Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Eighty Two: Introducing Vivek Obamaswamy

Transcript

Episode Eighty Two: Introducing Vivek Obamaswamy · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome to episode number eighty two of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. It's finally official.
• 0:08
  Months after I told you what happened. Donald Trump is indeed bailing on the
• 0:12
  first Republican debate. Rhonda Santis seems headed for an impossible debate challenge. I
• 0:18
  have a new name for Vavague Ramaswamy and has so called hurricane hits southern California.
• 0:26
  I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO
• 0:31
  and email marketing specialist that also happens to be a big fan of John Ziggler
• 0:35
  and the Death of journalisten. Do you need help preaching your target audience?
• 0:40
  Let me help you develop the right messaging and confaded message in the best channels
• 0:45
  for your business. Please visit my website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot
• 0:49
  com and let me help you tell your story. The website is the Dutch
• 0:55
  Digital Marketingman dot com. If you want to grow your business, Peter can
• 0:59
  help. That's the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. And hey, thanks
• 1:04
  for sponsoring the show. One of the many themes of this podcast is the
• 1:08
  conflict between the perception of me as the ultimate pessimist and my own belief that
• 1:17
  I'm actually at times a delusional optimist. And I joke, although it's only
• 1:23
  half joking, that when people call me a pessimist, I say, oh,
• 1:29
  well, thank you for indicating that I'm probably right about this, because
• 1:33
  usually the only time I'm wrong is when I'm too optimistic. And it seems
• 1:40
  more and more as time goes on that not only am I right in my
• 1:45
  pessimism, but things often turn out even worse than I predict. And we
• 1:51
  have maybe a classic example of that when it comes to what is going to
• 1:55
  happen later this week with the Republican debate, the first Republican debate in Milwaukee,
• 2:01
  Wisconsin. And I have been saying more dramatically and more constantly than any
• 2:07
  other commentator I know for a longer period of time that Donald Trump would not
• 2:13
  be at that debate, and this has been a source of great consternation for
• 2:20
  a lot of people, especially on Twitter, where De Santas fans have been
• 2:23
  very upset with my continual series of correct pessimistic predictions. Because if you've remember,
• 2:31
  of course, you know a lot of people were saying I was jumping
• 2:35
  the gun in my pessimism because DeSantis hadn't even announced yet, and I kept
• 2:39
  saying, the announcement isn't going to do anything. And of course the announcement
• 2:43
  turned out to be worse than I ever imagined because of the Twitter spaces screw
• 2:46
  up. More on Elon Musk later on in this podcast, because he's now
• 2:53
  seemingly switches, switching his allegiances away from Rhnda Santis. But and then after
• 3:00
  that, everyone kept saying, well, wait for the debates. The debates
• 3:04
  are going to be the moment when Ronda Sandis finally makes his move. And
• 3:07
  I kept saying, there ain't gonna be no debates. There ain't gonna be
• 3:12
  any real debates, and there's a very good chance there's not going to be
• 3:15
  any debates with Donald Trump. And if there ever is a debate with Donald
• 3:17
  Trump, it's not going to be a real debate. There's never going to
• 3:21
  be a monoamano real debate situation where somebody would have the opportunity, like a
• 3:28
  Ronda Sanders to really go after Donald Trump. He's not going to make himself
• 3:31
  vulnerable to that because he doesn't have to, because the polls that everyone kept
• 3:37
  saying I was overreacting to we're going to give him the leverage to not do
• 3:42
  so. And so I've been saying this for months to anyone who would listen.
• 3:46
  Of course, no one ever listens to me. And I really think
• 3:49
  we ought to change the name of this podcast to the see I Told you
• 3:52
  So Podcast, because it seems like that's the theme of this year, is
• 3:58
  I warn about something, but he listens and it turns out that I'm not
• 4:01
  only right, but I'm actually not pessimistic enough, because the way this went
• 4:06
  down was like a John Ziggler nightmare. So finally, after hinting about this
• 4:14
  for a very long time and in many different venues, Trump declared on True
• 4:19
  Social that he will not be going to this debate. And what did he
• 4:23
  use his justification to do that? To dodge the first Republican debate, he
• 4:29
  cited a CBS poll. Oh my god, here's the guy who doesn't believe
• 4:34
  in election day polls, who's been doing nothing, And only two things he's
• 4:39
  done during this entire campaign are brag about being indicted and brag about poles that
• 4:45
  he used to not believe in, usually from liberal media outlets. Well,
• 4:48
  this time, he was citing a CBS poll CBS you gov poll with him
• 4:55
  up almost fifty points over sixty two or at sixty two sent support nationwide among
• 5:02
  Republican voters, which is a massive, massive lead. Doesn't even matter whether
• 5:08
  or not the poll is accurate. That's a that's a huge margin. Even
• 5:13
  though we're still many months away or several months away from our actual voting happened,
• 5:17
  it's gonna turn. It's gonna come up much faster than people understand.
• 5:20
  You know now that the falls is nearly upon us, and the debates are
• 5:26
  the alleged debates are now starting. But he cited a poll, just as
• 5:30
  I told you the whole damn time that it would be the polls that would
• 5:33
  be his leverage. And he could not have been more clear about it,
• 5:38
  saying that he's not going to debate, and it appears as if he's going
• 5:43
  to be doing a competing event. Not only will dodge the debate, he's
• 5:47
  going to do a competing event with you guessed it in the nightmare of John
• 5:53
  Ziegler. Tucker Carlson, the guy who I have pinpointed from the very big
• 6:00
  think of this whole process as a key figure, a guy I have chided
• 6:03
  personally in text messages saying he was going to get Trump denomination, and he
• 6:08
  claimed, oh, I'm just a talk show host, and he got fired
• 6:11
  from Fox News. I said, this is a great day for the Trump
• 6:14
  campaign for a number of reasons, including the fact that this would make it
• 6:18
  impossible for Fox News Channel to really stick a stake through the heart of Trump
• 6:25
  because they couldn't do that without Tucker Carlson, especially all with all the street
• 6:29
  cred they lost in Trump world with getting rid of Tucker Carlson, and that
• 6:33
  Tucker Carlson would have no choice but to embrace Trump now that he's been fired
• 6:39
  from Fox News Channel. And that is exactly what has happened in every possible
• 6:43
  way. And now we have this bizarro world scenario where Tucker Carlson, a
• 6:48
  guy who's on record as having said he hates Trump passionately and couldn't wait to
• 6:55
  stop talking about him. This is in court documents related to the Theion Dominion
• 7:00
  Voting System's lawsuit that indirectly resulted in Tucker's firing, although he claims directly resulted
• 7:09
  in his firing, which is a fantasy. So now we have this bizarro
• 7:13
  world situation where Tucker Carl said is going to be doing a counter programming event
• 7:18
  with Donald Trump to help him avoid the first Republican debate, and there will
• 7:26
  be no blowback in Trump world. There'll be no real blowback in the conservative
• 7:30
  media. And in my opinion, this is all going to work out very
• 7:35
  very well for Donald Trump, at least in the short run. Now,
• 7:42
  Ronan McDaniel, who runs the RNC, or at least allegedly runs it,
• 7:46
  who has been I joked a few weeks ago that she was hilariously warning Donald
• 7:51
  Trump about the dangers of not doing the debates, because, I mean,
• 7:56
  it makes her look like an idiot, it looks like look makes the republic
• 8:00
  and National Committee look completely impotent. I mean, Trump is almost literally crapping
• 8:05
  all over the Republican Party here. He said he wouldn't take the pledge to
• 8:09
  support the Republican candidate if it's not him, and that would make him theoretically
• 8:15
  ineligible for these debates. Ronan McDaniel had warned Trump about the dangers of not
• 8:20
  doing the debate, and I guess the theoretical dangers are that there would be
• 8:26
  a backlash among Republican voters, Oh my gosh, he's not really the outpha
• 8:30
  male we thought he is. He's a coward, he's afraid to answer questions.
• 8:35
  That's not going to happen one because now it seems as if at least
• 8:41
  half, if not more than half of the Republican Party as a Trump cult.
• 8:43
  And you've got the conservative quote unquote right wing media not attacking Trump on
• 8:50
  this by and large because they're afraid to piss off their core customer base.
• 8:54
  So there's not going to be any backlash. In fact, it's so incredibly
• 9:01
  infuriating. But this is a situation where his indictments probably help him because to
• 9:05
  a lot of Trump's supporters, the indictments gave him cover for not going to
• 9:09
  the debate, because why would you subject yourself to potentially adversarial questioning when you're
• 9:16
  facing four indictments. You could invertly incriminate yourself. And it's probably on advice
• 9:22
  from his lawyers. This is totally understandable. I mean, they'll rationalize anything,
• 9:26
  and that's not even a completely insane rationalization. So we're living in this
• 9:33
  upside down world. We're being indicted four times. Probably helps Trump get out
• 9:39
  of these debates. But I also think that McDaniel and she made it more
• 9:41
  clear and once it became very very obvious in the last few days that Trump
• 9:46
  was not going to do the debates, or at least the first one,
• 9:50
  that this is going to be something that he may regret in the general election.
• 9:54
  And I agree with her on this. I've said this previously as well.
• 9:58
  You know Trump, it was somebody who has always said, if you
• 10:01
  don't debate, you're a coward, You're afraid. He did the same thing
• 10:07
  in twenty chiding Joe Biden for not wanting to debate as many times as he
• 10:13
  did. But of course hypocrisy means nothing to Donald Trump. And I really
• 10:16
  do believe that we are heading for a situation where in all likelihood there's not
• 10:22
  going to be general election debates. And that is something that would have been
• 10:28
  incomprehensible, incomprehensible just a few years ago. But this is how much damage
• 10:33
  Donald Trump has done, either directly or indirectly to our democratic process. I
• 10:39
  believe that Biden will use the fact that Trump did not debate, or seemingly
• 10:45
  it did not debate in the Republican primary process as well as he was not
• 10:50
  forced to debate against Ark Jr. These are very dangerous precedents that are being
• 10:54
  set, and part of what keeps a precedent together or a tradition together.
• 11:00
  Other is it that enough people think that it's mandatory to happen. Well,
• 11:05
  when you when you stop doing debates in the primaries when in the past there
• 11:09
  would have been, then it erodes that firewall. Psychologically, people go,
• 11:18
  oh, well, I guess this is just a new normal. And I
• 11:22
  think Biden will will use that because he's not going to want to debate anybody.
• 11:26
  I mean, who the hell knows what's gonna happen with him. He
• 11:30
  could fall asleep, he could fall down, he could say something that is
• 11:33
  even you know, dumber than what we're used to, or more out of
• 11:37
  touch, or more consistent with dementia. So there's no chance that Biden or
• 11:43
  his people want him to debate anybody. And Trump can be a pretty dangerous
• 11:46
  debater when he's on his game, so that they're not going to want that
• 11:50
  to happen. So they'll use this precedent. Plus I actually think they'll also
• 11:56
  use the indictments. I think they're gonna make the argument in the general elect
• 12:00
  that Trump is not a qualified candidate. I mean, there's even arguments among
• 12:05
  conservative law professors that he's already been disqualified by the way. I don't agree
• 12:11
  with those I think there needs to be a conviction when it comes to and
• 12:16
  supporting an insurrection to be qualified by the constitution. Worst case scenario for Trump,
• 12:24
  this is going to go to the Supreme Court. I don't think there's
• 12:26
  any chance of Supreme Court takes Donald Trump or allows Donald Trump to not be
• 12:31
  on the ballot in a presidential election. So the liberal media is all in
• 12:35
  a tizzy that a couple of conservative legal scholars and one judge who's very prominent
• 12:41
  in conservative circles have said that Trump is already disqualified by the constitution. I'm
• 12:46
  not buying that, either from a philosophical or from a practical standpoint. But
• 12:50
  I think that the Biden people are going to say that Trump is just not
• 12:56
  somebody who's worthy of debate. He's under indictment, he led it insurrection,
• 13:01
  he didn't debate in the Republican primaries. And I think that liberal media,
• 13:05
  by and large, even though it's against their own self interest, is going
• 13:09
  to support Biden in that effort. So I will be surprised if there are
• 13:13
  real debates in the general election, assuming it's Trump versus Biden, maybe there'll
• 13:18
  be one just so they can say they did a debate. I don't know,
• 13:22
  but it would not surprise me at all if this is the first time
• 13:28
  in modern history that we don't have a real presidential debate, and the seeds
• 13:33
  are planted right now because Donald Trump is not going to debate the first time,
• 13:39
  in my view, he'll get away with it, which means why would
• 13:43
  he debate after that? I mean, the next debate is, I believe,
• 13:46
  at the Reagan Library right here in southern California. He's already made disparaging
• 13:52
  contents about the guy who runs the Reagan Library as if he would be dictating
• 13:56
  the terms of the debate, and so, you know, he was already
• 14:00
  setting the predicate that he wouldn't go to that debate. And if once you
• 14:03
  missed the first two, you know, and you're still way ahead, why
• 14:05
  would you ever debate after that? Because that strategy is now working and there's
• 14:11
  no blowback, and that's what Trump is counting on, And unfortunately, I
• 14:15
  think he's probably correct in that. And so we have a situation where Trump
• 14:22
  benefits from his own bad acts, including the indictments and bailing like a coward
• 14:28
  on the debate. We've completely skipped over the part in the median narrative about
• 14:33
  Trump being a coward. We've gone right to Okay, boyd Ron De Santis
• 14:39
  really has a tough challenge in this debate coming up. Yeah, he does,
• 14:45
  well. Can we not skip over the most important part that Donald Trump,
• 14:50
  alleged alpha male, has just decided to quit, to not even show
• 14:54
  up, to be a coward, to be afraid to answer questions. No,
• 14:58
  we're just gonna move right on to Ron de Santis, And on the
• 15:01
  De Santis front, everything has gone about as badly as you could possibly imagine.
• 15:07
  In fact, if you would ask me, zig, can you put
• 15:11
  forward the worst possible scenario for Rod De Santis going into that first debate.
• 15:16
  I don't think I could have done much better or worse, depending on your
• 15:20
  perspective than what we currently have. Because the most recent development is that a
• 15:26
  I don't know if it's the A De Santis debate plan was quote unquote leaked
• 15:33
  on a website and the media went bananas with it. Now, how and
• 15:39
  why this happened is still a bit of a mystery to me. It wasn't
• 15:43
  from the campaign itself, from the Never Back Down Political Action Committee. This
• 15:48
  is the political Action committee that my friend Steve Cortez works for, But I
• 15:54
  don't believe Steve had anything at all to do with how or why this happened.
• 15:58
  This seems to have been the work of Jeff, the guy who runs
• 16:02
  or leaves Never Back Down. And this rather extensive debate plan for de Santis
• 16:07
  was put on a public website in a place that wouldn't be normally easily found.
• 16:15
  But all you got it wasn't apparently very difficult to find. And my
• 16:18
  understanding is the logic behind this is that since they're supposed to be this firewall
• 16:25
  between the campaign and the Political Action Committee, that this is a way for
• 16:30
  the Political Action Committee to communicate with the campaign. They stick it on this
• 16:33
  third party website and the campaign can look at it and there's no direct no
• 16:41
  direct connection, no direct communication, and that this gets around the rules.
• 16:47
  Well, of course, if the campaign can easily find it, then other
• 16:51
  people can easily find it, and then it can get leaked to the news
• 16:53
  media, and that's effectively what happened here. And the planet self wasn't horrendous,
• 17:00
  but the fact that it has now become public and become a major news
• 17:06
  story is almost catastrophic because it becomes a self defeating prophecy. Now, the
• 17:11
  plan, the essence of it, was to defend Trump on the indictments,
• 17:17
  which drives me crazy, but as I have said previously in this podcast,
• 17:22
  is probably the only path you can go down, because at this juncture you
• 17:26
  disqualify yourself. It's too late. Now you've already supported Trump on the first
• 17:30
  three indictments. I guess you know, in a perfect world, you can
• 17:34
  make the argument that you know, the burden of for indictments is just going
• 17:37
  to be too great to run a general election campaign, and this is a
• 17:42
  guy who can only run for one term anyway, and wouldn't it be better
• 17:47
  to go in another direction. I guess you could make that argument, and
• 17:49
  maybe, you know, the Santists will in some way, shape or form.
• 17:53
  I don't know if it'll be at that debate or not, but on
• 17:56
  the essence of the indictments themselves, the Santis seemingly has to support Trump and
• 18:03
  defend him against the tax from Chris Christie, which is just going to be
• 18:08
  nauseating if in fact that does end up happening. And the other part of
• 18:14
  the major part of this debate plan was to attack vavek Ramaswamy. Now,
• 18:18
  I have been warning about veg Ramaswamy for quite some time, and keeping with
• 18:23
  the theme of this particular episode of the podcast, even I was not pessimistic
• 18:30
  enough. I always thought that vveg Ramaswamy was a Trump surrogate, that he
• 18:36
  was in the race to help and support Trump, to defend him against the
• 18:41
  tax specifically in a debate. He's friends with Jared Kushner, and he has
• 18:45
  sucked up the Trump in every possible way, and and you know, it's
• 18:52
  it's been ridiculous, how how right I have been about that. And I
• 18:59
  was afraid that Vavegue would get some traction because I could see that what he
• 19:04
  was selling, what he was saying was very enticing to a lot of Republican
• 19:10
  voters. He's a really good talker. He's super smooth and slick. He's
• 19:14
  great on television. The media loves him because you know, he's he's Indian
• 19:18
  and he's you know, pigmentation in the skin. They it's all like kryptonite.
• 19:22
  They love that, especially from a Republican, and they also see him
• 19:27
  as harmless because they know he's not going to be president. It's incredibly unlikely
• 19:32
  for him to be the nominee. They know he gives the Santist trouble and
• 19:37
  and so you know, there's nothing bad in it for them to have a
• 19:42
  vague on. And he creates some conflict, and it's it's like safe conflict
• 19:47
  because they know he's basically harmless, and he's this shiny object and he's new
• 19:52
  and people don't know anything about him. And so this is clearly worked for
• 19:57
  faveg Ramaswami. I have said numerous times that it must be great to be
• 20:03
  the vague and have no record, be able to pretend whatever your record was
• 20:08
  that you wanted to be because you never held elected office, whitewash the record
• 20:11
  that you do have, whitewash the fact that you were a covidiot, especially
• 20:15
  when it came to masks and vaccines for far too long, and you know,
• 20:22
  just play pretend, knowing you're not going to be the nominee, knowing
• 20:26
  what the base wants to hear, knowing that you're never going to be held
• 20:30
  accountable for any of this because you're never going to be president. Therefore,
• 20:33
  you know you can make any promise you want. I mean, it's gotta
• 20:37
  be fun. It's the freebie. Meanwhile, the Santis has got two hands
• 20:41
  tied behind his back because he's got to figure out a way to win both
• 20:45
  the nomination and the general election, which seemingly is a task that's impossible under
• 20:51
  these circumstances when you've got to appeal to a Trump cult. Well, Ramaswami
• 20:56
  has none of those concerns, and it is clear that he is now a
• 21:02
  real threat to take second place away from Rond de Santis, depending on how
• 21:07
  things go in this debate later on this week, and for a number of
• 21:14
  reasons going forward, I am going to refer to Vavake Ramiswamy by a new
• 21:19
  name. Now, this is not originally from me, that I saw this
• 21:22
  on Twitter. I don't think that's gotten a lot of traction. I don't
• 21:26
  know if it will now because I'm not nearly relevant enough to make something like
• 21:32
  this attraction. But I'm going to call Vake Ramiswamy Vaveake Obama Swammy going forward.
• 21:37
  That's my new name for Pavec. He's here on out. Vavake Obama
• 21:44
  swammy because to me, it's absolutely perfect. I mean, he is the
• 21:48
  Republican Obama, only in the worst way possible, no real accomplishments, certainly
• 21:52
  in the political arena, a great talker who you know, can do pie
• 21:59
  in this I with no accountability and for a republic and the media loves him,
• 22:04
  immedia darling, and he gets a free pass, and he's not to
• 22:10
  be trusted, and his past basically doesn't even exist. And of course,
• 22:15
  you know, there's the brown skin aspect, which of course I'm sure many
• 22:18
  people, or at least some people will think that Obama swammy is somehow racist.
• 22:22
  It's not. It's a it's a comparison between the persona of AVEC and
• 22:29
  Barack Obama at this stage in their respective first presidential campaigns. But I like
• 22:34
  vivek Obama swammy as a name. I wish that, you know, one
• 22:40
  of the political action committees for De Santis would pick up on this because I
• 22:42
  think it's an effective name. Because I think for some people who might go,
• 22:45
  oh, okay, I can see that yeah he does. He does
• 22:49
  smell kind of like a fraud, and he is. He's a fraud.
• 22:55
  And and as far as this issue of uh, you know him being a
• 23:00
  Trumps Surrogate's it's amazing that even Donald Trump, even Donald Trump has is I
• 23:08
  think taken aback by how much of a Trump supporter and a Trump's surrogate Vvegue
• 23:17
  Obama Swammy really is. Recently in New Hampshire, Trump said the quiet part
• 23:22
  out loud, half jokingly, half seriously, wondering whether or not Vaveque Obama
• 23:27
  Swammy is really even running against him. And here was Trump talking about Vague
• 23:36
  is leading most of our candidates. And you know why because he says Trump
• 23:40
  is one of the greatest presidents of the history of our country. And I
• 23:45
  said, I like that guy. I like him. I said, are
• 23:48
  you sure he's running against me? You know, that's a pretty severe statement.
• 23:52
  But but he's very good. He's actually pretty good guy. So there
• 23:56
  is Trump saying the quiet part out loud about what Vivek Obama Swammy's real role
• 24:03
  in his campaign is and if and effectively what's happening as he gains traction is
• 24:07
  that he's a place for Trump's supporters who are maybe a little irritated with Trump,
• 24:14
  maybe a little tired of Trump, maybe a little concerned about the indictments,
• 24:18
  but it gives them a place to park temporarily. Momentarily, you know,
• 24:23
  they don't want to go to the Santist, the guy that Trump has
• 24:26
  been attacking, the only person Trump has been attacking. Everybody else in the
• 24:30
  race is perfectly fly with Trump. He never attacks anybody else from being disloyal.
• 24:33
  I mean, his own vice president can can run against him, that's
• 24:37
  not disloyalty. His own you and Ambassador Nikki Haley can run against him.
• 24:41
  That's not disloyalty. You know, vivek Obama swammy friend of Jared Kushner.
• 24:48
  That should be disloyalty. But it's not disloyalty because Trump knows it's not a
• 24:52
  threat. The only threat was maybe still is who knows Rohn de Santis.
• 24:59
  And that's why the tax are on DeSantis. And so if you're somebody who
• 25:02
  really likes Trump but you can't go to Desantist, or maybe you were with
• 25:06
  DeSantis and you're looking for someplace else to go, Vavega is a good safe
• 25:11
  port for you. He'll tell you all. He'll tell you sweet little lies,
• 25:15
  tell me lies, tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies,
• 25:18
  and make you feel good. And and it's very it'll be very very easy
• 25:22
  to transfer from vivek Obama Swami back to Donald Trump while once he is officially
• 25:30
  the nominee. And and so you know this, this leak of the debate
• 25:34
  plan is really devastating in my opinion, because now DeSantis is in so many
• 25:42
  no win situations. If he defends Trump, then then it's exactly what the
• 25:49
  plan said, and if he attacks Vaveague, it's exactly what the plan said.
• 25:55
  In Vevega is already fundraising off the phrase robot ron. He's calling him
• 26:00
  robot Rod because you know that, which is kind of brilliant, because then
• 26:03
  if he does what the plan says, he's just a robot. If he
• 26:07
  doesn't, he's a pussy. I mean, so there's there's no there's a
• 26:12
  no win situation here, and any attacks will seem contrived, Any defense of
• 26:18
  Trump will seem contrived politically and manipulative and not nearly as effective. And you
• 26:26
  know, before the debate plan, which again I don't even think it was
• 26:32
  really the debate plan, this is the Political Action Committee basically making a suggestion
• 26:37
  to the campaign by putting it on this semi public website where they could see
• 26:42
  it without breaking the rules that prevent a direct communication between a campaign and a
• 26:48
  political action committee if that had not become a public issue, and then I
• 26:55
  would have been advising I've referenced this in a previous podcast, but after having
• 27:00
  thought about it and getting more information, I would have advised to Santa's not
• 27:04
  to do this debate because I don't think there's anything to win here. I
• 27:10
  realize that when you're this far down and you've got to take chances, So
• 27:12
  I don't think it's It wouldn't have been the worst idea in the world to
• 27:15
  do it. But to me, as I have said previously many times,
• 27:21
  all you're doing is you're elevating all these other candidates to where you are,
• 27:26
  to your eye level, including and especially Obama Swammy. This is going to
• 27:30
  be great for Vavek Obama Swammy if he does nearly as well as I expect
• 27:36
  him to, because this is his kind of format, And it's going to
• 27:38
  be great for Chris Christy, who will be the leading voice attacking Trump and
• 27:42
  all the indictments, which I'm sure it's going to be a very prominent subject
• 27:45
  matter, probably right off the bat, since it's obviously been in the news
• 27:49
  and it's the you know, the missing elephant in the room. Of course,
• 27:53
  it's going to be Donald Trump not being there. And this is all
• 27:57
  very problematic for Ron Santists. And I think if he had decided, you
• 28:02
  know what, it's really between me and Trump, and if Trump's not going
• 28:07
  to go to the debate, I'm not going to go to the debate,
• 28:08
  and I'm more than willing to debate Donald Trump any place, anytime you name
• 28:15
  it, I'm there. That might have worked, and it might have actually
• 28:18
  put the spotlight on Trump bailing on the debate rather than now on the spotlight
• 28:25
  being the Santists debate plan being leaked. And another issue came up about which
• 28:30
  I'll get to momentarily about listless vessels made up controversy involving the Santists and his
• 28:40
  description of Trump supporters, So that would have been the focus. Well,
• 28:44
  now we have this set of circumstances where I really do not see how the
• 28:48
  Santists wins this debate. From a political standpoint, I think that the best
• 28:53
  scenario, if everything goes absolutely perfectly for the Santists, he maybe holds on
• 29:00
  to his second place position, which is weakening almost by the day, and
• 29:06
  and so you know, but now that this this debate plan is a major
• 29:11
  news story in the political realm, you can't bail in the debate because then
• 29:15
  it looks like that's why you did it. Then it looks like instead of
• 29:18
  a potential sign of strength, now it's a sign of weakness. He can't
• 29:22
  even debate. He had this debate plan and it got leaked, and now
• 29:26
  they're panicking, and and DeSantis is afraid to debate MP. You know,
• 29:30
  Obama swammy. I almost screwed up there. It's I'm sure that'll happen from
• 29:34
  time to time. You know, he's afraid to debate forbate Obama swammy or
• 29:40
  Chris Christy. And that's not good either. And so so now De Santis
• 29:45
  has to do the debate. And I don't know how this goes down without
• 29:49
  it being in some way, shape or form bad politically for for RHN.
• 29:55
  De Santis now speaking of things that are the nightmare scenario for John Szigler in
• 30:03
  my continual pessimism about how this is all going to turn out, even I
• 30:07
  in my darkest nightmares, I don't think I could have foreseen a scenario where
• 30:14
  in August where we have Vivek Obama swammy surging, and he gets a softball
• 30:22
  interview with Tucker Carlson, the MVP of the Trump campaign, as I referred
• 30:27
  to him many times, and he'd so that's you know, that's a big
• 30:32
  boom for Vavek Obama swammy get interviewed by Tucker Carlson is going to be seen
• 30:36
  millions and millions of times. And then not only does they get a softball
• 30:41
  interview with Trump's MVP Tucker Carlson, that interview then gets retweeted or quote tweeted
• 30:48
  or quote posted whatever you call it now on x or Twitter by none other
• 30:52
  than Elon freaking Musk, with Musk calling Vivek Obama Swammy a very promising candidate.
• 31:03
  And last I checked that tweet has been seen at least forty million times,
• 31:08
  which is just an extraordinary number. So here we have his nightmare scenario
• 31:15
  where the vague Obama swamy is surging, he gets a softball interview with Trump's
• 31:22
  MVP, Tucker Carlson. So this is all part of the same cabal.
• 31:26
  Basically, right, Tucker's on team Trump, Vavagus on Team Trump, and
• 31:32
  Elon Musk, who pretended to be on team De Santis and sucked the Santis
• 31:37
  into that completely botched announcement of his presidential campaign on Twitter spaces, which I
• 31:45
  spent multiple episodes decrying and attacking and bemoaning and saying that this was a situation
• 31:52
  where Elon Musk screwed over Ron de Santas. Either. I didn't think it
• 31:57
  was on purpose at the time, although now I'm wondering, but basically out
• 32:01
  of his own ego and incompetence and taking advantage of this incredible faith that so
• 32:09
  many people have in him because he's the richest man in the world and everyone
• 32:13
  presumes he's a fricking genius, when in fact I don't trust him at all,
• 32:17
  one because I think he's a bit nutty and autistic, but too because
• 32:22
  he's so unbelievably busy. He clearly has no one around him to tell him
• 32:25
  no. He comes up with these ideas on a whim, and he's not
• 32:30
  a detail guy. And when no one's going to tell you know, and
• 32:35
  when you have literally unlimited resources for things to screw up, you can try
• 32:39
  anything you want and there's no real ramifications. And somehow that the Santis campaign
• 32:45
  got sucked into that and did that horrendous campaign announcement. There would have been
• 32:52
  bad even if there had not been technical problems. But Elon Musk had made
• 32:55
  it very obvious that he was going to be at least somewhat on board with
• 33:00
  the RHN de Santas campaign, even literally hosting his campaign announcement, even had
• 33:07
  people who were to Sandas supporters who would message me and say, oh,
• 33:10
  Elon's going to spend billions of dollars supporting Rohn de Sandison. Even at the
• 33:15
  time, I said, you're delusional. That's never gonna happen. He can't
• 33:19
  get away with that politically, there's no evidence of that happening. And now
• 33:24
  here we have, just a couple of months after the announce this botched announcement,
• 33:30
  Elon Musk effectively almost endorsing freaking favek Obama Swamy in an interview with Tucker
• 33:38
  Carlson, Trump's MVP. So here we have this triumphant of fraudulent conservative heroes.
• 33:46
  I have warned you about all of them. I've warned you about not
• 33:50
  trusting Elon Musk. I have warned you that Tucker Carlson warned you Wait before
• 33:54
  anybody else did that, Tucker Carlson was going to be a major problem here
• 34:00
  and that he was going to be on Team Trump. I tried my best
• 34:02
  in private to guilt him out of that. I failed miserably, and now
• 34:08
  he's Trump's MVP. Interviewing Trump's surrogate, vivek Obama Swammy and an all in
• 34:16
  one fell swoop a week before the debates. You've got millions and millions of
• 34:21
  people seeing vivek Obama Swammy in a new light, in a highly credible light,
• 34:27
  getting effectively endorsements from two people that Republican voters wrongly trust in Elon Musk
• 34:36
  and Tucker Carlson. And so this momentum heading in this debate, this debate
• 34:43
  for vivek Obama Swammy, has got to be growing. And I gotta tell
• 34:45
  you my prediction out of all this, I think the most likely scenario and
• 34:53
  barring a tremendous performance by Ronda Santis and at least some moment where Obama Swammy
• 35:00
  is somehow exposed for what he is, which I don't know how you do
• 35:04
  it in this kind of a format, barring that, which I'll be hoping
• 35:07
  for because I'm a hopeless optimist and romantic, until there's no other option,
• 35:14
  barring that I believe that a week to ten days after this first debate,
• 35:20
  vave Obama swammy that I did it almost again, vavek Obama swammy will be
• 35:25
  at least tied with RhoD De Santis nationally in the Republican polling. That is
• 35:30
  my prediction. I believe that vavek Obama swammy will be at least tied a
• 35:36
  week or ten days after this first debate with RHN De Santis for second place
• 35:42
  nationally if you take an average of the Republican national polls at that time.
• 35:46
  And even as much of a pessimist as I am, I never would have
• 35:51
  thought that that was possible, certainly not this early without some massive catastrophe or
• 35:58
  scandal happening the De Santist campaign, and that has not happened now. Of
• 36:02
  course, there have been many times where the media and even the quote unquote
• 36:07
  conservative or now I'm referring more often as the right wing media, I think
• 36:10
  can calling a conservative media now is just to complete missnomer. It's no longer
• 36:15
  remotely accurate. I don't even know what how conservativism is anymore, but I
• 36:20
  certainly know that there's no quote unquote conservative media. There's Trump media. There's
• 36:24
  right wing media I would call Fox News Channel seems to be transitioning from right
• 36:31
  wing media back to Trump media. But all elements of the media, especially
• 36:37
  in the mainstream, have tried mightily to find things that they can claim are
• 36:43
  des Santis scandals, like the whole slavery bullcrap with the Florida educational standards,
• 36:52
  all sorts of things, the Disney story that don't say gay story. I
• 36:55
  mean, it's all bullcrap. But we have a story that might be the
• 37:00
  biggest bunch of bullcrap of all of them, that has made a lot of
• 37:04
  waves, even in the right wing media. In fact, maybe especially in
• 37:07
  the right wing media with regard to what Ronda Santis allegedly said about Trump supporters.
• 37:14
  Now, if you hear Trump supporters talk about this, including Trump himself,
• 37:19
  because Trump has sent out fundraising emails, He has sent out fundraising emails
• 37:24
  lying about what I'm about to tell you, but he sent out fundraising emails
• 37:30
  claiming that Rohn de sand has called Trump supporters, even evoking Hillary Clinton's Deplorable's
• 37:37
  infamous deplorable statement from twenty sixteen, which might have been the best thing that
• 37:40
  ever happened to the Trump campaign that year when Hillary Clinton referred to Trump voters
• 37:45
  as a basket of deplorables, but invoking that they're claiming that Rohn de Santas
• 37:51
  called Trump supporters listless vessels. Now, most Trump supporters wouldn't even know what
• 37:57
  the hell of listless vessel is. And frankly, if you were talking about
• 38:01
  Trump supporters at this point, listless vessels is about the nicest thing you could
• 38:06
  possibly say, in my opinion. I mean, if I was describing the
• 38:09
  average Trump supporter, listless vessel would be as nice as I could possibly be.
• 38:15
  I don't know if I could conjure up anything nicer than listless vessel.
• 38:19
  But there's a problem. There's a big problem in the rational world, and
• 38:22
  that is Ron and Sanders did not call Trump supporters listless vessels, not even
• 38:28
  close. He theorized that if Republican voters are listless vessels, then you know,
• 38:39
  we're going to be worried about what Trump is doing on a daily basis,
• 38:44
  and that's not a winning strategy. So he was not calling Trump supporters
• 38:49
  that he was. Effectively, if you really think about it, he was
• 38:52
  defending them against that idea, basically saying We're better than that. We're better
• 39:00
  than hanging around wondering what we're gonna believe based upon what gets posted on truth
• 39:06
  social at any given moment by Donald Trump. But this has been taken completely
• 39:12
  out of context, even by the right wing media, and maybe purposely by
• 39:16
  the right wing media, and maybe purposely by Fox News Channel. Here's a
• 39:21
  one of the weekend shows on Fox News Channel, and you're gonna hear and
• 39:24
  exchange. Most of this is by a guy made by the name but Charles
• 39:28
  Hurt, who I used to have some monicum of respect for. He's He's
• 39:32
  one of these commentators who is very Trump friendly but always tries to pretend that
• 39:37
  he's being objective. That's kind of his lane, you know, maybe a
• 39:44
  more Trump friendly Ben Shapiro esque model on this, where you know, everyone's
• 39:51
  got to try to find their lane, right, everyone has their brand,
• 39:53
  and so in this cliff, Charles Hurt completely goes off the cliff, as
• 40:00
  does the entire panel on this entire issue, lying not even providing any context
• 40:07
  at all for what the statement was, and pretending on Fox freaking News Channel
• 40:12
  this what's the network that was supposed to put Trump away? This was supposedly
• 40:16
  the network that had gone all in for Ron de Santis. So here they
• 40:22
  are throwing the Santa's under the bus, stabbing them in the back, whatever
• 40:27
  metaphor you want to use over the weekend over this issue of the Santa's allegedly
• 40:32
  saying something which he did not say, supposedly referring to Trump supporters as listless
• 40:39
  vessels Trump rallies. I've talked to a lot of their supporters and I can
• 40:43
  tell you right now I'm calling it listless vessels is going to be on a
• 40:46
  T shirt. Yeah, and each time it's not already on the wine right
• 40:51
  now, what's the thing? Yeah, I think that's a safe bet.
• 40:53
  No, it's a terrible strategy. And it's so frustrating because Ron Santas had
• 40:58
  such a tremendous record run on he has such as there's so much promise for
• 41:02
  him, but he is really failing, like we have seen few politicians with
• 41:07
  so much going in their direction fail as badly as he is failing. He's
• 41:13
  not he's not very good at politics. It's it's appearing and if you and
• 41:16
  the biggest tell is when you go after the voters that you're supposed to win,
• 41:22
  over and you attack them and you mock them. You know, we've
• 41:24
  we've seen Hillary Clinton tried it with the basket of deplorables, as you pointed
• 41:29
  out, and it didn't work for her. And so he's coming up.
• 41:31
  Not only is he coming up with something I don't even know what a listless
• 41:35
  vessel is, except that it's insulting, and the suggestion is that these people
• 41:39
  are not only all the things that Hillary Clinton thought they were, but they're
• 41:44
  also stupid and they're getting snookered. Trump voters are very I know, it's
• 41:49
  just a weekend show, which don't get nearly the ratings is the weekday shows,
• 41:53
  and certainly not in prime time. But I mean, this is a
• 41:58
  narrative that for it to be alive and well on Fox News Channel, it's
• 42:01
  it's almost a stick of fork into Santist moment. I mean, because it
• 42:07
  shows that Fox News Channel has completely abandoned the Santists to whatever extent they ever
• 42:14
  even were on Team de Santists, and now they are preparing, you know,
• 42:19
  for Donald Trump to be the nominee. They are scurrying back. Now
• 42:22
  they've had their own ratings problems post Tucker Carlson's firing, and so now they
• 42:29
  see the handwriting on the wall, and now they're going to use I've referenced
• 42:34
  this previously, and I keep saying that, but it's true I reference this
• 42:37
  previously. Where the media is going to be trying to find excuses for why
• 42:42
  do Santist's campaign failed. So it's, you know, it's his personality,
• 42:45
  or it's a poorly run campaign, or he was too conservative, you know,
• 42:50
  or whatever it was. He made a mistake with calling Trump supporters listless
• 42:54
  vessels. This will explain why he went down, not because we did every
• 43:00
  think we possibly could to enable yet another Trump nomination, because we decided it
• 43:06
  would be good for us to have Trump be the nominee. And unfortunately we're
• 43:10
  repeating twenty sixteen all over again, where we're both element major elements of the
• 43:16
  media, both left and right, are perversely incentivized for Trump to be the
• 43:22
  nominee. And so this is as clear as day. Fox News Channel making
• 43:27
  it very obvious that they're now on team Trump because they're gonna lie about what
• 43:35
  Rond de Santis actually said. Now, it's a it's an interesting and kind
• 43:38
  of amazing to compare that exchange on Fox News Channel with something that happened on
• 43:45
  CNN. CNN is supposed to be the left wing media right, and on
• 43:52
  CNN they had there was a big difference. They had a pro to Santist
• 43:57
  panelist Ken Cucinelli who's part of the Never Back Down the Santis Political Action Committee,
• 44:04
  and Kutzinelli Cutzinelli is there on the set with a CNN a femail CNN
• 44:13
  anchor and she starts talking about this very same issue of listless vessels, and
• 44:20
  Cucinelli comes in and says, no, no, no, no, no,
• 44:23
  you edited this all wrong. And they actually play two separate clips in
• 44:29
  audio. It will be more difficult to tell, but Cucinelli is right that
• 44:35
  there are two different clips here with a major omission in the middle that CNN
• 44:40
  plays. And then Cucinelli tries to explain he didn't know a great job,
• 44:45
  but he doesn't okay job about what it is that was really said here and
• 44:50
  why this is not remotely a scandal and this was not de Santis disparaging Trump
• 44:55
  supporters. And here's what it sounded like on CNN, which is a dramatic
• 45:00
  contrast to what it sounded like on Fox News Channel. But there was a
• 45:04
  pretty interesting moment In a recent interview where Governor DeSantis talked about Trump supporters,
• 45:12
  he used the word words listless vessels. Hold on, I'm going to play
• 45:16
  it for everybody, and then you can go ahead. Let's listen. A
• 45:22
  movement can't be about the personality of one individual. If all we are is
• 45:27
  listless vessels, that's just supposed to follow, you know, whatever happens to
• 45:30
  come down the pike on truth social every morning. That that's not going to
• 45:34
  be a durable movement. Everybody just saw there that there was a cut.
• 45:38
  You cut from the beginning of that quote to the listless vessels. You just
• 45:44
  did what the problem is, so everybody would just watched that. Understand,
• 45:47
  go read the transcript. Okay, you summarize for us what what what was
• 45:52
  it that he was trying to see? Well, first of all, his
• 45:54
  first point is an excellent point. This should be about America, not about
• 45:58
  individuals, okay, And how do we get from there to listless vessels?
• 46:00
  Yes, well, the rest of an entire paragraph. By the way,
• 46:04
  I mean, there's a pretty big gap in your cut. So he's talking
• 46:07
  about some of the folks in DC who've endorsed Trump. He's talking about the
• 46:10
  more general environment and referring to all of us collectively. We can't just sit
• 46:16
  back and take all of this be listless vessels. We have to move ahead
• 46:21
  with a different vision that was not Trump assigned. And so folks go read
• 46:23
  the transcript. You don't have to listen to me, you go read it
• 46:28
  yourself. The bottom line on this is, like almost every other alleged DeSantis
• 46:38
  scandal or hiccup or whatever mistake blunder that the media has tried to concoct,
• 46:46
  it's not based in anything. It's not based on anything at all. DeSantis
• 46:51
  is making a perfectly fine point and it got totally taken out of context.
• 46:55
  And now you know, you've got Trump fundraising on it, You've got fot
• 47:00
  News channel stabbing him in the back. You know, even CNN is being
• 47:04
  more fair than Fox News Channel about what actually transpired here. And it is
• 47:09
  emblematic of a lot of things. I have said so many times that everybody
• 47:15
  has a perverse incentive to attack Ronda Santis, and almost nobody has a real
• 47:19
  incentive to attack Donald Trump in a way that will negatively impact him. I've
• 47:23
  also said that one of the many reasons why I am very pessimistic and have
• 47:29
  been from the beginning about Rhonda Santis winning this nomination is that it was obvious
• 47:35
  that the standard of behavior and the standard of scrutiny that the Santis was going
• 47:40
  to be held to was going to be completely and totally differently different than the
• 47:47
  standard the Trump was going to be held too. And it's frankly comical and
• 47:52
  once again, frankly worse than even I expected. Basically, what we have
• 47:58
  here is a situation where the Santists can let out a small burp by accident,
• 48:08
  and it becomes a massive problem scandal. Oh my god, with the
• 48:15
  listless vessels thing, We've got Trump supporters of all people clutching their pearls.
• 48:21
  Oh my god, he called us lists us vessels, I mean, and
• 48:24
  he's for the same people that love it when Trump makes statements that are a
• 48:30
  hundred times worse and more inappropriate, and they love it. But the Santists
• 48:38
  let's out an accidental belch and the world comes to an end. Meanwhile,
• 48:45
  not to be you know, to gross about this, but Donald Trump could
• 48:49
  take a huge dump in public and half of his fans will say, well
• 48:53
  that that wasn't a dump, No, that wasn't a dump. At all.
• 48:57
  In fact, I don't even think that was Trump or the other alf
• 49:00
  will go, well, no, that might be a dump, but that
• 49:01
  is the most beautiful and the best smelling dump I have ever seen in my
• 49:06
  life. Can you believe? And then another part of his fan base a
• 49:08
  goal. How hilarious is that Trump just took a massive dumping public. That's
• 49:15
  awesome, He's my man, make America great again. I mean, that's
• 49:20
  that's the different standard in very stark language that the Sands accidently purps. And
• 49:28
  it's a scandal. Trump gets indicted four times, and it's something to rally
• 49:32
  around him for. He takes a massive dumping public. We don't even care.
• 49:37
  We actually like it. He decides not to show up for the first
• 49:40
  debate, going against his entire persona as this alleged apa alpha male. We
• 49:46
  don't care. We only like him more. And so that's an impossible set
• 49:53
  of ground rules. That is a situation that is impossible to navigate, especially
• 49:59
  as an your dog, you know, against somebody with one hundred percent name
• 50:04
  recognition and who has a huge portion of the right wing media deeply deeply invested
• 50:09
  in him. He has his own media industrial complex. He's got an entire
• 50:15
  television network. Is not a huge network, but it's significant in Republican circles
• 50:20
  in Newsmax and smaller network and one American News and Breitbart dot Com is still
• 50:24
  all in on him, and other right wing websites and new quote unquote news
• 50:30
  sites are as well, the Blazes, which should be the opposite you know,
• 50:34
  Glenn Beck's operation. You know, they've got Steve Dace who endorsed the
• 50:38
  Santis, which is going to turn out to be a mistake for Steve Dace,
• 50:44
  but he's not very bright. But you know, they clearly understand where
• 50:47
  their bread is buttered souh, you know. And even Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire
• 50:52
  is not nearly as anti Trump or Prota Santis as I would like them to
• 50:57
  be. And my guess is that they will also eventually see the handwriting on
• 51:01
  the wall as things move along here. But this is just not a fair
• 51:06
  fight, I mean, And it's the only way that a guy like Trump
• 51:09
  can beat a guy like the Santists and beat him badly is if the rules
• 51:14
  are rigged in his favor. That's the great irony of Donald Trump, the
• 51:17
  guy who's completely pitching and moaning about how everything's rigged against him. This entire
• 51:22
  process has rigged in his favor, and it's incredibly obvious. So as far
• 51:30
  as the debate goes, look, I'm gonna try, despite my instincts,
• 51:36
  I'm gonna try to be as optimistic as possible. I think the Santists will
• 51:39
  look, you know, very knowledgeable. I think that he will probably look
• 51:45
  pretty polished. I don't know that he's gonna be hilarious or entertaining like Trump
• 51:52
  has been. I would like there to be some humor, but I think
• 51:55
  he will be clear that he is the focus of the debate, that he
• 52:00
  will be attacked more than Trump will be in this debate. There's still people
• 52:05
  that don't understand that Trump is going to be defended at this debate, the
• 52:07
  debate, far more than he will be attacked. One because the cell on
• 52:13
  the subject matter of the indictments, you're not allowed, unless you're Chris Christie
• 52:15
  to attack Donald Trump and remain viable as the nominee. That's number one,
• 52:22
  But number two, bizarrely, there's going to be this unwritten rule that it
• 52:25
  would be inappropriate to attack a person who's not there, which is just amazing
• 52:31
  and certainly would not be the case if it wasn't Trump. But these are
• 52:36
  the rules that Trump gets to play by and are very much set up to
• 52:39
  his advantage. So I don't think Trump is going to be harmed very much
• 52:44
  at all. In fact, I'm sure he'll be defended more than he will
• 52:46
  be attacked. I think there is if I'm the Santist campaign, I do
• 52:52
  think that the situation with a vivek Obama swammy is key because once you lose
• 52:58
  second place, then this thing really is over. I mean, if you
• 53:01
  lose second place, at least in perception, then then you're done because then,
• 53:07
  you know, at the very least, when you're in second place,
• 53:10
  you're the first person the media goes to. You get. You know,
• 53:14
  DeSantis has been able to do any interview he wants to do on mostly major
• 53:21
  media outlets. He gets some level of respect because of that, while the
• 53:25
  stench of death is starting to pervade his campaign. You know, going from
• 53:31
  second to third place and being replaced by a novice and no one ever heard
• 53:37
  of a few months ago would really be the end. I mean that would
• 53:40
  be devastating. So that's what this debate is about. It's about holding on
• 53:45
  to a semi firm grip on second place and somehow combating this Veveic Obama Swamy
• 53:52
  surge that is clearly happening and I think will continue to happen because he is
• 53:58
  seen as being on team Trump but being a you know, a younger hipper.
• 54:05
  You can wrap it Iowa State fairs more interesting, maybe more intelligent,
• 54:10
  better speaking alternative where you can at least park and show that you're not a
• 54:15
  Trump cult member, but you're still ready to go for Trump in the general
• 54:19
  election once he's officially the nominee. So I'm going to hope that that's enough.
• 54:24
  But I actually do think Obama Swammy is going to do very well in
• 54:29
  this debate. I gotta say this is his format, you know, thirty
• 54:34
  second minute long sound bites. That the leaking of the debate plan plays right
• 54:39
  into Vek Obama Swammy's hands. And I think that I think that the Santa's
• 54:46
  campaign has a viper on their hands. I think that they could. They've
• 54:51
  got to be very very careful. I don't know how you cut the head
• 54:52
  off the snake. You got to figure out some way to do it.
• 54:57
  And Chris Christy's going to be a pain in the ass too, because Chris
• 55:00
  Christie, I think, is going to be able to take advantage of the
• 55:04
  the never Trump contingent that right now doesn't really have a candidate anymore because the
• 55:08
  Santists has has squandered or given up that lane. And unless you're you know,
• 55:15
  Mike Pence fan and very religious, there's really nobody else to gravitate towards.
• 55:21
  And since Pence was Trump's vice president, sucking his sucking his ass for
• 55:25
  four years, uh, you know, it's not really a natural place for
• 55:29
  never trumpers to go. So Chris Christie has a great opportunity and I expect
• 55:34
  him to do very very well in the debate as well. Now, as
• 55:37
  far as the debate is concerned, I do want to mention that a programming
• 55:39
  note, normally this podcast comes out on Tuesday and Thursday early morning at least
• 55:45
  here on the on the West coast, I guess, not around nine am
• 55:50
  on the East coast. On this particular Thursday, We're gonna be coming out
• 55:53
  much later, probably late afternoon or evening on Thursday, so that we can
• 56:00
  provide post debate coverage, which is on Wednesday evening. So I'm not going
• 56:06
  to do I'm not going to talk for an entire episode eighty two almost about
• 56:10
  this debate, and then have episode eighty three occur being recorded before said debate.
• 56:16
  So we'll record that after the debate on Wednesday night, change our recording
• 56:22
  schedule slightly, but we will then have to release it much later on Thursday
• 56:27
  than you are used to. So if you get up on Thursday morning and
• 56:30
  there's no episode of the Death of Journalism yet, that's why, don't panic,
• 56:36
  because it will happen hopefully later on in the day. Now. I
• 56:40
  want to shift gears slightly. You know, I have said that one of
• 56:45
  the problems, many problems with the de Santis campaign is that the COVID issue
• 56:51
  has been basically non existent and clearly has not been effective. To me,
• 56:54
  that was the entire reason why Rhoda Santis was a presidential can the date.
• 57:00
  I mean, he led the country against the COVID tyranny. He was successful,
• 57:05
  he won his reelection by twenty points. Without him, I still think
• 57:08
  that much of the country would be at least in the Blue States, would
• 57:13
  have significant COVID restrictions to this day. But because Florida proved that they were
• 57:19
  all bull crap, and you know, at the very least were no longer
• 57:22
  needed along, you know, before anybody else was willing and able to prove
• 57:27
  that. Uh, you know that they ended up having to stop them.
• 57:30
  They were no longer tenable, even with the media, you know, being
• 57:34
  their cheerleaders. And you know the contrast between the way to Santa's handle COVID,
• 57:39
  the way Trump botched COVID completely craped the bed and effectively enabled the Gavin
• 57:45
  Newsom's and the Andrew Cuomo's at the world even still praising them to this day,
• 57:51
  That to me is the whole campaign other than that, missus Lincoln,
• 57:53
  how was the play? I mean, this was the biggest thing that you
• 57:57
  faced in your presidency. You blew it. Here's a younger guy who can
• 58:00
  serve two terms, who didn't blow it, who showed a lot of courage
• 58:04
  and wisdom and was incredibly effective and one a massive re election win because of
• 58:08
  it. Well, I have theorized that part of the reason why the de
• 58:13
  Sanders campaign has not made that the centerpiece of their run against Donald Trump is
• 58:20
  that they must have gotten a bad focus group. Well, I don't know
• 58:23
  whether or not they got a bad focus group, because I could certainly envision
• 58:28
  a situation where if you've got a couple of covidiots in your focus group and
• 58:30
  everyone else was afraid to give their true opinions, that a focus group on
• 58:37
  this subject might go very badly. I don't know to this day whether that
• 58:40
  happened. I still think that's possible. But in the last few days we
• 58:45
  have learned about some polling the Sanders campaign did that really does very much dovetail
• 58:52
  with my entire theory. It wasn't a focus group, it was instead a
• 58:59
  really, really, really bad data point. I mean, this is a
• 59:05
  stunning data point. And in fact, if this is at all accurate,
• 59:09
  you might as well end the primary process right now. In fact, you
• 59:13
  might even want to end the whole country right now. So it's been reported
• 59:17
  that the Descantis campaign did a poll on Republican voters and their beliefs or feelings
• 59:25
  or reactions to COVID lockdowns. And when they asked the question related to lockdowns
• 59:34
  or I think they may have used doctor Fauci's name in this, but when
• 59:37
  they gave it a generic question, are you in favor of COVID lockdowns?
• 59:44
  Seventy percent of Republicans said no. Now I would have hoped that that number
• 59:50
  would be larger than that. But it's possible that you know, some of
• 59:54
  that other thirty percent are huge Trump supporters, and they know that Trump facilitated
• 1:00:01
  the lockdowns, so they aren't going to say that they're against lockdowns. There's
• 1:00:05
  got to be at least some of that thirty percent that can be explained that
• 1:00:08
  way. But I wish that the number would have been higher than seventy percent.
• 1:00:14
  But seventy percent is a good number, and if it was based in
• 1:00:19
  a strong belief system, then you could win that primary. Right, that
• 1:00:22
  would be a tremendous issue. If that was the belief of seventy percent of
• 1:00:28
  the Republican voting base that they're against COVID lockdowns, then that was that would
• 1:00:34
  be a very potent issue if you're rhnd de Santis contrasting the way you and
• 1:00:39
  Florida handled COVID as opposed to the way that Trump led the nation or did
• 1:00:45
  not lead the nation when it came to COVID lockdowns. But here's the problem.
• 1:00:50
  So when they asked the same question, but they associated the lockdowns with
• 1:00:55
  Trump, seventy percent of Republican voters strongly favored favored COVID lockdowns. Now,
• 1:01:09
  again it's one polling result. It's always very dangerous to interpret too much based
• 1:01:15
  upon one polling result. But this is chilling on so many different levels.
• 1:01:22
  I mean the first level is, oh my god, it's a cult.
• 1:01:27
  I mean, that's cult like behavior. If you go from seventy percent being
• 1:01:30
  against something to seventy percent being in favor of something, simply because you are
• 1:01:37
  associating that with Donald Trump's support of it. You know, by the way,
• 1:01:42
  if you do the numbers, and again this is dangerous to do,
• 1:01:45
  but if you do the numbers, that means about forty percent of Republican voters
• 1:01:50
  engage in cult like behavior. Well I've always said that's the magic number.
• 1:01:55
  About forty percent of Republican voters are part of a Trump cult. And that's
• 1:02:00
  that's his floor. And we have seen that. And now that he's way
• 1:02:04
  above fifty percent, you know, who knows what. I don't know if
• 1:02:07
  that's the cold expanding or whether or not. It's just a situation where you
• 1:02:13
  know, other people are are rallying to him because he's been the most attacked
• 1:02:16
  in their minds by the liberal media and the liberal establishment and the DJ and
• 1:02:23
  the DA in Fulton County and the DA in Manhattan. Blah blah blah.
• 1:02:29
  But the essence of this is I can understand. I still disagree with it
• 1:02:34
  because I think you could have educated people theoretically like you did to win the
• 1:02:37
  Florida duvenatorial election in twenty twenty two. That was the whole key here.
• 1:02:42
  I mean, the sand has won COVID by educating his populace, and it
• 1:02:47
  would have been a tough, tough thing to do, but he could have
• 1:02:51
  theoretically done the same thing with the nation when it came to Republican voters.
• 1:02:54
  Instead, apparently they got that that data point and they cried uncle, which
• 1:03:00
  again is understandable. I mean that is daunting when when you realize that you
• 1:03:05
  go from seventy percent opposition to lockdowns the seventy percent in favor of lockdowns simply
• 1:03:10
  because Trump is associated with it. I would question, though, why the
• 1:03:15
  hell did you run in the first place. I don't know when exactly they
• 1:03:19
  got that data point, but I would hope it was very early on,
• 1:03:22
  maybe before the Santis actually decided officially to run. And that botched Twitter spaces
• 1:03:29
  announcement with Elon Musk. Screw you, Elon. But but if that,
• 1:03:34
  if they knew that, I would have been screaming, do not run,
• 1:03:38
  because that's your bread and butter, that's you, that's the essence, that's
• 1:03:42
  the heart of your campaign, it's the heart of your argument. And if
• 1:03:45
  that's not gonna work on seventy percent of Republican voters, then we're done.
• 1:03:52
  There's no there's no chance of winning here. But it goes even deeper than
• 1:03:57
  that. This goes, to me, way deeper than just what a cult
• 1:04:01
  the Republican Party has become, or how incredibly small to Santis' chances ever were
• 1:04:09
  winning this nomination. To me, this goes to the heart of the nation
• 1:04:12
  and the future of the country, because if in fact that's even close to
• 1:04:16
  true, then this whole thing is going to work out. Stop me if
• 1:04:20
  you've heard this before, even worse than I thought, because now we have
• 1:04:27
  a situation where Trump's the nominee and he's not only not going to be running
• 1:04:32
  against the COVID response, he may be running with the COVID response being a
• 1:04:41
  positive in his campaign. He'll be taking credit for the vaccines and Operation Warped
• 1:04:47
  Speed. And he still thinks that his initial travel lockdown save millions of lives,
• 1:04:55
  and I mean he's not renounced any of this. He's to cried and
• 1:05:00
  demean Florida's reaction. He's put Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom ahead of Rod des
• 1:05:06
  Sanders when it came to COVID response. Gavin Newsom has praised Trump for his
• 1:05:13
  COVID response. I mean, this is the worst possible scenario. Not only
• 1:05:15
  do you get a losing candidate in Trump who can only serve one term if
• 1:05:20
  he somehow wins, and we'll have the worst administration in history because no one
• 1:05:25
  half decent a work for him, but his campaign from an historical standpoint is
• 1:05:30
  at best not going to be repudiating the COVID response at all. In the
• 1:05:38
  best case scenario is it's not even an issue, which is just astonishing since
• 1:05:42
  it's the biggest thing that's ever happened in the modern history of the country,
• 1:05:45
  effect when it cam came to impacting lives and impacting our civil rights and the
• 1:05:50
  way we view the country and who we are in our essence, I mean,
• 1:05:57
  and what we did to our kids and all sorts of other things,
• 1:06:00
  so that that stat right there might be the stat not just of the year
• 1:06:05
  but of the decade if true for a lot of different reasons, and it
• 1:06:11
  goes way beyond what it means to the de Santist campaign and the chances of
• 1:06:15
  Donald Trump being the twenty twenty four Republican nominee. But I also think that
• 1:06:21
  there's something that's that's not coincidental, and it's certainly related to this entire issue,
• 1:06:29
  because we're seeing in the media and it's coming out of nowhere. I
• 1:06:33
  mean, at least from a statistical standpoint, it's coming out of nowhere.
• 1:06:39
  There is a sudden rebirth of COVID insanity in the news media, even the
• 1:06:46
  New York Post. And I've written a couple of columns from the New York
• 1:06:51
  Post during COVID, which you know, we're very anti COVID hysteria and insanity,
• 1:07:00
  very contrarian in their view, got a lot of play in the New
• 1:07:04
  York Post. And here the New York Post was asking whether or not with
• 1:07:10
  this new COVID surge, we should be wearing masks again the New York Post.
• 1:07:17
  I mean, there's too many levels of insanity to be able to get
• 1:07:21
  into with regard to that reality. But I'll just point out a couple of
• 1:07:28
  I mean one, this is a quote unquote conservative right wing media outlet that's
• 1:07:31
  been contrarian on COVID more than any other major outlet, especially in New York,
• 1:07:36
  in the New York area. But there's absolutely positively no evidence at all
• 1:07:43
  that masks worked. There would have been massive amounts of evidence if they did.
• 1:07:46
  We should be mocking anybody whoever suggests we should be masking again. And
• 1:07:53
  there's no evidence of a massive or dangerous COVID surge. I've been looking all
• 1:08:00
  through the data wondering what the hell is this based on, and I mean
• 1:08:04
  I can't find anything. I mean, the only tiny molecule of data that
• 1:08:13
  you can you can use to claim that there's some sort of COVID surge is
• 1:08:16
  that the numbers got so unbelievably low, both regarding new cases and deaths.
• 1:08:25
  I mean, we've been averaging single digit deaths in the entire country in the
• 1:08:30
  United States for an exceedingly long period of time on a daily basis, and
• 1:08:33
  of course that includes you know, a very wide definition of who is dying
• 1:08:40
  with or of COVID single digits. And now you know, because math being
• 1:08:45
  what it is, if you start with a baseline of near zero, and
• 1:08:49
  you get anything above zero, you can claim that there's a significant percentage increase,
• 1:08:56
  but it's irrelevant. It's just a statistic goal anomaly. Now, liberals
• 1:09:01
  have this thing, and this is what really is the basis of climate change
• 1:09:05
  and and all sorts of other hysteria that the media embraces. But they have
• 1:09:13
  this idea. And this was really the essence of Gavin Usom's false lie at
• 1:09:17
  the very beginning of the COVID pandemic when he locked down California, claiming that
• 1:09:21
  twenty eight million Californians would get COVID in the next in the next eight weeks.
• 1:09:26
  Nothing even remotely close to that happened in the next three years. And
• 1:09:30
  that is that they have this this almost mental disorder where they cannot understand that
• 1:09:39
  extrapolation doesn't work in the long run. You know that this idea of exponential
• 1:09:45
  growth, Oh my god, we've had a twenty percent increase. If we
• 1:09:48
  keep increasing at twenty percent, you know, into perpetuity, we're all gonna
• 1:09:53
  die. Well, okay, great, that's never gonna happen, because that's
• 1:09:58
  not the way things work. Things work in cycles. What goes up comes
• 1:10:01
  down. We saw that during COVID constantly. So this idea that because we've
• 1:10:06
  had a, you know, on paper, a significant percentage increase recently is
• 1:10:11
  completely irrelevant. There's absolutely no evidence that I can see that we're heading towards
• 1:10:16
  yet another major surge. By the way, we now have the vaccines that
• 1:10:20
  are supposed to be so awesome, So why do we even care? I
• 1:10:26
  mean, there's so many problems with this entire logic. But here's where I
• 1:10:30
  want to go back to the Santis campaign, and this might be the most
• 1:10:33
  important thing I say about this subject today. It is not a coincidence.
• 1:10:39
  I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it is not a coincidence that we
• 1:10:43
  are seeing now this sudden rebirth of COVID insanity and these covidiots coming out of
• 1:10:51
  the woodwork again in the major media, just as Ron de Santras's campaign is
• 1:10:58
  flaming out. There is a direct, at least subconscious connection between those two
• 1:11:05
  things, because when Ron de Santis's campaign officially flames out, that is the
• 1:11:14
  final nail in the coffin for how the COVID response will be seen in American
• 1:11:20
  history. Rohn de Santis's campaign was the last chance the last chance for history
• 1:11:30
  to be rectified, for there to be any semblance of accountability, for at
• 1:11:36
  least, at the very least, for there to be within the national conversation,
• 1:11:45
  another side that is seen as very legitimate and backed by a significant number
• 1:11:51
  of people. If Rohn to Santus had simply been the Republican nominee for all
• 1:11:59
  of history, there would have been even in liberal circles, there would have
• 1:12:03
  been an argument over whether or not we screwed up on COVID. But for
• 1:12:08
  DeSantis to flame out like this is and now I'm wishing he never ran,
• 1:12:14
  because it's if it turns out the way that it looks, this is gonna
• 1:12:16
  be way worse when it comes to things like COVID insanity than if he had
• 1:12:23
  never run, because now they're going to be able to look at this,
• 1:12:27
  the powers that be, the elites, the media, and other politicians.
• 1:12:30
  Let's look at the scorecard. The scorecard is going to be horrific when it
• 1:12:35
  comes to people who were COVID ktrarians. De Santis is twenty twenty two.
• 1:12:41
  Victory will be seen as a fluke, that it was just the Florida thing,
• 1:12:45
  that Florida is an anomaly, and then when you look at the rest
• 1:12:48
  of the country, all the pro lockdown governors won. Nobody paid a price,
• 1:12:55
  and clearly we didn't do anything. We might have made some mistakes the
• 1:13:00
  fringes, but we've never dealt with it before, and if it ever happens
• 1:13:02
  again, there's gonna be no major reason not to do it pretty much exactly
• 1:13:06
  as we did before. And that's when it gets out of the theoretical and
• 1:13:11
  into the practical. And you know, I don't know how far the media
• 1:13:15
  is going to try to carry this rebirth of of COVID insanity. I don't
• 1:13:21
  know if it's just some pangs of of you know, memories of how awesome
• 1:13:26
  things were for them during during COVID, or whether or not, you know,
• 1:13:30
  they just love creating some sort of panic. You know, maybe there'll
• 1:13:35
  be some semblance of a of a fall winner surge. I don't know,
• 1:13:39
  but it's not going to be anything to the level that ought to impact people's
• 1:13:42
  lives. And we certainly shouldn't be masking when we know now for certainty that
• 1:13:46
  masks do nothing. But this is way bigger than just some some media coverage
• 1:13:53
  trying to create something out of nothing. This is about what's going to happen
• 1:13:58
  the next time it occurs, and it's gonna happen again because too many people
• 1:14:02
  liked it the first time, too many people benefited from it the first time.
• 1:14:06
  And the fact that there's been no accountability in the fact that Ron de
• 1:14:10
  Santus's campaign appears to be flaming out is going to send a massive, a
• 1:14:15
  massive message to everybody, to everybody that matters, that there was nothing really
• 1:14:23
  that wrong with what we did with our COVID response. And that's a stick
• 1:14:27
  a fork in US moment for the United States. I mean, that's I
• 1:14:30
  hate to break it to you, but that's the reality of it. That
• 1:14:32
  is a stick a fork in US moment going forward. I don't know how
• 1:14:36
  long it'll take, but when they get the opportunity, they're going to do
• 1:14:41
  exactly the same thing again, and we will rue the day. We will
• 1:14:45
  rue the day that you know, Ron de Sandus's campaign was not seen as
• 1:14:51
  as remotely successful for utterly insane reasons, including defending a complete fraud, odd
• 1:15:00
  and a coward like Donald Trump when he got indicted four times in about half
• 1:15:06
  a year. I mean, that's what that you know, I've always I
• 1:15:10
  don't want to get too deeply into this because this is an incredibly important subject
• 1:15:14
  and I want to make light of it. But you know, it always
• 1:15:16
  was inconceivable to me that we would see the end of America in my lifetime.
• 1:15:21
  But even more inconceivable of seeing that the death of the essence of America
• 1:15:26
  in my lifetime was the idea that a large part of why it happened was
• 1:15:30
  because people who should know better were defending Donald fucking Trump from indictments, even
• 1:15:38
  if they weren't, you know, one hundred percent incredible, or there was
• 1:15:42
  overkill, or you know, there was a two tiered justice system, whatever
• 1:15:46
  the hell I mean that that when when they write the history of the end
• 1:15:49
  of America, that's what that was. The hill we died on was Donald
• 1:15:54
  fucking Trump. It's it's almost too funny to get upset about. I mean,
• 1:15:58
  it's it's sad, but it's there's a funny element to it as well.
• 1:16:01
  Now, when it comes to COVID, I have said many, many
• 1:16:04
  times that one of the ways that the media and the elites are going to
• 1:16:09
  try to duplicate that is through climate change and every opportunity they get to try
• 1:16:14
  to claim man made climate change. They do, and they will. We
• 1:16:18
  saw it again this past weekend here in southern California, where we had a
• 1:16:23
  hurricane, well technically we had a tropical storm. Hurricane Hillary by the time
• 1:16:29
  it hit California was a tropical storm. By the way, we also had
• 1:16:30
  an earthquake. We had an earthquake in the middle of a tropical storm,
• 1:16:34
  which of course made many people wonder whether that we were hitting end times.
• 1:16:41
  It was a pretty bizarre day. I mean, never had an August day
• 1:16:45
  like it in southern California where you're getting, you know, several inches of
• 1:16:48
  rain if you're lucky, and you're also experiencing an earthquake at the same time.
• 1:16:53
  Of course, there's no evidence that they were related whatsoever. And you
• 1:16:58
  know, there are parts of south in California that really got bombarded with a
• 1:17:01
  lot of rain, especially in the desert areas, and I'm sure there's been
• 1:17:05
  a lot of damage done by the rain. Now, the media hype leading
• 1:17:12
  up to Hurricane Hillary was off the charts and absurd. There are a lot
• 1:17:16
  of reasons for this, one of which is they love this narrative because they
• 1:17:19
  think it fits with man made global warming. Because we haven't seen anything like
• 1:17:24
  this in eighty some years, which to which I always go. So you're
• 1:17:28
  saying this happened eighty some years ago. I mean, I don't think this
• 1:17:32
  is a difficult mental exercise, but apparently it's beyond the grasp of the news
• 1:17:38
  media. If something did happen eighty some years ago, way before there ever
• 1:17:44
  could have been a man made global warming or climate change, then how does
• 1:17:47
  it happening again indicate man made climate change. I don't understand that. I
• 1:17:55
  mean, eighty four years ago is long ago. Not forgo that it's clearly
• 1:17:59
  not because of man made carbon issues because we didn't even really have the Industrial
• 1:18:04
  Revolution at that point. So that's that's not even that was never even a
• 1:18:10
  topic of conversation. And he were close to eighty four years ago, so
• 1:18:14
  that's number one. But from a from a climate standpoint, eighty four years
• 1:18:17
  ago is nothing. It's a blink of an eye, and when it came
• 1:18:23
  comes to the entire history of the globe. But none of this makes any
• 1:18:27
  goddamn sense. But that was the narrative. So that was the number one
• 1:18:30
  reason, one of the reasons why the media was so hyped about Hurricane Hillary.
• 1:18:35
  Plus you know, related to that. They love anything that's unprecedented,
• 1:18:40
  at least in their minds, because then their minds, unprecedented means, you
• 1:18:44
  know, in their lifetimes, and so anything that's unprecedented, uncharted territory.
• 1:18:49
  This is so unusual, and I get it, you know, it's kind
• 1:18:51
  of the definition of news, and we're always looking for things we've never seen
• 1:18:56
  before. So the fact that there is a massive rainstorm, I mean,
• 1:19:00
  that's really what This was, a massive rain storm in southern California in August
• 1:19:04
  is incredibly unusual. No one's ever almost no one's ever seen it before.
• 1:19:11
  Does that have anything to do with man made global warming or climate change?
• 1:19:14
  I don't think so. There are hurricanes that hit almost exactly where this one
• 1:19:18
  hit. It's just that they're not as strong, and they don't move in
• 1:19:23
  exactly the same direction. You know. Normally, they don't go up the
• 1:19:26
  coast like this one, Dad, where it still has enough strength, you
• 1:19:30
  know, where it can cause a lot of damage. A lot of times
• 1:19:32
  it just goes right into Mexico and when it hits that you know, very
• 1:19:36
  dry air, it just dissipates. Well, this one didn't react that way.
• 1:19:42
  There's no evidence or logic that that would be because of how much carbons
• 1:19:45
  in the air are because of man made climate change of global warming. But
• 1:19:50
  again that's part of what's driving the media hysteria. I would say that overall
• 1:19:57
  the media coverage was over hype. Certainly where I live, we were lucky.
• 1:20:01
  We live just north of Los Angeles and a little bit to the west
• 1:20:05
  on the coastline, and so I think we only got the edge of it,
• 1:20:10
  and we got a lot of rain, which, by the way,
• 1:20:13
  based upon the same thing the climate change people keep telling us is a great
• 1:20:17
  thing. I mean, yeah, there are going to be areas of southern
• 1:20:21
  California they got too much rain. In Nevada, I'm sure the same thing
• 1:20:26
  that there's going to be damage due to flooding. But we keep getting told
• 1:20:30
  about the drought, the drought that allegedly is caused by climate change, global
• 1:20:34
  warming, man made. So when the drought stats get updated this week later
• 1:20:44
  this week, on Thursday morning, I checked these on a fairly regular basis,
• 1:20:47
  my guess is that the entire southwestern portion of the country is now it's
• 1:20:53
  no longer going to be in any drought whatsoever. Now, how is that
• 1:20:57
  not a good thing. I mean, frankly again here where we live in
• 1:21:00
  Ventura County, California, I would say that this rain was fantastic. Yes,
• 1:21:05
  there'll be some minor damage, but any remnants of drought are now completely
• 1:21:11
  gone. And you know what else has gone that We keep hearing a lot
• 1:21:14
  about wildfires. I mean, getting a rain in August of this level is
• 1:21:20
  a godsend because we were right about to head into wildfire season. So you
• 1:21:28
  know, again, it's not an area where I'm an expert, but I
• 1:21:30
  watch it on a continual basis, and I'm using common sense here. The
• 1:21:34
  ground here in southern California is going to be way too damp for there'd be
• 1:21:40
  a major wildfire for at least the next month or two, which gets us
• 1:21:45
  right into October, which is prime wildfire season. And I have been harping
• 1:21:53
  on this on a consistent basis. Nobody in the mainstream news me he ever
• 1:21:57
  talks about this. We keep hearing wildfires part of climate change. I keep
• 1:22:00
  telling you why that's not the case. Well, southern California, actually California
• 1:22:05
  is a state has had very few, if any, really major wildfires.
• 1:22:14
  Since November of twenty twenty one, We've got a shot because of this rain,
• 1:22:21
  to effectively go two full calendar years twenty four months or so without any
• 1:22:28
  major wildfires in the epicenter of wildfire territory, California, when allegedly we're at
• 1:22:34
  the hottest we've ever been, when wildfires supposedly or a result or cause,
• 1:22:42
  you know, by global warming and climate change, which is bullshit. But
• 1:22:46
  how does that, to use a bad description wash, How does that make
• 1:22:53
  any sense at all? How do we go two years without major wildfires in
• 1:22:58
  California when we're at the height of global warming climate change? And oh,
• 1:23:02
  by the way, we've had more rain in twenty twenty three than we probably
• 1:23:05
  ever had before, which is partially why we're not going to have wildfires,
• 1:23:11
  because you can't have wildfires when the ground is wet in a very significant way.
• 1:23:15
  And so we just, of course, i've said many times before on
• 1:23:19
  this podcast, we had the wettest, coldest and snowiest winter in twenty twenty
• 1:23:25
  two, twenty twenty three that we've ever had in the modern history at California.
• 1:23:29
  None of this in any way, shape or form fits with the media's
• 1:23:32
  preferred global warming climate change narrative. And I want to address the bigger picture
• 1:23:41
  on climate and weather. I've never understood in the liberal mindset where this place
• 1:23:46
  is that it rains lightly at one thirty in the morning every single night,
• 1:23:53
  so we get exactly the right amount of rain, and it's sunny all day
• 1:23:56
  and it's never too hot and it's never too cold. I mean, where
• 1:23:59
  is this? I mean where I live probably has one of the best climates
• 1:24:02
  in the world and we live that for I don't know, maybe two hundred,
• 1:24:09
  two hundred and fifty days out of the year. But you know,
• 1:24:13
  we need rain, and in a weird way, storms in California. I'm
• 1:24:17
  probably the only person to ever come up with an analogy like this. Storms
• 1:24:20
  in California are a lot like the issue of toxic masculinity. Right, Feminists
• 1:24:27
  hate toxic masculinity, and I'll be the first to acknowledge that occasionally, you
• 1:24:33
  know, you do have situations where there's too much masculinity. Things happen where
• 1:24:38
  you go, Okay, that's a little bit out of hand, and you
• 1:24:41
  know, boy, that the guys should have reined it in there. You
• 1:24:44
  don't see it as much anymore because we've all become very feminized. But here's
• 1:24:48
  the thing with toxic masculinity. You need a little extra masculinity to make sure
• 1:24:56
  that you have enough when you really need it, like when you go to
• 1:25:00
  war or you know, there's times where you need toxic masculinity. So built
• 1:25:09
  into the system was a little extra testosterone. From an evolutionary standpoint, Well,
• 1:25:15
  when you relate that to storms in California, because we have such a
• 1:25:19
  short rainy season and because it's dry year almost all the year, for us
• 1:25:25
  to get enough rain, especially with our overpopulation and the way we botch the
• 1:25:30
  use of water. For us to get enough rain, you're gonna need storms.
• 1:25:34
  And when you have storms occasionally, you're gonna get a bit extra.
• 1:25:39
  There's gonna be some damage done, not a lot. Some areas will have
• 1:25:44
  a lot of damage, but you know, by and large, this was
• 1:25:46
  not a catastrophe here in southern California, at least not in the Los Angeles
• 1:25:50
  and San Diego areas. And so you know you're gonna need a little extra
• 1:25:56
  so that you have enough. That's the toxic mask galinity analogy. But the
• 1:26:01
  liberals in the media never understand this. There is no perfect climate. There's
• 1:26:08
  never I've never understood what the what the the static climate was supposed to be
• 1:26:13
  what what? What year? Is the climate never supposed to change from?
• 1:26:16
  Could someone please tell me that? I mean, these are people who think
• 1:26:20
  that the constitution should change based upon people's feelings, but that the climate should
• 1:26:26
  never ever change from a year that they can't even picks. It's insanity,
• 1:26:30
  But this is driving a lot of public policy, and the media is completely
• 1:26:35
  on board with it, and we saw it with regard to the coverage of
• 1:26:40
  Hurricane Slash Tropical Storm Hillary. That leads me to the next natural disaster that
• 1:26:46
  has been in news lately, and that is the aftermath of the horrendous wildfires
• 1:26:51
  in Maui. You know, again, wildfires have nothing to do with climate
• 1:26:57
  change at all. In fact, you know, as I've just illustrated with
• 1:27:00
  regard to California, oftentimes it's exact opposite of that, you know. But
• 1:27:08
  the governor of Hawaii, he is for a second time now said that this
• 1:27:14
  is a climate change situation, doubling down on this first absurdity, which of
• 1:27:17
  course the media does not criticize him for and has just been taken a face
• 1:27:24
  value. It's an absurdity, but it's worse than an absurdity. It's not
• 1:27:30
  just theoretically wrong and a religious belief. To me, it seems like it's
• 1:27:35
  a cover up for what is a much larger issue here, or what should
• 1:27:41
  be a much larger issue if the news media was remotely fair. And I've
• 1:27:45
  made the comparison between the media coverage of Maui and how the media has gone
• 1:27:50
  very light in general, especially on Joe Biden, regarding the reaction to what
• 1:27:57
  happened in Maui to what occurred with the Hurricane Katrina in two thousand and six
• 1:28:01
  when George Bush was president, and the comparison is stark. It's night and
• 1:28:05
  day. They decapitated George Bush for what happened with regard to Katrina, and
• 1:28:12
  I am still to this day baffled as to what exactly George Bush did wrong
• 1:28:16
  with regard to Katrina, and whatever mistakes were made were made almost entirely by
• 1:28:21
  local Democratic officials in New Orleans. Well, we have a remarkably similar situation
• 1:28:30
  that seems to have happened in Maui. We still don't know exactly for sure
• 1:28:34
  how the fire started, but it appears as if not turning off the electricity
• 1:28:41
  may have played a very significant role. Because the fire may have started because
• 1:28:45
  of down power lines and the electricity was not turned off, the sirens were
• 1:28:49
  not turned on. Now the guy who was in charge of that decision,
• 1:28:54
  who had very limited experience when it came to emergency operations, has resigned.
• 1:29:00
  I was a little bit surprised by that. I'm always surprised when anyone resigns
• 1:29:04
  when they are, you know, in a situation where liberals and the media
• 1:29:09
  have an incentive to protect or defend them, mainly because I saw his explanation
• 1:29:15
  before his resignation, and I thought it was a halfway decent one. Because
• 1:29:19
  the siren system was designed for tsunamis and that when people hear the siren system
• 1:29:29
  in a place like Maui, then their instinct is to go away from the
• 1:29:34
  ocean, to get head up into the hills, into the jungle area.
• 1:29:39
  And that's where the wildfires were, And so they were concerned about that's at
• 1:29:43
  least led to what they said they were concerned about that being the reaction,
• 1:29:46
  which is why the siren system was not engaged. But the most remarkable and
• 1:29:54
  to me, the most outrageous element of this, and it's been getting some
• 1:29:58
  play in the right wing media. I've not yet seen it getting a lot
• 1:30:02
  of play in the mainstream news media. Is another government official there who appeared
• 1:30:10
  to have a very politically motivated and an equity driven I don't even know how
• 1:30:15
  this makes any sense, but it may be related to the native peoples of
• 1:30:20
  Hawaii, but an equity driven water usage philosophy that caused a five hour delay
• 1:30:30
  in fully fighting the wildfires. So you've got the siusist of not being used,
• 1:30:35
  the electricity not being turned off, and you've got this seemingly super woke
• 1:30:42
  although it may not be our vision of political wokeness, but this politically motivated
• 1:30:47
  equity driven water usage policy causing a delay in fighting the wildfires. Well,
• 1:30:54
  all that combined, I mean, that's a massive amount of liberal role in
• 1:31:00
  competence when it comes to Hawaii, which is a democratic state, And we
• 1:31:04
  got Joe Biden taking vacations and you know, his first reaction was basically no
• 1:31:13
  comment, and the media was kind of buffuddled by that. But there was
• 1:31:17
  no vicious attacks like George Bushcott when it came to Katrina. So when you
• 1:31:21
  compare what we already know about Maui to what we ended up knowing about Katrina,
• 1:31:28
  and the media coverage between them to the two of those situations. Frankly,
• 1:31:31
  I think you could write a book about it. I mean, it
• 1:31:34
  is so obvious and so telling about how politically motivated these situations are. Where
• 1:31:41
  when the media sees it fitting their agenda to go down a narrative path,
• 1:31:46
  they will gladly do so. But when they don't see it fitting their agenda,
• 1:31:51
  they're going to be easily distracted and they might You know, this is
• 1:31:55
  where I always say, it's not what gets repeated, it's what gets reported
• 1:31:58
  that matters. They might reports something one time, but they're going to quickly
• 1:32:01
  move on from it if they wanted to. This narrative about what happened in
• 1:32:05
  Maui could be devastating on so many different levels to liberal philosophy and democratic governorship
• 1:32:14
  and local authorities in Maui and how they handled this horrendous wildfire which is going
• 1:32:20
  to result in at least one hundred people dying, and many people still think
• 1:32:26
  that's that death toll is going to go much higher than even that, But
• 1:32:30
  of course the governor is just saying, no, this is global warming,
• 1:32:34
  this is climate change. And the Associated Press has an article out just today
• 1:32:41
  that with the headline in Hawaii concerns over quote unquote climate gentrification rise after devastating
• 1:32:49
  Maui fires. So this is this is the focus of the associated brass climate
• 1:32:56
  gentrification. So there, this is somehow relating climate change to what happens to
• 1:33:01
  people being displaced by natural disasters. And it's just a completely bs woke narrative.
• 1:33:11
  And you know, it's just an indicative of what the media's priorities are
• 1:33:15
  in these situations, and the truth is not on that list. Now,
• 1:33:20
  I want to mention one other thing that's in my mind. It's kind of
• 1:33:24
  related. It certainly deals with the media, but it dealt with a disaster
• 1:33:29
  that certainly was related to nature, and it got a massive amount of coverage
• 1:33:32
  when it happened and now has been completely forgotten. And on what when we're
• 1:33:38
  referring to the Titanic submarine implosion. Now, you may recall that, you
• 1:33:45
  know, the first episode of the podcast I did after it was learned that
• 1:33:48
  this had happened, I told you before we even knew that this thing had
• 1:33:54
  imploded, that everyone was dead, that the media was playing a game,
• 1:33:59
  that they were looking for all the ratings they could because they knew that they
• 1:34:02
  had a finite amount of time before the submarine was going to run out of
• 1:34:05
  oxygen in theory, and that this story had a beginning the middle of an
• 1:34:10
  end, and they already knew what the end would be, but they would
• 1:34:14
  suck people into this this eggar Allan Poe nightmare of being trapped on a submarine
• 1:34:18
  at the bottom of the ocean next to the Titanic. And they knew that
• 1:34:24
  this was a story that was going to bring in non news junkies, and
• 1:34:28
  it was very good for the media for three or four days to pretend this
• 1:34:31
  was going on, and I told you immediately what had really happened. Well,
• 1:34:36
  it's a remarkable situation in the news media where when we finally get real
• 1:34:43
  information, no one really cares about the story anymore. I mean, this
• 1:34:46
  story was so white hot that it kind of flamed out and just disappeared once
• 1:34:51
  we found out everyone was for sure dead. Oh yeah, by the way,
• 1:34:56
  you know, there was indications that the government should have known this immediately,
• 1:35:00
  may have known this immediately, that the company that was that was in
• 1:35:03
  charge of all this should have known immediately. There was still at least a
• 1:35:09
  little bit of doubt. Well, now we've gotten some more information, and
• 1:35:12
  now a significantly different narrative has emerged. And it is amazing how little media
• 1:35:18
  coverage this has gotten, and I think part of it's because the media is
• 1:35:23
  implicated than this. It is now very obvious that immediately everybody and the government,
• 1:35:32
  the company involved, everybody involved knew immediately that this was an implosion.
• 1:35:42
  And by the way, there's also if you louse logic and you follow the
• 1:35:46
  messages and other data that we now have, it now appears to me as
• 1:35:54
  if these people not only had several minutes of warnings that things were wrong,
• 1:36:00
  they weren't one hundred percent sure they were going to die, but there was
• 1:36:02
  no question ten to fifteen minutes where everybody on that tiny little sub had to
• 1:36:08
  know something was really wrong. Now they probably thought, okay, we can
• 1:36:13
  get back up to the surface, but the problem was as they tried to
• 1:36:16
  get back up to the surface, the submarine wasn't wasn't moving nearly fast enough
• 1:36:23
  that they were losing power, and eventually they lost all power. And it
• 1:36:29
  appears as if at that moment the sub did a nose dive and for about
• 1:36:34
  a minute. The best that we can tell from all the data that we
• 1:36:39
  have now it seems as if up to a minute is the best theory that
• 1:36:43
  I've heard and seen evidence supporting that for about a minute, these people knew
• 1:36:49
  they were cooked, that they were gonna die, that they had no power,
• 1:36:55
  and that the submarine was heading towards the bottom of the ocean, and
• 1:37:00
  that at some point in that process the thing finally imploded. And it imploded
• 1:37:08
  mainly because it had been down there four or five times previously, and over
• 1:37:14
  time the structure had weakened, and it finally just couldn't take the pressure anymore,
• 1:37:18
  and everyone died instantaneously. So that's much more of a nightmare situation than
• 1:37:26
  I think had ever been previously portrayed in the news media. I think,
• 1:37:30
  you know, even I kind of bought the theory that maybe these people never
• 1:37:33
  knew what hit him. It's obvious that that's not the case, and I
• 1:37:38
  do think that that matters. I mean, I don't you can argue as
• 1:37:42
  to what would be the better scenario, but that's a that's a horrible way
• 1:37:45
  to go, especially in a situation where a father and a son are on
• 1:37:49
  the same submarine together. But from from a personal human nightmare standpoint, that
• 1:37:56
  story is different than what we were told. But the bigger issue to me
• 1:38:00
  is how and why it is that the government knew for sure, the company
• 1:38:05
  knew for sure, all the experts knew for sure, and yet the media
• 1:38:12
  perpetrated this myth for many days. I mean, there was some level of
• 1:38:16
  doubt when this thing happened. Maybe the media just didn't want I think I
• 1:38:20
  even theorized about this. Maybe this media just didn't want to. You know,
• 1:38:25
  here a narrative that didn't fit their agenda, and they they just shunned
• 1:38:29
  it and they went with the oxygen timetable narrative because people really like that.
• 1:38:34
  Now we're in, in my view, we're into a scandal situation, and
• 1:38:40
  it's almost like and I hate this narrative. I hate this is one of
• 1:38:43
  those conspiracy narratives I hate more than any others. And I hear this all
• 1:38:46
  the time, Well, this was a distraction from something else bigger. You
• 1:38:50
  know, the government knew it was false, and the media knew it was
• 1:38:54
  false, but they were just distracting from something else. I don't buy that
• 1:38:58
  because it creates a situation where where these people have to be incredibly far more
• 1:39:03
  competent than I think that they really are, and it's very conspiratorial, but
• 1:39:09
  I don't know what other motivation there would have been. I mean, it's
• 1:39:11
  it's just astonishing to me. It's even to me as as big as cyneca
• 1:39:15
  as I am when it comes to the news media that everybody either knew or
• 1:39:20
  should have known that this story was bullshit. And for days and days,
• 1:39:27
  three or four days, this was the biggest story in America, and everybody
• 1:39:32
  not just should have known it was false, everybody really did know it was
• 1:39:38
  false. Everybody knew that this thing had already ended in disaster, and somehow
• 1:39:43
  this dominated almost an entire week of media coverage in the United States and throughout
• 1:39:49
  the world. It's just amazing, and it was totally false, and at
• 1:39:55
  best, everybody should have known it was false, and at worst, everybody
• 1:40:00
  I did know it was false and decided to go with it anyway, and
• 1:40:03
  they only benefited from it. And now very few Americans, I mean,
• 1:40:08
  there's a lot of Americans who probably suspectable. Boy, that was weird.
• 1:40:12
  The moment that the oxygen went out, they announced that everyone was dead,
• 1:40:15
  that we knew everyone was dead. That's kind of weird. So it's not
• 1:40:18
  as if there are no Americans who understand what really happened here. But we
• 1:40:23
  now have far more evidence that this was a media scandal, that the media
• 1:40:27
  knew exactly what was going on, or at least to the very least,
• 1:40:30
  should have known with certainty that this was a catastrophe, that everyone was dead,
• 1:40:38
  that the sub had imploded, And no one is willing to retell this
• 1:40:42
  story again, partially because it doesn't fit their agenda, partially because everyone moved
• 1:40:46
  on. It was white hot, it burned out, and you know,
• 1:40:49
  now it's just part of lore. Everyone will remember. Twenty twenty three is
• 1:40:55
  as the year where, oh yeah, for a few days we were obsessed
• 1:40:58
  with that submarine that had actually imploded, when everyone was hoping that somehow there
• 1:41:03
  were people alive, clinging to oxygen while they were somehow stuck in a Titanic,
• 1:41:09
  which was always a narrative that I told you was ridiculous and absurd and
• 1:41:12
  impossible, and I was even more right than I realized, which is again
• 1:41:17
  continuing theme of the Death of Journalism podcast, which you know, I guess
• 1:41:23
  maybe should have rethought the title of this thing, called it the See I
• 1:41:27
  Told You So? Podcast, although that would be that would be too arrogant
• 1:41:30
  even for me. That'll do it, though, for this episode of the
• 1:41:33
  Death of Journalism podcast, which is also a very good name considering the subject
• 1:41:38
  matter that we just dealt with, because it absolutely does show the death of
• 1:41:42
  journalism that entire Titanic a Submarine story. As I stated earlier, the next
• 1:41:46
  episode of the podcast, episode eighty three, will come out a little bit
• 1:41:49
  later than normal on Thursday, so that we can provide coverage of the Republican
• 1:41:55
  debate that will not have Donald Trump in it, and we'll be able to
• 1:42:00
  provide you with as much analysis of that event as possible in the next episode
• 1:42:04
  of the Death of Journalism Podcasts. Until then, thanks so much for listening.
• 1:42:08
  Please remember to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast, share it
• 1:42:12
  with others word of mouth, or on social media. If you do share
• 1:42:15
  it on Twitter or on Facebook, please tag me and I'll be happy to
• 1:42:17
  share it with my followers as well. Thanks so much for listening. My
• 1:42:21
  name is John Ziegler. This has been episode eighty two of the Death of
• 1:42:25
  Journalism Podcasts.