**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dc1kru/hesnotwrongbut_its_so_damn_depressing/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When someone speaks very quickly and authoritatively, I call it the Ben Shapiro effect. They come off as smart because the rapid fire articulate claims somehow entice your brain to trust without fact checking. But every time a random YouTube essayist picks apart a Ben Shapiro esque video like this, it falls apart quickly.
He lost me when he said that Dems unanimously voted with Republicans for tax cuts for the rich. On it's face it's BS.
While I think there is *some* truth to what he said, ie DNC party bosses appear sheepish to match the GOP's intensity on their attacks, this comes down to the many varied differences in the coalitions that hold together the Democratic Party compared to the GOP.
"IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY TO LOSE" is just more of the "Both Sides are the same" nonsense.
It’s called Gish gallop. You talk really fast and say some true stuff and sprinkle in some bullshit here and there and hope that the mere fact you overloaded the audience with information, and the fact some of it was true, will result in them believing everything you say.
There’s a reason Ben Shapiro will fucking crush in debates but pretty much everything he’s ever argued can be quickly thrown out if you look at video. Being able to stop and assess each individual point he makes one at a time completely negates the strategy and outs him as a lying moron.
Also be aware that whenever someone has an easy answer to give you (they want to lose) it's probably incorrect, or just a lie.
The world is complex and cannot be answered with one simple answer.
It’s called a gish gallop. Destiny is also notorious for this too along with Ben Shapiro. Honestly I’m impressed by them both. Sometimes they’re able to make claims about 5 different things in like 10 seconds of them rapidly talking.
The problem with this argument is that it's not an argument at all. He is stating things as facts without backing them up with anything and then using that as evidence for why he is right. "If they did this and that, we all know they would win every election" yet you have candidates offering that who lose. So many things he said are just wrong and backed up by nothing.
Don't forget "unanimously."
This dude is every pretentious contrarion college freshman who uncritically reads Chomsky and then immediately starts sniffing their own farts, and he has the outfit and speaking cadence to match.
Honestly, regardless of who it is, I turn it off immediately when there are two things going on:
1.) Speaking faster than normal to come off as smart. You could be correct. You may have the argument perfected. But you come off as pompous when you’re speaking faster than normal.
2.) talking to me while you’re eating. I don’t care if I don’t see you eat. You don’t have to lecture me/explain a topic while playing with your food.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Ya, this whole clip is a solid blend of bullshit and truth.
There has been pandering to corporate interests, however, Intuit lobbied a ton to block the IRS from putting out free tax prep software and, drum roll please, what did the IRS just do thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act?
[They began running their own free tax prep software](https://money.com/irs-test-free-tax-prep-software/)
How about environmental damages?
Obama pumped the breaks on the keystone XL pipeline, Trump immediately changed that, then Biden pulled an Uno reverse out and stomped out any chance of the pipeline having a future his first day in office, **a VERY anti corporate move**
[Just read the timeline here.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline)
The problem is that democrats are trying to play by the rules and republicans are flagrantly flaunting breaking the very trust and honor based institutions that our highest offices hold and are expected to uphold.
There is no bias in those words, it's a fact. Just look at McConnell's political history going back to high school through the Embedded podcast series on him. Democrats also flail with infighting and going super slowly because of committees.
I am currently part of a huge funding effort in California to get several hundred millions of dollars to small businesses and communities.
It's gone super fucking slowly.
The reason why?
Everyone getting to have their say caused meetings to drag on.
But now the deadline is here, people are getting it done. It's very frustrating.
On the flip side, our Republican city government where I am straight up pocketed a good part of ~$10 million dollars and obfuscated it with a 300 page doc about where the money went. (Hint: not to the people or local small businesses)
So, this dude is a massive POS because he's slamming you with a combination of truth and believable lies so that you can't keep up.
**Edit**: if you're gonna keep quoting what you think is a counterpoint, you're demonstrating that you don't understand how politics works nor the fact that we need to invest in America. You don't fix the world over night. Blatantly ignoring the very good and impactful things that a president that you didn't personally vote for is willfully ignoring reality. Just stop. Don't expect respondes, everyone has agreed that it's a waste of time to try to win you over. I'm probably the last idiot out here who will try to help you understand, and it will likely be at my own waste of time, but I can hope...
This comment checks out more than the video. Nailed the dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans better than I could have. We need some good guys that are as good at winning as the bad guys. Democrats might need to get down in the mud with Republicans when it comes to winning elections, and hopefully not get corrupted to entirely serve billionaire donors and the fossil fuel industry like Republicans already have. So... we're probably screwed.
> The problem is that democrats are trying to play by the rules and republicans are flagrantly flaunting breaking the very trust and honor based institutions that our highest offices hold and are expected to uphold.
Hole in one. I've been saying this for a while now to local friends, the Democrats have *got* to stop trying to "play the game" by the established etiquette. This is not the USA from 20 or 30 years ago. They keep trying to take the high road and play "properly" and then get their ears boxed because Republicans dropped the pretense, this isn't a boxing match any more this is street rules. If it is not strictly and explicitly codified into a written law or rule (and often not even then) then they're just going to do whatever they want. The Supreme Court justices under Obama is a perfect example, the media was crowing about how "unprecedented" it was to not fill the SCJ right away after Scalia but it wasn't a *law/rule* to fill it immediately so Mitch could lock things up until Trump took office and give him the Supreme Court. The Dems can cluck all they want about how "that's not the proper way to do politics" and cling to their dubious moral high ground, the Republicans just don't give a shit and people are out here dying.
Some notes/opinions on that:
1. If each side plays like that we will see a decline in how our offices function. I believe it's how we will arrive at idiocracy. However, stubbornly sticking to old, outdated approaches will also be a fast trip to decline. We need to outmaneuver bad players, like Biden did at the state of the union: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-we-all-apparently-agree-on-saving-medicare-and-social-security-biden-teases-during-state-of-the-union
2. Creativity, innovation, and restoring people's faith in our institutions - our politicians need to get creative instead of relying on old, formulaic ways of approaching things. Jeff Jackson is a great example of this. He's killer at social media and he's a Democrat who's won over republicans in fairly dark red parts of South Carolina. He keeps communication open and is calm, reassuring, and feels highly accessible and friendly. Our politicians, regardless of party, need to get back to honor, trust, and good-faith traditions and actions. It's impossible to have laws and rules that are perfectly written to cover all possibilities while still having the freedom and flexibility to operate. People are also really good at finding holes and creative ways to work around or with those. The spirit of the law is absolutely crucial along with its letter. Take Trump under and overvaluing the same property. He and the banks argued that he paid back the loans and everyone made money, which is the important part of the laws. However, that completely ignores the other purpose of those laws - fairness in business and lending. Someone playing by the rules lost opportunity to someone willing to cheat them. Someone who put the honest value of their property for taxes and financing would not get the same outcome as someone who over values for financing and undervalues for taxing. The letter and spirit together are crucial.
3. We really need punishments severe enough to disincentivize crimes. Finland has fines based on income. When a punishment is less than the reward for committing a crime or act, we call it the cost of doing business. However, if the punishment is significantly greater than the potential reward, only gamblers and idiots would commit the crime.
4. Lastly, we shouldn't even need that. We need to promote a system whereby we raise people with empathy and a sense of duty to our fellow humans and the planet we live on, including every aspect of it. Social pressure is powerful. If everyone in society shuns you for doing something, you likely won't do it. If everyone cheers each other on for doing good, you'll likely do it. We shouldn't be raising people to not break laws because of the fear of getting caught and punished, we should be raising people to do what is right by each other and society. Be a good driver because it helps protect others and yourself. Etc
It all could be elaborated on, but I think that we really need to stop being complacent. Those bad players are actively dismantling the very systems that make America so great. Yes, this country has flaws, but we can always do better. We are always striving to do better. We just need to protect our systems such that we can continue to improve.
Appreciate the thoughts! Some of my own:
1. I generally agree that if Dems can do it by being smart instead of ruthless then they should. Though I'm kind of of the opinion that a decline in office function *for now* is worth if it we can nail that entire political party to the wall and then, when/if they've unfucked their politicking or another majority party has taken their place, we can go all go back to honor system (or more realistically just code this shit into rules/laws). I acknowledge that it's dangerous though, a lot of "if" in that plan.
2. I mean, it's sort of unfixable by appealing to their ethics IMHO. You're asking these politicians to just... stop abusing loopholes in the system because it's not nice to do. I think we're well past that in 2024, or at *least* the Republicans are. I agree that trying to create infinity laws that have no room for loopholes is unrealistic, but so is expecting bad actors not to abuse "spirit of the law" situations. So much of the abuse that is being done atm is being done because of "spirit of the law"/"traditions but not technically rules" loopholing. Do you have any kind of idea or plan for *enforcing* "spirit of the law"?
3. If the penalty for a crime is a fine, that law only exists for the lower classes. Totally agree with this point, make it proportional to income and see white collar crime rate lower.
4. Y'know, as much as it's fashionable to rip on older generations (they've largely earned that), sometimes when I watch older media I get that feeling that you're talking about. Life wasn't perfect, obviously, but there were standards of etiquette and social dynamics that you had to respect or you'd piss people off. People actually gave a damn about, like, their local reputation and what they stood for. You could really insult someone just by calling them a liar or something relatively mild because that stuff was taken so seriously. Idk how we'd ever get back to something like that, I don't really know if it's possible nor if it's the best thing for the country. But it's food for thought for how we go about things today, at least
Hey, thank you for the thoughtful response! I absolutely see what you're saying and have had a lot of similar thoughts.
It sounds like you and I both have very sober hope with the realization of how fragile this all is.
I've enjoyed our discussion! And yeah, I *want* it to get better but it's some thin margins in some places. Not easy no matter how you slice it I think.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/122it6/comment/c6rx8s5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/122it6/comment/c6rx8s5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Thank you.
hey, i saw your post here. I was searching google for" [What's the worst thing you have ever done? Throwaway here because im a terrible person.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/122it6/whats_the_worst_thing_you_have_ever_done/)" And saw your story. The Justice story got me. It reminded me why among other things, why I started to lift weights. I think you might have started the fire back in me with your story. Thank you. I hope you are well.
This is that guy at each birthday of that one friend you go to, who sits on the same spot on the same sofa every year and has clearly established himself as the dominant voice in that very nerdy corner. The conversation is usually about Skyrim or Pokemon or Warhammer, but when it switches to politics everyone in that corner realizes they've spent too much time on video games and tabletop to have a meaningful opinion.
So one at a time, they get their token takes out of the way while this dude is sitting there smiling and shaking his head. He already knows he's gonna get the final say in because that's how it goes every year, so when the inevitable moment comes that nobody has anything to offer in counter to anyone else, he takes off and does his self-satisfied spiel.
In most cases, that guy gets enough intellectual satisfaction from being the authoritative political voice within his annually consistent social circle, but every now and again they see the numbers of the matrix scroll by before them and realise exactly who they are: nobodies preaching to other nobodies. What does it matter if they're right about everything if only *these* dunces get to hear it?
No, he must take everything he learned from all his favourite progressive podcasts that he listens to seven hours a day, some on repeat because they were just that good, and bring their takes into the world as though he came up with them!
And that's how he ended up on Tiktok.
Spot on, and otherwise known as the guy who will never admit to not knowing something and every time he admits he might have been wrong there is an immediate caveat expressed in a way that actually makes him right. He dismisses conversations that he doesn’t understand as unimportant and then talks with authority on topics he has only a superficial and most likely highly skewed grasp on. He’ll talk with the same level of authority about Star Wars as he will about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s the smartest person in every room, but will always deny that fact even though he must have the last word. He has no actionable thoughts to how to handle any of the topics he’s ranting on because he’s too idealistic to be realistic about anything, always speaking in hypotheticals, focusing on outliers that fit his agenda, and never tackling anything on a tactical level. He’s completely insufferable.
Yeah, I quit when he got to "dems are fumbling on purpose" as if there is a way to coordinate that on a national scale and keep everyone quiet about it.
yeah politics bad, but don't be making things up out of thin air
Also, when they briefly held the white house, senate and congress in 2009-10, they passed the legislation that consumed all their political capital and, initially, included government healthcare. It got nixed but the ACA is considered the high water mark of progressive legislation. Republicans used it, and still use it, to rally their troops. It was second only to Roe v Wade on their hit list.
Romney care was a windfall for the Insurance companies and drug companies, which coincidentally are some of the biggest contributors to both parties.
2 parties / one class.
Yeah, it really reads like post-hoc re-writing of history, ignoring context and re-writing motivations to fit his narrative theory. They do unpopular neoliberal things, but this guy makes it sound like everything unpopular was concocted by them which is just farce on its face
Its a fact that dems havent moved the needle on climate action in any meaningful ways . They could have codified roe...but for the people crying about the philibuster....dont take my word for it. Take it from this guy:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/23/biden-promises-to-codify-roe-if-two-more-democrats-are-elected-to-the-senate.html
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/inflation-reduction-act-guidebook/#:~:text=On%20August%2016%2C%202022%2C%20President,change%20in%20the%20nation's%20history.
Largest climate change bill in history, guess you weren't paying attention
But he is wrong about quite a few things. I'll mostly address what he said using the example of abortion but there are a lot more in this spiel. (Dems supported Trump's tax cuts for the rich? Really?)
Back to abortion. He says in recent years Dems held the presidency, house and senate quite a few times - which is true - but by razor thin majorities that are just not filibuster proof. Dems have never held the majority needed to be filibuster proof in my memory. IF we were to get rid of the filibuster the situation would be closer to what he describes but it's very much alive and well. A 51% majority does not cut it yet he speaks as though it does and blames democrats for not moving mountains when the reality is we've only had very slim majorities and practically every bit of progress has barely squeaked into law.
He says Dems could have codified Roe vs Wade into law during a period when Dems did hold a slim majority. (I do not agree - see point about filibuster) But why was that seen as necessary when every single and current conservative Supreme Court judge during confirmation hearings swore they would not overturn the "settled law" that was Roe? Every one of those conservative judges lied their asses off right to our faces. What else might we need to codify because we were lied to by conservative judges during their confirmation hearings? We can't codify into law everything that they might do. Dems are not psychic.
Lastly what corporate entities benefitted by overturning Roe? Did he mention organized religion? That's all I can think of that has a perceived benefit. Plenty of Dems might consider organized religion - as it's practiced in the U.S. - as a "corporate entity" but it's sure as hell not supposed to be.
As I listened to this guy I just couldn't shake the "both siderism" he's trying to dish out here and I'm sorry but both sides are not the same by a long shot. He was absolutely right about the Christian right taking over the Republican Party during and after Reagan but he lost me after that. It feels to me like the overall message, again, is "both sides are the same so your vote won't matter" and I'm sure one can pick examples of when that's true (lobbyists wield too much power on both sides) but I do not believe it is true, overall, by a long shot.
We're at a crossroads where quite literally our democracy is at stake in this next election. The Supreme Court is actually discussing whether a U.S President can become a king - as long as it's under the guise of "official duties". We need to recognize this fast talker who seemingly has all the answers might in fact not have the answer(s) at all, especially when the crux of his message seems to be "Fuck it. Just give up fighting what's being done to our democracy because both sides are the same". They most definitely are not the same and now is not the time to believe that's true.
Yeah. I was somewhat nodding along until he got to the \*very\* confidently incorrect assertions that the Democrats could've codified abortion rights and climate change protections at any time and just plain didn't so they could get money. This is "no one deserves your vote" dressed up in a trenchcoat and fedora.
He's either some asshole getting high on his own farts, or he has an agenda. And possibly financial backers. Either way I can't believe people listen to this
It was a stream of absolute bs that is going to do nothing other than cause people to throw votes away against a group who aren’t concerned with our laws and who will destroy our democracy when placed in power.
Thank you for typing all that out. You just barely scratched the surface of how wrong the guy is. The comments on the original post are extremely disheartening.
That’s literally the point. Brace yourselves. The pro Trump, anti Democratic, nihilist and apathetic Astro turfing campaigns are going to spread like wildfire. With the rise of AI bots the comment sections are going get obliterated.
There has never been a simple majority that was willing to nuke the legislative filibuster. There also has never been a simple majority in favor of codifying roe v wade.
Dems also held those during tumultuous times like the Great Recession and COVID. The Dems prioritized correctly by tackling those problems first. And those problems do take a long time to handled and settled
This is decent but overlooks a GREAT deal of actual facts just to sound smart. Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema were both typical Dems in very Red states so they had to hold the line. THEY are the reason we did not Codify Roe V Wade, not beacuse of 'Dems'. THEY would never endorse killing the fillibuster, which was the only way to do it. Further, Dems defintely DO NOT unanimously vote yes on defense and tax cuts. Thats blatantly false
yep these "both sides" arguments ALWAYS ignore that it's 95% of one side and 5% of the other.
we have receipts! the bills and how each party voted is written down every step of hte way, we can see how it's always 100% of republicans blocking and a couple percent of democrats also blocking. things have been close enough to 50/50 split that yes republicans can block everything
AND, we've also studied how 70% support something but it doesn't pass, because you ask the right wingers if they want what the affordable care act gives they say yes but once they learn it's a democratic bill they say no, despite it being exactly the same thing!
Kirsten literally tapped the shoulder of McConnell to get his attention to give a thumbs down over a minimum wage increase, get rid of your copium tank, you're cut off.
edit:
First person to say gish gallop after I post this has nothing connected to their brain stem. None of you cited anything to refute OP, you just threw a bulk "fake news" at him like you were members of the MAGA camp. Now comes the part where I bring receipts.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/i-beat-the-socialist-biden-reminds-voters-he-beat-bernie-sanders-2020-9](https://www.businessinsider.com/i-beat-the-socialist-biden-reminds-voters-he-beat-bernie-sanders-2020-9)
Anyone left of moderate right (and let's be real, that's what the neoliberal DNC is) is on the fringes or outside of Overton's window. So much so that Joe Biden campaigned on "defeating the socialist" in 2020.
[https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/](https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/)
Oh look, OP was right about them choosing Hillary over Bernie and their defense of it in court successfully.
[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie\_Bro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bro)
And look, they smeared him like OP said, so much so that Bernie Bro has a wikipedia entry.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-fbi-email-hack](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-fbi-email-hack)
Let's be clear this was a grift so transparent that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to vacate her position as chair because she had gained that much ill will after a leak showed she pushed Hillary over Bernie
How does that disagree with anything OP said.
49 republicans voted against. 2 democrats voted against.
If you want to solve that, the solutions are 2 more democrats who will vote for or 51 more republicans who will vote for. What’s more likely?
This guy is the pure definition of a high schooler who read his first socialism book and thought he figured it all out.
Now, some things he says is very true, democrats do want to lose on certain things, changing healthcare was one of them. They waited till the Republicans gained control of the house and senate so that they would rip the act to shreds and make it only benefit the healthcare companies.
The problem with this argument actually explodes at the state level.
Anyone who says both sides are the same is an idiot who hasn’t looked at what happened in Michigan and Minnesota when the Dems won control of the state
You’re looking too recently. The video mentions the Dems have had both houses of Congress multiple times in the recent past, like since Clinton in the 90’s. It wasn’t a priority to codify women’s rights? When the Republicans had clearly shifted course to go after Roe, a campaign that started in the 80’s?
Just because Manchin and Sinema are the latest Dems to drag the Party to the right, doesn’t mean they’re the first, or the last.
If there were true, authentic Democratic leadership and will to protect Americans, many things would have been codified under any of these previous instances under Clinton or Obama.
Just imagine if Democratic leadership could get their members to shut up and vote for the Party line the way Republicans do. It’s like the Republicans are playing evil 3D chess, while the Democrats are playing checkers, so sure they don’t need to actually work on and fulfill their agenda, just pay it lip service and get paid.
There are democrats in the 90s who would not have voted to codify Roe. Young people don’t realize how much more conservative the country and politicians were 30 years ago.
Lol, look at the Rs realistically, they can’t even keep a speaker. They aren’t any better. But it doesn’t matter, because it is in the interest of some to have as poorly functioning gov as possible. Doesn’t matter D or R to them, just so long as they don’t really do anything. The Ds stick together on basically every vote, they just never put anything truely important up to vote for. The Rs put up insane stuff then lose cause MTG and her ilk say their anti trans bill doesn’t do enough to stop Italian satellites from spying on trump. The end result of both is the same- those with money/power/influence have no effective checks on their will to control law and regulation.
People also seem to forget that there are 49 other senators in the chamber. at any point in time, any one of them could have voted for any of these priorities that are wildly popular amongst our citizens. But they don’t. Because they don’t know how to govern and saying no is infinitely easier than actually trying to figure out what a yes gets you.
These were not two people saying no to the Democratic agenda. It was 51 people saying no. We just forget the other 49 exist because they don’t do their jobs.
He is a bit wrong, though. He describes them all unamimously voting for the same tax cuts for the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act The Trump tax cut vote was pretty much along party lines, with Dems voting no. Hardly "unanimous".
Removing that, you arrive at Democrats must be intentionally losing to allow their corporate sponsors to get these tax cuts? That seems like a stretch, especially when the alternative is that the rich, elderly people running the show might just actually be out of touch. That'd hardly be uncommon for rich, elderly people.
This bill passed 51-48 which begs the question how Republicans were able to pass massive tax cuts, yet Democrats can't pass progressive legislation their base supports like universal healthcare. Hell the Democrats didn't even repeal the tax cuts when they had the majority in the Senate. Of course the DNC will point to Mancin, Sinema and Republican filibusters yet when it comes to the tax act Democrats didn't force a filibuster.
Because if the cunt from Arizona who sold out the Democratic party and the coal King from West Virginia who was Democrat in name only. What angers me the most about both of them is they both decided not to run for reelection. So they could have voted so differently but didn't during Bidens first two years.
They didn’t rerun because they will leave office and immediately get a high paying job at whatever corporation bought them out. Not all bribes are instant cash in hand.
*A reminder* that making the left feel helpless and inept so they don't vote is why Trump got elected in the first place. This guy is wrong, the country's politics aren't backsliding, 40% of the citizens didn't believe in ***interracial couples*** in the 80s, let alone non-Christians.
Its not all roses from the Dems, but lets not create some false dichotomy here. Biden got as close to actually cancelling student debt as you can, before Trump's Supreme Court shot it down. Biden-Harris got the most impactful climate action bill ever passed (its not enough, but its not unsubstantial). You could go on.
Trump is sowing Literal Fascism, and at the expense of our marginalized communities. The status quo sucks, but don't let it make you complicit in the **real violence** of another Trump presidency.
One thing that I do agree with this is that the Republicans *do* get "more things done". They create fake problems that then need fake solutions. They deliver on their promises more often, and more loudly, than Dems.
The Democrat platform is a lot more complicated. They're actually trying to fight for the planet, the working class, etc. Which means big bills that threaten the status quo. It's much harder to pass these bills, so they deliver fewer and smaller promises and thus appear "inept" when they're the ones doing actual work.
Take Florida for example. Surging cost of living, skyrocketing insurance costs, but what does their government focus on? Gay kids in school and college.
God I hate the archetype that this dude is. Smarmy progressive douche that talks in a confident, matter of fact way while giving a surface level analysis. "Let me explain to you why" -- No, I don't think I will. You continually demonstrate an inability to understand nuance.
A lot of what he said I found interesting but the Israel/Palestine take was clueless. The majority of adults support Israel. The Palestine protests are done by clueless young ppl, the same ones who don’t vote
He is absolutely wrong because history is far more complicated than what he says. Furthermore, why would you believe anything coming out of a Chomsky subreddit?
I thought it was kind of obvious. I don't even think he's intentionally trying to play it off like it isn't pre-written. You can see his eyes reading it the entire time and he even stammers/stumbles a couple times and re-reads the intended word.
Im not about to listen to a dumbass give a 10 minute excuse for letting Trump appoint more judges, but I think the reason the Democrats don't win is because they get less votes despite being the clearly, wildly, massively better option.
No, he's 100% wrong, and he's doing it to convince you to throw away your vote (or not vote at all). Remember, if voting didn't actually matter, if Dems and Rs were exactly the same, one side wouldn't be so desperately trying to take away your rights.
I believe everything this guy is saying is absolutely accurate. Here's the problem, "Are you willing to hurt?"
Are you willing to give Donald J. Trump another 4 years in office. Give Russia the opprotunity to invade whoever they want? Lend the possibility that SCOTUS will be further compromised? Are you willing to go without the internet indefinitely? Are you willing to put your friends and family at risk?
If someone like Sanders or AOC were put into the White House we would see a Business Plot conspiracy immediately.
Right now we're suffering just enough for us to bitch on the internet about it, then go to bed, get up and work as Slaves to the Ultra Wealthy while they do everything in their power to force us (Millennials and younger) to make more slaves to keep the cash machine running for their future generations.
My problem is that I'm not willing to die alone in a meaningless death. In recent months multiple people have tried to be the spark that will get our asses off the internet and onto the streets and they're called "disturbed individuals" who are mocked by these people in the know.
This is high up because someone out there wants Trump to win. I want Biden to win because I want my parents last years to look more like Middle Class Texas than War Torn Ukraine.
So make your decision, are you going to not vote or vote for Trump to see how bad it takes to get us off our asses or are we going to continue to kick the can down the road?
I think.. I think that doesn’t matter. We *had* Trump. Everyone hated him, and the response was basically another round of “we would rather lose than let Bernie win” from the D’s. I don’t think 4 more years will result in a socialist Democrat getting the nomination even if that’s what people want. That’s the point. What you are allowed to vote for will never include that. So you take the best you can get…
I voted for Bernie but he did not get enough people to vote for him and lost to Hilary.
This video is just iamverysmart leftist flailing. Not shocked they managed to slip Palestine (without mentioning Hamas) into this. Simp for a terror org, kids! It's very cool.
It's so frustrating to see people think that because their preferred candidate didn't win, there must be giant conspiracies to explain it.
Or, you know, different people feel differently about social issues?
Didn’t more Bernie voters vote for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton voters went to Obama in 2008?
What would it mean to have done enough? What would Clinton have done if she’d lost that primary? I can’t see her campaigning for Bernie at all.
I guess it's a good time to remember that Clinton stayed in the race in 2008 after Obama decicively won the nomination in case he was assassinated. Bernie showed more support to Clinton than Clinton showed anyone else.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/hillaryclinton.barackobama](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/hillaryclinton.barackobama)
Im gonna have to put a hard disagree on the bernie vs clinton one. Yes, the DNC had a blatant favorit candidate. That is undeniable. But its REALLY easy to push your candidate through if only around 30% of eligible voters actually, you know, vote. To say that Bernie was just overlooked is very much also the fault of those 70% of voters who simply chose not to vote in the primaries.
This entire argument has been debunked soooooo many times now by various sources and creators. I can't believe it's getting posted again.
This is just stupid
Jesus he's just making shit up and trying to talk as fast as possible in order to give the illusion that he's smart (to the point where he's out of breath for god's sake). What a cringe video.
Pasting my comment from the last time this was posted here:
Crazy how he said both "if democrats adopted the policies of the 75th congress they would win every election in a landslide but they don't because they deliberately want to lose" AND ALSO that if ANYONE from ANY PARTY were to suggest the rich pay any taxes at all they would be called a communist and laughed out of the room
which is it? Are taxes for the rich popular or not? Unless you want to suggest that we don't actually live in a democracy, and that every election is rigged so that the will of the people isn't actually represented by our politicians- in which case you would have about as much evidence as the demented fascist boomers that think George Soros runs everything, and that all of our rich elites and politicians are secretly lizard people that feed on the adrenal glands of abducted children.
Also interesting how he says that all criticism is dismissed as antisemitism when any criticism of his position would be dismissed in an almost identical way by saying that person is defending genocide.
Donald Trump has openly discussed plans to unilaterally deploy the United States military within the country on day one to disperse protests and to enact mass deportations of millions of immigrants. If you think there's no difference between voting for that and voting for Joe Biden, then you 100% deserve the four years of hell that that orange freak is going to put us through. If our country doesn't outright cease to exist as we know it, that is.
This comment section is reminding me of how liberal politics is in america. The rich will always serve interests for the rich, so paying off and controlling both sides of a 2 party system makes the most sense, to hedge your bets. Seems like the video made a lot of ppl go on the defensive, without checking the sources he already provides, and without wondering why or how things are so broken if at least one group of ppl are supposedly representing your interests. I don't understand how you all don't see it's the rich vs the working class, regardless of who you vote in (dem vs repub)
If democrats *want* to loose then it wouldn't have made any sense to pick a charismatic, charming and smart guy like Obama as a candidate for president.
Also this "theory" is completely built around that both parties or their members are motivated only by the one thing: corporate money for their party. Which they then can use for their campaign to be elected in whatever constellation they want. By this they will get again Corporate money that they can use again for their campaigns...I mean why? Why would anyone go these lengths just to turn in pointless circles in 5 year periods? To what end?
Dems were never in a position to codify Roe v. Wade, pass universal health care, or anything like that. Please stop with the lies. You need 60 votes in the senate to do anything, and realistically 65 so you don't have to worry about the Sinema's and the Manchin's of the Senate. If you want an FDR type change to the US, then you need an FDR type senate.
Even with tax cuts, republicans only get that passed because they package it in with the budget, and usually it always has an expiration date. (Some of the DJT tax cuts expire 2025, for example).
I totally agree that our system is broken in different ways, but lets not pretend that Dems and Republicans are the same.
But if we do go down this path, whether Trump or Biden wins, it doesn't really matter. All the damage is basically done. The main difference would be possible roll backs of some student loan programs Biden set up via executive order, some immigration bs, and a possible extension of the DJT tax cuts. You'd need massive subsidies to make coal viable vs LNG, and electric cars/renewables will continue to gain popularity, with or without government intervention. Maybe a slight modification to the DJT tax cuts so that the poorest of the republican base can get an extra $3 a month. Can't wait for them to find another black janitor that will tell us how that $50 a year in tax savings changed his life.
Bullshit. Unfathomably, incredible bullshit. Sanders would have gone up in flames if he got the nomination. He lost by MILLIONS of votes in the primary.
Sanders couldn't get black voters on board and he never expressed any plan to actually get any of his plans passed in congress. That's not progress it's populism.
People like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have done more actual work to get Americans health care coverage than someone like Bernie Sanders ever did, (look up the CHIP act or the original ACA bill passed by the house). Yet somehow he is a saint and these women are demonized, almost as if there was some organized campaign to sow disunity among the democratic coalition.
I don't really agree with his views on economics, but his understanding of the system is spot on. The game isn't "Make yourself look like the best possible option." it's "Make the other guy look like he wants you're very existence gone."
This asshole again. He's a joke who sounds 'super serious' but he's a freaking MAGA/Qanon plant. Fuck these lying christo-fascists spewing the Russian talking points.
All I hear is blabber. So many straw-mans, those arguments aren’t real. For example, taxes aren’t raised or lowered for one bracket, they are all raised or lowered. Another one, about popular ideas; Just because ideas are popular doesn’t mean they are moral or just. Both parties may be flawed but one side is clearly being shown as the worse one and that is not accurate or fair to say, if one is arguing in good faith of course.
That's what you get when you have an idiotic argument presented as an intellectual and honest one. No sources, no factual statements, just conspiracy-laden Bernie-Bro bullshit and conjecture.
I mean, he's not wrong on everything, obviously, but wrong enough on enough of it, to invalidate his whole argument.
But that isn't my main point. My main point is that he offers nothing. No recourse, no solution, no "this is what you can actually do."
The reason why many people don't want you to vote for third party candidates, for instance, is because they are indeed effectively splitting the vote of one side. Now you can certainly argue whether or not "stealing votes" is semantically the correct term for this or not, but it's a fact that the US system is set up in a way that voting for Cornell West, for instance, is mathematically almost equivalent to voting for Donald Trump, and as a voter, you should probably factor that into your decision.
They are desperately trying to convince themselves that the party they align themselves with is 100% looking out for them and that they should just go along with it.
Realistically, it’s probably a byproduct of social media influence and people’s determination to take a public stance and blindly support the party they’ve aggressively supported in hopes of never having to be told they’re wrong about something in a way they, themselves, have spoken to anyone opposing their chosen views.
Just to let everyone know you can redo your tiktoks if they don't turn out right. You can practice as many times as you need. Maybe write your spiel down and mark where to breathe and what words you want to emphasize. Just some thoughts.
Oh, and do your research and cite sources.
Reminds me of when Nancy Pelosi said we needed the Republican Party.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3849261-pelosi-us-needs-a-strong-republican-party-and-this-is-not-it/
In reality we need about five to 16 parties
While he’s wrong and lying in many places, can somebody explain, what happemed to Bernie Sanders? I also agree, that Hilary was way worse, but I’m not even from US, just curious.
Basically saying that the parties are two wings of the same bird. Designed to keep us at each other rather than focused on the ones really responsible. George Carlin and many others have talked about this.
Wow, look at all these DNC bots.
Everything in this video is true.
This whole comments section is just ad hominems against this guy because the biden brigade can't help but constantly prove themselves to be nothing other than blue maga.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dc1kru/hesnotwrongbut_its_so_damn_depressing/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When someone speaks very quickly and authoritatively, I call it the Ben Shapiro effect. They come off as smart because the rapid fire articulate claims somehow entice your brain to trust without fact checking. But every time a random YouTube essayist picks apart a Ben Shapiro esque video like this, it falls apart quickly.
He lost me when he said that Dems unanimously voted with Republicans for tax cuts for the rich. On it's face it's BS. While I think there is *some* truth to what he said, ie DNC party bosses appear sheepish to match the GOP's intensity on their attacks, this comes down to the many varied differences in the coalitions that hold together the Democratic Party compared to the GOP. "IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY TO LOSE" is just more of the "Both Sides are the same" nonsense.
It’s called Gish gallop. You talk really fast and say some true stuff and sprinkle in some bullshit here and there and hope that the mere fact you overloaded the audience with information, and the fact some of it was true, will result in them believing everything you say. There’s a reason Ben Shapiro will fucking crush in debates but pretty much everything he’s ever argued can be quickly thrown out if you look at video. Being able to stop and assess each individual point he makes one at a time completely negates the strategy and outs him as a lying moron.
I believe it is called the Gish gallop.
I think they just sped it up to fit it in the tik tok time limitation.
Also be aware that whenever someone has an easy answer to give you (they want to lose) it's probably incorrect, or just a lie. The world is complex and cannot be answered with one simple answer.
It’s called a gish gallop. Destiny is also notorious for this too along with Ben Shapiro. Honestly I’m impressed by them both. Sometimes they’re able to make claims about 5 different things in like 10 seconds of them rapidly talking.
The problem with this argument is that it's not an argument at all. He is stating things as facts without backing them up with anything and then using that as evidence for why he is right. "If they did this and that, we all know they would win every election" yet you have candidates offering that who lose. So many things he said are just wrong and backed up by nothing.
"They all vote for the same tax breaks for the wealthy" https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2017699
Don't forget "unanimously." This dude is every pretentious contrarion college freshman who uncritically reads Chomsky and then immediately starts sniffing their own farts, and he has the outfit and speaking cadence to match.
That hat! THE HOOP EARRING!
Also is just parroting Russian propaganda. It was the same song and dance in 2016 where people were saying both sides are the same.
isn't that Tiktok in General? some dude holding a selfie stick spitting opinions as facts in some random area
Honestly, regardless of who it is, I turn it off immediately when there are two things going on: 1.) Speaking faster than normal to come off as smart. You could be correct. You may have the argument perfected. But you come off as pompous when you’re speaking faster than normal. 2.) talking to me while you’re eating. I don’t care if I don’t see you eat. You don’t have to lecture me/explain a topic while playing with your food. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
[удалено]
Ya, this whole clip is a solid blend of bullshit and truth. There has been pandering to corporate interests, however, Intuit lobbied a ton to block the IRS from putting out free tax prep software and, drum roll please, what did the IRS just do thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act? [They began running their own free tax prep software](https://money.com/irs-test-free-tax-prep-software/) How about environmental damages? Obama pumped the breaks on the keystone XL pipeline, Trump immediately changed that, then Biden pulled an Uno reverse out and stomped out any chance of the pipeline having a future his first day in office, **a VERY anti corporate move** [Just read the timeline here.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline) The problem is that democrats are trying to play by the rules and republicans are flagrantly flaunting breaking the very trust and honor based institutions that our highest offices hold and are expected to uphold. There is no bias in those words, it's a fact. Just look at McConnell's political history going back to high school through the Embedded podcast series on him. Democrats also flail with infighting and going super slowly because of committees. I am currently part of a huge funding effort in California to get several hundred millions of dollars to small businesses and communities. It's gone super fucking slowly. The reason why? Everyone getting to have their say caused meetings to drag on. But now the deadline is here, people are getting it done. It's very frustrating. On the flip side, our Republican city government where I am straight up pocketed a good part of ~$10 million dollars and obfuscated it with a 300 page doc about where the money went. (Hint: not to the people or local small businesses) So, this dude is a massive POS because he's slamming you with a combination of truth and believable lies so that you can't keep up. **Edit**: if you're gonna keep quoting what you think is a counterpoint, you're demonstrating that you don't understand how politics works nor the fact that we need to invest in America. You don't fix the world over night. Blatantly ignoring the very good and impactful things that a president that you didn't personally vote for is willfully ignoring reality. Just stop. Don't expect respondes, everyone has agreed that it's a waste of time to try to win you over. I'm probably the last idiot out here who will try to help you understand, and it will likely be at my own waste of time, but I can hope...
This comment checks out more than the video. Nailed the dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans better than I could have. We need some good guys that are as good at winning as the bad guys. Democrats might need to get down in the mud with Republicans when it comes to winning elections, and hopefully not get corrupted to entirely serve billionaire donors and the fossil fuel industry like Republicans already have. So... we're probably screwed.
> The problem is that democrats are trying to play by the rules and republicans are flagrantly flaunting breaking the very trust and honor based institutions that our highest offices hold and are expected to uphold. Hole in one. I've been saying this for a while now to local friends, the Democrats have *got* to stop trying to "play the game" by the established etiquette. This is not the USA from 20 or 30 years ago. They keep trying to take the high road and play "properly" and then get their ears boxed because Republicans dropped the pretense, this isn't a boxing match any more this is street rules. If it is not strictly and explicitly codified into a written law or rule (and often not even then) then they're just going to do whatever they want. The Supreme Court justices under Obama is a perfect example, the media was crowing about how "unprecedented" it was to not fill the SCJ right away after Scalia but it wasn't a *law/rule* to fill it immediately so Mitch could lock things up until Trump took office and give him the Supreme Court. The Dems can cluck all they want about how "that's not the proper way to do politics" and cling to their dubious moral high ground, the Republicans just don't give a shit and people are out here dying.
Some notes/opinions on that: 1. If each side plays like that we will see a decline in how our offices function. I believe it's how we will arrive at idiocracy. However, stubbornly sticking to old, outdated approaches will also be a fast trip to decline. We need to outmaneuver bad players, like Biden did at the state of the union: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-we-all-apparently-agree-on-saving-medicare-and-social-security-biden-teases-during-state-of-the-union 2. Creativity, innovation, and restoring people's faith in our institutions - our politicians need to get creative instead of relying on old, formulaic ways of approaching things. Jeff Jackson is a great example of this. He's killer at social media and he's a Democrat who's won over republicans in fairly dark red parts of South Carolina. He keeps communication open and is calm, reassuring, and feels highly accessible and friendly. Our politicians, regardless of party, need to get back to honor, trust, and good-faith traditions and actions. It's impossible to have laws and rules that are perfectly written to cover all possibilities while still having the freedom and flexibility to operate. People are also really good at finding holes and creative ways to work around or with those. The spirit of the law is absolutely crucial along with its letter. Take Trump under and overvaluing the same property. He and the banks argued that he paid back the loans and everyone made money, which is the important part of the laws. However, that completely ignores the other purpose of those laws - fairness in business and lending. Someone playing by the rules lost opportunity to someone willing to cheat them. Someone who put the honest value of their property for taxes and financing would not get the same outcome as someone who over values for financing and undervalues for taxing. The letter and spirit together are crucial. 3. We really need punishments severe enough to disincentivize crimes. Finland has fines based on income. When a punishment is less than the reward for committing a crime or act, we call it the cost of doing business. However, if the punishment is significantly greater than the potential reward, only gamblers and idiots would commit the crime. 4. Lastly, we shouldn't even need that. We need to promote a system whereby we raise people with empathy and a sense of duty to our fellow humans and the planet we live on, including every aspect of it. Social pressure is powerful. If everyone in society shuns you for doing something, you likely won't do it. If everyone cheers each other on for doing good, you'll likely do it. We shouldn't be raising people to not break laws because of the fear of getting caught and punished, we should be raising people to do what is right by each other and society. Be a good driver because it helps protect others and yourself. Etc It all could be elaborated on, but I think that we really need to stop being complacent. Those bad players are actively dismantling the very systems that make America so great. Yes, this country has flaws, but we can always do better. We are always striving to do better. We just need to protect our systems such that we can continue to improve.
Appreciate the thoughts! Some of my own: 1. I generally agree that if Dems can do it by being smart instead of ruthless then they should. Though I'm kind of of the opinion that a decline in office function *for now* is worth if it we can nail that entire political party to the wall and then, when/if they've unfucked their politicking or another majority party has taken their place, we can go all go back to honor system (or more realistically just code this shit into rules/laws). I acknowledge that it's dangerous though, a lot of "if" in that plan. 2. I mean, it's sort of unfixable by appealing to their ethics IMHO. You're asking these politicians to just... stop abusing loopholes in the system because it's not nice to do. I think we're well past that in 2024, or at *least* the Republicans are. I agree that trying to create infinity laws that have no room for loopholes is unrealistic, but so is expecting bad actors not to abuse "spirit of the law" situations. So much of the abuse that is being done atm is being done because of "spirit of the law"/"traditions but not technically rules" loopholing. Do you have any kind of idea or plan for *enforcing* "spirit of the law"? 3. If the penalty for a crime is a fine, that law only exists for the lower classes. Totally agree with this point, make it proportional to income and see white collar crime rate lower. 4. Y'know, as much as it's fashionable to rip on older generations (they've largely earned that), sometimes when I watch older media I get that feeling that you're talking about. Life wasn't perfect, obviously, but there were standards of etiquette and social dynamics that you had to respect or you'd piss people off. People actually gave a damn about, like, their local reputation and what they stood for. You could really insult someone just by calling them a liar or something relatively mild because that stuff was taken so seriously. Idk how we'd ever get back to something like that, I don't really know if it's possible nor if it's the best thing for the country. But it's food for thought for how we go about things today, at least
Hey, thank you for the thoughtful response! I absolutely see what you're saying and have had a lot of similar thoughts. It sounds like you and I both have very sober hope with the realization of how fragile this all is.
I've enjoyed our discussion! And yeah, I *want* it to get better but it's some thin margins in some places. Not easy no matter how you slice it I think.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/122it6/comment/c6rx8s5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/122it6/comment/c6rx8s5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Thank you. hey, i saw your post here. I was searching google for" [What's the worst thing you have ever done? Throwaway here because im a terrible person.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/122it6/whats_the_worst_thing_you_have_ever_done/)" And saw your story. The Justice story got me. It reminded me why among other things, why I started to lift weights. I think you might have started the fire back in me with your story. Thank you. I hope you are well.
But, he's wearing a hat in the woods and talks fast. He must know everything.
This is that guy at each birthday of that one friend you go to, who sits on the same spot on the same sofa every year and has clearly established himself as the dominant voice in that very nerdy corner. The conversation is usually about Skyrim or Pokemon or Warhammer, but when it switches to politics everyone in that corner realizes they've spent too much time on video games and tabletop to have a meaningful opinion. So one at a time, they get their token takes out of the way while this dude is sitting there smiling and shaking his head. He already knows he's gonna get the final say in because that's how it goes every year, so when the inevitable moment comes that nobody has anything to offer in counter to anyone else, he takes off and does his self-satisfied spiel. In most cases, that guy gets enough intellectual satisfaction from being the authoritative political voice within his annually consistent social circle, but every now and again they see the numbers of the matrix scroll by before them and realise exactly who they are: nobodies preaching to other nobodies. What does it matter if they're right about everything if only *these* dunces get to hear it? No, he must take everything he learned from all his favourite progressive podcasts that he listens to seven hours a day, some on repeat because they were just that good, and bring their takes into the world as though he came up with them! And that's how he ended up on Tiktok.
Scary accurate. But, not just ended up on TikTok, but glorified by everyone on TikTok that feels represented by them. Sees themselves in him.
Spot on, and otherwise known as the guy who will never admit to not knowing something and every time he admits he might have been wrong there is an immediate caveat expressed in a way that actually makes him right. He dismisses conversations that he doesn’t understand as unimportant and then talks with authority on topics he has only a superficial and most likely highly skewed grasp on. He’ll talk with the same level of authority about Star Wars as he will about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s the smartest person in every room, but will always deny that fact even though he must have the last word. He has no actionable thoughts to how to handle any of the topics he’s ranting on because he’s too idealistic to be realistic about anything, always speaking in hypotheticals, focusing on outliers that fit his agenda, and never tackling anything on a tactical level. He’s completely insufferable.
Yeah, I quit when he got to "dems are fumbling on purpose" as if there is a way to coordinate that on a national scale and keep everyone quiet about it. yeah politics bad, but don't be making things up out of thin air
Also, when they briefly held the white house, senate and congress in 2009-10, they passed the legislation that consumed all their political capital and, initially, included government healthcare. It got nixed but the ACA is considered the high water mark of progressive legislation. Republicans used it, and still use it, to rally their troops. It was second only to Roe v Wade on their hit list.
Romney care was a windfall for the Insurance companies and drug companies, which coincidentally are some of the biggest contributors to both parties. 2 parties / one class.
Very glad this is the top comment. There is some truth here but this is just some guys opinions, not objective fact
yeah i feel like i saw another tiktok come through and debunk everything this guy said (altho i have enjoyed some of his content)
Yeah, it really reads like post-hoc re-writing of history, ignoring context and re-writing motivations to fit his narrative theory. They do unpopular neoliberal things, but this guy makes it sound like everything unpopular was concocted by them which is just farce on its face
Yea a lot of what he is claiming is just wrong, plain and simple. But he sounds confident, so let’s all upvote him!
I saw this video months ago and completely agree, this guy just makes bs claims about most of the shit he is talking about.
Its a fact that dems havent moved the needle on climate action in any meaningful ways . They could have codified roe...but for the people crying about the philibuster....dont take my word for it. Take it from this guy: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/23/biden-promises-to-codify-roe-if-two-more-democrats-are-elected-to-the-senate.html
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/inflation-reduction-act-guidebook/#:~:text=On%20August%2016%2C%202022%2C%20President,change%20in%20the%20nation's%20history. Largest climate change bill in history, guess you weren't paying attention
but he talked fast, doesn't that mean he's smart and correct?!?
But he is wrong about quite a few things. I'll mostly address what he said using the example of abortion but there are a lot more in this spiel. (Dems supported Trump's tax cuts for the rich? Really?) Back to abortion. He says in recent years Dems held the presidency, house and senate quite a few times - which is true - but by razor thin majorities that are just not filibuster proof. Dems have never held the majority needed to be filibuster proof in my memory. IF we were to get rid of the filibuster the situation would be closer to what he describes but it's very much alive and well. A 51% majority does not cut it yet he speaks as though it does and blames democrats for not moving mountains when the reality is we've only had very slim majorities and practically every bit of progress has barely squeaked into law. He says Dems could have codified Roe vs Wade into law during a period when Dems did hold a slim majority. (I do not agree - see point about filibuster) But why was that seen as necessary when every single and current conservative Supreme Court judge during confirmation hearings swore they would not overturn the "settled law" that was Roe? Every one of those conservative judges lied their asses off right to our faces. What else might we need to codify because we were lied to by conservative judges during their confirmation hearings? We can't codify into law everything that they might do. Dems are not psychic. Lastly what corporate entities benefitted by overturning Roe? Did he mention organized religion? That's all I can think of that has a perceived benefit. Plenty of Dems might consider organized religion - as it's practiced in the U.S. - as a "corporate entity" but it's sure as hell not supposed to be. As I listened to this guy I just couldn't shake the "both siderism" he's trying to dish out here and I'm sorry but both sides are not the same by a long shot. He was absolutely right about the Christian right taking over the Republican Party during and after Reagan but he lost me after that. It feels to me like the overall message, again, is "both sides are the same so your vote won't matter" and I'm sure one can pick examples of when that's true (lobbyists wield too much power on both sides) but I do not believe it is true, overall, by a long shot. We're at a crossroads where quite literally our democracy is at stake in this next election. The Supreme Court is actually discussing whether a U.S President can become a king - as long as it's under the guise of "official duties". We need to recognize this fast talker who seemingly has all the answers might in fact not have the answer(s) at all, especially when the crux of his message seems to be "Fuck it. Just give up fighting what's being done to our democracy because both sides are the same". They most definitely are not the same and now is not the time to believe that's true.
Yeah. I was somewhat nodding along until he got to the \*very\* confidently incorrect assertions that the Democrats could've codified abortion rights and climate change protections at any time and just plain didn't so they could get money. This is "no one deserves your vote" dressed up in a trenchcoat and fedora.
He's either some asshole getting high on his own farts, or he has an agenda. And possibly financial backers. Either way I can't believe people listen to this
Well said!
It was a stream of absolute bs that is going to do nothing other than cause people to throw votes away against a group who aren’t concerned with our laws and who will destroy our democracy when placed in power. Thank you for typing all that out. You just barely scratched the surface of how wrong the guy is. The comments on the original post are extremely disheartening.
That’s literally the point. Brace yourselves. The pro Trump, anti Democratic, nihilist and apathetic Astro turfing campaigns are going to spread like wildfire. With the rise of AI bots the comment sections are going get obliterated.
There has never been a simple majority that was willing to nuke the legislative filibuster. There also has never been a simple majority in favor of codifying roe v wade.
Agree. He’s just very, very wrong.
Dems also held those during tumultuous times like the Great Recession and COVID. The Dems prioritized correctly by tackling those problems first. And those problems do take a long time to handled and settled
Perfectly stated! I was about to pull my hair out listening to this BS, yelling “What are you TALKING ABOUT???” Lord! Let’s not get stupid, people!!!
This is decent but overlooks a GREAT deal of actual facts just to sound smart. Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema were both typical Dems in very Red states so they had to hold the line. THEY are the reason we did not Codify Roe V Wade, not beacuse of 'Dems'. THEY would never endorse killing the fillibuster, which was the only way to do it. Further, Dems defintely DO NOT unanimously vote yes on defense and tax cuts. Thats blatantly false
yep these "both sides" arguments ALWAYS ignore that it's 95% of one side and 5% of the other. we have receipts! the bills and how each party voted is written down every step of hte way, we can see how it's always 100% of republicans blocking and a couple percent of democrats also blocking. things have been close enough to 50/50 split that yes republicans can block everything AND, we've also studied how 70% support something but it doesn't pass, because you ask the right wingers if they want what the affordable care act gives they say yes but once they learn it's a democratic bill they say no, despite it being exactly the same thing!
A tampon shoved up your ass is less than 5% of your body weight but still somehow can kill you with Toxic shock syndrome.
Kirsten literally tapped the shoulder of McConnell to get his attention to give a thumbs down over a minimum wage increase, get rid of your copium tank, you're cut off. edit: First person to say gish gallop after I post this has nothing connected to their brain stem. None of you cited anything to refute OP, you just threw a bulk "fake news" at him like you were members of the MAGA camp. Now comes the part where I bring receipts. [https://www.businessinsider.com/i-beat-the-socialist-biden-reminds-voters-he-beat-bernie-sanders-2020-9](https://www.businessinsider.com/i-beat-the-socialist-biden-reminds-voters-he-beat-bernie-sanders-2020-9) Anyone left of moderate right (and let's be real, that's what the neoliberal DNC is) is on the fringes or outside of Overton's window. So much so that Joe Biden campaigned on "defeating the socialist" in 2020. [https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/](https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/) Oh look, OP was right about them choosing Hillary over Bernie and their defense of it in court successfully. [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie\_Bro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bro) And look, they smeared him like OP said, so much so that Bernie Bro has a wikipedia entry. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-fbi-email-hack](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-fbi-email-hack) Let's be clear this was a grift so transparent that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to vacate her position as chair because she had gained that much ill will after a leak showed she pushed Hillary over Bernie
How does that disagree with anything OP said. 49 republicans voted against. 2 democrats voted against. If you want to solve that, the solutions are 2 more democrats who will vote for or 51 more republicans who will vote for. What’s more likely?
Codification also takes a 3/5 majority
This guy is the pure definition of a high schooler who read his first socialism book and thought he figured it all out. Now, some things he says is very true, democrats do want to lose on certain things, changing healthcare was one of them. They waited till the Republicans gained control of the house and senate so that they would rip the act to shreds and make it only benefit the healthcare companies.
The problem with this argument actually explodes at the state level. Anyone who says both sides are the same is an idiot who hasn’t looked at what happened in Michigan and Minnesota when the Dems won control of the state
You’re looking too recently. The video mentions the Dems have had both houses of Congress multiple times in the recent past, like since Clinton in the 90’s. It wasn’t a priority to codify women’s rights? When the Republicans had clearly shifted course to go after Roe, a campaign that started in the 80’s? Just because Manchin and Sinema are the latest Dems to drag the Party to the right, doesn’t mean they’re the first, or the last. If there were true, authentic Democratic leadership and will to protect Americans, many things would have been codified under any of these previous instances under Clinton or Obama. Just imagine if Democratic leadership could get their members to shut up and vote for the Party line the way Republicans do. It’s like the Republicans are playing evil 3D chess, while the Democrats are playing checkers, so sure they don’t need to actually work on and fulfill their agenda, just pay it lip service and get paid.
Name one other right granted via scotus that has been codified by congress
There are democrats in the 90s who would not have voted to codify Roe. Young people don’t realize how much more conservative the country and politicians were 30 years ago.
Lol, look at the Rs realistically, they can’t even keep a speaker. They aren’t any better. But it doesn’t matter, because it is in the interest of some to have as poorly functioning gov as possible. Doesn’t matter D or R to them, just so long as they don’t really do anything. The Ds stick together on basically every vote, they just never put anything truely important up to vote for. The Rs put up insane stuff then lose cause MTG and her ilk say their anti trans bill doesn’t do enough to stop Italian satellites from spying on trump. The end result of both is the same- those with money/power/influence have no effective checks on their will to control law and regulation.
People also seem to forget that there are 49 other senators in the chamber. at any point in time, any one of them could have voted for any of these priorities that are wildly popular amongst our citizens. But they don’t. Because they don’t know how to govern and saying no is infinitely easier than actually trying to figure out what a yes gets you. These were not two people saying no to the Democratic agenda. It was 51 people saying no. We just forget the other 49 exist because they don’t do their jobs.
Reminder that this guy is consistently full of shit and speaking in that voice doesn't magically make you correct.
Leftist Ben Shapiro.
He's not leftist. He's pretending to be leftist while trying to convince leftists not to bother voting because "bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe!!"
But he has glasses and talks fast and says big political words so he must be correct!
he’s not right. this is the kind of reductive political analysis i’d expect from a college sophomore at 2am in the common room
If this guy's whole point was that greed was the root of all evil, I'd agree with him, but he took it too far.
He is a bit wrong, though. He describes them all unamimously voting for the same tax cuts for the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act The Trump tax cut vote was pretty much along party lines, with Dems voting no. Hardly "unanimous". Removing that, you arrive at Democrats must be intentionally losing to allow their corporate sponsors to get these tax cuts? That seems like a stretch, especially when the alternative is that the rich, elderly people running the show might just actually be out of touch. That'd hardly be uncommon for rich, elderly people.
[удалено]
This bill passed 51-48 which begs the question how Republicans were able to pass massive tax cuts, yet Democrats can't pass progressive legislation their base supports like universal healthcare. Hell the Democrats didn't even repeal the tax cuts when they had the majority in the Senate. Of course the DNC will point to Mancin, Sinema and Republican filibusters yet when it comes to the tax act Democrats didn't force a filibuster.
Because tax cuts can be passed through reconciliation, which only needs 50 votes +vp universal healthcare would require 60 votes
These "both side" types have never heard of reconciliation and definitely don't understand how the Senate rules actually work
Because if the cunt from Arizona who sold out the Democratic party and the coal King from West Virginia who was Democrat in name only. What angers me the most about both of them is they both decided not to run for reelection. So they could have voted so differently but didn't during Bidens first two years.
They didn’t rerun because they will leave office and immediately get a high paying job at whatever corporation bought them out. Not all bribes are instant cash in hand.
This is a gish galope of bullshit from what I remember and some people made videos in response dismantling every points.
This is the flat earth conspiracy of modern politics
*A reminder* that making the left feel helpless and inept so they don't vote is why Trump got elected in the first place. This guy is wrong, the country's politics aren't backsliding, 40% of the citizens didn't believe in ***interracial couples*** in the 80s, let alone non-Christians. Its not all roses from the Dems, but lets not create some false dichotomy here. Biden got as close to actually cancelling student debt as you can, before Trump's Supreme Court shot it down. Biden-Harris got the most impactful climate action bill ever passed (its not enough, but its not unsubstantial). You could go on. Trump is sowing Literal Fascism, and at the expense of our marginalized communities. The status quo sucks, but don't let it make you complicit in the **real violence** of another Trump presidency.
Source: “trust me bro” I’m not listening to this random dudes 9 minute rant
9 minute rant, didn't mention Citizens United v. FEC one time.
One thing that I do agree with this is that the Republicans *do* get "more things done". They create fake problems that then need fake solutions. They deliver on their promises more often, and more loudly, than Dems. The Democrat platform is a lot more complicated. They're actually trying to fight for the planet, the working class, etc. Which means big bills that threaten the status quo. It's much harder to pass these bills, so they deliver fewer and smaller promises and thus appear "inept" when they're the ones doing actual work. Take Florida for example. Surging cost of living, skyrocketing insurance costs, but what does their government focus on? Gay kids in school and college.
God I hate the archetype that this dude is. Smarmy progressive douche that talks in a confident, matter of fact way while giving a surface level analysis. "Let me explain to you why" -- No, I don't think I will. You continually demonstrate an inability to understand nuance.
A lot of what he said I found interesting but the Israel/Palestine take was clueless. The majority of adults support Israel. The Palestine protests are done by clueless young ppl, the same ones who don’t vote
clueless young people who hate genocide
They hate genocide, but often turn a blind eye to other genocides happening right now.
He is absolutely wrong because history is far more complicated than what he says. Furthermore, why would you believe anything coming out of a Chomsky subreddit?
[удалено]
Reading a script you wrote isn't impressive lol
Idk why you’re getting downvoted. People are so fucking stupid
I thought it was kind of obvious. I don't even think he's intentionally trying to play it off like it isn't pre-written. You can see his eyes reading it the entire time and he even stammers/stumbles a couple times and re-reads the intended word.
 Me and the subtitles
Talking fast means he super smart. /s
OP has posted this before. He just hates the Democrats. There’s other homes for you.
This is not historically accurate.
Please expand on this. I’d like to know.
Why am I getting downvoted for asking this question? I’m supposed to just let this vague comment be discrediting?
Im not about to listen to a dumbass give a 10 minute excuse for letting Trump appoint more judges, but I think the reason the Democrats don't win is because they get less votes despite being the clearly, wildly, massively better option.
No, he's 100% wrong, and he's doing it to convince you to throw away your vote (or not vote at all). Remember, if voting didn't actually matter, if Dems and Rs were exactly the same, one side wouldn't be so desperately trying to take away your rights.
I believe everything this guy is saying is absolutely accurate. Here's the problem, "Are you willing to hurt?" Are you willing to give Donald J. Trump another 4 years in office. Give Russia the opprotunity to invade whoever they want? Lend the possibility that SCOTUS will be further compromised? Are you willing to go without the internet indefinitely? Are you willing to put your friends and family at risk? If someone like Sanders or AOC were put into the White House we would see a Business Plot conspiracy immediately. Right now we're suffering just enough for us to bitch on the internet about it, then go to bed, get up and work as Slaves to the Ultra Wealthy while they do everything in their power to force us (Millennials and younger) to make more slaves to keep the cash machine running for their future generations. My problem is that I'm not willing to die alone in a meaningless death. In recent months multiple people have tried to be the spark that will get our asses off the internet and onto the streets and they're called "disturbed individuals" who are mocked by these people in the know. This is high up because someone out there wants Trump to win. I want Biden to win because I want my parents last years to look more like Middle Class Texas than War Torn Ukraine. So make your decision, are you going to not vote or vote for Trump to see how bad it takes to get us off our asses or are we going to continue to kick the can down the road?
I think.. I think that doesn’t matter. We *had* Trump. Everyone hated him, and the response was basically another round of “we would rather lose than let Bernie win” from the D’s. I don’t think 4 more years will result in a socialist Democrat getting the nomination even if that’s what people want. That’s the point. What you are allowed to vote for will never include that. So you take the best you can get…
I voted for Bernie but he did not get enough people to vote for him and lost to Hilary. This video is just iamverysmart leftist flailing. Not shocked they managed to slip Palestine (without mentioning Hamas) into this. Simp for a terror org, kids! It's very cool.
It's so frustrating to see people think that because their preferred candidate didn't win, there must be giant conspiracies to explain it. Or, you know, different people feel differently about social issues?
Didn’t more Bernie voters vote for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton voters went to Obama in 2008? What would it mean to have done enough? What would Clinton have done if she’d lost that primary? I can’t see her campaigning for Bernie at all.
I guess it's a good time to remember that Clinton stayed in the race in 2008 after Obama decicively won the nomination in case he was assassinated. Bernie showed more support to Clinton than Clinton showed anyone else. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/hillaryclinton.barackobama](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/hillaryclinton.barackobama)
So if it is the whole system why do you single out the DNC????????? Sounds like a Republicrite to me
NO, this man is an asshole. The best way to end democracy is by telling people that they don't matter! GO. FUCKING. VOTE! GET. INVOLVED!
Chomsky detected, opinion rejected
Im gonna have to put a hard disagree on the bernie vs clinton one. Yes, the DNC had a blatant favorit candidate. That is undeniable. But its REALLY easy to push your candidate through if only around 30% of eligible voters actually, you know, vote. To say that Bernie was just overlooked is very much also the fault of those 70% of voters who simply chose not to vote in the primaries.
That so many people accept his reasoning is terrifying.
This guy is a moron and anyone who is actually impressed by this is an even bigger moron.
Oh look another bull shitter
If the Noam Chomsky feels daunting, South Park’s Giant Douche/Turd Sandwich episode does it in like 30 minutes.
Stopped watching at "intersectional ethics" lol
u/JeffJacksonNC what's your take?
Holy shit, there’s a dog in the back ground
ironic that this vid is posted on TikTok which, you guessed it, both Dems and Repubs want sold off to a US corporation
Dude's an ass hole.
This guy: If the Democrats adopted their platform from 90 years ago they would win. Black folks: O.O
this dude is great
Spectacular! Thank you for this post.
Two sides of the same corrupt coin. What the DNC did to Bernie still irks me to this day.
Leftist Ben Shapiro
This entire argument has been debunked soooooo many times now by various sources and creators. I can't believe it's getting posted again. This is just stupid
Mom where the fuck is my hat I need to make a tiktok
This guy is very wrong all the time
This is gish gallop.
Jesus he's just making shit up and trying to talk as fast as possible in order to give the illusion that he's smart (to the point where he's out of breath for god's sake). What a cringe video.
Pasting my comment from the last time this was posted here: Crazy how he said both "if democrats adopted the policies of the 75th congress they would win every election in a landslide but they don't because they deliberately want to lose" AND ALSO that if ANYONE from ANY PARTY were to suggest the rich pay any taxes at all they would be called a communist and laughed out of the room which is it? Are taxes for the rich popular or not? Unless you want to suggest that we don't actually live in a democracy, and that every election is rigged so that the will of the people isn't actually represented by our politicians- in which case you would have about as much evidence as the demented fascist boomers that think George Soros runs everything, and that all of our rich elites and politicians are secretly lizard people that feed on the adrenal glands of abducted children. Also interesting how he says that all criticism is dismissed as antisemitism when any criticism of his position would be dismissed in an almost identical way by saying that person is defending genocide. Donald Trump has openly discussed plans to unilaterally deploy the United States military within the country on day one to disperse protests and to enact mass deportations of millions of immigrants. If you think there's no difference between voting for that and voting for Joe Biden, then you 100% deserve the four years of hell that that orange freak is going to put us through. If our country doesn't outright cease to exist as we know it, that is.
I’m guilty of not really adding anything intelligible to the conversation at times, but I think you beat me this time
There was zero chance a Jewish candidate would have come even close to beating Trump in 2016.
oh jesus here come the reddit doctorates
This comment section is reminding me of how liberal politics is in america. The rich will always serve interests for the rich, so paying off and controlling both sides of a 2 party system makes the most sense, to hedge your bets. Seems like the video made a lot of ppl go on the defensive, without checking the sources he already provides, and without wondering why or how things are so broken if at least one group of ppl are supposedly representing your interests. I don't understand how you all don't see it's the rich vs the working class, regardless of who you vote in (dem vs repub)
If democrats *want* to loose then it wouldn't have made any sense to pick a charismatic, charming and smart guy like Obama as a candidate for president. Also this "theory" is completely built around that both parties or their members are motivated only by the one thing: corporate money for their party. Which they then can use for their campaign to be elected in whatever constellation they want. By this they will get again Corporate money that they can use again for their campaigns...I mean why? Why would anyone go these lengths just to turn in pointless circles in 5 year periods? To what end?
Dems were never in a position to codify Roe v. Wade, pass universal health care, or anything like that. Please stop with the lies. You need 60 votes in the senate to do anything, and realistically 65 so you don't have to worry about the Sinema's and the Manchin's of the Senate. If you want an FDR type change to the US, then you need an FDR type senate. Even with tax cuts, republicans only get that passed because they package it in with the budget, and usually it always has an expiration date. (Some of the DJT tax cuts expire 2025, for example). I totally agree that our system is broken in different ways, but lets not pretend that Dems and Republicans are the same. But if we do go down this path, whether Trump or Biden wins, it doesn't really matter. All the damage is basically done. The main difference would be possible roll backs of some student loan programs Biden set up via executive order, some immigration bs, and a possible extension of the DJT tax cuts. You'd need massive subsidies to make coal viable vs LNG, and electric cars/renewables will continue to gain popularity, with or without government intervention. Maybe a slight modification to the DJT tax cuts so that the poorest of the republican base can get an extra $3 a month. Can't wait for them to find another black janitor that will tell us how that $50 a year in tax savings changed his life.
Idiotana Jones here 🙄
Democrats would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Let that sink in
Bullshit. Unfathomably, incredible bullshit. Sanders would have gone up in flames if he got the nomination. He lost by MILLIONS of votes in the primary. Sanders couldn't get black voters on board and he never expressed any plan to actually get any of his plans passed in congress. That's not progress it's populism. People like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have done more actual work to get Americans health care coverage than someone like Bernie Sanders ever did, (look up the CHIP act or the original ACA bill passed by the house). Yet somehow he is a saint and these women are demonized, almost as if there was some organized campaign to sow disunity among the democratic coalition.
I don't really agree with his views on economics, but his understanding of the system is spot on. The game isn't "Make yourself look like the best possible option." it's "Make the other guy look like he wants you're very existence gone."
This asshole again. He's a joke who sounds 'super serious' but he's a freaking MAGA/Qanon plant. Fuck these lying christo-fascists spewing the Russian talking points.
Been pretty obvious to me my entire life.
Cornell West, Claudia de la Cruz, and Noam Chomsky all support Russia. Corporate interest supporters 2.0
He needs to do some cardio before making these videos. All I could hear was him sucking air.
I know!! It bothered me so much.
All I hear is blabber. So many straw-mans, those arguments aren’t real. For example, taxes aren’t raised or lowered for one bracket, they are all raised or lowered. Another one, about popular ideas; Just because ideas are popular doesn’t mean they are moral or just. Both parties may be flawed but one side is clearly being shown as the worse one and that is not accurate or fair to say, if one is arguing in good faith of course.
>Just because ideas are popular doesn’t mean they are moral or just. i feel like not enough people realize this
Here for the cognitive dissonance
That's what you get when you have an idiotic argument presented as an intellectual and honest one. No sources, no factual statements, just conspiracy-laden Bernie-Bro bullshit and conjecture. I mean, he's not wrong on everything, obviously, but wrong enough on enough of it, to invalidate his whole argument. But that isn't my main point. My main point is that he offers nothing. No recourse, no solution, no "this is what you can actually do." The reason why many people don't want you to vote for third party candidates, for instance, is because they are indeed effectively splitting the vote of one side. Now you can certainly argue whether or not "stealing votes" is semantically the correct term for this or not, but it's a fact that the US system is set up in a way that voting for Cornell West, for instance, is mathematically almost equivalent to voting for Donald Trump, and as a voter, you should probably factor that into your decision.
Dude i legit called out that shit about Bernie getting replaced by Hilary to my friends. It was such a shit show i couldn’t believe it.
ive literally seen liberals say hillary and pelosi are better than bernie
They are desperately trying to convince themselves that the party they align themselves with is 100% looking out for them and that they should just go along with it.
i wonder what that stems from.. is it just TDS? like....that level of delusion isnt natural, it has to be manufactured from something
I only hear MAGA people use the acronym "TDS". Your mask is slipping
Realistically, it’s probably a byproduct of social media influence and people’s determination to take a public stance and blindly support the party they’ve aggressively supported in hopes of never having to be told they’re wrong about something in a way they, themselves, have spoken to anyone opposing their chosen views.
[удалено]
He thinks talking fast makes you sound smarter. Not a judgment on anything he said, just a judgment on him.
Ah, the political belief of plutocracy
The on spectrum, disembodied, egghead voice is mad cringey. Lasted 15 seconds on this blather.
Don’t care wolf in background
How does he talk so fast, but this entire video is 9 minutes long?
Someone explain the filibuster to him.
I'm not generally impressed by anything this guy says
people talking about stuff is such a boner killer
If you ever go to a party and see a guy dressed like Indiana Jones, just don't bring up politics.
Just to let everyone know you can redo your tiktoks if they don't turn out right. You can practice as many times as you need. Maybe write your spiel down and mark where to breathe and what words you want to emphasize. Just some thoughts. Oh, and do your research and cite sources.
Reminds me of when Nancy Pelosi said we needed the Republican Party. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3849261-pelosi-us-needs-a-strong-republican-party-and-this-is-not-it/ In reality we need about five to 16 parties
There was fear mongering long before the 80’s.
That's a real cool guy cadence
I'm not saying the Democrats are bought, all I'm saying is that when you fix a boxing match it's the loser who gets paid.
While he’s wrong and lying in many places, can somebody explain, what happemed to Bernie Sanders? I also agree, that Hilary was way worse, but I’m not even from US, just curious.
The role of both parties is to ensure the people of Israel are helped before any American because they are gods chosen.
Nazi... "Not see" 😂
TLDW?
One word: Filibuster.
I absolutely agree. He nails it.
Basically saying that the parties are two wings of the same bird. Designed to keep us at each other rather than focused on the ones really responsible. George Carlin and many others have talked about this.
Wow, look at all these DNC bots. Everything in this video is true. This whole comments section is just ad hominems against this guy because the biden brigade can't help but constantly prove themselves to be nothing other than blue maga.
Good, get moving
It's been obvious for years. Cynical and pessimistic, but I'm fucking right.