The Young Turks commentator Cenk Uygur unloaded on Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) over his recent comments about Harvard University and his stance on Israel, calling him a &#8220;fraud&#8221; and accusing him of turning into a Republican.
Uygur was responding to an <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/fetterman-rips-his-alma-mater-says-harvard-was-always-a-little-pinko-but-now-he-doesnt-even-recognize-it/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview with Fetterman</a> that was published Friday by <a href="https://www.semafor.com/newsletter/01/05/2024/conservatism-chaos-and-e-jean-carroll-the-gop-field-makes-its-closing-pitch-in-iowa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Semafor</a> — during which the Pennsylvania senator confirmed that he was not a &#8220;progressive&#8221; and criticized his alma mater in the wake of former Harvard University President Claudine Gay&#8217;s ouster.
&#8220;As an alum of Harvard — look, I graduated 25 years ago, and of course it was always a little pinko. But now, I don’t recognize it,&#8221; Fetterman said of the Ivy League institution.
During the same interview, he told Senator&#8217;s David Weigel that he would not be surprised to see more Democrats in Congress calling for a ceasefire in Israel&#8217;s war against the terrorist group Hamas.
&#8220;More and more of my colleagues are calling for it. It’s so strange. Why aren’t you calling for Hamas to surrender? If Hamas surrendered, and turned over their guns, all the killing and all the misery would [end],&#8221; he said.
Uygur took issue with Fetterman&#8217;s comments, however, and took to X to voice his objections.
&#8220;Now @JohnFetterman is telling everyone how he&#8217;s not a progressive, he rejects us and is now calling Harvard &#8216;pinko.&#8217; What the f***? This is why people lose hope, because of frauds like Fetterman. You work hard to get a progressive elected and they turn into Republicans instantly,&#8221; Uygur posted on Friday.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Now <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JohnFetterman</a> is telling everyone how he&#39;s not a progressive, he rejects us and is now calling Harvard &quot;pinko.&quot; What the fuck? This is why people lose hope, because of frauds like Fetterman. You work hard to get a progressive elected and they turn into Republicans instantly.
&mdash; Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1743422748276425060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He followed up a day later, adding, &#8220;Someone should do a poll of @JohnFetterman in PA. I bet his numbers went down significantly after he became the biggest cheerleader for the establishment, biggest supporter of killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza and a huge backer of Biden. That’s not at all who they voted for.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Someone should do a poll of <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JohnFetterman</a> in PA. I bet his numbers went down significantly after he became the biggest cheerleader for the establishment, biggest supporter of killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza and a huge backer of Biden. That’s not at all who they voted for.
&mdash; Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1743705191118221796?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Young Turks host went after Fetterman just before the New Year as well, referring to him as a &#8220;mouthpiece for the establishment&#8221; and a &#8220;counterproductive poser.&#8221;
&#8220;Fetterman has gone from the last great populist hope on the Democratic side to worse than useless. He’s now enthusiastically taken on the role of mouthpiece for the establishment who attacks anyone challenging Biden or the powerful. Counterproductive poser.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Fetterman has gone from the last great populist hope on the Democratic side to worse than useless. He’s now enthusiastically taken on the role of mouthpiece for the establishment who attacks anyone challenging Biden or the powerful. Counterproductive poser. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Fraud?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Fraud</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PutOnASuit?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PutOnASuit</a>
&mdash; Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1740053432826991072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 27, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

John Fetterman Sept 28

‘Young Turks’ Host Lashes Out At Fetterman, Calls Him ‘Fraud’ And Says He’s Turned Into A Republican

'Young Turks' Host Lashes Out At Fetterman, Calls Him 'Fraud' And Says He's Turned Into A Republican

Border Crisis

Cenk Uygur

Hamas

Israel

John Fetterman

Young Turks

“The Young Turks” co-host Ana Kasparian doubled down this week on slamming woke terms like &#8220;birthing person&#8221; after she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/far-left-pundit-posts-viral-tweet-ripping-woke-trans-inclusive-terms-for-women-left-attacks-her">angered</a> left-wing activists online last month when she ripped “trans inclusive” terms for being “degrading” to women.
Kasparian, an unapologetic member of the Left, has caught flak from some extremists on her side of the aisle in the past for engaging in debate and discussion with people on the Right, most notably The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ben Shapiro back in 2021.
&#8220;Lol! The meltdowns over wanting be referred to as a woman rather than a &#8216;birthing person&#8217; is pretty wild,&#8221; she tweeted this week. &#8220;I’ll never apologize for that, especially as biological woman who has had a f***ing lifetime of being told I’m less than. I’m a woman. No apologies.&#8221;
When asked if anyone had actually called her a &#8220;birthing person,&#8221; Kasparian responded, &#8220;Yes &#8230; I live in CA.&#8221;
Last month, Kasparian ripped woke terminology, saying, &#8220;I&#8217;m a woman. Please don&#8217;t ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates.&#8221;
&#8220;How do people not realize how degrading this is?&#8221; she added. &#8220;You can support the transgender community without doing this s***.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I&#39;m a woman. Please don&#39;t ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is? You can support the transgender community without doing this shit.
&mdash; Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnaKasparian/status/1638608868485005314?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 22, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Taking on a critic from the Left complaining about so-called inclusion, Kasparian responded, “I have zero problem with inclusion. None. But there’s gotta be a better way than boiling it down to a body part, no? Especially in the context of having reproductive rights taken away from people who just see women as a baby-making vessel. That’s all I’m saying.”
The liberal host was attacked and called names, such as “transphobe,” by some on the Left.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-29031">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
She did, however, receive support from her co-host and The Young Turks (TYT) founder Cenk Uygur, who retweeted Kasparian’s viral tweet and made it clear he supports her, even if they have disagreements.
“If you think I’m going to tell my female co-host what she can call herself or what words she’s allowed to use, you’re nuts,” he wrote. “And you don’t know me at all. We do something radical at TYT, we let everyone have their own opinion. I know it’s a novel concept in media.”

Politicon 2019 – Day 1

‘I’ll Never Apologize’: Left-Wing Co-Host Doubles Down On Slamming ‘Birthing Person’ Language

Left-Wing Co-Host Doubles Down On Slamming 'Birthing Person' Language

Media

Politics

The Young Turks

Recently uncovered blog posts from Cenk Uygur, who is the creator and host of &#8220;The Young Turks,&#8221; revealed multiple disparaging and sexist remarks about women, including referring to women as genetically &#8220;flawed.&#8221;
Uygur, who recently came under fire for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/23382/cenk-uygur-christianity-was-responsible-holocaust-hank-berrien">blaming Christians</a> for the Holocaust, wrote the perverse blog posts in the early 2000s, which <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/young-turks-cenk-uygur-blog-breasts-women-flawed/">The Wrap</a> recently uncovered hidden in online archives.
Uygur apologized for writing the blog posts in an interview with The Wrap, claiming that the writings do not represent who he is today.
&#8220;The stuff I wrote back then was really insensitive and ignorant,&#8221; Uygur told The Wrap. &#8220;If you read that today, what I wrote 18 years ago, and you&#8217;re offended by it, you&#8217;re 100 percent right. And anyone who is subjected to that material, I apologize to. And I deeply regret having written that stuff when I was a different guy.&#8221;
Uygur tried to shift the blame from himself to conservatism, telling The Wrap that he made the comments when he was still a supposed &#8220;conservative.&#8221;
&#8220;I had not yet matured and I was still a conservative who thought that stuff was politically incorrect and edgy,&#8221; he said. &#8220;When you read it now, it looks really, honestly, ugly. And it&#8217;s very uncomfortable to read.&#8221;
Despite Uygur&#8217;s claim that those remarks from 18 years ago do not represent who he is today, tweets from just a few years ago show the same type of attitude emanating from Uygur:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The improbable breasts in Miami are only matched by the improbable butts. This place makes LA look real. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Miami?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Miami</a>
&#8212; Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/350765360363999233?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 28, 2013</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Just when I think Miami is all done, it pulls me back in. The women on this island are outrageously, almost unacceptably, hot. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Miami?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Miami</a>
&#8212; Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/351195985592066051?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2013</a></blockquote>
</div>
<a href="http://www.thewrap.com/young-turks-cenk-uygur-blog-breasts-women-flawed/">The Wrap</a> reported the following excerpts from Uygur&#8217;s writings:
<ul>
<li>On women being <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020607165341/http:/www.youngturk.com:80/newpage41.htm">genetically flawed</a> for not wanting to have enough sex (2000):</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
It seems like there is a sea of tits here, and I am drinking in tiny droplets. I want to dive into the whole god damn ocean. Obviously, the genes of women are flawed. They are poorly designed creatures who do not want to have sex nearly as often as needed for the human race to get along peaceably and fruitfully.
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>His warning to women that something sexual needs to happen by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20020319052056/http:/www.youngturk.com:80/rulesof.htm">the third date</a> and &#8220;orgasm by the fifth date&#8221; (2002):</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
Women, ignore these at your peril. Rule 1: There must be some serious making out by the third date. If I haven&#8217;t felt your tits by then, things are not about to last much longer. In fact, if you don&#8217;t get back on track by the fourth date, you&#8217;re done. Rule 2: There must be orgasm by the fifth date.
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>On &#8220;<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20031227085956/http:/www.youngturk.com:80/Articles/oldpeople.htm">one of the best nights of my life</a>,&#8221; in which he kissed almost two-dozen women and &#8220;felt countless breasts&#8221; (2003):</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
I had one of the best nights of my life at Mardi Gras. I kissed over 23 different women, saw and felt countless breasts, and was in a wonderful drunken stupor thanks to my friend [Jack Daniels whiskey].
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>On chatting up teen girls he described as &#8220;<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20051223065712/http:/www.youngturk.com:80/Articles/xcountry1.htm">whores in training</a>&#8221; while on a road trip with now senior VP of The Young Turks, David Koller (2004 ):</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
In one small Pennsylvania town we stopped for gas, and while Cenk filled up I went to talk to these three girls who were walking down the road nearby. Turns out they were three teenage girls, whores in training, literally looking for boys to pick them up. They were around 14-16 and in a few more years will be pretty damn good looking.
</blockquote>
In early December, Uygur <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_09Gh3pVAE">defended</a> MSNBC contributor Sam Seder after an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/24065/msnbc-contributors-old-tweet-about-child-rape-goes-ryan-saavedra">old tweet of his was discovered</a> and went viral on social media that joked about his daughter being raped.
Seder&#8217;s now-deleted <a href="https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/935640706735005696">tweet</a> read: &#8220;Dont care re Polanski, but i hope if my daughter is ever raped it is by an older truly talented man w/ a great sense of mise en scene&#8221;

Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur Called Out For Twisted Blog Posts About Women, Blames ‘Conservatism’

Democratic Party

Liberalism

&#8220;Undocumented immigrants have no access to government benefits,&#8221; declared The Young Turks&#8217; Ana Kasparian during a debate with Ann Coulter at 2017&#8217;s Politicon.
Kasparian invited the audience to do a &#8220;quick Google search&#8221; to confirm her assertion.
The debate was moderated by MSNBC&#8217;s Toure Neblett.
Partial transcript below.
<blockquote>
KASPARIAN: All it takes is a quick Google search to find that undocumented immigrants have no access to government benefits. In fact, in 1996, Bill Clinton and legislators at the time made it incredibly difficult for immigrants who were in the country legally to have access to government benefits or get government programs. And so, it&#8217;s a complete fear-mongering talking point from the Right that people are coming into this country, and they&#8217;re mooching off American taxpayers. The only people who are mooching off of American taxpayers right now are oil companies and the wealthiest people.
It&#8217;s a great distraction to have Americans look at the little guy and blame them for all their problems, when the wealthiest people in this country are basically raping and pillaging us, right? So, that&#8217;s what&#8217;s happening.
To go back to Toure&#8217;s original question about why people are coming into country; right now, immigration from Mexico, so Mexican immigrants is down. Mexicans are not trying to come into this country the way they were before, mostly because of some of our policies. But more importantly, because their economy is doing better, right? So they have no reason to come here. Economic reasons was the main reason why Mexican immigrants were coming into the U.S.
But, all of a sudden, we&#8217;re seeing an increase of people from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador trying to cross the border, first of all, cross the border into Mexico and then cross into the United States, which has become pretty impossible considering the increased border security we have because of the Obama administration.
Now, why are they trying to come in? Well, there have been spikes in violence in those countries. There have been drug traffickers, cartels that have increased violence. You&#8217;ve heard about decapitations and all that stuff. Well, there reason they&#8217;re so powerful is because of the drug war that [turns to Coulter] you&#8217;re very supportive of. We&#8217;ve spent one trillion dollars on the War on Drugs since 1971. We&#8217;re not only wasting our resources, we&#8217;re literally fueling drug cartels in other countries which is upping the ante when it comes to undocumented immigration in the country. So that&#8217;s what&#8217;s happening. &#8230;
COULTER: It is a total lie that illegal immigrants do not get all kinds of government assistance. Please, do Google that. But don&#8217;t just look up; any idiot can write on the internet. Look it up. They can get food stamps; they can go into emergency rooms; they get schooling; they get English as a second language; they get the SNAP program. Whoa, they get full health care in California. 
It is not saying that illegal immigrants are &#8220;the little guy,&#8221; they&#8217;re not our guys. Americans don&#8217;t have a problem paying for our own poor, our own sick, our own injured. But the idea is, we&#8217;re like a family. We&#8217;re all in this together. 
And you say &#8220;there but for the grace of God go I,&#8221; okay, but this isn&#8217;t the entire world we&#8217;re talking about. We&#8217;re not turning America into the universe&#8217;s charity ward. We need to take care of our own, and that&#8217;s what&#8217;s hurting &#8220;the little guy.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Watch the moment below.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cGgkSLycuMQ" width="854"></iframe></div>
Political observers should note that all children &#8211; whether illegally in the country or born to persons illegally in the country &#8211; have access to taxpayer-funded primary and secondary education programs. Other taxpayer-funded endeavors such persons consume include but are not limited to:
<ol>
<li>
Commission of crime and consuming taxpayer funds via the criminal justice and prison systems.
</li>
<li>
Consumption of taxpayer-funded and subsidized operations and products in the form of public transportation and transportation infrastructure.
</li>
<li>
Identity theft/fraud.
</li>
<li>
Usage of hospital emergency services.
</li>
<li>
Usage of municipal emergency and first-responder services.
</li>
</ol>

[[{&#8220;fid&#8221;:&#8221;23049&#8243;,&#8221;view_mode&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;fields&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:false,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Joshua Blanchard/Getty Images for Politicon&#8221;},&#8221;type&#8221;:&#8221;media&#8221;,&#8221;field_deltas&#8221;:{&#8220;1&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:false,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Joshua Blanchard/Getty Images for Politicon&#8221;}},&#8221;attributes&#8221;:{&#8220;title&#8221;:&#8221;Joshua Blanchard/Getty Images for Politicon&#8221;,&#8221;class&#8221;:&#8221;media-element file-default&#8221;,&#8221;data-delta&#8221;:&#8221;1&#8243;}}]]
Ann Coulter (L) and Ana Kasparian (R) at &#8216;Ann Coulter vs. Ana Kasparian&#8217; panel during Politicon at Pasadena Convention Center on July 29, 2017 in Pasadena, California.

Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.
<div> </div>

Kasparian: Illegals ‘Have No Access To Government Benefits’

Ann Coulter

Illegal Immigration

Immigrants

Immigration

WATCH: Shapiro DESTROYS Cenk In Politicon Debate

Ben Shapiro

Roughly two-thirds of the way through the Ben Shapiro-Cenk Uygur debate on Sunday night, Shapiro fired off with an explosive blast that got one of the two biggest ovations of the night, (the other came later, also triggered by Shapiro) as he reversed Uygur&#8217;s own torpedo likening corporations supporting candidates to hookers and sent the torpedo directly back at Uygur. Shapiro also eviscerated Uygur&#8217;s attack on conservatives who are pro-life.
Uygur began by ripping Shapiro for having previously pointed out that Uygur&#8217;s own speech was financially supported. He stated, &#8220;You say, what&#8217;s the difference between your speech and their speech. Mine is actually speech, and theirs is money. So there&#8217;s a giant difference.&#8221;
Shapiro pointed out, &#8220;But you spend money on your speech.&#8221;
Uygur launched his ill-fated torpedo:
<blockquote>
So they say, no, no the Supreme Court says there&#8217;s no money in speech now. Money is property; it&#8217;s not speech. If money was speech, well, then, if you go to a hooker, and you say, &#8220;Oh, no, officer, I was just talking to her.&#8221; Money is not speech. For example, to give you a sense of it, to compare me, saying I like Bernie Sanders and you saying, whoever you like is the equivalent of this is obviously nonsensical; I believe it&#8217;s obvious.
So, in a recent five-year period the top 200 corporate givers, they both in donations and in lobbying spent 5.8 billion dollars. That is not the same thing as me saying, &#8220; I like Bernie&#8217;s saying about colleges and Medicare, and when they did, why do you think they did? It was not because, hey, they genuinely like Bernie or Trump or Hillary, because in return for that 5.8 billion dollars they got 4.4 trillion dollars in government subsidies. Which leads to I actually think the biggest point here: the difference between big government and small government.
A lot of times conservatives say, &#8220;Oh, you guys like big government.&#8221; That&#8217;s not true. Let me explain.
</blockquote>
Uygur then posited that making the difference between big government and small government was not the issue because it all depended on what the situation was, then took a swipe at Shapiro by saying Shapiro had supported the Iraq War, so he loved big government. &#8220;Couldn&#8217;t get enough of it, &#8220; he chortled. He continued, &#8220;I could go on and on and on, Republicans say, &#8216;No, no, no, we don&#8217;t like big government, but we&#8217;d like to be inside your uterus.&#8217; So just admit it; it&#8217;s no problem. Just say it. Say I love big government; it&#8217;s okay. So you&#8217;re talking about when you&#8217;re rich and you want tax cuts, &#8216;Oh, no, I don&#8217;t want big government; I want small government.&#8216; But when it&#8217;s convenient for you, you&#8217;d like oil subsidies and you&#8217;d like wars and you want to meddle in people&#8217;s private lives, then you love big government.&#8221;
Shapiro started off calmly dissecting Uygur&#8217;s statements, but ended by taking the torpedo and sending it right back to explode in Uygur&#8217;s face:
<blockquote>
First of all, I&#8217;d like to point out that Cenk&#8217;s &#8220;big government-small government&#8221; dichotomy was proposed by you, not by me. I talk about the proper scope of the government&#8217;s involvement in particular areas the same way that you do, and we may disagree on all of that. My point is that overall, if you&#8217;re talking about the level of government spending, it needs to go down, and you believe that it really needs to go up. It&#8217;s disingenuous &#8212;
</blockquote>
Cenk interrupted, &#8220;It depends. Not on war, it doesn&#8217;t. Not in the war on drugs. Not on so many of those wasteful programs.&#8221;
Shapiro undeterred, continued:
<blockquote>
Overall, you want the federal budget increased. Overall, I would like the federal budget decreased. To pretend that this is not true is to lie. When you suggest there is no difference between &#8212; we just have different visions of what the government should cover, these things cost different things. The war in Iraq was very expensive. You know what is more expensive? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All of these are vastly more expensive than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
</blockquote>
Uygur: &#8220;We paid into it.&#8221;
Shapiro then went launched his full-bore assault vis-a-vis abortion::
<blockquote>
Now, again, going back to this idea, again, I don&#8217;t like this idea of big government dichotomy, any more than you do, in the sense that you say, &#8220;Well, it&#8217;s big government for the government to get inside people&#8217;s wombs.&#8221; And I say that it&#8217;s the government&#8217;s job to preserve life, liberty, and property, and one of those things is life. To protect you from someone else taking it. To protect you from someone else taking it.
</blockquote>
Then, sending the original Uygur torpedo back at him:
<blockquote>
Now, when it comes to the idea that all money in politics is bad; again, I ask you &#8212; final question, we&#8217;re going through ten points at a time &#8212; but final point here: when you say money in politics is bad, again, I ask you: Buddy Roemer gave you four million dollars to start TYT. What did he expect in return? Should he not have given you money? Was the money not speech? It was just money after all; it&#8217;s just like a hooker, I assume. so, are you the prostitute? How did this work?
</blockquote>
Waiting for the ovation to subside, Shapiro added, &#8220;When you take money from Al-Jazeera, does that make you a hooker for the Qataris? How does that work?&#8221;
Video below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rbk2bUGUD1Y" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Shapiro To Cenk: ‘Are You The Prostitute’ For Your Corporate Moneymasters?

Abortion

Money In Politics

In their debate Sunday night, Ben Shapiro and Cenk Uygur clashed on the use of money in politics. It was just another in a series of verbal beat-downs Shapiro executed throughout the evening.
Uygur opined that the 2008 economic crash occurred because of the banks&#8217; use of financial derivatives, which he termed &#8220;gambling.&#8221; He added that banks bought politicians with &#8220;our money,&#8221; bemoaning the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. He slammed corporations for &#8220;using our money.&#8221;
Shapiro eviscerated that argument:
<blockquote>
As far as the idea that all money should be taken out of politics, here&#8217;s the problem. TYT, I, we both have corporations and we expound upon politics every single day. And we motivate thousands of people, every single day, on both sides of the political aisle. That is, effectively, an in-kind contribution. Now you campaigned with Bernie Sanders. Did you do it because you supported Bernie Sanders or did you do that because you expected some &#8220;gimme&#8221; for TYT in return? I assume you did it because you supported Bernie Sanders, right?
So the point that I am making is to attribute to everyone else bad intent when it comes to political spending in politics but to yourself it&#8217;s totally fine, but when it comes to other media entities that give in-kind contributions on a regular basis in their coverage, this is &#8212; when The New York Times, which is biased to the Left, spends an inordinate amount of time and money reporting on Mitt Romney&#8217;s idiotic stories about how he was in high school and cutting a gay kid&#8217;s hair in 1932, (laughter), if you&#8217;re saying to me that that is less impactful on the political sphere than a corporation, which is a group, giving money to a political candidate for purposes of supporting that candidate, I fail to see how you can say, for yourself, that you are innocent in this but everyone else is guilty. I don&#8217;t believe it. Either everyone is guilty or everyone is innocent, or, if you can find the actual cases of guilt where there&#8217;s a quid pro quo, than we can agree, that&#8217;s prosecutable.
Other point: when you talked about the 2008 economy, you talked about Glass-Steagall, and how this led to the crash, the real reason that the crash happened had far less to do with Glass-Steagall, I opposed the bail-outs, by the way, it had far less to do with Glass-Steagall than it had to do with the fact that the federal government was actively promulgating the notion that corporations should give sub-prime mortgages to people who were not qualified as people who should take out loans. This meant, that as you say, corporations are not inherently conservative; they are not inherently free-market; they are inherently profit-driven. So if they felt that they could give a bunch of sub-prime mortgages and this would inflate the real-estate prices, and if things went wrong they would just foreclose on the nearest house, and the market just keeps going up and up and up, and they can, as you say, turn these into derivatives and sell them on the open market, by pretending that these are all good loans, because they have government backing, then of course you&#8217;re going to get an inflated, overheated real estate market.
But the question there is not the workings of the free market, it&#8217;s the combination that you like in a mixed economy, that I hate. I hate mixed economies in the sense that I don&#8217;t believe that capitalism and socialism should be mixed, that corporatism is the solution. What you&#8217;re talking about is corporatism; you&#8217;re talking about getting rid of Glass Steagall. It freed the corporations to invest in a free market manner, but also they gave a bail-out to all of these corporations by essentially incentivizing them to give a bunch of bad loans knowing that if things went bad, then all the losses would be socialized. The problem there is not the free market; the problem is a government that is acting as a backstop for bad decisions in the free-market by profit-driven corporations.

</blockquote>
Video below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jpqgPfpiFP4" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Shapiro Educates Cenk On Money In Politics

Menu