Podcast Summary
Criticizing the Left's Love for Framing and Distorting Facts: The left manipulates facts to advance their agenda, such as the false narrative against tax cuts leading to revenue loss.
The Dan Bongino Show is known for delivering the truth, unlike some political rallies or leftist narratives. Dan Bongino criticizes the left for their love of framing and reframing facts to advance their agenda. He used the example of the tax argument, where the truth is that tax cuts, such as those instituted by George W. Bush, led to an increase in federal tax revenue. However, the media and leftists have a narrative against tax cuts and distort the facts to push their agenda. Dan also shared his personal experience with stem cell therapy and upcoming consultation.
Reframing Facts for PR Disasters: The NFL and leftist groups on college campuses are trying to change the narrative on their PR disasters by reinterpreting facts to fit their agendas. NFL players' protests during the national anthem are seen as disrespectful, while conservative speakers are being banned from college campuses due to violent protests.
Individuals and organizations, in this case the NFL and leftist groups on college campuses, often try to reframe facts to advance their agendas when they're losing an argument. For instance, the NFL's handling of player protests during the national anthem and the efforts to limit conservative speech on college campuses are both PR disasters that have led to these entities trying to change the narrative. The facts are clear: NFL players are well-paid and choose to kneel during the anthem, which is widely seen as disrespectful. Similarly, conservative speakers are being effectively banned from college campuses due to violent protests from the left. However, these groups are trying to reframe these issues as something other than what they are in order to protect their respective agendas.
Shifting focus from free speech to campus discourse: The debate over free speech on college campuses is evolving, with the left reframing the issue as one of discourse quality, potentially raising concerns about bias and subjectivity.
The ongoing debate surrounding free speech on college campuses is not just about the right to speak, but rather the perceived quality of the discourse. While conservatives argue for equal treatment of all speakers, the left is increasingly reframing the issue as one of campus discourse, in an attempt to shift the focus away from free speech. However, this strategy may backfire, as it raises concerns about subjectivity and potential bias in determining the quality of discourse. The attorney general's involvement in the issue and shifting public opinion in favor of free speech may further pressure colleges to reconsider their policies. Ultimately, it's crucial to recognize that the debate goes beyond free speech and requires a nuanced understanding of the underlying issues and motivations.
Free speech on college campuses: Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: Conservatives push for objective values and individual liberty, while the left advocates for subjective values and government intervention. The left's approach to speech quality is criticized as gaslighting, and the NFL's stance on anthem protests illustrates this issue's complexity.
The ongoing debate around free speech on college campuses and the quality of discourse is rooted in the contrasting philosophies of objectivity and subjectivity. Conservatives argue for objective values and individual liberty, while the left advocates for subjective values and government determination. The left's approach to analyzing speech quality is seen as a form of gaslighting, where false narratives are presented as truth. The NFL's recent edict for players to stand during the national anthem is an example of this, with Goodell's change of stance being a response to potential financial losses due to shifting public opinion. Ultimately, this issue highlights the importance of clear communication, objective truth, and individual freedom.
Comparing NFL to a plantation is an inappropriate reframing of the issue: Avoid making light of slavery's historical significance when discussing current issues, as it undermines players' agency and equality in the NFL.
During a recent sports discussion, Michael Wilbon was criticized for comparing the NFL to a plantation, suggesting players are in a state of human bondage. This comparison was widely criticized as an outrageous and inappropriate reframing of the issue, as it trivializes the historical significance and horrors of slavery. The NFL is a dream career for many, and the suggestion that players are in a state of servitude undermines their agency and equality. The use of such a comparison is not only disrespectful to the historical significance of slavery but also a distraction from the real issues at hand. It is important to avoid making light of such a significant and horrific part of human history, especially when discussing current social and political issues.
NFL Players Kneeling: A Leftist Agenda: The NFL kneeling controversy was orchestrated by the left to discredit America and promote their agenda against freedom.
The ongoing debate surrounding NFL players kneeling during the national anthem was orchestrated by the radical left to discredit America and advance their agenda against liberty, conservatism, and economic freedom. Colin Kaepernick, who initiated the protest, wore controversial items like socks depicting cops as pigs and a t-shirt celebrating a communist killer. The left is now attempting to reframe the issue as a power inequity, even comparing it to slavery, but this comparison is discredited and absurd. The NFL's involvement in this protest was a result of being manipulated by the radical left. The energy industry's problem was addressed with the creation of Dawn to Dusk, a time-release energy product that provides a consistent energy boost throughout the day. This product, available at brickhousenutrition.com/Dan, is a must-try for anyone who needs to stay focused and productive.
Media's biased narrative on Trump's tax cuts: Economists question tax cuts' ability to spur growth and provide new revenue, yet media repeats discredited arguments about debt and deficits, ignoring economic impact of tax cuts
The ongoing argument over Trump's tax cuts has seen the media acting as a mouthpiece for the left's narrative, with many Democrats repeating the same discredited arguments about debt and deficits. However, as the speaker points out, many economists question the theory that tax cuts can spur economic growth and provide new revenue, even if deficit-financed. It's surprising that a reputable journalistic outlet like the LA Times would fail to acknowledge this simple fact. The speaker also criticizes the left for trying to reframe the debate around debt and deficits, when the real issue is the economic impact of the tax cuts. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of factual accuracy and critical thinking in political debates.
Tax Cuts Don't Decrease Federal Revenue: Tax cuts don't decrease federal revenue in the long term. Verify this with tax tables and basic arithmetic.
Tax cuts do not lead to decreases in federal tax revenue in the long term, contrary to what some may claim. The speaker encourages listeners to fact-check and consult tax tables to verify this for themselves. He argues that it's simple to access this information and challenges those who make such claims without proper knowledge or evidence. The speaker also criticizes the tendency of some individuals, particularly those on the left, to use academic credentials to bolster their arguments. He emphasizes that basic arithmetic and accessible data are sufficient to debunk such claims.
Criticizing Academic Elitism and Hypocrisy in Policy Analysis: Speaker criticizes Paul Krugman for using jargon and ignoring basic facts, calls out Tax Policy Center for hypocrisy, and highlights inconsistency in liberal policies on immigration and labor. Upcoming story discusses international debt and the risks of low interest rates.
The speaker expresses frustration towards individuals who excessively tout their academic credentials and use jargon, such as economist Paul Krugman, who was criticized for not knowing basic economic facts. The speaker also criticizes the Tax Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, for being hypocritical in their skepticism towards the White House's tax plan estimates while ignoring historical evidence. The speaker also points out the inconsistency of liberal policies regarding immigration and labor. Lastly, the speaker mentions an upcoming story about international debt and the precarious situation caused by the fascination with government debt and low interest rates.
Trump's Transparent Approach to Government Failures: The Trump presidency's direct and honest approach to addressing government failures is a refreshing change, allowing the public to see issues in a new light and prioritize policy changes accordingly.
The Trump presidency has exposed the failure of the government through direct and unfiltered communication. This is a departure from past administrations where government failures were often covered up or excused. Trump's willingness to call out failures, such as the North Korean and Iran deals, and revoke policies like the Clean Power Plan, has allowed the American public to see these issues in a new light. This direct and honest approach is a significant benefit of the Trump presidency, according to the Washington Examiner article discussed. The article also notes that Trump's lack of allegiance to big donors allows him to speak his mind without concern for political correctness. Overall, the Trump presidency's transparency in addressing government failures is a refreshing change from past administrations.
Dismantling the power of media, academia, and Hollywood: Trump's presidency has questioned media credibility, exposed government failures, and challenged dominant narratives, leading to a potential cultural realignment within the Republican Party.
Donald Trump's presidency has dismantled the perceived power and illusion of knowledge held by the media, academia, and Hollywood. Trump's unapologetic approach to politics, free from donor pressure, has exposed the failures of the government and challenged the dominant narratives of these institutions. The media's credibility has been questioned due to their biased reporting, and the Weinstein scandal and Hollywood's constant attacks on Trump have further eroded their moral authority. The illusion of knowledge and expertise once held by these influential groups is collapsing, leading to a shift in power dynamics and potentially paving the way for a cultural realignment within the Republican Party.
Dan thanks listeners for support and engagement: Dan values listener feedback and encourages engagement with his content on various platforms
Dan Bongino expresses his gratitude to his listeners for their support, whether it be through iTunes reviews, email subscriptions, or following him on social media. He encourages everyone to continue engaging with his content on various platforms such as conservativereview.com, iTunes, SoundCloud, and Twitter. Furthermore, Dan reminds his audience that they have been instrumental in helping his show reach nearly 700 subscribers on iTunes. He values their feedback and looks forward to continuing the conversation with them. Overall, Dan's message emphasizes the importance of community and engagement in consuming and sharing content. He encourages his listeners to stay informed and involved in the political discourse by following him and engaging with his content.
![Episode 20: The [Un]Sanctioned Citizen Podcast](https://www.podcastworld.io/podcast-images/un-sanctioned-citizen-tq1y0mdf.webp)
