Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Sam Debates Electoral Politics With A Jimmy Dore Fan" video.

@sergeikhripun BGJ and this guy are dishonest. The FTV "plan" out of Dore's mouth was for 15 progressives to simply "withhold their votes" or "not vote" for Pelosi. That's the way he worded it repeatedly. That does imply abstaining, which would have handed the speakership to McCarthy. Dore didn't say they needed to cast protest votes. In fact, Dore made it clear that he didn't know how things worked, and falsely claimed it was impossible for McCarthy to win, unless Democrats voted for him. Jimmy made perfectly clear that he had things so wrong, that he wouldn't think abstaining was a problem.
16
@TheVFXbyArt Dore knobs and their false equivalencies. Let's skip over the decades of protesting and gaining a strong majority of public support. Let's skip over that a fair number of states had already made it state law. Parties weren't as polorized, at the time. They weren't quite sure how everyone was going to vote. It was a constitutional amendment that needed a supermajority. They knew they had majority support, but didn't know exactly how far off they were from getting a supermajority. So, they had a vote, to see. It failed. The bill was literally held back, the next session, because they saw no point in having a guaranteed to fail vote. The next session, they thought they had the numbers, but it failed a supermajority vote, by 2. Both of those votes are quite a lot different than knowingly being 100+ votes short, in the house alone, but having one for performance art purposes anyway.
11
@heidibenner1577 Action is AOC and Bernie on the ground campaigning for Nina Turner, promoting M4A, and trying to add another M4A yes vote to congress. Adding more yes votes to congress is the most important thing, when getting enough yes votes is the only possible way to ever pass a bill. AOC also helped add a few more in the general election. A 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote, doesn't get you any closer to being able to pass the bill. Publicly abandoning Nina Turner ... abandoning adding another M4A yes vote to congress ... as Dore did, doesn't get you closer to being able to pass the bill. Sitting on the sidelines, in some irrelevant third party doesn't get you any closer to being able to pass the bill and, if you let Republicans win, or let a corporate Dem win back a progressive seat, could actually move you further away. Promoting Tulsi M4A is unAmerican Gabbard over Bernie doesn't get you any closer to being able to pass the bill ... in fact, voting against having an M4A president is actually the opposite. Trashing government negotiated under $20 prices on vaccines that are given out for free (a tiny taste of what M4A would be like) as some "big pharma" conspiracy, and spreading a general fear of the government, doesn't get you any closer to being able to pass the bill. Having your buddy Max on, so the two of you can misrepresent the UK's completely socialized healthcare system, doesn't get you any closer to being able to pass the bill. All the "action" Dore promotes gets you no closer, or even further away from, ever passing the bill. He's a grifter, who pretends he's selling you something beneficial, but is actually selling you something completely useless, or even harmful.
7
@rickduval2025 You, Hinkle, and pretty much every Dore knob, are dishonest twits. Each department has their own individual appropriation bill, before the budget vote. She voted no on the state department appropriation bill. She voted no on the defense appropriation bill. Then, the budget is based on all the appropriation bills. You idiots are shitting on her for not voting against the budget, which includes Medicaid, affordable housing, education, veteran's benefits, SNAP, SSI, etc.
6
@sergeikhripun You get that all the times Jimmy was going on about Russiagate, Russiagate, Russiagate, he wasn't talking about any of those things, either, right?
5
@CMfuell Jimmy made very clear that he didn't know how the vote actually worked, and made very clear that he didn't think abstaining could lead to McCarthy winning, when it could. There's no strawman, dimwit. That you're a dimwit is simply an objective fact. You keep deflecting to what didn't come out of Jimmy's mouth. Stick to what he said.
5
@t-swizzle8102 A "ruckus" is a subjective term. It means different things to different people. She has her own idea of what a "ruckus" is. She didn't run on Jimmy's idea of what a "ruckus" is. That's him strawmanning. She was on the ground, promoting M4A, while campaigning for Nina Turner, against the heavily backed DNC candidate. In the last election, she used her platform and PAC to back 20 other pro-M4A progressives, and helped add a few more M4A yes votes to congress. She also didn't run on getting a floor vote on M4A. She mentioned in an interview, that they couldn't get a floor vote on M4A, and I doubt she was thinking along the lines of paralyzing the house, something that hadn't happened in 100 years. She most definitely never ran on paralyzing, or threatening to paralyze, the house. Why would she want to start an all out intra party war, over a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote? The broader progressive caucus is about 15 seats away from becoming the majority of house Dems. Then what happens, if you've started an all out war? You'll never have a progressive speaker, until progressives become the majority of the house, instead of just the majority of the party. Shouldn't you Dore knobs be migrating over to right wing Rumble, where Glenn and Dore signed on to get them some Peter Thiel CIA money? You're all just right wingers, trying to tank progressives.
4
@CMfuell Dimwit, Dore implied 15 progressives should simply abstain.
4
@CMfuell I don't give two craps what members of congress know. I'm talking about Jimmy's plan, out of Jimmy's mouth. His plan was to hand the speakership to McCarthy, you dimwitted Dore knob.
4
@t-swizzle8102 How does sitting on the sidelines, in some irrelevant third party, and letting corporate Dems and Republicans rule for decades to come, help poor and working class Americans, exactly? And sitting on the sidelines, in some irrelevant third party, is based on what ... some fantasy, that a third party will only produce perfectly perfect puritan progressives, rather than another Kyrsten Sinema, like the Green party produced? When adding M4A yes votes to congress is the most important thing to do, because the only possible way to ever pass the bill is to get enough yes votes in congress, how does abandoning Nina Turner ... abandoning adding another M4A yes vote to congress ... help poor and working class Americans? How does promoting Trump (platform: toss 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion) as the better option than Clinton (platform: add 40m older Americans to Medicare expansion), help poor and working class Americans?
4
@t-swizzle8102 Which campaign promises would those be?
3
AOC had donated to a number of progressives in conservative districts, in the last election. A bunch got creamed in the primaries, but a more conservative Dem did manage to win the district. The midterms are a totally different animal, and there will be a helluva fight to just try and hang on to their majority. Purple districts will be the hardest ones to try and hang on to. Dore knobs just don't care if Republicans get the majority, and don't care if progressives have even less power being in a minority party. Hell, they don't even care if progressives sit on the sidelines, in some irrelevant third party, for the next century. I've yet to run across a Dore knob that actually knows what was in the final version of the Capitol police bill, and what AOC's final vote was. All the first house vote actually did was send it to the senate, to have the shit amended out of it, just to be sent back to the house. AOC voted against it, when it came back. Her vote was irrelevant, because it had been amended enough to Republicans' liking to bring them onboard. The $15 did get a vote. It even passed the house, and got a senate vote. There's an ever so precious list of no voters. Weren't Dore knobs making out like they were going to do big things, with a list of no voters on an important policy? How come all they've done with this one is bitch about those who got the $15 to stay in for a round of voting and voted for it? The FTV "plan", out of Jimmy's mouth, before anyone else amended it, was for 15 progressives to simply "withhold their votes" or "not vote" for Pelosi. It's wording he used repeatedly. That wording implied abstaining, which would have given the speakership to McCarthy. Jimmy incorrectly thought it was impossible for McCarthy to win, because he thought you outright needed 218 votes to win. Drone strikes have dropped to almost nothing. Shouldn't Dore knobs be praising Biden, for that? They are such all or nothing puritan dimwits.
3
@CMfuell Rofl! For every 2 empty seats, absentees, or abstentions, the threshold needed to win is lowered by 1, you dimwitted Dore knob. At the time, there were 2 empty seats. 2 empty seats, plus 15 abstentions, lowers the threshold needed to win by 8, down to 210. If every other Dem voted Pelosi, she'd get 207. If every Republican voted McCarthy, he'd get 211. He'd win the speakership.
3
@CMfuell Where am I losing you? Dore made it clear that he thought it was "impossible" for McCarthy to become speaker, without Dems voting for him. He made it clear that he didn't think abstaining could lead to McCarthy winning. He didn't say his 15 progressives needed to cast protest votes. He repeatedly used the wording to simply "withhold votes" or "not vote" for Pelosi, which implies abstaining. If 15 progressives abstained, McCarthy would win the speakership. The "plan", out of Dore's mouth, would have handed the speakership to McCarthy.
3
@herbertcamacho1461 What are you blathering about? The majority in congress supported Civil Rights, by the time it came up for a vote. A minority filibustered. As soon as the filibuster ended, the majority passed it.
3
@rickduval2025 AOC has done more for M4A in 2 years than Dore has in his entire lifetime. The only way to ever pass the bill is to get enough yes votes in congress. She used her platform and PAC to back 20 other pro-M4A progressives, helped remove a few more corporate Dems, and add a few more M4A yes votes to congress. While Dore was slandering AOC for abandoning M4A, she was on the ground campaigning for Nina Turner, promoting M4A, and fighting to add another M4A yes vote to congress. Dore, on the other hand, publicly abandoned Nina ... abandoned adding another M4A yes vote to congress ... and promoted never voting for anyone running as a Democrat ever again. He's a grifter, who leads people in the opposite direction he claims to be going.
3
@t-swizzle8102 Rofl! Do you know what a false equivalency is? The Tea Party was backed by leading Republican donors, like the Koch brothers, who were also pressuring Republican members of congress to move further right. Are there any major Democratic donors pressuring Democrats to move left? No? Republicans have a natural predisposition to moving right, anyway. Do corporate Dems have a natural predisposition to moving left? No? With that pressure on congress members Tea Party numbers were regularly increasing, as members converted. Are corporate Dems converting to being progressives? No? And, the only thing that gave Tea Party members the power to block any bills, was the other Republicans' unwillingness to work with Democrats, instead. All they had to do was make some concessions to Democrats, bring enough Democrats on board, and pass the bill without needing Tea Party votes. Do corporate Dems have a complete unwillingness to work with Republicans? No? There's no equivalence to the Tea Party's situation. It's math, dimwit. There are zero extra votes to the left of progressives. It is absolutely impossible to pass a bill without Manchin. On the other end, there is the entire Republican party to try and draw extra votes from. Bring one Republican on board, and it's entirely possible to pass a bill without Bernie. Bring enough house Republicans on board and it's entirely possible to pass a bill without the squad. If corporate Dems are willing to work with Republicans, a stand off will more likely end up pushing a bill further right, not left. Empty virtue signalling is going on and on, for a f*cking year about a missed chance to get a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote, ffs. A performance art vote would get you no closer to getting M4A. Fighting to increase numbers in congress actually does move you closer to being able to pass the bill. You dimwitted Dore knobs have things completely backwards. Dore is sitting in his $2m garage and not giving a shit if anyone ever gets healthcare. That's why he doesn't care if the country goes outright backwards, and 10m of the poorest Americans are thrown off of Medicaid expansion. That's why he doesn't care if you sit on the sidelines for the next century. That's what he doesn't care, when he helps another grifter campaign against Bernie. That's why he didn't care, when he abandoned Nina. He's a grifter, dimwit. His increasing right wing audience should have clued you in. Or, maybe you're one of them, just pretending. You're more upset at Democrats, that you only got $1400, than you are at Republicans, every one of which voted against giving you anything? $1400 and $0, is totally samesies, to you? No difference? Just how dumb are you? Plus the unemployment extension they all voted against. Plus the eviction moratorium they all voted against. Plus repeatedly extending the freeze on student loan payments and interest (How are you still having to make student loan payments?), that they're all opposed to. Rescinding numerous Trump executive orders is totally samesies as Trump signing those orders. Signing a.number of new beneficial executive orders is totally samesies as not signing those orders. A near end to drone strikes is totally samesies as Trump dropping more bombs than Obama. Oh, oh, but I'm a brain dead Dore knob ... look at this thing that hasn't changed ... they're totally samesies!!! You're obviously the one that doesn't care, dimwit, if you have the luxury to let Republicans, and corporate Dems, rule for decades to come. Whatever you think of current progressives, running as a Dem is clearly the more effective way for a progressive to win a seat in congress, and remove a corporate Dem.
3
@t-swizzle8102 You didn't answer my question, you dimwitted Dore knob. Give an example, that's not one of those strawmen you were building in the other thread.
2
@BelowMeGoggle You Dore knobs are such dishonest twits. AOC criticized voting "present" on an important and historical vote, not simply voting "present", in general. Nothing much historical, or significantly important, about voting "present" for a purely defensive system. The Iron Dome doesn't attack Palestinians. So what? She, and other progressives, have a bill to attach conditions on the annual military aid to Israel. They have an anti anti-BDS laws bill. She actually voted against the State Department appropriation bill, which includes the annual $3.3b in offensive military aid to Israel. It was dishonest of Hinkle to say she voted for it. What she later voted for was the entire government budget, after the appropriation bill was passed, without her. That includes healthcare, education, housing, veteran's benefits, SNAP, SSI, etc., etc., etc. ... things he apparently wanted her to vote against.
2
@michaels8620 How does forcing a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote, speed up anything? Justice Dems, AOC, and Bernie, have been working on adding more yes votes to congress. Getting enough yes votes in congress is literally the only possible way to ever pass the bill. Also, getting a president in place, that wouldn't veto the bill, moves you closer to being able to pass it. Dore outright backed someone campaigning against the M4A candidate, someone who said M4A was unAmerican. Sitting on the sidelines, in some irrelevant third party, possibly even giving up yes votes in congress, by abandoning those people, gets you nowhere, and might even move you further away. The most popular third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence. That's even less than an increment. Abandoning Nina Turner, abandoning adding another M4A yes vote to congress, gets you no closer. What are Dore, or this guy, proposing that actually gets you closer to being able to pass it? All corporate Dems have to do is amend a bill to the right, make some concessions to the less crazy Republicans, and get enough onboard to pass things without needing squad votes. On the flip side, there's no way to pick up extra votes to the left of progressives, if you lose too many conservative Dem votes on the right wing end of the party.
2
@michaels8620 Yeah, a C-SPAN covered floor vote ... totally samesies as thousands of people marching down a highway, covered by all media. Women's suffrage had a first vote to see how close they were to a supermajority, because the parties weren't as partisan, at the time, and they weren't sure how far off they were. They literally held back the bill, the next session, because they didn't think they had the supermajority yet, and saw absolutely no point in having a guaranteed to fail vote. Where are you getting this repeatedly having failed votes being beneficial from? The $15 got a vote, and even passed the house to get a senate vote. Dore knobs argue it was useless, and just keep bitching about those who got it to stay in for a round of voting and voted for it. How did getting a vote help? Isn't turning it into a hill to die on, and to slander M4A's most ardent congressional supporters, part of what turned it stupid? FTV was dead in the water as soon as Dore, and his knobs, used it to slander AOC, and the vast majority of progressives, which was almost right out of the gate. Yeah, Dore killed his own plan, by being a moron. That's the reason you try to detach the man from his own plan, because he's too hard to defend. If he was easy to defend, there'd be no issue with keeping him attached to his own plan. Don't you think he destroyed any chance of getting any of the 15 progressives he named, on board, the moment he started slandering the first one? Any leverage Hinkle believes the squad has entirely depends on Dems being the majority of the house. This midterm will be a helluva fight to try and keep that majority, especially in those more conservative purple districts. Is there some benefit to progressives becoming a minority within a minority, and having Republicans win the majority?
2
@t-swizzle8102 The guy was an idiot. Drone strikes have dropped to almost nothing, and you Dore knobs are still whining. So contrarian, that you can't see any improvements. Everything is black and white, all or nothing.
1
@BelowMeGoggle No, dimwit. The context was, that AOC said voting "present" on an extremely important, or historical, item was a dodge. What extremely important, or historical, item did she vote "present" on, dingleberry?
1
@BelowMeGoggle The squad would be his allies, ready to vote yes on Civil Rights, helping to add more Civil Rights yes votes to congress, and he wouldn't be stupid enough to slander his only allies in congress. You're a loon.
1
@michaels8620 Calling something "performance art" isn't the same as calling it "stupid". It's just a factual description of what it would have been. In no reality would it have passed. There's already a historical record of those who won't cosign, plus a historical record of committee members who sat on the bill, after Pelosi introduced it, all last session. Likewise, for this session. So, it would have been purely for show, right? "Performance art" is exactly not a hill worth dying on. If you do it, cool. If you don't, whatever. As soon as a certain someone (that you don't want to mention, on a video about a guy spewing that someone's talking points) turned it into a purity test, slandering anyone who didn't immediately jump on board a "fake", "fraud", "sellout", "betrayer", etc., he turned a lot of people off. Part of any good plan is the ability to sell that plan to others, especially those you want to implement the plan. He who shall not be named was a horrible salesman, and his sales team was equally horrible. I think it's less about staying on someone's good side, and more about not feeling it's worth slandering them over it. The party speaker candidate is chosen by simple majority of the Dem caucus. The entire progressive caucus doesn't have the majority needed to be able to pick the party speaker candidate. The corporate Dem majority could keep picking Pelosi over and over and over, or someone worse. All you'd be doing is paralyzing the house, for an indefinite period of time, until a speaker was elected. For what, exactly? What happens when the progressive caucus does get the 15, or so, more seats needed to become the majority of the Dem caucus? You've started an all out intra party war, and they do the same thing, to you. Then what? The only way to actually pass the bill is to get enough yes votes in congress to be able to pass the bill. While he who shall not be named was slandering AOC and Bernie for abandoning M4A, as he himself abandoned Nina Turner, they were on the ground campaigning for Nina Turner, promoting M4A, and fighting to add another M4A yes vote to congress. Bernie, Justice Dems, and AOC, have done more for M4A in a few years, than he has in his entire lifetime.
1
@michaels8620 Most definitely. FDR would have kept doing what he was doing, even if some loudmouth was calling him a "sellout", for making friends with Charles Murphy, who he had previously called a "noxious weed", and telling people to vote for Norman Thomas instead. AOC has outright backed progressives in other districts, campaigning on the ground, fighting to increase numbers, when getting enough numbers is the only way to ever be able to pass anything. The bare minimum is simply working for your own district, and not giving a fuck what goes on in other districts. They never had the numbers to outright remove Pelosi. Already explained that. They could have paralyzed the house, is what they could have done ... no new covid relief, no new unemployment extension, no new child tax credit, no new vaccine funding, etc. ... during a pandemic. Twice before, when the speakership vote was stalemated for a couple months, the house simply adopted a temporary plurality wins rule. So, you might be able to oust her for McCarthy.
1
@jeffvonbergen291 Yeah, I do. I spelled it out. Do you have severe reading comprehension problems? The other dimwit was making out like Republicans and corporate Dems are samesies. They aren't. Corporate Dems suck, but they aren't samesies. How does sitting in an irrelevant third party do anything about Manchin? Even if you magically got enough people on board so that all the progressive caucus seats were actually some perfectly perfect puritan progressive third party, the PPPP party, here's what you'd have ... Trump as president, due to vote splitting in the general, between Bernie and Biden. One seat in the senate, and Pence as the tie breaking vote. In the house, you'd have a Republican plurality, which would only have to work with a handful of corporate Dems, to pass whatever they want. The PPPP would be completely irrelevant. They'd need to become the majority of the house and senate, to be able to pass anything. So far, the most popular third party hasn't won even a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence. Within the party, the progressive caucus is about 15 seats away from becoming the majority of house Dems. They could then pick the party speaker candidate, and set the party agenda for the house. If Dems are the majority of the house, that also means that speaker can assign committee seats, introduce whatever bills they want, and sideline whatever bills they want. There's more power in 15 more seats, within the party, than 100 seats outside the party. Whatever you think of current progressives, running as a Dem is very clearly the more effective way to win a seat in congress, and taking over the party is the shorter path to getting any power.
1