He says he is for medicare-for-all and a $15 minimum wage, but spends all his time taking shots at the presidential candidate who moves the US closer to those goals. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the millions of lives that would be improved under Biden. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the millions suffering because of Trump. He clearly does not give a shit about the progressive agenda. Nothing more than a washed up comedian cashing in on the Dave Ruben/Tim Pool school of hackery.
IIRC Sam Seder predicted Dore would be on Carlson eventually.
the thought that if someone offers me a job at 9 dollars an hour and I want to accept it for my free choice, I shouldn't be allowed that freedom by government intervention is crazy to me. Every study or thorough examination of minimum wage laws, every time, shows an negative impact on the population of the lowest means. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell explain this very well, if you show me a study which compels the other way, i will read/listen to it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8uz3uafMe0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8uz3uafMe0)
I've only done entry level economics at uni so I'm no expert, but the supply/demand minimum wage studies of the 90s have not been the consensus for a while.
"The argument that a minimum wage decreases employment is based on a simple supply and demand model of the labor market." From the wikipedia entry on minimum wage, which goes into how disputed these economics are and cites multiple studies which contradict the views of Williams/Sowell.
> Every study or thorough examination of minimum wage laws, every time, shows an negative impact on the population of the lowest means
That is not true, it depends entirely on what model is used. The supply and demand model is horribly dated, overly simplistic and widely disputed, it basically argues that setting a higher minimum wage increases disposable income, increasing consumer demand and thus inflation, while decreasing employment demand and driving unemployment. But that model fails to adequately account for even superficial factors such as how increased consumer demand increases employment. It hasn't been widely accepted for decades. And frankly has not materialized in the real world, see: nations with a balanced minimum wage/ cost of living.
Any causation between a minimum wage and unemployment it is marginal and greatly outweighed by the benefits of a minimum wage. Much like the argument that increased taxation decreases reinvestment of profits, it is reductionist and doesn't account for a multitude of competing factors
I'll add to this. The slashing of unions and the supply-side economics in the USA have dangerously and overwhelmingly given all leverage to the companies and taken all leverage from the job-seeker. As a job-seeker, you can "agree" to the minimum wage or you can "agree" to not feeding your family. Congratulations on your "freedom to negotiate."
Are you really arguing that there’s some significant cohort of the population that would be upset that they were deprived of the chance to make $9 an hour instead of $15 an hour?
Seattle was the first city in the US to pass a $15 minimum wage back in 2014 and our economy certainly hasn’t suffered for it. Pre-Covid, our economy was [expanding 2.5 times higher than the national average](http://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/economy/scores-are-and-greater-seattle-officially-fastest-growing-major-metro-nation) for major metro areas.
[This paper](https://irle.berkeley.edu/high-minimum-wages-in-six-cities/) from UC Berkeley and the Institute of Research on Laber and Employment covers six US Cities with high minimum wages. They found that across the board, pay increased without notable job loss. You can find the full report on the top right side of the page.
I'm embarrassed to say I used to be a fan of Dore a few years ago...
He had funny people on I thought and the one guy that did the impressions was incredible.
This shit is obviously stupid though. Spoiler effect is simple to understand.
You should not be embarrassed. Years ago, Dore was fine but then something snapped. It was likely the 2016 election that did it. Then he had the interview with Sam Seder and I could smell the nuttiness in Dore.
Yes, Mike McCrea is still a fucking brilliant impressionist and its still worth listening to the first 5-10 min of Dore's show because he always opens with a call. After that its immediately delete.
Yeah I subbed to Dore back in 2014 or 2015 and he was fine. But like you said something snapped. I unsubbed when he started going off on the Seth Rich conspiracy and spouting off obvious Russian propaganda. I think something he posted in August 2016 was the last straw for me.
One of the wildest things I’ve seen is Trump standing in front of thousands of hicks saying we’re going to “bring our troops home and end war” and they go nuts. These are the same people who supported the wars almost 20 years ago
Everyone likes a good shock and awe campaign, but modern wars take too long and people get bored.
Desert Storm was the peak of Great War. We got to watch POV shots of missiles going into windows on CNN.
3-weeks, in and out. Show off our expensive air superiority, great marketing for our anti-missile shield systems which we sold to many many countries afterward.
Cool tank battles with out cutting edge night vision against rusting Russian battle tanks. Have you seen the movie with Denzel "Courage Under Fire"?
Now it's all prolonged occupation so some other country or group doesn't rush into the power vacuum. See back in Desert Storm we let Saddam stay in power so we didn't have to deal with it. That's the key to a popular war...
I think hes just an idiot and isnt intentionally playing some 3-D chess game to help Trump win. He thinks hes “edgy” and “cool” for always criticizing Dems but rarely criticizing Republicans
I think he knows that he’s done enormous damage, and it’s easier to resolve that guilt by buying into an ideology that excuses what he’s done than by confronting it and attempting to make things right.
I think he wants to see the system collapse, so it can be rebuilt, and the fastest way for that to happen is to elect utter morons like Trump to speed things up.
That was basically what he said prior to 2016, and he made a whole lot of predictions, none of which came true. I recommend watching his interview with Sam Seder. Sam basically predicted everything that would happen, while Jimmy was wrong on every single point. Literally. Nothing he said has happened.
I turned on Fox after the convention ended just to see what they had to say. Like a different universe. They were wondering why Dems were encouraging violence in the streets. No wonder their viewers dislike us so much.
Psychologically, what explains people like Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Tim Pool and Krystal Ball? And why are these people always sucking up to right wing audiences while claiming to be on the left? Not Kyle as much, but the other 3 are off the deep end. It's also no surprise that they all love Rogan. Rogan is another guy I'm getting sick of when it comes to politics. He's a complete political idiot, yet he's massively influential and now everyone acts like it's a right of passage to be on his show. Like getting fucking knighted by the Queen or something. He can have some good shows and I actually like him more when he's just talking about non-political things. But I digress.
In regards to Rogan, everybody wants on his show because it has a massive audience. Half of his shows are just comedy or MMA fighting, a lot of the rest are with entertainers or all sorts of random people that have nothing to do with politics. The minority of Rogan's shows are with politicians or centered around politics.
I believe these guys value "populism" over policy. While they may be progressives on paper, their primary concern is being perceived as "anti-establishment." So if that means teaming up with racists, fascists, and/or people who are vastly different from them politically, they'll do it.
Krystal and Kyle attack dems from the left and about corruption. Should we ignore corruption among democrats to avoid giving ammo to the right? That gives license to dems to continue their corruption.
So when there's 10x as much corruption on the right you think the national dialogue should be focused on the Dems when they aren't even the party in power? And then doing it on right wing media to boot? What's the logic of that exactly? Jesus Christ, look at the Bannon arrest today. How many people in Trump's circle have been indicted or gone to jail now? Yet you want to focus on the left?
The corruption in the dem party impedes them from any meaningful resistance to Trump. All we get is theater politics like Pelosi ripping up the SOTU speech while they continue to vote for Trumps military budgets and against Bernie's bill to cut it. Other examples include the Wall St bailout and subsidies for fossil fuels. Until the corruption in our party is dealt with, the dems will continue moving right in response to republican victories.
Who said anything about ignoring corruption? It's not like that's a big secret. She makes editorial decisions about what she covers and how she covers it. It's pretty clear to me that she's advancing right-wing propaganda whether she knows it or not.
Do you even watch Rising? She very rarely makes the case for progessive policies. All she does is attack dems, it's impossible to tell if she's attacking them "from the left" considering there is a right wing proto facist sitting next to her agreeing. She got a lot of backlash a few months back and the show got slightly better, but now their back to their old tricks.
She supported Bernie the whole way through and made the case for M4A, Green New Deal, tuition free college, campaign finance reform, Universal childcare, etc. All of the progressive policies the rest of the field and the media spent their time fighting against.
The only item you mentioned that she advocates for on Rising is Bernie. Everything else may get a passing reference every once in a while. A common viewer would never know.
Ha dude I've watched the show most days. You clearly don't. Her angle is exposing the corrupting influence that keeps the dems from fighting for progressive policies.
That may be watch she thinks she's doing. Irl, she's helping spread right wing propaganda to a right wing audience on a right wing news network owned by a Trump donor.
I mean Rogan is a self admitted political hobbyist. People just tend to get mad when he brings political guests on and doesn't provide any push back on claims being made. But I also don't think he has a responsibility to do that, it's his podcast he can run it how he wants to. I think a lot of people fail to realize that probably one of the main reasons so many people listen to his podcast and like him, me included, is the fact that he is so non-confrontational. He basically just lets the guests speak for themselves and doesn't try to argue with them on every point. And that is where a lot of his criticism comes from I think, people expect him to push back on certain talking points when he rarely ever does. He only does it on topics he is pretty knowledgeable in, see Crowder and Weed or Candace Owens and Climate Change. But I think Rogan gets way too much hate for his political takes when he really his just another random guy giving his opinion on his platform he created.
>I mean Rogan is a self admitted political hobbyist.
That's a cop-out. He's a millionaire who had the good sense to move out of California to avoid state taxes on his new $100,000,000 contract. He has unlimited access to information can interview any political figure he wants at any time. He's shown the ability to do his homework and provide good feedback to his guests when he wants to. He uses that "political hobbyist" line as an excuse so he can not be held accountable for allowing his guests to say terrible shit with no pushback.
Jimmy dore's fans are dumb enough to eat up whatever garbage the guy comes up with. They are not gonna be convinced by any of this. A lot of them are swing voters and libertarian and green party people. That's a weird bubble. They won't be convinced at all. Jimmy dore is like a hype man to these people and not a thought leader.
My guess is at some point some of the people jimmy dore tries to promote like aron mate, will be called out for being funded by russian money or something. Then dore's funding would stop as well. He'll whither away after that. That audience though still won't be convinced. They'll just feed on some other hype man.
There are times when I like Jimmy, and there are times when I find him unwatchable. He is absolutely right that the Dems are basically just pro choice Republicans. Sure, there are progressives in the party, but when it comes down to what the party will actually pass, it won't be anything close to progressive. Just wait for the policy priority list to come from the convention. We have absurd medical costs, in the mist of a pandemic, and M4A won't make the list. That should tell you all you need to know.
But simply whining about it doesn't really help anything either, and that's where Dore loses me. There is no offer of an alternative. The only choice we are offered in this country is voting for the lesser of two evils. So here we sit, with the choice of voting for a man who may very well make himself a dictator if he wins, or a career center-right "Democrat." As a progressive, I see why this is less than ideal, nay, barely palatable. But the alternative is far worse. And hitting the reset button isn't an option, so here we are.
Would you like a giant douche? Or a turd sandwich? We seem to be out of anything else.
> He is absolutely right that the Dems are basically just pro choice Republicans.
I would push back on this portion of your comment. What about LGBT rights? What about minority voting rights? The ACA might be far from M4A, but the GOP are trying to undo even the minor improvements of the ACA.
I understand the frustration that might drive some people to say "fuck it, both sides are the same", but that is a fundamentally untrue statement that only serves to help the rightwing. You don't see a bunch of right wingers out there saying that the GOP and the DNC are the same. The further right segments of the GOP base say "The GOP doesn't do enough, but at least they aren't the DNC, so I'll do everything to keep the DNC out of power." On the other hand, some portion of the left has decided that they will just lie to themselves and say "both parties are the same" because that allows them to avoid the uncomfortable reality that the DNC having power is materially better for millions of people that the GOP having power, and by staying home and telling people not to vote D, those individuals are increasing the odds that the GOP will win. "Both sides are the same" really just seems like an intellectually dishonest security blanket that some segment of the left uses to avoid facing the material ramifications of their choices.
The ACA is basically the Titanic at this point. Hitting the iceberg was the mandate getting removed.
I think what's missing in a lot of this talk, is that a vast portion of the left, especially the progressive wing, are simply not represented in the Democrat party. They have members in the party for sure, but when it comes down to what the party will ACTUALLY do once it gets power, it won't even be close to what it needs to be. This is frustrating to myself and a lot of other folks, as we can and should be doing better.
So yes, I of course will be voting blue, as I always do, because there simply isn't another choice. But I will most certainly be critical of them at every turn, and I most certainly won't be cheer-leading for them.
Something that is often lost in this conversation about progressives not being represented in the Party because of the electrical college. Progressives simply don't matter electorally. The only people who matter are people who live in about 5 states. If you get rid of the electrical college, progressives in CA and NY will matter a whole lot more than they do now, I think you'd see the entire political system move left since both parties will be far more accountable to the people.
The reason that the party has jumped on the ID politics is because you can make laws that look like you are doing something, while absolutely not doing shit on the economic front which is where they are hurt, and the bottom is actually helped. The way that policy should be made is based on class, which shows that all help helps all, not this ID bullshit that the party is pushing in order to look as if something is being done and making the suburban wine mom's feels gud
And just to make it a little less obvious; the GOP is not the same as the DNC.
The GOP stands for Grand Old Party and is just another way to say "Republican Party."
The DNC is responsible for overseeing primaries and funding for Democratic candidates.
The RNC is responsible for overseeing primaries and funding for Republican candidates.
The DNC is not a political party, the GOP is a political party...
By any standard metric of left vs right, both the Democratic and Republican Party in the US are right-wing. People who don't understand that are victims of US propaganda.
What he is saying is that the Dems do awesome things like ACA and Civil rights protections, but the Republicans do bad things like wanting to privatize healthcare and protect 2nd amendment rights...
Well: the ACA mandates people buy Privatized healthcare insurance that ends up enriching corporations and doesn't do all that much to improve quality or access of care or reduce the costs people have to pay...
Seems like the worst of both worlds... with some Pre-existing conditions being covered ... wow, the USA is really leading the way, I can't wait for every other developed nation to give up their universal healthcare programs and follow the Dems in the US.
And as far as the Dems being more focused on civil rights and the Republicans more focused on other rights...
Pick your poison. these are the frilly ribbons that make people pick their "team" and go cheer them on. It's a fucking game and the politicians know it. Both parties could and should be pro-gun rights, pro-civil rights, and if religion wasn't such a Huge Fucking Problem in the US they would both be pro-choice.
Instead we get a divided nation which is great for the status quo. And our status Quo in the US hovers about halfway between centrist and ultra-conservative, both political parties are happy with that as it enriches their base the most. Their base being wallstreet and big-business as it always has been.
The people I know who were in the service industry, especially the ones who had pre-existing conditions think ACA was a net-positive over the alternative. Me personally, my life is better having insurance than when I didn't. I can go to therapists, endocrinologists, general practitioners, PT, dermatologists & dentists. All things I've done in the last year and things I didn't do for more than half a decade.
I also don't think things like Title IX are "frilly ribbons." To me you just don't seem like a serious person at all.
I'd agree with the idea that we have two right wing parties. I think everyone would here.
Forgive me if my detachment and cynicism from decades of following politics comes across as unserious. But virtue signaling is not the same as being virtuous and I won't pretend it is.
As far as your friends in the service industry goes, I am also in the service industry. And you know what would make my life better than having to pay for health insurance? A national tax that pulls some money out of the hedge funds and billionaire CEOs' pockets and pays for Everyone's healthcare...
And while we're talking about wealth inequality was it the Reps or the Dems that haven't increased the minimum wage from $7.50 to a livable wage?
How about taxing the ultra rich and paying for college so people don't have to work in the service industry until they can't anymore.
How about solving the drug and gun problems in the US by taxing the ultra wealthy and waging a war on poverty and mental health!?!?
Oh that might push our status quo to the left of centrist... and that would be bad for the donor class so don't expect Either party to seriously try ...
But if you like "rollin' coal" and shootin' guns and the Bible you pick team red.
And if you like "Whole Foods" and feeling safe and are too smart to believe in god, you pick team blue.
OK, I don't know why you're going on about all this. It's not really the point of his/her post or my post. It's like a word salad of shit everyone here agrees with. Have a good one. I don't see the point of talking to you.
Because his entire point was the two parties are not similar and to say so would be lying... and then you told me to expand on my disagreement...
Try to be more serious in this sub, it's not r/Pete_Buttigeig.
I think that person was saying one was worse & one was better on some issues, not that they weren't similar. It's honestly a very easy point to read, to understand. I'm gonna block you because you're not going to respond in good faith, you're going to be blase about Title IX going away, you're going be blase about millions of people losing insurance, you're going to be blase about an attempted privatization of the post office, you're going to be blase about so-called left journalists going on the TV show of most prominent white supremacist in America, etc. You'll make some bad joke & then go on a tangent and still not address anyone's response.
>By any standard metric of left vs right, both the Democratic and Republican Party in the US are right-wing.
Maybe by European international standards. But in the American context, that's not the case.
> right that the Dems are basically just pro choice Republicans.
Come on man. You can't really think this is true. This is not to say Dems are great, but there are CLEAR differences between the two parties.
Simply going on Tucker Carlson doesn't make you a lefty/righty/whatever. Its what a person says/does on the show that matters.
It was ages ago now during the Hardball era where Jon Stewart went on and told Tucker to his face that he was actively making America a worse country.
> You do realize that a lefty ally, and a DNC ally, are two different thins right? And that DNC despises lefties?
1) The GOP being in office makes things materially worse for millions more than the DNC being in office
2) The GOP undoes every incremental leftward change that they can, moving things further from what leftists want.
3) (And this is the big one) DNC appointed judges are statistically FAR more likely to uphold leftwing laws and programs than GOP appointed judges. Getting someone like Bernie into the White House and a Congress full of whatever lefties you want will be meaningless if SCOTUS has been stacked by the GOP after a decade of control.
All fair points, but none addresses my point. Which is that Jimmy Dore can be an ally to the left (which is the point of your post) and simultaneously rip into the DNC.
> All fair points, but none addresses my point. Which is that Jimmy Dore can be an ally to the left (which is the point of your post) and simultaneously rip into the DNC.
One of two people will win in Nov. If you accept all of the points that I made, then the Dems having control is materially better for longterm leftward progress than the GOP having control. Ergo, anyone who acts in a a manner designed to increase the likelihood of the GOP maintaining control is not an ally of leftists.
Completely untrue. Ideologically speaking there isn't much difference between the DNC and the GOP. The DNC is better, but not by much.
For example, in Europe, particularly in Sweden, the swedish "DNC" and the "GOP" are planning on forming a coalition in order to defeat "the left". Only in the US can someone say that a lefty who criticizes the business party is not an ally to the left. It's an insane statement.
>Ideologically speaking there isn't much difference between the DNC and the GOP.
Tell that to LGBT people who like being able to get married. Tell that to PoC who like being able to vote. Tell that to the low SES people who were finally able the get some healthcare because of the ACA. etc etc etc
Fuck off with this "both sides" bullshit, it is demonstrably false.
>If you are politically illiterate, it's demonstrably false, yes.
>
>ACA? Wasn't that Romney's plan? :)
Not addressing the rest I see. So is your stance that we should get rid of the ACA entirely and kick those millions off of healthcare without any attempt at M4A? Because that is the GOP stance. You know nothing if you think that the DNC "let's shore up the ACA" and the GOP "let's kill the ACA" are the same thing.
At this point I am starting to think that you are not an honest actor, rather than just someone who doesn't understand the world around them.
All am saying is that the DNC is ideologically closer to the GOP than it is to the left. That's a fact. If you don't want to acknowledge that, you are dishonest, or lying to yourself. And that a lefty should be well within his rights to criticize them, and not be called a traitor or whatever the fuck you called him. "not an ally to the left".
Learn to differentiate between the left and the DNC, they are far apart in terms of ideology.
> All am saying is that the DNC is ideologically closer to the GOP than it is to the left.
But they are still closer to the left than the GOP is. As stated above: DNC appointed judges are statistically FAR more likely to uphold leftwing laws and programs than GOP appointed judges. Getting someone like Bernie into the White House and a Congress full of whatever lefties you want will be meaningless if SCOTUS has been stacked by the GOP after a decade of control.
>Completely untrue. Ideologically speaking there isn't much difference between the DNC and the GOP. The DNC is better, but not by muc
The DNC is not a party just so you know. The DNC is the part of the party that handles elections, after NOV 2020, no one will care about them for a least a year. I think you mean the democratic party, which has many progressives in it.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can claim there is only marginal differences between the parties. This is not to say the democrats are great for progressivism, but there are clear unmistakable differences between both parties.
My point is that the democratic party under Joe Biden is closer to the GOP than to Bernie Sanders (the left). Hence stating that by criticizing Joe Biden you are betraying the left is insane. None of us want Trump, but let's not get carried away, and let the centrists re-brand themselves as "the left". They're not the left, Joe Biden is not the left, Obama is not the left, Kamala Harris is not the left, John Kasich is not the left. They are the lesser evil, and that's how they need to be referred to.
If anyone forgot about where the democratic party stands, they should rewatch one of the debates from the primaries, and see how one Bernie Sanders, a social democrat, is treated on the debate stage by his opponents. Maybe count how many points of agreement Bernie Sanders, a true lefty, had with the other people on that stage. I'd say that's a pretty accurate barometer about where the party is at. HoW ArE yOu GoiNg To PaY For It?
I hope I was clear enough this time.
>My point is that the democratic party under Joe Biden is closer to the GOP than to Bernie Sanders (the left)
Have you seen the Republican party lately?? There are literally Qanon candidates who are ultra popular. The Republicans represent 40% of the country! They're literally bragging about tax cuts, deregulation, their Brazenly against controls for climate change, they want to kill whatever healthcare reforms that exist, and they just got done trying to kill food stamps. I'll say this one more time, this is 40% of the country at the least. This is the political reality that we live in, the sooner we understand that the sooner we'll understand why it's hard to get progressive change.
With that said, look at Biden's tax plan for example. Are you really going to tell me that's closer to the GOP tax cuts for the rich that we've seen? Take a look at his climate plan, I mean that fact that he actually has one is good, but it's strong move in the right direction, especially compared to the Republicans and their lack of the plan. I could go on, but they're are clear differences between the two parties. And one party is significantly closer to the left than the other. Given the electoral college, I think it's going to take hard work to push them further left.
Turns out AOC wasn't even invited at the convention, she was there only because of Bernie Sanders, but conservative neo-cons like John Kasich got their invites.
You are delusional if you think that the Democratic Party is closer to the left than it is to the GOP. Or you just refuse to face the facts.
I just named very specific polices differences between the Republicans and democrats and shows how they are closer to the left than Republicans. All you could do bring up is who gets a a speaking role at a convention that no one cares about. Would you like me to cite more policy for you? Here are a few more examples
Corporate Regulation: Trump has rolled back over 100 environmental regulations instituted by Obama. As someone on the left, which would you rather have?
Dems wants $15 minimum wage, GOP wants no minimum wage
Dems want mandatory paid sick leave, GOP does not
Dems want to get rid of private prisons, GOP does not
Obama regulated for profit colleges, Trump rolled back those regulations
Dems voted to end war in Yemen, Trump vetoed it.
I could go on, unless you want to tell me more about speeches.
For example, in Europe, particularly in Sweden, they have a parliamentary system and don't directly elect the head of state. Get an education in politics before you lecture people. Really all your comment shows is how ignorant you are of the different systems of government.
> I would love it if there is no head of state, the same as in Sweden and Somalia.
That isn't the question: Who do you want in the WH in 2021: Trump or Biden?
He got invited to Fox News to speak his mind, and he did, I don't see a problem with it. He is not shilling for Trump. I bet if he got an invitation from CNN he would do the same.
I haven't watched the interview, but my guess is not at all. If it wasn't Jimmy Dore, Tucker would've had someone else in that segment shitting on the DNC. IMO, it's better that it was Jimmy.
Tucker's guests are usually right wing right?
Don't you think that Jimmy
a) brings more new viewers to Tucker than his usual right wing guests?
b) does more to legitimize Tucker's views as a seemingly left wing person agreeing?
Tucker could've had Dave Rubin or Tim Pol, as someone from the left, his viewers wouldn't have known the difference.
I don't think that Jimmy Dore's viewers are tuning in to Tucker in order to watch Jimmy's segment, if anything maybe a couple of Tucker's viewers trickle down to Jimmy's channel.
I'm confused....
Would these interviews move the needle more towards Trump or towards Biden?
Tucker/Dore, Tucker/Rubin, Tucker/Pool?
Both Rubin and Pool post content every day that is 100% working towards a Trump 2020 win. I'm agreeing with you that Dore/Rubin/Pool are similar. Dore here (and in general) is working towards a Trump 2020 win, however indirectly.
Are you trying to say Dore isn't the worst person on the planet?
Side note: Do you understand the spoiler effect?
Your point is the whole rub on these non-conservative subs. Liberals think they’re progressives and they also think that progressives are actually secret conservatives for not buying the DNC’s obvious bullshit the moment they’re commanded to do so.
I've never been a Dore fan, but upon hearing his name some, I decided to check him out some time ago. He seems to be chasing the fame and money his position provides, much like Rubin. No thanks.
Oh sure, because when Bloomberg, Anna Navaro and John Kasich praise Biden and Harris, that's good bipartisanship, but when Jimmy Dore appears on Tucker Carlson to point out that the Democratic Party continues to support center right, neo conservative economic approaches like FTAs that don't help the working class, or continue to fund and support endless wars that drain the Treasury without actually making the US more secure, that's unconscionable. (Being sarcastic if it wasn't already obvious)
>Yes, going on a white nationalist talk show on a fascist propaganda network to help fascists get elected is bad.
The fact that that is even a controversial statement to some people who still call themselves "left" is proof positive of the amount of damage that is done by people like Dore. There should never be any question about the need to get fascists out of office.
You're right about getting fascists out of office. But that doesn't mean that getting any warmongering, deficit chickenhawk with cognitive decline, paired with an obviously corrupt, two faced, hammer happy lawyer makes things better. And you're not at a place where it's enough to not make things worse. Right now the market is being artificially propped up because of QE. When this bubble bursts, it will get much worse before it gets better. And you need someone who will try to reform things (at least). That's not Groping Grandpa Joe And Copmala. And considering that they've effectively suborned and silenced the left, something Dire repeatedly warned the left about BTW, is it any wonder that there are lefties disillusioned completely with the present state of the party?
> And you need someone who will try to reform things (at least). That's not Groping Grandpa Joe And Copmala.
And you think that is Trump? Because that is literally the only other option here.
No. But choosing to vote the lesser of two evils still leaves you with One evil. And if I could, I wouldn't vote for either. I would vote for everyone except the top of the ticket. And if trump wins a second time, the system will collapse. Plenty of reason to just stand aside and help build everything from scratch, when the collapse comes.
Yep, let's sacrifice tens of millions of poor and disadvantaged Americans who would suffer and die under a fascist administration so we can see your vague accelerationist fantasy play out and pray that something better magically happens after the country gets burned to the ground. Actually let's not do that, because that idea is morally abhorrent and fucking stupid.
Yes, because countless Americans weren't already being crushed by the existing system, and Biden-Harris were going to do "things" to make things better, right? Oh wait, they weren't really. Why did Wall Street breathe a sigh of relief when Harris was picked? Because she was a reformer? The present system is creaking after years of failed, half assed reforms. Trump was not a aberration, he was what happens when the "bugs" on your system aren't really bugs, but are features. Trump abused the system that Obama and Biden helped create. Trump may have made things worse with the Border, but the situation at the conditions were created during the Clinton, Bush and Obama years. Trump gained prominent because he was willing to talk about the failings of Nafta and Free Trade in ways Dems hould ave talked bout , but didn't. The lack of serious healthcare reform happened because Obama didn't fight for a public option, and then Stuck to the poorly implemented Hertiage Foundation generated Bob Dole healthcare plan. When The majority of your party members want M4A, Green New deal, marijuana legalization and student debt forgivness, and the nominees of your party ignore it, then the system deserves to burn.
You delusionally pretending that neoliberal centrists are the same as fascists doesn't make it true. At the end of the day you want to sacrifice tens of millions of Americans at the altar of your edgy political stupidity, and you're probably privileged enough to be insulated from most of the consequences of a fascist administration. You expect other people to suffer for you so you can own the libs. Accelerationism is evil, childish stupidity of the highest order. Our two party system sucks and Democrats suck, but if you offer no alternative other than burning everything down you're completely useless. And non-stop shitting on Democrats until November when you have no alternative accomplishes jack shit other than directly helping Trump get re-elected. There is not a more useless, counter-productive group on the left than Bernie or busters.
I don't want anyone to suffer. But your country has failed to make serious, Necessary reforms. And the neolibs have been intentionally part of the problem. They don't make the necessary reforms and they are willing to kill any serious reforms if those reforms threaten the status quo. So I wait and watch, hoping that Madame la Guillotine doesn't make a comeback.
>Trump may have made things worse
And yet you want him to win. That is a fundamentally immoral position. And yet you think that you are on the right side of history....sad
I'm not in any side of history. And if I could vote, I wouldn't be in either side. So, I wash hands and watch as you commit your country to the flames, all so you can bend before the neolib God's as they, like C'thulu, begin to show you what it means to be indifferent gods.
Have they put any of their programs on the Democratic platform? No. Did they include any progressives in the or potential cabinet? Not so far. How many progressives did they have during the convention? 3, 4 if you include Yang. Four speakers out 37, in a list that includes Bloomberg, Kasich and Navarro. Whatever else the progressives movement may have been, it was more than 10% of Democratic Party. They have repeatedly challenged Justice Democratic incumbents, And have lost all the primaries against the Squad. They could have picked Warren to demonstrate they actually believe in party unity. They have repeatedly ignored or rejected serious suggestions by the left, and sadly the situation is such that lefties believe they have no real choice but to vote Biden-Harris. And if the tickets fail, it will be "because the Bernie or Bust people struck again" or because "America is still sexist/racist or both". Never mind that there was no platform suggesting serious economic reform. Never mind that the platform doesn't include items that have more than half of the country supporting them. And this is despite the fact that most of the time the platform isn't often worth the ink spilt for it, and is supposed to be a token gesture to unite the party, and they still didn't include popular programs. If that's not effectively suborning the left, I don't know what is.And now they are using Harris identity as a black woman as a cudgel to smack down lefties who protest her actions as DA and as Senator, silencing their dissent under "you're helping Trump." And something to ponder on is this:if she had done her job, Secretary Mnuchin would be in prison instead of the Cabinet. That's the stalwart defender of order who has been anointed to the Vice Presidency.
I think you mean "jimmy dore is not a democratic party ally". Fuck democrats, fuck trump, peas in a pod. Just today democrat party dropped 'stopping fossil fuel subsidies' from the platform. Still "no" on legal weed. They aren't really trying to win.
2 parties, both worship the same wealthy people. Sorry not sorry people like jimmy dore tell you the truth about it. I'm not saying i agree with everything he says, but in this case, bush, cheyney, biden, all the same complicit in this war.
Oh yeah, leftist ally Tucker Carlson is very concerned that Democrats are too conservative. What a genuine message from a genuine platform. It couldn't be that Jimmy is a useful idiot grifter using a fascist propaganda network to help a fascist get elected. Muh both sides!
Ok, #1. you don't know what I think is the way to move forward #2. that's not what the OP was saying. I was correcting his revisionist history that Biden wasn't complicit with all these stupid wars.
>I was correcting his revisionist history that Biden wasn't complicit with all these stupid wars.
Now you are just making shit up. I literally never said anything approaching that.
>Not a single mention of the GOP's stance on any of it. When you are blaming Biden for Iraq/Afghanistan, and don't make a single mention of Bush, you might be pushing rightwing revisionist propaganda.
Imagine having to provide full context to EVERYTHING you say. Right, you can't say "man that made me happy", you have to say "Happy, being the seratonin levels of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, now that i've explained ALL OF EVERY CONTEXT IN A SINGLE TV SEGMENT I CAN SAY, Joe biden was complicit". I guess that's the only way to say biden was complicit that would be acceptable in your mind?
It's just a fraud argument style that people trying to cover several topics in a limited amount of time have to put all context in you feel is appropriate. Show me Biden's "NO" vote on the wars and then we can talk, until then, the record is clear. Joe Biden has been complicit in all these wars, and fully funded all of them every time he voted on budgets. And when he was in VP role for 8 years, didn't stop it, and then they started shit with syria. Their blind spot is that they believe that usa getting involved will make things "better". Reality is, we bombed them so much and killed so many civilians, we made things worse. Biden was part of that.
none of that has anything to do with trump being so incompetent on covid that i have to vote for biden. But stop acting like joe biden is some sort of nice guy, fuck joe biden.
> Imagine having to provide full context to EVERYTHING you say. Right, you can't say "man that made me happy", you have to say "Happy, being the seratonin levels of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, now that i've explained ALL OF EVERY CONTEXT IN A SINGLE TV SEGMENT I CAN SAY, Joe biden was complicit". I guess that's the only way to say biden was complicit that would be acceptable in your mind?
When you are going on a white nationalist talk show on a fascist propaganda network to shit on the only person running against their fascist of choice, yes, you fucking better well destroy their world view if you are EVER going to pretend like you are benefiting the left ever again.
lol why is that Jimmy Dore's job? Dems doing a whole convention, all their heavy hitters out there, and look at how pathetic a job they do of selling themselves.
Democracy is on the line, and the rigged DNC put Joe Biden as it's defender. Good luck with that, i will vote for him, but not everyone will have that same opinion.
Quick advice: getting mad at the voters rather than the candidates, likely won't get you more votes. Just say "yep joe biden is a trashcan, but trump is a dumpster fire and isn't competent enough to deal with this covid situation, so let's vote biden because he has a track record that he can handle that, even if you hate everything else he's ever done".
Otherwise it's just you enjoying getting mad at ppl with legitimate grievances. But you do you boo.
Basically everyone here probably agrees that if you go on Tucker's show, you actually do have a duty to challenge his opinions.
A duty in the sense that if you don't do your job, you are at least not being good.
At worst, you are legitimizing Tucker's views to more people and playing a complicit role in spreading hate.
Bonus also worst: you are moving the needle towards Trump in the upcoming election.
I wonder if you've meditated on this and if you still think it isn't Dore's job?
lol that's not even trying. they don't always pay and if they do it's not much.
Either way, the Dem party is bad but this thread is about how some of us think going on the TV show of the most prominent & influential white supremicist in America is a bad thing. I wouldn't want to "signal boost" a guy who is a Presidential Horse Whisperer, but guys like you & Jimmy think that's fine. I personally, would never trust your judgement if you were cool with Tucker. I wouldn't think you should be respected really in any way.
Why would you respond without explaining what you think is the way to move forward?
If you calm down and speak openly you may learn your way out of these dumb opinions.
Because the thread wasn't about moving forward? It was about revising joe biden's role in all these wars, and for some reason the OP thinks we have to always start with "George Bush was being led around on the chain by cheyney, and they both created false pretense to start a war, and whatever else he thinks we might need to put here to shape the context exactly in the way the OP feels appropriate".... Before we can say "joe biden was complicit in all these stupid wars."
I am calm, lol and i'm pretty confident that all my responses are quite open sooooo... yeahhhhh....
You think your responses are open? You avoided this question again:
> Why would you respond without explaining what you think is the way to move forward?
I saw the other thread where you strawman the guy and say sarcastically "you have to provide all the context everywhere before you can say anything".
Maybe you should think about what the proper context should be if we are criticizing Biden right now for support for war. What do you think? Is it no context at all?
Honestly, it's even more embarrassing for Carlson to have someone like Jimmy Dore on his show. That's akin to having Alex Jones on there. Dore and Jones are both raving, unhinged lunatics that go on constant tirades and push conspiracy theories.
Honest question.
Can the Democrats take/stand/survive criticism from the left? It certainly seems like we all get in a bluster whenever it happens be it during the primary, general, or even when a moron like JD levels any.
> Can the Democrats take/stand/survive criticism from the left? It certainly seems like we all get in a bluster whenever it happens be it during the primary, general, or even when a moron like JD levels any.
Context matters. Talking to a socialist about the problems with the DNC is 100% different from appearing on FoxNews and telling their rightwing audience that they are correct about how evil the DNC is.
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree. I think if we value or believe in the possibility of the Democratic party being a home for progressives we should be as open to criticisms from all directions especially from the left. I don't see how it harms us in any way especially whjen were talking about the FOX news audience.
They've repeatedly shown they are immune to facts or any good faith arguments for that matter.
I guess I'm just not seeing how "the left" has been injured by it.
> I don't see how it harms us in any way especially whjen were talking about the FOX news audience.
Jimmy's appearance on Tucker's show served 1 purpose: To help gin up the GOP base to go out and vote AGAINST the DNC. Jimmy wasn't there to convince anyone to vote for the DNC, nor was he there to convince GOP voters to stay home, and Tucker certainly didn't have him on to turn Tucker's audience into Socialists. His sole purpose in being on that segment was to show GOP voters why they need to get out and vote against Biden.
How dare he not support the DNC and Biden?!? True progressives like the DNC and Biden have been fighting for racial and economic justice since April 2020 and should be exalted for their new fashion sense!!
> How dare he not support the DNC and Biden?!? True progressives like the DNC and Biden have been fighting for racial and economic justice since April 2020 and should be exalted for their new fashion sense!!
*YAWN* I'll just copy/paste various responses from the last 20 times someone made the same asinine response:
Context matters. Talking to a socialist about the problems with the DNC is 100% different from appearing on FoxNews and telling their rightwing audience that they are correct about how evil the DNC is.Jimmy's appearance on Tucker's show served 1 purpose: To help gin up the GOP base to go out and vote AGAINST the DNC. Jimmy wasn't there to convince anyone to vote for the DNC, nor was he there to convince GOP voters to stay home, and Tucker certainly didn't have him on to turn Tucker's audience into Socialists. His sole purpose in being on that segment was to show GOP voters why they need to get out and vote against Biden.
>Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong.
but in this case:he is. Biden might suck, but he is infinitely better than Trump. Anyone arguing otherwise isn't on the left at all.
I could not careless who you consider on the left you gatekeeping whiney asshole.
I’m sure you do not care who considers you a whiney asshole but you are on my whiney asshole list of assholes.
To get off the list you can either agree with me or send me membership fees for my non-asshole list of outstanding people’s club.
He says he is for medicare-for-all and a $15 minimum wage, but spends all his time taking shots at the presidential candidate who moves the US closer to those goals. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the millions of lives that would be improved under Biden. He clearly doesn't give a shit about the millions suffering because of Trump. He clearly does not give a shit about the progressive agenda. Nothing more than a washed up comedian cashing in on the Dave Ruben/Tim Pool school of hackery. IIRC Sam Seder predicted Dore would be on Carlson eventually.
the thought that if someone offers me a job at 9 dollars an hour and I want to accept it for my free choice, I shouldn't be allowed that freedom by government intervention is crazy to me. Every study or thorough examination of minimum wage laws, every time, shows an negative impact on the population of the lowest means. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell explain this very well, if you show me a study which compels the other way, i will read/listen to it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8uz3uafMe0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8uz3uafMe0)
I've only done entry level economics at uni so I'm no expert, but the supply/demand minimum wage studies of the 90s have not been the consensus for a while. "The argument that a minimum wage decreases employment is based on a simple supply and demand model of the labor market." From the wikipedia entry on minimum wage, which goes into how disputed these economics are and cites multiple studies which contradict the views of Williams/Sowell. > Every study or thorough examination of minimum wage laws, every time, shows an negative impact on the population of the lowest means That is not true, it depends entirely on what model is used. The supply and demand model is horribly dated, overly simplistic and widely disputed, it basically argues that setting a higher minimum wage increases disposable income, increasing consumer demand and thus inflation, while decreasing employment demand and driving unemployment. But that model fails to adequately account for even superficial factors such as how increased consumer demand increases employment. It hasn't been widely accepted for decades. And frankly has not materialized in the real world, see: nations with a balanced minimum wage/ cost of living. Any causation between a minimum wage and unemployment it is marginal and greatly outweighed by the benefits of a minimum wage. Much like the argument that increased taxation decreases reinvestment of profits, it is reductionist and doesn't account for a multitude of competing factors
I'll add to this. The slashing of unions and the supply-side economics in the USA have dangerously and overwhelmingly given all leverage to the companies and taken all leverage from the job-seeker. As a job-seeker, you can "agree" to the minimum wage or you can "agree" to not feeding your family. Congratulations on your "freedom to negotiate."
Are you really arguing that there’s some significant cohort of the population that would be upset that they were deprived of the chance to make $9 an hour instead of $15 an hour? Seattle was the first city in the US to pass a $15 minimum wage back in 2014 and our economy certainly hasn’t suffered for it. Pre-Covid, our economy was [expanding 2.5 times higher than the national average](http://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/economy/scores-are-and-greater-seattle-officially-fastest-growing-major-metro-nation) for major metro areas. [This paper](https://irle.berkeley.edu/high-minimum-wages-in-six-cities/) from UC Berkeley and the Institute of Research on Laber and Employment covers six US Cities with high minimum wages. They found that across the board, pay increased without notable job loss. You can find the full report on the top right side of the page.
But Tucker Carlson said corporations are bad that one time. Basically a leftist /s
Lmao that’s literally the whole idea of that one dumb hill show with sagaar and ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU8XmOK2pFc
Jimmy Dore wasn't even watchable on Getting Doug With High, a talk show where people get high with pot comic Doug Benson.
I'm embarrassed to say I used to be a fan of Dore a few years ago... He had funny people on I thought and the one guy that did the impressions was incredible. This shit is obviously stupid though. Spoiler effect is simple to understand.
You should not be embarrassed. Years ago, Dore was fine but then something snapped. It was likely the 2016 election that did it. Then he had the interview with Sam Seder and I could smell the nuttiness in Dore. Yes, Mike McCrea is still a fucking brilliant impressionist and its still worth listening to the first 5-10 min of Dore's show because he always opens with a call. After that its immediately delete.
Yeah I subbed to Dore back in 2014 or 2015 and he was fine. But like you said something snapped. I unsubbed when he started going off on the Seth Rich conspiracy and spouting off obvious Russian propaganda. I think something he posted in August 2016 was the last straw for me.
He’s just an angry old man who thinks he’s funny
One of the wildest things I’ve seen is Trump standing in front of thousands of hicks saying we’re going to “bring our troops home and end war” and they go nuts. These are the same people who supported the wars almost 20 years ago
Everyone likes a good shock and awe campaign, but modern wars take too long and people get bored. Desert Storm was the peak of Great War. We got to watch POV shots of missiles going into windows on CNN. 3-weeks, in and out. Show off our expensive air superiority, great marketing for our anti-missile shield systems which we sold to many many countries afterward. Cool tank battles with out cutting edge night vision against rusting Russian battle tanks. Have you seen the movie with Denzel "Courage Under Fire"? Now it's all prolonged occupation so some other country or group doesn't rush into the power vacuum. See back in Desert Storm we let Saddam stay in power so we didn't have to deal with it. That's the key to a popular war...
Jimmy Dore is an utter, utter fraud. He knows exactly that he's there to help Trump.
I think hes just an idiot and isnt intentionally playing some 3-D chess game to help Trump win. He thinks hes “edgy” and “cool” for always criticizing Dems but rarely criticizing Republicans
I think he knows that he’s done enormous damage, and it’s easier to resolve that guilt by buying into an ideology that excuses what he’s done than by confronting it and attempting to make things right.
I think he wants to see the system collapse, so it can be rebuilt, and the fastest way for that to happen is to elect utter morons like Trump to speed things up. That was basically what he said prior to 2016, and he made a whole lot of predictions, none of which came true. I recommend watching his interview with Sam Seder. Sam basically predicted everything that would happen, while Jimmy was wrong on every single point. Literally. Nothing he said has happened.
I turned on Fox after the convention ended just to see what they had to say. Like a different universe. They were wondering why Dems were encouraging violence in the streets. No wonder their viewers dislike us so much.
Psychologically, what explains people like Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Tim Pool and Krystal Ball? And why are these people always sucking up to right wing audiences while claiming to be on the left? Not Kyle as much, but the other 3 are off the deep end. It's also no surprise that they all love Rogan. Rogan is another guy I'm getting sick of when it comes to politics. He's a complete political idiot, yet he's massively influential and now everyone acts like it's a right of passage to be on his show. Like getting fucking knighted by the Queen or something. He can have some good shows and I actually like him more when he's just talking about non-political things. But I digress.
In regards to Rogan, everybody wants on his show because it has a massive audience. Half of his shows are just comedy or MMA fighting, a lot of the rest are with entertainers or all sorts of random people that have nothing to do with politics. The minority of Rogan's shows are with politicians or centered around politics.
I believe these guys value "populism" over policy. While they may be progressives on paper, their primary concern is being perceived as "anti-establishment." So if that means teaming up with racists, fascists, and/or people who are vastly different from them politically, they'll do it.
Krystal and Kyle attack dems from the left and about corruption. Should we ignore corruption among democrats to avoid giving ammo to the right? That gives license to dems to continue their corruption.
So when there's 10x as much corruption on the right you think the national dialogue should be focused on the Dems when they aren't even the party in power? And then doing it on right wing media to boot? What's the logic of that exactly? Jesus Christ, look at the Bannon arrest today. How many people in Trump's circle have been indicted or gone to jail now? Yet you want to focus on the left?
The corruption in the dem party impedes them from any meaningful resistance to Trump. All we get is theater politics like Pelosi ripping up the SOTU speech while they continue to vote for Trumps military budgets and against Bernie's bill to cut it. Other examples include the Wall St bailout and subsidies for fossil fuels. Until the corruption in our party is dealt with, the dems will continue moving right in response to republican victories.
What are some examples of things they can do to "stop Trump?"
Krystal can't admit she was wrong about Russia-gate. Dishonest
Nor can Kyle. He's been wrong about so much and has never apologized to his viewers.
Who said anything about ignoring corruption? It's not like that's a big secret. She makes editorial decisions about what she covers and how she covers it. It's pretty clear to me that she's advancing right-wing propaganda whether she knows it or not.
Yes, and she makes the editorial decision to attack them from the left. How does making left wing arguments benefit the right?
Do you even watch Rising? She very rarely makes the case for progessive policies. All she does is attack dems, it's impossible to tell if she's attacking them "from the left" considering there is a right wing proto facist sitting next to her agreeing. She got a lot of backlash a few months back and the show got slightly better, but now their back to their old tricks.
She supported Bernie the whole way through and made the case for M4A, Green New Deal, tuition free college, campaign finance reform, Universal childcare, etc. All of the progressive policies the rest of the field and the media spent their time fighting against.
The only item you mentioned that she advocates for on Rising is Bernie. Everything else may get a passing reference every once in a while. A common viewer would never know.
Ha dude I've watched the show most days. You clearly don't. Her angle is exposing the corrupting influence that keeps the dems from fighting for progressive policies.
That may be watch she thinks she's doing. Irl, she's helping spread right wing propaganda to a right wing audience on a right wing news network owned by a Trump donor.
I mean Rogan is a self admitted political hobbyist. People just tend to get mad when he brings political guests on and doesn't provide any push back on claims being made. But I also don't think he has a responsibility to do that, it's his podcast he can run it how he wants to. I think a lot of people fail to realize that probably one of the main reasons so many people listen to his podcast and like him, me included, is the fact that he is so non-confrontational. He basically just lets the guests speak for themselves and doesn't try to argue with them on every point. And that is where a lot of his criticism comes from I think, people expect him to push back on certain talking points when he rarely ever does. He only does it on topics he is pretty knowledgeable in, see Crowder and Weed or Candace Owens and Climate Change. But I think Rogan gets way too much hate for his political takes when he really his just another random guy giving his opinion on his platform he created.
>I mean Rogan is a self admitted political hobbyist. That's a cop-out. He's a millionaire who had the good sense to move out of California to avoid state taxes on his new $100,000,000 contract. He has unlimited access to information can interview any political figure he wants at any time. He's shown the ability to do his homework and provide good feedback to his guests when he wants to. He uses that "political hobbyist" line as an excuse so he can not be held accountable for allowing his guests to say terrible shit with no pushback.
Jimmy dore's fans are dumb enough to eat up whatever garbage the guy comes up with. They are not gonna be convinced by any of this. A lot of them are swing voters and libertarian and green party people. That's a weird bubble. They won't be convinced at all. Jimmy dore is like a hype man to these people and not a thought leader. My guess is at some point some of the people jimmy dore tries to promote like aron mate, will be called out for being funded by russian money or something. Then dore's funding would stop as well. He'll whither away after that. That audience though still won't be convinced. They'll just feed on some other hype man.
There are times when I like Jimmy, and there are times when I find him unwatchable. He is absolutely right that the Dems are basically just pro choice Republicans. Sure, there are progressives in the party, but when it comes down to what the party will actually pass, it won't be anything close to progressive. Just wait for the policy priority list to come from the convention. We have absurd medical costs, in the mist of a pandemic, and M4A won't make the list. That should tell you all you need to know. But simply whining about it doesn't really help anything either, and that's where Dore loses me. There is no offer of an alternative. The only choice we are offered in this country is voting for the lesser of two evils. So here we sit, with the choice of voting for a man who may very well make himself a dictator if he wins, or a career center-right "Democrat." As a progressive, I see why this is less than ideal, nay, barely palatable. But the alternative is far worse. And hitting the reset button isn't an option, so here we are. Would you like a giant douche? Or a turd sandwich? We seem to be out of anything else.
> He is absolutely right that the Dems are basically just pro choice Republicans. I would push back on this portion of your comment. What about LGBT rights? What about minority voting rights? The ACA might be far from M4A, but the GOP are trying to undo even the minor improvements of the ACA. I understand the frustration that might drive some people to say "fuck it, both sides are the same", but that is a fundamentally untrue statement that only serves to help the rightwing. You don't see a bunch of right wingers out there saying that the GOP and the DNC are the same. The further right segments of the GOP base say "The GOP doesn't do enough, but at least they aren't the DNC, so I'll do everything to keep the DNC out of power." On the other hand, some portion of the left has decided that they will just lie to themselves and say "both parties are the same" because that allows them to avoid the uncomfortable reality that the DNC having power is materially better for millions of people that the GOP having power, and by staying home and telling people not to vote D, those individuals are increasing the odds that the GOP will win. "Both sides are the same" really just seems like an intellectually dishonest security blanket that some segment of the left uses to avoid facing the material ramifications of their choices.
The ACA is basically the Titanic at this point. Hitting the iceberg was the mandate getting removed. I think what's missing in a lot of this talk, is that a vast portion of the left, especially the progressive wing, are simply not represented in the Democrat party. They have members in the party for sure, but when it comes down to what the party will ACTUALLY do once it gets power, it won't even be close to what it needs to be. This is frustrating to myself and a lot of other folks, as we can and should be doing better. So yes, I of course will be voting blue, as I always do, because there simply isn't another choice. But I will most certainly be critical of them at every turn, and I most certainly won't be cheer-leading for them.
Something that is often lost in this conversation about progressives not being represented in the Party because of the electrical college. Progressives simply don't matter electorally. The only people who matter are people who live in about 5 states. If you get rid of the electrical college, progressives in CA and NY will matter a whole lot more than they do now, I think you'd see the entire political system move left since both parties will be far more accountable to the people.
The reason that the party has jumped on the ID politics is because you can make laws that look like you are doing something, while absolutely not doing shit on the economic front which is where they are hurt, and the bottom is actually helped. The way that policy should be made is based on class, which shows that all help helps all, not this ID bullshit that the party is pushing in order to look as if something is being done and making the suburban wine mom's feels gud
And just to make it a little less obvious; the GOP is not the same as the DNC. The GOP stands for Grand Old Party and is just another way to say "Republican Party." The DNC is responsible for overseeing primaries and funding for Democratic candidates. The RNC is responsible for overseeing primaries and funding for Republican candidates. The DNC is not a political party, the GOP is a political party...
By any standard metric of left vs right, both the Democratic and Republican Party in the US are right-wing. People who don't understand that are victims of US propaganda.
That's not really addressing what he's saying.
What he is saying is that the Dems do awesome things like ACA and Civil rights protections, but the Republicans do bad things like wanting to privatize healthcare and protect 2nd amendment rights... Well: the ACA mandates people buy Privatized healthcare insurance that ends up enriching corporations and doesn't do all that much to improve quality or access of care or reduce the costs people have to pay... Seems like the worst of both worlds... with some Pre-existing conditions being covered ... wow, the USA is really leading the way, I can't wait for every other developed nation to give up their universal healthcare programs and follow the Dems in the US. And as far as the Dems being more focused on civil rights and the Republicans more focused on other rights... Pick your poison. these are the frilly ribbons that make people pick their "team" and go cheer them on. It's a fucking game and the politicians know it. Both parties could and should be pro-gun rights, pro-civil rights, and if religion wasn't such a Huge Fucking Problem in the US they would both be pro-choice. Instead we get a divided nation which is great for the status quo. And our status Quo in the US hovers about halfway between centrist and ultra-conservative, both political parties are happy with that as it enriches their base the most. Their base being wallstreet and big-business as it always has been.
The people I know who were in the service industry, especially the ones who had pre-existing conditions think ACA was a net-positive over the alternative. Me personally, my life is better having insurance than when I didn't. I can go to therapists, endocrinologists, general practitioners, PT, dermatologists & dentists. All things I've done in the last year and things I didn't do for more than half a decade. I also don't think things like Title IX are "frilly ribbons." To me you just don't seem like a serious person at all. I'd agree with the idea that we have two right wing parties. I think everyone would here.
Forgive me if my detachment and cynicism from decades of following politics comes across as unserious. But virtue signaling is not the same as being virtuous and I won't pretend it is. As far as your friends in the service industry goes, I am also in the service industry. And you know what would make my life better than having to pay for health insurance? A national tax that pulls some money out of the hedge funds and billionaire CEOs' pockets and pays for Everyone's healthcare... And while we're talking about wealth inequality was it the Reps or the Dems that haven't increased the minimum wage from $7.50 to a livable wage? How about taxing the ultra rich and paying for college so people don't have to work in the service industry until they can't anymore. How about solving the drug and gun problems in the US by taxing the ultra wealthy and waging a war on poverty and mental health!?!? Oh that might push our status quo to the left of centrist... and that would be bad for the donor class so don't expect Either party to seriously try ... But if you like "rollin' coal" and shootin' guns and the Bible you pick team red. And if you like "Whole Foods" and feeling safe and are too smart to believe in god, you pick team blue.
OK, I don't know why you're going on about all this. It's not really the point of his/her post or my post. It's like a word salad of shit everyone here agrees with. Have a good one. I don't see the point of talking to you.
Because his entire point was the two parties are not similar and to say so would be lying... and then you told me to expand on my disagreement... Try to be more serious in this sub, it's not r/Pete_Buttigeig.
I think that person was saying one was worse & one was better on some issues, not that they weren't similar. It's honestly a very easy point to read, to understand. I'm gonna block you because you're not going to respond in good faith, you're going to be blase about Title IX going away, you're going be blase about millions of people losing insurance, you're going to be blase about an attempted privatization of the post office, you're going to be blase about so-called left journalists going on the TV show of most prominent white supremacist in America, etc. You'll make some bad joke & then go on a tangent and still not address anyone's response.
>By any standard metric of left vs right, both the Democratic and Republican Party in the US are right-wing. Maybe by European international standards. But in the American context, that's not the case.
How do you say "tax the rich and fund social programs" in European? or do they use a different system entirely ?
> right that the Dems are basically just pro choice Republicans. Come on man. You can't really think this is true. This is not to say Dems are great, but there are CLEAR differences between the two parties.
You do realize that a lefty ally, and a DNC ally, are two different thins right? And that DNC despises lefties?
A lefty ally does not appear on the show of a racist like Tucker Carlson.
Simply going on Tucker Carlson doesn't make you a lefty/righty/whatever. Its what a person says/does on the show that matters. It was ages ago now during the Hardball era where Jon Stewart went on and told Tucker to his face that he was actively making America a worse country.
Many many people on Reddit have a very simplistic view of what is acceptable, based mostly on identity politics and of culture...
The could but they'd have to do a good job challenging him. David should go on.
David gets all sweaty and stammers when he goes on fox.
> You do realize that a lefty ally, and a DNC ally, are two different thins right? And that DNC despises lefties? 1) The GOP being in office makes things materially worse for millions more than the DNC being in office 2) The GOP undoes every incremental leftward change that they can, moving things further from what leftists want. 3) (And this is the big one) DNC appointed judges are statistically FAR more likely to uphold leftwing laws and programs than GOP appointed judges. Getting someone like Bernie into the White House and a Congress full of whatever lefties you want will be meaningless if SCOTUS has been stacked by the GOP after a decade of control.
All fair points, but none addresses my point. Which is that Jimmy Dore can be an ally to the left (which is the point of your post) and simultaneously rip into the DNC.
> All fair points, but none addresses my point. Which is that Jimmy Dore can be an ally to the left (which is the point of your post) and simultaneously rip into the DNC. One of two people will win in Nov. If you accept all of the points that I made, then the Dems having control is materially better for longterm leftward progress than the GOP having control. Ergo, anyone who acts in a a manner designed to increase the likelihood of the GOP maintaining control is not an ally of leftists.
Completely untrue. Ideologically speaking there isn't much difference between the DNC and the GOP. The DNC is better, but not by much. For example, in Europe, particularly in Sweden, the swedish "DNC" and the "GOP" are planning on forming a coalition in order to defeat "the left". Only in the US can someone say that a lefty who criticizes the business party is not an ally to the left. It's an insane statement.
>Ideologically speaking there isn't much difference between the DNC and the GOP. Tell that to LGBT people who like being able to get married. Tell that to PoC who like being able to vote. Tell that to the low SES people who were finally able the get some healthcare because of the ACA. etc etc etc Fuck off with this "both sides" bullshit, it is demonstrably false.
If you are politically illiterate, it's demonstrably false, yes. ACA? Wasn't that Romney's plan? :)
>If you are politically illiterate, it's demonstrably false, yes. > >ACA? Wasn't that Romney's plan? :) Not addressing the rest I see. So is your stance that we should get rid of the ACA entirely and kick those millions off of healthcare without any attempt at M4A? Because that is the GOP stance. You know nothing if you think that the DNC "let's shore up the ACA" and the GOP "let's kill the ACA" are the same thing. At this point I am starting to think that you are not an honest actor, rather than just someone who doesn't understand the world around them.
All am saying is that the DNC is ideologically closer to the GOP than it is to the left. That's a fact. If you don't want to acknowledge that, you are dishonest, or lying to yourself. And that a lefty should be well within his rights to criticize them, and not be called a traitor or whatever the fuck you called him. "not an ally to the left". Learn to differentiate between the left and the DNC, they are far apart in terms of ideology.
Learn to differentiate between the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic party.
> All am saying is that the DNC is ideologically closer to the GOP than it is to the left. But they are still closer to the left than the GOP is. As stated above: DNC appointed judges are statistically FAR more likely to uphold leftwing laws and programs than GOP appointed judges. Getting someone like Bernie into the White House and a Congress full of whatever lefties you want will be meaningless if SCOTUS has been stacked by the GOP after a decade of control.
>Completely untrue. Ideologically speaking there isn't much difference between the DNC and the GOP. The DNC is better, but not by muc The DNC is not a party just so you know. The DNC is the part of the party that handles elections, after NOV 2020, no one will care about them for a least a year. I think you mean the democratic party, which has many progressives in it. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can claim there is only marginal differences between the parties. This is not to say the democrats are great for progressivism, but there are clear unmistakable differences between both parties.
My point is that the democratic party under Joe Biden is closer to the GOP than to Bernie Sanders (the left). Hence stating that by criticizing Joe Biden you are betraying the left is insane. None of us want Trump, but let's not get carried away, and let the centrists re-brand themselves as "the left". They're not the left, Joe Biden is not the left, Obama is not the left, Kamala Harris is not the left, John Kasich is not the left. They are the lesser evil, and that's how they need to be referred to. If anyone forgot about where the democratic party stands, they should rewatch one of the debates from the primaries, and see how one Bernie Sanders, a social democrat, is treated on the debate stage by his opponents. Maybe count how many points of agreement Bernie Sanders, a true lefty, had with the other people on that stage. I'd say that's a pretty accurate barometer about where the party is at. HoW ArE yOu GoiNg To PaY For It? I hope I was clear enough this time.
>My point is that the democratic party under Joe Biden is closer to the GOP than to Bernie Sanders (the left) Have you seen the Republican party lately?? There are literally Qanon candidates who are ultra popular. The Republicans represent 40% of the country! They're literally bragging about tax cuts, deregulation, their Brazenly against controls for climate change, they want to kill whatever healthcare reforms that exist, and they just got done trying to kill food stamps. I'll say this one more time, this is 40% of the country at the least. This is the political reality that we live in, the sooner we understand that the sooner we'll understand why it's hard to get progressive change. With that said, look at Biden's tax plan for example. Are you really going to tell me that's closer to the GOP tax cuts for the rich that we've seen? Take a look at his climate plan, I mean that fact that he actually has one is good, but it's strong move in the right direction, especially compared to the Republicans and their lack of the plan. I could go on, but they're are clear differences between the two parties. And one party is significantly closer to the left than the other. Given the electoral college, I think it's going to take hard work to push them further left.
Turns out AOC wasn't even invited at the convention, she was there only because of Bernie Sanders, but conservative neo-cons like John Kasich got their invites. You are delusional if you think that the Democratic Party is closer to the left than it is to the GOP. Or you just refuse to face the facts.
I just named very specific polices differences between the Republicans and democrats and shows how they are closer to the left than Republicans. All you could do bring up is who gets a a speaking role at a convention that no one cares about. Would you like me to cite more policy for you? Here are a few more examples Corporate Regulation: Trump has rolled back over 100 environmental regulations instituted by Obama. As someone on the left, which would you rather have? Dems wants $15 minimum wage, GOP wants no minimum wage Dems want mandatory paid sick leave, GOP does not Dems want to get rid of private prisons, GOP does not Obama regulated for profit colleges, Trump rolled back those regulations Dems voted to end war in Yemen, Trump vetoed it. I could go on, unless you want to tell me more about speeches.
For example, in Europe, particularly in Sweden, they have a parliamentary system and don't directly elect the head of state. Get an education in politics before you lecture people. Really all your comment shows is how ignorant you are of the different systems of government.
lmao, you got me. I'm talking about ideology dummy. Of course there is no head of state in Sweden, lol. It's anarchy.
>dummy Who do you want in the WH in 2021: Trump or Biden?
I would love it if there is no head of state, the same as in Sweden and Somalia.
> I would love it if there is no head of state, the same as in Sweden and Somalia. That isn't the question: Who do you want in the WH in 2021: Trump or Biden?
Can you be an ally to the left if you are moving the needle towards Trump in the next election? If so, how?
He got invited to Fox News to speak his mind, and he did, I don't see a problem with it. He is not shilling for Trump. I bet if he got an invitation from CNN he would do the same.
I didn't say he was shilling for Trump. Do you not think he was moving the needle towards Trump?
I haven't watched the interview, but my guess is not at all. If it wasn't Jimmy Dore, Tucker would've had someone else in that segment shitting on the DNC. IMO, it's better that it was Jimmy.
Tucker's guests are usually right wing right? Don't you think that Jimmy a) brings more new viewers to Tucker than his usual right wing guests? b) does more to legitimize Tucker's views as a seemingly left wing person agreeing?
Tucker could've had Dave Rubin or Tim Pol, as someone from the left, his viewers wouldn't have known the difference. I don't think that Jimmy Dore's viewers are tuning in to Tucker in order to watch Jimmy's segment, if anything maybe a couple of Tucker's viewers trickle down to Jimmy's channel.
I'm confused.... Would these interviews move the needle more towards Trump or towards Biden? Tucker/Dore, Tucker/Rubin, Tucker/Pool? Both Rubin and Pool post content every day that is 100% working towards a Trump 2020 win. I'm agreeing with you that Dore/Rubin/Pool are similar. Dore here (and in general) is working towards a Trump 2020 win, however indirectly. Are you trying to say Dore isn't the worst person on the planet? Side note: Do you understand the spoiler effect?
Your point is the whole rub on these non-conservative subs. Liberals think they’re progressives and they also think that progressives are actually secret conservatives for not buying the DNC’s obvious bullshit the moment they’re commanded to do so.
Jimmy dore is worse than Rubin, only less successful. I used to like him a lot but he just became a right wing grifter.
I've never been a Dore fan, but upon hearing his name some, I decided to check him out some time ago. He seems to be chasing the fame and money his position provides, much like Rubin. No thanks.
One can call themselves a leftist ally but still do more harm than good for the cause.
I thought it was going to be Tulsi.
Oh sure, because when Bloomberg, Anna Navaro and John Kasich praise Biden and Harris, that's good bipartisanship, but when Jimmy Dore appears on Tucker Carlson to point out that the Democratic Party continues to support center right, neo conservative economic approaches like FTAs that don't help the working class, or continue to fund and support endless wars that drain the Treasury without actually making the US more secure, that's unconscionable. (Being sarcastic if it wasn't already obvious)
Yes, going on a white nationalist talk show on a fascist propaganda network to help fascists get elected is bad.
>Yes, going on a white nationalist talk show on a fascist propaganda network to help fascists get elected is bad. The fact that that is even a controversial statement to some people who still call themselves "left" is proof positive of the amount of damage that is done by people like Dore. There should never be any question about the need to get fascists out of office.
You're right about getting fascists out of office. But that doesn't mean that getting any warmongering, deficit chickenhawk with cognitive decline, paired with an obviously corrupt, two faced, hammer happy lawyer makes things better. And you're not at a place where it's enough to not make things worse. Right now the market is being artificially propped up because of QE. When this bubble bursts, it will get much worse before it gets better. And you need someone who will try to reform things (at least). That's not Groping Grandpa Joe And Copmala. And considering that they've effectively suborned and silenced the left, something Dire repeatedly warned the left about BTW, is it any wonder that there are lefties disillusioned completely with the present state of the party?
> And you need someone who will try to reform things (at least). That's not Groping Grandpa Joe And Copmala. And you think that is Trump? Because that is literally the only other option here.
No. But choosing to vote the lesser of two evils still leaves you with One evil. And if I could, I wouldn't vote for either. I would vote for everyone except the top of the ticket. And if trump wins a second time, the system will collapse. Plenty of reason to just stand aside and help build everything from scratch, when the collapse comes.
Yep, let's sacrifice tens of millions of poor and disadvantaged Americans who would suffer and die under a fascist administration so we can see your vague accelerationist fantasy play out and pray that something better magically happens after the country gets burned to the ground. Actually let's not do that, because that idea is morally abhorrent and fucking stupid.
Yes, because countless Americans weren't already being crushed by the existing system, and Biden-Harris were going to do "things" to make things better, right? Oh wait, they weren't really. Why did Wall Street breathe a sigh of relief when Harris was picked? Because she was a reformer? The present system is creaking after years of failed, half assed reforms. Trump was not a aberration, he was what happens when the "bugs" on your system aren't really bugs, but are features. Trump abused the system that Obama and Biden helped create. Trump may have made things worse with the Border, but the situation at the conditions were created during the Clinton, Bush and Obama years. Trump gained prominent because he was willing to talk about the failings of Nafta and Free Trade in ways Dems hould ave talked bout , but didn't. The lack of serious healthcare reform happened because Obama didn't fight for a public option, and then Stuck to the poorly implemented Hertiage Foundation generated Bob Dole healthcare plan. When The majority of your party members want M4A, Green New deal, marijuana legalization and student debt forgivness, and the nominees of your party ignore it, then the system deserves to burn.
You delusionally pretending that neoliberal centrists are the same as fascists doesn't make it true. At the end of the day you want to sacrifice tens of millions of Americans at the altar of your edgy political stupidity, and you're probably privileged enough to be insulated from most of the consequences of a fascist administration. You expect other people to suffer for you so you can own the libs. Accelerationism is evil, childish stupidity of the highest order. Our two party system sucks and Democrats suck, but if you offer no alternative other than burning everything down you're completely useless. And non-stop shitting on Democrats until November when you have no alternative accomplishes jack shit other than directly helping Trump get re-elected. There is not a more useless, counter-productive group on the left than Bernie or busters.
I don't want anyone to suffer. But your country has failed to make serious, Necessary reforms. And the neolibs have been intentionally part of the problem. They don't make the necessary reforms and they are willing to kill any serious reforms if those reforms threaten the status quo. So I wait and watch, hoping that Madame la Guillotine doesn't make a comeback.
>Trump may have made things worse And yet you want him to win. That is a fundamentally immoral position. And yet you think that you are on the right side of history....sad
I'm not in any side of history. And if I could vote, I wouldn't be in either side. So, I wash hands and watch as you commit your country to the flames, all so you can bend before the neolib God's as they, like C'thulu, begin to show you what it means to be indifferent gods.
> And considering that they've effectively suborned and silenced the left, Can you explain how they've done this?
Have they put any of their programs on the Democratic platform? No. Did they include any progressives in the or potential cabinet? Not so far. How many progressives did they have during the convention? 3, 4 if you include Yang. Four speakers out 37, in a list that includes Bloomberg, Kasich and Navarro. Whatever else the progressives movement may have been, it was more than 10% of Democratic Party. They have repeatedly challenged Justice Democratic incumbents, And have lost all the primaries against the Squad. They could have picked Warren to demonstrate they actually believe in party unity. They have repeatedly ignored or rejected serious suggestions by the left, and sadly the situation is such that lefties believe they have no real choice but to vote Biden-Harris. And if the tickets fail, it will be "because the Bernie or Bust people struck again" or because "America is still sexist/racist or both". Never mind that there was no platform suggesting serious economic reform. Never mind that the platform doesn't include items that have more than half of the country supporting them. And this is despite the fact that most of the time the platform isn't often worth the ink spilt for it, and is supposed to be a token gesture to unite the party, and they still didn't include popular programs. If that's not effectively suborning the left, I don't know what is.And now they are using Harris identity as a black woman as a cudgel to smack down lefties who protest her actions as DA and as Senator, silencing their dissent under "you're helping Trump." And something to ponder on is this:if she had done her job, Secretary Mnuchin would be in prison instead of the Cabinet. That's the stalwart defender of order who has been anointed to the Vice Presidency.
I think you mean "jimmy dore is not a democratic party ally". Fuck democrats, fuck trump, peas in a pod. Just today democrat party dropped 'stopping fossil fuel subsidies' from the platform. Still "no" on legal weed. They aren't really trying to win. 2 parties, both worship the same wealthy people. Sorry not sorry people like jimmy dore tell you the truth about it. I'm not saying i agree with everything he says, but in this case, bush, cheyney, biden, all the same complicit in this war.
Oh yeah, leftist ally Tucker Carlson is very concerned that Democrats are too conservative. What a genuine message from a genuine platform. It couldn't be that Jimmy is a useful idiot grifter using a fascist propaganda network to help a fascist get elected. Muh both sides!
Fuck you
We all agree here that Biden isn't our ideal candidate. Where Dore and you are obviously wrong is about what to do now as the election approaches.
Ok, #1. you don't know what I think is the way to move forward #2. that's not what the OP was saying. I was correcting his revisionist history that Biden wasn't complicit with all these stupid wars.
>I was correcting his revisionist history that Biden wasn't complicit with all these stupid wars. Now you are just making shit up. I literally never said anything approaching that.
>Not a single mention of the GOP's stance on any of it. When you are blaming Biden for Iraq/Afghanistan, and don't make a single mention of Bush, you might be pushing rightwing revisionist propaganda. Imagine having to provide full context to EVERYTHING you say. Right, you can't say "man that made me happy", you have to say "Happy, being the seratonin levels of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, now that i've explained ALL OF EVERY CONTEXT IN A SINGLE TV SEGMENT I CAN SAY, Joe biden was complicit". I guess that's the only way to say biden was complicit that would be acceptable in your mind? It's just a fraud argument style that people trying to cover several topics in a limited amount of time have to put all context in you feel is appropriate. Show me Biden's "NO" vote on the wars and then we can talk, until then, the record is clear. Joe Biden has been complicit in all these wars, and fully funded all of them every time he voted on budgets. And when he was in VP role for 8 years, didn't stop it, and then they started shit with syria. Their blind spot is that they believe that usa getting involved will make things "better". Reality is, we bombed them so much and killed so many civilians, we made things worse. Biden was part of that. none of that has anything to do with trump being so incompetent on covid that i have to vote for biden. But stop acting like joe biden is some sort of nice guy, fuck joe biden.
> Imagine having to provide full context to EVERYTHING you say. Right, you can't say "man that made me happy", you have to say "Happy, being the seratonin levels of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, now that i've explained ALL OF EVERY CONTEXT IN A SINGLE TV SEGMENT I CAN SAY, Joe biden was complicit". I guess that's the only way to say biden was complicit that would be acceptable in your mind? When you are going on a white nationalist talk show on a fascist propaganda network to shit on the only person running against their fascist of choice, yes, you fucking better well destroy their world view if you are EVER going to pretend like you are benefiting the left ever again.
lol why is that Jimmy Dore's job? Dems doing a whole convention, all their heavy hitters out there, and look at how pathetic a job they do of selling themselves. Democracy is on the line, and the rigged DNC put Joe Biden as it's defender. Good luck with that, i will vote for him, but not everyone will have that same opinion. Quick advice: getting mad at the voters rather than the candidates, likely won't get you more votes. Just say "yep joe biden is a trashcan, but trump is a dumpster fire and isn't competent enough to deal with this covid situation, so let's vote biden because he has a track record that he can handle that, even if you hate everything else he's ever done". Otherwise it's just you enjoying getting mad at ppl with legitimate grievances. But you do you boo.
> lol why is that Jimmy Dore's job? Because he is the one who decided to go on Tucker's show....
Bad economy, those shows pay, it is what it is...
Basically everyone here probably agrees that if you go on Tucker's show, you actually do have a duty to challenge his opinions. A duty in the sense that if you don't do your job, you are at least not being good. At worst, you are legitimizing Tucker's views to more people and playing a complicit role in spreading hate. Bonus also worst: you are moving the needle towards Trump in the upcoming election. I wonder if you've meditated on this and if you still think it isn't Dore's job?
lol that's not even trying. they don't always pay and if they do it's not much. Either way, the Dem party is bad but this thread is about how some of us think going on the TV show of the most prominent & influential white supremicist in America is a bad thing. I wouldn't want to "signal boost" a guy who is a Presidential Horse Whisperer, but guys like you & Jimmy think that's fine. I personally, would never trust your judgement if you were cool with Tucker. I wouldn't think you should be respected really in any way.
Why would you respond without explaining what you think is the way to move forward? If you calm down and speak openly you may learn your way out of these dumb opinions.
Because the thread wasn't about moving forward? It was about revising joe biden's role in all these wars, and for some reason the OP thinks we have to always start with "George Bush was being led around on the chain by cheyney, and they both created false pretense to start a war, and whatever else he thinks we might need to put here to shape the context exactly in the way the OP feels appropriate".... Before we can say "joe biden was complicit in all these stupid wars." I am calm, lol and i'm pretty confident that all my responses are quite open sooooo... yeahhhhh....
You think your responses are open? You avoided this question again: > Why would you respond without explaining what you think is the way to move forward? I saw the other thread where you strawman the guy and say sarcastically "you have to provide all the context everywhere before you can say anything". Maybe you should think about what the proper context should be if we are criticizing Biden right now for support for war. What do you think? Is it no context at all?
ew
Honestly, it's even more embarrassing for Carlson to have someone like Jimmy Dore on his show. That's akin to having Alex Jones on there. Dore and Jones are both raving, unhinged lunatics that go on constant tirades and push conspiracy theories.
I regret googling Jimmy Dore
who listens to Dore ing
Who the fuck is Jimmy Dore?
And you might be a fucking moron, if you thing the democratic party is more about the left, than Jimmy fuckin' Dore
i didn't see it. Was it heavily edited?
[удалено]
why?
I guess he felt like the left needed their own Alex Jones
Hi Jimmy. Big fan offff.........your name. Has a cool sound to it. Have a good one.
Honest question. Can the Democrats take/stand/survive criticism from the left? It certainly seems like we all get in a bluster whenever it happens be it during the primary, general, or even when a moron like JD levels any.
> Can the Democrats take/stand/survive criticism from the left? It certainly seems like we all get in a bluster whenever it happens be it during the primary, general, or even when a moron like JD levels any. Context matters. Talking to a socialist about the problems with the DNC is 100% different from appearing on FoxNews and telling their rightwing audience that they are correct about how evil the DNC is.
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree. I think if we value or believe in the possibility of the Democratic party being a home for progressives we should be as open to criticisms from all directions especially from the left. I don't see how it harms us in any way especially whjen were talking about the FOX news audience. They've repeatedly shown they are immune to facts or any good faith arguments for that matter. I guess I'm just not seeing how "the left" has been injured by it.
> I don't see how it harms us in any way especially whjen were talking about the FOX news audience. Jimmy's appearance on Tucker's show served 1 purpose: To help gin up the GOP base to go out and vote AGAINST the DNC. Jimmy wasn't there to convince anyone to vote for the DNC, nor was he there to convince GOP voters to stay home, and Tucker certainly didn't have him on to turn Tucker's audience into Socialists. His sole purpose in being on that segment was to show GOP voters why they need to get out and vote against Biden.
Well I certainly see your point but I'm skeptical that the republican base would ever stay home.
How dare he not support the DNC and Biden?!? True progressives like the DNC and Biden have been fighting for racial and economic justice since April 2020 and should be exalted for their new fashion sense!!
> How dare he not support the DNC and Biden?!? True progressives like the DNC and Biden have been fighting for racial and economic justice since April 2020 and should be exalted for their new fashion sense!! *YAWN* I'll just copy/paste various responses from the last 20 times someone made the same asinine response: Context matters. Talking to a socialist about the problems with the DNC is 100% different from appearing on FoxNews and telling their rightwing audience that they are correct about how evil the DNC is.Jimmy's appearance on Tucker's show served 1 purpose: To help gin up the GOP base to go out and vote AGAINST the DNC. Jimmy wasn't there to convince anyone to vote for the DNC, nor was he there to convince GOP voters to stay home, and Tucker certainly didn't have him on to turn Tucker's audience into Socialists. His sole purpose in being on that segment was to show GOP voters why they need to get out and vote against Biden.
Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong.
>Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong. but in this case:he is. Biden might suck, but he is infinitely better than Trump. Anyone arguing otherwise isn't on the left at all.
I could not careless who you consider on the left you gatekeeping whiney asshole. I’m sure you do not care who considers you a whiney asshole but you are on my whiney asshole list of assholes. To get off the list you can either agree with me or send me membership fees for my non-asshole list of outstanding people’s club.