The Young Turks lose it over the election

It’s no secret I’m not a fan of The Young Turks (TYT) show. I guess I just lost interest when Cenk Uygur went after Sam Harris in a long (3 hours!) and deeply unfair interview, not admitting that he’d consistently distorted Harris’s words. I also see the show as exemplifying the smug and arrogant form of Regressive Leftism that I deplore.

Yet the show is incredibly popular, perhaps because it has a young vibe to it, and is both news and editorializing at once: a sort of humorless edition of Jon Stewart’s old “Daily Show”.  TYT’s election night coverage got 4.5 million viewers—a record for them—over a nearly 12-hour broadcast. (If you want to see the whole thing, go here). You can see some highlights of it below in a 26-minute distillation.

I can sympathize with the commenters in one sense: over the 26 minutes in this video you can see certainty—the certainty that Clinton would win—dissolve into anger, rage, and then vitriol towards those who voted for Trump. While I never shared the vitriol part, I, too, was certain (but dead wrong) that I’d wake up and find that we’d elected Clinton. And over the night (well, the day, as I was in Hong Kong), my stomach got queasier and queasier as the election returns came in.  This video shows that shift of emotions very clearly.

What I don’t like about it, however, is that vitriol: the nastiness and the dead certainty that those who voted for Trump were ignorant, racist morons. (I shared the sick feeling of loss, but never the rage.) That misses the underlying dynamic that drove this election: whatever it was, it was more than a bunch of idiots and racists—KKK supporters some said—who simply wanted a President who shared their bigotry.

Now this video seems to have been made by someone who doesn’t like TYT (viz., nasty interpolation at 21:15), but that doesn’t matter. What bothers me is the kind of smug, dismissive attitude toward our opponents that will hinder us Leftists from regrouping and having substantial political power. For if we get that power, we must appeal to a wider audience and, if we can’t share some of the values of our opponents, at least find some common ground with them and concentrate on the problems of all the dispossessed, disadvantaged, and deprived.

Here are a few cringeworthy moments from this excerpt.

2:09 Aida Rodriguez says that people don’t like Hillary Clinton simply “because she has a vagina”. (Repeats this claim at 13:41, saying that Clinton lost “because she was a woman”).

8:59  Cenk has a tantrum about the Democratic Party: he says he’s at “war” with it for allowing Clinton to be defeated by a bigot. (Wasn’t he in favor of Hillary?) Later he calls them “fucking morons.” Cenk, I’ve discovered, has a lot of repressed anger (see here and here).

14:53: Ana Kasparian says that women who voted for Trump are “fucking dumb”, and says, “I’m losing my mind tonight because of how stupid the majority of the country is.”

19:20: Rodriguez calls the people criticizing her on Twitter “motherfuckers” and gives the camera two middle fingers

19:33: Kasparian addresses those whom (she thinks) voted for Trump because they don’t like affirmative action. She says, “Affirmative action is not the reason you failed in life. You failed in life because you fucking suck! Because you’re a loser!”

23:08: The team turns on Hillary, starts blaming her for the loss.

And, though I’m no prude, I don’t like the pervasive swearing. Like ever other display of petulance and rage, it’s unprofessional. I really don’t know why people are so attracted to this show.

179 Comments

  1. Mark R.
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    “I’m losing my mind tonight because of how stupid the majority of the country is.”

    The majority of the country voted for Hillary.

    • scottoest
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

      I don’t believe that was clear in the heat of election night – her lead in the popular vote swelled after it had been called, as places like California continued to tally votes.

      She could have won by five million votes and taken the Presidency, and I’d still be baffled and despondent at how such a transparent con man had managed to appeal to so many millions of people.

      Never has an election felt like it was an easier choice to me – regardless of how good of a candidate you thought Clinton was, and regardless of political stripe. You’ve got an eminently qualified, somewhat hawkish centrist with a long life in public service – and on the other side, you’ve got a vulgar talking yam musing about internment of minorities, nukes, and caught bragging about sexual assault on tape. How could that even be close?

      • Curt Nelson
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        Yes. And on top of that he is an enemy of science who has said that vaccines cause autism and that global warming is a hoax.

        There’s really no way to sympathize with voters who chose such a person over HC. It is stunning knumbskullary that produces only depression when one tries to “make sense of it.”

        • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

          I find the idea that there is nothing wrong with Islam as bizarre as the idea that vaccines cause autism, as much standing against available evidence, and in the long run, with more destructive potential.

      • Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

        “You’ve got an eminently qualified, somewhat hawkish centrist with a long life in public service – and on the other side, you’ve got a vulgar talking yam musing about internment of minorities, nukes, and caught bragging about sexual assault on tape. How could that even be close?”

        Yeah, given that and what Curt added, it’s not that I want to label considerable numbers of my fellow Americans racists, sexists, xenophobes, and idiots, that’s depressing, but I just can’t, and this may be an argument from incredulity, imagine any good reasons to vote Trump.

    • Justin
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      No they didn’t.

      http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

      “Hillary Clinton Tim Kaine Democratic 63,591,028 47.83%”

    • Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      “The majority of the country voted for Hillary.”

      That doesn’t mean the majority of the country isn’t stupid, it just means Trump won the majority of the stupid votes. :p

      • Peter
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        Why are you continuing with this rhetoric calling everyone who voted for trump “stupid”? This sort of behaviour is exactly what Jerry was talking about.

        Furthermore because you voted for Hillary it does not automatically mean you are smart or well educated!

    • jaxkayaker
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      Justin is correct, Clinton did not win a majority, she simply received more votes than Trump.

      • Mark R.
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

        Thanks. I stand corrected.

    • articulett
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

      Actually approximately 46% of voters didn’t vote at all and almost 4% percent voted for third party candidates. Approximately 1/4 voted for Trump and slightly more than that for Hillary.

      I have a hard time not feeling disgust towards those who didn’t vote or who voted for 3rd party candidates– knowing that this could be the outcome.

    • Herald Newman
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

      “The majority of the country voted for Hillary.”

      Actually, only the majority who voted, voted for Hillary. The majority of the country didn’t even bother to vote!

    • Jackson
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

      Hillary did not win a majority of the votes.
      More than Trump but not a majority.

  2. scottoest
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I can’t see the video from where I am, but those quotes you pulled are indeed pretty embarrassing for a supposed news outlet and their election night coverage. Can’t stand Cenk or TYT these days (used to be a fan ages ago).

    That said, I’ve tried to be understanding of the visceral upset a lot of people felt in real time on election night, to what they were seeing. This election more than any in my lifetime felt like a choice between normal standards of decency, and ignorant vitriol. Trump is the ugliest person to run for President in at least decades, if not over a century. Liberals were also confident in the polling data for months, that Hillary had it.

    With all of that in mind, as I said, I’ve tried to empathize with people having these incredulous outbursts of anger and sadness. My normally-thoughtful Twitter feed was an embarrassment that night, filled with people trying to process what was happening, and rushing to blame it on many of the same things.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      I used to subscribe but there were too many stupid sex stories mixed in with their more serious videos. I’d check in occasionally but they were so in-the-bag for Bernie that I just gave up on them. If they think that stupid white bigots voted for Trump because of bigotry, they certainly should have anticipated that the elderly conservatives who are the most reliable voters in America wouldn’t go for a socialist.

      I’m upset and disgusted but I understand his base. Their jobs have been evaporating since the Reagan years and it’s finally reached the point where they have no fall-back plans.

      I think it’s possible that meritocracy has caused an underclass with a lower-than-average IQ. Smart kids aren’t staying on the farm or working at the same assembly line where dad worked. They’re going to college and moving to the coasts and their not-so-bright classmates are meth addicts.

  3. Posted November 20, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps I’ll be dismissed as being a Regressive Leftist on this, but while not everyone who voted for Tr-mp was an uneducated racist, I hold that voting for Tr-mp supported bigotry and racism even if the voters chose to ignore the hateful parts of Tr-mp’s speech and actions. So while the motivation for voting for him may not have been racist, the dismissal of the racist language was.

    • Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

      “So while the motivation for voting for him may not have been racist, the dismissal of the racist language was.”

      And I would say that’s true when it comes to sexism, and xenophobia as well. Even in victory it’s almost impossible to find a Trump supporter who will admit he’s said racist, sexist, xenophobic, and other bigoted things.

      • Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        I meant to add, it’s one thing to deny it when you’re trying to get him elected, it’s another to continue to deny it now that he has been.

    • Christopher
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      I can’t say I know a significant number of Trump supporters, but those I do know, including family members, are in all honest, uneducated racists. That being said, it doesn’t prove that everyone who voted for him is uneducated, or racist, or sexist, or xenophobic and it does no good to smear everyone as such. Are we really so pathetically insecure to claim “If you don’t vote like me, then you’re clearly an idiot!”? That’s a pretty bigoted response indeed, even if it is a comforting one, and I admit to having that feeling and openly expressing it (I’m not proud). The best thing I can say is that I truly do not understand how anyone could vote for him. It could be bigotry, it could be some other emotional reason, it could be any number of things separately or together. I just don’t get it. But, even though I don’t understand, I will attempt to refrain from tarring all his supporters, even if it is the easy and emotional thing to do. I can’t say I’ll be successful, especially in conversation with my racist moron family members*, but I’ll endeavor to rise above it.

      *yes, I’m being a bit cheeky, on purpose. It’s not cognitive dissonance.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      I expect that the largest blocks of people who voted for Trump were not racist, but were voting for what they perceived to be their self interest. They were tired of gridlock, political insiders, and the abandonment of the working class. They heard in Trump an outsider message that they wanted to hear, and were willing to ignore his many deep flaws. Not racist, but ok with racism.

      • Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        “Not racist, but ok with racism.”

        Maybe my problem is I don’t see much of a difference in that distinction.

        • Mark Sturtevant
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

          Fair enough. What I mean is they don’t consider the various flaws of Trump to be a deal breaker.

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

        + 1
        BTW, I have read reports that, according to exit polls, about 8% of blacks voted for Trump.

    • Posted November 21, 2016 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

      No, I think you’re absolutely right. Would they participate in a hate crime themselves? No, but they’ll hand the bullies a weapon then look the other way, as long as they think they’re going to get their thirty pieces of silver.

  4. Posted November 20, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    I feel I should watch the video because I have no idea what this show is, but I’m already turned off by the excessive swearing.

  5. tubby
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Had Trump lost that night and his supporters put on that kind of display TYT would probably have mocked them for it.

  6. Carl
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    I hope people will really absorb this excellent advice:

    For if we get that power, we must appeal to a wider audience and, if we can’t share some of the values of our opponents, at least find some common ground with them and concentrate on the problems of all the dispossessed, disadvantaged, and deprived.

    One way to find common ground is not to demonize your opponents. In particular, if you disagree on a policy position, don’t automatically assume those on the other side have only the basest and most self serving motives for their position. They may even agree on a goal, but disagree on how to get there.

    • Linda Calhoun
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      That “excellent advice” depends on both sides’ good faith.

      I’m sorry, but if I read that tripe one more time, I’m going to scream.

      Ever hear of Merrick Garland? Do you recall reading about the Republicans’ meeting the day of Obama’s first inauguration, the one where they pledged to oppose everything and make him a one-term president? Have you observed any instances of Republicans turning against one of their own policies when Obama put it forth himself? Where have you been for the last eight years?!?

      The time has come to face reality. We need to find a way to get Democrats and like-minded independents out to VOTE, to participate, to care, to oppose being taken to the cleaners. We are dealing with opponents who believe that the end justifies the means, who will tell any lie, cheat in every way possible, and attempt to limit as much participation as possible from anyone who voices even the slightest disagreement.

      I won’t be surprised at all if 11/08/2016 was the last presidential election this country will ever see. L

      • Carl
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        As an independent who voted for Clinton, I find the attitude expressed here repellent.

        • Linda Calhoun
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

          What, exactly, is so repellent about facing reality?

          I am not suggesting that anyone should start out with an assumption of bad faith. What I am saying is that once bad faith has been amply demonstrated, that should be accepted and dealt with accordingly. L

          • Carl
            Posted November 20, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

            You seem unable to break out of the Us and Them mentality. A great number of prominent conservatives and Republicans publicly opposed Trump. Which category do they fall into?

            The generalization of bad motives and intentions is repellent.

            • ladyatheist
              Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

              But all conservatives & republicans agreed to sabotage Obama’s presidency as much as they could.

              • Michiel
                Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:12 am | Permalink

                And most of the prominent republicans who opposed Trump are now vying for cabinet positions.

            • darrelle
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

              I’d just like to point out that you are doing very much the same thing you are saying that democrats and liberals should not be doing to people who voted for Trump. The message you seem to be giving is that we shouldn’t be nasty to Trump supporters but it is okay to be nasty to those closer to our own political views. And yes, you were, with out question, being nasty whatever your intention may have been.

            • chris moffatt
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 9:47 am | Permalink

              It’s been progressively more us & them since the Reagan days. You may not remember deplorables like James Watt, Ann Gorsuch and Lynn Nofziger but I sure do. Over 120 members of that administration convicted, indicted or investigated for corruption. Or maybe you don’t remember the later decades which gave us such delightful partisan people as Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and many of the republicans still in congress today. No question the republicans have instituted ‘us vs them’ and used it for over three decades as a weapon.

              So after 36 years I’m done with non-existent “bipartisanship”, which is just a code for giving in to republican demands at all times. What has the nation got out of all of this republican thuggery? Lost jobs, lost opportunity, recessions, impoverishment of much of the population! There is nothing left in common; nothing left to say to them. It’s all already been done and said and it hasn’t worked.

              • Diane G.
                Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

                +1

            • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

              + 1

            • Filippo
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

              “The generalization of bad motives and intentions is repellent.”

              Well then, perhaps one should restrict it to Mitch McConnell?

      • Historian
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

        Linda, you are spot on. For at least the first six years of his presidency Obama operated under the delusion that he could somehow find “common ground” with Republicans. He did not seem to comprehend that the Republican strategy was to obstruct him at every turn and then blame him when things didn’t work out. The strategy was remarkably successful as witnessed by Republican control of the entire federal government. There is no question that if Hillary had won, they would have used the same tactics against her.

        The Democratic strategy from now on must be one of no quarter. The Democrats in the Senate must be prepared to use the filibuster to obstruct Trump and the extreme right-wing Republicans in Congress at every turn except on the rare issues when Trump propose a policy Democrats could agree with.

        Timothy Snyder is an eminent Yale historian of the Holocaust. A few days ago, he published a piece on how a certain German of Austrian birth in 1933 managed to bend the German people to his will. Obviously, no historical incident ever repeats itself exactly – that is impossible. But, certain dynamics on how demagogues gain and retain power seem to be constant. We need to make sure that the end result of that dynamic is not the same as what happened in Germany. This means that Democrats and liberals must awaken from their naiveté and be prepared for a long war of attrition. I agree with you that democracy in this country is at stake.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/11/his_election_that_november_came_as_a_surprise.html

        • Linda Calhoun
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

          The whole thing is very scary.

          When Obama was at Harvard Law School, and was editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, he invited participation from the conservative students, and was successful with this strategy. Testing the good faith of others, and finding it reliable is wholly different than testing the good faith of others and getting screwed. I think one of the major mistakes Obama made was not facing reality about his Republican opposition after repeated demonstrations of their bad faith.

          I have heard rumblings that our new Congress plans to make what are now petty crimes committed during demonstrations into felonies. I know that legitimate demonstrators usually work very hard to keep things non-violent, but tactics such as blocking traffic are not, in fact, legal, and if they become felonies, and demonstrators are convicted, they will lose their rights to vote, plus face incarceration for a long time, in those for-profit prisons Republicans are so fond of.

          In the shorter term, be prepared to lose Medicare. Fun times ahead. L

          • Posted November 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

            +1 Linda, and Historian

            • Mark R.
              Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

              I’ll second that.

          • Diane G.
            Posted November 20, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

            “+1 Linda, and Historian”

            + 2

            I couldn’t agree more.

          • somer
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:12 am | Permalink

            Scary. The Republicans have been utterly intransigent, to point of seeking to completely block non Repub govts in office and increasingly often control both houses – both things seldom a feature 20 years or more ago. And they gerrymander like mad.

        • barriejohn
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

          “In two months we’ll have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he’ll squeak!” (Franz von Papen, Germany, 29th January 1933. Sometimes “squeal”, and other variations.)

          http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/named.htm

          • chris moffatt
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 9:55 am | Permalink

            I have recently been rereading “Mein Kampf”. The parallels with today are quite notable. Hitler became popular promising to make Germany great again, rebuild the military, provide jobs and telling the germans it was all somebody else’s fault. After he became chancellor there were no more opposition parties….

            BTW if you are the barriejohn I think you must be it’s good to see you posting here.

            cheers

        • Diane G.
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

          “The Democratic strategy from now on must be one of no quarter. The Democrats in the Senate must be prepared to use the filibuster to obstruct Trump and the extreme right-wing Republicans in Congress at every turn except on the rare issues when Trump propose a policy Democrats could agree with.”

          And we, the rank and file, have to loudly insist that they do, by all means possible–writing our congresspeople, demonstrating peacefully but in large numbers, rewarding journalism that speaks truth to Trump Power, paying attention to mid-term elections, demanding that voter-suppression machinations be changed, etc.

      • Simon
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

        “We are dealing with opponents who believe that the end justifies the means, who will tell any lie, cheat in every way possible, and attempt to limit as much participation as possible from anyone who voices even the slightest disagreement.”

        Precisely the attributes I find most repellent in the identity politickers on the left whom Clinton managed to be seen as representing. Democrats are not innocent of obstructiveness and BS either, far from it, only their supporters manage to ignore it when it happens, or are too steeped in the dogma to spot the lies. Besides, the childish and spiteful vandalism Clinton staffers pulled when vacating the Whitehouse gives an insight into how unpartisan they really are. Closed-mindedness and dishonesty leads to bad consequences no matter which party indulges in it.

        It didn’t help that it was “her turn”. It was her time, her turn. She had a vagina and it was her turn. Didn’t everyone know it was her turn? She did everything she could to be seen as not just an insider, but part of a political dynasty.It was the Clinton camp who made gender an issue, not Trump, and I’ll bet that far from being misogynist the majority of voters just wished they’d shut up about that.

      • Historian
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

        Geoffrey R. Stone is a law professor at the University of Chicago. In a recently posted article, he presents in simple terms the perils of the current situation and why all people of a goodwill must resist Trump. Here is what he says.

        ———————————-
        “Let there be no doubt. We stand in the face of danger. Danger to our nation, to our values, to our liberties, to all that our nation stands for. We have done this to ourselves. We underestimated the risk. We did not work hard enough. We did not have the foresight to imagine that this could actually happen to us. It is our fault.”

        “We must not make the same mistake again. Having turned our lives, our safety, and our children’s futures over to the whims of a thoughtless, reckless, ignorant, and immoral huckster, we must stand guard and fight back against peril.”
        —————————–

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/donald-trump-and-the-stru_b_13101568.html

        • Tim Harris
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:31 am | Permalink

          ‘You seem unable to break out of the Us and Them mentality,’ asserts Carl with all the brimming moral fervour that… I only wish that Carl and others had shown themselves so willing to stand against the ‘Us versus Them mentality’ that is pervasive on the right. But, no, they didn’t, and don’t. It doesn’t seem to matter to them.

          As for the Young Turks, I have found their programmes unwatchable, not so much because of the swearing as for their indulgence in what seems to be a sort of popular art in the US (though there is also the dreadful Englishman who likes going on about Muslims on YouTube): the rant. For the same reason, I cannot watch Keith Olberman. What he says may be right or it may be wrong – I do not care; the hectoring, self-righteous, self-indulgent form he gives it destroys my interest, at least, in what he says.

      • Taz
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        We are dealing with opponents who believe that the end justifies the means, who will tell any lie, cheat in every way possible

        Go to a right-wing web site and you’ll hear the exact same thing said about the left.

        I won’t be surprised at all if 11/08/2016 was the last presidential election this country will ever see.

        That’s utter nonsense.

        • Tim Harris
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:36 am | Permalink

          No doubt you will, Taz, if you go to a right-wing website, hear the ‘exact same thing said about the left’. But could you bring yourself to look into the reasons for each side saying that about the other and ask which reasons are justified and which not? Otherwise your comment is of no value whatsoever. It’s on the level of the ‘this side said/but that side said’ of our craven political commentators.

          • Taz
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

            No reasons were offered, either by the original commenter or by you. What I responded to was nothing more than hyperbolic demonization of the “other side”, which is truly “of no value whatsoever”.

            • Tim Harris
              Posted November 23, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink

              Well, perhaps you should learn to respond in a more measured and responsible way.

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:28 am | Permalink

        Thank you for calling my statement “tripe”. Have you any idea how that sounds to the person who wrote it? Jebus.

  7. Les
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Lesson#1 of the election: If you call people racists rubes, they won’t vote for your candidate.

    • Somite
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      So you are saying they voted out of spite?

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

        Maybe it wasn’t quite spite. Many people, in many democratic countries, will agree that a party that despises poor voters and calls them names deserves a good lesson.

    • Christopher
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. People have hated Clinton since she was the First Lady, just as they hate Michelle Obama. They can’t give concrete reasons for the hatred, they always give mealy-mouthed statements on how she’s a liar and can’t be trusted, but can’t say why. They don’t need a reason, but they won’t pass up a convenient excuse.

    • Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:37 am | Permalink

      What? So people are so stupid that they will throw away their vote because some leftie insults them?

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

        I do not think it is always very intelligent to swallow insults. Insults are often a prelude to hostile action.

    • Filippo
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Regarding dismissive attitudes/words coming back to haunt one, I note on the TV this evening that Mr. “47%”/”Corporations-Are-People-My Friend” has huddled with the President-elect today regarding the position of Secretary of State.

      Didn’t Mr. Trump effectively tell (at least some significant non-minority fraction of)the 47% that he had their back?

  8. Marc Borella
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Pathetic. Uygur also has an interesting opinion of the Armenian genocide.

  9. Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    “it was more than a bunch of idiots and racists—KKK supporters some said—who simply wanted a President who shared their bigotry.”

    Of course it was more than that, but that’s been a mainstay of the republican party throughout my lifetime. Just look at my current state of residence Alabama where Kerry in 2004 took 25% of the white vote to Obama’s 10% in 2008 (while winning), policy differences don’t account for that, and I would also argue that a significant percentage of the 75% who voted against Kerry were also motivated by racism.

    While I agree the racism/sexism/xenophobia/muslimaphobia are sometimes overestimated as factors by the left, I would argue they are almost universally underestimated, as factors, to the point of outright denial in the face of the facts, by the right.

  10. Diana MacPherson
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Re: swearing. I think it loses its purpose when done excessively. I believe in swearing as a form of expression but doing it all the time robs you of the ability to use it that way.

    • Carl
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

      How true. People should also take what you observe about swearing and apply it to the use of words like racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, et. al. Several here obviously need to learn that lesson. When I hear “racist” thrown around these days, it has no more impact than “c—sucker” does in an episode of Deadwood.

      • Tim Harris
        Posted November 23, 2016 at 6:00 am | Permalink

        Yes, no doubt the word ‘racist’ has no impact on you even when it is being applied correctly. Bloody well grow up and learn to discriminate. I’ve probably broken da roolz in saying this,and if so forgive me.

        • Tim Hsrris
          Posted November 23, 2016 at 6:37 am | Permalink

          Also, race is, alas, and historically has been, alas, fundamental to American politics and to the American polity: there are even now a number of racial categories on US census forms. The fact that some accusations of racism are unjustified does not alter the fact that racism exists and has a pernicious influence.

          • Diane G.
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

            Maybe I’ve just drunk the Kool-Aid here, but it was my impression that asking for racial information on forms such as the Census’s was in order to get a true handle on what the actual numbers are of those who identify as various groups in order to implement programs in the right places. (Which is not putting it very well, but I hope my meaning can be discerned anyway.) This is partly in response to the activism of the entities themselves for race/culture-specific actions to address grievances, inequalities, discrimination, etc.

            (But of course I do agree with your broader point!)

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted November 23, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

              I thought that too. We have it in Canada as well.

            • Tim Harris
              Posted November 23, 2016 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

              I stand corrected, but it still seems a bit worrying…

              • Tim Harris
                Posted November 23, 2016 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

                I suspect that the information might be useful when one goes out gerrymandering…

              • Diane G.
                Posted November 24, 2016 at 1:20 am | Permalink

                Good point!

                Also, many of the potential beneficiaries of the programs mentioned don’t realize that’s the reason for the question and they themselves feel they’re being singled out and profiled. Then there are those who are mad because their particular Icelandic-Tibetan-Angolan (or whatever) heritage isn’t listed…

                Also, as I understand it, all the census data are available to everyone, which means that certain areas get different marketing targeting, etc.

                Sort of a can of worms; but then there are reasons to be able to say that a certain minority makes up a certain percentage of the population, and you have to get that data somehow.

              • Tim Harris
                Posted November 24, 2016 at 6:56 am | Permalink

                Oh, dear, I was reading what you said quickly and it came into my twisted mind as ‘many of the potential beneficiaries of the pogroms mentioned…’.
                No, I agree with you entirely, but nevertheless feel uncomfortable with this kind of oversight.

        • Posted November 23, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

          “Yes, no doubt the word ‘racist’ has no impact on you even when it is being applied correctly. Bloody well grow up and learn to discriminate. I’ve probably broken da roolz in saying this,and if so forgive me.”

          Exactly! There are instances where racist is used to silence, or simply in an exaggerated fashion, but far more often than not it’s an accurate descriptor, and almost always there is some degree of smoke. The best policy is to at least assume there is good reason to look more closely. Dismissing such claims out of hand as Carl apparently does is exactly what they alt-right types want, and why they propagandize the idea that racist, bigot, misogynist, xenophobe, et. al. are now meaningless buzzwords.

      • Tim Harris
        Posted November 23, 2016 at 7:11 am | Permalink

        A paragraph from an article (worth reading) in Mother Jones:

        ‘Some far-right figures see a burgeoning online presence as key to moving the “Overton window”—changing the range of acceptable rhetoric and behavior by pushing its edges out to greater extremes. It’s a fancy way of saying that what was once aberrant is now considered normal. “If you want to radically shift the Overton window, you need that far-right flank,” says white nationalist Richard Spencer, who is widely credited with helping launch the alt-right. “Trump has been declared a deplorable racist, and [yet] he won,” Spencer says. “So the whole PC game of ‘we can call you the R-word [Racist] and you will vaporize,’ that game has been shattered.”‘

        So racism no longer exists – how very post-modern.

  11. Craw
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    What many liberals just don’t get is that a lot of people voted for Trump worrying that they picked the wrong side. I am willing to bet they are all feeling better about their choice now. And a lot voted for Clinton in a similar frame of mind. Care to speculate on how many of them are reacting?
    Trump is winning the post election, and if this stuff continues will win it big (bigly). Then try opposing him.

    • Somite
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

      The mistake Trump supporters make is the assumption that Trump will do anything he said he would, much less anything that would benefit the middle class.

      What will happen is the largest wealth transfer since the financial meltdown.

      • Simon
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        I don’t think anyone can predict what Trump will do. I believe the assessment that he is a thin-skinned narcissistic black hole of emotional need constantly seeking ego stroking. He will do whatever he needs to satisfy those needs. He may be as likely to stick it to his wealthy peers as not.

        Could be that his presidency will not be any more detrimental to the disenfranchised than Clinton’s would have been and may actually go some way to declawing certain people in need declawing.

        • Carl
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

          Thanks for an intelligent and perceptive set of comments today. Given the readership here, this could sound like sarcasm, but it is sincere, and I appreciate the effort.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

      How is Trump “Trump is winning the post election”?

      He hasn’t made a competent pick for his cabinet yet, and the infighting on his transition team is so bad that people in the middle of it describe it as “a knife fight.” He’s named a crypto-fascist who looks like an unmade waterbed as the White House’s “chief strategist.”

      His plan for avoiding personal financial conflicts of interest is as incoherent as was his campaign rhetoric. And he wants top-secret security clearances for his kids and in-laws, which doesn’t bode well anyway you cut it.

      • Tim Harris
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:44 am | Permalink

        Perhaps Carl will explain… Or perhaps not. He is very sincere, and he appreciates people’s efforts.

  12. Scote
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    “2:09 Aida Rodriguez says that people don’t like Hillary Clinton simply “because she has a vagina”. (Repeats this claim at 13:41, saying that Clinton lost “because she was a woman”).”

    I don’t think that is “cringe worthy”. This is one of many examples of an over qualified woman held to different and higher standards than a man. She had to walk a tightrope in her debates to come off as strong, but not strident. And certainly if Hilary had done or said any of the horrible things Trump did she would have been out of the race, as she nearly did over *one* ill-considered statement about “deplorables”.

    Although I think there are many reasons that combined to create a Trump victory, I do think that if a man with the same qualifications and positions as Hilary Clinton had run head to head against Trump he would have won.

    I think the victory of Trump has shown us that the US is not as advanced as we thought and that racism and sexism are very much alive.

    • Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      “I think the victory of Trump has shown us that the US is not as advanced as we thought and that racism and sexism are very much alive.”

      I agree, and as a white male who recognizes this I am not offended when it’s rightly pointed out that whites, and men are the purveyors of these attitudes. Simply not recognizing this, and being offended on the behalf of all whites, and males is IMO an expression of a tacit form of racism, born of ignorance, in and of itself.

      • simon
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        Original sin then.

        If a woman with a personality had stood against Trump and lost then you might be justified in drawing those conclusions, but we’ll never know.

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 6:03 am | Permalink

        “I agree, and as a white male who recognizes this I am not offended when it’s rightly pointed out that whites, and men are the purveyors of these attitudes. Simply not recognizing this, and being offended on the behalf of all whites, and males is IMO an expression of a tacit form of racism, born of ignorance, in and of itself.”

        So, you have a “special” ideology that only people who “get it” can understand.

        But the Emperor is naked.

    • Craw
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      Overqualified? She was *overqualified* to be President? What’s a position more suited? She should run for god maybe?

      • Cindy
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:49 am | Permalink

        During the election it was said that HRC was “the most qualified candidate in history”

        More qualified than Obama? LBJ? FDR??

        And having kept an eye on twitter over the election, apparently Trump is *literally* Hitler and 50% of the population are *literal* neo-Nazis.

    • aljones909
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      Regarding whether the sex of the candidate is an issue. It might interest US readers to see who holds key political position in the UK.

      UK
      ==
      Prime Minister: Theresa May
      (Leader of Conservative Party in the House of Lords): Baroness Evans

      Scotland
      ======
      First Minister: Nicola Sturgeon
      also,
      Leader, Labour Party: Kezia Dugdale
      Leader, Conservative Party: Ruth Davidson

      Northen Ireland
      ==========
      First Minister: Arlene Foster

      Wales
      ====
      First Minister: Carwyn Jones (male)

      • Michiel
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:19 am | Permalink

        Then again, of course Theresa May did not win any election to get to the position she is in.

      • Diane G.
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:40 am | Permalink

        This is not lost on us. Nor are Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Corazon Aquino, Benazir Bhutto, Ellen Sirleaf…yes, Margaret Thatcher…

        But not the USA.

    • Diane G.
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

      I completely agree, Scote.

      And thank you, Mike, for getting it.

      • Blue
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

        As, Scote and Diane G, do I.

        Blue

        • Blue
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

          “certainly” IF “Hilary had done or said any of the horrible things Trump did she would” not have been able, as .any. major party’s candidate for the President of the United States, … … to walk down to the end of the block.

          Such are the “different and higher standards than a man”‘s. Tban .any. man’s.

          Blue

          • Diane G.
            Posted November 20, 2016 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

            And lacking those hooks, they even tried to smear her for her husband’s infidelities.

    • Posted November 21, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

      “And certainly if Hilary had done or said any of the horrible things Trump did she would have been out of the race, as she nearly did over *one* ill-considered statement about “deplorables”.”

      You missed most of the news for the last 20 years and did not watch any of the debates then?

  13. Brian
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t watch TYT’s election night coverage, but their explosive vitriol over the outcome is especially galling given how much time and energy they spent bashing Clinton during the months following Sanders’ loss in the primaries. Not that there aren’t criticisms that can and should be made, but TYT spent months amplifying the Right’s hyperbolic accusations of “most corrupt candidate ever!” and I’m sure many of their viewers were encouraged to stay home with their “principles” on election night rather than pull the lever for Clinton based on TYT’s frothy-mouthed anti-Clinton rhetoric.

    • Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      +1

    • VRandom
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:19 am | Permalink

      I don’t this criticism. Do you mean they should just stop criticising Clinton’s even if the criticism is valid?

      BTW, they bashed Trump much more. Cenk did 100 videos or something of “Loser Donald”, one video per day, attacking Trump. How can you in fairness level that criticism?

  14. nicky
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    “….can’t share some of the values of our opponents, at least find some common ground with them….”
    I can indeed find some common ground with Trump.
    1 – the Crimea is basically Russian, for quite a long time. It was ‘given’ to the Ukraine by Nikita Chrushchev, an (surprise, surprise) Ukranian himself.
    2 – If you are a ‘star’ many women let you get away with ‘grabbing their pussy’, a statement of fact (whether correct or not is another matter), and by definition not sexual assault, since they ‘let you do it’, which implies consent.
    3 – Islamic immigration on a large scale is not a good idea.
    4 – Infrastructure in the US needs a thorough maintenance/restoration.
    5 – ‘Obamacare’ is not a very good system (‘single payer’ would be better, immo)
    6 – PC-ness has often reached ridiculous levels. Especially these ‘disinvitations’ under pressure of organisations like CAIR are deplorable.
    7 – Assad is bad, but the alternatives are not better or even worse. Why are we so much opposed to Assad?
    8 – The US elections are rigged. From gerrymandering, ‘crosschecking’ and ‘provisional’ votes to great, highly suspect, discrepancies between exit polls and actual counts. In fact Clinton did not just win the popular vote, but the Electoral College too (based on the exit polls), if it were not for this ‘rigging’.

    So, 8 points where I fully agree with the Donald. Made my gambit, where is Trump’s?

    Note, we should be grateful we will have a, how shall we call it, ‘unhinged’ POTUS, not a religious fanatic, an Ayatollah, like Cruz or Pence (nominating Pence as VP was a very clever move immo, a life-insurance as it were: assassinate Trump and you will get Pence, a strong disuasion for would be extremist leftist assassins 😆 (albeit not necessarily for would be extremist rightist ones)).

    And yes, I do not think all Trump voters are ‘deplorables’, racists, sexists and bigots. I think at least half (😊) of them just wanted ‘change’, no matter what.

    • somer
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 1:46 am | Permalink

      We are so opposed to Assad because
      1* he is committing genocide
      and equally 1
      * He is NOT fighting ISIS – as I referenced in a number of postings here – from various sources including TIME magazine, not only has he long supported Sunni extremist groups in Iraq including ISIS and pro ISIS Baathists (a number of members of Saddaams family have been killed or captured fighting for ISIS), but when the Arab spring reached Syria, he let them out of jails and armed them, so that they would fight each other rather than him – especially ISIS. Iran’s strategy has been the same. ISIS forms discrete areas that are not or very seldom bombed/attacked by him and the Russians. The other extremists, together with non extremist Sunnis and Kurds – DO NOT FIGHT WITH ISIS and he attacks these as part of a general strategy to wipe out the sunnis as he’s doing in Aleppo now – the Russians just destroyed the LAST hospital in the rebel sector of Aleppo. ISIS ARE NOT in this sector. The pattern has been repeated throughout the war.
      Russia has always been flanked by sunni powers in central asia – all now long subdued under semi secular or Russia friendly dictators or in the case of chechnya granted independence in return for a Russia friendly non-salafist Islamic strongman (as opposed to a salafist jihadist shite). Chechnya is not a secular place and Russia is very supportive of this Islamic leader for practical reasons. On the other hand Shiite Iran has always been a natural ally to Russia and more so since it hates America.

      Now that Trump is President Elect Russia has stepped up calling on the US to “fight ISIS” with it by allying with Assad. Great way to turn the whole Sunni world against America whilst pleasing Russias great Shia ally. And of course there are a few in Trumps cabinet that would not be averse to war with Iran – and Trump has indicated he would not be averse to some confrontation, though he has not put an emphatic Iran hawk like Bolton in cabinet. Siding with Assad followed by some form of military action against Iran would really bring out the hornets against the west.

      And many in Russia despise liberal culture and would like America destroyed so that Russia can permanently resume a Cold war size hegemony
      http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-meaning-of-trumps-re-reset-with-moscow-1479406179

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:48 am | Permalink

        Well said. I can only register my dismay at reading a sentence like “Why are we so much opposed to Assad?”

        • nicky
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

          Was/is Assad committing genocide? I’m not so sure. If so, he’s pretty bad at it. About 300 000 dead (admittedly a horrendous number) in about 5 years. He should take some lessons from the Interahamwe, Kmehr Rouge, Mao or Nazi’s, who killed a multiple of that in a much shorter time. And note that many of those dead are soldiers of his own Alawite minority. There are not many Alawite males of fighting age left. Reason Hezbollah (a Shia group allied with Iran) supports him. It appears more like a bloody civil war than a genocide to me.
          Except for the YPF Kurds (which are basically limited to the North and North-East of Syria), I do not see any group that is not as bad or worse (eg Al Nusra , IS/DAESH) than he is.
          There is no doubt he is bad, but I specified asking why we consider him so bad *in comparison with* other factions as to specifically oppose him. Leaving that part out appears a bit like a distortion to me.
          I also note he was kind of willing to give up his chemical weapons under US pressure.
          Is even Saudi, which the ‘West’ staunchly supports, despite their systematic efforts to undermine western civilisation, any better than IS/DAESH? I think Heather Hastie already answered that question on her site.

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

        + 1

      • nicky
        Posted November 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

        There also is a slight step between not singling out Assad as the main villain, and actively supporting him.
        The only party in Syria’s civil war possibly worthy of actual western support (no massacres, no misogyny, some democratic values) is the predominantly Kurdish YPG, immo.

    • darrelle
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      Regarding your #2, if a man “just grabs their pussy” that clearly entails that consent has not yet been given. The action was taken first and then the grabbee had a choice of actions they could take in response, after the fact. That the grabbee does not decide to fight back, for example by kicking Trump in the balls as hard as she can, or by immediately reporting the incident to law enforcement, does not necessarily imply consent was given after the fact. Especially given the disparity in power between Trump and the women he claims to have assaulted. Grabbing pussies under the circumstances that Trump described is absolutely assault.

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        “Grabbing pussies under the circumstances that Trump described is absolutely assault.”

        Absolutely correct, but when you point that reality out the response is often that you’re a “politically correct cuck mangina snowflake who’s been triggered, and needs a safe space”

      • nicky
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

        Would have loved to have seen Trump being kicked in the balls under those circumstances.
        That being said, you should admire my tortuous efforts to find some points of agreement with our opposition, instead of breaking it down 😆. It is not that easy, you know.

        • darrelle
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

          🙂

        • Filippo
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          Trump could tell the woman that she had had the privilege of kicking the BEST possible pair.

          • nicky
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

            😅😅😅

          • Diane G.
            Posted November 22, 2016 at 1:46 am | Permalink

            And they’re yuge!

    • John Taylor
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:48 am | Permalink

      3 – Canada has admitted more Syrian refugees than the US has. We haven’t experienced any major problems.

      • nicky
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        Large scale is what has happened in Europe, even before the wave of ‘Syrian refugees’ (hyphenated because so many are not Syrian, nor refugees in the UN sense). No large scale (yet) in the US or Canada. In Europe there definitely are problems.

        • Diane G.
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

          Geography is destiny.

      • Carl
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        Maybe Canada is lucky or you aren’t seeing it. Sweden, Norway, France, Britan, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, and many others certainly have had some problems.
        If we can exclude immigrants who fundamentally disagree with American values (freedom of speech, no religious privilege, equal respect and dignity for all people, etc.) we should do so. Not merely out of a fear of terrorism, but an intelligent desire to maintain a free, open, tolerant society. And we can frame our vetting procedures in those terms, without referring to religion. People who want to come here because they admire America and want to assimilate are welcome.

        • Cindy
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

          From what I understand, Canada is doing well because refugees/migrants etc are integrated into existing communities. They are not settled into regions where they can form their own insular communities and isolate themselves from Canadian society.

          • Carl
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

            Sounds like wise policy.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

            The government heavily screened who would be allowed to come. For example, young, single men were excluded.

            • nicky
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

              Now THAT may be considered a wise policy.

              • Diane G.
                Posted November 22, 2016 at 2:10 am | Permalink

                I guess. But as the mother of a young single guy I feel for the mothers of young, single Syrian guys who just don’t want to get caught in the crossfire.

        • nicky
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

          As said elsewhere, as far as refugees go I would give females fleeing an Islamic country a default ‘accept’ status, and only refuse or seriously vet them if there is a particular cause, such as connections to a terrorist group or spreading Islamist propaganda.
          After all, females are a persecuted non-minority under Islamic rule.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

            Canada pretty much did this.

          • Carl
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

            Another group to give expedited entry would be known allies. People like translators and local guides who put themselves at substantial risk and are known to, and can be vouched for by American military or intelligence personnel, for example.

            • nicky
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

              I can fully agree there. It is a shame they and their immediate families- are not, and are abandoned -one might even say condemned- to a horrible fate.

      • Diane G.
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

        “3 – Canada has admitted more Syrian refugees than the US has. We haven’t experienced any major problems.”

        Yeah, well, they’re a lot madder at us than they are at you. 😀

  15. Posted November 20, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    — Very well stated, Lada Ray also called Brexit and Trump victories, as well as laying out a roadmap of the future of the Western world. Her insights are prescient, very logical and scarily accurate.
    Awesome report for more insight and understanding, watch Lada’s post-election video report… it’s a breath of fresh air, just brilliant analysis:

    https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/lada-rays-final-us-election-predictions-addendum-to-esr16-us-elections-and-what-will-happen-after/

    Trump is our Prez… God help us all.

  16. Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    “That misses the underlying dynamic that drove this election: whatever it was, it was more than a bunch of idiots and racists—KKK supporters some said—who simply wanted a President who shared their bigotry.”

    I think this meme has it right: Trump’s supporters may not all be racist, bigots, etc, but they all decided that those things weren’t deal-breakers in a president.

    • simon
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

      The KKK have been a busted flush for a long time, nothing more than the punch line to a joke. There main role right now seems to be boogeyman duty for the media.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted November 20, 2016 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

        Yes, the Klan is largely defunct now; it’s function has been usurped by the “alt-right.”

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted November 20, 2016 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

          its

        • Filippo
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

          The KKK made the front page of the Raleigh News & Observer. Some faction is making noises about marching.

      • Posted November 23, 2016 at 5:42 am | Permalink

        The fact that they still exist show that they are not what you say, Simon. It is only by hard work that they can sometimes be considered a joke.

    • Travis
      Posted November 20, 2016 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

      Or… perhaps the accusations of racism, xenophobia and sexism are completely overblown?

      • nicky
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        I don’t think they are overblown, but due to the liberal (no pun) spraying round (hippos marking their turf?) of these accusations by the twittering-twattering, chittering-chattering left (aka the regressive left, struthious left, authoritarian left, etc,) these terms have suffered so much (hyper)inflation as to have become virtually meaningless.

      • Posted November 22, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

        If so, please do support that position if you’d like to make that claim.

  17. Mikkel "rumraket"
    Posted November 20, 2016 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    I’m attracted to the show because most of the time, it isn’t like it was on election night.

    There are many things I disagree with the hosts on, but that would be true for ANY show or youtube channel I could watch. I watch it because it reports on subjects and gives a viewpoint you don’t seem to get anywhere else, even though that viewpoint also has it’s flaws.

    And then there’s the fact that the hosts some times vehemently disagree with each other and will debate points fiercely, rather than brainlessly read a script off a monitor full of political talking points handed down from on high.

    Yes, it can get very frustrating at times, case in point is the Cenk/Harris interview. I have watched the whole 3 hour interview now I think three times and have been frustrated to no end by it. While it gets to the subject of Islam, Cenk is prone to not only losing objectivity, but seemingly shutting down entirely in his head. Which is made all the more frustrating, because on other subjects I find his comments and views insightful and interesting. Particularly when it comes to how the political parties are in league with big business.

  18. Posted November 20, 2016 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    I think more and more public media has become tailored to the tastes of hyper partisans.

    I think the left needs to learn how to appeal to and persuade people who are less engaged in politics and less committed to an ideology. As identity politics has evolved, it seems to be selling self-abnegating penance to people who are white, male, or western; almost like a recycled doctrine of original sin.

    Some of the messages work when they are preaching to the choir, but I think they often seem strange to someone who is less familiar with the doctrine or the stylized language of identity politics.

    In the past, I think the left had more people who knew how to craft messages to appeal to more demographics such as poor, working class, or rural. I think even when we have a policy that supports these groups, the message is often delivered with a style that works better with the more educated and urban.

  19. Posted November 20, 2016 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think the majority of the country is stupid, but there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. I’m sure there are well educated people out there who voted for Trump and just overlooked his lack of experience, his numerous faults as a person and businessman, and the fact that he lies (or spews falsehoods out of ignorance) around 80% of the time he opens his mouth or sends a tweet.

    There are a lot of people out there to which ignorance can be applied. Look no further than the fake news and memes that circulate about the Clinton Body Count, Saul Alinsky, The Muslim Brotherhood, Birthers, etc. I’d put good money down that there’s a lot of overlap between he people who buy into those conspiracies, people who deny evolution and evangelicals who voted Trump. No…stupid is not the right word for this, but I don’t see how you can’t pin a significant portion of it on an ignorant electorate who fails to be able to separate reality from nonsense.

  20. kelskye
    Posted November 21, 2016 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    One would hope this is a learning opportunity for the left to look at how to identify with the electorate, so that these kinds of results don’t happened again. Instead, from everything I can see, the regressive left is doubling down on the bigotry / racism analysis. Pity.

    • nicky
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

      In order to prevent these kinds of results again you have only 3 non-exclusive options:
      1- fight voter suppression, gerrymandering, covertly discarding votes, ‘provisional’ votes, the ‘crosscheck’ abuse, etc. etc. The real electoral fraud. With the present GOP dominance in all parts of government an uphill task.
      2- Get A Dem candidate that is as promising as Obama was, having so much support as to overwhelm the fraud, which would mean a 5 to 10 million extra voters. Same, but for many candidates and ‘in scale’ comparative voter dominance, during the 2018 interim. Highly unlikely.
      3-fight Trump’s (non-) election in the courts and EC. In a civilised democracy that might work, but not much hope there either.

      It appears we are, how shall I put it, buggered?

      • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

        Much of the support for Obama was irrational. After his victory, I’ve read many posts (including some by my otherwise rational blogger friends) how they wept with joy, and – attention please! – how he would make history even if he wouldn’t actually do anything. (The Nobel Committee apparently shared the latter opinion.)

        Such events are very difficult to reproduce.

      • kelskye
        Posted November 22, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        That seems just as pointless as writing off Trump supporters as racist. Why not do something to address the voters’ concerns instead?

        i.e. shouldn’t the democrats be trying to come up with policies that resonate with the working and middle classes who abandoned them this election but voted for Obama?

        • nicky
          Posted November 24, 2016 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

          Well, one could argue my second point touched that.

  21. Dimitris Klaras
    Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    This “Young Turks” guy refusing Armenians genocide (one of the many committed at this era) by Ottoman government, as I remember, and by then “Young Turks” leadership:

    Akçam, Taner (2012). The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press.

    This book is full of Ottoman state documents about the state organized (like in case of Nazi with “Jewish problem”) genocide.

    Akçam, Taner is an academic of Turkish descent who cannot visit Turkey because of danger of arrest and imprisonment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taner_Ak%C3%A7am

  22. Echo Bravo
    Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:22 am | Permalink

    As Michael Moore said, “it’s a big ‘F*** You’ ” to all those elite power players that took their good paying labor jobs to other countries and force them now to work three jobs at places like Walmart for 8$ an hour so they can afford the same things their less educated parents were able to provide for them. When you have people like Chuck Schumer who literally said “for every blue collar worker we lose in western Pennsylvania, we pick up two or three Republican voters from the suburbs of Philadelphia. The same will go for places like Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin…”. They, corporate Democrats, abandoned their working class base to go after Republican voters. That’s why they lost.

    • somer
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      I think thats the main reason

    • nicky
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

      I do not think so, the main reason was/is electoral fraud, as illustrated by the exit polls.
      Clinton won Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Florida according to the exit polls (not sure about Ohio’s, but it would have given her well over 300 electors), which actually are more reliable than the official, ‘purged’ count.

      Ironically, the US justifiably protested the Ukranian vote precisely because of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official count, a reliable sign of vote-rigging.

      • Diane G.
        Posted November 22, 2016 at 1:18 am | Permalink

        I always suspect that the R’s insistence on the existence of voter fraud (always on the part of the Dems, of course) is really just a smoke screen to draw attention away from their own machinations.

        And specifically this time, if Trump’s running-on about a Dem-rigged election was part of a strategy to divert attention from the real rigging (by voter suppression, if nothing else) by the GOP.

        • nicky
          Posted November 24, 2016 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

          Yes, appears indeed to be the case.

  23. somer
    Posted November 21, 2016 at 4:39 am | Permalink

    I thought most of the commentary was petulant and juvenile – the youth appeal is surely based on stroppy rebellion but not information. Cenk announced he wants to smash up the Democrat National Convention and go on a rampage but has nothing positive to say and neither did the others.

  24. VRandom
    Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    TYT is generally a very good show and you should not make an opinion based on the anti-tyt crowd. It is pretty easy to see that there are a lot of anti-tyt trolls (just take a look at their comment section).

    Cenk is very often very objective and rationale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZhjp3hDIJQ

    And regarding Sam Harris interview, I did not find it so bad but perhaps that is because even as an anti-Islam atheist ex-muslim, I find Harris’s ideas about Islam very simplistic and not very well-informed. In general, I am not at all impressed by various arguments put forward by Harris and most of them are lazily thought out, even though I sympathize with his position more (i.e., that left often turns a blind eye to the horrors of Islamic ideology).

    • Carl
      Posted November 21, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      If you got your impressionfrom Cenk, you might think Harris simplistic and uninformed. Cenk has often misrepresented Harris’s statements. Cenk is knows he is doing this, but blatant dishonesty is central to his makeup.

      On the other hand, if you came to these conclusions about Harris on your own, you are simplistic and uninformed, or just not very astute.

      • VRandom
        Posted November 21, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        You do realize that I am more knowledgeable than Harris about Islam right? Not only I grew up in a muslim country, I had to take many different courses on Islamic history, philosophy, and etc at the university level (by force, even though I was secretly a non-believer). I have read and listened to Harris and that’s how I got to those conclusions. And besides, it would be nice if you can provide some “blatant dishonesty” about Cenk.

        • Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

          “You do realize that I am more knowledgeable than Harris about Islam right? Not only I grew up in a muslim country, I had to take many different courses on Islamic history, philosophy, and etc at the university level (by force, even though I was secretly a non-believer).”

          Yes I’m sure the college courses you were forced to take while living in a muslim country gave you a very objective education about Islam. lol

          • Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

            I think it was the best education one could have about Islam.

        • VRandom
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          The material was biased obviously but still it makes you learn more about the religion and to have a deeper understanding. It also helps you learn the common Islamic talking points, the common practices and so on.

          Once again, I say that I don’t have a problem with some of Harris’s overarching arguments such as left turning a blind eye towards some aspects of Islamic extremism but his execution of arguments and his thought process is really very simplistic.

          • Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:59 am | Permalink

            “his execution of arguments and his thought process is really very simplistic.”

            If that’s what you think about Sam’s arguments on any topic you’re spending too much time listening to people like Cenk Uygur, and Reza Aslan, and not enough listening to, and reading Harris.

        • Carl
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:51 am | Permalink

          Blatant dishonesty:

          http://www.skepticink.com/flyingscotsman/2015/03/28/the-curious-case-of-cenk-uygur/

          I could multiply this almost endlessly, but most readers here will already know the story. Mike has chimed in already – he and I disagree on almost everything, but your characterization of Sam Harris is so absurd, it has rowing in the same direction for once.

          • Posted November 21, 2016 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

            “he and I disagree on almost everything”

            Well I suspect, and maybe you’ll disagree with me on this as well. :p That if we sat down, and discussed policy, or at least goals we’d agree on far more than we disagree, unless you frequent this site to observe the opposition, like I might read breitbart.

            • Carl
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

              We definitely agree on several goals. How to achieve them, probably not so much.

          • VRandom
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

            But Harris advocated, “a maybe nuclear first strike” in a hypothetical scenario. There is no way you can backpedal from that.

            Besides, your link is the one that does blatant dishonesty, because Sam Harris was not trying to “get to ethical bedrock” with the “nuclear first strike argument”. He was simply referring to the breakdown of the MAD doctrine against an irrational enemy. Mathematically speaking, Harris was right but practically speaking, his example is poorly thought out and full of holes, moral and rational.

            • Carl
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

              This has been gone over and over. If you can say Harris advocated a first strike, then you are just as bad as Cenk. You have no credibility – none. Taking what he actually said out of context, when just a hint of intellectual honesty should make you hide your face in shame. Thanks for clearing up any doubt anyone might have had about your knowledge or honesty. You, like Cenk, are worth no further attention.

              For anyone interested in the origin of this canard, see

              Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (starting around p. 128). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

            • VRandom
              Posted November 21, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

              Except that you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I wrote Harris advocated a “maybe nuclear strike first” which he did. If you insist on accusing others of misrepresenting others, you should try to not misrepresent others yourself.

        • Filippo
          Posted November 21, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

          “You do realize that I am more knowledgeable than Harris about Islam right?”

          That being the case, my kingdom for the final, penultimate answer to the following question: What is THE penalty for apostasy in Islam?

          • VRandom
            Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

            In most major schools of Islam it is death, although interestingly, it has not been mentioned in Quran and it is deduced from tradition.

  25. Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Tyt has lost their mojo. Cenk and Ana dominate to the detriment of everyone else. Their world view is that they are right and they only are right. First they supported Bernie and trashed Hillary. Then only towards the end they started pushing for Hillary. They are just like fox news of the left.

  26. Jackson
    Posted November 21, 2016 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the post. Had not heard of TYT…will look it up

  27. Posted November 22, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    People like TYT because it’s member driven and only accountable to it’s audience. Keep in mind that it’s not just Trump supporters that are angry about the way that politics are going lately. But while you focus on the more aggressive voices on the panel, there are more calm and moderate voices too like John Iderola. Also, a revolving serious of extremely diverse guest hosts. They also report on important stories and perspectives that the MSM does not.

    You also don’t focus on the work they do with Wolf Pack, getting progressives elected on a mission to get an amendment passed to get money out of politics.

    You don’t need to agree with someone like Cenk 100% of the time but there is a benefit to the perspectives and even his “call to action” attitude that also gets younger people more politically involved.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: