What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official MSNBC Thread*** (1 Viewer)

In fact she is a Rhodes Scholar, for what it is worth. You can tell the OP never watches Maddow as her show is meticulously researched and she gives sources and attribution to the points she is making and the conclusions she is drawing, unlike Hannity who just makes assertions and expects his audience to take his word for it (which they probably do).
She can ramble on a bit, but yeah, she does the research 

 
squistion said:
I do, every weeknight.

You are trolling Max.

Put up or shut up.

Give us a link or stop making these ridiculous claims about a show you never watch.
I gave you something better than a link - I gave you her show.  Watch it like a critical observer.

 
squistion said:
Quit trolling Max unless you can provide a link to back anything you have said about the Maddow show.
Why don't you quit trolling?  I simply asked you to watch her show objectively. :shrug:

 
The new battle, the result of the latest of many FNC scheduling changes over the last year, comes at the end of a quarter that made Maddow the undisputed queen of cable news. Though competitor FNC won the three-month span in primetime and total day, her MSNBC hour bested Hannity among total viewers with an average 2.72 million to his 2.54 million and among adults 25-54 with 606,000 to his 533,000.
Basically the popular vote vs. the electoral college in 2016 but with TV ratings.

 
Such a strange supposed competition. Do they even compete for the same audience? 

Wow, Rachel's got blah guests on tonight; think I'll turn on Hannity instead. 

Who does this? Or vice versa? 

 
Such a strange supposed competition. Do they even compete for the same audience? 

Wow, Rachel's got blah guests on tonight; think I'll turn on Hannity instead. 

Who does this? Or vice versa? 
I doubt Fox is expecting to steal any MSNBC viewers.

The Five is such a boring uninteresting show that even Fox viewers were not tuning in (four condescending conservatives ganging up on Juan Williams is not compelling viewing).

No, the Fox viewers were not watching Rachel after they got their daily dose of Tucker Carlson, they either turned off the TV or watched TCM or whatever. The problem was they didn't all return a hour later to watch Hannity.

Hannity will get good ratings for that hour and a certain percentage of that will carry into the next hour. So Fox should get two hours of overall better ratings with Hannity/next show, rather than The Five/Hannity.

 
 Two Emmy wins for Rachel Maddow!

:pickle:

News & Doc Emmys‏ @newsemmys 38m38 minutes ago

The Emmy for Outstanding Live Interview goes to @Maddow "One-on-one with Kellyanne Conway." #NewsEmmys

The Emmy for Outstanding News Discussion & Analysis goes to @Maddow "An American Disaster: The Crisis in Flint." #NewsEmmys

 
I doubt Fox is expecting to steal any MSNBC viewers.

The Five is such a boring uninteresting show that even Fox viewers were not tuning in (four condescending conservatives ganging up on Juan Williams is not compelling viewing).

No, the Fox viewers were not watching Rachel after they got their daily dose of Tucker Carlson, they either turned off the TV or watched TCM or whatever. The problem was they didn't all return a hour later to watch Hannity.

Hannity will get good ratings for that hour and a certain percentage of that will carry into the next hour. So Fox should get two hours of overall better ratings with Hannity/next show, rather than The Five/Hannity.
Yes, it took them long enough but they made the right moves. They should have just left the 5 at 5, but I guess that made too much sense.

 
Such a strange supposed competition. Do they even compete for the same audience? 

Wow, Rachel's got blah guests on tonight; think I'll turn on Hannity instead. 

Who does this? Or vice versa? 
I'd say almost nobody does that.   They have a completely different group of potential viewers and they know it.   What would happen is people say "Rachel's got blah guests on tonight, Think I'll turn on Andersen Cooper instead".   That's the thing, it's not a surprise that Fox consistently wins the ratings battle, their potential viewers have nowhere else to go if they want to watch a TV news program.    MSNBC and CNN are competing with each other, not with Fox.

 
Such a strange supposed competition. Do they even compete for the same audience? 

Wow, Rachel's got blah guests on tonight; think I'll turn on Hannity instead. 

Who does this? Or vice versa? 
This is a weird statement.  Not so long ago you, squistion and others were crowing about how well Maddow and MSNBC was doing - BASED on the ratings and viewership.

Now that the ratings show Hannity clubbed Maddow like a baby seal suddenly you are all incredulous that people would use ratings to compare similar shows airing at the same time?  And now it's also no big deal?  What changed that suddenly ratings aren't important anymore?

And this "strange supposed competition" isn't really that strange and supposed after all since the networks themselves advertise and boast about it - BASED ON THE RATINGS!  Maybe you're not aware that network executives use ratings all the time to determine if a show is doing well or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a weird statement.  Not so long ago you, squistion and others were crowing about how well Maddow and MSNBC was doing - BASED on the ratings and viewership.

Now that the ratings show Hannity clubbed Maddow like a baby seal suddenly you are all incredulous that people would use ratings to compare similar shows airing at the same time?  And now it's also no big deal?  What changed that suddenly ratings aren't important anymore?

And this "strange supposed competition" isn't really that strange and supposed after all since the networks themselves advertise and boast about it - BASED ON THE RATINGS!  Maybe you're not aware that network executives use ratings all the time to determine if a show is doing well or not.
Link to when I was excited about Maddow's ratings? Or anybody's ratings? 

 
Help me out - did you make it in here earlier and question this "strange supposed competition" when your online liberal pals were crowing about them?  Asking for a friend.
I might have. I was certainly making jokes about Maddow when she was doing well. 

I honestly don't get this competition and never have. 

 
This is a weird statement.  Not so long ago you, squistion and others were crowing about how well Maddow and MSNBC was doing - BASED on the ratings and viewership.

Now that the ratings show Hannity clubbed Maddow like a baby seal suddenly you are all incredulous that people would use ratings to compare similar shows airing at the same time?  And now it's also no big deal?  What changed that suddenly ratings aren't important anymore?

And this "strange supposed competition" isn't really that strange and supposed after all since the networks themselves advertise and boast about it - BASED ON THE RATINGS!  Maybe you're not aware that network executives use ratings all the time to determine if a show is doing well or not.
Update?

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/920681795498242048

 
Yeah, right you don't care, but you went a lot further than a simple rebuttal:

Clubbed her like a baby seal is not crowing?
Once again, I only used it as a rebuttal.  I was only pointing out the truth of the ratings. Me saying that is not an endorsement of Hannity, try as you might.  That's not any different than me saying the saints clubbed the Lions last weekend.  I have no vested interest in either the Lions or the Saints.

 
Richard Engel @RichardEngel 5h5 hours ago

Our investigation into how President Trump made millions from a building tied to organized crime. @Reuters @Global_Witness

Tune in 9pm @MSNBC #OnAssignment

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/panama-tower-carries-trump-s-name-ties-organized-crime-n821706

A Panama tower carries Trump’s name and ties to organized crime

PANAMA CITY — When Ivanka Trump flew here in 2006 to push her family’s latest business project — an oceanfront steel and glass tower called the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, shaped like a sail and designed to be one of the tallest buildings in Latin America — a Brazilian real estate salesman named Alexandre Ventura Nogueira says he was ready with a sales pitch.

Ventura, who said he only had a small real estate company at the time, said he told Ivanka Trump that he could sell condos in the proposed skyscraper for three times the price of similar units in Panama City. The reason: the Trump name, which would go on the building in a licensing deal even though the Trump Organization was not the building’s real developer.

Ventura says he and Ivanka agreed to a kind of challenge. If Ventura could sell apartments as easily as he claimed, and for those high prices, he’d become the main sales representative for the project.

“The agreement was, I had a week to sell 100 units,” Ventura said in a recent interview with NBC News. “I said, ‘I’m going to do better, I’m going to sell without telling (the buyers) the price.”

Ventura did sell the initial units, and later hundreds more. He is now a fugitive. In May 2009, Ventura was arrested in Panama for real estate fraud, unrelated to the Trump project. Mauricio Ceballos, a former financial crimes prosecutor in Panama who investigated Ventura, said that dozens of complaints against Ventura crossed his desk accusing him of double- and triple-selling apartments, both at the Trump Ocean Club and other developments.

Ventura eventually fled Panama while out on bail. He denied having defrauded his clients but admitted to NBC News that he has participated in money laundering on behalf of corrupt Panamanian politicians, unrelated to the building project.

Ventura isn’t the only person associated with the building who has had run-ins with the law. An NBC News investigation into the Trump Ocean Club, in conjunction with Reuters, shows that the project was riddled with brokers, customers and investors who have been linked to drug trafficking and international crime. Ceballos, who investigated the project, went as far as to call the skyscraper “a vehicle for money laundering.”

The investigation revealed no indication that the Trump Organization or members of the Trump family engaged in any illegal activity, or knew of the criminal backgrounds of some of the project’s associates. But Ventura said that the Trumps never asked any questions about the buyers or where the money was coming from.

[...]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ted Lieu‏ @tedlieu 1h1 hour ago

This Panama story looks bigly bad for the Trump family.

It also makes us ask again, why does Ivanka have a security clearance?

By the way, Ivanka blocked me on Twitter. Can you make sure she sees this article? Thanks.

Richard Engel‏Verified account @RichardEngel 5h5 hours ago

Our investigation into how President Trump made millions from a building tied to organized crime. @Reuters @Global_Witness

Tune in 9pm @MSNBC #OnAssignment

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/panama-tower-carries-trump-s-name-ties-organized-crime-n821706

 
Ted Lieu‏ @tedlieu 1h1 hour ago

This Panama story looks bigly bad for the Trump family.

It also makes us ask again, why does Ivanka have a security clearance?

By the way, Ivanka blocked me on Twitter. Can you make sure she sees this article? Thanks.
The investigation revealed no indication that the Trump Organization or members of the Trump family engaged in any illegal activity, or knew of the criminal backgrounds of some of the project’s associates.

In the grand scheme of Trump’s screw-ups and accusations I think this is pretty small potatoes.

 
The investigation revealed no indication that the Trump Organization or members of the Trump family engaged in any illegal activity, or knew of the criminal backgrounds of some of the project’s associates.

In the grand scheme of Trump’s screw-ups and accusations I think this is pretty small potatoes.
Perhaps, but also from the article:

Legal experts contacted by Reuters said the Trumps should have asked those questions. Because Panama is “perceived to be highly corrupt,” said Arthur Middlemiss, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a former head of JPMorgan’s global anti-corruption program, those who do business there should perform due diligence on others involved in their ventures. If they fail to do so, he told Reuters, they risk being liable under U.S. law of turning a blind eye to wrongdoing.

No one asked about the money

In the interview, Ventura admitted that some of his brokers and clients who bought and sold units in the Trump Ocean Club were connected to the Russian mafia and other organized-crime groups, including a convicted money launderer who moved cash for drug cartels.

“I had some customers with questionable backgrounds,” he said. “Nobody ever asked me. Banks never asked. Developer didn’t ask and (the) Trump Organization didn’t ask. Nobody ask, ‘Who are the customers, where did the money come from?’ No, nobody ask.”

 
Perhaps, but also from the article:

Legal experts contacted by Reuters said the Trumps should have asked those questions. Because Panama is “perceived to be highly corrupt,” said Arthur Middlemiss, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a former head of JPMorgan’s global anti-corruption program, those who do business there should perform due diligence on others involved in their ventures. If they fail to do so, he told Reuters, they risk being liable under U.S. law of turning a blind eye to wrongdoing.

No one asked about the money

In the interview, Ventura admitted that some of his brokers and clients who bought and sold units in the Trump Ocean Club were connected to the Russian mafia and other organized-crime groups, including a convicted money launderer who moved cash for drug cartels.

“I had some customers with questionable backgrounds,” he said. “Nobody ever asked me. Banks never asked. Developer didn’t ask and (the) Trump Organization didn’t ask. Nobody ask, ‘Who are the customers, where did the money come from?’ No, nobody ask.”
Let's also not lose the context of Trumps many other frauds and misdealings.  This is not some developer off the turnip truck who got in over their heads and didn't realize the people they were involved with.

This is a man, and family, with many ties to Russian and other mafia types, who have gone afoul of the law on multiple occasions.  Hard for them to feign ignorance on these subjects.

 
I don’t even bother reading anything from biased sources like the ones I mentioned. 
Uh ok. Eventually it will be at least referenced on Fox I'd guess.

Basically the article said there's a fancy high rise in Panama City that pays Trump to put his name on the building. He's made millions and millions off of this (more specifically Ivanka's) deal. There are a bunch of "bad hombres" who are putting their money in there. Real gems like Colombian drug lords and of course Russians. There are lots and lots of shell games like this going on all over the place. Nothing illegal done by Team Trump they just looks the other way and cash the checks.

One might say it's a little swampy though, no?

 
I like my news fair and balanced.   
Just as an FYI and I'm guessing you know this but this is why Trump fans find stuff out weeks or months after the fact. Most recent time I remember that happened is when Trump supporters found out GOP and DNC operatives had paid for the Steele dossier in October... 7 months after Vanity Fair and WaPo reported it in March. When Trump told them on Twitter, boy were they MAD.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top