed more to Lagos than so many others - we will return to this subsequently.

LKJ was not originally a political ally of Awolowo - a number of elders were with Awo right from the very beginning but LKJ contributed politically to Awolowo at a crucial time of religious threat to the dominance of the Action Group (Awo's party) in the pre-Independence mid 50s.

A group had been formed in 1957 and named the National Muslim League headed by Alhaji R.A. Smith who had been very critical of Awolowo's AG as a Christian party and moved to align with the Northern People's Congress of Sir Ahmadu Bello.

The political threat to Awo was very real.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Tej Dosa \U0001f602\U0001f9e0
Tej Dosa ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿง ...
@ComedicBizman
(A THREAD)

18 Things I Would Do At 18:

I was a dumb 18-year-old. I thought I had the world figured out. I didn't.

I stayed up till the wee hours. Drank every liquor invented.

Partied non-stop. Woke up after noon.

Surfed the web aimlessly.

Read BS self-help.

Repeat.

If I could do it all over again, here's 18 things I would do...

PHASE ONE: GET MY MIND RIGHT

ACTION #1: Break the chains - I wish I made the decision earlier. I didn't. I was scared. Anxious. Nervous. I knew once I made the decision, there was no going back.

Don't be like me.

Make the decision at 18. The decision to pave your own path in life. To go against the herd. To choose your own adventure. To commit to whatever sets your heart on fire.

ACTION #2: Cut off every negative person in your life.

Scroll through the contacts in your phone...

Notice how the names make you feel.

Delete any and all names that fill you with doubt and negativity.

ACTION #3: Condition your mind to embrace the producer mindset instead of the consumer mindset.

Consume 20% of the time. Produce 80% of the time.

Case closed.

ACTION #4: Set an intention to make $10k a month and write it out every MORNING and NIGHT as if you already achieved it (in the past tense).

Visualize yourself already having the money as you write.

Cheesy?

Yes.

Does it work?

Yes.

PHASE TWO: EDUCATION
LIFE
Jaya_Upadhyaya
Jaya_Upadhyaya
@Jayalko1
KANIPAKAM VINAYAKA, CHITOOR (AP)
#bharatmandir

Kani means wetland and Pakam means flow of water into wetland.
Kanipakam Vinayaka is swayambhu (self-manifested). The murti is in a well which is always full of water.


Once, there were three brothers. Each one had a handicap- Dumb, Deaf and Blind. They had a small piece of land for livelihood. For their field, they drew water from a well. One day, they found that the well had dried up so one of them started digging in the well.


His tool hit something and blood oozed out. They found a swayambhu murti of Ganesha here.
Villagers started offering coconut water which overflew into a channel. Hence the name Kanipakam.


The murti is still growing in size. At present, we see the knees and the abdomen only. The Kavacham (Armour) offered to Vinayaka 50 years ago doesnโ€™t fit today.
Vinayaka is believed to be the upholder of truth. So people come here and swear before him to prove their innocence.
ALL
Advertisement
Jaya_Upadhyaya
Jaya_Upadhyaya
@Jayalko1
SRI BANASHANKARI AMMAN, BANGALORE
#bharatmandir

Located in Southern Bangalore, this is one of the most popular places of worship in Bangalore City.
Devoted to Devi Banashankari, this shrine is visited specially during Rahukala which is believed to be an unfavorable time.


Somanna Shetty, a great devotee of Devi, brought this murti from Badamiโ€™s Banshankari Amma Kshetram.
It is said that many years ago, three ladies visited this shrine and requested the pujari to conduct puja for them. Since it was the inauspicious rahu kaal, the pujari refused.


However, upon their insistence, he conducted the puja. When he returned with prasadam, the ladies vanished. This made the people believe that they were none other than the Devi herself. Since then, the people perform poojas here during the Rahukaal.
@GunduHuDuGa


People use lemons as a diya. Lemons are cut from the centre and their pulps are removed, for pouring oil in them.
It is strongly believed that Devi removes all the troubles from the life of her devotees during the Rahukala although it is considered inauspicious for any pooja.
ALL
Roger Grosse
Roger Grosse
@RogerGrosse
Important paper from Google on large batch optimization. They do impressively careful experiments measuring # iterations needed to achieve target validation error at various batch sizes. The main "surprise" is the lack of surprises. [thread]

https://t.co/7QIx5CFdfJ


The paper is a good example of lots of elements of good experimental design. They validate their metric by showing lots of variants give consistent results. They tune hyperparamters separately for each condition, check that optimum isn't at the endpoints, and measure sensitivity.

They have separate experiments where the hold fixed # iterations and # epochs, which (as they explain) measure very different things. They avoid confounds, such as batch norm's artificial dependence between batch size and regularization strength.

When the experiments are done carefully enough, the results are remarkably consistent between different datasets and architectures. Qualitatively, MNIST behaves just like ImageNet.

Importantly, they don't find any evidence for a "sharp/flat optima" effect whereby better optimization leads to worse final results. They have a good discussion of experimental artifacts/confounds in past papers where such effects were reported.
MACHINE LEARNING
Professor
Professor
@DillikiBiili
Some ofthe biggest breakouts occur after Volatility Contraction, the analogy is that more a spring is pressed, higher it jumps whenever it gets released.

There is a VCP Scanner on chartink (Not mine). This may also be used to find potential Breakouts.
SCREENERS , TA SCREENERS