Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[kassygreene]

Perhaps Greta was hired to be the successor to Andrea Mitchell, who surely will retire sometime in this century.  Now that the Clintons aren't front and center for her to sneer at, her work life must be boring.

[ScoobieDoobs]

"Alternative facts", eh, Smellyanne?  

Are you gonna let her get away with this not especially creative name for bullshit, Rach?

[AmandaPanda]

I know it's hard sometimes to avoid going off-topic in news shows. It feels like everything should fall into the same category. However, this topic is specifically for discussion of what happens on The Rachel Maddow Show. There has been a lot of discussion over the past day of overall inauguration coverage. I understand that it's at the forefront of everyone's minds right now. I wanted to remind everyone about the MSNBC thread. At that thread, you are free to discuss anything that has been aired on MSNBC. Going forward, any posts that are not explicitly about The Rachel Maddow Show will be hidden. Let's try to keep some sense of order in this chaotic new world. 

[jjj]

10 hours ago, roguery said:

Agree about rural vs. urban. And then there's the small matter of probable Russian disinformation. Redistricting. Plus, we MUST get rid of the Electoral College. 

Absolutely, *especially* redistricting.  And Rachel has done some terrific pieces on redistricting and voter suppression, which are the crucial and permanent changes that will keep Democrats from ever regaining state houses and therefore affecting so much policy.  Only statewide seats not dependent on districts will remain true signals of the majority of the people -- like the North Carolina governor race Democratic outcome, with the new Democratic governor's power immediately thwarted by the Republican legislature.  That breaking news Rachel provided on Friday about the Texas voter ID law and the new Justice Department gets to this issue of voter suppression -- now the federal government can get behind this in an opposite policy from the Obama administration.  And President Obama said this is one of the issues where he will speak out.  It is fundamental to giving a voice to all Americans in the future. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by jjj

[Calvada]

I hope my confidence in Rachel not allowing herself and therefore her show to get distracted by the stupid stuff is not misplaced.  This going back and forth over crowd size, for example.  The Trump people know the media will allow themselves to spend so much time on something like this.  Pay attention to something that really matters - executive orders, legislation, appointments, court actions, and so on.  Trump knows that he can distract people easily with some nonsense tweet.  I really hope Rachel doesn't fall for this but keeps her eye on the ball. 

One of the most important things to watch, IMO, is what the new administration will do with adverse information.  For example, something such as unemployment goes up, or new housing starts fall --- will they release that?  Will we be able to determine the veracity of anything they say?  I hope Rachel and her cohorts are developing sources in every agency, department, office, board in existence so we the people get the truth. 

[jjj]

One of Rachel's great tools is her bullshit detector, for which she better get a large supply of backup batteries.  And now bullshit is "alternative facts".  It is not the crowd size that is the topic she will discuss -- it is the Trump reaction and the lying about it.  This is actually a very useful exercise, because when we do arrive at the big issues and are being fed "alternative facts", no one is going to hesitate to question them.  If you are willing to lie about something completely irrelevant like crowd size (it doesn't matter if five people came, he is still the president, and arggh, just be the president), this tells the media to be on alert for the lies when the stakes are actually significant.  And whoa, it tells us so much about the insecurity of this president.  We have never had so much insight into the paranoia and neediness of a commander-in-chief.  Anyone who thought he would become presidential after the election was a fool.  Rachel is no fool -- she knew and knows what to watch for.  They have a lot of incompetence to paper over, and are even incompetent at their cover-ups. 

It's like expecting your fiancé/fiancée to stop cheating on you once you are married.  No, that's not how it works.  No, he/she won't stop drinking/gambling/spending money frivolously if you tie him/her down by buying a house.  Most people just expand their base behavior, they don't have a 180-degree shift. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Well, big crowds usually skeer the absolute heck outta me.  But being right in the middle of the throngs of thousands of protesters made me joyful.  

But one historic protest won't mean much.  It has to be taken to the next level.  That's where Rach comes in.  Her coverage of the protests will absolutely be immensely appreciated.  But it's really her guests who encourage everyone to rise up & organize at the local level that are so essential now.

Monday at 9 can't come quick enough for me.

[attica]

Slate has some reporting on the wax-president auction. Without naming Rachel, they confirm she coughed up $1700 for Ike. Since she plopped it on set, I guess she can deduct it as a business expense!

[M. Darcy]

Quote

Since she plopped it on set, I guess she can deduct it as a business expense!

Give Ike his own show!  I'd rather see him than Brian Williams at 11.

[teddysmom]

Quote

Slate has some reporting on the wax-president auction. Without naming Rachel, they confirm she coughed up $1700 for Ike. Since she plopped it on set, I guess she can deduct it as a business expense!

After that temper tantrum Saturday by Spicer, she was on Twitter and I dared her to sneak Ike into the briefing room and see if Spicer would call on him. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

7 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Give Ike his own show!  I'd rather see him than Brian Williams at 11.

Me too & Ike gives me the serious creeps.  He reminds me of Eric Trump or the ALWAYS creepily grinning Jared Kushner.  Why is that guy always grinning?

The next time Rach is forced to sit next to Brian Williams, to report on whatever nightmare the orange monster is gonna heap on us, I'd love for her to throw him a snarky side-eyed glance & ask him -- So Bri, what do you think about "alternative facts"?  Hmmm?

[jjj]

I said on Saturday that I wanted to see Rachel reacting to that extraordinary press briefing.  I see she was on Twitter, and what she said was, "oh my god this is what the white house statement is about? seriously? hahahahahahaha!"  and then "and then he storms off! ha!" --/ very satisfying to see these! 

[Keepitmoving]

Did Rachel not report that there were a number of democrats who voted for the confirmation of Tillerson? Did I not hear that correctly? Because I know I damn sure did hear correctly that Rand Paul was the only Republican with the balls  to vote Nay. The Democratic party is fucking nuts, they are insane. Democratic voters need to find out who those representatives are and proceed to threaten them with being ousted when they're up for reelection. There is absolutely NO reason why any democrat should vote anything but NAY on Trump's nominees, especially on DeVos, Tillerson and Sessions. Again, not getting my money, and they keep begging too, nope, not enough obstruction for my taste. I will not support them, now if any of these women's movement groups hit me up for money I'll send it in a minute, but the democratic party can forget it.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[Hanahope]

47 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

Did Rachel not report that there were a number of democrats who voted for the confirmation of Tillerson? Did I not hear that correctly? Because I know I damn sure did hear correctly that Rand Paul was the only Republican with the balls  to vote Nay. The Democratic party is fucking nuts, they are insane.

That was for the new Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, who got some mixed votes.

Tillerson was a committee vote, 11-10, which did fall on party lines, with Rubio being a coward and falling in line with the party machine.

I thought last night Rach took a bit too long to get to the point about the bombers.  I like Rach, but sometimes its just, come on, come on, get to the point.

[teddysmom]

Quote

He reminds me of Eric Trump or the ALWAYS creepily grinning Jared Kushner.  Why is that guy always grinning?

Triumph calls the Trump boys (adults)  the "less motivated Menendez brothers". 

Quote

 

Did Rachel not report that there were a number of democrats who voted for the confirmation of Tillerson? Did I not hear that correctly? Because I know I damn sure did hear correctly that Rand Paul was the only Republican with the balls  to vote Nay. The Democratic party is fucking nuts, they are insane.

That was for the new Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, who got some mixed votes.

 

Fourteen Dems voted for him.  Mostly from conservative states. 

[M. Darcy]

Quote

Fourteen Dems voted for him.  Mostly from conservative states. 

And VA.  Grr.  We're a blue state!

I glad that Rachel snuck in the fact just how little money the National Endowment for the Arts actually receives from the Government.

As scared as I was already, she made me even more so for the people in the Military.  One statement from that man and their lives are in even more danger.

Edited January 24, 2017 by M. Darcy

[Apprentice79]

1 hour ago, Keepitmoving said:

Did Rachel not report that there were a number of democrats who voted for the confirmation of Tillerson? Did I not hear that correctly? Because I know I damn sure did hear correctly that Rand Paul was the only Republican with the balls  to vote Nay. The Democratic party is fucking nuts, they are insane. Democratic voters need to find out who those representatives are and proceed to threaten them with being ousted when they're up for reelection. There is absolutely NO reason why any democrat should vote anything but NAY on Trump's nominees, especially on DeVos, Tillerson and Sessions. Again, not getting my money, and they keep begging too, nope, not enough obstruction for my taste. I will not support them, now if any of these women's movement groups hit me up for money I'll send it in a minute, but the democratic party can forget it.

The Democrats are being too conciliatory in my book.  They need to be out for blood, when it comes to Trump's nominees.  They need to go after Devos and vote against her.  She is dangerous for Public education.  She is connected to some dangerous right wing religious nuts.  Their wet dream is to create religious schools to the detriment of Public Education.  Sessions record speaks for itself. 

[Hanahope]

17 minutes ago, Apprentice79 said:

The Democrats are being too conciliatory in my book. 

 

48 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Quote

That was for the new Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, who got some mixed votes.

 

Fourteen Dems voted for him.  Mostly from conservative states. 

The problem with the Dem's 'too big tent' is that it includes some real conservative Dems, who are essentially DINOs.  The GoP has gotten rid of most of their RINOs because so many moderate members left the party and it became majority Tea party.  But the Dems still have quite a lot of range, which allows far to many to agree with Reps too often.

[Apprentice79]

Just now, Hanahope said:

 

The problem with the Dem's 'too big tent' is that it includes some real conservative Dems, who are essentially DINOs.  The GoP has gotten rid of most of their RINOs because so many moderate members left the party and it became majority Tea party.  But the Dems still have quite a lot of range, which allows far to many to agree with Reps too often.

Then we need to take them out. The democrats need to be more progressive in their messaging and harness the energy from the Women's march for the good of the country and the democratic party. The future of the party rest on Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, the young man from South Carolina, Keith Ellison and some unknown that we don't know yet. I love the way that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been going after the Trump nominees. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I assume this week Rach will be zeroing in on these horrible cabinet picks.  Hopefully there will be more discussion of little Marco & his spineless jellyfish bullshit.  Rach is ALL over Tillerson.  She certainly was last nite.  Can he possibly think he can quietly lift all Russian sanctions, while he makes billions from his Exxon stock -- and nobody will notice?  Rach seems to be watching him sharply.

There are picks far worse than Tillerson. Besides, Rudy or Newtie woulda been way worse.  Anyhoo, Rach should have a fun week showing Dems ripping apart the orange monster's sludge of other picks.

[teddysmom]

I think with some of the cabinet picks, they're terrified of who he'd replace them with if they vote against them and they don't get confirmed.  

I am still hoping DeVos is not confirmed. She is flat out batshit, as well as ignorant.  Perry & Zinke were delayed, I wonder what that's about. 

If Trump's advisers were more level headed and progressive, and knew how to play him, he could probably be reined in.  I don't think he really believes in half the shit he's doing when it comes to social programs, he's just getting his ass kissed by the wrong people right now. 

They're telling him "you have to cut these programs, they're the darlings of the people that hate you". 

[ScoobieDoobs]

So there are reports the orange monster already wants to replace Sean Spicer.  Yup, apparently he doesn't like the way he looks or dresses.  Mmmm, kay.  Does Rach report on rumors?  Maybe not.  But I'd so love so see her shooting a giddy snarky side-eyed glance to the cam, with her awesome shtick of one eyebrow arched up, while discussing this.  Have to find humor where ya can.  Rach seems all about that.

[Hanahope]

1 hour ago, teddysmom said:

 

I think with some of the cabinet picks, they're terrified of who he'd replace them with if they vote against them and they don't get confirmed.  

 

like who?  Really, who could be worse at some of these posts other than the one's he's trying to get?   And if he selects someone worse, than reject that pick and so on, until he picks someone decent.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Hanahope

[teddysmom]

Quote

So there are reports the orange monster already wants to replace Sean Spicer.  Yup, apparently he doesn't like the way he looks or dresses.  Mmmm, kay.  Does Rach report on rumors?  Maybe not.  But I'd so love so see her shooting a giddy snarky side-eyed glance to the cam, with her awesome shtick of one eyebrow arched up, while discussing this.  Have to find humor where ya can.  Rach seems all about that.

I heard he was throwing Spicer under the bus after that meltdown on Saturday, but you could tell Spicer had been forced into doing that by Trump. Not that Spicer isn't a weasel.

[slensam]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

like who?  Really, who could be worse at some of these posts other than the one's he's trying to get?   And if he selects someone worse, than reject that pick and so on, until he picks someone decent.

The problem is that he has an inexhaustible supply of assholes and they have the majority.

[attica]

4 hours ago, Hanahope said:

with Rubio being a coward

But you repeat yourself. ;)

[Hanahope]

16 minutes ago, slensam said:

The problem is that he has an inexhaustible supply of assholes and they have the majority.

So keep opposing.  Do what you can.  They certainly never let up.

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

The Democrats are being too conciliatory in my book. 

Except for Maxine Waters, she straight up called him a liar as well as Steve King on national fucking tv, good lord I love that woman. Sorry, but that's the shit I want to hear when it's called for, which for this administration will be damn near every day. She's the one standing up on the house floor trying to deny Trump the electoral votes to solidify his  presidency. Again, love her and until I get more of her representing me in the democratic party, they are collectively irrelevant. No Chuck Schumer, I don't want to hear shit about you working with him on ANYTHING, NOTHING,  NADA because he stole the presidency and is illegitimate. How can you work with someone who isn't legally the president? Just, bye. 

This fucking democratic party almost makes me wish I was a republican, because they know what the fuck war is and how to fight one. I'm done with this party until they show me some war tactics, done. I'm tired of their elitist, comfortable way of doing business, not wanting to truly get blood on their hands. And I'm tired of this preserving institutions shit that Obama kept talking about, yeah I get it, but sometimes just like forest fires, you have to burn everything down to allow for new growth, new life and that's where we are in this republic as far as I'm concerned. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[ScoobieDoobs]

Well, did anyone else get the impression Rach is super annoyed Dems are actually voting for ANY of the picks?  She asked Perez about it.  Wonder why she hasn't had him on before.  I liked him saying Dems should treat Trump EXACTLY the same way McConnell & his colleagues treated Obama.  I suspect Rach agreed, but I saw or heard no reaction from her.

Hey, Rach are ya not very musically inclined?  Your xylophone playing kinda stunk.

[Macbeth]

Glad to see reports of protests outside of democrat offices that are backing the bat-shit, billionaire cabinet.  Good to see Senator Dianne Feinstein being called out on her vote for pro torture, CIA director, Pompeo.

Tonight's show on the gagging of federal programs and employees is really scary.  It appears Trump is trying to get rid of all federal agencies, unless they can benefit corporations - except the military, which already does benefit corporations.  I hope everyone is downloading all the necessary public information before it is erased.

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

Glad to see reports of protests outside of democrat offices that are backing the bat-shit, billionaire cabinet.  Good to see Senator Dianne Feinstein being called out on her vote for pro torture, CIA director, Pompeo.

I wanted someone to punch that smile right off Schumer's face, sitting at the fucking table with Trump smiling. WTF are you smiling at? And why are you even at that damn table, you and Pelosi. Shit, at least look serious while sitting there, like the constituents you are suppose to represent, because they/we are NOT smiling.  Embarrassing Brooklyn, NY, my native home. I remember when he got elected, now as a former New Yorker, I'm ashamed.

That's right, protest and get up in their faces everyday, they need to torment every democratic representative who refuses to represent. 

Quote

Well, did anyone else get the impression Rach is super annoyed Dems are actually voting for ANY of the picks? 

Yes, as she should be. I'm just happy she's covering it and I wish she'd put up a scroll of the names and states of every last one of those democratic fuckers who voted for Tillerson.  She's done it before, named, names, put them right up on the damn screen, I wish she'd do that. I'm not playing with them, they've got real problems when a Hillary supporting moderate democrat like me starts to hate them. They are pretty much irrelevant when my kind starts to hate them; we're all they got because the far left progressive have long been gone so...

Pulse of the people, they still don't get it, they're still missing it, right over their heads as they try to make nice with the enemy.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Yeah, but I was glad to see her talking about (& showing) people protesting local offices.  That's how it begins & that's how we can stop the orange monster & the Rethugs from destroying the country.

Looks like Dem establishment is starting to do a really piss poor job of going against Trump.  That is disturbing.  But Rach seems to be all over them, so that's good.  I had the sick feeling Schumer would be a do-nothing windbag & no match for Trump & his crew of horrors.

What's really scary is the secretly forced silencing of federal agencies.  This is typical for dictatorships & communist regimes.  Glad Rach is on this, but it's really terrifying.

[izabella]

49 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

What's really scary is the secretly forced silencing of federal agencies.  This is typical for dictatorships & communist regimes.  Glad Rach is on this, but it's really terrifying.

This scares me, too.  Because it's fucking scary!  I"m so glad for Rachel because she's one of the few voices in the wilderness that's willing to call out this crap, but boy, there is just so much scary crap!  We need more Rachels!  The Dems aren't doing enough.  I just can't get over how "normal" they act around Trumputin, as though he isn't delusional yet able to wield enough power to destroy this country. 

I hope Rachel also starts spending more time on the fuckery that Republicans are pushing through Congress even as we speak. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by izabella

[ScoobieDoobs]

Rach is all about giving history lessons & speaking with experts on history, right?  How she can help right now is to interview historians about dictators who were ultimately overthrown.  We can relate to this now -- because that's clearly what's in power at the moment.

[Apprentice79]

My  fear is how long will this abominable administration continue before the Republicans stand up to him. They are scared of him. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Wonder if Rach will do an ode to Mary tonite.  So many women mention her show as an inspiration to them -- particularly women in journalism.

[alias1]

Rachel was on fire tonight.  The Voice of America that used to be not partisan is now owned by Trump.  I want to know who introduced that change and made it part of that bill.  Rachel said Obama reluctantly signed it, so it sounded like it was not a democrat.  Who would have wanted a change like that?  Every night she scares me more and more.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Yeah, she was on fire. I'm kinda disappointed she didn't mention anything about Mary Tyler Moore.  Chris Matthews & Brian Williams did.  Woulda meant more coming from Rach.  Guess she had too much other important & terrifying news to discuss.

So now 2 20-something former right-wing bloggers are running Voice of America?  Thanks, Rach, for informing us of this lunacy of the day from our orange monster dictator.

Glad Rach is repeating his desire to take the oil from Iraq & how dangerous it is for our troops there.  Keep it up, Rach & don't stop.

Edited January 26, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[potatoradio]

Aside from the annoying plug for Greta (we get it, MSNBC; you're fair and balanced and we MUST EMBRACE your right-wing barnacles because ratings, but you can knock it off now), last night's show was a must-see. No time wasted on the usual 'hmmmm....let's think about what a lie really is' or 'he's not really going to cross THAT line, is he?' bullshit tea-leaf reading crap. Nope, down to a detailed and terrifying report on the building of the Bannon propaganda machine. I shouldn't watch Maddow as my last show of the night, but as far as I know, she's the only one reporting on the consequences of what this new tyranny is actually doing. 

[sistermagpie]

I wasn't able to get through to my rep's offices yesterday and was feeling bad about not scolding them for voting no on everybody (Gillibrand's been better than most) so I was so so glad to see people protesting outside their offices in NY. I don't want that to make me feel like I can always leave it up to others, but it was great to see people so on it.

Also it was great that she showed evidence that Trump's words are certainly taken seriously and are causing serious problems in the MidEast and used for ISIS propaganda. 

I can't believe the government is now giving super funding so that the US can have yet another right wing talk radio station that speaks for the president and is broadcast internationally. Great. 

[M. Darcy]

Quote

The Voice of America that used to be not partisan is now owned by Trump. 

That scared the hell out of me.

And, Dan Rather - just shut up. Don't tell people not to be terrified.  You are a straight white male - you'll be fine.  The rest of us are right to be scared out of our minds.

[car54]

I hope Rachel or Chris or Lawrence cover this story.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wow-it-gets-bigger

[attica]

2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

And, Dan Rather - just shut up.

Hee! Sing it, my sister! When Rachel was winding up her A block and teasing 'a titan of American journalism, next up', I said to myself, "attica, you don't want to watch Dan Rather, do you?" and I switched over to my dvr'd episode of Taboo (which, btw, is roundly beating what were my meager expectations for it. Treaty of Ghent figures in! How's that, all you War of 1812 nerds in the house?)

[stormy]

When Rachel said Dan Rather was coming on, I turned into Friends.  Even a Friends episode from 1998 is better TV than Dan Rather.

[BuckeyeLou]

7 hours ago, car54 said:

I hope Rachel or Chris or Lawrence cover this story.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wow-it-gets-bigger

Yikes, Rachel is explaining this tonight!  Scary stuff, the Russian guy who was in Cyber-Intelligence had a bag thrown over his head & he 'disappeared"...like a spy movie, only this is real life!  Was he the one who fed info to our Intelligence people?  And now Trumputin is going to lift sanctions against Russia?!  This needs to be investigated!  

[car54]

I know, I was so excited to see she was going to do it--I feel like she does that all things connect and not in a good way.

[ScoobieDoobs]

7 hours ago, car54 said:

I hope Rachel or Chris or Lawrence cover this story.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wow-it-gets-bigger

Wow, did Rach get her lead story from you?  Hi Rach (or any of her staffers), if you're reading here!

Honestly, I was a little fuzzy on what this story meant & the incredible impact it has.  Thanks to Rach for making perfectly & simply clear what it means.  She's awesome at connecting the dots so EVERYONE can understand.

So if that report on Trump was true (or even partly true) & it was leaked by some Russian spy, it sure looks like Putin & his henchmen could likely be punishing this spy for leaking anything or everything in that report.  YIKES!

So if (as Rach suggests) Trump is setting everything up for ALL Russian sanctions to be lifted, and Tillerson is in place as Secretary of State, and ALL senior staff in State Dept. are booted out, what is next?  If Congress stands by & does nothing to stop him, can we the public do anything?  Rach said public outrage works SOMETIMES.  She gave some good examples.  So it was hopeful, but still really really scary as hell.

Sheesh, am I alone here?  I'm NOT especially moved or confident in Al Franken to stand up to the orange monster & his evil crew of henchmen.  Shit, we are so screwed.  Are people just going to have to end up in a literal revolt on their own, by the millions, because ALL politicians (Dems as well as Rethugs) are so useless & just so out of touch with what the majority of people in this country want?

Edited January 27, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[jjj]

Hmmmm... watch Rachel's show or read a John le Carré novel?  Oh, wait -- same thing, different characters.  That opening tonight was just creepy, and I was looking forward to the next episode, except then realized that this would not get wrapped up like a mini-series.

18 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Sheesh, am I alone here?  I'm NOT especially moved or confident in Al Franken to stand up to the orange monster & his evil crew of henchmen.  Shit, we are so screwed.  Are people just going to have to end up in a literal revolt on their own, by the millions, because ALL politicians (Dems as well as Rethugs) are so useless & just so out of touch with what the majority of people in this country want?

Here's the thing -- the Democrats are hoping the *some* Republicans at *some* point will join them to knock off one of these appointees (DeVos!) -- and if they completely alienate the entire majority, they will never be able to peel away a vote or two -- which is all they need.  I'm not saying I like their strategy of throwing some votes to the Republican majority, but it is a strategy to keep the door open so they can try to reel in a couple of votes.  Mattis actually is an independent character, and he does not need this job -- plus, is highly respected on many fronts.  He deserved a strong vote. 

Here is something fun:  an annotated version by the Washington Post of Trump's television interview yesterday:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/26/donald-trumps-brazen-first-interview-as-president-annotated/?utm_term=.7feff9f5776a

[navelgazer]

52 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Sheesh, am I alone here?  I'm NOT especially moved or confident in Al Franken to stand up to the orange monster & his evil crew of henchmen.  Shit, we are so screwed.  Are people just going to have to end up in a literal revolt on their own, by the millions, because ALL politicians (Dems as well as Rethugs) are so useless & just so out of touch with what the majority of people in this country want?

Nope, you're not alone.  As soon as Franken came on, I switched over to Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, and TYT.  I'll try to catch an LO'D replay later.  The problem is when they all started talking about Mexico, NAFTA, building the wall, my eyes glazed over.

Here's my forever opinion of my beloved Democrats.  

 

25 minutes ago, jjj said:

[The] Democrats are hoping the *some* Republicans at *some* point will join them to knock off one of these appointees (DeVos!) -- and if they completely alienate the entire majority, they will never be able to peel away a vote or two -- which is all they need.  I'm not saying I like their strategy of throwing some votes to the Republican majority, but it is a strategy to keep the door open so they can try to reel in a couple of votes.

JMHO, any pretense of collegiality with the ReThugs is an exercise in futility, frustration, and amnesia.  I watched those SOBs block every single Obama legislative idea that they could.  They stood their ground and then were rewarded with absolute power in Washington  There is no compromise with these creatures.  They're out for blood.  They want their corporate masters to own the public schools and to profit from them.  They want Wall Street to run Social Security and be able to play their speculation games on those trillions of dollars.  

The cartoon above from around 2004 illustrates brilliantly why I'm not surprised by the obsequiousness of the Democrats.   

[ScoobieDoobs]

The NY Times editorials are saying Trump is all over stopping Planned Parenthood funding -- which includes much more than abortion clinics.  And they think it's ALL coming from Pence's lunatic super right wing views.

Rach said there's so much coming outta Trump now to be deeply concerned about, it's easy to lose track of what's important.  She rightly said we have to concentrate on what he does & less about what he says -- which we can now simply assume are nothing but lies.  She has been reporting on what he's doing to Planned Parenthood.  Hopefully she'll keep spotlighing it & not let up.

So Rach asked:  What has Russia done -- what has changed that Russian sanctions should be lifted?  And especially given how Americans overwhelmingly have negative opinions (even Trump voters) of Russia & Putin.  Oh, thank you for asking this, Rach!!!  So how will the orange monster & Putin's pal Tillerson & the truly evil Bannon answer this?  Well, we know Bannon's reply.  He'll say the press should shut up.  Let's just see where that attitude toward the press gets this insane administration we're stuck with..

Edited January 27, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs