8-5-25 - 9am - Retail Politics and AOC Spouse or Boyfriend

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:14):
This is the Situation with Michael Brown on Sex thirty
k House, Rules of Engagement short and sweet, so sort
of entertainment even with a tweet, text the name Mike
to three three one zero three and download the iHeart app,
which to you is free.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Check in love.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Both his shows so highly renowned, The Situation with Michael
Brown and The Weekend with Michael Brown. Follow Michael on Twitter,
Facebook and Instagram. Press the red microphone to leave your
personalized fam I mean message. Admire Michael and Dragon's create
a post whims and walms by visiting.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
Michael says, go here dot.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
Com seize the day Michael and Dragon.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Wait, is it possible we can just put your whole
stick into AI and just have the whole thing generate
and we don't have to actually listen to you.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Cut him off, Just cut him off, the whole the
whole purpose of doing the entire show generated by AI.
So I can just sleep in, So I can just
you know, during the during the like I could. Let's
say we started today, so I just carry around you

(01:37):
those stupid like TikTokers that carry the little little handheld
little phone microphone now and hold it up. You don't
talk to it. I'll just walk around all day long,
do whatever my business is, and I'll just talk, even
if I'm in the toilet, I'll just talk, you know,
and just top top top talks like dinner, yes, and

(01:58):
and I'll just talk talk talk, top top talk. And
then we'll just feed it into an AI chat bot.
We'll tell them to break you know, this entire all
day conversation up into you know, four hours of x number,
you know, minutes per segment, and then Dragon'll just plug
it in and Dragon come in here, plug it in,
take a nap, just make sure that everything runs. I'll
just say omen you know, then just buy the rinse, repeat.

(02:21):
I already come in here and take a nap. I know.
But if somebody pointed out there was a big difference
between hearing and listening, Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear you.
Yeah whatever. I'm calling it audible myself because I was thinking, think,

(02:42):
I was thinking. I was thinking. I was thinking during
the break about what I was saying about the cabinet,
and that led me to go start going in on
this rabbit hole in my brain about retail politics and
the midterm elections and how we have I mean, do
you realize we're just the seat November, December, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August.

(03:06):
So we're we're about what nine months into the well
since the not since he became president, but since he
was elected, So January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August.
So we're you know, we're seven months into this into
this presidency, and he's he's done more in those seven
months than most presidents do in the in the first

(03:29):
two years, and then boom, the midterm elections are here
and historically have less things going to happen every time,
And it doesn't happen every time, but historically the party
in power tends to lose the House or the Senator both,
and we're going to face that. And the reason we're
going to face that is, well, the count I mentioned

(03:51):
ADHD earlier. I think the nation truly does have ADHD.
And we get sick of I'm sure I can't imagine
anybody getting sick of me, but I'm sure people get
sick of me and they want something new. They always
want something new and different. Well, nothing's more dangerous than success.

(04:13):
Any you know, you fail, well, you pick yourself up
by your bootstraps, You dust yourself off, you try again,
and we move on. But politicians political parties don't really
survive success. And you know why because when you're successful

(04:39):
as a politician, that kills the urgency, and that gives
the other side, your opponent, the opportunities to create some
sort of urgency, some new problem. Man Dami for example,
Oh my gosh, the cost of child is exorbitant. Yeah, well,

(05:02):
what does that have to do with you? Well, because
we're all adhd and too many of us are politically ignorant,
we think, oh, Mondalmi's gonna solve my problem with whatever
it is. It's costing me too much money. Without urgency,
voters don't vote, You don't compare and contrast. You don't

(05:24):
have a reason to vote for someone, and to vote
against someone you really need both of those things, which
got me thinking maybe Trunk has been too successful. I
don't get me wrong, I'm happy, and the only thing
I am really concerned about is stamina and the ability

(05:45):
to keep up the pace that he's established. I hope
to god he's a long distance runner and he's not
a sprinter, because he's going to crash and burn at
some point, and I don't want that to happen. Think
about what just a quick inventory, just things off the
top of my head. All we needed was a new president.

(06:07):
We didn't need think about how now we saw some
issues with regard to immigration, about, for example, what to
do with doctor what's to do with the dreamers, what's
to do with people who are actually here, who have
been here for their entire lives and they're working, and
they're paying taxes and they're doing all that stuff, but
they're not American citizens. So we still have to grapple
with that issue, regardless what side of you you're on.

(06:30):
But he has restored our sovereigns. He has restored our borders,
and that's well, we didn't need all of this legislation.
Oh we need comprehensive immigration reform. No, really, we just
need to enforce the laws we got. And he came
in and he started doing that and whammo, look at it.
Now there's still work to do, don't get me wrong.
But in terms of remember how many times before the election,

(06:53):
I would use the example of you know, the the
bathtubs overflowing, Well, you've got to turn off the faucet first.
You can fix the leak all you want to doesn't
make any difference. If you've got the leak, the water
is still going to spill over the levee, So it's
still going to continue to spill over. You gotta turn
off the water. Trump turned off the water. Think about

(07:15):
just elitism. He got pronouns. I don't see many people
sending me emails anymore with their pronouns listed. Picking men
out of women's sports, going after the NCAA, going after
you know, the WNBA, and it's amazing. Now, how successful

(07:43):
the destruction of the Iranian march toward nuclear weapons is
depends upon your definition of dismantled. He certainly neutered it
for the time being. I don't know for how long,
but he certainly told them, yeah, this is what I'm
willing to do. So if we have any sort of
intelligence that shows that the Ranians are starting to reconstitute

(08:05):
their nuclear program, well then boom, Well okay, we'll just
send send the bombers over again. He has to a
certain not one hundred percent, but to a ninety percent level.
He's in the ninetieth percentile. He's eliminated all the pro
hamas campus activism, and he has put I've got to

(08:29):
go read it. Matt Tabe, he's got a piece out
about how Trump's actions against academia are exactly the right thing. No,
maybe it wasn't Matt Tabe. I think it was Bill Maher,
who's got a piece out about how or he's got
a monologue out about how that is exactly the thing
that needed to be done. Wow. Bill. Whether it was
Bill Maher or Matt Tabey doesn't make any difference to

(08:50):
me either one of them saying that is simply amazing.
And in terms of inflation, yes, is it perfect?

Speaker 1 (08:58):
No?

Speaker 2 (08:59):
Is it under control? Certainly compared to what it was.
And then all the handwringing about NATO and our foreign
alliance says, oh my gosh, he's going to destroy NATO.
What's he actually done? His strengthened NATO. He's strengthened europe
support of NATO to match our five percent of GDP go.

(09:19):
We've already forgotten about usaid Oh no, don't get me wrong.
None of these are perfect, but he has gone further
down the ball field than any First of all, he
got on the ball field. Most other presidents just ignored
all of this stuff. He actually got on the ball
on the ball field, and he stopped all of or
he is stopping I should be a better way to

(09:40):
phrase it, because none of it's finished. He is stopping
all the money laundering going to all the NGOs that,
in addition to just money laundering and wasting tax dollars,
was actually feeding illegal immigration. Think about my conversation yesterday
about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They're dead in the

(10:02):
water tariffs. I think we can wait and see, but
at least in terms of the framework, if we're going
to use their terminology, the framework that's being established about
the tariffs is showing that, oh, in terms of our
trade deficit and our trading alliances, he's he's actually broken

(10:25):
the mold and said enough's enough. Now Where that eventually
gets us, I have to admit I don't know. But
everything I just said is, you know, there's a a
phrase that's going along on X a lot where people
are saying, you know, there'll be some new story about

(10:46):
Trump's done X, or it'll be the cabal talking about
how awful is that Trump's doing X whatever X happens
to be, and people's comments are That's what I voted
for that's exactly what I've voted for. We should just
be to the point about retail politics, because all of

(11:07):
that is good news. And that's a problem because why
would anybody want to be motivated to go out and
vote in twenty twenty six in the midterm elections when
we've accomplished all of this stuff. Think about Winston Churchill,

(11:29):
one of the greatest leaders of all time. I don't
care what Tucker Carlson anybody else says about him. I
absolutely admire Winston Churchill and his tenacity. What the Brits
do after winning World War Two, Matt, You're done, You're
out of here, because they didn't need a wartime leader anymore.
He had accomplished what he set out to accomplish. Now,

(11:52):
think about that in terms of Democrats. Now, a few
John Fetterman, okay, one John Fetterman, I can't think of
any others only when it comes to mind, have actually
embraced some of these accomplishments. But everybody else is out

(12:13):
there grappling, truly grappling, trying to find an issue. Mandami,
although he's not running for president yet, is out there
offering free stuff. That's kind of what the Democrats have
to offer, We'll just give you free stuff. But if
Democrats would embrace the winning, embrace the accomplishments we say won't.

(12:40):
Don't get me wrong, They're not going to do it.
But if they were to embrace it and then argue, say,
for okay, now we've accomplished these things, can we just
now return to normalcy, they might actually start getting some votes.
But right now the only thing they have is Trump bad,
Orange Man bad. Well, that's not a winning campaign issue

(13:01):
except among the diehards who are going to vote Democrat
regardless of what the Democrats offer. The Democrats can come
out and say we are communists and we want to
turn the United States of America into a communist country,
and some useful and these would say okay, and others
we go with. Other Democrats would say that's what I want,
that's what i've and that's what I'll vote for. Unfortunately,

(13:24):
I think that's a campaign that might produce a midterm
blowout for Republicans. But fortunately for us, the radicals who
dominate the Democrat Party would find it unfathomable to concede
any measure of accomplishment for Donald Trump. Everything that you

(13:47):
and I look upon as accomplishments they see as destroying authoritarium.
He's a naz he's a fascist, He's the devil incarnate.
But Democrats will at some point their self preservation will
kick in and they'll figure out something somehow to try

(14:08):
to overcome and win the midterm elections. Why do you
think I'm not really ready to address it yet, but
I'm still working on it. We'll address what's going on
in the Texas legislature with redistricting down there eventually. But
what could Republicans do? Well, this is what I know
about politics. You've got to have a competitive purpose. You

(14:34):
have to be able to compare and contrast, and you
have to give people something to vote for, not just against.
So we ought to take what Trump's accomplished and then
take everything that he's done in terms of let's just
say the executive orders for example, Executive orders are something

(14:56):
that can be overturned anytime. You know, if God forbid Trump,
you know they succeed in finally assassinating Donald Trump and
JD Vance becomes president, Well, if JD doesn't like some
of those executive orders, he can just overturn them. Now
that might be to his political peril. But the point
is not whether he would, but he could do that

(15:17):
if he wanted to. So what if we took every
single executive order and wrote a single purpose piece of legislation,
which is what bills are supposed to be anyway, But
what if we actually follow the constitution and wrote a
single purpose bill for every single executive order and singularly

(15:43):
bring each one eventually, have a committee hearing. Let the
Democrats scream and holler about it, let them get their
soundbites out, because then the strategy, and that is, we
now know what their arguments are. So whatever it is,
let's say women in men's sports, turn that into a bill,
make it illegal, put it into one bill. Hold a hearing.

(16:08):
Now you're going to force Democrats to take a stay. Yeah, yeah,
what do you support? You support women competing against women?
Or do you do you want men pretending to be
women to compete? It would force them to not only
deal with that issue, but deal with the whole transgender
issue in one singular bill. Hold a committee hearing. They're

(16:29):
gonna scream and holler. You're gonna hear every argument. Now
you know what their arguments are, and you can use
that against them. And then once you hold a hearing,
the speaker or the Senate Pro temp the Senate Majority Leader,
whoever is wherever the bill originated, bring it to a
four vote, and make the Democrats vote on every singular bill,

(16:53):
because what will they do. They'll vote no on every
single one of them. They'll vote vote. Whether it's an
eighty twenty ninety ten issue does make any difference anymore,
they'll vote no. Force them to vote against English as
the official language. Force them to vote to prevent you know,
transgender men from competing in women's sports. I say technically

(17:13):
transgender women. I never get that straight. Then you take
those votes that failed into the campaign for Congress. That
would alert all of those who were sitting back going phew, wow,

(17:33):
this has been great. That's what I voted for. Oh
it's in danger. We could actually start losing those things.
So that would in essence be saying, these successes that
we've had are temporary, particularly with if we focus on
the executive watchers, those are temporary successes. If you want

(17:55):
to make those permanent successes, we have to have a
Republican House, republican Senate, and we vote on those bills
and we get them pass and we turn them into law.
That would make his accomplishments and those temporary winnings into law.
It might also help us expand our margins in the

(18:17):
House in the Senate, which then leads us into twenty
twenty eight and gives us a leg up in the
next presidential election. Retail politics, there's your lesson in retail
politics right there in twenty minutes.

Speaker 4 (18:38):
I think addressing the cost of health care and health
insurance would be an issue that would get voters attention.
Bringing some kind of market reforms to improve that situation
would impact all Americans. I hear more people have fears
and gripe about it than any other issue.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
I agree. And the other one I would add to
that related to it is kill pharmacy benefit management companies PBMs.
I went through a thing recently with one of my prescriptions,
and I was trying a new sleep medication and it

(19:23):
was horribly expensive. I got the part D plan to
cover it, but it was still like four hundred dollars
a month regularly six hundred dollars a month, And I
told my doctor, I'm not paying six hundred dollars and
I'll just drink myself to bed every night. I'll just

(19:46):
you know, just chuck down a bottle of wine.

Speaker 5 (19:50):
Unlike unusual.

Speaker 2 (19:51):
How well, the medication used to be cheaper than a
bottle of wine, and now the bottle of wine is
cheaper than the medication. He suggested that I appeal, because
I do. I've got chronic insomnia. So I appealed it,
and they came back and said, oh, yes, we will, we'll,
we'll ensure it, we'll cover it. It will cost you

(20:15):
four hundred dollars a month. It'll cost you three hundred
and eighty five dollars a month with the insurance coverment. Helpful. Yeah, however,
get this. I could go to good RX and I
could get it and it drops it down to one
hundred and thirty five dollars a month. Now figure that
one out. Now, I did try the medication. It wasn't

(20:36):
that I didn't find it to be very effective. So
i've I've I'm not continuing with it. But the whole
price of pharmaceuticals, it's just stupid, as is the advertising.
Here's a libertarian who freely believes that, you know, if
we're going to prohibit the advertisement of cigarettes on you know,

(20:58):
FCC regulated there waves, then why can't we prohibit the
advertisement of pharmaceuticals. I trust my doctor. Hey doctor, I
got this. I got this constant irritation. It's it's a
dragon thing I got. Is there any new medication now
for that? Well, I don't know. Let me look around
and see what I can find out. I don't need

(21:19):
some TV to tell me that I've got. You know,
I got the dragon rash and here's a pill to
fix that. I you know, come on, stop it. Plus
you know what it really is. It's just a way
for the pharmaceutical companies to control the networks because that
is probably their number one revenue source, number one. So

(21:39):
let's cut let's cut that cabal apart a little bit.
Then I told the eye I heard this news. This
is not the story I was going to need to do.
But I heard about the zoo and Denmark the once
donations of your small pets so they can feed it
to their predator animals in the zoo. And then I heard,
as I was as it caught my ear, I heard that, Oh,

(22:02):
but we're going to euthanize them before we feed them
to you know, the lions and the tigers. Except that's
not what the story says, the Alburg disc comes to
us from the Las Vegas sun. The Alburg Zoo said
it is trying to mimic the natural food chain of
the animals housed there, for the sake of both animal

(22:23):
welfare and professional integrity. Well, do the lions and tigers
wait until the little bunny rabbit dies or the guinea
pig or whatever they're looking for food? Do they wait until?
Do they wait until the antelope dies? And then once
the antelope okay, now, guys, now we can go chew

(22:44):
on it it finally died. No, they attack it and
they kill it. They want fresh meat. They don't want
you know, it's been rotting in the sun for twelve hours.
The story says, for the sake of both animal welfare
and professional integrity, they want to mimic the natural food chain,

(23:05):
but assure that the pets will be gently euthanized by
trained staff, as opposed to what violently euthanized like, you know,
instead of a hammer to the head, they're gonna give
them to you know, they're gonna put them to sleep.
What is this? The zoo Northern Denmark, explaining a Facebook post, Well,
there's where to go get your News. If you have

(23:26):
a healthy animal that needs to be given away, feel
free to donate it to us. Wow, you know I'm
tired of my dog, you know, damn it. I had
to clean jeep out this weekend because it's really hot.
The dogs are just shedding too much. It's just too
damn much hair. Huh.

Speaker 5 (23:40):
Damn dogs, damn dog.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
So you know what, I'm just gonna ship them over
to Denmark and just say I feed them to the lions.
I'm done. My god, we Dathhleen, You're right. We live
in a bizarre world. Last night I went back and
I watched a I forget whether Mit or somebody that
did a animated description, and he left me more confused

(24:08):
than ever. I generally get the concept, but then when
they try to explain it to me, then I get
lost in the explanation. Back in nineteen thirty five, this
Austrian physicist Irwin Schrodinger. You've heard of Schrodinger's Cat. He
devised the thought experiment to explain quantum superposition. Here's how
I would describe it. Imagine a cat, a hammer, a

(24:31):
flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a source of
radioactivity are all put in a box and sealed off
from any observation from the outside. Now, if the Geiger
counter gets triggered, the hammer breaks the flask, releasing the
plutonium of uranium, whatever radioactive material, and the cat dies. Well,

(24:54):
if it doesn't get triggered and the hammer doesn't break,
the cat lives. Now I don't know why the hammer
doesn't just go hit the cat in the head and
kill it directly. But I mean, why the Rube Goldberg business.
Let's forget about that. No need to be squeamish about
the cat, because it's all imaginary, right. But the point
is the thought experiment is supposed to demonstrate that until

(25:18):
someone observes that the cat is alive or dead, it
should be considered both alive and dead. That's called the
observer effect. And that's one reason why I'm not a
theoretical physicist, because if I don't look up at dragon,
if I don't see him, he is both alive. Well,

(25:40):
he's dead to me anyway, but he's either he's both
alive and dead at the same time until well, until
I hear that and know he's back there, and well
maybe I don't know, maybe he died and he just
fail and hit that button. I don't know the observer
effect anyway. That's why I'm not a theoretical physicist. And
it's also why p like Alexandria Cassia Cortes are why

(26:04):
I don't ever want to be a politician. Let's go
to the free beacon. The House Ethics Committee has rebuked
Congressman Alexandria Cossi Cortez, Democrat of New York, for simultaneously
claiming that her longtime partner Riley Roberts is and is
not her spouse. Oh, I guess it's the Schrodinger spouse,

(26:28):
if you will. The committee's rebuke stemmed from a lengthy
explanation Alcossio Cortez's attorney provided to justify why the New
York lawmaker accepted a free ticket worth thirty five thousand
dollars for the boyfriend not boyfriend, the partner not partner,

(26:53):
the husband not partner husband to attend the twenty twenty
one met gala alongside her member shop where that dress
something about you know, the rich to die or whatever.
It was just tax the rich, tax the rich or something. Yeah,
you're right. At the time, the thirty five thousand dollars
ticket was a gift that Ocossia Cortes could only accept

(27:16):
under the House Ethic rules for her legally married spouse.
But Acossia Cortez has never been legally married. Now despite that, again,
Washington free beacon. Despite that, to Acossia Cortes quote, Roberts
is considered a spouse, her attorney, David Matrani, explained to
the House Ethics Committee in his May sixteenth letter. Acossia

(27:40):
Cortes's office has not returned numerous requests for comment asking
if Roberts participates in the stock market, nor has she
acknowledged that her spouse would be exempt from her proposed
legislation to ban the spouses of her colleagues from trading stocks,
so long as they never legally made got it? So,

(28:02):
you see, like Schrodinger's cat Alexandria Cosi, Cortes is both
married and unmarried, as long as nobody's paying the attention,
as long as nobody observed. Now I do on how
you observe a marriage, I don't know. But Roberts is
her husband when it benefits her, like when she can

(28:25):
get him a free ticket. You know, it's worth thirty
five thousand dollars to go to the mac galap but
it's not her husband when it doesn't fit her Shortinger's spouse.

Speaker 5 (28:36):
Hey, real quick, just wondering if we've ever caught AOC's
rapist yet, that they've been caught yet. Oh do we
not remember that AOC said that she was raped, and
during the Dobb's decision when that came out, she said,
thank goodness she had Roby Wade to you know, give
her that option to have an abortion as she needed
to because she was raped.

Speaker 2 (28:56):
I do remember that. And I wonder if we've ever
con through planned parenthood or anybody else, you know, wouldn't
she want to prove that indeed she was able to
get an abortion. Have you ever seen those medical records
to confirm that.

Speaker 5 (29:10):
She chose not to go to the cops too, because
she didn't believe they could.

Speaker 2 (29:15):
Oh, so she got raped, but she didn't get impregnated,
and we have no evidence of any of that. So
she has both been raped and not been raped. We
have her word, she said, we have both. She is
both a victim and a non victim. She's both a
congresswoman and not a congresswoman. She's the Schrodinger brat. She

(29:40):
is the Roadinger pos and I'm not talking about my
pile of stuff either. Well, anyway, now that she's been caught,
you know, breaking the rules, we can probably look forward
to her shrieking about those dirty Republicans that are meddling
in her personal life. She's always the victim at least anyway,
being the victims has gotten her elected to Congress. And

(30:02):
I don't think she's gonna switch up now. I hope
you got there that whole segment about Schrodinger's cat without
making a P word joke. I'll be right back.

Speaker 4 (30:19):
Could this be schroding juice radio show?

Speaker 2 (30:21):
If I'm eleven other listeners do not listen that day?
Do you still broadcasts? Well? And if you can't see me,
am I both here and not here? Huh? And you
never really know where I am? Is it live or
is it memoris? I wanted to play this. Lee Zelden

(30:43):
was on CNN day before yesterday, I think, and well
it must have been. It must have been yesterday. I
don't think. Maybe it was a Sunday show. Anyway, he
was on CNN and he shuts down the host when
it comes to climate change.

Speaker 6 (30:57):
It's hilarious, called the Endangerment finding. It's a landmark scientific
determination that planet warming pollution from fossil fuels endangerous human health,
and since two thousand and nine, it's formed the bedrock
for the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But

(31:19):
that's set to all change after the Trump administration announced
plans to reverse that ruling, effectively gutting the federal government's
ability to combat climate change. Joining me now is EPA
Administrator Lee Zelden, who has been traveling the country in
part to promote this move. Mister administrator, thank you so
much for being here. We really appreciate your time. I

(31:40):
do want to start with the fundamental question this at
the heart of all this. I mean, do you accept
the overwhelming scientific consensus that these greenhouse gas emissions are
the biggest drivers of man made climate change.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Well, it's great to be all with you.

Speaker 7 (31:58):
First, it's worth play out that all eight or so
images that you just posted on the screen have nothing
to do with this week's announcement. What was the two
thousand and nine endangerment finding had to do with was
with regards to mobile sources vehicles.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
This week's proposal to.

Speaker 7 (32:15):
Rescind the two thousand and nine endangerment finding was with
regards to mobile sources vehicles. CNN's been using a lot
of photos where they show smoke stacks of stationary sources
like power plants. That's not what we proposed. Now, going
back to two thousand and nine, the science that they
were reviewing included both optimistic to pessimistic scenarios. To reach

(32:37):
the two thousand nine endangerment finding, it relied on the
most pessimistic.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Views of the science. The great news is that a
lot of.

Speaker 7 (32:45):
The pessimistic views of the science in two thousand and
nine that was being assumed ended up not panning out.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Hey, that's great.

Speaker 7 (32:53):
We can rely on two twenty five facts as opposed
to twenty two thousand and nine bad assumptions. The other thing, too,
is that at EPA we don't just get to creatively
make the law whatever we want it to be. The
Supreme Court ruled in Low or bright overturning the Chevron
doctrine in West Virginia versus EPA Michigan vers EPA that

(33:15):
agencies like the EPA can't just use vague language in
statute and try to make it be whatever we want
it to be. The major policy doctrine also says that
when you're going to reach something like an endangerment finding
and then have trillions of dollars of regulation, that's something
that should be decided by our elected members of Congress

(33:35):
and passing statute. And if you don't mind the two
thousand and nine endangerment finding, while it's simply summed up
now as saying carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare,
that's not what they did back in two thousand and nine.

Speaker 2 (33:50):
They had a lot of mental leaps.

Speaker 7 (33:51):
They say carbon dioxide when mixed with a whole bunch
of other well mixed gases, in some cases not even
admitted from mobile sources. They say that that it contributes
to global climate change, doesn't say causes, contributes how much,
they don't say, but it's north of zero, not much
more than zero climate.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
Change of this, no, not just skeptical. I'm basically saying
it's not true. It's not true at all. I wish
he'd been a little stronger, but nonetheless, that's the way
to handle it. I would have done slightly different. I
would have said, no, I do not believe that CO
two is a major contributor to climate change, because the

(34:34):
climate's changing all the time, and the climate change back
when CO two parts per million were much higher in
the atmosphere than they are now. So if there is
any sort of contribution to climate change, it's deminimous, and
nobody can prove to us how much it is, or
if there's any sort of cost benefit to trying to
get to that zero, because that's what she's really going after.

(34:55):
She's really going after the fact that CO two is
causing all of this. And we've got to follow all
these things that Polish and other governors and the previous
administration wanted to follow about eliminating CO two and getting
to net zero, because that will just bring a halt
to climate change. And that's nothing more than a bunch
of bull craft. And maybe that's not why I'm not

(35:17):
a politician, because that's kind of how I'm going to
answer it.