Draft Rachel Maddow for 2020

[laughing dog]

First of all, "the Democrats" never controlled the women's marches. Second of all, you can see into the future now too?

No I'm not telepathic. but the March on 08 March 2017 was Marxist operated. Tamika D. Mallory (previous marches) was an adviser to the Obama administration. Democrats are involved, though the Democratic Party in the USA is not mentioned in any of the marches credits. The Democrats UK are mentioned.

First, you admit that the US Democratic Party is not mentioned in any credits, thereby rebutting your initial claim. Second, you proffer no evidence that the March was Marxist operated. Which means your response is literally babbling nonsense.

 

[barbos]

My impression of her is that she is obviously more witty than smart. I mean she is not a deep person. She loves the "sport" of what she is doing but I don't think she really cares that much on a deeper level. And she is a bit smug too.

 

[RavenSky]

Yeh... a graduate of Stanford University, and a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in political science from Oxford

 

[bilby]

Yeh... a graduate of Stanford University, and a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in political science from Oxford

Colour me unimpressed.

Tony Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar, and a total fucking idiot.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1y1ez7_tony-abbott-last-week-tonight_news

Such things are only marginally helpful in determining whether someone is particularly smart. There's a fairly large overlap between the set 'smart people' and 'Rhodes Scholars', but there are plenty of people who are in the latter, but not the former (as well as vast numbers who are in the former, but not the latter).

 

[barbos]

Yeh... a graduate of Stanford University, and a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in political science from Oxford

Well, that could make you smug all right. But smart? not necessarily.

 

[barbos]

Yeh... a graduate of Stanford University, and a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in political science from Oxford

Colour me unimpressed.

Tony Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar, and a total fucking idiot.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1y1ez7_tony-abbott-last-week-tonight_news

Such things are only marginally helpful in determining whether someone is particularly smart. There's a fairly large overlap between the set 'smart people' and 'Rhodes Scholars', but there are plenty of people who are in the latter, but not the former (as well as vast numbers who are in the former, but not the latter).

You are so smug in your usage of such words as "former" and "latter", must be Rhodes Scholar too

 

[beero1000]

 

[Elixir]

...your response is literally babbling nonsense.

And you are surprised?

Probably also means probably not.

 

[braces_for_impact]

My impression of her is that she is obviously more witty than smart. I mean she is not a deep person. She loves the "sport" of what she is doing but I don't think she really cares that much on a deeper level. And she is a bit smug too.

I am continually chuckling at what people think they can know about a person from an hourly show done on weekdays. I think saying she's not "deep" is a stretch. But that's what people do. We get an image in our mind of what celebrities are like, and usually this isn't based on anything concrete.

 

[Elixir]

My impression of her is that she is obviously more witty than smart. I mean she is not a deep person. She loves the "sport" of what she is doing but I don't think she really cares that much on a deeper level. And she is a bit smug too.

I am continually chuckling at what people think they can know about a person from an hourly show done on weekdays. I think saying she's not "deep" is a stretch. But that's what people do. We get an image in our mind of what celebrities are like, and usually this isn't based on anything concrete.

In this case it's impossible to divine much about Conway from her TV persona - it's probably not even her TV persona, but rather an appearance created by her obligation to repeat and defend the stupid lies of El Cheato. Doing so doesn't necessarily make her stupid like Cheato or as dishonest as Cheato. She might be, or she might be nothing more than a person fulfilling her duty to be an empty vessel into which unlimited bullshit can be poured.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I am continually chuckling at what people think they can know about a person from an hourly show done on weekdays. I think saying she's not "deep" is a stretch. But that's what people do. We get an image in our mind of what celebrities are like, and usually this isn't based on anything concrete.

In this case it's impossible to divine much about Conway from her TV persona - it's probably not even her TV persona, but rather an appearance created by her obligation to repeat and defend the stupid lies of El Cheato. Doing so doesn't necessarily make her stupid like Cheato or as dishonest as Cheato. She might be, or she might be nothing more than a person fulfilling her duty to be an empty vessel into which unlimited bullshit can be poured.

This is where I disagree. Conway accepted a job in this administration from a known liar and conman. To accept a position from such a person is to actively​ further their goals and become an accessory. I have no respect for anyone involved in Trump's administration except for low level flunkies that have no effect on or furtherance of, policy.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm not so sure that she'd like the job. But I'll grant, she is knowledgable, and she'd be far better than the current president.

 

[fromderinside]

A plastic duck with a waterwheel walker is better than the current president.

 

[Elixir]

In this case it's impossible to divine much about Conway from her TV persona - it's probably not even her TV persona, but rather an appearance created by her obligation to repeat and defend the stupid lies of El Cheato. Doing so doesn't necessarily make her stupid like Cheato or as dishonest as Cheato. She might be, or she might be nothing more than a person fulfilling her duty to be an empty vessel into which unlimited bullshit can be poured.

This is where I disagree. Conway accepted a job in this administration from a known liar and conman. To accept a position from such a person is to actively​ further their goals and become an accessory. I have no respect for anyone involved in Trump's administration except for low level flunkies that have no effect on or furtherance of, policy.

Agreed, but that doesn't reflect upon her intelligence (or lack thereof). The dishonesty matter is another kettle of rotten fish; she probably thinks it's a means to an end, not unlike those righteous souls who indulge in lyin' fer Jesus.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No I'm not telepathic. but the March on 08 March 2017 was Marxist operated. Tamika D. Mallory (previous marches) was an adviser to the Obama administration. Democrats are involved, though the Democratic Party in the USA is not mentioned in any of the marches credits. The Democrats UK are mentioned.

First, you admit that the US Democratic Party is not mentioned in any credits, thereby rebutting your initial claim. Second, you proffer no evidence that the March was Marxist operated. Which means your response is literally babbling nonsense.

7 of the 8 organisers of the last Women's March are Marxists (as also on some of their own websites). I've supplied the links more than once. One is a convicted terrorist and one purchased guns (in the USA) used to kill a judge.

In the earlier March Democrats were involved.

It only requires a look through google and their own sites. Do you want these links again? I|t's up to you to read them and evaluate them.

You can also check the Black Flags From Rome which is on the Internet and I have quoted the page how ISIS is seeking to form alliances with the left and civil rights groups to further its agenda without bullets.

Then I will be checking the Muslim Brotherhood, where I recently sighted a document showing that the Muslim Student's Association is one of its front groups.

 

[Keith&Co.]

7 of the 8 organisers of the last Women's March are Marxists

My grandfather's generation, if you called someone a Nazi, or a communist, you were through describing them. Everyone had all the information they needed to pass all judgments on that person.
For my dad's generation, it was narc or Soviet.
For mine, it's been lawyer or drug pusher
For my kid's generation, it's banker or Republican.

Not sure which generation got all het up about Marxists...

 

[bilby]

7 of the 8 organisers of the last Women's March are Marxists

My grandfather's generation, if you called someone a Nazi, or a communist, you were through describing them. Everyone had all the information they needed to pass all judgments on that person.
For my dad's generation, it was narc or Soviet.
For mine, it's been lawyer or drug pusher
For my kid's generation, it's banker or Republican.

Not sure which generation got all het up about Marxists...

I believe it was a popular description (having partially displaced 'Anarchist') in the years leading up to the Great War; During that war, and particularly once the revolution had happened in Russia, and the subsequent invasion in support of the Whites had failed, it was largely replaced with 'Bolshevik', which was in turn replaced by 'Communist' after WWII. in each case, the word tended to be used to describe any opponent of the existing regime in Western Europe (and later, the USA and the British Dominions) - these epithets were rarely used to describe the actual beliefs of those to whom it was applied, other than by pure coincidence.

So for example a soldier in the trenches in 1918 who questioned his orders might be referred to as a 'Bolshevik' or 'Bolshy', regardless of any political position he might actually hold (and the word 'Bolshy' meaning 'uncooperative' or 'stubborn' is still used in English today).

 

[ZiprHead]

Rachel is right now reporting that she has Trump's 2005 tax return.

 

[laughing dog]

First, you admit that the US Democratic Party is not mentioned in any credits, thereby rebutting your initial claim. Second, you proffer no evidence that the March was Marxist operated. Which means your response is literally babbling nonsense.

7 of the 8 organisers of the last Women's March are Marxists (as also on some of their own websites). I've supplied the links more than once.

Supply them again, because I see no evidence of Marxists.

In the earlier March Democrats were involved.

Yes, individual Democrats. Are you under the illusion that only Democrats were involved.

 

[Ford]

7 of the 8 organisers of the last Women's March are Marxists (as also on some of their own websites). I've supplied the links more than once.

Supply them again, because I see no evidence of Marxists.

After an extensive Google search I found the sinister folks behind the Women's March. It wasn't easy. First I had to type "women's march" into the search bar, the press the "enter" key. Then the mystery deepened as I clicked on the link to this website. I was nervous, but since the line of sight between my office desk and my microwave oven is blocked, I figured I'd be okay to click.

What I found was shocking. I took the liberty of copying the list of Marxists/terrorists/Muslim Brotherhood members that WP posted in another thread. Here's that list:

Angela Davis: Marxist
Linda MartinAlcoff: No indication of Marxist affiliations or membership.
CinziaArruza: Marxist
Tithi Bhattacharya Marxist
Nancy Fraser: Marxist
Barbara Ransby: Marxist
Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor: Marxist
Rasmea Yousef Odeh: Convicted Terrorist served 10 years in an Israeli prison. Jailed for immigration Fraud.

Now, hang on to your hats, campers, because here's the rogues gallery behind the Women's March...from the national co-chairs to state coordinators and even the music director:

https://www.womensmarch.com/team/

If you dare click, you'll see what's so chilling about these Marxists. They've clearly purged all those names listed above!