August 22, 2025 • 32 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 3 (08/22) - Lou Penrose fills in for John. CA State Assemblyman Tom Lackey comes on the show to talk about the redistricting drama. Newsom is going to lose this war. Democrats fighting fire with fire will not even well. A girl says you should break up with your Republican boyfriend.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't find AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt. Good to have you
along with this Happy Friday. So the California Democrat jerry
mandering plan is headed toward the ballot. The legislator passed
and the governor signed legislation yesterday to place the redrawn
jerry mandered congressional map on the November fourth ballot, and
(00:28):
the proposition will be called Prop fifty. Something tells me
we're going to hear a lot about Prop fifty in
my mailbox and on the radio and on television, and
has already raised thirteen million dollars. So the political fight
is on. California State assembly Member Tom Lackey joins US
Assembly member, thank you for coming on. I mean, we
(00:49):
we've got to get to work. It's all going to
be about no on fifty.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Icespect well, it's.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Clearly going to be a battle, and it's one that's
really fighting. And I believe as long as the people
really understand the wording of the proposition, because I do
believe that the title summer is going to be very
misleading because way too often on these propositions, yes means
no and no means yes, and so we've got to
(01:17):
make sure our public understands what a mess we're proposing.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Do you think they will go so far as to
pull that trick we're voting no means yes because you know,
I contend and you tell me your thoughts on this.
This is really inside baseball stuff, right, redistricting, apportionment, congressional distress,
congressional lines. This is not stuff that you know, the
average voter is used to having to understand. And the
(01:44):
tendency is when they don't understand, they just vote no
and figure, just let it be the way it is,
whatever the new idea is. But you're right, misleading and
dishonest ballot titles and and the way they word it
can result in actually voting no means yes, we wanted
to go forward.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
You think they'll go.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
That route, well, absolutely. I think what's going to happen
is this is going to be a field tested title
that they've already floated, testing within our public on getting
what they think is going to be successful, even though
it'll be glaringly misleading, because I think what's going to
(02:25):
be in the title is some retention of the citizen's
rediscingct process because they do indicate that this is a
one time flash and that we will return back to
that process after this takes place.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. I don't
believe they will ever give up the control to do it.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I heard, why neither do I. But that's what they're alleging,
right and right.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
No, they're saying that. I heard. I heard the governor
said that.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
He said, all we want to do for the for
the to save democracy from this dictator in DC is
allow us for the next three cycles and then we'll
I'll give it back.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
And I'm thinking that's never gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
They'll claim in twenty thirty one those ads too expensive
or something, but they'll they'll never get back control.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
Yeah, once the toothpaste comes out of the tube, you're
in trouble. I mean, it's hard to get it back in.
I'm just telling you that trust is a big problem
with the legislature and the citizen ry, and this is
the very reason why they don't trust us. I mean,
yesterday we had an agreement on three very very powerful
principles as they relate to this problem. We all agree
(03:33):
that jerry mandering is wrong. The second thing we agreed
on is that the gold standard we have here in
California and it's a citizen redistion process. And the third
thing was is that Texas is doing the wrong thing.
But what did we adopt to do the very same
thing that we were denouncing? And it makes no sense
(03:54):
to me.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
So I saw that already, yes, I Prop fifty or
whatever the campaign is going to be called, as already
receiving campaign funds reported up the thirteen million dollars? Who
is on our side? Who can we ask? Who can
we go to to ask for financial support?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, Republican donors typically understand the issue very very clearly,
and it's not just Republicans, but the first people we
should turn to are the funders who support the Republican
Party and understand the principles that were standing for. And
I do believe that we have a number of Democratic
(04:37):
colleagues that wanted to vote on our side, but they
felt the press yesterday and they weren't free to vote
their conscience.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
So I notice fine, large like the business roundtable groups
and the chambers of commerce, they're always head to head
with the governor with respect to regulations, but they tend
to support the majority because that's the smart thing for.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Business to do.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Then you have, like the CEO of bed Math and beyond,
having the political courage to go out there and say, look,
I got to call a spade of spade and California
is just not something we're looking at reinvesting in because
it's too hard to do business. There is there an
opportunity here for more business leaders and business leader representation,
lobby groups like Chambers of Commerce and others to seize
(05:23):
on this opportunity.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Yeah, well, of course it's really hard to put partisanship aside,
but this is one of those principles that I believe
that we'll be able to get enough people to understand
that this is not what the people deserve. Jerry Mandering
under any circumstance is wrong, and so that's really the
mantra that needs to be pushed because that is the issue.
(05:48):
You always will have people that are fearful of upsetting
the power in California, which is Governor Newsom obviously, but
there are also times when people will stand up. They will,
but they have to really believe what you're telling them.
And so we need to be very forceful and reminding
(06:10):
people that jerry mandering is wrong. We don't want to
replicate the very thing that we're denouncing, and what we
need to do is try to implement a citizen's reditioning
process nationwide. That's really what that's the answer, and that's
where the impetus should be.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
California simply, Member Tom Lockey, always good to catch up
with you.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Thanks for coming on. We appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Yeah, thank you for having me, and please, please please
get involved in this issue. It's very, very critical and
I appreciate the time to advocate for what's right.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I appreciate you, and I think we're going to be
spending a lot of time talking about this over the
days and weeks to come, because it is so that
we in California have the gold standard.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I don't know how gold it was, but it was
certainly a good.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Standard of having a citizens run redistricting committee. Again, this
is all very inside baseball, and that's where I start
on this one. I think that this issue the governor
was looking for a national issue to champion, to raise
his profile nationally as the Democrat leader, to square off
(07:23):
against President Trump, and he thinks he's found it in
this to fight fire with fire with respect to congressional
district maps in Texas.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
I think it's too confusing. I think it's the wrong issue,
and I think he is going to lose. And I'll
tell you why I've come to those conclusions when we
come back. Lou Penrose Info John Cobelt on KFI AM
six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (07:49):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
I'm Lou Penrose infa John Cobelt talking about the Prop
fifty that's going to happen and the whole redistricting idea.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
I have a couple of thoughts on this.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Having done this political work, I work for three members
of Congress, two of them. I went through the redistricting
process that happens every ten years on the ones, because
the census comes out on the o's and then you
get the numbers and you go on the ones, you
create a new congressional district to get ready for the twos,
(08:31):
which is the first year that a member of Congress
or a candidate is eligible to run in a new
district and see, look, I just lost eighty percent of you.
That's what I'm talking about. This is such inside baseball,
This is so confusing. This is such like minutia in
American politics that the average voter doesn't want to know
(08:53):
about it, doesn't need to know about it. That's why
we set up a citizen's redistricting Commission so that we
know it's being done fairly, because we have jobs to
go to, right, I mean, we like, we can't be
constitutional scholars all day every day to keep the politicians
from taking advantage of the system to their own benefit.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
It's exhausting with these people.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
So we have a like as good as it's going
to get a commission, and it was a constitutional amendment.
We passed it in twenty ten and we said, all right,
we're like four Republicans, four Democrats, and like two independents,
and you guys draw lines, keep it fair, keep your
thumb off the scale, and do your best and then
(09:40):
let the chips fall what they may. And it still
isn't really even in California, Democrats have too much weight.
But it is what it is, and it's a fight
that we can at least win where the districts are
pretty close. So the way this works, let me just
give you a little political science lesson quick again. This
(10:01):
is why I think this is a bad issue for
Democrats in California, because I think that it's two inside baseball.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
But let me just bring it up to speed.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
So the census comes out every ten years, because we
have to know how many Americans are in the country.
And there are four hundred and thirty five members of Congress,
and there are they are portioned. You're supposed to every
Congress member is supposed to have about the same people.
So based on the census numbers, it's seven hundred and
(10:29):
seventy thousand people currently. When I started working Congress in
the year two thousand, it was six hundred and forty
Hey six forty, ok, I am six forty. Now it's
seven hundred and seventy thousand. And so this the congressional
districts all have to do a couple of things. They
have to be reasonably shaped. They are supposed to keep
(10:52):
not split cities and not go into different counties.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
If it's possible.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
They're supposed to be keep communities of interest together. And
there are some civil rights regulations and they have to
add up to as close as seven hundred and seventy
a piece. And in California we have fifty two squares
or as close to a square as you can.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Of seven one hundred and seventy thousand people.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
And you know, the lines are supposed to be reasonable,
and they're not supposed to take politics or political registration
into effect.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
They're just Americans. We're citizens.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
And if you let a politician draw the line, well
they're going to want to draw the line that captures
the most amount of registered Democrats if you're a Democrat,
or registered Republicans if you're a Republican, to make the
district more easily winnable.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
That's human nature.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
So I'm not surprised politicians want to do that. That's
why we have to keep them out of it. So
what they decided to do in Sacramento is in fact,
on purpose redraw the line mean jerry Mander.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
The Jerrymander thing. This really gets inside baseball.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
It's actually a mispronunciation of Massachusetts Governor Gary with the
sopht G.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Back in the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
He was drawing he was a governor, he was drawing
state Senate lines that would favor his party. And somebody said,
that looks like a salamander because it all squiggily right
to get into some of the areas where the registration
was better. And they said, no, it's a gary mander,
not a salamander being cute.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
And then it became political culture.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
And because of what nationwide, whenever politicians attempted to do it,
they didn't know that the governor was Gary or so
they just said Jerry because it looked like a g
And there you go.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
There's the history of jerry mandarin. It didn't work, by.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
The way, for the governor of Massachusetts back in the
eighteen hundreds, he lost reelection as governor because of those
kinds of shenanigans. He did ultimately ultimately become vice president
of the United States. You know that the jerry and
jerry mandering was the vice president. But now they're trying
(13:11):
to do it. They're trying to make squiggly lines that
are obviously dishonest to try and capture as many Democrat
registrants so that the odds of a Democrat winning that congressional.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Seat is higher, so they can deny Donald Trump the
House of Representatives. That's what's going on here.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
I think that is all very inside baseball, close to
boring for most of us, and I think people will
see through it and they're going to vote no.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Now, early polling shows that it's popular.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
The Los Angeles Times, forty six percent say they're in
favor of the Democrats jerry mandering in order to get
more congressional Democrat seats to thirty six percent, but there's
eighteen percent undecided. Now the issue itself among the Democrat
base for Gavin Newsom, that's soaring. The Democrats have Trump's
arrangement syndrume and California they hate him.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
They want to do anything they can, you know, legal
or otherwise. This is legal, but ethical or otherwise. They're
happy to cheat.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
As long as they can stick it to Donald Trump,
and the polling supports that. Here is Harry Enton, who
is the political analyst over at CNN.
Speaker 6 (14:21):
My goodness, gracious, a rising tide of support for Gavin Newsom.
Remember back in twenty twenty three, the majority of Democrats
did not want Joe Biden run for another term, but
California Democrats and Gavin news in his own state did
not want.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Him to run either. And now seventy five percent are
excited for him to run. Seventy five percent.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
These are registered Democrats in California who just two years
ago did not want Newsom to be the nominee. Now
seventy five percent want him to be the nominee. Now
it's odd because I think California Democrats with tru arrangement
(15:00):
syndrome think that Newsom will be squaring off against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
But the reality is Trump will not be on the
ball at this point.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
I mean, if you want to change the state constitution
to allow gerrymandering, which is normally illegal, then why would
you thumb your nose at a national effort to change
the US Constitution to allow.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
A president to run for a third term.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
That's all that is. You know this idea, President Trump
is not allowed. No, no, no, He's ineligible.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
To run for a third term. It's a two terms.
Too bad, too bad, too bad. It's just an amendment
to a constitution.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
We amend the Constitution a lot, like over two dozen times,
so it's not an outlandish idea to amend the constitution
to allow for a third term.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Trump wants it. Talk of it is so triggering to Democrats.
But here the same Democrats that bristle at the idea
of amending the US Constitution to allow Trump a third
term are freely joyously amending the California Constitution to allow
(16:16):
dishonest districting lines drawn by Democrats for the purposes of
letting more Democrats get elected, just to stop Donald Trump
by denying him the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
All right, when we come back, there's two other.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Things out there that Democrats are in denial about that
could cost this effort.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
To go down in flames, and I'll share it with you.
Coming up next.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt on the John Cobalt
Show on KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt Today, Tim Conway's show
follows the news at for Nil Sevet for Tim Conway,
and then Tiffany Hobbs in for Mokell Wow. So it's
guest hosts Walt Wall on KFI Today, who's in charge
of that scheduling. So Governor Gavin Newsom is moving forward
(17:17):
with this redistricting Democrat map. It's a sparked intense discussion,
and money is rolling in. Thirteen million dollars already has
been raised in this effort, and it has ignited the
Democrat base for Newsom, not just in this effort, but
(17:38):
in his national effort to become a Democrat leader and
potential presidential candidate. In twenty twenty three, only twenty three
percent of registered Democrats in California.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Wanted Newsom to be the Democrat nominee.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Today, that has gone from from twenty three percent to
seventy So right, wrong or indifferent, the issue is working
to raise Newsom's political star and there's more and more
than that.
Speaker 6 (18:11):
He's getting a higher percentage of the vote than Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
In her home state.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
He is beating the former vice president, who of course
was the Democratic nominee in twenty twenty four. As I said,
a rising tide of support for the California government.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
Yeah, this is Harry Enton over at CNN. He gets
very excited.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
You know who Harry Enton is, Harry Enton, the political
analyst over at CNN. You just heard that is Neil
Sedaka's nephew. I love, love, love Michlnder girl.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
That's his nephew.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
So this is certainly working for Newsom, so he is
finally found an issue that ignites the Democrat base behind
him and pushes him, at least in the polling ahead
of Kamala Harris, who already said that she's not running
for governor, so the only thing left to do is
run for president.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
So that's gonna be an interesting fight. But I still
believe this is.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
A dog I think this is a dog of an
issue for the reasons I stated before the break. I
think this is boring inside baseball stuff redistricting. Now they
can rely on dishonest and misleading ballad statements where no
means yes and yes means no, and they probably will
have to, but it's still gonna be a hard one
(19:29):
to explain what all is going on. I mean, even
if it's no means yes and yes means no, people
will get confused enough fill it out at all. This
is gonna be a very challenging one for I think
Democrats to get over the finish line because of the
minutia of it all. That's one thing. Then there are
other political realities. I think that Democrats in California are
(19:52):
in denial about Democrats in California have such trumped arrangement syndrome.
They hate him so much more so than probably any
other state that it causes them to not see clearly.
Speaker 7 (20:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
What's that line from Godfather? I clouds your judgment.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
When you have anger for your enemies, And I think
that's what's happening here, number one.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
And this is just straight political science.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Trump did better in California in twenty twenty four than
he did in twenty twenty. He outperformed, and he didn't
just outperform among Republicans. He did do that, he got
more Republicans to turn out, which is interesting in and
of itself that he was able to do that. But
(20:46):
he outperformed among areas that have been traditionally and are
in other races and congressional races and district races, locally
assembly races, governor city council. He outperformed in areas in
which traditionally Democrats have always done well, and that is
young people and minorities. In other words, more young people
(21:13):
voted for Donald Trump in twenty twenty four than they
did in twenty twenty. More Hispanics voted for Donald Trump
in twenty twenty four than they did in twenty twenty
and that goes for black men as well, and the
number among young people is really significant. This guy, Charlie
Kirk with Turning Point USA, who goes to these college
(21:36):
campuses and has debates. Back in the day, sometimes he
was unable to have the event because the young people
on college campuses hated conservative thought, hated Republicans, hated anybody
that had anything to say that wasn't exactly what Obama wanted.
That they had to have security guards, and they eventually
(21:58):
canceled the event.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Now that tied his turned significantly.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Kirk has done events where I broadcast in San Diego
at STSU at you see Irvine in Orange County, throughout
the state.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
He's going up and down the state.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
And you know what you see at some of these
Turning Point USA events where Charlie Kirk, who's certainly associated
with President Trump. You see college students, mostly men, but
some cute girls too, with red Make America Greatagan hats
on cheering Charlie Kirk as he's debating the weirdo with
(22:36):
the purple hair and the tied it T shirt on
some transgender issue or some such you.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Know, really radical progressive discussion.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
And the weird ho the weirdo girl with the purple hair,
she's the one being laughed at and mocked. So the
culture has changed, and that's not small. So if you
have young college aged men flipping their registration or registering
for the first time as a Republican, a Trump Republican,
(23:10):
and that will have an effect on young college age girls.
College age girls that actually want to date and marry
someone who has the capacity to earn, they tend to
flock to the Republican college guy because Republican college guys
tend to earn when they graduate.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Girls know that they jump on that bandwagon.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
So you add that to the amount of Latino voters
that are pro Trump. Trump flipped Imperial County, California, that's
like eighty five percent Latino and has been voting Democrats
since forever, and then the last election cycle he flipped
it along with six other counties in California, so he
(24:02):
has mo politically. Why would you think that it has
hit its ceiling? Democrats? I think conclude that it hit
its ceiling in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Why it did?
Speaker 3 (24:15):
I mean he did better in twenty twenty four than
twenty twenty and better still than he did in twenty sixteen.
Why would you reach the conclusion that his popularity has ended.
Why wouldn't it continue that? Plus time, time kills all deals.
Anybody that's in sales, you know that, got to get
the signature on that sales contract right away because time
(24:36):
kills all deals. We are four hundred and thirty eight
days until the November midterm election. That's a goodly amount
of time for things to go wrong for Democrats and
things to go right for Republicans and Trump, and Trump
has been having some.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Pretty good days.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Lou Penrose info John Cobelt on The John Cobelt Show
on KFI Am six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
App you're listening to You're on coblt on demand from KFI.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt on the John coblt Show.
As we head into the weekend, speaking of young people, Uh,
there is this viral video going around she broke up
with her boyfriend because her boyfriend voted for Trump, and
she is asking everybody to check your boyfriend's voter registration
(25:28):
and if he voted for Trump, you should break up
with him, break up.
Speaker 7 (25:31):
With your Republican boyfriends. By continuing to date these Republican men,
you are invertently supporting this movement with one your body
and your affection, and two not allowing these men to
understand the consequences of their action. They voted against you,
They voted against your body, they voted against your right.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
I knew so many split households growing up, like where
the husband was Republican or the wife the wife was Democrat,
or vice versa, and that that certainly goes out in families,
right you have Democrat members of the family and Republican
members of the family.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
And it's like it used to be good.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
And then it really got bad, Like it used to
be just funny, and now it's like people will not
come to your house for Thanksgiving dinner.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
So I don't know will that ever happen again?
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Will will a Democrat ever marry a Republican again? I mean,
have we reached that point that we are polarized in
affairs of the heart? Or can a Democrat woman bring
herself to actually love someone that voted for Trump? She
says no, And I love the reasons why the rationale
(26:51):
is really good.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Let's hit that again.
Speaker 7 (26:54):
Break up with your Republican boyfriends. By continuing to date
these Republican and you are invertently supporting this movement with
one your body and your affection, and two not allowing
these men to understand the consequences of their actions.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
So there are consequences to voting for Donald Trump, and
I guess those consequences.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Have been bad for the liberal white women. What are
those consequences again?
Speaker 7 (27:23):
They voted against you, They voted against your body, they
voted against your rights.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
I hear this all the time at all these anti
Trump marches and anti Trump rallies. I hear about all
these rights that liberal white women don't have anymore. You
don't hear it so much in Hispanic Democrats, never among
black democrats, Asian Democrats really don't rally. But liberal white women,
(27:51):
they're always talking about all the rights that have been
taken away by President Trump.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
And I have to ask.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
What right did you have on January nineteenth that was
taken from you on January twentieth, And you're talking about
rights plural, Name me one, namely one right that you had.
Name me, a right that was taken from you in
(28:18):
the first Trump administration that was bestowed back upon you
in twenty twenty by President Biden and then.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Was snatched again.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
It's just silliness, but like they keep going with it, and.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Then I've seen interviews like man on the Street interviews.
What right's he talking about? Oh, there's so many, there's
always so many, too many.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
To list name three, name one, and they never can.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Then they never can. So they're just in delusion land.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
And maybe somebody ought to be telling these Republican boyfriend you,
you need to ditch this chick.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
She's not working for you.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
There has to be others out there because this one
believes she has no rights and it's your fault. So
that's that's trouble. Hey, McDonald's decided to lower prices.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
How about that.
Speaker 8 (29:17):
McDonald's is lowering the cost of some combo meals. The
Wall Street Journal says it's a response to sticker shock
from customers after some locations were charging as much as
eighteen dollars for a big mac meal.
Speaker 6 (29:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
I didn't see eighteen dollars.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I did see thirteen dollars for the big macmeal, and
that is what sparked. I think Chili's went to war
against McDonald's because at Chili's you can get a cheeseburger
and fries and a soda and sit down and have
a waitress bring it to you with like a knife
and a fork for thirteen dollars. So they were teasing
and chiding the McDonald's folks. But the prices at McDonald's
(29:54):
has really kind of skyrocketed now in California. You can
make the case that well, you know, you pe in California,
you make it impossible to run a small franchise because
of the minimum wage.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
That's fair, but the prices have.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Gone up everywhere for McDonald's, and you know, there's no
way around it.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
They really get you with those fries. I was at
I was shopping.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
I was at a drive through with my sons, and
we were just like, all right, let's just get a quick,
a quick one coming back from a game. And a
large fry cost more than a big Mac. Well, the
big Mac was on special, so I get that. But
like a large fry is four hours and ten cents,
(30:39):
like four hours for fries. You boys are splitting it,
and they've really let pricing get out of hand. Coffees
off the charts, Soda is ridiculously expensive.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
There was a couple of summers ago where.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
The McDonald's folks were having this special where like any
size was a dollar, small was a dollar.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
And large was a dollar.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
I never understood the psychology there. There must be some
kind of sales psychology, because why.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Wouldn't everybody just get the large?
Speaker 3 (31:05):
But nevertheless, they were still able to make money because like,
soda is really inexpensive for these franchises. And that's why
that when they realized that they make so much money
on soda, that they put the machines just right there
out in the lobby. You can go refill the soda
as much as you want as a customer convenience, because
they make all soda is is water a great big
(31:27):
co two canister that is replaced like once a month,
and Coca Cola syrup like the cups and the lids
and the straw are more expensive than the soda. So
they really had a good thing going. And though they
realized it, and now sodas are like four hours for
a large coke, and that you add that to four
hours for the large fry, and no matter how much
(31:49):
you discount the big mac, you're still.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
North of eleven dollars for the meal. So McDonald's changing
its ways. We'll see how that works out for them.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Loup Penro Info John Coblt on KFI AM six forty
and live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Coblt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
Can't find AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt. Good to have you
along with this Happy Friday. So the California Democrat jerry
mandering plan is headed toward the ballot. The legislator passed
and the governor signed legislation yesterday to place the redrawn
jerry mandered congressional map on the November fourth ballot, and
(00:28):
the proposition will be called Prop fifty. Something tells me
we're going to hear a lot about Prop fifty in
my mailbox and on the radio and on television, and
has already raised thirteen million dollars. So the political fight
is on. California State assembly Member Tom Lackey joins US
Assembly member, thank you for coming on. I mean, we
(00:49):
we've got to get to work. It's all going to
be about no on fifty.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Icespect well, it's.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Clearly going to be a battle, and it's one that's
really fighting. And I believe as long as the people
really understand the wording of the proposition, because I do
believe that the title summer is going to be very
misleading because way too often on these propositions, yes means
no and no means yes, and so we've got to
(01:17):
make sure our public understands what a mess we're proposing.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Do you think they will go so far as to
pull that trick we're voting no means yes because you know,
I contend and you tell me your thoughts on this.
This is really inside baseball stuff, right, redistricting, apportionment, congressional distress,
congressional lines. This is not stuff that you know, the
average voter is used to having to understand. And the
(01:44):
tendency is when they don't understand, they just vote no
and figure, just let it be the way it is,
whatever the new idea is. But you're right, misleading and
dishonest ballot titles and and the way they word it
can result in actually voting no means yes, we wanted
to go forward.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
You think they'll go.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
That route, well, absolutely. I think what's going to happen
is this is going to be a field tested title
that they've already floated, testing within our public on getting
what they think is going to be successful, even though
it'll be glaringly misleading, because I think what's going to
(02:25):
be in the title is some retention of the citizen's
rediscingct process because they do indicate that this is a
one time flash and that we will return back to
that process after this takes place.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. I don't
believe they will ever give up the control to do it.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I heard, why neither do I. But that's what they're alleging,
right and right.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
No, they're saying that. I heard. I heard the governor
said that.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
He said, all we want to do for the for
the to save democracy from this dictator in DC is
allow us for the next three cycles and then we'll
I'll give it back.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
And I'm thinking that's never gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
They'll claim in twenty thirty one those ads too expensive
or something, but they'll they'll never get back control.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
Yeah, once the toothpaste comes out of the tube, you're
in trouble. I mean, it's hard to get it back in.
I'm just telling you that trust is a big problem
with the legislature and the citizen ry, and this is
the very reason why they don't trust us. I mean,
yesterday we had an agreement on three very very powerful
principles as they relate to this problem. We all agree
(03:33):
that jerry mandering is wrong. The second thing we agreed
on is that the gold standard we have here in
California and it's a citizen redistion process. And the third
thing was is that Texas is doing the wrong thing.
But what did we adopt to do the very same
thing that we were denouncing? And it makes no sense
(03:54):
to me.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
So I saw that already, yes, I Prop fifty or
whatever the campaign is going to be called, as already
receiving campaign funds reported up the thirteen million dollars? Who
is on our side? Who can we ask? Who can
we go to to ask for financial support?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, Republican donors typically understand the issue very very clearly,
and it's not just Republicans, but the first people we
should turn to are the funders who support the Republican
Party and understand the principles that were standing for. And
I do believe that we have a number of Democratic
(04:37):
colleagues that wanted to vote on our side, but they
felt the press yesterday and they weren't free to vote
their conscience.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
So I notice fine, large like the business roundtable groups
and the chambers of commerce, they're always head to head
with the governor with respect to regulations, but they tend
to support the majority because that's the smart thing for.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Business to do.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Then you have, like the CEO of bed Math and beyond,
having the political courage to go out there and say, look,
I got to call a spade of spade and California
is just not something we're looking at reinvesting in because
it's too hard to do business. There is there an
opportunity here for more business leaders and business leader representation,
lobby groups like Chambers of Commerce and others to seize
(05:23):
on this opportunity.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Yeah, well, of course it's really hard to put partisanship aside,
but this is one of those principles that I believe
that we'll be able to get enough people to understand
that this is not what the people deserve. Jerry Mandering
under any circumstance is wrong, and so that's really the
mantra that needs to be pushed because that is the issue.
(05:48):
You always will have people that are fearful of upsetting
the power in California, which is Governor Newsom obviously, but
there are also times when people will stand up. They will,
but they have to really believe what you're telling them.
And so we need to be very forceful and reminding
(06:10):
people that jerry mandering is wrong. We don't want to
replicate the very thing that we're denouncing, and what we
need to do is try to implement a citizen's reditioning
process nationwide. That's really what that's the answer, and that's
where the impetus should be.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
California simply, Member Tom Lockey, always good to catch up
with you.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Thanks for coming on. We appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Yeah, thank you for having me, and please, please please
get involved in this issue. It's very, very critical and
I appreciate the time to advocate for what's right.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I appreciate you, and I think we're going to be
spending a lot of time talking about this over the
days and weeks to come, because it is so that
we in California have the gold standard.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I don't know how gold it was, but it was
certainly a good.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Standard of having a citizens run redistricting committee. Again, this
is all very inside baseball, and that's where I start
on this one. I think that this issue the governor
was looking for a national issue to champion, to raise
his profile nationally as the Democrat leader, to square off
(07:23):
against President Trump, and he thinks he's found it in
this to fight fire with fire with respect to congressional
district maps in Texas.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
I think it's too confusing. I think it's the wrong issue,
and I think he is going to lose. And I'll
tell you why I've come to those conclusions when we
come back. Lou Penrose Info John Cobelt on KFI AM
six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (07:49):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
I'm Lou Penrose infa John Cobelt talking about the Prop
fifty that's going to happen and the whole redistricting idea.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
I have a couple of thoughts on this.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Having done this political work, I work for three members
of Congress, two of them. I went through the redistricting
process that happens every ten years on the ones, because
the census comes out on the o's and then you
get the numbers and you go on the ones, you
create a new congressional district to get ready for the twos,
(08:31):
which is the first year that a member of Congress
or a candidate is eligible to run in a new
district and see, look, I just lost eighty percent of you.
That's what I'm talking about. This is such inside baseball,
This is so confusing. This is such like minutia in
American politics that the average voter doesn't want to know
(08:53):
about it, doesn't need to know about it. That's why
we set up a citizen's redistricting Commission so that we
know it's being done fairly, because we have jobs to
go to, right, I mean, we like, we can't be
constitutional scholars all day every day to keep the politicians
from taking advantage of the system to their own benefit.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
It's exhausting with these people.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
So we have a like as good as it's going
to get a commission, and it was a constitutional amendment.
We passed it in twenty ten and we said, all right,
we're like four Republicans, four Democrats, and like two independents,
and you guys draw lines, keep it fair, keep your
thumb off the scale, and do your best and then
(09:40):
let the chips fall what they may. And it still
isn't really even in California, Democrats have too much weight.
But it is what it is, and it's a fight
that we can at least win where the districts are
pretty close. So the way this works, let me just
give you a little political science lesson quick again. This
(10:01):
is why I think this is a bad issue for
Democrats in California, because I think that it's two inside baseball.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
But let me just bring it up to speed.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
So the census comes out every ten years, because we
have to know how many Americans are in the country.
And there are four hundred and thirty five members of Congress,
and there are they are portioned. You're supposed to every
Congress member is supposed to have about the same people.
So based on the census numbers, it's seven hundred and
(10:29):
seventy thousand people currently. When I started working Congress in
the year two thousand, it was six hundred and forty
Hey six forty, ok, I am six forty. Now it's
seven hundred and seventy thousand. And so this the congressional
districts all have to do a couple of things. They
have to be reasonably shaped. They are supposed to keep
(10:52):
not split cities and not go into different counties.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
If it's possible.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
They're supposed to be keep communities of interest together. And
there are some civil rights regulations and they have to
add up to as close as seven hundred and seventy
a piece. And in California we have fifty two squares
or as close to a square as you can.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Of seven one hundred and seventy thousand people.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
And you know, the lines are supposed to be reasonable,
and they're not supposed to take politics or political registration
into effect.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
They're just Americans. We're citizens.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
And if you let a politician draw the line, well
they're going to want to draw the line that captures
the most amount of registered Democrats if you're a Democrat,
or registered Republicans if you're a Republican, to make the
district more easily winnable.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
That's human nature.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
So I'm not surprised politicians want to do that. That's
why we have to keep them out of it. So
what they decided to do in Sacramento is in fact,
on purpose redraw the line mean jerry Mander.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
The Jerrymander thing. This really gets inside baseball.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
It's actually a mispronunciation of Massachusetts Governor Gary with the
sopht G.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Back in the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
He was drawing he was a governor, he was drawing
state Senate lines that would favor his party. And somebody said,
that looks like a salamander because it all squiggily right
to get into some of the areas where the registration
was better. And they said, no, it's a gary mander,
not a salamander being cute.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
And then it became political culture.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
And because of what nationwide, whenever politicians attempted to do it,
they didn't know that the governor was Gary or so
they just said Jerry because it looked like a g
And there you go.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
There's the history of jerry mandarin. It didn't work, by.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
The way, for the governor of Massachusetts back in the
eighteen hundreds, he lost reelection as governor because of those
kinds of shenanigans. He did ultimately ultimately become vice president
of the United States. You know that the jerry and
jerry mandering was the vice president. But now they're trying
(13:11):
to do it. They're trying to make squiggly lines that
are obviously dishonest to try and capture as many Democrat
registrants so that the odds of a Democrat winning that congressional.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Seat is higher, so they can deny Donald Trump the
House of Representatives. That's what's going on here.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
I think that is all very inside baseball, close to
boring for most of us, and I think people will
see through it and they're going to vote no.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Now, early polling shows that it's popular.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
The Los Angeles Times, forty six percent say they're in
favor of the Democrats jerry mandering in order to get
more congressional Democrat seats to thirty six percent, but there's
eighteen percent undecided. Now the issue itself among the Democrat
base for Gavin Newsom, that's soaring. The Democrats have Trump's
arrangement syndrume and California they hate him.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
They want to do anything they can, you know, legal
or otherwise. This is legal, but ethical or otherwise. They're
happy to cheat.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
As long as they can stick it to Donald Trump,
and the polling supports that. Here is Harry Enton, who
is the political analyst over at CNN.
Speaker 6 (14:21):
My goodness, gracious, a rising tide of support for Gavin Newsom.
Remember back in twenty twenty three, the majority of Democrats
did not want Joe Biden run for another term, but
California Democrats and Gavin news in his own state did
not want.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Him to run either. And now seventy five percent are
excited for him to run. Seventy five percent.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
These are registered Democrats in California who just two years
ago did not want Newsom to be the nominee. Now
seventy five percent want him to be the nominee. Now
it's odd because I think California Democrats with tru arrangement
(15:00):
syndrome think that Newsom will be squaring off against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
But the reality is Trump will not be on the
ball at this point.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
I mean, if you want to change the state constitution
to allow gerrymandering, which is normally illegal, then why would
you thumb your nose at a national effort to change
the US Constitution to allow.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
A president to run for a third term.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
That's all that is. You know this idea, President Trump
is not allowed. No, no, no, He's ineligible.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
To run for a third term. It's a two terms.
Too bad, too bad, too bad. It's just an amendment
to a constitution.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
We amend the Constitution a lot, like over two dozen times,
so it's not an outlandish idea to amend the constitution
to allow for a third term.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Trump wants it. Talk of it is so triggering to Democrats.
But here the same Democrats that bristle at the idea
of amending the US Constitution to allow Trump a third
term are freely joyously amending the California Constitution to allow
(16:16):
dishonest districting lines drawn by Democrats for the purposes of
letting more Democrats get elected, just to stop Donald Trump
by denying him the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
All right, when we come back, there's two other.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Things out there that Democrats are in denial about that
could cost this effort.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
To go down in flames, and I'll share it with you.
Coming up next.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt on the John Cobalt
Show on KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt Today, Tim Conway's show
follows the news at for Nil Sevet for Tim Conway,
and then Tiffany Hobbs in for Mokell Wow. So it's
guest hosts Walt Wall on KFI Today, who's in charge
of that scheduling. So Governor Gavin Newsom is moving forward
(17:17):
with this redistricting Democrat map. It's a sparked intense discussion,
and money is rolling in. Thirteen million dollars already has
been raised in this effort, and it has ignited the
Democrat base for Newsom, not just in this effort, but
(17:38):
in his national effort to become a Democrat leader and
potential presidential candidate. In twenty twenty three, only twenty three
percent of registered Democrats in California.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Wanted Newsom to be the Democrat nominee.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Today, that has gone from from twenty three percent to
seventy So right, wrong or indifferent, the issue is working
to raise Newsom's political star and there's more and more
than that.
Speaker 6 (18:11):
He's getting a higher percentage of the vote than Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
In her home state.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
He is beating the former vice president, who of course
was the Democratic nominee in twenty twenty four. As I said,
a rising tide of support for the California government.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
Yeah, this is Harry Enton over at CNN. He gets
very excited.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
You know who Harry Enton is, Harry Enton, the political
analyst over at CNN. You just heard that is Neil
Sedaka's nephew. I love, love, love Michlnder girl.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
That's his nephew.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
So this is certainly working for Newsom, so he is
finally found an issue that ignites the Democrat base behind
him and pushes him, at least in the polling ahead
of Kamala Harris, who already said that she's not running
for governor, so the only thing left to do is
run for president.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
So that's gonna be an interesting fight. But I still
believe this is.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
A dog I think this is a dog of an
issue for the reasons I stated before the break. I
think this is boring inside baseball stuff redistricting. Now they
can rely on dishonest and misleading ballad statements where no
means yes and yes means no, and they probably will
have to, but it's still gonna be a hard one
(19:29):
to explain what all is going on. I mean, even
if it's no means yes and yes means no, people
will get confused enough fill it out at all. This
is gonna be a very challenging one for I think
Democrats to get over the finish line because of the
minutia of it all. That's one thing. Then there are
other political realities. I think that Democrats in California are
(19:52):
in denial about Democrats in California have such trumped arrangement syndrome.
They hate him so much more so than probably any
other state that it causes them to not see clearly.
Speaker 7 (20:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
What's that line from Godfather? I clouds your judgment.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
When you have anger for your enemies, And I think
that's what's happening here, number one.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
And this is just straight political science.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Trump did better in California in twenty twenty four than
he did in twenty twenty. He outperformed, and he didn't
just outperform among Republicans. He did do that, he got
more Republicans to turn out, which is interesting in and
of itself that he was able to do that. But
(20:46):
he outperformed among areas that have been traditionally and are
in other races and congressional races and district races, locally
assembly races, governor city council. He outperformed in areas in
which traditionally Democrats have always done well, and that is
young people and minorities. In other words, more young people
(21:13):
voted for Donald Trump in twenty twenty four than they
did in twenty twenty. More Hispanics voted for Donald Trump
in twenty twenty four than they did in twenty twenty
and that goes for black men as well, and the
number among young people is really significant. This guy, Charlie
Kirk with Turning Point USA, who goes to these college
(21:36):
campuses and has debates. Back in the day, sometimes he
was unable to have the event because the young people
on college campuses hated conservative thought, hated Republicans, hated anybody
that had anything to say that wasn't exactly what Obama wanted.
That they had to have security guards, and they eventually
(21:58):
canceled the event.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Now that tied his turned significantly.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Kirk has done events where I broadcast in San Diego
at STSU at you see Irvine in Orange County, throughout
the state.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
He's going up and down the state.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
And you know what you see at some of these
Turning Point USA events where Charlie Kirk, who's certainly associated
with President Trump. You see college students, mostly men, but
some cute girls too, with red Make America Greatagan hats
on cheering Charlie Kirk as he's debating the weirdo with
(22:36):
the purple hair and the tied it T shirt on
some transgender issue or some such you.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Know, really radical progressive discussion.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
And the weird ho the weirdo girl with the purple hair,
she's the one being laughed at and mocked. So the
culture has changed, and that's not small. So if you
have young college aged men flipping their registration or registering
for the first time as a Republican, a Trump Republican,
(23:10):
and that will have an effect on young college age girls.
College age girls that actually want to date and marry
someone who has the capacity to earn, they tend to
flock to the Republican college guy because Republican college guys
tend to earn when they graduate.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Girls know that they jump on that bandwagon.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
So you add that to the amount of Latino voters
that are pro Trump. Trump flipped Imperial County, California, that's
like eighty five percent Latino and has been voting Democrats
since forever, and then the last election cycle he flipped
it along with six other counties in California, so he
(24:02):
has mo politically. Why would you think that it has
hit its ceiling? Democrats? I think conclude that it hit
its ceiling in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Why it did?
Speaker 3 (24:15):
I mean he did better in twenty twenty four than
twenty twenty and better still than he did in twenty sixteen.
Why would you reach the conclusion that his popularity has ended.
Why wouldn't it continue that? Plus time, time kills all deals.
Anybody that's in sales, you know that, got to get
the signature on that sales contract right away because time
(24:36):
kills all deals. We are four hundred and thirty eight
days until the November midterm election. That's a goodly amount
of time for things to go wrong for Democrats and
things to go right for Republicans and Trump, and Trump
has been having some.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Pretty good days.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Lou Penrose info John Cobelt on The John Cobelt Show
on KFI Am six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
App you're listening to You're on coblt on demand from KFI.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
Lou Penrose in for John Cobelt on the John coblt Show.
As we head into the weekend, speaking of young people, Uh,
there is this viral video going around she broke up
with her boyfriend because her boyfriend voted for Trump, and
she is asking everybody to check your boyfriend's voter registration
(25:28):
and if he voted for Trump, you should break up
with him, break up.
Speaker 7 (25:31):
With your Republican boyfriends. By continuing to date these Republican men,
you are invertently supporting this movement with one your body
and your affection, and two not allowing these men to
understand the consequences of their action. They voted against you,
They voted against your body, they voted against your right.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
I knew so many split households growing up, like where
the husband was Republican or the wife the wife was Democrat,
or vice versa, and that that certainly goes out in families,
right you have Democrat members of the family and Republican
members of the family.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
And it's like it used to be good.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
And then it really got bad, Like it used to
be just funny, and now it's like people will not
come to your house for Thanksgiving dinner.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
So I don't know will that ever happen again?
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Will will a Democrat ever marry a Republican again? I mean,
have we reached that point that we are polarized in
affairs of the heart? Or can a Democrat woman bring
herself to actually love someone that voted for Trump? She
says no, And I love the reasons why the rationale
(26:51):
is really good.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Let's hit that again.
Speaker 7 (26:54):
Break up with your Republican boyfriends. By continuing to date
these Republican and you are invertently supporting this movement with
one your body and your affection, and two not allowing
these men to understand the consequences of their actions.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
So there are consequences to voting for Donald Trump, and
I guess those consequences.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Have been bad for the liberal white women. What are
those consequences again?
Speaker 7 (27:23):
They voted against you, They voted against your body, they
voted against your rights.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
I hear this all the time at all these anti
Trump marches and anti Trump rallies. I hear about all
these rights that liberal white women don't have anymore. You
don't hear it so much in Hispanic Democrats, never among
black democrats, Asian Democrats really don't rally. But liberal white women,
(27:51):
they're always talking about all the rights that have been
taken away by President Trump.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
And I have to ask.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
What right did you have on January nineteenth that was
taken from you on January twentieth, And you're talking about
rights plural, Name me one, namely one right that you had.
Name me, a right that was taken from you in
(28:18):
the first Trump administration that was bestowed back upon you
in twenty twenty by President Biden and then.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Was snatched again.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
It's just silliness, but like they keep going with it, and.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Then I've seen interviews like man on the Street interviews.
What right's he talking about? Oh, there's so many, there's
always so many, too many.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
To list name three, name one, and they never can.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Then they never can. So they're just in delusion land.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
And maybe somebody ought to be telling these Republican boyfriend you,
you need to ditch this chick.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
She's not working for you.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
There has to be others out there because this one
believes she has no rights and it's your fault. So
that's that's trouble. Hey, McDonald's decided to lower prices.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
How about that.
Speaker 8 (29:17):
McDonald's is lowering the cost of some combo meals. The
Wall Street Journal says it's a response to sticker shock
from customers after some locations were charging as much as
eighteen dollars for a big mac meal.
Speaker 6 (29:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
I didn't see eighteen dollars.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I did see thirteen dollars for the big macmeal, and
that is what sparked. I think Chili's went to war
against McDonald's because at Chili's you can get a cheeseburger
and fries and a soda and sit down and have
a waitress bring it to you with like a knife
and a fork for thirteen dollars. So they were teasing
and chiding the McDonald's folks. But the prices at McDonald's
(29:54):
has really kind of skyrocketed now in California. You can
make the case that well, you know, you pe in California,
you make it impossible to run a small franchise because
of the minimum wage.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
That's fair, but the prices have.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Gone up everywhere for McDonald's, and you know, there's no
way around it.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
They really get you with those fries. I was at
I was shopping.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
I was at a drive through with my sons, and
we were just like, all right, let's just get a quick,
a quick one coming back from a game. And a
large fry cost more than a big Mac. Well, the
big Mac was on special, so I get that. But
like a large fry is four hours and ten cents,
(30:39):
like four hours for fries. You boys are splitting it,
and they've really let pricing get out of hand. Coffees
off the charts, Soda is ridiculously expensive.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
There was a couple of summers ago where.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
The McDonald's folks were having this special where like any
size was a dollar, small was a dollar.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
And large was a dollar.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
I never understood the psychology there. There must be some
kind of sales psychology, because why.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Wouldn't everybody just get the large?
Speaker 3 (31:05):
But nevertheless, they were still able to make money because like,
soda is really inexpensive for these franchises. And that's why
that when they realized that they make so much money
on soda, that they put the machines just right there
out in the lobby. You can go refill the soda
as much as you want as a customer convenience, because
they make all soda is is water a great big
(31:27):
co two canister that is replaced like once a month,
and Coca Cola syrup like the cups and the lids
and the straw are more expensive than the soda. So
they really had a good thing going. And though they
realized it, and now sodas are like four hours for
a large coke, and that you add that to four
hours for the large fry, and no matter how much
(31:49):
you discount the big mac, you're still.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
North of eleven dollars for the meal. So McDonald's changing
its ways. We'll see how that works out for them.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Loup Penro Info John Coblt on KFI AM six forty
and live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Coblt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.