General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis from Cenk Uygur, so-called ally of Democrats. Reminder, Uygur was the co-founder of....
...Justice Democrats and has been closely associated with Brand New Congress. With friends like him, who needs enemies?
Link to tweet
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)I used to try to listen to his show because TYT was so popular. It was very loose with the truth, and manipulative as hell. Id fact check it right after. UGH. Cent gives me the same feeling I get when I think about Assange
George II
(67,782 posts)...But I guess this makes him glow in the eyes of his benefactors - Buddy Roehmer and RT.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)cenk was one of the founders of Just Us Democrats and does not like the party
allgood33
(1,584 posts)WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)Seriously. I did. Pretty sure I'm right considering he is calling a Pelosi led group corrupt.
dalton99a
(81,073 posts)He started Justice Democrats to primary Democrats on single payer - in other words, to help the Koch brothers
Fuck him
The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)dalton99a
(81,073 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Johonny
(20,684 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I heard this kind of bullshit from Republicans, attacking progressives during the Cold War.
I did not expect to find it on DU.
SMH.
mcar
(42,210 posts)Hakeem Jeffries' peers voted for him in a fair vote.
Isn't it interesting that one of the main agitators for younger, more representative leadership is outraged that a younger, AA man got the nod?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in truth and reality is scrutinizing it for possible assets and weapons, tweaked as needed to advantage.
Extremists have to be dishonest to support their beliefs, and, by definition, they can't know it or they're not really extremists, just opportunistic poseurs.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)and think it worth having these kinds of critiques. See no evil hear no evil speak no evil does us no fucking good. If you want to challenge his assessment, that's a worthy conversation to have. Dismissing it and making him the enemy of Democrats(since democrats is a bigger pool than those with the tightest grip on the reigns) is convenient, but not convincing to anybody but those who already share your perspective.
George II
(67,782 posts)"They are useless. Guaranteed this corrupt Democratic leadership will do nothing but middling knick-knacks."?
Sorry, what he said is not constructive but grossly divisive and, as a 40+ year Democrat, highly offensive. I don't care what you think about my "perspective", I do NOT like people who claim to represent Democrats but never shows it in either words or deeds.
*Over the years he's been a Democrat, a republican, and an independent.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ourselves up as the bastion of all that is good, but I don't think that is any more valuable than those who look at it only critically.
As to Cenk, over the years people can change their minds and hopefully, if they are evolving based on new knowledge that is what they are doing. What Cenk is, is progressively situated on the issues, complaints about our party not withstanding. He's critical of the way we think it is best to get business done. He goes further and thinks its because we have democrats who are literally corrupt. I just think its because we have democrats who are wrong, and who don't realize that the very fact that they are taking money from industries means those industries approve of them on some level and are doing their best to prevent their rivals from overtaking them in the primaries.
I assume that in most cases our democrats motives are sincere, I just don't see why thats relevant if the results are that big money still influences the field.
George II
(67,782 posts)By the way, this isn't the first time I've seen you use that false refrain that Democrats (yes, that's capital D) who are taking money from industries. It simply does NOT happen because it's illegal!
But I'm glad to see you're on record as saying that "we have democrats who are literally corrupt".
JCanete
(5,272 posts)So how does corruption show up so blatantly with republicans? Illegal my ass.
And where am I on record saying that? I said that Cenk goes too far in saying democrats are literally corrupt and that I disagree with him.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Can you take the time to explain in detail WHY the DLC was created in the first place, it no longer exists but it always comes back to that.
?Founding and early history · ?Positions · ?Criticism · ?Electoral and political ...
It was a reaction to the LANDSLIDE defeat.
It is gone now. But Wall Street and the democrats became sort of friendly for a period of time and to some extent this is WHY the party was able to make a comeback, you dont get something for nothing, though.
and then this
Bill Clinton presented himself as a "centrist" candidate to draw white, middle-class voters who had left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. In 1990, Bill Clinton became the DLC chair. Under his leadership, the DLC founded two-dozen DLC chapters and created a base of support.
Now, who TODAY is telling us we need to appeal to those folks the way Clinton did...one guess.
It took PEOPLE and MONEY...Now, the party is moving away from corporate funding as it should. Continuing to BEAT us over the head about our history makes no sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
I should add that throughout this time the VAST majority of ACTION by democrats was for the benefit of the average person NOT for Wall Street.
betsuni
(25,137 posts)You're saying Democrats are taking illegal bribes from industries? What is "big money"?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that assessment. AS to you and George going through all this effort to pretend that industries have no financial footprint on campaigns ...why? Money from industries does go into races and strangely enough, you can typically find a correlation between donorship and how friendly a politician is to said industry's needs. It doesn't matter exactly how this is arranged, but it isn't a simple matter of people just putting money into the candidates who they believe in.
betsuni
(25,137 posts)He must give examples of who he means when he says these things, right? Otherwise, it's just an empty talking point that "Democrats are beholden to corporations and wealthy donors."
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I do sympathize at times with why he's drawn his conclusions.
Response to George II (Reply #15)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)I am a little confused here.
13. I disagree with his sense of establishment democrat motives, but I still appreciate his perspective
and think it worth having these kinds of critiques. See no evil hear no evil speak no evil does us no fucking good. If you want to challenge his assessment, that's a worthy conversation to have. Dismissing it and making him the enemy of Democrats(since democrats is a bigger pool than those with the tightest grip on the reigns) is convenient, but not convincing to anybody but those who already share your perspective.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)so thin skinned that I can't take criticism of my party from within or from without, and we shouldn't be. If a critique has merit we should address it, and if it doesn't we should challenge that critique. Plain and simple. Just characterizing the messenger at every turn is only valuable to people who already agree with us, and doesn't serve to enrich our own level of discourse either.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Cenk Uygur is a republican-funded RW troll. A total waste of flesh. Worthless. Why is the RW-funded "TYT" still allowed here as a source?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and REPORTS ON THEM at every bad turn. Its not like he just bashes democrats and then says when challenged..."of course republicans are worse but lets talk about democrats." That would be shilling for the right wing, and I'd agree with you. But that's not the reality, though I wouldn't expect you to know this. I doubt you watch or listen.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Whatever.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)what makes up the party. I'm not simply going to speak good of the party because its my team. That's gross.
You know who asks for loyalty oaths? Yeah....
We're about fighting on issues, not FOR party names. Democrats are consistently better than Republicans across the board, and for that reason, in spite of my irritations with the direction, or at least our sluggish pace towards that direction, I support Democrats. I don't want loyalty to our party. I want loyalty to the issues that matter. I want our party to be loyal to those issues.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)to be espousing as democrats? Doesn't ring a little authoritarian to you?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Have a nice whatever.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the things it is supposed to stand for, is ever a good idea. You literally repeated my words as if they say something negative, but I'd love for you to take a shot at actually articulating how my point was off-base.
But in lieu of that, you have a nice night.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Hard to respect someone who is that delusional.
JHan
(10,173 posts)betsuni
(25,137 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)used Cenk's past sexist writings as a power play weapon to toss him out a while ago. The men who run those radical groups clearly currently think they can use Ocasio-Diaz, who they helped elect, as a conduit to power. They may be mistaken. Too soon to tell, though.
Saikat Chakrabarti, who's unfortunately been named her new chief of staff, was spouting in very similar tones to Cenk up until this week or so. He even suggested Ocasio was a "chip" they could play and might need to sacrifice in their great crusade against us evil conservadebs (his word).
He's pulled it back in this week, to neutral environmental messages mostly, but the same dishonesty and malicious poison about Democrats as Cenk's still seeps through practically every seam.
Btw, Chakrabarti had a lot more power before her election, but Ocasio has far more now and does not need them. She may be afraid of what they'd do if she cut them loose, they are very media competent, but both her tweets and statements and his suggest she may be both becoming more independent of these men and taking action to rein Chakrabarti in. Notably, this week he is not directly contradicting the positive, sensible and cooperative statements she's been making since arriving in DC. (!)
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...is to elect better Democrats than the ones who chose centrist Hakeem Jeffries over progressive Barbara Lee.
George II
(67,782 posts)How do we define "better"?
As for our Party leadership, they are chosen by the members of the House and Senate, all of whom have been elected by the voters, Democrats and republicans.
By the way, I sure as heck wouldn't want to put our election prospects in the hands of candidates chosen/endorsed by a group like Justice Democrats. In 2018, despite the huge blue wave we've seen this year, candidates backed by Justice Democrats had a dismal record in primaries and general elections, overall it's 8.9% success rate.
Governor - 0 for 5
Lt. Governor - 0 for 1
Senate - 0 for 4
House - 7 for 68
If I was a member of Justice Democrats, I'd reflect on the candidates that we throw our support behind.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Nothing like a strong WOMAN leader brings out the best, if you know what I mean
The more this asshole whines the more I know Nancy is doing her job.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...a strong woman, Barbara Lee, was defeated by a man.
George II
(67,782 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Cha
(295,929 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Brava!
rockfordfile
(8,682 posts)There is hardly any liberal TV on YouTube. I lost count to the number of FauxNews streams put on there. It's good to have the Young Turks on there.
NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)sure, not as progressive as Lee, but he's not too far behind.
George II
(67,782 posts)...with "purity".
According to this site:
http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=house
Of the 435 members of the House, on the "progressive" scale Barbara Lee is #20 with a lifetime score of 97.34%, whereas Hakeem Jeffries is #35 with a lifetime score of 97.02%
That means that there are FOUR HUNDRED members of the House who are rated lower than Jeffries, and his lifetime score is a mere 0.32% lower!!
Bottom line there's not much daylight between the two.
NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)or Tim Ryan
George II
(67,782 posts)LBM20
(1,580 posts)all areas of the country are as far to the left as he is. He needs to see the whole picture. He doesn't.
Lobo27
(753 posts)Is that I feel he wants the Democratic Party to be fully progressive (or his form of it). While I consider myself a progressive. I fully understand that not everyone who is a Democrat is a full blown progressive. For example, I fully support abortion, and they may not after certain amount of time. But we both support banning of assault weapons. It does not mean that we're not both democrats, and that we both can not come to an understanding.
BigDemVoter
(4,149 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....and after republican*/independent*/Democrat* Cenk Uygur attacked us in the OP tweet.
Jeffries 97.02, Lee's is 97.34, less than one third point! Sure, he's not as progressive as she is.
The underlying thing that bothers me is that in my defense of Jeffries (a native New Yorker like me) and others' defense has the effect that we're not happy with Lee, which can't be further from the truth. They're both great.
Who knows, if they chose Lee today it wouldn't have surprised me if Uygur would have said something like "they passed off a vibrant younger person for the older Lee"!! No matter what the choice, he would have put a negative spin on it.