1/14🚨Dissecting SCOTUS decision for answers to the 3 judges to decide that way on procedural grounds and not merit/evidence. Perhaps builds credibility for a future decision that more people would accept and more time to present the intelligence and evidence to American people
The Electoral Count ACT of 1887 allowing congress to challenge votes on January 6. Dems used this in 2001, 2005 and 2017.
More from Politics
What would that "look like" in reality?
So a massive adult film star in all his glory is included in an official FBI government filing
Perhaps the explanation is that Patriots are in control.
— David Burney (@jdburney1) February 6, 2021
\U0001f923\U0001f923\U0001f923\U0001f923 https://t.co/W3S8TgeY74
Hunter Biden's book is categorized as "Chinese
Patriots in control?
— David Burney (@jdburney1) February 6, 2021
\U0001f923\U0001f923\U0001f923\U0001f923 https://t.co/p0rEyfd2DW
TIME admits to "conspiracy" to "not rig, rather
TIME admits stolen election, with spin!
— David Burney (@jdburney1) February 6, 2021
"They weren't rigging the election, they were fortifying it."
Recognize the Ministry of Truth? How many things in the last few years have been redefined to be the opposite of reality?
Google the definition of "bigot" if you doubt me. https://t.co/CNU888fxr4 pic.twitter.com/UEhRBOtUB6
A "pillow guy" has military-grade intercepts detailing the IP addresses and device MAC IDs of EVERY incursion into every county in the
God bless the pillow manufacturer.
— David Burney (@jdburney1) February 6, 2021
The last 30 minutes details where every single incursion is recorded including IP and MAC addresses. 100% proof. pic.twitter.com/P5MVb1xGNC
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?