I’ve stopped watching several of his videos because his cohost went off on some transphobic tangent. Have I just been unlucky? (Genuine question, I get served up TYT videos at random by the algorithm, I mostly watch competition math videos, sciency stuff and Uk quiz shows, not political content, unless you consider Legal Eagle political).
That could be part of what’s happening – the algo fixes on that you watched a clip with that kind of content, then it will feed you more like that.
Mind you, it’s still one of those things that you do not look upon well when it happens more than once.
I just read that Joe Biden isn’t running in the New Hampshire primary. That’s just the opening this Cenk dude needs! All he has to do is travel to New Hampshire, talk to primary voters and win the primary. That will give him enough momentum to carry him all the way. The downside? He’ll have to spend January and February in New Hampshire.
(Hey, I hate New Hampshire too - all Massachusians are required to hate the Yankees and New Hampshire - but that was a cheap shot.)
Since the modern primary system was instituted no sitting president has lost the nomination. When a sittint president has a strong primary opponent they lose in the general election. I know if I want to listen to an hour of blowharding I could find out but what is his real agenda? Because any strong democratic opposition to Biden will help a Trump presidency happen.
Fortunately we haven’t had that yet. Just a few people using a campaign bid for personal publicity. One of them even changed their mind and is running as an independent now.
And my guess is we won’t have a strong opposition. But it appears that’s what Cenk wants.
Except the Right isn’t bickering, it’s acting, and acting to the detriment of minorities and women. He’s either stupid or dishonest, and either way it’s dangerous to anyone other than MAGAs and their allies. Or it would be, were he to get into power.
His Progressive credentials are nonexistent given his behavior and views.
“Using his own words to determine his positions and views is SO UNFAIR!”
Progressives must really be clueless if they made his channel so popular. Just what we need, another strident absolutist who insists they know who’s allowed in the clubhouse.
Interesting that you didn’t quote any of the rest of that paragraph. Hosting a progressive channel for 20 years is just the beginning of his progressive credentials.
If it can all be handwaved as “non existent” then there are no progressives on earth.
Which is of course the polar opposite of what you’re doing.
On one side of the ledger we have 20 years of cenk being a champion of progressive positions, both on his own show, daily, the political actions that he’s been a founder of and the numerous appearances on news media in the US and internationally.
And on the other side… We have one tweet, which you are choosing to interpret, and infer, and stretch, to mean something it absolutely does not say.
“So popular?” TYT has fewer subscribers than Phil De Franco, and based on the comments section about half the people are hate-watching (or weirdly perving on Ana).
I will take a wild stab here and suggest that the TYT channel (which is not just the show by that name but has multiple programs hosted by a diverse set of commentators, mostly but not exclusively centered on politics) does not skew in favor of the Straight Dope demographic (people who refer to Pat Paulsen). Which helps explain why not many here have heard of Cenk Uygur.
Cenk is in his fifties. In some ways he seems like he’s stuck in the 80s and 90s. His heroes include old-school rappers. Are these people (mostly black men) virulent sexists, saying horrible and degrading things about women, or are they the modern-day stewards of a very old cultural tradition of toasting and boasting? They’re both! Are they serious about the awful stuff? Sadly, some are. Others expect you to understand that pushing against the limits of free speech is what they do, and you shouldn’t take it 100% literally, and they’re really gentlemen when you meet them but no, they’re not going to apologize for their speech and they’re not going to hold your hand and tell you not to worry because they don’t mean it. Take that as you will. Happily many more women are in the scene now, giving you another view.
Anyway, Cenk is not Thom Hartmann and what he gives you includes a lot of rough edges. Old guys (like me, stuck in the 60s and 70s protest generation) don’t necessarily like it and I don’t expect them to. But his progressive bona fides outweigh the embarrassing stuff, even the more recent foot-in-mouth examples, and his younger followers understand this. You might not, maybe you think he should be sent to a re-education camp, (I sometimes do - joking! We’re just having fun here!) but you can’t/won’t/shouldn’t stop him. I don’t really know what he thinks his presidential run will accomplish, but off we go.
All the cool kids dig Pat Paulsen.
I like to think I’m a relatively informed person politically and culturally. I have never heard of Pat Paulsen or Thom Hartmann. I don’t think they are the big names you think they are.
Pat Paulsen might be a household name to older people, but he was on the air pretty much before I was born. And I’m far from a kid, I could technically be a grandpa. (But I’m not, yet, thank God.)
Looking up Thom Hartmann, he’s a radio guy, and radio personalities tend to be pretty niche as far as popularity.
If these are supposed to be examples of popular celebrities that make good references, no wonder the idea of Cenk Uygur banking on his name to make a presidential run might seem plausible to you.
I’m 62, as a frame of reference. Pat Paulsen was biggest maybe a half a generation before me, though I was certainly aware of him. And the reason he’s an obvious reference here, of course, is because of his multiple comical, no-chance runs for president. Just one demographic data point.
That makes sense.
Funny thing is, he last ran in ‘96 (year before he passed away) yet I still don’t remember it being news at the time. Maybe the real candidates were funny enough.
His demonstrated anti-Progressive views disqualify him.
Like his misogyny? Or his racism, which is also documented in what I linked to? Or his genocide denial?
One of my high school teachers had a Pat Paulsen presidential poster in their classroom, which is how I know about him. This would have been in '91 or '92, but it was a poster from one of his runs in the '60s.
I’m not clear if Hatchie is claiming this board is too old to appreciate Uygur, or too young.
That was well past his prime. He first “ran” in 1968, his campaign launched on The Smothers Brothers. I was seven years old, but as I got older I was aware that he was the “ran for president as a joke” guy.
Again you can’t bring yourself to quote the entirety of his progressive background because that shows how ridiculous your position is here.
The link is quoting him from 1999. Cenk has spoken many times about how he is embarrassed by the views he held back then and has, like I say, clearly and categorically condemned the Armenian genocide many times.
What are you saying, that it’s impossible to ever become a Progressive? If not, how many decades does it take? How many Progressive PACs does one need to found?