I didn't dispute that he has right wingers on in a volume higher than left wingers. I disputed that he only gives political platform to right wingers.
Tons of people out of that list share political ideologies in the course of their discussions, few of them are even remotely describable as "Right wing".
Though, right wing now means "Not left enough", so who the fuck knows.
He's not being manipulative. He's literally fabricating his magic worldspace and making it "real" through rationalization, it's what milkandcrappi does and a couple other sanius level liblords do. He did this on GG, he did for teen titans go when he had like five multiparagraph posts about how the original creators and the the creators of the original TT cn show hated ttg and even cn hated ttg but they signed contracts and blablabla, and like on imdb link later and not only have the original series creators worked on the show more than once, the creators of the teen titans have written several episodes, like literally a link away.
No he isn't. Watch the latest Bill Burr episode. His take is that this is nothing new, and the difference here is Trump got caught and other people didn't and considering the Clintons' got an asston of chinese backing all three times they ran, up to and including giving chinese ambassadors(?) a tour of Los Alamos and refusing to fire Bill Richardson for all his shady shit, he's probably not far off the mark.
read you a book or two and consider the following:
https://www.amazon.com/default/e/B001HCYXSK/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1?redirectedFromKindleDbs=true
Nobody said or even hinted Joe is some paragon of ______ political pillarism. No one. But he explores every angle unless he considers something reprehensible and fundamentally wrong like anything dealing with animal or child abuse. He's a open book libertarian, but he isn't a conservative and he has a shit ton of liberal beliefs also. Go watch the Ron White episode where White literally slags the fuck out of Trump for three sentences and this was before all this other shit about Trump came out now, and look at Joe's body language and reaction. Look at his diatribes about Bush and Cheney. Your thesis holds no weight.
As for Schiff, it's obvious he's selling snake oil and Joe even calls him out on it three times when Schiff refuise to answer a question exccept with another question or goes completely off subject, what you wanted to happen was Joe to call Schiff a liar, and that's gonna pretty hard to do cause Schiff has the viewpoint he does because he's rich enough to see how this shit works to his advantage on a regular basis, and Joe is also rich enough to deal with same shit Schiff does, but not rich enough to use his company as a shell the way super rich people do.
lets not forget that one of Joe’s reoccurring guests is Abby Martin who is deifnitely a leftist and comes on to talk about Left Wing politics.
also he recently had on Kyle Kulinski if Secular talks.
To say Joe doesn’t give platform to the left is silly. As well as the fact that he often parrots leftist ideals on his show, despite having conservative guests on.
Honestly Joe Rogan’s show has totally helped me learn more about Right Wing politics so that I can make stronger arguments against them. While also making me question some of my beliefs.
Abby Martin is hardly a left wing thinker, she's an (ex?) RT host who yaps about American evil like a female Alex Jones.
Saying it's nothing new is the exact type of false equivalency bullshit I'm talking about. A president being totally beholden to a hostile foreign nation that literally hacked our election infrastructure, ran a massive disinformation and propaganda campaign and CONTINUES TO DO SO is a lot fuckin different from the Chinese giving the Clintons campaign money. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Waddya mea? She’s against corporate Democrats like Hilary’s clinton, but she’s super Bernie Supporter, BLM Supporter, Anti Capitalist, and worked on a Occupy Wall St documentary I believe.
She’s Alex Jonesish in her hyperbolic conspiratorial journalism, but she is definitely a Leftist.
Except the chinese money was traced directly back to the chinese ministry of defense by the CIA and Richardson gave chinese officials a tour of Los Alamos.
The only person disingenuously equivocating here is you.
Abby Martin did some good journalism in Gaza.
I don't know all that much about the finer details of US politics but you guys have to stop labeling people on the point of their specific opinions or beliefs on specific topics. People are more complex than this in reality.
See, terms don't mean anything anymore.
She's not left enough for you, so you write her off as some half assed leftist, and then you don't have to think about it anymore.
This isn't healthy or rational or a good way to create an informed worldview which is why I feel when I read your posts I'm not talking to someone from my reality in all honesty.
She's a professional propagandist, her first job was for the Kremlin's propaganda network, and her current job is for a Venezuelan propaganda network. She's also endorsed and even started countless conspiracy theories as part of her propaganda work.
Hey, I don't for a second like, or agree with Abby on anything but you can't say she's not on the left. She is.
I can't tell if you're intentionally missing the point or just don't get it. Aside from the fact that you're fighting desperately to include this singular guest in an incredibly brief "list" of leftist guests, my reason for discounting Martin isn't that she's "not left enough", it's that she's an unremarkable propagandist for whatever state media is willing to finance her. Not someone I consider a leftist intellectual, but then again neither is Whitney Cummings and you still put her in the list lol
None of what you say here contradicts my point, you're going to need to be more explicit in explaining yourself. I'm not questioning the Chinese money was bad, but comparing it to the scale, duration and measurable effect the Russian situation has on America certainly looks like a false equivalency to me.
I literally listed in order his recent guests not some fucking list of favourites.
jesus
IMAO, whether someone is left-wing or right-wing is irrelevant to me. It's the fact that the people brought on the show are propagandists or ideologues. I'm all for a fact-driven discussion based on experts who have an extensive background of study in the area being discussed. But when you give an exclusive platform to people who have a history of making shit up or distorting information to suit an agenda, you create the illusion of an idea being more true/accurate than it actually is. I don't care whether or not the individual in question shares my views on particular issues, just because a person shares views with me doesn't mean that they reached those views through factual or unbiased means. Someone can believe the right thing for the wrong reasons (assuming that what I believe is 'right' in the first place, which it might not be).
There's a reasonability bias in reporting where there's an idea that you need to show 'both sides' of an issue no matter how obviously one side is right or the other is wrong. It's like when a major news programme has a debate about the earth being flat and on the one side they bring on an accredited scientist with a PHD in geology and on the other you have a flat earth conspiracy theorist. It makes it seem as if both sides are just as valid when one is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong. It also brings attention to fringe minority views that would otherwise wouldn't, and probably don't rightly deserve, to be represented over more reasonable ones.
It isn't even right to say that it's 'representing both sides'. You aren't going to come to some well-adjusted, more correct view of the world by listening to a closeted white supremacist and misongynist talk about the superiority of western Judeochristrian values and why the nazis didn't hate jews, and then listening to a radfem communist TERF misandrist talking about how the western capitalist patriarchy is intrinsically evil. Listening to one batshit insane person and then another batshit insane person on the other side of some arbitrary political spectrum doesn't cancel out and give you a reasonable world view.
What we believe should be based on the most up-to-date scientific and factual understanding of the world, not based on some flawed concept of representing 'both sides'.
I lost interest real hard after he tried to claim that time and a half laws hurt employees more than they help them, which he claimed was not at all. I know so many people that wouldn't get to see their families if they wanted to keep their jobs / wouldn't receive any compensation for that sacrifice if time and a half didn't exist. It's a bandaid solution I guess but like fuck me there are plenty of people who don't want to work 10 hours + a day and would get screwed into doing it if it didn't exist.
in a nutshell. Bring people on who know what the fuck they're talking about instead of propagandists, manipulative narcissists, dipshits, and/or nutjobs. Tell those types to fuck off.
Doesn't give a flying fuck if they're right leaning or left leaning. Joe Rogan should be responsible in bringing in people who know what they're talking about and have their shit together. Not the other types.
Anybody have any takes on Peter Schieff? This is 2 pages of dogshit arguing if Joe Rogan is a right-wing pundit.
As I stated earlier he's a reductionist, and his model only works when it's propped up by aggregate systems of checks, in a purely randian utopia he envisions he wouldn't have a rat's chance in hell because larger companies would literally force him out of business directly with no rules to prevent them from doing so.
As for his prediction, yeah it's inevitable, but the sale and scope have yet to be determined, and yes gold is the gold standard of stable currency but someone investing in it still has to convert it to usable assets based on the value of their native fiat currency, and if that's in the toilet, you're sitting on potential profits and nothing more. He also left out where he was hosed by not converting his portfolios to the microtransactions/flash trades that most big profit investors now use because it was a "gimmick", except it's now p much the defacto model of profitable speculation throughput.
He's the investment banking equivalent of those doomsday street preachers. Every now and then he says that because the US isn't libertarian enough it's going to face a major financial crisis in X amount of days, and when it doesn't he completely avoids acknowledging that he ever said it would, until the next time he makes the exact same declaration.
Hooooooold on a minute lets not move the goalposts, my original post was merely pointing out how ridiculous his stance on minimum wage was, and to warn people that he's abrasive to listen to. You then decided to claim I was being manipulative which I responded with video evidence backing my claim, I didn't come here with any intention of debating this guys beliefs. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm being emotional when all I did was quote Peter Schiff's own words. I don't have a strong argument against abolishing min wage (that's why I watched the video) but I do find it a little absurd to see hear this man who's probably not seen min wage since he was 16 tell me I don't deserve to make my meager income and I shouldn't have a family despite working at a full time job.
I mean dude, this just isn't what he's saying, and is what I mean by "getting emotional".
Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, not originally, and though I've always been in support of it, there may be better solutions.
>"I mean dude, this just isn't what he's saying, and is what I mean by "getting emotional"."
Okay so since I don't get it please tell me what he's saying at 7:00 in the clip I posted, I'll wait for you to translate.
>"Small employers are the largest employer in the country. Enforcing a
minimum wage on walmart hurts no one, but it can and does hurt the
smaller ones. If you want to put in extra hours at the job you have to
get paid in accordance to the laws, if you want more work or time than
they want to give you because they're mandated from it and it's not as
cost effective, they can't. These scenarios seem silly but they're
realistic. Compensation for small companies can be hard to properly
organize when mandated by laws not designed around you."
This is more of a time and a half issue, I don't see how working extra hours relates to minimum wage.
Not in all contexts but I it’s not required yes. Did you listen to any of what he said about American Samoa or Puerto Rico?
whatvam I supposed to translate? He literally doesn’t say what you say he does dude
What the fuck.
I'm not even sure what to do at this point, if you're just going to continue to pretend that he isn't saying what he's obviously saying then I'm just going to throw my hands up because this discussion is futile.
"As it stands now, as decided upon by this committee, the American Samoa
minimum wage can range from $4.09 per hour, down to $2.68 per hour, so
including the territory in the federal minimum wage bill would obviously
make a big impact on the local economy. After all, according to my
source, the average income for an American Samoa family is just $4,357
per year.. Compare that to the rest of the United States where families
average about $43,500 per year."
From American Samoa and the Federal Minimum Wage Explained | Labor La..
Not to mention many US states have enacted anti-union laws that would keep unions from fighting for fair wages.
The "You shouldn't have a family on minimum wage" isn't offensive to me, that seems like good sense. I'm sorry you find that offensive and think he's demeaning you. As for how you originally put what he said, you did misrepresent it.
The minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. You are supposed to go beyond it. If you lived on minimum wage in Vancouver BC, Canada, a "Socialist" country, you'd be on the street in a week, or bunking with 4 other people for a closet sized bedroom. Why? Because minimum wage isn't supposed to be a stopping point for literally anyone, even here. What gave you the idea it was? This isn't a defense of the labour markets being screwed up or the US having dispart patches of rough employment.
We have a fundamentally different view on what a minimum wage is for it would seem.
I'm for a universal basic income, unlike Schiff, but I'm not for all the different versions of regulation that do exist under the current system. Strong arguments against them exist. I do not feel I was off base when I described your reply as emotional because even if you're not reply with any vitriol, the area of your opposition to what Schiff is saying is from an emotional standpoint that "how dare some rich shit head tell me anything about this situation", and you're right in many ways he is out of touch and he is abrasive, but there are strong arguments to be had here. They won't be had if they're paraphrased in dishonest ways like you started with.
Yes many states have enacted union laws, and I don't agree with many of those in practice. Who said I did by the way?
You're putting words in my mouth, never did I say the minimum wage was a stopping point or that you could make a career off of a minimum wage job. For me I think minimum wage is just a necessary bedrock to ensure that people in all circumstances can afford to survive, people who are disabled, injured, fresh out of school, fresh out of the armed forces, got laid off of another better job, anyone who gets fucked and doesn't skyrocket off to success doesn't have to live wanting to kill themselves, pretty basic quality of life stuff that separates us from Saudi Arabia, how insane of an idea?
Being anti-min wage is basically synonymous with anti-union, I mean that's basically why unions exist, to keep employers from exploiting workers such as would happen without a minimum wage.
I’m not against a lot of these things but you’re acting like there’s no argument at all as to overstepping or over regulating or as to how rules we make aren’t always well thought out.
I genuinely think when the minimum wage hits 15$ all of a sudden, you’ll have destroyed tons of small businesses and consolidated what remains into bigger versions of Walmart and shit. I doubt you’d agre. But it is true.
You have such an air of bravado on things you might not even fully understand
Even before all of that; who are you to say what Joe "should" or shouldn't be putting up onto HIS channel? Dude started out this show smoking weed on camera and talking about fucking fleshlights.
Stop with the righteous wanking man; your name is Deathtrooper and you go into threads to talk about how cringey everything but you is. Take a look in the mirror and get a grip bro.
Im fully self-aware of what my user-name is. The reason why i keep it is because of that. Im self-aware of how cringey it is you twat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
