>> ^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.

But she's a glittering jewel compared to Joe Biden or Harry Reid.


You'd really prefer to listen to Nancy Pelosi or Janet Napolitano?


wow

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid' to 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid, Cenk Uygur' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Januari:

While he is completely correct in this video.... this is the same guy who said that health care as a right meant the police were going to show up in the middle of the night and kidnap him with the intention of forcing him to treat people.... it's all just such BS


Yes indeed. He is slave because healthcare is a right. It's nice to see him say something sane once in a while.

or... we could just tax bajillionaires ... and guess what? we'd still have rich people!!!!!!

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's social welfare/entitlements that are bankrupting us, not the military.
50% of Americans pay NOTHING in taxes yet receive endless taxpayer-funded benefits. How long can this last?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
How about this, we cut funding for both the Cowboy Poet festival and national defense by 50%?
$500,000,000,000 - 1/2 of military budget
(plus) $50,000 - 1/2 of Cowboy poetry festival budget
_________________
$500,000,050,000 - Savings!

quantummushroom,

I'm not in favor of drastic cuts to military spending, but you can't say that defense spending isn't playing a role in bankrupting the US government. It's the single largest component of the US federal budget once you take the portion of discretionary spending that is military and add it into general defense spending.

And FYI, you can completely balance the budget and have the lower and middle classes pay the same or less in taxes if desired. We've done it in the past. Basic math and history shows it's entirely possible. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Everyone - check your ideologies at the door, and try actually solving the problems we have instead of advancing your agenda.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's social welfare/entitlements that are bankrupting us, not the military.
50% of Americans pay NOTHING in taxes yet receive endless taxpayer-funded benefits. How long can this last?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
How about this, we cut funding for both the Cowboy Poet festival and national defense by 50%?
$500,000,000,000 - 1/2 of military budget
(plus) $50,000 - 1/2 of Cowboy poetry festival budget
_________________
$500,000,050,000 - Savings!

QM, there is now way you can justify what you said using the numbers.>> ^quantumushroom:
It's social welfare/entitlements that are bankrupting us, not the military.
50% of Americans pay NOTHING in taxes yet receive endless taxpayer-funded benefits. How long can this last?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
How about this, we cut funding for both the Cowboy Poet festival and national defense by 50%?
$500,000,000,000 - 1/2 of military budget
(plus) $50,000 - 1/2 of Cowboy poetry festival budget
_________________
$500,000,050,000 - Savings!

It's social welfare/entitlements that are bankrupting us, not the military.

50% of Americans pay NOTHING in taxes yet receive endless taxpayer-funded benefits. How long can this last?


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

How about this, we cut funding for both the Cowboy Poet festival and national defense by 50%?
$500,000,000,000 - 1/2 of military budget
(plus) $50,000 - 1/2 of Cowboy poetry festival budget
_________________
$500,000,050,000 - Savings!

Oh my gosh, you're completely right! This twenty nine second video clip totally illustrates how completely out of touch this man is! I fear however that your superior reasoning skills are being wasted on deaf ears here. Go! Go and tell the others, for the good of the nation!!

>> ^bobknight33:

If this does not show how out of touch this man is then what will?
And oh is is the leader of his party. I'm so proud of him. Standing up against those evil Republicans. Keeping every job he can find even if the country goes bankrupt.

You do an amazing job of not even remotely listening to anything she said.

>> ^Ydaani:

I also am LDS (not active but believing) but her acting like this video will threaten her temple recommend and standing in the church is a flat out joke. Harry Reid is a member of the Mormon Church and has a Temple Reccomend. Harry Frickin Reid! And this video is somehow gonna get her kicked out? Please. Also, I have no problem with her stance on Gay Marriage, I don't agree but I am fine with her opinion (you would be surprised how many members of the Mormon faith feel like her).
There is nothing wrong with the church promoting and asking members to offer support for what it espouses. I don't hate gay people (my brother is gay) but I reserve my right to stand against gay marriage if I so choose. I love illegal immigrants (the non-felon ones) and treat them as such but at the same time I will argue and ask for a more secure border. You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Appreciate you speaking up and contributing what will definitely be a dissenting view.

How is it OK for the Church to actively spend money and time to keep a subset of society from getting married?

How about mixed race marriages? Does the Mormon Church want to prevent that as well? Seems like it.

Ever since the Mountain Meadow Massacre the Mormon Church has been on the wrong side of morality and history.

>> ^Ydaani:

I also am LDS (not active but believing) but her acting like this video will threaten her temple recommend and standing in the church is a flat out joke. Harry Reid is a member of the Mormon Church and has a Temple Reccomend. Harry Frickin Reid! And this video is somehow gonna get her kicked out? Please. Also, I have no problem with her stance on Gay Marriage, I don't agree but I am fine with her opinion (you would be surprised how many members of the Mormon faith feel like her).
There is nothing wrong with the church promoting and asking members to offer support for what it espouses. I don't hate gay people (my brother is gay) but I reserve my right to stand against gay marriage if I so choose. I love illegal immigrants (the non-felon ones) and treat them as such but at the same time I will argue and ask for a more secure border. You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.

I also am LDS (not active but believing) but her acting like this video will threaten her temple recommend and standing in the church is a flat out joke. Harry Reid is a member of the Mormon Church and has a Temple Reccomend. Harry Frickin Reid! And this video is somehow gonna get her kicked out? Please. Also, I have no problem with her stance on Gay Marriage, I don't agree but I am fine with her opinion (you would be surprised how many members of the Mormon faith feel like her).

There is nothing wrong with the church promoting and asking members to offer support for what it espouses. I don't hate gay people (my brother is gay) but I reserve my right to stand against gay marriage if I so choose. I love illegal immigrants (the non-felon ones) and treat them as such but at the same time I will argue and ask for a more secure border. You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.

>> ^gorillaman:

That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.


I think you're confusing this conversation for the one dft linked to. This conversation started with you saying democracy was fascism because poor people might vote to redistribute wealth so they're not so poor anymore.

I can expand a bit on why I'm leery of "limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for". On the surface, that sounds good to me. However, the question I have is how do we discern who knows what they're voting for? A standardized test? Who writes the test? Who grades the test? How do we decide those people know what they're talking about?

It quickly reverts back to the need for a foolproof methodology for finding people with golden souls to write these hypothetical voting literacy tests. But then if we had a way of identifying superlative leaders, why waste them on writing rules for voting, why not just give them the keys to government directly?

We also have a chicken-and-egg issue. Absent a revolution, the power would have to come from our existing government. That means letting the likes of Harry Reid or John Boehner have ultimate say on who writes the test (or worse, what's specifically in it).

Even if they somehow picked the absolute best possible person for the task, I think the implication of the task is beyond mortal capabilities. They wouldn't just need to write a test that would be fair, they need to write a fair test that would also ensure that the resulting elected officials would appoint a successor who would be willing and able to write a fair test for the next round that produced good elected officials, and so on and so forth for all eternity.

What I imagine would really happen in that loop is that the whole thing would slowly (or maybe even quickly) turn into a tool for one party/ideology/family to consolidate power, and shut off any legal, nonviolent way for the people to get rid of them.

It's why I think that if your goal is to make sure your electorate is comprised of people who know what they're doing in the voting booth, then you should be fighting for policies that make the electorate smarter and more engaged, not smaller.

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.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wishful thinking. The promised "drubbing" of A.C. never arrived.
Is the argument that Bush really attempted "nation-building" in Afghanistan? There were 30K troops in Afghanistan when he left office.
At that time, Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Leader, said: “I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan.” So according to Reid, 30K troops wasn't/isn't enough.
Obama's curious decision to keep the Afghan war going just doesn't make sense. I was surprised he betrayed his fanbase's wishes to leave.
It's obvious His Earness has no intention of winning over there, and has either gone along with or even developed all the bull$hit "rules" that make it impossible to win. You don't set timelines when you're fighting a war; you win it.
There's a very good case for getting the hell out of Afghanistan. Probably public opinion will end it along with the removal of His Earness in 2012.


Sooo you think Iraq was the better war to keep going....or are you actually antiwar?