Daily Review With Clay and Buck - Oct 02 2023

Firm alarm fiasco. Identity politics. Dem wedding wheels in motion. RFK Jr. third party?

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Welcome everybody. Monday edition of Clay and Buck kicks off
right now. We've got a lot of stories to get through,
a lot to talk about all across this great land
of ours. Attorney General Merrick Garland was on TV over
the weekend insisting that dej officials do not allow partisan

(00:25):
considerations to play any role in their determination.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
Sure, we'll discuss that.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
You have Donald Trump appearing in his fraud trial in
New York City. We'll have some updates on that one
for you. They are coming at Trump not only in
four different criminal indictments, but also civil civil assault using
the legal system against Donald Trump. Clay and I haven't

(00:53):
gotten to talk together yet here on air about the
possibility of an RFK Junior. Well, we've talked about the possibility,
but RFK Junior has brought up that this may actually happen.
Something to discuss the likely new senator from the state
of California.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Certainly a topic we should be discussing.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
You've got a couple scientists get the Nobel Prize in
Medicine for the discoveries that enabled the mRNA vaccines development
to fight against COVID feels like it feels like maybe
a little bit of politics in this, because it's not
like they just figured it out recently.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
So we'll have that conversation here as well.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
But of all the things that I saw, and I
moved on Friday, so I was really I was out
of the news cycle. I was clay stacking boxes and
carrying them and complaining about my lower back and doing
the things that one does during a move. The government
getting funded not a surprise, and I know that there
are people we can talk about it. The back and

(01:58):
forth with Speaker Kevin McCarthy and did he sell out?
And is he the McCarthy that people thought he was
until about what was it the beginning of this year
or no, yes, the beginning of this year when he
was all of a sudden based hardcore you could count
on him, Speaker McCarthy. Seems like maybe some people have

(02:21):
a little bit of a different opinion right now. But
the most interesting thing that I saw, the moment when
I was thinking, Wow, this is what it's fun to
be on radio Clay, this is when you have something
to discuss, is the pulling of a fire alarm by
Congressman Jamal Bowman, and the efforts to try to explain

(02:46):
this away over the course of the weekend. The decision
that they were going to back this up Clay was
absolutely crazy.

Speaker 1 (02:57):
Wait here we go. Here is this NBC.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
So just so we're all clear, that they're trying to
have a vote to fund the government and a Democrat
member of Congress decides to pull the fire alarm in
Congress so they can't hold the vote. Right, that's the
that's on video. These are the facts of the case.
They are not in dispute. Everyone agrees.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
Here is MSNBC trying to explain this one.

Speaker 3 (03:20):
Play four there was a mention of Jamal Bowman. Congressman
Jamal Bowman and the pulling of some sort of fire alarm.
I just want to read for you some of the
reporting so you understand what actually went on there. There
are some reports that began to emerge about Representative Bowman
who is seen pulling some sort of fire alarm in
the Cannon House office building. Earlier today, we got a
statement on that saying Congressman Bowman did not realize he

(03:43):
would trigger a building alarm as he was rushing to
make an urgent vote. The congressman regrets any confusion. Just
to clarify some things.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
On that, I mean, just just to clarify, Clay, how
many accidental fire alarm pulls in the halls of any
building have you done in your life?

Speaker 1 (04:00):
Because I know the answer for me is zero zero.

Speaker 4 (04:03):
And I think this is one so fun because it's
so profoundly stupid. It'd be one thing if he had
gone through a door, because I was thinking about this
as this story continued to grow, and I bet you
have done this two buck. In fact, I did it
recently at a New York City hotel. There was a
long wait for an elevator. I've just like, screw it,

(04:25):
I'm just gonna go down the stairs myself. You get
down to ground level and there's kind of a door
that's a little bit cracked open, but it says, you know,
if you open this door, the emergency alarm is going
to go off, and you make the decision. You're like, yeah,
I don't think the emergency alarm is actually going to
go off. You walk out through the door. I've never
set off an alert emergency alarm on a door before,

(04:47):
But to make the decision if he had done that,
I would say, oh, you know, maybe he's making the
decision that he doesn't think this alarm is going to
go off. Maybe this door is not actually alarmed, which
I don't know. It feels like seventy five percent of
the time those emergency exit door alarms are not actually armed,
and people go in and out of them all the time.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
But to make the decision to pull the alarm on
the wall.

Speaker 4 (05:14):
There is unless there is a fire and you are
trying to create a fire alarm. I can't imagine anybody
over the age of like five or six intentionally doing
that and trying to make an excuse because there is
no defense in that position. It is going to go off, right,
And so I just I don't know what the consequences

(05:38):
from a legal perspective should be for him. Although using
January sixth as a precedent where everybody who did anything
remotely to forestall the execution of the government's business was
punished to the full extent of the law. Based on
that precedent, there should be criminal charges brought. But at

(05:59):
a minute, he should own what he did, which was
very intentional and it appears designed to create more time
for Democrats to be able to react to the situation
when there was certainly a rush job at a foot
to try to pass a variety of different bills. I mean,

(06:19):
what's your take. Should he be prosecuted criminally? In your mind,
it is such a stupid thing to do, right, But
the precedent they've set is full extent of the law
prosecution for stupid things that truly weren't threats. I mean,
if you're putting Grandma's in jail for walking around with
selfie sticks in the Capitol, then a congress person pulling

(06:40):
a fire alarm intentionally seems like it should be criminal.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
Well, it's definitely a crime.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
The question is will they prosecute and what would the
punishment be. Look, this happened when I was in college.
People would do this. They would get drunk and perhaps
smoke certain substances, and they thought it was somehow funny.
This This was a We had a plague of this
on our campus for a while, many many years ago.
People would pull the fire alarm because the fire trucks

(07:06):
would all show up and everyone have to get outside
of it.

Speaker 4 (07:08):
By the way, and also the result of this is
when you have all these false fire alarms go off,
eventually you just don't react to a fire alarm, and
then there could be a fire and somebody could end
up being a victim because they're so used to these
things going off.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Right.

Speaker 2 (07:23):
The answer though, is I think in the case I
went to school in Massachusetts, I think it was like
a five hundred dollars fine for a first time offense
something like that. You know, we've got to be we've
got to be clear when you talk about obstructing you know,
government business.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
They're going to make a defense.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
First of all, they're gonna just say that I don't
know what to say, that that he was so that
he's so inept in his ability to distinguish.

Speaker 1 (07:50):
I don't know. Can they make that argument? Is that
pull a frigging fire alarm, firecar right? Yea on the
wall again?

Speaker 4 (07:57):
If he had gone through a door and that can
happen that was monitored, I didn't think it was going
to go off, Like we've used that door for a
long time and it's never gone off before. Like I
could understand his defense. There is no way to me
and I would say the same thing. I've got a
fifteen year old buck you're talking about in a dorm.
If there was video of my fifteen year old pulling

(08:17):
a fire alarm at his school, I would say, or
my thirteen year old, I would say, you guys deserve
punishment for this, Like, there's no way to defend pulling
a fire alarm on the wall.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
That I mean.

Speaker 4 (08:30):
It's like if you break the glass to get a
fire extinguisher and you start spraying the fire extinguisher and
there's no fire, like, you should be punished for that, right,
There's no defense for anyone over the age of about
five or six years old to me pulling a fire
alarm on the wall and the fact that he did
it and is trying to claim that he did nothing wrong.

(08:50):
If he just owned it, I would feel a little
bit different maybe, but I think he should be prosecuted.
And I hate to say that because I'm not a
hanging judge, so to speak, Like, I don't think we
should be trying to throw the full book at everybody
for relatively minor offenses. But when you're putting Grandma's with
selfie sticks in prison for disrupting Congress, why would you

(09:12):
not hold a congressman to the same standard.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
At this point, you know, now I feel like I'm
in the I'm my Congressman Bowman's lawyer over here. You know,
they'll argue that there's a difference in the severity between
the the transfer of power and the congressional vote in
that instance. And this, although this is government funding, it's

(09:36):
a big key question book has this ever happened before?
Because I don't remember a congress person ever intentionally pulling
a fire alarm before on camera, So it's not as
if this is like some sort of you know, usual
procedural tactic.

Speaker 1 (09:49):
I think that here's here's one thing.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
You know, if someone called in, let's say, a bomb
threat anywhere, a bomb threat to Congress certainly would fall
into this category like, oh, yeah, they find you, you're
going to go to prison, right, you're gonna say you're
going at prison time.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
And you should. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
You see in this case pulling a fire alarm, he's
falling on the uh, falling into the argument or making
the argument that it was somehow an accident. I don't
think that's plausible. But I don't think that in other
cases where people have pulled fire alarms, they go to prison.
That's what I was like, They're not going to Oh

(10:27):
I don't think you should go. I'm saying you should
prosecute him. I don't think you should. I mean, I
don't think anybody would convict him. But if you're going
to see be a president of we prosecute grandma's with selfies. Yeah,
he might pay a five hundred dollars fine eventually. But
what I mean if you do this, I mean, let's
just take it to take it outside of Congress. If

(10:48):
you got caught pulling a fire alarm in most high
schools in America and you set off a fire alarm,
there would be pretty consequential punishment I think to the
average kid if they found you on camera.

Speaker 1 (11:01):
Don't know what it would be.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
Yeah, they'd probably suspend you for a week or two.
I mean, Clay, this is this is the issue for
every who's saying the law is the law. I can
tell you that they'll say other people who have pulled
fire alarms and other instances have ended up paying a fine.
So should he be should he be forced to do that? Yes,
because if the law is the law, then that's what
the law says. But the you know, maybe he's gonna

(11:25):
No one's gonna get locked up for this is my point,
Like that's just not realistic.

Speaker 1 (11:28):
That would be the January sixth.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
Comparisons to this, Yeah, are are not going to sway
anybody in the DC legal system. But we do have
a we have a two track legal system now based
on what side of the political ailure on it, and
particularly in Washington, d C. Which you see not only
in this instance, with the the way this is likely

(11:51):
to play out. And it's funny that they're, like AOC
was on TV saying that in a moment of panic,
moment of panic, what it is, it's implausible, Like they're
making implausible arguments and they know it and they don't care.
But you know, I think that in DC, whether it's
Trump facing Judge Chuckkin and the j sixth trial or

(12:17):
anything kind of day to day, run of the mill
workings of the justice system, if you are a conservative
or a Republican or considered to be on the right,
you are starting off in.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
A bad position. If you're a Democrat, the opposite.

Speaker 4 (12:32):
Is true, correct, and you get the benefit of being
in Washington, d C. Where it's almost impossible to convict
the Democrat of anything. So, I mean, you talk about
a rig jury system that's totally in favor of you.
I think maybe the end result Buck is they should
just censure him. I mean, I would think every Republican
would vote, Hey, if you pull the fire alarm to
try to delay the process of getting votes done in

(12:53):
House Representatives or Senate, that's a big no no. Maybe
that's the end result. I also think Democrats should start
defending him. I think we have audio of people that
I mean again just proving that there is no ridiculous
thing that can be done that people will not defend.

Speaker 1 (13:11):
And that's just the.

Speaker 4 (13:12):
Latest example of rampant partisanship that is taking over in
this country, where you're literally defending a guy who intentionally
pulled a fire alarm.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
I mean, what are we going to here?

Speaker 2 (13:23):
Well, I think it's because they realize they have to
make some kind of defense because otherwise he just broke
the law and there have to be some kind of consequences, right,
So they have no good options. It's kind of like
running Joe Biden for reelection.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
Nobody wants to do it. Clay, Yeah, they got no
good options.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
Look, I didn't have time for it this weekend, but well,
the gun owners out there, did you manage to get
a visit into the gun range this weekend. Because whenever
you can get a few hours of target practice, you
know your skills improve. Nothing takes the place of practice.
But if your weekend was like mine, you're a little
busy for a range visit, well, guess what you can
still get in practice, just like I do with the
mantis X system. This is the way a lot of

(14:03):
gun owners are now training. It's called dry fire practice.
That's what The mantis X is. A firearms training system
that is a no amo all electronic way to improve
your shooting accuracy. This device attaches to your firearm like
a weapon light, and it connects to your phone and
the Mantis x app. It gives you data driven, real
time feedback on your technique and guides you through drills

(14:23):
and courses. You're going to quickly see an improvement in
your scores. In fact, ninety four percent of new Mantis
x users improve within twenty minutes of using the Mantis X.
Start improving your shooting accuracy today, get yours at mantisx
dot com. That's m A and tisx dot com.

Speaker 4 (14:49):
I've encourage you guys to go subscribe to the Clay
Dbuck podcast. We're going to be breaking out our brand
Carol Markowitz in the Clay in Buck podcast team. We
will also continue have Tutor Dixon. We're adding more every
single week. Basically that is unique and original that you
guys can enjoy if you go sign up for the
Clay and Buck podcast.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
And we appreciate all of you who have done so.

Speaker 4 (15:12):
We certainly love all of you listening on five hundred
or so am FM stations all over the country as well. Basically,
you can find the show everywhere and you can go
download as always the iHeartRadio app and stream this show
anywhere in the world. So on Friday show, as Buck

(15:35):
was knee deep, probably way higher than knee deep in
moving boxes getting into his new place, we talked about
the death of Dianne Feinstein and how quickly it was
likely to be the case that California Governor Gavin Newsom
would have a new nominee to replace her, and we

(15:55):
said that he had announced. Gavin Newsom had prior that
he would own only pick a black woman as his
selection when it came if it became necessary for him
to announce a replacement, and so already this morning there
has been I believe it's been officially announced the story

(16:16):
certainly went out on Sunday evening. Newsom picked a woman
named Lafonza Butler. She may actually live in Maryland, she
may not even live in California, but she hit the trifecta.
She is black, a woman, and gay. Maybe even hit
for the cycle since she worked at Emily's List and
that is one of the biggest donors in the entire

(16:40):
Democrat political base. So Gavin Newsom has done what Joe
Biden did Buck, which is picked someone for the job,
much like Joe Biden picked maybe Kamala Harris. I think
it's probably the case that he picked his vice president
because she was a black woman. But we know specifically
that Joe Biden had done what Buck. He had said

(17:02):
Katanji Brown Jackson, who was his pick for the Supreme Court.
He said specifically he would pick a black woman for
the Supreme Court. He had made a pledge that he
would pick a woman for his vice presidential running mate,
not that it would be a black woman, but probably
not a surprise that he picked a black woman. And
now Gavin Newsom has picked a black woman after saying
I will limit my search to only black women. It's

(17:25):
worth noting that Black women make up about six percent
of the United States population. So when you are saying
I'm only going to pick a black woman, another way
of analyzing this is you are specifically saying I'm excluding
ninety four percent of the American population from consideration.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
And what I think is even.

Speaker 4 (17:47):
Worse is you're delegitimizing your pick on its face because
you're not even arguing they're the most qualified person. You're
telling us I'm picking based on identity politics, and then
you're doing it.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
What do you think abouts as fuck? Well, this is
I think, in some ways a window into Newsom's aspirational
thinking for himself, as in he understands that any opportunity
that he can have to try to build strength with

(18:20):
the most consistently Democrat voting demographic of all, the highest percentage,
which is the black female voter in America is and
in Democrat primary is really the deciding factor in a
lot of the key states in the early States. So
the politics for Gavin Newsom are quite clear. Look, I

(18:42):
think that there's a lot of work to be done
in the aftermath of that Supreme Court decision that finally
said you can't do this racial discrimination in college admissions.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
There need to be a lot of lawsuits.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
And there need to be state companion laws or you know,
laws pass at the state level to that Supreme Court
decision that solidify that you can't do this.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
Now.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
There's stuff like that in Florida. I think there are
some states that are taking action on this, But the
whole apparatus of dei and what has been called in
the Supreme Court the racial entitlement state, it's not going
to dismantle itself. It must be actively dismantled. And the
way to do that is through is through the law,

(19:29):
is through the legal system, because until that happens, you're
just going to have more of this, which is okay,
it's not constitutional, but people are still going to find.

Speaker 1 (19:37):
Ways to use.

Speaker 2 (19:39):
Race and gender and gender identity and you know, sexual
orientation and all these different things as well social engineering tools,
but also as means of building political coalitions and of
wielding power and discriminating against people in the process. The

(20:00):
funniest thing about this all is have they figured out
yet if she's even a California resident. They think she's
a Maryland resident, right that This is what I was seeing,
which you would think that that would be a problem.
I think you got to live in the state you're
supposed to be the senator from. I guess we'd have
to look and see what the specific specific requirements may be.

(20:21):
But Gavin Newsom is I mean, he's running. I just
don't think he's running this time around. And so every
move that he makes is going to be calculated to
that end and to that effect. And this is a
guy who is as charming as he may be, as
wind swept as his hair may look while he's drinking
his chardonnay on the front of his yacht out at

(20:41):
the Catalina Island Festival Cataleda Wine Festival.

Speaker 4 (20:45):
A couple of things on this buck that I think
are amazing, not to mention, of course, his hair is fabulous.
I actually, when I saw the story about whether she
was a resident of California, I think that Gavin Newsom
is so diabam. I actually thought to myself, I wonder
if this gets him off the hook. If he points

(21:05):
a black woman, she then is determined not to be
a resident of the state and then not eligible. Does
he have to pick another black woman like I don't
know how far the identity politics rules require, so I'm
wondering if he picked someone he knew was ineligible so
that he could actually pick the person he wanted to
without violating his pledge. Second part of this, and I

(21:25):
love this. Meghan Markle, who I guess technically qualifies as
a black woman, is talking about running for this Senate seat.
Do you think that Meghan Markel or her representatives reached
out to Gavin Newsom to let it be known that
she would be okay being appointed to the United States Senate?

(21:46):
And can you imagine the reaction if Gavin Newsom had
appointed Megan Markle as California's new senator? You know, uh,
this would That's what I'm roving tough, pre It's tough
to know with Megan Markle. It's tough to know what
she's doing for attention or what her PR team puts
out for attention versus what is a true delusion that.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
She is suffering from? Right?

Speaker 2 (22:10):
So, was this a story floated out? Because now people
like you and me and so many others have to
address this because it crosses over into our world. Right
when you're talking about being the next interim senator from California,
it crosses over into our world. But Also, I think
that there are people who once they achieve a certain

(22:30):
degree of money and notoriety and fame and wealth, their
narcissism gets put on steroids and they lose all all
sense of like reality and accountability around them.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
You know.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
Now they think they're capable of doing absolutely anything. And
the crazy part of this whole situation is Clay, I mean,
Megan Marko will be a better centator than Diane Feinstein,
you know, toward the area. Let's be honest. I mean this, Yeah,
that is a statement of fact. They they had a
senator and I wasn't here when she passed away. And
you know, rest in peace and or anti death or

(23:05):
anti death on this program, anti death of any of
anybody out there. But in the final years here, I
mean you had somebody who was not able to control
not only her personal affairs is in bank accounts and
those kinds of decisions, but her personal affairs like getting
ready and combing her hair and doing things like that,

(23:26):
I mean personal care. I also saw the Nancy Pelosi's
daughter was very involved with Diane Feinstein as her like
a primary caregiver for her.

Speaker 4 (23:36):
I mean, she had a buck. She wasn't able she
had a power of attorney signed over. I don't know
that most people understand how crazy this is. She had
a power of attorney. She wasn't able to bind herself
legally to any document someone else had to sign for her.
She was able to still bind the whole state of
California for purposes of voting.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
In the Senate.

Speaker 4 (23:56):
You shouldn't be able to have no power of attorney
in your private life and still be serving in your
public life. I mean, she had she voted the day
before she died, Buck, she had no idea what she
was voting on. Yeah, well this is but this is
where you start to get to all these conversations, all
these discussions that occur about whether somebody has the leadership

(24:18):
capabilities or the cognitive ability or whatever for this role.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
This is now just all.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
About the the edifice of democrat power. And if you
are a reliable vote in that whole process, you could
make a very clear argument it doesn't matter. I mean,
these this isn't this isn't Cicero in the you know,
in the Roman Forum or whatever, trying to make or
in front of the Roman Senate, trying to make some
kind of persuasive argument I mean, see John Fetterman for example.

(24:47):
What you have is a system that is increasingly self perpetuating,
regardless of who the specific leaders may be. You know,
it operates like a massive machine, and that of a
bunch of individuals who have leadership capabilities. You know, this
this individual who has been named as the likely appointee here,

(25:12):
Lafonsa Butler. She's going to be the third black woman
who ever serve in the Senate, and she'll be the
third openly LGBTQ plus person to serve.

Speaker 1 (25:23):
In the Chamber.

Speaker 2 (25:25):
And you know, I wonder, Clay, I sit here and
I say, is this where we are now? Where just
that alone, being able to add to those lists or
being able to be counted in those categorizations is considered
more important than anything that will be done in.

Speaker 1 (25:43):
The role by this Ysgule.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
I mean, I think that's say about what our leadership
class is really all about.

Speaker 4 (25:50):
Well, I mean it points out to California in a
scary way as the presumptive leader right now in the
identity politics caravan, and a part of me buck feels
like the only way identity politics gets blown up. And
I hate to even have to contemplate that this is real,
but that Kamala Harris ends up president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (26:12):
I know, I know you say, I've heard this theory
with you, right, and I hear it through you know,
I hear you in Clay. How bad could it possibly
be that they would think that it's bad enough that
it would overcome the benefits that they see from the diversity.

Speaker 1 (26:31):
Cod you know it.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
I mean, she's probably she's probably better at the job
than Joe Biden is right now.

Speaker 4 (26:38):
But I do think she would be so bad buck
that if she were the nominee, she would get squashed.
I really do believe, and I understand you can make
the argument the nominee doesn't even matter, which is that
that's the real scary logical.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
But she's just one person, right, So if she's just
one person, they're not. I mean, why would that bring
down the whole diversity and inclusion edifice. If she's bad
at her job, they'd say, all right, well, Kama failed,
But the next diversity inclusion candidate's going to be fantastic.

Speaker 4 (27:03):
I think you're starting to see all over America people
get elevated beyond their ability, and there are lots of
jobs where it like I would say, I hate to
say this. I think any any sort of mediocrity could
do the job of United States senator, and they don't.
You have to be so bad at the job of

(27:25):
a senator to really be noticed. I mean, Fetterman can't speak,
and so we kind of notice that he's really bad
at that job. There are a lot of United States
Senators that aren't very smart, by the way of both parties,
that aren't very skilled, that aren't very politically astute, and
in the group of one hundred, you kind of get
lost when you're the decider in chief. The scary thing

(27:47):
about the logical extension of your argument, Buck, is that
it doesn't even matter who president is. Yeah, because that's
really Joe Biden's like that. That's the scary thing about Biden.
This is the argument that I'm making, though I get
I hear you. You know, you come from a private
sector and entrepreneurship background, where the results are really all

(28:07):
that matters. Yeah, And you know I saw this in
the CIA. From a government perspective, it's always the machinery
and everyone's super replaceable, and people want the minimum amount
of accountability and responsibility and the maximum benefit of being
in the role all the time. That's the way the
whole system operates, right, So that's scary to me, Like,

(28:29):
this is why I couldn't do government jobs, right, Like,
I mean, mine is the background is entrepreneurship and also
buck sports, where if you suck at your job in sports,
everybody sees it and you get replaced. And if you suck,
typically as a CEO of a for profit corporation, you
typically are gonna get replaced because your failure is noticeable

(28:50):
in terms of the results. The scary thing about your
argument is most government jobs, your performance is almost unnoticeable
and you're just a cog that they plug in. Joe
Biden's a perfect example of that. Like what does he
actually do on a day to day basis? I don't
even know.

Speaker 1 (29:06):
This is my argument, top to bottom.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
It doesn't really matter anymore because of the way the
system functions. And that's why, right, yeah, And that's why
when someone comes along who is a system disruptor, and
for a lot of people, that's why Trump is so appealing.
It is such a threat to this system. I mean,
whether you're talking about the FBI, the CIA, the CDC,
those entities are slothful bloated and highly bureaucratic until the

(29:33):
system itself feels challenged. Yeah, and then they they move
with a ferocity and a focus that would blow people's minds.
Then all of a sudden, you know, that's that's when
you when you're a whistleblower in the FBI, you find
out real fast how effective the FBI can be when
they want to and what kind of intimidation or you know, CDC,
CIA and any of these places. So, I mean with Kamala,

(29:56):
you say that she would do it a terrible job.
I mean, yeah, of course, you and I and the
p people listening. She's she's not a person of high
levels of competence. The weakness with Kamala and this is
another part of the argument too, it's not that she
couldn't be president. I don't think any Democrats think that.

Speaker 1 (30:11):
Because Joe Biden's play.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Look at some John Kerry buffoon. That guy was almost
president Al Gore, total clown, almost president. I mean, you
go back, you look at these people. They're not impressive,
they're not smart, they'd no leadership capabilities. You know, they
got a famous last name, or are they married a
really rich lady or you know, right, place, right time.
The problem with Kammal is she's not a good politician

(30:34):
in the campaign. She can't win. Ye right, that's where
that's what they're worried about doing the job. The advisors
would do all of that. You know, it's sort of
a self perpetuating machine. What do you think, folks? Eight
hundred two A two two eight a two. How do
you see it? Are you want to fixed income? You'll
benefit from an investment that delivers consistent returns without compromising
your financial security. Phoenix Capitol Group offers high yield corporate

(30:57):
bonds with returns of nine to thirteen percent annual interest
that pays out monthly with two thousand plus satisfied investors
paid on time every time. Phoenix Capitol Group is giving
investors a new high yield option investing in domestic energy assets.
Start earning these high yields and learn more about multiple
offerings today at phx on air dot com. Learn more
by downloading the free investment guide at phxon air dot com.

(31:21):
You can diversify your investments and are nine to thirteen
percent annual interest. The Phoenix Capitol Group can help you
out today. Investment in bonds of a certain amount risk
associated with it, and you should only invest if you
can afford to bear the risk of loss. Before making
investment decisions, you should carefully consider and review all risks involved.
Visit PHX on air dot com.

Speaker 4 (31:41):
Today, Trump speaking to reporters outside of the civil fraud
trial in New York City. We'll play you that cut
here in a moment, but Buck, something for you to
think about. We're just talking about it off air, and
all of you out there too as well. The entire

(32:04):
purpose of this civil fraud trial seems to be to
attack Trump and argue that he's not as rich as
he claims to be, but he's still really rich. And
is there anybody out there who cares whether Trump I
think is a billionaire just based off the real estate

(32:27):
assets that he owns, whether it's mar A Lago, whether
it's the golf courses. You know, we went out to Bedminster, Buck,
I have no idea what the value of Bedminster is,
but it's a lot, certainly the value of his penthouse
in Trump Tower, all the different real estate holdings. I
don't know what Trump's net worth is. A lot of
that would be determined by what a buyer would pay

(32:50):
for a physical asset at any point in time. But
I feel like he's got to be a billionaire. I mean, heck,
the airplane that he flies in by itself, the Trump Force,
one big jumbo jet is probably I mean, some of
you out there are more knowledgeable on private aviation than
I am, but that's got to be I mean, a
fifty million dollar airplane forty or fifty million dollar airplane

(33:14):
at a minimum, I would think, And if you can,
you know, send me a message or something, if you're
an expert in aircraft, and let me know what you
think that's worth. But my point on all this is
this attack seems to me buck very strange because there's
a lot of things you can come after Trump on,
whether he's really rich or not. Does it feel like

(33:35):
an angle that you can attack him on? And they
tried this with like the tax returns and everything else.
Will you and I were talking off air. I don't
know how many billionaires there are on the planet. There's
only a few thousand of them. Trump is one of
the wealthiest people on the planet, I think. I mean,
whether he's the four thousand wealthiest person or whether he's

(33:57):
the six hundred and thirty fourth, does that really anybody's
opinions of Trump in any way.

Speaker 2 (34:03):
No, but that's I don't think that's the purpose of
the civil fraud trials. I think what they're doing here
it's it's really a multi pronged strategy. First of all,
the legal strategies we know is clearly a multi pronged effort.
It's civil and criminal. They're they're coinciding, They're timing these
things so that Trump is going to have maximum uh

(34:27):
you know, maximum legal headache at at at the time
of the election or you know, in the election year.
Part of this is clay to drain time, resources, and energy,
I think, which is a guarantee the processes the punishment.
So by dragging him into these cases, I mean his
legal bills. Yes, he's a very wealthy guy, but his

(34:49):
legal bills for all these different cases have got to
be absolutely enormous. Yes, And so that's now you could say, well,
that's not going to make much difference. Well, he's going
to election and he's got to raise money. He's going
to be running a campaign that's going to cost They're
gonna raise a billion dollars I'm sure running for president.
So that's an aspect of it. And then also it

(35:12):
just goes to I don't think this is about trying
to convince anyone who's a Republican that Trump isn't that
rich or what. To your point, they don't care. It's
just to try to try to hit him with the
label of he's a fraud. He lost a fraud case
in court, he's a fraud. According to our court system,
he's a fraud. Oh and by the way, he's a criminal.

(35:34):
It's just more of the the information and operations, you know,
information warfare campaign against Trump as a brand. So that
to me is you know, that's how they're seeing it.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
I don't.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
I don't think they view it as well, he's not rich,
so people aren't going to want to vote for him anymore.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
Well, I think they're I want to say, not that rich. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (35:55):
So, by the way, according to our staff, there were
three ninety four billionaires in twenty twenty two. Seven hundred
and fifty six of those people are in the United
States according to that data, So Trump is one of
the richest people in the world. I actually this ties in.
And by the way, here's Trump. Let's go ahead and
play this. This is Trump explaining why he's in New

(36:17):
York City for this fraud trial today.

Speaker 1 (36:19):
Listen, mister Trump, you want to be.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
Here in person today because I want to.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
Watch this witch hunt. Oh, a witch hunt of years.
This is really now getting hearned.

Speaker 5 (36:31):
Between Jack Smith and between all of these dear j
people helping them along. This is a fewer witch hunt
for purposes of interference with the elections of the United
States of America.

Speaker 1 (36:45):
It's totally illegal.

Speaker 5 (36:46):
This judge should be this party shouldn't be allowed to.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
Be a judge.

Speaker 5 (36:50):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (36:51):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (36:52):
So the one thing I think is interesting here, Buck,
is I think we are setting ourselves up in the
event that these cases actually go to trial, and the
first one is scheduled to start in March. In terms
of the criminal cases in DC, I think Trump may
do press conferences every day while the trial's going on.

(37:13):
And this is important because Jack Smith is trying to
gag him. Right now, we're going to see a criminal
trial that is truly not leave aside the fact that
Trump is the currently former president running for presidential office. Again,
I can't even remember a time, Buck, when a criminal

(37:35):
defendant would do press I mean, I'm laughing about it,
because so crazy where a criminal defendant would potentially do
daily press conferences.

Speaker 1 (37:43):
I'm not talking about his lawyers.

Speaker 4 (37:44):
I'm talking about the defendant himself potentially on the steps
of the courthouse as basically his campaign strategy. Because I
think that's a little bit of a preview of what
you just saw. That is the campaign. I mean, this
is the million dollar question, or maybe the trillion dollar question,
given the stakes these days, is will these appearances going

(38:07):
forward in twenty twenty four, because there's going to be
more of them, whether it's just to get trials moved
or motions or.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
Whatever, will be Uh? Will the visual of Donald Trump
showing up and saying this is all rigged? I mean
usually the lawyer is the one that does this too,
which I think is so interesting. The space for himself there.
Usually you'd be have you'd have a lawyer, especially in
a criminal case, you'd have a lawyer do all the talking.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
I think that you're going.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
To see this is something that that the Democrats believe
is very effective for Trump in the primary. The gamble
that they are taking is that it will be toxic
in swing states to independent voters, and that's now that's what.

Speaker 4 (38:53):
They What do you think, Yeah, I get it, and
I'm like, I'm it's I mean, it's interesting because we
had the Egen Carol case, right, and they were like,
we're going to brand Trump as a rapist and they
got a conviction. The oh's five million dollars whatever it
was sexual assault. We can argue about these act derivations
of that and how it was applied. Nobody seemed to care.

(39:14):
Like the e g and Carroll thing happened, and I
think she sued him again, he went and denied it,
and it's all occurred and there there may be another
defamation trial, whatever it's going to be. It legitimately had
zero impact. And so the question that I'm trying to
wrap her in my head and I'm curious what you
would say right now, a part of me feels like
none of this is going to have any impact because

(39:36):
every voter has already weighed in.

Speaker 1 (39:38):
Now, maybe I'm true.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
I think that's true of ninety eight percent of the
electorate and the last two percent is what they think
will end up determining the election. Right, So it doesn't
it doesn't feel like it does anything in the in
the immediate sense. It's not convincing people in a way
that you could see and that they're gonna make the
polls move. But at the end of the day, there

(40:03):
is going to be a decision made by a few
hundred thousand people probably in the six states, the five states. Yeah,
that really matter. And will a Republican presidential contender, you know,
will they view this as it's all a witch hunt,
or will they view it as he brought this on
himself or I just don't want to deal with this
headache anymore. You know, the noise and nobody can really

(40:27):
tell you how that shakes out. That's the big part
of this that is left out sitting. No one really knows.
So Democrats, hey.

Speaker 1 (40:34):
They've thrown I mean, it'd be one thing that won.

Speaker 2 (40:37):
They got four criminal I mean I know there's but
four criminal prosecutions.

Speaker 1 (40:41):
Of him outstanding right now. Four.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
The guy's never faced a criminal prosecution in it's almost
eighty years of life, and now he faces four.

Speaker 1 (40:47):
So they just decided kitchen sink is the way.

Speaker 4 (40:50):
I think this is so crazy, too, Buck, because we're
coming up when now we're in October, it's you know,
thirteen months until the actual election, and you guys know
how things work, it's going to get to Thanksgiving and
then Christmas and then New Years, And I feel like
as twenty twenty four begins, this is every single one

(41:12):
of you out there listening to us right now, Especially
if you're a guy. You've had a friend who was engaged,
and I bet a lot of women have too. I
can only speak to guys, and you've been like, I
can't believe this wedding's going to happen, and you're like, well,
it's six months away.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
Something will happen. And I feel like.

Speaker 4 (41:29):
For the Democrats, it's as if they don't really realize
what wheels they've put in motion.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
Like you realize you get engaged.

Speaker 4 (41:40):
Eventually, a wedding ceremony happens, right, like you have to
talk to your buddy at some point, like you understand
what you've done here, Like the wheels are moving and
suddenly are we going to get to March? And Democrats
are going to have to answer your questions? I mean
they're already starting to, you know, with the gag orders
and everything else. I mean, are they going to try

(42:00):
to put Trump in prison? Has anybody even thought about
what happens with Secret Service protection? I mean, I think
probably what they would do Buck is just put him
on try to put him on house arrest at mar
A Lago. But during a presidential campaign, even that is crazy.
What I'm getting at is the permutations of Democrat insanity.

(42:22):
We haven't yet started to reap the consequences of their
decisions in a broad way, and I wonder if they've
even contemplated the wheels of justice that they put in motion,
because eventually we're gonna get to March, and it's gonna
happen for a lot of us really quick, because it's
gonna come out of the holidays and we're gonna be like,
holy crap, this is two months away. People are prepared

(42:46):
for what we're gonna see, Buck, I really am not
sure as a nation that they've even thought through what
this is going to look like.

Speaker 1 (42:55):
I think that's true, and I just believe this is
where we are.

Speaker 4 (43:01):
Since nine eleven, The Tunnel the Towers Foundation has been
committed to supporting America's heroes and their families. Heroes to
put their lives on the line to protect our country,
our communities, and all of us. Heroes like nine to
eleven first responder Lieutenant Joseph Maelo. He answered the call
to help others on America's darkest day. Years later, he
suffered a fatal heart attack in the line of duty,
leaving behind his wife and two kids. When heroes like

(43:22):
Lieutenant Mayelo lose their lives in the line of duty
or severely injured, Tunnel the Towers is there to help.
Tunnel the Towers paid the mortgage on the Mayello family home,
lifting the family's financial burden during their darkest hours. America's
heroes and their families need your help now more than ever.
Join Tunnel the Towers on its mission to do good
in their honor. More than ninety five cents of every

(43:44):
dollar you donate the Tunnel of the Towers goes to
the programs there. Donate eleven dollars a month at T
two t dot org. That's t the number two t
dot org. RFK Junior. He had a moment there and

(44:08):
play had him on the show. I don't think I
actually got to interview him that day. I know it
wasn't the first time. I don't think we didn't have
it a second time. I was skeptical that he would
manage to get very far the Democrat Party. At one
point he was polling somewhere around the twenty percent mark

(44:29):
for Democrats, and now the more recent polls have him
stuck in the mid mid high single digits, you know,
seven eight nine percent something like that among Democrats. So
he is not a serious threat to Joe Biden at all.
Right now, that's just not going to happen.

Speaker 2 (44:49):
I was skeptical that Democrats would allow an upstart challenge
like this to get very far. You'll notice the media
really froze him out, the Democrat media. It was conservative
media shows like this one that were more interested in
what he had to say, particularly because of his breaking
with Democrat orthodoxy on Fauci and Covid. I think he

(45:12):
may have as much disdain for Tony Fauci as I do,
which is saying a lot. That's that's a pretty impressive
bar that RFK Junior was able to able to cross.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
Threshold. He was able to cross.

Speaker 2 (45:28):
So now we have on Friday the revelation. I was
sitting there, I just had you're just sweat pouring down
my forehead. I'm carrying. You know, one thing you learn
when you move, don't buy too many lamps and mirrors
because they're impossible. They're break, they break, they're heavy, they're

(45:48):
all over the place.

Speaker 1 (45:50):
Well, how much books weigh? I bet you found that
out too.

Speaker 2 (45:53):
Oh, I've I've I've had to winnow down my book
collection so many times at this point from when I've moved.
And so, yes, books are heavy. They're easy to pack
those that's easier, but they're heavy. So I'm dealing with
the move and clay text and sure enough, I've got
the possibility RFK junior third party candidacy. He hinted at

(46:20):
this very much on Friday, and we'll see now where
this actually goes.

Speaker 1 (46:27):
It is my belief.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
And people are going to argue about this a lot
that RFK Junior has always had more interest and support
from disaffected Republicans disaffected with the system than Democrats, and
that when push comes to shove, Democrats tend to be
better at falling in line. Now, the counter to that

(46:52):
argument would be Jill Stein in twenty sixteen, who I
think doesn't get very much attention and conservative or a
Republican circles these days, because nobody really wants to hear that.
Without Jill Stein, Donald Trump doesn't beat Hillary Clinton. But
there's a very strong case by the numbers to be
made that that's the truth of twenty sixteen. So third

(47:15):
party candidates can have a massive effect because the way
that our elections are structured these days. Obviously, Ross Perro
back in the day got way more votes than well
maybe would have been anticipated until the votes were actually cast,
and because of that, Bill Clinton, with less.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
Than half the vote, becomes President.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
Clay, how do you see this? Because in my mind,
all the talks we have about the border, and about
the economy and about all these things could perhaps be
nullified and Biden could be effectively handed a reelection or
whoever the Democrat is. If people think it's not gonna
be Biden, because I think that RFKA Junior pulls more

(47:59):
Republican votes and Democrat votes, where do you come down
on this?

Speaker 4 (48:02):
I'm concerned that you're right about that. And I put
up a poll about an hour ago, and I just said,
if RFK Junior runs as a third party nominee and
Trump and Biden are nominees, do you think he takes
more vote from Trump? More votes from Trump or Biden.
Eleven thousand of you have voted so far, fifty two
percent of you say Biden, forty eight percent of you

(48:24):
say Trump. So my audience right now, voting on Twitter
is essentially fifty to fifty and buck. I've said there're
three ways I think Trump beats Biden in the event
that they run against each other. One way was that
there's just lower turnout. I think we have a stake bet.
I expect that there will be less I think the
total number in twenty twenty was one hundred and fifty

(48:46):
six million. Whatever that final tally was roughly one hundred
and fifty six million. I think there will be millions
less people vote in twenty twenty four. So I think
lower turnout favors Trump. Third party. I have been of
the opinion that a third party helps Trump. I'm nervous
on this one. And then the third one I said
was Biden's health, that he has some something that is

(49:10):
just so impossible to ignore, even for Democrats in the
next year if he's the nominee. I'm nervous the more
I think about it. I think that RFK Junior helps Biden,
and I think we have audio actually of RFK Junior
saying more of his supporters would hurt Trump than would

(49:31):
hurt Biden.

Speaker 1 (49:31):
Listen to this audio.

Speaker 4 (49:32):
This is an interview that RFK Junior, did I think
with the comedian Theo Vaughn listen.

Speaker 1 (49:38):
And then the other thing is that I take more
votes from President Trump than I do from President Biden, Right,
So why would that help them? It's not helping him. Okay?

Speaker 4 (49:48):
So RFK Junior, based on the numbers that he's seen,
if he runs as a third party, a lot of
people are celebrating saying, oh, this is bad for Biden.
I think it's actually worse from Trump.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
It is and I would say, you know.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
All along, so I'll mean you know this, I was saying, guys,
he's a Democrat, all right. You know, he says some
good things on a few issues, and I appreciate that,
and we'll call balls and strikes on it. At the
end of the day, he's a Democrat, He's a Kennedy,
He's Democrat royalty. He's not going to do something that
would destroy the Kennedy brand always in forever and helping

(50:27):
Donald Trump win the presidency would would do that. It's
something that would mean that all future Kennedy's, I think,
would be looked at in a very different light. I
don't see this. I don't think it's it's overly complicated.
I don't think it's all that difficult to understand how
this would would actually go RFK Junior would get some

(50:50):
people that are kind of in that libertarian question the
system space in places like Arizona and Pennsylvania and Michigan,
and those tend to be people that I think are
more likely to go Trump than they would be to
go Biden. And he doesn't have to get a lot
of votes to change the way this election turned out.

(51:10):
Jill Stein didn't get a lot of votes. That was
the other thing it can be. It's where you get
the votes, which is also why a lot of this polling,
Like I know, everyone got all excited about this poll
that showed Trump ahead nine points on Biden. If we
do better in New York and California, you know, if
the Republican Party does better in twenty twenty four in
those states in a presidential sense, it doesn't matter. Yeah,

(51:32):
what matters is I mean, it's very clear what matters
are these swing states, and there's it's a much more
complicated morass in the swing states than it is just
looking at the national polling a year and a month
before the election.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
Wow, we're thirteen months out. I just realized that thirteen months.

Speaker 4 (51:51):
Okay, so let me ask you this, Buck. If you
and I both agree that RFK Junior helps Biden more
than he helps Trump rategic do you think so the
report is let me also add this. I don't think
we said it yet. Mediaite reported that RFK Junior is
going to announce third party run on October ninth. That

(52:11):
would be what next Monday, so one week from today.
That's a long run up. I don't know what he's
hoping to get. In the meantime, it feels like that's
a calculated leak. Maybe it's a desire to negotiate.

Speaker 1 (52:25):
In some way.

Speaker 4 (52:26):
That's what I always think when people say I'm going
to do something in ten days or twelve days, I'm
always like, what.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
Do they actually want?

Speaker 4 (52:33):
So I do think it's worth asking if this is
a leak that's calculated from the RFK Junior camp. Is
he seeking something that he could get from a negotiation
perspective in order to potentially forestall if he's actually going
to announce, what would you do if you're the Trump team,

(52:54):
because surely they recognize that this harms them. I think
it could. I hate to say it, I think it
could be the kind of move that costs in all
the swing states. And I've been hammering you libertarians out there.
I voted libertarian before. I'm hammering libertarians. If you live
in Georgia or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Michigan or Nevada

(53:16):
or Arizona or New Hampshire, what are you doing? You
have no opportunity to actually elect a libertarian, but in
that space you could definitely help to ensure that a
Democrat get elected. In fact, if you go look at
all the libertarians that voted in twenty twenty, if libertarians

(53:37):
weren't on the ballot in those swing states, I think
Trump would have won the election.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Buck.

Speaker 4 (53:42):
So do you try anything with RFK Junior if you're Trump,
because surely they would see this data and say it
doesn't work very positively for us. And given how close
this race could be, is there something you could offer
to RFK Junior to keep him from running third party?

Speaker 1 (53:59):
I'm just wondering.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
I don't think so. I don't think there's any I
don't think there's any way. And this is why. Look,
I everyone knows I was very skeptical of this RFK
Junior thing.

Speaker 1 (54:11):
Early on I was willing to hear him out.

Speaker 2 (54:13):
He's good on COVID, that he's good on COVID, and
he doesn't sound crazy when he talks about the border.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
You know.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Beyond that, he's a Democrat, and he got a lot
of attention on conservatives. I hate to say it, conservative
media kind of built this guy at this point. I mean,
he was much more of a fixture on the right
and getting time on on you know, box and on
talk radio than he was on the left, because I
think that they saw at some level what was going

(54:39):
on here. I think that they understood that if he
actually you know, I think that there's an understanding that
he's really doing this out of his sense that he's
upset with the system, and they didn't want to build
him up against Biden. But now I think they're willing
to see that this is as the vote, as the

(55:01):
polls have come out, and as the understanding of who
really supports him has become more clear, he's gonna hurt conservatives.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
I don't know what else to say.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
They didn't want him to hurt Biden, and I think
they're past that window now. There was a window where
he could have been a real challenge to buy the
Democrats shut him out. Now we look at this and
we say, oh my gosh, if he runs third party,
he could hurt Trump.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
And we have to sit around and.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
Go, yeah, well, this is what happens when you tell
everybody on the right, this guy's fascinating.

Speaker 4 (55:30):
Okay, so should Trump consider trying to get him in
the cabinet.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
I don't think you'd take it.

Speaker 4 (55:35):
Cassantas said he'd look at him for CDC, for some
sort of role associated with that, because he was right
on COVID. I'm just tossing it out there if we
lose because of libertarian voters. You people out there who
are listening that may be willing to vote libertarian. This
is why I said, and this is why I'm gonna

(55:56):
keep hammering this. All these people out there who if
we opened up lines and said, hey, if you're a
preferred candidate doesn't win in the primary, what are you
gonna do? Everybody says on the callers, They're like, I
wouldn't even vote. I'm just gonna stay home. If my
guy doesn't win or my girl doesn't win, I'm done.
You don't buy it. You think they're just lying.

Speaker 1 (56:15):
We can't.

Speaker 2 (56:17):
It can't be held hostage by people doing the If
I don't get my way, I'm staying at.

Speaker 4 (56:21):
I agree, But those people everyone can play this game.
Those people are ascendant on social media. All they do
is run around. They're like, my guy, my guy doesn't win,
and I'm I'm gonna just sit at home and I
hope the other I mean you people, And I've said
this before and I'm gonna re echo it, reiterate it.

Speaker 1 (56:37):
I think you're a loser.

Speaker 4 (56:39):
I think if you are engaged in the primary process
and people say, you know, shouldn't call somebody a loser, Well,
if your decision guarantees that you lose, what other word
is there for it? Like, if you're truly gonna sit
home if your candidate doesn't win, then you're in trouble.
I think this is gonna get so complicated. Buck Carnell
West is evidently gonna run as a Green Party. There's

(57:01):
the talk that the no Labels people are going to
put somebody forward. I think we may have four or
five candidates on the pole on the ballot in many
states before all of a sudden done.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
You ask what could be done?

Speaker 2 (57:10):
I think Republicans if they want to be smart, need to,
you know, maybe think about giving a lot of a
lot of attention to help to Cornell West. Get him
and make sure he's on every every ballot, make sure
that he's a real force to be reckoned with in
some of these states, because that's ninety percent Democrat votes,
that that he would be siphoning off ninety percent plus.

(57:32):
I mean, you know, he's he's only going to take
Democrat votes away. So in that regard, I doubt that
he would. I doubt that it will actually happen with him,
But in that situation, that's what I think would be
best for them. You saw this with Republicans in twenty
twenty two where the Democrats supported in primaries and I
know people don't like this, they don't like hearing this sometimes,

(57:53):
but they supported the most right winging candidate, the most
you know right wing can and some of those candidates lost.

Speaker 4 (58:03):
All of them did pretty much. There was almost no
blowback on Democrats for spending money to try to put
right wing candidates on the ballot in many toss up districts.
That's what they did. They spent millions of dollars to
put candidates that they thought were unelectable onto the ballot,
which calls into question if you truly thought democracy was
in danger, would you be trying to elevate people that

(58:25):
had political opinions diametrically opposed to you.

Speaker 1 (58:28):
Probably not. They just want to win, that's all they
care about.

Speaker 4 (58:31):
And that's where I think Republicans have to get more
aggressive and have to get down in the weeds and
have to get nastier.

Speaker 1 (58:36):
Frankly, I don't.

Speaker 4 (58:38):
I'm so sick buck of watching people try to win
by the narrowest of margin. Like if you are trying
to win on a last second field goal in the
context of sports, it means that you failed during the
course of the game to actually put the game away.
And it feels like every Republican election strategy in every
toss up state is let's see if we can win

(58:58):
on a last second, fifty year field goal. One of
our longtime sponsors, Dutchman and Hall have rad Diversified, has
released his first book. It's a big effort on his part,
smart read for you. New books title money Shackles comes
with dutchess description of what these money shackles are. Shackles
represent the financial hamstrings that Americans have fought with go
to school, get in debt by a car, Get in debt.
Dutch believes it's the wrong thoughts and teachings. In his book,

(59:21):
he'll give you strategies to use debt to your advantage
tap into lucrative alternative investment vehicles to redefine your American dream.
Dutch is on the forefront of the greatest financial change
in American history, and he wants to look beyond Wall
Street and see the future of alternative investments. Get ready
for the redefined American dream with money shackles. Learn more
at VAD dot com. That's th E r a d

(59:43):
dot com. Break free from your money shackles. Visit vrad
dot com.