ZimInSeattle (1486 posts)March 16, 2017 at 11:29 am
Establishment Hack Rachel Maddow Shamelessly Helped Trump for Ratings Boost
Hack is right. Excellent take down of someone I used to really like.
On March 14, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow sensationalized an exclusive story on President Donald Trump’s tax returns, enticing viewers with the promise that the scandal surrounding Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns would be answered. Instead, viewers were let down. Maddow shamelessly advertised the “breaking story,” complete with sensational tweets and a countdown clock. But the tax returns turned out to be a single tax return from 2005. They revealed that—in 2005 at least—Trump paid a 24 percent tax rate on $152.7 million of income. The non-story incited speculation that Trump released the tax returns to Maddow himself, and Maddow, a shameless mainstream media establishment sycophant, was more than willing to dupe her viewers and countless others into watching her show. In all, the charade embarrassingly revealed a lack of integrity on Maddow’s part.
~snip~99Forever, Pastiche, kishcreek and 19 othersFerd Berfel, Caretha, 99thMonkey, Octafish, Jefferson23, BuySellTrade, 2bAnon, bbgrunt, Major Hogwash, jeff47, PennLawyer, whispers, Haikugal, Enthusiast, OzoneTom, mrdmk, NJOCK, Ichingcarpenter, Jan Boehmermann like thisProudly #DemExited & #LeftOut | "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK | Bernie would have WON! |“Fascism is a result of the failure of the left to provide an alternative” - Leon Trotsky | Sanders/Gabbard 2020 (PPP)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
8 months ago #15
8 months ago #16
8 months ago #4
mrdmk (425 posts) (Reply to original post) March 16, 2017 at 11:48 am
1. Rachel Maddow’s Rambling Teaser Ends With Epic Fail on Trump’s Taxes
Whoa! The thing Democrats (and many Republicans, of both the pro- and anti-Trump persuasions) called for during the election would be released! Finally, we would learn that Democrats—including then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—were right all along in saying the President Donald Trump paid no income taxes.
Maddow could have released the documents she had at the beginning of her show and spent the rest of the time analyzing every line. But, no—in true Maddow fashion, she wandered through trivial information about taxes, teasing viewers that what she had would blow their minds. What she revealed, however, was two pages of Trump’s 2005 tax returns, which showed he paid $38 million in taxes on $150 million in income. In other words, Trump paid 25.3 percent of his income in taxes.
That’s a higher rate than what Maddow’s beloved former President Barack Obama paid in 2015 (his rate was 19.6 percent), what alleged socialist and multiple homeowner Bernie Sanders paid (either 13.5 percent or 19.6 percent, depending on who you ask) and even Comcast’s average tax rate (24 percent, though that seems debatable). For additional perspective, nine current and former MSNBC pundits have had tax liens filed against them.
<end of snip>
Nothing like a big Nothing Burger!
Art from Ark (3020 posts) (Reply to mrdmk - post #1) March 20, 2017 at 8:27 pm
15. Um, perhaps you don't realize that in 2005, Trump's income was 500X Bernie's
And that was Trump’s *net* income, after all the amortizations, depreciations and other tax write-offs.
And comparing what Bernie or Obama paid in 2015 to what Trump paid 10 years earlier is disingenuous.The last time America was run like a business, we ended up with a Great Depression.
mrdmk (425 posts) (Reply to Art from Ark - post #15) March 24, 2017 at 12:09 pm
16. Lets start here, by no means am I a Trump supporter
What the article points out and I agree with is, the media just does not jive. Most of the air-wave news is now entertainment and sensationalism at best. Its the state of our media at this moment.
One thing the article does point out is the alternative minimum tax works and rich people do not get to dump some losses on the common person while making millions. To add insult to the common people intelligence, Trump wants to get rid of it so he can get richer without paying any taxes. Now the question becomes, why Rachel Maddow mention that?
Like I said about Rachel Maddow’s report, it is a ‘Big Nothing Burger!’
NJOCK (594 posts) (Reply to original post) March 16, 2017 at 11:51 am
2. Maddow is a liar and cannot be trusted
What she did during the primaries against Bernie has been well documented here.
Anyone who believes they are a progressive/liberal that still watches her should look inward and ask “WHY?”
“The first revolution is when you change your mind about how you look at things, and see there might be another way to look at it that you have not been shown. What you see later on is the results of that, but that revolution, that change that takes place will not be televised.”
Gil Scott -Heron“The first revolution is when you change your mind about how you look at things, and see there might be another way to look at it that you have not been shown. What you see later on is the results of that, but that revolution, that change that takes place will not be televised.” -Gil Scott-Heron
arendt (1432 posts) (Reply to NJOCK - post #2) March 16, 2017 at 12:32 pm
Jan Boehmermann (4235 posts) (Reply to original post) March 16, 2017 at 11:52 am
3. I don't know if I should laugh or cry about Rachel's face plant!
I used to really like her before she turned into a Hillary shill.
She’s now made a total fool of herself…. and though I’m still pissed off at her for selling her soul to the corporate neo-liberal elite,….
I still find her downfall very sad.
mrdmk (425 posts) (Reply to Jan Boehmermann - post #3) March 16, 2017 at 12:09 pm
4. Maddow was much better when sticking to the facts and history
She excelled using this format. It seems like the election process of Hillary Clinton in the years of 2000, 2006, 2008 and 2016 corrupted the entire country, not just the DNC. Truly sad Maddow got caught up in this mess.
MistaP (6492 posts) (Reply to mrdmk - post #4) March 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm
7. how did her Senate elections corrupt the DNC?
I know they literally just “parachuted” her into the first open Senate seat the moment she left the WH, but I always felt that “we choose the nominees, not the people” was separate from Her being promised the WH run if she ever decided for it by several DNC key personnel
she herself seems surprisingly passive once you get into the behind-the-scenes stuff, even at State; most of the problems are because the values slanderers who “fight for her” above even her inner circlehttp://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
mrdmk (425 posts) (Reply to MistaP - post #7) March 16, 2017 at 10:58 pm
8. White House Civil War
Promised real power as Bill Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore found he had a rival for that role: the First Lady. And when Hillary decided to run for the Senate, a tense competition got ugly. In an excerpt from her new book about the Clinton White House years, the author reveals how conflicting agendas—the triangle of a scandal-ridden lame-duck president, the wife he’d betrayed, and his designated successor—sapped Gore’s 2000 campaign as the bond between two couples dissolved into distrust, anger, and resentment.
The turning point in Hillary’s political life came on November 6, 1998, when New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said he would not run for a fifth term. New York congressman Charles Rangel, who had already been pushing Hillary to enter the race, called that evening and said, “I sure hope you’ll consider running, because I think you could win.” Bill later wrote that he thought it “sounded like a pretty good idea,” although Hillary said she told Rangel that she was “honored” but “not interested” and that she considered the idea “absurd.” Yet the same day, Mandy Grunwald, a key adviser to Hillary, called the Moynihans to assess their reaction to a Senate bid by Hillary. They both thought it was a bad idea, because she didn’t know the state and hadn’t shown any interest in its issues or needs.
Bill and Hillary’s seventh year in the White House brought a dramatic shift in their relationship, with the center of gravity moving from his realm to hers. He was the lame duck, crippled by scandal, and she was the rising political star. Having saved his presidency by publicly standing by her man after the revelations about Lewinsky (first by proclaiming his innocence and then by attacking the enemies who sought to punish him), Hillary now had the upper hand, and his legacy was tied to her political fortunes. At the same time, Hillary’s ascendancy had a significant impact on the presidential prospects of Al Gore, diverting attention and resources from his candidacy and adding to the growing tensions between the Gores and the Clintons over Bill’s involvement with Lewinsky.
Gore had always been a determined campaigner and a skilled debater. But with his sometimes preachy delivery and stiff demeanor, he was not a natural on the stump like his boss. As the 2000 campaign drew closer, Bill seized on those apparent weaknesses in private critiques to influential Democratic supporters. When San Francisco investment banker Sandy Robertson was spending the night in the Lincoln Bedroom after the state dinner for Chinese premier Zhu Rongji, on April 8, 1999, Bill invited him to the Treaty Room for a late-night conversation. The president propped his feet on a table and unloaded on Gore’s political deficiencies. “He said he was trying to get Gore to be a better campaigner,” Robertson recalled. “He was worried.” Bill told Robertson, “I’ve been working with him to get him to loosen up.”
A month later, Bill went public with his concerns in an interview that The New York Times put on its front page. Those misgivings, plus some early missteps by Gore, led to a Newsweek cover story in mid-May describing his presidential campaign as “off and stumbling.” Gore was irritated by the president’s intrusion, although he made light of it by telling Newsweek that Bill was one of many who had advised him to “loosen up.” But when asked what role Bill would play in the 2000 campaign, Gore said, “He’s got a full-time job being president—and he’s doing it extremely well.” Gore pointedly explained the strength of his own marriage by saying that he and Tipper shared the same values, which included being “faithful to one another and sharing life experiences.”
It is a long article, yet worth the read. The piece points out Hillary’s political aspirations started out in 1998. She was suppose to be Bill Clinton’s second residence to the White House. Al Gore Jr’s Presidency was undermined by the Clintons (a.k.a. the DNC) with the aid of the Supreme Court.
MistaP (6492 posts) (Reply to mrdmk - post #8) March 17, 2017 at 11:37 am
9. okay, sounds like they started cannibalizing needed resources to cover their
respective asses and keep their “brand” politically viable: it also made Her codependents (from this excellent article, also VF http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/hillary-clinton-inside-circle-huma-abedin) in charge of how the party operated–thinking for yourself was dangerous and was why 9/11 and Iraq happened; Carville also sabotaged Kerry, remember!
that seems a theme–OFA and then DWS also pumped the lifeblood out of the party to respectively 1. make everyone go through His Charismaticness and 2. make sure any barnstormer who’d upset the gravy train would be strangled in the cribhttp://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
mrdmk (425 posts) (Reply to MistaP - post #9) March 19, 2017 at 8:22 pm
MistaP (6492 posts) (Reply to Jan Boehmermann - post #3) March 16, 2017 at 2:50 pm
6. there's definitely the money aspect and the "institutionalization"
when you do nothing but talk to your writers, staffers, flunkies, and the interesting exciting Beltwayers you get converted pretty quickly
that was also the danger of letting the liberals’ standard-bearers be comedians: they can make fun of the bawling Kim Davis types and we laugh along at the self-evident wrongness, but the Dems haven’t tried to really argue against the right or try to win them over without imitating the GOP since 1992
Octafish (3772 posts) (Reply to original post) March 17, 2017 at 3:19 pm
10. Well, you know how the advertisers like their tax cuts.
Hey! Just like the hosts on the tee vee!“Get the truth and print it.” -- John S. Knight
99thMonkey (3780 posts) (Reply to original post) March 17, 2017 at 3:38 pm
11. Rachael $6-Million Maddow is shameless corporate stooge
.. with smug mug animated by a unique collection of super-annoying habits, most of which have been described in the article.
I am so done with her, I’d rather poke my eyes with an icepick than watch her show.
Silver Witch (5476 posts) (Reply to original post) March 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm
13. Don't ever be fooled and think the media is against Trump.
They are for the status quo and Trump is exactly that.
So Maddow proved Trump pays taxes and we were all fool enough to think she would show something different.#Let'sTalkRevolution
Ferd Berfel (5264 posts) (Reply to original post) March 20, 2017 at 3:13 am
14. clinton or trump
Rms will always support the power…and you think you’re going to stop this simply by ‘pulling a lever’, in a booth, behind a curtain, every 2 years? - Know yourself. And if you need help with that, call the FBI. - There is only ONE solution to this mess: New Party !