And now he's rekindling the iran war to stay in power. Who left the iran nuclear agreement?

Now a bombing and they attacked our embassy. I thought we had to stop endless wars?

Strangely, the thing that seems to be most important in stopping nuclear war with Russia is Trump's outrageous friendly relationship with Tsar Putin, because he's already made it clear that he has no qualms about using nukes against those he thinks are enemies.

Do you have to demonize a man who assassinates his enemies and expands his country? There's no question that he's done those things, so I don't get his point at all. You don't have to demonize a demon.

How does he think he knows what classified proof there may be? His statement makes him seem silly, he's complaining he hasn't seen this proof, knowing he shouldn't be able to see it.

Russia incontrovertibly militarily and financially supports our enemies and attacks our allies. That alone makes them threat #1. Period. They are also expansionist on multiple fronts, which is hyper threatening.

It's only unwise to build up Polish border forces if you want Poland to be Russian.

Be clear, Putin didn't "put Trump into the whitehouse", but he certainly helped. The argument that he didn't just install him is a red herring, designed to distract from the legal and illegal things Russia did to effect the election, a plan that worked better than they ever hoped.

Fake news hysteria?!? Fake news is one of the most important issues today, because it denies progress on ANY other issue by confusing the facts, making negotiation impossible.

I hate hearing about Bakers "promise"....it wasn't in writing, it wasn't from America or NATO, it wasn't binding in any way even then, and thinking we should stand by it in the face of Russia breaking treaty after treaty is just insane and naïve. Remember, Russia promised to never invade Ukraine (including Crimea).

I don't really think Aleppo was liberated....there's nothing left to liberate there but rubble.
Really, he's claiming that when Mosul was "liberated", Iraq just let the enemy drive away? That's bullshit. We have bombed the fleeing militants, and the Iraqi have fought them with vigor this time.

For a professional on US, Russia relations, he's got some strange ways of seeing things.
I do agree with him that, to Russia, bolstering Assad IS fighting terrorism. I think we failed miserably when we didn't take Assad out after he gassed the populace AND support/safeguard the local populace (if not their militias)....no question in my mind, that's when we lost Syria. Once Daesh and others were allowed to take over the anti-Assad side, there was no "winning" that war.
I also agree, with our current leaders, the nuclear safeguard is no safeguard at all, it's a sword of Damocles, not a shield.

I don't think the people who think the Republican party is doomed understand just how brainwashed their people are. I have to hear Fox news every day, and hear comments from conservatives every day about how everything is going to hell in a hand basket and only the Republican party can save them. It's becoming clear that all this is just galvanizing the core. They think they are being repressed, they think there is a war against Christianity (which is funny since the Republican party is perhaps the most polar opposite of the 4 larger parties, and certainly of the two majors, to the teachings of Jesus) and only Republicans will help stop that war. Their churches are telling them there is a war against Christians and how they are being repressed and to vote Republican to save them. These people, once they can no longer deny that the climate is warming and is man made, will just point how it is the end times and continue to ignore it, because Jesus is coming soon anyhow. It's like that cartoon where the rich man takes 99 of the 100 cookies, the middle class guy takes one and the poor guy has just crumbs and the rich man warns the middle class guy to watch out, that the poor guy wants his cookie, and rather than be mad at the guy who took 99 of the cookies, he actually gets mad at the poor guy for wanting one. They don't care that a rich man fires over 1000 people and keeps everyone else at minimum for 4 years without raises so he can have a jet, they see those minimum wage workers and the people he fired as the enemy.They honestly believe the big corporate media machine is the "liberal media", disregarding the fact they are very much interested in keeping the status qua going, rather than expose the truth of growing income gap in this country. By 2016 most people will have forgotten the shutdown and those that remember it won't remember it is the Republican's fault, yes, the progressives will remember, but the conservatives blame the Democrats, liberals and progressives anyhow, and the rest won't care by then. The Fox News watchers, Rush listeners are just more solidly believing now that everything is the fault of the poor and the needy and the liberals, Democrats and progressives that want to help them.

TLDR: Those seeing the end of the Republican party, must not be around the hard core enough to see how brainwashed they are by Fox, Rush and their churches. All this just solidifies their anger.

Putting, subject matter of this video aside, I had a HUGE problem with the lack of respect both hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez was showing their guests, Young and his wife by not addressing them after they spoke and cutting them off.
Gonzalez, I believe rudely, would simply address Donahue after Young would speak, without even a recognition of the words he just spoke, let alone a follow-up question.
And Goodman straight up cut off Young's wife during the interview.
Even as a liberal myself, I can start to understand the conservative's argument that liberals are agenda driven.
Compassion for Mr. Young was not very present with these two hosts, just the agenda to stop the war. That bothered me, because both could have been accomplished.

No, you can't, that's just retarded. You do not have hundreds of thousands of illegal gun owners in prisons. Guns, while some may say are for recreational use, are not designed to take the edge off, to relax after hard day, something humankind has done thousands of years. Guns have been used for tens of thousands of years to kill. How can you compare the two? Oh wait, retarded right wing rhetorics.

The most effective move USA can make in the war on terror is to stop the war on drugs. Stop the fuel, money and the flame goes away.

Stop pointless Wars Obama and there will be less suicides.

It's not the same people cheering for both...the first group are the Perry/Santorum supporters (the ones that boo a gay man that is serving in the military and cheers when the topic of state executions are brought up). The second group is the Ron Paul supporters.>> ^ChaosEngine:

Crowd seems really confused here.
RP: "We can't go around pissing other people off"
crowd: "boo! fuck you, we can do what we want to whoever we want, we're America! (fuck yeah)"
RP: "And we need to stop these wars"
crowd: "yay!"
They just don't get that there could be a correlation between the two points....

Crowd seems really confused here.

RP: "We can't go around pissing other people off"
crowd: "boo! fuck you, we can do what we want to whoever we want, we're America! (fuck yeah)"
RP: "And we need to stop these wars"
crowd: "yay!"

They just don't get that there could be a correlation between the two points....

@notarobot and @GeeSussFreeK

Still, desperate or not, I would rather loose my house than this. Okay, the woman is fine, now what would have happened if she would have struggled (If she wasn't a cop) and the gun would have went off? It didn't but then this was a very controlled situation.

Another thing, I use my vote to try and change the law. This guy just gave up his right, just like millions of others in jails and prisons, and those who don't vote because they are too busy living the high life, so to speak. I.e., being lazy.

Yes, stop the war on America (Drugs) But if you are not part of the solution (This guy in the vid) then sorry, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

if Obama signed the Bush tax cuts, why are they still the Bush tax cuts?
and even if we stopped the wars, stopped the tax cuts we'd still be 14 trillion in debt.
it's equally a lie to say there is no crisis if we just made military cuts and raised taxes on the rich. We're in a debt trap. That the most profitable kind of trap for money lenders.

>> ^MaxWilder:

You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.
Also I agree with the above who want to start with cutting defense. Stop the wars, then we can start cutting other programs if necessary.


So you believe that Big Pharma and Big Insurance Just lobbied Obama? That's bullshit...this bill was always gonna pass as long as it supported the bottom line which it did. He can call it his if he wants to...thats just him cozying up to more corporations.

You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.

Also I agree with the above who want to start with cutting defense. Stop the wars, then we can start cutting other programs if necessary.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I was going to give a long winded reply about how you are completely full of crap, but I decided against it. It is fairly obvious you have formed your opinion based in very little evidence. I don't think you will find many people that support your position that "Ron Paul does it for the votes". He has never been a mainstream candidate, never pandered, and usually the outcast even in his own party. So much so, that he has run as a 3rd party before, and railed against the 2 party system.
In otherwords, not to be rude, I think your full of shit. That your ideas on Dr. Paul are based on very fragmented bits. I understand your skepticism after Obama; but even people who hate Dr. Paul's politics here on the sift, like DT and Net, always say how they admire his integrity, and straight forward honesty. There are many snakes on capital hill, most people would agree that this is not one of them.
>> ^ghark:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^blankfist:
Again. Why is this man not president?

Watch a few of his interviews, he's as corrupt as the rest of them. He denied that the impact of the BP oil spill was significant and even played down direct evidence (tarballs) in one I saw. This is normal party politics, a few of them make speeches to get people on their side, but the voting never follows them - e.g the use of Weiner/Grayson by the Dems during the Healthcare "debate" to get people to think the Dems wanted a real healthcare bill - but all the while they get the numbers to vote with the lobbyists because that's where the money comes from for all of them.

So your accusing the man of normal party politics when we have this video showing him in direct opposition to his party politics....what was your point again?

You missed the point good sir, being in direct opposition when making a speech is completely irrelevant in pretty much all cases, because the votes are all that matters. I gave an example, perhaps read all of my post next time. The reason he is making the speech is pretty clear, it gets people to think that the two party system works because they have at least one person in the party they can side with. It's basically just a part of marketing the party to the public.
In case you hadn't noticed, there have been anti-war speeches like this for many many years, and what exactly has been done?
And of course, the best example of all - Obama - lots of great speeches to get people on his side, no action. It works because people have short memories.



I never said he does it for the votes, it's not really even about him, it's more about the party and how they can get people like you to believe in them because they have one or two seemingly upright candidates. As an example, go look up his Wiki, he's responsible for quite a significant amount of 'no' votes on what he deems are improper bills, that sounds great on paper, yet what difference is it going to make when ~95% of the party votes yes and bulldozers them through anyway. Look at your own example, you say he rails against the two party system - yet he's IN the two party system - you see what I mean? It's politics, if you can't see that then I'm sorry.

I think his stance on many issues is technically great, legalization of marijuana, stopping the war etc, but listen to, or read, his interviews - you find quotes like this:
"I mean, it’s a horrible accident, but it’s an accident. Do you think BP likes this kind of stuff? It’s not like they committed a criminal act".

Yea great, let BP destroy the environment through reckless malpractice, if you've spent any time researching the spill you would know it went far deeper than being a simple accident, he says he is for unlimited liability, then in the same breath defends the oil company for that disaster.

He is also against universal healthcare - he is also against the current system - but once again, with the two party system, how is it going to be fixed? Short answer - it isn't.

So my point is that some of his principles are great, some are awful, he takes fewer corporate donations than most of his colleagues - once again, great - but what difference is it going to make in the bigger picture while the current system is in place? The answer goes back to my original point - it gets people like you on board, and that is it; he can't, by himself, create significant improvements, even assuming that he wants to.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Cenk. Proving again and again that liberal bias is as bad or worse than anything Rush has ever said.


Ehhh nope. Sorry but there's no liberal bias...the NY Times is not liberal it's statist. MSNBC isn't liberal it's reactionary.

Don't believe me find out which American Newspaper or Network reported the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health findings of Cancer victims and infant mortality in Fallujah Iraq due to American forces using uranium shells. They found a greater amount of leukemia there than in Japan after the Nuclear bombs were dropped. Thank you and have a nice day.

As a bonus find me a mention of us supporting Saddam Hussein during his worst atrocities to the run up to the War in Iraq. Dontcha think a Liberal Bias would've jumped all over that to stop the War if they were really against it?

It's great that people are finally having serious discussions about what we should be giving up as a nation. However, check out the numbers from last year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Note the deficit of 1.42 trillion dollars. Add up your least favorite programs until you get to 1.42 trillion and ask yourself if that's still a country you want to live in. We've been lead to believe that current tax levels are sustainable or even too high, but try balancing the budget yourself with current revenue levels. You can cut the entire defense department, stop both wars, end medicare (but still tax for it), end medicaid, and you're still not there.

Now you have no military, the old and poor dying of preventable illness, and you're still adding 100 billion dollars to the deficit each year. Anyone who seriously wants to argue that current revenue levels are sustainable needs to make a realistic case for what services our government is going to stop providing. Pretending that we can just wait out these wars or cut out our 1-2 least favorite programs is the kind of nonsense that allows the irresponsible pricks who are running our country into the ground to keep getting re-elected.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^newluke:
Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.

Raising taxes on a "certain population". The rich is what you meant. No need for euphemisms. I understand Sanders is talking about raising taxes on the rich. It's even in the title.
My point is this is a distraction. What we need to do is shrink the US defense spending. I'm tired of the Democrats positioning themselves as the party of peace, but do nothing to actually promote peace. Why not stop raising taxes and start cutting the spending?