Savanna’s Act & The Not Invisible Act become law today. These laws start to address the epidemic of missing & murdered Indigenous women. Trump is taking credit for it but their passage is the result of the tireless work of Native women & their allies, including women in Congress.
More from Trump
1. Yes, Trump will claim to intend to target GOP senators up for reelection in '22 (like he did to Thune with Kristi Noem) if they don't join in @HawleyMO's sedition on Jan. 6, but the fact is, it's not clear whether Trump will be successful in ANY of those efforts & voting yes
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
A lot of conversations today among Republican senators over move by @HawleyMO to challenge the certification of Biden\u2019s Electoral College victory. Small groups of Rs were huddling on & off the floor trying to game out the politics of what will happen Jan. 6
— John Bresnahan (@bresreports) January 1, 2021
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
This is mostly right but strikes me as it needing said that I don't think the left or the intelligentsia have the slightest idea how low institutional trust in anything coming from a left mouthpiece is now. Except in-network, the best heuristic is "the opposite of what they said"
If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.
Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.
They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.
There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable
I read part of the transcript of the Trump call.
— Eric Weinstein (@EricRWeinstein) January 4, 2021
The following strikes me.
A) Trump is a true political outsider & the only one to reach the Presidency with zero government experience.
B) There is an obvious open institutional conspiracy to prevent any outsider gaining power.
If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.
Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.
They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.
There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable
Loving your take, @LindseyGrahamSC, you go get that 2022 Trump base … wait … are all y’all at @MSNBC rope-a-doping Lindsey? Better f$&kin’ DM and let me know, if so, before someone finally shows Lindsey the future I’ve chosen to write for him).
You know … Lindsey … I want you to think about something
Now if a small group can change the country, what do you want to f$&kin’ bet that ONE MF can change this country?
Oh thank Christ! I was worried you might go the other way and that would totally f$&k up everything I had left to say.
‘Cause Lindsey, I have learned something this week. We are all familiar with the phrase:
You know … Lindsey … I want you to think about something
F$&kin\u2019 dare yah, dare yah (dammit, already thought of one) to find a time in history when the following has been more true. \u201cNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.\u201d - Margaret Mead
— Moondeer (@kelleydawg) February 15, 2021
Now if a small group can change the country, what do you want to f$&kin’ bet that ONE MF can change this country?
Oh thank Christ! I was worried you might go the other way and that would totally f$&k up everything I had left to say.
‘Cause Lindsey, I have learned something this week. We are all familiar with the phrase:
You’d think that if Pence could overturn the election like Trump claimed then Biden surely would’ve taken up that chance
Also this is such a small thing but one thing I noticed in that Trump campaign ad the defense just ran, there were no citations, unlike every clip that the impeachment managers showed
Michael Van Der Veen is giving us the full Fox News Primetime Defense.
PROCESS ARGUMENT.
DRINK.
Lol my guy this is the chance to rebut the evidence that they’ve presented against Trump.
Unless Trump's new lawyer is going to argue Hilary Clinton went to court and lost 60 times and then launched an attack on the Capitol, these clips of Democrats objecting to vote counting and being overruled by VP Biden are a waste of time.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 12, 2021
Also this is such a small thing but one thing I noticed in that Trump campaign ad the defense just ran, there were no citations, unlike every clip that the impeachment managers showed
Michael Van Der Veen is giving us the full Fox News Primetime Defense.
PROCESS ARGUMENT.
DRINK.
Lol my guy this is the chance to rebut the evidence that they’ve presented against Trump.
You May Also Like
THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ
1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE
2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less. https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n
3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)
(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)
4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.
For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3
5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE
2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less. https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n
3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)
(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)
4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.
For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3
5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
So friends here is the thread on the recommended pathway for new entrants in the stock market.
Here I will share what I believe are essentials for anybody who is interested in stock markets and the resources to learn them, its from my experience and by no means exhaustive..
First the very basic : The Dow theory, Everybody must have basic understanding of it and must learn to observe High Highs, Higher Lows, Lower Highs and Lowers lows on charts and their
Even those who are more inclined towards fundamental side can also benefit from Dow theory, as it can hint start & end of Bull/Bear runs thereby indication entry and exits.
Next basic is Wyckoff's Theory. It tells how accumulation and distribution happens with regularity and how the market actually
Dow theory is old but
Here I will share what I believe are essentials for anybody who is interested in stock markets and the resources to learn them, its from my experience and by no means exhaustive..
First the very basic : The Dow theory, Everybody must have basic understanding of it and must learn to observe High Highs, Higher Lows, Lower Highs and Lowers lows on charts and their
Even those who are more inclined towards fundamental side can also benefit from Dow theory, as it can hint start & end of Bull/Bear runs thereby indication entry and exits.
Next basic is Wyckoff's Theory. It tells how accumulation and distribution happens with regularity and how the market actually
Dow theory is old but
Old is Gold....
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) January 23, 2020
this Bharti Airtel chart is a true copy of the Wyckoff Pattern propounded in 1931....... pic.twitter.com/tQ1PNebq7d
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.