Is it conscious politics to hold devils accountable?

[Bno]

I will start out by saying that on many issues, I agree with TYT, but the following is one of many examples of why I unsubscribed from them and why I believe they may be causing more harm than good to the progressive movement. In addition to receiving millions of dollars from a Hillary Clinton surrogate, TYT has members like Ana Kasparian who is "honored" to speak to Madeline Albright, one of the main players responsible for the death of 500,000 children in Iraq as a result of sanctions implemented during the Clinton administration.

Being conscious includes taking care of the Self, which includes everyone. Is it conscious politics to not question or hold former people in power accountable for their devilry?

[Leo Gura]

Dude, if TYT is not progressive enough for you, you're shit out of luck in this life.

Few people speak out against corruption as much as TYT.

Just because you fight corruption doesn't mean you have to be a rabid dog about it. You can still be polite and respectful. Society has certain norms and standards which are wise to observe simply from a practical point.

Just because you have a gripe with Albright doesn't mean everyone else must too.

There are lots of ways to hold devils accountable. Don't expect people to do it your way. They will do their own way. If you want things done your way, you do it. Go interview Albright and call her a devil to her face. Let's see how far you get.

[Bno]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Go interview Albright and call her a devil to her face. Let's see how far you get.

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.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, if TYT is not progressive enough for you, you're shit out of luck in this life.

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.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because you fight corruption doesn't mean you have to be a rabid dog about it. You can still be polite and respectful. Society has certain norms and standards which are wise to observe simply from a practical point.

Just because you have a gripe with Albright doesn't mean everyone else must too.

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?

Edited December 4, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

I think you're being too picky. Anna is doing a decent job overall. Gotta give people some leeway or it turns into a circular firing squad.

If you are progressive she's on your team. Sure, you can find things to criticize about her. But is this really a good use of your time?

[Bno]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think you're being too picky. Anna is doing a decent job overall. Gotta give people some leeway or it turns into a circular firing squad.

If you are progressive she's on your team. Sure, you can find things to criticize about her. But is this really a good use of your time?

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.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Bno

[Bno]

@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.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Bno

[TRUTHWITHCAPITALT]

@Bno I think you are creating conspiracy theories. 

The fact is the channels you mentioned are directly or indirectly influenced by TYT. You don't have to agree with them 100% of the time. Of course they might have their own bias and preference. They are humans with ego like you. 

Overall they are doing excellent service.

This is not the time to create division among independent progressive media outlet. 

Our real fight should be directed towards the real devils which are the mainstream media.

 

[Bno]

2 hours ago, TRUTHWITHCAPITALT said:

@Bno I think you are creating conspiracy theories. 

The fact is the channels you mentioned are directly or indirectly influenced by TYT. You don't have to agree with them 100% of the time. Of course they might have their own bias and preference. They are humans with ego like you. 

Overall they are doing excellent service.

This is not the time to create division among independent progressive media outlet. 

Our real fight should be directed towards the real devils which are the mainstream media.

 

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.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

Jimmy Dore??

Lol, he gives progressives a worse name than TYT. Too much anger and viciousness there.

Remember, all criticism is ultimately delusion.

[Bno]

@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.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

@Bno Anger is untruthful and clouds accurate perception.

[Bno]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Bno Anger is untruthful and clouds accurate perception.

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.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bno

[tenta]

On 12/4/2019 at 1:59 AM, Bno said:

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.

 

Leo was referring to saying something along those lines to her, not using that specific word, which you would not do because that still wouldn't get you far.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Bno said:

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.

He is not pursuing truth or objectivity. He's acting out self-bias in an aggressive and dogmatic manner. Which will backfire.

Quote

TYT, on the other hand, has shown more cloudedness. Russiagate is a prime example. Who got it right and who got it wrong?

There will be less negative side effects from TYT than Jimmy Dore.

Jimmy Dore is wrong on Russia. There is definitely a Trump-Russia connection, it's just not clear what that connection is. It's probably worse than anyone imagines. Maybe one day we will know. And maybe not, because not all things can be proven.

Never give Trump the benefit of the doubt on such things. He's rotten to the core.

Regardless, Jimmy Dore's whole style is dogmatic and will lead to problems if it is more widely adopted. Politics requires much more nuance. This is not conscious politics, it's foaming-at-the-mouth progressivism, which is no virtue.

[Bno]

@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. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

My best guess is that Russians got blackmail material on Trump and they backed many of his loans overseas. It's well known that Russians bankrolled Trump's entire business for decades. No one in the US gave him loans. Russians used Trump to launder money. That was Trump's entire lifeblood, selling stupidly overprices condos to Russian oligarchs and their friends.

It wasn't proven because 1) Mueller's investigation was very limited. He did not look into Trump's finances or his past. Only the most recent activity, and 2) Trump and his goons obstructed what little investigation there was and destroyed evidence and documents.

The Clintons are nowhere near as corrupt as Trump. And also it's a moot point since neither of them is President.

No other President we've had comes close to Trump's level of corruption. Trump is in a class by himself.

[Thewritersunion]

Who comes in second? Nixon?

[Bno]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

My best guess is that Russians got blackmail material on Trump and they backed many of his loans overseas. It's well known that Russians bankrolled Trump's entire business for decades. No one in the US gave him loans. Russians used Trump to launder money. That was Trump's entire lifeblood, selling stupidly overprices condos to Russian oligarchs and their friends.

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?

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It wasn't proven because 1) Mueller's investigation was very limited. He did not look into Trump's finances or his past. Only the most recent activity, and 2) Trump and his goons obstructed what little investigation there was and destroyed evidence and documents.

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.

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The Clintons are nowhere near as corrupt as Trump. And also it's a moot point since neither of them is President.

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.

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No other President we've had comes close to Trump's level of corruption. Trump is in a class by himself.

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.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Bno said:

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?

The Russians are just manipulators, exploiters, and opportunists. Of course they couldn't know Trump would win. They got a very lucky break.  But now that they got it, they will use it to their utmost.

Trump HAS been extremely accomodating to Putin.

Hillary was an existential threat to Putin. She would have plotted to undermine and overthrow him.

[remember]

in politics not everything is as it seems and not everything seems as it is - like with everything else. but following simple reaction chains to guess what leads to what or what already has lead to what does not even ask if it was intentional or if people worked together in a case, or to whom‘s advantage it was. if politics is like chess you can see how good the players on the field are and who allies with whom. in medicine you would say only practice will show. people can deny intentions but the outcome is still a political situation. you could also compare it with poker, in the beginning the cards are partially hidden. so you get a multiplayer chess-poker hybrid, although it’s also a game where it is allowed to form alliances.

Edited December 6, 2019 by remember