He's a conman on the verge of a meltdown b/c Tesla is in bit troubleGOOD podcast - you can tell Elon really thinks out questions before rushing in to answer like we see so often these days with other guests.
He's a conman on the verge of a meltdown b/c Tesla is in bit troubleGOOD podcast - you can tell Elon really thinks out questions before rushing in to answer like we see so often these days with other guests.
He's planning to have Bernie on.If Bernie Sanders or some wacky socialist/communist went on Rogan and just had a casual chat, I doubt these same leftists would be asking why he wasn't prepared to challenge their views.
He's not a conman. He's an eccentric genius with 0 people skills or business sense. Based on just listening to him speak for hours he's more than likely high functioning autistic.He's a conman on the verge of a meltdown b/c Tesla is in bit trouble
yeah right, I'm sure his "funding secured" tweet without having any funding secured or his board even being aware of such a plan was his autism kicking in, or the dozens of other things he's done since it became clear the Tesla house of cards was collapsingHe's not a conman. He's an eccentric genius with 0 people skills or business sense. Based on just listening to him speak for hours he's more than likely high functioning autistic.
Something impulsive and irrational? Actually, yes that sounds very accurate.yeah right, I'm sure his "funding secured" tweet without having any funding secured or his board even being aware of such a plan was his autism kicking in
You may not have been paying attention if you think the Tesla house was built on something as stable as cards.or the dozens of other things he's done since it became clear the Tesla house of cards was collapsing
Some may call it impulsive, other's may call it a felony & a last ditch attempt to reel in dupes into buying Tesla stock, but I just can't tell if all the execs are leaving b/c Musk is impulsive or b/c he's running a fraudulent companySomething impulsive and irrational? Actually, yes that sounds very accurate.
You may not have been paying attention if you think the Tesla house was built on something as stable as cards.
Allow me to state it more clearly. Solvency was never something that Tesla was going to see. Listen to him speak about developing the a/c compressors on their first cars and it's painfully apparent that they had no idea what the fuck they were doing.but I just can't tell if all the execs are leaving b/c Musk is impulsive or b/c he's running a fraudulent company
There's not really anything political to it since both Elon and Joe are fairly apolitical and Rogan has as many liberal as conservative people on there. The issues to do with Rogan have to do with his stated aims of the podcast at the outset and how he started whiffing softballs. The reason I brought up Stern is because his show was about randomness as much as Joe's is, but when he had guests on who spoke to public interests, he always did his homework and asked incisive questions."prepared as Howard Stern"
lol
"So Elon... how much are you worth? Like RIGHT NOW? 19 billion huh? Wow. A guy like you must bang a lot of chicks, huh? I didn't get laid at all in high school. Hey, do you think Robin is sexy?"
Strange how liberals are always so scared about who gets to speak and who doesn't.
If Bernie Sanders or some wacky socialist/communist went on Rogan and just had a casual chat, I doubt these same leftists would be asking why he wasn't prepared to challenge their views.
Jason Silva, Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson, Victor Conte, Russell Brand, Steven Pinker, Josh Barnett, Peter Joseph and Mel Gibson.Such as?
It seems like he was running a con, thenAllow me to state it more clearly. Solvency was never something that Tesla was going to see. Listen to him speak about developing the a/c compressors on their first cars and it's painfully apparent that they had no idea what the fuck they were doing.
If those are your examples you really need to reevaluate your biases as it pertains to whom should be allowed to speak.Jason Silva, Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson, Victor Conte, Russell Brand, Steven Pinker, Josh Barnett, Peter Joseph and Mel Gibson.
Each of these guests merited more skepticism and questioning than they got imo.
"Con" implies malicious intent. I've got no reason to believe that's the case. In the case I cited he literally reinvented a wheel.It seems like he was running a con, then
I don't care enough to document all of his lies designed to dupe people out of their money, but if you don't find them malicious I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you"Con" implies malicious intent. I've got no reason to believe that's the case. In the case I cited he literally reinvented a wheel.
I don't think he's saying that they shouldn't be allowed to speak just that when given a high profile platform that the interviewer should dig in to them a bit deeper and not just let them dictate the terms of the conversation.If those are your examples you really need to reevaluate your biases as it pertains to whom should be allowed to speak.
What was he supposed to do with Mel Gibson? Rake him over the coals for something he said a long time ago and has apologized for? Mel said about 6 words the whole podcast. Mel wanted a doctor and his research to be brought to the public's attention.The downside to that is that when you give someone with some questionable opinions an ability to control the narrative or just completely avoid the topics like with Mel Gibson then it can be viewed as a missed opportunity to really make someone own their actions.
I dunno... Maybe ask a single question about anything from his past? Anything at all.What was he supposed to do with Mel Gibson?
It's funny you say this after thinking that people wanted Joe to "rake Mel over the coals"...It's a weird time we live in where people seem to think that everyone is an asshole just waiting to be exposed.
His interview with Mel Gibson should have included more scrutiny about stem cell treatments down in Panama since that Doc was selling a lot of wolf tickets.What was he supposed to do with Mel Gibson? Rake him over the coals for something he said a long time ago and has apologized for? Mel said about 6 words the whole podcast. Mel wanted a doctor and his research to be brought to the public's attention.
What happens is there are some people that certain groups want to end up being the devil that they've decided they are. More often than not, that person isn't as horrible as you've been told (Jordan Peterson might be the best ever example of this) Then when that person has the opportunity to explain their side of the story, and it isn't as bad as was hoped, people get bent out of shape about it. It's a weird time we live in where people seem to think that everyone is an asshole just waiting to be exposed.
I’m pretty sure @Kneeblock is a died in the wool leftist academic, so I had a great laugh at him objecting to Professor Peterson.If those are your examples you really need to reevaluate your biases as it pertains to whom should be allowed to speak.
Except you lead this post with:It's funny you say this after thinking that people wanted Joe to "rake Mel over the coals"...
Which has already been covered by Mel when he went to rehab and since.Wouldn't it have been nice to have heard a real conversation about either the anger and frustration, possible substance issues, that Mel was going through when he was freaking out in those phone calls? Or how he felt and has dealt with the public thinking of him as an anti-semite since the police interaction?
Was he?His interview with Mel Gibson should have included more scrutiny about stem cell treatments down in Panama since that Doc was selling a lot of wolf tickets.