"Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being destroyed by the Democrat Party and the media. ... We're standing at the precipice and we're looking into the abyss." https://t.co/jOlcM6dMD4
Not sure who needs to hear this, but if you're continuing to baselessly argue that there was widespread fraud and/or that the election was somehow "stolen" from Trump, you're encouraging people to attack again.
It's time to stop lying to your audiences, to your constituents.
"Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being destroyed by the Democrat Party and the media. ... We're standing at the precipice and we're looking into the abyss." https://t.co/jOlcM6dMD4
More from Parker Molloy
This is a good piece by @AaronBlake. I've been scratching my head over claims that there was something in this trove of emails that implicated Fauci in something bad because pretty much everything matched up with what was being said publicly at whatever time the emails were from.
One thing that's occurred to me over the past few years is that there's a sense that the mere *existence* of emails is seen as evidence of wrongdoing, which is obviously nonsense.
It played out that way when it came to the DNC and Podesta emails in 2016, the Hunter Biden e-mails in 2020, these e-mails in 2021. It wasn't that there was much that was damning in, say, the DNC emails that helped sink Clinton's candidacy, but just their existence ...
... gave off a sense of corruption/scandal/etc., that weighed more heavily on people's perception of them as the result of them taking the form of a leak/data dump.
And it's kind of similar with the Fauci e-mails (which weren't leaked, but were FOIAed).
Anyway, again, @AaronBlake's post is a good and methodical breakdown of some of the bizarre claims being thrown about. If there's anything we didn't already know contained in those e-mails, I haven't seen it.
Analysis: The alleged Fauci \u201csmoking gun\u201d emails https://t.co/DH0EOElMii
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 3, 2021
One thing that's occurred to me over the past few years is that there's a sense that the mere *existence* of emails is seen as evidence of wrongdoing, which is obviously nonsense.
It played out that way when it came to the DNC and Podesta emails in 2016, the Hunter Biden e-mails in 2020, these e-mails in 2021. It wasn't that there was much that was damning in, say, the DNC emails that helped sink Clinton's candidacy, but just their existence ...
... gave off a sense of corruption/scandal/etc., that weighed more heavily on people's perception of them as the result of them taking the form of a leak/data dump.
And it's kind of similar with the Fauci e-mails (which weren't leaked, but were FOIAed).
Anyway, again, @AaronBlake's post is a good and methodical breakdown of some of the bizarre claims being thrown about. If there's anything we didn't already know contained in those e-mails, I haven't seen it.
2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e
https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”
No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:
1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.
2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
Sen. @JohnCornyn on budget reconciliation: "Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you now. But you're sure to regret that someday." pic.twitter.com/12wwUkq43r
— The Hill (@thehill) February 1, 2021
https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”
No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:
1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.
2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
This is what happens when the Trump cultists refuse to acknowledge anything outside their extremely insular bubble: they can’t grasp that the majority of the country thinks he sucks and voted him out.
Not once in 4 years of Gallup’s 3-day tracking of Trump’s approval rating was it ever higher than 49%.
He was the least popular incumbent since Carter to run for re-election. It’s not shocking that he got his ass kicked in the election. https://t.co/7BSCQR2vI2
But if you do nothing other than consume conservative media, you’d be under the false impression that he’s popular, that his ideas are popular, and that the people who oppose him are a small group of haters.
In Gallup’s last update before the election, Trump had a -6 net approval rating. The last time it was a net positive was in May when it was +1.
And here’s how you get numbers like that: you do absolutely nothing to try to win over people who aren’t already part of your base. Look at those numbers among independents.
Check out the framing of this question from Fox News host @DavidAsmanfox. Embarrassing. pic.twitter.com/rchZqSV4n1
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 2, 2021
Not once in 4 years of Gallup’s 3-day tracking of Trump’s approval rating was it ever higher than 49%.
He was the least popular incumbent since Carter to run for re-election. It’s not shocking that he got his ass kicked in the election. https://t.co/7BSCQR2vI2
But if you do nothing other than consume conservative media, you’d be under the false impression that he’s popular, that his ideas are popular, and that the people who oppose him are a small group of haters.
In Gallup’s last update before the election, Trump had a -6 net approval rating. The last time it was a net positive was in May when it was +1.
And here’s how you get numbers like that: you do absolutely nothing to try to win over people who aren’t already part of your base. Look at those numbers among independents.
More from News
1/1 On @seanhannity last night (at 5:56 of this clip), @SenTedCruz said that the Hayes-Tilden Commission was "charged with reviewing the evidence and making a determination about the disputed ballots." That's incorrect. The Commission was tasked with determining which rival ...
2/2 ... group of electors was appointed by the authority within state government entitled to make that appointment at the time the electors cast their votes on the constitutionally required day. Justice Joseph Bradley, who was held the intentionally tiebreaking seat on the ...
3/3 ... 15-member Commission, explained his decision in favor of Hayes by saying that it was NOT the Commission's authority (NOR Congress's, from which the Commission derived its subsidiary power) to determine whether the state properly counted its popular vote. Instead, ...
4/4 ...it was the Commission's job to figure out which of the competing claims was correct concerning who had authority under state law to make the determination upon which the appointment of electors would be based. For Florida, Bradley ruled that the state's canvassing board...
5/5... had this authority at the time the electors voted & thus Congress was obligated to accept the votes cast by the electors that the canvassing board had appointed, and this was true even if the canvassing board's appointment was based on a mistake or even fraud affecting ...
Tomorrow is an important day. We have an obligation to protect the integrity of the election & our democratic system. That\u2019s why 10 of my colleagues & I are calling for an Electoral Commission to conduct an emergency 10-day audit to examine voter fraud allegations. pic.twitter.com/fExTpxlmKl
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 6, 2021
2/2 ... group of electors was appointed by the authority within state government entitled to make that appointment at the time the electors cast their votes on the constitutionally required day. Justice Joseph Bradley, who was held the intentionally tiebreaking seat on the ...
3/3 ... 15-member Commission, explained his decision in favor of Hayes by saying that it was NOT the Commission's authority (NOR Congress's, from which the Commission derived its subsidiary power) to determine whether the state properly counted its popular vote. Instead, ...
4/4 ...it was the Commission's job to figure out which of the competing claims was correct concerning who had authority under state law to make the determination upon which the appointment of electors would be based. For Florida, Bradley ruled that the state's canvassing board...
5/5... had this authority at the time the electors voted & thus Congress was obligated to accept the votes cast by the electors that the canvassing board had appointed, and this was true even if the canvassing board's appointment was based on a mistake or even fraud affecting ...
