Why is Rachel going on about Nixon's resignation now?

[LiberalElite]

it happened in AUGUST 1974.

[Kalidurga]

1. I sense a dropping shoe.

[PFunk1]

2. As in?

I'm confused in your meaning by this.

[Kalidurga]

9. Your confusion is neither my problem or concern.

[anigbrowl]

15. There isn't any. It's just the other poster trying to feel clever by being obscure.

Dropping coded references in an attempt to look like you possess inside knowledge is a common conversational gambit on message boards. You can safely ignore it.

[LiberalElite]

3. uh ok - except they just also showed Tricia's wedding in '71.

[LiberalElite]

4. Maybe this a connection: she just mentioned Trumps appearance in NYC tomorrow night

Tricia Nixon Cox's husband is the chair of the event.

Trump, Cruz and Kasich will be there. I work near there. The stench will be BAD.

[malaise]

6. And the fast food workers will be protesting

Cox is also the Re[bTHUG party boss in New York

[malaise]

5. Edward Cox

Nixon's son in law - I loved the history

[awake]

7. Rachel knows how to set up a story like no one else

[LiberalElite]

8. and it's the reason I stopped watching I just want the fkg story nt

[Kalidurga]

10. I am like that myself like get to the point already.

I still think this has something to do with Pantsuits and if it doesn't then one shouldn't bring up Nixon when someone has the FBI waiting to set up an interview with their candidate.

[trumad]

11. Tick Tock BSers...

Tick Tock

[Rex]

20. Why do people get all upset when history is brought up? Educating people never was a bad thing befor

That's stranger then strange imo. I'd hate to see the OP if a reporter were to bring up the Civil Rights movement or the JFK assassination...it was YEARS AGO! GRRR...

Erky...really?

[LiberalElite]

12. I liked her when she had 10 min. on Olbermann's program

when she got a whole hour - I was yelling at the TV WHAT? WHAT? WILL YOU GET TO THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!???
then that business when at the beginning she thanks people for staying tuned- I was only wanting to know what she'd talk about. If I wasn't interested I shut it off.

[Kalidurga]

13. Yeah I like her

I will probably like her more after she drops the corporate shilling by proxy. Still she has a few quirks that are annoying. Maybe when I get my cable tv back I will watch once in a while, but for now I am not missing her.

[anigbrowl]

16. Why keep watching then?

I'm mystified by people who complain about TV news as if they had no way to change the channel or stop watching. I haven't watched any pundit-anchored shows in years, and the only political show I watch even semi-regularly is the McLaughlin Group because I like watching the host insult his studio guests in between shouting matches. Well I also watch Charlie Rose but that's not exclusively political and Rose doesn't position himself as a pundit the way other anchors do.

[LiberalElite]

17. I don't watch her I stopped years ago - I had the sound off -

someone else posted that MNSBC was showing Bernie's speech. By the time I tuned in it was Rachel and a loong segment about Nixon. I clicked back n forth with the sound off because I am not interested in whatever she has to say. In between I went back to Bernie's speech on the computer. I just wanted the headlines on the bottom of the screen.

[Warpy]

14. It might be ancient history to you

but it's one of the two main spite generating engines of the Republican Party.

The other, of course, is letting all those black folks be full citizens.

[LiberalElite]

18. I had the sound off so no context nt

[Rex]

19. Because it was an extremely important point in our modern history?

Does something bother you about it? What a strange OP.