NC protest. Man dies from dehydration in holding cell. Trump using charity money to settle lawsuits. Scientists warn against Trump’s climate change stance. Study shows primary coverage centered around controversy over policy. Statistics on different media outlets’ percentage of coverage.
Comments
Sheriff Clarke IS responsible. This happened under his command and he’s responsible for all his officers. They should certainly go after the individuals who withheld water from the prisoner and file charges, but the Sheriff is responsible too and should be charged as well. He should know what happens under his command and if he isn’t, he is criminally negligent.
That was a really great comment. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
John, I adore you reasoning :)
Clearly not true. You continue to mischaracterize the Clinton Foundation, a four star charity that distributed 200+ million dollars in a year the Trump Foundation collected 500 thousand dollars.
Cenk is being purposefully blind to the probability that the difference between Clinton and Trump on climate, while real, is insufficient to avert climate catastrophe. It’s easy for Clinton to be a “strong supporter” of the NON-BINDING Paris climate accords, of course. John, one of the only people who really understands the immediate gravity of climate change, should really know better.
So in a few years’ time, while you’re enjoying the luxury of being “really mad” about Clinton rolling back Obama’s minimalist climate actions or backing out of Paris-based agreements, understand that the +5 million people who are dying EACH YEAR as result of climate change – along with +7 billion humans who are headed squarely at extinction – are there because you let fear of one evil allow you to settle for what APPEARED to be a lesser evil. Maybe then you’ll realize that a vote for a Clinton was basically a vote to go out (go extinct) in style: to ride out the last days of maximal corporate consumerism with some throwback 90’s neoliberalism, before we finish locking ourselves into an unalterable fiery death spiral.
Clinton is indisputably a lesser-evil in the immediate term. But in the long term, her actions & inactions will contribute to our collective demise. After all, evil wins when ostensibly-good people (e.g. Clinton) do little-to-nothing to stop it.
Hilariously, Cenk is acting exactly like the climate-denying right-wingers he’s trying to mock… except his version goes:
“What are you talking about?!? I don’t see any climate change that requires IMMEDIATE or RADICAL action!!! The weather seems a little worse, but the earth is tough and I’m sure we have plenty of time, amirite?! If Clinton thinks that it’s no big deal, how big of a deal can it really be??”
Nice words & nice thoughts aren’t going to stop climate change, Cenk. Only ACTION will stop climate change. Clinton is not willing to take the immediate & radical ACTION that is necessary.
A vote for Clinton is very likely a vote AGAINST a stable climate and a stable future; not because she denies climate change, but because ****she doesn’t take it seriously enough****.
It’s time to grow up, Turks. It’s time to recognize the radicalism that is required of us, at this point in the game.
I agree that Cenk’s coverage of climate change in regards to elections is incorrect. SAYING THE CLINTON BELIEVES IN CLIMATE CHANGE WITHOUT MENTIONING HER LOVE FOR FRACKING, WHICH IS THE WORST IN THIS REGARD, IS NOT PRINCIPLED/ACCURATE/FAIR COVERAGE.
This is my concern exactly. Yes, Trump is monstrous and possibly an existential threat to the globe. No debate there. However, with the appointment of a pro-fracking lobbyist to co-chair her transition team, her dropping mentions of climate change from her speeches by over 50% after securing Sanders’ endorsement following the primary, her refusal to support a fracking ban and her suggestion that we need an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy it seems clear to me that we are out of time for the Clinton’s of the world. We simply do not have 4-8 years to not meaningfully address this problem any more. If we don’t accomplish unprecedented, radical changes of our energy infrastructure almost immediately, we doom the globe to a climate crisis the scope of which is nearly beyond comprehension. The human tragedy of displacement due to sea level rise alone will create a number of climate change refugees in every corner of the earth that dwarfs the Syrian refugee crisis my a large margin. The increase in drought and famine and skyrocketing food prices and water shortages will be beyond anything we have faced as a species. The increase in disastrous and extreme weather events will bring the damages of climate change to almost any community. We simply do not have time for Hillary Clinton’s plans here. I literally just looked them up again on her website. They are nice sounding talking points with nearly no specifics. Increase clean energy and make jobs, create ‘ambitious goals’ to limit carbon output. Good things, but I would contend they are nowhere near radical enough make the difference we need for the future. And that’s if she even follows thorugh. There’s no fracking ban. There’s no language that remotely indicates the level of existential threat climate change poses. They are better than Trump’s move backwards directly into catastrophe, but they are not enough. Help us all, they are not enough.
Was it not Charlotte, NC vice Charleston, SC
there is no equivalency between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that includes their foundations;
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=133404773
To unfortunately be fair to Trump, Department of Environmental Protection DEP is a NYC agency that manages the water supply. So DEP does exist, Cenk but I get what you’re saying in full context.
Does anybody truly believe that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton? That can’t be a thing that people believe, right?
In my view, a question like this is something of a word puzzle. If you were to ask “Are Trump and Clinton the same?”, I could easily say “No, they aren’t and, relatively, represent completely opposite mindsets.” But, if you asked “Are Trump and Clinton both corporate denizens and egotistically driven?”, I could make a strong argument that the answer is “Yes”. The heart of that argument is that, while the candidates have different views on all these national\international issues, their actions, based on what they have said and what they have supported in the past, could result in failures that will likely impact us negatively for years. So, yes, there are differences between them; the next speculative comparison will be the resulting “Bad” outcomes their decisions will heap upon us and the world. I’m guessing that might be more of a zero-sum result.
the difference is quite stark if you’re a muslim american, a latino, a black person who doesn’t want to get shot by police, a woman. If you’re just a white dude, the differences to you are not that stark, so long as you only care about other white dudes. Both are likely to engage in wars, but the wars will be different in scope and damage. Both are likely to do very little on climate change. Both are likely to help business and the rich as much as possible. But there are major differences, and there are longer lasting affects from a Trump presidency.
A Trump presidency means a Republican senate and a republican house too. The house will be Republican no matter what, but with a Clinton win, there’s a chance for a democratic senate. With a Trump win, it guarantees that will not happen. That means Trump is not just Trump acting on his own. This is the triumph of the Republican vision since Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election. This is the apotheosis of the Fred Koch vision when he helped found the John Birch society. The radical right-wing of the Republican party is finally the majority of the Republican party. They have been working towards this moment for so long.
Before civil rights, the parties were not divided on left/right issues. There was much more of a mix in the parties that was racial and regional and based on certain industries. Before civil rights, there was still a divide between the Eisenhower republicans and the radical right wing Republicans. Both were pro-business, but certain kinds of business. Civil Rights and the southern strategy divided the party, so that the racists who would never be Republicans because Lincoln had been a Republican, joined the Republicans. The Barry Goldwater run in 64 was an attempt for the radical right to takeover the Republican Party, and it failed. Since that day, the radical right has been working from inside the party to change that. With Trump’s win, they will have succeeded. That means a complete reversal of anything left of the New Deal. it means no more women’s rights. It means a rollback of anything they can end on gay and trans rights. It means an end to environmental law. It means we do everything we can to get back to totally unregulated robber baron capitalism, and there will be absolutely nothing anyone can do. Trump’s supreme court picks that were handed to him by the Heritage Foundation will sail through both houses run by Republicans and we will have a court that is 7/2 conservative, which will rule on anything and everything they want.
So, even if you view Trump and Clinton as not terribly distinct, first take into account who you’re talking about when you say the effect on people will be the same, and then think about the broader picture of party political power before you make that judgement.
Gathly, this is the best comment I’ve seen on here in a good long while. Republicans now control 2/3 of state government. They will now keep the House indefinitely thanks to gerrymandering. Imagine if they get the presidency, and then fill three Supreme Court seats. And America LOVES electing incumbents, so the probability of Trump getting a second term is high.
There’s a very real possibility that every major progressive policy we’ve won in the last 30 years or more will evaporate. Gay marriage? Gone. Legal abortion? Gone. Affirmative action? Gone. And just like you said: if you’re a straight, white dude, none of that really bothers you very much, so of course it’s easy for you to “vote your conscience”. But will their conscience really be okay with what transpires over the next 4-8 years if Trump and his goons ravage our country? I really want to think better of my fellow progressives.
P.S. – Anticipating:”WELL I’m a woman/minority/LGBT person who hates Hillary and is just fine with Trump winning, so that disproves your entire point!”
audio levels all over the place. next time we’re bitching about it being too quiet during the live show please don’t pretend we’re crazy
The interesting thing about honest media is that I really could care less if your mic is broken lol. Sure I would like a working one but I would much rather prefer a news story founded in truth. Do not get dishearted by that stuff.
Fuck yea Cenk. Good rant on that idiot sheriff
CENK: A giant difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton actually believes in climate change.
Seriously? So if Clinton “believes” (states) that murder is wrong, but keeps murdering people, we should trust her to be our leader??
Clinton TELLS YOU that she believes in climate change, but in her heart-of-hearts she’s probably some weird Corporate-Silicon-evangelist who believes that fracking is fine because the market will magically replace it with green-fracking some day: i.e. her logic clearly doesn’t add up, to any unbiased (unscared) observer.
Wow, man, do people lie right to your face all the time or what? Saying that you’re against something (e.g. climate change) is very different from actually acting against it… actions… words… you should know how this works by now…
No, you’re letting the planet burn because you think that both candidates will destroy the planet. You have to continue the status quo or you’re a loser.
I’m assuming you’re being sarcastic but just in case :) …Both candidates are destroying the planet. Neither supports the kinds of radical action that we need to reverse course on climate change in time to avert significant milestones, e.g. 2C, 3C, 4C warming, etc… Both are hardline supporters of capitalism, which is arguably the largest driver of climate change.
This election, like all decisions, concerns the *pace* of change: are we making progress **fast enough** to avert catastrophe? Clinton is, in a lot of ways, much better than Trump. The problem is that she isn’t *sufficiently* better – not better enough to justify accepting her policy intentions as they currently exist.
Yes, I’m frustrated with Cenk misstating my side of the argument. He consistently focuses on the people who support Trump over Clinton rather than seeing that most Stein supporters are coming from the point of view that you just outlined.
It seems like an intentional misrepresentation. Why not state the opposing view correctly so you can actually dismantle the logic if you think people are wrong? Throwing out straw men does neither him or his opponents any good.
Thoughts on the upcoming “Hill or High-Water” debate …
John is a host, commentator, and panel debater. He’s no “Anchorman,” as he appears to research his topics. He’s open-minded enough that he will change his opinion if new evidence comes forward. He’s no ideologue. I believe he is progressive, which at this point in American politics means he’s not insane!
Jordan is an in-the-field reporter. He’s old school, in that he sees the pretty rug, but wonders if/what scratches, dirt & sludge may be underneath. Sometimes it’s just a rug with a dust-bunny underside. But, sometimes the rug is hiding a giant pit of boiling, toxic stew. I also trust Jordan will allow his viewers to decide which is which.
I am assuming that John is “Hill” and Jordan is “High-Water.”
The difference I see here is that Jordan is in the field. He sees and talks to the people who are being forgotten by Clinton/Neo-Lib policies. He’s been doing great reporting in Flint, I live just south of there. He reporting on the results of the “status quo.” More Neo-Lib (which looks more like pro-choice Republicans to me) policies put in place. $hillary means 4-8 more years of Corporations STRENGTHENING their strangle hold on not just the US, but countries around the Earth.
John, sitting in L.A., feels he is “seeing the big picture” (one of his favorite phrases). That Progressives need to keep their powder dry so they can REALLY slam $hillary when $he is prez. Prez Trumpzilla will throw all the “journalists” in prison & appoint crazy conservatives to the Supreme Court, because no one will be ale to stop him. Like no one can stop the Giant Bulldozer of Power that Obama is … oh wait, they stop him all the time.
My DVR is set on stun, and I am ready for a great debate! I will be very upset if they flip the script and have Jordan defends $hillary vote. Or if John’s argument is purely “Never Trump,” so voters must take the $hill-Pill or risk Armageddon. I want to see him DEFEND his vote for $hillary on the basis of Her policies. Why should Progressives vote for Her?
Because $he will be easier to fight/stop than Trumpzilla???
Laugh along with me.
Also, am I losing the hearing of both ears now? Volume is in whisper to shout mode.
Okay, after watching the rest of the Hour, here’s my new conclusion.
John will be playing Cenk, but a softer, more-laid back version.
The tact he will be taking is that Trumpzilla is an Atomic Zombie Marvel comic Mad-man, and Progressives can win against Prez $hillary, cause $he is willing to listen and change Her mind. HA HA HA HA.
Congratulations, Cenk, I am not making a “political point” by NOT voting for Her.
SHE IS PRO-FRACKING!!! She is known as the Spokeswoman for Fracking around the world! She is pro-TPP! Obama is going to push it thru and $hillary will put it into motion.
I’m not wrong, wrong, wrong for not voting for Her.
I also think it is almost certain that the Oligarchy will not ALLOW Her to lose. Do you think that all the Corporate Dems, the DNC, the Banksters & Corporate Donors, AND the Neo-Con Republicans & Average Corporate Repubs with their Big Energy buddies, will allow Her to lose?
Trumpzilla threatens their control as well. He will do the SAME things that they want, BUT he will show how insane it all is! He will have an open, reality show uncovering of THEIR policies!
“Tonite, on Frack-Or-Fail …”
HRC will do the same policies, but $he will use double-speak & flowery-phrases to disguise them.
One problem with this debate – arguably with most election debates, these days – is that John will naturally want to talk about Trump all the time and Jordan will naturally want to talk about Hillary all the time. That is simply what they need to do, in order to argue effectively from their assigned positions. But if two people’s focus is so different, are they even really having a debate?
Love your passion Cenk! Seriously ‘destroyed’ Sheriff’bitch’Clarke!
Nice One!!!
If the Sheriff is a bitch, then what does that make his deputy? :)
Deputy ‘dip$hit’! :0
Every single guard who was assigned to patrol that entire wing of the prison and every watch supervisor over that six day period should be arrested immediately and tried for murder. For their safety they should be placed in solitary confinement for the entirety of their pretrial and post trial confinement.
Unfortunately for all of us, police departments all over America, in towns and cities, are hiring nothing but mediocre, low information, low IQ people. MEDIOCRE!, They are giving them military grade weapons, armor, tactics – what can go wrong?
Audio peaking all over the shop. Anyone else?
I thought it was my headphones or audio jack. I’m glad it’s them and my computer.
Loved the piece on Sheriff Clarke, especially the last comment, ‘you bitch!’ Audio is a little crazy.
You don’t cover the policies in depth either. Coverage includes you telling us how horrible Trump is. I’m not informed on Hillary’s stand on policies, and third party candidates are not covered. So maybe you should look at your format first.
They have absolutely reported on both of those things in the past. Maybe you’ve just watched selectively?
too much third party coverage, they don’t matter at this point in this election
Long-time member who watches a ton of online movie and tv reviews.
‘What the Flick’ reviews gets very, very little advertising or cross-promotion, even within TYT network.
Unless you directly search for it, Youtube will not recommend What The Flick. , even for the Game of Thrones / Walking Dead which has comparable views to established channels like Jeremy Jahns and Honest Trailers.
My first recommendation would (1) invest in advertising and (2) more in-depth knowledgeable reviews (3) Similar to Comic Girl 19 , your chanel seems uniquely positioned to serious social commentary and politics in films, yet seem to eschew it.
Does WTF really talk about “politics in film” all that much? I remember I went looking cursorily for that in their archives once, and I couldn’t find much of anything.
I haven’t watched WTF since the Game of Thrones reviews ended (which, needless to say, ended simply because the season ended. It’s obvious that, given a choice, they wanted to do more of those reviews).
No, they don’t. I mean, I know Cenk has to say it, but it’s totally not true that it’s the best movie review show in the business. It’s one of the worst. They spend maybe 5 minutes max on each movie. They just say whether they liked it or not, a couple of things they liked or didn’t, they give it a rating on a 10-scale, compare it to the tomatometer at rotten tomatoes and they’re done.
A good movie review show goes into the movie, spends at least 20 minutes on it, and should probably spend 40 minutes on it. WTF is beat by pretty much every movie podcast I’ve ever listened to. Ben spends way more time introducing a classic movie that we’re about to watch on TCM, then he does reviewing a film on WTF. And that’s when Ben bothers to show up to WTF. There are tons of really great movie review podcasts out there that have 20 minutes of discussion before the movie, then have a spoiler section for after you’ve seen the movie. They make points, jokes, talk about it in relation to other films. I’d recommend you look around if you want a movie review show.
Yeah. As I said below, I am aware of the strong competition to WTF. Which is your favorite, by the way?
Man the audio is atrocious on this.
I’m glad it isn’t just my opinion – thought I was going crazy… TYT must not listen to any of the recordings? I mean, how could anyone not notice how bad it is…
mics guys mics…
ha it sounded like the audio engineer had his hands full with the constant volume changes
Is the audio bad for anyone else? For me, it’s a little bad for the entire show, then around 31 minutes in it gets EXTREMELY BAD…. I don’t see why it would just be for me, but I am curious… I have to think I’m not the only person who has noticed…
At 34:30 the volume goes down a bit and it stops sounding as bad, but still not perfect (I don’t know if it’s “clipping” or what, I’m no expert). I emailed support about bad audio, but seems they either don’t think there’s a problem, or they haven’t got around to figuring it out yet…
Yes, the audio is atrocious.
What the flick is far from being the best movie review channel on YouTube. Don’t flatter yourself.
I’m sure it’s partly subjective, but at the very least, we can all agree that they have a massive amount of strong competition there.
I’ve largely accepted that we aren’t going to do anything about global warming until it is too late.
Really guys? Your graphic is Charleston protests? It’s Charlotte. Charleston is in the wrong Carolina.
Really! If this were Faux News, they’d be all over making fun of it.
One has palm trees and the other doesn’t! Just like the difference between Wisconsin and California.
Soo much for not cursing on the main show :) Get them, Cenko Unchained!
Yes, Clinton acknowledges climate change, but that’s not the same thing as having a bad-assed agenda to address climate change. If your corporate masters tell you to slow-walk any policies they don’t like, how is that functionally different from calling the whole thing “a hoax invented by China?”
I’m not sure which is worse: being too stupid to understand that we are destroying our precious earth, or being bought by donors who insist on keeping the status quo.
Trump admitted that the climate change is real in the past, and Cenk himself explained over and over that Trump’s positions are not set in stone, so what we are hearing from Trump now is pre-elections rhetoric that he might easily will not follow.
So considering Hillary’s support for fracking there is simply no rational reason to state that their positions on climate change are so much different in a meaningful way. With this the fact that Hillary supports anti-Climate change measures on words makes look her worse, not better as Cenk thinks, because if she really understands the gravity of the situation her stance is hypocritical.
Thus Cenk is wrong that this segment is persuasive to people to vote for Hillary Clinton. But I am glad he at least mentioned the fact that Hillary supports fracking, because there were instances when Cenk skipped that bit completely, and it has damaged his reputation as a progressive, as well as TYT.
Holy crap dderss made a post that wasnt russia/putin centric! Is this the first time? Do I get a prize for noticing? What did I win!?
“Holy crap” I was posting about all kinds of thins for more than three years already. I do not usually post opinion comments, though; the are areas that I track so I am able to make corrections, and this is what I usually post.
Another issue is the part where Cenk discusses Trump Foundation; the lack of procedure of fact-checking of stories continues to harm TYT.
Trump has a lot of real issues, including with his charities, but when they are mingled with inaccuracies that go way beyond of what was happening, such reporting loses credibility and gets easily discarded by Trump supporters in its entirety:
1) Trump Foundation did charitable donations through all of those years, it was not “zero” as Ana said few days ago. An article claimed that the amount of Trump’s own money to the charity was zero since 2009, which is not same thing;
2) the fact that a foundation collects money from other charities to distribute it to other charitable causes is a standard procedure that is used by many umbrella charitable funds, including Clinton Foundation (Clintons themselves do not contribute much to charity comparing what was paid to their Foundation by the likes of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; as we all remember, Hillary complained they were in debt for quite some time). So to use this argument against Trump foundation is incorrect;
3) foundations buying sport memorabilia and things like portraits as in case of Trump Foundation is nothing new as they are buying those things on charitable auctions and the money go to actual charitable causes. Also can not be really used against Trump (the matter of taste and humility in regards to things like portraits is a separate issue).
So what Cenk is doing with the coverage of Trump’s charity for months is a fundamental misrepresentation of what is happening, and it comes from his ignorance, which is forgiveable, and unwillingness to have any feedback on anything he reports, and, as I mentioned above, the lack of procedure of checking arguments in preparation for the show (what could make almost all of Cenk’s mistakes perfectly avoidable), which is forgiveable much less.
Why to give ammunition to Trump supporters?
It’s true about those inaccuracies and the details, but I think we can all agree that neither Clinton nor Trump was ever interested in “charity” as a goal in and of itself. There are more than enough indications that both have always been using those organizations purely as means to self-interested ends.
and Mother Teresa did it for the “feels”
It’s pretty comical that you are (apparently) defending the corporate “charities” of the corrupt by taking a potshot at those for whom genuine charity and compassion were their whole way of life. Up next, will you be throwing soup kitchen volunteers and Doctors Without Borders under the Clinton bus? :)
stupid website, reply at top
I never said that they are “equivalent”, by which you obviously mean “identical”. That is a straw man. I said that they have a similar underlying purpose and have something in common, namely, that they are both built as corporate vehicles which use charity to further the self-interests of a select few powerful and highly ambitious people (whose day jobs definitely aren’t charity) . They are not identical organizations, but both of them definitely belong to the category of such corporate, machiavellian “charities”, which is a category that has exploded in recent years (so it’s certainly not just the Clintons and Trump who are doing it, but they are both doing it).