Oh my god cant BELIEVE what I just heard Cenk Uyger just say

[Eliot Rosewater]

Cenk Uyger on a show I listen to talking about ANY Democrat who takes a PENNY from Wall Street will NOT be supported.

Damn, I knew what I knew but wow, at least it is out in the OPEN now.

Amazing, simply amazing.

did I hear wrong?

Oh, and they can be pro gun, no problem but the ONE litmus test is no corporate or Wall street money or something like that.

I am hearing him by accident, I dont trust him AT ALL and would never listen to him but this was an accident.

Am I allowed to say that here about Cenk Uyger?

[WinkyDink]

1. This person gets one vote, right?

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. You are kidding, right?

You know that he runs a very large and influential political network or pac or whatever it is called, right>?

[WinkyDink]

69. Good for him. I don't follow Right-Wingers.

[obamanut2012]

164. Except he likes to crow he is a progressive

and presents as such, even though he isn't.

[George II]

199. As "progressive" as he claims he is, he has no qualms about taking money from conservatives.

[liberalnarb]

184. He's host of the Young Turks. I have a soft spot for them, but they've gone off the rails bashing

Dems and then there's all that jimmy dore crap

[cwydro]

136. "Large and influential"

Seriously?

[Orrex]

141. It's true

Of the five hundred people who work in my building, at least half a dozen have heard of him.

[cwydro]

144. Lol.

I hear ya on that one.

Most of my friends are not political, and NONE of them have heard of him.

I still remember what an ass he made of himself when his flight got canceled. That's the most I ever heard him talk.

[George II]

198. Large and influential enough to have gotten a $4 million contribution from rightwinger Buddy Roemer.

[Ninsianna]

19. This person has a successful track record of disseminating propaganda do to people

who lack the ability in critical thought or to do their own research. He's funded by conservative Republicans and he does an excellent job of advancing their goals by dividing Democrats.

[WinkyDink]

68. Well, I guess I don't read Republican propaganda enough to know all the players.

[Ninsianna]

106. One should look into the background of sources, you should always know the players

who are informing you. That's how you know what you're dealing with. You might be imbibing more Republican propaganda than you know. Fact checks usually help, ones that you do yourself. Always verify your source.

That's kind of the problem, people just repeat stuff, without knowing it's RW propaganda, and reject any evidence that disproves it. The sheer number of people who are *still* repeating crap sourced from Drudge to attack Hillary Clinton sort of illustrates this. Literally ran into it this morning on twitter, someone posted the fact checker site and chose to ignore the facts and glom onto the unverified thing that they liked. Was totally clueless how ridiculous they sounded, if they were a person and not a bot, that is.

[WinkyDink]

123. I've been a politics junkie since 1960 and JFK; I was ten. I need ZERO

advice from ANYONE about the subject, TYVM.

I'm not influenced in the slightest by overt, covert, subliminal, or RFID chip Republican talking-points.

I don't know about you, but I vote straight "D, " always have, always will.

[Ninsianna]

134. I vote D as well, but for somoene who has been a political junkie for decades

it's a bit odd that Republican propaganda isn't instantly recognizable particularly against individuals when it's been repeated for the past 25 years.

I don't know why anyone would think that you'd have to consume a diet of Fox news to recognize the RW BS that has been coming out of people's mouths lately, even those who claim to be Dems.

I wasn't offering advice, so calm yourself, it's a simple comment to make, especially when someone expresses wide eyed innocence about how anyone could possibly come across Republican propaganda when they're not reading a GOP press release.

Many people were indeed influenced by it and many are in abject denial that they were, even as talking points spill out verbatim.

I'm glad you vote D, sadly not enough people had your resilience and your common sense, which is why we're in the situation we're in.

[7962]

157. Are you saying Cenk is considered republican propaganda?

Or am I getting that wrong?
Many folks here have fawned over him for years. I'm not one of them, but I've seen it.

[pnwmom]

166. He takes money from actual Republican donors, and yet he has the gall

to say Democrats shouldn't accept any money from people who work on Wall Street, whether they are a bank teller or President, whether they are Republican or Democratic.

[7962]

173. wow, I never knew that.

And making such a blanket statement like that is pretty stupid of him.

[pnwmom]

175. For example:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

Buddy Roemer firm invests $4 million in Young Turks Network

By HADAS GOLD 04/16/2014 09:09 AM EDT

A firm led by former Republican governor and congressman Buddy Roemer is investing millions into The Young Turks Network to significantly increase its content, sales, and platform presence.

The investment of $4 million, with an option to go up to $8 million, came out of a conversation Roemer and The Young Turks Network founder Cenk Uygur had backstage before speaking at a conference about money in politics last year. The relationship between the conservative Louisiana politician and the founder of the progressive media outlet stemmed from both making the removal of money’s influence on politics their signature issues.

“One thing led to another, and it turns out we’re terrific partners for one another and that’s how it came about,” Uygur, who also has a PAC devoted to campaign finance reform, said in an interview.

In a statement, Roemer said his firm, Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC, has been looking for two years to find the best new media platform in which to invest.

[RandomAccess]

88. What Republicans fund him?

[Demsrule86]

95. Here you go.

"The Young Turks Network has just announced $4 million in new funding from an unlikely source: former Louisiana Governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer. The seed money,..."

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-young-turks-network-raises-4-million-from-former-republican-presidential-candidate/

[RandomAccess]

102. Thanks

[Demsrule86]

109. No problem. I used to watch their show everyday...really liked them.

[Ninsianna]

103. Buddy Roemer for one.

Cenk has a right wing past and present that bubbles out rather often.

[uponit7771]

3. Then "penny from wall street" becomes any donation by a democrat on walls street because the

... companies themselves can't donate directly.

Cutting ones throat to spite thy nose

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. I wonder if I am allowed to post support for the Democratic Party here or not

I bet my non stop support of the party is controversial here, what you wanna bet?

[uponit7771]

14. Yeah too many lpc trolls jump post that support the DNC openly

[NBachers]

41. You two just inspired me to contribute to the reviled DNC

[Demsrule86]

96. Good for you. I contribute too.

[WinkyDink]

67. I think that's an asinine, absurd, and demonstrably false thing to say.

[pnwmom]

128. On what basis? Otherwise your post is just name calling. n/t

[Ken Burch]

38. (on edit)it's likely that most wealthy Dems on Wall Street are to the right of most of the party

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:50 PM - Edit history (2)

They are the ones think we should be pro-choice, slightly green and vaguely pro-LGBTQ, but get into just as many wars as the GOP and leave the working and kept-from-working poor out in the cold. Other than maybe from the interns who bring the lattes, there's not going to be much of anybody there who has a Bobby Kennedy sensibility.

(post title edited because the original was too sweeping).

[uponit7771]

40. Come on, that's no where near true 10s of thousands of people work on WS & not all of them are MAGA

... Nation members.

I don't take the ".. took [amount] from wall street ..." seriously cause its at the least a purist slam seeing people who work on walls street want the best for this nation also.

Most of the leadership of walls street? Hell no, they're incentive is to loot but that's still not all.

Too much of the "... A came from B ... " can be used to divide the base as it has been used

[Ken Burch]

51. I didn't say they were MAGA Nation members. I'd say they're socially liberal economic royalists

They are liberal on issues that require nothing at all from the wealthy-they are antiracist, pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ-issues on which there is unanimous opinion throughout the progressive side of the spectrum-but right-of-center on anything that would cost the 1% anything-they're obsessive anti-tax increase, militantly anti-union, and not environmentalist beyond maybe having recycling baskets in the office.

We're not talking about the unpaid interns, or the lowest assistants on the payroll who make the Starbucks run each morning, here-we're not talking about the secretarial staffs-those people would be small-dollar donors and nobody is talking about banning them from kicking in $40 if they can scrape it together. We're talking about people with tons of disposable cash.

but do you honestly think any of them wants a revived War on Poverty? Or laws making it easier for people to unionize their workplace(union membership being the only means any working people have to defend their rights in the workplace)? Do you think those folks are willing to do anything to eradicate misery other than taking a selfie with Bono?

Perhaps Cenk's proposal goes too totally far, but how about this:

Would you at least agree that less than half of a Dem's donations should come from the corporate sector? That, if possible, that Dem should have more labor and small-donor donations than corporate donations?

[uponit7771]

60. "but do you honestly think any of them wants a revived War on Poverty?" YES !!! Especially the

... planners who meet with people often.

The people facing planners (not floor traders, they're bout screwed) understand people aren't saving what is needed and those planners still have quarter million dollar floors for their accounts !!

I worked in finance away from NY, there's NO WAY people can make the case that at mutt fund firms people are to the right ... they're bout as left as I could think.

I wish I would've stayed at those firms too, they're weren't the rest of the nation and they sure were not right wing havens.

For the floor traders and the hedge funds managers etc they're hyenas, they work in a different world ... that's not MOST of the people who work around the planning and the moving of money.

[bettyellen]

63. Wow that's a whole load of negative RW stereotypes about urban Dems! Also- secretaries are desks,

Last edited Wed Sep 20, 2017, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

not employees, dude. You really have no clue about how diverse most offices in NYC are, itsjust embarrassing. Liberal companies can have a bunch of conservatives work there, and conservative companies employ tons of liberals at all levels.


It isn't at al like you imagine, that sterotype of nobel savages and their brutish bosses. Get outta here w that

[Ken Burch]

75. Administrative support staff, then(I used the older term, because I wasn't sure the newer one

was familiar to most people-my mother did that work for decades, for the record, and I respect anyone who does do that for the work they do and the intelligence they bring to the job).

Nothing I said there was right-wing.

It's not right wing to point out that, while it's decent on a human level, it's not particularly transformative and progressive, to be pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ while being conservative on economic issues.

In any case, it's not going to be support staff making the kinds of donations we're talking about here.

[ehrnst]

188. I don't know what Dems you are talking about here:

"while it's decent on a human level, it's not particularly transformative and progressive, to be pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ while being conservative on economic issues."

Can you specify?

[Squinch]

71. I know lots of people from the NYC financial sector. Your post bears little relation to reality.

[Ken Burch]

80. There are probably individual people with humane progressive values with some sort of jobs

on Wall Street or at corporations...but are any of those folks ever going to be in major decision-making positions in the corporate world(at least while still hanging on to most of what they stand for)?

And are the people you know the ones who make the levels of donations our party insiders would be adamant about keeping access to?

I ask that because I've watched what that part of the system has pushed for, without let-up, without any compromise, without any sign of regret, since 1981-the total rollback of any notion that the non-wealthy are of value, that anything other than high short-term rate of return for investors still matters, that any sense of the common good should be preserved.

There's one party that embraces that endless push to self-interested ugliness-we are supposed to be the party that says "no-people matter as much as profits, the common good matters as much as gain for the few, those who aren't billionaires are not failures, are not worthless, and are not expendable". If we as a party are not going to say THAT...if we just settle for making the existing ugliness slightly less nasty for some...we aren't going to get majority support and win elections, because the vast majority of "winners" in the post-1981 world want to strip the planet of most humane values.

[bettyellen]

93. Again, impugning Dems- all since the eighties *cough cough* ?!?

We see you.

[Squinch]

145. This is clueless. In the past I myself have worked in a decisionmaking capacity in a

corporation, as I am sure have MANY who post here and live by Democratic values.

And yes, some are the ones that make large donations to the Democratic party.

You are saying that we should jettison all those Democrats who are corporate decisionmakers and who actually have resources that Democrats can use to their benefit.

I am sure that in your next breath you will be telling us, as you often do, that though you find such and such a Democrat to be satan's spawn, why can't we all just get along? But here we find that any Democrats who have responsible positions in corporations are not acceptable to you.

Pffft. Ridiculous.

[Ken Burch]

179. I've never equated any Democrat to "satan's spawn", or even thought in those terms.

And in the Op's after the election that some people had an issue with, I wasn't attacking anyone personally. In those, I was solely focusing on ideas that weren't working.

[Squinch]

182. Uh huh.

[Ken Burch]

183. You have no reason to question my saying that.

I've said harsh things during tough primaries, and said them about various candidates.

But they were mainly about issues-they were never personal hatred.

The toughest comments I made were about Kamala Harris(on a tiny number of occasions, and I've apologized for them)and HRC.

I don't despise either of them as people.

It's possible, based on what I've now read, that I might back Kamala in the primary, and I've also said many times that Hillary should be appointed to the Supreme Court by the next Democratic president.

If that isn't proof that I don't hate those two, what WOULD be?

[Squinch]

185. You do manage to take every issue and make it all about you and your history and your feelings.

And I have lots of reasons to question your saying that.

[Locrian]

162. nice post

I think you're seeing it as a system that is incentivzed to act as it does -

the total rollback of any notion that the non-wealthy are of value, that anything other than high short-term rate of return for investors still matters, that any sense of the common good should be preserved.

pretty much nails it.

we are supposed to be the party that says "no-people matter as much as profits, the common good matters as much as gain for the few, those who aren't billionaires are not failures, are not worthless, and are not expendable"

Despite good hearts, I see a lot of "good people" caught up in this system (above quote) that's not even being seen as a problem but as a sort of natural law like gravity. Not realizing we're slowly stretching a giant rubber band and when it breaks - and the system's illusion is broken- there's going to be a lot of people that finally get it.

[ehrnst]

189. "If we as a party are not going to say THAT."

..if we just settle for making the existing ugliness slightly less nasty for some"

Are you saying that's what Democrats who aren't to the left of you are?

[ehrnst]

192. For many on DU, lack of knowledge on a topic doesn't stop posting on a topic. (nt)

[snooper2]

120. Nice cut and paste don't you ever sleep

Jaws1 2 and 3 are on Netflix fyi 😀

[Ken Burch]

121. Not cut and paste. Just a sustainable argument.

What, in any of that, do you actually disagree with?

[snooper2]

122. Bad crappy songs by salty captain

[pnwmom]

130. No, Cenk WAS talking about ALL the money from Wall Street, which is nothing but

the donations of thousands of individuals who work there, including the "lowest assistants" and everyone else -- even the ones who donated to Bernie.

I do NOT agree that less than half of a Dems donations should come from the "corporate sector." Do you even know what a corporation is? Do you know that a 1 man firm can be a corporation?

Where do you think most labor workers work? AT CORPORATIONS. Where do you think most small-donation donors work? AT CORPORATIONS. Where do most AMERICANS work? AT CORPORATIONS.

More than half of US workers work for a corporation larger than 500 employees; when you add in all the other workers who work for smaller corporations, a huge majority do. So refusing to take any more donations from individuals -- beyond your arbitrary 50% -- because they work for corporations just doesn't make sense.

(Maybe your OP is based on a misunderstanding. Corporations and businesses -- no matter what their size -- aren't allowed to donate to candidates. Only individuals can do so, and all must adhere to the same donation limits as anyone else.)

https://taxfoundation.org/less-one-percent-businesses-employ-half-private-sector-workforce/

On the other hand, while only 0.4 percent of all firms have over 500 employees, this small group of businesses employs 50.6 percent of the nation’s private sector workforce, with most of those employees working for C corporations.

[stevenleser]

104. Not correct. Anyone who lives in the NYC area knows you are very wrong. nt

[pnwmom]

129. You think every teller who works in a Wall Street firm is from the far right of the party?

And every trust officer who manages people's IRA accounts? And every accountant?

You're flat wrong.

[Ken Burch]

135. I've made posts here distinguishing between the people you list there

And the ones I think Cenk is referring to.

The further down in ant hierarchy, the more progressive a person is generally likely to be.

At the top, there's a massive different situation than there was in the Sixties-an era when it was not that unusual for business types to support people like Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy or Shirley Chisholm when she first ran for Congress.

[LanternWaste]

140. It's fun to move the goalposts...

"I've made posts here distinguishing between..."

It's fun to move the goalposts when those goalposts don't validate our biases and our bigotries.

The important thing is you keep digging into your stereotype without offering any objective evidence to support it, and further maintain the pretense that your bumper-stickers are actual arguments.

[Ken Burch]

178. I distinguished my position from Cenk's from my first tweet in this thread.

His was too sweeping.

[ehrnst]

190. Yep. (nt)

[Fla Dem]

155. Ha, you can distinguish the ones Cenk is referring to. Not all listeners may have your insight.

Cenk pushes his "Dems are bad if they take Wall Street money" propaganda which seeks to divide the Democratic Party. He is a sheep in wolves clothing. Not all his acolytes are as astute as you seem to be in distinguishing and redefining what Cenk really means.

I personally have no problem with Dems accepting donations from Wall Street in any size. Why should we play with one hand behind our back? Dems are more apt to get rid of pols who play the quid pro quo game.

[pnwmom]

165. So what? The OP doesn't distinguish between them, and there's no way to distinguish between them

in keeping track of donations. We have a $2700 donation limit, and that applies to everyone.

For example, Bernie got many small donations -- and sometimes a series of small donations from a single person on the same day. Why would anyone do that? Who writes a series of 5 checks totaling $500 to the same person on the same day? Probably someone who is trying to disguise the total amount of their contributions. Was that person someone who could only afford to give $50 or $100? No -- the donations were reported in the FEC letter because the person exceeded the $2700 limit.

[Demsrule86]

152. My brother works on Wall Street. He is a dedicated liberal Democrat. This demonetization of

those who work on Wall Street or are even successful is ridiculous. My brother gives the maximum he can to candidates he favors and to the Democratic Party. And no, he doesn't expect 'favors'.

[ehrnst]

187. Got some data to back that up?

Along with some data about what "most of the party" thinks?

Can you quantify, "but get into just as many wars as the GOP" because I don't think there is a metric on that.

Can you give some examples of "Wealthy Dems" who think the way you claim they do?

Sources, please.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

132. But of course, aside from political contributions, Wall St banks can & often do make direct payments

I assume you would agree that it's a POLITICAL MISTAKE - not necessarily illegal or even unethical - for a future candidate to have accepted such payments, say, for example, giving closed-door speeches to Wall Street bankers, because of the bad optics involved.

Certainly, we can all agree on that... I would hope.

[HarmonyRockets]

4. Another one of these?

Really?

[rusty fender]

6. But it's okay for him

to take $5million from Republican Buddy Roemer

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. Are you allowed to mention that here?

[rusty fender]

18. Only if the truth is not allowed

on this site

[NurseJackie]

7. He's an idiot. He's also a blowhard jerk. He can pucker up and kiss my fat ass!

( * )

[cwydro]

137. Thank you.

Spot on.

[Me.]

9. As To Being Allowed...I Don't Know

But who is he to say?

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. I got in trouble somewhere for telling the truth about Cenk, it may not have been here

it may have been a youtube chat for an alleged liberal talker.

[Ken Burch]

39. If we take corporate money, we can't challenge anything in the status quo.

It means agreeing never to fight for the working and kept-from-working poor, officially embracing economic royalism and essentially ceasing to have a reason to exist.

We can win elections by actually making an effort to win the argument-it doesn't have to be about flooding the airwaves with slick ads.

We don't have to abandon those on the bottom to win.

[NurseJackie]

45. LOL! Define "taking corporate money". What does this mean precisely?

[Ken Burch]

59. Large donations from the corporate wealthy.

The kind of funding CEO's funnel into PACS.

The kind of thing that started happening massively after Citizens United.

Our party's tactics was to try to match that(we ended up with a fundraising advantage in 2016), and since we didn't do well in most of the elections where we did try to match it, so that fundraising approach fails the test of utility.

I don't think Al Franken takes much money from the 1%. A little, but not much.

And if Russ Feingold had taken it, he couldn't have stood for any of what he stood for anymore.

[NurseJackie]

73. LOL ... Absurd.

[Ken Burch]

76. How so?

What could Russ ever have done that was progressive and courageous, that made any real difference for the many, if he'd taken big donations from the rich?

What could he even still have stood for then?

[NurseJackie]

86. You're smart. Figure it out yourself.

[ehrnst]

191. oh, so now we are qualifying "large donations from the corporate wealthy"

Because donations from lobbyists are OK, I guess.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/03/09/19405/lobbyists-who-love-bernie-sanders

And large donations from "others" are ok.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=n00000528

And large donations from individuals representing large corporations are OK, I guess.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/warrens-top-donors-include-individuals-firms-represent-corporations/

[ehrnst]

186. So we unilaterally disarm financially?

Organized labor used to be the major funder of Democrats. No more. We have to make up for that loss, or we don't compete.

We use every financial tool at hand, then get legislation in place to negate Citizen's United.

And no, taking money from a firm doesn't mean that the candidate is in bed with them. It's like saying that if someone took you out to dinner, it means you definitely went home with them and had sex....

On the electoral side, the fact that Barack Obama received an unusually large percentage of financial-industry donations for a Democratic candidate in 2008 didn’t keep him from doing more to increase regulation in this sector than any president since FDR. One of my biggest allies in the effort to secure a CFTC majority for regulating overseas derivative activity was Chris Dodd, who received more money from banks than I did.

On the regulatory side, the work of Gary Gensler and Sheila Bair are strong rebuttals to the belief that officials are always swayed by their previous employers, or the hope of an industry job in the future. As chairs of the CFTC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation respectively, they were strict regulators and forceful and effective advocates for strong legislative provisions—even coming into conflict with other members of the administration who thought they were being too tough. Clearly, neither Gensler’s prior work at Goldman Sachs, nor Bair’s later joining the board of Santander, diluted their commitment to the public interest.
.....................................................

The last strand of this argument is the devastating effect that will result if candidates for elective office are punished by the left for accepting contributions from people in the financial sector—or, since, the logic is the same, from any industry we want Congress to regulate. Even more than the other two I have cited, this prong of the purity test amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given our unhappiness at the disproportionate amount of campaign money that heavily favors the right, why would we insist on making it worse? By demonizing finance-industry contributions, we’re effectively insisting that instead of 80 percent of the industry’s contributions going to opponents of regulation, it should be 95 percent or more. Is this money corrupting? In my own experience, it’s more reasonable to see it as a form of political self-defense unlikely to dilute their support for reform. For liberals to demonize those who do so is a needless self-inflicted wound for their cause. And as I will argue in my next column, it also has another, more subtle and important effect: It contributes to the alienation which in turn depresses the voter turnout we need if we are to succeed.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/bank-reform-barney-frank-wall-street-213412

[mcar]

10. Oh FFS!

The purity of the TYT crowd will be the death of us all.

[Ken Burch]

43. We don't gain anything from taking Wall Street money.

With a fundraising advantage last fall, we still had the worst possible results we could have managed, on every level.

[NurseJackie]

46. Which candidate is "taking Wall Street money"? Is this the same as...

... accusing Cory Booker of "taking pharma money"??

[Ken Burch]

56. Accepting donations from people on Wall Street, as the OP discussed.

And I didn't say that about Cory Booker, for the record.

But since YOU'VE brought up this subject...do you believe any person can accept pharmaceutical industry donations and then still be trusted to vote for the greater public good on healthcare issues, given that the greater good and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry rarely, if ever coincide?

[NurseJackie]

72. LOL ... Absurd.

[Ken Burch]

84. You can't just say "Absurd"...you actually need to support an argument that it's absurd.

What is absurd about anything I said there?

If Hubert Humphrey had taken corporate donations(as far as I know he didn't)how hard could he have fought for the poor?

[NurseJackie]

85. Yes I can. I just did.

[Hoyt]

79. Like support Sanders' Single Payer Bill that would cut drug reimbursement?

[Ninsianna]

99. Oh my ...

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H04&cycle=2016&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U

Someone received $265,373 from the industry in 2016.

So much for purity.

Or can we stop being stupid about all these silly accusations? Yes, you can receive money from individuals who work in an industry and still be credible about regulating it.

Happens all the time, just take a look at the voting record of any Democrat and compare with their FEC pages.

[sheshe2]

159. Thanks for the link. nt

[OilemFirchen]

160. Oh my.

Jill Stein received 6,000% more than Rick Perry.

I think I should be very disturbed about this.

[Ninsianna]

176. The people who are "very concerned" about those impure bastards who

accept money from Big Pharma should indeed very concerned.

Apparently even one penny <dramatic gasp> is enough to taint the motives of anyone! And money from the health industry? Why, it makes any healthcare plan any such impure person proposes utterly, irrevocably tainted, how can anyone trust such a person??

*faints*

[moriah]

125. Sorry for this particular example, as you didn't bring him up...

But can a politician take money from the DNC yet still consistently oppose them on many subjects? Apparently it's possible, as has been demonstrated by a much beloved figure by many. So obviously some politicians *can* accept money from people without being "bought".

Seriously, it's more than fair to criticize Booker for some of his pro-pharma stances. If donors and consistent bad policy are then connected, as they were with Booker, then it becomes relevant. But I'm not as familiar with his constituency and if he's NJ then they voted for Chris Christie -- I'm not as familiar with Booker as many, but hopefully he's more progressive on most issues than the person that state chose to govern them.

Without a voting record to go by I could understand donor scrutiny more, but if someone is voting the way I like or at least is likely to be an improvement over the Repukes currently holding an office, I'm not going to sit at home or vote for the Republican because the Dem took WS, Big Oil, or Big Pharma money.

Edit to add: My pragmatism is somewhat explained by me being a liberal in a red state. Unless they have a terrible voting record or other policy record that I truly feel will be worse than the Republican currently holding the office, I'm going to vote for the Democrat.

[mcar]

89. With all the crap we have facing us

This is simply ridiculous. People work on Wall Street. Lots of people. They donate $ to candidates.

This purity test crap is not helpful when millions are about to lose health insurance. P!ease exp!ain to me how Cenk, who takes money from Right wingers, is so pure.

P!ease explain to me how this Wall Street purity test will help us fight the Frog King and his minions.

Please explain to me how it is peachy keen to have a Wall Street purity test but we can't, oh no we can't, expect that our party and its supporters actually support women's rights.

[Demsrule86]

97. We need funding...and this demonetization of Wall Street is ridiculous.

[NurseJackie]

90. Exactly.

[mcar]

92. This line of argument is boggling my mind, Jackie

Now, of all times, we're hearing the Wall Street nonsense? Really?

The HHS secretary is taking a fricking private plane from DC to Philly but Democrats can't never, ever take one thin dime from anyone who works anywhere near Wall Street?

One wonders if some parties want us to lose.

[bpj62]

11. Absolute Purity Test

He was just on Deans show on XM and he said that any current democratic representative who takes any corporate money should be primaried because they are beholden to the donor and therefore are corrupt. Dean was arguing that we should take the house back first and then primary those reps but Jenk said we cannot wait any longer and that we have to get rid if the loser democrats asap.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. Thanks, that is what I thought he said. This will sink the D party for sure, which I believe is his

goal

[lunasun]

112. Many are trying from so many angles to primary successful incumbent democrats it seems

Another angle :where there is a vulnerable republican rep and it is already looking like a strong democratic challenger exists , bringing in a second candidate to have a primary race that will divide instead of unify dems against the incumbent republican vote

[msongs]

15. he is trying to make $$ promoting himself. whatever it takes nt

[TheDebbieDee]

16. I read recently in one of my FB groups that TYTs, The Nation Magazine

And a few other left-leaning sites had suspicious support from R(ussia)T(oday) to keep left-leaners split but it was speculation only - the poster didn't link to any articles or anything...

[ecstatic]

17. Cenk is a RW libertarian IMO

Like a broken clock, he gets it right maybe once a day, but that's it. He's all over the place and applying rigid litmus tests that aren't truly reflective of anything and/or lack context. That's the thought process of a simpleton. Empty suit.

[R B Garr]

20. Cenk needs to show us his taxes. All of these people undermining only Democrats

need to show us their taxes.

[R B Garr]

22. Ah, so only the Democrats are the villians in your webshow idea??

What a surprise.

[rzemanfl]

26. Welcome to DU. Here's the thing, Wall Street is in this Country. The Kremlin isn't.

Better the devil you know.

[Squinch]

74. What does that even mean?

[rzemanfl]

138. Sorry I missed the response. What did the troll have to say?

I am still recovering from Irma and went to sleep very early last night.

[Squinch]

147. More importantly. though, how are you doing in the aftermath?

The troll said: I am new here. Are we for Wall Street or against Wall Street?

[rzemanfl]

149. Thanks. We were very lucky here. Branches down and fence damaged, leaves off of trees from

salt spray, dirty windows. Power, phone, cable TV and Internet out for a while. I overdid the cleanup work and messed up my back, which is getting better. The whole buildup, evacuation, storm and cleanup was exhausting.

[Squinch]

150. Can't even imagine. Take care of your back. You don't get another! I always

ice a bad back (disc issues) and it works. And rest. You've really been through something very physically and psychically strenuous.

[rzemanfl]

153. I have been using heat and ibuprofen. Being 70 years old doesn't help.

I plan a nice, leisurely swim later. It is much better than a couple of days ago. Fortunately it held up until most of the work was done.

[Squinch]

154. I'm glad it's getting better. Enjoy the swim and do take it easy. This kind of event needs to

be processed and absorbed in all kinds of ways.

[rzemanfl]

156. True. Getting back into the swimming routine will help. n/t

[R B Garr]

77. Not clever or subtle at all.

Fail.

[comradebillyboy]

23. So The Young Turds get to establish purity tests

for Democrats? Didn't one of Cenk's employees accuse Maxine Waters of assaulting him? Yeah, I care what The Young Turds have to say.

[Demsrule86]

98. I don't care two fucks what a GOP funded has been working for Russian TV says...screwel him.

[Maven]

24. But it's OK for them to raise $20M in VC capital right?

http://www.businessinsider.com/young-turks-fundraising-venture-capital-criticism-2017-8

Where do they think that kind of money comes from? Not Wall Street?

[Docreed2003]

25. What did Dean say in response?

I'm assuming you were listening to Sirius XM progress.

[Ninsianna]

27. Well, this is awkward.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=n00000528

Display:
Federal data
Select source of funds:
Candidate Committee only
Contributor Total
Alphabet Inc $359,981
Microsoft Corp $169,329
Apple Inc $131,618
Kaiser Permanente $119,464
Amazon.com $105,852
IBM Corp $102,700
Boeing Co $96,681
AT&T Inc $79,500
US Dept of Defense $77,503
Intel Corp $76,395

[dogman]

32. Have you ever donated?

You do know your employer is required info? This info is not really informative over all.

[Ninsianna]

37. That seems to be a thing that the purists just don't quite get. Hoist on their own petard.

Cenk and his Injustice "Dems" can't live up to their own purity tests.

[dogman]

47. Exactly what this means, I would have to hear from him or his pac.

There is so much misinformation and sound bites that don't really tell us the story. Generally Wall Street investors can be differentiated and non-political donations could bring a different view of the candidates loyalties. I think the pac would have a way to discern these factors. I wonder who is an acceptable source for news? I tend to like his operation, but I have my own filter. The reason T-Rump gets away with his fake news meme is most people believe it about any news source they don't like, across the spectrum.

[Ninsianna]

50. Agreed, but his wife was actually attacking Cory Booker a few months ago

about his donors.

I linked the FEC page. One would think that the actual commission that tracks these things would be a reliable source. Mrs. Sanders disagreed, when she was trying to paint Sen. Booker as some sort of stooge of corps.

Agreed, people do tend to reject things they don't like, as in the example I provided. It's just this type of FEC filing that they use to attack HRC, despite the FEC stating clearly how they present their data. If the way you view the same data changes based on the person, then it's a clear indication that there is a bias and hypocrisy problem at play.

Cenk and TYT would be terribly upset that their favoritest Senator would fail their purity test and would fall under the definition of a "corporatist" who must be primaried.

Hence the hoist on their petard.

[dogman]

54. It's easier with Corey, he has an actual record to judge him by.

It's interesting how that record changes as he appears to seek higher office. Speaking fees and book tours and free media are other indicators. The real story for Bernie is the influence he has had on other candidates positioning.

[Ninsianna]

58. Cory's only been in office for 4 years,

one would think that someone who's been in office for decades would have an actual record to judge them by.

I think that's a concocted story, it was the storyline that actually ignored the long held positions of other candidates, and the party.

People actually think Single Payer is something new that Bernie just came up with, when it's been introduced every year since 1935 by Democrats, and Universal Healthcare and Single Payer were hotly debated and discussed by his opponent when she was first lady.

It's very interesting how book tours and speaking fees are evil for one person who should "shut up" but applauded for another who did the actual things that one was accused of.

[dogman]

66. Cory has been in elected offie longer than 4 years.

I thought his local years had pretty good results. I did not like his vote on drug importation. I found them to protective of the NJ Pharma. I think that might be why he is moving left on health-care for all, like others who are moving toward the National stage. I don't think anyone expected Bernie to win, but I was grateful for his effect on National Democratic policy. I am glad that even though he may be too old by 2020, his policy ideas will be there. I don't think Bernie takes credit for UHC, he readily points out it is available in the rest of the civilized world, but he has introduced it to the public forum again. His opponent, as you point out had supported it, but seemed too have surrendered on it. It is the Party as a whole that needed to revisit it. Speaking fees and book tours can still be scrutinized by their sponsors. After the Defense bill vote, I am still glad for Bernie and inspired that a couple of Democrats have joined the sanity. Bernie has generally voted with the Dem majority but has shown his independence and principle on votes like this. I think this appeals to many voters who are ignored by the Party and the media.

[Ninsianna]

81. Sure, he was elected in 2006, it's not like he's been in office since the 1970's

when Cory was 2 years old. It's odd that you're saying only Cory has a record.

I think his plan was left, so the attacks by Mrs. Sanders were very strange, and people were extremely hostile when it was pointed out that when you compare their FEC pages, her husband failed her purity tests.

He didn't have much of an effect on Democratic policy, he just appropriated the platform of the party and convinced people that Democrats were equivalent to Republicans, which I'm not at all grateful for, since 12% of his voters went Trump and many stayed home.

Again, not his policy ideas, Single Payer has a longer history than Bernie, with Democrats, since 1935. I'd appreciate it if he did have policy ideas, but sadly I don't think that he knows what those are, he has slogans, no idea how to make a plan, figure out how to fund it and how to implement it. Those would be policy ideas to consider. We can look back to the 90's when a Democrat you might have heard of, who was First Lady at the time, hammered out some policy ideas. She didn't need his effect, she'd already been there and done that and knew the intricacies of that very important question "how do we achieve these goals?"

Bernie takes credit for Single Payer, which long predated him, and UHC is being attributed to his effect, as you've just done, it's Democratic policy and it's in the platform and has been for decades.

We know it's available in many parts of the world, we sorta have been having this debate for decades. His opponent hadn't given up at all, she was detailing how we actually could get there by building on the ACA, to close that coverage gap. She knew that once we did that, having that discussion about Single Payer etc. would be easier. Build up, not burn it all down and start over for something that might be perfect, if we ever figured out those pesky details.

She didn't surrender, she just acknowledged the reality that Republicans exist and that they kept Dems from waving magic wands to fix things.

The party as a whole was working on it, fighting those battles and working hard to close that gap.

If we actually scrutinize VOTING records, and book tours and speaking fees, and the source of the "corporate" donations that upset so many when it's not their favorite guy who is getting them, we'd realize that we should perhaps not be so grateful to people who claim such purity and still vote to fund wars, bring home the Defense pork and engage in all sorts of things that are not pure at all.

I'm not sure that the voting record hows principled votes, funding wars, various gun votes, against rape victims, in favor of child molesters, against Amber alert (how does one cast a principled vote against these?). The history with Lockheed Martin alone punctures this view, and the mayoral history (if we're going to look at that) really is problematic on many levels.

I think that many voters don't do their due diligence, they don't know much about the actual records of people, they do listen to propaganda and rather unprincipled attacks on twitter and the like. I think that people whose FEC records show corporate money should refrain from throwing stones at other Senators who receive the same type of funds. It just underscores that lack of honesty, integrity and principle, that sort of hypocrisy promotes.

I found Jane Sanders attacks on Booker earlier this year to be rather unprincipled and dishonest. I was actually appalled that a Senators wife would engage in that sort of thing on such a public platform when the evidence really exposed the level of hypocrisy.

Those who are actually doing their homework now are understanding what principles are and looking at the behavior candidates, their supporters and asking questions and looking at the facts. We're learning how poorly the media failed us with the vetting, and the fact checking on every front. I'm grateful people are finally starting to wake up and call this out.

People like Cenk and "not one penny" purity tests when applied to their candidates prove how ridiculous the unprincipled attacks truly are.

[ehrnst]

194. You mean his vote on the symbolic amendment on drug importation

that didn't take into account that Canada doesn't inspect any drugs that come into Canada that aren't meant for Canadian citizens? And they don't have the budget to start inspecting drugs that come into Canada that are destined for export to the US?

That amendment?

When there was an actual bill that was introduced by McCain, and that lady whatsherface Klobuchar that addressed that?

And yes, Bernie took credit for being the only candidate for UHC in 2016 on Colbert recently, when that was not true.

I would say that Corey Booker showed more independence and principle.

[druidity33]

82. wth?

You know of course that those numbers only mean that people who worked at those companies donated to that candidate... not that those companies in any way endorsed or contributed to that candidate.

I'll repeat, those numbers you just posted only mean that people who worked at those companies donated to that candidate.

So i don't see whatever insinuation you are trying to make about being awkward... not the numbers you are posting because they are irrelevant. Want to compare those same numbers, by corporation, to every other candidate? I'm sure the Googs will supply...

[Ninsianna]

91. Yes, well *I* know that but a great many people hissing the word "corporatist"

do not.

Some people really do need an education about what Cenk was saying about "not one penny". They're in for a rude awakening.

I'm really glad some people know what the FEC actually reports, apparently many are confused when they start hissing about corporations and donations and such.

Well, Cenk was one of those people who didn't know these things, and his candidates and those his employees push, don't meet his own criteria.

So, my point was clear, Cenk is a hypocritical ignoramus who is hoist on his own petard. If only people did check the "googs" before the spewed forth, but they chose not to, when they were attacking Cory Booker etc. Even Senator's wives saying nasty things on twitter don't consult the googs or read the WHOLE page of the link I posted, which explains exactly how they report things, they just lost their minds when they saw a corporation.

Cenk and his ilk are clowinish their fake, right wing corporate funded hypocrisy, I'm glad you figured it out, without the "googs".

[ehrnst]

193. SHHHHHH!!!!!!!

There are some who must not be outed with facts in a way that damages the feels of others.

[mopinko]

28. even if they represent new york?

citizens of new york who work for wall street firms, even if they work in the damn mailroom, arent allowed to donate to their representatives?
m'kay.

jebus what an idiot.

[LexVegas]

29. He is a joke. nt

[BannonsLiver]

30. Oh piss off, Cenk

You're like a carton of milk that expired 2 years ago.

[JHan]

33. ....

[6000eliot]

31. As opposed to taking money from the Kremlin,

the way he does.

[JHan]

34. their selective purity tests will be the death of us all. Which is why I ignore TYT

[ProudLib72]

42. Yeah, I thought TYT was anathema around here

Or am I projecting again?

[JHan]

53. Some still post their vids.

Some still flock to TYT, though I'm mystified as to why. I don't need Cenk to tell me Trump is crap, if only he would limit it to that...

Personally, I couldn't stomach supporting people who indulge jimmy dore , trafficker of seth rich conspiracies, and Michael Tracey.

I was also unimpressed with Cenk imploring his followers to vote for the Dem candidate - where he overstated his argument - after spending months trashing her and engaging in sly misinformation.

In the time of Trump, he fans the flames of divisiveness among those opposed to Trump. And a sliver of a loss across three states last year is his newest justification to target Democrats.

[uponit7771]

61. +1

[Ken Burch]

35. Why totally reject the concept, though?

I disagree with him about the "pro-gun" part(defending how exactly that is defined-we should never support Second Amendment absolutists, but there are very few districts in this country where anyone supporting an all-out ban on any form of guns, including hunting weapons, can be elected), how many people currently active in electoral politics would that seriously affect?

Are there any areas of the country where a Dem can only be competitive with corporate or Wall Street money?

If you'd oppose a ban on corporate/Wall Street donations as an absolute, would you at least accept that you should be required to get a higher share of small-donor and labor donations than corporate or Wall Street donations?

I'm open to mild compromise here, but we can't just have no minimum standards on this at all, Eliot. If most of a candidate's donations are from the rich, how many times can that candidate be trusted to be on anyone else's side?

[tammywammy]

52. I work for a large corporation in an industry and for a company widely disliked on DU.

Should I not be allowed to donate? I only donate to democrats. I have to put my employer on the FEC form.

[Ken Burch]

57. I'd personally be for allowing you to make small donations, say of $50 per candidate.

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

And we're not really talking about people like you here-we're talking about CEO's and about higher-up employees who have made large donations, on the direction of the CEO(perhaps in fear of losing their jobs)that were then bundled into PAC donations.

Would you be willing to accept something that made it possible for those in the lower corporate strata to be small donors but at the same time bar the kind of thing I describe in the first paragraph?

(post title edited to clarify that I didn't mean to limit it to 50$ TOTAL per year.)

[tammywammy]

87. I'm perfectly fine with the individual limits as they are.

Individuals are limited to $2,700 in the primary and then again in the general election.

[Ken Burch]

119. to clarify, I meant $50 per candidate...not overall.

n/t.

[TexasTowelie]

115. So Tammy is limited to less than three-fifths of a person?

That's very progressive.

[Ken Burch]

118. Where did THAT come from?

That's the amount I think EVERYBODY should be allowed to donate to a candidate.

[pnwmom]

127. Because there is no such thing as corporate "Wall Street money" going to candidates' campaigns.

(The issue of PAC money is entirely separate -- because of the Supreme Court decision, corporations are allowed to donate to PACS. But this isn't what Cenk was talking about.)

By law, Wall Street corporations cannot donate to candidates.

There are only legal donations from individuals, all limited by law to the same maximum as any other donor in any other field; and the people whose donations get lumped together because they work for financial institutions range from janitors, to bank tellers, to stock analysts, to high flying stock salesman and managers.

No doubt some of Bernie's $50 donations came from people who work on Wall Street. They are entitled to have their voices heard through their donations as much as employees of any other corporation.

And any politician who represents NY is going to have a significant fraction of donations from INDIVIDUALS who work on Wall Street because NYC is the financial capital of the country.

[m-lekktor]

44. AAH thanks for reminding me to catch his show later!!

[asuhornets]

48. He was on Mark Thompson on Sirius--saying pretty much the same stuff

like Nina Turner for President. He has new time slot at 9pm on Sirius 127.

[Historic NY]

55. He was bought off a long time ago by Republicans..

https://thedailybanter.com/2014/04/cenk-uygur-just-took-4-million-from-a-conservative-source-but-hes-still-a-better-liberal-than-you/

[JCanete]

62. a conservative who also has an issue with the influence of money on the Republican party, who

spoke to this matter being the reason he was funding TYT. I have no problem with that.

[JCanete]

64. I respect their effort to get money out of politics. Its not like they are supporting republicans

who take money from Wall Street. It's not like there's a double standard. Feel free to disagree. Lots of people disagree. I think its a noble effort and while I might vote for Dems who seem to closely tied to big money interests, I am also less likely to donate to their campaigns.

[JHan]

83. If they want to take money out of politics they need to slam Citizens United day and night.

They need to fight for the Supreme Court instead of drawing up bullshit equivocations between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans philosophically take a different view to campaign finance reform - It's not like Cenk doesn't know this.

Democrats already want to reverse Citizens United, FEC vs McCutcheon, with Pelosi wanting to even reverse Buckley v. Valeo,.

But I get why they don't do this - it means they can't bash Democrats and those who fail to meet their selective purity tests.

They raise their profile and enrich themselves through constant discontent.

[JCanete]

101. That money affects both sides of the aisle is not equivocation.

It is pretty damn certain. Our policies may be better, but our inability to mount an effective rhetorical attack on the GOP has so much to do with our own financial ties. How much worse one side is than the other isn't in any question, but money doesn't give a fuck about letters behind a name. If the R's ever start to be not worth the investment, that money will go elsewhere. It already does go to democrats to hedge on that bet already. If we let that practice persist, well of course it affects who rises to prominence within our own party. Even if we want to hold our democrats in the highest moral regard and assume that they don't do some chasing of that money by making compromises, compromises have already been made by the party by making big money welcome. Its in the door.

TYT obviously has no love for Citizens United, AND urged people to vote for Clinton in-spite of their misgivings, because of things like the supreme court, to say nothing of the insanity that is the Donald.

But yeah, they couldn't possibly believe what they're saying, and I guess I couldn't either.

[JHan]

110. that's contradictory ..

on the one hand you say: " our inability to mount an effective rhetorical attack on the GOP has so much to do with our own financial ties. " and then you say "How much worse one side is than the other isn't in any question, " EDIT: The first statement is making an insinuation about the motives of Democrats, you might as well say Dems are just as bad as repubs on this issue.

We already agree big money is a problem in politics, but the party that made it even more problematic are not Democrats, but Republicans. To argue otherwise by saying that because so and so got money means Dems and Republicans are the same is spinning a false narrative like claiming Dems and Republicans are "Tweedle Dum" and "Tweedle Dee" - they are NOT as you noted.

My view is that the system is corrupt, one side is more responsible for that. The ideal solution are publicly funded elections but we aren't there yet. When facing a well-funded, synchronized opposition, I'll lean a bit on Alinsky in such imperfect times

"Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them." ...

"He who fears corruption, fears life." - I interpret this to mean that we may need to use imperfect tools to further our agenda. It seems Republicans understand Alinsky better than some liberals do.

[JCanete]

113. how is that contradictory? I completely disagree. Democrats have an entirely different base that

they work with. They can't be authoritarian and they can't ignore the plight of the poor, but they can't mount a very good attack on the deleterious influence of the rich because our party leaders are themselves also dependent on that influence.

Who is arguing that the Republicans aren't the biggest problem? People who are frustrated with the democrats are frustrated with the way they are fighting this battle. There is no talking to the republican leadership. There is no withholding the left can do to them because the left is not the Republican base. They want democrats to fight right. They want them to fight in way that, I agree, would be more effective, and less ambiguous as to where their heart is.

I agree with you, when faced with bad or less bad, or less bad and good, etc. Always choose the better option. But when faced with a supposedly better option which you think in some ways actually enables the worse one and certainly preempts a better one, that makes the solution far less cut and dry. And if that is what a person is weighing, then no, it isn't selfish to demand that the democratic leadership remember the issues of the left if it wants their vote.

[JHan]

116. " because our party leaders are themselves also dependent on that influence. "

In other words you can't trust Democrats on this issue , that's the point you are making.

You do not trust Democratic Leadership on this, and despite your careful language to hide this, it's what you're arguing. You really might as well say they're no different to republicans.

"They can't be authoritarian and they can't ignore the plight of the poor, but they can't mount a very good attack on the deleterious influence of the rich because our party leaders are themselves also dependent on that influence. " Do you know when the SCOTUS decisions I mentioned were made, what motivated the rulings, and campaign finance law?

" They want democrats to fight right." - fighting "right", we're in a war.

I recommend you give Alinsky a read. ( EDIT: you don't have to agree with all of him, I don't, but this idea of fighting nice and "right" against the opposition to suit some self righteous belief and apply purity tests to say a Senator getting aggregate donations in a state dependent on a particular industry, isn't applicable anymore. The opposition has more money, more connections and influence)

[JCanete]

124. The opposition will always have more. Giving money to dems is big industries ways of

hedging their bets. Putting in place a backup plan.We are perpetuating a system that gives unfairly to one side more than to democrats, because too many of our own democrats have decided that the only way to change the system is to play by the rules of the system, which means get cozy with those king makers. .

I don't actually disagree with this if you take their efforts hand-in-hand with those outsider lefty influences that then apply pressure to those insiders to take bigger chances, because of course, barring some sort of actual revolution or coup, non-establishment figures are never going to be seated in official seats of power because they are railing against the system rather than operating within it.

Also, I think that many and maybe most of our democratic politicians(I will not say all) have very altruistic intentions, and generally speaking are not sociopathic, whereas, fuck, most republican leaders are or are damn near sociopathic. so no, I don't really think they are the same. I do think their choices have empowered republicans rather than diminished them over the last few decades. I think this happened because they've tied their own hands and claimed that their hands are tied all in the service of expedience and pragmatism.

Oh! sorry, yeah, I will try to find time to read Alinsky.

[pnwmom]

169. No, TYT is not overtly supporting Republicans. TYT is taking money FROM Republicans,

while advocating inane policies such as Democrats shouldn't accept any money from people who work in jobs on Wall Street.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

Buddy Roemer firm invests $4 million in Young Turks Network

By HADAS GOLD 04/16/2014 09:09 AM EDT

A firm led by former Republican governor and congressman Buddy Roemer is investing millions into The Young Turks Network to significantly increase its content, sales, and platform presence.

The investment of $4 million, with an option to go up to $8 million, came out of a conversation Roemer and The Young Turks Network founder Cenk Uygur had backstage before speaking at a conference about money in politics last year. The relationship between the conservative Louisiana politician and the founder of the progressive media outlet stemmed from both making the removal of money’s influence on politics their signature issues.

“One thing led to another, and it turns out we’re terrific partners for one another and that’s how it came about,” Uygur, who also has a PAC devoted to campaign finance reform, said in an interview.

In a statement, Roemer said his firm, Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC, has been looking for two years to find the best new media platform in which to invest.

[JCanete]

171. How is getting money out of politics an issue that helps republicans? TYT isn't about to support any

Republicans, since there's no way a republican is going to forego big funding. If it is putting its support behind certain liberals which are pushing a certain kind of reform, that is TYT's right to do, and again, I applaud it. There are other ways we could be trying to win that might be more effective than what Democrats have been doing. If we stop taking money from big sources, we can then make the GOP own the fact that they are the party of the rich. We have muddied those waters with our own ties to Wall Street and big industries, and it has affected our rhetoric and our policies.

If we stop taking big money we can much more sharply define the Republicans as the party for the rich. If we start advocating big class struggle changes, we can further solidify that contrast. We can throw stones because we won't be in a glass house ourselves.

Roemer put money into the young turks, so what? He has no influence over the network. As I've already said, money can buy influence in back rooms, but he has none on paper. TYT isn't beholden to anything. I'm not so certain Roemer's reasons for investing are cynical, given Roemer's fairly thoughtful interview with TYT in which he really spells out the problem he's seen, not with Democrats, but with Republicans and the state campaign finance, but even if his reasons are are, I'd call it a miscalculation. A more informed populace does not do the GOP any favors, and yes, I count not withholding inconvenient facts that resemble democrats too, not just republicans, as informing the public.

The progressive movement has already shown that rather than taking down the Democratic party, it is getting the leadership to respond to their priorities, pulling it left, which will ultimately strengthen its message and make it more inspiring. Of course, that's my opinion, but I already find it more inspiring. The democratic party is taking note of these liberal voices and the new voters that Sanders has brought into the fold that is their audience and I find the results promising.

[pnwmom]

174. The issue in the OP, the group TYT was targeting, was money from individuals who work in Wall Street

It is already against the law for corporations and other businesses to donate money to political campaigns.

And what TYT loosely calls "Wall street money" is IN REALITY just the combined donations of thousands of people, including some who donated to Bernie. There are low income, middle income, and high income people working "on Wall Street." And they are all just as entitled to donate to campaigns as anyone who works anywhere else.

[JCanete]

177. I guarantee that's a simplification that doesn't look at some of the more significant details of how

these things happen, whether it is the result of corporate PACs etc. That isn't just individual donors voting their conscience, it is corporate leveraging. How is this any different than how the GOP gets funding, if anything else is illegal? Nothing to see here? Campaign finance as it stands is hunky dory? I haven't done a deep dive into this subject matter yet, but I have a feeling that when I have a chance to, I'm going to find out that the way these private individuals in the industry give money isn't as simple as people just supporting the candidates they are most altruistic about.

And individuals who can give the top donation in these industries are hardly your common individual. Large donations might just suggest that these people benefit from what benefits their industry. Of course that's not the case all the time, but Clinton's average contribution was a wee bit higher than Sanders.

[pnwmom]

180. I guarantee you it isn't. TYT wasn't talking about corporations supporting PACS,

thanks to the Supreme Court and Citizens v. United, which almost all Democrats agree was a terrible decision.

Cenk was talking about the donations of individual donors, which get reported as a combined number according to where they work. My husband worked for a large industrial corporation and so his donations were reported in a lump sum with all the other employees. It didn't mean that his company was supporting the Democrats we donated to -- it means WE were.

I know lots of people in NY who have worked or are working in the financial industry, because that's where it's centered. And there are plenty of Democrats who work in the industry. If there weren't you wouldn't see so many Democrats in NY . (The highest number of Democrats in NY are in NYC itself -- not upstate in Rochester, far from the financial centers.)

If you read Bernie's letters from the FEC, you would see one way his average donation stayed low. He had multiple donors who would write several checks in a day, with low average amounts. So he could report that his average donation was somewhat lower than Hillary's. But put together, any donor who wrote several checks in a day made a large donation. And he had quite a number of these multi-check donors and quite a number who exceeded their $2700 maximum. (The FEC notified Bernie that these excess donations had to be returned.)

The same situation did NOT occur with Hillary. Her campaign knew better than to accept donations over the maximum allowed.

[JI7]

65. Is wall street worse than denying the armenian genocide ?

is it worse to take money from a bank teller at bank of america than denying the armenian genocide ?

[RandySF]

70. Cenk who?

[LenaBaby61]

78. I don't pay much attention ...

to TYT and especially not to crazy, whack job Jimmy Dore.

[Demsrule86]

94. Consider that means less money and more losses...hmm. Don't they work for RT?

[JCanete]

105. ...no

[Demsrule86]

108. Oh right they are funded by Buddy Roemer...a Republican.

The young turks are dead to me and have been six 2016.

[JCanete]

114. And who do you think the CEO of MSNBC is? Some altruistic progressive?

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Roemer's donation at least, was specifically related to his own disaffection with the state of campaign finance in American politics, republican and democrat. TYT to their credit, have not forgotten that issue, and do not mince words about Republicans. They remain independent and there isn't an issue that they couldn't talk about. At least nobody can fire them or directly influence their coverage. Could their coverage be influenced by the infusion of money? Sure, as a nudge nudge wink wink. That is absolutely something worth scrutinizing of every politician regardless of affiliation and every source we use for news and opinion, etc.

[Demsrule86]

151. MSNBC is not funded by a Republican operative and GOP donor...

Cent spews the anti-Democratic party swill and is complicit in our 2016 loss...can't believe some cry about Democrats and other organizations taking corporate money but have no concerns over these folks taking Republican money(didn't say you just in general). Cent can fuck himself as can all the Green traitors and fake progressive riffraff. He only helps Republicans and is dead to me.

[JCanete]

168. I've spelled out already why its different, and the CEO of MSNBC has far more control over

the station's content than Roemer does over TYT. At least admit that. MSNBC is funded by advertising dollars by huge corporations with huge incentives, and is owned by a mega-corporation with its own monetary incentives that far outstrip the piddly profits that MSNBC could bring in. You think that doesn't affect programming? Should we assume all progressive voices on the channel are bought and paid for, having no value what-so-ever? You don't like Cenk so of course you want to make him complicit with Repugs, but as I've already said, and you glossed over, he didn't forget that Trump was dangerous. He didn't falsely equivocate the two. He advocated for his audience to vote for Clinton.

You want people with legitimate criticisms of the dems to shut up with those criticisms, and if they do not, you are willing to blame them for our loss, rather than the focus of those criticisms. First, there's no evidence that that caused Clinton's loss. None. Second, that's a horrible idea. See no evil hear no evil speak no evil is not what journalism is supposed to be about. It would make them political hacks if they did that. There are plenty of those to go around, and I have no reason to trust that any of those are being honest brokers, because they are literally holding back information that might do harm to democrats. Usually, this is the shit that favors republicans, and is rampant in the media, but I absolutely don't want the people I listen to to play the same game, especially when that means letting the same people who fund both parties get away with murder.

[NastyRiffraff]

100. Haven't we heard ENOUGH from this asshole?

He either doesn't know what he's talking about (entirely possible), he's a failed "pundit" trying to get attention (also possible), or he's out to destroy the Democratic Party (very, extremely, immensely possible).

I wish he would go away. Or get one of those old ham radios and squawk into it.

[RandySF]

107. Oh my God, I don't care.

The ACA hangs by a thread and this is trivial.

[leftofcool]

111. Another blowhard telling Democrats how to vote and what to think.

[Calista241]

117. Perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. n/t

[pnwmom]

126. Right, so no New York politicians ever. Because employees of NY firms like Chase Bank,

Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street -- from the janitor up through the President -- all have the same goals and politics and none of them deserve the opportunity to participate in the political process.

What a load of crap.

[cwydro]

131. You listen to Cenk Uyger?

You get what you pay for.

[Itchinjim]

133. Cenk who?

[Weekend Warrior]

139. He is an idiot and ratfucker.

Very similar to the mentality and ideology of H A Goodman.

[themaguffin]

142. He was terrible on Make it Plain. An arrogant asshole

I'm so tired of people like him. They way he dimissed Kamala Harris etc. Really, fuck him.

[Eliot Rosewater]

172. That is where I heard it. It is clear to me what he wants, either his way or

for the D party to lose and lose big.

So nothing new from him, I guess.

[alarimer]

143. Wall Street gets what it pays for and it is not good for you or for me.

I don't get why this is so bothersome to you. We are screwed over DAILY by the likes of Goldman Sachs and you think that's okay? Our very government is bought and paid for and not by us. Maybe collectively we should all start buying politicians but we don't have the deep pockets to ensure they stay bought.

Franken and Warren just voted for the abortion of a defense bill. $800 BILLION more dollars that they didn't even ask for. And why? Likely because defense corporations in Massachusetts or Minnesota get a lot of that money. It sure as fuck is not going to the "troops" but to enrich corporations for needlessly expensive planes that don't even work. So, yeah, they don't really work for us when it really counts. They may talk a good game about health care and whatever but they still buy into the bullshit that we have to have this giant bloated military to fight needless, endless wars of CHOICE.

[cwydro]

146. An accident?

You are really funny.

[Blue_Tires]

148. He's missing the forest for the trees

Just get the money OUT of politics by having public-funded elections...

[Tarheel_Dem]

158. Cenk returned to his republican roots after Obama's election. He tried to mask it, but it was...

very clear to many of us, and now his goal is to divide & conquer for his Republican paymasters.

[haveahart]

167. THAT in spades!!! (no pun)

[brooklynite]

161. So, let's start by dropping Elizabeth Warren...

...as progressive as she is, she's not afraid to come to NYC and raise money from people who can afford to contribute -- even if their income comes from Wall Street.

[obamanut2012]

163. He is a wingnut and genocide denial

And his views on women and LGBT are sketchy at best. He sucks.

[JCanete]

170. what genocide does he deny. That sounds like the right-wing shit you'd read in the comment

section of youtube. I think he's less sophisticated when it comes to gender and LGBTQ issues, but he's shown a great capacity to evolve on those over the years.

[lillypaddle]

181. Can't stand that fucking fool

Yes indeedy.

[ehrnst]

196. Anyone working for RT or the Intercept has pretty much sold their credibility

down the river as an unbiased, professional journalist.

[Me.]

197. You Said It!