Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone's to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Arsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. We
love to hear from you, Molly. It's nice to see you.
You look like you're somewhere that is not at home.
Speaker 2: Now my home office.
Speaker 3: I am in the middle of a hotel lobby waiting
for my room to open up.
Speaker 2: So I'm just going to do my best.
Speaker 3: And if you hear people screaming in the background or
anything like that, just let's all deal with it together.
Speaker 1: Great, we will do anything for this podcast. Well, you
will do anything for this podcast. Let's start with Donald
Trump's State of the Union speech, which was last night.
Did you get to watch it?
Speaker 2: Oh? I did not one hundred percent of it.
Speaker 3: I had some family stuff I was taking care of
right at the beginning, but I locked.
Speaker 2: In pretty quickly, right. I don't know how many minutes
I missed, but it was like a two hour speech, so.
Speaker 1: Well, there were many minutes two hours almost What about
you did you watch it? Yeah, I did, sadly. As
part of my job for many, many years, I have
to watch the State of the Union. I find them
generally tedious and annoying. The listing of an exaggerations and
all that. I have to say, out of all the
presidents who give them, Donald Trump is mostly, you know,
is the most speeches are more raucous, They're more entertaining,
is more going on. I still don't love them, but
I think there were some good moments. What I mean,
did you like it? Would you? Would you rank it?
Speaker 3: I was over at box before the State of the
Union and they were telling us to be ready for
a two hour speech, and I just thought, well, that
sounds like the most miserable thing I've ever heard. You know,
that's like Clinton level of length. And I was shocked
at how quickly it went by. I will say I
tend to like political speeches, probably more than you do.
I like convention speeches. I like some State of the
Union speeches, but like you, I hate the way that
they devolve into a laundry.
Speaker 2: List of just oh I did this, and I did that,
and we're going to spend this.
Speaker 3: Much money and we're going to spend that much money
and all the people clapping and cheering.
Speaker 2: I thought this one. So my.
Speaker 3: Previous favorite Trump State of the Union or address to
Congress was.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: That was right after he had beaten the first impeachment.
So the first impeachment was over the Ukraine situation, where
the Bendmann brothers orchestrated with Adam Schiff an impeachment effort
over Trump asking Zelensky to look into what is now
pretty well established about Biden family corruption.
Speaker 2: That impeachment was bad and.
Speaker 3: It took a lot of time, and he had just
beaten it, like a day before the State of the Union.
He had also beaten the Russia collusion hoax. He had beaten,
which was shocking that he was able to do that.
Speaker 2: He had a pretty good economy. He had a great economy.
Speaker 3: Actually, he had a lot of foreign policy successes, and
he just knew that he was about to win reelection
and then COVID hit.
Speaker 2: But it was a great speech.
Speaker 3: It was the one where rush Limbaugh had been given
the award by Milania. And then this one though seemed
almost like completely different than a normal State of the Union.
It had some of that stuff like the laundry list
of items and claimed successes. But this seemed much more
ideological and big picture. In writing, they always say you
should show, not tell. He did a lot of showing,
and what he showed seemed to me to be like,
there are two visions of America, and I'm going to
show you the one by highlighting what's happening to America
using these people that are selected to tell that story
that are sitting in the gallery. And then the other
side are the people who are going to sit there
and do nothing while while we talk about what it
means to be American. And so it worked really well
for him.
Speaker 2: It was pretty.
Speaker 3: Obvious it was what he was going to do, and
yet still the Democrats couldn't figure away out of it.
Speaker 2: You know, some of them tried to not show up
to the speech.
Speaker 3: Others tried to just sit down or to scale or
to yell, and in the end, no matter what they did,
it kind of played into his big narrative.
Speaker 1: Well. Trump used the bully pulpit to his advantage for sure,
casting Democrats as crazy people, which they are for the
most part. I mean the inability of them to stand
for the victim. The mother of a victim who was
killed by illegal aliens is just outrageous. The inability for
them to stand and applaud the murder rate falling is outrageous.
The inability of them to the inability of them to
stand with Donald Trump against the idea of bureaucrats grabbing
children implying them with puberty blockers and hormone who knows
what else, is outrageous. So anyway those are That's how
I felt about it. I just don't think these speeches
are remembered by normal people very much in the long run.
I don't know.
Speaker 3: They never have as much of an effect as people
in DC wish that they did, which is not the
same thing as saying they have no effect. A few
of the things that I want to talk about here
would be one the siloing of information, the way people
receive information and news. One of the reasons why the
State of the Union is important is because it remains
the only political speech to get this level of interest.
So it's important people who get their news from ABC
and NBC and CNN, some of them will watch that
and they will get a completely different set of information
than what they've been getting by reading the New York Times.
Speaker 2: Or the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post.
Speaker 3: It's just going to be like radically different, and that
is important, and it's not good that we have such
siloed information systems. And I think partly what you saw
there with Democrats, like sitting down, is a reflection of
those different ways that people receive information. Let's just talk
really quickly though, about that moment, which to me was
the big moment of what happened. It was when Trump said,
I'm going to ask people to stand up if they
agree that the first job of any elected official is
to defend American rights, like over those of illegal aliens.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't in the prepared text.
Speaker 3: It was something he apparently added, and it was so effective.
I never like it when people do that, Like in
a debate, when people say, raise your hand if you
think illegal should get free healthcare or whatever. Usually people
have more nuanced answers than can be indicated by standing
up or raising your hand. In this case, I would
have recommended to the Democrats that they had stood up
and politely just stood and then sat down. Once he
got into specifics about his vision, you could say, oh, well,
of course I agree with that. We just have a
different vision about how to accomplish that, or of course
we agree with that, we just think that ice needs to.
Speaker 2: Be destroyed or something. And they didn't do.
Speaker 3: It, and it was just it was sobering as a
just as an American to watch that, To watch people
sitting there saying that they do not agree that elected
officials should care more about American citizens than criminal illegal aliands.
Speaker 2: It was kind of crazy to watch. Did you see it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw it. I think that will be the
defining moment of this speech and the thing people remember
probably the most. Obviously. I also I agree with you.
I preface this is saying it's a fact. It was
very effective, especially when you couple it with or connect
it to the other things they wouldn't stand for, you know.
But I too would have given them the advice. But
they didn't see it coming. But I too would have
given them the advice that they should just stand up.
They look like weirdos not standing up there. They look
like just that they're out of touch with the reality
of American life. Yes, it's cheap stunt. Yes it's a
false choice. I hate when journalists are like, raise your hand,
like you point out, raise your hand if you want
to do this or that. Most things, most positions aren't
that simple. I also just to be pedantic. Think the
first he said, what is the first duty of an
American government is to actually defend the Constitution? That's what
it's That's what the oath that they take is. But
understand its point, and they look terrible, you know, So
if I were them, I would maybe not show up.
I mean, I suspect that in the long run this
speech will become less important because people will stop showing
up in larger numbers, and you know, because they don't
want to be put in that sort of position. I
already think it's not as important as it used to
be because when I was young, at least, you know,
you rarely got to see the dynamics of Washington in
this way. It was a spectacle you would rarely see.
But now we see these people quite often on television
speaking and giving speeches, so it's a little bit different.
Speaker 3: Never when, yeah, don't you think it'll just be less
important in a couple So there are only two more
State of the Unions to be given by Trump, and
after that it's going to be someone else.
Speaker 2: And I don't care who it is if it's.
Speaker 3: Rubio or Vans or Gavin Newsom or whomever it is.
Even as talented of politicians as those men are, it's
just not going to be.
Speaker 2: It's not going to what we saw last night.
Speaker 1: No, there'll never be any never is a strong word,
but there. It will be a long time before we
have someone like Donald Trump giving a State of the Union.
I laugh when I when he gives these speeches because
he's reading prepared text and then he like kind of
comments on the prepared text. His voice changes. It's very funny.
You can tell when you know he's just ad libbing
and he can be funny. And I thought he was.
You know, I didn't like the speech as much as you.
I thought it actually dragged on a bit too long.
I think he could have cut maybe twenty minutes.
Speaker 2: Of it, but we're in the hour in forty eight minutes.
Could he just kidding? Go ahead?
Speaker 1: But there were a lot of funny moments, and he's
always just entertaining to watch, you know, just pure entertainment value.
Donald Trump's a lot of fun People who don't think
he's funny are just missing the point or have no
sense of humor. He's a funny dude. And and he's
when he said, look at these people who aren't standing
there crazy. He was speaking a language that a normal
American can understand. Again, I think there's a shrinking number
of persuadable voters. I think these speeches mean less than
they used to in that sense. But how often does
Donald Trump really get to go out and speak. I
don't know how many people watch his speech, thirty million
or something. I mean, how often does he get to
just tell them what, you know, his perception of what's
going on without it being filtered through some media either
either boosting him or just destroying him or taking him
out of context.
Speaker 3: So I was talking to a friend who is very
smart and savvy about politics and asked him what did
he think of the State of Union. And he explained
that he had a family situation so he hadn't been
able to watch it, that he had dvr'd it and
he would be watching it later. So I was like, oh,
you missed out. It was a great speech. It was
really transformative and different. And he's like, will the Republicans
be passed seeing the law requiring voter ID And I
said no, and he goes it.
Speaker 2: Just doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: Like nothing he said matters, because Congress is not going
to do anything other than handover Congress to the Democrats
in November.
Speaker 2: They're just they don't have it in them.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's laziness or just that Congress
as an institution is broken and it's too hard to
do things. But they're not going to do anything, and
so nothing really matters. It was a depressing but probably
accurate take on how little it matters, because you can't
have a party where only one person is doing the work.
And unfortunately, the Republican Party just doesn't have a lot
of people who who agree with their voters that we
are at a moment of great inflection where there are
a lot of Americans who don't want those people who
were sitting down when he asks people to stand if
they agreed that the first duty of an American elected
official was to defend Americans and not illegal aliens. Those
people are about to return to power and that terrifies
a lot of Americans. But for some reason it doesn't
really seem to bother people in Washington, DC, and they're
not going to do anything to stop what's coming. Probably
I don't mean to be so that was a very
depressing thing.
Speaker 1: I just diould I disagree. I mean, I just don't
think the Save Acts that important for as far as
losing this midterm or not. I think people who care
about the Save Act are Republicans, they'll vote Republican. I
think the economy is far more important in how people
view their specific personal situations. And if the Save Act
can't be passed, because it's not that simple for Republicans
to pass bills in a divided country with a very,
very slim margin, it's easy to say they're being lazy
and this and that, but it's frustrating. But I just
think that's reality on the ground. And this is why
making grandiose promises that you can't actually fulfill or keep
is a problem in politics, and it disappoints a lot
of people, you know, every two years to four years.
I don't know where am I wrong there.
Speaker 3: So I almost want to talk about that issue separately,
because you're wrong on a lot of stuff. But I
wanted to just not forget another thing about the state
of the Union. If I can just go back to
that really quickly. You know, Reagan was the brilliant communicator
who started the practice that had frankly become a little
annoying of using people sitting in the gallery of the
Chamber where the Joint Session of Congress takes place to
highlight heroism or to highlight good things about different Americans.
It had grown really, really cold. Trump has done a
good job with that, as did Clinton. I thought Clinton
always did a really good job with using people in
the gallery, but there was something about last night where
it was it's just amazing the heroism of the people
in play. The stories they told that Coast Guard guy
who saved more than one hundred and fifty people from
the floods in Texas, the Korean War veteran, the World
War two veteran, the amazing story that I can't wait
to learn much more about of the helicopter pilot who
was shot while doing the Venezuelan mission. It was really
appropriate for the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary to have
people with such courage on display, and it was just
the best I'd seen since that. Like the first time
I remember or that I've reviewed would be when there
was a flight that hit the fourteenth Street bridge in
DC and crashed into the Potomac River and some people,
even though it was a frozen, icy river. Some people
got out of their cars to go rescue people from
the plane. And one of them was, like, I want
to say, like a Congressional budget office guy or a
government accountability office guy, and he just dove in and
helped rescue a bunch of people who were about to die.
And Reagan highlighted him, and it was just it was
a good story, but like I said, it had grown stale.
You saw with this that all of these people were
unified by being the victims of bad like either left
wing terrorism like Erica kirk Kerk, whose husband was assassinated
by a guy who accepted radical trans ideology and other
left wing causes and had grown increasingly embittered and hateful
toward Trump and his supporters, or Arena Zurutska's mom who
sat there sobbing, which was very emotional because of these
soft on crime policies that have been a major goal
of the Democrat Party in cities and states across the country.
Other people who are victims of illegal immigration, and the
girl who had been secretly tranced by educators and nearly
taken and taken away from her parents. We wrote about
it at the Federalist at the time. By the way,
did you notice she did? She was the first person
to ever clock it in a state of the Union.
Speaker 2: No, do you ever see the kids.
Speaker 3: I know you have people this age, they do this
or that, they snap their fingers, I could show they
agree with something.
Speaker 1: Oh, no, I have not noticed that. I'm sure it
has happened.
Speaker 2: And she lost it, and I.
Speaker 3: Was like, well, that's a first. I've never seen that.
Oh the hockey team, which I'm sure we'll talk about later.
Like all of that was so. It just made you
proud to be an American in a time when many
people in the media and other powerful institutions are trying
to keep you from being proud to be an American.
Speaker 1: I love unfettered patriotism, like I hate that so many
Americans feel uncomfortable being flag waivers and just loving Americans
saying that we're the best. I think it's true. I
love to do it. Reagan had this, really or Reagan
was the first person, probably not the first, but he
could fuse that unfettered patriotism into his own political positioning
and make it seem like it was the same. And
I think Trump does a great job of going from
celebrating the hockey team to making it about himself in
some way, you know, so that you feel like the
patriotism bleeds into whatever he's trying to do. And most
of the time, you know, his goals aren't I think patriotic.
Speaker 3: Well, and all of these issues are eighty twenty issues.
So when the Democrats were sitting there and he said,
and you already said that, this was like the line
of the night when he said, these people are crazy.
Speaker 2: They're just crazy.
Speaker 3: Also, did you like how when they sat down, when
he asked everybody to stand, he just put his hands
out like, look at these people. Well, you know, he
just kind of just not pointing at them, but just
kind of like saying, here they are look.
Speaker 1: Look drink. Nobody stands up. Yeah, people are crazy. I
think that's very crazy. That's the thing. They are crazy.
Democrats are crazy.
Speaker 4: Does New York City officially have their first free grocery
store under Mam Donnie?
Speaker 5: Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day,
Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4: Gambling website Polymarket opens a free grocery store to enamor
itself with the Mom Donnie administration. So who's really paying
for this free grocery store.
Speaker 5: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about some of the so you mentioned,
I just don't give him their names. Buddy Taggart, I
fought on the Pacific Front. The guy at the Korean
War was Royce Williams. I think they're both with one
hundred right round.
Speaker 3: Also, did you notice that so both of them looked great.
They both looked great. I have a ninety year old
father in law. He also looks great and is also
an American badass. But the first one who's turning up
one hundred on July fourth, twenty twenty six, he.
Speaker 1: Has some trouble standing up because of all the medals
on his little jacket.
Speaker 2: That he didn't look like he was about to be
one hundred. He looked like he was about to be
seventy five. Yeah good, I don't know.
Speaker 1: They both looked good. Yeah, Scott Ruskin's the coast Guard
guy who saved like two hundred people. I love those stories.
Speaker 2: I was going to say something, I think he's very handsome.
Speaker 1: I know you're going on on Twitter, on and on
about it.
Speaker 3: And I tweeted that and everyone was like, is what
does Mark heming? Where you think about you thinking this
guy's handsome? And I'm like, it never occurred to me.
Like Mark and I will comment on people being attractive
and we don't view it as a as a threat.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a little careful on that front. You
can't be walking around saying this one's hot or beautiful
and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: I acknowledge that Sydney Sweeney has excellent assets.
Speaker 1: Yes, I would not say it. I would not say that.
I would not say that.
Speaker 2: Probably was okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why why that's a rookie mistake? Why chance something
like That's just not necessary? It's unspoken. Everyone knows. What
did I want to say? Oh? So, yeah? I mean
they are crazy. And the woman, the young woman's name
who with the transitioning in Virginia was Sage Blair, right, which,
actually I want to get into something else. I don't
know if you want to go back and tell me
why I'm wrong about a bunch of stuff. But I
wanted to mention the the State of the Union rebuttal,
which was given in Colonial Williamsburg by Abigail Spanberger. I
found that very interesting for this orason. They picked Colonial
Williamsburg because it's a you know, it's a well known
traditional American tourist spot that inspirers. You know, it's a
patriotic place to go. And they pick that spot, and
they picked her because they know that they look crazy
and that they're trying to create the perception that they
are similar to Trump in the sense that they are
patriotic as well, and they just view things differently. But
they just simply are not anymore. And there's no way
around that. So even if Trump, even if Republicans lose
in the midterms, even if Trump loses, even if you
disagree with Trump and you don't like it, you think
he's boorish or whatever it is. In the end, Democrats
have a massive problem that they're weirdos. They are a
bunch of weirdos. They're captured by weirdos. Like, let me
say this, a bunch of Democrats won't stand up when
you're talking about this transitioning stuff. I believe that they
believe that it's normal what's going on. Like, I think
they're just captured by the fringe of their party. There's
just no a lot of these politicians live very conservative lives.
If their own children came to them and said, I
want to be called by the different gender, I want
to be injected with, or you know, I want to
ingest all kinds of drugs that destroy my body moving forward,
I think they would be distressed on a personal level.
I think they're captured by a fringe, and it's crazy
to let that fringe capture your party. Am I wrong
about that? What do you think of these people? I mean,
I just can't believe most people believe their kids can
pick their gender. Am I fooling myself?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 3: But to get back to the Abigail Spanberger point, the
whole game right now is to be as radical as
possible while using your control of the media to put
forward seemingly moderate people to affect change that you're increasingly
radical based desires.
Speaker 2: This is an old, tried and true trick.
Speaker 3: I mean, you think about how one of the reasons
why Clinton was not loved Bill Clinton was not loved
by a lot of people in his parties because they
worried that he was too moderate for real, not just
not just using their normal method of pretending to be
like a Joe Biden or a Barack Obama who did
a very good job of sounding like they were moderate
and then doing everything in the most radical way possible.
Speaker 2: And it has worked out really well.
Speaker 3: You can do a lot when you control the media
and when you have the information silos that we have here,
Abigail Spanberger, let's just we can just talk just about
her speech.
Speaker 2: You watched it, Sorry you said you did.
Speaker 1: I right, some of it.
Speaker 3: It was only fifteen minutes, but it definitely I started
being like, how much more of this can I endure
right around the time she ended. I didn't really hit
that point with Trump for an hour and forty eight minutes.
With her, I was like, she's repeating herself. The speech
seemed very poorly written, and I don't think it's a
big deal, like we talked about State of the Union.
However much people wish it were a big deal. Is
not a big deal that goes quadruple for the response. Yeah,
it's a thankless rule. If you don't set your hair
on fire, you're probably going to be okay, and she
met that standard. But I would now like to say
they did put American flags behind her to pretend that
they don't hate America.
Speaker 2: That was good.
Speaker 3: They had a small little audience that was told to
clap loudly but briefly for what she said, which helped
take care of some of that dead.
Speaker 2: Air that happens in State of the Union responses. Other
than that.
Speaker 3: Oh, and then she definitely conveyed the message that she
hates Trump, which I think is the big campaign message
for Democrats going into their meterms, and I'm not begrudging
them that that seems to work really well on their voters.
But the rest of it, I was like, very poorly
written speech was I was sad for whoever wrote that
because it was very poorly written.
Speaker 2: It was very poorly delivered.
Speaker 3: She seemed to be rushing, and when people rush, it
makes it seem like it's going longer. And it was
very negative and I'm not even getting into how factually
untrue it was.
Speaker 2: So I was not impressed with her response.
Speaker 1: But the rebuttal, the rebuttal to the State of the
Union is inherently awkward and a thankless job there. I
don't know why anyone does it. I don't know why
they do it. I think it's ineffective. Oh, I can't
remember any rebuttal for a good reason. I can only
remember Marco Rubio drinking or Bobby Jindall looking ridiculous or whatever, like,
there's no upside. What they should do is and it's
difficult is to fact check maybe the speech specific.
Speaker 2: How do you do that so quickly right after?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I don't really see why they do it.
I guess they have to do it, But how many
people really watch that? It can't be many?
Speaker 2: Right, So I did have a realization about her.
Speaker 3: She she is my governor apparently and yours, and she
ran against one of the least capable politicians I've encountered,
and so the fact that she won, she looked so
good by comparison to what she was up against in debates.
And she does have some you know, she's not like
a complete bumbling idiot on camera. But I just realized
that some people have political skill and some people don't,
and that lady is I do not think going far.
Speaker 2: I mean, she might be nominated to be.
Speaker 3: A vice presidential person like Tim Kaine was Oh true story.
I was at this event for martyrs, the Coptic Martyrs,
and this guy goes on screen to give a taped,
like taped remarks to the group. And I leaned over
to my husband and husband and I said, is that
our senator? And he said yes, and he was also
the vice presidential nominee. But he's so forgettable that I
forget that Tim Kaine is my senator all the time.
She has that kind of like she could be a
vice presidential nominee. But I realized, like Mark said, she
seems very Hillary. Like Larry O'Connor on w MAYL this morning,
I think referred to her as Hillary two point zero,
and I do see that. But I think she's kind
of like those women in British spy dramas who run
their spy agency. They're always the bad guy. They're always
like getting people killed, and they might even kill people themselves,
but they're definitely ordering people killed or allowing people to
get killed. And does she not seem like the woman
in the night Manager even like certain seasons of Slow Horses,
she seems like one of those.
Speaker 1: Women, Oh that woman. Yeah, like maybe Judy Bench's m
in James Wa movies. I don't know if you've s no,
because she's so evil.
Speaker 3: She's someone getting people killed. Not a good person, a
bad person. And you kind of get that feeling with Abigail,
like like if you heard she had aborted some of
her unborn children, you would be like, seems plausible.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm not saying she has, but she just
seems cold.
Speaker 1: Like that Hillary, Huh. I don't even think she is
that bright. The problem with her is she ran this
campaign against a hapless Republican here in Virginia, but also
a hapless Republican party, right, and they which this is
an important state. You think that the Republican Party would
be more confident here, they were running the state, they
had a popular governor. And this is how it ends up.
But anyway, I to test people who are frauds, like
I don't like Mum Donnie. I don't like a lot
about Mum Donnie. I think he's a bad guy and
all that, but he's an honest guy about what he
wants to accomplish and do. Spamberger was never ever put
in at a position where she had to actually had
to explain her ideology or her positions in any way,
she still hasn't answered the question of whether she thinks
that boys should be able to play in girls' sports,
and she didn't have to answer any questions. And to me,
like she just got to run this pretend moderate campaign
and now we see we're going to pay the price
in Virginia. She's going to help destroy the state. Probably.
I would say she's amongst the most left wing governors
in the country right now. Right I mean, I don't
see anything that she wouldn't do that they're not doing
in California, for instance, or in Maryland or places like that,
gun control, environmental stuff, not kicking Ice out but refusing
to help Ice with a legal immigration. I mean, I
can't think of a single area where's not just a
full blown leftist.
Speaker 3: And a year ago we did have a Republican governor,
lieutenant governor, and attorney general. And under Abigail Spandberger's leadership
and the Democrats supermajority in Virginia, they're about to redistrict
the state to have ten Democrat seats and one Republican
seat in Congress. This is a state that last year
was controlled by Republicans. This is a good segue David
back to the Save Act. Yes, passing the Save Act
would be difficult, That's true. It is frustrating to Republican
voters that when faced with difficulty, their elected leaders seem
to just say, hey, it's.
Speaker 2: Difficult, we can't do this.
Speaker 3: And then they look over it like Virginia, and they
see that Democrats like they might be completely down and
out a year ago, and then they do what it
takes to kind of get into a position to actually
do something with their power. I think Republicans think that
when you have power, your job is to do as
little as possible and go unnoticed in the hopes that
maybe people won't reelect you. And there's a different vision
that you actually should try to at the very least
debate the underlying issues, and debate you might lose, but
you also will help educate the people.
Speaker 2: And what's frustrating for a lot of people is that
the Senate.
Speaker 3: Is supposed to be the debating body, and the Save
Act is a great thing to debate. It is an
eighty twenty issue. You might be in the twenty side
of things there, but the Act, which involves all sorts
of like cleaning up of time and manner of elections
just strongly supported by American people, but will probably not
pass the Republican Senate for a variety of reasons, including
the difficulty of passing the bill now. John Thune said
today they will be having a vote on it, but
I'm not sure if he was clear on whether they're
going to really vote on it or if they're going
to just do a cloture vote and let things continue
as they happen without actual debate.
Speaker 1: I liked how you snuck in that I was on
maybe on the twenty side of this debate, and.
Speaker 2: I don't know, actually, well, I think so.
Speaker 1: I've always I am always worried about any kind of
nationalized laws having to do with elections for reasons of
because I just don't know that it's the right or
constitutional thing to do. I'm kind of torn on this one, honestly,
So I don't know. But I do know that any
bill that weakens the filibuster as it is, the zombie filibuster,
I do not support at all. I think the Senate
should always have to get sixty votes to do any
kind of national reform that doesn't have to do with
fiscal matters. So not against IDs I think ideas are
the bare minimum a person should have to have to
vote in this country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there are two separate things here.
Speaker 3: One is the substance of the Save Act and the
other thing is the procedure for the Save Act. So
on the substance issues, I actually agree with you that
states are constitutionally the bodies that should be setting almost
all issues related to elections. There are some exceptions that
have already long been legislated. I mean, you have military
ballots in every state in the Union, you have overseas
bad that's coming into every state in the Union, and
you have citizenship issues affecting every state in the Union
for federal office, right, And so SAVEAC deals with those
types of things which are and have long been considered
federal issues, as opposed to how states should have some
you know, just constitutionally speaking, they have some leeway in
how they set elections, and then the.
Speaker 2: Issue of how to pass it.
Speaker 3: The thing that I have been so confused by is
that you say that if the Senate were forced to
actually engage in a filibuster, that that would be killing
the filibuster.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 2: That seems these people are crazy. That seems crazy.
Speaker 1: Now it kills the filibuster. Or compelling people to speak
is fine. Compelling people to speak because you know it
will make the situation. It will create a situation where
you know that the filibuster will have to die because
nothing else can get done, or you know that it
will exhaust itself at some point, so you can circumvent
the need to get sixty votes to stop debate is
going to kill the filibuster. Other mechanisms have had this idea.
Joe Biden had this idea. Not a single Republican supported
him years ago. I forget what Senator in twenty eleven,
I think had the same idea using different means, but
like you know, mechanisms. But in the end, the point is,
or no Republican would want to do it is to
circumvent getting to sixty. And I think in the long
run that is going to be something that Republicans will greatly,
greatly regret. Now, let me ask you this quickly and
you can talk about that as well. Do you think
that passing the Save Act will change a single election
victory or loss in the entire country? Do you think
that there are enough illegal Listen, I told you I'm before,
no illegal should vote. But do you think that there's
actually elections that Republicans have lost because there are enough
illegals to change the results of an election. I mean
a lot of people seem to believe that, and I
just have never seen a district where that's ever happened.
Speaker 2: So the number one issue affecting.
Speaker 3: The country because of the influx of illegal aliens as
it relates to voting is actually the allocation of congressional districts.
I actually think I was on live television when I
learned that we allocate districts according to how many people
live there legal, illegal, alien, criminal, whatever.
Speaker 2: Like it's just bodies around.
Speaker 3: This gives a huge structural advantage to Democrats and elections
that they have been able to use, you know, quite strongly.
As far as how many people are illegal voting, I
do think that Trump and others overstate how many illegal
aliens are voting. But I only say that because he
says things like, you know, tens of thousands of illegals voting.
What I wish people understood is that election fraud is
almost never investigated, and that there are strong restrictions on
how to investigate that fraud. Almost everything is in the
game is about how you set up the system.
Speaker 2: On the front end.
Speaker 3: In certain places, it's actually illegal to investigate fraud. There
are certain communities that you're not allowed to investigate or
you lose your own ability to do like get out
the vote operations or election day oversight. So after the
fact is a loser's game, and we don't really know
how many problems there are, in part because it's very
difficult to determine once ballots have been separated from the voter,
which is early and often. Election administration has been a
game run by the Democrat Party for decades, and the
Republican Party is starting to finally say, oh wait, we
have let things get out of control. You have a
lot of insecure balloting operations and insecure voter registration operations.
So a bigger issue could be, for example, so ten
percent of the American population moves in a given year,
and that means that if you are registered at one
place and then you move, you're supposed to register at
the new place, but you're probably still considered active at
the old place.
Speaker 2: And there is a.
Speaker 3: Certain percentage of people that will just vote in both places,
but that's pretty small. The bigger issue is when you
have rampant, uncontrolled mail out ballots. So a lot of
the people who move a lot tend to be in
areas that are in Democrat controlled areas. And so let's
say there's like an apartment building in Vegas or Philadelphia
and people are moving a lot and one, you know,
one apartment building could get that has like let's say
it has one hundred units, might get four hundred ballots,
and you're counting on people to not be filling out
some of those ballots, particularly people might have a financial
incentive to fill out some of those ballots, to file them.
And again, very difficult to determine fraud, just very very
difficult cleaning up some of these things. Making sure that
people have proper id to be registered to vote is
a great way to just kind of rein in some
of the problems they are happening with rampant mail out balloting.
Speaker 2: Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: I agree, yes, And I agree with all of that.
Speaker 3: Usually only find out election fraud in Democrat on Democrat violence,
which so like there'll be a contested primary in Philadelphia
or New Jersey or Massachusetts and there's ballot stuffing going
on in the primary, it would be insane to think
there's ballot stuffing going on in a primary and not
that the same people doing that are not doing it
in a general for a different cause. And we usually
only detected for intra party violence. But because Republicans tend
not to control, it's not because Republicans are better people
than Democrats per se. They just tend to be less
in control of high density areas where fraud is easier
to make happen.
Speaker 1: I'm a radical on voting. I don't believe that we
should have any mail in ballots except for the elderly
and infirmed. I think there should be a day where
we go vote. I don't believe in early voting. I
think that you should have to prove citizenship. If you
can't perform that basic level of show that basic level
of competence, you shouldn't be making decisions for the rest
of us. I am I think people should take tests
to vote, I mean everyone, And so I am with
you on I mean, I'm not saying you're you agree
with all that. I do think though, that some Republicans,
Donald Trump leading the charge, have convinced a lot of
people that every election where we you know, is that
they lose is stolen, or people are cheat have cheated
them in some way. So the number one reason I
do believe that we should have a citizen or you know,
proof of ID before voting is so that the American
people can believe that they've had an election that that
was you know, that matters, that is real, that no
one cheated in that the people who run the country
were elected fairly. That's the most important thing. So that's
why I'm on the fence about the same Act as
far as the nationalization part of it. But I agree
with everything you said. Obviously, Democrats want this because in
the long run, they want them. They want districts to
be counted with illegals in them. They believe those illegals
will one day be able to vote, and they don't
mind a little cheating. I get all that, but there
are also other issues why Republicans can't pass bills sometimes,
and it seems like just calling them a bunch of
cowards every time you don't get your way, not you general,
is just not really dealing in reality. I think it's
just frustration that the system quite often, which we see
a lot of, And.
Speaker 3: Okay, I feel like I would be repeating if I
kept saying that, I don't think that filibustering something would
kill the filibuster. I don't have strong opinion on how
to get things done, but I see no problem with
actually letting the Senate debate.
Speaker 2: They should debate so much more.
Speaker 3: Ben Sass, who's been talking a lot about his a
pancreatic cancer diagnosis and how he will be dying sooner
than he expected, had talked a lot about this, The
importance of actually letting the Senate debate issues, having people
be forced to explain their position. It's even sad to me,
I will say again, Mitch McConnell did a very good
job with his floor speeches of explaining his position. Chuck
Schumer does a ridiculously poor job. It's an embarrassment to
the body that you don't have more people being thoughtful
in how they argue or try to persuade their colleagues.
Speaker 2: And I wish we saw much more of it.
Speaker 3: But there was another topic we were going to talk
about that I felt like could be.
Speaker 2: Segued to from there.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that a filibuster in whatever forum should
be able to go on infinitely without any anim No,
so like if.
Speaker 3: The people who wanted to who want to actually say, Okay,
if you're going to filibuster, you have to filibuster.
Speaker 2: It doesn't go on without end. It goes on.
Speaker 3: Everyone has an opportunity to give two speeches and then
it ends.
Speaker 2: And that seems fair.
Speaker 3: Like if you're going to make if you're going to
make it difficult, like that's okay, but at the end
we will vote.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I completely I think put.
Speaker 2: Your body on the line, you know, like we're going
to actually be there, We're going to have to do it.
Speaker 1: So you're just you're working around, you're working around the filibuster.
In the end, they'll do that. You'll wait a month.
Speaker 2: Can I see something, David.
Speaker 3: More than more than anything, more than a filibuster or
a sixty vote threshold or anything. I just care about
America and i want America to be saved. And I'm
very worried about the brokenness of Congress. I worry that
people are protecting like things that don't matter so much
that I'm not saying that like that these procedures and
whatnot aren't important and don't matter. Although I think most
of the people who are trying to avoid forcing and
havertual filibuster are really just more trying to work on
legislation that they would prefer be passed or appointments that they.
Speaker 1: Might I would say, I love America, and for me,
there are almost there's almost nothing more important than keeping
the anti majoritarian Senate intact so that it cannot do
Obama cares over and over the instability that will come
from that, from huge reforms, back and forth every time
someone wins the presidency or the Senate. The filibuster is
virtually the zombie. Filibuster is virtually the only thing preserving
federalism in this country. We are headed towards an incredibly
destructive path. You keep saying that you want them. There
is a time limit on that filibuster. It will exhaust
itself and then people will pass by mere majority massive reforms.
You don't think Democrats will do that. If they can
using the same why would you allow and create Oh?
Speaker 2: Actually, I assume demoscrats will.
Speaker 3: I assume Democrats will get rid of the filibuster at
the moment there.
Speaker 1: But I heard this before and they couldn't. I don't
know what they're going to do. We can't tell the future.
You may be right. But even if you were right,
they would immediately overturn the Save Act. That's like the
first thing they would do. So why set the parameters
for them. It doesn't make any sense to me. I know,
people get so mad when I say this. I am
a zombie filibuster fan. It should go on. I want
sixty people.
Speaker 2: Real filibuster, real filibusters better.
Speaker 1: I would like if there was some way to preserve
it in the sense that people would have to debate
and it would not ever exhaust itself. That would be
fine by me. I just don't I don't want the Senate.
Oh yeah, but the Save Act won't pass then, and listen.
I get it. I get why Republicans feel like Democrats
do whatever they want and break all the all the time,
and why should they have to follow the same sorts
of rules. They're going to get screwed over in the end.
And maybe it's true, maybe it's not. History is not
that simple. Democrats had both houses, Democrats had the presidency,
and they had a really hard time getting anything done.
There's a political price to pay for destroying the philibuster
zombie filibuster. In my view, I don't know why Republicans
should pay that price and let Democrats do it if
they want to. I don't know that they will. Maybe
they'll have to moderate themselves because they're not winning states.
In other ways, I don't know what the future holds,
and neither does anyone else. That's all I'm saying, Molly,
what else do we have? Oh, you want to talk
a little bit about the Supreme You want to talk
a little bit about the Supreme Court striking down some
many of the President's tariffs in learning resources versus Trump.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 1: It was a decision that saw Gorsuch and amy Cony
Barrett side with the Lib justices. I should say it verse.
The Lib justices will always side with whatever they think
hurts the President Donald Trump. The conservative justice so called
conservative justices will, in my view, typically give good faith
readings of the Constitution as they see it. I have
a hard time saying that this time I have to
be honest with you. But whenever Clarence Thomas takes a
position that I disagree with, I feel like I have
to take that very seriously. I loved Gorsuch's opinion, and
I feel like the Constitution in some sense was upheld here.
I think you disagree with me, not entirely.
Speaker 3: I was expecting the Supreme Court to rule against Trump's tariffs.
But when the case was first brought, people thought it
would be like a They were acting like it was
just an insane idea that these night withstand Supreme Court scrutiny.
And as it took, you know, month after month after
month for the case to finally be for the decision
to be handed down, I think it did show how
complicated things are. It was a mess of an opinion
from the court in that you had. It was kind
of a three three three thing, but two of the
threes agreed in the judgment. So there was a coalition
of three mostly a coalition of three conservatives Roberts, Barrett,
and Gorsich, and then then were the three Libs. And
then and Roberts wrote the opinion for the court, but
there were a ton of concurrences, and then Kavanaugh wrote
the dissent and Thomas wrote a concurrence. And I think
the complicated nature of the decision shows there's just it's
a complicated issue.
Speaker 2: I mean Thomas's.
Speaker 3: Concurrence to the descent, however you say that he was
he had some really interesting things to say in there
about how the Framers understood duties and tariffs as being
separate from taxes, how and exactly why he disagreed with
the majority opinion. A lot of people said, oh, well,
Alito and Thomas, they just sided with Trump because that's
what they do. And you know, Thomas pointed out that
he was arguing the same thing he had argued in
twenty fifteen on one of the issues that he'd brought
to light. So say what you want about Thomas, he's
he tends to be extremely consistent in how he judges
these things.
Speaker 2: I did not.
Speaker 3: I found Gorsich's argument the most compelling of the mess
and the majority, but he kind of did it alone.
And that also speaks to the how persuasive he was
in what he was saying. And I find his attitude
to be a little peacocky, but I don't hate it.
I just wonder if he wouldn't be more persuasive. If
he were, I just wish, I wish maybe he would
try to be more persuasive.
Speaker 2: I think I think that would work well for him
on the court going forward.
Speaker 1: I loved his opinion so much. I mean, I just
think he's a fantastic writer. I don't know if you.
Speaker 2: Agree with you very clear, he's very clear.
Speaker 1: Yes, in his little section there where he actually speaks
to voters directly about the frustration of the deliberative process
of governance and all of that. I thought it was
maybe it's peacocky. I don't know. I liked it a lot.
I wish people would read that. I guess there are
two things. There is the narrow question of whether, ever
whether the emergency law allows Trump to do what he did.
And then there was what Kavanaugh did, which it was
my I'm not an expert, I'm not a lawyer, but
it was my least favorite opinion of his. I mean,
I just think he got the economics of it all wrong,
and he didn't argue.
Speaker 2: He didn't argue the economicy.
Speaker 1: He took up his contention that I wish I had
it in front of me, but Donald Trump, he simply
took whatever Donald Trump or the administration said tariffs were
for emergencies and so on, which were clearly not. Now
I know that's not what they ruled on, but the
basis of his understanding of why we're using tariff's was fictional.
I mean, the idea that we're you know, Donald Trump
only a few weeks ago said he raised tarifs on
Switzerland because he didn't like the tone of the of
the former president. I mean, his claim that we are
in some kind of economic emergency, or his acceptance of
that claim was totally I think nuts and Thomas's thing.
I don't think his history was right. I'm not a
historian either, but I just don't think that his history
of tariff's are right. But anyway, just above all that,
I want to say this that there is no conception
of the founding. I don't think where they envision the
president of the United States unilaterally putting tariffs on every
single country on the planet for whatever reason he came
up with, without any input from Congress, ever, in perpetuity.
That is simply not comport with the view of the founders.
I don't really care what anyone else tells.
Speaker 3: Me, so you should actually care when Clarence Thomas tells
you otherwise. Let me just first off say, if Clarence
Thomas and Samuel Alito disagree, then you are allowed to
take a position different from them.
Speaker 2: When they agree. They they're just right.
Speaker 3: That much of the time they have like, I trust
A Thomas and an Alito together more than I trust
any two other together. Now, if you read Thomas's you
did read Thomas's thing. So he emphasizes how from the Founding,
according to the definitions that were used at the time
of the Founding, absolutely tariffs would be separate from taxation.
I also thought it was really interesting how he talked
about the delegation of legislative authority and how to distinguish
again using an understanding of the Founding between core legislative
duties and things that Congress does that are more executive
in nature. That was tremendously interesting history, I thought there.
And then Kavanaugh, I thought, wrote, like, it's not a
constitutional opinion so much as an understanding of statute and precedent.
Speaker 2: And he did a really good job of.
Speaker 3: Showing how at the time that that law was passed,
immediately on the hills of Nixon doing some stuff with tariffs,
what the understanding would have been at the time. And
he flat out says, I may not agree with this
as a matter of policy, but just as a matter
of statute and history, and President Trump had the right
to do this. Now you can disagree with that, but
it was a solid argument, and I thought it was
like a really masterful dissection of the majority opinion.
Speaker 2: And also, I don't think there's anything wrong with.
Speaker 3: Deferring to the president on what is an emergency in
a foreign policy context, and that, of course is a
major contention of the dissenting justices. We defer to the
president on foreign policy issues by definition, so tariffs are
a foreign policy issue, and so there's just a different
approach now. I liked what Sarah Isger said in The
New York Times about how the vision of the Roberts
Court is to return the executive branch to the authority
of the president, but to make that branch smaller and
less significant. And that's a way to understand a lot
of the different rulings over the recent years under Trump.
I think that's also likes a it's a logical approach
and argument as well. And it was an interesting, interesting,
but long decision. And I did think it was funny
that neither so my R nor Alito weighed in, but
everyone else did.
Speaker 1: Uh. Jase said a lot, and I forget what I
wanted to say. Yes, sorry, no, no, I mean it's
not clearly a foreign policy question because the import taxes
are collective from American companies. That's first of all. But moreover,
there's the what's it called the Major Questions doctrine, that tariff.
The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to levy tariffs.
It's it's clear as day. That's it's literally one of
its main jobs along with taxation, and is taxation. So
you know, how could someone want to shut down, you know,
want to get rid of Chevron doctrine, but then say
the president can do whatever he wants when it comes
to other taxes or other regulations. Just mind boggling to
me that anyone would would do that, can we? But
you're right? I mean I think that that was Gore
Such's point, right, that we want to have Congress do
its job. Yeah, and the exactly do its job. I
like that a lot.
Speaker 3: I mean, I do worry about the law law land
nature of it.
Speaker 2: Meaning, yes, I agree.
Speaker 3: I am a I am an Article one enthusiast, and
I really wish Congress were the dominant branch of government
and they are not even functioning right now.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is a disaster.
Speaker 3: And I love the Supreme Court jurisprudence that is telling Congress, Hey,
we're giving this all back to you after you willingly
gave it all away to the executive branch, and we're
saying no, Constitutionally, this is more your purview. And I
worry that they're doing absolutely nothing with this very helpful
recent jurisprudence. I'm not talking about the tariff's decision that
just happened, but in recent years they've done this with
quite a lot of removing Chevron deference and all that,
and Congress seems to not really care, and it makes
me sad. I agree, but I agree with but I
agree with grsiche On that they should.
Speaker 1: I agree that the Congress has abdicated its responsibility. A
part of that abdication is that they're always, like, yeah,
cheering on whatever the president wants to do. Like they
take an oath to protect the Constitution, and part of
the Constitution is protecting your or defending your institution. Congress
is the institution. Yes, Mike Johnson should support the president
and it's part of his party. But if he feels
like the president is in you know, there's an incursion
on the power of Congress, he should say something about that.
But I'm not blaming just him Chuck Schumer supporting Biden
when he was dealing when he was trying to forgive
student loans, or when he was putting amendments into the
Constitution via tweet. So yeah, I just want to say.
Speaker 3: My own view on tariffs is that there is a
difference between whether you think they're a good idea and
whether you think the president has the right to set them.
And on the issue of whether the president has the
right to set them, I am pretty strongly in favor
of the president setting them. They are the type of
thing that can be like implemented and pulled back and
used as leverage.
Speaker 2: And we have so many problems globally.
Speaker 3: Dealing with trade situations where foreign countries have made their
markets very hostile to American businesses, and very little has
been done to address that. And I love the idea
of using tariffs as lever and I know that Trump
can do it under all sorts of other authorities than
the one that he went.
Speaker 2: With, and he says he will.
Speaker 3: But I would prefer that we defer to presidents even
if they're bad presidents, even if they're making bad decisions,
I still think it's better for the executive than Congress
to set these because they're foreign policy.
Speaker 1: But he can do that in a different way. Best
of all, I think everyone admits that the what it
was called the International Emergency Economics Power Act of nineteen
seventy seven, which was which he used here for many
of the taris not all is a poorly written law.
The law should be like, we give you this amount
of time. Actually put it this way, Donald Trump can
thread whoever he wants, and he can negotiate new deals
and then he could send them to Congress for passage
like he would with anything else.
Speaker 2: You watched the hockey game on Sunday, Hell.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I watched it. As you know, I love hockey.
I'm a big fan of the New York Rangers. I
probably missed like twelve games in forty years or something
like that. And watching the American team win was just great,
just because because we won, but because we beat Canada.
You know, it was just amazing. And they're sore. Do
you see how what sore losers they are talking about
how they were the better team and the goalie want
it for us, as if the goalie wasn't part of
the team like I liken it to saying you only
won because of your ace pitcher. You only won because
of Tom Brady. Well, yeah, that's part of my team.
That person.
Speaker 3: I was it just last week talking about how I'm
alone in my dislike of Canada. But last year or
whenever it was, when they did the Four Nations tournament
and the Canadians booed the American anthem, I was like, oh,
it's on, it's on, Like I will love America even
if we who's in horrific fashion at the Olympics. But
I really wanted to be Canada because they're so smug.
They also are really good at hockey. They send all
these players to NHL teams. The entire Avalanche team is
comprised of Canadians, and then sort of related hockey is
all Canada hats. They have comedians who become Americans, they
have Molson beer, and they have hockey, and that's it.
So they needed that win desperately, and they have been
really asking for a beating. And so I thought the
game what I saw of at excited church on Sunday morning.
So I was monitoring it and then Mark and I
watched rewatched highlights. I thought it was just amazing, a
very good game. Canada is a very good team.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean Canada is still has the premiere
players right to come from Canada. It's their national sport.
It's cold all over the place. They are the winter.
They have a great tradition, you know. But it is interesting.
Someone pointed this out to me. The most Canadian superstars
in the United States to play for US teams have
no trade clauses in their contract where they do not
want to go to any Canadian team. Taxes are so
high up there that they you essentially lose half your salary.
No one wants to go to Edmonton or Calgary if
they don't have to. They want to go to Florida, Miami,
they want to go to Denver, they want to go
to yuh. But you mentioned the four So I hate
these international tournaments in the middle of a season because
I don't want my players to get hurt. I think,
you know, it's like too many games. But then whenever
it starts, I get really into it. So you mentioned
four nations, like they booed the American national anthem and
three Americans came out and started fights with Canadians.
Speaker 2: I loved that immediately.
Speaker 1: It was the Kachuck Brothers and JT. Miller and you
know those guys are great, So I loved it. Did
you see Chuck U lost his tooth? Right, he has
been hidden thing and he came out and scored that goal,
wrapped himself in the American flag. That's blood all over
the handing them, you know, those stupid teddy bears, the
uh and then just the unbridled, like I said, unfettered
patriotism of these guys. So anyway, they're in the locker
room cash hotel's they're drinking out of all the abuses
of power I've ever seen, pretending you have a meeting
in Italy to attend the Olympics gold medal game with
the United States and then celebrating with the team after
is the abusive power I most relate to and would
one hundred percent engage in myself if it is an
abusive power. But the President called, he made an innocuous
joke about having to invite the women's team as well
to the White House, who also won the gold and
an amazing beautiful goal, you know, game winning goal, great
game also, and the entire left, all the sports writers
who are a bunch of left wingers, most of the
time all turned on the American team because they went
to the White House because they laughed at Trump's dumb joke.
It's another sign of what a bunch of weirdos. They are,
like these school marms scolding you for laughing at a
dumb joke, and you know, it's just so out of touch.
Speaker 3: So Alissa Lou is this American figure skater whose dad
was a Chinese dissident who came to America then quite
bizarrely used a bunch of surrogates to create a like
a team of children.
Speaker 2: So that's a little weird.
Speaker 3: But one of the children is Alyssa Lou, and she
is this really great figure skater, and she was so
bubbly and happy and great and her performance is amazing,
so everyone just kind of like fell in love with her.
And all these lefties were like, well, these maga people
won't like her once we tell them that she's actually
like a bisexual, woke person or whatever. And everyone was like, no,
we just liked her because she was really good and
bubbly and also she didn't like shove that down everybody's
throat every two seconds. And then the next day the
same people who were like you people are bad because
you wouldn't like Alyssa Loo if you knew what she
really thought politically decided to turn on the American hockey
team because they talked to Trump.
Speaker 1: It's because it's pure projection on their part, one projection.
They're the ones who want to turn every single event
in America into a political struggle session. It's so insufferable,
and I don't think a normal American who's watching the
Olympics wants that. I couldn't care less as long as
they're not bringing it to the Olympics, Like you know,
if you're going to the Olympics and bad mouthing I
don't care who the president is, or bad mouthing America
to foreign press, Yeah, I have a problem with that.
If I'm going there and winning and celebrating. She's I
don't know if this is demeaning. I'm not supposed to
say it, but that skater, she's so cute and full
of life and life relatable and just she seems like
a nice person. I don't know what her opinions are.
I don't even care. Yeah, so great, she's gonna come
and she could march and she could say stuff about
Trump whatever. But she didn't do it at the Olympics.
She put a flag around herself and she celebrated winning,
and that's all we care about. I'm sure not everyone
every hockey player loves Trump. But if I won the
gold and Joe Biden or Barack Obama invited me to
go to the White House, I would go. They're the president.
I don't like them, but they're the president, and I
would be respectful because that's not the place for politics.
But they can't understand this. I forgot who said this,
but they were talking about how everyone thinks totalitarian I've
mentioned this quote. But everyone thinks totalitarian as a means
that you're not allowed to participate in politics, when it
really means they make you everything about politics. Totalitarian nations,
everything is politics, and we don't want that here. People
want to live their lives free of that. It's only
culture I had.
Speaker 2: Well, that was a good culture.
Speaker 3: I did watch with Mark the end of The Night Agent.
Speaker 2: It was The Night Agent The Manager. Sorry, I like
Night Agent. Never mind, it's Night Manager. I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: I was going to watch that. John lecar I think
I talked about it with Mark.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so Mark claims that we watched season one like
ten or fifteen years ago, and then it took ten
or fifteen years for season two to come out.
Speaker 2: I have no recollection of season one.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying he's wrong because sometimes I know I
had young kids at that time, and you're not getting
a lot of sleep.
Speaker 2: But I was willing to do this.
Speaker 1: Night Manager Manager, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Night Manager? Why is it called that?
Speaker 3: And I remember that TV show The West World or
something like that. I thought it was so good and
then the ending was so stupid that I was angry
that I had watched any of it, Like I just
assumed there was going to be payoff and then there
was no payoff. And let's just say this had a
similar disappointing ending. And I was like, if I had
had food to throw at the television, I would have
thrown it at the television.
Speaker 2: I was like, oh, please boo.
Speaker 1: There is a show called The Night Agent on Netflix
which I started to watch, which has like super bad
acting and a very bad story.
Speaker 2: But I like it.
Speaker 1: But I watch it and I'm like, uh, and I
keep watching it. It's like a sugar addiction or something.
Speaker 3: So let me say what The Night Manager had that
I liked, was that a really.
Speaker 2: Hot chick who was in Daisy Jones and this six
Do you know what I'm talking about. I don't know
what her name is. I see her face, Camille Morone.
Speaker 3: She's very pretty. I'm not saying she's the world's best actress,
but she's very pretty. And I think being pretty can
cover a post of sins.
Speaker 1: Yeah, who cares weakness is?
Speaker 2: And then it also has like Hugh Laurie and Tom Hitdleston.
Speaker 1: But is Hugh Laurie in the second season too?
Speaker 2: He is?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: Am I giving too much away?
Speaker 3: Probably anyway? The gay the gay subtext of everything. I
was like, this is this is I'm a woman, so
I can tolerate it more. But I was like, this
is getting too gay.
Speaker 1: I there is a ten year gap between the seasons
or something of that nature. And I sometimes when I
watch a show and you know, I'll binge it. But
sometimes I won't watch for a week and I can't
even remember remember what happened the week before. And I wonder,
in the old days, how did we remember, like what
had happened on the show we were watching when we
wouldn't see another episode for six months. I don't even
know how I would how I would tackle that. You know. Yeah,
I tried to watch A Night Manager like a few
times and I just did not stick. So maybe I'll
give it another shot. But now you're saying that doesn't
end well, so we'll see. Okay, we need better. Yeah,
please send your emails to a radio at the Federalist
dot com. We'd love to hear from you, and we'll
be back next week. Till then, the Lovers of Freedom