Red Mosquito

digster wrote:The talk about the 3-5 million votes doesn't really seem to do either of those.

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

Simple Torture wrote:If we did a little thought experiment: if there was overwhelming evidence of voter fraud in the range that Donald Trump believes, what sort of process would have to be undertaken to invalidate the election? Is that even conceivably possible? There's nothing outlined in the 12th amendment about what to do in such a case, and since each state gets to decide how its votes are collected, you'd probably have to start from the state level and move up from there, right? I.e., sue to invalidate enough electoral votes state-by-state so that Trump no longer had the majority. But there's nothing stopping the federal gov't from saying, "Bah, who cares." So Trump's basically inviting a constitutional crisis, yeah?

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:If we did a little thought experiment: if there was overwhelming evidence of voter fraud in the range that Donald Trump believes, what sort of process would have to be undertaken to invalidate the election? Is that even conceivably possible? There's nothing outlined in the 12th amendment about what to do in such a case, and since each state gets to decide how its votes are collected, you'd probably have to start from the state level and move up from there, right? I.e., sue to invalidate enough electoral votes state-by-state so that Trump no longer had the majority. But there's nothing stopping the federal gov't from saying, "Bah, who cares." So Trump's basically inviting a constitutional crisis, yeah?

Once Congress certifies the Electoral College votes, it's a done deal.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

I don't know, I still think it's important for unfriendly media to be there to pointedly ask questions and have followups to highlight the lies.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

I don't know, I still think it's important for unfriendly media to be there to pointedly ask questions and have followups to highlight the lies.

But only if Spicer's going to actually answer the questions. Otherwise, you can highlight the lies by using a transcript.

doug rr wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

I've always wanted to play the Coeur d'Alene golf course with that floating green..Have you played it?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

I don't know, I still think it's important for unfriendly media to be there to pointedly ask questions and have followups to highlight the lies.

But only if Spicer's going to actually answer the questions. Otherwise, you can highlight the lies by using a transcript.

What I'm saying is unfriendly reporters can ask questions, and follow up questions, specifically pointed for him to have to either lie or go against his boss. If it's only friendly media in the room they can accept the lie and not force him to double down or try to explain it.

A challenging press in that room makes the video and transcript more damning.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:If we did a little thought experiment: if there was overwhelming evidence of voter fraud in the range that Donald Trump believes, what sort of process would have to be undertaken to invalidate the election? Is that even conceivably possible? There's nothing outlined in the 12th amendment about what to do in such a case, and since each state gets to decide how its votes are collected, you'd probably have to start from the state level and move up from there, right? I.e., sue to invalidate enough electoral votes state-by-state so that Trump no longer had the majority. But there's nothing stopping the federal gov't from saying, "Bah, who cares." So Trump's basically inviting a constitutional crisis, yeah?

Once Congress certifies the Electoral College votes, it's a done deal.

It would be so messy. Even if a constitutional amendment was passed that would allow for a special election for President, if the fraud was true it would still have consequences for elections all the way down the ballot to the local level. And what do you do then?

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From the NYT Opinion pages:

Skip the Press Briefings, and Focus on the Leaks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opin ... leaks.html

So much this. If it's going to be nothing more than Spicer lying without answering questions then there's zero point for reporters to be there.

Although, the Coeur d'Alene reference doesn't really work for you or me.

I don't know, I still think it's important for unfriendly media to be there to pointedly ask questions and have followups to highlight the lies.

But only if Spicer's going to actually answer the questions. Otherwise, you can highlight the lies by using a transcript.

What I'm saying is unfriendly reporters can ask questions, and follow up questions, specifically pointed for him to have to either lie or go against his boss. If it's only friendly media in the room they can accept the lie and not force him to double down or try to explain it.

A challenging press in that room makes the video and transcript more damning.

Oh I agree. But if he's just going to recite propaganda and then walk off then the media shouldn't dignify it with their presence.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:If we did a little thought experiment: if there was overwhelming evidence of voter fraud in the range that Donald Trump believes, what sort of process would have to be undertaken to invalidate the election? Is that even conceivably possible? There's nothing outlined in the 12th amendment about what to do in such a case, and since each state gets to decide how its votes are collected, you'd probably have to start from the state level and move up from there, right? I.e., sue to invalidate enough electoral votes state-by-state so that Trump no longer had the majority. But there's nothing stopping the federal gov't from saying, "Bah, who cares." So Trump's basically inviting a constitutional crisis, yeah?

Once Congress certifies the Electoral College votes, it's a done deal.

It would be so messy. Even if a constitutional amendment was passed that would allow for a special election for President, if the fraud was true it would still have consequences for elections all the way down the ballot to the local level. And what do you do then?

If we're amending the Constitution, then anything can happen. But as it is right now, it's clear that the states can appoint electors however they want, and they can vote for whoever they want, no tradebacks.

cutuphalfdead wrote:But he didn't just recite it and walk off, reporters were allowed to ask questions. And many of them did, forcing Spicer to dig the lie deeper, giving more ammunition in the coverage that's trying to dispel the falsehoods.

tragabigzanda wrote:

digster wrote:GOING ROGUE.

Fuck yes! I would love to see more fact-based dissent from within the Gov't. Though I do feel bad for whoever runs the Badlands twitter feed, as they are likely out of a job.

Simple Torture wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

digster wrote:GOING ROGUE.

Fuck yes! I would love to see more fact-based dissent from within the Gov't. Though I do feel bad for whoever runs the Badlands twitter feed, as they are likely out of a job.

These Tweets have been deleted btw