A video of a guy getting decked at DC protests has gone viral. Longer clip shows the same guy initiating violence, & kicking someone on the ground before being sucker-punched. The point is that a clip designed to tell a story may not tell the whole story.
Here is the longer clip. This is in no way condoning what happened, but as a factual matter I don’t want to see bad faith actors like Andy Ngo pushing false narratives that go unanswered.
Trump himself posted the misleading clip, while labeling counter-protestors as "scum" and "human garbage" praising his supporters for "fighting back" and telling police "don't hold back." He is actively encouraging this sort of street violence.
We interpret events using our political preferences. So we follow people who share videos that seem to tell a certain story, and we are primed to accept that story. Setting aside individual incidents and visuals, it's better to critically asking why such conflicts emerge.
Ngo did post a clip featuring the run up to the guy getting decked, which he labeled “BLM-antifa thugs are running around and beating people” - hardly correcting the record
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Stanford is both a) trying to hire 10 new scholars to study race in America and b) not allowing staff training to mention systemic racism because of a Trump executive order.
More context: This EO applies to federal contractors - which you can consider universities to be - not using *federal funds* for training related to topics of race. So why not use non-federal fund?. Why raise the white flag for an EO that will be rescinded in a couple of months?
It also seems pretty obvious that a government order that forces universities to flag forbidden words like "critical race theory" or "systemic racism" is a first amendment violation. Why not fight back?
There is a big difference between exhausting legal remedies in a truly close election (as Gore tried to do) and an incumbent falsely claiming that he won, that mass fraud occurred, and that legislatures or courts overturn the results. We really are in an unprecedented place.
Will Trump's actions work? Probably not, if by "work" we mean reverse the results of the election. That does not mean they will not have an effect on the legitimacy of the new President, faith in democracy, and behavior in future, closer elections.
It is disturbing that many GOP officials are happy to make outlandish suggestions like redoing the election, or barring vote-by-mail. Or that they don't feel they can push back against a base they have raised on conpsiracy theories.
On news that Bill Barr is telling the DOJ to probe allegations of voter fraud please note a) he refused to say if voting twice was fraud when Trump encouraged it and b) made false claims about voter fraud cases in the past. abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-…
The point is that Barr's interpretation of what constitutes voter fraud seems to depend very much if it aligns with partisan outcomes. Little reason to trust that DOJ investigation of voter fraud cases will be any different. texastribune.org/2020/09/04/tex…
We have seen this movie before and know the outcome.
As many are learning today, the head of the GSA, a Trump appointee, plays an important legal role in green-lighting the next stage of the transition process by declaring a winner. Its time.
New by @ThePlumLineGS: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
As I note in this piece, it is going to be hard for @GSAEmily to not declare Biden the winner as the legal challenges fail and it becomes clear that Trump is not going to flip multiple states where he is trailing by tens of thousands of votes.
Emily Murphy, the head of GSA, is in a tough spot. Trump is threatening to fire appointees for any perceived acts of disloyalty. OTOH she knows that delaying the transition has very real costs to the functioning of the new administration.
The votes that elected his Senate caucus are fine, the votes that help the GOP to pick up seats in the House are great; its those other votes that delivered a Democratic presidential victory that are inherently suspicious.
Vast difference between opposing a candidate, and even impeaching him if he breaks the law (which Trump did) and not accepting the results of the election.
Biden's victory will be greater than Trump's over Clinton. Clinton conceded the day after.
The best case scenario here, best case: no real path to victory when the legal challenges fizzle out, but Republicans salt the earth of a Biden Presidency before it begins.
"Biden voter fraud" becomes the new "Obama was born in Kenya."
What is the point of doing this except to punish imagined disloyalty?
Esper pushed back against Trump’s desire to use military to police protests and encouraged removal of confederate names from military bases. google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.…
Trump used the post-impeachment period to settle scores. He may do the same with the post-election period. Especially worried he will try to fire career employees like Fauci before he goes (thread)
Real MAGAbrain stuff here:
FBI Directors get 10 year appointments. Sure, Biden could fire Wray - a Trump's appointee who is a lifelong Republican - but it is a lot easier for Trump to do it for him.