Jeff Flake, 10 seconds later, votes to help him install a series of 4,000 new judges that are very, very pro-babyphagia.
TRUMP: "I've decided to eat babies."
PEOPLE: "He can't eat babies, that's super illegal."
TRUMP, on TV, eating babies, not even cooking them first: "People are saying that I really am the best baby-eater, folks."
NYT: "Trump Vs. Babies: The Rhetoric On Both Sides Must Stop"
Jeff Flake, 10 seconds later, votes to help him install a series of 4,000 new judges that are very, very pro-babyphagia.
Mike Pence then invites a Baby Chef to say a prayer.
Trump: *eats tons of babies at a rally*
*literal tons of babies*
Twitter user EATLIBERALBABIES98342U5293485823742: "eatin babbies to own the soy cuck npcs
Twitter user TRUMPTRAINDIAPERDAVE78452394638476923645982: "i am def real not robotski"
Trump: *opens a chain of baby-eating restaurants, Ivanka runs it, each baby is branded with the presidential seal, each sale goes toward his 2028 reelection campaign*
Press: "What did you get in return?"
Schumer: "I was supposed to get something in return?"
Trump, at a rally that night: "Folks, folks, I still eat babies, I ate a baby right before I came out here. I eat them like pizza, with a fork and knife."
More from Politics
Prepare to have your mind blown. https://t.co/QKvDLVx8KG Lin Wood, Isaac Kappy Here’s what we know
1. Lin Wood shares the password
2. Website has an article where the first letter of each sentence matches password
3. Title of article is an anagram for issac kappy
4. Somehow the file is stored in tor because of the reference to torsocks
5. Nobody has done an in depth analysis of the source code to see if there’s any hints there
6 search engine searches for slack, tor, and website returned nothing
https://t.co/lCajyM4TWp @sistronk @Crazy_German17 @boy17_tommy @105artillery @thecoffeebarons @Mareq16 @MKEBRAWLER @RealMaciejHelak @C8red8r @FabianBlondel @LaureenZapf
https://t.co/4tUs7tESwg
Silicon Valley is modelled after Crassus
1. Lin Wood shares the password
2. Website has an article where the first letter of each sentence matches password
3. Title of article is an anagram for issac kappy
4. Somehow the file is stored in tor because of the reference to torsocks
5. Nobody has done an in depth analysis of the source code to see if there’s any hints there
6 search engine searches for slack, tor, and website returned nothing
https://t.co/lCajyM4TWp @sistronk @Crazy_German17 @boy17_tommy @105artillery @thecoffeebarons @Mareq16 @MKEBRAWLER @RealMaciejHelak @C8red8r @FabianBlondel @LaureenZapf
https://t.co/4tUs7tESwg
Silicon Valley is modelled after Crassus
My piece in the NY Times today: "the Trump administration is denying applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at a rate 37 percent higher than the Obama administration did in 2016."
Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016." https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh
"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."
Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”
My conclusion:
Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016." https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh
"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."
Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”
My conclusion:
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
You May Also Like
A list of cool websites you might now know about
A thread 🧵
1) Learn Anything - Search tools for knowledge discovery that helps you understand any topic through the most efficient
2) Grad Speeches - Discover the best commencement speeches.
This website is made by me
3) What does the Internet Think - Find out what the internet thinks about anything
4) https://t.co/vuhT6jVItx - Send notes that will self-destruct after being read.
A thread 🧵
1) Learn Anything - Search tools for knowledge discovery that helps you understand any topic through the most efficient
2) Grad Speeches - Discover the best commencement speeches.
This website is made by me
3) What does the Internet Think - Find out what the internet thinks about anything
4) https://t.co/vuhT6jVItx - Send notes that will self-destruct after being read.