Jimmy Dore, Nimiki Konst, & Michael Tracey. James Comey testified again. Obamacare repeal back and forth. Ms. Magazine editor comments on Bernie. Trump to sign religious freedom law. ISIS in Virginia.
Jimmy Dore used to be the reason that I subscribe to TYT – now I must say it’s worth it to have Nomi and Michael on as well – today’s panel was FANTASTIC!!!!!
I hope we can see more of these. I think Nomi did a GREAT job moderating and moving things along – she is really good in that spot and I hope we see more of her in this way!!
Immediately after the primary, Clintonites wanted to be like, “she won fair and square, get over it,” but now conveniently those same people are going to be talking about James Comey for the next 4-8 years instead of reflecting on their own role in the process.
I usually just watch the clips as I can only take so much disappointment in society at one time, but this panel brought me to the main site to watch the full hour. Nimiki Konst is great and I would love to see more of her and Jimmy Dore is always a delight to watch.
If TYT “reporters” have no idea how the US government works how on god’s earth would they accurately report on policy and politics?
Comey’s Hearing is a scheduled Hearing mandated by law and politicians ask him about anything they want.
As for the emails and Weiner, the FBI knew about these emails months before and if there was a criminal element trust me, Trump’s Justice Department will investigate a muslim aide (that many believe she is part of the Muslim Brotherhood) to Hillary of all people to the fullest extent of the law.
Nomi is legitimately an amazing lead, very smooth for her first try. Not to mention having her with Michael Tracey and Jimmy Dore, that’s a mini powerpanel!
This panel is the bomb. This could be like an aggressive progressive episode. Love it!
While that is all good, honestly, I’d rather have these three spread out across panels. Earlier this week we had Mark, Michael Shure, and John (a pretty moderate panel which had me pulling my hair out at the lack of a progressive counter) and then today we got this panel which is probably the most progressive of the bunch. My bottom line is that if Michael Shure is to be on, someone like Jimmy, Cenk, Michael Tracey, or Naomi should be on to counter, as not only are they progressive, but they are highly knowledgeable and are not meek with their contrarian views.
Nimiki Konst, Nimiki Konst, Nimiki Konst. Thank you for your energy and insight! Loved the panel. . Would love to see an all women power panel with Nimiki, Ana, Grace and Kim.
MAGNIFICENT panel!!! Nomi, you are a natural! I can’t believe you’d never led a TYT panel before. I want you back! All of you — Jimmy, Michael, and Nomi! Naturals for POWWAH PANEL!!
Someone should look into who paid for the cops to do a drive by in that commercial. Was that a real cop car? Why is a police car in the commercial? Is the police department – a public entity – endorsing a candidate?
Adding my voice to those praising this hour. The past few have leaned towards fun, but this one was much more interesting and informative. Great panel, great discussions, and Nomiki nailed it as host.
In case you didn’t pay attention, Laura: Cenk, Ana and John are all on conferences or work trips. Cenk will probably be back tomorrow, Ana and John next week. You’ll survive one week without them, I am sure.
If you don’t sweat or spill or leak on your clothes they are fucking clean. There is nothing wrong with wearing same shit if you didn’t get them dirty.
Common house dust in an inhabited dwelling is composed primarily of shed human skin cells. Sweat salts and skin oil accumulate in fabric. BO producing bacteria eat all of this stuff that sloughs off human bodies into clothing.
I remember a Dilbert strip where Wally proclaims that his body is totally clean after a shower, and that means his towels get cleaned by his body every time he dries himself off. Then he asks if towels are supposed to bend.
when I see Jimmy on any panel; I know my side’s in the fight. though cheap sarcasm gets a little stale at times, sounds like talking-down to remind dummies, which is worthy of patient listening because I love his shows as he’s reason I’m subscriber… Sold! and btw: Go Tulsi…
I really like these three together as a panel! Hope to see more of them.
I’m going to try a little of Hour 2, even though Hasan is insufferable, I’m interested in some of the stories.
Please, TYT, spare your viewers from Hasan….
I listened to a few of Cenk’s recent roadshow/cafe speeches; I had an unintended guttural response, “he’s running!” I blurted out.
Then I pondered it; To win the upcoming “civil war” within the Dem Party we need a tough independent successful speaker to stride forth; in plain language, a progressive personality, a left celeb… including on-line savvy and some clout…
Center-Corp Dems have nothing there; see the Dem commercial after Trump won?? yikes, “I’m a… Republican…” The the most sour-milk-toast ever; Hilary’s interview just cemented lines in Dem-civil war, as such if a cool progressive “personality” were to step-up now they’d sweep the dems. Can’t permit Hilary-time w/o progressive minutes on air.
Cenk step-up. Bernie’s too old, Warren’s too Auntie-teacher preachy, who’e gonna Lead..??
Cenk as expected will deny; but if “called” would he follow his own advice and run..?
Through Justice Democrats, I think Cenk is leading the charge. And, Cenk could run for House or Senate, but he could not be President. He’s a naturalized citizen (from Turkey when he was six, I think). But, he’s often said the he felt that could be challenged.
re: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”.
technically, they are not less liberal — and that’s why I stopped calling myself a liberal, 30 years ago when I read the history and understood where the term liberal came from, as it is used in social politics.
In Victorian times, the term was used to describe a businessman who put profits above all other considerations, including moral ones. “You’re so liberal…!” someone might say to him, because he refused to fire a woman who had a baby out of wedlock (firing her being the “moral” thing to do), but don’t confuse him with a modern Liberal the way we use the term today — his motive for refusing to fire her was that she was the fastest sewing-machine-operator he had, and losing her would have negatively impacted his profits.
When Alan Greenspan launched his corporate-profit-uber-ales economics in the 1970’s he named it Neoliberalism as an homage to the original Liberals, the business owners who put profits above morality — “taking it back” from the Left which had distorted its original meaning and usage.
I suspect maybe your definition of liberalism is narrowly focused on economics as well as mistaken. A glance at a dictionary or encyclopedia immediately discredits your claim.
Liberalism promotes freedom and egalitarianism such as embraced in the Constitution where everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law without regard to social status.
Progressivism promotes political change for the maintenance of freedom and egalitarianism under changing conditions.
When combined, liberalism and progressivism synergistically promote an egalitarian and free society that adapts to a changing conditions to maintain the freedom and egalitarianism despite disturbances.
Neoliberalism is a narrow and deceptive dog whistle term that embraces the freedom of wealthy people to rig the system to their own advantage at the expense of everyone else. It came into vogue near the turn of the 20th century and then became discredited by its spectacular failure during the Great Depression.
Democrats and Republicans are actually in agreement with each other on all but social issues for the most part when polling is segregated by income (as in, those that survive off luscious corporate campaign donations that are enabled by corporate subsidies and corporate tax advantages all tend to vote the same way).
What you are actually reacting negatively to is not liberalism but rather corporatism. As usual, the real enemy is never named in the mainstream corporate media, but it is discussed ad nauseum in progressive circles. Noam Chomsky has been the titular intellectual head of the politically progressive movement for decades. Per his specialization at MIT, he spends most of his energy explaining around the linguistics to get to the root meaning of the actual debate. He disagrees with your conflation of liberalism and neoliberalism, as does every other mover and shaker in the progressive movement.
Surprising that you, as an involved TYT subscriber who participates in the comments, somehow missed that distinction, but after all, this is why such deceptive terms are coined in the first place – to sow confusion and disempower people in the ‘out’ group by taking away their ability to think and speak clearly. It is a deliberate debasement of the language itself by the ‘in’ group to make informed debate in the media and among the masses impossible so that the ‘adults’ can go on making all the decisions and ripping off the rest of us.
You cannot be a progressive if you reject liberalism. They are two sides of the same issue.
“A glance at a dictionary or encyclopedia immediately discredits your claim” — no, it actually confirms exactly what I said, which is that the definition of Liberalism has evolved over the course of a century, so that what it “means” today is very very different from what it meant in Victorian times.
But then, unlike you, I have done more than “glance at a dictionary or encyclopedia.”
“30 years ago when I read the history” so you fancy yourself an historian.
Would you care to share some titles? I am curious to see which 30 year old text equates liberalism with neoliberalism.
It is politically tempting, but completely wrong, to negatively frame all liberalism in economic terms. Typically only the far right does so, while also framing social liberalism as hedonism.
“Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[11] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.” – Wiki
“Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[10] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.” – Wiki
It seems at first glance as if your statements are completely wrong. Liberalism raised women up out of patriarchal enslavement to men and promoted democratic reforms, but neoliberalism has nothing whatsoever to do with anything but revamping laissez-faire economics.
Please provide historical precedent for the liberal male corporate magnate who educated the female members of his male employee’s family because there was profit in it for him, long-term or otherwise.
It may be politically unpopular and emotionally threatening to go around calling oneself a liberal at a time when liberals are re-branding themselves as progressives en masse to avoid their language being appropriated by conservative propaganda that redefines ‘liberal’ to mean ‘communist’, but it makes no sense intellectually to fear the term liberal on the basis of some historical misconception.
If you want me to concede the point to you, the only way that is going to happen is if you prove your claims with authoritative sources. Given the way you chose to phrase your criticisms in such a dismissive way, I am afraid I am also going to have to ask you for direct quotes from those sources too. However, I am not expecting any, since apparently your claims are either wrong or at minimum very poorly communicated.
Prove me wrong. That is why I comment at all. The fun is in the learning.
Neoliberalism is a philosophy of economic ‘liberalism’ that embraces the freedom of property owners to do anything they want with their money.
In modern times the term has morphed into a re-branding of the failed laissez-faire economics that brought us the age of robber barons during the boom times of the industrial age. The Reagan administration heralded the rehabilitation of neoliberalism but it began much earlier, even before Nixon. Wealthy people are always looking for creative ways to make the accumulation of more money in their hands sound desirable to the middle class.
‘Neoliberalism’ is now newspeak propaganda intended to make rapacious capitalism sound desirable to the masses. It means different things to different people because of its implicitly deceptive nature. Wealthy people view it as liberating and everyone else views it as enslaving.
I would love to read a history book that equates liberalism with neoliberalism. Would you care to share a title with the rest of us, so we can become as enlightened as you?
On the Internet, the only place I can find that equates liberalism with neoliberalism is the Von Mises Intitute, a far-right libertarian organization dedicated to laissez-faire economics:
“”Neoliberalism” As a Pejorative Term for Laissez-Faire Liberalism
To get a sense of the common usage for a term, it never hurts to check Wikipedia, and in this case, we find that neoliberalism is simply liberalism:
Neoliberalism is a controversial term that refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.”
So despite the clear distinction between liberalism and neoliberalism that is implicit in the Wiki article at the time they quoted it, the Von Mises Institute stubbornly proclaims them to be two different words that refer to one unique economic concept anyway, as do you.
Very few people online seem to agree with you, and those that do agree with you appear to be severely lacking in credibility. The Von Mises Institute is not known for its persuasive arguments, as it is a neoliberal haven for wealthy autocrats who espouse nonsense like this:
“The Anti-Neoliberalism Movement Is Just an Anti-Capitalist Movement
Naomi Klein, a perennial critic of neoliberalism, sees the popularity of the Bernie Sanders movement as a defeat for neoliberalism. In a recent radio interview, she stated:
So neoliberalism lost the argument. They lost the argument, to the extent that not only was Bernie out there calling himself a socialist, not apologizing for it, making these arguments that, you know, we — not reductions in tuition, but free college, you know, just pushing the envelope, 100 percent renewables, just going all the way, and people were cheering. And he forced Hillary Clinton to move to the left. And we also saw that even Donald Trump had to throw out the rule — the neoliberal rule book, trashed free trade agreements, promised to defend the social safety net, in order to build his base.
In other words, in Klein’s mind, a victory against neoliberalism brings with it hard-left environmentalism, opposition to free trade, “free college,” and “mov[ing] to the left” in general. ”
So disclose for all of us, are you a libertarian? Randian? Or merely confused? Take your time…
I guess I agree with most of the other commenters–great panel :) I like differences of opinion too; I thought what Michael said about being respectful of others’ sincerely held religious beliefs was right on. I am a Buddhish atheist, but it does our party no good to alienate people with such beliefs because some of them are on our side. Most of these problems have solutions that can be mutually agreeable, as Mike said.
Love Jimmy and Nomi.
Michael’s commentary about that also resonated with me. We will find NO common ground whatsoever between the polarities on the socio-political spectrum if we don’t do anything except demonize each other for our core beliefs. The in-fighting is what the elite class wishes for all of us plebes to do — bicker amongst ourselves and become so mistrustful of one another that we run out of time, brain power, and energy to pay attention to what those in power are doing to strip us of our rights and further enrich themselves by continually stacking the deck.
What is the moral position when wishing for the demise of someone who is responsible for mass murder and has the potential for inflicting more harm unless stopped, as with HRC ? I have studied in a Catholic seminary in my past but I have to admit that it is not easy not to have ” murder in my heart” for the murderers. I would, though, settle for incarceration….
Thank you Nomiki for mentioning the backroom deals behind Phil Murphy. Didn’t have to say his name and I knew exactly who you were talking about. WIZ2017
Nomi is great! I love what she does on TYT and how she represents progressive politics on other networks. Great to see Jimmy back on the main show and hopefully he’ll be back on the Friday power panel. It’s not a Friday power panel without Jimmy!
Fantastic panel….nice work Cenk & Co.
What an awesome mix….worked really well and Nomiki, you were right…Bryce Reeves family was so brighty whitey they had me reaching for my sunnies:
Keep up the good work TYT….you guys are all building into a massive wave of truth that has to an ever-increasing effect on how more and more Americans view their country and the many many sellouts who are currently representing them.
Yeah, I have tried too, but really feel they aren’t right for this. Not all friends work out on the job–I’m sure they have talent, just maybe not as TYT political commentators.
political illiterate Jimmy Dore is “guaranteeing” outcomes in the future. Thanks grandpa scream-my-feelings, you fifty year old teenager. I’ll take that to the bank.
And as for “why doesn’t Bernie just tell them all to eat shit and do what he wants”? Well, little idiot Jimmy, because he’s an adult who understands how politics works and that’s the reason he’s been doing this for decades. Throwing your birds in the air and saying “fuck it” may work when you’re a comedian child-man, but in politics, things get done through alliances. Bernie has remained independent his whole career by making these alliances. He has earned the respect the whole country gives him today for his authenticity not by remaining totally rigid and never compromising, but by playing fucking politics, and by not being an infant like you who turns on people the minute they don’t do exactly what you think they should do.
Nomi and Michael, excellent job. It was good to have a couple adults on the panel today who can express complex thought on current issues with nuance and specifics, instead of just screaming the same generic, broad, over-arching points every day for the last 2 years.
So when Bernie endorses Israel’s occupation by signing that disgusting letter to UN and denounces a non-violent movement like BDS, what kind of 3D chess is he playing genius? You need to grow up and get out of the “Bernie always knows what he is doing” cult. Not every decision he makes is some strategic brilliance of him playing politics. Only infants believe things like you do. If being politically literate means being an amoral douche like you, I think illiteracy is better.
Einstein or perhaps Ben Franklin defined “insanity” as ” doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” The establishment Democrats seem to have learned nothing and do not seem to want to learn anything. Now, my support for the Justice Democrats is even firmer.
EJKehoe, your first instinct was correct: Einstein said it. You’re right about the establishment Dems. Unfortunately, their chosen path leads to extinction, and while the Dems thrash around in their long agonizing death throws, the country suffers at the hands of racist, misogynistic oligarch lapdogs.
To your point about establishment Dems not learning anything, Hillary’s campaign proved it. She ran a lousy campaign in 2008, and she ran another lousy campaign in 2016.
I, too, support the Justice Democrats. I will not give any money to the establishment Democrat organizations to squander on corporate hacks and Republican-lite politicians.
I’m ecstatic! This panel is the best of the best and I’m watching TYT again. (Couldn’t watch last week with Michael Schure and Ben spouting MSNBC/CNN corporate talking points.)
cheryltyler11, I like Ben and Michael, as well as Jimmy, Nomi, and Michael. Your observation about MSNBC/CNN corporate talking points flew passed me. I’ll have to listen closer next time.
I consumed MSNBC for about a decade. I remember seeing Cenk ranting in advertisements to his show on MSNBC, and I thought, “who is this maniac?” I saw Rachael Maddow lecture during her book promotion tour. She was hilarious! I thought Maddow did an excellent job of explaining things.
Now, I see MSNBC as being part of the problem. The only good thing that MSNBC did was introduce me to Bernie Sanders. I wondered why other politicians were not talking like Bernie. After I found TYT, I soon learned why: they were corporatists. Now, I look forward with TYT and don’t miss watching MSNBC one bit.
I’m right there with you, Studezilla. All except that I’m not that much of a fan of Jimmy since a few months before the election. I used to like him a lot. He’s passionate, but I feel his passion clouds logic many times. I’m on the fence about watching this hour because of him. I still like him on Old School, when he’s not talking politics. In the first hour, I always have to struggle with whether I’m going to watch when he’s on. I really do wanna see Nomi lead, so I’ll probably watch AND I want to be informed about what’s going on.
In the near decade I’ve been watching, I think this was my favorite panel without Cenk. Nomi is excellent, as is Michael. And of course Jimmy is the legend.
Comments
I really enjoyed this group; articulate, rational, knowledgeable, just fantastic! Cenk, good choice on the new folks!
Great panel chemistry between these three. Love it.
Next power panel should be Nomiki, Cenk, Jimmy D and Michael Shure. Perfect balance.
Great panel – thoughtful, insightful and funny!! Bring these three back soon! Looking forward to seeing Thursday’s 1st hour next!
I miss Cenk but this panel……. OUTSTANDING!
Jimmy Dore used to be the reason that I subscribe to TYT – now I must say it’s worth it to have Nomi and Michael on as well – today’s panel was FANTASTIC!!!!!
I hope we can see more of these. I think Nomi did a GREAT job moderating and moving things along – she is really good in that spot and I hope we see more of her in this way!!
Jimmy Dore is the reason I subscribe to TYT…I bought tickets to the Chicago show as I live in the Chicagoland suburbs, welcome back home…
I agree with the others on Nomi. She’s an awesome host. And she and Jimmy go great together on the same panel.
This 1st show was awesome! 2nd show really sucked. Please have people who actually give us substance and information not just immature bullshit.
awesome show, you three should be the official fill-in’s :)
Immediately after the primary, Clintonites wanted to be like, “she won fair and square, get over it,” but now conveniently those same people are going to be talking about James Comey for the next 4-8 years instead of reflecting on their own role in the process.
I usually just watch the clips as I can only take so much disappointment in society at one time, but this panel brought me to the main site to watch the full hour. Nimiki Konst is great and I would love to see more of her and Jimmy Dore is always a delight to watch.
On Comey:
If TYT “reporters” have no idea how the US government works how on god’s earth would they accurately report on policy and politics?
Comey’s Hearing is a scheduled Hearing mandated by law and politicians ask him about anything they want.
As for the emails and Weiner, the FBI knew about these emails months before and if there was a criminal element trust me, Trump’s Justice Department will investigate a muslim aide (that many believe she is part of the Muslim Brotherhood) to Hillary of all people to the fullest extent of the law.
@WGRupert — Hear, hear! Totally agreed. Nomiki and Jimmy were on fire today.
First time in lead, Nomiki? Wouldn’t have been able to tell if I hadn’t seen the beginning. More! You were awesome today.
Great hosts today. Can’t wait for more Nomiki and Jimmy tomorrow!
Nomi is legitimately an amazing lead, very smooth for her first try. Not to mention having her with Michael Tracey and Jimmy Dore, that’s a mini powerpanel!
AWESOME SHOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This panel is the bomb. This could be like an aggressive progressive episode. Love it!
While that is all good, honestly, I’d rather have these three spread out across panels. Earlier this week we had Mark, Michael Shure, and John (a pretty moderate panel which had me pulling my hair out at the lack of a progressive counter) and then today we got this panel which is probably the most progressive of the bunch. My bottom line is that if Michael Shure is to be on, someone like Jimmy, Cenk, Michael Tracey, or Naomi should be on to counter, as not only are they progressive, but they are highly knowledgeable and are not meek with their contrarian views.
Or they could just send Michael Schure to MSNBC to parrot the corporate Dem establishment talking points. Schure is useless.
Nimiki Konst, Nimiki Konst, Nimiki Konst. Thank you for your energy and insight! Loved the panel. . Would love to see an all women power panel with Nimiki, Ana, Grace and Kim.
MAGNIFICENT panel!!! Nomi, you are a natural! I can’t believe you’d never led a TYT panel before. I want you back! All of you — Jimmy, Michael, and Nomi! Naturals for POWWAH PANEL!!
Whoa best panel ever!
Nomiki is the best! We need more of her Please!
So Brilliant, So Articulate, and also So Beautiful?
A new star rises, Nomiki was AWESOME! I’ll feel sour if she’s not back next week.
Agreed. More Nomiki, please. Also, Jimmy!
MORE, MORE, MORE NOMIKI ON THE SHOW!
Please and thank you :)
This was a GREAT SHOW! These have great chemistry – work very well together. More please!
We need to have this panel everyday! Good shit!
Someone tell Gigi that Nomiki’s name is spelled with an *O*
#oops
Great panel.
And great job Nomi! She’s a pro…fessional, look it up.
Someone should look into who paid for the cops to do a drive by in that commercial. Was that a real cop car? Why is a police car in the commercial? Is the police department – a public entity – endorsing a candidate?
Best. Panel. EVER.
At least until Dylan gets a stab at it!
Nimiki Konst was amazing! Excellent delivery, confident, and TYT strong!
A good panel, but I just feel sort of worn out by them after a while . There is no replacing Cenk.
Adding my voice to those praising this hour. The past few have leaned towards fun, but this one was much more interesting and informative. Great panel, great discussions, and Nomiki nailed it as host.
Amazing panel!
not watching hour 2, then.
In case you didn’t pay attention, Laura: Cenk, Ana and John are all on conferences or work trips. Cenk will probably be back tomorrow, Ana and John next week. You’ll survive one week without them, I am sure.
May I ask who ‘the dumbest *************s’ are that Jimmy Dore said could see through TPerez’s BS?
Michael and Nomiki killed it.
Where are the real anchors? No annoying
Tracy, Jimmy and Nomi are awesome!!!
If you don’t sweat or spill or leak on your clothes they are fucking clean. There is nothing wrong with wearing same shit if you didn’t get them dirty.
shed skin cells are dirt
Common house dust in an inhabited dwelling is composed primarily of shed human skin cells. Sweat salts and skin oil accumulate in fabric. BO producing bacteria eat all of this stuff that sloughs off human bodies into clothing.
I remember a Dilbert strip where Wally proclaims that his body is totally clean after a shower, and that means his towels get cleaned by his body every time he dries himself off. Then he asks if towels are supposed to bend.
Not enough to harm you. I do not think Hannah washes her sheets, Blankets every day.
What a great panel!
when I see Jimmy on any panel; I know my side’s in the fight. though cheap sarcasm gets a little stale at times, sounds like talking-down to remind dummies, which is worthy of patient listening because I love his shows as he’s reason I’m subscriber… Sold! and btw: Go Tulsi…
I really like these three together as a panel! Hope to see more of them.
I’m going to try a little of Hour 2, even though Hasan is insufferable, I’m interested in some of the stories.
Please, TYT, spare your viewers from Hasan….
I like hassan.
I don’t believe you.
I like Hassan also. He comes off as totally transparent and straightforward as well as passionate about all the right things.
Nomiki did a fantastic job hosting. Don’t think I have ever seen a first time host that natural before.
This group sounds like the typical republican.
Yep!
This was a fabulous panel. I loved everyone. Nomi was a great at running this hour.
Articulate, informed panel, each too strong.
Excellent show! People like Jimmy, Michael and Nomi are why I am a member. Aggressive Progressives are my people!
Where is Cenk? We miss you!!!! No passion without Cenk !!!
except for jimmy dore
I listened to a few of Cenk’s recent roadshow/cafe speeches; I had an unintended guttural response, “he’s running!” I blurted out.
Then I pondered it; To win the upcoming “civil war” within the Dem Party we need a tough independent successful speaker to stride forth; in plain language, a progressive personality, a left celeb… including on-line savvy and some clout…
Center-Corp Dems have nothing there; see the Dem commercial after Trump won?? yikes, “I’m a… Republican…” The the most sour-milk-toast ever; Hilary’s interview just cemented lines in Dem-civil war, as such if a cool progressive “personality” were to step-up now they’d sweep the dems. Can’t permit Hilary-time w/o progressive minutes on air.
Cenk step-up. Bernie’s too old, Warren’s too Auntie-teacher preachy, who’e gonna Lead..??
Cenk as expected will deny; but if “called” would he follow his own advice and run..?
Through Justice Democrats, I think Cenk is leading the charge. And, Cenk could run for House or Senate, but he could not be President. He’s a naturalized citizen (from Turkey when he was six, I think). But, he’s often said the he felt that could be challenged.
re: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada and this wasn’t seen as a problem…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/
If neo-conservatives are more conservative, why are neo-liberals less liberal?
Help us Bernie-Won Kenobe! Only you can save us!!!
technically, they are not less liberal — and that’s why I stopped calling myself a liberal, 30 years ago when I read the history and understood where the term liberal came from, as it is used in social politics.
In Victorian times, the term was used to describe a businessman who put profits above all other considerations, including moral ones. “You’re so liberal…!” someone might say to him, because he refused to fire a woman who had a baby out of wedlock (firing her being the “moral” thing to do), but don’t confuse him with a modern Liberal the way we use the term today — his motive for refusing to fire her was that she was the fastest sewing-machine-operator he had, and losing her would have negatively impacted his profits.
When Alan Greenspan launched his corporate-profit-uber-ales economics in the 1970’s he named it Neoliberalism as an homage to the original Liberals, the business owners who put profits above morality — “taking it back” from the Left which had distorted its original meaning and usage.
I suspect maybe your definition of liberalism is narrowly focused on economics as well as mistaken. A glance at a dictionary or encyclopedia immediately discredits your claim.
Liberalism promotes freedom and egalitarianism such as embraced in the Constitution where everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law without regard to social status.
Progressivism promotes political change for the maintenance of freedom and egalitarianism under changing conditions.
When combined, liberalism and progressivism synergistically promote an egalitarian and free society that adapts to a changing conditions to maintain the freedom and egalitarianism despite disturbances.
Neoliberalism is a narrow and deceptive dog whistle term that embraces the freedom of wealthy people to rig the system to their own advantage at the expense of everyone else. It came into vogue near the turn of the 20th century and then became discredited by its spectacular failure during the Great Depression.
Democrats and Republicans are actually in agreement with each other on all but social issues for the most part when polling is segregated by income (as in, those that survive off luscious corporate campaign donations that are enabled by corporate subsidies and corporate tax advantages all tend to vote the same way).
What you are actually reacting negatively to is not liberalism but rather corporatism. As usual, the real enemy is never named in the mainstream corporate media, but it is discussed ad nauseum in progressive circles. Noam Chomsky has been the titular intellectual head of the politically progressive movement for decades. Per his specialization at MIT, he spends most of his energy explaining around the linguistics to get to the root meaning of the actual debate. He disagrees with your conflation of liberalism and neoliberalism, as does every other mover and shaker in the progressive movement.
Surprising that you, as an involved TYT subscriber who participates in the comments, somehow missed that distinction, but after all, this is why such deceptive terms are coined in the first place – to sow confusion and disempower people in the ‘out’ group by taking away their ability to think and speak clearly. It is a deliberate debasement of the language itself by the ‘in’ group to make informed debate in the media and among the masses impossible so that the ‘adults’ can go on making all the decisions and ripping off the rest of us.
You cannot be a progressive if you reject liberalism. They are two sides of the same issue.
“A glance at a dictionary or encyclopedia immediately discredits your claim” — no, it actually confirms exactly what I said, which is that the definition of Liberalism has evolved over the course of a century, so that what it “means” today is very very different from what it meant in Victorian times.
But then, unlike you, I have done more than “glance at a dictionary or encyclopedia.”
“30 years ago when I read the history” so you fancy yourself an historian.
Would you care to share some titles? I am curious to see which 30 year old text equates liberalism with neoliberalism.
It is politically tempting, but completely wrong, to negatively frame all liberalism in economic terms. Typically only the far right does so, while also framing social liberalism as hedonism.
“Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[11] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.” – Wiki
“Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[10] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.” – Wiki
It seems at first glance as if your statements are completely wrong. Liberalism raised women up out of patriarchal enslavement to men and promoted democratic reforms, but neoliberalism has nothing whatsoever to do with anything but revamping laissez-faire economics.
Please provide historical precedent for the liberal male corporate magnate who educated the female members of his male employee’s family because there was profit in it for him, long-term or otherwise.
It may be politically unpopular and emotionally threatening to go around calling oneself a liberal at a time when liberals are re-branding themselves as progressives en masse to avoid their language being appropriated by conservative propaganda that redefines ‘liberal’ to mean ‘communist’, but it makes no sense intellectually to fear the term liberal on the basis of some historical misconception.
If you want me to concede the point to you, the only way that is going to happen is if you prove your claims with authoritative sources. Given the way you chose to phrase your criticisms in such a dismissive way, I am afraid I am also going to have to ask you for direct quotes from those sources too. However, I am not expecting any, since apparently your claims are either wrong or at minimum very poorly communicated.
Prove me wrong. That is why I comment at all. The fun is in the learning.
Ready? Set? Go!
PS– Bill and Hillary Clinton are the quintessential Liberals, worshipping money and putting corporate profits above all other considerations.
Neoliberalism is a philosophy of economic ‘liberalism’ that embraces the freedom of property owners to do anything they want with their money.
In modern times the term has morphed into a re-branding of the failed laissez-faire economics that brought us the age of robber barons during the boom times of the industrial age. The Reagan administration heralded the rehabilitation of neoliberalism but it began much earlier, even before Nixon. Wealthy people are always looking for creative ways to make the accumulation of more money in their hands sound desirable to the middle class.
‘Neoliberalism’ is now newspeak propaganda intended to make rapacious capitalism sound desirable to the masses. It means different things to different people because of its implicitly deceptive nature. Wealthy people view it as liberating and everyone else views it as enslaving.
You are wrong on every point. Just making it up as you go along. Try reading some real history.
I would love to read a history book that equates liberalism with neoliberalism. Would you care to share a title with the rest of us, so we can become as enlightened as you?
On the Internet, the only place I can find that equates liberalism with neoliberalism is the Von Mises Intitute, a far-right libertarian organization dedicated to laissez-faire economics:
https://mises.org/blog/whats-difference-between-liberalism-and-neoliberalism
“”Neoliberalism” As a Pejorative Term for Laissez-Faire Liberalism
To get a sense of the common usage for a term, it never hurts to check Wikipedia, and in this case, we find that neoliberalism is simply liberalism:
Neoliberalism is a controversial term that refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.”
So despite the clear distinction between liberalism and neoliberalism that is implicit in the Wiki article at the time they quoted it, the Von Mises Institute stubbornly proclaims them to be two different words that refer to one unique economic concept anyway, as do you.
Very few people online seem to agree with you, and those that do agree with you appear to be severely lacking in credibility. The Von Mises Institute is not known for its persuasive arguments, as it is a neoliberal haven for wealthy autocrats who espouse nonsense like this:
“The Anti-Neoliberalism Movement Is Just an Anti-Capitalist Movement
Naomi Klein, a perennial critic of neoliberalism, sees the popularity of the Bernie Sanders movement as a defeat for neoliberalism. In a recent radio interview, she stated:
So neoliberalism lost the argument. They lost the argument, to the extent that not only was Bernie out there calling himself a socialist, not apologizing for it, making these arguments that, you know, we — not reductions in tuition, but free college, you know, just pushing the envelope, 100 percent renewables, just going all the way, and people were cheering. And he forced Hillary Clinton to move to the left. And we also saw that even Donald Trump had to throw out the rule — the neoliberal rule book, trashed free trade agreements, promised to defend the social safety net, in order to build his base.
In other words, in Klein’s mind, a victory against neoliberalism brings with it hard-left environmentalism, opposition to free trade, “free college,” and “mov[ing] to the left” in general. ”
So disclose for all of us, are you a libertarian? Randian? Or merely confused? Take your time…
I guess I agree with most of the other commenters–great panel :) I like differences of opinion too; I thought what Michael said about being respectful of others’ sincerely held religious beliefs was right on. I am a Buddhish atheist, but it does our party no good to alienate people with such beliefs because some of them are on our side. Most of these problems have solutions that can be mutually agreeable, as Mike said.
Love Jimmy and Nomi.
Michael’s commentary about that also resonated with me. We will find NO common ground whatsoever between the polarities on the socio-political spectrum if we don’t do anything except demonize each other for our core beliefs. The in-fighting is what the elite class wishes for all of us plebes to do — bicker amongst ourselves and become so mistrustful of one another that we run out of time, brain power, and energy to pay attention to what those in power are doing to strip us of our rights and further enrich themselves by continually stacking the deck.
What is the moral position when wishing for the demise of someone who is responsible for mass murder and has the potential for inflicting more harm unless stopped, as with HRC ? I have studied in a Catholic seminary in my past but I have to admit that it is not easy not to have ” murder in my heart” for the murderers. I would, though, settle for incarceration….
Thank you Nomiki for mentioning the backroom deals behind Phil Murphy. Didn’t have to say his name and I knew exactly who you were talking about. WIZ2017
Awesome panel, definitely looking forward to tomorrow’s show
Love this panel! Nomi is the best female presenters on TYT. Love Jimmy Dore always!
Nomi is great! I love what she does on TYT and how she represents progressive politics on other networks. Great to see Jimmy back on the main show and hopefully he’ll be back on the Friday power panel. It’s not a Friday power panel without Jimmy!
Two back to back Hour Ones that came with knowledge and truth. Thank you.
That was an awesome show! (Cenk might not wanna leave you at the helm too often, Nomi. A bit too strong. :))
Fantastic panel….nice work Cenk & Co.
What an awesome mix….worked really well and Nomiki, you were right…Bryce Reeves family was so brighty whitey they had me reaching for my sunnies:
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/56d9cf80221393dee8000001/attachments/original/1457188137/f3.png?1457188137
And that dog looked sad imo….very sad. Lolz
Keep up the good work TYT….you guys are all building into a massive wave of truth that has to an ever-increasing effect on how more and more Americans view their country and the many many sellouts who are currently representing them.
Change is happening.
Keep it up.
great hour and def skipping hour 2 , no Hasan and Brett for me. tried but jesus christ they’re so bad at this
Yeah, I have tried too, but really feel they aren’t right for this. Not all friends work out on the job–I’m sure they have talent, just maybe not as TYT political commentators.
Need more Nomiki on the show going forward! Make it happen!
This is a great panel – intelligent, good speakers and the right combination of passions.
political illiterate Jimmy Dore is “guaranteeing” outcomes in the future. Thanks grandpa scream-my-feelings, you fifty year old teenager. I’ll take that to the bank.
And as for “why doesn’t Bernie just tell them all to eat shit and do what he wants”? Well, little idiot Jimmy, because he’s an adult who understands how politics works and that’s the reason he’s been doing this for decades. Throwing your birds in the air and saying “fuck it” may work when you’re a comedian child-man, but in politics, things get done through alliances. Bernie has remained independent his whole career by making these alliances. He has earned the respect the whole country gives him today for his authenticity not by remaining totally rigid and never compromising, but by playing fucking politics, and by not being an infant like you who turns on people the minute they don’t do exactly what you think they should do.
Nomi and Michael, excellent job. It was good to have a couple adults on the panel today who can express complex thought on current issues with nuance and specifics, instead of just screaming the same generic, broad, over-arching points every day for the last 2 years.
So when Bernie endorses Israel’s occupation by signing that disgusting letter to UN and denounces a non-violent movement like BDS, what kind of 3D chess is he playing genius? You need to grow up and get out of the “Bernie always knows what he is doing” cult. Not every decision he makes is some strategic brilliance of him playing politics. Only infants believe things like you do. If being politically literate means being an amoral douche like you, I think illiteracy is better.
this is basically a power panel. DROP DAT!
<3 TYT
Great show! So glad I supported the journalism drive. Keep these panels coming.
This is my favorite TYT panel! More of this please.
Excellent panel! Great discussions. Sometimes an hour seems way too short.
Yay!!! Jimmy and Nimiki on tomorrow! And the Aggressive Progressives. I’m in progressive heaven.
Fantastic panel. Nomiki and Michael Tracey need to be on more. Jimmy is #1
I HAVE MY TICKETS TO THE SHOW! ROAD TRIP FROM AUSTIN!
Ok, This is pretty much my fav panel.
Wow, what a panel! 2nd hour with Has and Brett = skip.
The ending of this show was hilarious. Dore plays the straight man to Tracey’s weirdness and they Nomi interjects with a factual. Love it
Einstein or perhaps Ben Franklin defined “insanity” as ” doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” The establishment Democrats seem to have learned nothing and do not seem to want to learn anything. Now, my support for the Justice Democrats is even firmer.
EJKehoe, your first instinct was correct: Einstein said it. You’re right about the establishment Dems. Unfortunately, their chosen path leads to extinction, and while the Dems thrash around in their long agonizing death throws, the country suffers at the hands of racist, misogynistic oligarch lapdogs.
To your point about establishment Dems not learning anything, Hillary’s campaign proved it. She ran a lousy campaign in 2008, and she ran another lousy campaign in 2016.
I, too, support the Justice Democrats. I will not give any money to the establishment Democrat organizations to squander on corporate hacks and Republican-lite politicians.
Did anyone notice how no one talked about their feelings?
Nothing like maturity.
Michael Tracey killing it this hour! Nice going ????
MORE THIS!!!
Nomiki is great! Let her take over hour 2!!!!
Blown away. All great. Best host.
Great panel, more of this please
Great panel. This is the side of TYT that I love the most.
Agreed!! Best show so far this year!
Nomi you rocked that hour.
Jimmy Dore is an avatar for liberal’ outrage
I’m ecstatic! This panel is the best of the best and I’m watching TYT again. (Couldn’t watch last week with Michael Schure and Ben spouting MSNBC/CNN corporate talking points.)
cheryltyler11, I like Ben and Michael, as well as Jimmy, Nomi, and Michael. Your observation about MSNBC/CNN corporate talking points flew passed me. I’ll have to listen closer next time.
I consumed MSNBC for about a decade. I remember seeing Cenk ranting in advertisements to his show on MSNBC, and I thought, “who is this maniac?” I saw Rachael Maddow lecture during her book promotion tour. She was hilarious! I thought Maddow did an excellent job of explaining things.
Now, I see MSNBC as being part of the problem. The only good thing that MSNBC did was introduce me to Bernie Sanders. I wondered why other politicians were not talking like Bernie. After I found TYT, I soon learned why: they were corporatists. Now, I look forward with TYT and don’t miss watching MSNBC one bit.
I’m right there with you, Studezilla. All except that I’m not that much of a fan of Jimmy since a few months before the election. I used to like him a lot. He’s passionate, but I feel his passion clouds logic many times. I’m on the fence about watching this hour because of him. I still like him on Old School, when he’s not talking politics. In the first hour, I always have to struggle with whether I’m going to watch when he’s on. I really do wanna see Nomi lead, so I’ll probably watch AND I want to be informed about what’s going on.
In the near decade I’ve been watching, I think this was my favorite panel without Cenk. Nomi is excellent, as is Michael. And of course Jimmy is the legend.
Please more of this panel!
Jimmy is legend; funny, brilliant and passionate!!!!
What can I say, you said it all for me and I totally concur.