Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Jimmy Dore Rages Over Ryan Grim’s Booster Shot" video.
-
@Bet Your lunch How did you stop Obama in 2013?
All I've heard Dore knobs blather about is the Steele dossier. Mueller didn't rely on the Steele dossier. The Mueller report included some 200 pages of information sharing (collusion), that didn't amount to criminal conspiracy. Mueller indicted 19 Russians, 3 Russian companies, a bunch of Trump cronies, and only didn't indict Jr and Kushner because he said it would be hard to prove they "willfully" broke the law, not because they didn't. So, are we supposed to believe that Republican investigator Mueller, the DNC, the FBI (run by Republicans for 6 of the past 10 presidential terms), Republicans like Romney, and Australian officials, were all in cahoots to frame Trump and make Pence president? Occam's Razor would suggest it's just a simple fact that Dumpty was getting info from Russians. Also, there was evidence of obstruction, which Republicans onve considered good enough to impeach Clinton over.
5
-
5
-
@alexandermiller1741 Greenwald doesn't seem to know what "free speech" is. He ranted about "free speech" because editors, whose jobs have included asking writers for rewrites since the dawn of publishing, asked him for a rewrite. He has gone off about losing "free speech" on social media, when there was never such a thing as "free speech" on someone else's private property (which also applies to his former publisher), to begin with. If you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property, then you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property blathering about whatever you want. I haven't heard him, or "socialist" Jimmy, let people know that free speech would come with public ownership. I haven't heard them criticize the far right for creating giant corporations, with so much power. I haven't heard them defend the left, and point out that giant corporations, run by centibillionaires, some of whom donate more to Republicans and whose algorithms promote more right wing crap, aren't leftist, in the least. I haven't heard them point out that inciting an insurrection isn't even protected speech. Etc. They seem to be coming at it from an entirely right wing "free speech" angle.
4
-
@Bet Your lunch Ummm, infighting is exactly what Jimmy wanted. He started slandering everyone and anyone who didn't go for his "strategy" to get a performance art vote on M4A.
AOC never once ran on paralyzing, or threatening to paralyze, the house. Jimmy lied and pretended she didn't do what she said. AOC did say she wanted to cause a "ruckus" means, based on whatever "ruckus" means to her. Jimmy made up what "ruckus" meant, to him, and again lied that she wasn't doing what she said, as if something is objectively a "ruckus", or not. An old lady, thinking your music is a bit too loud, can think you're causing a "ruckus", ffs. It's a fairly subjective term. AOC backed 20 pro-M4A progressives and helped add a few more M4A yes votes to congress. That actually gets you closer to ever being able to pass the bill than a performance art vote does. On that, alone, she has done more for M4A, in 2 years, than Dore has in his entire lifetime, and more than any third party, that can't win a single seat in congress. Dore made a big deal about where was she on M4A march day, as if she was in hiding. Well, it was public knowledge that she was doing public rallies with Nina Turner, that day, promoting M4A at those rallies, and trying her best to help add yet another M4A advocate to congress. Dore, on the other hand, publicly abandoned Nina Turner, on his show, publicly abandoned trying to add another M4A advocate to congress.
Also, remember, that Dore promoted Trump (platform: toss 10m poor Americans off of Medicaid expansion) over Clinton (platform: add 40m older Americans to Medicare expansion), he promoted Tulsi (platform: public option) over Bernie (platform: M4A), and ran a constant attack ad campaign against Trump's (still wanting to toss millions off of Medicaid expansion) only remaining viable opponent Biden (platform: public option and Medicare expansion). Then, he tries to pass himself off as the one true champion of healthcare. Rofl!
You have got the wrong fraud. Dore is a grifter. He doesn't care if anyone gets, or loses, healthcare. He says one thing, but then proposes the worst healthcare option.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Bet Your lunch Aaron and Jimmy have blathered on, and on, about 2 dissenting opinions on a single, no fault finding, investigation. 2 dissenting opinions don't debunk that single investigation, let alone the numerous others, that had zero dissenting opinions, or the numerous follow up fault finding investigations that had zero dissenting opinions. That no fault finding investigation, they keep blathering about, didn't even begin until after, the US, and others, had bombed Syria (2018, not 2013), and the final report wasn't out until almost a year later. The report had absolutely nothing to do with anyone's decision to bomb Syria. It's a big nothingburger.
There was a chemical weapons attack, just the month before. It had a no fault investigation, with zero dissenting opinions. It had a fault finding follow up investigation, that faulted Syria, with zero dissenting opinions. There have been hundreds of accounts of Syrian chemical weapons use since 2013. 2 dissenting opinions on a single no fault investigation, doesn't erase all of those.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DaraParsavand Before getting to Assange, Dore first agreed with the right wing framing of Trump being banned from social media. He didn't point out that there's no such thing as free speech on someone else's private property. He didn't point out that Republicans are the primary supporters of corporations having so much power. He didn't point out that public ownership would give you free speech rights. He didn't point out that inciting an insurrection isn't even protected speech, under the first amendment. Nope, just agreed with Tucker's right wing framing.
Then, and this interview was just as the second impeachment was getting underway, Dore threw Tucker, and his audience, the off topic bone of letting them know he considered the first impeachment to be a sham, helping to reinforce that, in their minds, for the second impeachment.
Finally, he got to Assange. WikiLeaks has been leaning right, in the information it's collecting and releasing. Right wingers love it. So how, exactly, is Assange an entirely leftist issue, at all? Tucker, himself, had already done multiple pro Assange pieces, starting 2 years before Jimmy was even on. There was no disagreement, or debate, on that topic, either.
What did Dore accomplish, exactly?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@klauskinski5969 So, Dore and Aaron have clearly explained the fact that the report they kept blathering about didn't actually assign blame, as per Russian UN demands on every first round investigation? They clearly explained that the investigation didn't even start until after the US, and others, had already bombed Syria? They clearly explained the fact that the no fault final report didn't even come out until almost a year after the bombings? Meaning, it's a blatantly obvious fact that the report was never used by anyone as grounds to bomb Syria.
They've clearly explained the fact that there have been several of these no fault finding investigations, with zero dissenting opinions, since 2013? They've clearly explained the fact that there have also been several fault finding follow up investigations, with zero dissenting opinions, most finding fault with Syria, since 2013? They've clearly explained that, just the month before the incident they keep blathering about, there was another chemical weapons attack, which went through both rounds of investigations, with zero dissenting opinions, and found fault with Syria?
You know it's possible to both not support the US, and others, unilaterally deciding to bomb whoever they want, as well as accept the fact that the Syrian government is complete shit, and has committed numerous human rights abuses, including using chemical weapons on its own citizens? Dore and Aaron seem to make out like it has to be one, or the other. If you don't agree with them, that Syria did no wrong, then you're a US government shill, or something.
1
-
@klauskinski5969 1. What's wrong?
2. "Honest" = reports you like, I take it. Dozens of reports, with zero dissenting opinions, have shown Syria to have been using chemical weapons, since 2013, including an attack just the month before the one Dore and Aaron keep blathering about.
3. Aaron wasn't on the ground, sniffing clothes, at the time. There were, however, other reporters who were on the ground, at the time, who did smell chlorine. Yes, I think inhumane dictators can do all kinds of "retarded" shit. Why do you have so much faith that inhumane dictators are very smart and sane?
4. You're dodging that, going on and on, raging, about a report that was completely irrelevant to the decision to bomb, is idiotic. And, like I said, you can both accept that Syria commits terrible human rights abuses, including using chemical weapons, and still be against the US unilaterally bombing other countries.
5. No, it's blatantly obvious that you have a bias against dozens of reports, that had zero dissenting opinions, judging them "honest" based on your desired outcome. I've addressed exactly what they have talked about. You're the one creating some strawman, that I didn't argue.
1
-
@klauskinski5969 1. That doesn't clarify what you're talking about.
2. No. UN inspectors never said Saddam had nuclear weapons, and I didn't say to take the US' word for anything. You're either ignorant, or dishonest ... quite possibly both.
3. It was 9 days after the incident, ffs. Just how long do you think chlorine sticks around in the air for? Non white doctors, and rescue crews, were in there before that.
Rofl. History has shown plenty of dictators doing stupid or insane things, and plenty of things that get them bombed, or attacked.
4. You have severe reading comprehension problems, on top of being ignorant. I didn't take Dore and Mate's positions. They're the ones that keep rambling on about a specific report, as if it affected anyone's decision making. It didn't. It's a nothingburger they keep going on and on about. That was what I said from the start, so have no idea how it magically turns into a contradiction.
5. UN inspectors didn't support the US' claim that Saddam still had WMDs, dimwit. Dissenting opinions, in that case, would have said there were WMDs. You seem to know nothing about what happened, leading up to the war with Iraq. Look at who is funding? The UN was funding inspections. They do not have a history of supporting the US' other WMD claims, and Russia (Assad supporter) could veto whatever it wanted (and did veto a bunch of proposals). The multiple incidents that went through two rounds of investigations is because even Russia accepted the conclusions of the first round.
"Risk publicly their life"?! Rofl!!! Who has been killed, or even harmed, for having a dissenting opinion, or endlessly blathering support for dissenting opinions? You're a loon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessea5044 Holy hell, I can see how you'd be a Dore fan. Those are simply facts, associated with being vaccinated. They are all included in the word "vaccinated". Being "vaccinated" means: having reduced odds of catching and carrying the virus (only breakthrough cases will possibly catch and carry the virus); having reduced viral load, even if you are a breakthrough case that catches the virus (the vaccine tends to make it a much milder case), and also a reduced time of being contagious (the vaccine speeds up recovery rates for breakthrough cases).
So, is it accurate to say, "You are not protecting anyone else, by getting vaccinated, you propagandist at The Hill."?
Is it not a fact that, all those things included with the word "vaccinated", does protect others, as well as yourself? If you are less likely to catch and carry the virus, aren't you less likely to pass it on to others? If you do have a breakthrough case, which is milder, with less of a viral load, aren't you less likely to pass on a severe case of the virus? If you do have a breakthrough case, but are contagious for a shorter period of time, aren't you less likely to spread it to as many people as an unvaccinated carrier?
Isn't that statement, by Jimmy, completely inaccurate?
1
-
@klauskinski5969 AOC never once promoted paralyzing the house, or even threatening to paralyze the house. That's Dore knob slander.
Dore's was a "plan" to get a performance art vote, that doesn't get you anywhere closer to ever passing M4A. Actually adding M4A yes votes to congress, as Justice Dems and AOC have helped do, actually gets you closer to ever being able to pass the bill. He used that performance art "plan" to slander anyone who didn't go along with him.
He lied to everyone, that his unamended wouldn't have handed the speakership to McCarthy. It would have. He slandered anyone who pointed it out. Dore's unamended "plan" was to have 15 progressives simply "withhold" their votes, to "not vote for" Pelosi. His original wording, repeated numerous times, before others amended it, implied simply abstaining. He never mentioned a need to cast protest votes. For every 2 empty seats, absentees, or abstentions, the threshold needed to win is lowered by 1. 2 empty seats, plus 15 abstentions, would lower the threshold to 210. Even if every other Dem voted Pelosi, she could only get 207. If every Rep voted McCarthy, he'd have gotten 211, and won. Dore is a complete and utter moron. A "good lefite" that has repeatedly promoted handing power to Republicans.
1
-
@klauskinski5969 No. Dore shows her saying one thing, claims she said something else, and morons lap it up. Show me a single speech, or video, where AOC ever ran on paralyzing, or threatening to paralyze, the house.
Votes on bills are not samesies as impeachment votes, ffs. Every new session of congress, you already get a new list of names of members of congress who won't sign on to the M4A bill. There was already a list of names of those who wouldn't sign onto the bill, during a pandemic. Pelosi actually introduced the M4A bill, last session. The parliamentarian sent it to committees. You also have a list of names of committee members who let the bill die, during a pandemic. The bill has been reintroduced, this session, and is again sitting in committees. You've got a list of names of committee members who are currently sitting on the bill, that you could be harrassing to take the bill up. Instead, you lot just keep slandering M4A's most ardent congressional supporters.
How has letting Republicans win, again, and again, instead of keeping them out of power, benefitted anyone who isn't rich?
Now you're slandering this, and other channels. The idea is stick to trying to take over the party. The 30 year old broader progressive caucus is about 15 seats away from becoming the majority of house Dems. The Justice Dems have replaced about a dozen corporate Dems, in just 4 years. AOC used her platform and PAC to back 20 other pro-M4A progressives, and helped add a few more to congress, in just 2 years. Dore promotes a route that hasn't won the most popular third party a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence, hasn't won the most popular progressive third party a single seat in congress in its 20 year existence. He promotes a fantasy, that the third party route would be quicker, and also promotes the fantasy that some third party will only ever produce perfectly perfect incorruptible puritan progressives, when we have former Green candidate, Kyrsten Sinema, as evidence that's not true.
The cycle has been to give up on Dems and let Republicans win, over and over. It's moronic. Treat the primaries as the major progressive battlefield, but still vote in the general to never have Republicans in power again, even if you lose the primaries. You would have wanted Clinton or Biden voters to turn around and vote Bernie, vote blue no matter who, if he had won the primaries, right? Or would you have wanted to see Bernie lose in the generals, and see Trump win, like a "true" progressive?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1