Bno

Obama doesn't have integrity with US or Saudi corporate interests but that is a discussion I don't wish to have today. Everything else may be true, but what does that have to do with the US election being interfered? And what about Trump laundering money with oligarchs from other countries besides Russia? Could be true, but this is speculation and Trump's foreign policy actions haven't benefited Putin.

You're right about the reason Putin preferred Trump over Hillary, and I will also add that she would've acted against several of his geopolitical interests. Putin also preferred Obama over McCain and Romney, but no one is saying Putin colluded with Obama. Are you also agreeing that Trump likely did not collude and that Putin just got lucky? And here I have some of the acts Trump has done against Putin's interest and escalated tensions with Russia: Trump is pulling out of the IMF nuclear treaty by increasing the US troop presence on Russia's borders. Trump also started arming Ukrainian neonazis on Russia's borders, something Obama wasn't doing. Trump is undermining a vital gas pipeline between Germany and Russia Trump is pushing for a pipeline that'll go from Saudia Arabia, through Syria, and into Europe so that those countries can have better access to US-Saudi oil. Russia doesn't want that because right now they are the number one oil providers to those European countries. Trump also bombed Syria twice, which is Putin's ally. Trump attempted a coup in Venezuela, which Putin is against.

I found this article which discusses how mathematicians and physicists devised models to show how the current economic system creates an increasing gap of wealth inequality. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/

No vote is a wasted vote. You're voting for your beliefs and against what you do not believe in. I would rather do that than succumb to an illusion that I have to vote for one or the other.

Ok, so because of this, you're saying the Russians wanted him so that he can do their bidding? And if so, how did they know or plan to get this reality talk show host to beat every Republican in the 2016 primary and know he would face off against Hillary Clinton all those years ago? And if they did know this and achieved it, why hasn't Trump done their bidding this entire time while he was in office? This goes back to what I mentioned above. How did the Russians know all those years ago that a reality TV billionaire con-man could beat Republican and Democratic politicians? The documents he destroyed were most likely going to reveal financial corruption and they were from years back long before 2016. The Clintons have caused more harm to this country and foreign nations than Trump has, although Trump might surpass them if he stays in office for another term. There is a myriad of documented evidence to show their corruption. Trump is corrupt, no doubt, but we need to look at the overall harm inflicted on people and this planet. The Clintons also still have MSM and DNC influence, which manufactures the consent of the public. And I just showed you in my last post in 2016 alone how more evidence exists for Clinton meddling in an election than Trump. You're going to need historical evidence to back up this claim. Without it, this just sounds like a biased opinion based on the time you started paying attention to politics and the limited information you've seen. This also just sounds like an opinion you have just because of Trump's personal character. Actions and overall impact need to be compared. We've had 45 presidents over the course of two and a half centuries, there's a lot of information you may have looked passed. This is also a preposterous claim considering the war crimes of recent presidents.

@Leo Gura Why is it that the 2 plus year investigation wasn't able to find any Trump-Russia connection? Trump is too dumb to outsmart the FBI. And what about the Clinton campaign conspiring to get dirt on Trump from Russia, in which there is actual documented evidence? And Clinton selling Uranium to Putin? Shouldn't her and Bill be considered just as rotten? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/adam-schiff-democrats-sought-trump-dirt-ukraine-ot/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime/ https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/emails-reveal-bill-clinton-sought-meetings-key-russian-nuclear-officials-just-uraniu In what ways do you think Russia helped Trump? What about Hillary's actual $1,000,000 fake account troll farm "Correct the Record" program and documented evidence of the DNC colluding to cheat Bernie in the 2016 primaries? https://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-backer-nomiki-konst-clinton-supporting-correct-record-spent-1-million-internet-trolls/ And how she also conspired with Google to show favorable searches when people search for her? Also, I agree that Trump is rotten to the core, but what about other presidents we've had that collude with Israel and Saudi Arabia and install their puppets in Latin America and the Middle East and Africa? Why does Trump stand out? Is it just because he's less polite? Trump just put an ugly face on the evil our country has already been doing. At least he hasn't yet started any new wars but that's a very low bar that was set for him.

I don't remember where I heard it from. It's probably somewhere in my notes. But someone said life is like a video game. Where all possibilities are inscripted in the game. You choose what signs to follow and in other universe you may have chosen to follow other signs.

Killing yourself physically is egotistical. It isn't an act of high consciousness.

I think you're confusing his aggression for arrogance. Agrression is healthy, according to Conversations with God, and he aggressively pursues truth and objectivity to achieve the goal of fixing our country's root problems. TYT, on the other hand, has shown more cloudedness. Russiagate is a prime example. Who got it right and who got it wrong? Also, he gives those he disagrees with a chance to come on his shows to clarify misunderstandings he may have had with them, a recent example was Jimmy's interview with Rho Khana. It's good that Cenk does this too to some extent, but Ana and Emma do not do this and they remain dogmatic about criticisms with people like Tulsi Gabbard despite existing evidence that debunk several criticisms they have of her.

@Leo Gura He speaks for the anger of the country that's suffering. He's more informed and correctly predicted more issues than TYT, even though he's angry.

What part of what I said is a conspiracy theory? TYT is committing a lot of the fallacies that MSM commits. These other channels were influenced be TYT, but they are more consciously aware of what's going on in politics and how to best solve these issues. For example, in 2016 TYT supported Bernie. There was a lot of conspicuous rigging during the primaries and more evidence came out supporting the DNC cheating with the leaked Padesta emails that were published on Wikileaks. These emails along with a history of neoliberal behavior displayed by Clintom and the democratic establishment revealed the root problem with our politics: corporations funding candidates. Instead of pushing for election integrity after Hillary Clinton won the primaries through cheating, everyone in TYT except Jimmy Dore and a small handful of others that later quit or got fired were pushing their support for Hillary. How are we going to fix the root problem in our politics by supporting a candidate that takes money from corporations, essentially part of THE problem? You can say that Trump is worse, but is he really? Was he pushing for as much war that the fossil fuel and banks and military weapons industries want? Was he pushing for TPP and NAFTA? Does the left fall asleep under his presidency as much as they did under Obama? He doesn't believe in climate change, but she gaslights and was in favor of fracking and oil production. There is so much more damage Hillary could have done, just like Obama got us into 5 more wars, killing millions, bailed out wall street, left millions of Americans uninsured, and the left fell asleep while all this was happening. Incrementalism has caused distress and anger across a nation that wants their problems fixed and 8 years of another neoliberal democrat would not fix that. It's easy for Cenk and Ana to back a neoliberal Dem because they're rich so the problems of this country don't affect them as much as it does to the average American. There is a lot wrong with Trump, but voting for the lesser of two evils would not end the problems in this country. You can say that voting 3rd party won't either but at least your support wouldn't go to a party that is continuing the destruction of this planet. And look what we have now that Hillary lost, we have a strong chance for Bernie Sanders to become president a lot sooner than if at all had Hillar won. Also, the fact that TYT accepted money from a Hillary donor is no secret. https://medium.com/@RobletoFire/the-ideological-failure-of-the-young-turks-90c15ddde408 Also that they share the same agents as neoliberals like Ben Shapiro and MSM and Hollywood 1 percenters. https://medium.com/@RobletoFire/tulsi-gabbard-has-enemies-in-high-places-6fa7da05284 People like Jimmy Dore, Niko House, Tim Black, Jamarl Thomas, etc. know what the root problem is. They know that a lot of what TYT pushes, like supporting a corrupt centrist if they win the primary, is not going to solve the problems our country faces. They pushed for election integrity instead of Clinton. They know that pushing Russiagate isn't going to help beat Trump. The impeachment hearings are increasing Trump's approval ratings!!! If we want to beat Trump we have to attack him where it matters. Call out his economic disservice to the poor. Call out hik continuing the wars started by Bush and Obama. Call out his tax breaks to the rich. Not these weak Russia and Ukraine accusations that do not affect the American people's lives.

@Leo Gura Here in this video (10-36 min mark) are more recent constructive criticisms of TYT's not-so-high political consciousness. These criticisms are not out of spite, but they are to help them improve their political awareness and more importantly the public's political awareness. Them spreading misinformation (like Russiagate, Tulsi Gabbard smears, Elizabeth Warren praises, and pushing for Clinton support over election integrity in 2016) as a result of their unconscious biases can and has hurt the progressive movement, causing internal warfare. Could Cenk and Ana receiving a check from a rich Hillary donor and them being represented by the same agencies that represent neoliberal mainstream news anchors, politicians, and Hollywood actors have anything to do with it? Thankfully, other progressives are becoming more aware and are unsubscribing from TYT and subscribing to more politically conscious youtubers like Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Tim Black, Niko House, Krystal Ball and journalists like Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Michael Tracy, and Primo Nutmeg. I know it may be hard to understand since you have exclusively listened to TYT and other neoliberal-lite channels like Sam Sedar and Michael Brooks and they may seem like they are the most politically conscious out there, but the more information you find you will realize that there are so many more politically conscious people out there like the ones I mentioned. This also isn't to say that some of these other youtubers and journalists don't respect members of TYT, some of them are friends but they do call them out on their hypocrisy and low-awareness on issues. Some members of TYT are also more conscious than other members, but the lowest consciously aware members like Ana and Emma are more often than not blasphemous and hurt the progressive movement. What I am trying to do here is not to pickiness nor is it a waste of time, I am trying to promote more political consciousness so we can more efficiently know how to fix the root problems causing so many problems in the world that did not start with Donald Trump.

Perhaps in this particular instance it may appear I am being picky. There's more to it than this Albright interview, but I was probably too quick to post something recent than to give a full analysis about her faults. I just want to hold those on my side to a more conscious standard that'll improve the movement instead of staying quiet and let the faults exacerbate. Albright is supposed to be one of the people we are fighting against.

Lol ok, if I ever get the chance to I will ask her about this. I'm also only calling her a devil here on this forum since calling her that to her face with less consciously aware people that dont understand our meaning of the word devil watching would not interpret it the same way. I'm not, actually. There are dozens of other more lefty progressive and more rational youtube channels that I follow. These other youtube channels are better-researched journalists and/or activists and constructively call out TYT whenever they act out hypocritically or in a mainstream media-lite way that may damage the progressive movement. One example out of many on how they damage the progressive movement is Ana and Emma's irrational and not fully researched criticism on Tulsi Gabbard. Another example is their misinformative take on Russiagate and how they got it wrong. True, but this gripe isn't meant primarily to personally attack her character, but to bring awareness to viewers of the interview about her damaging history. I would also not attack her aggressively about it, but question her and allow my viewers to form a perspective around that. Have them rationally analyze about the kinds of people we had running the country and think about how they got into power, why did they serve under Bill Clinton, what was publicly-claimed goal versus the pricately-kept corporate goal of the Iraq sanctions of the 90s? Is this problem still occurring today?

Let's consider this in terms of what a conscious person wants most, which is implementation of progressive policies and in perspective of the 2016 US presidential election: A - Donald Trump, a misogynistic fascist billionaire who depicts himself as an outsider of the governmental establishment and a populist. He tries to cater to people that are upset after 8 years of neoliberalism under Obama and possibly also upset at the other former neoliberal presidents (Bush, Clinton, etc.). The media is on his ass all day, every move he makes and every tweet he makes becomes headlines on the mainstream news. He criticizes our foreign policies, wars, and trade policies that objectively haven't helped the 99% financially. Even though he really is part of the club (the elite), the media is always onto him, thus people are always on to him. B - Hillary Clinton, an establishment candidate who takes corporate money from the rich elites like big oil, the military industrial complex, wallstreet, etc. who have screwed up our economy during the housing market crash and the 7 wars we are currently in (2 started by Bush and 5 started by Obama). She is the mainstream media darling and criticism on her is very limited. Her neoliberal platform is hawkish, and her record as Secretary of State caused more harm to countries like Lybia, Honduras, and Yemen. She also says she will continue Barack Obama's policies, in which the majority of poor and middle class people did not see a net benefit from during the 8 years. However, because Obama was a Democrat who spoke well, did some minor tweaks around the edges in order to compromise with Republicans, and was good on social issues, many people were asleep (UNCONSCIOUS) about the environmental (overexploitation of oil and military and becoming number 1 country in fracking), economic (kicking millions of people out of their homes, millions of Americans still uninsured with healthcare, hundreds of thousands going bankrupt over medical bills, student loan debt skyrocketting), and foreign political (millions of civilians killed in the 7 countries we're still bombing) problems he did not fix. Chances are many people would remain unconscious under another neoliberal corporate Democrat. C - Jill Stein, a Green Party candidate with low chance of winning as a result of people's preconceived notions that third party never wins and limited media exposure. Overall, her policies appear as if they will benefit the environment. She is also not nearly as influenced by big money interests as standard politicians are. D - Gary Johnson, a Libertarian. Sorry I can't say much about him other than that and that his ideas can take more votes away from Trump than Clinton. E - Stay home For me, I stayed true to my authentic beliefs and voted for C. I could not put myself to vote for someone that can cause more harm than good to the people. I would also add that if Hillary Clinton had won, the neoliberal problems of this country would exacerbate and people would remain asleep and uncritical. And then when the majority of the country are tired of the wealth inequality, there's a high chance people would vote for a worse neoliberal in a Republican if no other progressive like Bernie Sanders came into the race. And at that point, where would our environmental crisis be? At least with Trump, it's easier to get him out after 4 years and run a progressive candidate in 2020. People are more awake and many can analyze and become conscious about why we have a fascist as president. What led to this crazy orange man to win? Why did people vote for him? Also, we saw how Bernie Sanders almost beat Hillary Clintom and that if it wasn't for the DNC cheating he actually would have beaten her. He also could've beaten Trump since he would've spoken about the economic problems poor white people face and how his plans would work and Trump's are lies. Hillary just went for personal attacks and she had her history against her.

Isn't this strategy what keeps us stuck in a two-party system (really 1 party if you consider who is really setting the rules) and why we don't see real progressive change happening?

Really great episode. Tulsi Gabbard is a very eye-opening candidate exposing truth about our foreign policy.

"What does independent media mean if an organization that calls itself independent has the exact same corporate structure and donors?" I appreciate what Cenk has done with Justice Democrats and trying to get money out of politics. However, as far as conscious news goes, there are far better options out there.

Unfortunately, sites like TYT have become corrupted by big money interests since they received money from Clinton lobbyists. https://newspunch.com/clinton-young-turks/ Democracy Now, Rational National, Michael Brooks, Sam Sedar, and the Humanist Report are all also very emotionally reactionary and have more than often put out videos without fully analyzing the subject. Even when presented with contrary evidence to their beliefs, they have remained dogmatic. One prime example is Mike Figurito of the Humanist Report saying Bernie's M4A will eliminate all private insurance even though the bill makes no such statement. Also Michael Brooks and Rational National's irrational smears of Tulsi Gabbard which is hypothetical since some of their criticism of her have either been debunked or are things that Bernie Sanders has also committed. They fail to see that having someone to the left of Bernie on foreign policy will help move Bernie left and not make Bernie look like he is the only one with lefty ideas. Also Democracy Now's dogmatic stance on believing Russiagate despite being presented with mountains of evidence by people like Noam Chomsky against some of the mainstream narratives. Their reactionary videos can and has lead to misinformation being spread.

I try to stick to channels that show more stage yellow elements than green elements. In addition to Secular Talk, these are very analytical and less emotionally reactionary: MCSC Network w/ Niko House The Grayzone Project https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEXR8pRTkE2vFeJePNe9UcQ Primo Nutmeg The Jimmy Dore Show Ron Placone The Convo Couch Jamarl Thomas

So then you're suggesting ignoring them? How is that going to stop the dictatorship?

Popular vote - yes Electoral College - no Failed strategy to effectively win through the electoral college system? Well, it was her responsibility to know which states were most important to campaign in.

Let's way out the pros and cons in the perspective of reducing human and environmental harm. Cons: The dictatorship continues in NK. Pros: We reduce the chance of nuclear catastrophe (i.e., possible human extinction and exacerbating ecological damages) May I add that South Korea is happy that tensions are reduced.

Gotcha, I just consider intelligence agencies' past actions having military, fossil fuel, and bank corporate interests. Them fueling tensions between US and Russia serves their financial interests (increasing military budget and securing the petro dollar currency) Also, my goal, again, was to have @Leo Gura understand that the conclusions by US intelligence agencies suggested no Trump involvement with the Russian government's supposive interference and that the level of impact of this hypothetical interference on the election results have not been tested, nor does it seem like they ever will be. Also that Mueller's testimony should be questioned given his incompetence and past actions. Hillary Clinton and her associates' past relationships with the Russian government (selling Uranium, Padesta having pattons on certain Russian government companies, and there being documented evidence of Clinton associates seeking dirt on Donald Trump) should also be considered. Nice chatting with you @Serotoninluv See ya around.

Fair enough! I can see now why you and Leo would think that I was just being a deluded nonbeliever/believer. I failed to understand what you in particular did not know what I was using to form my conclusions. Well... This is what I am saying has not been backed up and @Leo Gura has implied in his videos that he believes they are true, which can misinform people into believing it is true without looking into the actual substance. There is no investigation that has proven a Trump-Russia collusion nor if the hypothetical interference impacted the election. Ok, I see what you mean now. Fine, how about the fact that Mueller was having trouble recalling what was in his actual report. Saying things like "that's beyond my purview," when asked about Christopher Steele, a former British agent, relying on information from Russian agents. That's essentially him saying that Russians feeding information in order to interfere with our election had nothing to do with his investigation into Russia interfering with our election. Also, when he was presented with clear conflicts of interest, like his assistant Andrew Weissman being a Clinton loyalist, and members of his team having actually represented Clinton, he responded with “I’m not going to get into that.” He also testified under oath that he has no idea who Fusion GPS is... And he was even having trouble remembering which president appointed him with the investigation. David Axelrod, Obama's strategist, even admitted that this was an embarrassment. I mean, this is the guy who also told the public back during the Bush Administration that Powell presented evidence that Baghdad has failed to disarm their WMDs... And we know how that turned out. So, yes I agree. Was he telling the truth? That's for one to speculate. But it's important to acknowledge his past actions and associations that have conflicts of interest.