A run down of MTGreene’s record of anti-Semitism. It’s quite vile. Since she’s a white Christian nationalist, like much--even most--of Trump’s MAGA base, Greene’s anti-Semitism came w the territory, but it’s sobering to see this collation. tinyurl.com/y4rc7qyn
It seems that MAGAts can tolerate any amount of cognitive dissonance. They don’t object to Jews like Jared Kushner, for example. But that can be explained by their Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism, and there is plenty of anti-Semitism in those groups too. 2/3
For Dispensationalists, you see, one has to be the right *kind* of Jew to get a pass. Most American Jews (who happen to be quite liberal) do not qualify (to put it mildly). 3/3

• • •

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

Keep Current with Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊 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 @twoodiac

7 Feb
Section 320 of the Communications Decency Act provides in part that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 1/11
Congressional Ds are now proposing to significantly amend Section 230.

It is easy to see why Sen. Warner’s proposed amendment is an existential threat to two major destructive forces in American cultural and political life: Facebook and MAGA. tinyurl.com/y57y9b4v 2/11
Consider the lawsuit against Fox News, which led to Lou Dobbs's termination there.

Among other things, the amendment would put FB and other social media companies in the same legal posture as Fox News in defamation lawsuits. They would no longer have any special protection. 3/11
Read 12 tweets
7 Feb
Trump’s approval rating is now around 34% (latest Gallup poll), and 63% of voters disapprove of him. And only 40% of Rs want him to run again in 2024.

But the remaining 60% is obdurate, and isn’t going away. As I see it, this is an insoluble problem for the GQP. 1/6
The GQP leadership might be thinking that the voting intensity of the MAGA right is greater than the voting intensity of non- and even anti-MAGA voters, so the party can win by presenting two quite different faces to the world, 2/6 tinyurl.com/y3xfna3e
but voters understand that one faction in a party is going to prevail over the other eventually, and it is clear now that the winning faction on the right is going to be the MAGA crazies. 3/6
Read 7 tweets
5 Feb
What the argument for the unconstitutionality of the trial comes down to is this:

The Senate can convict, remove, and disqualify if there is enough time to conduct a trial after the House impeaches and before the president leaves office, 1/7
but the Senate cannot convict and disqualify him from holding any future office unless he is still in office at the time of the trial. 2/7
IOW 1: a president (or other government official) can be convicted and disqualified for an impeachable crime or misdemeanor that he commits sufficiently early in his term of office, but gets off scot free provided that he does it late enough in his term of office. 3/7
Read 7 tweets
5 Feb
It is a fundamental mistake to confuse congressional impeachment with a civil trial. The two have quite different purposes, and very different rules apply to them. 1/15
For one thing (not the only thing), the Constitution does not authorize Congress to impose the same civil penalties that civil courts can impose. 2/15
Trump--who was a private person as well as president on or before January 6--might well be tried in criminal court now *as a private person* for his actions *as a private person* on or before January 6, 3/15
Read 15 tweets
5 Feb
Anyone who reads this and still thinks the trial is unconstitutional is a retard. Those who continue to claim that the trial is unconstitutional (which includes most Senate Rs) are gaslighting, dangerous liars. Any questions? @TheReformRepub1 1/3 tinyurl.com/y5a4txkw
2/3 Image
3/3 Image
Read 4 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!