'The Squad' is Destroying the Democrats

Post Reply New Topic

I think we're good on genocide-deniers, thanks.

Where is the connection between "The Young Turks" and genocide denying?

They are not genocide deniers and the name is a reference to a common English word, meaning: "A young person who agitates for political or other reform; a young person with a rebellious disposition."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/young_Turk

I'm pretty sure Cenk have had to come out and say that he doesn't deny it, but that's always carried more than a whiff of insincerity with it. There have been several times in the past where he's conspiciously dodged the question when asked about the Armenian Genocide. Such as this one, where he shows off his spectacular lack of understanding of Communism, Socialism and Marxism instead of adressing the question.






Where do you think this "common English word" came from?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Tur ... n_Genocide

Cenk Uygur accepts the Armenian Genocide (go to 3:32 if it's not already there):



People have given TYT a lot of guff over the years, probably because it's the biggest online news show. TYT is certainly not perfect, but I think it's a good reliable show with a host, Cenk Uygur, who has a pretty good understanding of politics. In fact, Cenk Uygur called the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump, even as he strenuously worked to defeat Trump:



His argument is that we need someone who is also disruptive on the left to beat him, because the American people aren't interested in establishment candidates.

The Young Turks were rebellious against the Ottoman establishment. They wanted to implement modern and secular reforms. They were around in the late 19th century.

The Armenian genocide occurred around 1915.

I prefer The New Bomb Turks

I'm tired of being told what to think
I'm tired of being told what to do
I'm tired of f*****g phonies
That's right, I'm sick of you

Thing is that one side is no longer civil, so what does the other side still gain from continuing it's own civility?

Again, Obama did his best to make sure children WEREN'T treated like that. That he didn't completely succeed makes it OK for Trump to torture children? The ACLU went after Obama for this, BTW:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice ... t-families

Last I checked, Trump is the President currently. And his "zero tolerance" policy made the problem much worse. Thus, now we are going after Trump about it.

So, essentially, you guys are just playing butthurt Republicans who believe the only reason liberals care about these children is because they hate Trump, but that isn't true at all. It is unconscionable for this country to do this at all, and Trump has made the problem much worse.

We are GOING to respond to this, so quit your whining. We're not listening to it.

Who's whining? All I did was correct your baseless assumption. And yeah, actually I do think that hating Trump is a large part of the reason lefties pretend to care about the situation now, when they didn't several years ago, is to oppose Trump. They certainly didn't take Hillary to task for calling for a wall along the southern border, after a mass exodus of mostly children flooded out of Honduras, through Mexico to get into the United States -- a crisis that the Obama administration caused by helping to oust a Democratically elected leader, which led to a humanitarian crisis.

There's no difference between Dems and Pubs. The same s**t is going to happen regardless who the president is. It's time to peel off the partisan blinders once and for all.

No, we care about the children in custody. We hate that this is being done in our name.

I get, and respect, that you care. It's the Democratic political establishment that doesn't. Oh, they may give a lot of lip service about it, like they do about the climate crisis. But in the end they do NOTHING!

Also, Vegetable Man, can you clear up something for me? You mention that the corporate Democrats and Republicans are the worst and the biggest threat to the country, and that the attention on Trump is misplaced as Trump isn't so bad. But you yourself admitted that on this issue, Trump is at least as bad as the corporatists. (And in reality, he made the situation much worse: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... obama.html )

How do you reconcile these 2 statements?

Oh, I get that. They have a big tendency to cave, because in the end it's all about their donors and appearing "moderate". This is why we have things like Wolf-PAC, to get money out of politics, and the Justice Democrats to get people who actually care elected.

Nothing to reconcile. Let me reiterate, again, that we wouldn't have a right-wing demagogue like Trump if we had an opposition party to push back against neoliberalism. Propping up the status quo will only get someone a whole lot worse than Trump in a few years.

I never once stated that "Trump isn't so bad." Please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't see it so much as a mater of "caving;" rather they just don't care any more.