February 22, 2025 • 39 mins
A left-wing podcaster claims that NFL football is based on the idea of evil white men conquering land and is a segregated sport. Spoiler alert: It isn't.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down for an interview with journalist Catherine Herridge. Why are both the interview and the things he said in it so important?
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down for an interview with journalist Catherine Herridge. Why are both the interview and the things he said in it so important?
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
I've gotten to the point where.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
To me, it sort of feels like every single leftist
person is in like a really hardcore running gun battle
with every other leftist for the title of dumbest person.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
That's my opinion on it.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
And I say that because I've been spending a lot
of time on Instagram reels, and maybe that's probably where
the issue is. But Instagram reels has this problem where
the more you sort of react or interact with a
particular type of content, that it shows you more of that.
Here's why that's a problem, because normally that wouldn't be
(01:00):
I'm the type of person where if I happen upon
some sort of leftist talking point on Instagram reels, I'll
get into the comments and I'll try to make the
opposite case, try to refute it a little bit as
best as I can, just because you know, I enjoy
political discourse. I like having political discourse. Here's the problem Instagram.
Their algorithm sees that, and they think that's the type
(01:22):
of content I enjoy. They think I want more of that,
so they keep pushing me farther and farther and farther
down this rabbit hole, and I keep happening upon dumber
and dumber takes from farther and farther left leaning people.
It's it's become a serious problem. It's become a serious problem.
(01:43):
And here's why I happened upon this video of I
guess this is some Native American lady and her podcast.
And I say Native American, not meaning Native American like
I am where I was born in the United States
of America and am therefore a Native American. And I
mean Native American as in an Indian. But you can't
(02:04):
say that because that's not politically correct anymore, even though
they were called Indians for hundreds of years and nobody
had a problem with it until fifteen minutes ago. But
that's what this lady is, and she's got a podcast
that I assume tackles those issues, and she's talking about
the fact that football, the NFL is just so racist
and based in white supremacy, and it's all just symbolizing
(02:28):
how white people love to conquer land in territory. Pardon
me while I sit my coffee. It's legitimately the dumbest
thing I've ever seen in my life. And I had
to sit and listen to it. So you're gonna have
to sit and listen to it. Take a listen to that.
I don't know what podcast this is. I'm inclined not
to give her credit just because I don't want to
promote stupid people.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
But here's this.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Lady talking about how terrible and racist and all about
conquering Native American land.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
The game of football.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Is American football is a game of violence that resembles
the warring frontier of destruction, embodied by white masculine entitlements
to advancement of land.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
The core gameplay mechanic of gaining and maintaining territory on
the field, essentially the claiming of space by advancing the
ball down the field, can be seen as this symbolic
representation of conquering and holding land.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
They are working to grab land and are entitled to
it with the use of exerted force and violence. Since
European contact, the agenda predicated on whiteness to acquire Native
land and promote the myth of westward expansion and the
American dream.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
You compound that with the reality that the NFL is
racially segregated and it's managed like a plantation. Predominantly Black
prayers risk their brains for the profit of white owners.
Ever since we had that discussion, I've never been able
to see football any other way.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
I have got that my relations.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Okay, so there's the podcast. It's the All My Relations podcast.
That is possibly the dumbest thing that I have heard
all week. And believe me when I tell you that
that's an achievement, because I've been in Instagram reels for
like a full week now. It's a real problem. I've
seen a lot of really dumb stuff, and this far
(04:29):
and away takes the cake. But let's address some of
the specific claims she makes here, right, because she does
make a lot of claims. I think the first one
that we need to address is the idea that the
NFL is racially segregated. You gotta be really stupid or
just have never watched a game of football to believe this.
(04:50):
There are white and black players on every team. There
are white and black players representing just about every position
on every NFL team. You have got to be really,
really dumb, or just completely I don't even understand how
you got there, Frankly, I don't. I mean, we had
a black quarterback win a Super Bowl, and he got
(05:14):
there thanks to the help of his white cornerback who
got a pick six. I don't understand how you can
make the case that there's some sort of racial segregation
inside the NFL. It doesn't exist. And maybe she's just
saying like the players are predominantly black and they're being
taken advantage of by predominantly white owners. Okay, that's also stupid.
(05:36):
Nobody's forcing any NFL player to play in the NFL.
It's not real, it's not happening. And then the idea
that those NFL players are being taken advantage of, that's
even dumber. That's an even stupid or claim. There is
nobody that's being tricked or lied to about the risks
of the NFL. Everyone who goes into that league knows
this is a full body contact sport. I am probably
(05:58):
gonna get hurt at least once playing this game, and
they're compensated very very well for that, very very well.
I mean, for every position on an NFL team, the
average salary goes from over a million dollars to darn
near nine million dollars a year, and those are the averages.
So there's people that are making way more than that
(06:19):
as well. I mean, what she essentially did in that
clip is. She tried to make the claim that somehow
the white NFL owners are basically pitting black people against
each other to war for their own entertainment. It's completely ridiculous.
The idea that everybody involved in the NFL isn't making
a crap ton of money off of it and fully
(06:41):
well knows the risks of playing the sport is completely ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
It makes no sense.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
You have to have no knowledge of how the sport
works at all to make that claim, but they probably don't.
They just found something ridiculous that they can complain about,
and so as leftist do they complain about something ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Now.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
The least stupid claim that I want to address her
is this idea that using force to conquer land is
something that's uniquely white and masculine. You have to have
no knowledge of history at all anywhere to believe that
you know which races have participated in wars for land,
all of them, every single one Ginghis Khan was not
(07:18):
a white man.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
He was Asian.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
He conquered the known world at the time. He didn't
do that by smoking a peace pipe and signing treaties.
He was killing people and native Americans did the same
thing too, So get off your eye horse.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Just let people enjoy football.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
You don't have to like it, but stop trying to
turn everything into something that you can have a protest about.
Just enjoy the sport, or don't enjoy the sport.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
It doesn't have to be about you. Shut up.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
There's nothing political about the NFL. Just watch the sport,
or don't. All right, we've got a great show coming
up for you. Stay tuned, we'll be right back. All right,
(08:14):
we can have fun while we get things done.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
That's allowed. I think that's I think that's good. Maybe
do a little trolling. I grew up online, so I
have no problem with trolling here and there.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
I think it's great. I like it.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Donald Trump shares my opinions of trolling. He is well
known for trifling with and bothering people, and I quite
like that. That's one of my favorite things about him.
I think he's funny as a president, and nothing is
off limits for him. I don't know if you've noticed this.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
He will hit.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Anyone on any topic at any time, just like the
founding fathers intended. It is full weaponized freedom of speech.
I love it, I really do. I think it's I
think it's funny. I like a little bit of humor
in our political disc Donald Trump, or probably not Donald
Trump himself, but the White House posted a video of
(09:09):
it's basically just a deportation flight illegal aliens that they
had arrested and were deporting being loaded onto the plane.
You know, they're taking the shackles out of the box
and handcuffing them and walking them up onto the plane.
They captioned it a deportation ASMR, And if you don't know,
ASMR is like an acronym for autonomous sensory meridian response,
(09:30):
I believe. And it's basically just like it can be
triggered by certain sounds in your brain, like when it's
quiet and you hear like tapping or keyboard noises or whatnot.
Certain people will hear that and it'll sort of like
trigger a little like tingly response in your brain or whatever,
and it just relaxes you. It's a whole genre on YouTube.
There goes down a massive rabbit hole. So they posted that,
(09:53):
and I'm not gonna play the audio because it's like
completely blown out by a jet engine in the background,
so you can't actually hear anything, but they did post it.
The left is very, very not happy about it, because
they can't be happy about anything. They this wracked up
like seventy million views, and most people thought it was funny,
(10:17):
like this white House is online in a good way.
They actually make funny online jokes, not the same way
that like the Biden and Harris team tried to when
they did it, it was like the forty year old
that's trying to be hip with the kids. These people
actually grew up online and they're good at it, so
when they do online trolling like this, it's actually pretty funny.
(10:37):
The leftists didn't like it. They don't like anything, So
I was curious to see what exactly the left was
saying about this video, so I went to the leftist outlets.
So here's MSNBC talking about this White House sparks backlash
for posting quote unquote dehumanizing ASMR deportation video.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Dehumanizing.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I mean they literally, like don't even show the face
in the video of this particular illegal alien that they're deporting.
So I don't know how you make the case that
this is dehumanizing. It's literally just showcasing the sounds of
deporting someone. I don't understand, but they'll jump through any
hoop to be offended by anything like we just discussed
(11:20):
with the NFL and these Native American chicks that are
pissed about the NFL, they say in this article. As
of Wednesday afternoon, the White House's post has been seen
more than sixty eight million times, according to x Many
of the online responses to the posts were critical, as
CNBC reported, So let's jump over to CNBC and let's
see what they said about this. CNBC actually went as
(11:40):
far as to describe the video. They said one shot
in the forty one second video shows an immigrant with
his hands cuffed in front of him and ankles bound
by a chain as he walks past an officer. Other
shots include a close up of a man having his
handcuffs linked together, a man's feet in chains as he
walks up a stairway to a plane, and a man
about to board the aircraft. None of the men in
their video have the faces shown, and here's the butt.
(12:04):
But the clip and the White House's description of it
captured the enthusiasm in the Trump administration and among the
president's supporters for his mass deportations. That's what they're claiming
is the bad thing. The fact that Trump supporters are
so enthusiastic about the deportations. That's just so terrible and bad.
(12:25):
We can't have that. Talking about the reactions, they say,
many people who replied to the tweet praised it, with
one ex user saying keep it up, love this, while
another wrote, thank you, send them all back. I'm in
that boat. Thank you for getting these criminal illegal aliens
out of our country. Send all of them back. If
you did not come to this country legally, if you
(12:45):
did not file the paperwork and do the work to
earn the privilege of being an American, get out. But then,
of course CNBC highlights the angry leftists that are upset
about this video, they said. Other people criticize the tweet,
with one writing in reply, this is disgusting, and another
person wrote when jd. Vance argues that illegal immigration enables
(13:05):
poverty wages and undermining the purpose of minimum wage, I
can get behind that argument, but when you post this,
it's just cruel and dehumanizing. The user wrote, Now to
make the case that this is somehow cruel and dehumanizing,
you would have to argue that somehow this particular illegal
alien that's being deported, who is one of thousands, is
(13:25):
somehow going to face some unique issue because of the
fact that he was featured in this video. Now here's
the problem with that.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
One.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
He's one of thousands. Two, Lord willing, he will never
be back in the United States.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Three.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Most people in whatever country he's being deported to will
probably never see this video, and even if they do,
they won't be able to know it's him because, as
CNBC reported, you can't actually see anyone's faces in this video.
So is this really cruel and dehumanizing? They're not doing
anything specific to this guy that they didn't do to
anybody else. They're just showcasing the procedure. I mean, the
(14:04):
most you could say about this video is that it's educational.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
That's it.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I mean, it's not like they're manhandling the guy. I'll
repost the video so that you can go see it.
The chains really aren't that particularly tight. They're just you know,
leg shackles and handcuffs so that he can't you know,
scamper off and run away. I mean, he's going on
what looks like a pretty standard commercial jet that I
assume is owned and operated by the government. Because they're
(14:29):
not going to just put these people on random commercial
jets out of the country. But I would venture to
guess that there are probably some pretty decent conditions on
the jet. He's probably got a standard airline seat to himself,
maybe he's chained down so that he can't hijack the plane,
or what have you. The leftist reaction to this is
sort of rooted in the idea that people facing the
consequences for their actions is somehow unique and cruel. This
(14:53):
was really brought to my attention by a video that
I saw of some guy. I assume he's here legally,
but his mother wasn't. He was probably born in the
United States to an illegal immigrant mother. That's not particularly uncommon.
That grants him citizenship because he's born here in the
United States, but his mother can still be arrested and deported,
and it looks like that's what happened. Take a listen
(15:13):
to this video of him talking and crying about it.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Old mom just got to deport it, My mom just
got to deport it. It's so not fair.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
It's so not fair.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
She's literally not a criminal, like she's literally she's literally just.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Made her taxes. She's literally just we're not saved.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
No one's saying, please, how your loved ones. Please.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Now, I'm not gonna come after this guy for crying
about his mother being deported. I'm sure that that was
a difficult and sad experience for him. I'm not gonna
doubt that, and I'm not gonna come after him for
crying about it.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
That's fair enough.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
What I want to address is some of the specific
things that he actually said in this video. Believe it
or not, there actually is some substance here, like, for example,
he talks about how she literally just paid her taxes.
This isn't fair, Okay, paying your taxes is not a
free license to break the law.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
It's not like for every tax dollar you pay, that's
plus one crime you get to commit. You can enter
the country, pay your taxes and still face the consequences
of breaking the law and entering the country illegally. Is
breaking the law. Regardless of how many tax dollars you pay,
that doesn't offset the crime of breaking the law. It's
(17:02):
not like doing penance, where if you do it enough,
all of a sudden your ledger evens out and you're good.
I mean, he literally says this she's not a criminal,
Yes she is. She broke the law. It is a
crime to enter this country illegally. You are not allowed
to do that. There is a process to get into
the country, and if you do not follow the process,
(17:23):
you are breaking the law. You are trespassing. I think
it's really important that we follow this to its natural conclusion.
I mean, he's basically saying his logic here is if
I don't agree with the law or think it's legitimate,
then it shouldn't be enforced on me, and I shouldn't
have to follow it. Okay, what's the limiting principle on that?
Take that to its logical conclusion, Where anyone can disagree
with any law and then all of a sudden enforcing
(17:45):
it is an affront to them and attack on their identity.
That's not healthy. No society can function like that. All right,
stay tune, we will be right back. Radical transparency. That
(18:17):
is the word that I would use to define this
Trump administration, and it is radical. I want you to
take a look, just sort of in your mind, just
mentally roll back the clock a little bit here. Think
about all the different press interactions, press conferences, all the
different times that we saw Joe Biden and his cabinet
(18:42):
just sort of in front of the media, taking questions
and answering them. Really think about it, because it really
wasn't that much. We got a lot of reports, we
had a lot of articles that were quoting people, but
did you actually see a whole lot of real in
depth and press briefings on TV?
Speaker 1 (19:03):
Not really.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
There were a few every now and again when they
feel like they really had to, when something big came up,
they would wheel up a couple of cabinet members or
Joe Biden himself. They would pump him full of I
don't even know a monster energy and crack cocaine just
to wake him up. But other than that, we really
didn't see a whole lot of the Biden administration. And
(19:24):
what we did see was ran through the filter of
mainstream media, which I think we all can agree now
to some extent, was pretty radically biased in his favor.
They filtered out all the bad stuff and they showed
you whatever worked for them, whatever worked for the Biden administration.
It was a very weird symbiotic relationship that they had,
(19:46):
and the result of that was we didn't actually have
any transparency at all. Flash forward to today, we've got
a press conference, a briefing, something going on. Anytime Trump
does anything, he's either on Twitter talking about it or
truth social or he calls a big press briefing and
they all gather in the Oval office and he takes
questions about it for forty five minutes to an hour.
(20:08):
I mean, basically, every single day we have a new
sound bite from Donald Trump. We did not have a
daily SoundBite from Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
We just didn't.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
I want to give specific props here to Marco Rubio.
He's the Secretary of State, former senator from Florida. He
did an interview with Catherine Herridge. I think I'm getting
her name right, but if I'm getting it wrong, I apologize.
She is an Emmy winning investigative journalist. Her ex bio says,
she is telling the stories she could not tell before,
where the facts have power all on their own. So
(20:38):
she's essentially just an independent journalist. And she did a
big sit down interview with Marco Rubio and she just
uploaded it to x. Now, there's a lot of good
stuff in this, so we're going to dig into it
and listen to some of the highlights. But also I
want to just point out that it's very important that
a this is happening because we need to be paying
attention to cabinet level officials. If we learn anything from
(21:00):
Joe Biden, they're the people who are really running the government, right.
They have a lot more influence than people think. They're
very important, so pay attention to the cabinet. Second of all,
we talked about that sort of mainstream media filter, and
Fox is guilty of this too. They spin in report
to suit their agenda. There are a conservative news outlet,
just like a lot of the other mainstream media is
liberal news outlets. What Marco Rubio does here is he
(21:23):
just goes to an independent journalist that's going to do
her thing and doesn't have to worry about executives telling
her what the audience wants. She can just upload what
she thinks is interesting, what she wants to post, and
you get I think the most unbiased results from that.
So here they are actually talking about this. They actually
specifically mentioned this in the interview.
Speaker 6 (21:43):
Take a listen, Will you open up the State Department
briefing room to independent journalists?
Speaker 7 (21:48):
Yes, we're here today, we're here to talking.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
I was going to say, Secretary of Rubio. You could
have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet,
but you chose an independent journalist who post on X.
Speaker 7 (22:00):
Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but
here's my observation. We have to go where the people are,
and so we need to communicate with people. We need
to be able to This is their state department. It's
not my state department. I'll be here for a number
of years and then my job is done and I'll
go back to being a private citizen. But this will
always be their state department. And we're doing making decisions
every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where
are people getting their news and information. That's where we
(22:23):
need to be delivering our news and information. I still
talk to them. I just went overseas. We had a
bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip,
and we're not going to exclude them, but we have
to be able to communicate people where they're getting their
news and information. What we can't allow to have happen
is we can't allow our message to solely be provided
through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets. Who's sadly
(22:46):
I don't mean to hurt there. I'm not trying to
be mean here. But the readership is down, their viewership
is down, their ratings are down. We have to take
our message where people are getting their news and information
and any sort of long form interviews where you're getting
serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not
little soundbites that they run during the cable news hour,
you know, for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody,
(23:09):
but we almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent
journalism because that's what people are getting their news and information.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
So there he is talking about that, and I think
he makes the perfect and honestly, the only point that
matters is like, look, this is where people are getting
their media. That's where we want to be. And obviously
there are some people getting their news and information somewhere else,
and we'll be there a little bit too, but we're
going to put our focus where most of the people are.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
That makes sense, Okay.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
He also brought up Ukraine because obviously that's one of
the big issues of the day, and there has been
seemingly some tension between the Trump administration and Ukraine, whereas
Trump administration and Russia seem to be sort of working
things out.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Now.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
A lot of people have a problem with this because
Russia is supposed to be our enemy. Yes, Russia is
to a very real extent enemy, but we also want
to make sure that we're not in a hot war
with Russia. And to do that you have to sort
of make deals and arrangements and come to terms with
each other. And Russia seems to be willing to do that.
We'll see how legitimate that is. They could be lying
(24:13):
through their teeth, that's a possibility, but right now they're
at least saying the right things, whereas Zelensky is saying
the right things when he needs to, and then when
it benefits him he's going out in public and saying
different things. So here's Marco Rubio addressing this, and he
also talks about you know, what's in it for us
in terms of helping Ukraine and why is everybody so
(24:33):
upset with Zelenski right now? He addresses sort of all
of these issues all at once. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator
without elections, what are you thinking?
Speaker 7 (24:45):
I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky
in some case, and rightfully so. Look, Number one, Joe
Biden had frustrations with Zelensky. People shouldn't forget it. There
are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at
him in a phone call, because Zolensky, instead of saying thing,
thank you for all your help, is immediately out there
messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting.
I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally
(25:07):
very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky,
the Vice President and I the two three of us,
and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and
we explained to them, look, we want to be a
joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal
from your country, but because we think that's actually a
security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor,
we get to get paid back some of the money
(25:28):
the taxpayers have given close to two hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
And it also now we have.
Speaker 7 (25:33):
A vested interest in the security of Ukraine. And he said, sure,
we want to do this deal. It makes all the
sense in the world. The only thing is I need
to run it through my legislative process. They have to
approve it. I read two days later that Zelenski's out
there saying I rejected the deal. I told them no way,
that we're not doing that. Well, that's not what happened
in that meeting. So you start to get upset by somebody.
We're trying to help these guys. One of the points
(25:55):
that President made in his messaging is not that we
don't care about Ukraine. But Ukraine is on another content.
You know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans.
We care about it because it has implications for our
allies and ultimately for the world. There should be some
level of gratitude here about this. And when you don't
see it, and you see him out there accusing the
president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly,
(26:15):
very counterproductive. And I don't need to explain to you
or anybody else. Donald Trump's not President Trump's not the
kind of person that's going to sit there and take that.
He's very transparent. He's going to tell you exactly how
he feels. And he sent the message that he's not
going to get gained here. He's willing to work on
peace because he cares about Ukraine and he hopes Zelensky
will be a partner in that and not someone who's
out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to,
(26:36):
you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not going
to be productive.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Here. Okay, there's an interesting point that she brings up
right there at the beginning. I don't want us to
brush past it. She talks about how Trump called Zelenski
a dictator without elections, and Trump's actually not wrong about that.
Through a declaration of martial laws, Zlensky has essentially suspended
all elections in the country. His own election as president.
(27:02):
He can't be voted out by the people. That's not
exactly defending democracy. I'm sorry, And I mean, you can
make the case that, oh, they're at war, they can't
do an election right now, they don't have the time
or the resources or what have you. I'm really not
that sympathetic to it. America has been through a lot
of major wars, some of them have been during election seasons,
(27:23):
and guess what, we had our elections. There was an
election during the Civil War. Response and how the war
was being handled was a big part of that election.
There was also an election during World War II, which
was a far bigger war than the war in Russian
and Ukraine. So the idea that an election can't be
held right now, I don't buy it. I'm sorry, I
(27:44):
just don't. I mean, we're being told that we have
to throw our tax money at Ukraine in order to
defend democracy, but Ukraine is not acting particularly democratic right now.
Elections are kind of a key part of that, and
they haven't had any. So what are we getting out
of this? Is democracy being protected? I'd argue probably not
if there's no elections happening. So the least we could
(28:07):
say is, hey, at least give us some money back
in terms of minerals, something that we can say to
our taxpayers, Look, here's your return on investment. And like
Rubio points out, that also has an added benefit of
more protection for Ukraine. So it really is a win
for everybody. But if you're agreeing to things in private
and then going out and publicly rejecting those deals, how
(28:28):
are we supposed to work with you. You're supposed to
be our partner. We can't partner with you if you're
lying to us, right, go listen to that full interview.
It's really interesting, it's really good. It's on Twitter. I've
reposted it, or just go directly to Catherine Herriage's Twitter
and she's got the full forty five minutes up there.
It's really good. And shout out to Marco Rubio for
doing it. Radical transparency. I love to see it. This
(28:51):
should be standard with every presidential administration.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
All right, we'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
That song does not ever get old. It really doesn't.
I don't know what it is about it.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
All right.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
We checked in on Kamala Harris. We saw how she
was doing. We've checked in on Donald Trump's approval rating
in past episodes. That's doing really well. Let's check in
on the Democrat Party as a whole. How were the
Democrats as a whole doing after coming up on a
(29:49):
month Now, we're a day away from being a full
month into Donald Trump's second term as president, So how
are the Democrats doing? And I mean the answer to
that question is pretty simply not too well. So I'm
looking at a Yugov poll right now, and this poll
is just a raw.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the
following political parties and the political party that follows that
is the Democrat Party. So right now, and get ready
for this, because this is a big number that I'm
about to throw at you. Fifty eight point seven percent
of people have an unfavorable opinion of the Democrat Party.
(30:35):
That is a disastrous number for the Democrats, right, That's
just that is a really bad number. Fifty eight point
seven basically sixty percent of people have an unfavorable opinion
of the Democrat Party. Here's why this matters. We're coming
up on a midterm believe it or not. I know,
we just had an election last year. Guess what, we
(30:58):
have another one next year. The midterm elections have basically
already started. People are already campaigning. You can see this,
and I'm sure we'll talk about that in an episode
not too far from now, because there's definitely some stuff
to talk about there. But all that to say, this
matters right now. If the Democrat Party goes into the
mid term election with basically a sixty percent disapproval rating,
(31:23):
they are going to lose so many seats, so many
seats in the House, not even to mention the Senate.
We already have a strong majority in the Senate. We
have fifty three votes in the Senate plus jd vance
if necessary. Right, that is a strong GOP majority in
the House. I believe we have a one seat majority,
so it's a majority, but barely. Right, it's not a
(31:45):
very workable majority. We could end up with a super
majority in both the House and the Senate if these
numbers continue, because remember this is going up. Since the
thirtieth of September, the disapproval rating of the Democrat Party
has gone from fifty one point four percent all the
way to fifty eight point seven. If those trends continue,
(32:09):
then by the time we get to the midterms next year,
the Democrat Party will legitimately be less popular than cancer. Now,
if you're a Democrat right now, you're looking at this
number and you're thinking, Okay, how did we get here
and how did we fix it? Or at least you
should be that's what any sane person in your position.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Would be doing.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Fox News was asking this question, and they just happened
to ask it to Senator John Kennedy, who, in my opinion,
is probably the wisest man south of the Mason Dixon line.
I've been waiting for so long to have an excuse
to play a Senator John Kennedy cut on this show,
and it's finally happened. I couldn't be more excited. Take
a listen to John Kennedy's response when he was asked
(32:51):
by Fox News, Okay, what's going on here? Why are
the Democrats so unpopular? He spells it out pretty clearly.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
I've got a lot of friends of Democrats, and they
haven't asked me for advice, But if I did, I'd
tell them, Look, you just got to try harder not
to suck. I mean, think about it. Over the past
four years, the Democrats mismanaged Congress. They mismanaged COVID, they
mismanaged the economy, They mismanaged inflation, they mismanaged the national debt.
(33:23):
They mismanaged Afghanistan. More recently, in their opposition to President
Trump and mister Musk, the Democrats have chosen to support
the bureaucrats and the spending porn over the American taxpayer,
just like they support illegal immigration.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Over the rule of law, just like they.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
Support transgender athletes over women's sports, just like they support
Hamas Terras over Israel. All Democrats are not like this,
but the party is controlled right now by people who
majored in online activism with a minor and puberty blockers.
(34:10):
I know these people if they think when they think men,
they think man can breastfeed, they're triggered by rage. They
cry if you use the wrong pronoun and most fair
minded Americans look at this and they go, these people
are about ten exits passion normal. And that's what's kilma
(34:31):
Democrats right now in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
All right, so let me translate that for you from
why is southern stage into direct English. What he's essentially
saying there is the Democrat Party has been sort of
absorbed and consumed and is now being controlled by the
very radical leftists at the very very very very bottom
of their base. This is not a majority of people
(34:57):
in society. This is not even a major of people
inside the Democrat Party, I think.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
But it's a big.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Enough portion of the Democrat Party for the higher ups
and you know, the people who actually run the party,
for the majority of Democrats to say, Okay, we can
capitulate to these crazy leftists because we need their vote
in order to beat the Republicans. And for us as Democrats,
all that matters is winning power for our party. That's
(35:27):
all that matters to them, and so they'll give in
to these crazy leftists despite the fact that it's not
what most Americans want. And the farther down this pathway
they go, the worse their approval rating gets. It's easy
to see that's why Donald Trump was able to pick
up so many moderates. That's why Donald Trump was able
to pick up the support of people like Tulca Gabbard
(35:49):
of Robert F.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Kennedy Junior.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
That didn't just magically happen. Donald Trump isn't just that
winning of a personality. I think he does have a
very winning personality, but that's not why he got those people.
It's because they're looking at their party and they're saying, Okay,
despite the fact that nobody actually wants this, this is
what my party keeps pushing more and more and more,
and I just can't be a part of that, not
(36:13):
in good conscience. I have real, measurable, actionable priorities that
I would like to know focus on. I want the
Democrat Party to be a party that's focused on health,
making sure Americans aren't being poisoned by the FDA or
the food industry.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
I want the.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
Democrat Party to be focused on making sure that the
government isn't being weaponized against American citizens. The government isn't
putting people on no fly lists for speaking out against
Joe Biden. That's my concern, But as Senator Kennedy points out,
that's not what the Democrat Party is doing. They don't
care about actual issues. They care about pushing transgenderism. That'll
(36:53):
win you some headlines, for sure, that might even go
as far as to win you some small local elections
in crazy radical towns. But is that going to win
you any sort of national election. No, it's not because
the American people by and large just aren't on board
with that. And you can try to shame Americans for
not being on board with that, but I think if
(37:15):
there's one thing we've learned over the last few years,
that's not going to work either, because they did try that.
They've deplatformed people, they've shamed people, they've tried to use
social media, movies, even music, even Target has gone out
to bat for the LGBT agenda, and the American people
(37:35):
still have not bought into it. We like it even
less now than before you did. All that four years
of Joe Biden and the radical left inside the Democrat
Party trying to push this down on us made it worse. Honestly,
they're too far gone now, that's my opinion, and I'm
by no means a political science major. I'm no expert here,
but this is how I see it. They have gone
(37:56):
too far down this path to actually turn. They rely
so heavily on these radical left voters, whose entire identity
is their activism. If they start to tack back to
the middle, like most people inside the Democrat Party want
them to, they will lose those far left voters, and
(38:18):
they can't win an election without those votes. It's such
a big portion of their base. Now the Democrat Party
has fallen into a can't win with them, can't win
without them situation with these radical leftists. But you know what, Frankly,
I'm all for it. It makes the job of the
right wing so much easier. The job of Republicans, which
is to win elections, is so much easier when they're
(38:38):
running against these Democrats. My job as a political commentator
is so much easier when I can just point and
laugh at these people, and they're giving me plenty of
material work with. Trust me, all right, That's all I've
got for today. We will be back on Saturday. Thanks
again very much for listening. I appreciate it as good
(39:00):
in school
I've gotten to the point where.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
To me, it sort of feels like every single leftist
person is in like a really hardcore running gun battle
with every other leftist for the title of dumbest person.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
That's my opinion on it.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
And I say that because I've been spending a lot
of time on Instagram reels, and maybe that's probably where
the issue is. But Instagram reels has this problem where
the more you sort of react or interact with a
particular type of content, that it shows you more of that.
Here's why that's a problem, because normally that wouldn't be
(01:00):
I'm the type of person where if I happen upon
some sort of leftist talking point on Instagram reels, I'll
get into the comments and I'll try to make the
opposite case, try to refute it a little bit as
best as I can, just because you know, I enjoy
political discourse. I like having political discourse. Here's the problem Instagram.
Their algorithm sees that, and they think that's the type
(01:22):
of content I enjoy. They think I want more of that,
so they keep pushing me farther and farther and farther
down this rabbit hole, and I keep happening upon dumber
and dumber takes from farther and farther left leaning people.
It's it's become a serious problem. It's become a serious problem.
(01:43):
And here's why I happened upon this video of I
guess this is some Native American lady and her podcast.
And I say Native American, not meaning Native American like
I am where I was born in the United States
of America and am therefore a Native American. And I
mean Native American as in an Indian. But you can't
(02:04):
say that because that's not politically correct anymore, even though
they were called Indians for hundreds of years and nobody
had a problem with it until fifteen minutes ago. But
that's what this lady is, and she's got a podcast
that I assume tackles those issues, and she's talking about
the fact that football, the NFL is just so racist
and based in white supremacy, and it's all just symbolizing
(02:28):
how white people love to conquer land in territory. Pardon
me while I sit my coffee. It's legitimately the dumbest
thing I've ever seen in my life. And I had
to sit and listen to it. So you're gonna have
to sit and listen to it. Take a listen to that.
I don't know what podcast this is. I'm inclined not
to give her credit just because I don't want to
promote stupid people.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
But here's this.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Lady talking about how terrible and racist and all about
conquering Native American land.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
The game of football.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Is American football is a game of violence that resembles
the warring frontier of destruction, embodied by white masculine entitlements
to advancement of land.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
The core gameplay mechanic of gaining and maintaining territory on
the field, essentially the claiming of space by advancing the
ball down the field, can be seen as this symbolic
representation of conquering and holding land.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
They are working to grab land and are entitled to
it with the use of exerted force and violence. Since
European contact, the agenda predicated on whiteness to acquire Native
land and promote the myth of westward expansion and the
American dream.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
You compound that with the reality that the NFL is
racially segregated and it's managed like a plantation. Predominantly Black
prayers risk their brains for the profit of white owners.
Ever since we had that discussion, I've never been able
to see football any other way.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
I have got that my relations.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Okay, so there's the podcast. It's the All My Relations podcast.
That is possibly the dumbest thing that I have heard
all week. And believe me when I tell you that
that's an achievement, because I've been in Instagram reels for
like a full week now. It's a real problem. I've
seen a lot of really dumb stuff, and this far
(04:29):
and away takes the cake. But let's address some of
the specific claims she makes here, right, because she does
make a lot of claims. I think the first one
that we need to address is the idea that the
NFL is racially segregated. You gotta be really stupid or
just have never watched a game of football to believe this.
(04:50):
There are white and black players on every team. There
are white and black players representing just about every position
on every NFL team. You have got to be really,
really dumb, or just completely I don't even understand how
you got there, Frankly, I don't. I mean, we had
a black quarterback win a Super Bowl, and he got
(05:14):
there thanks to the help of his white cornerback who
got a pick six. I don't understand how you can
make the case that there's some sort of racial segregation
inside the NFL. It doesn't exist. And maybe she's just
saying like the players are predominantly black and they're being
taken advantage of by predominantly white owners. Okay, that's also stupid.
(05:36):
Nobody's forcing any NFL player to play in the NFL.
It's not real, it's not happening. And then the idea
that those NFL players are being taken advantage of, that's
even dumber. That's an even stupid or claim. There is
nobody that's being tricked or lied to about the risks
of the NFL. Everyone who goes into that league knows
this is a full body contact sport. I am probably
(05:58):
gonna get hurt at least once playing this game, and
they're compensated very very well for that, very very well.
I mean, for every position on an NFL team, the
average salary goes from over a million dollars to darn
near nine million dollars a year, and those are the averages.
So there's people that are making way more than that
(06:19):
as well. I mean, what she essentially did in that
clip is. She tried to make the claim that somehow
the white NFL owners are basically pitting black people against
each other to war for their own entertainment. It's completely ridiculous.
The idea that everybody involved in the NFL isn't making
a crap ton of money off of it and fully
(06:41):
well knows the risks of playing the sport is completely ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
It makes no sense.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
You have to have no knowledge of how the sport
works at all to make that claim, but they probably don't.
They just found something ridiculous that they can complain about,
and so as leftist do they complain about something ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Now.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
The least stupid claim that I want to address her
is this idea that using force to conquer land is
something that's uniquely white and masculine. You have to have
no knowledge of history at all anywhere to believe that
you know which races have participated in wars for land,
all of them, every single one Ginghis Khan was not
(07:18):
a white man.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
He was Asian.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
He conquered the known world at the time. He didn't
do that by smoking a peace pipe and signing treaties.
He was killing people and native Americans did the same
thing too, So get off your eye horse.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Just let people enjoy football.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
You don't have to like it, but stop trying to
turn everything into something that you can have a protest about.
Just enjoy the sport, or don't enjoy the sport.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
It doesn't have to be about you. Shut up.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
There's nothing political about the NFL. Just watch the sport,
or don't. All right, we've got a great show coming
up for you. Stay tuned, we'll be right back. All right,
(08:14):
we can have fun while we get things done.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
That's allowed. I think that's I think that's good. Maybe
do a little trolling. I grew up online, so I
have no problem with trolling here and there.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
I think it's great. I like it.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Donald Trump shares my opinions of trolling. He is well
known for trifling with and bothering people, and I quite
like that. That's one of my favorite things about him.
I think he's funny as a president, and nothing is
off limits for him. I don't know if you've noticed this.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
He will hit.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Anyone on any topic at any time, just like the
founding fathers intended. It is full weaponized freedom of speech.
I love it, I really do. I think it's I
think it's funny. I like a little bit of humor
in our political disc Donald Trump, or probably not Donald
Trump himself, but the White House posted a video of
(09:09):
it's basically just a deportation flight illegal aliens that they
had arrested and were deporting being loaded onto the plane.
You know, they're taking the shackles out of the box
and handcuffing them and walking them up onto the plane.
They captioned it a deportation ASMR, And if you don't know,
ASMR is like an acronym for autonomous sensory meridian response,
(09:30):
I believe. And it's basically just like it can be
triggered by certain sounds in your brain, like when it's
quiet and you hear like tapping or keyboard noises or whatnot.
Certain people will hear that and it'll sort of like
trigger a little like tingly response in your brain or whatever,
and it just relaxes you. It's a whole genre on YouTube.
There goes down a massive rabbit hole. So they posted that,
(09:53):
and I'm not gonna play the audio because it's like
completely blown out by a jet engine in the background,
so you can't actually hear anything, but they did post it.
The left is very, very not happy about it, because
they can't be happy about anything. They this wracked up
like seventy million views, and most people thought it was funny,
(10:17):
like this white House is online in a good way.
They actually make funny online jokes, not the same way
that like the Biden and Harris team tried to when
they did it, it was like the forty year old
that's trying to be hip with the kids. These people
actually grew up online and they're good at it, so
when they do online trolling like this, it's actually pretty funny.
(10:37):
The leftists didn't like it. They don't like anything, So
I was curious to see what exactly the left was
saying about this video, so I went to the leftist outlets.
So here's MSNBC talking about this White House sparks backlash
for posting quote unquote dehumanizing ASMR deportation video.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Dehumanizing.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I mean they literally, like don't even show the face
in the video of this particular illegal alien that they're deporting.
So I don't know how you make the case that
this is dehumanizing. It's literally just showcasing the sounds of
deporting someone. I don't understand, but they'll jump through any
hoop to be offended by anything like we just discussed
(11:20):
with the NFL and these Native American chicks that are
pissed about the NFL, they say in this article. As
of Wednesday afternoon, the White House's post has been seen
more than sixty eight million times, according to x Many
of the online responses to the posts were critical, as
CNBC reported, So let's jump over to CNBC and let's
see what they said about this. CNBC actually went as
(11:40):
far as to describe the video. They said one shot
in the forty one second video shows an immigrant with
his hands cuffed in front of him and ankles bound
by a chain as he walks past an officer. Other
shots include a close up of a man having his
handcuffs linked together, a man's feet in chains as he
walks up a stairway to a plane, and a man
about to board the aircraft. None of the men in
their video have the faces shown, and here's the butt.
(12:04):
But the clip and the White House's description of it
captured the enthusiasm in the Trump administration and among the
president's supporters for his mass deportations. That's what they're claiming
is the bad thing. The fact that Trump supporters are
so enthusiastic about the deportations. That's just so terrible and bad.
(12:25):
We can't have that. Talking about the reactions, they say,
many people who replied to the tweet praised it, with
one ex user saying keep it up, love this, while
another wrote, thank you, send them all back. I'm in
that boat. Thank you for getting these criminal illegal aliens
out of our country. Send all of them back. If
you did not come to this country legally, if you
(12:45):
did not file the paperwork and do the work to
earn the privilege of being an American, get out. But then,
of course CNBC highlights the angry leftists that are upset
about this video, they said. Other people criticize the tweet,
with one writing in reply, this is disgusting, and another
person wrote when jd. Vance argues that illegal immigration enables
(13:05):
poverty wages and undermining the purpose of minimum wage, I
can get behind that argument, but when you post this,
it's just cruel and dehumanizing. The user wrote, Now to
make the case that this is somehow cruel and dehumanizing,
you would have to argue that somehow this particular illegal
alien that's being deported, who is one of thousands, is
(13:25):
somehow going to face some unique issue because of the
fact that he was featured in this video. Now here's
the problem with that.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
One.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
He's one of thousands. Two, Lord willing, he will never
be back in the United States.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Three.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Most people in whatever country he's being deported to will
probably never see this video, and even if they do,
they won't be able to know it's him because, as
CNBC reported, you can't actually see anyone's faces in this video.
So is this really cruel and dehumanizing? They're not doing
anything specific to this guy that they didn't do to
anybody else. They're just showcasing the procedure. I mean, the
(14:04):
most you could say about this video is that it's educational.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
That's it.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I mean, it's not like they're manhandling the guy. I'll
repost the video so that you can go see it.
The chains really aren't that particularly tight. They're just you know,
leg shackles and handcuffs so that he can't you know,
scamper off and run away. I mean, he's going on
what looks like a pretty standard commercial jet that I
assume is owned and operated by the government. Because they're
(14:29):
not going to just put these people on random commercial
jets out of the country. But I would venture to
guess that there are probably some pretty decent conditions on
the jet. He's probably got a standard airline seat to himself,
maybe he's chained down so that he can't hijack the plane,
or what have you. The leftist reaction to this is
sort of rooted in the idea that people facing the
consequences for their actions is somehow unique and cruel. This
(14:53):
was really brought to my attention by a video that
I saw of some guy. I assume he's here legally,
but his mother wasn't. He was probably born in the
United States to an illegal immigrant mother. That's not particularly uncommon.
That grants him citizenship because he's born here in the
United States, but his mother can still be arrested and deported,
and it looks like that's what happened. Take a listen
(15:13):
to this video of him talking and crying about it.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Old mom just got to deport it, My mom just
got to deport it. It's so not fair.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
It's so not fair.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
She's literally not a criminal, like she's literally she's literally just.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Made her taxes. She's literally just we're not saved.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
No one's saying, please, how your loved ones. Please.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Now, I'm not gonna come after this guy for crying
about his mother being deported. I'm sure that that was
a difficult and sad experience for him. I'm not gonna
doubt that, and I'm not gonna come after him for
crying about it.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
That's fair enough.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
What I want to address is some of the specific
things that he actually said in this video. Believe it
or not, there actually is some substance here, like, for example,
he talks about how she literally just paid her taxes.
This isn't fair, Okay, paying your taxes is not a
free license to break the law.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
It's not like for every tax dollar you pay, that's
plus one crime you get to commit. You can enter
the country, pay your taxes and still face the consequences
of breaking the law and entering the country illegally. Is
breaking the law. Regardless of how many tax dollars you pay,
that doesn't offset the crime of breaking the law. It's
(17:02):
not like doing penance, where if you do it enough,
all of a sudden your ledger evens out and you're good.
I mean, he literally says this she's not a criminal,
Yes she is. She broke the law. It is a
crime to enter this country illegally. You are not allowed
to do that. There is a process to get into
the country, and if you do not follow the process,
(17:23):
you are breaking the law. You are trespassing. I think
it's really important that we follow this to its natural conclusion.
I mean, he's basically saying his logic here is if
I don't agree with the law or think it's legitimate,
then it shouldn't be enforced on me, and I shouldn't
have to follow it. Okay, what's the limiting principle on that?
Take that to its logical conclusion, Where anyone can disagree
with any law and then all of a sudden enforcing
(17:45):
it is an affront to them and attack on their identity.
That's not healthy. No society can function like that. All right,
stay tune, we will be right back. Radical transparency. That
(18:17):
is the word that I would use to define this
Trump administration, and it is radical. I want you to
take a look, just sort of in your mind, just
mentally roll back the clock a little bit here. Think
about all the different press interactions, press conferences, all the
different times that we saw Joe Biden and his cabinet
(18:42):
just sort of in front of the media, taking questions
and answering them. Really think about it, because it really
wasn't that much. We got a lot of reports, we
had a lot of articles that were quoting people, but
did you actually see a whole lot of real in
depth and press briefings on TV?
Speaker 1 (19:03):
Not really.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
There were a few every now and again when they
feel like they really had to, when something big came up,
they would wheel up a couple of cabinet members or
Joe Biden himself. They would pump him full of I
don't even know a monster energy and crack cocaine just
to wake him up. But other than that, we really
didn't see a whole lot of the Biden administration. And
(19:24):
what we did see was ran through the filter of
mainstream media, which I think we all can agree now
to some extent, was pretty radically biased in his favor.
They filtered out all the bad stuff and they showed
you whatever worked for them, whatever worked for the Biden administration.
It was a very weird symbiotic relationship that they had,
(19:46):
and the result of that was we didn't actually have
any transparency at all. Flash forward to today, we've got
a press conference, a briefing, something going on. Anytime Trump
does anything, he's either on Twitter talking about it or
truth social or he calls a big press briefing and
they all gather in the Oval office and he takes
questions about it for forty five minutes to an hour.
(20:08):
I mean, basically, every single day we have a new
sound bite from Donald Trump. We did not have a
daily SoundBite from Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
We just didn't.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
I want to give specific props here to Marco Rubio.
He's the Secretary of State, former senator from Florida. He
did an interview with Catherine Herridge. I think I'm getting
her name right, but if I'm getting it wrong, I apologize.
She is an Emmy winning investigative journalist. Her ex bio says,
she is telling the stories she could not tell before,
where the facts have power all on their own. So
(20:38):
she's essentially just an independent journalist. And she did a
big sit down interview with Marco Rubio and she just
uploaded it to x. Now, there's a lot of good
stuff in this, so we're going to dig into it
and listen to some of the highlights. But also I
want to just point out that it's very important that
a this is happening because we need to be paying
attention to cabinet level officials. If we learn anything from
(21:00):
Joe Biden, they're the people who are really running the government, right.
They have a lot more influence than people think. They're
very important, so pay attention to the cabinet. Second of all,
we talked about that sort of mainstream media filter, and
Fox is guilty of this too. They spin in report
to suit their agenda. There are a conservative news outlet,
just like a lot of the other mainstream media is
liberal news outlets. What Marco Rubio does here is he
(21:23):
just goes to an independent journalist that's going to do
her thing and doesn't have to worry about executives telling
her what the audience wants. She can just upload what
she thinks is interesting, what she wants to post, and
you get I think the most unbiased results from that.
So here they are actually talking about this. They actually
specifically mentioned this in the interview.
Speaker 6 (21:43):
Take a listen, Will you open up the State Department
briefing room to independent journalists?
Speaker 7 (21:48):
Yes, we're here today, we're here to talking.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
I was going to say, Secretary of Rubio. You could
have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet,
but you chose an independent journalist who post on X.
Speaker 7 (22:00):
Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but
here's my observation. We have to go where the people are,
and so we need to communicate with people. We need
to be able to This is their state department. It's
not my state department. I'll be here for a number
of years and then my job is done and I'll
go back to being a private citizen. But this will
always be their state department. And we're doing making decisions
every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where
are people getting their news and information. That's where we
(22:23):
need to be delivering our news and information. I still
talk to them. I just went overseas. We had a
bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip,
and we're not going to exclude them, but we have
to be able to communicate people where they're getting their
news and information. What we can't allow to have happen
is we can't allow our message to solely be provided
through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets. Who's sadly
(22:46):
I don't mean to hurt there. I'm not trying to
be mean here. But the readership is down, their viewership
is down, their ratings are down. We have to take
our message where people are getting their news and information
and any sort of long form interviews where you're getting
serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not
little soundbites that they run during the cable news hour,
you know, for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody,
(23:09):
but we almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent
journalism because that's what people are getting their news and information.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
So there he is talking about that, and I think
he makes the perfect and honestly, the only point that
matters is like, look, this is where people are getting
their media. That's where we want to be. And obviously
there are some people getting their news and information somewhere else,
and we'll be there a little bit too, but we're
going to put our focus where most of the people are.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
That makes sense, Okay.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
He also brought up Ukraine because obviously that's one of
the big issues of the day, and there has been
seemingly some tension between the Trump administration and Ukraine, whereas
Trump administration and Russia seem to be sort of working
things out.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Now.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
A lot of people have a problem with this because
Russia is supposed to be our enemy. Yes, Russia is
to a very real extent enemy, but we also want
to make sure that we're not in a hot war
with Russia. And to do that you have to sort
of make deals and arrangements and come to terms with
each other. And Russia seems to be willing to do that.
We'll see how legitimate that is. They could be lying
(24:13):
through their teeth, that's a possibility, but right now they're
at least saying the right things, whereas Zelensky is saying
the right things when he needs to, and then when
it benefits him he's going out in public and saying
different things. So here's Marco Rubio addressing this, and he
also talks about you know, what's in it for us
in terms of helping Ukraine and why is everybody so
(24:33):
upset with Zelenski right now? He addresses sort of all
of these issues all at once. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator
without elections, what are you thinking?
Speaker 7 (24:45):
I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky
in some case, and rightfully so. Look, Number one, Joe
Biden had frustrations with Zelensky. People shouldn't forget it. There
are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at
him in a phone call, because Zolensky, instead of saying thing,
thank you for all your help, is immediately out there
messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting.
I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally
(25:07):
very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky,
the Vice President and I the two three of us,
and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and
we explained to them, look, we want to be a
joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal
from your country, but because we think that's actually a
security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor,
we get to get paid back some of the money
(25:28):
the taxpayers have given close to two hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
And it also now we have.
Speaker 7 (25:33):
A vested interest in the security of Ukraine. And he said, sure,
we want to do this deal. It makes all the
sense in the world. The only thing is I need
to run it through my legislative process. They have to
approve it. I read two days later that Zelenski's out
there saying I rejected the deal. I told them no way,
that we're not doing that. Well, that's not what happened
in that meeting. So you start to get upset by somebody.
We're trying to help these guys. One of the points
(25:55):
that President made in his messaging is not that we
don't care about Ukraine. But Ukraine is on another content.
You know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans.
We care about it because it has implications for our
allies and ultimately for the world. There should be some
level of gratitude here about this. And when you don't
see it, and you see him out there accusing the
president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly,
(26:15):
very counterproductive. And I don't need to explain to you
or anybody else. Donald Trump's not President Trump's not the
kind of person that's going to sit there and take that.
He's very transparent. He's going to tell you exactly how
he feels. And he sent the message that he's not
going to get gained here. He's willing to work on
peace because he cares about Ukraine and he hopes Zelensky
will be a partner in that and not someone who's
out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to,
(26:36):
you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not going
to be productive.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Here. Okay, there's an interesting point that she brings up
right there at the beginning. I don't want us to
brush past it. She talks about how Trump called Zelenski
a dictator without elections, and Trump's actually not wrong about that.
Through a declaration of martial laws, Zlensky has essentially suspended
all elections in the country. His own election as president.
(27:02):
He can't be voted out by the people. That's not
exactly defending democracy. I'm sorry, And I mean, you can
make the case that, oh, they're at war, they can't
do an election right now, they don't have the time
or the resources or what have you. I'm really not
that sympathetic to it. America has been through a lot
of major wars, some of them have been during election seasons,
(27:23):
and guess what, we had our elections. There was an
election during the Civil War. Response and how the war
was being handled was a big part of that election.
There was also an election during World War II, which
was a far bigger war than the war in Russian
and Ukraine. So the idea that an election can't be
held right now, I don't buy it. I'm sorry, I
(27:44):
just don't. I mean, we're being told that we have
to throw our tax money at Ukraine in order to
defend democracy, but Ukraine is not acting particularly democratic right now.
Elections are kind of a key part of that, and
they haven't had any. So what are we getting out
of this? Is democracy being protected? I'd argue probably not
if there's no elections happening. So the least we could
(28:07):
say is, hey, at least give us some money back
in terms of minerals, something that we can say to
our taxpayers, Look, here's your return on investment. And like
Rubio points out, that also has an added benefit of
more protection for Ukraine. So it really is a win
for everybody. But if you're agreeing to things in private
and then going out and publicly rejecting those deals, how
(28:28):
are we supposed to work with you. You're supposed to
be our partner. We can't partner with you if you're
lying to us, right, go listen to that full interview.
It's really interesting, it's really good. It's on Twitter. I've
reposted it, or just go directly to Catherine Herriage's Twitter
and she's got the full forty five minutes up there.
It's really good. And shout out to Marco Rubio for
doing it. Radical transparency. I love to see it. This
(28:51):
should be standard with every presidential administration.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
All right, we'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
That song does not ever get old. It really doesn't.
I don't know what it is about it.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
All right.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
We checked in on Kamala Harris. We saw how she
was doing. We've checked in on Donald Trump's approval rating
in past episodes. That's doing really well. Let's check in
on the Democrat Party as a whole. How were the
Democrats as a whole doing after coming up on a
(29:49):
month Now, we're a day away from being a full
month into Donald Trump's second term as president, So how
are the Democrats doing? And I mean the answer to
that question is pretty simply not too well. So I'm
looking at a Yugov poll right now, and this poll
is just a raw.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the
following political parties and the political party that follows that
is the Democrat Party. So right now, and get ready
for this, because this is a big number that I'm
about to throw at you. Fifty eight point seven percent
of people have an unfavorable opinion of the Democrat Party.
(30:35):
That is a disastrous number for the Democrats, right, That's
just that is a really bad number. Fifty eight point
seven basically sixty percent of people have an unfavorable opinion
of the Democrat Party. Here's why this matters. We're coming
up on a midterm believe it or not. I know,
we just had an election last year. Guess what, we
(30:58):
have another one next year. The midterm elections have basically
already started. People are already campaigning. You can see this,
and I'm sure we'll talk about that in an episode
not too far from now, because there's definitely some stuff
to talk about there. But all that to say, this
matters right now. If the Democrat Party goes into the
mid term election with basically a sixty percent disapproval rating,
(31:23):
they are going to lose so many seats, so many
seats in the House, not even to mention the Senate.
We already have a strong majority in the Senate. We
have fifty three votes in the Senate plus jd vance
if necessary. Right, that is a strong GOP majority in
the House. I believe we have a one seat majority,
so it's a majority, but barely. Right, it's not a
(31:45):
very workable majority. We could end up with a super
majority in both the House and the Senate if these
numbers continue, because remember this is going up. Since the
thirtieth of September, the disapproval rating of the Democrat Party
has gone from fifty one point four percent all the
way to fifty eight point seven. If those trends continue,
(32:09):
then by the time we get to the midterms next year,
the Democrat Party will legitimately be less popular than cancer. Now,
if you're a Democrat right now, you're looking at this
number and you're thinking, Okay, how did we get here
and how did we fix it? Or at least you
should be that's what any sane person in your position.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Would be doing.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Fox News was asking this question, and they just happened
to ask it to Senator John Kennedy, who, in my opinion,
is probably the wisest man south of the Mason Dixon line.
I've been waiting for so long to have an excuse
to play a Senator John Kennedy cut on this show,
and it's finally happened. I couldn't be more excited. Take
a listen to John Kennedy's response when he was asked
(32:51):
by Fox News, Okay, what's going on here? Why are
the Democrats so unpopular? He spells it out pretty clearly.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
I've got a lot of friends of Democrats, and they
haven't asked me for advice, But if I did, I'd
tell them, Look, you just got to try harder not
to suck. I mean, think about it. Over the past
four years, the Democrats mismanaged Congress. They mismanaged COVID, they
mismanaged the economy, They mismanaged inflation, they mismanaged the national debt.
(33:23):
They mismanaged Afghanistan. More recently, in their opposition to President
Trump and mister Musk, the Democrats have chosen to support
the bureaucrats and the spending porn over the American taxpayer,
just like they support illegal immigration.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Over the rule of law, just like they.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
Support transgender athletes over women's sports, just like they support
Hamas Terras over Israel. All Democrats are not like this,
but the party is controlled right now by people who
majored in online activism with a minor and puberty blockers.
(34:10):
I know these people if they think when they think men,
they think man can breastfeed, they're triggered by rage. They
cry if you use the wrong pronoun and most fair
minded Americans look at this and they go, these people
are about ten exits passion normal. And that's what's kilma
(34:31):
Democrats right now in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
All right, so let me translate that for you from
why is southern stage into direct English. What he's essentially
saying there is the Democrat Party has been sort of
absorbed and consumed and is now being controlled by the
very radical leftists at the very very very very bottom
of their base. This is not a majority of people
(34:57):
in society. This is not even a major of people
inside the Democrat Party, I think.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
But it's a big.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Enough portion of the Democrat Party for the higher ups
and you know, the people who actually run the party,
for the majority of Democrats to say, Okay, we can
capitulate to these crazy leftists because we need their vote
in order to beat the Republicans. And for us as Democrats,
all that matters is winning power for our party. That's
(35:27):
all that matters to them, and so they'll give in
to these crazy leftists despite the fact that it's not
what most Americans want. And the farther down this pathway
they go, the worse their approval rating gets. It's easy
to see that's why Donald Trump was able to pick
up so many moderates. That's why Donald Trump was able
to pick up the support of people like Tulca Gabbard
(35:49):
of Robert F.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Kennedy Junior.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
That didn't just magically happen. Donald Trump isn't just that
winning of a personality. I think he does have a
very winning personality, but that's not why he got those people.
It's because they're looking at their party and they're saying, Okay,
despite the fact that nobody actually wants this, this is
what my party keeps pushing more and more and more,
and I just can't be a part of that, not
(36:13):
in good conscience. I have real, measurable, actionable priorities that
I would like to know focus on. I want the
Democrat Party to be a party that's focused on health,
making sure Americans aren't being poisoned by the FDA or
the food industry.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
I want the.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
Democrat Party to be focused on making sure that the
government isn't being weaponized against American citizens. The government isn't
putting people on no fly lists for speaking out against
Joe Biden. That's my concern, But as Senator Kennedy points out,
that's not what the Democrat Party is doing. They don't
care about actual issues. They care about pushing transgenderism. That'll
(36:53):
win you some headlines, for sure, that might even go
as far as to win you some small local elections
in crazy radical towns. But is that going to win
you any sort of national election. No, it's not because
the American people by and large just aren't on board
with that. And you can try to shame Americans for
not being on board with that, but I think if
(37:15):
there's one thing we've learned over the last few years,
that's not going to work either, because they did try that.
They've deplatformed people, they've shamed people, they've tried to use
social media, movies, even music, even Target has gone out
to bat for the LGBT agenda, and the American people
(37:35):
still have not bought into it. We like it even
less now than before you did. All that four years
of Joe Biden and the radical left inside the Democrat
Party trying to push this down on us made it worse. Honestly,
they're too far gone now, that's my opinion, and I'm
by no means a political science major. I'm no expert here,
but this is how I see it. They have gone
(37:56):
too far down this path to actually turn. They rely
so heavily on these radical left voters, whose entire identity
is their activism. If they start to tack back to
the middle, like most people inside the Democrat Party want
them to, they will lose those far left voters, and
(38:18):
they can't win an election without those votes. It's such
a big portion of their base. Now the Democrat Party
has fallen into a can't win with them, can't win
without them situation with these radical leftists. But you know what, Frankly,
I'm all for it. It makes the job of the
right wing so much easier. The job of Republicans, which
is to win elections, is so much easier when they're
(38:38):
running against these Democrats. My job as a political commentator
is so much easier when I can just point and
laugh at these people, and they're giving me plenty of
material work with. Trust me, all right, That's all I've
got for today. We will be back on Saturday. Thanks
again very much for listening. I appreciate it as good
(39:00):
in school
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!