I'm about an hour in, and so far, really disappointed. So far it's Democrats all bad, Republicans all good, almost to the point it feels like propaganda for Tr

I'm about an hour in, and so far, really disappointed. So far it's Democrats all bad, Republicans all good, almost to the point it feels like propaganda for Trump's second term. For example - Tim Walz is a pathological liar, but Trump's great, even though everyone knows that JD Vance is VP because no one in Silicon Valley really trusts Trump. Why can't we just acknowledge this? I wasn't a huge fan of Joe Rogan, but I was really disappointed by his endorsement of Trump, because it felt like this acknowledgement that the age of analyzing ideas on their merits was over, and that hyper-partisanship won. There is a meta-idea here in this presentation, and that is that it feels very manipulative. I'm thinking sort of about the section on Roman virtues, and I do agree with the general idea that more people should strive to live up to a set of virtues, whatever they are. But there's no real deep engagement with it, it seems like it's expected to have this halo effect where, we talked about Roman virtues so you can see that we're the good guys so we're right about everything else we talk about. I'm sort of reflexively responding to this idea that we should focus on good ideas wherever they come from. And there are good ideas here, but it feels like the good ideas are trying to serve an end and not honestly considered. I think the three hour format is probably good if you're an independent actor or intellection, but Marc is clearly acting as a partisan, biased political actor here, and it's especially frustrating the way he pays lip service to humility and virtue. Not that it's not good to know the opinions of biased political actors in our society. But I want intellectual curiosity, not cynical quips.