Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS
In this episode, Mike & Jay respond to listener questions on:
– electability vs highlighting differences with Trump
– why Mike thinks Jay’s view of Net Neutrality is outdated
– funding for cathedrals vs. funding to fight homelessness
– possible indictments in the Obama spying scandal
– if impeachment talk is bad for the country
– what information presidential candidates should have to release
Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
I’m sure I’ve said this before, but when Jay is on the show I think you legitimately need to rethink including the word “rational” in your opening description of the show’s discourse.
Between the conspiracy theories, the false equivalencies, the specious analogies (sending a slow letter is the same as throttling internet speeds to detrimentally impact your competitors, somehow?), the leaping to paranoid conjecture, and the myriad contradictions (in particular the weird hypocrisy in supporting the impeachment proceedings of Nixon while condemning even the suggestion that the same charges for the same potential crimes should be applied to Trump), Jay’s contributions to the discussion hardly seem to qualify as having even a passing familiarity with reason anymore.
Perhaps Jay is a useful yardstick for continuing to catalogue how far a previously logical person with a strong conservative ideology has had to compromise himself and his beliefs in order to continue supporting the party line. A personification of the Fox News “Fair and Balanced” slogan, in all its brash trolling contradiction.
As someone who appreciated his perspective years ago, when he actually managed to offer a window into the thinking of conservatives whose opinions I struggled to understand, he now functions as more of a sad reminder of how tangled in empty rhetoric some members of the Republican party have become in service of frequently cynical agendas.
I am therefore grateful that you have managed to expand your roster of presenters to offer some other conservative voices, people I may not agree with, but whose explanations for their reasoning has proved insightful.