The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
RolandRat said:
if the reporter didn't ask this follow up question then that reporter was bad. Low hanging fruit should be plucked in these situations.
Click to expand...

This seems to happen a lot - reporters don't ask obvious tough follow up questions. I asked a radio reporter about this once and he said "one word - access. If they don't like what you ask you don't get to ask again."

Note: obviously there are some limitations to that. I don't think the president could shut out Fox completely, for example.
 
slyjoe said:
This seems to happen a lot - reporters don't ask obvious tough follow up questions. I asked a radio reporter about this once and he said "one word - access. If they don't like what you ask you don't get to ask again."
Note: obviously there are some limitations to that. I don't think the president could shut out Fox completely, for example.
Click to expand...

That's bad, I think. So reporters prefer the chance to ask more superficial questions to the opportunity to drive a point home? No wonder the media are so little respected. And this is a "person on the street"; there is an endless supply of "persons on the street", so why worry bout access?

:mad:

Hans
 
Ironic, the thread about Marjorie Taylor Greene has been turned into a beat-up-the-press thread. How many of you read the news story? How many of you know what the reporter asked or didn't ask? How many of you know -- could know -- whether the reporter asked followup questions and got answers but that they were edited out?

This was a local reporter working for a local news company writing for a local audience. He showed the tweet photo to residents and asked was it offensive. Most -- but not all by any means -- said they didn't find it offensive. One woman answered that what was offensive was the representatives trying to change American lives. The journalist's job is reporting, not 'driving home points.' Did he ask her how the three congress members were changing American lives? I don't recall. If she was asked, she'd undoubtedly have cited things like defunding the police, giving antifa and BLM protesters carte blanch to trample on the law and violate the rights of property owners. Trying to put in place economic/social programs that 'transfer wealth' by taxing the well-to-do and using the money to fund programs for the poor and needy.

Haven't we been there-done that? Over and over and over, especially in the past four years? ;)
 
MRC_Hans said:
That's bad, I think. So reporters prefer the chance to ask more superficial questions to the opportunity to drive a point home? No wonder the media are so little respected. And this is a "person on the street"; there is an endless supply of "persons on the street", so why worry bout access?

:mad:

Hans
Click to expand...
My thoughts as well. That makes it a given these press conferences were mostly a waste of time.
 
newyorkguy said:
Ironic, the thread about Marjorie Taylor Greene has been turned into a beat-up-the-press thread. How many of you read the news story? How many of you know what the reporter asked or didn't ask? How many of you know -- could know -- whether the reporter asked followup questions and got answers but that they were edited out?

This was a local reporter working for a local news company writing for a local audience. He showed the tweet photo to residents and asked was it offensive. Most -- but not all by any means -- said they didn't find it offensive. One woman answered that what was offensive was the representatives trying to change American lives. The journalist's job is reporting, not 'driving home points.' Did he ask her how the three congress members were changing American lives? I don't recall. If she was asked, she'd undoubtedly have cited things like defunding the police, giving antifa and BLM protesters carte blanch to trample on the law and violate the rights of property owners. Trying to put in place economic/social programs that 'transfer wealth' by taxing the well-to-do and using the money to fund programs for the poor and needy.

Haven't we been there-done that? Over and over and over, especially in the past four years? ;)
Click to expand...

Got anything to show us how stupid we were here? I'd like to see what I missed.
 
I posted about a local news report I read. It was interesting, a local reporter talking with 'people on the street.' Now references are being made to press conferences. That they were a waste of time because of the lack of tough followup questions.

Separate issue, but okay.

What press conferences are being referred to? I'm posting a C-Span link to Greene's press conference the day after she was stripped of her committee assignments by the House. C-Span link It's twenty-two minutes long and is preceded by an ad that can be turned off in five seconds. The questions, at least the ones I could hear, seemed to be pretty much on point. If anyone is expecting a journalist is going to tell her off but frame it as a question, forget it. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

Has Marjorie Taylor Greene addressed the Facebook ad "Squad's Worst Nightmare" at a press conference? I was not aware she had. She was asked about the ad by Buzzfeed:
Asked by BuzzFeed News whether her post should be taken as a threat against the women pictured, Greene said, "Those who say that are paranoid and ridiculous. Fake news is always looking for the next conspiracy theory. This question is idiotic. Go back to bed." Buzzfeed link
Click to expand...
The ad was removed by Facebook for violating rules against inciting violence.

Below is the ad as it appeared on Facebook
 

Attachments

  • Everyones worst nightmare.jpg
    Everyones worst nightmare.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 22
slyjoe said:
This seems to happen a lot - reporters don't ask obvious tough follow up questions. I asked a radio reporter about this once and he said "one word - access. If they don't like what you ask you don't get to ask again."

Note: obviously there are some limitations to that. I don't think the president could shut out Fox completely, for example.
Click to expand...


...and why would he want to do that anyway? Those idiots have been gold for the Dems. Many of the Faux reporters at White House press conferences seem to regularly commit unforced errors and end up looking like fools when Jen Psaki debunks their BS and ends up owning them.

Psaki is way smarter and sharper than any of the idiot reporters at Faux, especially those who are members of the White House press corps.
 
pgwenthold said:
I don't think this is necessarily true. For example, I don't think there is any way in hell she would survive a primary challenge. It would be really easy for a challenger to use the "we may agree with her positions, but clearly she is toxic. You need someone in congress who can actually represent your interests, not someone who gets ignored. Elect me and I will not only represent you, but I will maintain the ability to actually get something done."
Click to expand...


I don't think you appreciate the environment of Georgia's 14th Congressional District. The one she was elected from.

It's 40% rural, 84% white, and 56% blue collar. In the last two presidential elections Trump won by 75% and 73% respectively. It is considered by some measures one of the ten most Repugnican districts in the entire country.

Greene's disgusting antics and virulent racism and bigotry are like red meat to her constituency. And they are unquestionably carnivores. There isn't enough of a rational component of Repugnicans in that district to even consider whether "someone in congress who can actually represent your interests, not someone who gets ignored" as a valid basis for choosing somebody else.

To beat her in an election, even a primary, one of two things would have to happen. Either she would have to commit some transgression so heinous that the right wing-nut fundi conservatives would abandon her ... and we have four years of evidence that that probably isn't even possible any more, or she would have to be challenged by someone who is even deeper into the weeds than she is.

That second possibility is, sadly, not so far-fetched.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think you appreciate the environment of Georgia's 14th Congressional District. The one she was elected from.

It's 40% rural, 84% white, and 56% blue collar. In the last two presidential elections Trump won by 75% and 73% respectively. It is considered by some measures one of the ten most Repugnican districts in the entire country.

Greene's disgusting antics and virulent racism and bigotry are like red meat to her constituency. And they are unquestionably carnivores. There isn't enough of a rational component of Repugnicans in that district to even consider whether "someone in congress who can actually represent your interests, not someone who gets ignored" as a valid basis for choosing somebody else.

To beat her in an election, even a primary, one of two things would have to happen. Either she would have to commit some transgression so heinous that the right wing-nut fundi conservatives would abandon her ... and we have four years of evidence that that probably isn't even possible any more, or she would have to be challenged by someone who is even deeper into the weeds than she is.

That second possibility is, sadly, not so far-fetched.
Click to expand...

I.E. she'd have to have a love child with a black, atheist, Socialist Democrat from California.
 
After finding out that she's into that hard core cross-training stuff I began wondering if she does steroids, and if that would explain some of her strange behavior. She is hard core creepy to me.

Every time I see this thread at the top of the list I say something like "uggghhh" out loud.
 
Ranb said:
No way I'm moving to California! :)
Click to expand...

I left CA 31 years ago. :thumbsup: I'm an atheist :thumbsup: and a Democrat :thumbsup: but my DNA test says I can't claim to be black and my biology says I can't father her love child. But I could be talked into becoming a Socialist if the money was right. :D
 
Started a thread about Taylor Green forming a "America First" caucus to support Anglo Saxon Political Values.
 
kookbreaker said:
Boebert and Greene were sole votes against the reauthorization of the National Marrow Donor program. The vote was passed 415-2...
Click to expand...

This is a program -- a database, actually -- that inventories bone marrow donors so people with leukemia or other deadly blood disease can be matched with a suitable donor. Here's Greene's explanation as to why she voted against it.
Greene, who often makes outlandish claims to seek headlines, claimed that "Nothing in this bill prevents the funding of aborted fetal tissue by taxpayers." CNN report link
Click to expand...

So it worked, at least the highlighted part, which is presumably all Greene cares about anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom