Joe Rogan answers Twitter questions, tells Ana Kasparian whether or not he would ever run for office, discusses Occupy Wall St. and and much more in part 2 of this interview.
This is part 2 of 6. Watch part 1 of this interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fNssOObK88&list=PLI78H8HSUNimwRdoB7b1B-Rfjl9C3sf75&index=1
Click to subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=townsquare
The Point with Ana Kasparian is a smart and fast-paced panel show giving you a weekly round up of the hottest stories of the week. Each week Ana sits down with some of your favorite hosts from The Young Turks and other interesting personalities that each bring their unique perspectives on everything from news to pop culture.
+Simon Keel Look at the definition of "republic." It involves a "chief/head of state" who is to represent the people. This can include a representational democracy. Direct democracy is not representational democracy. One form (though there are other forms) of "anarchism" is direct democracy. Certainly he is advocating democracy without corporate influence (that's not the definition of "republic") but at points he is also advocating democracy without representatives, i.e., a direct (non-representational) democracy.
they need to set up an olympics and the winner is president, the government is shit and corrupt no matter how many people vote they will just make up numbers and manipulate it to who they want as the next puppet, like Obama to push forward the NAACP movement and make the people feel like the minorities have more power or what have you
+Guard Passer Would you, lol ? I bet your gym is hot trash based on the way you carry yourself. You type like a 5th grade, Iraqi, car bomb survivor. You clearly don't understand something as rudimentary as sentence casing (since you are so adamant about composition). Before you comment on someones way of expression through text, how about you learn to type on a 6th grade level yourself, you minimum wage, couch potato. Go back to sleep. Perhaps have someone help you type your next response as well. At least if you intend on anyone who doesn't speak IQ 50 to understand you & take you seriously.
"The internet is the best way to govern things"?!! WTF?!! Joe, you have gone off the fucking deep end. You HAVE to have a president, you have to have politicians, because there have to be decisions made. If we didn't have someone to make decisions, even bad one like Bush made, then we'd be in a state of complete chaos and nothing would ever get done, and that's even worse than the "gridlock" that exists today. Which isn't really gridlock at all, it's just that the things that do get done are not reported on, and pass with little opposition quietly so neither side can bitch about it.
Even things that do get done, like the iran deal, was really supported by everyone, even the Israelis, because they know it is better than nothing, yet must publicly oppose it to brainwash their base.
+Gerroditus "Even things which were formerly all but rubber stamped, like paying our bills, have become items of insane contention."
Not really. What has happened is that shit is much more public now because of the internet, so they stage these political footballs to manipulate the populace. Notice how they always come up with a compromise at the last second. The politicians have learned to game the system where they get maximum media coverage,and the polarization actually helps each politician politically, because people will support their respective sides much more when these fights take place, thus perpetuating the incumbancy effect and the two party hegemony.
Again, take the iran deal. The vote that the republicans were supposed to have to gut it suspiciously never happened, because they wanted it to go through, but at the same time they needed to please their right wing base by opposing everything Obama does publicly.
Politics is very crude at heart, so it's easy to easy the overall trends that are happening if you look, but also easy to overlook if you just take media at face value.
+wiremessiah The idea of cyber-democracy is interesting and on a smaller level, like county wide, it would probably work far better than what we have now, but anything much beyond that would likely become to unwieldy. I disagree that we need someONE to make decisions. There are plenty of governments that don't rely on the top man concept. Austria doesn't, and while far from perfect the government more or less works, where the US government definitively does NOT work any more.
There were fewer laws passed by this last congress than by any congress in history...by design. And it wasn't marginally less, it was a stark comparison to the way we used to work. Even things which were formerly all but rubber stamped, like paying our bills, have become items of insane contention.
Yeah, SkyNet would be a horrible president. If you don't like the system, then vote out the dumb-asses fucking everything up. One of the worst things we Americans do is not vote and then bitch about our politicians running amok.
+TheFubbick maybe on a national level yeah but on a local level turnover on politicians does matter. some of them run unopposed after major scandals. if they lost there jobs more often it would make a difference at a local level. the whole system is broken for sure though. need to get money out of politics. lobbyists make corporations run the system under the current laws its legal bribery.
+Brendan Done Who do you think controls the elections? Do you really think that the people in real power would let their power and wealth be jeopardized by the whims of the people on election day? No,while they rig it all in their favour and earn another billion on the side, they make it look like your voice matters in society at election times just to shut you up. Duh.
I get your point but people are getting way too sensitive about race these days and throw the race card around at anything questionable, but it doesn't mean racism. A lot of prejudiced people are called racist.
That said, I wouldn't worry about Trump getting "destroyed by Hillary" more like that are both on top and it will come down to who do Americans trust in leading our country forward. This is by no means a clear win for either party but left and right folks are sick of the PC tyranny and Hillary is a veteran.
Of course his racism does not "trump" his greed. No one is claiming that. That's like saying slave owners were too racist to have black slaves. It's absurd.
Trump is getting destroyed by hillary, no matter what you think, in 7 out of 7 polls. He's dead with latinos. Get used to madame president.
I don't think he's a true racist. He hires black and Latinos all the time. He might be prejudice or like a lot of people "culturalist" as in they should assimilate to our culture & values. Also his reach is getting wider with former democrats supporting his campaign now and his numbers are closer to 40% than 35 which is more than enough to win the GOP nomination but will have to battle Hillary for the presidency and she is losing some keys states like NH & FL.
No, he is just playing to racism and baser instincts an jingoism, which is resonating with the right wing only. He only has about 35% of republican support, which is not enough to win.
So I saw the title and was terrified until about 20secs in. I mean we have enough ignorant fucks in office now we don't need a whatever he considers himself. I think somehow he thinks of himself as a comedian but that description is wildly inaccurate.
why not a government website that you have to sign into with your social security number, and there's a selection of topics that you vote on. it seems overly simple, but that's the point. fuck the republic.
+James Murphy (MartyVendetta27) I also thought Iceland was attempting something like that... a form of direct democracy, voting on issues, through the Internet... I think it's a way to bypass corporate funding.
+James Murphy (MartyVendetta27) too manipulatable. If you watch the show "Mr. Robot", which is very good, it shows the thinness of hacker culture and "ethics". Hackers love to compromise systems just because they can, then worry about justifying them later. They have no real objectives and do not think about the real consequences of their actions, they, like any politicians, just want power, and he only reason we don't have complete chaos and cyber armageddon is because of the gov't protection against foreign hackers. Otherwise you bank acct would be drained and you would not be able to buy anything on the internet or even use the internet.
The only reason you are able to complain and say the republic doesn't work is because you live under the comfort and protection of it. You are basically saying what any teenage uneducated punk says about anarchy and fuck the govt and all that, while at the same time living in their parents house and enjoying all the benefits of running water, electricity, cable, internet, and police protection against would be robbers and bandits that we all take for granted.
Like it or not, the democratic republic is the best system there is or ever will be.
I'm a huge JRE fan but his ignorance in this video is disgusting. It is voter apathy that has allowed our government to reach its current state and more voter apathy will only continue it on the path it is on. Joe Rogan carelessly says that the system is broken and that we need to build a better system. That is what being a proactive member of the USA is all about. Our government at its best is constantly being improved through constitutional amendments and judicial decisions. Voter Apathy allows voter id laws to be instilled in the south, and this money in politics to happen unabated. If you don't like the system Joe, make your voice be heard. Stop spouting this "system is broken" bullshit and offering "the internet" as an alternative to the best government that has ever existed.
It's funny how in Joe's podcast he's mentions from time to time about how female broadcasters in major media sometimes wear scantily outfits, which almost makes the news they are reporting obsolete. Meanwhile, he's being interviewed by a woman who's wearing such an outfit.
BTW, in order to avoid trolls, I'll make the disclaimer that I don't even care who's wearing what; why don't men interviewers wear only their boxer shorts in that case (that's a rhetorical question BTW)? But yeah I guess I could agree that there's a time and place for everything, and that includes when to wear certain clothes.
You need a lesson in contex.
The brodcasters hes refering to are there for an agenda written for them. Ana gets to ask her own questions and doesnt have someone telling her to dress or act a certain way.
5:55 - replace the word "Occupy" with "Teaparty" and what she said was actually true. Occupy was given lavish attention by the media, praised by the President, and supported by Democrats in Congress. They discredited themselves because they were idiots who didn't have any solutions to their problems and they kept beating people up.
Just right Joe, don't know if you have me that idea with your podcast or if it's just zeitgiest.. how the Fuck it that spelled? Anyway that makes perfect sense with open source and open code so anyone can check if the system is being messed with.
Its not that people dont believe in the system. There's a direct correlation between standard of living and voter turnout. We're so damn rich (relative to the rest of the world) no one gives a shit about voting.
I dont think the system has EVER been in the interest of the people. I think that politicians and "the people" have a completely different definition for democracy and always have. The idea of american democracy might just be bullshit propaganda thats designed to keep the house of cards from falling.
WAY too many people in the U.S.A. & too much diversity for a small group of idiots & thieves to be trying to run it ... the federal gvt should be abolished by letting each state govern themselves - things would run smoother, no need for the feds
Ana is the anti joe rogan. She hates everything he stands for. She calls libertarians kooks, gun owners have small dicks, and his friends are psychos, including Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul & Rand Paul and Alex Jones. (They probably think Joe is a psycho too). She's also a feminist, something Joe Rogan actually smacked the shit out of.
Of course her and Cenk always puss out when they're confronted face to face and kiss ass. Then go back to talking shit when they're gone.
People always mention Occupy as the prime example of a counter-culture movement, but the Zeitgeist movement is a bigger, older, better example that actually addresses the root causes of social pathology.
Weird interview. Reminds me of college students invigorated by failed political professors. It's cool they are talking about some of these things, but they offer nothing new to what people have been saying for a long time now. The color scheme is also very distracting, so flushed with Red/Blue. Reminds me of the propaganda news rooms of CNN/Fox.
Aha... finally see what all you arse-clowns are selling.
Technocracy veered Scientific Dictatorship: Nicely played.
And most will gobble that crap up as a logical and rationale evolutionary leap towards Utopia.
What's needed is more heart and spine rather than more mind
+T8705 Chill big fella. Don't get your knickers in such a massive knot over the grammar and vocabulary of a Youtube post. Direct that inner rage towards the / a 'nefarious coterie', not some dickwad with a clever non de-plume (oh shit, i did it again) who has a few drinks and goes on a rant on Youtube about the / a 'nefarious coterie'.
(also, you misquoted me. I never said Cotiere. Coterie in the other hand is a common enough to use word meaning a small and exclusive group)
+T8705 I hear you T8705. Verbosity rather than pretentiousness is my strongest defence, combined with a little too much drink. Although if you did manage to make it through to the 'nefarious coterie' part, and was able to quantify the complicated synonyms at least in halves, can I take you read my (self admitted) 'self indulgent, needlessly complicated and pretentious writing' ? Will edit more in the future.
Yeah i've seen the same bollocks in politics here in the UK. Lies perpetrated through mainstream media to help line the pockets of the politicians. At any rate though, I do believe, having watched many of his podcasts, that Joe doesn't try to claim he know's best. He trys to put across an attitude of investigation, talking about topics that most may not and what not. So I do stand up for him. Anna, I don't know much about. I have no opinion on her really.
What I want to see on the table, instead of just another election, is a vote for a different political method. I would like to see a different technique implemented other than this farce of democracy.
And i agree with just about all you are saying. I think we the punter, sit looking slightly incredulous at what a cock-up appears to be unfolding. In Australia is is blatantly obvious especially in my home state of Queensland, that the snout-trough dynamic is at play. We have jokers to the left an right put in charge of actual specialist areas... the environment, public health and energy portfolios, where the minsters and public servants clearly have no expertise.
I guess my point is that i have seen (through many years in local and state government service) 'planners' and 'strategists' who have at their disposal many fantastic theories and ideals, which they want to inflict on the public. Its people who think they know whats good for people, dispensing what they think is good for people, when if fact even many of their scientific positions, are simply subjective positions, or opinions. I guess i question a great deal of scientific opinion as well. I may mark myself as a nut-case, but i have an academic research background, and i question things as fundamental as immunisation, fluoridation, public health advice etc etc. I find few too true skeptics amongst us ( and i mean people who truly question everything) and far too may people who suppose they know best for other people. That might be find for the arrogant uncle we have that turns up at family barbeques and extols their knowledge in all and sundry areas, BUT transposed over positions of civic importance an i start to sweat,
Bottom line though Alex, is that i have come to question whether there is a multi layered and possibly nefarious coterie who might share a common ideology of Scientific Dictatorship philosophy, who may in fact try to persuade people with subterfuge, obfuscation and out and out misdirection to their point of view.
It might sound a tad paranoid, but I call out Ana, Joe, The Young Turks and a host of alleged left leaning sources of news and information as peddling a form of benevolent socialism and nefarious control. I havent come to that opinion quickly, and these are people who i have followed for years, but i now find to be liars and shills for a movement that i have yet been able to put a name to. But it starts with a white anting of current governement (an believe me i am no fan of the current system, or idiots who run it), BUT i am seeing a subtle but firm programme of destruction rather construction. For example, i have fond your George Galloway to be a rouge element questioning and prodding the establishment, but the penny dropped for me when i watched his appearance before a US senate enquiry lead by Norm Coleman some years back. I have watched it numerous times thinking it was a bloody nose for the US an neo-con players, until i realised.....THEY ARE BOTH ON THE SAME SIDE. It was a slow ball for Galloway.... to establish his anti Iraq-war reputation. He hit it out of the park to such an extent that it HAD to be a set up. George Galloway is as bigger shill as any right wing conservative. THAT was the moment that i saw through a litany of my previously admired left leaning pundits. Here Ana and Joe illustrate for me what i being sold to genuinely concerned people like you and me Alex. Our concern for our fellow humans and the System of society are levers for these meglomanical cock-suckers to gain more and more control.
Sorry - souns a bit (alot) ranty, but ive had a gut full of these shills
I agree with some of what you say. But in current circumstances, in UK and USA, our politicians and leaders are not specialist in anything other than politics and mass people manipulation. I think if we could remove these figure heads and remove the possibility for backing from multi-nationals, then these roles will become more noble again and have the potential to attract people with the actual know-how as to how to full fill these roles and act properly.
For instance in the UK our environment minister has obtained his position simply because he is within the winning political parties cabinet. his prior credentials show that he was once a leather baron and before he had this role (I think) he was the traffic minister or some bullshit.
I think the heart and spine needs to come from the people to encourage the politicians to do the same (or vice versa) for sure. In the UK we are definitely lacking that from our leaders. Way too much corruption. (BTW my initial comment was to invoke a more detailed explanation, not to poke fun.)
If they thought our votes actually mattered they wouldnt LET US VOTE! i think it was Mark Twain said something like that. She looks better not behind a desk. I may have only watched this to look at her. I never vote and know lots of people who dont. Plus I dont live in that country anymore because the bad out wieghs the good.
Constitutionally-limited government is a blessing (when the police arrest serial murderers). Unlimited government is a curse (when the police show up to murder or arrest your son, daughter, or best friend for growing pot, fungi, or coca plants). There's currently far more unconstitutional government than constitutionally-limited government.
We need to restore balance, by (1) getting seated on juries and (2) voting not guilty if the defendant is charged with a victimless non-crime. In order to do #1 prior, when you're called to serve as a potential juror (venireman), SHUT UP about your political views, and answer the questions as if you're a servile idiot (the way most people will answer). That's what the judge is looking for. If you grandstand about your beliefs, they send you home and injustice prevails. This sad fact actually accounts for 100% of the prison population in the USA.
Want to change things? Then get smarter than the system.
The problem of "drug bigotry" has arisen from a combination of religiously-motivated social intolerance (which in turn, has roots in jealousy, ignorance, and fear of the unknown), and incorrect conceptions about the effectiveness of top-down, centralized law. Of course, it's illegal and immoral to outlaw any form of private property, but that hasn't stopped the sociopaths and their servile idiots from making a violent mess of society trying.
Hope that helps!
You are correct. Joe Rogan is a slightly inconsistent libertarian who also benefits from his inconsistency, because he looks for real solutions (unlike most libertarians, even those who are more philosophically consistent). Most libertarians don't concern themselves with viable strategy, unlike Spooner and Thoreau, over 150 years ago.
+Grandfather_Din_Racket I know he is very liberty oriented but I have also herd him say that he likes to pay his taxes too. It was when Cenk from TYT was on the show. So I'm not quite sure on where he stands politically.
No, re-read what I wrote. I was referring to reality, not "what's on paper." What is on paper can shape reality, if mechanisms are put in place to do so. If such mechanisms are not put in place, then no change happens.
Whether or not it's "on paper" has no bearing on whether or not it's physically possible.
In fact, democratic principles have often worked, where networks were sufficiently educated to adopt them to a statistically large enough percentage for them to yield a benefit.
+Drug Addicted Pornstar There is no such thing as "representation" from the sociopaths who seek power in a degraded system. In fact, we're neither direct nor representative, we're not a democracy, nor are we any longer a Constitutional Republic. We're drifting rudderless, a central bank plantation of perverse incentives, and lawlessness.
Democratic limits on government power are stronger than republican limits, especially once the culture is dead, and those republican limits (laws, government procedures) are ignored. Democratic limits on government power depend on networks of brains: proper random jury trials, gun ownership, free speech, assembly, free press.
It would be a good experiment to try direct democracy on a smaller scale and see where the problems would lie, and be able to evaluate it against 'representative democracy'.
Probably a college student body would be a good first experiment. Look at existing direct democracy systems -- kibbutzim, 'employee owned' companies, etc. -- then factor in direct voting on policy. (Students are a good choice due to the relative ease of informing them accurately about policy, and conducting useful debate over options. A national scale system of properly informing the people would require a properly functioning media.)
Some interesting thoughts by Joe. I think unfortunately there is no perfect system. America has problems just like any nation in the world has problems. However, I think we've done ok for ourselves. There are worse places and political systems. The concept of America was put together in a similar manner that Joe is suggesting. However, when push comes to shove, to change a political system it almost always has to happen at the end of a bayonet. People would have to give up life, property, family, etc. and at the end of the day what would happen? A new political system with Its own brand of problems and corruption.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.