What would you like to see from TYT in 2025?

Operation Hope
21

Thanks for asking. Instead of trying to be perfect, I’m going to come back to this topic when I think of additional ideas, here or there.

But one idea that came to mind today as I watched Ana and Cenk make some good points about how awful Biden was, and how he should not have been a candidate:

I’d like to see TYT committing a resource to covering regularly (perhaps once per week for a 10-20 minute report) the upcoming 2028 primaries, who the possible candidates will be (Dem, Repub, Libertarian, Green, etc.), what the progress is on removing (or at least shining light on) those Dem party leaders who have been most particularly responsible for hiding Biden’s weaknesses and helping ensure that the Dems lost the 2024 election, shining a light on Repub and other party leadership, perhaps a rundown on donor updates, and efforts by Republicans (including voter suppression, I’m not sure whether TYT presently does a great job on that point) to undermine that we will have a fair vote, or any vote at all, in 2028. Another part of the report could name people that TYT would like to constructively suggest would be good candidates in each party for 2028, whether they have indicated willingness to run or not.

Background to this suggestion:

By zooming in 2-4 years ahead of time, and making a regular topic out of it, TYT can continue to show leadership on questioning the outrageous failings of the Dem leaders who have sabotaged the Primary Process, and the legitimate debate and discussion process among many excellent candidates.

Also, every four years I challenge myself to name Republicans who I think I could vote for in a general election for President. (There were several in 2024, including some Northeast Governor Rockefeller Republicans, though they did not run). This is a really productive exercise for me, and helps me stay focused on naming the things I want to see in a President, rather than constantly dwelling on the things I dislike about the existing candidates. So, if TYT could make this a regular part of broadcasts, it might be good also for TYT and listeners.

Drawbacks to this suggestion:

[cont.]

2 Likes
22

[cont.]
[drawbacks to my suggestion above]

It could just come across as irrelevant nonsense of thinking about the distant future when nobody cares. I do personally think that the Dems have so horribly botched things that we should make an effort to see if there’s a way to do things right. Maybe don’t put an embarrassing amount of emphasis on a date 2-3 years hence, but keep up the drumbeat and attention, in a regular, organized, well-resourced way, on getting out ahead of holding the Dem Party and Repub party accountable for their beyond-awful candidates, as one would hold accountable a repeat cynical criminal offender who is out on parole, knowing that he is just going to commit the same crimes again and again. The segment could have some variety, invite on guests who are experts in election law, voter suppression and voting system integrity, invite senators, representatives and others who might be good candidates even if that topic is lightly discussed or not discussed, so we can kick the tires early on hearing what they have to say, etc. By organizing in this forward-looking way, but keeping some focus on the present, I do think it could be a worth-watching segment.

3 Likes
23

Building on ideas from this thread, what if TYT launched a weekly “Frontline Reports” segment? It could feature Operation Hope updates, grassroots wins, and track the 2028 primaries—spotlighting candidates, voter suppression, and holding leaders accountable. With actionable takeaways for viewers, it’d amplify voices and connect us to real-world change. This evolves the amazing suggestions here into something tangible and impactful.

5 Likes
24

hi, one other specific suggestion for a regular portion of a weekly report:

It seems highly probable that Trump and their team will make some effort to end, or to some significant degree curtail, free and fair elections in the US. Specifically, Trump has given indication that if some voters went for him in 2024, they would never have to vote again (or some-such). And of course we have the infamous coup attempt, with outrageous encouragement from Trump, on January 6, 2021. And we have the fact that one of the first things that Trump did when he came into office in 2017 was to appoint a commission that was designed to harm the election system even more (The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity).

One could argue that, in effect, Trump’s coup efforts have been successful. Regardless of the outcome of that argument, it seems clear that our voting rights will be under siege even more than they have ever been, and it seems clear that it is very much in doubt whether the Presidential election in 2028 will be free and fair and whether the election will even take place (not to mention that both parties have ultimately nominated mediocre or not-great or awful Presidential candidates in many of our previous elections).

So, I think this would be a good time to get organized about keeping a firm eye on the ongoing efforts to end our voting system as we know it, and keeping a firm eye on improvements that could be made, up to and including ending or revising the Electoral College system (yes, even if it’s not presently likely).

1 Like
25

Put the Karens to work as watchdogs!

1 Like
26

Another thing I’d like to see is a regular segment on religion and philosophy. It can be from a correspondent or correspondents who are belief-neutral or who make a practice of setting their beliefs aside for some of the purposes in order to make sure that a wide range of thinking and belief are invited. The audience could be treated to a regular check-in on the key ideas and practices that move so many of us.

One might respond that religion and philosophy should have nothing to do with a political show but my point of view is:

  • It is not possible to talk about politics without talking about philosophy of government.
  • It is not possible to discuss philosophy of government without discussing deeper philosophies.
  • Religions are earlier primitive forms of philosophies.

In any event, while keeping politics and religion apart may be useful for tax purposes or personal behavioral get-along purposes in the workplace, this is not an approach that should necessarily be followed in a political show. However, it depends on how it’s done.

One correspondent who might work well in this idea is the guy doing the atheist church audit youtube show.

2 Likes
27

some further clarification on this: I guess I’m tired of seeing what appears to be some loss of common syllabus and sense of community in our society. I also think that the political philosophy views that many of us espouse come from somewhere within us, as they relate to our personal philosophy views.

1 Like
28

I think, too, this could create greater respect for other’s views regarding religion, spirituality, and philosophy. It seems that many have the attitude that it’s okay to mock another’s religion, etc, and this might help people see that’s just not cool.

1 Like
29

Ehh. Let her join the Leftist Mafia and then she can bitch about Cenk all she wants.

30

I’d like to see a good faith debate on the trans issues between Ana and someone like ContraPoints. She is probably one of the few trans content creators who is willing to go into different spaces and debate the issues.

3 Likes
31

I wish Francesca could replace Ana somehow

1 Like
32

I’d like to see Greg Palast as an occasional guest on the show (I do sometimes think he is not the most credible, but he is far from the worst) along with several other guests of even higher credibility (I’m sure some can be found) who can speak to the urgent inherently non-partisan issue of voting system integrity in the US.

This academically-oriented project seems like it should be able to steer TYT to a good spokesperson about the results of their work, as one starting point:

1 Like
33

That would be interesting because I think Cenk (and Ana, and everyone, really) would benefit from disagreement and honest, constructive criticism. Too much agreement breeds complacency and sycophancy. They could make a good balance, so long as he actually listens and remains fair and respectful.

1 Like
34

I have noticed that Cenk and Ana used to disagree more pointedly than they do recently. Cenk and Ana definitely come at things from a different place and both voices are super interesting and important imo.

I think having important discussions like Cenk and Jordan Uhl do fairly often recently is really beneficial. I think I like a passionate discussion that’s somewhere in-between 100% agreement and 100% shouting. Although I do love a good segment-ending “Young Turks!!” :slight_smile:

2 Likes
35

All my life, many political conversations have been, to me, jarring, because they often rest firmly on premises that are almost never discussed, questioned or even thought about. Examples:

  • If a tariff does harm to the economy in the short run, does that make it bad? What is the purpose of a policy measure like a tariff, and is it possible that a policy measure can have some other purpose than a short-term improvement to the economy? Do we all agree that the purpose of such a policy measure is to help the economy or help poor people, or perhaps some of us have other purposes of government in mind.

  • What are the reasons that people support, or do not support, a right of abortion? Is this based on their personal philosophic views? Are they able to think clearly as to what their personal views say as to the science of the matter? And what is the value of being consistent in reasoning out how one sees individual rights in this area versus, say, in a free speech discussion?

  • If a person’s thinking is such that the best they can do in understanding earth science is to think that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and was created by God, then how can we hope to have a discussion with them as to understanding the science behind our climate emergency concerns? And does their religion or philosophy, … particular their view that faith takes primacy over their own reasonin abilities,… have anything to do with their inability to understand the science?

  • What is the purpose of government? Many assume that it is almost the definition of government to try to assure some version of economic equality and in effect to “take from the rich and give to the poor”. Is that the only way to view the purpose of government? Is it actually a moral way to look at governing? Are progressives aware that many libertarians and other advocates for a different form of government would view such a “Robin Hood” view of government as very specificially philosophically immoral? If they are aware of this, then why do progressives so often seem to assume moral superiority in their basic views, to the point where they do not regard such matters as debatable?

  • Is money, or the love of it, actually inherently evil, as the main US religion tells us? Or are there dramatically different philosophic ways to look at money and the love of it?
    [cont.]

1 Like
36

[cont.]

So, my point is that once such “get to the bottom of matters” questions are raised and a calm welcoming environment is established to consider them from different perspectives, I think good things could come from this, including TYT viewers finding a new toe-hold to question and strengthen their own convictions.

I suppose many might counter that this is all just nonsense. ONe thing I do think can be said at that point is that Harris supporters right now are supposed to be trying better to understand what the heck is happening, now and in 2016 for that matter. Why would so many voters in the US go for the fiend from NYC? Why would they not just instantly back down and vote for the Dem when informed, by friends, relatives, pundits, that it is improper and immoral to vote for him? There must be a reason, no?

I think the answers here are complex, but that some of the matter lies in their basic political and philosophic views being somewhat far away from what Dems and Progressives think.

1 Like
37

Tutorials on how to have political conversations.

For so long we were told “don’t talk about politics or religion” and now we don’t have the tools to do so now that we so desperately see it.

3 Likes
38

Thank you all so much for your suggestions!!! So many great ones!

3 Likes
39

Did you see The People's Cabinet...Positive Form of Opposition?

Could be a show idea.

2 Likes
40

I’d like to see them support creating Memorial Wall honoring the victims of this murderous healthcare system. I wrote a thread about it here entitled " For Victims of the US Healthcare System…A Memorial"

4 Likes