Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

Recommended Posts

On 1/18/2019 at 3:17 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the Russian way.

Well, no, actually it's not.  Those who don't fall in line with Putin (and his oligarchs/cronies) are either poisoned in not-so-subtle ways or thrown in jail on trumped-up charges for long periods of time -- sometimes never to be heard from again, but not necessarily.  Some do survive their long prison sentences.

As Rachel confirmed tonite, that's exactly what's gonna happen to the Belarusian escort -- as I correctly predicted.  Not exactly hard to predict if you watch Rachel.  I feel like she's told these types of stories countless times -- particularly about journalists who dare to write anything critical of Putin. 

I doubt there'll be much more to follow up on about the escort, other than a predictable decades-long prison sentence for her.  The footage Rach showed of her was pitiful.   But as Rach explained her actions, she seemed like an opportunist who played all sides & in the end, lost out big time.  Interesting story, but not quite as sympathetic as when journalists or ex-agents or pretty much anyone critical of the Putin regime gets poisoned or thrown in jail.

Keep your spotlight on Deripaska, Rach!  What an awful, treacherous character.  And keep asking why Trump wants to do favors for someone like this, Rach.

So is Rachel giving time to all candidates?  I'll be watching Kamala on Wed.  

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

12 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Keep your spotlight on Deripaska, Rach!  What an awful, treacherous character.  And keep asking why Trump wants to do favors for someone like this, Rach.

I notice she always highlights the number of Republicans who voted along with the Dems, instead of the Republicans that voted to lift sanctions on a Russian oligarch heavily involved with Manafort.  I'm not sure why she does that.  Rachel should also be asking why those Senators who voted to lift sanctions are doing favors for someone like this.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa, Rachel does a three-way with Lawrence and Kamala, who suddenly jumped in during the handoff!  (It must have happened previously, but is very rare!)  

I did not listen to the interview; looking forward to assessments here!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, freddi said:

I did not listen to the interview; looking forward to assessments here!  

It was interesting—very different from most candidate interviews I've heard so far. Kamala sounded very relaxed and informal with Rachel.

She also went in on Trump—a lot. Most candidates focus on their agenda and message in terms of vision and policy, and address Trump as a sort of afterthought. The school of being for something rather than just against something. Too be fair, the first half of the interview they talked about the government shutdown where Trump is fair game. But the second half of the interview was about her candidacy. Rachel asked specific questions about her history and there was some talk about policy, but there was more Trump bashing than I expected. (Not that I minded.)

It did make me wonder whether there would be an appearance of conflict of interest, down the road, if Kamala is still doing her superb job in the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is the best questioner, by far, of witnesses. Will Trump accuse her of trying to take down him/his associates to gain an advantage in the election?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel asked if the FBI investigation into whether Trump was a Russian asset is true, what else might Putin want?  And then she reminded us the shutdown is in day 33.  I think she was hinting that this shutdown might be because a Russian asset in the WH is doing Putin's bidding.  She is the first I've heard put that together and say it out loud on tv. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Rachel asked Harris tougher questions than she has asked the other candidates, and I was wondering why. Then we find out at the end that Rachel thinks Harris is going to win the nomination, so that explains it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all the reports on the Harris interview.  I love getting news and short interviews from Rachel, but seem to have an allergy to long interviews that sometimes seem like prepared talking points for a campaign.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ahisma said:

Kamala sounded very relaxed and informal with Rachel.

"She was sniffing what she should have been measuring!" made me snort unexpectedly.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Earmuffs Mom said:

Wow. Did Rachel really just mutter, “Christ!?!” about Kushner’s background check problems?

I heard that too - wonder if they will bleep it in the replays.  However, I have to believe her reaction was echoed by millions of Americans. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calvada said:

I heard that too - wonder if they will bleep it in the replays.  However, I have to believe her reaction was echoed by millions of Americans. 

Is that considered a swear? TIL. I loved it though.

She also said “right quick” which I say all the time, but I was told it was a Maritime expression. Though, I guess her mom is from Newfoundland, so It kinda makes sense :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Bethorz said:

She also said “right quick” which I say all the time, but I was told it was a Maritime expression.

I always thought that was a Southern expression.

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Earmuffs Mom said:

Wow. Did Rachel really just mutter, “Christ!?!” about Kushner’s background check problems?

 

2 hours ago, Calvada said:

I heard that too - wonder if they will bleep it in the replays.  However, I have to believe her reaction was echoed by millions of Americans. 

Not bleeped in the replay!  I did a double take when I heard her mutter that somewhat under her breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 2:39 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Keep your spotlight on Jared, Jared, Jared, Rach!  I'm sure there'll be an avalanche of more sinister stuff to be uncovered . . .

 

Sinister.  Finally the perfect description.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Soooo, why is it Rachel was the only one to highlight how sweaty the fake AG was when making his "announcement" that Mueller is almost finished?  Thanks for the belly laugh, Rach -- watching that fat bald sleazebag stammering & flooded with sweat was really a hoot!  Once again, thank you for being around, Rach.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Rachel - give a big tip to the person who goes out in this bitter cold to deliver to your home!  I have a nephew who is a delivery person for a pizza place and he is loving this weather because he's getting about double the tips he normally gets.  And the light post in Cadillac, Michigan was nothing compared to how I was shivering as I walked from my office to where I park my car today, wearing three layers plus a down coat, 2 scarves, earmuffs over a hat & my hood over both, double gloves with hand warmers, and insulated boots.  It's freaking cold in Wisconsin, and it is supposed to be 30 below tomorrow morning.  Mother Nature is really messing with us; the predicted high for Sunday is 43 degrees.  That's a swing of 73 degrees.  We'll be out in shorts, no coats, driving with our car windows open . . .  

Going back to last night, I'm not sure what the big hurry is about getting Trump Jr.'s testimony before the House Intell Committee to Mueller.  Statute of limitations for perjury is 5 years.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:09 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Soooo, why is it Rachel was the only one to highlight how sweaty the fake AG was when making his "announcement" that Mueller is almost finished?  Thanks for the belly laugh, Rach -- watching that fat bald sleazebag stammering & flooded with sweat was really a hoot!  Once again, thank you for being around, Rach.

I actually had heard the same comments about the "fake AG" at least twice on earlier MSNBC shows that day!  Not watching in HD, so it was hard to see!  

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel scared me a little last night - I thought something bad had happened to Paul at first.  This is Paul's response on twitter last night to Rachel.  (its adorable). 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel's boo-hoo/sad face, when LOD quoted Trump's line that since he's been president he's "lost massive amounts of money", was kinda priceless.  Wish I could find some biz pawning off their "gold door knobs" as Rach asked about.  I'd love to have some legit reason to contact sendittorachel.com.  Btw, I didn't actually realize she was serious & not kidding about that -- uh, but she is serious about it.  I wonder if Russians are sending fake stuff her way . . .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/31/2019 at 9:15 AM, M. Darcy said:

Rachel scared me a little last night - I thought something bad had happened to Paul at first.  This is Paul's response on twitter last night to Rachel.  (its adorable). 

Especially because she was getting obviously a little verklempt! Oh, he's only stepping down! Whew!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The A block was great - it really showed how elections do make a difference.  Though, holy shit, the number of gun massacres that have occurred since the last House hearing on gun violence.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

The A block was great - it really showed how elections do make a difference.  Though, holy shit, the number of gun massacres that have occurred since the last House hearing on gun violence.  

I loved that she got to use some of the footage of their October visit to Dodge City in the opening segment.  I was so glad to see her focus on the injustice of the move of the polling place, and the "LOL" arrogance of the county official.  And that 18-year-old voter was very impressive! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Ali Velshi tweeted that he’s filling in for Rachel tonight.  

She’s probably taking the day off she nice she’ll have a busy evening tomorrow night. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

"Rachel will be back tomorrow" says Ali, before saying anything else!  

I listened for those magic words on Friday from Joy, and when she did not say that Rachel would be back on Monday, I figured there would be another night of a guest host.  

Edited by freddi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Jeez, Rach, you really pick the worst nights to take off.  Feds serve indictments to the Inaugural Committee tonite -- which you've been talking about for the last 2 years, Rach, and you take off???  Uh, maybe Rachel is busy doing a happy/I-told-you-so dance?  She should be, but if you are, Rach, please do it on air, OK?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I’d swear something got cut in the repeat of Rachel’s Friday show.  There was a dramatic “blecchh” in the “A” block that I was listening for again in the repeat hour, but it wasn’t there.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/5/2019 at 2:26 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Jeez, Rach, you really pick the worst nights to take off.  Feds serve indictments to the Inaugural Committee tonite -- which you've been talking about for the last 2 years, Rach, and you take off???  Uh, maybe Rachel is busy doing a happy/I-told-you-so dance?  She should be, but if you are, Rach, please do it on air, OK?

I know.  Disappointing.   I cannot watch TRMS when someone else is hosting.  It's not the same show at all, just a talking head reading Rachel's script.   No-one can do Rachel except Rachel.   She's been taking a bit more time off recently, so I hope everything's okay. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

The clip that Rachel showed of Patrick Hope in Arlington- that library is near my house! A bright spot in the mess that is now Virginia. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

19 hours ago, Ladyrain said:

She's been taking a bit more time off recently, so I hope everything's okay.

Well, things have been even crazier than normal since the Democrat-majority House took over.  She doesn't have a 9-5 job, I'm pretty sure she's immersed in it every waking hour.  I only hope she turns her phone off when she's out in her canoe fishing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Was I up for seeing more clips of the nauseating Fake AG?  Noooo, but Rach did add her fun spin -- showing him drinking endless amounts of water.  Good one, Rach!  And Rach had the perfect description of everything that came outta his slimeball yap -- nonsense & word salad.  Mmmm, yup!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

it's an interesting format...the first half of the show is almost commercial-free and the second half is almost nothing but. The first commercial break is when I usually turn off the tube and go to bed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

it's an interesting format...the first half of the show is almost commercial-free and the second half is almost nothing but. The first commercial break is when I usually turn off the tube and go to bed.

A few of the MSNBC shows operate that way.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

the first half of the show is almost commercial-free and the second half is almost nothing but.

That's why I made the decision a few years ago never to watch live.  Everything goes on the DVR and my finger goes on the FF button.

I was looking forward to Rachel asking Amy Klobuchar about the allegations of staff abuse.  It was clear the senator was expecting the question and had her prepared response ready to go.  I really like her but I'm not sure her answer was good enough.

Rachel seemed very, very happy to get this interview, more so than she has seemed with the other Presidential candidates who've appeared on her show.

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Rachel seemed very, very happy to get this interview, more so than she has seemed with the other Presidential candidates who've appeared on her show.

Yeah, I was kind of afraid of this. Rachel has been pushing her for years to run, and her bias is visible from space. I know she’s not a strictly neutral journalist in terms of Dems vs GOP, but it feels weird to have her putting her thumb on the scale for a particular Dem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I live in Minneapolis (my dad worked at the same firm as Klobuchar at one point), so seeing Rachel describe so much Minnesota history such as Jesse Ventura winning the governor's race and the 35W bridge collapse was kind of a trip.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Look back at Rach’s Warren & Harris interviews.  Rach was really gushing over them too.  And Jeez, Rach was so super soft on Gillibrand, I thought she was running for prom queen.

Rach, ya gotta be tougher on these billions of Dem candidates or you’re pretty much accomplishing nothing.  I hope she’s gonna be at least a teeny bit tougher on Booker, who’s got a shit-ton of political baggage in his background.

And I did NOT agree at all with her  & LOD that all these people running on the Dem side is “fascinating”.  It looks really confusing & repetitive to me & it’s making me anxious as hell that NONE of these people will be able to beat Trump.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And I did NOT agree at all with her  & LOD that all these people running on the Dem side is “fascinating”.  It looks really confusing & repetitive to me & it’s making me anxious as hell that NONE of these people will be able to beat Trump.

I do very much get the sense that there are so many high-profile Democratic candidates this year (as opposed to 2016 where just about nobody wanted to run) because they all think beating 45 is a slam-dunk and they all want to be the one who cashes in on it.

But in the handover, Rachel and LOD were talking about how interesting the debates will be when they have to start carving out their separate niches and stop being nice to each other.  That's a long way away.  The media's going to spend the next year assiduously handicapping and horseracing before anything actually happens.  I really wish election law was such that you can't file a candidacy or an exploratory committee or anything else more than a year before an election.  By the time actual elections roll around, the voters are exhausted.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

"Moral bewilderment."  You got that right, Rachel.  That opening segment about Trump promoting the use of coal from his coal donor was yet a new angle on disgusting.  

Then, she somehow segued to Cory Booker, Street Fighter!  Rescuing a freezing dog, carrying someone out of a burning building, doorbelling all the streets.

And I loved how she said she knew him "in graduate school."  Yeah, when you both were RHODES SCHOLARS!  I know someone else from her class, and he never mentions it in his public biography.  I did not know she and Booker were in the same class. 

Edited by freddi
  • Like 3
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

Man, when Rachel thinks you are an idiot, she is brutal.  A game where you hit the ball with a stick....

I did not know she has known CB that long.  Sometimes life really is a small world. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I've never seen that Cory-with-hair photo. Adorable!

Remember (if the rumors are true), Rosario Dawson might be FLOTUS! We could do worse!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel was right on target tonight when she talked about the petty lies coming out of Trump’s White House. The letter from his doctor about his health was sort of icky, and why would he (the doctor) state Trump is taller than he is? Can anyone on Trump’s team tell a simple truth?

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

Rachel was right on target tonight when she talked about the petty lies coming out of Trump’s White House. The letter from his doctor about his health was sort of icky, and why would he (the doctor) state Trump is taller than he is? Can anyone on Trump’s team tell a simple truth?

My husband's theory is the White House walks in and gives them info as truth so there is no reason to check it. I asked my husband why these doctors lie for Trump. His guess is they fear for their careers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, taurusrose said:

and why would he (the doctor) state Trump is taller than he is?

My experience as a nurse has been that for adult patients, we almost always record the height as what the patient says it is, rather than actually measure it.  Which explains, as per usual, the source of this particular lie.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Rachel was right on target tonight when she talked about the petty lies coming out of Trump’s White House. The letter from his doctor about his health was sort of icky, and why would he (the doctor) state Trump is taller than he is? Can anyone on Trump’s team tell a simple truth?

That's rhetorical, right?

I quite enjoyed the photo montage of him being shorter than everyone.  And then the clip of him and Ben Carson not entering the debate stage and the other, actual politicians just walking by them with funny looks.

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote
6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

My experience as a nurse has been that for adult patients, we almost always record the height as what the patient says it is, rather than actually measure it.  Which explains, as per usual, the source of this particular lie.  

I always get measured at my doctor visits which is how I found out I was getting shorter.   Hmm, maybe I should go the Trump method and add that 1/2 inch back to my height.  

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I quite enjoyed the photo montage of him being shorter than everyone.  And then the clip of him and Ben Carson not entering the debate stage and the other, actual politicians just walking by them with funny looks.

I found it especially telling, that its because it appeared that the two moderators took turns announcing the names, and they didn't come out because the woman introduced them. They only paid attention to what the male moderator said, and didnt move until he introduced them.

  • Like 4
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
saoirse

Reminder; keep discussion to the current episodes of Rachel's show. Failure to follow the forum guidelines can result in removed posts and warnings being doled out. In some cases, suspensions and even banning may occur. Thank you. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size