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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The evidence is in the video feed of her shows since the election's results. I've seen at least two of her shows, where I can't put my finger on the date, where she first talked about how disturbed & upset & even mentally impaired (from her description of their collective state of mine) her flock was about the election and then launched into urging them to organize to protest the legitimate election (until proven otherwise) using the "Indivisible Guide" as their instruction manual.
Again, the "Indivisible Guide" "strongly" urges its readers to step outside it's parameters of peaceful assembly to "build power". So, I'm not the authorities; but I urge them to look into the matter.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in noticing the inciting going on at MSNBC...I see. Maddow needs to investigated by someone, you don't care whom, based on your hunch, evidence from your imagination, and, some bullshit you made up about subliminal messages. Don't be surprised when your investigation never occurs. I know I won't.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in noticing the inciting going on at MSNBC...I see. Maddow needs to investigated by someone, you don't care whom, based on your hunch, evidence from your imagination, and, some bullshit you made up about subliminal messages. Don't be surprised when your investigation never occurs. I know I won't.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in noticing the inciting going on at MSNBC...I see. Maddow needs to investigated by someone, you don't care whom, based on your hunch, evidence from your imagination, and, some bullshit you made up about subliminal messages. Don't be surprised when your investigation never occurs. I know I won't.
Well you're a law and order type guy. Let the investigation happen & since you're certain it's all a mirage, no worries, right?A raft of loons.
Anti-GOP Uprising Grows as 'Indivisible Guide' to Resisting Trump Goes Viral
Anti-GOP Uprising Grows as 'Indivisible Guide' to Resisting Trump Goes Viral
Former congressional staffers are publicizing their newly released "Indivisible Guide," a manual for people, groups, and organizations who want to resist the incoming rightwing administration through grassroots action.
President-elect Donald Trump rose to power while losing the popular vote by a historic margin, and his lack of a mandate means a vocal and organized resistance can weaken Republican resolve and "[stiffen] Democratic spines," the guide states....MSNBC's Rachel Maddow covered the guide on her show Wednesday.
"This is not a panacea, nor is it intended to stand alone," the authors write. "We strongly urge you to marry the strategy in this guide with a broader commitment to creating a more just society, building local power, and addressing systemic injustice and racism."
"We wrote this guide because we believe that the coming years will see an unprecedented movement of Americans rising up across the country to protect our values, our neighbors, and ourselves," they write. "Our goal is to provide practical understanding of how your [MoCs] think, and how you can demonstrate to them the depth and power of the opposition to Donald Trump and Republican congressional overreach."
The "not limited to this guide" advice pitched to an "angry, disturbed" crowd who is protesting our democratic process is incitement to riot. De facto. And pitched by a network no less.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in noticing the inciting going on at MSNBC...I see. Maddow needs to investigated by someone, you don't care whom, based on your hunch, evidence from your imagination, and, some bullshit you made up about subliminal messages. Don't be surprised when your investigation never occurs. I know I won't.
Well you're a law and order type guy. Let the investigation happen & since you're certain it's all a mirage, no worries, right?A raft of loons.
No, as you know, I asked whether or not the TV host knew her viewers en mass were in an angry or disturbed mood when she egged them on to gather in large crowds (in that mood) and protest the legitimate results of a democratic election.
The investigators would likely look into these three areas.
And my other point was that the FCC is directed by the POTUS. So this host and her network are in a pinch.
in this country, allegations and the person they're leveled against are the burden of the accuser, not the accused. So unless this host has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was illegitimate, there's trouble afoot for MSNBC, her employers.
just because Ms. Maddow does not like who rose to power in the country as a result, then her urgings for civil unrest are a direct affront to our democracy.
the "guide" simply tells what the teatards did.
you can stop whining any time you feel like.
Unless the FCC sits down with MSNBC management and reminds them of the federal statutes about inciting over the air waves...What I am not u derstanding about this is MSNBC allowing blatant advocacy. Are they letting an infomercial pass as opinion journalism? Is this what advertisers are going to pay for? Because if it is then the news outlet is nothing more than the propaganda arm of extreme leftwingers, which many would claim it already is. It just seems unsavory and uncomfortable for a news outlet to be issuing operation manuals for one particular party to obstruct the duly elected president of our country. Treason cannot be far behind.
Unless the FCC sits down with MSNBC management and reminds them of the federal statutes about inciting over the air waves...What I am not u derstanding about this is MSNBC allowing blatant advocacy. Are they letting an infomercial pass as opinion journalism? Is this what advertisers are going to pay for? Because if it is then the news outlet is nothing more than the propaganda arm of extreme leftwingers, which many would claim it already is. It just seems unsavory and uncomfortable for a news outlet to be issuing operation manuals for one particular party to obstruct the duly elected president of our country. Treason cannot be far behind.
Trump is claiming that as many as 3 million illegal aliens voted, and that is not even counting the millions of votes he is claiming were cast more than once, or by dead people. The only reasonable course would be to void such a flawed election, and hold another one .....Right?
Trump is claiming that as many as 3 million illegal aliens voted, and that is not even counting the millions of votes he is claiming were cast more than once, or by dead people. The only reasonable course would be to void such a flawed election, and hold another one .....Right?
Sure, whatever. Only don't instigate violent mobs to protest the results of an uncontested election. If Trump wants to do the election over, fine. I didn't vote for him. I voted for Hillary. I just don't believe two wrongs make a right.
Another election though might find the dems losing even more down-ballot seats. Why is it that the phenomenon wasn't limited to just the POTUS campaign? Ask yourself that grasshopper. Could it be that a horrible candidate like Trump wound up in the Oval Office because of YOUR far left escalatingly-bizarre social platforms being rammed down the throats of regular people without their permission? Just maybe?
If you can't figure out that drugging children to have their genitals eventually amputated is BEYOND THE PALE, you just aren't going to ever be in power again. Sorry. Just be thankful the GOP didn't run Charles Manson. The middle voters found your platforms so fantastically-twisted and frankly frightening in a frankensteinian way that a stale cheese sandwich could've run against Hillary and won. (and as it turns out that's exactly what happened..lol..) So blame yourselves.
You're preaching to the choir. We're on the same page about Trump. But your thoughts should be geared towards the appropriateness of using a media pulpit to rile up known angry and delirious crowds to protest the legitimate results of an election.
I say it violates the statutes in the OP. What do you say?
That should take at least 4 years, possibly 8. Better plan on the long haul.You're not making any sense.
You asked if a TV host "were" in an angry or disturbed mood? Or if some protestors somewhere "were"? Followed by totally different videos of a totally different event from a totally different channel?
I don't get it. Just answer the question directly --- WHAT did the TV channel do or say to incite a riot?
No, as you know, I asked whether or not the TV host knew her viewers en mass were in an angry or disturbed mood when she egged them on to gather in large crowds (in that mood) and protest the legitimate results of a democratic election.
The investigators would likely look into these three areas.
1. Did the host realize the people she was addressing on her media-aired show were angry or disturbed about the results of an election? (yes)
2. Did the host then, so realizing, urge those people to gather in crowds and instigate others to join with them (knowing they were) in said disturbed/angry mood? (yes)
3. Did the host then, so realizing and instigating the gathering of a large disturbed crowd, egg them on to protest (knowing they were) in said mood and numbers, the legitimate results of a democratic election?
Since the only hope this host has of slipping off the hook lies in #3, in changing the word "legitimate" to "illegitimate", there might be a chance of innocence? But in this country, allegations and the person they're leveled against are the burden of the accuser, not the accused. So unless this host has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was illegitimate, there's trouble afoot for MSNBC, her employers.
And my other point was that the FCC is directed by the POTUS. So this host and her network are in a pinch. I've heard this POTUS doesn't take prisoners.
In my opinion, Rachael Maddow has become radicalized in the cult she advocates for. It's just my opinion, but I don't think I'm alone in it. When said advocacy includes the urging of (known) angry crowds to descend to protest the results of a legitimate election just because Ms. Maddow does not like who rose to power in the country as a result, then her urgings for civil unrest are a direct affront to our democracy. Which is nothing less than what foreign terrorists are up to.
Her guilt or innocence would wash out in an investigation of course. And I urge that that investigation happen. The stark lesson of media outlets encouraging violence towards people who have legitimate and allowed disagreements with their network's political slant is still fresh in my memory from Gabby Giffords.
You're just having a hard time understanding that the majority of the country is disgusted with our new president, and won't be satisfied until he is gone.
You're preaching to the choir. We're on the same page about Trump. But your thoughts should be geared towards the appropriateness of using a media pulpit to rile up known angry and delirious crowds to protest the legitimate results of an election.
I say it violates the statutes in the OP. What do you say?
Trump is the one who excels at riling up known angry and delirious crowds. I'm just commenting on his remarks. If his claim of large scale voter fraud is true, then the election was a scam, and an offense to the country, and should be redone.
It doesn't matter. I and other viewers have seen enough to warrant videos since the election to be subpoenaed. Here's a link to MSNBC's website for the Maddow show's archives. Knock yourselves out: Trump sparks anger with misguided refugee banFunny how all these videos of Maddow inciting people to violence are absent in this thread.
It doesn't matter. I and other viewers have seen enough to warrant videos since the election to be subpoenaed. Here's a link to MSNBC's website for the Maddow show's archives. Knock yourselves out: Trump sparks anger with misguided refugee banFunny how all these videos of Maddow inciting people to violence are absent in this thread.
