Elon Musk is considering buying MSNBC!!!

[Hardkill]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course it's not all the progressives fault. But if you think progressives are gonna be more popular you are kidding yourself.

Cenk ran for Congress. He got under 10% of the vote.

His presidential campaign was so laughable. 

Btw, the whole TYT crew now think that progressive populism is now going to be even more popular than ever before:

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Btw, the whole TYT crew now think that progressive populism is now going to be even more popular than ever before:

Of course they think that. They don't know how to think anything else.

If progressive ideas are so popular and strong, why isn't Cenk getting 60% of the vote? Contemplate that.

If the progressive worldview was valid then a progressive like Cenk should easily get 60% of the vote. He supports all the policies which the people supposedly love. Why wouldn't he get 60%? His ideas are so popular and good.

Edited yesterday at 06:42 AM by Leo Gura

[Jodistrict]

An interesting idea if Musk buys MSNBC would be to have Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow as co-hosts.   This would be a situation where two people with different world views interact with each other.   This could be educational and entertaining.   Learning how to interact civilly with someone that has a different world view than you should be normalized in a democracy.  

As for progressive sites, I like “Democracynow.org”.  They always give a serious presentation of the facts.

[Raze]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they think that. They don't know how to think anything else.

If progressive ideas are so popular and strong, why isn't Cenk getting 60% of the vote? Contemplate that.

If the progressive worldview was valid then a progressive like Cenk should easily get 60% of the vote. He supports all the policies which the people supposedly love. Why wouldn't he get 60%? His ideas are so popular and good.

Because in smaller elections the media doesn’t give equal coverage to progressive candidates and lobbyist funding floods the zone with support for the corporate candidates giving them a major advantage. 

Despite this progressives have gotten elected, 12 justice democrats endorsed candidates got into congress.

Edited yesterday at 06:56 AM by Raze

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

Because in smaller elections the media doesn’t give equal coverage to progressive candidates and lobbyist funding floods the zone with support for the corporate candidates giving them a major advantage. 

Despite this progressives have gotten elected, 12 justice democrats endorsed candidates got into congress.

And you should expect that to continue. Any attempt to fix serious corruption will be sabotaged from every angle. That is the game.

Edited yesterday at 07:00 AM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

7 minutes ago, Raze said:

Because in smaller elections the media doesn’t give equal coverage to progressive candidates and lobbyist funding floods the zone with support for the corporate candidates giving them a major advantage. 

Despite this progressives have gotten elected, 12 justice democrats endorsed candidates got into congress.

Yeah, corporate Dems have that unfair advantage, but it also depends on the political environment of the specific district they are running in.

Some of those justice Democrats have lost their seats.

[Raze]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And you should expect that to continue. Any attempt to fix serious corruption will be sabotaged from every angle. That is the game.

And one way to counter it is wake up the average democrat voter by pointing to the general electoral losses of the democrats. If it is clear to them republicans will keep beating them when it matters some will want to try something else.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Raze said:

And one way to counter it is wake up the average democrat voter by pointing to the general electoral losses of the democrats. If it is clear to them republicans will keep beating them when it matters some will want to try something else.

Dems lose, Repubs lose. That's the game. It's silly to expect to always beat Repubs because half the country is conservative.

Going with a TYT progressive is a very risky strategy.

Edited yesterday at 07:12 AM by Leo Gura

[Raze]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dems lose, Repubs lose. That's the game. It's silly to expect to always beat Repubs because half the country is conservative.

Going with a TYT progressive is a very risky strategy.

So we need dems to use their power to actually deal with the fundamental issues instead of just enabling them to get worse, but they won’t as long as they are beholden to lobbyist interests 

[Hardkill]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they think that. They don't know how to think anything else.

If progressive ideas are so popular and strong, why isn't Cenk getting 60% of the vote? Contemplate that.

If the progressive worldview was valid then a progressive like Cenk should easily get 60% of the vote. He supports all the policies which the people supposedly love. Why wouldn't he get 60%? His ideas are so popular and good.

Yeah, and of course every time they lose they always blame the mainstream media for not providing them fair media coverage, which I don't see is true.

Other times they would say that it was because their progressive candidate wasn't enough of a firebreather or just wasn't a strong enough progressive candidate. 

And of course, they blame the corporate donors for giving corporate Democrats an unfair advantage in the race, which is true. Though, I think that kind of explanation is too simplistic.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Raze said:

but they won’t as long as they are beholden to lobbyist interests 

You are never getting rid of lobbyists.

If you insist on being too pure you will just lose elections and never get power. Power requires being dirty.

Edited yesterday at 07:28 AM by Leo Gura

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

You are never getting rid of lobbyists.

If you insist on being too pure you will just lose elections and never get power. Power requires being dirty.

Most Americans don’t like lobbyists controlling elections, so the media could expose them and bring more support to candidates who don’t take lobbyist funds. 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

Most Americans don’t like lobbyists controlling elections,

Most Americans have the attention span of squirrels.

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

Most Americans don’t like lobbyists controlling elections, so the media could expose them and bring more support to candidates who don’t take lobbyist funds. 

 

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are never getting rid of lobbyists.

If you insist on being too pure you will just lose elections and never get power. Power requires being dirty.

Even progressives such as FDR and LBJ had to make compromises with lobbyists. 

It's just corporate lobbyists have had too much influence in politics since the 1970s, especially ever since the 2010 Citizen United case.

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Most Americans have the attention span of squirrels.

Alternate media can spread the message in bite size formats like TikToks or Instagram hashtags and activist groups can form connections and stage organized campaigns to maintain it in public consciousness 

Edited yesterday at 07:38 AM by Raze

[Hardkill]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Most Americans have the attention span of squirrels.

Do you think that most Americans hate rich people and corporations in this day and age with the rise of populism? Or are they still so conflicted about them?

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Do you think that most Americans hate rich people and corporations in this day and age with the rise of populism?

No. They are lost in culture wars, vibes, and ideology.

Edited 23 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. They are lost in culture wars, vibes, and ideology.

So, what exactly does it take to cause an uprising against the rich and the corporations like what happened with the labor movement during the end of the Gilded Ages or what happened with the labor movement during the New Deal era?

Another economic depression?

The major economic inequality we have in our country cannot continue forever. Otherwise, the whole country will fall apart really badly.

Edited 23 hours ago by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

Realistically the only way real progress happens in government is through massive suffering and disaster. Because voters are reactionary. They need some pain to react against. Because they cannot think ahead.

[Hardkill]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Realistically the only way real progress happens in government is through massive suffering and disaster. Because voters are reactionary. They need some pain to react against. Because they cannot think ahead.

Oh.....Wait, I think I got it.

So when the conservative party is in charge and the country is in a serious crisis, the people will get desperate enough to prioritize stability over ideology by electing competent liberals like Obama or Biden into power, even if most voters are normally moderate or lean conservative.

Is that how it goes?

Edited 23 hours ago by Hardkill