Podcast Summary
Left's belief in ends justifying means leads to extreme actions: The left's ideology justifies extreme actions to obtain power, while the right values individual rights and non-violence.
According to Dan Bongino, the radical left's ideology is based on the belief that the ends justify the means, and they will go to extreme lengths, including violence, to obtain state power. This contrasts with the right's belief in individual rights and the importance of not harming others. A listener, who identifies as liberal, acknowledged in an email that liberals generally don't resort to violence and lack the stamina for prolonged conflict. Another listener, a PhD in applied behavioral analysis, suggested that the left's recent behavior, including their response to political events, could be considered an "extinction burst" - a pattern of behavior that emerges when a typical response is no longer rewarded.
Left's reaction to political losses leads to irrational aggression: The left's use of derogatory labels to defeat opponents can lead to an 'extinction burst' of irrational and aggressive behavior, which eventually dies down.
The use of derogatory labels like "Nazi," "racist," "misogynist," etc., by the left as a tactic to defeat political opponents has led to an "extinction burst" of irrational and aggressive behavior when their expected electoral victories are thwarted. This behavior includes violent attacks on the media machine and individuals, but eventually exhausts itself. The use of this tactic backfired when Donald J. Trump emerged as a political figure, and the left's extinction burst was directed towards him. This behavior is a clustered pattern of irrational aggression that is a natural response to the failure of prior actions. It's important to note that extinction bursts eventually die down, and there are stories of liberalism eating itself in New York City, which is an example of this phenomenon. Brick House Nutrition's Foundation creatine ATP pills can provide mental clarity and improved physical performance, as mentioned by the speaker before the show.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters' call for confrontation damages party reputation: The Mueller investigation focuses on Eric Prince for unknown reasons, possibly related to information that could impact the probe, while Maxine Waters' call for confrontation harms the Democratic Party's reputation
Maxine Waters' call for public confrontation and harassment of Trump administration officials was met with criticism from within the Democratic Party, damaging her reputation and potentially the party as a whole. Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation is focusing on Eric Prince, and while the reason for this is unclear, it's likely related to what information Prince may have that could impact the probe. It's important to note that the Mueller probe's primary goal is not to find Russian collusion, as there is no evidence to support that claim. Instead, the investigation may be looking for other potential wrongdoings or information that could be used against Trump or his associates.
Allegations of Mueller investigation covering up for Clinton misdeeds: Some see Mueller probe as an attempt to silence those with info on potential Clinton misconduct within FBI, DOJ, and Clinton Foundation
The ongoing Mueller investigation is seen by some as an attempt to cover up for Hillary Clinton's alleged misdeeds by targeting individuals with connections to her and the Clinton Foundation. These individuals are believed to have information about potential misconduct within the FBI, DOJ, and the Clintons. Eric Prince, for instance, was targeted due to his knowledge of the NYPD's discovery of damaging emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop, which contained information on criminal activities by Hillary Clinton and her inner circle. The NYPD planned to go public with this information but faced pushback from the Justice Department, leading some to suspect that the Mueller investigation is an effort to silence those with damaging information against the Clintons.
NYPD and FBI found Hillary Clinton's missing emails on Weiner's computer: Before the 2016 election, law enforcement agencies discovered Hillary Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's computer, but were pressured to drop the case. Mueller's investigation targets those with Clinton Foundation ties to prevent corruption exposure within the DOJ and FBI.
Former Blackwater CEO Eric Prince claimed on a podcast that before the 2016 election, the NYPD and FBI discovered Hillary Clinton's missing emails on Anthony Weiner's computer, but were pressured by the DOJ to drop the case. Mueller's investigation is not focused on Trump but on those with ties to the Clinton Foundation to prevent the exposure of potential corruption within the DOJ and FBI. Mueller's role is seen as a cleanup effort, as the Clinton Foundation schemes would reveal high-level corruption if exposed. Prince is not the only one targeted, as Victor Pinchuk, a Clinton Foundation donor, was also investigated for a six-figure speaking fee to Trump. The Justice Department, with Obama holdovers, is believed to be working to clean up the operation. Prince's claim of NYPD findings on Clinton's emails adds to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the role of the DOJ and FBI during the election.
George Nader facilitated a meeting between Eric Prince and Russian executive Karel Demetriev in Seychelles before Trump's inauguration: Businessman George Nader, granted limited immunity by Mueller, facilitated a potentially significant meeting between Eric Prince and Russian executive Karel Demetriev during the presidential transition period, raising questions about potential Russian influence and cooperation.
Well-connected businessman George Nader, who has been granted limited immunity by Mueller and has been interviewed multiple times, facilitated a meeting between Eric Prince and Russian sovereign wealth fund CEO Karel Demetriev in the Seychelles just before Trump's inauguration. Notably, two Clinton bundlers previously represented the Russia Direct Investment Fund, which Demetriev heads. The meeting between Prince and Demetriev came to light after it was revealed that Nader, a representative of the United Arab Emirates, was involved in the Seychelles meeting and was cooperating with Mueller's probe. The timing and participants of this meeting suggest that it may have been a setup, with Mueller now investigating Prince's role in the matter. Catherine Rumbler, one of Nader's attorneys, has stated that reports of Nader fleeing are false, and he continues to travel between the U.S. and UAE.
Lawyer with Obama ties represented key figure in Trump-Russia allegations: A lawyer with past scandals during Obama's presidency represented a figure involved in a Trump-Russia meeting and was urged by Mueller's team to investigate Trump team members to prevent them from revealing information.
During the 2016 presidential election, there were allegations of counterintelligence activities aimed at the Trump team, and Catherine Rumbler, a lawyer with close ties to former President Barack Obama, represented a key figure in these activities. Rumbler, who was previously involved in various scandals during Obama's presidency, represented George Nader, who set up a meeting between Eric Prince and a Russian connected to Clinton Bundlers in April 2016. Later, Robert Mueller's team reportedly urged Rumbler to launch criminal investigations into Trump team members, including Prince, to prevent them from revealing details about the Clinton email investigation and the alleged entrapment operation. The interconnected roles of Rumbler, Obama, and key figures in the Trump and Clinton camps add to the complexity of the Russia investigation and fuel conspiracy theories.
The importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases: Circumstantial evidence can build strong cases, even without a confession, and contradictions in beliefs should be acknowledged and addressed.
Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in building criminal cases, often forming the foundation for prosecutions even without a confession from the accused. This was emphasized during the discussion, using the example of a person found at a crime scene with no other witnesses present except for the accused and the victim. The speaker also highlighted the hypocrisy of some individuals, particularly those who support socialism, who advocate for government control of resources but also seek to make a living for themselves. The speaker found it ironic that some of these individuals have emailed or tweeted demanding the right to make a living, seemingly unaware of the contradiction with their socialist beliefs.
Inconsistency between personal actions and advocated policies raises questions: Supporting socialist policies while refusing to live by them can call authenticity into question. Real-world examples show destructive effects of socialism and importance of long-term consequences.
The inconsistency between advocating for socialist policies while refusing to personally live by those same standards raises questions about the authenticity of such beliefs. The discussion also highlighted several instances where government-run, single-payer healthcare systems have failed due to unsustainable costs and lack of accountability. The ability for some individuals in the U.S. to avoid directly experiencing the negative consequences of these policies may contribute to their continued support for them. However, real-world examples from California, the UK, and Venezuela demonstrate the destructive effects of socialism and the importance of considering the long-term consequences of our political choices.
Liberal policies and their unsustainable costs: Liberal policies can be appealing when costs are hidden, but their unsustainable nature can lead to downfall through taxation, government bankruptcy, or loss of life
Liberal policies, as advocated by figures like Bernie Sanders, can appear more appealing when those promoting them are insulated from their costs. However, this insulation is unsustainable, and when people are forced to bear the consequences of these policies, liberalism can lead to its own downfall. This downfall can manifest in various ways, such as through taxation leading to mass exodus of income and wealth, bankruptcy of governments in providing services like healthcare and education, or even the loss of lives due to lack of cost and quality control. A recent story from New York highlights this issue, but it is not unique to that location.
Mayor de Blasio's plan to scrap NY specialized high school admission test: Mayor de Blasio's attempt to eliminate merit-based test for elite schools sparks protests and backlash from Asian community, raising concerns about identity politics and socialism's impact on fair education opportunities.
The New York specialized high school admission test is an objective measure for students to get into elite schools based on their cognitive abilities and academic achievements. However, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, a socialist, aimed to scrap the test due to the high number of Asian students getting in. This decision was met with opposition from the Asian community, leading to protests and backlash from Asian Democrats. The issue highlights the potential unfairness and costs of identity politics and socialism in education, as it can limit opportunities for certain groups based on ethnicity and merit. The incident underscores the importance of equal opportunities for all students to compete objectively and on a level playing field.
Socialism's Impact on Middle Class and Hidden Costs: Despite job losses in some sectors, AI and robotics may not render us jobless. Instead, they could create new industries and opportunities. Be cautious of fear-mongering and consider the bigger picture.
Socialism disproportionately affects the middle class, while the wealthy find ways to protect themselves. The hidden costs eventually become impossible to ignore, leading to a backlash against liberal policies. A cautionary tale comes from the agricultural sector, where automation and productivity gains led to job losses. However, unlike food, there's no limit to our consumption of consumer goods. The fear that artificial intelligence and robotics will render us jobless is overblown. Instead, we should focus on the potential for these technologies to create new industries and opportunities. Ultimately, it's important to question the assumptions behind such warnings and consider the bigger picture.
Recognizing the potential value of new innovations: New technologies and innovations do not lead to economic stagnation but create new opportunities and demands, as shown by the manufacturing sector's continued growth despite increased productivity.
Productivity and technological advancements, rather than leading to economic stagnation, open up new opportunities and create new demands. Using the example of whale blubber, which was once considered a waste product but later became a valuable resource, the speaker emphasizes the importance of recognizing the potential value of new innovations and technologies. The manufacturing sector, which has seen a significant increase in productivity over the past few decades, is a testament to this. Despite producing twice as much with the same workforce, the number of jobs has only decreased by 10%. This is not a sign of economic stagnation, but rather an indication of the continuous creation of new products and industries. The speaker encourages listeners not to fall for the idea of secular stagnation, which suggests that the economy will stagnate due to a lack of new inventions, and instead, embrace the potential of future advancements.
