This will make Ron Paul fans VERY happy!

[GuyPinestra]

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.

And if they DO decide to count the votes it will conveniently be AFTER Super Tuesday...

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

I think her show is very entertaining, actually. I would rather watch her show than yet another CSI/Law & Order rehash.

And anyone who has watched her show would never compare what she does to what Hannity does, if they are being honest. You should check out tonight's show, and then make a judgement.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

I think that in the interest of fairness she didn't want to speculate that Mitt wouldn't have been the winner if those three counties were counted (if we are talking about the clip from last night's show - I'm not familiar with the thread you referenced).

 

[LibertyForAll]

I agree with Paulie and I was basically saying the same thing. I don't like opinion laden news. I like to make up my own mind about facts. I don't even have the news channels so I can't watch her. Most of what I know of hannity is from his radio show which I have heard bits and pieces of. I don't care for him much. He speaks to a specific demographic and I am not in it.

 

[Paulie]

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.

I think that in the interest of fairness she didn't want to speculate that Mitt wouldn't have been the winner if those three counties were counted (if we are talking about the clip from last night's show - I'm not familiar with the thread you referenced).

She kind of already did speculate that though. She said flat out she didn't think he was the winner.

 

[GuyPinestra]

He wasn't, and won't be, but that news will hit AFTER Super Tuesday...

 

[Paulie]

I didn't compare her to Hannity either, btw. They both inject bias into their reporting. He injects right bias, she injects left. It's sad to think I have to judge fair reporting based on how MUCH bias is being injected into my news, and for which side.

News was never supposed to be left or right. The media was SUPPOSED to be the watchdog for government as a whole.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

I think that in the interest of fairness she didn't want to speculate that Mitt wouldn't have been the winner if those three counties were counted (if we are talking about the clip from last night's show - I'm not familiar with the thread you referenced).

She kind of already did speculate that though. She said flat out she didn't think he was the winner.

If we are talking about the same clip, I do not think she did that - I think she specifically said that she did not want to make it sound like Mitt would have lost.

Don't make me go all Post #113 on you again!

 

[Paulie]

I think that in the interest of fairness she didn't want to speculate that Mitt wouldn't have been the winner if those three counties were counted (if we are talking about the clip from last night's show - I'm not familiar with the thread you referenced).

She kind of already did speculate that though. She said flat out she didn't think he was the winner.

If we are talking about the same clip, I do not think she did that - I think she specifically said that she did not want to make it sound like Mitt would have lost.

Don't make me go all Post #113 on you again!

Go to 7:00.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El-Ktyix1ck&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b72531FUAAAAAAAAAA]Could Ron Paul Still Win Maine? - YouTube[/ame]

"I don't think that he did"

 

[Synthaholic]

I didn't compare her to Hannity either, btw. They both inject bias into their reporting. He injects right bias, she injects left. It's sad to think I have to judge fair reporting based on how MUCH bias is being injected into my news, and for which side.

News was never supposed to be left or right. The media was SUPPOSED to be the watchdog for government as a whole.

But she does not have a straight news show - it's a recounting of current events, from a Liberal point of view.

But what she absolutely does not do is fabricate a storyline, to sell to her viewers, like Hannity does. He clearly lies, and it's easily proven. Example: when he claimed that Obama was the most Liberal member of the Senate. Clearly, provably false. yet he never stopped saying it, and it became his mantra. Rachel Maddow does not engage in any of that, and I defy anyone to give me an example of her doing so.

In addition - on the occasions that she is wrong, she not only admits it on the next night's show, she makes a big deal about setting it straight, in a segment called "Department Of Corrections". Here is an example:

Rachel Maddow Show

Have you ever seen Sean Hannity use a segment of his show to correct something wrong he has said? Not on your life. In fact, he usually doubles down.

 

[Synthaholic]

She kind of already did speculate that though. She said flat out she didn't think he was the winner.

If we are talking about the same clip, I do not think she did that - I think she specifically said that she did not want to make it sound like Mitt would have lost.

Don't make me go all Post #113 on you again!

Go to 7:00.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El-Ktyix1ck&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b72531FUAAAAAAAAAA"]Could Ron Paul Still Win Maine? - YouTube[/ame]

"I don't think that he did"

You left out her very next line: "I'm not saying someone else won".

IOW, it has not been determined that Mitt has won, since all the votes have not been counted. Therefore, Mitt/Maine GOP cannot claim that Mitt won.

 

[Paulie]

If we are talking about the same clip, I do not think she did that - I think she specifically said that she did not want to make it sound like Mitt would have lost.

Don't make me go all Post #113 on you again!

Go to 7:00.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El-Ktyix1ck&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b72531FUAAAAAAAAAA"]Could Ron Paul Still Win Maine? - YouTube[/ame]

"I don't think that he did"

You left out her very next line: "I'm not saying someone else won".

IOW, it has not been determined that Mitt has won, since all the votes have not been counted. Therefore, Mitt/Maine GOP cannot claim that Mitt won.

Dude...really?

How do you say Mitt didn't win, but then say no one else did either? When you say Mitt didn't win, you're automatically saying someone else did.

If you ask me, she doesn't have the balls to go all the way with it. She said she doesn't think Mitt won. So that means it must be Paul then, because no one else was close enough to be in competition.

 

[Synthaholic]

Go to 7:00.


Could Ron Paul Still Win Maine? - YouTube

"I don't think that he did"

You left out her very next line: "I'm not saying someone else won".

IOW, it has not been determined that Mitt has won, since all the votes have not been counted. Therefore, Mitt/Maine GOP cannot claim that Mitt won.

Dude...really?

How do you say Mitt didn't win, but then say no one else did either? When you say Mitt didn't win, you're automatically saying someone else did.

If you ask me, she doesn't have the balls to go all the way with it. She said she doesn't think Mitt won. So that means it must be Paul then, because no one else was close enough to be in competition.

No, you're totally misreading what she is saying.

But I have to go make dinner!

 

[Paulie]

You left out her very next line: "I'm not saying someone else won".

IOW, it has not been determined that Mitt has won, since all the votes have not been counted. Therefore, Mitt/Maine GOP cannot claim that Mitt won.

Dude...really?

How do you say Mitt didn't win, but then say no one else did either? When you say Mitt didn't win, you're automatically saying someone else did.

If you ask me, she doesn't have the balls to go all the way with it. She said she doesn't think Mitt won. So that means it must be Paul then, because no one else was close enough to be in competition.

No, you're totally misreading what she is saying.

But I have to go make dinner!

Ok, I get what you're saying. There's uncounted votes and a close race between 1 and 2, and that means that no one should be a declared winner.

I get it. And I agree.

 

[Synthaholic]

Dude...really?

How do you say Mitt didn't win, but then say no one else did either? When you say Mitt didn't win, you're automatically saying someone else did.

If you ask me, she doesn't have the balls to go all the way with it. She said she doesn't think Mitt won. So that means it must be Paul then, because no one else was close enough to be in competition.

No, you're totally misreading what she is saying.

But I have to go make dinner!

Ok, I get what you're saying. There's uncounted votes and a close race between 1 and 2, and that means that no one should be a declared winner.

I get it. And I agree.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Paulie again.