Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season


  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

I have been watching Rachel since she was on Keith's show - I remember thinking wow, this is one smart person, and then wondering why there were so few people like that on the various shows.  More than a decade later, I'm still thinking that, and on many days lately, the best hour is the one I spend with Rachel.  

  • Love 14

I think I first learned about Rachel when she started appearing on the MSNBC show Tucker Carlson had which started in 2005 that show also made me aware of Willie Geist. I didn't watch that show for it's whole run. Living in the deep south I don't think there ever was an Air America affiliate in this area or if there was I never knew about it. 

Edited by Jaded
  • Love 4

Hey, cash is cash! [/s]

About the Woodward interview: I was happy Rachel spent less time on the 'who said WHAT?' aspect that seems to dominate coverage and more on 'what it means, in practical terms.' But Woodward has this "I've been Around, missy, and I will tell you How Things Are Supposed To Be" in a mansplainy, white Villager* way that I am not here for in 2018.

 

*Urban dictionary, definition 5

Edited by attica
  • Love 3

Cranky old lady complaint--the chyron that said:  Breaking News:  Bob Woodward Talks New Book "Fear" w/Rachel.

It's not breaking news.  It's not even news.  She's not even close to being his first interview about the book.  When everything is breaking news, nothing is breaking news.

When Rachel was in her extended handover to LOD, the backdrop went black.  I thought at first it was her producers' way of saying, Rachel, it's time to go home.  But then they turned the lights back on.

  • Love 11
6 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So Rach can't say "nuts"?  Cute.  Her avoiding saying it got a teeny bit annoying, but I actually appreciate that she won't sink to the depths of the vulgarity of who she was quoting.

I thought that way way more than a teeny bit annoying. It was ridiculous. Rachel was acting like some Victorian prude who was going to get the vapors and swoon if she said the word nuts. Her exaggerated reluctance to say that one word made it into a huge deal. Nobody would have batted an eye if she had just read the damn quote! I thought it was really unprofessional.

  • Love 7
16 hours ago, stormy said:

I hope Rachel does a follow-up on the FEMA/ICE story. Everyone (in charge) says don't worry, we've got plenty of resources.

Uh huh.

What really bugged me and I'm glad Rachel did a follow up last night, is that all day Wednesday MSNBC was just quoting the Administration as if it was given fact. They never bothered to question or investigate and maybe that's not the role of the daily talking heads but, still! You're own prime time show broke this story, Rachel had the document that showed where the $$ was coming from and the rest of the lineup just ignored it and acted as PR for the Administration.

I'm glad RMS doubled down on it last night. Was quite happy to see her bring in a former DHS and FEMA representative to reveal exactly what that info meant and showed that even more $ was taken from the Coast Guard.

Edited by Morrigan2575
  • Love 8
10 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

I thought that way way more than a teeny bit annoying. It was ridiculous. Rachel was acting like some Victorian prude who was going to get the vapors and swoon if she said the word nuts. Her exaggerated reluctance to say that one word made it into a huge deal. Nobody would have batted an eye if she had just read the damn quote! I thought it was really unprofessional.

She does this with almost every slightly obscene or vulgar word.  And what's even more annoying is that she's not that squeamish IRL.

Quote

Sometimes we have boring guests. Sometimes I do a lousy job in an interview. Just sloppiness, in writing, bad editing, typos sometimes screw shit up....I’m constantly battling in order to achieve something that I’m not embarrassed by, which people think is self-deprecating, but it’s fucking motivating.

I get that she has certain standards that she thinks journalists must uphold, but hell's bells, this is cable.  Report the damn news.

  • Love 6
6 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

What really bugged me and I'm glad Rachel did a follow up last night, is that all day Wednesday MSNBC was just quoting the Administration as if it was given fact. They never bothered to question or investigate and maybe that's not the role of the daily talking heads but, still!

I was disappointed that NPR also said, “But the Administration said no money from Response and Recovery was moved,” with no follow up. It's on the damn paperwork Senator Merkley showed and no one is mentioning that except for Rachel!

  • Love 5

Did Adam Schiff drop some new information?  He said tonight that Manafort felt that he was still owed money from his Ukraine work and reached out to Oleg Deripaska to trade access to the campaign for the money he (Manafort) felt he was owed.  Rachel looked as confused as I felt, because I thought the story was that Manafort was looking to sell briefings in order to pay off his debt to Deripaska.  Strange.

  • Love 1

Anyone else surprised Rach was in LA -- as she said in the long sign-off to LOD?  I wasn't paying attention to the background, but I thought it was a bit weird that she was talking to Emily Jane Fox from another studio, when I know Emily is based in New York.

Wish she had Chuck or Joyce or Barb on tonite to better explain why Trump may not pardon Manafort (but could still).  Daniel Goldman?  Meh, he ain't the dream team!  And btw, Rach, if your staff can't book any of the dream team, how about Jill Wine-Banks?  Luv huh! 

Well, at least Rach didn't mention Trumper creeper Dershowitz's bullshit that now a pardon is off the table.  Rach clearly doesn't believe that for a sec.  Me neither, Rach.

  • Love 1

She said it in smarter words, but I found it alarming and illuminating when HRC reiterated the point that her losing the election was not the end game for Russia. I think that's getting lost in the mainstream narrative.

Rachel was very deft and classy by acknowledging similar allegations about Bill Clinton before asking Hillary about Judge Kavanaugh.

  • Love 11
On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 3:38 PM, Sharpie66 said:

Manafort’s plea deal on Friday gave Rachel the highest rated show on all of cable tv for the night, not just cable news! She eve beat out broadcast shows on the networks: https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/rachel-maddow-was-number-one-all-cable

That is encouraging to me. That means the resistance that represents the majority of this country is alive and kicking. It baffles me that the media is obsessed with the minority..

  • Love 11

You know, as Rachel was reading the letter from Dr. Blasey Ford's lawyer, I wished she was as angry as I am.  Don't get me wrong, Rach certainly seemed stunned.  But was she ANGRY at the ridiculous level of unfairness going on?  In her signoff to LOD, she seemed to be throwing her hands up in an "oh well, what can you do" kinda way.  Er, huh?  Get mad, Rach!

  • Love 3
4 hours ago, stormy said:

Yep. By the end the show I pretty much hated the NYT and hoping Rosenstein runs for president.

And this made me wanna hear what Rachel was thinking about what the Times did here.  They insist they're just reporting & that's it.  I'm not buying that crap cuz I think they got played & they let themselves get played -- just for a big scoop of the moment.  And they didn't give a fuck what the consequences would be from their big scoop of the moment.  They suck.

I wanted to know what Rachel's thoughts were on this.  She didn't say outright -- or did she & I missed it?  You know, as much as she's accused of only providing commentary & her own opinions -- she often doesn't.

  • Love 3

I got the feeling Rachel was a little pissed that Avenatti didn't tell the complete story about his client/witness and the other witnesses. He only reiterated what he had already tweeted and added she would make full disclosure within 48 hours. She was leading up to The Interview saying he was going to discuss his client, so she was expecting more. That little stunt may have put him right back onto her shit list.


Rachel asked about the one thing I have wondered about- criminal investigation. If Kavanaugh ends up SCOTUS and he also ends up under multiple State felony investigations for 3+ complaints, you would think he would, at the very least, be required to be recused from any decisions until the cases are complete. If he is found guilty, then of course removed from the SC. The way the Republicans talk, they think once he is SCOTUS, he is Teflon.

The new letter from Dr. Ford's attorneys to Grassley just turned Thursday upside down, again.

  • Love 7

Uh, did Rachel know that Avenatti was also on at the exact same time on CNN with Cuomo?  Look, I like Avenatti, but he better not be pulling a fake PR stunt.  Now is not the time for that stuff.  

I bet Rach is kinda skittish & a bit conflicted about Avenatti.  Me too, Rach.  I hope Avenatti has legit stuff coming, but right now I'm not so sure . . . 

  • Love 6
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...