Opinion INTERNATIONAL Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

Remove this Banner Ad

Lol this guy
No wonder you admire him


Cenk Uygur was born on March 21, 1970, in Istanbul, Turkey.

Uygur is a progressive political commentator and known for co-creating "The Young Turks," an online news show that touts it is the "largest online progressive news show in the world."

Uyguy worked as an attorney in Washington, D.C., and New York before beginning his career as a political commentator. Uygur first appeared on MSNBC as a political commentator in 2010, and then hosted a commentary show. Later, he moved to Current TV to do a show that aired from 2011 until 2013.

In January 2017 he launched what he called a new wing of the Democratic Party, the Justice Democrats, to execute, in his words, a "hostile takeover" of the party establishment.

In 2020, Uygur had a failed bid to represent California's 25th congressional district.

Uygur was in hot water during the California congressional campaign for demeaning and controversial comments he had made about women, Muslims and African Americans resurfaced.
The political commentator announced his White House run in October 2023.
His candidacy has raised legal questions about the constitutional requirement that a president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Uygur is a naturalized U.S. citizen who immigrated from Turkey to the U.S. in 1978 with his parents when he was 8.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly states that "no person except a natural born citizen" can be president, meaning Uygur's citizenship status seemingly does not fit under the constitutional requirement.
We can hear you. :D:D:D:D He's one of your.

Screaming Lea Michele GIF
 
He’s a DINO. Young Turks.

Turkish, misogynist and a DINO. No wonder he hates Biden.
It looks like he is just a lot more Liberal than the Democrat party

He sounds like he would probably be in the Greens in Australia.

Ive always thought that the Democrats and the Republican party both sit to the right compared to other Western countries political parties.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The big question is whether any Democrat voters will be stupid enough to fall for it? I would have thought he'd appeal more to the MAGA voters, resulting in a huge own-goal.
Wasn’t the plan also that he takes votes off both so they don’t reach 270 electoral votes then the Republican led house chooses the President.
Also isn’t the big donor behind him also a Trump donor?
 
Wasn’t the plan also that he takes votes off both so they don’t reach 270 electoral votes then the Republican led house chooses the President.
Also isn’t the big donor behind him also a Trump donor?
That only works if he can actually win some electoral college votes himself - and he has 0.000% chance of achieving that.

He might steal some votes from the major candidates, probably more from the mindless MAGA than the Dems, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance of actually finishing 1st in any state contest.
 
That only works if he can actually win some electoral college votes himself - and he has 0.000% chance of achieving that.

He might steal some votes from the major candidates, probably more from the mindless MAGA than the Dems, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance of actually finishing 1st in any state contest.
One can hope that is true but there is big Trump donor money behind him and who knows, it seems that a lot of Americans like crazy and there are anti vax cookers on both sides, plus the Kennedy name. Gee even a couple on here think he would be a better candidate than Biden or Trump , which is so crazy in itself. RW donors would not be throwing money at him for nothing.
 
One can hope that is true but there is big Trump donor money behind him and who knows, it seems that a lot of Americans like crazy and there are anti vax cookers on both sides, plus the Kennedy name. Gee even a couple on here think he would be a better candidate than Biden or Trump , which is so crazy in itself. RW donors would not be throwing money at him for nothing.
Which is precisely why he's more likely to be taking voters from Trump, rather than Biden.

... but he's not going to get enough votes to win any single state, hence 0 electoral college votes.
 
So how do you explain the Republican donor money behind him.
Why is Bannon behind him?
I am seriously baffled.
I think they're making a mistake.

They're banking on him attracting Democrat voters on the basis of his last name, and him being nominally Democratic (though his views almost all align more with MAGA than they do with the Democrats). They're hoping that he'll steal enough votes away from the Dems in the key swing states, allowing Trump to sneak past him... though my money would be on him stealing more votes from Trump than Biden.

Their goal may be to win enough electoral college votes to force it to a HoR vote... but in reality they have 0% chance of winning a single EC vote.

I'm guessing he'll pick up 5-10% of the popular vote, and of those 80% of those would be Republican voters who can't stomach Trump. Those votes won't be enough to win a single EC vote.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A case study on the deterioration of Twitter

Reason #4,788 not to take medical advice from comedians and podcasters :rolleyes:



In fact, the most common way hepatitis B (an incurable infectious disease and leading cause of liver cancer) is transmitted is from mother to child during pregnancy and child birth. It is not just an STD.

Thanks to universal infant vaccination the prevalence of hepatitis B in USA/Aus and comparable countries is <1%. There are several places in the world with prevalence >10%. This is directly tied to vaccination rates.

More concerning though, this very simple fact was buried 100+ comments down beneath a sea of paid 'blue tick verified' accounts. This is indicative of the dire state of Twitter these days.

There has been a huge decline in the quality of the user experience on Twitter since Musk took over.

Previously, you'd click a post and the top comments would consistently be either:
  1. those tweets which organically had the highest levels of engagement (likes, retweets, impressions, etc) and were boosted democratically; and
  2. blue tick accounts (which in those days actually meant something useful and helped to verify credible sources, weed out parody accounts, etc).
This model allowed the site to be organically moderated and fact checked by people/institutions with actual subject matter expertise, and prevented snow balling of misinformation.

Nowadays the algorithm is far too heavily biased towards the paid blue tick accounts who are, by and large, highly opinionated idiots. The top comments on most tweets are now largely filled with absolute nonsense.

This post ^ is a case in point of how Twitter now seems to primarily serve to propagate stupid and dangerous misinformation as rapidly as possible to as many people as possible with none of the organic moderation or fact checking by subject matter experts it once had.

This is a worrying trend heading into the US election later this year.

While Twitter has lost half of its advertising revenue and a third of its users, it is still accessed by hundreds of millions of people and has enormous potential to influence political discourse and rile up the gullible masses around culture war bullshit, election interference, etc.

Looking at the bigger picture, there's been a lot of questions regarding the primary motivation for Elon Musk’s $44 billion investment in this platform.

There's a good quote from Jordan Peterson which comes to mind when considering this:
"If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences."
 
Last edited:
Doesn't look like that to me. What am I missing?

View attachment 1956164

One of those polls Rasmussen had Trump leading by 8 and Fox News had Trump leading by 5. Both are skewing the average and are not the best pollsters (both have a Republican bias).

Listen to the broadcasy by the election analyst, the trend towards Biden has been evident over past month.
 
One of those polls Rasmussen had Trump leading by 8 and Fox News had Trump leading by 5. Both are skewing the average and are not the best pollsters (both have a Republican bias).

Listen to the broadcasy by the election analyst, the trend towards Biden has been evident over past month.
Its interesting to watch.

I saw a poor MAGA republican spam a statistic about US voters interest in Abortion
It was around 5% on a national scale. The poor guy didnt understand why that wasnt relevant on a state level (especially in a state that just took away womens rights).


I personally dont think Trump will win, but its not really Trump that is the concern, as we see here its his insane, stupid supporter base thats the worry.
 
Last edited:
Its interesting to watch.

I saw a poor MAGA republican spam a statistic about US voters interest in Abortion
It was around 5% on a national scale. The poor guy didnt understand why that wasnt relevant on a state level (especially in a state that just took away womens rights).


I personally dont think Trump will win, but its not really Trump that is the concern, as we here its his insane, stupid supporter base thats the worry.
And what he plans to do if he doesn’t win, that is a concern.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion INTERNATIONAL Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top