How Important is the Messaging at the DNC to Undecided Voters?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We think your voice is as important as our, so
we let you call. In four eleven ten, we have
Jeff on the line. Jeff, thanks for listening to the
show today. What's up?

Speaker 2 (00:10):
You were talking about presidents being elected in the alternating
In fact, though the last ten presidents, b Reagan was
the only one that won the popular vote. And my
theory is that the Democrats have won the popular vote
because of FDR and social Security and Harry Truman integration
to the armed forces, John Kennedy for just being popular,

(00:33):
but then Linda Johnson with the Civil Rights Act. And
next Democrat was who helped me Carter Carter.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Carter, he was just.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
Too honest to oba won. Came with several economic issues,
and now you've got Biden with bringing the economy back
and doing whatever he's doing. You can debate that too.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
I mean, all those all of those are debatable points. Jeff.
Here's what I would say about it, and it's not
to do with any one policy. Like you can mention
all the policies for every single one that you did. There,
I could have pointed to something the Republicans did in
order as well that made them a good president or
them popular. Right, You know, whether it was Eisenhower and

(01:22):
really pushing us forward with space, whether it was you know,
Nixon and getting us out of Vietnam, whether it was
you know, different things that Reagan did economically and all
that stuff. We could debate all those things too, But
my biggest thing is the independent voters of America, or
the people that aren't pledging allegiance to one political party
or ideology. It's so much easier to get angry about

(01:44):
the things that are going and never be satisfied or happy.
So after four or eight years, when all you're ever
hearing is that things aren't great, or this stuff's bad,
or all this is going on, it's so easy to
hate the man or woman who's in charge. All right,
it's just like your boss, Like how many people truly
like the guy that's in the room that's not doing
all the heavy work at the factory, Right, It's so

(02:05):
easy to get mad at the man. And when you
have a chance to have your voice heard and flip
flop every single time, nobody's like holding you accountable for that.
That's totally fine, totally legitimate, But I just feel like
it's so easy to get angsty with who's in charge,
and people, not necessarily always after four years, but especially
after eight years, are wanting a completely new slate in

(02:26):
a different style of whatever we're doing. And I think
that has more to do with it than actual specific policies.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Does that make sense, No, it doesn't make sense.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
Oh okay.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
The reason is that the popular vote for president is
in one way of the Democrats over.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Jeff, who's voting for them? Can you tell me who's
voting for them? Jeff? Like geographically? Geographically? Geographically, can you
tell me what counties are voting more blue than anyone else?
It's the counties that have millions of people in them.
It's the counties that are hold Los Angeles in New York,
and Chicago and Philadelphia and Houston in all these places

(03:05):
more often than not are voting way more blue than
anyone else. And if we wanted to do it, you know,
the popular vote way and say that that actually matters.
And I'm not saying it doesn't matter, Jeff, But if
we're going to talk about the popular vote being relevant
in some way, then you're basically saying that people who
live in rural areas or live in places that aren't
these giant highly populated places around the country. Over the

(03:27):
last thirty to forty years, they have been more getting
more and more blue as time goes on, and it
has everything to do with people self jerrymandering. The people
that have those ideals are moving to the big cities
and they're going to get bluer and bluer. Look at Omaha,
look at Des Moines, two Midwestern examples, and talk about
how they want their lives to live because they're in
an urban area around people that are like minded than them,

(03:49):
and everyone around them in those rural areas, like the
rest of Nebraska and the rest of Iowa, generally vote read.
Yet the popular vote in those states a lot closer
than you might think, Jeff. Everything to do with where
these people are located, and that's why the popular vote
is usually going in favor of the liberals.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Staying close to home. Nebraska, after Curtis and Rushka senators,
they elected excellent Zariski Kerry, who else Ben Nelson, a
bunch of Democrats in a really red state. That's a fact.
They don't like to argue with you, but that's a fact.
Nebraska can elect Democrats. And I don't know if those

(04:28):
guys were liberal Democrats. But they were Democrats. They were
so Security Democrats, Medicare Democrats, Obamacare democrat.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
Huh.

Speaker 2 (04:35):
Okay, that's the fact.

Speaker 1 (04:37):
Okay, But Jeff, that still doesn't explain like you're talking
about Nebraska, you're not talking about the United States popular vote.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, but here again, you were talking. I hate to
talk about Pennsylvania because I'm not in Pennsylvania. I'm talking
about a red state, a really conservative state, and they
elected Democrats. They elected the best man that they thought
was running. That's what I'm trying to say.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
But I'm saying, Jeff, many votes are in Pittsburgh or
especially Philadelphia, where they have as many people as half
of the state in rural Pennsylvania. How much voice should
Pencil or Philadelphia have over the entire state of Pennsylvania.
That's the debate that we're having right now.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
Okay, you're talking you're talking demographics, and I'm talking demographics,
and the demographics I know are Nebraska demographics. And when
the third district votes for Glyndon Johnson and votes for
Carrey and votes for Nelson, votes for Virensky, that's an
interesting fact.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
Okay, But what's happened in the last fifteen twenty years. Jeff,
I hate to do this to you, but, like, the
politics of the seventies aren't the politics of now, Like
they just aren't. Like like you could go back and
look at what the Democrats thought of, you know, the
civil rights movement at the time, and there are a
lot of Democrats that weren't on board with the Lynn
and b. Johnson was doing. There's a lot of them.
You can read about it.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
That's in the sixth Dictocrats.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah, right, no, And there's there's a lot of history
with the evolution of a lot of these political parties.
I have a guy emailing me right now, Ryan, He's saying,
you could look at Bill Clinton and his policies and
you could make you could make the argument that if
he did what he did in the nineties right now,
he would be a moderate Republican right now. You could

(06:15):
make that argument. Politics is always morphing and changing, Jeff,
And I'm speaking about the last twenty years. The states
that have the major metropolitan areas like California, like New York,
like Florida. Until the last couple of election cycles. If
you're looking at places like Colorado and places like Chicago,
in Minneapolis, and some of these bigger cities around the country.

(06:37):
More and more, they're getting bluer and bluer, and the
rural areas are getting redder and redder. That has everything
to do with people moving to the places they're comfortable
living and then having a voice. And these states that
have fifty five electoral votes or whatever that California has,
it's always going to be blue. No matter if you're
a publican or not. You know you're going to lose.
That's just the nature of the beast there. Now, I'm

(06:59):
not going to argue with you that the Democrats aren't
going to win the popular vote this year. They are.
They are, but I'm not telling you has anything to
do with policy. Not to say that policy isn't important
to any of them. I'm sure there are plenty of
Democrats that care about the policy, but an overwhelming majority
of Democrats, especially of the younger demographic, that will go
out and turn out and vote blue this time around.

(07:20):
They are voting blue because of the lifestyle, because of
the people and the personalities, but also because that's what
Hollywood and all the major influences on them in school
have been telling them is the right way to go.
And that has nothing to do with policy and everything
to do with the way they are perceived in the media.
That is just twenty twenty four politics. You go on

(07:41):
social media, it doesn't matter what you think. You can
find whatever you want to think in an echo chamber
on social media. Same thing with these kids that are
taught basically from middle school on that democratic politics are
the way, especially if they live in metropolitan areas. It's
an uphill battle for Republicans and it has nothing to
do with actual policies.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
We live in an interesting town, Oma. I guarantee you
that my six grandchildren who went to Millardwest were not
influenced by Democrats or Republicans. Probably more independence than anything.
And they don't even realize how important Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare,
Medicaid are. It's just not an issue with them. But
they are appealingly or they are attracted to the Democrat issues.

(08:24):
That's as simple as that.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
But what issues you just told me. They don't know
half the issues. Of course they wouldn't. They don't. They
have no reason to think about that.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
As they become voters, though, As they become voters, they're
attracted to Democrat issues and facts and policies and.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
Programs like what, Jeff, which ones abortion? Okay? Yeah, of course,
but what other ones are they attracted to?

Speaker 2 (08:51):
Abortion? Abortion is not the thing that is attracting them
to the Democratic Party.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
Okay, So what is what elseware?

Speaker 2 (08:59):
Is women's healthcare?

Speaker 1 (09:01):
Women's health care? That's basically abortion? Man Like is gosh, Jeff,
give me something besides women's healthcare? Please?

Speaker 4 (09:13):
So Security?

Speaker 1 (09:14):
You think your twenty two year old kid that's just
graduated college cares about Social Security?

Speaker 2 (09:20):
They don't have to take care of their grandparents because
of Social Security.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Jeff, I hate to tell you this. We're gonna have
to agree to disagree, because there is absolutely zero percent
chance that I would go around talking to twenty two
year olds, give them five topics or policies that make
them want to vote Democrat, and social Security pops up
with more than five percent of them. There's just no
way I will hear abortion a bunch. I will hear
decency a bunch. I'm going to hear threat to democracy

(09:43):
about the way that the other guys are. They are
being told the other side is incredibly dangerous because they
don't they don't have any clue as to what real
policies are. They're too young to know. That's not a sin,
that's not a big problem. It's something we can teach.
But they are overwhelmingly motivated by what other people are
telling them to do. With that age. It has nothing

(10:04):
to do with policies, which is why we didn't hear
a whole lot about policies last night. We just turn
all this stuff that was very big and very general,
nothing with legitimate facts, because that's not what's going to
win the Democrats the election. It's their personalities against the
policy of the right that most people that we at
least talked to on this radio show talk about they

(10:25):
enjoyed four years ago versus what they have enjoyed the
last three and a half years now. Jeff, this has
been a good talk. We've talked for a long time,
and I really appreciate the call on the discourse. We're
just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Speaker 2 (10:37):
Tell me what your three policies are.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
I want the economy to go back to the way
it was pre Biden, pre COVID. We had a great
economy going The unemployment rate was a lot lower, our
tax money was a lot better, and honestly, I care
about foreign policy. I care about about our southern border
and the economic effects that that has on a bunch
of the different sanctuary cities. I don't live in one,

(10:59):
but if you were in a sanctuary city and you
were not somebody who supported that, there's a chance that
you are paying way more in tax. Is your chance
that you potentially could have lost your gig or your job.
There's a lot of different things that that affects after that.
And then of course foreign policy overseas. When Donald Trump
was the president of the United States, there were no
foreign conflicts that we had to worry about directly. He

(11:20):
was meeting with some of these guys in person, face
to face, and getting things done in a way that
nobody had done before him. He met with Putin, he
met with un He made sure that China knew that
we were still boss in town. That all changed as
soon as he got out of office, because Russia was like,
who's going to stop us from going into Ukraine? Now
Taiwan is just sitting there wondering what's going to happen
to us next if the Democrats win again, And of

(11:42):
course Hamas decided to do what they did to Israel.
Would that have happened with a strong Republican president. There's
no way to know, but I would bet not. Nothing
happened during the four years that Donald Trump was in office,
So I don't know. Jeff. Those things are the things
that are important to me, and I'm going to go
ahead and guess that none of that stuff is the
same things that are important to the kids that you're
talking about.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
I think I think it is important to them.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
But I gotta go, Jeff. Jeff, we've been talking for
ten minutes. I never talk to people this long, so
I gotta move on, buddy. I appreciate the call, Thanks
for listening. Thank you three nineteen. Sometimes you're just gonna
have to agree to disagree. Honestly, it's not that big
of a deal. If he wants to feel that way,
he can. I would love to go and do stuff
in other places around Omaha and ask different people of

(12:26):
you know, seventeen, nineteen, twenty one, twenty five years old,
and know what is most important to them. I am
gonna hear a bunch of abortion, I'm gonna hear a
bunch of decency. I'm gonna hear a bunch of threat
to democracy. That's all I'm going to be hearing. If
they can break down our economy or the Social Security Act,
or healthcare or anything like that, education even and they

(12:47):
want to come at me and talk to me about
those as issues, we can do that. I just don't
think I'm going to be hearing an awful lot of that.
The Democrats are masters at figuring out ways to attract
those people and simplifying everything into one or two issues,
and also finding a way to make themselves appear to
be the cool kids on the block. Nobody's done it better.
You can look back twenty years. Nobody's done it better

(13:09):
post John Carey. Nobody's done it better. Three twenty We'll
talk more to you four h two, five, five, eight,
eleven ten News Radio eleven ten KFAB and.

Speaker 5 (13:17):
Raise Songer on news Radio eleven ten KFAB.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (13:23):
Hi, you know, we were looking at potentially they were
trying to make it so that a winner take all
the electoral votes for the city of Nebraska, and I
personally was against that. I am concernative. I live in Omaha.
I realize that that may change the electoral vote for
my area, but I'm wondering why more states don't go
that way. Why there's not the ability for the rural

(13:46):
errors to fight even up all the way to the
Supreme Court thing that they're not being represented.

Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yeah, sone, Connie, just real quick to jump in there.
We've had this conversation a couple of times, had a
couple of constitution experts on the show as well, and
they say that was actually the way that the founding
fathers wanted it. They wanted each specific electorate representing a
specific area or a specific group of people and vote

(14:10):
separately based on what they were representing, not all winner
take all with the state. So Nebraska actually is doing
it the way that they had intended.

Speaker 6 (14:19):
Okay, well I think that there's I mean, when we're
looking for changing things, this might be the time for
you know, of course here in Nebraska we can't do that.
But hey, Iowa, you know, you guys could go take
that over to the you know, start bringing that up
through through your ranks. I mean, because Nebraska is the
right was main the other state there's two states that
do it's main the other one I can't remember it is,
I think it is. It is. Okay, Well, thank you

(14:40):
for listening.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Yeah, no problem. Look Connie, you have a good uh
great dy. Okay, So here here's here's here's what we're
talking about here more than anything else what she was
talking about. The rules are the rules in the way
that they are right now, but they can be adjusted
based on con institutional amendments. Okay. Nebraska and Maine, as mentioned,

(15:06):
are the two states that have their districts represented separately. Right,
So with that being the case, Okay, And this is
again just me trying to talk through what I don't
want a specific political party to be in full control

(15:29):
and change things in a way that is only going
to benefit them. That's ugly and I don't like that
right where where you know, like Texas is like, hey,
you know what we're read all the time, and we
need to keep it this way just because we need
to maintain our redness, our ability to always be voting Republican.

(15:56):
I don't like thinking in that way. But that's also
part partially what jerrymandering was not self jerrymandering. What I
taught what I basically call people who want to be
more liberal or progressive moving to bigger cities or different
states that are already incredibly liberal, and people who want
to be more conservative, moving to more conservative states or

(16:17):
more conservative areas. It's just making the red spots more
red and the blue spots more blue. That's self jerrymandering. However,
redrawing districts in different states like Iowa was a good example.
Potawatamie County, which happens to hold Council Bluffs, which is
actually one of the bigger spots in western Iowa. That
was a part of the third Congressional District for a while.

(16:39):
And when that was a part of the third Congressional
district back in twenty eight eight twenty twenty, it was
twenty twenty Sidney Axney Cindy Asney, a Democrat, was able
to get enough votes to win that seat. So there
was a Democrat representing Iowa in the House of Representatives.
She was the only one, but she was a Democrat
representing Iowa, and she won partially because that district included

(17:03):
Council Bluss and Des Moines. She needed both those geographical locations.
Since then, they have redrawn that and have excluded Potawatomy counting.
So zach Nunn was able to win that district in
twenty twenty two because those votes from council bluffs. All
of a sudden, we're in the same pot that De
Moin was they were separated that greatly benefited the Republicans.

(17:27):
And I'm not saying that. There's a ton of different examples,
and both parties have tried to redraw maps to help
themselves out and all that stuff. I'm not trying to
stir the pot on that. But what I'm saying is,
I don't want the rules to change if the motivation
is to try to help my specific political party. Democrats
want to change it to, hey, we should just get

(17:49):
rid of the electoral college altogether and just go by
the popular vote. Well, of course they say that because
they know they'll win every single election because of the
population of some of those more liberal areas. That's where
I'm at right, is if we're going to make an
adjustment to the electoral college, the adjustment just needs to
be that every state needs to do what Nebraska Mane
are doing, and every district is counted separately. That certainly

(18:12):
would allow people in different states or different counties, different
districts to feel like their voice is heard more. Just
like here in Omaha, where Almaha is going to play
a big role in this election because of that single
electoral vote could make a big difference in the way
that these votes are counted. You're gonna have to keep
that in mind when you go to the polls if
you're a Republican, especially in the second congressional district. So,

(18:33):
I don't know, food for thought. We got plenty more
coming up and more calls coming in, So if you
want to be a part of the conversation, please give
us a call at four h two five five eight
eleven ten. Four h two five five eight eleven ten.
It's news Radio eleven ten kfab Emrys Songer on News
Radio eleven ten kfab. Doug, thank you for being on
the show today. What's on your mind?

Speaker 4 (18:54):
Hey?

Speaker 7 (18:54):
You were you know, I don't know why you just
brought up Texas. Okay, why didn't just say Texas and
Califnifornia because there would have given you your red state
and your blue state.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
I did talk about California.

Speaker 7 (19:06):
I didn't hear that when because I just got on
my in my car.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
Yeah, and you started.

Speaker 7 (19:10):
Talking about electoral college and you said, hey, you so
here's the thing. You're right, we should do it individually,
and we should do what we should do that because
if you let's look at Oregon, and that's because I
from there, but only place anyone on the Democratic side

(19:36):
goes two is Portland, Salem and Eugene. Why is that
the rest of the state doesn't matter?

Speaker 1 (19:44):
Right? Exactly? And the interesting thing about Portland, Eugene, and
Salem are those like you talk about, those are where
the metropolitan areas are. But also Eugene a major college town, right,
and Portland is about as a liberal as a city
that there is in America. But because of the she
your population total, the rest of that state just doesn't
get to have a voice.

Speaker 7 (20:05):
Yeah, I know, and that include every election the governors
they don't care about the rest of the state. And
I know, yeah, And do you do realize that twenty
five years ago that wasn't the.

Speaker 1 (20:22):
Case, right, Oh yeah, I mean you got to remember
it wasn't really that long ago. It was like at
post two thousand that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Republican and
was the governor of California. I mean, lots changed in
the last twenty years, Doug. A lot has.

Speaker 8 (20:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (20:37):
People think they have rights, that you have God given rights,
But the thing is you're responsible for yourself, and the
States shouldn't be responsible for you and tell them you
what to do all the time. And that's the biggest
problem we have today.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
I'm here in ed Doug, thanks so much for calling
in man.

Speaker 7 (20:55):
You're welcome, and I sleep all day so I don't
get to call you much anymore.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
To Hey, no problem, Doug. We're here for you whenever
you decide you want to.

Speaker 7 (21:03):
We appreciate your you, sir, and I like talking to you.

Speaker 1 (21:06):
Yeah, me too, same SAME's he's over here, Thanks, Doug.
Four two, five, five, eight eleven ten. Is that phone number?
Johnny's on the line, Johnny, how are you today?

Speaker 9 (21:16):
Hey, thanks for taking my call. I'm doing good.

Speaker 10 (21:17):
How about you.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
Yeah, I'm sitting here sipping on a doctor zev I'm
feeling pretty good about myself.

Speaker 3 (21:24):
All right, it sounds good.

Speaker 4 (21:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (21:25):
So I was hearing Jeff speak and then I just
heard Doug speak, and some of the things that Jeff
was saying was really and I get in to me.
You know, it's like, yeah, the younger generation is leaning
more left and I don't I don't think you know,
I mean, you can compare young uh, you know, influencers,
maybe like Charlie Kirk or Influenceez or whoever. You know,

(21:49):
he's young guys. I want to say Ben Shapiro, but
he's probably older now. But you know, you compare them
to what the young, the young influencers on the left
are saying, and you know, it just it kind of
speaks volumes, really, And I think the thing is that
a lot of people grow up poor, growing up broke.

(22:10):
I mean, Bernie Sanders is one of the people who
pointed this out. It's like one percent of people own
like fifty percent of the money in the world or
something like that. Whatever. I just think that people are
getting tired of going to a factory job and then
losing that job because they had to make cuts, or
working for one business and then they lose accounts, and

(22:32):
then your job gets you know, keep losing your job,
working these dead end jobs over and over, and then
you've got one party telling you, well, personal responsibility, pull
yourself up by your bootstraps. How are you going to
do that when you can't even afford boots and the
people you've been trusting, mainly Republican owned businesses, have been
putting your job now and I think that this has
been going on for a couple of generations. And to

(22:54):
your point with Gary Mannering or the counties, like the
popular vote, there are a lot of counties that vote
read but if you notice, there are people voting blue
in those counties, and that percentage is starting to go up.
Just saying Democrats, you know, you know a lot of
them probably don't focus on politics, probably don't even vote
that often. But you got somebody like Donald Trump sitting

(23:17):
there saying you're gonna be tough on crime, even though
he's like a felon and accused of all those crimes,
convicted or whatever. It's kind of difficult to go along
with that. But but I'm also going to say this
younger generation now is definitely leaning more to the left,
even more to the left of me. I think they're
a new word. It's not a new word. You guys

(23:38):
have been accusing us for this for a long time,
but communism.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
And it's easy, easy, Johnny. Easy with the you guys here,
because you know we're all into individuals here. Don't generalize me,
And I didn't mean you in general.

Speaker 9 (23:55):
I meant your your station, your Republican RAND station.

Speaker 1 (23:59):
Easy, Johnny, Easy, go ahead. What about communism.

Speaker 9 (24:04):
Oh well, I mean, I'm just plaining this out. The
only generation is not even looking really, I mean, we're
looking at democratic socialism. They're saying, Wow, we can take
this a step further, and it's like, whoa, hey, you know,
I mean that sounds interesting.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
Yeah, they really enjoy that, Johnny, They really enjoy that
idea until they make money of their own and then
they get told what that would look like, and then
they realized that the system the way that it is
now is better. This is a good example. And again,
I don't know how old you are, you don't have
to tell me. I My first election that I could
vote for was the two thousand and eight election Barack
Obama was running for office, and there was something about

(24:39):
the way Obama and you could throw you know, Richardson
and Clinton, Hillary that is, and like some of the
other Democrats of the time into that pot, you know,
John Edwards, maybe that just felt like they were a
little bit more hip, a little bit more cool. You
felt like it was a little bit of a different
conversation that you were included in the way that they
talked versus the Reportublicans who were talking so much about

(25:01):
this policy stuff that was going right over the top
of my head, and I will listen to that and
it's just like, Okay, I could totally understand why Obama
won the Democratic nominee. I totally got why he beat
McCain and became president because of the way that he
talked to people and really mobilized that younger vote. That
was sixteen years ago, right. I know a lot of
people out there that are my age now and we're

(25:24):
in our early thirties, mid thirties these days. The people
that I talked to and that was their first election
that now see the world incredibly differently now that they
have their own children, that they have their own jobs,
that they're making their own money, they're trying to survive
on their own now, and they have become more and
more conservative as they have aged. That's not an accident, Johnny.

(25:44):
Life changes people. When you experience different things, you're going
to see things in a different light. I'm not saying
that there's not an eighteen year old that's looking at
democratic socialism right now saying wow, that's pretty good and
might change their mind by the time they're thirty five.
There's certainly some that will not. But what I am
saying is that there's not going to be an overwhelming zeit. Guys,
if you will, within this generation, that's not ever going

(26:06):
to change based on life experiences.

Speaker 9 (26:10):
Okay, I mean people change, sure, but I just think
that our country is becoming more progressive. Maybe taken longer
than what I would want, but I just I think
it's becoming more blue. And I do believe that the
Republican Party is dying. I'm not celebrating that. I'm not
enjoying that. I'm not you know, I did the Republicans
have a place, but I think that Donald Trump and

(26:31):
those types of people and the billionaires have just destroyed
the Republican Party.

Speaker 1 (26:35):
It's definitely not the same Johnny, and we can look
back and like we mentioned in the last segment, Bill Clinton,
who was a Democratic president, could pass these days for
a Republican, like a moderate Republican. I get what you're saying.
I think both parties have evolved in different ways. I
find it hard to believe, though, that the Republican Party
is dying when they actually hold control of one of

(26:56):
the chambers of Congress.

Speaker 9 (27:00):
I don't see that being the case for too long.

Speaker 1 (27:02):
But well, I guess time is going to tell Johnny
appreciate the call as well. We could talk about a
lot of this stuff, but we spend our own arguments
so much these days, you know, and I do it too.
I'm not everybody talks in a way that makes their
side look better. I know a bunch of people that

(27:26):
are about my age, are a little bit older that
got to vote for the first time in the twenty
two thousand and eight election, and many of them. I
would bet an overwhelming majority of people my age would
vote for Obama. I'm not saying that there's not thirty
two thirty four year olds right now that are now
deciding maybe we want to vote for the Democrats still.
I'm sure there's still plenty of them, but I think

(27:48):
a solid chunk of them are more conservative than they
were before. And that has everything to do with how
their life has specifically changed. That you can't put a
price on that, you can't predict that. Sometimes when things
change in a person's life, their ideals change, their ideologies,

(28:09):
their platforms, the things they care about change. And that's
why I think what he's talking about about radical change
to our economy or economic system. I mean, you know
how long those kids are gonna have to believe that
for that to actually take place and happen. You think
a lot of these people who are rich in Congress
right now are going to ever vote in term limits,

(28:31):
are ever going to be like trying to take more
and more money away from the rich people. And it's
all the stuff that they say to get to young
people out to vote. They'll never pass anything like that,
and they know better. Three forty eight is the time
we'll finish up this hour on news Radio eleven ten
KFAB and.

Speaker 5 (28:46):
Marie's songer on news Radio eleven ten KFAB.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
You have Marie on the line. Marie, thanks so much
for listening to our show today. What are you thinking about?

Speaker 4 (29:00):
Is it me you got.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
Marie?

Speaker 4 (29:03):
Yeah, Okay, here's what it is.

Speaker 11 (29:05):
I just listened to this. I just listened to this
last one about all the billionaire Republicans. Okay, we have
a litany here. I don't know if they came to
see your opportunism the Bush family.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
I'm losing you, Marie Ruckerberg.

Speaker 8 (29:23):
Are can you hear me?

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Okay? Right now?

Speaker 4 (29:25):
I can yet, Basils.

Speaker 11 (29:27):
These are all Democrats, but Kennedy Klan, all of them
are Democrats. Billionaire billionaires. Everybody better remember a good old
Trump became a billionaire while he was still a Democrats
they best remember that. So it isn't the Republicans they're
sitting in the billionaire columns. It's the Democrats. So where
did they get it?

Speaker 1 (29:47):
Right there?

Speaker 12 (29:48):
It is?

Speaker 1 (29:49):
Ye, it's a good point. It's a good point, Marie. Uh,
what she's saying is true. Here's Matt. Tell me if
I'm crossing the line here He can't. I don't want
to cross the line. But if I'm crossing the line,
you got to tell me I'm crossing the line if
you do on market zero. Oh boy? All right, well
here we go. Politicians are a lot of talk and

(30:13):
they don't really have any plans to walk. You know
what I'm saying, like, hey, please tell me what I
want to hear, so I'll vote for you once they
get an office. You're think any of that stuff actually
is gonna move?

Speaker 13 (30:27):
Man.

Speaker 14 (30:28):
We never got any soda pop in the water fountains
back in third grade. So I feel you if Rand Paul,
who really ran on term limits ahead of the twenty
sixteen election cycle as a Republican. When Rand Paul ran
on that, people were like Yeah, that's crazy. Nobody talks
about that term limits for people in Congress. Wow, that

(30:50):
what changed the game quite a bit. Well, he mentioned
that he suggested that, and nobody actually like really supported
him enough to where he could make that difference. So
what ended up happening was we kind of forgot about it.
Do you think rand Paul would have been able to
get that done as President of the United States? If

(31:12):
he was elected, he would have needed every single person
to vote against their own personal interest.

Speaker 1 (31:18):
Do you think that would have happened? Do you think
it would have gone over well if he would have
just signed an executive voter saying yeah, Congress, now all
of a sudden, you have a six year window to
get the stuff done that you want to get done.

Speaker 14 (31:29):
Realistically, how many politicians would it take to get that
to the people to vote? Because I can tell you personally,
I know myself and a lot of other people who
are not politicians who would very much vote yes for termine.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
It would be a landslide. It'll never get there. You
know why, because it's against their own personal interest. So
all of the Democrats who want to talk about democratic
socialism or communism or whatever that they think is the
best idea for America to operate under.

Speaker 12 (31:58):
Right?

Speaker 1 (32:00):
Money sharing? What is that? Like revenue sharing or whatever?
You see it with the cbas like they collective bargaining
agreements in sports and stuff. It's like the players and
the owners like share like a certain percentage of the
profits or whatever and the revenues.

Speaker 3 (32:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (32:15):
Now, I don't know if there's like something that we
can do that can like angle that, but they're going
to talk about the stuff that they need to do.
So the people and the young people say, yeah, I
want more money forgive my student loans. Yeah, I want
more money. Take some of that tax money from the
big rich billionaire guys and give some to poor little

(32:35):
old me. I deserve some of that money too. It's
not fair what this world is. But then those politicians
get elected into office and they can't really move a
lot of that stuff. They blame the opposite party for
the reason that things are the way that they are,
and then they sit there and count their Benjamin's back
behind the scenes, you know what I'm saying. And then
a lot of these people that say all that stuff
get burned on that policy that they thought they were

(32:58):
voting for to begin with. And instead of just getting angry,
they just changed their ideologies when they realized they could
make their own money in a very fair way. It's
crazy what you can do in America. We'll have another hour,
got plenty more to talk to you about right here.
On news radio eleven ten kfab I was like, is
this my seventh or my eighth anniversary? Well, Adam says,
it's absolutely your eighth anniversary. You're messing up the math too.

(33:20):
You count I was married in twenty sixteen. First anniversary
is in twenty seventeen, seventeen, right, let's count them eighteen nineteen,
twenty twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, twenty four. That's
our eighth anniversary. So you're going into your eighth year. Yeah,
I don't know what am I talking about it? This
is crazy to me, I went, brain, what are we doing?
I'm stupid. I'm stupid.

Speaker 14 (33:42):
But if your marriage was a person, it was born
on August twentieth, twenty sixteen, they would turn eight today, though,
and this would be your eighth year of life. Ah,
we were missing a year in there somewhere.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
I don't know how, I don't know how it happened.
It happens. Mm hmm, whatever. Yeah, this is why, this
is why you're a ten percent mathematician. I'm less than
that over here. I can do mental math. Well, I
like to play crabage. There's some math in that. Steve's
on our phone line four O two five five eight
eleven ten. Steve, Welcome to the show today. What's on
your mind?

Speaker 13 (34:16):
Well, thanks for having me on.

Speaker 3 (34:18):
I was just gonna make a comment some you said earlier.
You were talking about term limits, and when Congressman Perry
was out and out in DC, him and I kind
of got to know each other a little bit, and
he told me that it took him ten years just
to kind of find his way around out there. Yeah,
so I mean, what kind of number would you be

(34:38):
thinking for term limits? I mean, they don't really get
to know.

Speaker 1 (34:42):
Uh yeah, okay, so that's a great question, Steve. I
guess i'd have to ask how many people. But I mean,
if you're telling me it takes ten years for somebody
to figure out what they're doing right now.

Speaker 3 (34:51):
No no, no, no, no, you're kind of you're kind
of taking me out of context. It takes that long
just to get to know everybody.

Speaker 7 (34:57):
How the flow goes.

Speaker 3 (34:59):
I mean, he told me it took him a year
just to find his way around the property out there.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Okay, have you.

Speaker 10 (35:04):
Ever been to that on Capitol Hill?

Speaker 3 (35:06):
Is huge?

Speaker 4 (35:07):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (35:07):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. I'm here, I'm here and
all all that. Steve, I guess I'm not saying that
it's wrong or any one person. I mean, I'm sure
everybody has their own thing. But you know, there's a
there's a ton of people that are elected to be
in the House of Representatives, and two years later they
get voted out. They gone. If they don't get stuff
done or put make themselves re electable in the campaign,

(35:28):
two years after that, they're gone.

Speaker 3 (35:30):
Well that's what that's that's what I like. That's where
that's where I liked the American people taking care of
it instead of trying to put some pony kind of moment.
I just I just don't think term limits would be
a practical solution.

Speaker 1 (35:43):
Well yeah, but Steve, this is why I think it is.
And stay sick with me here so we can talk
about that all day. I don't want the term limits
to like people can just stay there until the end
of their term and they're done. I think it's important
to regularly have more uh elections, you know, the Senate,
they are elected and they don't have another election for

(36:04):
six years. That gives them a lot more time though
to not have to worry about campaigning. They literally can
worry about doing their job for four four and a
half years before they start thinking about the next re
election campaign. That's not the case for the people in
the House of Representatives, where they get elected, they get
to DC for the first time, they literally have I

(36:25):
would bet at least a year to where they have
to understand the layout, the way that things work because
it's so different than even their state legislature. And then
immediately after that first year they got to start thinking
about their re election campaign. That's not fair. I don't
know if two years is actually even the right number
for a House of Representatives people. I think maybe we
need more time for them as well. But what I'm

(36:45):
saying about term limits is the reason you have career
politicians is because there are lobbyists and there are companies,
and there are big organizations that want to line pockets
of certain individuals who will go to bat for them
essentially in the House, in the Senate, and they know
as long as those people stay elected, stay there, their

(37:06):
best interest will be thought of. When you talk about
the stuff that's happening on the floor, right, you're going
to take that. That's job security for you. If you're
somebody that's elected for the first time in Washington, c.
You're making as many of those deals as you can
so you can stay there as long as possible. That's
your career. You want to be in Washington until you're
Joe Biden, until you're eighty something years old, and then
finally either you retire or you get replaced, or you

(37:29):
finally lose, or you die, whatever happens first. I mean
Chuck Grassley, he's done a great job for the state
of Iowa. But he's been doing it for you know,
like forty years by himself at least. He's in his
nineties now. Right. What I'm saying is, if we if that, no,
but just let me finish Steeve, let me let me,
let me finish Steve so. But the counterpoint to that,

(37:50):
the counterpoint specifically for me, is if you remove that
element of career politician and now all of a sudden
they're just there, they're elected, and they're there for six years,
eight years ten years, whatever we decide, they have to
get as much done as they can in that timeframe,
and they don't. They're not thinking about what they want
their life to be twenty years from now. They're thinking

(38:10):
about their constituents all of a sudden, because they only
have a select amount of time to get stuff done,
You're gonna get way more people who are actually interested
in service. It's in the people that are actually interested
in having a job for the rest of their life,
and I think that's where the change could happen.

Speaker 3 (38:25):
Well, I don't think I would probably disagree with that
very much. I just think I think that you're kind
of right with the two years. You know, all they're
doing is thinking about the spin, so that I pretty
much agree with. But I just on the long term
of the things, I like you made my point too
with Chuck Grassley. You know, do we want do what

(38:46):
we want? Termal limits in place for someone that's actually
doing a good job for us. I think Grassley has
done a great job all these years.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
Oh yeah, so nobody even runs against him because it's pointless.

Speaker 3 (38:56):
I mean, yeah, I'm going to run, I'm canceled.

Speaker 1 (39:01):
Good luck, Yeah, exactly. Resource there you.

Speaker 4 (39:05):
Know, yeah, yeah, well okay, I'll buy that.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (39:08):
See, it's one of those things I like. And again,
we won't really know what the effect will be on
it until we actually decided to do it. There are
some states or some legislators in like local governments that
have term limits on the people that serve, but that's
just not the scale that we're talking about here. So
it would be fascinating to have a case study as
to how that might work. But I just think that

(39:29):
the current system is not servicing the American public in
the way that it could. That's my biggest issue.

Speaker 3 (39:35):
You know. I think you may well be right that
they don't have enough time out there, because all they got,
you know, like we were saying, all the second they're there,
they got to start thinking about money in.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
The spoon, correct, for sure, Steve, thanks to the call man,
Call again some time.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
Hey, you guys are doing all right?

Speaker 1 (39:49):
All right? I appreciate that, buddy, Thanks, thanks for the call.
What if they put term limits on somebody like me
that this is this is the thing right what about
my job right now? And you can ask yourself this,
if they said that I could only be at this
job for say ten years, how does that affect the
way you do your work? Would it make your job

(40:11):
more productive or better if your job you knew after
ten years like that's the end. Now, when you get
to that lame duck spot, you know about a year out,
you probably are getting like what I would call senior ititis,
which is what you know you have when you're a
senior in high school usually or a senior in college.
You can see the finish line and you kind of

(40:31):
stop being as productive as you probably would have been otherwise.
I think in politics that could be different. I think
in a job that you enjoy, you'd probably amp it
up and take every moment as like you wouldn't take
anything for granted. But I think people would generally be
less productive if they knew it was their last go around.
That lame duck status definitely could be an issue. However,

(40:56):
I think if I knew I was going to only
be at the shop for ten years, I would put
way more into the now, the here and the now.
I wouldn't be thinking so much about my future or
the future the people around me. I'd be thinking about
how what I'm deciding to do, or what my behaviors are,
or what my practices are in this moment and try
to make this moment as good as I possibly can,

(41:16):
not just for me, but for the people around me
that I'm working with and the people that are consuming
whatever I'm making in this case, the people who are
listening to the radio. Now, I'm still trying to do
that right, but the way that I approach a lot
of the behind the scenes stuff, it's like building blocks
to hopefully a long career. When you're doing that in congress,
that looks a lot different than what we do. Like

(41:37):
for whatever job you're at, of the job that I'm at,
you're building blocks for your career in Congress is making
all those relationships for people that what can protect you,
help fund your campaigns in the future, help make sure
that no matter what happens, you'll have an opportunity to
stay in Congress for as long as you want to be.
That's the kind of thing that I think we need
to guard against because those are the games that are

(41:58):
not servicing them and public those are servicing the wealthy people.
That's just my two cents on the whole thing. If
you want to call in, you can four row two, five, five,
eight to eleven ten News Radio eleven ten KFAB.

Speaker 5 (42:10):
And resuming on news radio eleven ten KFAB four.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
ROH two five five eight eleven ten is the number,
and we have Tim on the line right now. Tim,
what's on your mind today?

Speaker 10 (42:21):
Well, I heard you guys talking about turn limits, so
I thought i'd grow in my two cents.

Speaker 4 (42:27):
Okay.

Speaker 10 (42:29):
You know, when these uh incumbanies get into the office
and they build up a big war chest, they are
almost impossible to get out unless they make some kind
of crazy mistake. I get that. Yeah, a lot of
people don't think about the support staff that these guys
employ in their offices. Yeah, the institutional knowledge component, and
that institutional knowledge takes a long time to build up.

(42:50):
And without it, you know, you can be talking about
that ten years. It takes you to figure out what's
going on. Sure, but you've got a good staff underneath you.
You know, as someone who's been there those ten years already,
they can make all the difference.

Speaker 3 (43:04):
Right.

Speaker 10 (43:05):
Well, don't have to know everybody, because they do.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
Yeah, no, I'm hearing that. So Tim, I guess my
biggest thing is you have the legislator who wins election.
They bring their staff, they hire their staff, they have
the people surrounding them for their office that they'd like
in various jobs. Right, Well, who's to say that they
couldn't make a good transition to potentially the next person.
Like let's say it's a ten year term limit for

(43:28):
somebody in the House and they're coming up on that
tenth year. They know they're not going to be able
to run, so they decide kind of like Biden did here,
if you want to use a quasi example with Harris,
basically have an heir apparent pick that person, endorse that
person for whatever primary to figure out who's going to
run for that seat, and then basically allow them to

(43:51):
inherit inherit the surrounding staff that could help them with
all that stuff, or they themselves could end up being
a big mentor to them, despite them not actually having
a vote on the House floor or anything like that.
They're just you know, going back to more civilian life
and being able to help their communities in different ways.
Is there a way that maybe we can meet in
the middle somewhere on that you think, Well.

Speaker 10 (44:14):
I mean, there's always a way to meet in the middle.
It's just I mean, so first of all, I think
that already does go on. But what ends up happening
with the term limits when those get get put in place,
is which you see is a lot of the campaign
staff coming on, you know, people making their way in life.
It's a stepping stone job and a lot of times

(44:35):
they're a lot more partisan than the longer term staff.
And there are really good people out there that work
on campaigns, and there are some that are just just
kneeling this is their next to move up the chain,
and it's kind of treated as an exploitative role.

Speaker 1 (44:50):
Yeah, and now I'm hearing what you're saying, Tim, I
guess my thing is, I feel like the negatives that
we currently have in the system now, with all of
the money and the lobbying and the protection for the incumbents,
like you said, that just become career politicians because there's
just really no way to get them out of there.
I feel like the negatives are outweighing the positives that

(45:12):
could be brought to the table from these term limits,
even if there are a few kinks that could be
worked out. But again, Tim, at the end of the day,
this is all stupid talk for us because they're never
going to pass this. They're never going to agree to
do this, and they're the ones that are going to
need to pass it for anything to be done about it.
So it's us speaking about, you know, a situation or
a scenario that is so unlikely to ever take place

(45:33):
because the people that would need to pass it would
be the ones that would be affected the most by it.

Speaker 10 (45:38):
That's very fair. Would I would agree to disagree on
many points while still respecting your opinion. It's just saying
pass it in Nebraska. So for sure, you know, it's
not that it can't be passed. It's just that you've
got to have some people put their ideals ahead of themselves.
And then there are there are their arguments on the
other side. But especially with that institution knowledge angle, just yeah,

(46:02):
you can really accumulate very competent people. Now then I'm
sure just to wash them all out and replace them
with political appointees who might not have the best interest
of their constituents in mind. Sure that is a concern.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
Well, and I'm here in that tim and again they
would be elections. Still, it's just you know, how influential
would an acumbent that no longer can run because of
term limits, how influential would they still be because everybody
still says Obama is running the White House right now,
even though you know he hasn't been in office since
his term expired in January of twenty seventeen. Yeah, it's

(46:34):
not going to stop people from saying, well, there's people
behind the scenes that are still going to be controlling everything.
I just feel like, if I want to feel like
the people who I voted for are representing me the
best that they can, they need to be representing me
without the lobbying or the existence, essentially of all these
donations from these major corporations or these major organizations that

(46:56):
are going to do everything they can to get their
way first. And that's politics one oh one and again
that's the reason, tim that nothing will ever change, because
these people want a job to be there for as
long as they possibly can, and however we get there,
maybe there is a chance we can get there in
the future. I just don't see enough of these people
of the five hundred something in Congress that don't want

(47:17):
to make that happen. Thanks for the call, buddy, appreciate
you listening. Care Yeah, yeah, have you ever felt that,
like we could talk all day about the merits of
things that just have zero percent chance of happening. It's
fun to talk about, it's fun to think about that
alternate reality, but that's a universe that just never will
exist for us. Yeah, so I don't even know what
the point is. Why did I spend thirty minutes talking

(47:38):
about this? You don't think it's ever going to happen, No,
not in my lifetime. I guess I was the one
that brought it up though, and there were listeners who
wanted to talk about it. So as long as they
want to talk about it, I don't feel like it's pointless.
If you want to talk about something, you can four two, five, five, eight,
eleven ten News Radio eleven ten kfab.

Speaker 5 (47:55):
Emery Sunger on news Radio eleven ten KFA.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
Be anti Israel protesters from breaking down and getting past
the perimeter and all that jazz. Yeah, stuff like that.
It'll be interesting to see what the Obamas have to
say tonight. We'll keep an eye on that and of
course break that down for you tomorrow. We somehow got
on an interesting conversation about term limits, however, and how
that could be a positive effect on at least I
think it could have a positive effect on our federal

(48:22):
government term moments in Congress specifically, and let's go back
to the phones. Four oh two five five eight eleven ten.
Four h two five five eight eleven ten. Trevor is there.
Thanks for calling, Trevor. What are you thinking about?

Speaker 7 (48:36):
Hey, Emri, you doing?

Speaker 1 (48:37):
I'm good man? What's going on with you?

Speaker 3 (48:40):
Oh?

Speaker 10 (48:40):
Not too much?

Speaker 12 (48:41):
But no, I just wanted to say, it's something about
the term moment. Well, I'm not necessarily opposed to it.
I just see a cute issues that arise from them,
especially kind of the opposite of what you thought to
where you were thinking that it could help be more
productive with their constitutions. Will see the opposite because when

(49:01):
people go to DC they get elected, you start to
see that their personal wealth growth. And if they know
they only have say ten years to get that personal
wealth to grow, then they're gone. They don't get a
deal with lobbyists and special interest pas. No, they're wonts
no more. I think that they're going to be much
more concerned with the short.

Speaker 15 (49:23):
Time limits to get as much as they can out
of these two found people that they've met that they
can just benefit them personally too much. And I just,
like I said, I'm not opposed to term limits. I
just think there's too many issues.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
Yeah, right, you bring up a good point, Trevor. I
guess I have two ideas that could potentially eliminate that factor.
Number one would be maybe even to shorter term limits,
like maybe six years instead of like ten years. So
it's like you can't even think to yourself how you
can generate as much wealth as possible. But also I
was thinking, Cauld, there be a you know how like

(50:03):
nil kind of works in these collectives for colleges where
the money is kind of sent to one group of people,
and those are the people that divvy out the money
based on different things. I wonder if there was like
money caretakers that kind of were a barrier between congress
people and these packs, the super packs, these organizations that

(50:25):
help raise funds and they can the money can be
allotted to them, but they don't just get it and
they can have it under the table like Bob Menendez.
They can really be like, hey, this is public knowledge
that this stuff is coming through, and we can figure
out where this money is coming from and who is
influencing these candidates. Maybe that's something that might allow us

(50:46):
to learn a little bit more about where those influential
people are kind of making those pushes, right that either
of those do anything for you.

Speaker 12 (50:55):
There, Trevor, Yeah, I mean, to have some kind of
accountability would have to be there, because again, I think
that too many people who you know, I've voted for personally,
who I've known personally, who were good people, who you know,
I thought they could really do the job well, who
had money. Obviously, you know, they take a little bit

(51:17):
of money to do this, but after a few.

Speaker 8 (51:19):
Years they come back.

Speaker 12 (51:20):
And their networth is in the you know, seven figures.
How could you manage that? And I think that that
would be too much of a concern if they just
knew there was a short amount of time. But if
you can have some of the way you're saying, kind
of like and I helped system, yeah, I think that
could help. But there has to be some kind of
check in balance which could also be corrupted eventually, because

(51:41):
they're pretty good at that.

Speaker 1 (51:43):
Yeah, I mean, I don't know if there's I don't
know if there's ever going to be a full on
protection against corruption and politics. I wish there was. I
just don't know if there is a way to do that. Trevor.
This is good. Thanks for calling and call again sometime.

Speaker 6 (51:55):
Good.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
Thank you, Yep, you too. Richard is on our phone
line four two five five eight eleven ten. Hello, what's
going on?

Speaker 3 (52:01):
Hi?

Speaker 4 (52:01):
Hi Emory.

Speaker 8 (52:03):
I have to concede Trevor has Trevor has a point,
But my main purpose, and colleague, was, you said something
about talking about something we can't do anything.

Speaker 2 (52:15):
About, and you meet all the.

Speaker 8 (52:19):
People in the country, they can do something about it.
Are you familiar with what's called Convention of States.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
I've heard of this, yes. Explain though, Richard, where you're
coming from on this and how it would help here.

Speaker 8 (52:33):
Basically, Convention of States is that thirty five I believe
it's thirty has to be thirty five. Yeah, Are the
states of the Union come together and apply to Congress
to review the Constitution and make amendments to it. One

(52:56):
of those amendments would be will say limits. Let's say
that that is established. Then that goes to the vote
of all the states, and at least two thirds of
the states would have to agree to those amendments for
the amendments to be passed. Having said that, I have

(53:21):
I'm on the side of term limits, but I'm also
I have a problem with the Convention of States. Having
said that, here's an issue that I would like to see.
The seventeenth Amendment needs to be removed.

Speaker 1 (53:37):
Okay, why is that.

Speaker 8 (53:40):
Seventeenth Amendment allows the people of every state to elect
the US Senators that go to Congress. The original intent
of two senators for every state, no matter what the
population was, was that those two senators didn't ripre sent

(54:00):
to people. They represented and spoke on behalf of the
state legislatures.

Speaker 4 (54:06):
Sure, right, the states, So.

Speaker 8 (54:09):
The states had a voice in DC today that.

Speaker 7 (54:13):
No longer exists.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
I mean.

Speaker 8 (54:17):
What amazes me is when they passed the seventeenth Amendment
is that the states lost their voice. I find it
interesting and confusing why they would have given up their
voice in DC.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
Well, yeah, and it's an interesting conversation when it was
ratified seventeenth to men only find the ratification day because
it's pretty old, nineteen thirteen, so it's been over Yeah,
it's been over one hundred years since that's happened. You're right, Richard,
I think that's not what was intentionally intended because the
people are already electing people from their district to serve

(54:51):
in the House of representatives. But there's a lot of
different things and moving parts to that, and I really
appreciate your call today, Richard. Thanks for giving us that info.

Speaker 4 (54:58):
All right later, Bye, yup, Ads on.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
The line four two, five eleven ten ed what you
got for me today? And yes, D go ed Hello, yes, Ed,
it's your turn speak please?

Speaker 4 (55:15):
Okay can you hear me?

Speaker 1 (55:16):
Yes, sir, I've been hearing you the whole time, buddy,
keep going, go ahead, what's on your mind?

Speaker 4 (55:21):
Okay? I agree. No politician will ever vote to knock
himself off to.

Speaker 10 (55:26):
Gravy train, for sure.

Speaker 4 (55:27):
Nobody will ever vote for term limbit. So what about
line item veto.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
What about line on in Vito?

Speaker 4 (55:34):
Well, then when they pass these bills with all this
pork barrel, we would know because that eliminates this crap about.
I had to vote for the whole thing. I didn't
like it, but I had to vote for the Now
we would know. Okay, Joe voted for this bill, did not.
Now I like the way bill voted because I don't
like it. Now, when election time comes, I can see
who voted for things I like and who voted for

(55:56):
the pork barrel. Yeah, so I'm I'm in favor of
line item with a certain percentage of override. I mean
you got to have that what that would be, I
don't know, sixty percent whatever.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
Yeah, and I'm hearing you, Ed, I think I think
there's a lot of merit to that with that idea.
My problem, I think that we would have you want
to go see that information, Ed, And I'm sure there's
some aggregators out there that would be able to compile
a lot of that record. However, I just don't see
the it really moving the needle necessarily on a lot

(56:28):
of them voting public, because they'd have to actually do
work to actually, you know, see what people did in
the past, which if that was the case, then we'd
see a lot of different results in our elections. But
now it's all about just who has the shiniest smiling
face than who the cool kids are on social media
determining who all these people though, you know.

Speaker 4 (56:47):
I agree with that to take a lot, take a
lot of effort. But then when mister politician wants to
run for reelection, he can say this is my record.
He would he would provide his records, say I didn't
vote for this three trillion dollar piece of junk yeah, anyway,
I don't know. Yeah, I mean, there's there's a politics.
Who is an imperfect world. I understand that. I'm just

(57:07):
throwing that out. I like it an alternative to term limits.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
No, it'll never happen, for sure, for sure, one hundred percent. Hey,
appreciate the call, buddy, Thanks for listening to us today.
All Right, we're gonna, you know, finish this up. Hopefully
we go go into something a little bit more fun
and less brain hurting, simply because I've talked way more
about this stuff today than I ever had that thought.
But again, you guys drive the conversation. I'm here as

(57:32):
a butler to you in this forum that we have
created together, and you can call us at four oh two,
five five eight, eleven ten, News Radio eleven ten KFA.

Speaker 16 (57:40):
B E, Marie, thanks for taking my call. I like
Richard's call. He kind of me and you had the
same conversation about the Convention of the States a couple
of months ago. We may have talked about it a
couple of times, and and Richard kind of was pretty
close to what he was saying was correct. In order
for you need three two thirds two thirds of the

(58:01):
state legislatures through applications. That's thirty four states to call
a convention and Congress needs and has to pass that
or to call the convention.

Speaker 6 (58:10):
And then you need.

Speaker 16 (58:11):
If and the reason why it's important, he Richard DIDs say,
to view the Constitution and change it. The Convention of
States are working on under three aspects of trying to change.
They don't want you don't want to bring a bunch
of people together in the convention, constitutional convention, Convention of
States to change the constitution because I'll try to change

(58:32):
and they're not have to have a program to do it,
and conventional states does. And I just want to quickly
state what those are. And the proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. This is under the State
of Nebraska's they passed it already. The Constitution of United
States that imposes fiscal restraints on the federal government, that
limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and

(58:54):
the ones that you guys were talking about, and limit
the terms of office for its officials and members of
a Congress. Now, when I say officials goes back to
what me and you had a conversation about the twenty
second Amendment puts term limits on the executive, not on
the judicial, and not on the legislative. So the power
of balance does not power out right because the balance

(59:17):
of power does not balance outright because you got one
term limits on one branch but not on the other two.
So when I say it's officials, I think a lot
of times. And I was part of the Convention of
States before, and I've talked to you about the idea
of getting hold of somebody from the Convention of States,
and state of Nebraska, Ernie Sears is the one that
really worked hard on it. If you ever try to

(59:38):
get look up Convention states here in Nebraska, he's the
state leader. You have a conversation with him, and he
can explain it even ten times better than I have
because I've been away from it for a while, but
I still remember it. And just basically the terms of
office is That's why I said office of it's officials
Supreme Court. So anyway, I just wanted to thank Richard
for what he did, and thank you for carrying on.

(59:59):
We to do to convention stage because Congress won't do it,
like you said, but the state legislatures will sure.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
No, Jim, it's good. Thanks so much for calling in
as always in giving us some infots today. Thank you,
Mike's on the line four two, five, five, eight eleven ten.
What do you think, Mike?

Speaker 10 (01:00:14):
Hey, I Murray, thanks.

Speaker 9 (01:00:15):
For having me on.

Speaker 13 (01:00:16):
I'm going to stand back and try not to catch
the crazy. I just wanted to say that I enjoyed
your show more and more and more as you become
it seems like less hardcore Republican raw raw raw and
talk fo sense about how everybody's entitled to their opinion

(01:00:39):
and we should all try and work together and it
shouldn't be this great, big show that it's become. And
then the other thing I wanted to say real quick
is all these people that are calling in complaining about
government spending. Everybody's against these pork barrel projects unless support
is in their.

Speaker 12 (01:00:59):
Bare, and then they're all for it.

Speaker 13 (01:01:01):
Yeah, the stimulus. How many of your listeners gave their
stimulus check back? Yet the stimulus is what's causing all
of our involutionary problems. So they're complaining on one hand
that they're having to pay five dollars for a going
a gasoline or five dollars for a loaf of bread,

(01:01:22):
but they bought the Peloton that's sitting in their basement
with the clothes hanging on. Yeah, anyway, that's it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:28):
Yeah, I hear you, Mike, and I appreciate the call.
I'm trying not to be like I don't want to
be the raw Raw. I never wanted to be that guy.
So I hope I never came across is that I
have conservative opinions mostly. I also try to see things
from every possible angle and have his open minded a
conversation as we can all like possibly have all of us.

(01:01:50):
I welcome people from the left to right, the center,
for people who are libertarian, people who woul vote Green Party.
I don't care who you are. This is a forum,
like I said, for conversation regardless of what we're talking about.
So hopefully nobody gets the vibe that I'm just here
trying to go to bat for one side or the other.
That's just not who I am. I want I'm never
going to tell you who to vote for. That's not
my m But I can't generalize on everyone about the

(01:02:14):
stimulus check. But yesterday there was one word that I
kept saying about what people thought. Matt, You remember that word,
pop quiz? Pop quiz? What was the word of the
day yesterday.

Speaker 14 (01:02:23):
The word of the day. Oh boy, I forgot to
write it down. Yeah yeah, was it sower cream?

Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
It was not. It was not.

Speaker 14 (01:02:29):
It started with an H. Though it started with an H.
Horatio Sand's underrated SNL character. All right, Matt doesn't know
what I'm talking about. But the word is hypocrisy. Oh yeah.
Talked about that a lot yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:02:43):
Whenever anybody's talking about their political opinion, no matter what,
pretty much everybody there's a bit of hypocritical nature and
what they think. And that's not bad because everybody has it.
But it's not what's good for the goose. As always
what's good for the gander. A lot of people peop
will change their opinions or adjust their opinions on different

(01:03:03):
things to make their side seem right, even if it
is slightly or obtusely hypocritical. It's just the nature of politics.
In twenty twenty four, same thing with those stimulus it's
all we're tiring pow