German farmers are in revolt, but lack global ‘liberal’ lobby support, unlike India: Here are 3 reasons why?
https://t.co/JuFiBHYYYK via @OpIndia_com
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...
A few thoughts on this sad development 👇👇
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
Together with @ernkrans, I am interviewed in @bmj_latest: "We need to ensure that our researchers understand the concept and value of academic freedom and the responsibility that comes with it"https://t.co/AFjtbSfgjr
— Ole Petter Ottersen (@ottersenolep) February 18, 2021
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter