[Hassan Rouhani]
Who paid HUSSEIN to attend HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?
Who is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?
Why would Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (Saudi Royal) pay HUSSEIN to attend HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?
.
As part of a food service element, approximately 30 members of the D.C. National Guard ensure that 18,000 catered meals are unpacked, sorted, distributed and served to National Guard Soldiers and Airmen in Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2021. pic.twitter.com/bDR7Nb6l81
— District of Columbia National Guard (@DCGuard1802) January 14, 2021
[Hassan Rouhani]
Who paid HUSSEIN to attend HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?
Who is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?
Why would Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (Saudi Royal) pay HUSSEIN to attend HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?
No.
Who is Valerie Jarrett?
Where was she born?
When did Valerie Jarrett hire Michelle Robinson?
1991
Timeline.
https://t.co/EGtNETENBg
Who is Mayor (former) Richard Daley?
HUSSEIN should be VERY nervous.
BRENNAN should be VERY nervous.
KERRY should be VERY nervous.
MERKEL should be VERY nervous.
+29
How were the pallets of cash divided?
How many planes were used to transport?
Who operated the planes?
Why wasn't the money [simply] wire transferred?
US had AUTH to open bank-to-bank transfers.
How do you prevent financial T logs?
How were the cash withdrawals in EU categorized/labeled?
Where did the cash originate from?
Who provided SECURITY?
Why wasn't Congress notified?
Why was the U.S. Gov't kept in the DARK?
US law broken?
Did ALL planes land in the same location (airport)?
Why did [1] particular plane land outside of Iran?
[WHO] did the money go to?
HOW DO YOU AUDIT A FOREIGN AID BIG BLOCK TRANSFER?
Did Rouhani keep 'unknown' comms as insurance?
What agency collects ALL FORMS OF DATA?
What agency did @Snowden work for orig?
Did he train on THE FARM?
Define 'Contractor'.
Define the 'PRISM' program.
What year did @Snowden release spec-details of PRISM?
Mid 2013?
IMPACT-LIMIT NSA's ability to utilize/collect?
FAKE NEWS push for Congressional restrictions?
OPEN SOURCE PUSH to create
More from Day1JTrumpet
More from Trump
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
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
