Joe Rogan Tells Texas Dem He Should Run for President
In an interview with Democratic Texas State Rep. James Talarico on The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan told Talarico that he should consider running for president.
During a conversation about whether Americans have lost faith in the future of the country, Talarico argued that Americans should keep having faith in their ability to make change.
'That's because you need to run for president,' Rogan said in response. 'We need someone who's actually a good person.' While at 36 years old, Talarico is technically old enough to occupy the Oval Office, he appears to have his sights set on the Texas state senate instead.
The clip of the exchange, as well as other parts of Friday's two-hour-long interview, were shared widely on social media, including by Democratic media personalities like podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen and influencer Harry Sisson.
Talarico is a pastor, former teacher, and current state legislator who represents a district in central Texas. Politico has described him as 'the next big thing in Texas politics.'
Rogan was reportedly motivated to invite the lawmaker on his show when he saw a 2023 viral video of Talarico criticizing a state law that mandated the placement of the Ten Commandments in every Texas public school classroom.
The pair discussed the relationship between politics and religion at length, as well as funding for public education, universal basic income, and engaging young voters.
Talarico joins a growing group of Democratic politicians who have recently appeared on podcasts with conservative-leaning audiences, including Bernie Sanders (who sat down with Rogan last month), Pete Buttigieg, and Gavin Newsom. Incidentally, it's widely believed that the latter two are seriously mulling a 2028 election run.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
James Carville Gives Fox News Viewers An Uncomfortable Reminder About Jeffrey Epstein
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville on Thursday reminded Fox News viewers of a name that's rarely heard on the right-wing network: Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender who was once close with President Donald Trump. Fox News host Jesse Watters asked Carville if Democrats would consider Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, as a possible presidential candidate. 'You know, everybody in the world is talking about Epstein, and Fox is still talking about Biden's memory,' Carville said. 'That's so long ago I can't even remember it.' 'Well, do you want to talk about Epstein?' Watters asked. 'I don't mind talking about Epstein,' said Carville. Carville's reminder comes as a new report found that Fox News has indeed shied away from Epstein coverage ― just as Trump has asked. The report by Media Matters for America finds that on Monday, for example, Fox News mentioned former President Barack Obama 117 times and Epstein just twice. Carville and Watters resumed talking about the Bidens but returned to Epstein later in the segment. 'I wasn't even going to bring Epstein up,' Watters said. 'But because you did, do you, James Carville, a Clinton guy, think that the Democrats should be begging for the release of the Epstein files?' Like Trump, former President Bill Clinton was also once close with Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes in 2008. He was arrested again in 2019 and died in custody later that year, apparently of suicide, while awaiting trial on allegations of trafficking underage girls and other charges. Carville said he didn't know what was in the files. 'I suspect that they'll come out. I don't know what they are, but the story is not going away,' he said. 'That's pretty clear. It's just not going anywhere.' Trump has been facing new questions over his ties to Epstein after the Justice Department said it would not release any new material related to the case despite Trump's promises to do so. When asked about the case, Trump has deflected and complained about Obama instead. See the full segment below:
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
We're creating AI that could surveil US citizens. And the government is in on it.
Tech companies' lack of transparency and accountability in developing surveillance tools that governments can use is unacceptable. President Donald Trump recently gathered CEOs for a summit about renewing the United States 'spiritually and financially.' At the top of the agenda was a closer look at 'American values' such as faith and freedom. There is cause for alarm, however. Centuries after Americans declared independence from the British monarchy, our freedom and liberty are under threat − not only from foreign governments like China, but potentially our own. America's surveillance state is spreading as the federal government collects personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans. In the age of artificial intelligence, with data collection accelerating at an unprecedented rate, our privacy has never been more vulnerable. Who is the culprit? The data collectors range from the National Security Agency to Silicon Valley's cadre of data-hungry technology companies. Add to that list a new organization: Palantir. While it is not a household name like Google or Netflix, it is soon to be a common domestic concern. The technology company's surveillance operation has exploded in recent months, raising the possibility of creating a full-fledged surveillance state. Opinion: AI knows we shouldn't trust it for everything. I know because I asked it. Since January, Palantir has received more than $113 million in federal funds, according to The New York Times, not including a $795 million Defense Department contract awarded in May. While the federal government increased data sharing across agencies (with Palantir's help), the company continues to shop its technology to the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. AI technology could be repurposed for sinister uses We are talking about technology that can be weaponized. While Palantir's current focus is to identify people in the United States illegally, tracking movements in real time, the company is also building the infrastructure that could be used for a massive surveillance state. Former Palantir employees have warned about the potential for the company's AI tools to surveil American citizens with a disregard for personal privacy. It is not so far-fetched. Palantir's AI software is used by the Israeli Defense Forces to strike targets in Gaza. It is used to assist the U.S. Defense Department in analyzing drone footage. And it has been used by the Los Angeles Police Department to forecast crime patterns. This is called 'predictive policing.' If "Minority Report"was not a horror movie before, it is now. Given the government's penchant for abusing power (see: COVID-19 censorship or the NSA spying scandal), does this not seem like an obvious move against our civil liberties? For years, the NSA engaged in the mass surveillance of Americans' telephone records, as was exposed in 2013. Between 2001 and 2007, government wiretapping − executed without warrants − affected millions of U.S. citizens. Now, the same agencies are tapping into the power of AI to expand government surveillance in once unimaginable ways. Opinion: AI is changing our world. At what point will it change our reality? Of course, the federal government can already access a wide range of our personal data, but it is often separated by agency. Washington, DC, can create exponentially more detailed profiles on all of us by sharing data with the help of Palantir's AI tools. Even when surveilling noncitizens, the government's data collection inevitably tracks individual Americans based on their own interactions with these noncitizens. The government's data collection is based on information from police departments, financial institutions and other entities, like Palantir. Big government and big tech partnership raises concerns Even if the alliance between the government and Palantir works as intended, it is a potential threat to our civil liberties. Political dissidents could become targets. Not even those with limited public personas are safe from the state's detailed profiling machine. These systems are not perfect, and neither are our leaders. What happens when AI systems fail? What happens when data collection goes haywire? Palantir is hardly alone. OpenAI recently launched OpenAI for Government, which aims to equip federal, state and local leaders with advanced AI tools. OpenAI claims to serve the 'public good' and 'bolster national security readiness,' but why would private citizens take that at face value? What does 'readiness' actually mean, in practice? At the moment, many of our elected officials do not have answers to these questions, or they are just ignoring them. The same goes for OpenAI and Palantir, which are all too comfortable amassing ever-larger federal contracts and greater market share. This lack of transparency or accountability is unacceptable. The only thing worse than the overreach of Big Government is Big Tech in bed with Big Government. For those who care about freedom and liberty, now is the time to speak up, before it is too late. Peyton Hornberger serves as communications director at The Alliance for Secure AI, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the implications of advanced artificial intelligence.
Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
What James Carville doesn't get about voter priorities
Writing in the New York Times on Monday, longtime Democratic political strategist James Carville outlined a compelling message for Democrats to unite around ahead of the 2026 midterms. Carville urged Democrats to delay the "civil war" that will eventually erupt between the party's moderate and progressive wings, and to coalesce around a single "oppositional message" focused entirely on repealing President Donald Trump's agenda. With all due respect to Mr. Carville, his myopic focus on a strategy of resisting Trump above all else is simply too narrow to be truly effective. Put another way, a Democratic agenda built entirely around repealing the Republican agenda may be enough for 2026, but it falls far short of what Democrats must do if they hope to take back the White House in 2028. Indeed, nowhere in the Times piece is any description of actual policies that Democrats should advance as an alternative to what Republicans are offering, either next year or in three years. There are no calls for an entirely new economic agenda, one that replaces Democrats' tendency for profligate spending with a more fiscally conservative plan focused on managing the debt while also protecting the social safety net. In many ways, Democrats today should look to former President Bill Clinton, who was able to reduce the debt, leave a budget surplus and still protect vital social programs. Moreover, the word "immigration" is not even mentioned. This comes despite 2024 election polling showing that immigration was a top issue for voters, and exit polls showing voters trusted Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris by a 16-point margin (52% to 36%), per Fox News. To that end, if Democrats hope to take back more than just one chamber of Congress, the party needs an agenda that prioritizes securing the border, combined with a pathway to citizenship for legal migrants and Dreamers. And, while I do agree with Mr. Carville that the midterms will be decided based on kitchen table issues rather than foreign policy, that does not mean Democrats can afford to ignore this issue. As a party, Democrats must advance an agenda that positively asserts democratic values at home and abroad. This entails rejecting the belief of the far left – and increasingly the far right – that any use of American power is inherently bad. To be sure, formulating an entirely new Democratic agenda takes time. And it will require the emergence of moderate candidates at a time when Zohran Mamdani's win in New York City has energized the progressive wing of the party. Nevertheless, as the 2024 election made clear, Democrats cannot afford to run from the center toward the far left. What the party needs is a candidate who can win, not one chosen because they passed progressives' ideological purity test. Interestingly, Carville cites former President Clinton as a figure who emerged as Democrats' "savior" in 1992. But Clinton was able to do so because, at a time when the party was moving further to the left, Clinton dragged the party toward the middle on the economy and crime. Finally, the crux of Carville's message – "we demand a repeal" of Trump's agenda – overlooks the core factor behind who Americans cast a vote for. Voters choose candidates who have plans and policies that will improve their lives. Slogans, no matter how catchy, may work for the midterms, but if Democrats then fail to deliver actual change between 2026 and 2028, its unlikely voters will trust them. Quite simply, voters want a strong economy, safe streets, a government that is not excessively bloated and secure borders, not candidates whose only agenda is resisting the president. Now, this is not to say that the agenda outlined by Carville will not be successful next year – it very well may. Rather, it is to point out that even if it helps Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives, it will not be enough to take back the White House in 2028. For that, the party needs to advance its own agenda, one that addresses the above issues and actually provides a real, viable alternative to the Trump-GOP agenda.
