I happen to be a content manager on Al Green’s YouTube channel. Not only is he alive, but he’s still recording music! We recently put out his cover of R.E.M.’s song “Everybody Hurts”.
Maybe, to avoid confusion, refer to him as Rev. Green. The other Rev. Al’s “church” is the MSNBC studio, or anywhere a black man has been involved in a crime involving a white police officer.
Re: make Kmele Great Again… a little over a year ago I applied, unsolicited, to replace Kmele. Since that day? Quality of the show continues to improve. You’re welcome.
Apparently Al Green is a member of the Prince Hall Freemasonry, founded in 1774 by and for African Americans. Other members include or have included Shaq, Duke Ellington, Jesse Jackson, Thurgood Marshall, Booker T Washington, Richard Pryor. Fascinating history.
Genuinely curious. Why does DailyWire and Ben Shapiro rarely if ever get mentioned, if they’re mentioned it is very brief and never talked about in depth.
DailyWire wipes the floor with pretty much everyone you have mentioned in “new media” as of 2 years ago they had 1M paying subscribers. They’ve expanded into many different content spheres, almost like a “the daily” brief, children’s entertainment, conservative movies, products, etc. Have been overwhelmingly successful. And are bigger on outlets on internet platforms like YouTube.
Directly comparing this in my head to Charlie Kirk being mentioned all the time. Also, I only really know Ben Shapiro so I’m not even really comparing DailyWire to Kirk, but just Shapiro to Kirk.
Shapiro - started DailyWire which is enormous. Has 7.22M YouTuber subscribers, 4.3B total views, 7.7M twitter followers etc. Views, subscribers, followers, all on his individual account, again separate of the massive company he started.
Kirk - 2.97M YouTube, 850M total views, 4.7M twitter followers.
I still listen to Shapiro, so I’ve assumed that you don’t bring him up much because compared to the Kirk’s of the world I imagine he looks sane and relatively rational so there’s not as much of a story there to mull over. At the start of his career he got a ton of headlines over basically “the Orthodox Jew doesn’t believe in abortion!!! What a piece of shit!!!” When everyone outside of legacy media was like “yeah, that checks out….”. Those type of headline writers now have 100x the material with the explosion of conservative *influencers* who are retarded and say actually completely insane shit, so he seemingly isn’t as in the news as he once was.
He almost never says anything I find insane. He says stuff I disagree with because religion colors his views and I have never attended a religious service in my entire life, but those disagreements are usually values based, not logic and reason based.
What got me to write this is when you guys said “where are the conservative thinkers?” and came up empty handed. I mean Shapiro is no Buckley. He doesn’t try and steer the public in the same way with his values. He more of just a commentator than that. But, (to my eyes) he does have very consistent views and political philosophy. He does still disagree with Trump daily, hell this podcast he’d probably not disagree with a single thing besides future outlook. He thinks tariffs are horrendous and thinks Trump is stupid for using them (although he’s still holding out they’re only a tool. Yet still mentions that potentially they aren’t a tool to trump and that would be bad). He thinks the tariffs will really harm the economy and is worried about a recession. He thinks Trumps handling of Ukraine has been bad (although he puts the honus of it derailing on Zelensky and you’d 100% disagree). He thinks we need to continue support of Ukraine and Russia/Putin are still an enemy of the US (again here he will frame Trumps attempts to be friendly with Putin as a way to find an off-ramp to the war, which I think gives Trump too much credit. But he does disagree with Trumps handling). He has the same concerns about onshoring manufacturing as you all do. Etc. All in all he might not espouse foundational principles as forcibly and clearly as Buckley, he’s a commentator, but he does get those principles (mostly) across in his commentary. And, as much as you may disagree with him on tons of stuff, the man is very smart. So, in the world again that the likes of Charlie Kirk are brought up. I was very surprised Shapiro didn’t get some sort of acknowledgement, which changed my view from “he’s not really story worthy, that’s why the Fifth doesn’t talk at all about him” to I don’t know what. Is it ignoring or unaware of him or his work? Genuinely curious.
Lastly, I claim Douglas Murray for the conservatives. I’m not sure if that’s totally fair, I only know his work on basically immigration and foreign policy, but the man is incredible and even where I disagree with him I find him fascinating to listen to. I think he might be the best orator of the generation. Clever, engaging, funny, well spoken and clear, concise, and very intelligent. I’ve read I believe all of his books and liked him for a long time, but this turned into the level of praise I am now giving after watching him debate, particularly watching him debate Malcolm Gladwell. I do not think Gladwell is a stupid guy in the slightest, read some of his books too (although as more time goes by the more I think there a bit of bullshit), and Murray made Gladwell look like a child during their Monk debate. I thought it was such a complete obliteration that I genuinely felt bad and embarrassed for Gladwell being on the stage. But yeah, think Murray should have been included.
Finally, Thomas Sowell. The man might be 94 and more apply to a past generation, BUT GOD DAMNIT HES NOT DEAD! Man is a titan in conservative thought and I am counting him on *our* side as long as I possibly can.
Yeah, he has been on federal charges. Knows it would not release him from prison. That’s not a very controversial opinion though. Especially from my experience not in legal realms and depends entirely on how you ask the question. For instance, I have a gay lawyer democrat friend from Chicago, all to say he is not inclined to agree with *right-wing* sentiments and that’s it. I have talked about the Chauvin trial with him for hours. I have asked plainly “do you think Chauvin got a fair trial?” And he has replied easily “yes”. Done deal right? Not really. I have also asked do you think the jury was unbiased and only ruled on the evidence of the case. And he said “no way to know, but I would assume not”. I asked “how is that a fair trial then?” And then you realize there is a pretty massive divide on philosophy on this question. My friends point is the court followed every procedure in the trial in the right way, but that the measures are incredibly imperfect but the measures being imperfect and the jury being influenced by outside factors doesn’t make it an unfair trial. The court did everything the right way in the environment they were in, so it was fair. Other lawyers I’ve talked to (I.e. my brother’s college roommate who started his own firm - we all went to college together) have a different foundational view of this. He doesn’t think hinges on if the court did everything right, he thinks if there is reasonable belief that the jury was tainted by outside opinions and wasn’t purely following the evidence of the case, for example the largest protests in American history where at the same time jury information was being leaked concurrently in other cases and people were being doxxed, that the case should be retried or thrown out.
Summarized one side believes if the PROCEDURE of law was carried out fairly then the outcome was fair.
The other side believes the outcome is only fair if the STANDARDS of the law are met.
Now to be clear, this gets incredibly muddy incredibly quickly. For instance, (I’ve heard them argue this for hours, so this is a rough summary) how can one say the standards aren’t met if the procedure is followed. Taking that the procedures were followed fully, to say the standards haven’t been met can be seen as just the person using their individual judgement to basically imply that the jurors are lying about what they’re saying or lying about how they’re thinking, which who are you to say that? Meanwhile the other side would say you’ve already admitted the procedures are imperfect, in a system with an existing known error rate, how can you say the standards have been met in maybe the number 1 heated, high emotion, biggest stakes trial of American history in a modern era where sequestration for any extended period of time is impossible (both sides agree with that to different degrees)?
Each side has a million different specific points on this case to support their side, but those are the broad brush strokes as I remember them.
All this to say, when USA Today quotes a Harvard law professor as ““I think it was a clean trial,” said Sullivan”, there are no details of exactly what that means. I could 100% agree with that statement, and me and Sullivan (although him 100x more expert) could agree on 99% of the case, and still reach a different ultimate conclusion based on this difference in philosophy.
Lastly, polling on this case also is much muddier than headlines read. For instance, ~70% say he received a fair trial. But ~30% say he should face 1-10 years in prison. For what Chauvin was found guilty of, those are basically diametrically opposed polling stats. They only indicate to me 70% of people think it was a fair trial but 30% of those have no idea what that means. He was found guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. A <10 year sentence for those charges would be unprecedented.
So yes, Shapiro is asking for a federal pardon. I do not find that very extreme. As he lays out his view of the case, his view overlaps with about 95% with the 8 Chicago lawyers I know personally, and he reaches the same conclusion as about 3 of the 8. Additionally, he graduated Harvard Law cum laude and as he talks about the case, he doesn’t talk about it as a social/political/internet fight, he talks about it by the legal merits of the case as he sees them. I have no reason to believe he got to his opinions in bad faith and he’s more educated on the topic than about 95%+ of the general population.
Finally, my view, I do not have a strong opinion on a Chauvin pardon at all. I probably lean that the trial was not entirely fair but also I do not think it was like corrupt in any way. Further, I think a pardon socially would be awful, even with Chauvin still required to serve a 20+ year sentence on state charges I think people would have a meltdown I am entirely uninterested in being a part of (I was there in 2020 and it was awful), and politically if you are Trump I do not see how it could possibly benefit you. Uneducated, contradictory opinions or not, the general public does not think it is a good idea. I do not see what he would have to gain from it. So overall I think a federal pardon is pretty stupid and disagree with Shapiro. I just do not think it is some insane, out of left field take. The democrats in my life (being in Chicago basically every person I know), pretty much all disagree with it too. But when you sit down and have an extended conversation, don’t disagree that much at all. More around the edges than anything else.
Alex Thompson was indeed ahead of the pack in reporting on Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline, which was denied by democrats, until they could deny it no longer, along with their supporters, and prominent media figures — but I repeat myself — many of whom tried to explain it away as a “lifelong stutter” (never heard before 2019 despite Biden babbling in public for 50 years).
I always read George F. Will. Everybody should. I also miss William F. Buckley, and the original ‘Firing Line.’ No offense to the lovely Margaret Hoover.
Dean Phillips was one half of my 2024 write-in vote.
You guys didn’t mention Thomas Sowell. The man might be 94 and more apply to past generations, BUT GOD DAMNIT HES NOT DEAD! Man is a titan in conservative thought and I am counting him on *our side* (I don’t know what that means anymore) as long as I possibly can. Kmele shame on you! (Jk)
The obvious problem is that there is nobody on the democratic side to offer a credible, ideological defense of free trade, so when you see, say, Chuck Schumer criticizing the tariffs, it's completely in bad faith. They'll criticize the high prices but won't allow for automation at ports due to the dockworkers union, which is the kind of thing that would help lower prices. The Biden admin maintained Trump's first term tariffs. Their response to the SOTU proves it. They're hapless at going after one of his biggest policy moves because it's a policy they mostly support.
And with the Republicans either too chickenshit or dumb to go against tariffs, the policy, of course, looks reasonable to the American people because both sides make arguments for it. The idea that it can easily be undone, as Megyn Kelly says, is completely out of touch with reality. Supply chains and sourcing are done frequently on multiyear lead times. There will be consequences that outlive the policy reversal.
I'm really liking the FDR comparisons more and more, even though, when Trump came into office, we weren't nearly in as dire a predicament as those in the Great Depression.
It's all very stupid. Stop touching the hot stove.
Aside from the overall anti-Irishness of the show and Moynihan's Ulster Unionism, the biggest continual disagreement I have with the boys is Kmele's constant defense of Kanye. I mean, "exceptionally talented"??? Come on.
I for one am hoping Trump offers Thomas Sowell the presidential medal … not sure if Thomas would want it given the MAGA economic policies but he definitely deserves the honor
Trump has forgotten the lesson from McKinley? I think it’s pretty generous to assume that he was ever aware of what McKinley said in the first place. “McKinley!? Beautiful mountain. The best. Some people are saying there should be a Trump mountain but we’ll see.”
I happen to be a content manager on Al Green’s YouTube channel. Not only is he alive, but he’s still recording music! We recently put out his cover of R.E.M.’s song “Everybody Hurts”.
https://youtu.be/UEwPIfk6LpQ?si=JWEX04bJwg8eLNCL
Most positive comments section on the entire internet btw. Nothing but love from Al Green fans.
A Fifdom meetup at Rev. Al's church might be almost as lit as our Bay of Pigs Museum excursion....
I want to bring him on the podcast to discuss music, faith, and THE GAYS.
LFG!
I’ll be sure to pass this request along to his team VERBATIM.
Please Please get Rev. Al on.
Maybe, to avoid confusion, refer to him as Rev. Green. The other Rev. Al’s “church” is the MSNBC studio, or anywhere a black man has been involved in a crime involving a white police officer.
👑
I saw him do a beautiful opening set for the last ever Beastie Boys show at Bonnaroo 2009!
I initially read that first bullet point as “A very long STFU” and got excited by the prospect of a Moyni-rant for the ages.
I’m sure the commentary will good too. ❤️
MW: "...Elise Stefanik..."
MM: "...nope, Elissa Slotkin..."
Me, out loud: "No Step Fa Snik!"
Kmele: “Sheinbaum. Hmmm. That’s an interesting (((name)))”
Re: make Kmele Great Again… a little over a year ago I applied, unsolicited, to replace Kmele. Since that day? Quality of the show continues to improve. You’re welcome.
Apparently Al Green is a member of the Prince Hall Freemasonry, founded in 1774 by and for African Americans. Other members include or have included Shaq, Duke Ellington, Jesse Jackson, Thurgood Marshall, Booker T Washington, Richard Pryor. Fascinating history.
https://californiafreemason.org/2024/06/21/prince-hall-father-figure/
I need to know what happened in the Gene Hackman household.
Genuinely curious. Why does DailyWire and Ben Shapiro rarely if ever get mentioned, if they’re mentioned it is very brief and never talked about in depth.
DailyWire wipes the floor with pretty much everyone you have mentioned in “new media” as of 2 years ago they had 1M paying subscribers. They’ve expanded into many different content spheres, almost like a “the daily” brief, children’s entertainment, conservative movies, products, etc. Have been overwhelmingly successful. And are bigger on outlets on internet platforms like YouTube.
Directly comparing this in my head to Charlie Kirk being mentioned all the time. Also, I only really know Ben Shapiro so I’m not even really comparing DailyWire to Kirk, but just Shapiro to Kirk.
Shapiro - started DailyWire which is enormous. Has 7.22M YouTuber subscribers, 4.3B total views, 7.7M twitter followers etc. Views, subscribers, followers, all on his individual account, again separate of the massive company he started.
Kirk - 2.97M YouTube, 850M total views, 4.7M twitter followers.
I still listen to Shapiro, so I’ve assumed that you don’t bring him up much because compared to the Kirk’s of the world I imagine he looks sane and relatively rational so there’s not as much of a story there to mull over. At the start of his career he got a ton of headlines over basically “the Orthodox Jew doesn’t believe in abortion!!! What a piece of shit!!!” When everyone outside of legacy media was like “yeah, that checks out….”. Those type of headline writers now have 100x the material with the explosion of conservative *influencers* who are retarded and say actually completely insane shit, so he seemingly isn’t as in the news as he once was.
He almost never says anything I find insane. He says stuff I disagree with because religion colors his views and I have never attended a religious service in my entire life, but those disagreements are usually values based, not logic and reason based.
What got me to write this is when you guys said “where are the conservative thinkers?” and came up empty handed. I mean Shapiro is no Buckley. He doesn’t try and steer the public in the same way with his values. He more of just a commentator than that. But, (to my eyes) he does have very consistent views and political philosophy. He does still disagree with Trump daily, hell this podcast he’d probably not disagree with a single thing besides future outlook. He thinks tariffs are horrendous and thinks Trump is stupid for using them (although he’s still holding out they’re only a tool. Yet still mentions that potentially they aren’t a tool to trump and that would be bad). He thinks the tariffs will really harm the economy and is worried about a recession. He thinks Trumps handling of Ukraine has been bad (although he puts the honus of it derailing on Zelensky and you’d 100% disagree). He thinks we need to continue support of Ukraine and Russia/Putin are still an enemy of the US (again here he will frame Trumps attempts to be friendly with Putin as a way to find an off-ramp to the war, which I think gives Trump too much credit. But he does disagree with Trumps handling). He has the same concerns about onshoring manufacturing as you all do. Etc. All in all he might not espouse foundational principles as forcibly and clearly as Buckley, he’s a commentator, but he does get those principles (mostly) across in his commentary. And, as much as you may disagree with him on tons of stuff, the man is very smart. So, in the world again that the likes of Charlie Kirk are brought up. I was very surprised Shapiro didn’t get some sort of acknowledgement, which changed my view from “he’s not really story worthy, that’s why the Fifth doesn’t talk at all about him” to I don’t know what. Is it ignoring or unaware of him or his work? Genuinely curious.
Lastly, I claim Douglas Murray for the conservatives. I’m not sure if that’s totally fair, I only know his work on basically immigration and foreign policy, but the man is incredible and even where I disagree with him I find him fascinating to listen to. I think he might be the best orator of the generation. Clever, engaging, funny, well spoken and clear, concise, and very intelligent. I’ve read I believe all of his books and liked him for a long time, but this turned into the level of praise I am now giving after watching him debate, particularly watching him debate Malcolm Gladwell. I do not think Gladwell is a stupid guy in the slightest, read some of his books too (although as more time goes by the more I think there a bit of bullshit), and Murray made Gladwell look like a child during their Monk debate. I thought it was such a complete obliteration that I genuinely felt bad and embarrassed for Gladwell being on the stage. But yeah, think Murray should have been included.
Finally, Thomas Sowell. The man might be 94 and more apply to a past generation, BUT GOD DAMNIT HES NOT DEAD! Man is a titan in conservative thought and I am counting him on *our* side as long as I possibly can.
I would add Jonah Goldberg and Charlie Cooke.
Is it true that Ben Shapiro has been calling for a pardon of Derek chauvin or is that fake news?
Yeah, he has been on federal charges. Knows it would not release him from prison. That’s not a very controversial opinion though. Especially from my experience not in legal realms and depends entirely on how you ask the question. For instance, I have a gay lawyer democrat friend from Chicago, all to say he is not inclined to agree with *right-wing* sentiments and that’s it. I have talked about the Chauvin trial with him for hours. I have asked plainly “do you think Chauvin got a fair trial?” And he has replied easily “yes”. Done deal right? Not really. I have also asked do you think the jury was unbiased and only ruled on the evidence of the case. And he said “no way to know, but I would assume not”. I asked “how is that a fair trial then?” And then you realize there is a pretty massive divide on philosophy on this question. My friends point is the court followed every procedure in the trial in the right way, but that the measures are incredibly imperfect but the measures being imperfect and the jury being influenced by outside factors doesn’t make it an unfair trial. The court did everything the right way in the environment they were in, so it was fair. Other lawyers I’ve talked to (I.e. my brother’s college roommate who started his own firm - we all went to college together) have a different foundational view of this. He doesn’t think hinges on if the court did everything right, he thinks if there is reasonable belief that the jury was tainted by outside opinions and wasn’t purely following the evidence of the case, for example the largest protests in American history where at the same time jury information was being leaked concurrently in other cases and people were being doxxed, that the case should be retried or thrown out.
Summarized one side believes if the PROCEDURE of law was carried out fairly then the outcome was fair.
The other side believes the outcome is only fair if the STANDARDS of the law are met.
Now to be clear, this gets incredibly muddy incredibly quickly. For instance, (I’ve heard them argue this for hours, so this is a rough summary) how can one say the standards aren’t met if the procedure is followed. Taking that the procedures were followed fully, to say the standards haven’t been met can be seen as just the person using their individual judgement to basically imply that the jurors are lying about what they’re saying or lying about how they’re thinking, which who are you to say that? Meanwhile the other side would say you’ve already admitted the procedures are imperfect, in a system with an existing known error rate, how can you say the standards have been met in maybe the number 1 heated, high emotion, biggest stakes trial of American history in a modern era where sequestration for any extended period of time is impossible (both sides agree with that to different degrees)?
Each side has a million different specific points on this case to support their side, but those are the broad brush strokes as I remember them.
All this to say, when USA Today quotes a Harvard law professor as ““I think it was a clean trial,” said Sullivan”, there are no details of exactly what that means. I could 100% agree with that statement, and me and Sullivan (although him 100x more expert) could agree on 99% of the case, and still reach a different ultimate conclusion based on this difference in philosophy.
Lastly, polling on this case also is much muddier than headlines read. For instance, ~70% say he received a fair trial. But ~30% say he should face 1-10 years in prison. For what Chauvin was found guilty of, those are basically diametrically opposed polling stats. They only indicate to me 70% of people think it was a fair trial but 30% of those have no idea what that means. He was found guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. A <10 year sentence for those charges would be unprecedented.
So yes, Shapiro is asking for a federal pardon. I do not find that very extreme. As he lays out his view of the case, his view overlaps with about 95% with the 8 Chicago lawyers I know personally, and he reaches the same conclusion as about 3 of the 8. Additionally, he graduated Harvard Law cum laude and as he talks about the case, he doesn’t talk about it as a social/political/internet fight, he talks about it by the legal merits of the case as he sees them. I have no reason to believe he got to his opinions in bad faith and he’s more educated on the topic than about 95%+ of the general population.
Finally, my view, I do not have a strong opinion on a Chauvin pardon at all. I probably lean that the trial was not entirely fair but also I do not think it was like corrupt in any way. Further, I think a pardon socially would be awful, even with Chauvin still required to serve a 20+ year sentence on state charges I think people would have a meltdown I am entirely uninterested in being a part of (I was there in 2020 and it was awful), and politically if you are Trump I do not see how it could possibly benefit you. Uneducated, contradictory opinions or not, the general public does not think it is a good idea. I do not see what he would have to gain from it. So overall I think a federal pardon is pretty stupid and disagree with Shapiro. I just do not think it is some insane, out of left field take. The democrats in my life (being in Chicago basically every person I know), pretty much all disagree with it too. But when you sit down and have an extended conversation, don’t disagree that much at all. More around the edges than anything else.
Yes. He’s been lobbying for it on his show this week and there’s a website 😑
This is horrible.
Alex Thompson was indeed ahead of the pack in reporting on Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline, which was denied by democrats, until they could deny it no longer, along with their supporters, and prominent media figures — but I repeat myself — many of whom tried to explain it away as a “lifelong stutter” (never heard before 2019 despite Biden babbling in public for 50 years).
Jake Tapper’s record on the matter? Poor…
https://youtu.be/PsZcTNAqqu8?feature=shared
I always read George F. Will. Everybody should. I also miss William F. Buckley, and the original ‘Firing Line.’ No offense to the lovely Margaret Hoover.
Dean Phillips was one half of my 2024 write-in vote.
You guys didn’t mention Thomas Sowell. The man might be 94 and more apply to past generations, BUT GOD DAMNIT HES NOT DEAD! Man is a titan in conservative thought and I am counting him on *our side* (I don’t know what that means anymore) as long as I possibly can. Kmele shame on you! (Jk)
I feel like this one should be titled, “99 Minutes and a Dem Ain’t One (Let’s Stay Together)”
Nicely done!!
The obvious problem is that there is nobody on the democratic side to offer a credible, ideological defense of free trade, so when you see, say, Chuck Schumer criticizing the tariffs, it's completely in bad faith. They'll criticize the high prices but won't allow for automation at ports due to the dockworkers union, which is the kind of thing that would help lower prices. The Biden admin maintained Trump's first term tariffs. Their response to the SOTU proves it. They're hapless at going after one of his biggest policy moves because it's a policy they mostly support.
And with the Republicans either too chickenshit or dumb to go against tariffs, the policy, of course, looks reasonable to the American people because both sides make arguments for it. The idea that it can easily be undone, as Megyn Kelly says, is completely out of touch with reality. Supply chains and sourcing are done frequently on multiyear lead times. There will be consequences that outlive the policy reversal.
I'm really liking the FDR comparisons more and more, even though, when Trump came into office, we weren't nearly in as dire a predicament as those in the Great Depression.
It's all very stupid. Stop touching the hot stove.
Aside from the overall anti-Irishness of the show and Moynihan's Ulster Unionism, the biggest continual disagreement I have with the boys is Kmele's constant defense of Kanye. I mean, "exceptionally talented"??? Come on.
Of COURSE Kmele wants to see Othello . . . Why’s he so obsessed with race? 🙄
I for one am hoping Trump offers Thomas Sowell the presidential medal … not sure if Thomas would want it given the MAGA economic policies but he definitely deserves the honor
Trump has forgotten the lesson from McKinley? I think it’s pretty generous to assume that he was ever aware of what McKinley said in the first place. “McKinley!? Beautiful mountain. The best. Some people are saying there should be a Trump mountain but we’ll see.”
The lesson of McKinley is to get shot, die from gangrene, and let the far superior Theodore Roosevelt take charge.
Teddy sucked.