Oh wait, it is.




If she wasn't willing to say that, she wouldn't have a show in the first place

His campaign funded by Israel and Russia, he's a Trotskist, a Stalinst, a Big Jew who wants to destroy the party AND America by turning it socialist.*






*note to jury: not making any of this up, all of those things have been posted.

Edited.

If I didn't want them to see something I'd delete it.

Oooooo, I'll start doing that next, that'll drive em crazy.

You don't love Edits this post has no edit!!!!!

You should be asking yourself why you believe what you do without being presented with facts and without proper vetting your source. To continue to deny falsehoods have been spread about Hillary Clinton is disgraceful.

You don't get something for nothing.

It's how America works.

Or Cruz. Just wait.

I read the NYT checker on it and it seems that the OBJECTIVE claim, including the more than $1 million to the super PAC is accurate. What they say is "not that much" is Sanders comment that it is a significant amount. That SUBJECTIVE comment is what they dispute.

To me, it has always been the FACTS that get fact checked. In addition, it is not at all true that they are both doing the same thing. The difference is the Super Pac.

Diminishing it because it is a small percent ignores that small percents add up. After all the super PAC gets a lot from Wall Street as well.

As you point out, it was Greenpeace, not Sanders, who raised this accusation. It looks like the media completely ignored that, taking Clinton's accusation that it was a Sanders lie as where to start.

It's a sad day when a moderately informed citizen knows that the fact checkers are way off. I would encourage you to write to the public editor, or a letter to the paper, to correct this.

Is awful, and untrustworthy.

And you should look at who sponsors her show, pays her salary, because it was Boeing for months... And Boeing has donated to the Clintons and uses the Clintons Campaign Chairman's lobbying firm.... And pays the Maddow show 10s of thousands for advertising...

So expecting her to then be honest about Bernie or Hillary is a stretch.

We've seen the media repeatedly lie about Bernie and Hillary; this is just another example.

shoulder?

Bernie is the one in the TANK with KOCH


Bernie Sanders was the ONLY liberal person who Voted Against Ex-Im Bank. Very puzzling since this is not a vote any democrat would ever make. Well it is a vote that benefits the KOCH BROTHERS who in turn gave money to Sanders Campaign.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/sanders-unique-among-senate-democrats-opposing-export-import-bank/


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783



http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-against-ex-im-bank

Paste more links that I could give 2 shits about, it will only encourage me to further question her journalistic objectivity. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, her one-sided storytelling is Busch League, hack journalism. To me, it appears she's using her "most trusted source" status to give Clinton cover.

Do you understand why you can't be both a Busch League hack and the "most trusted source" at the same time?

Let me know when she does some objective journalism.

Thanks!

so why should anybody waste any time on trying to convince you of anything? You've very proudly announced that you're fine with ignoring evidence contrary to your opinion. It's no different than being a climate change denier or not believing in evolution. You aren't willing to look at opposing evidence and being willing to change you mind based on it.

That's fine, but I think Bill Nye wasted his time debating Ken Hamm. And like Ken Hamm, you just stated that no evidence will change you mind since you "don't give 2 shits" about links.

She got disarmed by Jane Sanders last night. She even agreed that Bernie raised money and campaigned hard for Obama. Let's see what Rachel does going forward since she's been complicit in the false "Bernie is a selfish freeloader" meme promulgated by Hillary and her supporters.

safe space.

nt

Its like a religion. NO FACTS ALL FAITH...

Rachel should take Hillary to task over hiring David Brock.

She should say, "Madam Secretary, this WHITE MAN is a 'recovering' Conservative -- yeah, OK??? -- self professed liar, misogynistic hitman, and by the way he set out to destroy Anita Hill, probably just a little racist, don't you think? So, you know, here at TRMS, we've spent weeks -- months! -- covering Trump's sexist and racist supporters, but as far as we can discern, David Duke is not on his payroll. It begs the question, Madam Secretary, how do you send a message about empowering women on one hand, but hiring repulsive WHITE MEN to run your campaign? And, if I can ask you to stick around after the break, I'd like for you to respond to Anita Hill. I contacted her yesterday to ask her her thoughts about you selecting David Brock to head your campaign."


GET IT?!

I had just one simple question. Has Rachel every taken Hillary to task for anything? Because you're stuck, I gave you an example of what Rachel taking Hillary to task would look like.

Capisce?!

and purposely falling under one yourself.
Maddow is campaigning in favor of her preference.
She is a surrogate NOT an impartial reporter

highly repetitive patter to the camera right? I have not seen her show in years. Buchanan is a massively bigoted right wing fascist and I don't play games with those who find him to be legitimate or amusing.
So even if I did see her commentary program, I'd not value her opinions at all. She's got no ethics. She has a rate. But no ethics.

New York Times, Politico, Local news... all lies?

Until she had to make a choice and the bubble she lived in is being threatened. So her integrity is now eroded away because she like many of you Clinton Supporters will say and do anything to win. You now defend corruption that was always bitched about that the GOP did. You even bring up Koch brothers. What is so wrong with them? They just buy politician to do their bidding. Just same as Clinton donors do.

You and most on GOP side don't care about Vets. I care very much about Vets as I am one. And Sanders has been one of only people in congress who has been fighting for Vets from day he got elected to it. But I understand why you think he is a fraud becase you support Clinton and if in your mind you did not picture him as a fraud you would have to admit to your self that you are supporting Clinton who has helped make wounded Vets instead of helping them.

http://vetsforbernie.org/bernies-veterans-bills/

He wasn't going to do none of that. IT WAS A SCAM

Totally off the rocker and waste of bandwidth. Time to stop server from wasting it's bandwidth on your ramblings.

for her corporate overlords. 7 million a year comes with stipulations you know. She has lost her credibility, unfortunately.

How dare she.

She should drop her career and head to a commune and grow peas and share them with her bunkmates who grow carrots.

She's doing what she's paid to do, which is her right. Doesn't make her an honest journalist.

I think the theme is pretty clear here with most of the bernies. Grow peas or you are part of the problem.

You know the saying. It is a very effective tactic, used by the teapeople all the time. Not sure why it is happening around the DU.

But that doesn't stop Weaver from feeding Bernie that information or from Bernie spouting it all....and more importantly the low information and very many first time naive voter doesn't bother to look it up. They assume Bernie is honest, because it's what they hear from other Bernie Bros on line....no shred of evidence, just the repeated mantra.

There goes her cred.

That doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

What a laugh. You Hillary fanatics are so easy.

Anyway, Greenpeace made the charge. And TYT showed proved she is in the pocket of big oil. It's TRUE!

Colbert] was able to show America the loopholes (or “loop-chasms” as he called them) in the laws designed to regulate coordination between candidates and supposedly “independent” groups. By having his own Super PAC and 501(c)(4), Stephen could evolve right alongside the campaigns—or often be a step ahead of them. His understanding of the possibilities inherent in the legal confusion was keen enough to discover and exploit absurd legalities before it became clear that actual candidates and political activists were doing the same thing.[23]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC

This is via a loophole in the already incredible post citizens united law.

Brock on his part isn't prohibited from working with other superPACs, not directly connected, so long as he crosses all the t's and dots all the i's in distinguishing each from each. It's that kind of inter-connectivity that gives Brock a certain enhanced value.

I think Rachel Maddow should consider what Hillary Clinton has done for fracking.
But I don't expect much from Rachel anymore.
Quite frankly, she seems shallow.