• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Today's GOP

jonatha

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
2,440
Location
Kentucky
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Since he's running for a Federal office I doubt the state can enforce the restriction. Seems logically equivalent to state provisions for term limits, which have already been ruled unconstitutional...
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Being a criminal might be an electoral plus in a state like Florida. Does he credit his turn-around, assuming he has turned around, to Jesus Christ or Donald Trump?

For me, the most interesting part of the article was:
On the Democrats’ side, election officials were recounting ballots Thursday after Dale V.C. Holness led Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick by only 12 votes, or two-tenths of a percentage point, out of more than 49,000 votes cast.
I guess the Miami Herald editor was home-schooled in math.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
We've also had our fair share of former and current felons in office, that's for sure! On the other hand, the GOP used to pretend to be the party of morality, law, and order. So there'd be a bit of hypocrisy there, except they've pretty publically thrown all that away anyway by rallying behind a skeezy, philandering, potty-mouthed con artist whose many sins are open for all to see.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
We've also had our fair share of former and current felons in office, that's for sure! On the other hand, the GOP used to pretend to be the party of morality, law, and order. So there'd be a bit of hypocrisy there, except they've pretty publically thrown all that away anyway by rallying behind a skeezy, philandering, potty-mouthed con artist whose many sins are open for all to see.
Gotta quibble with you about whether or not the former guys' many sins were ALL open for all to see. I'm pretty sure that the surface has just been scratched. Not that some will see them as sins anyway.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
Hastert raped little boys. Franken hugged an actress. Same-same.
Trump sold America out to Putin. Clinton told a white-lie about a consensual blow job. Same same.
Hannity tells lies. Maddow presents facts. In our post-truth society this is ... Same same.

Do you guys ever even listen to yourselves? If rational thinkers babbled like the same-same crowd, Tucker Carlson's eyes would literally pop out of their sockets!
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Franken is thinking of running for office again. Good.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
Hastert raped little boys. Franken hugged an actress. Same-same.
Trump sold America out to Putin. Clinton told a white-lie about a consensual blow job. Same same.
Hannity tells lies. Maddow presents facts. In our post-truth society this is ... Same same.

Do you guys ever even listen to yourselves? If rational thinkers babbled like the same-same crowd, Tucker Carlson's eyes would literally pop out of their sockets!
Cherry pick, much Swammer? You could have put Andrew Cuomo in for Franken, but I guess it wouldn't have made a big splash. And Rachel Maddow presents facts? :LOL: Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable". :)

My beef on this is with the title. So a guy didn't fill out the proper paperwork to run for office, and this is "Today's GOP"? What does that even mean? The GOP is not good with paperwork? Or is it because he is an ex-felon? I thought the left was on the side of giving felon's a second chance, and going easy on them. :unsure:
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Franken is thinking of running for office again. Good.

I agree. He should never have been pushed out in the first place for what he did. An apology should have been enough. It was the height of MeToo and he was really nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
Hastert raped little boys. Franken hugged an actress. Same-same.
Trump sold America out to Putin. Clinton told a white-lie about a consensual blow job. Same same.
Hannity tells lies. Maddow presents facts. In our post-truth society this is ... Same same.

Do you guys ever even listen to yourselves? If rational thinkers babbled like the same-same crowd, Tucker Carlson's eyes would literally pop out of their sockets!
Cherry pick, much Swammer? You could have put Andrew Cuomo in for Franken, but I guess it wouldn't have made a big splash. And Rachel Maddow presents facts? :LOL: Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable". :)

My beef on this is with the title. So a guy didn't fill out the proper paperwork to run for office, and this is "Today's GOP"? What does that even mean? The GOP is not good with paperwork? Or is it because he is an ex-felon? I thought the left was on the side of giving felon's a second chance, and going easy on them. :unsure:
Citation, please.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,392
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
No, it just means that it's much, much more prevalent in the GOP. The Dems are more of a "status quo" type of criminal organization. I mean, let's not bust out the long list (this is the short list!) of Trump associates under investigation or convicted in the last 6 years or so. That's a lot of typing. There were a couple other times in history like this, namely under Reagan and Nixon, but I believe that would qualify as "yesterday's GOP".
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
And Rachel Maddow presents facts? :LOL: Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable". :)

Interesting. I didn't know this. Cite, anyone?
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
87
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
And Rachel Maddow presents facts? :LOL: Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable". :)

Interesting. I didn't know this. Cite, anyone?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers

Direct Link to Court Order
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?
Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?
Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1
Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?
Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1
Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.
Well, we can certainly say the thebeaves description of the ruling was, shall we say, inaccurate.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?
Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1
Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.
Well, we can certainly say the thebeaves description of the ruling was, shall we say, inaccurate.
So what in particular was inaccurate? And would you say that what Swammerdami said, "Rachel Maddow presents facts" IS accurate?
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?
Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1
Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.
Well, we can certainly say the thebeaves description of the ruling was, shall we say, inaccurate.
So what in particular was inaccurate? And would you say that what Swammerdami said, "Rachel Maddow presents facts" IS accurate?
Your effort to twist "Rachel tells jokes and telegraphs when she does it" to a statement that will by any competent orator be understood as "Rachel does not tell the truth, even when she is not telegraphing a joke". That part right there.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Rachel Maddow said:
[T]he most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.

The exaggeration was to imply that OAN received much or most of its financing from Russia. Maddow DID make the case that SOME of OAN's propaganda was in effect Russian-paid.

But I'm glad the judge ruled as he did. The Bullshit Machine — Jones, Carlsen, etc. — tell blatant lies, not just exaggerations, and are absolved by the "My client is just a comedian, your Honor" defense. It would be unfair to hold Maddow to a higher standard.

To answer thebeave's question: Yes, Maddow does relay FACTS in contrast to the right-wing Bullshit Machine. In this case she draws an exaggerated conclusion, but any intelligent viewer would understand both the basis for and the nature of the claim.

Any Maddow fan would know that if she had other facts supporting the charge she would have presented them over and over and over and over again! :)
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Rachel Maddow said:
[T]he most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.

The exaggeration was to imply that OAN received much or most of its financing from Russia. Maddow DID make the case that SOME of OAN's propaganda was in effect Russian-paid.

But I'm glad the judge ruled as he did. The Bullshit Machine — Jones, Carlsen, etc. — tell blatant lies, not just exaggerations, and are absolved by the "My client is just a comedian, your Honor" defense. It would be unfair to hold Maddow to a higher standard.

To answer thebeave's question: Yes, Maddow does relay FACTS in contrast to the right-wing Bullshit Machine. In this case she draws an exaggerated conclusion, but any intelligent viewer would understand both the basis for and the nature of the claim.

Any Maddow fan would know that if she had other facts supporting the charge she would have presented them over and over and over and over again! :)
OK, perhaps you can clarify something for me. Consider this article from the Associated Press:

Rachel Maddow's Deep Delusion

For the past two years, Rachel Maddow has been a hero of her own spy thriller

She has written, directed and starred in a hit production based on the unlikely premise of a prime-time cable TV show host unraveling the most dastardly plot in American history — one opening monologue at a time.

Only the story had a surprise twist at the end — she was completely wrong.

Since you said she relays facts and speaks the truth (unlike the "right-wing Bullshit Machine"), I guess I'm to believe that her two year rant about Russian collusion was just a bunch of exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy, in a similar fashion to the OAN story. Is that right? I have only watched random clips from her off and on over the years on Youtube (I don't get any cable news channels at home, including MSNBC), so I really don't know all the details of what she said or how she said it. I kind of get the feeling though, that a lot of her viewers believed what she was saying all that time was factual and convincing, but perhaps they weren't smart enough to recognize entertainment when they saw it.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Yeah, it does require a room temperature IQ or better to get Rachel’s meaning as intended.
Unlike Tucker, Hannity et al.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Rachel Maddow said:
[T]he most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.

The exaggeration was to imply that OAN received much or most of its financing from Russia. Maddow DID make the case that SOME of OAN's propaganda was in effect Russian-paid.

But I'm glad the judge ruled as he did. The Bullshit Machine — Jones, Carlsen, etc. — tell blatant lies, not just exaggerations, and are absolved by the "My client is just a comedian, your Honor" defense. It would be unfair to hold Maddow to a higher standard.

To answer thebeave's question: Yes, Maddow does relay FACTS in contrast to the right-wing Bullshit Machine. In this case she draws an exaggerated conclusion, but any intelligent viewer would understand both the basis for and the nature of the claim.

Any Maddow fan would know that if she had other facts supporting the charge she would have presented them over and over and over and over again! :)
OK, perhaps you can clarify something for me. Consider this article from the Associated Press:

Rachel Maddow's Deep Delusion

For the past two years, Rachel Maddow has been a hero of her own spy thriller

She has written, directed and starred in a hit production based on the unlikely premise of a prime-time cable TV show host unraveling the most dastardly plot in American history — one opening monologue at a time.

Only the story had a surprise twist at the end — she was completely wrong.

Since you said she relays facts and speaks the truth (unlike the "right-wing Bullshit Machine"), I guess I'm to believe that her two year rant about Russian collusion was just a bunch of exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy, in a similar fashion to the OAN story. Is that right? I have only watched random clips from her off and on over the years on Youtube (I don't get any cable news channels at home, including MSNBC), so I really don't know all the details of what she said or how she said it. I kind of get the feeling though, that a lot of her viewers believed what she was saying all that time was factual and convincing, but perhaps they weren't smart enough to recognize entertainment when they saw it.
Richard Lowry - Author of the above linked article:
Richard Lowry is an American writer who is the editor of National Review, an American conservative news and opinion magazine. Lowry became editor of National Review in 1997 when selected by its founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., to lead the magazine.
When Manafort gave polling data to the Russion operative (and lied about it to the feds) there was obvious collusion with Russia.

Another mistake in the article above:
No one should deny Maddow’s considerable talents. She’s smart and a sprightly writer who does her homework and who can carry an hour of TV compellingly almost entirely on her own — a rare skill.

This wasn’t simply mindless partisanship. It was a deeper delusion.

Yes, there were disturbing developments in the Mueller probe, but the evidence always tilted away from any Trump-Russian conspiracy.
Mueller was not investigating Russian collusion. He was forbidden to do so and was told that aspect of investigation would be handled by someone else. He was lied to because it wasn't.

that article was long on emotive language and very short on factual information. Nothing more than a propaganda piece.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,277
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
Consider this. KFC doesn't have a monopoly on chicken. Other fast food chains do chicken. But KFC is known only for its chicken.

The GOP is very much the same. It doesn't corner the market, but it is only known for its idiocy and corruption nowadays. Hope that clears things up.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?
Consider this. KFC doesn't have a monopoly on chicken. Other fast food chains do chicken. But KFC is known only for its chicken.

The GOP is very much the same. It doesn't corner the market, but it is only known for its idiocy and corruption nowadays. Hope that clears things up.
That seems to sum it up pretty well. The GOP don't monopolize brazen political stupidity and political divisiveness, but it is their specialty these days. Especially in the US House. After all, a super majority of GOP in the House voted to put into doubt, Electoral Votes due to fraud that they knew never existed. You can't walk back from that.

The GOP in the US House have turned vaccination and building roads into a political issue.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yeah, it does require a room temperature IQ or better to get Rachel’s meaning as intended.
Unlike Tucker, Hannity et al.
If its so obvious, what was Rachel's meaning then, per my post? Was her whole 2 year diatribe about Russia and Trump just a goofy little entertainment saga rife with exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy? Or was it intended to be a serious analysis of the situation? No one has really answered that question, it seems.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I watch Rachel only on YouTube. And not that often. Thebeave seems a bit concerned with her; perhaps he watches her more than I do. :)
Rachel Maddow said:
[T]he most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.

The exaggeration was to imply that OAN received much or most of its financing from Russia. Maddow DID make the case that SOME of OAN's propaganda was in effect Russian-paid....
To answer thebeave's question: Yes, Maddow does relay FACTS in contrast to the right-wing Bullshit Machine. In this case she draws an exaggerated conclusion, but any intelligent viewer would understand both the basis for and the nature of the claim.
OK, perhaps you can clarify something for me. ...
Since you said she relays facts and speaks the truth (unlike the "right-wing Bullshit Machine"), I guess I'm to believe that her two year rant about Russian collusion was just a bunch of exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy, in a similar fashion to the OAN story. Is that right?

No. There WAS Russian collusion; only details and definitions are unclear. Similarly the Jan 6 incident WAS an insurrection.

You appear to have fallen for the QOP meme that if "collusion" or "insurrection" is not specifically charged by a grand jury, then that crime did NOT occur. Can't you see this meme is faulty? Al Capone was a mass murderer but he was charged only with tax evasion. Start a new thread if you really do not understand that failure to indict on a specific charge does not prove innocence of that charge!
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Yeah, it does require a room temperature IQ or better to get Rachel’s meaning as intended.
Unlike Tucker, Hannity et al.
If its so obvious, what was Rachel's meaning then, per my post? Was her whole 2 year diatribe about Russia and Trump just a goofy little entertainment saga rife with exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy? Or was it intended to be a serious analysis of the situation? No one has really answered that question, it seems.
IMO Rachel Maddow's hyperbolic spin of the actual facts (vis a vis Russian "interference") has been a mostly fruitless attempt to get people to gaze upon the unpleasant fact that we (Americans) allowed a foreign leader to manipulate our social and monetary landscapes to install a kompromatted, hapless bumbling incompetent self interested conman as President. One that he could (and still does) control without having to commit one single body or one overt act of malign aggression...
A thing of beauty, if you're a fan of Putin or a student of political strife. Not something that many Americans are humble enough to admit, though.

My statement (the one that you're questioning) was more about the ease with which any halfwit can understand and be motivated by the fearmongering lies of FOX Nooz than with the intelligence or effort it takes to decipher Rachel Maddow. Why bother with nuances, implications or facts when you can just scream "FIRE!" and get the desired panic result?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
The discussion of Rachel Maddow may be off-topic for this thread. I propose to derail the thread even further! The thread was started by a Mod: Perhaps Loren Pechtel will split the thread if needed.

I think the comparison of Maddow with Carlson and Jones might make a useful case study! All three have similarly had favorable legal rulings against charges of lying slander. Even some in "the center" regard Maddow (and Michael Moore) as the left-wing equivalent(s) of right-wingers like Carlson, Jones or Hannity.

Are these comparisons valid? I like Maddow and Moore, and find their commentary useful and true, if sometimes exaggerated. But is my objectivity blinded by prejudice?

We've seen the Maddow quote that led to a slander lawsuit. Are there other "lies" by her? What about Tucker Carlson? What was the "lie" that led to a lawsuit against him? I'd like to view the Maddow and Carlson lies side-by-side so that I can try to judge my own objectivity. (But I won't personally search the YouTubies for Carlson lies — the guy disgusts me too much.)
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,311
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Are these comparisons valid? I like Maddow and Moore, and find their commentary useful and true, if sometimes exaggerated. But is my objectivity blinded by prejudice?

Michael Moore's stuff would be useful in a psychology class as a lesson in how to manipulate people. Don't watch it to learn anything else, though.
 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
yeah, right and he's on vacation with lesbians.., right?
 

bleubird

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
1,271
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
none
I voted against the weed bill here in Alaska,because I knew the Regugs would only vote it in if had lots of taxes and regs.
I was right.
 
Top Bottom