Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

  1. Except they will not listen to anything. We are stopping no one and they are going to do what they want including stacking the court with insane justices for the next generation. I am not sure the left is not still fractured. I still hear bernie was a sell out from elements of the left and that shows what a mess this has become.
    1
  2. hektikvideos random denial of assertions are not an argument either. Google it is an acceptable response when faced with empty with an opponent who thinks nuh uh is a rebuttal.
    1
  3. Joshua Bell not qualified? I said you fan boys would say he won no matter what. Prediction confirmed. If you think Ben convinced anyone our heath care system is the best or money in politics is not an issue then it litterly does not matter what was said as it is clear you had you mind made up before the start and ignored the actual debate.
    1
  4. ***** Preibus headed the GOP which has never pretended to not be bought. The GOP is fully corrupt and they were such losers the voters rejected their own "establishment" candidates who never got out of the gates. Like the DNC they are completely owned and that you thought you elected an outsider is betrayed by the insiders he is going to choose to surrounded him self with. Trump empowers the same cancer that encouraged the dems to stay home or in some cases vote for trump because of the corruption exposed in the DNC. Both parties are fully owned and you can expect more of the same fail under the admin Trump picks. You should not choose the alligators to drain the swamp as it is their home.
    1
  5. ***** He fucking choose the ultimate insider PRIEBUS. He is going to appoint a goldman sachs vp to treasury. These people are INSIDERS!!! They are kings of the "swamp" and that you expect them to fight to drain it is poorly thought out. The fact is the GOP is wholly owned and does not pretend otherwise. Hillary was a bad choice because the clintons moved the democrats to the right and found a way to be as bought as the GOP was. This was thier big plan in a year people were tired of the status quo and the popularity of business as usual was reflected in the results. If you were anti corruption and voted Trump on that basis you are about to be fundamentally betrayed. This is s sure thing and there is almost no chance of it going any other way. We need to gut both parties and it looks like the Dems are going to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, good riddance. The fact is the GOP will not learn thier lesson and will continue to be owned by thier donors. It will take another cycle or so before they try to catch up now. Bottom line, be you left leaning or right leaning we need to fight to get money out of politics totally or we can expect our leaders to continue to sell us out to those who buy them.
    1
  6. ***** I would not hold your breath.  His party is wholly owned and does not even pretend otherwise.  The cabinet he is choosing is made of insiders and lobbyists,  we should expect business a usual and do not expect the economy to rock because as proven tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing but explode the debt and force cuts to programs and services working people use every day but the rich do not need.   
    1
  7. If it turns out to be true .. it is not going to pass before Obama leaves. I expect it to pass after on the GOP terms.
    1
  8. Catherine Folkman Whitford What he said is factually true. That you imagine the GOP is not corrupt and you have not just put the selling out of america on steriods means have not been paying attention. The Dems were corrupt as shown by wiki leaks, that you somehow imagine the GOP is not marks you as delusional. You are in for rude awakening that is if you continue to follow what he does and do not drift off into whatever shangri la you were in before the media spurred you to "action"
    1
  9. Catherine Folkman Whitford We are in agreement that the GOP is more forthright. Some might consider that some kind of statement in thier favour but the fact is the measure is in what they fight for and who they overtly represent not that "honesty". The democrats are owned and hilary represents a tepid weak wolf in sheep's clothing. The answer to her failure is not to put the actual hard core wolves she is trying to copy in charge.
    1
  10. I am actually hopeful that they exposure of the DNC by Russia is the first step to cleaning out the corruption that has been an innate part of it for a long time.   They did sway the election but did so by exposing corruption we should have been aware of anyway if we had been paying attention.   In any case Russia sucks but if they show where our corruption is and help us on the left to make better choices when the next primary comes around. All that being said Oberman's anger is kind of soothing and mirrors what I feel internally.
    1
  11. +SpeedyRemake He does get that .. you have no clue what Jimmy thinks.
    1
  12. Reds1921 The RNC is innately corrupt. The  DNC at least has a chance to clean house and build from the ground up with people who have no interest in bellying up to the corporate cash bar.
    1
  13. They are not cons and do not lick the ass of every clown that agrees with them.
    1
  14. A third party is a really bad idea.   It will split the left and give the corporate dems a home to fight us from effectively handing power to a unified right.   We need to take the party from the corporate sell outs and put their broken ideas out to pasture.  This third party thing is nothing but a licences to hand the GOP control for a long time.
    1
  15. They own what happens in the next couple years. That is the key difference and they can not blame anyone for the failures to come. They have no opposition.
    1
  16. luvcheney1 You love them so much you are happy to see them die as long s you do not contribute to a pool that provides health care for others. You have no idea what the word means
    1
  17. kommisar It is not an act of coercion it is a n act grave indifference to their life, it is not coercive at all and simply you dismiss that person right to live and take it from them. You can can commit murder through your own actions or through an act of inaction to save them why you have the power to. You are guilty of murder of the second type or at best are guilty of being an accessory though inaction. You let them die to save some property and your are far worse than the person who "steals" from you because you step over bodies as you walk through life. The fact is your bullshit spin is hyperbolic emotional bullshit and that is why you use it. It is not "literally stealing" to contributed to the common good. Call it theft if you want to but it is empty bullshit meant to pull at the heart strings of a specific mindset and by the contemporary meaning of the world does not apply. You have options, you can leave and live somewhere else. Health care is oxygen and we will all need it someday. "Not wanting insurance" is a path to certain death or bankruptcy and the ONLY way you avoid one of those fates is to die suddenly. No one sane opts out of health care and that you would deliver it on the basis of how much money is in your wallet ensures children through no fault of their own will die because of your bizarre demand to fly with no health care as freedom. You are arguing to pay double what the rest of the first world pays while letting children die without care and it is empty bullshit. You are killing them through your inaction and in defense of greed and a unwillingness to demand we enrich the vampires in the insurance companies simply so you can opt out. The only ones doing so are those who do can not afford it and your spin is empty sophistry. Of insurance companies choose if you live or die at the point you are ill and need to rely on them paying out. They fight to exclude paying because of "preexisting conditions" or cut you off when you hit your life time cap. They actually had whole departments focused on getting out of their contracts through loop holes to make another buck and were signing the bankruptcy or death warrens of 10 of thousands of american citizens all of whom were paying for insurance. The death panels are the groups who decide to exclude your care for cancer because you had acne when you were child, the murder people to pump up the bottom line and you ignoring that marks you are immoral.
    1
  18. luvcheney1 Except that is not what happened. Your spin literally leaves people to die so spare me morality lecture as your greed and sicking lack of respect for life is showing. You contribute or not that is your choice and that you you choose not to and have to deal with the fallout is not immoral as the other option is to let your neighbors die around you for the right to pay double for a service the rest of first world pays far less.
    1
  19. kommisar Your defense of greed and the right to pay double what the rest of the first world pays with poorer covarage is noted. There is no argument that makes our system attached to freedom and what it represents is robbery to enrich a handful at the cost of lives and is the main reason for bankruptcies in our country. I will take some "corrosion" for the common good if we get better results, no medical bankruptcies and no more deaths to empower greed. Join our society or get the hell out the days of us living like a 3rd world country have to end and clowns like you have to stop pretending that is the way to go.
    1
  20. kommisar It is not a false dichotomy on my part because I am comparing it to what we have today. There is no meaningful or complete proposal even on the table, forget about a working example from your side of the debate. There is no reason to believe in a captive market like health care the insurers will continue to be incentivized to do anything but continue to maximize their profits. The free market is not a magic bullet and does particularly badly in delivering critical services like health care that are needed by both those who have money and those who do not. It is not a commodity whose need is not driven by desire but it is consistently demanded by necessity as a matter of life or death. There has to be some part of you that understands making money is not a good incentive if your service is to provide critical health care and you make more by finding reasons and setting up loop holes in the policy to deny coverage. The choice to pay others health care or not is meaningless if my system is too expensive for a calculated segment of the market to ever join. The system you describe leaves behind the most vulnerable, the very young and the very old to include a profit motive that does nothing but add to the cost of the product while offering no value. The issue of force as you libertarians describe it is meaningless as Americans die or are bankrupted every day for lack of care and I pay double what everyone else who has a public system does. I see no reason and have no examples to point as that makes me believe your imagined/imaginary system would do any better than ours. It is easy spot key areas where it would be worse. Sorry about messing up and pasting my own name in somehow on the last post, it has been corrected. Thanks.
    1
  21. kommisar Your opposition is empty as you do not have an actual proposal of your own. Until you have an answer that is something other than a pipe dream and more substantial than vapor your can forgive others overlooking you baseless claims. You can not expect to be taken seriously until your proposal is more than a pipe dream, it should at least be embryonic. The profit motive as a corrupting element is a key issue in our system. Unless you have a proposal to mitigate the negative effects then your system is faulty and doomed to fail from the start. The free market which is great for driving down the cost of manufactured goods does not work that way inside captive markets like health care. The insurance companies do not make money by providing care but by not providing it. Their incentive will always be to pay out as little as possible no matter what the cost to the lives of their customers is. When all the companies do the same thing the idea of choice for the consumer evaporates. The argument completion will solve the problem is this case is not based on anything but hopeful fantasy. There is no reason to expect prices will fall and we can expect them to rise to a point a certain percentage of can not afford it then to hold as high as they can keep it. There is no incentive to lower costs. Your system has no means of cost control and as it is not concerned with costs because the insurance companies simply raise the rates as prices increase. Higher prices mean higher rates and more profit. They have no incentive to keep health care costs low and the market will charge what it can bear no less. There are plenty of examples where the free market work well but the idea it is a cure all for every problem is empty poorly thought out nonsense. You make this assertion with basically a religious like credulity and empty assertions of your concepts validity. There is no literally no data to back up your claims. As I explained before it much more expensive here because it is treated like a commodity. Doubling down on a failed strategy expecting better results simply does not make sense. We have them most free market profit driven system in the free world but we also have the most expensive and the only one that does not cover all it's citizens while making health care the single our largest reason for bankruptcy. Your proposal does not reduce costs, we know what does and that you hate the answer does not change it. People go bankrupt and die in our country specifically because of our shitty version of for profit private insurance empowering health care. We already pay massive sums of public money to take care of a segment of our population that insurance companies do not even want to talk to and happily dump onto us. The poor and the old. Insurance companies have socialized the costs of the elderly and poor while scooping up the premiums of the young which if in a public system would mitigate those making the cost of care we already pay for go down. The freedom you fight for is the freedom to be slaves to an insurance company greed which will attempt to deny you care while killing and bankrupting Americans. That would not change under any system you propose and in fact would probably be far worse for most of the old and the poor cut off from aid would not be able to afford coverage at all. You go ahead and fight for your freedom to step over bodies on the streets. I would rather live in a society that cares about its citizens lives and takes that roll seriously. In the end we will win this war of ideas because our policy is based on facts/what works and not just empty rhetoric about force/theoretical pipe dreams.
    1
  22. ***** That is heartening, because the agreement was the only thing that stopped the bombers from flying. I hope your analysis is right and I should have known that donalds proclamations are only ever half thought out. Thanks.
    1
  23. ***** Pathetic, this does not speak to HIS understanding of the situation even as your reasonable explanation puts me at ease. My concern was based on what Trump said he will do and I hope you are right and can not do it.
    1
  24. ***** You are probably right and your spin makes a great deal of sense. I should have looked into it more before listening to the proclamations of a clown who only ever half knows what he is doing. I appreciate what you said.
    1
  25. ***** You are correct. She copied the GOP which now has full control of everything because she was so tone deaf and did not see this coming. Hillary's worst problems was she "triangulated" to become exactly the GOP in cycle the GOP establishment candidates were crushed by thier oven version of an outsider who will now be playing ball because he was never anti establishment. That anyone expects a silver spoon entitled con artist to look out for the people means they are desperate for the image they lay on top of him hiding who he really is.
    1
  26. Your views are way up .. you are nailing it Jimmy.
    1
  27. +Mephistahpheles I agree, I just do not think he will actually tank it. They are stopping Obama from passing it because if it goes through now they will not have the power to rebrand it and make "changes" as they would like. I expect another version of the same deal will be passed on thier own terms once trump is in office. If they do tank it I will be the first to cheer but based on thier past and who owns them I do not expect that to be the case.
    1
  28. ***** He will go back to the table and "amend" it.  He will then say it is now good and like the trained seals you clowns are you will support it. 
    1
  29. ***** Then perhaps shut up and do not comment on things you know nothing about. Mark my words half wit my predictions are based on the fact the GOP is fully invested in the deal and have been waving the flag of every single free trade deal we have made. They are fully owned by the interests that wrote the deal and one way or another it will go through.
    1
  30. ***** You know very little it appears. Your generalities aside not every american is part of the religious right.
    1
  31. ***** The "regressive left" is  tiny minority who does not represent liberals and are called regressive because of their illiberal authoritarian tendencies.  We agree on both sides there are fails
    1
  32. Krowman84 Then you are a troll or do not know what it means and are ignorantly acting like one.
    1
  33. Because you are ignorant of what the term means does not mean You tube should apply your dishonest narrative.
    1
  34. How is Russia moving troops to it's borders first not a provocation? The fact is the NATO troop movements were at the request of the countries where they were moved because they felt threatened. Who's but Russians buy the contention NATO is moving troops to the border to invade Russia?. The idea that the entire western alliance is conspiring to attack Russia is a real tough sell to the sane. This is nothing but Russian spin to absolve them of any responsibility for escalation as it paints the entire west as eager to attack Russia when that is not remotely true. The fact is Russia has its eye on states formerly under it's control and that they have already annexed territory should remove any doubt about the reason for their actions. If a NATO country is not allowed to have NATO troops in it because that is "provocation" why even be in it?
    1
  35. He shit his pants to stay out of the military, he is a chicken hawk big talking pussy.
    1
  36. Genius .. if he is going to run as democrat he should not run. Business as usual promoted .. that is fucking stupid.
    1
  37. Ya liberals are the lunatics .. lol.
    1
  38. This is especially true as both parties are bought by the same people.
    1
  39. They care because using nerve agents is abominable and the nerve agent is Russian. Asking Russia how they lost control of that resource is a very valid question at the very least. Answers to who did this start with the Russians. I agree there does seem to be a rush to judgment.
    1
  40. They barely did it last time and are not so powerful they can not be beat.
    1
  41. Everything you say is true but she is only bad if you compare her to any one of two other people in the race. I think her stance on torture should be a stumbling block for her but do not want to dig on her too hard as she is good on almost everything else and is great compared to any establishment lackey. I have already been attacked by progressives for pointing out her flaws even as I make it clear I like her, just not as much as I like Bernie. Bernie is hands down better and once the race starts we will see that reflected in his support.
    1
  42. It is a fact that they have done similar things before. It is because it sends a very public message to other would be spy's. Understanding how someone got the Russian nerve agent is the key to understanding who did it.
    1
  43. Khashon Haselrig Russia should still be able to say how the product got there. If not their competence to guard to dangerous material should be deeply in question. Nothing is going to come from this saber rattling anyway, it did not last time either.
    1
  44. Unless you look too closely and then deeply problemaatic issues become evident. She should be a distant 3rd or 4th choice for all the progrssives she has been courting.
    1
  45.  @coryascott  by every single poll that person is bernie.
    1
  46.  @kellyhallidayiiify  Bernie is #1 and she is a very very pale copy of him. I also see Warren as better because she has a more consistent track record and public statements. Hillary? Not a single establishment originated candidate should see daylight so I put Tulsi at 3rd or 4th. I like Tulsi, but she has real problems on a few issues that should be deal breakers in a primary as they directly fly in the face of the image she appears to have carefully constructed.
    1
  47. Don't you see you live in a fact free universe where you just make shit up.
    1
  48. He is making money off the situation, he may be a bull shitter but he still has more credibility than trump or anyone in his cabinet.
    1
  49. They are publicly shitting on democrats if you care to look.
    1
  50. Jimmy if you break the TOS of your electric company they can cut you off. Same with the phone company, in those cases the TOS is attached to payment and in the case of electric service safe use. The idea they can cut your off randomly for what you believe is not attached to reality.
    1