Episode 181: Trump's Big Bet On Tariffs!

🔍 In This Episode:

🇺🇸 Trump’s Sweeping Tariff Proposal – Can It Rebuild America’s Middle Class?

• President Trump announced a bold tariff package, proposing reciprocal tariffs of 50% based on what other countries charge the U.S.
• For decades, foreign countries flooded the U.S. market with cheap goods, undercutting American workers and driving good-paying jobs overseas.
• We break down Trump’s bet that tariffs will force companies to manufacture in the U.S. or risk paying more—boosting American-made products and bringing jobs back home.
• This is the centerpiece of Trump’s economic vision—can it work? We explore the policy details and political consequences.

💸 DOGE vs. Government Waste – Who’s Winning?

• We take a closer look at how DOGE is cutting massive waste to help balance the federal budget.
• The far-left is launching attacks on DOGE, but we expose how disingenuous and desperate those attacks really are.
• If successful, DOGE could be a huge win for the American taxpayer. Here’s why it matters.

🎙️ Mark’s Big Wheel Nostalgia Ride 🚴‍♂️

• We end on a fun note with a trip down memory lane as Mark shares his favorite childhood toy: the legendary Big Wheel from the 1980s!
• If you were a kid of the 80s, this nostalgic moment is for you.

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 asound.

(00:24):
Running, running, running dead.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
I'm your own runner, christy and Mark Runcany.
Late night edition.
The tariff edition.
Yeah, it is late, sorry, we hada lot of stuff going on and
then obviously we wanted to getthe information from what

(00:47):
happened at the announcementtoday, from the rose garden,
from the president, which willaffect every single american, no
doubt with what presidenttrump's trying to do here, and
we're going to break that downin detail, trying to kind of
explain what's going on here.
we're not economists, right,we're not trade experts, we're
not going to act like we are,but we do have some
understanding of what themessaging politically is here

(01:09):
and what impact it has and whythey're doing what they're doing
, which is fascinating to me.
It really is.
There is no question PresidentTrump is betting his whole
presidency second time around onthis policy.

Speaker 6 (01:23):
And he can do that because he's not running it.
Well, I mean, you know, he sayshe might be running for a third
term.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
We have that in here too.

Speaker 6 (01:30):
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But, honestly, a second termpresident, if he's going to do
this, that's who it needs to be,that's going to try this, you
know, is it going to work?
That's the big question is, isthere going to, is it going to
pay off?
And we'll be able to tellpretty quickly.
I mean, the results of thiswe'll know to some degree, which
we'll talk about a little bitin the show.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
Yeah, or will we know quickly?
That's the thing that I thinkis kind of interesting.
I'm not sure we will.

Speaker 6 (01:56):
Well, I think, when you start seeing manufacturing
jobs you know we're talkingabout that a little bit today.
On this those jobs starting tocome back to the States, those
kinds of things.
Yes, You're going to see someuptick in pricing, um, in
certain products that you knowcome in from another part of the
world, Right, but how much arethese folks going to?
Are we going to see kind ofmore jobs coming back here?

Speaker 2 (02:17):
He's trying to reset the whole economy of the United
States, reversing about 40 yearsof policy, right Policy of you
bring your product in, we keepyour product out for another
country, and then the UnitedStates sort of foots the
difference on the bill.

Speaker 6 (02:33):
Yeah, and he's, I mean honestly, he's doing what a
lot of countries already do,Right, and we're going to dive
into that as well, which I didnot understand and I've got a
real education today.
So I just think, and I've got areal education today, so I just
think, I think this isinteresting to do the deep dive
on this.
So, people, really there's somuch out there when you start
listening to tariffs, how badthis is going to be.
I mean you can see tweets fromall of our state leaders right
now, already freaking out, oh,freaking out, it's over, it's

(02:54):
over.

Speaker 2 (02:55):
It's going to just every New Mexican's, not advice.
I go to Teresa Ledger Fernandezbecause I say wait a minute,
you clearly know business.
You clearly know what's going onhere.
When I need to really dial inon the highest levels of policy,
the first call I make is theyoung Gabe Baskets.
I say, gabe, tell me about thisplease.

(03:17):
I mean, come on.
And then, when you want to talkabout where your family's going
over the next 10 years and howto return manufacturing jobs,
there's no doubt you callmelanie stansberry, because
she's someone who is fightingfor you, because she knows
economic policy like the back ofher hand and then we're also

(03:37):
going to dive in because I'm I'mso kind of semi-frustrated with
all the negative talk about,you know, all these others.

Speaker 6 (03:46):
There's just mass firings and these mass layoffs.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
Doge.

Speaker 6 (03:48):
Doge is just making so many of these cuts, we're not
going to have firefighters,we're not going to have I mean
health care workers, we're notgoing to have money to protect
us during another pandemic, andI'm just like what?
So when you actually dive intoit and you listen and you pull
some actual information, I'mlike, hmm, this does not add up
to what you hear in mainstreammedia.
So we're gonna show you someclips of that directly from the

(04:11):
people that are working at Doge,on what they're saying, how you
can find out exactly theirtransparency about it and maybe
calm some people's fears,because I do feel like the fear
mongering just continues to getfueled.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
Right, and this shows and what this whole show is
going to be about is showing thedifference between and how much
easier it is to run on politicsversus running on policy and
governing on policy.
Really, this is governing onpolicy versus opposition based
in politics.
Right, that's what this is.
It's much easier to throw bombsabout politics when someone is

(04:44):
trying to change real policy.
So it's going to be fascinating.
We'll get moving through it.
It's late at night, so we'regoing to try to get through this
as quickly as we can, but Ithink we have some good
information.

Speaker 6 (04:53):
Yeah, and you stack this show fat, so we'll see if
we get through all of it or not.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
OK, ok, well, we'll see.

Speaker 6 (04:59):
So OK, we'll start this, this first comment.
Yeah, it's a little bit of aslam to us so we wanted to
address this one.
This comes from Jim, and Jimsays Seriously, though, as a
lifelong conservative Republican, I am genuinely disheartened by
just what a perfect mirror yourshow and Fox News and OANN etc
are to the likes of CNN, MSNBC.
Boo, we're nothing like MSNBC,but anyway, it all just scoops

(05:28):
of the same horse from differentends of the horse bathtub.
Not one ounce of courage tooppose what is going on right
now.
Where are your calls for thefirings in the whiskey leaks
debacle?

Speaker 2 (05:38):
Okay, well, as, as the lifelong, you can put him
back up for a second Ava.
Uh, jim, first of all, I don'tbelieve he listens to the show
that much.
In fact, I don't think he does,right, okay, but especially
because his biggest concern whatis his biggest concern?
His biggest concern is a chatbetween a reporter and some
people in the Pentagon and inour government.

(05:59):
That's his biggest concern.
I'm sure he was on the edge ofhis seat in Afghanistan when 13
US service members were killedand we left billions of dollars
of supplies behind as we turnedtail and ran, and nobody lost
their job.
So, jim, spare me the.
I'm a conservative Republicanand my biggest concern is
whiskey leaks.
Give me a break.

(06:20):
You, you, you, you phony me abreak.
You, you, you, you, phony.
Okay, now you can criticize us,and that's fine, and I and I
wanted you to read this becauseI want to talk about this we
talk all the time about policyand about what we think's going
on here, and sometimes we'revery supportive and I think
broadly we're supportive of whatTrump's trying to do, cause I
think he's on the right track.

(06:40):
But when there are mistakes andthere are things that don't
work, we talk about that too.
If you actually listen to theshow, you would know that.

Speaker 6 (06:47):
And if you listen on the regular, you know that I
mean and not every show.

Speaker 2 (06:50):
There's no doubt there's some things, but, but.
But to sit there and go throughthis and then you go with
whiskey leaks even using thatname shows me you're a phony.
Okay, you're a phony, butwhatever, that's fine.
Believe me, in this show,you're going to see plenty of us
talking about the concern here,because Trump is betting his
whole presidency and our economyon this sheriff's policy, and I

(07:11):
don't know if it's going towork.
I have no idea.
But it's important tounderstand where he's coming
from, and so that's the key forthis show.
Where's he come from?
Why is he doing it?
Ok, trump goes back 40 years onthis.
Ok, and I will say this One ofthe biggest criticisms of Trump
has been and I think it's alegitimate one you don't always
know where he's coming from.
Sometimes, his feelings, hispolicy positions, can be

(07:35):
variable to be charitable.
Right, you wonder what does hereally stand for?
What's really in his gut?
Like Reagan, you knew he wasabout smaller government.
He was about peace throughstrength.
Right, you knew what Reagan wasabout.
There was no question aboutthat, and there are people on
the left that you know whatthey're about.
Bernie Sanders, like him or not, you know what he's about, okay
, there's no doubt.
And the criticism for Trump isyou really don't Maybe he's more

(07:58):
of a pragmatist?
He's not a pragmatist ontariffs, he is absolutely a true
believer.
So I want to start this wholething with Donald Trump from 30
plus years ago, okay, and if youremember, 30 years ago, the big
story was Japan cleaning ourclock right Economically, and
they were, and, by the way,we'll show the numbers on why
they were.

(08:18):
But we want to go back to Trumpand here's what Trump had to
say in regards to trade and howwe get treated by other
countries and, in this case,japan.

Speaker 8 (08:28):
We let Japan come in and dump everything right into
our markets and everything.
It's not free trade.
If you ever go to Japan rightnow and try to sell something,
forget about it, Oprah.
Just forget about it.
It's almost impossible.
They don't have laws against it, they just make it impossible.
They come over here.
They sell their cars, theirVCRs.
They knock the hell out of ourcompanies.
And, hey, I have tremendousrespect for the Japanese people.
I mean, you can respectsomebody that's beaten the hell

(08:50):
out of you, but they are beatingthe hell out of this country,
Kuwait.
They live like kings thepoorest person in Kuwait.
They live like kings and yetthey're not paying.
We make it possible for them tosell their oil.
Why aren't they paying us 25%of what they're making?
It's a joke.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
Okay, so this is not something that's new.
This is not something wherehe's you know I might do this,
do that.
He truly believes this and Ithink he made today, when he
announced all the tariffs hemade, an incredibly compelling
case.
I watched the whole thing.
I sat there just because Iwouldn't understand it.

Speaker 6 (09:23):
Right.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
You know, because you hear, hear.
You watch CNBC, you watch theFox Business, you watch all
these different avenues Fox News, whatever, msnbc, whatever it
is and you hear all thesedifferent things, right?
So what are we really trying toaccomplish?
And for the first time, I think, he came out and he made the
full case for why he's doingthis and why we have no
middle-class jobs anymore, whywe don't produce anything in

(09:45):
this country anymore.
He went through all of that, sowe'll get into all of that and
what it was, but it wasfascinating to me to see that
and to understand and get anidea of why he is betting his
whole legacy on this.

Speaker 6 (09:57):
Right, I think this.
I added some of these clipsfrom the very beginning because
they're what stood out to meRight and so just kind of an
education.
I thought this one was prettylike just simple in the fact of
explaining that you know, wetake in everybody's products
from all over the world.
A lot of these countries willnot let us ship our products
back to them to sell in theircountries because they don't
want us to flood their marketand take away jobs and economy

(10:20):
and money from their, theirstate and their and where their
country.
So I want you to listen to thisclip because I thought this was
just a really quick example ofthat.

Speaker 7 (10:29):
On tariff barriers.
The European Union bans importsof most American poultry.
You understand, they say wewant to send you our cars, we
want to send you everything, butwe're not going to take
anything that you have.
Australia bans and they'rewonderful people and wonderful
everything, but they banAmerican beef.
Yet we imported $3 billion ofAustralian beef from them just

(10:53):
last year alone.
They won't take any of our beef.
They don't want it because theydon't want it to affect their
farmers and you know what.
I don't blame them, but we'redoing the same thing right now,
starting about midnight tonight.
I would say.

Speaker 2 (11:06):
Okay, so let's stop right there.

Speaker 6 (11:08):
He goes on.
He does go on, though, butthat's fine.
He does go on to talk aboutlike things like rice in China,
things of that nature that youknow they won't let us sell any
product to them.
They're protecting theirmarkets and their countries, and
something he's saying listen,it's time that we do the same
thing.

Speaker 2 (11:23):
Yeah, and I think it's a really good point, and I
think that showed and it's smartof you to pick that clip
because it showed his wholeattitude the whole time.
His whole attitude wasn't we'regoing to get you back for this,
it was I get why you did whatyou did.
I understand why you guys aredoing this Many of you and he
says it in one of his comments.
He says many of you are ourclose friends.

(11:45):
I understand it, but we justcan't continue to let you flood
our markets and then you putmassive trade barriers up.
And, by the way, as we talkabout all this stuff, it's not
just tariffs that that hurtAmerican products into other
markets, it's things like that.
And and many of you know whatthat is it's called a value
added tax.
It happens all the time inCanada, right?
So you, there's a tariff on theproduct, whatever.
That is like 10%, we'll say.
And so Canada would say, oh, weonly charge a 10% tariff on

(12:06):
your beef, what are you talkingabout?
And then you also charge a VAT,which could be 20%, right?
And then you also chargeanother fee on top of that.
So what they do is there's alot of hiding the ball with this
stuff.
So what Trump has decided to dois he's basically said okay,
we're going to take the amountof a wall that you build right
to our products Sometimes it's aVAT, sometimes it's a tax,

(12:27):
sometimes it's a tariff,whatever it is and we know that
wall is a certain percentagehigh okay, and they said we're
going to make our wall to yourproducts half as high.
That's what he did today.
And he said we're gonna make ithalf as high.
So, if your country charges 10%, we're going to charge five.
Or maybe we'll match your 10,but we won't go above that,
right.
And or if it's a countrycharges 40%, we'll go 20.

(12:48):
Right, and we'll show you allthose numbers.
But that's the basis.
And all of this comes fromsomething also that you picked
out, which is a historicallesson.

Speaker 6 (12:54):
Yeah, I love this historical background about
tariffs and how the U?
S used to run on tariffs.
So let's let him explain this,because I thought this was a
great little mini history lessonin how did tariffs start, why
did we get away from them andwhat was the outcome because of
it.

Speaker 7 (13:09):
We'll tell you.
But they collected so muchmoney.
They actually formed acommission to determine what
they were going to do with themoney, who they were going to
give it to and how much.
In 1913, for reasons unknown tomankind, they established the
income tax so that citizens,rather than foreign countries,
would start paying the moneynecessary to run our government.

(13:30):
Then, in 1929, it all came to avery abrupt end with the Great
Depression, and it would havenever happened.
If they had stayed with thetariff policy, it would have
been a much different story.
They tried to bring backtariffs to save our country, but
it was gone.
It was gone, it was too late,nothing could have.

Speaker 6 (13:50):
That wasn't set up great.
And so just to explain thatreally quickly I'm sorry I kind
of jumped the clip ahead of time, but basically what he's saying
in the 18, late 1800s we hadtariffs going that supported our
country.
We took those away in 1913 andstarted.
We started income tax and wemade ourselves support ourselves
, basically Like we paid foreverything.
And then that bust, you know,in 1929, that bust really

(14:13):
brought our country down to itsknees basically.
So that was kind of thebackground of it, that we had a
country built on tariffs and wehad so much money they said we
didn't know what to do with itall.
That's what he was talkingabout.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
Right, and we're not making the point here, and I
don't think he's making thepoint that you can go back to.
I think you'd like to go backto an all tariff economy, but
but we've swung so far.
The other way, which is, if youearn money in this country now,
they're a good chunk ofAmericans who work one out of
every two days for thegovernment, a government that
spends two trillion dollars ayear more than we take in, like
we can't keep going, and so he'slooking at this going.

(14:48):
We don't have those middleclass jobs anymore.
They're gone.
Our manufacturing is gone.
We saw this during COVID.
We farmed out all of ourmanufacturing and drugs and
everything else to China andother countries.
We don't have them, so he'strying to pull them back, and so
that's the effort here.
Now will it work?
I think it's going to be very,very interesting to see if it

(15:12):
works.
If it works, he'll go down asan incredible risk taker and
someone who this worked for.
So the overall message is weare now footing all the bill,
we're spending beyond our means,and so now what we have to do
is even the playing field, getmore money back in here, cut
spending, which we've talkedabout on the show before the
three legs of the stool?

(15:32):
Right, we've talked about that.
You got to cut spending.
You're going to have to get ridof waste, fraud and abuse, and
you're going to have to bring inmore revenue as well.
Right, you're going to have todo all those things.
So now there's plenty ofarguments that this won't do it.
Okay, there's no doubt we'renot going to get into that today
.
You know, do you really need toreform a bunch of other things
like entitlements?
Right, that's where most of ourmoney is spent.

(15:53):
We get all that, but that's notwhat we're getting to today.
I want you just to keep walkingthrough this with us on their
logic.
And so what Trump's trying todo here is not say that tariffs
will be how we're going tosupport everything, but what he
is saying is that there's goingto need to be more of a balance.
Take some of the weight off theworking person's shoulder and
then give it to countries whohave access to the best economy

(16:15):
in the world.

Speaker 6 (16:16):
Right.
And then he's just basicallysaying, hey, we're going to
rebuild here in America, and Iliked this little clip today too
that he just talked about likewhat's the goal here?
The goal is to bring us back,make America wealthy again is
the way he frames it.
So take a listen to this one.

Speaker 7 (16:30):
Stay on.
We're not going to let anyonetell us that American workers
and families cannot have thefuture that they deserve.
We're going to produce the carsand ships, chips, airplanes,
minerals and medicines that weneed right here in America.
The pharmaceutical companiesare going to become roaring back
.
They're coming, roaring back.
They're all coming back to ourcountry because if they don't,

(16:53):
they got a big tax to pay, andif they do, I'll be very happy
and you're going to be veryhappy and you're going to be
very safe.
We're going to build our futurewith American hands, with
American heart, american steel,and we're going to build it with
American pride, like we used to.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
That just shows you how the parties have changed.
That could have come right outof the Democratic playbook 20
years ago, right out of theirplaybook the working person's
appeal.
And so again, those jobs aren'tcoming back without financial
incentive to do so.
It's just a fact, yeah, and soyou can't get more manufacturing
back here unless you make itfinancially profitable,

(17:34):
financially feasible, to do itfinancially feasible, or the the
tax on you is so high.

Speaker 6 (17:40):
Well, that's what I mean.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
That's what I mean Like you know, if you're a
Toyota, for example, and you seethis but Toyota is crazy, so
wait, I'll have you do thisother one yeah, go ahead do that
, and then we'll talk about theToyota.

Speaker 6 (17:50):
Okay, so this one actually explains that, that he
says that there's a lot ofcompanies that have already
committed in this last twomonths of bringing back
manufacturing jobs andbusinesses here to the US.
So here's just a quick snippetof some of the companies that
have already committed what hesays are billions of dollars.

Speaker 7 (18:05):
Apple is going to spend $500 billion.
They never spent money likethat here.
They're going to build theirplants here.
Softbank, openai and Oraclegreat, great companies are
investing $500 billion almostimmediately.
Nvidia, a hot company, isinvesting hundreds of billions

(18:28):
of dollars.
They just announced TSMC, thebiggest, most important company
in the world of chips fromTaiwan, with no investment from
us, is investing 200 billion.
And they said the reason wasnumber one, the election of
November 5th, and number two,the tariffs.
They don't want to pay thetariffs and the way they're not
paying it is to build their planhere.

(18:50):
So we're going to go fromalmost no percentage.
We used to have 100 percent ofthe chip market.
Now it's all in Taiwan.
Almost all of it's in Taiwan, acouple of other countries, but
mostly in Taiwan.
And think of it.
We had 100 percent.
We lost it because of people inthat office.

Speaker 6 (19:06):
I liked that only because it explains a little bit
again about, like, how thingsare actually been working, you
know the last several decadesand why does there need to be
some change.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
And think about the logic of this.
We are the biggest consumer inthe world, right, to be some
change to that.
And think about the logic ofthis.
We are the biggest consumer inthe world, right?
So, in other words, to be ableto get access to this market,
saying, to some degree, build ithere and again, it's not
everybody won't, everybody won'tdo it, but but a lot of those
people will and a lot of thosecountries will, because they
want access to the biggest piggybank in the world.
How does this not make sense?

(19:37):
Right, it makes a ton of sense.
Now, I don't know if it's goingto work.
Again, I don't know if it'sgoing to work, but it makes a
ton of sense.
And if you think about how farin debt we truly are, we we have
to do this, or if we don't doit now, we're headed over a

(19:59):
cliff from Walmart.
But there is going to be someadjustment in this process.
There has to be.

Speaker 6 (20:04):
Well, and talk a little bit about beginning of
the speech, cause we kind oftalked, chatted a little bit
about it.
We don't have a clip on it, butwhen he was talking about just
how expensive things are or thetariffs that, like Japan or the
Euro market does on any, likecar, like they, will.

Speaker 2 (20:17):
Well, a car thing was fascinating to me, like, if you
look at, toyota is a greatexample.
Toyota sells a million cars inthe United States with virtually
no tariff barrier.
Go to Japan, try to buy anAmerican car.
You can't, you can't, theydon't allow it, right.
And so it's like, well, wait aminute, what are we doing?
You don't have a right to thismarket, you don't have a right

(20:39):
to just shred us.
And so, as a country, it'shappened time after time.
Now the question is, when youreorient things like this and
you go to Japan and you say, hey, ok, you know what.
You're going to have to pay 25percent tariffs.
Or, in Japan's case, my guessis you're going to see more
factories built in this country.
From Toyota case, my guess isyou're going to see more

(21:00):
factories built in this countryfrom Toyota, right, that's what
you're going to see.
And you go to Michigan, thereare plenty of factories that are
either empty or running undercapacity.

Speaker 6 (21:06):
Yeah, he had a lot of the auto workers there today.

Speaker 2 (21:07):
He did the thing and they were very, because now
we're the party of the autoworker the party of the union.

Speaker 6 (21:12):
It's crazy.
It's crazy, totally flipped onits head from like eighties and
nineties especially.
You know it's really reversed,it's so, it's so different.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
And, by the way, you make the point on the jobs
coming back, ava, let's go toclip number 11.
And I just grabbed this onething and it's a small little
graph and it is by no meansdefinitive and I don't want to
give you the impression that itis, but this is a graph that
tracks the manufacturing jobsreturning to the United States.
So if, if we go in tight to theleft side of the graph here,

(21:42):
let's go back and you can goback way back, let's see if we
go yeah, there, we go OK, so wego back from 2020 and then move
our way across here, and we sawa pretty, pretty good valley.
Keep going to the right.
You see a pretty good valley ofthose jobs losing manufacturing
jobs from basically 2022through 2023, early 2024 as well

(22:02):
.
But watch what's happened hereover the past two months.

Speaker 6 (22:07):
You said two months yeah.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
Two months, all of a sudden you see an uptick in jobs
returning.
Now am I telling you that thisis the beginning of some massive
renaissance?
I can't say that yet, but itdoes back up his point.

Speaker 6 (22:17):
That's where he's getting this from saying he's
saying that he's added 10,000manufacturing jobs in two months
, which is a lot, you know that.
Is it going to be the savingthing, the saving grace?
I don't know.
Not enough, not yet, but thequestion that becomes obvious, I
think, to a lot of folks areare you going to find Americans
that are willing to work 15, 16hour days?
Um, why?

Speaker 2 (22:37):
would you have to work 15, 16 hour days?
Um like, why would you have towork 15,?

Speaker 6 (22:39):
16?
Okay.
So this is the argument that'sout there right In the world
today on Twitter.
Right Is is okay, the Apple'sgoing to set up a manufacturing
plant here.
Where they're set up in foreigncountries, folks are willing to
go in there and work 16 hourdays, sure, so they can
manufacture more right At acheaper cost and a cheaper labor
pricing right here Will thosesame people.

(23:00):
You know it's people won't workas hard here in those jobs.
It's not working hard.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
That's called slave labor, and so here's why you
have a tariff.
That's exactly why you have atariff, because right now,
there's an unequal playing field.
You have people in certaincountries that have a very low
standard of living, that areforced to work 15, 16 hour days
and, by the way, apple takingadvantage of that.
Yeah, I don't know if they door they don't, I don't know, but
the point being, you bringthose jobs back here.

(23:27):
Okay, that's why you avoid thattariff.
If not, you're going to paythat tariff, because we're not
going to compete on a levelplaying field like this.
This is not level at all.
You have your, your, your $5 anhour person working 15 hours a

(23:47):
day, and we have somebody that'spaid a living wage working
eight hours a day, as we should,okay.
So that's part of the case fortariffs, which is you have to
create that more level playingfield.
We didn't do it.
Our free traders came in, whichI get it, I get the free trade,
thought I did.
I understood it at the time Letpeople trade freely, but we
weren't trading freely.
We weren't, we didn't haveaccess to their market.
They told us we did, but wedidn't.
Right, and so, therefore, thejobs went away.

(24:09):
They went to other countriesbecause of what exactly?
What you just said.
And we did not penalize themfor sending their products back
in.
And if we're going to do that,then penalize them for sending
their products back in.
Products back in.
And if we're going to do that,then penalize them for sending
their products back in.
We'll take a boatload of moneyfrom them if they want the
access to our markets for thecheaper product, and then, of
course, the price of thatproduct does go up.
You're right, it will.

(24:29):
It will go up, but it creates amore level playing field and it
returns jobs back here.
So big companies like Toyotaare going to bring jobs back
here, and so this is this isreorienting the whole economy
again and taking those towns andwe even see them in New Mexico,
where we used to havemanufacturing facilities of all
kinds that are gone.
They're gone.
Go to Ohio, go to Michigan, andyou see empty factories and

(24:54):
people scraping three differentjobs to get by because we ship
the jobs overseas.
This is a very interestingplace to be.
The question is, will thecountry be patient enough for
Trump to let this play out andreorient the economy?
I don't know the answer to thatquestion, but I think it's an
interesting battle.
And then when you start lookingat how this stuff breaks down,

(25:14):
Well, explain these tariffs,these reciprocal tariffs, a
little bit yeah.
So the announcement today wasreciprocal tariffs, which is, we
are going to basically matchyour tariffs, ok, whatever
country you're in.
So, ava, let's go in tight onthis.
You can actually see it,they're discounted.

Speaker 6 (25:27):
He's saying I'm going to discount.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Right.
So let's just give you an idea.
So what this shows is China forthe most part.
Here, they tariff our goods atabout 67% by the time again,
this is what we're talking aboutby the time you do tariff and
you do any value added taxes,you do any extra hoops that you
make United States companies runthrough 67%.
So Trump says, all right, we'regoing to, we're going to cut
that in half.

(25:49):
We're not, we're not trying tomatch evenly, we'll go half.
So you just start looking atall this.
The European union roughly,they charge us 39%.
Okay, okay, cool, we'll chargeyou 20.
So you go all the way down thelist.
Taiwan 64%.
By the way, this is amazing inall these countries when you
think about it.
Right, taiwan, we supply withweapons so that they're not a
nation state of China already,right, we do all that.

(26:12):
However, taiwan 64%.
That's why Taiwan's got a chipfactory coming here, right?
Because then none of thesetariffs apply if you come here
and make it right.
So you keep on going.
Japan, our good friends inJapan 46%.

Speaker 6 (26:25):
Don't forget Vietnam at 90%, Our guys at Vietnam.
What's going on with Vietnam?

Speaker 2 (26:30):
And by the way, there's a lot of products that
we get to come into this countryfrom Vietnam, a lot, right,
okay, 46%, so you just go downhere.
Thailand 72'll go 36.
So again, switzerland greatcountry, I don't really know.
Chocolate, chocolate may go up.
Uh, 61 switzerland, we're goingto charge you 31 so you can
keep on going down.
The united kingdom is not a.

(26:50):
You know they're prettylegitimate.
They're at 10, so we're justmatch your 10.
South africa 60, we'll go 30.
So anyway, if you can go to thenext slide all together here
and so the.
So what the white house did wasput all this stuff out again.
This 60%.
South Africa 60%, we'll go 30.
So, anyway, ava, you can go tothe next slide altogether here,
and so what the White House didwas put all this stuff out Again
.
This is the first time they'rereally making this case.
Let's go tighter, ava.
This is the first time they'rereally making this case to say,
okay, this is why we're doingwhat we're doing.

(27:11):
Peru really doesn't do much, sowe won't do much to them.
Nicaragua will be half of whatthey do.
Costa Rica is pretty low, sowe'll be at 10%.
Why Costa Rica hits us for 17%?
You keep on going down.
Jordan uh, they're 40%, so youcan get.
You get the idea right.
I mean Myanmar, uh, formerlyBurma they go 88%.
On us Uh, it's a pretty roughplace to live, by the way.
Uh, we'll go 44, uh for them.

(27:32):
So you can see all these things.
So the logic is this we'll dohalf of what you're doing to us,
okay, so so that's where thisall goes and we'll see.
But, but I just want to wrapthis portion of it with the
thought process is this youthrow those numbers out there.
Okay, the other countries willdo one of two things that
they're not going to go and Jacktheir numbers way up, even

(27:53):
higher.
They can, if they want to, ifthey want to be eliminated from
the largest market in the world.
They can do that.
Or what they're more likely todo is to come back and say, okay
, hold on, can we reach anotherdeal?
And then there may be someindividual deals reached, but
I'm not sure they're going to bein this particular case, cause
the logic.
Again, this ties into Doge,which you're going to get to in
just a second.
But the point being here is, ifyou're going to come into this

(28:16):
country with goods, one of twothings is going to happen you
either build them here and youhave free access to this country
, or you're going to bring themin and we're going to tariff
them at half the rate you tariffus, and so in doing that, we're
going to bring more jobs back.
I do believe that the questionis how much do prices go up?
Is the economy too fragile forthis, and do we have too much

(28:37):
debt to do it?
All that stuff needs to beanswered, because we have to
deal with these things.
That's all get to your Dogething here in a second.
So those are the things thatare hanging in the air that we
don't know yet.
Right, and Doge is part of thisright, which you'll talk about.
But so that's kind of the theway this all works.
And in the people against itpolitically, which we'll get to
in a second as well, their,their, their fear mongering is

(28:57):
out now.
Now it's everything's.
Everything's going to be out ofcontrol price-wise.
We should continue to behollowed out as a country and go
bankrupt Just so we can go toWalmart.
Right, right and just.
And your drugs, they're goingto be made in China, so that's
just the way it goes, sorry.
So this is a reorienting ofthat and I don't know if it
works.

Speaker 6 (29:16):
Yeah, it's really a shift of the whole world economy
.
I mean, really, when you lookat what he's trying to do, is
he'll either go down as, like,the celebrated force of like
really having the vision of howto reset the world's economy and
how to re, you know, helpAmerica get back to its former
self, basically, or this will bea complete and utter disaster.
So it's going to be one way orthe other, and that's why 26

(29:38):
could be a disaster.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
Right In the 26 election could be a disaster,
and we'll get to those electionnumbers real quickly.
We'll move a little morequickly from here on out.
But but the point being likethe, in the short term, the next
year or two could be reallyrough for Trump and then, as you
start seeing jobs come back,come back, come back.
If that truly happens, if he'sright, right.
How often have we been toldTrump's crazy, he's wrong, and
then all of a sudden, he wasn'twrong, right.

(30:01):
Even the first time he put thetariffs on China, they were
screaming.
This was a terrible idea.

Speaker 6 (30:06):
And then they didn't remove the tariffs when Biden
came in Cause it worked.
Yeah, and even.

Speaker 2 (30:10):
China, and he says this during the speech date.
I encourage you to go watchthis thing.
Just watch it in its entiretyand just listen to it.
It'll take an hour.
Yeah, it's worth it, cause it'syour country and it's your
economy.
Yeah, Right.
So you got to understand whatthe guy's thinking and don't go
to you know a legacy mediaoutlet and be like well, they
told me that this isn't going towork.
Don't go to MSNBC and listen tothe garbage, or even Fox or even

(30:30):
anybody that's, that's going todetermine how legitimate you
think this is.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
Don't go to them yeah .

Speaker 2 (30:36):
Just listen to it and I I just thought it was
fascinating, because I don'tknow that much about tariffs and
how it works, and this was justa fascinating case that he made
.
Now again, there's plenty ofcases against it.
One is that our entitlementstruly drive the debt the debt.
So therefore this is nottouching that, so it's not
likely to make a huge difference.
But I think the longer termplay here and this is why I
think Trump, politically, is insome peril, because this is a

(30:58):
long-term play, this is along-term.
We need more jobs back here.
Here's how we're going to do it.
And it's somebody finallyexecuting on something they
campaigned on and said here wego.
How many of these phonies thatare out there criticizing him
never would do any of this,either because they don't
believe in it, or they don'thave the idea to do it, or they
can't possibly execute it Right.

(31:19):
So possibly execute it Right.

Speaker 6 (31:19):
So all of that is is it be worried too much about
what they look like politicallyto do something this risky right
?

Speaker 3 (31:25):
Right, no.
What does this do for us?
What does?

Speaker 6 (31:26):
this make me look like.
Is this going to impact myfuture?
Okay, let's okay.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Remember, but you're still right now.
Everything he's doing, he's the, he's the.
He's fighting for the workingperson that comes through in
this.

Speaker 6 (31:39):
It does.
It comes back that he wants tomake America wealthy again.
I mean he really does.

Speaker 2 (31:42):
I don't even care about the slogan.
Right, it's the autoworkerwho's like, let me get up there
and talk about how great this is.
You know, that's the sort ofthing.
That blue collar voter who nowis going to be the core of the
Trump movement it's notnecessarily the core of the
Republican movement.

Speaker 6 (32:04):
There are plenty of Republicans who are pissed about
this.
Oh, I know You'll hear abouthim, okay.
Another thing that I thoughtwas definitely worth your time
to watch if you haven't watchedit yet.
It is this Brett Baer interviewwith the principal players of
Doge.
Okay, he did it on Fox News,google Fox News interview with
Doge, and you will find it.
It's about 40 minutes long,completely fascinating.
I listened to it twice.
There's parts that are soriveting, and so I pulled a few
of those clips, because I thinkit goes without saying that

(32:28):
there's so many headlines outthere about jobs being cut.
Our state's going to run amok,we're not going to have any
money for the health industryanymore, and what if we hit
another pandemic?
We're not going to have theresearch that we need to have.
Vaccines are going to go away.
Like all this energy is beingsent into these crazy fear
mongering.
It's political fear mongering,yes, and so I wanted to pull

(32:50):
some clips so you actually canhear what they found out.
They're trying to be astransparent as possible.
So this first one is reallyjust Elon talking directly about
what the goal is and howthey're cutting the waste and
the fraud and the abuse.
So let's take a listen to this.

Speaker 3 (33:05):
To reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.
So from a nominal deficit of $2trillion to try to cut the
deficit in half to $1 trillion.
Or, looked at in total federalspending, to drop the federal
spending from $7 trillion to $6trillion, so sort of at a high

(33:25):
level.
You should think of this as wewant to reduce the spending by
eliminating waste and fraud,reduce the spending by 15
percent, which seems reallyquite achievable.
The government is not efficientand there's a lot of waste and
fraud, so we feel confident thata 15 percent reduction can be
done without affecting any ofthe critical government services

(33:49):
.

Speaker 6 (33:49):
Yeah, ok, so that's just the beginning of that.
Now, this is kind of what Ifound interesting.
I got into this discussion withsome of my students at school
about NIH and the HHS cuts, ok.
So it really kind of spiked alook to me of saying, okay,
let's find out what we can, whatwe can see out there.
So you go to the Santa Fe NewMexican right now, okay, and you
look at this headline and itsays New Mexico joins lawsuit

(34:12):
against termination of federalpublic health grants.
And if you pull a couple ofthese quotes here, it says New
Mexico has joined a coalition of23 states and the district of
Columbia in a lawsuit againstthe US Department of Health and
Human Services and SecretaryRobert F Kennedy Jr over the
abrupt termination of nearly $11billion in public health grants
.
And then the quote is cuts toHHS will have a devastating

(34:33):
impact on our state, slashingcritical funding for infectious
disease research and response.
Okay.
And then if you move on alittle bit, it goes on to talk
about the lawsuit being here andit's you know they're worried
it's going to basically endessential support for a wide
range of urgent public healthneeds, okay.
So you read that and you'rethinking, okay, geez, this

(34:54):
sounds pretty drastic that we'regoing to, you know, lose vital
funds nationally and here inthis in the state of New Mexico.
And what does this actuallyboil down to?
Well, I started doing a littlebit more research and finding
out that some of those cuts aredirectly they were funding
directly funneled into severalstates during the pandemic and

(35:14):
now that pandemic has wrapped,and so they're saying listen, we
can pull back some of thosefunds because they're not needed
anymore.
And so they're not saying thepandemic didn't happen, which is
what some of the media issaying that the Republicans are
saying they didn't say that.
They're just saying it's nothappening now.

Speaker 2 (35:29):
You mean we don't need to keep spending levels at
unbelievably and unsustainablyhigh levels.
We can't do that in perpetuity,because that's what they do.
Remember, they call less of anincrease a cut.

Speaker 6 (35:47):
Oh, I know which is crazy.
So this is ridiculous.
Okay, and then okay.
So here's the other point ofthat article is they talk
specifically about grants beingcut.
Okay, grants.
Now listen to this clip fromthis Fox interview where this
gentleman who's workingspecifically on the HHS cuts
specifically and what that hasto do with the grant funding and
why they're realigning thatmoney.

Speaker 7 (36:04):
Care and Medicaid NIH what are you finding?

Speaker 5 (36:09):
Yeah, well, I'd say there's a couple of things we're
really committed to in our workat HHS Number one, making sure
we continue to have the bestbiomedical research in the world
.
And number two, making surewhich President Trump has said
over and over again that we 100percent protect Medicare and
Medicaid.
But there's a lot ofopportunity.
So if I take NIH as an exampletoday, if you're an NIH

(36:29):
researcher and you get a $100grant at your university today,
you get to spend 60 of that andyour university spends 40 of
that.
The policy that we're proposingto make is that you get to
spend 85 of that and youruniversity spends 15.
So that's more money goingdirectly to the scientists who
are discovering new cures.

Speaker 6 (36:46):
So again it's.
It's like hey, yeah, we'regoing to cut some of the grants
back that schools are gettingright, that's kind of the point
of that.

Speaker 2 (36:54):
So it would be.
It's a political point, that is, that is a hiding the ball and
saying, yeah, the money is beingcut to schools, being increased
to the people actually doingthe research, yeah, and so it's
like if you could just explainthat to people.

Speaker 6 (37:03):
Another thing that I thought was interesting I didn't
cut the clip for this one, um,but I'll say really briefly on
this that he talks specificallyabout HHS.
They have 40 communicationoffices and they said it's just
a waste, like it's not thatthese people are doing bad jobs
or anything, it's just that theydon't know that these people
over here are talking to thesepeople over here.
It's doubling efforts thatdon't need to be doubled.

(37:24):
So some of those jobs in HHSspecifically are being trimmed
back because you have the samepeople doing the job multiple
times.
It doesn't need to be happening.

Speaker 2 (37:33):
Well, what's happened here is government explosion in
total dollars spent andstaffing with zero
accountability and we're so farinto debt.
This is just like someone inyour own home going being just
not.
It's like a child of yoursbeing not accountable at all.
They run up a hundred thousanddollars in credit card debt and
then when you say we have topull this back and get this

(37:55):
under control we can still meetthe needs, but yet you don't
need to be spending this kind ofmoney Then it's like how could
you?
And and again, this is a fatgovernment bloat that is pushing
back, and if it Doge continuesto do this work, they need to do
this in a way where they haveas much of a PR fight as

(38:15):
possible, because when they comeout and talk like they did,
they're very effective.
It's when you don't talk andyou just work that you have a
problem.
This is a political fight aswell as a structural fight in
government.
Okay, so you have to fight thepolitical fight while you're
fighting the structural fight.

Speaker 6 (38:33):
So you're saying don't come out with a chainsaw
at the very beginning.
Maybe you could have just donethe sit down.
There's no question and youcould have managed this better,
but I did add this clip becauseI thought this was pretty
interesting as well.
We hear all the time,especially even from our state
leaders.
There's all these cuts tostaffing and massive firings,
and federal people are gettingfired left and right.
Listen to what this gentlemansays about exactly what they're
doing when it comes togovernment jobs.

Speaker 4 (38:54):
There's a very heavy focus on being generous, being
caring, being compassionate andtreating everyone with dignity
and respect.
And if you look at how peoplehave started to leave the
government, it is largelythrough voluntary means.
There's voluntary earlyretirement, there's voluntary

(39:16):
separation payments.
We put in place deferredresignation, the eight-month
severance program.
So there's a very heavy biastowards programs that are
long-dated, that are generous,that allow people to exit and go
and get a new job in theprivate sector.
And you've heard a lot of newsabout RIFs, about people getting

(39:36):
fired.
At this moment in time, lessthan 0.15, not 1.5, less than
0.15 of the federal workforcehas actually been givena RIF
notice.

Speaker 3 (39:48):
So they've selected if they're it is basically
almost no one's gotten fired.
That's what we're saying.

Speaker 6 (39:55):
Tom, I thought that was interesting and again I like
kind of just the explanation.

Speaker 2 (39:59):
Right, and you mentioned it.
The contrast to that and thechainsaw no, that's where you go
.
This is a political battle.
Stop doing the go in front ofyour Republican friends and go.
You know I get it.
I understand the desire to dothat.
Musk has been attacked like noother, so I'm sure at times he
just kind of lets it rip.
I totally understand that.
But I will also tell you ifI've got to have someone looking

(40:22):
over our government trying toturn it into something more
efficient and more effective,there is to listen to these
politicians, go, rip into him.
It would.
It's ridiculous.
It'd be like me going up toEinstein and being like let me
just learn you a few things.
You know what I mean.
Like, what are you talkingabout?
It's just, it's crazy.

(40:46):
And I do want to say one thingabout the very first clip you
had.
You brought up something thatwe can put a bow on this whole
thing.
One of the things he mentionedwas trying to save a trillion
dollars a year, right, bycutting out waste, fraud and
abuse.
Okay, so what he's reallytalking about there is we run
about a $2 trillion deficitevery year.
So what he's basically, withtheir back of the napkin, trying
to do here is say, let's gethalf our savings from waste,
fraud and abuse and then let'sget half of the other trillion

(41:09):
dollars by most likely here,tariff money and potentially
cutting out things that we don'tneed to do anymore to get us to
the point where we're even onthe budget, meaning a balanced
budget.
That's what we've got to gowith.
We can't keep adding to thepoint where we're even on the
budget, meaning a balancedbudget.
That's what we've got to gowith.
We can't keep adding to the $36trillion debt.
Remember, there are twodifferent things here.
National debt is $36 trillionthat's total of what you owe on

(41:31):
the credit card right, but everyyear we're down $2 trillion, so
we're adding $2 trillion eachtime.
So what they're trying to dobasically in a broad sense, is
take that $2 trillion and wipehalf of it out with waste, fraud
and abuse and the other half ofit with tariffs and some other
things.
Returning jobs, expanding thepie right, because if you bring
more jobs back, what happens totax revenue Goes up right, and

(41:53):
so that's the idea behind this,and the idea is also re-support
the middle class, bring backthose higher paying jobs so that
all of them aren't outsourcedto other countries thanks to
imbalance and trade.

Speaker 6 (42:04):
Well, and I think the thing that people really need
to understand when they'retalking about Doge and it's very
transparent.
You can go to the Doge websiteand see exactly what they're
cutting.
And they brought up someinteresting points, and a quick
one is we're paying almost abillion dollars for a survey for
national parks that goes tonowhere.
So it's basically like a monkeya survey monkey program that
does ask 10 questions and thenthose results went nowhere.

(42:27):
And we spent almost a billiondollars on that and they have
been working with I would havedone that for a hundred million.
So they're working with thedepartment of interior to
eliminate that.
So I think again, if peoplereally can see where the waste
is, then it's hard to argueagainst like okay, well, maybe
that didn't make you know.
Like good luck arguing againstwhat the waste that they're

(42:48):
actually finding.
Because there's this myth thatDoge is going in, they're firing
everybody, they're the onesthat are cut all these programs,
they're taking everybody'smoney away.
That's actually what's nothappening.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
This is why it's a terrible mistake on the left to
do this, because if it's not,what's not happening?
This is why it's a terriblemistake on the left to do this,
because if it's not what'shappening, people look around
and they go.
They generally agree with thepolicy, right, even Doge, they
generally agree with it.
And so what happens herelong-term is, if you can execute
it politically in a way that iscompassionate, well thought out
and cautious, right, you willwin this fight.

(43:21):
But the problem is, at timesthey haven't always done that
right.

Speaker 6 (43:24):
From the beginning they kind of got too spicy.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
It got too spicy right.

Speaker 6 (43:28):
And now we're blowing up Tesla's for it.

Speaker 2 (43:30):
You know Well no well , look, that's on that side and
they can do what they can do.
But my, my point is on thisthing if you handle it the right
way and you saw it you saw theadjustment right.
You saw the adjustment in Musk,you saw the adjustment in the
gentleman who spoke on that lastsoundbite.
Every time they're talkingabout things and this is
political one-on-one when theyask you, you know are you going
to?
You know you're saving money onwhatever, a friendly question,

(43:52):
whatever it is, you're you'recutting waste, fraud, abuse.
Yes, we are.
But but remember one thingwe're not going to cut social
security, we're not going to cutMedicaid and we're not going to
cut Medicare.
You know that every time, like,that's your right now, the big
argument here, the the in thelegitimate argument is those are
the drivers of the debt.
So if we don't restructurethose not saying you cut them,
but you may have to figure out adifferent way to to distribute

(44:14):
the money, I don't know We'lljust have to wait and see.

Speaker 6 (44:16):
It's actually interesting to listen to that
interview, that whole interview.
He does talk.
They talk specifically aboutthat, especially when it comes
to Social Security, and he saidwe literally are paying 20
million people that are notlegit Social Security.
He's like that's just oneexample of fraud that's
happening in Social Security andElon actually goes.
I want you to quote me on this,because you can pull this back

(44:36):
and aim this camera at me andbasically I will hold to this
that not only will I eliminatewaste, fraud and abuse in social
security, I will not touch yourbenefits.
I will make you have, I'llallow you to have make more
money in social security thanyou've ever made before.
And he goes and you can hold meto that.

Speaker 2 (44:53):
I I will be held accountable for that.
That's a great way to go.

Speaker 6 (44:54):
Well, okay, so I mean .
So let's let him do it Right,instead of saying they're going
to cut our social securitybenefits, it's not going to
exist.

Speaker 2 (44:59):
Well, no, no, no, I mean, and again they will come
out looking stupid if they keepdoing this, and and the approach
works.
But this is an incrediblereorientation of everything.

Speaker 6 (45:11):
So he does say and the last thing I'll say on this
is he he said really what we are.
We're it experts Like that'swhat we're doing here, and all
of these are antiquated computerprograms that our government's
running on.
Yeah, that's what we're doinghere, and all of these are
antiquated computer programsthat our government's running on
.

Speaker 2 (45:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (45:24):
That's what we're doing.
We're not coming in and tryingto like hack away all government
programs.
We're saying, listen, let's getupdated and let's see what is
so antiquated that we're wastingmoney.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
That way, it's such a much better place to be than
being the side who's saying, no,just leave it the way it is,
you know, because that doesn'twork.
It does not work.
Okay, We've got to move quicklyon this stuff.
We've gone way over.
Just, you've been, you've beenway well.
I love these subjects today.

Speaker 6 (45:54):
These are really hot topics.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
Okay, a quick fallout from the RPNM firebombing.
Okay, a couple of things wetalked about in the last show
than just the actual fireb.
Denounce this stuff.
All of them did, and Heinrichgave this statement right here.
He basically said there'sabsolutely no place for
political violence in ourdemocracy, at any level, and
whoever did this must be heldaccountable.
Well, I'm glad to hear no onewas injured.
I strongly condemn whathappened.
This is not how we should treatone another.
The thing I liked about thatand again, I'm no big fan,

(46:17):
clearly, but he didn't try to dosome equivocation, didn't try
to add some other thing in there.
Like the democratic party ofNew Mexico regularly does this,
they've done it again on thisparticular issue.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
They go back and forth and try to add equipment.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
And again, party hacks are party hacks for our
Senator.
This is you know.
You say the right statement.
Now, there's plenty of stuffthat he ramps up rhetoric to a
ridiculous degree, but you knowthis was not one of those
moments.

Speaker 6 (46:44):
Ledger Fernandez had her comments oh my goodness.
Ok, so this is her secondcomment.
Ok, this is her first commentafter the firebomb.
Ok, so she says politicalviolence is unacceptable,
including the arson attack onthe New Mexico GOP headquarters.
The perpetrators must be heldaccountable.
Every American should be ableto freely and safely participate
in our democracy.
At my town hall yesterday Ispoke about quote love in action
, about the importance ofshowing respect and listening.

(47:06):
That is what we need right now.
Now, love in action is not whatI heard, so we want to play the
clip for you and then you guyscan decide.
What do you hear her say?
Because I don't hear anythingabout love in action.
People keep asking about mewhat do we do?

Speaker 8 (47:21):
What are you doing?
What more can you do?
And we have a three-prongedproject Legislate, litigate,
agitate and you guys are part ofthe agitate part.

Speaker 6 (47:34):
Okay.
So I'm not sure what agitate,how that has anything to do with
love and action.
That was literally mere momentsbefore this firebomb happens.
Now, obviously I'm not saying Ican't correlate that to her,
nor would we say that, butcomments like this just aren't
helpful.
And then to come back out andbe like hey, I try to change the
course of what you said, itfeels inauthentic, that's so

(47:57):
generous.

Speaker 2 (47:58):
It's very generous Well right, and I think the
thing that is the most gallingabout the statement is the fact
that she tried to turn back toan event where she recommends
agitating and says it was allabout love.
Look, I get it.
As far as politics goes, I'mnot very sensitive about this
stuff.
I tend to look at that stuffand look, people use language in
politics all the time that canbe based around battle.

(48:21):
Right, it's just, it's one ofthose things We've got to fight.
We've got we're going to warover this, so this stuff happens
.
I don't get too sensitive aboutthis stuff.

Speaker 6 (48:28):
But you.
But obviously, though, babe,keep in mind that, like she's
saying this, when people areliterally punching each other in
the face, that are driving.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
That's a fair point.
Blowing up no, you're exactlyright on that point.

Speaker 6 (48:38):
She could have lowered the rhetoric and said
listen, you know why you guysmay want to protest certain
things.
Let's keep violence out of itand let's not light things on
fire and let's not be punchingpeople in the face and
vandalizing cars.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
No, no, no, Don't get me wrong, Her approach is so
you?

Speaker 6 (48:52):
don't During the middle of all of this.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
Okay, okay, maybe you're right, you're right, I'm
not, I'm not definitely right onthis one.
Okay, the agitate?
Okay, all right, but I'm sorry,like she, I don't know.
Okay, I'll give you that,you're fine, I'll give you that
I you're, you're, you're righton the word agitate, is you're

(49:16):
right?
That's, I mean, that's, I agree.
It's like a tacit thing of likehey, if you happen to be in a,
you know, in a Walmart parkinglot and you see a Tesla driver,
you should flip them off.
Is that agitating?
I don't know what's agitating,you know, is agitating walking
by someone's car with a key andshrink right?
Is that agitating?

(49:40):
Yeah, you could make that case.
I totally understand your point.
I just think some of this stuffis.
I think that people areresponsible for what they do.
I agree, I don't like what shesaid.
I think she's she's largely issomebody who will take the
lowest possible road in theeasiest possible road, because
why she never has to beaccountable.
Teresa Ledger Fernandez willnever run a close race in her
life, and because she won't runa close race in her life, she'll
never actually get good enoughto be good at the job, which is

(50:00):
a bummer.

Speaker 6 (50:01):
I mean, I really think that's true.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
I just think she's a non-factor to me.
I listened to her and I watchwhat she does and I and I just
roll my eyes and move on becauseI don't think she's.
She's somebody who, absolutely,to me, is a non-factor and that
is the worst thing possible forthe state, but that's what she
is.

Speaker 6 (50:18):
Well, I hope that.
I really hope that we, when wedidn't talk about this during
the on the firebombing on ourlast episode.
I hope there's cameras or somesort of video evidence of
anything that comes out of allthis too, because I do think I
love the fact that we have stateleaders that say, yes, we
should have held these peopleaccountable, but then nothing
happens, right.
So that also is like okay, youcan say what you want on a tweet

(50:40):
, but let's mayor Keller and ourgovernor and whoever else
should be putting anythingbehind it, to actually really
find what happened here andarrest those people that are
responsible.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
So great.
Okay, let's go on to the quick,real quick the elections in
Florida.
We're not going to talk aboutthe Wisconsin thing, the judge
thing in Wisconsin.
It was what it was.
I Wisconsin is a is a bluestate.

Speaker 6 (51:05):
Okay, so I know Trump won it, but to see someone in
Wisconsin a judge win, Okay Well, I think that also does show a
little bit of those midtermsright Like, are people going to
show up?
It's not a midterm.

Speaker 2 (51:14):
It's a special it's even different.
I mean nobody shows up to aspecial.
It's crazy, unless you have,like, a relative on the ballot.

Speaker 6 (51:20):
So that's why it's like $81 million on that race.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
I totally get it and so did the Democrats, by the way
it was.

Speaker 6 (51:26):
I mean, I think that was a combined right.
It was crazy.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
But the Florida one is more interesting, and here's
why.
Here are the two.
Two races in Florida Patronusuh one and Fine won.
They're both Republicans.
Okay, in those numbers.
You look at them and say, oh mygosh, the Republicans both won
by almost 15 points.
Okay, wow, that's not close.
No, it's not particularly close, but Trump won these districts
by about 30 points.
So for everyone who's like, hey, you know what midterm

(51:50):
elections Trump's going to getfour years of a Republican
Congress?
No, he's not.
Of a Republican Congress no,he's not.
There's a much better chancethan even that.
This is an indication that that,as you get to the midterms,
unless things go unbelievablywell, ok, you're likely to lose
the House.
So Trump has to realize thatthey've got to get tax cuts

(52:11):
passed.
They've got to get a borderbill passed.
I've got to get some of thisstuff passed.
Maybe they don't do the borderbill, because Trump rightly said
I can fix that myself.
Okay, that's true, but.
But if you want to addressthose issues, you can, but but
the tax cuts are going to beimportant to keep in place, or
else every American is going toget a massive tax increase.
Okay, don't forget, 82% ofAmericans got a tax cut from the

(52:33):
Trump tax cuts.
Okay, most of them benefited,especially, especially the fat
part of the electorate in themiddle.
So those things are important.
Just something to think aboutthere.
That Trump's got 18 months orso that he can get something
done.
Because I think they're likelyto lose the house.
Now they may not they're notgonna lose the Senate, but they
could lose the house.

(52:54):
And just realize these numbers,while they're strong for
Republicans, this shows anerosion, right, it shows an
erosion that, and again, mostcandidates don't outrun the
president in their state.
We totally understand that.
But to lose half a Trump's gapin a in a red state of Florida,
just something to think about.
That.
Don't be surprised goingforward here, cause remember,

(53:16):
all they have to do is fight thepolitical battle and all these
little chirpies.
And if the economy isstruggling to reorient itself,
which Trump's?
We're doing surgery here?
If we're not back up and on thetreadmill and let's say we're
just walking around the house,we're getting better, but we're
not there yet, you could welllose the house.
So just realize that's possiblyjust realize that's possibly.

Speaker 6 (53:39):
Yeah, I think you know, obviously with trump not
on the ballot in states whereit's a trump backed candidate,
it it sometimes doesn't help younearly as much as when he's
actually on the ballot, you knowyeah, no, and you're right, and
that's more about thereorientation of the electorate
too so okay, and then the talkof a third term okay, what in
the world?
I mean, this just seems kind ofbizarre well, it's stupid to me

(54:03):
, okay, so it was, I think hewas, is he no?

Speaker 2 (54:06):
he's not, he's not, he's not.
I'll tell you what I went.
Well, okay, to some degree, Ithink he is.

Speaker 6 (54:10):
I think I think he thinks, if I say this, he knows
that mainstream media was gonnabe like oh my gosh, he's once
again.
He's gonna try the dictator?

Speaker 2 (54:17):
yeah, the dictator's coming out and like I don't know
.

Speaker 6 (54:18):
so here's once again.
He's going to try to dictator,yeah, dictators coming out, and
dah dah, dah, dah dah.
Like I don't know.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
So here's an article from the New York times which is
interesting.
I don't read the times often,but got a little clip of this
one and looked at it.
I'm not going to read you thewhole thing, I'm not even going
to read you any of the quotes's.
No support from Republicans todo this in the Senate, like it's
not going to happen.
It would change, you'd have tochange the constitution.

(54:41):
You can't do it.
Okay, it's not going to happen.
But why would Trump even do this?
Right?
Part of the reason is and partof the reason they think he's
doing this is because, as asecond term president basically
right he doesn't want to be alame duck too quickly.
So he wants to lord over theRepublican majority and say,
especially right now becauseremember you've already had
senators Rand to pass tax cuts,things like that, and then make

(55:05):
sure you stay in line on thisstuff.
And he's floating this so thatthey keep in line to the point
where what if we had to dealwith this guy for another four

(55:26):
years?
Oh my gosh, you know.
So I don't think it's a smartplay.
I don't think it fools anybody.
I think it fuels a lot ofdictator talk that doesn't need
to be fueled, and I don't likeit in any way, shape or form.
I just don't think it's smartyeah.

Speaker 6 (55:39):
Okay, not one of his best moves, I don't think.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Okay, so I want to show you some video.
Uh, we, uh, there was a storyactually.
Let me just show you front pageof the journal.
Uh, talking about the fact thatwe got a dry, we've had a
horrific winter.
I mean, the level of how badthings have been is unbelievable
.
I just pulled one little set ofnumbers.
Susan Bryan did this article.
She does a really good job on alot of the weather stuff and

(56:04):
things like that.
She works for the AP, buthere's what she said.
She said in New Mexico therewere at least 17 sites that
marked either their driestwinters on record or tied
previous records.
Albuquerque set a new low bylogging just 0.12 inches of
precipitation over thethree-month period.
Three-month period meaningmeteorological winter, which is
December, january and February.

(56:25):
Okay, that's the way it shouldbe done.
We do it differently for sunreasons, but it should be.
It's December, january,february.
That's winter 0.12.
That's unbelievably bad.
Northern mountains I was upthere yesterday.
This is what it looked like now.
So if you just look at thisvideo, um, and it would make
sure we keep the sound down,because I don't want to get like
a copyright strike against us.

(56:45):
Uh, so cause I put some musicto this.
But um little, you know,showers came in right and snow
came in, so, but this is aclassic example of what's
happened this winter.
You go up there and you look atthis and you're like my
goodness, what a storm.
I mean, look at this thing.

Speaker 6 (57:00):
I'm walking through the woods, right there You're
like living your best life I amliving my best life.
And you can see it's snowing.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
You're in the mountains.
I know it's fantastic.

Speaker 6 (57:12):
You're videoing it and you see the wind, snow.
This is good, by the way, thistime of 11,000 feet where you're
looking at all this stuff.
Okay, I mean my gosh what youcan.

Speaker 2 (57:20):
Actually, you're exactly right.
So I go through and there's agood example right there.
That's the side of the road andangel fire up at 11,000 feet.
It's crazy.
So you know, this looks fine,but then this was classic more
wind than snow.
And then take a look at today.
This is the look from 11,000feet, and what do we get?
Got about two inches, that's11,000 feet.

(57:41):
There should be four feet ofsnow right there and there is
not.
This is a nightmare for us.
It's an absolute and totalnightmare.

Speaker 6 (57:49):
Okay, hoping, not hoping we do not have the
wildfire.
I think, I think the winds thatwe had, like yesterday, these
super high winds that areblowing like.
I mean I'm watching video ofAlbuquerque people sending video
in of just crazy like outhousesblowing down the street.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
It's terrible.

Speaker 6 (58:05):
Crazy land out there.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
You know you're right and I think it's a real concern
.
I think we have to shut downour forest.
I don't think they should beopen at all starting now until
we get through fire season.
We're going to have moredetails on this.
We're shooting currently atelevision show in the Northern
mountains.
We're going to have more onthat coming up and we're going
to discuss a lot of thisdifferent stuff and it's a
national show we'll be doing,but we'll have more details on
that coming up with.

(58:27):
One other thing I want to endwith.

Speaker 6 (58:28):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (58:29):
The last thing.
I just saw this on Twitter andthis so reminded me of being a
kid and I had it's 33 ava.
Uh, I had a big wheel yeah okay, let me tell you something
about this.
I rode that thing like I wasgetting paid for it, okay, and
that what happened with the bigwheel is you ride it and write

(58:50):
the new big wheel was so smooth,right you're.
When you got a new one overtime, you know you're on the
pavement, right the front wheelsplits because they're plastic.
They're plastic yeah but I lovedit, it didn't matter, right,
and so I.

Speaker 6 (59:02):
So I get one and I'd ride the wheels off that thing
and then joan and sal would belike all right, new big wheel I
thought you a new one oh yeah, Iprobably had three big wheels
back to back, to back you were alucky kid because in my little
cul-de-sac I grew up in acul-de-sac, which is what every
cool kid wanted back in the day,right especially in the 80s, to
grow up in a cul-de-sac.
My neighbor who was my age hehad the bat, like the batman

(59:26):
version of the big wheel thathad like a shifting gear I'll
see that's high tech he wassuper.
I mean, we didn't have that.
I didn't get that right?
no, I mean, look, this was 1499,my brother had the same one
that you had Right and so that'swhat, and I didn't even get one
.
I had a trike, I got a littleright, but I mean this is, if I
if the neighbor was nice enoughto me, I could sit in the bat
one, the Batman one, and he hadlike shifting gears.

Speaker 2 (59:48):
Yeah.
If I go back to that thing,1499, cause you'd always wear
out the front wheel before thebacks.
The backs never wore out, butyou'd split the front wheel and
when I'd come in I'd be thrilledCause I'd be like mom for a
wheel split what are we?

Speaker 3 (01:00:03):
what are we going to?

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
do and I'd be like, okay, all right, talk to your
father.
And then you know, then he'dcome like a skid where he like
would I do this and it wouldspin it.
Oh, absolutely yeah, that's the, that's the perfect range.

Speaker 6 (01:00:26):
Yeah, that was his whole thing.

Speaker 2 (01:00:27):
Yeah, because, like you know early on, there's too
much plastic so you couldn't dothe slide.
Yeah, you got the thing intothat perfect range.
You could do that for about amonth.

Speaker 6 (01:00:37):
Yeah, and then all of a sudden you pop the front tire
.
It is like the best vert, likethat's the best memory of, like
summers in the seventies andeighties growing up in in the
neighborhood, outside with thestreet, you could stay out to
the street.
Light turned on and then youhad to go back to the side.
It was great.

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
I wouldn't.
I wish Ava and Ella grew up inthe eighties.

Speaker 6 (01:00:55):
Me too.
It was the best time to be akid in all other than the
kidnappings, but that was afreaky time of the eighties, but
other than that it was great.

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
No, I, yeah, agreed I managed to avoid any
kidnappings, but I know, I knowthey happened.
I know, I know, I know thatthey happened Right.

Speaker 9 (01:01:13):
Guys, I was reading about this today.
It was actually not as commonfor kidnappings to happen in the
1980s as people think.
Really they weren't at anelevated.
There wasn't an elevated amountof kidnappings in the 1970s
Fake news.
It's called the missingchildren panic of the 1980s and
it actually is just amisrepresentation by mainstream
media to show that there weremore kidnappings than there

(01:01:34):
actually were.

Speaker 6 (01:01:34):
Okay, okay, okay, wait just one second.
I know we need to wrap up thisshow, but here's the thing.
Okay, it was not all bunk.
Because, number one, theystarted the missing and
exploited children hotline inthe 80s because of Adam
disappearing, right, right, thatTV movie that terrified me
forever and I never wanted to goto a shopping mall ever again.
And then, secondly, I'm sorry,missing kids.
Constantly.
Every time you got a thing, anew thing of milk, there's a new

(01:01:56):
kid on there that's missing butkids were always going missing.
They just weren't putting themon milk cartons.
Yeah, Okay, well, whatever, I'mjust saying it was my biggest
fear as a kid growing up Avathanks for uh, but Ava, thank
you for being our kidnappingcorrespondent.

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
Yeah, okay, no, it's good.
Ava's a live with kidnappingupdate.

Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
Uh, okay, another one next week.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
Okay, Thank you very much, kiddo and uh, babe, thanks
so much and we'll see you backhere coming up on Sunday.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
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 (01:02:37):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
There is no doubt about it.