Breitbart filibustered Cenk for 13 minutes of the 18 minute final interview.

‘The Young Turks’ crew tells Cenk he was too easy on Andrew Breitbart:
http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/the-young-turks-crew-tells-cenk-he-was-too-easy-on-andrew-breitbart

Just some history of the 2 parties......Setting aside the fact the the KKK was formed by the all inclusive tent of the Democrats...to scare the southern brother who remained Republican up until the 60s.



The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.

Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Link

>> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



So who is opposing the Black Man? Which party enslaves the Black Man today? Democrats use the welfare system which keeps many enslaved into poverty. Republicans want to help those get out and become free men and women to make free choices for themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Democrats want to feed the poor fish-sticks. Republicans want to teach how to fish.

I guess on the one hand, I agree with part of his rant -- elections don't matter enough, and there's too much continuity in policy from President to President, from Congress to Congress.

On the other, I think it's largely spun in a self-serving way from a right-wing ideologue. His big complaint is that the parties are too similar, but then largely misidentifies this as somehow inherently a liberal confluence of policy, when the real issue is that we haven't had a liberal shift in America's policies since before I was born.

A lot of the problem, IMO, is that conservatives like to sell people on the idea of "divided government" and the whole idea that adding opportunities for the minority to stop things from happening (like the filibuster) are the essence of "limited" government.

They've been on a decades-long crusade to stop or sabotage the government from acting effectively on any topic, and now they're complaining that their success means they were right that the government is some unresponsive, ineffectual, cold-hearted leviathan that must be destroyed...even though they had a lot to do with it getting that way, and have worked tirelessly to keep it that way, regardless of whether people vote for them or not.

I don't really know how we're going to get out of this situation, but the solution has got to start with people getting fed up with this blame-shifting excuse coming from the right. Government is not some alien creature acting on its own whims, it's a human institution, populated with human beings, acting in accordance to laws that are voted into existence by people.

People who think "government" is the problem, are letting the actual people responsible for the problem off the hook, because they're too apathetic to figure out who's really to blame. And assholes like Judge Napolitano want to help encourage them to keep blaming "the government" by trying to make it seem like it's some all-encompassing conspiracy that no mere mortal could penetrate, rather than it being the direct result of decades of Republican malfeasance left unchecked by anyone, including Democrats.

And forgive the rant, especially if you're not normally into politics.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

We have to disagree on the politics; this last fiasco has shown me politics and ideology trump our economy for some of these rascals.

There is a huge difference between letting the 1st Bank of Palookaville fail, and letting the likes of CitiBank and BOA fail. You much be rich enough to think you can ride out the resulting depression, or an ascetic.

I think I get it. So, screw everything, let's just declare currency armageddon, and start from scratch? >> ^marbles:
>> ^longde:
To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.


No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.
Second point, absolutely lets the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--most of those were saved.
Third paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

>> ^longde:

To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.



No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.

Second point, absolutely let the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--those were bailed out.

Last paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.

To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.

I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.

Any member of government that have voted today to enact the Super Congress that bypasses the house and senate for future bills by a 12 member commitee that removes the right of debate and filibuster by the house and senate should be executed for treason against the United States.

I firmly stand against any militia or patriot movement that wishes to take back the government after today's signing into law the creation of the new super congress. It's already been proven that phone calls, protests, writing your elected leaders, voting all does nothing. So it's time to start executing these treasonous bastards and retaking our government by force.

@blankfist upvoted. I'm not at all pleased about it.

In terms of the "my party is better than yours" contest, here are the vote tallies:

Senate Nays by party: 19 Democrats (I'm including Bernie Sanders in there), 4 Republicans.
House Nays by party: 122 Democrats, 31 Republicans.

I'd love to grow those numbers on both sides of the aisle.

Some notable names in both lists:

Pelosi: Nay
Weiner: Nay
Kucinich: Nay
Franken: Nay
Leahy: Nay (and filibustered with Rand, not that the press or CFL mentions that)
Brown: Nay

I want more Democrats in Congress like them, and fewer like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Joe Manchin (all voted Aye).

Oh, and this came up in one of my google searches in trying to find those roll call lists: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/tea-party-roll-call-may-2011-patriot-act/

Looks like the House Tea Party caucus voted overwhelmingly in favor of renewal.

Wonderful how the Democrats are bypassing the filibuster for the a Neo Con bill.

Yet they couldn't bypass a filibuster for anything else. While my previous statement is probably not true, it expresses my sentiment.

Fox is so awesome at this stuff. Expressions of outrage, outrage! That "congress" didn't take care of this.

The vote on the first responders bill? 58 Democrats for, 42 Republicans against, with Harry Reid changing his vote to "Nay" at the last minute just so he would be able to file cloture on it again.

If only Republicans would let it come to an up or down vote, it would pass. But instead they unanimously voted to filibuster it.

I suppose the memo on this topic to Fox "journalists" is that they're forbidden to use the word "Republican" when talking about it, even though they're the only reason it failed.

Unfortunately, forcing a Republican filibuster would not lead to true debate, rather Republicans would be forced to read phonebooks endlessly. Interesting news coverage it is not.

>> ^entr0py:

It's my understanding that the vast majority of modern filibusters are carried out only by the threat to filibuster, and no one actually has to get up and talks for hours on end. BUT that Democrats could force Republicans to truly filibuster through unlimited debate if they choose to.
My question is why the fuck not? Obviously most Republicans are ashamed of their party's stance on the issue, and forcing them to go on the senate floor and talk about it for hours would make it the top news story.

I do love how they keep referring to it as 'congress' who didn't pass it... no reference what so ever to the top republicans who filibustered the bill... it was 'congress' all of it...

Right... I mean he isn't wrong... but it's still pretty clear who signs his checks....