CENK: In this video you express some frustration that now that Sanders has gotten that he’s not being treated seriously by the [Corporately Owned] Dem Party, why isn’t he reaching out to us at Turks??
I think this is why: for him to build a coalition (presuming he wants to try to do so under the Independent Party petitioning mechanism…), getting chummy with someone who has a combative style is going to make it harder for him to enlist people to run in his “venture” (let’s just call it that, for now…)
Let me give you an example: the Lichtman dressing down (after the election…); you were clearly 200% right (I also knew his analysis was deluded…) Now when you started to talk and he cut you off, claiming that your pointing out his analysis was wrong constituted a personal attack -yes! He was a big fat freaking wuss; he was using the claim you were personally attacking him as a means to change the subject from your reminding viewers that such formulaic analyses are futile. But how did you react? Yelling at him, using disparaging terms (granted, subsequent to his cutting you off…), and so forth.
So how should you have reacted if you don’t want to turn off people as appearing to have schaudenfraude and gloating? You should have kept your cool, turn to Piers, and just say to Piers: “Hey Piers: is it my turn to talk now? Are you going to moderate this program??” Then you let Morgan be the heavy (and that’s the job of a program moderator…), and you look like the voice of reason. By being combative, it rubs some people the wrong way. That’s Trump’s hallmark style, right?? It’s not endearing, except to bruisers. I think Bernie is looking for a larger following than just bruisers.
Maybe if a less combative personality on Turks were to do a Sanders interview (perhaps Jordan Uhl??), he might feel more comfortable about not turning off a segment. If Sanders’ venture gets a following, at a later date he can afford to do another direct interview with you.
PS PERSONALLY, I don’t mind your combativeness; but if you’re trying to build a new organization such as Sanders is toying with, you have to be more courteous than you tend to be…
I think when one resorts to yelling, denigrating, and smugness or gloating they have already lost. It becomes a weakness and, therefore, an easy factor for an opponent to utilize in destroying the fabric and validity of one’s argument. Cenk has data, experience, and high likability, so would be much better served to focus on those in winning arguments, gaining an array of viewers, and welcoming a variety of guests.
A leftist convention should happen every two years where we all get together for a 3 day weekend, we discuss and have debates and at the end hold votes for the platform we can all agree to. It would cut down on the infighting and make it easier to organize. Cenk needs to invite Dr. Cornel West on. I’d like to ask how the drive to make the Justice For All Party an actual registered party in all 50 states is going? We should all register there and leave the Dem party in non presidential election years and come back for primaries in presidential election years. A third party should focus on getting seats in the House. Where the people have the most impact. Bernie should get together with Justice For All Party and the Justice Dems. We could take the House with 10 effing seats. We could decide the Speaker and the votes! And the attention from the cameras. I would vote Dr. Cornel West for Speaker on the first ballot, Nina Turner on the second, and Representative Crockett on the third.
There’s the Left forum that meets regularly; it degenerated into an LGBTQ talking party.
I said it elsewhere: a short list of attainable pro WORKING CLASS objectives needs to be drafted. Somebody trustworthy has to act as a gatekeeper on those who want to use the brand or get funding. They should get assistance in getting balloted by petition.
Anything with the name “Dem” has to be kicked to the curb, given that the corporate owners of the Dem Party have said they would sooner have Trump than take less in profits to keep workers from going under. “Justice Dems” was founded on the notion that the Dem party could be changed. After what happened in this election where Harris presented not much of anything for workers, that party can now morph into the “I make +$150K party and I work for a big corporation/multinational”. And as people in the Dem Party get “musical-chaired”, they’re welcome to join Sanders’ new venture!
Bernie energy 2016 is still here 100% if he, Dr. West , and the Justice Dems can put egos aside for the betterment of humanity and let me know when the first Justice For All Party convention will be. A viable third party should be dedicated mostly on taking congressional seats in midterms and advocating for the progressive choice in Dem primaries. Until we can break the duopoly that excludes all small parties from being able to compete.
Just working class issues, so long as it’s not ecologically damaging. Green energy, reduce single use plastic pollution -those issues are fine because not addressing them is killing us. Those are issues that won’t be seriously addressed by the Dem Party because they cut into corporate profits. But refugee rights, transgender rights? Go make another party or movement. The apex issue for a working class movement is worker issues. All those other matters will just be used by plutocrats and corporations as wedge issues to turn the working class off your political organization…
Politeness isn’t a strategy when dealing with systems that thrive on suppressing dissent. Bernie doesn’t need to distance himself from combative figures like Cenk; he needs them to cut through the noise and expose inconvenient truths. While focusing on congressional seats is pragmatic, dismissing the cultural power of high-profile presidential campaigns underestimates their ability to shape national discourse—just look at the lasting impact of Bernie’s 2016 run.
A narrow focus on working-class issues risks alienating critical allies in climate justice and marginalized communities. Worker solidarity thrives on inclusivity, not exclusivity. And while it’s tempting to completely reject ‘Dem’ branding, doing so too early might isolate progressives when leveraging existing infrastructure could yield short-term gains.
Lastly, infighting isn’t always a weakness—it’s a sign of vibrancy and necessary ideological rigor. Avoiding it entirely risks stagnation and groupthink.
BUT: if you adopt non-working class issues (refugee rights, transgender rights, etc.) as a prerequisite for support, they are used as wedge issues to drive voters away from interest in your political alliance. [Thar was pointed out by Cenk in this interview (link).,] And who is the largest underserved voting block right now? The working class, of course! There would be nothing stopping a candidate from fighting on the side for such non-working-class rights; it would just be requisite that such a candidate simultaneously carry water for working class issues, and not run counter to them.
Like it or not, somebody will have to be gatekeepers of that. I think we should trust Bernie to organize that -who else is there that can be trusted like him?
I think pollution perpetrated by corporations would be a valid tenet for such a new alliance; that impacts all workers, right?? (and their children…) But worker issues should be the apex focus…
I totally get her not wanting to support Dems. But she then voted for Trump. I’m down with people who no longer vote Dem voting Green or other third or independent parties. But voting for Trump? I’m not sure how I really feel about that.
Yeah, I don’t get that AT ALL! Somebody who sounds so intelligent voting for an agent of chaos. I would understand voting Trump if you were at the end of your economic rope, and wanted to do a Chaos Lottery ticket in the hopes it somehow turns out economically better for you. [Harris offered nothing for workers, when she clearly could have.] But I doubt this lady was at the end of her economic rope!
In light of Sanders’ clear unwillingness to start an Independent alliance, I now see a successor to the discredited Repubs and Dems on the rise: Libertarianism.
A quick recap of the failures of all three political parties:
Repubs: they have been the party of no taxes (all the while not putting in place solutions to keep federal infrastructure together…) Since Newt Gingrich, they have been the corrupt party of professional-wrestling-is-real-wink-wink, telegraphing to a portion of the electorate: “Hey: you know what we’re claiming is BS, and I know it’s BS -but hey: hop on board and win or be left behind!”
Dems: co-opted by the corporations; only tablescraps for workers. “Trump/the Repubs are so bad, we don’t have to offer jack shit”. So now we will have a repeated game of chicken where the Dems refuse to give anything substantial to the working class, betting they will settle for them over Trump/the Repubs. But they are losing that bet again and again now. You might have a lot of Dems stay home for the midterms if they do it once again.
Libertarians: You can think of them as Repubs (obsessed with no-taxes, since most of their adherents are very wealthy…), but they are not as corrupt as Repubs though. Rather than use the pro-wrestling brazen lie technique, they use sophistries to justify the continued protection of their wealth at the costs of all other matters.
Looking at the way the Libertarians are differentiating themselves from the Repubs in their addressing the issue of the co-option of the US by AIPAC and Mossad operations (like Epstein…), and absent Sanders’ willingness to form an Independent alliance to make a clean break from the corporate control of the Dem Party, I am now seeing the Libertarians’ star ascendant.
In the grand scheme of things, it might be a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic now, with our descent into balkanization because of unfettered gerrymandering sanctioned by the courts (Texas being the provocateur…), nothing being done about unlimited presidential pardons, and the courts not lifting a finger to stop the use of the military (never mind the Guard…) as a DOMESTIC police force -but I’m just sharing what I am seeing is now afoot.
I’m surprised Bernie didn’t move forward with an Independent alliance, but it is what it is.
Turks keeps doing shows marveling on how bad the Dems are doing, in spite of all the Trump DISASTERS.
Figure this out, guys: the Dems are getting paid very well to sit on their hands on many issues (worker rights and conditions, Gaza/Israel, antitrust, etc.) They make a nice payday even if they lose an election.
As I have said repeatedly, Sanders could organize a vetting committee for an alliance of Independent reps; he apparently does not want to because petitioning to get Independents on the ballots would have started by now.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What can I/we do? Vet the Independents ourselves?? That would be like trying to start your own Consumer Reports!
Bernie would like the Dem Party to change; but it won’t, since a majority of its players have become addicted to donor money.
So do you want to form an Independent alliance, Bernie? Or just continue to pontificate about the problem in lectures??
We need actual legislative change; not more speeches at this point (unless that is an immediate precursor to concrete and meaningful actions to start a new well-regulated political alliance that will be able to defend itself from inevitable attempts by monied interests to sabotage it…)
