To be fair, he completely embarrassed Candace on his show and made her look like the grifter hack that she is.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bernie really out here cutting ads with Joe Rogan's endorsement (SEE STAFF POST)
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, he completely embarrassed Candace on his show and made her look like the grifter hack that she is.
Yeah we know
And guess what. These people dont go away and you cant take away their vote. And under our current fucked up system even outnumbering the assholes isn't enough
Im convinced that everyone is willing to let all these repressed people we seem to care so much about burn in a fire so they can stand on principle
Being able to even do that at all is a fucking privileged position.
I say that if we see an opportunity to push these idiots back into the light maybe we consider it for the greater good?
Then again... As I said in the other thread.. i believe the full extent of this potential benefit only exists if Bernie can even win the nomination.
Why would he not want Rogan's endorsement? This is a good thing for someone trying to win a general regardless of if you hate Rogan. He appeals to a vast majority of Americans whose votes will be crucial in winning this election.
How is he a terrible person? He's totally not a terrible person. Like, let's reserve that word for actual terrible people?
Eh you should hear what he says about trans people
I think Joe from i seen is generally just a sponge that just goes what with anyone says unless it's weed and he sometimes does push back on stuff like he called out owens
But man the shit he says and believes about trans people is big oof
Personally i see it the same way as Bernie going to fox and preaching to the audience there to move them to the left or at least economically
I don't think he needed to make that ad but at least he didn't change his views and isn't saying how awesome segregationists were
It's the same way as when Cornell west got on to preach to his audience
is like people don't pay attention here, Rogan's podcast is huge
I think Joe Rogan is shit and he has tons of problematic views and has said a lot of bad things.
But I also see Rogan, and this explains a lot of his popularity, as a sort of conduit for younger white males in America. Because for as bad as he can get, when it gets to the absolute core of an issue then Rogan probably does support it. He supports fighting climate change, he supports abortion rights, for as bad as he can get on transgender issues he actually has said he would never deadname someone and would always use preferred gender pronouns. He reminds me of some people I know in real life who have no problem with expanding government as a safety net but react extremely negatively to any attempt to limit speech, no matter if it's Twitter or the government doing the limiting.
The Dems simply cannot win national elections without this kind of voter. They're people you need to try to reach out to.
But I also see Rogan, and this explains a lot of his popularity, as a sort of conduit for younger white males in America. Because for as bad as he can get, when it gets to the absolute core of an issue then Rogan probably does support it. He supports fighting climate change, he supports abortion rights, for as bad as he can get on transgender issues he actually has said he would never deadname someone and would always use preferred gender pronouns. He reminds me of some people I know in real life who have no problem with expanding government as a safety net but react extremely negatively to any attempt to limit speech, no matter if it's Twitter or the government doing the limiting.
The Dems simply cannot win national elections without this kind of voter. They're people you need to try to reach out to.
As far as this idelogues versus pragmatists stuff goes, I don't want to hear it, not from anyone who supports Bernie Sanders, because I guarantee, I can practically guarantee that if someone supports Sanders over any of the other candidates in the primary, it's almost certainly because he's the candidate who's the LEAST pragmatist of those running, and that's what they like about him compared to the other candidates. To quote myself from another thread on a very related topic:
But yeah, suffice it to say:
When the topic's healthcare, shooting for the sun with single-payer is all well and good even if it would be much more PRAGMATIST to support a plan like say Joe Biden's. People who support Sanders nonetheless do so even if will cost him votes not because he's pragmatist, but because they feel it's the right thing to do.
Money in politics? Just look at people like Steyer and Bloomberg, who are literally buying themselves into debates by covering the airwaves with ads and stuff like that. Definitely not the most "pragmatist" thing for Bernie is to have the stance he does on money in politics, that he would likely be much better off if he had a much softer stance, but who support him support him precisely because he takes that stance, not because he's a pragmatist, rather because he's not, and that's what they're after.
Or let's talk about a topic like fracking for instance. Like, I remember. I remember the 2016 debates. I remember how Hillary Clinton gave a nuanced answer for how she will handle the issue of fracking, phasing it out in steps, because, however much is sucks, however terrible it is, and indeed it very likely is, that nonetheless that's not the thing you can just stop overnight, not without unintentional consequences of its own, and so she came up with a nuanced plan of how to phase it out, in stages to make sure that fracking is indeed stopped, but it's stopped safely in a way that makes sense.
But how did Sanders respond? He just had a one-liner about flat-out banning it. And that was met to loud cheers in comparison to Clinton. That was a huge cheer line. Doesn't matter that that's almost certainly not possible regardless of what happens, that that's not what's going to happen even with a DDD trifecta and is a huge nonstarter because they don't want to kill jobs and want to give people a chance to transition and stuff no matter how much they hate fracking. Sanders through that one-liner out there anyway and was met with cheers, whereas Clinton was relentlessly mocked and attacked for her stance.
Because, again, that's what people generally speaking support Sanders for, again, on yet ANOTHER issue. It ain't pragmatism or being practical. It's principles trumping all else.
Or let's talk about yet another topic, and this one I definitely do give Sanders props for, for certain. That topic is that of the subject of Israel/Palestine. Sanders is one of the best candidates out there on this topic, as he definitely tends to give Palestinians more time of day than most of the rest of the crowd. And I definitely give him props for that. But part of the reason I myself give him props is not only is that the right thing to do, but especially in terms of US politics, there's definitely nothing practical about him doing that. But he does and it has the stance he does anyway.
And I can do this all day.
The point being that on so many given topics, whether it's healthcare, money-in-politics, post-secondary education, fracking, the Israel/Palestine conflict, and so many other things, Sanders has anything but PRACTICAL, pragmatic stances, and that's exactly what attracts people to him in the fist place!
People support him because he unabashedly supports single-payer unlike the other candidates!
People support him because he wants money out of politics, even in the most minute of ways!
People support him because he's actually willing to stick up for Palestinians!
etc, etc, etc.
Those may be valid stances, but they're certainly not pragmatic ones. And yet they're ones that Sanders supporters wear proudly all the time, and that by itself is all well and good. There's nothing inherently wrong with that by itself, no.
But when you do that, and suddenly when the subject turns to race/"identity" politics, that when the subject turns to race, despite not only not giving even one single iota about what's practical or what's not when it comes to healthcare but also bemoaning other candidates for not being as principled as Sanders when it comes to the subject regardless of how practical his stance is or isn't because some things matter more than that when the subject is healthcare, despite not caring about what practical or what isn't when it comes to topics like money in politics and bemoaning other candidates like Clinton and Beto for not just directly taking money from banks or the oil industry or anything, oh no, even individuals who worked for those kinda businesses in the past at some point in their lives and donates privately to these candidates as private individuals and not representatives of their prior lines of work is also apparently too much, that's not the time to be practical, despite it not being time to be practical when it comes to subjects like fracking, and nope, nothing less than a complete ban will do apparently, despite it not being time to be practical when it comes to those topics and so many others, that people not only applaud Sanders for not being practical but bemoan other candidates for not sticking up for their ideals instead like Sanders all the time...
When it comes to the subject of race, unlike any of those other topics, THAT'S when we're suddenly supposed to be practical?
It's not Sanders who should be more practical with healthcare, that's not the time.
He shouldn't be more practical with his university or climate change plans.
He shouldn't be more pragmatic with any of his other plans, because regardless of how feasible they are or aren't, that's why people love him and hope he wins and constantly wag their fingers at the other candidates for not being more like Sanders.
No, when it comes to race though, THAT'S when we're suddenly supposed to be pragmatic?
Yeah, no. I ain't going to accept that argument from anyone, but ESPECIALLY not Sanders supporters. When you go out of your way to support a candidate and make it clear time and time again you like them precisely because they're NOT pragmatic and bemoan how the other candidates aren't like him and how he puts his ideals above concepts like pragmatism... You don't suddenly BEGIN to get to care about "pragmatism" now. That ain't how any of this works, and I ain't going to let that fly.
Like, if people don't care about pragmatism, and support Sanders regardless, that's all well and good. There's nothing wrong with that in of itself.
But either you care about pragmatism, or you don't. And, like, if you support Sanders, that's fine, but if you support Sanders, precisely because of what Sanders himself stands for, 9 times out of 10, it you support Sanders, you ain't doing so for anything resembling pragmatism.
Which is fine in of itself. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
But if you're going to do that, you have to actually do that. You don't get to pick and choose. Either you care about being pragmatic, or you don't. And if you support Sanders, it's almost certain you don't. You don't get to selectively invoke it in a topic like this, to suddenly invoke it when concerns of issues like race and transphobia comes up. That isn't cool at all and is going to get more than a little side-eye from me, because there's no reason to begin to pretend to care to begin with and just feigning concerns of pragmatism on this of all topics... That just isn't cool to me.
On a different note, yes, you nonetheless have to win voters to win. That's true. However, good news! There's no evidence that it's necessary to win over racists or Trump voters to win, or anything like that!
For instance, if everyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016 had voted for Clinton instead, Clinton would have won. Boom. No need for "appeals to Trump voters" or anything like that.
Or alternatively, just turning out more of our own base, more Democratic voters. Because there were also a lot of non-voters in states like Michigan. Just get them to vote instead, max out our own base by actually appealing to them instead.
Boom, again, none of these appeals to racists needed.
This whole idea that we need to win over Trump voters or racists or whatever to win is pure nonsense through and through to begin with and that people are nonetheless so fixated on that being the "one and only way" gives me great pause, almost as if they want it to be that way.
Like, I would hope that's not true. I would really hope not. But then, why, despite so many people saying it, do people keep coming back to this scenario, that people keep proposing it's THOSE people and those people alone that we have to win over? That winning over Stein voters is no good, that getting non-voters to vote and turning out our own based, appealing to say black communities instead of racists like Rogan is apparently no good, it's appealing to racists and Trump voters alone that will do apparently? Why do people want that to be true so badly?
Because it's not. It's far from the only way, and definitely not the best way in any case. It's not what we should be doing, especially when there are alternative options, that don't involve that. So why the fixation on that idea, why the fixation on those voters in particular? I don't get it.
But yeah, just spare me with the pragmatism talk in any case. Because I wouldn't accept that from anyone when it comes to Rogan regardless, but particularly no in defense of a statement that Bernie Sanders of all people made in regards to Rogan. Because like, if you're going to support Sanders, that's fine and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you support him, it's almost certainly because Sanders ain't a pragmatist, and that's what would draw one to Sanders to begin with, that that type of thing is NOT what Sanders is about. Which is fine in of itself, but to suddenly turn around and act like one suddenly cares about pragmatism in a topic like this of all things... Yeah, no. You don't get to have it both ways. You can support Sanders, or you can care about pragmatism. But not both. Pick one, please.
Or else it's so easy to do stuff like this. If it's fine to care about stuff like this, why doesn't SANDERS compromise on things such as, say, his stance on single-payer healthcare? Why is THIS okay to compromise on, but Sanders must never, ever compromise on his stance on healthcare on the least and on top of that, all the other candidates suck because they can't get on Sanders' memo? Why is it okay to compromise on this, but not healthcare?
Why is it okay to compromise on this, but not money in politics? Why is taking even so much as one-cent from the wrong person, that nevermind actually taking money from a bank or fossil fuel company, but a former employee making a personal donation on their own behalf is also too much, but this, when it comes to this topic, that's when it's time to suddenly compromise and be practical?
ETc.
The whole thing just doesn't work for me, at all, and makes me more than raise an eyebrow when THIS is suddenly when people are like "we have to be pragmatic tho" when they don't even show the slightest of fucks on any other topic whether something's pragmatic or not.
Wow, so you're saying that someone who says black people are like Planet of the Apes, denies science and has said multiple transphobic things is not a terrible person?
yup its one of the best (and only good) things ive seen Rogan do. Made her seem like a 13yo
Maybe because people don't want a sudden influx of white bigots thinking they have a fucking platform in the Democratic party who clearly view their economic agenda as the only thing that matters and view social issues as disposable garbage.
Maybe people are afraid that the people Sanders is courting are going to gain influence and we're going to fall back on giving a shit about issues that matter to people.
Because when you court people like Rogan that's the message you're sending, which is already rather crystal clear in terms of Sanders general attitude over the years in who he endorses and who he allies himself with.
Of course it is. There are loads of crappy people in the world looking for entertainment. There is a reason why Fox News has been so popular these past few years.
User Banned (3 Months): Transphobia. Prior Severe Ban for Excusing Bigotry
I have heard him make trans arguments from the perspective of competitive sports and he usually highlights the biological differences between male and female athletes and how despite hormone therapies and stuff like that you're still looking at an advantage due to male physiology, bone structure, muscle mass etc. I don't see that as bigoted
We've been through this. Maybe not to you, but reserve room for the idea that Rogan is in fact terrible for people whose lives are fucked up by many in his fan base.
?
He's had many scientists on his show and they've been some of the most fascinating episodes and I've learned a lot from them - I don't once remember Joe doing anything but sitting there listening and absorbing what they're saying, and asking questions that the audience would want asked.
Well, yes. Exactly. 100%
Unlike most politicians, I can point to decades in the past in where Bernie has been completely consistent in supporting legislation for LGBT, racial, and economic issues. He's uncompromising in his beliefs. The argument against Bernie has always been "he's too far left" "pie in the sky" which has come from corporate Democrats.
now people want to argue that because he accepted an endorsement from joe Rogan that now he's going to cozy up to republicans when he's elected? He is not the same as Biden who is willing to actually work with republicans and pass shitty right wing legislation that hurts minorities.
this is such a disingenuous argument. Bernie has earned that trust as far as I'm concerned. That's his appeal! That being said joe Rogan is shit. I personally don't listen to him but I can't ignore that he has a huge audience of millions. If he wants to encourage his audience for Bernie Sanders, I'm all for it. It would be stupid to try to not court the other side. That's how we will defeat Donald trump.
How does him providing a platform for bigots and grifters and further legitimizing them in the process not make him a terrible person?
That is the definition of terrible in my opinion.
1. It isn't stupid, its a gateway drug to the alt-right. Rogan might be stupid, the people he has on are selling a very specific kind of grift and he's complicit.
2. If our concern is all about beating Trump why not just go full force behind Mr. Electability Joe Biden?
Trump only won in '16 thanks to very slim margins in a handful of midwestern states. Correct for the fact that the electorate historically lies about its willingness to support a woman and a Biden '16 ticket almost certainly wins. As of November state polling data Biden is a better head to head candidate with both likely and registered voters in a head to head vs. Trump as well.
3. If Sanders wins and does nothing about racism and bigotry in this country, while getting a portion of his white male base to buy into the Rogan spread alt-right propaganda, how much easier is it for us to get another Trump in 2024? Or a wave of Trumps across state and congressional seats?
The argument you and others have made in this thread is that its all about winning because of Supreme Court issues, but then are arguing for a harder road to victory, and one that includes potentially pushing more currently left leaning people in front of alt-right propaganda.
Yep.
We rightly bemoan fact that conservatives are converting these people to radical white supremacists, maybe we should consider looking at ways to reverse that? Sounds better than going "Nah fuck these people. " and pushing them away even more.
Sure, he's a biggoted idiot. The NYT during their IDW propaganda phase had this to say about her:
They're also a publication that's not afraid to platform and publish bigoted idiots.
If Bernie or Warren are able to win people over through these shitty platforms whilst maintaining their 'progressive' policies then it's probably not a bad thing. Though that's a personal stance that can be easily argued against. My real criticism is people having different standards for it depending on the candidate.
Last edited:
Yes, Dems can't win without the critical endorsement of Joe Rogan, it's just not possible!
I'm not going to get to the sport stuff a more knowledgeable than me can get to that especially with how bullshit his concerns are
But he also had Crowder on and completely bought all his lies and was spouting off shit like how kids are supposedly being forced to transition
That's only very recently, even then you're going to ignore the other 2 things I mentioned??? Are you serious??
1. Correct
2. This is the fucking plan for whomever wins the nomination
3. Sanders isn't my ideal pick either goddamnit but ill take anyone over Trump just to buy us some fucking time
I'd be 100% cool with going heavy with Rogan or whatever other skeevy-but-popular dude will endorse you once you're in the general with Trump. No rules there, no blow too low. I don't really like using him in a fight that's still against other Dems. At that point you're kind of making the positive case that Joe Rogan's opinion should carry weight with progressives. I don't like the idea of anything to win a vote when you're fighting for which of a slate of at-least decent people should face off against Trump. There should still be some standards there.
The kind of people who listen to Rogan are not the kind of people who are politically active. They are idiots like Joe who will hear "I'm not saying racism is GOOD... but he tells it like it is" and then go and vote trump with that echoing around their empty brains and then they forget about politics for 4 years.
They are not going to affect the democrat platform.
They are idiots.
Let's make those idiots useful for us for once.
No one is arguing this
Having support from the margins where you normally wouldn't, especially if Bernie somehow wins the nom, is a net benefit to the cause was the argument
The entire concept behind Sanders is he's going to tap into this secret voting base and start a revolution in the party with the "working class".
Ah, I only caught on within the last couple years and even then I don't watch nearly all of the episodes, just ones with guests I think I'd find interesting (the show is just too damn long otherwise).
And yeah that was the only part of your post that I felt I could discuss because it was the only part I felt I knew enough about to discuss lol.
Cool, glad you admitted it.
I'm not taking him at his word. I don't think he would miss an opportunity to trash a candidate he doesn't like when it would also be great for views. If he posts proof, fine, but until then, I don't believe him.
The person I quoted literally said,
"The Dems simply cannot win national elections without this kind of voter. They're people you need to try to reach out to." in direct reply to Sanders making ads for his endorsement from Rogan.
Sooooo, someone is arguing this. And a lot of supporters are essentially saying the same thing.
I mean... Weren't you the one making the argument that this whole Rogan thing doesn't matter because it doesn't affect any of Sanders' own stances on various issues, that it's not like Sanders changed his position on anything, and that's why this doesn't matter?
So what, hypothetically, would be the difference if someone like say David Duke did endorse Sanders and Sanders accepted his endorsement. As long as Sanders didn't actually compromise his stances on any issues, under your own logic, what would be the problem with that? What exactly is the difference between accepting an endorsement from Joe Rogan and one from David Duke, in your mind?
Because as you yourself said, it doesn't matter unless Sanders actually compromises his position on any issues because of it, right/ That was your positon?
Because by the sounds of things, when it comes to one racist, aka David Duke, you realize that there would be more to it and that even if Sanders were to not in any way change his position on any issues as a result of that, it still would not be very cool to accept the endorsement of such an individual.
But yet for Rogan it is different? So what is the difference exactly?
Because it sounds like you're very close to realizing there's more to this than just whether it not this stuff affects Sanders policy positions, but you're only applying that for some people and not others and I'm curious as to why, since this is different to what you said to me earlier in the thread. What's the difference then because certainly this logic of "becoming more sympathetic to a progressive platform" would apply just as much to a hypothetical David Duke endorsement, that you could make the same hypothetical argument to defend it, use the exact same logic, but yet for some reason you nonetheless feel differently and that that wouldn't be the case/wouldn't be good enough for one, but is for the other. Why is that then?
If they wanna better themselves as human beings then that's genuinely a good thing. But it shouldn't be on everyone else to coddle and be nice to people who are walking garbage cans of prejudice and hate. If they wanna be better then that's good, but I shouldnt be required to lead them by the nose to the right side of history.
If we all have to lower our expectations of Democratic politicians, why wouldn't I go with Biden who already is problematic AF but carries with him huge support from the base of the party?
I do get this though, would have been much better and effective if this happened in the general election.
Not if it contributes to the continuing issue of barely veiled bigotry of the dirtbag left.
My thing is that this is a literal deal with the devil. The idea that getting Trump out of office is of utmost importance I get. But the idea that this is a flash in the pan that won't eventually bite us in the ass...history hasn't supported this.
Bernie shows up in the Pres office and is like magic! All the Obama charisma, waves his hand and suddenly we all have healthcare for all, everyone is employed, everyone is happy...
...doesn't negate a 10 year old researching Bernie on youtube and getting a recommendation of a bunch of Joe Rogan classics a la blacks act like apes, trans is fake, etc. And wondering how they got radicalized a few years later when they decide to take out the black and trans kids at school.
I get the argument its a necessary evil, but too many are acting like its not an evil in itself. Its not getting more voters, 'using these idiots', its platforming these ideas which stunts like this do which is what we are arguing about
Trump has a very likely chance of winning reelection. To ignore an impressionable and numerous demographic of voters just screams foolishness to me.
So you'd prefer a Trump victory then?
This doesn't even fundamentally make sense.
An ideologue candidate can seek election using a pragmatic strategy. There's literally nothing mutually exclusive about those elements.
And the alternative is what? Let the other side walk them into their camp?
- Status