Speaker 1: And welcome, Welcome, welcome, woman and all to the Big Podcast.
It is Monday. Today is the fifteenth day of September,
year of Our Lord twenty twenty five. My name is
Tom Sullivan, and Nan alive. A very busy week ahead.
We've got the guy who was accused of shooting Charlie Kirk.
He's going to be in court tomorrow as they read
him the charges. On Wednesday, we get the Federal Reserve
there meeting Tuesday and Wednesday and Wednesday, and we will
find out why they are going to do about interest rates.
And the President's saying I hope there's a big cut.
I know he does, which also gets kind of interesting
because on the Fed before we get into the meat
of the program today, Lisa Cook, she's the Fed governor
that Bill Poulte, the head of Finance Authority, said, committed
forgery on her applications for mortgages. It's now coming out
by the judge over since then has said no, you
can't fire her, but we'll see. I'll come back to this.
We'll see if a court rules for or against her
in the next two days before she actually tends a
meeting tomorrow. But there's now a question about the mortgage
documents and did she really say that she had multiple
homes that were her primary residents. There's other information coming
out showing that she said no, it's the second home,
and so the facts still need to be adjudicated first.
But that's the FED story. So it's a busy week
this week, and the funeral for Charlie Kirk will be
next weekend in Arizona, so that will be leading up
to all of that and all of the uncovering of
the investigation and everything else. I mentioned to you on
Friday that I was holding my head about Governor Cox,
the governor of Utah basically shoved all of the law
enforcement people aside so that he could have the microphone
and get the all the cameras pointed on him. And
it just reminds me of politicians in a time of
school shootings or the death of Charlie kirkwa I wish
they would I wish they would just disappear and let
the law enforcement people tell us what they know and
what they can tell us, because the one thing I
worry about on all of this is these big mouth
politicians can blow the case and the Defense Council can
use their big flapping jaws to maybe get their person off.
So he was over the weekend on all the Sunday shows.
He's just loving the lights. Now. At the end of
hogging all the details about the shooting and the investigation,
he did go on about twenty minutes worth of basically
what you would expect from the pulpit. He gave a
sermon about how everything in this country needs to change
and it starts with the social media. I think you're
going to get the hint that I'm not a big
fan of this guy, but I don't. On one head,
I don't disagree with him. Social media has has changed
our culture and in a big way, and so I don't.
I don't disagree with him on that. But it reminds
me of if you go back and you look at
old videos of rock and roll stations, mostly in the South,
there were some good old boys in the South at
radio stations, and they were they were going to have
a bonfire of Elvis Presley records because I'll tell you what,
that swibbling his hips is going to ruin the fabric
of our country. And they had these big, big deals
to destroy Elvis Presley because of the fact he swiveled
his hips. I guess there was a big deal back
in the fifties. In any case, I had that same
feeling from the governor. You're not going to put social
media back in the barn. That horse is out and
it's and it's miles down the road. And like I said,
I don't disagree with him about the fact that's had
an impact on our on our culture, on our society,
but he's dreaming of that thing is going to be
put put away. So I have some others who agree
with him. I'll share the thoughts. Doctor Mark Siegel, who
I think the world of agrees that social media is
not good for him for your head from the from
a medical standpoint. So we'll get into all of that business.
There's other things. I just just reflecting on what happened
regarding Charlie Kirk. There's lots of strange things that have
been happening in the last few days. One of them
is that we're finding out about the shooter and the
fact that he did not like Charlie Kirk. He had
conversation at a dinner a few days before about how
he did not like Charlie Kirk. He disagreed with him,
and so I'm thinking, okay, so he hates Charlie Kirk,
so he can't stand and he can't stand Charlie Kirk's
hatred for LGBTQ is the way he kind of put
it paraphrasing, and I'm thinking, okay, so you can't stand
his hatred. So you used your hatred to stop his hatred?
Is that right? Did I miss something here? He used
his hatred to stop Charlie Kirk's so called hatred. No,
Charlie Kirk was very was very pleasant debating people. In fact,
he said it on many occasions where he would much
prefer to debate people who disagreed with it than people
that agreed with him, and in doing so, he would
not shy away. He would say. There was one one
video I saw of a young guy that came up
at some college and said, I'm a gay Republican, and
Charlie Kirk was just as kind and nice to him
as you could possibly imagine, saying I don't agree with
your lifestyle, but you don't need to introduce yourself as
a gay Republican. You're much more than that. There's a
lot to you as a human being, as a young
man but I don't agree with your lifestyle, but I'm
glad the rest of you I seem to agree with.
So but that's the kind of thing where now we know,
we believe, we know that the shooter, you'll notice I'm
not using his name. The shooter, we find out was
in a romantic relationship with a guy and they had
an apartment, and not only was he in a gay relationship,
So he obviously did not like the fact that Charlie
Kirk would talk about the fact that he doesn't agree
with the gay lifestyle. Okay, you kill somebody for that,
But then it probably really irritated him because he would
also say I don't there was there were a number
of videos out that you can look at people that
came up and said I'm trans and he would say
to them there, you can be a boy or you
can be a girl, but you can't be either take
your pick one or the other. And so this probably
really irritated the shooter because not only was he the
romantic relationship with the guy, but also a guy that
was transitioning to be a woman, and so all of
what Charlie Kirk said probably didn't have phase the guy
at all before he got into this relationship. The shooter
got thirty four out of thirty six on his ACT exam,
really high score, four point zero. Student smart guy grew
up in a very conservative MAGA household. Mom and dad
are big supporters of MAGA and so there's a lot
of people at that age who maybe just have a
rebellious gene in them. And if mom and dad are
conservative Christians and Republicans, it may come out that he
was just I'm against everything mom and dad is. Again four,
I'm going to be anti Republican. I'm going to be
anti everything that they stood for. So we'll find out.
It just goes on. But if he's so smart book smart,
he had to do the dumbest thing ever because this
has ruined his life. And if he may get the
death penal, we don't know, but certainly he's not going
to see freedom ever again. You think it was worth it,
and then to use hatred because of your hatred just
seems backwards. I'll tell you one other thing that seems
backward as well, and that is in fact Charlie was
wearing on the day he was killed. He had a
T shirt on white T shirt and in black letters
across the front it said freedom. And one of the
things that he was big on was freedom of speech.
And that's why he invited people, especially those who disagreed
with him, to come up and, with the freedom of speech,
say what they think and listen to what he thought,
and they could have a dialogue back and forth. So
we got freedom of speech. And Charlie obviously was very
much in favor of freedom of speech. And there's some
interesting things going on in our society right now where
a lot of people. The stories are endless of people
that are coming out and saying bad things about Charlie Kirk,
and they're doing it in a public way, and they
get fired. We've got a bunch of teachers. We've got
a nurse who took on a doctor who said something bad.
Now the nurse has lost her job and the doctor resigned.
Today a long list of people that are being fired
because of the fact that coming out and saying, you know,
they didn't like Charlie Kirk and he was a bad
guy and all this sort of negative stuff, and so
they're being fired. So they're being fired. But wait a minute,
Charlie was for freedom of speech, and as much as
freedom of speech isn't about nice speak. Freedom of speech.
The first Amendment is to protect the unnice speech, the
uncomfortable speech. But there's a problem with that. That's the
first Amendment, and people keep getting it confused with they
can say anything anytime, anywhere, and you can't. The government
cannot stop your speech, but your employer can. As some
people forget that and stuff talk about about stupid. Why
would you publicly go out and in in a form
that everybody knows where you work and it gets back
to your employer, they're gonna dump you. We don't need that,
we don't need the fallout from what you're talking about.
So they're getting fired because there is not freedom of speech.
Speaker 2: At work.
Speaker 1: Your employer can get rid of you in an instant
if you say something they don't like. It's always been
that way. The other thing I'm thinking about is as
they're talking about social media, you know, and I know
that Russia and China iran some of our countries out
there that we are adversarial relationships, and they are very
good at cyber attacks. That they're loving this. They want
to divide America and divide Americans, and this is on
the silver platter for them because people now are either
four were not for shooting Charlie Kirk, but they were
for his beliefs. Where they were against his beliefs. But
now they're fighting over that, like they never really cared
that much before. So where are we going to start today?
Oh and they're asking about I see the police and
are going, well, we have to find out the motive.
I don't know. I'm sure they'll find out more information,
but the motive seems to be clear. Charlie Kirk talked
about the fact to trans people that there's you're either
a boy or you're a girl, there's no in between.
He said things about the fact that he didn't approve
of the LGBTQ lifestyle. And so here's this guy who's
got a boyfriend living in a gay lifestyle with somebody
that is transitioning. I mean, it just obviously irritated the
guy beyond what I mean. You can get angry about
what people say, but I mean this guy obviously did
not have a governor to pull in his evil thoughts,
so evil took over. Where are we going to start?
How about getting along with each other? This is Tim Burushett.
He's a Republican from Tennessee. He's kind of a good
old boy and just kind of says it like it is.
He was asked about maybe the Republicans and Democrats and
Congress can get along.
Speaker 3: Well, I have a history of my partisanship. As I
mentioned earlier, my friend Jared Moscowitz and I are very close.
We talk every day, we talk on the floor, we
talk about what's going on. But you know, ma'am, the
reality is that's not going to happen. Let's just be honest.
It doesn't get you elected. It does it back home.
It's the red meat that gets you elected. Pointing the
finger and the Democrats currently point in the national media
frankly points at Trump. I was later eating the news
relations that it's just some vile, that real stuff, even
directed towards Charlie Kirk. And you know, it's never going
to change, ma'am, until we have a real revival in
this country. And and that hopefully what happens someday. But
right now, it looks like it's going to be more
of the same. It's a clickton bait. It's getting re elected.
It's red meat. And that's what politics is about today.
And that's frankly what it's always been about we can
have these talks, and we can have these professors come
on and of political science and sociologists and all this
and talk about that. That's not what's going to happen. Man,
America is so tone deaf to all that they want.
They want the hate, and that's what politicians, right.
Speaker 1: I think he's right. You may not like to hear
that because everybody's talking about, Oh you think, do you
think we're all going to get along now better? I
think this is the turning point. And I I'm with
tim Bershett. I don't think anything will change. Oh do
you think things are going to get worse? Oh? Maybe,
But I don't think things are going to get all
of a sudden we're going to be kumbaya. This reminds
me of sadly when George Floyd died and people said, oh,
because there were all the riots and Black Lives Matter,
we're running through the cities and it was burning down
police stations. It was a mess, and people said, that's
this is it, this is where race relations are going
to be better from here on out. And I set
it on my radio show at the time, I said,
I don't think so. I mean I would. I hope so,
But I just people don't. We don't. We don't change
with a flip of the switch. We gradually change in cultures,
and we can we can argue that's really what we're
arguing about. We're not arguing about politics. We really are not.
I mean, Republicans have been for smaller government and less
taxes since the day I was born, and Democrats have
been for more taxes and bigger government since the day
I was poor. That hasn't changed. I don't think it
will ever change. But nobody goes around killing anybody over it.
We just disagree with each other on it. But when
it comes to culture or social or whatever you want
to call it, not politics, but our culture is where
the emotions come out in our disagreements. I can say
Democrats want bigger government, more taxes, and I'm not breathing
heavy talking about it. But you get me going on
some social issue, cultural issue, yeah, you get people heated up.
Just like tim Bershat was saying, people pay attention to
extremist comments. That's what they have always done. David Urban,
longtime spokesman for the Republican side of the Aisle. Then
Kate Bedenfield who is a very good spokeswoman, great spinmeister
for Democrats. We're talking about this earlier today and about
extreme views get the attention, and if you get the attention,
you get the money. It raises money. It's more financially
beneficial if you do something extreme.
Speaker 2: Here they are, Yeah, Pam, I don't know how he
got there.
Speaker 4: I think it's a you know, combination of lots of things, right,
there's disconnections in society people. You know, there's there's it's
it's multisymptomatic. I don't think you know, as you alluded to,
it didn't happen overnight. We're not going to get out overnight.
And I think you know there is there there are
Governor Utah Governor coined this phrase the other day, you know,
conflict entrepreneurs, which I think is a really interesting way
to look at things. But social media doesn't reward people
like Kate myself who are moderates who kind of come
to the middle. You know, we don't have millions of
followers on Twitter, on Facebook or on Instagram because we're moderates.
Speaker 2: More extreme you.
Speaker 4: Are in your party, whether you're a Democrat or Republican,
the algorithm rewards that right, there's money to.
Speaker 5: Be made there.
Speaker 4: And so if you're a House member, if you're a
moderate House member, you kind of get lost in the cacophony.
But if you're AOC or, if you're Marjorie Taylor Green,
you millions of dollars, you're at the top of your shows.
You're you know, you're out on the road talking different groups.
People pay you to come and speak to their groups.
And so that that whole conflict entrepreneurial system, I think
rewards people who are more extremely and by the way,
the way our Congress is set up, right, of the
four hundred and thirty five House members, they're about twenty
that actually have to campaign if you're a moderate.
Speaker 2: So I think, no question, Jerry mannering is a part
of it.
Speaker 6: And I think social media creates almost a false sense
of community. It's like people think, well, if I'm talking
on this platform and people are hearing me and they're commenting, well,
you know that I'm engaged in political discourse. And the
reality is the discourse that happens on social media is
actually so far removed from where the vast majority of Americans,
everyday Americans are in terms of their politics and so
I do.
Speaker 2: Think there's been a really distorting impact.
Speaker 6: And I will say when we travel and talk to people,
you you mostly hear people say, I don't really get
what's going on on Twitter. I don't like that conversation
that's not doesn't represent me. You mostly hear people saying,
how are we going to get back to a place
where people with different viewpoints can actually work together?
Speaker 4: An extremist get an outside voice on social media. That's
the problem, right, They're rewarded for it. You know, people again,
Kate and myself, we have more things in common when
we go, when we talk to groups, people are amazed
at how how much we share, how much common ally
we share. And I think, listen Charlie Kirk, like him
or not like him. What Charlie Kirk was doing is
he was doing exactly the right way. He was going
out meeting people on their own terms, meeting people where
they were and engaging in political discourse mark a place
of ideas. If you look at some of these videos,
some of the places where you look at you see
Charlie Kirk's most his humanity really shines through is people
who he really doesn't agree with, and in certain instances
whether religion, sexual orientation, some of the really big issues
he has the most pleasant discourse with. And somebody's getting listen,
it wasn't all perfect. He's a human, he wasn't a deity.
But he was doing it the right way. Right, we
should incur encourage more people to be like Charlie Kirk
b sides, I wish there was much more of that
going on in college campuses. But somehow along the way
we got lost and and words became violence. And you know,
in college campuses people these kids got to be such
you know, they would be afraid if somebody said something
might hurt their feelings. Need to save space. We need
to get back where we can have discourse. We could
talk about things it's meant to be. It doesn't It's
not going to be comfortable all the time. They have
these discussions about race politics. There's lots of things that
are uncomfortable. Doesn't mean it's bad. We should be having those.
That's how you get to you get to common ally. Again,
to quote Charlie Kirk right, discourse is good. When you
stop talking, that's when the fights start. Large organizations, these
these you know, Mark Zuckerberg doesn't let his kids have
a phone. His daughters don't have phones. He limits the
amount of screen time they have. People are going to
lose out. They are very powerful forces here at work
that are trying to, you know, pull people in a
certain direction.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to bounce around a little bit here.
So they're talking about, Yeah, we need to get along.
Timber Shed says, it's not going to happen. David Urban
I like him, but I don't think I think he's right. Again,
these guys are right. I love the term about conflict entrepreneurs.
There's a lot of money in politics, big hardball money,
and yes, they're they're in the business of creating conflict
because it creates money for them. Extreme always gets attention,
no question about it. Well, I've told the story before.
There was a book that came out in nineteen ninety,
and it was just as we were rolling over into
nineteen ninety. It was a business book and it was
about the great Depression is coming in the nineties. And
so it was written by this guy that I don't know,
a bunch of alphabets after his name, and I read
the book and I thought, well, that's interesting, except for
he kept dismissing the business cycle as if it did
not happen, and so he predicted all this doom and gloom.
I mean, it was going to be the worst deck
we had ever seen. And we know now that the
Natties were absolutely one of the best decades we've ever had.
But he sold a boatload of books because it was
all extreme and scary and forecasting the worst possible thing.
People ate it up. So I guess if you want
to get ahead, no the extreme, I guess that's one
way for some people. All right, let's let's take a
look here at tomorrow first court appearance for the shooter.
Elliott Williams, a New York lawyer, as says, this is
what's going to happen.
Speaker 7: Oh well, John. More than anything else, it's an opportunity
to advise the defendant of the charges against him. We
in the public may have been chattering about it, but
the right that someone is guaranteed under the Constitution is
to be advised of what he's charged with. They're going
to tell him what the charges are. They will likely
give him an answer, an opportunity to respond in the
form of saying guilty or not guilty, and will then
likely set a calendar or schedule for the next series
of hearings that are going to come up, maybe even
the trial, although the judge may not set that for
some time. Again, we should be careful in characterizing the
fact is not cooperating because, as the prior guest had said,
Number one, it happens all the time. But more importantly,
it is his right under American law to not cooperate
with law enforcement. We've all heard about the Fifth Amendment.
You have the right to remain silent. Well, that's also
the right to not talk to police, you know, when
you're in custody and they're asking questions. Now, again, there's
plenty of evidence, it seems, of other people who are
willing to talk to law enforcement, and a case that
is appearing to be quite compelling based on physical evidence
that they're compiling. But again that doesn't have to come
from the defendant and quite and shouldn't. And to be clear,
you know, if people want this guy to go to jail,
the last thing on earth people want is him talking
to police because those kinds of state and it could
actually jeopardize a future trial if a statement was taken
from him improperly. So it's very important just let him
be silent if he wants to be silent quite a bit,
but it can be done. Look, there have been many
trials of the century in your lifetime, and mind and
juries can be found.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 7: The challenge is not finding people who know nothing about
the case. It's finding people who, even if they know
something about the case, can set it aside and agree
to judge the defendant fairly.
Speaker 2: And those exist.
Speaker 7: There are a lot of people that don't follow the
news or even follow the news, and are willing to
sort of put that aside. The bigger challenge here is
if in fact they are proceeding with the death penalty.
That's the second perdle in picking a jury. Prosecutors are
going to be looking for people not just who are
prone to convicting, but also are prone to convicting and
then assigning a death sentence. Conversely, defense attorney's gonna be
looking for people who are going to quit, but also
if he's convicted, not getting him executed. So that's a
more complicated jury selection than you usually see.
Speaker 1: So that whole process gets underway tomorrow and we'll give
you the details as they come. Rolling in. Robin Drinke,
former FBI agent, talking about Cash Betel getting some grief
about the fact that he put out a tweet saying
we have the person in custody before they did. He
did it twice as a matter of fact. And also
this the whole business about the trans community. You know
what was strange about this is the guy we played
that We played him talking last week, the guy who
was at the microphone facing Charlie Kirk and they were
going back and forth, and he was he brought up
the question he asked Charlie Kirk about do you know
how many trans people have been involved in mass shootings?
And Charlie Kirk's last words were something like without without
counting gang violence, and that's when the bullet went off.
But this but a guy was talking to him about
the trans community and shooting and then you find out
that the shooter actually is in a romantic relationship with
a transitioning guy. Weird coincidental and well here's Robin Drake.
Speaker 8: Yeah, absolutely, so Cash was really really good on doing
a few things. He's talking about the investigation and which
is really good, you know, talking about this arc of
this online radicalization that he had. It has also kind
of showing all the transparency that the FBI is now having,
which is really good because we want open hozz communication, transparency,
and an element of vulnerability, which I'll get into on
Bongino a second, to re instill some trust and faith
on our organizations which were lost over years. But really
going into the amount of leakage that this individual had,
and you said that he was described as being quiet,
which is kind of interesting because we're getting so much
data in details on what his thoughts and ideas were,
and so that's what I've really got for them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he mentioned Dan Bongino, the deputy director of the FBI,
and this is what Bongino had to say earlier today.
Speaker 9: There were people in his network, friends and family who
had stated that he had become more political, that he
had become at some parts. I believe some of his
coworkers had stated that he had kind of detached himself
when the topic of politics came up and walked away
from them. Family members said he'd become more political, leading
us to believe that this ideology had infected him and
had taken over.
Speaker 1: So these other people, whether it's the boyfriend or whether
it's people in a group chat, did they know about
what he was going to do. Are they possibly accessories
after the fact? Back to Robin Dry, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I definitely could.
Speaker 8: But as you know, the deputy director was saying, there's
a lot more investigation to go on here. Was it's
really striking to me is that he was surrounded by
a lot of people in his life that obviously had
a lot of group think in a certain way of thinking,
which was very very healthy, very communicative. And then as
he started this in himself, from that, he's going to
get that validation from somewhere else.
Speaker 2: Hence we go to the online radicalization.
Speaker 8: And really when we think about online radicalization, it really
comes down to one simple thing.
Speaker 2: It's where curiosity dies.
Speaker 8: And so he got entrenched into that mindset and anything
that's going to go against it and against how he
saw himself and as he saw his partners, what he's
going to start escalating towards rage, hatred, discontent and obviously violent.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, well that's what we're seeing.
Speaker 8: So it's actually just him saying what he's doing, so
we can see it in his statements, we can see it,
and that's why I think he really targeted Charlie kirk Hears,
because Charlie was a very curious person. He is very
set in his mindset and what he believed in, obviously,
but he's always asking discovery questions. And so this is
what this individual, this horrible Sasas never did. He was
always arguing what he thought rather than being curious about
what you thought. And that's what Charlie did really well.
I think that's why there's such a clash in his
mind about why he wanted to get rid of him.
So he fits a profile of a typical loan shooter,
and so at any time someone kind of fits a pattern,
what I'd like to do is kind of look at
what doesn't fit the pattern. And so all these things
we've been talking about so far is what deviates from
that pattern. But one thing that is always prevalent is
there's a triggering moment where something kind of tipped him
over the edge from rage and discontent into violence. I'm
very curious to whether they discover something having to do
with the roommate, because a lot of things having to
do around the trans world, not necessarily as an ideology,
but around the person he cared the most about. So
I'm really curious of what they are going to discover
in the investigation. That might have been a triggering moment,
because really the only person that knows is him. I
think it's going really, really well. And a lot of
reason why it's going well is, as the director said
the very beginning, he traveled out to on the site
to help bypass the bureaucracy that typically goes so they
can make things happen at a much rapid rate. And
also the amount of data that's coming in the leads
the ideas all this information is coming in is also
making it not just great for this investigation, but it's
going to help further on future investigation.
Speaker 1: So let's go full SERVI here. We'll go back around
to the social media business. And no, it's not going
to go away. But professor University of Chicago's name is
Robert Pape and he has studied social media since it
first was created. Here's what he think.
Speaker 5: We are at a watershed moment. I call this the
era of violent populism in America. Violent populism is defined
really by two things. First, we are seeing a rising
tide of political violence on both the right and the
left just since two thousand and two. Think about the
political assassinations and assassination attempts against Conservatives, Supreme Court Justice
Brett Kavanaugh, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi missed
her almost killed her husband. Two assassination attempts against candidate
Republican candidate for President Donald Trump, the assassination attempt against
Governor Josh Shapiro in June, the assassinations and assassination attempts
against Democratic political leaders in Minnesota, and now the assassination death.
Speaker 2: Of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 5: The second big feature of violent populism is art. I've
been studying political violence for thirty years. I think isis
but in the last five years American political violence and
conducting surveys of support for political violence among Americans. Our
most recent survey in May found thirty nine percent of
Democrats agreed that the use of force was justified to
remove Donald Trump from the presidency thirty nine percent. So
we found twenty four percent of Republicans agreed that the
use of the US military to suppress Democratic protesters was justified.
These are from These represent tens of millions of people
on both sides of the aisle, and that's why you're
seeing the rising tide of political violence on both sides.
Speaker 1: And here's my favorite Governor Cox out of Utah preaching
about social media.
Speaker 10: I believe that social media has played a direct role
in every single assassination and assassination attempt that we have
seen over the last five six years. There is no
question in my mind that cancer probably isn't a strong
enough word what we have done, especially to our kids.
It took us a decade to realize how evil these
algorithms are.
Speaker 1: And don't forget to burn your elvis records. Here's Professor Pape.
Speaker 5: Social media is like pouring gasoline on the fire, but
it's not the fire itself. My research shows that we
are being driven by a big social change in that
is driving support for political violence, much the way social
change has driven political violence in other countries, but the
details of the social change differ. We are going through
a historic change for the first time in the two
hundred and fifty year history of our country, from a
white majority democracy to a white minority democracy. In fact,
the tipping point generation for this started about ten years ago.
In nineteen ninety we were seventy six percent non Hispanic white,
today fifty seven percent another ten years before, forty nine percent. Well,
this helps to explain the meteoric rise of Donald Trump
why his signature issue is immigration that's gathered so much support,
because there are many people that like to slow down,
maybe even reverse this change. This also explains the virulent
opposition to MAGA by many parts of the left, because
there are many people on the left who want to
continue this change. These is the reason why we can
predict the rise of violent populism and left to its
own devices, this will get worse.
Speaker 1: Heck of a wait in the podcast today is going
to get is gonna be bad? I don't think so.
I think social media has been around long enough where
it has had already various iterations. I mean, everybody that
was in college was on Facebook. That's what it started with.
And now there isn't a college kid that it even
knows where Facebook is. They're all off on I don't know,
Snap or TikTok or some Oh. Speaking of TikTok, apparently
the President is going to have a phone call with
President she from China on Friday, and apparently they've they've
got some deal they think is going to work out
to where TikTok will stay in business. But but you
see my point going back to it's moved where people.
Young people go one direction, older people go a different place.
On social media, you're not going to get rid of
social media. You're not going to get rid of the telephone.
You're not going to get rid of a lot of
different technologies that people use anyway. So you want to
talk about how Wall Street did today, Well, let's take
a look the dow. Yeah, it's positive, it was up
just forty nine, forty nine points higher. Everybody's kind of
sitting on their hands, I think, until Wednesday when the
Fed decides what to do. So up forty six today
to doubt forty five thousand and eight, eighty three s
some p up thirty NASDAC up two hundred and seven,
the price of gold thirty four dollars higher, up to
thirty seven twenty one, and oil up most of a
dollar now sixty three dollars in some change for a
barrel of oil. So thank you for coming by today.
We are going to be back again tomorrow, and I
hope to see you then.