US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are options between "burn it all down" and "do nothing".

The sooner you people realize that there are not only absolutes in this world, the easier it becomes.
Future generations have less and less worth preserving. There's nothing to aspire to when everything has been stolen from you by older generations selling your future out to foreigners. Most people can't even afford houses because they're all bought up by banks selling them exclusively to foreigners.
 
>Random tweet by [niggerfaggot]
>No sources
>"Drumpf is done for and will destroy America because he sucks zionist dick"
Is this thread /pol/ from 2016-now?
At this point I think Israel is a cogniohazard, anytime you mention it it completely derails any discussion for like 5 hours in which people rant about jews.
 
Trump Directive Calls for Turning Border Strip Into ‘Military Installation’
The New York Times (archive.ph)
By Maggie Haberman, Eric Schmitt, and Hamed Aleaziz
2025-04-12 16:29:00GMT

The plan would put a strip along the southern border under Pentagon control, allowing the military to detain migrants for trespassing on a military base until Border Patrol agents could arrest them.
President Trump announced a plan on Friday to turn a narrow strip along the Mexican border in California, Arizona and New Mexico into a military installation as part of his effort to curtail illegal crossings.

The plan, set out in a White House memorandum, calls for transferring authority over the 60-foot-wide strip of federal border land known as the Roosevelt Reservation from other cabinet agencies to the Defense Department. Military forces patrolling that area could then temporarily detain migrants passing through for trespassing on a military reservation, said a U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

The directive expands a military presence that has increased steadily along the southern border, even as crossings have already dropped precipitously during the Trump administration. The ordering of troops to the border has already put the military in politically charged territory, and, depending on the details of the effort, the plan could run afoul of laws that limit the use of regular federal troops for domestic law enforcement.

The directive says that the border strip will become a “military installation under the jurisdiction of” the Pentagon. Military members would be able to stop anyone crossing into the “military installation” but would not have the power to make immigration arrests, according to the military official. Border Patrol agents could then be summoned to arrest the migrants.

The memorandum formalizes a plan that the administration had been considering for weeks. The Washington Post had reported on the plan earlier.

A White House spokesman did not respond to questions seeking clarity as to what U.S. forces operating in the strip of border land would be able to do. A Defense Department spokesman also did not respond to questions seeking clarity.

Military officials are still working out how to execute the plan, including how long troops could detain migrants before turning them over to Border Patrol agents, and what type of “no trespassing” signs needed to be installed along the border, warning migrants they were about to enter a U.S. military reservation.

Then there are other logistics that would have to be hammered out, such as the languages the signs are written in, and how far apart they are posted. There is also the question of where to position military patrols along hundreds of miles of rugged land along the border, and what additional training those troops might need.

Adam Isacson, who focuses on border security and human rights at the Washington Office on Latin America, said the memorandum appeared to create a path for using quasi-military personnel to detain migrants.

A section of the memorandum calls for the authorization of state National Guard members to work on the military-controlled strip. If those working at the installation hold migrants until Customs and Border Protection officials pick them up, their use “comes very close to military personnel detaining migrants,” Mr. Isacson said.
California defies Trump order to certify that all school districts have eliminated DEI
Los Angeles Times (archive.ph)
By Howard Blume
2025-04-12 18:50:12GMT
California on Friday defied a Trump administration order to certify that the state’s 1,000 school districts have ended all diversity, equity and inclusion programs despite federal threats to cut billions of dollars in education funding if the state does not comply.

The U.S. Department of Education has given states until April 24 to collect certifications from every school district in the nation — confirming that all DEI efforts have been eliminated, as it contends such programs are a form of race-based discrimination and violate civil rights laws.

In a letter to school district superintendents Friday, the California Department of Education, or CDE, defended the legality of DEI efforts.

“There is nothing in state or federal law ... that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote Chief Deputy Supt. David Schapira in the letter to school districts, county education offices and charter schools.

CDE also sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education about the decision not to comply — and said the federal request was vague.

“It is also unclear which specific programs or activities [the federal agency] seeks to regulate by this certification, although the request for certification references ‘certain DEI practices’ or ‘illegal DEI.’ It does not define such...”

Although federal funding for education is challenging to calculate and arrives through multiple channels, some tallies put the figure at $16.3 billion per year in California — including money for school meals, students with disabilities and early education Head Start programs. The Los Angeles Unified School District has estimated that it receives about $1.26 billion a year, somewhat less than 10% of its annual budget.

Sixteen states are attempting to comply with the order, including New Hampshire, North Carolina and Texas. Ten others have refused — including New York, Wisconsin and Oregon, according to a state-by-state tracker compiled by the news site Education Week.

California’s decision was foreshadowed by an April 4 letter to school leaders noting that school districts regularly and routinely affirm that they are complying with federal law and “have already submitted such assurances” and compliance is “monitored annually through ... multiple accounting mechanisms.”

The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to a request sent Friday about the decision by California.

However, Education Secretary Linda McMahon on social media praised the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico for complying. She also praised New Hampshire for posting the certifications from individual school districts.

A small number of California school systems are controlled by pro-Trump leadership. These include Chino Valley Unified, which has bypassed state education officials and certified directly to federal officials.

“This was a no-brainer for us,” said school board President Sonja Shaw, who is a Republican candidate for state superintendent of public instruction. “I want to make it absolutely clear: Our focus remains where it belongs — on reading, writing, math and achieving the best outcomes for our students... not in the ideologies and divisiveness that the state of California, [Gov.] Gavin Newsom and his cronies continue to push.”

The federal demand follows a Feb. 14 letter in which the U.S. Department of Education told all K-12 school districts and higher education institutions to end the consideration of race in “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

Since then, many colleges and universities in California and throughout the country have eliminated diversity efforts, scrubbing references from their websites.

The certification demand is a next step in the enforcement process, federal officials said.

“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. He said many schools have flouted their legal obligations, “including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

The certification form includes several pages of legal analysis in support of the administration’s demands, which are based, in large part, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to ban affirmative action in college admissions through a lawsuit brought against Harvard University.

Trainor quoted Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who said: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

But following the reasoning of other states that refuse to comply, California challenged Trainor’s conclusions in its April 11 letter to the U.S. Department of Education.

“We are concerned that [the Department of Education] seemingly seeks to change the terms and conditions of California’s award without formal administrative process,” the letter stated. The U.S. agency “cannot make changes to legal assurances and impose new requirements on recipients without adhering to rule-making procedures.”

The letter is signed by Len Garfinkel, general counsel for the California Department of Education, and by Kirin K. Gill, chief counsel for the State Board of Education.

In their refusal, New York officials directly challenged the linkage to the Supreme Court case cited by Trainor.

A recent statement from L.A. Unified approached the issue with caution, saying the school system would follow state guidance in complying with federal law.

The Trump administration already has issued similar threats over school funding to school districts and states over policies related to transgender students and sex education curriculum. On Friday, the department announced an enforcement action against the state of Maine that could lead to withdrawing federal education funding.

In a separate action, federal officials have launched an investigation of the California Department of Education for allegedly withholding from parents information about changes to their child’s gender identity, once again with billions of dollars potentially at stake.

Federal officials contend that the California law, called the SAFETY Act, violates a federal law that guarantees parents’ access to their child’s school records. They say the federal law, called the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act or FERPA, takes precedence.

On Friday, state education officials also responded to this investigation by defending the state law.

‘There is no conflict between California’s SAFETY Act and FERPA,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

“Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students,” Thurmond said. “As our responses to the United States Department of Education state, and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

He added: “I am proud of our students, educators, and school communities, who continue to focus on teaching and learning despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”
Trump announces deals with more law firms for a combined $600 million
The Washington Post (archive.ph)
By Mark Berman
2025-04-12 00:27:24GMT

Firms seeking to avoid sanctions from President Donald Trump have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in legal services to causes he supports.
President Donald Trump on Friday announced that he had reached agreements with five more law firms pledging to provide a combined $600 million in legal services for causes he supports, the latest deals firms have struck with him in apparent bids to avoid punishment.

Since February, Trump has issued several executive orders sanctioning prominent law firms with ties to his political adversaries or that had opposed his policies, seeking to strip them of government contracts and block them from federal buildings. Three firms targeted by Trump have sued to fight back, while several others made deals with Trump that some framed as necessary to keep their businesses afloat. A fourth firm filed a lawsuit Friday evening challenging Trump’s actions.

Trump’s punishments and the deals firms have made with him have rattled the legal community, with attorneys fearing that his crackdown will imperil what causes and cases firms are willing to take up. The latest deals on Friday marked an increase in the pledges and pushed the combined amount to nearly $1 billion across nine law firms.

In a series of social media posts on Friday, Trump said he had reached a deal with four firms — all of them among the country’s wealthiest — to provide $125 million each in pro bono and other free legal work for causes he supports, including aiding veterans, fighting antisemitism and “ensuring fairness in our justice system.”

The price has gone up as more firms have struck deals with Trump. The first firm to strike a deal, Paul Weiss, promised $40 million in pro bono services, while the next three pledged $100 million each.

Trump identified four firms participating in one agreement as Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett; and Latham & Watkins.

Kirkland and Latham, as the firms are known, are the two biggest law firms in the country as measured by revenue. The firms either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

Trump’s posting included a statement attributed to leaders of the four firms, in which they said they “resolved this matter while upholding long-held principles important to each of our firms.”

“We look forward to a continued constructive and productive relationship with President Trump and his team,” the statement said.

A person familiar with the matter confirmed that the terms of the deal Trump announced in his posts are accurate.

In a message sent to employees on Friday, Kirkland’s executive committee said it had reached an agreement “to continue to provide substantial pro bono services on a non-partisan basis and operate with the merit-based philosophy that is and has always been the essence of Kirkland & Ellis.” The message also said that the firm would decide what cases to take up, including on pro bono matters.

Trump has boasted about the deals that firms have struck with him, and this week he twice floated the idea of putting these attorneys to work negotiating trade deals.

Three firms he targeted with sanctions — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — had filed lawsuits to challenge his orders. All three won at least temporarily relief in court, with judges blocking most of Trump’s punishments.

The firms have asked judges to block his executive orders permanently. The Trump administration has instead asked for the cases to be dismissed, saying his orders are lawful.

On Friday evening, a fourth law firm — Susman Godfrey — filed a lawsuit pushing back on Trump’s order sanctioning it. The firm called his actions unconstitutional, retaliatory and an effort “to discourage law firms and their clients from challenging abuses of government power.”

Trump also on Friday announced a deal with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, saying that the law firm promised at least $100 million in pro bono legal services. The firm did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Trump’s post included a statement from Patrick Quinn, the managing partner of Cadwalader, which said that “the substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided” the firm for more than 200 years.

“The firm looks forward to having a productive relationship with President Trump and his administration,” the statement said. “We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm.”

Trump’s posting did not mention that Cadwalader is where his former criminal defense attorney, Todd Blanche, worked as a partner. Blanche resigned from Cadwalader to represent Trump against multiple indictments between his two presidential terms. Trump tapped Blanche to serve as deputy attorney general, the second-highest ranking official in the Justice Department.

In statements about the deals, Trump said the firms had vowed “their strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.” Trump also said some of the firms would no longer face federal scrutiny over diversity practices.

Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information from them about their diversity practices, something the Trump administration has targeted across the government, in education and within the private sector.

The four firms Trump announced together all received such letters, and he said they have been withdrawn. Cadwalader did not receive such a letter.
Harvard AAUP Sues Trump Administration To Stop $9 Billion Review of Harvard’s Federal Funding
The Harvard Crimson (archive.ph)
By William C. Mao and Veronica H. Paulus
2025-04-12 15:00:19GMT
The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors sued the Trump administration on Friday to end its ongoing review of the University’s federal funding, alleging the review was coercive and unlawfully undermined academic freedom.

The complaint argued that the review was illegally “exploiting” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded institutions, to silence dissent on campus by putting more than $255 million in federal contracts and more than $8 billion in multi-year grants under review.

“Threats like these are an existential ‘gun to the head’ for a university,” read the suit, which was filed alongside a motion for a temporary restraining order. “They overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech.”

Earlier this month, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard eliminate all its diversity, equity, and inclusion programming and ban masks on campus to keep funds under review. Though the government’s letter demanded “immediate cooperation,” the University has yet to announce any developments in its negotiations with the White House.

The Harvard AAUP’s lawsuit is its latest legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s attack on higher education. Last month, the faculty group sued his administration over its arrests of noncitizen university affiliates for their association with pro-Palestine protests, arguing that the arrests violated their rights to hear from noncitizen students and professors.

The lawsuit filed Friday argued that the review of Harvard’s funding violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates federal agencies, by failing to follow the legal procedures for escalating a Title VI investigation to a threat to terminate federal funding. The plaintiffs further argued that the review was “arbitrary or capricious” because the administration didn’t provide a reasoned explanation for threatening to pull funding.

The Trump administration has made Title VI a signature tool in its pressure campaign against universities, citing the 1964 law to justify slashing hundreds of millions from peer institutions and launching its review of Harvard’s own federal funding.

“These tactics amount to exploiting Title VI to coerce universities into undermining free speech and academic inquiry in service of the government’s political or policy preferences,” the suit read.

The lawsuit also contends that Trump violated the plaintiffs’ rights to academic freedom and freedom of speech. The plaintiffs argued that Harvard has already changed policies preemptively in anticipation of cuts to its funding, citing a wave of administrative changes across Harvard at programs studying the Middle East.

Two faculty leaders at the Center for Middle Eastern studies were dismissed from their posts in early April for allegedly unbalanced programming about Palestine, and the University bowed to longstanding calls to sever ties with Birzeit University in the West Bank. The Harvard Divinity School also suspended the Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative following allegations that the program presented a one-sided view of the war in Gaza.

“These were all programs criticized by the congressional Committee on Education & the Workforce as being antisemitic. The fact they were all shut down around the same time raises grave concerns that Harvard is suppressing legitimate inquiry regarding Israel and Palestine in response to Defendants’ threats,” the statement read.

A University spokesperson declined to comment on the statement.

Harvard Law School professor Nikolas Bowie, the secretary-treasurer of Harvard’s AAUP, said in a press release that “no law in this country permits President Trump to suspend billions of dollars from universities” because Trump dislikes their policies on transgender athletes or faculty or student speech.

“Eliminating discrimination and protecting all students is important. But Trump is defying the Civil Rights Act, terrifying students, and illegally holding hostage grants for hospitals and scientific research so he can accomplish his real goal of punishing academics for our politics,” Bowie said.

In the motion for a temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs wrote that Harvard faced “an impossible choice” in the face of the Trump administration’s review of its federal funding without the Court’s interjection.

“Either commit to ‘reforms’ that sacrifice the university’s independence to government control, punish disfavored speech in deference to government orthodoxy, and turn over hiring and admissions systems to the policy preferences of the Trump administration; or face the immediate loss of up to nine billion dollars in federal funding,” the motion read.

“Under any scenario, the livelihoods and the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and their members are at stake absent the Court’s immediate intervention,” it continued.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.
Buttigieg admits there won’t be a ‘Rogan of the left,’ says Dems need their own way to reach common Americans
FOX News (archive.ph)
By Gabriel Hays
2025-04-12 12:30:23GMT
Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg admitted this week that the Democratic Party won’t find a liberal version of podcast host Joe Rogan, and that efforts to regain cultural relevancy must include connecting with ordinary voters.

The former Biden official made the point on Friday's "The Weekly Show with John Stewart Podcast." Buttigieg discussed with the host how Democrats could better get their message out to voters following the 2024 presidential election loss.

"My party’s all up in arms about who’s our Joe Rogan. We’re not going to have a Joe Rogan of the left. That’s not how it works," he said.

Stewart agreed with the statement, offering his view that the party can’t just produce at will a top global podcast that will amplify liberal thought.

"It’s also not something you can conjure in the way that – they just think, ‘Oh, let’s inorganically build this thing.’ Those positions have been built over time, and they’ve earned their credibility, and they’ve earned their authenticity, and they’ve earned all those things that they have. You can’t just poof them into existence," the Comedy Central host stated.

Buttigieg offered this assessment of his fellow Democrats: "The other big thing that my party is terribly behind on is where we say it. And by this I mean what media spaces we are in."

"The Joe Rogan Experience" is one of the world’s most influential podcasts and has a massive audience of male viewers – a demographic that was considered crucial to President Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory.

Bloomberg reported in January, "Over the past two years, a set of massively popular podcasters and streamers cemented themselves as the new mainstream source of information for millions of young men, and, according to a new Bloomberg analysis, used their perch to rally these constituents in support of Trump and the political right."

Trump’s own interview with the podcast giant in the final weeks of his campaign drew tens of millions of viewers. The conversation and Rogan’s ultimate endorsement of Trump’s candidacy were seen as a boon for Trump.

Even the Democratic Party knew the importance of Rogan’s platform, looking to get former Vice President Kamala Harris on his show before Election Day. Those plans fell through, though the former Democratic presidential candidate appeared on other prominent podcasts like "Call Her Daddy" before the end of the race.

Despite some of the party’s desire to replicate Trump’s success with Rogan, Buttigieg told Stewart it needs to focus on its own original strategy of finding new voters, including going into more conservative spaces.

"I think we are really struggling to find people where they are," Buttigieg said.

"I could be the tenth person to say roughly the same thing on a liberal show, or I could literally be the first time somebody heard a certain idea if I’m in a more conservative space," he added, noting the party should be reaching out to people who are "not always looking for politics."

"People who have other s--- to do!" Stewart said. "Yeah," Buttigieg replied.
 
Future generations have less and less worth preserving. There's nothing to aspire to when everything has been stolen from you by older generations selling your future out to foreigners. Most people can't even afford houses because they're all bought up by banks selling them exclusively to foreigners.
I think there's also a growing desire for some kind of common cause. People are sick of left right and the culture war because it's extremely gay. The MSM is still in cope mode, but as somebody who lives almost entirely around lefties it's clear to me that most don't really care about any of it anymore. Both sides seem to have more or less compromised, feminism hasn't bee a thing for years, troonery is dead and buried, dei is gone, right wingers are tired of SJW PWNED shit and the left is tired of everything about their side. Everyone is just sick of it all and wants something new.

Fuck China is the one issue that the left and right have actually agreed on for the past few years and america bringing itself out of inner turmoil to fight a common enemy has happenned at least 4 times now.
 
Buttigieg admits there won’t be a ‘Rogan of the left,’ says Dems need their own way to reach common Americans
FOX News (archive.ph)
By Gabriel Hays
2025-04-12 12:30:23GMT
Besides the entire mainstream media outside of Fox?

Once again Democrats, the issue isn't that you haven't reached us. We all heard you tell us, "Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack! Those right wing conspiracy theorists are nuts!" We all hear you when you say that women's sports should have men in it. That message has in fact reached us. The problem in both cases is that what you reach people with is obvious bullshit.
 
>Random tweet by [niggerfaggot]
>No sources
>"Drumpf is done for and will destroy America because he sucks zionist dick"
Is this thread /pol/ from 2016-now?
Always was.
Well, good for you if you think people are going to accept being able to spend less to become "happier". I don't think that's a reality. Because you know, people could already do that if they wanted.
People have been supercharged to consooooooom because of TikTok, Reddit, and Twitter bots. All it takes is those bots to lose steam (USAID slush money pulled) and people will lose interest and do something else. People are far less likely to buy, buy, buy when shit isn't thrown in their face all the time. That's the whole thing behind constant marketing: it conditions people.
This man may very well be a bot.
The number of bots on Twitter is stupid high.
Buttigieg admits there won’t be a ‘Rogan of the left,’ says Dems need their own way to reach common Americans.
"It's the kids who are wrong."
unfortunately the entire forum right now
so many of you newfags only talk about retarded political things instead of anything else.
At least the 2025 users are giving us some good Mass Debates threads. Some pedo furfag outs himself like every week.
 
The third world's growing access to the internet has made discussion so diluted with retardation on major sites. When I was in southeast Asia I saw every person who lived in a literal mud hut also have a Chinese smartphone and they were doom scrolling on tik tok or some other app.

If you see anyone with poor grammer advocating for China I guarantee you're either talking to an indoctrinated child, a government bot, or an oriental hillbilly.
 
Last edited:
Buttigieg admits there won’t be a ‘Rogan of the left,’ says Dems need their own way to reach common Americans
Joe Rogan:
> Brings on multiple far-left people onto podcast in 2020 so they can fully discuss policies
> Asks Kamala to come onto show and get denied
> Democrats decide you are evil because my vaccines...

Jesus Christ, you literally had him dipshit. 'Rogan of the Left', you mean Joe Rogan Buttgay? Maybe not piss away your own support chain.
 
Keep ignoring reality while everyone else outside the bubble sees how Trump exposed himself and embarrassed this country on the global stage.
Yeah, it sure is embarrassing how he suspended all tariffs on China.
Oh. What's that? The 145% tariffs are still in effect for all other Chinese products that make up a vast majority of their exports? And electronic tariffs are still at 20%? And the $500B Apple investment outpaces a 145% tariff on electronics since China actually only does assembly rather than manufacturing?
Never mind that. It's all just Trump accidentally looking like he's mapping strategically.
 
Joe Rogan's biggest strength is the audience he organically cultivated over the better half of the last decade through his podcast. Before his podcast, his claim to fame was being some middle-of-the-road comedian who utterly eviscerated Carlos Mencia's career built upon stealing jokes, but then simped hardcore for Amy Schumer despite being guilty of doing the same thing. I've followed his podcast via YouTube, Spotify, and RSS for years and while I don't listen to every episode, Rogan is never one to outright denigrate perceived wrongthink. If anything, he's open to giving people a voice and openly fact-checking them by having Jamie look shit up on the fly.

Democrats won't ever have their own Joe Rogan Experience because they're so heavily built upon punishing wrongthink whilst pushing the message at every conceivable turn. Even if Joe himself was, and still pretty much is, a middle-of-the-road liberal who broadly aligns with past Democrat platforms, his unwillingness to punish perceived wrongthink is something that the establishment simply cannot abide. That's a fundamental problem because a huge part of the Joe Rogan Experience's appeal is giving everyone from theoretical physicists to ex-politicians to current politicians to literal conspiracy theorists a fair shake.

The left has no fucking shortage of broadly left-leaning, long-form podcasts to choose from. The only one that comes remotely close to JRE's audience is the H3 Podcast, and Ethan Klein himself is a thin-skinned charlatan who likes to make stupid jokes at his guest's expense while Hila's the one who asks salient questions that almost always go undetected. That's, of course, only the case whenever they have a guest that isn't some e-celebrity like Boogie2988 or iDubbbz. Oh and hyper-liberal oestrogen festivals like Call Her Daddy. Never once listened to a full episode, but the few clips of that I've ever seen were horribly smug and off-putting.
 
Back