Ana Kasparian, Brooke Thomas, Mark Thompson. Trump’s comments on G7 summit — allies respond. Updates on Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un. John Kelly and alienated Trump aides consider quitting. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voting rolls purge. Cruel and devastating affects of asylum laws.
0 seconds of 1 hour, 3 minutes, 42 secondsVolume 90%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Shortcuts Open/Close/ or ?
Play/PauseSPACE
Increase Volume↑
Decrease Volume↓
Seek Forward→
Seek Backward←
Captions On/Offc
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreenf
Mute/Unmutem
Decrease Caption Size-
Increase Caption Size+ or =
Seek %0-9
Comments
No Cenk, No Show.. sorry, but it is what it is.
Hi friends
Yesterday I watched British Prime Minister Theresa May meet with the House of Commons about the G7 Summit in Canada (C- Span online). Most of what was said related to Trump in one way or another. The list of things below are what seemed to me to be the things that the UK and most of the countries at the summit favored; although, some things are UK specific. From what Prime Minister May said, I am unsure if Trump supported any of the things below. It was interesting to see how the leaders of one of our closest allies talked about Trump.
My takeaways from the meeting.
On Trump
*Great concern about how the tariffs will impact the UK, and how the tarrifs will be dealt with
*A general attitude of contempt for Trump and his behavior during the summit
*A general attitude that the summit was a political disaster
On Women’s Issues
*An increase of 187 million pounds in funding for the education of women and girls in other countries
*Strong opposition to gender based violence against women and girls in other countries including online
harassment and threats against women and girls
*Celebrating the 100 year anniversary of women getting the vote
On the Environment
*Support for shared action among countries to protect the environment
*Particular focus on protecting the oceans
On Russia
*Support for continued sanctions against Russia
*Concern over the use of chemical weapons
*Opposition to Russia rejoining the G7
On Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau
*Praise for his leadership at the summit
Prime Minister Trudeau’s meeting with his cabinet after the summit is also on C-Span; I plan to watch it tonight.
Loony Trump got his trump goons to lie to the public for him.
The lunatic Trump is a cancer.
US needs the big O tow run she will win all people love her and will for give the US after the trump mess.
I think they are confusing Lewandowski and Scaramucci. Lewandowski worked on his campaign, assaulted a reporter, and then got a job at CNN. He was never working in the White House.
I really dont get Mark’s point about how meeting with Un legitimizes him. Global politics isn’t a childish game of peekaboo. Pretending that someone doesn’t exist doesn’t make them exist less. There is no debate over who rules NK. The point just seems neolib to me, and that’s surprising coming from Mark. Hes usually very perceptive
There’s no debate about who rules NK at least partly because Un murdered anyone who was a threat to his rule, and like every political leader he needs to appease certain people to stay in power.
The NKs have wanted a face-to-face with the US president for decades for the same reason Republican politicians want to be seen on camera with Trump or progressive candidates put pictures of themselves next to Bernie on campaign leaflets, because perception is incredibly important in politics.
Meeting with the US president gives Un legitimacy because it makes him look like a serious player on the world stage instead of the crazy dictator of a rogue state, and that legitimacy translates to real political capital at home and abroad. The NK generals and politicians that could potentially threaten Un don’t have pictures of them with the US president, or Trump telling the world what a great guy they are and how much they care about their people.
It may sound silly because it is, but yes, just standing next to Trump is a win for Un. Of course, if helping to solidify his rule of NK furthers the cause of peace than so be it, but if not than the US has wasted some political capital that could have used to further that cause under a more capable administration.
@Fangtorn
Theres no historical precedent to this that I can think of, but I can think of plenty of historical examples that go against this “legitimization hypothesis.”
The US and Britain met up and collaborated with Stalin, and it did nothing to change their views of him, or of Russia. Anti-Russia mentality intensified from both Churchill and the US. He was not suddenly recognized as a benevolent leader. He was still viewed as an oppressive dictator, and once the common enemy was dead and buried, the big three immediately pointed guns at each other.
Ignoring Castro did nothing to legitimize him, or destabilize him. He lived a long, long reign,
Dealing with Gaddafi did nothing to change the world view of him at all whatsoever. The US itself was the primary cause of his sodomic execution.
Can you find any example of where talking with a dictator suddenly made the world disregard their behavior? I can’t. The closest thing is Saudi Arabia, and thats about money and the petro dollar. This prompt just seems like a think tank talking point.
The idea that “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” is mostly propaganda. It might not jive with historical context, but it would fit neatly on a t-shirt and it sounds bad ass. And so I think youre both right. The reasons are stupid, but unfortunately some ideas are stupid. It’s also not far fetched that the idea did begin in some think tank.
You don’t get the point of the legitimization of Un? You should go live in N. Korea or, better still, just read some history. Thoughts and prayers for you because you’re pretty much hopeless with this admission and disjoint explanation.
You have no appreciation for history or critical thinking. You are the perfect pawn of propaganda. The heritage foundation wants to speak with you.
I have no problem with the Ohio decision, on the contrary I think it will have a positive effect. It will force people to actively participate and register which is quite easy in Ohio even with the voter ID laws there.
People should stop whining and start registering. The deadline in Ohio is October 9th.
You know, for a ll the centrist talk about how incrementalism is the only realistic way to govern, the Trump administration seems to be proving otherwise. Dammit Democrats suck.
By the way, don’t pat Trudeau on the back to hard…
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21271662/canada-pipeline-leak-trudeau/
I’m not going to lie, your video link background “Like a G6” made me laugh out loud. Punny, accurate, and awesome!
No story about voter disenfranchisement is complete without mentioning the state that is the worst in the nation: New York, which is controlled by Democrats.
To vote in the New York primary, you need to register 11 goddamn months in advance. And voter purges…? No one does it better than New York. Remember the 200,000 Brooklyn voters that were purged just before the 2016 primary…? The primary featuring Brooklyn native son Bernie Sanders…? Yeah, that happened.
Establishment Dems favor suppressing the vote for the same reason Republicans do. Low voter turn-out always favors the status quo.
Deb ~ DNC is working overtime to make sure Trump has a second term.
Every move they make, ensures they are viewed as corrupt. It doesn’t matter that the Republicans are just as crooked! The DNC-Clintoncrats are so inept, they won’t even TRY to work with Progressives. They are completely ignoring the millions of young voters & some older ones, who they could bring on board.
Can we please stop pretending that we have 2 parties? The DNC Dems are not even consistently pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro-Dreamers or anti-war! The only difference I see is that they suck at campaigning against Republicans.
Forget about future voters, they don’t give a shit about the ones they have now.
we are in agreement so far as the outcome, but differ on root-cause.
“The DNC-Clintoncrats are so inept, they won’t even TRY to work with Progressives. ” — ineptitude has nothing to do with it. It’s all about the money.
Remember, $700 million of the 2016 presidential campaign budget went to five (5) consulting firms, all of whom have representation as voting members of the DNC (and many are super delegates). Only one thing can prevent these wealthy elites from becoming increasingly wealthy off of the Campaign Industrial Complex, and that is election of progressives in the Bernie Sanders mold.
Preventing progressives from taking over is the utmost priority for people who put their personal bank accounts above what is best for the nation and its people.
“Can we please stop pretending that we have 2 parties?”
I think it was Jim Hightower who said “never mind a third party, I just wish we had two.”
I’m with you, sister. That said… for the moment, I am still DemEnter. Nine Turner suggested we give it two solid years, through the 2018 midterms, before we give up on the Dem party. We’ve already seen amazing things happening this primary season. Yes, the establishment is striking back, playing dirty, etc… but inspite of all that, groups like Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress and the Democratic Socialists of America are winning seats from coast to coast. In its recent vicious hit piece, even POLITICO admitted that Our Revolution has enjoyed a more than 40% win rate with its endorsed candidates.
Contrast that with the DCCC’s 12.5% win rate.
If even a dozen progressives win seats in Congress this year, that will dramatically change the balance of power. Perception and optics will be revolutionized. They already are. Two years ago, Hillary Clinton was proud to declare that universal health care was a unicorn-like pipe dream that Americans would NEVER have. Today, every damn Democratic presidential candidate says they support it.
The times they are a’changin. I’m going to continue to revolutionize the Dem Party from within (having great success locally). In the June 5 primary, we won major victories in local government and judiciary. No one outside our county knows or cares, but for the people who live here in this county, ripple effects will be huge and ongoing. We are laying the groundwork for a better future.
The Revolution is happening — from the ground up.
Nope, done playing that game. Money has completely corrupted our democracy & the people writing the checks have a vested interest in keeping us a 2 party system. Yes some progressives have made it through their 2018 primaries but they haven’t been elected to office yet. Those who do make it will be the minority in congress & will receive no help from the Dem Party, just wait & see.
your solution is…?
My childish, knee-jerk solution is to burn the place to the fucking ground then leave this damaged planet & start over somewhere else but obviously that’s not a real option. In reality though there might not be a solution. The money controlling the system won’t give up that power w/o a fight so most likely we’ll have a bloody revolution in the near future(god/goddess help us all) – that’s what history teaches us anyways. I just don’t see a point in playing a long w/the establishment if we know they don’t play fair & give 0 fucks about us.
While it is true that Republicans are atrocious and Democrats are feckless and pathetic, there is more to the Supreme Court nomination than just Obama and the Dems being weak and spineless. They were counting on that empty seat to help them get a toxic candidate of historic unpopularity elected.
The threat that a Republican would nominate the next Supreme Court justice was (in the opinion of the genius Dem leadership) the hole card that could get even someone as awful as Hillary Clinton elected.
Fear of a Republican nominating the next Supreme Court justice would be so great (the genius reasoning went) that more voters in all 50 states would hold their noses, stifle their gag reflex, and vote for Hillary.
Ooops.
Dems could do little to fill the empty seat. Republicans had the upper hand and that was it. The best they can do was a stop gap recess appointment (which would not happened since Congress did not go into recess in 2016 thanks to rule changes introduced by Dems in 2006 to obstruct Bush from Recess Appointments) and even that would only last a few months since his tenure would finish and the winner gets to nominate a new Supreme Court nominee, that is back to square one.
As for the Supreme court, it was part of the campaign whether Hillary was on the ticket or not. The supreme court seat (and Federal Judicial appointments overall) was, based on multiple studies, the 2nd or 3rd reason why the republicans voted in the first place even the “No Trumpers”.
If we are in the blame business one should blame the “progressive activists” who insisted that there was no difference between Dems and Republicans when it came to the federal judiciary when they knew full well it was a massive lie. Dems did campaign on the seat and the electorate should have acted but unlike the republicans judicial appointments did not even register on the Dem or progressive radar and now they are blaming the loser for losing and not blaming themselves for not voting.
Sec~ Keep telling yourself that!
The Dems and Obama were using the SCOTUS as the top of their “You Have No Choice” vote for $hillary. Obama NEVER fought because he was counting on it helping HRC. Instead, he looked weak & spineless and made the Republicans look like they were the Powerful Behemoth!
Obama & Hillary got out-played.
They both underestimated how much the country hated (and still does) Hillary Clinton.
Agree to disagree.
Hillary lost because she was a bad campaigner (which should have been a red flag since she already lost to a black man with a muslim name 7 years after 9/11 and nearly lost to Bernie) not because she was more disliked than Trump (which is not true) and based on all studies Dems were not enthused by Judicial appointments and were never enthused. Campaigning on them would have not moved the needle and why would it, the view was (and with great justification based on social decisions) that the judiciary was liberal.
Judicial appointments have been a voter priority among republicans since 1990 and still makes the list despite the fact that conservatives have had a majority across the judicial branch since 2006 (the Supreme court since 1986) when Dems began blocking nominations.
” blame the “progressive activists” ” — LOL
As usual, your comments identify you as an establishment shill.
Ironic that Obama is to blame for the disenfranchisement of the very groups of vulnerable voters HE was suppose to be a “Champion” for. The First Black President and the DNC-Clintoncrats are responsible for Minorities & the Poor losing their right to vote. I hope his piles of speech-cash help him sleep at night.
No poor or minorities have lost their right to vote! what are you talking about? Most poor and minotirties don’t get off their asses to go vote!! they refuse to go vote, that’s the problem!
You didn’t see the Ohio story as an issue?
You don’t think that will hurt, you think it’s okay and it’s the poor & minorities fault for refusing to go vote?
Wow.
Sorry but soldm7178@yahoo.com is right. The Ohio purges are legal and justified. People who don’t vote and don’t bother to register shouldn’t have the opportunity to just waltz in on election day and vote with no proof that they are even living in the district. The countries that do have same day registration have national ID cards that contain all the voter information and is updated automatically by the government, something that will never happen in the US.
In Europe voting laws make those of the US look loose. No same day registration (Sweden is an exception), no mail in ballots, no absentee ballots and their in person turnout rates are in the 70s.
They were registered. That’s what a purge is, there would be nothing to purge if they weren’t registered. Who cares if they don’t vote every time? What if they have a legitimate reason for not voting? As long as voting is voluntary, you can’t punish people for not voting.
Being registered does not abrogate the necessity of updating voter rolls especially in areas where turnout is low. Remember that the assignment of precincts and poll officials also depends on how many perspective voters there is.
The rule is reasonable and affects both white and minority areas where voter participation is low and let us not forget, 30% of the population who were asked by Ohio to update their status did update their status. The rest who didn’t have not right to whine. They are also poor and minority.
70% that didn’t update were poor and minority and should shut up and stop whining? Is that what you wrote there?
Thank you KarinK, great point
Before making excuses remember that those 70% did not vote to begin with and had no interest in voting which is why they got the mail notifications. Had they had any inerest in voting they would have found a way to register or at least made the effort to check their status which is a single click away.
Poorer white and black communities in the deep south found a way and have very high participation rates in 2008 and 2018.
I have lived in Ohio my entire life & I can tell you that our voting laws are written to disenfranchise poor & minority voters, just look at the assholes we have running our state & municipal government for proof. Find it funny that you pulled that 30% statistic out like that proves that the laws are just somehow. I can tell you why only 30% updated their status, cuz they’re the only ones who received the letter requesting it. I bet too that if you dig deeper you will find that the 30% also come from more affluent parts of the state. Your comments smack of libertarian “fuck everyone who isn’t me” attitude & that’s disappointing cuz I’ve seen you make good points in the past.
Maybe in the days before the internet but with the internet there is no excuse.
A person interested in politics will have no problem in registering and voting if he wants to and studies buried by “Voting rights Activists” who are in effect professional whiners showed this:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism
Hmmm, another thing poor people might not have equal access to. I sense a theme here.
97.5% of Americans use the internet on a daily basis. The only theme here is that the majority of poor people, the stake holders in any elections, don’t bother to vote.
Yeah, the fact some people don’t vote doesn’t justify making it difficult for people to vote.
1. Your statistic about American internet use is wrong, according to pew research 11% of Americans don’t use the internet. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/
2. The article you referenced basically says that the first study in 2017 said that these fucked up voting laws do have an effect but then some other researchers did the same study using data but different methods that shows the effect is smaller than the first study suggests. Neither study says it does not affect voter turn out at all. It also doesn’t say anything about any voting rights activists burying these studies. Maybe you didn’t read the article, just the headline?
3. You are really showing your right-wing colors, please keep doubling down on your libertarian bullshit
1. Different study, different method and still does not negate the fact that 89% use the internet and 97.5% have access to it.
2. The second study is important in that it exposed modeling flaws in the original study and proved that after adjustment to voter ID laws there was no meaningful statistical difference in turnout. That is enough to prove that the laws themselves are not the problem.
What is a problem one must note however is how the law is applied. When Waukesha county, WI sees an increase in local DMV offices while neighbouring majority-minority Milwaukee county sees a dramatic reduction then one can talk:
https://thinkprogress.org/after-signing-law-disenfranchising-id-less-voters-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-closes-10-dmv-offices-36cf08160637/
As far as I have seen only Wisconsin and Michigan have had such an aggressive skewed application of the law clearly aimed at disenfranchisement.
3. Personal responsibility is not a right wing or a left wing issue, it is a character issue. Voting is a personal responsibility and a civic responsibility and if people take it lightly then it is on them.
I am a wholehearted supporter of the Welfare state however I am not a supporter of the Nanny state.
Ana, don’t be afraid about Trump being re-elected.
The DNC “strategy” is making it a CERTAINTY.
He WILL be re-elected.
The DNC-Clintoncrats are SO fuckin’ selfish & stupid, that they are doing everything possible to DEPRESS the vote. You can yell & scream & bash Progressives all you want, but what about the millions who don’t follow politics everyday? Many of them didn’t bother to vote in 2016 AT ALL.
DNC-Clintoncrats plan is “We’re not Trump.” Playing “No choice but to elect Kamala-Booker-Cuomo Game” won’t work. The more they make it impossible for Progressives to win, the more they block Bernie (or any Progressive) from running in 2020, the more they make CERTAIN Trump will win a 2nd term.
And btw Ana, OBAMA fucked up the SCOTUS bench we have now. NOT Stein or Johnson voters.
OBAMA allowed the Republicans to block him. When has any other president in history done such a shitty, weak, political-calculation gone wrong?
Obama doesn’t give a flying-fuck what happens to the US, all he cares about now is how much he can charge for a speech. Speeches that TRASH the American people and acting like he has NO responsibility for Trump.
So, be afraid, cuz thanx to the DNC…here comes Trump 2.0 in 2020.
I suggest you read this about what happened in SCOTUS:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/29/the-real-reason-president-obama-wont-recess-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.0e4ade8d782e
Obama did a lot of things wrong but you simply can’t blame him for the Garland fiasco because he is blameless. The constitution worked as it was supposed to work. The president nominated someone and the senate rejected the nomination. Pure and simple.
As for Trump being re-elected. If the primaries showed us anything until now they showed us two things:
A. Progressives are a teeny tiny section of the country with no real weight or power.
B. Republicans like their president.
Whether you like it or not the Clintoncrats won and won bigly and they are still popular. Bill is still more popular today than Obama let alone Trump.
Sec~DNC-Clintoncrats have KILLED the Dem Party and Obama was part of that.
Please tell me the last president who was blocked from getting a SCOTUS nom, and didn’t even TRY to put forth another one? How about all the other judicial positions he just forgot about fighting for? He sure knew how to work the MSM when he wanted to get elected! But, he NEVER FOUGHT for another else.
And tell me again how “popular” Hillary is? Maybe only with you & your other Warmongering buddies.
Btw, any Corporate Dem who runs is only as popular as the size of their bank-roll.
I don’t know why you’re bothering to comment on this…
Isn’t there another Humanitarian/Carpet-Bombing Action you need to be promoting?
I agree with you that the Clintoncrats are bad for the party but they are in charge. Going to party meetings the only people you will see in state party conventions are 50-something Clintoncrat surrogates while progressive activists stay on the street refusing even to register as Dems. The Kochs took over the republican party through dozens of youth programs that stormed into state party leadership after 2008 and changed the party dramatically:
http://progressive.org/dispatches/progressives-aren%E2%80%99t-putting-their-money-where-their-youth-is/
As for blocking the nomination, again there was nothing Obama could have done constitutionally or politically except campaign on the issue. The republicans were clear, no to Garland or any other appointment. He might not have fought as aggressively as he should but it still would not have mattered because the senate has to vote and they said no and No mean No.
The problem is, the senate didn’t say no. Mitch McConnell said no. The constitution doesn’t say one way or the other whether appointments are actually entitled to a vote, and I think there could have been a more of a push to argue that they are in fact entitled to a vote. Of course, the senate likely would have voted him down anyway, but then again, if McConnell was sure that Garland wouldn’t pass anyway, there would’ve been no reason to withhold the vote. It not only implies that Garland would have had a real chance if a vote had been allowed, it also shows the danger of putting so much power in one singular person. Now that he was able to effectively block a vote on a nomination, what’s stopping the senate in the future from simply never voting on any positions if the president is from the other party?
By denying him a hearing it did say no. The constitution gives the senate the right to interpret what “Advice and Consent” means and each leadership on the first day of each congress after an election changes the rules based on what it thinks is more politically expedient.
Indeed the constitution does not even mandate that an empty seat must be filled or not. Technically speaking the entire federal judiciary can be emptied out and no constitutional mandate can force congress to vote a substitute.
The constitution gives the senate no such right. The closest provision is the one allowing each house to decide its own rules, but it gives no details on how exactly such rules are to be decided, or what exactly is encompassed by “the rules of its proceedings.” It may seem natural that the senate may interpret that clause on their own, but that’s a different thing from saying the constitution positively grants them such authority.
Either way, the point isn’t about an explicit constitutional mandate. The constitution has always been open to interpretation beyond what is explicitly stated, otherwise we’d be sitting here saying “well the constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit Utah from declaring itself a Mormon state.” The point is, I think there’s a fruitful debate to be had over what “the senate” means in “by and with the advice and consent of the senate.” I would argue that the way things happened, “the senate” was deprived it’s opportunity to give its “advice” under one particular senator, who I do not believe constitutes “the senate.” We could also debate what “shall” means in “shall nominate, and… shall appoint.” It doesn’t say “can” or “may,” but rather “shall,” which one could argue is in fact an explicit mandate. From there we can have debates about whether to interpret the language through a modern lens or by what (we think) it meant at the time. These are all legitimate debates, and my point is that there’s nothing forcing us to simply allow one particular interpretation of the document to be taken as the definitive truth without *our* consent in what’s supposed to be a democracy.
Sorry but you just replied on your own objection:
“The closest provision is the one allowing each house to decide its own rules”. (from Article I, Section 5, clause 2)
And Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says:
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
As for interpretation, the only valid interpretation is that of the Supreme Court.
In a nutshell, there was nothing wrong in the Garland fiasco.
Now you’re the one contradicting yourself. At first you said the senate may interpret what “advice and consent” means, now you’re saying only the Supreme Court may interpret the constitution. In that case, the Supreme Court didn’t weigh in on this issue, meaning an official valid interpretation hasn’t been established.
Either way, the point I’m trying to make is that I’m not concerned about legal mandates. I’m not trying to debate about whether or not what happened was technically permissible. I’m arguing that either way, it was wrong, and I’m going to pass judgment on those destroying our system of government, and I’m also going to pass judgment on those who sit on the sidelines and justify it just because McConnell says so. The Supreme Court has also ruled it’s legal to bribe our politicians, but that doesn’t make it okay, and I’m not just going to sit down and shut up because corrupt judges made a corrupt decision.
I don’t mean to be offending any of the panelists, but unfortunately analysis of a complicated economic subject requires better informed hosts. Comments like what Trump is doing is “inappropriate” and “embarrassing” are not only raw and meaningless, they also don’t sit well with the audience seeking detailed economic examination of the issue. How does Canada wants to hurt American farmer when it already is applying a 280 per cent tariff on particular farming produce? Elaborate on this. Or How is this a proper journalistic practice where none of the comments made by Trump on this matter – and I mean none – is provided for further discussion? I personally do not agree with certain policies imposed but I have serious methodological and substantive issues with the nature of how the news is being recently covered on TYT – especially in the case of foreign policy matters which is a serious weakness of the TYT panels, and furthermore economic policies. Your work is difficult, but if you cannot often provide a quality analysis, invite other hosts familiar with the issues.
If you believe something Trump said is in any way meaningful, then you are not keeping up.
I do believe some of the things Trump says are meaningful. That is truism. He may not be qualified for presidency, but of course some of the things he points at are legitimate and meaningful concerns.Therefore he deserves his views to be reflected – especially when they are indeed the matter over which a discussion is developed. I am cognizant that you misrepresented my comment on methodology, practice and content, all the while making a personal ad hominem attack on a character you probably don’t even know much about. My advice to you is to try and develop unbiased, open minded and non-judgmental view on matters. It will be helpful. Be it concerning other people’s character, political issues or cultural norms. It helps you to see, describe and understand the world around you better.
TYT is falling into a trend of accepting or at least using Washington consensus dialogue. Legitimized DPRK cuz they met with an American president, or Libya needed invasion. I mean look at how the panel uses an uncharacteristic arrogance to how they viewed the summit. That is a typical Washington talking point, such ARROGANCE that DPRK needs Americans to be legitimized or ACKNOWLEDGED as one of the panelists said. that asking for antagonistic troop withdrawal is unrealistic or ridiculous is a blatant show of ignorance unbefitting of TYT journalists. The quality of commentary on resistant states has sadly fallen.
Who benefits from Trump’s Tariff Tornado?
I poked just a little, and everything I found was negative.
What corporations benefit? If prices go up across the board, who benefits?
What about the US corporations who are AGAINST these tariffs?
So far the ONLY one I see who benefits is Trump’s illusion that he’s a badass-tough guy.
Ana mentioned Kudlow.
As of this morning, he’s been hospitalized with a heart attack.
No shit.
American trade competitors in specific industries benefit.
China and Russia benefit. Not seeing America as a reliable partner, China and Russia look reasonable by comparison, and the world is not united against Russia’s persistent expansionism. I really hate the Russia narrative, but I’d find it hard to see any other president who could benefit their leadership this much.
Fox New’s Freudian slip tells all, it was just a meeting between a dictator and a wannabe dictator
Is it possible for you to vote by mail, instead of having to horse and buggy it?
Pretty obvious that Trump is jealous of Trudeau’s good looks
I wonder how long it will take for Ivanka to get some trademark approvals in North Korea? I hear that labor costs are really cheap in the DPRK.
Trump sucks shit from a syphilitic dick
On the German NATO contribution “concession”.
This is something which has been talked about for a while now but as you can imagine Germany has waited to be pushed into spending more on military because they don’t want to seem keen to rearm. You know why …
No cred to Donald there I’m afraid.
Achtung Trump!
hey, mark! we vote on tuesdays bc i have to go to church on sunday, then travel by horse and buggy on monday so that i can finally vote on tuesday
oh, and the general election is on the first tuesday (following a monday) in november so that i’m not missing out on that all important harvest work, and the extreme winter weather hasn’t yet kicked in
Are these tariffs unconstitutional? It obviously isn’t a national security issue, why isn’t congress doing anything about it?
Trump winning about 27% of the Hispanic vote still baffles me… I genuinely don’t understand how he won over so many Hispanics.
I wonder if Jimmy Dore regrets endorsing Jill Stein now that Trump is destroying our democracy (referring to the supreme court story).
umm…that’s just stupid if you know anything about anything
for one thing, more people voted for johnson than stein; and most of stein’s voters would have not voted at all rather than vote for shillary
also, there is more than one election in a lifetime, and democrats must not be allowed to continue lesser-evilism that resulted in a trump/shillary matchup
and, while reps stole the seat from merrick garland, it had previously been scalia’s seat, so the dynamics of the court are unchanged
I know Stein wasn’t the reason Hillary lost, but it’s the principle that matters. Voting third party is only slightly better than not voting at all.
If you truly want to stop the “lesser-evilism”, then you need to volunteer and vote for Bernie, along with helping grassroots organizations such as Our revolution and Justice Democrats. Unless we get rank choice voting, third party is never going to work.
The point is that had Hillary been elected, Trump would not be able to use his voter suppression tactics.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Jimmy Dore, but the idea that voting third party is the solution is… well, let’s just say wrong.
I have no regrets whatsoever about voting for Jill Stein, and I am pretty darn certain that Jimmy does not regret it either.
Our votes for Jill Stein had no effect whatsoever on the election outcome since we are in CA and that state was a given, for Hillary. Therefore, there was no reason NOT to vote conscience. After all, that’s what Hillary told voters to do.
Then you agree with Kyle Kulinski more than you do with Jimmy Dore. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Jimmy prefers that you vote for Stein no matter where you live.
Ding-dong — it’s June 2018 but you cannot get your head out of June 2016. Here’s the amount of interest I have in re-litigating any of this today — ZERO. I don’t give a flying fuck who I agree or disagree with about what should or should not have been done two years ago. Move the fuck on. You’re worse than John Iadarola. He’ll still be whining about that election when he’s seventy.
Bernie2020 – you’re goddam right it’s the principle that matters. That’s why I voted for Jill twice. Nader before that. The only mainstream POTUS that got my vote was Carter, 1976. Every election since than I have voted third party for pres.
Did you not vote for Obama in ’08? And why didn’t you vote for Carter in 1980?
I did NOT vote for Obama three times – one primary & two general elections. I already knew he was an evil fuck.
In 1980, John Anderson had a much better platform than Carter.
How can we add term limits to the supreme court? Would we have to amend the constitution? Why has this not been done yet?
Explain how term limits would solve the problem we are seeing now. If anything, it would exacerbate the problem as the court could quickly be filled with partisans, much like when FDR suggested packing the court.
That is also the problem the US has with its senate, compared to other nations.
Correction: I meant terms, not term limits.
The Supreme Court is already filled with partisans. The difference with terms would be that the court would not be right wing for decades, and we would be able to easily make the courts objective (progressive) again.
Maybe this makes me a bad progressive, but I don’t see term limits as a solution to anything. If the voters genuinely like their representative, they should have the freedom to keep choosing that person. The only thing term limits would accomplish would be to occasionally take away the advantage of name recognition, admittedly a huge advantage. But take a look at the California primary. It appears that even if Feinstein hadn’t been allowed to run, the voters still would’ve chosen the establishment, a different face with largely the same ideas. The name recognition issue is deeply tied to money in politics, and I’d at least like to see the effect of taking money out of politics before jumping right into term limits.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, while they are political actors, it’s only insofar as they’re people with political beliefs. Presidents choose judges whose beliefs line up with their own, but at least we know they aren’t making decisions based on direct fear of retribution from donors and the party. If we were to put term limits on them, we would likely see them making decisions in an attempt to get lobbying jobs afterwards, same as other politicians, which would be even worse.
Correction: I meant terms, not term limits. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I agree that we don’t need term limits in Congress, I didn’t even mean to bring up term limits.
The problem is, that Trump did choose Gorsuch because it benefits his donors. Gorsuch is a corporatist who was willing to let someone freeze to death because that’s what the corporation wanted (which I’m sure you already know. I feel like if we added terms, the supreme court wouldn’t be right wing for decades.
I guess it’s hard to say who would benefit more from terms, since while it would allow liberal/progressive presidents to replace conservative judges more quickly, it would also work the other way around. Unfortunately as it stands, Democrats don’t seem to be very good at winning elections.
While Gorsuch and the other right wingers on the court are corporatists obviously put there to please the donors, at least without having to worry about being re-appointed, they have the freedom to go against their president/party, like when Roberts defended (part of) the ACA, however rarely they exercise that power. Then again, not knowing who will be the president when their term is up would make trying to please that person pretty hard anyway, and could perhaps encourage moderation. Either way, a constitutional amendment to impose terms on the Supreme Court seems pretty unlikely, so we’re stuck with the system we have.
Well, in the current system, the supreme court has been Conservative for 40 years. I don’t see how it can get any worse than that.
That’s a legitimate point you made, but as you said, they rarely exercise that power. But as you said, it likely would not happen anyways.
Correction: I meant terms, not term limits.
I hate Trump. Tax cuts for the rich, EPA, education, ICE…….. but I like what he’s doing with Canada and North Korea. All I can say is wait for the result to come out on these trade deals, and with the summit today in Singapore. People are moved by different things and sometimes being a dick works. sometimes befriending your enemy works. I don’t mind a president that will take rash steps to get from point a to point b if he gets there and the goal is one of virtue.
I may be wrong, but good results might come out of this seemingly stupid behavior. The guy did win the nomination and general election mind you.
That being said if he makes a peace deal with North Korea today watch out 2020 (T T)
Why in the world would you be in favor of what he’s doing in Canada? We have a trade SURPLUS with Canada. Also, a North Korea peace deal would not help Trump much in 2020, if at all.
Working with Trump is miserable? I would like to quote a wise man: OF COURSE!!!
Is it a good or bad thing if Kim Jong Un manipulates Trump into doing his bidding?
Why is Trudeau criticizing Trump? Shouldn’t he be complimenting him so that he can manipulate him? It’s not that hard to manipulate Trump.
It’s hard to compliment a leader when their leader is attacking. If anything Trudeau should be harsher so that they can stage a reconciliation later. Trump loves the drama and the ebb and the flow (eg Kim Jong Un). Gotta close out the season on a positive note. Canadian fault for being too measured and polite; they’ve got to get some Canadian firebrands to light into Trump. Trudeau’s politeness comes across as condescension to Trump.
That’s a fair point. I just feel like if he gave him compliments such as “Wow Donald, your hands really are big”, and “has anyone ever told you that you are intellectual?”, he could get whatever he wants from Trump. I highly doubt he would be able to tell he is lying. I believe there is a 50/50 chance that could end the trade war.
This trade war is incredibly terrifying, mostly because this isn’t something that can be undone as easily as other policies, such as the Trump tax cuts. Do you guys think that these relations can be repaired if Bernie (or some other progressive) gets into the oval office?
Please honor the contributions of your guests. Don’t cut them off when they are making their point.
I feel like the panel completely misunderstood why Trudeau said he was insulted. We’re insulted that he’s doing this under the guise of american national security. Which seems to be the play book of dictators. Like Trudeau mentioned we’re quick to back the USA when there’s conflict and I think a lot of the reason we do this is to maintain a good relationship with the USA especially when it comes to trade.
We miss you Cenk!
TYT does a great job of repeating stories from NPR. Way to corral young progressives behind the left wing of the democratic party!
Actually the majority of TYT’s stories are sourced from The Guardian.