Now a new report indicates that Jon Ossoff has been getting paid by China at least $5,000 U.S.D.
Openly Socialist, leaders Are Working for China.
[THREAD]
Despite all the false claims from now socialist, formerly democrat, leaders that "Trump and his associates work for Russia" we keep finding more and more evidence that it is the former democrat, now openly socialist,
Now a new report indicates that Jon Ossoff has been getting paid by China at least $5,000 U.S.D.
Despite Ossoff himself claiming he hasn't received any money from China, at least he was paid $5,000 U.S.D.
"YES"
https://t.co/0ZQiEUStVE
https://t.co/s5YEw43h0b
BTW, Jon Ossoff wants a "new Civil Rights Act" and " a new Voting Rights Act." Apparently Ossoff wants to solidify voter fraud, and take away individual rights in favor for
Then there is Feinstein and he driver being a Chinese spy whom worked for Feinstein for a decade or two.
We shouldn't be asking anymore how many former democrat, now openly socialist, leaders in the U.S. are working for, and getting paid by China.
Another interesting article....
https://t.co/zv4by6zPMs
Despite claims from many rhinos that they were going to help President Trump and would follow his policy decisions after he got elected how many rhinos claimed they were now with Trump but on the back scene back-stabbed him every time they
How many candidates were those rhinos telling Trump he should choose for "x" position and that they will not attempt to sidestep his changes in policy but in reality they were the "never-Trumpers" from the start and outright continued following Obama/Biden's old
There were many times that it felt that President Trump was by himself for much of his administration as time after time allegations from GOP officials kept being sent to the never-Trump/left-wing news media.
He was met with assurances from rhinos that choosing x rhino for x government position was going to help his agenda, but in reality they were all, rinos and former democrat leaders
The swamp runs very deep and is still strong.
Even after all the "investigations", the multiple millions of U.S.D. from tax payers
More from Trump
Good to see the paper of record highlighting this important national news story that we’ve been covering at @theintercept for the past eight months.
Going to provide some links and info for those who might be interested in reading more on the topic.
In June, a trove of hacked law enforcement documents was posted online. I went through hundreds of those files to look at how law enforcement was treating antifa/anarchists vs groups on the far right.
Part of the reason I did this was because we had already published reporting showing that the NYPD was using a curfew in response to the George Floyd protests to hand over demonstrators to the FBI for questioning. Antifa was a subject of the interviews.
You can find that original reporting here: https://t.co/7vD7QuNLZP
And in more depth here:
As expected, the analysis of the docs posted online showed extensive law enforcement emphasis on antifa/anarchists even amid detailed evidence of threats and action from far right groups, including the murder of law enforcement
Going to provide some links and info for those who might be interested in reading more on the topic.
In June, a trove of hacked law enforcement documents was posted online. I went through hundreds of those files to look at how law enforcement was treating antifa/anarchists vs groups on the far right.
Part of the reason I did this was because we had already published reporting showing that the NYPD was using a curfew in response to the George Floyd protests to hand over demonstrators to the FBI for questioning. Antifa was a subject of the interviews.
You can find that original reporting here: https://t.co/7vD7QuNLZP
And in more depth here:
As expected, the analysis of the docs posted online showed extensive law enforcement emphasis on antifa/anarchists even amid detailed evidence of threats and action from far right groups, including the murder of law enforcement
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?