so jimmy would rather have two or three antonin scalias or john robertses on the supreme court for the next thirty years rather than two or three elena kagans or sonia sotamayors. i guess it doesnt matter anyway since white male stand up comics have the privilege of only having to worry about things like fracking and citizens united
Cenk is right Jimmy. I am a Bernie supporter. I’ve disagreed with your line of approach after Bernie lost. Since then I have kept my mind open to what you proposed and your ideas. I’ve been biting my lip since the RNC and DNC. But man Jimmy… we lost with Bernie, so don’t needlessly throw away the rest of your chess pieces just because you lose a rook. Move forward not backwards. Your plan and approach on this issue is self-destructive, and has a high probability of not working. Hopefully you can come around and see reason.
Jimmy is doing a grave disservice to the legacy of SCOTUS imho. he’s not only biting off his own nose to spite his face; he’s leading a drove of noses along with him :/
Yeah. That’s the main issue I had, which was him leading others off the cliff. It’s too bad. Jimmy was one of the few co-hosts I liked a lot until I saw his stance on this important issue. I guess no one is perfect. It’s like watching a TV series, and hoping this character that you like doesn’t turn out to be a bad guy.
Thanks Professor Cenk for the history lesson on the 1976 supreme court decision that led to this “money in politics” mess (and all the events preceding and following that decision). It feels like I’m in an advance politics class that no college can offer. And for a real cheap price..
TYT needs to do an in depth video on how the Amendment process works and what needs to happen to get it going. Also, once a Constitutional Convention is achieved, how and what (at a detailed level) will be done and the possible out comes. What are the details of the amendment being proposed. What are the chances the amendment you guys want gets through the way you want it. It is my understanding that the Constitutional Convention opens the door for any amendment being proposed. What are the chances that we get the Wolf Pack amendment done but also an anti-abortion amendment is passed, or a sovereign citizen amendment, or whatever.
I don’t know any of these answers but would love to be informed.
Neo-liberalism is simply one of capitalism’s final forms, returning it to the feudalism it must always return to. Capitalism will never be compatible with democracy; whatever measures are taken to remove money from politics (or anything else) they’ll be removed soon enough. Until capitalism dies democracy cannot be born.
So I’m between Jimmy and Cenk’s position, and this is one of my largest areas of disagreement with Cenk. Cenk sees money in politics and corporate news as being sort of separate things, but all leading to the received-doctrine neoliberalism (austerity/”entitlement reform”, trickle-down economics/lowering taxes of the wealthy, etc).
I disagree, I think (as many Leftists like Chomsky and so on do) that crony capitalism, money in politics, neoconservatism, race relations, are all part of the same system, which is neoliberal capitalism. Neoliberal capitalism was the response in the 1950’s and 60’s by rich, powerful men who were industry leaders, right-wing public intellectuals and scholars, Wall Street employees, and so on, all of whom were angry with the New Deal. They didn’t like that the New Deal cut into their money supply, they didn’t like that they had to pay more money into the system, they didn’t like that Boomers were quickly becoming Leftist and counterculture, and they wanted to have their power back. So it started off with right-wing economists (e.g. Milton Friedman), eventually academia was too slow so they funded privately-owned “think tanks” (the Koch Brothers started off their political lives creating libertarianism, but they also funded ideologically incompatible far right-wing groups, who are more authoritarian-right), then they went into Supreme Court cases (Buckley v Valeo, etc) to get a more direct control over the so-called democratic process, then they finally got politicians to bend to their will (Starting with Carter deregulating airlines, which was a tame but very important testing-ground for public acquiescence to deregulation). For reference, people like Chomsky have placed the time where neoliberal capitalism finally gained widespread acceptance was around the mid/late 60’s. In 15 years, you got Ronald Reagan, the ultimate corporate stooge and the tacit public acceptance of officially ending the New Deal and an establishment acceptance of Neoliberal Capitalism as the doctrine of American politics. In the preceding years, corporate news starts gobbling each other up like tic-tacs and amalgamating so now all corporate news (and most news papers and radio stations) are owned by 8 corporations, which followed the general trend of corporations gobbling each other up into huge international corporations, weaker and weaker campaign finance laws, worse worker rights, heavier attacks on labor unions, and the now complete roll-back of the New Deal, except for social security –and they’re going to get that, eventually.
And that’s where Cenk is wrong, because if he can’t see how the whole system of neoliberal capitalism works, then the progress he makes on money in politics will be wiped out (look at how progressive and resounding the New Deal was, and now there’s a single program, social security, that hasn’t been wiped off of the face of modern politics.) They’ll spend billions on internet and social media over decades to undo Wolf-PAC’s influence, and they’ll get it done in a generation or two, tops, to get it done. So when money in politics gets fixed, the fight is NOT over then. When you can throw endless money to perpetuate your power, trust me, Cenk, it becomes a question of “when” the rich and powerful find a way to circumvent the positives of whatever comes out of Wolf-PAC. The real trick is once we get rid of neoliberal capitalism once and for-all after the public regains control over Congress (But even with a post-Wolf-PAC world, the power of corporate media propaganda is not negligible, the power of privately-controlled think tanks is not small, etc).
So in that sense, Jimmy is correct that it’s neoliberal capitalism, but Cenk is right in that this is a game of biding time and waiting for the right moment to strike, and slowly building up movements like Bernie and Cenk have. Voting for Stein isn’t bidding your time, it’s wasting your time (Unless you’re in a solid Red/Blue state and you’re trying to get the Green’s enough of a percentage that they qualify for public funds –a solid argument can be made for doing that), and that’s where Jimmy is wrong. I understand hating Clinton, but there’s a larger, more delicate game being played here.
Also I am confused by Cenk’s reasoning since he talks about how much Larry Lessig and Bernie Sanders have impacted the election by moving the platform to the left but somehow he doesn’t think Dr. Jill Stein can. What Jimmy has been saying for a long time that others in TYT don’t seem to get is that Hillary will only be moved to the left when she feels a threat. If Jill was polling at a higher number, Hillary might want to try to go after the progressive votes.
Right now, she and her minions in the media along with party loyalists feel that Hillary is entitled to votes and that she owns the votes of people whether they like her or not. That is the problem. So Hillary is okay with going after Romney voters and bragging about getting endorsed by John Negroponte while shaming people who disagree and don’t fall in line.
I fully believe in the Wolf-Pac but it seems like Cenk thinks that somehow that is the only issue that matters and that if a handful of states pass an amendment, there would be no more money in politics and everything will be alright. If that’s the case, why even do journalism, why not just run Wolf-Pac full time? And why even vote if nothing matters?
Presidents might not have a lot of powers but they do have the power to veto bad bills from passing. That’s just as much important as anything else. While, I do realize the Dr. Jill Stein has no chance to win, to say that she is useless because can’t re-write the code is BS. If hypothetically she was the president, she would veto a lot of the bad bills and that matters.
Yes that matter But she has zero chance of becoming president so its irrelevant anyway. The system isn’t set up for a third party to actually become president just to shape the candidates from the two party system.
I’m trying to follow your logic. You’re saying that Jill can rewrite the code if she’s president. And then you also say she has no chance to be president. According to that logic, Jill can’t rewrite the code if she’s not going to be president right?
This is the most informative and important post game TYT has ever done. Cenk’s position on the election and entire electoral system was perfect. Jimmy really needs to get his head out of his ass thinking somehow voting for Jill Stein is going to do ANYTHING to change the system.
I think Wes missed the part where Lester Holt actually started listing the years between 2011, when the birth certificate was released and 2016. It was one of my favorite parts of the debate.
Broccoli is delicious! And it will do wonderful things for you.
I was actually very surprised, as well, to see that Cenk doesn’t seem to know what this word means. He seemed to think it meant New Democrats/”Third Way” Democrats, which is not what it means (although they do form one important ideological subset of neoliberalism).
Glad I’m not the only one who saw that. Cenk is a enthusiastic Capitalist though. If he practiced democracy he would run TYT like a worker self directed enterprise rather than a micro authoritarian state.
The more I dive into political action, the more often I come to the conclusion that Wolf-PAC is the only pure solution.
I do not take my vote lightly. I live in Florida and am painfully undecided. I just want to take what Cenk said a step further. Even if Green Party does pull a Lincoln, who’s to say that they’re not going to get bought eventually too? Wolf-PAC is the only way.
BTW, we’re all on board with an amendment to get corrupting money out of politics. That’s completely independent of voting for Stein or supporting additional parties. You aren’t going to persuade anyone to support Hillary Clinton based on that argument.
No, Cenk. In most of the country a vote for Jill Stein is not a vote for Trump. There’s only a slight possibility in a very limited number of states that your vote will determine the outcome. In practically all cases and certainly in most states there is no scenario where your vote will determine whether Trump gets elected. You are totally wasting your vote if you don’t vote for the person you think most closely matches your policy preferences.
And worse than that, you’re lying to the system. You’re telling it that you favor (say) Clinton over Stein when you don’t. If you would prefer Stein’s policies and you vote for Clinton you’re lying to the system. And, if enough people lie to the system you get, well, the system we’ve got.
If you honestly feel Clinton has better policies than Stein and the other candidates, then you should vote for her. But, you’re in California. There is no scenario in which voting for Stein there is a vote for Trump. Pick the person who represents you best. That’s the rational and right thing to do.
However, if you are in a swing state and you want to go out and campaign for Hillary, that’s totally warranted, even if you’d prefer a more progressive candidate. In that case, you’re helping ensure Trump isn’t elected. If you can convince someone not to vote for Trump in those states, have at it. It’s fine to support Clinton over Trump.
Just don’t be fooled into thinking how you vote will determine the outcome. And don’t waste your vote by trying to do that. Use it to tell the system what you want.
Agreed 100%. There’s that old saying “your vote is your voice” – a vote for HRC can only be interpreted as an affirmation that the Clinton campaign represents your views more so than the Stein campaign. In Washington, there will be no distinction between a vote “for” Clinton and a vote “against” Trump. Cenk inadvertently admitted than protests and petitions don’t matter when discussing net neutrality. It wasn’t the thousands of petition signatures that delayed the ultimate decision, it was the fact that Google et. al. hadn’t decided yet. As far as matters that affect the profits of the powerful, the election is the ONLY instance where your voice is taken seriously by the federal government (obviously the success of Wolf PAC shows that state legislatures are still willing to hear out their constituents if they petition vehemently enough). A vote for Stein, if you’re not in a swing state, absolutely matters because it sends the message that neither “electable” candidate is acceptable, nor is the perpetuation of the current system.
Has anyone ever watched debates from European countries? They’re supposed to be boring, politics in general, should be boring. Not this ‘reality TV’ non stop drama bullshit thats going on over here, candidates getting into Twitter wars with other people? I mean what a joke this whole election has become, the rest of the developed countries are probably laughing their asses off at us.
I remember the EU election when Schulz was debating Junker. They are both friends, they agreed on 95% of all topics, they argued about their few differences and at questions where both agreed they didnt but out blanked statements but tried to explain why they both think thats the right thing for Europe and why the voters face 2 candidates with the same oppinion there.
I actually liked it, because they did not even tried to get the majority of the voters but they also represented the Union as it self. A lot of people arent in EU politics and more focust on their own country, so it might be the first time they acutally watched a EU debate.
The hosts miss the main thing about the media. They only started to come hard against Trump after there was consensus within the oligarchy/establishment that they are in general against Trump. If it was regular establishment Republican like Romney they would never call out any lies and inaccuracies. So it is not about the media finally turning around to serve the public with some honesty, it is a totally different process.
By the way, this is the reason why Hillary did not get any pressure from the moderator during the debates. If the media would truly re-discover their higher purpose, then we would see both candidates pressed, not just one of the candidates that the establishment has decided on.
Comments
The Greatest Post Game EVER #BernieOrBust
so jimmy would rather have two or three antonin scalias or john robertses on the supreme court for the next thirty years rather than two or three elena kagans or sonia sotamayors. i guess it doesnt matter anyway since white male stand up comics have the privilege of only having to worry about things like fracking and citizens united
Cenk is right Jimmy. I am a Bernie supporter. I’ve disagreed with your line of approach after Bernie lost. Since then I have kept my mind open to what you proposed and your ideas. I’ve been biting my lip since the RNC and DNC. But man Jimmy… we lost with Bernie, so don’t needlessly throw away the rest of your chess pieces just because you lose a rook. Move forward not backwards. Your plan and approach on this issue is self-destructive, and has a high probability of not working. Hopefully you can come around and see reason.
Jimmy is doing a grave disservice to the legacy of SCOTUS imho. he’s not only biting off his own nose to spite his face; he’s leading a drove of noses along with him :/
Yeah. That’s the main issue I had, which was him leading others off the cliff. It’s too bad. Jimmy was one of the few co-hosts I liked a lot until I saw his stance on this important issue. I guess no one is perfect. It’s like watching a TV series, and hoping this character that you like doesn’t turn out to be a bad guy.
Thanks Professor Cenk for the history lesson on the 1976 supreme court decision that led to this “money in politics” mess (and all the events preceding and following that decision). It feels like I’m in an advance politics class that no college can offer. And for a real cheap price..
TYT needs to do an in depth video on how the Amendment process works and what needs to happen to get it going. Also, once a Constitutional Convention is achieved, how and what (at a detailed level) will be done and the possible out comes. What are the details of the amendment being proposed. What are the chances the amendment you guys want gets through the way you want it. It is my understanding that the Constitutional Convention opens the door for any amendment being proposed. What are the chances that we get the Wolf Pack amendment done but also an anti-abortion amendment is passed, or a sovereign citizen amendment, or whatever.
I don’t know any of these answers but would love to be informed.
Neo-liberalism is simply one of capitalism’s final forms, returning it to the feudalism it must always return to. Capitalism will never be compatible with democracy; whatever measures are taken to remove money from politics (or anything else) they’ll be removed soon enough. Until capitalism dies democracy cannot be born.
Fucking Cenk. Cauliflower is better than broccol. Idiot!!
(me mocking TYT Youtube comments section) :)
So I’m between Jimmy and Cenk’s position, and this is one of my largest areas of disagreement with Cenk. Cenk sees money in politics and corporate news as being sort of separate things, but all leading to the received-doctrine neoliberalism (austerity/”entitlement reform”, trickle-down economics/lowering taxes of the wealthy, etc).
I disagree, I think (as many Leftists like Chomsky and so on do) that crony capitalism, money in politics, neoconservatism, race relations, are all part of the same system, which is neoliberal capitalism. Neoliberal capitalism was the response in the 1950’s and 60’s by rich, powerful men who were industry leaders, right-wing public intellectuals and scholars, Wall Street employees, and so on, all of whom were angry with the New Deal. They didn’t like that the New Deal cut into their money supply, they didn’t like that they had to pay more money into the system, they didn’t like that Boomers were quickly becoming Leftist and counterculture, and they wanted to have their power back. So it started off with right-wing economists (e.g. Milton Friedman), eventually academia was too slow so they funded privately-owned “think tanks” (the Koch Brothers started off their political lives creating libertarianism, but they also funded ideologically incompatible far right-wing groups, who are more authoritarian-right), then they went into Supreme Court cases (Buckley v Valeo, etc) to get a more direct control over the so-called democratic process, then they finally got politicians to bend to their will (Starting with Carter deregulating airlines, which was a tame but very important testing-ground for public acquiescence to deregulation). For reference, people like Chomsky have placed the time where neoliberal capitalism finally gained widespread acceptance was around the mid/late 60’s. In 15 years, you got Ronald Reagan, the ultimate corporate stooge and the tacit public acceptance of officially ending the New Deal and an establishment acceptance of Neoliberal Capitalism as the doctrine of American politics. In the preceding years, corporate news starts gobbling each other up like tic-tacs and amalgamating so now all corporate news (and most news papers and radio stations) are owned by 8 corporations, which followed the general trend of corporations gobbling each other up into huge international corporations, weaker and weaker campaign finance laws, worse worker rights, heavier attacks on labor unions, and the now complete roll-back of the New Deal, except for social security –and they’re going to get that, eventually.
And that’s where Cenk is wrong, because if he can’t see how the whole system of neoliberal capitalism works, then the progress he makes on money in politics will be wiped out (look at how progressive and resounding the New Deal was, and now there’s a single program, social security, that hasn’t been wiped off of the face of modern politics.) They’ll spend billions on internet and social media over decades to undo Wolf-PAC’s influence, and they’ll get it done in a generation or two, tops, to get it done. So when money in politics gets fixed, the fight is NOT over then. When you can throw endless money to perpetuate your power, trust me, Cenk, it becomes a question of “when” the rich and powerful find a way to circumvent the positives of whatever comes out of Wolf-PAC. The real trick is once we get rid of neoliberal capitalism once and for-all after the public regains control over Congress (But even with a post-Wolf-PAC world, the power of corporate media propaganda is not negligible, the power of privately-controlled think tanks is not small, etc).
So in that sense, Jimmy is correct that it’s neoliberal capitalism, but Cenk is right in that this is a game of biding time and waiting for the right moment to strike, and slowly building up movements like Bernie and Cenk have. Voting for Stein isn’t bidding your time, it’s wasting your time (Unless you’re in a solid Red/Blue state and you’re trying to get the Green’s enough of a percentage that they qualify for public funds –a solid argument can be made for doing that), and that’s where Jimmy is wrong. I understand hating Clinton, but there’s a larger, more delicate game being played here.
Also I am confused by Cenk’s reasoning since he talks about how much Larry Lessig and Bernie Sanders have impacted the election by moving the platform to the left but somehow he doesn’t think Dr. Jill Stein can. What Jimmy has been saying for a long time that others in TYT don’t seem to get is that Hillary will only be moved to the left when she feels a threat. If Jill was polling at a higher number, Hillary might want to try to go after the progressive votes.
Right now, she and her minions in the media along with party loyalists feel that Hillary is entitled to votes and that she owns the votes of people whether they like her or not. That is the problem. So Hillary is okay with going after Romney voters and bragging about getting endorsed by John Negroponte while shaming people who disagree and don’t fall in line.
I fully believe in the Wolf-Pac but it seems like Cenk thinks that somehow that is the only issue that matters and that if a handful of states pass an amendment, there would be no more money in politics and everything will be alright. If that’s the case, why even do journalism, why not just run Wolf-Pac full time? And why even vote if nothing matters?
Sorry Cenk
Presidents might not have a lot of powers but they do have the power to veto bad bills from passing. That’s just as much important as anything else. While, I do realize the Dr. Jill Stein has no chance to win, to say that she is useless because can’t re-write the code is BS. If hypothetically she was the president, she would veto a lot of the bad bills and that matters.
Yes that matter But she has zero chance of becoming president so its irrelevant anyway. The system isn’t set up for a third party to actually become president just to shape the candidates from the two party system.
I’m trying to follow your logic. You’re saying that Jill can rewrite the code if she’s president. And then you also say she has no chance to be president. According to that logic, Jill can’t rewrite the code if she’s not going to be president right?
This is the most informative and important post game TYT has ever done. Cenk’s position on the election and entire electoral system was perfect. Jimmy really needs to get his head out of his ass thinking somehow voting for Jill Stein is going to do ANYTHING to change the system.
Anyone else notice that Trump went with pink eyeshadow instead of blue this time?
I can’t say either works for him.
I think Wes missed the part where Lester Holt actually started listing the years between 2011, when the birth certificate was released and 2016. It was one of my favorite parts of the debate.
Broccoli is delicious! And it will do wonderful things for you.
LOL at the Hillary fake out by Cenk at the end!
Cenk doesn’t understand what NeoLiberalism is.
I was actually very surprised, as well, to see that Cenk doesn’t seem to know what this word means. He seemed to think it meant New Democrats/”Third Way” Democrats, which is not what it means (although they do form one important ideological subset of neoliberalism).
Glad I’m not the only one who saw that. Cenk is a enthusiastic Capitalist though. If he practiced democracy he would run TYT like a worker self directed enterprise rather than a micro authoritarian state.
If you do the “check out the live stream for members thing” make sure it actually works heh. Was weird to have the ending missing from the coverage.
Just tell me, how do we win.
Education? But that’s always related to propaganda, is it not
The more I dive into political action, the more often I come to the conclusion that Wolf-PAC is the only pure solution.
I do not take my vote lightly. I live in Florida and am painfully undecided. I just want to take what Cenk said a step further. Even if Green Party does pull a Lincoln, who’s to say that they’re not going to get bought eventually too? Wolf-PAC is the only way.
Cenk knows too many north eastern wops. That impression was spot on
BTW, we’re all on board with an amendment to get corrupting money out of politics. That’s completely independent of voting for Stein or supporting additional parties. You aren’t going to persuade anyone to support Hillary Clinton based on that argument.
No, Cenk. In most of the country a vote for Jill Stein is not a vote for Trump. There’s only a slight possibility in a very limited number of states that your vote will determine the outcome. In practically all cases and certainly in most states there is no scenario where your vote will determine whether Trump gets elected. You are totally wasting your vote if you don’t vote for the person you think most closely matches your policy preferences.
And worse than that, you’re lying to the system. You’re telling it that you favor (say) Clinton over Stein when you don’t. If you would prefer Stein’s policies and you vote for Clinton you’re lying to the system. And, if enough people lie to the system you get, well, the system we’ve got.
If you honestly feel Clinton has better policies than Stein and the other candidates, then you should vote for her. But, you’re in California. There is no scenario in which voting for Stein there is a vote for Trump. Pick the person who represents you best. That’s the rational and right thing to do.
However, if you are in a swing state and you want to go out and campaign for Hillary, that’s totally warranted, even if you’d prefer a more progressive candidate. In that case, you’re helping ensure Trump isn’t elected. If you can convince someone not to vote for Trump in those states, have at it. It’s fine to support Clinton over Trump.
Just don’t be fooled into thinking how you vote will determine the outcome. And don’t waste your vote by trying to do that. Use it to tell the system what you want.
Agreed 100%. There’s that old saying “your vote is your voice” – a vote for HRC can only be interpreted as an affirmation that the Clinton campaign represents your views more so than the Stein campaign. In Washington, there will be no distinction between a vote “for” Clinton and a vote “against” Trump. Cenk inadvertently admitted than protests and petitions don’t matter when discussing net neutrality. It wasn’t the thousands of petition signatures that delayed the ultimate decision, it was the fact that Google et. al. hadn’t decided yet. As far as matters that affect the profits of the powerful, the election is the ONLY instance where your voice is taken seriously by the federal government (obviously the success of Wolf PAC shows that state legislatures are still willing to hear out their constituents if they petition vehemently enough). A vote for Stein, if you’re not in a swing state, absolutely matters because it sends the message that neither “electable” candidate is acceptable, nor is the perpetuation of the current system.
utter lack of dick jokes jimmy promised sad day
LOL Alex Jones calls TYT biased! go look at their videos from the past 16 hrs, all against Hilary and not a bad word on Trump!
This was some good nuanced debate. Also – Wes, do more stuff. We see plenty of Cenk, and a lot of Jimmy. But dude, I really like your perspective.
Has anyone ever watched debates from European countries? They’re supposed to be boring, politics in general, should be boring. Not this ‘reality TV’ non stop drama bullshit thats going on over here, candidates getting into Twitter wars with other people? I mean what a joke this whole election has become, the rest of the developed countries are probably laughing their asses off at us.
I remember the EU election when Schulz was debating Junker. They are both friends, they agreed on 95% of all topics, they argued about their few differences and at questions where both agreed they didnt but out blanked statements but tried to explain why they both think thats the right thing for Europe and why the voters face 2 candidates with the same oppinion there.
I actually liked it, because they did not even tried to get the majority of the voters but they also represented the Union as it self. A lot of people arent in EU politics and more focust on their own country, so it might be the first time they acutally watched a EU debate.
And it all was about policies, polcies, policies.
The hosts miss the main thing about the media. They only started to come hard against Trump after there was consensus within the oligarchy/establishment that they are in general against Trump. If it was regular establishment Republican like Romney they would never call out any lies and inaccuracies. So it is not about the media finally turning around to serve the public with some honesty, it is a totally different process.
By the way, this is the reason why Hillary did not get any pressure from the moderator during the debates. If the media would truly re-discover their higher purpose, then we would see both candidates pressed, not just one of the candidates that the establishment has decided on.