On the subject of the apparent Trump family strategy of keeping Trump in a protective bubble for the next 12 days... Hicks is one of his deftest handlers.

LRT: One of the problems with Twitter moderation - and I'm not suggesting this is an innocent cause that is accidentally enabling abuse, but rather that it's a feature, from their point of view - is that the reporting categories available for us do not match up to the rules.

Now, Twitter's actual policy is that wishes or hopes for death or harm are the same as threats. That policy has been in place for years. But there's no report category for hoping someone dies. You can only report it as a threat.

Which gives the moderator, who doesn't spend long on any individual tweet, mental leeway to go, "Well, there's no threat here." and hit the button for "no violation found".

They have a rule that says persistent misgendering or other dehumanizing language is not tolerated, but again - there is no reporting category for that. We have to report it as hate against a group.

So again, the moderator looks at that tweet, briefly in isolation, and sees what, without context, might look neutral or matter of fact. A series of tweets referring to somebody consistently by the same set of pronouns or a statement that somebody is a man or woman.

I'm slightly obsessed with this "#PenceCard" nonsense which is like the Platonic ideal of the current level of Trump election stealing conspiracy theory nonsense.

Here's a thing about the United States: the vice president famously *does nothing*. By design. The job is not like the vice president of marketing or whatever where the guy has a job. Mike Pence is the spare president. He's there in case anything happens to the first one.

In the original formulation under the constitution, the vice president was the runner-up of the presidential race. Nobody ran for it. There was no assumption that it would be an ally of the president; more likely they would be rivals.

They're officially "president of the senate" just to give them something to do to keep them around the capital but they're not a senator and only get to vote if there's a tie, so most of the time that ceremonial role is fobbed off an actual senator.

But this senate presidency that we give the vice president currently has attached to it some purely ceremonial duties in the very perfunctory part of the election process where votes are counted and reported to Congress.

The lesson here is not "OMG big tech is more powerful than the president, this isn't how it's supposed to be!" but "Even the president is not exempt from the rules we all agreed to follow, that is exactly how it's supposed to be."

I was working on something before the election that became the election...

Color revolutions are real and we just witnessed one live and direct...

1.

NEW - on @skynews shortly:
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains

- No unilateral exit from backstop

- Large annexe on level playing field

.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...

... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.

Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed

Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.

We promised people that if we won the Senate, we would send out $2,000 survival checks. They delivered us to victory—and now we MUST deliver.

“Targeting” checks to a smaller group fails to do that. People need help like never before, and we must put money in their pockets.

“Targeting” checks isn’t just bad for people, it’s bad policy too! It’s not humane, it's not smart, it’s not effective, and it’s not even fiscally responsible. Not to mention that it doesn't meet the scale of this crisis.

Help me spread the word about 4 obvious reasons why:

1⃣The survival checks often use 2019 tax data to measure someone’s income.

Millions lost their jobs in 2020 due to COVID—that’s the whole point of this relief!—and therefore their income from 1 or 2 years ago is no longer accurate. They need help now and we must provide it.

Even if someone isn’t one of the nearly 1 million additional people losing their job EVERY single week, they likely lost hours and therefore had their overall income significantly reduced.

By “targeting,” we cut out people who are desperately in need of help.

2⃣The data from people who filed for unemployment shows that more than 20% of those earning between $50k and $70k were still food insecure.

That's up 16% from 2019—and it's why food banks have such long lines. We need to put money in their pockets so they can feed their family.

I reckon a lot of you probably view me as a crazy left winger. And that may well be fair, but if you’re wondering how I got here , I’m gonna have a crack.
In my 20s I had pretty much zero interest in politics. I grew up in Central Qld, surrounded by conservative influences.

Towards the end of the Howard years I began to feel that what he was doing wasn’t right, probably starting when they changed the rules retrospectively in the wharfie dispute. But it was even more troubling when he began adopting Hanson’s racist immigration views, and children

Overboard was a shameful chapter in racist dog whistling. I was disappointed that he spent the proceeds of the mining boom on Johnny’s Battlers instead of future proofing our economy and building a sovereign wealth fund. His failure to implement any sort of climate policy was

His biggest failure though, in my opinion. Despite that, I admired his guts with the gun reform he achieved following Port Arthur.
It was with renewed hope that I rode the #Kevin07 wave to a change in government. I felt hopeful that Australia was going to be a world leader in

The fight against climate change. How disappointed I was, as Rudd and the Greens completely botched a golden opportunity. Then Rudd showed a streak of cowardice I still cannot comprehend after miners spent a few bucks on tv ads attacking the RSPT. Julia jumped in the hot seat