What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?
-
I haven't found any juicy Israel dunking. Not that I've looked too hard. But the people who are happy to call them genocidal maniacs regarding Gaza don't seem to be going as hard on them over Iran. For that matter, the TDS set hasn't been going nuts over whatever Trump is doing. It's like the pundit class is less punditry and more explanation so far. I need to check Bluesky.
-
Jordan Peterson has Sam Harris on his podcast. Interesting conversation as they always have.
Here’s the description Peterson gave it:
Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris explore the breakdown of institutions in the digital age, and how difficult it’s become to identify what’s true and what’s not. Harris voices deep concern over the role independent media and social platforms play in amplifying misinformation, especially post-October 7th. They discuss the addictive, fragmenting nature of platforms like X, the erosion of trust in institutions, the dangers of AI-generated identity theft — and possible solutions. The result is a sobering analysis of epistemic collapse, digital psychopathy, and the urgent need for institutional structure in a world where mass information fails us.
-
Jonah Goldberg hosts Ken Pollock, who he refers to as ‘the most knowledgeable person he knows who is against American involvement in the Iran war’.
He’s the real deal, former CIA, later Iran/Iraq desk lead for NSA, wrote a book on their nuclear program. Currently at AEI.
Definitely recommend. @Mik - I think you in particular would enjoy this.
Link here.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-remnant-with-jonah-goldberg/id1291144720?i=1000713382139
-
Tucker is leaning into the Darrel Cooper hysteria. Smart. My guess is that the people who screamed loudest about what a nightmare Cooper is, won't bother to listen, or at least won't admit to listening. My other guess is that Cooper won't say anything quite so trollish as the Churchill comment, this time.
Link to video -
I don't listen to topical political podcasts, but have a roughly random selection coming in for my drive into work. My last few were:
Botham's Ashes (British cricket, with a story that you wouldn't believe in a movie)
The best and worst of after-dinner speeches
The life and fate of Vasily Grossman, the Soviet writer
"The red bits are British" - on the teaching of history in English schoolsI much prefer this whimsical stuff to all "commentators" such as Tucker etc. that seem to feature so heavily in this thread. Admittedly, there's a huge British bias to my listening, but what the heck.
-
Jen Rubin hasn’t released an episode of her Green Room podcast since January. It was peak TDS hilarity. Hopefully she will return soon. The country needs her voice, now more than ever.
@Horace said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Jen Rubin hasn’t released an episode of her Green Room podcast since January. It was peak TDS hilarity. Hopefully she will return soon. The country needs her voice, now more than ever.
I’m curious how much of your podcast time is hate-listening.
-
@Horace said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Jen Rubin hasn’t released an episode of her Green Room podcast since January. It was peak TDS hilarity. Hopefully she will return soon. The country needs her voice, now more than ever.
I’m curious how much of your podcast time is hate-listening.
@jon-nyc said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
@Horace said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Jen Rubin hasn’t released an episode of her Green Room podcast since January. It was peak TDS hilarity. Hopefully she will return soon. The country needs her voice, now more than ever.
I’m curious how much of your podcast time is hate-listening.
I like to hear the best rhetorical arguments on any side of politics. I get plenty of leftward perspectives in my media diet, but it's not motivated to find stuff to laugh at or ridicule. As a decent person, I don't really make ridicule a focus.
Rubin is a special case of who I might enjoy listening to, I admit that one is a morbid curiosity about how far off the deep end an elderly white female progressive can go, while still taking themselves deadly seriously.
Education is extremely important.
-
Speaking of elderly white female progressive figures who take themselves deadly seriously, Joyce Carol Oates is fully invested in various conspiracy theories now:
https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5403898-conspiracy-theories-blueanons/
Many people on the right are also all-in on a Butler coverup theory, by the other side of course.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
@Horace said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Jen Rubin hasn’t released an episode of her Green Room podcast since January. It was peak TDS hilarity. Hopefully she will return soon. The country needs her voice, now more than ever.
I’m curious how much of your podcast time is hate-listening.
I like to hear the best rhetorical arguments on any side of politics. I get plenty of leftward perspectives in my media diet, but it's not motivated to find stuff to laugh at or ridicule. As a decent person, I don't really make ridicule a focus.
Rubin is a special case of who I might enjoy listening to, I admit that one is a morbid curiosity about how far off the deep end an elderly white female progressive can go, while still taking themselves deadly seriously.
@Horace said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
As a decent person, I don't really make ridicule a focus.
I've noticed that.
Similarly, I'm rarely sarcastic.
-
Speaking of elderly white female progressive figures who take themselves deadly seriously, Joyce Carol Oates is fully invested in various conspiracy theories now:
https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5403898-conspiracy-theories-blueanons/
Many people on the right are also all-in on a Butler coverup theory, by the other side of course.
@Horace said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Speaking of elderly white female progressive figures who take themselves deadly seriously, Joyce Carol Oates is fully invested in various conspiracy theories now:
This:
“While anyone from a shy child to a Green Beret veteran would duck down immediately in a panic, shrink away from having been struck in the head (by a pebble, let alone a bullet), instead [Trump] stood up proudly & raised his fist for photographers, without hesitation,” she wrote.
Is also just false. He stood up about two minutes later. They just don’t show those two minutes on the air.
-
Sam Harris talked to fellow traveler Jonah Goldberg. Only the first 30 minutes for those of us no longer contributing to the Sam Harris Wealth Fund. They appeared to agree that the Biden DOJ or the NY prosecutors would have followed viable leads from the Epstein files to Trump. Where have I heard that theory before. Oh yeah from everybody on the planet other than Jon.
Link to video -
Yeah I thought it was sloppy of them when they suggested the NY Ag would somehow have access to DoJ files.
Of course had there been real evidence of a crime the DoJ would have followed it. But so far no administration has leaked any name that appears however centrally or tangentially in the files in order to embarrass a political opponent. Though it is looking like Trump and Bondi are priming Maxwell to do that for them.
-
Yeah I thought it was sloppy of them when they suggested the NY Ag would somehow have access to DoJ files.
Of course had there been real evidence of a crime the DoJ would have followed it. But so far no administration has leaked any name that appears however centrally or tangentially in the files in order to embarrass a political opponent. Though it is looking like Trump and Bondi are priming Maxwell to do that for them.
@jon-nyc said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Yeah I thought it was sloppy of them when they suggested the NY Ag would somehow have access to DoJ files.
Of course had there been real evidence of a crime the DoJ would have followed it. But so far no administration has leaked any name that appears however centrally or tangentially in the files in order to embarrass a political opponent. Though it is looking like Trump and Bondi are priming Maxwell to do that for them.
What you said was that the Biden DOJ would not have looked for incriminating information and therefore it could well exist in the Epstein files. That is not me shoehorning words into your mouth. It’s just what you said.
-
Yes. Here why I believe that:
-
it’s clear from Trump’s behavior and his own words (“there’s a LOT of phony stuff in there”) and the reporting that there’s stuff in there highly embarrassing for him.
-
Gsrland didn’t release it nor was it leaked.
-
We have the very public example of the DoJ trying really really hard to release incriminating evidence re the document case, failing, and still not leaking it.
It’s up to each of us to balance those three factors against our ‘just knowing’ that they would leak embarrassing information if they had it.
-
-
Strange that you admit to believing that criminal information about Trump may exist, and that Biden’s DOJ would not have looked for it, and then provide support for a different and much more reasonable point. That there could be embarrassing information in the files that has not leaked. I think most people have stipulated that, actually. Trump hand waves a government conspiracy to have put that stuff in the files, which is unlikely, but the existence of embarrassing stuff is acknowledged by nearly everybody.
Your stronger contention that evidence of criminality may exist and have been overlooked because it’s against protocol and common decency to look for it, remains as absurd now as when you first stated it.
That ground covered, we can begin to honestly question what sort of embarrassing information about Trump and undoubtedly others should be made public. Most of us acknowledge that unpursued sex crime indictments do not exist in the files. I would put the over / under of the level of embarrassment for Trump in the unreleased files, at something less than what we already know from his documented history with Epstein. I do acknowledge that he ran on releasing all of it, and not doing so is a betrayal of whatever principle anybody took seriously about his campaign promises.
-
It’s also traceable and illegal, as pointed out in the other thread.
I have noted that every time I bring up the actual well documented precedent of Biden’s DoJ really wanting to release incriminating evidence about Trump but not doing so when it can’t be done legally, it goes uncommented upon by you. You probably have a way of justifying how that is totally completely different. Or at least you’ll think of one now that I’ve made it particularly uncomfortable to ignore for a forth time.
-
It would require research on my part to investigate your analogy, which I am not familiar with. I give a very light weighting to the fact that you find it meaningful and compelling. I’ve considered asking you to flesh it out, but I’ve been told to do my own homework enough times not to have any interest in attempting good faith questions with you. I’m comfortable just assuming it’s a flimsy analogy, but you are always welcome to expand on it beyond your claims by assertion that it proves something about how we should never expect any anonymous whistle blower to contact the NYT with a story of what they saw in the files implicating Trump as a sex offender.
-
@jon-nyc said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Ignoring it loudly. Forth time is a charm.
Yeah I didn’t think so. Without doing any research, I suspect the analogy crumbles when comparing the political value of leaking whatever it is you’re talking about, and leaking something damning regarding sex crimes. But I do not expect good faith efforts on your part to explain yourself. You’d rather posture as if you’re right, while being wrong quietly.
