.@Peggynoonannyc's column obsessing -- STILL -- about a "Trump-Russia" connection is both hilarious and illustrative of the way in which those in the elite media and political classes fell completely for their own propaganda, originally concocted to explain Trump's victory. (1/5)
Noonan finds it mysterious that Trump was so friendly to Russia. It was simple. Putin praised Trump in the GOP primary. Trump returned the compliment. If Putin attacked him, Trump would have attacked Putin. That's not how he is with *Putin*; it's how he is with *everybody.* (2/5)
On a deeper level Trump was pleasant to Putin in public but confrontational in strategic terms. He urged Europe to cut its energy ties with Russia. He used the U.S. military against Russian allies and mercenaries. Trump's dual-track policy worked -- unlike the alternatives. (3/5)
Trump critics tried explaining away his success. Noonan said Trump likes dictators. (Ask a dead Iranian general about that.) It was Jimmy Carter who preferred dictators, an approach echoed by Obama, hoping they were easier to appease. Trump's preference was for what worked. (4/5)
Biden's Russia policy was softer on Russia than Trump's. He lifted Nord Stream 2 sanctions and gave Putin a special summit before meeting Zelensky. He tried peace through appeasement. Now he barks at Putin. We know what works. (5/5) Here's Noonan's column. wsj.com/articles/unans…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @FedSoc is currently hosting a CLE webinar on the practice of "lawyer-shaming," lately a habit of the left (think: intimidation of Trump's election lawyers). It's aiming to qualify for credit for "anti-bias" training -- normally a tool of left-wing indoctrination by the Bar.
2/n Initially there was bipartisan condemnation of lawyer-shaming (when aimed by right at terror defense attorneys or by left at lawyers who defended Defense of Marriage Act). Then in 2019 law students/activists on climate change began pressuring lawyers to drop fossil fuel firms
3/n Then there were efforts by the left to "blacklist" Trump administration lawyers merely for serving, and in 2020 to shame Trump election lawyers "viciously," regardless of whether they were involved in litigation that claimed election fraud. (See, e.g. breitbart.com/2020-election/…)
-Ye says all he was doing is pointing out prevalence of Jews (false: he was suggesting Jewish control, and issuing threats vs. Jews)
-Ye says it was "beautiful" that people can see how you are canceled for making that observation (1/x)
(What's "beautiful" is @Ye showing how little he knows and how hateful he is. He should not have been canceled or "debanked," even though -- and perhaps because -- his views are repellent: canceling people prevents them from showing how ignorant they are. Which he's doing.) (2/x)
.@Ye adds that "Zionism" in fashion industry resulted in him being canceled by @Adidas. (Yet another example of an attack on "Zionism" that is really an attack on Jews.) He says that he learned today "they" wanted him in prison, but would still run for president from there. (3/x)
Watching a delayed version of @SecBlinken's speech in South Africa... cliché after cliché for the first five minutes. Evidently his new "strategy" is to fart the ANC warm (1/n)
@SecBlinken First priority: openness -- capacity of nations and individuals to "choose their own path." More clichés ... flattering the hosts rather than actually doing anything useful (2/n)
@SecBlinken Blinken lauds a new data center in South Africa... great! If they can keep the electricity on. Hasn't mentioned that yet... just complains about "international infrastructure deals." The problem in South Africa isn't "international" (3/n)
When are White House press going to get around to asking @PressSec@KJP46 the question that they asked of press secretaries during the Trump era: "Will you pledge never to lie to us from that podium?"
@PressSec@KJP46 Question for @seanspicer, Jan. 23, 2017: "Is it your intention to always tell the truth from that podium, and will you pledge never to knowingly something that is not factual?"
Question for @SarahHuckabee, Aug. 2017: "[T]wo questions that all of your predecessors faced. ... do you see any circumstances where it’s appropriate to lie from the podium?"
IMO the charges against the parents in the MI school shooting are a stretch. The prosecutor implied that they, and not the school, ought to have asked the shooter if he had his gun and searched his backpack. Can the principal be charged on the same basis? This is likely political
The backpack, parents, child, and principal were all on school premises at the time. And there is no evidence yet that the parents knew the child had drawn disturbing images — in fact the evidence is contrary, suggesting warm relations between parent and child before the shooting
Parents who knowingly supply a disturbed child with a firearm could indeed be held accountable, but the weakness of the evidence thus far suggests the aim is to make a statement more broadly holding gun owners generally in suspicion especially if they question gun control worries