General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
dalton99a
(81,392 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yeah, far too often they fall into the stupid far left attitude of cheering anyone against the "system", even if the person against the "system" is a neo-Nazi.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)TYT got a seven-figure donation from a wealthy GOP businessman last year... So you can see the point where they made the turn...
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)Zel Miller...something like that...
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)Had to go look it up:
The funding comes from Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC, a private equity firm led by former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/16/the-young-turks-4m/
Hekate
(90,556 posts)
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Especially Cenk who is the biggest misogynistic tool of the bunch.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)He was going on and on giggling about what is the big deal...smiling and thinking it was awesome. The idiot lady co-host actually had to reel him in and move to another topic
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)He is a total pig.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Maybe I shouldn't say a lot, but the ones I know were.
The things they told me after Trump got elected: Hillary will be in jail within the next two weeks. Obama will be locked up in Guantanamo with other Muslims. Geert and Marine will be confirmation of a new "supremacy".
After none of these things happening, none of the promises he made them kept, they are still 100% behind him and think liberals are the problem with the world.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
radius777
(3,635 posts)actually many on the alt-right were at one time alt-left, and vice versa.. it's a similar ideology, imo, with the alt-right simply being more vicious on race/ethnic issues.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)They wanted LePen to win then take Merkel's head in September. The French were too smart to fall for a con like too many Americans did and I hope that Germans push back the con and resoundingly reappoint Merkel in September.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)Gothmog
(144,919 posts)I stopped watching TYT and Cenk a long time ago. Their pro-russian bias is so very sad
aidbo
(2,328 posts)I think your anti-TYT bias is sad.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)The fact that TYT is supported by the idiots on the JPR site is sufficient. The number of TYT clips on that site is really sad
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)they are useless.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)They work for RT, and have been incredible sexist and counter productive for forever.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That show, and Cenk, disgusts me. Absolutely horrid.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)
Fla Dem
(23,586 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Hekate
(90,556 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)Russian owned media LIKING a candidate, it gave them a really good excuse to tear into Hillary, while claiming that she's
1) Not a good candidate
2) an establishment candidate
3) beholden to the banks
4) deleted a bunch of emails
5) etc
Meanwhile Bernie is pure as the driven snow, went to meet the pope, that's how admired he is in the world.
It was a big part of the Russian hack of the 2016 election.
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)Everybody you named has sold out their country to a hostile foreign power.
They all belong in prison.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)are all part of Putin's plan to agree with Putin friendly ideals.. The anti NATO, anti trade, anti EU and pro nationalism. You can already see it happening when some on the left want to make identity politics a bad thing. Women issues a thing we are not suppose to talk about suddenly. This is the way Putin and FSB operates. They're doing this under the guise that working class are being left out. What is really happening is the uplifting of whites and putting women, people of color and our world alliance on the back burner.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)master of epic proportions. I think we can be slightly more rooted in reality than that. People have different opinions. Putin would have had to start early for me to think the way I think, like before he was in power...and I think the same goes for Hartmann and Cenk, etc.
Working class is and has been screwed. Always moreso by the right, and neither TYT, nor Hartmann have ever forgotten or tried to hide that fact.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Any opinion I do not like is part of Putin's plan? Please try to argue your point without personal attacks. I happen to believe we are capable of multi tasking. Helping the working class without dismissing identity politics, women's issues, and I do not believe people who line their pockets with Russian money are helpful to the working class at all. RT is Putin propaganda.. that is not an opinion it's a fact.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)their language and rhetoric has changed as a result of Russian influence. They can't just have a different opinion. I agree with you, as I've said elsewhere, that having liberal voices on RT who are critical of the system is something that Putin might think is a good strategy for sewing dissatisfaction at home. But the things Thom reports on are real, and what Putin doesn't understand is that in order for democracy to function as it should, we as citizens need to hear the embarrassing stuff that corporate media brushes under the rug so that we can demand our leaders fix it. Putin doesn't understand that that kind of punditry and journalism is good for our nation, not bad for it.
If you can point to examples of Thom shilling for Putin, lying about him or Russian ties, etc. then that is something that would make Hartmann far less trustworthy...in my estimation not so much less trustworthy than our corporately owned media, which gave us Trump(no Russia couldn't do near as much damage as our own media did)...but it would be more than a black eye on his integrity, not to mention it would undermine the important things he has covered over the years, but already assuming he's Putin's puppet is in my opinion, a problem, and throwing TYT in there because again, you don't like what they're saying, even though they aren't even on the payroll of anything Russian, is a problem. I'm not trying to be rude, but until you have proof of something, why not just stick to disagreeing with Hartmann or TYT on the issues, dismantling their arguments, etc. Doing the other thing is saying, "we're just going to assume their arguments are Putin's, and therefore lying propaganda. We don't need to discuss them any further."
Blanks
(4,835 posts)That RT is Russian propaganda. It has become 'the way' that they are referred to on TV these days. They will say "RT the Soviet, I mean Russian propaganda outlet." I believe that's how Clapper referred to them today.
You don't have to look at these commentators with a skeptical eye in order to discard their positions, they belong to an organization that is in existence to forward Russian propaganda.
Before I knew it was propaganda, I watched Thom Hartman, I watched TYT, I watched Ed Shultz, and I agree with a lot of what they say, but they're propaganda, and that's how propaganda is designed to work. If they were saying offensive things, they'd lose listeners.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)As Crosscheck did. That's exactly fulfilling Putins aims- a distrustful and disgusted electorate that doesn't vote. It's interesting to watch it in action.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ass time that democrats haven't called out the media for its bias and shitty reporting, because THEY are primarily the ones getting screwed by it. We ceded that to trump and attempted ourselves, to legitimize the same media that put him in power.
I totally disagree with you here. The media is borked. It is corporate owned, which means the money is the incentive, and sometimes the money at stake is far bigger than what a piddly cable news or newspaper brings in from viewership or readership.
Just to be clear, you are right that cynicism suppresses the vote. One thing I am not, and never have been in favor of, is bullshit slogans like "throw all the bums out." The power brokers love that because what do they care...they can put somebody else in that seat that was previously held by a popular democrat, and if they lose one of their own shills, that's easy to replace. And of course they win when people don't vote. Voter confidence is important. Trust in the media is important. But the media needs to earn that trust, and it has not. We have Trump because it has not earned that Trust.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)But there's a difference between propaganda used by the Russians to undermine our democracy and propaganda designed to get me to buy some product that I may not need.
The problem here is that the Russians were involved in a concerted effort to bring down a candidate by turning many potential supporters of that candidate against her by having their attitude toward her poisoned by that concerted effort. Bernie Sanders was the tool that the Russians used (and continue to use) to raise doubts about the current system and pit us against one another.
That's very different than the transparent propaganda utilized by product advertisers.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the product is the rich billionaires who the media pretends are philanthropists and job creators. It is so simplistic to suggest that all the media is selling is cereal or something. It is selling ideology and ignorance for a reason.
You are saying people who have been speaking the way they are today for decades are Putins puppets in the service of Putin, and it makes no sense at all. Does he like what they're saying? Maybe, but that is well beside the point. It isn't HIS propaganda. He doesn't dictate it. He didn't propagandize or brainwash them. When Thom Hartmann or the Young Turks cover stories that no corporate media will cover, like the flint water crisis or the water protectors(it took forever for the MSM to catch up on these), that may in fact make us look bad as a nation, but it is shit we are actually doing, and that means it is shit the public has to be aware of in order to force its leaders to properly govern. Information IS democracy. We can't have it without it.
I'm a sheep and you have all the answers.
Anyone who's been in the military, worked in government or worked in a big corporation knows how the people in power make certain activities off limits, encourage certain stances and basically threaten your existence if you buck the 'policies.'
That's how Putin keeps RT 'on topic' I'm sure Rush Limbaugh responds to his masters in the same way. He can blather on about certain things, but must tread lightly in other areas, while completely avoiding certain things.
It's not rocket science.
As far as main stream media coverage. The main stream media is owned by huge corporations and they have their own taboos that they avoid at any cost.
I agree, the stories you mention should have been covered by them, but praising Russian media for covering things that American media isn't covering and insisting that they're doing it because of some kind of public service that Putin can't possibly benefit from is pretty naive.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)suggest that you were simplistic, but your characterization of our media, although I should have said "sanitized" instead. I agree with you, there are ways the purse strings can control the message. That is why I'm always wary of donorships to anything, or who is funding what. This doesn't change the fact that some of the people who are being accused of pushing pro-Putin propaganda have no connection to Putin and are not paid by him, nor does it change the fact that those pundits, as well as some who are taking a paycheck from RT, haven't suddenly started sounding differently when it comes to the issues they champion. If Hartmann has gone soft on Russia or has started propagating pro-russian lies, then its a big problem, but unless somebody can show a trend as such, it is premature and unfair to say that is the case. His rhetoric has to give some clue to that reality. Him saying Fox news was the bigger culprit in delivering Trump than Putin is only wrong because he didn't include CNN and everything on the radio waves. If he were to say we don't need to worry about Putin fucking with our elections, that would be a whole different thing.
No I do not praise foreign news agencies. I am frustrated that ours is so bad, like theirs, that we have to get some of our news from organizations that are no more trustworthy, because at least they are touching domestic issues our own media refuses to touch. I'm frustrated that a progressive voice like Hartmann doesn't have a place in our corporately owned establishment media because he isn't selling the right product, and thus has no other port to report on the things he cares about except for on a station we need to be wary of.
I didn't say Putin doesn't think he has an angle. He thinks anything that embarrasses us or one party in particular, but really America at large, benefits him. He thinks that showing our own corruption or the cynicism of leadership when it comes to our own people hurts us and undermines us. I think he's wrong for the reasons I already stated. We need to make sure we handle these things so that those embarrassing stories don't keep popping up. We need to be informed on domestic issues so that we can vote for the right people and demand of them the right things.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Well, not Ed Shultz, he seems like a moron.
But, here's the thing: we weren't looking at the Russians as 'the bad guys' last spring, but that was when so many 'liberal radio personalities' were so fond of Bernie Sanders, and had such disdain for Clinton.
So, you have these liberal commentators on a 'channel' that doesn't seem like such a threat. I have every respect for the Russians. We have never given them the appreciation they deserve for their contribution to WWII, we don't talk about it much but they stopped the German army on the eastern front, but I digress. They wanted to join NATO a few years ago, they were no threat.
It wasn't until just before the election that the awareness of Russian interference in the election was brought up, and it wasn't until after the election that I became aware that RT was a component of Russian propaganda.
So, when you look back on it, you begin to realize that it wouldn't take a lot of arm twisting for the PTB at RT to say to Hartman, TYT etc we want you to support Sanders, and then through other channels (message boards, twitter, Facebook, fake news etc) they attack Hillary. Use the same basic cliches to attack her that they are using on RT, and you have a full fledged assault on our democratic process. Robert Reich bought into the whole process and just wouldn't let go. His Facebook page was a cesspool of anti-Hillary attacks.
We, as democrats, don't march lock step the way conservatives do. I've engaged in many on line discussions with conservatives and the one thing they know how to do is coordinate their talking points. You'll see a conservative talking point, and within a few hours all conservatives will use that talking point to refute something that a republican has done. For the most part if a democrat does something stupid (Clinton/Lewinsky for example) democratic voters will acknowledge that the democrat was wrong. Republicans don't have that.
This is why the Russian assault was successful, and continues to be successful because these Russian owned commentators all 'liked' Bernie Sanders and even around here the same cliches are repeated about how Hillary was such a bad candidate. It's Russian propaganda.
She was a good candidate, but apparently if something is repeated often enough it becomes fact.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)hartmann got on board the Bernie train because of Putin, and the same goes for TYT who again, don't work for RT. They are independent.
Hartmann has had Sanders on his radio show for years, and that goes back before he was on RT. He has always called him America's Senator. You don't think he was going to genuinely back him?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)RT probably approached him because he was such a strong supporter of Bernie. If you compare it to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh doesn't say things that are a huge departure from how he feels, but I'm sure whoever pays him makes sure he stays away from certain topics.
If Hartmann wasn't already a fan of Sanders, it wouldn't have worked. Being a supporter of Sanders is not necessarily the same as being strongly anti-Hillary, but if you are making the case for Sanders, the progression is to compare them by digging up dirt on Hillary and repeating it ad nauseam. That's what seemed to be going on.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)the alt-left refuses to acknowledge that Russia is a serious threat or player and that only the white working class had a say in this last election. It's not just you, though. There is a concerted effort to downplay any news about Russian interference and only hype the "working class" angle of your reality. It also coincides with Sanders views about the working class. That limited scope seems to not have been widely accepted by most voters.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that if Trump and his administration were colluding with Russia, I want him to go down for it, in a big way.
It is not an effort to downplay Russia to say that not everything is about Putin or Russia's grand plan. That is going a little far off the deep end, and it is being used to discredit anybody certain people don't agree with. Those efforts to force a version of reality are an actual problem.
As to your other shit about me harping on working class, what was I saying about it here that you are referring to? When has it been my only issue? Money in politics is my biggest issue because it affects ALL of the others. Not reaching the working class is about our strategy, and our focus, which some people legitimately worry is because of money in politics.
The working class voters who feel nobody is working for them have a point(why they then vote for GOP is baffling as fuck but they still have some grounds for being distrustful of both parties), and its not like people of color who are working class aren't getting screwed by the system on class grounds as well, its just that they have had very specifically targeted threats to their personhood from Trump and the GOP for a long enough time that they have a clear understanding of just how bad for them these people are...and that suffering is something white rural America could not themselves be arsed to understand. People of color had plenty of reasons to vote Democrat without issues of economic class entering into it, but we still need to reach some of these voters, and we need to fight on class grounds for everybody. But again, hardly my only issue. That is you trying to define me, for whatever reasons. I'll do you the courtesy and not do the same.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)listen to, who have ideas very similar to us, and then I try to make a clear statement of where I stand in contrast to a false portrayal, and you think its cute to then say..."wow how generous that you think treason and coups are bad."
We should not allow it...we should investigate it. We should take it seriously. But we shouldn't get stupid about it. We shouldn't be assholes about it who are too lazy to take on specific arguments so instead just bash and label the people making them, but it looks like you wouldn't know anything about doing that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Self segregating low educated whites making over 70k, and they want to stay on top of the dogpile. We know who they are, and what they voted for. Punishing women and dark people- putting them in their place.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)possibly win elections with those voters alone. There aren't enough of them.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm not talking about the few super wealthy that actually will benefit. Weird you're avoiding discussing the racism and sexism after claiming you had "no idea" why people voted against their interests. If that's true, you haven't been paying attention.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)instead of something that is pushed aside as not as urgent as working class, and it was mostly "white" working class in this last election as they were largely considered the Reagan Democrats who decided this election. Putin is an actual oligarch who is trying to influence elections not only here but in Europe so that he can impose his version of capitalism which favors the uber wealthy. You would think Sanders and his followers would be up in arms about that, but little is mentioned in favor of a rehearsed world view about the working class.
You just keep pushing your version of reality which is basically Sanders' version. You were just chastising another poster for mentioning Russia in place of any talking points about the working class. I didn't define you by noticing that, I just noticed. When you reprimand others for talking about Russia in place of the working class, then you define yourself by those actions.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)for our shitty corporate owned media either, which did far more harm than Putin was able to do, and contributed to the ability of russian actors to promote false narratives, because they were themselves so shitty at doing their jobs...and that isn't as if it isn't by design.
The working class was mentioned in the post I responded to, by the way. I didn't change the subject, and I didn't reprimand anybody for talking about Russia as far as I remember. I've said repeatedly, as I did above, that it can't stand, but that there are bigger reasons for it being effective in the first place, which again, is money in politics.
Let me ask you this...if the powers that be, and no they are not the GOP...the GOP are the lap-dogs...if the powers that be were pissed off that Trump had one and wanted him out on his ass, how hard do you think it would have been for them to get this investigation over and done with? If they had the motive to find Trump's connections to Putin, I"m pretty sure his ass would even be locked up about now...but they're relatively okay with it. That is why Russia's fake news had any power...because our news blew and blows. At the very least, every pundit could be hammering on Trump for this if the corporate ownership wanted it. They could be clipping his wings and giving him no place to turn for positive reinforcement. What are they doing instead? Even our supposed non-partisan stations like NPR are saying shit they never said 8 years ago..."but elections have consequences...aren't you afraid of being seen as obstructionists?"
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)do so. They could have also been "clipping his wings", but they never challenged him on any of his attacks or even rudimentary challenges to his stump speech.
And sure, the GOP is complicit with Trump. Trump also got a pass with the media. Let's just hope that Trump has ticked off the media enough by calling them fake that they won't let up on him now.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)like those who own the media, would be caught dead helping a socialist to win a primary. Yes, every time they thought Sanders was there just to mar Clinton they gave him air, every time they were worried they might help him get votes if they covered him, they preferred to film an empty Trump podium to his win. The tactic was generally ignore and pretend he isn't a factor, even when he was getting millions in small donations at the beginning...which would have been a story to them had he been a right wing candidate. They would have eaten that shit up and propelled that person straight to the top...but he was a socialist, and there is no way they were going to help him get elected.
To date, I'm not sure any of the stories that people have pulled out about him are that impressive anyway. Whether the media would have turned them into the biggest scandals on earth had he been the front-runner, is not in question, and whether the public would have bought it, is kind of a toss-up...since they bought the email scandal...so I guess I don't fully disagree with you that it didn't go all in on attacking him, but again, that's because it really did prefer to ignore him...that was more effective at shutting him down. When it did cover him, begrudgingly, it always made it clear to the public that he had basically already lost the race. It always showed numbers with super delegates who had pledged but not yet voted added in to make the numbers look insurmountable. When it was certain he couldn't win, and certain the public "understood" he couldn't win, yes, I think we both agree, Sanders was used as a device to bludgeon Clinton. I'm not entirely sure anybody thought she would lose, but they didn't want her to have very big coat-tails and they wanted her to be damaged goods so that she couldn't really use the bully pulpit, is my guess...but who knows. Its not like its a hive mind...the agendas just kind of coalesce in a way.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)dance around his treatment by the media shows it to be true, although you want to spin it to make him a victim. LOL, even more desperate attempts to turn reality into whatever enhances His image. It's just too transparent. He was never held accountable for anything in his stump speech. Same with Trump.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)around crap, I was trying to be nuanced and respect your points where I thought it was warranted.
Just address my main point...would corporate media shill for, or even be fair to a socialist in a way that might get that person elected? Would corporate media really want someone in there who is putting the cross-hairs on monopolies and big money? If you can justify why it would put energy into doing that, and not the opposite, then I would be really fucking interested to hear your logic.
And I"m not making him a victim. That's nonsense. I'm talking about the political realities of this United States, which are brokered largely by our media. Its not martyrdom I'm preaching. I'm pointing out that running on that kind of platform is an uphill slog because almost nobody with money wants that person to succeed. Its not like he didn't know that going in, and hasn't known for years that he's not exactly going to be the the horse that anybody with influence puts money on.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)they don't challenge him. He repeats his talking points and that's it. So that's probably what you're seeing. The media tries to get something different from him, but he offers nothing else. I can't expand too much on it because of the primary rules, although much of it doesn't involve the primaries anymore. The whole corporate-everything response that you are parroting is just another attempt to force your version of reality, which seems to be a huge political tactic lately.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)because everything else is impacted by it. As you must well know, the GOP is incredibly flexible when it comes to any principle under the Sun. It doesn't really care about social issues. It USES social issues to trick people into voting for it, in service always, of the almighty dollar. That means it affects how the media talks about policing and race and drugs and women and immigrants, intellectuals, scientists, etc. It uses implicit misogyny and it uses racism, and it builds on the worst of these people...taps into their most ludicrous fears and justifies their worst instincts, BECAUSE it wants them to pay attention to the wrong things..BECAUSE it wants them to be okay with them stealing from and disenfranchising others, and because it wants them to be totally blinded to the fact that they are also being stolen from.
Given that it has kept regressive anti-scientific, counter-factual narratives alive in the service of that one thing, I'm interested to know what you think is more of a core issue.
As to Sanders repeating talking points...you'd have to give me specific examples. Of course he does, as all politicians do when they are appropriate, and he is bringing these ideas into the public discourse. I think we may hear different things, and what you might call repeating a talking point, I might call defending a position on solid grounds. I haven't heard him get schooled on something that he simply failed to address by retreating to talking points, but if you have examples...I'll entertain them.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)answer questions outside his stump speech, but it doesn't look like that reality will fit into your own pre-conceived talking points. You can Google material about the primaries on your own, like naming Wall Street frauds, etc. There's no reason to invite someone to get posts hidden when the Google is available to you.
About reality, I just have to point out again that Sanders' notions didn't prevail with the greater population, and that is reality. Continuing to try and force alternative notions or versions of reality doesn't serve much purpose. Obviously they were defeated.
Anyway, my observation about your penchant for pushing your versions of reality stands and is only reinforced by this rather pointless exchange at this point. Not much more to belabor for now. Ciao. 
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Thu May 11, 2017, 04:38 AM - Edit history (2)
for whatever reasons, which are up to interpretation. Anything else you're saying regarding rejection of ideas, etc. is simply your interpretation. Just because something doesn't gain traction right away, or even when it takes decades, it doesn't mean its on the wrong side of history. People change and their thoughts change on things. Nobody should pick up their ball and go home just because the population isn't with them yet, and the primaries hardly translate into a rejection of Sanders or his ideas, given that he ran that campaign on small donations alone and was far more competitive in the primary than anybody expected, including long-time supporters like myself.
Anyway, I'll take this as a win given that it was about as civil as any discussion we've had, accusations of my reality aside. So until next time, R B, Ciao.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)but that was still appealing to the dissatisfied and disaffected with, albeit, ridiculous as well as evil promises, that were somehow going to make America and France a better place...but that was still appealing to populism. How would you disagree?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)for some time. People were calling the Tea Party a right wing populist movement(...because of course, it wasn't astroturfed at all....). I think it has started to take on the meaning of anti-establishment, and I think that TYT have accepted that definition. Maybe they should not have, because I'd rather the term populism not be sullied, and nationalism SHOULD be used to define agendas that are wrapped in the flag but are hardly patriotic, hardly in line with American ideals. I just see an attack on these grounds on TYT to be unwarranted, given that unfortunate sea-change on the use of "populism" that they simply went with.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)the good guys by any stretch. TYT are saying that those fuckers are a pustular symptom of the dissatisfaction. I can see what you're saying, that they're blanketing that dissatisfaction under the umbrella of populism, whether from the right or the left, for a reason, which I would assume is to beat the drum that people are not happy with the status quo and are finding alternatives, whether those be to the left or right of it. I don't know that that is cynicism at work, because I can see why they would do that for legitimate reasons, and its not like there isn't a strong case for that behavior, but whether they do damage to the term populism, is a worth-while question.
Still, if we go back, I thought Hitler was considered a populist. Clearly, he didn't have every German's best interests at heart, but he was going to get it back for the german citizen...he was going to turn around their shitty lot in life. Somebody posted on DU about this back in 2005...just found a link, saying Hitler used populist rhetoric but was not a populist. Trump has used populist rhetoric, but is not a populist, but the appeal to populism, even if not consistent, or genuine, is more to the point. Perhaps they should be labeled faux or fake populists.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I don't see them as virtuous or ethically consistent.
They're a best a mixed bag of opportunists.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)fine, but I don't think they're fake. being full of yourself is not the same thing as being fake. I wouldn't say with confidence one way or other on whether or not they are full of themselves, but I think that would be a different kind of criticism to explore.
But again, if it were about opportunism, Cenk had a platform that was taken away from him because when they asked him to tone down his rhetoric he didn't....it was a long crawl back up to the popular platform he has now. Seems to me he would have just changed his tune to fit what the network was demanding if that were his MO.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And I do think there's a whole lot of ego at play in Cenk's case, and that he'd like to be influential and well compensated. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was the main motivator?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I didn't think he had much a future at NBC or had great ratings. Not sure why he left, or why it matters here.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)more than once about toning down his anti-establishment, frustrations with the President, etc. rhetoric, and when he didn't subsume that language he was not renewed in-spite of the ratings. There's no way of knowing for what reasons he was actually fired. That's his word on it, and the ratings are something that can be verified, and there was no specific scandal, but I'm sure MSNBC would just say, and maybe legitimately, it was going in another direction.
But this matters because you are making an accusation of intent. You are saying he's an opportunist. I'm simply saying, if you're so certain of that opportunism, why wouldn't he have taken producer advice to try to save his job? That's why it matters. You have an opinion you hold, based on something, and I'm wondering how that squares with his history. Why wouldn't that matter?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)While having more freedom to do what he wanted. If he had ego issues, why wouldn't he think he'd be successful?
I don't think for a minute either of us putting ourselves in his shoes would have the same results. Especially not me. And yeah, I'm not sure I trust his take on why he was let go. Honestly his style was fairly off putting but also NBCs made a lot of decisions I cannot understand. Can't help you there, but would imagine Cenk's painting it in a self serving light.
Cha
(296,847 posts)you bet he's self serving.. just like that $4 Million bucks he took from a repub to screw with the Democratic party.
Cha
(296,847 posts)him Fired from msnbc.
cenk is a ex repub who got $4 Million bucks from a repub to screw with the Democratic party.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)As well as any Greens or Independents getting a boost from the GOP. It's hinky as all get out.
Cha
(296,847 posts)Cenk feels that the White House is behind the coup detat of his reign as a decorated talk show host but of course he can't produce any evidence of such accusations except manufacture it as usual..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/7/21/996940/-
Can't take personal responsibility like a republican.. blame it on President Obama.
As If M$M would do anything to mess with their bottom line or takes orders from a DEMOCRATIC President.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I really do have concerns about anyone who spent part of their adult lives advocating for Republicans them trying to influence other Dems to attack other Dems. I find them less trustworthy due to prior acts. When that also currently take GOP funds and slam Dems- well that's hinky as all get out.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I think to use her past to attack her progressivism today is entirely inappropriate, because I think people change, but your concern apparently is that someone who used to be a republican is attacking democrats, even though that person thinks the republicans are far worse and says so with regularity? Even though that person debates Harris on his views on Islam and Coulter on her backasswards provocateur bullshit?...
I think that's an unreasonable way to judge the person.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)evidence, but to each their own.
Cha
(296,847 posts)Cenk feels that the White House is behind the coup detat of his reign as a decorated talk show host but of course he can't produce any evidence of such accusations except manufacture it as usual..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/7/21/996940/-
Can't take personal responsibility like a republican.. blame it on President Obama.
As If M$M would do anything to mess with their bottom line or takes orders from a DEMOCRATIC President.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)there are cases of White House personnel calling to complain about coverage, which Crystal Ball spoke to as well. I'm sure that is easily filed under the category of "we don't think you are being fair on this issue, or getting these details right..." but as a money making machine, firstly, with huge lobby interests, and secondly, with fiduciary responsibilities for its little station, you don't actually want to get on the bad side of leadership in Washington. Nobody has to strong arm or threaten in specific terms. You just have to register your dissatisfaction.
It is fair for you to say that we don't know the whole story and it is certainly a matter of he said she said. The network head does actually say that Cenk was talked to, but colors the discussion as a matter of not being able to book guests...which frankly, is like saying "you are affecting our access." That actually could be because he wasn't 'friendly' enough to guests, but how friendly are pundits supposed to be? What crosses the line? Hardballs instead of softballs?
I see no lie by Cenk here, even if his interpretations or conclusions are wrong. He may be lying. The MSNBC head may be lying. But I prefer a little evidence of that behavior before I assume someone is a liar. There's not even enough evidence here to prove he's mistaken, let alone a liar.
Cha
(296,847 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Bottom line is you aren't convincing people who already agree with you. They already agree with you. And you aren't convincing me, nor do you appear to be trying, because when I say I need evidence before I accuse somebody of being a liar, you do this. Unless this is supposed to be a direct response to my statement, basically retorting with "fuck that I don't need any such evidence, I know it when I feel it..", I assume you want to be done with this conversation, but you want to be done and to have "won." If that's what matters, and if that's what passes for victory, I'm not sure why.
Granted, I can understand checking out of a conversation, I understand giving up on something if you think there's just no way to bridge the gap between your thinking and the person you're talking to in a reasonable time-frame, but it seems you just badly want to leave those unresolved questions be and cut to the "i'm right, you're wrong, eat it..." part of the "discourse."
Cha
(296,847 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Cha
(296,847 posts)
Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)to Hillary even if they eventually voted for Hillary.
Dem Establishment = Do no wrong
Outside Dem Establishment = Paid off by Russia and GOP and anti Democratic party.
Forget that Cenk was against Le Pen and for Macroon. Michael Tracey was the only one that I know of over at TYT who liked Le Pen. Besides, both Le Pen and Macroon were anti-establishment candidates so of course most at TYT are going to like Macroon. I don't know what the fuck Michael Tracey was thinking when he backed Le Pen??? Fuck him!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Please learn the difference...
JCanete
(5,272 posts)German's lives better, at the cost of other German and non-German lives he wasn't including in the dream. As has been discussed further in this thread, he shouldn't be considered an actual populist, but he was using some populist rhetoric to get the public behind him.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Next time I have an argument with my boss, would you care to take up my side?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)subject. I could still be wrong and I'm not working my ass off trying to be right. I thought we were discussing this topic. Forgive me if my arguments, just like everybody else's tend to be here, aren't loaded down with caveats and hedges. And hell, this was a "yes but"...statement.
LexVegas
(6,030 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Who now works as an "investigative reporter" for TYT. I don't, personally at least, think of TYT as alt-left (Counterpunch). In fact, I've never had any idea what to make of TYT.
Occasionally make some good points, but they mostly seem like opportunistic grifters.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)They've been talked about and linked here thousands of times. You could have just googled tyt. It's an extremely common acronym for their show/network.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Le Pen is a populist. She ran in a platform helping the average French citizen. Of course she is a hateful NAZI and I am glad she lost by a landslide.
Here is the definition of populist:
noun
1.
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
Jno_Gilmor_
(127 posts)Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)Last edited Mon May 8, 2017, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)
Michael Tracey also works for the following news outlets: New York Daily News, The Daily Beast, The American Conservative, The Nation, Mediaite, The Intercept, Rolling Stone and Current Affairs. Why are those news outlets not mentioned? Why only TYT who for the most part hates Le Pen?
I watch a fair number of TYT videos and this OP had me scratching my head because I haven't heard anyone at TYT come down on the side of Le Pen. As for Michael Tracey I don't know if I have ever seen him in a TYT video. Who is he?
On Edit: Want to point out that both Le Pen and Macroon were anti-establishment candidates. TYT generally saw Macroon as a Sanders type candidate and Le Pen as Trump.
Here is a typical video from TYT talking about the French Election and I would say they are right in line with most on DU:
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)What is with the incorrect spelling
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I have been a paying tyt member for over four years, and I listen to Thom Hartmann nearly every day, and I never heard once anything that is pro-Putin.
The problem is that some truly believe that anyone that isn't 100% for the party lines is a Putin shill. It is really disturbing to me.
Thrill
(19,178 posts)When all they would do is tweet and retweet bad Hilary stories or Bad Hillary poll numbers. They showed their whole hand during this election cycle. Fuck TYT