I actually just signed up for a paid subscription to the Free Press after listening to this specific podcast. While I listened, Khanna seemed refreshing compared to other politicians out there. For example, he seemed to have his own views, intelligent, professional, didn't demonize Conservatives, criticized his own party, etc. And then Bari asked him about President Biden running in 2024 and he says he does supports President Biden running for reelection. Oi vey. Turns out, he is just like the rest of the politicians . No one will stand up and admit Biden (and Trump) are too old to hold the highest office in our country. Khanna would rather have a puppet in office than a Conservative - eyeroll. Honestly.... who out there, would have their own grandparents or even great grandparents running our country? #crickets
Are there limits to the difficulty of questioning that can be posed to a politician? Why not challenge him more on his generic explanation that somehow the average FBI agent is a benevolent actor despite history showing us that is not the case? Not one mention of Russiagate to challenge his view?
It's laughable that ol' Ro thinks that the FBI had to be on the up and up because the current director was Trump appointed. With everything we now know about the FBI via Twitter and whistle-blowers, his assertion is total nonsense. You did a decent job attempting to present him as someone with admirable traits, but I don't buy it. Naturally, my view of him is tainted by his past statements and actions. I fully admit that. This was a useless podcast for me until it is balanced with an interview with Nunes or Jordan.
I really enjoyed this interview. I listened attentively and although there were many things I disagreed with I found myself lauding many things he shared. I found myself scratching my head when he questioned whether conservatives were censored more than liberals on twitter, and also was frustrated when I heard him bring up Jan. 6th and how Trump should have been impeached over that ( and we are now finding out from the Twitter files that many of Trumps tweets on that day were taken down), yet we continue to ignore the riots of 2020 with over 35 people dead, over 1000 police officers injured and tons of federal buildings and businesses destroyed and firebombed. Bari, it would have been nice to hear you push back on that but I just haven't heard that from you. We keep hearing that we want to hear both sides of the story but in so many interviews there is no pushback WITH FACTS of what is truly going on out there. I was delighted to hear that he and Rubio sat down together to write a bill. We need more of the handshaking across the aisle.
I was enjoying the conversation with Khanna, even though I don't align with his policy positions, until he made a side comment. When talking about Twitter's banning of Pres. Trump, he noted that Twitter had not banned "other autocrats" like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran. "Other autocrats?" An autocrat is a ruler with unlimited authority. I hardly think that applied to Pres. Trump. And the aside went unchallenged by Bari. She must have been distracted when he said that. Not like Bari to miss such a ridiculous statement.
It is big news when you find a member of the Democratic Party that doesn’t believe in acting like a fascist these days.
Are we supposed to be excited by this? There are literally hundreds of Republican politicians who came to these conclusions in the face of criticism from just about everyone. Why don’t you champion their voices rather than the one sane Democrat you could find?
I find this a version of “See, the Democrats aren’t as crazy as they seem.” Meanwhile some backhands at republicans during the interview. I guess Bari will always be a lib at heart. Even if she gets trolled by the party she wants to go to.
Is it possible that Bari is already jumping the shark? She’s come so far, but now that the FP is getting to be a big deal it seems like it’s selling out. I’m pretty disillusioned at this point. Can no one keep their integrity intact?
Ro is honest, as far as I can tell. He is well intentioned and intellectually grounded. Also, we should be scared of that kind of corporate power and that IS what the democratic party is supposed to represent. The difference is when power favors one party, that power is deemed ok. This article points out that the issue here is how power itself can be corrupting and should be continually investigated.
I strongly disagree with Bari drawing equivalence between the old woke censorial Twitter regime and Musk prohibiting accounts that broadcast the exact location of targeted individuals. The fact that Musk is asking her opinion on the issue is proof there is NO EQUIVALENCE. Im left to guess she is flexing for moral standing.
So firstly, here I am subscribing to yet another news source that is paywalled, this makes bout 60.00 per month I am spending to get a "balance" of the news from someone other than the MSM. The jury is still out as to whether it is worth it.
Having said that, Bari, I have much respect for your work over the past few years and feel that you are one of the few true journalists out there that at least let both sides speak. This podcast episode was both encouraging and frustrating to me. Bravo to Ro for being the sole elected official to call out Twitter on the consitutional free speech imperative. The frustration for me came when you asked him if he thought it was possible that the FBI had inproperly engaged in preventing the major platforms from allowing the Huter Biden story to be written. I find everyone sees this as so biased about the fact that Trump appointed the head of the FBI , which in this case has no bearing. No one every discusses the fact that by the last year of his presidency literally 75% of Trumps leadership, including the military, CIA, and the FBI had turned against him. So, with that fact in mind, if feels naive and lazy to give the FBI a pass on their telling the social networks what to do with the Hunter Biden Laptop as the majority of people in the administration at that time had nefarious intentions.
The other frustrating theme that is pervasive in literally every single reporting organization, including the neutral ones is the unveiling of the Twitter files is a conservative initiative. Ro said something to that extent in his discussing why the media doesn't speak about these findings, and the historic implications they have for many political elections. Why, when the truth is finally uncovered, in the actual screen shotted emails from the Twitter management, is it call Conservative propaganda. Can't the truth just be the truth? How is this climate ever going to normalize if when something is proven, factually to be the truth, the Twitter Files, the Covid Vaccine efficacy, Russia Gate, etc. that if it is not the progressive narrative it is just a right-wing talking point. Nothing will ever progress, and unity will never be achieved if everyone can't agree on the TRUTH. Hell, we can't even agree on what a woman is which leaves me hopeless for our future.
Lastly, just a comment on the idea that maybe AI could determine algorithmically how to decipher what is appropriate to publish on platforms such as Twitter. I am no expert, but machine learning has to learn it from somewhere. It still requires the system software to learn what is factual and what is not, and then it can make the decision. The phrase "garbage in garbage out" comes to mind. The perfect illustration of this is the criteria Twitter officials used to assign the word " US Patriot" in Trumps tweets to mean inciting violence. So those three people, who are completely biased politically, want to find something in his tweets to justify banning him so they create a new interpretation of the term "US Patriot". It comes down, in the end to the fact that the left has completely redefined and shaped the vocabulary to find chaos where there is none. And why is there a double standard. Antifa, The Squad, and many others on the left have literally called for violence in more blatant terms and yet their voices are elevated not censored.
Listening to the interview, which is fantastic, it seems clear that Khanna is not the free speech champion many think. He advocates that bigotry should be censored on social media platforms. Which introduces the same question that led to where Twitter 1.0 ended up. Someone has to define bigotry. Who gets to do that? What is their political perspective?
The biggest issue being missed in this discussion is how censorship of ideas helps evil people. For example, after the Twitter Files, Donald Trump called for suspending the Constitution on his platform. That appears to have (finally!!) been the death knell for his candidacy (this is like the 100th time I was sure he was finished, so...)
But imagine a world where he was on Twitter and they censored that. Potentially millions of center-right or conservative voters would not have seen that statement and would have no idea just how far gone Trump was. He may still have been a viable candidate and even could have been elected. And would have been in the White House with that view.
Censorship, even of evil ideas, is wrong not just because it can be politically motivated but because it can hide who people truly are. And if there's anything we need to know today, it's who people truly are.
Mark, that is exactly my issue as you have raised it. It seems the left has been given the authority to define what Truth, Bigotry, Racism, etc. mean. As long as our language is being reworked by one side to align with their objectives, I see little hope of us coming together. For example, there is as much racism now against white people as they are suggesting exists against people of color but in their language, racism only means one thing. Another example is the new flippant use of the word "Nazi", they use it, assign it, and label anyone who they don't agree with as one. So, unsettling.
I actually just signed up for a paid subscription to the Free Press after listening to this specific podcast. While I listened, Khanna seemed refreshing compared to other politicians out there. For example, he seemed to have his own views, intelligent, professional, didn't demonize Conservatives, criticized his own party, etc. And then Bari asked him about President Biden running in 2024 and he says he does supports President Biden running for reelection. Oi vey. Turns out, he is just like the rest of the politicians . No one will stand up and admit Biden (and Trump) are too old to hold the highest office in our country. Khanna would rather have a puppet in office than a Conservative - eyeroll. Honestly.... who out there, would have their own grandparents or even great grandparents running our country? #crickets
Are there limits to the difficulty of questioning that can be posed to a politician? Why not challenge him more on his generic explanation that somehow the average FBI agent is a benevolent actor despite history showing us that is not the case? Not one mention of Russiagate to challenge his view?
It's laughable that ol' Ro thinks that the FBI had to be on the up and up because the current director was Trump appointed. With everything we now know about the FBI via Twitter and whistle-blowers, his assertion is total nonsense. You did a decent job attempting to present him as someone with admirable traits, but I don't buy it. Naturally, my view of him is tainted by his past statements and actions. I fully admit that. This was a useless podcast for me until it is balanced with an interview with Nunes or Jordan.
I really enjoyed this interview. I listened attentively and although there were many things I disagreed with I found myself lauding many things he shared. I found myself scratching my head when he questioned whether conservatives were censored more than liberals on twitter, and also was frustrated when I heard him bring up Jan. 6th and how Trump should have been impeached over that ( and we are now finding out from the Twitter files that many of Trumps tweets on that day were taken down), yet we continue to ignore the riots of 2020 with over 35 people dead, over 1000 police officers injured and tons of federal buildings and businesses destroyed and firebombed. Bari, it would have been nice to hear you push back on that but I just haven't heard that from you. We keep hearing that we want to hear both sides of the story but in so many interviews there is no pushback WITH FACTS of what is truly going on out there. I was delighted to hear that he and Rubio sat down together to write a bill. We need more of the handshaking across the aisle.
I was enjoying the conversation with Khanna, even though I don't align with his policy positions, until he made a side comment. When talking about Twitter's banning of Pres. Trump, he noted that Twitter had not banned "other autocrats" like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran. "Other autocrats?" An autocrat is a ruler with unlimited authority. I hardly think that applied to Pres. Trump. And the aside went unchallenged by Bari. She must have been distracted when he said that. Not like Bari to miss such a ridiculous statement.
Are you a reporter or a publicist for Dems?
It is big news when you find a member of the Democratic Party that doesn’t believe in acting like a fascist these days.
Are we supposed to be excited by this? There are literally hundreds of Republican politicians who came to these conclusions in the face of criticism from just about everyone. Why don’t you champion their voices rather than the one sane Democrat you could find?
I find this a version of “See, the Democrats aren’t as crazy as they seem.” Meanwhile some backhands at republicans during the interview. I guess Bari will always be a lib at heart. Even if she gets trolled by the party she wants to go to.
Is it possible that Bari is already jumping the shark? She’s come so far, but now that the FP is getting to be a big deal it seems like it’s selling out. I’m pretty disillusioned at this point. Can no one keep their integrity intact?
Ro is honest, as far as I can tell. He is well intentioned and intellectually grounded. Also, we should be scared of that kind of corporate power and that IS what the democratic party is supposed to represent. The difference is when power favors one party, that power is deemed ok. This article points out that the issue here is how power itself can be corrupting and should be continually investigated.
I strongly disagree with Bari drawing equivalence between the old woke censorial Twitter regime and Musk prohibiting accounts that broadcast the exact location of targeted individuals. The fact that Musk is asking her opinion on the issue is proof there is NO EQUIVALENCE. Im left to guess she is flexing for moral standing.
So firstly, here I am subscribing to yet another news source that is paywalled, this makes bout 60.00 per month I am spending to get a "balance" of the news from someone other than the MSM. The jury is still out as to whether it is worth it.
Having said that, Bari, I have much respect for your work over the past few years and feel that you are one of the few true journalists out there that at least let both sides speak. This podcast episode was both encouraging and frustrating to me. Bravo to Ro for being the sole elected official to call out Twitter on the consitutional free speech imperative. The frustration for me came when you asked him if he thought it was possible that the FBI had inproperly engaged in preventing the major platforms from allowing the Huter Biden story to be written. I find everyone sees this as so biased about the fact that Trump appointed the head of the FBI , which in this case has no bearing. No one every discusses the fact that by the last year of his presidency literally 75% of Trumps leadership, including the military, CIA, and the FBI had turned against him. So, with that fact in mind, if feels naive and lazy to give the FBI a pass on their telling the social networks what to do with the Hunter Biden Laptop as the majority of people in the administration at that time had nefarious intentions.
The other frustrating theme that is pervasive in literally every single reporting organization, including the neutral ones is the unveiling of the Twitter files is a conservative initiative. Ro said something to that extent in his discussing why the media doesn't speak about these findings, and the historic implications they have for many political elections. Why, when the truth is finally uncovered, in the actual screen shotted emails from the Twitter management, is it call Conservative propaganda. Can't the truth just be the truth? How is this climate ever going to normalize if when something is proven, factually to be the truth, the Twitter Files, the Covid Vaccine efficacy, Russia Gate, etc. that if it is not the progressive narrative it is just a right-wing talking point. Nothing will ever progress, and unity will never be achieved if everyone can't agree on the TRUTH. Hell, we can't even agree on what a woman is which leaves me hopeless for our future.
Lastly, just a comment on the idea that maybe AI could determine algorithmically how to decipher what is appropriate to publish on platforms such as Twitter. I am no expert, but machine learning has to learn it from somewhere. It still requires the system software to learn what is factual and what is not, and then it can make the decision. The phrase "garbage in garbage out" comes to mind. The perfect illustration of this is the criteria Twitter officials used to assign the word " US Patriot" in Trumps tweets to mean inciting violence. So those three people, who are completely biased politically, want to find something in his tweets to justify banning him so they create a new interpretation of the term "US Patriot". It comes down, in the end to the fact that the left has completely redefined and shaped the vocabulary to find chaos where there is none. And why is there a double standard. Antifa, The Squad, and many others on the left have literally called for violence in more blatant terms and yet their voices are elevated not censored.
Listening to the interview, which is fantastic, it seems clear that Khanna is not the free speech champion many think. He advocates that bigotry should be censored on social media platforms. Which introduces the same question that led to where Twitter 1.0 ended up. Someone has to define bigotry. Who gets to do that? What is their political perspective?
The biggest issue being missed in this discussion is how censorship of ideas helps evil people. For example, after the Twitter Files, Donald Trump called for suspending the Constitution on his platform. That appears to have (finally!!) been the death knell for his candidacy (this is like the 100th time I was sure he was finished, so...)
But imagine a world where he was on Twitter and they censored that. Potentially millions of center-right or conservative voters would not have seen that statement and would have no idea just how far gone Trump was. He may still have been a viable candidate and even could have been elected. And would have been in the White House with that view.
Censorship, even of evil ideas, is wrong not just because it can be politically motivated but because it can hide who people truly are. And if there's anything we need to know today, it's who people truly are.
Mark, that is exactly my issue as you have raised it. It seems the left has been given the authority to define what Truth, Bigotry, Racism, etc. mean. As long as our language is being reworked by one side to align with their objectives, I see little hope of us coming together. For example, there is as much racism now against white people as they are suggesting exists against people of color but in their language, racism only means one thing. Another example is the new flippant use of the word "Nazi", they use it, assign it, and label anyone who they don't agree with as one. So, unsettling.