Joe Rogan asks Bernie Sanders if he will run for president again, what he would do on day one
Podcaster Joe Rogan asked Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Tuesday about whether he will run for president again, and Sanders revealed the key issue he would prioritize.
Sanders spoke about how he has called to pause military aid to Israel until they show more leniency toward starving citizens in Gaza by ending their blockade. Sanders went on to note the difficulty of passing such policy, criticizing Israel's influence on American politics. He singled out AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) as a key example, noting they "have already knocked off good members of Congress, and they will do it again."
"So all I'm saying is you got a corrupt campaign finance system, on both sides, which is rejecting the will of the American people and end up supporting powerful special interests," Sanders said. "And if we do not get a handle on that issue, I worry very much about the future of American democracy."
"Are you gonna run for president again?" Rogan asked in response.
"I am 83 years of age," Sanders replied. "I'm not sure the American people would be too enthusiastic -"
Rogan complimented Sanders for still being very "with it" and observed, "I mean, you're a couple of years older than Biden, right? Think of that. You could be off a lot worse."
Sanders went on to speak about his "Fight Oligarchy" tour across the country, noting he has attained a wide variety of support from Americans across the political spectrum, and arguing that "there is growing dissatisfaction with the current politics in America, both parties, and people want a new vision, and people want a new vision for America."
Later in the conversation, Rogan appeared to allude to the 2016 election and encouraged Sanders to imagine an alternate future where "you hadn't gotten derailed, and they hadn't conspired against you, and you actually became the Democratic candidate for president, and you won, what would you have done differently?"
Sanders took a moment and asked, "How many hours do we have?"
Rogan assured him they have "all the time in the world" and proceeded to ask, "What would you have done the first day in office?"
"Well, it's not just the first day in office," Sanders replied. "I would have dealt with this campaign finance reform issue."
Sanders argued it would be better for elections to be funded by the government, so that every candidate gets the same amount of money to spend to make their case to the American public.
While some might be concerned about taxpayers footing the bill for campaigns, he argued it "makes a lot more sense than having billionaires fund elections, which is what you got right now."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill
Key tax incentives for US wind and solar projects would face a more aggressive phase-out in the Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's spending package. The tweak, which follows pushback by Trump on the Inflation Reduction Act credits, would sharply limit the number of solar and wind farms that qualify for incentives, appeasing opponents while risking the ire of moderate members who argued for a slower phase-out.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Israeli military detains 6 settlers after attack on forces in occupied West Bank
The Israeli military detained six settlers in the occupied West Bank overnight after the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) say the suspects attacked security forces. The IDF says they spotted Israeli civilians driving toward a closed military zone near the Palestinian village of Kafr Malik, where days earlier settlers set fire to homes and vehicles in an attack Palestinian officials say killed three people. When Israeli forces approached the group, the IDF says the soldiers were physically assaulted and verbally abused. In addition, the suspects vandalized and damaged the security forces' vehicles and attempted to ram the forces. Six suspects were apprehended and transferred to police, the IDF said. 'The IDF and Israel Police condemn any act of violence against security forces and will act firmly against any attempt to harm security personnel carrying out their duty to protect Israeli citizens,' the IDF said in a statement. Israeli politicians condemned the settler attacks against Israeli security forces. Head of the opposition Yair Lapid said in a statement on social media, 'The extremists who attack IDF soldiers who are guarding the security of the State of Israel during these difficult days are dangerous criminals who are aiding our enemies.' Yair Golan, the head of the left-wing Democrats party, who had called earlier settler attacks in the area a 'violent Jewish pogrom,' said the violence from 'the Kahanist, nationalist, and fantastic Israel is deliberately working to dismantle the Jewish and democratic Israel.' Golan referenced Meir Kahane, an extremist rabbi whose political party was banned outright in Israel under anti-terror laws. 'This is not a marginal occurrence. This is a dangerous current that has taken deep roots. Even around the government table,' Golan said, a reference to the far-right ministers that prop up the coalition government, including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, both of whom were sanctioned earlier this month by the UK, Canada, and other Western allies. Smotrich has called for formal annexation of West Bank settlements, while Ben-Gvir's party consists of followers of Kahane's banned political party. In a statement, Defense Minister Israel Katz called on law enforcement authorities to act immediately to locate all those who resorted to violence and bring them to justice 'as is done everywhere.' On Friday, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for the Palestinian Authority presidency, said the settler attacks are part of a plan by Israel's 'extremist right-wing government' to drag the West Bank into a larger confrontation, according to the Palestinian news agency WAFA. Abu Rudeineh held Israel fully responsible for 'the consequences of this bloody aggression,' WAFA said. Israel has been ramping up military operations in the West Bank alongside the offensive in Gaza and attacks on Iran and its proxies, displacing thousands of Palestinians and razing entire communities as it targets what it says are militants operating in the territory. Earlier this week, Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian teenager in the West Bank, Palestinian health authorities said. The Israeli military said that 'terrorists hurled explosive devices at IDF forces.' In late-May, Israel approved a massive expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank in a move decried as de facto annexation of large swaths of the territory. Peace Now, an Israeli non-governmental organization that tracks settlements, said it was the largest expansion of settlements since the signing of the Oslo Accords more than 30 years ago. Israel plans to establish 22 new settlements, including deep within the West Bank and in areas from which the country had previously withdrawn. Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, as well as in East Jerusalem and the occupied Golan Heights, are considered illegal under international law.
