Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

formerlyfreedom

By formerlyfreedom
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

meowmommy

meowmommy

2 hours ago, TexasGal said:

Other organizations have covered that she broke on air, she must really hate that.  But I agree with you, there is nothing to be ashamed of for being a caring human being.  Unlike a garbage human being like Corey Lewandowski.

And that's how a lot of stories played it out.  They juxtaposed Rachel breaking down on air with Corey Lewandowski womp-womping at the mention of a ten year old with Down's, and allowed you to decide for yourself which perspective was right.  There were some nasty commenters who of course accused Rachel of faking it and being a poor actress, but for the most part her reaction was pretty positively received, as far as I saw.

  • Love 9
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jjj
jjj

Oh, Rachel.  Our hearts are breaking with yours.  When Rachel Maddow bursts into tears on the show -- well, this is a very new and horrifying era. 

Hanahope
Hanahope

It was such a delight to have full and complete sentences and coherent thoughts.  I weep that Hillary is not our president.

Morrigan2575
Morrigan2575

God dammit! Rachel started crying and now I'm crying. ?

Posted Images

TexasGal

TexasGal

12 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

What does "womp-womp" even mean? Is it some kind of code for "retarded?"

I Urban Dictionary'd this phrase and there was nothing applicable. Anyone?

I think it's supposed to be like a "sad trombone" noise.  Others have said he said "wah-wah" - I haven't watched the clip myself because my blood pressure couldn't take it.  Both as a regular person, and a person with a nephew who has Down's.

  • Love 5
jjj

jjj

I am a total fan of Rachel, but just did not need to hear ten minutes of Condi Rice's shoe shopping in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina in order to hear 10 minutes later that Alex Azar went to his 30th college reunion on Saturday.  Yes, HHS is doing a horrifying job of taking care of children that should not be in their custody. I don't care that he went to his college reunion on Saturday. Skipping it would not have made a difference to the likely hundred children transported that day.  I care what he is doing during the week to get these children back to their parents.  

But Rachel did not get to the part about babies transported to Michigan and officials lying to American Airlines until 21 minutes into the show.  That would have been a more compelling start. I want to hear more about these nighttime transports and the ways everyone is wising up to this surreptitious activity:  greeters at the airports and custody workers who are appalled to be receiving babies and air attendants who are taking the names of these children on planes. She briefly mentioned all of these.  

  • Love 4
irisheyes

irisheyes

11 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel actually gave me a little hope last night - both the story she did about the family trying to just raise $1500 to help just one person with the bail money and they raised $15 million (and the that the money is going to an organization that knows what to do with it) and the fact that people are leaking the pictures of the kids.   Its still a shit bucket but that made me feel a little better. 

I donated to that fundraiser.  I wanted to do SOMETHING, and sending them some money seemed to be the best way to help. They are overwhelmed with the amount of money they received. Hopefully, they can use this money and help every single one of these babies get home to their families. 

  • Love 4
car54

car54

Rachel is right about people staking out the airports---Michael Moore put out a call for people tonight on twitter--he had word there were planes from Texas landing with kids--and he wanted people to show up.   I feel like shows like tonight's show where Rachel told about the press and public who are tracking down these children is going to end up helping to gather info to put families back together--if the lawyers in Tx can gather info on the parents and people all over can somehow put together their info someone is going to figure a way to link some of them up.    

  • Love 4
Skycatcher

Skycatcher

On 6/21/2018 at 12:53 AM, SpiritSong said:

I saw Rachel break down when the LOD show started. Felt so bad for her, but it was a very human reaction.

 I don't know how people like Rachel  make it through day after day of being immersed in the on-going news that is coming out of DC these days.  At first it was kind of funny, what would these buffoons do next?  But with the Singapore summit and now the border atrocities  things have  gone beyond bemused head shaking into the horrifying.  I can change channels,  turn it all off for a few days.  But she and others in her field rarely get a real break. That can't be healthy.  I'm sure most of them love their work or they wouldn't do it. But I don't think anybody signed up for what they, and we, are dealing with now.

  • Love 11
CatsAndMoreCats

CatsAndMoreCats

3 hours ago, Skycatcher said:

 I don't know how people like Rachel  make it through day after day of being immersed in the on-going news that is coming out of DC these days.  At first it was kind of funny, what would these buffoons do next?  But with the Singapore summit and now the border atrocities  things have  gone beyond bemused head shaking into the horrifying.  I can change channels,  turn it all off for a few days.  But she and others in her field rarely get a real break. That can't be healthy.  I'm sure most of them love their work or they wouldn't do it. But I don't think anybody signed up for what they, and we, are dealing with now.

The last time I smiled about ANYTHING coming out of D.C. was the morning of November 8, 2016, after I'd cast my vote (not for DT...duh).  Rachel is just catching up to what the rest of us are feeling.  That's all.  And I agree:  there is nothing wrong with feeling pain and distress about children being taken from their mothers and fathers.

  • Love 4
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

(edited)

Ugh, I knew this would happen. Asshole Tucker Carlson played Rach choking up & predictably said -- "This is propaganda!"

Rach really didn't even need to mention Condi Rice to make her point about the despicable Alex Azar.  But at least she didn't waste time talking about Melania -- her stupid jacket or that scripted bullshit dog and pony show.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Love 1
jjj

jjj

(edited)
3 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

I noticed Seattle is his regular back-drop on The Beat, so ...

Thanks, I never get to see The Beat, so did not realize!  I listened again to the start of Rachel's Friday show, and he did not say anything about location. 

Oh, I see he is from Seattle, with parents still here. 

Edited by jjj
  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

I saw the first segment , when she said that "the attorney" for the facility child-care worker (who had taped the child in the facility) would be on the show.  But she never said his name.  I was surprised to come back in the room and see Avenatti!  Yes, he was more subdued, and it felt appropriate.  

8 minutes ago, TexasGal said:

I liked that Avenatti was so much more subdued discussing his new clients.  Rachel seemed to be more receptive to him too.

  • Love 4
kassygreene

kassygreene

Rachel isn't shy, nor is she a prude, and she certainly is NOT dainty.  That being said, she doesn't do salacious, there are certain subjects she'd prefer not to cover.  She is, I believe, the first and most consistent cable person to deliberately not cover DJT speaking (spewing) his verbal garbage.  The whole DJT & the golden shower story skeeved her out, and Avenatti is very aggressive on behalf of Stormy Daniels, as well as a guy who is enjoying the fight.  In fact Rachel's response to that sort of thing strongly reminds me of a first season West Wing, when President Bartlet is reading out loud through a report about something like sexual habits of the young, and keeps coming to words and phrases where he says "I'm not going to say that".

That being said, Avenatti seems like a good addition to the ranks of lawyers working for DJT's latest class of victims, especially if it is (as I have heard) pro bono.  I haven't watched Monday's lineup yet - I'm giving myself the day off.

  • Love 11
suomi

suomi

(edited)
4 hours ago, jjj said:

Several posters here thought she was somewhat dismayed by his brashness.  (and by "dismayed", I think I remember "disgusted"; and by "brashness", I think I mean alpha male 'tude)  

IIRC it was during his first media blitz. He came to Rachel fairly late in that process and all the questions had already been asked. And although her questions had many layers they were brushed aside in their entirety.  Neither the layers nor the main thrust of the question were more than superficially addressed.  She tried to suss out the nuances of "I can't answer that" (did he lack the knowledge or ... ) and then it was "I know the answer but I can't say." Rachel seemed deflated and he was what passes for Avenatti being confused. (I think he hasn't been confused since, oh, maybe 5th grade). I thought he was a bit intimidated and compensating for that. It was like an awkward blind date, each doing a mental countdown toward "Is it over? Can I go home now?" Both seemed comfortable during the second date. 

Edited by suomi
typos
  • Love 10
TexasGal

TexasGal

6 hours ago, kassygreene said:

Rachel isn't shy, nor is she a prude, and she certainly is NOT dainty.  That being said, she doesn't do salacious, there are certain subjects she'd prefer not to cover.  She is, I believe, the first and most consistent cable person to deliberately not cover DJT speaking (spewing) his verbal garbage.  The whole DJT & the golden shower story skeeved her out, and Avenatti is very aggressive on behalf of Stormy Daniels, as well as a guy who is enjoying the fight.  In fact Rachel's response to that sort of thing strongly reminds me of a first season West Wing, when President Bartlet is reading out loud through a report about something like sexual habits of the young, and keeps coming to words and phrases where he says "I'm not going to say that".

That being said, Avenatti seems like a good addition to the ranks of lawyers working for DJT's latest class of victims, especially if it is (as I have heard) pro bono.  I haven't watched Monday's lineup yet - I'm giving myself the day off.

I totally agree.  I don't know that she disliked Avenatti but she dislikes covering the previous story in which he was involved and he represents his client with gusto so they were just 2 different philosophies that didn't seem to mesh.  This time he is involved in a story she deeply cares about and as I mentioned before, he took a very different tone when talking about these kids and their parents.  As he should. That tells me he's an even smarter lawyer than I previously thought.

  • Love 15
attica

attica

Avenatti understands (at least I'm assuming he does, he doesn't strike me as un-canny), that Rachel's show is the jewel in the lineup. He wants to appear on TRMS to maximize his own visibility. But Rachel doesn't want to cover the Stormy story, at least not in the name-calling way that Lawrence likes to do (that's not an insult, I myself enjoy a good Lawrence lambasting). So he found a way to get booked onto her show with the Stormy stuff, (Suits liking his presence? Why not!) and she tried to find a way through the material that was more her speed. MA, used to the back-and-forth rough-and-tumble, was knocked a bit off his game by Rachel's approach, and he retreated to friendlier waters. 

But again: he's not a nitwit. If taking on reunification clients is a good career move (and it seems to be), it gives him a way to appeal to the kind of story Rachel does like to do, and in the way she likes to do it. He's a race car driver! Does he need more than one spin around a course to learn its pitfalls? Probably not.

That all reads pretty cynically. I don't necessarily mean it to be so. I think we are at a point in history where good, important work can get done by people who also like the limelight.

  • Love 12
jjj

jjj

(edited)

This is a great analysis of how Rachel is dealing with the various threads of Avenatti's portfolio, thank you!  Suomi also, and TexasGal have made insightful contributions on this dynamic.

8 minutes ago, attica said:

Avenatti understands (at least I'm assuming he does, he doesn't strike me as un-canny), that Rachel's show is the jewel in the lineup. He wants to appear on TRMS to maximize his own visibility. But Rachel doesn't want to cover the Stormy story, at least not in the name-calling way that Lawrence likes to do (that's not an insult, I myself enjoy a good Lawrence lambasting). So he found a way to get booked onto her show with the Stormy stuff, (Suits liking his presence? Why not!) and she tried to find a way through the material that was more her speed. MA, used to the back-and-forth rough-and-tumble, was knocked a bit off his game by Rachel's approach, and he retreated to friendlier waters. 

But again: he's not a nitwit. If taking on reunification clients is a good career move (and it seems to be), it gives him a way to appeal to the kind of story Rachel does like to do, and in the way she likes to do it. He's a race car driver! Does he need more than one spin around a course to learn its pitfalls? Probably not.

That all reads pretty cynically. I don't necessarily mean it to be so. I think we are at a point in history where good, important work can get done by people who also like the limelight.

Edited by jjj
  • Love 1
Medicine Crow

Medicine Crow

1 hour ago, SpiritSong said:

Could someone please get Steve Kornacki some decaf? Or slip a Valium into whatever he's drinking? I find the wild arm gesticulation very distracting.

I had a snoot-full of Kornacki during the election (his predictions were totally WRONG ... along with many others).  I can't hack the guy!!!

  • Love 5
netlyon2

netlyon2

@SpiritSong, when Rachel said he was coming up, I spent the commercial break mentally preparing myself. At one point, he was lifting both arms in a strange hulking movement that left me utterly perplexed.

@attica, I agree that tonight’s show had a surprisingly hopeful tone that I quite appreciated. I spent the day reading about the CA FACT ruling and was depending on TRMS to get me up to speed on the travel ban ruling, which she did in spectacular fashion. I’m seriously considering adding Sotomayor’s dissent to my AP English course in the fall.

  • Love 5
jjj

jjj

(edited)

Rachel, unusually, was a call-in guest for the first ten minutes on Nicole Wallace's mid-day show, to talk about the Supreme Court retirement and to analyze the political realities on both sides.  They talked about how the Democrats might start to become more like Republicans in terms of playing hardball on nominations -- while acknowledging that as long as they are in the minority, the Dems will not be very effective.  Rachel said that "tactically, it will be kind of fascinating to see if Democrats have it in them".  Nicole said at the end that she will be watching tonight (which means Rachel will be on the air, yes! -- I was concerned that the call-in meant that Rachel might be away, whew), and said that Rachel is her "air traffic controller".  Ours too, Nicole.  

Edited by jjj
  • Love 8
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

(edited)
Quote

I'm always here for Rachel's A block.  I love her history lessons. 

Which sometimes are really needed.  I never knew the story of the lawsuit of the American man interned during the War.  At least I think I didn't.  I did a report on the Japanese Camps for history class during high school (and misspelled Roosevelt the entire paper.  It was typed so I couldn't correct it). 

Rachel made me feel a bit better last night.  That's a good point - that Collins and Murkowksi probably don't want to go down in history as the person who ended  reproductive rights.  Its all going to come down to that last Senator. 

Edited by M. Darcy
  • Love 5
jjj

jjj

Rachel said a couple of times last night that the Senate only needed to hold off on a vote for four months.  But this same Congress is in office for two months after the election.  So, although there are breaks in the schedule, it's half a year until new Senators are in place -- if that even makes a difference.  That's a long time to stall when you are in the minority.  So is four months.  

  • Love 4
izabella

izabella

(edited)

Rachel spinning dreams for us was a nice diversion, but we lost this fight Nov 2016.  Counting on a single GOP Senator to delay McConnell's agenda to pack the SC with Heritage Foundation wet dream SCOTUSes is a fantasy.  There is NO GOP person in Congress who will prevent a conservative SCOTUS getting confirmed.  Bye bye women's rights, civil rights, and human rights.  Make way for the Bible because, as Jeff Sessions recently reminded us, the Bible has quotes for all occasions, even locking children up in cages and slavery, and that's what we will be using to interpret the Constitution.  I hope we all enjoyed the peak of western civilization, because it's all downhill from here. 

Edited by izabella
  • Love 15
Galloway Cave

Galloway Cave

3 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel made me feel a bit better last night.  That's a good point - that Collins and Murkowksi probably don't want to go down in history as the person who ended  reproductive rights.  Its all going to come down to that last Senator. 

That was a soothing balm for me. I will replay this every time I start to hyperventilate about the Kennedy Situation. Hopefully Murkowski and Collins are surrounded by people who keep drilling down on this. And lobbyists for those organization rights do too. Plus we can hope Mueller does something between now and the midterms that can be used by the Democrats to rightfully hold up nominations, because an entire administration under investigation, indictment or impeachment can null and void their attempt at stacking the Supreme Court for a generation. 

  • Love 2
meowmommy

meowmommy

5 hours ago, izabella said:

Rachel spinning dreams for us was a nice diversion, but we lost this fight Nov 2016. 

She seemed just as hopeful that Collins and Murkowski would flip as LOD was that Mike Pence would invoke the 25th amendment, but it's really just about as desperately fanciful.  This isn't the ACA vote; this is the next 40 years of judicial lawmaking.  The Turtle would exact a horrible retribution on any GOP senator who dares to defy him on this.

Please let me be wrong.

  • Love 4
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

12 hours ago, izabella said:

Rachel spinning dreams for us was a nice diversion, but we lost this fight Nov 2016.  Counting on a single GOP Senator to delay McConnell's agenda to pack the SC with Heritage Foundation wet dream SCOTUSes is a fantasy.  There is NO GOP person in Congress who will prevent a conservative SCOTUS getting confirmed.  Bye bye women's rights, civil rights, and human rights.  Make way for the Bible because, as Jeff Sessions recently reminded us, the Bible has quotes for all occasions, even locking children up in cages and slavery, and that's what we will be using to interpret the Constitution.  I hope we all enjoyed the peak of western civilization, because it's all downhill from here. 

Whelp, I really liked Rachel's last guest, Ezra Levin.  Rach was very pointed & purposeful in having him on & briefly discussing his group, Indivisible.  I was very impressed with him.  He's obviously bright & full of enthusiasm.  Nice to see in someone so young & anti-Trump. 

Ah, look, this Supreme Court stuff is going to most impact the Millennials & their kids & grandkids.  OK, so most of 'em sat out the last election cuz Hillary didn't inspire them or they just didn't give a fuck.  Well, they better get off their asses & vote in the next election.  Maybe Rach & people like Ezra Levin can provide the inspiration & organization to get enough of them to vote that will make a difference.

Is it hopeless?  Rachel's point tonite (and every nite) is that when people rise up & protest in an extremely organized way & make their voices heard to specific people in Congress, that it works.  It's only hopeless, if we give up & don't fight.  I think by ending her show with Ezra Levin, she was making the point we need to be organized & smart -- AND act in a similar way the Repub Tea Party did when they came to power against the majority Democrats.  Hmmm, could work.  Worth a shot, right?

Btw, I wasn't buying Rach's theory that idiots/fools like Gowdy or Jordan were throwing hissy fits cuz they're maybe panicking about something coming.  I thought she was being dramatic.  I don't necessarily mind her getting dramatic -- but I like to call her out on it when I notice her doing it.  When she asked Jerrold Nadler if he thought anything was going on to make the Repubs act so screwy, he shrugged it off & said no.  He said it merely followed how they've been behaving.  ITA.

M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Quote

Btw, I wasn't buying Rach's theory that idiots/fools like Gowdy or Jordan were throwing hissy fits cuz they're maybe panicking about something coming.

I think (well, hope) that there is proof that the Republicans are also involved in what happened.  Though, what is worse - trying to cover up your guilt or just not caring what the Russians did because it benefits you.  Sigh.

Those pictures from the Inauguration. Man, that takes chutzpah - not even trying to cover up what happened but celebrating it.  I've lived in the DC area since 1993 (7 Inaugurations) and haven't been able to attend a minor Inaugural ball - never the less the most important ones that these guys seemed to be at. 

  • Love 4
Tunia

Tunia

5 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Those pictures from the Inauguration. Man, that takes chutzpah - not even trying to cover up what happened but celebrating it.  I've lived in the DC area since 1993 (7 Inaugurations) and haven't been able to attend a minor Inaugural ball - never the less the most important ones that these guys seemed to be at. 

M. Darcy ~ Would you kindly elaborate on the bolded?  I was unable to watch Rachel last night and missed this gem.  TIA.

M. Darcy

M. Darcy

5 minutes ago, Tunia said:

M. Darcy ~ Would you kindly elaborate on the bolded?  I was unable to watch Rachel last night and missed this gem.  TIA.

(Hope I get this right) few people who are close to Putin attended the Inauguration and the more exclusive Balls and got pretty close to people like Eric Trump and either Spicier or Preibus (they took lots of pictures). 

  • Love 3
Tunia

Tunia

47 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

(Hope I get this right) few people who are close to Putin attended the Inauguration and the more exclusive Balls and got pretty close to people like Eric Trump and either Spicier or Preibus (they took lots of pictures). 

Oh Jeezzzzz...What the hell.  Why not?  Let's just open the WH doors and let the Ruskies just flood right in.  It wasn't long after that they were in the damn Oval Office with the buffoon.

Thanks for replying!  -)

  • Love 3
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...