Constitutional Amendment To Fight $ In Politics Suffers Short Term Setback In CA
Articles Blog

Constitutional Amendment To Fight $ In Politics Suffers Short Term Setback In CA

September 16, 2019


its time other young turks to keep it
real as we always do so uh… we have asked early in the week richard for our
people to go and help in getting a resolution passed in
california now you know were for a constitutional
amendment we have walked back in as a super pack meant to get that amendment
to get money outta politics right sos basically super pack that flights all the other server past
right and there is a great resolution there is
to really good was actually california what they call ajr twenty two which was hayward favor constitutional amendment
that passed down through the judiciary committee antibodies in favor of that that’s revenues but specifically what we want is a call
for a constitutional convention ’cause we think that no matter how much the
state’s asked washington for an amendment they’re not going to
get one because washington is totally corrupt i’m never going to pass a man but you can do it through the states to
reelection your constitutional convention okay so that was called ajr thirty-two in
california was that proposed by if three great to someone
and we talk about it here so went to the judiciary committee i would be the first
step in getting into the overall assembly fail we lost sad day for america if you would think in a boat was six
three right so that’s no question that’s
discouraging we got a lot of you guys i know what there is a cutie have they got
reports that there’s a lot of people in young turks
t_-shirts here atmosphere right so that’s great and i
know a lot of u called and emailed in and and and i know for a fact that all
that committee members uh… voicemails over
the uh… weekend were for every single one
was form was intriguing as there was no mo tomato ok so if you had a great job
with a loss anyway which happens in politics and this is a real first attempt and getting this pass through state
legislature that would be the first action not like
they were in favor kind of maybe would be great and someone else that over all the good news i get out of its
is after we went through this process actually feel encouraged and look it’s not because it’s false hope or
anything like that i get the with awesome by the way we can’t bring it back up until the
beginning of twenty thirteen so that sucks right in california but by realizing that as i look at the
process down i understand the process but at the local state level right okay so we lost six three this for other
democrats there all you got a new split over them and they had a legitimate concern which
was hate care constitutional convention get out ahead and i can address a concern it’s no
problem at all what he called for a limited commercial source always on that
issue and number two don’t worry because it gate it whatever makes you have a
constitutional convention three-quarters of the states have to ratify anything
anyway so he had some crazy pro-life amendment there’s no way to get three
chords the state’s ratified in prison amendment there’s no way you get three
courses states ratified though i think we all agree on is get money out of
politics who serves on the rules triggered a so i want you to shout out to the heroes
of owner for widows which hausky money and atkins you know there are two some
women in california they’re terrific job now we are working and hubert dickinson
wagner in boyer who are not that people they voted
the right way on that amendment overall but now we had to get them to vote for
the convention soldier actually get it done i want to work on that were to come back an i’ve learned a ton from this process and i can’t wait to get to the next
state-level where we have yet another chance for peace committees and i think that living just give you one last inside of
that there’s on fifteen twenty different
states right now their wolfpack members who’ve got together and rob political
maps so what does that mean right it’s really interesting what they do is the say okay here is our allies in the
state they make calls and say are you with us earlier guests as they
make a list of people were friendly to this idea of a constitutional
amendment and doing it through convention people ride and says anwar allies in the state what other
progressive groups so there’s a real road map to victory and to meet richard my final thought on
this if i can see the roadmap if i can see
the road i think it then i know it by you know and i know it and after this process the first time we
went through it that’s why i feel like all i see it it’s right there already
knew that is this this embarrass and we would and you know it’s like gandhi said first
ignore you then they will have to give them a fight you then you went this is a topic this is something people
want this is not a crazy idea this is something most of the people what we
just have to not give up and keep fighting and if california goes this way
is concerned shockwaves all across the country absolutely and you look eighty
percent of american board of citizens united so you know it’s actually bipartisan so
the next step is in connecticut actually uh… so in new haven wardrobe alderman on the human services committee are
meeting if you’re in kentucky don’t drive a
prospect data and this is not something that where it’s actually state level that actually is the connection it’s another resolution saying they were
on your side what will take all of us right so if you’re in connecticut anything
negative you haven there’s a media six fifteen p_m_ wednesday may ninth it’s a city hall
hundred sixty-five percent new haven connecticut look anytime we get support anywhere and
get those votes in our paper that has momentum because already we’ve had some momentum
in connecticut and it would make the state housing connected much more likely to
move forward so by all means even find out the
specifics at wolf dash pack dot com wolf that’s faq dot com drawing up there and uh… let’s go to new haven max anas
how deep it was lee said whoa i said well i don’t know how are you regatta although potato and in the air we will win because we are too strong

Only registered users can comment.

  1. What is a "term setback"? Whatever it is, this title says that the amendment suffered a short one. Or wait… did you mean a "short-term setback" and not a "short term setback"? That's the reason hyphens are important in grammar. They sometimes change the meaning.

  2. Cenk.. why don't you guys just make your own political party? If I was American I'd vote for the TYT party.

  3. While it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an ammendment, all those crazy ammendments will be used to take up time and resources that should be sed on the real reasons for the convention.

  4. I'm not sure how to get the money out of politics, and I worry about the unintended consequences of this amendment. For example, if we can't donate to campaigns, then the coorporate news media would choose who our next president is. Also, what about political movies that are meant to change people's views on the issues? Would those be outlawed as well? What about online shows like the young turks? They are using money to influence politics by creating this show. I need to hear more on this.

  5. This constitutional amendment effort is an EPIC FAIL! It will never happen! We NEED to elect Sarah Palin as our next President! Only she has the power FROM GOD HERSELF to COMPLETELY PURGE and ELIMINATE all the corruption OUT of our govt! She is the real change that this country needs! The Palination will be COMPLETELY PURE and FREE of $ corruption in our govt!

  6. WRONG CENK! You will LOSE! Sarah Palin WILL WIN! The TYT army is WEAK! The Palinista Army is TOO STRONG!

  7. You're joking right? If you honestly believe that Palin will end gov't corruption then you are a stupid moron.

  8. first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you get killed and you lose

  9. when I maintain that progressives are delusional, misty eyed fools, this is excellent example in support. The majority of people in America are not progressives.

    SCOTUS has ruled correctly on the issue at hand, live with it

    the playing field is still heavily in favor of liberals who through teachers' unions/Hollywood/mainstream media/TV have brain washed huge numbers of Americans to the dark side of the political force. We need monies from the opposing side of the spectrum to countermand this

  10. wow that is a nice flip over. Corporate money goes to the politicians because they want a benefit from the government. Not the other way around

  11. Love how you named all the go-to "evils" of the political scene that FOX news goes to.

    No one is going to take you seriously after that because it proves how little you actually understand about American politics.

  12. so those groups I named are not leaning heavily on the side of liberals in America, constantly playing to the liberal narratives?

    on which planet do you reside?

    why don't you want to live by the SCOTUS ruling? In Rowe vs Wade you libs are only to happen to applaud the SCOTUS decision

  13. Actually it infringes free press, not free speech. They can speak as much as they like, as long as they don't accept money for paid ads or articles etc.
    I'm all for banning paid political advertising altogether. This'd require a clarification in the first amendment that all people shall have an equal chance to be heard.

  14. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fuck you, and then you win." – Gandhi

  15. But corruption isn't made illegal by ron paul. He does nothing to stop lobbying power and even deregulates most oversight agencies. You can't expect a politician to be honest when the politician depends on money to support himself a seat in government. The whole voting scheme is now set up to whoever gets the most money. If there was a cap on how much money a politician is allowed to spend and receive then the focus is on the votes and the voters

  16. Cenk, I don't think you appreciate how dangerous constitutional conventions are. After one starts, no-one has the authority to stop it until it disbands itself.

    Who would be making the decisions in the convention? Some of the very same people who are corrupt. Once the convention has started, they could just make whatever constitution they like and no-one could stop them.

  17. Actually Cenk you definitely should call for a limited convention only on that issue. That blows out all the reservations a lot of people including me have about constitutional conventions.

  18. Ignore @genie0390. He's a well known TYT troll and Fox "News" viewer who can't debate like an adult or back up what he says with facts so he uses lies, discrimination, fear mongering, insults and arro0gance to get his point across which is exactly what Fox does.

  19. That's easy to solve. Undercover sting ops to expose those kinds of politicians. Any breach even in a sting, and there's a re-election.

  20. No. for starters, I don't have the same view on corporations as you. I do believe they can have a corrupting democracy, but I don't believe that they destroy democracy and are necessarily destroying the country. I believe that the truth is much more complicated than that. You also seem to hint that you don't want corporations to be treated as citizens while I do, because while I do not want money in politics, I believe protection of the first amendment is more important.

  21. Thus, as a result, I advocate a compromise that I think best satisfies your "fears" of corporations as well as the protection of the rights of companies and that is to treat companies just like the "people" they are defined as under Citizens United and that includes limiting campaign donations to politicians to the same level as regular citizens. That way, they don't have any more power than you and I, but they still have the right to the First Amendment.

  22. wow you really have it backwards. Private orgs. can support through voting.. the CEO just use their vote to whomever candidate is running. You know, like they used to do 30 years ago. If he want more leverage, then he should convince his workers. That is the amazing thing of voting. Everyone is equal and has the same amount of voting power. Money is easy to track. It is already mandatory to show where political money comes from and how much just look into campaign finance law.

  23. Everyone has been attacking me for supporting Citizen's United, but they disregard my moderate views. I recognize corporate corruption, but I like my First Amendment and the Constitution cannot be breached. My solution is a compromise between the Democrats and Republicans because it limits campaign spending and secures the right to free speech. But for some reason, even though liberals advocate for compromise, all of you take pleasure in bashing me for my views. guess you dont like independents

  24. Getting money out of U.S. politics should matter to every citizen of the world because the corruption over there hurts every human on earth.

  25. 2 ways to do that. all politicians get the same amount of government money to campaign or Like the US have done in the past, A cap on campaign donations and a cap on the amount of money allowed to be given by a Priv. org. to a politician.The problem now is that Voting doesn't mean anything cause the Corp that lobbies the most politicians dictates policy. Which is worse than your fears. Cause it hinders voting as Useless.How can a gov. tell who to vote when everyone get equal campaign money?

  26. wow are you born yesterday? superPAC's are a result of removing campaign finance laws in 2010. The supreme court made it possible for unlimited donations in the Citizens United (a lobbying group) v. Federal Election Commission. Before that, there was a cap on donations. It was Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972. So technically thanks to corporate corruption, It created the situation how it now is

  27. "government to regulate political money is to regulate what the press" Uhmm no. how do you get that idea? If a politician gets x amount of money. then that politican can spend x amount on his political ads. No regulation of press needed… The press can then do debates/interviews or whatever. there is no connection between regulating campaign funds and limiting free speech

  28. yes voting is useless when unlimited money is allowed. What happens if you have 2 politicians. you voted for the winner and then the lobbying group who has most money convinces the politician to change stances. yeah that vote is then a lot worth /sarcasm

  29. Wow you really can't read what i have been stating over and over. If politicians are forced by law to show their campaign finances to the public and private org. have a max amount of campaign donation to give. How can illegal PAC´s sprout up? Cause the politician is spending money that is illegal. If an opponent finds out, it means the end of the politicians career and that is basically what the Federal Election Commission was supposed to do back in the 70's till recently.

  30. now you got it.

    But sadly that current system isn't in place in the US… well not any more. You have to go to Canada, or Europe or Australia. US is actually is unique when it comes to campaign donations. It is the only democratic country where you can give unlimited amounts of money to influence politics

  31. how can you abuse government money when every politician gets the same amount of money to spend on campaigning while non gov money is banned/illegal? This set up is used in most countries in Europe and South America. The other way is accepting priv. money but there is a cap on how much to donate and how big the campaign budget is allowed

  32. uhmmm first time elected politicans are easier swayed by private donations as they don't have a base of support. long term politicians have a broader voter group so they have more responsibility to voters. But since there is no cap on donations. Voters are less of a threat than loosing campaign donations

  33. wait you have a different definition of support. I am only stating that private orgs are allowed to support (as in money) a limited amount to a politician..you know a cap. If they want to support indirectly then they can do so by spending money on ads, signs .. whatever… but not by sending almost unlimited amount of money to the politician. Cause that makes the politician be on the payroll of the highest bidder

  34. You don't have the same chance of being heard though, even if you might be right. You ok with that?

  35. you do know that citizens include billionaires, right? without a citizen cap on donations. The guy who has the most money, influences the most. Instead of Koch Corporation. It will be the Koch Brothers.

  36. Because I'm just venting due to the fact that retards like him still exist. I would argue with him but it's pointless since it's rare for anyone to be able to change the mind of a person with such a flawed view of reality.

  37. Actually, yes, it can be considered an insult. If you look up the word "retarded" the definition is not limited to people mentally limited due to a medical condition.

    As for the "flawed view of reality". I meant the reality of the government and the incentives businesses have to give money to it….. not reality in general.

    Next time think a little before you decide to make such a poorly thought out response.

  38. The constitution doesn't allow for a limited convention.

    "…on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…"

    It only allows states to call on a convention that has the power to propose amendments. It says nothing about states being able to limit its scope.

  39. I really admire what TYT is doing and I love their overall stance on political issues, I guess that's why I'm a subscriber. But I have to admit, I'm not very optimistic about the future. Why would any politician want to take $ out of politics? The best chance I think we have is if Obama gets re elected this year, then in the 2016 we can finally vote in a third party candidate

  40. Not death destruction drowning – but allowing voices to be drowned out, which is happening today, and which you have said that you support. BIG difference.

  41. you are saying don't rely on any politician and then put your hopes into a third party candidate? news flash third party candidates ARE politicians.

  42. there is no other way to really do it besides mass protest and revolution. the president either can't/won't do shit, congress will never do anything, so i guess all we have are the states. if that doesn't work, i'm not sure what we can really do but wait for the next economic collapse. the bank reform that was passed did nothing for derivatives and there is still predatory lending. you got a better idea?

  43. Looks like TheYoungTurks have earned a lot of money since their studio set is much better than last year.

  44. You're right. I still I still don't think we can nor should we rely soley on politicians because whether we like it or not, they're going to vote based on their own interests. Right now, it seems to be a tug a war between Republicans and Democrats and they can pretty much do whatever they want because it's either one or the other. I think a third party is would eleviate that problem. But it will still be a problem.

  45. The country is broke is what they claim yet they have multimillion dollars in them on the repukelicans side. I have an idea how about use all these super pac's the repukelicans have made and fund alot of programs to help the working class and the poor.

  46. Your comment was uneducated and simple. I don't care about the "R-word" controversy. I am accusing you of being a fool incapable of eloquently presenting yourself. You have poor grammar and spelling and you come off weak minded. I find you amusing. Your time was wasted, not mine. This is hilarious. You do not even have the dignity to yield. All you have done is made a fool of yourself and given a few people here a fine chuckle. Learn to show some grace and respect… or don't. I care not.

  47. I watched it. Jeez that's pretty weak. You know voters have the say on which congressmen they put into the fed. government, right? Most currently support the patriot act which is why it survives a bit longer. Otherwise there's pressure to change it. And the constitution says "unreasonable" search and seizure – thus a matter to be resolved by the elected congress. I see no problem. The system is working ok in this case. End corruption yes. Random selection is dangerous how exactly?

  48. the supreme court isn't the entire government. the constitution is the law of the land and if we change the constitution so it is illegal and supreme court sees it that way then it would be ruled illegal. the problem is how do we go about doing this?

  49. LOL. "…and your another…" ? Also, I think you looked up vacuous. It is a good defining word for you however. Please keep entertaining if you must. Quite dignified indeed! You have certainly put me in my place.

  50. I was pointing out that you have not put me in my place. I never said I put you in your place. The fact that you are intoxicated, enraged and scornful whilst writing your replies is no excuse for you lowly behaviour. You present yourself as rude and ignorant, yet you seem to think you re deserving of respect. I find that interesting. I do not care if you are ESL. Spelling errors happen, that is fine. You however are getting all worked up. You're the one looking like an ass. Keep it up.

  51. So we degrade to "I know you are, but what am I?"… You sure got me pegged with that one. Listen, I'll freely admit that although I had a point, I was goading you. It seems unnecessary for me to continue. I was only bothering to reply out of amusement. I really do not wish to cause you any more undue stress. For that, I apologize.

  52. but thats the most important sector that we need to be unfavorably impacted, the top half of a percent.

    They are most of the ones throwing money around.

    Its also on step at a time. It isnt rational to say it has to be improved all at once or none at all.

  53. not unusual, fight fire with fire, take down from the inside. Its not that unusual and is often successful.
    Likely wouldnt be here, but still one way to get what you want.

  54. Very interesting. I hope this works, but they have already ignored important parts of the constitution and money are hard to track.

    I think if this fails, democracy fails. Hope they don't kill Cenk.

  55. Okay , it really does not matter. Try to relax a little, you'll live longer. Hate me all you like. It is a waste of energy. You are not capable of offending me personally, so don't waste your time… My French ass is going to be just fine.

  56. It's the internet. I'm not going to argue with a moron who's mind I'm not very likely to change. I'm simply going to post my what I have to say and move on. If you don't like that…. then go fuck yourself. Freedom of speech douchabg. You don't like that people use it? Then stay the fuck off the internet.

  57. Excellent plan. Hope it succeeds. Money in politics has always been wrong. But since you are fighting money you'll get alot of resistance.
    Truely hope it succeeds.

  58. How can you be against a corporation making a movie for a political candidate. Corporations have a right to make movies. So if its one person he has all these rights but if two people get together they are a corporation and have no rights? What a stupid argument.

  59. Since when a corporation of two people make a difference (Is there such a thing as corporation of two!?) And i'm not talking about some phony fronts.

    What a person wants? And what corporation wants? Because I believe that corporation is more than a sum of it's employees and members. And what is good for corp. not necessarily good for a person. What is why we must limit corporations influence.

  60. If there were no subsidies, corporations would bride, sorry – lobby, politicians to create subsidies, etc. There is no way to get politics out of money, but we must minimize money's influence on politics as much as possible

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *