Jimmy Dore and Malcolm Fleschner on this week’s Aggressive Progressives. The duo discuss John Oliver’s coverage of Third Party candidates-particularly of Jill Stein- which has made Jimmy extra aggressive.
This is Jimmy at his worst, fucking Stein isn’t going to do shit in the election except fuck up the vote, if we end up with Trump then you can go get your I voted for Stein tattoo and be in the same mess the rest of us are in, except you didn’t count!
Donna Brazile claimed that Jordan Chariton was harassing her with a follow up question, because Jordan didn’t send her the follow up question in advance. All good reporters know that the tough, follow up questions have to be submitted to people in power a week before the questions are asked. ;-)
Jimmy, you know the difference between you and John Oliver? He’s funny, you’re not. And Oliver is not a corporate shill. He’s brought attention to a lot of issues – remember Net Neutrality? With Jon Stewart out of the picture he and Samantha Bee are filling the void.
So… find something else to bitch about. There are plenty of issues that are worth your time….
The fact that Oliver has been so good at exposing journalistic pieces that need to be seen by the public is what makes his unfair treatment of Stein so infuriating. People implicitly trust Oliver, I know I did before seeing this segment, and that’s why it’s so dangerous because the average person takes what he says and believes it 100%.
If I were to give Oliver the benefit of the doubt, I’d say his “Stein takedown” might not have been malicious — he probably didn’t have much material but needed to deliver the “all candidates suck” bit and worked with what he had. I mean he spent a good 5 minutes ripping on her musical abilities from decades ago, kind of funny but lets face it, it has nothing to do with presidential fitness so why bring it up…?
CanIBEFrank, I totally agree with you, get the fuck off John Oliver’s back Jimmy! I love watching Oliver’s show, and the third party candidates are just a throw away vote, face it or not, your vote won’t determine the president Jimmy, so get off your high horse. Good call Frank.
Oh look, Jimmy Dore is doing for Jill Stein what he has complained about others doing for Hillary Clinton.
Jimmy, Stein’s not perfect, and I’m going to vote for her anyway, but don’t try to mislead voters into thinking that Jill is a godsend that can’t do anything wrong.
I’m glad you brought up the vaccines. Even TYT has perpetrated the myth of the ignorant audience on this subject — “Oh! If anyone ever questions anything about any vaccine, it might lead some really dumb people to be more anti-vaccine! So questioning is wrong.” Is anyone really claiming that nothing harmful has ever been or can ever be in a vaccine??
The fact is, some vaccines used to contain mercury. Some still do contain aluminum. Many outlets (TYT included) misreport that it was PROVEN that vaccines DID NOT contribute to autism, which is wrong. It simply wasn’t proven they did. I get that proving a negative is harder, but still the statement is just wrong. Even if someone says, “Hey, people have real questions” like Stein said earlier, that doesn’t make them a fucking lunatic. Some people who are against vaccines are lunatics, that doesn’t mean we have to stop questioning anything on the subject to prove we’re not lunatics. That’s just fucking stupid.
But Jimmy is being unfair and black-and-white about John Oliver. He lambastes the third-party candidates like he lambastes a lot of things. Deal with it, he’s a comedian dude. Don’t be like Alex Jones and call anyone who doesn’t agree with you a corporate shill. The speech about how we had Stewart/Colbert and that was “enough,” why did the shadowy corporate people think we needed a third voice? Dude, you’re a third voice, Jimmy.
This show is a disgrace. Jimmy is doing his best to turn TYT into good vs. evil, black vs. white, talk-radio rage-athon.
Now John Oliver is enemy #1 because he dared to criticize Jill Stein. This according to Jimmy is fundamentally unacceptable because America needs more parties, not less, and because Oliver is rich and foreign. First of all, criticize the message, not the messenger. Secondly, all parties should be open to criticism, regardless of whether America needs more parties or not. The problem is America’s political system is structurally not set-up to accommodate third parties very easily because everything is first past the post “winner take all”. He should spend more time talking about that, rather than raging against Oliver.
Even if you buy every argument that Jimmy makes to rebut Oliver (which I don’t, but will grant for now), Jimmy’s rage here is way over the top. Oliver has shone light on plenty of issues which don’t typically get play in corporate media — the prison industrial complex, gerrymandering, pay day loan sharking, net neutrality, bail conditions, For Profit Colleges, female parity in corporate america, etc… To now say that he is simply a corporate stooge is ridiculous and really reminds me of right wing witch hunts against RINOs, and good old fashioned “America, love it or leave it” patriotism. To top it off, Jimmy LITERALLY says that John should go back to England because he doesn’t agree with him.
That kind of rhetoric has had a corrosive effect on the right wing, and particularly right wing media — I DO NOT want to see that in supposedly thoughtful alternative media like TYT. This is a gigantic red flag to me, that TYT is going down a dangerous path of appeasing its ideological base through red meat and simplistic, entertaining arguments.
“This according to Jimmy is fundamentally unacceptable because America needs more parties, not less, and because Oliver is rich and foreign.”
Well, no, that is not the issue at matter. It was mentioned incidentally, mostly out of personal distaste; admittedly it added nothing to his case. Plus, being Jimmy, he is susceptible to getting overly emotional in his indignation. His outburst and bit about going back to your own country are accountable by this disposition, but nevertheless unwarranted.
But your point about the message and structural discussions, to my mind, are moot, they talk about the nature of US political structure on almost every other episode, if to a fault.
The reason for attacking the messenger is because he plays a large part in “liberal opinion making”, and because the “criticism” (indeed, anyone is open to being critique) was so transparently calculated or selectively chosen as to misrepresent and paint as someone beneath notice or contempt. The segment began by juxtaposing fringe and irrational third party candidates and generally conflating them all together with Jill throughout. No factual connection is provided. It’s done simply to marginalize and dismiss.
The most egregious example of this willfully distorting selection, is how they address her plan for ending student debt and quantitative easing:
They start by showing a 30 second segment of the CNN Townhall to introduce her signature proposal of ending student debt. Then Oliver states, smugly, and what is her proposal? They then cut to a TYT interview (yes, the TYT interview!) of her fumbling the answer for the sake of brevity. There! HAH! Silly ignorant women, only the Federal Reserve can buy/nullify debt, not the president!
What makes this bit particularly dishonest and especially mendacious is that they were aware she knew that; It’s in the CNN segment they selectively cut out before the TYT interview:
(TRANSCRIPT)
Which essentially means that the Federal Reserve would be expanding the money supply into the hands of young people so that they can spend it into the economy instead of having to pay back the loans with their hard earned dollars, they now own their hard earned dollars. So, what I’m saying…
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: So, hold on, let me make sure that we understand it. So, the Federal Reserve would buy the debt.
STEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: So, they would expire the debt, whatever the…
STEIN: That’s right.
CUOMO: … whatever the accounting equivalent is.
STEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: We’re talking about $1.3 or so trillion dollars.
STEIN: Trillion, that’s right.
CUOMO: And then you’re saying they would also take that amount of money in new currency and give it to the people who held the loans?
STEIN: No, no. What I’m saying is that they basically cancel the loans which is like giving — it’s almost like giving students money. They don’t actually give them money. This means that instead of student paying the bank, the student gets the whole…
Now, are we really to imagine his producers, sub-producers, writers, co-writers, researchers etc, overlooked her more nuanced answer – on the very same CNN video they showed for 30 seconds? That the only answer they could find on her proposal was on a tin-pot online news interview instead? Of course not. They were fully aware of the CNN Townhall, but it didn’t fit into the narrative for marginalizing and dismissing Stein.
The fact that the Late Night etc has shed light on other important issues does not preclude them from (willfully or otherwise) distorting and misrepresenting other issues. It’s a matter of where, the show, its producers and proprietors, fundamental interest lie. Bottom line is, Stein voters overlap or are disaffected Hillary voters.
I could go on, but world, time and space are not with us. I do see your point of the dangers of Jimmy’s rhetoric to some measure. I suppose Id be more willing to give him license due to what I perceive as his intent.
But finally — all this to a person who fundamentally has no power or influence is what I mind the most. And the cause they espouse, the message that they advance, is one that is too often side-lined but needed dearly.
I think it’s fair to say that this was not totally fair to Stein. Both the student debt issue and the vax issue are nuanced, complicated issues that it isn’t really fair to boil down in the way that they did. However, I’d say that comedy very often is not totally fair and nuanced, and blowing your stack in the way that Jimmy did is disproportionate. His argument is that a comedian should not be “targeting” someone like Stein who has very little exposure or power. I think this is a bit of a cop-out. If you’re running for president you have to be able to take the good with the bad. If someone is unfair to you, point out why they’re wrong. As they say “any publicity is good publicity”. Oliver could have gone harder against the green party on a number of issues, but didn’t — saying that wifi is public health concern, anti-GMO nonsense, Baraka’s many kooky conspiratorial beliefs, etc… It’s not like Oliver ignores the powerful.
Anyway, my main point is really much more of a “tone” issue — which I it seems we both agree on in to a large extent. I think that it is very important to maintain a sense of perspective and civility in public discussions of politics. Demonizing people who say things you disagree with has led to a very real problem in the world today. We retreat into our tightly knit ideological communities, and any disagreement is treated as heresy. This is very dangerous for the way politics is done. The problem is far worse on the right, but I worry that it will creep in to the left as it gets more assertive. People like Jimmy are leading that charge. I agree he has nothing but good intentions, but that doesn’t absolve him of responsibility. John Oliver has been an ally on most issues, but Jimmy is thinks none of that matters any more because of this one segment. Bad precedent. I say that criticism is totally justified, but needs to be kept “in bounds”.
I love this show so I want it to be the best it can be. The main show has great sound. How come the music for this show sounds like it’s coming through a tin speaker? #JarOfBees
I love this show SO much… Jimmy Dore is my spirit animal… I feel like I would pay for TYT just to watch this freaking show <3 The best out there right now!
Yeah so a lot of people seem to have said this already but Jimmy as much as I usually enjoy your coverage, terrible effort wrt Oliver. “Go back to your country and sort that mess out”? Come on man, you’re undermining yourself.
I enjoy and respect Jimmy Dore as both a comedian and a commentator. However, he has proven that he is rather pathetic when it comes to even mildly challenging his view. He does not possess the capacity to deal in nuance and behaves childishly in the face of even the mildest challenge. It’s really quite sad.
Normally love the show, but you can’t say shit like “move back to England”. That’s no better than the right wing “love it or leave it” crap. Disagree with Oliver, disagree ‘aggressively’, but don’t act Xenophobic. There’s plenty of people in the US that already do that, and we don’t need one more.
Jimmy is borrowing rhetoric from the right-wing dumb patriot xenophobic book. If Jimmy doesn’t agree with Oliver’s opinion than he should move back to England?! WHAT THE FUCK?! Way to be a FUCKING authoritarian conservative!
Shame on you, Jimmy. You’re not progressive, just an aggressive buffoon!
I don’t think he meant it: Jimmy’s humor is always largely based in sarcasm and involves briefly putting on a rightwing persona (in the same way that Stephen Colbert used to do it all the time during the Colbert show). But yeah, even so, I have to say that this one fell flat, Jimmy, and that it backfired. Not a keeper.
Another great show! It’s just refreshing to hear some sanity in this decaying culture of illiteracy and hate. For every dipshit hate monger who swallows the corporate cum, there are a many more people who get what your doing here and support you. Stay strong and keep up the great work.
Wait you guys are missing something about John Oliver, he used Cenks TYT interview with Jill Stein, which means he knows Jill Steins real view on vaccinations…which means he misguided his viewers on purpose about her tweets anyway…which is disingenuous.
smdh at half of what Jimmy says these days. Kind of abhorrent to hear Jimmy make a comment that maybe Oliver should go back to “his country”. Way over the top. He spent way longer talking about Stein on vaccines than the damn thing he’s even criticizing. Nice that Jimmy IGNORED everything else in that segment
Aggressive Progressives just gets better and better and better. Jimmy is brilliant and Malcolm is the perfect co-host: smart and funny. Jordan’s piece on Brazile is journalism at its best. (And she really is the worst liar ever.) Jimmy, please puke on John Oliver. I’ll join you as long as he supports a corporatist warmonger. We need this show every day since Cenk feels obligated to do those “isn’t Trump a jerk” stories. And more Malcolm!
Jimmy is really starting to irritate me. When it comes to Jill Stein, he sounds like those fervent Hillary supporters who scream sexism whenever she is criticized. John criticized all the candidates – not just Jill Stein. His point was that none of them are good choices. He criticized Stein though so he MUST be a corporate shill. It is the only explanation!
He was also absolutely right about Stein and the vaccines. She is trying to find a balance between placating her crazy base and not sound crazy.
If you are going to say John Oliver is wrong about quantitative easing, then explain why. You can’t just say because one expert says so. Explain the argument. John Oliver explained why Stein was wrong so you should explain why he is wrong. You can find experts to say anything. There are climatologists who don’t believe in global warming and there are biologists who don’t believe in evolution. You can’t just say that climate change isn’t happening because one expert said so. If you don’t want to take the time to learn the subject, then you need to go by the expert consensus. This is different than the word of a single expert.
The only thing that bothered me about the John Oliver segment is that they didn’t talk about alternative voting systems that allows voters to vote their conscience. Jimmy Dore doesn’t really talk about this either though. Maine is going to have a ballot initiate in November to implement instant runoff voting statewide( one of the rank choice voting methods). I haven’t heard Jimmy talk about this at all. IRV is a pretty bad system, but it is much better than the current first past the post system. The voting system is the root problem that we should be addressing. You can’t elect good candidates if you are being penalized for supporting your favorite candidate.
John Oliver used Cenks TYT interview clip with Jill Stein, which means he knows Jill Steins real view on vaccinations, yet he smeared her anyway. She went on to explain everything, yet “last week tonight” ignored it. I still watch it even though I hate what he did.
> John Oliver explained why Stein was wrong so you should explain why he is wrong.
Whatever you think about quantitative easing, the real point IMO is that Oliver failed to credit Stein with being so adamant about wanting to tackle the student debt problem as forcefully as she possibly can.
Because Stein is right about student debt being unacceptably, criminally high, even though she may be wrong about her suggested means of resolving it. It’s perfectly fair to criticize her chosen method of resolving it, but IMO Oliver took it all too far into a direction that suggests Stein is also wrong in radically prioritizing the issue as much as she does.
It’s a radical problem that clearly needs radical solutions, and while I don’t think that Stein has hit on the perfect radical solution yet (nor has anyone else for that matter), I find it more important that she is willing to go so far on it.
Please never stop this show! I never knew how progressive I was until AP came along! GREATEST SHOW OF ALL TIME!! I will still watch John Oliver but I hated him for making JS look like an idiot, he gave a 10min speech about how the president cannot allocate funds to bail out students BUT HE DID DO IT WITH THE AUTO INDUSTRY!!! HOW HOW HOW DID HE DO IT THEN??!! Thanks Jimmy, Thanks Malcolm, see ya next week!
I didnt like Oliver’s segment, and Im glad they covered this. But the extent to which these guys are sure they are right is a little alarming. They claim to know “absolutely everything”, have no problem claiming monopoly on truth and morally condemning others for their positions in the least charitable way possible, then Jimmy actually says “Why dont you go back to your own country?!” because he disagrees on political points. Makes the claims of being the most progressive person ever a little hard to take seriously
So who exactly is deserving of “charity”, in your opinion? I wasn’t aware that politics is about extending charity to your political and ideological enemies. I thought that “charity” only existed in situations of personal need, in the same way that I just handed cash to the man I passed who was made homeless by neoliberal policies.
Anyone you are arguing with, especially someone who has shown they have a degree of respect for the things you respect. Oliver has done quite progressive pieces in the past that are exactly in line views regularly expressed by Jimmy and other “progressives”. Calling him out when hes off base is one thing, but talking about him like Jimmy did is another.
Maybe its only me who thinks people who are interested in progress in politics should use the basic ideas of constructive argument, and shouldnt be afraid to take on the best arguments of the other side. Assuming the worst interpretation of the other sides argument then railing against it is intellectually lazy and not what we should strive for if we actually want to be heard. If you assume the most charitable interpretation you can think of then argue against that, you take the intellectual high ground and show that your position is robust enough to win without having to twist it to your favor.
Who is NOT deserving of charity in your opinion? And how is that progressive?
> Anyone you are arguing with, especially someone who has shown they have a degree of respect for the things you respect.
You’re talking about an actual conversation between two people, like we’re having right now. But there is no conversation between Jimmy and Oliver.
Oliver doesn’t have any conversations with anyone on his show: he’s a polemical satirist (and so is Jimmy, although needless to say AP is conceived differently than Jimmy’s own, more satirical show is). Being a polemical satirist, John Oliver regularly says things about public figures that are in fact extremely insulting to them, but he gets away with it because 1) he’s couching it in the form of a joke, and 2) satire is by definition about holding the powerful to account and about being a sharp thorn in their sides.
Being an influential satirist, Oliver has amassed some power of his own, and needless to say, the process works both ways. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to attack Oliver with the same ruthlessness with which he attacks others. That is all part of the same game and Oliver undoubtedly understands this.
It doesn’t harm John Oliver’s other (say, progressive) arguments for anyone to come at Oliver in the way that he constantly comes at everyone else.
Because, as you say, a lot of his Oliver’s arguments can be construed as being political “progressive” in terms of their political targets, goals and apparent ideological content, and for that reason those pieces deserve additional praise from political subjects such as we. But that shouldn’t give Oliver an automatic free pass on all the other pieces that run into other political directions (say, more centrist or more establishmentarian ones. On a rare occasion, even a conservative one).
Most importantly perhaps, you’re forgetting that Oliver is a humorist first and a political pundit or polemicist second. I know this because he has literally said so in interviews. Do you understand the political implications of that? I means that, if he can make a really funny joke by viscerally attacking progressives, he will do so. Because the first priority will always be the joke. And this is perhaps where we can say that Oliver and Jimmy have parted ways as satirists, because Jimmy has evolved more into a part-time satirist / part-time conventional pundit. It’s not always clear which hat Jimmy is wearing at the time, which does create some problems and confusion sometimes.
My personal view is that being progressive is not about being polite (because that is the vibe I get from your overall argument). As you say, there must be a strong emphasis on empirical facts and there must be as many constructive debates between people as possible, certainly (but again, that is not what this current Jimmy vs Oliver thing is, it’s not a debate). But the bottom line IMO is that progressivism is an ideology in the same way that liberalism and conservatism are ideologies. You’re fighting to realize a certain ideological vision of society. Personally, I think some progressives are in denial about what that really means.
I dont disagree with much of this, “It doesn’t harm John Oliver’s other (say, progressive) arguments for anyone to come at Oliver in the way that he constantly comes at everyone else.” is a very fair point. But if, as you say, Oliver is doing it in the name of satire and comedy, Jimmy in this show was certainly not (right?), it seemed clearly personal; whether or not Oliver needs to have or does have a thick skin about the response, that difference still seems a little less palatable for me watching both.
I was not aware of Oliver’s personal beliefs (troubling if true), but people that I know that watch his show watch it for content as well as comedy, he isnt popular just because of his harsh zingers, he is popular at least in part, if not primarily, because he has shown a degree of honest seeming investigation into subjects that dont often get the type of exposure he is able to provide with the resources he has at his disposal. Jimmy is the same, (minus the resources and with more niche interests) the comedy aspect helps, it makes it much easier to digest, but people are interested because they are talking honestly about things other people they see arent talking about, and its refreshing and has an air of truth.
Maybe Jon Oliver has abandoned that honesty and openly has no credibility, but his show certainly does not present itself that way – they clearly have political leanings and seem to be well aware of/care about the messages they send to some degree – and I dont think you have to abandon honesty and credibility in order to do the same type of satire and comedy. That is Jimmy’s point when he says you shouldnt use comedy in this way, and it seems to be your position as well when you say we cant give him a free pass. We know, and anyone with a large platform where they speak about things that matter to people (politics) has an obligation to know, that unless you openly say otherwise people will assume you are being honest to some degree and will take you seriously, and you have a certain responsibility to that in the way you present yourself and your show.
Back and forth discussion or not, comedy or not, they are largely presenting arguments about subjects people care about, that people take seriously. When doing so they can choose to frame them in a way that reflects the most rhetorically potent and impactful versions of the other side, or in a way that reflects the lowest common denominator, most easily refutable versions (or some combination,or somewhere in between etc).
I think they both have been great examples of the former type of honest framing in the past, but are both guilty of tending too much solely towards the latter in this case, and it undercuts the credibility they may have, rightly or wrongly, earned. And if so we should be ok with voicing our disapproval. If there are better versions of the argument available to you- the ones carrying intellectual weight- and you choose to only go after the soft, easy targets, it is the definition of an intellectually dishonest move.
Progressives, without getting too far into the weeds with definitions, Im loosely assuming favor progress in terms of policies and ideas that bring us further towards the historical left. What tactics are used to pursue that (polite vs aggressive) are debatable and contingent on circumstance, but not knowingly misrepresenting others arguments to advocate for your side seems to me to be a prerequisite to the type of progress we want to have.
If you want to call that politeness, i dont know, but I would apply it to anyone presenting an argument, or engaging in political discourse (which this, one political show addressing things said in another political show, qualifies in my book) that is perceived as serious at all, “progressive” or not. It is not about being nice and polite for the sake of etiquette, but being intellectually honest has to be something we care about if we claim to care about personal integrity and applying to ourselves the same (if not higher) standards we apply to others.
Im not saying its a magic bullet, if everyone on the left started being totally intellectually honest all the time its not like we automatically win or something, its not a whole solution in-itself. I just think its something we should expect from those with the means to do so, and I wish I saw a little more of it from those who I think are capable of it.
Malcolm made the same point I did on a political group. Thank you for making me not feel like I’m crazy. I argued they should stop shaming and yelling at millennials and other progressives who are having a hard time holding their nose tight enough to vote for someone they abhor; it’s a small number, really. They should be going to the undecided and the ones who don’t see a reason to go to the polls. HRC needs to give them a REASON to vote FOR HRC other than “Trump” or “Russia”. But, it looks like they can stop yelling anyway since she seems to be heading to a win.
YES, you are so right! HRC and the establishment is going to COMPLETELY misread the results when she wins and claims a ‘mandate.’ When she wins it won’t be because she won a lot of people over; it is almost entirely because Donny “Tiny Hands” is continuing to implode. That is also the narrative the corporate press will probably push because it keeps the status quo. I think I saw poll that showed about 1/2 of those planning to vote for her have admitted they are actually just voting against Trump!
Keep up the great work.
– Queen_Serene
I tweeted Oliver a hearty “Fuck You” immediately after that hit piece on Jill Stein. He treated BERNIE with similar dismissiveness…his wifey-poo is a retired military officer, so maybe he is afraid there won’t be a war for his honey to get her colonel’s brevet and go back to war. Not sayin’/just sayin’.
One of my greatest fears is a Clinton with a Mandate…all kinds of bad shit is going to happen.
Jimmy can make fun of the morning news caster voice all he wants but as I’m doing my early morning edits and research, he really woke me up. If I could get a daily run down of headlines by Jimmy in the morning that would be great.
Finally. I’ve Been waiting all week for this episode. Staying away from TYT for the Election season, after Ana started attacking Trump supporters, calling them deplorable, based on a mixture of verifiable facts and mere accusations.
No, they couldn’t possibly be merely misguided, while having legitimate concerns, like the rest of us. No, they’re deplorable, not worth listening to. Not like us.
For at least the duration of the Election season, it’s only Jimmy, Emma, and Jordan. Can’t we do more than one Aggressive Progressive a week?
Thanks Jimmy and Malcom.
Donna Brazile:
Badgering women. Ah, when lying doesn’t work, let’s play the ‘Women are softer, sweeter creatures, who need to be protected from mere offensive words’ routine. You can bet that this will the main fallback for the next 4 years, when Hillary has to endure criticism.
Donna is so proud of CNN. Hopefully, she can hold onto that positive outlook, while the Clinton campaign makes her into a sacrificial lamb.
Yep, Donna was visibly flustered, completely unprepared. When she agreed to be a shill, she didn’t sign on for this. I feel bad for her, because this is only the beginning.
John Oliver:
Going out on a limb here, but it appears that Jimmy is pissed with Oliver. Ok, Oliver is biased, maybe even a shill, but he’s still funny and informative. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but his show has some value.
Voting for the lesser of two evils:
Agreed with voting for the person and values you hold dear. However, I would sell my soul and vote, for any candidate that believably promises to pardon Chelsea Manning.
Regarding voting for a flawed candidate vs. not voting, George Carlin turned “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, on its head. He explains that if you DO vote, and your candidate screws everyone over, then you have no right to complain; you opened that window.
> Going out on a limb here, but it appears that Jimmy is pissed with Oliver. Ok, Oliver is biased, maybe even a shill, but he’s still funny and informative. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but his show has some value.
I certainly agree that, whenever Oliver is focusing on corporations and their wrongdoings, he’s doing great work. Whenever he’s talking about elections….not so much, because he’s clearly picking establishment sides.
My state of Texas has suddenly narrowed to a single digit contest. I keep oscilating between voting for Hillary as a national rebuke to Trumpism, and voting my conscience for Stein. My vote changes every Thursday because of this show.
All I can say is THANK YOU, Jimmy for saying what we already know is true. Hoping no one will pay you enough to sell-out, cause without you, we’d have no truth.
This is one of the reasons why Fox News, even though it is critical of Obama’s policies, do not do honest coverage of Syrian war, where Saudis want to install Wahhabi/Salafi heads-chopping tyranny with CIA-armed Al-Qaeda, its clones, aka “rebels”.
What was cut out at 21:40? Something about Jimmy dropping an F-Bomb? I hope an aggressive progressive show isn’t about being a safe space for people who are offended by cursing…
Jimmy I wish you would do more then sling random insults like maybe show how Donna Brazille has been so cozy over the years with CNN and the Dems maybe show why the email is the nail in the coffin. The energy is great but it seems misguided when you waste it on random insults. I love the idea of this this show but it is feeling less and less like a place to find progressive topics and more like just picking one absurd topic and yelling for 30mins about it. What about whats happening in ND right now? You guys are great keep up.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I would note that Jimmy has already produced a very significant amount of commentary on the North Dakota pipeline; his own channel has lots of it. The most recent commentary was four days ago when he put up the video “Militarized Police Arrest Shailene Woodley Protesting DaKota Pipeline” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zlBi2P2Upw
Secondly, Donna Brazile, and the corrupt system that she represents and personifies, have amply earned all these attacks and rhetorical assaults. If anything, Jimmy is being polite and not getting anywhere the level of invective that I myself have already flung at this in a private setting (private because I don’t want to degrade the level of civility of boards such as these).
Are yu watching this program on PCP? Jimmy is doing the heavy lifting, and gets frustrated at the lack of passion in others…like you. Maybe if you sent him a million he would do what you want him to do?
Yes attack the people that like the show and what to see it do more, smart. I was just asking if we could get more background and maybe cover more then 2 topics a show – Clearly they want to do this as they are always asking about time limits and what not and have many other stories to get too. I understand it LOOKS like I am attacking him but I am just trying to get a better show, I mean even they thought it went too far look at the 2 edits. You get what I am saying?
It’s understandable, we all want a lengthier show with more substance and/or multiple episodes per week. But I think it’s unrealistic to ask Jimmy to do the Jimmy Dore Show and/b> such an expanded schedule.
Another excellent show!
IBD/TIPP tracking poll has Jill Stein at 5.5%! Factor in their margin of error 0.9% she board es on 5%. In the article it states that IBD/TIPP tracking polls have been cited as being the most accurate in predicting actual election results for the last 3 presidential elections. https://www.YouTube. com/watch?v=Pr4brZ9ezio
Also, there video with an article of Stein-Baraka responds to John Oliver smear attempt. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=30-wd20jXtw
Both vids on The New Progressive Voice YouTube channels.
You lying bitch Donna Brazile. You are just another example of a traitor that makes its living hiding behind the Democratic and Republican, gender and racial labels that will fuck us all for your greed just like Hillary, and Obama who sold the color of his skin to deliver for his masters at Covington & Burling LLP, Wall Street and the multi-nationals who are the kings of greed, stolen our democracy, violated our constitutional rights, and worst of all feed our young people into the mutilation death pit in the Middle East so the defense industry can trade the flesh of all sides for cash. Nothing will change until the Democratic and Republican criminals are gone. The truth will keep coming and only accelerate from the internet and make these bastards look as stupid as they are, just like Donna. I love you Jordan. Another great show Jimmy, thanks!
Not just now. John Oliver exposed himself as corporatist pro-establishment shill already weeks ago when he has grossly misrepresented Hillary scandals, “forgetting” to mention key facts that would normally lead to jail time.
No Jimmy pissed because many people respect John Oliver and believes everything he says. I think Jimmy even respected John Oliver but knowing what he says is false makes you question what he saying on other issues. I still like John Oliver but just not when it comes to politics.
i. love. this. show. can you imagine one day if the aggressive progressives gets the kind of viewership that fuckrod john oliver does? whisper of a dream!
Donna Brazille was on Fox News after the debate. She was asked about providing a question to Hillary Clinton. She said “Russia, Russia, Russia.” And after a few minutes of push back, she said that there might be an email from her sent 3am that wouldn’t have been her. If the emails were altered, why wouldn’t you begin the argument with that? I had just listened to horseshit spin from Republicans. I expect that. They finally bring on a Democrat, and her spin pissed me off more. I hope Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary are happy that defending the democratic candidate against Donald Trump now requires work. It shouldn’t. If the head of the DNC can’t make a competent argument, why should I try to defend her? I still argue against Donald Trump, but the DNC keeps undercutting my argument. And the next leak will probably contradict my previous argument. Good job, DNC.
Thanks To Jimmy and Malcolm. Great show! Should be five days a week.
Comments
Lmfao 400 Electoral Vote?!? ? South Carolina?! Indiana?! Texas?! ?
Lmfao 400 Electoral Vote?!? ?
How much harder is Clinton the feminist icon going to make it for women to be heard?
This is Jimmy at his worst, fucking Stein isn’t going to do shit in the election except fuck up the vote, if we end up with Trump then you can go get your I voted for Stein tattoo and be in the same mess the rest of us are in, except you didn’t count!
Donna Brazile claimed that Jordan Chariton was harassing her with a follow up question, because Jordan didn’t send her the follow up question in advance. All good reporters know that the tough, follow up questions have to be submitted to people in power a week before the questions are asked. ;-)
Jimmy, you know the difference between you and John Oliver? He’s funny, you’re not. And Oliver is not a corporate shill. He’s brought attention to a lot of issues – remember Net Neutrality? With Jon Stewart out of the picture he and Samantha Bee are filling the void.
So… find something else to bitch about. There are plenty of issues that are worth your time….
The fact that Oliver has been so good at exposing journalistic pieces that need to be seen by the public is what makes his unfair treatment of Stein so infuriating. People implicitly trust Oliver, I know I did before seeing this segment, and that’s why it’s so dangerous because the average person takes what he says and believes it 100%.
If I were to give Oliver the benefit of the doubt, I’d say his “Stein takedown” might not have been malicious — he probably didn’t have much material but needed to deliver the “all candidates suck” bit and worked with what he had. I mean he spent a good 5 minutes ripping on her musical abilities from decades ago, kind of funny but lets face it, it has nothing to do with presidential fitness so why bring it up…?
CanIBEFrank, I totally agree with you, get the fuck off John Oliver’s back Jimmy! I love watching Oliver’s show, and the third party candidates are just a throw away vote, face it or not, your vote won’t determine the president Jimmy, so get off your high horse. Good call Frank.
Oh look, Jimmy Dore is doing for Jill Stein what he has complained about others doing for Hillary Clinton.
Jimmy, Stein’s not perfect, and I’m going to vote for her anyway, but don’t try to mislead voters into thinking that Jill is a godsend that can’t do anything wrong.
That HRC autism quote is from 08, Jill’s is from July of this year… Thought I’d Google it since you conveniently left the date of HRC’s… Tsk tsk tsk…
Great work Jimmy! But Harvey Weinstein has a great point. How would you counter this? Steve, what’s your take on this? https://www.google.co.jp/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-weinstein-humphrey-nixon-election-20161021-snap-story,amp.html?client=safari
I’m glad you brought up the vaccines. Even TYT has perpetrated the myth of the ignorant audience on this subject — “Oh! If anyone ever questions anything about any vaccine, it might lead some really dumb people to be more anti-vaccine! So questioning is wrong.” Is anyone really claiming that nothing harmful has ever been or can ever be in a vaccine??
The fact is, some vaccines used to contain mercury. Some still do contain aluminum. Many outlets (TYT included) misreport that it was PROVEN that vaccines DID NOT contribute to autism, which is wrong. It simply wasn’t proven they did. I get that proving a negative is harder, but still the statement is just wrong. Even if someone says, “Hey, people have real questions” like Stein said earlier, that doesn’t make them a fucking lunatic. Some people who are against vaccines are lunatics, that doesn’t mean we have to stop questioning anything on the subject to prove we’re not lunatics. That’s just fucking stupid.
But Jimmy is being unfair and black-and-white about John Oliver. He lambastes the third-party candidates like he lambastes a lot of things. Deal with it, he’s a comedian dude. Don’t be like Alex Jones and call anyone who doesn’t agree with you a corporate shill. The speech about how we had Stewart/Colbert and that was “enough,” why did the shadowy corporate people think we needed a third voice? Dude, you’re a third voice, Jimmy.
This show is a disgrace. Jimmy is doing his best to turn TYT into good vs. evil, black vs. white, talk-radio rage-athon.
Now John Oliver is enemy #1 because he dared to criticize Jill Stein. This according to Jimmy is fundamentally unacceptable because America needs more parties, not less, and because Oliver is rich and foreign. First of all, criticize the message, not the messenger. Secondly, all parties should be open to criticism, regardless of whether America needs more parties or not. The problem is America’s political system is structurally not set-up to accommodate third parties very easily because everything is first past the post “winner take all”. He should spend more time talking about that, rather than raging against Oliver.
Even if you buy every argument that Jimmy makes to rebut Oliver (which I don’t, but will grant for now), Jimmy’s rage here is way over the top. Oliver has shone light on plenty of issues which don’t typically get play in corporate media — the prison industrial complex, gerrymandering, pay day loan sharking, net neutrality, bail conditions, For Profit Colleges, female parity in corporate america, etc… To now say that he is simply a corporate stooge is ridiculous and really reminds me of right wing witch hunts against RINOs, and good old fashioned “America, love it or leave it” patriotism. To top it off, Jimmy LITERALLY says that John should go back to England because he doesn’t agree with him.
That kind of rhetoric has had a corrosive effect on the right wing, and particularly right wing media — I DO NOT want to see that in supposedly thoughtful alternative media like TYT. This is a gigantic red flag to me, that TYT is going down a dangerous path of appeasing its ideological base through red meat and simplistic, entertaining arguments.
How long have you been working for the Clinton Campaign?
“This according to Jimmy is fundamentally unacceptable because America needs more parties, not less, and because Oliver is rich and foreign.”
Well, no, that is not the issue at matter. It was mentioned incidentally, mostly out of personal distaste; admittedly it added nothing to his case. Plus, being Jimmy, he is susceptible to getting overly emotional in his indignation. His outburst and bit about going back to your own country are accountable by this disposition, but nevertheless unwarranted.
But your point about the message and structural discussions, to my mind, are moot, they talk about the nature of US political structure on almost every other episode, if to a fault.
The reason for attacking the messenger is because he plays a large part in “liberal opinion making”, and because the “criticism” (indeed, anyone is open to being critique) was so transparently calculated or selectively chosen as to misrepresent and paint as someone beneath notice or contempt. The segment began by juxtaposing fringe and irrational third party candidates and generally conflating them all together with Jill throughout. No factual connection is provided. It’s done simply to marginalize and dismiss.
The most egregious example of this willfully distorting selection, is how they address her plan for ending student debt and quantitative easing:
They start by showing a 30 second segment of the CNN Townhall to introduce her signature proposal of ending student debt. Then Oliver states, smugly, and what is her proposal? They then cut to a TYT interview (yes, the TYT interview!) of her fumbling the answer for the sake of brevity. There! HAH! Silly ignorant women, only the Federal Reserve can buy/nullify debt, not the president!
What makes this bit particularly dishonest and especially mendacious is that they were aware she knew that; It’s in the CNN segment they selectively cut out before the TYT interview:
(TRANSCRIPT)
Which essentially means that the Federal Reserve would be expanding the money supply into the hands of young people so that they can spend it into the economy instead of having to pay back the loans with their hard earned dollars, they now own their hard earned dollars. So, what I’m saying…
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: So, hold on, let me make sure that we understand it. So, the Federal Reserve would buy the debt.
STEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: So, they would expire the debt, whatever the…
STEIN: That’s right.
CUOMO: … whatever the accounting equivalent is.
STEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: We’re talking about $1.3 or so trillion dollars.
STEIN: Trillion, that’s right.
CUOMO: And then you’re saying they would also take that amount of money in new currency and give it to the people who held the loans?
STEIN: No, no. What I’m saying is that they basically cancel the loans which is like giving — it’s almost like giving students money. They don’t actually give them money. This means that instead of student paying the bank, the student gets the whole…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1608/17/se.01.html
Now, are we really to imagine his producers, sub-producers, writers, co-writers, researchers etc, overlooked her more nuanced answer – on the very same CNN video they showed for 30 seconds? That the only answer they could find on her proposal was on a tin-pot online news interview instead? Of course not. They were fully aware of the CNN Townhall, but it didn’t fit into the narrative for marginalizing and dismissing Stein.
The fact that the Late Night etc has shed light on other important issues does not preclude them from (willfully or otherwise) distorting and misrepresenting other issues. It’s a matter of where, the show, its producers and proprietors, fundamental interest lie. Bottom line is, Stein voters overlap or are disaffected Hillary voters.
I could go on, but world, time and space are not with us. I do see your point of the dangers of Jimmy’s rhetoric to some measure. I suppose Id be more willing to give him license due to what I perceive as his intent.
But finally — all this to a person who fundamentally has no power or influence is what I mind the most. And the cause they espouse, the message that they advance, is one that is too often side-lined but needed dearly.
I think it’s fair to say that this was not totally fair to Stein. Both the student debt issue and the vax issue are nuanced, complicated issues that it isn’t really fair to boil down in the way that they did. However, I’d say that comedy very often is not totally fair and nuanced, and blowing your stack in the way that Jimmy did is disproportionate. His argument is that a comedian should not be “targeting” someone like Stein who has very little exposure or power. I think this is a bit of a cop-out. If you’re running for president you have to be able to take the good with the bad. If someone is unfair to you, point out why they’re wrong. As they say “any publicity is good publicity”. Oliver could have gone harder against the green party on a number of issues, but didn’t — saying that wifi is public health concern, anti-GMO nonsense, Baraka’s many kooky conspiratorial beliefs, etc… It’s not like Oliver ignores the powerful.
Anyway, my main point is really much more of a “tone” issue — which I it seems we both agree on in to a large extent. I think that it is very important to maintain a sense of perspective and civility in public discussions of politics. Demonizing people who say things you disagree with has led to a very real problem in the world today. We retreat into our tightly knit ideological communities, and any disagreement is treated as heresy. This is very dangerous for the way politics is done. The problem is far worse on the right, but I worry that it will creep in to the left as it gets more assertive. People like Jimmy are leading that charge. I agree he has nothing but good intentions, but that doesn’t absolve him of responsibility. John Oliver has been an ally on most issues, but Jimmy is thinks none of that matters any more because of this one segment. Bad precedent. I say that criticism is totally justified, but needs to be kept “in bounds”.
I love this show so I want it to be the best it can be. The main show has great sound. How come the music for this show sounds like it’s coming through a tin speaker? #JarOfBees
Yesssssss I actually DO pay for this show specifically and it’s worth every penny!!!!! Jimmy dore for president!!!!!
I love this show SO much… Jimmy Dore is my spirit animal… I feel like I would pay for TYT just to watch this freaking show <3 The best out there right now!
Yeah so a lot of people seem to have said this already but Jimmy as much as I usually enjoy your coverage, terrible effort wrt Oliver. “Go back to your country and sort that mess out”? Come on man, you’re undermining yourself.
yeah i agree. For a split moment i was reminded of conservatives yelling at immigrants
Love what you’re doing, but could someone PLEASE put a sign on Jimmy’s camera?! Unless it’s supposed to be a running joke…
He was? Do you have links to articles showing that’s true? I haven’t heard that yet…
I enjoy and respect Jimmy Dore as both a comedian and a commentator. However, he has proven that he is rather pathetic when it comes to even mildly challenging his view. He does not possess the capacity to deal in nuance and behaves childishly in the face of even the mildest challenge. It’s really quite sad.
Cenk GIVE JORDAN A FUCKING RAISE BRO! THIS GUY IS ONE OF THE RARE FEW JOURNALISTS!!
Preach
Was it just me or did her handler mouth “don’t say that” at the end when she said they had proof Russia hacked them?
Normally love the show, but you can’t say shit like “move back to England”. That’s no better than the right wing “love it or leave it” crap. Disagree with Oliver, disagree ‘aggressively’, but don’t act Xenophobic. There’s plenty of people in the US that already do that, and we don’t need one more.
Yep, Jimmy lost it, in this one. Got too emotional about it.
HBO is owned by Time Warner, Hillary’s 8th largest campaign donor.
Jimmy is borrowing rhetoric from the right-wing dumb patriot xenophobic book. If Jimmy doesn’t agree with Oliver’s opinion than he should move back to England?! WHAT THE FUCK?! Way to be a FUCKING authoritarian conservative!
Shame on you, Jimmy. You’re not progressive, just an aggressive buffoon!
I don’t think he meant it: Jimmy’s humor is always largely based in sarcasm and involves briefly putting on a rightwing persona (in the same way that Stephen Colbert used to do it all the time during the Colbert show). But yeah, even so, I have to say that this one fell flat, Jimmy, and that it backfired. Not a keeper.
Another great show! It’s just refreshing to hear some sanity in this decaying culture of illiteracy and hate. For every dipshit hate monger who swallows the corporate cum, there are a many more people who get what your doing here and support you. Stay strong and keep up the great work.
Wait you guys are missing something about John Oliver, he used Cenks TYT interview with Jill Stein, which means he knows Jill Steins real view on vaccinations…which means he misguided his viewers on purpose about her tweets anyway…which is disingenuous.
> he used Cenks TYT interview with Jill Stein
Yeah, I noticed that too. Really surprised me and knocked me for a loop…for a second, I thought I was watching TYT.
…and YES, that part of the whole segment was disingenuous and deliberately misleading his viewers, period.
smdh at half of what Jimmy says these days. Kind of abhorrent to hear Jimmy make a comment that maybe Oliver should go back to “his country”. Way over the top. He spent way longer talking about Stein on vaccines than the damn thing he’s even criticizing. Nice that Jimmy IGNORED everything else in that segment
Loved this! Jimmy is amazing!!
Jimmy I am sorry you got offended but that episode was one of the most savage and hilarious episodes John has ever done.
John Oliver is dead to me.
Aggressive Progressives just gets better and better and better. Jimmy is brilliant and Malcolm is the perfect co-host: smart and funny. Jordan’s piece on Brazile is journalism at its best. (And she really is the worst liar ever.) Jimmy, please puke on John Oliver. I’ll join you as long as he supports a corporatist warmonger. We need this show every day since Cenk feels obligated to do those “isn’t Trump a jerk” stories. And more Malcolm!
Jimmy is really starting to irritate me. When it comes to Jill Stein, he sounds like those fervent Hillary supporters who scream sexism whenever she is criticized. John criticized all the candidates – not just Jill Stein. His point was that none of them are good choices. He criticized Stein though so he MUST be a corporate shill. It is the only explanation!
He was also absolutely right about Stein and the vaccines. She is trying to find a balance between placating her crazy base and not sound crazy.
If you are going to say John Oliver is wrong about quantitative easing, then explain why. You can’t just say because one expert says so. Explain the argument. John Oliver explained why Stein was wrong so you should explain why he is wrong. You can find experts to say anything. There are climatologists who don’t believe in global warming and there are biologists who don’t believe in evolution. You can’t just say that climate change isn’t happening because one expert said so. If you don’t want to take the time to learn the subject, then you need to go by the expert consensus. This is different than the word of a single expert.
The only thing that bothered me about the John Oliver segment is that they didn’t talk about alternative voting systems that allows voters to vote their conscience. Jimmy Dore doesn’t really talk about this either though. Maine is going to have a ballot initiate in November to implement instant runoff voting statewide( one of the rank choice voting methods). I haven’t heard Jimmy talk about this at all. IRV is a pretty bad system, but it is much better than the current first past the post system. The voting system is the root problem that we should be addressing. You can’t elect good candidates if you are being penalized for supporting your favorite candidate.
You’re a smart pickle and I agree with you.
John Oliver used Cenks TYT interview clip with Jill Stein, which means he knows Jill Steins real view on vaccinations, yet he smeared her anyway. She went on to explain everything, yet “last week tonight” ignored it. I still watch it even though I hate what he did.
> John Oliver explained why Stein was wrong so you should explain why he is wrong.
Whatever you think about quantitative easing, the real point IMO is that Oliver failed to credit Stein with being so adamant about wanting to tackle the student debt problem as forcefully as she possibly can.
Because Stein is right about student debt being unacceptably, criminally high, even though she may be wrong about her suggested means of resolving it. It’s perfectly fair to criticize her chosen method of resolving it, but IMO Oliver took it all too far into a direction that suggests Stein is also wrong in radically prioritizing the issue as much as she does.
It’s a radical problem that clearly needs radical solutions, and while I don’t think that Stein has hit on the perfect radical solution yet (nor has anyone else for that matter), I find it more important that she is willing to go so far on it.
Thank you for this episode. Barring Jimmy’s shout-iness, it really helped me decide who I am going to mark down on the ballot.
Please never stop this show! I never knew how progressive I was until AP came along! GREATEST SHOW OF ALL TIME!! I will still watch John Oliver but I hated him for making JS look like an idiot, he gave a 10min speech about how the president cannot allocate funds to bail out students BUT HE DID DO IT WITH THE AUTO INDUSTRY!!! HOW HOW HOW DID HE DO IT THEN??!! Thanks Jimmy, Thanks Malcolm, see ya next week!
John Oliver is in the Wikileaks colluding with Hillary Campaign…
I didnt like Oliver’s segment, and Im glad they covered this. But the extent to which these guys are sure they are right is a little alarming. They claim to know “absolutely everything”, have no problem claiming monopoly on truth and morally condemning others for their positions in the least charitable way possible, then Jimmy actually says “Why dont you go back to your own country?!” because he disagrees on political points. Makes the claims of being the most progressive person ever a little hard to take seriously
So who exactly is deserving of “charity”, in your opinion? I wasn’t aware that politics is about extending charity to your political and ideological enemies. I thought that “charity” only existed in situations of personal need, in the same way that I just handed cash to the man I passed who was made homeless by neoliberal policies.
Anyone you are arguing with, especially someone who has shown they have a degree of respect for the things you respect. Oliver has done quite progressive pieces in the past that are exactly in line views regularly expressed by Jimmy and other “progressives”. Calling him out when hes off base is one thing, but talking about him like Jimmy did is another.
Maybe its only me who thinks people who are interested in progress in politics should use the basic ideas of constructive argument, and shouldnt be afraid to take on the best arguments of the other side. Assuming the worst interpretation of the other sides argument then railing against it is intellectually lazy and not what we should strive for if we actually want to be heard. If you assume the most charitable interpretation you can think of then argue against that, you take the intellectual high ground and show that your position is robust enough to win without having to twist it to your favor.
Who is NOT deserving of charity in your opinion? And how is that progressive?
> Anyone you are arguing with, especially someone who has shown they have a degree of respect for the things you respect.
You’re talking about an actual conversation between two people, like we’re having right now. But there is no conversation between Jimmy and Oliver.
Oliver doesn’t have any conversations with anyone on his show: he’s a polemical satirist (and so is Jimmy, although needless to say AP is conceived differently than Jimmy’s own, more satirical show is). Being a polemical satirist, John Oliver regularly says things about public figures that are in fact extremely insulting to them, but he gets away with it because 1) he’s couching it in the form of a joke, and 2) satire is by definition about holding the powerful to account and about being a sharp thorn in their sides.
Being an influential satirist, Oliver has amassed some power of his own, and needless to say, the process works both ways. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to attack Oliver with the same ruthlessness with which he attacks others. That is all part of the same game and Oliver undoubtedly understands this.
It doesn’t harm John Oliver’s other (say, progressive) arguments for anyone to come at Oliver in the way that he constantly comes at everyone else.
Because, as you say, a lot of his Oliver’s arguments can be construed as being political “progressive” in terms of their political targets, goals and apparent ideological content, and for that reason those pieces deserve additional praise from political subjects such as we. But that shouldn’t give Oliver an automatic free pass on all the other pieces that run into other political directions (say, more centrist or more establishmentarian ones. On a rare occasion, even a conservative one).
Most importantly perhaps, you’re forgetting that Oliver is a humorist first and a political pundit or polemicist second. I know this because he has literally said so in interviews. Do you understand the political implications of that? I means that, if he can make a really funny joke by viscerally attacking progressives, he will do so. Because the first priority will always be the joke. And this is perhaps where we can say that Oliver and Jimmy have parted ways as satirists, because Jimmy has evolved more into a part-time satirist / part-time conventional pundit. It’s not always clear which hat Jimmy is wearing at the time, which does create some problems and confusion sometimes.
My personal view is that being progressive is not about being polite (because that is the vibe I get from your overall argument). As you say, there must be a strong emphasis on empirical facts and there must be as many constructive debates between people as possible, certainly (but again, that is not what this current Jimmy vs Oliver thing is, it’s not a debate). But the bottom line IMO is that progressivism is an ideology in the same way that liberalism and conservatism are ideologies. You’re fighting to realize a certain ideological vision of society. Personally, I think some progressives are in denial about what that really means.
Jimmy has become unbearable now that he has his own show. He ruins 7/10 panels he’s on
I dont disagree with much of this, “It doesn’t harm John Oliver’s other (say, progressive) arguments for anyone to come at Oliver in the way that he constantly comes at everyone else.” is a very fair point. But if, as you say, Oliver is doing it in the name of satire and comedy, Jimmy in this show was certainly not (right?), it seemed clearly personal; whether or not Oliver needs to have or does have a thick skin about the response, that difference still seems a little less palatable for me watching both.
I was not aware of Oliver’s personal beliefs (troubling if true), but people that I know that watch his show watch it for content as well as comedy, he isnt popular just because of his harsh zingers, he is popular at least in part, if not primarily, because he has shown a degree of honest seeming investigation into subjects that dont often get the type of exposure he is able to provide with the resources he has at his disposal. Jimmy is the same, (minus the resources and with more niche interests) the comedy aspect helps, it makes it much easier to digest, but people are interested because they are talking honestly about things other people they see arent talking about, and its refreshing and has an air of truth.
Maybe Jon Oliver has abandoned that honesty and openly has no credibility, but his show certainly does not present itself that way – they clearly have political leanings and seem to be well aware of/care about the messages they send to some degree – and I dont think you have to abandon honesty and credibility in order to do the same type of satire and comedy. That is Jimmy’s point when he says you shouldnt use comedy in this way, and it seems to be your position as well when you say we cant give him a free pass. We know, and anyone with a large platform where they speak about things that matter to people (politics) has an obligation to know, that unless you openly say otherwise people will assume you are being honest to some degree and will take you seriously, and you have a certain responsibility to that in the way you present yourself and your show.
Back and forth discussion or not, comedy or not, they are largely presenting arguments about subjects people care about, that people take seriously. When doing so they can choose to frame them in a way that reflects the most rhetorically potent and impactful versions of the other side, or in a way that reflects the lowest common denominator, most easily refutable versions (or some combination,or somewhere in between etc).
I think they both have been great examples of the former type of honest framing in the past, but are both guilty of tending too much solely towards the latter in this case, and it undercuts the credibility they may have, rightly or wrongly, earned. And if so we should be ok with voicing our disapproval. If there are better versions of the argument available to you- the ones carrying intellectual weight- and you choose to only go after the soft, easy targets, it is the definition of an intellectually dishonest move.
Progressives, without getting too far into the weeds with definitions, Im loosely assuming favor progress in terms of policies and ideas that bring us further towards the historical left. What tactics are used to pursue that (polite vs aggressive) are debatable and contingent on circumstance, but not knowingly misrepresenting others arguments to advocate for your side seems to me to be a prerequisite to the type of progress we want to have.
If you want to call that politeness, i dont know, but I would apply it to anyone presenting an argument, or engaging in political discourse (which this, one political show addressing things said in another political show, qualifies in my book) that is perceived as serious at all, “progressive” or not. It is not about being nice and polite for the sake of etiquette, but being intellectually honest has to be something we care about if we claim to care about personal integrity and applying to ourselves the same (if not higher) standards we apply to others.
Im not saying its a magic bullet, if everyone on the left started being totally intellectually honest all the time its not like we automatically win or something, its not a whole solution in-itself. I just think its something we should expect from those with the means to do so, and I wish I saw a little more of it from those who I think are capable of it.
Malcolm made the same point I did on a political group. Thank you for making me not feel like I’m crazy. I argued they should stop shaming and yelling at millennials and other progressives who are having a hard time holding their nose tight enough to vote for someone they abhor; it’s a small number, really. They should be going to the undecided and the ones who don’t see a reason to go to the polls. HRC needs to give them a REASON to vote FOR HRC other than “Trump” or “Russia”. But, it looks like they can stop yelling anyway since she seems to be heading to a win.
YES, you are so right! HRC and the establishment is going to COMPLETELY misread the results when she wins and claims a ‘mandate.’ When she wins it won’t be because she won a lot of people over; it is almost entirely because Donny “Tiny Hands” is continuing to implode. That is also the narrative the corporate press will probably push because it keeps the status quo. I think I saw poll that showed about 1/2 of those planning to vote for her have admitted they are actually just voting against Trump!
Keep up the great work.
– Queen_Serene
> Malcolm made the same point I did on a political group. Thank you for making me not feel like I’m crazy.
It’s nice to leave those trenches and that political trench warfare every once a while and come here, isn’t it? Same for me.
I tweeted Oliver a hearty “Fuck You” immediately after that hit piece on Jill Stein. He treated BERNIE with similar dismissiveness…his wifey-poo is a retired military officer, so maybe he is afraid there won’t be a war for his honey to get her colonel’s brevet and go back to war. Not sayin’/just sayin’.
One of my greatest fears is a Clinton with a Mandate…all kinds of bad shit is going to happen.
LOL at Jordan looking at the camera and shaking his head during the Donna Brazile questions.
Yeah that was fucking priceless.
Oh, also about Michelle Malkin, her policies and such are crap, but she is damn hot lol.
Jimmy can make fun of the morning news caster voice all he wants but as I’m doing my early morning edits and research, he really woke me up. If I could get a daily run down of headlines by Jimmy in the morning that would be great.
preach Jimmy, preach Malcolm….#DoneWithJohnOliver
absentee ballot sent in for Stein.
love this show
Finally. I’ve Been waiting all week for this episode. Staying away from TYT for the Election season, after Ana started attacking Trump supporters, calling them deplorable, based on a mixture of verifiable facts and mere accusations.
No, they couldn’t possibly be merely misguided, while having legitimate concerns, like the rest of us. No, they’re deplorable, not worth listening to. Not like us.
For at least the duration of the Election season, it’s only Jimmy, Emma, and Jordan. Can’t we do more than one Aggressive Progressive a week?
Thanks Jimmy and Malcom.
Donna Brazile:
Badgering women. Ah, when lying doesn’t work, let’s play the ‘Women are softer, sweeter creatures, who need to be protected from mere offensive words’ routine. You can bet that this will the main fallback for the next 4 years, when Hillary has to endure criticism.
Donna is so proud of CNN. Hopefully, she can hold onto that positive outlook, while the Clinton campaign makes her into a sacrificial lamb.
Yep, Donna was visibly flustered, completely unprepared. When she agreed to be a shill, she didn’t sign on for this. I feel bad for her, because this is only the beginning.
John Oliver:
Going out on a limb here, but it appears that Jimmy is pissed with Oliver. Ok, Oliver is biased, maybe even a shill, but he’s still funny and informative. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but his show has some value.
Voting for the lesser of two evils:
Agreed with voting for the person and values you hold dear. However, I would sell my soul and vote, for any candidate that believably promises to pardon Chelsea Manning.
Regarding voting for a flawed candidate vs. not voting, George Carlin turned “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, on its head. He explains that if you DO vote, and your candidate screws everyone over, then you have no right to complain; you opened that window.
> Going out on a limb here, but it appears that Jimmy is pissed with Oliver. Ok, Oliver is biased, maybe even a shill, but he’s still funny and informative. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but his show has some value.
I certainly agree that, whenever Oliver is focusing on corporations and their wrongdoings, he’s doing great work. Whenever he’s talking about elections….not so much, because he’s clearly picking establishment sides.
Roger on that. We can keep our fingers crossed, that Jimmy is never compromised.
My state of Texas has suddenly narrowed to a single digit contest. I keep oscilating between voting for Hillary as a national rebuke to Trumpism, and voting my conscience for Stein. My vote changes every Thursday because of this show.
It’s nice to hear when people really take time to think about their vote. wish everyone did this!
All I can say is THANK YOU, Jimmy for saying what we already know is true. Hoping no one will pay you enough to sell-out, cause without you, we’d have no truth.
Yes, Saudis co-own Fox.
This is one of the reasons why Fox News, even though it is critical of Obama’s policies, do not do honest coverage of Syrian war, where Saudis want to install Wahhabi/Salafi heads-chopping tyranny with CIA-armed Al-Qaeda, its clones, aka “rebels”.
What was cut out at 21:40? Something about Jimmy dropping an F-Bomb? I hope an aggressive progressive show isn’t about being a safe space for people who are offended by cursing…
Jimmy I wish you would do more then sling random insults like maybe show how Donna Brazille has been so cozy over the years with CNN and the Dems maybe show why the email is the nail in the coffin. The energy is great but it seems misguided when you waste it on random insults. I love the idea of this this show but it is feeling less and less like a place to find progressive topics and more like just picking one absurd topic and yelling for 30mins about it. What about whats happening in ND right now? You guys are great keep up.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I would note that Jimmy has already produced a very significant amount of commentary on the North Dakota pipeline; his own channel has lots of it. The most recent commentary was four days ago when he put up the video “Militarized Police Arrest Shailene Woodley Protesting DaKota Pipeline”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zlBi2P2Upw
Secondly, Donna Brazile, and the corrupt system that she represents and personifies, have amply earned all these attacks and rhetorical assaults. If anything, Jimmy is being polite and not getting anywhere the level of invective that I myself have already flung at this in a private setting (private because I don’t want to degrade the level of civility of boards such as these).
Are yu watching this program on PCP? Jimmy is doing the heavy lifting, and gets frustrated at the lack of passion in others…like you. Maybe if you sent him a million he would do what you want him to do?
Yes attack the people that like the show and what to see it do more, smart. I was just asking if we could get more background and maybe cover more then 2 topics a show – Clearly they want to do this as they are always asking about time limits and what not and have many other stories to get too. I understand it LOOKS like I am attacking him but I am just trying to get a better show, I mean even they thought it went too far look at the 2 edits. You get what I am saying?
It’s understandable, we all want a lengthier show with more substance and/or multiple episodes per week. But I think it’s unrealistic to ask Jimmy to do the Jimmy Dore Show and/b> such an expanded schedule.
Another excellent show!
IBD/TIPP tracking poll has Jill Stein at 5.5%! Factor in their margin of error 0.9% she board es on 5%. In the article it states that IBD/TIPP tracking polls have been cited as being the most accurate in predicting actual election results for the last 3 presidential elections.
https://www.YouTube. com/watch?v=Pr4brZ9ezio
Also, there video with an article of Stein-Baraka responds to John Oliver smear attempt.
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=30-wd20jXtw
Both vids on The New Progressive Voice YouTube channels.
You lying bitch Donna Brazile. You are just another example of a traitor that makes its living hiding behind the Democratic and Republican, gender and racial labels that will fuck us all for your greed just like Hillary, and Obama who sold the color of his skin to deliver for his masters at Covington & Burling LLP, Wall Street and the multi-nationals who are the kings of greed, stolen our democracy, violated our constitutional rights, and worst of all feed our young people into the mutilation death pit in the Middle East so the defense industry can trade the flesh of all sides for cash. Nothing will change until the Democratic and Republican criminals are gone. The truth will keep coming and only accelerate from the internet and make these bastards look as stupid as they are, just like Donna. I love you Jordan. Another great show Jimmy, thanks!
Do you have a blog? If not, you should.
Malcolm so dope
So even John Oliver is a corporatist now? Who’s gonna fail Jimmy Dore’s progressive inquisition test next, Karl Marx?
Not just now. John Oliver exposed himself as corporatist pro-establishment shill already weeks ago when he has grossly misrepresented Hillary scandals, “forgetting” to mention key facts that would normally lead to jail time.
No Jimmy pissed because many people respect John Oliver and believes everything he says. I think Jimmy even respected John Oliver but knowing what he says is false makes you question what he saying on other issues. I still like John Oliver but just not when it comes to politics.
you perfectly captured what I’ve been feeling about Jimmy lately.
i. love. this. show. can you imagine one day if the aggressive progressives gets the kind of viewership that fuckrod john oliver does? whisper of a dream!
Now that’s something I can get behind
Donna Brazille was on Fox News after the debate. She was asked about providing a question to Hillary Clinton. She said “Russia, Russia, Russia.” And after a few minutes of push back, she said that there might be an email from her sent 3am that wouldn’t have been her. If the emails were altered, why wouldn’t you begin the argument with that? I had just listened to horseshit spin from Republicans. I expect that. They finally bring on a Democrat, and her spin pissed me off more. I hope Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary are happy that defending the democratic candidate against Donald Trump now requires work. It shouldn’t. If the head of the DNC can’t make a competent argument, why should I try to defend her? I still argue against Donald Trump, but the DNC keeps undercutting my argument. And the next leak will probably contradict my previous argument. Good job, DNC.
Thanks To Jimmy and Malcolm. Great show! Should be five days a week.
It’s welcome back to Malcolm! Malcolm Who’s Not In The Middle (since he’s an aggressive progressive and not a political centrist, y’know).