MSNBC: Harris and Warren are "extremists"

[garybeck]

WTF MSNBC?

Listening to MSNBC (no video) so I can't tell who is talking.

But for the last 20 minutes they have been saying that Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are "extremists" and Howard Schultz is a centrist.

MOST people want universal health care. that is NOT extremist!!

WTF MSNBC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[DonViejo]

1. Schultz has been running around saying that for the last 24 hours.

[garybeck]

3. Fuck him. n/t

[DonViejo]

7. No thank you. There are OP's in the Gen Discussions Forum and the LBN Forum reporting on

this twit.

[RGinNJ]

2. More Chuck Todd bullshit.

[bdamomma]

36. Chris Matthews probably

say the same thing, they both spew crap.

[walkingman]

4. Schultz is just another billionaire who thinks he can buy his way into the WH. It's happen before!!

[spanone]

5. Gotta be the chuck toad show......If I'm watching, I go elsewhere during that hour

[garybeck]

8. very disappointing. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Guess what station is NOT on our side?

[garybeck]

10. i give up. which one(s)?

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Pretty much all of them, it seems

I never actually watch news (let alone opinion) because I'd end up breaking my TV.

Anyway, DU has always got people reacting with shock when something unworthy shows up on MSNBC.

By now, the shock should have worn off.

[violetpastille]

30. Thank you.

I remember Chris Hayes and Rachel during 2016. Like it was yesterday.

Chris Hayes staring gawp-mouthed at Kellyanne Conway with no pushback and Rachel Maddow gleefully bouncing in her seat, sucking up to Kellyanne "I love it so much, thank you so much for making time, I really like talking to you." and "Interesting times! Woohoo!"

Ali Belshi and Lawrence Maddow are okay. The rest of them, especially the Republicans and Mrs. Alan Greenspan are a waste of time and makeup.

[PufPuf23]

21. I would suggest none of them. nt

[samnsara]

9. i decided to sit chuck out and watch mamas family for the 10th time.....

[spanone]

18. A much more enlightening choice!!!!!

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. Start the election manipulation.

[TeamPooka]

12. you are attributing comments made by pundits to an entire network.

[FiveGoodMen]

14. Who decides which pundits get air time?

[TeamPooka]

20. DU lets you post here, but your comments are not endorsed or official DU policy.

You understand the difference?
Same applies to MSNBC
Also, MSNBC has many different shows that feature a variety of viewpoints.
Listening to Morning Joe would elicit different commentary than All In or even Deadline Washington.
But go ahead, lump them all together without context.
You'll be fine.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Now let's hang on a minute

Does DU's policy endorse MSNBC as part of the party?

[TeamPooka]

24. that's a deflection. Or you don't understand the analogy.

[UniteFightBack]

34. I agree with the lumping and generalities....it's quite dramatic and I also don't understand how

folks don't understand that the media bashing just benefits rump. Really I can't understand it.

[elleng]

16. Thanks

[obnoxiousdrunk]

32. This.

[dem4decades]

15. I'll watch Nicole Wallace on delay from 5 to 6 then Ari.

[dalton99a]

17. Fuck Howard Schultz.

[ProudLib72]

19. There are three and only three reporters you can trust

Rachel, Lawrence, and Joy. The rest are shitstirrers.

[TeamPooka]

23. Chris Hayes too...

When he schooled voters at a recent town hall in Michigan who talked about needing a "Charismatic candidate" to vote Democratic was the best 2 minutes of TV I've ever seen.

[ProudLib72]

25. Yes, I'll add Chris Hayes to the list

He likes to interrupt his guests, though, and that gets annoying.

The point is that there is an extremely short list.

[bdamomma]

37. my three favourites

are Joy, Rachel and Lawrence. Chris is ok.

[Hoyt]

26. It's some Schultz paid hack.

[Mike Nelson]

27. Sounds like...

… Chuck Todd's show. He wants to appear "fair and balanced." Trump is extremist.

[GulfCoast66]

28. I don't want MSNBC or CNN to be a liberal FOX.

There is a reason Fox never has well spoken liberals on their shows. Because our arguments win. Every time.

Let the right try to declare that those for Universal Healthcare are extremest. We have already won that argument. The only question is which form it will take.

Overall both networks and NPR are doing a much better job of fact correcting the lies than in 2016.

[Salviati]

29. The problem with that whole "Socially liberal but Fiscally 'Conservative'" spiel that pundits like..

... is that there's no there there:


No one occupies those positions except billionaires and pundits, and there aren't enough of those to win an election for dogcatcher...

[violetpastille]

31. And Racist Stoners from the PNW

We have tons.

[Ferrets are Cool]

35. I hate when people use that line...

it is so milktoast and to me it means they WILL vote for a Repug when given the opportunity. To me is it 100% disingenious.

[triron]

33. Rachel would not say that!

[JHB]

38. Extremists (according to Schultz)

And probably these guys too

[JHB]

39. Oh, silly me! I only went back to FDR!

1917: top marginal rate 67% on income over $2million ($35.9 million in 2013 dollars)
1918: top marginal rate 77% on income over $1million ($15.2 million in 2013 dollars)
1919-1921: top marginal rate 73% on income over $1million (~$10-13 million in 2013 dollars)
1922-1923 top marginal rate 58% on income over $200,000 (~$2.6 million in 2013 dollars)
1924: top marginal rate 46% on income over $500,00 ($6.7 million in 2013 dollars)

1925-1931: A Schultz- and Republican-friendly top marginal rate of 25%, but still much more progressive tax bracket scale than today. The lowest bracket was 1.5%, on taxable income up to $4000 ($60,419 in 2013 dollars)

So that adds...