https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
No
@greg_doucette Sedition finally? https://t.co/34vfNIPTPY
— grumpy_gator (@jonb13x) January 2, 2021
https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action
It needs all 4 elements
If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech
And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition
Um, this doesn\u2019t satisfy all four elements?
— Alex (@arg11) January 2, 2021
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not https://t.co/l0MwTYLCtu
Overturning the election would be a lawless action, wouldn't it?
— Harley Quinn (@HarleyVicQuinn) January 2, 2021
And what Trump is trying to get Pence and Congressional Republicans to do on January 6 is imminent, isn't it?
I would think this qualifies. But you're the expert.
It has to look like the group that planned to kidnap the governor of MI? They had the four elements?
— Marquis Lafayette: "Constitutional" "Lawyer" (@RenegadeSci) January 2, 2021
It's likely 1️⃣ doesn't exist either https://t.co/c0sU4sVL2f
Which part doesn't it meet? My layman's understanding would suggest it does, so I'm wondering where the disconnect is
— Max FKA LastGeeksDying (@Titanmatrix) January 2, 2021
No wonder y'all get caricatured https://t.co/KUpByOufiU
This needs to be prosecuted. In any reasonable estimation, statements intended to cause this kind of action any time in the near future should be considered "imminent." I consider the next 3 weeks to be in the "imminent" timeframe.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
Bye now 👋 https://t.co/2RqfdWJzei
I think I'm done following apologists for terrorism.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
Can we at least say Gohmert is \u201cflirting\u201d with incitement? We saw how the Proud Boys pounced on Trump saying \u201cstand back and stand by\u201d. I worry Gohmert\u2019s words will lead to violence on the streets. If that happens and they sing his praises will that qualify as incitement? THX!
— Rebel Pony (@Corri_Girl) January 2, 2021
If someone has time to think and reflect on what was said, instead of instantly reacting, it's not incitement https://t.co/TfgJ8GPEs5
...wait, really? So if I said something that's otherwise incitement, but staple "in 30 days" onto the end, it's no longer incitement because it's not imminent?
— Fen-nic Hartley \U0001f51e (@nichartley) January 2, 2021
More from T. Greg Doucette
**********
6TH ANNUAL
BULL CITY FOODRAISER
FINAL METRICS THREAD
**********
Going to fill this thread with the updated final numbers
Prior threads are here –
➡️ Foodraiser history thread: https://t.co/Hz0jxFrswF
➡️ Initial 6th Annual data thread: https://t.co/XkK4oWE9iT
➡️ 6th Annual results photos + video thread:
You'll recall that we had to buy a sh*tload of grocery bags that were not included in our initial data thread
And then had to buy another sh*tload the next day 🤦♂️
Those paper bag runs added $386.94 to the expenditures ($193.47 x 2)
That put the grand total spent at $55,426.68:
➡️ $10 for cashier's check
➡️ $55,029.74 for food
➡️ $386.94 for bags
The Bag Fund donations exceeded what we needed though, so we capped 2020's #'s at actual expenditures and will hold the rest for 2021 (more on that down-thread)
Counting the new donors who contributed to The Bag Fund, and de-duplicating the folks who'd already donated to the main fundraiser, we ended up with 825 total donors
6TH ANNUAL
BULL CITY FOODRAISER
FINAL METRICS THREAD
**********
Going to fill this thread with the updated final numbers
Prior threads are here –
➡️ Foodraiser history thread: https://t.co/Hz0jxFrswF
➡️ Initial 6th Annual data thread: https://t.co/XkK4oWE9iT
➡️ 6th Annual results photos + video thread:
We have a few new people here since our December 2019 event, so let's start things off with some background \U0001f62c
— T. Greg "'Constitutional Lawyer'" Doucette (@greg_doucette) December 4, 2020
You'll recall that we had to buy a sh*tload of grocery bags that were not included in our initial data thread
And then had to buy another sh*tload the next day 🤦♂️
Those paper bag runs added $386.94 to the expenditures ($193.47 x 2)
That put the grand total spent at $55,426.68:
➡️ $10 for cashier's check
➡️ $55,029.74 for food
➡️ $386.94 for bags
The Bag Fund donations exceeded what we needed though, so we capped 2020's #'s at actual expenditures and will hold the rest for 2021 (more on that down-thread)
Counting the new donors who contributed to The Bag Fund, and de-duplicating the folks who'd already donated to the main fundraiser, we ended up with 825 total donors
Maximum of 2 hours of floor debate per objection
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on
Correct
The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks
I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
@greg_doucette sure you've answered this question somewhere down the line but is there a 2 hour recess for EACH objection or are all objections handled under one 2 hour recess?
— ReediculousS (@Rbd9787) January 3, 2021
Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on
So we are looking at 24 hours of debate then?
— Subtle Clever Username (@Noneya_Mindyers) January 3, 2021
Correct
And each person only gets 5 minutes to speak (also probably per objection), so the long-winded halfwits (Gohmert) won't be able to drag it out very long.
— Mithras Angel (place blue checkmark here) (@mithrasangel) January 3, 2021
The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks
Who gets discretion on who talks. Is It just objectors or counterpoints may also be allotted time?
— WillisisCray (@WillisisCray) January 3, 2021
I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte
can pelosi just ignore everybody
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
The midterm Congress doesn't matter; it would be the Congress elected in 2024 that takes office on 3 January 2025
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
So if the house had a Republican majority\u2014which it may well in 2022, especially given the gerrymandering and structural minority bias\u2014would they legally be able to stop the transition in 2024 of a Democratic president-elect? https://t.co/L2o4ZVdfXO
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 2, 2021
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
Historically, why is this sort of outcome allowed to be a thing? Maybe it's a failure in my imagination, but why would congress be allowed such power?
— Pogman42 (@Pogman42) January 3, 2021
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
It\u2019s just weird to me that we\u2019re able to elect senators and congressman themselves without this level of confusion but the electors create some kind of unique challenge requiring resolution by congress in some instances
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) January 3, 2021
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
What about the NPVIC? https://t.co/arg8V3QPih
— Phil Traum (@TraumPhil) January 3, 2021
Strongly desirable, but 0% likelihood IMO
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
@greg_doucette What's the likelihood and desirability of a new constitutional amendment which says that presidents cannot pardon anybody in the last 100 days of each term?
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
What's the chances we ever see a Constitutional Amendment in our lifetimes, at this rate?
— Jeremy (@11JustBreathe11) December 24, 2020
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
This one maybe: https://t.co/apWQyLD2i3
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
If you could unilaterally add an amendment, what would it be?
— KJJBAA (@KJJBAA) December 24, 2020
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
Yes Wyoming rule. No on 3 senators. The senate is broken now that CA has 39M people and Wyoming has 500k. Adding more senators doesn\u2019t fix that. Need to add some semblance of balance.
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 24, 2020
More from For later read
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
You May Also Like
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.
THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN
If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.
In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
Beautifully read: why bookselfies are all over Instagram https://t.co/pBQA3JY0xm
— Guardian Books (@GuardianBooks) October 30, 2018
THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN
If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.
In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)