Hunter Biden sat down for a three hour podcast interview with Channel 5’s Andrew Callaghan and got rave reviews from king podcast bro Joe Rogan.
Rogan said of Hunter Biden, “He could be president. No bullshit.”
Rogan also said “He’s a lot smarter than people give him credit for,” Rogan added. “He’s talking, and one of the things he was talking about was why smoking things are so addictive, why smoking cigarettes are so addictive, and the psychology behind it. He’s not dumb.”
And, “It’s the greatest crack advertisement of all time. No. If crack wasn’t terrible for you, this guy makes me want to try crack. I’m not going to. Don’t do it. I’m not giving any advice, but I’m saying this guy, like legitimately, this might be the best advertisement for crack of all-time.”
Heady praise.
FWIW, Helen Lewis at The Atlantic was similarly enraptured (although she kept any personal curiosity about crack cocaine to herself):
About two hours into the Gen Z influencer Andrew Callaghan’s interview with Hunter Biden, I had a moment of piercing clarity: Here is a Democrat you could put on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
I’ll come back to Hunter Biden at the end of this piece but first, let’s look at the bigger picture facing Democrats.
This came at the same time as The Wall Street Journal released a poll with terrible news for Democrats.
— Nat Wilson Turner (@natwilsonturner) July 28, 2025
From the WSJ article on the poll:
Democrats have been hoping that a voter backlash against the president will be powerful enough to restore their majority in the House in next year’s midterm elections, much as it did during Trump’s first term. But the Journal poll shows that the party hasn’t yet accomplished a needed first step in that plan: persuading voters they can do a better job than Trump’s party.
On the whole, voters disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and foreign policy. And yet in each case, the new Journal poll found, voters nonetheless say they trust Republicans rather than Democrats to handle those same issues in Congress.
In some cases, the disparities are striking. Disapproval of Trump’s handling of inflation outweighs approval by 11 points, and yet the GOP is trusted more than Democrats to handle inflation by 10 points. By 17 points, voters disapprove rather than approve of Trump’s handling of tariffs, and yet Republicans are trusted more than Democrats on the issue by 7 points.
Voters have significant concerns about the centerpiece of Trump’s agenda—his immigration policies—opposing some of his deportation tactics by double-digit numbers. And yet they trust congressional Republicans more than Democrats on immigration by 17 points and on handling illegal immigration by 24 points.
Last week also saw reports emerge that the Democratic National Committee is conducting an “examination of what went wrong in the 2024 election.”
From the NYT article on the audit:
The audit, which the committee is calling an “after-action review,” is expected to avoid the questions of whether former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. should have run for re-election in the first place, whether he should have exited the race earlier than he did and whether former Vice President Kamala Harris was the right choice to replace him, according to the people briefed on the process so far.
Nor is the review expected to revisit key decisions by the Harris campaign — like framing the election as a choice between democracy and fascism, and refraining from hitting back after an ad by Donald J. Trump memorably attacked Ms. Harris on transgender rights by suggesting that she was for “they/them” while Mr. Trump was “for you” — that have roiled Democrats in the months since Mr. Trump took back the White House.
Party officials described the draft document as focusing on the 2024 election as a whole, but not on the presidential campaign — which is something like eating at a steakhouse and then reviewing the salad.
Ironically, the NYT piece trashing the Dems for avoiding the obvious explanations never mentions the word “Gaza,” possibly the heaviest albatross around the neck of Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election.
— Nat Wilson Turner (@natwilsonturner) July 3, 2025
Post-election polling was clear as Ryan Grim reported in January:
From 2020 to 2024, Democrats saw a staggering dropoff in support at the presidential level, with some 19 million people who voted for Joe Biden staying home (or not mailing in their ballots) in 2024. Now, a new survey conducted by YouGov suggests Biden’s support for Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza played a surprisingly large role in the choice of those previous Biden supporters not to vote. (Read the full poll here.)
The top reason those non-voters cited, above the economy at 24 percent and immigration at 11 percent, was Gaza: a full 29 percent cited the ongoing onslaught as the top reason they didn’t cast a vote in 2024.
It’s grimly ironic that the DNC can’t even bring itself to look at the root causes of Kamala Harris’ spectacular 2024 failure, much less the role of her support for genocide in Gaza in that failure even as many party stalwarts have finally found their tongues to condemn the deliberate starvation of millions of Gazan civilians by the Israelis.
A growing number of Democrats from across the party’s ideological spectrum are speaking out about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, calling for the Trump administration to intervene in the Israel-Hamas war amid warnings from global leaders and international relief groups that the situation in the war-torn strip has reached a breaking point.
It’s wild to suddenly see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, and Hakeem Jeffries speaking out, but don’t get carried away, the Centrist script still blames Hamas:
Reps. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), two Democrats who have remained staunch supporters of Israel, joined the outcry of concern for those in Gaza — while still keeping the onus on Hamas.
“The humanitarian situation in Gaza is a full-blown crisis, with innocent women and children who are starving,” Scholten wrote in a press release Saturday, adding that “we must remain clear-eyed about one thing: Hamas started this war and can end it today. But they choose not to.”
Goldman gave a similar response, expressing concern for the amount of starving Palestinians, while keeping the blame on Hamas: “And let’s be clear: Hamas could end it today if they wanted to. Israel has agreed to a ceasefire proposal, Hamas has rejected it. Release the hostages and end this travesty.”
Gaza isn’t the only intra-party split Democrats are facing. Matt Stoller wrote about two competing economic proposals put forward by Congressional Democrats last week:
I want to start by focusing on two policy roll-outs that got very little attention, but represent tensions within the out-of-power Democrats.
For context, a record 63% of voters have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, versus 33% with a favorable view. That’s really quite bad, and as you might think, there are deep disagreements within the party about what to do about this gap. Two different visions were quietly released this week, in deep tension with each other.
The first is a new Senate package of bills designed to lower the cost of capital for building and owning housing. It’s led on the Democratic side by Senator Elizabeth Warren, though every Senator on the Banking Committee has authored provisions. The second is a proposal from a caucus of Silicon Valley friendly Congressional Democrats on how to foster technology and innovation. Both are about how to channel capital, and who should channel it.
…the bill is quite modest. It’s a bipartisan bill in a Republican Congress. The Chair, Republican Tim Scott, has his own priorities, so a lot of the useful programs are limited. But in this legislation one can see the thinking of how to address some of the challenges put forward. It is what good faith parts of the Abundance movement are seeking, and yet led by the populist Senator Elizabeth Warren.
The second, and in many ways opposite proposal, is an “Innovation Agenda” put forward by the New Democrat caucus, which generally skews more Wall Street and Silicon Valley friendly. There are 110 House members of the New Democrats, which is more than half of House Democrats. Their document too is long and complicated, so I don’t want to go over every detail, but it’s essentially just an autopen of 1990s Clinton-style policymaking, with subsidies for generative AI thrown in there.
…
If you cobbled together the wish lists of crypto lobbyists, defense contractors, big tech firms, and pharmaceutical interests, you’d get this document. In fact, it’s almost identical to what you’d find with a Republican economic advocacy group, except this group also wants to finance universities, and seeks to have “diverse perspectives” and “diverse representation in AI ethics boards and decision-making bodies.” They don’t even mention the interests of labor, not even in a perfunctory way.…fundamentally, this agenda is about lowering financing costs for powerful firms and subsidizing Wall Street-style financialization and offshoring. So who is behind it? Well, it was spearheaded by Silicon Valley Rep. Sam Liccardo, NC Rep. Valerie Foushee, and Colorado Rep. Brittany Pettersen, though it’s really just the Clinton-Obama Wall Street-Silicon Valley lobbying world on autopilot.
And there we go. Those are the two factions of Democrats. One group is trying to figure out how to bring down the cost of capital for normal people, the other is seeking a trickle-down approach. If you vote for a Democrat, there’s no telling which faction you’ll get. And that might be why the party polls so terribly.
But let’s get back to Hunter Biden. I’ll skip the rhapsodic passages about crack cocaine that so enthralled Joe Rogan and get straight to his surprisingly cogent criticisms of some major Democratic Party influencers:
…the Pod Save America saviors of the Democratic Party with what four white millionaires that are dining out on their association with Barack Obama from 16 years ago. Living in Beverly fucking Hills telling the rest of the world what Black voters in South Carolina really want or what the waitress living outside of Green Bay, Wisconsin really believes.
I mean, I can’t believe that we did we do this over and over again. Or I hear Rahm Emanuel is going to run for president. What a fucking… like I David Axelrod’s going to run his campaign for him. Oh boy. There’s the answer. There’s the fucking answer. Genius.
I’ve covered Rahm Emanuel’s 2028 presidential aspirations previously and feel obligated to include his patronizing reply to Hunter Biden, delivered in an interview with former Fox News star Megyn Kelly:
“I think we’re giving this more time than it’s due. That’s my own view. A little empathetic, you have a son who’s blinded by his own love for, in effect, and loyalty for his father, and I get that, but not the first phone call I’m going to make for a strategery.”
That’s our Rahm, eloquently chopping the baby right down the middle.
And before I wrap this up I want to return to Helen Lewis’ take on Hunter Biden and his publicity tour because she does such an elegant job of conflating the narcissism and crass language of Hunter Biden with populism:
Joe Biden’s surviving son became MAGA world’s favorite punching bag because of his suspect business dealings in Ukraine, his infamous laptop, and his presidential pardon for tax and gun offenses. But in temperament and vocabulary, Hunter is MAGA to the core.
During last year’s presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s interviews with Rogan, Theo Von, and Logan Paul resonated with many young men. I can imagine that same audience watching Hunter Biden tell Callaghan about his crack addiction and thinking: Give this guy a break. One of the most upvoted comments on the YouTube video is from a poster saying that the interview prompted him to go to rehab.
Since their crushing loss in November, Democrats have wondered how they can win the battle for attention and reach voters who find them weak, remote, and passive. Their elected officials have been tiptoeing toward using the occasional cuss word in their public appearances, like teenagers cautiously puffing a joint for the first time and hoping not to cough. Hunter Biden, by contrast, went straight for line after line of the hard stuff. Donald Trump is a “fucking dictator thug,” and Democrats should fight against his deportation agenda because “we fought a fucking revolution against a king, based on two things in particular: habeas corpus and due process. And we’re so willing to give them up?”
Hunter’s cadences and mannerisms are eerily reminiscent of his father’s, except where Joe would say “malarkey,” Hunter Biden says: “I don’t have to be fucking nice.” At times, he sounds like his father’s id, saying the things the ex-president would like to say but cannot.
Clearly, Republicans have not cornered the market in gossipy aggression, although in both their and Hunter’s cases, most of that aggression is directed toward the Democrats and the media. In the Callaghan interview, which was released on Monday, the younger Biden has no time for James Carville (“hasn’t run a race in 40 fucking years”), George Clooney (“not a fucking actor”), or CNN’s Jake Tapper (“completely irrelevant”). His greatest animus is reserved for his party’s anti–Joe Biden faction, such as the men behind Pod Save America, who are “four white millionaires that are dining out on their association with Barack Obama from 16 years ago, living in Beverly fucking Hills.”
If you grew up in the pre-Trump media era, your response to this might be: Hunter, you have also made money off of your association with a president. But America has long since passed the point where allegations of hypocrisy are a useful political attack. Most voters now think that all politicians are hypocrites, but at least some of them are open about it.
…
You don’t have to like it, but this is the media world now—podcast chats like this are where elections are won and lost, just as much as at the televised town hall, on the front page of the New York Post, or in the stately sitdown with 60 Minutes. The minimum bar for the next Democratic candidate for president should be the ability to react, live on camera, in a plausibly normal fashion, to the existence of adult baby-diaper lovers.
…
I now wonder whether Hunter’s instincts were correct for once. He shows Callaghan the bullish charm of the narcissist. Bad things happen to him. Bad things might also happen to those around him, but, in his telling, he isn’t really their cause.That portrait is hard to square with the available facts. Many people manage to grieve for their brother without starting an affair with his widow, or introducing that widow to crack. Many presidents’ children have wrestled with the inevitable allegations of nepotism that their careers have created; few have so obviously traded on their father’s power as Hunter did with the Ukrainian company Burisma, for which he lobbied when his father was vice president. (His defense for this is that Burisma wasn’t a big deal, that he also worked for many charitable organizations, and that in any case the Trump sons and Jared Kushner are worse.)
…
Hunter’s perpetual refusal to be held accountable is clearly a character trait that many people are prepared to overlook. But then, when did a populist ever accept responsibility for anything? He has understood that to succeed in the modern media environment, you should throw out intimate details about your life in a way that looks like total, raw, unfiltered honesty while glossing over the raw, unfiltered details that reflect poorly on you.
Lewis’ enthusiastic insistence on labeling Hunter Biden a “populist” based on his narcissism, cursing, and other purely superficial factors brings to mind the MSM’s love affair with Dark Woke” or their knack for focusing solely on the most superficial aspects of Zohran Mamdani’s campaign such that they can claim his “movement” “lost momentum” in an Arizona Senate primary he had nothing to do with.
At The New Republic, Greg Sargent points out how centrists like Ezra Klein misunderstand Mamdani’s approach:
(Ezra) Klein recently suggested that Democrats can project authenticity and appeal by talking like an “angry moderate.” Contra that, Mamdani—who is also campaigning on tax hikes for the rich and making bus service free—offers what you might call “cheerful populism.”
…not every Democrat can emulate Mamdani’s charisma and political talents, which drive his digital success. But Mamdani’s real innovation isn’t just personal. It lies in the deliberate fusion of personal appeals with substantive ones. He has figured out how to make talk about community boards and city council bills go viral by being a dude you want to hang out with and get to know better on social media. As Epstein told me, what’s critical is the combination of “demonstrating a positive agenda that improves people’s lives” while putting “this full person front and center.”
A number of outlets have breathlessly covered “dark woke” but no one has done it with “>the heft and staggering cluelessness of The New York Times.
The NYT piece is subtitled “Democrats are trying out a new attitude. It’s provocative, edgy and perilously toeing the line of not being too offensive” and it platforms “Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, has on more than one occasion directed name-calling and insults at her political opponents.”
Interestingly, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has been promoting its poll claiming that Rep. Crockett is way ahead in the Texas Democratic Senatorial primary, although she hasn’t actually announced her candidacy.
Do I really need to say that Democrats should run screaming from any tactic encouraged by both The New York Times and the Republican Party?
Must I also add that the fundamental split in the party is between servants of oligarchy and economic populists and no amount of crassness or vulgarity (or as Pete Buttigieg calls it “message discipline”) can turn a cynical centrist into the next Zohran Mamdani?
Also, we should never forget that Hunter Biden has already had his shot, there was a brief post-debate, pre-drop out period when some claimed Hunter was acting POTUS.
Thanks Hunter, that will be all.
58 comments
Comments are closed.
Consider me old. This use of profanity implying one is “cool” (as in TV, music, and print) or “populist” as with Helen Lewis, is a clear example of a person who is inarticulate. They can’t present an argument or position with clarity and precision. So I say “funk it”, because funk is its own reward.
The dumbing down and ensheitification continues.
That, and Lewis’ identification of this speech feature with MAGA, ought to give us an easier way to read what Dems mean when they refer to “populists”: they are expressing their idea of what the working class thinks, talks, and acts like. These commentators don’t like to refer to economic class, but will hold up their noses when manners, the residue of economic class, are breached. It’s a classist dog-whistle. They can’t go out in public and say “I think everyone who didn’t go to college should be excluded from public decision-making, if not the gene pool”, so they talk about “populism”, which they identify with cursing and insults.
So I’m a commie, and I think everyone must be along. But I’m not an authoritarian, so that is the dilemma, because the upper crust is the deadliest weight. I might change to a harder hand.
ok so i feel like everybody just swears. maybe i am just a 21 year old guy who is biased. but everybody just swears. everybody uses swears as intensifiers. it is not that deep. the only taboo comes from people who are very old. (i say this respectfully.) to me, swears are generic filler words, anti-swearing is the nanny state.
and it is less “swearing is cool!” more it being deeply annoying when someone makes you not swear. like when ur trying to have a normal conversation, let a few swears slip because they mean absolutely nothing to you, then someone tells you to stop swearing you hate the person telling you to censor your speech. very simple human instinct against being told what to do here.
…why be like your peers?
Stand out and broaden your vocabulary. Could you imagine Shakespeare (a very old person) dropping an F-bomb every 14th word in Hamlet?
Maybe if Hamlet had replied “Fuck off dad, I don’t believe in fucking ghosts I am going back to fucking Wittenberg tomorrow”, for several centuries, audiences would have been relieved of sitting through up to four hours of his anguished mental wrangling before all the main characters are finally dead.
BTW I love Hamlet and have seen loads of productions of the play and have a ticket to see the latest at the National Theatre in September. Even so, some productions are overlong and laboured, to say the least.
Well played…
I keep running into younger adults who similar to Hunter, haven’t figured out a way to curse properly using words that are wholly innocent. I don’t think I ever heard my mom drop an F-bomb in 98 years, she was quite verbally adroit.
I think that f__k was embraced by boomers precisely because it was, for some reason, the sole curse word that many of our parents saw as a bridge too far. My mom could curse like a platoon sergeant. She also had that knack of stringing them together like weird poetry, with the occasional noun or article tossed in to hold it together.But not that word.
I seem to recall a certain american writer who said of Huckleberry Finn, He could swear wonderfully.
My mother also lived to be 98; she would say that someone resembled the south end of a northbound horse. My father preferred to say “the part of the horse that went over the fence last”.
Collapse of the West continues…
I fully agree. But profanity rules these days. Much like a cross-dressing Milton Berle ruled early television (a cultural marker that reveals I’m probably older than you).
Uh, no.
Not only no, but Hell, No!
With the Democratic polling numbers shown above, it’s time to form an American version of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s new UK party.
True that. But what will that take? Perhaps a complete financial collapse or civil war? Maybe that’s a twofer in our dystopian future?
I’ve been thinking the same thing but the American system makes that very difficult to do.
We need to have something ready by next July on Americas 250th Birthday!
Let’s just call it the American 🇺🇸 Economic Party.
Difficult? Try Impossible.
Let’s do it!
Classunity.org!
The ACP has a party up and running too.
The energy is there, we just need a big enough figure to pull us all together. Like Michael Hudson or Yves.
Rather than trying to start a political party in a legal structure designed to thwart that, I’ve been looking into starting a corporation, maybe a non-profit, to address online public goods: data privacy, data pooling and sale for the income of data producers (you and me) under their control; network effect coordinations like Uber/Lyft, internet search; purchase pooling as a GPO.
The whole thing structured through a VPN, saved encrypted to one of the clouds. To the extent you can start to capture the rents the Tech Oligarchs buy rocket ships with for public purpose, the corporation could go viral. As it did so, internal governance structures would need to be grown to ensure continued maximization of public good and dispersion of incomes.
At the scale of something like Facebook, this would become a de facto political operation, an On Line Free City where the citizens govern and legislate. Maybe Citizens Corporation. At that point, a frontal assault on the legal walls around the duopoly becomes possible.
Sounds great!
A Political Organization should offer services like these and members could provide them on behalf of the Organization.
They would outlaw it so fast. Sorry.
It’s legal just jitsu, there’s a raft of special cases in corporate law for corporate citizens.
The idea is to use that case law to structure the offerings, corporate governance, and “terms and conditions”,(it’s a digital business so all those legal carve outs apply to).
Then, when they try to criminalize it they’ll be goring some BigPharm, BigAg, MIC, or IT corporate ox as well.
OK, that’s the ticket!
One of my favorite musicians uses the phrase turn a seeming disadvantage into an advantage, Robert Fripp. Using the masters tools…
The Republican party started because Antebellum Whigs were acting as insufferably in the 1840s and 1850s as the modern Democratic party leadership are acting today. The factionalism that’s emerging in the Democrats also seems to parallel the factioning that was happening within the Whigs: You had No-Nothings who thought immigration was the primary problem within the US and wanted to stop Catholics from coming into the US. Versus the Abolitionists, who understood that the 3/5 Compromise and expansion of slavery into new territories was unjustly allowing the influence of slaveholders to expand; slaveholders who were undermining federalism and the rule of law to support an economic system built on human misery that was being abolished elsewhere.
It’s been 33 years since the last time the US Constitution has been successfully amended, with the 27th only allowing Congressional pay increases to apply after an election. Between 1795 and 1975 you had 16 new amendments pass, or about 1 every 11 years and 3 months on average. Combine the reconstruction amendments, and the appeal/repeal of prohibition, and that’s still 13 major reforms giving an average of under 14 years on average between reforms. The United States is overdue for an update: the last time we went over 30 years without an amendment was after reconstruction, between the 15th granting voting rights to non-whites, and the 16th allowing the modern income tax.
We can see the Abundance agenda does not recognize or prioritize judicial reform, including reform of the Supreme Court, as necessary for improving the welfare of Americans or securing the country from the corruption of its institutions. The question will be if this other emergent faction contra abundance will recognize this, and convince enough Democrats and independent voters that these reforms are not only necessary, but that all other political gains in the last century are in jeopardy without them, and that they will work towards getting those amendments passed in earnest.
If normal-people-for-improvement can smell the difference between the two factions of Democrats and can tell which faction any particular Democrat belongs in, they can vote for any particular Democrat which smells good to them and vote against any particular Democrat which smells bad to them. In time they might purge the bad-smelling Democrats out of the Party and take their Party back. Or they might recognize what they are doing in preferring good-smelling Democrats and they and some Good-Smelling Democrats might leave the Democratic Party and form their own Good Smelling Party. It would take decades for such a Party to conquer meaningful power over various jurisdictions and our tragedy is that we don’t have decades to wait. But that is the tragedy of Reformation Politics when time is running out or has already run out.
People should just try whatever they believe in and something might succeed and attract members and supporter from all the other failing attempts.
Good stuff as always Nat!
A big part of me loves to see the gloves come off and Trump and his ilk treated the same as they’re doing, but it accomplishes nothing. Hunter naturally comes across as the Democrat Trump in his interview, he just needs that TV show to get him over the hill.
One thing about it though, it’s simple. I’ve been following Naked Cap for many years now, and I’m still never clear on terms such as neoliberalism, neocon, populist, bourgeois, etc. I have to work really hard to better understand and I don’t do well explaining it to friends. Trump/Hunter and their “Roganist” form of politics is easy to understand, plus, the people trying to explain why you should not want it, go back to the hard to understand terms, which friends can’t understand so they’ll stick with Roganist.
I’m optimistic about Mamdani as I think he makes the simplest, easiest to understand reasons of any Dem I’ve heard since Obama(hence optimistic and not yet excited!!). I really want something like him to begin this new vision, but I’m resigned to the cause Joe Renter makes earlier as to what will kick it off.
Thanks!
Neo-liberal = every mainstream American President since Reagan. Bernie Sanders was the only attempted break. Trump has sometimes been seen as a threat to the neo-liberal order, but he’s more of a break with the constitutional order.
Neo-liberal = every mainstream American President since
ReaganCarter. Fixed it for you!good catch
If not for that damn laptop…..
This is not only contrary to what anybody with half a brain can see, but even to what Netanyahu has said publicly. He’s been clear that the war won’t end even if all hostages are released.
If they want to pretend to care about Gaza to appease voters, they’ll need to do a better job than this.
Whenever I hear Rahm’s name I have an uncontrollable knee jerk reaction to tell Rahm’s origin story…
Rahm Emanuel is the resultant evil spawn of a drug infused ritualistic 3-way between Leona Helmsley and the Koch brothers in fealty to Mammon. Yup David and Charles Koch.
I’m very happy to see that this time around poll respondents are not yet falling for the classic democrat reliance on the rebound effect to make Tweedledum temporarily look better than Tweedledee.
Unfortunately I don’t know what to do about, other than prepare for an actual collapse.
Yestereday I was telling my 91 year old Mom, on her birthday celebration, a retired nurse and still very sharp, who raised me a proper leftist, there are three ways this ends, and of course I came across this formulation first here on NC:
Famine
War
Revolution
She was telling me about looking over newspaper headlines from all of her years and how it all seems to repeat over and over.
It’s all the same plan to get rid of governance that is capable of holding people accountable and to make people think it’s a joke to believe it’s possible.
Just approaching it from all angles.
Probably.
Really appreciate this post.
As a female, as a former server in nice restaurants, and as someone who has spent a minute or two with rich kids, Hunter Biden looks and sounds like he is love with himself and his best quality is having some taste about how to hold an audience – with the audience being everyone else on earth especially men.
If I had to spend time with a guy from that episode, Joe would be the easy pick.
But good on Hunter for getting one guy into rehab.
“For context, a record 63% of voters have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, versus 33% with a favorable view. That’s really quite bad, and as you might think, there are deep disagreements within the party about what to do about this gap.”
I’m pretty sure that at least 90% of that 63% are still locked into the statist mind meld, believing that if they can just tweak this issue or find that candidate (Mamdani anyone?), then the system will work as advertised and the streets will be littered with rose petals and confetti.
And so “[i]t’s wild to suddenly see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, and Hakeem Jeffries speaking out, but don’t get carried away” because they all still are complicit in murder writ large, and they always were and always will be. If these folks (Dems and Repubs both) struggle to comprehend what they can say to bring these voters back to the fold, and while they “wonder… how they can win the battle for attention and reach voters who find them weak, remote, and passive,” the reality is that we know them to be in fact corrupt, dishonest and murderous, bereft of the slightest integrity and moral compass.
I have a suggestion for them: They should, in their own self-interest, shut up and GTFO. As in, leave. Because the truth is that, if we can wake up that 90% of the 63%, we are nearing the time when Hillary Clinton’s relevance will find resonance with that of Marie Antoinette’s. Personally, I would argue that these criminals should be accorded the same due process as the thousands of women, children, farmers and citizens — including American citizens — that these criminals have vaporized with Hellfire missiles and sodomized with bayonets, but that’s just me.
War criminals all.
“Rogan said of Hunter Biden, ‘He could be president.’”
Honestly, the dumb podcast guy is right. The Mueller-Time, Cuomosexual crowd would love him. He’s the perfect post-MeToo Nepobaby candidate for establishment Dems. Plus, he’s already got real world experience with global affairs in Ukraine and China.
Of the current bench the Dems have to offer he’s sadly far from the worst. I’d take a strung-out-on-crack Hunter over Emanuel, Shapiro, or Slotkin any day. Either way I’m just bracing for a decade of GOP rule though.
agree about Emanuel, Shapiro, and Slotkin. The Dems have a star-studded cast of ghouls out of Madam Tussad’s
I love the comment about experience with Ukraine. Dry. Biting article and comments Nat.
thanks!
Was Hunter convicted of a felony? Or did they spare him that to keep the dream alive?
His dad pardoned him.
‘The audit, which the committee is calling an “after-action review,” is expected to avoid the questions of whether former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. should have run for re-election in the first place, whether he should have exited the race earlier than he did and whether former Vice President Kamala Harris was the right choice to replace him, according to the people briefed on the process so far.’
Here in Oz when a party has a major loss, they have an “autopsy.” This audit sounds like they will only examine very narrow issues so as not to embarrass party elders, consultants and maybe even donors which is why it took over six months to agree on their brief. They will never even examine if the Biden-Harris ticket was the right choice in 2020 which got the into their present mess. They will examine nothing, learn nothing and will not change from who and what they are. But what they will do is fight to the death to prevent any third party arising in America.
The Dems are craven, corrupt and depraved and have their lips firmly attached to the buttocks of a different group of psychopathic oligarchs than the Thugs do.
Concrete material benefits are not to be discussed, let alone delivered.
Dem VS Thug is like Syphilis VS Gonorrhea, both drug (reality) resistant.
It’s going to get a lot weirder before things come completely apart, enjoy the show!
ive been a big andrew callaghan fan since he covered the area 51 raid back in 2019. so i watched the interview the minute it dropped, and also watched the hour long followup interview on the channel 5 patreon. i believe i have linked channel 5’s content in the comments before.
i do think channel 5 with andrew callaghan is the perfect example of how the democratic party could appeal to young male voters. callaghan is openly left leaning, having supported jill stein in the 2024 election exactly because of gaza. all his content is really good. i will shill it to the commentariat again. his coverage of the border crisis is incredible. the man is really good at covering all sides of the issue. subscribe to his patreon at patreon.com/channel5. he recently started a mexican language channel that is also great. one of his last videos had this really terrible explanation of american financial imperialism and he got clowned on super bad in the comments. i genuinely think there should be more channel 5 / naked capitalism overlap because callaghan doesnt understand much about economics and it does make his content worse.
my thoughts on the interview:
1. it was weird to see all the mainstream press going “what a profanity laden interview” like i didnt even notice it was full of swears. that’s just the way normal people talk. i just had to censor multiple swears from this post because respectfully, posting here is like talking to my grandparents.
2. hunter biden is so irish-catholic east coast democrat. like jesus mary and joseph if there’s one thing i got it was that. extended family coming in to help after a death in the family is soooo irish-catholic pilled. in the followup interview it was revealed that he is now painting the saints. he talked a lot about the irish-american ideal a duty to help the poor and i was like Wow. he sounds like my mom. freaky!
3. hunter biden really hates the democratic establishment. and yet he supports kamala harris. he kept being like “and [FAMILY BLOG] the dem establishment” then going “two state solution ?! :D” in a way that really undercut his points.
was searching through my diary for my notes on the hunter biden interview and apparently my brother’s boarding school buddy’s dad was hunter biden’s business partner and “leaked all the photos of him doing cocaine.” and this came up because tucker carlson gave my brother’s underaged friend his nicotine pouches before they were released to the public. quote, “tucker carlzyn because hes an upper deckie ferda giving zyns to underaged kids like the coolest guy ever!!!” of course this is the literal hearsay of teenage boys so i will not give it much credit.
The D’rats in the New Deal era were brought around, with pressure from an actual left (but not with their intent for socialism, only a fear), to save capitalism, which the D’rats did. But they could never support socialism. After the war they largely sat on their hands as the second red scare unfolded and started the march to neoliberalism (capitalism without effective working class opposition). The last remnants of opposition faded by the latter seventies.
Today we get shallow analysis of what is wrong with the D’rats. And the Reptiles receive a grouping of what is called populist.
I have a materialist view, and that should be quite popular, as conditions are declining, but the analysis lags far behind.
But under electoral pressure from Huey Long, and look what happened to him.
There’s a really interesting interview of Tucker Carlson with republican MAGA strategist Charlie Kirk. https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1947411884514136372 Listen at 1.26.31. Charlie Kirk says that if the Democrats would get around electing a presidential candidate that REALLY represented the economic interests of average Americans they would sweep the election. Nothing to add to that. Sanders would have become President if the democratic primaries hadn´t been manipulated.
Perhaps, maybe, but he never would have been allowed to govern.
100% agree with you that Bernie would have won. I’m wondering when we are going to get the discussion of how Bernie had great appeal with the disaffected men, young and old. In my experience, it is really men who turned the 2016 election and also in 2020. Far too many conversations with men, young and old who respected Bernie, but not Hilary or Kamala. And this isn’t because they were women, these men supported Tammy Baldwin, one of the more left (and only openly gay) Senators.
There is a repellent core to the uniparty. Each wing, republican and democrat, then has its own special brand, flavor, odor of nastiness. Touch neither. Run from their minions. Each in its own way is John Randolph of Roanoke’s mackerel in the moonlight, stinking and shining and stinking and shining.
19 million didn’t vote. I think that is a tragedy. If 19 million voted third party a lot of eyes would have opened wide in DC. I and 600,000 other people voted for Jill Stein. My vote for her was very simple. She says killing is wrong. It’s the 21st century. When is the killing going to stop?
Seeing those poll numbers, I don’t think a blue wave is going to happen at mid terms.
If all of the disaffected voters would vote as a block, it would be a lot more than 19 million. The whole game is to make sure they don’t get together. If Jill Stein [or any third-party candidate] had gotten to 19 million, you can be sure that would be the main agenda for the incoming administration, to dismantle any mechanism of that happening again.
As someone who lives in a deep blue state where there were no third parties on the Presidential ballot line AND the write in rules are so strict many of those votes would not count (if there were enough that they actually had to count them. The percentages are listed early but there is never data later or in the final reports), let me tell you it has already happened. Cuomo and friends made the already difficult task of just getting on the ballot pretty impossible in NY. If someone even did as well as Perot, these draconian rule changes would be adopted throughout this nation.
And yes, I fully attribute this to everything NY had to do to keep Sanders from winning a primary here, Occupy and third party voting in 2016. Cuomo knew this could be a huge problem for his future plans and was proactive to eliminate the threat.
Hunter is obviously sticking to a script and making a tour with his criticism as he’s said this before Rogan. But it’s obvious to me though that Hunter’s criticism of the Democrats is only because he feels they did his daddy dirty. See here (and also note the source and the framing, it’s equally obvious the Dems have no use for Hunter or the accidental truths he’s letting out): https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/opinion-hunter-bidens-entitled-rant-220735516.html “He could be president.” Yeah, just what we need. Another narcissistic fail son out for revenge against some perceived injustice done to him and his family.