Told you, the only politician that I trust(ed) EVER is Ron Paul.
As for Trump - the other side of the same rotten coin.
When he claims about his opponents "If I were them, I would do it to", is all you need to know about his (actual) character.
i.e. he is not opposing it because it's wrong (meaning - you oppose it always, anyhow, anywhere and no matter what, cause it's morally WRONG), he opposes it cause he is on the other side of the political aisle.
2nd.
He is not America first, he is Israhell first ... all in for his Talmudic (communist) masters.
The only good thing about him winning is - we'll be able to speak little bit longer than if demoNcRats win.
For those with short memory, he was very loud on calling for Section 230 to be repealed - i.e. bill that keeps you safe from govt. imprisoning you for your thoughts said out loud and for your worldviews ...and I called him out on it many many many times (before I was banned from Twitter), cause he is NOT stupid.
If I know it and I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina (a country that he can't even find on a map without consulting google), it's 1000000000000000000000000000000% that he knows it too.
Now, Killary and her "progressive" bff's (like AoC) are calling for the same thing - the repeal of the Section 230.
Thank you for curating these clips. While impressive to handle 3 hours worth of questions with nothing in front of him, I'm not sure I can get through it all. Thanks for your editorial assistance.
Trump needs to be given maximum protections between now and inauguration. The other side has decided to escalate the imminent end of Democracy rhetoric as if 2 assassination attempts was not enough. Then there is talk by a prominent liberal, Austin Sarat, the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, about a "fourth option" that would "transgress" constitutional norms -
"Faced with the prospect of a Trump presidency, some, out of desperation, might urge Biden to turn the tables on Trump and refuse to transfer power to him. In this scenario, Biden would resign, and Harris would be sworn in as president. There would be no constitutional problem if he were to take this step. Harris would then face the horrible possibility that her oath of office and promise to defend the Constitution against ‘all enemies, foreign and domestic’ might require her not to transfer power to someone who has already said he might terminate the Constitution. Doing so is the kind of nuclear option that [the political philosopher Michael Walzer] says good politicians must consider when circumstances warrant it."
Agree with you. I can't believe assassination attempts are occurring in the US of A. 1/3 of our population seems to have no problem with that. The bad actors are getting bold.
The talk about whales going crazy from wind turbines isn't idle chatter, because I doubt Trump sees much of a future in renewables--but it's the type of thing no pre-Obama president would've talked about publicly, because the wide-ranging, loose interview with the president format didn't exist.
I don't remember the precise quote, but during lockdowns Trump said in the longer term, the economy would recover "from covid," but short-term, lockdowns were needed. But I've never heard him explain why he failed to move away from lockdowns in say June/July 2020.
Yep. If we really thought people would get sick if we 'opened up', there was no better time for that to happen than summer when the hospitals were empty. Dragging the curve into flu season never made a lick of sense.
But politically, the Democrats couldn't admit Trump was right about covid.
There are two type of Presidential candidates: policy wonks and story tellers. The policy wonks tend to appeal to the upper class I think for several reasons. The story tellers are the populist candidates that, if good at it, can supersede their weakness at policy. Now, when I say policy, it is really more of the technocrat skill... a person with an analytical brain that is well-read and has a command of details of government and politics... and has the ability to articulate it in layman's terms.
Strong story telling skill can win even when the policy side is weak. Weak story telling skill, in this day of politics-played-on-the-screen-like-an-American-Idol-contest, usually means the candidates gets the gong and exits the stage. Think Ron DeSantis.
Reagan was a policy wonk... but also was the most gifted story teller maybe in the history of the US. Both Bush's were both story tellers and policy wonks. So was Bill Clinton. Barak Obama was one. Joe Biden has always been a story telling candidate. He was so good at it that only those closest to him recognized that he was really not that bright. Trump is also a story telling candidate. His policy technocrat capabilities are weak.
Note that Kamala Harris is neither.
However, Trump has something else going for him that is largely missing from almost all politicians... that is the big picture strategy-oriented capability. This is a quality of all successful business leaders. Think of Elon Musk for the cream of the crop in this capability. This is a foreign thing to the electorate having been spoon-fed a certain personality type to elect for decades since Nixon and Kennedy debated on black and white TV. Frankly, because I am, politicians in general are those people that lack the business brain capabilities but have a drive to be in charge. This is why they all seem to walk and talk like the same duck. There is fealty in their tribe of personality types that know they would be crushed and walked on in the competitive business world.
However, Trump's big picture brain combined with his style of story-telling gets him in trouble because of the gotcha political media games that the Democrats have primarily perfected. 85% of the population does not have a working capability to view a future state... to see the big picture... and thus those in leadership position gifted with that capability have to be skilled at telling stories in a way that paint the picture. Trump is not always very good at that... he nibbles at the details and sort-of drives all around the vista pointing out features without delivering a cohesive package. Now, eventually smart people fill in the blanks... we get what he was trying to convey. Trump eventually, with his consistency in covering the topic and his propensity to speak off the cuff, ends up painting enough of the picture over time.
Even though Trump disappoints the electorate attracted to the policy wonk, which can be me as I am also a well-read and educated person that wants to see my leaders in command of the details of policy and governance, for me his appeal is his demonstrated big-picture brain. He sees the field and visualizes a future state that he will consistently march toward. I see though the story-telling crap even though I know it is needed for the general population to be attracted to the candidate. When I listen to Trump speak it is the random bits and points he makes that demonstrate his full vision for the country, and THAT Is the compelling thing.
I still have no idea how I’m going to vote (obviously not Harris though). Or if I am at all. I have many lines of reasoning, I could follow… like I didn’t vote for Trump either time, but I sort of like him occasionally, isn’t that worth a 33% approval? On the other hand, I can’t support any foreign wars, so that leaves me with Stein (and the gross and incompetent Green Party) or my favored Libertarian Party but not my favorite pick of theirs in Oliver. Then I have to factor in I now live in a battleground state where my vote actually matters (eh, well, relatively speaking). If the Libertarians had just made Trump the candidate (even though that doesn’t really make much ideological sense), this would be a slam dunk. But now I have the wanting to own the media weighed against my ideals. A potential tiebreaker lately, which is admittedly horrible, is that I would like to show all the rabid Trump supporters that he isn’t actually going to change much so I should vote for him in the hopes that a disappointing four years would lead to perhaps actual momentum for true change. That feels a bit gross though.
I didn’t vote in 2020 because I felt that providing any legitimacy to a broken system is the worst thing I could do. The system is no less broken now, so why do I feel like I might vote? Propaganda is an insidious thing and no one is immune. Maybe I need to just check out on this discussion until Election Day to see if removing myself from it would give clarity.
This rambling comment is an homage to Trump’s communication style, obviously!
I didn't vote for president in the 2020 election. You say you like Trump. I'll no doubt vote for him, but as with Clinton the first time, holding my nose. I really don't like Trump and the more self-aggrandizing he does, the less I like him. I'm in the "anybody but...." camp. Anybody but Kamala.
I think you're absolutely correct in your statement about propaganda.
“Like” is maybe not completely accurate. I sometimes agree with things that he says, that I’ve never heard any other politician say, and I do think he can be funny/entertaining. As a total person, I’m not sure I would accurately describe that as “liking” him, as how I would describe a friend or acquaintance. But by the same token, his self-aggrandizement doesn’t make me “dislike” him, it only because that seems to come with the territory for politicians and businessmen. Basically, I have very mixed feelings and I think that’s somewhat appropriate for a person billed by some as a savior of this civilization. The hero we deserve, heh.
The hero we deserve is making some what I consider bad cabinet position choices. Someone posted a link to a Tom Lehrer song. That song reminded me of another of his ditties, We Will All Go Together When We Go. Yikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbkXbtQrNs
Consider voting on policy, not personality. That is essentially logic & common sense over emotion. Trump’s policies & and record as POTUS > than Biden/Harris policies and record. No comparison. Trump makes deals, not war. I trust that a second Trump term would be the same in that regard.
Well, maybe. In previous elections, I voted straight libertarian for years… I even voted for Gary Johnson while still thinking he was kind of a moron. My reasoning was that building a viable third party was the most important action I could take and in addition to mostly being in agreement with Libertarian values, I also think they have the best chance of becoming that third option over the Greens, who operate like they’re a psy-op, either purposefully or through intense dysfunction. So, that’s why in a world where Trump was the Libertarian candidate I would likely vote for him without much hesitation… I could feel like I could vote for the present and the future with one pick.
And as Trump said somewhere in the three hour interview, like it or not, we have a two party system. Paraphrasing - an Independent didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. RFKjr was a brave soul to go Indy, but he had to know that realistically, he probably didn't have a chance for a win (which brings up other thoughts).
So. Just think of Trump as an independent Republican, which he is.
Ron Paul had this figured out back in '08 -- and even back then it was obvious that the (R) or (D) behind your name gets you roughly 35% support automatically.
Thanks SC! I know it’s Trump’s style to answer a question in the loooongest form possible, but for the next ten days, he needs to abridge and I mean give short succinct responses. For example “ I have never said I would propose or support a national abortion ban.” Especially because the opposition is now citing his stream of consciousness as dementia…….
Yes, and it's frustrating. I kept wanting to condense these clips a little.....but that's not how Trump works. Gotta show the whole thing, warts and all.
You're right Ma'am. Trump suffers from the same condition that seems to afflict all politicians. The off switch on his mouth is broken. But, at least he usually can, and does, answer questions.
True. No disagreement there. Those two are excellent speakers and are much more polished & succinct than Trump will ever be. That is one of the reasons I dig JD Vance as Trump’s VP. He adds balance to the ticket.
I have a hard time carving out the time required to navigate a podcast, however, I LOVE the opportunity to have access to some of the brightest minds of our time so casually. It makes me wish I was better at making the time to learn. While I haven't yet seen all of the Trump / Rogan podcast, I already enjoy the tenor of the program, and I think this is what will be game changing moving forward.
This 3 hour segment makes it hard for ANYONE to paint Trump as a monster. He was HUMAN for the entire world to see, and I think it disarms the media elites in almost all of their attacks. The other thing that comes to mind, is that Trump exploited the podcast world to allow people who he wouldn't otherwise reach, and made a good case for himself. Rogan is not the first or only podcast Trump appeared on, and it's my opinion that he was very intentional in the podcasts he chose. Rogan was the ultimate goal I am sure, but he worked his way up in some powerful ways, reaching Rogan through people like Theo Vaughn on the way, and I think THAT shows some high level planning and thinking.
I would be really surprised if podcast appearances aren't utilized in future national elections in even more meaningful ways in the future.
I like the company of the TV while I do all my crafting because I needn't pay attention to it. But a podcast for informational purposes I got to pay attention to which means I ain't crafting. And I prefer to read the information so I can think about it and go back over it if I want to/need to. If it's important stuff, I want to be able to retain it and the words stick in my head much better if I have actually seen them.
Told you, the only politician that I trust(ed) EVER is Ron Paul.
As for Trump - the other side of the same rotten coin.
When he claims about his opponents "If I were them, I would do it to", is all you need to know about his (actual) character.
i.e. he is not opposing it because it's wrong (meaning - you oppose it always, anyhow, anywhere and no matter what, cause it's morally WRONG), he opposes it cause he is on the other side of the political aisle.
2nd.
He is not America first, he is Israhell first ... all in for his Talmudic (communist) masters.
The only good thing about him winning is - we'll be able to speak little bit longer than if demoNcRats win.
For those with short memory, he was very loud on calling for Section 230 to be repealed - i.e. bill that keeps you safe from govt. imprisoning you for your thoughts said out loud and for your worldviews ...and I called him out on it many many many times (before I was banned from Twitter), cause he is NOT stupid.
If I know it and I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina (a country that he can't even find on a map without consulting google), it's 1000000000000000000000000000000% that he knows it too.
Now, Killary and her "progressive" bff's (like AoC) are calling for the same thing - the repeal of the Section 230.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/hillary-clinton-warns-we-lose-total-control-without-social-media-content-moderation-politics-facebook-x-twitter-tiktok-meta-section-230
"Bolton is a nutjob" made me laugh out loud.
I don't remember but I may have actually cheered.
Thank you for curating these clips. While impressive to handle 3 hours worth of questions with nothing in front of him, I'm not sure I can get through it all. Thanks for your editorial assistance.
I wondered if he lied, or hadn't heard of Ron Paul's proposal? I didn't know about it.
Trump needs to be given maximum protections between now and inauguration. The other side has decided to escalate the imminent end of Democracy rhetoric as if 2 assassination attempts was not enough. Then there is talk by a prominent liberal, Austin Sarat, the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, about a "fourth option" that would "transgress" constitutional norms -
"Faced with the prospect of a Trump presidency, some, out of desperation, might urge Biden to turn the tables on Trump and refuse to transfer power to him. In this scenario, Biden would resign, and Harris would be sworn in as president. There would be no constitutional problem if he were to take this step. Harris would then face the horrible possibility that her oath of office and promise to defend the Constitution against ‘all enemies, foreign and domestic’ might require her not to transfer power to someone who has already said he might terminate the Constitution. Doing so is the kind of nuclear option that [the political philosopher Michael Walzer] says good politicians must consider when circumstances warrant it."
https://thefulcrum.us/election-2024/trump-is-a-threat-to-democracy
Don't worry, he'll be fine and he WILL win.
He is Israhell's new messiah.
I won't lie - I'm a little nervous about the MSG rally tomorrow. Lots of important people in one place.
And I can't believe I'm even saying that.
Agree with you. I can't believe assassination attempts are occurring in the US of A. 1/3 of our population seems to have no problem with that. The bad actors are getting bold.
The talk about whales going crazy from wind turbines isn't idle chatter, because I doubt Trump sees much of a future in renewables--but it's the type of thing no pre-Obama president would've talked about publicly, because the wide-ranging, loose interview with the president format didn't exist.
I don't remember the precise quote, but during lockdowns Trump said in the longer term, the economy would recover "from covid," but short-term, lockdowns were needed. But I've never heard him explain why he failed to move away from lockdowns in say June/July 2020.
Yep. If we really thought people would get sick if we 'opened up', there was no better time for that to happen than summer when the hospitals were empty. Dragging the curve into flu season never made a lick of sense.
But politically, the Democrats couldn't admit Trump was right about covid.
Thank you for these clips. I was waiting for him to include Pompeo but he didn't! I hope he no longer trusts him or Lindsey Graham.
He did mention Pompeo was a great guy later. I was sad.
Oh no. I'm surprised he feels that way after being around Tucker. Hasn't he heard what he has said about him?!
There are two type of Presidential candidates: policy wonks and story tellers. The policy wonks tend to appeal to the upper class I think for several reasons. The story tellers are the populist candidates that, if good at it, can supersede their weakness at policy. Now, when I say policy, it is really more of the technocrat skill... a person with an analytical brain that is well-read and has a command of details of government and politics... and has the ability to articulate it in layman's terms.
Strong story telling skill can win even when the policy side is weak. Weak story telling skill, in this day of politics-played-on-the-screen-like-an-American-Idol-contest, usually means the candidates gets the gong and exits the stage. Think Ron DeSantis.
Reagan was a policy wonk... but also was the most gifted story teller maybe in the history of the US. Both Bush's were both story tellers and policy wonks. So was Bill Clinton. Barak Obama was one. Joe Biden has always been a story telling candidate. He was so good at it that only those closest to him recognized that he was really not that bright. Trump is also a story telling candidate. His policy technocrat capabilities are weak.
Note that Kamala Harris is neither.
However, Trump has something else going for him that is largely missing from almost all politicians... that is the big picture strategy-oriented capability. This is a quality of all successful business leaders. Think of Elon Musk for the cream of the crop in this capability. This is a foreign thing to the electorate having been spoon-fed a certain personality type to elect for decades since Nixon and Kennedy debated on black and white TV. Frankly, because I am, politicians in general are those people that lack the business brain capabilities but have a drive to be in charge. This is why they all seem to walk and talk like the same duck. There is fealty in their tribe of personality types that know they would be crushed and walked on in the competitive business world.
However, Trump's big picture brain combined with his style of story-telling gets him in trouble because of the gotcha political media games that the Democrats have primarily perfected. 85% of the population does not have a working capability to view a future state... to see the big picture... and thus those in leadership position gifted with that capability have to be skilled at telling stories in a way that paint the picture. Trump is not always very good at that... he nibbles at the details and sort-of drives all around the vista pointing out features without delivering a cohesive package. Now, eventually smart people fill in the blanks... we get what he was trying to convey. Trump eventually, with his consistency in covering the topic and his propensity to speak off the cuff, ends up painting enough of the picture over time.
Even though Trump disappoints the electorate attracted to the policy wonk, which can be me as I am also a well-read and educated person that wants to see my leaders in command of the details of policy and governance, for me his appeal is his demonstrated big-picture brain. He sees the field and visualizes a future state that he will consistently march toward. I see though the story-telling crap even though I know it is needed for the general population to be attracted to the candidate. When I listen to Trump speak it is the random bits and points he makes that demonstrate his full vision for the country, and THAT Is the compelling thing.
I'll read the "cliff" notes as the Marxist democrats push me over it.
I still have no idea how I’m going to vote (obviously not Harris though). Or if I am at all. I have many lines of reasoning, I could follow… like I didn’t vote for Trump either time, but I sort of like him occasionally, isn’t that worth a 33% approval? On the other hand, I can’t support any foreign wars, so that leaves me with Stein (and the gross and incompetent Green Party) or my favored Libertarian Party but not my favorite pick of theirs in Oliver. Then I have to factor in I now live in a battleground state where my vote actually matters (eh, well, relatively speaking). If the Libertarians had just made Trump the candidate (even though that doesn’t really make much ideological sense), this would be a slam dunk. But now I have the wanting to own the media weighed against my ideals. A potential tiebreaker lately, which is admittedly horrible, is that I would like to show all the rabid Trump supporters that he isn’t actually going to change much so I should vote for him in the hopes that a disappointing four years would lead to perhaps actual momentum for true change. That feels a bit gross though.
I didn’t vote in 2020 because I felt that providing any legitimacy to a broken system is the worst thing I could do. The system is no less broken now, so why do I feel like I might vote? Propaganda is an insidious thing and no one is immune. Maybe I need to just check out on this discussion until Election Day to see if removing myself from it would give clarity.
This rambling comment is an homage to Trump’s communication style, obviously!
I didn't vote for president in the 2020 election. You say you like Trump. I'll no doubt vote for him, but as with Clinton the first time, holding my nose. I really don't like Trump and the more self-aggrandizing he does, the less I like him. I'm in the "anybody but...." camp. Anybody but Kamala.
I think you're absolutely correct in your statement about propaganda.
It is astounding that these are the two candidates the country can emerge to lead it
“Like” is maybe not completely accurate. I sometimes agree with things that he says, that I’ve never heard any other politician say, and I do think he can be funny/entertaining. As a total person, I’m not sure I would accurately describe that as “liking” him, as how I would describe a friend or acquaintance. But by the same token, his self-aggrandizement doesn’t make me “dislike” him, it only because that seems to come with the territory for politicians and businessmen. Basically, I have very mixed feelings and I think that’s somewhat appropriate for a person billed by some as a savior of this civilization. The hero we deserve, heh.
The hero we deserve is making some what I consider bad cabinet position choices. Someone posted a link to a Tom Lehrer song. That song reminded me of another of his ditties, We Will All Go Together When We Go. Yikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbkXbtQrNs
Consider voting on policy, not personality. That is essentially logic & common sense over emotion. Trump’s policies & and record as POTUS > than Biden/Harris policies and record. No comparison. Trump makes deals, not war. I trust that a second Trump term would be the same in that regard.
God willin' and the crick don't rise, and the votes are correctly counted, I imagine we'll find out.
I can't help but cynically believe the whole election dramas were staged so Trump would triumph. Again, we'll see.
If you would vote for Trump if he was in the L party, it seems like you should still vote for him in the R party.
Well, maybe. In previous elections, I voted straight libertarian for years… I even voted for Gary Johnson while still thinking he was kind of a moron. My reasoning was that building a viable third party was the most important action I could take and in addition to mostly being in agreement with Libertarian values, I also think they have the best chance of becoming that third option over the Greens, who operate like they’re a psy-op, either purposefully or through intense dysfunction. So, that’s why in a world where Trump was the Libertarian candidate I would likely vote for him without much hesitation… I could feel like I could vote for the present and the future with one pick.
Bingo.
And as Trump said somewhere in the three hour interview, like it or not, we have a two party system. Paraphrasing - an Independent didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. RFKjr was a brave soul to go Indy, but he had to know that realistically, he probably didn't have a chance for a win (which brings up other thoughts).
So. Just think of Trump as an independent Republican, which he is.
Ron Paul had this figured out back in '08 -- and even back then it was obvious that the (R) or (D) behind your name gets you roughly 35% support automatically.
Thanks SC! I know it’s Trump’s style to answer a question in the loooongest form possible, but for the next ten days, he needs to abridge and I mean give short succinct responses. For example “ I have never said I would propose or support a national abortion ban.” Especially because the opposition is now citing his stream of consciousness as dementia…….
Yes, and it's frustrating. I kept wanting to condense these clips a little.....but that's not how Trump works. Gotta show the whole thing, warts and all.
You're right Ma'am. Trump suffers from the same condition that seems to afflict all politicians. The off switch on his mouth is broken. But, at least he usually can, and does, answer questions.
he calls it weaving a story. and I kind of like it
Sometimes you don't need a story, just an answer.
Agree but that is a big part of what makes Trump relatable and more human than preprogrammed, scripted, empty political vessels such has Harris.
Trudo is the master of that here in Canada
Vivek and JD don't seem to have that problem. I get that it's Trump and that's his style, but man it's frustrating sometimes.
True. No disagreement there. Those two are excellent speakers and are much more polished & succinct than Trump will ever be. That is one of the reasons I dig JD Vance as Trump’s VP. He adds balance to the ticket.
Thank you for the summary.
Stream-of-consciousness makes for poor campaign rhetoric.
Anyway--I appreciate your synopses and remarks because I have zero patience for podcasts. They are unsuitable for my needs.
I have a hard time carving out the time required to navigate a podcast, however, I LOVE the opportunity to have access to some of the brightest minds of our time so casually. It makes me wish I was better at making the time to learn. While I haven't yet seen all of the Trump / Rogan podcast, I already enjoy the tenor of the program, and I think this is what will be game changing moving forward.
This 3 hour segment makes it hard for ANYONE to paint Trump as a monster. He was HUMAN for the entire world to see, and I think it disarms the media elites in almost all of their attacks. The other thing that comes to mind, is that Trump exploited the podcast world to allow people who he wouldn't otherwise reach, and made a good case for himself. Rogan is not the first or only podcast Trump appeared on, and it's my opinion that he was very intentional in the podcasts he chose. Rogan was the ultimate goal I am sure, but he worked his way up in some powerful ways, reaching Rogan through people like Theo Vaughn on the way, and I think THAT shows some high level planning and thinking.
I would be really surprised if podcast appearances aren't utilized in future national elections in even more meaningful ways in the future.
Trump never makes a good case for himself if he's allowed to speak for more than five minutes at a stretch.
Honestly I feel the same, but that's part of the gig, right?
You remain one of the very few and dwindling number of Substackers who has not made me feel like I was an idiot for ever thinking they were great.
Another component of modern life in regard to which we are in full agreement, Lass.
I like the company of the TV while I do all my crafting because I needn't pay attention to it. But a podcast for informational purposes I got to pay attention to which means I ain't crafting. And I prefer to read the information so I can think about it and go back over it if I want to/need to. If it's important stuff, I want to be able to retain it and the words stick in my head much better if I have actually seen them.
Great video by Jordan Peterson on Trump's personality and the way he thinks- this man (too!) is a genius in his own right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8o6n-AVqMw
wow. that was great. he should be on Rogan and give that speech ( or did he already). not a podcaster
If only the War Walrus had taken up some less vile career path. Pimping children to lepers, for example.