Me too. What is really spooky is I was just looking up the Hahn/Rice/Hall troika on Wikipedia the other day. Hahn was the only one who posed for Playboy.
Yeah. When I was in high school I was on the academic decathlon team and one of our subjects was the 1980s. Believe it or not, a disproportionate amount of time was spent talking about Gary Hart.
Oh, and thank you for this episode. It’s been one of the worst years to be a Jew in Belgium, with all this boycott crap from grifters who never opened their mouth about Syria, Sudan, China etc. I have a list of all of them in my head. And I’ll be waiting for the karma police.
One common question that seems to have been normalized around Trump the last 9 years is is he malicious or is he crazy? When he says or does something ridiculous does he actually think it is true or does he just not care as long as he comes out ahead?
Kind of scary to hear Matt and other people's comments about him planting the seeds to cast doubt on the election. I mean of course he was always going to deny a loss, but to monkey with things before hand just to crate chaos afterwards? Makes you wonder how many of our future politicians will take cues from him just for personal pragmatic sake.
Send some love for local newspaper down ballot endorsements.
My local paper stopped endorsing for President and Senate. Really who cares what some second or third tier city paper thinks about the presidential election?
But the local endorsements are super helpful. It’s the only way to find out anything about some of the smaller races besides (and sometimes including) the candidate websites.
I understand the revulsion to Trump's ideas about CBS News and their broadcast license, etc. It's been brought up on the pod several times, and it shows Trump's inclination for vengeance against those he perceives as harmed him, but I don't view it is a free speech issue. They have a government-issued monopolistic license, and they are using it to support the campaign for one political party... and doing so in an insidious way, trying to obfuscate what they are doing. The license was designed to provide for a public good, but I don't think the way they are using it supports that mission any longer... and it may no longer be a mission worth pursuing considering how Americans consume news and television.
I think everyone on The Fifth is a free speech absolutist based on years of podcasts. So my question is who do you think is the more serious threat to free speech: the Left or the Right?
I would argue CBS is barely hiding it at this point. https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1851793158562009404 Norah O'Donnell asserts *without evidence* that Joe Biden "inadvertently" referred to Trump supporters garbage and "this of course was in response to that racist joke". 'Inadvertently".. CBS News just made that up...
If they're such a great news organization, they can survive in the free market..
They don't feel like they have to hide it any longer because nearly every other outlet is doing the exact same thing. But, deep down, I think (hope?... trying to give a generous interpretation like Kmele) they have a sense of shame. Otherwise, they would have released the Kamala interview transcript. It's either shame, or the interview itself was so bad that it would be damning for her if it were released unedited.
It's hope. They have absolutely no shame, they don't even think they are doing anything wrong, because they believe what they are doing is righteous. " ...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
What right do they have to a license? Why did the government decide that four companies can control the broadcast bandwidth in every city in America and never re-evaluate or open it up to more competition? You can both-sides this if you want, but I don't think the licenses should exist at all, so I feel like your point will be lost on me. But you are welcome to answer my original question. Which "side" do you think is more dangerous to free speech?
No one tell Kmele that Grandma said that to all the kids.
Fawn Hall was Oliver North secretary
Jessica Hahn was disgraced minister Jim Bakker
Beat me to it.
Me too. What is really spooky is I was just looking up the Hahn/Rice/Hall troika on Wikipedia the other day. Hahn was the only one who posed for Playboy.
That is a spooky coincidence. Interesting research you're doing. Those were the days.
Which one did Gary Hart fuck on the boat?
That was Donna Rice
Yeah. When I was in high school I was on the academic decathlon team and one of our subjects was the 1980s. Believe it or not, a disproportionate amount of time was spent talking about Gary Hart.
I don’t remember her name but the boat’s name was Monkey Business
Dude kmele and matt loud or normal and MM breaks into like pillow talk voice, so you raise the volume and then the others come back on lol
Seconded. If an audio engineer is needed…. *raises hand*
Would help if certain people remembered to use their microphones.
I’m just wondering why Kmele sounds like Richard prior doing a white guy voice in this one?
Gotta lick the ice cream cone
I see adderral supplies back to normal just before the election. Great timing.
Oh, and thank you for this episode. It’s been one of the worst years to be a Jew in Belgium, with all this boycott crap from grifters who never opened their mouth about Syria, Sudan, China etc. I have a list of all of them in my head. And I’ll be waiting for the karma police.
Maybe its my computer/speakers, but at times Kmele's audio sounds odd. His voice sounds like 1990's black comedians doing impressions of white people.
Damnit. I just made this joke- because it’s true- and then read this.
As a resident if PennsyltuPennsyltucky, Lanc-ister not Lan-caster. Thank you
Jeez you people.
Drink!
As a Lancaster County expat I endorse this message.
Michael being a hero supporting Gary Hart 🤨
I think I got used to sick Kmele, he sounds like he's been hitting the helium. Of course it could be his balls
Anybody else notice that Moynihan talks over Moynihan about an hour into the podcast? (insert your own joke)
I was not expecting the cross fade, and I was wondering if I (or maybe my podcast app) was having a stroke.
Ain't no party like a Jefferson party.
One common question that seems to have been normalized around Trump the last 9 years is is he malicious or is he crazy? When he says or does something ridiculous does he actually think it is true or does he just not care as long as he comes out ahead?
Kind of scary to hear Matt and other people's comments about him planting the seeds to cast doubt on the election. I mean of course he was always going to deny a loss, but to monkey with things before hand just to crate chaos afterwards? Makes you wonder how many of our future politicians will take cues from him just for personal pragmatic sake.
…both?
In a sign the election may be all but over, applications to become a trash truck operator went up 300% yesterday
The government keeps data about everything. For example, last Monday accidental swallowing of apple seeds was up 3% compared to same day last year.
Send some love for local newspaper down ballot endorsements.
My local paper stopped endorsing for President and Senate. Really who cares what some second or third tier city paper thinks about the presidential election?
But the local endorsements are super helpful. It’s the only way to find out anything about some of the smaller races besides (and sometimes including) the candidate websites.
People of MAHA - no one is stopping you from eating your vegetables.
I understand the revulsion to Trump's ideas about CBS News and their broadcast license, etc. It's been brought up on the pod several times, and it shows Trump's inclination for vengeance against those he perceives as harmed him, but I don't view it is a free speech issue. They have a government-issued monopolistic license, and they are using it to support the campaign for one political party... and doing so in an insidious way, trying to obfuscate what they are doing. The license was designed to provide for a public good, but I don't think the way they are using it supports that mission any longer... and it may no longer be a mission worth pursuing considering how Americans consume news and television.
I think everyone on The Fifth is a free speech absolutist based on years of podcasts. So my question is who do you think is the more serious threat to free speech: the Left or the Right?
This helps clarify the discussion:
https://reason.com/2024/10/28/trump-thinks-news-outlets-should-lose-their-broadcast-licenses-even-when-they-have-none/
I would argue CBS is barely hiding it at this point. https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1851793158562009404 Norah O'Donnell asserts *without evidence* that Joe Biden "inadvertently" referred to Trump supporters garbage and "this of course was in response to that racist joke". 'Inadvertently".. CBS News just made that up...
If they're such a great news organization, they can survive in the free market..
They don't feel like they have to hide it any longer because nearly every other outlet is doing the exact same thing. But, deep down, I think (hope?... trying to give a generous interpretation like Kmele) they have a sense of shame. Otherwise, they would have released the Kamala interview transcript. It's either shame, or the interview itself was so bad that it would be damning for her if it were released unedited.
It's hope. They have absolutely no shame, they don't even think they are doing anything wrong, because they believe what they are doing is righteous. " ...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
End all federal broadcast licenses, yes.
Maybe. Is the broadcast Fox channel one-sided? I know Foxnews is, but that is not a broadcast channel.
What right do they have to a license? Why did the government decide that four companies can control the broadcast bandwidth in every city in America and never re-evaluate or open it up to more competition? You can both-sides this if you want, but I don't think the licenses should exist at all, so I feel like your point will be lost on me. But you are welcome to answer my original question. Which "side" do you think is more dangerous to free speech?