General Discussion

Caliman73

(11,767 posts)

55. She's a pundit, and one who is steeped in history and political science.

Fri Jun 9, 2023, 12:09 PM

Jun 2023

It is not dumb at all to contemplate ideas that have analog but no real precedent.

You could simply have said that you disagree with her assessment of the situation and laid out your reasons for your disagreement, but instead you say that Maddow is not thinking straight?

I got a very different read on the situation and Lawrence O'Donnell responded to the thought proposed scenario in a very well thought out manner telling Maddow why he thought the situation would likely not play out how Agnew's did.

DOJ will not be dropping charges and even if they did, Trump would NEVER endorse any other candidate. He needs the power to himself, he is too narcissistic to support anyone but himself.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rachel Maddow Has Lost Her Mind [View all] gab13by13 Jun 2023 OP

Even the great ones have off days. lark Jun 2023 #1

See post 4. we can do it Jun 2023 #10

Nonsense. There is a historic precedent: Spiro Agnew. FSogol Jun 2023 #2

Correct. Rachel is steeped in the history of that deal. MaryMagdaline Jun 2023 #28

they had too much time to fill last night. I was a bit pissed they had Eric Holder on to mucifer Jun 2023 #3

She wasn't endorsing that. hippywife Jun 2023 #4

Agnew was a Vice-President...whole different kettle of fish. And why even bring it up? Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #27

As I said above... hippywife Jun 2023 #35

Because it's the only historical precedent. Ocelot II Jun 2023 #37

He had to accept one felony charge, though. Johonny Jun 2023 #39

Yikes. Glad I missed that. I thought someone ecstatic Jun 2023 #5

She didn't- the know-it-alls hear what they want to hear. we can do it Jun 2023 #9

Really? gab13by13 Jun 2023 #19

It is too bad you missed it. Caliman73 Jun 2023 #57

She just posed the question, which is likely to come up anyhow Ocelot II Jun 2023 #6

Exactly what Geraldo Rivera suggested... hlthe2b Jun 2023 #7

She was neither oblivious nor naive. She raised the question in reference to Ocelot II Jun 2023 #14

As I said, I didn't see the segment nor the context so the big "IF" it were NOT Devil's Advocacy... hlthe2b Jun 2023 #18

that's how I feel.. agingdem Jun 2023 #30

This is the essence of why I don't watch news personalities. brooklynite Jun 2023 #8

I like Maddow because she's thorough and doesn't always toe the party line. Ocelot II Jun 2023 #17

I enjoy the discussions because sometimes Just_Vote_Dem Jun 2023 #23

but here you are in a community of opinions bigtree Jun 2023 #25

She asked the question, which any good journalist would do... Chakaconcarne Jun 2023 #11

Her podcast was about Agnew so I can see why she used him... Spazito Jun 2023 #12

I think she is more of an institutionalist than people realize Doc Sportello Jun 2023 #13

And if she was a left wing radical Just_Vote_Dem Jun 2023 #16

The right wingers don't let facts like that stop them Doc Sportello Jun 2023 #26

Yep, they use anything they can to smear n/t Just_Vote_Dem Jun 2023 #29

More likely Trump will use documents (and/or copies) he still illegally possesses and knowledge of Freethinker65 Jun 2023 #15

Sexist headline. Merlot Jun 2023 #20

In what way? Ocelot II Jun 2023 #38

The DOJ won't do that for the simple reason that from the DOJ's perspective this isn't about JohnSJ Jun 2023 #21

she posited something you disagreed with, and so she's 'lost her mind" bigtree Jun 2023 #22

If she wanted to compare Trump historically, gab13by13 Jun 2023 #47

She didn't say that, but it is a reasonable question what "deals"... getagrip_already Jun 2023 #24

It's OK to pose the question but he would never agree to it Raine Jun 2023 #31

Rachel Maddow has not "lost her mind." vanlassie Jun 2023 #32

I agree. LiberalFighter Jun 2023 #43

Check Eliot Spitzer Renew Deal Jun 2023 #33

Listened to Rachels podcast Bagman..the dangers of the DOJ NOT prosecuting.. asiliveandbreathe Jun 2023 #34

Anytime, that proposition comes up, it infuriates me. It's unacceptable & the 70s are why... themaguffin Jun 2023 #36

I read that as a hypothetical. gibraltar72 Jun 2023 #40

Rachel generally thinks of her audience as children. ananda Jun 2023 #41

I have never ever felt that, just the opposite, that she just wants to share niyad Jun 2023 #52

I didn't say her motives weren't good. I just got tired of her talking down.. ananda Jun 2023 #61

+1 CloudWatcher Jun 2023 #63

In a way that is what happened to Agnew. LiberalFighter Jun 2023 #42

Wouldn't that just prove that it's a political prosecution? WTF? stumpysbear Jun 2023 #44

Boy, you sure have selective listening skills Fiendish Thingy Jun 2023 #45

I have no problem with discussing political deals. Paladin Jun 2023 #46

Any deal to drop all charges against Trump in exchange for his not running for president, gab13by13 Jun 2023 #48

Huh ? She discusses things that could happen. She isn't calling for this JI7 Jun 2023 #49

I WANT him to keep running for president. nt 617Blue Jun 2023 #50

Agnew in '73 will become a playbook going into 2024...for TFG. CincyDem Jun 2023 #51

Talking about it as one of the possibilities is not the same as advocating for it. Iggo Jun 2023 #53

I heard her say this, but it didn't effect me in the same way... msfiddlestix Jun 2023 #54

She's a pundit, and one who is steeped in history and political science. Caliman73 Jun 2023 #55

But you've been bragging/admitting for several WEEKS that you ONLY watch Nicolle. Bongo Prophet Jun 2023 #56

+1 chowder66 Jun 2023 #58

Yet you keep bringing up Mussolini who wasn't American nor indicted in America using American Laws. chowder66 Jun 2023 #59

Discussing isn't endorsing. We should be able to discuss everything. nolabear Jun 2023 #60

Ridiculous. She's asking a question of a guest, yes? She doesn't make suggestions, or demands... Hekate Jun 2023 #62