You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me.
Note: I raised $2,000 for her because she still would’ve been better than John Carter, but holy crap. Image
Speaking of which, considering she managed to lose her own race by 3x the margin @mjhegar did in 2018, perhaps @donnaimamTX isn’t the best person to talk about what a winning campaign strategy looks like. ImageImage
(Note: Yes, I’ll still raise $ for her if she’s the Democratic nominee again in 2022, because again, she’d still be an improvement over Carter...but jeez.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Charles #GetCovered-ba

Charles #GetCovered-ba Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @charles_gaba

8 Jan
This is the push to expand the number of House Congressional districts, which used to happen every once in awhile as states were added & the population grew but has been stuck at 438 for decades for no good reason.

Doing so would also dramatically weaken the Electoral College.
Whoops, sorry...435; the other 3 are for the Electoral College only.

The Constitution sets a minimum number of U.S. residents per House district (30,000) but doesn't include a maximum...and now we're up to over 700,000 apiece.

At a bare minimum the Wyoming Rule.
The Wyoming Rule would set the minimum at whatever the lowest-population state is. Wyoming has 578,000 residents, so that would bring the total up to around 569 districts or so.

In theory, you could make it as few as 30,00/district, but that'd mean nearly 11,000 House districts.
Read 6 tweets
7 Jan
Holy shit...that’s a lot more than 15! That’s like 700!

Most are curfew violations so they happened after the invasion but still.
(sigh) OK, never mind...here's the list only including yesterday or today: Image
If you only include those with charges other than "Curfew Violation" it's just 35 people...and 5 of those don't list any charge at all (?) Image
Read 4 tweets
7 Jan
A reminder:

--Merrick Garland prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombers...white supremacists.

--Merrick Garland prosecuted the Atlanta Olympics bomber...a white supremacist.

--Merrick Garland prosecuted the Unabomber (not sure whether he was technically a white supremacist or not.) Image
People keep saying Garland "won't be aggressive enough" re. Trump & his corrupt thugs, but I don't know what that's based on. I assume because he seems like he has a mild-mannered style or whatever that people assume he'll be milquetoast, but is there evidence of that?
Read 5 tweets
7 Jan
Good for @SenSchumer: "They weren't protesters. They were violent thugs, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law with NO leniency."
Schumer tears Trump apart for inspiring, inciting and egging on the mob of thugs.
I'm not usually much of a Schumer fan but this is pretty solid.
Read 4 tweets
7 Jan
Every decent American IS disgusted by it. Unfortunately, Republicans are no longer decent Americans.
“Not all Republicans!”

Nope. Not anymore. Don Jr. said it clearly this morning TO THE VERY MOB THAT DID THIS: The GOP’s ass belongs to Trump now.

If you’re a decent American who has called yourself a Republican until now, it’s time to leave the party. There’s no saving it now.
I'm not saying it's time to become a Democrat. I'm saying it's time for you to form a new party. Call it the Lincoln Party or whatever. Does that mean wandering in the political desert a few cycles? Perhaps, but you'll be back at some point, without the stench of Trumpism on you.
Read 4 tweets
6 Jan
Annnnd there you have it.
I would've preferred Sally Yates and have no idea how assertive Garland will be, but this solves a problem for Biden: He promised to place a black woman on the Supreme Court, but snubbing Garland for SCOTUS after what happened in 2016 would be...awkward.
This way he neatly resolves the bad taste in everyone's mouth re. Garland getting shit on by McConnell without breaking his promise re. SCOTUS.

The GA results also presumably mean Biden will be able to fill Garland's current judicial seat, so there's no risk there.
Also: There's not even the slightest conflict of interest re. prosecuting Trump/etc because Trump had nothing to do with McConnell fucking over Garland.

Hell, Garland actually sided with Trump's position on a major case just last week:
acasignups.net/20/12/29/which…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!