Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ole Chuck U Todd at his best..
And Jen Psaki brings more? I’m not a fan or foe of Ronna but certainly appears as qualified as 3/4 of the journalists and paid opinion makers across all the networks. Todd doesn’t even appear that talented to me, if NBC ‘s brass had any balls they would at minimum sit him for a few weeks. His predecessor was really good and was a moderate liberal….I think there is legitimate gripe on NBCs choice of hiring Ronna. She brings nothing to the table, and will (her words) say what she is paid to say. She is a "Yes" girl.
She carried trump's election denial water....you don't get a pass for that. She should just go work for fox or newsmax.
I didn't say that about psaki...not a fan of hers and never really have been. She puts off a condescending vibe....And Jen Psaki brings more? I’m not a fan or foe of Ronna but certainly appears as qualified as 3/4 of the journalists and paid opinion makers across all the networks. Todd doesn’t even appear that talented to me, if NBC ‘s brass had any balls they would at minimum sit him for a few weeks. His predecessor was really good and was a moderate liberal….
I get that Todd is a Gamecock legend, but he's not very good at the play by play business. Should be an analyst and you should get a real play by play man.
You're right.I get that Todd is a Gamecock legend, but he's not very good at the play by play business. Should be an analyst and you should get a real play by play man.
That's not the point.I think there is legitimate gripe on NBCs choice of hiring Ronna. She brings nothing to the table, and will (her words) say what she is paid to say. She is a "Yes" girl.
She carried trump's election denial water....you don't get a pass for that. She should just go work for fox or newsmax.
What is the point then?That's not the point.
The point is the Left hired ppl like Michael Steele, who hates Trump, and Stephanopoulos, who had no experience. They have zero professionalism or desire for any type of diversity of thought.What is the point then?
Her election denialism most certainly is a point of contention and adds context to the gripe. She's a liar. Plain and simple. She shouldn't be allowed to spread those lies to a broader audience and be compensated for it.
Did you see her interview? Her "take one for the team" comment was a good look at who she really is...she will say whatever she is paid to say, regardless of it's truthfulness.
NBC stepped in it here for sure... CNN is probably happy she didn't accept their offer.
If you think this is about experience as a journalist you missed the point of why people are not happy with the decision to hire her....that has very little to do with it.The point is the Left hired ppl like Michael Steele, who hates Trump, and Stephanopoulos, who had no experience. They have zero professionalism or desire for any type of diversity of thought.
They're not happy because she's not one of them like Michael Steele or Nicole Wallace. The meltdown is childish and absurd.If you think this is about experience as a journalist you missed the point of why people are not happy with the decision to hire her....that has very little to do with it.
Diversity of thought is one thing. Hiring someone whose loyalty is to the all mighty dollar is another. She is not credible. She adds no diversity of thought.
No. It is because she's a liar. And basically said she will say anything for money (take one for the team comment).They're not happy because she's not one of them like Michael Steele or Nicole Wallace. The meltdown is childish and absurd.
What an ass…todd still the buffoon.
She'll fit in quite well at NBC then.No. It is because she's a liar. And basically said she will say anything for money (take one for the team comment).
NBC and most media outlets are attempting to deny a candidate in a future election, ...I think that is more terrible than denying results of a past electionsWhat is the point then?
Her election denialism most certainly is a point of contention and adds context to the gripe. She's a liar. Plain and simple. She shouldn't be allowed to spread those lies to a broader audience and be compensated for it.
Did you see her interview? Her "take one for the team" comment was a good look at who she really is...she will say whatever she is paid to say, regardless of it's truthfulness.
NBC stepped in it here for sure... CNN is probably happy she didn't accept their offer.
NBC isn't denying anyone anything. They hired Ronna to be that opposing voice; I applaud them for their thought process.NBC and most media outlets are attempting to deny a candidate in a future election, ...I think that is more terrible than denying results of a past elections
Oh, good grief. NBC, Chuck Todd, Kristen Welker and many other supposed impartial, straight news journos at NBC spent the better part of 4 yrs spewing partisan stories they knew were false, including the Russian propaganda line about the laptop. (Pure election interference.)NBC isn't denying anyone anything. They hired Ronna to be that opposing voice; I applaud them for their thought process.
However, their colleagues at NBC are not happy with the hire. They have that right. And in this case I agree with them. Plenty of evidence to support it.
In my opinion, if you are looking for diversity of thought, hiring a known liar and mouthpiece for trump is not the right move. There are better options.
They aren’t happy because she was a significant promoter of the single biggest and most destructive lie in our political history and she is entirely unrepentant.They're not happy because she's not one of them like Michael Steele or Nicole Wallace. The meltdown is childish and absurd.
So if Trump wins Georgia by 125,000 to 150,000 votes in 2024 with the change in absentee voting regulations; specifically ID verification for absentee voting just as F2F, does that make some of Trump’s “fraud lies” as you say move to the well he might have had a point category? For record, I thought he and many of his supporters went over the top with their claims but felt there was most likely real ballot fraud in Fulton, Pittsburgh, Detroit and a few other places. @ willdup made a fair point in saying it could only move needle so much without being detected or exposed. Some republicans pollsters think it swung Georgia by 125K votes, pollsters that have some credibility. If GA’s race is razor thin in 2024, I’ll move my way of thinking but if Trump wins Georgia by 125K or more and Biden wins Pennsylvania and Michigan then we all might take these fraud claims much more seriously. With the millions of $$$ poured into some of these swing states I think the chance of significant fraud should not be so systematically dismissed.They aren’t happy because she was a significant promoter of the single biggest and most destructive lie in our political history and she is entirely unrepentant.
She was lying, she knew she was lying, and she made a conscious decision to “take one for the team” in pursuit of money and power.
The GOP would like to convince the country that, despite a total failure to find any meaningful fraud at all, Trump’s fraud lies are just politics as usual. That’s gaslighting, and I’m guessing it’s going to be a meaningful contributor to yet another electoral underperformance in November.
I’m trying to make sure I understand the scenario here.So if Trump wins Georgia by 125,000 to 150,000 votes in 2024 with the change in absentee voting regulations; specifically ID verification for absentee voting just as F2F, does that make some of Trump’s “fraud lies” as you say move to the well he might have had a point category? For record, I thought he and many of his supporters went over the top with their claims but felt there was most likely real ballot fraud in Fulton, Pittsburgh, Detroit and a few other places. @ willdup made a fair point in saying it could only move needle so much without being detected or exposed. Some republicans pollsters think it swung Georgia by 125K votes, pollsters that have some credibility. If GA’s race is razor thin in 2024, I’ll move my way of thinking but if Trump wins Georgia by 125K or more and Biden wins Pennsylvania and Michigan then we all might take these fraud claims much more seriously. With the millions of $$$ poured into some of these swing states I think the chance of significant fraud should not be so systematically dismissed.
From my perspective, I don't see trump's tent getting any bigger than it was in 2020. I actually see it shrinking.So if Trump wins Georgia by 125,000 to 150,000 votes in 2024 with the change in absentee voting regulations; specifically ID verification for absentee voting just as F2F, does that make some of Trump’s “fraud lies” as you say move to the well he might have had a point category? For record, I thought he and many of his supporters went over the top with their claims but felt there was most likely real ballot fraud in Fulton, Pittsburgh, Detroit and a few other places. @ willdup made a fair point in saying it could only move needle so much without being detected or exposed. Some republicans pollsters think it swung Georgia by 125K votes, pollsters that have some credibility. If GA’s race is razor thin in 2024, I’ll move my way of thinking but if Trump wins Georgia by 125K or more and Biden wins Pennsylvania and Michigan then we all might take these fraud claims much more seriously. With the millions of $$$ poured into some of these swing states I think the chance of significant fraud should not be so systematically dismissed.
They aren't happy bc she's associated with Trump. She didn't buy into the Russia hoax and she doesn't have TDS. No other reason.They aren’t happy because she was a significant promoter of the single biggest and most destructive lie in our political history and she is entirely unrepentant.
She was lying, she knew she was lying, and she made a conscious decision to “take one for the team” in pursuit of money and power.
The GOP would like to convince the country that, despite a total failure to find any meaningful fraud at all, Trump’s fraud lies are just politics as usual. That’s gaslighting, and I’m guessing it’s going to be a meaningful contributor to yet another electoral underperformance in November.
I’m trying to make sure I understand the scenario here.
Are you suggesting that a veritable army of Dem foot soldiers may have collected and cast many tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in multiple states and the only way this could be detected is by inferring fraud through vote composition changes between 2020 and 2024 in different states?
There wasn’t a single disgruntled or scared participant who blew the whistle on this large scale and illegal operation during the multitude of investigations?
There isn’t anyone credible who is still asserting there was massive fraud in 2020. It’s literally down to proven liars like Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote, who promised they had proof of fraud, wouldn’t hand it over to the proper authorities in GA so it could be investigated, were sued by those same authorities, and when they lost the court case and were compelled to produce this “proof”, had to admit that their promised proof didn’t exist.
This has happened over and over again since the last election, particularly when court and threats of perjury are in play.
"From my perspective, I don't see trump's tent getting any bigger than it was in 2020. I actually see it shrinking."From my perspective, I don't see trump's tent getting any bigger than it was in 2020. I actually see it shrinking.
November will be interesting. Whoever wins Georgia does not do so by winning over new voters, they did so by not pissing off the most voters. I think alot of folks sit out this year as they don't want to watch the sequel, which some will say "see! the new laws worked and 2020 was a sham!". I think turnout might actually be lower than 2022. But that's just me...
There is a whole new generation of voters that have come online since 2020 and 2022. I think they will make their voices heard. Will be interesting to see the splits on how they vote.
Not a Ronna fan, but this is ridiculous. The MSM is totally divorced from neutral professional journalism.
"Oh no...it's the consequences of my actions..."Not a Ronna fan, but this is ridiculous. The MSM is totally divorced from neutral professional journalism.
All of man says what they’re paid to say. And they are all yes people. No way that many people can all come up with the exact same talking points on a daily basis. There is never any real debate or discussion. You’re either on board or you’re not welcome.I think there is legitimate gripe on NBCs choice of hiring Ronna. She brings nothing to the table, and will (her words) say what she is paid to say. She is a "Yes" girl.
She carried trump's election denial water....you don't get a pass for that. She should just go work for fox or newsmax.All
come on man, she is the walking talking personification of TDSshe doesn't have TDS. No other reason.
Pretty sure it was more like please get my attorney on the line."Oh no...it's the consequences of my actions..."
- Ronna (probably)
"Neutral" and "professional" are 2 words I would not use to describe Ronna...
My understanding is she got paid $300k for 2 days work...not a bad gig if you can get it...Pretty sure it was more like please get my attorney on the line.
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/26/nbc-news-ronna-mcdaniel-commentatorMy understanding is she got paid $300k for 2 days work...not a bad gig if you can get it...
Exploring legal options? Sure. Doesn't mean she will sue. And if she does, what are the damages? Uphill battle...
But it means she didn't say it was my fault and did in fact call her attorney. So, in a matter of a couple of days when she did nothing but fulfill the terms of her agreement, she was unceremoniously dumped by NBC and her agent. I see a settlement in her future.Exploring legal options? Sure. Doesn't mean she will sue. And if she does, what are the damages? Uphill battle...
Not sure of your point, but you and the other posters who support the meltdown of the NBC staffers are the very definition of entitled wusses. You sound exactly like the pussified college kids who demand safe spaces. The editorial portion of a news channel is by definition supposed to be neutral to the point where viewers decide after hearing both sides. Even Fox does this. But that's not what college kids can handle anymore and it's not what the new Left believes either.come on man, she is the walking talking personification of TDS
she literally dropped her name in order to not trigger Trump re: Romney
THAT is deranged.
Critics said McDaniel took her deference to Trump too far when she reportedly stopped using the name Romney at his suggestion. McDaniel said that’s a “false story,” as she hasn’t changed her name.come on man, she is the walking talking personification of TDS
she literally dropped her name in order to not trigger Trump re: Romney
THAT is deranged.
keep telling yourself this.Not sure of your point, but you and the other posters who support the meltdown of the NBC staffers are the very definition of entitled wusses. You sound exactly like the pussified college kids who demand safe spaces. The editorial portion of a news channel is by definition supposed to be neutral to the point where viewers decide after hearing both sides. Even Fox does this. But that's not what college kids can handle anymore and it's not what the new Left believes either.
I'm still not convinced Trump can win, but it's looking more and more likely as your side looks and acts more and more deranged.
sure, take her word for it.Critics said McDaniel took her deference to Trump too far when she reportedly stopped using the name Romney at his suggestion. McDaniel said that’s a “false story,” as she hasn’t changed her name.
“He joked about it with my husband,” McDaniel said of Trump. “And my husband was like, ‘Hey, it’s nice to not have my name forgotten.’ My husband was thrilled about it, and the president knows that I emphasize the McDaniel more.”
She added: “The president and I have disagreed about things. We have robust discussions. We have a great relationship. But there’s no person on the planet who would tell me, ‘Change your name’ — even the president of the United States — and I would say, ‘OK.’ ”
McDaniel did stop using Romney professionally when she got to the RNC, in part because as Michigan chair, people often dropped the “McDaniel” when introducing her, she said.
-- Melissa Nann Burke, Detroit News Washington Bureau, 02/06/2018
Ronna McDaniel/Chuck Todd's word for it? Hummmm, I'll take neither.sure, take her word for it.