[thread]

Can I be the first to congratulate Boris Johnson

On getting a "British shaped deal"

On a "gold standard" trade deal

On making the UK "mightily prosper"

/joking

He won't

But he will sell it as such

And that is all that matters

[thread]

As we approach "the last throw of the dice"

I would like to do something I haven’t done enough of

Congratulations to 37.4% of the electorate

On the 23rd June 2016 you won

Congratulations

No one can take that away from you

You

Indeed I would like to be the first one to congratulate Boris Johnson

Whatever happens in the next few days

Well done Boris

Whether he gets as a deal

Or indeed no deal

Congratulations on the "win"

You will desperately sell what you won was a "win"

If a deal then with a sale of a side measure of scapegoating narrative as to why it wasn't better

If no deal then the side sale will be the scapegoating as to why

As it will always be someone else's fault

Can I firstly apologise - its obviously because I didn't believe enough or talked the country down

I am not certain which will be sold more desperately

A really shitty deal

or no deal

[thread] I would be able to move on from brexit if......

We had been told the UK holds some cards and not all of them

That it would be a difficult deal and not the easiest deal in history

That we would have liabilities to pay and these would be a substantial amount and that they are not zero and they do not buy us a trade deal

That we do not have "many solutions" to the NI border and that at the last having exhausted drones, blimps, random country examples that don't solve it and oh yes unspecified technology instead a border in the Irish Sea that no unionist can support is the answer

... continue part two

(THREAD) Pre-election Russia collusion may take down Trump. It's equally possible the Trumps' pre- and post-election collusion with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel will do it—a course of collusion also connected to the Kremlin. I explain here. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.

2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.

3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.

4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.

A central tension in our politics is this we have 1 political party that cares about upholding democracy, whereas the other party's aims can only be achieved thru undermining democracy. This is coupled w/ the fact that 1 party cares about people's well-being & the other does not

These 2 facts lead to a situation in which, in order to both uphold democracy & advance well-being, 1 party is dedicated to a functional gov't & the other party is well-served by a dysfunctional government. Such dysfunction is both instrumental & ideological (anti-government)

And then, of course, we have gerrymandering + a cap on the House of reps, 2 Senators per state, & the electoral college. A set of circumstances that gives massively disproportionate power to the anti-democracy & anti-well-being party.

Taken together, the structural issues in our electoral system, deep ideological divides about government/democracy, & the differential investment in advancing citizens' well-being does leave Democrats at a perpetual disadvantage.

A firefighter who is looking at a burning house & trying to decide whether to concentrate on stopping the fire from spreading or to save a child at the expense of a grandmother is facing a fundamentally different set of choices than the person who lit the fire in the first place

1. For people mad at Dems. Can we try to understand how politics (not justice) works? Here are some things: the Dems simply wanted the phone call information to be added to the record. They threatened to call witnesses as a negotiation tactic - thus getting the Republicans to

2. do what the Dems originally wanted - enter the phone call on the record. If witnesses were called - the trial would have gone on for weeks - in the middle of a pandemic when relief HAS to be sent out now. And Merrick Garland has to be confirmed so the DOJ can get to work.

3. However, I WANT WITNESSES CALLED. I want them to have such explosive testimony that the whole world once again knows what it knows - that Trump is guilty. I want more Republican Senators to change their mind and vote to convict. The problem is? We would NEVER GET 17 to do so.

4. It fucking SUCKS. It SUCKS that the Democrats can't just call witnesses and make the Republican Senators appear to the world even more cowardly than they were - hearing that testimony and STILL voting to acquit. BUT that's the fantasy version where the media doesn't once again

5. start blaming Dems during this fantasy-witness-calling-trial for not getting Covid relief out, etc. The issue here is that NO MATTER WHAT - if Trump himself with Jesus back from the dead as his witness says, "I did it" the Republicans will acquit. The issue is that the GOP