October 8, 2025 • 15 mins
Political Science Professor at Winthrop University, Scott Huffmon joins Bo and Beth to discuss President Trumps meeting with Canadian PM Carney at the White House as well as the deployment of the National Guard to cities like Chicago and Portland.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Test.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
We got it.
Speaker 3 (00:00):
Hey, I'm here. Hey, we got a hipping hot Mike.
Speaker 4 (00:03):
Yeah, a lot, a lot of fuzzy bounce on those
upper eqs.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
What a kick in the pants from News Talk eleven
ten and ninety nine three w bet.
Speaker 4 (00:12):
Move over my lasses and lattis and make wait for
you so rocking dead.
Speaker 5 (00:16):
This is Good Morning Beat with both Thompson and Beth
trout with Hello.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
First time here, and the goose says hello to you too.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Seven minutes past eight o'clock on this Wednesday, October eighth,
Bo Thompson and Beth Troutman. We're gonna make a second
go at this at eight thirty five. Addison McDowell, congressman
from District number six, scheduled to join us. We got
our signals crossed a bit yesterday, but we believe he'll
be on with us.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
And right now we go to Winthrop University. Bring on.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Longtime political science professor Scott Huffman is back with us
a little bit earlier than usual, but we try to
accommodate his schedule as best we can.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
So good morning, professor. How are you, sir?
Speaker 5 (01:00):
I'm doing just dandy. I hope y'all are as well.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Look, we are doing dandy. We love getting to talk
to you, especially when we get to make sure that
you get that you get to put on that professor
of political science hat. And this is where we need
your assessment and your clarification and your deep knowledge. The
Supreme Court is back in session and there are some
pretty important cases that they are planning to hear. And
(01:24):
one of the one of the ones that I'd love
to get your take on, is this case over whether
or not President Trump can fire a member of the
Federal Reserve Board. In doing so, this would overturn a
ninety year old court president where a Democratic president was
actually forbidden to do so nearly one hundred years ago.
Speaker 5 (01:44):
Yeah, that was Humphrey's executor versus us, and that was
Franklin Bellen of Roosevelt was annoyed with William Humphrey, who
was a member of the Federal Trade Commission. He wouldn't
do what FDR to do. So FDR wanted to firing
so that, you know, Franklin Delana Rooseveult could get his
(02:05):
policies pushed through, and the Supreme Court said, no, you're
not allowed to do that. The president does not have
the power to do that. And so now Donald Trump
wants to fire Lisa Cook. They tried to say, oh,
it's going to be for cause because of her home loans.
Well it turns out she said, this is not my
main home, this is my second loan. So there doesn't
(02:27):
seem to be ammunition there. So the real question is
does the president have the power to fire somebody in
an independent commission? And these commissions are independent so that
they can't be tampered with in order to affect the economy.
That's why they were designed that way. And again with
this Supreme Court, there's the possibility that Humphries executor in
(02:51):
that case, could be overturned, but it would be overturning
ninety year old president that says, no, miss President, you
can't camper with commissions that affect the economy. But it
very much could be overturned. We'll have to see.
Speaker 6 (03:08):
Now.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
The other case that's getting i think probably most of
the headlines is the Child's versus Salazar case, which this
has to do with the ban on conversion therapy. And
you know, this is certainly a controversial issue and a
hot button issue right now.
Speaker 5 (03:26):
Yeah, gate conversion therapy is seen by you know, the
professionals that analyze that this doesn't work. It actually can
cause greater depression in people under the age of eighteen.
So you know, professionally, there are a handful of folks
of counselors who say, yes, I believe in this because
(03:47):
of religion. Now let me add that ministers are excluded
from this. If you're a minister, you can still do
this kind of thing with a member of your flocks.
But in this case of the Colorad case where they
banned gay conversion therapy, meaning you're trying to turn a
gay person backstraight or somebody who thinks they're gay according
(04:09):
to this, well, if it overturned, then in every state
where there is a ban against this type of gay
conversion therapy, that will be overturned as well. And a
lot of folks see this as taking steps towards overturning
gay the legality of gay marriage, which is a case
(04:31):
called Obert fell. So the child's b salvas are it's
a Colorado case, but it would have implications in any
state that bans gay conversion therapy. And interestingly, the case
that may rely on is a case that had said
there was a law that said, hey, if you're a
(04:52):
crisis pregnancy center. Remember, crisis pregnancy centers are anti abortion centers.
There's a law that said those centers to post information
saying that low income women could get assistance with an
abortion if they wanted to. So the religious crisis Pregnancy
center said, we don't want to do that, and they
(05:14):
took it to the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas wrote
the decision that said, hey, you know you're limiting this
speech on the basis that it's professional speech. No, no, no,
it's pure speech, so you can't limit it. And that's
what would be called on here because the gay conversion
therapy is being banned because hey, it's professional speech, and
(05:37):
we can ban that easier than pure speech. So there's
a whole lot going on here.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
This is a water cooler show. Oh it's the big
audio water cooler on this show.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
We try to give you the facts. We don't want
to tell you what to think. We want to tell
you what to think about that.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
We asked that you remain in your seats until the
ride has come to a safe and complete stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
Enjoy the rest of your day. Here at Good Morning
DT with Bo Thompson and Beth Trout.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
But the best group of people have Breck the swift
I can pay off.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
You guys are fun. Oh thank you, Bob, Thank you
so much.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Warton girls, Rectoria, keep your hands on the handle mark
at all the time.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
We continue on a Wednesday morning.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
We're talking to Scott Huffman from Winthrop University, longtime political
science professor, and a lot of headlines to get to
and most of them are of the National Variety this week.
We'll get to Pam Bondy in a few minutes, but
I want to go to the White House yesterday as
President Trump welcomed the Prime Minister of Canada, and this
(06:37):
was in the Oval Office, a conversation I'm going to
actually go almost to the very very end because the
way this ended, actually it was pretty funny.
Speaker 6 (06:44):
I think he's a great prime minister. I mean, he
could represent me anytime. I will tell you know.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
I'm not saying that because he's younger.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
No, he is a very strong, very good leader. He's
a nice man. But he could be nasty. He could
be very nasty, maybe as nasty as anybody. How I
think I think Canada. Let me put it this way.
I can tell you this because I deal with lots
of leaders all over the world.
Speaker 7 (07:08):
He is.
Speaker 6 (07:09):
He's a world class leader.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
He's a man that knows what he wants.
Speaker 6 (07:14):
And I'm not surprised to see that he won the
election and wanted substantially, and I would think he's more
popular now. He's a good man, he does a great job,
and he's a tough negotiator.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
So then what's holding things up?
Speaker 7 (07:31):
If he's a great man and you want to do
a deal with Canada, why aren't you?
Speaker 6 (07:35):
Because I want to be a great man to thank
you very much.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
You know, first of all, they've gotten to come up
with a better way to go from question to question,
and it sounds like, you know, you're the sheer number
of reporters shouting things at once between questions is just
a It takes away from the whole process, I think.
But anyway, they were meeting there, Mark Carney and President Trump,
the Canadian Prime minister, talking about a tariff negotiations and
(08:06):
a trade deal, and you know, it's interesting to watch
the dynamic between the two of them. Did you happen
to see this yesterday, Scott, And if even if you didn't,
you heard sort of the dynamic there of President Trump
doing what he does a lot, which is allow for
negotiations to sort of play out while the cameras are
there recording everything.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Yeah, and this is something you know he does. He
wants to set a stage and put his quote unquote
opponent in the spotlight. The way this it ended literally
there at the end, you know, was kind of a
hallmark Trump humor. But usually in the campaign and elsewhere
we see Trump's humor as pointed and occasionally you know,
(08:50):
cruel and being spared. He was genuinely funny here. He does, however,
always call opponents nasty. He generally calls you know, female
opponents nasty a little more often, but it's a way
of letting them know, hey, I don't like some of
the things you do. Now, he disliked Justin trudeau previous
(09:13):
ePRESS so much that he would see Carney as an
incredible improvement. But Canada is the only country that's in
the G seven of countries that hasn't secured a one
on one trade agreement with the United States. So this
was kind of a critical meeting and it could have
gone sideways. People remember the Zolensky meeting, and it really
(09:38):
didn't go that far. Off the rails.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
It was a moment yesterday that happened on CNN actually
with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller that
is raising some eyebrows. In an interview, Stephen Miller kind
of stop and froze midway through the interview after answering
a question and using the word plenary authority. I'm going
(10:02):
to let you. Let you listen to this guy.
Speaker 7 (10:04):
You've called the district judges ruling blocking the deployment of
National Guard in Oregon legal insurrection. Does the administration still
plan to abide by that ruling?
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Well, the administration filed an appeal this morning with the
Ninth Circuit. I would note the administration won an identical
case in the Ninth Circuit just a few months ago
with respect to the federalizing of the California National Guard
under Title ten of the US Code. The President has
plenary authority, has.
Speaker 7 (10:36):
Stephen Stephen, Hey, Stephen, can you hear me? It seems Stephen,
I apologize. It seems like we're having a technical issue.
We'll try to fix that and get back to you
after a quick break.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Stay with Cenna.
Speaker 6 (10:57):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Apparently that interview was aired later and they edited out
there where he froze or where he kind of stopped speaking,
And we don't know if there was a technical difficulty
of what was happening there. But the last thing that
he said was plenary authority. And at first people thought
that maybe he had just stumbled over his words. But
is that something that we should be thinking about. The
(11:19):
term plenary there, and plenary authority means absolute authority.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
Yeah, and I don't personally, I don't think that the
cameras are the sound froze, but using the term plenary authority,
plenary power means complete and absolute power. And our constitution
does allow for plenary power in some ways for each
of the branches. For example, the Supreme Court has plenary
power over interpreting the Constitution. The President has plenary power
(11:49):
absolute power over giving pardons. However, in things like immigration,
Congress is supposed to have plenary power. Now, when it
comes to carrying out parts of immigration, the president has power,
But when it comes to sending out National Guard troops,
the president does have the power to deploy them, but
(12:13):
it's not necessarily complete and absolute, and the president does
not have the power to give them policing powers, which
is sort of where we're going with this, that would
be a violation of the Post become a Cootie Act
that says the United States military, which the National Guard
is part of, can't have police arrest powers. So I
(12:34):
think this is part of a theory called the unified
executive that conservatives, when a Republican's president, have been pushing
that says, okay, that part of the Constitution that says
executive power shall be bested in the president means far
more power than has been used in the past. And
(12:55):
this I do think it was an accidental use of
the word plenary authority. Already use of plenary authority shows
that this administration fully intends to push the envelope of
what executive power means according to the Constitution, where frankly
it's not particularly well defined.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Finally, Scott Huffman, we've now been talking to you. We've
talked to you a week ago was the last time.
And the government shutdown has been going on for two
segments of this now, which is to say, eight days
thirty five is the all time length for a shutdown
in the United States. That was back in twenty eighteen
until twenty nineteen December twenty second to January twenty fifth,
(13:38):
first Trump administration. But here we are over a week
now into this particular shutdown. Any end in sight as
far as you can tell.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
I don't know. We may be contacting the Guinness Book
of Records on this one. Both sides seemed dug in,
and both sides think they're going to be winning the
public opinion on this one. Trump is saying that he's
going to use it to cut programs that Democrats like
(14:09):
Democrats are saying, hey, we want to put healthcare support
back into the big beautiful bill where it was cut out.
Now the most controversial is Trump saying, hey, I may
not pay back pay to people who are being furloughed.
That's actually against the law. But this law hasn't really
(14:30):
applied to a lot of things that President Trump has done,
So this is just going to get more and more
controversial over whether or not they'll be back paid. Look,
I took my wife to the airport yesterday and we
had no idea if her flights would be delayed because
the air traffic controllers are supposed to show up but
(14:51):
could start calling in sick like they did last time.
So this could begin to have a cascading effect both
sides seem dug in. The American public may not be
feeling it now, but they might start feeling it soon.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Scott Hoffman, we've got to let you go.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
We appreciate your time as always professor of political science
at Winthrop as well as the founder and director of
the Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Hope you have a great rest of the week.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
Thanks you all too,
Test.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
We got it.
Speaker 3 (00:00):
Hey, I'm here. Hey, we got a hipping hot Mike.
Speaker 4 (00:03):
Yeah, a lot, a lot of fuzzy bounce on those
upper eqs.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
What a kick in the pants from News Talk eleven
ten and ninety nine three w bet.
Speaker 4 (00:12):
Move over my lasses and lattis and make wait for
you so rocking dead.
Speaker 5 (00:16):
This is Good Morning Beat with both Thompson and Beth
trout with Hello.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
First time here, and the goose says hello to you too.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Seven minutes past eight o'clock on this Wednesday, October eighth,
Bo Thompson and Beth Troutman. We're gonna make a second
go at this at eight thirty five. Addison McDowell, congressman
from District number six, scheduled to join us. We got
our signals crossed a bit yesterday, but we believe he'll
be on with us.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
And right now we go to Winthrop University. Bring on.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Longtime political science professor Scott Huffman is back with us
a little bit earlier than usual, but we try to
accommodate his schedule as best we can.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
So good morning, professor. How are you, sir?
Speaker 5 (01:00):
I'm doing just dandy. I hope y'all are as well.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Look, we are doing dandy. We love getting to talk
to you, especially when we get to make sure that
you get that you get to put on that professor
of political science hat. And this is where we need
your assessment and your clarification and your deep knowledge. The
Supreme Court is back in session and there are some
pretty important cases that they are planning to hear. And
(01:24):
one of the one of the ones that I'd love
to get your take on, is this case over whether
or not President Trump can fire a member of the
Federal Reserve Board. In doing so, this would overturn a
ninety year old court president where a Democratic president was
actually forbidden to do so nearly one hundred years ago.
Speaker 5 (01:44):
Yeah, that was Humphrey's executor versus us, and that was
Franklin Bellen of Roosevelt was annoyed with William Humphrey, who
was a member of the Federal Trade Commission. He wouldn't
do what FDR to do. So FDR wanted to firing
so that, you know, Franklin Delana Rooseveult could get his
(02:05):
policies pushed through, and the Supreme Court said, no, you're
not allowed to do that. The president does not have
the power to do that. And so now Donald Trump
wants to fire Lisa Cook. They tried to say, oh,
it's going to be for cause because of her home loans.
Well it turns out she said, this is not my
main home, this is my second loan. So there doesn't
(02:27):
seem to be ammunition there. So the real question is
does the president have the power to fire somebody in
an independent commission? And these commissions are independent so that
they can't be tampered with in order to affect the economy.
That's why they were designed that way. And again with
this Supreme Court, there's the possibility that Humphries executor in
(02:51):
that case, could be overturned, but it would be overturning
ninety year old president that says, no, miss President, you
can't camper with commissions that affect the economy. But it
very much could be overturned. We'll have to see.
Speaker 6 (03:08):
Now.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
The other case that's getting i think probably most of
the headlines is the Child's versus Salazar case, which this
has to do with the ban on conversion therapy. And
you know, this is certainly a controversial issue and a
hot button issue right now.
Speaker 5 (03:26):
Yeah, gate conversion therapy is seen by you know, the
professionals that analyze that this doesn't work. It actually can
cause greater depression in people under the age of eighteen.
So you know, professionally, there are a handful of folks
of counselors who say, yes, I believe in this because
(03:47):
of religion. Now let me add that ministers are excluded
from this. If you're a minister, you can still do
this kind of thing with a member of your flocks.
But in this case of the Colorad case where they
banned gay conversion therapy, meaning you're trying to turn a
gay person backstraight or somebody who thinks they're gay according
(04:09):
to this, well, if it overturned, then in every state
where there is a ban against this type of gay
conversion therapy, that will be overturned as well. And a
lot of folks see this as taking steps towards overturning
gay the legality of gay marriage, which is a case
(04:31):
called Obert fell. So the child's b salvas are it's
a Colorado case, but it would have implications in any
state that bans gay conversion therapy. And interestingly, the case
that may rely on is a case that had said
there was a law that said, hey, if you're a
(04:52):
crisis pregnancy center. Remember, crisis pregnancy centers are anti abortion centers.
There's a law that said those centers to post information
saying that low income women could get assistance with an
abortion if they wanted to. So the religious crisis Pregnancy
center said, we don't want to do that, and they
(05:14):
took it to the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas wrote
the decision that said, hey, you know you're limiting this
speech on the basis that it's professional speech. No, no, no,
it's pure speech, so you can't limit it. And that's
what would be called on here because the gay conversion
therapy is being banned because hey, it's professional speech, and
(05:37):
we can ban that easier than pure speech. So there's
a whole lot going on here.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
This is a water cooler show. Oh it's the big
audio water cooler on this show.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
We try to give you the facts. We don't want
to tell you what to think. We want to tell
you what to think about that.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
We asked that you remain in your seats until the
ride has come to a safe and complete stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
Enjoy the rest of your day. Here at Good Morning
DT with Bo Thompson and Beth Trout.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
But the best group of people have Breck the swift
I can pay off.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
You guys are fun. Oh thank you, Bob, Thank you
so much.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Warton girls, Rectoria, keep your hands on the handle mark
at all the time.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
We continue on a Wednesday morning.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
We're talking to Scott Huffman from Winthrop University, longtime political
science professor, and a lot of headlines to get to
and most of them are of the National Variety this week.
We'll get to Pam Bondy in a few minutes, but
I want to go to the White House yesterday as
President Trump welcomed the Prime Minister of Canada, and this
(06:37):
was in the Oval Office, a conversation I'm going to
actually go almost to the very very end because the
way this ended, actually it was pretty funny.
Speaker 6 (06:44):
I think he's a great prime minister. I mean, he
could represent me anytime. I will tell you know.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
I'm not saying that because he's younger.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
No, he is a very strong, very good leader. He's
a nice man. But he could be nasty. He could
be very nasty, maybe as nasty as anybody. How I
think I think Canada. Let me put it this way.
I can tell you this because I deal with lots
of leaders all over the world.
Speaker 7 (07:08):
He is.
Speaker 6 (07:09):
He's a world class leader.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
He's a man that knows what he wants.
Speaker 6 (07:14):
And I'm not surprised to see that he won the
election and wanted substantially, and I would think he's more
popular now. He's a good man, he does a great job,
and he's a tough negotiator.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
So then what's holding things up?
Speaker 7 (07:31):
If he's a great man and you want to do
a deal with Canada, why aren't you?
Speaker 6 (07:35):
Because I want to be a great man to thank
you very much.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
You know, first of all, they've gotten to come up
with a better way to go from question to question,
and it sounds like, you know, you're the sheer number
of reporters shouting things at once between questions is just
a It takes away from the whole process, I think.
But anyway, they were meeting there, Mark Carney and President Trump,
the Canadian Prime minister, talking about a tariff negotiations and
(08:06):
a trade deal, and you know, it's interesting to watch
the dynamic between the two of them. Did you happen
to see this yesterday, Scott, And if even if you didn't,
you heard sort of the dynamic there of President Trump
doing what he does a lot, which is allow for
negotiations to sort of play out while the cameras are
there recording everything.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Yeah, and this is something you know he does. He
wants to set a stage and put his quote unquote
opponent in the spotlight. The way this it ended literally
there at the end, you know, was kind of a
hallmark Trump humor. But usually in the campaign and elsewhere
we see Trump's humor as pointed and occasionally you know,
(08:50):
cruel and being spared. He was genuinely funny here. He does, however,
always call opponents nasty. He generally calls you know, female
opponents nasty a little more often, but it's a way
of letting them know, hey, I don't like some of
the things you do. Now, he disliked Justin trudeau previous
(09:13):
ePRESS so much that he would see Carney as an
incredible improvement. But Canada is the only country that's in
the G seven of countries that hasn't secured a one
on one trade agreement with the United States. So this
was kind of a critical meeting and it could have
gone sideways. People remember the Zolensky meeting, and it really
(09:38):
didn't go that far. Off the rails.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
It was a moment yesterday that happened on CNN actually
with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller that
is raising some eyebrows. In an interview, Stephen Miller kind
of stop and froze midway through the interview after answering
a question and using the word plenary authority. I'm going
(10:02):
to let you. Let you listen to this guy.
Speaker 7 (10:04):
You've called the district judges ruling blocking the deployment of
National Guard in Oregon legal insurrection. Does the administration still
plan to abide by that ruling?
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Well, the administration filed an appeal this morning with the
Ninth Circuit. I would note the administration won an identical
case in the Ninth Circuit just a few months ago
with respect to the federalizing of the California National Guard
under Title ten of the US Code. The President has
plenary authority, has.
Speaker 7 (10:36):
Stephen Stephen, Hey, Stephen, can you hear me? It seems Stephen,
I apologize. It seems like we're having a technical issue.
We'll try to fix that and get back to you
after a quick break.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Stay with Cenna.
Speaker 6 (10:57):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Apparently that interview was aired later and they edited out
there where he froze or where he kind of stopped speaking,
And we don't know if there was a technical difficulty
of what was happening there. But the last thing that
he said was plenary authority. And at first people thought
that maybe he had just stumbled over his words. But
is that something that we should be thinking about. The
(11:19):
term plenary there, and plenary authority means absolute authority.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
Yeah, and I don't personally, I don't think that the
cameras are the sound froze, but using the term plenary authority,
plenary power means complete and absolute power. And our constitution
does allow for plenary power in some ways for each
of the branches. For example, the Supreme Court has plenary
power over interpreting the Constitution. The President has plenary power
(11:49):
absolute power over giving pardons. However, in things like immigration,
Congress is supposed to have plenary power. Now, when it
comes to carrying out parts of immigration, the president has power,
But when it comes to sending out National Guard troops,
the president does have the power to deploy them, but
(12:13):
it's not necessarily complete and absolute, and the president does
not have the power to give them policing powers, which
is sort of where we're going with this, that would
be a violation of the Post become a Cootie Act
that says the United States military, which the National Guard
is part of, can't have police arrest powers. So I
(12:34):
think this is part of a theory called the unified
executive that conservatives, when a Republican's president, have been pushing
that says, okay, that part of the Constitution that says
executive power shall be bested in the president means far
more power than has been used in the past. And
(12:55):
this I do think it was an accidental use of
the word plenary authority. Already use of plenary authority shows
that this administration fully intends to push the envelope of
what executive power means according to the Constitution, where frankly
it's not particularly well defined.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Finally, Scott Huffman, we've now been talking to you. We've
talked to you a week ago was the last time.
And the government shutdown has been going on for two
segments of this now, which is to say, eight days
thirty five is the all time length for a shutdown
in the United States. That was back in twenty eighteen
until twenty nineteen December twenty second to January twenty fifth,
(13:38):
first Trump administration. But here we are over a week
now into this particular shutdown. Any end in sight as
far as you can tell.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
I don't know. We may be contacting the Guinness Book
of Records on this one. Both sides seemed dug in,
and both sides think they're going to be winning the
public opinion on this one. Trump is saying that he's
going to use it to cut programs that Democrats like
(14:09):
Democrats are saying, hey, we want to put healthcare support
back into the big beautiful bill where it was cut out.
Now the most controversial is Trump saying, hey, I may
not pay back pay to people who are being furloughed.
That's actually against the law. But this law hasn't really
(14:30):
applied to a lot of things that President Trump has done,
So this is just going to get more and more
controversial over whether or not they'll be back paid. Look,
I took my wife to the airport yesterday and we
had no idea if her flights would be delayed because
the air traffic controllers are supposed to show up but
(14:51):
could start calling in sick like they did last time.
So this could begin to have a cascading effect both
sides seem dug in. The American public may not be
feeling it now, but they might start feeling it soon.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Scott Hoffman, we've got to let you go.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
We appreciate your time as always professor of political science
at Winthrop as well as the founder and director of
the Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Hope you have a great rest of the week.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
Thanks you all too,
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. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.