Latest / Bourbon & Rum / Free Speech, Censorship, and the Power of the Political Brand

Transcript

Free Speech, Censorship, and the Power of the Political Brand · Bourbon & Rum

0:00
The old way of selling was you start with the product.
0:03
The new way to to really sell is you sell the brand first.
0:07
So the assumption of a world where free speech is an absolute
0:10
right kind of goes hand in hand with the fact that you've got to
0:13
have the stone to stand up and say those words out loud and to
0:18
bear the responsibility for what you're saying.
0:21
Maybe you don't have guaranteed free speech unless it's signed.
0:25
I will register as a Democrat if you run for off.
0:27
I'm coming door to door in Iowa. Give me some talking points.
0:31
I don't care what the hell they are.
0:34
Welcome to Bourbon and Rum, the podcast dedicated to civil
0:38
conversation. I'm Kent, I like rum and I'm
0:41
from the left side of the aisle. And I'm Kyle.
0:43
I like bourbon. I tend to be a little more
0:45
conservative. We're brothers talking politics
0:48
for bourbon and rum. What are you drinking?
1:01
I'm drinking a rye today. Don't normally drink a rye, but
1:05
our local liquor store, I don't know if it's a good thing or
1:08
not, but I joined their Facebook page.
1:10
So now I get all these, hey, we got this in today.
1:14
And then we scrambled and they're like, we're not sure how
1:16
long it's going to last. So then I scrambled to the
1:17
liquor store and I got to buy a bottle because I don't know how
1:20
long it's going to last. Can't.
1:23
But they had a well, Sazerac rye isn't that hard to find, but
1:29
they had a Sazerac rye foolproof 125 proof and I hadn't seen that
1:33
before and it's really tasty. I I'm not that big of a rye fan,
1:39
but I but I do like high proof. So it's it's pretty tasty.
1:43
What are you drinking on? I'm back up on my Bolivar
1:48
Venezuelan rum, in part because it's terrible and I want to get
1:53
rid of the bottle, but also, you know, in honor of the brewing
1:59
conflict in the Caribbean and, you know, all of that so.
2:04
In honor of a of a of a forever ally to Democratic Party,
2:10
Nicolas Maduro. We have no beef with the
2:14
Venezuelan people. It's the leadership that we're
2:18
not too, too sanguine about. And well, hey, you sent me an
2:24
interesting article and yeah, maybe you want to summarize that
2:29
and then we can react to it. I I thought it was a it was a a
2:32
good catch and prestige passing it on.
2:35
Yeah, so I came across this article about the Trump
2:38
administration and I, I guess they banned, they did put a
2:44
travel ban on it looks like 4 individuals from the European
2:48
Union who have various tie. They they lead these
2:55
organizations which the US argues counter free speech,
3:03
particularly for online platforms like Axe or Facebook
3:09
or other digital platforms. And and the, the article I was
3:15
reading was a summary of what's going on.
3:17
It was a opinion piece in The Hill by Jonathan Turley, but it
3:21
was talking about these folks and there's controversy about
3:24
them being banned and what this means.
3:28
And I thought be an interesting thing for us to kind of dive
3:30
into one of us. So it's four people.
3:34
One of them is this theory Brit Britain or Britain?
3:38
Former. European Commissioner and one of
3:41
the architects of the EU's Digital Services Act and it it's
3:46
a law aimed at making social platforms safer by setting rules
3:52
for hate, hate speech, disinformation, etcetera.
3:55
And then there's a couple of other folks, this guy Imran
3:59
Ahmed, party CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate,
4:05
Claire Melford, head of the Global Disinformation Index, and
4:10
Lena von Hodenburg and Joseph Mullen.
4:14
So I guess 5 individuals told their leaders at Hate Aid, a
4:18
German organization focused on supporting people affected by
4:21
online hate speech, which, OK, you think hey, they're fighting
4:25
hate speech. Terrific.
4:27
The problem is that when you dig into like this digital services
4:31
act and some of these hate speech people, it's, you know,
4:39
the, the issue is, is where is that line drawn?
4:43
Who defines what is quote UN quote hate speech or
4:47
objectionable stuff? And, and we talked about this on
4:50
an earlier podcast. You know, there's, I think we
4:52
did the math. There's like 15,000 people have
4:55
been arrested in, in Great Britain for, you know, making
4:58
social media posts that, you know, are upsetting to other
5:02
folks. And so, you know, I think, and
5:06
we've talked about this before, like, yeah, you want there to be
5:10
safety for people you want and you want to counter or, you
5:17
know, people spreading lies about stuff.
5:20
But then it's like, how do you do that and where do you draw
5:23
the lines? I don't know if a travel ban is
5:26
the way to stop this. I mean, I kind of like what
5:30
you've often said, Kent, is, I mean, the way to really combat
5:35
this is more speech. I mean, we're going to bring one
5:37
of these, bring these, one of these guys over and put them in
5:40
a university setting in front of a somebody to argue and let's
5:44
let the, you know, good ideas bounce each other.
5:49
I think part of the band, though, is like retaliatory
5:54
because of some of the sanctions these people have imposed on
5:56
some of the executives of some mark tech companies.
5:59
So it's a bit of a tit for tat is what it sounds like.
6:01
But yeah, interesting. Your thoughts, Ken?
6:04
So I haven't had, I don't have direct experience in this that
6:07
they're talking about. I will say that because of my
6:09
work, I've spent an inordinate amount of time over the last few
6:14
years thinking about the European Privacy Law Act and
6:20
some of that stuff, which is not the same as what we're talking
6:23
about here, but I would call it kind of a part of a part of the
6:26
same piece. And I don't know if you're
6:28
familiar with that, but you have the right in Europe to not be
6:36
contacted or whatever. And if you unsubscribe from an
6:40
e-mail list and you spam them anyway, like it's like thousands
6:46
of dollars. It's like really huge fines and
6:51
stuff. And there's part of me that
6:53
says, oh, that sounds good because, you know, it's really
6:55
bad when people disregard spam laws and stuff.
7:00
But in reality, what it's become is just a really impossible
7:05
minefield for charities trying to do work over their
7:08
governmental agencies, you know, And it, it seems a little silly
7:13
to me. I, I think that the topic that
7:17
you're talking about, I think that there's a lot of
7:19
sensitivity in Europe about that.
7:22
But as I said, I'm on record. I'm a free speech absolutist.
7:26
I, I don't favour limiting a free speech.
7:30
I would say there's a couple things that I would really like
7:33
to see, though. And one of them is that I think
7:39
anonymous free speech, kind of, you know, I'm no constitutional
7:44
scholar, but I don't think there was like, Internet bulletin
7:50
boards when The Federalist Papers were written.
7:53
And so the assumption of a world where free speech is an absolute
7:58
right kind of goes hand in hand with the fact that you've got to
8:02
have the stone to stand up and say those words out loud and to
8:08
bear the responsibility for what you're saying.
8:12
And so, you know, what do you do in a world where people can
8:15
create 15 Facebook profiles and just throw nonsense out there
8:20
and there's no connection to who they are?
8:24
That seems, Again, I'm not I I don't think you fixed that with
8:29
censorship, but maybe you don't have guaranteed free speech
8:35
unless it's signed. You know what I mean?
8:38
Yeah. I mean, there's certainly don't
8:41
have an impact. I mean, I guess I counter to
8:43
that. I think about, I mean, not so
8:44
much in this country, but you know, if you were accessing a
8:49
social media platform illegally from North Korea, I would hope
8:53
that there was a way that somebody there could say
8:56
something without being outed as a anti dear leader and get
9:01
executed. You know, we don't have to worry
9:02
about that right now in the US. But you know, you can kind of
9:07
make the argument that the anonymity.
9:09
Is do we not have to worry about that?
9:13
Not yet, but yeah, I mean, that's a fear, right?
9:16
I mean, if you get to a place where you're telling people what
9:19
they can and can't say. I, I don't think this is where
9:22
you were coming at it, but I will point out that, and I don't
9:25
want this to be my litany of bitching about Trump again, but
9:30
I think I texted you this week. It wouldn't be.
9:33
It wouldn't be a. Good podcast without a little
9:34
bit of Trump bitching. Well, you know, this outrage
9:38
when he went off on the media for running stories that are not
9:43
favorable to him. And he's like, they run these
9:45
stories and it's a it's a little the pot called kettle black with
9:49
the Trump administration coming down on the Europeans for
9:54
censorship when he makes billion dollar bullshit lawsuits against
10:01
media companies and they pay them not because there was any
10:05
guilt, but because they wanted to get the regulatory headaches
10:09
freed when he literally weaponized the FCC and
10:14
communications rules. I mean, that's like, that's
10:17
that's pretty well censorship. This 60 minutes story, by the
10:22
way. Hey, geniuses, stuff leaks and
10:26
you can't spike a story that's already out there that they run
10:30
in Canada and you can get on Canadian YouTube.
10:34
Have you looked at the the story about the Salvadoran prison
10:40
anyway? But but yeah, like, I think that
10:44
that's a, that that's a real problem, the.
10:48
Suppression of OK, but I do find it a little different suing
10:54
somebody in a court of law and going through a legal channel
11:00
versus imprisoning somebody without a trial.
11:03
I mean that that's what happens in places where they censor
11:06
people. You know, you can file a lawsuit
11:08
all you want. I would hope that, you know,
11:13
these media companies who've all said that they, you know, are
11:16
they staunch defenders of democracy?
11:20
They don't defend anything if it's bad economically.
11:24
What's the name? I'm Googling the Columbia
11:28
University student who was jailed for not for the things
11:34
that he said about the Israelis. I'm.
11:39
The one that was deported or jailed.
11:42
There was there was a guy that was jailed and I think maybe
11:45
ultimately deported. I mean, I'm not just trying to
11:50
be petulant here, but. Well, I'm not trying to be
11:54
argumentative. I guess I'm.
11:56
I I Mahmoud Khalil was jailed in March 25 by federal immigration
12:02
agents as a part of Crackdown on Campus protesters held for 104
12:07
days in a Louisiana detention center before a judge ordered
12:12
his release. I mean, I don't know.
12:16
No, that's not North Korea. That's not America, though.
12:20
Like I'm not OK with that. Yeah, I don't know what the
12:24
details of it, but yeah, I mean, that is AI could certainly see
12:29
both see a side of that that's negative.
12:33
And I think what they were trying to do.
12:34
And I think the, I don't know, and I don't want to argue for or
12:38
against it, but I, I know part of the Columbia crackdown was
12:41
also a protection of people that were also being, you know,
12:46
persecute against. So, but you know again.
12:49
I don't know, I mean, we neither, but I, I got a
12:53
different spin on that for sure. And I, I, I think it's a sticky
12:57
wicket, right? Like you, you, you can't just be
13:01
like, Oh yeah, well, we're all pro free speech unless we don't
13:05
like the speech. I mean, and, and that's really
13:08
what I, my perception, yeah, my perception shaped by my media.
13:12
But that's, you know, I've seen a lot of that lately.
13:14
And I, I think that's worrisome, but I would be equally worrisome
13:18
if a Democrat were doing the same thing.
13:20
I, I, I, I'm not in favour of that.
13:22
I, I don't think I, I mean, I'll go out on a limb.
13:25
I'm probably well which. I mean, I OK the Columbia
13:28
student, Yeah, I I get that's, that sounds pretty bad unless I
13:33
understood more extenuating circumstances.
13:36
But what bothers you? The the suing of media
13:38
organizations or the griping about media organization?
13:41
Or both. A little both.
13:43
I think this is a bigger topic than this, but Trump governs
13:51
like it's all about him. He uses the mechanisms of
13:55
government not necessarily even to advance his political
13:58
objectives, but to advance his personal financial objectives.
14:02
And so it's kind of a red herring to the conversation
14:06
we're having. But yeah, as.
14:08
In it's as in it's not related but to free speech or I mean.
14:13
Yeah, kind of. I don't think.
14:15
I mean, again, I'm not a constitutional scholar.
14:18
The Supreme Court said the president was immune from
14:22
criminal prosecution while he's the president doing official
14:25
acts, if that's the way that goes, and I support that,
14:29
actually, I think that that's probably healthy.
14:32
But then how does he get away with personally suing media
14:38
companies when he runs the FCC? Like if he if he's immune from
14:46
prosecution, that's fine, but he should also not have the ability
14:52
to bring suit and to use the the the mechanism of justice that he
14:57
controls. Well, let's dig into that.
14:59
So should a president, I mean, under that thinking, a president
15:03
shouldn't be able to file any personal lawsuit because the
15:06
Department of Justice is under him every law.
15:08
Enforcement. Well, he's president.
15:10
Yes, I agree with that for personal reasons.
15:12
I agree with that. Is that constitutional?
15:16
Well, I said I'm not a constitutional scholar, but does
15:20
it not seem a little crazy that you you're, you're a different
15:24
human being because you're the president and while you're the
15:26
president, you're not subject to the ordinary laws of the
15:32
country? That's what the Supreme Court
15:33
said. So then, but you also still
15:36
maintain the reins of the thing and all of the tools.
15:41
OK, he's immune from prostitution.
15:45
Prostitution. He is not immune from
15:47
prostitution actually, but we can go Epstein and on that.
15:51
Prosecution for official acts, yes, but not for personal acts
15:57
When? You're the president of the
15:59
United States. The media take shots at you.
16:01
Get over it, you thin skinned piece of crap.
16:05
He can't handle the criticism, and so he sues them.
16:09
Those are official acts. When you're the president of the
16:11
United States, you're speaking into the microphone.
16:14
It's an official act. It's not about you, buddy.
16:17
So I mean, are you saying they're frivolous lawsuits or
16:21
obviously not frivolous lawsuits because they're settling them?
16:24
They don't, no. They are frivolous lawsuits, but
16:26
they're settling them because if they don't settle them, the FCC
16:30
threatens to like what was the one the ABC where the the
16:36
companies like the sale of the company was being held up by the
16:41
FCC and simultaneously he sues them for a bunch of money and
16:46
they're like, fine, we'll pay you some money to go away.
16:49
So the sale of the company can go through.
16:52
Like you can't have it both ways.
16:53
If if he gets immunity because he's special because he's the
16:57
president, well then sorry, part of being the president is that
17:00
the media may take shots at you. Get over it.
17:03
You can't sue anybody but that. That's all you're saying.
17:06
You're saying you can't sue a media company, but you're really
17:08
saying you can't sue anybody? Yeah, I like what would be a
17:12
valid reason for a president to sue somebody?
17:16
I mean, but it doesn't. I mean, the Constitution doesn't
17:18
prohibit it. No, I, I, I've stated that
17:21
though. I'm not.
17:22
I'm not talking constitutionally, I'm talking
17:24
common sense. You grant a guy immunity from
17:29
the law, he runs the organization of justice, and yet
17:34
he can make personal lawsuits that he enforces with regulatory
17:40
mechanisms. Well, he's still personally sued
17:44
ABC, yes. And it's a lawsuit, and they can
17:48
defend that court. And if they had a case, they
17:50
would defend it. And some of these people he sued
17:53
have defended it. And they've thrown out cases
17:55
that well. Fox told him to go to hell, but
17:57
ABC settled because the the FCC was specifically holding up the
18:05
sale over BS reasons. Because they were holding out
18:09
for his lawsuit. Yeah.
18:12
I see the. When they settled the lawsuit
18:14
and the FCC waved off on the on the sale, has Trump demonstrated
18:21
good judgment in separating his personal remuneration from his
18:25
from his duties in office? Would you would you say that I.
18:29
Don't think it's is, I mean, obviously you're going to think
18:33
that he is not, but I don't know that I don't think these
18:38
lawsuits are, well, I don't, I don't think they're invalid.
18:43
Obviously they're valid because they're many of these companies
18:46
are totally in the wrong. And I, I mean, honestly, if
18:49
we're back to how do you prevent misinformation, OK, libel.
18:54
There's a libel and defamation laws on the books for a purpose.
18:58
Yeah, but these aren't liable in defamation.
19:00
These are personal, these are civil suits.
19:04
If there was crime committed, then you got a, you got a
19:07
mechanism to prosecute that. This isn't a crime, This is a
19:11
civil suit. Yeah, I'm just saying it.
19:15
Was a very different burden of proof.
19:17
True, but it doesn't mean there was a wrongdoing.
19:21
There isn't continual wrongdoing by these organizations.
19:24
And if if there's if you're going to if you want to grant
19:28
the threat, I mean, OK, I mean, that's a conversation for the
19:32
free speech dialogue. Do journalism companies get
19:37
absolute immunity? Do you want that?
19:40
I don't think that helps the disinformation issue.
19:42
Well, maybe not I it's hard for me to see editing.
19:48
The thing that he sued ABC about, if I'm not mistaken, is
19:51
that that they made Kamala Harris look a little better by
19:55
cutting some UMS and us like that doesn't seem very criminal
20:01
to me. What they didn't say.
20:03
What it was is During an ABC broadcast, Stephanopoulos said
20:08
repeatedly that Trump had been found liable for rape.
20:12
Yeah, I guess. No, I guess it's just that the
20:15
judge said what he did was rape. There wasn't an actual
20:19
liability. So you got to choose your words
20:21
carefully. Well, it's, it's a legal, Yeah.
20:25
I mean, it's I. Mean the.
20:27
One way is legally accurate, one way is not.
20:30
Right. I don't know.
20:31
I, I, I, I think that this discussion about free speech and
20:34
how to handle it is worthy on its own.
20:36
So I'm going to set aside this. No, but I think this is good
20:40
Kent, because again, when you think about what is the legal,
20:46
what is you can't just say anything you because you can be
20:49
sued for something, you know, so like and I, I, you think, you
20:54
know, we can go round and round about whether or not you think
20:57
Trump ought to be able to sue somebody or not and the immunity
21:00
and those are all good arguments.
21:02
But if I think it's a different scenario, if your recourse for
21:10
offensive free speech is a lawsuit versus a, you know, a
21:17
gazpacho raid, as we were kidding about the other day, you
21:20
know, you know, I mean, there is a there is a difference there.
21:24
And I, I mean, you know, not lost on your arguing about the
21:29
influence on organizations and and everything else.
21:34
But if I would think it's a pretty significant difference
21:38
between what happens in a third world country versus what
21:40
happens here. And there's a lot of injustices
21:43
that take place in the United States, but we do have a robust
21:46
legal system that people can redress those.
21:50
I don't think there's a robust legal system and many of these
21:53
really repressive totalitarian states.
21:56
I think that's a true statement, although the robustness of your
22:00
access to justice is directly proportional to the dollars in
22:04
your pocket. And I mean, you think about it,
22:08
it costs real money to sue somebody.
22:10
You got to have money to sue somebody.
22:13
And so if you don't have money, are you protected under the 1st
22:17
Amendment on things like that? Probably not, because if
22:20
somebody is bigger and stronger and richer than you, they can
22:24
bully you with the courts. And that happens all the time in
22:27
this country. And I think that's a travesty
22:30
and people. Honestly, it's that's I, I mean,
22:34
it's almost like that's the question, right?
22:37
Like a not completely fair money influenced court system.
22:43
Or do you want protection through a government that
22:46
decides what's fair and what's not, and then has the means to
22:50
crack down whichever way that they choose is fairest?
22:55
Right or. Maybe we go to some type of
22:59
ancient system that if somebody says something bad about you,
23:02
you can just kill them. You know that would be 11 ankle.
23:07
Yeah, I I'm thinking about a smart comeback here and I don't
23:10
have one ready at hand. I don't know.
23:14
I mean, you know, it's, it's kind of like we used to argue, I
23:18
don't know, if you did, I would sometimes have these
23:22
hypothetical arguments with that.
23:23
I was usually aligned with him more politically, but we'd argue
23:26
about, you know, like, like socialized healthcare and, you
23:31
know, you know, it's unfair that you got to have all this money
23:34
to get the good treatment. And his thing was like, well,
23:37
yeah, it's not fair, but money's fairer than some bureaucratic,
23:43
you know, decision maker making all the decisions of who gets
23:46
the, the scarce resources, you know, So it's kind of like no
23:50
system is perfect. And maybe there will be a
23:53
perfect system at some point. I don't know.
23:56
Yeah, I think no system is perfect, but I think that there
23:59
are, I think it's a problem when they're glaring holes in it.
24:02
Yes, I think our system is better than a lot of.
24:05
We are better off here than in North Korea.
24:08
But but we're not guaranteed that.
24:11
And I think, you know, one of the reasons that I hammer you so
24:14
hard about Trump, one of the reasons that it makes my blood
24:17
boil, one of the reasons that, you know, people are like, oh,
24:20
Trump Derangement Syndrome. You just don't like him and
24:22
you're really pissed. The things that he is pushing on
24:26
our country are, in my mind, some of the things that are the
24:31
most fragile about our democracy.
24:35
We don't, we don't get a peaceful transfer of power after
24:40
elections by some kind of magic freaking wand.
24:45
We get it because candidates for 250 years have said, OK, I lost
24:54
the election. I'm going to act with, with,
24:57
with grace and with like. That's why we have a peaceful
25:04
transfer of power. There's no guarantees of that.
25:07
Yeah, I'm trying to. I was trying to look up, you
25:10
know, and again, I my response to that is much of what your
25:18
opinions about him are shaped by people telling the stories.
25:22
And you know, you're obviously referring to January 6th and I
25:26
don't know the context. What was the?
25:31
You wouldn't know this, but. You think I'm reading that
25:33
wrong? And he's he's really committed
25:36
to American democracy. And yeah, if he thought he lost
25:42
the election fair and square, he would have just been gracious
25:44
about it. The fact I mean, the subject of
25:47
this conversation, he's going he's, he's combating the, the
25:53
free speech threats that we're seeing in Europe.
25:59
The Democrats love that digital services act bullshit.
26:02
I know you don't and I'm not pinning that on you, but I I
26:07
totally disagree with you because the angle that he's
26:10
pushing for is more free speech. Yes, he sued media covers sue it
26:14
people all you want, use a use a lawsuit.
26:18
That's free speech. That's, that's what free speech
26:21
is about, is using the courts, not, you know.
26:25
But his free speech? Bureaucrat.
26:27
Some bureaucrat labeling something that's hate speech
26:30
because you disagree with me? But he doesn't need a guarantee
26:34
of free speech 'cause he's got that lectern with that big damn
26:38
seal on it. If he's a private citizen and
26:41
sues somebody for things, fine, fine, go at it.
26:45
You can use your money and you can bully people.
26:47
You can, you can claim whatever you want, fine that there is a
26:51
recourse. You're right on that.
26:53
He doesn't need that guarantee. He's got the big disc in front
26:58
of his in front of his podium. I disagree.
27:01
I think it's AI think it's I think he's helping, not himself.
27:05
I'm sure he's helping himself. He's getting a couple 1,000,000
27:08
bucks he doesn't need. I think he's helping a lot of
27:11
other people running for office. They're going to face that same
27:14
crap that these people can deceptively get audit, edit crap
27:19
and get away with it. No, I'm glad he's not letting
27:22
these media companies get away with their nonsense.
27:24
And I can't remember. OK, but listen to me.
27:28
But the January 6th. Thing is, the exact same thing
27:31
one of these movies they did on January 6th, they got him saying
27:35
you're we're going to go down to that capital and fight like
27:37
hell. That's not they pieced together
27:41
pieces to make it sound like, Hey, you need to go down to the
27:44
capital and fight like, like hell.
27:46
He said, you're going to the real, you know, I'm screwing
27:48
this up, but I'll get I'll work this out with the details.
27:53
But you know, he was like, go down there and peacefully
27:56
protest. And later he said something
27:58
about fight like hell, but they piece it together.
28:00
This crap happens all the time and nobody's nobody thinks twice
28:04
about it because if it's supporting your side, it's
28:06
great. I love their.
28:08
Accountability. That may be your perspective.
28:12
I'm going to tell you that is 100 my percent, my perspective
28:16
that that SOB lies directly into the camera multiple times a day.
28:22
Lies, not shades. The truth lies.
28:26
In fact, there's an article in the Wall Street Journal, I think
28:29
that said that in general, if he cites a statistic of 92%, that's
28:35
a tell that he's BS ING because that's his favorite number for
28:39
when he's lying. That has no basis in fact.
28:42
He says it's 92%. This listen, the guy lies all
28:46
the time. But Kyle, you, you just said
28:49
that the way this works, the way we fix that is we sue him.
28:53
You know who can sue the president of the United States?
28:55
Nobody. He's immune.
28:57
You can. You can vote.
28:58
He's immune. He's immune.
29:00
He can't be held accountable. He can lie to that crowd on
29:03
January 6th and the Supreme Court said no, he's president,
29:07
he's fine. Well, again, if they he said it
29:09
the way they, these media companies edit his words to say
29:13
it, yeah, it's a problem. But you know, true facts matter
29:17
when you get into a court of law.
29:19
Now, unless you're in the kangaroo court, IE the January
29:22
6th, whatever the hell the thing that was that they did, they
29:26
barred all dissent and they barred all, you know, evidence
29:32
that didn't support their outcome.
29:34
Well, the reason I went down this path was not to just beat
29:38
this drum. I, I think of Trump's vice
29:42
president Mike Pence was the least deserving of a hanging.
29:49
You know, I don't, I, I, I think that was just, it was an insane
29:53
day and I don't know if he's solely responsible for it, but
29:58
he bears culpability and the, the tools, you know, I go back
30:03
to how we started this conversation.
30:05
You're like, lawsuits are the way.
30:07
That's how we, that's our recourse.
30:10
And what we've heard is that if he's doing it, there's no
30:15
recourse for us. And that bothers me like whether
30:19
what's the check and balance? Or the opposite is bring a
30:23
candidate that's either not senile or not an idiot that
30:28
could beat him. How did you not beat him?
30:30
Fair enough. Well, we did though.
30:34
That's the thing, they did beat him.
30:37
He lost the election and he won the the third election.
30:41
Which, again, that's how I mean Trump would be off to the
30:46
sunset. Right now, oh look, if we want
30:50
to start that, you'll find no bigger fan or agreement than
30:55
from me that the reason that we have this clown in the White
31:00
House now is primarily a function of Democrat
31:04
malfeasance. They couldn't beat him.
31:07
What does that say about the Democrat Party?
31:09
I mean, that's a that's a horrible thing.
31:11
Ideas aren't very good, and his ideas were better.
31:17
Nope, I don't agree with that. I think that their execution was
31:23
pathetic. I think that Joe Biden, that the
31:27
people around Joe Biden that let him run and soak up the oxygen
31:31
in that race, that was insane. I don't think that's about
31:35
ideas. I think that's about like
31:37
malpractice. The idea of letting him run, I
31:42
mean, I guess some headaches. Yeah, I'm just saying that I
31:45
don't think, well, I mean, we, we we disagree about this, this.
31:50
Average by way, you know, I'm going to point out we've been
31:54
very agreeable over the last few weeks.
31:57
I mean, and I worried that maybe we were we were never going to
32:00
disagree again. We found something we could
32:02
disagree about, but you know, it had to go from what I thought
32:06
was a free speech conversation to a January 6th conversation.
32:09
So. That's interesting, but they're
32:11
not readily separable. I guess that's the point, that
32:15
it really is a, a free speech question, right?
32:18
Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?
32:21
The Supreme Court said no, that's that doesn't count as
32:23
free speech. We we disagree about what he
32:26
said or what was the implication of what he said.
32:29
But are there any limits on the president's free speech?
32:33
There's plenty of limits on the media's free speech.
32:36
And in a world where the president of the United States,
32:39
who controls the Department of Justice and the FCC, can
32:42
personally not not a government lawsuit against these.
32:47
Like, if if they really did anything wrong, couldn't the
32:50
Department of Justice brought action against them?
32:53
Aren't there all kinds of laws about media fairness?
32:57
This is a personal lawsuit. To enrich him.
33:00
So let, let me let me make sure I understand that.
33:02
So you would have been more comfortable with a Trump Justice
33:05
Department going after ABC than a personal lawsuit?
33:09
Yep, 100%. OK, I'm sure. 100%.
33:13
I'm sure we would not been having a conversation right now
33:16
about how Trump's weaponizing the Justice Department to go
33:20
after a network news show. No, but that's like that's a
33:24
different kind of corruption. Like it's corrupt the way that
33:28
he works. The regulatory agents is
33:30
corrupt, but it's not personally corrupt.
33:34
This is personally corrupt. Corrupt.
33:37
Interesting. I think the media companies are
33:39
corrupt and I think it's damn time somebody called them on it.
33:43
But I'm glad somebody's calling on it.
33:45
Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but there's consequences
33:49
and you say a bunch of BS and yeah, it takes money to sue
33:53
somebody and you got somebody that sued them.
33:55
And I'm glad that they're going to think twice next time before
34:00
selectively editing crap to to spend somebody.
34:04
Do you think the so so is it your position that the only the
34:09
only leverage, the only check that we have on a sitting
34:14
president then comes at election time or impeachment, right?
34:18
Like those are the only two, right?
34:20
Because you you're immune from. Prosecution.
34:22
What else? What else do you want?
34:25
Well, if he can sue people, why can't he be sued?
34:29
Like, like, that's preposterous. Like you can't have it when you
34:33
apparently can have it exactly both ways.
34:36
And I think that's bullshit. So what would they sue him for?
34:38
What would you sue? For, well, I don't know, if my
34:42
relative were a cop who was killed on January 6th, I might
34:46
say I might think about suing him for what culpability he had.
34:50
And then we'd have a, we'd have a trial and we'd find out
34:52
whether you're right, that it was all BS or not.
34:55
But you can't 'cause he's president.
34:57
Yeah. Like, do you see the imbalance
34:59
of that? Yeah.
35:01
I just think that's like. I don't think that's new with
35:05
Trump. I mean, you can't sue the that
35:08
Trump didn't invent that. No, but when was the last time
35:13
we had presidents personally suing media companies for
35:16
editing them badly? Nixon.
35:19
I don't know. Roosevelt sued newspapers.
35:22
Personally or on behalf of the Justice Department.
35:26
Personal lawsuits. Herbert Hoover did.
35:29
Yeah, those are the 2. So it's not many.
35:31
Again, we have mechanisms we, you know, yeah, I would be, I
35:35
would be chuffed if he just sent the Justice Department and the
35:42
the illegally placed prosecuting attorneys that the kids seem to
35:47
get out of their own way if they'd sent them to to prosecute
35:51
the media companies for. Maybe if they'd done like an
35:56
early morning raid with 30 agents and M sixteens or
35:59
something. Yeah, yeah, they'd be fitting up
36:01
the CEO. That'd be good.
36:04
Yeah. I mean, it's not super
36:06
surprising. I mean, no Democrats ever going
36:09
to sue a media company 'cause they all think alikes.
36:13
This involves a recharge, I should say.
36:15
Well, I'd like to sue 60 minutes for or for that Barry Weiss for
36:19
crushing of legitimate story. Do you watch it?
36:21
It's on. It's on YouTube, the Canadian
36:23
version. No.
36:25
I think they're trying to quiet, yeah.
36:27
Yeah. What were they?
36:28
What was it? They're trying to quiet
36:29
something about sending people this.
36:30
Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a, an expose that they had guys that
36:34
were sent there without any due process of any kind and the
36:41
torture that happened there. Interesting.
36:45
So where are we on the free speech piece?
36:50
Who should be the arbiter of free speech?
36:52
Court of public opinion and the and lawsuits when appropriate,
36:57
but. Wait a second.
36:59
But it ought to be it. Yeah, but it ought to be.
37:02
Certain people file said lawsuits, but how much of the
37:06
you know? Though I do think, and you've
37:09
said it before too, I think a lot of, I would say all of
37:13
Trump's interaction with the media in a negative way, whether
37:17
it's lawsuits, whether it's disparaging comments, it's all,
37:23
well, again, is he the evil ass mastermind or is an idiot?
37:26
I think there's, I think it's very intentional 'cause you told
37:30
me this from the beginning, you know, I think his first
37:33
presidency, you know, and he's getting lambasted by the media
37:36
all the time. And I'm like, oh, this is crazy
37:38
there 90% negative. And you're like, yeah, he wants
37:41
it that way. That's exactly how he wants it.
37:44
He wants that combat because that's all they talk about.
37:49
And I feel like that's, see, it's it's like that's the part
37:54
that the Democrats never figure out how to combat Trump because
37:59
they play right into it. They're like, he wants, he wants
38:02
everybody talking about him all the time.
38:04
And by constantly giving crap to the media, he ensures that.
38:10
So what would that have looked like?
38:12
You're OK. You're the David Axelrod of 2025
38:17
for the Democrats. What would be your media
38:20
strategy? What would be your strategy to
38:22
get Trump off the headline? I might, I might tell Gavin
38:29
Newsom to do what he's doing and personally and specifically like
38:34
goading Trump about like really petty made-up stuff.
38:41
Like like Gavin Newsom speed is full of that.
38:45
And Trump takes the bait every time.
38:50
He can't help himself. You know, it really bothers him.
38:55
I think that's beautiful. I think that that's beautiful
38:57
that he is so thin skinned that he can be rattled like that.
39:00
But that's the way you get him. Yeah, OK, you get him.
39:04
But then he's still, everybody's still talking about it.
39:07
Wouldn't the better strategy be to find a way that nobody ever
39:09
talks about the guy? Yeah, but you're not going to
39:12
get that when he controls all the levers of all the levers of
39:17
power, when he doesn't matter. He's got that way.
39:21
That's all he was, all they talked about when Biden was
39:24
president. Well, because Biden didn't take
39:27
up any airs airtime Biden. Biden didn't command a presence.
39:31
So you know, what do you do? You don't have any power.
39:33
You don't have anybody in authority.
39:36
The only way to go at it is around the the the margins.
39:40
And if, if it does start to get quiet, he's going to start
39:43
another fake war. He's going to start bombing
39:45
another sovereign country and killing people in boats for no
39:49
good reason. Like he will always be killing,
39:53
killing innocent tourists in boats.
39:55
Yes, OK. But I mean, it's kind of a
40:00
problem for the Republicans as well.
40:04
Like, how do you get the guy off the headlines?
40:08
He's good at staying in the headlines.
40:10
Yeah. And that works, Democrats and
40:12
the future Republicans also. So how do you change?
40:15
Totally atrophy the Democrat response.
40:18
It it, it's true. I'm part of it.
40:20
I talk about Trump all the time. I've never been more horrified
40:24
by a human. Being in my life free speech
40:26
podcast that has turned into a Trump podcast, but yes.
40:29
I I've never been more horrified by someone in my life.
40:31
Everything about this guy just makes me want to vomit,
40:35
including the gold shit on the walls in the in the Oval Office,
40:40
his name over John F Kennedy's on the Kennedy Center that's
40:44
going to get struck down by the courts.
40:45
Like, gosh, does it not make anybody else sick?
40:49
Do you like this? Do you enjoy this?
40:52
But the truth is that much of it that that, and truthfully there
40:57
is much of it I do enjoy. But part of it's that pissed off
41:01
and makes people like you. So there, there's that.
41:04
Well, yeah, so the the problem is that that it's hard to talk
41:09
about real stuff because we just talked about this, this most
41:14
odious, most base human being who who I could even, I, I
41:20
couldn't make up a fictional character who's as much of a
41:23
piece of shit as Donald Trump. And yet here it is.
41:27
It's it's all in our face. So, yeah, it's a huge problem
41:31
for the Democrats, but as you say, it's a huge problem for the
41:36
Republicans because unless he dies in office, which is
41:39
apparently not a not an impossibility, wouldn't you love
41:44
to be JD Vance trying to run for president?
41:49
And Trump is never going to let him be anything other than a
41:54
bootlicker. I, I mean, you know, like you're
41:56
going to have a full election and Trump is going to comment on
42:01
everything that happens. Yeah, I think honestly, I think
42:05
Trump has succeeded in, I, I think probably his biggest aim
42:12
through all of this, if you look at it objectively, is to
42:18
increase the power of the brand. And I mean, he's all you talk
42:23
about. He's all the media talks about,
42:25
he's all his supporters talk about, all his detractors talk
42:30
about, all the world talks about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,
42:33
Trump. And it's like until somebody
42:35
decides that there's something else to talk about, either about
42:39
their love for the guy or their hatred for the guy, he's still
42:43
going to dominate every headline.
42:45
And. There will come a day, there
42:46
will come a day no you can live. Forever.
42:49
You're, you hate the guy so much, you're going to hate him.
42:51
Hate him forever. And you, you're going to get
42:54
that Gavin Newsom in charge and you'll be like, oh, he's so much
42:57
better than Trump. I don't know.
42:57
I hate Trump. I hate Trump.
42:58
I hate Trump. Like.
43:00
Some point people got to figure out, like if you really want to
43:05
move on from the guy, you got to move on from the guy.
43:08
But they can't do it. Nobody could.
43:09
I do. Sort of hate Heg Seth more than
43:11
I hate Trump. So you know, that's working for
43:15
me. Yeah.
43:16
I just think it's, I don't know, it's seems like a unique thing.
43:23
I don't somebody to to. Really put his name on
43:29
everybody's lips 24/7. Yeah, but you know, I think
43:32
you're giving him too much credit.
43:34
It it's a phenomenon. It's a truth that what you're
43:36
saying. But I don't think that's, I
43:39
don't think that's AI, don't think that's something that's
43:42
that that's some sort of genius of him.
43:46
Or maybe the way to stamp out Trump being in lips of everybody
43:52
is somebody needs to come up with a brand that's stronger.
43:56
That's the problem. There's not a stronger brand
43:59
right now. Whether strong as in you love
44:02
him or you hate him, Trump is the brand of politics globally.
44:08
That's all anybody talks about. But he'll be superseded.
44:12
It's where's the next brand? I mean is Newsome The brand is
44:18
Fritzker or Whitzker or whatever those name is either?
44:21
Brand, I mean, I, I, I think there's a non zero chance.
44:26
Go ahead. You got to get somebody that
44:28
people equally hate and love. That's the that's the beauty of
44:34
the Trump brand, because it's just as valuable hated as it is
44:38
loved. That's the trick.
44:41
How do you replace? That or we don't replace it.
44:43
And I think there's a there's a non zero chance that our
44:47
democracy is over. And I'm not, I'm, I'm not, I'm
44:52
not doing the like literally this is what we've come to.
44:58
We're we're talking about a guy that.
45:01
OK, no, wait, no, no, wait a second.
45:03
Like you're saying, the reason we have Trump is because people
45:08
are stupid and the, and the they voted for him, Yes.
45:11
How many people voted for Obama based on the issues?
45:17
The How many people voted for the community organizer based on
45:20
the issues and how many people voted on it because of the brand
45:24
that is Barack Obama? Same with Bush who voted for
45:27
George W Bush. Would George W Bush have been
45:30
nearly as successful as he'd not come from a political dynasty?
45:34
It's like everybody that's been voted for since Kennedy is a
45:40
brand more than a more than a collection of ideas.
45:45
Well, in that sense, he goes further than Kennedy.
45:47
I mean, how the hell do you think Eisenhower got the job?
45:51
But right? But but that's the point that
45:55
the reason I think democracy might be over is because the
45:58
brand had nothing to do with the like, I, I hear what you're
46:03
saying, but that somebody could look at Donald Trump, Donald
46:07
Trump's greed, Donald Trump's like moral character, Donald
46:14
Trump's self love, that that could be a brand somebody could
46:20
get behind. I but but you're missing my
46:23
point, Kent. You're missing my point.
46:25
It's a lightning rod is the brand what Donald Trump mastered
46:30
is that all publicity is good publicity.
46:34
Kent Clark shouting in a microphone what a piece of shit
46:38
Donald Trump is is just as valuable as, you know, some
46:42
other whack job praising him. That's.
46:46
That's the that's the reflection of the stupidity of our country,
46:50
because nobody's looking for anything even more than that.
46:52
That's what I mean. Well.
46:54
Is it stupidity or is it marketing?
46:56
I think it's marketing. That's what marketing is all
46:59
about, is getting people talking about the subject all day every
47:04
day. That is it's marketing goal and
47:08
you can't see it because you hate the guy.
47:09
I get that. But if you brought a guy that
47:13
everybody loved and the right hated and all every, you know,
47:18
you look at the headlines. I mean, look at today, you look
47:22
at the headlines on every major news media source.
47:25
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, if you
47:28
could do that with Newsom and those media sources aren't
47:31
saying Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump is great, great,
47:33
great. He's wonderful.
47:34
No, most of them are. He's a piece of shit.
47:35
He's a jerk and blah, blah. Maybe not those words, but like,
47:39
I don't to me, that's that's the task at hand.
47:42
And. It's so are you admitting that
47:47
you won because he's so hateable and not because of the strength
47:53
of his ideas? Well, it's.
47:56
I guess what I'm saying is he won because of the brand, and
48:03
what the brand means to you means something different to me.
48:06
Well, I think we should be ashamed of this.
48:10
It will. You know, honestly, it's it's
48:13
interesting the so we use a guy companies used a guy that for
48:18
sales training and marketing training.
48:21
And my old company used them too.
48:24
I'd introduced them to the new guys and they use them really
48:26
good, really good dude. He's got some really good like
48:29
he does a lot of our our sales training and teaching people how
48:32
to go sell. Well, he wrote a book, man, I
48:36
don't know if he'll be listening here, but I'll promote his book.
48:39
But he brought he wrote a book called Sell the brand first.
48:44
His name's Dan Stiff, independent sales training guy.
48:50
And he last company as with he was there for like 15 years.
48:56
He's been with a bunch of companies, helped folks with
48:58
training. But he does this thing called
49:02
Sell the Brand 1st and he talks about the old way of selling was
49:09
they called it the trade buyer stair step.
49:12
You start with the product, Hey, this is the stuff I'm selling.
49:16
And then you kind of build a relationship with the buyer.
49:19
And then over time there's performance that builds and OK,
49:22
now I've got this trusted brand that these guys result.
49:26
And his thing is the new way to to really sell is you sell the
49:32
brand first you, you sell you, you develop a brand identity in
49:37
the market and then you sell that brand identity.
49:40
And then behind that becomes, you know, the performance.
49:43
And then over time you develop a relationship and Oh yeah, you
49:46
got these products, you're selling, you're not selling your
49:48
stuff, you're selling the brand. And I guess what I would argue
49:52
is that in today's political environment, like.
49:55
You're you're. Lamenting the fact that people
49:59
are buying the brand first. But I think this is just a
50:02
nature of the evolution of our marketing economy and our
50:07
marketing viewpoint. It used to be you would start
50:11
with, hey, I'm this really experienced guy, here's all my
50:15
ideas, here's all my position papers and all this stuff.
50:19
And then let me go shake hands and get to know people and then
50:22
I'm going to perform and you're going to see me.
50:23
Now it's here's the brand and whatever that brand is, is what
50:29
people latch onto. And then over time, you the
50:33
product is last like like what the guy is actually selling and
50:37
the ideas is last. It's the brand that gets
50:41
everybody going. And I feel like that is, I don't
50:44
think it's because we're stupid. I think that's because that's
50:47
how we buy everything like so. Yeah, so less dominant and
50:54
effective than Trump, but a very fair description of that would
50:58
be how Barack Obama won the The Hope poster, right?
51:03
That's what I'm saying. Did you like it?
51:05
Did you? Were you happy then?
51:07
Did you feel good about the direction of our nation?
51:11
I wasn't. Because let's say there were
51:12
plenty of people that ad nauseam, just including the guy
51:18
who's now president of the United States, who just couldn't
51:20
bring it to himself to admit that Barack was born in the
51:24
United States. They didn't like it.
51:28
And they, I don't know, like, what do you want me to tell you
51:32
that I like Trump because he's a manipulator of the media?
51:36
I I'm embarrassed by Trump. Yeah, but you're missing my
51:39
point. What I'm telling you is that
51:42
Barack Obama didn't win because of his position papers.
51:46
He won his plan. How did you feel about that?
51:49
Well. It doesn't matter how I feel if
51:51
I couldn't stand that. My point is that the people that
51:55
couldn't stand Barack Obama and question his and question
51:59
whether he's born in the United States was good for him, that
52:02
helped propel him. That's my point.
52:04
And that that's the part that people can't seem to get, is
52:06
that, you know, disparaging somebody in the media doesn't
52:10
hurt him. It helps him.
52:12
So what's your advice to me? How?
52:14
How do I live through the next three years at a time when I'm
52:18
genuinely embarrassed of my nation?
52:20
I'm genuinely saddened about all that we've lost in terms of our
52:25
standing in the world. I'm genuinely saddened that
52:28
we're starting wars with no good reason.
52:30
What? What should I do?
52:32
Look for an alternative and stop talking about him 24/7 because
52:36
if all you do is obsess about the guy for the next three
52:38
years, you're obviously going to be miserable.
52:41
Yeah. Press into the brands that you
52:43
trust or brands do you trust. It's a really good question.
52:46
Well, hopefully because of. Kent Clark for the House of
52:51
Representatives in Iowa. Give it.
52:54
Forget the sailing, Kent. You need to run for office.
52:57
And you'll make you know what? This is my solemn pledge.
53:01
I will. I will register as a Democrat if
53:04
you run for office. You're not specifying which
53:06
office. You got to put me on your
53:08
campaign staff. There's that.
53:10
OK, I mean, I was I, I was I in City Council a little bit ago,
53:15
but that's enough to switch you on sides.
53:18
Dude, you know you run for City Council.
53:20
I'm coming door to door in Iowa. Give me some talking points.
53:25
I don't care what the hell they are.
53:26
I will talk. I will be like Kent is running
53:30
in the Communist Party for Iowa City, and let me tell you why.
53:35
That's why. That's good.
53:37
Kent is the Dear Leader. Let me tell you about the Dear
53:39
Leader. We need a silkscreen poster in
53:42
multi colours of my bald head. Well, I don't know that we
53:46
settled it and I'm sorry to take this in a different direction
53:49
than where we went. I I think we did handle the free
53:51
speech thing, but I got on a soapbox here it just.
53:55
No, but this is this is free speech.
53:58
We get to talk about whatever we want.
54:00
I'm glad you brought it up. Yeah, well, we should probably
54:03
wrap. We've been at it for a while.
54:05
You you 2 drinks in. Yeah, I'm headed to a party here
54:10
in 20 minutes and I thought I'd pre game.
54:12
I think I I may have over done the pre game.
54:16
That's OK. You are loaded for bear.
54:21
Hey, thanks for joining us on this episode of Bourbon and Rum
54:24
Podcast. We hope you enjoyed it.
54:26
Remember to subscribe on your favorite platform and leave us a
54:29
review. Your feedback helps us keep the
54:32
good spirits flowing. And we invite you to join this
54:35
conversation. Follow us on our Facebook page.
54:37
Let us know what you think. Let us know what you want to
54:39
hear. And until next time, cheers.