Trump on Joe Rogan

[WyattEarp]

I disagree. They were plenty of votes to be mined in his audience. Lots of independent, 18-34 men who were voting for RFK, like Tulsi Gabbard, and could be swayed.

Ad with the margins in the swing states, changing 50,000 votes in Michigan or Penn with one podcast is a game changer. Especially this late.

You and I are in agreement. Not sure why you responded to my post specifically.

If you notice if you say anything that can be construed as even slightly critical of Harris, people feel compelled to immediately defend her or attack Trump. Some go to great lengths to try to take apart or contradict a basic observation. As I said before, with a week to go people are very sensitized.

Suggesting her campaign has not done a great job doesn't mean Trump has executed a great campaign. However, one will win and one will lose. The losing party will go into deep reflection.

 

[Leimonis]

They ate going on the assumption that banning them is better than killing them.

You are going on the assumption that their brains actually function

 

[Frankfooter]

In other words some of the youth and minority and Muslims are very fucked in the head because they now effectively support the guy who pushed for a ban on Muslims

No, they refuse to vote for Harris or Trump.

 

[Leimonis]

No, they refuse to vote for Harris or Trump.

effectively

Usage
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

adverb

• actually but not officially or explicitly.
  
  "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
  
  Similar:
  practically
  virtually
  in effect

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

No, they refuse to vote for Harris or Trump.

Jill Stein is never going to win.
The Palestinian issue is not a big issue for Americans.
So any vote you give to other than Kamala, will help Trump win.
If Trump wins both Palestinians and Muslims are fucked.

 

[Butler1000]

You and I are in agreement. Not sure why you responded to my post specifically.

If you notice if you say anything that can be construed as even slightly critical of Harris, people feel compelled to immediately defend her or attack Trump. Some go to great lengths to try to take apart or contradict a basic observation. As I said before, with a week to go people are very sensitized.

Suggesting her campaign has not done a great job doesn't mean Trump has executed a great campaign. However, one will win and one will lose. The losing party will go into deep reflection.

You are, I think, understating the importance of Podcasts. I think they have a far wider audience, a younger demographic, and allow the opportunity to listen anywhere, anytime. There is also a perception of them being less partisan and more about getting the person to open up rather than canned answers.

This is the first year both candidates really used them, and moving forward I think some of them are going to become must do's. It will be interesting if any studies choose to try to see if they were effective.

 

[Butler1000]

Jill Stein is never going to win.
The Palestinian issue is not a big issue for Americans.
So any vote you give to other than Kamala, will help Trump win.
If Trump wins both Palestinians and Muslims are fucked.

It is an Issue for Arab-Americans. They feel they have nothing to lose. Right now the choice is, my family/friends are getting killed, or a travel ban. That's the ACTUAL COMPARISON IN POLICY.

You have other priorities. And vote accordingly. So do they. You have to earn votes, and are not entitled to all of them.

 

[WyattEarp]

You are, I think, understating the importance of Podcasts. I think they have a far wider audience, a younger demographic, and allow the opportunity to listen anywhere, anytime. There is also a perception of them being less partisan and more about getting the person to open up rather than canned answers.

This is the first year both candidates really used them, and moving forward I think some of them are going to become must do's. It will be interesting if any studies choose to try to see if they were effective.

I don't think I am understating their importance. I listen to a few. I'm not a regular Rogan listener. If Rogan's guest is funny, interesting or I have a curiousity, I might check it out.

You might understand why I wouldn't mention which podcasts I listen to because that always starts off a round of shoot the messenger. One podcast I listen to often is balanced, but as you know if they aren't attacking Trump nonstop some will be upset with the format.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Right now the choice is, my family/friends are getting killed, or a travel ban. That's the ACTUAL COMPARISON IN POLICY.

Their vote for Stein will adversely affect them and their families which is in contradiction to what they want.
Their reading of policy and their decision making is therefore ill informed.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Can someone who has listened to it (Rogan-Trump Podcast) tell me whether Trump is at all challenged by Rogan?

It was the usual Rogan episode.
He is your friend and agrees with whatever you say and lets you speak.

 

[Butler1000]

Their vote for Stein will adversely affect them and their families which is in contradiction to what they want.
Their reading of policy and their decision making is therefore ill informed.

In your opinion. In theirs right now family and friends are dead, displaced, maimed, and headed for more. A travel ban is inconvenient. Ten's of billions of their tax dollars to killing their own is a far more immediate and clear threat. Right now they consider this administration to be enabling the war. For a year. A war that could be ended by simply denying arms.

What could POSSIBLY happen vs WHAT IS AND HAS HAPPENED is clear. Add in her embracing the Cheney's that is a dog whistle that says under her it won't stop.

 

[Butler1000]

I don't think I am understating their importance. I listen to a few. I'm not a regular Rogan listener. If Rogan's guest is funny, interesting or I have a curiousity, I might check it out.

You might understand why I wouldn't mention which podcasts I listen to because that always starts off a round of shoot the messenger. One podcast I listen to often is balanced, but as you know if they aren't attacking Trump nonstop some will be upset with the format.

Fair enough.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

I don't think I am understating their importance. I listen to a few. I'm not a regular Rogan listener. If Rogan's guest is funny, interesting or I have a curiousity, I might check it out.

You might understand why I wouldn't mention which podcasts I listen to because that always starts off a round of shoot the messenger. One podcast I listen to often is balanced, but as you know if they aren't attacking Trump nonstop some will be upset with the format.

Questioning known lies isn't attacking its what reputable journalism is

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

In your opinion. In theirs right now family and friends are dead, displaced, maimed, and headed for more. A travel ban is inconvenient. Ten's of billions of their tax dollars to killing their own is a far more immediate and clear threat. Right now they consider this administration to be enabling the war. For a year. A war that could be ended by simply denying arms.

What could POSSIBLY happen vs WHAT IS AND HAS HAPPENED is clear. Add in her embracing the Cheney's that is a dog whistle that says under her it won't stop.

All of those things will happen even more under Trump.
More Palestinians will die. More Muslims will suffer.
Added to that, there will be a travel ban
Trump is objectively worse for them just based on policy positions alone.

 

[Butler1000]

All of those things will happen even more under Trump.
More Palestinians will die. More Muslims will suffer.
Added to that, there will be a travel ban
Trump is objectively worse for them just based on policy positions alone.

Except no new wars happened under Trump the first time. He is fact negotiated the end of Afghanistan. So from an objective standpoint your premise is false. It has in fact been worse under Biden. All you have to do is add up the dead, maimed and destroyed.

You are not thinking objectively and using empathy to see their view. You are arguing from only your opinion subjectively and mostly from projected opinion and not what has occured.

Please note as well he has not expressed any desire or policy this time to even a ban. I think he is likely to be far more concerned this time with internal American policy and trade policy.

Actions matter. The Biden/Harris administration is funding the war in Gaza, and now has moved troops in. How can it get worse?

 

[WyattEarp]

Except no new wars happened under Trump the first time. He is fact negotiated the end of Afghanistan. So from an objective standpoint your premise is false. It has in fact been worse under Biden. All you have to do is add up the dead, maimed and destroyed.

You are not thinking objectively and using empathy to see their view. You are arguing from only your opinion subjectively and mostly from projected opinion and not what has occured.

Please note as well he has not expressed any desire or policy this time to even a ban. I think he is likely to be far more concerned this time with internal American policy and trade policy.

Actions matter. The Biden/Harris administration is funding the war in Gaza, and now has moved troops in. How can it get worse?

There is always a matter of hazard and chance for U.S. Presidents when it comes to foreign affairs. If you tell a partisan that U.S. Presidents have to deal with the hand they are dealt in the state of the globe, you might get a peculiar look of confusion or maybe anger.

Trump had a relatively quiet Iran and a quiet Middle East. Perhaps his approach to Iran and region was partially responsible. More than likely his Administration benefited from some fortuity in the Mideast.

However, your point about no new wars and the Afghanistan withdrawal are correct.

 

[mandrill]

There is always a matter of hazard and chance for U.S. Presidents when it comes to foreign affairs. If you tell a partisan that U.S. Presidents have to deal with the hand they are dealt in the state of the globe, you might get a peculiar look of confusion or maybe anger.

Trump had a relatively quiet Iran and a quiet Middle East. Perhaps his approach to Iran and region was partially responsible.

Yes, he certainly had a deft and sophisticated touch. The Muslim Ban was non partisan, sympathetic and very carefully thought out. And then there were the military operations and the assassinations of Mid East figures he disliked.

Definitely a calming influence in the ME.

 

[Butler1000]

There is always a matter of hazard and chance for U.S. Presidents when it comes to foreign affairs. If you tell a partisan that U.S. Presidents have to deal with the hand they are dealt in the state of the globe, you might get a peculiar look of confusion or maybe anger.

Trump had a relatively quiet Iran and a quiet Middle East. Perhaps his approach to Iran and region was partially responsible.

Quiet Ukraine as well. But yes absolutely the President doesn't decide world events in a bubble.

But my major point was Shaq expects Arab Americans to project what might happen as possibly worse than what is happening. And so my Question is, how can it get much worse from their perspective?

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Quiet Ukraine as well.

Because The Poo was waiting for him to be re elected and have the full 4 years of Trump sucking his cock and kneeling in front of him before invading Ukraine. And when Trump fumbled and shat himself in the 2020 election, The Poo figured "WTF. I'll invade anyway."