Bno

I wouldn't equate these two. Not saying if the moonlanding happened or not in the 60s, but it makes us look like conspiracy theorists. With Russiagate, we are giving everyone here objective information about it and making a point to be skeptical. Saying something happened without providing evidence like what the intelligence agency, MSM, and corporate Democrats are doing makes them the conspiracy theorists.

@Serotoninluv Why don't they disclose the way in which Russia was/is trying to interfere?

Then why don't they take the same issue just as seriously with the DNC rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders? Or when voting machines were proven to be rigged in the 2000 election against Al Gore? Why don't these intelligence agencies push for more secure election policies that aren't funded by corporations whose goals are to monopolize ballot boxes? Is it for the same reasons that they lied to the public about the Iraq War? The Afghanistan War? and why they push for the Patriot Act? Why did they refuse to cooperate with Russia when they offered to have stronger legislature against cyber warfare? They have interests in propping up their own agendas and the military industrial complex. As for TYT and Sedar? Maybe they were duped. Maybe they consciously or unconsciously were influenced by the people who fund them (Hillary think tanks fund TYT; MSNBC funds Sedar). What about the DNC interfering in the 2016 and 2018 primaries, of which there is actual evidence for? If someone is giving you information that you discover ultimately goes against your best interest, would you still listen to them? For example, attacking Tulsi Gabbard, a woman who stepped down from her DNC chair position to endorse Bernie Sanders when she realized the primaries were rigged against him, who is also actively to end corporate money in politics and to end regime change wars, is counterproductive. Yet they prop up people like Warren who did not endorse Sanders in 2016 because she was having talks of being Hillary's VP, has think tanks that her daughter is tied to funding things like the working families party to endorse her over Sanders, who said will receive corporate money in the general election, etc. It is them who create division by not being honest or objective. If they do not learn from the criticism me and other give them, then I will stop listening to them. You can listen to them, I just think it is important for you to know these things about them. You aren't in the position of providing news to the public like they are. You also do not have a multi-million dollar show that receives funds from millionaire Hillary donors, the people that TYT themselves claim to be fighting against.

Would you say the same if Bernie Sanders received money from corporations? Do you think some of TYT's beliefs may be swayed by the people who are funding them, as we see happens to MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News? Do you think a multi-million dollar company like TYT needs donations from Hillary donors to deliver news? They survived for a while before 2016 from just grassroots funding. Others like Secular Talk, Jimmy Dore, MCSC Netowrks, Tim Black, and The Grayzone are doing fine without millions of corporate dollars.

Yes, people who are truly independent and grassroots are MCSC Network, The Jimmy Dore Show, Secular Talk, Primo Nutmeg, Graham Elwood, Michael Tracy, The Grayzone, Ron Placone, Kim Iversen, Jamarl Thomas, Tim Black, and many other more esoteric channels on YouTube. Some people that work for companies but are pretty objective and who do not themselves receive money from shady corporations are Krystal Ball and Sagaar of The Hill's Rising, Katy Halper and Matt Taibi of The Rollingstone's Useful Idiots, and Lee Camp of RT's Redacted Tonight.

Unfortunately, this is all true.

Just to justify my views on Jimmy, I know Jimmy Dore may come off as low consciousness on the surface to people who follow self-actualization because of his anger in his videos. Howerve, he is willing to admit when he's wrong and he has. His show isn't scripted, he speaks from the heart after reading up on the issues. He also speaks from compassion and empathy of the people suffering in this country and whose voices aren't heard. He speaks to people on the ground unbiasedly, whether they're left of right. He also is truly independent. As the time has gone on I have also seen him grow more intelligent about politics. As TYT, Sam Sedar, and D Pakman's subscribers went down during the Russiagate fiasco, Jimmy's went up because he was exposing the mainstream media fallacies as well as speaking up about issues that were being ignored, like how people were still not having clean water in Flint, how corporate Dems like Nancy Pelosi were voting for legislatures and cabinet picks that boosted Trump and the military industrial complex, how the DNC continued to rig primaries in 2018 against progressive candidates like Tim Canova, how we're attempting to install coups and sanctions and bombing other countries which corporate Democrats voted for it, etc. To be a progressive, you have to fight for the issues that help the people that are being oppressed. If TYT is making dealings with the very same people that are directly causing the oppression, me and other progressives are going to have to criticize them to get them back on the right path.

Given some of their talking points and their corporate influence, they are mainstream media-lite. I'm not demonizing them. I'm just saying they are not what they claim to be. There are also several progressive journalists and commentators that are more politically conscious and objective than TYT.

TYT claims to be fighting against corporate influence in American politics, a key feature that defines progressivism. Yet they are receiving money from the very same corporations that fund politicians that implement policies that benefit corporations over the people. https://medium.com/@RobletoFire/the-ideological-failure-of-the-young-turks-90c15ddde408 I recommend watching the video which gives a summary of the research on their shadiness.

What makes you say that?

This is very true. Many anti-establishment Democrats, however, have crossover appeal with them. A lot of Republicans are willing to vote blue if their economic policies are put in front of their social policies. Sanders, Gabbard, and Yang have a lot of crossover appeal because they prioritize their financial policies in their platforms, whereas centrist democrats think they have to appease them by being moderate Republicans while trying to cater to Democrats with social issues, which pisses off conservative voters. The way to win is to focus on rich vs poor, not blue vs red. There's many more of us poor/average folks than there are of them.

It's what's happening here in the US, too. The only Democratic politicians that hold a strong chance at beating Trump are the ones fighting for the issues most Americans want.

If the Dems continue to not offer anything that'll benefit the American people other than "we're better than Trump," then I strongly believe their ratings will continue to go down.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to corporate Democrats getting phased out. I do think that a big reason why people like Trump and Kardashian are popular is because the media props them up way too much. There was a high voter turn out for young people in the 2016 primaries and by far most of them voted for Bernie Sanders. The turnout got diminished in the presidential election because Hillary Clinton didn't generate any positive excitement among young people. 2018 also showed a high young voter turnout, which is one of the reasons why we have AOC, Ilhan Omar, and other progressives now in the house. https://civicyouth.org/total-youth-votes-in-2016-primaries-and-caucuses/

Why?

He's popular among child conservatives who don't know any better. Crowder and Ben Shapiro also get propped up and paid by the same lobbyists who fund Republican politicians. I recommend reading Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind so you can understand why conservatives are so appealing to some people.

@Leo Gura That's getting phased out. The most popular politician in the US is Bernie Sanders, who could've won the presidency in 2016 were it not for the DNC rigging. Among young people, he and other progressives like AOC are the most popular by far.

@Leo Gura I think they are also weak and we have to work just as hard to get them out and install progressive candidates. After all, they get paid by the same people that pay republicans, so the current system works for them. It's telling that they'd rather have Trump than Bernie Sanders.

@Leo Gura what do you think about Corporate Democrats?

@Leo Gura The only way I'd see the Dems winning back the senate is if we run more populist candidates that are for popular policies like M4A. The issues you said are debatable are only so among politicians, the majority of voters, R or D or I, are against foreign wars and torturing people. Most voters aren't blind Trumpists, yes, but they're also not blind corp Dem voters. The DNC's approval ratings have been hitting lower than Trump's approval ratings. And Trump's approval ratings have been going up, especially among independents. https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/democrats-help-trumps-earn-highest-gallup-poll-approval-rating-yet/ https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-poll-general-election-states-d9d92ffb-0272-4f7a-8425-68acfc628c49.html

@Leo Gura The grounds in which they're causing the suffering is illegal. The genocide in Yemen is not UN or congress approved and the weapons sold to Saudi Arabia to fund terrorists are illegal. The people in cages is torture, also illegal. The senators will not lose their seats because of this because people who don't hate Trump don't care about this and it is actually strengthening his base, just like Russiagate did.

The other crimes I mentioned are clear cut. The evidence of people suffering as a result of Trump's actions are right there. Trump giving his kids positions of power they have no business of having for Trump's personal gain are crystal. It's pragmatic to the interest of corp dems because Obama also had people in his administration sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for genocide and terrorism. Obama built those cages on the border. Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, Biden, and so many other elites have also violated the emollumence clause. Corruption did not start in January 2017. Trump is a symptom of a much bigger problem. The Ukraine case has witnesses that testify as being someone that heard someone that knew someone that heard a whisper of the phone call. I don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but it's a pretty weak case and he can make an argument for hypocrisy against the Democrats. This also distracts from the primaries and the real issues people care about. I want to get Trump out of office ASAP, but doing it this way can strengthen his campaign instead of hurting him. Getting him out will also not be the solution to the deeper problem.

I agree Leo, so why don't we enforce the law on him for violating the emollumence clause, or him colluding with Saudi Arabia to cause a genocide in Yemen, or him caging children on the border? We don't want our tax payer money to be used to infect harm on people. This would not only be law and order, but would cause actual shock among people for his crimes against humanity. And why don't we set the same standard for all who were/are in power and indict Obama and Biden for abusing their power as P and VP to install a coup in Ukraine and violating the emollumence clause by giving Hunter Biden a job as the head of an energy board despite having no qualifications? This impeachment IS a political move in the interest of the corporate Democrats, otherwise they would've impeached him for his other crimes.

The Democratic party's approval ratings are going down. Their real strategy is to defeat progressives that'll institute real change that'll benefit the people over corporations. This was made evident when the Clinton campaign and the democratic national committee (DNC) colluded to rig and cheat the primaries against Bernie Sanders in 2016. The same corporations that pay Republicans also pay corporate Democrats. The corporate Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer voted for expansion in the Patriot Act while all this impeachment was happening and they also votes for several of his cabinet picks and increases in the already bloated military budget. What kind of resistance is that? I thought they said Trump was a monster and unhinged, yet they give him more surveillance and military power. Because the DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP and they get paid by the same people, they'd rather lose to a Republican like Donald Trump than win with a progressive like Bernie Sanders.

The reasons for this impeachment doesn't make anyone who doesn't already hate Trump care and is not decreasing his approval ratings. Maybe if he was impeached for something that actually affects people's lives, it would hurt him.