JIMMY DORE is "ready to go out and get this [Covid-19] virus and get back to life"

Instead of talking about Jimmy Dore as a diversion in other threads, we can talk about him here!  I started this in "Soapbox: All Politics", even though technically it probably should be in the "Russia and Alternative" zone. But why be a stickler over something like that?

My favorite Jimmy Dore video is his pro-Brexit episode, "Why Brexit Is Good For Working People".


It raises so many interesting questions.  For example, why do they start talking about the Euro?  The United Kingdom isn't in the Eurozone, they have their own currency.  They don't have to "Brexit" to maintain that.

That, of course, pales in comparison to the larger question: "Why Brexit, Jimmy?"


This should probably go in the Alternative news subforum, because as paul stated - it's pretty much standup comedy at this point (at least to those who interpret it as being funny).  He is lucky though - his niche can appeal to Trumpers and Bernie fans.


jamie said:

This should probably go in the Alternative news subforum, because as paul stated - it's pretty much standup comedy at this point (at least to those who interpret it as being funny).  He is lucky though - his niche can appeal to Trumpers and Bernie fans.

I know, but I didn't want to get into the other stupid argument alleging censorship, etc.  

Also, Jimmy gets mentioned on the regular "Politics" threads, so this should be easily accessible.

If it can stay here, that would be most appreciated.


Jimmy Dore Fan Club:  facebook.com/groups/839141856152989/

Link at the above FB page entitled "Pathetic: CNN Caught Doctoring Photos & Video Of Bernie Sanders" by Kyle Kulinski:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuHlWe_aydE&app=desktop


jamie said:

This should probably go in the Alternative news subforum, because as paul stated - it's pretty much standup comedy at this point (at least to those who interpret it as being funny).  He is lucky though - his niche can appeal to Trumpers and Bernie fans.

 Please don't call it "alternative news."  Call it what it is, made up ****.


Jimmy Dore is a great comedian and social critic.  The person who started this thread is a centrist leaning Democrat and does not appreciate Dore's skewering of the DNC and their fake opposition to Trump.  

Check out his videos here:  https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/videos


This is one of my recent favorites

:

 


Any proof of Biden's corruption other then Trump and the talking points on the right? Dore is basically a shock jock who never provides full content of his sources. It's embarrassing that people actually watch this stuff.

Of course Trump has no fear of impeachment at the moment because of the senate majority - duh. But it is true that without an inquiry - certain documents would be unattainable. Where is Dore's video about Giuliani? 


jamie said:

Any proof of Biden's corruption other then Trump and the talking points on the right? Dore is basically a shock jock who never provides full content of his sources. It's embarrassing that people actually watch this stuff.

Of course Trump has no fear of impeachment at the moment because of the senate majority - duh. But it is true that without an inquiry - certain documents would be unattainable. Where is Dore's video about Giuliani? 

 You always smear Dore, but you don't build a substantive argument to support your view.  There is no need to search for proof of Biden's corruption since the visible stuff is bad enough to sink him.  His son's $50k a month job will not sit well with voters when half the country is poor.  They are not getting off the couch to vote for the father of a spoiled rich kid who got kicked out of the army because of cocaine and then landed on his feet in a Ukraine gas and oil company, despite having zero experience in that industry.

The Senate majority is not changing anytime soon, and also before you get giddy, what would we do with a President Pence?   That's a frightening thought.

Dore has made several videos about Rudy Guiliani. He's clearly not a fan.  Here are just a few of them:


Steve said:

 Please don't call it "alternative news."  Call it what it is, made up ****.

 What did he make up?


This is your brain on Jimmy Dore:

nan said:

Jimmy Dore is a great comedian and social critic.  The person who started this thread is a centrist leaning Democrat and does not appreciate Dore's skewering of the DNC and their fake opposition to Trump.   


Now that you're all here, if someone could explain Jimmy's pro-Brexit position, and the argument he uses, that would be appreciated.


So hunter makes $50;000 a month is this seriously all you have?  Show the crime.  This is exactly the type of non-illegal activity - non-issue that dore has an issue with the MSM reporting.  The guy is hypocrite number 1.


jamie said:

So hunter makes $50;000 a month is this seriously all you have?  Show the crime.  This is exactly the type of non-illegal activity - non-issue that dore has an issue with the MSM reporting.  The guy is hypocrite number 1.

 Did you not finish watching Ukraine on Fire?  http://ukraineonfire.com/ (on Amazon Prime for free)


I have seen it.  I'll have to re-watch - I didn't realize Hunter was a central figure.  What minute is he in it?


nan said:

jamie said:

So hunter makes $50;000 a month is this seriously all you have?  Show the crime.  This is exactly the type of non-illegal activity - non-issue that dore has an issue with the MSM reporting.  The guy is hypocrite number 1.

 Did you not finish watching Ukraine on Fire?  http://ukraineonfire.com/ (on Amazon Prime for free)

If the movie provides support for the claim that an actual crime was committed due to the hiring of Hunter Biden, that would be surprising.


oh geez - you're talking about the Oliver Stone (Kremlin propaganda) film.  ugh  Do you need to go down another rabbit hole discussing every misleading point of that film?  


jamie said:

So hunter makes $50;000 a month is this seriously all you have?  Show the crime.  This is exactly the type of non-illegal activity - non-issue that dore has an issue with the MSM reporting.  The guy is hypocrite number 1.

 Again, the elites live in a world where the rules do not apply to them.  This is not a winning strategy for the 2020 election.  I have heard lots of contradictory details about Hunter Biden's Ukraine and China corruption.  Some say he and Joe did illegal actions and others say nothing he did was illegal.  There are just as many variations on getting that prosecuter fired.  We can spend all day arguing and I would never get my house cleaned as I am planning to do in a few minutes.  IF I get everything on my list checked off today, perhaps I will have more time for Joe's corruption later.

The point is, what the Bidens did in Ukraine/China looks really bad (and that's not even counting the coup stuff which most Americans don't even know about).  If it was not illegal, it should have been.  You look at a candidate like Biden and he is senile, runs on corporate money, has no real plans for ordinary Americans, and has a horrible history that includes the crime bill and calls for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  Now you take all that negativity and add in his son making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent.  You have Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired. You are looking at a losing candidate.  It's plain as the nose on your face. 


You are ******* crackers.


ok, so basically - you don't like his policies and are trying to pin corruption on his son who didn't do something illegal?  ok - got it!  (Cue the bloody eye video)


nohero said:

Now that you're all here, if someone could explain Jimmy's pro-Brexit position, and the argument he uses, that would be appreciated.

 This video is from July of 2016.  It is not about Jimmy Dore's "pro-Brexit" position.  I doubt he even has one of those. He is talking about the views of Mark Blyth, who is a professor at Brown University. He is well-known for being against austerity policies, the hallmark of neoliberalism.  He describes why people are so angry and want Brexit because they are sick of unelected people running their lives.  Dore found this guy interesting and wanted to present his idea in a video, and is mostly interested in drawing parallels between the UK and US.  What problem do you have with that?  Do you only want one narrative allowed? I would never see this guy presented on MSNBC/CNN so I am glad that I learned about him from Jimmy Dore.  Dore does not pretend to be an economics expert, but he is clearly a curious person and likes to share the things that influence his thinking with viewers.  And here you are with steam coming out of your ears because Jimmy Dore is presenting ideas on YouTube.  Get a grip.   I will summarize the video as best I can below for anyone who is interested and can't handle watching (a  common impairment on MOL, it seems). 

--------------------------------------------

The guy is against the Euro because he thinks the long-term effect will be to drive down wages. The low wage workers will be under the same banner as the higher wage workers doing the same work. He says it will be especially bad for France, parts of Italy and Greece. He thinks all the wages will come down so they can compete with China.  He's saying that if you have sovereignty over your own economy, you might have more control over that.  He is afraid that what happened in Greece will happen to other countries.

So, Dore, based on Blyth, is thinking that Brexit may have some benefits for working people.  Dore makes it clear that he is not an economist and tells people to correct him if he is wrong.  Blyth provides some examples related to surpluses and deficits. Individual countries are not allowed to run their own deficits.  Currently, the only option is contraction which leads to austerity (neoliberalism) which does not work and only hurts people and helps the banks.  

Blyth calls out this strategy. He says the Brexit debate is like Trumpisim. Blyth defines Trumpisim as for the past 35 years, the center-left  It'has told the 60% at the bottom the following story:  "Globalization is good for you.  It's really great.  We are going to sign all the trade deals and don't worry about compensation.  It will be fair. You will all end up as computer programmers. It will be fantastic.  And don't really worry because we are all going to move to the middle because that's where the voters are and those are the ones that we care about. You get this shift under all of the leaders (labor, Blair, etc.) and you make that move and you basically take the bottom 30% of the income distribution and you say "We don't care what happens to you.  You are now something to be policed. You are now something to have your behaviors changed. It's a very paternal and patronizing relationship. This is no longer the warm embrace of social Democracy. There is no solidarity with the working class. You can have them policed  so you can feel safe in your neighborhood and you can have your private schools while they have their public schools which you don't really want to pay taxes for anymore 

So once this has evolved over 20 years you have this revolt not just against Brexit/EU.  It is about revolting aginast the elites, the 1%.  It's about how your parties which were meant to serve your interests have sold you down the river. "  He goes on to give an example about Scottish independence as a cautionary tale. You end up where your vote is ignored, Democracy is supplanted by elite rule, and they make all the decisions and they don't care about you. It's a no-win scenario.  Blyth says, "As I like to say to my American hedge-fund friends, The Hamptons is not a defensible position.  The Hamptons are on very low lying beaches.  Eventually, people will come for you."   Basically, the pitchfork are a'comin.

Dore draws a connection from this to the United States where neoliberalism rules and Democrats have turned their backs on workers. They got in bed with Wall Street and corporations, just like the Republicans and now we have things like NAFTA and the TPP, and fewer unions.  We have this and the biggest income disparity since the Gilded Age.  50% of all wage earners earn less than 30K.  The upper 1% have control over the economy and the government and set it up to benefit them. They have screwed over everyone else, including the workers. People work for less and less and college is unaffordable. The elites in both countries ignore the problems because they don't want to take responsibility for it and they don't' want to change.  They don't want to put in job plans or regulate Wall Sreet. Then they would have to stop crap like TPP and that is not going to happen. It's one big gravy train and one big party and it's the Money Party.  

-----------------------------

For anyone that wants to learn more about Mark Blyth and his ideas, I found this on YouTube.  I have not watched it yet, but I will try to later:


jamie said:

oh geez - you're talking about the Oliver Stone (Kremlin propaganda) film.  ugh  Do you need to go down another rabbit hole discussing every misleading point of that film?  

 I watched your propaganda film and took copious notes and you agreed to watch this and I'm still waiting. 


sbenois said:

You are ******* crackers.

Yes, Jimmy Dore introduced me to a professor at Brown University who is against neoliberalism and austerity and I am ******crackers.   That makes lots of sense.  Basically, on MOL anyone who goes outside MSNBC/CNN for information is called every name in the book and is accused of being a Russian troll too.

Take the Russian bot quiz and see if you are one too!


jamie said:

ok, so basically - you don't like his policies and are trying to pin corruption on his son who didn't do something illegal?  ok - got it!  (Cue the bloody eye video)

 I don't have the evidence against his son, but the whole thing smells worse than dead fish. And that is not good to have to go into an election with a person who wants to hide their corruption by blaming others. 


nan said:

jamie said:

So hunter makes $50;000 a month is this seriously all you have?  Show the crime.  This is exactly the type of non-illegal activity - non-issue that dore has an issue with the MSM reporting.  The guy is hypocrite number 1.

 Again, the elites live in a world where the rules do not apply to them.  This is not a winning strategy for the 2020 election. ....


gee, that seemed to work ok for Trump in 2016.


drummerboy said:

gee, that seemed to work ok for Trump in 2016.

 Trump ran as a non-interventionist populist.  He said he was going to drain the swamp.  The loser was an entitled member of the elite. 


jamie said:

So hunter makes $50;000 a month is this seriously all you have?  Show the crime.  This is exactly the type of non-illegal activity - non-issue that dore has an issue with the MSM reporting.  The guy is hypocrite number 1.

Right, nothing to see here!!!  Are you kidding me?

If Joe received $50k/month from the Ukrainian gas company while VP then Joe committed a crime.  Instead, your position is that Hunter (Joe's sole heir and natural object of his affection) receiving the $50k/month from the Ukrainian gas company is not a problem.  If we were to apply related party transaction analysis to Joe, Hunter and the Burisma Holdings (which was apparently owned by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s prior Russia-friendly president, who was driven out of office in February 2014 by mass protests*) we would then attribute the actions of Hunter and Burisma to Joe and vice-versa.    Both the SEC and IRS use related party definitions and analysis for run-of the-mill transactions%.  Why would/should we use a lower standard for the Vice-President's actions in Ukraine then selling a used truck to a step-brother for a loss?


*-Two months later (April 2014), Hunter is appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings.  

%-  IRS definition of related party for IRS purposes is found in IRS Code Section 267(b) and (c)  as follows:

(b) Relationships. The persons referred to in subsection (a) are:
(1) Members of a family, as defined in subsection (c)(4);

(2) An individual and a corporation more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding
stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for such individual;
(3) Two corporations which are members of the same controlled group (as defined in
subsection (f));
(4) A grantor and a fiduciary of any trust;
(5) A fiduciary of a trust and a fiduciary of another trust, if the same person is a
grantor of both trusts;
(6) A fiduciary of a trust and a beneficiary of such trust;
(7) A fiduciary of a trust and a beneficiary of another trust, if the same person is a
grantor of both trusts;
(8) A fiduciary of a trust and a corporation more than 50 percent in value of the
outstanding stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for the trust or
by or for a person who is a grantor of the trust;
(9) A person and an organization to which section 501 (relating to certain educational
and charitable organizations which are exempt from tax) applies and which is
controlled directly or indirectly by such person or (if such person is an individual)
by members of the family of such individual;
(10) A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own—
(A)more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the
corporation, and
(B) more than 50 percent of the capital interest, or the profits interest, in the
partnership;
(11) An S corporation and another S corporation if the same persons own more
than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation;
(12) An S corporation and a C corporation, if the same persons own more than
50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation; or
(13) Except in the case of a sale or exchange in satisfaction of a pecuniary
bequest, an executor of an estate and a beneficiary of such estate.

(c) Constructive ownership of stock. For purposes of determining, in applying subsection (b), the
ownership of stock—
(1) Stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust
shall be considered as being owned proportionately by or for its shareholders, partners, or
beneficiaries;
(2) An individual shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or
for his family;
(3) An individual owning (otherwise than by the application of paragraph (2)) any stock in a
corporation shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or
for his partner;
(4) The family of an individual shall include only his brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants [emphasis added]; and

(5) Stock constructively owned by a person by reason of the application of paragraph (1)
shall, for the purpose of applying paragraph (1), (2), or (3), be treated as actually owned
by such person, but stock constructively owned by an individual by reason of the
application of paragraph (2) or (3) shall not be treated as owned by him for the purpose of
again applying either of such paragraphs in order to make another the constructive owner
of such stock.


so what was Joe Biden's crime, exactly?

try to explain without quoting another crapload of IRS regs.


RealityForAll said:


If Joe received $50k/month from the Ukrainian gas company while VP then Joe committed a crime.  Instead, your position is that Hunter (Joe's sole heir and natural object of his affection) receiving the $50k/month from the Ukrainian gas company is not a problem.  If we were to apply related party transaction analysis to Joe, Hunter and the Burisma Holdings (which was apparently owned by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s prior Russia-friendly president, who was driven out of office in February 2014 by mass protests*) we would then attribute the actions of Hunter and Burisma to Joe and vice-versa.    Both the SEC and IRS use related party definitions and analysis for run-of the-mill transactions%.  Why would/should we use a lower standard for the Vice-President's actions in Ukraine then selling a used truck to a step-brother for a loss?


 Hunter Biden took a job, he didn't sell his father a truck. Unless you are saying Joe Biden claimed Hunter as a dependent on his tax forms, you don't seem to have an actual point here.


PVW said:

RealityForAll said:


If Joe received $50k/month from the Ukrainian gas company while VP then Joe committed a crime.  Instead, your position is that Hunter (Joe's sole heir and natural object of his affection) receiving the $50k/month from the Ukrainian gas company is not a problem.  If we were to apply related party transaction analysis to Joe, Hunter and the Burisma Holdings (which was apparently owned by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s prior Russia-friendly president, who was driven out of office in February 2014 by mass protests*) we would then attribute the actions of Hunter and Burisma to Joe and vice-versa.    Both the SEC and IRS use related party definitions and analysis for run-of the-mill transactions%.  Why would/should we use a lower standard for the Vice-President's actions in Ukraine then selling a used truck to a step-brother for a loss?


 Hunter Biden took a job, he didn't sell his father a truck. Unless you are saying Joe Biden claimed Hunter as a dependent on his tax forms, you don't seem to have an actual point here.

 Have you been huffing paint?

My post dealt with the fact that both the IRS and SEC use related party rules for analyzing transactions.  And, I believe related party rules should be used for the entirety of Joe's family (including Joe's brother and Joe's son - not just attribution under related party rules to Joe's wife).

Joe and Hunter are related parties for both SEC and IRS purposes.  Under both SEC and IRS related party rules, whatever Hunter does is attributed to Joe and vice-versa.  Attribution of Hunter's action at Burisma to Joe would mean Joe had engaged in a crime but we did not have related party rules in place in 2014 with regard to the VP and his children (and I understand we have the same situation today).  However, my understanding is that we have related party rules which cause attribution to Joe for actions of his wife.  Thus, if Joe's wife had become a board member of Burisma, my understanding the action of Joe's wife would be attributed to Joe.  And, thus the acts of Joe's wife at Burisma would be treated as a criminal act by Joe.

Why have related party rules for VPs that only apply to their spouse?

PS "[A] dependent on his tax forms" - where did that come from?  We are discussing related party attribution - please keep up (we are not discussing Joe's tax return nor his dependents)


drummerboy said:

so what was Joe Biden's crime, exactly?

try to explain without quoting another crapload of IRS regs.

Q:  Why were the actions of Joe's wife attributed to Joe when he was VP for purposes of conflict-of-interest rules and criminal rules?

.

.

.

.

.

.

A:  Related party attribution.

PS The cited IRS material was not regulations but excerpts from the statute regarding related party definitions.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.