USA Politics (redux)

[Karl Henning]

I'm not familiar with him?

He's Poju's primary source ....

[71 dB]

Kyle Kulinski is a know-nothing,

Based on what? His style makes you think he knows nothing and just runs his mouth? As a matter of fact he is one of the only ones who admits when he doesn't know something.

do-nothing who sees fit to criticize people who made the enormous effort to run for office, get elected, and work hard to make an actual difference.

He works hard to be one of the most important lefty political commentators so your "do-nothing" claim is rubbish. He is the co-founder of Justice Democrats. He was one of the first people to give publicity for AOC. The platform that got AOC and other Justice Democrats elected was originally written by him. Without Kyle Kulinski AOC might not be in Congress today (difficult to say really). All the enormous efforts to run for office and get elected are wasted if you give in to your enemies without using leverage. These progressives get largely elected because regular working people donate them money and campaign for them. Not fighting for people is letting people down. Kyle Kulinski had a vision for progressives and that vision has not come true. That's why he sees fit to criticize these people. He is one of the masterminds behind them. Imagine yourself in his shoes. He has spoken for years to people to donate and campaign for these progressive candidates so that they can fight for them in Congress. People donates and campaigned and what are people getting in return? M4A? No. $15 living wage? No. $2000 relief checks? No. (only $1400 means tested crap). Of course people (and Kyle Kulinski) are disappointed in the performance of the progressives in Congress. The progressives are good people and mean well. That's not the problem. The problem is none of them is a bold leader who can unite the progressives into a fighting team against Republicans and corporate Dems. Maybe Kshama Sawant is the leader they need? Hard work means nothing in politics if your strategy sucks. People with a good strategy walk over you. There is not even talk about public option! Kyle Kulinski's criticism is to help the progressives to find a strategy and start winning at least some battles and become MEGASTARS of the left.

He's pushing the same idiocy that "if it's not Bernie Sanders it's all the same."

And he is mostly right. There are more similarities between Biden and Trump than differences. Heck, Trump could have given bigger relief checks to people than Biden did. Foreign policy is same Military industry complex-led pro-war crap (Biden bombed Syria before getting relief for Americans). Biden is tough on China, Bolivia,... it would not be much different under Trump. Sure, there are things that are much better with Biden like the return of the US to international tables.

It is a rehash of an old line that has often led to disastrous consequences. I knew a similar idiot who used every breath to explain to everyone he knew that Ralph Nader was the messiah and if it made no difference if it's George Bush or Al Gore, if it is not Nader. Nader siphoned enough of the progressive vote from Gore to tip the scales to Bush, which gave us the Dick Cheney foreign policy, the tax cuts for ultra rich, and all the rest of it.

Yeah, but if you don't demand anything in return of your vote, the better candidate can choose to be just an inch better. He/she has your vote anyway, so why bother? Al Gore didn't loose because Nader siphoned votes. He lost, because Republicans stole the election in Florida.

If you want to follow progressive politics you could follow someone like Robert Reich, who is a staunch progressive with degrees from Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale, who has been a Professor at Yale and Brandeis, was the Secretary of Labor, and now teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. He has an solid background in law and economics, and knows how government works from the inside. He has actual knowledge and understanding.

Thanks for the suggestion! I watched one video. Frankly I don't see substantive difference to Kyle Kulinski. How someone can say the other knows his stuff while the other knows nothing is beyond me. Sure, Robert Reich appears more "academic" in the way he looks (more age, behavior), but I don't care about such superficial things. Neither should you. Kyle Kulinski perhaps has less degrees, but at least he reads what smart people say. A lot of Kyle Kulinski's opinions probably originates from Robert Reich. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[71 dB]

I'm not familiar with him?

Frankly if you don't this late date know who Kyle Kulinski is you are seriously living inside MSM bubble, blindfolded.

[SimonNZ]

There are more similarities between Biden and Trump than differences.

ffs...

[SimonNZ]

Quoting in full:

Court voids Trump campaign's non-disclosure agreement

"A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a broad non-disclosure agreement that Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign required employees to sign is unenforceable.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe's ruling generally steered clear of the constitutional issues presented by such agreements in the context of political campaigns. Instead, the judge — an appointee of President George W. Bush — said the sweeping, boilerplate language the campaign compelled employees to sign was so vague that the agreement was invalid under New York contract law.

"As to the scope of the provision, it is — as a practical matter —unlimited. ... Accordingly, Campaign employees are not free to speak about anything concerning the Campaign," wrote Gardephe. "The non-disclosure provision is thus much broader than what the Campaign asserts is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, and, therefore, is not reasonable."

Gardephe's 36-page decision said a non-disparagement clause in the agreement was similarly flawed.

"The Campaign's past efforts to enforce the non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions demonstrate that it is not operating in good faith to protect what it has identified as legitimate interests," the judge added. "The evidence before the Court instead demonstrates that the Campaign has repeatedly sought to enforce the non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions to suppress speech that it finds detrimental to its interests."

Gardephe issued the ruling in a case brought by Jessica Denson, a Hispanic outreach director for Trump in 2016 who accused the campaign of sex discrimination in separate litigation.

At one point, the campaign persuaded an arbitrator to issue a $50,000 award against Denson for violating the agreement, but that award was later overturned.

Denson celebrated the latest ruling, saying it dealt a death blow to a tactic Trump has long wielded to control his image.

"I'm overjoyed," Denson told POLITICO. "This president ... former president spent all four years aspiring to autocracy while claiming that he was champion of freedom and free speech. ... There's many people out there who have seen cases like mine and were terrified to speak out."

For decades, Trump required such secrecy agreements of his personal employees and staff in his companies. When he jumped into the presidential race in 2016, his lawyers continued to demand NDAs that seemed modeled on those he used previously in his personal and business affairs.

The practice continued into Trump's presidency, despite warnings from First Amendment advocates that it was unconstitutional to demand that public employees swear an oath of secrecy. Precisely who at the White House was required to sign such agreements and what they covered remains something of a mystery.

The Justice Department joined in the secrecy drive last year by filing a lawsuit against Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former volunteer adviser to first lady Melania Trump, over a tell-all book Winston Wolkoff wrote. Some legal experts questioned the basis for the suit, which was based on an NDA she had signed. Days after President Joe Biden's inauguration, the Justice Department dropped the case.

Denson said she is certain that such agreements helped mute criticism of Trump during his 2016 presidential race and through his four years in office.

"Just the terms of the NDA were wildly restricting and it completely stifled public debate, truthful public debate about the Trump campaign and presidency, so this is a massive victory," the former aide said. "NDAs like this are part of the reason why we ended up with a Donald Trump candidacy and presidency in the first place."

An adviser to the former president expressed disagreement with the ruling and said Trump's attorneys are considering their options.

"We believe the court reached the wrong decision and President Trump's lawyers are examining all potential appeals," said the aide, who asked not to be identified.

Technically, Gardephe's decision applies only to Denson, barring the campaign from enforcing the NDA against her. But her attorneys said Tuesday they think the decision effectively nullifies all the NDAs the Trump campaign has issued.

"The court ruled point by point, almost entirely in our favor," said Denson's New York-based lawyer, David Bowles.

Denson's suit was also backed by Protect Democracy, an advocacy organization which formed in opposition to Trump but bills itself as non-partisan and anti-authoritarian. An attorney with the group, John Langford, said the court ruling transcends Trump and serves as a warning to any campaign considering any similar effort to gag its staffers.

"From our perspective, it's really not about politics," Langford said. "No one should have to give up their free speech rights or swear allegiance to a candidate forever just to get a job with or volunteer on a campaign."

The court decision does not foreclose the use of narrower non-disclosure agreements to protect sensitive campaign information, which the judge said might include polling data and fundraising strategies.

The Trump campaign asked Gardephe to edit the provisions if he found them unenforceable as written, but he declined."

[Karl Henning]

Frankly if you don't this late date know who Kyle Kulinski is you are seriously living inside MSM bubble, blindfolded.

Nope, you're the one in the bubble, friend.  Kyle Kulinski is not the must-know pundit you are fond to imagine.

[Karl Henning]

ffs...

I doubt he'll ever stop wearing his blinders as a badge of pride.

[JBS]

If A derives his ideas from B, I'd be much more interested in B than A.

[Spotted Horses]

Thanks for the suggestion! I watched one video. Frankly I don't see substantive difference to Kyle Kulinski. How someone can say the other knows his stuff while the other knows nothing is beyond me. Sure, Robert Reich appears more "academic" in the way he looks (more age, behavior), but I don't care about such superficial things. Neither should you. Kyle Kulinski perhaps has less degrees, but at least he reads what smart people say. A lot of Kyle Kulinski's opinions probably originates from Robert Reich. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

When you decide whether to believe information the most important criteria is the reliability of the source and the access the source has to information. Are opinions about Covid-19 coming from a leading virologist or epidemiologist, or is it some dude who watched a bunch of YouTube videos from his parents basement? Is information about monetary policy coming from a Federal Reserve Governor or a Nobel Prize winning economist, or is it some dude who watched a bunch of YouTube videos from his parents basement? Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor of the United States, and was responsible for policy making and legislative initiatives related to labor policy. He is a trained lawyer and economist, and has been a Professor of public policy at several of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. He is a primary source of information about labor policy. Your Kyle has no training in public policy, no involvement in creation of public policy, no source of direct knowledge of public policy except what he sees on YouTube. He is an entertainer, at best, and you have mistaken him for a source of information. He is a sort of boring version of Rush Limbaugh on the left. You should ask yourself why you are so gullible.

[Herman]

I don't know any other 1st world country where neo-liberalism reigns as surpreme as in the US. The US is unique.

UK, Netherlands, and the list goes on.

[Herman]

Frankly I find it hard to believe that once again a whole chain of posts is again about the merits of this Kyle Kulinsky.

This is like a hamster wheel.

[BasilValentine]

Kyle Kulinsky? I've heard the name on this forum but nowhere else. Maybe that's why my life feels empty and meaningless. 

[greg]

Were a bunch of posts deleted? Or just mine? 

I was falling asleep while writing it last night so it's possible it didn't go through.

When you decide whether to believe information the most important criteria is the reliability of the source and the access the source has to information.

These are just the first two things. The third, and most important, is to check with yourself. If it doesn't match your reality, then you should still question it. Don't blindly believe anything or anyone just because it's trustworthy. People can be wrong or tell half-truths (half the story), even honest people. If it's something that you can't verify, then keep it in the realm of a "maybe, they're trustworthy so it's likely true but i still don't know for sure."


I mean, for example:

NBC News
Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about it

Maybe not the best example for my point, but perhaps you can get what I mean by saying someone who works for Israeli space security would be someone who knows about these things, but are we really to believe in aliens because of this? 


Also, Kyle can get his information from knowledgeable sources, like Robert Reich. Youtubers don't just listen to other youtubers. So the point you made doesn't really make much sense. Youtube commentators are just an additional layer on top of whatever stories or interviews with knowledgeable people come out. I don't get why people here have such a hard time understanding this.

[Fëanor]

When you decide whether to believe information the most important criteria is the reliability of the source and the access the source has to information. ...

These are just the first two things. The third, and most important, is to check with yourself. If it doesn't match your reality, then you should still question it. Don't blindly believe anything or anyone just because it's trustworthy. People can be wrong or tell half-truths (half the story), even honest people. If it's something that you can't verify, then keep it in the realm of a "maybe, they're trustworthy so it's likely true but i still don't know for sure."

"Your reality", yes but reality for far too many people is limited by ignorance, prejudice, mythology, and/or outright fantasy.  Listen to Robert Reich?  Are you kidding me?

You didn't have to be terribly well informed back in 2016 to realized that Trump is a con-man and a malignant narcissist but an awful lot of people voted for him anyway.  You only needed to be slightly better informed to realize that his policies, such as they ere, were not going to "Make America Great Again", nor deliver what he was promising to his supporters.

People believed he because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, while in their realities what he promised seemed plausible.

[DavidW]

If it doesn't match your reality, then you should still question it.

People naturally do that anyway.  What they really should strive to do more of is question assertions that DO match their reality.  That is really where our blind spots are.

[greg]

Store clerk who testified at Derek Chauvin trial still feels 'guilt' at his death l GMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyjsGZULxTM

Watch if you want a strong dose of melancholy. 

"Your reality", yes but reality for far too many people is limited by ignorance, prejudice, mythology, and/or outright fantasy.

Two things:
1) I'm mostly referring to directly observable information by "one's reality," that should be prioritized over what someone trustworthy is saying or writing (due to the reasons i mentioned).
2) Stupid people probably shouldn't do what I just said, and will inevitably have to become sheeplike followers because they can't put 2 and 2 together to understand reality correctly, so I guess what I just said doesn't quite apply to them. So yes, they will be susceptible to what you are saying.

[greg]

Actually, I think the George Floyd story might possibly be a good example of the point I'm making.

At first, the narrative from the MSM, and whatever sources people might find trustworthy, was just that the officer just flat out murdered him in broad daylight because he's racist.

Which seems unbelievably shocking, and things that seem unbelievable should always be questioned...

And as we are learning, there are probably more contributing factors to the case. So yeah, just questioning everything is the way to go.

[André]

I don't recall you questioning Trump's policies, statements, flat out lies or anything. And yet you had 4 years' worth  of overabundant material to question...

[Daverz]

Kyle Kulinsky? I've heard the name on this forum but nowhere else. Maybe that's why my life feels empty and meaningless. 

I watch a lot of "left" youtube, but Kulinsky almost never shows up in my recommendations, and when he does the thumbnails have never enticed a click through.  My impression is that he's one of the "purity pony" variety, but perhaps I should make sure I'm not misjudging the guy.

[drogulus]

     

I watch a lot of "left" youtube, but Kulinsky almost never shows up in my recommendations, and when he does the thumbnails have never enticed a click through.  My impression is that he's one of the "purity pony" variety, but perhaps I should make sure I'm not misjudging the guy.

     I've seen enough leftist performance art in my life, thank you.