Because if the revenue projections don't work out, he's the one who has to tell the public that they still have to pay the bondholders, no matter what the "boilerplate" in the law says about the bonds not being state debt, or else the state's bond rating will be ruined forever.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 22, 2018
The FBI lost five months of text messages it was supposed to preserve, citing "technical reasons"??? https://t.co/MoYgk2tZsV
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 22, 2018
@SamanthaJPower Ambassadors, with respect, this is a hysterical overreaction to the election of Donald Trump that does more damage to Freedom House's reputation than it does to the current US government's. 1/2
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 16, 2018
To illustrate this, I offer this question: Are you willing to agree on the record with Freedom House's implication that the current President of the United States was not elected through "through free and fair elections"? https://t.co/7eyu3tVblh
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 16, 2018
Where "we're just monitoring your homilies for tax-exemption compliance" would end up… https://t.co/IFpwIhuxir
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 16, 2018
I think Senate President Ruggerio should go on a statewide speaking tour to decry the grave injustice being done to him by having legislative decisions that are supposed to be made by committee be made by one person. https://t.co/1XOHi0Fnaf
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 12, 2018
Your periodic reminder: Under the changes to the First Amendment sought by 2016 Democratic candidates for President, the government would have the authority to ban Henry Holt & Co. (a corporation) from distributing Michael Wolff's book 60 days before an election.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) January 9, 2018
1st Amendment opponent @williamjfischer wants to end Constitutional protection of political speech. He's said so in so many words. https://t.co/6F67oNbUwk
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) December 21, 2017
So this seems as good a hook as will be found to ask this question: Do people really believe that democracy and the rule of law require a Federal police force that is outside of the control of an elected executive, i.e… https://t.co/fWq7Ai1i4r
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) December 20, 2017
…once fans of the Insane Clown Posse are declared a gang, that's the way it should stay, because professional law enforcement knows best and there shouldn't be any clear pathway for the representatives of the people to influence their decisions.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) December 20, 2017
I don't have to like Paul Manafort's client-base or his body-of-work to be concerned about how the legal system seems to be finding its way towards legitimizing prior restraint here. cc: @FitzProv https://t.co/vN9iSRNnCa
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) December 5, 2017
E-Verify on page 459. Says only "A State or local government may not prohibit a person or other entity from verifying the employment authorization of new hires or current employees through E-Verify".
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) December 5, 2017
I don't see what the point of differentiation is here. A communist can always find someone whose needs are judged to be greater to fill the job he controls.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 30, 2017
"A September 2017 Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 82 percent of voters favor requiring business owners to check the immigration status of employees they hire. E-Verify receives the most public support of any proposed immigration reform." https://t.co/WDV7z4bfUy
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 25, 2017
Ask them next if someone should be able to consent to work for less than the legal minimum wage. I suspect the next question will be why do you see a difference here.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 25, 2017
@matthewjdowd Here is a condensed version of where this ends up. (1/3)
Partisans decide they can tolerate "flaws" in leaders who they deem to be working for the common good, that they will not tolerate in other leaders.
Heaven on earth doesn't come about.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 22, 2017
The problem can't be the flaws in the leaders — they're working for the common good. So those not deemed to be working for the common good need to be scrutinized and regulated ever more closely.
Heaven on earth still doesn't come about. 2/3
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 22, 2017
Eventually, the partisans work their way to tolerating "flaws" in their leaders such as supporting mass oppression of those they deem to be standing in the way of the common good.
And yet, heaven on earth still doesn't come about.
3/3— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 22, 2017
@IanDon I have always thought, and continue to think, that Worcester is a bluff. This might be real tho.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 17, 2017
Does the Worcester area have the population to support a AAA team? Everyone knows Worcester and Providence have the same population., but…
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 17, 2017
Cranston/Warwick/Johnston/North Providence/Pawtucket/East Providence are equivalent to 2 more Providences. Worcester doesn't have anything like those numbers in the immediately surrounding area.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 17, 2017
To sum it up in 280 characters, now that I can, I don't see how subsidiarity can be meaningfully implemented in any system that is not heavily skewed towards representative democracy + capitalism.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 8, 2017
Hypothesis: This is only true in the peculiar liberal definition of pluralism, that wants to allow for many groups, but only allow individual can only belong to one. This, in fact, is the fundamental definition of "identity politics". @Yascha_Mounk @Sterl_Carpenter https://t.co/5zmDQW9SGO
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 9, 2017
OK, it's just one point from Hart's NYT op-ed, but "there were no political ideologies in the ancient world" is an odd statement.. 1/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 5, 2017
Plus, I wonder how many pages it would take to explain how believing in the abolition of private property is not an ideology. 2/2
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) November 5, 2017
It got this far because of what appears, right now, to be overreach by Mueller, egged on by partisan Democrats & their media enablers. 1/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
Mueller's investigation drew a clear standard that the public could understand: 2/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
..Don Jr. talking to foreigners about Presidential campaign oppo was investigable as a possible *criminal* offense — 3/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
— not just as a matter for a counter-intelligence investigation, but as a criminal offense. 4/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
OK, as @KurtSchlichter might say, if those are new rules, those are the new rules. 5/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
But if you're going to use the criminal justice system to try to overturn the results of an election.. 6/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
..then you have to meet the public's expectation that the criminal justice system runs with some degree of impartially. 7/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
So if Mueller is investigating "Russian interference", he can't go only after the Trump campaign,.. 8/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
..while ignoring high-profile, credible evidence that the DNC/Clinton campaign was buying oppo from foreign sources.. 9/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
..and still expect people to quietly accept the result. 10/x
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
What is illegal is not made legal by using politically-connected Democratic lawyers as middlemen.
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 29, 2017
If there is a crisis, it will be spawned by trying to use criminal justice system to overturn the results of an election.. 1/2
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 28, 2017
..with the public able to see that the law has not been impartially applied. 2/2
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 28, 2017
So DeLorenzo is out of the Democratic Party but the actual harasser is still a Democrat in good standing?
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 26, 2017
Serious Q: If a place has a policy of giving "free" benefits to everyone who meets some set of qualifications X.. 1/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 24, 2017
..and many people move to that place to be able to collect those benefits.. 2/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 24, 2017
..is bigotry the only explanation of why the people who pay for the "free" benefits might think there need to be limits.. 3/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 24, 2017
..on the number of people that can move to said place and begin immediately collecting the "free" benefits? 4/x
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 24, 2017
Yet I'm suddenly supposed to believe that disdain for democracy is concentrated in the White House & military. cc: @tomricks1 @RadioFreeTom https://t.co/GVWQYr6hF1
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 24, 2017
IMHO, this way overstates the uniqueness of military-democratic relations. 1/3
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 23, 2017
For example, that the Department of Justice should run with minimal accountability to the democratically elected executive.. 2/3
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 23, 2017
..seems to be a popular and heartily accepted opinion among members of the legal profession right now. 3/3
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 23, 2017
[Bonus] Who was it that said everyone is conservative about the area he knows best?
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 23, 2017
IMHO, it is important to put this problem into a broader context.. 1/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 21, 2017
i.e.. this aspect of civil-military relations is a subset of something happening everywhere in American government. 2/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 21, 2017
It seems that nobody in government thinks their department should be fully accountable to a democratically elected executive. 3/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 21, 2017
When claiming, eg that only police understand policing enough to make decisions about the job becomes a regular part of public debates, 4/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 21, 2017
Or that only teachers understand enough about teaching, etc.. 5/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 21, 2017
Or that only teachers understand enough about teaching, etc.. 5/
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 21, 2017
"But the introduction of more accessible registration w/o sufficient verification raises..risks of abuse & fraud": https://t.co/lc5vxCMtDi
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 19, 2017
Reminder: If you amend the Constitution so corporations no longer have speech rights, acting on something like this becomes much easier. https://t.co/zVp0ugs7ku
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 11, 2017
Does this mean that @RBReich now sees the folly of his supporting an end to 1A protection of political speech? https://t.co/CJ12YmZsxE https://t.co/Bln102LnBm
— Andrew Morse (@CAndrewMorse) October 12, 2017
Sgt. Gregory A. Belanger
Sgt. Charles T. Caldwell
Staff Sgt. Joseph Camara
Spc. Michael Andrade
CW5 Sharon T. Swartworth
Capt. Matthew J. August
Sgt. 1st Class Curtis Mancini
Master Sgt. Richard L. Ferguson
Lance Cpl. Matthew K. Serio
Lance Cpl. John J. Van Gyzen IV
Sgt. Christopher S. Potts
Lance Cpl. Holly A. Charette
2nd Lt. Matthew S. Coutu
Sgt. Dennis J. Flanagan
Cpl. Brian R. St. Germain
Staff Sgt. Dale J. Kelly
Sgt. Moises Jazmin
Lance Cpl. Eric P. Valdepenas
Sgt. Michael R. Weidemann
Spc. Agent Nathan J. Schuldheiss
Sgt. Kyle J. Harrington
Lt. j.g. Francis L. Toner IV
Pfc. Kyle J. Coutu
Staff Sgt. Thomas H. Oakley
Sgt. Michael F. Paranzino
Spc. Dennis C. Poulin
Spc. Dennis P. Weichel Jr.
Lance Cpl. Abraham Tarwoe
Staff Sgt. Timothy R. McGill
Master Sgt. David L. Poirier
1st Sgt. Peter Andrew McKenna Jr.