Opinion Is Jimmy Dore right wing now?

[filthybliss]

Basically this, anyone that isn't lockstep with the party is ostracized. Matt Taibbi, Russel Brand, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Joe Rogan have all received the same treatment.

You lost me with Russell Brand and Greenwald. Both are just contrarian grifters.

 

[filthybliss]

He's following in the exact footsteps of Dave Rubin.

1. Fail at stand up comedy.
2. Join The Young Turks
3. Realize it's far more lucrative to join the right-wing grift game
4. Do the "i'm a liberal who only criticizes liberals" schtick.

He doesn’t just “criticize liberals”, he jacks off Trump constantly…

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who said i do any of that? This thread isnt about Trump. Its about Jimmy dore.

Um, right. And Dore looks the other way when it comes to Trump's corruption, incompetence, and authoritarianism, while making false charges against Trump's opponents. What's the principle that leads to such behavior?

 

[steveflynn]

Firstly, thats an opinion. Second, people of principle MAY beleive that (i doubt it) but as i stated and stand by they are being forced out of the democrat party with fake purity tests. There are people in this thread saying asking for a congressional vote on Medicare for all is proof of republican leaning and is weaponizing politics against democrats who ran on medicare for all. Do you not see how stupid that is and how it effects people who operate on principle?

Well, it’s very stupid and asinine to support republicans instead of democrats because not all democrats support Medicare for all

 

[Jack V Savage]

One thing that will cause both parties to shift their platform, and we are already seeing it happen in real time, is the death of cable television and the way people consume media. Right wing Internet media is turning into a big money operation similar to how Fox News built a juggernaut during the 90s and 2000s.

What policy changes do you think have resulted from that?

Another thing is public education. You touched on it in your post and we are seeing uneducated voters shift further to the right while more educated voters are shifting left. We know what's going to happen if right wing chuds are allowed to continue to destroy education. And this will have massive ripple effects beyond political ideology.

I think the main effect from that is the right being less supportive of markets (and especially international free trade) and the left being more supportive of markets. It's changed the character of the movements a bit (I think that's responsible for the big CTism shift), and it's led to a huge competence gap when it comes to staffing and advisers. This is something that Republican partisans will publicly push back on, but Republican politicians complain about it a lot.

That was a big part of Trump's failure to get anything done on infrastructure, even after publicly announcing that it was a priority and despite bipartisan agreement that it was needed. So we ended up getting Biden's infrastructure deal instead, which was a bit different from one a competent Republican administration would have done. So that's another area where educational polarization affects policy, but it's kind of subtle (not as dramatic as Xes used to favor Y, but not anymore).

Decline of religion in America is no doubt having a big impact on political shifts as well. In 1976, 91% of the country considered themselves to be Christian. In 2016 it was 73.7%. in 2022, that number fell to 64%. It will be interesting to see if this number increases or declined over the next few decades as the right continues to gut education and continues to push for indoctrination of children into this bullshit. We are seeing them force it up on kids in schools in red states. I kinda doubt they can win this fight though. That cat is kinda already out of the bag on this one. Feel like it's going to be harder and harder to get people to believe in skyman rhetoric.

I think that's partly behind the GOP reliance on courts to get policy done. Religious fanatics no longer see pushing their issues as a political winner or something they can do legislatively, so they've redirected energies to filling courts. Again, there are policy effects but it's not leading to changes in stances.

Techbro billionaires maybe considered a new issue I guess. Not sure if they are really much different than standard rich cunts of the past though. This goes hand in hand with point #1 and cable television dying out. People like Elon Musk are buying up their own propaganda outlets online. China has basically neutered the Internet over there. American conservatives are starting to do that here. We are already seeing states with drivers license requirements to watch porn online lmao (what could go wrong?). Techbro billionaires like Elon seem a little more dangerous than billionaires of the past imo. Seems a lot easier to stamp out opposition online than it does in print, especially when they decide to finally start going full China. Will be interesting to see how successful they are. My guess is that it will be much more successful than the war on music in the 80s and 90s due to the power that telecom and ISP companies have.

Big businesses naturally care most about deregulation and cutting taxes on big businesses. The Tech industry was an aberration while it was growing, and it still relies on a heavily educated workforce, which pushes things a little to the left, but management is increasingly acting like an old, entrenched industry that still has to keep left-wing employees happy. I don't anticipate any change in what political parties do as a result of that, though.

Corporatism is kind lumped in with all this stuff and has been an ongoing issue since basically forever at this point. But this was really exacerbated when the court system ruled that corporations can dump unlimited money and bribes into American politics. Eventually, this issue is something that I think will push policy further to the left. I find it hard to believe that a country with 300 million people and counting will continue to put up with it. Republicans and Democrats agree on this (the people not the politicians). Eventually the Republican voters will catch on and shift away from "deregulation" lol and realize that this shit is just enriching corporations and harming regular citizens. Not sure what is going to trigger that point, but I believe it is going to be this election. Trump will be too old to run again, their cult of personality will be gone and they will be left with people like Ted Cruz and Ron Desantis who people just generally detest as soon as they open their mouths on a national stage. These guys thrive in state level politics, but once they are front and center on a national scale, people just make fun of their fake ideology. The wild card is if a new cult of personality pops up for them. It just doesn't seem as likely though. Trump is both uniquely crazy, dumb, compulsive liar and charismatic all rolled into one. It just seems unlikely that they will find somebody else like this in the near future. We see who the techbros picked. JD Vance lmao. Vivek could have pulled something like this off, but he's the wrong skin color for them. After that, I don't really know. A lot of these grifters like Vance are very intelligent, but that fucks them over trying to pull off the Trump grift. It makes It too obvious that they're fake as fuck.

I don't think there's any evidence that CU has had an impact on national-level policies, but it has helped Republicans in state-level elections. That's not a party policy change, but changing the mix of who wins elections changes enacted policies.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, it’s very stupid and asinine to support republicans instead of democrats because not all democrats support Medicare for all

Yeah, 100% of Republicans are against it, and 10% or so of Democrats are so that means ... support Republicans winning more elections? Doesn't make any sense if you really believe that that's his thinking.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You lost me with Russell Brand and Greenwald. Both are just contrarian grifters.

Taibbi too. He's even donating to Trump this time. It's telling that he cites people who are just GOP hacks. As I pointed out, there are lots of leftist, liberal, centrist, and rightist pundits that are widely respected by liberals and who frequently criticize the left, right, and center. There's no way to explain the gap if you believe it's just about criticism.

 

[filthybliss]

Taibbi too. He's even donating to Trump this time. It's telling that he cites people who are just GOP hacks. As I pointed out, there are lots of leftist, liberal, centrist, and rightist pundits that are widely respected by liberals and who frequently criticize the left, right, and center. There's no way to explain the gap if you believe it's just about criticism.

I dunno who Taibbi is. But I don’t mind a handful of rightist/centrist pundits.

 

[filthybliss]

Taibbi too. He's even donating to Trump this time. It's telling that he cites people who are just GOP hacks. As I pointed out, there are lots of leftist, liberal, centrist, and rightist pundits that are widely respected by liberals and who frequently criticize the left, right, and center. There's no way to explain the gap if you believe it's just about criticism.

Funnily enough, I used to really like Greenwald. He has gone full contrarian as of late relying on anti-west and Trump apologism entirely.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Funnily enough, I used to really like Greenwald. He has gone full contrarian as of late relying on anti-west and Trump apologism entirely.

He first came to prominence supporting Matthew Hale, and not just defending him legally (pro bono, BTW) but like saying really ugly stuff about his critics. Then he was a big Bush supporter, but he eventually switched on the Iraq War (after supporting it initially), and then reached a new level of fame with the Snowden dump. Lots of liberals fell for his stuff at that time. But I think he never really cared much about domestic U.S. policy, and his focus was just wanting the U.S. to have less international influence, and that led to him being a pretty embarrassing cheerleader for Putin (supporting gov't surveillance when it's the Russian gov't doing it, supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc.). And aside from his disturbing views, I think he's just a really vile human being--does nothing but spew hatred and encourage division in the country.

 

[Gutter Chris]

So you would protest corruption by voting in a more corrupt force? I’d understand not voting to make a statement.

I didn't say anything about corruption either. Maybe you'd vote for the Republicans until the democrats stop talking about salt weapons though

 

[filthybliss]

I didn't say anything about corruption either. Maybe you'd vote for the Republicans until the democrats stop talking about salt weapons though

I see so you are just saying vote for whatever aligns best/more with your beliefs.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I see so you are just saying vote for whatever aligns best/more with your beliefs.

Not necessarily. I'm saying there are limits to everything and lines some folks won't cross. Maybe a person is super into Jesus for example and thinks the left will help the poor more but for that lady abortion is the bridge too far. Voting already is a bit of a compromise but sometimes a candidate will take a position on an issue that makes you unable to go for the ride.


You send the message in theory by voting for the opposite candidate and hoping when they do the campaign autopsy and see a bunch of voters they otherwise should have had that they come back with a few changes.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

What policy changes do you think have resulted from that?

I think the main effect from that is the right being less supportive of markets (and especially international free trade) and the left being more supportive of markets. It's changed the character of the movements a bit (I think that's responsible for the big CTism shift), and it's led to a huge competence gap when it comes to staffing and advisers. This is something that Republican partisans will publicly push back on, but Republican politicians complain about it a lot.

That was a big part of Trump's failure to get anything done on infrastructure, even after publicly announcing that it was a priority and despite bipartisan agreement that it was needed. So we ended up getting Biden's infrastructure deal instead, which was a bit different from one a competent Republican administration would have done. So that's another area where educational polarization affects policy, but it's kind of subtle (not as dramatic as Xes used to favor Y, but not anymore).

I think that's partly behind the GOP reliance on courts to get policy done. Religious fanatics no longer see pushing their issues as a political winner or something they can do legislatively, so they've redirected energies to filling courts. Again, there are policy effects but it's not leading to changes in stances.

Big businesses naturally care most about deregulation and cutting taxes on big businesses. The Tech industry was an aberration while it was growing, and it still relies on a heavily educated workforce, which pushes things a little to the left, but management is increasingly acting like an old, entrenched industry that still has to keep left-wing employees happy. I don't anticipate any change in what political parties do as a result of that, though.

I don't think there's any evidence that CU has had an impact on national-level policies, but it has helped Republicans in state-level elections. That's not a party policy change, but changing the mix of who wins elections changes enacted policies.

Point 1) Not sure that it has caused any direct policy changes as of yet. What I think it has caused is more of an ideological shift, particularly among the right. I think it is pushing them further right. And I believe this is because as of now, you can get away with a lot more on the Internet than you can get away with on cable television. There is no way people like Andrew Tate would exist on cable TV 20 years ago. I think it has caused a lot young people, particularly young men, to get sucked down a right wing rabbit hole that's full of propaganda and hatred. I also think it has created this weird dynamic were chronically online people think the Internet is real life and that regular ass people all think the way the do. Basically a giant echo chamber were alogrythms send them down a rabbit hole of confirmation bias.

Point 2) Definitely in agreement. That's a good example. There will be a lot more things similar in nature that are subtle (at least at first)

Point 3) What you said is correct. And I will add some nuance, while having to push those things through the courts aren't policy stances changes, I would argue that they are clearly moving in that direction. You said it yourself, those policies are no longer politically viable. And they clearly used to be viable. Republicans ran on anti-same sex marriage this century. Fast forward 20 years and if you run on that, you will get absolutely butchered. It sure seems that the decline of Christianity seems to have directly correlated with more positive results for lgtbq rights in America. 69% of Americans supported same sex marriage in 2024. In 2014, that number was in the mid 50s. This example is particularly easy to show just due to the nature of Christians being fairly bigoted towards the gay community.

Point 4) I'm also relatively in agreement with that. My point with the techbros is that they are a different breed. While yes, you can boil it down to just being in favor of big business, my argument is that the very nature of their businesses have a huge impact on the information we consume. I think it's too early on to see how those types push for their interests.

I think you are looking for quick and easy flip flops in policy changes, but I don't think some of these things have been happening enough to have those policy changes go through. It took Republicans nearly 50 years to get Roe v Wade overturned. This stuff just doesn't happen overnight and it is much more of a slow drift than an outburst.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Point 1) Not sure that it has caused any direct policy changes as of yet. What I think it has caused is more of an ideological shift, particularly among the right. I think it is pushing them further right. And I believe this is because as of now, you can get away with a lot more on the Internet than you can get away with on cable television. There is no way people like Andrew Tate would exist on cable TV 20 years ago. I think it has caused a lot young people, particularly young men, to get sucked down a right wing rabbit hole that's full of propaganda and hatred. I also think it has created this weird dynamic were chronically online people think the Internet is real life and that regular ass people all think the way the do. Basically a giant echo chamber were alogrythms send them down a rabbit hole of confirmation bias.

Point 2) Definitely in agreement. That's a good example. There will be a lot more things similar in nature that are subtle (at least at first)

Point 3) What you said is correct. And I will add some nuance, while having to push those things through the courts aren't policy stances changes, I would argue that they are clearly moving in that direction. You said it yourself, those policies are no longer politically viable. And they clearly used to be viable. Republicans ran on anti-same sex marriage this century. Fast forward 20 years and if you run on that, you will get absolutely butchered. It sure seems that the decline of Christianity seems to have directly correlated with more positive results for lgtbq rights in America. 69% of Americans supported same sex marriage in 2024. In 2014, that number was in the mid 50s. This example is particularly easy to show just due to the nature of Christians being fairly bigoted towards the gay community.

Point 4) I'm also relatively in agreement with that. My point with the techbros is that they are a different breed. While yes, you can boil it down to just being in favor of big business, my argument is that the very nature of their businesses have a huge impact on the information we consume. I think it's too early on to see how those types push for their interests.

I think you are looking for quick and easy flip flops in policy changes, but I don't think some of these things have been happening enough to have those policy changes go through. It took Republicans nearly 50 years to get Roe v Wade overturned. This stuff just doesn't happen overnight and it is much more of a slow drift than an outburst.

On the last point, it started when we were talking about to bring about change in a party. I think you and I agree that it's really hard, and when it happens, it tends to be slow and small changes. People not voting really doesn't do it, in part because politics tends to be kind of thermostatic. If one party loses badly, that means the other gets a lot of power and makes changes, and then people react against those changes. And it doesn't work at all with single issues. I think rather than not voting, writing to your Congressperson and local officials would work. But I also think that people are more focused on their personal brands than actually bringing about changes.

 

[brothir]

Basically this, anyone that isn't lockstep with the party is ostracized. Matt Taibbi, Russel Brand, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Joe Rogan have all received the same treatment.

And none of them have ever been what you would consider a core part of the liberal movement. They're all online opinion-shitters, with no meaningful contributions to the left. Remember when Obama was ostracized for not being in lockstep with the party, in spite of being one of the most successful liberal presidents ever? Oh wait, that never happened.

 

[Mr Holmes]

And none of them have ever been what you would consider a core part of the liberal movement.

What do mean by liberal movement?

They're all online opinion-shitters, with no meaningful contributions to the left.

Dore was one of the players behind of the force the vote movement for M4A. Greenwald was obviously one of the faces for privacy from government spying. Taibbi wrote for Rolling Stone and covered the 2008 financial crisis and later on the twitter files. Rogan endorsed Bernie and had him on his podcast (something he won't do for Trump).

Remember when Obama was ostracized for not being in lockstep with the party, in spite of being one of the most successful liberal presidents ever? Oh wait, that never happened.

Yeah, no shit it didn't happen. The party is basically lockstep with him now.

 

[brothir]

What do mean by liberal movement?

Dore was one of the players behind of the force the vote movement for M4A. Greenwald was obviously one of the faces for privacy from government spying. Taibbi wrote for Rolling Stone and covered the 2008 financial crisis and later on the twitter files. Rogan endorsed Bernie and had him on his podcast (something he won't do for Trump).

Yeah, no shit it didn't happen. The party is basically lockstep with him now.

"Liberal movement" just means the aggregate of what liberals want politically. Dore's anti-efforts there led to nothing, as opposed to the ACA which actually did something. Might want to credit Obama and a swathe of other liberal politicians, who did something very useful and have not been ostracized. One article in Rolling Stone and meaningless garbage on Twitter doesn't clinch anything for Taibbi. Rogan endorsing Bernie is typical contrarianism and obviously did nothing to politically help liberals. And even if it did, that has to be balanced against the massive amount of nonsense Rogan's hosted.

Oh no, the Democratic party is in lockstep with one of the most successful presidents ever, who has helped what likely amounts to well over 200 million Americans in ways that they themselves probably don't realize. Maybe add two and two on that one?

 

[Mr Holmes]

"Liberal movement" just means the aggregate of what liberals want politically. Dore's anti-efforts there led to nothing, as opposed to the ACA which actually did something. Might want to credit Obama and a swathe of other liberal politicians, who did something very useful and have not been ostracized. One article in Rolling Stone and meaningless garbage on Twitter doesn't clinch anything for Taibbi. Rogan endorsing Bernie is typical contrarianism and obviously did nothing to politically help liberals. And even if it did, that has to be balanced against the massive amount of nonsense Rogan's hosted.

Oh no, the Democratic party is in lockstep with one of the most successful presidents ever, who has helped what likely amounts to well over 200 million Americans in ways that they themselves probably don't realize. Maybe add two and two on that one?

Lol "none of that counts because reasons". I guess only one types like Obama are leftwingers and everyone else is on the right. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I don't think of him as left or right, he's an angry reactionary that has found a way to make some extra bucks by appealing to right wingers.

I just don't take people like him, or Tim Pool, or Tulsi seriously when it comes to politics.
They might have particular issues they care about, but they're more worried about their own ego, personal ideologies, and wallet than they are about aligning with a party and actually getting those goals done.

He literally spat on Alex Jones, and nowadays, he is having chummy talks with him and praising him. To go from TYT to friendly chats with Tucker Carlson? There's no bridge that can bridge that gap.