Opinion Is Jimmy Dore right wing now?

[Islam Imamate]

Oh, you were lying about it being a coup attempt. Here, I think I deciphered your language, so I'll try to speak it at you.

I didn't though, that's what he was talking about. He wanted Mike Pence to overturn the election by acknowledging fraudulent electors. What part of that do you think is a lie?

 

[sanguinius]

I didn't though, that's what he was talking about. He wanted Mike Pence to overturn the election by acknowledging fraudulent electors. What part of that do you think is a lie?

Do you know what coup means?

You've been saying it while clutching your pearls so much that it probably lost all meaning.

 

[Mr Holmes]

You know who advocated for M4A in 2016?

Donald Trump lol

I've also heard Tim Pool say that he's mostly in agreement with Jimmy on M4A...

Lol, I guess socialized healthcare is now far right! lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol, I guess socialized healthcare is now far right! lol

In office, Trump not only didn't deliver on a plan for expanded healthcare access, he pushed a plan to dramatically cut back on Medicaid and eliminate subsidies for exchanges that just barely came up short. What Dore says he wants with healthcare is irrelevant given that he's fighting to give more power to people who are trying to roll back what we already have. I could say that the only issue that matters to me is bigger tax cuts for rich people, but if I do nothing but smear Republicans, you'd know I was not sincere or at least that my political commitments run counter to my ideological ones.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Because, if you recall my earlier post, wanting any kind of single-payer and agreeing on one, concrete plan that will actually pass through Congress are wildly different things. A somewhat slim majority want single-payer, and I said you'd realistically need a super-majority. Don't implicitly lie about what I've said, now.

I didn't lie about anything. Its your own words that anyone can go back and see. Now you want to say its only a part of the liberal movement unless it will pass congress. All I had to was pick a little at your argument and you're already back tracking and making up excuses.

You're the one who brought up an article for the RS mag. I haven't read any of them, nor did I know he had won any awards. Clearly, they haven't been significant enough, and it could be they aren't representative of where he is now.

You lied about the amount he wrote and now you're saying they aren't representative of where is he now despite never even reading any of them.

I don't even know what you're saying with "things the Democrats are illiberal on". I said that the Democrats define the politically functional left.

Is Jill Stein on the left?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I didn't lie about anything. Its your own words that anyone can go back and see. Now you want to say its only a part of the liberal movement unless it will pass congress. All I had to was pick a little at your argument and you're already back tracking and making up excuses.


You lied about the amount he wrote and now you're saying they aren't representative of where is he now despite never even reading any of them.

Is Jill Stein on the left?

Is Jill Stein politically functional? Also, she's a puppet of the very far right when it comes to international issues (and a useful idiot for them generally).

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Lol, I guess socialized healthcare is now far right! lol

The point is that most people hold views that are left and right, but somebody like Jimmy Dore just believes in money.

 

[steveflynn]

And who is doing that exactly? Do you really think its only one unkept promise pushing people out of democrat party? Or do you think maybe its the failure to act, straight up lying, and false purity tests where if you failed youre labeled?

When has it ever been a Democratic Party plank to have Medicare for all ? And how are so many people being ‘pushed out’ of Democratic Party when they gotten cumulatively 25 millions more votes than the GOP during the last four elections ?

 

[steveflynn]

The point is that most people hold views that are left and right, but somebody like Jimmy Dore just believes in money.

This is so true. He has been completely overtaken by audience capture from the looks of it. Does he ever mention what the GOp’s plan is for health care or for investing in alternative energy or consumer protection ?

 

[Jack V Savage]

When has it ever been a Democratic Party plank to have Medicare for all ? And how are so many people being ‘pushed out’ of Democratic Party when they gotten cumulatively 25 millions more votes than the GOP during the last four elections ?

There's a constant flow of people moving both ways (small percentage but large number in such a big country). But people moving right are generally not people who actually have left-wing views. It's mostly people with hard right social views and unclear views on econ policy. Some rich people turned off by Trump's personal corruption and incompetence who have decided that they can live with that if the alternative is higher taxes on the rich.

 

[brothir]

I didn't lie about anything. Its your own words that anyone can go back and see. Now you want to say its only a part of the liberal movement unless it will pass congress. All I had to was pick a little at your argument and you're already back tracking and making up excuses.

You lied about the amount he wrote and now you're saying they aren't representative of where is he now despite never even reading any of them.

Is Jill Stein on the left?

I said you implicitly lied because I, several posts back, said that a super-majority would be required, rather than a slight majority. I also said that a concrete policy would have to be crafted: a general idea that single-payer should be implemented would never cut the mustard. I said this, and I'm not in any way back-tracking by restating what I've already said.

No, I didn't lie about the amount he wrote. I have no idea how much he wrote, or anything about that part of his career. You brought it up as an irrelevant detail, and I responded to what it seemed like you were saying. It's immaterial. And I said it could be that they aren't representative of his current stances, not that they definitively aren't. Can you read? Do you understand the difference between raising the possibility that something is the case, and stating that it certainly is the case?

I have no idea about Jill Stein. She's irrelevant, in politics or this discussion.

 

[ferrisjso]

And who is doing that exactly? Do you really think its only one unkept promise pushing people out of democrat party? Or do you think maybe its the failure to act, straight up lying, and false purity tests where if you failed youre labeled?

Yes healthcare is the most basic human right and 70k people a year are being slaughtered. And its the promise the Democrats could meet that would appease more people than any promise. People want single payer and if both partys don't acknowledge healthcare as a right and are slaughtering their own people its a huge deal.

 

[ferrisjso]

Arguments are built off of reasons, yes. That should be obvious. You can either address them or whinge airlessly. Obama is not the only kind of left-winger, but does provide a very useful template for a standard liberal. Hence how he won the presidency.

First off Obama is a rightist. He is the poster child for institutionalism. He values the US's shitty institutions over human life and its not even close. By definition wanting to preserve the status quo makes one a conservative and no one is as zealous about protecting the American status quo as Barack Obama.

It WAS a successful template. Obamas strategy involves misleading people and disenchanting people who thought they were voting for systemic change and got the status quo. It is not a long term sustainable strategy every time you deceive large numbers of people you make doing it again more difficult.

Also Bush might be the most universally hated 2nd term President in American history long before the financial crash of 2008. People giving Obama credit for reinventing the wheel constantly forget just how badly Obama would have needed to fuck up to even come close to losing that election.

 

[brothir]

First off Obama is a rightist. He is the poster child for institutionalism. He values the US's shitty institutions over human life and its not even close. By definition wanting to preserve the status quo makes one a conservative and no one is as zealous about protecting the American status quo as Barack Obama.

It WAS a successful template. Obamas strategy involves misleading people and disenchanting people who thought they were voting for systemic change and got the status quo. It is not a long term sustainable strategy every time you deceive large numbers of people you make doing it again more difficult.

Also Bush might be the most universally hated 2nd term President in American history long before the financial crash of 2008. People giving Obama credit for reinventing the wheel constantly forget just how badly Obama would have needed to fuck up to even come close to losing that election.

No, Obama is not a rightist. That's evidenced by how hated he was by Republicans. No, he does not value US institutions over human life, hence how he was willing to make changes. If you think Obama is the most zealous protector of the status quo, you're unhinged and idiotic.

Besides, if you think Obama's strategy is such a loser, then that's a problem that solves itself in your view. Obama obviously had a major advantage in the 2008 national election, but that's not a relevant point in this discussion.

 

[ferrisjso]

No, Obama is not a rightist. That's evidenced by how hated he was by Republicans. No, he does not value US institutions over human life, hence how he was willing to make changes. If you think Obama is the most zealous protector of the status quo, you're unhinged and idiotic.

Besides, if you think Obama's strategy is such a loser, then that's a problem that solves itself in your view. Obama obviously had a major advantage in the 2008 national election, but that's not a relevant point in this discussion.

No it is not. Democrats and Republicans hating each other is not evidence of anything. Also Obama does not view the Republicans as ideological enemys he was even disguisted by his supporters disdain for Bush the same way McCain was disguisted by his supporters disdain for Obama. At the end of the day the capitalist dems and Republicans are on the same team.

Didn't say it was a loser. Saying its not a sustainable blue print to keep winning over and over because you bullshitting people based on platitudes makes them immune to that sort of rhetoric.

 

[brothir]

No it is not. Democrats and Republicans hating each other is not evidence of anything. Also Obama does not view the Republicans as ideological enemys he was even disguisted by his supporters disdain for Bush the same way McCain was disguisted by his supporters disdain for Obama. At the end of the day the capitalist dems and Republicans are on the same team.

Didn't say it was a loser. Saying its not a sustainable blue print to keep winning over and over because you bullshitting people based on platitudes makes them immune to that sort of rhetoric.

Democrats and Republicans hating each other is evidence of them hating each other, which is conventionally a bad platform for disagreement. You might want to look at history and what happens when people forced to work together in governments hate each other. Ever heard of Lavrentiy Beria?

If it's not sustainable then it will eventually be a loser. Not very strong in the logic department, are you?

 

[Mr Holmes]

I said you implicitly lied because I, several posts back, said that a super-majority would be required, rather than a slight majority. I also said that a concrete policy would have to be crafted: a general idea that single-payer should be implemented would never cut the mustard. I said this, and I'm not in any way back-tracking by restating what I've already said.

No, I didn't lie about the amount he wrote. I have no idea how much he wrote, or anything about that part of his career. You brought it up as an irrelevant detail, and I responded to what it seemed like you were saying. It's immaterial. And I said it could be that they aren't representative of his current stances, not that they definitively aren't. Can you read? Do you understand the difference between raising the possibility that something is the case, and stating that it certainly is the case?

I have no idea about Jill Stein. She's irrelevant, in politics or this discussion.

Lies, ducking questions, false accusations, and changing your own definitions.

Jill Stein is the head of the green party so she is very relevant to what we're discussing. It sounded like a another hack tried to respond to me that she's not on the left. I think this is all the context I need.

Like I said lockstep with the party.

 

[brothir]

Lies, ducking questions, false accusations, and changing your own definitions.

Jill Stein is the head of the green party so she is very relevant to what we're discussing. It sounded like a another hack tried to respond to me that she's not on the left. I think this is all the context I need.

Like I said lockstep with the party.

There's no content here. In fact, I specified that a super-majority for a concrete single-payer plan would be required in one of the earlier posts I made, something you've ignored:

Rather doubtful that the majority of liberals want one, simply defined version of single payer. They'd need a super-majority to get it through. Dore has done nothing to organize any such thing, and has no political power to bolster it. So he's irrelevant, and commenting from the sidelines on a policy that is realistically an incredible long shot does not move the needle.

No, my other comments were not just lies: I actually believe them. I'm not even sure what exactly you're supposed to be right about. A political party has an ideological core, and people like Rogan are not primary believers or supporters of that. In order to actually get anything done politically, it's necessary for a party to have a focus. Dismissing it as "lockstep with the party" misses that point. You sound mad that Democrats get some good things done some of the time, as opposed to never for Republicans.

You haven't even explained why being in lockstep with the party is a bad thing. It's a bad thing for Republicans, who hate almost anything that Democrats want accomplished. That'd tie you into being a Republican, though.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

There's a constant flow of people moving both ways (small percentage but large number in such a big country). But people moving right are generally not people who actually have left-wing views. It's mostly people with hard right social views and unclear views on econ policy. Some rich people turned off by Trump's personal corruption and incompetence who have decided that they can live with that if the alternative is higher taxes on the rich.

Being a socialist fora few years is a common origin story of many pundits and thinkers on the quote unquote right.

 

[Mr Holmes]

In fact, I specified that a super-majority for a concrete single-payer plan would be required in one of the earlier posts I made, something you've ignored

Yeah you said that to save face after I pointed out how flawed your argument was. Forcing a vote puts representatives on record. Nothing can change if you don't try.

You haven't even explained why being in lockstep with the party is a bad thing. It's a bad thing for Republicans, who hate almost anything that Democrats want accomplished. That'd tie you into being a Republican, though.

You really need an explanation why being a partisan drone is a bad thing??