Episodios

  • Are the Democrats Actually Winning this Shutdown? (with Bill Scher)
    Oct 7 2025

    I want to start today by explaining why my audio sounds like garbage. I don’t have my usual mic — or my webcam, or laptop, or clothes — because everything was stolen out of our rental car while we were eating at Burma Superstar in Oakland. I lived in this city for nearly a decade and never once got ‘bipped.’ This time, someone smashed the window, glass flying right over the car seat where my baby had just been sitting, and took every bag they could find. My wife’s stuff, my stuff — all gone. They even took the bag of stuffed animals. Apparently, those don’t fence for much.

    Now, I don’t bring this up for pity. I know full well that parking a rental car in Oakland is like drawing a target on your back. But that’s exactly what bothers me — this idea that we deserve it. That the cost of living in a beautiful, culturally rich city like Oakland is rampant, normalized crime. And it’s not just Oakland. I don’t buy that this is the price of admission for living in cities like Chicago or New York either. These are cities with strong tax bases, vibrant economies, and in some cases — like here in San Francisco — literal gold rushes. I’m speaking to you now from the Bay Park, right next to the Chase Center, where the Warriors play. OpenAI’s offices are here. And yet one garage over, you’re stepping through fentanyl, addicts, and filth.

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

    What really got me was the reaction. When I told friends what happened, no one was surprised — just a shrug and “yeah, rental car.” No outrage. No concern. This isn’t just about me getting my stuff stolen. It’s about the fact that this kind of thing is treated as an unavoidable fact of life. And I get it — people here have empathy. But that empathy’s being weaponized. Because this isn’t just random desperation. If it were, they’d have taken the diaper bag. No, I think what we’re dealing with is organized crime. And no one seems interested in doing anything about it.

    There’s no political will. I’m not calling for a police state, but I am saying that the city should want to stop this. It’s not just bad for tourists — it’s not good for the locals either. The criminals aren’t the ones getting rich. The neighborhoods that need better-paying jobs aren’t helped by a tourism industry that doesn’t exist because no one wants to visit a city where this is just what happens. I don’t think it’s generous to ignore that — to write this all off as unavoidable.

    The kicker? When I called 911, they told me to go to a website. That was it. And look, I’ll be fine. My car rental’s covered by Amex we’re going to get home okay. But what does that say about the city — when a middle-class family gets robbed, and no one even pretends to care? There’s something broken here, and it’s not just the window.

    Chapters

    00:00 - Intro and Crime Thoughts

    08:12 - Interview with Bill Scher

    45:42 - 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
    50 m
  • Why My Mom Boycotted My Podcast for a Year and a Half (with Gloria Young)
    Oct 3 2025

    The Shutdown Senate Vote

    The shutdown rolls on, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already said it is unlikely the Senate will vote this weekend. That means the government shutdown will extend into next week unless something changes Friday morning. He criticized Democrats for demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies in the stopgap bill and insisted negotiations must begin only once the government reopens. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is predicting GOP unity will falter as the shutdown drags on, but I’m not convinced.

    From where I sit, the numbers tell the story. Three Democrats voted with Republicans last time. Rand Paul opposes continuing resolutions, so Republicans will need eight Democrats to reach 60 votes because J.D. Vance is the tie breaker. Every time the Senate votes, I’m watching to see if more than three Democrats side with Republicans — that’s the real signal of where this is going.

    I don’t believe Democrats are built for shutdowns. They’re posturing as if they’re ready to see this through, but the longer it goes the more likely rank and file members will embarrass Chuck Schumer into ending it. The real pain — furloughs, firings, and cuts to the federal workforce — is only going to show up if this lasts into next week. That’s when the Russ Vought part of the story kicks in, and that’s when this gets serious.

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

    Abigail Spanberger in Virginia

    Former Representative Abigail Spanberger is leading Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earl Sears by 10 points in the governor’s race, 52 to 42, according to a new Emerson College and Hill survey conducted September 28 and 29. Early voting is already underway with more than 146,000 ballots cast. Among those voters, Spanberger leads 60 to 38 and still holds a 50 to 43 edge among those yet to vote.

    Her gains have come from independents, men, and younger voters. Independents back her by 19 points, men are evenly split, and voters under 50 favor her by 27 points. History suggests the party that is not in the White House usually wins the Virginia governor’s race. Based on that, I’d bet Spanberger, even though this isn’t exactly an electric matchup.

    The only real advantage Sears has is the men’s and women’s sports issue — a culture war topic, not a kitchen table one. I don’t think that will be enough, especially in Northern Virginia, which is heavily government dependent and angry at the president. Add on Sears not being a great candidate and Spanberger looks far stronger heading into November.

    Bailouts are Back

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the Trump administration will announce substantial support for U.S. farmers next week, likely funded by tariff revenue. Soybean growers have been hit hard as China has halted U.S. purchases during their trade war. Bessent accused Beijing of using farmers as hostages in negotiations but pledged aid, noting their loyalty to Trump.

    He discussed the plan with the president and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, but details and costs remain unclear. Argentina’s discounted soybean sales to China have undercut U.S. farmers and stoked tension. Bailouts are back, and this is classic Trump — he’s never been a fiscal hawk and has no problem using the federal government’s pocketbook to shape the world as he sees fit.

    That’s where things stand. Farmers are hurting, the administration is signaling payouts, and we’ll see next week how big the support really is.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 - Intro and Synagogue Shooting

    00:03:47 - Interview with Gloria Young

    00:34:28 - Update

    00:34:44 - Shutdown

    00:38:08 - Abigail Spanberger

    00:40:18 - Farmers

    00:41:49 - Interview with Gloria Young (con’t)

    01:03:18 - 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 7 m
  • Shutdown Night Arrives! With Adams Out, Who Wins NYC? (with Evan Scrimshaw)
    Sep 30 2025

    As I record this episode, we are on the edge — maybe already over it, by the time you read this — of a government shutdown. And I want to give you a bit of the behind-the-scenes intel I picked up that helps explain how we got here. According to one of my sources on the Hill (a Republican, for the record), the read is that Chuck Schumer is locked in. He’s in a “dark place,” unwilling to budge, and if anything’s going to change, it’ll come from other Democrats. That’s been the drumbeat here: Schumer can’t blink. If he does, he opens himself up to a leadership challenge. And that’s the one thing a Senate leader absolutely cannot do.

    The Democrats are trying to pitch the shutdown as a way to stand up for healthcare — that’s the messaging. But the problem is that if the government shuts down, there are a lot of healthcare extensions and services that begin to expire immediately. I read off a list of them: community health centers, Medicare adjustments, ambulance payment programs, disaster medical systems — the works. The irony is that the parts Democrats hate the most about the Trump administration don’t shut down. ICE doesn’t go anywhere. Deportations still happen. Those are essential — and Trump’s people decide what counts as essential.

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

    The fight, according to Democrats, is over Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. But those cuts don’t even kick in until after the midterms. Meanwhile, essential Democratic priorities lose funding the moment the lights go out. And that’s the trap. They’re betting that Trump wants to make a deal — that he wants to look like a bipartisan dealmaker. Maybe they believe they can spin this into a win. But let’s remember what happened the last time Trump tried that in 2018: he got nothing.

    If they’re hoping for Trump to ride in and rescue them, that’s a risky game. The GOP Senate and House leaders — Thune and Johnson — are more than happy to let this ride. Hell, there are people in that party who love a shutdown. It’s a stress test for them, a chance to see what happens when the government turns off. And the data doesn’t look good for Democrats. A New York Times/Siena poll had just 27% of all respondents — and only a slim plurality of Democrats — supporting the idea of a shutdown if demands aren’t met. That’s a brutal place to be when you’re the one pulling the trigger.

    So here we are: Schumer boxed in, the party divided, and the shutdown clock striking midnight. Maybe there’s a backdoor deal. Maybe Trump throws them a rope. But right now? The only guaranteed outcome is pain.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 - Intro

    00:01:41 - Shutdown

    00:08:42 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw

    00:30:33 - Update

    00:31:21 - Hegseth’s Meeting

    00:34:42 - Schweikert for Gov

    00:36:09 - NYT Polling on Shutdown

    00:37:06 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw (con’t)

    01:15:30 - 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 19 m
  • Are the Dems Going to Blink? Breaking Down Trump's TikTok Deal (with Tom Merritt)
    Sep 25 2025

    The looming government shutdown — now just days away — has escalated dramatically. Russ Vought, Trump’s former OMB director and the key architect behind the original administration firings, circulated a memo this week warning agencies to prepare for a “reduction in force” if funding lapses. The message was clear: if there’s a shutdown, he plans to fire as many people as possible and make those firings stick. In his words, the Democrats would be handing him a gift. It’s what he’s always wanted to do, and he’s daring them to let it happen.

    Democrats, for their part, view this as a scare tactic, a way to push them into passing a clean continuing resolution. They’ve been offered essentially the best deal possible under GOP control: Biden-era spending levels and no controversial riders. Still, they’re rejecting it. Even lawmakers from districts and states with large numbers of federal employees — Chris Van Hollen, Glenn Ivey, Patty Murray, Mark Warner — are standing firm. For them, this is about resisting what they see as Trump-aligned plans to gut the federal workforce.

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

    Some Republicans are framing the mass firing threat as leverage, not a goal. Bernie Moreno said he supports the memo as a negotiating tactic but wants to avoid a shutdown. Susan Collins and Mike Lawler both expressed discomfort with using federal workers as bargaining chips but pointed out that the solution is simple: just vote for the clean CR. Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, is pressing hard, accusing Democrats of preferring illegal immigrants to federal employees by insisting on funding Obamacare and Medicare subsidies that Republicans argue benefit non-citizens.

    So where does that leave us? A shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass, and the President fails to sign, either the full appropriations bill or a continuing resolution before the start of the fiscal year. When that happens, agencies are prohibited from spending money, except on activities deemed essential to life, property, or national security. Non-essential employees are furloughed, contractors go unpaid, and essential workers like the military and TSA keep working without pay. We’re set to enter this world on October 1st.

    Everything from passport processing to regulatory enforcement gets paused. Federal contractors, especially in areas around DC, take a huge financial hit. Social security checks, Medicare, and mail delivery continue. And while federal workers usually get back pay, contractors often don’t. A shutdown only ends when Congress passes and the President signs a funding bill. That’s why I say this isn’t an “if,” but a “when.” The government will shut down; the only question is how long Democrats are willing to hold out before taking the same deal they’re rejecting now. I don’t think it’ll be long. This isn’t their kind of fight, and they’re about to find out why.

    Chapters

    00:00 - Intro

    03:12 - 107 Days

    06:30 - Gov Shutdown

    15:30 - Update

    15:49 - Hegseth Meeting

    18:04 - Kimmel Ratings

    19:44 - TikTok

    20:43 - Interview with Tom Merritt

    55:49 - 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
    59 m
  • Is This Shutdown Guaranteed? Attending Charlie Kirk's Memorial (with Claire Meynial)
    Sep 23 2025

    The government is shutting down. I guess I don’t know for sure, because it hasn’t happened yet, but… it’s happening. The clearest sign came early: Trump said he’s not meeting with the Democrats. That officially pulls the plug on the last off-ramp. And while I can’t say it’s definite until it’s on the books, every indicator points in that direction.

    Leadership on the Democratic side isn’t exactly riding high right now. Hakeem Jeffries is under pressure from both his left and his center — the progressives want more progressive action, and the moderates are feeling the heat from MAGA-friendlier districts. It’s not a great time for him to be vulnerable, especially with redistricting battles looming. Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, still has the earliest months of this Trump administration burned into his memory, failing to shut the government down back then that got him absolutely roasted by his own side. He knows what time it is. If he doesn’t want to lose his job, he needs to be seen doing something. That something is this shutdown.

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

    Democrats usually enjoy the shutdown game — when Republicans are the ones pulling the trigger. It lets them run the “they hate government” narrative. But now they’re the ones doing it, and that’s unfamiliar ground. It’s not their comfort zone — and it comes with a risk. They tried every angle. They talked to Johnson. They talked to Thune. And then, in what was probably more performance than real strategy, they tried Trump. Trump publicly laughed it off. So now, what are they left with?

    The clean CR that already passed the House is still sitting there. That’s funding at Biden levels — not exactly a win for Republicans. But because the Democrats need to do something, they’ve started trying to wrap ACA subsidy extensions and Medicaid cut reversals into the mix. The strategy is a little muddled: are they playing offense or just avoiding looking weak? Either way, without Trump at the table, they’ve got no play left except one. And that’s how we get to where we’re at.

    Here’s the question that’s not being asked enough — how does it end? Democrats aren’t built for long-term shutdowns. Their base doesn’t rally around it the same way. The longer it goes, the more Trump gets to talk, and he will talk. If it drags out past a month, Democrats lose. So that means the shutdown won’t last past a month. And if they’re going to vote for the clean CR in the end anyway, what’s the point of all of this? We’ll see. But from where I’m sitting, there’s no chance the government doesn’t shut down.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 - Intro

    00:07:13 - Gov Shutdown

    00:16:47 - Update

    00:18:00 - Kimmel

    00:26:26 - Tylenol

    00:34:25 - TPUSA

    00:38:22 - Interview with Claire Meynial

    01:23:40 - 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 28 m
  • 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)
    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.
    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