Stevie P.'s writing is so difficult to read. It's unsurprising, but jumping back into the cogent analysis afterward was jarring. I'd argue that the 'real sane world' of our politics is hardly sane and often unrealistic, but hopefully not that insane. Yet. 'Smooching of' in place of 'mooching off' almost works when you include the ass kissing & ego stroking aspect required of those that were in the Trump administration.
I got called out at work the other day for listening to one of your episodes on the clock… I always grin whenever Stevie P comes on because you know some wild shit is gonna be said and AJ will nod along to all of it. Look, we all know he doesn’t make good business decisions, but AJ should’ve sided with David Knight… It’s ridiculous at this point.
Steve’s always piqued my interest a bit more than the other guests.
He seems both more ridiculous and more sinister than 90% of the other guests, and I remember feeling really gross hearing him call Kushner a “judenrat” on IW.
A long time ago a podcast did a deep dive into Stevie and his brother from coming to the States and onwards. Wherever I found it I lost it and have asked everywhere. It’s not the wonks or QAA or anyone still podding. It seems to have been scrubbed from the net. Wish I’d grabbed it now.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you so much. I’ve been trying to find this again since I first heard it at the time. I’ve asked everywhere I could think of. This was the best, deepest dive on Stevie P out there. I knew he was dangerous from his total manipulation of Alex but this helped me put pieces together. I really appreciate that you posted it here.
I wonder if he’s the “former Intel” that many on the Right talk about and I worry that he’s working with Flynn building the “digital army”.
My favorite thing Pieczenik does is when he's telling Alex about some current happening and he refers to "my special forces", as if he's some comic book villain who has goons waiting by their respective phones for Steve's call to action...
As much as it's a good thing that Steve and Alex are no longer talking (or at least, Steve's banned from Alex' show.) I do miss hearing his silly lies and braggadocio tirades.
I get that it was a hypothetical one but I meant your first question; if he's really "actively dangerous like Roger Stone". I just don't quite understand what your takeaway from the article was if you don't think it demonstrates that yes, he IS actively dangerous, and I think we're letting a lot of shit slide if we consider someone like Stone the threshold for who's fair game to call out. Like, by all means people should question the motives and intentions of public figures regardless of whether or not they're well-intentioned, right? That aside, I would probably argue that everyone in "the" political sphere (what applies to the US is not all-encompassing) could be considered actively dangerous; there is always going to be a direct influence on the private lives of others. no offence but if this is indicative of a wilful blindness to the dangers posed by those with as much power and authority as Alex (for starters, then work your way down the list of literally every recurring character on his programme) who subscribe to the sort of worldview that he promotes you might be listening to the show for the exact opposite purpose the hosts intend you to be and considering this I'm personally just a bit taken aback by your audacity here, sorry for it and I don't at all mean to suggest I'm personally immune to feeling a psychosocial kinship with podcasts and their hosts (sorry Robert Evans your mum died at the same time as mine and with a void of that size it's already kind of inevitable) but it's my responsibility not to entertain those feelings. I don't know how you justify it to yourself but if memory serves, a previous comment of yours on here would seem to indicate that you at least know what "psychosocial" means. I'm assuming you wouldn't, for example, comment on a picture of an acquaintance, friend or even a partner (of insert-your-preferred gender) telling them that you thought of or looked at it while... doing anything for your own gratification without their knowledge or consent tbh (but I think it's pretty obvious what I had in mind for this analogy). May I ask why you would be any less embarrassed to say that?
ETA: I hope I don't come off as though I just came here to roast you (or that this was intended to be one at all!) yours was just the only comment here when I clicked the link and the contrast felt a bit like being smacked over the head tbh. I mean, even if you leave the rest aside the very first sentence of this article is literally "Regardless of how farcical things may seem at times, this is not all fun and games".
This article is about a high level government operative. I'll just leave it at that, ok folks? I'm not trying to brag.
Stevie P.'s writing is so difficult to read. It's unsurprising, but jumping back into the cogent analysis afterward was jarring. I'd argue that the 'real sane world' of our politics is hardly sane and often unrealistic, but hopefully not that insane. Yet. 'Smooching of' in place of 'mooching off' almost works when you include the ass kissing & ego stroking aspect required of those that were in the Trump administration.
😆
😄
Adding Stevie P to the white board with red yarn!
I got called out at work the other day for listening to one of your episodes on the clock… I always grin whenever Stevie P comes on because you know some wild shit is gonna be said and AJ will nod along to all of it. Look, we all know he doesn’t make good business decisions, but AJ should’ve sided with David Knight… It’s ridiculous at this point.
Four stars, Dan. Go home and tell your mother you're brilliant.
I was always wondering about Steve’s comment about AJ being the ‘useful
Idiot’. Am I foolish to expect DOJ to connect the dots between Steve, Roger , Alex and J6 and thence to their time in the barrel?
It blows my mind every time I remember they have a copy of Alex’s phone that has or could be handed over.
I’d add Flynn. I can’t help but wonder if they’re working together.
Steve’s always piqued my interest a bit more than the other guests.
He seems both more ridiculous and more sinister than 90% of the other guests, and I remember feeling really gross hearing him call Kushner a “judenrat” on IW.
A long time ago a podcast did a deep dive into Stevie and his brother from coming to the States and onwards. Wherever I found it I lost it and have asked everywhere. It’s not the wonks or QAA or anyone still podding. It seems to have been scrubbed from the net. Wish I’d grabbed it now.
Was this it?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MN9HBRPn2X8s/
I tried to post it to the KF Reddit page not knowing Reddit blocks Bitchute links. Sorry. Im old and not very tech savvy.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you so much. I’ve been trying to find this again since I first heard it at the time. I’ve asked everywhere I could think of. This was the best, deepest dive on Stevie P out there. I knew he was dangerous from his total manipulation of Alex but this helped me put pieces together. I really appreciate that you posted it here.
I wonder if he’s the “former Intel” that many on the Right talk about and I worry that he’s working with Flynn building the “digital army”.
Re-listening. Please thank the others who did this with you and thank you to you. This helped justify my already established fascination of him.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-npr-politics-podcast/id1057255460?i=1000634952587
l’m a Christian but this scares the sh-t out of me 🤯
My favorite thing Pieczenik does is when he's telling Alex about some current happening and he refers to "my special forces", as if he's some comic book villain who has goons waiting by their respective phones for Steve's call to action...
"In hostage negotiation, I've never lost a life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_and_murder_of_Aldo_Moro
As much as it's a good thing that Steve and Alex are no longer talking (or at least, Steve's banned from Alex' show.) I do miss hearing his silly lies and braggadocio tirades.
These are trying times, the kind of times that try men’s souls.
does this article not answer that question sufficiently for you
I get that it was a hypothetical one but I meant your first question; if he's really "actively dangerous like Roger Stone". I just don't quite understand what your takeaway from the article was if you don't think it demonstrates that yes, he IS actively dangerous, and I think we're letting a lot of shit slide if we consider someone like Stone the threshold for who's fair game to call out. Like, by all means people should question the motives and intentions of public figures regardless of whether or not they're well-intentioned, right? That aside, I would probably argue that everyone in "the" political sphere (what applies to the US is not all-encompassing) could be considered actively dangerous; there is always going to be a direct influence on the private lives of others. no offence but if this is indicative of a wilful blindness to the dangers posed by those with as much power and authority as Alex (for starters, then work your way down the list of literally every recurring character on his programme) who subscribe to the sort of worldview that he promotes you might be listening to the show for the exact opposite purpose the hosts intend you to be and considering this I'm personally just a bit taken aback by your audacity here, sorry for it and I don't at all mean to suggest I'm personally immune to feeling a psychosocial kinship with podcasts and their hosts (sorry Robert Evans your mum died at the same time as mine and with a void of that size it's already kind of inevitable) but it's my responsibility not to entertain those feelings. I don't know how you justify it to yourself but if memory serves, a previous comment of yours on here would seem to indicate that you at least know what "psychosocial" means. I'm assuming you wouldn't, for example, comment on a picture of an acquaintance, friend or even a partner (of insert-your-preferred gender) telling them that you thought of or looked at it while... doing anything for your own gratification without their knowledge or consent tbh (but I think it's pretty obvious what I had in mind for this analogy). May I ask why you would be any less embarrassed to say that?
ETA: I hope I don't come off as though I just came here to roast you (or that this was intended to be one at all!) yours was just the only comment here when I clicked the link and the contrast felt a bit like being smacked over the head tbh. I mean, even if you leave the rest aside the very first sentence of this article is literally "Regardless of how farcical things may seem at times, this is not all fun and games".