Thread: THIS IS THE SILENCING MOMENT BETWEEN THE
LIGHTNING.....AND THE THUNDER!
The Left is trying to silence & isolate Trump & his key supporters in a massive purge on Big Tech Platforms.
Americans are justifiably outraged as unelected Silicon Valley Oligarchs DECLARE DOMINION.
More from #SOULWAR ✝
Thread: ALL EYES TO GIULIANI! As the EVIDENCE mounts the smears of him & gas-lighting of US intensifies.
Rudy is WRECKING their narrative.
He knows exactly how to present a damning evidence backed case.
SMOKIN'Joe Frazier votes FROM THE
Rudy is WRECKING their narrative.
He knows exactly how to present a damning evidence backed case.
SMOKIN'Joe Frazier votes FROM THE
It's just the DEAD former world heavyweight champion, Joe Frazier, who rose from the grave to vote for Joe Biden in Philly. pic.twitter.com/N6UDUtkU5o
— Ruby RockStar \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@RubyRockstar333) November 7, 2020
More from Trump
💥💥💥Situation Update, Dec. 3rd – Trump invokes foreign interference provision of his 2018 executive order, authorizing military response to cyber warfare, see NSPM 13 💥💥💥 [M.Adams]
⁉️ ✅ Ask yourself this question: What was the purpose of yesterday’s White House speech about election fraud and vote-rigging?
✅ If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller
✅ and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
⭕️ Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech:
https://t.co/G9kmUfVQzS
🇺🇸Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
1. First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States
2. Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s underway:
As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
⁉️ ✅ Ask yourself this question: What was the purpose of yesterday’s White House speech about election fraud and vote-rigging?
✅ If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller
✅ and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
⭕️ Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech:
https://t.co/G9kmUfVQzS
🇺🇸Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
1. First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States
2. Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s underway:
As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
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?
