Jay Bookman Profile picture
Aug 11, 2020 4 tweets 1 min read Read on X
Remember late on Election Night in 2012, when Karl Rove took on the Fox News Decision Desk, insisting on air that Obama had NOT won Ohio, that Romney could still take the state & the WH? Fox News stood up to Rove that night, correctly sticking by its call despite pressure. 1/4
Well, if Election Night 2020 is at all close, Trump's move will be to declare victory and insist that mail-in ballots don't need to be counted. At that point, the pressure on Fox News to go along with Trump's fiction, to create the fact of his re-election, will be huge. 2/4
If they correctly insist that no, there are still millions of valid votes to be counted, Trump's ploy would be foiled. But if Fox caves to the pressure, calling the election for Trump prematurely & thus giving his base a rallying cry, boy oh boy are we going to have trouble. 3/4
It's one thing to have competing narratives; it's another entirely to have competing vote totals. We could see right-wing riots to halt ballot counting, like the 2000 Brooks Bros. riot in Florida on a much larger scale.
In conclusion, a lot may ride on Fox acting responsibly. 4/4

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jay Bookman

Jay Bookman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jaysbookman

Dec 7, 2023
Trump’s lies are legion and legendary, but it’s important to note that even he has trouble lying about certain things that are important to him. When he was asked to condemn the Nazis at Charlottesville, the easy thing was to do so. Instead, we got “good people on both sides.”
When asked whether he would accept a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election, the smart thing was to say sure. He could not do that. When asked about the Proud Boys, he could not condemn them; instead, we got “stand back and stand by.”
When pressed by his family and staff to condemn those who attacked the Capitol, he instead said "we love you" and called them "very special." He later said rioters "were there with love in their heart" and called January 6 "a beautiful day."
Read 4 tweets
May 10, 2022
The notion that Americans do not have a right to privacy because the Constitution does not guarantee us such a right is basically an argument that the only rights we enjoy are those granted to us by gov't.
And what gov't grants, gov't can take away.
Well, screw that. 1/9
The Declaration of Independence, written 13 years before the Constitution, says it is "self-evident" that we enjoy "certain unalienable rights," rights that King George did not give us and could not take away, including the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2/9
The Ninth Amendment further tells us that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Founders knew that the rights of a free people are too many to be contained in any list. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
Mar 18, 2022
The idea that unpopular speech should have no consequence is naive.
Almost 20 years ago, a relative few of us vocally opposed the war in Iraq, and for that we were shamed and shunned. Ask the Dixie Chicks. Then ask them whether they would do it again. Of course they would. 1/7
The editorial says people should be able to "take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation."
OK sure. But the phrase "good-faith positions" is doing Atlas-upholding-the-Earth-type duty in that sentence. 2/7
The truth is, every single human interaction is calculated in some part, consciously or unconsciously, to the response it is likely to draw. "Freedom of speech" can never mean "freedom from social consequence." It means freedom from gov't consequence. 3/7
Read 7 tweets
Mar 18, 2022
The idea that unpopular speech should have no consequence is naive.
Almost 20 years ago, a relative few of us vocally opposed the war in Iraq, and for that we were shamed and shunned. Ask the Dixie Chicks. Then ask them whether they would do it again. Of course they would.
The editorial says people should be able to "take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation."
OK sure. But the phrase "good-faith positions" is doing Atlas-upholding-the-Earth-type duty in that sentence.
The truth is, every single human interaction is calculated in some part, consciously or unconsciously, to the response it is likely to draw. "Freedom of speech" can never mean "freedom from social consequence." It means freedom from gov't consequence.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 7, 2022
The claim the FBI organized and provoked the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol is ridiculous and utterly without factual basis, but it's astonishing how quickly it is becoming accepted truth among conservatives. It's testament to the efficiency of their bullshit factory. 1/4
It's like they have a 3D printer to fabricate a new "truth" whenever they need it. In this case, they needed some way to absolve their movement of guilt for Jan. 6 -- the "antifa" thing didn't quite work out -- so they just invented one. Necessity is the mother of invention. 2/4
And it doesn't really matter if this invented truth is fact-based or convincing. There are no tethers to reality here. All that matters is that they all agree to be convinced by it. It is the believing that makes it real, that gives it heft and makes it impervious to logic. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Nov 4, 2021
It's telling to see "conservatives" demand the power to say outrageous, even violence-provoking things without suffering any social or economic consequence, when historically they have been most insistent upon the need to enforce such social and moral codes. 1/5
That's because the goal of the "conservative" project has changed dramatically. They recognize they're unlikely to achieve their goals by working within the existing order, so rather than sustain it they are attempting to discredit and destroy it, to render it unworkable. 2/5
Once it's widely seen as unworkable, once the system stops functioning, the argument for maintaining it vanishes. They're now eager to abandon democracy and the notion of "small gov't," believing that only a powerful gov't can reverse the cultural trends that so alarm them. 3/5
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(