Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[zxy556575]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

So, I guess I'm the only progressive in America who likes EW a lot, but feels she might unnecessarily turn off many undecideds and possible GOP crossovers with the personal insults at Trump and, imo, a sometimes too aggressive way of speaking?

One of the biggest knocks against Hillary* is that her speeches come across as overly rehearsed and insincere. I think she needs to become more of a straight-talker and less of a Toastmaster on the stump, and having someone else on the ticket who isn't mealy-mouthed would be a plus for a lot of people.

 

* May I also say I dislike how we all refer to her by her first name. I understand that it's mostly because she's not the only Clinton, but even if that weren't the case, some of the usage is definitely meant to belittle her. When not referring to politicians by their honorifics or full names, it's customary to use last names only. Newscasters do not say "Barack" or "Donald" in their pieces.

Edited June 10, 2016 by lordonia

[jjj]

Oh, boo, I loaded the podcast video from Wednesday, and for the podcast, they replaced the bewhiskered picture of Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. with the correct picture in the opening segment.  Shoot, I wanted to have the original archived! 

24 minutes ago, lordonia said:

 May I also say I dislike how we all refer to her by her first name. I understand that it's mostly because she's not the only one, but even if that weren't the case, some of the usage is definitely meant to belittle her.

I agree, but I thought I've always heard Rachel use her entire name, or Secretary Clinton -- has Rachel (to whom we all refer as "Rachel", so irony) started to call her Hillary?  I missed last night's show, will watch online.   

[attica]

I've noticed it all campaign long. It's Hillary and Bernie, but Trump and Bush and Rubio (et al). Now, to be fair, the D candidates have promoted themselves  on a first-name basis since jump, and I get why, but it still grates me. Jeez, even when Jeb was on with that JEB! nonsense, he was referred to by 'Bush'.

Because I've seen Tootsie, and Alan is always Alan, Tom is always Tom, and John is always John, and I am not Sweetie or Honey or Doll! D-O-R-O-T-H-Y!

[Sesquipedalia]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

So, I guess I'm the only progressive in America who likes EW a lot, but feels she might unnecessarily turn off many undecideds and possible GOP crossovers with the personal insults at Trump and, imo, a sometimes too aggressive way of speaking?  I felt that way about her speech yesterday. Good though it was in many ways I would have taken out ALL t he personal insults--we don't have to get in the mud with the pig. Again last night on RM, I felt much the same. I mean, she's so knowledgeable and forthright--and plays well to the choir-but I don't see her attracting -some- of the demographic HRC needs. 

I'm torn about this. The heart wants what it wants, and Clinton/Warren is my dream ticket. But would it be wise politically? In your scenario, Warren alienates swing voters. The flip side is that she would energize the base and motivate Sanders supporters who might otherwise stay home or vote third party. 

I'm also torn about the mud-slinging. It's not very statesman-like, and the part of my nature ruled by the better angels cringes over the insults and twitter-baiting. But there's another part of my that thrills when Warren goes on the attack. She's so aggressive! Like attica said above, we're just not used to seeing such boldness in women politicians, and on a visceral level I have to admit I kind of like it.

Clinton, in my opinion, should never get in the mud with the pigs. And with Warren around, she won't need to. I've seen a couple articles lately about how historically VP nominees have taken on the role of attack dog so that the person at the top of the ticket can remain above the fray. Warren seems to be auditioning for that role. I'm not sure if it's the best idea politically, but, especially based on her interview with Rachel last night, I think she wants to be VP. 

[represent]

Quote

 The heart wants what it wants, and Clinton/Warren is my dream ticket.

It's mine too, but my vote is in the bag, they don't need to worry about my vote. 

I'll vote for Clinton/(insert male name), but it won't excite me like a Clinton/Warren ticket. 

Warren's speech last night was on point and it wasn't even because of the well deserved digs at Trump, the point of the speech was to school folks on how our judicial branch of government is under siege and that wasn't news to me overall. But some of the specific details she gave were, in terms of  ALL the blocking of appointments to our lower courts and the McConnell impersonation, laying the blame mainly at his feet needs to be said more. She said it all respectful enough, but it needs to be said, because she is right, this is war. We need to do battle again, the time has come. I mean the courts are our last line of defense and they're taking it over and crippling it. That was the main idea of that speech for me.  I was fuming at the insulting coverage of Chris Matthews because the speech was aired during his show. Cut back to that asshole and all he could comment on were her attack lines and not the horror of what the speech was mainly about, great reporting as always Matthews. LOL, he was worried about "correcting" her stance that Donald never did shit but get what his daddy worked for and try to keep it afloat by cheating others. LOL, I swear I was fuming and laughing at the same time, because that was the first thing that Matthews took issue with. Well, I guess he's gotta defend his "girl crush." There was nothing muddy in the way she called out the other side. There were no insulting names, it was, Donald thinks the judge should be ashamed, no, you Donald should be ashamed. She made fun of McConnell, not like me when I call him turkey neck moron, no, she plainly said that it is he who laid the foundation for Donald Trump to swoop into the republican party, take it over and make it OK to go after a judge for his own personal gain.

I couldn't believe she mentioned him the way she did on the same day that I posted earlier in another thread that it was turkey neck McConnell's lack of response to the birther movement that started all this out in the open racist shit with our government representatives and now he's doing it again. He didn't have shit to say about Mexicans being called rapist and murderers, but he slowly crept out of the woodwork to voice his "disapproval" on what was said about the judge, because after all, they are the party of "law."  Don't worry, as soon as Donald gets "back on script,"  and    his poll numbers don't drop, Turkey Neck and his posse won't say another word in protest about it.

On a totally different note, I had no idea that Cecile Richards was Ann Richards daughter. I loved Ann Richards, that lady had so much spunk, she was hilarious too.

Edited June 10, 2016 by represent

[car54]

Quote

5 hours ago, Padma said:

 

So, I guess I'm the only progressive in America who likes EW a lot, but feels she might unnecessarily turn off many undecideds and possible GOP crossovers with the personal insults at Trump 

 

 

No, you're not the only one.    I don't think it's necessary to continually insult Trump personally--there are enough hard facts and his own words available.  I think Warren is a little too impulsive for my taste (I live in her state).   I prefer Obama's responses to his kind of crazy--and Obama has personal reasons to be insulting to Trump.

[shok]

8 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

I'm also torn about the mud-slinging. It's not very statesman-like, and the part of my nature ruled by the better angels cringes over the insults and twitter-baiting. But there's another part of my that thrills when Warren goes on the attack. She's so aggressive! Like attica said above, we're just not used to seeing such boldness in women politicians, and on a visceral level I have to admit I kind of like it.

Clinton, in my opinion, should never get in the mud with the pigs.

I hear you, and I agree with you. For those that keep up with politics, we know that it's true that Hillary is probably the most qualified presidential candidate ever but there are a lot of people just tuning in who don't know her background and her qualifications and what they've heard about her is just the constant and long running malicious right wing attacks. I'd really like to hear her talk more about her experience and her policies and what she has fought for all her life.

It's fine for her to do a speech like she did last week using Trump's words to disqualify him and point out what an idiot he is but just do that type of thing once in awhile. The rest of her speeches should not even mention his name and should just be positive about what she can bring to the position. Surely her campaign strategists know by now that the only thing that's going to be picked up by the media is an insult about Trump and the rest of her speech will be ignored. Trump is such a doofus he'll sink his own ship just by his blustering and bragging and ugliness and I'd like to see her rise above it all and remind people that the election is really important to their lives. She should be conducting herself with class and dignity because that will show the greatest differences between them since lord knows, the orange stain has none.

[jjj]

I usually want the cocktail Rachel mixes, but this one, with two rums and maple syrup -- and beige/brown -- did not leave me longing for it.  But I liked the salute to Vermont. 

[Sharpie66]

Rachel was on with Joy Reid this morning, and they spoke at length about that final question, Ed Rendell saying she was unqualified to be VP, and EW's response of "Yes, I am." Both Rachel and Joy agreed it was a rather ambiguous response, since they didn't know exactly what she was answering. 

 

Personally, I think it was mostly pissed off, "FU" to Rendell. 

[Sesquipedalia]

Ambiguous response? That was about the most unambiguous answer to a question I've ever seen, especially from a politician.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Sesquipedalia

[jjj]

I'm a little lost and not caught up on this week's shows yet -- did Ed Rendell interview EW?  And Rachel also (I think, on Thursday, and answered a question about being VP?).  So are Joy/Rachel talking about a response to Ed Rendell?  Just want to know where to look for the interviews! 

[Padma]

7 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

Rachel was on with Joy Reid this morning, and they spoke at length about that final question, Ed Rendell saying she was unqualified to be VP, and EW's response of "Yes, I am." Both Rachel and Joy agreed it was a rather ambiguous response, since they didn't know exactly what she was answering. 

 

Personally, I think it was mostly pissed off, "FU" to Rendell. 

How was that in anyway ambiguous? Maybe because they wanted her to be answering a different question? (Like the one Rachel kept asking earlier, "Would you be HRC's VP?")

Rachel told her Rendell said she wasn't qualified to be VP (I didn't see him say that, so I'll take her word for it). Rachel asked, " The main job of the VP is to be able to be president. Are you qualified to be president?"

EW answered, "Yes. I am." Succinct, to the point (and in that way, yes, probably a mild, well deserved F-U to Rendell). She feels as a senator she's qualified to be president. What was ambiguous about that? What more needed to be said?

Sometimes these talking heads just don't listen very well. (And what will it take for them to stop asking about Bernie and EW as VPs? I'm soooo sick of the pointless speculation--and media pressure for her to choose one or the other of them!)

[Quilt Fairy]

I did like her segment on how in the end only the Presidential nominee gets to choose their running mate.

What I didn't like was MSNBC putting Trump's "Pocahantas" tweet on their newsfeed  that night. I didn't need to see that offensive rant running across my screen every few minutes.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Quilt Fairy

[attica]

Srsly, Quilt Fairy. And they didn't even crawl EW's response tweet: No, seriously,. Delete Your account.

LO'D interviewed Al Franken, and asked him if he thought any US senator would refuse the VP job if offered. Al being Al, he said he didn't think so, although he allowed a few would be awfully surprised.

[M. Darcy]

So, HRC makes history this week and it's Bernie that gets the cocktail salute. Sigh. 

[buttersister]

Disappointing, wasn't it? (And I voted for Bernie in our primary, but straight up, dudes, please.)

[jjj]

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

So, HRC makes history this week and it's Bernie that gets the cocktail salute. Sigh. 

I like to think there is a cocktail salute or two for HRC in the future -- and this maple syrup sludge was a conciliatory cocktail, not a tribute, in my hearing.  I still say it did not look yummy.  I want HRC to have something delightful created in her honor. 

[shok]

I saw Rendell interviewed on MSNBCs early morning news show this morning and he backtracked and waffled and tried to say that nobody is qualified to be veep because no one has had the kind of experience needed for president, although Hillary is more qualified than almost anybody in history has been. That may be true but I haven't heard Rendell running around dissing the prospective men who are supposed to be under consideration. Funny how that works that a woman who is in the same position is the only one 'no how no way qualified' according to Rendell's earlier claims. *rollseyes*

[Padma]

8 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

So, HRC makes history this week and it's Bernie that gets the cocktail salute. Sigh. 

No kidding. Personally, I think it should have been HRC's week since she (1) became the presumptive nominee and (2) made history, big-time, in doing so.   Bernie could have gotten his salute, too, but how about doing it after the DC vote or if and when he concedes the race?  I don't see why Hillary's win (inc. 4 of the 6 Tuesday votes) necessitated a salute to Bernie, esp. since he wasn't saying that anything in his campaign was changing for him (yet) going forward.

On a different note, I have to say I'm really not minding the MSNBC primetime line up. Hayes is my favorite and then LOD and Rachel in no particular order (with Matthews buried either late or early in my timezone. A little of him goes a long way). I think I'd still enjoy it if Olbermann returned, but other than that, I don't miss the way it used to be.

[shok]

I wish this FB article could get to Rachel. It's one of the best I've read on Secretary Clinton and it highlights the sexism that I referred to in Rendell's rant against Senator Warren in my last post. I'd love to see Rachel take this aspect of the whole campaign on as only Rachel can.  http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

[jjj]

I am so glad they have been doing re-airing of TRMS on Friday evenings -- but I have been finding that it airs at different hours that my cable box is showing.  I don't care, I just put on MSNBC when I get home on Fridays and take what I can get. 

I don't think Bernie is going to be cocktail news by next Friday, if that's any comfort? 

[zxy556575]

7 hours ago, shok said:

I wish this FB article could get to Rachel. It's one of the best I've read on Secretary Clinton and it highlights the sexism that I referred to in Rendell's rant against Senator Warren in my last post. I'd love to see Rachel take this aspect of the whole campaign on as only Rachel can.  http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

What a scathing summation! Hats off to Michael Arnovitz of Portland OR.

[represent]

10 hours ago, Padma said:

No kidding. Personally, I think it should have been HRC's week since she (1) became the presumptive nominee and (2) made history, big-time, in doing so.   Bernie could have gotten his salute, too, but how about doing it after the DC vote or if and when he concedes the race?  I don't see why Hillary's win (inc. 4 of the 6 Tuesday votes) necessitated a salute to Bernie, esp. since he wasn't saying that anything in his campaign was changing for him (yet) going forward.

 

I watched a clip of Julianna Margulies talking about her character and this ingrained need that Hollywood still has for women to be likable.  That women always feel the need to apologize, simply for being.  For me it's not a stretch to the media's inability to just let Hillary have her moment, she has to share it, because a man's ego, or make that many of his fellow men and yes, many women can't take a powerful woman standing in the spotlight. That's right, I'm not letting those women off the hook and they can sell that it's only about crooked Hillary, but women are masters of denial. They can sell that bull somewhere else. There are women that are no different that the Donald Trumps of the world if they find a fellow woman stepping out of a traditional role, or NEVER once in their lives taking on any of those traditional roles and they aren't all from the baby boom generation either.  They've done studies, Chris Hayes addressed it on his show that both men and certain women equally cringe when women like Hillary try to take power. The more powerful the woman becomes the more those men and women with particular ideals, grow the hate said woman. It's a complete turn off for these people.  Cut to the sentiments that Warren is being too confrontational, yet all I see her doing is sticking it to Donald on the facts, on his words. I saw her mainly point out what the GOP is doing to our courts, so  the argument is totally lost on me that she should dial it back.  I don't see her giving him silly names like Pocahontas, but no, she needs to dial it back and be careful. With the facts? And they weren't just facts on him, the woman was talking about our freaking judicial system. I would argue that the speech wasn't even about Trump, it was about the GOP.  I see the connection, the GOP most definitely made room for Donald Trump to take over. I see commentary that there is no connection between Mitch McConnell and the rise of Trump. I know I saw Josh Barro come on and try to say that there really isn't a connection. I was like WTF is he talking about. Is he just playing the role of opposition just to play it? Is he nuts?  

But no, let's focus on  Warren's tone? She's not speaking soft enough. She's showing well deserved  frustration and anger, and we can't have a woman showing frustration and anger.

I hope the  polling shows that it's futile to care about moderate Republicans, that they can't be won and they they will probably end up staying home. So that the Clinton campaign can fully embrace whatever progressive issues that Hillary can truly give in on, work on the minority vote, and  hopefully enough of the women's vote. Because that's the question, are there truly republicans out there, enough of them, that it's worth appealing to. I don't think they exist. Because I'm done with the tip toeing around when it comes to how women are perceived. I am absolutely sick of it, and so is Warren, when Rachel asked her. She wasn't trying to hear it when Rachel asked her is the country ready?  We don't have time for that shit, this is war. In times of war are the women just suppose to sit back in the corner and wait to rescued in 20fucking16?  No, like Warren said, we better start throwing some punches.

Edited June 12, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

14 minutes ago, represent said:

 No, like Warren said, we better start throwing some punches.

So, in this construct of how women are perceived, the "right" answer to Rachel's question of "are you ready?" would have been the more amiable and less threatening: "Yes, I think I am".  Amazing how much softer, and less authoritative, a simple sentence becomes when it is couched and prefaced with "I feel" or "I believe".  Dear USA, please get used to women stating simple declarative sentences about issues of national significance. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by jjj

[represent]

10 hours ago, shok said:

I wish this FB article could get to Rachel. It's one of the best I've read on Secretary Clinton and it highlights the sexism that I referred to in Rendell's rant against Senator Warren in my last post. I'd love to see Rachel take this aspect of the whole campaign on as only Rachel can.  http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

Thanks for posting, I'm not done reading it yet, but I'm fourteen paragraphs in and I rest my case. Of course if one thinks the chart  tracking her favorables vs. unfavorables is based on fake, leftist polling, my point is of course invalid.

Edited June 12, 2016 by represent

[represent]

And now this terrorist/hate crime in Florida, in the LGBT community, Marco Rubio and his bullshit all for one America. No Marco and GOP, no, you're not all for one. Anytime you fight for a cause which would deny one group in this country the same freaking rights that you have as a heterosexual man because YOUR religion tells you otherwise, you are not living American values of equality. Sorry buddy, sorry GOP and I see ALL this shit being connected. It sends a clear message of hate and that this group and that group is different, like the 3/5th's of person that blacks folks were categorized as in the Constitution. So bye, just bye, they will never fully get how it is ALL connected.  I guarantee that the GOP's talking points will ONLY address terrorism/DAESH and not the hate in this country in advocating  second class citizenship for people in the LGBT community. Because make no mistake it's that simple to this minority, when one group is denied the same rights that every else has they are second class citizens. Because that's still the GOP's goal should they get elected to the White House, judges on the SC that will roll back any legal rights that the LGBT community has achieved so far.

 Wishing those those victims and their families well in Florida.

Edited June 12, 2016 by represent

[Rhetorica]

16 hours ago, shok said:

I wish this FB article could get to Rachel. It's one of the best I've read on Secretary Clinton and it highlights the sexism that I referred to in Rendell's rant against Senator Warren in my last post. I'd love to see Rachel take this aspect of the whole campaign on as only Rachel can.  http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

Here's another from Kos:

 

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1536587

[Quilt Fairy]

19 hours ago, shok said:

I wish this FB article could get to Rachel. It's one of the best I've read on Secretary Clinton and it highlights the sexism that I referred to in Rendell's rant against Senator Warren in my last post. I'd love to see Rachel take this aspect of the whole campaign on as only Rachel can.  http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

Email it to her : Send it to Rachel  The article says that all emails are read daily.

[Sesquipedalia]

I would have preferred some sort of glass ceiling-themed cocktail moment as well, but this was probably the last relevant opportunity to do something for Bernie. And I appreciated her using the moment to emphasize conciliation. It's not quite time yet, but I have quite a few friends to un-unfollow on Facebook, etc.

I went back and listened to the Warren interview again, and after at first being taken with how Bernie cheerleader-y it was even though it was supposedly an endorsement for Clinton, on second listen I realized that conciliation was also her theme. Reading between lines, I was trying to figure out whom she would have endorsed if she had chosen to do so before the nomination had already been decided. At first it seemed like it had to be Bernie since she praised him up and down and the only quality she emphasized about Clinton was her toughness. But then on second listen I heard a lot of clues to suggest she would have endorsed Clinton all along but held off on her endorsement to (a) give Bernie a better chance to impact the conversation because they really do see eye to eye on most issues and (b) make her endorsement more significant by using it to unify the party.

Listening to the whole interview again also made me realize I'm getting WAY too attached to the idea of Warren as VP and am setting myself for disappointment.

Another thing from last week's shows: That interview with Trump's former employee who was in charge of building Trump Tower was so interesting! She came across as very credible to me.

I am looking forward to hearing what Rachel has to say about the horrific events of the weekend. Hopefully she'll delve into the hate crime aspect as well as the terrorism aspect. 

[jjj]

There is a little clip on Rachel's Twitter account from Rachel's appearance on Joy Reid's show, where Rachel talks about the EW decision to come on the show to make the HRC endorsement.   https://twitter.com/maddow/with_replies  

[jjj]

Watching Rachel's show this evening, the segment on hate speech, past the mid-point of the show -- I don't know how she could keep her composure.  I know the hate is out there, but it is so hard to watch. 

[represent]

Thank you Rachel, I knew you'd get around to the so called  "Christians" who are overjoyed at the slaughter of LGBT human beings in Orlando.

And I'll tell you something else, it's not just the so called "Christians" on the right either, you can damn sure bet there are some on the left as well.

Maybe not as many, but they exist.  And this bigotry/hate would explain why Trump is even remotely a challenge in the polls and not this current nor unfortunately, more than likely, the next terrorist attack.

Edited June 15, 2016 by represent

[Lillybee]

I think that Rachel made a valid point today when she said that if a person on the watch list wanted to  buy a gun at least the seller could notify the FBI.

[M. Darcy]

Rachel is so mean to people just because they want her dead.   Sigh.  I just can't - the guy "preached" about the US GOVERNMENT lining up gay people against a wall and blowing their brains out. How can you believe in God and think that.  How can you be a human being and believe that.

And, wow, that story about the gun.  They designed a weapon of mass slaughter so that you can fold it up and hide it in your coat.  Jeez.

In less depressing news, I hope she has time to give an update on Bridgegate.  Its getting good - "Gov. Chris Christie's cell phone, text messages and emails are missing or have been destroyed, Bridgegate defendants allege in a pair of explosive briefs filed late Monday in federal court in New Jersey." http://www.wnyc.org/story/christies-destroyed-and-missing-evidence-nixons-missing-tapes-bridgegate-lawyers-say/ 

[jjj]

3 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

In less depressing news, I hope she has time to give an update on Bridgegate.  Its getting good - "Gov. Chris Christie's cell phone, text messages and emails are missing or have been destroyed, Bridgegate defendants allege in a pair of explosive briefs filed late Monday in federal court in New Jersey." http://www.wnyc.org/story/christies-destroyed-and-missing-evidence-nixons-missing-tapes-bridgegate-lawyers-say/ 

I want to hear the other news, and see Rachel's spotlight on the horrifying hate speech (because this is fueling politics), but boy, I sure could use a short dose of Bridgegate for the sake of entertainment.  Bad timing for the Governor. 

[Quilt Fairy]

This may have been on LO'D and not Rachel, but I liked it that the former Republican senator from Idaho endorsed Clinton and said that the election is a choice between Clinton and Trump. If you don't vote for Trump, you should vote for Clinton. This comes after a number of Republicans, including Mitt Romney, have said they're not going to vote in the Presidential election at all.  Way to take your ball home when you're losing, guys. Anyway, to bring this back to Rachel, I'd love it if she would focus a segment on this.

[Hanahope]

I really want to know what Sig Sauer intends for the purpose of their rifle.  I mean really, their commercial sure doesn't show the guy hunting deer.  Rather, it looks like "urban" hunting.  Is there really any need for an ordinary citizen to own such a gun?  If its designed for military and police, then it only should be sold to the military and police, not at Walmart. 

[attica]

Quote

I really want to know what Sig Sauer intends for the purpose of their rifle

For people to buy it. Period. Beyond that, all they do is shrug.

[NextIteration]

I got my head bit off commenting elsewhere how scary I found this gun.  I also found out that actually ARs can basically be made to be the same with all the aftermarket component parts.

I hate guns, I honestly don't understand.  This particular weapon is nothing but a killing machine, in my mind it should be limited to the military and sniper police.

[jjj]

4 minutes ago, NextIteration said:

I got my head bit off commenting elsewhere how scary I found this gun.  I also found out that actually ARs can basically be made to be the same with all the aftermarket component parts.

Rachel gave us two new windows into this tragedy last night -- showing us how easily this weapon could be hidden (in Florida, where clothing is minimal) and showing us the hateful responses to this. 

[Hanahope]

All this shows is that the NRA really doesn't give a damn about responsible gun ownership, or really even the 'rights' of gun owners, beyond their ability to  just buy any gun because the NRA really only cares about gun manufacturer/sellers, because that's who's paying them.

[represent]

Yeah, I'm not worried Rachel, the DNC is one thing, Hillary Clinton is another. If anyone knows how to hide information, hint, hint, (secret server), it's my girl Hillary. 

Every time something gets leaked, I swear, I tip my hat to her private server, which they have yet to prove was hacked unlike the rest of the government systems.

Like Selena on Veep said, we might as well give the Chinese their own passwords and call it a day

And I kinda buy that they made it easy for the Russians to get, because the research has nothing that they haven't already used and we don't know about.

If the goal was to make it look like Trump was in bed with the Russians, the mission may be accomplished. 

Rachel brought up Paul Manafort and I've been wanting to her to get into his background and not just Chris Christie's since they both are working for Trump's campaign. I said it once and I'll say it again, that Manafort looks like he could have been cast in Good Fellas, he's got thug oozing out of his pores.

 

. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

Rachel saying "You're welcome" in Russian.  That is all.  <3 <3 <3

ETA:  Oh, that is not all, after all, because she read from the "astonishingly healthy" medical report of the Trump "doctor"/PR flack.  That never gets old, unlike the current 70-year-old candidate.   

Edited June 16, 2016 by jjj

[sadiegirl]

11 hours ago, jjj said:

Rachel saying "You're welcome" in Russian.  That is all.  <3 <3 <3

ETA:  Oh, that is not all, after all, because she read from the "astonishingly healthy" medical report of the Trump "doctor"/PR flack.  That never gets old, unlike the current 70-year-old candidate.   

Seriously, what doctor would write something like that?  The medical association should look into his credentials, because no self-respecting medical professional would write that crap.

[Moose135]

16 minutes ago, sadiegirl said:

Seriously, what doctor would write something like that?  The medical association should look into his credentials, because no self-respecting medical professional would write that crap.

Maybe he got his medical degree from Trump University...

[attica]

It reads like Trump talks. So either Donald found a doppelganger doctor (name of my new band!), or he gave the doc the text to put on his own letterhead and sign. Occam's razor.

[jjj]

I have a feeling Rachel keeps that medical report close at hand -- truly, almost any sentence could be used as filler on a slow news day (not that there are any of those coming in the next few months).  This New York Times article dryly dissects the medical report, including grammar and the name of the doctor Trump cited (who had died, and was not the one who issued the report):

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/14/donald-trump-releases-medical-report-calling-his-health-extraordinary/?_r=0

Edited June 16, 2016 by jjj

[M. Darcy]

Quote

 

Rachel should have also warned us to get some tissues before the Senator Murray piece.  I had never heard the story before that he told to finish his filibuster. 

And, I'm not trying to quote anyone - I can't seem to get rid of the quote box.  Grr technology.

Edited June 17, 2016 by M. Darcy

[carrier76]

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel should have also warned us to get some tissues before the Senator Murray piece.  I had never heard the story before that he told to finish his filibuster. 

And, I'm not trying to quote anyone - I can't seem to get rid of the quote box.  Grr technology.

I am currently listening to the podcast version at work....maybe not the best choice.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

I am currently listening to the podcast version at work....maybe not the best choice.

I've lost track of the number of times this week I've just been crying at my desk. This week has been especially sad.  At least I have my Chris Christie has turned into Trump's McDonald's errand boy stories to cheer me up.