BC POLITICS
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.

We'll start with the complaint in a minute.

 But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.

They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.
Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop there.

https://t.co/097srhcwmd
(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
The birther racism was bad enough. But it also delegitimized Obama and contributed to the idea that Democrats only win by cheating - which is what got us to today.

Part of the reason for this, I think, is that people didn't pay enough attention to what the birthers were doing.
They were dismissed as a joke, but they were taking themselves seriously to (and beyond) the end of the Obama years - and they were doing so in the precursors to 8kun and Q.

I think dismissing these neo-birthers in the same way would be a bad mistake.
I don't plan to make that mistake. I'm going to keep watching, and trying to figure out what else I can do to combat the harm they cause.

With that in mind, let's turn to the complaint.
The complaint is filed on behalf of two organizations which may or may not be incorporated (we'll see in a bit; I haven't looked), one named individual, and 4 people who have the courage to demand to challenge the whole country's election pseudonymously.
They are represented by two lawyers. One is presently practicing law on his own after being dumped from his job after being identified as one of the livestreamers at the seditious riot of 6 Jan. The other is a failed Republican political candidate.
You are supposed to catch attention with headings, and credit where due this kind of does do this. Maybe not in a great way, but it does it.
The first paragraph is a thing. I don't have another word for it, really. It's a strange strange paragraph.
Also, this is one GEM of a footnote.

I mean, it's right. But it's not exactly -- I don't know what the hell it's trying to do.
My bad. Thanks for the reminder.

https://t.co/YlB9RwZSfg

https://t.co/XVM6S77hS2
This is a new theory. And when we say "new theory" in this context, we should be clear about what that means:

It means that this is so bonkers that even Ellis, Giuliani, Powell, Wood, and Eastman could not - not even by focusing their combined venial incompetence - think of it.
So the legal theory here seems to be that votes which aren't HAVA-compliant are not legal votes. This is consistent with the developing Republican orthodoxy in this area - which claims that the government can deprive you of your vote if they mess up election procedures.
Seeing this sentence, I'm genuinely surprised that they're not alleging Popehat's least favorite claim.
*reads next paragraph*
This is just - oh my.

They have really taken the bananapants clownshoes to a whole new level. The entire 117th Congress - apparently including those who were seated in the Senate in prior years - needs to be thrown out. Not just POTUS.
This is, needless to say, not going to happen.
Hasn't HAVA been around for like nearly 20 years or something? How the hell could this be the first year there was an issue?

(Also laches but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.)
BRB got tea in my nose.
"The only conceivable remedy is...for the Court to order the 50 states to conduct a new federal election that conforms to the minimum standards of HAVA."

That's an inconceivable remedy. And, yes, Inigo. I know what inconceivable means.
I'm cracking up with every paragraph. Just every last one.

We've apparently hit "if literally every last federal official except Trump is illegitimate maybe Trump can stay President."

WHICH IS STILL WRONG.
If there's no new President or VP, and no Speaker, and no President Pro Tem of the Senate, then Mike Pompeo, racist escapee from a pufferfish imitation club though he may be, would presumably become President provided his resignation was not yet effective.
"...this Court should rest assured that [literally yeeting the entire Congress] will not result in the destruction of democracy."
OK. This is something I feel like a lot of Trumpian MAGAts need to hear:

"Consent of the governed" does not mean anyone gives a damn whether you personally consent to any specific officeholder.
When I think "simple enough for a 3rd grader" I generally don't think of 8-point explanations resting on volumes of evidence, but maybe that's just me.
OK. So as to point 4, anyone who is talking about enforceable contracts in this context is one very short step away from rolling around the courtroom floor gibbering about fringy flags and screaming incoherently about joinder while being repeatedly tased.
Beyond that, the "self-evident" in point seven is doing a metric fuckton and a half of work in this argument.

But it's a great example for "if you say it is, it ain't."
Also, what the hell - do these pangalactic garglebrains not understand that Senators serve for 6 years and nearly 2/3 of the Senate wasn't elected on the ballots they claim were illegal?
This person shares a name with one of the nitwits who got arrested for driving up to Philly during the vote count with a bunch of weapons. But that person apparently lives in Virginia Beach, so dunno.
I have no idea whether either of the two "political organizations" have the capacity to sue.
Not sure why they're using a pseudonym for JB and yet providing this much detail.
There are a lot of defendants. Although a TRO is being sought, the plaintiffs have apparently not requested that summonses issue as to ANY defendant.

Also: citing "https://t.co/LsPDjUepwD" instead of actually bothering to list all your defendants is an interesting choice.
ARRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH - these people are soooo bloody bloody stupid what the everlovingmotherfuck
For the nonlawyers:
In order for the court to have diversity jurisdiction, NONE of the plaintiffs can be from the same state as ANY of the defendants.

They are suing EVERYONE in the 117th Congress and all 50 governors.

Do you see their problem?
I mean, OK, I can't totally fukking rule out the possibility of complete diversity. It's possible that these transcendental nincompoops are literally, as well as figuratively, domiciled somewhere beyond the second star to the right.

But it's pretty damn unlikely, now, innit?
This personal jurisdiction section is funny, but it's funny to lawyers in a way that's going to take too long to explain. Also, @AkivaMCohen said it's his favorite and I don't want to steal his thunder.
And - whoops! - so much for the lunar domicile theory of diversity jurisdiction. They just said that some of the plaintiffs live in the same district as some of the defendants.
Neither, actually. They meant "haled into court." https://t.co/FDCB93UUs9
Not a lot of facts really being stated. And the whole "not stating the specific sections of the law that we think were violated" thing is also an interesting choice when they want preliminary relief.
Or maybe I spoke too soon.

Except, no, they don't seem to be bothering to explain how any of these changes fail to comply with HAVA.
I'm going to scroll through the 50 states relatively quick. I'll stop and do a screenshot if anything seems noteworthy enough.
Seriously, I think they're just doing copypasta from some memo someone did, because why the hell am I reading about a court decision that resulted in election rules not being changed?
Wait wut??

You're suing Colorado because they made changes except you say they made no changes? Are you on crack? Did you fall down and hit your head on something? What the hell is going on here? Give me a reason for this. Something. Anything. COME ON!
GUAM?? GUAM????

What the hell? They have no electoral votes, no voting member in Congress, AND YOU AREN'T SUING THEM YOU COMPLETE BUMBLEFUCKING BANANAPANTS BUFFOONS.
OK, we're up to 3 states now being sued who according to the plaintiffs did not do anything wrong.
5 with no changes.

This is not the "reasonable inquiry" Rule 11 requires.
6 with no changes.
Ohjustkillmenow
LMFAO - SUCH AS???

I mean that's not exactly unimportant, now, is it???
OK. Now y'all just messing with me. Really.
And what in the name of the ichor god Bel-Shamharoth is this ratfuckery even? Every other change anyone made violated HAVA *except* Texas? GTFO.
Another no-change state. I think it's 7 now but I'm not going to waste the time looking back upthread to confirm that.
And one last no-change state. These people should not be trusted around objects.
Why are you only suing the members of the 116th Congress who won reelection if you're complaining about this.
Does it count as alleging that the defendants Did Teh RICO if you chicken out and don't add the cause of action?
*double checks* - yup. No RICO claim.

This plus the Hagar thing is starting to give me the same feeling I get when I'm grading a paper where the student changed topics mid-paper without realizing it because hey stream of semiconsciousness always works, right?
Does anyone but Zuckerberg qualify? Were they planning on suing about eleventyjillion more people?

Don't answer that.
They were soooo going to try and sue for Teh RICO and then chickened out.
There is no named plaintiff J. James in this case. There is, however, someone with the initials J.J.
WHATTHEHELLISTHISEVEN???

Competence, motherfukkers, do you know what that is??
I get the sense that they might not know how RAM works. Or what it is.
And always a good choice to make the Court read more on a case like this. Especially vaguely titled and poorly described exhibits.
OFFS. Learn to write you semiliterate seditionist pussbuckets.
And here are the other claims that they fail to state.

As far as I can tell, they are claiming that they were deprived of their right to vote and therefore the entire election of Congress should be overturned because....

Yeah, I'm just kidding. I've got no clue what they claim.
You want to invalidate the entire 117th Congress by having a court issue an ex parte TRO?

No, seriously, what do you want?
Because there's no way you could seriously ask a court to issue ex parte relief doing that....

But they are.

*sigh*
They're "calling on the courage of this court." Yeah, that always works. Great heading there. Really.

You crappants clown.
Also: subject-verb agreement. It's a thing. It might not be a thing in this pleading, except perhaps by accident, but it really is a thing.
Fuck you, you seditionist little shitbirds. The fuck your plea is made on my behalf.
Oh my god they included a footnote defining "Founding Fathers" becuase how the hell else would we know who they are referring to in this insane screed.
Oh, they're worrying about the political question doctrine. That's so cute. It's like worrying about an ingrown eyebrow hair when you're the Black Knight post-Arthur.
Wow. Sense of self-importance much?
So they address political question but not really - they just say it should be ignored. Which it will be - there are too many other reasons to dismiss this steaming turdmountain for the court to get that far.
1: Sentences end with periods.
2: Undersigned counsels' don't know very much. There was an evidentiary hearing in Wisconsin. The parties simply avoided witnesses in that case by agreeing to a set of stipulated facts during a recess in that hearing.
You're filing the lawsuit less than 48 hours from inauguration and you are claiming that laches doesn't apply because the plaintiffs didn't lawyer up sooner?

That ain't how laches work, y'all. Not even close.
Oh, just gag me with a sp--- no, better yet, gag them.
"If investors come to view their investments in assets held in the United States as inherently unstable...that would have a devastating effect on the Plaintiff's ability to plan for retirement by investing" is my new favorite worst irreparable harm argument ever.
Not only does it use up so much nocturnal flying mammal excrement that it threatens the global guano supply, it doesn't even work. That's a financial harm claim - it's fixable with money and therefore not irreparable.
Also -
You think a court yeeting the Congress and Presidency would be viewed by investors as *improving stability*???
No.
No. No. No.

This isn't real.
There's a *gold standard* argument for irreparable harm???

This can't be real.
"Y'all might have the memory of a lobotomized goldfish, counsel, but I read the complaint. You said that you weren't sure if Texas violated HAVA."
Also, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around "failure to comply with HAVA renders every ballot cast in the election invalid."
It always ends well when lawyers try to argue entire key elements with single sentences. This is particularly true when the sentences start with "it is self-evident that."
You want the TRO to be entered without notice? WHAT are you smoking and no I don't want any.

Also, RICO!
How much bond would be appropriate for a TRO that destroys the very fabric of the nation?
Oh, cool. Now we get to the fun stuff.

The requests.
LOL. No.
LOL. Hell no.
We knew Davis was involved in the Capitol sedition because of the whole getting fired thing, but was Kellye SoRelle on anyone's radar for this? Or did she just out herself as a participant?

Also, no, the court isn't going to save your ass.
1: That's not how it would work.
2: Also, no, seriously, how do you think that would even work?
Seriously, in just One Day More - not even - Trump will no longer be a lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official. So how would this work?
And, no, the courts are not going to "forever restrain[]" all 50 Governors, all 50 Secretaries of State, and all the Congresscritters of the nation from future office.
And where's the unicorn? Why are they not requesting a unicorn? It would be such a reasonable request compared with the rest.
Oh, and yeah, the signature block is just beautiful. Legendary, even.
Thoughts:
1: There's also, lord have mercy, a motion for TRO. I'll look at that tonight.
2:
Seriously, I barely scratched the surface on this one. This is the product of flop sweat, panic, and time that would better have been spent by these lawyers putting their affairs in order in preparation for arrest.

/fin

More from Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Happy New Year, y'all -
And let's start with an election litigation update for the Gohmertian Goofiness.

As of 3 minutes ago no reply brief from Gohmert but some other updates have appeared.

(No, the judge won't ignore his filing if it's a little late.)

AND IT GETS BETTER -
I just looked for an update. Found one. They're asking for another hour because the dog ate their homework.


Seriously, they've been using Google Docs for their serious work and are having problems making that work with Word to produce the final version of this filing.

That filing, by the way, can be up to 50 pages long but, given the strong hint in the motion granting permission for the overlength filing, should address everything not just in Pence's brief but also in the House Amicus and the proposed intervenor's motion to dismiss.


Meanwhile, the treasonweasel cosplayers from Michigan want to intervene as plaintiffs.

Not only do they want to intervene, they want to do so in their "official capacities as Presidential Electors for the State of Michigan."

Note: They are not Presidential Electors. Anywhere.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Election Litigation Thread - Georgia:
OK, so since my attempt to sit back while Akiva does all the work of going through the latest proof that not only the pro se have fools for lawyers has backfired, let's take a stroll through the motion for injunctive relief.


At the start, I'd note that the motion does not appear to be going anywhere fast - despite the request that they made over 80 hours ago to have the motion heard within 48 hours.

The most recent docket entries are all routine start-of-case stuff.


Why isn't it going anywhere quickly? Allow me to direct your attention to something that my learned colleague Mr. Cohen said


Now I'm not a litigator, but if I had an emergency thing that absolutely had to be heard over a holiday weekend, I'd start by reading the relevant part of the local rules for the specific court in which I am filing my case.

In this case, this bit, in particular, seems relevant:


My next step, if I had any uncertainty at all, would be to find and use the court's after-hours emergency contact info. I might have to work some to find it, but it'll be there. Emergencies happen; there are procedures for them.

And then I'd do exactly what they tell me to do.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Good morning, post-election frivolous performative litigation followers - we've got another new filing in Seditionists v 117th Congress et al.

It's yet another motion for a Temporary Restraining Order - making it the 3rd in 3 days.

And it's a

Now, you'd think that if you kept throwing 'emergency' paperwork at the court and the court kept saying nothing in reply that you might want to take some time and figure out what you're doing wrong, but nope. Not these buffoons.

They're still not within 50 miles of complying with Fed R Civ P 65 - and my guess is that this judge might view that as entirely a "them" problem which the court has no obligation to explain.

So they're still stuck at Step 1.

But that's honestly the least of their issues.

They have, apparently in lieu of attempting to comply with Rule 65, put "ORAL HEARING REQUESTED" in all caps right after the heading.

I'm not a litigator but I don't think that's a recognized alternative to attempting to provide notice to the adverse party.


They want to "preserve the status quo" by placing two of the three branches of government in a state of "stewardship." That's...

...unique.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
POLITICS

More from Politics

President Elect Bloc Rockin Tees \U0001f438
President Elect Bloc R...
@BlocRockinTees
Prepare to have your mind blown. https://t.co/QKvDLVx8KG Lin Wood, Isaac Kappy Here’s what we know
1. Lin Wood shares the password
2. Website has an article where the first letter of each sentence matches password
3. Title of article is an anagram for issac kappy


4. Somehow the file is stored in tor because of the reference to torsocks
5. Nobody has done an in depth analysis of the source code to see if there’s any hints there
6 search engine searches for slack, tor, and website returned nothing

https://t.co/lCajyM4TWp @sistronk @Crazy_German17 @boy17_tommy @105artillery @thecoffeebarons @Mareq16 @MKEBRAWLER @RealMaciejHelak @C8red8r @FabianBlondel @LaureenZapf

https://t.co/4tUs7tESwg

Silicon Valley is modelled after Crassus
POLITICS
Chuck Wendig
Chuck Wendig
@ChuckWendig
TRUMP: "I've decided to eat babies."

PEOPLE: "He can't eat babies, that's super illegal."

TRUMP, on TV, eating babies, not even cooking them first: "People are saying that I really am the best baby-eater, folks."

NYT: "Trump Vs. Babies: The Rhetoric On Both Sides Must Stop"

Jeff Flake tweets: "It is a sad day in America when this callous man can eat babies live on TV"

Jeff Flake, 10 seconds later, votes to help him install a series of 4,000 new judges that are very, very pro-babyphagia.

Judge Kavanaugh, found drunk in a Capitol Hill closet: "I LIKE BEER. OKAY? I LIKE BEER AND I LIKE BABIES AND THAT'S NOT SO WRONG. THAT'S RIGHT. I LIKE BABIES DIPPED IN BEER. I JUST DIP EM. IN THE BEER. THE BABIES. THE BABIES I EAT. OKAY? THAT'S AMERICA."

Mike Pence, wringing his hands about the baby-eating: "We must take care of our children. Our youngest must be protected on this troubling day."

Mike Pence then invites a Baby Chef to say a prayer.

Twitter Users: "It's a distraction technique! Trump eating babies is trying to DISTRACT YOU from ALL THE OTHER HORRORS, which are themselves distractions from the BABY-EATING. It's DISTRACTIONS ALL THE WAY DOWN."

Trump: *eats tons of babies at a rally*

*literal tons of babies*
POLITICS
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
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.
POLITICS
Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631
Maajid أبو عمّار...
@MaajidNawaz
Much of Twitter is misunderstanding Bruce Castor’s speech at Trump’s impeachment trial because much of Twitter is absolutely NOT Bruce Castor’s audience.

This man is on it. He knows he only needs to keep *over 1/3 with him. Then more so, he needs the American nation on his side.

Honestly, Twitter misunderstanding what Bruce Castor is doing right now is like Twitter misunderstanding how Brexit & Trump won back then

“Why fear the people who were smart enough to pick you?” (*Listen*)

And yes, ditto for David Schoen. He knows who his audience is.

And he’s on target.

Two different audiences
1) Castor: public opinion
2) Schoen: the law

Oooooh, he held up the Red book. OUCH 😖😆
POLITICS
Robert Saunders
Robert Saunders
@redhistorian
"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"

This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD


There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.

In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut

If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.

Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Shalini Singh Sengar
Shalini Singh Sengar
@Maverickmusafir
Post Independence, Army wanted to select the most experienced Indian commander as Army chief. But Nehru without consulting anyone appointed Gen Rob Lockhart, a senior British Army officer as the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of the Indian Army.


Most people were shocked to know that Nehru selected a British Man after fighting for independence for over 200 years! Major Gen A A ‘Jick’ Rudra of the Indian Army was completely upset with the decision.


One day Lockhart met Nehru with a strategic plan and proposed many government directive defence policies for the country. He placed it on the table and explained the point to PM Nehru. After a while Lockhart walked out of the room and met AA Jick Rudra,+

Lockhart looked shell shocked and stunned. When asked what happened he said “The PM took one look at my paper and blew his top. Rubbish! Total rubbish! We don’t need a defence plan. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army!”

One year after the incident the Kashmir crisis had increased and Gen Lockhart used to exchange ideas with the Gen Douglas Gracey who was commander in chief of Pakistan Army.There were many infiltrations along the border which Lockhart knew and took no action. But Lt Gen Cariappa+
HISTORY
Hector Navarro
Hector Navarro
@Hectorisfunny
I'm going to attempt to chronologically list all of the Marvel characters Stan Lee had a hand in creating. Working with his genius collaborators, Stan and his team produced an insane amount of iconic characters in a roughy ten year period. (Thread)


With his younger brother, writer Larry Lieber, and Jack "the King" Kirby:

Groot

Tales to Astonish #13 (November, 1960)


With writer Lieber, and artist Kirby:

Fin Fang Foom

Strange Tales #89 (October, 1961)


With the King, Stan gives birth to the Marvel Universe:

The Fantastic Four

Fantastic Four #1 (November, 1961)


With Jack Kirby:

Mister Fantastic

Fantastic Four #1 (November, 1961)
CULTURE
Advertisement
Mike DiCenzo
Mike DiCenzo
@mikedicenzo
"How the Avengers would respond to the Capitol riot" (a thread)

CAPTAIN AMERICA - tells Falcon, "I fought Nazis once before. They're extremely dangerous." They then see the guy scaling the Capitol wall fall into the shrubs. Falcon: "You sure these are the same Nazis?"

IRON MAN - lands by the guy carrying the podium. Says, "Mind if I borrow this?" then tosses it to Hulk, who swings it like a bat at the mob. Guy: "Hey, that's MY podium!" Iron Man: "Actually it's the Speaker's. And technically, it's a lectern." Then punches him through a wall.

BLACK WIDOW - enters hotel room where Jack Dorsey is tied up. Rips duct tape off his mouth. Jack: "I'll do anything you want!" BW: "Disable POTUS's Twitter. NOW!" Jack fumbles with his phone. "Done. Anything else?" BW: "Yeah. Trim your beard for God's sake." *tosses him clippers*

HULK - grabs a selfie stick from one of the guys and beats him over the head with it. Deeming it too small, he grabs another guy's Confederate flag and takes out a whole swath of rioters. He then tosses the flag to Cap, who uses it as a javelin to impale a fleeing Ted Cruz.

HAWKEYE - hears Iron Man in his earpiece say, "Looks like Orange Julius is tweeting from another account." Hawkeye: "On it." He locks in on Trump through the White House window and fires an arrow, knocking the phone out of Trump's hands. Hawkeye: "Damn that felt good."
GOVERNMENT
Respectable Lawyer
Respectable Lawyer
@RespectableLaw
There's been a lot of talk about the missionary killed by the natives of North Sentinel Island. They're probably so aggressive because of this weirdo, Maurice Vidal Portman. So here's a big thread about this creep and some facts from my decade-long obsession with the island.


The Sentinelese are often described as “uncontacted,” but this not strictly true. They had a very significant contact in 1880 with Commander Portman.

Portman, the black sheep third son of some minor noble, was assigned by the English Royal Navy to administer and pacify the Andaman Islands, a job he pursued from 1880-1900 with the full measure of his own perversity.


Portman was erotically obsessed with the Andamanese, and he indulged his passion for photography by kidnapping members of various tribes and posing them in mock-Greek homoerotic compositions.


During his 20 years in a sexualized heart of darkness, Portman measured and cataloged every inch of his prisoner’s bodies, with an obsessive focus on genitals.
SOCIETY
Noah Smith
Noah Smith
@Noahpinion
Remember: Just because an idea is old doesn't mean it's good.

Knowing whether old ideas are more likely to be good requires understanding whether conditions have changed in important ways.

Horse archery was an amazing method of warfare for over a thousand years...then people invented guns, and suddenly this great idea that had stood the test of time became obsolete.

Then again, when underlying conditions don't change much, tried-and-true approaches are probably better.

"Learning the lessons of history" usually just means assuming ergodicity and stationarity in an informal time-series model...

(end)
SOCIETY