Rachel Maddow: War Mongering Globalist "Liberal"

[Kryztian]

I am not a grammar Nazi, but I do have a pet peeve about people who misuse the word "literally". Some people misuse "literally" to add emphasis; however, lawyers for Rachel Maddow are claiming that when she uses "literally", she is really speaking "hyperbolically", and her misuse of this word could costs her ten million dollars:cash::cash::cash:! Really! Literally!

https://i.imgur.com/MXMBI9K.jpg

On July 22, 2019, Rachel Maddow was on her show discussing the the One America News Network (OANN), a San Diego based company part of the Herring Networks, Inc. Maddow called OANN “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America” and is that it is “paid Russian propaganda” because one of its reporters, Kristian Rouz, had previously worked for Sputnik, a Russian state-backed news outlet.

Of course, Rachel Maddow has a long history of insinuating (https://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/3/10/maddow-russians-may-be-controlling-our-government) anyone and every one whose politics she doesn’t like (e.g. Julian Assange, Nigel Farage) is a Russian asset working for Vladimir Putin, but this time, she now she been careless with her words and those insinuations became clear accusations, that OANN is receiving payments from Russia:



... Trump`s favorite more Trumpier than Fox TV network [OANN], the one that the president has been promoting and telling everyone they should watch and is better than Fox, turns out that network has a full time on air reporter who covers U.S. politics who is simultaneously on the payroll of the Kremlin. What?

... this super right wing news outlet that the president has repeatedly endorsed as a preferable alternative to Fox News, because he thinks Fox is insufficiently pro-Trump, so now he likes this is other outlet better. We literally learned today that that outlet the president is promoting shares staff with the Kremlin.

I mean, what? I mean, it`s an easy thing to throw out, you know, like an epitaph in the Trump era, right? Hey, that looks like Russian propaganda. In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. They`re on air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.

According to Maddow’s lawyer, Theodore J. “Ted” Boutrous Jr:


“Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’”

In other words, when Maddow makes clear factual allegations and adds that they are “really literally” true, then she is just an entertainer, making a joke, and the public should know better than to take network news seriously. If this is the case, then there is no such law as slander.

The plaintiffs are calling in a UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries to testify and among the many citations proving the case are the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definitions of “really” and “literally.”


* * * * * * * *


Rachel Maddow Asks San Diego Judge to Throw Out OAN Defamation Suit
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/10/21/rachel-maddow-asks-san-diego-judge-to-throw-out-oan-defamation-suit/

Rachel Maddow Faces Slapdown by UC Linguistics Professor in Defamation Suit
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddow-faces-slapdown-by-uc-linguistics-professor-in-defamation-suit/

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2019-07-22

[Ba-ba-Ra]

I personally would like to see Rachael get called out on all the misinformation she has put out as truths.

The Dems here in California see her as their 'high priest' and believe anything and everything she says as if it is gospel. I've watched her spin stories day after day - and I must admit, she is good at it.

At one point on the altmedia it came out that she was on the Clinton Foundation payroll. Don't know if it was ever proved, but clearly she touted and praised HRC in daily glorious tones.

[Satori]

The "special motion to strike" filed by Maddow's et al.lawyers should be denied. The complaint against her and her employers literally states a prima facie case for slander/libel/business disparagement and is plausible on its face.

[Satori]

Some humor re the use of the word "literally".

From MAD TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC2QGojQnUY

[AutumnW]

This limo-liberal needs to drive that limo right off the nearest cliff, literally. Very few tv personalities give me a visceral yuk feeling...but she sure does. She's a war pig.

[Ratszinger]

OAN is being labeled fake news by Facebook and others and I just posted a video of three links to some reports that I think are among the best investigative reporting I've seen in recent years and they called it fake due to Maddow which was later argued by me and they put it back up but the point is the damage is real whether the liable takes hold or not! Maddow is guilty and should be reamed good of some serious funds to teach her a lesson about spouting off slanderous statements about real journalism! I hope they fry her rosy red in a pan of hot oil for months so she has to stress over it the way she instills stress in viewers with her phony narratives!

[Kryztian]

Rachel Maddow just doesn't want to hear any lies!!! No, she really does not.
E7zH6jRbHAo

[Strat]

What's sad is I'm not sure any of this applies in today's world since we've transitioned into a place where logic isn't as valuable as noise. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

"Literal Nazi's" is an aggravating and overused term. People should be ashamed of themselves for that.

[Kryztian]

1667007756014960641

Rachel Maddow basically admits here that the criminal charges against Trump are just a political maneuver to get Trump to back out of the race. She doesn't really seem to care if he is guilty or not, and it seems she endorses that the U.S. "Justice" system is a tool of elites to intimidate certain individuals from running for office.

Jimmy Dore covers this story further.

UoOTouFUfKI
11 minutes, but story is only first 7 minutes of video.

[Kryztian]

Jimmy Dore does another spot on the most sanctimonious and hypocritical war monger in the media. In the first clip, Ms. Maddow relates how they will not air actual footage of Trump talking (presumably because, according to her, his lying is of such epic proportions) and how she and her staffed searched their anguished souls to make this deeply moral decision. Then Dore goes on to air many of her own lies about how effective the vaccine has proven to be and how Russian bots are invading America with Trump at the helm.

v4811kh

[Heartsong]

I like and follow Rachel Maddow. She's sane, educated, articulate, and progressive. I like that.

[Kryztian]

I like and follow Rachel Maddow. She's sane, educated, articulate, and progressive. I like that.

Then you obviously have not taken into account ANY of the information in this thread.

If you listen to Rachel Maddow then you have undoubtedly heard hundred and hundreds of hours of her talking about "Trumps collusion with Russia". Can you tell me any of it that has proven to be true? Have you ever heard her ever apologize for mountain of lies she has told about Russigate? Have you ever heard her try and correct the record? Why is she trying to exacerbate tension between the U.S.A. and Russia, the world's two largest nuclear powers, by spreading disinformation? (If you want the answer to that last question, look into who her owner, MSNBC, was owned by: the military industrial complex).

Traditionally, the United States has a liberal segment of the population that concerned it self with abusive and intrusive government, the horror of war and the injustice of poverty. This community still exists, however, Maddow is just one of many in the media who's job it is to put liberals to sleep and rebrand them as "progressives" - people who have given up hope that government can stop the excesses of crony capitalism, surveillance government, war and poverty and instead created a hyperawareness of issues around race, GLBT and feminism. Not that Maddow does anything to advance these causes, she just uses terms like "racist" as a branding iron (alternating with other monikers like "Putin Puppet") applying them to people against the globalist/neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda.

If you are interested in awakening from the slumber of grandiose and toxic lies told by Rachel Maddow, I recommend the Jimmy Dore (a true liberal, who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016) video above.

[Sue (Ayt)]

I like and follow Rachel Maddow. She's sane, educated, articulate, and progressive. I like that.

As I have always seen her to be totally agenda oriented, it does make me wonder what it is you see in her rhetoric, Heartsong. Care to elucidate?

[T Smith]

I like and follow Rachel Maddow. She's sane, educated, articulate, and progressive. I like that.

As I have always seen her to be totally agenda oriented, it does make me wonder what it is you see in her rhetoric, Heartsong. Care to elucidate?

I second Sue (Ayt). It's fascinating to me, Heartsong, that you would use any one of those modifiers to describe Rachel Maddow. Although I do grant she's educated. Then again, so was Richard Nixon and Bernie Madoff....

[Bill Ryan]

I like and follow Rachel Maddow. She's sane, educated, articulate, and progressive. I like that.Dear Heartsong, this commentary from Chris Martenson, published yesterday, night be useful here. Rachel Maddow isn't mentioned at all, but it's all about the current role of the mainstream media and how unreliable they are as sources of good information — regardless of the likeability of their presenters.

:heart:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-9-NmSpZAQ

[Kryztian]

Fake news and media lies are a danger to the world, and perhaps no one is more toxic and dangerous than Rachel Maddow, the world's greatest promoter of the hoaxed Russiagate narrative, which she is still promoting in a different form now, and increasing the agitation between the world's two greatest nuclear power based on "information" that comes from her fantastical imagination, which she presents as fact.

At the same time, she is promoting an end to the 1st Amendment, that is, in the U.S.A., the article that gives us our right to free speech.

With Maddow, here is Barbara McQuade, a lawyer and legal analyst, who tries to make the case that free speech is a danger to the U.S. and undermines the authority of government. (Well, can't one say that about "Russiagate" too? :p) She doesn't come out to request the abolition of the 1s Amendment, but she doesn't come far from it.

v4e5wx0

[Kryztian]

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is worried she'll be put in one of Trump's 'massive camps': 'I'm worried about me'
Maddow is concerned she’ll be targeted if Trump wins re-election
Brian Flood By Brian Flood Fox News
Published June 11, 2024 10:20am EDT
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-worried-shell-put-one-trumps-massive-camps-im-worried-me

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is "worried" former President Trump could throw her in jail or even some sort of camp for high-profile liberals if he’s victorious in November.

Maddow, who has largely built her program around passionate criticism of Trump for years, famously pushed since-debunked theories tying the former president to Russia. Now she’s concerned Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, will weaponize the government and throw his media critics in jail if he defeats President Biden in November.

"I'm worried about the country broadly if we put someone in power who is openly avowing that he plans to build camps to hold millions of people, and to ‘root out’ what he’s described in subhuman terms as his ‘enemy from within.’ Again, history is helpful here. He’s not joking when he says this stuff, and we’ve seen what happens when people take power proclaiming that kind of agenda," Maddow told CNN, adding that Trump would also go after his political rivals.

"For that matter, what convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants?" Maddow continued. "I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us."

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is "worried" former President Trump could throw her in jail or even some sort of camp for high-profile liberals if he’s victorious in November.

Maddow, who has largely built her program around passionate criticism of Trump for years, famously pushed since-debunked theories tying the former president to Russia. Now she’s concerned Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, will weaponize the government and throw his media critics in jail if he defeats President Biden in November.

"I'm worried about the country broadly if we put someone in power who is openly avowing that he plans to build camps to hold millions of people, and to ‘root out’ what he’s described in subhuman terms as his ‘enemy from within.’ Again, history is helpful here. He’s not joking when he says this stuff, and we’ve seen what happens when people take power proclaiming that kind of agenda," Maddow told CNN, adding that Trump would also go after his political rivals.

"For that matter, what convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants?" Maddow continued. "I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us."

CNN’s reporter did not push back on this in the print Q&A and had set Maddow up to give an explosive answer by initially asking, "Trump and his allies are openly talking about weaponizing the government to seek revenge against critics in media… you're one of his most notable critics on television. Are you worried that you could be a target?"

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Maddow famously cut "The Rachel Maddow Show" to once a week in 2022 to pursue other projects despite her enormous salary, which has been reported to be roughly $30 million per year. Her interview with CNN was meant to promote one of the other projects, a podcast.

Earlier this year, Maddow criticized her own network for airing Trump's victory speech on Super Tuesday and claimed it was "irresponsible to broadcast." She was asked where she stands on whether news networks should broadcast Trump live.

"I don’t think there’s any simple hard-and-fast rule that makes these decisions easy. You take things case by case, situation by situation, lie by lie. I do think it’s important to constantly revisit these decisions in a rigorous way, guarding in particular against letting ourselves be used for any purpose other than our own journalistic mission," Maddow told CNN.

Maddow has also expressed concern that Trump would become a dictator if re-elected.

[Mike]

And this is where I get a little confused, honestly.

The media milieu is so saturated with lies and bullsh!t and propaganda that I can't really separate the bad actors from the ones who really believe what they're saying anymore. Does anyone believe what they're saying anymore? Did they ever? Or is it all just narrative warfare?

When I hear Maddow saying she's gonna be put in some gulag if Trump gets elected, or DeNiro saying Trump will literally destroy the world, or when that "Morning Joe" lunatic wags his finger at his audience while telling them Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, and it's offered with so much unhinged emotion ...my mind doesn't quite know what to do with that honestly! I can't intellectually file it anywhere. It's just incredibly weird!

[Bill Ryan]

I can't intellectually file it anywhere. It's just incredibly weird!What may be even weirder is that it really seems that some of these people honestly and sincerely believe what they're saying.

[ExomatrixTV]

And this is where I get a little confused, honestly.

The media milieu is so saturated with lies and bullsh!t and propaganda that I can't really separate the bad actors from the ones who really believe what they're saying anymore. Does anyone believe what they're saying anymore? Did they ever? Or is it all just narrative warfare?

When I hear Maddow saying she's gonna be put in some gulag if Trump gets elected, or DeNiro saying Trump will literally destroy the world, or when that "Morning Joe" lunatic wags his finger at his audience while telling them Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, and it's offered with so much unhinged emotion ...my mind doesn't quite know what to do with that honestly! I can't intellectually file it anywhere. It's just incredibly weird!

You could make a HUGE list of projected (unfounded, irrational) fears done by almost all liberal mass media pundits in the months before Trump became President in 2016 ...

How much of all "doom predictions" and so called "dire warnings" what Trump "would do" or "supoosedly do" did NOT happen in the 4 years that he was President?

And why is NOBODY held accountable for spread provable LIES (https://substack.com/home/post/p-139620308) (disinformation) "what Trump would do" if he became president blah blah blah ... A lot what they project on Trump the democratds did for real! ... PURE PROJECTION. ... Utterly pathetic hypcorites.


Same what is happening now ... is it any different? ... As long as they can get away with it, they use the same scare tactics all over again, thinking we forgot how they systematically lied (https://substack.com/home/post/p-139620308) using the same FEAR topics.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[Mike]

I can't intellectually file it anywhere. It's just incredibly weird!What may be even weirder is that it really seems that some of these people honestly and sincerely believe what they're saying.


Yeah that's just it! Do I file it under "propaganda" or "true believer/deluded ideologue"?:) My mind likes things tidy and neat, and it gets all scrambled when confronted with this type of ambiguity.

The world is so saturated in crazy right now that I'm having a hard time making some distinctions.

A theory, and maybe not a very original one: When people lie, and know they're lying, and their back is against the wall, they tend to lie with emotion...mainly anger. It's the death throe reaction to the threat of exposure, particularly when you've doubled down on the lie over and over and over again; you know your credibility is shot if it's all exposed, so the only option left is to keep digging that hole (and getting angrier and angrier while retelling the lie, in the vain hope it either convinces the accuser of your virtue or frightens them into submission). I think nearly everyone alive has deployed this little trick to some degree or other, so it's easy to recognize when someone else is doing it.

To blame it all on this would be reductive; there's quite a bit in play here I think. But when I see these legacy media pundits foaming at the mouth while saying the most absurd drivel imaginable (and demanding we believe it) I recognize that phenomenon. But whereas the average person might do that a handful of times in a lifetime, these media people do it on a daily basis, pathologically.

But that's probably all down stream from the "Dark Triad" tendencies consuming them (narcissism, psychopathy, machiavellianism) and the cluster B traits. And all that might even be downstream from some kind of - tin foil hat firmly on here - demonic possession or something adjacent. Trying to parse it all out is exhausting. The important thing to know is it's all bullsh!t:)

[DNA]

I refuse to think these pseudo-journalists do not know what they are doing.
They are handed their lines from a producer and delivering them like any actor.
People as high up as Rachel Maddow probably have a CIA attendant attached to them.
Think of it like this.
Big name players like Maddow, Anderson Cooper and Joy Behar. Think how damaging it would be if these folks were ignorant of what they were doing and then one day discovered the truth and gained the back bone to use their platform to expose it.
No no no.
Your big players have to be in the know to prevent this.
Your big players have to be part of the satanic cabal with compromising video for black mail.
I know it can be a lazy way out to just spew the phrase " they control everything" but in the case of mainstream media they really do.
Mainstream media superstars are the same as politicians and judges in so far as how control is maintained.

[Kryztian]

Crazy conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow attempts to paint J D Vance as a Nazi / White Supermacist in a most nutty way.

Rachel Maddow claims ‘Lord of the Rings’ is a ‘favorite cosmos’ of the far right
By Alexander Hall , Fox News * Published July 19, 2024, 11:46 a.m. ET
https://nypost.com/2024/07/19/us-news/rachel-maddow-claims-lord-of-the-rings-is-a-favorite-cosmos-of-the-far-right/

As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow fretted about Sen. JD Vance being former President Donald Trump’s choice for vice president, she complained about how “The Lord of the Rings” is loved by the far right.


https://i.imgur.com/dbOwWjG.jpeg

On day three of the Republican National Convention, Maddow commented about Vance’s ties to former PayPal CEO and Republican donor Peter Thiel, who she noted “has named his companies after things in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ series of JRR Tolkien books.”

“‘Lord of the Rings’ is a sort of favorite cosmos for naming things and cultural references for a lot of far-right and alt-right figures, both in Europe and the United States. Peter Thiel names all these things after Tolkien figures in places like his company Palantir, for example,” Maddow said.


Like his mentor, like Peter Thiel, who had given him all his jobs in the world, Mr. Vance also, when he founded his own venture capital firm with help from Peter Thiel, named it after a ‘Lord of the Rings’ thing. He called it Narya, N-A-R-Y-A, which you can remember because it’s ‘Aryan,’ but you move the N to the front,” she continued. “Apparently that word has something to do with elves and rings from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ series, I don’t know.”
While the MSNBC host appeared to try to draw a parallel between Narya, the venture capital firm, and “Aryan,” an archaic term that has been associated with far-right racial ideology, Narya is named after one of the rings of power in “The Lord of the Rings” lore, specifically the ring of fire bestowed to elven kings.

Vance took center stage at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday to speak extensively about his humble origins in Ohio and his rise to become a public figure in American politics.

Vance also touched on Trump’s “America First” agenda, promising to make allies pay their fair share for world peace instead of betraying “the generosity of the American taxpayer.” On foreign policy, Vance promised that the administration would send service members to war “only when we must.”