• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur files to run for Katie Hill's House seat

Harshaw said:
Only insofar as related to Cenk's tweet. My post was entirely about Cenk, who, as you know, is the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

As I said, twice now, you brought McConnell and the NRA into this thread.

Consistent? He used to present as a hardass conservative who published a host of sexist rules for women dating him.
Click to expand...

He used to be your typical conservative Republican, with all the warts of that ideology.

Cenk's style and substance are exactly of a piece with Limbaugh and Hannity. Maybe someday you'll see that. Meanwhile, enjoy the comfort of confirmation bias, I guess.
Click to expand...

I can spot a con artist from a mile away.
 
Harshaw said:
Okey dokey.
Click to expand...

That's more like it!!!!

:2mad:

There ARE libertarians, wackjob Antifa types, airheaded opportunistic fauxcialists like AOC & other assorted morons who think they're on the left & dig the raging jerk, but Cenk is despised by the ACTUAL left for his constant attacks thereupon and his endless passive-aggressive warmongering.

Utter scum; just a special breed of maggot.
 
3leftsdoo said:
That's more like it!!!!

:2mad:

There ARE libertarians, wackjob Antifa types, airheaded opportunistic fauxcialists like AOC & other assorted morons who think they're on the left & dig the raging jerk, but Cenk is despised by the ACTUAL left for his constant attacks thereupon and his endless passive-aggressive warmongering.

Utter scum; just a special breed of maggot.
Click to expand...

If you say so.
 
3leftsdoo said:
That's true - he's a con artist, as you said - so he pays lip service to socialist values...
Click to expand...

That's why he has organized Wolf-PAC and co-founded the Justice Democrats, facilitating the rise of AOC, the Squad, and enormously benefiting Bernie Sanders in pushing the Democrats towards the progressive left.

He's really all-in on this con-job. I hope he succeeds.
 
Dans La Lune said:
As I said, twice now, you brought McConnell and the NRA into this thread.
Click to expand...

But not to discuss them. I stayed on topic.


He used to be your typical conservative Republican, with all the warts of that ideology.
Click to expand...

Sure. Then he cynically and opportunistically changed his tune to seek a different audience. Not without some success, as I said.

Cenk's a self-promoter, just like Limbaugh and Hannity. He'll go where he thinks the payoff is. If he suddenly decided there was more to be gained by becoming a conservative again, he'll do it. Arianna Huffington could give him some pointers.


I can spot a con artist from a mile away.
Click to expand...

Apparently not when they say the things you want to hear. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
But not to discuss them. I stayed on topic.
Click to expand...

I never claimed your motivations, only responded to another poster who criticized the inclusion of McConnell and the NRA in this topic.


Apparently not when they say the things you want to hear. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Cenk created Wolf-PAC (designed to create a Constitutional amendment to uncouple corruption from politics), co-founded the Justice Democrats (giving rise to AOC and the Squad, as well as Ro Khanna and others who are shaping the Democratic party even on a presidential level), endorsed Bernie, is heavily invested in promoting progressive policies like Medicare For All. He's very up front about his motivations. At what point, and from what angle, is the con-job? I'm genuinely asking. Help me spot the lies, the con-artistry, the self-enriching agenda which you clearly suspect.

Lets expose the con-artist. Help me do it.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I never claimed your motivations, only responded to another poster who criticized the inclusion of McConnell and the NRA in this topic.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You responded to me, and implied that I had engaged in whataboutism, when I hadn't. There was no other reason to have said what you said in response to what I said.



Cenk created Wolf-PAC (designed to create a Constitutional amendment to uncouple corruption from politics), co-founded the Justice Democrats (giving rise to AOC and the Squad, as well as Ro Khanna and others who are shaping the Democratic party even on a presidential level), endorsed Bernie, is heavily invested in promoting progressive policies like Medicare For All. He's very up front about his motivations. At what point, and from what angle, is the con-job? I'm genuinely asking. Help me spot the lies, the con-artistry, the self-enriching agenda which you clearly suspect.

Lets expose the con-artist. Help me do it.
Click to expand...

I've already described it several times, as have others. As I said . . . enjoy the warm embrace of confirmation bias. It is a heady elixir.
 
Harshaw said:
No, you didn't. You responded to me, and implied that I had engaged in whataboutism, when I hadn't.
Click to expand...

I didn't respond to you in this instance, I pointed those upset about the NRA's inclusion in this discussion in your direction. Whataboutism only works if you have no ideological or moral consistency.

I've already described it several times, as have others. As I said . . . enjoy the warm embrace of confirmation bias. It is a heady elixir.
Click to expand...

No, you made an allegation, you haven't substantiated it. Show me the 'con job'. Show me that Cenk is engaged in a scheme to butter his bread with progressivism. You made the allegation.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I didn't respond to you in this instance
Click to expand...

Well, yes, you did.


I pointed those upset about the NRA's inclusion in this discussion in your direction. Whataboutism only works if you have no ideological or moral consistency.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense, but in any case, what I did wasn't whataboutism. You still seem to be saying it is.


No, you made an allegation, you haven't substantiated it. Show me the 'con job'. Show me that Cenk is engaged in a scheme to butter his bread with progressivism. You made the allegation.
Click to expand...

It's the exact same con job as Limbaugh and Hannity. I've said it. Others have said it.

He says the things you want to hear. You lap it up. That's your choice.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, yes, you did.
Click to expand...

Not in the post where I pointed out that YOU brought McConnell and the NRA into this thread.

That doesn't make sense, but in any case, what I did wasn't whataboutism. You still seem to be saying it is.
Click to expand...

I don't even know which post you are referring to. Did I call you a whataboutist? I must have had a good reason, but I don't remember it.

It's the exact same con job as Limbaugh and Hannity. I've said it. Others have said it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you said it without proving it in even the slightest capacity. You do realize the difference between an assertion and an argument right?
 
Dans La Lune said:
Not in the post where I pointed out that YOU brought McConnell and the NRA into this thread.
Click to expand...

In response to me calling out the other guy's whataboutism, yes. It was entirely clear what you meant.

So:

I don't even know which post you are referring to. Did I call you a whataboutist? I must have had a good reason, but I don't remember it.
Click to expand...

:roll:

It's either exactly what you meant, or you didn't understand what you were getting into. Intent or incompetence?


Yes, you said it without proving it in even the slightest capacity. You do realize the difference between an assertion and an argument right?
Click to expand...

It's in exactly the same way Limbaugh and Hannity are con-job self-promoters, and, well, let's face it, spittle-flecked demagogues, just like Cenk. You probably have no problem seeing it with them. You just don't want to accept it's also true of the guy who says what you want to hear.

In Cenk's case, of course, no one who switches views so radically and so quickly could hold any of those views seriously or sincerely, and will do so again if he thinks it suits him.

It's true that I can't actually get inside his head. But I can certainly witness what he does and draw appropriate conclusions. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, Cenk tweeted just today:



There's so much stupid in this, it's hard to know where to start unpacking.

First, not one thing about what the kid did to shoot in that school was legal. He obtained the gun illegally. He carried it illegally. He used it illegally. That he succeeded had nothing to do with a lack of gun control; everything he did with that gun, including obtaining it, was illegal. The gun control was there.

California already has every bit of gun control that Cenk is blasting McConnell for supposedly blocking, and every bit of "common sense gun control" that advocates insist is all they want.

The idea that there's "no gun control at all" is completely and entirely detached from reality.

And the entire diatribe about the NRA and its money is based on the absurd premise that BUT FOR NRA bribe money, there's a whole army of politicians, especially in conservative states and rural areas, who would otherwise be eager to enact strict gun laws, but no, they've got NRA gravy, so they don't.

Cenk is [B]not a politically serious person ]QUOTE]


Why, because he lies? Because he says whatever he figures will pander to his partisan fan base?
Sounds like a recipe for success to me. Hell, if singers and actors and pro rasslers and reality-TV shills can be elected to high office, why not a hyper-partisan rabble-rouser?

Edit- apparently I screwed up the quote. Can't be bothered to redo it though.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
In response to me calling out the other guy's whataboutism, yes. It was entirely clear what you meant.
Click to expand...

I DON'T CARE.

It's either exactly what you meant, or you didn't understand what you were getting into. Intent or incompetence?
Click to expand...

What I was getting into was point out that you invoked McConnell and the NRA. That's the beginning and ending of my reference to you in this thread.

It's true that I can't actually get inside his head. But I can certainly witness what he does and draw appropriate conclusions. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Explain:

1) Wolf-PAC.
2) Justice Democrats.
3) Consistent progressive activism.
4) Challenging the best conservative intellectuals to debates and winning handily.

Where is the grift?

I don't want to hear empty accusations. Give me your argument.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I DON'T CARE.



What I was getting into was point out that you invoked McConnell and the NRA. That's the beginning and ending of my reference to you in this thread.
Click to expand...

And you found it necessary to "point out" because . . . ?


Explain:

1) Wolf-PAC.
2) Justice Democrats.
3) Consistent progressive activism.
4) Challenging the best conservative intellectuals to debates and winning handily.
Click to expand...

No, no Kool-Aid drinking on your part, no way. :roll:

Hannity and Limbaugh fans say that kind of thing all the time.


Where is the grift?

I don't want to hear empty accusations. Give me your argument.
Click to expand...

I already did.
 
Grand Mal said:
QUOTE=Harshaw;1070894898]Yeah, Cenk tweeted just today:



There's so much stupid in this, it's hard to know where to start unpacking.

First, not one thing about what the kid did to shoot in that school was legal. He obtained the gun illegally. He carried it illegally. He used it illegally. That he succeeded had nothing to do with a lack of gun control; everything he did with that gun, including obtaining it, was illegal. The gun control was there.

California already has every bit of gun control that Cenk is blasting McConnell for supposedly blocking, and every bit of "common sense gun control" that advocates insist is all they want.

The idea that there's "no gun control at all" is completely and entirely detached from reality.

And the entire diatribe about the NRA and its money is based on the absurd premise that BUT FOR NRA bribe money, there's a whole army of politicians, especially in conservative states and rural areas, who would otherwise be eager to enact strict gun laws, but no, they've got NRA gravy, so they don't.

Cenk is [B]not a politically serious person ]QUOTE]


Why, because he lies? Because he says whatever he figures will pander to his partisan fan base?
Sounds like a recipe for success to me. Hell, if singers and actors and pro rasslers and reality-TV shills can be elected to high office, why not a hyper-partisan rabble-rouser?

Edit- apparently I screwed up the quote. Can't be bothered to redo it though.
Click to expand...

:shrug: If that's the kind of thing you and the OP are into, then have at it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Google “The Young Turks” and click the first result that isn’t Cenk’s network.

Yeah it only took him until 2019 to actually say the Armenian Genocide happened, sorry I wasn’t so up to date when he spent his entire life espousing denial until this year.
Click to expand...
No, as I understand it, he corrected his faulty position years ago.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
And you found it necessary to "point out" because . . . ?
Click to expand...

Because another poster attributed the inclusion of these elements to the wrong poster. It was you.

No, no Kool-Aid drinking on your part, no way. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, I would invite you to watch the debates.

I already did.
Click to expand...

No, as usual, you make claims that you cannot substantiate.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Because another poster attributed the inclusion of these elements to the wrong poster. It was you.
Click to expand...

That didn't happen either. You do have a habit of making a lot of things up.


Well, I would invite you to watch the debates.
Click to expand...

Limbaugh and Hannity fans would invite you to do the same thing. As I said, Cenk, Hannity, Limbaugh -- they attract the same kinds of people -- hyperpartisans looking for confirmation bias.


No, as usual, you make claims that you cannot substantiate.
Click to expand...

Oh, no; I substantiate them. Heck, in our last exchange, you bolted after I littered you with it.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Great. Now recognize that America's founders were slave-raping, genocidal maniacs. Do you celebrate Thanks Giving? Be bold while you're on your high-horse, moral pedestal, "since like 2000".

Also explain Lindsey Graham blocking an Armenian genocide acknowledgment resolution after meeting with Erdogan.
Click to expand...

Every single founding father committed genocide and raped slaves?

I think that’s going to be a tough one to prove. In fact there was no genocide ever committed by the United States, and you cannot produce a case that would stand up in a criminal trial that any of the founders raped slaves
 
Harshaw said:
That didn't happen either. You do have a habit of making a lot of things up.
Click to expand...

OOPS, you are kind of correct. I just checked the post chronology. I wasn't paying attention to who was saying what. Turns out that when I said, "Harshaw brought the NRA and McConnell into this discussion" I was actually replying to Harshaw (you). The confusion comes from the fact that I didn't think Harshaw (you) would claim another person brought the NRA and McConnell into this thread. Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to do, yet you did it.

Limbaugh and Hannity fans would invite you to do the same thing. As I said, Cenk, Hannity, Limbaugh -- they attract the same kinds of people -- hyperpartisans looking for confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

So explain the creation of the Justice Democrats, Wolf-PAC, and his progressive advocacy and then tell me the angle of the grift. You made an assertion, not an argument.

Oh, no; I substantiate them. Heck, in our last exchange, you bolted after I littered you with it.
Click to expand...

Ooooo, I will have to go check. Last I remember, I challenged you and YOU stopped posting. I didn't realize you had taken up my challenge. Thanks drawing my attention to it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom