Youre really leaning into my point. You’re going out of your way to equate random shit that has nothing to do with his actions or anything other things he’s done, but only that…he said the sports issue was deeply troubling. Nevermind the piece of shit he was talking to, which is way more troubling. Get mad that he was talking to Charlie Kirk of all people.
That’s the point… He brought on Charlie Kirk, and rather than, arguing with him… or trying to show his audience why what Kirk has to say shouldn’t have a place in the discourse. He basically was looking for something he can agree with and highlighting the good.
That’s not how you change minds or find common ground with people who are ideological opposite of you. It doesn’t work. We’re living through proof of that right now.
News flash… we’ve been trying the “oh yeah we don’t fully disagree, we grant you a bit of what you like, then you grant a bit of what we want”, and they respond, “oh thank you for what I want… GIVE ME MORE, oh and your stuff FUCK YOU”.
No different than when we caved out obamacare to give into the insane nonstop demands the republicans had for it, but it was worth it to earn… Zero republican votes, 60+ attempts to repeal it.
But less on the policy side lets go on just narrative public speaking types. Next step is the make your case, give a strong arguement for your side. But he’s not really doing that, he’s bringing the far right on, letting them speak, half the time agreeing, half the time being silent.
But ok, so he’s going to mix his guests 50/50, bring on one he agrees with, one he disagrees with, 2/2 right wing… nah doesn’t look that way either.
So question is, what’s he doing that’s different than Joe Rogan at this point?
Youre really leaning into my point. You’re going out of your way to equate random shit that has nothing to do with his actions or anything other things he’s done, but only that…he said the sports issue was deeply troubling. Nevermind the piece of shit he was talking to, which is way more troubling. Get mad that he was talking to Charlie Kirk of all people.
That’s the point… He brought on Charlie Kirk, and rather than, arguing with him… or trying to show his audience why what Kirk has to say shouldn’t have a place in the discourse. He basically was looking for something he can agree with and highlighting the good.
That’s not how you change minds or find common ground with people who are ideological opposite of you. It doesn’t work. We’re living through proof of that right now.
News flash… we’ve been trying the “oh yeah we don’t fully disagree, we grant you a bit of what you like, then you grant a bit of what we want”, and they respond, “oh thank you for what I want… GIVE ME MORE, oh and your stuff FUCK YOU”.
No different than when we caved out obamacare to give into the insane nonstop demands the republicans had for it, but it was worth it to earn… Zero republican votes, 60+ attempts to repeal it.
But less on the policy side lets go on just narrative public speaking types. Next step is the make your case, give a strong arguement for your side. But he’s not really doing that, he’s bringing the far right on, letting them speak, half the time agreeing, half the time being silent.
But ok, so he’s going to mix his guests 50/50, bring on one he agrees with, one he disagrees with, 2/2 right wing… nah doesn’t look that way either.
So question is, what’s he doing that’s different than Joe Rogan at this point?
deleted by creator