TYT Hour 1 January 8, 2018

In The Young Turks Hour 1 - On Demand by Gigi Manukyan55 Comments

Cenk, Ana, and Michael Shure. Jake Tapper interview with Stephen Miller. Bannon apologizes. Trump: “I’m a very stable genius.” Comcast was tax bill backer; firing 500 people. Roy Moore accuser’s house burns down.

0 seconds of 50 minutes, 4 secondsVolume 90%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
50:04
50:04
 

Comments

  1. I didn’t like John and Ana’s passive aggressive pissing contest. But John came on as King Shit to start the first hour. No more of that guys.

  5. Great show today. John and Michael always bring an air of sophistication, together with their knowledge it makes a great experience.

  6. Hey guys, so it starts, it’s taken hours to download, either cenks absence brings about chaos resulting in slower downloads, or the ISP are already slowing down your web site. You should look into it.

  8. I feel a big need to point something out regarding Trump’s “busy” daily schedule: This is the man who said Hillary Clinton “didn’t have the stamina to be President”. Seriously. Really. The woman who visited more countries in one term as Secretary of State than anyone else didn’t “have the stamina” to be President. Yes she did, and unlike Trump, she actually WANTED to BE President.

    Now in regard to “Fire and Fury”, I have to say I’m already sick of this story. Moreover I also have big problems with the author Michael Wolff for the snake-in-the-grass way he got and then torched his access. I went back and watched some clips before the book with the author and he was on various cable shows basically licking Trump’s balls over and over and over again. I want/don’t want to believe a lot of things in the book are true, but the fact the author lied for months (and tried to trick us with his TV appearances) to us and the people involved severely damage his credibility in my eyes. It violates a lot of what I think journalistic ethics should be, and maybe that’s just the era of “State Media (Fox)” that we live in, but I still don’t have to like it or support it.

    1. I have issues with his techniques as well, but those TV appearances had nothing to do with us. There was only one viewer he was concerned with.

      1. Wait I’m confused because I thought the Michael Wolff guy wants LOTS of viewers and LOTS of book sales. If you mean Steven Miller yes I agree that was nothing but him giving Trump a TV blowjob for 10 minutes straight, and it was disgusting. And I agree with Ana on Miller he was so forcefully defending Trump but he looked like he was zoned out on lithium or something in his eyes and face.

    2. Totally disagree on Wolff. It says something in itself that being complimentary to the Trump administration got him that much access. Most administrations would not be so dumb as to fall for that. They would be civil in return and tell people exactly and only what they wanted them to hear. And if Wolff had not been like that, he never would have gotten access. I don’t think he violated any ethics and I think the fact that he has so many sources, none of whom have denied any of it lends him credibility.

      1. I think it raises an interesting question of what “getting access” means as far as ethics. I tend to agree with Reba he did nothing wrong. First of all, he didn’t lick Trump’s balls he was mildly complimentary. As Reba points out that wouldn’t have gotten him so much access to basically any other administration. Second (and while I don’t want to compliment Wolff too much) this is kind of part of investigative journalism. It varies from situation to situation like some journalists simply being nice to those they really shouldn’t to others becoming a full member of the group of those that they are reporting on. If we say Wolff was wrong for simply being a bit of kiss ass where else is it wrong. Was Gloria wrong for becoming a playboy bunny in the 70s?

        However, I think the reason people are responding so negatively is that we are tired of the likes of CNN and MSNBC not going for the throat in their coverage to save their access. Wolff basically implied that was a good thing.

        I tend to fall somewhere in between “he was wrong” and “he was right”. I don’t think he was wrong, but I don’t believe he was right either and I don’t want this book encouraging other people to do the same with a monster like Trump. Nothing Fire and Fury gave us was new, it just confirmed what we already knew. The one thing in it that might have a positive impact is the mentions of money but so far the mainstream media hasn’t focused on that. I think in the larger picture it simply wasn’t worth it. That being a real journalist and calling out Trump’s many many many lies would serve the people better than this book and there is a fear that Wolff again just implied that doing anything for access might be good.

  9. why do we keep prefacing talking about this book by “it may contain hyperbole” when you havent read it? Either it does or it doesn’t, but it seems odd to say it “might” without knowing

    1. Because that is essentially what the author himself says – he’s relying on things being told to him and reprinting them without verifying any of it independently. There isn’t really a good way to know what is true and factual versus opinion versus someone playing you.

      As an example – if you interview me about my job, and you get me drunk, I can tell you a lot of unsavory things about my coworkers. You, however, have a choice then – try to track down verifying information from other or independent sources, highlight what is factual and clearly indicate what is not factual. Wolff didn’t do that. He just reprinted what he was told. So if you write a book based on my information and without cross-verifying, then a reader can’t assume that my point of view is fair or accurate. Perhaps I embellished when I relayed the confrontation in the coffee room or perhaps my view is shaded by the fact I feel that my coworker received praise for work I’d done.

      That’s the issue with Wolff. Without the interview subjects clarifying, you can’t assume anything is 100% true, only that what he is telling you is what he was told. Someone with an agenda could easily skew their interview to relay a particular position or point if they were smart enough.

  10. The Like in Like really smart is a double down. From earleier statements during the campaign.
    I think in a debate with Clinton?

  13. POTUS tweet states “I’m like a smart person”, I assume that means he is only like a smart person, not that he himself is actually a smart person. His grammar and sentence construction needs help.

  15. Trump’s repetitions could be related to dementia, but it is more likely just exposing how little he knows. Anyone who listens to Sean Hannity could make the same charge. Sean Hannity’s brain seems to only have the capacity to contain a few things at one time. And he will repeat those things often in a broadcast. I cared for my Mother who had been diagnosed with dementia for many years before she died. Repetition was not one of the characteristics. I am speaking anecdotally, and I am well aware that there are many different forms of dementia. It can’t be ruled out. But- without a trained professional’s diagnosis, I think conversations about dementia just let him off the hook for most likely just being a willfully ignorant asshole.

  17. Stephen Miller permanent resting doucheface. His band sucks too. “fly like an eagle” great analogy asshole.

  20. The US military and “career politicians” should be subjected to a Go Fund Me site to promote their archaic agendas. “You raised $3.00 Mitch McConnell, you get an old soggy box of firecrackers from 1972 for your war.”

      1. I reached out to Justice Democrats on facebook, they told me he was no longer on the board but “still an important member” That could mean anything though. I still support the cause.

        I respect how he backed away amicably, but I think it was pre-mature. There should be a 24 hour “cooling off” period for outrage scandals. Left or Right. A story can get legs than go away pretty quickly.

        I find it curious that he and Jordon got attacked in the span of like a week. Clearly there is some serious opposition research going on against TYT. I think TYT might have jumped the gun with him as well (admittedly I’m not well versed on the story) Too me it looks like a divide and conquer strategy from their political opponents.

        Dont get me wrong, am a hardcore feminist and MeToo supporter, also a justice democrats, tyt, and truth against the machine (jordon) fan, but I see them all as part of the solution and not the problem.

        1. SJW-JD Staff entirely jumped the gun on Cenk’s frat-boy style writing from 18 YEARS ago.

          What does Cenk always saw about strong campaigns?
          They turn a perceived weakness into a POSITIVE.

          I had 5 email back & forths with “Sandy” from their Help Desk.
          She said JDs couldn’t associate or have board members who had “scandals” in their past.
          That is EXACTLY the wrong tack.
          Cenk was previously a PRO WAR REPUBLICAN who learned, grew and CHANGED.

          How many converts to their cause are they throwing out because of said person’s past beliefs?

          Kyle left because of the vicious douchiness of SJW-JD Staff’s response to Cenk’s “resignation.”

          I guess SJW-JD Staff’s opinion now is hate the sin AND the sinner.
          Don’t value them for seeing the light.
          Cenk’s past transgressions could have been turned into a GIANT Plus.

          SJW-JD Staff are stupids. Babies. Losers.

        2. Justice Dems have been getting so much flack that they now have an auto-reply email. Every time I get a new JD email requesting money, I respond “Have you apologized publicly to Cenk yet?” (And now I get their auto-reply which is a lie because it does not address the fact that they threw a hissy fit and demanded Cenk resign.)

          As Kyle eloquently put it when he himself resigned in protest of the JD’s treatment of Cenk, the issue is not even so much that they wanted Cenk to resign, as the VERBAGE they released to the public about it. I first heart Kyle read this aloud on SECULAR TALK, and I was stunned. I agree with Kyle that the words chosen by JD house in PUBLIC published press statements was absolutely disgusting and uncalled for:

          “The words and conduct in Mr. Uygur and Mr. Koller’s posts degrade what it means to be a Justice Democrat,” Justice Democrats executive director Saikat Chakrabarti said in a Friday evening statement announcing the board’s decision to demand Uygur and Kohler’s resignations.” “We do not feel that Mr. Uygur is fit to lead or participate in an organization that truly believes women’s issues and the issues of black and brown people are all of our issues.”

          After hearing Kyle read this aloud, I looked up the original Cenk blog posts and read them all. Two things — its classic Old Cenk, and its classic self-deprecating humor Cenk. Anyone familiar with Cenk’s twisted humor and his fondness for self-mockery immediately understands that this is a joke: “I can’t get laid, therefore there is something genetically wrong with women” (not the actual quote but a distillation).

          Anyhow, as I have explained to JD about why I cancelled my recurring monthly contribution to them via Act Blue, I used to tell Blond Jokes in the 80’s, so obviously I am a fraud to call myself a feminist, and they wouldn’t want my dirty money anyway, as I do not live up to their high standards.

          I still give money directly to the campaigns of good candidates like Alison Hartson. But not another penny to JD itself until they goddamn apologize to Cenk and Dave.

        3. I think it is a sign of inexperience. They know that sexual harassment is very important right now (as it should be) and thought “oh no we don’t want to get roped into that”. They believed they were giving a strong message about how they won’t take disrespect of women lightly. What they actually said was “It doesn’t matter if you change only those born a progressive are worthy”.

          Cenk has done a lot of growing in the last 20 years and this was a rejection of that and thus a rejection of any growth that potential supporters might have done. I hope they learn from it.

          Jordan was closer to a month wasn’t it? But yes opposition research is for sure happening on TYT and JD. That is another scary implication of how JD handled the Cenk situation. Are they going to cut and run from every candidate that has something in their past that’s not great? If so that’s going to be every single candidate I am sure

  22. I like what Jake Tapper did in that segment, but I don’t want you guys to get the wrong idea; he is horrible when it comes to the substance. I recommend you watch Kyle’s (Secular Talk) video where he breaks down how Jake Tapper defended Israel with the most bullshit arguments

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0czuPVn3rFQ

    1. I never watch CNN but I just happened to be watching when that segment came on because I was visiting my dad who watches CNN a good bit. When Tapper got to the part where he mentions Yemen my jaw dropped and I yelled out “are you fucking kidding me.” The idea that he would attack Yemen for what they are going through when the United States is providing the weapons to the Saudis who are fucking that country up was mind blowing.

      Tapper has had some good moments like that interview with the Roy Moore spokesman, but he is a mouth piece for American empire.

      1. Not to mention the fact that our first raid under the Trump Administration killed an 8-year-old American girl IN FUCKING YEMIN. I completely agree, he is just a mouthpiece for corporate Democrats.

    2. I liken Jake Tapper being good on this to when Joy Reid manages a breakthrough and does good journalism on her show. It’s nice to see them do the jobs they claim to always do but it doesn’t change the overall content of who they are as journalists/commentators. It’s like when someone on Fox News manages to do a good job and everybody freaks out about their journalistic integrity. No, they just managed to do their job… once.

  23. Now that we are getting closer to primaries, I want to donate to Justice Democrats, but I don’t know if I should after how the fucked over Cenk. What do you guys think?

    1. If you don’t want to donate directly to the Justice Democrats organization, perhaps donate directly to the candidates you like.
      I suggest contacting the candidates you like about how to donate money to their campaign or donate your time to help them out directly.

      1. I like pretty much all the candidates since they all agree on the most important policy issues.

        It would be a lot less of a hassle to donate to each candidate instead of Justice Democrats, and Cenk is still supporting JD, so I may just donate to them. But if not, I’ll probably donate to each of the candidates individually.

    2. absolutely support the candidates directly, which is what I have done. Although some candidates’ sites have donate buttons that re-direct to the JD donation page, so in those cases I will email them directly and ask how to donate directly, as I am un-willing to support the JD staff in any way at this time.

      1. I’ll probably do that.

        Do you think I should donate a small amount to each candidate (small amount meaning about $0.50 per candidate), or donate a decent amount to a few candidates (a decent amount meaning $1-5 per candidate).

    4. I wouldn’t say they fucked him over. Even Cenk recognizes that the things he said all those years ago were “really insensitive and ignorant”. I doubt the requests for Cenk and Dave to resign from JD came as much of a surprise to them. They both did so swiftly and gracefully in hopes that we can all move on and keep the focus on the candidates. The candidates shouldn’t miss out on your support because of something someone else did nearly two decades ago.

      1. They shouldn’t have kicked him out because he was Conservative a decade ago. But if the only reason they kicked him out was to avoid bad PR, then I don’t blame them, but I have no reason to believe that as of now.

    5. I am not sure which of your posts you wanted the reply attached to. I greatly appeciate the link to Kyle’s commentary, which put this in better context.

      This reminds me of my experience in the environmental advocacy community. As my wife at the time showed me, you get two personalities who rise to leadership in these groups: the internally-focused and ideologically-motivated individuals who tend toward purist and will split a group if they disagree about a policy point; and the issue-focused people who are willing to work with coalitions and less pure compatriots to get things accomplished. The latter may accept temporary compromises on secondary issues to maintain the broader group.

      I write this from the perspective of one of the latter group, so do have a somewhat jaundiced view toward the former. The former people are often taken as role models by the more general members who view them as leaders because of their considerable energy and devotion to the cause, but who tend to develop a sphere of accolytes and compete strongly with other subgroups for resources, rather than fully sharing resources in promoting the broader cause. There is often an ego driven component that wants activity to revolve around particular leaders and discourage others from taking too big a role. This is not always the case, as there is also a subgroup within the purists more willing to collaborate within their ideologically pure organizations, and this latter subgroup can be useful, if troublesome coalition partners , while the ego-driven primae donnas are very difficult to include in a coalition. Unfortunately, the paragons of this wing of leftist causes are the reasons for splintering of the left and even drive co-travelers (less-committed but interested parties) you may need to recruit out of the broader cause altogether.

      I am writing this in general terms and have no detailed knowledge of those involved in Justice Democrats. I understand the boiling rage many women have been carrying for years about unfairness and sexism as applied to many issues of their lives. However, I suspect that you do have these two personality types involved here, with the very active, ideologically driven group being willing to expel less-pure allies to maintain their purity and as an expression of their rage at past mistreatments. Other women I know, falling in the group who want to progress on their causes, while still being angry about slights and offenses in the past, are willing to put these aside to work with allies who also support the broader cause and are fundamentally decent people with generally compatible attitudes.

      It is important that work goes forward on the Justice Democrat cause. I applaud Cenk and Kyle for maintaining contact with Justice Democrats as long as factionalism does not cripple the organization. We will just have to see. I know how easy it is for a coalition to blow up over these personality differences and the internal tensions that can develop. I am glad that Cenk is so committed to the cause that he supports the coalition even when he is not part of it. Winning will require a broad front of allied groups. Of course the Far Right will attack the coalition by trying to splinter it by using the tendency of ideologes to expel its “flawed” members. That is part of the way politics works. Having the tenacity to stay involved and even take strategic retreats to appease purist subgroups will be necessary to win this. Those whose current actions and attitudes show that they don’t support the underlying cause will need to be marginalized or forced out. However, “flawed” members who do truly support the underlying cause are needed allies and those who are driven by a desire to accomplish something rather than achieve purity must stay part of a coalition and continue to work with frustrating purists if this can practically be done.

      1. Well said, I appreciate that you took time out of your day to write this reply.

        I think that I will probably donate to them. As you said, we’re stronger together and we can’t let what Cenk did over a decade ago rip apart Justice Democrats from the inside.

    6. Corporate Dems tried to derail Justice Democrats by digging up 20 year old blog posts. Cenk jumped ship to prevent them from being further tarnished. I sent 100 bucks a few months ago. Support them…….

    7. Donate directly to the candidates. I cancelled my recurring monthly contribution to JD. Now I give directly to Alison Hartson among others.

    8. Please be aware that all JD platforms are not equal. Randy Bryce, for instance, takes PAC money. I have brought it up a dozen or so times. All the responses have been crickets.

Leave a Comment