Bernie Sanders endorsed TYT founder and carpetbagger Cenk Uygur in CA 25 Congressional Race (UP: Sanders retracts endorsement) [SEE STAFF POST]

[Encephalon]

But who "blamed the Jews" and who denies any genocide?
That's fucking gaslighting 101 what you are doing here.

All I see here are people who have internalized a status quo and now think it's impossible to change it in any meaningful way.
And everyone who tries has to be some kind of nutjob or have malicious intentions.

Click to shrink...

Cenk made deliberate attempts to appeal to people who want to blame the Jews by bringing up a Jew who they believe is part of a vast Jewish conspiracy in order to destroy America* by propping up the interests of minorities and anything resembling the left.

Cenk still supports groups that denied genocide. It's all over this fucking thread.

*White people

You don't need to support trash like Cenk to support change.

Also, about the electoral college:

To ditch the Electoral College entirely, the US would have to pass a constitutional amendment (passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate and approved by 38 states) — or convene a constitutional convention (which has never been done, but would have to be called for by 34 states). Either method is vanishingly unlikely because each would require many small states to approve a change that would reduce their influence on the presidential outcome.


There is one potential workaround, however: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a clever proposal that uses the Constitution's ambiguity on electors to its own ends.


A state signing on to the compact agrees that it will pledge all its electors not to its state winner but to the victor in the national popular vote — but only if states controlling 270 or more electoral votes have agreed to do the same. If they do, and everything works as planned, then whoever wins the popular vote will necessarily win the electoral vote too.


It's an interesting proposal that's already been enacted into law by 12 states (including the large states of California and New York) and the District of Columbia, which together control 181 electoral votes. But there's one big obstacle: Most of the states that have adopted it are solidly Democratic, and just one is a swing state.


So unless a bunch of swing states decides to reduce their own power or Republican politicians conclude that a system bringing the power of small and rural states in line with that of big urban centers is a good idea, the compact isn't going to get the support it needs

Click to shrink...

So, yes we should, but no, we can't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...toral-college-elizabeth-warren-pete-buttigieg

So, for now, the best plan is to make DC and Puerto Rico states.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Cenk still supports groups that denied genocide. It's all over this fucking thread.

Click to shrink...

He doesn't deny the genocide now. He has been clear about that for many years now.
For a Turkish born immigrant, it's fucking normal to hold these views in the beginning, the important thing is that he came around.
Supporting the TCA is also fucking normal for a politically active Turkish immigrant. That doesn't mean he is supporting everything they do and say.
Using these things against him is just as ignorant as the anti-semitism allegations against Ilhan Omar and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an immigrant from a less developed region in the world. This attack is right out of the right-wing playbook and I am actually very surprised to see it coming from moderates in that very same from. Its the perfect way of gatekeeping white power structures when you attack immigrants in that way.

As I said before:

For people who grew in an affluent, western, liberal society to judge people who didn't have these privileges and draw conclusions onto their character as human beings based on opinions they held at some point is very ignorant.

Click to shrink...

Although it would be nice if he would be more outspoken about the issue, I also get that he identifies as an American first and foremost and doesn't want to be defined by his Turkish heritage.
Just like the average western Muslim is tired to seemingly have to answer for radical Islamists from god knows where who have no relation whatsoever to Muslims here.

You "invoke" anti-semitism" by saying that you're going to get George Soros' money out of politics.

Click to shrink...

So what should we do?
Get money out of politics, except that of Soros?

What is the problem with not addressing money in politics?

Click to shrink...

Things stay fundamentally and irredeemably fucked.
This is literally the issue that decides whether your democracy is a democracy or not.

Oh, so all we have to do is get rid of the electoral college? Well, now that you put it like that, it's easy!

Click to shrink...

There are so many majorities in the electorate for all kinds of progressive issues.
If Democrats weren't so god damn incompetent and hell-bent on appeasing Republicans and avoiding real change.
Just because Obama didn't manage to bring about the change he promised (btw. partially because he tried to work with Republicans and they exploited that to block him) doesn't mean that it's impossible we all should give up and arrange ourselves with the fucked system we have.

I get that Trump is people's number one concern now and its important to get rid of him no matter what.
But the way Democrats are gravitating towards the right in an attempt to reach a broader array of voters is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Across Europe, all moderate parties that moved to the right as a reaction to the recent surge of the far-right, have lost.

Now is the time to come with grand new visions for the next century yet the Democrats seem to reject the responsibility to come up with them.

 

[Deleted member 283]

And y'all what to know how I really feel about this, how I really feel about all the Cenk defenders I see in this thread and why it depresses the hell out of me to see so many people throw themselves on the sword of an awful misogynist for no reason, after Sanders himself noped the fuck and everything.

Well, I'm not a woman.
I'm not Jewish, Israeli, or Palestinian.
I'm not Black.
I'm not Armenian.

However, I am bisexual. And if people are willing to throw themselves in the sword if defending a raging misogynist for no reason, in this of all districts, after a woman was just a victim of a torrent of harassment and revenge porn , that people STILL not only defend this fool, but defend tye piece if running in this fucking district of all districts, at this time of all those me, if your willing to so easily dismiss the concerns of half the human population like that and just, at BEST, at absolute best go, *well, yeah, but Medicare For All and free college tho" then it's all the simpler to throw someone like me under the bus, to say not give a fuck at all if say LGBT individuals can be fired for their sexuality or denied the ability to adopt or whatever because "lol, Medicare For All and free University! Everyone benefits! Who cares about anything else! M4A, M4A, M4A!"

I see y'all. And you ain't cute, or clever in the least.

And the worst part is, the worst oart is y'all thinking you're being cute and will deny it.

But I see you all the same. I know that if Cenk said something anti-LGBT, and to be clear, I'm not saying he did, but if he did, I know you'd all try the sane ducking same, Bo matter how you deny it.

And how do I know that exactly? Just how do I know that? Because we're talking about a raging misogynist, who was still doubling down on his nonsense as of last week ( https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/bernie-sanders-endorses-cenk-uygur-young-turks ) and despite that affecting half the fucking population, you still have a while fucking fanboy army coming in here insisting that "he's reformed" or maybe, just maybe "okay, he's probably reformed, but even if he's not, Medicare For All and stuff, so it's all good either way."

And if people are willing to easily disregard his derogatory views, that he wuite clearly doesn't care about half the human population considering in how he keeps doubling down on that stuff to this day for no other discernable reason ( https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/bernie-sanders-endorses-cenk-uygur-young-turks ), what chance does someone like I, as a bisexual, who doesn't even make up like double-digits have?

Of course I don't feel safe with y'all. If your willing to throw half the population under the bus, if you quite clearly don't care one iota about women just so long as y'all get your precious Medicare For All and free tuition or whatever, what chance do someone like I or anyone else in the LGBT community have?

How long until you start throwing us under the bus if it's what proves convenient or easiest to get your precious single-payer or whatever.

And I know y'all are going to deny it. Just like you're all currently denying that you're, not in fact, defending a raging misogynist, but just truly, truly believe he's reformed no matter how many people post evidence to the contrary that that's nowhere close to true, I know you're going to lie to my face and insist you wouldn't throw me under the bus just as easily.

But I see y'all. I see every last one of you. And y'all ain't shit, and I won't ever trust a single one of you farther than I can throw you, that's all I'm saying here and just like with Cenk himself, if you really want to go down that road, that's on no one and you have no one to blame but yourselves. But I see you all either way. I see you.

 

[AlwaysSalty]

Wow I didn't know about his past comments. I whatched tyt videos through most of Trumps presidency and he doesn't seem to be like that anymore. Still doesn't excuse his past comments.
edit: yeah fuck Cenk

 

[Encephalon]

They are so many majorities in the electorate for all kinds of progressive issues.
If Democrats weren't so god damn incompetent and hell-bent on appeasing Republicans and avoiding real change.
Just because Obama didn't manage to bring about the change he promised (btw. partially because he tried to work with Republicans and they exploited that to block him) doesn't mean that its impossible we all should give up and arrange ourselves with the fucked system we have.

Click to shrink...

You literally just claimed that the Democrats need to work with Republicans in order to get shit done, and here you are attempting to lambast the Obama admin for attempting to do so. Yes, Obama was naive and believed that it was possible to compromise with Republicans with a little give and take. But Republicans weren't having any of it. They didn't care if it was their own fucking healthcare plan they proposed in the 90s as an alternative to Clinton's attempts at healthcare reform. It doesn't matter if it was something they said they wanted in the past. They were not willing to give Obama any victories.

And here you think that Republicans are going to go give progressives anything. Why on earth would you believe that? Majorities for progressive issues? No, no there are not. You might get support for social welfare systems from Republicans - as long as benefits do not go to black or brown people. Resistance to economically progressive policy is the US is rooted in racism and xenophobia. Conservatives in the US will not vote to benefit themselves if it benefits other groups they don't like. And the Republicans they vote in office don't really care if their voters want more economically progressive legislation; they're not going to give it to them, and they won't be held accountable if they don't.

It's so easy for you to sit back and claim that Democrats simply aren't trying hard enough, when you clearly don't understand American politics, nor do you have any interest in how Democrats are supposed to actually achieve anything you want them to. I still can't get over the fact that you provided a graphic to explain that the electoral college is trash and we should have a truly representative system. As if we don't know. As if we aren't fighting for the very right to vote. Your words are hollow and empty.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I've said it multiple times already, the treatment of someone who is rehabilitated in some aspects deserves the time to be able to iron out their other shitty blind spots. I think Cenk still has a lot to learn from this whole thing, and he likely will. My problem is people immediately throwing him under the bus for not being perfect, I'm sure hes reflecting and thinking about the media storm that's been critical of him since his declaration of running for office. I don't like the other candidate, pretty obvious. She's a neolib spouting nonsense about options and affordability when it comes to Healthcare and Education. Not for me.

Click to shrink...

It.s a tough call, on the one hand you have someone who says that healthcare should be approached in a way that acknowledges affordability and on the other hand you have someone who continues, to this very day, to support groups that deny genocide. It's a real head scratcher.

Getting money out of politics is a 100% rational goal considering that US politics are entirely pay to play and analysis of the policies over the past few decades have shown that they align almost perfectly with the interests of the biggest corporate and private donors and not with the interests of voter majorities. You know, that's what they call an oligarchy.

Click to shrink...

Yeah an oligarchy is when the people who hold political power are also the people who own important things like media outlets. We definitely don't want that to happen. That would be bad.

 

[Top NHST Product]

Yes, I'm aware he has an Armenian friend.

Click to shrink...

Give it another page or two and you'll get another refresher.

Also good to see that mister some people treat the n word like voldemort got got. It was refreshing that their thought process went exactly where many knew it would.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I like Warren. She's figuring shit out but I don't think the presidential race is the best time to finally realize you're not native american.

Click to shrink...

The masks are really dropping off in this thread.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

And y'all what to know how I really feel about this, how I really feel about all the Cenk defenders I see in this thread and why it depresses the hell out of me to see so many people throw themselves on the sword of an awful misogynist for no reason, after Sanders himself noped the fuck and everything.

Well, I'm not a woman.
I'm not Jewish, Israeli, or Palestinian.
I'm not Black.
I'm not Armenian.

However, I am bisexual. And if people are willing to throw themselves in the sword if defending a raging misogynist for no reason, in this of all districts, after a woman was just a victim of a torrent of harassment and revenge porn , that people STILL not only defend this fool, but defend tye piece if running in this fucking district of all districts, at this time of all those me, if your willing to so easily dismiss the concerns of half the human population like that and just, at BEST, at absolute best go, *well, yeah, but Medicare For All and free college tho" then it's all the simpler to throw someone like me under the bus, to say not give a fuck at all if say LGBT individuals can be fired for their sexuality or denied the ability to adopt or whatever because "lol, Medicare For All and free University! Everyone benefits! Who cares about anything else! M4A, M4A, M4A!"

I see y'all. And you ain't cute, or clever in the least.

And the worst part is, the worst oart is y'all thinking you're being cute and will deny it.

But I see you all the same. I know that if Cenk said something anti-LGBT, and to be clear, I'm not saying he did, but if he did, I know you'd all try the sane ducking same, Bo matter how you deny it.

And how do I know that exactly? Just how do I know that? Because we're talking about a raging misogynist, who was still doubling down on his nonsense as of last week ( https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/bernie-sanders-endorses-cenk-uygur-young-turks ) and despite that affecting half the fucking population, you still have a while fucking fanboy army coming in here insisting that "he's reformed" or maybe, just maybe "okay, he's probably reformed, but even if he's not, Medicare For All and stuff, so it's all good either way."

And if people are willing to easily disregard his derogatory views, that he wuite clearly doesn't care about half the human population considering in how he keeps doubling down on that stuff to this day for no other discernable reason ( https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/bernie-sanders-endorses-cenk-uygur-young-turks ), what chance does someone like I, as a bisexual, who doesn't even make up like double-digits have?

Of course I don't feel safe with y'all. If your willing to throw half the population under the bus, if you quite clearly don't care one iota about women just so long as y'all get your precious Medicare For All and free tuition or whatever, what chance do someone like I or anyone else in the LGBT community have?

How long until you start throwing us under the bus if it's what proves convenient or easiest to get your precious single-payer or whatever.

And I know y'all are going to deny it. Just like you're all currently denying that you're, not in fact, defending a raging misogynist, but just truly, truly believe he's reformed no matter how many people post evidence to the contrary that that's nowhere close to true, I know you're going to lie to my face and insist you wouldn't throw me under the bus just as easily.

But I see y'all. I see every last one of you. And y'all ain't shit, and I won't ever trust a single one of you farther than I can throw you, that's all I'm saying here and just like with Cenk himself, if you really want to go down that road, that's on no one and you have no one to blame but yourselves. But I see you all either way. I see you.

Click to shrink...

I give you that. He is definitely a sexist. I don't believe he is misogynist in the sense that he hates women or treats them unfairly in personal interactions, although I can't know that. But based on comments he made in many videos over the years he definitely internalized a sexist view of the world that normalizes the sexualization of women and therefore he defends it as something normal and doesn't object to it.
Along the lines of people like Louis C.K., Howard Stern etc.

However, the way he is vilified for that just doesn't go along with the political reality in the US where this kind of behavior is usually accepted and not career-ending, even on the Democratic side. See Clinton or lately Bloomberg: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/michael-bloomberg-sexist-comments-elizabeth-warren-ndas

A racist and anti-semite he definitely is not, though. And the way his work is misconstrued to argue that is disingenuous to a degree I only know from the right-wing.


What I don't get is your fear of liberals throwing minorities under the bus in order to get *policy that over-proportionally benefits minorities*.

I can't deal with the Cenk nonsense anymore, but this is some real fucking bullshit.

You literally just claimed that the Democrats need to work with Republicans in order to get shit done

Click to shrink...

I didn't. I said that its usual procedure to have bills that are sponsored by Democrats and Republicans.
I pointed that out because you pointed out Uygur arguing with the far-right as if it were a sign of him somehow appeasing them.

and here you are attempting to lambast the Obama admin for attempting to do the very thing you suggested Democrats do in the page before this one. Yes, Obama was naive and believed that it was possible to compromise with Republicans with a little give and take. But Republicans weren't having any of it. They didn't care if it was their own fucking healthcare plan they proposed in the 90s as an alternative to Clinton's attempts at healthcare reform. It doesn't matter if it was something they said they wanted in the past. They were not willing to give Obama any victories.

Click to shrink...

I respect Obama a great deal, I recently based an entire essay on some of the things he said a Mandela's memorial in 2018. However, his speeches don't always line up with his actions and I recently see that again when I see the Obamas role in the whitewashing of Bush.

And here you think that Republicans are going to go give progressives anything. Why on earth would you believe that?

Click to shrink...

I'm a political scientist. Parties, in the context of a given political system, behave in very predictable ways. Republicans can afford their antics because they are backed by powerful non-civil actors. (Corporate interests)
Tiny changes in the process and this all comes crumbling down.

Majorities for progressive issues? No, no there are not. You might get support for social welfare systems from Republicans - as long as benefits do not go to black or brown people.
Resistance to economically progressive policy is the US is rooted in racism and xenophobia. Conservatives in the US will not vote to benefit themselves if it benefits other groups they don't like.

Click to shrink...

Don't underestimate the effect of propaganda in US politics. From a US perspective, this must seem normal but several major media outlets in the US basically brainwash half the population 24/7.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any racism and resentment without that, but it would be considerably less.
As a german I strongly believe that germans today aren't any more or less racist than the Nazis 80 years ago. People don't change over the course of 2 generations. What changed is the socialization.
In the US, half the people are socialized by racist propaganda.

It's so easy for you to sit back and claim that Democrats simply aren't trying hard enough, when you clearly don't understand American politics,

Click to shrink...

My understanding of US politics comes from the leading political scientists of your country. Do you think they are content with the way things are?
I think you simply lack the perspective of how things could go differently.
A bias towards a status quo is the most normal thing in the world. We always tend to overestimate the stability (and value) of the structures we grew up in.

Nor do you have any interest in how Democrats are supposed to actually achieve anything you want them to. I still can't get over the fact that you provided a graphic to explain that the electoral college is trash and we should have a truly representative system. As if we don't know. As if we aren't fighting for the very right to vote. Your words are hollow and empty.

Click to shrink...

Excuse me if my opinion of the Democrats isn't very high, but just not being Trump is not gonna get you sympathy points by default.
As a party that's been established in a long-running system, the Democrats are a major factor in preventing the necessary change. That's just how it works. In every democracy on this planet. Thinking within the logic of an established system will never lead you towards the most effective ways of bringing about change.

The US has been historically averse to revolutionary tendencies and that's an extremely bad thing.
I mean, just looking at how insignificant FridaysForFuture is in the US, how rarely if ever there are strikes happening in the US and how impossible it is for new parties to form, the US just doesn't seem fit to be a world leader for the next century, a century of rapid change and massive global tasks.

I mean, even without Trump, US hegemony still stands for irresponsible foreign policy, inaction against climate change and the fostering of a global economic system that inherently leads to grotesque inequality.
The only redeeming factor was the liberal value foundation pushing individualist rights and democracy. Now even that's gone under Trump.

Also, don't think that I am any less critical when it comes to the EU.
Grass isn't any greener here. We have our systemic pathologies as well, its just different ones.
The EU had its coming of age during the high times of neoliberalism(Thatcher, Reagan, Re-Unification etc.) it's an institution built around corporate interests for the most part, in dire need of fundamental reform.

Or I can write you a couple of pages detailing why Sanders' policy proposals are completely unrealistic and why the argument "Europe has it, so we can just copy it" is completely wrong. Doesn't mean that I don't agree with his goal, it just means that from a practical perspective his policies won't achieve what he promises, because he fundamentally misunderstands how these systems he wants function over here in Europe.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

You "invoke" anti-semitism" by saying that you're going to get George Soros' money out of politics.

Click to shrink...

As someone who does watch TYT videos I can say from my perspective that the only time I have ever seen Cenk use Soros name in regards to money in politics is as a counter balance to the Kochs. As in he will go off against the Kochs pumping money into politics and then might mention Soros to counter the potential right sides argument ('well I bet you want left wing money kept in'). This is to show a lack of bias when it comes to money in politics and is simply listing the most well know people on each side who put lots of money into politics and isnt based on painting Soros as some boogieman (unlike the Kochs who Cenks clearly hates).

Maybe I have missed an example of Cenk using Soros name in a racist way in which case I will gladly retract this comment (and would really change how I feel about the channel).

 

[Encephalon]

1.21Gigawatts

You can't go from suggesting that the US simply get rid of the electoral college as if it were this thing we had never thought of to pretending you have any grasp on a American politics. If you're a political scientist, then great, you should be especially embarrassed.

I lack perspective? Okay, lay it out for me. Tell me how exactly deeply entrenched American power structures are going to change. I'll wait.

 

[Boiled Goose]

because for some reason, women and minorities take it personally when the entire left doesn't put their specific issues on the top shelf, and when it doesn't it gets accused of "showing their asses". Even explaining how something like M4A and free college would infinitely help said groups doesn't matter because some mean words were said. It's absolutely cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Click to shrink...

Takes like these are so disappointing.
I don't agree with many opinions in this thread, but I definitely don't agree with this either. SMH.

It makes me realize why so many are so defensive and so skeptical sometimes. Well, it's because we've seen this shit keep coming out eventually. :/

 

[excelsiorlef]

1. When did he ever meet right-wingers and made antisemitic arguments to get them on his side?
Besides, this would be a pretty asinine strategy considering that Christian special interests are way bigger spenders than Jewish special interests. Christian conservatism and nationalism are still the status quo in the US. A system change will put this hegemonial position into question.
From a right-wing perspective getting money out of politics is a threat to their power. Their only gripe is with liberal forces using their money to balance things out and they single out Soros here.

Click to shrink...

Brah we're literally talking about this:



Where he literally says he tells Republicans that he'll get Soros money out of politics

 

[Top NHST Product]

Takes like these are so disappointing.
I don't agree with many opinions in this thread, but I definitely don't agree with this either. SMH.

It makes me realize why so many are so defensive and so skeptical sometimes. Well, it's because we've seen this shit keep coming out eventually. :/

Click to shrink...

Well yeah. There's usually enough there to pick up on it when you deal with people like that daily due to being a member of a marginalized group.

Also, even if those groups are demanding their issues be addressed specifically by any leftist movement, how would that be wrong when they are the ones that have been at the forefront of progressive changes to America in the first place?

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Brah we're literally talking about this:



Where he literally says he tells Republicans that he'll get Soros money out of politics

Click to shrink...

Republicans hate liberals. He says he will get liberal money(Soros') out of politics(together will all the other money) to find common ground with Republicans.
Unless you want to claim that the entire Republican party is antisemitic its a stretch to interpret this as catering to antisemitic conspiracy theorists.

1.21Gigawatts

You can't go from suggesting that the US simply get rid of the electoral college as if it were this thing we had never thought of to pretending you have any grasp on a American politics. If you're a political scientist, then great, you should be especially embarrassed.

I lack perspective? Okay, lay it out for me. Tell me how exactly deeply entrenched American power structures are going to change. I'll wait.

Click to shrink...

That's up to you. Take to the streets. Civil disobedience is the most effective way to bring about fundamental change.

Why do you think students all over Europe have been skipping school on Fridays for over a year now?
Why do you think students chain themselves to train tracks where coal is supposed to be transported?
Why do you think students are risking getting locked up for occupying a forest that has been bought by a fossil fuel company with the goal to harvest the coal from under the forest?
Why do you think students are blocking traffic in major cities?

As long as nothing changes, this will only get more radical by the day.
You won't achieve change by playing by the rules of the system you want to change. That's an insight that practically non-existent in the US, even though the civil rights movement was already onto it back in the day.


Also, don't you think its not yet time for drastic measures like that.
You have fascist as president and we have less than 10 years before our global carbon budget for staying below 1.5°C warming has run out at the current pace.
If a fascist as the most powerful person on the planet and global ecological breakdown isn't enough to justify civil disobedience, what is?

 

[Goat Mimicry]

2. You build coalitions in politics. Co-sponsorships of bills reach across the isle all the time. Getting money out of politics will require Republican votes as well. This doesn't justify anti-semitic arguments (which I don't think Cenk made), but it certainly justifies working with the other side.

Click to shrink...

You don't build coalitions with the opposing party in US politics, and Republicans aren't going to vote to get money out of politics when they were responsible for Citizens United.

There are so many majorities in the electorate for all kinds of progressive issues.
If Democrats weren't so god damn incompetent and hell-bent on appeasing Republicans and avoiding real change.
Just because Obama didn't manage to bring about the change he promised (btw. partially because he tried to work with Republicans and they exploited that to block him) doesn't mean that it's impossible we all should give up and arrange ourselves with the fucked system we have.

Click to shrink...

"Cenk would be justified in working with the other side, but Obama was not."

Haha, no. Obama was wrong for trying as much as he did after it was clear the Republicans weren't interested, and Cenk would be wrong too.

I'm a political scientist. Parties, in the context of a given political system, behave in very predictable ways. Republicans can afford their antics because they are backed by powerful non-civil actors. (Corporate interests)
Tiny changes in the process and this all comes crumbling down.

Click to shrink...

Good fucking God. If the shit you've been saying here matches the quality of your work, you're genuinely bad at your job. You've demonstrated a horrible understanding of how our political system works throughout this thread.

No, Republicans don't afford their antics due to corporate interests. If that were true, corporate Democrats would be held to the same low standards (they aren't). Republicans can do what they do because the media puts them on the same level as Democrats to fuel the horse-race and both-sides narratives that the media loves, because the Republican base is largely white and runs on spite to the point where they don't care how much they get hurt as long as anyone who isn't a straight white conservative gets hurt, and because they have their own media wing to defend everything they do.

 

[Encephalon]

Republicans hate liberals. He says he will get liberal money(Soros') out of politics(together will all the other money) to find common ground with Republicans.
Unless you want to claim that the entire Republican party is antisemitic its a stretch to interpret this as catering to antisemitic conspiracy theorists.



That's up to you. Take to the streets. Civil disobedience is the most effective way to bring about fundamental change.

Why do you think students all over Europe have been skipping school on Fridays for over a year now?
Why do you think students chain themselves to train tracks where coal is supposed to be transported?
Why do you think students are risking getting locked up for occupying a forest that has been bought by a fossil fuel company with the goal to harvest the coal from under the forest?
Why do you think students are blocking traffic in major cities?

As long as nothing changes, this will only get more radical by the day.
You won't achieve change by playing by the rules of the system you want to change. That's an insight that practically non-existent in the US, even though the civil rights movement was already onto it back in the day.

Click to shrink...

Why would Republicans care if a bunch of people in blue states protest?

You have nothing.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

You don't build coalitions with the opposing party in US politics, and Republicans aren't going to vote to get money out of politics when they were responsible for Citizens United.

Click to shrink...

Yes you do. What do you think Congresspeople and Senators do all day? Trying to build coalitions and compromise to get at least of the things passed they want to get passed.
Even in a polarized system like the one you got in the US this is standard procedure.
Bipartisan bills pass regularly.

"Cenk would be justified in working with the other side, but Obama was not."

Haha, no. Obama was wrong and Cenk would be wrong too.

Click to shrink...

If he'd let the other side water down his "money out of politics" plans, then yes.

Good fucking God. If the shit you've been saying here matches the quality of your work, you're genuinely bad at your job. You've demonstrated a horrible understanding of how our political system works throughout this thread.

Click to shrink...

Do you even read pol.sci papers?
Or where did you get your pristine knowledge of the inner working of your system and what's possible and what isn't?
Because its certainly not from political science because this field paints an entirely different picture than the defeatist nonsense you all spew.

No, Republicans don't afford their antics due to corporate interests. If that were true, corporate Democrats would be held to the same low standards (they aren't). Republicans can do what they do because the media puts them on the same level as Democrats to fuel the horse-race and both-sides narratives that the media loves, because the Republican base is largely white and runs on spite to the point where they don't care how much they get hurt as long as anyone who isn't a straight white conservative gets hurt, and because they have their own media wing to defend everything they do.

Click to shrink...

This is ridiculous. US media is almost entirely private.
And you're arguing that the problem isn't corporate interests but rather the media, which is nothing but an extended arm of corporate interests.

It's a simple symbiosis. They fund the politicians and provide them with the necessary propaganda to get them elected.

Why would Republicans care if a bunch of people in blue states protest?

You have nothing.

Click to shrink...

Defeatist attitude based on nothing.
Blue states run the country economically. The majority of red states are bankrolled by the money blue states make. They hold all the cards.

 

[mAcOdIn]

What I don't get is your fear of liberals throwing minorities under the bus in order to get *policy that over-proportionally benefits minorities*.

Click to shrink...

That makes total sense to me. I mean, I think most liberal policy is better for everyone, minorities included, but it's not exactly hard to imagine a scenario where straight liberals, for example, would be willing to accept a M4A that doesn't cover gender transitioning or elective abortions if that's what it took to get the rest. So it's not that the policy is worse than the starting point but, push come to shove and if concessions to the center seemingly need to be made, well, it's easy to speculate what those concessions would be and which groups would be on the short end of it.

So I can imagine that when you have two viewpoints that are approaching the same problem, like the aforementioned health care debate, and one is approaching it as a social justice issue and the other merely as an economic issue that they'd reach different levels as to what are acceptable compromises. Someone from a social justice viewpoint would likely try and make it equal for everyone regardless of what that would mean for everyone's care, where as the people doing it for economic reasons would likely prioritize giving the best care to the most people and would be quicker to exclude procedures that affect the least amount of people.

And I can see why it'd be hard asking for someone that's a member of one of those groups to be excited for someone who's going to fight for you, sure, but not quite as hard as they'll fight for straight white men. Way I see it, is if you make a plan that benefits everyone, but some groups more, you haven't changed the calculus at all you've just shifted the baseline. Ultimately, pragmatically, yeah it's better but the marginalized group's still marginalized so from their perspective is it really a win?

Why would Republicans care if a bunch of people in blue states protest?

You have nothing.

Click to shrink...

Republicans don't even fucking respect protests to begin with! And I don't mean the politicians, I mean conservative voters who vote for Republicans.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Republicans hate liberals. He says he will get liberal money(Soros') out of politics(together will all the other money) to find common ground with Republicans.
Unless you want to claim that the entire Republican party is antisemitic its a stretch to interpret this as catering to antisemitic conspiracy theorists.

Click to shrink...

The entire Soros thing is routed in antisemitism.

Literally these people think he funds everything from protesters, to news, to BLM.

He's literally playing into that. You know it. I know it. You're just playing a game here.

 

[Encephalon]

Yes you do. What do you think Congresspeople and Senators do all day? Trying to build coalitions and compromise to get at least of the things passed they want to get passed.
Even in a polarized system like the one you got in the US this is standard procedure.
Bipartisan bills pass regularly.



If he'd let the other side water down his "money out of politics" plans, then yes.



Do you even read pol.sci papers?
Or where did you get your pristine knowledge of the inner working of your system and what's possible and what isn't?
Because its certainly not from political science because this field paints an entirely different picture than the defeatist nonsense you all spew.



This is ridiculous. US media is almost entirely private.
And you're arguing that the problem isn't corporate interests but rather the media, which is nothing but an extended arm of corporate interests.

It's a simple symbiosis. They fund the politicians and provide them with the necessary propaganda to get them elected.






Defeatist attitude based on nothing.
Blue states run the country economically. The majority of red states are bankrolled by the money blue states make. They hold all the cards.

Click to shrink...

The fact that blue states subsidize red States is irrelevant.

 

[Boiled Goose]

Well yeah. There's usually enough there to pick up on it when you deal with people like that daily due to being a member of a marginalized group.

Also, even if those groups are demanding their issues be addressed specifically by any leftist movement, how would that be wrong when they are the ones that have been at the forefront of progressive changes to America in the first place?

Click to shrink...

I personally just think it's completely unnecessary framing. The idea that you have to somehow choose one or the other seems like either the agenda of people with racial bias or lack of perspective or those who seek to use tokenism as a shield to protect the status quo.

You can have intersectionality. You can have focus without exclusion.

 

[Encephalon]

You can tell 1.21Gigawatts is bullshitting when literally keeping the government open is too bipartisan for Congress.

"Experts, much like myself, say"

Uhuh

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

The entire Soros thing is routed in antisemitism.

Literally these people think he funds everything from protesters, to news, to BLM.

Click to shrink...

They also think he funds TYT.

He's literally playing into that. You know it. I know it. You're just playing a game here.

Click to shrink...

Should he exclude Soros from his plans in order to do something that antisemites might find good on first sight?

It's not like people are becoming antisemitic because of that, nor does he align himself with any of their causes.
He simply argues his cause and points out that if you look at it a certain way there is some common ground that can be used to convince political opponents. Granted they are dumb enough to believe that would actually benefit their cause.

The fact that blue states subsidize red States is irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

Okay then, if you think there is nothing you can do sit back and enjoy watching the world become a fascist hell hole.
But don't think you are not part of the problem then.

As a German, I have especially little sympathy for people who refuse to stand up in the face of catastrophe.
My institute is literally named after two students who died defying a fascist system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_and_Sophie_Scholl
You think that was stupid?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Should he exclude Soros from his plans in order to do something that antisemites might find good on first sight?

Click to shrink...

He shouldn't be playing to their conspiracies no.

It's really not hard.

What other bigotry should he appeal to for support?

 

[Encephalon]

They also think he funds TYT.



Should he exclude Soros from his plans in order to do something that antisemites might find good on first sight?

It's not like people are becoming antisemitic because of that, nor does he align himself with any of their causes.
He simply argues his cause and points out that if you look at it a certain way there is some common ground that can be used to convince political opponents. Granted they are dumb enough to believe that would actually benefit their cause.




Okay then, if you think there is nothing you can do sit back and enjoy watching the world become a fascist hell hole.
But don't think you are not part of the problem then.

As a German, I have especially little sympathy for people who refuse to stand up in the face of catastrophe.
My institute is literally named after two students who died defying a fascist system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_and_Sophie_Scholl
You think that was stupid?

Click to shrink...

I admittedly don't have much hope for the US, but I haven't been given much reason to. I have, however, offered a plausible idea to combat some of the under representation in the US, which went unnoticed by you, because you were too busy attacking me for being defeatist because I dared to ask you for any real ideas. I guess it's too much to ask a "political scientist" to think about how to achieve things that require political power.

 

[mAcOdIn]

The fact that blue states subsidize red States is irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, more that it's a hand we can't play because it'd be the end of the US.

I seriously question how anyone expects us to even use it as a tactic.

First off, for us to even leverage it we'd probably need all three branches of government anyways which means we've already won. Unless the idea is to just financially cripple the blue cities and hope the red States fold first. Which they won't because they're already poorer than the blue States and, while I won't say they don't care, the economic conditions of NYC and LA have little bearing on the condition of Topeka, Kansas.

Second, assuming we don't have all three branches you're suggesting, what, that the Blue States leave the Union so as to not pay Federal taxes to be redistributed to the Red States?

Lastly, what does that do to liberal messaging? Once you show that, yes, you'd totally cut them all off to make better lives for yourselves in your own blue bubbles, confirming what they already believe, if this somehow isn't the end of the Union good fucking luck holding on to that power in the next election, because if the electoral college is still there, well, there's more red States than blue.

 

[RailWays]

wrt the Soros mention. What did Cenk gain from using him as a specific example? He plays into the Republicans' prejudiced views of the man to get their attention. Would his overarching point of money in politics be lesser if he used another example? No. So why exploit the name?

Not going to assert that Cenk is an antisemite, but he clearly evoked that name to appeal to Republican prejudices.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

He shouldn't be playing to their conspiracies no.

It's really not hard.

What other bigotry should he appeal to for support?

Click to shrink...

Why do you think he plays to their conspiracy by doing that? And what does that even mean?
Neither does he agree with the conspiracy, nor does he agree with any of these people's causes. He just pointed out that you can convince Republicans by pointing out that liberal money would be taken out of politics, because in their crooked world view liberal money(or jewish money for the antisemitic conspiracy theorists among the Republicans) is more dominant than corporate and conservative money. (Which it isn't)

And as I said before, unless you claim that all Republicans are antisemitic conspiracy theorists, this is a completely legitimate way phrasing an argument for an audience. Republicans hate Soros'. Some because he is a liberal, some because he is a Jew.

I admittedly don't have much hope for the US, but I haven't been given much reason to.

Click to shrink...

Jesus, you haven't even tried.

I have, however, offered a plausible idea to combat some of the under representation in the US, which went unnoticed by you, because you were too busy attacking me for being defeatist because I dared to ask you for any real ideas. I guess it's too much to ask a "political scientist" to think about how to achieve things that require political power.

Click to shrink...

I don't disagree with these plans. I just don't think they are enough. They represent the baby-steps approach the Democrats tried for decades now, that lead them nowhere.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it won't be enough.
People need to stand up and demand a systems change and to build up that momentum you need to take to the streets and organize and exercise civil disobedience. The time where you could sit and way intra-system solutions has long passed.

Trump might appear as the single most overwhelming problem right now. But he will hopefully be gone soon and then you will still be stuck with a political system and media environment controlled by corporations and the single greatest threat humanity has ever faced(climate change).

 

[Encephalon]

Jesus, you haven't even tried.

Click to shrink...

You haven't either. And here you are suggesting that the creation of two states is just more baby steps. I mean, Jesus Christ.

All you have is "have you tried protesting?" That is not a fucking plan. You are offering nothing. The other page you suggested changing to a representative democracy.

Well let's hear it.

How exactly does that happen?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why do you think he plays to their conspiracy by doing that? And what does that even mean?
Neither does he agree with the conspiracy, nor does he agree with any of these people's causes. He just pointed out that you can convince Republicans by pointing out that liberal money would be taken out of politics, because in their crooked world view liberal money(or jewish money for the antisemitic conspiracy theorists among the Republicans) is more dominant than corporate and conservative money. (Which it isn't)

And as I said before, unless you claim that all Republicans are antisemitic conspiracy theorists, this is a completely legitimate way phrasing an argument for an audience. Republicans hate Soros'. Some because he is a liberal, some because he is a Jew.

Click to shrink...

Literally they think he controls everything. This is beyond oh he's just some billionaire liberal who has money in politics. They think everything is a product of his money, that he's a puppet master. I think it speaks to Cenk's inability to make a persuasive argument that he has to appeal to bigotry and conspiracy theories to get certain people on board.

I ask again where's the line here. What other bigotry are you cool Cenk playing to for support

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

You haven't either.

Click to shrink...

I'm doing what I can over here, in my country.
I'm not a student anymore but ScientistsForFuture is a thing here too and transformational science is an every growing field in polsci and economics tackling exactly the question how you can best transform economies, political systems and ultimately societies with the goal to make them sustainable, fair, more humanist and fit for the challenges of the 21st century.

I can recommend this book. Its available for free to download: http://greatmindshift.org/
Its by the head of the scientific council of the German parliament and gives tons of great insights when it comes to societal and economic transformation processes and tactics.

 

[Encephalon]

Somehow the party that is unmoved by the deaths of school children is going to be moved to action by out of state protests they can use as examples of crazy liberals to help them get elected. So moved that they will cede their own power.

 

[Arkeband]

Literally they think he controls everything. This is beyond oh he's just some billionaire liberal who has money in politics. They think everything is a product of his money, that he's a puppet master. I think it speaks to Cenk's inability to make a persuasive argument that he has to appeal to bigotry and conspiracy theories to get certain people on board.

I ask again where's the line here. What other bigotry are you cool Cenk playing to for support

Click to shrink...

I agree with your assessment here.

The point about getting money out of politics can very easily be made without having to lend any credence to conspiracy theories by invoking specific tropes and boogeymen. It's already something most Americans want. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/)

I've always believed Cenk is, at best, kind of an idiot, but his performance at that Politicon a year or two ago where he was up against Tucker Carlson and he let Carlson deliver a prepared populist speech, completely lost any misplaced confidence I may have had in him that he could responsibly publicly argue on behalf of progressivism. He's a total bonehead.

I get that a lot of people like TYT because of some of their personnel, but Cenk is not the hill to die on and he doesn't deserve a seat in government just because he runs a YouTube news network. If anything, that fact alone should dissuade anyone from thinking his candidacy is a good idea.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I agree with your assessment here.

The point about getting money out of politics can very easily be made without having to lend any credence to conspiracy theories by invoking specific tropes and boogeymen. It's already something most Americans want. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/)

I've always believed Cenk is, at best, kind of an idiot, but his performance at that Politicon a year or two ago where he was up against Tucker Carlson and he let Carlson deliver a prepared populist speech, completely lost any misplaced confidence I may have had in him that he could responsibly publicly argue on behalf of progressivism. He's a total bonehead.

I get that a lot of people like TYT because of some of their personnel, but Cenk is not the hill to die on and he doesn't deserve a seat in government just because he runs a YouTube news network. If anything, that fact alone should dissuade anyone from thinking his candidacy is a good idea.

Click to shrink...

I can agree with that. Him being a die-hard Bernie supporter as a journalist already shows that he might want the right things, but is rather clueless about the ways to get there.
Still, the smearing he received over the past couple of days was shameful and points to a larger problem of a vicious establishment going after challenger to the status quo. At least from the NYT he deserves an apology, not just a redaction. They basically framed him as racist who agrees with David Duke. That was entirely malicious.

 

[luffie]

I agree with your assessment here.

The point about getting money out of politics can very easily be made without having to lend any credence to conspiracy theories by invoking specific tropes and boogeymen. It's already something most Americans want. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/)

I've always believed Cenk is, at best, kind of an idiot, but his performance at that Politicon a year or two ago where he was up against Tucker Carlson and he let Carlson deliver a prepared populist speech, completely lost any misplaced confidence I may have had in him that he could responsibly publicly argue on behalf of progressivism. He's a total bonehead.

I get that a lot of people like TYT because of some of their personnel, but Cenk is not the hill to die on and he doesn't deserve a seat in government just because he runs a YouTube news network. If anything, that fact alone should dissuade anyone from thinking his candidacy is a good idea.

Click to shrink...

"He shouldn't deserve a government seat because he has a Youtube network!" - totally ridiculous nonsense.
People like TYT not because their personnel, but because of the message and value that they stand on.
Cenk is not superman, he might not have a clue on how to achieve what he sets to achieve (subjective, he isn't elected yet), but you know what? He stands firm on his value and is willing to step forward and do something about it. He is not waiting for a saviour and not waiting for a perfect moment.
I suppose from the criticism you levied on him, you are better at debating at the public stage? You have better ideas on how to achieve your plans and have better moral values than Cenk? Great, then please go for it, but if you aren't going for it, then all that you have spouted are just useless nonsense. Please don't quote me for this, I'm just repeating what our dear AOC said, "please run for it and carry out your plan, until then, I'm the boss". (smth like that)
The regurgitation of baseless accusations against him from the liberals are so moronic, and that's not even including the ridiculous puritanism attitude you guys take. Please don't reply me with all those misogynistic and Armenian comments that he made, I've seen his admission and apologies.

I'm not an American, I watch almost all of TYT latest videos, they have held consistent with their values and message, and they are WAY more honest than all the corporate democrats in the party. Choose a better candidate if there's one, but Christy Smith? I'll take Cenk anytime with my eyes closed, you can wait for your perfect angel to come.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Somehow the party that is unmoved by the deaths of school children is going to be moved to action by out of state protests they can use as examples of crazy liberals to help them get elected. So moved that they will cede their own power.

Click to shrink...

Your arguments would be more convincing if it wasn't obvious that you're working from an extremely narrow definition of how, when, and where protests are done

 

[BlastProcessing]

Your arguments would be more convincing if it wasn't obvious that you're working from an extremely narrow definition of how, when, and where protests are done

Click to shrink...

I dunno, seems pretty strong as is.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

If your protests aren't inconveniencing and disrupting the people in power, they're not protests, just parades.

The sorts of protests that folks like MLK did during the civil rights era weren't just with members of the community; they sought solidarity with members of similar communities who had the same issues. There were people who went to Birmingham and DC and the like who didn't live there specifically in order to engage in those protests. The idea that we have to protest peacefully only in our cities is a foolhardy notion that allows this continued damage to our civil infrastructure to occur, and the rot in this country's soul to fester and spread.

 

[Helot_Azure]

wrt the Soros mention. What did Cenk gain from using him as a specific example? He plays into the Republicans' prejudiced views of the man to get their attention. Would his overarching point of money in politics be lesser if he used another example? No. So why exploit the name?

Not going to assert that Cenk is an antisemite, but he clearly evoked that name to appeal to Republican prejudices.

Click to shrink...

More likely, he mentioned Soros to show that he doesn't support billionaires dumping money into elections even if it benefits left wing candidates.

 

[Alavard]

More likely, he mentioned Soros to show that he doesn't support billionaires dumping money into elections even if it benefits left wing candidates.

Click to shrink...

...and the only example he had on hand is the subject of a right-wing antisemitic talking point.

 

[Helot_Azure]

...and the only example he had on hand is the subject of a right-wing antisemitic talking point.

Click to shrink...

More than likely, since Soros is by far the most famous example of a mega-rich left wing donor.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

...and the only example he had on hand is the subject of a right-wing antisemitic talking point.

Click to shrink...

The problem is, what other billionaires are using their money to further leftist policy instead of their personal privilege? Soros is the only example that comes to mind to me easily, and the thing is that most decent leftist policy views billionaires as anathema. Most other billionaires are either explicitly conservative or give to ostensibly left-wing groups specifically in order to promote moderate voices which serve to neuter their effectiveness (see, for example, the Democrats).

 

[Helot_Azure]

The problem is, what other billionaires are using their money to further leftist policy instead of their personal privilege? Soros is the only example that comes to mind to me easily, and the thing is that most decent leftist policy views billionaires as anathema. Most other billionaires are either explicitly conservative or give to ostensibly left-wing groups specifically in order to promote moderate voices which serve to neuter their effectiveness (see, for example, the Democrats).

Click to shrink...

It also doesn't help that Soros is mentioned on nearly a minute-by minute basis in Right wing media. Hell, even I learned about Soros via the Right wing media. Mainly from Glenn Beck's insane chalk board-rants he used to do on Fox News.

 

[Alavard]

The problem is, what other billionaires are using their money to further leftist policy instead of their personal privilege? Soros is the only example that comes to mind to me easily, and the thing is that most decent leftist policy views billionaires as anathema. Most other billionaires are either explicitly conservative or give to ostensibly left-wing groups specifically in order to promote moderate voices which serve to neuter their effectiveness (see, for example, the Democrats).

Click to shrink...

Your argument boils down to 'he had no alternative to using a right-wing antisemitic talking point'.

 

[Helot_Azure]

Your argument boils down to 'he had no alternative to using a right-wing antisemitic talking point'.

Click to shrink...

What's the antisemitic talking point? That George Soros is rich and gives money to left wing causes and politicians? That would actually be a statement of fact.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Your argument boils down to 'he had no alternative to using a right-wing antisemitic talking point'.

Click to shrink...

I do not understand your argument. I believe the existence of billionaires is a policy failure. I don't believe, for example, the solution is to mail pipe bombs to Soros's house. I believe he is quite possibly the least bad billionaire, which gives him value as a rhetorical target, and being a billionaire is himself well- insulated from the threats underpinning the antisemitism in any case.

I don't think it's good when there is one person with the power and character to invest to save civil liberties. This is, perhaps ironically, consistent with my view of Cenk as a flawed candidate I don't want us to have to rely on.

 

[Alavard]

I do not understand your argument. I believe the existence of billionaires is a policy failure. I don't believe, for example, the solution is to mail pipe bombs to Soros's house. I believe he is quite possibly the least bad billionaire, which gives him value as a rhetorical target, and being a billionaire is himself well- insulated from the threats underpinning the antisemitism in any case.

Click to shrink...

Here's my point: George Soros has been used extensively by the right-wing as a bogeyman, using incredibly antisemitic tropes, referring to him as a rich Jewish 'puppet-master'. When you give the least bit of credence to those attacks to the same people who are using them to begin with, you're only emboldening the antisemitism.

Look at the conversation if it's rearranged thusly:

Republican asshole bigot: (((George Soros))) is a puppet-master who uses his money to control everyone and pays for fake protesters!
Cenk: You're right, George Soros's money is a problem in politics.

If you can't make your points without relying on these antisemitic talking points, you need another point.

 

[Kaitos]

Ah I see we've reached the Soros part of the discussion.

 

[Sandstar]

Ah I see we've reached the Soros part of the discussion.

Click to shrink...

Worse, we've reached the "it's okay to be anti-semetic, if you can plausibly deny that you are." part of the conversation.