Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

By your "logic", Jimmy, you've "censored" the president, by not airing his entire speech.
1
You can stop campaigning for Trump now, Jimmy. He lost.
1
Australia's covid death rate would translate into about 26k total US covid deaths, instead of approaching 800k. They're doing fantastic.
1
She just used her massive platform and PAC to help get more pro-M4A progressives elected to congress, going against DCCC backed corporate Dems. Adding enough yes votes to congress is the very thing you need to do to ever pass a bill, it's the very thing you'd still need to do after a failed vote. Pretending she's not fighting turns Jimmy's own "plan" into have a failed vote and then not fight.
1
AOC just used her platform and PAC to help get more pro-M4A progressives elected to congress, going against DCCC backed corporate Dems. It makes no sense to claim that's doing nothing, when that's still what you'll need to do after a failed vote. That would mean Jimmy's plan is to have a vote and then "do nothing".
1
Sorry ... where was the part where she made a campaign promise to paralyze the house, during a pandemic, freezing any new covid relief, new unemployment extensions, new vaccine funding, etc.? Hey, Dore knob, how did Pelosi win with only 216 votes? You claimed winning with anything less than 218 was impossible. Please don't tell me that a political mastermind, with a well thought out plan, that totally depended on how house voting works, didn't actually know how house voting works.
1
Meh, that's kind of like saying you are "part" of your house, because you live in it, and then assigning your feelings to your house. Your house doesn't give a crap about you. Have a nice day.
1
Only a moron would think temporary measures are an actual move left.
1
Most of the older voters, who aren't voting for Bernie, aren't even in YouTube or Twitter comment sections, interacting with Bernie supporters. They're getting their info from MSM, which has been spouting endless bullshit.
1
@Atmost11 Most seniors aren't even on YouTube or Twitter, at all, let alone political forums. Maybe Facebook, interacting with their family, but likely not joining political groups there either, for the most part. The internet is mostly irrelevant to who is voting Biden over Bernie. When it comes to younger voters, more of whom are on the internet, a majority are voting Bernie over Biden. Most older voters will just hear this bullshit outrage spouted on MSM, probably never have actually interacted with online Bernie supporters themselves, and have no clue what it's actually like.
1
You just argued in a video that Pelosi and corporate Dems would rather lose to Republicans than progressives. That could have your "plan" end with Pelosi not giving in to progressive threats, not holding a M4A vote, progressives then abstaining electing her speaker, and a Republican speaker of the House getting elected.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 The speaker election doesn't require a majority of the house, it requires a majority of votes cast. "Present" isn't casting a vote.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 Absolute majority of votes cast, not absolute majority of the house. So the plan can't be to simply vote "present". That counts as abstaining, not casting a vote.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 They'd have to find someone to volunteer to not just be unsupportive, but openly opposed to the rest of the party. Then enough of them would also have to be openly opposed and vote for that someone, instead of Pelosi. That way they'd have cast votes, and Pelosi could lose without giving Republicans the majority of votes cast. Then you'd have a paralyzed house, and all the corporate Dems, Republicans, and the corporate media, would likely point at those progressives and blame them for the house not being able to accomplish anything. Jimmy's plan isn't completely risk free.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 Right, you have to vote for someone, for the Republican to only win a plurality of votes cast. Then there'd be a revote. If you abstain, then the Republican wins the majority of votes cast, and is speaker. Yeah, I think it's a voice vote anyway.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 Another complication is figuring out if any Republicans won't be voting for their guy, McCarthy. He has had a bunch of Republicans abstain, before. If you don't know that, then you don't know how many people you need to get on board to make Pelosi lose.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 The whole point of my post is what if Pelosi treats the threat as a bluff, and you go through with not voting for her. Either a) you abstain and she loses to a Republican, or b) you vote for someone else and she loses by a plurality not a majority, forcing a revote.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 So you make your protest votes, Pelosi doesn't get elected speaker, it returns to caucus. How do you then get a progressive elected while you're in the minority? Corporate Dems can keep picking Pelosi, or even someone more right wing, and keep going back to the house. How long do you paralyze the house, while they, and the corporate media, propagandize it and blame you for not being able to vote on anything, like minimum wage, or whatever? AOC just used her progressive PAC to help get more pro-M4A progressives elected to congress, she actually made a little progress, while Jimmy the armchair quarterback was whining about shit Obama was saying. Corporate Dems openly stated that's why she didn't get the committee seat she wanted. She threw some punches, by endorsing and helping fund progressives primarying corporate Dems, and they punched back. And now she's also getting stabbed in the back for her efforts. Progressives should be crying foul at Pelosi, atm, not crying "fake", "shill", and "wimp", at AOC. Primaries are part of the democratic process. There shouldn't be a penalty for it. That's anti-democratic. Have her back, instead of a knife in it, over a tactics disagreement.
1
@l.w.paradis2108 There's no disagreement on M4A. It's a debate on tactics, both Jimmy's proposed force the vote tactic ... what it would accomplish exactly, whether there's any risk ... and also his own tactic on how to "pressure" (slander) progressives in congress.
1
Ooo, a circle jerk. That'll be productive. Can you have the balls to do your slander routine in front of Cornel West this time? I'd like to see his reaction, as he praises progressives and you call them "fakes", "shills", "wimps", or whatnot.
1
@gerwin07 Last time, Jimmy used words like he was "pressuring". Have him do his actual "pressuring" routine in front of Cornel, who was saying nice things about progressives, and Jimmy didn't have the balls to contradict him.
1
AOC just used her platform and PAC to help get more pro-M4A progressives elected to congress. You know, that thing you'll still have to do once the vote fails. The only "fake", "shill", and "wimp", would be the guy stabbing her in the back, while she's doing the actual real fighting against DCCC backed corporate Dems, by helping to primary progressives against them and increasing M4A support in congress. Here's a brilliant idea ... mislead people into thinking that even progressives aren't on their side, then promote another third party, start from scratch, and then not even win a seat in congress over the next few decades let alone M4A. You might as well be shilling for the Republican party, Jimmy.
1
C'mon Jimmy. They're private companies and their servers are their private property. It's not censorship, if my newspaper and magazine store doesn't stock the NY Post. It's my f*cking store, and I'll stock what I want. Likewise, they have every right to pick and choose what they allow on their private property. "Censorship" is when the authorities do it. Let me on your show, or you're censoring me. Lol
1
And? Did he convince them to support having a guaranteed to fail M4A vote? Because that's been your purity test for who is an ally, for weeks. You now seem to have broadened that to outright anti-M4A far right libertarian Boogaloo Bois, who completely disagree on the economics front.
1
Still never saw any US commentators call him out about how a VAT doesn't tax businesses. In fact, a VAT is specifically designed to not tax businesses, in order to avoid double taxation. He was either completely clueless as to how his key tax plan actually works, or completely full of shit.
1
It doesn't take "balls" to compare hospitalization rates per total population, to death rates per total confirmed cases. It takes pure stupidity, or dishonesty.
1
@egobrain6826 If he knows full well that the hospitalization rates are based on total population ... because he 100% totally read the article, and he 100% isn't a lying grifter, or a moron ... then the number he would be comparing is the 800k deaths in a 330m total population, which is a population mortality rate of 0.24%. There's nothing incompatible with a 0.24% population mortality rate a 0.9% population hospitalization rate. It means about a quarter of those hospitalized die. The hospitalization rate for those with covid has been estimated up to 5%. Nothing incompatible with that and the current US case fatality rate of 1.5%, or the covid infection fatality rate, which has been estimated at about 1% all along. The infection fatality rate would suggest that 800k deaths means that there have actually been about 80m infected Americans (many of those missed are probably because the US testing rate - tests per confirmed case - has been pathetically low). A 0.9% hospitalization rate for the total population, is about 3m hospitalizations, which is a 3.75% hospitalization rate based on total estimated infected, and a 5.63% hospitalization rate based on confirmed cases. The 1% infection fatality rate is close to a quarter of the 3.75% infection hospitalization rate. The 1.5% case fatality rate is close to a quarter of the 5.63% case hospitalization rate. All the numbers are quite compatible. If anything, Dore's Gallup numbers help confirm all the others are fairly accurate. He's just stupid, or dishonest, as are you.
1
@egobrain6826 No. If the hospitalizations rates, you're going to go dig up "death rates" to compare to, are based on total population, then the only honest comparison is the overall population mortality rate. They very clearly started with the Gallup article. To compare infection fatality rates to population hospitalization rates would be equally stupid, or dishonest. Ahh, no, the infection fatality rate is about 1%, for developed countries. If you want to compare them to countries with a life expectancy of 55, then that's also dishonest, or stupid.
1
@egobrain6826 No. He was obviously starting with the hospitalization rates in a newer Gallup article, then went searching for the covid "death rate", and somehow couldn't find any from the past year and a half. If you're starting with hospitalization rates of the total population, then the comparable "death rate" is the overall population mortality rate. "October 30, 2020 -- A new study conducted by researchers at Imperial College London found the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio is about 1.15% of infected people in high-income nations and 0.23% in low-income nations." "The disparity between high and low-income nations is due largely to facts that high-income nations tend to have larger number of elderly in their populations whereas low-income nations’ population tend to skew youngers." Averaging developed countries with countries that have a life expectancies of 55, is nonsensical.
1
So you're not manufacturing consent for going third party, by portraying progressives who just increased the M4A yes vote count in congress, as evil doers, "fakes", "shills", "sellouts", or whatnot? You haven't manufactured consent for an idea, by misinforming people about potential risks, by slandering those who do mention potential risks, by overexaggerating support, overexaggerating benefits, etc.? You've both convinced people to be impatient, and to take a third party path that likely won't even win a seat in congress in the next 50 years (the Libertarian party turns 50 in a couple years), let alone get you M4A anytime soon. You've convinced people that progressive politicians doing their thing to increase the M4A yes vote count is considered doing nothing, but that your idea to increase the M4A yes vote count is considered doing something. You've convinced people that spreading progressive ideas, including M4A, on social media platforms a ton larger than yours doesn't count as fighting, but you spreading your ideas on your much smaller platform counts as you fighting.
1
Editors asking for a rewrite isn't "censorship". The Times not covering the Post's many UFO and Bigfoot stories, isn't "censorship". Me not stocking the Post in my store, isn't "censorship". Get a grip.
1
I love the subtitle names, "Mary Matace" and "do me Dore". You should stick with them.
1
Why are you so proud of being a moron? No vaccine is 100% effective. A tiny percentage of vaccinated people do still get polio. A larger percentage of vaccinated still get measles and mumps, and the mumps vaccine doesn't last for life. About 50% of vaccinated still get the flu, and is the vaccine is only good for one flu season. And they're all made the old fashioned way. How effective a vaccine is, and how oong it lasts, depends more on the type of virus. Anyone who expects a COVID vaccine to work the same as a polio vaccine, is a complete and utter moron.
1
Trump did that? The guy you promoted as the better option for progressiveness in 2016? Weird.
1
Stop bullshitting. You don't care about others having healthcare. In 2016, you promoted Trump as a better option, not caring if that might lead to the repeal of the ACA and millions losing their healthcare, including people with preexisting conditions. During the 2020 primaries, you promoted Tulsi ("Medicare choice" aka public option) instead of Bernie (M4A), not caring about getting the better healthcare plan, and not caring that you might peel away enough votes from the more viable progressive and let Biden win. You spent the general basically running an attack ad campaign against Trump's only viable opponent, again not caring if that would lead to the ACA being completely repealed, not caring if he killed thousands of more Americans, and no longer advocated for getting even a public option, or the Medicare age decrease that would put millions more on Medicare. Plus, you're promoting yet another third party that won't even get you a seat in congress in the next 50 years, let alone get you M4A, and could just split progressive voting enough to lose the gains they've made within the Dem party, handing it back to corporate Dems, and let Republicans rule for decades, possibly destroying the healthcare system even more. If anyone is a "fake", "shill", "sellout", or whatnot, it's clearly you, Jimmy. AOC backed Bernie over Biden, Biden over Trump, and just helped get more pro-M4A progressives elected to congress. Adding more yes votes to congress is the only thing that will ever get M4A passed, failed show vote or no failed show vote.
1
@resistapathy You're against the "status quo" of adding more yes votes to congress ... exactly the same thing you'd have to do after a failed show vote anyway? You're incoherent.
1
Man you guys are dishonest twits. You make it sound like the report was made by the inquiry. It was a report presented to the inquiry, by a debunked charlatan.
1