ЁЯЪи Thread: Color (Colour) Revolution:
1. The definition shown in the pics. ItтАЩs not really about color, but is all about division. In case you didnтАЩt know, it began in America when Donald Trump was elected in 2016.
https://t.co/EhM8V0sOeF
https://t.co/NiO321cYn9
https://t.co/ggnmn0J7oX
https://t.co/lq1XtwpWGS
https://t.co/GyErWoqCIq
More from Politics
So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?
I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.
He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] ЁЯШЙ
I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.
Not before.
No matter how much whining is done about it.
I'm exhausted but it's worth it.
Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.
Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
Breaking News: House GOP to hold investigative hearing into DOJ\u2019s handling of Clinton Foundation probe. Top prosecutor to be summoned. https://t.co/HogyXHHcvo
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 21, 2018
I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.
He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] ЁЯШЙ
I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.
Not before.
No matter how much whining is done about it.
I'm exhausted but it's worth it.
Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.
Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
President Trump just attacked Adam on Twitter with his most profane insult yet. Will you chip in $5 to send Trump a message and show him you stand with Adam?
— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) November 19, 2018
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
