Episode 172: Messaging Is Everything In Political Battles & Elon Musk Has To Adapt

In This Episode:

Elon Musk’s Crucial DOGE Update

Trump’s first cabinet meeting featured an update from Elon Musk on the progress of DOGE, highlighting both the challenges and victories of reforming government.
Mark explains why Musk must approach his government role differently than he does with his private companies.
If Musk gets the messaging right, he will be unstoppable. But if he falls into trolling, he risks political battles that will distract from DOGE’s mission.
America vs. Europe: The Free Speech Divide

The difference between America and Europe on free expression has never been clearer.
Trump prayed during his cabinet meeting, while in Scotland, people are facing jail time for prayer.Yes, really. Krysty breaks down this alarming crackdown on religious freedom.
Voters Still Back Trump

The latest polling data shows strong voter support for Trump, despite relentless media attacks. We unpack the numbers and what they mean.
Jake Tapper’s Sudden Change of Heart

CNN’s Jake Tapper is out with a new book detailing Biden’s mental decline—but here’s the catch:
Tapper spent years covering up Biden’s condition! We bring video receipts proving the media hypocrisy.
Wild & Wacky Final Stories

Another airport near-miss has Krysty on edge.
And in a hilarious moment, a deer took over a ski slope in Northern New Mexico—you won’t believe the video!

Give Send Go Link For The Hauquitz Family: 
https://www.givesendgo.com/HauquitzFamily

#news #breakingnews #politicalpodcast #doge #musk #trump #albuquerque #newmexico #governmentwaste #deer #redriver 

https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/

Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose
between a left or right.
Well, I'd like to suggest thereis no such thing as a left or
right.
There's only an up or down.
This is the no Doubt About it.
Podcast.
No doubt about it Now yourhosts, Christy and Mark Runcany.
Wildfire, you can't catch usnow?

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Running, running, running dead.
Christy and Mark Runcany, Iforgot to tell you that a guy
wrote in and talked about myripped up chair and how they can
see the tape on it.

Speaker 4 (00:36):
Yeah, it's old school .
We've got a little gorilla tapeon there.

Speaker 3 (00:40):
No, it's duct tape, guys.

Speaker 4 (00:41):
No no, no, it's gorilla tape the black is shiny.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Yeah, it's gorilla tape.
No's gorilla tape.
The black is shiny, yeah, it'sgorilla tape.

Speaker 4 (00:45):
No, it's not that.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
It's not the duct tape from college days, like we
used to hang our curtains withour duct tape yeah duct tape,
it's magic.

Speaker 4 (00:51):
No, it is magic and and agreed, this is not the
smoothest look, but we're tryingto go with kind of that look of
, let's say, we're ahardscrabble crew here and and
we're not going to have some.
You know, you know some, knowsome, you know $500, you know,
ergonomically correct chair.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
This thing is old school 1970s.
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 4 (01:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, the chairs were donated to us.
So that is, and they were alittle beat up so we just said
we'll fix that, we'll take careof that.
So yeah, it's a little hard.
It's a little hard to grab allhere.
I'd love to like have a budgetto redo the whole studio.
That'd be like my dream.
But Mark would be like no.

Speaker 4 (01:25):
Why?
What's the ROI on that?

Speaker 3 (01:28):
Just that it looks pretty, yeah, yeah, and that my
chair doesn't have duct tape allover it.
Yeah, no, it's good, it's likemy college life right now.
It's like my college couch.

Speaker 4 (01:39):
No, it shows that like, look you're coming, yeah
you, You're getting it done andyou don't see.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
I didn't come from the wrong side of the tracks.

Speaker 4 (01:43):
I just was you, really, I was just kind of
scrappy that's the difference.
I was scrappy.
Hello, put yourself throughschool.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
Get some duct tape, get a free couch that you found
on the corner and duct tape itall up.
That's right.
And then your curtain starts tofall down.
You just duct tape.

Speaker 4 (01:59):
that too there's no question.
I mean, when you saw a couch atWashington state university
sitting out on a corner, youtook it.
You took it.
I mean it was game on.

Speaker 3 (02:07):
Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 4 (02:08):
Yeah, no, and absolutely.
We did the same thing, so I getit.
I just think that there thereare good uses of money, and then
there are frivolous uses ofmoney.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Me getting a new chair is not in the budget.

Speaker 4 (02:21):
We have another couple of chairs.
The difference is that youthink those sit too low, so you
feel like Joe Pesci.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well, that one's broken on the thing to up and
down it.
Whatever you call that thelever that's broken.
So I sit all the way.
I'm like this.
Hey everybody how's it goingtoday.
So I was just like okay, atleast this is like tall.
Yeah, but anyway, thank you fornoticing my duct tape and
pointing that out in the commentsection on the YouTube channel.

Speaker 4 (02:45):
Hey look, if you're all about top-end furniture,
this is probably not yourpodcast.

Speaker 3 (02:50):
Well, I'm a designer, so that's what's kind of
actually funny.
I am all about nice-lookingstuff.

Speaker 4 (02:55):
Well agreed, but there are differences.

Speaker 3 (02:57):
I know, I get it, guys I get it, I get it.
Maybe we'll figure it outanyway.
Okay, let's start with whatwe're going to talk about today.
Okay, not beyond our furniture.

Speaker 4 (03:07):
Yes, we had the first cabinet meeting today this
afternoon in Washington DC.
We'll talk a little bit aboutthat and we'll talk about the
political machinations back andforth and why, why can we never
really get anything done?
Why does nothing change untilwe drive off a cliff and we're
going to see some examples ofthat today, on what's happening

(03:27):
and how we continue to watchthese issues play out, and
there's a lot of back and forthon the politics of it.
But the reality is you stillhave numbers that show that the
American people largely agree onthe basic direction they want
to go, agree on the basicdirection they want to go, and
right now that direction iswe're sort of headed headed

(03:52):
there, but with but with realkind of bright white lights that
are flashing saying wait asecond, you better be careful if
you're Trump, and and whatthey're trying to do, and and
and how are the Democrats goingto?
You know kind of deal with that?
We're going to go through somewildlife on a ski slope local
ski slope here in New Mexico?
Yes, and then we'll touch on afew other things as well.
Another close call at Americanairport, and this one's on
camera as well.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
Yeah, I the those stories.
I don't like.

Speaker 4 (04:13):
you know that, I know , I know Well look, Ava and I
are flying into this airportexactly nine days from now.

Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yeah, let's say prayers for that.

Speaker 4 (04:24):
And we got like a layover there of like seven
hours.

Speaker 3 (04:26):
Yeah, and I used to like have real flight anxiety.
It kind of went away.
It's coming back, yeah.
It's scary and you know I'm,I'm, it's, it's sad, Cause I
should not.
I have like a whole ritual.
I pray, yeah, I say the sameprayer before we take off me.
You know this whole rule, andthen I have to have a show on my
iPad that I can just dive into.
I cannot have a conversation ona flight Now.

(04:47):
I don't even know if thoselittle tricks are going to help
me.

Speaker 4 (04:49):
Yeah Well, the prayers, the prayers, the one
I'd probably stick with.

Speaker 3 (04:51):
Well, of course, I do stick with that.
The protection on the plane.
That is always what I pray for,so anyway, okay.
Well, we got lots of commentswe're going to.
We pulled three to share.
Yeah, the first one comes infrom Pam Love.
It says I'm sure Stansberry isreferring to the thousands being
affected who are the federalemployees in New Mexico who have
to report back to the office.

(05:11):
A friend who works for anational lab has to go back to
the office and she's having acow.

Speaker 4 (05:16):
I told her welcome to the real world, okay so well,
yeah, that's part of what'sgoing on, the return to work
situation, there's no question.
And anytime again you're tryingto upset the apple court all of
a sudden, you're going to get alot of pushback.
And that is happening, there'sno doubt, in a variety of
different forms.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, not so great.

Speaker 4 (05:34):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
This one comes in from Vicki Crook.
It says Mark and Christy.
I love listening to yourpodcast.
It's an excellent and veryinformative about national and
local politics.
I'd love that you share yourfaith with your listeners.
Please put the link back up forsending money to the Hockwitz
family.
Once again, and just so youknow, vicki, I did try to put
that link back on directly.
As that comment, it disappears.
So I think YouTube has aproblem with us trying to

(05:55):
reshare a link.
However, the link is in thedescription of the show, so if
you just go up to thedescription of the episode, that
link is right there.
Yeah.
Or you can follow us on our Knowthat About it social media
pages.
It's all over.
The link has been shared thereas well.

Speaker 4 (06:10):
Yes, and that fund has done very well for Craig,
and rightfully so.

Speaker 3 (06:16):
And Brent, and we got some exposure with some of the
media with that, which I thinkhas been incredibly helpful.
We know that a lot of you outthere have made a donation,
which we appreciate so much.

Speaker 4 (06:25):
Yeah, it was really really great.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
It's great to see the community come around.
So thank you guys.
So much for those of you whohave donated.

Speaker 4 (06:37):
And if you haven't, we would still love for you to
pray for this family andconsider a donation.
Yeah, and Victory News did areally cool story on it, as did
KRQE.
They were really nice in thestory they did as well, so
appreciate both of those guysstepping up.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
Absolutely, the more eyeballs we can get on this
family, and their need is great.

Speaker 4 (06:51):
Can we put the link again in the description.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
Sure, we'll absolutely put the description
again in the link of this showas well, very doable.
But just go to the descriptionat the very top of our show.
It talks about each episode andit says it has a link right
there.
It says help this family, okay,okay.
And then finally, we put thisone in.
This was an email, actuallythat came in.
Linda Morton sent this in.

(07:15):
It said I listen to yourpodcast regularly and while I
agree with part of your opinionscertainly not all of them
Realizing that you guys reallythink Trump is quote the answer
for America.
I would be very interested inhearing what your take is on the
pro-Putin, pro-russia andanti-Ukraine, anti-europe take

(07:36):
on things and the issue of himfiring all the top military
officials, including the JAGs,and replacing them with people
who may be more loyal to himthan the US Constitution.

Speaker 4 (07:43):
Okay, let's leave that up for a second.
That's.
It's a really interesting, andwe always appreciate when people
write in with constructivestuff.
They're like, hey, I don'tagree with you on this.
We'll always put those on ifyou want to talk about it.

Speaker 3 (07:52):
Well, not always.
I'm not going to always pullthose, just so you know.
But I do try to pull ones thatare no, I mean, it's a
productive discussion.

Speaker 4 (07:59):
Obviously, if you're being rude and whatever, then
Christie will be like but no,this is really a very fair point
.
So a couple of things going on.
Trump is the answer.
What we talk about with Trumpis that I think for too long
we've had leaders in bothparties for too long that have
enriched themselves and they goto DC or they go to Santa Fe and

(08:23):
they do things that benefitthemselves and not the people
that they serve, and it's reallyfrustrating.
And so we've talked about that.
There's no doubt, and I thinkyou have a media structure which
we always talk about, becausethat's what our experience is in
is in media, where you have amedia structure that is falling
apart around us and a newstructure is rising up.
Now there'll be a lot of backand forth on how that adjusts
and what happens, but we alwaystry to shoot straight with you,

(08:46):
and I do think, linda, it's avery fair criticism that
sometimes on the right, what yousee is shows that just echo
chamber, echo chamber, echochamber, and we don't, we do not
want to do that.
That's what we always try totalk about tactics and things
that happen and why things arehappening, not just that things
are happening or just pointingto something and saying we don't
like it.
But as far as Trump goes, withwhat he's trying to do here, I

(09:09):
think some of the things arevery good.
I think we have to readjust theway government works.
We are headed toward a cliffWe've talked about it and we are
in financial trouble beyond, Ithink, the understanding of most
people, and so things have tochange the amount of money that
we spend, the way we track moneyand eliminating waste, fraud
and abuse and that is somethingthat's a very, very steep hill
to climb.
But as far as the Russia thinggoes, I agree with you.

(09:31):
I'm not comfortable with it.
I think that what's going onright now and I don't know if
this is part of a negotiation orhow this works, but but not
being able to figure out thatRussia went into the Ukraine and
tried to take over a sovereignnation is very clear, and I
think we were right to beinvolved to try to help the
Ukrainians to some degree,because Russia just can't be

(09:54):
given an open checkbook to go dowhatever the heck they want.
It's dangerous for the worldand we can't allow it to happen
Now.
Do I think, had Trump won,would Putin have gone into
Ukraine?
I do not believe he would have.
I don't.
But I also don't agree withsome of the ways in which we're
now referring to Ukraine, and Ithink on the right there's this

(10:16):
big ball of rolling hatred thatcontinues to pick up steam going
after Ukraine, and I don'tunderstand it.
And you get guys like TuckerCarlson that go out and say
these things and go to Russiaand talk about how great things
are in Russia.
I don't get it, we all supportit, and I'm not going to, I'm
not going to sugarcoat it Now.
Is Trump going to be able toreach a deal?
I hope so.
I hope he is, but I thinkthere's no question.

(10:39):
I think the Ukrainians need tokeep their autonomy.
I don't think they should haveto give up land, but they're
going to have to if they'regoing to reach a deal and I'm no
expert on geopolitics in thatregion, no idea.
But obviously Russia caused allof this, did all of this, and I
think acting like they're notthe bad actor is a mistake.
I don't like it at all.

Speaker 3 (11:01):
Okay, no, that's good .

Speaker 4 (11:04):
I think you answered her question oh and, by the way,
as far as getting rid ofdifferent uh military leaders
happens all the time, so actinglike trump is unique in doing
this is ridiculous it happensall the time yeah, so this is
not unique get rid of.
It's like the us attorney'soffice.
The us attorney was fired todayby donald trump.
Yeah, guess what?
So was the?
So was the republican who wasserving when Biden took over.

(11:26):
That's how it goes, right.
So acting like this issomething new and there's some
new dictatorial move by Trump isridiculous.
So stop taking old things thathave always been done and saying
, oh my goodness, well, this isa.
This is breaking of a norm.
It's not breaking of a norm atall.
It's exactly what the executivebranch has the authority to do,
and oftentimes they do it.

(11:46):
Now, sometimes they hold peopleover.
It does happen sometimes.
So so not even cabinet membersoccasionally get held over.
Bob Gates was held over fromthe Bush to Obama
administrations like thathappens, okay, but not always in
in in many cases, it doesn'thappen that way, and more and
more as we become more polarized, it happens less and less.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
Right, people pack their bags when they, when the
president loses you're done,you're done.

Speaker 4 (12:08):
A woman loses eventually when you know that's
going to happen.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
Right, absolutely.

Speaker 4 (12:12):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (12:12):
Well, let's jump into some some stuff that's
happening right now.

Speaker 6 (12:15):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (12:16):
Trump's having his first cabinet meeting today,
kind of uh, you know getting, uh, it's interesting, you know
getting it's interesting.
He invited Elon Musk to thecabinet meeting.

Speaker 4 (12:27):
Yeah, I want to talk about that because that
messaging so I think that's thebiggest deep dive we're going to
take today is that Musk has tounderstand that he is not
working at X or he's not workingat Tesla.
This is the federal governmentand he's got to be careful with
messaging.
He's got to occasionally has amessaging problem in the respect
that he enjoys a good troll.

Speaker 3 (12:48):
I mean, that is an understatement.

Speaker 4 (12:50):
He loves it Right.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
And I think people that read him on Twitter should
know that.
Like that's what I guess I'mlike the media.
The media knows he's trolling.
I'm sorry, but they know that.
And then they're just like alloffended by what Elon's saying
and I'm like, come on the guy,this is what he does.
Like don't fall for all thecomments he makes on Twitter.

Speaker 4 (13:08):
Like don't get all offended well, okay, but that's
but again, you're in a politicalfight here, so you can't make
your life more difficult.
So we're going to start withclip three, ava, and what we're
going to talk about here is Ithink there's two very
interesting sound bites I wantto play from him from the
meeting, which, by the way,again, not unusual for staff,

(13:29):
which is what he would be staffto go to a cabinet meeting, it's
not unusual at all.
So for him to show up and do alittle presentation in front of
the cabinet members not unusualat all.

Speaker 3 (13:40):
And he needs them to buy into what he's doing.
No doubt they have to worktogether.
I mean, it's been very clearthat this doesn't like.
It's not like Elon comes in andsays we're firing all these
people, we're doing all this.
He doesn't have that kind ofpower.
Again, I'm not sure how that'sgetting so misconstrued by the
media either, thinking that hesomehow thinks he has that power
but he doesn't.

(14:00):
It's just a matter of he is aplayer in this, doing an audit,
but he needs the help of thecabinet and Trump to help make
this happen.

Speaker 4 (14:07):
There's no doubt to execute on it Correct,
absolutely Okay.
So let's start with the thingthat made the most waves, which
was sending out an email askingall federal employees to name
five things they did last week.
Just do the five bullet emailOkay.
So the question became how dareyou Right, everybody gets.
And then all the all theprivate sector people like.
So what we do that all the time, big deal, you know.

(14:27):
And so you're getting this backand forth.
Who does this guy think he is?
Well, today he explained alittle bit of what the rationale
was behind asking people toname the last five things they'd
done.

Speaker 10 (14:42):
I think that email perhaps was misinterpreted as a
performance review, but actuallyit was a pulse check review.
Do you have a pulse?
Do you have a pulse and twoneurons?
So if you have a pulse and twoneurons, you can reply to an
email.
This is, you know, I think nota high bar is what I'm saying.

(15:03):
This is a should be.
Anyone could accomplish this.
But what we are trying to getto the bottom of is we think
there are a number of people onthe government payroll who are
dead, which is probably why theycan't respond, and then some
people who are not real, peoplelike they're literally fictional
individuals that are collectingpaycheck well, somebody's
collecting paychecks on afictional individual.

(15:23):
So we're literally trying tofigure out are these people real
?
Are they alive and can theywrite an email, which I think is
a reasonable expectation?
Uh, for the american publicwould have at least that
expectation of someone in thepublic sector now trump did add.

Speaker 3 (15:39):
I heard also that trump did add in saying hey,
listen, what we've asked for we.
We support this email that Elonput out, but what we're asking
for is people in these differentdivisions to report back to
their heads, so whoever's incharge of their department.
Right that?
That was the question.
And then the press secretaryalso said that they've seen 43

(16:00):
percent of federal employeessend back the email.
Right.
So they've had over a millionfederal employees respond to
this already, right?
So, again, it's kind ofinteresting that it became such
a hoopla, especially in themedia, of how dare you?
And then it's actually, it'skind of a not that it's not a
nothing burger, but it is.
It's again just like it's anemail, right so.

Speaker 4 (16:22):
Well no, and I think most people look at it.
It's an email, right?
Well no, and I think mostpeople look at it.
Most normal, everyday folkslook at it and say so what?
Go respond to the email orwhatever.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
Well, I think the part that got offensive was when
it was like if you don'trespond by X day I think it was
Monday You're going to get fired.
Well, no, we'll take this asyour letter of resignation.

Speaker 4 (16:39):
Right, which you can't do, actually, which you
can't do To me.

Speaker 3 (16:41):
that's the trolling part of Elon Right.
That part needs to grow up.
That's the part you said abouthis messaging.
He needs to be careful with themessaging.

Speaker 4 (16:48):
Okay, so very good point.
So where I think he was verygood on messaging is when he
talked about Doge and what theywere trying to do.
So what we're going to play foryou here is his explanation of
what Doge is trying to do, andthis is smart.
So he needs to be very carefulin the messaging going forward.
I just think you can'tfreewheel this, because if you

(17:10):
freewheel it, you end upoverstepping, misstepping, and
you just give the people whodon't want change and who don't
want any sort of governmentrealignment to be more efficient
.
You give them bullets in thegun, and so you cannot afford to
do that.
This is a PR war, whether youthink you're in it or not.
That's what politics is, and hehas to understand that, and so

(17:31):
when he does things like this,they're very effective to me.
So just listen to this.

Speaker 10 (17:35):
Our goal here with the Doge team is to help address
the enormous deficit.
We simply cannot sustain as acountry a $2 trillion deficit.
The interest rates, just theinterest on the national debt
now exceeds the DefenseDepartment's spending.
We spend a lot on the DefenseDepartment, but we're spending
over a trillion dollars oninterest.

(17:57):
If this continues, the countrywill become de facto bankrupt.
It's not an optional thing, itis an essential thing.
That's the reason I'm here andtaking a lot of plaque and
getting a lot of death threats,by the way.
I mean, I like to stack them upthere, but if we don't do this,
America will go bankrupt.

(18:17):
That's why it has to be done.
I'm confident at this pointknock on wood, you know, look at
my wooden head, the there's alot of wood up there that we can
actually find a trilliondollars in savings.
That would be roughly 15% ofthe $7 trillion budget.
And obviously that can only bedone with the support of

(18:41):
everyone in this room and I'dlike to thank everyone for your
support.
Thank you very much.
This can only be done with yoursupport.
So this is it's really.
Doge is a support function forthe present and for the agencies
and departments to help achievethose savings and to
effectively find 15% inreduction in fraud and waste.

(19:04):
And we bring the receipts.
So people say like, well, isthis real, Just go to dogegov.
We line item by line item, wespecify each item.
So, and I should say also, wewill make mistakes, we won't be
perfect.

Speaker 4 (19:23):
But when we make a mistake we'll fix it very
quickly.
Okay, a couple of things I likeabout that the clear
explanation that we have nochoice.
We have to begin to get thisunder control because, as we've
said before on this show, we'rerefinancing a ton of debt coming
up in six months.
We don't have the money to dowhat we're doing and it's the
rubber's going to hit the roadvery shortly.
We're going to watch all thishappen in real time, that things

(19:45):
will grind to a halt.
So you can't keep acting like.
You can do what theseCongresses have done before and
overspend and get to the pointwhere we just absolutely can't
handle this anymore.
So I like the fact that he laidthat out and then he said you
know we're going to make somemistakes and when we do we'll
fix them, and I think peoplewill give them grace on that.

(20:07):
But they won't give you graceon that If you look like you're
spiking the football on peopleevery time you do it.
You know, if you're always like,hey, get out of here and you
bring the chainsaw out andeverything else, like I think
it's that sort of thing.
And again, I love a goodchainsaw, don't get me wrong,
you know.
But but I think that when youlook at it you've just got to
realize what environment you'rein.
And the environment you're inand the environment that you are
dealing with here is a Medicaid, medicare, social security

(20:29):
environment.
Those matter to people, right?
They care about that.
So you really have to becareful in the way you speak
about them.
And then, beyond that,government spending and
government programs all over theplace.
In some cases people care verymuch for those and in those jobs
and everything else.
So when you talk about peopleyou know getting new jobs, or
you talk about relocating people, you need to do it with a sense
of of sobriety and compassionand then say but we got to do

(20:53):
this and here's how we have todo it, and I don't know if
that's going to require a Dogespokesperson or whatever.

Speaker 3 (20:59):
It might honestly like I look at, I look at Elon
and I think I like the way hisbrain works as far as like his
ideas and stuff, but I do thinkhe's a PR nightmare a lot of the
times because he does just kindof whatever comes into his
brain, it comes out on Twitterand then somebody in the media
or a podcaster will pick it upand then it goes from there
right.
So then it becomes the mainpiece of news for the day and

(21:22):
then it gives.
The problem is, I was talkingto a woman who does work.
She's got a federal job and shesaid and she's very
conservative and she likes a lotof the things that Doja is
doing, but she's explained thatyou know, when things like the
mistake of like well, we'regoing to fire all a lot of these
lab people all of a suddenright, it was a nuclear yeah.
Right, and then they quicklyrecognized hey, whoa, whoa, whoa
, just, we made a mistake, right?

(21:42):
And he rectified that theproblem is during that moment or
those moments of chaos, right,it adds fuel to this.
We don't want change, we don'tneed to do this.
This is get the chainsaw awayfrom me.
It fuels the anti-Trumpmovement, right, and it just
it's about let's maybe do this alittle calmly.

(22:03):
Let's make sure that I like hisquickness.
I do.
I think people have beenwaiting for this, so there is a
lot of momentum behind him tofind this 50, 15 percent of
waste and fraud, but also manageyour messaging in a mature
fashion, in a responsible manner, because then you still have
people that are veryconservative they're working
federal jobs who are trying tosupport this.

Speaker 4 (22:25):
Well, forget if they're conservative or not, it
doesn't matter what side of theaisle they fall on.
You want to do this the rightway.
You want to keep public supportbehind you.
I mean that the way to stop allthis is to not not keep public
support OK, and so that happensin one of two ways Either Elon
oversteps, right or whatever,and you know, he becomes the
lightning rod and becomes thestory.
And when, again, when he's goodon the message, there's no

(22:48):
arguing the message.
You can't beat the message.
The people support it.
We're going to show you numberson this.
They support it.
They support Doge too, by theway 60 to 40, they support Doge.
Just so you know, those are newnumbers that have come out, so
so they do support this.
So there's one or two ways togo after it.
You go after Musk and his style, and if he cleans up his style,
they got one other way to go,which is they're going to take

(23:09):
away Medicare, Medicaid, socialsecurity.

Speaker 3 (23:11):
Oh, they're already jumping all over.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
They're jumping all over.
Right, so so during this uh,during this first cabinet
meeting, trump was asked thatquestion.
Okay, he was asked about ifhe's he's going to cut Medicare,
medicaid and social security,and again he's been abundantly
clear on this, and so we want tojust play what he said again
and he's been so clear on it hedidn't even feel like answering
it this time, but listen to this.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
The bill that passed last night aims to cut $2
trillion.
Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will
not be touched?

Speaker 6 (23:41):
Yeah, I mean, I have said it so many times, you
shouldn't be asking me thatquestion.
Okay, yeah, I mean I have saidit so many times, you shouldn't
be asking me that question.
Okay, this will not be read mylips.
It won't be read my lipsanymore.
We're not going to touch it Now.
We are going to look for fraud.
I'm sure you're okay with that,like people that shouldn't be
on, people that are illegalaliens and others, criminals in

(24:02):
many cases, and that's withsocial security.
We have a lot of people.
You see that immediately whenyou see people that are 200
years old that are being sentchecks for Social Security.
Some of them are actually beingsent checks.
So we're tracing that down andI have a feeling that Pam is
going to do a very good job withthat.
But you have a lot of fraud.
But no, I'm not, we're notdoing anything.

Speaker 4 (24:24):
So again, ok, so we're going to jump around a
little bit on this, but thereason we bring that up is
because when, again, you'refighting to readjust things and
fighting to change things, thereason nothing happens in
Washington and this is a this isa great example right here is
that when anyone tries to doanything, there's demagoguery to

(24:45):
the ultimate degree.
So then what the hope is is,when you demagogue something and
say, oh my gosh, you're goingto cut your Medicaid, you're
going to be out on your ear, nohealthcare for you.
That's designed by the peoplewho are doing it to be able to
say, hey, look, we don't wantchange, we need the gravy train
to keep coming.
Yeah, of course it's notworking, of course we're going

(25:06):
into debt and of course we'reheaded for a cliff, but don't
worry about that, I'm stillgetting mine.
And so that's a huge issue atthis point.
And actually we see it.
And in fact, our own governorcame out and she talked about
this very issue on CBS.
Now, major Garrett interviewedher.
Okay, he interviewed MichelleLuann Grisham.

(25:27):
And look, some of this ispolitical and I get it.
Michelle's got to go out thereand she's got to light up Trump,
because that's how the gameworks.
But also, at the same time, shegets some help from Major
Garrett, which is fascinating.
So I want to go through thisand the mechanics of it, because
you heard Trump say there youknow, wait a minute.
You know this is, this is crazy, it's not going to happen this
way.

(25:47):
And so major Garrett starts byasking Michelle Luann Grisham
about that issue.
You know, trump's going to cutMedicaid.
He's going to cut Medicaid.
He just says this to her likeit's fact.
Of course it is not fact.
But you actually find out howdishonest everything is in his
second question.
But we're going to start withhis first and that's from CBS,
and so we're going to letMichelle answer this a bit and

(26:09):
then we'll kind of jump in andhave a couple of comments on it.
You don't need to hear, it's afairly long answer, but but we
do want to just point out howthings change a little bit.
So, ava, let's do clip ninehere and let's have major
Garrett asked the question andthen Michelle Luan Grisham will
answer sort of you know, thisquestion.
Major was very excited there.
He jumped in on us, but we'llhave him ask the question, then

(26:31):
we'll get some of this answerand then we'll talk about it.

Speaker 8 (26:34):
Welcome back.
If you're listening carefully,you just heard President Trump
say Medicaid is not going to betouched.
However, the House Republicanshave a plan, which the president
has endorsed, that would cutsome $880 billion from Medicaid

(26:54):
over the next 10 years.
This is partial cost savings tofinance an extension of the
existing tax cuts.

Speaker 4 (26:57):
See, he's struggling even to say this because he
knows it's garbage.

Speaker 8 (26:59):
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham joins me now.
Governor, it's great to see you.
I mentioned the top line number$880 billion over 10 years.
Governor, it's great to see you.
I mentioned the top line number$880 billion over 10 years.
Looking at the data, new Mexicois the largest recipient state
for Medicaid assistance 33% ofyour population, as I understand
it, receives either Medicaid orCHIP subsidies.

Speaker 7 (27:30):
What do these cuts look like to you, Governor?
Well, it means that more than800,000 New Mexicans would be
under or uninsured completely.
So we ripped those health carebenefits for viewers.
Chip is the Children's HealthInsurance Program.
That's three hundred andthirteen thousand New Mexicans.
But here here's the really theissue that I think far too many
Americans and maybe some NewMexicans are unaware of.
This cut is actually a healthcare tariff to everybody else.

(27:52):
That means your insurancepremiums go up.
That means your co-pays go up.
That means Medicare covers less.
That means your prescriptiondrug costs go up.
That means nobody has primarycare docs drug costs go up.

Speaker 4 (28:07):
That means nobody has primary care docs.
Okay, all right.
So for those of us who live inNew Mexico, you know her saying
nobody has primary care docs.
We have a massive problem withthat in the state of New Mexico
for a variety of reasons thathave nothing to do with the
federal government.
They have everything to do withthe fact that when you try to
get insurance as a doctor in thestate of New Mexico, you,
because of a bill that thegovernor signed and our
legislature passed, they raisedthose caps and skyrocketed how

(28:31):
much it costs for a doctor tooperate in the state and it has
left doctors fleeing.

Speaker 3 (28:35):
We all know that and GRT taxes on doctors.

Speaker 4 (28:38):
There's so many things crime high crime we also
don't have the funds necessaryto pay for doctors to get
educated and then bring theminto the state here for like a
five-year contract, things likethat we don't invest enough in.
The state of New Mexico hasvery, very poor health care
because we've made it very hardto operate in this state for
doctors, and that has nothing todo with the federal government.

(29:00):
So obviously the governorjumping in and trying to offload
that blame on other people isridiculous in and of itself.
But the whole defense there ishey, there's going to be $880
billion cut.
Cut.
Okay, cut.
Now.
Remember, at the beginning ofthat you heard Major Garrett
just kind of have troublespitting it out.
There's a reason he had troublespitting it out and he fixed it

(29:21):
when he asked the secondquestion.
So I want you to hear thesecond question he asks, because
he actually and I don't know ifit's accidental or whatever is
honest about the question andnotice the difference and it's
subtle.
But what this shows you is whensomeone is asking a question
with a subject and they're in onit with them trying to push a

(29:41):
narrative, this is what you get.
So this was the second question.

Speaker 8 (29:45):
And Governor, if I hear you correctly, what you're
saying is, if these reductionsin the growth of Medicaid go
through, it will be a costshifting.

Speaker 4 (29:54):
If these reductions in the growth of Medicaid go
through?
Do you know what he's sayingthere?
There's not a cut at all, as amatter of fact, it's a reduction
in growth, is what he's talkingabout, if that even happens at
all.
So they're only in Washington.
Is a reduction in growth a cutright?
And so major Garrett and youcould see it in the first

(30:15):
question he had trouble spittingit out because he knew he was
being disingenuous.
So he tried to clean it up andfix it in the second question.
But what he's really trying todo is pull one over on the
viewer.
He's trying to trick the viewerinto thinking wait, they're
going to cut these things,they're not going to cut them at
all.
They're not going to cut themat all.
What Major Garrett does there ishe says oh, a cut in the

(30:35):
increase, basically Not as muchof an increase.
Are you kidding me?
So let's listen to it one moretime.
Abel, let's get it from thebeginning.
And me?
So let's listen to it one moretime.
Abel, let's get it from thebeginning.
And I just want you to listento him again and again.
It's a subtle difference, butthere's no question.
He tries to have the oldcleanup on aisle four.

Speaker 8 (30:52):
And governor, if I hear you correctly, what you're
saying is, if these reductionsin the growth of Medicaid go
through, it will be a costshifting to those reductions in
the growth.

Speaker 4 (31:04):
It's just so.
This is what I mean by.
It's just infuriating to watch,because you see media outlets
try to deliberately deliver amessage that's disingenuous
while we are headed for a cliff.

Speaker 3 (31:16):
Right and she had no problem going into the.
Hey, let me drive up the fearfactor.
We're gonna close hospitals,we're gonna have no rural
doctors.
She talks about shortage ofOBGYN in rural communities.
I'm like that's been an issuenow for how many years and we
could have fixed that.
We could have put money behindthat, we could have found ways I
mean, you talked about that onyour campaign so many times of

(31:37):
the ways to do that and it'slike that's a problem that we've
been needing to fix in thestate for a long time.
So I just think it's reallybizarre to me that they take
these possible cuts Okay,possible job cuts as well and we
just ramp up all the fear.
We talk about what could happen, even though we don't have
proof of it happening yet.

(31:58):
It's weird to me.
I just feel like this is allI'm watching is I'm like okay,
so I know the ball's going todrop here at some point and
we're going to have like massivejob cuts or something.
I can't find that.

Speaker 4 (32:07):
Well, yeah, you're right.
Right now you can't find themand if we don't address the
issue, they will occur.
They will occur.
We will see massive cutsbecause we won't have a choice.
The whole economy will come toa halt Like you won't.
You won't function.
So to avoid that, you you haveto actually address the issue.
You have to have Doge come in.
You've got to cut a lot of thewaste, fraud and abuse.
You've got to cut theunnecessary spending and then

(32:32):
those critical programs likeMedicare, medicaid and Social
Security can be dealt with andthen make sure they continue for
people who desperately needthem.

Speaker 3 (32:37):
You know what was interesting about that interview
Because I watched the wholeinterview and basically he did
say a couple times he's like soyour state, more than any other
state in the union, is morereliant on federal support for
Medicaid Medicare.

Speaker 4 (32:49):
Medicaid yeah.

Speaker 3 (32:50):
Medicaid.
It's 75%, I think, is thepercentage.

Speaker 4 (32:55):
It's about 30, a little over 30% on Medicaid in
the state.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
Right, but it's federally funded.

Speaker 4 (33:00):
Well, it's a partnership, it's a state and
local partnership, and she goesthrough that.
She explains it.

Speaker 3 (33:04):
This was set back up in the early 60s something to
that degree Federal-statepartnership.
Yeah, federal-state partnership.
So she gave some of the historyof it, which I thought was kind
of fascinating.
Right.
But just the fact that we'rethe most reliant on federal
support of any other state inthe country.

Speaker 4 (33:17):
Yeah, and we're also 50th in household household
income.
Right, I mean, we struggle, butyet what's so frustrating is
our government is unbelievablyrich in the state of New Mexico.
And will you see a tax breakgoing, giving low income
families some of their moneyback?
You won't see any of it fromthis legislative session.
So you sit there and listen topeople say, oh, poor New Mexico,

(33:39):
we're a poor state, we're this,we're no, we're not.
We're a rich state where everydollar goes to Santa Fe and it
doesn't come back to the peoplewho earn it.
That's what's so frustrating.
And yes, there are people thatneed help through the Medicaid
program.
Absolutely Okay, that's fine.
But but we should absolutelygive everybody in this state a
5% raise by taking away theincome tax from low income and

(34:02):
middle-income families.
They don't need to pay it intothe state of New Mexico.
They should get that raise andput it in their pocket, but we
don't.
So you walked into that one,didn't you?

Speaker 3 (34:12):
Well no, I knew that you'd go off, which is totally
fine, I mean, given there's alot of bills right now that I'm
not real thrilled with.

Speaker 4 (34:17):
on the legislative session but the tax cuts, not
one of them tax cut isn't one ofthem.

Speaker 3 (34:21):
It's just like, hey, let's make a fund for climate
change potential, whatever, andwe're going to add a bunch of
money to it.
We're going to talk about thosethings when, once they get more
like solidified, becausethere's a lot of things that
might get killed or might die incommittee or whatever, um.
So we're not going to try todrown you with all those, but
we're definitely keeping our eyeon that as well, because I'm
like we have so much money thatnow we're just making up fake

(34:43):
stuff to do instead of givingback money.

Speaker 4 (34:44):
Well, no, they're giving millions of dollars to
the beaver.

Speaker 3 (34:48):
They're doing it to beavers, your nemesis.

Speaker 4 (34:50):
I know I am not a fan of the beaver, no, I know.
I mean there's a longstandingit's a longstanding rivalry on
beavers.
That goes back to my Coloradodays, babe, I know.
And so I'm just going to saythat.

Speaker 3 (35:02):
They do make.
They wreck havoc on rivers,they do.

Speaker 4 (35:06):
And in some cases they do a lot of good but but in
some cases they can cause realproblems.

Speaker 3 (35:10):
Yes, they can block up rivers.
Let's get back to the candidate, the cabinet meeting, because I
thought this is an interestingdifference between Trump's
cabinet meeting, where he opensit up in prayer.
All right, yeah, we're going toshow a comparison of what's
going on in Europe.

Speaker 4 (35:25):
Okay, so yeah, this is Trump actually asked the HUD
secretary to lead him in prayer.

Speaker 9 (35:31):
Father, we thank you for this awesome privilege,
father, to be in your presence.
God, thank you that you'veallowed us to see this day.
The Bible says that yourmercies are new every morning
and, father, god, we give youthe glory and the honor.
Thank you, God, for PresidentTrump, father Ford.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
Okay, now let's just go over to Scotland Parliament,
where they're discussing, youknow are there going to be new
laws that are going to be ableto limit prayer in your own home
in Scotland?

Speaker 4 (36:01):
Well, so Gillian McKee is a member of the
Scottish Parliament, right?
She was doing an interviewwhere, if you remember, back a
couple weeks ago, jd Vance wentto Europe, went to the Munich
Security Conference and he saidbasically Europe is basically
trampling people's free speechrights and he's like you have to

(36:22):
wake up, you cannot continue todo this.
And everybody was offended, allthe snooty Europeans were
offended that this backwaterhick, jd Vance shows up and
tells them you guys are notholding up your end of the
bargain on free speech.
And so this radio interviewthat McKee does, she's one of
the people who supports theselaws.
And, to the credit of theperson doing the interview on

(36:46):
the radio, he says is JD Vanceright?
Is he right in what's happeninghere?

Speaker 2 (36:51):
What about the accusation that even private
prayer within your own homecould amount to breaking the law
?
I mean, it's stretching it, butit's not wrong, is it?
It's absolute nonsense, is it?
I'm looking at a letter thatthe government sent to
householders.
Nowhere in it does it sayprivate prayer.
No, but what it does say is thatactivities in a private place,

(37:12):
like a house in these zones,could be an offence if they can
be seen or heard within the zoneand are done intentionally or
recklessly.
Now, if you're telling me thatprayer can be an offence outside
a clinic recklessly, now, ifyou're telling me that prayer
can be an offence outside aclinic if you're inside your own
house in that zone,theoretically the law could be
applied to you, couldn't it?
I'm just trying to work out ifthere's any way in which JD

(37:32):
Vance could be right.

Speaker 5 (37:34):
I should be really clear Praying in of itself is
not an offence under this bill.
We are not banning prayer underthe Act.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
Performative prayer.
If you're standing at a windowwith your hands together in
front of your face in thatclassic image of prayer, if
you're standing at a window sopeople can see you, then could
it be interpreted as an offence?

Speaker 5 (37:58):
That then depends on who's passing the window and
whether anybody can actually.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
So he's not wrong.
Is he JD Vance?

Speaker 5 (38:04):
No, he is wrong because if I don't know anyone
that can pray loudly orperformatively enough to be seen
from outside their own house,what is that?

Speaker 3 (38:17):
I mean, the fact of the matter is have you seen War
Room?
Because Priscilla Shrier playsa character where she walks
through the room and she walksthrough every room in the house
and you could absolutely hearthat woman on the outside of her
house praying, getting all theevil out of her house because
her family was kind of fallingapart and she wanted to lift her
family back up in prayer.
The fact of the matter iswhether or not somebody can hear

(38:40):
you pray or not, how does thatbecome illegal?
How can you become arrested forit?

Speaker 4 (38:45):
It's just as I said.
It depends on who's walking by.

Speaker 3 (38:48):
I know that's what I'm saying.
I'm in my house whether I amscreaming to the Lord Jesus or
telling Satan to get behind me,and I'm using my very loud
outside voice.
That's absolutely nobody'sbusiness or affair, let alone
being against the law to do soand could be possibly arrested.
I don't understand.
I still don't get the fact thatif I want to pray outside on

(39:09):
the street, in front of a clinicor something else, privately,
and that's my business how youget arrested for that, which is
what's happened.

Speaker 4 (39:16):
I agree, I have no understanding of it either, and
it's scary.
It is scary.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
When you, I just think, watch out, watch out what
we, what we try to not protect.
And when we say freedom ofspeech, freedom of religion,
it's things like this.
So I just you're in your ownhouse and now she's like well,
it depends.
If Joe is walking down and Joegets offended because he saw you
in your window praying againstsomething that he supports, then
then there's action.

(39:42):
That is scary.

Speaker 4 (39:44):
It is scary and Europeans it is not.
Look, we just live in two verydifferent countries and, in this
particular case, Scotland, butit is terrifying.

Speaker 3 (39:56):
You need the Catholics to rise up over in
Scotland right now it'sterrifying to see.

Speaker 4 (40:01):
And JD was right.
He was absolutely right in whathe was saying, and sometimes
hard truths are hard to hear,but obviously you see that right
there she's like, oh, that'scrazy.
And then she starts to explainit and she gets tied in knots
and so, again, this just getsback to a point we've made for
weeks now, which is when you'reon the 80-20 issues and you're
always on the 80.

(40:21):
And it's a lot easier for aplace of a place for the
president to be versus opponentswho are always on the 20, which
always looks weird anddifficult and it's tortured
every time you're trying to doit.
Well, there's a newHarvard-Harris poll that came
out, which has been talkingabout what's happened with these
numbers and with the presidentand just looking at some of
these numbers.
A quick snapshot and then someof the issues here 58% say he's

(40:43):
doing better than Biden did,Okay.
81% support deporting criminalaliens.
76% support eliminating waste,fraud and abuse, by the way.
So keep trying to fight that.
And this is what you get.
76% support closing the USborder.
70% support merit-based hiring.
61% support reciprocal tariffs,meaning tariff people what they

(41:06):
tariff us right.
And then 60% think Doge ishelping.
They think Doge is helping, Allright.
So look, and more of thesenumbers here and from the
Harvard-Harris poll here, andAva, as we go in a little bit on
these, you can just take a lookat them.
These are the numbers as wellthat we're just talking about.
So these are all the things.

(41:28):
Deporting criminals that arehere illegally Boom, you see
those numbers and you just seewhere he is.
So if you live in the blue onthis graph, you're in a pretty
good spot.
You're in a pretty good spot,and it's a tough place to be if
you're not.
And so that's why just being apurely oppositional party
doesn't work, because if youropponent takes the 80 and you
always get the 20, you're notgoing to get anything done.

(41:48):
So I know there's a lot of this, and even we talked about it
this kind of consternation ofhey, how do you handle this the
right way?
Right, how do you handle it sothat Elon's not spiking the
football but yet doing whatneeds to be done?
Because people support it, theysupport it, and the way you do
it is you handle it soberly, youhandle it appropriately, but
you keep going, and I thinkthat's what they're doing right
now.
But then there are other issues, too, that they talked about.

(42:10):
On this as well.

Speaker 3 (42:11):
Well as most voters want Ukraine to negotiate a
settlement with Russia.
Three out of five favor Trumpannouncing direct U S Russia
negotiations yeah, so yeah.

Speaker 4 (42:20):
So again, trump talking to Russia is not a
problem for people.
Again, trump's a stooge, foryou got to talk to him.
You're like this is the onlyway you're going to get a deal
done.
Now, again, I don't love thesome of the rhetoric, as we've
said, that's surrounded all this, but it's interesting, right.
And so this gets back to apoint we've made for a long time
, and that is the politicalenvironment has completely

(42:41):
changed.

Speaker 3 (42:41):
One, the political environment has completely
changed.
One of my least favorite mediamembers.
That drove me crazy during thecampaign, mostly like the debate
coverage and then anytime therewas like a round table
discussion about.
You know let's praise someBiden, like he was a big Biden
supporter and I mean everybody.
You know like there's nothingwrong with Biden.
You know he was that guy.

Speaker 8 (42:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (42:59):
Jake Tapper.
Yeah, okay, here's the.
Here's just just rich, rich.
I was waiting to see who wouldbe the first one to do this,
right?
Okay, he's going to write abook, or he's put a book out,
called original sin, along withAlex Thompson of Axios, right,
and it's basically it's calledpresident Biden's decline, it's
coverup and his disastrouschoice to run again.

(43:21):
Yeah, let's take a look at this.
Look at this clip from the 2020campaign.
Okay, this is Laura Trump.
She's basically saying are wesure this guy should be running?
Should Biden really be running?
Is he competent?

Speaker 4 (43:32):
2020.

Speaker 3 (43:33):
2020.
Okay, this is a while ago,right, and you've got old Jake
here just saying what Are youreally ripping on Biden for his
childhood stutter?
Like he's just making all theexcuses, which is what he did.
From 2020 on, by the way.
But this is just a little bit Iwould like to show you.

Speaker 11 (43:50):
Every time he comes on stage or they turn to him,
I'm like, Joe, can you get itout?
Let's get the words out.
Joe, you kind of feel bad forhim.

Speaker 12 (43:57):
How do you think it makes little kids with stutters
feel when they see you make acomment like that?

Speaker 11 (44:07):
with stutters feel when they see you make a comment
like that.
First and foremost, I had noidea that Joe Biden ever
suffered from a stutter.
I think what we see on stagewith Joe Biden, jake is very
clearly a cognitive decline.
That's what I'm referring to.
It makes me uncomfortable.

Speaker 12 (44:20):
You are so amazing, it's so amazing to me that I try
and figure out an answer.

Speaker 11 (44:24):
A cognitive decline?
You're trying to tell me thatwhat I was suggesting was I
think that you were mocking hisstutter.

Speaker 12 (44:30):
Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter and I
think you have absolutely nostanding to diagnose somebody's
cognitive decline.
I would think that somebody inthe Trump family would be more
sensitive to people who do nothave medical licenses family
would be more sensitive topeople who do not have medical
licenses.
Diagnosing politicians fromafar.
Plenty of people have diagnosedyour father from afar and I I'm

(44:50):
sure it offends you yourfather-in-law from afar, I'm
sure it offends you.

Speaker 11 (44:54):
You don't have any standing to say no, saying now
what I'm saying you just talkedabout a cognitive decline that
joe, I have one last questionfor you, laura.
You at many times on stage andit's very concerning to a lot of
people that this could be theleader of the free world.
That is all I'm saying.
I genuinely feel sorry for Joe.

Speaker 4 (45:12):
Obviously.
Just go back, ava.
Go back to the book.
Title Original Sin Biden'sDecline.
I mean it's unbelievable.

Speaker 3 (45:24):
Well, him in, like Morning Joe, just constantly
defending Biden, telling peopleI've never seen Biden look
sharper.
You know they'll get on thereand be like.
I thought it was great today.
Great answer, like, just like.
And then it's just so rich tocome back out.
I was waiting for somebodyactually that didn't sit there
publicly defending.
Biden to write this book, yeah,so that's why it feels very
hypocritical.

(45:45):
But again it's like well, it'smoney in the bank for this guy,
right?
So he's thinking okay, well,nobody's listening to me anymore
because I've basically eaten upmy credibility on CNN.
I'll write a book instead.

Speaker 4 (45:53):
Well, no, and it makes you wonder too.
You know, it's why people don'ttrust the media anymore and
that's why alternate media nowis so much more successful,
because people look at peoplelike Jake Tapper and go who do
you?
What are you doing?
Like the gall it takes toactually write that book with
that verbiage when you havethose clips.

Speaker 3 (46:12):
Oh, and there's so many clips of him and we've had
him on our show I don't know howmany times of him just going to
bat for Biden over and over andover.

Speaker 4 (46:21):
I'm going to bat for someone's one thing, but to but
to go in and not acknowledgewhat's patently obvious to every
American and then to write abook about how everybody knew it
was really happening.
You know you're like, wait aminute, it's so.
It is so incredibly cynical todo that.
It's just a money.

Speaker 3 (46:38):
It's a money grab.
That's what it feels like when.

Speaker 4 (46:40):
I see it.
When I heard about it.

Speaker 3 (46:42):
I'm like somebody's trying to make bankroll.
That's like I mean.
That's all it feels like to me.
Okay, I knew somebody was goingto do it.
I was just waiting to see who.

Speaker 4 (46:48):
Yeah, I know.
Hey, you want to be the firstone through the door on it?
Yeah, I know It'll beinteresting to see he's like I'm
going to turn.

Speaker 3 (46:53):
I can turn away.

Speaker 4 (46:58):
I can the sourcing on that, because books like that,
if they're really sourced well,can be interesting, right, and
kind of telling people what theyalready knew but didn't know
the details, right.

Speaker 3 (47:06):
So it could be interesting we'll have to wait
and sit there and say they sentus press releases and told us
that we couldn't ask thefollowing questions and we were
told to not talk about hisdecline.

Speaker 4 (47:15):
And now he's not going to do that no, he's going
to say this stuff was withheldfrom us and in the but then we
had no idea we could.

Speaker 3 (47:21):
I mean, he looked fine eating his ice cream and
walking around and shakingpeople's hands.
That he wasn't supposed toshake their hands.
I mean there was nobody there,right.

Speaker 4 (47:28):
I mean he just kept defending him.
Look it is.
It is the biggest political.
I think it's cover up in ourhistory, really in our lifetimes
easily, yeah, easily, and it'ssad because of how it all played
out Bad for the country, badfor for Biden, bad for everybody
.

Speaker 3 (47:45):
Right.

Speaker 4 (47:45):
So in in bad for the you know the political process.
Really All right.
So a couple more quick things.
We had a visit from thedepartment of energy chief,
chris Wright.
He came into New Mexico onTuesday and he talked about
something kind of interesting.
So he gave a little presser andit was good.
It was interesting to see and Ithink he said some really

(48:06):
important stuff.
And I want to just read alittle bit of what he said
because I think it's actuallyreally important.
And he said you know, one wayfor the federal government to
meet the heightened energy needswe're going to have with AI is
nuclear power.
Like we're going to need this.
So this isn't an issue of canyou take oil and gas off the
table?
You can't.
You just can't, like that's afact of the matter.

(48:29):
You're going to need solar.
You're probably going to needsolar.
You're going to need nuclear.
You're going to need everythingbecause we have energy demands
that are skyrocketing right now.
They've they've stayed prettysteady over the past five years.
That's not going to be the caseanymore, because when you go
and you like that chat GPT, thatthing sucks up a whole lot of
energy to use right, yeah, Iguess so.

(48:51):
All the different systems wehave in place are not going to
be good enough to give us whatwe need for energy.
And he's basically saying forthe longest time and this is
something we've talked aboutforever on this show, and that
is for the longest time wecreated a regulatory structure
that made developing nuclearpower in an efficient way

(49:11):
impossible.

Speaker 3 (49:12):
And he also came and said you know, hey, new Mexico
could be the answer to answersome of these tremendous needs
that the country's going to need.
So again, you said that toowhen you were running, and we've
kind of backed it up over thelast couple of years on the show
of saying, hey, why are we?
We are supposed to be theenergy state, we should be
dominating the energy state.
And this now you have himcoming out here and talking very

(49:34):
specifically.
He says this also about thenuclear.
He says there are such highbars that we've just seen almost
nothing happened in the nextgeneration of nuclear.

Speaker 4 (49:41):
Right, and what he means by high bars is the
regulatory like.
You have to clear all theseincredibly high bars.
Go ahead, yeah.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
Our goal is to get that out of the way, bring
private businesses together andfigure out what kind of nudge we
might need to get shovels inthe ground and next generation
small modular reactors happening.
And I will tell you that you,the small modular reactors, I
thought was one of the mostboring things we talked about on
the campaign trail.
But between you and AuntThornton, I mean, we got an

(50:07):
education from the two of you onthat and that need and the fact
that, no, we do need to betalking about this.

Speaker 4 (50:12):
No question.

Speaker 3 (50:13):
We do need to be carving out money in the budget
to be focusing on this andbuilding our energy resource,
because it could be a greatresource for the rest of the
country, right.

Speaker 4 (50:28):
And here you now have the energy secretary coming in
and backing us up with that andyou curl this back into.
One of the bills that died inthe legislature over the past
few days was Senate Bill 4,which would have tried to go
after the carbon output of thestate and slash it really
quickly so that therefore youwould kill oil and gas in the
state and then you would killfuture development in the state.
And thank goodness we had somesenators who stood up on the
left side of the aisle and saidwe can't do this.

(50:49):
We cannot do this, and so youhad all the Republicans say no
and a couple of Democraticsenators said no to this thing,
which would have killed us, forAI, for supercomputing, for
everything.
It's incredibly damaging andthe fact that we have
legislators who are trying tokill oil and gas, kill energy
and kill AI, basically becauseit's going to take that kind of

(51:09):
energy the fact that they'redoing this either they're
ignorant or worse, and it justis incredible to me.
So just realize that we have tohave a massive energy future
here.
So the question isn't what canwe?
What energy do we eliminate?
It's what energy do we add towhat we're doing?
And keep adding, Because I'mtelling you right now, we

(51:30):
haven't even scratched thesurface on the kind of energy
we're going to need.

Speaker 3 (51:33):
Well, and I think that's a pretty scary situation
with Deb Haaland, because shehas been very vocal about her
green energy and then heranti-fracking anti-fracking and
anti-oil and gas.
Again she's kind of come intalking about eliminating
resources.

Speaker 4 (51:47):
Well, I don't think she can.
I think she's going to have toreverse that.
Oh, you think she's?

Speaker 3 (51:50):
going to change her mind?
Oh, absolutely.
And she's already made herannouncement.
Now she's going to suddenlyjust flip her position already
on policy.
Well she hasn't been.

Speaker 4 (51:56):
Look when you start getting into tougher questions
being asked in interviews, Idon't know if she's going to do
any.
If I were running her campaign,I wouldn't let her anywhere
near someone that's going to asktough questions.
I just wouldn't.
I wouldn't do that.
But if if she happens to getstuck on a tough question, okay,
like will you?
Will you ban fracking?
You've called for a ban onfracking.
She's going to back off it.
There's no way she can't.

(52:17):
She has to get she kind of kindof a wormy answer Like we.
You know we have to find abalance.
She's going to try to find abalance.
I'm telling you right now shecan't walk in and say, yes, I'm
going to ban fracking, like thatis like a completely untenable
position for someone who wantsto be governor of the state of
New Mexico.

Speaker 3 (52:33):
She she will back off that, but she's on record
saying it.

Speaker 4 (52:35):
So so was Kam.
Yeah, and neither can Deb.
She'll have to back away fromit.

Speaker 3 (52:45):
All right.
So again, I don't like, I don'tlike encouraging you to put
these videos in our show.
I feel like you freak me out,you freak other travelers out,
but go ahead, Cause this waskind of crazy.

Speaker 4 (53:05):
This video was.
So what you're going to seehere is a private plane go right
across the runway.
So this Southwest flight aboutto touch down.
Now what you're going to seehere, here's the private plane,
see it coming in from the leftand then the Southwest plane
flaps back up and up it goesagain.
If that Southwest plane had hitthat because it easily could
have that would have beencatastrophic.

(53:26):
There would have been a seriousloss of life and thankfully the
Southwest pilot was payingclose attention.
We'll look at it one more time.
But unbelievable as he came inbecause these pilots on the
Southwest plane, they werepaying attention when the
private pilot clearly was not.

Speaker 3 (53:41):
Right, and didn't we?
I mean, we were watching alittle bit of one of your.
There's so many shows now wherepeople analyze what is
happening with these planes.
Yeah, and didn't one of theguys think that the tower was
telling the private plane don'tgo into that part of the runway?

Speaker 4 (53:55):
Stop short, you need to stop short.

Speaker 3 (53:56):
And he either didn't hear him or didn't do that,
didn't address it.
And so to see that thatSouthwest pilot reacted that
fast.
Because I've had friends thathave said that they've taken,
they've gone down and goneimmediately back up before and
they don't know why.
It was never really explained,they just do a loop.
So it's fun Like a little touchand go and I'm like oh my gosh,
I cannot be on one of thoseflights Cause I will like I'll

(54:16):
lose it, like I already knowmyself.
But good thinking on that pilot.
I mean the fact is that you'recoming down, you've got your
landing gear down to be able toimmediately take off that fast.

Speaker 4 (54:27):
Guarantee hammered that thing Because normally
thinking about it, you're.

Speaker 3 (54:30):
You are going for a long distance before you
actually lift off, so to be ableto be coming down and then
immediately go back up, I justthink.
I mean, I'm not a pilot,clearly.

Speaker 4 (54:40):
I mean, but the good part is the physics of it work
right.
So as long as he's speedingback up again.
Yeah, the physics of the wholething work, but it's like a
touch and go.
It's like you know it's crazy,it's just crazy Okay so I also
sent you this, Mr Skier.
Yes.

Speaker 3 (54:53):
Because we're going to do some skiing this weekend.
You're very excited weekend,but here at red river this skier
basically um almost hit a deer,yeah, a little deer.
It was a patrol, a ski patrolum coming down the mountain.
This deer we'll show you inslow motion here in just a
second.
This deer comes out of nowhereand he basically has to kind of

(55:18):
um, just I mean, I mean, look atthis, it's like a dead, it's
like just behind him yeahhitting right towards him yeah
so, and then the the last littlebit of this clip.
You see this again from the topof the mountain down um, and he
kind of gets excited and hecheers on himself.
He's like yeah I made it Ididn't take out a deer in the

(55:38):
process well, it's interestingabout that's that stretch at red
river yeah, it's the face, yeah, so they make so much snow that
on that left-hand side wherethe deer, the deer can't see
anybody.

Speaker 4 (55:49):
So when the deer goes right there, finally the deer
sees people because it's such adrop-off there because they make
so much snow.
So the poor deer just didn'tsee him.
And so the deer comes acrossthe trail and then all of a
sudden he's right on him and ifyou've skied anywhere in our
Northern mountains you see it inangel fire all the time.
If you're on the backsideyou'll see a bunch of deer just
go running across the trail.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
Well, obviously, ski patrol expert skier skis there
all the time.
It wasn't some rookie like meout there.

Speaker 4 (56:13):
Yeah, it'd be tough, you'd have been wearing that
deer.
Well, I would like ah, you gotin a deer hoof right in the dome
, yeah, so like thank goodness,like I knew what he was doing,
but anyway, so that's, we endedon a little bit of a lighter
note today.
Indeed, yes, indeed, we did.
Okay, good job today.
I know you were a little wornout today.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
I am very.
It's been an emotional week andI'm I'm pretty worn out.

Speaker 4 (56:36):
I have to be honest.
So, by the way, you got a newshirt sweater.

Speaker 3 (56:40):
Oh, okay, it's not a shirt.
Okay, sorry, it's a sweater.
I still dress Short sleevesweater.
Yeah, it's a cashmere shirt.
Is that legal?

Speaker 4 (56:45):
Yes, Does anyone ever wear short sleeve sweaters?

Speaker 3 (56:47):
Yes, it's actually started in the fifties, guy or
forties, probably, realistically.
I'm sure somebody could writeit and be like actually it
started in the twenties, which Iwould believe.
It's like a classic kindsleevedsweater still wintery but not a
t-shirt.
That's the fashion tip, Dad,yet again Ava is in a hoodie.

Speaker 2 (57:11):
He's just hanging out in a hoodie again.
Yeah, I mean, but people don'treally wear short-sleeved
sweaters.

Speaker 4 (57:16):
I think it's an oxymoron Like they make them but
you don't.
Yes, plenty of people wearshort-sleeved sweaters.

Speaker 3 (57:21):
Name one other human being you've ever seen in a
short-sleeved sweater oh my gosh.

Speaker 4 (57:25):
You guys seriously.
I mean, I've seen a sweatervest.

Speaker 3 (57:27):
Yeah, but that's like underneath a long-sleeved shirt
, short-sleeved sweaters forwomen.

Speaker 4 (57:29):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you wear that underneath a
long-sleeved shirt.
You get the professor look.

Speaker 3 (57:38):
Hey jacket, all the time Are you a woman?

Speaker 11 (57:40):
in business.

Speaker 4 (57:41):
Well, yeah, I am a woman in business.
I actually own two businesses,if you want to go into that.

Speaker 3 (57:45):
But no, I'm just saying like a short sleeve
sweater is not going to wearthat to the office.
You think you can wear that toyour next?

Speaker 4 (57:51):
board meeting.
All right, everybody, thanksfor joining us.

Speaker 3 (57:55):
Ava, yeah, the hecklers, if anybody feels like
coming to my defense that youhave a short sleeve sweater.
Maybe leave it in the comments.
I feel like it's just redundant, like what's the point?
Well, it's nicer than a t-shirt, that's the point.

Speaker 4 (58:05):
It's not nicer than a hoodie.
I'll tell you that We'll seeyou back here on Sunday.

Speaker 1 (58:10):
You've been listening to the no Doubt About it
podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it Podcast.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 1 (58:31):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 4 (58:38):
There is no doubt about it.