DiscoverThe Political Scene | The New Yorker
The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Claim Ownership

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Author: WNYC Studios and The New Yorker

Subscribed: 208,257Played: 3,191,765
Share

Description


Join The New Yorker’s writers and editors for reporting, insight, and analysis of the most pressing political issues of our time. On Mondays, David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, presents conversations and feature stories about current events. On Wednesdays, the senior editor Tyler Foggatt goes deep on a consequential political story via far-reaching interviews with staff writers and outside experts. And, on Fridays, the staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos discuss the latest developments in Washington and beyond, offering an encompassing understanding of this moment in American politics.


1267 Episodes
Reverse
Next month, New York City may elect as its next mayor a man who was pretty much unknown to the broader public a year ago. Zohran Mamdan, who is currently thirty-three years old and a member of the State Assembly, is a democratic socialist who won a primary upset against the current mayor, Eric Adams, and the former governor Andrew Cuomo, who was trying to stage a political comeback. Mamdani now leads the race by around twenty percentage points in most polls. His run for mayor is a remarkable story, but it has not been an easy one. His campaign message of affordability—his ads widely tout a rent freeze in the city—resonates with voters, but his call for further taxing the top one per cent of earners has concerned the state’s governor, Kathy Hochul. In Congress, Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have yet to even endorse him. “There are many people who will say housing is a human right, and yet it oftentimes seems as if it is relegated simply to the use of it as a slogan,” Mamdani tells David Remnick at his campaign headquarters, in midtown Manhattan. “It often comes back to whether you’re willing to fight for these ideals that you hold.” Donald Trump, for his part, dubs Mamdani a Communist, and has threatened to withhold federal funds from New York if he’s elected, calling such a vote “a rebellion.” An attack by the President “will be an inevitability,” Mamdani says, noting that the city’s legal department is understaffed for what may be an epic battle to come. “This is an Administration that looks at the flourishing of city life wherever it may be across this country as a threat to their entire political agenda. And New York City looms large in their imagination.” Zohran Mamdani’s campaign was chronicled by Eric Lach, a staff writer covering New York politics and life for The New Yorker. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Washington Roundtable discusses the President’s use of the military for political ends, and the “almost unlimited” powers he would unlock by invoking the Insurrection Act, with Kori Schake, the director of foreign-and-defense-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Donald Trump’s decisions—sending the National Guard into American cities over the objections of local leaders and firing Judge Advocate General’s Corps lawyers who help determine if an order is legal—send a message to the historically apolitical armed forces. “What he’s trying to do is circumvent the disciplined senior leadership and appeal for personal loyalty to the younger, noncommissioned and enlisted soldiers,” Schake says. “The pressure from this Administration—there’s been nothing like it since at least the constitutional crisis of 1866-68.” Schake is the author of the forthcoming book “The State and the Soldier: A History of Civil-Military Relations in the United States.” This week’s reading: “Trump, the Self-Styled ‘President of PEACE’ Abroad, Makes War at Home,” by Susan B. Glasser “Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, and the ‘War from Within,’ ” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “Nixon Now Looks Restrained,” by Ruth Marcus “Hope and Grief in Israel After the Gaza Ceasefire Deal,” by Ruth Margalit “The Volunteers Tracking ICE in Los Angeles,” by Oren Peleg Tune in wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The New Yorker contributing writer Ruth Marcus joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss Donald Trump’s “revenge tour”—his effort to use the levers of government to settle personal and political scores. They talk about the indictment of the former F.B.I. director James Comey, why legal experts see the case against Comey as alarmingly weak, and how Trump’s campaign of retribution has expanded to include prosecutors, lawmakers, and even the families of his critics. They also consider how Trump’s quest for vengeance is testing the limits of American law, and whether the country can avoid a permanent cycle of political retaliation and lawfare.This week’s reading: “The Flimsy, Dangerous Indictment of James Comey,” by Ruth Marcus “What Will Bari Weiss Do to CBS News?,” by Jon Allsop “Who Can Lead the Democrats?,” by Amy Davidson Sorkin “The Volunteers Tracking ICE in Los Angeles,” by Oren Peleg “Why Israel and Hamas Might Finally Have a Deal,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
Robert P. George is not a passive observer of the proverbial culture wars; he’s been a very active participant. As a Catholic legal scholar and philosopher at Princeton University, he was an influential opponent of Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, receiving a Presidential medal from President George W. Bush. George decries the “decadence” of secular culture, and, in 2016, he co-wrote an op-ed declaring Donald Trump “manifestly unfit” to serve as President. Although George disagrees with the Administration’s tactics to change universities’ policies by punishment, he agrees with its contention that campuses have become hotbeds of leftism that stifle debate. He regards this not as a particular evil of the left but as “human nature”: “If conservatives had the kind of monopoly that liberals had,” George tells David Remnick, “I suspect we’d have the same situation, but just in reverse.” His recent book, “Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth: Law and Morality in Our Cultural Moment,” tries to chart a course back toward civil, functioning debate in a polarized society. “I encourage my students to take courses from people who disagree with me, like Cornel West and Peter Singer,” the latter of whom is a controversial philosopher of ethics. “Cornel and I teach together for this same reason. Peter invites his students to take my courses. That’s the way it should be.”  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Washington Roundtable discusses how this week’s government shutdown can be best understood by looking at the background and influence of Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Vought is a Christian nationalist who served in the first Trump Administration. He was a chief architect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and has written that the country is in a “post constitutional moment.” Amid the shutdown, Vought has threatened to lay off federal workers en masse and to withhold funds from Democratic-leaning states. The panel considers whether these moves are not just an expansion of Presidential power but a fiscal “partitioning” of America. This week’s reading:“Donald Trump’s Shutdown Power Play,” by Susan B. Glasser“Can the Democrats Take Free Speech Back from the Right?,” by Jay Caspian Kang“Why Democrats Shut Down the Government,” by Jon Allsop“Is Donald Trump’s Sweeping Gaza Peace Plan Really Viable?,” by Robin Wright“Eric Adams Slips Out the Side Door,” by Eric Lach“The Politics of Faith After Charlie Kirk,” by Michael Luo“Grace and Disgrace,” by David Remnick Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The New Yorker contributing writer Jeannie Suk Gersen joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the Supreme Court’s new term and the cases that could test the boundaries of executive authority and separation of powers. They talk about challenges to Presidential power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, disputes over voting rights and racial gerrymandering, and a First Amendment fight over state bans on conversion therapy. They also consider the Court’s increasing reliance on its emergency docket and what John Roberts’s twenty years as Chief Justice reveals about the conservative legal movement’s influence on the Court.This week’s reading: “Harvard’s Mixed Victory,” by Jeannie Suk Gersen “Is Donald Trump’s Sweeping Gaza Peace Plan Really Viable?,” by Robin Wright “Why Democrats Shut Down the Government,” by Jon Allsop “Have Cubans Fled One Authoritarian State for Another?,” by Jon Lee Anderson “The Age of Enshittification,” by Kyle Chayka Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The author and podcaster Ezra Klein may be only forty-one years old, but he’s been part of the political-culture conversation for a long time. He was a blogger, then a Washington Post columnist and editor, a co-founder of Vox, and is now a writer and podcast host for the New York Times. He’s also the co-author of the recent best-selling book “Abundance”. Most recently, Klein has drawn the ire of progressives for a column he wrote about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which he praised the late conservative activist for practicing politics “the right way.” He’s also been making a case for how the Democrats can reëmerge from the political wilderness. But some of his other ideas have also invited their share of detractors. Klein tells David Remnick, “I try to take seriously questions that I don’t love. I don’t try to insist the world works the way I want it to work. I try to be honest with myself about the way it’s working.” In response to criticism that his recent work has indicated a rightward shift in his thinking, Klein says, “One thing I’ve been saying about the big tent of the Democratic Party is the theory of having a big tent doesn’t just mean moving to the right; it also means accepting in the left.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Washington Roundtable discusses how, in the wake of the reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, public resistance has a chance to turn the tide against autocratic impulses in today’s politics. They are joined by Hardy Merriman, an expert on the history and practice of civil resistance, to discuss what kinds of coördinated actions—protests, boycotts, “buycotts,” strikes, and other nonviolent approaches—are most effective in a fight against democratic backsliding. “Acts of non-coöperation are very powerful,” Merriman, the former president of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, says. “Non-coöperation is very much about numbers. You don’t necessarily need people doing things that are high risk. You just need large numbers of people doing them.” This week’s reading: “Donald Trump Keeps Finding New Ways to Shock the World,” by Susan B. Glasser “Is Trump’s Attack on the Media Following Putin’s Playbook?,” by Joshua Yaffa “Where Should the Democrats Go from Here?,” by Jon Allsop “Donald Trump’s Firing of a Federal Prosecutor Crosses the Reddest of Lines,” by Ruth Marcus “Seeing Enemies Everywhere,” by Jonathan Blitzer “Can Progressive Mayors Redeem the Democratic Party?,” by Bill McKibben Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The New Yorker contributing writer Dhruv Khullar joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how Donald Trump is transforming the nation’s approach to vaccines and immunization during his second term. They talk about the repopulating of federal agencies and advisory panels with skeptics, the politicization of once technical debates under the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, and what happens when people distrustful of the medical establishment end up running American public-health policy. They also examine how states are stepping in to fill the vacuum left by Washington, creating a patchwork of approaches to vaccines across the country.This week’s reading: “A New Era of Vaccine Federalism,” by Dhruv Khullar “Can Progressive Mayors Redeem the Democratic Party?,” by Bill McKibben “Donald Trump’s Firing of a Federal Prosecutor Crosses the Reddest of Lines,” by Ruth Marcus “What Trump Wants from a TikTok Deal with China,” by Clare Malone “Can Liberalism Be Saved?,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
“The Constitution gives the states the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections,” the election lawyer Marc Elias points out. “It gives the President no [such] power.” Yet, almost one year before the midterms, Donald Trump has called for a nationwide prohibition on mail-in voting, an option favored by Democrats, as well as restrictions on voting machines. The Justice Department has demanded sensitive voter information from at least thirty-four states so far, with little explanation as to how the information will be used. Will we have free and fair congressional elections in 2026? “I am very worried that we could have elections that do not reflect the desires and the voting preferences of everyone who wishes they could vote and have their vote tabulated accurately,” Elias tells David Remnick. “That may sound very lawyerly and very technical, but I think it would be a historic rollback.” Elias’s firm fought and ultimately won almost every case that Trump and Republican allies brought against the 2020 election, and Elias continues to fight the latest round of incursions in court. And while he rues what he calls “re-gerrymandering” in Texas—designed to squeeze Texas’s Democratic representatives out of Congress—Elias thinks states run by Democrats have no choice but to copy the tactic. “Before Gavin Newsom announced what he was doing, I came out publicly and said Democrats should gerrymander nine seats out of California, which would mean there’d be no Republicans left in the delegation. . . . At the end of the day, if there’s no disincentive structure for Republicans to jump off this path, [then] it just continues.”  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Washington Roundtable is joined by the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Keren Yarhi-Milo, the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, to discuss why interpreting the psychology of world leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping is essential to understanding global crises. Clinton also shares her thoughts on Gavin Newsom’s plan for redistricting in California, the Trump Administration’s free-speech crackdown in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air. “Jimmy Kimmel and all of the late-night comedians have certainly said a lot of things about me that I found painful, offensive, outraging. It never crossed my mind that I could call up and say, ‘Hey, get rid of this guy,’ ” Clinton says. “It’s all at the behest of the President, who wants to stifle and remove any opposition, and certainly anyone who makes fun of him.” Clinton and Yarhi-Milo’s new book, “Inside the Situation Room: The Theory and Practice of Crisis Decision-Making,” was published this week.This week’s reading: “The Grave Threat Posed by Donald Trump’s Attack on Jimmy Kimmel,” by Isaac Chotiner “Israel’s New Occupation,” by Ruth Margalit “J. D. Vance, Charlie Kirk, and the Politics-as-Talk Show Singularity,” by Andrew Marantz “What the Video of Charlie Kirk’s Murder Might Do,” by Jay Caspian King Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for the latest installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series on the health of American democracy. Their guest is the Brazilian filmmaker Petra Costa, whose documentaries explore the country’s democratic backsliding. They discuss what the United States can learn from Brazil’s struggles with political violence and the rise of authoritarianism, and they respond to the recent conviction of Jair Bolsonaro for his role in a coup attempt. Tyler and Andrew also consider the possible ramifications of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, including the Trump Administration’s threats to target liberal groups.This week’s reading: “Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson Came from the Same Warped Online Worlds,” by Kyle Chayka “What the Video of Charlie Kirk’s Murder Might Do,” by Jay Caspian King “The U.S. Government’s Extraordinary Pursuit of Kilmar Ábrego García,” by Cristian Fairas “Donald Trump’s Assault on Disability Rights,” by E. Tammy Kim “How Jessica Reed Kraus Went from Mommy Blogger to MAHA Maven,” by Clare Malone Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
For decades, the United States backed efforts to achieve a two-state solution—in which Israel would exist side by side with the Palestinian state, with both states recognizing each other’s claim to contested territory. The veteran negotiators Hussein Agha, representing Palestine, and Robert Malley, an American diplomat, played instrumental roles in that long effort, including the critical Camp David summit of 2000. But, in their new book, “Tomorrow Is Yesterday,” they conclude that they were part of a charade. There was never any way that a two-state solution could satisfy either of the parties, Agha and Malley tell David Remnick in an interview. “A waste of time is almost a charitable way to look at it,” Malley notes bitterly. “At the end of that thirty-year-or-so period, the Israelis and Palestinians are in a worse situation than before the U.S. got so heavily invested.” The process, appealing to Western leaders and liberals in Israel, was geared to “find the kind of solutions that have a technical outcome, that are measurable, and that can be portrayed by lines on maps,” Agha says. “It completely discarded the issue of emotions and history. You can’t be emotional. You have to be rational. You have to be cool. But rational and cool has nothing to do with the conflict.” “What Killed the Two-State Solution?,” an excerpt from Agha and Malley’s new book, was published in The New Yorker. New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Washington Roundtable discusses the fatal shooting of the right-wing activist and Donald Trump ally Charlie Kirk, who was killed on Wednesday during a speech on a college campus. The panel considers whether the United States risks tumbling into a spiral of political violence, and how the Administration might use this moment to justify a crackdown on political opponents.This week’s reading: “Did Trump Just Declare War on the American Left?,” by Susan B. Glasser “MAGA Reacts to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk,” by Antonia Hitchens “Charlie Kirk’s Murder and the Crisis of Political Violence,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “The Epstein Birthday Book Is Even Worse Than You Might Realize,” by Jessica Winter Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
Fergus McIntosh, the head research editor at The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how the magazine is approaching fact -checking in the second Trump era. They talk about how the spread of disinformation and deepfakes has changed the work of verifying facts; why Trump has been more aggressive, in his second term, about restricting the release of government data; and what makes his particular style of spreading falsehoods so difficult to counter.This week’s reading: “The Latest Phase in Trump’s War on Data,” by Fergus McIntosh “Inside the Chaos at the C.D.C.,” by Charles Bethea “Social Media Is Navigating Its Sectarian Phase,”by Kyle Chayka  “Brazil Braces for a Verdict on Its Ex-President—and on Its Democracy,” by Jon Lee Anderson “Does Society Have Too Many Rules?,” by Joshua Rothman Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
Speculation, analysis, and commentary circulated all summer, after the announcement, in June, that Anna Wintour would step back from her role as the editor-in-chief of American Vogue. This changing of the guard is uniquely fraught, because Wintour’s name has become nearly inextricable from the magazine, to a degree almost unknown today. And, as New York Fashion Week was set to begin, Wintour spoke with David Remnick about choosing her successor, the Vogue.com editor Chloe Malle. “It felt like this was the right time,” she says. With an unusual number of new creative directors in positions at major fashion houses, “It seemed like a good moment to bring in someone with a different perspective and a different generation who could look at things in a new way.” Wintour was appointed editor-in-chief in 1988, and generations of designers have come up under her famously acute and decisive judgments. She comes from a publishing family; her brother is a well-known journalist, and her father was the editor of the London Evening Standard. She credits him with steering her into a career in fashion, even suggesting that the teen-age Anna write down “editor of Vogue” as her career aspiration on a school form. “Working my first jobs in London, there [was] no money, there’s no staff, there’s no teams, so that you have to learn how to do everything,” Wintour says. “So, when I came to the States and there was a shoe editor and an underwear editor and a fabric editor, it was all so siloed. I felt very confident because I sort of knew how to do everything.” Wintour is also known for bringing politics to Vogue; she’s a noted Democratic supporter and donor. “I’ve been impressed by Governor Newsom, I think he’s certainly making a stand, and obviously I’m sure there’ll be many other candidates that will emerge, hopefully soon.” But, in this political environment, Remnick asks, “How do you make a case that fashion is important?” Fashion, she replies, “is always important. It’s a question of self-expression and a statement about yourself. . . . And, forgive me, David, but how boring would it be if everybody was just wearing a dark suit and a white shirt all the time?”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Washington Roundtable, hosted by the staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos, is back in season. The co-hosts reflect on the news of this summer, discussing President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on nearly every major U.S. trading partner; his deployment of the National Guard on the streets of the capital; and his purges of agencies including the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also discuss what Trump might use emergency powers to do in the near future. “You don’t acquire all this power, and go to all this effort, and then not start to use it,” Glasser says.This week’s reading: “How Many Court Cases Can Trump Lose in a Single Week?,” by Susan B. Glasser “Trump’s Department of Energy Gets Scienced,” by Bill McKibben “Texas Democrats’ Weapons of the Weak,” by Rachel Monroe “Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?,” by Peter Slevin Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The New Yorker contributing writer Ruth Marcus joins the guest host and staff writer Clare Malone to discuss Marcus’s recent profile of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. They talk about Bondi’s political origins and her unprecedented reshaping of the Justice Department, and how she delivers on President Trump’s desire to use the legal system for revenge and retribution. They also touch on Bondi’s mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, which has drawn the ire of both Democratic politicians and core parts of the President’s base. This week’s reading: “Pam Bondi’s Power Play,” by Ruth Marcus “Texas Democrats’ Weapons of the Weak,” by Rachel Monroe “Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?,” by Peter Slevin “Why Don’t We Take Nuclear Weapons Seriously?,” by Rivka Galchen “How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,’s Anti-Vax Agenda Is Infecting America,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The term “culture wars” is most often associated with issues of sexuality, race, religion, and gender. But, as recent months have made plain, when Donald Trump refers to the culture wars, he also means the arts. He fired the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which Republicans want to rename for him. His Administration fired the national archivist and the Librarian of Congress, and pressured the director of the National Portrait Gallery to resign; it is reviewing the entire Smithsonian Institution, looking for what the President calls “improper ideology.” Some view these moves as low-hanging fruit for Trump, and a distraction from bad press about Jeffrey Epstein, the Putin meeting, and tariffs. But Adam Gopnik believes that interpretation is a misreading. The loyalty purge at institutions such as the National Portrait Gallery is a key part of his agenda. “Pluralism is the key principle of a democratic culture,” Gopnik tells David Remnick. Could we be following the path of Stalinist Russia, where a head of state dictated reviews of concerts, Remnick asks? “I pray and believe that we are not. But that is certainly the direction in which one inevitably heads when the political boss takes over key cultural institutions, and dictates who’s acceptable and who is not.” Gopnik recalls saying after the election that “Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert would be next.” “You would see them disappear,” he added. “Each time, we find a rationale for it or a rationale is offered. And it’s much easier for us to swallow the rationale than to face the reality.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
The Democratic strategist Lis Smith joins the guest host Clare Malone, a New Yorker staff writer, to discuss the state of the Democratic Party, and how a decade of reliance on anti-Trump rhetoric has left Democrats reactive and directionless. They consider why groups that Democrats once counted on—from young people to communities of color—are shifting rightward, and what new strategies politicians from Gavin Newsom to Zohran Mamdani are testing to prove that the Democratic Party stands for more than opposition to Trump.This week’s reading “The Trump Administration’s Efforts to Reshape America’s Past,” by Jill Lepore “How Former Biden Officials Defend Their Gaza Policy,” by Isaac Chotiner “The Endless August Recess,” by Antonia Hitchens “The Enormous Stakes of Trump’s Effort to Fire the Fed Governor Lisa Cook,” by John Cassidy “What’s Life Like in Washington, D.C., During Trump’s Takeover?,” by Margaret Talbot Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
loading
Comments (84)

Redeyz

America has followed Rome's path of empire with Continental expansion. Post WW II it has been a global empire with its dominance through military bases and the supremacy of the dollar. Thus the First Felon's will to caesarism is not an aberration as so many think. Is that why the court gave him imperial immunity and authorizes everything thru the shadow docket? And our system is riddled with corruption, cowardice, deceit and criminality. The more things change the more they remain the same.

Aug 23rd
Reply

Redeyz

The Roman Republic was an aristocratic empire and their conflict with Carthage was the greatest expression that it was dedicated to territorial expansion and dominance of the Mediterranean world. The Republic was dominated by the old aristocratic families. When Octavian became Augustus as the first emperor, the Republican empire transformed into a monarchial empire ruled by dynasties, some hereditary others emperors elevated by the military.

Aug 23rd
Reply

Obsessive Podcast Fan

Trump being the countries Daddy is exactly what Jonathan Rauch has called Patrimonialism - like a mob boss, Trump wants everyone to depend on him and be loyal to him.

Jun 7th
Reply

Tiger Cat Jones

Trying to save wash RJK's magical thinking, and batshit insane "alternative views" is at best disingenuous as alternative science isn't science no matter what this reporter thinks.

May 23rd
Reply

مهدیس مقدم

how can I find the text of this listening?

May 5th
Reply

Andrew Adam Caldwell

Please stop saying, "He (Elon) started this company." He did not start Tesla.

Apr 5th
Reply (1)

Harlem Dawgs

Gavin Newsome wasn't that ahead of his time with gay marriage. Boulder Mayor Penfield Tate included marriage equality in the Boulder Bill of Right back in the 60s. He authorized his County Clerk to certify marriage licenses for same sex couples. He got death threats and the decision cost him his bid for reelection and the County Clerk is usually given credit for this progressive policy.

Apr 1st
Reply

Obsessive Podcast Fan

I hope he's right that the SCOTUS would stand.

Feb 17th
Reply

Randall J Fudd

Oh Gawd. He was "saved" by something. Highly doubt it was "God". Most of us, still existing here on Earth One-- know that that assassination attempt last summer was a complete and totally planned occurrence, that the orange lunatic was in on. There's so many reasons to make this claim-- mostly (and Im not even a gun expert)-- if you use a military-grade weapon, like the shooter had last summer, You. Don't. Miss. Your. Target... the way this guy did. Also-- the dude was NOT a "left wing lunatic" (like orange lunatic likes to call his critics). The dude was a .... (wait for it).... Registered Republican (aka: Maga cult member). And lastly... (takes deep breath)... just look at the pathetic behavior on display, as OL was being led off the stage; most others, in this kind of scenario... The Last thing you're going to be thinking of, right before being led off stage (and right after almost having your right ear completely torn off) is throwing up a righteous, indignatious fist. Right? Seems

Jan 24th
Reply

Scott S

The title of this episode could also easily be "The Death of Truth". "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will come to eventually believe it. " J Goebbels

Oct 30th
Reply (8)

Kim

Why do learned journalists say things like "her and her late husband gave"?...

Oct 19th
Reply

Harlem Dawgs

Kamala Harris on the Breakfast Club / Charlemagne tha Fob🙄 Really James Carville? Just another sign of how unresponsive Boomer Dems are to tha Culture. Newsflash he's not the voice of it. He's proven himself to be extremely problematic especially since his comments on Cassie Ventura last Dec. Hire Kendrick Lamar or Stacy Abrams or Tisa Tells before you all presume to know who tha Culture resonates with https://youtu.be/B-PaEufR9Zg?si=guzQP4iN2eW3TERI

Aug 22nd
Reply (1)

Tom Jensen

what a show, these guys should take over Harris campaign immediately.

Aug 20th
Reply

Burak

The interview is kinda short, isn't?

May 7th
Reply

dinky witch

the grating voice of the woman makes this otherwise interesting podcast (an AUDIO medium) impossible to listen to. need to skip her parts to keep my sanity

Apr 14th
Reply

selena

Hi i love sex my contact) here)) https://vipdeit.com/sex21.html

Mar 16th
Reply

Patel Ravi

Tramp = idiot

Feb 18th
Reply

Football 360

Test

Feb 15th
Reply

Eric Everitt

this one was as snarky as can be. Two women laughing at men.. nice.. sooo 2024!

Jan 18th
Reply

XOXO

Trump never start any war👏

Dec 9th
Reply