Stressful Interview! (Rachel Maddow Show)

Gosh, this video is almost unwatchable. The way Art Robinson constantly talks over Rachel is suffocating, but I guess that can be a disguise to avoid really looking flawed in his campaign which in a way it is clear that Rachel does not really share much of his beliefs. Robinson uses the same argument every time when avoiding the questions, which in my opinion makes him look rather bad due to the fact that Rachel is quoting directly from his research papers. What is the purpose of an interview/ debate if only one person wants to take over the entire conversation..jeez.

 

Rachel Maddow is retarded. Does SHE care about moveon.org spending MILLIONS on ads anonymously for Kerry and Obama? I think Art did a great job, he wasnt going to be caught in a rachel maddow drive by. Why is she even on air? Shes a shitty left wing version of O'rielly, except very very unsuccessful.

wow i can hardly stomach this, utter yellow journalism.

 

I actually felt bad for her while watching the interview. I can see how someone could get anxious from watching this. I actually found Robinson's responses amusing, because he rarely gave an answer to Maddow's questions. Whether or not he published something fifteen years ago really doesn't affect how relevant the statements are, which I'm guessing are very relevant for how often Robinson pointed out how old the statements were and didn't give any reason as to why he no longer believes those statements. I think that him talking over her questions and commenting on her interview skills derailed the interview more than anything Maddow herself did.

 

No she isnt! lol! the guy is a research scientist, he wrote MILLIONS of words on the subjects she is talking about and she picks a 10 word sentence that sounds bad and then strings an editorial OPINION into it ans saying "are you still a conspiracy theorist " I mean... And you people act like hes cutting her off from her interview, whos interview is this? her views or his? For someone who is supposed to be asking questions, she spent more time pressing opinions then anything else. This video, Rachel Maddow are a sad marker of exactly what is wrong with our "news" i this country. I would call her a bad journalist, but shes not a journalist, at LEAST Bill Orielly admits that he is an editorialist and not a journalist, this is pathetic. She looked like a complete novice and this guy ripped her to shreds, she did more harm to the politician she is trying to help then the one she is trying to hurt.

 

I kept thinking that Obama wouldn't have any trouble with answering her questions given that he had the same history as Art.

 

*Cringe* That was horrible.

 

what's with such strong reactions
just another dumbass, except this one got airtime
you've never seen them before?? they're everywhere

 

I was about to say that I felt a little bad for Robinson, because I found several rumors that said Robinson didn't assume ownership of the newsletter, Access to Energy, until 1993, and that some of the articles Maddow referenced in the interview were written by the supposed former owner, Petr Beckmann. I can't confirm this, however, since the official archive for the newsletter in no way cites an author for the articles, even those post 1993.

However, he didn't even try to mention ownership issues that could have raised questions about the credibility of Maddow's research to the average audience, which leads me to believe the rumors I read on the subject are only rumors. Furthermore, by constantly referring to the age of the articles being 15 years, Robinson indirectly takes full credit for the articles (since 15 years ago would be 1995, two years after Robinson's acquisition of the newsletter). The fact he references writing thousands and thousands of pages without stating whether or not these pages are all published in the newsletter pushes him closer to accepting responsibility for those articles.

Also, for some more after thoughts on the interview, Robinson, by not providing Maddow with substantial answers to the questions presented to him, did not provide the people he wants to vote for him with substantial answers. After watching the interview, I don't know any more about Robinson, or what he and his campaign, stands for than what I would get from watching a political campaign ad.

I'm rambling now... erm, carry on.

 

Exactly my point. Weather Rachel was trying to spread negative ideas is not important, but the fact that Robinson kept on cutting when she was trying to give a question. Not to mention he kept given most of the same responses on to why he does not wish to respond, which made him look rather bad.

 

Wait wait.... that she was trying to smear and ambush a guy running for office is not important, whats important is that he didnt fall into her trap? Seriously? He didnt look bad, he looked rather intelligent, the 1st rule in politics is not to be on the defensive, its to get your points across, Rachel Maddow should have her travesty of a show cancelled, she, continually referencing the 150,000 anonymous dollars he got, woopdidoo, how many millions does MSNBC spend to promote her failing show? Does that get counted in the incumbents favor?

 

because both shows are opposite sides to the same coin

 

you are wrong because you are different
that is all

 

I felt the questions were valid. The girl was on him like stink on shit for dodging her questions but I think they were valid. If I was a citizen I'd want to see a response to the guy's research writings. Maybe he's written a lot and doesn't recall, maybe it's outdated, but that doesn't invalidate the question at all. He should be able to, and should answer. And about that $150,000 anonymous donations, well that's just a matter of fact. There's nothing wrong with stating that point blank.

 

What's the problem with anonymous donations? Shouldn't we be a lot more concerned about funds from those who make their donations known to the candidate and may try to use this to influence policy? I would personally prefer it if all political donations were required to be anonymous.



As they say, "The Solution to Pollution is Dilution." It is true that reducing human radiation expose beyond a certain point does more harm than good (essentially, if there is not enough radiation for the body to recognize then the mechanisms it uses to defend against what little radiation there is get shut down), but short of living in lead containers it is very hard to reduce levels that much in most parts of the country. I do remember reading about one or two spots where radiation levels are too low for human health though.




This reminded me a lot of my attempts to debate things with my father. I'm guessing Art is also an INTJ who relies too heavily on his immature tertiary Fi. What type is Maddow, ENTP?

 

Can you link the video for me? The embedded videos arent working for me.

 

Maddow is the best; just saying ... I miss her show (MSNBC streaming took a beating somewhere, making Olbermann and herself unwatchable.) I still heartily approve of both, though