Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Forty: Beneath The Office

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Forty: Beneath The Office · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and forty of the Death
0:02
Speaker 1: of Journalism Podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
0:05
Speaker 1: host on today's show. President Trump ramps up the trolling
0:09
Speaker 1: to a most literally warp speed. In a normal world,
0:12
Speaker 1: Trump's interview with NBC's Kristen Welker would be talked about
0:15
Speaker 1: for at least weeks. Trump tries to cut off funding
0:19
Speaker 1: for NPR and PBS. Plus one of the worst local
0:22
Speaker 1: TV news reports you'll ever hear, and updates on the
0:26
Speaker 1: Shador Sanders Draft Plunge, and Bill Belichick hostage stories. Since
0:32
Speaker 1: this is the Death of Journalism podcast, I feel at
0:35
Speaker 1: least somewhat obligated to begin this episode with the note
0:41
Speaker 1: that the Kentucky Derby favorite this past weekend was named journalism,
0:48
Speaker 1: but lost to a horse named Sovereignty. Now, a lot
0:53
Speaker 1: of people, especially right wingers, especially Trump fans, celebrated Sovereignty
0:59
Speaker 1: defeating journaljournalism as some sort of symbolic proof that America
1:06
Speaker 1: is back and that this is somehow a good thing
1:08
Speaker 1: that journalism lost, and they perceived sovereignty somehow, I guess,
1:13
Speaker 1: being either national sovereignty or sovereignty in the religious sense
1:18
Speaker 1: of the word. But in their world. In their mind,
1:21
Speaker 1: sovereignty defeating journalism at the Kentucky Derby was a really
1:26
Speaker 1: great thing. Of course, it never occurred to them. I
1:29
Speaker 1: doubt they even realized or would have thought about it.
1:31
Speaker 1: Regardless that the horse that won the Kentucky Derby sovereignty
1:36
Speaker 1: and defeated journalism the favorite is actually owned by the
1:39
Speaker 1: ruler of Dubai. So how in the world this is
1:42
Speaker 1: a signal that America is back? I'm completely baffled by,
1:48
Speaker 1: but that's kind of part for the course when it
1:50
Speaker 1: comes to maga interpretation of reality. By the way, there's
1:54
Speaker 1: not going to be a Triple Crown winner this year
1:56
Speaker 1: because Sovereignty has opted out of the Freakness and therefore
2:01
Speaker 1: cannot win all three races of the Triple Crown, which
2:04
Speaker 1: to me is yet another indication just how unbelievably soft
2:08
Speaker 1: Generation Z is. I mean, these kids today, they are
2:12
Speaker 1: just not as tough as they used to be back
2:14
Speaker 1: in the day. So sovereignty takes a pass on the
2:17
Speaker 1: Preakness and journalism loses the Kentucky Derby as the favorite. Now,
2:24
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, as he often does, has completely dominated the
2:29
Speaker 1: news cycle over the past week, even more so than
2:33
Speaker 1: is normally the case. And I don't know if you've noticed,
2:36
Speaker 1: but I have tried mightily to stay away as much
2:40
Speaker 1: as possible from having this podcast be dominated by Donald Trump.
2:46
Speaker 1: And I don't know if I've been successful in that,
2:48
Speaker 1: but I'm not going to be successful in this episode
2:51
Speaker 1: because there's just too much to discuss, too much that
2:55
Speaker 1: I think has to be talked about, especially on a
2:59
Speaker 1: death of journalism podcasts and so much of this, and
3:02
Speaker 1: this is part of why I've tried to move away
3:05
Speaker 1: from it, because almost everything about Trump is a rorshack test,
3:10
Speaker 1: but this week, in particular, there were numerous stories that
3:13
Speaker 1: were basically rorshack tests that your reaction to what happened
3:18
Speaker 1: is based almost entirely on your view of Donald Trump.
3:22
Speaker 1: And to me, while it's obviously important because he's the
3:25
Speaker 1: president of United States, it's a little bit boring because
3:29
Speaker 1: you're never going to change anybody's mind and it's all
3:31
Speaker 1: rather predictable. But even in that context, there are so
3:36
Speaker 1: many things that happen in this past week that I
3:39
Speaker 1: feel like I just have to comment on, and so
3:42
Speaker 1: I'm going to take de bait and discuss most of them,
3:47
Speaker 1: not all of them, because if I did all of them.
3:49
Speaker 1: This will probably be a three or four hour episode
3:52
Speaker 1: of the podcast, But I'm going to start with the
3:55
Speaker 1: fact that the President of the United States, after just
3:59
Speaker 1: attending the funeral of Pope Francis, where by the way,
4:04
Speaker 1: he wore a blue suit, which didn't seem to be
4:07
Speaker 1: particularly appropriate based upon the way everyone else was dressed.
4:11
Speaker 1: But okay, fine, whatever, after just attending the funeral of
4:14
Speaker 1: the pope, and just before the papal conclave was about
4:19
Speaker 1: to start, posted on social media and had reposted by
4:26
Speaker 1: the official White House account on social media, an AI
4:32
Speaker 1: generated photo of him as the next Pope. Now, it
4:40
Speaker 1: wasn't that long ago, just a few years ago, that
4:43
Speaker 1: such a thing would be completely unthinkable, absurd even for Trump.
4:48
Speaker 1: But we're no longer living in that world now. Some
4:51
Speaker 1: people this is where the worshac test comes in. Some
4:53
Speaker 1: people think this was hilarious, fantastic. Oh, isn't it an
4:58
Speaker 1: awesome that we have a commune in chief. It's so
5:01
Speaker 1: funny and look. I like a good joke as much
5:06
Speaker 1: as anybody. But to me, under these circumstances, with this
5:11
Speaker 1: timing and the fact that you're the president of the
5:14
Speaker 1: United States, if he was not the president of the
5:16
Speaker 1: United States. I would have been perfectly fine with it. It
5:19
Speaker 1: would have been funny. I mean, there's a whole lot
5:23
Speaker 1: of reasons to laugh at that. But when you're the
5:26
Speaker 1: president of the United States, you're the leader of the
5:28
Speaker 1: free world, and we're in between funeral and conclave, and
5:33
Speaker 1: you post an AI photograph of you as the pope,
5:38
Speaker 1: it's just inappropriate. There are certain things that should be
5:42
Speaker 1: considered beneath the office of the presidency. Part of your
5:47
Speaker 1: job as president is to protect the office itself, something
5:51
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has either never understood or never given
5:54
Speaker 1: a damn about. He clearly does not care. He will
5:57
Speaker 1: sell off literally and figuratively, part of the office if
6:01
Speaker 1: he thinks it's in his own personal self interest, not
6:04
Speaker 1: even long term interest, just in the interest for that day.
6:08
Speaker 1: If he can entertain his fans. In this particular case,
6:11
Speaker 1: he thinks it's awesome. Now, there was some significant backlash
6:15
Speaker 1: to this, as you might expect. I mean, I don't
6:18
Speaker 1: think it's unreasonable for someone who was an ardent Catholic,
6:24
Speaker 1: for instance, to be offended by that. Not to mention,
6:29
Speaker 1: there's the entire issue, which is one of my pet peeves.
6:31
Speaker 1: When it comes to Donald Trump of him being a
6:35
Speaker 1: god king. It's really one of my biggest concerns about
6:39
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is that he's a god king. And I
6:43
Speaker 1: talked about this during the twenty twenty four campaign. It
6:46
Speaker 1: was one of my greatest reservations of several about you know,
6:50
Speaker 1: who to root for between Harris and Trump, which I
6:55
Speaker 1: basically described as between castration and lobotomy. Good options there,
7:02
Speaker 1: And my greatest concern was always, especially coming off surviving
7:06
Speaker 1: not one but two assassination attempts and being the political Lazarus,
7:10
Speaker 1: that Trump, if he won, was going to be considered
7:13
Speaker 1: a god king. Well, when you post a depiction of
7:18
Speaker 1: yourself as the next pope, and I do think it's
7:22
Speaker 1: important that the White House itself, not just him personally,
7:26
Speaker 1: but the White House itself in their official social media
7:31
Speaker 1: pages platforms posted the same photograph. That's inappropriate, that's wrong,
7:40
Speaker 1: that's troubling. That's making yourself into a religious figure.
7:44
Speaker 2: Now.
7:44
Speaker 1: Look, I made a movie called Media Malpractice that Obama
7:47
Speaker 1: got elected about a two thousand and eight election, where
7:51
Speaker 1: basically there was a scene in that movie where it's
7:54
Speaker 1: very clear that the media tried to make Obama into
7:58
Speaker 1: a religious figure. But that was the media doing it.
8:01
Speaker 1: I saw this online, people actually attacking me for hypocrisy
8:05
Speaker 1: on this issue. Now, Obama, while he certainly didn't you know,
8:10
Speaker 1: debunk it or downplay it, he didn't do it himself.
8:15
Speaker 1: There were other people that did it. The media was
8:18
Speaker 1: what facilitated that narrative. So that's different when you do
8:22
Speaker 1: it yourself and the White House is participating. That's a
8:26
Speaker 1: completely different set of circumstances. So I understand why some
8:31
Speaker 1: people were offended. I wasn't. As a former Catholic or
8:35
Speaker 1: recovering Catholic, I wasn't religiously offended. I just thought it
8:38
Speaker 1: was stupid and inappropriate, and to what gain. What's the
8:45
Speaker 1: pro and the khan the equation there? How are the
8:51
Speaker 1: pros better than the cons in doing that? It's undisciplined,
8:55
Speaker 1: it's stupid, it's silly, and it's beneath the office of
8:58
Speaker 1: the presidency. And by the way, even Bill O'Reilly, a huge,
9:02
Speaker 1: you know, alleged conservative and certainly a big Trump fan,
9:07
Speaker 1: castigated Trump for being as silly as he was in
9:12
Speaker 1: posting this. And then Trump got asked about it, which
9:15
Speaker 1: is one hundred percent a legitimate question, got asked about
9:19
Speaker 1: it at the press conference, and his basic response was,
9:24
Speaker 1: can't you take a joke? Which I can't stand that
9:27
Speaker 1: because this is you know, going back to the Rorschach test.
9:33
Speaker 1: This is really one of Trump's superpowers. We are with
9:37
Speaker 1: a certain segment of the population. He can only just say, oh,
9:41
Speaker 1: I was joking, or can't you take a joke? It's
9:43
Speaker 1: your fault, and people will buy that because they like
9:47
Speaker 1: comedian in chief. And look, my wife is one of
9:50
Speaker 1: these people. My wife loves that Donald Trump is funny.
9:54
Speaker 1: At times, I think Trump is hilarious. I didn't think
9:58
Speaker 1: it was all that funny in this particular case. Again,
10:00
Speaker 1: I have already outlined why I think it was stupid
10:02
Speaker 1: and silly and appropriate all that. But there's a large
10:07
Speaker 1: portion of his base that loves the entertainment aspect of this.
10:12
Speaker 1: Are you not entertained from gladiator element? You know, the
10:17
Speaker 1: people that want to burn it all to the ground
10:19
Speaker 1: and they want to laugh while it's happening. Those people
10:22
Speaker 1: not that My wife is necessarily not category, but she
10:25
Speaker 1: definitely likes that he's funny and will give him a
10:29
Speaker 1: lot of slack if he's actually being funny. You're even
10:33
Speaker 1: trying to be funny. So there's a lot of people
10:36
Speaker 1: in this category. But for Trump to claim, Oh, it's
10:40
Speaker 1: your fault for not getting the joke, or we're not
10:43
Speaker 1: appreciating the joke, and then, which I thought was maybe
10:46
Speaker 1: the most significant element of his response, to claim that
10:51
Speaker 1: you had nothing to do with it, which is really
10:55
Speaker 1: there's only two options there. Either you're lying, which I
11:00
Speaker 1: think is probably the case, or you're claiming that you
11:04
Speaker 1: have no control over either your or the White House
11:08
Speaker 1: social media feeds, which is very, very troubling if that's
11:13
Speaker 1: actually true. But here was Donald Trump's response when being
11:17
Speaker 1: asked very legitimately about having posed an AI generated photograph
11:22
Speaker 1: of him as the next Pope.
11:27
Speaker 3: We're not so happy about the image of you looking
11:30
Speaker 3: like the Pope.
11:31
Speaker 4: Oh I see.
11:32
Speaker 2: You mean they can't take a joke. You don't mean
11:34
Speaker 2: the Catholics, You mean the fake news media, not the.
11:37
Speaker 1: Catholics loved it. I had nothing to do with it.
11:41
Speaker 4: Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the
11:43
Speaker 4: Pope and they put it out on the internet. That's
11:45
Speaker 4: not me that did it.
11:46
Speaker 2: I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it
11:49
Speaker 2: was AI, but I know nothing about it. I just
11:52
Speaker 2: saw it last evening. Actually, my wife thought it was cute,
11:57
Speaker 2: She said, isn't that nice?
11:59
Speaker 4: My question about actually, I would not be able to
12:01
Speaker 4: be married.
12:02
Speaker 2: Though that would be a lot I'd have to. To
12:05
Speaker 2: the best of my knowledge, popes aren't big one getting married,
12:09
Speaker 2: are they not?
12:10
Speaker 1: That we know of?
12:10
Speaker 4: No?
12:11
Speaker 1: No, I think it's a fake news media that you know.
12:14
Speaker 4: They they're fakers.
12:15
Speaker 3: My question, though, sir, was about the fact that it
12:18
Speaker 3: was put out on the White House account, even though
12:20
Speaker 3: it was AI generated.
12:21
Speaker 4: It was a joke, it was a meme.
12:23
Speaker 2: Does it at all diminish the substance.
12:26
Speaker 5: Of the official White House account to have it go
12:28
Speaker 5: out on fake give.
12:31
Speaker 4: It was just somebody did it in fun. It's fine.
12:35
Speaker 4: I have to have a little fun, don't you now.
12:37
Speaker 1: I did not think that that response was appropriate or legitimate,
12:42
Speaker 1: or convincing or persuasive at all. And that last part
12:47
Speaker 1: about it not having anything to do with him, I
12:51
Speaker 1: just cannot believe that's the case. You mean to tell
12:54
Speaker 1: me that some unnamed person has the authority to create
12:59
Speaker 1: and post an AI generated picture of the President as
13:04
Speaker 1: the next pope in between funeral and conclave, and he
13:08
Speaker 1: has no knowledge of it. Doesn't approve of it, and
13:12
Speaker 1: that the White House platform does the same thing. There's
13:16
Speaker 1: somebody that has the ability to get it onto the
13:19
Speaker 1: White House social media feeds. That is way more troubling
13:23
Speaker 1: than the idea that Trump wanted to post an AI
13:27
Speaker 1: photograph of him as the next pope. But I'm just
13:31
Speaker 1: gonna I'm just gonna believe that Trump's lying there. I
13:35
Speaker 1: have to believe that Trump is lying there, which you know,
13:37
Speaker 1: under normal circumstances would be on the whole another can
13:41
Speaker 1: of worms that we can't even trust the President the
13:43
Speaker 1: United States when it comes to whether or not he
13:45
Speaker 1: has control of his social media feeds. But this is
13:48
Speaker 1: where we are. Things that used to be big deals
13:51
Speaker 1: are not even mentioned anymore. It's not even part of
13:54
Speaker 1: the equation. And it should be noted that by the
13:59
Speaker 1: time you actually hear this episode of the podcast, there's
14:02
Speaker 1: a decent chance, depending on when you listen to it,
14:05
Speaker 1: that we will have a new pope and it will
14:07
Speaker 1: not be It will not be Donald Trump. The papal
14:11
Speaker 1: conclave has officially begun. The wait for the white smoke
14:16
Speaker 1: has started, and there's a pretty decent chance that some
14:20
Speaker 1: cardinals are going to come out on a balcony and
14:23
Speaker 1: declare albemos popham, which is, we have a new hope.
14:28
Speaker 1: Well before certainly the next episode of the podcast, and
14:31
Speaker 1: maybe before you even hear this one, depending on how
14:34
Speaker 1: long it takes. Generally historically it takes one, two, three
14:37
Speaker 1: days somewhere in there, and there's no reason to believe
14:40
Speaker 1: that it'll take any longer in this particular situation. But
14:43
Speaker 1: it'll have to wait until the next episode of the
14:45
Speaker 1: podcast to have whatever analysis there may be that is
14:49
Speaker 1: warranted based upon that event, which will happen, like I said,
14:53
Speaker 1: probably in the next day or two. Now. There was
14:56
Speaker 1: another social media a much smaller social media dust up
14:59
Speaker 1: involving Trump, where on May the fourth, which has somehow
15:03
Speaker 1: become Star Wars Day because of May the fourth be
15:08
Speaker 1: with you Donald Trump, or somebody working for him, without
15:12
Speaker 1: any approval whatsoever, based upon the president's own comments, posted
15:16
Speaker 1: another AI generated photograph of Trump in as a Star
15:23
Speaker 1: Wars character, which, again I don't have a problem with
15:26
Speaker 1: this one. I mean, it's Star Wars. Although that's a
15:28
Speaker 1: religion to some people, it's you know, a pseudo holiday.
15:33
Speaker 1: It's harmless. I don't think it's offensive. I didn't think
15:35
Speaker 1: it was particularly funny, but it got a lot of
15:39
Speaker 1: commentary because the lightsaber that the AI generated Trump, who
15:44
Speaker 1: of course is in far far, far far far better
15:47
Speaker 1: shape in a galaxy far far far away than the
15:52
Speaker 1: actual Donald Trump is. The lightsaber that this AI generated
15:56
Speaker 1: version of Trump was using was a red lightsaber, which,
16:02
Speaker 1: if you know anything about Star Wars, indicates that you're
16:05
Speaker 1: a Sith, which is really basically you're a bad guy. Now.
16:08
Speaker 1: Who knows why the lightsaber was read. Maybe that's because
16:12
Speaker 1: of Red being associated with the Republican Party. Maybe it
16:16
Speaker 1: was just a mistake at oversight. Who knows, But Trump
16:20
Speaker 1: effectively posted an AI generated photograph of him as a
16:25
Speaker 1: Sith from Star Wars, which, again, under normal circumstances in
16:31
Speaker 1: a pre Trump world, would raise significant questions, but in
16:35
Speaker 1: this particular case, it's barely even worth mentioning. Now, more
16:41
Speaker 1: to the substance of elements of what has happened over
16:44
Speaker 1: the last several days regarding Donald Trump, there was another
16:48
Speaker 1: remarkable press event at the White House, this one involving
16:53
Speaker 1: the new Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, a guy
16:56
Speaker 1: who I am very convinced most people are very convinced
17:00
Speaker 1: was just elected almost entirely because of Donald Trump. I mean,
17:07
Speaker 1: I cannot emphasize this enough. I cannot repeat this enough,
17:10
Speaker 1: how absolutely insane this is that he has paid. Trump
17:13
Speaker 1: has paid no price in the so called conservative movement whatsoever.
17:18
Speaker 1: That he sabotaged the very very likely outcome of a
17:25
Speaker 1: conservative Pierre Poliverer as the next Prime Minister of Canada,
17:31
Speaker 1: and because of his fifty first state absurdity and his
17:37
Speaker 1: obsession with that, and because of the teraf War, he
17:42
Speaker 1: took that very very very if not certain likelihood and
17:47
Speaker 1: turned it around single handedly and got a very very
17:50
Speaker 1: liberal Mark Carney elected as the Prime Minister of Canada.
17:55
Speaker 1: So the Canadian Prime Minister comes to the White House,
18:00
Speaker 1: I have this joint event with the guy who, for
18:04
Speaker 1: all dens and purposes, got him elected again. I just
18:08
Speaker 1: I cannot believe that we live in a world where
18:11
Speaker 1: the conservative media has not even spoken a word that
18:14
Speaker 1: I have seen about how Trump did this and why
18:18
Speaker 1: this was a bad thing for him to do, and
18:21
Speaker 1: how he should be criticized for it. And Trump himself,
18:25
Speaker 1: that's the most amazing part of this whole thing. Because
18:26
Speaker 1: there's some Trump fans will say, well, no, it's not
18:28
Speaker 1: really about Trump. It had nothing to do with Trump. Bullshit.
18:32
Speaker 1: Trump himself has taken credit or blame for this on
18:36
Speaker 1: multiple occasions. So Trump himself knows that he did this.
18:42
Speaker 1: Now it's my theory, my theory that he understands that
18:46
Speaker 1: he did it and wants to take credit for it
18:48
Speaker 1: because he actually somewhere has a little bit of guilt
18:51
Speaker 1: about it, or maybe even a little bit of concern
18:53
Speaker 1: that somebody in the conservative media might criticize him over it.
18:57
Speaker 1: So he needs to turn Paul Avere into the bad
18:59
Speaker 1: guy and make it seem like Carne is the better
19:03
Speaker 1: option for the United States. But in this joint appearance
19:07
Speaker 1: in the White House, I thought Carney did himself a
19:12
Speaker 1: lot of good, at least in Canada. I mean, Mark
19:16
Speaker 1: Carney stood up or sitting down, literally but effectively stood
19:20
Speaker 1: up to Donald Trump and revealed him to be a
19:23
Speaker 1: paper tiger. He directly just within a foot and a
19:27
Speaker 1: half of him. You know, Carne was sitting right next
19:30
Speaker 1: to Trump. He went right at Trump on this entire
19:34
Speaker 1: issue with the fifty first state, talk about you know,
19:37
Speaker 1: the racehorse sovereignty, winning the Kentucky Derby. It's all about
19:42
Speaker 1: Canadian sovereignty, and Carnee told Trump, using Trump's own language,
19:49
Speaker 1: the language of real estate, that there are some things
19:52
Speaker 1: that are not for sale, and Canada is not for sale.
19:56
Speaker 3: And you know you're not.
19:57
Speaker 1: Going to be able to see the body language here,
20:00
Speaker 1: but you know, Trump to me, seemed like the beta
20:04
Speaker 1: in this situation. It felt very much like Mark Carney
20:07
Speaker 1: was the alpha, and that Trump was revealed as a
20:10
Speaker 1: paper tiger. Now he does meekly come back with never
20:13
Speaker 1: Say Never, But to me, this was a clear cut
20:17
Speaker 1: victory for Carney, just on the level of body language.
20:22
Speaker 1: Who was the alpha, who was the beta, and what
20:25
Speaker 1: the message was that people got. I'm sure this played
20:28
Speaker 1: very very well in Canada. And here is Mark Carney
20:32
Speaker 1: in the White House basically taking it to Donald Trump.
20:37
Speaker 4: Just to get along very well.
20:38
Speaker 6: They like each other a lot well, if I'm as
20:43
Speaker 6: you know from real estate, there are some places that
20:46
Speaker 6: are never for sale. We're sitting in one right now,
20:49
Speaker 6: you know, bucking and Palace, and you visited as well,
20:52
Speaker 6: and having met with the owners of Canada over the
20:56
Speaker 6: course of the campaign last several months, it's not for sale,
21:00
Speaker 6: will be for sale ever, but the opportunity is in
21:04
Speaker 6: the partnership and what we can build together, and we
21:07
Speaker 6: have done that in the past. And part of that,
21:09
Speaker 6: as the President just said, is with respect to our
21:12
Speaker 6: own security, and my government is committed for a step
21:17
Speaker 6: change in our investment in Canadian security and our partnership.
21:21
Speaker 1: And I'll say this.
21:22
Speaker 6: As well, that the President has revitalized international security, revitalized.
21:28
Speaker 1: NATAL and us playing our full weight in NATO, and
21:31
Speaker 1: that will be.
21:31
Speaker 4: Part they have.
21:36
Speaker 2: I must say, Canada is stepping up the military participation
21:41
Speaker 2: because Mark now you know they were low and now
21:45
Speaker 2: they're stepping it up. And that's a very important thing.
21:47
Speaker 2: But never say never, Never.
21:49
Speaker 4: Say never.
21:51
Speaker 1: To me. That is classic Donald Trump. I've always felt
21:54
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is a bully, that he is a
21:58
Speaker 1: bit of a fraud, that he is a paper tiger,
22:02
Speaker 1: and that if you go after a bully and you
22:05
Speaker 1: show strength, he's going to back down. And so all
22:10
Speaker 1: of this bluster, all this bluster about the fifty first
22:14
Speaker 1: state for Canada being, you know, the fifty first state
22:17
Speaker 1: in America, which was never going to happen, and if
22:19
Speaker 1: it did would be the end of the Republican Party,
22:23
Speaker 1: at least in modern times, because you'd be adding another
22:26
Speaker 1: California to the Electoral College, the House, the Senate would
22:31
Speaker 1: make that much difference, but it might make enough difference
22:33
Speaker 1: to shift power to the Democrats, as they've just proven
22:37
Speaker 1: in their last election, going liberal one more time. All
22:41
Speaker 1: of that, all that bluster, all that bullshit, resulted in
22:45
Speaker 1: nothing but Trump being effectively humiliated in the White House
22:52
Speaker 1: by the Prime Minister of Canada. And make no mistake,
22:55
Speaker 1: here's how you can always prove these situations and what
22:59
Speaker 1: I'm saying in thisarticular case to be true. Imagine, if
23:02
Speaker 1: you will, if Joe Biden or some Democrat had talked
23:07
Speaker 1: a big game on Canada just like Trump has, and
23:12
Speaker 1: then the Canadian Prime Minister came into the White House
23:16
Speaker 1: and dominated them like Carney dominated Trump in that clip.
23:21
Speaker 1: How would the right wing media and the Republican I'm
23:24
Speaker 1: I'm the say conservative, the Republican base react to that.
23:29
Speaker 1: They would be laughing. They would be absolutely condemning Biden
23:37
Speaker 1: or the Democrat for not having stood up for America,
23:42
Speaker 1: having been reduced to the beta to Carney's alpha. There
23:48
Speaker 1: would be dunking glore all over a Democratic president. But Trump,
23:54
Speaker 1: because he's a god king, because he survived assassination attempts,
23:58
Speaker 1: and because you know, he survived all these attempts to
24:01
Speaker 1: destroy him legally, and he won two presidential races against
24:05
Speaker 1: seemingly all odds, it's just presumed that he's the strong man,
24:11
Speaker 1: and that therefore there must be some strategy, some brilliant
24:14
Speaker 1: strategy for why he's playing the beta in this situation.
24:18
Speaker 1: He's being patient, he's lying in wait, he's got a plan.
24:24
Speaker 1: There's no plan. His bluff got called and it got
24:29
Speaker 1: exposed right there in the White House. So congratulations to
24:35
Speaker 1: Mark Carney who got elected thanks to Donald Trump. And
24:38
Speaker 1: then he comes into the White House and he turns
24:42
Speaker 1: Donald Trump into a beta with zero that I've seen
24:47
Speaker 1: zero criticism in the conservative media about any of this. Now,
24:52
Speaker 1: I've mentioned several times in this episode of the podcast
24:54
Speaker 1: that things have happened in this week that, under previously
24:58
Speaker 1: normal circumstances in the pre Trump world, maybe even in
25:02
Speaker 1: the first Trump administration, would have been talked about for
25:08
Speaker 1: weeks that would have caused massive news stories that would
25:15
Speaker 1: have lasted in the news cycle. You know, our attention
25:19
Speaker 1: spans have become dangerously short in all ways, but stories
25:24
Speaker 1: that would have lasted days, if not weeks previously routinely
25:27
Speaker 1: now lasts a couple of hours. And we saw a
25:31
Speaker 1: great example of that when it came to the interview
25:34
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump did on NBC's Meet the Press with
25:38
Speaker 1: Kristin Welker. Now, in bigger, more general terms, I find
25:42
Speaker 1: it amazing that Kristin Welker has basically become Donald Trump's
25:47
Speaker 1: go to person for mainstream news media interviews, especially since
25:52
Speaker 1: Trump has castigated and condemned NBC on many many times,
25:57
Speaker 1: even refused to answer a question on at least one
26:00
Speaker 1: occasion at the White House because one he didn't like
26:03
Speaker 1: the question, and two when he found out who the
26:06
Speaker 1: questioner was, said they were from NBC. Therefore they're discredited
26:09
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to answer the question. It's almost
26:11
Speaker 1: a direct quote. And yet Trump has proactively sought out
26:18
Speaker 1: Kristen Welker on multiple occasions to provide her with big
26:23
Speaker 1: news stories and significant responses to major topics. And in
26:28
Speaker 1: a wide ranging interview that Trump did with Kristen Welker
26:32
Speaker 1: that was aired on NBC's Meet the Press, Trump said
26:36
Speaker 1: a lot of things that in a previous world of
26:41
Speaker 1: normalcy would have been massive news stories that frankly, I
26:45
Speaker 1: don't think got nearly enough attention. It got a lot,
26:48
Speaker 1: but not as much as it would have or it
26:51
Speaker 1: should have if we were still a serious country.
26:54
Speaker 4: Now.
26:55
Speaker 1: I want to start with the good first, Okay, because
26:57
Speaker 1: as always I'm trying to be as fair as pop
27:00
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump, and in line with my concerns about
27:04
Speaker 1: Trump becoming a god king, I have been very, very
27:09
Speaker 1: disappointed and frankly pissed off about the way Trump has
27:13
Speaker 1: handled this whole issue, this bullshit issue of running for
27:17
Speaker 1: a third term in twenty twenty eight. And I have
27:21
Speaker 1: been very very critical of Trump for this because there
27:23
Speaker 1: is absolutely positively no chance that it is constitutionally viable
27:31
Speaker 1: or politically viable. And there's been new polling data out
27:36
Speaker 1: on this that is absolutely horrific that barely even a
27:42
Speaker 1: half of Republicans want Trump to run for a third
27:48
Speaker 1: term in twenty twenty eight, but independence over eighty percent
27:54
Speaker 1: are against the idea, and in the general population, I
27:58
Speaker 1: think seventy percent of the popular relation is against the
28:02
Speaker 1: idea of even just the idea of Trump running for
28:05
Speaker 1: a third term in twenty twenty eight. So it is
28:08
Speaker 1: a massive political loser. It is constitutionally barred and it
28:14
Speaker 1: is politically catastrophic and it causes all sorts of problems,
28:20
Speaker 1: for for instance, JD. Vance and his efforts to try
28:23
Speaker 1: to win a twenty twenty eight election. So I was
28:29
Speaker 1: pleased when Trump gave, well, not a perfect answer. Those
28:34
Speaker 1: our expectations are out the window a long time ago.
28:38
Speaker 1: I don't ever expect Trump to give a perfect answer,
28:40
Speaker 1: especially on a topic like this that involves his ego.
28:44
Speaker 1: But he gave a far better answer when asked about
28:48
Speaker 1: this topic, where he went as close as he ever
28:51
Speaker 1: has to closing off twenty twenty eight. Now, to be clear,
28:55
Speaker 1: it's not going to work because his ardent fans are
28:59
Speaker 1: still going to say, well, he didn't one hundred percent
29:02
Speaker 1: say he's not running or can't run, never say never,
29:06
Speaker 1: as Trump said to the Prime Minister of Canada in
29:10
Speaker 1: the White House. So it's not going to end the issue.
29:14
Speaker 1: But at least it was a very significant step in
29:17
Speaker 1: the right direction. And as you listen to this, its
29:20
Speaker 1: clips a little long. But part of why I want
29:23
Speaker 1: to play the whole thing is that there's a lot
29:24
Speaker 1: of context here, as well as the fact that Trump
29:29
Speaker 1: specifically mentions JD. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio,
29:35
Speaker 1: which I found to be fascinating that Trump would name
29:37
Speaker 1: anybody but specifically name his vice president, which I think
29:41
Speaker 1: got the more prominent mention over Marco Rubio. But I
29:45
Speaker 1: think what Trump was probably doing here was mentioning JD.
29:49
Speaker 1: Vance prominently without it being perceived as the endorsement, because
29:55
Speaker 1: if you name somebody else, and that clearly is not
29:58
Speaker 1: an endorsement. So, whether by design or by accident, I
30:02
Speaker 1: think this had the proper effect of making it clear
30:07
Speaker 1: that JD. Vance is first in the pecking order, but
30:10
Speaker 1: that he's not officially endorsing yet, but he is coming
30:14
Speaker 1: as close as he ever has to closing off the
30:17
Speaker 1: entire option of running for a third term. And here's
30:20
Speaker 1: what it sounded like on NBC's Meet the Press.
30:23
Speaker 5: The Trump organization is selling hats that say Trump twenty
30:27
Speaker 5: twenty eight.
30:28
Speaker 4: Yeah.
30:29
Speaker 5: Are you seriously considering a third term, mister president, even
30:33
Speaker 5: though it's prohibited by the constitution? Or is this about
30:36
Speaker 5: staying politically viable?
30:37
Speaker 4: I will say this, so many people want me to
30:40
Speaker 4: do it.
30:41
Speaker 2: I have never had requests so strong as that, But
30:45
Speaker 2: it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're
30:47
Speaker 2: not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional,
30:50
Speaker 2: that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else.
30:53
Speaker 2: But there are many people selling the twenty twenty eight hat.
30:57
Speaker 4: But this is not something I'm looking to do.
30:59
Speaker 2: I'm looking to have four great years and turn it
31:03
Speaker 2: over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican
31:08
Speaker 2: to carry it forward. But I think we're going to
31:10
Speaker 2: have four years, and I think four years is plenty
31:12
Speaker 2: of time to do something really spectacular.
31:14
Speaker 5: The constitution does prohibit it. Have you Some of your
31:17
Speaker 5: allies are pretty serious about this, though, mister President. I've
31:20
Speaker 5: spoken to them. They say they are coming up with
31:23
Speaker 5: potential ways. Obviously the biggest one will be a constitutional amendment.
31:27
Speaker 4: That's because they like the job I'm doing and it's
31:29
Speaker 4: a compliment.
31:30
Speaker 5: Has anyone in an official capacity presented you with, sir,
31:34
Speaker 5: here are some ideas by which you could actually get
31:38
Speaker 5: a constitution.
31:39
Speaker 2: Then capacity of being a big supporter of Many people
31:42
Speaker 2: have said different things, but I'm not looking at that.
31:45
Speaker 5: You have built a political movement that has transformed the
31:49
Speaker 5: Republican Party. It's transformed the country.
31:53
Speaker 2: Quite frankly political movement in history. Mega, when you make
31:57
Speaker 2: America great again, when.
31:58
Speaker 1: You look to the future.
32:00
Speaker 5: Mister president, do you think the MAGA movement can survive
32:03
Speaker 5: without you as its leader?
32:05
Speaker 4: Yes, I do, well gives you.
32:07
Speaker 2: I think it's so strong, and I think we have
32:08
Speaker 2: tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people.
32:13
Speaker 2: We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco,
32:16
Speaker 2: you look at JD. Vans, who's fantastic. You look at
32:19
Speaker 2: I could name ten, fifteen, twenty people right now, just
32:22
Speaker 2: sitting here. No, I think we have a tremendous party.
32:24
Speaker 2: And you know what I can't name. I can't name
32:26
Speaker 2: one Democrat. I mean, I look at the Democrats. They're
32:29
Speaker 2: in total dis array. They have a new person named Crockett.
32:33
Speaker 2: I watched her speak the other day. She's definitely a
32:36
Speaker 2: low IQ person, and they said she's the future of
32:40
Speaker 2: the party.
32:41
Speaker 4: I said, you have to be kidding. I don't know
32:43
Speaker 4: what they're going to do.
32:45
Speaker 2: And I really believe in the two party system because
32:48
Speaker 2: it's good to be challenged. It's really good to have
32:50
Speaker 2: a two party you know, it's good being challenge is okay,
32:53
Speaker 2: it keeps you shorp.
32:55
Speaker 4: I don't know what they're going to do.
32:56
Speaker 2: They have nobody Bernie's eighty seven years old or something,
33:00
Speaker 2: and you know, Biden is the worst thing that ever
33:03
Speaker 2: happened to old people because he was grossly incompetent. And
33:07
Speaker 2: I think maybe for artificial reasons, you know, at Operation something,
33:11
Speaker 2: so maybe that's an artificial But I know people that
33:14
Speaker 2: are unbelievably sharp and they're older than eighty seven. But
33:19
Speaker 2: I watch Bernie Sanders. He's a nutjob, but he's still sharp.
33:22
Speaker 4: He's sharp. He's the same guy he was.
33:25
Speaker 2: He hasn't gone down, but Biden is really he's the
33:29
Speaker 2: worst thing to happen to old people.
33:31
Speaker 5: I know that you are only one hundred days in,
33:34
Speaker 5: but as we sit here today, who do you see
33:36
Speaker 5: as your success from mister Prattle.
33:38
Speaker 2: Well, it's far too early to say that, but you know,
33:41
Speaker 2: I do have a vice president and typically be and
33:43
Speaker 2: JD's doing a fantastic job.
33:45
Speaker 4: He would be at the top of the lit It
33:47
Speaker 4: could very well be.
33:49
Speaker 2: I don't want to get involved in that. I think
33:51
Speaker 2: he's a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. There's a
33:55
Speaker 2: lot of them that are great. I also see tremendous unity,
34:00
Speaker 2: but certainly you would say that somebody's the VP if
34:03
Speaker 2: that person is outstanding, I guess that person would have
34:06
Speaker 2: an advantage, but I think the other people would all
34:08
Speaker 2: stay in unbelievably high positions. But you know, it could
34:13
Speaker 2: be that he'd be challenged by somebody. We have a
34:15
Speaker 2: lot of good people in this party.
34:17
Speaker 1: Now, that answer was pretty darn good by Trump's standards.
34:22
Speaker 1: I would give it a B minus. A B maybe
34:26
Speaker 1: only because he doesn't completely close off the option. He
34:30
Speaker 1: of course has to play kate his own ego by
34:33
Speaker 1: claiming that, you know, everyone wants him to run and
34:36
Speaker 1: that this is an indication of how awesome he's doing.
34:40
Speaker 1: So again, it's very difficult to grade Trump in these
34:44
Speaker 1: kinds of situations, but I was pleased. I'm a tough grader,
34:47
Speaker 1: by the way, when I give it, I'm an old
34:49
Speaker 1: school grader. So when I see P minus that's pretty decent.
34:52
Speaker 1: I realize that today's world, that's horrible. It's basically failing.
34:55
Speaker 1: But the bottom line is I was pleased with that answer.
34:59
Speaker 1: With reduced expectations about the nature of Donald Trump, I
35:03
Speaker 1: thought that was good and the fact that he mentioned
35:06
Speaker 1: jd Vance more prominently, and if he was going to
35:10
Speaker 1: name a second person, I'm filing Mark or Rubio. Mark
35:13
Speaker 1: Rubio was my choice in the twenty sixteen Republican primary,
35:17
Speaker 1: which obviously went to Donald Trump, So I was good
35:21
Speaker 1: about that. I felt very solid about the way Trump
35:24
Speaker 1: responded to that particular question. I thought that was productive.
35:30
Speaker 1: There were other questions, however, where Trump's response was not
35:34
Speaker 1: as helpful. One of those that was not helpful I
35:38
Speaker 1: don't think was particularly fair to Trump, not the question.
35:42
Speaker 1: The question was fine, although the question was clearly intended
35:47
Speaker 1: by Kristen Welker. She's not a dumb person. It was
35:50
Speaker 1: clearly intended as a trap for Trump, and Trump unfortunately
35:55
Speaker 1: walked right into it. And it's the issue of whether
35:59
Speaker 1: or not Trump believes it's his job to uphold the Constitution. Now,
36:05
Speaker 1: it's not a coincidence that Welker used the phrase upheld
36:09
Speaker 1: uphold the Constitution, because that's effectively part of the oath
36:14
Speaker 1: that the president takes when they are inaugurated. So if
36:19
Speaker 1: Trump says it's not his job to uphold the Constitution
36:23
Speaker 1: or doesn't say yes to that, now you have a
36:26
Speaker 1: gotcha news story. But in my very strong opinion, that's
36:32
Speaker 1: not what Trump meant. Trump should have been smart enough
36:35
Speaker 1: to not respond to that question in this way. But
36:39
Speaker 1: to me, it's very clear that what Trump is saying
36:41
Speaker 1: when he says he's not sure if it's his job
36:44
Speaker 1: to uphold the Constitution is that he's not sure whether
36:49
Speaker 1: or not Welker's interpretation of what's going on with reguard
36:55
Speaker 1: to the issue of deportations is in fact there a
37:01
Speaker 1: constitutional issue that requires him to do what the courts
37:05
Speaker 1: are currently indicating. So, in other words, I interpret what
37:09
Speaker 1: Trump is saying here as my lawyers are uncertain as
37:14
Speaker 1: to whether or not I have a constitutional obligation to
37:17
Speaker 1: go along with this, and whether or not I'm right
37:21
Speaker 1: or wrong, which I think is a legitimate answer. I mean,
37:24
Speaker 1: you can be uncertain as to whether or not a
37:28
Speaker 1: particular stance on an issue is constitutional or not. You
37:32
Speaker 1: should not be uncertain, however, about whether your job is
37:36
Speaker 1: to uphold the Constitution. So the proper response you're about
37:40
Speaker 1: to hear should have been, yes, I uphold the Constitution,
37:44
Speaker 1: but I need to figure out whether or not this
37:47
Speaker 1: is constitutional or not, and I don't know that yet.
37:50
Speaker 1: But that's not what Trump said, and the media completely
37:53
Speaker 1: blew it out of proportion. But here's what that sounded
37:56
Speaker 1: like on NBC's Meet the.
37:57
Speaker 5: Press, your Secretary of State says, everyone who's here, citizens
38:01
Speaker 5: and non citizens, deserved to process. Do you agree, mister.
38:04
Speaker 4: I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.
38:08
Speaker 5: Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United
38:10
Speaker 5: States as present?
38:10
Speaker 4: I don't know. I have to respond by saying.
38:14
Speaker 2: Again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and
38:18
Speaker 2: they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court shaid.
38:22
Speaker 1: So, of course, the news media latched onto the idea
38:26
Speaker 1: that Trump said he was uncertain. I'm not sure doesn't
38:30
Speaker 1: know whether or not he should uphold the Constitution, whether
38:33
Speaker 1: that's part of his job. That was, in my view,
38:36
Speaker 1: very much out of context, and that was a gotcha
38:40
Speaker 1: Trump walked into it, But it was very much overblown.
38:43
Speaker 1: And while I am concerned just to whether or not
38:46
Speaker 1: Trump really does believe that his job is to uphold
38:50
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and whether or not he is acting at
38:54
Speaker 1: times as an authoritarian, and whether or not he has
38:58
Speaker 1: enough respect for the Juiciary, all those things are still
39:01
Speaker 1: concerns of mine. I don't think that particular response was
39:05
Speaker 1: nearly as troubling as the news media pretended that it
39:08
Speaker 1: was now. There were a couple of other responses that
39:12
Speaker 1: Trump gave that I want to play for you here.
39:16
Speaker 1: One deals with the big picture nature of the economy,
39:21
Speaker 1: and this might be the most in some ways the
39:24
Speaker 1: most trumpy answer that I can ever remember, and in
39:28
Speaker 1: a rational world, in a pre Trump world, this alone
39:32
Speaker 1: would be talked about for a long time, because this
39:36
Speaker 1: is pretty freaking hilarious, especially since Trump is dead serious
39:41
Speaker 1: about it, because he's talking about the economy in the
39:44
Speaker 1: big picture. And the reason why I think this is
39:47
Speaker 1: about as trumpy as it gets is that Trump is
39:50
Speaker 1: trying to claim that the good parts of the economy
39:54
Speaker 1: they're already his, but the bad parts of the economy,
39:58
Speaker 1: whatever those are, and he doesn't and really, you know,
40:01
Speaker 1: give any specifics as to what the good is, what
40:04
Speaker 1: the bad is, and why he should get credit for
40:06
Speaker 1: the good and not get any blame for the bad.
40:09
Speaker 1: The bad parts they all are the fault of Joe Biden,
40:13
Speaker 1: which of course is incredibly convenient and pretty much the
40:16
Speaker 1: way that it's Trump MAGA supporters look at things. If
40:20
Speaker 1: it's good, it's Trump, If it's bad, it's Biden. In
40:23
Speaker 1: my view, as I've said many times before, at least
40:26
Speaker 1: in perception. Trump is going to own this economy way
40:30
Speaker 1: faster than any other president has maybe in US history,
40:35
Speaker 1: because he has come in like a wrecking ball and
40:39
Speaker 1: so radically, at least in perception, changed everything. And so
40:43
Speaker 1: therefore when you change everything, you own the results of
40:50
Speaker 1: that far sooner than you would normally if you don't
40:53
Speaker 1: change very much, I think people give you much more latitude,
40:57
Speaker 1: a much longer period of time, a longer honeymoon period,
41:00
Speaker 1: And so I think the question is very, very legitimate,
41:03
Speaker 1: when do you own the economy? But Trump's response is
41:07
Speaker 1: remarkably Trumpian and incredibly convenient.
41:10
Speaker 5: I'm the Trump economy.
41:13
Speaker 2: It partially is right now, and I really mean this.
41:16
Speaker 2: I think the good parts of the Trump economy and
41:18
Speaker 2: the bad parts of the Biden economy because he's done.
41:21
Speaker 4: A terrible job. He did a terrible job, and everything.
41:24
Speaker 1: Now when it comes to the specifics of what is
41:28
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's economy and what he should get the credit for,
41:32
Speaker 1: of course, never getting in of the blame for the
41:34
Speaker 1: bad stuff. There is one element where Trump has opened
41:38
Speaker 1: the door to criticism, specifically of his tariff policy, and
41:45
Speaker 1: that is that in some isolated circumstances. He has acknowledged
41:49
Speaker 1: that Americans very very soon may very likely be paying
41:54
Speaker 1: more for certain products than they did previously, and specifically,
42:01
Speaker 1: and somewhat bizarrely, the issue of the price of Barbie's
42:06
Speaker 1: has come up on multiple occasions now. The price of
42:09
Speaker 1: Barbie's is something that's been a very big issue in
42:13
Speaker 1: our family for the last twelve years or so, although
42:16
Speaker 1: it no longer really is, since my older daughter Grace
42:20
Speaker 1: is about turn thirteen and really just looks as at
42:24
Speaker 1: Barbie's as collectibles, and my younger daughter, Diana was never
42:27
Speaker 1: really all that into Barbie's, so we're basically in our
42:30
Speaker 1: post Barbie era. But for some reason, Barbie's being made
42:35
Speaker 1: in China, like a lot of other toys and being
42:38
Speaker 1: subject to enormous tariff that has become a major news story.
42:44
Speaker 1: I have to give credit to The New York Post,
42:47
Speaker 1: a conservative newspaper owned by News Corp. They had a
42:52
Speaker 1: front page headline with the photo of a Barbie that
42:56
Speaker 1: was really a classic that referenced one comment that Trump
43:00
Speaker 1: had made prior to the Christian Welker interview, where he
43:03
Speaker 1: said that people should cut back on the number of
43:07
Speaker 1: Barbies that they buy they don't need so many barbies,
43:10
Speaker 1: and the New York Post headline was skimp on the barbie.
43:16
Speaker 1: I thought that was fantastic, even by New York Post standards,
43:20
Speaker 1: skimp on the barbie. Well, with that as the backdrop,
43:24
Speaker 1: Kristen Welker asked Trump about this issue, and Trump continued
43:29
Speaker 1: to go down this path which I don't understand how
43:33
Speaker 1: this is helpful at all. And again, I want you
43:36
Speaker 1: to imagine if a democratic president said, well, look, yeah,
43:41
Speaker 1: the prices for this particular popular toy are going to
43:44
Speaker 1: go up, so let's just cut back on the number
43:46
Speaker 1: of barbies. You don't need so many barbies. This would
43:50
Speaker 1: be portrayed in a very negative, almost a socialistic light,
43:55
Speaker 1: where the government is dictating to you how many barbies
43:59
Speaker 1: you should be buying, and of course sidestepping the issue
44:03
Speaker 1: of you are the reason why these toys are going
44:07
Speaker 1: to cost more than they did previously. But here is
44:11
Speaker 1: Trump continuing to think that this is not a losing
44:15
Speaker 1: argument or a losing issue for him, in pushing this
44:18
Speaker 1: idea that we just don't need to buy so many barbies.
44:22
Speaker 5: Said this week got a lot of attention. You are
44:25
Speaker 5: at your cabinet meeting, you said, quote, going to quote
44:27
Speaker 5: what you said, Maybe the children will have two dolls
44:30
Speaker 5: instead of thirty dollars. Yeah, and maybe the two dolls
44:33
Speaker 5: will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.
44:36
Speaker 5: Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices
44:39
Speaker 5: to go up?
44:40
Speaker 2: No, I think a tariffs is going to be great
44:42
Speaker 2: for us because it's going to make us rich.
44:44
Speaker 5: But you said some dolls are going to cost more.
44:45
Speaker 5: Isn't that an acknowledgement that some prices to go up.
44:48
Speaker 2: I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs at eleven
44:52
Speaker 2: years old, needs to have thirty dollars. I think they
44:56
Speaker 2: can have three dollars or four dolls. Because what we
45:00
Speaker 2: were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a
45:02
Speaker 2: trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China.
45:06
Speaker 5: When you say they could have three dollars instead of
45:09
Speaker 5: thirty dollars, are you saying you Americans could see empty
45:13
Speaker 5: store shelves.
45:14
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they
45:16
Speaker 2: don't need to have thirty dollars. They can have three.
45:18
Speaker 2: They don't need to have two hundred and fifty pencils.
45:20
Speaker 2: They can have five.
45:22
Speaker 1: I am confused as to the politics of this idea.
45:28
Speaker 1: I mean, you know that I get what Trump is saying.
45:32
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, okay, in the short run, let's cut
45:35
Speaker 1: back on things that we now have to pay more
45:39
Speaker 1: for because of this tariff. He doesn't really make the
45:42
Speaker 1: argument of Okay, what's going to be the pot of
45:45
Speaker 1: gold at the end of the rainbow? What are we
45:47
Speaker 1: going to get out of this for paying an increase
45:51
Speaker 1: in price? But I do think that making it so specific,
45:57
Speaker 1: not that the price of barbiees is going to dictate election,
46:00
Speaker 1: but it's something that people can relate to. And uh,
46:04
Speaker 1: and it's a sound bite people remember. And obviously you
46:08
Speaker 1: know where I mean. We haven't gotten to Christmas yet.
46:11
Speaker 1: But if this thing happens and doesn't go away, you
46:15
Speaker 1: know till Christmas time or near Christmas time, because it's
46:18
Speaker 1: gonna take a long time for all this to work
46:20
Speaker 1: through the system, there's gonna be a lot of pissed
46:22
Speaker 1: off people and who they're gonna blame. They're gonna blame
46:26
Speaker 1: Trump and him using this kind of language and on
46:30
Speaker 1: a continual basis not backing away from this issue of
46:34
Speaker 1: of don't buy so many barbies. I think there's gonna
46:38
Speaker 1: be a theoretical political price to pay for that. I
46:40
Speaker 1: don't know what the benefit of that argument is. I
46:43
Speaker 1: really don't, But I'm more concerned about the bigger picture
46:48
Speaker 1: of Trump's understanding or lack thereof, of the nature of tariffs.
46:55
Speaker 1: And I keep saying this might be the theme of
46:57
Speaker 1: this episode of the podcast, of things that should be
47:01
Speaker 1: a very big deal no longer are, and things that
47:04
Speaker 1: should dominate the new cycle for days last for only minutes.
47:09
Speaker 1: And there were so many things from this Kristen Welker interview.
47:12
Speaker 1: I can understand why some of it got lost, and
47:16
Speaker 1: this is not necessarily new information, but the way that
47:19
Speaker 1: Trump phrased it here hit me particularly hard because when
47:25
Speaker 1: I'm hearing Trump give his justification for terariffs, specifically on China,
47:32
Speaker 1: and indicates to me that he really has no even
47:35
Speaker 1: basic understanding of the nature of tariffs or the economy,
47:41
Speaker 1: and he keeps insisting on this fantasy world that does
47:46
Speaker 1: not exist regarding who pays the tariffs and what the
47:50
Speaker 1: justification for the tariffs should be from the beginning, and
47:54
Speaker 1: here was Trump one more time laying out his quote
47:58
Speaker 1: unquote argument with Kristen Welker on NBC.
48:02
Speaker 5: I guess you're talking about this transition cost. How long
48:05
Speaker 5: should people expect that transition to last?
48:08
Speaker 2: Mister President, I can't tell you that. I can tell
48:10
Speaker 2: you that we're making a lot of money. We're doing
48:13
Speaker 2: great again. We're losing more than five billion dollars a day.
48:20
Speaker 2: Five billion dollars a day. You don't talk about that,
48:23
Speaker 2: and right now we're going to be at a point
48:26
Speaker 2: very soon where we're making money every day. Look how
48:30
Speaker 2: soon we were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China.
48:35
Speaker 2: Now we're essentially not doing business with China. Therefore we're
48:39
Speaker 2: saving hundreds of billions of dollars.
48:41
Speaker 4: Very simple.
48:42
Speaker 1: I honestly don't understand what Trump is talking about there.
48:46
Speaker 1: And you know, this is back to the Rorshack test.
48:49
Speaker 1: If you believe that Trump is some sort of a
48:51
Speaker 1: genius who has a plan, who always wins, and he
48:55
Speaker 1: knows business and the art of the deal, you know,
48:59
Speaker 1: you some trust in him, then he must know what
49:02
Speaker 1: he's doing, and so therefore, even if he says something
49:05
Speaker 1: that doesn't make any sense, you go with it. Well,
49:10
Speaker 1: I'm clearly not in that category. I don't have any trust.
49:13
Speaker 1: I look at Trump more as the old man behind
49:16
Speaker 1: the curtain and the Wizard of Oz, and not the
49:18
Speaker 1: Wizard of Oz as Trump fans perceive him to be.
49:23
Speaker 1: And so when he says something that makes absolutely no sense,
49:27
Speaker 1: my response is, my god, he's making up as he
49:31
Speaker 1: goes along, to quote Muddy Python. He has no idea
49:35
Speaker 1: what he's really doing. And that's very troubling because this
49:39
Speaker 1: one man who has no one close to him to
49:43
Speaker 1: tell him, mister President, that's not the way things work,
49:46
Speaker 1: mister President, that doesn't make any sense. Mister President, We're
49:50
Speaker 1: not gonna win this thing to certainly not decisively. No
49:54
Speaker 1: one has the balls or the authority to tell him no.
49:59
Speaker 1: And because he has this misperception that no one is correcting,
50:05
Speaker 1: and he has this obsession about the idea that tariffs
50:08
Speaker 1: are going to work and make America great again, we're
50:11
Speaker 1: in a situation where one man has turned the American
50:15
Speaker 1: economy and in large part the world economy into potential chaos.
50:21
Speaker 1: And my great concern here is I don't know the
50:24
Speaker 1: path out of this. Now there's some indication Scott Bessn't,
50:29
Speaker 1: the Treasure Secretary, is indicated he's going to be meeting
50:32
Speaker 1: with some Chinese authorities in Switzerland to negotiate it. To me,
50:39
Speaker 1: the way I read the tea leaves there, that felt
50:41
Speaker 1: like a desperate attempt by Bestn't to just claim he's
50:44
Speaker 1: meeting with somebody way down the food chain, just to
50:48
Speaker 1: make it look like, Okay, we're engaged in negotiations with China.
50:52
Speaker 1: There's still been no massively great trade deals with these
50:56
Speaker 1: other countries that were supposed to happen. And I just
51:00
Speaker 1: think that in the short run, China has more cards
51:03
Speaker 1: than we do because they have a much greater threshold
51:07
Speaker 1: for short term pain than we do. And this is
51:10
Speaker 1: going to cause very significant pain in the not too
51:13
Speaker 1: distant in the future. And I don't know what the
51:16
Speaker 1: path out of this is now. You know, I've always
51:19
Speaker 1: held my or put my hopes on the idea that
51:23
Speaker 1: Trump has the ability and the willingness to cut any
51:27
Speaker 1: sort of a deal and declare victory even if it's
51:29
Speaker 1: a terrible deal, and his fans will cheer. That is
51:32
Speaker 1: really my only hope here that you know, Trump will
51:36
Speaker 1: be convinced because people around him like Bessett will tell them.
51:39
Speaker 7: Sir wa boy, this is such a great deal. You're
51:41
Speaker 7: such a great negotiated. Wow, boy, your strength will be
51:44
Speaker 7: remembered for our generations to come. Sir, you have made
51:48
Speaker 7: America great again. This is this is a much better
51:51
Speaker 7: deal than we had before. And Trump will believe.
51:54
Speaker 1: That and sign some sort of a deal to clare
51:57
Speaker 1: victory and move the fuck on, and we will lick
52:00
Speaker 1: our wounds and hopefully the long term damage won't be
52:04
Speaker 1: that great or we can be able to recover from it,
52:07
Speaker 1: and hopefully by the midterm elections this will be mostly forgotten.
52:11
Speaker 1: That's the best case scenario. And all this, none of
52:14
Speaker 1: this is necessary. And look, I'm all for making trade
52:18
Speaker 1: deals that are more consistent with the US's self interest
52:22
Speaker 1: than we previously had. But I don't think that the
52:26
Speaker 1: way that Trump has done this, I don't think that
52:28
Speaker 1: as a strategy or a tactic it's going to be effective.
52:31
Speaker 1: I don't think he's a particularly good negotiator. I don't
52:34
Speaker 1: think he has nearly as much leverage as he thinks
52:37
Speaker 1: that he does. And so all this is very, very troubling.
52:41
Speaker 1: Now when it comes to Trump and money, one of
52:43
Speaker 1: the things that I probably not talked enough about, although
52:46
Speaker 1: I have referenced it far more than any other conservative
52:50
Speaker 1: in any sort of media that I'm aware of is
52:53
Speaker 1: the issue of Trump's conflicts of interest and his own
52:56
Speaker 1: potential corruption when it comes to his person there's no finances.
53:01
Speaker 1: I've discussed this many times when it comes to live
53:04
Speaker 1: golf and the fact that he's being paid under the table,
53:08
Speaker 1: effectively with no transparency by the Royal family of Saudi
53:11
Speaker 1: Arabia the host live golf events and to promote live
53:15
Speaker 1: golf events, which is obviously directly against the self interest
53:19
Speaker 1: of an American charity called the PGA tor But there's
53:23
Speaker 1: another area that has also very much concerned me. And
53:27
Speaker 1: it's not just because it's the issue of personal finances
53:30
Speaker 1: and potential corruption, but it also goes to the issue
53:34
Speaker 1: of Trump's value system when it comes to our money. Now,
53:38
Speaker 1: obviously he is wrapped up in the dollar like every
53:41
Speaker 1: rich person in American America is, although almost all of
53:45
Speaker 1: his holdings personally are in real estate and apparently now
53:51
Speaker 1: in cryptocurrency. Now, I am not a fan of cryptocurrencies
53:56
Speaker 1: at all. They sound like a scam to me. They
54:00
Speaker 1: sound like a vehicle for money laundering. I don't trust
54:05
Speaker 1: their value. I don't think that the people that are
54:10
Speaker 1: engaged deeply in Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies are particularly trustworthy. I'm
54:17
Speaker 1: concerned about what this does to the dollar in the
54:21
Speaker 1: long run. So there's all sorts of elements to cryptocurrencies
54:25
Speaker 1: that I think are troubling. But I think it has
54:27
Speaker 1: been an extremely underrated story that Trump and the Trump
54:32
Speaker 1: family have gotten deeply, deeply involved in cryptocurrencies and apparently
54:37
Speaker 1: have been making a ridiculous amount of money. We talked
54:40
Speaker 1: about this just before the inauguration, with these mean coins
54:44
Speaker 1: that Trump and his family were involved with. But CNN's
54:50
Speaker 1: Harry Enton, who's really pretty good. He gets a little
54:52
Speaker 1: frantic at times. He does most of the polling coverage
54:56
Speaker 1: for CNN. He did an interesting segment about this issue
55:01
Speaker 1: of cryptocurrencies and Trump and the Trump family finances being dramatically,
55:08
Speaker 1: dramatically influenced by their involvement in cryptocurrencies in a way
55:13
Speaker 1: that if a democratic president did it, I can guarant
55:17
Speaker 1: d amt you, the Republican right wing media would be
55:20
Speaker 1: going absolutely ballistic right now, and instead there's nothing but crickets.
55:26
Speaker 1: But here's what that sounded like on CNN.
55:29
Speaker 8: I mean, this is one of the most insane stats
55:31
Speaker 8: that I have seen, and I brought you a lot
55:33
Speaker 8: of interesting nuggets. But the Trump family overall, how much
55:36
Speaker 8: have they made on crypto, at least on paper? Get
55:39
Speaker 8: this number, it is about one billion dollars. One billion dollars.
55:46
Speaker 1: Because it's just.
55:48
Speaker 8: Donald who's involved in crypto, it's Eric who's involved in crypto,
55:52
Speaker 8: and it's Milania who's involved in crypto. That is an
55:55
Speaker 8: insane amount of money. I just only could wish I
55:57
Speaker 8: would one day touch that much?
55:58
Speaker 4: Can I mean?
55:59
Speaker 9: That is and it is, as you've been looking at
56:02
Speaker 9: it just part of a larger picture of Trump's wealth,
56:06
Speaker 9: his wealth personally taking off.
56:10
Speaker 8: It is skyrocketed, eron skyrocketed. Look at what Forbes has found,
56:14
Speaker 8: what they have found that over the last year. You
56:15
Speaker 8: go back to last year, Look, Trump was worth a
56:17
Speaker 8: lot of money, but it's two point three billion dollars.
56:19
Speaker 8: Look at how much he's worth now. It's more than doubled,
56:23
Speaker 8: more than doubled.
56:24
Speaker 1: He is now up.
56:25
Speaker 8: His net worth is now five billion dollars. Part of
56:28
Speaker 8: that is crypto, but part of that is also, of
56:29
Speaker 8: course true social part of the larger media conglomerate going public.
56:33
Speaker 8: But you put her all together, and Trump's wealth is
56:35
Speaker 8: through the roof of the.
56:36
Speaker 9: Last year, very different than most Americans. Yes, four one
56:39
Speaker 9: k's right now, all right.
56:41
Speaker 4: So she's told me a lot. I don't know.
56:42
Speaker 9: Maybe you don't need to tell me anything else, but.
56:44
Speaker 8: I'll walk off the set one more thing.
56:46
Speaker 1: I don't know.
56:47
Speaker 8: I'll tell you something you don't know. And you know,
56:48
Speaker 8: we're talking crypto here. And in my opinion, crypto voters,
56:51
Speaker 8: those who own crypto may have made the difference in
56:54
Speaker 8: the twenty twenty four election. Whyow, because take a look here.
56:58
Speaker 8: How much more did crypto voters so port Donald Trump
57:01
Speaker 8: versus those who didn't know in crypto.
57:02
Speaker 4: Look at that.
57:03
Speaker 8: Trump did get this as marchin was twenty four points
57:06
Speaker 8: higher among crypto owners than non ors. They of course
57:09
Speaker 8: have made up an increasing share of the electorate, north
57:11
Speaker 8: to ten percent of the electorate now. And in my opinion,
57:14
Speaker 8: Trump getting close with crypto may have made the difference
57:17
Speaker 8: and put him over the top.
57:18
Speaker 9: That is really incredible. All right, thank you very much.
57:21
Speaker 9: I told you something I don't know like that many times,
57:23
Speaker 9: like three times.
57:23
Speaker 10: There you go.
57:26
Speaker 1: That's really troubling. And you know, I just can't make
57:31
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy argument any stronger than just imagine if that
57:36
Speaker 1: was Joe Biden and the Biden family, the Biden crime
57:39
Speaker 1: family that we heard so much about in the right
57:41
Speaker 1: wing media, people would be going rightfully, absolutely bananas. And frankly,
57:48
Speaker 1: I'm amazed that the left wing media hasn't been more
57:52
Speaker 1: on this issue and that Trump hasn't been questioned very
57:55
Speaker 1: much about this. I to my knowledge and I watched
57:58
Speaker 1: just about everything, I have not seen Trump be questioned
58:02
Speaker 1: very thoroughly on any of this. And to me, it's
58:06
Speaker 1: an important issue, not just from the personal corruption issue,
58:09
Speaker 1: but also the standpoint of Okay, where do you stand
58:13
Speaker 1: on cryptocurrencies vis a VI the dollar. The dollar, partially
58:17
Speaker 1: because of Trump's tariff policy, is you know, not on
58:22
Speaker 1: particularly solid ground right now. And you know, to me,
58:27
Speaker 1: that's something I always talk about, how when you get magic,
58:32
Speaker 1: right this might not be the best example of this,
58:34
Speaker 1: but when you somehow get magic, you need to protect
58:38
Speaker 1: that with everything you have. And to use the magic
58:43
Speaker 1: analogy here, the dollar is basically the international currency and
58:48
Speaker 1: that needs to be protected at all costs. That is magic.
58:53
Speaker 1: That is the fact that our currency is essentially the
58:57
Speaker 1: international currency is magic. Well, you're playing with fire here
59:02
Speaker 1: to mix metaphors. To be this deeply involved with invested
59:07
Speaker 1: in literally and promoting a bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and mean coins,
59:13
Speaker 1: I think is very, very troubling. So there's two aspects
59:17
Speaker 1: of this. There's the personal corruption element, and then there's
59:22
Speaker 1: the issue of the dollar vis a VI cryptocurrencies, and
59:26
Speaker 1: Trump is not really beginning questioned about it, even in
59:29
Speaker 1: the left wing media, nearly as much as I think
59:31
Speaker 1: he should be. A couple of other points about things
59:34
Speaker 1: that have happened with Trump and these again, this is
59:37
Speaker 1: stuff that in a normal world we'd be talking about
59:42
Speaker 1: for at least days, and I'm not even sure most people,
59:46
Speaker 1: maybe even people listening to this podcast, are even aware
59:49
Speaker 1: that these two things happen. The first both of these
59:53
Speaker 1: occurred on the same show on News Nation, a network
59:56
Speaker 1: on which I still occasionally appear, although not nearly as
1:00:00
Speaker 1: much as I used to when Dan Abrams was doing
1:00:03
Speaker 1: the nine PM show, where I was on a couple times,
1:00:06
Speaker 1: two or three times a month. But you know, newstation
1:00:10
Speaker 1: does some good stuff, and this was a situation where
1:00:14
Speaker 1: Donald Trump called in while Bill O'Reilly and Stephen A.
1:00:21
Speaker 1: Smith were on with Chris Cuomo, and so Trump was
1:00:25
Speaker 1: on the phone and the issue of Stephen A. Smith
1:00:30
Speaker 1: from ESPN running for president came up, which has been
1:00:35
Speaker 1: getting just an absurd amount of coverage. You know, it's
1:00:39
Speaker 1: my view, and I've had people in my personal life
1:00:42
Speaker 1: been very concerned about the Stephen A. Smith issue, and look,
1:00:46
Speaker 1: post Trump, I think you keep an eye on it.
1:00:48
Speaker 1: I think you're It's certainly something that is not nearly
1:00:51
Speaker 1: as completely out of the question as it used to be.
1:00:54
Speaker 1: But I've already gone through previously why I think there
1:00:57
Speaker 1: are big differences between Trump, I think, as a Republican
1:01:01
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and Stephen A. Smith running as a
1:01:03
Speaker 1: Democrat in twenty twenty four. Specifically, for one thing, Smith
1:01:07
Speaker 1: has said a lot of nice things about Trump, which
1:01:10
Speaker 1: I think basically disqualify him. He set himself he's not qualified,
1:01:14
Speaker 1: which you would think would be a disqualifier. But also
1:01:17
Speaker 1: because I personally do not believe that the left wing
1:01:23
Speaker 1: media is going to do what the right wing media
1:01:27
Speaker 1: did in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen with Trump, which is
1:01:30
Speaker 1: to totally sell out for the ratings provided by a
1:01:34
Speaker 1: Carnival barker. You know, Trump was a Carnival barker, and
1:01:39
Speaker 1: at first I thought it was a lark. I think
1:01:41
Speaker 1: the right wing media thought it was a lark in
1:01:43
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. Oh, this isn't really going anywhere. We'll have
1:01:45
Speaker 1: fun with this. It's a slow news period in twenty
1:01:48
Speaker 1: fifteen in the summertime. We need the ratings, we need
1:01:51
Speaker 1: the energy the content. Trump is awesome, but this will
1:01:54
Speaker 1: eventually go away on its own. And then when they
1:01:56
Speaker 1: realized it wasn't going to go in on its own reize,
1:01:58
Speaker 1: they said, holy shit, we can write this thing for
1:02:00
Speaker 1: a whole year, maybe longer if he somehow wins. And
1:02:05
Speaker 1: we know now that the rest is history. The left
1:02:08
Speaker 1: wing media is it's not that the left wing media
1:02:10
Speaker 1: is all that more credible or has more you know,
1:02:15
Speaker 1: principles than the right wing media had, which I knew
1:02:18
Speaker 1: was going to be zero, having been deeply involved in
1:02:21
Speaker 1: the right wing media at the time. It's not that
1:02:23
Speaker 1: the left wing media is so much better. It's that
1:02:26
Speaker 1: they think of themselves as being better. That's the key
1:02:31
Speaker 1: part the left wing media. The left wing elites. They
1:02:35
Speaker 1: are deeply, deeply invested in the idea that they are
1:02:38
Speaker 1: the more intelligent ones, they're the more educated, they're the
1:02:43
Speaker 1: people with the class and so Therefore, you know, it
1:02:49
Speaker 1: was perfectly natural and very predictable that they would jump
1:02:52
Speaker 1: all over Barack Obama in twenty eight because you know,
1:02:56
Speaker 1: he was a black man, but a certain type of
1:02:59
Speaker 1: black man, Harvard educated and a senator from Illinois and
1:03:04
Speaker 1: very well spoke and eloquent, and so you know they
1:03:08
Speaker 1: could virtue signal by embracing this charismatic black man. Stephen A.
1:03:14
Speaker 1: Smith is a completely different breed, a cat. Okay, he's
1:03:17
Speaker 1: a black man, a different type of black man. Some
1:03:21
Speaker 1: might claim a more authentic black man. But frankly, the
1:03:24
Speaker 1: liberal elites really have no interest in promoting quote unquote
1:03:29
Speaker 1: authentically black man for president. Not to mention, he's a sportscaster.
1:03:34
Speaker 1: He's not well educated, he's not smart. He's entertaining much
1:03:38
Speaker 1: more in the realm of a Donald Trump, where he
1:03:42
Speaker 1: is much more of a populist type of person and
1:03:45
Speaker 1: appeals to a lower clientele. The left wing media has
1:03:49
Speaker 1: no interest in completely selling out like the right wing
1:03:53
Speaker 1: media did for Trump in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, to
1:03:56
Speaker 1: Stephen A. Smith just for a slight ratings. Now that
1:04:01
Speaker 1: being said, Steve A. Smith's been getting some left wing
1:04:04
Speaker 1: media coverage. You got interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN
1:04:08
Speaker 1: the other day and I started to get the HEBGV.
1:04:10
Speaker 1: He's like, Okay, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Maybe left wing media
1:04:14
Speaker 1: is willing to go totally sell out for Steven A. Smith.
1:04:17
Speaker 1: But I think we're a long long way from there. Plus,
1:04:20
Speaker 1: there's the issue of Steven A. Smith having to back
1:04:23
Speaker 1: away from his very lucrative ESPN job and his ego
1:04:26
Speaker 1: not being willing to take a massive defeat, which is
1:04:29
Speaker 1: the far more likely scenario. Anyway, that's more than Stephen A.
1:04:33
Speaker 1: Smith deserves as far as his presidential aspirations right now.
1:04:37
Speaker 1: But here's the important part. So Trump basically endorses a
1:04:42
Speaker 1: Stephen A. Smith run, which, by the way, may further
1:04:46
Speaker 1: hinder Smith's ability to get any traction in a Democratic
1:04:50
Speaker 1: primary should he choose to run. But here's what that
1:04:52
Speaker 1: sounded like on News Nation. Steven A. Smith may run
1:04:56
Speaker 1: for president, as you know, do you have any advice
1:05:01
Speaker 1: for Stephen A. If he launches the run?
1:05:06
Speaker 2: Now, Stephen As he's a good guy. He's a smart guy.
1:05:10
Speaker 2: I love watching him. He's got great entertainment skills, which
1:05:13
Speaker 2: is very important people watch him. You know a lot
1:05:16
Speaker 2: of these Democrats I watch, I say, they have no chance.
1:05:19
Speaker 2: I've been pretty good at picking people and picking candidates,
1:05:22
Speaker 2: and I will tell you I'd love to see him run.
1:05:24
Speaker 1: All right, there you go now, as always trying to
1:05:28
Speaker 1: be as fair as possible to Donald Trump, I get that,
1:05:32
Speaker 1: you know, he sees the entertainment aspect of Stephen A. Smith,
1:05:36
Speaker 1: and you know he sees the potential there. I'm sure
1:05:39
Speaker 1: he sees a little bit of himself and Stephen A. Smith.
1:05:43
Speaker 1: But the idea that he's effectively endorsing the idea of
1:05:46
Speaker 1: Stephen A. Smith running for president as a Democrat? Is
1:05:50
Speaker 1: this one of those situations where Trump is trolling? Is
1:05:53
Speaker 1: he being funny? Does he think that this would be
1:05:56
Speaker 1: great because Stephen A. Smith would lose? Who knows, But
1:06:00
Speaker 1: just living in an absolutely bizarre world where the President
1:06:03
Speaker 1: of the United States calls into a television news network
1:06:08
Speaker 1: and effectively endorses the presidential candidacy of a guy with
1:06:12
Speaker 1: absolutely no political experience or accomplishments who's a carnival barking
1:06:19
Speaker 1: ESPN race baiting commentator called Stephen A. Smith. I mean,
1:06:26
Speaker 1: that's that's bonkers. That's an absolutely crazy world that we're
1:06:30
Speaker 1: living in. But that wasn't the nuttiest moment in this interview.
1:06:36
Speaker 1: That occurred when Stephen A. Smith asked Trump about his
1:06:41
Speaker 1: fight against Harvard. Harvard, which has been in the news
1:06:47
Speaker 1: quite a bit. I think it's largely fake, which is
1:06:51
Speaker 1: partially why I haven't talked a lot about it, even
1:06:53
Speaker 1: though I have disdain for a lead academy as much
1:06:57
Speaker 1: as anybody does. But Stephen A. Smith asked Trump to
1:07:01
Speaker 1: be fair. This is on the phone, so it's hard
1:07:04
Speaker 1: to know exactly what Trump heard and what he didn't hear,
1:07:09
Speaker 1: but the question was clearly about a fight against Harvard,
1:07:13
Speaker 1: and Trump somehow responded to a question from a black man,
1:07:18
Speaker 1: Stephen A. Smith, about Harlem, which came completely out of
1:07:25
Speaker 1: the blue, with absolutely no context or no explanation, and
1:07:31
Speaker 1: I think, frankly understandably was interpreted by some people as
1:07:35
Speaker 1: having at least some racist undertones. And I'm not someone
1:07:39
Speaker 1: who believes that Trump is a racist at all. But
1:07:42
Speaker 1: here's that crazy moment on News Nation.
1:07:46
Speaker 11: Mister President, Thank you for you, Tom.
1:07:47
Speaker 1: It's interesting that.
1:07:48
Speaker 11: You brought up Harvard, because when people think about Harvard,
1:07:51
Speaker 11: what they're basically talking about is they're asking, what do
1:07:54
Speaker 11: you say to those who view your actions as an
1:07:56
Speaker 11: attack on academic freedom rather than a defense of fairness,
1:08:01
Speaker 11: what do you say to that.
1:08:03
Speaker 2: Well, I say this, we had riots in Harlem, in Harlem,
1:08:08
Speaker 2: and frankly, if you look at what's gone on, and
1:08:11
Speaker 2: people from Harlem went up and they protested Steven and
1:08:14
Speaker 2: they protested very strongly against Harvard.
1:08:17
Speaker 1: They happened to be on my side.
1:08:19
Speaker 2: You know, I got a very high black vote, you
1:08:22
Speaker 2: know that very very high black vote. It was a
1:08:25
Speaker 2: very great complimency.
1:08:27
Speaker 1: I did criminal.
1:08:28
Speaker 2: Justice reform, I did opportunity zones for one of the
1:08:33
Speaker 2: greatest economic deals ever for the black and Hispanic community.
1:08:37
Speaker 2: I got tremendous They agree with what I'm doing with
1:08:40
Speaker 2: respect to Harvard.
1:08:42
Speaker 1: Harvard gets four or five now. To be clear and fair,
1:08:48
Speaker 1: I have never felt that Donald Trump was a racist,
1:08:51
Speaker 1: but I'm sorry, it's hard to interpret that whole situation
1:08:57
Speaker 1: is not having at least some racial element to it
1:09:00
Speaker 1: because of the fact that Stephen A. Smith was asking
1:09:03
Speaker 1: the question. And how Trump got Harlem out of that,
1:09:07
Speaker 1: I don't know, but that really has not made a mark.
1:09:11
Speaker 1: I mean, that did not get traction as much, nearly
1:09:14
Speaker 1: as much as I thought that it might when I
1:09:15
Speaker 1: first saw it, I think largely because Trump has so
1:09:20
Speaker 1: dominated the news cycle with other stories that you know,
1:09:26
Speaker 1: people just it was too far down the totem pall
1:09:29
Speaker 1: for anyone to care about. But that's just another indication
1:09:32
Speaker 1: of what a crazy world we're living in. Now. There
1:09:34
Speaker 1: were a few substantive or quote unquote substantive things that
1:09:38
Speaker 1: Trump did over the last week or so that are
1:09:40
Speaker 1: worthy of mention and certainly fit into this category of
1:09:43
Speaker 1: Trump dominating the news cycle with things that may or
1:09:47
Speaker 1: may not be actually real. The first one I want
1:09:50
Speaker 1: to mention, because it obviously relates to the death of
1:09:53
Speaker 1: journalism and to news media issues, is that Trump signed
1:09:57
Speaker 1: an executive order where he he is attempting and apparently
1:10:02
Speaker 1: has defunded NPR and PBS at least when it comes
1:10:08
Speaker 1: to federal funds.
1:10:10
Speaker 4: Now.
1:10:10
Speaker 1: I've discussed this previously, and I have a very unpopular
1:10:13
Speaker 1: opinion on this. I probably have. I'm probably a group
1:10:18
Speaker 1: of one in this country that has my opinion on
1:10:22
Speaker 1: the federal funding of NPR and PBS. And just for
1:10:28
Speaker 1: you know, reminder in context, part of the reason I
1:10:31
Speaker 1: have a somewhat unique opinion is that my father has
1:10:36
Speaker 1: been very, very involved for many years when it comes
1:10:40
Speaker 1: to NPR and PBS. He has served on several boards.
1:10:44
Speaker 1: In fact, one board he was on with the Koch Brothers,
1:10:47
Speaker 1: which is hilarious to me. The Cooke Brothers are one
1:10:50
Speaker 1: of the biggest funders of PBS, and the Koch Brothers
1:10:53
Speaker 1: are considered by liberals to basically be like George Soros, uh,
1:10:58
Speaker 1: you know, they're the con conservative boogeyman. One of them
1:11:02
Speaker 1: has not passed away, I believe, you know funding you know,
1:11:06
Speaker 1: allegedly conservative sources, but they've been funding PBS for a
1:11:11
Speaker 1: very very long time. And so anyway, my father has
1:11:15
Speaker 1: been deeply involved in this, on both the PBS and
1:11:19
Speaker 1: the MPR elements of this story, and that doesn't really
1:11:23
Speaker 1: impact very much my view. I mean, my father and
1:11:25
Speaker 1: I talk a lot, but we're not all that closed
1:11:27
Speaker 1: and we're not that politically aligned. But I think it
1:11:30
Speaker 1: gives me a little bit better understanding of the of
1:11:34
Speaker 1: the issues here. And the first thing you need to
1:11:36
Speaker 1: understand is while the federal funding is important, it's not overwhelming.
1:11:42
Speaker 1: It's not that much money, certainly not in the realm
1:11:45
Speaker 1: in comparison with the federal budget as a whole. So
1:11:48
Speaker 1: we're not saving very much money. That's number one, but
1:11:53
Speaker 1: number two to me, as someone who obviously feels very
1:11:59
Speaker 1: passionately about the state of journalism, the state of the
1:12:02
Speaker 1: news media, and is very concerned about where we are
1:12:05
Speaker 1: and where we're going, one of my great concerns is
1:12:12
Speaker 1: that we are now living in such a ratings dominated environment,
1:12:18
Speaker 1: in a situation where the business model for the news
1:12:21
Speaker 1: media is completely and totally broken, that there is a
1:12:26
Speaker 1: public benefit in having some media outlet, especially on the
1:12:32
Speaker 1: local level, specifically with regard to MPR, where ratings are
1:12:38
Speaker 1: not the motivator. There's a public interest involved in that,
1:12:46
Speaker 1: because inherently, inherently you cannot do substantive news in a
1:12:55
Speaker 1: world where ratings drive everything. They are completely incompatible with
1:13:02
Speaker 1: one another those two goals being ratings friendly and being
1:13:07
Speaker 1: very substantive. It's unfortunate, but because of our very short
1:13:13
Speaker 1: attention spans, because we're not particularly well educated country anymore,
1:13:17
Speaker 1: we've got frankly, most of our people are morons. The
1:13:21
Speaker 1: reality is you can not be extremely substantive when it
1:13:27
Speaker 1: comes to news or news like programming and do well
1:13:32
Speaker 1: in the ratings. So if ratings is what is driving
1:13:36
Speaker 1: the bus inherently you're not going to have substance. Now.
1:13:40
Speaker 1: I have been this is why my opinion is in
1:13:43
Speaker 1: a group of one. I have also been very critical
1:13:46
Speaker 1: and have expressed this many times to my father of
1:13:50
Speaker 1: the political bias involved in MPR and PBS. It's extreme,
1:13:58
Speaker 1: it's overt, it's not and it hasn't infiltrated every element
1:14:03
Speaker 1: of what PBS and NPR do. Like for instance, you
1:14:07
Speaker 1: know the PBS ken Burns documentaries before he completely went
1:14:12
Speaker 1: off the rails and exposed himself as a communist. But
1:14:15
Speaker 1: you know the Civil War and the Baseball documentaries. I mean,
1:14:19
Speaker 1: those are fantastic, but you could never do those on
1:14:23
Speaker 1: a commercial outlet. They're too expensive, they took too long
1:14:27
Speaker 1: to produce. They're not ratings winners, at least not you know, instantaneously.
1:14:33
Speaker 1: They have to kind of grow organically. There's just not
1:14:38
Speaker 1: a financial business model that works for that except at PBS.
1:14:45
Speaker 1: And you know, when it comes to radio and NPR,
1:14:48
Speaker 1: and I think there needs to be a place for that.
1:14:51
Speaker 1: There needs to be a place. There's a public interest
1:14:55
Speaker 1: in there being a place where you have local and
1:15:00
Speaker 1: national news like content that it does not have to
1:15:05
Speaker 1: worry about appealing to ratings, to being driven by ratings.
1:15:12
Speaker 1: That is important, and there's no other way to do
1:15:16
Speaker 1: that anymore. Because popularity drives the bus. Substance is dead
1:15:24
Speaker 1: in all ways, and it could not be more obvious.
1:15:28
Speaker 1: I mean, let's just give you a very small example
1:15:32
Speaker 1: comes off the top of my head. You know MSNBC
1:15:36
Speaker 1: when it first began back, you know, like when it
1:15:40
Speaker 1: became somewhat what it is today in the in the
1:15:43
Speaker 1: early two thousands. I would go on there occasionally, and
1:15:48
Speaker 1: this is hilarious to think in retrospect. I would go
1:15:51
Speaker 1: on there occasionally as a guest, and there would be
1:15:55
Speaker 1: one topic, one topic for an entire hour. I mean,
1:16:04
Speaker 1: that's crazy talk. Today there's no topic, no known quote
1:16:08
Speaker 1: unquote news channel topic unless it's you know, massive breaking news.
1:16:14
Speaker 1: But no pre scheduled topic could ever go for more
1:16:17
Speaker 1: than one segment now, I mean, so our attention as
1:16:22
Speaker 1: spans have shrunk dramatically, and also the amount of resources
1:16:29
Speaker 1: that these news allegedly news outlets have to spend on
1:16:35
Speaker 1: content has gone down because the business model is broken.
1:16:38
Speaker 1: This is all a downward spiral, and so the fact
1:16:42
Speaker 1: that NBR and PBS currently get federal funding helps with
1:16:47
Speaker 1: the idea that okay, this can be a place that
1:16:50
Speaker 1: is isolated from the the concerns of ratings and popularity
1:16:57
Speaker 1: and can provide a unique service to the public, especially
1:17:02
Speaker 1: on the local level, where there is some substantive news
1:17:07
Speaker 1: in an era where substantive news is basically dead, and
1:17:12
Speaker 1: that's the only place you can sometimes get it now
1:17:15
Speaker 1: is on NPR and PBS. So what about the bias issue?
1:17:19
Speaker 1: I agree, I totally understand why conservatives are enraged, blinded
1:17:25
Speaker 1: in my view by the idea that why is my
1:17:29
Speaker 1: tax money going to fund liberal propaganda? I get it,
1:17:34
Speaker 1: one thousand percent. As I've said many times, I can't
1:17:38
Speaker 1: even count how many on how many occurrences I have
1:17:41
Speaker 1: complained about this to my father, not that he's done
1:17:43
Speaker 1: anything about it, but or that he could if he
1:17:45
Speaker 1: wanted to. But just for the record, I have tried
1:17:49
Speaker 1: very hard on multiple occasions to try to influence in
1:17:54
Speaker 1: whatever small way I can this issue of liberal bias
1:17:58
Speaker 1: and public broadcast to me. To me if Trump was
1:18:03
Speaker 1: really smart about this. First of all, I'm not sure
1:18:05
Speaker 1: his executive order is legal. I hate executive orders inherently
1:18:09
Speaker 1: because they are temporary. He's basically building sand class castles.
1:18:14
Speaker 1: That's basically what an executive order is. You're building a
1:18:16
Speaker 1: sand castle. Oh look at that. It's so pretty, and
1:18:19
Speaker 1: it's gone as soon as the tide comes in. There's
1:18:23
Speaker 1: nothing permanent to it. So I hate the executive order,
1:18:26
Speaker 1: governing by executive order on virtually every level. But based
1:18:31
Speaker 1: upon my understanding, there's a very good argument that what
1:18:35
Speaker 1: he did is illegal because Congress itself specifically said the
1:18:39
Speaker 1: president couldn't do this. So I think this is going
1:18:42
Speaker 1: to eventually, as has happened many times, already, end up
1:18:46
Speaker 1: losing in court. But if Trump was really smart, he
1:18:50
Speaker 1: would use the leverage of the federal funding to mitigate
1:18:56
Speaker 1: the liberal bias in the content. And there's all sorts
1:19:00
Speaker 1: of ways you can do that. I mean, you could
1:19:03
Speaker 1: hire an ambudsman with some legitimate power to fire people
1:19:08
Speaker 1: who were getting out of line, or to influence where
1:19:12
Speaker 1: the money was actually going. There's all sorts of ways
1:19:16
Speaker 1: if you're going to be creative about it. By the way,
1:19:18
Speaker 1: passing a law, I know that doesn't seem to be
1:19:21
Speaker 1: possible anymore, even though you have theoretically control of both
1:19:25
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate. Passing a law would be
1:19:27
Speaker 1: the way to do this where you could fundamentally alter
1:19:31
Speaker 1: the structure of PBS and NPR and use the money
1:19:36
Speaker 1: as a carrot and a stick situation to mitigate or
1:19:42
Speaker 1: potentially even eradicate the liberal bias. So to me, that
1:19:47
Speaker 1: would be the perfect situation here. And by the way,
1:19:51
Speaker 1: as bad as NPR and PBS have been when it
1:19:55
Speaker 1: comes to liberal bias, if their federal funding does indeed go,
1:20:01
Speaker 1: what do you think that's gonna do to their bias.
1:20:03
Speaker 1: First of all, they're gonna have less money for substance,
1:20:06
Speaker 1: so it'll become less substantive. So that's gonna harm the
1:20:10
Speaker 1: public interest, especially on the local level where local news
1:20:15
Speaker 1: is dying very fast, even worse than national news in
1:20:18
Speaker 1: my opinion. But they're also gonna become even more overtly liberal.
1:20:24
Speaker 1: Why because they will no longer have anything to fear.
1:20:29
Speaker 1: The fear of losing federal funding has always kept them
1:20:34
Speaker 1: somewhat in line. I realize that some people think that's impossible.
1:20:37
Speaker 1: How could they possibly get any more liberal than they
1:20:41
Speaker 1: already are? Trust me, they can, and in my opinion,
1:20:45
Speaker 1: they will. So here's the effect for saving like five
1:20:49
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars, which sounds like a lot of money,
1:20:51
Speaker 1: which is basically nothing when it comes to the federal budget.
1:20:55
Speaker 1: Assuming this even is deemed to be legal, which I'm
1:20:58
Speaker 1: not at all certain that it will, you're gonna have
1:21:02
Speaker 1: the programming for MPR and PBS become less substantive and
1:21:06
Speaker 1: more liberal. And oh, by the way, as soon as
1:21:09
Speaker 1: a Democrat is in president is you know, takes over
1:21:13
Speaker 1: as president, whether that's in twenty twenty nine or wherever,
1:21:16
Speaker 1: whenever that might be down the line. The first thing,
1:21:20
Speaker 1: one of the first things they're going to do is
1:21:23
Speaker 1: reinstitute the funding. They'll probably double the funding for MPR
1:21:27
Speaker 1: and PBS. See, what you're doing is not permanent. It
1:21:32
Speaker 1: is not going to have an effect that's positive on
1:21:35
Speaker 1: the programming and MPR and PBS. Again, it'll be less
1:21:40
Speaker 1: substantive because they have less resources, and more liberal because
1:21:43
Speaker 1: they have less to fear. There's nothing else you can
1:21:46
Speaker 1: take away from them. So what's the guardrail? What's the
1:21:50
Speaker 1: guardrail and keeping them in line? Trust me, the fear
1:21:54
Speaker 1: of losing that federal funding has been a guardrail to
1:21:58
Speaker 1: some extent, and now that's gone. And so to me,
1:22:04
Speaker 1: this is classic Trump in every way, an executive order
1:22:07
Speaker 1: that has no real lasting impact that might be illegal
1:22:12
Speaker 1: that fails to use the leverage that he has to
1:22:15
Speaker 1: get a really positive effect. The positive effect here is
1:22:21
Speaker 1: only that conservatives get to cheer the fact that NPR
1:22:27
Speaker 1: and PBS lose their federal funding, or at least in theory,
1:22:29
Speaker 1: lose their federal funding. So yay, yay, great sand castle
1:22:35
Speaker 1: you're built there, Donald Trump, and then the title wash
1:22:39
Speaker 1: it away, whether it's washed away by the courts or
1:22:42
Speaker 1: by a future Democratic president. And there's no net positive
1:22:46
Speaker 1: impact of this, zero that I can see. So, even
1:22:51
Speaker 1: though I have am a strong critic in many ways
1:22:54
Speaker 1: of NPR and PBS and obviously of liberal bias, I
1:22:58
Speaker 1: do not agree with the way that Donald Trump has
1:23:00
Speaker 1: done this in any way, shape or form. But I
1:23:03
Speaker 1: realized that nobody, probably not even anyone listening to this podcast,
1:23:06
Speaker 1: is going to agree with me. But that's my opinion.
1:23:10
Speaker 1: Now there's a similar situation going on with Trump and
1:23:13
Speaker 1: the issue of trying to save Hollywood, and this goes
1:23:16
Speaker 1: to the whole teriff issue, I guess, but I am
1:23:19
Speaker 1: completely confused, as are it appears most people in Hollywood
1:23:23
Speaker 1: as to how the hell this would actually work. But
1:23:26
Speaker 1: Trump announced on social media that he's going to try
1:23:29
Speaker 1: to save Hollywood by putting a tariff on foreign made movies,
1:23:35
Speaker 1: television productions, what have you. I have absolutely no idea
1:23:40
Speaker 1: how this would even theoretically work. First of all, there's
1:23:43
Speaker 1: no question that there's a problem. There's a big problem.
1:23:48
Speaker 1: I mean, very few movies are being made in Los Angeles,
1:23:51
Speaker 1: first of all, and in the broader scheme of things,
1:23:55
Speaker 1: not that many movies are even being made in the
1:23:57
Speaker 1: United States. The biggest reason is because minimum wage and regulations.
1:24:04
Speaker 1: That's why California has lost so much in movie production,
1:24:08
Speaker 1: because it's just too damn expensive. Insurance regulations, you know,
1:24:13
Speaker 1: unions minute, you know what you have to pay, the
1:24:16
Speaker 1: minimum wage or the union wage, whatever it is. It's
1:24:20
Speaker 1: all way, way too expensive. I mean, that's partially why
1:24:25
Speaker 1: California used to be the epicenter of movie making, because
1:24:29
Speaker 1: it was less expensive. Here. You had the people that
1:24:31
Speaker 1: were already living here. You had the infrastructure that was
1:24:34
Speaker 1: already here, the equipment that was already here, the executives,
1:24:37
Speaker 1: the studios, everything was here. So therefore it was theoretically
1:24:41
Speaker 1: less expensive. Plus you had the better weather, you had
1:24:45
Speaker 1: a diversity of topography. It was basically the perfect place
1:24:48
Speaker 1: for Hollywood to exist. Well, thanks to basically liberals fucking
1:24:52
Speaker 1: it up over the decades, that all changed, and somehow
1:24:56
Speaker 1: it's cheaper to go to a foreign country. I've have
1:25:00
Speaker 1: many stories from people that I know in the business
1:25:03
Speaker 1: where it's insane, but it's cheaper to go to another
1:25:07
Speaker 1: continent than it is to actually film in California. And
1:25:12
Speaker 1: so Trump is right that this is a problem and
1:25:14
Speaker 1: that there's a national interest at stake. I think that,
1:25:18
Speaker 1: you know, historically, the influence of Hollywood has has been enormous,
1:25:23
Speaker 1: not just in America but throughout the world. It's a
1:25:27
Speaker 1: little bit like you know, the magic of the dollar,
1:25:30
Speaker 1: the magic of Hollywood. The influence of Hollywood has had,
1:25:33
Speaker 1: even though some of it's been negative, especially in recent decades,
1:25:37
Speaker 1: has been incredible and is probably underrated and is absolutely
1:25:42
Speaker 1: in the national interest. And it's going away, and it's
1:25:45
Speaker 1: going away fast. So I get that there's a problem,
1:25:50
Speaker 1: and I get that maybe the president has some role
1:25:52
Speaker 1: in trying to fix this. I actually think Gavin Newsom
1:25:55
Speaker 1: should have a bigger role, and he's trying to do
1:25:58
Speaker 1: some things, but I'm not seeing anything that's going to
1:26:01
Speaker 1: dramatically alter the landscape. But how does this even work?
1:26:06
Speaker 1: How do you put a tariff on a foreign film
1:26:11
Speaker 1: or a TV show? First of all, there's not that
1:26:14
Speaker 1: many TV shows that are or films that are solely
1:26:18
Speaker 1: produced in one place. So what do you do if
1:26:20
Speaker 1: you know part of the film is produced in America
1:26:23
Speaker 1: and part of it's in Canada, or part of it's
1:26:26
Speaker 1: in Mexico part part of it is in some other country.
1:26:29
Speaker 1: I mean, that's my first question. The second question is like,
1:26:32
Speaker 1: how would you enforce the tariff? Like, so when the
1:26:38
Speaker 1: I mean like in a film, right when when the
1:26:41
Speaker 1: film physically comes into the country, you somehow slap a
1:26:46
Speaker 1: terrify it. Would this mean like movie theaters would be
1:26:50
Speaker 1: forced to charge more for a film that was deemed
1:26:54
Speaker 1: to be foreign made? I mean, how would you even
1:26:57
Speaker 1: enforce that? It's not the same thing as an actual
1:27:02
Speaker 1: product that people physically buy. Not to mention, you know,
1:27:06
Speaker 1: the streaming element of this, the television aspect of it.
1:27:10
Speaker 1: What are you actually taxing? What are you actually putting
1:27:13
Speaker 1: a terrified I don't understand how this would even theoretically
1:27:17
Speaker 1: work and what enforcement mechanism there would be. So once again,
1:27:24
Speaker 1: Trump's instincts are good. His intention seems to be right,
1:27:28
Speaker 1: but the execution I am completely baffled by. I honestly
1:27:33
Speaker 1: don't get it. I'm more than willing to hear him
1:27:35
Speaker 1: out on this because I think this is a underrated
1:27:38
Speaker 1: issue and I think it would be great for a
1:27:40
Speaker 1: non liberal to be at the forefront of trying to
1:27:43
Speaker 1: save Hollywood, and Hollywood clearly does need saving. But I
1:27:48
Speaker 1: don't see the path here. I could be wrong, and
1:27:50
Speaker 1: I'm more than open minded if I you know, if
1:27:54
Speaker 1: Trump can convince me or everyone else that he's onto
1:27:58
Speaker 1: something here, but I currently don't don't see it. Now,
1:28:01
Speaker 1: speaking of Hollywood movies, it appears as if Donald Trump
1:28:06
Speaker 1: must have just been watching the movie The Rock with
1:28:10
Speaker 1: Sean Connery, the movie about Alcatraz, the famous prison and
1:28:18
Speaker 1: San Francisco in the bay there because, bizarrely, even by
1:28:23
Speaker 1: Trump standards, Trump has now proposed, rather dramatically, that Alcatraz
1:28:30
Speaker 1: suddenly now be used for our worst criminals. I'm sure
1:28:37
Speaker 1: you probably have heard of Alcatraz. I am as flummoxed
1:28:42
Speaker 1: as anybody by this idea. Alcatraz has not been in
1:28:48
Speaker 1: use for over fifty years. It is currently a museum.
1:28:53
Speaker 1: It doesn't even have basic plumbing. It couldn't be more antiquated. Again,
1:29:03
Speaker 1: was he watching The Rock and suddenly got an obsession
1:29:07
Speaker 1: that no one at the White House has the willingness
1:29:10
Speaker 1: or the ability to disabuse him of mister President, it's
1:29:14
Speaker 1: a museum. It can't be turned back into a prison.
1:29:18
Speaker 1: It's not feasible, it's certainly not economically viable. I mean,
1:29:22
Speaker 1: this is essentially like deciding that you're going to start
1:29:27
Speaker 1: using Ellis Island again as our major port of immigration enforcement,
1:29:35
Speaker 1: or Fort Sumter is suddenly going to become a major
1:29:38
Speaker 1: military piece. That's not an exaggeration. That's how insane this is.
1:29:45
Speaker 1: It's a fucking museum all because it's on a cool
1:29:51
Speaker 1: looking little island called The Rock, and it's got some
1:29:55
Speaker 1: mistique to it, and al Capone was housed there once,
1:30:00
Speaker 1: and you know, Trump is fascinated by the stories of
1:30:03
Speaker 1: people trying to escape. I mean, this is how crazy
1:30:07
Speaker 1: this is. We were captive to the lunacy of this
1:30:12
Speaker 1: guy who is very prone to delusion, and and this
1:30:17
Speaker 1: is absolutely a delusion. I mean there, I mean, when
1:30:22
Speaker 1: when Trump gives Gavin Newsom the ability to be the
1:30:27
Speaker 1: voice of reason, then that's when I really start to
1:30:32
Speaker 1: lose it. And that's what he's done. Here, I mean here,
1:30:35
Speaker 1: here is a e clip of Gavin Newsom walking along Ah,
1:30:41
Speaker 1: I looked like, I guess the the Governor's mansion and
1:30:45
Speaker 1: Sacramento and a reporter calls out to him, and he
1:30:48
Speaker 1: clearly wants to respond to this question. So he comes
1:30:51
Speaker 1: towards the reporter because he knows this is a t
1:30:54
Speaker 1: ball situation and he's gonna knock this one out of
1:30:57
Speaker 1: the park. But even Gavin Newsom is this happened on
1:31:02
Speaker 1: Tariff's previously? How in the world am I agree with
1:31:04
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom on Tariff's versus Donald Trump. Well, here is
1:31:09
Speaker 1: Gavin Newssom on the issue of Alcatrasp being restored as
1:31:14
Speaker 1: a prism for I guess elite criminals. And I'm sorry,
1:31:19
Speaker 1: but Newsom is the guy talking sends here Governor Steve.
1:31:22
Speaker 6: Blerd CBS thirty and anything you want to say about Alcatraz,
1:31:28
Speaker 6: and he's just I mean, I don't know if he's
1:31:31
Speaker 6: watching the Rock or what inspired this about.
1:31:34
Speaker 1: I mean that would be there's three hundred and thirty
1:31:36
Speaker 1: six prisoners there.
1:31:37
Speaker 2: I mean, you can't even come up with a more
1:31:39
Speaker 2: colossally bad fiscal idea.
1:31:42
Speaker 4: Nothing about this makes any sense.
1:31:44
Speaker 1: It's got the Foreman substance for stuff that flows here
1:31:48
Speaker 1: out of the day ob jasp walk. It's just so very
1:31:52
Speaker 1: frustrating when Gavin freaking Newsom becomes somehow the voice of
1:31:57
Speaker 1: reason thanks to the lunacy of Donald Trump. And this
1:32:00
Speaker 1: Alcatraz story is another example. Now, I don't expect that
1:32:05
Speaker 1: the Alcatraz story is going to go anywhere, but I mean,
1:32:08
Speaker 1: it's just so crazy, and it's not just a social
1:32:13
Speaker 1: media post. It is some might say a purposeful distraction.
1:32:18
Speaker 1: I'm never believed that Trump is the four dimensional chess
1:32:22
Speaker 1: player that is using all this stuff as a distraction.
1:32:26
Speaker 1: I honestly think that in this particular case and many others,
1:32:31
Speaker 1: he just gets a weird obsession and he can't let
1:32:35
Speaker 1: go of it, and there's nobody in the White House
1:32:38
Speaker 1: to disabuse him of it, and so then it becomes
1:32:41
Speaker 1: public and then he has to talk about it, and
1:32:43
Speaker 1: then people around him have to take it seriously, like
1:32:46
Speaker 1: you know, taking over Greenland or making Canada fifty first state.
1:32:51
Speaker 1: And if you think I'm exaggerating, there was an event
1:32:56
Speaker 1: that I'll reference again later in the podcast where Trump
1:32:59
Speaker 1: is a bnouncing that the NFL Draft is going to
1:33:02
Speaker 1: be held next in two years at the DC Mall,
1:33:06
Speaker 1: the National Mall, where Roger Goodell and the mayor of Washington,
1:33:11
Speaker 1: d C. Are standing there next to him at the
1:33:14
Speaker 1: White House, and he goes on and on about Alcatraz.
1:33:20
Speaker 1: I mean, not just for a second or two. He
1:33:24
Speaker 1: goes on an extended diatribe that is absolutely delusional about Alcatraz.
1:33:31
Speaker 1: And they have to stand there and like they're hostages
1:33:37
Speaker 1: and not say anything. It's ridiculous, it's embarrassing, it's absurd.
1:33:44
Speaker 1: Now back to Newsom, because there's been this weird narrative
1:33:49
Speaker 1: in the among left wing newsmakers in the last week.
1:33:53
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's a coincidence or what, but
1:33:57
Speaker 1: where now Suddenly liberals are trying to tend that when
1:34:01
Speaker 1: it came to the twenty twenty four election that they
1:34:05
Speaker 1: had no idea until the debate with Donald Trump that
1:34:09
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was not capable of serving another four years
1:34:14
Speaker 1: in the White House. And Newsom was one of those
1:34:18
Speaker 1: that made that argument. In response to a reporter's question,
1:34:22
Speaker 1: Jen Battake from MSNBC, former Press secretary for Biden, said
1:34:28
Speaker 1: the same thing, which was even more ridiculous because obviously
1:34:31
Speaker 1: she was spending a lot more time with Biden than
1:34:35
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom was. But this is just blatant revisionist history.
1:34:40
Speaker 1: This is lying. Even I don't believe they can possibly
1:34:44
Speaker 1: be this stupid, but clearly they want people to think
1:34:49
Speaker 1: that that's how dumb they are. I mean, or that
1:34:51
Speaker 1: somehow magically Joe Biden suddenly lost it, like almost overnight,
1:34:58
Speaker 1: and that nobody anticipated this until it was too late,
1:35:02
Speaker 1: and it all became very clear on that debate stage,
1:35:06
Speaker 1: and that's when he was eventually forced out of the
1:35:09
Speaker 1: race by the media and by the Democratic elites, and
1:35:12
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris was anointed as the Democratic nominee and then
1:35:15
Speaker 1: obviously lost to Donald Trump. What I found interesting about
1:35:21
Speaker 1: this is that Joe Biden himself has now been asked
1:35:25
Speaker 1: yet another question about this, although I shouldn't say yet
1:35:28
Speaker 1: another question, because considering how big a story this was,
1:35:31
Speaker 1: I don't think Biden has been nearly questioned enough, and
1:35:33
Speaker 1: I don't think we've ever gotten anywhere near a legitimate
1:35:37
Speaker 1: answer as to why he eventually did get out. That
1:35:42
Speaker 1: has never been fully explored, and I don't know that
1:35:45
Speaker 1: we're ever going to get an answer to that. I
1:35:47
Speaker 1: thought that after the election we probably would, but I
1:35:51
Speaker 1: don't think we have. And it's clear that Nancy Pelosi
1:35:55
Speaker 1: ordered the code read, but I would love to know. Okay,
1:35:58
Speaker 1: what point of leverage did she use? What was the
1:36:02
Speaker 1: moment when you decided, Joe Biden, that you were going
1:36:05
Speaker 1: to get out of the race. I've never heard that
1:36:09
Speaker 1: really being asked properly, and certainly not ever answered in
1:36:13
Speaker 1: any way that made any sense or that was fully transparent. Well,
1:36:18
Speaker 1: Biden did an interview with the BBC, and I actually
1:36:22
Speaker 1: posted this on my Twitter page just before I started
1:36:26
Speaker 1: taping this episode of the podcast, and I found this
1:36:29
Speaker 1: response to be, frankly, not just pathetic, but rather troubling,
1:36:36
Speaker 1: because this is a guy who could have easily, especially
1:36:40
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump had in fact been assassinated, could easily
1:36:44
Speaker 1: have been president of the United States for another four
1:36:48
Speaker 1: years and he is obviously out of it. I mean,
1:36:55
Speaker 1: this is the guy who, let's be clear, has been
1:36:57
Speaker 1: resting now, has had no real responsibilities frankly for almost
1:37:03
Speaker 1: a year. I mean, since he got out of the race,
1:37:06
Speaker 1: he basically had no more responsibilities. He was spending most
1:37:09
Speaker 1: of his time on the beach. But obviously for the
1:37:11
Speaker 1: last several months since he was officially out of office,
1:37:15
Speaker 1: he's had no stress, no responsibilities. He's not working, so
1:37:20
Speaker 1: you would think he would be refreshed, and he sounds
1:37:24
Speaker 1: like he's about ninety years old and has had a
1:37:27
Speaker 1: stroke or two. But more importantly than that, the substance
1:37:31
Speaker 1: of his response to a very simple question and an
1:37:35
Speaker 1: important one, which is why didn't you get out of
1:37:37
Speaker 1: the race earlier? See? Those are the two very basic questions,
1:37:41
Speaker 1: and that's how broken journalism is. We can't get answers
1:37:45
Speaker 1: to the two most basic questions, what specifically forced you out?
1:37:49
Speaker 1: And why didn't you get out on your own earlier?
1:37:52
Speaker 1: Why did you even run in twenty twenty four to
1:37:56
Speaker 1: begin with? Because remember, I mean he was basically deciding
1:38:01
Speaker 1: for himself to proactively get into the race in the
1:38:06
Speaker 1: late spring of twenty twenty three, right, So it was
1:38:11
Speaker 1: only a little bit more than a year between that
1:38:13
Speaker 1: point and the point when he decided to get out,
1:38:16
Speaker 1: Although that reality appears to not be part of Joe
1:38:20
Speaker 1: Biden's memory or certainly not his thought process when he
1:38:23
Speaker 1: tries to feebly answer this very basic question about why
1:38:29
Speaker 1: didn't you get out sooner? And to me, both from
1:38:32
Speaker 1: the standpoint of his lack of mental acuity and his
1:38:35
Speaker 1: lack of transparency on this very basic and important question,
1:38:40
Speaker 1: this was about, in my opinion, almost as bad as
1:38:44
Speaker 1: it gets Joe Biden on the BBC.
1:38:48
Speaker 10: It's fully funded. And what happened was I had become
1:38:56
Speaker 10: what we had set out to do. No one thought
1:38:59
Speaker 10: we could do. I become so successful or our agenda
1:39:03
Speaker 10: it was hard to say now, I'm gonna stop now.
1:39:06
Speaker 10: I meant when I said when I started that, I
1:39:09
Speaker 10: think it's I'm prepared to hand this to the next generation.
1:39:12
Speaker 10: It's a transition government. But it things moved so quickly
1:39:19
Speaker 10: that it made it difficult to walk away to get
1:39:23
Speaker 10: and it was a it was a hard decision, but regrets, No,
1:39:33
Speaker 10: I think it was the right decision. I think that.
1:39:38
Speaker 4: The uh, well, it was just a difficult decision. But
1:39:45
Speaker 4: you shouldn't have taken it at it well, I don't.
1:39:48
Speaker 10: I don't think. I don't think so. I mean, I
1:39:49
Speaker 10: don't know how that would have made much difference.
1:39:52
Speaker 1: So, even though I'm extremely frustrated and rather disappointed with
1:39:56
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency, at least we don't have Joe Biden
1:39:59
Speaker 1: as president, because that is not a guy that could
1:40:03
Speaker 1: possibly have served another four years. And it doesn't even
1:40:09
Speaker 1: seem to be fully aware that he made a decision
1:40:12
Speaker 1: to get into the race. He makes it sound as
1:40:14
Speaker 1: if like he had no control over this, and you know,
1:40:17
Speaker 1: things happened and I wanted to keep my promise of
1:40:23
Speaker 1: turning things over to the next generation. Well where was
1:40:26
Speaker 1: that when you made the decision to get in the
1:40:28
Speaker 1: race to to begin with? I mean, that was the
1:40:30
Speaker 1: key moment because once you you know, I've always talked
1:40:34
Speaker 1: about how presidential campaigns are aircraft carriers, and you know,
1:40:37
Speaker 1: you get him out of port and they go in
1:40:39
Speaker 1: a certain direction. It's very, very difficult to turn them around,
1:40:42
Speaker 1: especially when you're the president of the United States. So
1:40:45
Speaker 1: as soon as you announce that you're running, no one
1:40:47
Speaker 1: else is going to run against you as an incumbent president.
1:40:51
Speaker 1: And now you've started, you know, a domino effect that
1:40:54
Speaker 1: cannot be stopped. Well, why was there no one around him?
1:40:58
Speaker 1: And I realized Joe Biden, his wife obviously had a
1:41:01
Speaker 1: massive conflict adventures because she wanted to be close to power,
1:41:05
Speaker 1: maybe even running the show. So she wasn't going to
1:41:07
Speaker 1: tell him not to run. But I'm a broken record
1:41:11
Speaker 1: on this, whether it's with Trump or Biden or whoever else,
1:41:14
Speaker 1: You've got to have somebody close to you who has
1:41:18
Speaker 1: the balls and the wherewithal the courage to say no,
1:41:24
Speaker 1: or to very least say, mister president, you need to
1:41:27
Speaker 1: consider this other alternative. And there was nobody in that
1:41:32
Speaker 1: camp in the Democratic side, either publicly or privately, and
1:41:35
Speaker 1: they paid a huge price, and thankfully the country didn't
1:41:40
Speaker 1: have to pay a price when it came to a
1:41:41
Speaker 1: second Biden term, because this guy clearly had absolutely no
1:41:47
Speaker 1: business ever running for a second term. That was the
1:41:50
Speaker 1: moment of no return. It was always going to be disastrous.
1:41:55
Speaker 1: And for Biden to claim that it really didn't make
1:41:57
Speaker 1: a difference is just hilarious, delusional. It made a huge difference.
1:42:04
Speaker 1: If there had been a normal open primary in twenty
1:42:10
Speaker 1: twenty four for the Democratic nomination and Harris had run
1:42:14
Speaker 1: against any sort of competition, and she would have had
1:42:17
Speaker 1: some competition, somebody legitimate would have run against her, and
1:42:21
Speaker 1: she had won, She and her candidacy would have been
1:42:25
Speaker 1: seen in a very different light come the general election.
1:42:31
Speaker 1: For a lot of people who were on the fence.
1:42:33
Speaker 1: The Harris switcheroo just did not pass the smell test,
1:42:38
Speaker 1: and for Biden to either not understand that or to
1:42:42
Speaker 1: not have the courage and the transparency to acknowledge it
1:42:47
Speaker 1: is frankly pathetic and I think more than worthy of
1:42:51
Speaker 1: mention here on the podcast. Now, speaking of democrats and
1:42:55
Speaker 1: their health and the media coverage and everything surrounding that,
1:43:00
Speaker 1: I have to at least briefly mention what's going on
1:43:03
Speaker 1: with John Fetterman, because this really is an extreme example
1:43:08
Speaker 1: of media hypocrisy and mediam malpractice and the death of journalism.
1:43:15
Speaker 1: So you remember, obviously, when John Fetnerman ran for Senate
1:43:20
Speaker 1: back in twenty twenty two, basically unable to speak because
1:43:25
Speaker 1: of his medical issues, he was protected by the liberal media.
1:43:31
Speaker 1: And one of the many examples of that was a
1:43:35
Speaker 1: cover story in New York Magazine with a very very
1:43:40
Speaker 1: favorable photograph of an earnest looking John Fetnerman looking directly
1:43:44
Speaker 1: into the camera, and the headline the vulnerability of John
1:43:48
Speaker 1: Fetterman inside the year's highest stakes Senate race, because he
1:43:55
Speaker 1: was running for Senate in Pennsylvania and there was a
1:43:58
Speaker 1: very good chance that race was going to determine control
1:44:01
Speaker 1: of the US Senate, and Democrats and liberals were deeply
1:44:05
Speaker 1: invested in him winning and the fact that he couldn't
1:44:08
Speaker 1: even speak because of a medical condition was really not
1:44:12
Speaker 1: a concern. We were told he was going to get better,
1:44:15
Speaker 1: and you know, this is too important to let a
1:44:17
Speaker 1: medical condition hinder the chances of the Democrats controlling the
1:44:23
Speaker 1: US Senate. So, of course, he wins, and he recovers.
1:44:28
Speaker 1: But something strange happens. As he recovers. He's no longer
1:44:34
Speaker 1: nearly as much under the thumb of his very liberal
1:44:37
Speaker 1: wife as he appeared to be certainly during that twenty
1:44:40
Speaker 1: twenty two campaign. And he's all of a sudden much
1:44:44
Speaker 1: more common sense oriented, far less woke, and much more
1:44:48
Speaker 1: willing to criticize his own party. He basically becomes the only,
1:44:53
Speaker 1: certainly the most rational Democrat in the US Senate. Well now,
1:44:59
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, now that he's actually healthy, much
1:45:03
Speaker 1: healthier than he was during the campaign where they were
1:45:06
Speaker 1: protecting him. New York Magazine has another feature out on
1:45:10
Speaker 1: John Fetterman, and this one has at the top of
1:45:15
Speaker 1: the story the headline all by himself. John Fetnerman insists
1:45:22
Speaker 1: he is in good health, but staffers past and present
1:45:27
Speaker 1: say they no longer recognize the man they once knew.
1:45:33
Speaker 1: So let me get this straight. So twenty twenty two
1:45:37
Speaker 1: John Fetderman, who literally could not speak, could not speak,
1:45:42
Speaker 1: could not do interviews, could not do a debate. That
1:45:46
Speaker 1: guy was perfectly fine. But the John Fetderman, who can
1:45:50
Speaker 1: speak just perfectly fine, far better than Joe Biden can,
1:45:55
Speaker 1: and who is actually extremely popular in Pennsylvania. He might
1:46:01
Speaker 1: be more popular, I think than even Governor Shapiro, based
1:46:05
Speaker 1: upon the fact that there are a lot of moderns
1:46:07
Speaker 1: and even some conservatives that now like John Fetterman. But
1:46:10
Speaker 1: he's very popular by all accounts in Pennsylvania. Now all
1:46:14
Speaker 1: of a sudden, liberals can't stand them, and they're questioning
1:46:17
Speaker 1: whether or not there's something wrong with his health. You
1:46:20
Speaker 1: couldn't make this shit up. But that's a great example
1:46:23
Speaker 1: of just how broken the news media really is, and
1:46:26
Speaker 1: how biased it is, and how controlled by democratic interests
1:46:31
Speaker 1: the liberal elite media still is today. Now when it
1:46:34
Speaker 1: comes to the US Senate, I do have to at
1:46:37
Speaker 1: least mention that there's been a major development with regard
1:46:41
Speaker 1: to the twenty twenty sixth election, and that is that
1:46:44
Speaker 1: Brian Camp, the governor of Georgia. The Republican governor of
1:46:47
Speaker 1: Georgia was very popular there, but not very popular within
1:46:51
Speaker 1: MAGA world and certainly not popular within Donald Trump's inner
1:46:55
Speaker 1: circle because of his views in the twenty twenty election,
1:46:58
Speaker 1: which happened to be correct. Has announced that he is
1:47:02
Speaker 1: not going to be running for the Senate seat in
1:47:05
Speaker 1: Georgia in twenty twenty six, and to me, barring some
1:47:10
Speaker 1: sort of major development, I don't see how the Democrat
1:47:14
Speaker 1: incumbent loses in twenty twenty six, which means, unbelievably that
1:47:20
Speaker 1: if you go back to twenty twenty, when there were
1:47:23
Speaker 1: two Georgia Senate seats up for grabs and Donald Trump
1:47:27
Speaker 1: basically blew both of them because there was a runoff
1:47:31
Speaker 1: election and he essentially holding a pity party for himself
1:47:35
Speaker 1: after losing the twenty twenty election and losing in Georgia,
1:47:39
Speaker 1: he essentially told Republicans not to vote, and this allowed
1:47:43
Speaker 1: two Democrats to take two seats that ought to be
1:47:46
Speaker 1: held by Republicans. It now appears in my view that
1:47:52
Speaker 1: for at least at least an eight year period of time,
1:47:57
Speaker 1: Democrats will control both Senate seats from Georgia all because
1:48:06
Speaker 1: it all started with Donald Trump's temper tantrum. Because once
1:48:10
Speaker 1: you become an incumbent US Senator that is extremely difficult
1:48:16
Speaker 1: to overturn in this day and age. Extremely doesn't matter
1:48:19
Speaker 1: how liberal you are, It doesn't matter how far outside
1:48:23
Speaker 1: of the mainstream of Georgia you are. As a liberal Democrat,
1:48:28
Speaker 1: you gotta have someone who will beat them. And in
1:48:31
Speaker 1: MAGA world, the most likely scenario is that some nutjob
1:48:37
Speaker 1: who is not viable statewide and doesn't have Trump's magic
1:48:42
Speaker 1: is going to be the Republican nominee. And so you know, look,
1:48:46
Speaker 1: Trump is a winner. I acknowledge this after he won
1:48:50
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four election. He's won two out of
1:48:52
Speaker 1: three presidential elections, and there's been some benefit to that,
1:48:56
Speaker 1: but there's also been a novel lot of cost. And
1:48:59
Speaker 1: the biggest, most obvious cost in the Senate is in
1:49:02
Speaker 1: Georgia because there should be no chance, no chance. I
1:49:06
Speaker 1: realized that Democrat demographics have changed in the Democrats' favor,
1:49:11
Speaker 1: but there should be no chance that you go for
1:49:14
Speaker 1: an at least at least an eight year period of
1:49:17
Speaker 1: time where Democrats control both Senate seats from Georgia and
1:49:22
Speaker 1: that's all on Donald Trump. And when you consider the
1:49:26
Speaker 1: fact that Snunu is not going to run Governor Sanunu
1:49:30
Speaker 1: is not going to run in New Hampshire, which is
1:49:32
Speaker 1: a winnable seat for Republicans. The Senate map in twenty
1:49:36
Speaker 1: twenty six, if the economy goes in the direction a
1:49:39
Speaker 1: lot of people think that it might, is suddenly looking
1:49:43
Speaker 1: nowhere near as good for Republicans as it was not
1:49:47
Speaker 1: that long ago. And the unthinkable seems to be on
1:49:51
Speaker 1: the table, which is that it is possible. Now this
1:49:54
Speaker 1: would be a long shot. This a lot would have
1:49:56
Speaker 1: to happen still, but it's even theoretically possible that Democrats
1:50:00
Speaker 1: take back the Senate. Now, the fact that jd Vance
1:50:03
Speaker 1: would be the tying vote in a fifty to fifty
1:50:05
Speaker 1: tie makes this very very difficult to actually happen, but
1:50:10
Speaker 1: it's at least theoretically possible. And I'm a little bit
1:50:15
Speaker 1: surprised and getting a little anxious about the fact that
1:50:18
Speaker 1: we've not heard anything about retirements from Clarence Thomas or
1:50:22
Speaker 1: Samuel Alito in the US Supreme Court, because you know,
1:50:27
Speaker 1: the Republicans are not going to have the presidency. In
1:50:30
Speaker 1: the US Senate forever, and if I'm Clarence Thomas or
1:50:36
Speaker 1: Samuel Alito, I'm thinking about retirement to make Dan well
1:50:39
Speaker 1: sure that I'm replaced by an alleged conservative, and that
1:50:45
Speaker 1: might have to happen before the twenty six midterm elections,
1:50:49
Speaker 1: just to be safe. So that's something to keep an
1:50:51
Speaker 1: eye on. One of the things that I have mentioned
1:50:54
Speaker 1: many times in the Death of the Journalism podcast is
1:50:57
Speaker 1: that it's not just national journalism that is dying, but
1:51:02
Speaker 1: local journalism is probably in even worse shape than it
1:51:07
Speaker 1: is on the national front. And there's an absolutely both
1:51:12
Speaker 1: startling and frankly hilarious example of that that I wanted
1:51:15
Speaker 1: to share with you on this week's episode. This is
1:51:19
Speaker 1: a story that I saw on the local ABC, Disney
1:51:25
Speaker 1: owned affiliate for television here in Los Angeles, KABC. So
1:51:30
Speaker 1: we're talking about a major, major market, second largest media
1:51:34
Speaker 1: market in the country, a major affiliate ABC owned by Disney.
1:51:39
Speaker 1: It's one of the stations that Disney actually owns, and
1:51:43
Speaker 1: this is a local television news report about what is
1:51:49
Speaker 1: essentially portrayed as a sperm race. I'm not making this up.
1:51:56
Speaker 1: They got a big crowd of people and there was
1:52:00
Speaker 1: allegedly a couple of different races of sperm between I
1:52:06
Speaker 1: think four different guys, and the whole point of this
1:52:09
Speaker 1: was to focus on the issue of fertility, and they
1:52:13
Speaker 1: got somehow got a big crowd there, and they allegedly
1:52:18
Speaker 1: showed these races of the sperm trying to get to
1:52:22
Speaker 1: the finish line on a big screen. So it was
1:52:25
Speaker 1: a spectator event, believe it or not. Now, the fact
1:52:27
Speaker 1: that this event even existed is strange and bizarre and
1:52:31
Speaker 1: troubling on a couple different levels. But okay, you want
1:52:34
Speaker 1: to put it into the realm of the issue of
1:52:37
Speaker 1: focusing on fertility, and there are definitely some fertility issues
1:52:41
Speaker 1: regarding humans and men in modern times, so I'm okay
1:52:45
Speaker 1: with that. But it's the nature of the report that
1:52:50
Speaker 1: is off the charts completely and totally inappropriate, even if
1:52:55
Speaker 1: it is actually entertaining. Now, this kind of goes to
1:52:57
Speaker 1: the issue of you know, Trump changing the world as
1:53:01
Speaker 1: entertainer in chief. Again, I'm all for a good joke.
1:53:05
Speaker 1: You know, when I was doing sports a million years
1:53:08
Speaker 1: ago as a sportscaster at an NBC affiliate and a
1:53:11
Speaker 1: Fox affiliate in Ohio and in North Carolina, I tried
1:53:15
Speaker 1: to use humor all the time. But I was doing sports,
1:53:19
Speaker 1: I wasn't doing news. I always felt like there was
1:53:22
Speaker 1: a major and should be a major firewall between those
1:53:26
Speaker 1: two things. Sports was the toy department. News was supposed
1:53:31
Speaker 1: to be serious. And again, I'm even willing in the
1:53:34
Speaker 1: modern era to give some leeway when it comes to
1:53:37
Speaker 1: local news. You want to, you know, joke around a bit.
1:53:40
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, though, folks, part of the reason
1:53:43
Speaker 1: I'm playing this clip is my view is that local
1:53:45
Speaker 1: news has become a complete and total joke. I mean,
1:53:50
Speaker 1: it is absolutely catastrophic what has happened to local especially
1:53:55
Speaker 1: television news. It is literally a joke. And this this
1:54:00
Speaker 1: is one of the best or worst examples that I
1:54:03
Speaker 1: have ever seen on this because the report on this
1:54:06
Speaker 1: sperm race was from a reporter who decided to use
1:54:12
Speaker 1: several double entendres that weren't even remotely veiled. I mean,
1:54:18
Speaker 1: this was as overt as you can possibly get. Because
1:54:22
Speaker 1: when you hear this report about this sperm race between
1:54:27
Speaker 1: these four kids in this spectator event in Los Angeles,
1:54:31
Speaker 1: you're gonna hear the words came explode, creamed and the
1:54:39
Speaker 1: use of the USC mascot name Trojan which obviously has
1:54:44
Speaker 1: some implication implications when it comes to the issue of sperm.
1:54:48
Speaker 1: So I don't know if we need any sort of
1:54:52
Speaker 1: disclaimer on sensitivity for your ears, because there's nothing really
1:54:56
Speaker 1: blatant about this is all done I said in double
1:55:01
Speaker 1: on Tandra. But this is an actual ABC local affiliate
1:55:05
Speaker 1: Disney own KBC news report on a sperm race where
1:55:09
Speaker 1: the reporter clearly was not taking this seriously at all,
1:55:15
Speaker 1: which you might think is okay, But the use of
1:55:18
Speaker 1: the language, I'm not sure is remotely appropriate for a
1:55:22
Speaker 1: news report and certainly would not have been even ten
1:55:27
Speaker 1: fifteen years ago. And here's what it sounded like on
1:55:29
Speaker 1: KBC in Los Angeles.
1:55:31
Speaker 3: So it might not become an Olympic sport, but it's
1:55:34
Speaker 3: sure creating quite the fan base, and that fan base
1:55:37
Speaker 3: raised over one million dollars for the world's first ever
1:55:40
Speaker 3: live sperm race.
1:55:42
Speaker 9: Today, eyewitness and supporter Tim Pulliam live in downtown Los Angeles.
1:55:45
Speaker 1: He's gonna tell us what this is about, and Tim,
1:55:47
Speaker 1: I am confused. Can you enlighten us a little bit?
1:55:51
Speaker 12: You know, it's a climactics story. It's called the sperm race,
1:55:54
Speaker 12: and as young men putting their manhood to the test
1:55:57
Speaker 12: to see how fast their swimmers can go in front
1:55:59
Speaker 12: of us old outcrowd. Mysterious white stuff shooting from a
1:56:06
Speaker 12: water gun made this moment borderline raunchy and entertaining. Downtown
1:56:13
Speaker 12: LA's night scene exploding Friday with an event billed as
1:56:16
Speaker 12: the world's first sperm Race Do This For contestants came
1:56:23
Speaker 12: with the goal to win ten thousand dollars in bragging
1:56:25
Speaker 12: rights for the strongest fastest semen.
1:56:28
Speaker 1: I would to build Olympics for spur.
1:56:29
Speaker 12: Eric Zoo was one of the sperm racing organizers, with
1:56:32
Speaker 12: the help of wealthy investors, The seventeen year old Bay
1:56:35
Speaker 12: Area high school student and entrepreneur launching this epic competition
1:56:39
Speaker 12: to raise awareness on male fertility health.
1:56:42
Speaker 1: The general public doesn't talk about it. Is it so taboo.
1:56:44
Speaker 6: It's always been associated with adult entertainment or something that's degenerate.
1:56:48
Speaker 1: What we want to do is we want to.
1:56:49
Speaker 6: Make it more of like a sports or a different
1:56:52
Speaker 6: type of entertainment, but more of like optimizing biomarkers.
1:56:54
Speaker 12: The contenders, who were hand picked out of dozens of
1:56:57
Speaker 12: young men, were given money each week to train their mind, bodies,
1:57:01
Speaker 12: and diets ahead of the viral sold out marathon.
1:57:04
Speaker 1: When you really think about it, we all won our
1:57:06
Speaker 1: own individual sperm races to get onto this planet.
1:57:09
Speaker 6: So it's only fit now we make this a format
1:57:10
Speaker 6: that we can all watch and enjoy.
1:57:12
Speaker 12: The competitors sperm put into a microscopic racetrack and then
1:57:17
Speaker 12: they're off, the sperm literally captured on this screen swimming
1:57:21
Speaker 12: to the finish line. The winner celebrates while the loser
1:57:26
Speaker 12: gets slimed. But perhaps this was the matchup of the
1:57:30
Speaker 12: night male students from USC and UCLA. In the end,
1:57:34
Speaker 12: the trojan Ie the bruin got creamed. Okay, so Mark,
1:57:41
Speaker 12: I hope I educated you tonight. It all took place
1:57:44
Speaker 12: in this studio. Here behind me, a Gramminated nominated rapper
1:57:48
Speaker 12: Ti Dollar Sign also performed. The organizers made history tonight.
1:57:52
Speaker 12: They say this is the first sperm race, but it
1:57:55
Speaker 12: will not be the last. Timpulium. ABC seven Eyewitness News.
1:58:00
Speaker 3: This this is a late night newscast.
1:58:02
Speaker 1: Go Trojans, thanks to now. When I saw that, I
1:58:09
Speaker 1: was like, I cannot believe that this reporter did this.
1:58:12
Speaker 1: I mean, because it's obvious what they're doing. I would love,
1:58:16
Speaker 1: love love to know whether or not the executives were
1:58:20
Speaker 1: aware of what he did before it aired. My spidey
1:58:26
Speaker 1: sense tells me that they may not have been. That
1:58:29
Speaker 1: there may not have been proper vetting for reasons that
1:58:33
Speaker 1: you can conclude on your for your own, on your own,
1:58:38
Speaker 1: that there may have been reasons why this report was
1:58:41
Speaker 1: able to slide underneath the radar, and that there not
1:58:44
Speaker 1: may not have been full scrutiny, and that there may
1:58:47
Speaker 1: not have been a willingness to retract it or to
1:58:52
Speaker 1: you know, apologize for it or anything like that. I
1:58:55
Speaker 1: could be maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I
1:58:57
Speaker 1: don't know, but that is not an appropriate report for
1:59:01
Speaker 1: a legitimate or semi even legitimate news station in a
1:59:07
Speaker 1: major market. But here's the topper. Here's the topper for
1:59:11
Speaker 1: this story. So this big screen, this giant screen that
1:59:15
Speaker 1: allegedly showed this sperm race. The video screen depicted the
1:59:22
Speaker 1: sperm basically as cartoon versions of sperm, and it was
1:59:31
Speaker 1: very very obvious, especially in retrospective anyone was even using
1:59:36
Speaker 1: any portion of their brain, that it could not have
1:59:40
Speaker 1: been real. And there was an expert on sperm who
1:59:45
Speaker 1: did a TikTok video that went viral about this event
1:59:49
Speaker 1: that made it very very obvious that the video itself
1:59:53
Speaker 1: was faked, that there was no sperm race, because the sperm,
1:59:59
Speaker 1: if they were able to get live footage of the
2:00:03
Speaker 1: sperm engaging in this race to the finish, the sperm
2:00:07
Speaker 1: would not have looked anything like that. What was depicted
2:00:11
Speaker 1: was basically the kindergarten mat out of the kindergarteners have
2:00:15
Speaker 1: any idea what sperm is, but a high schooler's vision
2:00:22
Speaker 1: or version the cartoon depiction of what you think of
2:00:27
Speaker 1: sperm as and it's not the way they look. It's
2:00:29
Speaker 1: not the way that they would be moving if they
2:00:33
Speaker 1: were swimming in such a race. So the whole thing
2:00:36
Speaker 1: was fake. So not only did KBC in Los Angeles
2:00:40
Speaker 1: get duped by this story to doing it in the
2:00:45
Speaker 1: first place and then turning it into it literal joke
2:00:49
Speaker 1: and a series of double entendres, but the entire foundation
2:00:53
Speaker 1: of the story was not real. It was a fraud.
2:00:56
Speaker 1: It was apparently a hoax. At least the video portion
2:00:59
Speaker 1: of it was a complete hoax. No chance it was real,
2:01:04
Speaker 1: And to my knowledge, I doubt that KBC is even
2:01:07
Speaker 1: aware of this. Maybe and they certainly haven't done any
2:01:10
Speaker 1: public retraction of it. But to me that was a
2:01:13
Speaker 1: classic example of the depth of journalism, especially on the
2:01:16
Speaker 1: local level, because local television news, especially here in Los Angeles,
2:01:21
Speaker 1: which is where I live, but I still try to
2:01:23
Speaker 1: keep aware of other markets as well, has become a
2:01:26
Speaker 1: complete and total joke. It is a catastrophe. It is
2:01:31
Speaker 1: not actual news content, which is partially why, going back
2:01:35
Speaker 1: to the NPR PBS story, I'm actually somewhat in favor
2:01:41
Speaker 1: of federal funding with strings attached, because MPR, you know,
2:01:47
Speaker 1: in some markets, might be the only substantive news left.
2:01:50
Speaker 1: You're certainly not going to get it from local television news,
2:01:53
Speaker 1: that's for damn sure. Thanks for listening to today's free
2:01:56
Speaker 1: drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening
2:01:59
Speaker 1: to the Tire Show, you must become a patron. Please
2:02:03
Speaker 1: go to Patreon. That's p A T R e O
2:02:07
Speaker 1: N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death of
2:02:13
Speaker 1: Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j H N
2:02:17
Speaker 1: z I E G L e R. That's patreon dot com.
2:02:22
Speaker 1: Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck
2:02:28
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe