"President Trump gave one his best ever speeches at Davos today, with his "America first" vision of economic security, where economic security at home is essential to preserve national security abroad. It was almost a direct echo of President Reagan 45-something odd years ago, when America badly outproduced the Soviet Union, and made it impossible for communism to match our prosperity or our military."
This is the stupid shit that Trump hears and probably watches to affirm everything he says.
A year ago the country was dead. Now it’s the hottest country in the world. Many are saying this.
People come up to me all the time and say “sir, sir! this bathroom is for paying customers only. Please remove your belongings from the change station.” It’s not related to the country but you can see how hard it is to run a business in the pockets that are still Biden’s America (Canada).
Good episode, lads. Q: While I agree that the DOJ should not be weaponized, by any administration, if Walz, Frey, and Ellison are not enforcing laws, getting violent criminals off the streets and, if they’re here illegally, seeing to it that they’re reported and deported, does that not call for an investigation?
Local law enforcement doesn’t have to cooperate with the feds on deportation, but they can’t obstruct them. What you described is at minimum reasonable grounds for sending in federal resources to protect ICE, like national guard or military.
However Bill Barr thinks there are grounds to investigate obstructing federal law enforcement and it should be prosecuted.
I think that early in the first term, basically from the beginning, it was established that many laws could be broken in the mission of opposing Trump, as seen by insubordination and illegal spying at the federal level and culminating in the summer of 2020. This expanded into the mission of social justice more broadly that extended through the Biden admin with BLM, MeToo, and Gaza serving as pretexts for lawlessness.
I think many who support Trump are quite uncomfortable with his overreaching and the ways he uses law enforcement, but at the 1 year anniversary of his taking office, their belief that the alternative is lawlessness with blue characteristics has been vindicated and they’ll choose the Trump method over the left’s. That’s just the reality of the dynamics, and people can decide how they divvy out culpability but how to get out of this cycle is even less obvious.
Well to me it’s pretty obvious that the Ds are way ok with lawlessness so fuck ‘em. Trump will (and has) overstep but after what felt like 4 years of BS from the left during the first term, I’m finding it hard to care too much about them FAFOing
Well when presented with essentially 2 options, you’re going to get A or B. People have to make a call. It’s really that simple.
The ballot box is downstream of a system of accountability that is led by the media. By not being able or willing to hem in the Dems, the GOP has a wide berth for its own craziness, and the Dems react in kind. The worst part of this system is that it’s not remotely clear that any official would gain by significantly pivoting to a more toned down politics. Theoretically it could appeal broadly but they have to win a primary, and there lies the problem.
Yeah, my read is that directionally the voters prefer Republicans on this issue to Democrats, even if they don't like some of the specific enforcement actions. They want something done about the problem, so when the Democrats' approach is "do nothing, and actually encourage more of it", it's no surprise the voters shrug and pull the lever for the violence.
The Democrats should give the voters a real choice. Right now, there isn't one.
Congress is THE problem. Trump is categorically unfit for office and should be removed. Fixing Congress is the only way to stop this run of executive abuse by both parties.
ETA: This was an excellent show. Really appreciate the discussion on Carney
I have a close connection to Denmark. My former father in law was Danish and was in the resistance helping the Jews and so on. Honestly as a Jew I felt comfortable marrying into my husband’s family and proud of my father in law. My friends there are shocked and repulsed and worried as you can imagine. I am embarrassed by my government as I’m sure we all are. Your discussion did make me laugh however considering such crazy news. That is what I love about TFC!
Marcon's eyewear reminds of the great Sunglasses worn on Lou Reeds "Street Hassle" (And take no Prisoners on the back and inner gate not cover) and John Cales "Slow Dazzle" . All 3 of these put anything Bono ever wore to shame. Viva The SunGlasses!!!
A major divergence in theory on what happens with NATO is what you believe Trump’s ultimate goals are, or at least what would satisfy him.
I think he wants countries to care about defense and show that they’re grateful for the US security umbrella. I’d point to Israel, Japan, and South Korea as clear cases of this, where they came to the table with the willingness to defend themselves and ally with the USA unabashedly and were rewarded for it (there are more examples but those are the easiest).
If that’s the case, then this is all blather from Carney and Western Europe. Any defense they could standup independent of the USA (and where are they getting their advanced weaponry?) requires far more than I believe Trump is demanding to be an ally in good standing.
I think that the various theories of Trump’s goals and motivations should be evaluated on how they predict the next year and how well they map to 2025. Admittedly, the lowest opinion of Trump as expressed by Michael is still a live theory in this respect.
Let’s not get carried away. Would the border be secure? Would even the worst of the worst illegal migrants be deported? Would the Oct. 7 hostages be free? Would Maduro be removed? What would things be like in Iran, would their people be rising up? Would Title IX protections be restored? Would we be unburdened by what has been?
I actually do think that Harris would have moderated somewhat on immigration compared to Biden. Would she have gone to the extreme lengths that Trump has gone to on deportations? Absolutely not, but then I'm against much of what Trump is doing. Long term, I think the Trump administration's actions on immigration are going to be a net negative for the US.
I think Trump deserves a lot of credit for the release of the Oct 7 hostages, and I've said as much before. I don't think that would have happened under Harris, at least not without a lot more bloodshed. Removing Maduro and threatening Iran? Too soon to tell if those will be net positives for the US, or even for the people of those countries, not to mention the legal and Constitutional problems.
And, of course, there's other questions we have to ask. Would we be seeing such blatant and massive corruption under Harris? Would we be threatening long-standing and beneficial military, economic, and diplomatic alliances for little to no gain? Would we be creating strategic opportunities for China and Russia? Would we be threatening the international student and researcher pipeline at American universities? Would we have ethno-religious nationalists in charge of DHS and DOD? Would we see the US military deployed domestically over the objection of local leaders? Would we be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a missile defense boondoggle? Would we be threatening the independence of the Fed? Would we be spooking bond markets every few months?
You might point to the illiberal identity politics and cancel culture on the left since 2020, and I'd agree that those were and remain awful. But we were starting to see the culture shift away from those things by 2024. We didn't need an illiberal right-wing version of the same, which is also awful.
Different people will give different weight to each of these things. I would have had no shortage of things to vociferously criticize under a President Harris. But I would prefer that scenario to what we've seen under Trump.
I don’t know. Maybe. Would we know about it if they were? Would the media report on it, or would Harris get the same sympathetic, at times sycophantic coverage Obama and Biden got during their terms (and that she got during her presidential campaign)? Would agents be masked? Probably not. But then, they likely wouldn’t be getting doxxed by activists/wannabe revolutionaries, because someone they support would be in the White House...
If there were another racially-charged incident involving a police officer and a black suspect, how would Pres. Harris handle it? Would she urge people to wait for the facts to come out, not rush to judgment, or would she immediately condemn the cop and valorize the perpetrator? If there were riots again, like 2020, would she try to quell the unrest, or would she support it, make excuses for it? Would more innocent people be getting killed because of it?
The last administration, of which Harris was a part. They made sure you knew it, because they insisted on calling it the Biden-Harris Administration. But I notice you overlook every other point I made...
I actually agree with almost all of your points. My point is that for me, personally, none of those things is as bad as masked Feds kidnapping innocent people off the street.
We sure as shit wouldn’t be the “show us your papers” country, actively threatening our closest allies. Unlikely there would be crypto pay for play schemes or $50 billion crypto rug pulls. No Qatari planes. We’d still be funding medical research. Harris wouldn’t be actively at war with the half of the country that didn’t vote for her. I could go on.
She sucked. I don’t want her or Biden. I wanted a closed border. I hated the woke shit. But I know the difference stupid vs dangerous.
The Biden-Harris Administration implemented vaccine mandates for federal workers and contractors, and attempted to do so for private sector corporations. Often, people had to show their vaccine cards, and Biden promised the unvaccinated “a winter of severe illness and death.” They pressured social media companies. That’s authoritarian.
Trump could certainly be more tactful in dealing with some of our closest allies, but a lot of that is kayfabe, because politics is basically pro wrestling. Anyway, most are on our side — you know, because they’re allies. I’m generally more concerned about our enemies. I wonder how Harris would have dealt with Russia, North Korea, and China.
When it comes to corruption, well, it gets a tiny little bit easier to swallow once you realize that just about every administration, including the previous one, not to mention Congress, is corrupt in one way or another. You can thank the two-party system for that. Various schemes, lies, backroom deals… They’re all out to line their pockets.
I don’t know what you mean by suggesting Trump is “actively at war [!] with the half of the country that didn’t vote for” him. I didn’t vote for him (or Harris), and I haven’t been called to battle. Has he said something about me?! I have no doubt, though, that under a Harris presidency, things would be very uncomfortable for Trump voters (whom Harris’s boss, Biden, called “garbage”), and given that the medical and legal fields skew left, possibly dangerous, maybe even deadly. What’s more, because most in the corporate media are liberal — some are literally in bed with democratic politicians — there would be precious few mainstream outlets providing honest coverage of goings-on and holding President Harris’s feet to the fire. (These are the same people who told us Biden was never better.) Reporters would be asking softball questions, if they questioned her at all. That’s also dangerous. At least we’d still have The Fifth Column.
Would Tim Walz’s ties to the Somali fraud in Minnesota be investigated at all?
I believe things would be worse by virtually every metric, especially for women, girls, and Jews. Luckily, we’ll never find out.
Just wanted to pop in here to say no amount of corruption is acceptable or "easy to swallow" despite its prevalence. Less is better, perhaps, but any is bad.
The openness of corruption we see now is not refreshing to me like many MAGA people argue (I'm not accusing you of this, however). There's still plenty they're/we're not seeing.
I absolutely think Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but it's a moot point. There won't be enough votes in the Senate to convict him, barring a truly epic catastrophe that flips a large number of safe Republican states and/or causes Republicans to abandon Trump en masse. I have a hard time even imagining what that would look like. And there's no guarantee things would be better under JD Vance (though such a hypothetical catastrophe might force him to moderate regardless).
But I really, really, really wish that Democrats would talk more about Constitutional amendments to reign in the executive. It's an absolute pipe dream, I know, but after two terms of this you'd think that at least a handful of people would float the idea. That we can't even get that much is a big indictment of Congress.
Abusing the pardon power is bad, but it's bad in ways that are tolerable.
If someone is going to spend the political capital to go through the long and difficult process of amending the Constitution, I would prioritize electoral reforms to make elections more competitive and explicitly and significantly restricting the power of the Executive branch.
Congress gets away with being so feckless because so many districts are effectively one-party races. That, along with other incentives in the primary process, leads both parties to nominate and ultimately elect people that are good at partisan performance without requiring them to actually govern.
Meanwhile, while Congress is performing for soundbites, stuff still has to get done. So the President acts, Congress does nothing to stop it, and there's enough Constitutional gray area for the Supreme Court to mostly allow it.
More competitive elections that reduce the influence of the fringes of both parties would, I think, go a long way towards making Congress more accountable and effective.
I can think of lots of other amendments I'd prioritize over pardon reform, too, but this is probably the biggest.
Of course these are all pipe dreams. What we need are more moderate candidates running. That will never happen with the current primary system as it exists. The parties are weak and they need to be stronger than they currently are.
In Congress power has been taken from the committee chairmen and concentrated in the Speaker and Majority/Minority leaders. The old system was better.
I don't know if in the current environment it is possible to go back to a better system, unfortunately
More competitive districts are an answer. The parties have no interest.
Maybe get the cameras out of Congress, or only one camera that shows the whole chamber and doesn't focus on whoever is speaking.
Listening to the way the fellas talk about this current administration and the state of things Makes me wonder why half of the ppl who are subscribed are even subscribed to this show. Seems as if they’re in it for puffing their chest in the chat (embarrassing) or it’s full on hate listening (crazy).
I’m floored that this is presented as a dig against people who listen despite disagreeing. The cherry on top is that listening despite disagreeing is played as if it’s *antithetical* to the ethos of the show.
You’ll note the guys never suggest that people who disagree not listen, only those who are hateful toward them. Of all the unhealthy ways people consume content, hate listening is the worst and most perplexing.
I listen to one podcast that is consistently supportive of the admin and it’s the one I skip most often. I’ve met dozens of incredible people I consider friends through the chat and I’m to the right of all but maybe 3 of them.
Not shocked that someone who hates the admin can’t comprehend this, but it still surprises me when they don’t get what the show or its listenership is about.
The most hateful chat posts come from subscribers who are anti-Trump, and aren’t satisfied unless the lads are criticizing him at all times. There’s no pleasing them. The rest of us? Eh, whatever.
I can allow a lot of leeway for rage when you’re opposed to a President making these moves and acting erratically. But directing it to people who disagree, is silly. Everyone gets grace when they’re angry, especially if they just read something that got their hackles up, but the presumption that this is all justified seems to prevail over time rather than dissipating with one’s temper.
I lose my cool and appreciate people’s grace toward me, I’d be a hypocrite and worse, debasing the sort of discourse I benefit from or at best denying it to others.
You think I can’t comprehend difference of opinion but that’s not what I’m taking a “dig” at. That would assume I’m a “retard” or something. I’m fully aware of the show’s ethos. I think you've missed my point and gone off on a self righteous tangent, which now Matt Welch has liked so you win. 😂
What I’m pointing out is that the chat is hateful in a lot of ways, particularly vicious and condescending, and that feels completely at odds with the idea of respecting difference of opinion. That’s the part I don’t get.
Left or right, I honestly don’t care. I’m a pretty putrid centrist on a lot of things because I’m either uneducated, apathetic, or unsure. What is surprising to me is that you don’t see the persistence of incivility as a feature of the chat. It’s not civil discourse. I don’t know why that’s so difficult to admit.
That’s another thing. If you hate this administration you can’t comprehend the concept of this show? Really? Because I hate that orange turd whose dumb tariff policies have ruined my girlfriend’s business, I can’t understand difference of opinion? Wild. He’s not even my leader but I still have to deal with his wannabe mafioso bullshit. He’s not even Italian. I think that’s super weak.
I also appreciate the community of this podcast, wish I could argue and discuss with more people about politics in person as I occasionally have, but as I've said, doesn't seem like the place for that anymore. Its ok to admit something has gotten significantly worse, doesn't mean there's no hope or take away from the mission of the fellas.
Half?! You think half of the now 60K+ subscribers are ardent Trump supporters, or MAGA? I don’t have any official data, but I’d say that wildly overestimates the breakdown in listenership, and that most of us don’t fit into the right-left/republican-democrat/pro-Trump-anti-Trump binary. Independents, libertarians, none of the aboves… We appreciate that the hosts spare no administration, or party, from scrutiny, whether we agree with their opinions or not. The chat doesn’t necessarily reflect that — it’s mostly the same 20-30 people posting. Others (not me) have better things to do.
This is a surprising take. At this point, as much as I adore the gents, I actually pay my money to be part of the chat, regardless of which episodes I listen to. Yeah, we can get a little too heated at times, but I love that we have a venue where we can all kick ideas around without having to walk on eggshells. I don’t have that with friends, neighbors, or relatives. The fact that we chatters have a wide variety of viewpoints makes these conversations (or even fights) more profitable.
Literally every 3 posts is a fight and name calling and condescension. So many experts . Not as much civil discourse you could have found a little while ago. I don’t think it’s that crazy to say.
The most innocuous and obvious thing can be argued as “retarded”. I’m not even falling on either side of this, I don’t care enough and I’m not American lol but I have an interest in politics, particularly American. I find it kind of wild you don’t see my point even if I was off on the percentage. Sometimes one exaggerates to make a point 🤷♂️
Like you, I would be very glad if we could all be more congenial with each other. At the same time, I’m impressed with the high number of left-leaning chatters who stuck it out during the Biden administration and I’m equally pleased for the right-leaning chatters to continue to subscribe now.
I think the vast majority of listeners (whether conservative, libertarian, eclectic in views, liberal-leaning, apolitical nerds, erstwhile Marxists, or whatever) somehow found this show as a brutal takedown of progressive pieties and the decline and fall of legacy journalism. Since progressives and mainstream journalists have been apoplectic about Trump for so long, that has made much of us Trump-curious or perhaps Trump-tolerant, at least as devil's advocates, more than actually MAGA. The hosts have made clear that they are done with the minimizing and fence-sitting, and yeah, it does cause a bit of whiplash.
This isn't the only place where the tone shift is happening. I imagine a lot of the audience of National Review's "The Editors" podcast were pretty flummoxed when the hosts went full 25th amendment a few days ago. Wouldn't want to be the one going through their "fan" mail these days.
Hear me out now. I'm a European, Brit living inside the EU. It has been utterly maddening to see our political class across the continent stick our collective heads in the sand over the rising threats of Russia, China, Iran, and global Islamism more broadly. Equally, the internal mess that is stagnant over managed economies; tech, start up, and innovation killing tax and regulations; the most retarded energy policies our worst enemies could have wished upon us; a complete hollowing out of our industrial base; decrepit underfunded militaries (Poland, Finland, and the Baltics aside); failed models of multiculturalism and integration of new immigrants as well as a refusal to gain control of borders through difficult but necessary action; the rise of both the populist and far right as well as the postmodern left, and censorious instincts that are beginning to chisel away at the very liberal democratic core of the continent.
This is the first time in a decade of these and other issues simmering and then beginning to boil over have we seen anything like a collective acknowledgement that things are badly amiss, we are exposed as the Yanky tide goes out, and we need to start getting serious and fast.
I'd have much preferred this had all come about in more reasonable and reasoned circumstances - but if it takes a shit throwing ape to get us to wake up and take action, I'll live with that. It's about our only chance at relevance and ongoing safety as a continent beyond the next decade, regardless of how it comes about.
The problem is that this isn't going to make the EU wake up & smell the coffee. Trump has caused the EU to run straight into the arms of the Chinese. And just as Moynihan pointed out, a broader acceptance of fascism & communism is on the rise in the west. Getting in bed with the Chinese is just making the world a more authoritarian place.
I actually completely agree with you here, I've seen the China talk here and especially in Canada and I just can't believe what the likes of Carney think will come of it long-term. I'd like to say that it's some 4D chess move to play off competing superpowers, but I have seen so little evidence of such forethought from our leadership class across the west during this neoliberal era that it would be wishful thinking at best.
Nonetheless, this is probably the only way to shake them from the self imposed stupor and managed declinism that has taken over the continent. It's weighing up a slow but sure death vs a risky chance at not just survival but thriving again. For that to happen the old order has to be shaken to its core to force it to abandon the worst of the last few decades, or be replaced entirely if they can't or won't.
Larry Kudlow on Trump's speech,
"President Trump gave one his best ever speeches at Davos today, with his "America first" vision of economic security, where economic security at home is essential to preserve national security abroad. It was almost a direct echo of President Reagan 45-something odd years ago, when America badly outproduced the Soviet Union, and made it impossible for communism to match our prosperity or our military."
This is the stupid shit that Trump hears and probably watches to affirm everything he says.
Reagan is turning in his grave.
I need a drink ☠️
A year ago the country was dead. Now it’s the hottest country in the world. Many are saying this.
People come up to me all the time and say “sir, sir! this bathroom is for paying customers only. Please remove your belongings from the change station.” It’s not related to the country but you can see how hard it is to run a business in the pockets that are still Biden’s America (Canada).
Good episode, lads. Q: While I agree that the DOJ should not be weaponized, by any administration, if Walz, Frey, and Ellison are not enforcing laws, getting violent criminals off the streets and, if they’re here illegally, seeing to it that they’re reported and deported, does that not call for an investigation?
Local law enforcement doesn’t have to cooperate with the feds on deportation, but they can’t obstruct them. What you described is at minimum reasonable grounds for sending in federal resources to protect ICE, like national guard or military.
However Bill Barr thinks there are grounds to investigate obstructing federal law enforcement and it should be prosecuted.
I think that early in the first term, basically from the beginning, it was established that many laws could be broken in the mission of opposing Trump, as seen by insubordination and illegal spying at the federal level and culminating in the summer of 2020. This expanded into the mission of social justice more broadly that extended through the Biden admin with BLM, MeToo, and Gaza serving as pretexts for lawlessness.
I think many who support Trump are quite uncomfortable with his overreaching and the ways he uses law enforcement, but at the 1 year anniversary of his taking office, their belief that the alternative is lawlessness with blue characteristics has been vindicated and they’ll choose the Trump method over the left’s. That’s just the reality of the dynamics, and people can decide how they divvy out culpability but how to get out of this cycle is even less obvious.
Well to me it’s pretty obvious that the Ds are way ok with lawlessness so fuck ‘em. Trump will (and has) overstep but after what felt like 4 years of BS from the left during the first term, I’m finding it hard to care too much about them FAFOing
Well when presented with essentially 2 options, you’re going to get A or B. People have to make a call. It’s really that simple.
The ballot box is downstream of a system of accountability that is led by the media. By not being able or willing to hem in the Dems, the GOP has a wide berth for its own craziness, and the Dems react in kind. The worst part of this system is that it’s not remotely clear that any official would gain by significantly pivoting to a more toned down politics. Theoretically it could appeal broadly but they have to win a primary, and there lies the problem.
Yeah, my read is that directionally the voters prefer Republicans on this issue to Democrats, even if they don't like some of the specific enforcement actions. They want something done about the problem, so when the Democrats' approach is "do nothing, and actually encourage more of it", it's no surprise the voters shrug and pull the lever for the violence.
The Democrats should give the voters a real choice. Right now, there isn't one.
The fact there’s been no shortage of left-wing violence the last few years surely makes it an easier choice, too.
I might be wrong: I'm fairly certain that quite a few Europeans speak German.
They were in fucking Switzerland! German is one their official languages!!
Kind of what I was getting at.
Congress is THE problem. Trump is categorically unfit for office and should be removed. Fixing Congress is the only way to stop this run of executive abuse by both parties.
ETA: This was an excellent show. Really appreciate the discussion on Carney
I have a close connection to Denmark. My former father in law was Danish and was in the resistance helping the Jews and so on. Honestly as a Jew I felt comfortable marrying into my husband’s family and proud of my father in law. My friends there are shocked and repulsed and worried as you can imagine. I am embarrassed by my government as I’m sure we all are. Your discussion did make me laugh however considering such crazy news. That is what I love about TFC!
You guys are never going to believe this, but Batya! definitely thinks Trump just won a massive victory (on Greenland/Iceland).
Marcon's eyewear reminds of the great Sunglasses worn on Lou Reeds "Street Hassle" (And take no Prisoners on the back and inner gate not cover) and John Cales "Slow Dazzle" . All 3 of these put anything Bono ever wore to shame. Viva The SunGlasses!!!
For those interested, the sunnies are the Pacific S 01 from French designer Henry Jullien.
The brand’s website crashed last night under the visits it seems.
Trump quoting liberally from "A Fish Called Wanda" at Davos
https://youtu.be/d-OE-MdBI40?si=8X6J86emuRcHX4pV
This is the best timeline
Outstanding episode, only an hour in.
A major divergence in theory on what happens with NATO is what you believe Trump’s ultimate goals are, or at least what would satisfy him.
I think he wants countries to care about defense and show that they’re grateful for the US security umbrella. I’d point to Israel, Japan, and South Korea as clear cases of this, where they came to the table with the willingness to defend themselves and ally with the USA unabashedly and were rewarded for it (there are more examples but those are the easiest).
If that’s the case, then this is all blather from Carney and Western Europe. Any defense they could standup independent of the USA (and where are they getting their advanced weaponry?) requires far more than I believe Trump is demanding to be an ally in good standing.
I think that the various theories of Trump’s goals and motivations should be evaluated on how they predict the next year and how well they map to 2025. Admittedly, the lowest opinion of Trump as expressed by Michael is still a live theory in this respect.
Harris was a shitty candidate but she’d look like Lincoln in comparison at this point
Let’s not get carried away. Would the border be secure? Would even the worst of the worst illegal migrants be deported? Would the Oct. 7 hostages be free? Would Maduro be removed? What would things be like in Iran, would their people be rising up? Would Title IX protections be restored? Would we be unburdened by what has been?
I actually do think that Harris would have moderated somewhat on immigration compared to Biden. Would she have gone to the extreme lengths that Trump has gone to on deportations? Absolutely not, but then I'm against much of what Trump is doing. Long term, I think the Trump administration's actions on immigration are going to be a net negative for the US.
I think Trump deserves a lot of credit for the release of the Oct 7 hostages, and I've said as much before. I don't think that would have happened under Harris, at least not without a lot more bloodshed. Removing Maduro and threatening Iran? Too soon to tell if those will be net positives for the US, or even for the people of those countries, not to mention the legal and Constitutional problems.
And, of course, there's other questions we have to ask. Would we be seeing such blatant and massive corruption under Harris? Would we be threatening long-standing and beneficial military, economic, and diplomatic alliances for little to no gain? Would we be creating strategic opportunities for China and Russia? Would we be threatening the international student and researcher pipeline at American universities? Would we have ethno-religious nationalists in charge of DHS and DOD? Would we see the US military deployed domestically over the objection of local leaders? Would we be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a missile defense boondoggle? Would we be threatening the independence of the Fed? Would we be spooking bond markets every few months?
You might point to the illiberal identity politics and cancel culture on the left since 2020, and I'd agree that those were and remain awful. But we were starting to see the culture shift away from those things by 2024. We didn't need an illiberal right-wing version of the same, which is also awful.
Different people will give different weight to each of these things. I would have had no shortage of things to vociferously criticize under a President Harris. But I would prefer that scenario to what we've seen under Trump.
Would innocent people be getting snatched by masked Feds in broad daylight?
I don’t know. Maybe. Would we know about it if they were? Would the media report on it, or would Harris get the same sympathetic, at times sycophantic coverage Obama and Biden got during their terms (and that she got during her presidential campaign)? Would agents be masked? Probably not. But then, they likely wouldn’t be getting doxxed by activists/wannabe revolutionaries, because someone they support would be in the White House...
https://youtu.be/JUXTqyH54ww?si=1dto2R8GVeEQZZs5
If there were another racially-charged incident involving a police officer and a black suspect, how would Pres. Harris handle it? Would she urge people to wait for the facts to come out, not rush to judgment, or would she immediately condemn the cop and valorize the perpetrator? If there were riots again, like 2020, would she try to quell the unrest, or would she support it, make excuses for it? Would more innocent people be getting killed because of it?
This a long list of things that were bad about the last administration, none of which are masked Feds kidnapping innocent people.
The last administration, of which Harris was a part. They made sure you knew it, because they insisted on calling it the Biden-Harris Administration. But I notice you overlook every other point I made...
I actually agree with almost all of your points. My point is that for me, personally, none of those things is as bad as masked Feds kidnapping innocent people off the street.
We sure as shit wouldn’t be the “show us your papers” country, actively threatening our closest allies. Unlikely there would be crypto pay for play schemes or $50 billion crypto rug pulls. No Qatari planes. We’d still be funding medical research. Harris wouldn’t be actively at war with the half of the country that didn’t vote for her. I could go on.
She sucked. I don’t want her or Biden. I wanted a closed border. I hated the woke shit. But I know the difference stupid vs dangerous.
stupid vs dangerous *and* stupid
As Kamele has stated, "I didnt Vote for either but I am really happy She didnt win" How bad things are with this guy they would be worse.
I disagree with kmele on that for sure.
So, the answer to each of my questions is: No.
The Biden-Harris Administration implemented vaccine mandates for federal workers and contractors, and attempted to do so for private sector corporations. Often, people had to show their vaccine cards, and Biden promised the unvaccinated “a winter of severe illness and death.” They pressured social media companies. That’s authoritarian.
Trump could certainly be more tactful in dealing with some of our closest allies, but a lot of that is kayfabe, because politics is basically pro wrestling. Anyway, most are on our side — you know, because they’re allies. I’m generally more concerned about our enemies. I wonder how Harris would have dealt with Russia, North Korea, and China.
When it comes to corruption, well, it gets a tiny little bit easier to swallow once you realize that just about every administration, including the previous one, not to mention Congress, is corrupt in one way or another. You can thank the two-party system for that. Various schemes, lies, backroom deals… They’re all out to line their pockets.
We are still funding medical research:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/sep/29/hakeem-jeffries/trump-medical-research-cuts-nih/
I don’t know what you mean by suggesting Trump is “actively at war [!] with the half of the country that didn’t vote for” him. I didn’t vote for him (or Harris), and I haven’t been called to battle. Has he said something about me?! I have no doubt, though, that under a Harris presidency, things would be very uncomfortable for Trump voters (whom Harris’s boss, Biden, called “garbage”), and given that the medical and legal fields skew left, possibly dangerous, maybe even deadly. What’s more, because most in the corporate media are liberal — some are literally in bed with democratic politicians — there would be precious few mainstream outlets providing honest coverage of goings-on and holding President Harris’s feet to the fire. (These are the same people who told us Biden was never better.) Reporters would be asking softball questions, if they questioned her at all. That’s also dangerous. At least we’d still have The Fifth Column.
Would Tim Walz’s ties to the Somali fraud in Minnesota be investigated at all?
I believe things would be worse by virtually every metric, especially for women, girls, and Jews. Luckily, we’ll never find out.
I’ll fully disagree with you on most of that except for the media part.
Just wanted to pop in here to say no amount of corruption is acceptable or "easy to swallow" despite its prevalence. Less is better, perhaps, but any is bad.
The openness of corruption we see now is not refreshing to me like many MAGA people argue (I'm not accusing you of this, however). There's still plenty they're/we're not seeing.
Dead, shot at Ford's Theater?
Who doesn't love a good old fashioned Meatloaf reference? "His name is Robert Paulson...."
Respect the bitch tits.
I absolutely think Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but it's a moot point. There won't be enough votes in the Senate to convict him, barring a truly epic catastrophe that flips a large number of safe Republican states and/or causes Republicans to abandon Trump en masse. I have a hard time even imagining what that would look like. And there's no guarantee things would be better under JD Vance (though such a hypothetical catastrophe might force him to moderate regardless).
But I really, really, really wish that Democrats would talk more about Constitutional amendments to reign in the executive. It's an absolute pipe dream, I know, but after two terms of this you'd think that at least a handful of people would float the idea. That we can't even get that much is a big indictment of Congress.
The two things we need most for our government are
1. (and 2,3,4) A functioning Congress that takes its Article 1 powers and obligations seriously. And that can work in a bipartisan manner
2. Restriction of the Pardon Power (would need an Amendment unfortunately)
Abusing the pardon power is bad, but it's bad in ways that are tolerable.
If someone is going to spend the political capital to go through the long and difficult process of amending the Constitution, I would prioritize electoral reforms to make elections more competitive and explicitly and significantly restricting the power of the Executive branch.
Congress gets away with being so feckless because so many districts are effectively one-party races. That, along with other incentives in the primary process, leads both parties to nominate and ultimately elect people that are good at partisan performance without requiring them to actually govern.
Meanwhile, while Congress is performing for soundbites, stuff still has to get done. So the President acts, Congress does nothing to stop it, and there's enough Constitutional gray area for the Supreme Court to mostly allow it.
More competitive elections that reduce the influence of the fringes of both parties would, I think, go a long way towards making Congress more accountable and effective.
I can think of lots of other amendments I'd prioritize over pardon reform, too, but this is probably the biggest.
Of course these are all pipe dreams. What we need are more moderate candidates running. That will never happen with the current primary system as it exists. The parties are weak and they need to be stronger than they currently are.
In Congress power has been taken from the committee chairmen and concentrated in the Speaker and Majority/Minority leaders. The old system was better.
I don't know if in the current environment it is possible to go back to a better system, unfortunately
More competitive districts are an answer. The parties have no interest.
Maybe get the cameras out of Congress, or only one camera that shows the whole chamber and doesn't focus on whoever is speaking.
One of the many joys of Trump is that you can release a pod the day off his big speech and all your commentary is already dated/wrong.
1:32:06 I assume Michael's referring to Megyn Kelly.
Listening to the way the fellas talk about this current administration and the state of things Makes me wonder why half of the ppl who are subscribed are even subscribed to this show. Seems as if they’re in it for puffing their chest in the chat (embarrassing) or it’s full on hate listening (crazy).
I’m floored that this is presented as a dig against people who listen despite disagreeing. The cherry on top is that listening despite disagreeing is played as if it’s *antithetical* to the ethos of the show.
You’ll note the guys never suggest that people who disagree not listen, only those who are hateful toward them. Of all the unhealthy ways people consume content, hate listening is the worst and most perplexing.
I listen to one podcast that is consistently supportive of the admin and it’s the one I skip most often. I’ve met dozens of incredible people I consider friends through the chat and I’m to the right of all but maybe 3 of them.
Not shocked that someone who hates the admin can’t comprehend this, but it still surprises me when they don’t get what the show or its listenership is about.
The most hateful chat posts come from subscribers who are anti-Trump, and aren’t satisfied unless the lads are criticizing him at all times. There’s no pleasing them. The rest of us? Eh, whatever.
I can allow a lot of leeway for rage when you’re opposed to a President making these moves and acting erratically. But directing it to people who disagree, is silly. Everyone gets grace when they’re angry, especially if they just read something that got their hackles up, but the presumption that this is all justified seems to prevail over time rather than dissipating with one’s temper.
I lose my cool and appreciate people’s grace toward me, I’d be a hypocrite and worse, debasing the sort of discourse I benefit from or at best denying it to others.
You think I can’t comprehend difference of opinion but that’s not what I’m taking a “dig” at. That would assume I’m a “retard” or something. I’m fully aware of the show’s ethos. I think you've missed my point and gone off on a self righteous tangent, which now Matt Welch has liked so you win. 😂
What I’m pointing out is that the chat is hateful in a lot of ways, particularly vicious and condescending, and that feels completely at odds with the idea of respecting difference of opinion. That’s the part I don’t get.
Left or right, I honestly don’t care. I’m a pretty putrid centrist on a lot of things because I’m either uneducated, apathetic, or unsure. What is surprising to me is that you don’t see the persistence of incivility as a feature of the chat. It’s not civil discourse. I don’t know why that’s so difficult to admit.
That’s another thing. If you hate this administration you can’t comprehend the concept of this show? Really? Because I hate that orange turd whose dumb tariff policies have ruined my girlfriend’s business, I can’t understand difference of opinion? Wild. He’s not even my leader but I still have to deal with his wannabe mafioso bullshit. He’s not even Italian. I think that’s super weak.
I also appreciate the community of this podcast, wish I could argue and discuss with more people about politics in person as I occasionally have, but as I've said, doesn't seem like the place for that anymore. Its ok to admit something has gotten significantly worse, doesn't mean there's no hope or take away from the mission of the fellas.
Half?! You think half of the now 60K+ subscribers are ardent Trump supporters, or MAGA? I don’t have any official data, but I’d say that wildly overestimates the breakdown in listenership, and that most of us don’t fit into the right-left/republican-democrat/pro-Trump-anti-Trump binary. Independents, libertarians, none of the aboves… We appreciate that the hosts spare no administration, or party, from scrutiny, whether we agree with their opinions or not. The chat doesn’t necessarily reflect that — it’s mostly the same 20-30 people posting. Others (not me) have better things to do.
My goodness, I knew someone would wail about this. Not half. The most vocal is more accurate.
“Reply to” is more accurate than “wail about.”
This is a surprising take. At this point, as much as I adore the gents, I actually pay my money to be part of the chat, regardless of which episodes I listen to. Yeah, we can get a little too heated at times, but I love that we have a venue where we can all kick ideas around without having to walk on eggshells. I don’t have that with friends, neighbors, or relatives. The fact that we chatters have a wide variety of viewpoints makes these conversations (or even fights) more profitable.
Literally every 3 posts is a fight and name calling and condescension. So many experts . Not as much civil discourse you could have found a little while ago. I don’t think it’s that crazy to say.
The most innocuous and obvious thing can be argued as “retarded”. I’m not even falling on either side of this, I don’t care enough and I’m not American lol but I have an interest in politics, particularly American. I find it kind of wild you don’t see my point even if I was off on the percentage. Sometimes one exaggerates to make a point 🤷♂️
Like you, I would be very glad if we could all be more congenial with each other. At the same time, I’m impressed with the high number of left-leaning chatters who stuck it out during the Biden administration and I’m equally pleased for the right-leaning chatters to continue to subscribe now.
I think the vast majority of listeners (whether conservative, libertarian, eclectic in views, liberal-leaning, apolitical nerds, erstwhile Marxists, or whatever) somehow found this show as a brutal takedown of progressive pieties and the decline and fall of legacy journalism. Since progressives and mainstream journalists have been apoplectic about Trump for so long, that has made much of us Trump-curious or perhaps Trump-tolerant, at least as devil's advocates, more than actually MAGA. The hosts have made clear that they are done with the minimizing and fence-sitting, and yeah, it does cause a bit of whiplash.
Yes, those ppl are children. I’m saying the discourse in the chat isn’t civil. Not an earth shattering statement.
This isn't the only place where the tone shift is happening. I imagine a lot of the audience of National Review's "The Editors" podcast were pretty flummoxed when the hosts went full 25th amendment a few days ago. Wouldn't want to be the one going through their "fan" mail these days.
Hear me out now. I'm a European, Brit living inside the EU. It has been utterly maddening to see our political class across the continent stick our collective heads in the sand over the rising threats of Russia, China, Iran, and global Islamism more broadly. Equally, the internal mess that is stagnant over managed economies; tech, start up, and innovation killing tax and regulations; the most retarded energy policies our worst enemies could have wished upon us; a complete hollowing out of our industrial base; decrepit underfunded militaries (Poland, Finland, and the Baltics aside); failed models of multiculturalism and integration of new immigrants as well as a refusal to gain control of borders through difficult but necessary action; the rise of both the populist and far right as well as the postmodern left, and censorious instincts that are beginning to chisel away at the very liberal democratic core of the continent.
This is the first time in a decade of these and other issues simmering and then beginning to boil over have we seen anything like a collective acknowledgement that things are badly amiss, we are exposed as the Yanky tide goes out, and we need to start getting serious and fast.
I'd have much preferred this had all come about in more reasonable and reasoned circumstances - but if it takes a shit throwing ape to get us to wake up and take action, I'll live with that. It's about our only chance at relevance and ongoing safety as a continent beyond the next decade, regardless of how it comes about.
The problem is that this isn't going to make the EU wake up & smell the coffee. Trump has caused the EU to run straight into the arms of the Chinese. And just as Moynihan pointed out, a broader acceptance of fascism & communism is on the rise in the west. Getting in bed with the Chinese is just making the world a more authoritarian place.
I actually completely agree with you here, I've seen the China talk here and especially in Canada and I just can't believe what the likes of Carney think will come of it long-term. I'd like to say that it's some 4D chess move to play off competing superpowers, but I have seen so little evidence of such forethought from our leadership class across the west during this neoliberal era that it would be wishful thinking at best.
Nonetheless, this is probably the only way to shake them from the self imposed stupor and managed declinism that has taken over the continent. It's weighing up a slow but sure death vs a risky chance at not just survival but thriving again. For that to happen the old order has to be shaken to its core to force it to abandon the worst of the last few decades, or be replaced entirely if they can't or won't.