Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

maraleia

By maraleia
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jjj
jjj

What she actually said was "*thirty-five-year-old* real estate developer", and while age is not a criterion for wisdom (just look at the 70-year-old menace in the news), part of her point was that he

M. Darcy

M. Darcy

 

Rachel gave me one more reason to hate Reagan (that I didn't know about previously).

Another reason that I hate W is that I thought I could never hate anyone as much as I do Reagan, and he kept going past that level of hatred.

 

Darn it, I fell asleep half way through the show and missed the interview with Bowser.  Rachel gave her a hard time about her part in the mess that Metro is in today ....didn't she? Sigh, I doubt it - no one ever does.  I was just going to hit the mute button when she was on anyway.

Sharpie66

Sharpie66

I hope that Rachel reports on what took place on Saturday when the GOP in the US Virgin Islands held a meeting of its delegates at a gun range. Let's just say that chaos reigned--one delegate was supposedly thrown to the floor (another report has her chucking a cell phone at its owner's head first), the Chairman was using a large ammo cartridge as a gavel while having a gun holstered at his hip, and the police were called.

jjj

jjj

The whole second slate of delegates was what she had addressed a few weeks ago, which is why I'm hoping she'll have a follow-up on these more recent events on tonight's show.

You got your wish!  I loved it when the convener of the meeting (with the cartridge gavel) said they met at the gun range "because it is a comfortable place to meet" -- meanwhile, I am looking at a room with so little space that no one would be able to leave the table unless everyone else seated at the table got up and left the room, because there was no way to squeeze between the chairs and the wall.  On both sides. 

  • Love 2
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

I just saw Rachel on MSNBC talking about the news that the Michigan AG is charging three people over what happened in Flint.  She was in full anger mode - because, as she pointed out, the pipes still have not been fixed.  Brian Williams, (shocking I know) said something important - he pointed out something that people don't seem to mention that often.  Bottled water is nice and all but useless in trying to take a shower or other things that people need water for besides drinking.

  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

I just saw Rachel on MSNBC talking about the news that the Michigan AG is charging three people over what happened in Flint.  She was in full anger mode - because, as she pointed out, the pipes still have not been fixed. 

Thanks for noting her appearance -- I can't watch the during the day, most days.  But I've been thinking about Rachel as I read about the indictments.  And more to come.  Thank goodness someone is angry that the pipes still have not been fixed.  The citizens of Flint just do not seem to have an advocate in the state government.  If this had happened in Bloomfield Hills, the pipes would have been fixed in a week.  But the initial water diversion never would have happened, so it is a moot point.  (I lived there, been to Flint, and the contrast of rich and poor between entire towns is more shocking than anyplace I have lived.)

  • Love 2
jjj

jjj

Just listened to the senior organizer for the Sanders campaign -- and I have to disagree with his assertion that Sanders would have won in caucus states like Washington if there had been a primary (so, would have had more votes to his credit).  In Washington State (where I am), the only Sanders supporters I personally know are in their twenties (I realize there are many in other categories), and I know many Clinton supporters of all ages.  The Clinton supporters just could not stand being yelled at by their neighbors at caucuses, so stayed away in droves.  The caucuses were "who can talk the loudest, the longest, and they win," and it is exhausting to spend a Saturday that way.  I think there will be a Democratic Party primary in the future; this was too frustrating to everyone, and no one is satisfied, because the Sanders supporters thing they could have won an outright primary, and the Clinton supporters wanted a chance to register their votes without the multi-hour time commitment and the charged atmosphere.  Bottom line, it is all moot as far as the Sanders campaign is concerned, because they will never get to count the votes here, and they still did not get all the delegates.  Hey, maybe they would have won here!  I just don't see it, and I am friends with vehement young Sanders supporters.  I wish Rachel had focused the conversation more on actual primaries, not "if only state 'X' had not had a caucus, those votes would have been ours." 

  • Love 4
represent

represent

(edited)

The senator of Utah is the one blocking the bill that would provide federal aide to Flint. Rolland Martin gave out his contact information on his show so that people could flood his lines in protest.

The power of governors needs to seriously be reviewed. This is way too much power to be able to overturn the people's vote and appoint his own people into elected local government positions . Shit, I don't even think the presidency is afforded with this level of power, WTF?!

I mean, this is how it all started.

Money in politics and the power of local state governments. This is problem.

It's almost like they need oversight and to review the power afforded to each of their three branches of local government.

Edited by represent
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

 

Just listened to the senior organizer for the Sanders campaign

He was....interesting. So, Hillary has the most votes...but they don't count because they are primaries.  And, the delegates should listen to the what the people want and....vote for Bernie...even though more of then have voted for Hillary.

  • Love 6
represent

represent

(edited)

Yeah, he tried to claim on Chris Matthews that Bernie can take the heat because he faced an onslaught of negative campaign ads. when he was running in Vermont. Right, well I didn't know Bernie, until this campaign, so they couldn't have been all that tough. When real shit hits the fan in local/state elections, it hits the news in all fifty states or at least the news in major cities, which I've lived in. Yep, never heard of him. If that doesn't happen then it was just your average political slug fest IMO.  He sure didn't face 25 plus years of the blood bath that Hillary has had to face. Shit, even Cruz has more street cred. than Bernie, I've hated this bastard since 2010? I think that's when his virus hit the senate.  I pretty much knew just about every politician in this race on both sides, from the start of this campaign season, except Bernie. Why? Because he hasn't begun to truly feel "The Bern" of a real campaign.

 

Sure, he can take it.

Edited by represent
  • Love 3
nichelle

nichelle

I have no idea why I've never visited the forum for TRMS. I've watched her since her very first MSNBC broadcast. And I listened to her on the radio prior to that. I have so much respect for her and at this point I'm a straight up fan. The day she started reporting on Flint, I called everyone I knew. National attention!!  I've been away from Flint for over 20 years but I was born and raised there. I still have extended family within the Flint city limits. Luckily, my immediate family moved to the burbs outside of the city years ago. Thank goodness for well water. Minnesota (just outside of Minneapolis) has been my home for the past 18 years and I happen to be a Prince fan. The last 24 hours have been bad but I so appreciated Rachel's coverage last night. I'd completely forgotten about one of Prince's songs being #1 on 'the list'.

 

I don't really have anything substantive to add here. I just wanted to express my appreciation for Rachel's work. I'll be back though!

  • Love 10
jjj

jjj

Man, I hate these town hall nights, which I don't care for at all. I just want a normal Maddow show.

Me also!  So much news to cover.  Even half a show of this would have seemed like too much.  I understand why Rachel would want to have an hour with the likely nominee, but I look forward to Wednesday, when we are back to covering the news.  I'm assuming Tuesday is hours of breathlessly announcing "too early for results", then hours of Steve Kornacki drawing on a map.  This is not a criticism of Rachel, but the network. 

  • Love 1
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Quote

I'm assuming Tuesday is hours of breathlessly announcing "too early for results", then hours of Steve Kornacki drawing on a map.

You missed one - waiting for Trump to arrive for his speech.  But the other two were spot on :-)  Since we haven't had a Rachel show in a while, I hope she covers Gov Ultrasound tonight - McDonnell's appeal is before the Supreme Court today.  My hope is with the 4/4 split, that means the lower court is upheld and he is going to jail!

jjj

jjj

Noooo, Comcast took TRMS off "On Demand"!  I had really come to count on that.  I hope it means the full video podcast will be back in time for the summer election season.

Crabby note -- it is a pain to open this thread and have to select the last page, then scroll down to post.  I know the admins have many, many issues they have to deal with, and I'll note this there.  I am glad they are doing whatever updating is needed to keep the site alive!  Thanks, admins! 

  • Love 3
kassygreene

kassygreene

No, Comcast still carries TRMS, in fact right now (April 28 @ 8:00 pm Central) it's Online & On Demand.  They only have it up for two days, and this week Monday's episode was pre-empted by a Town Hall, while Tuesday was election coverage.  

Comcast ain't gonna drop TRMS; Comcast owns NBC Universal, and they will show those programs.

jjj

jjj

3 hours ago, kassygreene said:

No, Comcast still carries TRMS, in fact right now (April 28 @ 8:00 pm Central) it's Online & On Demand.  They only have it up for two days, and this week Monday's episode was pre-empted by a Town Hall, while Tuesday was election coverage.  

Comcast ain't gonna drop TRMS; Comcast owns NBC Universal, and they will show those programs.

Whew!  Yes, the Wednesday show is now visible and viewable.  I think the Friday show never got posted On Demand, because I wanted to record the Cocktail Moment, but it never appeared!  I assumed the worst! 

ktwo

ktwo

On April 29, 2016 at 0:48 AM, jjj said:

Whew!  Yes, the Wednesday show is now visible and viewable.  I think the Friday show never got posted On Demand, because I wanted to record the Cocktail Moment, but it never appeared!  I assumed the worst! 

If it helps, I wrote down the recipe for the 20th Century Cocktail because I actually have Lillet and want to try it:

1 1/2 oz. gin, 3/4 oz. Lillet, 3/4 oz. creme de cacao, 3/4 oz. lemon juice. Strain into martini glass.

  • Love 1
alias1

alias1

1 hour ago, Sharpie66 said:

Looooved that interview with the Republican actor from the 1964 LBJ ad!! That was as interesting as anything from any run of the mill talking head. And Rachel was so thrilled to get him!

I loved that, too.  He had a lot of good points.  And yes, I loved Rachel's enthusiasm for getting him! 

  • Love 1
Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

That ad is so famous I'm surprised no one else has ever thought to interview the actor. Good on Rachel for the idea. He was interesting. Hillary should hire him to do another ad!

I know Rachel was already risking getting a lot of hate mail, but she could have made it even more clear how Bernie Sanders is playing fast and loose with the term "contested convention." The way I understand it, yes, if he does not concede before the convention, it could technically be called "contested," but that label is usually reserved for a situation in which no one has enough delegates to win on the first ballot, which Clinton clearly will. The "contestedness" will have no material impact.

  • Love 4
NextIteration

NextIteration

I think she presented the Sanders situation as she did because after the Acela primary last week mathematically eliminated Sanders from any ability to win the primary race with elected (pledged) delegates only, he now needs 104% of the remaining pool in the next 10 states (Clinton would need 72% of them) - but Sanders and his wife Jane are running around saying that she absolutely cannot do it, which is not true factually - though it's highly unlikely.  He had dropped this hypocritical hypothetical pathway talk for over a week but came storming back with it at his press conference on Sunday (and Jane was all over the airwaves with it on Monday).

I personally worry about Sanders continuing to be contentious through to the convention (and he was again more than he had been in his speeches yesterday).  I remember the 1980 election very clearly - it was the first one that I voted in.  tRump is already quoting Sanders in his attacks against Clinton.

  • Love 4
jjj

jjj

I do wish Rachel (and other MSNBC hosts) would not let Jane Surrogate Sanders off the hook so easily -- the Sanders campaign started to be written off last week after its big losses in states that is said Sanders would win (no, I don't think they believed it), they were firing staff, and everyone was getting ready for the "kumbaya" moment of party unity behind Hillary.  But something appeared to have snapped by the weekend, and Bernie & Jane were on the street selling "Hell, no, we won't go" to the press.  The big difference between Hillary in 2008 and Sanders now is that Hillary was playing the long game, and she had a lot to gain by eventually supporting Obama and promoting party unity.  There is no long game for Sanders.  He is not going to be Secretary of State (just imagine that for a moment!), nor a national contender again. 

  • Love 2
represent

represent

(edited)
2 hours ago, SierraMist said:

I've always been for Hillary, but I used to really like Bernie.  His negativity has turned me off.  And I'm really sick of seeing Jane and hearing her spout the same stuff over and over.  They have no path to the nomination. 

I don't know why he just doesn't run a third party, since I think he's trying to bring down the damn party at this point.  I mean if you're going to be cut throat then own it. Don't try to act like some little old nice man, juxtaposed to "evil" Hillary.

If this isn't what he's doing, then he shouldn't have crossed the line with the word "unqualified" based on WP headline or rumors that her camp was going to take him down. Really? 

Now if he played his cards right, he might have been able to get that Garland pick chucked should she win the presidency and get her to nominate someone more progressive who promised to rule against campaign finance/Citizens United. I know I'd be more than fine with that as a Hillary supporter. If she wins she doesn't have to keep Obama's nominee, I never bought that she and Obama were aligned on everything. She can change her mind. 

Bernie could get her and the party to sign on with removing the super delegates because quite frankly, she's still winning this race without them. I don't have a problem with the removal of the super delegates. 

What else? That's two things this Hillary supporter would be on board for if he didn't come out his ass and call her "unqualified" on live tv, and his guy Jeff Weaver not use the word devil and Hillary in the same sentence. Now I'm just pissed.

Edited by represent
  • Love 1
NextIteration

NextIteration

33 minutes ago, represent said:

If she wins she doesn't have to keep Obama's nominee, I never bought that she and Obama were aligned on everything. She can change her mind. 

Actually, Obama has publicly stated that he would not withdraw Garland for either Clinton or Sanders should they win the General.  Now maybe Obama would soften that stance in a private negotiation to bring this shit storm against the Democratic Party to an end, but I don't know.  Otherwise it's a finger crossing thing that the GOP continues to obstruct his nomination all through the lame-duck phase.

Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

(edited)

Obama doesn't need to withdraw him. If he's not approved during Obama's presidency, it will be up to the next president to pick the new justice. During Hillary's last interview on TRMS she said she supported the Garland nomination and believed he should be confirmed ASAP, but she left her options open on whether she would choose someone else if Garland is not confirmed during the Obama administration.

Edited by AmandaPanda
fixed so it's not in spoiler tags
jjj

jjj

(edited)
1 hour ago, Sesquipedalia said:
  Hide contents

Obama doesn't need to withdraw him. If he's not approved during Obama's presidency, it will be up to the next president to pick the new justice. During Hillary's last interview on TRMS she said she supported the Garland nomination and believed he should be confirmed ASAP, but she left her options open on whether she would choose someone else if Garland is not confirmed during the Obama administration.

I'm quoting your post, which appears as text while I am typing this.  I was hoping for a juicy political spoiler from the future! 
ETA:  But when I posted, your message again went behind the spoiler bars.  Oh, well! 

I am watching the archived Friday show, when it was a simpler time, and Ted Cruz was still on the menu as an unpopular option, like licorice ice cream. 

Edited by jjj
  • Love 2
represent

represent

(edited)
20 hours ago, represent said:

I personally worry about Sanders continuing to be contentious through to the convention (and he was again more than he had been in his speeches yesterday).  I remember the 1980 election very clearly - it was the first one that I voted in.  tRump is already quoting Sanders in his attacks against Clinton.

Ah,I'm not worried about Bernie. IMO, what needs to be remembered is that Hillary and Bill, but Hillary even more so have been called everything under the sun including a murderer for 20 plus years. These reporters are laughable, unless they just started working, they all are looking  like the sleazy promoters in Vegas trying to sell out tickets for a fight we've witnessed for over two decades. They all come off like rabid dogs and not journalists. You can see the likes of Steve Kornachi and his annoying ass electronic toy he totes around, just drooling at everything Trump as if it's new and exciting. Trump is simply another chump, in a long line of chumps who've tried to take Hillary down with sex, lies and video tape. Seriously, they keep getting all up in arms as to how is she going to handle his repeated insults every day, are they serious? That's not new. The only thing that she has to hold herself back if he starts in on Chelsea and her son in-law, that's all he's got is her kid and grand kids. So she needs to get ready for that and not lose her shit over it. But shitting on her? LOL, her laugh is definitely the correct response. She's got the Republicans, the FBI, Bernie, she gets it from all sides, and she's supposed be afraid of an orange, illiterate, wild chimp?  All you need is a tranquilizer for a wild animal. Which none of these people including the journalist except for Rachel and  maybe two others who work on MSNBC have actually tried to use, because the Republicans and much of these journalist are acting like  his KIND. You know, you don't wanna put down your own kind.

I'm mean there's just nothing new when it comes to accusations he could make against Hillary, she has literally been called a murderer, it's old. What's worse than murder? You're not talking about the rest of these so called "clean" candidates who were in the race and haven't had decade of conspiracy theories already out there on. It's red meat for people who already hate her, but not for people with brain cells that allow them to yes, consider the shit he's peddling, but because they have brains, they will also side eye the messenger. He and his buddies over at the tabloids are gonna have to make up some fake papers as proof for this round because otherwise they're just Kenneth Starr wannabes.

It's boring.

Edited by represent
  • Love 8
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Sigh. Well, the first 15 minutes was just depressing.  True but depressing.

And, Rachel was right to point out just what yesterday meant to Muslims.  It didn't even occur to me yesterday what it would mean to be an American and have one of the two political parties "officially" (its not official until Cleveland but technically its him) nominate a candidate who has an official policy of wanting you gone.

  • Love 6
stormy

stormy

I've lost some respect for Katie Packer after seeing her on with Rachel last night.

She's been so willing to discuss her nevertrump pac with Rachel and Chris Hayes but last night she revealed her true self.

She's going to pull the lever for Trump or she'll write in someone ( which is worthless).  Too bad she can't grow a spine and vote for Hillary.  At least that would be a statement to her failed anti-Trump movement.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...