Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Ep. 303 - Left vs Right vs Reality
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Ep. 303 - Left vs Right vs Reality
Ep. 303 - Left vs. Right vs. Reality
David and Brad sit down with John Geoghegan, a former conservative warrior from the Gingrich Revolution days who's done a complete political 180. What starts as a nostalgic trip down memory lane—reminiscing about the old cable access show "One Sunday"—quickly turns into a spirited debate about government ownership of private companies, the Russia investigation, lawfare, and whether political prosecutions are ever justified.
John argues that Trump represents a dangerous departure from conservative principles, while David and Brad push back on the manufactured Russia collusion narrative and selective application of legal standards. The trio wrestles with tough questions: When does government investment in companies cross the line into socialism? Was the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation a legitimate concern or partisan witch hunt? And why do political tribes selectively apply their principles depending on whose ox is being gored?
From the banking bailouts to Intel warrants, from Mike Flynn's prosecution to Trump's fraud cases, this episode examines how both sides weaponize institutions when it serves their purposes—and how intellectual consistency has become the rarest commodity in modern politics. Whether you think Trump is democracy's savior or its greatest threat, this conversation offers a master class in how former allies can end up on opposite sides of the political divide while still managing to have a civil (kind of) conversation about it.
David and Brad sit down with John Geoghegan, a former conservative warrior from the Gingrich Revolution days who's done a complete political 180. What starts as a nostalgic trip down memory lane—reminiscing about the old cable access show "One Sunday"—quickly turns into a spirited debate about government ownership of private companies, the Russia investigation, lawfare, and whether political prosecutions are ever justified.
John argues that Trump represents a dangerous departure from conservative principles, while David and Brad push back on the manufactured Russia collusion narrative and selective application of legal standards. The trio wrestles with tough questions: When does government investment in companies cross the line into socialism? Was the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation a legitimate concern or partisan witch hunt? And why do political tribes selectively apply their principles depending on whose ox is being gored?
From the banking bailouts to Intel warrants, from Mike Flynn's prosecution to Trump's fraud cases, this episode examines how both sides weaponize institutions when it serves their purposes—and how intellectual consistency has become the rarest commodity in modern politics. Whether you think Trump is democracy's savior or its greatest threat, this conversation offers a master class in how former allies can end up on opposite sides of the political divide while still managing to have a civil (kind of) conversation about it.
View all episodes
By David Prodham and Brad SheafeEp. 303 - Left vs. Right vs. Reality
David and Brad sit down with John Geoghegan, a former conservative warrior from the Gingrich Revolution days who's done a complete political 180. What starts as a nostalgic trip down memory lane—reminiscing about the old cable access show "One Sunday"—quickly turns into a spirited debate about government ownership of private companies, the Russia investigation, lawfare, and whether political prosecutions are ever justified.
John argues that Trump represents a dangerous departure from conservative principles, while David and Brad push back on the manufactured Russia collusion narrative and selective application of legal standards. The trio wrestles with tough questions: When does government investment in companies cross the line into socialism? Was the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation a legitimate concern or partisan witch hunt? And why do political tribes selectively apply their principles depending on whose ox is being gored?
From the banking bailouts to Intel warrants, from Mike Flynn's prosecution to Trump's fraud cases, this episode examines how both sides weaponize institutions when it serves their purposes—and how intellectual consistency has become the rarest commodity in modern politics. Whether you think Trump is democracy's savior or its greatest threat, this conversation offers a master class in how former allies can end up on opposite sides of the political divide while still managing to have a civil (kind of) conversation about it.
David and Brad sit down with John Geoghegan, a former conservative warrior from the Gingrich Revolution days who's done a complete political 180. What starts as a nostalgic trip down memory lane—reminiscing about the old cable access show "One Sunday"—quickly turns into a spirited debate about government ownership of private companies, the Russia investigation, lawfare, and whether political prosecutions are ever justified.
John argues that Trump represents a dangerous departure from conservative principles, while David and Brad push back on the manufactured Russia collusion narrative and selective application of legal standards. The trio wrestles with tough questions: When does government investment in companies cross the line into socialism? Was the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation a legitimate concern or partisan witch hunt? And why do political tribes selectively apply their principles depending on whose ox is being gored?
From the banking bailouts to Intel warrants, from Mike Flynn's prosecution to Trump's fraud cases, this episode examines how both sides weaponize institutions when it serves their purposes—and how intellectual consistency has become the rarest commodity in modern politics. Whether you think Trump is democracy's savior or its greatest threat, this conversation offers a master class in how former allies can end up on opposite sides of the political divide while still managing to have a civil (kind of) conversation about it.