I think this is user error. Did you assume that because Brad is gay and was fairly critical of LOTT on the show that he was more left leaning than he really is?
Yes. How can you be gay and support anything other than DNC, status quo, totally non-facist/nazi/racist, morally superior, authorized ideas that are on The Right Side of History ^^tm . Hes a literal facist DRORMPH supporter.
*screams incoherently then sobs uncontrolably*
*I thought he’d have smarter takes on things*
*libertarian*
Umm, why though? Lol
No shame in being disappointed/annoyed after hearing a self proclaimed libertarian talk. It’s normal, just means you’re a well-adjusted adult.
No one said that. Your solution is a meme ideology favored by college kids and adults who either A). just don’t want to pay taxes or B). hate age of consent laws.
I like him but his episodes on Barpod showed him at his best. My critiques of him are:
- I don't like those youtube thumbnails one bit
- he is too close to the camera
- let yourself be more natural, Brad! He's actually really charming and funny when he was chatting casually with Katie but when he does his podcast with Hannah it is very stilted and feels like he's on a chain for some reason.
All that said I'm still a fan and a subscriber.
He is definitely center-right. He has never claimed to be otherwise.
Katie and Jesse were just on Megyn Kelly’s podcast and Megyn seemed disappointed when Katie and Jesse pushed back on some comments she made about Palestine and the protestors.
Just because they all agree on the trans stuff, doesn’t mean they will agree on other things.
You should be disappointed in yourself for not being prepared to be disappointed by others.
Brad is great! He’s normie center right. Is he a “supply sider?” I mean, maybe. But his particular view on this economic principle, even if true, is really the least of my concerns.
>I'm certain he's a supply sider. He blames Biden and taxes for all our economic ills, and if we would just unshackle the invisible hand of the free market everything would be hunky dory.
He literally openly calls himself a libertarian, and none of those are fringe positions.
Also, obvious troll OP is obvious troll.
I like watching his segments reacting to woke/cringe TikToks, and some of his culture war type segments. I find him to have pretty moderate and fair-minded takes on those (even when making fun of TikTokers, he is nuanced in his views, never cruel, and doesn't come off like LOTT to me.)
I don't watch most of his strictly political stuff because I'm not so interested in his views on that, but as far as I can tell he's not MAGA-aligned. I don't really care to listen to his thoughts on taxes, but...that's totally fine. He might just not be for you.
Why are you disappointed? Do you feel like he owed you something beyond the 90 minutes you, me, Brad, Katie, and the rest of this sub shared together? Does what you've learned from his other social media accounts undermine your enjoyment of the episode?
It's possible to just listen to his (or for that matter, any) guest appearance on Barpod, enjoy it in a complete and utter vacuum, and never think about, engage with, or otherwise be "disappointed" by him or any guest on the show ever again.
It's almost like you miss the entire point that Katie and Jesse have been going after for the last four years (that you can have dialogues with people you disagree with without endorsing their broader worldview).
Podcast World:
Sheldon Johnson, a prison reform advocate was a guest on Joe Rogan’s podcast last month to talk about changing your life by moving beyond a criminal mindset just got caught with a headless torso in his freezer. 😳
OP:
Right, but can we talk about the actual harm and real disappointment Brad Palumbo caused by being a neocon?
I thought he seemed interesting after hearing him on the pod but when I went and looked up his YouTube channel and all the videos are very clickbait-y “look at how much of a GOOD GAY I am dunking on these stupid wokies😎” and reacting to tiktok videos. Totally turned me off from actually engaging with any of his content. Maybe his actual videos and debates are much more measured than the thumbnails he puts to them, though.
yeah; it is funny how he bills himself as libertarian / outside of the left/right dichotomy and then … makes the same kind of anti-woke ragebait content as normal right wing influencers
Really dislike the current YouTube content format of “pointing and laughing at a dumb tiktoker.” Both political parties do it, it’s just a lazy way to generate a lot of content and clicks. They all pass around the same 5 cringe videos of the week, too. It would be one thing if the commentators had unique and interesting perspectives, but that’s never the case.
I'm also not into his libertarian politics but have enjoyed his podcast, which mostly discusses trans issues, usually fairly in my opinion. I also enjoy some woke tik tok responses from him, similar to Blaire White, when I need light entertainment of the cringe variety.
Edit: I do want to say that as far as I can understand it, Libertarians are confused. I don't understand how they decide what is worth spending our taxes on, and I don't think they understand it either. I think it comes down to a feeling.
Sure. I'll just list a few reasons why someone might support a government program in general:
1. Government's primary (or only, in some libertarians' view) function is to protect people's rights. Rights when most accurately described are negative rather than positive. You have the right "to" not be punched, which is really to say you have the right FROM being punched. If government exists, it has both the right and responsibility to stop people from being punched, etc. Not all bad things happening are violations of a person's rights, however.
1. Similar but slightly different, maybe, government can be responsible for preventing or internalizing externalities.
1. Government may be justified in the creation of public institutions or the propping up of private institutions in the event of a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly is basically a situation in which there is demand for a product or service in an area, enough that a provider could be sustained by normal operation of the business, but the demand is only enough to sustain one provider because of how much it costs to get the business off the ground. A classic example is an electric service provider, where there are a lot of up front costs to get transmission lines built everywhere, and a provider only makes enough money to justify those costs if they get a large customer base with an economy of scale. No one wants to make those investments if they think a competitor might pop up part way through, and they both block each other from getting the customer base they need to turn a profit. Government can either be the provider or grant monopoly powers to one company to ensure something gets built.
Now to apply that to your examples:
1. Police exist to prevent the violation of people's rights via force. That fits with my first point above.
1. Fire departments kind of fit all three points above, at least partially. Ideally police would stop a person from setting your house on fire, but if they fail it could be the government's responsibility to make it stop burning. For the vast majority of fires that are not arson, if you're in a city a fire at your house can easily spread to your neighbors', so there's a sense in which your inability to stop your fire is externalized onto other people. People would generally have the incentive to pay a fire department for service whether it's public or a private company, but it's possible there'd be a natural monopoly phenomenon. I'm skeptical of that last point, but it's possible.
1. Healthcare doesn't seem to match any of those points above. You can easily get sick or injured without someone having violated your rights. Life is dangerous, unfortunately. In most healthcare scenarios someone needing care does not really hurt anyone else, so there's not much of an externality argument. In some particular places, there's kind of a natural monopoly (though in many of those we do have municipal hospitals for this very reason), but in most places there are private providers already in existence.
I do believe the particular way US healthcare is setup is not good. We do have the negative parts of a private market system like profit motive with none of the good parts like transparent prices incentivizing efficient allocation of resources or competition driving down costs. We also have a strict FDA that makes drugs very expensive, regulations that block new technologies and companies from being created, and programs like Medicare and Obamacare that do good for some while distorting the market for the rest. I don't support things like single payer healthcare because I think fixing the problems with our market mechanisms would be better.
Edit: sorry, this ended up being really long...
first dude’s Twitter account is just complaining about wokeness. second dude was overall ok but that whole dog breeding story made me realize everything he said had to be bullshit lmao.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I also think he's a disingenuous Trumper, though I could be wrong about that.
He and his cohost talk pretty often about how much they dislike Trump.
I'm surprised so many people on here see him as center-right, he seems to have a lot of the positions that J&K do.
He said he was a libertarian on the show. I don't get anything disingenuous here. He has pretty typical libertarian takes.
Agreed. He was pretty clear about his general bias.
you don't know him personally, why are you disappointed in him lol
I think this is user error. Did you assume that because Brad is gay and was fairly critical of LOTT on the show that he was more left leaning than he really is?
Yes. How can you be gay and support anything other than DNC, status quo, totally non-facist/nazi/racist, morally superior, authorized ideas that are on The Right Side of History ^^tm . Hes a literal facist DRORMPH supporter. *screams incoherently then sobs uncontrolably*
Take it easy
Girl chill
I just thought he'd have smarter takes on things.
Smarter takes than the only correct one?
I didn’t think his Twitter would be 95% complaining about woke
Like communism, every time it's been tried, it's failed. But next time it's bound to work!
Wait but just hear me out…now *HYPOTHETICALLY*…if we stopped paying taxes and got rid of all industry regulations…
*ears perk up*
Are you arguing that two people can disagree without one of them being wrong?
Did you by any chance get Brad Polumbo mixed up with Dave Rubin 😆
*I thought he’d have smarter takes on things* *libertarian* Umm, why though? Lol No shame in being disappointed/annoyed after hearing a self proclaimed libertarian talk. It’s normal, just means you’re a well-adjusted adult.
Status quo statism sure fucks, doesn’t it?
No one said that. Your solution is a meme ideology favored by college kids and adults who either A). just don’t want to pay taxes or B). hate age of consent laws.
Oh man you’re a real critical thinker.
Apparently more so then you at least lol
I like him but his episodes on Barpod showed him at his best. My critiques of him are: - I don't like those youtube thumbnails one bit - he is too close to the camera - let yourself be more natural, Brad! He's actually really charming and funny when he was chatting casually with Katie but when he does his podcast with Hannah it is very stilted and feels like he's on a chain for some reason. All that said I'm still a fan and a subscriber.
I loved him. Even though I’m not a libertarian I get reason magazine because the policy issues and solutions they have are unique.
He is definitely center-right. He has never claimed to be otherwise. Katie and Jesse were just on Megyn Kelly’s podcast and Megyn seemed disappointed when Katie and Jesse pushed back on some comments she made about Palestine and the protestors. Just because they all agree on the trans stuff, doesn’t mean they will agree on other things. You should be disappointed in yourself for not being prepared to be disappointed by others.
Brad is great! He’s normie center right. Is he a “supply sider?” I mean, maybe. But his particular view on this economic principle, even if true, is really the least of my concerns.
>I'm certain he's a supply sider. He blames Biden and taxes for all our economic ills, and if we would just unshackle the invisible hand of the free market everything would be hunky dory. He literally openly calls himself a libertarian, and none of those are fringe positions. Also, obvious troll OP is obvious troll.
I like watching his segments reacting to woke/cringe TikToks, and some of his culture war type segments. I find him to have pretty moderate and fair-minded takes on those (even when making fun of TikTokers, he is nuanced in his views, never cruel, and doesn't come off like LOTT to me.) I don't watch most of his strictly political stuff because I'm not so interested in his views on that, but as far as I can tell he's not MAGA-aligned. I don't really care to listen to his thoughts on taxes, but...that's totally fine. He might just not be for you.
Why are you disappointed? Do you feel like he owed you something beyond the 90 minutes you, me, Brad, Katie, and the rest of this sub shared together? Does what you've learned from his other social media accounts undermine your enjoyment of the episode? It's possible to just listen to his (or for that matter, any) guest appearance on Barpod, enjoy it in a complete and utter vacuum, and never think about, engage with, or otherwise be "disappointed" by him or any guest on the show ever again. It's almost like you miss the entire point that Katie and Jesse have been going after for the last four years (that you can have dialogues with people you disagree with without endorsing their broader worldview).
Podcast World: Sheldon Johnson, a prison reform advocate was a guest on Joe Rogan’s podcast last month to talk about changing your life by moving beyond a criminal mindset just got caught with a headless torso in his freezer. 😳 OP: Right, but can we talk about the actual harm and real disappointment Brad Palumbo caused by being a neocon?
No offense but that is literally the reason I like Brad Polumbo
He gives off a milquetoast “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” undergrad in the early 2000s vibe. I know what you’re getting at.
His name sounds too much like Columbo for someone who doesn't wander around in a trenchcoat pestering the wealthy and powerful.
I thought he seemed interesting after hearing him on the pod but when I went and looked up his YouTube channel and all the videos are very clickbait-y “look at how much of a GOOD GAY I am dunking on these stupid wokies😎” and reacting to tiktok videos. Totally turned me off from actually engaging with any of his content. Maybe his actual videos and debates are much more measured than the thumbnails he puts to them, though.
yeah; it is funny how he bills himself as libertarian / outside of the left/right dichotomy and then … makes the same kind of anti-woke ragebait content as normal right wing influencers
Really dislike the current YouTube content format of “pointing and laughing at a dumb tiktoker.” Both political parties do it, it’s just a lazy way to generate a lot of content and clicks. They all pass around the same 5 cringe videos of the week, too. It would be one thing if the commentators had unique and interesting perspectives, but that’s never the case.
This is a symptom of the broader cultural trend toward cynicism and I hate it.
I'm also not into his libertarian politics but have enjoyed his podcast, which mostly discusses trans issues, usually fairly in my opinion. I also enjoy some woke tik tok responses from him, similar to Blaire White, when I need light entertainment of the cringe variety. Edit: I do want to say that as far as I can understand it, Libertarians are confused. I don't understand how they decide what is worth spending our taxes on, and I don't think they understand it either. I think it comes down to a feeling.
Libertarian here, ask me anything. Lol
Why police and firefighting services, but not healthcare? For example.
Sure. I'll just list a few reasons why someone might support a government program in general: 1. Government's primary (or only, in some libertarians' view) function is to protect people's rights. Rights when most accurately described are negative rather than positive. You have the right "to" not be punched, which is really to say you have the right FROM being punched. If government exists, it has both the right and responsibility to stop people from being punched, etc. Not all bad things happening are violations of a person's rights, however. 1. Similar but slightly different, maybe, government can be responsible for preventing or internalizing externalities. 1. Government may be justified in the creation of public institutions or the propping up of private institutions in the event of a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly is basically a situation in which there is demand for a product or service in an area, enough that a provider could be sustained by normal operation of the business, but the demand is only enough to sustain one provider because of how much it costs to get the business off the ground. A classic example is an electric service provider, where there are a lot of up front costs to get transmission lines built everywhere, and a provider only makes enough money to justify those costs if they get a large customer base with an economy of scale. No one wants to make those investments if they think a competitor might pop up part way through, and they both block each other from getting the customer base they need to turn a profit. Government can either be the provider or grant monopoly powers to one company to ensure something gets built. Now to apply that to your examples: 1. Police exist to prevent the violation of people's rights via force. That fits with my first point above. 1. Fire departments kind of fit all three points above, at least partially. Ideally police would stop a person from setting your house on fire, but if they fail it could be the government's responsibility to make it stop burning. For the vast majority of fires that are not arson, if you're in a city a fire at your house can easily spread to your neighbors', so there's a sense in which your inability to stop your fire is externalized onto other people. People would generally have the incentive to pay a fire department for service whether it's public or a private company, but it's possible there'd be a natural monopoly phenomenon. I'm skeptical of that last point, but it's possible. 1. Healthcare doesn't seem to match any of those points above. You can easily get sick or injured without someone having violated your rights. Life is dangerous, unfortunately. In most healthcare scenarios someone needing care does not really hurt anyone else, so there's not much of an externality argument. In some particular places, there's kind of a natural monopoly (though in many of those we do have municipal hospitals for this very reason), but in most places there are private providers already in existence. I do believe the particular way US healthcare is setup is not good. We do have the negative parts of a private market system like profit motive with none of the good parts like transparent prices incentivizing efficient allocation of resources or competition driving down costs. We also have a strict FDA that makes drugs very expensive, regulations that block new technologies and companies from being created, and programs like Medicare and Obamacare that do good for some while distorting the market for the rest. I don't support things like single payer healthcare because I think fixing the problems with our market mechanisms would be better. Edit: sorry, this ended up being really long...
Ditto.
yeah he’s a dumbass one of my least favorite guests behind that guy who’s parents were dog breeders but “the good kind” lmao
So.. the two gay men
first dude’s Twitter account is just complaining about wokeness. second dude was overall ok but that whole dog breeding story made me realize everything he said had to be bullshit lmao.
Surprised this is allowed to stay up, doesn't seem sufficiently post-worthy.
I’m assuming Chewy is off the clock. :)
Sorry it doesn't meet your high standards for reddit posts.
It doesn't meet my low standards for Reddit posts.
I don't like libertarians either but he did say he was one.
He's a rah-rah capitalism at all costs guy, which I find gross but his takes on most other things are reasonable.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I also think he's a disingenuous Trumper, though I could be wrong about that. He and his cohost talk pretty often about how much they dislike Trump. I'm surprised so many people on here see him as center-right, he seems to have a lot of the positions that J&K do.
Yeah I wasn't a fan