Speaker 1: This is Dan Kaplis and welcome to today's online podcast
Speaker 1: edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
Speaker 1: give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
Speaker 1: and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
Speaker 1: single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2: Here on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Vernon Brown and for Dan today because he's
Speaker 3: at trial.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining in.
Speaker 3: We have been talking about bills down to state legislature
Speaker 3: and just a huge variety of crime bills that would
Speaker 3: keep Colorado safe that have been killed almost entirely on
Speaker 3: a party line vote in committee after committee retail, THEFT bills,
Speaker 3: bill's fixing pr bonds, bill's fixing our sanctuary state status,
Speaker 3: and they just are they're run.
Speaker 2: By good legislators. They would be supported by the.
Speaker 3: People, as we saw on the Truth and Sentencing and
Speaker 3: other public safety ballot measures run last year. But when
Speaker 3: you come down to a committee that is controlled by
Speaker 3: the Democrats right now, they are being criminal friendly, not
Speaker 3: victim friendly. And we see this in every single one
Speaker 3: of these votes that we've been talking about. Right now,
Speaker 3: we are joined by Representative Brandy Bradley Hooman to bring
Speaker 3: on in just a second. She was running a really
Speaker 3: good bill this year that would have stopped Colorado's insane
Speaker 3: standard for giving probation to child rapists. And yes, you
Speaker 3: heard that right, that's what Colorado does. Representative Bradley, thank
Speaker 3: you so much for joining me on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 4: Oh thank you Christy for having me.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it absolutely well.
Speaker 3: I think I was reading George Brockler's article talking about
Speaker 3: your bill and he calls it probation for child rape
Speaker 3: in Colorado.
Speaker 2: Question mark, yes, really, and.
Speaker 3: Goes on to explain how this is something that actually
Speaker 3: happens in Colorado. Can you explain the situation a little
Speaker 3: bit before we get into your bill.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. We were approached by a Brockler's office. I'd done
Speaker 4: some town halls and said, hey, what can I do
Speaker 4: to run some bills for public safety? And his deputy
Speaker 4: chief DA who is a godsend, was like, did you
Speaker 4: know in our state that you can rape a child?
Speaker 4: So you can rate ten children once and creed down
Speaker 4: to probation. And I was like, there's no way that's true.
Speaker 4: And we started digging in on it, and yeah, sixty
Speaker 4: nine people got probation only seventy percent of child rapists
Speaker 4: get probation only in our state.
Speaker 2: That is absolutely insane.
Speaker 3: And so the standard is if you do it once
Speaker 3: to the specific child, you can get out of probation.
Speaker 3: But if it's more than once to that specific child,
Speaker 3: then you can't.
Speaker 2: That's the same.
Speaker 4: Well, that is what that's what they say. But there's
Speaker 4: they say that it's more than three times that you
Speaker 4: actually get an actual sentence in the DOOC.
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness, that's horrible. And so what I mean,
Speaker 3: obviously your bill fixed it. Can you give a few
Speaker 3: more details on what your bill would have done.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so we already have indeterminate sentencing for soolity four
Speaker 4: and Solony three child assaults sexual folks on a child.
Speaker 4: And so what Representative English and I have great by
Speaker 4: person bill, we have by person people in the Senate
Speaker 4: that were going to cover it. We were just removing
Speaker 4: probation because we knew that seventy percent of these people
Speaker 4: get probation only, and so we were going to make
Speaker 4: sure that these sick individuals go to jail and then
Speaker 4: go through sex offender treatment program and then are released
Speaker 4: instead of a slap on the wrist. And the Democrats said, no,
Speaker 4: that's not fair. We want determinate sentencing because criminals need
Speaker 4: to know when they'll go to jail and how long
Speaker 4: they'll spend in jail.
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3: And so indeterminate sentencing, I think that's probably a term
Speaker 3: that not everyone is familiar with.
Speaker 2: Can you explain it a little more?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So for a selenty four, let's say position of trust.
Speaker 4: You know, the public defenders try to come to the
Speaker 4: scene and say, this is going to happen if you
Speaker 4: stroll past someone on a bus and accidentally touch their buttocks.
Speaker 4: That's not true in the state of Colorado. Soelenty four
Speaker 4: I saw on a child is inappropriate touching through clothing,
Speaker 4: but it's for sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse, and that's
Speaker 4: really hard to prove in a court of law. So
Speaker 4: you have to be the worst of the worst to
Speaker 4: do that. So for that crime you get two to
Speaker 4: six years. So it's an indeterminate amount of sentencing that
Speaker 4: the judge uses his describe two sentence and we know
Speaker 4: the majority of people's sentence for that crime served less
Speaker 4: than a year on that. So then the public defender said, well,
Speaker 4: these people are going to send their whole life because
Speaker 4: the sentencing is to their natural light sometimes as well.
Speaker 4: And we know that the person that has served the
Speaker 4: worst amount of time is the worst offender served less
Speaker 4: than twenty five years the sentencing.
Speaker 2: Wow, no, it's crazy.
Speaker 3: And it seems like time and time again, we have
Speaker 3: the majority of the Democrats in the legislature, at least
Speaker 3: those who are on the committees, voting on the side
Speaker 3: of criminals and not on the side of victims. Apparently
Speaker 3: not even when it comes to children. Now we're talking
Speaker 3: to Representative Brandy Bradley, who is actually my state representative
Speaker 3: in Douglas County. You're on the Dane Capel Show with
Speaker 3: Christy Burton Brown. And this is a bill that I
Speaker 3: believe just died yesterday in committee.
Speaker 2: Is that right?
Speaker 4: Well, this morning it went till two thirty am. And
Speaker 4: I'll tell you that we didn't get witnesses to be
Speaker 4: able to testify these people that signed up the testify.
Speaker 4: It started at one point thirty the committe Sure, my
Speaker 4: bill did not start until ten PM. And what a
Speaker 4: disservice to the people that wanted to tell their story
Speaker 4: in committee to wrap up at two thirty in the morning.
Speaker 3: Right, instead of just continuing the next day or something
Speaker 3: like that.
Speaker 2: Right now, that's insane.
Speaker 3: Did you get was anyone allowed to testify on the bill?
Speaker 4: Well, they were allowed to testify, but the public defenders
Speaker 4: took so much of the time with their mistruths and
Speaker 4: their false facts. I mean, one of the public defenders
Speaker 4: talked about an autistic child that inappropriately touched someone that
Speaker 4: was going to go to jail for forever. Well it
Speaker 4: turns out he didn't go to jail because he went
Speaker 4: to trial and a judge didn't find any proof. But
Speaker 4: he neglected to talk about these. Another man a youth
Speaker 4: pastor that raped many children in his church that he
Speaker 4: got probation for. So these are the mistruths they bring.
Speaker 4: They bring. There's plenty of people on the wait list
Speaker 4: waiting in there. It's not fair that these criminals aren't
Speaker 4: getting their treatment and getting out of jail, and it's
Speaker 4: not fair to these criminals do not have determinate sentencing
Speaker 4: in You know, we don't know that the recidivism. We
Speaker 4: know that keeping these people in jail for longer periods
Speaker 4: of time increases their recidivism. You know what it does, Christy,
Speaker 4: You keep these people in jail It keeps them from
Speaker 4: raping more children, is what it does, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's a fairly obvious conclusion that I think
Speaker 3: the general public would agree with you on if they knew.
Speaker 2: And that's one thing I think.
Speaker 3: As completely unfortunate as it is that these kind of
Speaker 3: bills don't pass committee because even though, as you mentioned,
Speaker 3: Representative Bradley, you did have a Democrat co sponsor on
Speaker 3: this bill, I think when it comes to the committees,
Speaker 3: we are almost always seeing a party line vote on committees,
Speaker 3: and then it's not going to the floor and the
Speaker 3: majority of people aren't getting to talk about it. But
Speaker 3: I think the fact that both you and District Attorney
Speaker 3: George Brockler are talking about this issue, and I'm sure
Speaker 3: you're not going to stop even though they're killing the bills.
Speaker 2: I think the more these things get exposed.
Speaker 3: To people, the more outrage is created, because the majority
Speaker 3: of people actually do want to protect kids public defenders aside.
Speaker 3: So I think this is just such an important issue
Speaker 3: to highlight and thank you for your work on this.
Speaker 4: Yes, well, I appreciate one more note that the Public
Speaker 4: Defender's office actually said that they have criminals who can't
Speaker 4: stand being on lifetime probation, So they actually asked to
Speaker 4: go to jail, and Representative Codwell actually said, you're telling
Speaker 4: me that someone that is accused of raping a child
Speaker 4: would actually rather.
Speaker 5: Go to jail.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is the senseless stuff that they come
Speaker 4: and speak about that the people of Colorado need to
Speaker 4: understand that they're actually sitting there telling the committee members
Speaker 4: that these poor people that rape children violently actually would
Speaker 4: rather go to jail because probation is just too much
Speaker 4: for them to endure.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 3: No, that's yeah, just an insane outlook when you're completely
Speaker 3: focused on criminals in their needs when they've already made
Speaker 3: their own choice and they need to be punished for it,
Speaker 3: and victim.
Speaker 2: People completely forget victims.
Speaker 3: I think in this whole equation, too many legislators obviously
Speaker 3: not yourself and not some of your allies in the legislature,
Speaker 3: but too many forget the victims and are like, oh,
Speaker 3: we got to do the criminal justice system perfectly for
Speaker 3: the criminal, but not take care of the victims and
Speaker 3: stop people from being revictimized because we just give people
Speaker 3: chance after chance after chance, and it just doesn't work.
Speaker 3: I mean, no wonder Colorado is the third most dangerous
Speaker 3: state in the nation right now, according to US News
Speaker 3: and World Report, because bills like yours and so many
Speaker 3: others that would keep our states safe are shot down
Speaker 3: time and time again.
Speaker 4: Well, and we're four highest for rape and we're ten
Speaker 4: highest for human trafficking. So what are the Democrats doing?
Speaker 4: You know, they come to the table and this bill
Speaker 4: is not the answer. Well, what's the answer?
Speaker 2: Because certain, right, what are you wating? Yeah, no, it's
Speaker 2: so true, so true.
Speaker 3: Well, we have to take a break here on the
Speaker 3: Dan Kaplo Show. But thank you Representative Brandy Bradley for
Speaker 3: joining us and telling us about your bill that would
Speaker 3: have kept kids safe but got killed in committee.
Speaker 4: Hey, thank you, Christy. I appreciate you getting the word. Oh,
Speaker 4: thanks so much.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, that was Representative Brandy Bradley from Douglas County. If
Speaker 3: you have thoughts on this bill or and the others
Speaker 3: we've been talking about, you can call in eight five
Speaker 3: five four zero five eight two five five or text
Speaker 3: to five seven seven thirty nine.
Speaker 2: Of course, the criminal Justice laws.
Speaker 3: Are only one of the entire set of laws that
Speaker 3: are being considered by the legislature through the middle of May.
Speaker 3: Their rights back in the middle of the legislative session
Speaker 3: right now, Tabor of the taxpayer bill of rights a
Speaker 3: huge issue. What do they get to cut in the
Speaker 3: budget because of the shortfall, That's a huge issue. And
Speaker 3: then of course public safety because despite all the claims
Speaker 3: to make Colorado one of the top ten safest states
Speaker 3: of the nation, which I think Polus has said for
Speaker 3: the last few years, that's not what's happening. Instead, we're
Speaker 3: the third most dangerous. Share your thoughts over the break.
Speaker 3: You're on the dan CAAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 5: And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2: You're back on the dan CAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2: I'm going to go to what a text is asking.
Speaker 3: He said, is there anyone in conservative Colorado looking at
Speaker 3: all the laws and taxes figuring out what adjustments need
Speaker 3: to be made with federal departments like education being dismantled
Speaker 3: if any laws are no longer valid. You know, Polis
Speaker 3: and the liberals won't willingly stop trying charging us.
Speaker 2: That is a very good point. They certainly won't do
Speaker 2: it of their own accord.
Speaker 3: I think though, often what the laws that come down
Speaker 3: from the federal departments, assuming there are laws there issue,
Speaker 3: it would be regulations technically coming down from federal departments
Speaker 3: that attach to the states. Often those rules and regulations
Speaker 3: have funding attached to them, so it's like funding strings
Speaker 3: per string, so they say, basically, if you comply with
Speaker 3: this regulation, you get more money from the federal government.
Speaker 2: That's often how.
Speaker 3: It works, or regulations you have to comply with them,
Speaker 3: but it doesn't necessarily charge the average person money. It
Speaker 3: may require, like the state Department of Education to comply
Speaker 3: with the rules and maybe to hire more staff people,
Speaker 3: which of course, in the end our taxpayer dollars pay
Speaker 3: for that, so in a roundabout way, we're paying for it.
Speaker 3: But I think I'm not aware of anyone right now
Speaker 3: where we could get rid of, like taxes and fees
Speaker 3: that are connected to the federal government, if that's what
Speaker 3: you're asking. Taxes and fees generally imposed by the state
Speaker 3: here in Colorado, other than of course, are federal income
Speaker 3: tax filing, and so that's a little different. So I think, yes,
Speaker 3: it's something to watch for, but I think it'll more
Speaker 3: be about the regulation side of things, like are there
Speaker 3: regulations that the state continues to comply with that are
Speaker 3: no longer rules under the new federal government. I think
Speaker 3: those kind of things will take a little more time
Speaker 3: to work through and figure out. But you're definitely right
Speaker 3: that someone needs to be on top of it and
Speaker 3: make sure that there's not a lot of busy work
Speaker 3: still being conducted by the state that in the end
Speaker 3: is costing taxpayers money because we have to pay for
Speaker 3: the people who do it. So good question, and I
Speaker 3: think Ryan had asked it in a different segment of
Speaker 3: the show. What I think is actually going to happen
Speaker 3: to education here in Colorado if the federal Department of
Speaker 3: Education does get dismantled, what are the effects here? And
Speaker 3: so I think the effects really will be to restore
Speaker 3: a lot of control to the state and to local districts.
Speaker 3: In Colorado, we're one of the few states in the
Speaker 3: nation that actually put into our constitution local control of education,
Speaker 3: which means that the local boards in school districts get
Speaker 3: to choose curriculum. The state may not mandate that on them.
Speaker 3: They can set standards, but can't tell them exactly how
Speaker 3: to teach it and what books to use, for example.
Speaker 3: So I think a state like Colorado that focuses so
Speaker 3: much on local control, should welcome the dismantling of a
Speaker 3: federal Department of education because it means less rules and regulations,
Speaker 3: less bureaucracy, more decision making on the state because if
Speaker 3: you eliminate some of those purse strings and you just
Speaker 3: get the money because it's the federal allocation that goes
Speaker 3: to the state, instead of the federal government being able
Speaker 3: to say, well, only if you take these tests, will
Speaker 3: we give you money. Only if you have like DEI
Speaker 3: in your curriculum, will we give you this set of money.
Speaker 3: Like you eliminate that when you eliminate bureaucracy, because there
Speaker 3: aren't the people to make the rules and regulations and tie.
Speaker 2: Money to that.
Speaker 3: In my view, instead, the federal portion of money should
Speaker 3: go to the states and say, hey, you have this
Speaker 3: many students in your state, therefore you get this much money.
Speaker 2: And so cutting.
Speaker 3: Bureaucracy actually opens up the ability for that to happen,
Speaker 3: and more money to flow directly into the state, into
Speaker 3: the local districts, into the classrooms, hopefully increase the teacher
Speaker 3: pay that we can do. And so I think anytime
Speaker 3: you're cutting administration, you're dismantling bureaucracy. It's not dismantling education.
Speaker 3: It's not dismantling funding. It's dismantling bureaucracy. It's a really
Speaker 3: really important point we need to emphasize, and it actually
Speaker 3: often allows funding to be way more clear and go
Speaker 3: directly where.
Speaker 2: It needs to go instead of passing through all these layers.
Speaker 3: Oh, we need to hire this person to enforce this rule,
Speaker 3: and hire that person to create this rule, and then
Speaker 3: this person to process that funding.
Speaker 2: Like, that's not what we need.
Speaker 3: And for anyone who's concerned about like special ed funding
Speaker 3: that comes from the federal level, or like the Free
Speaker 3: and reduced lunch program or things that help families or
Speaker 3: kids who really are in need, there has been no
Speaker 3: talk at the federal level of cutting those kind of funding.
Speaker 2: Streams to the states.
Speaker 3: And you don't need the Department of Education to give
Speaker 3: that funding to the state, like there are other federal
Speaker 3: departments that grants to the states can come through. So again,
Speaker 3: I think the main I keep repeating it, but the
Speaker 3: main foundational line here is cutting bureaucracy is not the
Speaker 3: same as cutting funding, and people need to stop claiming
Speaker 3: that it's the same thing. Not yet, if you're listening.
Speaker 3: You probably already don't think that's what's happening. But there's
Speaker 3: a whole lot of people out there just listening to
Speaker 3: the headlines and not reading the actual executive orders and
Speaker 3: the actual things that are coming from officials themselves. And
Speaker 3: if I could change something, I would love to change
Speaker 3: the people would actually go to the original source and
Speaker 3: read what's actually happening and what's actually being said, not
Speaker 3: how it's being reported and explained by the media. If
Speaker 3: you have thoughts, you can call in eight five five
Speaker 3: four zero five eight two five five, or you can
Speaker 3: text your thoughts to Dan at five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3: Here's another text saying, I'm not surprised that the child
Speaker 3: rapists are not getting jail time. I mean, Colorado allows
Speaker 3: abortion up until birth. The Democrats don't care about children.
Speaker 3: Why would they care about children getting raped and holding
Speaker 3: the rapists accountable?
Speaker 2: And this is in reference.
Speaker 3: If you missed our last segment, we had Representative Brandy
Speaker 3: Bradley on and she was talking about a bill that
Speaker 3: she ran. A District Attorney George Brockler is all over
Speaker 3: this issue talking about how in Colorado, if you rape
Speaker 3: a child, you can get out on probation, and apparently
Speaker 3: that probation was great to sixty nine individuals last year
Speaker 3: who did this to kids, and they were just immediately
Speaker 3: right back out on the streets, right back out in
Speaker 3: those homes and those schools wherever they were attacking children,
Speaker 3: not sent to jail at all. So to the Texter's comment,
Speaker 3: you know, I think you're right that when we create
Speaker 3: a culture that devalues children, that doesn't view them as
Speaker 3: the precious gifts that they are, and doesn't view ourselves
Speaker 3: as having some sort of responsibility to protect them so
Speaker 3: that they can grow up with all the opportunities that
Speaker 3: they should be given in this life, it does bleed
Speaker 3: over into other areas. And if you have a general
Speaker 3: view that you know, children are only worthy of protection
Speaker 3: at this age or in this environment, what is to
Speaker 3: stop you from setting your own standards of when a
Speaker 3: child becomes eligible for that kind of protection, or when
Speaker 3: they're viewed as a fully equal human and what level
Speaker 3: of protection we really want to give them. So I
Speaker 3: will agree with you that when you see people choosing
Speaker 3: abortion until birth, they are choosing adults over children. When
Speaker 3: you see people choosing probation for child rapists instead of
Speaker 3: putting them in jail. You are seeing them choose adults
Speaker 3: over children, and I think instead we need to view
Speaker 3: children as equal human beings with equal rights that ought
Speaker 3: to be protected at every stage of their life against
Speaker 3: any adults who would cause them harm. So thank you
Speaker 3: for that comment. If you're listing and you have other thoughts,
Speaker 3: text them to five seven seven three nine. Start it
Speaker 3: with Dan. I think though it'll be interesting to see.
Speaker 3: We talked really early in the show about the Continuing
Speaker 3: Resolution at the federal level. So going back to the
Speaker 3: federal level, now, if John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett are
Speaker 3: going to split in their votes, Chuck Schumer actually just
Speaker 3: announced that he is going to be voting with the
Speaker 3: Republicans on the not actually sure if it's the cure
Speaker 3: vote or the Continuing Resolution vote what, but he's yeah,
Speaker 3: I just saw that in the break. I'm gonna look
Speaker 3: it up again in this break to make sure I.
Speaker 6: Read the headline right. The heck just tappened. How did
Speaker 6: he do that?
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I literally saw headlines.
Speaker 3: I will say I've been using AI for some research
Speaker 3: and it will summarize things for me and give me
Speaker 3: headlines and I go research it and it is completely wrong.
Speaker 3: I was listening to a cl because I'm a layer
Speaker 3: and I have to do these continuing education classes, and
Speaker 3: it said AI wants to please you, so it will
Speaker 3: often give you the answers that thinks you wants you want,
Speaker 3: not the answers that are real.
Speaker 2: Tell you what you want to hear, tell you exactly.
Speaker 6: That's it.
Speaker 3: So I'm gonna double check. At the break, We'll see
Speaker 3: if Chuck Shrumer really has come over, if that was
Speaker 3: a fake AI headline, we'll find out. I'm Grauzy Burden Round.
Speaker 3: You're on the Dan Caplass Show. You can call in
Speaker 3: eight five five four zero five eight two five five
Speaker 3: or text five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5: You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast here.
Speaker 2: Back to the Day A Capital of show.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Burton Brown, and yes, I was able to
Speaker 3: confirm that Chuck Schumer has indeed come over to the
Speaker 3: dark side and announced that he will be supporting the
Speaker 3: Republican bill and to continue I guess continue resolution to
Speaker 3: not shut down the government. And of course it's not
Speaker 3: the dark side, it's the light side. But this is
Speaker 3: what he would say. Oh, It's troubling and terrible, but
Speaker 3: he just must to do it. Ryan, what comments are
Speaker 3: you hearing?
Speaker 7: What a loser? First of all? I mean, secondly, shouldn't
Speaker 7: he of all people know better? I mean, think about this.
Speaker 7: As much as we dislike her, Nancy Pelosi knew how
Speaker 7: the gears of government worked. She knew if she had
Speaker 7: the votes or not. She knew if she could corral
Speaker 7: the squad in dis place, and she did exactly she could.
Speaker 7: Heard Kats, what the hell was Schumer thinking?
Speaker 6: What was he doing?
Speaker 7: Theater?
Speaker 2: I think it's a show, I think.
Speaker 7: But if I'm a Democrat, I'm pissed off too.
Speaker 6: He's like pounding a shower. We're not gonna We're gonna
Speaker 6: shut it down. This is a bad bill. Republicans do it.
Speaker 6: And then ah jkl.
Speaker 3: And it goes back to what I said earlier in
Speaker 3: the show, Ryan, that another I heard from another commentator.
Speaker 3: I'm adopting it because I think it's right. Democrats don't
Speaker 3: know how to deal with this president care. They just don't.
Speaker 6: Christy.
Speaker 7: Is there an argument to be made that they're even
Speaker 7: worse this time around than the first time around with Trump?
Speaker 2: See?
Speaker 3: I think they are because I think the first time around,
Speaker 3: they were consumed with taking him down personally, right, so
Speaker 3: all the impeachments, all the like, he's so terrible, all
Speaker 3: the personal attacks. This time around, they know he actually
Speaker 3: has nothing to lose because he can't run again.
Speaker 2: He's term limited after this time.
Speaker 3: And they also know that he know he had four
Speaker 3: years in between these two terms to figure out exactly
Speaker 3: what happened, whatever mistakes he made in his first term,
Speaker 3: like not cleaning house and not quickly going after policy
Speaker 3: and demanding that it get passed. And he's not making
Speaker 3: those same mistakes so far in these first couple months.
Speaker 3: And I think they're shocked. I think they didn't expect it.
Speaker 3: I think they didn't think he was like politically spurt
Speaker 3: and strategic. Oh, he's just a business guy, doesn't know
Speaker 3: what he's doing. Well, actually doesn't know what he's doing,
Speaker 3: and he had four years to think about it and
Speaker 3: to get the right people around him.
Speaker 2: And so I don't think they know how to respond
Speaker 2: to that version of Trump.
Speaker 7: It's even proving Senator Elissa Slotkin, right, Democrat Michigan, when
Speaker 7: she kind of gave away the game and said Democrats
Speaker 7: are on their heels It's like they took one big
Speaker 7: Mike Tyson punt circa nineteen eighty seven, Michael Spinks in
Speaker 7: the ring, and they're just flustered and they're they're flailing
Speaker 7: and they don't know how to respond.
Speaker 6: And this is further evidence of that. Christine.
Speaker 7: Again, if I was a diehard liberal Democratic voter and
Speaker 7: I watched what Chuck Schumer just did, I go, what
Speaker 7: is going on there?
Speaker 6: These people have no idea what they're doing or how
Speaker 6: to do it right?
Speaker 3: Right, which is is I think really interesting that Trump's
Speaker 3: like peeling back the curtain on all of this. Yeah,
Speaker 3: like they were able, you know, I think with Joe
Speaker 3: Biden in charge that the other Democrats could look better
Speaker 3: if they could look like they were together, because Joe
Speaker 3: Biden fell apart all the time and wasn't competent, so
Speaker 3: they looked a lot better.
Speaker 2: Than they were.
Speaker 3: But now you have Trump who knows how to play
Speaker 3: them and knows like, again, he had four years to
Speaker 3: study how to get all this stuff done. He figured
Speaker 3: it out and brought the right people along with him,
Speaker 3: and they're like, oh, shoot, we actually don't know what
Speaker 3: we're doing. I mean, even when you see John Higginlober,
Speaker 3: Michael Bennett split off. You see more Democrats following what
Speaker 3: appears now to be the lead of John.
Speaker 2: Fetterman instead of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 3: I mean, wasn't a good move by Schumer to let
Speaker 3: Fetterman go out ahead of him on this.
Speaker 7: When you look at it too, Christy, You've got three
Speaker 7: incumbent Democrat senators who would be up for reelection in
Speaker 7: twenty twenty six who are not running. Tina Smith in Minnesota,
Speaker 7: Gerry Peters in Michigan, and I think Jeane Shaheen in Hampshire.
Speaker 6: That's three right there.
Speaker 7: You have John Ossoff, who's in a very tough battle
Speaker 7: in twenty six for the Georgia Senate seat. He couldn't
Speaker 7: afford to come out and block this cr. There's rumors,
Speaker 7: I'm not sure if they've been confirmed yet that Brian
Speaker 7: Kemp might run as the Republican nominee against him.
Speaker 6: I mean, I think he will walk all over.
Speaker 7: As off and Ostof has to have some kind of
Speaker 7: pretense that he's a moderate, but that would not be
Speaker 7: the case here. So Schumer, who's in New York, he
Speaker 7: gets comfortably re elected. He didn't really think about these
Speaker 7: purple state Democratic senators. They're going to have a tough
Speaker 7: bill of goods to sell back to their purple state constituents.
Speaker 7: You know, Mark Kelly in Arizona, Mark Warner even a
Speaker 7: little bit in Virginia, or even you heard John Hickenlooper
Speaker 7: vacillating and what should be a safe blue state.
Speaker 6: Well, I don't know, leaning toward maybe.
Speaker 7: And then I think Schumer recognized, like you said, the
Speaker 7: math just wasn't there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and something he probably should have known sooner rather
Speaker 3: than later. But I mean works out for us. It
Speaker 3: looks like one after the other they just cave to Trump,
Speaker 3: which is, you know what they're doing.
Speaker 2: But I think it is interesting the point.
Speaker 3: You bring up, Ryan, about those three incumbent Democrats already
Speaker 3: announcing that they're not running for reelection. Right, it's my
Speaker 3: understanding that next cycle was not supposed to be a
Speaker 3: good pickup cycle for Republicans as originally designed.
Speaker 5: Like, right, that's what.
Speaker 3: And it's just interesting that on every level they're like
Speaker 3: backing off it, caving and giving in so early and
Speaker 3: so much.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: I think politics changes every single day.
Speaker 3: You could ever be like, oh, a year and a
Speaker 3: half ahead of time, I can predict exactly what's going
Speaker 3: to happen. You just can't do that. But it is
Speaker 3: interesting seeing the writing as it gets put on the wall,
Speaker 3: not all there yet, but seeing kind of where the
Speaker 3: signs are pointing. And I think there's no question that
Speaker 3: the Democrat Party has no idea of two things. First,
Speaker 3: how to deal with Donald Trump, this new version, this
Speaker 3: new together collected version of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: They do not know how to deal with him.
Speaker 3: And when I say new version, he's still the same
Speaker 3: on all the issues, but I think how he's presenting
Speaker 3: them and how he's tackling them, and who he's brought
Speaker 3: along with him, that is what looks different right now
Speaker 3: in my opinion. And then secondly, what they don't know
Speaker 3: is how to message themselves. They have been all about
Speaker 3: the doom and gloom policy for too long. They had
Speaker 3: to go on defense about Joe Biden. No, no, he
Speaker 3: really is competent. No, no, world leaders really do look
Speaker 3: up to us, No, no, not.
Speaker 2: Everything is falling apart.
Speaker 3: So they had the last couple of years of being
Speaker 3: on the defense all the time, and then their other
Speaker 3: mode was attacking Trump. He's terrible, he's horrible, he's awful,
Speaker 3: He's a Nazi, everyone hates everyone, and now they're like, okay, shoot,
Speaker 3: Republicans control all three branches of power. Normally, what you'd
Speaker 3: want to do as a party is say, we're going
Speaker 3: to build the block to pitch our own, better, more optimistic, successful.
Speaker 2: Version of America.
Speaker 3: We're gonna make the deals we have to make, but
Speaker 3: we're gonna make ourselves look like the stars in these deals.
Speaker 3: And instead they're like falling apart, being insanely pessimistic, not
Speaker 3: proposing any better plans, acting like everything and everyone is
Speaker 3: dying and horrible and terrible.
Speaker 2: And I don't think the American people are buying it.
Speaker 7: It's exactly right, Christy, and just watch whatever Democrat comes out,
Speaker 7: whether it's Jasmine Krockett, Rasheta to Leib exception being John Fetterman. Sure,
Speaker 7: but any Chuck Schumer, any Hakeem Jeffries. Faces and voices
Speaker 7: of this party. They have been I think stamped with
Speaker 7: their reaction at that address to the Joint Session of
Speaker 7: Congress with not applauding a thirteen year old boy with cancer.
Speaker 7: They got a special appointment to the Secret Service. They're
Speaker 7: negative Nellies, they have no positive vision for America. They're
Speaker 7: only a card that they play is Trump, bad Trump,
Speaker 7: evil Trump, Hitler, orange Man.
Speaker 6: And people are sick of that. They've tuned it out.
Speaker 7: So what vision, what plan do Democrats have that's a
Speaker 7: better alternative? Christy, you know this as well as anybody
Speaker 7: in politics. If you don't present that alternative vision, that
Speaker 7: affirmative vision of a way forward, like Bill Clinton did
Speaker 7: quite frankly ninety two, like Barack Obama did in two
Speaker 7: thousand and eight, that's that's how you win elections. The
Speaker 7: Democrats aren't offering that. It's lazy. That's the number one
Speaker 7: thing that comes to mind. It's just lazy. It's like,
Speaker 7: well we'll just rip Trump. Nope, that's not going to
Speaker 7: do it right.
Speaker 3: And for all their I think you're right, Ryan, and
Speaker 3: for all their claiming that, oh, we have the young generation.
Speaker 3: So I was able to do some interviews this last
Speaker 3: week for the Daniels Fund. They give scholarships out every years.
Speaker 3: I've never done it before, so it's really really amazing
Speaker 3: to see these young kids, but a number of them,
Speaker 3: whether I'm talking to other interviewers who talk to these
Speaker 3: kids or hearing from kids myself, so many kids in
Speaker 3: that generation are saying what do I not like about politics,
Speaker 3: how divisive it is, that everyone is constantly attacking everyone
Speaker 3: else personally. And I think the Democrats are having no
Speaker 3: forward looking vision when they don't have policy plans, they
Speaker 3: don't have better messaging. But then they also are continuing
Speaker 3: that divisiveness while claiming to be the party that young
Speaker 3: people resonate with, Like it's getting old and people are
Speaker 3: tuning it out, and right now with everything Trump is accomplishing,
Speaker 3: if what the Democrats get is.
Speaker 2: People just tuning them out, they're not.
Speaker 3: Setting themselves up for success, fine by me, but I
Speaker 3: don't think it's a great strategy.
Speaker 7: And even when they're staking out political positions they're taking
Speaker 7: like the twenty side of eighty twenty issues like trans
Speaker 7: and athletes in female sports, they're dying on that hill
Speaker 7: wasteful government spending. No, we need wasteful governments, we do. Okay,
Speaker 7: if that's the argument you want to make, it's just silly.
Speaker 7: This is fodder, this is the stuff of parity, and
Speaker 7: they become a caricature of themselves.
Speaker 3: Well in the eighty twenty issue is I think what
Speaker 3: Trump has, you know, mastered, And he certainly did that
Speaker 3: in his joint speech to Congress. So many of the
Speaker 3: issues that he brought up were not just Republican issues,
Speaker 3: they were literally eighty twenty they were American issues.
Speaker 2: And that's what he's doing a good job of.
Speaker 3: I mean even naming the while it was it a
Speaker 3: wildlife reserve after the little girl who was killed by
Speaker 3: an illegal immage who is a violent criminal. Yeah, most
Speaker 3: Americans want little girls like that to be safe. So
Speaker 3: these the Democrats just sit there and don't even clap
Speaker 3: for that. It's beyond insane, Like, come on, these are
Speaker 3: these are American issues. Let's be Americans together. And yes
Speaker 3: it's Trump that's representing the American issues. Horrors that you
Speaker 3: might have to align with him on something, but Americans
Speaker 3: are going to tune you out if you don't. So
Speaker 3: we have sake a break now. I'm Kristy Burton Brown
Speaker 3: on the Dankaplai Show. I see I have a question
Speaker 3: I need to answer when I come back. If you
Speaker 3: have questions or thoughts, text them into five seven, seven
Speaker 3: three nine or call in eight five five four zero
Speaker 3: five eight two five five.
Speaker 5: And now back to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 3: You're back on the Dan Caplis Show. I'm Christy Burton
Speaker 3: Brown in for Dan tonight because he's in trial, but
Speaker 3: I think you get him back tomorrow. So thanks for
Speaker 3: joining me. I'm going to go to the text line
Speaker 3: and answer a question. We were talking about the federal
Speaker 3: Department of Education being dismantled by the Trump administration. I
Speaker 3: actually Democrats using that kind of language, always dismantling the
Speaker 3: Department of Education, but I actually kind of like it, like, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's an agency worth being dismantled. I don't think we
Speaker 3: should high or go away from that language. There are
Speaker 3: so many federal agencies that are bloated and huge. My
Speaker 3: dad actually works for the federal government and he tells
Speaker 3: me all these stories about federal employees who go from
Speaker 3: cubicle to cubicle chatting all day long. There aren't enough
Speaker 3: projects for the number of people they've hired to do,
Speaker 3: and then it's super super hard to fire anyone until
Speaker 3: Trump came in office at the federal government, and so
Speaker 3: they absolutely need to be cut and dismantled. Some of
Speaker 3: these agencies shouldn't exist, and the ones that do exist
Speaker 3: need to be downsized. Like we always believe in downsizing
Speaker 3: in our personal lives and business, in anything that's important
Speaker 3: when you want to be more efficient and effective. It's
Speaker 3: an answer, but somehow accordion fell either. It's a horrible,
Speaker 3: horrible thing when it comes to the Department of Education.
Speaker 7: I'm so glad that your dad spoke up, because of
Speaker 7: course there is going to be that level of just
Speaker 7: waste and excess and bloat in a bureaucracy where these
Speaker 7: workers are coming out and they're so tone off. Christ's
Speaker 7: the rest of us who work in the private sector
Speaker 7: saying we shouldn't be accountable for what we're doing. We
Speaker 7: shouldn't have to answer an email of five things that
Speaker 7: we did last Yeah, how dare they come in here
Speaker 7: and tell us what we should be able to work
Speaker 7: from our bathtubs at home like we have been.
Speaker 6: This is what they become accustomed to.
Speaker 2: No, I know, and I actually ask my dad, is
Speaker 2: that you actually have to answer that email? Is that
Speaker 2: a real thing?
Speaker 3: Because you know, we see all these things over social
Speaker 3: media and or like, right, are they just like sending
Speaker 3: that to a few people?
Speaker 2: Is it really real? Is it just a story?
Speaker 3: No, it's real, Like he literally had to answer the
Speaker 3: email and he's happy to do it. If you actually
Speaker 3: do your work how is that difficult? Here's the five
Speaker 3: things I did this week.
Speaker 7: But more than what they were, that not that Elon
Speaker 7: had a team going through to these things.
Speaker 6: Really really it was a pulse.
Speaker 2: Check, literally, answer do you exist?
Speaker 7: Are you a human with a pulse who's still alive
Speaker 7: collecting a government paycheck?
Speaker 6: It's just, oh, here's five things.
Speaker 7: And I was able to reply and respond to the
Speaker 7: email because I'm a living human.
Speaker 3: Right exactly exactly. And you know the thing that's I
Speaker 3: don't know. I think maybe this is from because I'm
Speaker 3: from a younger generation. I don't think all remote work
Speaker 3: is bad. I really don't, and I think it is
Speaker 3: too bad when everyone gets panded with the exact same brush,
Speaker 3: and they say, because there's so much bloat and waste
Speaker 3: and so many people who do take advantage of the
Speaker 3: fact that they get to work at home and therefore
Speaker 3: don't really work at all, let's bring everyone back, like, Okay,
Speaker 3: if you look at the modern world, it actually is
Speaker 3: possible to do some jobs remotely. It actually is if
Speaker 3: you have the right check ins in place, if you
Speaker 3: have the good managers, it is actually possible to and
Speaker 3: sometimes actually better to have people.
Speaker 2: Doing it remote.
Speaker 3: They can travel to different sites better, They can do
Speaker 3: it at different hours of the day that actually can
Speaker 3: be more helpful than office hours. There's a whole lot
Speaker 3: of reasons you can actually look into it. I'd apply
Speaker 3: this to the business world, to the government, to really
Speaker 3: any area of life.
Speaker 2: I don't think this is specific to government.
Speaker 3: But my problem is I don't think government should be
Speaker 3: excluded and say, oh, we've come to a point in
Speaker 3: the world where we know that remote work is possible,
Speaker 3: but the government may not allow it. So I understand
Speaker 3: why they're like swinging the pendulum all, you know, all
Speaker 3: the way to the other way because of all the
Speaker 3: abuses and bloat in the system that have occurred. But
Speaker 3: I think they should get back to a balanced position
Speaker 3: at some point and say, let's evaluate which positions actually
Speaker 3: can be done accurately remotely. Are the safeguards management techniques
Speaker 3: in place to ensure that people are actually doing their work,
Speaker 3: because I don't see a point to penalizing people who
Speaker 3: actually are hard workers and can do it remote and
Speaker 3: then they also have a better quality of family life,
Speaker 3: and they're also more likely to stay in the job
Speaker 3: because it works for them. I guess I'm a fan
Speaker 3: of having a work life balance, and I think remote
Speaker 3: work can provide that for some people. So that'd just
Speaker 3: be my personal opinion of I think they need to
Speaker 3: swing to a balance. But I understand right now why
Speaker 3: they're like doing the five point email, like let us
Speaker 3: know you exist, like are you actually interested in keeping
Speaker 3: your job? Are you willing to show back up at
Speaker 3: work and show that you actually want this job. So
Speaker 3: there's a very important things to what they're doing, but
Speaker 3: I hope they balance after a little while. The question
Speaker 3: I got though, is because we're talking about the Department
Speaker 3: of Education, are the standardized tests administered by the Federal
Speaker 3: Department of Education. Standardized tests a huge, huge issue in education,
Speaker 3: So they're not administered by the Federal Department of Education.
Speaker 3: They're administered by the state and in fact by the
Speaker 3: local districts in Colorado. The Sea Mass is the one
Speaker 3: you take in Colorado, and then sometimes the p SET
Speaker 3: or SAT and I don't think they really do the
Speaker 3: act here in Colorado too much, but some kids certainly do.
Speaker 3: Depends on what college you're trying to get into. But
Speaker 3: the Sea Mass is the big one that's required. What
Speaker 3: happens is there the Federal requirement that you do the
Speaker 3: state testing that states that get funding for the federal
Speaker 3: government that they do this testing. Which test you do
Speaker 3: can be decided by the state, so it's sort of
Speaker 3: a balance. And I think we talked a lot about
Speaker 3: when you shut down the Department of Education or dismantle it,
Speaker 3: cut it in half, which is what's going on right now,
Speaker 3: what do you lose with that? And I think the
Speaker 3: thing that people are afraid of losing is the funding.
Speaker 3: They don't want funding to be taken away from the
Speaker 3: states and taken out of education. But what you should
Speaker 3: want to happen is the bureaucracy and the rules and
Speaker 3: regulations to get out of it, give more states the
Speaker 3: ability to let teachers not constantly be teaching to a test.
Speaker 3: That's a problem that if you talk to teachers across
Speaker 3: the state, they really do feel like they can't always
Speaker 3: teach the subjects to the kids.
Speaker 2: They have to teach each to the test.
Speaker 3: So instead of like do you really understand the science
Speaker 3: of reading, do you really understand financial literacy? Do you
Speaker 3: really understand science and history and how to evaluate literature
Speaker 3: and let kids use their imagination and teach them how
Speaker 3: to think, not always what to think.
Speaker 2: You don't have the freedom to do that.
Speaker 3: Even as one of the best teachers in Colorado, it's
Speaker 3: difficult to do that because you're constantly teaching to the test.
Speaker 2: I like tests.
Speaker 3: I'm not opposed to them. I think they are a
Speaker 3: measure of achievement and accountability. But when they are so
Speaker 3: common and administered as frequently as they are, you fall
Speaker 3: into the run of teaching kids how to take tests
Speaker 3: instead of teaching them how to think and how to learn.
Speaker 3: So if dismantling the Federal Department of Education shakes any
Speaker 3: of that up, it remains to be seen if it will.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be a fan of that because I
Speaker 3: think there's a reason that the majority of kids in
Speaker 3: Colorado do not read and do not do math at
Speaker 3: grade level. Only forty percent of kids do, and there's
Speaker 3: a reason for that. So shake up the system. Let's
Speaker 3: dismantle it and get something better in place. I'm Christy
Speaker 3: Burton around you've been on the Dan Kapitala show. Thanks
Speaker 3: for joining me, and I hope you enjoy having Dan
Speaker 3: back tomorrow.