PLEASE REMEMBER TO SHARE & SUBSCRIBE!

CHECK OUT THE LATEST EPISODE OF LIVE WITH CHRIS’WORLD!

WE FILTER NEWS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO BECAUSE FACTS AND TRUTH MATTER!

Joe Rogan endorsed Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential election, a decision that aligns with his platform's ethos of free speech and contrarian viewpoints.

• Cultural Influence: Rogan's endorsement brings significant attention to Trump's campaign from an audience that might not typically engage with traditional political discourse. His platform has become a cultural powerhouse, particularly among younger men who value direct, unfiltered conversations, which Trump often engages in.

• Economic Policies: Conservatives appreciate Trump's previous term's economic policies which included tax cuts, deregulation, and fostering business growth. Rogan's endorsement could be seen as aligning with the sentiment that Trump's policies contributed to economic prosperity before the disruptions caused by global health issues.

• Freedom of Speech: Rogan, like many conservatives, has expressed concerns over what he perceives as censorship or the suppression of certain viewpoints, especially on social media platforms. Trump's commitment to free speech, particularly highlighted by his critique of Big Tech, resonates with Rogan's audience who feel their voices are often marginalized in mainstream discourse.

• Foreign Policy and National Security: Trump's "America First" approach appealed to those who prioritize national sovereignty and a strong military stance. His policies on border security and immigration are also points of agreement, reflecting a desire for controlled immigration which Rogan has discussed on his show.

• Voter Appeal: By endorsing Trump, Rogan taps into a demographic that might be disillusioned with the political establishment. This could potentially energize voters who see Trump as an outsider challenging the status quo, something Rogan himself often champions.

Rogan's decision to endorse Trump could be seen as an acknowledgment of these shared values and policies, suggesting a belief that Trump could indeed save America by returning to policies that emphasize economic freedom, national security, and the preservation of traditional American values. This endorsement might not only reflect Rogan's personal political stance but also serve as a rallying cry for those feeling alienated by current political trends.

Rachel Maddow, a socialist opinion journalist has recently claimed that a Kamala Harris presidency would see the federal government revoking all of Elon Musk's government contracts due to his support for Donald Trump.

• Out of Touch with Reality: Maddow's assertion appears to stem more from Trump Derangement Syndrome than from any realistic policy analysis. This claim paints her as disconnected from the practicalities of government operations and the economic implications of such drastic actions. Government contracts, particularly those involving companies like Musk's SpaceX or Tesla, are awarded based on merit, technological advancement, and economic necessity, not political allegiances.

• Extremism: Her statement reflects an extreme viewpoint where political differences justify economic sabotage. This not only undermines the principles of free enterprise but also hints at a dangerous precedent of using government power to punish political dissent. Such a perspective is seen as antithetical to American values of competition, innovation, and political neutrality in business dealings.

• Misrepresentation: Maddow's narrative fosters division by suggesting that political support for Trump should lead to punitive measures against successful business leaders. This stance ignores Musk's contributions to American innovation, space exploration, and energy solutions, focusing instead on his political stance.

• Economic Impact: By suggesting the withdrawal of contracts from Musk, Maddow ignores the broader economic benefits these projects bring, including job creation, technological advancement, and maintaining America's competitive edge in global markets. Her suggestion could be seen as economically irresponsible, potentially damaging national interests for political vendetta.

• Political Bias: This bias is criticized for overshadowing objective journalism with partisan attacks, which conservatives argue, does not serve the public interest but rather a specific political agenda.

• Selective Outrage: The claim overlooks the fact that business leaders often engage in politics across the spectrum, yet few face the threat of losing government contracts for their political views. Highlighting Musk specifically might suggest that Maddow's critique isn't about policy or governance but personal or political animosity.

Rachel Maddow's rhetoric is seen as an example of how some media figures have abandoned balanced journalism for political activism, harming the discourse necessary for a healthy democracy by promoting division and economic warfare over political disagreements.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's endorsement of Donald Trump for president reflects a significant shift in political alliances, showcasing a pragmatic approach from the state's libertarian community towards Trump's policies.

• Pragmatism Over Ideology: The endorsement suggests a practical move by libertarians to support a candidate they believe can enact policies closer to their ideals. Trump's previous term included actions like tax cuts, deregulation, and a push towards smaller government, which resonate with libertarian principles.

• Policy Alignment: Trump's promise to reduce the size of the federal government, end the Department of Education, and support cryptocurrency aligns with libertarian goals for less government intervention in personal and economic freedoms.

• Economic Freedom: Trump's economic policies, which emphasize free markets and reduced regulatory burdens, are seen as conducive to the libertarian belief in economic liberty. His America First approach to trade and job creation also appeals to those who value national economic sovereignty.

• Government Overreach: The libertarians in New Hampshire might see Trump as a bulwark against what they perceive as increasing government overreach under Democratic leadership. His skepticism towards big government initiatives could be viewed as supportive of libertarian efforts to limit government size and scope.

• Cultural Influence: By endorsing Trump, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire might aim to influence the conservative voter base towards more libertarian ideals, promoting a broader coalition against what they view as socialist tendencies in the opposing party.

• Strategic Voting: This move could be interpreted as a strategic decision to prevent a vote split that might otherwise benefit a candidate less aligned with libertarian values, particularly in a close race where even small endorsements can sway outcomes.

This endorsement represents an unusual but calculated step by the New Hampshire Libertarian Party to back a candidate who, while not fully libertarian, promises to pursue policies that align more closely with libertarian economic and personal freedoms than his opponents. It highlights a willingness within parts of the libertarian movement to adapt and support candidates who might bring them closer to their ultimate goals of reducing government size and enhancing individual liberties.

Jim Cramer, the host of CNBC's "Mad Money," has once again made headlines with his latest election prediction, suggesting that market indicators point towards a Kamala Harris victory in tomorrow's election. However, it's crucial to scrutinize such claims, especially when they come from Cramer, whose track record in financial analysis has often been criticized for its lack of reliability:

• Cramer's Consistency: Known for his frequent flip-flops, Cramer's predictions often lack the consistency one would expect from a seasoned financial analyst. His impulsive nature has led to numerous instances where his advice has proven detrimental to investors, with many pointing out that following his recommendations could lead to financial missteps rather than gains.

• Market Misinterpretation: Cramer's assertion that the markets are signaling a Harris win is met with skepticism. Critics argue that markets react to a myriad of global factors, not just U.S. elections. Suggesting that market movements are a clear indicator of political outcomes oversimplifies the complexity of financial markets and political predictions.

• Out of Touch: There's a growing sentiment that Cramer is out of touch with the nuanced realities of both the market and politics. His interpretations often seem to overlook fundamental economic indicators, focusing instead on short-term trends or his own biases. This approach can lead to misleading conclusions, especially in something as unpredictable as an election outcome.

• Historical Inaccuracy: Cramer's history of financial predictions has not been particularly stellar. His tendency to be wrong more often than not has led to a reputation where his predictions are taken with a grain of salt, if not outright disregarded by those who remember his track record.

Cramer's prediction might be dismissed not only for his lack of predictive accuracy but also for his perceived alignment with narratives that favor liberal candidates. His analysis, often seen as lacking depth and being too reactionary, is criticized as not providing the kind of thoughtful, data-driven analysis that would truly guide investors or political observers. Thus, many would argue that relying on Cramer's market-based election prediction is akin to playing roulette with your financial and political expectations.

Security and police forces are on high alert as pro-Palestine protesters and activists are expected to gather in significant numbers ahead of an event featuring Kamala Harris. This heightened security measure underscores the volatile nature of current political discourse, especially concerning international conflicts like the Israel-Hamas situation:

• Violent Tendencies: The presence of a heavy police response reflects concerns over potential violence or disruption from these protests. Protesters have been known to engage in aggressive tactics at political events, potentially aiming to derail or overshadow Harris's speech with their actions.

• Loss of Far Left Support: The anticipation of protests from pro-Palestine activists at Harris's event suggests a significant fracture within the Democratic Party's coalition, particularly with its far-left wing. This group feels that Harris has not adequately addressed their concerns regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict. This dissatisfaction is a sign that Harris has lost ground with a segment of the electorate that was once critical to her and Biden's support base.

Donald Trump has taken a firm stance on immigration, particularly concerning the U.S.-Mexico border. He has vowed that if re-elected, one of his first actions will be to impose tariffs ranging from 25% to 75% on all goods imported from Mexico if the country fails to curb the flow of immigration into the United States.

• Border Security: Trump's promise to use tariffs as leverage against Mexico is seen as a direct approach to address illegal immigration, a core issue for many. It emphasizes his commitment to border security and national sovereignty, aligning with the conservative value of putting America first.

• Economic Pressure: The use of tariffs is intended to apply economic pressure on Mexico, encouraging cooperation on border control. This tactic is perceived as a strategic use of America's economic power to enforce policy objectives, which appeals to those who believe in using economic tools for political ends.

• Negotiation Tool: Trump's approach is viewed as a strong negotiation tactic. By threatening significant tariffs, he aims to force negotiations that could lead to agreements more favorable to U.S. interests, including stricter border control measures from Mexico.

• Protecting American Jobs: The policy is also framed as a protectionist measure to safeguard American jobs, aligning with Trump's past economic policies of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. and reducing reliance on foreign goods, which appeals to voters concerned about job loss to overseas markets.

• Stance Against Globalism: This tariff threat is part of a broader narrative against globalism and open borders, advocating for a return to policies that prioritize national interests over international trade agreements that might not directly benefit the U.S. economy or its citizens.

• Encouraging Legal Immigration: While aiming to stop illegal crossings, Trump's message also includes support for legal immigration, reiterating that the U.S. wants immigrants but under legal frameworks, which resonates with voters who feel the current system is being exploited.

This policy proposal underscores Trump's campaign focus on immigration control, economic nationalism, and his strategy to use trade policy as an instrument of foreign policy, appealing to his base by promising decisive action on issues they consider pivotal for America's future.