Rubin Report – Ex CIA On Iran & Media & The Left

Another one of those Stumble Upon things…

This looks like the latest video that summarizes the prior segments. Yes, it’s an hour and 4 minutes…

What is interesting to me is how they both self-identify as “Left” but of the Rational Moderate Left, and both are saying the same things, about the Democratic Party having gone nutzo and the Yellow Stream Media (YSM) going off-the-deep-end partisan hysterical, that you hear from folks on the Right.

Basically, they, too, are seeing the Trump Derangement Syndrome on display.

There’s lots of other stuff in the video also. Bryan Dean Wright is the person being interviewed. Here’s the show notes:

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Bryan Dean Wright (former CIA ops officer) about Iran and the current escalation of conflict with the US. Bryan has a unique perspective being a former CIA agent and a lifelong Democrat. He shares his thoughts on how the recent death of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani ordered by Donald Trump could play out. Bryan lays out the most likely ways that Iran could respond and what he believes Iran really wants. He discusses why a US presence in the Middle East is vital and not changing anytime soon, unless we radically rethink our energy policy as it pertains to oil. Bryan gives an insider’s take on what exactly the “deep state” is and how they use leaks to the media like the New York Times and the Washington Post to steer the narrative in a direction more favorable to their interests. Bryan gives his feelings on the abuses of power of John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey. And Bryan discusses how a Trump victory against a progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could actually help save the Democratic party and return it to it’s roots of supporting the working class voter.

I think this is further evidence that the Democratic Party is driving out the moderate / middle American Democrats as they push to the Socialist Fringe.

It looks like he’s put out bits of the interview in 10 minute segments in other videos, and now this one is the whole thing. Unless there’s another chunk coming ;-)

This following bit is from January 2017 and gives the Rubin perspective on The Left and the recent changes in it, talking about the “Regressive Left” 8 minutes:

Show notes:

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks about why he thinks the Left is no longer liberal. “The issues I care about most, free speech, the rights of the individual, and limited government designed to maximize liberty, have almost nothing to do anymore with the modern American Left. My positions basically haven’t changed, but I’ve watched as my team has gone off the deep end.”

The Direct Message segments of the Rubin Report are a chance for Dave Rubin to directly address current events, political news and the topics of the day. Whether it’s encouraging critical thinking, defending free speech, or fending off political correctness, it’s only by having calm rational conversations about these issues that can help de-escalate the political polarization and help heal our democracy.

Seems like there’s still some folks who are current or former Democrats who have their head on straight.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Rubin Report – Ex CIA On Iran & Media & The Left

  1. beththeserf says:

    I like listening to the Rubin Report open discussions eg btwJordan Peterson/Eric Weinstein /Ben Shapiro. Everything open to review. A nice change from CNN and WIki.

  2. philjourdan says:

    Yea, apparently the democrats are not electing moderates since even the swing district ones bought into impeachment hook, line and stinker.

  3. Taz says:

    So why are Republicans so stupid? There are plenty of ex Democrats to scoop up – but those lazy bastards won’t lift a finger.

  4. eilert says:

    What energy policy pertaining to oil is he referring too.
    The US is now the largest oil producer and is in fact a net energy exporter. That is the energy policy that has changed.
    They don’t rely on the Middle East for their oil anymore. The Europeans actually do and Trump asked them to step up their efforts to secure their oil supply and not constantly rely on the US as their saviour.. NATO-ME anyone.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    @eilert:

    Remember the guy is a Democrat… so will believe using oil is bad, and that we being in NATO must defend Europe and assure they get oil. At least, that’s my guess. Either that, or the Petro Dollar policy / economic thing.

    Personally, I’m all for leaving it to the EU, UK, China, and Japan to keep the oil flowing. Or, heck have the Saudis build up their navy to defend their market access.

  6. beththeserf says:

    This is a strong discussion by David Rubin and an ex-Muslim woman speaking out about the excesses of the religion she was born into. They discus, also, the morphing of classical liberalism non-fiat rule of law for all into leftist new liberalism with its blindness and double standards regarding Islamic fundamentalism even to illegal treatment of Muslim women in western societies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PXfMY6YqBY

  7. cdquarles says:

    Hmm, sounds like someone who’s never really looked into the D’s history. Support the worker? Ha, they have only done so to the extent they can buy votes. Rs have done more, in actuality, over the years than the Ds; especially in my own lifetime.

  8. rhoda klapp says:

    I do not need to own the bean patch in order to have beans. The US, and the EU and whoever else, don’t need to own the oil patch to get oil. The folks who have the oil have to sell it to the folks who have the cars, refineries, power stations or whatever. It’s called trade, and it’s good for everyone. NOBODY needs to interfere with the Middle East to safeguard a supply of oil. It can’t be democratized, it can’t be stabilized, there is no time in history there hasn’t been warfare there. Let’s just stick to trade.

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    @rhoda klapp, you must be quite young to make that above statement.
    Deliberate restrictions on international “Free Trade” has Always been a tool of international political power. If you become hostage to the manipulations of other players, you Will be manipulated. …pg

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    While I agree with Rhoda’s sentiment, I have to point out the Arab Oil Embargo of the ’70s in support of P.G.

    But the good thing is that the USA need not care about it and we can pump or own…

  11. Larry Ledwick says:

    The initial oil shock in 1973 was a cut in arab oil production of only 5%, later on the total cuts dropped by 25 %, then secondary effects of that crippled the world wide economy. It destabilized markets all over the world. Prices which had been balanced and stable for year were suddenly thrown into disarray and companies suddenly found their energy costs doubling or quadrupling in a matter of months. Products which used to be profitable suddenly were losers. Millions of companies jockeyed to realign their operations to the new expense landscape. For many small businesses that were energy dependent (like trucking) had lay offs or went out of business. (my brother was one of those folks who lost everything (including $4000 I had loaned him) because fuel costs spiked and killed his profit margin. He went from a marginally successful independent trucker to unemployment. in just a matter of weeks, shortly after his daughter was born. The next 10 years or so was very tough for a lot of folks caught between jobs or otherwise vulnerable to the after effects.

    Being energy independent in the US would not insulate the US from the secondary effects in other countries not so lucky.

    Major disruptions in the world oil supply would shake the entire economy of the world’s industrialized countries. Protecting the world’s oil supply from disruption is enlightened self interest for the industrialized countries.

    If Japan and Korean manufacturing crashes due to oil disruptions it would still hurt the US since we do so much trade with them. In fact they have almost become sole source suppliers for some high demand commodities.

    I agree it is not as simple as just saying we are good here on our own you all just screw off and enjoy your recession.

  12. rhoda klapp says:

    That oil thing in the 70’s was not helped by the fact that it was perpetrated by those who were supposed allies of the US. They have tried similar things since with little effect because the spot market is more effective now and there are many more players. Also many more cheats.

    PG, I am not so young, I was buying fuel in the 70’s oil crisis. I made the claims above to get people to think about what it means to require absolute control over all strategic assets. Nobody can do it now except the US, and it costs much in blood and treasure. The guys with the oil must sell it to the guys with the cars, in the end.

  13. p.g.sharrow says:

    I am well aware of the cause and effects of the artificial Oil shortage of the 1970s. American “Allies” including the Texas RailRoad Commission and American Politicians all had a hand in deliberately turning a glut of cheap oil into a “shortage” of expensive oil.
    My farming operation was drastically effected by that event. I spent some time and money to set up to grow and create fuel to power my machines. The resulting rapid inflation in costs wiped out a whole generation of young American farmers. The hemorrhage of wealth from America to the Middle East was a drain on the vitality of our Middle class.
    Strategically the once major oil producer to the world became an importer while it’s vast wealth in oil was locked out of the market by politicians. This also caused America to become the “COP on the Block” in the Middle East to insure the free flow of oil to the industrialized western world. A problem while reduced still must be dealt with. All this because some short term tactical thinking to make profit was chosen over long term Strategical thinking. ..pg

  14. rhoda klapp says:

    I think we can agree that the enemies of the United States in congress assembled are the biggest problem.

    I reckon I was paying the equivalent of 63 cents per US gallon (33p/UK gall) in 1972. In 2016 I saw gas at 1.17 in Oklahoma. (I didn’t buy, I’d just filled the tank at 1.22). Right now here in the UK a UK gallon costs $7.61, US gall $6.40. US gas seems to have been 35 cents in 1972. So your gas has gone up by a factor of under four, Mine by a factor of 23. Disregarding inflation, of course. Pay for the job I did then has gone up around 16 times.

Anything to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.