Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Ninety Five: Nice Guys

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Ninety Five: Nice Guys · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome episode number one hundred and ninety five of the
0:03
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
0:06
Speaker 1: your host on today's show. The vice presidential debate goes
0:09
Speaker 1: as expected.
0:11
Speaker 2: Only nicer.
0:13
Speaker 1: The news media uses Hurricane Helen for their climate change agenda,
0:18
Speaker 1: some very personal thoughts on the deaths of the Kimbe
0:21
Speaker 1: Mutumbo and Pete Rose, and my favorite former liberal network
0:26
Speaker 1: news anchor David Schuster joins us for another great discussion. Well,
0:34
Speaker 1: as expected, the vice presidential debate was won by a
0:39
Speaker 1: small margin in my opinion and the opinion of seemingly
0:42
Speaker 1: most people, by the Republican candidate JD. Vance over the
0:46
Speaker 1: Democratic candidate Tim Waltz. It was nowhere near a knockout blow.
0:52
Speaker 1: I think it was kind of interesting the strategy that
0:56
Speaker 1: Vance seemed to employ, which was to be as like
1:00
Speaker 1: and as nice as possible and seemingly not go for
1:04
Speaker 1: a knockout blow. I'll get to what that might mean
1:08
Speaker 1: in just a little bit, But overall, I thought that,
1:11
Speaker 1: as I predicted, Vance won the debate, but that it
1:15
Speaker 1: really won't make that much of a difference. It's not
1:19
Speaker 1: going to move the needle, I don't think significantly when
1:22
Speaker 1: it comes to the presidential race, it's very very difficult
1:25
Speaker 1: for a vice presidential debate.
1:27
Speaker 2: To do that.
1:28
Speaker 1: As long as both of the candidates are deemed to
1:32
Speaker 1: be quote unquote qualified or plausible presidents, then I don't
1:37
Speaker 1: think it really matters very much. As was the case
1:42
Speaker 1: with ABC and the presidential debate there, the CBS moderators
1:48
Speaker 1: were absolutely terrible, especially at the start. I thought they
1:52
Speaker 1: were actually worse at the start than the ABC moderators were.
1:57
Speaker 1: There had been taught that they were not going to
1:58
Speaker 1: fact check, and then they did do some fact checking,
2:02
Speaker 1: but it was sporadic at best. Nora O'Donnell, with whom
2:06
Speaker 1: I've had a history, I know you've heard that probably
2:10
Speaker 1: a lot in the past, but it's true in this
2:12
Speaker 1: case as well. Not only did we both go to
2:15
Speaker 1: Georgetown University, but in the two thousand and eight election,
2:19
Speaker 1: or at least the aftermath of the two thousand and
2:21
Speaker 1: eight election, after I put out my Mediam Malpractice, How
2:27
Speaker 1: Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted documentary, I did
2:30
Speaker 1: a couple of different interviews with Nora O'Donnell back when
2:33
Speaker 1: she was on MSNBC, and it's really quite startling and
2:38
Speaker 1: I think rather telling that here she is now the
2:42
Speaker 1: former CBS news anchor who is deemed to be non
2:47
Speaker 1: partisan enough to be moderating vice presidential debates, when during
2:53
Speaker 1: this era, her MSNBC era, she was openly partisan.
2:58
Speaker 2: I mean, she's clearly far left.
3:01
Speaker 1: And you know, when I had confrontations whether I told
3:04
Speaker 1: her twice on the air that she ought have been
3:06
Speaker 1: she should have been fired for inaccurate statements that she
3:11
Speaker 1: made about Sarah Palin. And here she is now in
3:15
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, pretending and allowed to pretend that she's
3:20
Speaker 1: some sort of objective newsperson, and she decided that the
3:26
Speaker 1: second most important question, I think theoretically at least there
3:30
Speaker 1: was the second question of the debate should be.
3:32
Speaker 2: About climate change.
3:34
Speaker 1: And not only was that inherently biased, but the way
3:37
Speaker 1: she handled it was utterly absurd, even ending the discussion
3:41
Speaker 1: with some meaningless or superfluous alleged fact about how all
3:48
Speaker 1: experts believe that the Earth is warming at an historic rate,
3:53
Speaker 1: which is just not accurate and ridiculous and we don't
3:56
Speaker 1: know that, and there's all sorts of problems without assertion,
4:00
Speaker 1: not to mention that it's exposing extreme bias on the
4:04
Speaker 1: topic in particular because obviously it is portrayed that somehow
4:09
Speaker 1: Democrats are all in favor of magically curtailing climate change,
4:14
Speaker 1: whatever the hell that means, and that Republicans think that
4:17
Speaker 1: it's a hoax. So I thought that was right off
4:20
Speaker 1: the bat, really irritating from a moderator perspective. Maybe the
4:25
Speaker 1: worst example of bias, though, came from Nora o'donald's cooderator
4:31
Speaker 1: during the Springfield, Ohio discussion, where she fact checked or
4:36
Speaker 1: attempted to fact check JD. Vance and then cut his
4:40
Speaker 1: mic off when he tried to say, wait a minute, no,
4:43
Speaker 1: you got this wrong, and was incredibly condescending in cutting
4:49
Speaker 1: Vance off, basically saying, you know, thanks so much for
4:52
Speaker 1: telling us what the law is. It was really, frankly
4:56
Speaker 1: as bad as ABC only bitch year Now. It got
5:00
Speaker 1: a little less offensive as the debate went on, but
5:04
Speaker 1: the tone was already set that this was a very
5:08
Speaker 1: biased situation, very similar to what happened in the ABC
5:13
Speaker 1: presidential debate between Trump and Harris. But Vance held his
5:18
Speaker 1: own He was very polished, he didn't get upset, he
5:23
Speaker 1: didn't get sidetracked. You know, he's a good debater. He's
5:27
Speaker 1: a better debater than Tim Waltz, as was expected to
5:30
Speaker 1: be the case. It was not a difficult prediction to
5:33
Speaker 1: make that the guy that went to Yale Law School
5:37
Speaker 1: would be a better debater than the guy who mocks
5:40
Speaker 1: people who get into Yale. That's really not a difficult prediction,
5:44
Speaker 1: and that's pretty much.
5:45
Speaker 2: The way things went down.
5:47
Speaker 1: However, I was frustrated by the fact that Vance, in
5:52
Speaker 1: my opinion, missed several opportunities. Now it's possible that some
5:57
Speaker 1: of this was by design, as I've already empled, but
6:01
Speaker 1: I hate ad Vance's response on climate change. I hated
6:06
Speaker 1: it on a couple different levels. The first level I
6:09
Speaker 1: hated it on was that it accepts the entire premise.
6:14
Speaker 1: I cannot stand the fact that Republicans or conservatives constantly
6:19
Speaker 1: feel forced to accept the premise that climate change is proven,
6:26
Speaker 1: that it's man made, that we could do something about
6:30
Speaker 1: it if we wanted to, that it would be worth
6:32
Speaker 1: doing something about if we could do something about it.
6:36
Speaker 1: I can't stand that, because you're seeding way way too
6:40
Speaker 1: much of the argument to the other side, and Vance
6:44
Speaker 1: absolutely did that. And this is a topic where you know,
6:48
Speaker 1: I thought JD. Vance was the great slayer of PCBs
6:53
Speaker 1: liberal media narratives, and I thought he came up tiny
6:57
Speaker 1: on this particular topic. But more importantly than that, I
7:01
Speaker 1: think bringing climate change into the aftermath of Hurricane Helene
7:06
Speaker 1: provided a really tremendous chance for Advance to cut this
7:12
Speaker 1: off at the knees, and that would be to say, look,
7:17
Speaker 1: you guys can do your climate change debate. I think
7:21
Speaker 1: there's problems with your premise on that entire situation, but
7:26
Speaker 1: that's not what the core issue here is.
7:28
Speaker 2: The core issue here.
7:29
Speaker 1: Is that Americans, a lot of Americans are in deep,
7:33
Speaker 1: deep trouble right now, and we need to be doing
7:36
Speaker 1: everything we possibly can to help them.
7:39
Speaker 2: And to be trying to.
7:42
Speaker 1: Misdirect or distract from that by bringing in the obvious
7:48
Speaker 1: political issue of climate change global warming is not helpful
7:52
Speaker 1: to anybody. I think he would have had plenty of
7:54
Speaker 1: moral high ground to say this is not where the
7:58
Speaker 1: focus ought to be, and for the news media to
8:01
Speaker 1: knee jerk go to climate change global warming when there's
8:08
Speaker 1: obviously far more important things going on with regard to
8:12
Speaker 1: the response and real lives at stake and people in real,
8:16
Speaker 1: real trouble, I think is not only a good point,
8:20
Speaker 1: but it's also potent politically, especially considering the fact that
8:25
Speaker 1: North Carolina is a swing state and is one of
8:29
Speaker 1: the states and not the state most negatively affected by
8:33
Speaker 1: the hurricanes. So I thought that was a huge missed opportunity.
8:36
Speaker 1: In fact, that was very early on in the bait
8:39
Speaker 1: I tweeted that I thought at that point Vance was losing.
8:43
Speaker 1: People went bananas because they thought he was actually winning
8:47
Speaker 1: the debate because he was much more polished than Waltz was,
8:50
Speaker 1: who appeared to be nervous, especially early on. It's amazing
8:55
Speaker 1: to me people when you say something like twenty minutes
8:58
Speaker 1: into a bait into a debate that someone is losing,
9:01
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean they've lost or that the other guy
9:05
Speaker 1: is doing fantastic. But I got bombarded with negative comments
9:09
Speaker 1: about that because people, at least on the right were very,
9:12
Speaker 1: very invested in the idea that Vance was doing great.
9:15
Speaker 1: And again I acknowledged and acknowledged during an act of
9:19
Speaker 1: the debate that Advance quote unquote one the polling was
9:24
Speaker 1: not necessarily indicative of that. It appeared as if Vance
9:28
Speaker 1: won some of these snappoles by a very very small margin,
9:31
Speaker 1: although it also appears as if Waltz's approval rating improved
9:36
Speaker 1: more so than Vance's did. Dvance's did improve, but Waltz's
9:40
Speaker 1: by some accounts improved dramatically, which didn't shock me, because
9:46
Speaker 1: while Waltz made a lot of missteps, he did come
9:49
Speaker 1: across as likable, and that's, unfortunately what matters to a
9:54
Speaker 1: lot of people. So I think Waltz probably did a
9:58
Speaker 1: little bit better, at least as far as what his
10:01
Speaker 1: mission was. Then a lot of conservatives want to believe
10:05
Speaker 1: because they look at what Waltz did and they see, well,
10:08
Speaker 1: this guy was nervous, he was wrong on the issues.
10:11
Speaker 1: He had a bad moment, which I'll get to involving
10:15
Speaker 1: his lie that he was there during the protest at
10:18
Speaker 1: Tianum And Square in China.
10:20
Speaker 2: In June of nineteen eighty nine.
10:23
Speaker 1: And so that, combined with other factors, I think has
10:27
Speaker 1: conservatives thinking that Waltz.
10:29
Speaker 2: Did a really poor job.
10:30
Speaker 1: But I don't think that as far as what his
10:33
Speaker 1: mission was that he did. He didn't do a great job,
10:37
Speaker 1: but he came across as likable, and you know, he
10:40
Speaker 1: was substantive on most of the responses.
10:44
Speaker 2: He dodged a couple of the questions.
10:46
Speaker 1: Vance dodged one that I think is going to be
10:49
Speaker 1: problematic for him, probably one of the few memorable moments
10:53
Speaker 1: in the debate. But back to the missed opportunities that
10:57
Speaker 1: on the part of JD.
10:58
Speaker 2: Vance.
10:59
Speaker 1: I thought the climate change was a huge missed opportunity.
11:02
Speaker 1: I also thought that later in the debate, this whole
11:06
Speaker 1: threat to democracy issue, which you know, Vance got caught
11:12
Speaker 1: because Waltz asked him whether or not Trump won the
11:15
Speaker 1: twenty and twenty election, and he dodged the question. And
11:19
Speaker 1: I'm sure a lot of people thought that Vance did
11:21
Speaker 1: a great job in saying, the real threat to democracy
11:25
Speaker 1: is the threat to free speech. And obviously I'm a
11:28
Speaker 1: free speech advocate. I totally understand where Vance was coming from.
11:31
Speaker 1: I actually thought his answer was quite elquent and passionate.
11:36
Speaker 1: But I also thought that was a missed opportunity because
11:42
Speaker 1: if the issue is threat to democracy, right, and you're
11:46
Speaker 1: truly trying to distract from the fact that you don't
11:49
Speaker 1: want to answer whether or not Trump won the twenty
11:51
Speaker 1: twenty election, which you know, unfortunately, I understand Advance was
11:55
Speaker 1: caught in an impossible situation there because he can't piss
11:59
Speaker 1: off the boss, even though Trump himself is effectively recently
12:03
Speaker 1: acknowledged that he did indeed lose the twenty twenty election.
12:07
Speaker 2: To me, it's absolutely.
12:10
Speaker 1: Unbelievable and a huge missed opportunity. The Vans didn't even mention.
12:15
Speaker 1: If we're going to talk about threats to democracy, how
12:18
Speaker 1: is it that having a democratic presidential candidate that has
12:22
Speaker 1: never received one vote to be president is in all
12:29
Speaker 1: keeping with the idea of protecting democratic norms. I mean,
12:34
Speaker 1: that's the greatest proof of hypocrisy I can think of
12:38
Speaker 1: in modern presidential times. The entire democratic campaign is based
12:43
Speaker 1: on protecting democracy. When they just had a coup, They
12:49
Speaker 1: just got rid of their nominee who got all the votes,
12:53
Speaker 1: and replaced them with no democratic process, no legitimate vote.
12:59
Speaker 1: What's whoever, with a person who has never received a
13:03
Speaker 1: vote for president?
13:05
Speaker 2: How do you not mention that?
13:08
Speaker 1: I would love to know whether or not that was
13:10
Speaker 1: strategic or whether or not that was simply a misstep
13:14
Speaker 1: on Vance's part. Why would you choose free speech as
13:20
Speaker 1: the rebuttal on threat to democracy when you could use
13:25
Speaker 1: this opportunity to highlight the illegitimacy of the entire Harris
13:30
Speaker 1: Walt's argument on democracy not to mention the legitimacy of
13:34
Speaker 1: her entire candidacy, and they did not do that. Vance
13:39
Speaker 1: did not do that, And I thought that was a
13:41
Speaker 1: missed opportunity. But I also thought that probably the most
13:44
Speaker 1: memorable moment in the debate.
13:47
Speaker 2: Which I've already alluded to.
13:48
Speaker 1: The whole China question, was another missed opportunity for Vance,
13:54
Speaker 1: and this was when Tim Waltz, much to my surprise,
13:57
Speaker 1: was actually asked a legitimate question by the CBS moderators, who,
14:03
Speaker 1: other than on this particular point, were obviously biased in
14:07
Speaker 1: Waltz's favor and against Jade Vance. He was asked and
14:11
Speaker 1: the only reason, let's be clear about why he was
14:13
Speaker 1: asked about this, it was because the New York Times
14:16
Speaker 1: validated the story that Waltz had lied about being in
14:22
Speaker 1: Tienamen Square or in China during the protests, the very
14:26
Speaker 1: famous protests in Tianamen Square in June of nineteen eighty nine.
14:31
Speaker 1: He was not in China at that time. He had
14:34
Speaker 1: never been to China yet at that time, but he
14:37
Speaker 1: claimed to be. And it's clear.
14:39
Speaker 2: As day that he lied about this, and he was
14:43
Speaker 2: asked about it.
14:44
Speaker 1: Which is, you know, it's amazing that we have to
14:46
Speaker 1: be almost shocked when a Democratic candidate is asked a
14:51
Speaker 1: legitimate question that the moderators clearly know could be bad
14:55
Speaker 1: for them. That only happens, maybe once in a debate.
14:59
Speaker 1: It happened, and in the presidential debate when Harris was
15:03
Speaker 1: asked about her various positions on the issue of fracking,
15:08
Speaker 1: which I also thought Trump didn't do a very good
15:10
Speaker 1: job of taking advantage of, and you know, was not
15:15
Speaker 1: a situation where Harris was harmed nearly as much as
15:18
Speaker 1: she should have been.
15:19
Speaker 2: Well, this response from.
15:22
Speaker 1: Waltz is probably the most memorable from the entire debate
15:27
Speaker 1: because at first he tries to dodge it. I mean
15:29
Speaker 1: he he really He goes into the you know, I'm
15:32
Speaker 1: from a middle class family response, which is now cliche.
15:36
Speaker 2: Whenever you're in.
15:37
Speaker 1: Trouble, you do, like Kamala Harris, does I'm from a
15:41
Speaker 1: middle class family if that's a question you don't want
15:44
Speaker 1: to answer, And then, much to my surprise, there was
15:49
Speaker 1: a follow up because he clearly did not answer the question,
15:53
Speaker 1: and when pressed, Waltz completely melts down, calls himself a knucklehead,
16:00
Speaker 1: is really reduced into literal silence, And in a rational
16:05
Speaker 1: world this would have really left the mark. This would
16:10
Speaker 1: have this would have been very, very problematic for the
16:13
Speaker 1: Harris Waltz campaign, But I'm not really sure that it
16:17
Speaker 1: will be. But for the record, here's what it sounded
16:20
Speaker 1: like during the vice presidential debate.
16:22
Speaker 3: Said you were in Hong Kong during the deadly Tieneman
16:25
Speaker 3: Square protests in the spring of nineteen eighty nine. But
16:29
Speaker 3: Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets are reporting that
16:32
Speaker 3: you actually didn't travel to Asia until August of that year.
16:37
Speaker 3: Can you explain that discrepancy?
16:39
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, and the folks out there, it didn't get
16:41
Speaker 4: at the top of this. Look.
16:43
Speaker 5: I grew up in small, rural Nebraska town of four
16:47
Speaker 5: hundred town that you rode your bike with your buddies.
16:49
Speaker 5: Still the street lights come on, and I'm proud of
16:51
Speaker 5: that service. I joined the National Guard at seventeen, worked
16:54
Speaker 5: on family farms, and then I use the GI bill
16:57
Speaker 5: to become a teacher, passionate about it a young tea.
17:01
Speaker 5: My first year out, I got the opportunity in the
17:03
Speaker 5: summer of eighty nine to travel to China thirty five
17:06
Speaker 5: years ago.
17:06
Speaker 4: Be able to do that.
17:07
Speaker 5: I came back home and then started a program to
17:11
Speaker 5: take young people there. We would take basketball teams, we
17:14
Speaker 5: would take baseball teams, we would take dancers, and we
17:16
Speaker 5: would go back and forth to China. The issue for
17:19
Speaker 5: that was was to try and learn. Now, look, my
17:21
Speaker 5: community knows who I am. They saw where I was at.
17:24
Speaker 5: They look. I will be the first to tell you
17:27
Speaker 5: I have poured my heart into my community. I've tried
17:30
Speaker 5: to do the best I can, but I've not been perfect,
17:32
Speaker 5: and I'm a knucklehead at times.
17:34
Speaker 4: But it's always been about that.
17:35
Speaker 5: Those same people elected me to Congress for twelve years,
17:39
Speaker 5: and in Congress I was one of the most bipartisan people,
17:42
Speaker 5: working on things like farm bills that we got done,
17:45
Speaker 5: working on veterans benefits, and then the people of Minnesota
17:48
Speaker 5: were able to elect me to governor twice. So look,
17:51
Speaker 5: my commitment has been from the beginning to make sure
17:54
Speaker 5: that I'm there for the people, to make sure that
17:56
Speaker 5: I get this right.
17:57
Speaker 4: I will say more than anything.
17:59
Speaker 5: Many times, I will talk a lot, i will get
18:02
Speaker 5: caught up in the rhetoric, but being there, the impact
18:05
Speaker 5: it made, the difference it made in my life. I
18:08
Speaker 5: learned a lot about China. I hear the critiques of this.
18:10
Speaker 5: I would make the case that Donald Trump should have
18:12
Speaker 5: come on one of those trips with US. I guarantee
18:15
Speaker 5: you he wouldn't be praising hijingping about COVID, and I
18:19
Speaker 5: guarantee you he wouldn't start a trade war that he
18:21
Speaker 5: ends up losing.
18:22
Speaker 4: So this is about trying to understand the world.
18:25
Speaker 5: It's about trying to do the best you can for
18:27
Speaker 5: your community, and then it's putting yourself out there and
18:30
Speaker 5: letting your folks understand what it is my commitment. Whether
18:33
Speaker 5: it be through teaching, which I was good at, or
18:35
Speaker 5: whether it was being a good soldier or was being
18:37
Speaker 5: a good member of Congress, those are the things that
18:39
Speaker 5: I think are the values that people care about.
18:42
Speaker 3: Governor. Just to follow up on that, the question was,
18:45
Speaker 3: can you explain the notancy.
18:48
Speaker 5: All I said on this was is I got there
18:49
Speaker 5: that summer and misspoke on this, So I will just
18:53
Speaker 5: that's what I've said. So I was in Hong Kong
18:58
Speaker 5: and China during the democracy protest went in and from
19:02
Speaker 5: that I learned a lot of what needed to be
19:05
Speaker 5: in governance.
19:08
Speaker 3: Thank you, Governor.
19:09
Speaker 1: Now that was awful. I mean that was really really bad,
19:14
Speaker 1: and there was you know, there was blood there, but
19:20
Speaker 1: instead of there being a follow up, and I acknowledge
19:23
Speaker 1: that this is this is very difficult, and this is
19:26
Speaker 1: a situation where Vance has to make an instantaneous decision.
19:29
Speaker 1: Do you let the blood just flow on its own
19:33
Speaker 1: or do you stick the knife in and twist it?
19:37
Speaker 1: Do you make sure that people understand what they just
19:41
Speaker 1: saw and how big a deal it is? And you know,
19:45
Speaker 1: the moderators, I think purposely immediately switched subjects and put
19:51
Speaker 1: Vance on the defensive, and he decided he elected to
19:55
Speaker 1: not focus at all on what just happened with now personally,
20:02
Speaker 1: and it's just partially you know, my philosophy on these things.
20:05
Speaker 1: I think that was a mistake. See, I think people
20:08
Speaker 1: are stupid, and I think Republicans get very, very very
20:13
Speaker 1: few opportunities to really nail Democrats to the wall in
20:18
Speaker 1: a situation where the news media doesn't have that much
20:22
Speaker 1: power to spin it because people are seeing it live
20:26
Speaker 1: for themselves, and this was one of those opportunities. Waltz
20:32
Speaker 1: was wounded, but Vance did not go in for the
20:36
Speaker 1: knockout blow. And to me, it would have been very effective,
20:41
Speaker 1: if done right, if Waltz had said two things. There's
20:46
Speaker 1: two things there that needed to be emphasized that needed
20:52
Speaker 1: to be focused on, it needed to be made clear.
20:55
Speaker 2: One was that this.
20:57
Speaker 1: Was not just a misstatement, because it is an obvious
21:02
Speaker 1: lie and it's consistent with Waltz's mo and Dvance could
21:09
Speaker 1: have listed several of the other situations that were remarkably
21:13
Speaker 1: similar where Waltz has greatly exaggerated and or lied about
21:19
Speaker 1: his biography, and that he could have done the same
21:22
Speaker 1: thing with Harris, and he could have said that this
21:26
Speaker 1: team Harris Waltz has an authenticity problem, has a credibility problem.
21:33
Speaker 1: They are not ready for prime time. They are telling
21:36
Speaker 1: you things about themselves that are clearly not true. And
21:41
Speaker 1: I think, if done properly, could have been very very
21:44
Speaker 1: effective and would have been, you know, the mic drop
21:49
Speaker 1: moment of this debate, and would have clearly created a
21:54
Speaker 1: viral clip that even the news media probably would have
21:58
Speaker 1: had to play on a pretty significant level. Instead, we
22:04
Speaker 1: have just this very awkward response from Waltz that frankly
22:09
Speaker 1: requires the news media to do too much heavy lifting
22:13
Speaker 1: in providing context for why this is so bad. Now,
22:17
Speaker 1: the other part of this equation that Vance could have
22:20
Speaker 1: jumped all over is that, yeah, Tim Waltz, it's one
22:25
Speaker 1: thing for you to lie about when you went to
22:29
Speaker 1: China to make it sound more dramatic than it actually was.
22:32
Speaker 1: But why have you apparently been to China thirty times?
22:36
Speaker 1: That only happens if China thinks that you are useful
22:42
Speaker 1: to them. Why does China think you are useful to them?
22:46
Speaker 1: Why have you said so many things about China that
22:51
Speaker 1: make it sound like you are a Chinese sympathizer and
22:56
Speaker 1: that philosophically you seem agree with China on a lot
23:03
Speaker 1: of things. That is something I think Vance should have said.
23:09
Speaker 1: So there's two elements to the Waltz blown answer on
23:13
Speaker 1: Tieneman square. One, this is his mo about exaggerating and
23:18
Speaker 1: lying about who he is and that Harris has the
23:20
Speaker 1: same problem. And two, so why all the trips to China?
23:24
Speaker 1: And what do you really think about China? Why do
23:28
Speaker 1: they think you're their friend? And none of that happened.
23:32
Speaker 1: And I don't think that that was a particularly effective
23:37
Speaker 1: strategy by Vance. I think that was a missed opportunity.
23:40
Speaker 1: But I acknowledge that I have a different philosophy on
23:43
Speaker 1: these debates because I think these debates are the one
23:47
Speaker 1: golden opportunity where a Republican has at least the chance,
23:52
Speaker 1: and it only happens once or twice during a debate
23:55
Speaker 1: because the moderators are generally protecting the Democrats. They only
23:59
Speaker 1: have one or two opportunities to really make it clear
24:05
Speaker 1: to the average voter at home who's not paying that
24:08
Speaker 1: close attention as to what's really going on here, and
24:13
Speaker 1: I think this opportunity was largely missed that now. I
24:16
Speaker 1: acknowledged that the Waltz blunder is going to be one
24:20
Speaker 1: of the two most memorable moments from this debate, but
24:24
Speaker 1: I don't think, you know, people are going to really
24:26
Speaker 1: remember this debate very long, and I don't think it's
24:28
Speaker 1: going to have much impact when all is said and done.
24:31
Speaker 1: The second most memorable moment was when Vance didn't answer
24:35
Speaker 1: who won the twenty twenty election.
24:37
Speaker 2: I've already dealt with that.
24:39
Speaker 1: I don't know what Vance is supposed to say there,
24:42
Speaker 1: although you know, if he had worked it out with
24:44
Speaker 1: Trump prior to the debate and Trump didn't have such
24:47
Speaker 1: an ego problem, he could have said just a couple
24:50
Speaker 1: of weeks ago, Donald Trump acknowledged that he lost the
24:53
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election. But I'm here to focus on the
24:56
Speaker 1: future and make sure that he doesn't lose this particular
25:00
Speaker 1: election because the country can't afford it, or something along
25:03
Speaker 1: those lines. That would have been the answer I would
25:06
Speaker 1: have preferred. But if we're going to talk about not
25:08
Speaker 1: answering questions, you know, Waltz tried his best not to answer.
25:12
Speaker 1: I don't think even really still answered the Tieneman square question.
25:17
Speaker 1: He also never answered the question when is it too
25:20
Speaker 1: late to have an elected abortion, which was one of
25:24
Speaker 1: the few direct and theoretically difficult questions that Waltz was
25:29
Speaker 1: asked by the moderators. Of course, there was no follow
25:32
Speaker 1: up on this one because this is this is part
25:35
Speaker 1: of the liberal religion, so that the question was asked effectively,
25:40
Speaker 1: which is a good question. I mean, Republicans are constantly,
25:44
Speaker 1: you know, getting played on this issue because, you know,
25:48
Speaker 1: like Ron DeSantis did in Florida, they have to set
25:52
Speaker 1: what they think the law ought to be, which you know,
25:56
Speaker 1: I disagree politically with the six week standard of when
26:01
Speaker 1: an abortion is still legal, but okay, fine. At least
26:06
Speaker 1: Republicans have generally picked a date, picked the time period,
26:11
Speaker 1: been specific about what they think the law ought to be.
26:14
Speaker 2: Democrats will never do.
26:16
Speaker 1: This, and Waltz was specifically asked about this, and once
26:20
Speaker 1: again completely and totally dodged the question. Will any Democrat
26:28
Speaker 1: This is amazing to me, It's a pretty simple request.
26:32
Speaker 1: Will any Democrat ever be forced to answer that incredibly
26:37
Speaker 1: basic question? When is it too late to have an
26:42
Speaker 1: elected or elective abortion?
26:45
Speaker 2: When is that time? At what point is it too late?
26:51
Speaker 1: I have never heard a Democrat directly answer that question
26:57
Speaker 1: or be forced to ask answer that question. And Waltz
27:00
Speaker 1: was not forced to answer that question by the moderators
27:03
Speaker 1: because there was no follow up. But boy, that would
27:07
Speaker 1: be an interesting answer to finally get.
27:09
Speaker 2: When is it?
27:11
Speaker 1: They won't tell you because they know that as soon
27:15
Speaker 1: as they answer that question, they will piss off a
27:19
Speaker 1: portion of one of their key voting blocks. Because there's
27:24
Speaker 1: no good answer to these people, because here's the bottom line.
27:27
Speaker 2: Philosophically, they really.
27:29
Speaker 1: Believe that you could have an abortion from an elective
27:32
Speaker 1: perspective whenever you wanted it. In fact, they could probably
27:36
Speaker 1: have it after birth philosophically, but they know they know
27:42
Speaker 1: that if they say that one they'll piss off their base.
27:44
Speaker 1: But also they'll maybe more importantly, they'll reveal themselves as
27:49
Speaker 1: really being pro abortion and not pro choice because philosophically, morally, logically,
27:57
Speaker 1: there's absolutely positively no argument to be made for a
28:02
Speaker 1: seven to eight month, nine month abortion. First of all,
28:06
Speaker 1: you got plenty of time to make that decision. You're
28:09
Speaker 1: obviously well aware that you're pregnant, and the science has
28:13
Speaker 1: proven time and time and time again that at that
28:16
Speaker 1: point the fetus is more than viable. You have a
28:18
Speaker 1: by all accounts, a human being in your body at
28:23
Speaker 1: that point. So you know, most people, the vast majority
28:28
Speaker 1: of voters, are going to be offended if they believe
28:32
Speaker 1: that you think that it's morally and legally fine to
28:36
Speaker 1: kill your baby in eight or nine months. So that's
28:39
Speaker 1: why Democrats politically are smart to never answer the question.
28:42
Speaker 1: But my frustration is the media never forces the issue.
28:47
Speaker 1: They barely ever bring it up. I was surprised it
28:50
Speaker 1: was brought up in the debate last night, but there
28:52
Speaker 1: was no follow up when Waltz one hundred percent never
28:56
Speaker 1: answered the question and Dvance, once again missing an opportunity,
29:00
Speaker 1: did not jump all over that to try to at
29:04
Speaker 1: least put a focus on the fact that Waltz was
29:08
Speaker 1: not answering this important question. So that's my general analysis.
29:14
Speaker 1: I gave you know, grading on an old school scale,
29:17
Speaker 1: where a's actually were difficult to get back in the
29:19
Speaker 1: olden days. I gave Vance a B. I gave Walts
29:24
Speaker 1: a C plus. I gave the moderators a D plus.
29:28
Speaker 1: I think the advance one on points and polish. I
29:32
Speaker 1: don't know that it makes a lot of difference, if
29:34
Speaker 1: any difference, in the campaign itself. I do think that
29:39
Speaker 1: the most interesting element of this whole situation strategically was
29:44
Speaker 1: the fact that both candidates were exceedingly nice to each other.
29:50
Speaker 1: I think too nice. I think actually both candidates were
29:54
Speaker 1: too nice to each other. I think Vance missed opportunities
29:58
Speaker 1: to go in for the kill on Waltz, and I
30:01
Speaker 1: think Waltz was probably too nice to dance. From the
30:05
Speaker 1: perspective of this could theoretically subconsciously be good for Trump,
30:13
Speaker 1: because how do you make the argument of you're Democrats
30:17
Speaker 1: that Trump is super scary, this threat to democracy, He's
30:21
Speaker 1: an ogre, a monster, but his vice presidential candidate is
30:26
Speaker 1: seemingly a pretty nice guy, and I agree with him
30:28
Speaker 1: and a whole lot of stuff. Subconsciously, I don't know
30:33
Speaker 1: that that works now for a lot of people.
30:35
Speaker 2: They're never going to think about it that way.
30:37
Speaker 1: But I did get that sense that I wonder if
30:41
Speaker 1: strategically this is a bad move by Waltz. Now I realize,
30:46
Speaker 1: you know, he's from Minnesota, and Minnesota people are supposed
30:49
Speaker 1: to be super nice, right, And maybe that's just who
30:52
Speaker 1: he is, maybe that's just his persona. But I got
30:55
Speaker 1: to believe that there are some liberals out there that
30:58
Speaker 1: are a little antsy about how nice Waltz was to Vance.
31:03
Speaker 1: One because they hate Vance, but also because I think
31:05
Speaker 1: they see the issue. As I just laid it out,
31:08
Speaker 1: there were a lot of members of the mainstream news
31:11
Speaker 1: media that seemed to be unsatisfied with Waltz's performance and
31:15
Speaker 1: seemed to acknowledge that Vance won. Now, the media is
31:21
Speaker 1: wrong about a lot of things, but I did find
31:23
Speaker 1: that to be interesting and potentially significant that even members
31:28
Speaker 1: of the mainstream media, clearly not conservatives, were seemingly in
31:32
Speaker 1: the camp that Vance got the better of Waltz in
31:36
Speaker 1: this debate. But from a bigger picture perspective, why were
31:41
Speaker 1: both guys so nice to each other? I don't know,
31:45
Speaker 1: but I have a theory, and it seems to me
31:49
Speaker 1: as if the most logical explanation for why both candidates
31:54
Speaker 1: were super exceedingly nice to each other.
31:58
Speaker 2: Is that it appears as if.
31:59
Speaker 1: Both campaigns are rather confident in where they currently stand
32:06
Speaker 1: with regard to winning the election. And that's the only
32:11
Speaker 1: way I can make this make sense that Vance didn't
32:14
Speaker 1: go in for the kill because he was just trying
32:16
Speaker 1: to be safe, because the Trump campaign seemingly thinks that
32:22
Speaker 1: they're in a very good position, and you could make
32:26
Speaker 1: a similar argument for the Harris Waltz campaign. So for
32:29
Speaker 1: both sides, when this is really the last opportunity, sir,
32:34
Speaker 1: seems like it the last opportunity to speak unvetted effectively
32:39
Speaker 1: to the American people in front of a big audience.
32:43
Speaker 1: For both of them to be rather conservative, not politically,
32:48
Speaker 1: but strategically when it comes to their strategy, I thought
32:52
Speaker 1: was really interesting and quite telling. It reminded me a
32:56
Speaker 1: little bit Vance's strategy here being super nice and not
33:01
Speaker 1: going in for the kill reminded me a little bit
33:04
Speaker 1: of Mitt Romney's strategy in the last presidential debate with
33:08
Speaker 1: Barack Obama in twenty twelve, where and I'll never forget this,
33:13
Speaker 1: I mean, I was watching with a bunch of fellow
33:15
Speaker 1: conservatives at a friend's house and you know, the narrative
33:19
Speaker 1: was that Romney was on the verge of winning this
33:22
Speaker 1: thing and was in good shape for winning this thing.
33:25
Speaker 2: And I didn't believe that.
33:27
Speaker 1: I thought he needed to go in for the kill
33:30
Speaker 1: because I thought Obama was still the favorite, and everybody
33:35
Speaker 1: else at the party was really pretty happy with the
33:37
Speaker 1: way that Romney had performed in the last debate, and
33:41
Speaker 1: I was desponded because I thought he had kicked the
33:45
Speaker 1: field goal when he needed to go for it on
33:48
Speaker 1: fourth and one for the touchdown. And as it turns out,
33:53
Speaker 1: I think I was right that they miscalculated. They thought
33:57
Speaker 1: they only needed a field goal, and I was pretty
33:59
Speaker 1: certain they need the touchdown, and the field goal didn't
34:03
Speaker 1: hack it. Well, it felt similar. It felt similar. Now
34:07
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know what the political reality is
34:09
Speaker 1: for sure, because nobody does at this point, but it
34:12
Speaker 1: felt similar that the Trump campaign believes that they're in
34:17
Speaker 1: a good enough position where they did not need Dvance
34:21
Speaker 1: to take any real chances. Now we'll see how that
34:25
Speaker 1: strategy works out, but that putting it all together logically,
34:30
Speaker 1: that's how I interpreted Dvance's strategy, And you can make
34:35
Speaker 1: a similar argument with regard to Waltz. Now, obviously somebody's
34:38
Speaker 1: wrong here. Both parties, both campaigns can't be right that
34:43
Speaker 1: they're in very very good position with a month ago.
34:47
Speaker 1: But that tends to be the way campaigns work. They
34:50
Speaker 1: tend to be rather optimistic.
34:52
Speaker 2: Now.
34:53
Speaker 1: As far as the way I see the campaign currently going,
34:56
Speaker 1: I have not changed as of this episode my electoral
35:00
Speaker 1: college projection for what would happen if the election was
35:04
Speaker 1: over today. I am keeping my electoral college projection at
35:09
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy six votes for Kamala Harris and
35:12
Speaker 1: two hundred and sixty two votes for Donald Trump. That
35:15
Speaker 1: has unchanged from the previous podcast episode. By the way,
35:19
Speaker 1: the New York Times, for better or for Worse has
35:22
Speaker 1: it exactly that number, two seventy six for Harris and
35:26
Speaker 1: two sixty two for Trump. Currently, but this thing is
35:29
Speaker 1: right now, still on a razor's edge. All of the
35:34
Speaker 1: swing states are still in play. I think Michigan is
35:39
Speaker 1: probably the most likely state to go in one direction,
35:43
Speaker 1: and that is for Kamala Harris. But all the other
35:45
Speaker 1: swing states Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada
35:51
Speaker 1: are really on a razor's edge. They could go either way,
35:54
Speaker 1: and so from an electoral college perspective, I don't think
35:59
Speaker 1: it's possible to become confident in either candidate winning this race.
36:03
Speaker 2: With a month left to go.
36:06
Speaker 1: Now, I want to go back to the response to
36:09
Speaker 1: Hurricane Helene, and I talked in the last episode about
36:13
Speaker 1: this double standard in the way that the news media
36:17
Speaker 1: is portraying the response to Hurricane Helene in comparison to
36:21
Speaker 1: how they they used Hurricane Katrina in two thousand and
36:25
Speaker 1: six to end the Bush presidency and to damage Republicans
36:31
Speaker 1: in that mid term election, and they did so very,
36:34
Speaker 1: very effectively. I want to make something clear. I'm not
36:37
Speaker 1: a big believer in government now. Disasters are one of
36:41
Speaker 1: the few areas where government can be very effective. But
36:45
Speaker 1: I don't really believe that there's that much difference in
36:49
Speaker 1: most cases between the Republican response to a disaster and
36:54
Speaker 1: the democratic response to a disaster. I think it's all
36:57
Speaker 1: about perception, and the news media obviously is a big part,
37:02
Speaker 1: not as big as they used to be, but still
37:03
Speaker 1: a big part of creating perceptions. And they created a
37:08
Speaker 1: perception post Katrina that was overtly political and I thought
37:14
Speaker 1: grossly unfair to George W. Bush, especially when you have
37:18
Speaker 1: New Orleans, a very liberal city run by a Democratic mayor,
37:23
Speaker 1: they had a democratic governor, and somehow we just decided
37:27
Speaker 1: for the first time ever that the president was primarily
37:31
Speaker 1: responsible for hurricane recovery and that somehow the levees being
37:36
Speaker 1: breached in New Orleans was.
37:38
Speaker 2: George Bush's fault.
37:39
Speaker 1: Well, we have a somewhat similar situation here, only now
37:44
Speaker 1: we have a swing state in a presidential election, North Carolina,
37:49
Speaker 1: where it's very obvious that there is a disaster and
37:54
Speaker 1: there are signs perceptions that the Biden administration is not
38:01
Speaker 1: on top of this. We got Biden on the beach
38:04
Speaker 1: literally during the weekend after this happened, and you've got
38:09
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris putting out tweets with pictures of herself on
38:13
Speaker 1: a plane. By the way, I remember very specifically that
38:18
Speaker 1: Bush got tortured for looking over the Katrina aftermath in
38:22
Speaker 1: a plane because he didn't want to create a disturbance
38:25
Speaker 1: on the ground. But we've got, you know, from a
38:28
Speaker 1: perception perspective, all sorts of opportunities for the news media
38:33
Speaker 1: to say, hey, wait a minute, is the Biden Harris administration.
38:37
Speaker 2: Really on top of this?
38:40
Speaker 1: And then we have a couple of comments made by
38:43
Speaker 1: I guess our president, Joe Biden at least appears to
38:47
Speaker 1: be our president. No one knows for sure, but a
38:50
Speaker 1: couple of comments from him that if George Bush had
38:53
Speaker 1: said them, would have absolutely created a firestorm post Katrina,
39:00
Speaker 1: because the media was very eager to create a negative
39:03
Speaker 1: Bush narrative after Katrina. The most dramatic episode occurred at
39:10
Speaker 1: the White House, where Biden was finally, you know, pretending
39:14
Speaker 1: that he was in charge and on top of this
39:17
Speaker 1: whole situation.
39:19
Speaker 2: As he was.
39:19
Speaker 1: Leaving the podium, a reporter, much to my surprise, actually
39:24
Speaker 1: asked him a question about whether or not he's really
39:27
Speaker 1: on top of the response to the hurricane, and he
39:30
Speaker 1: angrily snapped at the reporter and you know, basically said, look,
39:36
Speaker 1: I've been on the phone for almost two hours while
39:38
Speaker 1: I was at the beach, seemingly being annoyed by the
39:42
Speaker 1: fact that he was forced to be on the phone
39:44
Speaker 1: for wherever long it was. And here's what that sounded like.
39:51
Speaker 1: And the hurricane is for president, why weren't she and
39:53
Speaker 1: Vice President Harris Sharon Washington commanding this?
39:58
Speaker 2: I was communisian.
39:59
Speaker 3: I was on the phone at least two hours yesterday
40:02
Speaker 3: in the day before as well.
40:03
Speaker 4: I commend it's called telephone.
40:05
Speaker 2: It's all my security. It's not important for the company
40:08
Speaker 2: to see.
40:11
Speaker 1: Now, in a world where the news media was truly
40:15
Speaker 1: fair and there were no massive double standards, that would
40:20
Speaker 1: be enough to create a very negative narrative. We've got
40:24
Speaker 1: Biden on the beach when this happens, and him complaining
40:28
Speaker 1: about being on the phone.
40:29
Speaker 2: For a couple of hours.
40:31
Speaker 1: Now, what that actually means to the the response itself,
40:36
Speaker 1: I have no idea, Probably nothing in the real world.
40:40
Speaker 1: But again we're talking about perceptions and what the media
40:44
Speaker 1: decides they want to make a narrative out of, and
40:46
Speaker 1: what they decide, eh, we're gonna let this one pass. Well,
40:50
Speaker 1: they know they know that this is a potentially dangerous
40:54
Speaker 1: narrative for Democrats because North Carolina is a very key
40:57
Speaker 1: swing state and if go all Katrina on Biden and
41:04
Speaker 1: on Harris, that would be very, very potentially negative towards
41:09
Speaker 1: the chances of Biden and Harris or Harris and Biden or.
41:13
Speaker 2: Harris being the actual candidate.
41:14
Speaker 1: Now, after the big switcheroo of Harris winning the presidential election,
41:19
Speaker 1: so even though that.
41:21
Speaker 2: Was a spark right there. The clip you just heard
41:23
Speaker 2: was a spark that could have created an inferno.
41:26
Speaker 1: It did not, at least not as of this moment,
41:29
Speaker 1: because the news media has no interest in that happening. Instead,
41:33
Speaker 1: as the vice presidential debate proved with Nora O'Donnell's ridiculous
41:37
Speaker 1: second question, the media has decided, Well, the narrative that
41:41
Speaker 1: we're most comfortable with here in the aftermath of the
41:45
Speaker 1: hurricane is climate change. Yeah, that's it, climate change, global warming.
41:50
Speaker 1: And I warned you on this podcast before the hurricane
41:54
Speaker 1: even hit that that would be exactly what would happen
41:58
Speaker 1: if the hurricane turned out to be as bad as
42:01
Speaker 1: feared and it was actually worse than feared. And this
42:05
Speaker 1: was particularly frustrating to me because as someone who follows
42:09
Speaker 1: this entire issue very very closely and keeps track of
42:14
Speaker 1: all these predictions that the so called experts make, I
42:18
Speaker 1: was very very curious and even predicted on this podcast
42:23
Speaker 1: that as to whether or not anybody in the news
42:26
Speaker 1: media was going to at least provide the context that
42:30
Speaker 1: all the so called experts going into this hurricane season
42:34
Speaker 1: had predicted that this would be the most active hurricane season,
42:39
Speaker 1: maybe on record, way above average now for the record,
42:46
Speaker 1: on average, there are about fourteen named storms in the
42:50
Speaker 1: Atlantic during hurricane season. The so called experts were saying
42:55
Speaker 1: we could have up to twenty five twenty five name
43:01
Speaker 1: storms because you know, climate change, global warming. Well, Helene
43:07
Speaker 1: was either the eighth or ninth, depending on how you
43:12
Speaker 1: frame it. You know, at most the ninth named storm
43:17
Speaker 1: in this season, which is almost over, and so they're
43:22
Speaker 1: not gonna hit fourteen.
43:24
Speaker 2: In fact, the National Weather Service has already.
43:28
Speaker 1: Indicated that they didn't think they did this a couple
43:31
Speaker 1: of weeks ago, that they did not think we were
43:33
Speaker 1: going to hit the average of fourteen named storms for
43:37
Speaker 1: this particular year. So inherently, inherently, there at least ought
43:44
Speaker 1: to be a pumping of the brakes on this entire
43:48
Speaker 1: connection between Hurricane Helene and climate change, global warming, because
43:54
Speaker 1: the so called experts have been totally wrong just a
43:59
Speaker 1: couple of mon months ago. Now, just because one hurricane
44:02
Speaker 1: happens to you know, hit at exactly the wrong time,
44:06
Speaker 1: in the wrong place, and have a ton of rain
44:09
Speaker 1: associated with it, and and you know, create all this damage,
44:13
Speaker 1: which by the way, has happened before in this exact
44:16
Speaker 1: location about one hundred years ago, but also happens somewhere
44:21
Speaker 1: on a yearly basis. You know that, to me, they
44:27
Speaker 1: ought to be at least part of the context of
44:29
Speaker 1: the story. If you're going to go in the climate change,
44:31
Speaker 1: global warming direction, can you at not at least acknowledge
44:37
Speaker 1: that up until Helene, this has been a very, very
44:40
Speaker 1: inactive hurricane season, directly in contradiction of the predictions made
44:47
Speaker 1: by the same experts you're relying on to tell us
44:51
Speaker 1: the climate change global warming is one hundred percent real.
44:54
Speaker 1: Shouldn't that at least give you some pause? Well no, now,
45:00
Speaker 1: as I predicted, the news media has just simply ignored
45:03
Speaker 1: the fact that these predictions are wrong for this year.
45:07
Speaker 1: And again, these are not long term predictions. These are
45:09
Speaker 1: predictions that were made just a few months ago. Earlier
45:13
Speaker 1: this year, look out, it's going to be a record
45:16
Speaker 1: year for hurricane activity. Well, because there was one really
45:21
Speaker 1: bad storm that caused more damage than expected doesn't change
45:27
Speaker 1: the fact that your prediction was wrong. And they keep changing,
45:31
Speaker 1: you know, shifting the goalposts on. Wait a week, is
45:34
Speaker 1: it global warming, your climate change that does it increase
45:36
Speaker 1: the frequency or does it increase the intensity? Well, even
45:41
Speaker 1: if you use the intensity argument, for which there's no
45:44
Speaker 1: actual data.
45:46
Speaker 2: Even if you do that.
45:48
Speaker 1: Okay, this was a hurricane for a category for hurricane
45:52
Speaker 1: really bad, not unprecedented. Happens basically every year, So it's
45:57
Speaker 1: just it's astonishing, and in some ways it's not shocking,
46:01
Speaker 1: but in other ways it really is just stupefying how
46:06
Speaker 1: brazen they are when they like an agenda, they like
46:11
Speaker 1: a narrative. The facts be damned, it doesn't matter. And
46:14
Speaker 1: let me give you an example. Here's an ABC News article.
46:18
Speaker 1: They we've just gone right past the response and you know,
46:23
Speaker 1: the recovery and trying to help people. We've gone right into,
46:26
Speaker 1: as that vice presidential debate proved, We've gone right into
46:30
Speaker 1: using this to promote our climate change global warming agenda.
46:34
Speaker 1: ABC News headline, deadly Ashville tragedy shows there are no
46:40
Speaker 1: climate change safe havens experts. Oh my god, that gives
46:46
Speaker 1: me odgena because it reminds me so much of the
46:48
Speaker 1: whole COVID panic whenever experts are quoted. And you know,
46:53
Speaker 1: I was going to go through this whole article because
46:55
Speaker 1: it's just such bullshit, but you know, I don't even
46:59
Speaker 1: want to do it.
47:00
Speaker 2: I don't even think I need to do it.
47:01
Speaker 1: You can look it up for yourself if you google
47:04
Speaker 1: that headline. Deadly Ashville tragedy shows there are no climate
47:08
Speaker 1: change safe havens.
47:09
Speaker 2: It's all about and an experts are the source of this.
47:13
Speaker 1: It's all about climate refugees. Who the fuck are these
47:17
Speaker 1: climate refugees? Like people are nomadically looking around for where
47:22
Speaker 1: we can be safe from climate change. There's no evidence
47:27
Speaker 1: that this is first of all, needs to be a reality,
47:31
Speaker 1: or that it is a reality.
47:32
Speaker 2: If this was the case.
47:35
Speaker 1: The price of beachfront property, especially on the southern eastern coast,
47:42
Speaker 1: would be nose diving. Nobody would be living there, especially
47:47
Speaker 1: not liberals. But that's not the case. We've seen no
47:52
Speaker 1: indication of that over the last twenty years or so,
47:56
Speaker 1: during the whole climate change global warming that has been
48:00
Speaker 1: largely created by the news media. So it's this idea
48:05
Speaker 1: that there are climate refugees just looking for a safe
48:09
Speaker 1: place and now even Ashville, North Carolina, and the western
48:12
Speaker 1: part of North Carolina is no longer a safe haven
48:17
Speaker 1: from climate change is just so preposterous. A it's a
48:24
Speaker 1: fluke situation. It's unfortunate, but it's not unprecedented. This exact
48:30
Speaker 1: same thing, as I said before, happened in our own
48:34
Speaker 1: recorded history.
48:36
Speaker 2: And then don't even get me started on the fact.
48:37
Speaker 1: That our recorded history is a micro second when it
48:42
Speaker 1: comes to the history of the globe. I mean, it's
48:45
Speaker 1: just it is the height of human narcissism to think
48:51
Speaker 1: that somehow anything that happens in a very short amount
48:55
Speaker 1: of time during our lifetimes is somehow indicative of what
49:00
Speaker 1: a climate is doing, or that we're responsible for it,
49:03
Speaker 1: or that we can do anything about it, even if
49:06
Speaker 1: we wanted to do something about That's the part of
49:08
Speaker 1: this debate that really pissed me off is what is
49:12
Speaker 1: it that they think we can do, even if I
49:14
Speaker 1: grant you everything, what do they think we can do
49:17
Speaker 1: about it? It's the freaking climate. We have no control
49:22
Speaker 1: over the climate. And by the way, it should be
49:24
Speaker 1: pointed out.
49:25
Speaker 2: It's the climate.
49:26
Speaker 1: People that constantly say you're not allowed to talk about weather. Well,
49:32
Speaker 1: isn't a hurricane weather? A hurricane is weather. It's literally weather.
49:38
Speaker 1: It's not climate. Now, I get if you suddenly have
49:43
Speaker 1: a series of years where the number of storms or
49:46
Speaker 1: the intensity of storms has significantly increased, that that's a
49:51
Speaker 1: trend that would be climate we've not seen that. In fact,
49:56
Speaker 1: up until Helene, we saw the opposite of that this year, dramatically,
50:00
Speaker 1: the opposite of that.
50:02
Speaker 2: But the hypocrisy here is stark.
50:04
Speaker 1: They always talk, well, well, no, you can't talk about
50:06
Speaker 1: cold weather when we're talking about global warming. No, no,
50:09
Speaker 1: you can't talk about cold weather. That's just weather. No, no, no,
50:13
Speaker 1: we got to talk about climate. Well, what the fuck
50:14
Speaker 1: are you doing with regard to a hurricane? One hurricane
50:18
Speaker 1: is clearly weather. It just drives me crazy. And then
50:22
Speaker 1: I think that's partially why I had such a negative
50:25
Speaker 1: reaction to the I thought rather lame answer by jd
50:30
Speaker 1: Vance last night during the vice presidential debate. Now, I
50:34
Speaker 1: have on numerous occasions made the comparison between what is
50:40
Speaker 1: happening with climate change, global warming and what already occurred
50:44
Speaker 1: with regard to the COVID panic. They are remarkably similar,
50:49
Speaker 1: and I think they are related in so many different ways.
50:54
Speaker 1: And there was another example of how incredibly deeply invested
51:00
Speaker 1: the liberal media is in a fairy tale regarding the
51:04
Speaker 1: COVID panic. This is from the Los Angeles Times, and
51:09
Speaker 1: they had a headline in this week's paper depression was
51:14
Speaker 1: rising among young people in southern California, COVID made it worse.
51:22
Speaker 1: Depression was rising among young people in southern California. COVID
51:25
Speaker 1: made it worse. First of all, COVID didn't make it worse.
51:30
Speaker 1: The COVID panic made it worse. Gavin Newsome made it worse.
51:34
Speaker 1: The lockdowns made it worse. Closing schools for a year
51:39
Speaker 1: made it worse. Eliminating high school and college athletics made
51:44
Speaker 1: it worse. Not being able to get together with your friends,
51:48
Speaker 1: not being able to have graduations, not being able to
51:52
Speaker 1: have weddings, not being able to have funerals, that made
51:56
Speaker 1: it worse. And by the way, it's not just depression
52:01
Speaker 1: among young people. I know this anecdotally here in southern California,
52:06
Speaker 1: but also the statistics back this up. We're mostly talking
52:10
Speaker 1: about young white males, young white males.
52:14
Speaker 2: Not exclusively obviously, but largely.
52:18
Speaker 1: Young white males, because they are realizing just how utterly
52:22
Speaker 1: fucked they are in southern California, that they are now
52:27
Speaker 1: essentially being treated like minorities in the early nineteen sixties,
52:32
Speaker 1: that they have no shot, none And you know so,
52:37
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is responsible for this in so many different ways,
52:41
Speaker 1: but for the La Times to claim it was COVID.
52:44
Speaker 2: No, it was not COVID.
52:46
Speaker 4: It was the.
52:46
Speaker 1: COVID panic, and it was the reaction to the COVID
52:49
Speaker 1: panic driven by Gavin Newsom that has caused so many
52:54
Speaker 1: young people in southern California to be depressed.
52:59
Speaker 2: So to me, that was a step.
53:00
Speaker 1: Belongs in the COVID Hall of shame when it comes
53:05
Speaker 1: to media headlines. Depression was rising among young people in
53:08
Speaker 1: southern California.
53:09
Speaker 2: COVID made it worse. No, we the La Times.
53:13
Speaker 1: Helped make it worse because we were cheerleading a panic
53:16
Speaker 1: that caused the lives of especially young people to be
53:20
Speaker 1: destroyed unnecessarily for an extended period of time. Now, I
53:24
Speaker 1: have said consistently the biggest mistake the Trump campaign is
53:28
Speaker 1: making is not emphasizing California.
53:32
Speaker 2: California.
53:33
Speaker 1: California, California ought to be the theme of the Trump
53:36
Speaker 1: campaign when it comes to tying California to Kamala Harris
53:41
Speaker 1: and California and Gavenusom are continually playing right into Trump's
53:45
Speaker 1: hands here, but he's not using it, or the campaign
53:49
Speaker 1: is not using it anywhere near the way that they should.
53:52
Speaker 1: In my opinion, there are so many things that Newsom
53:55
Speaker 1: has done in just the last few weeks that would
53:57
Speaker 1: have been tremendous campaign fodder. I'm not even being able
54:01
Speaker 1: to talk about all of them because I'd have to
54:03
Speaker 1: devote the entire podcast to what Newsom is doing and
54:06
Speaker 1: all the laws, all the absurd laws that he's signing.
54:10
Speaker 1: I do want to mention one in particular, although I'm
54:12
Speaker 1: not sure this is one that Trump could really use,
54:15
Speaker 1: but it hits me because I have a personal experience
54:19
Speaker 1: in this area, and I am positive that this is
54:23
Speaker 1: going to cause enormously negative side effects and unintended consequences
54:30
Speaker 1: that Newsom is either too stupid to understand or too evil.
54:34
Speaker 1: They're so evil that he doesn't even care about. But
54:37
Speaker 1: this is regarding a law that Newsom just signed that
54:40
Speaker 1: is now banning legacies at private universities private universities from
54:51
Speaker 1: being allowed extra help when it comes to entry into
54:58
Speaker 1: their schools. Words, it is now illegal in the state
55:02
Speaker 1: of California to give the child or the grandchild of
55:08
Speaker 1: somebody who went to a private school any advantage when
55:14
Speaker 1: it comes to admission to that university or to that school.
55:19
Speaker 1: Now I understand that this sounds great to liberals. Oh
55:24
Speaker 1: stick up to the rich white people. And this is
55:28
Speaker 1: something that Maryland has done already in a similar fashion,
55:32
Speaker 1: and I'm sure now that California has done it, other
55:34
Speaker 1: liberal states will be pressured to do similar things. And
55:39
Speaker 1: this is kind of like, well, you get rid of
55:41
Speaker 1: affirmative action, which they didn't really do, even though that's
55:45
Speaker 1: the law in California, and that's what the Supreme Court
55:47
Speaker 1: has said.
55:48
Speaker 2: But there's all sorts of ways.
55:49
Speaker 1: To get around affirmative action when it comes to college admissions.
55:52
Speaker 2: But you get rid of affirmative action.
55:55
Speaker 1: We're going to get rid of your affirmative action, you
55:57
Speaker 1: rich white people, because that's the way they see this.
56:01
Speaker 1: And to me, this has so many problems. The first
56:04
Speaker 1: problem is because we're dealing with private schools, this is,
56:09
Speaker 1: in my view, a blatant violation of the First Amendment
56:12
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. We have freedom of association, which means
56:16
Speaker 1: a private school should have the freedom to allow in
56:20
Speaker 1: whoever the fuck they want to allow into their school.
56:24
Speaker 1: And the reality of this situation is that I think
56:30
Speaker 1: legacies like at USC. Let's be clear, USC University of
56:33
Speaker 1: Southern California is probably the school that will be most
56:36
Speaker 1: impacted by this.
56:38
Speaker 2: At USC, you're now going to be disadvantaged.
56:43
Speaker 1: If you are a child or a grandchild of someone
56:47
Speaker 1: who went to USC, or a brother or sister, you
56:51
Speaker 1: will be disadvantaged because in the real world they're going
56:54
Speaker 1: to be so concerned about breaking the law, especially you know,
56:59
Speaker 1: everybody involved in it. This is essentially a liberal so
57:02
Speaker 1: philosophically they're going to agree with this, and so you're
57:06
Speaker 1: going to be disadvantaged if you would be an idiot
57:09
Speaker 1: to put in an application that you are related to
57:13
Speaker 1: anybody that ever went to a private school in California,
57:17
Speaker 1: whether it's USC or anywhere.
57:19
Speaker 2: Else, because you will be disadvantaged.
57:23
Speaker 1: That's unfair. So it's a violation of freedom of association.
57:28
Speaker 1: It's unfair because effectively these people will be disadvantaged. I
57:32
Speaker 1: think it's perfectly appropriate for a school to be able
57:36
Speaker 1: to choose people that are already within their community, family
57:42
Speaker 1: members of alumni, because it goes to what makes up
57:47
Speaker 1: a school to begin with. It goes to the community,
57:50
Speaker 1: it goes to the culture. Not to mention, there's the
57:54
Speaker 1: issue of most of these people, if they were actually
57:57
Speaker 1: going to be able to get a child or a
57:59
Speaker 1: grandchild into a school, have donated to the university, and
58:04
Speaker 1: a large part of why they have.
58:05
Speaker 2: Donated to the university is.
58:08
Speaker 1: They have thought it was going to help them get
58:11
Speaker 1: their kids or their grandkids into the school.
58:14
Speaker 2: Well now that's no longer legal. So the reality here
58:20
Speaker 2: is these people aren't going to donate money anymore. The
58:24
Speaker 2: only reason why you donate money to.
58:25
Speaker 1: A school effectively really is, you know, out of ego,
58:30
Speaker 1: if you want something named in your honor, which is
58:32
Speaker 1: very rare because it costs a shitload of money, or
58:36
Speaker 1: you want good sports tickets, or you want to help
58:40
Speaker 1: get people that are related to you or people that
58:43
Speaker 1: you're very close to into the school. Well, Gavin Newsom
58:47
Speaker 1: is just eliminated a huge reason to donate to private schools.
58:52
Speaker 1: And then there's the other dirty little secret of this,
58:55
Speaker 1: something I know very very well because I was a
58:57
Speaker 1: legacy at Georgetown. My parents both Georgetown. I was the
59:01
Speaker 1: first of four kids to go to Georgetown. And one
59:05
Speaker 1: of the dirty little secrets about this whole situation is
59:10
Speaker 1: that guess.
59:11
Speaker 2: What, legacies pay full freight.
59:15
Speaker 1: They pay full tuition, which effectively subsidizes the tuition of
59:23
Speaker 1: people who are not in as good an economic situation.
59:28
Speaker 1: A lot of poor kids get scholarships or pay virtually
59:32
Speaker 1: no tuition.
59:33
Speaker 2: Why can the school.
59:34
Speaker 1: Afford to do that because they've got a batch of legacies.
59:37
Speaker 2: That are the only people that are paying the full tuition.
59:42
Speaker 1: So you got these alumni that are donating to the school.
59:46
Speaker 2: That's not gonna happen anymore. And now you have these.
59:50
Speaker 1: Legacies that pay full tuition. Well that's not gonna happen
59:54
Speaker 1: nearly as much anymore. So guess what's gonna happen. Tuition
59:59
Speaker 1: is gonna have to go, or the poor kids are
1:00:02
Speaker 1: gonna have to pay more intuition.
1:00:05
Speaker 2: Great job, Gavin Newsom.
1:00:06
Speaker 1: So not only is this wrong, not only is this unconstitutional,
1:00:10
Speaker 1: it's gonna hurt, in my view, the very people that
1:00:14
Speaker 1: Newsom is pretending to be helping. Oh, it's gonna feel
1:00:18
Speaker 1: great to stick it to those rich white guys or
1:00:21
Speaker 1: kids or the kids of rich white guys, especially at USC.
1:00:26
Speaker 1: But in the end, it's the people you think that
1:00:29
Speaker 1: you're helping or making them feel good about themselves that
1:00:32
Speaker 1: are actually gonna be harmed in this.
1:00:35
Speaker 2: And I can assure you.
1:00:36
Speaker 1: I can assure you with one thousand percent certitude. I mean,
1:00:41
Speaker 1: this is a subject I know a lot about because
1:00:43
Speaker 1: of my personal experience, I can assure you that Georgetown
1:00:47
Speaker 1: University allowing me and my siblings after me, but you know,
1:00:51
Speaker 1: I was the one that probably needed the most help
1:00:53
Speaker 1: because I wasn't as accomplished academically as as my three
1:00:57
Speaker 1: siblings were. But Georgetown allowing us four siblings of to
1:01:03
Speaker 1: Georgetown alumni was economically a blockbuster decision.
1:01:10
Speaker 2: Georgetown made out like a bandit.
1:01:14
Speaker 1: Georgetown got four people who played paid full freight for tuition,
1:01:20
Speaker 1: and then, by the way, there's grandchildren have now gone
1:01:23
Speaker 1: to Georgetown paying full freight for tuition. Not to mention
1:01:26
Speaker 1: all the money and service that my father has provided
1:01:30
Speaker 1: to Georgetown, which is off the charge. Not to mention
1:01:32
Speaker 1: all the friends of my father who have given money
1:01:36
Speaker 1: to Georgetown for similar reasons, partially because they thought there
1:01:40
Speaker 1: was a good chance it would help them get kids
1:01:42
Speaker 1: into Georgetown. I mean, Georgetown has made no lie millions
1:01:47
Speaker 1: of dollars from the decision to allow me, most specifically
1:01:52
Speaker 1: because I was the first of four and my siblings
1:01:55
Speaker 1: into the university. I went to Georgetown at a time
1:01:59
Speaker 1: when that was the hot school because the Georgetown basketball
1:02:04
Speaker 1: program had just exploded with Patrick Ewing, the Saint Almost
1:02:08
Speaker 1: Fire movie which was about Georgetown, had also just come out.
1:02:11
Speaker 1: It was the most selective class Georgetown had ever had,
1:02:15
Speaker 1: and so that you know, that was why it was
1:02:16
Speaker 1: difficult to get me in. But Georgetown making that decision
1:02:20
Speaker 1: was a hell of a this decision for Georgetown economically. Now,
1:02:23
Speaker 1: whether or not it helped them academically or their reputation.
1:02:26
Speaker 2: I have no idea.
1:02:27
Speaker 1: But the reality is, if that is a world, which
1:02:32
Speaker 1: is now in California can't happen. If that can't happen,
1:02:37
Speaker 1: schools are gonna suffer, and eventually poor kids are gonna suffer.
1:02:41
Speaker 1: But Newsom is either again too stupid to understand this
1:02:44
Speaker 1: or too evil to care. Because on the surface, it
1:02:48
Speaker 1: looks like he's striking a blow against the bad guys,
1:02:51
Speaker 1: the rich white guys.
1:02:53
Speaker 2: And it's really infuriating.
1:02:55
Speaker 1: And most infuriating is USC has so no signs of
1:03:00
Speaker 1: pushing back against this.
1:03:02
Speaker 2: That's what's so astonishing.
1:03:04
Speaker 1: I mean, if we lived in a remotely rational world,
1:03:07
Speaker 1: USC would immediately be suing over this, if only from
1:03:11
Speaker 1: the perspective of freedom of association and their right to
1:03:15
Speaker 1: decide whoever the fuck they want to have entered their school.
1:03:19
Speaker 2: Frankly, I don't think there's any difference.
1:03:21
Speaker 1: Between allowing legacies into a school and allowing athletes into
1:03:26
Speaker 1: a school. You know, you could argue that adding a
1:03:31
Speaker 1: good athlete to your school is more beneficial in most
1:03:34
Speaker 1: cases than adding a legacy. Of course, it depends on
1:03:37
Speaker 1: who that legacy is and how much money their family
1:03:40
Speaker 1: is willing to give.
1:03:42
Speaker 2: But it's frankly the same concept.
1:03:45
Speaker 1: We're allowing an athlete in that may not meet the
1:03:50
Speaker 1: academic standards because we think it's going to be good
1:03:53
Speaker 1: for the school. Good for the school from a culture perspective,
1:03:56
Speaker 1: a publicity standpoint, a monetary perspective, it's essentially the same thing.
1:04:02
Speaker 1: So philosophically, I don't know how you can not allow
1:04:06
Speaker 1: legacies by law and still allow athletes to be gaining
1:04:11
Speaker 1: admission to schools because of their athletic ability. I mean,
1:04:15
Speaker 1: the whole thing is just it's just insane making.
1:04:20
Speaker 6: Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show.
1:04:23
Speaker 6: If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you
1:04:26
Speaker 6: must become a patron.
1:04:28
Speaker 2: Please go to Patreon.
1:04:30
Speaker 6: That's p A t R e O N dot com,
1:04:34
Speaker 6: Patreon dot com, slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
1:04:42
Speaker 2: My name is j hn z I E G L
1:04:44
Speaker 2: e R.
1:04:45
Speaker 6: That's Patreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism with
1:04:52
Speaker 6: John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that.
1:04:55
Speaker 4: But that's how you can subscribe.