By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On a recent podcast episode, Joe Rogan expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, particularly regarding the release of information and evidence. Rogan questioned FBI Director Kash Patel’s claims of limited material and was critical of missing footage. This discontent follows a pattern of frustration from Rogan, who has previously criticized the administration’s lack of transparency in the case, fueled by prior promises of extensive video evidence. His concerns reflect a growing disillusionment among right-leaning figures with the lack of progress in uncovering the full extent of Epstein’s alleged crimes and potentially exposing co-conspirators.
Read the original article here
Joe Rogan On Trump Administration’s Handling Of Epstein Files: ‘Do You Think We’re Babies?’ is the crux of a prevailing sentiment, one that seems to be gaining traction in the public discourse surrounding the controversial podcaster’s past political endorsements. The core of the reaction, echoed across various corners of the internet, essentially boils down to this: Yes, it seems the consensus is, they do. The term “they” referring to Trump and those affiliated with him.
The crux of the issue lies in the perception of gullibility. Many feel that Rogan, and by extension, a significant portion of his audience, were misled and taken advantage of. The idea is that Trump, as a skilled manipulator, recognized and exploited this vulnerability. He essentially treated supporters like “babies” or, more accurately, as “gullible rubes,” because he felt he could get away with it. And the argument follows that it worked, at least for a while.
The feeling is not only that the public was deceived, but that they were deliberately and consciously manipulated. It’s about the alleged disregard for truth, the willingness to tell blatant lies, and the expectation that the audience would either believe them or simply not care. This is seen as a calculated strategy, designed to exploit a perceived lack of critical thinking skills and a willingness to accept information at face value.
The criticism extends to the role Rogan played in amplifying this narrative. By giving Trump a platform and promoting his views, Rogan is seen as complicit in the alleged deception. Some argue that he essentially became a tool, used to further a political agenda without adequate scrutiny or challenge. He, supposedly, was part of the problem, giving legitimacy to a narrative that was ultimately harmful, or at least, not honest.
The disappointment is palpable, because many believed that Rogan was better than this and that Trump’s supporters should have understood the situation before they voted. The reaction isn’t just about disagreement; it’s about betrayal of trust, an accusation of naiveté and a feeling of being played.
The general attitude seems to be, if this is the way things are, why would he stop? The whole situation, from the alleged deception to the perceived lack of accountability, is a source of frustration.
Some would argue that Rogan’s past actions created a specific narrative, and that the idea is, perhaps, we can all learn from it. It’s a call for greater discernment, a plea for increased media literacy, and a demand for holding those in power accountable. It’s a warning against blindly following any figure, regardless of their popularity or perceived credibility.
Essentially, the prevailing argument is that the Trump administration’s actions, and Rogan’s perceived role in enabling those actions, exposed a degree of naiveté within the audience. The reaction expresses a feeling that people are being treated as if they lack the critical thinking skills necessary to see through the obvious manipulations. It’s a harsh assessment, but one that reflects a deep frustration with a political environment where truth seems to be constantly distorted and accountability is often lacking.
The broader concern is that this pattern of behavior, if left unchecked, will only perpetuate the cycle of deception and manipulation. The goal is to hold people accountable and to promote a more informed and critical citizenry.