This will make Ron Paul fans VERY happy!

The funny thing to me is that I have seen her name on here but this is the first time I have ever seen her or her show. So I have no idea who she is really or what she stands for.
She is one of the leading Liberal voices. She is also a Rhodes Scholar.

And she is extremely smart. Not only as far as intellect and knowledge, but the fact that she is EXCEEDINGLY polite to all her guests, and gives them the full opportunity to have their say, without cutting them off/screaming over them (O'Reilly), insulting them (Levin), or twisting their words (Hannity).

This is why both Ron Paul and Rand Paul praised her treatment of them when they were brave enough to go on her show. In fact, every single Rightwinger who has had the balls to go up against her has nothing but good things to say about the experience.
She's a FLAMING liberal on MSNBC...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

She is Olberdouche's replacement.

She used to have a radio program on Airhead America, then got picked up by liberoidal talk stations, that have the signal strength of a CB radio and a market share of about .0003, in places like Boulder, Madison and Seattle, when AA went tits up.
And then you have imbeciles like the Bushbot Oddball who cannot refute anything she says, so they attack her lesbianism, or her short hair, or her ratings, or anything else that does not matter.

So, LibertyForAll: did she come across as looney, rabid, assholish, etc. to you?

I didn't hear her inject any Liberalism at all into the conversation. Just straight interviewing.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing to me is that I have seen her name on here but this is the first time I have ever seen her or her show. So I have no idea who she is really or what she stands for.
She is one of the leading Liberal voices. She is also a Rhodes Scholar.

And she is extremely smart. Not only as far as intellect and knowledge, but the fact that she is EXCEEDINGLY polite to all her guests, and gives them the full opportunity to have their say, without cutting them off/screaming over them (O'Reilly), insulting them (Levin), or twisting their words (Hannity).

This is why both Ron Paul and Rand Paul praised her treatment of them when they were brave enough to go on her show. In fact, every single Rightwinger who has had the balls to go up against her has nothing but good things to say about the experience.
She's a FLAMING liberal on MSNBC...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

She is Olberdouche's replacement.

She used to have a radio program on Airhead America, then got picked up by liberoidal talk stations, that have the signal strength of a CB radio and a market share of about .0003, in places like Boulder, Madison and Seattle, when AA went tits up.
And then you have imbeciles like the Bushbot Oddball who cannot refute anything she says, so they attack her lesbianism, or her short hair, or her ratings, or anything else that does not matter.

So, LibertyForAll: did she come across as looney, rabid, assholish, etc. to you?

I didn't hear her inject any Liberalism at all into the conversation. Just straight interviewing.

If I am being honest, the beginning of the piece gave the impression that there was something wrong with what was being done which is why Weag pointed out that it was completely within the rules. That being said I don't think this is any worse than what the others you have mentioned do. This is why I don't watch mainstream tv "news" or political shows. The slanting is subtle but its there and it can color the information.

I personally base my opinion on the opinion of talking heads so it is easier for me to spot. I am not an O'reilly fan either. I can't stand him or beck or rush or hannity either. They are all partisan hacks. When I listen to people like them, I can tell they are trying to manipulate me.

I did think once the interview started she was fair and allowed him to say what he wanted without shouting over him or being argumentative. I think she deserves at least a little respect for that.
 
Hey, I thought her interview was more than fair.

As for my 'FLAMING Liberal' comment, there have been MANY times I've watched her show where she gets just as bad as Hannity or Rush, only from the other side of the aisle.
 
I know that most of you probably do not watch The Rachel Maddow Show, so I bring this clip to you (and the people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer) in order for you to see Paul's plan laid out for Rachel by Rep. Paul's Senior Adviser, Doug Wead.

This is a fascinating clip. He is basically saying that the results of these primaries and caucuses don't mean shit, and the delegates are planning to ignore the vote totals and vote for Paul regardless.

Enjoy!


Doug Wead on The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC 2/10/12 - YouTube

You do realize that in many caucus states, the popular vote is not binding? I believe that so far, the only caucus state where the vote total is binding and allocates delegates proportionally that has voted is Nevada. Most of them are just beauty contests. But I don't expect you to know this because the media certainly isn't going to tell you that Paul still has a chance once they don't have to officially announce him as any kind of "winner" of anything.
 
I know that most of you probably do not watch The Rachel Maddow Show, so I bring this clip to you (and the people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer) in order for you to see Paul's plan laid out for Rachel by Rep. Paul's Senior Adviser, Doug Wead.

This is a fascinating clip. He is basically saying that the results of these primaries and caucuses don't mean shit, and the delegates are planning to ignore the vote totals and vote for Paul regardless.

Enjoy!


Doug Wead on The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC 2/10/12 - YouTube

Wow, you seriously have no clue how this process works do you?

In caucus states, after the popular vote count is finished, there is a 2nd process of seating delegates for the many levels of conventions that take place over the next few months all the way to the state level convention, where delegates are finally awarded and bound and sent to national.

There's nothing nefarious about any of this. Popular vote counts don't have anything to do with delegates unless the rules in that state say that they do. Like I said, Nevada's rule is that delegates are awarded proportionally based on the vote total, but MN, IA, ME don't have that rule. The straw vote is non binding and has NOTHING to do with delegates.
 
The democratic party has similar rules, just so you know...


Pledged Delegates Vs. “Bound” Delegates

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are elected based on the results of a primary or caucus are “pledged” to support the presidential candidate whom they represent as a delegate.

Under the Democratic Party’s Rules, pledged delegates are not legally “bound” or required to vote according to their presidential preference on the first ballot at the Convention. Rather, these delegates are, pledged “in all good conscience [to] reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” [Rule 12.J]

Note: Rule 12J was intended to allow the convention to be a deliberative body. This enables pledged delegates to vote for the presumptive nominee even if they were pledged to someone who is no longer in the race.

Pledged delegates are not “bound” to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for the presumptive nominee when their candidate has dropped out of the race. As a sign of good faith, most former candidates will “release” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning to it. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate without being “released.”

Are delegates bound? Can a pledged delegate change his or her presidential preference?

A delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body. Delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot.

Do the presidential candidates have a say in who becomes their delegate? What is the presidential candidate right of review?

Yes, presidential candidates have an opportunity to review the list of individuals who have filed to run for delegate pledged to them. In accordance with Party rules, during candidate right of review, presidential candidates may approve a specific number of delegate candidates in order to ensure they are bona fide supporters. These approved delegate candidates must still be elected by the states.



Read more: Pledged Delegates Vs. “Bound” Delegates | Swampland | TIME.com

Yes but answer this? Has a state ever been switched at the convention and if so has it made a difference? I honestly don't know and don't really feel like doing the research.

The fact that you seem all too motivated to opine on a subject that you are simultaneously all too apathetic to do research on proves how worthless you really are.
 
I know that most of you probably do not watch The Rachel Maddow Show, so I bring this clip to you (and the people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer) in order for you to see Paul's plan laid out for Rachel by Rep. Paul's Senior Adviser, Doug Wead.

This is a fascinating clip. He is basically saying that the results of these primaries and caucuses don't mean shit, and the delegates are planning to ignore the vote totals and vote for Paul regardless.

Enjoy!


Doug Wead on The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC 2/10/12 - YouTube

Wow, you seriously have no clue how this process works do you?

In caucus states, after the popular vote count is finished, there is a 2nd process of seating delegates for the many levels of conventions that take place over the next few months all the way to the state level convention, where delegates are finally awarded and bound and sent to national.

There's nothing nefarious about any of this. Popular vote counts don't have anything to do with delegates unless the rules in that state say that they do. Like I said, Nevada's rule is that delegates are awarded proportionally based on the vote total, but MN, IA, ME don't have that rule. The straw vote is non binding and has NOTHING to do with delegates.
Who is saying this is nefarious, or illegal, or any of that? :lol:

But don't you think that the voters for Mitt SanGingrich are gonna be pissed at Paul?
 
I know that most of you probably do not watch The Rachel Maddow Show, so I bring this clip to you (and the people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer) in order for you to see Paul's plan laid out for Rachel by Rep. Paul's Senior Adviser, Doug Wead.

This is a fascinating clip. He is basically saying that the results of these primaries and caucuses don't mean shit, and the delegates are planning to ignore the vote totals and vote for Paul regardless.

Enjoy!


Doug Wead on The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC 2/10/12 - YouTube

Wow, you seriously have no clue how this process works do you?

In caucus states, after the popular vote count is finished, there is a 2nd process of seating delegates for the many levels of conventions that take place over the next few months all the way to the state level convention, where delegates are finally awarded and bound and sent to national.

There's nothing nefarious about any of this. Popular vote counts don't have anything to do with delegates unless the rules in that state say that they do. Like I said, Nevada's rule is that delegates are awarded proportionally based on the vote total, but MN, IA, ME don't have that rule. The straw vote is non binding and has NOTHING to do with delegates.
Who is saying this is nefarious, or illegal, or any of that? :lol:

But don't you think that the voters for Mitt SanGingrich are gonna be pissed at Paul?

You don't see the obvious attempt to paint the picture that the Paul campaign is doing something that is wrong? Maddow's trying to make it look like Paul has some kind of secret plan to steal delegates, when in reality the only reason any of this is "secret" is because the media doesn't report to us how the process actually works. I'm not sure how this could be considered secret though, when Paul and his campaign have been talking about this strategy for weeks, if not months, now. It's not his fault that the media only NOW decided to make it an issue, albeit a misrepresented one.

His campaign is working well within the rules of the electoral process. If you want to blame someone, blame the media for not adequately explaining the process to the people, and instead choosing to focus solely on the beauty contests for the purpose of steering the electoral opinion.
 
She is Olberdouche's replacement.

She used to have a radio program on Airhead America, then got picked up by liberoidal talk stations, that have the signal strength of a CB radio and a market share of about .0003, in places like Boulder, Madison and Seattle, when AA went tits up.
And then you have imbeciles like the Bushbot Oddball who cannot refute anything she says, so they attack her lesbianism, or her short hair, or her ratings, or anything else that does not matter.

So, LibertyForAll: did she come across as looney, rabid, assholish, etc. to you?

I didn't hear her inject any Liberalism at all into the conversation. Just straight interviewing.
Then you have confirmed poopy pants liars like Synthia having a cow when someone answers the question "who is she?" :lol:
 
Wow, you seriously have no clue how this process works do you?

In caucus states, after the popular vote count is finished, there is a 2nd process of seating delegates for the many levels of conventions that take place over the next few months all the way to the state level convention, where delegates are finally awarded and bound and sent to national.

There's nothing nefarious about any of this. Popular vote counts don't have anything to do with delegates unless the rules in that state say that they do. Like I said, Nevada's rule is that delegates are awarded proportionally based on the vote total, but MN, IA, ME don't have that rule. The straw vote is non binding and has NOTHING to do with delegates.
Who is saying this is nefarious, or illegal, or any of that? :lol:

But don't you think that the voters for Mitt SanGingrich are gonna be pissed at Paul?

You don't see the obvious attempt to paint the picture that the Paul campaign is doing something that is wrong? Maddow's trying to make it look like Paul has some kind of secret plan to steal delegates, when in reality the only reason any of this is "secret" is because the media doesn't report to us how the process actually works. I'm not sure how this could be considered secret though, when Paul and his campaign have been talking about this strategy for weeks, if not months, now. It's not his fault that the media only NOW decided to make it an issue, albeit a misrepresented one.

His campaign is working well within the rules of the electoral process. If you want to blame someone, blame the media for not adequately explaining the process to the people, and instead choosing to focus solely on the beauty contests for the purpose of steering the electoral opinion.

:lol:

You mean when she said "This is what the Ron Paul campaign says they are doing - it's not a secret" at the 5:30 mark?


FAIL. But funny!
 
There were instances of her coloring her commentary subtly before the interview, like when she laughed in a dastardly manner and held her hands so that her fingertips touched like she was a villain in an old James Bond flick. It definitely wasn't an unbiased take. There are worse out there though and I don't think she was rude during the interview at all.
 
She is Olberdouche's replacement.

She used to have a radio program on Airhead America, then got picked up by liberoidal talk stations, that have the signal strength of a CB radio and a market share of about .0003, in places like Boulder, Madison and Seattle, when AA went tits up.
And then you have imbeciles like the Bushbot Oddball who cannot refute anything she says, so they attack her lesbianism, or her short hair, or her ratings, or anything else that does not matter.

So, LibertyForAll: did she come across as looney, rabid, assholish, etc. to you?

I didn't hear her inject any Liberalism at all into the conversation. Just straight interviewing.
Then you have confirmed poopy pants liars like Synthia having a cow when someone answers the question "who is she?" :lol:
Only...you didn't. You went into a typical wingnut diatribe based on your irrational butthurt over the fact that she's a very successful Liberal, who Rightwing guests of hers praise for her even-handed and fair interviews.

Why don't you see if you can get your buddy Sean Hannity to appear on her show? Don't worry - she's treat him with respect, too!
 
There were instances of her coloring her commentary subtly before the interview, like when she laughed in a dastardly manner and held her hands so that her fingertips touched like she was a villain in an old James Bond flick. It definitely wasn't an unbiased take. There are worse out there though and I don't think she was rude during the interview at all.
Wow. That's reaching. :laugh:

If that's the worst thing that you can find - her imitating Paul's little dastardly laugh, at the 1:38 mark - then hang your hat on that. That's not even partisan.
 
Well I did say it was a subtle thing in all fairness and to be honest I don't really care because I will probably never see her show. I don't get the "news" channels. My tv pretty much stays on Nick JR. When my boys are older I might get those channels back to show them how to filter out the bias and to recognize when we only get half the story.
 
Well I did say it was a subtle thing in all fairness and to be honest I don't really care because I will probably never see her show. I don't get the "news" channels. My tv pretty much stays on Nick JR. When my boys are older I might get those channels back to show them how to filter out the bias and to recognize when we only get half the story.
If your boys are still young enough to be watching Nick Jr., they are probably not still allowed to be up watching it at 9pm, so check out Rachel's show sometime. You might be pleasantly surprised that she's not this fearsome creature that makes wingnuts shake in their bunny slippers.
 
Well I did say it was a subtle thing in all fairness and to be honest I don't really care because I will probably never see her show. I don't get the "news" channels. My tv pretty much stays on Nick JR. When my boys are older I might get those channels back to show them how to filter out the bias and to recognize when we only get half the story.
If your boys are still young enough to be watching Nick Jr., they are probably not still allowed to be up watching it at 9pm, so check out Rachel's show sometime. You might be pleasantly surprised that she's not this fearsome creature that makes wingnuts shake in their bunny slippers.

I don't have a personal opinion of her one way or the other, except that she reports news and injects opinion into it, which I don't care for. I don't care for it any less or more than when Hannity does it, or pretty much any of the news pundits. I don't believe that news should be reported with bias. Simply present facts, and I'll take it from there.

But that's not "entertaining" at 9pm when you're plopping your ass down on the couch with a bag of chips and looking for a distraction from real life, is it?
 
So I watched a video of Maddow in the Maine voter fraud thread, and I'm definitely pleased with her reporting on that story. But I think she held back a little bit on reporting just how important a changed vote count result could be for the Paul campaign if Washington County's total ends up putting him over the top. When they were talking about how at the end of the day it was just a beauty contest anyway, what they don't get is that this "beauty contest" is still seen as important in the eyes of the electorate the rest of the way through this primary season. If the state GOP changes the total and announces Paul as the winner, the media would have to report this and I think of the 4 candidates in the field, it's pretty obvious that no one would benefit more from having an announced win than Paul at this point. Being the one candidate seen as unelectable, getting his first ever primary win would go a long way towards changing that narrative.
 

Forum List

Back
Top