Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:38 PM Jul 2016

You guys remember Ed Schultz on MSNBC? Now he works for RT and he's pro-Putin and pro-Trump....

Back when he hosted a prime-time talk show on MSNBC, Ed Schultz divided the world into heroes and villains. The heroes usually included Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The villains were most Republicans, and especially Donald J. Trump. When Trump obsessed over Obama’s birth certificate and academic credentials in 2011, Schultz branded him “a racist.” When Trump flirted with running for president the next year, Schultz ridiculed him. “Who has shown any interest in Donald Trump being the next president of the United States other than Donald Trump?” he fumed. “Mr. Trump, stop embarrassing yourself!”

Another bad guy was Russian President Vladimir Putin. Schultz delighted in ripping conservatives for what he called their “love affair” with the Russian leader and his ability to make Obama look weak on the world stage. “They hate Obama so much they will even embrace the head of the KGB ... ‘Putie’ is their new hero!” Schultz said in one 2013 segment. In another, he smugly reminded conservatives about Putin’s “nasty human rights record” and the way his “reckless behavior” was “crippling” Russia. More generally, Schultz often framed GOP opposition to Obama as “anti-American” or “unpatriotic.”

That was all before last July, when MSNBC abruptly canceled The Ed Show after a six-year run and dumped the 62-year-old prairie populist from the network. By the time Schultz resurfaced this January, he had been reincarnated in a very different journalistic form: as a prime-time host, reporter and political analyst for RT America, the U.S. branch of the global cable network formerly known as Russia Today, funded by the Russian government.

Gone is the praise for Obama and Clinton. Gone, too, are the mocking references to “Putie.” And gone are the judgments about others’ patriotism. Schultz’s 8 p.m. RT show, The News with Ed Schultz, now features Putin-friendly discussions about the failings of U.S. policy in the Middle East, America’s “bloated” defense budget and the futility of NATO strategy.


Even Trump is getting a new look from Schultz. Speaking at various points on RT in recent months, Schultz has said that Trump “has tapped into an anger among working people,” is “talking about things the people care about,” and even, as Schultz recently declared, that Trump “would easily be able to function” as president.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833

151 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You guys remember Ed Schultz on MSNBC? Now he works for RT and he's pro-Putin and pro-Trump.... (Original Post) Cali_Democrat Jul 2016 OP
Good grief, that's revolting. apcalc Jul 2016 #1
Did Wendy leave him? I bet he is a selfish slob GusBob Jul 2016 #11
Politico: "As Trump has risen, RT has gotten much more interested Hortensis Jul 2016 #77
It's revolting to you because it's bullshit, at least part of it is. Stevepol Jul 2016 #122
Very sad, used to like him and Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #2
He's backing Stein not Trump. JRLeft Jul 2016 #5
And Stein is backing Trump...without saying so. nt glennward Jul 2016 #9
LMFAO! JRLeft Jul 2016 #13
What is so funny? hrmjustin Jul 2016 #16
She's not backing Trump. JRLeft Jul 2016 #21
No but helping him. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #23
She's going to lose ND, but it still helps him? How? JRLeft Jul 2016 #27
She is not only running in ND. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #32
He's voting in ND. So that doesn't impact ND. It's going Trump. JRLeft Jul 2016 #39
Ok but in post 23 I was making the point overall Stein is helping Trump. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #44
Gary Johnson is and is having a bigger impact than Stein. JRLeft Jul 2016 #49
Yes he is having an impact. But my point still stands that Stein is helping Trump. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #52
In my opinion those 2 should be allowed in the debates. JRLeft Jul 2016 #55
I don't. I don't want Stein to get any help. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #59
Presidential debates should include all of the political parties and should be questioned JRLeft Jul 2016 #62
All political parties? So we should have like 30 people on the debate stage? Lord Magus Jul 2016 #85
Nader Nader Nader... Stryder Jul 2016 #107
Hillary is the best candidate and Stein is helping Trump. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #113
All 2016 Presidential Candidates should be included in the debates SticksnStones Jul 2016 #121
Fuck Nader and Nader-like tactics. nt JTFrog Jul 2016 #139
Nope, he has plenty of nice things to say about trump joeybee12 Jul 2016 #36
Backing Stein is backing Trump. DanTex Jul 2016 #97
I'm starting to understand this now. chwaliszewski Jul 2016 #101
Are you offended that Democrats would attack Stein? Maru Kitteh Jul 2016 #137
Offended? No. It's the logic or lack of that is troublesome. chwaliszewski Jul 2016 #143
He's not the only progressive hero rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #3
And Putin has money to burn - stolen from the Russian people, of course. But that's what despots do: BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #17
I'm sure you think Maddow has some integrity left as well. revbones Jul 2016 #79
Absolutely rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #87
He doesn't support Trump I've watched his show. JRLeft Jul 2016 #4
Close enough. (nt) Skinner Jul 2016 #6
Jill Stein isn't Trump. His state is going republican anyway. JRLeft Jul 2016 #7
Actually, yes, she is Trump. Tehre is no difference. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #15
Today's Green Party is useless except as a way of expressing rejection Hortensis Jul 2016 #64
Anybody who has ever even barely studied poltics understands how this works. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #68
Yep. A vote for her is indeed a vote for Trump. This isn't rocket science. grossproffit Jul 2016 #83
fuck that nonsense. It isn't the same thing at all. If that ends up being the result, it isn't a JCanete Jul 2016 #88
There is no principle involved in voting for Fascist Stein. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #89
Okay, I'll step back from what I said, if your complaint is about Stein as a candidate, and not as JCanete Jul 2016 #92
No their complaint is not about Stein. It is hyperbole and nonsense. Hyper_Eye Jul 2016 #120
thanks for the clarification, and sadly, no surprise. nt JCanete Jul 2016 #125
Stein is an outright openly stated FASCIST, and so is anybody who would vote for her. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #140
Your ill logic is truly unbelievable. chwaliszewski Jul 2016 #144
Plus 1000! JustAnotherGen Jul 2016 #151
This! eom grossproffit Jul 2016 #12
Agreed. TwilightZone Jul 2016 #50
That was obvious based on the quotes Dem2 Jul 2016 #119
Revolting. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #8
Except he's not backing Trump. JRLeft Jul 2016 #14
No he is supporting Stein which is just as sad. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #19
Yes, he is. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #22
Hillary was going to win North Dakota? JRLeft Jul 2016 #25
Irrelevent. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #26
Please explain? JRLeft Jul 2016 #29
I already did. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #31
No you didn't you just repeated a point. JRLeft Jul 2016 #35
You obviously missed it. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #38
Saying they are the same isn't an explanation it's a talking point. JRLeft Jul 2016 #41
Yep, you missed it. eom MohRokTah Jul 2016 #48
No I didn't you have no standing which is why you cannot explain JRLeft Jul 2016 #53
I explained it. You missed it. That's it. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #56
Are you trying to say Stein is fascist or Trump is a progressive it's one or the other? JRLeft Jul 2016 #60
Stein is a fascist. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #65
Evidence? JRLeft Jul 2016 #67
Every election since 1856. eom MohRokTah Jul 2016 #69
You made it up. At least you admit it. JRLeft Jul 2016 #70
Flag on the play... MohRokTah Jul 2016 #74
I like you, even though I disagree with most of your posts. JRLeft Jul 2016 #75
How about her polling 3% in polls? HarmonyRockets Jul 2016 #127
So if you don't vote at all, who is it helping? chwaliszewski Jul 2016 #103
That's not how voting math works... Nancyswidower Jul 2016 #128
By proxy he is... he doesn't need to say the words uponit7771 Jul 2016 #132
Oh noes Iliyah Jul 2016 #10
you are kidding..right? chillfactor Jul 2016 #18
He was once a Republican RonniePudding Jul 2016 #30
I'll add my voice to the 'revolting' chorus. randome Jul 2016 #20
I never bought his schtick RonniePudding Jul 2016 #24
GOP Past runaway hero Jul 2016 #46
GOP past AS AN ADULT RonniePudding Jul 2016 #47
Warren was a repub until 96 runaway hero Jul 2016 #82
I have zero idea as to what you're talking about RonniePudding Jul 2016 #86
Warren was a Republican who voted for Reagan. She tells her story and admits this openly. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2016 #131
I'm aware of that RonniePudding Jul 2016 #135
Seems like maybe you aren't. Squinch Jul 2016 #72
Seems like you missed the point. runaway hero Jul 2016 #81
Nope. I got the point just fine. Squinch Jul 2016 #112
I never cared much for Ed Schultz's faux journalism on MSNBC, which was a caricature of the left. Music Man Jul 2016 #28
Way to sell your soul Ed mcar Jul 2016 #33
EW....just, ew. n/t renie408 Jul 2016 #34
Shultz goes wherever someone will pay him to go. sufrommich Jul 2016 #37
Bingo. runaway hero Jul 2016 #99
He's backing stein runaway hero Jul 2016 #40
I don't know about this story or RT in general but Ed just never struck me as genuine. Gidney N Cloyd Jul 2016 #42
He's backing Stein. JRLeft Jul 2016 #45
Backing Stein helps Putin's boy, Trump Maru Kitteh Jul 2016 #138
How exactly do you figure that? chwaliszewski Jul 2016 #145
He started out on conservative radio. rug Jul 2016 #43
David Brock destroyed Anita Hill, but he gets a pass right? JRLeft Jul 2016 #51
Brock is supporting the nominee. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #54
So he gets a pass. Got it. JRLeft Jul 2016 #58
If you read DU for the past year you would know Brockwas regularly attacked here. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #61
Anita Hill wasn't destroyed. rug Jul 2016 #73
Ed cut his teeth as a right wing talk show host. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #94
Alas poor Eddy we knew him not well. Blue Idaho Jul 2016 #57
I'd say... Mike Nelson Jul 2016 #63
Bernie was a frequent guest on his MSNBC show. ecstatic Jul 2016 #66
Ed is a POS DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #71
Sicken betrayal... beachbumbob Jul 2016 #76
Wonder where are his big union buddies now, guess when all else fails join some one else, Thinkingabout Jul 2016 #78
My memory escapes me. Was McCarthy a DEM or GOP? 👻 Purveyor Jul 2016 #80
They had those thin leather helmets back when he played football. Hoyt Jul 2016 #84
Thom Hartmann also on RT was a Bernie supporter and he is convinced Trump doc03 Jul 2016 #90
Thom Hartmann says Trump will win if Hillary doesn't tack to the left of Trump on TPP. JRLeft Jul 2016 #136
Not surprising to me... Sancho Jul 2016 #91
Article mentions Trump's buddy Michael Flynn attending the RT gala wishstar Jul 2016 #93
RT strives for subtlety RonniePudding Jul 2016 #106
Read that this morning Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2016 #95
Sad about Larry King. He used to be an old school liberal. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #96
Schultz proved years back he wasnt above lying on his show. 7962 Jul 2016 #98
I have been here since 2003 and this thread is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen on DU. radiclib Jul 2016 #100
I wish DU would allow me to recommend your reply. eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #104
But.......... guillaumeb Jul 2016 #102
I never did care for him. And contrary to popular belief here, he was cancelled due to low ratings. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #105
Ed must have drank some of that TAINTED WATER in Flint yuiyoshida Jul 2016 #108
It's not true. nt riderinthestorm Jul 2016 #124
Hahaha reign88 Jul 2016 #109
Schultz doesn't support Hillary but he also doesn't support Trump... raindaddy Jul 2016 #110
The Article is More Innuendo than Facts mckara Jul 2016 #111
Please Botany Jul 2016 #114
Gotta do something to keep the liquor cabinet full. nt 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #115
He railed in favor of the Keystone Pipeline for more than six months, and then.... George II Jul 2016 #116
Here he is with Putin! warrprayer Jul 2016 #117
Are you sure that isn't Ted Cruz's dad? redstateblues Jul 2016 #118
Wow! Talk about misinformation. chwaliszewski Jul 2016 #146
I was warrprayer Jul 2016 #147
trump has tapped into the rascist bigoted idiocy that's in America..anyone Cha Jul 2016 #123
I am surprised. I always considered him a moderate Dem. wisteria Jul 2016 #126
Is this a joke??? Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2016 #129
He's supporting Stein, might as well be supporting tRump uponit7771 Jul 2016 #133
Bummer, but I don't read that as an endorsement flamingdem Jul 2016 #130
How does this even happen? This is completely revolting. Hekate Jul 2016 #134
Really? tallahasseedem Jul 2016 #141
I never missed his show MFM008 Jul 2016 #142
He sold his soul. Disappointing. NT Adrahil Jul 2016 #148
back to his roots DrDan Jul 2016 #149
Mike Malloy has been saying for years that Ed is a phony. B Calm Jul 2016 #150

GusBob

(7,286 posts)
11. Did Wendy leave him? I bet he is a selfish slob
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jul 2016

The only reason he went "liberal" is he met her. That and Rush had the bowhard ratings damped up across the midwest

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
77. Politico: "As Trump has risen, RT has gotten much more interested
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:25 PM
Jul 2016
in the U.S. presidential campaign. Tune in to Ed Schultz and his colleagues these days and you’ll find a presidential race featuring Hillary Clinton as a malevolent warmonger, Bernie Sanders as an insurgent hero—and Donald Trump as a foreign policy savant.

A network that up until now has found little to celebrate about America has finally settled on a candidate it can believe in. Vladimir Putin’s TV channel isn’t just covering the 2016 campaign: Increasingly, it’s choosing sides.
...
Speaking at various points on RT in recent months, Schultz has said that Trump “has tapped into an anger among working people,” is “talking about things the people care about,” and even, as Schultz recently declared, that Trump “would easily be able to function” as president.
...
Seated next to Simonyan at the dinner and just two seats away from Putin himself was perhaps the most intriguing example of how the Russians have gone about recruiting disaffected members of that establishment: a rugged-looking man in a tuxedo who less than 18 months earlier had been head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s powerful in-house equivalent of the CIA. Michael Flynn, now a private citizen after a reportedly disgruntled retirement, was not there to gather intelligence. His attendance at the RT gala, before which he also gave a talk on world affairs, appeared to inaugurate a relationship with the network—
...
At a moment of semi-hostility between the U.S. and Russia, the presence of such an important figure at Putin’s table startled current and former members of the Obama administration. “It was extremely odd that he showed up in a tuxedo to the Russian government propaganda arm’s party,” one former Pentagon official told me.
...
Flynn now makes semi-regular appearances on RT as an analyst (interviewed by Schultz occasionally), in which he often argues that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war. “Russia has its own national security strategy, and we have to respect that,” he said in one recent appearance. “And we have to try to figure out: How do we combine the United States’ national security strategy along with Russia’s national security strategy, despite all the challenges that we face?”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833#ixzz4FNIfrV2U


Michael Flynn, whom Trump was just considering for VP, he admires him so much.
Ed Schultz who now sees Obama as the world's troublemaker.

Stevepol

(4,234 posts)
122. It's revolting to you because it's bullshit, at least part of it is.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jul 2016

Schultz is not "pro-Putin."

Schultz is, as usual, telling it like it is. Read the quotes below the incendiary headline and you'll see that the Politico article says that "now (his show) features Putin-friendly discussions about the failings of U.S. policy in the Middle East, America’s “bloated” defense budget and the futility of NATO strategy." This sounds like a pretty apt opinion, i.e., that US policy in the Middle East is lousy, the defense budget is indeed "bloated" and a constant confrontational attitude toward Putin is not necessarily the best approach. The remark about Schultz's discussions being "Putin-friendly" is purely Politico's opinion. The ideas are essential good. Shultz isn't on Putin's side because he recognizes limitations in US foreign policy.

I was unaware of Schultz's statement, assuming it's true, that Putin “would easily be able to function” as president. That's a little over the top. I suspect there might be some slicing up of quotes to make something appear to be true that may not be. Because Trump definitely wouldn't be able to tie his shoes as prez without the "mob" or some other criminal type to tell him how to do it and even then he would tell twenty lies on the way to getting them tied, if he ever did, and in the end he'd probably end up buying a whole new pair of expensive shoes rather than worrying about learning to do something so demeaning as tying his own shoelaces the next time. He's definitely the worst presidential candidate I've seen and I doubt if a worse candidate could be found in all of American history.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
44. Ok but in post 23 I was making the point overall Stein is helping Trump.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:57 PM
Jul 2016

Meaning nationally which she clearly is.

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
62. Presidential debates should include all of the political parties and should be questioned
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:06 PM
Jul 2016

by the League of Women Voters.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
85. All political parties? So we should have like 30 people on the debate stage?
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:42 PM
Jul 2016

The Libertarians and Greens aren't the only minor parties that nominate presidential candidates. Why should we distract from the debate between the actual contenders by also including every vanity candidate who gets their name on the ballot somewhere?

Stryder

(450 posts)
107. Nader Nader Nader...
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:41 PM
Jul 2016

That shit's gettin' old.
If you want to get elected, be the best
candidate for the majority of the people.
Easy Peasy.

SticksnStones

(2,108 posts)
121. All 2016 Presidential Candidates should be included in the debates
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jul 2016

From Ballotpedia.org



As of July 15, 2016, a total of 1,796 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission.[1].


It could become quite unwieldy...


Maru Kitteh

(28,339 posts)
137. Are you offended that Democrats would attack Stein?
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:48 AM
Jul 2016

Take it up with Skinner

In the discussion thread: Are we allowed to criticize Jill Stein? [View all]

Response to rbrnmw (Original post)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 11:37 AM

Star Member Skinner (62,247 posts)
1. Of course.

The DU Terms of Service make clear that we support the Democratic nominee. Presidential elections in the United States are a zero-sum game in which other candidates must lose in order for the Democratic candidate to win. We are competing with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump in our effort to win the presidency. They are our opponents.

chwaliszewski

(1,514 posts)
143. Offended? No. It's the logic or lack of that is troublesome.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 03:24 AM
Jul 2016

If you vote for Hillary, she has one vote. If I vote for the rabbit from Trix cereal, Trump's vote total doesn't increase by one because of me. So the whole 'a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump' spiel is all hogwash.

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
3. He's not the only progressive hero
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:41 PM
Jul 2016

on the RT payroll.

They're entertainers: they say what they're paid to say.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
17. And Putin has money to burn - stolen from the Russian people, of course. But that's what despots do:
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:47 PM
Jul 2016

steal from their people, and Putin's networth today is over $200 BILLION, more than twice that of Bill Gates!

Let's also not forget how Schultz lobbied on his MSNBC show to "teach the BlueDogs a lesson" and for "Liberals to stay home" in 2010. He got his wish and in a census year of all years, too!

The Republicans took control of our House and swept through States (except California, thanks to the Latino and African-American vote) where they took control of governors houses and State legislatures for at least 10 years.

Look how well that worked out for us ever since.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
79. I'm sure you think Maddow has some integrity left as well.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:31 PM
Jul 2016

But isn't she just an "entertainer" too?

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
87. Absolutely
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:44 PM
Jul 2016

You can tell she is constrained by whom she works for. However, her employer is not directly an institution controlled by state power. And it's an American company. So there are differences.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
15. Actually, yes, she is Trump. Tehre is no difference.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:46 PM
Jul 2016

A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.

There is no difference.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
64. Today's Green Party is useless except as a way of expressing rejection
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:07 PM
Jul 2016

of the other parties, for making a statement by trashing their own votes. But for some that's value enough.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
68. Anybody who has ever even barely studied poltics understands how this works.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:10 PM
Jul 2016

If you want to start a new party, it must be built from the ground up, not the top down.

Every third party wannabe since the Republicans did it the right way pre-Civil War has attempted to build their party from the top down and every one of them has failed.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
88. fuck that nonsense. It isn't the same thing at all. If that ends up being the result, it isn't a
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:48 PM
Jul 2016

Stein supporters fault that it went that way. Your insistence on diminishing people who try to vote on principle is pretty shameful. If the democratic party had been what it should have been the last 30-40 years, reactionary magnets like Trump would never have been able to survive in the political climate, so while I'm not one of the supporters of a third party candidate, I understand the frustration with the establishment and the GAME of politics it likes to play out for the masses, while the same interests continue to get served. Bother to make a nuanced and thoughtful argument as to why people shouldn't vote for Stein for a change. There are plenty of good reasons, and even practical ones, without resorting to name-calling and accusations.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
89. There is no principle involved in voting for Fascist Stein.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:50 PM
Jul 2016

IT is the exact same thing as voting for Trump.

There is no measurable difference whatsoever.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
92. Okay, I'll step back from what I said, if your complaint is about Stein as a candidate, and not as
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:53 PM
Jul 2016

a spoiler. I may have misinterpreted your original post, and I haven't looked hard at her platform, and have no business commenting on that or your opinion of it. So if I did mistake you, my apologies.

Hyper_Eye

(675 posts)
120. No their complaint is not about Stein. It is hyperbole and nonsense.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jul 2016

You can read about some of Stein's political beliefs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein#Political_positions

Her platform is very liberal and most of it is generally supported by people on this site. Further down the truth is revealed when the poster states that there are only two possible votes in this election: for Hillary or for Trump. They stipulate that a vote for anyone other than Hillary is the same as voting for Trump and thus a vote for fascism. Through this silly logic they label Stein a fascist. It's absolutely ridiculous. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Stein and nobody else.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
140. Stein is an outright openly stated FASCIST, and so is anybody who would vote for her.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:55 AM
Jul 2016

She claimed Trump was better than Hillary. That makes her a self avowed FASCIST!

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
119. That was obvious based on the quotes
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:32 PM
Jul 2016

Most reporters have acknowledged similar when attempting to explain the Trump nomination.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
22. Yes, he is.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:47 PM
Jul 2016

You just admitted he is supporting Stein and there is not any difference at all between supporting Stein and supporting Trump.

They are identical positions.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
26. Irrelevent.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:50 PM
Jul 2016

Voting Stein is morally the same thing as voting Trump regardless of where you live.

They are identical positions.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
65. Stein is a fascist.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:08 PM
Jul 2016

There are two choices in our presidential elections. A vote against the Democrat is a vote for a fascist.

There are no other choices.

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
75. I like you, even though I disagree with most of your posts.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:17 PM
Jul 2016

😂😂😂😂😂

You're entertaining.

 

HarmonyRockets

(397 posts)
127. How about her polling 3% in polls?
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:56 PM
Jul 2016

It's down to 2 people you know.

Who are you planning on voting for, by the way?

chwaliszewski

(1,514 posts)
103. So if you don't vote at all, who is it helping?
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jul 2016

I've never voted Republican in my 30 years of voting but some of the logic by some Democrats here is just insane.

 

Nancyswidower

(182 posts)
128. That's not how voting math works...
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:37 PM
Jul 2016

Say you vote for Hillary...that's a vote in her column....say I vote for Sponge Bob...that is NOT a vote for Trump
Hillary's vote total has NOT been decreased and the Dumpster's has NOT been increased.
Just a smaller pool of main candidate votes...NOT a Trumpanzee vote.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
20. I'll add my voice to the 'revolting' chorus.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:47 PM
Jul 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

RonniePudding

(889 posts)
24. I never bought his schtick
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:48 PM
Jul 2016

His GOP past always gave me pause.

Oh, and fuck RT and Putin and anyone else who gives them cover or actively supports them.

runaway hero

(835 posts)
46. GOP Past
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:58 PM
Jul 2016

Last edited Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

So why are you backing Hillary then.


All I hear is don't play the purity game... every day...

runaway hero

(835 posts)
82. Warren was a repub until 96
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:35 PM
Jul 2016

She and schultz have (had?) the same positions on the issues.


You see where this is leading right? You can't do the purity thing at will.

 

RonniePudding

(889 posts)
86. I have zero idea as to what you're talking about
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:43 PM
Jul 2016

And I have zero idea why you're so hung up on purity. It's a little odd, frankly.

But hey, you do whatever you need to do. I'll be working to defeat Trump, a long with most people here.

Tah-Tah

Music Man

(1,184 posts)
28. I never cared much for Ed Schultz's faux journalism on MSNBC, which was a caricature of the left.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:52 PM
Jul 2016

"Time to get out your phones for today's poll. 'Do you think John Boehner is a terrible Speaker of the House?' And the results are in... Wow! 98% think John Boehner is a terrible Speaker!"

He was actually a Republican until the late '90s or so. He's a mere talk show host. A weathervane, actually.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
37. Shultz goes wherever someone will pay him to go.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:55 PM
Jul 2016

When he couldn't make it as a right wing radio host he moved to the left. Can't stand the guy.

Gidney N Cloyd

(19,833 posts)
42. I don't know about this story or RT in general but Ed just never struck me as genuine.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:56 PM
Jul 2016

Can't put my finger on it but something about him just threw red flags up all over the place. His support of progressive positions was great yet it was interesting how seldom any other progressives aligned with him. He seemed alone out there like no progressives in a position to know him wanted to risk their reputations.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
43. He started out on conservative radio.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:57 PM
Jul 2016
After two decades of sports reporting, Schultz launched a 2 1/2-hour regional talk show in 1996.

The show, which he continues to host, blends interviews with local officials and sharp-edged banter with callers, spiced up with Big Eddie's rants about national affairs. He might report on a local school board meeting, break for the latest on pork belly futures, then swerve into acid commentary on the presidential primaries. The broadcast area reaches into South Dakota and Minnesota; on any given morning, nearly 30% of radio listeners in the region are tuned in to his show.

For years, Schultz's patter on the regional show was conservative. He scoffed at the homeless for complaining about the cold. "How about getting a job?" he'd ask. He sneered at the three Democrats who represent him in Congress, nicknaming them the Three Stooges.

"I lined up with the Republicans because they were antitax, and I wanted to make a lot of money," Schultz said.

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2004/feb/05/nation/na-radio5
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
61. If you read DU for the past year you would know Brockwas regularly attacked here.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:06 PM
Jul 2016

He never got a free pass.

We are not in primary mode anymore.

This site is about getting Clinton elected now.

Blue Idaho

(5,049 posts)
57. Alas poor Eddy we knew him not well.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:03 PM
Jul 2016

Or maybe we did. Being a celebrity is expensive - so as long as someone is writing him a check, he'll be ready willing and able to read their scripts.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
71. Ed is a POS
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:13 PM
Jul 2016

He began his career as a right wing talk show host but he wasn't able to compete with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity so he went left... He couldn't cut the mustard there either....

Check my posting history. I saw right through that charlatan from the jump.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
78. Wonder where are his big union buddies now, guess when all else fails join some one else,
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:27 PM
Jul 2016

Can see now he was never a friend of unions.

doc03

(35,325 posts)
90. Thom Hartmann also on RT was a Bernie supporter and he is convinced Trump
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:50 PM
Jul 2016

is going to win the election the last I heard.

wishstar

(5,268 posts)
93. Article mentions Trump's buddy Michael Flynn attending the RT gala
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:54 PM
Jul 2016

Thanks for posting this article. I was not aware of this Russian funded propaganda network before. Larry King doing their bidding too.

Putin/Trump/Flynn/Manafort are thick as thieves.

Although Ed Schultz is not "endorsing" Trump, if the article is accurate in describing Ed's comments, he is "enabling" Trump and Russian agenda by soft pedaling any criticism of Trump and making him seem more palatable to American voters.

 

RonniePudding

(889 posts)
106. RT strives for subtlety
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:41 PM
Jul 2016

If they were openly pro Putin they wouldn't be able to bamboozle some on the far left. If you look around, those are the folks pushing the "nothing to see here" meme.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
98. Schultz proved years back he wasnt above lying on his show.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:06 PM
Jul 2016

His altered audio clips & videos turned me off of him for good. When caught, he'd never own up to it
A lot of folks here still fell all over themselves praising him
He's a douchebag

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
102. But..........
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jul 2016
Schultz’s 8 p.m. RT show, The News with Ed Schultz, now features Putin-friendly discussions about the failings of U.S. policy in the Middle East, America’s “bloated” defense budget and the futility of NATO strategy.



True, but US Mideast policy is a disaster, the US does have a bloated war budget and the NATO strategy is provocative and war inducing.

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
105. I never did care for him. And contrary to popular belief here, he was cancelled due to low ratings.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:37 PM
Jul 2016

It's all about the $$$$$$

yuiyoshida

(41,831 posts)
108. Ed must have drank some of that TAINTED WATER in Flint
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:42 PM
Jul 2016

he was a BERNIE SUPPORTER, this is a 180 degree turn...nothing else can explain this, unless it isn't true!

 

reign88

(64 posts)
109. Hahaha
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:46 PM
Jul 2016

He's pretty much who I always thought he was.

Let's not pretend that the majority of these TV personalities don't sell their "core beliefs" to the highest bidder. They are phonies. Journalistic integrity is long dead.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
110. Schultz doesn't support Hillary but he also doesn't support Trump...
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:49 PM
Jul 2016

Just like Cenk Uygar he's happier than hell to be out of MSNBC/Comcast.. He talked about the TPP one too many times...

 

mckara

(1,708 posts)
111. The Article is More Innuendo than Facts
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:56 PM
Jul 2016

I didn't see one quote from Ed Schultz supporting the reporter's argument. The article looked like a hatchet job against RT without any real evidence, only supposition. I think the technical term for this type of "news" is BS.

George II

(67,782 posts)
116. He railed in favor of the Keystone Pipeline for more than six months, and then....
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:11 PM
Jul 2016

....almost overnight began railing against it, contradicting ALL the "reasons" why he was in favor of it for so long, but without mentioning his change of heart.

And for the last few months of his 1-hour show he spent more than half of it on Keystone.

tallahasseedem

(6,716 posts)
141. Really?
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:57 AM
Jul 2016

WOW! I used to listen to him religiously during the 2008 and 2012 elections. I guess he sold out for the paycheck.

Damn.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»You guys remember Ed Schu...