That's what woke up Collins: a fellow Republican talking about a Republican tax plan.
The plan attracted little support across the political spectrum as Democrats went after their wider spending bill and two top Republicans derided it and other child allowance proposals as welfare assistance. While Romney is trying to revive it now as the cliff looms, that calls into question whether it could get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass by itself.
Unless it's for the rich folks, there are no handouts. Gotta rob Peter to pay Paul.
What the heck is the Niskanen Center? Has anyone heard of them or know anything about them? A quick web search is giving off mixed messages.
No one told Sayoc to do it, but the fact that it happened was really no surprise. In 2011, after the shooting of US representative Gabby Giffords, a Daily Kos blog warned of a new threat the writer called stochastic terrorism: the use of mass media to incite attacks by random nut jobsacts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. The writer had in mind right-wing radio and TV agitators, but in 2016, Rolling Stone accused then-candidate Trump of using the same playbook when he joked that Second Amendment people might do something if Hillary Clinton won the election.
Of course, Trumps people later said he meant they might vote. Thats how it works: Stochastic terrorism lets bullies operate in the open with full deniability, since the random element erases any provable causation.
Tellingly, the word stochastic comes from the Greek stochastikos, meaning proceeding by guesswork and skillful in aiming. Both are apt here. It takes a master demagogue to weaponize unstable individuals and aim them at political enemies.
As to the third dictionary definition, "one that imitates another," both Flynns' Twitter feeds include instances in which they retweeted or liked posts featuring "Q" or "QAnon" in the Twitter handle or the text of the post itself. Further, the Flynns do not dispute that they said the phrase, "where we go one we go all." Although they contend that their use was innocuous, the connection between the phrase and QAnon is a matter of public record, with at least one federal court recognizing the "association of this phrase with QAnon." United States v. Languerand, No. 21 Crim. 353 (JDB), 2021 WL 3674731, at *3 n.8 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2021) (citing Will Rahn & Dan Patterson, What is the QAnon conspiracy theory?, CBS NEWS (Mar. 29, 2021, 3:36 PM), https:/www.cbsnews.com/news/whatis-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory/). Indeed, the August 21, 2020 tweet that the Flynns include in the AC shows an image of the letter "Q" over the phrase "where we go one we go all," as to which Jack then commented, "this works for me."
Because the Flynns' Twitter feeds contradict their allegation that "Jack did not use QAnon slogans or code language or retweet users because they had a 'Q' in their handle," the Court need not credit this allegation in determining the plausibility of their claims. Applying at least two of the dictionary definitions of follower, then, the Flynns' own statements show that they followed the opinions of and imitated QAnon such that CNN's statement that they were QAnon followers was substantially true and not defamatory. Having said, in their own words, that QAnon's principles "work for" them, the Flynns cannot turn around and characterize CNN's making the same statement as defamatory.
In opposition to the Motion [to Dismiss], the Flynns cite several cases for the proposition "that words or conduct falsely implying an association or connection between the plaintiff and a violent extremist group, like QAnon, is defamatory." The Court agrees that falsely implying a connection to a violent extremist group can be defamatory but as set forth above, CNN's statement connecting the Flynns to QAnon is not substantially false. By their own statements, both in the AC and in the Twitter feeds that the Flynns invited the Court to consider, the Flynns connected themselves to QAnon, and therefore, cannot plausibly allege that CNN's statements were substantially false.
Original Flynn v. CNN quote here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.556958/gov.uscourts.nysd.556958.38.0.pdf - page 31
How District Judge Gregory Woods has come to a different conclusion from Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave is a bit of a mystery. In the end, it sounds like the Flynns would have been better off to let the matter drop. Those who missed this the first time around (*raises hand*) will have a harder time missing it now.
the Trump campaigns list of allegedly illegal votes - DEC 10, 2020
Nguyens 10-minute dissection of the data offered a rare real-time fact check of the unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud that the presidents allies have promoted in state hearings around the country, largely before friendly Republican audiences.
If you are going to take the names of voters in the state of Georgia and publish their first, middle and last name, their home address, and accuse them of committing a felony, at the very minimum there should have been an attempt to contact these voters, she said in an interview after the hearing. There was no such attempt. [snip]
The episode shows how quickly the allegations by Trump and his supporters have fallen apart under scrutiny, particularly in the courts, which have consistently rejected assertions that rampant irregularities tainted the vote.
Nguyen sounds like a great candidate! GA needs a Secretary of State this on the ball.
From the Daily Beast article linked above:
In April of 2019, I sat down with my team, and I said, lets come up with the biggest Election Day operation ever, because voter fraud is going to be rampant, he said in the interview, adding that if its not going to be rampant, everyones going to think its rampant. Or theyre going to game it.
Trumps former data guru told Fox that the proposal was the largest budget ever of Election Day operations, in partnership with the RNC. They would have lawyers everywhere, file suits beforehand, protect beforehand, Parscale said. He continued that the plan fell apart between last July, when he left, and Election Day. And thats a question. I dont know exactly what the answer is. But, from everything Im hearing, it did not occur, Parscale claimed.
There is, of course, ample evidence that a stunningly similar plan did occur.
Not exactly plans for an insurrection, but it sounds a lot like the Big Lie. And he talked about this in a press interview last December? Whoopsie.
Caught this tidbit in the thread:
I asked Pete Strzok how the FBI investigation into Hillarys emails started. He said it was a referral from the ICIG having gone through material she produced for congress Benghazi committee.
That means the ICIG is likely going through everything produced to the 1/6 committee
10:58 PM · Dec 15, 2021
Since I had to look it up, I'll share to save others the time:
ICIG = https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we-are/organizations/icig/icig-who-we-are
In accordance with Title 50 U.S.C.A. Section 3033, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integration across the Intelligence Community.
Trans people and others who don't identify as cisgendered ask to be called by their preferred pronouns. Some web sites (e.g. Ravelry.com) provide a specific data field for members to post their preference as part of their profile. Straight allies often provide theirs as well to normalize the practice. Twitter and Instagram recently joined in providing for this.
I am one of the straight people who fills in the field when it's provided. This is my understanding of how it works, but if I got it wrong or used the wrong language, I apologize and hope someone will correct me.
Changing pronouns is a step towards stopping these assumptions. It begins to create a space that allows people to, instead of correct you, inform you from the outset. If everyone begins stating how they identify, then everyone can feel slightly more comfortable in picking the answer they want. This option goes against the norm of being stuck with the answer they were given. [snip]
I wrote this article because a couple of weeks ago, I saw this guy complaining on Twitter that people who put their pronouns in their bio, just want attention. He went on to say they were unnecessary, and it was a stupid trend for people attempting to be different. [snip]
Many people stood up and commented against this angry, misinformed tweeter. They went on to state that they put their pronouns in their bio, not to feel special, but so that people who needed to identify themselves wouldnt feel singled out.
There is no cost to creating this space for people, so why arent we doing it?
You might want to consider a mix and match approach.
That is true, the data you refer to, that if you boost people who have originally received J&J with either Moderna or Pfizer, the level of antibodies that you induce in them is much higher than if you boost them with the original J&J, Fauci said.
The study showed recipients of Moderna or Pfizers original vaccines could easily swap third doses; the results were about the same. Volunteers who originally received the J&J vaccine appear to have gotten a better immune response if they got a booster made by Pfizer or Moderna. [snip]
J&Js one-dose vaccine uses an adenovirus, while Pfizers and Modernas two-dose vaccines use mRNA technology. The thought by scientists is that by mixing and matching vaccines that use different platforms, people may be able to get broader protection against the coronavirus and its new variants.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
The groundswell for change has already begun. May it continue to grow. From earlier in the year:
Senator Markey, House Democrats propose bill to expand number of Supreme Court justices to 13 - APR 2021
Markey was joined at the press conference by Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, co-sponsors of the legislation Representatives Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York, and activists from progressive organizations.
Thirteen justices will enable us to do justice as to rectify the great injustice that was done in packing the court, Nadler, who is also a co-sponsor of the bill, said at the press conference. He added that while the Constitution established the Supreme Court, Congress has the power to determine its size. [snip]
When asked about Pelosis opposition to the measure at the conference, Nadler said the speaker is a very good judge of events and history, and he believes as the Supreme Court continues to administer decisions Democrats find unfavorable, Speaker Pelosi and others will come along.
Keep up the pressure, Dems. Run hard like never before in 2022 to get the numbers needed.
to say out loud or actually follow through on before he came along. Newt Gingrich wins the prize for rampaging through Congressional norms and civility years before tfg, however. Newt got the ball rolling, but he just couldn't capture the public the way tfg managed to do. He lacked the charm (and the perception of wealth) needed to get people to follow him all the way off the cliff.
Like tfg, he's a complete nutbar and entirely too pleased with himself.
Profile InformationGender: Female
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 25,772
- 2023 (104)
- 2022 (294)
- 2021 (159)
- 2020 (714)
- 2019 (148)
- 2016 (10)
- November (10)