Thread: There is the usual talking point going around the pro-Iran-Regime-Lobby in which Israel is once again presented as somehow doing something wrong by seeking to work with the US on Iran threats...or that Israel could start a "war"...the usual "war" bogeyman myth
More from World
1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
Some argue that if the Senate declines to hold a legally questionable, resource-sucking trial, Trump would be getting a free pass. That assumes criminal authorities do nothing and citizens can't be trusted to evaluate. Censure and focus important work?
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) January 22, 2021
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
Good question: what proofs has BDA provided of his authenticity?
Let's go through some of them.
- BDA predicted the Saudis would assassinate Suleimani. They did.
- He said the dog that got Badghadi's arm deserved a Medal Of Honor. The next day the President posted a joke image showing him giving the dog a MoH.
- He said one of his ops in Syria would severely disrupt a CIA drug trafficking operation. This was proved true within a few days:
https://t.co/Hranupwcxj
- He sent gold to Brazil to help pay for an anti-trafficking operation there. That op became public soon afterwards.
- On May 31 this year, he predicted the President would be giving a speech the next day. June 1, the President gives a surprise address at the Rose Garden.
- He predicted the US would be making diplomatic moves on Greenland. True.
- He said the US would be pulling all troops out of Afghanistan. This was confirmed within the month.
- He claimed earthquakes would be hitting Iran's nuclear facilities in December. Yep.
- There were FOUR facilities hit, not the three made public. Also true.
Let's go through some of them.
Do you really believe this? And you believe BDA is a time traveler too? You say BDA has accurately predicted things. Please point me to the proof. I have not seen any proof so far.
— I am Justice. God's Kingdom is coming. Wake up. (@GlynAlyn) October 13, 2020
- BDA predicted the Saudis would assassinate Suleimani. They did.
- He said the dog that got Badghadi's arm deserved a Medal Of Honor. The next day the President posted a joke image showing him giving the dog a MoH.
- He said one of his ops in Syria would severely disrupt a CIA drug trafficking operation. This was proved true within a few days:
https://t.co/Hranupwcxj
- He sent gold to Brazil to help pay for an anti-trafficking operation there. That op became public soon afterwards.
- On May 31 this year, he predicted the President would be giving a speech the next day. June 1, the President gives a surprise address at the Rose Garden.
- He predicted the US would be making diplomatic moves on Greenland. True.
- He said the US would be pulling all troops out of Afghanistan. This was confirmed within the month.
- He claimed earthquakes would be hitting Iran's nuclear facilities in December. Yep.
- There were FOUR facilities hit, not the three made public. Also true.
You May Also Like
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?