MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

[annzeepark914]

I wonder how all these angry people are going to react when HRC is elected president (it'll be close probably...as crazy as that seems).  I saw one TRUMP/Pence sign on a lawn today and one Clinton/Kaine/Connelly sign.  Not going to put a sign on my lawn as I don't want to lure any crazies to my property!  Back to MSNBC: I must admit that Chuck Todd is the only one on that network that I watch from time to time.  He handles himself well, is professional, and doesn't shout/interrupt.  I wonder if anyone actually likes the way Chris Matthews behaves on his show. I used to watch Hardball in its early days but Chris has become unbearable over the years which is too bad because he could have an interesting program.

[jjj]

Okay, I was sure I heard Chuck Todd say "Nicolle Wallace," but did not see her.  But in looking up the spelling of her name, came across her Twitter account ant this gem from Nicolle:  "Newt and Trump talking about women and weight has put me over the edge. I'd love to see them at jazzercise." 

I know most here can't stand her, but I feel like I missed the day of kindergarten when she said something that made everyone else dislike her unto eternity.  I'm glad to see a Republican who can speak to both sides, and especially one who has not drunk the Trump-Aid (it is a very dark, and very sour drink).

[car54]

Nicolle is much more likeable when her side's guy is losing.   If things are going good for the GOP, that's when her bad side comes out.

[33kaitykaity]

10 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

They have to quit with the surrogates. I don't know which nitwit CT just tried to pin down (Jason something?) but, the kool-aid, it is strong.

Trump won the debate, Lester didn't do such a good job (Hillary got easier questions), the polls that night were a landslide for Trump, the polls now prove he won and the sky is green and the clouds are striped.

Chuck was open-mouthed wide-eyed stunned but called him out on everything, but the sky remained green.

What's truly terrifying is the people who are inside the FAUX Noise fact-free bubble actually believe what  these nutjobs on the TeeVee spew and there are almost enough of them (voters who believe) to put the Cheeto Jesus in the WH.  

[NewDigs]

17 minutes ago, NextIteration said:

The delusion runs deep in this Miller fella, when you manage to gobsmack Toad with your stupidity and anti-Clinton rhetoric it's a banner day for delusion.

That was a thing of beauty. It's not often you get to see Chuck Todd, or anyone, laugh out loud at a surrogate. He looked like he wanted to give the guy a little tap to see if he was delirious.

[cattykit]

43 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

They have to quit with the surrogates. I don't know which nitwit CT just tried to pin down (Jason something?) but, the kool-aid, it is strong.

Trump won the debate, Lester didn't do such a good job (Hillary got easier questions), the polls that night were a landslide for Trump, the polls now prove he won and the sky is green and the clouds are striped.

Chuck was open-mouthed wide-eyed stunned but called him out on everything, but the sky remained green.

If this interview doesn't convince the networks to stop booking surrogates, nothing can.  And this guy is the senior communication director, which speaks volumes about the communications coming out of the Drumpf campaign.  This was the ultimate swimming in shit and expecting to find a pony.

[Queena]

3 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

Once again, if Gary Johnson wants pot legalized he's shooting that argument in the foot every time he's on camera. He's worried about Hillary's trigger finger and I'm terrified he'll be too damn stoned should nuclear war be in question. He is way, way out of it and that's an understatement. 

He shouldn't be on the ticket at all, forget reversing the ticket.

Don't blame pot because he's unprepared. He's giving pot a bad rep! 

I laugh whenever that guy on TRMS laughs at something. 

[Padma]

1 hour ago, NewDigs said:

They have to quit with the surrogates. I don't know which nitwit CT just tried to pin down (Jason something?) but, the kool-aid, it is strong.

Trump won the debate, Lester didn't do such a good job (Hillary got easier questions), the polls that night were a landslide for Trump, the polls now prove he won and the sky is green and the clouds are striped.

Chuck was open-mouthed wide-eyed stunned but called him out on everything, but the sky remained green.

I have to admit, I've begun to really like Todd. If I possibly can, I try to catch MTPD and always learn something. He's actually quite well informed, pleasant without being obviously partisan one way or the other.  He asks quite good questions--as if he's genuinely curious, not just trying to get a headline.

I was pretty impressed by his interview with Jason Miller. (1) Jason Miller is HUGE in the Trump Org, I'd put him above Kellyanne because he has been in that position so long. Whenever Trump has something indefensible to defend, it's Jason Miller who writes the statements defending it. (2) So that's what he's like! I was curious. Now I know. He actually seemed much more pleasant than I expected (Kellyanne used to have "pleasant" down but the stress is clearly getting to her. She looks worse by the day and constantly sounds irritated and impatient--probably much like her candidate).

(3) The level of delusion that is necessary to work for Trump is mind-blowing. You can see it with Conway and now with another high-up (not just surrogate/flunky) in Miller. Chuck's interview with him was actually quite shocking to me.  I've read that Trump believes he'll win because he has big crowds and that he believes the fake "400,000 votes" online "bot" polling. But that people around him (including, apparently, his former pollster) are afraid not to reinforce that, is very disturbing. Chuck made a great, non-partisan point:  we need presidents who can listen to advisors whose views are different from their own and who don't just need rubber-stamps.

It is clear that Donald Trump can't stand anyone contradicting him and his view of himself, his world, his campaign. Since he knows so little, is so self-absorbed and so often impulsive and volatile (and wrong) that is very disturbing. Yes, he'll listen to Ivanka, but she actually has a job to do elsewhere (plus no expertise in public policy either). And I think even she, like everyone else, fears his wrath and knows how resistant he is to anything and anyone that dares to contradict him.

I also liked Chuck getting that internal memo and then showing the Trump-supporting senator parroting it to the press (Monica...Paula Jones...gennifer flowers.  Really? You call someone "Miss Housekeeping" and "Miss Piggy" and that's the best response you've got? That HRC "attacked" these women? Pathetic!)

[stormy]

Chuck also did a good job with Jason Miller when Miller wanted to turn question #1 into a lame anti-Hillary talking point.  Chuck stopped him right away saying, we're not talking about Hillary.

Edited September 29, 2016 by stormy

[jjj]

Brian Williams re-ran part of the MTPD interview with Miller -- and that might be all I can take of it.  Good for Todd (I have not been a fan in the past) for not letting "the sky is green" pass unchallenged.  You know, if Brian could make his show a series of highlight from the day on MSNBC and then toss in some commentary from Joy Reid, it would be something I'd look forward to each evening.  Of course, it would be even better if Joy ran that hour. 

[xaxat]

This article is a little old, but it really makes me look forward to a campaign memoir by Katy Tur.

My Crazy Year with Trump

Quote

Trump thought my tweets were "disgraceful" and "not nice!" according to a chastising note from his 26-year-old press secretary, Hope Hicks. In the hours that followed, Trump took his complaints public, trashing me and CBS News reporter Sopan Deb for the coverage.

"@KatyTurNBC & @DebSopan [sic] should be fired for dishonest reporting," he tweeted. "@KatyTurNBC, 3rd rate reporter & @SopanDeb @CBS lied."

He demanded I apologize.

I didn't, so Trump decided to go further in Mount Pleasant, pointing his finger squarely at me and launching a personal attack as millions of Americans watched at home.

"What a lie it was," Trump said, referring to the claim that he had left the stage abruptly. "What a lie. Katy Tur. What a lie it was. Third. Rate. Reporter. Remember that." The crowd's boos ricocheted off the iron hull of the USS Yorktown.

And the crazy never stopped.

[NextIteration]

Ha ha ha ha.  Isn't it the height of hypocrisy for Renee Ellmers (R) NC to show up on MSNBC throwing shade at Clinton when she's the one that has been romantically tied to Kevin McCarthy (R) CA... which in large part is why he had to step away from the Speaker of the House position?  Even more delicious is that Ellmers lost her primary.  Sour grapes.

[stormy]

Actually, the height of hypocrisy belongs to MSNBC for inviting people like Ellmers on to talk about anything.

It's pathetic when they have Marsha Blackburn on, she's vile, but digging out has beens is desperate.

[jjj]

I have to thank MSNBC for covering, in the middle of the night, a large portion of what was titled the "farewell" for Shimon Peres (the funeral being the service at graveside).  MSNBC did not show all the speeches, but had them on a split screen while interviewing a former ambassador who had known Peres.  Even CNN was not covering the entire event, only cutting away to the address by President Obama. 

The only reason I will be glad to see the Obama term come to an end will be that I will not watch events like this with a sense of dread that something terrible might happen -- this started probably on the night he won the election and went out to the crowd with his family; and certainly on the first inauguration day, when he and Michelle walked outside the car in the parade.  Last night, watching him stand with a forest grove behind him and a vast expanse of people in front of him, I got that same sense of "is the security *really* tight?" until he finished.  Then at one point, saw there was a giant transparent wall behind him and the stage area. 

MSNBC later replayed some of Bill Clinton's remarks at the event -- and he does seem more noticeably frail, although it might have been lack of sleep from the travel and time zone changes (about 4:00 AM ET, probably with very little sleep on the way there, and it looked very hot). 

[MulletorHater]

I really enjoyed Rachel's show last night.  As usual, she started off with a little history lesson.  The clips of the presidential debates between Presidents Ford and Carter were very informative. She showed how one comment President Ford made during the debate about Russia not being aggressive in Eastern Europe during his administration sent shock waves through various Eastern European communities here.  Even the newscasters had a difficult time keeping themselves in check due to Ford's incredible claim and he was fact-checked six ways to Sunday.

Then, Rachel fast forwarded to the latest Drumpf scandal:  Drumpf's organization sought to conduct business in Communist Cuba while there was an embargo in place in violation of federal laws.  As usual, Rachel had facts and followed the money.  Rachel also described--and speculated--how this could impact the Cuban community in Dade County, Florida.

I always learn something new when I watch her show.

ETA:  Honorable mention goes to Rachel resurrecting Governor Romney's 47% tape, which included something that had not been discussed before. Apparently, he made some comments about daytime television, particular The View.  He noted that The View only had 1 conservative and he mentioned Whoopi Goldberg.  Fast forward to Whoopi going in on Kellyanne Conway about Drumpf's damn tax returns.  Loved it!

Edited September 30, 2016 by MulletorHater

[jjj]

Yeah, the Ford mistake did not even need to be fact-checked -- it was as bad as if he had said there were 46 states.  We saw the tanks roll into Czechoslovakia.

Did not know what Morning Joe was talking about in terms of the Trump midnight (3:00 AM ) tweets, and now see it is all over the news.  Plus, one of his robo-surrogates was just saying on MSNBC that it is Hillary who is keeping this parituclar topic in the news to avoid real issues.   And said that shortly after Hillary had given a speech on national service.    Tweetstorm:  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-early-tweet-storm-alicia-machado-228947

Heh, Alec Baldwin will be playing Trump on SNL  (NBC-related).  So perfect. 

[xaxat]

4 hours ago, stormy said:

Actually, the height of hypocrisy belongs to MSNBC for inviting people like Ellmers on to talk about anything.

It's pathetic when they have Marsha Blackburn on, she's vile, but digging out has beens is desperate.

I wonder how much of that is because more temperate members of the Republican party want nothing to do with Trump and bookers are having a hard time finding non crazy people. In any other election cycle we would see officials like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins on the networks supporting their nominee.

Not this one.

ETA This also applies to the Republican establishment lobbyist/think tank types. Supporting the nominee could actually be a bad career move for them.

Edited September 30, 2016 by xaxat

[potatoradio]

Dang it. Was really relishing my work from home day because I heard the lovely voice of Jeremy Peters on my teevee  and huzzzah! He was on twice! I know ,I know, he's not that exciting a reporter, but I never fail to feel like a giggling twee who starts demanding (in best Veruca Salt voice): "Daddy! I want a Jeremy Peters! Get me one this instant, Daddy."

Because issues.

Anyway, then I was really happy because here comes Korancki, sleeves rolled up, and I'm thinking, oh, happy day, it's time for map play! But no...Hillary Clinton was giving a speech. Well, that's great because she rarely gets airtime (IMHO) for talking about her policies or ideas. So, I'm happily settling down with my granola and...what? All they care about is when she's going to respond to the Trump Twitter Tantrum? Then they cut away from her speech to ask Kasie Hunt (who is at the speech, btw) when she's going to talk about Trump. How about airing her speech and finding out? So, they finally go back to Clinton and then, as soon as she says her lines about Trump, they cut away to discuss. Gah!! There's more to this election than responding to Trump, OK, media? My kingdom for a single, in depth discussion about global warming. 

But still...I need to go get more work done...

[Padma]

11 minutes ago, potatoradio said:

Dang it. Was really relishing my work from home day because I heard the lovely voice of Jeremy Peters on my teevee  and huzzzah! He was on twice! I know ,I know, he's not that exciting a reporter, but I never fail to feel like a giggling twee who starts demanding (in best Veruca Salt voice): "Daddy! I want a Jeremy Peters! Get me one this instant, Daddy."

Because issues.

Anyway, then I was really happy because here comes Korancki, sleeves rolled up, and I'm thinking, oh, happy day, it's time for map play! But no...Hillary Clinton was giving a speech. Well, that's great because she rarely gets airtime (IMHO) for talking about her policies or ideas. So, I'm happily settling down with my granola and...what? All they care about is when she's going to respond to the Trump Twitter Tantrum? Then they cut away from her speech to ask Kasie Hunt (who is at the speech, btw) when she's going to talk about Trump. How about airing her speech and finding out? So, they finally go back to Clinton and then, as soon as she says her lines about Trump, they cut away to discuss. Gah!! There's more to this election than responding to Trump, OK, media? My kingdom for a single, in depth discussion about global warming. 

But still...I need to go get more work done...

Oh, that would have been aggravating! I hope, when media critics write books about the election, they don't say "Hillary had 7 speeches shown and Trump had the same" (or whatever). Because it's usually"a few minutes of Hllary" (if that) and ALL of Trump. And then, just like with the primary candidates, when she DOES get discussed it's also "all about Trump".  And then reporters blame her because "voters don't think the candidates say enough about the issues!"

I didn't see it because I turned off MSNBC when Thomas (!) said that probably a lot of Democrats wish they could vote for Mitt Romney this year. (And, no, Thomas. I really don't think they do, sorry.)

[NewDigs]

3 hours ago, xaxat said:

I wonder how much of that is because more temperate members of the Republican party want nothing to do with Trump and bookers are having a hard time finding non crazy people. In any other election cycle we would see officials like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins on the networks supporting their nominee.

Not this one.

ETA This also applies to the Republican establishment lobbyist/think tank types. Supporting the nominee could actually be a bad career move for them.

Susan Collins was on. And Lindsey Graham.

LOL

But not poor John McCain.

@Padma, I too was listening for Clinton's speech and could hardly believe it when it became obvious they were just waiting for her Trump remarks!

I so rarely hear her speak. Though the day after the debate they did give her more coverage. She spoke of her mother's plight as an almost homeless 14 year old who not only worked as a housekeeper but got her work done early enough to get to high school where her teacher gave her the teacher's "extra" sandwich or she would have had nothing. It was very moving, imho. 

They are really doing this country a disservice, and that's being kind. I think I heard Mike Murphy say that maybe the media took Trump too seriously and he really never did want to be prez.

The convolutions of these so-called journalists is mind numbing.

[car54]

I wish Hillary's campaign would steal the fake "It's 3am do you know who's tweeting" ad that just ran at the beginning of With All Due Respect.

It would probably go over great with people who have a sense of humor.

[NewDigs]

Did Betsy Mccaughey, while attempting to defend Trump's MissUniverse reaction, just flirt with Donnie? They were talking about weight issues and she looked and said both Heileman and Deutsch looked pretty good, gave Donny another look and kind of double-downed on how he looked really good. Paraphrase but... Geesh.

Is she the new Katrina Pierson?

@car54 I missed that but loved last night's Trumple in Paradise.

And my respect for Donnie continues to grow. Who knew?

Edited September 30, 2016 by NewDigs
Heileman is not Halperin

[NextIteration]

I'm not gonna say it, no you can't make me say that with every passing election cycle Betsy McCaughey looks more like a man in drag, but ya know, some people are saying... 

WADR is worth watching today because Halperin is absent and Donnie Deutsche is simply incensed that tRump is anywhere near the presidency for real.

[atomationage]

I couldn't stand Donny Deutsch until he starting hating on Drumpf. 

[car54]

Betsy was  flirting.   She kind of looks like an aging beauty contestant so it's fitting she is stumping for Trump.

I kind of love Donnie---he's done pretty well sitting in for Halperin (I like him better) and he gets points from me because Mika hates him.

[jjj]

Wow, the openings of the evening shows are just tremendous.  Rachel had the best twenty minutes of television I've seen in a long time (on several topics, all hilarious), and now Lawrence O'Donnell on Trump, on Trump's second wedding day, telling Howard Stern that "vagina is expensive", while we can hear Trump laughing in the background (this was from an old radio broadcast).  L O'D's tone of moral indignation is sometimes insufferable.  But tonight, it is exactly the right tone.  "What kind of human being is this?" said the Clinton campaign.  "Why would I have regrets?" said Trump just now about his "look at the sex tape" tweets.  (Rachel meanwhile is reporting on Trump's own appearance in a softcore porn Playboy video in 2000.)  More over on Rachel's thread. 

One of the commentators said that HRC's psychological consultants gave her great advice for rattling Trump during the debate, "but even more, it worked shockingly well *after* the debate, with Trump spending the week arguing about Miss Universe 1996, and her weight gain from twenty years ago." 

Newt Gingrich now being shown on L O'D (from a Fox News broadcast), saying:  "YOU CAN'T TWEET AT 3 IN THE MORNING. PERIOD"  And the L O'D commentators, seeing this for the first time, are in stitches.

Man, if the stakes were not so high, I could watch this forever.  Tell me it's going to be okay, and I'll get the popcorn and relax.

Edited October 1, 2016 by jjj

[atomationage]

26 minutes ago, jjj said:

Tell me it's going to be okay, and I'll get the popcorn and relax.

It's going to be okay.  Get the popcorn.  I don't know about relaxing.  Serious gamblers are putting their money on HRC, and the odds are with her. 

[jjj]

With Sarah Palin, we were all "oh boy, oh boy, I can hardly wait to see what Saturday Night Live is going to do with her campaign -- they have never had such great material to work with."  And it was brilliant, with Tina Fey and Palin herself eventually becoming a parody of herself.

Trump is going to put SNL out of business.  He is beyond parody. 

[memememe76]

I am so thrilled for Joy's ratings success. Joy was the first to really hone in on the grunting and sniffing, but Chris was basically telling her to shut it. 

[NextIteration]

I think that it should be required on MSNBC that Malcom Nance get 15 minutes of every hour from now until the election.  Bernie or Busters need to understand what is at stake for our country and the world.

[Ohwell]

I like Malcolm Nance as a contributor, but I must admit that he scares the hell out of me.  Something about those eyes.

[car54]

The discussion today on AM Joy about Trump and women that had the head of Latinas for Trump and Lisa Bloom was excellent.  I have rarely seen people from opposite sides discuss their opinions so respectfully.    I felt like Joy and Lisa were trying to save the woman from her own candidate but it seems like she's drunk the kool-aid.

[cattykit]

1 hour ago, car54 said:

The discussion today on AM Joy about Trump and women that had the head of Latinas for Trump and Lisa Bloom was excellent.  I have rarely seen people from opposite sides discuss their opinions so respectfully.    I felt like Joy and Lisa were trying to save the woman from her own candidate but it seems like she's drunk the kool-aid.

I agree that Joy and the panel were falling all over themselves to speak kindly to the Drumpf supporter (who insisted she's an independent).  Apparently she thinks Drumpf has promised her a tax cut, and therefore nothing else matters.  And indeed, she was polite and respectful in return.  Nobody cut anyone off or yelled across a table.

Two general complaints about MSNBC opinion shows:  why are they always so pressed for time?  It's not like they're going to cause the Heidi Bowl by cutting into something scheduled later.  Joy today rightly pushed back whatever she had scheduled for later in her show so she could extend the conversation.  This almost never happens and almost every interview I see in MSNBC prime time results in little more than a few sound bites where the guest either says yep, you're right, or nope, don't agree, and the guests are shuffled off.  If you need more time, schedule fewer guests and fewer segments.  Very often CH/Rachel/LOD repeat the same points anyway.  You can see what a difference not rushing makes when they don't do it--look at how well Rachel did when she had a full hour to interview KAC.  Look how much better this panel did today when they had enough time to have a real discussion.  Second point:  I am totally sick of MSNBC program flow--segment--commercials--come back with 30 second teaser with the host so you think they're back--commercials--come back with 60 second teaser for something unrelated to the first teaser--commercials--eventually come back to what they originally teased.  I've gotten to the point where I record the prime time shows and watch them an hour later just to get through that.  Oh, and I hate the sound effect they make when Rachel goes to commercial, something like papers or a deck of cards being shuffled.

One more bitch:  yesterday, I think it was on MTP, they ran several minutes of silent live video of a Drumpf rally with Drumpf and Giuliani in the larger part of a split screen while the panel in the smaller screen talked about something completely unrelated.  Why bother to show the rally with the sound off?  Either show it as it is or don't show it at all.  If it's a test to see who lip reads, maybe, but otherwise what's the point???

[NewDigs]

3 hours ago, cattykit said:

One more bitch:  yesterday, I think it was on MTP, they ran several minutes of silent live video of a Drumpf rally with Drumpf and Giuliani in the larger part of a split screen while the panel in the smaller screen talked about something completely unrelated.  Why bother to show the rally with the sound off?  Either show it as it is or don't show it at all.  If it's a test to see who lip reads, maybe, but otherw

I think they should maybe just stop showing them.

More than once I've tuned in and they managed to have the rally as background noise to the panel's commentary. That was annoying.

And more than once I've wondered if The Stones know the GOP regularly uses Sympathy for the Devil.

[cattykit]

7 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

And more than once I've wondered if The Stones know the GOP regularly uses Sympathy for the Devil.

The rallies I've seen have been playing You Can't Always Get What You Want, which always seems like a fascinating message for The Donald and his merry band of deplorables.  John Oliver did a piece a few months ago about politicians co-opting music without permission or royalties.

[jjj]

5 hours ago, cattykit said:

 It's not like they're going to cause the Heidi Bowl by cutting into something scheduled later. 

Heh, Heidi Bowl!  Good times.

1 hour ago, cattykit said:

The rallies I've seen have been playing You Can't Always Get What You Want, which always seems like a fascinating message for The Donald and his merry band of deplorables.  John Oliver did a piece a few months ago about politicians co-opting music without permission or royalties.

I thought the Trump campaign had been asked to stop using that.   http://variety.com/2016/music/news/the-rolling-stones-donald-trump-song-without-permission-1201820897/  and http://www.thewrap.com/rolling-stones-lash-out-at-donald-trump-again-over-song-use/ 

[jjj]

In case you are reading this instead of a news feed, be sure to tune in to the MSNBC shows on Sunday, which will be lit like the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree by the news of an anonymous sender of Trump's 1995 tax returns, and the remarkable information there:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html  Oh, the Friday MSNBC shows about the tweets telling America to "watch the sex tape" already seem so long ago.

And I thought Saturday Night Live would be the most entertaining thing this evening. 

[shok]

17 hours ago, car54 said:

The discussion today on AM Joy about Trump and women that had the head of Latinas for Trump and Lisa Bloom was excellent.  I have rarely seen people from opposite sides discuss their opinions so respectfully.    I felt like Joy and Lisa were trying to save the woman from her own candidate but it seems like she's drunk the kool-aid.

I found that segment terribly frustrating because the Latina Trump supporter just wasn't willing to consider facts and truths and information refuting the claims she was making. She certainly has drunk the koolaid and she sounded just as unhinged as Trump himself except she wasn't shouting and waving her arms around.

 

Quote

be sure to tune in to the MSNBC shows on Sunday, which will be lit like the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree by the news of an anonymous sender of Trump's 1995 tax returns, and the remarkable information there:

The shows won't have time to fit in all the crazy of his tax returns and his campaign appearance in PA tonight where he really went nuts. Check out the report that Jenna Johnson filed in WaPo. Yikes.

[jjj]

I did not get to see the Latina Trump supporter, but Joy Reid is still talking about what she said on the Sunday morning show, in the context of the Trump lack of personal federal income taxes.  Joy said that guest cared primarily about whether *she* would get a tax break, which she anticipated with a Trump presidency.  E.J. Dionne was one of the guests, and he said these returns show that Trump has a track record of "make Trump great again".

3 hours ago, shok said:

I found that segment terribly frustrating because the Latina Trump supporter just wasn't willing to consider facts and truths and information refuting the claims she was making. She certainly has drunk the koolaid and she sounded just as unhinged as Trump himself except she wasn't shouting and waving her arms around.
The shows won't have time to fit in all the crazy of his tax returns and his campaign appearance in PA tonight where he really went nuts. Check out the report that Jenna Johnson filed in WaPo. Yikes.

Edited October 2, 2016 by jjj

[NextIteration]

Fact, unless Latina yesterday makes more than $250k a year, I'm pretty sure that the Clinton tax plan cuts her taxes.  I don't know the cut off for tRump's massive tax cut for the 1%, but $250k is at the top 2% in the country.

[stormy]

I read the NYT article about his gigantic tax break.

The thing that disgusts me is that all of us little people are paying our "fair" share to keep this country up and running.  Not paying taxes should disqualify anyone for holding office.

[Mumbles]

I came across MTP and they were doing a roundtable called "The Twilight of the Elite." I'd that's not self-centered navel gazing, I don't know what is.

[alias1]

I think E. J. Dionne was also the one who compared Trump to Leona Helmsley (the queen of mean) who said, "only the little people pay taxes."  That must be Trumps motto, too.

[NextIteration]

1 hour ago, Mumbles said:

I came across MTP and they were doing a roundtable called "The Twilight of the Elite." I'd that's not self-centered navel gazing, I don't know what is.

Was Chris Hayes on the panel?  I was watching AM Joy so I missed MTP.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, NextIteration said:

Was Chris Hayes on the panel?  I was watching AM Joy so I missed MTP.

No Chris Hayes on MTP.  The opening defense by Guiliani of the tax (=non-tax) news was typically convoluted.  He must be promised a major Cabinet position in the Trump White House, or the Supreme Court.  His main claim was that Trump "would have been in jail" if he had not taken the tax breaks, because "he has a responsibility to his investors" to take all available tax breaks.  Really, Rudy?  On his *personal* income taxes?  I don't think so.  On the corporate taxes, sure.    And Rudy went after HRC and Monica, and Chuck Todd said, "really, are you the best messenger on this, given your own infidelities?"  Said Rudy,  "everybody does that.  And I confessed to my priest."  "Everybody" appreciates your vote of confidence, unfaithful Rudy. 

Given that Marla Maples also signed the 1995 tax return, it occurred to me that an investigative reporter could have gone to her to ask for a copy of the returns from the 1990s.  It would not have been an official release, but would be another path to the information.  Of course, she would not want to hurt her daughter's attempt to develop a relationship with her absent father. 

Finally, I have to think that someone leaked the Trump tax story to the Clinton campaign before the debate -- she was quite direct in suggesting that he might not have paid any taxes -- and you would not want to say that if he could disprove it -- she a lawyer, she knows that.

Really finally, Chuck quoted one of Rudy's tweets to him in the interview, and Rudy said "that's one of the fake accounts -- there are three or four of them."  And Chuck did come back later and say it was a fake account.  Some intern lost a job this morning. 

[Mumbles]

Rudy made the rounds today - MTP, This Week, and Chris Wallace.  I'm not being hyperbolic when I say I think he's not mentally all there any more.

Quote

Finally, I have to think that someone leaked the Trump tax story to the Clinton campaign before the debate -- she was quite direct in suggesting that he might not have paid any taxes -- and you would not want to say that if he could disprove it -- she a lawyer, she knows that.

I had heard that theory being floated around for a while. But certainly whoever sent the copy to the NYT was NOT a friend of Trump's.

And, for what it's worth, what Trump did was completely legal (query whether it should be).  I'm sure a lot of the big donors of both candidates have taken advantage of carrying losses over.  What IS remarkable is the size of the loss, the reveal of which has to hurt Trump's ego and call into question his business acumen (but he has declared bankruptcy over the years so again, no surprise there.) 

[jjj]

Watching MSNBC "Pulse of America" with Ari Melber, and he had Elise Johnson as a commentator.  He asked what she thought about the Trump comments on whether HRC is "loyal" to Bill, and Elise started by saying, "well, I am speaking as a Republican surrogate on this" -- and I groaned.  BUT THEN she said what Trump is doing is "morally deplorable and more than that, stupid."  And she went on to talk about the big hole he is digging for himself.  Whoa, a surrogate who has not lost her soul in this combat.

Mumbles, I agree what Trump did is/was legal -- and that is what his surrogates are jumping on.  But that is not the issue -- the issue is transparency, and he still has not delivered on that.  He is running as a great businessman, but now is running as someone who knows how to work the tax system to the ultimate degree, which shows how "smart" he is.  Show us the tax returns and let us decide for ourselves.   But now we know for sure why his children and other surrogates breezily said "oh, if he releases the returns, it will just create more discussion." 

5 minutes ago, Mumbles said:

And, for what it's worth, what Trump did was completely legal (query whether it should be).  I'm sure a lot of the big donors of both candidates have taken advantage of carrying losses over.  What IS remarkable is the size of the loss, the reveal of which has to hurt Trump's ego and call into question his business acumen (but he has declared bankruptcy over the years so again, no surprise there.) 

[Padma]

18 minutes ago, jjj said:

No Chris Hayes on MTP.  The opening defense by Guiliani of the tax (=non-tax) news was typically convoluted.  He must be promised a major Cabinet position in the Trump White House, or the Supreme Court.  His main claim was that Trump "would have been in jail" if he had not taken the tax breaks, because "he has a responsibility to his investors" to take all available tax breaks.  Really, Rudy?  On his *personal* income taxes?  I don't think so.  On the corporate taxes, sure.    And Rudy went after HRC and Monica, and Chuck Todd said, "really, are you the best messenger on this, given your own infidelities?"  Said Rudy,  "everybody does that.  And I confessed to my priest."  "Everybody" appreciates your vote of confidence, unfaithful Rudy. 

Given that Marla Maples also signed the 1995 tax return, it occurred to me that an investigative reporter could have gone to her to ask for a copy of the returns from the 1990s.  It would not have been an official release, but would be another path to the information.  Of course, she would not want to hurt her daughter's attempt to develop a relationship with her absent father. 

Finally, I have to think that someone leaked the Trump tax story to the Clinton campaign before the debate -- she was quite direct in suggesting that he might not have paid any taxes -- and you would not want to say that if he could disprove it -- she a lawyer, she knows that.

Really finally, Chuck quoted one of Rudy's tweets to him in the interview, and Rudy said "that's one of the fake accounts -- there are three or four of them."  And Chuck did come back later and say it was a fake account.  Some intern lost a job this morning. 

I heard Giuliani differently about "jail", that it was when he said Trump had been paying all the OTHER taxes--state, prop, etc. and Todd asked "How would we know?"  And Trump has no "investors" as you say on his personal tax return. And except for Resorts (where shareholders sued him for gross mismanagement back in the day) the Trump Org is all privately owned. Giuliani and Christie and Trump's "genius"...what has he promised them, I wonder. You know it's big. (Maybe FBI or State for RG and AG for Chris. Heaven help us.)

Maples is a very interesting idea.  But she's under a very strict NDA and he threatened her in the past over a very minor thing, so I doubt it. She seems like a very mild kind of person, pretty risk-averse.

I don't think Clinton said anything about him not paying taxes that wouldn't be obvious to anyone following the Wash Post stories. Its so obvious he hasn't given anything to charity since 2008 because he hasn't been paying taxes and didn't need the deductions. Even if he showed he -did- pay taxes (as if), HRC wouldn't be in any legal trouble for suggesting otherwise.  It's kind of screamingly obvious that he hasn't for seven years--and the fact he hasn't (almost 100% likelihood) from 1998 to now from that 1998 return just fits with everything else (and why he also refuses to release the pre- 2009 returns that even his lawyers say are no longer under audit). 

His latest spin that "I abused the system so only I can fix it", makes me feel ill. Are 40% of Americans really so stupid (this, and above, all based on MSNBC discussions today, btw)?   Is there ANYTHING in his tax proposal that reassures lower income people he's looking out for them? No. Yet they still think he's their big champion.

I've never dreamed that I would see people conned on such a scale.   And nothing sticks. (What happened to the illegal Cuban expenditures? The illegal spending from his charity on personal things? Now Machado is fading. They barely mentioned his unhinged RANT at last night's rally, inc. accusing HRC of infidelity. 

Tax return will soon be gone, too. It's unbelievable.         

[fireice13]

I have to wonder if it's just too much stuff to cover for the networks. Which is amazing since they're 24/7 pretty much, but it's an avalanche of new information that I think it ends up all getting lost and garbled.

Has anyone mentioned on the air that by still refusing to release his returns that Trump is basically saying the NYT is correct or that there may be something even worse that he doesn't want people to know about even if he did pay income tax? I've seen the theory a few places online but it doesn't seem any of the talk shows brought up that angle.

[ruby24]

This is the problem for the networks with the avalanche of Trump scandals. There's a new one every few days, which causes the last horrific one to fade. As opposed to Hillary, who gets to have the same issue (emails) pounded on for a YEAR. His behavior toward Machado was so disgusting and went on for a week, his meltdown at the PA rally was abominable, and now both are fading because of the explosive NYT story on the taxes. 

Rudy Giuliani has become quite something. Watching him on these shows this morning...what has happened to this man? Does he really believe what he says? Why would he say this?