Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Are
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist
and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. If
you'd like to email us, please do so at radio
at the Federalist dot com. We love to hear from you.
Speaker 2: Moll.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I am so tired right now.
Speaker 3: I feel energized. I feel like I could do anything.
I haven't gotten sleep, but I feel really good. I've
had a lot of caffeine.
Speaker 1: I'll be up on me too. I think I've had
five cups of coffee this morning, so I'm a little jittery.
I'm going to do the best I can. There's so
much to cover. It basically just happened, right, can I
just but we just I want.
Speaker 2: To hear where were you?
Speaker 3: What were you doing? When did you realize it was over?
Just tell me your situation.
Speaker 1: I do not make predictions before the election anymore for
a few reasons. A. I'm not that's not what I do.
I don't read polls. I don't really care that much. B.
I don't. People treat predictions like they're written in blood,
and they will never let you forget them. If you're
wrong and it's just not important for me to do. However,
I did think Donald Trump was going to win. I
have proof. I sent it out and text some people
with time stamps. I did, okay, I thought, you know,
I thought he was going to win, you know, Georgia
for sure. I thought he was going to win Pennsylvania.
From what I felt, I was wrong. I had him
losing Wisconsin and Michigan. I'm not sure Michigan's called yet,
but it looks like he's going to win there too.
So I was a little bit off, but it wasn't
too bad. I was largely happy with myself. Actually, Nevada also,
I'm not sure is it called yet. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Nobody's he's going to win that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, so he did better than I thought he
would do. But I am usually pretty cautious with my
you know, I usually try to perveric, go right in
the middle, try to you know, I pick a person.
But I don't ever think it's going to be, you know,
a runaway election. I think this. I wouldn't call it
a complete landslide in the kind of like the nineteen
eighty four way, but it is a it is a
resounding victory for Donald Trump, for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I was telling people that I thought he would win
and saying it on TV, which is, you know, more risky,
And people kept on texting me and asking me what
would happen, And even at Fox yesterday, I was talking
to all these people and They're like, what's going to happen?
And I'm like, he's I think he's going to win.
But I had a much more modest understanding of what
it would be. I thought it would be that he
won Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, but I wasn't really sure
about the rest of them.
Speaker 2: I thought he would win Arizona.
Speaker 3: I did not think he would win Nevada, just because
they have such an effective ballot harvesting game on the
Democrat side. And yeah, it's much much much more decisive
and more more than anything, it's that he somehow won
the popular vote, and he wasn't playing to win.
Speaker 2: The popular vote.
Speaker 3: You know, if you if you were playing to win
the popular vote, you do a lot of campaigning. In
California and New York. He did a little bit. They
did like one two in New York, one in California.
And yet it's still going to not just win a
plurality of the popular vote, but an outright majority.
Speaker 1: This is not a criticism of you, but I don't.
I always feel uncomfortable talking about the popular vote because
there is no such thing, and I think making it
seem important undermines what the election is about. The election
was about the whole country, and I thought, don now
that I look at you know, after an election, sometimes
you look at it and you're like, yeah, of course,
I should have known he was going to run away
with this thing. It's bigger than the electoral college number.
It's about him winning all kinds. We're expanding Republican. How
can I say?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 1: Every minority population became more Republican last night, right, and
that is very important. Now we can then future podcast
talk about whether that's a Donald Trump thing or if
it's going to last past him. I don't know for
sure about that. But it also is a condemnation basically
of what the media did and said. They basically portrayed
him as a Nazi, as a fascist. That's what all
the conversation was about. And yet if you believe exepos,
and I think I don't believe them very specifically, but
in general, I think you can believe trends is that
Jewish people voted in historic numbers for Donald Trump. Latino
men especially that basically have turned almost republic I mean
it's like almost. I think he'd won a majority of them, right,
like fifty three percent or something. What other minorities, you know,
just across the board, and even one white women. I
want to talk about that A little bad abortion and
how I think both of us have been saying that
that that's that the narrative that abortion is going to
kill Republicans across the country I think is false. So anyway,
those are some of my my, you know, the first
things that popped into my mind when he won.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, let's just kind of take it by.
Speaker 1: Parts.
Speaker 3: You were talking about whether you don't know whether this
will last past Donald Trump, And I do think one
of the things that made this campaign so interesting was
the selection of JD. Vance and he in Donald Trump's
acceptance speech last night. And I do want to just
point out, I'm sure it's going to happen in any minute,
but as of the taping of this podcast, Kamala Harris
still has not conceded that she lost the election, which
is kind of crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's I mean, it's not even close, you know.
Speaker 3: But Trump picked Jade Vance and in his accept in
his acceptance speech last night, he said that he'd gotten
a little heat for picking him initially, but that he
clearly had made the right choice and he had such
a brain on him when you We also saw people
say that Kamala Harris simply didn't have enough time to
close the deal with voters, and I would argue precisely
the opposite. Even though she was only the nominee for
a few short months, it was too much time. Voters,
helped along by a complete propaganda press, seemed willing to
have her do this coup on Biden and be installed
as the nominee. And the more they got to know her,
they really didn't like her. And one of her only
decisions that she made in the entire campaign, and the
one she said you would judge her by, was her
selection of Tim Walls as the vice presidential nominee, and
that was just an abject disaster. It was done with
a wonderful rollout, with the help of the propaganda press.
They said this was going to help Kamala win the
Western male vote. It seemed like maybe no one in
the Democrat Party had ever met a man, because that
guy was created in a lab to turn men off
from the idea of voting for her. He was very weird,
had horrific policies like putting tampons in boys' bathrooms, having
education czars who called for the destruction of America. I mean,
he was really bad, and he just came off weird
and unmanly. He had the debacle with not knowing how
to fire his own gun that he claimed he'd had
for years. What was his He had some other manly mistake.
Speaker 1: But he also he lied about how his kids were conceived.
He was just weird.
Speaker 3: His she lied or did not know. Yeah, the circumstances
of his children's consents.
Speaker 1: Lied about his military service, which was to be disqualifying
in the past. You know, I think it's immoral. Yeah.
I don't think Shapiro changes the come this election, but
it would make it closer. I think Pennsylvania is the
is the key to that election in many ways, And
I mean, you could lose Pennsylvania, maybe you win Michigan
in Wisconsin, but that seems like a big poll. So
all I'm saying is that, But what happened was, like
you said, she said, this was her big decision. So
she didn't pick Shapiro because I think because she's you know,
the Prohamas wing didn't like it. And also he was
pro school choice and other stuff, so you know, the
teachers' unions.
Speaker 3: Well he claimed to be when he ran, and then
ls he was in office, he was not right.
Speaker 1: So instead of picking someone who might make her look
more moderate because she's changed her positions on a slew
of things, excuse me, she picks someone who makes her
look more radical, who doesn't appeal to working class people
at all. You can put all the flannel shirts on
you want, and then she not only loses Pennsylvania, she
loses Michigan anyway. I mean in Dearborn, more people voted
for Stein than voted for Kamala Harris anyway. So it's
a her anti Israel stuff, her you know, her constant
trying to take all sides on all things. It was
just a disaster and she we have to admit where
I think, at least historically speaking or my lifetime, the
worst presidential candidate, worse than Hillary in many ways. I
just think she was such a complete fraud. And you're
right also about the time. Initially they created this manufacture,
this candidate that didn't exist, Kamala Harris, kamalatt all that stuff.
But the more people got to know her, I think
the less likely it was she was going to win
this election. I think there were other factors, but she
was definitely terrible.
Speaker 3: I just want to also say that in twenty twenty,
Joe Biden won Minnesota by like nearly eight points, and
in twenty twenty four, with the sitting governor of Minnesota
on the ticket, Kamala Harris only won it by like
four points.
Speaker 1: Do you know that she underperformed Donald Trump? Sorry, she
underperformed Joe Biden in every single county in a America
other than one in Georgia. I think there's less that's changed.
Speaker 3: There's a pretty funny video of John King telling Jake
Tapper russiaclusion hoaxer Jake Tapper about it, and he's just
shocked that it's not a single county. Okay, But I
was telling all of this about Tim Walls because I
think Kamala Harris had a really bad October and it
really began with that debate between Jade Vance and Tim Walls,
and going into that debate, she had all this momentum,
everyone was feeling really good on the Democrat side, and
jd Vance obliterated Tim Walls and the two Democrat propagandists
who were moderating the debate, and it just set off
a series of things. I mean, I think Trump obviously
would have won regardless, but it was just it was
bad and jd Vance being the heir to the manga
movement as a substantial leveling up in terms of who's
following what Donald Trump has been saying in advocating.
Speaker 1: As you know, I don't agree with jd Vance on
a lot of stuff. I wish he wasn't the VP candidate.
I think he was the most talented candidate running in
the sense of being able to articulate positions. He actually,
I think put meat on the MAGA position in a
way that Donald Trump doesn't. But Donald Trump is also,
in a way I think, a celebrity, a very unique
figure in American history. I'm not sure jd Vance is
going to have the same appeal across you know, he may.
I don't know what's going to happen. It's still off.
We're four years off. From that, I assume he's probably
going to end up being the presidential candidate. Donald Trump
is a very unique figure in American history. People underestimate
his charisma. They completely underestimate how good he is at
retail politics and with people. I noticed that this election
more than ever, where he shows up at a McDonald's,
and the way he interacts with normal people, working class people,
all kinds of Americans is better than I think any
candidate I've seen an American policy. You know, he's just
great at it. I'm not sure Jade Vance is up
at that level at all. I think it's gonna be
very different, but he definitely is. If you're a maga person,
he is the best choice. I think it was a
great choice for them because he does he is the
person who will who will who can articulate and move forward,
move that movement forward.
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, No, it's a real issue, and it
really annoys me when people say. You'll see some very
bad political analysts saying stuff like, oh, if Dicky Haley
were the nominee, she would have had this were wrapped
up two weeks ago. It's like, how can you be
so bad at politics and still have a profession.
Speaker 1: I think you're right about Nicky Haley, but I do
think other Republicans would have won this races. I think
DeSantis wins this race as well, but I think that
the economy is so bad, they're so incompetent, and even
a competent, different sort of Republican like DeSantis wins the selection.
Nicki Haley not so much because I don't think I
think her appeal is very limited anyway, Sorry to interrupt there.
Speaker 3: People always focus on how elite regime type figures hate
Donald Trump, and so they talk obsessively about how polarizing
he is. And it is true that he is polarizing.
That is absolutely true. There are people who, like irrationally,
are consumed with hatred for the man. But it is
also true that he is a once in a lifetime
kind of political talent who can bring out voters who
would never have voted Republican in a million years. I mean,
I love Ron DeSantis. I don't see him pull in
the rust belt, you know, like Donald Trump did, or
with that enthusiasm, or getting union endorsements, or being a
transformative figure that gets Elon Musk playing on the field
at the way he did.
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree with that first part for sure,
though I don't you know, I think also it's also.
Speaker 3: Lute because we had a Republican primary. They didn't have
a Democrat primary. There was a Republican primary.
Speaker 5: For sure.
Speaker 1: The primary doesn't always pick the best candidate, as you know.
Speaker 3: See twenty twelve in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: Yes, we know, okay, but well, all I'm saying is
that I do think it's unique. I do think the
rust belt stuff is unique. I do think the working
class voter is unique. But I also think that and
this is for another podcast. I think in the long run,
it's also important to think about the sun Belt. It's
important to think about the suburbs. It's if you've become
just a working class party, the biggest, the fastest shrinking
demographic in American life, that's going to be problematic for
people in the future. But that's this for another podcast.
Speaker 3: I think, well, but you also can grow the middle
class in the working class through economic policies.
Speaker 1: And I just think a lot of this class warfare
can backfire with something. Actually, it's less talented than Donald Trump. Yeah,
is a saying.
Speaker 3: Okay, So what I wanted to say was I think
you're right to be concerned about what could happen after
Donald Trump, because nobody has his political talent. I think
it's something the Republican Party should think deeply about how
they're going to win in the future without having someone
sort of single handedly saving the day. But you pointed
out that the working class is declining in America. That's
a big part of why Trump won is that people
agree that the working class is declining. But I was
thinking about it as it relates to the female vote.
For Democrats, they do not get the married women vote,
they do get the single woman vote, and this creates
a very perverse incentive to keep women single so that
they will vote Democrat. And not that you need a
study to say this, but studies show that married women
are far happier, far more satisfied, far more successful. They
just have much better lives than single women. So the
fact that a political party is deeply invested in keeping
women single and killing their offspring is just not good
for the country. But having a party that's invested in
growing the working class is actually good for the country.
So if the political incentives align with creating an economic
situation where people can work in a variety of fields.
Speaker 2: That's good for the country.
Speaker 1: Well, anyone. I think it's a debate for now. I
think we should be I think working class people probably
want their kids to get out of the working class
and to become more successful and not have to, you know,
struggle with paycheck to paycheck or you know, I mean
my parents.
Speaker 3: No, people want they want their kids, who maybe aren't
going to be rocket scientists, to be able to form
a family, buy a house. You're on a working class salary, Like,
not everybody is going to have genius kids who make billions.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, let's talk about this another time, because
it's just going to go into an area and long debate.
Speaker 4: The left keeps preaching for a quality of Kamala is elected,
but is this a dystopian America? The Watchout on Wall
Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack
the connection between politics and the economy and how it.
Speaker 1: Affects your wallet.
Speaker 4: The idea that we're all supposed to end up in
the exact same place, even after working much harder than
they are. That's like a dystopian Kurt Vonnegut novel. Whether
it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street. It's
affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: So abortion was a major campaign issue for the Democrat
Party and they invested heavily. They didn't really have much
of a message other than we want to make sure
you can kill your offspring with the least possible resistance,
to the point that Kamala Harris was asked, should you
moderate in any way? For instance, if a doctor or
nurse does not want to kill another human, should they
have the conscience rights? And Kamala Harris said, I don't
even want to talk about hypothetical stuff. There should be
no moderation on the right to abortion. So she put
the right to kill your offspring as a much higher right.
It's not even a right, but she's claiming it is
than religious freedom, which is the first freedom in the
US Constitution. So it was interesting that they went all
in on that and they had actually kind of mixed results.
You had abortion issues on the ballot. I think in
ten states, most had a threshold of fifty percent, with
Florida having a sixty percent threshold. Florida defeated their radical
abortion constitutional amendment that would have enshrined abortion through all
nine months of pregnancy, no parental rights, no conscience protections,
taxpayer funding, just like completely extreme, But so did South
Dakota and Braska also had initiatives that failed, and then
other states had passage on it, which is, you know,
it's a mixed bag, but it's not a great bag
for people who care about unborn children and women not
being hurt by abortion.
Speaker 1: That's a long that's a long fight. It's not going
to you know, we're in it for the long haul
with that fight. But I just want to say, I
do think it's a huge strategic blunder to make the
election about abortion. I mean people constantly tell me, you
know that that is you know, Dobbs is killing the
Republican Party and so on. Well, first of all, Donald
Trump took a very moderate position unfortunately on abortion anyway. Secondly,
most at least this is my feeling, is that most
women who are really you know, put abortion at the
top of their list of issues already live in places
where abortion is probably completely legal. Into the ninth month,
they vote in blue states, people in red states, women
in red states are more generally conservative and they're fine
with some limitations on abortion. So if you have a
direct initiative, a direct democracy initiative, yeah, they might vote
to expand abortion. But as far as the most important,
you know, issues in their lives, I'm sure the economy
and the price of their groceries comes way before, you know, abortion.
I think it was a huge mistake for them to
make that the central issue in their campaign. I also
want to mention that I was very happy to see
Florida you know, the abortion. I think it was amendment
for not reaching the threshold. But I have to say
it is disconcerting the fifty seven percent of people in Florida,
a very conservative state, though thought it was a good idea,
and also that direct democracy initiatives are completely un American
and should not exist at all. This is not how
we do things in this country. And I hate them.
Speaker 3: Anyway, agreed, And you see it. It's ludicrous when you're
having something like amending your constitution to enshrine killing children
through nine months of pregnancy with no protect like this
is not something that direct democracy was built for. Not
that you shouldn't have or that you know this is
this is a good example of the problems with direct democracy.
But also it's a good reminder that legislatures need to
be mindful of where their people are when they're enacting laws.
Speaker 1: Also, yeah, another kind, if I can bring this up.
Another EXIPO thing that I saw that I loved was
they asked voters, are you worried about democracy or something
of that nature, like is that a leading an important issue,
or it's a democracy in a good place or not,
or it's democracy in danger or not by the other candidate. Whatever.
It was, more people who voted for Trump were worried
about the future of democracy than on the blue side,
which makes complete sense to me because Kamala Harris was
a completely she was a threat to the constitutional order
in all kinds of ways that would be with us
in perpetuity, not Donald Trump. So it is funny that
their main issue, this democracy thing, actually backfired on. It's
like when they invented, didn't they invent the fake fake news? Like,
and then Donald Trump took it and made it his.
I feel like this is in a way like that
issue as well.
Speaker 3: I was thinking if someone asked me what I voted on,
I don't know if I would say foreign policy or democracy.
And I don't like that word democracy to describe the
attacks on the Republic that we're seeing from Democrats right now,
but it's the closest word of the options that they
would provide. Right So, if you're concerned about violations of
speech rights, we are enduring the worst censorship in the
history of the country right now. So if you care
about the First Amendment, you're going to vote for Trump.
If you care about just like the culture of censorship
that's out there, you're going to vote for Donald Trump.
If you care about the law fair that was waged
against Donald Trump and so many hundreds, more than fourteen
hundred other Republicans, you're going to vote for Donald Trump.
This was what they tried to do. Bankrupt him, imprison him,
remove him from the ballot. If you care about democracy,
you're voting for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, can I add to that? Obviously, that's all true.
I believe that law everything you said, the lawfair, But
forget you know, he's at least he can get big lawyers.
He's a powerful man. What about the abortion protester who's
in jail. What about the school board that are called
you know, people who are against this COVID authoritarianism or
are called terrorists by the you know, by by by
the administration, et cetera. I mean, their their weaponization of
the Justice Department went after people who can't even defend
themselves at all. And to me, that is just horrifying.
And let's not forget the court packing. Let's not forget
the like you say, not just the censorship, but having
the VP say that hates speeches and't protected and then
and then not back off that position, or the destruction
of the filibuster. There were so many things they wanted
to do that would have destroyed federalism, that would have
destroyed overturned thousands of state laws. I mean, they were
a Democrats are a massive threat to the constitutional order.
They want to destroy it. So yeah, I mean that
that made sense to me.
Speaker 3: This is Mollie Hemingway encouraging you to listen to my
favorite podcast, Issues, etc. Every day you get in depth
interviews with host Todd Wilkin, asking expert guests substantive, thought
provoking questions on all of the important news and issues
of our day. The expert guests are in culture, law, ethics, philosophy, theology,
and apologetics. Expert guests expansive topics, always extolling christ issues, etc.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to talk about the media's reaction to
what happened. I don't watch a lot of cable news,
but I watched, so you know, things are going well
for Republicans when people start switching over to MSNBC and
see what's going on from Fox, you know. And I
did not watch like Joy read for an extended period
of time ever, And it is the bubble that they
live in, the things they say, it is completely detached
from reality. And then it made me think that people
who watch those channels for their news are also completely
detached from reality, and that's why they react and the
way they do when they lose an election. They just
can't process the people, how other people think, or why
they think that way. And instead of talking about, you know,
the idea like maybe we shouldn't call Republicans Nazis because
it doesn't really work and it's not really true, instead
the discussion was like, why are these people all voting
for Nazis? Like they still can't get it through their
heads why they lose and it is it's pretty incredible.
I don't think it's going to be fixed. Anytime soon.
But I just don't know if things can go on
this way.
Speaker 3: Oh no, I think this is a big agenda item
for the next four years. So I don't watch television news,
which is funny because I work in television news. But
unless I'm in makeup, like right before a show, I
don't really watch it. It's just hard for me to
get my news and information that way. And while I
was on Fox earlier in the day for Outnumbered up
in New York, I flew home and was not on
Fox last night, so I was getting most of my
news from Twitter, which I just find it'd be a
much more efficient and if you follow the right people,
you kind of know what's going on in each state.
And in a way, I find television news to be
too slow for the information that I want to get.
So that served me really well throughout the night. And
then in the wee hours, I did turn on MSNBC
and CNN, and I made it over to Fox around
two thirty or something. Was the first time I saw them.
So I do want to say Steve Cornaki on MSNBC
is fantastic. He was doing the kind of number crunching
that I wanted to see you know, he would dive
deep into Okay, this county, here's what the Kamala Harris
team needed, here's.
Speaker 2: What they got.
Speaker 3: And he would do that over and over and over
again throughout all the different swing states.
Speaker 1: And it was can I say something, those guys who
like touched the screen and do all the counties and stuff.
I think they're great on all three networks, honest, on
all of the three news networks, Like they do a
really good job, and they're the most informative and most
effective people on these channels. I think, Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Am not a typical TV watcher. Obviously I don't do it.
But if I in my world, it would just be
that it would be very little analysis and more of
the type where you say, oh maybe people don't like
being gold racist, and more of just the numbers and stuff.
But it was weird to go from that with Steve
Kornaki being so helpful and informative and unbiased and just
like a normal human being, and then you would cut
to these panels that would be various shades of far left,
all trying to figure out what was going on, and
they had a big barrier of seemingly never having spoken
to a Republican in their entire lives, which was weird
because one of them was like the former Republican chairman
who became a Democrat like twenty years ago, Michael Steele,
and I honestly feel they could have just improved so
much had they met a single Republican voter, much less
the one hundreds or thousands that they should meet in
order to do political punditry.
Speaker 1: It's crazy that they don't have any Trump supporter on
these stations. I mean, CNN has one, but MSNBC doesn't.
They bring in all these former conservatives such a grift,
but anyway, they do not. And I am fine if
you know, you want to have someone who, you know,
some conservatives, doesn't like Trump, whatever, But if you don't
have a Trump supporter, then your viewers are not getting
They're just not getting not a full picture. They're not
getting any picture. You're in a bubble.
Speaker 3: So yeah, so we're talking about having people who represent
a majority of the country at this point, right, So
Donald Trump won a majority of votes of people who voted,
and MSNBC literally has zero row people representing that. They
have various shades of extremism on the other side, not
even like a normal Democrat.
Speaker 2: You're just still kind of like crazy.
Speaker 3: And then CNN has maybe one or two. So CNN
has that one guy who's fantastic, Scott Jennings, and then
there's a guy David something so bad with names, who
I kind of thought might have been a Trump supporter.
And then they have people who are like literally Jonah Goldberg,
you know, someone who's consumed with hatred for Donald Trump,
and that motivates everything he's going to say. I want
to say something on that. I was so rude to
him recently because he was saying that he didn't believe
Jade Vance protected his family when Donald Trump got shot,
and I was saying something like, you're not, like, you
don't understand how real men react to threats to their family.
And then I had a couple more things that were
really rude, and then he was so rude back to me,
like really really like over the top, and I was like, gosh,
why is he being so rude? And then I realized, oh,
I really kind of have destroyed him over the last
several years, and I realized that it was a bit
of punching down, and so I just was thinking, Molly,
these never Trump people. They simply do not matter anymore.
Like I won and they lost, and I can just
like move on and I don't need to keep fighting
that battle.
Speaker 1: Sorry you, and you you were rude to me. Yesterday
I was online. I made a completely innocuous statement. I said,
everyone's saying this is the biggest comeback ever in politicalist
and I said, that may be so. I literally said
that may be so. But let's not forget Nixon also
had this great come back in sixty eight. Let's not
forget that one is a pretty big one too. And boy,
you you sicked your minions on me. I had to
deal I had to deal with like hundreds of people. Listen,
it's okay to to say that someone did something good
other than Donald Trump occasionally now getting dunked on by
a million people.
Speaker 3: Were a fan of Nixon history. It's just that he
was not. He didn't go through any of the things
that Trump went.
Speaker 1: But not to labor this, but I think that the
bad things happened Trump, and they are horrible. Someone trying
to kill you is a horrible things, I know. But
all those things kind of helped him become almost a
folk hero to a lot of people. Where Nixon was
left for dead after losing California gaventorial race his own
party rejected, and whereas Trump was never rejected by the
Republican Party voters. So, but that's not important. I was
just trying to make some historical parallels. Just jumped down
my throat. Relax, I'd like to.
Speaker 2: I'm feeling very.
Speaker 3: Sinfully proud of all of my commentary from the last
eight years, in part because it was so difficult to
say it in a sea of opposition. But when they
went after Trump with law fair, even in the darkest days,
I would always say publicly and on live national television,
this is going to help him, you know, in the
moment when everyone was like, oh, it's over, blah blah blah.
And I feel very vindicated about that.
Speaker 1: It seems like a million years ago that happened, and
it was only like months ago, you know, but they
were all those cases were so weak and so transplant
apparently political. I definitely think it helped him. And the
assassination attempts they're horrifying, Honestly, the violence is really horrifying,
and I'm worried that it's not going to end here.
But that also helped him in a way that I
think that moment where he put up his fist that
probably won him the election. I don't know, you know,
that was a moment where everyone was like, man, they're
trying to kill this dude, you know, and he didn't
run away. And the way he said fight, fight, fight,
I mean, you don't have to like the guy to
just admit that that's pretty awesome and that's an awesome
moment in American history.
Speaker 3: Well, you think about what Barack Obama said about how
Donald Trump only cares about himself, and that has been
a common refrain from people who don't understand Donald Trump
for a long time. But in that moment he just
exploded that. It was like, oh my gosh, he's doing
this at great personal sacrifice, including threats to his very life.
Stop saying he only cares about himself. On the stage
last night, Dana White was highlighting how much the family
had suffered for what Donald Trump has accomplished here, and
I think.
Speaker 2: It was worth it.
Speaker 3: I mean, people should be pointing this out that what
the left has done to Donald Trump and other Republicans
is really it's really awful and it needs to be rejected.
Oh On that note, I think one thing that's important
about this victory and that it came after all of
this stuff that was thrown at Donald Trump, and that
it was such a decisive victory, is that one of
the big problems in the country sort of like many
of the big problems in the country, started in twenty
sixteen when the media and other Democrats refused to accept
the legitimacy of Donald Trump's first election to office. And
they had maybe like a few hours of soul searching
where they said, oh, maybe we didn't really understand the
electorate or what motivated them, and then they said, nope,
it was that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal
the election. And that launched everything. It launched the Molar probe,
it launched the resistance in every single federal agency. It
gave excuses for the media to publish a bunch of
anonymous sources that were wrong, that were liars. And now
they simply have to accept the legitimacy of this election.
I'm not saying that they will. I'm saying they need
to be made to accept the legitimacy of this election.
Every regime figure has to respect this, and if they
don't they need to be dealt with forcefully.
Speaker 1: I saw Jonathan Chate, you know, a big figure in
the Russia collusion stuff, conspiracy theory, talking about this election
and basically conceding that it is over, and I congratulated
him on this is I think the first election he's
in his career that he's ever admitted that the GOP
had legitimately won two thousand and oh twenty sixteen. No,
I agree with you. I think this one is too
big for there to be another Russia collusion hoax. And
even if there were, the media no longer is believed
at all, and no one would even believe them if
it were true, which it wouldn't be. Of course.
Speaker 3: One of the things that makes me optimistic. I was
actually talking to my kid about this, how people in
DC they end up getting so wrapped up into continuing
their job that they don't solve the problems that they
set out to solve. You know, they if they were
to solve it, then they wouldn't be able to make
a living. And I said, I think we really have
a unique opportunity in the next few years. You know,
I've been doing media criticism for decades, and I think
we have an opportunity to truly destroy the corrupt propaganda
press in the next four years. I'm not saying it
will happen. I'm just saying I could see it happening,
and if that happens, I've kind of written myself out
of a job, and it would be the most joyous
writing out of a job in history. I would love
to not need to do media criticism anymore, like I
dream of it. But I really think we have this opportunity.
They were so bad this cycle you thought they could
not get any worse. They had every reason to change,
and nothing changed. Like the best you can say about
it is that two billionaire owners of two big papers
declined to endorse. That's the full extent of the remorse
we've seen from corporate media about their lies and their
propaganda and their deception and their complete ridiculous manipulation of
the truth. And the cool thing is, they lost, but
they it's not sufficient that they lose and then they
get to moderate.
Speaker 2: The next debate.
Speaker 3: It's not sufficient that they lost this election and they
still get to set the terms of the debate. We
need to think through how to truly destroy them, how
they need to be not listened to, not followed. I
think we actually have to build and develop a strategy
and game plan. They're destroying the country, and it's great
that they lost this battle, just like they lost the
twenty sixteen battle. But it's a big war and they
need to be dealt with much more decisively.
Speaker 1: Skeptical things will change, so I will say this, and
we've disagreed before. Part of their destruction in this cycle
I think was Jdvan's going on these shows and dunking
on the reporters of this kind of media. I believe
that many people who watch did not even could not
even understand what the other side was doing, and he,
because he was on there and he was effective and
he's smart, kind of dunk on them. Now I agree
with you in general, but I don't think things will change,
and I don't think they'll be destroyed. They'll become a
niche market for the left wing of America continuing. Remember,
for like a day or two, there's going to be
a reckoning over the Russia collusion thing. I remember this
big story in Axios. Not a single person paid a
price for it. Nothing changed. The owner of a newspaper
doesn't endorse, but the entire paper is filled not just
with hardcore leftists, pro Hamas people. There are at least
four people at that paper who hate America with you know,
and a pro terrorists. I mean, that's not going to
change overnight. The support staff, the editors, all those people
are are complete nuts.
Speaker 2: Let me say there are two things though here.
Speaker 3: One is there's a difference between being one out of
literally thousands of elected Republicans who can actually fight the
corporate media, which is what you have with Jdvans and
Donald Trump talked about that last night. He said he
was the only guy who's ever relished taking on the media.
And it's great that Jdvance, one out of thousands of Republicans,
holds his own in these debates with left wing propaganda press.
There are thousands who don't. And also even the best
JD is still operating on their terms of debate.
Speaker 2: He has to.
Speaker 3: I think about this all the time because I have
to do it on TV. You have to deal with
their falsehood and you have to spend some time doing
that just to get to the part where you can
advocate for your own views.
Speaker 2: What if we had a media that.
Speaker 3: Didn't make you dig out of a ditch for five
minutes before you could talk about what was motivating the country.
What if we had a media that talked deeply about
energy policy or trade policy, and did it in a
way that was fair so that people could just have
discussions about the best ways to approach foreign policy. They
set the terms of the debate so clearly and so fully,
And I want to also explain a little bit about why.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 3: I've worked for a few large media corporations, and when
you do that, you go through defamation training, defamation law training.
And one of the defenses that you can have in
a defamation lawsuit is if you were saying something false
but it came from the New York Times or Washington Post,
that's a defense. It's not a defense if you say
something false but it came from a less left wing publication.
The courts tend to view the New York Times and
the Washington Post as legitimate and other places as illegitimate.
This creates such an unfair system where if the New
York Times and the Washington Post claimed that Donald Trump
stole the twenty sixteen election by colluding with Russia, you
can talk about that all day long, all night long,
for years on end. But if some other media out
that says, I think something hinky happened with the Get
out the Vote operations in Philadelphia, and you say that,
even if it's one hundred percent true, you are at
risk for a defamation lesson. So the power they have
isn't just in what they're publishing and what their own
readers or own viewers are saying. It's in the fact
that they can dramatically supersize it in a way that
other media outlets can't. Combine that with a massive censorship
industrial complex, where outlets like New York Times and Washington
Post they can lie about COVID, they can lie about Israel,
they can lie about Russia, they can lie about Brett Kavanaugh.
They can literally create out of thin air a rape
hox against a Supreme Court justice and it goes global right.
They can do the George Floyd stuff, they can do
the Covington stuff, and they get a perfect one hundred
percent rating from the censorship industrial complex. And if you
debunk those things, you get a third And then that
affects how much you'll be shared on Facebook sensors one
and they amplify the other, and Google sensors one and
they amplify the other. So it's not sufficient to just say, oh,
the media lost. They need to be destroyed. They're destroying
the country, They're destroying the terms of debate, and I
think there's a rare opportunity here to take them out.
And I also think that means that we should be
praising Elon Musk right now. If he had not purchased
Twitter and turned it into X, a free speech platform,
this election might have gone dramatically differently. I mean, he
also is getting praise for putting his own name and
reputation and money on the line in Pennsylvania. He deserves
a lot of credit for that too, But the free
speech issue, it might have saved the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's in many ways a hero. I don't like
everything he does and says, but the very fact that
he believes in the neutral principle of free expression for everyone.
People attack him on Twitter, I always laugh. He's letting
you say what you want about him on that platform.
Shouldn't that Doesn't that mean that he really cares about
free speech? I think. I think what he did with
X is amazing. I wish I wish that he would
also invest and maybe he is in journalism and journalistic
institutions that are real on the right, because I think
that's one of the biggest problems the right has. There's
not enough money for some deep journalism to agree with that.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh.
Speaker 3: I was going to say thank you and please donate
to the Federalist I believe it's Federalist dot com slash donate.
On that note, I would like to give some praise
to the staff on this issue. I was thinking about
this graph that's going around that shows Democrats in twenty twelve,
twenty sixteen, and twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: Had a pretty stable vote tally, and.
Speaker 3: In twenty twenty it was dramatically higher, and Republicans, by contrast,
kind of had steady growth with a dramatically higher not dramatic,
like a less dramatic increase in twenty twenty. And people
are like, what is going on here? And I am
so happy to see the entire theory of my book
in one graph, Rigged, which was about the twenty twenty
election and about how hundreds of laws and processes were
changed to sort of unnaturally increase the vote totals in
Democrat strongholds in swing states, and I go through it
in the book in detail, and it was a deeply reported,
deeply researched look very quickly after the election about what
actually happened in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, in Georgia. And there
are no conspiracy theories in the entire book. It's all
about what actually happened, and it explains what happened and
also explains how you could have such a different result
here in twenty twenty four, from that reporting, we built
out a reporting team at the Federalists with reporters on
the ground in covering swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
and we tenaciously looked at how election were being administered there,
what was going on, and our reporting. We were just
nominated for a Now Journalism Prize, which is a really
impressive prize that I hope we win here next week.
Our team is just incredible, just wonderful investigative reporters. They
got on the ground, they interviewed the sources, and they
had a really good handle of what was happening, not
just defensively in terms of improving laws and processes for
election integrity, but on the ground challenges and also what
was happening with ballot chase, And I think ballot chase
is the undercovered story of this election. The Trump campaign
in RNC outsourced it to third party groups and you have,
I forget all their names, just like some American Various
America packs, you know, ned Ryan had one that was
handling a lot of Wisconsin and Nevada, huge wins there.
Sentinel was handling Montana and Pennsylvania, huge wins there. Charlie
Kirk Arizona, I think that's well. I think we'll have
to wait what two weeks for the idiots there to
get the vote total. But if you followed our reporting,
you understood what was going on, and pretty much we
had the field to ourselves. Nobody else was covering it.
Nobody else got the story about twenty twenty like we
did with Rigged. And I'm just very very happy. It
was very hard to write that, very hard to publish that.
I faced a lot of professional punishment, I guess you'd say,
for writing a book about the twenty twenty election being
a problem, and I am just so happy about how
it turned out.
Speaker 1: Congratulations, it's a great book.
Speaker 5: As we transition into fall and our schedules get busier,
tight er work deadlines. As we approached the end of
the year or the start of holiday preparations, It's easy
to forget about taking care of ourselves during this busy season.
One simple but effective thing you can do for yourself
start taking Nutrifol. Neutrifol is the number one dermatologist recommended
hair growth supplement brand, trusted by over one million people.
See thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in
just three to six months with Nutrifhil. Thinning hair is
different for men and women, so a one size fits
all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Neutrofol has
multiple formulas for men and women that are tailored to
different life stages and lifestyle factors, so you can get
just what you need get results you can run your
fingers through. For a limited time, Neutrifol is offering our
listeners ten dollars off your first month subscription and free
shipping when you go to nutrofol dot com and enter
the promo code. Federalist find out why. Over forty five
hundred healthcare professionals and stylists recommend.
Speaker 1: Nutrafle for healthier hair nutrifol.
Speaker 5: Dot com spelled nut r af ol dot com promo
code federalist. That's neutrafl dot com promo code federalist.
Speaker 1: How did you feel about this election as far as
as far as ballot you know, security, as far as
all the issues that were a problem. Then did they
get better in most states?
Speaker 3: Are so one of the challenges is that things got
better in red states, they did not necessarily get better
in blue states. I saw I haven't checked this out yet,
but I saw a tweet saying that every state that
does not require voter ID went to Kamala. I don't
think that's true because I don't think Pennsylvania requires voter
ID and it did not go for Kamala. But there
are ongoing issues, even the fact that, like I just said,
Arizona is not going to know the results for whoever
knows how long.
Speaker 2: That's ridiculous.
Speaker 3: Florida put a lot of work into election integrity after
the two thousand election disaster, and every year they've worked
to improve it, including in the last few years. You know,
Rohndescantis signed a bill that actually puts teeth behind fighting
election fraud, actually set up an office to go after
people who commit election fraud. You know, just having the
office makes it less likely that you're going to do it.
It's just saying we're serious about this. And they also
tallied their results within an hour. And it's however, I mean,
how many millions of people live in Florida. It's a
massive state.
Speaker 1: I mean, every stage should be following Florida's lead. It
seems to me, you know, I don't understand. I mean
I do understand why, but.
Speaker 3: And the point is it took them twenty four years
to get to where they are right now. So it's
not something where you just pass a law like Georgia
passed a law to slightly improve their elections. Georgia has
a long way to go, but they've made a start
and Texas has made a start. But every state should
just be constantly thinking about election integrity issues and how
to improve the situation. And these long delays on vote
tallies are not befitting a great country like ours.
Speaker 1: Two things on what you just said. One is, let's
talk about Florida for a second. I don't know if
people realize that since Ron de Santis has taken you know,
has been governor of Florida, he's completely that state has transformed.
Obama won that state in twenty twelve, Ron DeSantis barely
won in twenty eighteen, and now it was Donald Trump
came closer to winning New York, then Kamala Harris came
to winning Florida. That's how red Florida is. It is
a destination state for hundreds of thousands of people. Is
It's an amazing transformation of that state, which was always
like the you know, swing state to watch. You know
that in Ohio also has obviously turned Republican, so that
is kind of an amazing thing. And second, with the
counting of votes in California, they take forever as well.
In these House races, do we know? Do we know
Republicans right now? I think they're ahead, but I'm not
sure that that stands what's going to happen there.
Speaker 3: That is one of those situations where we legitimately won't
know for a while. But Republicans were very worried they
were going to lose the House, and they had some
early losses in New York and even Alabama. The courts
created a district for Democrats down there. So late last night,
the Republicans who I was speaking with started to feel
much more optimistic about keeping the House.
Speaker 1: So but I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know the fint it's going to
be narrow.
Speaker 3: But even just having control means that instead of Hakeem
Jeffries spewing his hate and being able to launch another impeachment,
you know, he'll have to wait a couple of years
until Republicans the House.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean there's another election in two years. You know,
people is just just a continuum and constantly going on.
There is no you know, people act like they won. Yeah,
you won, but it becomes very difficult very quickly. Though
I am, as you know, somewhat critical of Donald Trump,
I am extremely happy, hopefully, and I hope this happens,
that the Republicans won the Senate and that the judicial
system will hopefully be again restocked with many constitutionalists and originalists.
Hopefully he has a list handy from some Federalist Society,
secret Federalist Society person who will have the youngest, most fit,
zealous originalists waiting to be on the court if need be.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, this is an issue though, because unfortunately a lot
of the conservative legal movement was kind of a wall
for the last four years as rule of law was
destroyed in this country, and I don't know what that
means for who Trump is going to listen to about.
And in the book I wrote with Carrie Sebreno, we
showed how the list that was a big part of
Donald Trump's success with Supreme Court justice nominations was not
I mean, yes, it's true the Federalist Society and Leonard
Leo participated in that, but it was not their list.
It was originally designed by Don McKee and the first
General Counsel for the Trump administration and had input from,
you know, lots of other people. So I think the
people who maybe did something in the last few years
when it came to the attacks on rule of law
and these horrific attacks on Republican election lawyers who have
been disbarred or faced crippling legal battles, people who did
anything for the j six protesters who were so over
prosecuted and over convicted, I think those people have more
of Trump's s hear for when it comes to nominations. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Two more topics that just hit me. One is that
we didn't even mention is immigration and the border. I
think that that has always I don't think polls properly
reflect how people are. Just I think a poor the lawlessness,
the anarchy of it, you know, setting aside, you know,
other problems in cities that are overwhelmed with newcomers and
stuff like that. I think that that's always a dry
I thought that one twenty sixteen election for Donald Trump.
I don't think that won him this election. I think
it was more about the economy, but I think that
was still a big part of it, and people underestimate
how important it is. Even if you're pro immigrantgration, which
I am, that you want a legal you know, you
want law, you want order, you want assimilation, you want
things to work to help and benefit the United States.
However many people you want coming in legally and the
other thing, I don't know if you have anything to
add to that, or do you want to talk about
that at all.
Speaker 3: Just one of the things that really hurts me about
how evil our corrupt propaganda press is is how they
characterize people optimistically hoping for change on this issue of
the border or the economy. So they listen to Donald
Trump saying I'll fix these things that are destroying your lives,
and they go That makes me feel good and I'm
going to vote for that person. And then these lying
liars at the New York Times and NBC and all
these other outlets, they say dark and dystopic message from
Trump sways Americans. It's like, screw you, you know, having
a country where you feel like your children aren't going
to be raped by the people that bad, like leaders
of other countries let go from their prisons so that
they could cross the border because it's so easy.
Speaker 2: That doesn't you know it.
Speaker 3: Is a very hopeful thing to think, like, oh, I
might be able to protect my children from all of
this insanity, or even like you know, having daughters who
play sports and you don't want them to have to
play against men. That's dark. I mean, the thing that's
happening is dark. The optimism you feel about it's One
of my family members said that, So this was before
this was last night, before Trump was declared a victor.
But he said, I think, you know, if Trump wins,
I'm going to move to America. This person lives in America.
But he was saying we He's like, I miss America.
I miss how great this country was, and I want
it to happen again. And I think you know, if
Trump is elected, I'm going to move to America. And
he just meant like we might have a shot at
preserving this great country.
Speaker 1: I do think that Donald Trump pulls a big part
of the normy vote, the normy suburban vote. I think,
like white suburban women. He won them despite you know,
all this stuff about him being anti woman. And remember
these ads right at the end about how women have
to sneak into the voting booth and lie to their
husbands about like this is such a demented view of
marriage and demented view of conservatives and the demented view
of men. Right, they clearly hate men.
Speaker 3: They were basically saying, your husbands are toxic abusers. And
by the way, totally doesn't match with my experience where
in twenty sixteen I asked Mark to vote for Donald Trump,
told him he didn't have to tell me, he just
should do the right thing. He went and voted, came
home and loudly announced that he had voted for Evan mcmaffin.
So the idea that I would have to hide, you know,
hide my Columblan vote from him, it just doesn't match.
Speaker 1: One of the other the other things I thought was
interesting on this immigration issue is that like Latino vote
is obviously trending towards Republicans, and I just from personal
experience with my own immigrant parents, immigrants do not like
when who come here legally and follow the process and
do things correctly. Do not like when other people do
not follow that same path. The idea that Latinos are
all offended because you don't want illegal immigration is insane.
First of all, Hispanic people are not just one group.
They come from many different countries. There's many different traditions
and cultures and ideas people are not so I was
thinking about this as well. The nice thing about this
election that I liked is that it was much more individualized, like,
it was much more diverse. Trump has a much more
diverse coalition than the usual and I think that's good
for America because people should not be voting because of
their skin color a certain way, or because even you know,
or because of their ethnicity. They should do it on
an individual basis. So and the last thing on the
immigration thing also is that I'm a big proponent of immigration,
and illegal immigration hurts my position more than anything because
it turns people off to the very idea of others
coming here, and there is a movement within the right
that is becoming more right skeptical of immigration as a whole.
And I don't think that that's good for America. But
I understand why it's happening so right, I don't know.
I'm so tired. I don't know what I'm talking about.
One last thing, oh you hear is Taylor Swift Cardibi.
Can you believe that did not move the election to
Kamala I When will they learn that celebrity endorsements do
not matter? I don't think they matter. I don't think
people listen to them.
Speaker 3: Different idea about that, which is I do think celebrity
endorsements can mean something, but our understanding of Like to me,
I would absolutely pay attention to Taylor Swift and Cardi
b On like a skin cream endorsement. If they were
like this changed my life, I'd be like, those are
beautiful women. I will try out that skin cream. If
Taylor Swift and Cardi ber are like this is a
good politician, it almost works the opposite for me. I'm like, well,
no offense to these women. And I know they're impressive
in their careers, but they seem to have bad judgment
in that area, j Lo bad judgment. So it almost
works the opposite. Like my neighbor. I had a neighbor,
unfortunately he died, and he was such a loyal Democrat
that I would just look at his signs and then
write it down and vote against the people for the
local races like school board and city council. I was like,
always love this neighbor, but if he is for these people,
they need to be voted out.
Speaker 1: The only celebrity endorsement that matters was Haul Cogan's Let's
be honest.
Speaker 3: Okay, so that's not but I wasn't thinking Hulk. But
I do think, and this is going to put you
into apoplex dick rage. When RFK Junior endorsed Trump, I
don't think that he had enough votes to really matter,
although maybe maybe he did in some of these states.
I was even noticing he got more votes than Jill
Stein in some state. You know, he's not even really eligible.
Speaker 1: And I think these are disaffected people voting because the politics.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it just like opened up the window of
possibility where people were thinking, wait a minute, RFK Junior,
And you know, you have tons of a variety of
viewpoints about him out there, But it just kind of
showed that something different was happening. When Elon Musk went
all in on Trump and so did some other like
billionaire tech bro types. They didn't just endorse him, they
just went all in and made the case. People like
David Sachs, I think that those are that like an
Elon is a celebrity of a different type. Also, I
personally have friends personally who voted for Trump because of Elon.
These are people who voted for Biden, and they feel
so strongly about free speech and his fight for free
speech that it moved them. And so in the celebrity
kind of diminishes Elon Musk. He's just such a transformative figure.
It's kind of guy that makes you feel happy to
be alive at the same time as he's alive on earth.
And some people hate him. I get that, but I
think most normal people say I find him worth listening
to about things.
Speaker 1: I think people underestimate as well how bad Biden was
for the economy. The moment that he killed the presidency
and lost and Kamala lost was the moment that they cramped.
They idiotically cramped through this massive spending bill that you know,
sparked inflation. More than that, Kamala had insane economic ideas
like taxing unrealized capital gains. This would destroy the country.
All these investors. There's not an investor on earth who
thinks that's a good idea. Right, you can't underestimate and
people will probably You see what happened with the stock
market this morning. It went, you know, it likes Donald
Trump for a reason. And so I mean, I obviously
they're not going to like Taris and stuff like that,
but you know, Amel is even nuttier. So I think
that's maybe why a lot of the tech bros. I'm
not saying it's the only reason, but I think a
lot of them care about that as well. Do you uh?
I think that is that it? Do you want to
talk about more? Okay? Do you want to talk about culture?
Do we should we even bother talking about culture? Doesn't
even care about culture?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 1: I have a few things, do you do? Not totally?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 3: So I have become a Joe Rogan listener in the
last ten days.
Speaker 1: So, by the way, this RFK thing, we're going to
talk about this because I.
Speaker 3: Look forward to it because I am and I'm not.
I am surprised by how much that make America Healthy
again message resonated with me and my friends. But I
don't know if I disagree with you on his kookiness
on a lot of stuff. So we can talk about
that later. But I think we see what he's doing
before we can discuss it. So, Joe Rogan, I watched
the Trump interview, I did the Vance interview, I did
the Elon Musk interview. It's like nine hours total, I think,
And I usually only watched things while I'm rowing, and
so I figured out how to make I figured out
how to make that work while I'm rowing. So this
luddite is getting better. And then the only other thing
is that a long time ago, a listener had recommended
The Diplomat with Carrie Russell and said she thought I would.
Speaker 2: Like it, and that is true. I like it.
Speaker 1: Really.
Speaker 3: It's a little raunchy, like I can't I'm you know,
there's some spicy scenes and stuff and some bad language,
but I am enjoying it.
Speaker 1: While I row interesting, I watched a few movies. I
watched Lifeboat. It's an earlier Alfred Hitchcock movie about these
people stuck on a lifeboat. After their Did you do that?
Speaker 3: Because it was mentioned in Only Murders in the Building?
Speaker 1: Was it? Yeah, it might have been because it was
my wife's suggestion, and we watched that invite. When I
say we watched that show, my wife watches and I'm
on the phone. I watched a documentary called Silicone Cowboys,
which is about like compac and the fight against IBM
when they made those like IBM ripoff computers. It's just
an interesting thing if you're into that. Boys in the
Boat did you see that one? It's like the Rocky
of rowing movies. Crew.
Speaker 3: I just want to say I highly recommend Boys in
the Boat. It is a wonderful film. I watched it
on my flight home from Venice this summer, and at
the recommendation of my youngest kid who had seen it,
and everyone I know who's watched it loves it.
Speaker 1: Really I found it a little bit tropy and a
little bit a little bit dragged, a little bit. I
felt like I wanted to know more about the rower.
I just felt like it was a little uneven. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I expect it to like it, as it was
so many other things. David Harsani is wrong.
Speaker 2: It's a good, good film, isn't wrong. I loved when
you it was that George Clooney made it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, George Clooney made it. I love it. I love
when you attacked me when we were talking about Nixon
and this guy goes, you're going to get Ratio. I
live to be Ratio. I love the people.
Speaker 2: You're like good.
Speaker 1: That's why I said it. And I watched a movie,
an Australian movie that was is all older, like twenty
ten with Guy Pearson some other Australian actors called Animal Kingdom.
Have you ever heard of this movie? Now? Listen. It
is not safe for work kind of a movie. It
is violent and all that, but I thought it was
really really fantastic. There's an American TV show based on
it that went on for like eight seasons that I
never heard of before, with Ellen Barkin or something. But
I found it to be really really interesting. So I
recommend that people are going to get angry when they
watch it, but whatever, I think it was good boy.
What a crazy, crazy election season that was?
Speaker 2: Huh well, I just want.
Speaker 3: To congratulate everybody who made it through. It wasn't as
glorious as twenty sixteen. In one way, because that was
such a surprise. But there was something extremely cathartic about
watching the results last night, and so I hope everyone
enjoyed that. And there's a lot of work to be
done to save the country, but it's a little bit
easier now.
Speaker 1: Listen ed ed Eddie. This is for Eddie's scary. But
I you know, I don't like Trump, but the Democrats
deserve to lose this election more than anyone ever deserved
to lose one. They deserved it for lying, they deserved
it for tearing the country apart with their Nazi stuff,
they deserved it for the corrupt way the media acted.
So I was very happy to see them lose for sure.
I'd like to mention that I do have a book
coming out soon, which I you know, honestly, and I'm
not just saying pat myself on the back. I think
explains a lot of how the left became this PARANOI,
you know, has adopted this paranoia about politics, completely unable
to debate issues and always just you know, accusing you
of sedition or something terrible rather than being able to debate.
And it didn't happen overnight, It's happened over decades and
hopefully I think my book which is called The Rise
of Blue and on how Democrats became a part of
conspiracy theorists, and I.
Speaker 3: Haven't read it yet, but I know that your stuff
is always so good and so readable and so funny
and just wonderful. So everyone should buy it The Rise
of Bluing on wherever they buy their books.
Speaker 2: And do you think we can talk about it? Maybe?
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe next week or a week after that. I
think would be great if we could. I will send
you a copy. Of course, you're thanked, and the acknowledgments
as always.
Speaker 2: That's great. So now I now I'll have to say
it's good no matter what.
Speaker 1: I Yeah, that's why I put everyone in the acknowledgments now,
like thank everyone. Now. I used to, you know, the
acknowledgements used to be like three pages for my books.
And I'm like, I can't keep doing this because what
happens is you always forget someone and they get mad.
So what I do now is just I mentioned people
who have who I worked with and helped me, like you,
But then I just say friends and family and stuff
like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I feel that the same way. Like the first time
I wrote a lot, because I thought I would only
write one book, the one I wrote with Carrie Savorino,
but then I just keep on writing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, great, and thank you for that. Molly's
very kind of you. And as always, if you'd like
to email the show, please do so at radio at
the Federalist dot com. We get great mail and we
look forward to hearing from you. Until next time. Be
lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray. Same same,