All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2024 - Jimmy Dore Show
59:21
20241113_11_13_2024_TJDS_Podcast_-_111224_12.54PM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Everybody, come see us on tour.
We'll be in Dayton, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Lexington, Kentucky, Burbank, California, and Hallelujah.
Go to JimmyDore.com for a link for tickets.
Go to JimmyDore.com for a link for the video.
Welcome to Jimmy Dora Show, everybody.
Keaton Weiss here with Russell Dobbler filling in for Jimmy this week.
While he is on tour, go to JimmyDoor.com for tickets to catch him in a town near you.
We're talking a lot today, a lot today, about Bernie Sanders, Joe Rogan, Donald Trump, same names coming up in a lot of these stories.
Well, the news is the news, folks.
We don't control it.
We just make the news.
That's right.
That's right.
We just report it.
We don't make it.
The gas stove, Dana Bash, asked Bernie Sanders about the vilification of attending Joe Rogan by the Democrats.
So one of the narratives after this election is that Donald Trump's pitch to the manosphere going on the Joe Rogan podcast and the Theo Vaughan podcast, the real pitch to alternative media, is one of the things that really padded his landslide victory.
Now, Bernie Sanders tried going on the Joe Rogan podcast back when he ran for president.
He went on for about an hour, didn't go three hours the way Trump did.
But he got a lot of pushback from party leaders, including surrogates like AOC, who were reportedly not happy with his decision to go on the show.
And so now there's a bit of second guessing.
Hey, should we have been so hard on Bernie for going on Joe Rogan now that this seemed to work pretty well for Donald Trump?
So here's this interaction here on CNN.
Example perhaps of this kind of dynamic that we're hearing about.
Joe Rogan, very popular podcaster.
He endorsed Donald Trump in the final days of the election.
Four years ago, you went on his podcast.
You got a lot of blowback for doing that and for touting that he endorsed you.
So is this the kind of example of Democrats perhaps shunning or vilifying people who don't totally agree with them?
Yeah, I think that's fair enough.
Look, you're going to have an argument with Rogan, agree with him, disagree with him.
But what's the problem going on in those shows?
It's hard for me to understand that.
So I think we've got to get, and clearly you have an alternative media out there, a lot of podcasts that have millions and millions of viewers.
Get on the show.
Disagree with you here.
I agree with you there.
I don't see a problem in doing that.
And you're right.
I got vilified by some of the Democratic establishment because I went on Rogan's show.
Now a lot of other people are doing just that.
Not just by the Democratic establishment, by AOC.
AOC was reportedly very unhappy with his decision to go on the show and the decision to tout the endorsement.
That's what really got him in trouble is Joe Rogan came out and said he was going to vote for Bernie Sanders and the campaign made a big thing of it as they were right to have.
And that got a lot of pushback.
I was very surprised to see her wearing a strap on.
I was even more surprised to see it was in the shape of Nancy Pelosi.
And she pegged me over my desk.
That's true.
That's true.
Made me apologize.
She said she would come back the next day and do it again if I didn't apologize.
If I didn't apologize, so I had no choice.
So here's Dana Bash talking about that interaction.
I guess this was the next morning or something.
She got a different wardrobe.
So this was on a different block, but here she is.
I wanted to ask him about Joe Rogan is because in the days since the election, you've heard a lot of Democrats saying, we need to find our own Joe Rogan.
And Joe Rogan was their Joe Rogan.
There you have it.
And so the He was.
What?
That's funny.
That's funny.
Five years later.
Five years later, he endorses Donald Trump.
That's so funny.
That's so funny how now Hitler's getting pressed.
Absolutely.
He completely neutered and has no political power and can't get 25 people to show up to his appearances.
And I wanted to sort of illuminate this, shine a light on this with my interview with Senator Sanders, was that to me is such a prime example of where Democrats have kind of lost those people.
Now, the point I was making with him is that there are a lot of things that Joe Rogan says and believes that a lot of Democrats just totally shun.
He's said not great things about some social issues that Democrats don't agree with.
Like he doesn't believe in intersex cage fighting, I guess.
Is that what they're talking about?
I guess so.
I guess so.
They're obsessed with that.
And once again, I will say to our many anti-communist, anti-Marxist friends while we have this freeze frame of Dana Bash, listen, part of the program is her working in the soybean fields.
Okay, that's part of the program.
You grab Dana Bash, you drag her out of her luxury high-rise, and you send her out into the fields.
He doesn't support vaccines.
And so that is part of the reason why when Bernie Sanders went on.
He took a medicine that a doctor told him to take.
That's another big no-no.
He took a medicine.
I won't say what it is.
I don't know what the rules are over there.
But he took a medicine that his doctor told him.
No, but they got to clip it for YouTube.
So they took a medicine that the doctor told him to take.
That's a big no-no.
That's a big.
Flintstones vitamins.
Yeah, Flintstones vitamins.
That's right.
That's right.
And so that was the other sin.
Oh, he got vilified.
But him getting vilified by a lot of people on the left is case in point of the intolerance among a lot of people in the Democratic Party that their whole mission is to be tolerant.
Well, and isn't that kind of a central piece of the conversation Democrats are having now about why this happened?
It is.
And that's precisely why.
Now, Bernie's, Bernie.
This is blowing my mind.
Senator High Covered the Man Act.
I haven't asked you.
Sorry, Senator Warren.
He calls it Bernie, but I agree with you.
We're sitting in Senator Shiba.
You know, his whole thing is our policies are not geared toward the working people.
We went back and forth on that because President Biden's policies were geared toward the working people in a lot of ways.
No, they weren't.
Unless you were a railroad working person.
They never were.
This is what is revealed by this election: 2020 was the fluke, not 2016.
2016 was actually the leading indicator.
That was the canary in the coal mine.
It was 2020 that was the fluke.
No, Biden didn't run on working class issues.
Biden ran on the guy who, if you voted for him, you might be able to go in the supermarket without a mask on your face anymore.
Like that was basically his pitch: hey, this guy's an incompetent manager.
You got a cloth on your face.
If you want to take it off, you're going to have to take it off on our terms.
I can get you to a place where you can take it off.
You get the thing and the thing here.
You get one of these right here, and then you take the cloth off the face.
That was it.
I mean, that's basically how he drove up his votes.
Like, there was a working class agenda under Joe Biden.
And these people sit here and they talk about how Bernie was able to communicate to Joe Rogan and they had the Democrats on their side as if they played no part in sabotaging that movement, in destroying that movement, in making sure they could never get off the ground.
This is what I'm saying.
Five years ago, they were exactly the people who gatekeeped.
Of course, it's Bernie talking to Joe Rogan.
Well, Joe Rogan has said a lot of things that have really upset a lot of communities that are core to the Democratic Party.
That's the song they were singing then.
Now, they always are willing to concede these points once they will have no political impact whatsoever.
Right.
That's when it's too late to do anything about it.
That's when they started asking questions about the Iraq war once it was too late to do anything about it.
That's when they started beating up on Israel a little bit after Gaza was already flattened.
Right?
Yeah, no, it's just always when there's nothing that can be done.
So this tweet went kind of viral.
This is kind of what she's talking about here.
She fucked up.
8.2 million views.
People saying Harris should have done Joe Rogan are missing the point.
That wouldn't have helped her.
Liberals need to build their own Joe Rogan, somebody who can speak to the people he speaks to without being a guy who wants to kiss ass to billionaires like Elon Musk.
So a friend of show, Jimmy Dore, tweets out: liberals have their own Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan.
He's a classic liberal.
The Democrats aren't.
They are now neocon warmongering fascists who are anti-worker and crush union strikes, fun genocides, tear gas college students, censors of free speech, and are anti-First Amendment authoritarians, anti-bodily autonomy, and anti-women.
The Democrats have Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, The Daily Show, Howard Stern, The View, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, New York Times, Pod Save America, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Of course, they won't get the message or do any introspection of what is wrong with them or why people making under 50,000 don't vote for them anymore.
They think they just need a smooth talker who can dress up neoconservative policies and trick workers into voting against their own interests.
Instead, these people are the most ridiculously out-of-touch elites I've seen in my lifetime.
And well, that's true.
And even as Dana Bash says, hey, you know what?
Maybe, maybe the party was too hard on Bernie for going on Joe Rogan.
Again, just completely goes over their head that they were amongst the loudest people shouting him down for doing it.
Of course.
This is just a mess of their own making.
And the question really does have to be asked: like, looking back, do they actually have regrets about treating the Bernie movement the way they did?
Because that was really the off-ramp to this.
And they would have gotten off pretty cheap.
He wouldn't have been able to do the kind of transformational things that he wanted to do.
They'd have been able to block most of that shit.
You're talking about paid leave would have gotten through.
Like, it's a lot of people who are.
And then they would have catched all the people like us inside the party.
Yeah.
I'm just saying, even from agitating from outside.
But I'm saying, if they had just let him win, look, would we have all been so red-pilled by that election if they just let Bernie?
No, we'd probably all still be Democrats.
And they'll be like, one day, guys, one day, we'd all still be singing that song if they had just let Bernie win.
I mean, even if you're not coming at this from the perspective of, okay, we need to really invest in the Democratic Party long term, right?
And I'm not saying that these media people aren't Democrats.
Vast, vast, vast majority of them are.
Even if you're just looking at this from a lesser of two evils perspective, even if you have severe Trump derangement syndrome and you really do fear for the future of the Republic now over these next four years, you could have avoided all that pretty cheap, right?
I mean, you would have had to give up one or two social programs.
You would have had to enact one or two social programs that you probably don't want to because it probably takes the boot a little too far off working people's necks for your liking.
But now, given where you are now, that's got to look like a pretty good bargain in retrospect in high school.
Well, and this is what I'm saying.
You wouldn't have had all these people leave the Democratic Party.
If you had just done that, your whole political project would be intact now.
Of course.
Of course.
You would have had things basically the way they were with one or two more social programs that you probably didn't want.
But okay, would you rather that or would you rather be staring down now Trump term two?
Well, a rebooted version.
And when you look at how they play these things, it always reminds me of when they talk about hunters or tribes that use every part of the animal.
That's what the media is like.
They use every part of the animal.
first, they suppress any kind of progressive movement and they profit and benefit from that.
And then when everything they've told people is proven to be wrong, then they use that to show themselves to be fair and impartial and objective by critiquing what their own side, what is clearly their own side, critiquing the establishment when it doesn't matter at all, when it doesn't matter at all.
They are completely opportunistic and parasitic.
They take advantage of every turn in the news cycle to spin the myth of their own validity as news gathering organizations rather than propagandists.
That's the purpose of that segment to show that, no, no, we're not in anyone's pocket.
Look, look, we support Bernie.
Yeah, look at us pushing back on the Joe Rogan narrative now that it doesn't matter at all.
Well, this is the question: do they revert back to old ways or do they see something like they just go back to old way?
We've seen this before.
They always do this.
But now the question is: do they re-examine that bargain?
Do they see this as the only way out, the only way to salvage any part of the system that they love so dearly?
Because if you look back at the initial bargain, that's really what the Bernie thing was.
And that's what we said it was.
We basically were saying, look, this is basically the last chance to save this country the easy way.
If you don't do it the easy way, it's going to be a lot harder down the road.
And so now option A is off the table.
Do they re-examine that as perhaps the only way forward?
I mean, you do have people coming out now and saying, as they have said in the past, that's true, but they have not been staring down this in the past.
They blamed the first Trump victory on Russia.
They said Hillary won the popular vote.
It was a fluke.
It was 80,000 votes spread across three states and, you know, blah, blah, blah.
He caught us by surprise and the Russians helped and all this.
This is different.
This is you lost in a landslide.
He now has a mandate.
You are now looking at a very, very strong possibility that this becomes a new cultural wave, that this becomes another Reagan era where you got Trump for four and J.D. Vance for eight, right?
So at that point, when you don't think you can wiggle out of this by, you know, putting together enough votes in the Philadelphia suburbs or whatever the fuck your plan was this time, at that point, you do have to re-examine these questions.
Yeah, exactly.
At that point, you do have to re-examine these questions, I think.
Yes, but it's really existential for them because as we were touching on a little bit with Lee, the whole thing is just a grift.
It's just a grift.
It's just a way to stuff money into the pockets of the elite classes.
And they're no good kids who move into politics and through the family contacts they have.
They get their jobs in these lobbying firms and the consulting firms and these political offices.
It's a big fucking business for them.
There's no reason.
It's like saying, well, if you're an arms dealer and you can't sell any more arms, you're going to start a NGO for peace.
Why would you do that?
You lost, right?
At that point, you lost.
What's their incentive to become something other than what they are when the whole thing is just a big grift?
It would have to be taken down from the outside.
They're not going to reform.
They have no motivation to.
As long as they can keep people like George Soros writing the big checks, they can keep losing.
They can keep getting rich losing.
Like, why reform?
Well, because you have to be able to win a certain percentage of the time in order to be bribable, right?
I mean, people aren't going to bribe.
They'll have their cities.
They'll have their blue states.
They'll just be completely national campaigns.
I don't think they're going to be a viable national party for much longer.
Well, maybe.
Well, that could be.
Yeah, they could collapse as a national party.
But will they reform?
I mean, reforming, they might as well collapse because it's not, its purpose is not politics.
Its purpose is enrichment of its members.
Oh, sure.
Sure.
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydoorcompedy.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
Welcome to Jimmy Door Show, everybody.
Keaton Weiss here with Russell Dobbler filling in for Jimmy this week.
There we are.
So after Trump's landslide victory, Bernie Sanders thought, hey, now's the time to rub it in a little bit.
See, now that he's out of shill mode on November 6th, now he can start telling the truth about the Democrats again for a few months.
And then as the midterms approach, he'll start shilling for them.
It comes in cycles, you know?
To everything, there is a season, right?
Bernie Sanders says it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party, which has abandoned working class people, would find that the working class has abandoned them.
While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change and their rights.
Nancy Pelosi did not take kindly to that.
So she claps back at that.
Here's some audio of her response to Bernie.
And I have a great deal of respect for him for what he stands for.
But I don't respect him saying that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class families.
That's where we are.
For example, for example, under President Biden, you see the rescue package, money in the pockets of people, the shots in the arm, children in school safely, working people back to work.
What's his name?
What did Trump do when he was president?
One bill that gave a tax cut to the richest people in America.
Why did voters who earned less than 100,000 K go for Trump in such large numbers?
Well, there are cultural issues involved in elections as well.
Guns, gods, and gays.
That's the way they say it.
That's how they see you, man.
That's how they see you.
Yeah, doing the exact thing that most Democrats who have had the balls to appear on camera these last few days have said we shouldn't really do anymore.
We should probably cut the guns, gods, and gays shit.
That's really not helpful.
No, she goes right there.
And what the interviewer referenced there is what, in my opinion, is the most stunning takeaway of this whole campaign season, which is that the Democrats actually won the rich vote this time outright.
Won it outright.
That's never been true.
Even as the working class has trended redder since Trump came onto the scene, it was still the case that Trump and the Republicans won the rich vote.
That's not the case here.
The only class demographic that Democrats won was the upper income earners of over $100,000 per year.
Middle income earners, 50 to 100K, overwhelmingly to Donald Trump.
And voters under 50K, very, very close, but still Trump over Biden amongst voters under $50,000 among $50,000.
I mean, that is just incredible.
That is an incredible statistic.
Now, here's Bernie Sanders getting a chance to clap back against Nancy Pelosi here.
They ask him about her remarks.
They play another piece of sound from her and ask him to respond to that.
So here's this.
As you know, your statement was met with some sharp reaction as well.
This is what Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi had to say.
Take a look.
I'll get your reaction on the other side.
Bernie Sanders has not won.
Let me, with all due respect, and I have a great deal of respect for him for what he stands for, but I don't respect him saying that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class family.
He has not won.
Senator, how do you respond to Nancy Pelosi?
Well, Nancy's a friend of mine, and we've worked together.
Of course.
There he goes.
There it is.
In the Senate.
Stop saying they're your friends.
What are you saying to your friends for?
I guess they are as friends.
Nancy has some secret papers about my wife's very shady dealings at a certain university you might have heard of.
And she has threatened to release them to the press if I do not call her my friend in all appearances.
So she is my friend.
That's how friends treat each other.
Friends are there to blackmail you.
Last two years, we have not even brought forth legislation to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, despite the fact that some 20 million people in this country are working for less than $15 an hour.
In America today, we have not brought, in the Senate, we have not brought to the floor the PRO Act to make it easier for workers to join unions.
We're not talking about the find benefit pension plans so that our elderly can retire with security.
We're not talking about lifting the cap on social security so that we can extend the solvency of Social Security and raise benefits.
Bottom line, if you're an average working person out there, do you really think that the Democratic Party is going to the max, taking on powerful special interests and fighting for you?
I think the overwhelming answer is no.
And that is what has got to change.
All right.
So he lays that out pretty simply.
He said that a couple of weeks ago.
A couple weeks ago may have been nice.
A couple months ago may have been nice.
A couple years ago.
Yeah.
You know, it's too bad we didn't have somebody who was in a great position to run as an independent and take down this whole farce.
Of course.
Of course.
That is a pity, isn't it?
Alaska voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
They also voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage.
Missouri voted for a minimum wage increase as well as paid sick leave.
Nebraska voted, I believe, 74% for paid sick leave.
These progressive economic policies won in deep red states.
Oddly enough, ironically, you know where they lost?
California.
California.
And this speaks to some.
California, I can't believe that.
California voted against getting rid of prison slave labor.
Yep.
Yeah, if Louisiana voted against that, the first people to jump up and point a finger would be people in California.
Yep, exactly.
Exactly.
And this speaks to that charge that Pelosi makes there, which is that Bernie Sanders has not won.
He has not won.
Well, actually, he has won.
He's won Senate races in a state like Vermont.
Now, look, I know Vermont has this reputation of being this libby, hippie, world state.
It's actually not that.
I live pretty close to the Vermont border.
I used to work three weeks out of the year in Vermont.
You have Burlington, which is a liberal college town, sure, but a vast majority of that state is not Burlington.
The vast majority of that state is actually very rural.
It's very family-oriented.
It's a very hearth and home down-home kind of a state with a real family values culture.
And Bernie, just time, won it 63 to 32 over the Republican challenger, winning in all these rural areas.
I mean, Vermont, there is no such thing as a big city in Vermont.
Those three are the largest, Burlington, Montpelier, which is the capital in Rutland.
I've been to all three.
Like I said, I used to work in Vermont a few weeks out of the year.
I know the state fairly well.
It is mostly, like I said, a rural, family-oriented state.
A lot of gun ownership in that state, a lot of churchgoers in that state.
And look at this.
Vermont elected a Republican governor 73 to 21.
So you say, well, it's this liberal bastion, bunch of woke blue-haired hippies.
No, no, no.
Republican governor 73 to 21.
The same state that elects a Republican governor by a three-to-one margin elects a Democratic socialist senator by a two-to-one margin.
What does that demonstrate?
That demonstrates the crossover appeal, the very broad appeal of an economic populist program.
This is the map of results in the governor's race.
Notice even Burlington is red.
Even Burlington voted for the Republican governor.
Look at that.
You have these rural areas in the state, deep red for the governor and deep, whatever that is, Goulden's brown mustard for Bernie Sanders.
That shows you what the Democrats could have had if they wanted it.
This was the map in 2020 that went viral.
This is a map of the United States that shows clusters of small donors powering each of the primary campaigns.
So obviously, you got Klobuchar in Minnesota, you got Betto in Texas, you got Pete Buttigieg in Indiana, and look at that, Joe Biden in the great state of Delaware.
Other than that, it's plastered blue for Bernie Sanders all over.
So the idea that that program is not viable is nonsense.
And you can't even say, well, it's only viable amongst a Democratic primary electorate because, like I show you here, the state of Vermont, not the woke hippie state everybody thinks it is, they voted 73% for a Republican governor, 63% for a Democratic socialist senator.
This is what the Democrats could have had.
They deliberately destroyed any opportunity to have that kind of appeal nationwide.
Look at all that blue.
Look at all those Great Plains states.
Look at all those heartland states.
Look at all those southern states.
They all want a minimum wage that you can live on or at least come close to live on, right?
These are not controversial positions to ordinary people.
The Democrats do not advocate for them anywhere.
Kamala Harris didn't even mention the minimum wage.
You got the minimum wage winning in Missouri.
Kamala Harris doesn't mention, not a word.
Well, how can they after the Senate parliamentarian debacle where they hide behind the parliamentarian that George Bush fired when he was thwarted by the parliamentarian?
This person has no power.
You can just get rid of them and put in somebody who will do what you want.
And then you talk to the libs about it.
Well, no, no, it's a parliamentarian.
It's a procedures.
It's a procedure.
You can't go around the procedures.
They're just the dumbest people on earth.
Now, also, if you look at this, this is something I got into a little bit the other night when I went on a shama stream on election night.
Hey, there was a great article written about this a while back about the fact that the whole consultant class theory of what the American electorate looks like is completely ass backwards.
This whole idea that we live in a country that's full of people saying don't raise wages and don't give me health care.
It's total bullshit.
They want you to think that because then they get to have it both ways.
They get to say, on the one hand, look at these ignorant people voting against their own interests.
And then they don't have to go against the interests of their donors.
They don't have to do things their donors don't want.
They can blame the savages.
They can blame these ignorant people who vote GOP, who vote against their interests.
But as we see here, no, if you give them the opportunity to vote for those policies in isolation, they will actually vote for those policies.
So what is it about the Democratic Party they want?
And that's where you have to look at a lot of the cultural stuff.
At best, the country is libertarian.
Live and let live, leave people alone.
As soon as you start leaning on them and telling them how they have to behave, how they have to think, what their theory of gender and race has to be.
And if you don't conform to that, there are going to be severe social and professional consequences.
You'll lose them.
And Bernie, until 2020, we talked about this.
He didn't play that shit.
He really didn't.
In 2020, he started.
That's when he started opening his speeches.
We're against homophobia.
We're against sexism.
We're against race.
The first campaign, he talked very little of that rhetoric.
It is, as we'll see when we do the segment with Lee and Trump's closing pitch.
That is a loser for most of the country.
You're seeing a lot of people.
Joe Rogan said it.
We covered Justine Bateman did this tweet storm that went viral.
A lot of people are saying, I can breathe now.
I'm so glad these people have been crushed so I don't have to worry that if I make a joke somebody doesn't like, it's going to be the end of my career.
Well, also, if you look at the difference in emphasis on issues between the sort of, I would argue, more centrist, more neoliberal Democrats who lean more on the woke signaling and a politician like Bernie, who now, unburdened by the need to compete in the National Democratic primary, doesn't really talk the kind of shit that you recognize.
Yes.
Doesn't really talk the kind of shit that you were talking about.
He was sort of forced to talk about in 2020 because they tried to run him out of the party in 2016 when he didn't bend the knee in that way, right?
If you look at a state like New York, the neoliberal politicians in New York who run on culture issues, basically, they can't win in rural areas.
New York, if you look at a map of New York State.
New York is mostly red.
It's pink red, except for New York City, Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo.
There's a college town here or there, Ithaca, New Paltz, that goes blue.
But other than that, it's basically a sea of red with a few blue cities that are very high population, right?
But the centrist, the Democrats who lean hard into the branding of cosmopolitanism cannot win in the rural areas.
Those rural areas go red.
in Vermont.
The rural areas go socialist.
Why?
Because he talks about the minimum goddamn wage, right?
It's that simple.
It's that simple.
So the idea, well, he hasn't won anything.
He couldn't have won.
And that really doesn't make sense that we've abandoned workers and that's why we lost that is such obvious nonsense.
All you have to do is look at these two maps here.
Same people, same exact electorate, 75% for a Republican governor, 63% for a Democratic socialist senator.
If that doesn't tell you that the Bernie program has the kind of mass appeal that you are in desperate need of now and can never get back, in my opinion, that says it right there.
That's it.
That's hopeful.
That's true.
That's the whole buggy.
In the boys' bathroom.
None of us are free.
Exactly.
A little thing happened last Tuesday, last Tuesday night.
A little thing.
By a little thing, I mean a big, big thing.
A little bit.
A little bit.
Big, big news, a big Trump win.
And, well, the circular firing squad has been set up.
Eric Abenate tweets out Nancy Pelosi throws Kamala and Biden under the bus by chiding Biden for not stepping down soon enough.
You don't say, and endorsing Kamala Harris immediately.
So Nancy Pelosi has been pretty combative about this whole thing.
She has not been as conciliatory as you might think an elder stateswoman such as herself might be.
So here's an interview with the New York Times where she kind of throws blame around in several different directions.
I think it's important.
How many people in this country wake up in the morning and say, fuck, she's still alive.
Yeah.
All right, let's take a look.
Oops.
Do you think it's important to discuss a little bit about what you think could have been done differently?
And a lot of the discussion has centered around how much President Biden's delay in deciding to leave the race following the debate in June hurt the VP's campaign.
You know, you were very involved in encouraging him to leave.
And there's reporting that you were concerned about him being the candidate well before the debate in June.
And polls were showing that the American people were very concerned about President Biden's age and his ability to lead into another term.
Do you wish you'd gotten involved earlier than you did?
No, I, well, the president made his own decision to step aside and to endorse Kamala Harris, who made a patriotic, selfless decision for which we are all very grateful.
She's the last holdout for that one.
A patriotic, selfless decision.
A patriotic, selfless decision.
Look where you're at.
Look where you're at.
Hey, man, that's the script.
That's the script.
The party line went out to all the operatives.
That's what you say when you're asked about this.
And she is nothing if not a pro.
A patriot.
Yeah, well, she has learned that throughout her years.
She's going to say what she, yeah.
Well, we can see where it's gotten everybody.
That's right.
But she's going to stick to that method.
Both talking points.
And we all sing from the same hymnal.
We did all that we needed to to win the House as well as the White House.
It's up to the candidate for president to make his or her own decision about timing policy.
Do you think the timing hobbled Kamala Harris?
Because she had 100 days to get a campaign off the ground, to mobilize people, to get her message across, to get her self-known.
I mean, this was an incredibly truncated campaign.
And many people think that maybe she was set up to fail just by the timeline alone.
Oh, I don't think she was set up to fail.
But let me just say this: we're only a couple of days since the election.
There'll be many reviews of timing and the who, what, when, and why, and where.
It's like when the Israelis shoot a journalist.
Yeah, exactly.
We'll do an investigation later.
You know, you say that, but it's actually, it is a very similar, motivating mentality.
Sure, we'll talk about it later.
We'll talk about it later.
When everybody's forgotten about it, when we can make up our own bullshit story of how things actually went down, right?
Now, let's just, what?
Lick our wounds, take the time to heal.
We'll put this off.
We'll talk about this later.
There will be plenty of time for this, just not at a time when most people are asking the question, right?
We want to answer these questions at a future time when people have other things on their mind.
And I feel, look, a lot of times when we have guests on who are Marxists, like Shama, we'll get some pushback from certain portions of the audience.
I don't think they understand the core to the communist program is throwing Nancy Pelosi out into the beanfields to work.
Right.
Yes.
I think they need to lead with that.
I think they need, because that's, you know, they go through all this theory.
Just say under our program, Nancy Pelosi and Paul Pelosi will be dragged out of their houses and forced to work in the fields.
Start there.
Start there.
And now they're listening.
That's a unifying message.
That's what you call it.
It is a popular message.
I tried to get Dennis Krucinich on board with that.
Yeah.
Oh, well.
I wonder how he did.
And books will be written about it.
The fact is.
She did a great job with the time constraint that she had.
Had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race.
Kamala, I think, still would have won, but she may have been stronger, having taken her case to the public sooner.
Okay, first of all, first of all, first of all, you insisted that there would be no Democratic primary.
You insisted Biden would be the nominee.
After he became the nominee, you said, well, we had a primary, even though you did not allow for an open primary.
And you are correct in the sense that if Biden had stepped down, there would have been an open primary.
But you said Biden won the primary.
That's what you were out there saying he won the primary.
So now you're going to say, well, if he had gotten out sooner, we would have had a more open Primary, in which case, what?
You would not have rigged that in favor of Kamala Harris.
Like, this is where the thing is, like, this is where the whole you could take this disaster of an election all the way back to Barack Obama elevating Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, who would be the two next nominees, Joe Biden's a vice president, obviously Hillary Clinton, too, Secretary of State.
You can go all the way back there because that is what set in motion this chain of events.
Yeah, that was what set in motion a chain of events that led you to here.
They tried passing the ball to Hillary, didn't happen.
They passed the ball to Biden.
It happened because of fluke circumstances, shall we say.
Biden refuses to step down, but because he picked Kamala Harris, because he promised a woman VP, and because the establishment always wanted Kamala, he picks Kamala.
And then you set yourself up for a worst case scenario where Biden melts down a few months before the vote and he has to give the ball to Kamala who can't finish the game.
And now you're going to come here a few days after and do this revisionism about, well, yeah, I suppose if Biden had stepped down, we could have had an open primary, in which case it may not have been Kamala.
A, you made sure there was no primary.
B, we know for a fact that if Biden had stepped down, everybody would have endorsed Kamala.
You know how we know that?
Because Biden stepped down and everybody endorsed Kamala.
So like the idea that you could have done one or two things differently and had a different outcome is nonsense.
This was a burial that was really forecasted over a decade ago.
In 2008, they made this bid.
Well, they really, if you want to go into the Hillary Obama thing, they decided around 2014, they're not going to have primaries.
They're not really going to have primaries.
They're going to decide who the nominee is going to be well ahead of time.
They're going to pretend to have a primary.
And whoever they want, by hook or by crook, they're going to push forward.
The problem with that is when you are a member of an elite class that's completely out of touch with the American public, your idea of who that person should be is going to be completely batshit insane.
The idea that Hillary was a safe bet was insane.
Of course.
Was insane.
The idea that you're going to get, and to give a complete picture, they didn't want Biden.
They wanted Kamala in 2020.
They settled for Biden because they were terrified of Bernie.
And by that time, Kamala, because of her own repulsiveness, had to drop out before Iowa.
So instead, they backdoored her into the vice president.
We'll get what we want in the end anyway.
That's the pattern.
We'll tell the peasants what's good for them.
Problem is, they get to vote.
And wherever people have the opportunity to express what they really think of these people, there is an outpouring of contempt.
That is why people like Nancy Pelosi and our whole political party are obsessed with censorship.
They're obsessed with imposing their ideas through control of the schools because they know they can't sell it through democratic processes.
That's the irony of how much they go on about how much they love democracy.
Nobody hates democracy more than the elite liberal class.
Sure thing.
All right.
She goes on.
She's not done yet.
You've talked about your interest in having had an open primary.
Yeah.
And as you know, it would have.
I'm sorry.
I hate to do this again.
At what point did she express interest in an open primary?
You mean now?
You mean two seconds ago after the election?
She never expressed any interest in an open primary.
All right, go back to the corner.
Right in advance, you can be right in advance in hindsight.
Yeah, exactly.
Yes.
About your interest in having had an open primary.
Yeah.
And as you know, it would have uncovered her weaknesses or strengths.
It would have tested her electability.
That's what the primary system is intended to do.
And it would have also perhaps resulted in a nominee that wasn't so tied to an unpopular president.
Well, let me, it's interesting that you say those things.
By the way, all of that, what she just described, happened in 2019, except the unpopular president part because she wasn't an incumbent at that time, meaning the vice president.
Kamala did go through a test in 2019 to see how electable she was, and she couldn't even make it to state one.
And you insisted on, according to Caleb Maupin, his excellent book about Kamala Harris, he says on the original speaker's lineup for the DNC, there was a slot for Kamala Harris and there was a slot for VP.
So somebody or somebody's leaned on Joe Biden and made, we know what a nasty, vindictive bastard Joe Biden is.
There's no way that he would have picked the that little girl is me person for his VP on general principles.
They forced her on him.
Why?
Why?
That is the elite arrogance of these people.
The voters didn't want her.
Well, you know what?
You're going to get her anyway.
Yep.
Things.
I don't think that any review of the election should be predicated on weaknesses, but strengths of Kamala Harris.
Well, that's a great attempt.
She gave people hope.
That's a great attitude.
She caused a great deal of excitement in all of this.
It's about winning.
You don't have to tell me that.
But the fact is, we're set up for what comes next.
Could there have been an open primary then?
Well, see, we thought that there would be, you know, it was the anticipation was that if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary.
And as I say, Kamala may have, I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward.
But we don't know that.
That didn't happen.
We live with what happened.
And Because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately.
That really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time.
Okay, so at the end of the day, she does throw Biden under the bus.
At the end, that was a very roundabout way of saying, yeah, he screwed us.
And you know what?
He did screw you, but you really can't lay the blame on one person for this.
And the reason I say you can't lay the blame on one person for this is because you could trace these bad decisions back to 2008, where you elevated Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
And that timeline of events led you to a situation where you had this man actually trying to convince that he was fit to serve as the world's most powerful man for four more years.
This is Joe Biden today on the Delaware beach.
*Sounds of laughter*
Look at this.
Look at this.
Like a turtle walking through the sand.
Look at this.
Most powerful country on earth.
That was today.
That was today.
Now, the design flaw in this campaign is very simple.
It's all predicated on the idea that this man spent the better part of his first term convincing people, insisting that he was fit for a second term.
And because of the Democrats' obsession with identity politics, he felt he had to pick a woman.
Because of the establishment's obsession with Kamala Harris, they told him it has to be this woman.
And that set you up for a nightmare.
Sports fans, if you watched game one of the World Series this year, Yankees brought in a lousy pitcher.
Last out of the game, he gave up a grand slam.
Yeah, that was a bad decision.
That decision was set up three innings earlier where they took their ace pitcher out of the game before they had to.
It's a similar situation here.
You could trace this all the way back to Obama deciding for no reason he just had to elevate these two relics of a bygone era, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
That's what got you here.
And Nancy Pelosi knows that she's a pro.
She's been in this business a very, very long time.
She understands that.
So yeah, you could throw Biden under the bus for these decisions he made late.
This was a reckoning decades in the making.
They deserve every ounce of pain they are feeling right now.
Yeah, well, Obama elevated them to protect his legacy.
And we have a story about that a little later.
If you remember, after 2016, there was a perception that the left had momentum, that Keith Ellison was going to become the DNC chair, that these lower-level candidates like AOC, what came to be known as the squad, were going to gradually build a bench.
And that would be a repudiation of everything that Barack Obama stood for.
That is how profoundly narcissistic and how intrinsically antagonistic he was to the left politics that he claimed to believe in.
It's just political reality.
If they came in and proved that that's not political reality, that would have repudiated his entire term in office and the entire philosophy of politics that he foisted on people, very much like Bill Clinton's politics, aim low.
Very little is possible.
It's the nature of the system.
If Sanders and a new wave of progressives had come in and completely upended that system, it would have cast a certain light on his presidency, which now in the end, he's getting what I feel he has coming.
He's far more, he's going to end up far more despised than he might have if he had just let things play out.
Yes.
And, you know, one of our friends and contributors, Tusker, made this point on the election night stream.
If the ruling class had just let Bernie win, they could let him win.
What would he have done?
He'd have probably passed a paid sick leave or whatever.
You know, there's too much pharma influence, too much health insurance influence to get Medicare for all three.
Public option.
We would have done something like that.
They would have given a little bit up, but they would have gotten to keep most of what they wanted relatively on the rails.
Instead, they got this.
Instead, you got Trump term one with a four-year intermission of just absolute chaos and hell.
And now you have Trump term two.
Like, wouldn't it have been easier to just let the guy give people some fucking paid family leave?
Like, wouldn't that have been the easy way out?
No.
No, because it goes back to what you said earlier.
The arrogance of these people is just unmatched.
They feel, no, we don't have to give anything up.
We don't have to give a thing.
No, it's the horrible combination of greed and a belief in their own moral superiority.
So you've got the combination that they constantly lust for more and don't want to give up any of what they have, combined with an unshakable belief in their right to dictate morality to the peasants.
Yep.
Absolutely.
This is Russell Dobbler here with Keaton Weiss and our guest, Lee Fong, who has been dropping a lot of tweets, kind of designed to shoot at every bottle on every tree stump of every ideology.
So we actually covered this on election night.
Completely agree with Elon that Democrats have widely censored.
But if the last year has shown us anything, the Republicans will more than happily censor anything critical of Israel and smear anyone who speaks out as an anti-Semite or terrorist.
Now, you got a little pushback on this.
And I just want to point out some developments since you tweeted this.
There was much rejoicing that Trump, seemingly under pressure from his base, announced that he wouldn't appoint Mike Pompeo to his cabinet.
And yet he did appoint Zionist maniac, russophobic, very pro-Ukraine war supporter, Elise Stefanik.
The choice of Stefanik signals a more combative U.S. posture toward the UN.
Stefanik has frequently criticized the international organization, particularly over its criticism of Israel, the CNN, and last month said the Biden administration should consider a complete reassessment of U.S. funding for the UN if the Palestinian Authority continues to pursue a push to revoke Israel's UN membership.
Now, let's remember she was also a leading figure in the persecution of the college deans who refused to stop protests on their campuses or to define them as de facto anti-Semitism.
So what does this say about the real commitment to freedom of speech?
I have no doubt you're going to be able to gender people any way you want under a Trump regime.
But what does this mean for pro-Palestine protests?
Are they going to support that kind of speech?
I think this is a question where the answer is still up in the air.
There are very powerful neoconservative voices still in the orbit of Trump world.
Stefanik being appointed or will be appointed to the UN is a great example of this.
These folks do not care about free speech.
They will host a congressional hearing about the need for free speech.
And actually, Stefani's a good example of this.
If you look back, she's on this congressional committee that deals with higher education.
If you look back six months before October 7th of last year, she's hosting these hearings about the crisis of free speech on college campuses.
You can't speak your mind on college campuses.
We need more free speech on college campuses.
The moment after October 7th, she's bringing in these university presidents, berating them by exaggerating and inventing claims that they were chants around killing Jewish students and demands for a second Holocaust and demanding censorship, demanding that there be a crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy and these student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine would be kicked off campus or disciplined in some way.
So complete reversal once there's an emergency.
Of course, many supporters of free speech are fair weather supporters on both the left and right.
It's easy to support it when you're looking at censors at the other side of the aisle.
It's harder to support it when it's your own team doing it.
That being said, there are still a lot of interesting figures in Trump world that even if they, you know, I think there's a principled support of free speech.
They kind of realize the basic fundamental value.
Some of these folks from the kind of San Francisco podcast VC world that do have an ear in the Trump world, Vivek Ramaswamy, also, I think, very principled on free speech.
He's still in the orbit, Tulsi Gabbard, David Sachs.
That's what kind of makes the Trump world very interesting because there is a very active push and pull.
Someone who's influential one day could be pushed out the next.
We'll see what the future holds.
But on issues around Israel, yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
The major Republican super PAC donors to the Trump campaign were people who are very hawkish on Israel.
Miriam Edelmitman, Adelson, excuse me, Paul Singer, several others that are just very pro-Israel.
So, you know, I think it's TBD, but likely to be a very censorous pro-Israel administration.
I mean, this Israel issue seems to be one where values seem to go out the window.
There seems to be an Israel exception for so many of these people.
I mean, if you look at a guy like RFK Jr., you know, he made a very central pillar to his campaign when he ran as a Democrat and then as an independent prior to dropping out was free speech.
And yet when Bill Ackman's, you know, tweeting out how these university, you know, presidents have to go, RFK, he's retweeting Bill Ackman.
Like that just goes, it goes out the window.
Like it just, this seems to be the one issue that across the board, even people who you look to as being very principled in other areas seem to have an exception.
And so, you know, look, I mean, Stefanik, she's UN ambassador.
She's not going to be in a position to censor speech, but it is reflective of a certain value set, especially.
He's throwing a bone to Miriam there.
Right, exactly.
Exactly.
And that's not going to be the first one.
That's not going to be the only one, right?
I mean, that's the way you kind of have to look at that, I think.
Yeah, nothing that we.
And, you know, I think, I mean, here's the kind of rub.
I mean, there's a lot of focus on X and on Twitter as a platform, but it looks like TikTok and Facebook have been censoring pro-Palestinian speech at a much higher degree on the basic kind of evidence that we see.
And, you know, we, you know, I did a story earlier this year.
There's a former Israeli intelligence-backed NGO called Cyberwell that works with all the other kind of anti-disinformation, anti-hate speech NGOs that work kind of in the back end to enact these content moderation and censorship demands on this big platforms.
The big question is, you know, as I think as the Trump administration gets in, they're going to try to clean house at the State Department, at the DHS and other agencies that have brought in these NGOs and kind of given them, if not government financial backing, kind of the credibility backing to pressure these platforms.
There's going to be a very new dynamic, I think, with Elon Musk and others who are a little bit more opposed to these dynamics.
And it's a big question of whether the pro-Israel groups can shoehorn themselves in to continue censoring because there's government censorship, there's private sector censorship, but then there's also kind of this mix where these NGOs and governments collaborate.
And that was the tour of a premium member, go to JimmyDoorComedy.com, sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Freak out.
Freak out.
Don't freak out.
All the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable Mike McRae.
He can be found at mikemcray.com.
That's it for this week.
▲
Export Selection