Politics Politics Politics Podcast Por Justin Robert Young arte de portada

Politics Politics Politics

Politics Politics Politics

De: Justin Robert Young
Escúchala gratis

Unbiased political analysis the way you wish still existed. Justin Robert Young isn't here to tell you what to think, he's here to tell you who is going to win and why.

www.politicspoliticspolitics.comJustin Robert Young Mundial Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Jimmy Kimmel Pulled Off the Air. Digging Into NYC Mayoral Polls, Midterms, and More (with Michael Cohen)

    Jimmy Kimmel Pulled Off the Air. Digging Into NYC Mayoral Polls, Midterms, and More (with Michael Cohen)
    Sep 18 2025
    Jimmy Kimmel is currently on indefinite leave from his late-night show after a string of events involving remarks he made about Charlie Kirk, a response from the FCC, and a decisive call from Disney leadership. This all unfolded quickly and, frankly, explosively. Brendan Carr of the FCC went on Benny Johnson’s podcast and said Kimmel’s comments were some of the “sickest stuff” he’s heard — and strongly implied that the FCC could take action against affiliate stations airing the show. That’s not subtle, and even if Carr didn’t spell out a punishment, the intent was clear enough to light a fire.What wasn’t initially emphasized — but I think is even more relevant — is what Carr said at the end of that podcast appearance. He laid the pressure squarely on affiliate stations, reminding them that it’s their licenses that are under the FCC’s purview. And it wasn’t long before two affiliate groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, pulled Kimmel from their airwaves. That’s a big move. Deadline later reported that Disney’s Dana Walden personally told Kimmel his show would be preempted. Sources say Kimmel refused to apologize, and Disney feared that letting him go further might make the controversy even worse.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Disney’s version, delivered through Deadline, painted it as a measured decision — that they were protecting Kimmel from himself. But the reality is, affiliate pressure likely had more to do with this than the FCC ever did. Nexstar, for example, owns affiliates in places like Hartford, Augusta, Rockford, and Sioux City. These aren’t New York or LA. These are markets where a majority of the viewership is conservative. Nexstar and Sinclair didn’t just blink. They jumped — and demanded an apology and even donations to Turning Point USA before they'd consider letting Kimmel back on air. That’s not just a request. That’s an ultimatum.Capitol Hill responded almost immediately. Eric Swalwell wore a Jimmy Kimmel hat on CNN. Jasmine Crockett called for his return. The concern from Democrats is clear — they see this as a chilling of speech, a federal agency leaning on a private company to silence a critical voice. And Kimmel has long been one of the most visible anti-Trump figures in mainstream media. This isn’t out of nowhere. It’s part of a longer arc — one that started when his monologues became Claptor-heavy political salvos, and even his own writers started peeling off.Here’s what I think. Carr’s comments went too far. I’ve listened to that podcast more than once. Maybe he meant to be more cautious, but it didn’t land that way. When you hold a job like FCC commissioner, your words carry weight — and in this case, they were taken very seriously. That said, I also don’t think this was a one-man takedown. Kimmel has probably been a thorn in the side of these affiliate stations for years. This may have just been the opportunity they were waiting for.These affiliate networks serve a lot of red-leaning districts. That’s just reality. And when Kimmel’s show becomes a lightning rod, they have every incentive to bail — especially when broadcast TV isn’t the financial powerhouse it used to be. ABC and Disney might be saying they want Kimmel back on air, but I think they’re daring him to quit. This could easily end with a quiet settlement and a new direction for the network. Twenty-two years is a long time. Maybe too long for a show that’s increasingly out of step with its audience — or at least the parts of it that keep the lights on in places advertisers care about.If this had happened in 2017, I think Disney would have fought. They would have leaned into the resistance branding, defended Kimmel publicly, and gone head-to-head with the FCC. But the landscape has shifted. Those same resistance-aligned outlets that thrived post-2016 have been struggling for attention ever since 2024. Maybe this isn’t a cave to authoritarian pressure. Maybe it’s just chasing a different audience — one that wants less fire and more quiet. Either way, the message is clear. Kimmel’s position isn’t as solid as it used to be. And neither is the appetite for that kind of voice on network television.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:17 - Jimmy Kimmel00:31:57 - Update00:32:50 - Eleanor Norton00:34:01 - Tariffs Head to Supreme Court00:35:33 - Erika Kirk00:38:06 - Interview with Michael Cohen01:42:11 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
    Más Menos
    1 h y 47 m
  • Charlie Kirk's Shooter Charged. IDF's Ground Incursion into Gaza (with Karol Markowicz and Ryan McBeth)

    Charlie Kirk's Shooter Charged. IDF's Ground Incursion into Gaza (with Karol Markowicz and Ryan McBeth)
    Sep 17 2025

    Utah prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder in the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The charges include obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and multiple firearm offenses. According to the affidavit, Robinson confessed to both his roommate — with whom he was in a romantic relationship — and his father. Investigators say Robinson admitted that the motive was political. He told his roommate that “some hate cannot be negotiated” and accused Kirk of “spreading hatred.”

    Prosecutors allege that Robinson carved antifascist slogans into the bullet casings used in the shooting. They say he left behind clothes and a backpack at the scene, both of which tested positive for his DNA. A bolt-action rifle was found nearby. Surveillance footage and Discord messages allegedly link Robinson to planning the attack, though he has not spoken directly to police. His roommate, someone transitioning from male to female who has not been publicly identified, is cooperating with investigators.

    Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    Also at the scene was a second man, George Zinn, who approached police with a knife and told them to shoot him. Zinn allegedly said he had been trying to help Robinson escape. He has not been charged in the shooting, but prosecutors say he was found with child pornography. The two men were not known to each other before that day.

    This case does not follow the familiar patterns of mental instability or mass shooting chaos. Prosecutors have outlined what they describe as a deliberate, targeted act with ideological motivation. Robinson allegedly stated that he believed the shooting would be “the only way” to stop Kirk. The firearm used was a bolt-action rifle, which indicates planning rather than impulsivity.

    Governor Spencer Cox, in his television appearances, struck a more composed tone than in his initial press conference. That earlier moment felt like a political speech. Over the weekend, however, he appeared more focused on unity and de-escalation. That stands in contrast to Trump, whose responses were angrier and more inflammatory. The White House has not issued a formal statement, but administration officials have been briefed.

    One of the major talking points emerging in political media is whether this attack fits into a broader pattern. Names like Paul Pelosi and Ashli Babbitt have been floated — but what happened here is categorically different. The suspect allegedly had a motive, a plan, and a clear ideological framework. This was not senseless. According to prosecutors, it was intentional and politically driven.

    It's still early, and these are only allegations. But the details laid out so far paint a clear picture: a targeted political killing, carried out in public, with motive stated directly. That’s rare. And it’s something we’ll be forced to grapple with as the trial unfolds.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 - Intro

    00:02:15 - Charlie Kirk Suspect Arrested

    00:09:53 - Interview with Karol Markowicz

    00:53:28 - Update

    00:54:01 - Pam Bondi Hate Speech

    00:57:39 - Epstein

    01:00:15 - Hakeem Jeffries and Zohran Mamdani

    01:02:53 - Interview with Ryan McBeth

    01:52:45 - Wrap-up



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
    Más Menos
    2 h y 1 m
  • Let's Talk About Political Violence in America.

    Let's Talk About Political Violence in America.
    Sep 11 2025
    In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I needed to sit down and talk with you — just you and me. This isn’t a guest-heavy episode, there is no news roundup. This is something different. This is something more personal, more direct, and honestly, more painful. I want to talk about what this moment means, why it matters, and what we do next. Because we’re at a crossroads, and that road cuts directly through our online and offline realities in ways we can’t ignore anymore.Charlie Kirk was shot with a rifle while on stage at Utah Valley University. The shooter is still unidentified, and the motives are still unclear. But there’s no denying what that moment was meant to signal: if you talk like this, we’ll kill you. And while that “we” remains unknown, the message it sends is loud and clear. This wasn’t a private act of violence. This was political. This was a statement. And the target wasn’t just Kirk — it was anyone who might stand where he stood or say what he said.Kirk wasn’t someone I always agreed with, but I did see what he built. Turning Point USA grew into a major player, replacing many of the institutions that shaped college conservatism before him. He blended the Buckley model of organizing with the showmanship of Limbaugh and became influential not just in youth politics but in the Trump movement itself. His voice mattered. His platforms mattered. And whether or not you liked what he said, it’s impossible to ignore that many young conservatives saw themselves in him.So much of what’s happened since his death has disturbed me. The edgelords on the internet doing their worst, cracking jokes about the bullet that hit him, pretending he wasn’t a person with a wife and children — that’s not just tasteless, it’s dehumanizing. And when you dehumanize someone in death, you’re justifying violence against the living. It’s not a good look. It’s not principled. It’s cruelty dressed up as politics.We’ve seen attempts to paint political violence as something that only comes from one side, but that’s not how any of this works. Whether it’s a left-wing shooter or a right-wing pipe bomber, we’ve got to stop turning every horrific act into a team sport. Every time someone uses violence as a form of political speech, it pushes the line further, normalizes the unacceptable, and opens the door for more of it. And that’s the real danger — the escalation, the dehumanization, the cheapening of life itself.Now look, I understand that people hated Charlie Kirk, and saw him as a cartoon villain solely taking up space on the internet. But if your first instinct when someone is murdered is to dig up their worst take, maybe it’s time to reevaluate what you stand for. Did Kirk say provocative things? Sure. But we’re either going to live in a country where bad takes are met with debate or one where they’re met with bullets. And if it’s the latter, none of us — not me, not you — are safe.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Among those edgelords and the calls for retaliatory violence, though, I saw hope. A YouGov poll found that 78% of Americans think it’s unacceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure, even one they dislike, and only 9% answered in the affirmative. That’s good. That’s a big majority, especially in today’s political climate, and it points to a baseline of decency in this country that hasn’t been completely eroded by the internet’s worst tendencies.And then there was Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks and someone who battled Kirk publicly. He posted something beautiful, something real. He talked about sharing a beer with Kirk, about choosing unity over hate. That matters. Because it shows that humanity still exists across the aisle. That you can disagree without celebrating someone’s death. That maybe — just maybe — we can start tending our own gardens before trying to burn someone else’s to the ground.So, what do we do now? We lead by example. We reject political violence — loudly, clearly, and without exception. We treat each other like people, not caricatures. And we remember that even in a polarized world, the line between democracy and something far darker is thinner than we think. Let’s not cross it. Not now. Not ever.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:42 - Who was Charlie Kirk?07:40 - Reaction clips13:09 - Discourse23:08 - This is different30:26 - The internet is not real life37:44 - What now? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
    Más Menos
    40 m
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante
Big fan of your show for a while and i hope youre brand of analysis and interviews finds a home here.

Welcome to Audible

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.