TYT vs. Jimmy Dore

[AnonymityX1000]

He literally promoted the Seth Rich conspiracy on Joe Rogan's podcast fam. Anyone that disagrees with him in the slightest is a coward and a corporate shill according to him. So if you don't agree with his stance, you are part of a mass media conspiracy. There's no discussion, just screaming about how you're in on it.

I saw that Joe Rogan interview he totally didn't. Rogan brought it up not him and he slightly changed the subject after Rogan claimed it had validity. He paid it 0 lip service.
And that's not true either. He is always promoting the idea of a third party and many guests usually candidates for office have said they prefer to just change the Democratic party and while he will disagree it rarely devolves into him calling them shills or names.
And again what did he say to this lady that was so out of bounds, I'm not on twitter and have limited access.

 

[storyteller]

I saw that Joe Rogan interview he totally didn't. Rogan brought it up not him and he slightly changed the subject after Rogan claimed it had validity. He paid it 0 lip service.
And that's not true either. He is always promoting the idea of a third party and many guests usually candidates for office have said they prefer to just change the Democratic party and while he will disagree it rarely devolves into him calling them shills or names.
And again what did he say to this lady that was so out of bounds, I'm not on twitter and have limited access.

He sarcastically said it was a botched robbery, brought up Donna Brazille being afraid after, said he should be allowed to ask questions because it's an open investigation and compared it to questioning the Russia collusion stories. It's more subtle than Alex Jones, I'll give it that but he absolutely treated the conspiracy theory like it should be taken seriously (especially bringing up that Donnar Brazille was scared). I used to like dude, but I legit see him moving more and more to the extreme. He's quick to accusation on other progressives and leftists while lately throwing softballs at guys like Mike Cernovich and Tucker Carlson. This recent run has really turned my opinion of him. His approach to disagreements has just gotten weird.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

He sarcastically said it was a botched robbery, brought up Donna Brazille being afraid after, said he should be allowed to ask questions because it's an open investigation and compared it to questioning the Russia collusion stories. It's more subtle than Alex Jones, I'll give it that but he absolutely treated the conspiracy theory like it should be taken seriously (especially bringing up that Donnar Brazille was scared). I used to like dude, but I legit see him moving more and more to the extreme. He's quick to accusation on other progressives and leftists while lately throwing softballs at guys like Mike Cernovich and Tucker Carlson. This recent run has really turned my opinion of him. His approach to disagreements has just gotten weird.

Sarcastically huh? I think that solidifies he was joking being a comedian and all.
He's upset no one is interested in his third party idea which is valid. America deserves more than two viable parties. And yeah he speaks more harshly than he needs to, I agree with that. But I don't think he has crossed the line to indecency and I think characterizing him the left Alex Jones is inaccurate.

 

[storyteller]

Sarcastically huh? I think that solidifies he was joking being a comedian and all.
He's upset no one is interested in his third party idea which is valid. America deserves more than two viable parties. And yeah he speaks more harshly than he needs to, I agree with that. But I don't think he has crossed the line to indecency and I think characterizing him the left Alex Jones is inaccurate.

If he stopped at the sarcasm, I wouldn't complain. He followed it immediately on Donna Brazile being scared over Seth Rich and then he and Joe spent a few minutes on how they've been victimized for just asking questions (that's literally the Jordan Peterson dodge). And it's not like this is a one-off of questionable moves. Dude is actively beefing with TYT contributors and the whole MR crew (pretty sure I heard him come at Benjamin Dixon too but Dixon has gone hard at the Alex Jones protectors) but was looking for places of agreement with Mike Cernovich...if you can't find common ground with Sam Seder but are open to looking for the nuances of Mike Cernovich's stance, I have some serious reservations.

That's not to say it's nefarious either. I think he's well meaning but poorly informed and his growth in popularity has him in a vacuum where he can berate Fiorentini and the majority of responses he sees are "go get em!!!" and "obviously she won't debate you because she's wrong on the issue (as opposed to turning him down because she's just been demeaned, called a shill and cursed at for multiple messages)." But it's detrimental imho and getting worse.

As far as America deserving more than two parties, it definitely does. But the system isn't conducive with that and everyone knows that. Carving out a caucus within the Dems makes sense because the two parties in power can adjust the rules of entry which they've already made overtures of doing (I'm pretty sure they made things harder to get on the national debate stage when Gary Johnson got even kinda close, but I'd have to double back to see).

 

[AnonymityX1000]

If he stopped at the sarcasm, I wouldn't complain. He followed it immediately on Donna Brazile being scared over Seth Rich and then he and Joe spent a few minutes on how they've been victimized for just asking questions (that's literally the Jordan Peterson dodge). And it's not like this is a one-off of questionable moves. Dude is actively beefing with TYT contributors and the whole MR crew (pretty sure I heard him come at Benjamin Dixon too but Dixon has gone hard at the Alex Jones protectors) but was looking for places of agreement with Mike Cernovich...if you can't find common ground with Sam Seder but are open to looking for the nuances of Mike Cernovich's stance, I have some serious reservations.

That's not to say it's nefarious either. I think he's well meaning but poorly informed and his growth in popularity has him in a vacuum where he can berate Fiorentini and the majority of responses he sees are "go get em!!!" and "obviously she won't debate you because she's wrong on the issue (as opposed to turning him down because she's just been demeaned, called a shill and cursed at for multiple messages)." But it's detrimental imho and getting worse.

As far as America deserving more than two parties, it definitely does. But the system isn't conducive with that and everyone knows that. Carving out a caucus within the Dems makes sense because the two parties in power can adjust the rules of entry which they've already made overtures of doing (I'm pretty sure they made things harder to get on the national debate stage when Gary Johnson got even kinda close, but I'd have to double back to see).

His beef with Seder is very specific he went on there in good faith for a debate and all they tried to do is clown him for not knowing weird government facts. And then they take shots at him at every opportunity while he's not mentioning them at all. And you are allowed to disagree and curse at your fellow colleagues female or not. I don't like name calling so in that regard he is going too far but is it indecent? No.
The system isn't conducive to a lot of things but that's no reason not to try. I see how some Progressives think doing it as a Dem is a shortcut but the chance of watered down rhetoric, legislation and out right sabotage are high. So it's like what's the point?

 

[Black Panther]

People still in here caping for Jimmy Dore? :bpdahell:

 

[storyteller]

His beef with Seder is very specific he went on there in good faith for a debate and all they tried to do is clown him for not knowing weird government facts. And then they take shots at him at every opportunity while he's not mentioning them at all. And you are allowed to disagree and curse at your fellow colleagues female or not. I don't like name calling so in that regard he is going too far but is it indecent? No.
The system isn't conducive to a lot of things but that's no reason not to try. I see how some Progressives think doing it as a Dem is a shortcut but the chance of watered down rhetoric, legislation and out right sabotage are high. So it's like what's the point?

I feel like the Sam/Jimmy debate had a lot more to it than weird government facts. The crux of it came down to strategic voting and Sam was focused on SCOTUS picks (which has come to fruition as a serious problem). In terms of them taking shots at him; he does the same. Sam's crew is just a lot more comfortable calling Jimmy out by name instead making allusions. Here's an example of Jimmy provoking a response


That "what's the point" approach is one I don't really agree with either. The Dems have actually been shifting left since 2016 (honestly you could make a case since OWS it has but the real momentum starts with Bernie). A third party push will take time to build (and I think it would have to start locally and expand outward rather than starting with a presidential election but that's a different discussion) and bare fruits. By putting pressure on the current power structure however, we have pulled the Dems left on immigration, higher minimum wage and the clearest one Medicare for All. By advocating for good progressive policies and by seeking out primary challengers that would platform those policies, we're actually seeing results right now. To undercut that would be a mistake. Where there are good progressive policies being pushed by a Democrat, support that person. If the only person pushing the policies we like is a third party member, then we can shift to that person. But it's not an either/or strategy imo and the focal point should be nuanced for each individual candidate and their policies rather than party affiliation. The policies that garner votes will become more popular with our reps.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I feel like the Sam/Jimmy debate had a lot more to it than weird government facts. The crux of it came down to strategic voting and Sam was focused on SCOTUS picks (which has come to fruition as a serious problem). In terms of them taking shots at him; he does the same. Sam's crew is just a lot more comfortable calling Jimmy out by name instead making allusions. Here's an example of Jimmy provoking a response


That "what's the point" approach is one I don't really agree with either. The Dems have actually been shifting left since 2016 (honestly you could make a case since OWS it has but the real momentum starts with Bernie). A third party push will take time to build (and I think it would have to start locally and expand outward rather than starting with a presidential election but that's a different discussion) and bare fruits. By putting pressure on the current power structure however, we have pulled the Dems left on immigration, higher minimum wage and the clearest one Medicare for All. By advocating for good progressive policies and by seeking out primary challengers that would platform those policies, we're actually seeing results right now. To undercut that would be a mistake. Where there are good progressive policies being pushed by a Democrat, support that person. If the only person pushing the policies we like is a third party member, then we can shift to that person. But it's not an either/or strategy imo and the focal point should be nuanced for each individual candidate and their policies rather than party affiliation. The policies that garner votes will become more popular with our reps.

Third Parties are stupid WITHOUT a change in how votes are counted such as ranked choice voting

 

[newworldafro]

People still in here caping for Jimmy Dore? :bpdahell:

And????

 

[Black Panther]

And????

Out of all the so-called "progressives" to choose from, you pick the absolute worst one with a platform

You could cite Benjamin Dixon, an actual Black progressive--who doesn't care much for the Russia investigation either, mind you--yet you continue to fellate Jimmy Dore of all people

Just admit that he just agrees with your preconceived notions. Even folks that work with him at TYT are now like

You're a f*cking bum :mjlolhairfade:

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I feel like the Sam/Jimmy debate had a lot more to it than weird government facts. The crux of it came down to strategic voting and Sam was focused on SCOTUS picks (which has come to fruition as a serious problem). In terms of them taking shots at him; he does the same. Sam's crew is just a lot more comfortable calling Jimmy out by name instead making allusions. Here's an example of Jimmy provoking a response


That "what's the point" approach is one I don't really agree with either. The Dems have actually been shifting left since 2016 (honestly you could make a case since OWS it has but the real momentum starts with Bernie). A third party push will take time to build (and I think it would have to start locally and expand outward rather than starting with a presidential election but that's a different discussion) and bare fruits. By putting pressure on the current power structure however, we have pulled the Dems left on immigration, higher minimum wage and the clearest one Medicare for All. By advocating for good progressive policies and by seeking out primary challengers that would platform those policies, we're actually seeing results right now. To undercut that would be a mistake. Where there are good progressive policies being pushed by a Democrat, support that person. If the only person pushing the policies we like is a third party member, then we can shift to that person. But it's not an either/or strategy imo and the focal point should be nuanced for each individual candidate and their policies rather than party affiliation. The policies that garner votes will become more popular with our reps.

If he's not using any names it isn't a personal shot. Only a few would know who Jimmy is talking about. I didn't know he was talking about Seder until the other guy from the MR replied.
The Dems have more Progressives winning the races but besides hampering super delegates the party hasn't done anything Progressive and in many cases are working against Progressives post 2016. See, subverting Ellison's nomination as head of the DNC, reneging on the fossil fuels donation ban, the DCCC supporting candidates in primaries and Andrew Cuomo shytting on the whole Progressive wave as a ripple and poo pooing new people entering politics.

 

[StatUS]

Out of all the so-called "progressives" to choose from, you pick the absolute worst one with a platform

You could cite Benjamin Dixon, an actual Black progressive--who doesn't care much for the Russia investigation either, mind you--yet you continue to fellate Jimmy Dore of all people

Just admit that he just agrees with your preconceived notions. Even folks that work with him at TYT are now like

You're a f*cking bum :mjlolhairfade:

TYT gave dude a second show and has him on during election coverage. I don't think they're trying to disassociate with him at all.

 

[Black Panther]

TYT gave dude a second show and has him on during election coverage. I don't think they're trying to disassociate with him at all.

He's currently clashing with Francesca Fiorentini on Twitter.

 

[StatUS]

He's currently clashing with Francesca Fiorentini on Twitter.

Techincally she works for Al Jazeera and is a TYT contributor. I think the Ana thing holds more weight but, I dunno, I don't agree with people in her calling him Alex Jones of the left, kinda ridiculous.

Disagreeing with his stances is one thing which I do at times but he's not some psycho playing a character to sell trash products in the name of truth

 

[storyteller]

If he's not using any names it isn't a personal shot. Only a few would know who Jimmy is talking about. I didn't know he was talking about Seder until the other guy from the MR replied.
The Dems have more Progressives winning the races but besides hampering super delegates the party hasn't done anything Progressive and in many cases are working against Progressives post 2016. See, subverting Ellison's nomination as head of the DNC, reneging on the fossil fuels donation ban, the DCCC supporting candidates in primaries and Andrew Cuomo shytting on the whole Progressive wave as a ripple and poo pooing new people entering politics.

As long as he is attacking their stances on important issues and screaming that it's for dummies, he's opening himself up to direct critiques. Any time you see a MR critique of Jimmy, it comes with a strategy and substance included. The most recent clip posted here, Sam tries hard not to name Jimmy and goes in on Jimmy's critique directly.

As far as subverting Ellison's nomination, DCCC being awful and Cuomo running his mouth. Yeah, those all suck, but they don't negate real concrete movement left from the party in rhetoric and policy. Medicare for All is essentially a requirement for anyone who wants to run for president as a Democrat (compare to 2016 when Hillary said it would "never, ever" happen); rhetoric on immigration is miles left of where we were even during early in Obama's run. We've got presidential hopefuls setting flags on Criminal Justice Reform, Marijuana Legalization, Post Office Banking...the sort of issues that might seem normal or small now but for most of my adult life were either debated or not even discussed. I'm not saying that we don't have a long way to go, but we'd be well behind this point had the progressives all decided to go third party with the many barriers of entry that comes with.
Right now policy is moving left. The progressives are looking like they'll have numbers to be a caucus that has to be considered when trying to pass bills. Our Revolution and Justice Dems are building campaign infrastructure throughout the country that has already subverted the DCCC in some instances and with the foundation laid, they'll be able to do it even more often. As more politicians gain footholds without the need for corporate donors, things are going to shift more to the left for the party fam. Bookmark this post and give it 2 more election cycles.