Tucker vs Cenk; Campaign finance reform and hypocrisy

Fantastic debate between Tucker and Cenk on immigration and money in politics.



I admit to being bias toward Tucker, and this debate made me like him even more.

And even though I dislike Cenk, he made some good points and was polite unlike some other times.

I wanted to focus on the second half of the debate (though the first half was great as well) which was about money in politics.

Tucker agrees there is a problem with money in politics, but worries that we may take away speech rights in an effort to curb it. He also believes that our freedoms are more endangered by private companies like google at this point than our government, so we should be focused on that more. (I agree with both of these points)

You het the feeling from tuckers point that this is a very complicated issue, which I agree with.

Cenk on the other hand just says to get all money out of politics.

He then discusses how hillary got tons of corporate money (fair enough). however, he says that the only reason that Trump was able to overcome that was that the media gave him 5 billion dollars of free airtime.

Thus Cenk proves himself a hypocrite.

By defining media coverage as a financial contribution of sorts, Cenk admits that it too would need to be regulated to truly get money out of politics. And seeing that Cenk has a media company that regularly gives air time to candidates it favors, he is hypocritical demanding others keep their money out of politics, while giving finaicial contributions in the form of airtime himself.

A regular pattern with the very progressive; demanding others follow laws that shouldnt apply to themselves. Like the climate change portestor flying in a jet, or the gun grabber with an armed guard.

Whether it is out of ignorance, or a desire to magnify his voice by demanding other companies be silenced while his is not, Cenk is being a hypocrite.

But this goes beyond Cenk.

If we just overturn Citizens united, how will that stop the MSM which is 90% establishment democrat from still using the massive power to influence elections?

Or how will that stop google playing with their algorithm to push candidates and policies that benefit them?

The truth is that money in politics is a very difficult problem, and often times the ones proposing solutions are proposing solutions that merely allow themselves to have more power.

a reply to: Grambler

When it comes to Cenk, the Young Turks, Wolf Pac, and Justice Democrats you have to understand they all want money out of politics. Super Pacs, dark money, money equaling free speech, and Corporations legally becoming a person. This is the core of corruption, and let's not forget lobbyist. All these things combined have ruined our gov't and things are only getting worse.

He's right when he says Trump got billions of dollar of free media time, he did. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News all showed for like an hour Trump's empty podium waiting for his rally to start. Meanwhile, plenty of other candidates were well on their way with their rallies but were ignored, mostly. So Clinton raised more money than Trump but he still raised a helluva lot because he had his hats and billionaire donors, like the Mercer family, increasing his war chest. BUT, he got more AIR TIME than all the other candidates, I think even combined.

Anyway, look into their Wolf Pac and how they are gonna try to use the corrupt system against itself to get candidates elected who are AGAINST big donors, dark money, and Super Pacs. They've gotten Justice Democrats in office already, you may be familiar with one of them, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

a reply to: Swills

Cortez is terrible.

And my point is that yes people like cenk with criticize money in politics, and caall media coverage and air time money given to politicians.

yet cenk doesnt seem to want to take his media network and the contributions it gives to politicians he favors in the form of free airtime to be taken out of politics.

If they wanted all money out of politics, he would be demanding in addition to what he has that the media, his company included, does not favor candidates.

he is not doing that because he is a hypocrite and feels he should be allowed to have his money in politics cause he is a good guy

a reply to: Grambler

The trick is to find a way to where politics isn't very profitable.

Every aspect is very profitable and of course lends itself to corruption. The more I think about it, I don't even know if there is a possible way to make politics as such.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

The trick is to find a way to where politics isn't very profitable.

Every aspect is very profitable and of course lends itself to corruption. The more I think about it, I don't even know if there is a possible way to make politics as such.

Its very tough.

Term limits are a good start.

Holding people that break current laws accountable.

Having a free press that actually seeks to make these lobbying relationships transparent and available to the public.

But yeah, its much more difficult than just saying overturn citizens united and get all money out of politics.

a reply to: Grambler

Again, you should probably head over to their sites to understand what their plan is instead of judging them from your computer chair without having all the facts and information in order.

Your argument is null and void once you see where they're coming from.

And Cortez is great but Right Wingers hate her because Leftist, I get it, well all get it, but did you know she stood with protesters outside of Pelosi's office on her first day in DC? NANCY PELOSI! Cortez is not some new blood looking to gain favor from corporate shill Democrats. On her first day, wet behind the ears, she joined in a protest against NANCY PELOSI!

At the very least, you should recognize that she doesn't want to play the corporate politician shill game.

a reply to: Swills

I know that Cenk is part opf that PAC.

I know he thinks that he thinks that he doesnt have to get his media company and their financial benefits out of [politics.

I know thats hypocrisy.

But please, post me what you want from their site that that disporves that, I will read it.

Cortez protested pelosi, so what? Did you celebrate the tea party for protesting bush?

Just because she is against pelosi (we shall see) doesnt mean she is a good politician.

She is a socialists, who wants to spend trillions of dollars with no plan on where it should come from.

She claims that people who want to debate her are catcalling her, because she plays the victim card when she knows she has no valid retort to criticisms.

a reply to: Grambler
ohhh I obviously have not watched it yet, but no damn well this should be a good one. Tomorrow when there is more time. I cannot wait. Thank you for the highlights as well. I will still watch it tomorrow, I love a good debate.

a reply to: Swills

And a good friend of mine on my youtube video raised a similar point as you.

Here was how I responded to him.

Cenk admits that the reason trump was able to be successful is that he was given a financial contribution in the form of media coverage.

Lets say that we follow Cenks "plan" which is vaguely outlined and no specific details are laid out.

Ok so amazon and goldman sachs or coca cola or no other corporation is allowed to give money. However, the media, of which Cenk is a part of, in unencumbered and still able to provide financial support in the form of air time to whoever they wish.

Cenk has admitted that the media giving airtime is so powerful that it is even able to overcome millions upon millions of dollars given by lobbyists. So now the media has even more control over who gets elected, because they maintain their incredible power to give air time to who they want, and they dont even have to compete with lobbyists.

It does nothing to solve the real problem, and I think its more than just a coincidence that Cenk, being part of the media, is advocating a reform that will benefit him and his company even more.

In addition, lets not forget that most media companies are owned by the very same type of corporations that Cenk is saying needs to have their influence taken out of politics. And what would be to stop Goldman sachs or a similar company from instead of giving money directly to a candidate to instead give it to The New York Times or CNN or Fox or The Young Turks in exchange for promoting a candidate they favor?

The problem is Cenks suggestion is hypocritical as it still allows him to use his power to influence elections, and would not be effectual at solving the problem. Yes we need to work to get financial influence out of politics, by that doesnt mean we should not be critical to people being hypocritical and not practical in their suggestions for accomplishing that.