Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "The Young Turks" channel.

  1. 68
  2. 67
  3. 56
  4. 39
  5. 37
  6. 35
  7. 35
  8. 34
  9. 33
  10. 33
  11. 30
  12. 27
  13. 25
  14. 24
  15. 24
  16. 23
  17. 22
  18. 21
  19. 21
  20. 20
  21. 19
  22. 19
  23. 18
  24. 17
  25. 17
  26. 17
  27. 16
  28. 16
  29. 15
  30. 15
  31. 14
  32. 14
  33. 13
  34. 13
  35. 13
  36. 13
  37. 13
  38. 12
  39. 12
  40. 12
  41. 11
  42. 11
  43. 11
  44. 11
  45. 11
  46. 11
  47. +Druidic Troy - I disagree. The entire idea of "chivalry" is always going to be actively conflicting with the concept of a modern woman having complete independence and equality to a man both financially and culturally, because it requires that a man give the illusion that the woman is not as strong and requires special treatment and priority in the relationship because she is weaker, and usually only is the case when it benefits the woman. Not to mention, it's a little unfair to the man that they both allow the woman in a relationship to always have priority over a man due to "chivalry", all the while giving them total equal treatment in the times that it's serious and counts most such as when it comes to financial issues and who will work in a marriage. When you do the math you realize that it equals the woman always having a slight advantage over the man and is never really an example of true equality. It could even be having negative effects on the female gender as well, because this idea that a woman is weak and needs help could be fueling misogyny that led to the MeToo movement where powerful men found it easy to prey upon women and clearly did not see them as equals in the slightest. If "chivalry" is always going to cause this effect in our society for the rest of time, then I would recommend that we just get rid of the idea altogether since it doesn't really mean anything in the first place because we all know that a woman is strong and independent enough to take care of herself in this day and age and only pretending like that's not the case is just going to cause more problems between genders and still lead to certain men believing that modern women still don't act strong enough to deserve equal rights financially and culturally in the US. I don't know about everyone else, but I am a big supporter of total equality and wish "benevolent sexism" would start fading out of our culture altogether, because I'm sure a lot of men (and maybe even women) are just tired of the bullshit charade that it actually matters and women need to be pretend treated like they're weak and always need help.
    11
  48. 11
  49. 10
  50. 10
  51. 10
  52. 9
  53. 9
  54. 9
  55. 9
  56. 9
  57. 9
  58. 9
  59. 9
  60. 9
  61. 9
  62. 9
  63. 9
  64. 9
  65. 8
  66. 8
  67. 8
  68. 8
  69. 8
  70. 8
  71. 8
  72. 8
  73. 8
  74. 8
  75. 8
  76. 8
  77. 8
  78. 8
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. 7
  82. 7
  83. 7
  84. 7
  85. 7
  86. 7
  87. 7
  88. 7
  89. 7
  90. 7
  91. 7
  92. 7
  93. 7
  94. 7
  95. 6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 6
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 6
  102. 6
  103. 6
  104. 6
  105. 6
  106. 6
  107. 6
  108. 6
  109. 6
  110. 6
  111. 6
  112. 6
  113. 6
  114. 6
  115. 6
  116. 6
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 5
  151. 5
  152. 5
  153. 5
  154. 5
  155. 5
  156. 5
  157. 5
  158. 5
  159. 5
  160. 5
  161. 5
  162. 5
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. As a millennial male maybe I can give a bit of insight on this, because despite being a progressive Independent (sort of Democrat but not really) I, in some form, have also felt the invisible push to want to go to the other side of the aisle where, even though it is full of disgusting human beings, it still gives men respect no matter the circumstance (which should definitely not be the case either). But honestly I feel like it has less to do with Republicans and more to do with the environment Millennial men are dealing with right now more specifically the single dating world and the push pull struggle between men and women in relationships. I can't speak for women in other generations or if this even pertains to ALL millennial women, but a lot of millennial women have been generically hostile towards men just for being men. If you are a millennial woman, this statement might enrage you considering you don't like men telling you how you think or categorizing you, but let's look at the facts. Many studies have come out that detail just how large of a percentage of millennial women are feminists and how many scale more towards extreme feminism. Apparently 1 in 4 millennial women think that a guy asking a girl out for a drink or approaching them in a bar to ask to buy a drink is sexual harassment. Now I personally don't do this to begin with, but I think this statistic gives you a broad understanding of the shift within millennials. Also, look at the recent case with Aziz Ansari where he had no idea he was doing anything wrong, but then the girl he was on a consensual date with suddenly ousted him for being a sexual predator. This type of story would've never happened with a man and woman above the age of 30 or 35. This type of broad attitude towards men and essentially telling them they are garbage because all men are garbage, is what is seriously wedging a divide between men and women who are millennials. Of course, it is not the only factor, but I think it matters greatly. I can tell you personally, I have been in many relationships with millennial women and have truthfully never been violent in any of them, yet have been hit, had dangerous objects flung at my head, and attacked many times by ex-girlfriends, which strangely occurs only with the women from America, and still through all of this, I and many other men I know have been constantly belittled just for being men. I had a friend who was stabbed by his girlfriend as well even though never being violent towards her whatsoever. It comes from a place where many women in my generation think that a man should never hit a woman, but apparently it is perfectly fine for a woman to physically lash out against a man in one way or another, but then turn around with the stance that men and women should be completely equal, which I whole-heartedly agree with, yet I think there is a large amount of over-privilege that many millennial women take advantage of either consciously or unconsciously even when they are with men who truly believe in equality. At least I can say this is why I have felt the temptation of being a part of a party that gives men more respect, but at the same time never would join them because they don't believe in equality between genders and races and are generally wrong morally, ethically, and logically on almost everything.
    4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 4
  192. 4
  193. 4
  194. 4
  195. 4
  196. 4
  197. 4
  198. 4
  199. 4
  200. I wrote this on someone's post and wanted to share it again so I could know what everyone thinks of this and hear what men/women have to say on the issue: The entire idea of "chivalry" is always going to be actively conflicting with the concept of a modern woman having complete independence and equality to a man both financially and culturally, because it requires that a man give the illusion that the woman is not as strong and requires special treatment and priority in the relationship because she is weaker, and usually only is the case when it benefits the woman. Not to mention, it's a little unfair to the man that they both allow the woman in a relationship to always have priority over a man due to "chivalry", all the while giving them total equal treatment in the times that it's serious and counts most such as when it comes to financial issues and who will work in a marriage. When you do the math you realize that it equals the woman always having a slight advantage over the man and is never really an example of true equality. It could even be having negative effects on the female gender as well, because this idea that a woman is weak and needs help could be fueling misogyny that led to the MeToo movement where powerful men found it easy to prey upon women and clearly did not see them as equals in the slightest. If "chivalry" is always going to cause this effect in our society for the rest of time, then I would recommend that we just get rid of the idea altogether since it doesn't really mean anything in the first place because we all know that a woman is strong and independent enough to take care of herself in this day and age and only pretending like that's not the case is just going to cause more problems between genders and still lead to certain men believing that modern women still don't act strong enough to deserve equal rights financially and culturally in the US. I don't know about everyone else, but I am a big supporter of total equality and wish "benevolent sexism" would start fading out of our culture altogether, because I'm sure a lot of men (and maybe even women) are just tired of the bullshit charade that it actually matters and women need to be pretend treated like they're weak and always need help.
    4
  201. 4
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 4
  207. 4
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. +T Dog - You're being naive if you think this concept of "benevolent sexism" aka what some women like to frame as "traditional chivalry" is only exclusive to "opening the door and pulling chairs out". Those are things you can do for an old lady you don't know and are just common politeness. I'm talking more about the idea that women in modern culture like the idea of being given priority in a relationship, dating, or otherwise and being treated as "princesses" as some would put it from the Millennial generation. If you've ever been in a relationship, marriage, etc. where a woman expected the man to do the gross dirty work, the physical labor, or even simple things like "going to get their purse in their car" because it's "too cold outside" for example if it was say -10 degrees out, these would all be examples of this cultural norm that accounts as benevolent sexism that people will frame as chivalry. These are things that many women expect from men even when they're self-described feminists that preach for total equality both financially and culturally, but the entire concept of benevolent sexism (chivalry) is in total contradiction with the idea of complete equality since it gives the illusion that women can't do these simple to tough things on their own. And look, I personally, am not offended by these things, I've been doing it my whole life for women, it's just the culture I grew up in, but if we're having a serious debate about these things you have to think about them seriously and ask yourself what are the effects of these types of behaviors. These things could be causing repercussions in our culture that led to things like the MeToo movement, where Hollywood celebrities took full advantage of new female talent they saw as desperate and weak and likely led to silly movements (in my opinion) like Jordan Peterson and his "war on men" narrative and the incels, etc. I honestly think that if we just got rid of the whole idea of benevolent sexism and "chivalry" that extends past simple politeness and common courtesies, then it would just lead to more mutual respect between the genders in knowing they are both fully capable of equal actions and opportunities in our society and in their own personal relationships without portraying the illusion that one is lesser than the other as some kind of pre-programmed mating tactic or whatever it may be for. I think the bond between men and women would only be healthier by just getting rid of the charade altogether since it doesn't really do anything in the first place and is just a cultural norm that evolved involuntarily.
    4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. I agree with "Skyshadow" on what's going on here, and I'll admit, this is a complicated issue, because it has to do with both what is ethically acceptable in art and politics especially because the original bull statue's symbolism has changed over the years of its representation of Wall Street. It was originally constructed to represent an untamed nature of the free market, but it has almost devolved into a greedy and "bullish" representation of Wall Street's hold on everything in this country including the way it slithers into politics. The original sculptor of the bull statue stated that it was installed after the 1987 market crash as a symbol of the "strength and power of the American people". However, this has drastically changed in the last 3 decades considering Wall Street is now commonly known and understood by everyone as being the enemy of the working class and more than 90% of the "American people". Wall Street, big money, and monopolies have largely ignored what's best for the American people for some time now and done whatever's best for their corporations and profit margins. Even after the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, they still have not changed their general agenda and perspective. I think the fearless girl was somewhat unfair to the original sculptor of the bull, but it really had little to do with the bull sculpture at all and was a message for big money in Wall Street putting them on blast for their general disregard for the "American people". The "thing" that the bull statue was original supposed to represent. When it comes to the pug, that is just a childish way of drawing a penis on someone's art. There's no symbolism behind it besides saying that someone was mad about the statue (being a female possibly), so they took a dump on it in art form.
    3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. +Vynjira - Wow thank you so much for acting as the bright shining example to exactly what I was referring to. I clearly labeled myself as a progressive and believing in pure equality between men and women and made an observation on the social aspect and shift going on, and then what do you do? You claim that apparently I'm just another woman hating male and an "Anti-Feminist". (I don't even know what an MRA is btw) You say this to someone who clearly believes in gender equality to the fullest and should be on the same side, but instead you peg me as the enemy and then claim that my opinions are solely because I've had "bad dating experiences", when I've clearly made a logical observation about several men, men in culture, celebrity relationships and so on. And also what the hell was I "lying" about? I gave one statistic and one anecdote about Aziz Ansari and the rest was just speculative as I stated at the very beginning of my post. The problem with millennial women is they don't understand who their enemy is so instead you just label every guy who isn't gay and marching in the streets with you for feminism as someone who apparently hates women, which is so far from the truth that it's just sad. Seriously, what the hell do you want from millennial men? Do you want equality? Great most millennial men want that too and all women should have equal opportunities as men without being harassed in the workplace. Do you want equality but to be treated like your better than us and can dictate how men should act and whats appropriate for them to say and do outside the bounds of obvious inappropriate behavior? Then no we don't want that because that has nothing to do with feminism and equality and has more to do with a derailed ego that many of you have for some reason and then if we say anything against it we get called "Anti-Feminists" and male pigs. I watch The Young Turks almost every day, which is one of the most liberal shows airing today, I've made it clear that I believe in total equality for men and women, but somehow I'm an "anti-feminist". What world do you live in lady? Because I think this is the prime example of what is wrong with the social gap between millennial women and men today.
    3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. +MzMiaRoseTV - As a man that believes in complete and total equality of men and women and someone who has put up the facade of "benevolent sexism" as they call it time and time again probably for my entire life, you don't think the culture of it is somehow exacerbating misogyny in this country maybe even in instances that led to the extreme objectivity of women that the MeToo movement was formed from? I would even make the argument that it causes unique movements in American and other cultures that led to the rise of hacks like Jordan Peterson who claim there is a "war on men", an extremely silly concept to begin with but has resonated with entire generations of men (mainly on the right). The idea could be causing all these negative movements and repercussions in our society. I mean seriously think about it, because the entire idea of "traditional chivalry" and the concept of putting up an illusion that women need to be protected and treated like princesses because they're weak is entirely in conflict with the ideology that women should be totally independent and financially/culturally strong in our modern culture and should not be paid any less than a man since they are just as capable. Even women in construction demand to be paid the same as men as long as they are able to do the job correctly even though "benevolent sexism" keeps a backward thought in people's minds that women in general are just generically weaker than men physically (and some more hostile men likely think mentally as well), so don't you think upholding this cultural illusion that women are "princesses" and should be protected and nurtured is somehow harmful to the progression of not only women's rights in the US but also the progression of monogamous relationships in our culture and growing towards a complete and equal respect and understanding between a couple that they are both capable of the exact same things as the other. Personally, I think it's just something our society and culture could completely do without and the respect between genders would be all the healthier for it especially if it made people like Jordan Peterson obsolete and lessened the chances of people like Harvey Weinstein from being empowered to think they can just take advantage of "weak" women within Hollywood circles. I'm being serious btw and not trying to be insulting in the slightest.
    3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 2
  301. I can proudly say that you, sir, are a veteran that I can gladly give high respect and esteem towards. Thank you for your service to our country and giving your loyalty towards our nation and not just the current president. Many persons mix those 2 together, but it is sometimes more patriotic to question the current leader of the USA, who you believe is leading our nation astray and towards impending downfall, than it is to blindly follow our unqualified President down a path that chips away at our nation's democracy, freedoms, and liberty that the founding fathers worked so hard to instill. I would argue that your patriotism and loyalty to our country far exceeds our current commander in chief considering when Trump was 22, he got a doctor to fill him out a 1-Y medical deferment that excluded him from the draft for the Vietnam War. It was apparently for "bone spurs in his heels" even though Trump played football, tennis, and squash at the time without issue and was in peak physical condition. It is more likely that his wealthy family bought off the doctor to forge him a medical deferment so he could swindle his way out of serving our country overseas. Anyone who tries to say you are less patriotic because you do not follow Trump is a fool, and I would argue your courage, loyalty and patriotism would put Trump to shame if the truth were ever revealed. However, like his tax returns, he has refused to release his 1-Y medical deferment to the public most likely for fear of what it may reveal.
    2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. The senate candidate in the video is a huge jackass and is making it harder for men. He is giving women and feminists fuel to stay on the war path to exterminate what they feel like is "misogyny". Let me be clear, I am 100% in favor of complete and total gender equality. I think a relationship should be completely equal and both people can be independent and be an equal team in their lives, and at the same time any woman should have the same opportunity as a man to become a powerful individual or top CEO in a competitive industry without being dubbed a "stuck-up bitch" or whatever you might want to call a powerful business woman. However, I am not in favor of what a lot of modern feminism has become about. A lot of feminism actively seeks out to tear down men and industries that are male oriented that they see as something culturally offensive about them. Instead of allowing men to be themselves in our culture, they want to squash certain activities and roles men take because they believe it adds to a misogynistic culture even though they have no evidence to back up that it does. Let me also be clear that I am totally in favor of the MeToo movement. No woman should ever have to take any type of sexual harassment in the work place or in their careers. However, I am completely against the influence of this movement overreaching into personal lives so that people cannot go on dates anymore without having to worry about if a man is acting inappropriately because they want to have sex at the end of the night. My point is we should not be focused on man power or woman power and feminism, but we should be actively looking towards gender equality in its truest form so that a man and a woman can do anything they want without fearing the other sex will diminish us in any way for it. If you are truly a feminist and not just looking to strengthen women while completely uncaring on whether men are lessened in our culture and society, then you should believe the same thing and hope that both men and women can be at equal strength together one day without one believing they are above the other. Unfortunately I feel as though a lot of men still feel this way and also many feminists that only care about empowering women at the potential expense of male standing in our culture.
    2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. You need to look at it in a broader scope. In a time of massive class income inequality in this country when 50% of Americans make less than $34,000 a year and 60% of Americans can't afford a surprise $400 expense without having to borrow the money, it is only detrimental to males that it is a cultural expectation that they need to get the bill to show their self-worth to females in our society. When feminists demand equal pay and to close the wage gap completely, which I agree with, it comes off as somewhat hypocritical that the cultural norms we have in western civilization are, in fact, causing men to be financially unequal to women. Sure this is not all women, and maybe it's not usually too much of a financial burden for most, but it's still an issue and if we truly want men and women to be completely equal both financially and culturally, then we need to start demanding for equality in both a professional atmosphere, in politics, and in culture between men and women in relationships, marriages, or in the work place. If women and feminists are serious about this and for TRUE equality and not just empowering women in our culture and in business, they would be supportive of getting rid of these cultural norms that cause constant pressure on men to exert financial power to show their self-worth to women otherwise there is usually a silent shame to the fact that they are not "paying for their woman" and the woman has to pay for her half of a meal, a date, a vacation, the groceries, and the list goes on. First we all need to be honest about this and acknowledge the fact that there is a cultural inequality with men that cost them financially in the end, and we need to work to reverse the shame that occurs in our culture when a woman pays for her fair share in a relationship or marriage. Giving gifts to each other is great and usually a sign of affection, but what we have now goes beyond that to the point where men feel shamed and lesser if they are unable or unwilling to pay for everything a woman does, and even if women want to deny that this is still an issue they can't avoid the reality that this is still very existent in our culture.
    2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. Last time I checked way more progressives were winning seats running as Democrats/Justice Democrats compared to the few progressives that squeezed by as 3rd Party candidates. That's just a fact. I support 3rd Party progressive candidates just as much as I support progressives running in the Democratic Party or even the Republican party if need be (but will probably never be the case) as you should if you truly consider yourself a progressive that holds progressive ideals in high regard. They ALL need our help and suggesting that nobody should vote for a true progressive just because you don't like the elites that run the party they're trying to run in is just counterproductive and you're only harming the progressive cause when you do and say that. I love the idea of starting a People's Party especially the idea of it being an instant success, but I'm almost entirely certain it wouldn't be the best way forward. This country is not ready to equally support a 3rd Party outside of the 2 party system and all you have to do to come to that conclusion is just look at ALL of United States history. People have never embraced more than 2 parties at a time. If you're still optimistic about being the first Americans in history who can change the way humans think on a political and massive level, then that's great but most of us are too realistic and rational to think it would actually work like you think. It's a shot in the dark even if people like Jimmy Dore are claiming it would be a piece of cake.
    1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. +JoelRiter - Who are you referring to by "they"? Are you talking about anyone in the justice department because it sounds like you're just referring to the establishment biased MSM, who already "went after Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders". They do it every day, so what's your point? McCarthyism has been used by the establishment neocons and neoliberals even before the Mueller investigation ever since Putin became a visible corrupt power in the east that they could use as a scapegoat for instilling more hawkish behavior by our military in Syria, Iran, and other countries where the US military industrial complex is engaged in perpetual warfare. Let me ask you something. What is the actual difference in foreign policy since the Mueller probe started? The fact that we are bombing Syria? Well that was already happening in Obama's term. Are you referring to the Russian sanctions that Trump never imposed? I don't really see any direct result of this "McCarthyism" red scare that some right wingers and even progressives like to claim is a huge issue, but there is no real difference between the foreign policy before and after the Mueller probe started as far as I can see. Why do you think Putin wanted to stop Hillary from becoming president in the first place? It's because she was already super hawkish towards Russia and Putin's fraudulent elections and corrupt regime. Nothing has changed except now they are more in the public spotlight mainly just on the left though, so tell me again why is it such a red alert to you?
    1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. See this makes a lot more sense to me than what MSM says, who are foaming at the mouth about the Russia story and are essentially calling for war and claiming Trump is Putin's puppet, and it also makes more sense than what some other progressive channels are saying, who seem to have a blackout of the Russia story altogether and entirely reject it cough Jimmy Dore cough (and some others too). It seems TYT has taken a middle approach though and sees it as a possibility that Trump may have connections to certain Russian oligarchs and crime families, which are wholly because of "economic interests", which honestly makes so much more sense than ties directly to the Russian government and other channels rejecting he has any ties whatsoever. It essentially explains why he seems to be overly punitive against Russian EXCEPT when it comes to the Russia Sanctions, which directly affect Russian oligarchs compared to the greater Russian government like a direct bombing of Syria when Russian troops are grounded there. I think MSM needs to completely get their shit together and start reporting on the right things so more light can shine on Trump's likely money laundering, bank fraud and other more obvious ties he has whether it is to Russian oligarchs and economic entities like Deutsche Bank. Same goes for shows like Jimmy Dore except in the opposite direction, where he should stop blacking out all news of the Russia probe entirely. He can still have the same opinion, but I think he should at least report on the news whereas now it seems like he barely mentions big news that's almost impossible for people to ignore.
    1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. I don't understand why the justice system even exists for white collar criminals and politicians. Even when their found guilty, they end up getting away with no jail time. It literally tells you all you need to know about our justice system, in that jail is for the poor even when people don't even do anything like not being able to pay a court fine for some trivial traffic violation or child alimony. Rick Gates just had all his charges reduced to parole with no jail time because he flipped and is fully cooperating. But then what is the end game with that? Because if you just kept doing that until you got all the way to the top with Donald Trump, you would've let everyone go without jail time, and then when it gets to Trump, he's not even going to be given jail time because I don't even know if a President can go to jail. It just might not be possible with the amount of senators, politicians and powerful people he knows. Oliver North was actually found guilty for the crimes in the Iran Contra Affair with selling weapons to the Iranians to fund the Sandinistas, but then when the time came, he was cleared of the charges and simply ousted. Imagine if that's how we dealt with other every day criminals. As if someone tried to rob a bank or sell weapons on the street, and then they were found guilty and instead of seeing a jail sell, they were simply told to stay out of the illegal arms dealing business and then just set free outside the court house. The US is able to have 33% of the world's prisoner population but we don't have 1 more jail cell for some of the biggest scum in modern political history. I won't be holding my breath that Trump actually wears an orange jump suit in a year or two although it would be pretty priceless to see him wearing orange over his orange skin.
    1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. +Listenbuddy1 - You and the other fools in the trump base are more wrong on this issue than any other, and that is an impressive feat since you have countless warped views and "alternative facts" that are influenced by a moronic demagogue. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it is almost a certainty at this point that the renewable energy industry is going to be worth trillions, which is why China is trying be at the forefront of it. You and your blind trump-supporters want America to be number 1 in the world, but your ignorance and stupidity is going to hurt us economically and push us back years in R&D and development of renewable energy once a competent President retakes the White House. We could be creating countless new jobs for constructing solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal and wave energy machinery and parts that we could be exporting to other countries and bringing in more capital and raising our GDP from this new source of wealth for our country. However, you and the rest of what's left of the trump-supporters are blind to even money, let alone saving our world from certain destruction if we don't act immediately. Also, if you even think there's the slightest chance that climate change is real (which I think you secretly do deep down and 97% of scientists say it is), then you have to accept this by default or else your miscalculation and overall arrogance will result in a global catastrophe for every country on Earth including the United States most of all, who the rest of the world will point their fingers at as the only country that didn't do something to stop this epic disaster.
    1
  678. +Storie Grubb - It was Bush that lied to the American people about the WMDs and declared an illegal war. You know, the "executive branch", same branch as Trump now who think they're kings and can declare illegal wars in defiance of Congress. Also, in 2003, there were conflicting reports on the WMDs and it was mainly intelligence tied to the executive branch that were claiming WMDs considering it was Bush who exploited the bad intel to get the war he wanted and also exploited fear surrounding 9/11 to wage an illegal war against a country we should have never fought EVEN IF they had WMDs. The Iraq government released a 1,500 page report giving facts on how they had no WMDs and yet Bush still declared war. The intelligence agencies are not conflicting today about Russia and the Mueller investigation which operates under the judicial branch are in agreement it seems like it. To claim this is "just another WMDs situation" is highly illogical considering all the differences I just listed for you and more I didn't feel like typing out. In short though, you're claiming we should trust the executive branch again over every other intelligence agency in agreement and the Mueller probe consistently handing over more and more information about the findings including the 29 page indictments which DO include evidence in the form of timestamps on the events from the cyber attacks and cyber footprints from the hackers and many more things you're willfully ignoring and choosing not to acknowledge because it demolishes your argument.
    1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. +Jimmy Dore - That's funny because I've been noticing more and more that Jimmy has started to omit certain groups of news, because it doesn't "fit his agenda" aka it doesn't help him in proving that the whole Russian thing is a hoax. He doesn't even talk about Trump or the Republicans much anymore, he just constantly takes swings at Democrats and has even started debasing himself to attacking other progressives because they dare to factually report on the big news that comes from the Russian probe. I trust a news agency that gives all the news and gives you all the facts and lets you determine your own opinion on it rather than some has-been comedian who has started to take up tactics regularly used by MSM and only report on things that fit Dore's agenda. Wake up man, Dore has been going off the rails for awhile now. Even if you agree with him that anything even remotely relating to Russia is "false", you have to understand that him not even reporting on any of the messed up shit Trump does on a daily basis is just laziness and him only caring about his own personal goals. What is even his plan in the long term? He doesn't seem to have one at all and is just spiraling more and more into insanity and conspiracy theories. I really hope he comes back to the fold of pragmatism and decent journalism, because sooner or later he's going to be criticizing Bernie Sanders and complimenting Trump, because it totally seems like that is the path that he is currently on at this point in time, and this pace it seems like it will be a likely possibility pretty soon.
    1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1