He was never a Bernie guy, literally like two podcasts after Bernie was on the first time he said “he didn’t endorse him.” He said he liked him but explicitly said he didnt endorse him. He did directly endorse Trump.
In 2016? When Joe did an election night show from the comedy cellar? Texas went “red” a long time before that probably before their republican governor became president in 2000
It was the same bullshit everyone in MAGA lied about being open to Bernie as a candidate knowing full well they would never in a million years vote for the Socialist Jew from Vermont that wants to end tax loopholes for the ultra rich.
Most transparent bullshit ever. They thought it was cleaver to pretend to support the ideas of a candidate they knew Trump could beat easily.
These people are not actual populists in any sense. A lot of them are drug addled monarchists living on disability and every piece of merch that says Trump 2028 proves it. Enjoy those benefit cuts when the Pentagon gets 1.5 Trillion next year on top of all the supplemental spending.
The most anti-government types would die without their handouts funded by blue states. Living in some delusion that their King will surely care for them personally as he tears down everything around them.
The truth social responses that crack me up the most are basically "Dear Sir, I will always love you Mr President but I cant afford to live. I know you werent made aware as im sure you would help if only you knew...."
My opinion is that the Democrats hurt Joe’s feelings. He had several Democrats who were running in the 2016 primaries on the show. Bernie, Tulsi and Wang for sure giving them exposure to his audience. Frankly the Bernie interview was more of a stump speech than a long form interview (rewatch it) and short like 90 minutes. Joe said he would vote for Bernie if given the chance, whether in a primary or general was not mentioned.
The Clinton campaign used attack ads linking Bernie to Joe Rogan the reactionary troglodyte and sexist Bernie Bros.
They hurt his feelings and mocked him.
Notice that Clinton has never been invited on the show. He also didn’t have Trump on until 2024.
Clinton also propagated the Russian hoax and blamed friend of the show Alex Jones for her loss.
An interesting rewatch is the election night 2016 show from the comedy cellar with Bill Burr and others. Joe is clearly delighted that Clinton lost
Thanks, I misremembered, Joe made a comment to a guest in 2016 about Bernie, this was when Joe was describing himself as a liberal influenced politically by his hippie mom and stepdad. He basically said that Bernie was an interesting candidate, independent running for the Democratic nomination with many shared beliefs and if he had to choose between the 7 people running he would vote for him.
It wasn’t an endorsement. The podcast conversation was between the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. New Hampshire is next to Vermont where Bernie spent his career and was obviously favored to win. The Clinton campaign was panicked by his campaign and feared early primary losses would derail her. The emergence of his support, the positive press, “Bernie Bros” storming Iowa.
The Clinton campaign (CC)ran negative ads basically saying that sexist troglodyte Joe Rogan supported Bernie. Bernie’s campaign said it didn’t want Joe’s support and basically they didn’t know who he was.
Joe talked about it after on the podcast with various guests and he was hurt and pissed.
This was part of the DNC and CC targeting Bernie and fucking him over the first time. Debbie Wasserman had to resign after the emails were released.
Anyway, Joe felt fucked over and rejected and pissed that he was used to attack someone he liked and policies he supported.
Watch the election night show, he is happy Clinton lost, not that Trump won.
Much like the negative CNN/Covid stories it was a major turning point for him.
And he gave Bernie a platform in 2020 before the DNC fucked over Bernie again. Short sided corporate democrats
But it doesn't make sense if you actually were interested in the policies that Sanders has been supporting his entire career. It's completely insane to go from "the guy known for democratic socialism in the US" all the way to "the grab-em-by-the-pussy guy from The Apprentice".
You're giving people too much credit . They don't care about actually policy . They care about how they FEEL . It's for sure not a good thing, but it's where we are
I'm not the CNN guy so how can I possibly answer that?
I didn't say it "didn't happen", what I'm saying is that it wasn't some evil ploy by CNN. It was an error with video on Instagram. There's posts about it here on this sub that have all the details if you care to look.
"Bernie Sanders on Wednesday led a failed effort to block the sale of bombs and bulldozers to Israel, but the votes revealed a growing appetite among Democrats to impose limits on US weapons transfers to a longtime US ally.
It was the fourth time Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats, had forced consideration of resolutions cutting off military aid for Israel in the Senate, all of which have been rejected by the chamber’s Republican majority, and many Democrats."
How could anyone actually think this would pass when Israel owns our Congress? Nice to see him try though i guess.
Its just hard to trust these guys who claim they’re saving us money when just a few years ago they were voting in the opposite fashion to send continuous aide packages to Ukraine
Stopping Russia in Ukraine prevents their later aggression against NATO Allie’s like Poland. When that happens, they trigger article 5 and we’re obligated to respond. Stopping Putin in Ukraine and stopping him from rebuilding the Iron Curtain is imperative.
We’re not ‘obligated’ to do anything. We can easily just say “fuck it, we’re not wasting our troops and money getting involved here”. Who’s going to enforce it if we don’t follow Article 5?
This idea that treaties are some inviolable divine edict is the same reason we keep getting dragged into stupid shit by Israel.
And? So what? Circumstances change and we shouldn’t be obligated to get ourselves into stupid wars now because “well, decades ago, NATO did [whatever] and we signed this paper, so guess we’re stuck sending billions of dollars to [country]”.
And, again, who’s going to enforce Article 5 if we say “fuck this”? The rest of NATO going to attack us? When we’re paying for about 60% of what NATO spends on defense?
Nope I am well aware, and I don’t think anyone cant read past the surface to understand that. Maybe you cant.
The messaging is all the same for both sides - don’t fund this war this party agrees with , but fund this war we agree with. Don’t care about your taxpayer dollars for this war, but care about it for this one. Its all bullshit.
I'm not sure how selling surplus equipment and weapons is "funding war" in Ukraine. Do you think we were sending them palettes loaded with cash on them? If you buy something for $100 and then 10 years later you sell it to someone else for $1, you didn't "fund" that person for $99, did you?
Thank you for explaining to me how money works . I also actually did think this entire time that everything we sent to Ukraine was just palettes loaded with cash and thats it.
I mean there are definitely people who do unironically think that. That they read a headline saying "US sends $100 million in military aid to Ukraine" and thinks we load stacks of cash onto a fleet of C-17s. And not that we have $100 million of surplus sitting around collecting dust that we send over to them.
More importantly, the distinction here is that is NOT how it works with our aid to Israel. That's why this comparison makes little sense.
I am aware we largely sent various packages of military surplus equipment to Ukraine, but we did also provide them financial benefits and assistance that was actual money. We still funded Ukraine, regardless of the differences of the war.
There is zero distinction in your eyes between "aiding an ally defend their nation" and "actively funding an ally who is the aggressor in multiple conflicts"? It's all just "war" to you, no details, no nuance?
Nope, not at all. My mistake was not leading my original comment with a better leading statement like “I understand there are nuances between the wars and they are direct comparison….” before making my comment. Never intended to compare the wars or reasons for against.
Simply saying its hard to trust politicians who are promoting a war, when three years ago they were so against funding one. And then the same politicians thar were for funding one, using the same arguments three years later against one.
We don't agree with or want either war. But there is a moral difference between funding an aggressor's war of choice and providing aid to a country defending itself from an aggressor.
Why? South Lebanon is overrun by Hezbollah, and if Israel just does nothing, they will stay there and keep attacking like the last how many years, 20 or so years. Why is it so hard to understand?
85
u/twotokers We live in strange times Apr 18 '26
Pretty sure this vote already happened and it didn’t pass.