Episode 211: Will Any Republicans Run For Office In New Mexico? Where Have They Gone?

🗳️ Where Are the Republican Candidates in New Mexico?

With major races on the horizon — from Governor to U.S. Representative — why haven’t more Republicans jumped in?
Mark breaks it all down:

• The role of Trump’s popularity
• The challenges of fundraising
• And why some potential candidates are on the fence
  If you care about New Mexico’s political future, this segment is a must-listen.

📉 Another Embarrassing Ranking for NM — What Needs to Change?

A new WalletHub report ranks the best and worst states to raise kids.
Want to guess where New Mexico landed?
Krysty explains:

• Why we keep ending up near the bottom
• What actually needs to change
• And how our current leadership keeps failing families

🕵️‍♀️ Russiagate Just Got Bigger — Tulsi Drops More Bombs

DNI head Tulsi Gabbard continues to expose how intelligence officials — and the media — worked together to falsely tie Trump to Russia.
This could be the story of the year, and we break down:

• What Tulsi revealed
• How this shapes 2024
• And why media trust is at historic lows

🏠 Housing Market Woes: High Rates, High Prices

If the market’s slowing down… shouldn’t prices drop?
Not so fast.
We dive into the worst of both worlds — where:

• Mortgage rates are still high
• Home prices haven’t budged
  And the middle class is getting squeezed harder than ever

🎤 Soundbite of the Year: Hunter Biden’s Shocking Advocacy

Hunter Biden is back — and just gave us the most head-scratching soundbite of the year.
You’ll laugh… and cringe.
Trust us, you don’t want to miss this.

🏀 WNBA Salary Debate: Ava vs. Mark

Should WNBA players be paid more?
Ava says YES.
Mark says… it’s complicated.
We unpack the economics, ratings, and reality of pro women’s sports in a spirited family debate.

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 2 (00:08):
All right If you're on a Wednesday afternoon in
Albuquerque.
Right now, it is monsoon seasonin the Rockies and it is
rocking and rolling over.

Speaker 3 (00:17):
I know I wish, if we wouldn't get copyrighted, we
could play the Garth Brooks thatwhen the Thunder roll song.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
I feel like that we would get game for that.
I know how much you lovecountry music.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Oh, I really do talk about missing out on something
important.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
It is that we could have a stinger with the sound of
Garth Brooks on it but you calmdown, sir.
We have had some, somelightning strikes very close to
the house here.

Speaker 3 (00:40):
The lights are flickering.
So it'll be interesting to seeif we lose power.

Speaker 2 (00:43):
Yeah, yeah, we'll try to get all the way through this
, but, uh, plenty going on andwe'll, uh, we'll get rolling on
this.
I'll give you a quick idea ofwhat we're going to cover here.
First of all, we've beengetting a lot of questions why
is no one running for anythingin New Mexico?
I know especially on theRepublican side, because you
didn't have all Democratincumbents right.

(01:10):
Well, you know we don't haveany Republicans challenging them
right now.
We're going to talk about whythat may be and why a little bit
of the hesitancy makes sense.
And then I think some people doneed to jump in at a certain
point because there is a chancefor things to to to look better,
for more competitive races inthe state.
So we'll talk about that, Uh.
And then we're going to getinto a little bit of what's
going on with a new ranking fromWalletHub.
We are always interested inthose, so we'll talk about where

(01:31):
we are on that ranking and thenwe're going to get into this.
This whole Russiagate thingkeeps blowing up.
Now we still don't know what tomake of it because you don't
know where it's all going to go.
But it is pretty interesting tostart watching how everything's
starting to play out here alittle bit, and so we'll talk
about that.
Tulsi Gabbard went in front ofthe media on Wednesday and start

(01:51):
she.
She kept making promises, soshe kept running it up saying
here we go.
So we'll see how that shakesout.
We'll break down some of thatstuff and then we're going to
look back at what the mediaactually did.
It's very easy to forgetexactly how horrendous the media
was on this story.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
On.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Russiagate and how bad it was.
Yeah, so we've done the work ofmaybe finding a few little
compilations and then one of theworst examples I could possibly
find of this whole thing.
So we'll do that.
Home prices New numbers are outon home prices.
If you're looking for homeprices to fall, Keep waiting.
Keep waiting, but the market isslowing down.

(02:29):
One of the greatest sound bitesfrom one of the biggest fools
in public life.
Would you believe if I told yousomeone sat down in a serious
interview?

Speaker 3 (02:41):
Don't give it away, guy, just tease it.
Your job is to tease.
Right now, don't you tell theviewers what it actually says?
It's called a tease for areason Well, I'm teasing it.
Okay, then tease it, don't giveit away.
I know you and you're gettingready to say it.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
All right, so then we'll talk a little bit about
Stephen Colbert's response beingbounced, One of the the the
most ineffectual weird kind ofresponses.
So we'll talk about that.
Uh, and then we're going to getinto a little WNBA.

Speaker 5 (03:15):
Talk with Ava because , she wanted to do a WNBA story.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
She's very fired up about this, so we'll talk about
it as someone who's never reallygotten into women's sports.

Speaker 5 (03:21):
I'm very into women's basketball.
The past 48 hours.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
So just for this cause, you're, you're in, you're
into this cause.

Speaker 5 (03:26):
I think this is actually really important, okay,
okay.
Well, we can't wait to hearfrom Ava on that.

Speaker 3 (03:31):
I mean Mark can't wait to talk about WNBA.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
I am psyched up for this, if there's any topic that
Mark wants to talk about.

Speaker 3 (03:36):
It's the WNBA.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
I do love it.
I mean, I'm not going to lie,I'm.
What are the Liberty doingtonight?
Who are they playing?
Yeah, who are the Fever takingon?
Yeah, who's coming into Indianagoing to mess with the Fever?
You don't mess with the Fever.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
The fact that you know any of these teams.
What's going on with the Sparks?
How do the Sparks look?
It's impressive.
Here we go.
It's a little impressive.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
And I don't know Whatever team's in Phoenix
scorchers or whatever they'recalled, who are they playing?

Speaker 3 (04:02):
Okay, we don't know.
Well, wait, I do have a littlebit of breaking news.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Oh, sorry, and there's one more piece of video
from Mount Washington, which ispretty awesome.
So little uh meteorologyweather yes.
I do love it Sorry.

Speaker 3 (04:14):
Go ahead.
Breaking news so.
I went today to the orthopedistuh, because I've been having
pain like searing pain in my hipright, as you know, for quite a
while, for about a year and Iwent in today thinking, oh my
gosh, they're gonna take anx-ray there and tell me I need a
hip replacement, right Likethis is the fear I'm having.
This is the age we're gettingto is that we've talked about
hip replacements?

Speaker 2 (04:32):
No, no, no, she wrote me into you and your hip
problems, old lady.

Speaker 3 (04:38):
I'm not doing that.
There's no arthritis.
There's no bone spurs Goodnessgracious.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
I just have a really messed up back.
This discussion is making meolder.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
Oh, come on, though.
It's good news no hipreplacement for me.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
So now is the question we have all sorts.
We get all sorts of calls,literally three or four a week.
People call and say, hey, who'srunning for CD1?
Who's running for Congress orSenate or Senate or governor,
like it seems like nobody isrunning.

Speaker 3 (05:06):
I get calls too.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
I get asked all the time I bet you do, and and so we
know on the democratic side,you have all the incumbents
right.
So all of them are runningagain because they're, you know,
lifelong politicians.
So that's what they do.
They get elected, they try tostay there forever.
So you have all yourcongressional reps are doing
that, and Ben Ray, of course,no-transcript.

(05:49):
Number one, obviously look intowho's running in these races,
and governor's the top line.
But really I mean United StatesSenate you don't have any
candidates.
Right, the House, you don'thave any candidates.
And so we started looking atsome numbers here and don't
underestimate how important itis to be in a presidential
midterm.

(06:09):
Those are really really hard.
It doesn't matter who thepresident is, it never matters.
It is because the other sidecan chip away at what the
president is doing, saying he'sgoing to these are the worst
policies ever, they're going tokill everybody.
And so all of a sudden, peopleare like really they are, oh my
gosh.
And so you start looking at itand the president's approval

(06:30):
usually starts to slide.
It's just how it works.
So is that happening with Trump?

Speaker 10 (06:40):
And so we tune in to Harry Enten and here's what he
says about Trump's numbers here,six months in.
The rules of political gravityabsolutely apply to Donald Trump
and the USS.
Donald Trump is taking on a lotof water.
What are we talking about?
Trump's net approval rating.
Look, he started off back inJanuary plus six points on the
net approval rating, minus threein March, minus seven in May,
and now he's at a term too lowat minus 11 points.

(07:01):
His net approval rating hasdropped nearly 20 points in the
aggregate since the beginning ofhis presidency.
The American people do not likewhat they're seeing and Donald
Trump's administration is in aton of trouble at this point in
the minds of the American voters.

Speaker 4 (07:14):
Well, on what issues do the American?
Voters seem to disapprove ofhim.

Speaker 10 (07:18):
They disapprove of him on all of the issues.
He's underwater on all themajor issues of the day.
Trump's net approval rating onall the major issues, minus five
points.
In immigration is best issue,he's underwater.
How about the economy?
That was what he was electedfor Minus 14 points.
How about foreign policy?
Minus 14 points.
How about trade in those tariffwars?
Minus 15 points.
And, of course, the Epsteincase, the lowest of the bunch

(07:40):
minus 37 points.
37 points below water minus 37points.
37 points below water.
My goodness gracious, on everysingle issue, donald Trump is
below water.
On all the major ones, they'reall dragging him down, no matter
, it seems, what Donald Trumpdoes.
The American people do not likeit and that is why, at this
particular point, he- Okay, okay, a couple of things.

Speaker 2 (08:02):
First of all, it's an overreaction by Harry.
You start looking at some ofthese numbers and some of this
is debatable, ok, but it is afairly recent poll and what this
gets to is, as you do, everysingle thing you're doing as
president and the other sidejust is an oppositional party,
and all they're doing is sayingyou're doing terrible, you're
doing terrible, you're doingterrible, you're doing terrible.

(08:24):
People are like, well, beforethey know and before everything
really takes effect, you know,they kind of say well, they have
their doubts, right, you see,those numbers come down and so
those numbers.
Overall, they're not great.
They're a snapshot in time.
It's not necessarily a hugedeal.
I don't think it is.
But if you're a candidatethinking about running for a
major position in the state ofNew Mexico, or even in any state

(08:44):
that any of you may be in rightnow, they've got to weigh these
things, because we used to livein a political environment
where people would see the localraces, meaning their
congressional reps or even theirUS senators, as different from
the national party.
That has really changed in thepast 10 years.
Right, everything's beennationalized since Trump came in
, meaning Trump is a proxy foryou, you, you, whoever you are,

(09:09):
that run as a Republican LikeTrump's a proxy, just like you
know, hillary Clinton would havebeen a proxy in 2016 for every
Democrat right, and Kamala andJoe Biden and everybody else
right.
And so, because there aren'tthese dividing lines and it's
harder to stake out a personalrelationship with your voters
where you're different than thenational party, no matter what,

(09:30):
it's one of those things youhave to consider.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
So if you start looking at numbers and you say,
my gosh, I don't know, you know,I don't know I mean, obviously
we don't have our hands rightnow on any sort of relevant
polling to show in New Mexico isyou know, how much is the Trump
factor still weighing on ourstate?
I'd say it's still pretty heavybecause Trump did not win in

(09:54):
the state.
He gained ground but he did notwin and when you you have to
take that into consideration asa Republican getting ready to
run in the midterm, because itdoes have impact.
Like you said, they're notdeciphering.
Oh well, this person isn'tnecessarily Trump.
Even though they're Republican,the voters in the state of New
Mexico don't do that.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
Well, nobody in the country really is now Very few
people.
There are very few senators InSenate, I say because they're
statewide elected office.
Right, there are a couplesenators.
Susan Collins in Maine is herown brand.
She is not tied to theRepublican party in the way that
other politicians are.
Lisa Murkowski in Alaska right.
She actually just ran as aright-hand and got in like it's

(10:34):
crazy.
But so there are some of thosepeople that are that are
independent, right, they're ableto do that, and what I mean by
independent is just independentof the party.
They have their own reputation,whatever that looks like, right
?
So so that's tough to find.
Now I will say on the otherside here's why I think things
are going to change.
I do think what you're going tosee here over the next year is
you're going to know how theeconomy is doing.
If interest rates come down, ifthings start, you know the

(10:57):
economy continues to gain steam.
You reach some more trade deals.
We've got one with Japan.
That's been done.
I have the hiccups and one withthe Philippines.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
I wanted to say something, but I held back.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Well, because you're wondering is it the hiccups or?

Speaker 3 (11:11):
No, I know, it's the hiccups.
Yeah, yeah, you're doing itlike every three seconds.
Yeah, no, I think.

Speaker 2 (11:16):
I'm over it.
I think I got it.
I think I kicked it?

Speaker 3 (11:18):
Did you kick it?
We're about to find out.
We're about to find out.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
So, um, so you read some trade deals right, and
interest rates come down, thingsstart rolling.
Okay, if that all works, thenthings improve.
And then all the naysayingabout every single thing Trump
does all of a sudden doesn'tturn out to be true in his
numbers.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
Okay, that sounds great.
However, you have to be able tojump into a race way before a
year from now to be able to dothat, and that's a risk, right,
cause things can go as we know.
Personally, and you've said itnumerous times, oh, COVID we
didn't see.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
Do we all see COVID coming?
No, I mean, that was the onethat was in the Senate race.
Senate race is dead eventhrough, you know, the first
three months of the race, andthen COVID comes in.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
Yeah, I mean totally changes everything.
Yeah, yeah, it's, it is crazy,it's crazy and the Dobbs ruling,
by the way just a quick thingCOVID.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
Good example there.
Covid doesn't happen.
Trump doesn't lose Right LikeTrump doesn't lose.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
I know there's no question.
Well, he was doing reallyreally well, so the economy was
in really good shape, yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
So just, there's so many things that happen.
So I'm just telling you as acandidate well, you see what
Harry Anton says, and look out,here come the Democrats.
They're going to wipe out theRepublicans in the house and
they're going to make the Senatereally close.
Not so fast, my friend, okay.
So look at the numbers here,the approval numbers on the
democratic party.
Right now, they're at 19%.
Okay.
So there is a differencebetween when you're asked about

(12:39):
Trump and you're like I don'tknow about the tariffs, I don't
know about this, I don't knowabout the economy, I don't know
about that.
Well, what about the Democrats?
Oh, no.
So then what that tells you isthat you're likely not going to
see a massive swing in themidterm election.
You're probably not going tosee a wipeout like you did in
Trump's midterm in 18, rightwhere he got wiped out.

(13:00):
Republicans got wiped out, noquestion.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
And you're not likely to see that.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yeah, so I mean because you have a democratic
party that has, that has no,that is not presenting solutions
.
Right now they're just saying,no, this is going to work, it's
all a failure.
Everybody's going to lose theirhealthcare, everybody's going
to lose their social security,and when that doesn't happen,
then then they're going to.
You know, turn back to them andsay what are your solutions to
improve life for Americans?
Right now, americans are notsaying we think they have the

(13:26):
solution, because right now theydon't.

Speaker 3 (13:28):
Right, and I guess that would be the question I
would have about the people herein our state and I'm talking
just specifically about NewMexico voters, for instance,
because that's really what Ihave the experience with with
helping you run two races is,you know, with the Democrats
just coming in and saying thisis bad, this is bad, trump's bad
, this, the beautiful big bill'sbad, all the things are bad.

(13:51):
They don't offer up any viablesolutions or changes.
I think people here still juststay the course and vote for
their party line.
I think that that's still whatwould happen in this next two
years, and I could be wrong.
I just think we need more here.
Like I would love to say thatvoters are ready for solution.
I think that there are someactive voters that are
definitely ready for solution,but is it enough to swing a vote

(14:13):
back to putting Republicans ina Congress position, for example
?
Right, or any sort of likewould that be?
Do you think that there's realoptimism there in the next two
years?

Speaker 2 (14:26):
I think in some places pockets of the state.
Yes, I think down in CD two, Ithink you can, you can win, I do
think, and I think two reasonswhy one, because it's closer
district, and then number two,because the person in that
district right now is wholly,wholly lacking in his abilities.
So Gabe Vasquez, I think to meis, is not a serious person, but

(14:48):
I don't think Stansbury is aserious person.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
Well, no, we've, we've, we've said that.
But you know can she be beat.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, I mean again, I think you're going to need to
see things slide a little bit inthe country, but it's going to
be tough.
I do think Republicans have todo some work on the ground.
So you got to register morevoters.
You've got to start puttingthat work in.
That doesn't surround itselfwith candidates.
It surrounds itself withgetting new voters into the tent
.
And they're there.
Those people do exist.
They are there, but you justhave to get them registered and

(15:17):
get it done.
So we'll see what happens.
But the overall takeaway hereis, as you're looking at this as
a candidate, you mightinitially say a Trump numbers
are down.
That's.
That's pretty normal for thistype of thing.
So that's why they wanted topass this bill quickly and let
it take effect and let itbenefit people.
And then the question is andI'll go back I'm going to give
some credit to somebody rightnow.
Oh, no, and it's uncle Joe Biden.

(15:38):
Okay, it's the truest politicaltruism he ever said, which was
don, and that's he's right aboutthat.
He was right about that.
I don't know when he I don'tknow when he first said it, but
I'll give him credit.
He deserves credit for thatbecause it's true.
And so, when you look at what'sgoing on with the democratic

(16:00):
party and where the Republicansare, I don't think there's any
risk of a blowout.
I don't think it's going tohappen.
I don't think it can happen,Not with where they are.
However, could there be aslight Republican or slight
Democratic victory?
That still remains to be seen.
But if you're a candidaterunning in this state and it's
roughly a 10 point state,because it still is for most
candidates you're going to loseby 10.

(16:21):
Okay.

Speaker 5 (16:22):
So, yeah yeah, right.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
Now I do think that's going to change.
So if you start changing thingson the ground, that can change.
But just some of the stuff thatgoes in.

Speaker 3 (16:29):
And I also think that you know we've talked about
this too is how much money youactually need to raise.
For instance, to run forgovernor, you're going to need a
ton of money, you're going toneed $10 million, and
fundraising $10 million is, asyou know personally, is not a
walk in the park.
It's one of the hardest thingsto do, and I think most people
who have never run, or havenever run in a statewide race

(16:50):
where they have to raise thosekind of funds, are a little
shocked when they actually say,okay, I'm gonna dip my toe in
this and then they say, okay,wow, You're so right.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
I mean I think you have no idea of what it takes to
sit down and to make thosephone calls and to do what needs
to be done and to have peoplearound you that force you to do
those things too.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Right, I mean you just have to we won't name any
names, no we won't, JessicaPerez.
Jessica.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
But you have to have that and you do it's.
That's what we've talked aboutthis before.
It's the vast majority of yourday.
It isn't going in and talkingto a rally of a thousand people.
That's at the end, that's atthe very end.
Yeah, and I get it.
You have some great rallies.
There are some things thathappen even throughout the
campaign.
There's some great events thereare, but those are few and far
between.

(17:35):
Every single day is the raisingof the money and this whole
thing of like everybody's goingto know who I am and butter no,
they don't.
So you got to go grind it outand you got to go convince you
know tons and tons of smalldollar donors, medium dollar

(17:57):
donors and the high dollardonors that you can get the job
done and they got to invest inyou.
And there's also donor fatigue,where you keep going to the
same donors who are verygenerous, these big dollar
donors, and they eventually go.
We keep losing, right, andthey're concerned about that and
I think most of them along theway maybe sometimes get the kind
of eye roll.
We keep losing, but theneventually they always get on
board because they want to helpchange the state.

Speaker 3 (18:13):
So we'll see.
I do think this.
The shift is changing.
It's just going to be a matterof the speed in which it changes
, and I do.
I think that shift is coming.
I think it's just going to beinteresting to see at what speed
does this change?
You know, is it midterms?
This is the next presidentialelection Right Are.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
We are looking 2030?
, and that's when things reallytip right.
You know, or something likethat.
Yeah, it's a possibility.
Okay, gonna be interesting,okay.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
So again, this is not the best news, but I think it's
important that we talk aboutthis, because I think it's
important for us to when itcomes time to vote for those
legislators again and we justkeep throwing money at, say,
education, but with no realresults.
What's the answer here?
What should we be doing instead?
So this new survey that cameout from WalletHub.
It basically is talking aboutat-risk youth.
Guess where New Mexico is thestates with the most at-risk

(18:57):
youth.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
I would think we're pretty high.

Speaker 3 (18:59):
We're pretty high.
We are in third spot in thethird place for that.

Speaker 2 (19:02):
So we're not worst.

Speaker 3 (19:03):
We're not worst, but we're in the top three.
So basically there's 15indicators that they looked at,
from dropout rates to drug abuse, and we're at the bottom in
nearly all of those categories,which is pretty frightening.
And so basically it says herethat New Mexico has the third
most at-risk youth and one ofits biggest issues is that it
has the highest share of peopleages 18 to 24 who don't have a
high school diploma.

(19:23):
Ok, pretty high there.
And then it says that only 14percent of our eighth graders in
the state perform at or aboveproficiency level for math, and
also 19% do so for reading.
So we've talked about that Imean we've been talking about
that for a long, long time andwe've talked about, when you
were running, how important thatis, those early, early, early,
even like second and third gradereadings.

(19:44):
Absolutely, you know, and wehad game plans for that, but
obviously we didn't get to putthose into place.
People brag about Mississippi.
We didn't get to put those intoplace.
People brag about Mississippi.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
They started those changes.
They've stuck with thosechanges.
Reading coaches, things likethat, yeah, and now.

Speaker 3 (19:55):
Mississippi is really climbing high on all that.
So I think that's interesting.
But here's another little thing.
It said indie youth, orbasically disconnected youth.
It's defined as students whoare A not attending school and B
not working, and these arepeople between the ages of 18
and 24, right, so they should bedoing something, either
schooling, or working.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
Yes, zero reason for them not to either be in the
workforce or in school.

Speaker 3 (20:17):
Correct.
Well, we rank number seven inthe country in this category,
this idle youth category, okay,this people that we're not
really doing anything.
So you combine that with a topfive ranking in youth drug use
and obesity, by the way, sohealth concerns and number 10
for youth poverty.
It just is not looking greatfor this generation in our state

(20:38):
and if you want to take a lookhere, the states here with most
idle youth is what they call it,right, this disconnected youth.
We again are in third place forthat and really so when you
look at that and go back to thisnext slide, ava, really fast,
we're at number one.
We have the highest percentageof youth high school dropout
rates in the country.
We've spent thousands ofdollars per student on our state

(21:01):
, per student, absolutely themoney.
I think we're at $32,000 or$33,000 per student in public
schooling right now per student.
We spend money on programs andyouth programs and all these
things.
We spend money on programs andyouth programs and all these
things.
But basically what the expertsare saying is, when you throw
just money at it, right, withmaybe no accountability, no,
like hey, where do we stand?
Where's our standings?
What are we going to do to makeschools really perform well?

(21:23):
Where are we grading them?
School choice we've talkedabout that, you know.
Does that help, you know, raiseup the competition of schools
when does that all land right?
And some of the experts aresaying that not only just that
is what matters, but the expertssay that the states that are
doing the worst right now withthese at-risk youth.
Two big areas, not a whole lotof parental involvement okay, so

(21:46):
, to help those kids learn toread, go to school, stay in
school, teach that work ethic athome from a young age that's
number one that they say isstill really missing.
And then just less real jobskill training provided for
these folks when they get tolike 16 to 18 in that measure.
So those are the two thingsthat the experts say that if we
could, somehow, I don't knowwhat that means.

(22:08):
I don't know again what thesolution is if it's more trying
to raise up parents and tryingto help support parents who need
those resources to help, butbasically just throwing money at
our education system.
It's not working.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Right, and then not only.
Yeah, like you're talking alittle bit about trade schools,
things like that, too, need tobe invested in more so than we
are.
We are to some degree, but weneed to more.
I think this gets back to wehave had a culture for too long,
I think in the past 20 years inthis country as a whole, but I
think in this state, where wehave taken what used to be the

(22:43):
state's secret advantage, wasthe family.
It was the close family bondthat I think so many families in
the state have.
Where you look out for familymembers, they may not be direct
relatives, but cousins andpeople within your orbit.
Yeah, raising a village kind oftakes a village, yeah critical
Mom and dad in the home, whichreally gives a child a massive
advantage.
And we've stopped talking aboutthose things, we stopped saying

(23:06):
wait a minute, these really domatter.
And keeping families togetherand valuing the family is
absolutely critical.
And you can't the governmentcan't incentivize parents to
break up.
It's a terrible idea and we'vedone it and we have to stop it.
And we have to incentivizefamilies to stay together,
because the family is God'sgreatest blessing to a child.

(23:28):
It just is and it's critical.
And so when we ignore thosesorts of things and we say they
don't matter, no, they do matter, they do matter for these kids
and then exactly what you'retalking about a bunch of those
other issues, things like schoolchoice, things like reading
coach all these things can help.
But ultimately, your point is agood one.
It starts at home.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
It does start at home , so kind of some disappointing
news, but hopefully we can youknow again it's.
It's very mindful to keep thosethings in mind when we are
voting for our legislators, whovote on a lot of where the
money's going.
How are we doing this?
What programs are we investingin, and is there any sort of hey
grading program for, afterwe've shulled all this money at
these schools or these programs?
Are they working?

(24:09):
Are they not like?
What systems are we putting inplace to actually track that and
make sure that that's good, agood ROI?
On our spend.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
No, no question Anyway.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
Okay, so you, I'm going to let you take this one.
This is Russiagate, uh itcontinues.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
I still.
I mean again, we still don't.
We're still too early in Russia.
Yeah, we'll move through this alittle more quickly.
But look, this whole Russiagatething is crazy.
So Trump goes into the OvalOffice on I think it was the
Oval Office on Tuesday and hemakes no bones about it, on who
he blames for Russiagate andwhat happened.
And so now this is starting tobubble up everywhere, because

(24:42):
when the president is talkingabout it from the Oval Office,
other presidents, for example,that are being blamed, and all
this can't ignore it, and so youhave to deal with it.
So here's Trump talking aboutwhat happened with the
Russiagate thing.
He's been talking about thisforever, but now, as more
information starts to leak out,I think he feels more emboldened
, no doubt.

Speaker 4 (25:00):
You look at that, those papers, they have them
stone cold.
And it was President Obama.
It wasn't lots of people allover the place, it was them too,
but the leader of the gang wasPresident Obama, barack Hussein
Obama.
Have you heard of him?
And except for the fact that hegets shielded by the press for
his entire life, that's the onethey look.

(25:25):
He's guilty.
It's not a question, you know,I like to say let's give it time
.
It's there, he's guilty.
This was treason, this wasevery word you can think of.
They tried to steal theelection.
They tried to obfuscate theelection.
They did things that nobody'sever even imagined, even in

(25:46):
other countries.
You've seen some pretty roughcountries.
This man has seen some prettyrough countries, but you've
never seen anything like it.
And we have all of thedocuments, and, from what Tulsi
told me, she's got thousands.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
OK.
So obviously Obama's name iskind of getting splattered about
here now.
So now he comes out with astatement and I'll read a little
bit of that it says out ofrespect for the office of the
presidency, our office does notnormally dignify the constant
nonsense and misinformationflowing out of this White House
with a response, but theseclaims are outrageous enough to
mention to marijuana.
These bizarre allegations areridiculous and a weak attempt at

(26:22):
distraction.
Nothing in the document issuedlast week undercuts the wildly
accepted conclusion that Russiaworked to influence the 2016
presidential election, but didnot successfully manipulate any
votes.
These findings were affirmed ina 2020 report by the bipartisan
Senate Intelligence Committeeled by then Chairman Marco Rubio
.
Ok, this is a reef, just adeflective statement.

(26:44):
He's not actually addressingwhat he's being accused of.
Basically, he's being accusedof saying you know, this group
came to him.
He got this group together thathad done all this investigating
right.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
Our intelligence community Right and their
assessment was what.

Speaker 3 (26:58):
And their assessment was hey, russia didn't do
anything of real substance hereto change or sway the election
in the favor of Trump right,there was no.

Speaker 2 (27:06):
And were they?
And did they talk about if theywere working with Trump?
They had nothing on that.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
They had nothing on that Right.
So so then, under the accordingto this allegation, obama is
then telling the same group gofind, I want you to change that
report and I want you to say Iwant you to find the fact that
Russia has been involved and washelping Trump.
Okay, so then within 24 hours,they released this report that
has all of these findings thatRussia was buying it and this
led to a circus for Trump forthe next year.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
There's no question, so we'll get to that.

Speaker 3 (27:38):
Major allegations, but I want to just go back.
All he's saying is nothing inthe document issued last week
undercuts the widely acceptedconclusion that Russia worked to
influence the 2016 presidentialelection, but did not
successfully manipulate anyvotes he is answering a question
that nobody.
We're not talking about thatwe're talking about.
What did you ask theintelligence community to do?

(27:58):
On whoever's behalf?
You asked them to change areport is what he's being
accused of?
And then leaking information tomedia members that would back
that up, which they did itimmediately.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
Right, so we'll get to that.
So let's get to Matt Taibbi,who has been investigating this
and he had some interestingthings to say, especially about
the intelligence communityassessment, and that's what he's
going to say when he says ICAin this bite.
That's what he's talking aboutand that's basically our
intelligence community, whatthey came up with and how he
talks a little bit about thefact that in this particular
case, you know, there wasactually real debate on whether

(28:33):
Russia even wanted Trump to win.
Because, well, I'll let himexplain it.
Here's Matt Taibbi how.

Speaker 12 (28:38):
Brennan overrode the objections of his deputy
director of analysis and two ofhis handpicked Russia experts to
include Steele dossier materialin this assessment.
To include Steele dossiermaterial in this assessment.
I also did a story last yearwith Michael Schellenberger
about that, about how theysuppressed dissent in the ICA

(29:04):
that said that Russia wasactually hesitant about Trump.
They considered him mercurialand unreliable and saw that
Hillary Clinton representedcontinuity and was manageable
and they weren't so concernedabout her being president.
All of this was suppressed andBrennan was the person who was
most aggressive in pushing theother line.
So the fact that he was incharge of divining Russia's

(29:27):
motives and remember motive is akey thing here.
It's not just that Russiainterfered.
It's that Russia interferedspecifically to help Donald
Trump.

Speaker 5 (29:35):
Those are two things.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
That was it right.
Yeah, and so he was in chargeof that second part.
Okay, so, yeah, so the wholepoint on this is Russia.
What they came up with was notonly do we need Russia to have
interfered, but Russiainterfered to help Trump and in
some cases and there are plentyof media who took their leaks
and went with okay, a stepbeyond that.
Even so, it's Russia interfered, russia interfered for Trump,

(29:58):
and then Trump and Russia worktogether.
Okay, like that's as far asthis all went.
None of it was true.
Okay, we all know now.
None of that was true, and sowhat you've seen recently is and
today, wednesday, tulsi Gabbardcame out.
She went through more of thisand said there is more here and
I'm releasing more, so we wantto listen to what she said from

(30:20):
the podium at the White House onwhat they have in all of this.

Speaker 11 (30:25):
The stunning revelations that we are
releasing today should be ofconcern to every American.
This is not about Democrats orRepublicans.
This has to do with theintegrity of our democratic
republic and American votershaving faith that the votes cast
will count.
There is irrefutable evidencethat detail how President Obama
and his national security teamdirected the creation of an

(30:48):
intelligence communityassessment that they knew was
false.
They knew it would promote thiscontrived narrative that Russia
interfered in the 2016 electionto help President Trump win,
selling it to the Americanpeople as though it were true.
It wasn't.
The report that we releasedtoday shows in great detail how

(31:08):
they carried this out.
They manufactured findings fromshoddy sources.
They suppressed evidence andcredible intelligence that
disproved their false claims.
They disobeyed traditionaltradecraft intelligence
community standards and withheldthe truth from the American
people.
In doing so, they conspired tosubvert the will of the American

(31:31):
people, who elected DonaldTrump in that election in
November of 2016.
They worked with their partnersin the media to promote this
lie, ultimately to undermine thelegitimacy of President Trump
and launching what would be ayears long coup against him and
his administration.
We're here today because theAmerican people deserve the

(31:51):
truth, they deserveaccountability and they deserve
justice.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
Okay, she lays it out very clearly, right there.
Right, and, by the way, thedubious sources when they talk
about the Steele dossier, that'ssome information that basically
was concocted and it was nottrue.
It was basically made up, nottrue, it was basically made up.
And then they went and sold itto the intelligence community
and the intelligence communitybought it, meaning agree, you

(32:17):
know, decided to believe it,even though they they knew they
didn't have any backup for it,because they had a conclusion
they had to reach.
So when you have the conclusionfirst, you work your path to
get you there, and that's whatall this is now.
Do I think you're going to see,you know, president Obama get
arrested over this?
No, I don't, because presidentshave a tremendous amount of

(32:38):
leeway in how they deal withthings in their job as president
.
So I don't think that's what'sgoing to happen.
And Gabbard talked about itlater in her presser and we
won't necessarily run that bitetoday, but she talked about it
and said basically, hey, look,he should be held accountable
and so will the DOJ do that.
I don't know where it goes withObama and everything else, but

(32:59):
it's very clear.
The intelligence community cameup with a story and they sold it
to a media who was dying to eatit up, and if you look back at
the stuff they said, it washorrendous, and so we want to
play some of what was said hereAgain.

(33:19):
Mind you that none of thisturned out to be true, and all
of this ate up four years.
I mean it was constant.
And so just listen to how thiswent and listen to the language
they use on Russia and Trump andthey are.
We almost jumped the gun onthat one.
The language they use is it'sdone, it's happened, it's

(33:43):
happened.
There is no, allegedly there'sno, any of that.
Okay, and this is clip 12.
Trump is the end of ourdemocracy.
Votes were definitely affected.
Russia hacked the election totilt it to Mr Trump.
The Russians definitivelyhacked the election.
Russia did hack the election.

Speaker 6 (33:59):
No doubt the Russians hacked the election.
Yes, Russia hacked the election.
In fact, Russia hacked theelection.

Speaker 11 (34:06):
President-elect Donald Trump still not sounding
convinced that Russia hacked theelection.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
The president does not want to come to terms with
the fact that the Russianshacked the election.

Speaker 7 (34:14):
President Trump says he still wonders if, if the
Russians hacked the election, ifyou can get him to accept that
Russia hacked the election.

Speaker 10 (34:23):
See if you can get him to accept who won the civil
war.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his victory
over Hillary Clinton.

Speaker 9 (34:29):
Russia hacked the election.
Russia hacked the election.

Speaker 5 (34:32):
Russia hacked the election.

Speaker 9 (34:34):
Russia hacked the election Russia hacked the
election.

Speaker 5 (34:36):
Russia hacked the election.
Let's be clear.

Speaker 10 (34:39):
Russia hacked the election, Definitively.
Russia hacked the election andRussia is doing it again now.

Speaker 1 (34:44):
Election-related cyber hacking.
Cyber hacking of US elections.
Cyber hacking of the election.

Speaker 12 (34:49):
Russia was cyber hacking.
The election Russia was cyberhacking.

Speaker 9 (34:52):
the election Russia was cyber hacking the election,
the CIA, the FBI.

Speaker 10 (34:56):
NSA, all of these intelligence organizations, 17
intelligence agencies Allconclude that Russia hacked the
election.
If we find out that DonaldTrump just theoretically was
colluding with Russia while theywere hacking the election, that
is completely impeachable.

Speaker 12 (35:11):
This dossier alleged a conspiracy between the Trump
campaign and the Russian effortto hack the election.

Speaker 10 (35:17):
The director of national intelligence, the head
of the National Security Agency,the head of the FBI, all of
these intelligence expertssaying Russia hacked the
election?

Speaker 9 (35:28):
The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the former director of
national intelligence, jamesClapper, I mean, they've all
said this, so to believe thatthat's wrong, you have to
believe they're all involved inan elaborate conspiracy to get
Donald Trump, which seems alittle farfetched to me.

Speaker 2 (35:44):
Does it?
Seems farfetched, but it turnsout it was absolutely true.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
What would be fascinating is to now get all of
these people that did this andhave them respond to it now,
because we're talking about thison our show.
You'll hear it on Newsmax andFox News.
You're not seeing it on a lotof the mainstream media yet.

Speaker 2 (36:01):
Well, it's starting to leak in there.
They don't have a choice.

Speaker 3 (36:03):
It better leak in because they better start
talking about it.
I would love to tag all ofthese anchors and news people
and say now what's your response?

Speaker 2 (36:10):
Well, and let's play one more clip.
That, I think, is the cherry ontop of this, because what they
did is this is a self-fulfillingprophecy.
So they go all and talk abouthow this is all happening which
it's not and then the fact isthey look back at it and go I
can't believe we're even talkingabout that.
This is possible.
Well, it's not possible, butyou made it up.

(36:30):
And now they add on top of itJust listen to how CNN handled
this in January of 2019.

Speaker 6 (36:38):
The president of the United States denied that he's a
Russian agent.
And, by the way, howextraordinary is this that the
question even had to be asked inthe first place.
This is where we are.

Speaker 7 (36:51):
I never worked for Russia, and you know that answer
better than anybody I neverworked for Russia, and you know
that answer better than anybodyI never worked for Russia.
Not only did I never work forRussia, I think it's a disgrace
that you even asked thatquestion, because it's a whole
big fat hoax.
It's just a hoax.

Speaker 6 (37:06):
That is President Trump today pushing back against
the bombshell, reporting overthe weekend that the FBI opened
an investigation into whether ornot he was working on behalf of
Russia, specifically after thepresident fired James Comey as
FBI director back in May of 17.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
This is a very grave matter, the fact that we're
asking the question as you beganthis segment.
Is the president of the UnitedStates a Russian operative?

Speaker 6 (37:32):
It's extraordinary.

Speaker 1 (37:34):
Is it self-extraordinary?
And this really getting to thetruth frankly is more important
than precedent or executiveprivilege.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
Yeah, it is, and it turns out that what was most
extraordinary is that thesepeople, like James Comey and
Clapper, were colluding to makeup stuff and they tried to sink
a presidency to do it, andreally they in some ways did,
because they got Biden electedin a lot of ways, but this just

(38:08):
shows you what happened in allof this, and you listen to all
those people and theirridiculous comments about oh my
God, it happened.
And again, this is what happenswhen your intelligence community
lines up and tries to take outyour president.
I mean it's, it really isunbelievable.

Speaker 3 (38:24):
And it will be frustrating, though, I think, to
the people, especially likepeople like us feel like there
needs to be some justice here.
If nothing happens to thiscollective group, that we're all
part of this on the inside,like you have to, there has to
be.
It's treasonous, it really is.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
Well, I think the problem is going to be, which
will be interesting, I don'tknow.
So I don't know where this isall going to go.
So when we present this to you,we do it specifically to say
here's what we know happened.
Now what's going to legallyhappen?
I don't know.
You're going to have some ofthese FBI people and some of the
people in the CIA and thesepeople leading this charge, the

(39:01):
Brennans of the world.
We're going to say we thoughtit was true and so we acted as
if it was true because wethought we had enough
information.
That's what they're going tosay.
And so some of this is gray areaand we'll see how it all shakes
out.
We'll see what comes out.
I don't know how it all, howit's all going to go, but just
seeing how clearly the media wasa willing participant and how
quickly this can happen when youhave people within the

(39:23):
intelligence community leaked tothe media, the media runs with
it because they want it to betrue.
They're dying for it to be true, and if it's true, then they
win.
That's how they look at it.

Speaker 3 (39:32):
Well, and it's just.
You think about days of mediawhen they used to like they
would hold back on something tomake sure it was really verified
.
You know even things along thelines of, like the deep throat
stories back in the day.
Right, you had to really get somany people to tell you that
this was actually true.
Now you do.
What was interesting about thatone soundbite is that guy
saying hey, so if you have thiscollective group of all these
bigwigs saying that this is true, I mean, are you really going

(39:53):
to think this is a conspiracyagainst Trump?
You know, so I can understandwhy the media would be fooled by
this, which makes it even moredangerous, and there has to be
accountability for the peoplethat put this report together,
funneled it to the press, and itwent to the press within 24
hours of this report.
So I'm telling you this was afull blown effort is what it
sounds like to to demon, youknow, to wreck havoc and chaos

(40:15):
on Trump's administration andhis presidency, and I think
there should be some sort ofaccountability on that, because
I think it's yeah, but it isYou're trying to sink a ship.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
You're headed down a road, though.
You are headed down a roadwhich is one of you know one
president leaves office, theother comes in and then, all of
a sudden, we're talking aboutcharges.
You know, and you know, believeme, trump didn't start this.
There's no question he didn'tstart it.
But the question is, where doesit go from here?
So we'll see how it shakes out.

(40:43):
I agree with you, there has tobe some accountability.
I just don't know where it'sgoing to go, but you can see how
clearly this did absolutelyhappen.
And when you hear Trump talkand he's like this is a hoax,
this is a hoax, and everybody'slike it absolutely was.
So it's unreal.
Okay, let's move on.
We're going to go to a quick,just quick thing on housing
prices.
Okay, new stuff comes out forthe wall street journal.

(41:04):
Housing prices aren't goingdown.
So, if you're now they are.
In some States like Florida,they're starting to come down a
little bit, but home prices roseagain in June to a high and the
housing market is not likely tohave a whole lot of recovery
here in 2025.
Homebuyers were hesitant tojump into the market this spring
.
Okay, so we're not seeingvolumes that are really high.

(41:25):
Right, you're not seeing a tonof people move in and that's
where you get back to interestrates and things like that and
like until the interest ratecomes down.

Speaker 3 (41:31):
I don't know who's like.
You know bucking to get outthere to buy a house, unless you
absolutely have to cause you'removing.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:36):
Right.
But if you're, if you'restaying in the same town and
you're like I just want toupgrade or I want to do
something different, well, toobad, because you're getting less
house for a lot more money,with this interest rate staying
as high as they are.

Speaker 2 (41:44):
In the median uh existing home price in June was
$435,000.
That's the highest rate.
Okay, so those are some of thehighest numbers here.
Now president Trump hascriticized, obviously, jerome
Powell for not cutting thoserates.
That needs to happen for peopleto get off the sidelines.
I mean there, there's no doubt.
So rates, you know, are stayinghigh, prices are staying high,

(42:10):
at least for now, and then we'llsee how things end up shaking
out.
But it's kind of interesting tosee that those the total home
values are are, are maintainingacross the country, at least for
right now.
Now, if you start bringingthose rates down, you will bring
people more, more people in.
They'll bring them off thesidelines, there's no question.
But for now, not so much.

Speaker 3 (42:28):
Okay, so a dumbest comment of the week is going to
go to this video clip that youpulled it.
You were like you're likesalivating at just how dumb
Hunter.
Biden could possibly be in this.
It's a podcast interview.
I believe that he gave, and Imean In this it's a podcast
interview I believe that he gave, and I mean he was talking
about the benefits of smokingcrack, and so let's just play
the clip and then Mark will giveyou his two cents on it.

Speaker 8 (42:49):
Does crack cocaine make you act any differently?
No, is it safer than alcohol?
Probably.
People think of crack as beingdirty.
It's the exact opposite.
When you make crack, whatyou're doing is you're burning
off all the impurities so thatit combines with the sodium
bicarbonate, which makes itsmokable.
That's all.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Oh my gosh, See, I didn't realize this.
No, crack isn't whack Like.
Crack is clean baby, it isclean Sp when like a real addict
no, I think when you getchemist Hunter and he's breaking
down for you what's going onwith the crack.
I think that's critical.
I mean, look, crack needs anadvocate.
It's needed one for a long time.

(43:30):
And now that Hunter Biden hasstepped in and said I am that
man, I am the advocate for crack.
So the way it sounds now, itsounds like to me.
Like to me he's like you know Iwould you be shocked to know
that that he advocates usingcrack?

Speaker 3 (43:42):
it's unbelievable it's just it's spoken like a
real addict.
I mean it's sad and patheticand the fact that he doesn't
look back at that and think Imean he says he's been sober
since I don't know 18 or 19 andI'm like have you, because
you're sitting here tellingpeople that, actually that's
pretty good for you actuallyactually it's pretty good for
you.
Actually it's pretty.
Yeah, there's health benefits.
There's health benefits.
You're smoking it, yeah, nowhen you do enough crack.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
Actually it wards off Alzheimer's.
We now know that.
So that's something we shouldall think about.
Holy, this guy should neverspeak again.

Speaker 3 (44:10):
It is, but it is gold every time he steps up, and
this was just one of the clipsthat he said that was ridiculous
.
But, anyway, I can't listen tothe podcast.
I'm not going to promote it,because I don't even want to
listen to it.

Speaker 2 (44:20):
Okay, stephen Colbert decides that he is going to
celebrate his firing with someof his friends, so he brought in
all the late night hosts andthey all did this hokey,
ridiculous bit that we're notgoing to show.
But then Mark Cuban comes in,and Mark Cuban decides to
perform a song on StephenColbert's behalf.

Speaker 3 (44:42):
Okay, and before we get to actually showing the clip
, I want people to just to seeif you notice like his makeup
job Mark Cuban's makeup job isfrightening.
He looks like a vampire.

Speaker 2 (44:51):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
So I it's weird to me , Like I, you know, we've made
fun of you at times, for you didan ad once where we had some
really rough makeup on you andwe never used a makeup person
ever again for you.
We were like we got it managed.
We'll be fine with Mark's redcheeks.
What is up with Cuban, besidesmaking an idiot out of himself?

Speaker 2 (45:09):
This whole thing is is why Stephen Colbert is where
he is because, this is juststupid and it's.
It's childish and sort of weirdand not funny.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
Not funny is the biggest one.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
I need orange and empty inside.
I'd say you're a traffic homebut I would swerve to avoid a
traffic curb.
Oh, that's going to leave amark Cuban.
Donald, do you know that to bea billionaire you have to have

(45:42):
the billion part in your bankaccount, not just the air?

Speaker 9 (45:49):
Tom, you just fell into the shark tank.

Speaker 12 (45:53):
Donald, I know you have no shot with Hispanics,
because there's no way in hellyou're getting the.
Can you Ben vote?

Speaker 2 (46:02):
Okay, all right, I gotta stop, we gotta stop, it's
so bad.

Speaker 3 (46:06):
It's not funny Like if you wonder why the show's
cancelled right.

Speaker 2 (46:09):
It's like okay, if you Please stop.

Speaker 3 (46:11):
You need better writers for that.
Okay, this one is interesting.
You got Ben Ray, now he'scoming out and he's coming out
in favor of the.
You know they're slashing somebudget cuts for PBS and NPR and
some of these public radiooutlets.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
They can still raise the money on their own, by the
way.

Speaker 3 (46:28):
Right, and we all know if you've listened to any
of these outlets.
Npr fairly biased organization,now right.
So asking for taxpayers to fundthat is kind of ridiculous,
right.
Well, now you have Ben Ray outthere saying listen, if we do
not fund these public radiostations, people are going to
die from weather emergencies.
So here's his latest tweetPublic radio, mark, it saves

(46:48):
lives.
I don't know if you know thisor not.
When wildfires and floods hitNew Mexico, local stations
delivered real-time alerts thathelped families evacuate and
stay safe.
Last week, republicans voted toslash funding for public
broadcasting, risking lives inNew Mexico and across the
country.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
Okay, a couple of things.
He knows, ava.
We can put that back up for onesec.
Now I'm sure he didn't writethis, I'm sure his staff did,
and they're being willfullydeceptive.
Line number two when wildfiresand floods hit New Mexico, local
stations, which are thestations the ABC, cbs and NBC OK
, they're the ones who peopleturn to for this information.

(47:26):
You have to have a deliverysystem, either through your
radio network or through yourtelevision network, to get
people this information.
You have to have a crawl system.
That in that, cost money,significant money, and every TV
station who does this has it.
The public broadcasting groupsdon't.
They don't.
They aren't on the calls withthe Weather Service talking

(47:48):
about what's going on with thesefires and what's going on with
these floods.
They're not there, they're notpart of that.
He knows they're not part ofthat, but he makes it up and he
goes and takes local stationsand tries to conflate them with
public broadcasting stations.
There's not a person in thisstate who's going and turning to
public broadcasting to gettheir information on this stuff,
and he knows it.

(48:09):
And so this is the sort ofthing where the overheated
rhetoric of they're costinglives Everything costs lives.
Heck Colbert being canceled isgoing to cost lives.

Speaker 3 (48:18):
People are going to die.

Speaker 2 (48:19):
I don't know how it's going to happen but there's
going to be.

Speaker 3 (48:20):
Well, it's in a democracy.
I don't know if you heard that.
Oh, there's no doubt there's nomore democracy in this.

Speaker 2 (48:24):
If your favorite talk show host is canceled because
he's incredibly unprofitable,that's a threat to democracy.

Speaker 3 (48:31):
It's a threat to democracy.

Speaker 2 (48:32):
And there's no question that lives are going to
absolutely be on the line whenyou can't turn to public
broadcasting and get yourweather alerts.
Give me a break.
So just stop with theoverheated rhetoric on
everything, but it is everything.
Everything I mean when.
When you're a hammer,everything's a nail, and that's
what Ben Ray's come on, stop.

Speaker 3 (48:52):
Okay, your favorite thing to talk about, the WNBA.
And they are making headlinestoday, mark, because they are
going out there saying, hey,let's pay some higher wages to
these women, and so yourdaughter, ava, is pretty
passionate about this.

Speaker 5 (49:07):
I think we should give the women more money to
play basketball.
That's what I believe, okay.
I think, they deserve it.
They deserve it.
I do think they deserve it.
I think, especially becausethere are really good players on
the WNBA, it's like, I think,you can call out specific
players who definitely deservemore money, but the league as a
whole, I don't think it would benecessarily a bad thing to
increase their wages.

Speaker 3 (49:27):
Okay, well, okay.
So here's something I learnedthough Ava in this, in this
little research and maybe peoplealready know this, I did not
know this, I didn subsidizes theWNBA.
So basically, do you believethat then, therefore, the NBA
should be paying more money forthese women?
I'm not advocating for.

Speaker 5 (49:48):
Let's feed more money into the WNBA.
What I'm advocating for, andwhat the WNBA is advocating for,
is greater shares of the moneythat they make goes to the
players.

Speaker 2 (49:57):
Yeah, but there's not enough money.
They don't make enough money.

Speaker 5 (50:00):
They're set to make.
They're set to make a hundredmillion dollars next year with
the TV deal that they justsigned with CBS.

Speaker 2 (50:05):
Well, it's actually a following year, but, yeah, I
mean so.
So what they have now is a.
In the respect that you'retalking about, what they're
looking at getting is around a$200 million a year Profit.
No, that's the.
TV deal.
Okay, it's not necessarilyprofit.
Okay, right now that deal is$60 million a year, so that's a
significant increase.

(50:26):
But here's the thing theleague's current media deal is
valued at about $60 million peryear.
The NBA, which owns 60% of theWNBA, has negotiated these new
deals for them.
Under the new agreements, thepartners will distribute about
125 regular season and playoffgames nationally each year.
50 will go to NBC, you'll see30 go on Prime Video and from

(50:48):
there the playoffs will be splitamong three groups Disney,
which owns ABC, and ESPN.
They'll broadcast two of thefirst round series in NBC and
Prime Video.
They'll also broadcast some aswell.
But my point here is this itwould be great to pay everybody
more money, but if you're notearning that money, that's a
problem.
And so the problem the WNBA haswhich not all women's sports

(51:11):
have is that they're notgenerating the kind of money
that is commensurate with topend athletes, right?
So if you're talking about theWTA the tennis players across
the world they are unbelievableathletes and and they generate a
ton of money and they make aton of money, right?
And or if you go, look at trackathletes now, they don't get

(51:34):
paid as well.
They tend to get more money onsponsors on the sponsorship end.
So my argument would be if theWNBA wants to get more money,
they're first going to have togo to sponsors for individual
players.
So the Caitlin Clarks of theworld or the Paige Beckers of
the world or whoever.
Asia Smith, asia Angel ReeseAngel Reese is another one.

(51:54):
Asia I can't remember the lastname, but they've got some good
players right.
I can't remember the last name,but they've got some good
players right, and so they'regoing to have to.
They're also earning money onthe side, versus requiring the
teams to give them more and moremoney than they've actually
earned at this point.
What I mean by earned, I justmean that how much money is
their endeavor developing?
And, if they are, if they'redrawing in a ton of money, I

(52:14):
agree.
It's just that you can't pullthat much money out of something
where they're not making thatmuch money, out of something
where they're not making thatmuch money.

Speaker 5 (52:20):
The thing that I'm suggesting is I watched a video
on it where so currently playersat the NBA make they split
50-50 revenue with the actualNBA and the players get 50% of
the revenue they make.
That comes from games and itcomes from all merchandise that
they make as well.
That's secondary the WNBA.
They make about 9.2% of thatrevenue.
What would work financially isto.2 of a much smaller.

(52:43):
Yeah, it's a much smaller,smaller group.
I know which is why you can'tbring it up to 50%, like you can
with the NBA.
That's not feasible, it's notgoing to make enough money.
What you, what people aresuggesting, is you bring it up
to about 20%.
They make about 20% of therevenue they get from
merchandise and games than 9%and it still doesn't like.
They're not saying and I thinkwhat people are deliberately

(53:04):
misreading this and sayingCaitlin Clark wants to make as
much as Steph Curry and that'snot true.

Speaker 2 (53:08):
No one's saying that that's not happening.

Speaker 5 (53:09):
No people are saying that.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
Absolutely people are saying that that's crazy, she's
not going to and that's nottrue and I don't think we should
make it out to be like oh,these entitled women, but I
think Caitlin Clark is going to.
I guarantee you Caitlin Clarkmakes $10 million a year.

Speaker 5 (53:20):
She doesn't.
She makes $130,000 a year.

Speaker 2 (53:23):
I'm not talking about the salary from the team.
I'm talking about sponsors.

Speaker 5 (53:26):
Well, keep in mind one thing that I hear salary
should be higher.
I don't see why that's like aridiculous.

Speaker 2 (53:31):
Well, no, I would say to both of you that, looking
back at the NBA, which startedin the forties, it wasn't
actually profitable into theeighties.
That's actually not true.
Yes, it is, and what happenedwas true.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
I actually me and Ava looked it up.
It is actually true and youknow, what helps them cycle into
profitability was some bigplayers Magic Johnson, Michael
Jordan.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
I understand that, but here's what you're missing
on no no, no, you just zip it.

Speaker 3 (54:00):
Let me just finish my statement first so then you can
interject.
But that helped propel morepeople to watch the NBA, which
helped make more money for theNBA.
So my point is you get some ofthese female athletes that are
incredible to watch, right, andyou start promoting them.

Speaker 5 (54:23):
And then maybe that will follow the same course as
the NBA, which?

Speaker 2 (54:24):
they've started to do with Caitlin Clark, but I think
they should promote some otherones.
You also have a I just you havea product that people have not
demonstrated that they want topay big money to watch.

Speaker 3 (54:29):
Not yet, but that's what I'm saying.
The NBA also had a product thatwas failing.
It was actually not profitable.

Speaker 2 (54:34):
They had some issues.
There's no question but.
But part of what helps a lot ofthese teams is that there's
only part of the story is themoney generated each year by the
team.
The other part of all of thisis the fact that the team value
is what is more important thanall of it really, because if you
have a league that is popular,then the value of the teams

(54:57):
continues to grow.
The true value for owning asports team isn't necessarily
the yearly income, it's thetotal value of the team when you
go to sell it.
I mean, if you look at you knowa lot of these look at these
NFL teams.
They're worth so much money,not because the yearly, but
because when they go to sell Imean the yearly they make money.

(55:18):
Don't get me wrong.
They make a ton of money, butoverall the value that you have
in these franchises is massive.
You don't have that value inthe WNBA.
It doesn't exist, not yet.
Okay.

Speaker 5 (55:30):
You think it won't?

Speaker 2 (55:31):
No, I don't.

Speaker 5 (55:32):
No, because you think enough.
People just aren't interestedin women's basketball.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
I think people are definitely interested.
I think people are moreinterested in women's college
basketball.

Speaker 3 (55:42):
I think it's more compelling to watch.
Well, I think collegebasketball across the board is
more entertaining than women'sNBA.
Well, I think the NBA ishurting in that respect too.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
One other thing to think about.
What about this and Shaq hasmentioned this what if you
lowered the rim?

Speaker 5 (55:54):
What if you said why don't we have— the rim of the
basketball hoop.

Speaker 2 (55:57):
Yeah, why don't you lower the hoop so that when
women play they can dunk?

Speaker 3 (56:03):
I mean, there's no donkey in the women's game,
there's not, and you think thatthat's what's going to make
people watch the game.
I actually think that wouldwork.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
I think it might help .
I mean, why not?

Speaker 5 (56:11):
Cause it's not.
It's not satisfying to watch agame.

Speaker 3 (56:25):
If nobody's scoring well, I agree it doesn't have to
be excited, it has to be anexciting game to watch.
I think college ball.

Speaker 2 (56:27):
I like the fact that there's always plays in college
ball and in in professional withnba.

Speaker 3 (56:29):
They just throw the ball and they do a bunch of.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
They have plays very they, they run sets, you do not.
I played basketball, so I don'tcare and you do not actually
play basketball in like ninthgrade.

Speaker 5 (56:36):
Yeah, I played basketball for eight years.
People, I played forever.

Speaker 3 (56:40):
Anyway, I'm just saying the plays.
They do not do the plays asmuch as in the NBA, as they do
in college ball.
You can actually see whatthey're trying to do and set up
and you actually see strategyyou don't see the strategy in
the NBA.

Speaker 5 (56:51):
Do they have a March Madness for women's basketball?

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Yeah, women's college basketball has March Madness I
can't finish my statement.

Speaker 5 (56:57):
I wouldn't have known about it.
They need to push it.
I don't know.
I know that people get angrybecause they're pushing women's
sports too much, but I thinkthat that's the only way you're
going to get people interestedin it is if you seriously push
it down people's throats untilpeople realize that it's
interesting and they engage init.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
Okay, I just don't think you have it in women's pro
basketball, really compellingwomen's sports.
I just don't know that women'sbasketball is that is it.

Speaker 3 (57:19):
I'm just wondering if we're losing all our viewers
right now, cause maybe we'vetalked about this too long.
Okay, all right.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
So last story, last story Okay, ava, I'm sorry, we
didn't reach it, we didn'treally reach it but let's agree
to pay Caitlin more money, okay.
All right, all right.
Clouds this is pretty cool.
The windward side of themountain, so in other words that
left side of the mountain,there it's on the other side.
The air comes up there, itcools, condenses and forms

(57:44):
clouds, and then it goes downthe leeward side and it heats up
and those clouds evaporate.
Pretty cool stuff.

Speaker 3 (57:49):
Okay, yeah, not bad, okay, not bad.
A little weather video for youthere it is Okay.
Well, thanks for joining us,you guys.
Make sure again, please, please, again, please, please, please,
please, like, subscribe to ourYouTube channel, follow us on
our Instagram page if you'd liketo, and you can always drop us
a note at info at no doubt aboutit, podcastcom.
Thanks so much, you guys, andhave a great rest of your week.

Speaker 9 (58:07):
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 soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
instagram and facebook at nodoubt about it podcast.
No doubt about it.
The no doubt about it podcastis a choose adventure media

(58:30):
production.
See you next time on no doubtabout it there is no doubt about
it.