At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re waiting until Inauguration Day, after which they’ll start grilling him about it to start an impeachment process. Gotta get Kamala in ASAP.
They are that arrogant, I don’t think they would even think against impeaching Biden on the exact charge they labelled a conspiracy theory a short while ago.
I hate those people who say they read body language or facial cues, because it reveals the true underlying nature of the people they're reading.
But this photo has that "I just burned down the farmer's house and you can't do anything to me because daddy is the mayor" wickedness about it.
This is what I found ludicrous about the Wikileaks reveal on Clinton in 2016. The chatter was all about how Russians hacked and interfered in the election and I was thinking, “Wait, the problem is that people found out the truth?”
On a smaller scale, its the same as Pelosi saying she was set up by the hair salon, as opposed to her simply doing something wrong.
Former aus gov worker here (left last year). Yep, it’s full of bullshit policy that fixes nothing and sends messages over email to everyone spouting the typical talking points you’d expect from freshly brainwashed uni graduates.
No rewards for hard work and strong ethic. That just lands you more work while management buddies get the opportunity.
It was after the 2016 defeat that Hillary posted something on twitter about liking the sound of “President Harris”
I can’t find the tweet now, but I remember seeing it and thinking “ah, that’s who’s gonna be the nominee in 2020”. I thought I was wrong but here we are, with her as likely running mate and potential Veep.
She’s a Hillary proxy and a vote for Biden is a vote for Hillary’s puppet (if Harris is Biden’s running mate).
“You white men are so fragile! Btw men who sit with their legs slightly apart are oppressors who feel entitled to women’s spaces! I demand the city put up posters to tell you to mash your testes with your thighs! Air conditioning is sexist! Clapping triggers PTSD!
“Lol white men be so fragile”
I edit work professionally, and the aim is always to impart the information clearly so there’s no misinterpretation of what’s being said.
This one sentence seems like a critical detail to get right, and I’d have debated even adding the “gold standard” bit at all. Just detail the method used and leave it at that.
But I don’t expect WaPo to respect the intelligence of the audience.
I do a bit of speed reading on stuff, and I admit my first scan of the highlighted bit did make me think that the method used was the “gold standard”. That’s on me and I should slow down.
It’s not until I had re-read the bit after seeing your comment that I saw the spin. Very devious. If they had to include that line at all, a better way to impart the information would have been, “while this study didn’t use what is considered the ‘gold standard’ of control groups and random assignments, it did rely on retrospective data...”
But that would require the Post to be honest.
“Boy, I sure am glad that I wrote an email to myself to note that things should be done by the book. If I hadn’t reminded myself, and if the President hadn’t made that conscious decision, we might have NOT done it by the book. Doing things by the book isn’t the default method, so the President specifically asking for it to be done this way, and my memorialising it in an email to myself as opposed to a memo in a file, isn’t at all odd.”
I cannot imagine how the media would react to a Trump staffer writing such an email to themselves about something they even slightly perceive as shady. They would flip their shit.
“In a meeting President Trump stressed that all discussions and negotiations with Ukraine and the Biden matter should be done ‘by the book’. Please ignore that I’m writing this email to myself on the date of inauguration of my opponent, and this meeting happened two weeks ago.”
Even if Rice regularly emailed herself like this in order to note things, it’s still sketchy af.
It baffles me as well. There’s a section in 1984 where Winston tries talking to an old man to ask him whether the old system under the capitalists was as bad as the propaganda makes out. The story also mentions that the socialists took power.
From 1984:
“Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything, and disposes of the products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport—everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist programme; with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.”
Or a government agency’s media communications branch. That’s where I’ve seen them land, anecdotally