Not a fan of talking-point guests. One of the things I like most about this podcast is the actual conversations. The first guest sounded like a string of Sunday show clips.
Yeah, I struggle with hearing them. Not literally, but you have to cut out so much of what they say to hear the content. Where a real person would say "I like sandwiches", someone like this dude has to say "well as you know, unlike Nancy Pelosi, who once threw a baby, we here at the Republican party believe that the foundation of a strong society begins with meals. Despite Joe Biden letting in 30 million illegal salami slices, Donald Trump has made it his mission to bring the real Capicola to the true American people and I believe in the president's mission so yes, I would say I like sandwiches". It's exhausting to parse how politicians talk. Definitely not my favorite interview.
I definitely appreciate hearing directly from someone involved in the process. I also don't mind hearing both sides (and often think they're both wrong).
The Representative stuck to his talking points. The dude straight up sounded like a MAGA wind-up doll most of the time. I don't care about giving ANY President a "win," and this big beautiful stupidity is much more about one person than it is the American people. Dude was a straight up dork, full stop.
JuRY, Congratulations on getting a Congress member on the show. I must admit, the stark contrast of his speech with what I'm used to hearing from your guests was a bit jarring. I can imagine the zoom call nature can make it difficult to have authentic conversations with politicians, particularly in a short form interview. Holding a balance between cheerleader and antagonist (what Fox/CNN/MSNBC seem only capable of) can be quite challenging.
I'd be interested to hear from you a post mortem on how you went about getting him on and your thoughts on the interview and approach style you are trying to take with guest like this (guests who are going to come in with a talking points list). Also the possibility of future politicians being on the show.
"But when you ignore the violence — when you pretend it doesn’t matter — you lose the moral high ground."
"The violence" starts with roving gangs of ICE thugs abducting people. While it's unfortunate that the public response to that violence has itself turned violent, the two options for ending "the violence" are both about suppressing the ICE gang-bangers. The regime can stand them down or the public can take them down. Pick one.
2020 taught people on the left that violence works... The Texas v Pennsylvania election court case was not heard because the Supreme Court (Roberts specifically) was afraid of more violence. I've seen many recently supporting the violence because it has already caused some communities to stop cooperating with ICE. As someone I follow on the right had pointed out (back when the Supreme Court did that), that behavior tells everyone on the right that "boog it is then".
What year did politicians begin spending all their time finding who to blame, rather than finding the integrity to step up and take responsibility?
Not a fan of talking-point guests. One of the things I like most about this podcast is the actual conversations. The first guest sounded like a string of Sunday show clips.
Yeah, I struggle with hearing them. Not literally, but you have to cut out so much of what they say to hear the content. Where a real person would say "I like sandwiches", someone like this dude has to say "well as you know, unlike Nancy Pelosi, who once threw a baby, we here at the Republican party believe that the foundation of a strong society begins with meals. Despite Joe Biden letting in 30 million illegal salami slices, Donald Trump has made it his mission to bring the real Capicola to the true American people and I believe in the president's mission so yes, I would say I like sandwiches". It's exhausting to parse how politicians talk. Definitely not my favorite interview.
Dude sounded like a complete dork. 🤦♂️
100%
Absolutely
I definitely appreciate hearing directly from someone involved in the process. I also don't mind hearing both sides (and often think they're both wrong).
The Representative stuck to his talking points. The dude straight up sounded like a MAGA wind-up doll most of the time. I don't care about giving ANY President a "win," and this big beautiful stupidity is much more about one person than it is the American people. Dude was a straight up dork, full stop.
To clarify my own comment, I thought JRY did a great job in the interview. No notes there. My frustration is 100% with the Representative.
JuRY, Congratulations on getting a Congress member on the show. I must admit, the stark contrast of his speech with what I'm used to hearing from your guests was a bit jarring. I can imagine the zoom call nature can make it difficult to have authentic conversations with politicians, particularly in a short form interview. Holding a balance between cheerleader and antagonist (what Fox/CNN/MSNBC seem only capable of) can be quite challenging.
I'd be interested to hear from you a post mortem on how you went about getting him on and your thoughts on the interview and approach style you are trying to take with guest like this (guests who are going to come in with a talking points list). Also the possibility of future politicians being on the show.
I also would be interested in hearing more about the experience from his POV
"But when you ignore the violence — when you pretend it doesn’t matter — you lose the moral high ground."
"The violence" starts with roving gangs of ICE thugs abducting people. While it's unfortunate that the public response to that violence has itself turned violent, the two options for ending "the violence" are both about suppressing the ICE gang-bangers. The regime can stand them down or the public can take them down. Pick one.
I’m kind of surprised Jury aired a “talking point” guest. Sounded like an interview on CNN from a rep that can’t get on CNN
If you don’t know anything about professional protesters let’s talk about something you know
Agreed , wouldn’t be bad if he got rid of criminals and not 4 yr old kids
I don’t see self driving taking over pulling trailers anytime soon
2020 taught people on the left that violence works... The Texas v Pennsylvania election court case was not heard because the Supreme Court (Roberts specifically) was afraid of more violence. I've seen many recently supporting the violence because it has already caused some communities to stop cooperating with ICE. As someone I follow on the right had pointed out (back when the Supreme Court did that), that behavior tells everyone on the right that "boog it is then".
Foundational funding friends
I really hope the interview with a congressional member is a one time thing. I get enough talking points on the Sunday show
great interview , I'd pay money to get him and Jenn in a room talking !
If Trump stopped making all these problems, we would not have all these problems
So while he’s Doing that , he’s stealing everything not nailed down. ?
His buddy Putin
WTF