I mean he's got every right to do that; nobody is entitled to use his replies as a vehicle for speech he doesn't want to hear or help promote.
I just wish he had the intellectual honesty to recognize that rule *doesn't only apply to him, or to speech he disfavors*
BTW, I consider a lack of intellectual honesty a disabling, insurmountable vice in public discourse, and I wish more people did. I can have a meaningful discussion with, and learn a lot from, people I strongly disagree with, if they're intellectually honest.
But people who are intellectually dishonest? Whose only lodestar is whether their argument today supports the goal they want, never mind what their position on it was yesterday? (Looking at you, @JonathonTurley). Their views are literally worthless, even when I agree with them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK. I promised you a thread on this batshit insane "Keep Trump as President for Life" lawsuit so here it is. The short summary is: "We think there may have been election law violations, so obviously there is no government" courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
To the surprise of none of you
Let's deal with some background. First, you may remember the "Purcell principle" from earlier election law threads. It's the one that says "look, even if there's some law that an election procedure is in violation of, courts won't step in if it's too close to the election"
It's amazing - and deeply sad - how much of Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail remains true and relevant today. Read the whole thing, not just the easy parts. Some highlights that still speak to me below africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/L…
While confined here ... I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." ... since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement ... #MLK
you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." ... I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. ... I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. #MLK
"Even if you believe, as I do, that Congress ought to remove Trump over his actions last week, can you fault Republicans for not wanting to be a part of this specific process?"
Look, @HaMeturgeman, I get it. But the response, if that's how a particular republican senator feels, is to make a floor speech denouncing what they see as inappropriate politicization and then explaining that they're voting to remove *despite*, not *because* of it ...
Because it's the right thing to do and a necessary response to Trump's impeachable misconduct.
"I can't do the right thing because you didn't do the right thing" is, particularly in the face of this issue, completely indefensible.
Please do not pile onto Michael, who is lovely. But this raises a point that I think deserves wider discussion: the idea that anger, hatred, jealousy, and the other so-called "darker" emotions are inherently bad ... is wrong. They aren't. They're just more likely to be used wrong
Anger can be righteous, and productive. It can spur us to action, to fight against injustice, to self-sacrifice in the name of a good cause. The problem isn't anger per se, it's inappropriate anger, misdirected anger, uncontrolled anger
Hatred isn't necessarily wrong. You *should* hate Hitler, for example - have a bone deep revulsion for and visceral rejection of people who would murder innocents for personal gain, incite race wars, etc. Your internal response to that *should* be emotional, not just logical
People keep saying Clayton Kershaw throws a lot of strikes, but I've watched his games and the pitches they call "strikes" NEVER hit the batter. Nobody discusses this.
Look, I get it. The constitution uses the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and in the context most people are familiar with the words "crimes" and "misdemeanors" mean "criminal offenses". That's not how it's used here
Easy way to prove that? "Misdemeanors", in the usual legal sense, *are* crimes - just relatively minor ones
Looks like we need to spend some time talking about the Parler lolsuit against Amazon and why it's deader than a Mitch McConnell comedy special. They've brought three claims - antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference. None will survive. Here's why
Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly