That’s crazy. So it’s really all about inflation then (not that it isn’t hugely important), from an economic perspective?
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
That and branding.
You’ve apparently gotta figure out how to turn what’s in that link into a simple slogan for it to matter.
If someone were to do this, it ain’t gonna be Cenk Uygur.
He's a self-promoter. Ran for Congress and lost, ran for President as a publicity stunt despite not being born in the US, and is beefing with Bill Maher because Bill won't invite him on his show (to be fair, Bill probably barely knows who Cenk is).
Absolutely. He doesn’t strike me as particularly bright, and as someone too divisive to unify anything.
Only good thing is that he recently kinda called out some of Anna's bs grifting for the right.
On another note: the AOC tweets asking why people voted for both her and Trump are interesting. Except it boggles my mind that somehow people can actually see him as an outsider on anything. Shows you once again branding is more important that reality. The two of them are miles apart on that metric. Hell, i could actually respect someone s opinion a bit more if they would say the opposite: that they voted for him bc of all the connections he s has in politics, business and the media. Trump truly is one of the greatest con artists of all time.
Last edited:
Don't give this absolute sleeze any more attention. He is nothing more than a troll who wants almost as much attention as Trump, all for his own ego.
Alright I'll break it down.
1. Teachers are a female dominated profession. - Agreed
2. Male teachers are viewed as predators. - Yes, by the people who are still stuck in the 1950's when it comes to their view on gender which means they can't get their head around men in traditionally female roles and vice versa, at least that's what the link you took that from says. "Manly" teachers are seen as too aggressive and threatening, less "manly" teachers are seen as too feminine and considered weird for wanting to care for kids in that way, so they must be pedos.
The article is arguing for having more male teachers so that young kids can see men in more traditionally female roles to break the thoroughly dated views on traditional gender roles, not because female teachers are unfair and we need to balance the scales. It also says that the notion of having more female teachers leading to a more liberal style and having more male teachers leading to disciplined tough men is again more of the same old tired traditional gender role bullshit, i.e not true, which I'm guessing must've been a bit confusing for you to read.
3. High school isn't meant for educating boys, but to curb masculinity, anger and bend them to social authority. - How does it curb their masculinity, and why is curbing their anger a bad thing? A source would be great as well. Oh and are girls being bent to social authority as well, and if so do you think that's a good or bad thing?
4. School results in weak men with no confidence - Does it? Weak how? Is their confidence shot becuase the female teachers didn't give them good grades?
5. They are then seen as inherently toxic, privileged and vilified for what their ancestors did 200 years ago. - Sure, just by walking out of school as a white guy without even saying a word they're treated as the scum of the earth, no matter how they act, because school makes that happen. This is totally true and accurate, I promise.
6. We're in a gender war and the men are losing. - For the sake of argument let's say that's true. Is this war a new thing? You think it's been all fine and dandy until the women decided to stick the knife in our backs and break up the perfect equality we've had between us for centuries? Are middle school grades a big part of the war? Like if you compare it to Roe v Wade for example, or the no fault divorce that your new government is salivating for. That big?
Why don't you get back to me when a woman wears a shirt that says "his body, my choice" and we'll talk about how women are winning this fecking gender war of yours.
Last edited:
Oprah really can’t help herself but get that money. Stories like this really go to show the disconnect between the top the Democratic Party and the rest of the USA.
Who'd have thought having a host of well - off millionaire celebrities wasn't going to attract the vote from the everyday American.
It’s almost like the right will always vote for the right and there’s a huge untapped electorate to the left of centre.
And yet they were happy to vote to make billionaires even richer, and who will spend the next 4 years fecking them over.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/07/investing/billionaires-net-worth-trump-win/index.html
All the celebrity discourse miss the obvious fact that Republicans absolutely flaunted any C lister they could get their hands on, so where was the blowback?
Any analysis deeper than the price of eggs for the swing voters is just libs pontificating due to an inability to accept that a turd of a human being can just coast to a win off economic headwinds. Dems will spend the next 2 years in internecine warfare over leadership of the party with no obvious course changing in policy, and retake the House quite easily in 26.
There are deeper issues with US society in general that imo we are far past the point of no return, but if the question is 'how do Dems win again?', the answer is 'just wait for GOP to feck it up'. If, however, you want to build a lasting majority in the mold of FDR, then none of them is ready for that conversation.
Any analysis deeper than the price of eggs for the swing voters is just libs pontificating due to an inability to accept that a turd of a human being can just coast to a win off economic headwinds. Dems will spend the next 2 years in internecine warfare over leadership of the party with no obvious course changing in policy, and retake the House quite easily in 26.
There are deeper issues with US society in general that imo we are far past the point of no return, but if the question is 'how do Dems win again?', the answer is 'just wait for GOP to feck it up'. If, however, you want to build a lasting majority in the mold of FDR, then none of them is ready for that conversation.
If Trump did it, he'd be accused of misappropriation of campaign funds..
There is way too much money in politics.. people need to stop giving these guys their money.
He's a shameless grifter who poses as a 'progressive'. There's a reason that network keeps producing right-wing talking heads like Rubin, Dore and now Kasparian.
Every time an A-list celebrity comes out with even mildly conservative views, the Republicans are absolutely giddy about it. It’s hypocrisy and jealousy on their part, because most entertainers have liberal views.
Exactly! Remember the time Trumpers thought Sydney Sweeney was one of them because her relatives wore MAGA hats at a party?
i stopped watching TYT about 2 years ago as it was simply "loud man yells through my youtube video player". But i think this is a wrong analysis. Cenk is by far the same person he's always been, unfortunately he tends to have a good knack for nurturing progressives that give up their ideology at the first sign of setback. The left to right switch is a well known thing with ideologically extreme, yet aimless people.
I know it's hardly comparable but all Belgian parties combined spent about 7 million€ last elections. That would give you 7 Oprah appearances. Crazy amount of money involved in US elections.
Maybe it’s dumb/naive of me but I always assumed the celebs that did these endorsements or performed at these rallies did so for free because that’s who they wanted people to vote for
While I agree with you on the second and third paragraphs, with regards to your first paragraph, are people not within their wants to want/expect better of the people they vote for than just to say “well the republicans did this?”
Is there no room for discussion about any perceived flaws or mistakes without it somehow becoming a comparison to the gop?
To be fair, if they are getting paid for these 'endorsements', are these things 'endorsements' or bribes in the first place?
And, does anyone really vote for a party cause Taylor Swift or Oprah says so? US politics desperately need to be more attached to reality, and the money spend on campaign needs to be capped at something reasonable. Especially considering that it seems that money is not everything with Harris significantly outspending Trump and still losing every swing state.
If the point is that this is a waste of money, then yes you're right. From someone in the UK, the numbers spent in the US elections are shocking.
On the other hand, I've been seeing the narrative that all these celebrity endorsements put off some segment of voters. In that context, it makes sense to make this comparison.
Spare a thought for Cenk’s nephew Hasan Piker (now known as Hasan Abi), who bills himself as a socialist but lives in a $3m home down the road and drives around here in a Porsche Taycan; all funded with the support of people who donate to his Twitch streams where he randomly talks about current events.
The people who are loudest about these celebrity endorsements being a sign of elitist Democrats losing touch with working people are the same bunch who shamelessly crow about Hulk Hogan, Kid Rock, or Zachary Levi.
I just don't think it's a particularly interesting or worthwhile point of contention, if people want to talk about it regardless then go ahead, but all things considered having Cardi B twerk on stage didn't make Democrats lose the election, so what's the point?
I don’t think it would put off voters, but at the same time I can’t see any possible way that it wins you voters, at which point it is just a huge waste of money.
Agreed, if you’re being paid then is it actually an endorsement, or is it just a commercial like one you would do for shampoo?
I asked the question on if it actually influences votes, but surprisingly, some of the US based posters here said that for some people that actually makes a difference.
It’s baffling they would pay any celebrity given that the public were led to believe they were all appearing with Harris because they legitimately supported her candidacy. The only exception would be if a singer performed and the accompanying musicians/dancers/sound engineers/equipment setup people etc needed to be paid. The likes of Oprah, Beyonce, and Springsteen are all billionaires.
Also, I wonder if the Obama staffer they cite is David Plough. The same David Plough who in 2016 said Hillary had a 100% chance of winning just a few weeks before the election, and who a couple of weeks ago suggested Harris would sweep each of the seven swing states, only to abruptly delete his twitter account after the election.
That’s how it’s supposed to be. Celebrities routinely endorse candidates and deliver remarks at conventions without getting paid. That’s the entire point of it, to endorse because they support the candidate over their opponent without the need to pay them for their support.
What an absolutely scandalous thing to do.
Don’t tell him Karl Marx bought stocks.
Advocating for socialist policies and doing well for yourself is not allowed. You have to be a bum to do it.
I'd imagine that a lot of those performances require dozens of people's work to be set up and they obviously still need to be paid, regardless of endorsment. But obviously that doesnt explain anything close to 20 million.
The production company and Oprah have denied getting any payment although everything is worded very carefully.
The democrats every four years becomes a liberal evangelical mega church exploiting its fearful base.
Yeah fair enough the performances probably did have some overhead costs, but why on Earth are you paying Oprah a million dollars to endorse you
American politicians starting to go the Politburo of the USSR late 1970's/early 80's style. Each one older than the next