I'm confused about TYT

[packman]

The general opinion on DU is it's a Republican crap hole station - YET, I listen to and respect - for the most part - Cenk Kadir Uygur who seems progressive and a liberal.

[underpants]

1. Didn't they kind of get exposed as being part of the RT Russia tools operation?

Or maybe I am remembering that wrong.

[mhw]

3. Shillin for RT..go poot!

Yes ..RT.

[Else You Are Mad]

8. TYT has nothing to do with RT.

They are not shills for Putin. I am getting sick of everything bring called a tool for Russia as if they are the secret overloads that rule the world.

Did Russia interfere with our election? Without a doubt. But calling everything and everyone that disagrees with some Democratic policies or politicians Russian is counter productive.

[elleng]

11. Yes.

Thanks.

[Snotcicles]

18. That mob is trying to hang Thom Hartmann with the same rope. Unbelievable. nt

[elleng]

22. Right, one of the 'others' I referred to earlier.

Cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[Adrahil]

24. Except Hartmann accepts a check from the Kremlin every payday.

Whether you like it or not, he IS on Putin's payroll. And Putin doesn't pay anyone he doesn't think advances his agenda in some way or another.

[Snotcicles]

32. I'll make my judgement based on the content of his program thank you.

Not on some DU'ers opinion on the matter.

[Else You Are Mad]

38. Exactly.

Hartmann does not shill for Putin he has full editorial control over the content of his show.

It is like saying that Rachel Maddow is a shill for Comcast/GE because she gets a paycheck from NBC.

[Snotcicles]

42. Yes, and thanks. I was about to go there myself. nt

[OilemFirchen]

82. Who would accuse Maddow as being a shill for anyone?

Oh. That's right:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9155742

Else You Are Mad (2,872 posts)
57. NO THEY AREN'T.

Cenk has literally said over the last two weeks that there is no doubt that Trump colluded with the Russians. You obviously don't understand how to take things in context.

That said, you understand how primaries work, correct? Just because they backed Sanders, and after he lost and once Hillary won, Cenk immediately endorsed Hillary. It is not wrong to back some else in a primary than ultimately back the winner afterwards.

You can smear them as much as you want, but don't forget to smear Rachel Maddow for being paid by actual right wing pro-war corporations.

[Else You Are Mad]

83. The point went right over your head.

I was using hyperbole to get my point across on how absurd it is to say one person is a shill because of funding but not others. Of course I don't think Maddow is a pro-war shill even though NBC was once owned by GE -- one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world.

[OilemFirchen]

99. Yeah. Go with that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

148. Why is that point hard for you to grasp?

His argument is consistent - if you smear Hartmann for who writes his checks, you have to smear Maddow for the same reason.

[OilemFirchen]

155. My goodness!

You two are the recrimination twins, eh? I don't think I'll ever tire of the "you just don't understand" argument.

As for me, I'd never suggest that if the post in question was meant to convey something other than its plain language, that might be the result of poor communication by an inept writer.

Nope. I'd never do that.

[Else You Are Mad]

159. It was fairly clear.

I guess I should have given a pre-reply hyperbole warning just to be sure that what I wrote would be appropriately understood on its face.

[OilemFirchen]

166. That's progress, I guess.

Yes. You should have been more clear, or included a disclaimer. Admitting that you're now making up shit would be an option as well.

But thanks for no longer blaming ME for your cock-up.

[Else You Are Mad]

168. Wait, what?

Nevermind. You really do have a hard time picking up on the cues that indicate the intention of what someone says. Not everything that is stated is meant to be taken literally.

Cheers.

[OilemFirchen]

171. My fault again?

It's not my responsibility to ascertain your nuance when you exhibit none.

I will note, for the record, that you do have a remarkable propensity to accuse others of misunderstanding you and/or the argument you're attempting. Is it a tic perhaps?

Cheers back.

[Else You Are Mad]

157. Thanks.

I just don't get the hypocrisy going on here on DU. It is like there is only a handful of left leaning media personalities that are approved sources and the rest that don't qualify and should be summarily disregarded because the party does not approve.

In an adult and can listen to and disregard different outlets without having to be told who is a Democratic sanctioned outlet and who is not.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

162. Ignore them.

I typically don't argue with people like that. People who will mischaracterize someone's post just to score what they think is a point ain't worth the time.

Correct the record, for other readers, and move on.

[snowy owl]

131. but,but when did you last hear Maddow talk net neutrality? Single payer?

[Else You Are Mad]

134. Never. She only talks about Russia these days.

Maddow has even ignored requests from Flint Michigan residents to come back and discuss their being poisoned because she only wants to discuss Russia.

[snowy owl]

152. We agree. She is so overrated. No one mentioned Schultz on RT. A so-so effort.

Chris Hedges and Mike Papantonio (sp?) appear there as well. True progressives.

[elleng]

44. YES.

[Adrahil]

46. Then you are doing exactly what Putin wants

Even if Hartmann is doing good work, he is merely there to add a vanier of legitimacy to a propaganda outlet.

[snowy owl]

128. So you think those of us who listen can't be selective in who we listen to?

Wow. That's kind of presumptuous to say the least. I would suggest that anyone who listens to both/all sides might just be the more intellectual and less emotional. If progressives can't be found in MSM, why not take the money and use the backdoor called RT? Some of us really can separate ourselves from the herd.

[bettyellen]

198. Use RT? Not possible.

[LOL Lib]

58. Yes!

Agreed.

[elleng]

45. Do you listen to him,

or just jump to a conclusion?

[rickford66]

55. I believe Hartmann is syndicated.

Maybe I'm wrong, but his paycheck is from his sponsors. He appears on several platforms, not solely on RT. I do remember him saying he pays to use their studio. I've been listening to him for a number of years and never heard him utter right wing nonsense. He is one of the best, well informed and polite debaters.

[Else You Are Mad]

63. Exactly.

He is on Sirius XM and am/fm stations all across the world. Thom never hid the fact that he is on RT and has said on multiple occasions that he has complete editorial control of his content and Russia has no say in what he says.

Of all people, Thom is one of the best progressive liberal radio hosts out there on terrestrial radio amongst THOUSANDS of right wing nut job radio hosts. There are not many liberal radio shows out there, and to dismiss Hartmann is foolish.

I really hate that every person that has any connection with Russians are automatically evil villains that are secretly shilling for Russia.

[snowy owl]

126. So you shoot the messenger instead of listening to the message?

Hartmann is trying to be heard wherever he can be. Get over it.

[Demsrule86]

150. Tom Hartman has defended Russia on his show...I no longer listen to him.

and he called Russia an 'emerging democracy' on air...I would never listen to TYT...but I am sad about Hartman...he should leave RT...it is a propaganda network. He is better than RT.

[snowy owl]

179. So you think it better to not be heard than to be heard? Take the $$-be heard.

[Demsrule86]

185. I will not enable the Russians to destroy Western Democracy by listening to

any of their propaganda or listen to those who work for them and sadly influenced by them in terms of what is presented on the show. Should I go on KKK websites ...should they be 'heard'?

[Alice11111]

36. Politico's Take...if we keep this up, we lose again.

http://politi.co/2rpCyBjttp://politi.co/2rpCyBj

[markpkessinger]

127. Anything to avoid taking an honest look at the party's, and its candidate's mistakes n/t

[Alice11111]

183. We can't contol everything the Repubs do; we can control

Ourselves, but we have to learn from our mistakes.

[markpkessinger]

189. Yes, we do, but sadly . . .

. . . the Democratic Party seems to have a unique capacity foir learning precisely the wrong lessons from its electoral defeats.

[Alice11111]

190. ...& now, dangerously, w our High Chair King

[Bucky]

141. Politico? Aren't they basically tools for RT?

PSYCH!!

Ha ha!! Made ya look!!

[choie]

136. Thank you!!!!!

n/t

[SHRED]

19. So is Thom Hartmann

Is he a Russian tool also?

[elleng]

23. Some have suggested so.

[SHRED]

26. That is ludicrous

[elleng]

29. Yes it is.

Made me rethink DU. I continue to participate, hoping light will prevail, if not here, where.

[Blue_true]

2. Pay attention to who they attack. Relentless attacks on democratic politicians. nt

[mhw]

4. + a million.

Shouldn't even be a question who TYT is working for & who they're against.

Yippee..Russiamerica.

[Voltaire2]

7. Their twitter feed appears to be a relentless

attack on trump mixed with support for various progressive issues like single payer.

[elleng]

10. Right, where I want to be.

[Demsrule86]

186. Right...how about this tweet...this is why I have nothing to do with propaganda

RT...
This is a direct attack on our republic...to publish such swill...lies.

Link to tweet

[Voltaire2]

199. I was discussing TYT, not RT.

TYT is a progressive independent news source. You may not agree with all of their editorial biases, but claiming that they are a right wing fake news outlet is absurd. They are allies not enemies. Allies need not agree on everything.

[Demsrule86]

207. I absolutely had no use for the TYT even before they lied about Maxine.

I could post hundreds of shitty quotes those folks made and they accept GOP money.

[JCanete]

61. that's not true. That may be all you hear, but it's nowhere near the truth. They have criticisms

for Dems, but they tend to suggest that Democrats are well meaning, they've known many over the years, etc. they think they are very very wrong with their approach, and that they, like republicans have to appease their donors, but they say far harsher things about the Republicans. and they do report on the Trump Russian ties frequently. Cenk and Kasperian both voted Clinton in the GE and advocated everybody doing so.

We should be a little more resilient to criticisms of ourselves and not get all reactive about calling all criticisms republican because it protects our delicate sensibilities.

[NurseJackie]

123. ... and there you have it! That is correct!

[delisen]

5. Front Organization for Russia Anti-Democracy Movement

[Else You Are Mad]

14. How so?

Please cite real evidence that TYT is a Russian front group. Not every one that calls out Democrats when they do something wrong is in the pocket of Putin.

[Alice11111]

40. Politico:Dems need to call themselves out,not Russia, to win

Politico's Take
http://politi.co/2rpCyBj

[ornotna]

130. Because taking advice from

GWB's former speechwriter is a good stratagy? I'll pass on that one.

[Demsrule86]

208. Hell will freeze over before I take advice from Politico

Come on...do you really believe attacking Dems make people want to vote for them? No, it pisses off those who like them and divides us. And then the rest of the potential voters nod solemnly and say...'both parties are the same' because of the attacks.

[Demsrule86]

209. I almost forgot ...the constant demonization of Hillary lead to a wonderful

victory...oh wait. It didn't. Why anyone thinks criticizing our party and elected while ignoring the truly rotten Republican Party in some sort of purity political suicide ritual is a good idea is beyond me. You always take the fight to the enemy.

[Alice11111]

212. She was outrageously demonized and it was damaging.

Noone in their right mind would dispute that. I'm not talking about criticizing Democrats, but looking at what contributed to our losing the election that was within our control, and making corrections. Every 1/2 percentage point matters, and we need to figure out how to gain it.

[Demsrule86]

213. We can't control those who will take their ball and go home if they don't get their way

or in this case the candidate of their choice...they won't get that candidate in 20 either...thus we need to move on and get the votes we can...Dem party is a big tent party and we will never agree on everything. I am fine with that. I will vote for the candidates with the' D' next to their name...as for 'fixing' it always involves criticizing the party and demonizing some elected Democrats. I absolutely believe this helps the Republicans and want no part of it. We had an election unlike any other in my lifetime. I highly doubt it will be replicated again. Best to spend our time working to elect good candidate in 18 and 20. And for those who primary sitting Democrats when we have no power and risk losing the seat...I say fuck you...and you are not progressive. This is not intended for you but for 'our revolution' ET AL.

[pnwmom]

6. Jill Stein can also "seem" progressive and a "liberal." Look at what she DOES,

not what she says.

And look where she gets her money. Someone paid for her to give her talk in Russia and eat at Putin's table.

And she made MILLIONS for her organization with her worthless 2016 vote recount. The recount was never going to change the election, because she knew right from the beginning the PA recount wouldn't go forward. Yet she kept fundraising and kept fundraising, and she ended up with millions EXTRA that went back into her other voting-related projects. She suckered millions of donors into thinking she was making a serious effort.

As for TYK, Uygur used to be a Republican, but now claims to be progressive. TYT have defended RT, the Russian state-run news program, as being less biased than MSNBC.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cenk-uygur-suggests-to-rt-anchor-that-her-networks-more-tolerant-than-msnbc/

The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur appeared on RT recently with anchor Abby Martin where he was asked about the ongoing controversy surrounding the network’s coverage of Russia’s invasion of Crimea and press freedom in the United States. Uygur said that the distinction between the two countries was evident in the fact that he lost his job on MSNBC for criticizing President Barack Obama while Martin retained her job after criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Uygur told Martin that he lost his MSNBC show because the White House was not “happy” with his criticism of Obama from the left.

SNIP

“CNN has lost so much credibility all across the world because everybody knows they cater to the government,” Uygur said. “You criticized the Russian actions in Crimea, you’re still on RT. I criticized the Obama administration and the U.S. government on MSNBC, I’m no longer on MSNBC.”

“So, who has the freer media?” he concluded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur

In 1991 Uygur wrote an article on The Daily Pennsylvanian in which he expressed the opinion that the genocide of Armenians during the late stages of the Ottoman Empire did not in fact constitute genocide,[18] a view he repeated in a letter to the editor of Salon in 1999.[19] In a blog post in April 2016, he rescinded the statements. He went on to claim that he does not know enough today to comment on it.[20]

Uygur slowly transitioned away from the Republican Party and he said that the decision to invade Iraq was a "seminal moment" in that transition.[21] He is now a progressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks

Critics have still questioned the name of the news company even after Uygur's response, because it was created during a time when Uygur denied the Armenian Genocide.

[question everything]

15. Did you mean Jill Stein? (nt)

[pnwmom]

173. Yes, thanks!

[rickford66]

172. "Critics have still questioned the name of the news company"

The popular meaning of The Young Turk and one which I always understood it to be is "a young person eager for radical change to the established order." Turks would be a group.

[Alice11111]

184. IMO, Jill Stein was a Putin enabler too. She &Flynn both sat

at Putin's table to be shown worldwide by Putin. They both did their party to bring down Clinton, and we know one of them was paid. They both were, IMO, she needs to be investgated. We didn't see Hillary or Bernie at that table

[diva77]

192. source/link, please to facts about where Jill Stein gets her money and facts about the recount nt

[pnwmom]

193. You can see that she's sitting in Russia at the table. She didn't fund that herself.

And the documentation about her leftover millions is in the FEC reports that I've posted repeatedly. She made more money during the recount than she did during her entire campaign.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/jill-stein-needs-give-millions-back-to-duped-donors-after-getting-laughed-out-of-court-again/

I first wrote about Jill Stein‘s colossal failure of a recount effort on Friday, urging her to give back the millions she’s collected from obviously duped donors (who believe she stood a chance in changing the outcome of the election). But, the extent of how she’s wasted money was apparently only starting to come to light. Since that posting, both the Michigan Supreme Court and a federal Judge Paul S. Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have basically laughed her out of court. That was after getting shot down by a federal judge in Michigan, the Michigan Court of Appeals, and essentially a judge in a Pennsylvania state court.

As of Friday, Stein has collected $7.3 million dollars, and she is still begging for more. The new goal for the recount is $9.5 million. And get this, on her website, the Green Party candidate is still pushing the fantasy that recounts are somehow going to happen in Michigan and Pennsylvania. On top of some significant legal setbacks, the deadline for states to certify results is December 13. That’s tomorrow! There is just no chance this will happen.

When Stein first started this effort she said she needed to raise $2.5 million. When she quickly saw the coffers fill, she changed her goal to $7 million. And now the Stein campaign claims they are desperately in need of almost $10 million to get this done. “..legal fees are still coming in, and we need to have enough firepower to prevail,” the Stein website says. Somehow, and quite miraculously, people are still being fooled into pulling out their wallets. We are now exactly 6 days until the Electoral College meets and Stein is no closer to where she began in her effort to bring “election integrity” back to the system. In fact, she’s done quite the opposite.

Stein’s raised twice as much money than she ever gathered as an actual candidate during the campaign. This is largely due to desperate Hillary Clinton supporters who are clinging on to any last hope of keeping Donald Trump from the White House. While I can’t totally blame them for their sentiments, continuing to donate to this effort is a total waste of money. When it comes down to it, the only person who has actually benefited from this recount effort is Jill Stein (and The Green Party). She now has thousands of new names on her roster to solicit donations from in the future. This isn’t about bringing integrity back to the system, and it’s now become a big waste of time and money too.

SNIP

[diva77]

194. sorry, these ongoing attacks on Stein are lacking in credible support.

recount should have been requested by Democratic party; as a last resort Jill Stein was asked to do it -- and I'm glad she did because it moves in the right direction to expose the extreme and corrupt resistance to having recounts for our elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

snip...In November 2016, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers including J. Alex Halderman and John Bonifaz (founder of the National Voting Rights Institute) claimed about the integrity of the presidential election results. They wanted a full audit or recount of the presidential election votes in three states key to Trump's electoral college win—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—but needed a candidate on the presidential ballot to file the petition to state authorities. After unsuccessfully lobbying Hillary Clinton and her team, the group approached Stein and she agreed to spearhead the recount effort.[120]...snip




You used lawnewz as a source -- as far as I can tell, the reporter's roots are in corporate media -- what makes you trust this reporting?

[pnwmom]

195. There are laws governing recounts in every state. This was always going to be

a waste of money because DT's margin in PA was too large to qualify for an automatic recount. Hillary could see that, but what Jill Stein saw was an opportunity -- to make money and to get long lists of Democrats to scam in the next election.

The proof of Jill's scam: she CONTINUED to raise money for the recounts till the very, bitter end -- weeks after the chances of the results overturning the election had become ZERO. Once PA was out of the picture, after Stein's failed court bid, that was it. And yet she raised millions even after it became impossible to change the outcome.

[diva77]

196. until I see credible evidence and a link I remain unconvinced by your arguments.

that's it for me with this thread

[pnwmom]

197. Open Secrets reports she raised about $3.7 million during her entire campaign,

which is about half as much as she raised for the worthless recounts. That money was kept in a separate account, and she said she was going to is it for later election reform efforts -- more free publicity for her.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=n00033776

[Demsrule86]

210. Stein is trash...she pretended that a recount might work which I knew it wouldn't

then she took money from gullible people...fuck her.

[elleng]

9. It is in no way a republican crap hole station.

Somehow it has become unfavored around here, along with other actually informative and progressive and liberal sites and analysts. I watch and listen, and make up my own mind.

[Else You Are Mad]

12. I noticed that too.

Any person/organization that disagrees with any Democratic policy or politician over anything is labeled a GOP or Russian shill even if they are not. I think that is very dangerous thinking, because if we silence and discount any dissenting opinions we are no better than the right wing crazies that call everything fake new.

[elleng]

16. Yes, and we struggle to find 'acceptable' positions and candidates.

VERY dangerous.

[Quixote1818]

35. Agree 100%. nt

[pnwmom]

178. Cenk used to be a Republican. Now he claims to be a progressive.

Was this a genuine change of heart or did it have a monetary aspect? It's curious that he spends more time criticizing Dems than Republicans.

And Hartmann gets money from RT, so that reduces HIS credibility.

[Voltaire2]

200. Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican.

Hillary Clinton used to be a Republican.

Jim Jeffords used to be a Republican.

"Used to be a Republican" is not a good criteria for "is my enemy".

[pnwmom]

201. Hillary stopped being a Republican when she left home and went to college.

Cenk was a Republican into adulthood and still criticizes the left more than the right.

[Voltaire2]

205. So Warren and Jeffords? Enemies?

And I doubt you can substantiate "and still criticizes the left more than the right".

[Maeve]

13. Media Bias/Fact check calls them left-leaning, mostly factual

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/

[elleng]

17. Thanks.

Good to see, FACTS.

[Else You Are Mad]

20. Exactly.

I would be the first to say that they are GOP/Russian shills if they are but I have not missed one TYT main show episode for the last 4 years and not once have I thought that they were conservative or Russian shills.

Just because thy are to the left of the moderate wing of the Democratic party and supports much more liberal policies/politicians does not mean they work for Putin or the Koch brothers.

[elleng]

21. Good to hear you've watched so much; I haven't.

A REAL problem for Democrats, the party, and liberals and progressives if they are to the left of the moderate wing of the Democratic party and support much more liberal policies/politicians, they/we are slammed. We ARE the base of true Democracy, and must be heard in the party. THIS is how to win.

[Quixote1818]

43. Thank you. nt

[Demit]

57. Who is Media Bias/Fact Check? Why do you think they are trustworthy?

I looked at their About page and it doesn't say much. It's been around since 2015. Founded by someone named Dave Van Zandt, who doesn't say much about himself or what his credentials might be for evaluating media outlets. He doesn't appear to be a journalist. There's no bio of any of his contributors, either. What makes you consider this site trustworthy?

[Maeve]

60. It is simply another option

Looking over the judgments, they seem mostly sound. And the opinions I found against the site seem to have their own rather heavy biases. Feel free to accept or not; I think I still have a 'Question authority" button around somewhere....

[Demit]

73. I don't know what your last sentence means.

Of course I feel free to accept or not. I was asking why YOU felt they were trustworthy. You were the one who cited them as an authority.

The fact that your answer is that their judgments seem mostly sound just means that you agree with them (whoever they are) & they agree with you. That's classic confirmation bias. Not an especially persuasive reason to invest them with authority, in my view, but thanks for the reply.

[Maeve]

78. I never said I considered them an authority

Just a source of opinion but one that seems fair, as best I can judge. They have been cited by others (see their home page for examples). If you think they are wrong, they have plenty of options to contact/disagree with them. As for confirmation bias--no; if two people look at the same thing and come to the same conclusion, that is different than someone accepting ONLY the judgments that match their own. I have had some training in journalism and logic so I can recognize bias even if it happens to agree with my own ideas. Which is why I don't usually get into deep discussions on this board...
And the last sentence meant that I don't accept any authority just because they are supposed to be an authority.

[Demsrule86]

211. Small operation...I don't think they are very credible.

[Madam45for2923]

25. Nah, the way they acted all of 2016- Hard F*cking Pass for me.

[Squinch]

27. Yep. Trump's little helpers, weren't they?

[Madam45for2923]

37. Yep! Their hate-foam dripping towards HRC & DEMS- while almost zilch on Trump? Screw that.

[Else You Are Mad]

41. What are you taking about.

I don't know what show you watched but Cenk literally had a daily segment on their main show for months leading up to the election called "LOSER DONALD" that called out Trump.

[Madam45for2923]

50. Am sure very convincing after a year of vicious attacks on HRC!

[JCanete]

69. They weren't big fans of Clinton. They said so. They also said that she was far better than Trump,

and advocated for voting for her in the GE. Do people have to think exactly like you? Do they have to like the person you like? Can they have no criticisms of that person? What the fuck is punditry and the news good for if we know we're just going to get people shilling for their respective sides. Why would anybody trust anything they hear?

[Madam45for2923]

76. Nah they were vicious! -until the point they advocated for voting for her in the GE.

Criticism is a really nice way to say it. LOL.

Punditry may do as they like. Does not mean I'm going to stick around for them to "pundit" around me.

Thanks, no thanks.

[Else You Are Mad]

87. Do you understand how primaries work?

In primaries, candidates from the same party and their supporters challenge each other in an election process to become the nominee of the party. During which, the candidates and their supporters show to the voters why they are / their candidate is better than the other candidates. Once the primary is over, the losing candidate and their supporters than move on to support the candidate that won. That is not vicious attacks, it has been happening since there have been primaries.

[Madam45for2923]

93. I know how they work and I know what cannot be taken back.

I know how DEM friends act like and what they pundit. I also know how DEM foes act and what they pundit.

Yeah, I know the difference. ~Not fooled.

[bettyellen]

106. Cenk endorsed Hillary one or two days before the election. Classic passive aggressive

crap. And they wonder how they picked up the emo- prog label? Or "feels not reals"? It's the constant whining about hippie punching. Aside from that I think they've all had a fairly inconsistent history, politically. I've never been convinced it goes beyond theater. They're pretty good at drama.

[Else You Are Mad]

109. That is incorrect.

I have listened to every episode for the last four years, and Cenk did not endorse Hillary a few days before the election he did immediately after the primary. Stop spreading lies.

Further, they have been really open and consistent about their political views. Their network hosts other shows that are further left such as Jimmy Dore, but they also have hosts that are much less left than Cenk such as Michael Shure, Ben Mankiewicz and John Iadarola.

As someone aptly pointed out on this thread, that is like saying Rachel Maddow is right wing because Joe Scarborough is also on MSNBC
.

[bettyellen]

111. He officially endorsed her Nov 4. Saying not Donald before that does not count.

Please stop accusing me of lying and Google it.
Seriously dude. That's not cool.

[Else You Are Mad]

112. Well stop lying and I will stop accusing you of such. Nt.

[bettyellen]

114. Video dated Nov 4: https://m.youtube.com/watch?vjSqgRTTtNpA

https://m.

You should delete those bullshit accusations that I lied about this- and perhaps not rely on your faulty memory about Cenk in general.

[Else You Are Mad]

117. Voting for and endorsing are two different things.

Cenk lives in California which was going to go for Hillary no matter what. In swing and red states, Cenk emphatically said that they should vote for Hillary. Further, every other main host besides Jimmy Dore and Steve Oh said that they were voting for Hillary.

[snowy owl]

140. You can't reason with the Clinton devotees. It's a waste of time.

This thread sounds a lot like campaign 2016. Agree or be offed. I think it was Noah Chomsky who said recently that we should listen to everybody. The more viewpoints we hear, the more informed we become.

[Else You Are Mad]

142. View points are the enemy.

Everyone has to agree or be thrown out of the sandbox.

[tammywammy]

113. Cenk endorsed Hillary Nov 4.

[Else You Are Mad]

115. He said that he is voting for her on Nov. 4 not that he endorsed Her on Nov.

That is a big difference. Further, many others on the network said they were voting for Hillary after the primaries. The only person that was consistently saying that they were not endorsing Hillary was Jimmy Dore.

[bettyellen]

116. Here is the Nov 4 endorsement, delete your lies please .

https://m.

[Else You Are Mad]

118. In context:

Cenk lives in CA, which was going to be overwhelming for Hillary so his vote did not matter. He emphatically said over and over that anyone in a swing and red state should vote for Hillary.

Context is important. But, thanks.

[bettyellen]

122. He "announced his decision" 4/5 days before the election in that video. That's not in dispute.

But go play with the goal posts. And ignore the stupid shit like Seth Rich rumours and Hillary wants war w Russia crap.

[Else You Are Mad]

124. I don't...

Think there is any conspiracy to murder Seth Rich at all and Hillary did not want war with Russia (I actually never even heard of the last one before...)

[bettyellen]

125. Both have been discussed in TYT. Which is why I rarely watch except for laughs.

[Else You Are Mad]

129. Actually they haven't!

The closest that TYT talked about Seth Rich was the Jimmy Dore podcast show during which Jimmy Dore said he was going to with hold judgment until all the facts came out. Once the investigator turned out to be a liar, Dore said he does not believe the conspiracy.

Finally, discussing things does not mean they endorse or believe the theories.

[bettyellen]

139. Giving the Seth Rich crap credibility makes them worthy of ridicule

You're really splitting hairs with this endorse crap. If you need so many caveats before trusting what you watch- I tend to turn the channel. LOL.

[Else You Are Mad]

144. What are you talking about.

Please point out where Cenk, Ana or John -- the three main hosts -- on the main TYT show gave the Seth Rich any credibility.

I'll wait.

[bettyellen]

149. They're not the only hosts, and you know it. Goalposts!

[Else You Are Mad]

154. They are the main hosts.

There is rarely a show that does not have one of those three. But, again, Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC, does that mean that Joy Reid, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O'Donnell are all secret Republicans? No, that is absurd just as impugning Cenk because he has a Jimmy Dore show.

[bettyellen]

160. LOL, NBC and BBC isn't anything like TYT. They actually report, ha ha .

It's not just Jimmy Dore. What a bunch of flakes.

[Else You Are Mad]

161. I was not comparing TYT to the BBC

I was comparing RT to the BBC in America.

[bettyellen]

169. You made a load of comparisons so ridiculous, it matters not.

It's been really very amsusing but I find you as credible as Jimmy Dore. So it's probably a good fit for you.

[Else You Are Mad]

170. Good for you.

I am a random, anonymous message board commenter. I have my opinion and you have yours. I do not suggest that anything I say is more or less credible. I am just offering my own interpretation of the facts as they are presented.

[ThirdEye]

203. zilch? HaHa

you must have been watching a different TYT than me.

[SHRED]

28. We are very good at eating our own

I have been guilty at times myself.

We need to stop and know the real enemy...the GOP.

[elleng]

31. Thanks, SHRED.

Keep saying it, please.

[Madam45for2923]

39. Can someone PLEASE tell that to TYT too? LOL!

[SHRED]

47. I think we need to call them out directly

To them directly and not tear them down in a public forum.

[Madam45for2923]

52. Yay! I hope some of their fans will do that.

I trust their fans are very concerned about unity too.

[bettyellen]

119. Nope, I find them intellectually inconsistent and think this is an appropriate venue to discuss that

[TomCADem]

30. They Have Gone the Jill Stein/Susan Sarandon Neoprogressive Route

Neoprogressives continue to bash and attack Democrats other progressives even though the far right holds all major branches of power and, in fact, push right wing talking points from a "left-leaning" perspective. The amazing thing is the degree to which they give Trump and Republicans a free pass on the very same points they attack Democrats.

For example, they:

1. Attack the investigation of Trump's Russian Oligarch support as being a product of the "Deepstate."
2. Cheer the possible repeal of the ACA arguing that this will lead to a single payer system.
3. Find hope in Trump's Presidency, because it will lead to civic engagement.
4. Attack Democrats for not being sufficiently populist as a reason why they lost, which suggests that Trump and Republicans are the one's selling a populist pro-worker platform.

[Alice11111]

48. Jill Stein should be investigated. She sat at the Putin table

with Flynn, who was paid by the Russians to be there. Putin was obviously promoting her...giving her face time. She persevered in an election she had no chance of winning, knowing she could throw the election. Was she paid or aided by Putin too? My bet is 99pc yes.

Why this doesn't come up confounds me?

[Quixote1818]

33. Many on DU have turned against them because they were not fans of the DNC

and how the DNC was budy, budy with Wall Street. That is the core issue at its heart. They also endorsed Sanders even though they campaigned vigorously for Hillary after she won the nomination. The core group at TYT is pretty reasonable but the hire of Michael Tracey who Cenk now seems to be butting heads with is odd but they try to reach out to a broad spectrum on the left. Jimmy Dore who can be brilliant has also aligned with the "Constant Russia news is to manipulate us". I have tried to be open minded to what they are saying but I think Dore and Michael Tracey are just wrong on Russia and I get the sense they have some kind of agenda. Maybe it's just to cater to a certain audience?

I don't see that his funding from Buddy Roemer is that big of a deal. Roemer is a moderate Republican who use to be a Democrat and his big issue is getting money out of politics.

[bettyellen]

72. Wow, I think Jimmy is a total nutter. Between the group they take turns bashing Dems till no one

Emerged unscathed. To me it's the other end of the horseshoe- appealing to people's anger. It all feels like scripted fights between Cenk and those other guys- like pro wrestling. I don't think any of them has big insights, either. Never got the appeal of all that bluster.

[Quixote1818]

84. He has become a total nutter. I use to like him. nt

[bettyellen]

85. Was he once sane? Well I guess he's another sellout. That plus GOP $$$ makes them unreliable...

Unreliable substance, alienating style. I just can't waste my time with them.

[nadine_mn]

97. Can no longer listen to Dore, but love Ben Mankiewicz and Michael Schure

I think Ben and Jim really got into over HRC. They fully supported HRC after she got the nomination but were 100% fair in criticizing in campaign strategy and disagreeing in issues we all have differing opinions on. You can support a candidate but still be critical of certain stances they have - that doesn't equal tearing down.

They were brutal to Trump...they went after him on his lies, his bankruptcies, you name it.

But it is fair to call out those Dems who are more centrist in favor for those who are more progressive.

I may not agree with Cenk on some things, but the idea that he or TYT is an arm of Russia or GOP is absurd
Michael Tracey. - he is a douche

[Saviolo]

191. I'm so over Jimmy Dore

I don't find him particularly funny. I think he's fairly smart, but I'd be much happier if they permanently replaced him on any panel with Ben. John and Ana have my time any day, and Cenk is... problematic but sane and very smart.

They're definitely not working for Russia. If one wants to accuse them of having blinkers on re: any particular issue, it's money in politics. They will bang that drum as loud and long as they can, and rightly so. The most caustic influence on functioning democracy is vast amounts of money flowing into the pockets of politicians.

[emulatorloo]

102. Nah, too much shitting on Dems, while

Paying little attention to the shit Republicans do.

That was a popular formula in 2016 for getting clicks

Did you see Michael Tracy trying to claim on twitter that Maxine Waters 'assaulted' him? That kind of pathetic lying about Dems nonsense is another reason I don't care for them.

[heaven05]

34. TYT was initially funded by a GOP donor

and cenk is a BIG ??? as to his real loyalties.

[JCanete]

62. specifically by somebody with very negative things to say about money in politics on the Republican

side of the aisle. And that's a message that TYT hasn't stopped hammering. Is that a message you'd rather not get out there?

[heaven05]

70. I still don't know

Alex Soros seems like the right kind of liberal progressive yet Cenk is still one that reminds me of 'Jackpine' radicalism, which in my book is strictly libertarian and has racist tendencies showing in many of its members. But support whom you please. It's still a free country... Cenk also "hammered" HRC which in times like this is almost treasonous and probably caused a lot of shifting to 3rd party candidates because TYT is widely followed. I just don't like his politics

I was wrong about George Soros. He was a progressive.

[bettyellen]

74. I don't know if the money in politics posture is actually done in good faith?

It seems to me if I was a republican who believed that I wouldn't be funding "liberals". Unless I thought funding liberals tainted them. Don't trust them. All the bluster feels like a cover to me.

[JCanete]

77. Romer may have his own agenda...I don't know him well enough. If he thinks funding non-corporate

media, which I personally think is a panacea for the very limited coverage and very obvious filter that corporate media has, is a ploy to hurt Dems, then I think he's very wrong. Dems, in order to do good work, HAVE to have, MUST have public opinion behind that good work. They can't push it otherwise, and its just too easy to go with the status-quo. If there's a cost to going with the status quo, and a potential win for pushing more progressively, that is good for our party, not bad for it, in the long term.

And since corporate media sucks SOOOO badly, something else has to step in to fill in the gaps of coverage and analysis. We need more perspectives than "republicans good democrats bad" "democrats good, republicans bad" that we get from the talking heads in the business. As citizens, we need to be informed on the issues that the media doesn't care to cover, like Flint and the Water protectors, etc. If we aren't, we can't do our jobs properly as voters.

[bettyellen]

79. Are they stepping in for the WaPo or doing anything more than interviews and opinions?

So they uncover anything like Newsweek has - or just regurgitate things with heir own predictable spin? Seems like the latter to me.

Watching them I feel like they're more playing pre-assigned roles. I've never gotten past the feeling that they're click bait. Existing to tear others down.

I guess I've never found them particularly thought provoking.

[JCanete]

86. I find them to be far more nuanced than most pundits, to be honest. They have clear biases,

which, refreshingly, they don't pretend don't exist, and they seem at least to try to be intellectually honest when they levy their criticisms. They aren't perfect and sometimes I think their bias overpowers that intention. I disagree with them often enough, but the way they talk about things isn't constrained by a corporate network's expectations, and they aren't playing team sports the way that starts to really make others in the field lose credibility. They have rarely a good thing to say about Republicans, so they aren't doing the "we report, you decide" shtick, but just because they don't like Republican policies, doesn't mean then that they should spin everything to paint establishment democrats well in response.

Frankly, just as you find the things they talk about un-thought provoking, I find to be the case about most writers and pundits across the spectrum in corporate media. It is a whole fuck-load of regurgitation.

[bettyellen]

88. That's funny, I see a resurgence of investigative journalism like we've not seen in 30 years....

So I find that to be of greater value than listening to people with such heavy bias presenting opinion.
I don't watch a lot of TV journalists and prefer to read a lot. Am happier with the print media than I have been in a long time, find it pretty easy to ignore the bias and focus on what's going on.

[JCanete]

89. But covering news isn't the only thing that pundits do. They talk about the state of the nation,

and ways in which it is stuck in place. Business as usual isn't covered by news. Its not making news. Its just continuing to carry forward.

Investigative journalism is as good as the money wants it to be. And its only as good as what it investigates and what it ignores. It may all be very news-worthy what is coming out now, and real, true, investigative journalism is very very important to a democracy, but so is talking about issues and a nation's direction. Trump isn't liked by a huge portion of the oligarchy in this nation, so why should it be a surprise that the gloves are off when going after him? I'm glad the gloves are off. I'm glad he's so unpopular with even the elites, but lets not pretend this is a powerful new trend of honest journalism.

[bettyellen]

92. I reject the idea that Cenk and company are honest or insightful. I think they're repetative and

Quite biased. Trying to pretend Obamas talking to the Russians is as bad as the huge ties the Trump admin has? Bullshit. Trashing Warren suddenly because she doesn't align 100% with you? Counter productive bullshit. I don't think they're slightly biased, I think they're very heavily slanted towards reflexively trashing Dems and it's gotten boring.


I don't see them bringing anything to the table except for rehashed complaints about hippie punching and the status quo. I don't feel better informed, I feel like I'm hearing the same lecture over and over again.

[JCanete]

94. You need to be more specific. The TYT isn't uniform in its thinking. Cenk just did a very soft-ball

interview with Warren, so I'm not sure where you're getting your particular take on this. Jimmy Dore isn't Cenk. He's affiliated, but he isn't the same person. There is a range of perspective here.

I already know how you feel about TYT's coverage. Apparently the same way I feel about the rest of the punditry that exists in the corporate media. Who are the people you do like? The people who have no problem with the status quo? Who for that matter, isn't repetitive? Some repetition is kind of bound to happen, when you're still arguing for things that haven't changed, so I can see that getting boring, but it kind of goes with the territory.

[bettyellen]

95. Cenk does a lot of passive aggressive faint praise editorializing ...

And here seems to be a range, yes, but like that Jimmy guy I also see them swerve around that I'm having a hard time grasping their core purpose. Jimmy and that othe jerk have hurt his brand even more.

[ThirdEye]

204. It was not initial funding (correct me if I'm wrong)

They had been doing news for a long time beforehand. I think the injection of cash just helped them expand.

[George II]

49. You do realize that he got $4 million from Buddy Roemer, don't you? Still confused?

[Quixote1818]

51. So, what is your point?

Buddy Roemer is a moderate Republican who's big issue is getting money out of politics.

[George II]

53. So what is YOUR point? He's a republican who fought the Democrats when he was...

...a "Democrat" in the House. He supported Reagan more than he supported his own party.

You can have him, thank you.

[JCanete]

65. Romer was very down on the GOP's own problem with money in politics, stating so unequivocally in an

interview with TYT. TYT has built up a network that continues to rail against money in politics, and has far harsher things to say about Republicans than it does about Dems.

It is always worth following the money, so I don't suggest that this isn't something that should hold a place in the discussion, but the same as when we look at Corey Booker, or Clinton, etc. the money itself is sadly a reality of this business until we can change that, and by itself is only a concern. Its when the actions align to those interests that there is a problem, particularly when the actions seem to be off book of what a politician or person has already been saying. Can you point to this being the case with TYT? Does Cenk sound differently than he did on MSNBC? Is TYT treating the GOP with kid gloves, or do they have far harsher things to say about them?

The TYT do talk relentlessly about the corrosive nature of money in politics. That should be something all of us citizens decry. I'd say that's a cause well worth fighting for.

The fact that they have criticisms for dems is not a problem. Not saying these things doesn't make these things not exist, and in fact, allows the problems to fester. You want to disagree with the criticisms, that's totally fine, and those are conversations worth having. Not having them on the other hand is not actually strengthening our party.

[George II]

68. Talking about getting rid of money in politics is not getting money out of politics. His party....

....is the party that wants to keep money in politics.

And before anyone goes on about money in politics they should understand the nature of "money in politics" and how it comes about.

But it's nice to see you got in an obligatory shot at Cory Booker and Clinton, neither of whom are the subject at hand.

[JCanete]

71. Fuck that, I did not get a shot at Clinton or Booker. If you look at my recent posts about Booker

and the Kushner thing, I've said that while that is worth keeping in mind, Booker at this point has said nothing that I disagree with. He said we need more information before we leap to judgement. That was totally reasonable to me, so, you might want to consider that that is why I put his name in here. Because the connection itself needs additional evidence.

Talking about money in politics is far better than not talking about it. Politicians who care about reelection and don't want to push boundaries at great political expense, even if they care about this issue, need the public to be on that page, out there clamoring for change in order for them to make it happen. You think this shit happens in a climate of silence? You think anything was being done about the prison industrial complex when nobody was talking about it? Or healthcare?

[pnwmom]

98. OR his big issue is promoting a so-called progressive who criticizes Democrats

more than anyone else.

[JTFrog]

54. He was never liberal before he sold out. Republican/Libertarian leaning sexist pig actually. nt

[ucrdem]

56. "WikiLeaks: This Obama Administration Is Brought To You By Citigroup"

That's TYRT in a headline.

Wingnuts by any other name but YMMV.

[Bradical79]

59. I've never heard of it being called a Republican craphole station -nt

Now, they are anti-Dem in general, wanting to primary Democrats, relentlessly attacking Clinton during the campaign, getting information from at least one shady right wing site, constant attempts to deflect from the very real and serious Russian involvement, and defending Wikileaks non-stop.

[Madam45for2923]

177. Good recap of TYT!

[kimbutgar]

64. I used to watch him on current tv

Sometimes he was a little to out there for my taste.

Finding out they are paid by RT raises my suspious if they are provocateurs of the left to divide us even more.

[JCanete]

66. where did you find that out, or did it just appear in a post here? Where's the article saying RT

pays TYT?

[kimbutgar]

67. Saw it in some comments here at DU

But if they are not connected I stand corrected.

[bettyellen]

90. I never saw that. I've seen their coverage mirror RT closely though... as well as

Greenwald, Guccifer, Wikileaks, that kind of stuff. Is it a coincidence the RW funds then all?

[JCanete]

91. The Young Turks is mostly public funded. One single GOP donation at this point, represents a

drop in the bucket of their funding model.

The right wing funds wikileaks?

[Charlotte Little]

75. I have always thought...

...of TYT and Cenk Uygur as an Abby Martin. He teeters over into the alt-left, who are just as dangerous as the alt-right, only much, much smarter.

[MuseRider]

80. Don't let the hoards confuse you.

Your mind is good and you are not alone. TYT, Thom Hartman are wonderful IMO. If you can listen without using a biased lens you will be OK. Many of us still like them. We can dislike what they say or disagree from time to time but if you are a hard liner one way and none of the others you will never like to listen to those who do not agree with you all the time. Sadly much of DU and a good many of very loud posters are all about convincing you that you have to fall in a certain line. Nope, if you like TYT then you are not alone we just do not feel the need to tell you how you are supposed to think.

[George II]

81. Did you see the TYT "reporter" swarm on Maxine Waters and then accuse her of shoving him?

THAT is why I'm not confused about TYT.

[JCanete]

96. TYT isn't just Michael Tracy, nor is Maddow by association, Scarborough. TYT seems to have one

major hiring criteria... want money out of politics. I think they are okay with reaching disaffected voters across the spectrum, and I wouldn't be surprised or even bothered if they hired conservative pundits who at least shared that bottom line interest.

They are also trying not to hire people in their cookie cutter image beyond that core issue, which is a good thing...people who will bring different perspectives on these topics and not make them seem like a Stepford family of robots. I don't think that's a bad thing, and Tracey, the man in question here, is constantly challenging and being challenged by Cenk as to the conversation on Russia, etc. Its far better to have these conversations than to just let everybody go to their preferred outlets and get one side of the story, or simple ambush style interviews with the other side.

[Else You Are Mad]

101. Well put. Nt.

[emulatorloo]

104. Yeah, there's also Jimmy Dore. Hannity's partner

in tormenting Seth Rich's family with the bullshit CT that Clinton murdered their son.

Yes TYT are just a wonderful group!

If you find them entertaining knock yourself out.

I don't find their brand of fiction designed to manipulate disaffected voters very appealing.

[bettyellen]

121. Yeah they veer heavy into some crazy shit sometimes. I question their credibility.

[George II]

108. Never said they were, they're also Uygur, Ana Kasparian, et. al.

[emulatorloo]

105. Yeah his little stunt to "prove" Waters is the "same" as Gianforte

backfired spectacularly. He deserved lay got dragged hard in his twitter feed for that nonsense.

It is pretty emblematic of his project in life: falsely claim Democrats are as Bad As Republicans.

[aikoaiko]

100. Most of DU liked TYT very much before the primary

That may help put things in perspective.

[Thrill]

103. Follow the cheddar

For those rats

[msongs]

107. TYT will do what makes it the most $$. being on RT has some sort of financial benefit nt

[Else You Are Mad]

110. TYT is not and has never been on RT.

Please do some research before you post lies.

[bettyellen]

120. I think they pushed RT stories on TYT not appeared on RT.

A distinction without much of a difference.

[Else You Are Mad]

132. The difference being is that...

Just because RT is Russian owned it does not mean that everything is propaganda. Most things may be, but not everything. Such is tantamount to saying everything reported on the BBC is questionable because it is owned by the British government.

And, to stop you before you say it. I am not a Russian shill nor do I even watch RT. I was merely making a rational observation.

[bettyellen]

137. So your comparing RT with one of the most reputable news orgs in the world- the BBC? Seriously?

You're goofing around, I hope. This is fake news at its finest .

[Else You Are Mad]

138. So a state owned media company can be reputable?

[bettyellen]

143. Wow, that's the biggest hunk of false equivalency in a thread filled with them.

RT and BBC, same thing. Now I know you're fucking with me. Credibility is a thing, and TYT is lacking it, as are you with your false info about Cenk's endorsement.

[JI7]

147. rt is the mouth piece of one man, putin. that is different from public funding for bbc which is

Not contRolled by a politician.

It's like right wingers claiming funding nea pbs etc is communism.

[Chevy]

163. Comparing BBC to RT???

"Just because RT is Russian owned it does not mean that everything is propaganda"
lol lol lol

No wonder many Democrats are finding solace following anti-Trumpers like Rick Wilson,Evan McMullin and Cheri Jacobus.
I would guarantee not one of them would ever say anything like that.
The far left has become so anti Democratic Party and being led on by the likes of TYT and the Intercept that they they have become rather friendly towards Russia.

Just ask Miss Nina Turner. She'll tell ya.

[Else You Are Mad]

164. So if RT reports on a story

By default it is propaganda? Sometimes news is just news.

[Chevy]

165. If you don't know the difference

between the BBC,CBC, ABC(Australia) and RT then I can't help you.

[snowy owl]

176. Would you include Noam Chomsky in that group?

You seem overly emotional. Your arguments would be easier to understand and consider if you were less accusatory and more factual. That's what I look for DU. It is getting hard to find.

[Chevy]

133. They employ that racist douche Michael Tracey

Last edited Sun Jun 4, 2017, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

who is beloved by the right and they have a GOP sugar daddy who pays them tho attack and undermine Dems like Maxine Waters. They are as fraudulent as The intercept.

[choie]

135. I'm with you, Packman

I think Cenk is quite articulate and astute politically - and funny as hell. His co-hosts, John Iadorola and Ana Kasparian are quite good as well.

[Bucky]

145. Don't be confused. Anyone telling you TYT is Republican or RT is delusional.

[Demsrule86]

153. See below from the New York Times.

RT is propaganda pure and simple...I trust no one on that network.



"But the West is not laughing. Even as Russia insists that RT is just another global network like the BBC or France 24, albeit one offering “alternative views” to the Western-dominated news media, many Western countries regard RT as the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the West."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.html?_r=0

[Bucky]

156. I don't think you understood my comment

I'm surprised anyone needs a news citation to understand RT is a Kremlin propaganda outlet.

I wrote:
- "Don't be confused. Anyone telling you TYT is Republican or RT is delusional."

That's perfectly clear if you know what I'm saying or thinking when I write that.

Perhaps I could've rephrased it as:
- "Don't be confused. Anyone telling you TYT is either Republican-controlled or RT-controlled is delusional."

Hopefully my admonition against being confused is less confusing now :0)

[Demsrule86]

188. Not your fault at all...my fault. Sorry. I should have read more carefully especially when it was

a post from you. Thanks for the update.

[snowy owl]

158. Of course RT is propaganda.So US media.Compare anything US with Canadian.

I learn more from Canadian media about the US and the world than I do from American tv. Russia propagandizes. The US propagandizes elsewhere. But if Schultz, Hartmann, Papantonio, Hedges control the content, what's the problem? The problem lies with people who have already been so propagandized, they can no longer listen to anything that doesn't fit their vision.

Also, the US tries to interfere with elections in many countries. People really should become more global in their thinking. We all do it. That's why you must be really, really well informed to know or be able to ascertain the truth. My god, just look at the propaganda from big corporations about climate in this country.

[Demsrule86]

187. Clearly the Hartman et al does not control the agenda.

I will listen to Canada, Europe as well as US media...but I won't listen to fucking Russian propaganda promoted by the enemy of Western Democracy...Putin. They attacked our elections. RT should be banned in my opinion...pure Putin Propaganda.

[Demsrule86]

146. Nope, Republican craphole...one of them accused Maxine Waters of shoving him...

Paid for by Republican donors..they take money from the right wing.

[snowy owl]

151. Cenk is authentic. And he left the Rs for the Ds long ago. I respect him and his fight.

He doesn't have to be perfect.

[Chevy]

167. Sure you do

especially his Justice Democrats mission to destroy the Democratic party. But hey we're only on DEMOCRATIC Underground but I digress.

[snowy owl]

174. So we have to be your Democrat? That's democratic, isn't it? I'm in the progressive wing Big D.

Apparently, you're D stands for "do it my way." A little narrow minded, in my view.

[Chevy]

181. Destroying democrats like Maxine Waters etc

is not any kind of Democrat that I want to work with period!

[Else You Are Mad]

175. There is a reason why we have primaries.

If a Democrat primaries another Democrat, what is wrong with that? Ever since 2008, the word primary has become negative. I wonder why that is? If the Democrat being primaried has been representing their constituents well, then they will stay in office. If not, then, we get a better Democrat.

Stagnation and apathy are not good qualities for Democrats.

[Chevy]

182. Never said anything about primaries

But when you have a GOP funded organization attacking Democratic Icons because they don't meet their phony purity tests then we have a problem. And Cenk Unger and his Justice Democrats is exactly that.

[6000eliot]

206. But every Democrat who runs for office has to be,

at least according to him.

[ThirdEye]

202. They may not align perfectly with the democratic party

but anyone talkingk about them being shills for Russia or that they are driven primarily by amassing profits has an axe to grind. DU 2016 and beyond has become a very strange home to some extremely sensitive and "purity matters" members. It's embarrassing.

Cenk, Ana and team have their opinions and they may cover stories that make the democrats look bad, but that's what democrats get for looking bad in those cases. Don't blame them for being willing to point the spotlight wherever there's trouble.

They also get it wrong sometimes. Hell, Cenk and Ana's beef with Sam Harris mystifies me. So what, I suppose, I still love listening to what they have to say.

Regardless, it ain't a republican crap hole. Yeah they got funding from a republican but I see it as a patriotic move: they had common ground on money-politics and Cenk was completely clear on it. You'll NEVER start seeing them supporting regressive policies as a result of that funding.