July 30, 2025 • 53 mins
🔥 Gerrymandering Hypocrisy Exposed
Texas Democrats traveled all the way to Santa Fe… why?
To get advice from Gov. Lujan Grisham, the Michael Jordan of gerrymandering, on how to fight it back home.
Mark calls it out: MLG perfected the playbook on disenfranchising non-Democrat voters in New Mexico.
Meanwhile, Rep. Melanie Stansbury is suddenly outraged about gerrymandering in Missouri — while saying NOTHING about her own party’s shady tactics here.
Krysty goes OFF on the hypocrisy, and we break down what an Ivy League site says about New Mexico’s redistricting. (Spoiler: we're one of the worst.)
👀 Native American Endorsement Surprise
A major New Mexico Native American tribe just endorsed a gubernatorial candidate — and it’s NOT Deb Haaland.
Is this the first crack in her campaign?
We weigh in on the political implications and what it means for Sam Bregman’s chances in the primary.
📈 Trump’s Economy vs. the Experts
Trump’s new tariff deal is here — and the economy is growing fast despite the predictions from left-leaning economists.
We break down why they keep getting it wrong and what this means heading into 2025.
👖 Ava vs. American Eagle: The Debate You Didn’t See Coming
Ava joins us to debate the Sydney Sweeney–American Eagle controversy, and she takes it to a whole new level.
Let’s just say… Mark and Krysty were left in stunned silence.
🔥 Don’t miss Ava unfiltered.
Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
All right, we've got a little problem here on the
Wednesday Thursday edition ofthe no Doubt About it podcast.
Many of you who are marriedknow this that when you have a
wardrobe situation where you arewearing the warm wardrobe, your
wife is wearing the coldwardrobe, there's a massive
problem.
The warm wardrobe, your wife iswearing the cold wardrobe
(00:27):
there's a massive problem.
Summer wardrobe.
See, the problem is this I needthe air down to about 48 in
here because I somehow got intomy Winter wear.
Yeah, it's not even winter wear, but yeah, no, I'm with you.
I'm with you and you aredressed appropriately.
Yes, I am, and therefore I havecontrol of the studio nest.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Yeah, not cool, I went and turned it up because it
was freezing in here and I gotit back up to like 72 for a
minute, just because I hope thatit gets us back to like I don't
know 64 in here, right?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
right.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Meanwhile you come in here and crank it back down.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
It's like we're going to be blue, I'm going to have
blue lips.
I'm going to black out fromheat stroke if I don't keep it
low.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Well, here's a fresh tip Dress for the season guy.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I know, I know that's a problem.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I mean wearing a thermal hoodie.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Okay, before you tell everybody what's going to
happen here on the no DoubtAbout it today, a couple quick
breaking news things, justbecause I want to throw them out
there.
And is first we got the KamalaHarris saying she's not going to
run for governor of California.
I know you were dying to knowthat news, Mark.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Edge of my seat.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
It literally just broke, so I just want to make
sure everybody's aware.
I don't know what her big plansare, but it is not to run for
the governor of California.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
And then the Federal Reserve.
We were all kind of waiting tosee if they're going to cut
their interest rates or not.
That also just came down andsaid that they are actually not
going to cut it right now andthat they have made no decisions
about September yet.
So it'll be interesting to kindof see where that ends up going
, if it's going to One of some alittle thing here.
I saw on X just as we werestarting the show.
(01:57):
It says stressed that thecurrent policy stance leaves
them well positioned.
Growth is moderating, mostlydue to weaker consumer spending.
Inflation remains somewhatelevated, the housing market is
weak and tariffs are starting topush up prices on specific
goods.
Powell also pointed out thatconsumers and retailers take on
most of the tariff burden, soI'm not really sure about that.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, okay, well, actually growth looks very good.
We'll get into that in a second.
I'm not an economist, but thisis just strange that they were
cutting rates at the end of theBiden administration toward the
election, and then now theysuddenly are like, oh no, we got
to watch out for all this.
Yeah, if he had been thatconcerned about inflation when
Biden was president, maybe wewouldn't be in the spot that
(02:40):
we're in.
But guess what?
He had no clue, had no idea itwas coming.
It's hard to take some of theseguys sometimes, and I know
Jerome Powell has expertisebeyond anything I've ever
studied.
So I don't pretend to know whatJerome Powell knows, but I do
know that far too often what hehas said is going to happen
never happens.
And when he says you know wedon't, we're okay on inflation,
(03:01):
it's transitory, you couldn'thave been more wrong, I mean.
And it cost millions ofamericans a ton of money and
we're still making up for it.
Now.
We still have interest ratesthat are sky high, that had to
be raised the way they were todeal with that inflation because
he was wrong.
And now he won't cut the rates.
(03:22):
Okay, I don't get it and Iunderstand some of Trump's
frustration with this, and thehousing market is slowing down.
That's a reason to cut rates,not to not cut rates.
I guess I don't know.
I'm just a simple meteorologist, I don't know these things.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
You are a homeowner and we have thought about moving
.
And we can't seem to even thinkabout that because interest
rates are still so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
I mean, you get less house for your money.
Go look at the number of houseson market Now.
Albuquerque is a little bitdifferent, but still there are
still more and more housescoming online.
People can't afford it, Right?
I mean, you got more and morepeople moving into apartments
because they have these.
The rates are so high, thegovernment debts and other thing
nobody talks about, but we'repaying massive amounts on debt
(04:07):
because they continue to keeprates high.
So I don't know.
I just think it's crazy.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Okay, well, I mean, it wasn't even a story today.
No, I know, I guess we'remaking it a quick story.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
I just found his little comment like I'm not
going to cut rates because thehousing market's softening.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I'm like that seems like a reason to cut rates.
But it's just things he'swatching.
He said it wasn't a directquote by him saying the housing
market was softening.
He just it was.
It's led to believe that hethat's some of what people are
thinking he's doing is they'retrying to guess why he keeps
holding onto that.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
No, he's tough to guess.
I mean, he's captain transitory.
I mean I don't know if hisphilosophy is transitory or just
our money becomes transitory tosomebody else because we
continue to just outlay it here,but whatever.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Okay, why don't you give us a quick rundown of what
we're going to see on today'sshow?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Yeah, so right out of the shoot here, this whole
redistricting thing andgerrymandering thing that we
talked about last show, yeah,the last episode.
It's not going anywhere.
This is crazy.
So so actually, a Texasdelegation has come to New
Mexico, which I am ready.
I am going to compliment thesepeople.
By the way, democrats fromTexas have come to New Mexico to
(05:13):
meet with Michelle LujanGrisham and I have a compliment
for them on the way, and a bigone at that.
No, I'm serious about that.
Then Melanie Stansbury isjumping in.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
She's talking about the issue hey, you know how we
feel about Mel.
We love listening to all herviral videos.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
There's nothing.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
I want to listen to more in Stansberry talking to
people on X with her littleviral videos.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Listen, she is once again the performative efforts
and the dulcet tones of MelanieStansberry hit us again, so
we'll talk about that Great.
We're also going to talk abouta Ivy league school which
actually put together a websitewhich said which States are the
most severely gerrymandered,meaning which States have
congressional cutouts so thatone party wins over the other.
(05:55):
I wonder where New Mexico rings.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
We'll see.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
We'll see what happens with that.
We'll have some of coursefeedback from our erstwhile
viewers.
Deb Holland.
Yeah, we have some of coursefeedback from our erstwhile
viewers.
Deb holland.
Yeah, we got problems for got alittle ding.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
She got a little ding , got a little ding.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
We'll see what happens a setback for deb with
showboat sam.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Yeah, and the showboat's high stepping it oh
yeah, he's excited, he's got hishat on.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Yes you know it, you know it, and we, he may have a
different costume on after thisendorsement.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Oh, I think so, please don't please, sam, do not
put on this costume because youwill get ridiculed.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
No, no, no he doesn't , he doesn't care, he's going to
put it on, all right.
So, by the way, the US economy,has it grown Well?
According to Powell, maybe not,but actually we have some
numbers to say otherwise.
And then we'll get into the EUdeal on tariffs, which was a big
, big win for Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
And we'll tell you why.
We'll explain a bit why thattrade deal is so good.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, very true.
And there's a mediaorganization that is going belly
up and then we're going to hitthe Sidney Sweeney controversy.
Oh, yeah, okay.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
A new gene ad.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
A new gene ad, so we should really care about that.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Everybody's getting all well it is.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
People are talking about it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
It is ridiculous, so we have to put our two cents
into it.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Of course we do.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Okay, so the gerrymandering episode blew up.
People were very interested inthe last episode because the
hypocrisy that was flying out ofthese New Mexico leaders
telling other states how toavoid gerrymandering in their
states, so the democratic partydoesn't lose some strength in
(07:26):
those states.
We really hit that on the lastepisode.
It took off, but unbelievablyso.
We have a fresh story for you.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, no, so Texas, which is right now fighting
gerrymandering.
So what did Texas decide to do?
Texas Democrats got in thesuburban, they left Texas and
they came to New Mexico to meetwith none other than Michelle
Lujan Grisham.
And let me tell you somethingthis is amazing.
These Texas Democrats are likewait a minute.
(07:54):
If we're going to understandhow gerrymandering works, we're
going to go to the MichaelJordan of gerrymandering, and
that is Michelle Lujan Grisham,and I give them credit for that,
if you're trying to find outhow gerrymandering and that is
Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Igive him credit for that.
If you're trying to find out howgerrymandering works, go to the
person who gerrymandered theliving heck out of her own state
.
So you're like hey champ, whatdo we do?
(08:15):
How does this work?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
And then how do we get a hundred percent
representation by one party?
How do?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
we eliminate the other party.
How do we do?
Speaker 3 (08:21):
this how do we do that?
By drawing, or how do?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
we fight this, the party that's trying to eliminate
us.
Give us some background.
So here is how it all brokedown.
Okay, so this is some quote.
First quote from the journalarticle from Dan Boyd, by the
way.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Okay, a delegation of seven Texas house Democrats met
with Michelle Lujan Grisham formore than an hour MJ Grisham.
Oh yeah, mj.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
MJ, mj, mlg.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
MJ.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
MJ, mj, mlg.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yes, okay, mj MLG.
Yes.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
For more than an hour amid a redistricting fight
that's drawn national headlines.
After emerging from the closeddoor meeting, the Democrats said
they're trying to buildalliances with high profile
quote friends around the nationwho support their cause.
Okay, Okay, Going on.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Yeah, keep going.
That doesn't mean anything, butgo ahead.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
With Republicans holding a comfortable majority
in both legislative chambers inTexas, Democrats have limited
options when it comes to tryingto block the redistricting
proposal.
Meanwhile, the Tuesday sit-downwith Lujan Grisham took place
after Texas Democrats heldsimilar meetings in recent days
with none other than CaliforniaGovernor Gavin Newsom, also a
(09:24):
fellow gerrymanderer and theMagic Johnson of gerrymandering.
Speaker 6 (09:28):
Governor.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
JB Pritzker.
Oh yes, that's the Bill Russellof gerrymandering.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
So yes, these guys are fantastic.
All the coaches get together,All the teams.
They're like pulling in all theplayers.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
The best players of all time, this is what you do.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
This is how you do it .
This is how you manipulate thevote in your state.
This is how you do it.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I mean this is I give these Texas politicians credit.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah, because they knew where to go they knew where
to go.
Yeah, they don't come to us foreducation.
They don't come with us on howdo you fight crime, hell.
No, they don't come to us onhow do you build more jobs in
your state.
Don't you dare how tomanipulate the state so it's
their party, unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Here comes Magic Johnson.
Let's ask Magic Johnson,newsome what to do.
And, honestly, larry Bird,pritzker I mean all of them,
whatever they're the best, okay,keep going.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Okay, but here's the thing.
Then they just said they'regoing to have this press
conference.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yes, I love it.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
So this is what really did crack me up, because
she'll meet with him, right, butthen she won't have a press
conference about it.
She's not going to attend thepress conference, ok well, this
is what she says yeah, go ahead.
Because this is her playing hercards, right Right.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Lujan Grisham did not attend the news conference
alongside the Texas Democrats,but said in a statement she
supports their efforts.
Quote After meeting with Texaslawmakers today, I share their
concerns about redistricting andthe assault on fair
representation.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Rich coming from her.
She cares about that now.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
Quote yeah, these dedicated state legislators are
understandably doing everythingpossible to remind states
everywhere that this isn't howdemocracy is supposed to work.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
What the threat to democracy is back, unless it's
her, and I'm sorry you've doneit in our state.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
I mean, what is?
You have 100% representation onthe Democratic side in our
state, on a national.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
She signed it.
She worked with the legislatureto do it.
They worked hand in glove,right, okay, they worked hand in
glove and she did it.
And then she turns around andsays everybody's too stupid to
know this, but I'm just going togo ahead and shoot it back.
But I will say this about herthis is why there are different
levels of politicians, okay, andthere are different levels of
leaders, and I know this isn'tgoing to make me popular with
(11:33):
our listeners, but Michelle LuanGrisham is not the same level
as Melanie Stansberry, teresaLedger Fernandez or the other
Joker down South.
Okay, because you didn't make avideo on it.
Yes, she didn't show up at thepress conference because she's
not a moron.
Yeah, like she just was.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
Like, I'm not gonna do that I mean, but I'm gonna
put up this ridiculous of course, the statement's ridiculous,
but she doesn't care yeah,nobody's reading that.
Yeah, she's hoping nobody,actually nobody's paying any
attention.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
So she's being supportive, but not being a
total hypocritical.
You know nutbag who's like wellyou.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
It'd be fascinating, though, is if she, if if any of
our press members here locallycould just go ahead and respond
back to her and ask her aboutthis statement, and maybe just
call her, put her on the spotand say are you kidding me?
Speaker 2 (12:14):
This is a very fair point and I was talking to a
friend of mine today about thisand saying where are our news
stations, where are ourtelevision stations?
Going to every one of thesepeople saying what are you
talking about?
Look at what you have done,look at what you signed on for
and look how you're speaking now, you hypocritical fool.
(12:34):
But none of them are doing it.
None of them.
So don't tell me that.
Believe me, if we had done thesame thing and if a Republican
had done the same thing and itwas a similar issue of some kind
, they would be getting eatenalive right now.
Every day.
They'd commence.
Well, we don't have answers onthis.
We're going to keep chasingthis down and they don't say a
darn thing.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Well, you know, what would be a fascinating viral
campaign for this potentially isif we could get the Republicans
in our state like the vetheralds of the world.
Those folks make the responseback videos of these and be like
this is how gerrymandering workand I know it worked because I
lost my seat because of it andhave her explain the map that
way is a direct contradiction towhat these yo-hos are going
(13:13):
into other states and talkingabout what they should be doing
in their states.
Let's just look at this primeexample by Ms Stansberry,
because it's excellent.
She's over there telling peoplein Missouri what they should be
doing in their state.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Well, and she's.
She's just so you know thevideo.
She's talking to RepresentativeWesley Bell, who is a
representative, I think, fromsuburban St Louis, ish, or maybe
right in St Louis.
So he's the one standing inwith her and they're laying it
down.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Why would they go after Missouri?
Speaker 7 (13:44):
and they're laying it down.
Why would they go afterMissouri?
Well, missouri is a right.
Now our legislature has alreadybeen gerrymandered to where
there's a supermajority in ourhouse, in the House, senate, and
obviously in the governor'soffice.
And so, and when you look atKansas City, if you were trying
(14:04):
to gerrymander, considering it'ssurrounded by what are
historically, more recently,been Republican, Republican
districts, it could conceivablyhappen.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
It could conceivably happen.
By the way, you can see howcareful he's being why?
Because it's probably not goingto happen and he knows this,
but he said it anyway.
But listen to what he saidthere.
They have gerrymanderedMissouri to the point where they
have a super majority, or anear super majority.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
That's New Mexico too, believeit or not?
And in fact, when you look atwhere we were and where we are,
(14:43):
it's ridiculous.
So just one more littlereminder, like this is the map
from before the censusAlbuquerque is CD1.
The southern part of New Mexicois CD2.
And the northern part of NewMexico is CD3.
And then the legislature saidwe will never let that happen
again.
We are going to make sureRepublicans don't get any
(15:04):
representation.
So this is map two, the mapwhich splits southeastern New
Mexico into three differentcongressional districts, so they
can disenfranchise Republicanvoters.
Remember, michelle did this.
All the Democrats in the stateof New Mexico signed on for this
.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Ok, so to listen to them speak about it, and it was
held up by judges.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
And it absolutely, because, again, the Supreme
Court of the State of New Mexicois a rubber stamp, so you do
not have representation.
And again, here's what I wouldsay on this.
I say it all the time the stateis not served well by one party
in complete and total control.
It isn't worked.
We're number one in crime, wein total control.
It hasn't worked.
We're number one in crime.
(15:46):
We're last in qualityhealthcare, we're last in
education.
It's devastating.
And it's devastating becausethere's no accountability and
bad ideas get to just run likewildfire.
And that's exactly where we are.
And we're not the only ones whothink this.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
No, so there was a little report card put together,
um about uh, from PrincetonOkay, which talks about what
states have gerrymandered themost or the best, I guess, or
however who's?
The professional gerrymanderswho is the professional
gerrymanders of their state, ina way to do this right guess who
is the top dog?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
well, I don't know we're top, are we top dog?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
well, we're pretty top dog.
I mean look at this report card.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Okay, we are right there we got a D or an F, it
looks like.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Yeah, D or an F.
That means that we basicallydon't have an equal playing
field in our state.
If you want to run for bothparties, it is not even close to
being equal.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
And I want to show you something here that's kind
of interesting.
Go ahead and leave that up, ava, for a second.
Okay, and I think what aboutthis is that you have certain
states that don't do this sortof thing.
Okay, they don't do this, andyou know why they don't do.
It is because they tend to havea little more of a balanced
representation.
You understand what I mean.
Like, when you don't have abalanced representation, you
(16:56):
have one party that controlseverything, it can lead to these
sorts of things, and it isn'tjust a democratic problem.
Texas has been beengerrymandered absolutely, and it
is a republican state.
Florida has been gerrymanderedto some degree, and it is a
republican state.
Now, there are plenty of otherdemocratic states that have been
gerrymandered as well.
Oregon's a great example aswell.
(17:16):
But point being in all this newmexico well, if you take our
individual report card, theworst grade we get is for we,
how we break down thecongressional seats, and that's
where we get the big old D weget a D.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
We get a D Now, but go back to that first one.
I wanted to throw in somethingthere, ava.
So what's interesting islooking at California being
yellow, it says better thanaverage, with some bias.
Okay, jd Vance tweeted today.
Today he says the gerrymanderin California is outrageous.
Of their 52 congressionaldistricts, nine of them are
Republicans.
That means 17% of theirdelegation is Republican.
(17:51):
When Republicans regularly win40% of the vote in that state,
how can this possibly be?
Speaker 2 (17:56):
less than half Right, and that's the point Ledger
Fernandez was making when wetalked about last week, those
numbers.
And so, and he's absolutelyright, and, by the way, this,
this Princeton study, it skewsleft.
By the way, if you start todive into the numbers it
actually skews really far left.
And in fact they give us in NewMexico a B for our house
breakdown of our individualstate house seats.
(18:18):
That deserves an F.
By the way, senate's not quiteas bad.
Senate probably deserves a Cand they gave it an A.
So you know again, we're notsaying this Princeton thing is
right down the middle, but eventhe Princeton study says yeah,
congressionally you get a D.
Yeah, Because you absolutelydid everything you could to
eliminate the other party.
So, again that that made for alot of reaction in the show we
(18:41):
did on.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Oh, reaction in the show we did on Sunday.
Oh my gosh, we got so manycomments.
I mean we appreciate all ofthem.
I couldn't take the time toread all of them in, but I did
pull a few today just becausethis ties into this furthering
of the story a little bit.
So Kathleen wrote in thanks somuch for your explanation of the
gerrymandering that has gone onin New Mexico.
As a relatively new residenthere, I had some understanding
of this, but the map andspecifics were elucidating.
I so appreciate your podcastand hope that your audience
grows even more.
All New Mexicans can benefitfrom the takes that you two have
.
As an independent voter and anindependent thinker, I salute
(19:10):
you.
So thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
We love notes like that, because the last thing we
want to be is a honk, for, youknow, conservatives or
Republicans or whatever you know.
Anytime we can give youinformation, and sometimes it's
stuff we don't even like saying.
By the way, we're going to haveone of those things here in a
second.
But.
But we always want to be honestwith you and I think there's a
terrible idea floating out thereby Republicans and we're going
to get to it in just a second.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Yeah, and, by the way , mark and I don't always agree
ourselves on the same topics, sowe have no problem.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Yeah, you're not right, oh by the way, anyway.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Okay, so the atomic mom she wrote a very long one
and I did save this one becauseI thought this was interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
It definitely furthers the story only atomic
mom okay, I know she, but shewas thorough and she did some
investigative work and I, likeshe does great she's great okay,
she says about thegerrymandering in 2020, when
nevette harold beat um socialtour is small
Speaker 3 (20:08):
thank you.
The then speaker of the newmexico house, briangoff, was
quoted in the Santa Fe NewMexican that the Democrats would
make sure that no Republicanwould ever win CD2 again.
He walked it back the next day,but still he said it.
Then came 2020 and the census,which then allowed the state to
redistrict.
The Democrats did exactly whatthey said, that they were going
to do gerrymander so that aRepublican could never win that
(20:29):
district again, could never winthat district again.
Not many people also rememberback in 2010-2011, when Susana
Martinez was governor, theDemocrats tried a similar stunt
with redistricting.
For example, house District 43,los Alamos County was going to
be split off into threedifferent house districts, the
center of which were in Rio RibaCounty, santa Fe County and
Sandoval County.
Talk about taxation withoutrepresentation.
(20:51):
Back then, los Alamos was seenas a center-right stronghold.
Thankfully, our representativeat the time, jim Hall, fought to
keep District 43 together.
Governor Martinez eventuallyvetoed this effort, saying that
the map the Democrats had comeup with was going to
unnecessarily divide communitiesand pit communities against
each other.
And, as you said, the nextgovernor is going to be very
important if we ever want to tryand humpty dumpty back out of
(21:13):
this again.
And this is she out of this.
Here's the exact quote fromBrian Egoff in the Santa Fe New
Mexican on gerrymandering.
It said quote after RepublicanCongresswoman elect Yvette
Harrell's blowout victory overDemocrat Thank you.
In New Mexico's secondcongressional district,
democratic Speaker of the HouseBrian Egoff has already begun
(21:33):
his power grab.
He announced that he will tryto turn the tides in his favor
by heavily gerrymandering thedistricts to help the Democrats
in.
Yeah.
So I mean, I just we've done it.
We, they did it, they saidthey're going to do it.
They did it and now they'releading um press, you know press
events and meetings behindclosed doors to teach other
states how to try to do this.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Well, and so I think it's very clear, and this is why
representation in the state,whether it be your governor,
your legislature, everybodybeing of one party, it does not
serve you well.
It hasn't served the state verywell at all over the past 80
years.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
It just hasn't.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
Yeah, we don't have anything to really buy about.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Yeah, when you have two different parties fighting
it out and holding each otheraccountable, you just get better
government.
You do, you do, and you justdon't see that here now, and so
we'll see how it all shakes out.
But it is definitely somethingthat is getting a lot of
attention and I think it's goingto continue to grab a lot of
attention.
I just think our leaders owe usenough respect.
(22:27):
Just, I get, you've done whatyou've done.
There's no reason to go out andrub people's faces.
In the fact that you go and tryto lecture people and wag your
finger, you just end up lookinglike a phony and so and maybe
they don't care, and I thinkthey probably don't.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
They don't care.
They also think that peoplewon't know.
And again, you got to keep inmind Teresa Fernandez, ledger,
ledger Fernandez, melanieStansbury.
They're all just looking fortheir next election.
So they're trying to stayvibrant and on the videos and
they want to be relevant andthey're trying to keep their
face and their image out there.
Meanwhile, they're hopingyou're so dumb that you didn't
figure out what they did.
(23:01):
They were part of thisthemselves in 2021.
So again, it's like wake up,people and remember what
happened in 2021.
Pay attention to what thesepeople are actually trying to
get you to.
I guess not believe or not notbelieve your own eyes, something
like that.
Okay, so Deb Holland not notgoing uh, not going quite the
way that she had thought, Ithink with this more most recent
(23:24):
endorsement.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Well, we'll see what happens.
This is from Axios and andwe'll just read you one of the
quotes here Deb Holland has lostan endorsement from a Native
American tribe, the Sandia tribein northern Albuquerque.
They are a significant tribebut not in numbers.
There are not many Sandiamembers, there are 500 or so.
They don't matter electorallyin the respective number of
(23:48):
people, but obviously it's amassive juggernaut financially
because they have the mostlucrative casino in the States
and they have decided that theyare going to endorse.
Sam Bregman.
Showboat has gotten himself anendorsement here.
Now it's pretty early on and Ithink he'll get some more.
To be honest with you, and thethought process here and first
(24:10):
of all Axios, I think kind ofincorrectly assesses the
situation here.
But I'll say that the tribesacross New Mexico are varied in
their approaches.
There are conservative tribeswho will endorse not only
conservative Democrats butRepublicans, and that will help
Republicans and some will onlyhelp Democrats, like it just
(24:30):
depends and you would expectthat that they have different
interests, they have differentchallenges in many ways, and so
this is something that forHolland, being a member of the
Laguna Pueblo, is this somethingthat hurts her greatly?
I don't think it necessarilydoes.
I'm not a believer thatendorsements mean much.
Usually they usually don't, youknow, sometimes they can, but
(24:54):
but an endorsement like this Idon't think is going to be a
game changer.
But is this a little somethingthat makes you say Deb Holland
is a, could be a paper tiger,and we've said that from the
very beginning, that that shecould totally collapse.
It could absolutely happen andshowboat could walk in?
Um, I still don't think it'sgoing to happen, but I do think
that it's interesting and if I'mDeb Holland I'm probably
(25:15):
concerned about this.
But we'll just have to wait andsee.
But they did issue a prettystrong statement and I think
that's the most interesting partis how strong the statement was
from Sandia.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
It says.
At a time when Native Americansacross the country are
demanding justice andrepresentation, Sam is the only
candidate who has consistentlyshown up and delivered.
That was said by chavez in astatement to axios.
I might disagree with him onthat, but okay, yeah um, but
yeah so anyway, they made afairly strong statement, so
we'll see I think this is kindof a reach by axios, one of
these bullets I just want tomention it says it's also a
(25:50):
state where native americanvoters can swing a close
election, I mean maybe in aprimary, depending on what that
turnout looks like.
But I, yeah, I feel like that'sa little bit of an overreach on
that on that.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Well, I guess it depends on how close the
election is.
I mean, yeah, is it like?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
is it like 20 votes?
Speaker 2 (26:04):
yeah, absolutely no no, it's you know, and that's
that's one of the things.
That's that's always beentricky, I think, for both
parties to figure out.
How can you motivate a lot ofthe Native American vote to get
out and not only support you butthen advocate for their own
causes with you and to stayengaged and to make sure that
you can do what needs to be doneto better their lives?
(26:26):
And sometimes there's somefrustration because, you know,
especially on sides of manytribes who say, wait a minute,
you know you, especially on onsides of of many tribes who say,
wait a minute, you know youguys show up during election
season.
You don't show up any othertime.
You know, how do you expectpeople to believe in you if we
never see you?
So that's a fair.
So there is a a kind of amiddle ground in there that
needs to be reached to continueto engage native Americans.
(26:47):
Are they a big swing vote inthe state?
No, they're not.
So Axios' line there isprobably a throwaway line.
They just thought it was seemslike it should be true.
But I think over time if youdid engage more and more Native
American voters, you saw some ofthose voters shift right, no
question in the lastpresidential election.
Speaker 5 (27:05):
They did.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
That's just a fact.
You can look it up, and so thisis something to think about and
to engage them more, but we'llsee what happens with this.
This will not be the only tribethat endorses Bregman.
They're not going to be theonly tribe but again you know we
have a lot of Pueblos andtribes in the state, so I don't
think this tells you much yet.
But when it comes into and JeffTucker sent me this from the
(27:27):
journal and he's like so youready to pay up?
Speaker 3 (27:30):
Oh yeah, Cause he thinks he's going to be.
We had Jeff Tucker on the showand you guys got into it.
He thinks Bregman will get theprimary candidate.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Yeah and you're like, no, it's not going to happen,
but still, yeah, okay.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Yeah, all right, let's talk a little bit about
the economy, because obviouslywe led at the very beginning of
the show, was saying the federalreserve is not going to slash
interest rates at this point.
But you know, and the wholething is, people are questioning
well, it's because the economyis a little slow or whatever.
Actually, the US economy isgrowing faster than expected.
If you look at some of thesenumbers, this is incredibly
impressive.
(28:01):
Yeah, it says US economy grew atthree percent rate in Q2, a
better than expected pace, evenas Trump's tariffs hit.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
And listen to the poll quote on this.
The USs economy grew at a muchbetter than expected pace in the
second quarter, powered by aturnaround in the trade balance
hello, that's tariffs, by theway in renewed consumer strength
.
The commerce departmentreported wednesday gross
domestic product the sum ofgoods and services activity
(28:27):
across the sprawling us economyeconomy jumped 3% from April
through the June period.
According to figures adjustedfor seasonality and inflation,
this was much higher than peopleexpected.
Ok.
So now, this isn't to say thatthe tariffs aren't going to have
some sort of impact.
They may well, ok, but this isone of those situations that's
(28:48):
interesting in the respect thatmore money is going to be coming
into the coffers of the UnitedStates government.
We're reorienting trade Again.
Here we go again with thePowell stuff about being wrong
about everything.
All these economists are justlike well, this is going to be
devastating.
I mean, we're going to seethings.
Prices are going to take offeverywhere has not happened yet.
Now, not to say that therearen't some small price
(29:10):
increases in places.
There may well be.
There's a difference, though,between a one-time price
increase to adjust for a tariffand inflation which continues to
climb and compound upon itselfand create huge problems, right,
they're just two differentthings, and so we'll see what
ends up happening with it.
But all the experts who arelike oh, here comes recession.
(29:30):
Right, we got that.
We got that when all this stuffhappened.
Here comes a recession.
We're in real trouble.
None of it happened.
Now, I'm not saying there'sgoing to be nothing difficult.
That could be part of this.
You have to understand that ifwe are going to give countries
access to our market, we deserveto be able to take advantage of
some of that.
And when you get access to thebroadest, deepest, most wealthy
(29:53):
market in the world, that cancome with an entry price.
It's okay.
Sometimes that entry price isequal what we pay you.
Sometimes you'll pay us alittle bit more because you're
flooding a lot of your goods inhere, but they're not signing
this deal Like, for example, theEU and everything else which
we'll get into.
They don't sign that dealbecause it doesn't work for them
.
They sign it because it doesRight.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
It was a win and so let's jump right into that.
It says here how the EUsuccumbed to Trump's tariff
steamroller.
And you get in here.
This is from coming in from theTelegraph.
It says US cars and energy toflood Europe as Trump strikes
trade deal US president confirmsthat there will be a 15% tariff
(30:37):
on all EU goods.
The deal is the quote biggestin the world, says Trump, and it
was secured ahead of hismeeting with Starmer Um, that
guy, it's got off.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
It was pure.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
Starmer yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
From from the UK, who we already cut a deal with the
UK and then they're separatefrom the EU, right Cause it's
different.
This is different, but noquestion.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
What Surprising is.
When you started putting allthese clips in here, I was like
holy cow, look at this.
These media people have to eata little crow and actually talk
a little bit about the fact.
Guess what?
Some of these Trump tariffplans that he's been freaking
out over actually are prettygood deals.
So let's take just a littlelisten to some of these clips
that you've put together.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
Reviews are in on the new trade deal announced with
the European Union.
The Financial Times says thedeal marks a victory for Trump.
Is this a fantastic deal, then,struck by Donald Trump?
Speaker 5 (31:18):
Absolutely a victory on behalf of the Trump
administration.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
The bottom line is this is the biggest trade deal
in President Trump's effort toeffectively reshape the global
trading order.
On this deal, the EuropeanUnion.
This is a big win for the US.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
The bigger picture is that Trump is still very much
pursuing his longer term goal ofachieving what he perceives to
be fairness for America.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
It's a triumph of a lot of things.
Certainly, the president oughtto take a victory lap.
I think it's.
I think it ends up being goodfor the European Union.
It's a blow against theconventional.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah, it is a blow him against the conventional
wisdom that once again was wrongagain, and that is.
It is disheartening becauseevery time there is this and I
don't know whether it is thiswhole just opposition to Trump,
that you know, just anything hesuggests just can't possibly
that does dominate in the mediaand does dominate even in just
(32:13):
conversation on social mediawith people.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
If you do not like Trump, you do not want to
believe that any of his ideaswill actually work.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
And he's got to be frustrating the heck out of them
.
I mean, they're like oops itworked, oops, it worked, oops,
it worked, you're like no, we'regonna talk about something else
.
We're going to find somethingelse that he's going to say
that's why being a purelyoppositional party does not work
, especially when most of youropposition is on the 20% of
issues that nobody wants to beon.
I mean, that's why so much ofthis is going to be interesting
going into the midterms, becauseI still think it's going to be
(32:41):
an uphill battle for Republicans.
It just is.
There's just no way around that.
However, because things and ifthey continue to go well, and
because things have been just soclear in the opposition from
the other side, instead ofcoming up with alternatives or
saying, here and there, you knowwhat Trump did, that right, you
got that right.
We need to, we need to cometogether on that here.
That's not going to hurt you asa party.
(33:02):
You don't have to do that oneverything, but you can do it on
a few things, but when youdon't and you decide, we're
going to be the oppositionalparty, no matter what you just
look like the boy who cried wolfevery time and you're wrong.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
This is gonna cause kids to die mark.
Oh, that's right, people aregoing to die.
I mean, I sure this eu tradedeal people are gonna die well,
I know that.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
And the bbb, I mean the big beautiful bill.
People are dying in the streets.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Yeah, people are gonna die.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, no, I know they are, I know I know, I know, I
know it's absolutely true, butbut it is interesting.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Children's just read a children's book called People
Are Going to Die People.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Are Going to Die Kids .
Speaker 3 (33:36):
And the moral of the story is the Big Bad Wolf story
all over again, right?
But it was modernize it.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
One other thing on the economy that I want to run
by you in a great, great carrierof a message, and that's Josh
Hawley.
He's from Missouri.
I like him so much I bought acar in Missouri the other day.
Okay.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Just, I'm just saying I'm just telling you so anyway,
but that's not the point ofthis story, we'll see what state
you buy the next car from,cause.
This one will last about 20seconds.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Okay, let's let's not let's not open up the wounds of
our marriage to our listeners.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
So, josh, the only thing that's going to be the
demise of our marriage.
We divorced each other from carshopping, Remember we did.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Yeah, I know that on the show.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
a couple of shows about that.
You buy your cars, I buy mine.
I'm out.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
You stay out of my lane, I stay out of your lane.
No pun intended, but so this isyour purchase.
I know and I should I wouldlove to do a segment on the show
, by the way on, on car buyingand how it works now and I was
infuriated.
I went into a dealership in NewMexico and I kind of lost it on
them.
Oh, I lost it on them becausethey were trying to rip me off
and I was.
I've done this enough, like.
(34:50):
I know that I am like a cardealer Like I know the deal
right and they were trying torip me off and I was like what
would have happened if I hadbeen somebody who didn't know
what they were doing out here?
You would have taken an extra$20,000.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Yeah, welcome to the car.
It's off.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
It's not always that way, but anyway I'm sorry to
just take us down a ridiculousrabbit hole.
Go back to Okay.
So, josh, I think, is reallygreat.
However, he has come out andsuggested recently that there be
a $600 rebate check to everyAmerican because of how much
money we're getting from tariffs.
(35:26):
Okay, listen, I totallyunderstand what he's trying to
say, but this is a terrible idea.
We are in $37 trillion of debt.
We have to pay that off.
We have to pay that money backdown.
It's like the credit card okay.
This is the equivalent ofsaying mom and dad are in a
million dollars of debt.
We have an extra $50,000 that'scome in.
Let's go give the kids each 10grand.
(35:48):
You're like no, hey, kids,guess what?
We've been living too large asit is.
So take that money and pay downthe debt.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Okay, so again, just one of those things that he's
putting this up as a bill thatwill be voted on.
Is that right?
That's the latest Cause I knowit would have it would have to
be okay, you can't not.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
you know Trump just can't scratch that check to
people.
You have to pass that through.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
This isn't Trump's idea.
This is Josh Hawley, for therecord.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Trump suggested some willingness that he kind of
likes it.
This is kind of a Trump thing.
Trump would like this sort ofthing.
I just think we cannot affordto do this sort of thing.
We've got to pay down the debtgoing forward.
We owe it to our kids, we oweit to our grandkids.
Our leaders have beencompletely and totally
irresponsible.
I don't think this isirresponsible.
I just think we have to do whatwe have to do to pay down the
(36:33):
debt.
I don't love that.
Believe me, if we were in thestate of New Mexico with our
financial situation in thisstate, then I'm all for it,
because we don't have debt Right.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
That's why we don't have debt.
That's why we're in favor ofrebate checks for New Mexicans
right.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Or taking the income tax and suspending it because
you do not need the money rightnow.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
Right, because we have such a big budget.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Yes, and individually .
Not only we have big budget, wehave the money to pay it and we
have a big surplus.
So because we have that surplus, working in New Mexicans, a 5%
raise for every working NewMexican and we can absolutely
afford it.
How could you not do that?
Right, that should be done.
But this is different thefederal government's $37
trillion in debt pay it down.
(37:11):
So just one of those thingsthat when you hear about this, I
don't like it, and I know it'seasy for all Republicans to try
to get on the same page of this.
Don't do it, it's not smart.
Pay down the debt.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Yeah, okay, yeah, all right.
So I lived in LA for about 10years and I was pretty sucked in
, especially when you and Ifirst got married to all of
Hollywood and all of them.
I mean I had Oscar partiesevery year.
I had a subscription to UsWeekly for a while.
I did cancel that once I hadkids because I thought I should
not be spending my money on thisanymore.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Maybe a little pride Hello.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
No, I was interested in it.
I lived this life.
I represented celebrities, allthat kind of fun stuff.
So it was fun for a while itlasted.
But here's kind of a little bitof a news E News, which is a
pretty significant network, isshuttering their doors.
So basically this, what they'recalling, this golden error of
covering celebrity life on airanyway, is coming to an end.
(38:00):
So here's a little bit of, uh,what they had to say.
The demise of e-news, which willair its final TV broadcast on
September 25th, marks the latestnail in the cable TV's coffin.
But for a generation raised onthe daily cable shows addictive
formula of breaking Hollywoodheadlines and marathon red
carpet remotes, it signifiessomething much more it's the end
of the golden age for celebritynews.
(38:20):
Quote these are sadly just sodifferent these days because of
how television has shifted.
Notes Jason Kennedy, one of E'snew, longest tenured anchors,
having shared the desk withJulian Aranek from 2012 to 2019.
Not a lot of people come homeand watch news anymore,
especially on cable, becausethey can get it on social media.
Now they do watch news on cable, but they don't watch
necessarily celebrity news asmuch on cable anymore, because
(38:43):
you do, you can kind of get itin your Instagram feed.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
You kind of just see it, you know about it as quickly
as he does.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
Oh, I know.
I mean you know, we know whereTom Cruise was yesterday.
Yeah, because they put it out,you know bright and early.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
He was in Woodstock, Vermont.
I know he was in Vermont.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
Mark was very excited about that little piece of news
.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
But anyway.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Okay, some more entertainment news today.
I mean Ava's going to jump inon this a little bit too.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Yeah, we are going to talk about this and I, kind of
Ava, I have this in a, so Ithink the best thing we should
do.
So we're going to talk aboutthe Sydney Sweeney story.
Speaker 6 (39:13):
You want to play the ad first?
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Yeah, I think.
So I think we'll play a littlebit of the ad first, and so
there's a few different ads, oneI really actually like and then
the other one's just kind ofdifferent.
But let's start with clip 24,ava.
So this is the big debate here.
Sydney Sweeney is an actresswho I think you could fairly say
(39:38):
she's not somebody who takes onsuper you know, she's not
somebody who's taking on superdeep roles.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
She's not Meryl Streep, right, she's not Meryl
Streep.
She is a iconic model, likebeauty that is in shows like
white Lotus very popular.
Speaker 6 (39:51):
She got really.
She got really popular oneuphoria, where she's naked
every single episode, by the way.
Speaker 2 (39:57):
Okay, okay, well, yeah, there's no doubt she
definitely plays up um certainparts of of her assets, um, you
know, um.
So let's go with a couple ofthe ads first.
Okay, these are a few of themsort of linked up back to back
here, and this is for americaneagle.
Yes, is that right?
Okay, it's for american eaglewho makes clothing, I assume.
Okay, these are a few of themsort of linked up back to back
here, and this is for AmericanEagle.
Yes, is that right?
Okay, this is for AmericanEagle who makes clothing, I
(40:19):
assume.
Speaker 3 (40:19):
Yeah, your daughters love the store they're like
American Eagle, it's just astandard.
Speaker 6 (40:23):
They're owned by the same people who do Aerie, Banana
Republic, those kind of things.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
Okay, all right, good , so let's listen to Sydney
Sweeney.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
Parents to offspring, often determining traits like
hair color, personality and eveneye color.
Speaker 3 (40:42):
My jeans are blue.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
Sydney Sweeney has very jeans.
I'm not here to tell you to buyAmerican Eagle jeans, and I
definitely won't say thatthey're the most comfortable
jeans I've ever worn or thatthey make your butt look amazing
.
Speaker 5 (40:59):
Why would I need to do that?
But if you said that you wantto, buy the jeans.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
I'm not going to stop you, but just so we're clear,
this is not me telling you tobuy American Eagle jeans.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
Sydney Sweeney Hasbro jeans.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
You see what I did there, right?
Okay, let's stop right here,Eve, and we'll do one more, and
let's do clip 25, which isactually my favorite, which I
don't think she even speaks inthis one.
Speaker 7 (41:26):
It's the car, the car in it, is pretty amazing.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
So let's just hear this one too.
So let's just hear this one too.
If you can't see this, she'sjust getting into, I believe, a
Mustang.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
No, which is beautiful?
Speaker 2 (41:58):
OK, so let's talk about the controversy behind
this.
So we need to go back to yeah,we want you to see what the.
So those are the ads, basically, and they say sydney sweeney
has great jeans and and in someway she's talking about you know
, she's crossing different genes, she mentions her own like.
Speaker 6 (42:09):
She's beautiful, but she's also wearing good jeans
her dna and also her clothingher clothing right
Speaker 3 (42:14):
the play on jeans.
Speaker 6 (42:15):
Right, that's what they went with yes, and they do
spell it jeans, like the pantsyes, like they don't spell it
jeans like g-e-n-e-s, let's,let's watch this uh, good
morning america.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
Because they're happy to jump all over this story of
what happens.
And it shows where she's, on abillboard and she is scratching
out that her name says sydney shas good genes.
G-e-n-e-s scratches it out andspells jeans like what you like,
dungarees like what you wear.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Time to check the polls.
We begin with the backlash overa new ad campaign featuring
actress Sydney Sweeney.
Speaker 4 (42:48):
The ads are for American Eagle and the tagline
is Sydney Sweeney has greatgenes American Eagle and the
tagline is Sydney Sweeney hasgreat genes.
Now, in one ad, the blondehaired, blue eyed actress talks
about genes, as in DNA, beingpassed down from her parents.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
The play on words is being compared to Nazi
propaganda with racialundertones.
The pun good genes activates atroubling historical
associations for this country.
The American eugenics movement,in its prime between like 1900
and 1940, weaponized the idea ofgood genes just to justify
(43:25):
white supremacism.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
Despite that backlash , American Eagle stock has been
soaring.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
Okay, I love American Eagle stock has been soaring.
Okay, here's the thing aboutthis.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
Okay.
So it's not just the today showor a good morning America that
threw this out.
There's other commentators nowthat are all like basically
calling Sweeney and I guess, thebrand a supremacist, white
supremacist.
Right, like, how dare shepromote her jeans Cause she's
white, blue eyed and blonde hair?
(43:55):
Right, like heaven forbid.
We're supposed to forget thesepeople, me being one of them,
although I have green eyes.
But we're still supposed toforget us, right, like we're
forgotten, right, because we'renot popular.
In the last five years We'vekind of been shunned and so,
basically, this, this marketingapproach is hey, we're going to
bring back somebody that is in alot of the top hit shows right
now, that is known as being avery attractive person, a model
(44:16):
like quality, and putting her injeans that we want teenage
girls to go out and to buy.
Right, that's what they'redoing.
They're trying to find exactlywhat every advertiser used to do
Find somebody that teenagerswant to go by.
Now, it has nothing to do withthe fact that she's white.
I'm sorry, this is ridiculous.
She's not.
She's not a white supremacist.
Just because she's white andshe's beautiful doesn't mean
(44:39):
that she's it.
All she thinks about is allbeauty is just coming from being
white and blonde haired.
I am sorry.
I think this is ridiculous, thefact that they connected those
things to Nazi Germany or NaziWell look, this is a professor
from Keene University.
Oh my gosh.
Talk about a reach and tryingto find some sort of bridge.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Oh, and it's a lot of people doing it.
Oh, I know there's a lot ofpeople doing it.
Speaker 3 (45:01):
And I'm just like I'm sorry I guess this just falls
really short with me, cause I'mlike American Eagle has used
plenty of beautiful models ofall colors, all colors right In
their all colors, right in theirads, right this isn't like hey,
we're promoting her becauseshe's a white girl like that.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
Sorry that has nothing to do.
Speaker 6 (45:18):
Okay, okay, ava.
Okay, a couple things that Iwould.
First.
One thing that I want to add isralph lauren uh, published an
ad at the same time as thisamerican eagle ad.
So a lot of the time that this,that this controversy is
happening, ralph lorenz ad isall black people and it's like
this really new beautiful lineof clothing they're doing, but
everyone in the ad commercialsis black.
People are saying like, oh,this is what they were supposed
to do.
That's why this American Eaglead is so white supremacist
(45:40):
because they put it out at thesame time as the Ralph Lauren ad
.
I think that's stupid.
I don't think this is whitesupremacy.
I think it's dumb to call itthat and I think it minimizes
the issue.
The real issue, I would say, iswe should not not be advertising
to teenage girls like this.
It does two things itencourages boys to view girls
this way, in this like deeplysexual, objectifying manner.
I don't appreciate it.
I think it's gross, I'mdisturbed.
(46:04):
And it encourages teenage girlsto view themselves like this,
as objects to be desiredsexually.
That disturbs me to no end,especially because Sydney
Sweeney got famous playing a 16year old in high school who is
like so out about her sexualityand it's disgusting, it's
disturbing.
She's done ads like this forbody wash.
I don't like that.
I don't like when we advertiseto women like this, where we say
, first of all, it also showscompanies, you can make a lot of
(46:25):
money If you hire a woman whowill overtly parade herself as
some object of sexual desire andpeople will buy your clothes.
I think that's gross.
People complain that kidsaren't being kids anymore.
This is why it's exactly partof the reason why we advertise
to young people and tell them toover-sexualize themselves.
I think it's gross, I think it'sdisturbing, I think that's what
(46:47):
she should be facing backlashfor, and I think she should be
ashamed of herself.
Oh whoa.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
Okay, I mean, did you see her dr squash ad?
Like no, okay, ave.
Here's the thing about thisparticular let's stay in the
same lane.
Okay, she's not being crucifiedfor being overly sexualized
sometimes, but no, that's notwhat.
Not with this particular ad,okay, this controversy is not
about her sexuality.
This is about her being a whitegirl and putting in, doing the
(47:13):
play on jeans and and trying toconnect that to some sort of
Nazi regime messaging which isdumb, which we don't have to
give it, okay.
But I would say like, listen, I,I, I hate to burst your bubble,
but the sexy bombshell icon hasbeen around in advertising
since the beginning of time.
Okay, and we are humans who dofind attractiveness.
(47:35):
I mean, there is a certain kindof beauty.
It's not based on skin tone,it's like, and I, and obviously
I was not born a model.
I know everybody thinks youknow, I know you think I was bad
, but I'm just kidding, I'm justsaying beauty comes in all
forms, okay.
Speaker 4 (47:49):
That's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 3 (47:50):
It comes in all forms , but this, this classical
beauty, like you know, like yourface, is angular, I don't know
there's all these rules rightAbout, like model beauty, like
Cindy Crawford's of the day andBrooke Shields.
There's a reason that thosepeople have been put in ads over
and over and over.
And so I think coming at thisgirl, this young girl, and
calling her Nazi or calling thebrand, whatever related to that,
(48:14):
is a massive overreach andmissing the whole point of she's
a beautiful girl and she'sselling some jeans.
Speaker 6 (48:22):
No, she's not a beautiful girl selling some
jeans.
She's a beautiful girlmarketing herself as a sex
object to sell jeans.
We have models who wear jeans,who are beautiful.
That's different than beinglike buy my jeans, my boobs are
big.
That's stupid.
Whoa, whoa, everybody.
Now we're going to get off intothe.
It makes me really mad.
It makes me really angry.
Speaker 2 (48:42):
I don't appreciate it .
No, ava, I, uh, I think so.
Here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
So, ava, as I'm listening toyour moral outrage, I am I start
realizing that my position onthis was going to be untenable
following yours.
So I'm going to say I agree,ava, let's stop this garbage
right now.
(49:02):
We don't need women playing uptheir sexuality to sell things.
Speaker 6 (49:08):
So I am with you, I'm supporting you.
I genuinely do believe that.
Speaker 2 (49:13):
No, ava, I think it's an interesting case and I like
that you made it and you made itvery well and I would say that
I think for the most part here.
I think when you see somethinglike that, I agree and, believe
me, the older you get actually,the more you realize.
When you see real talent andI'm not talking about Sydney
Sweeney, I don't know her fromanything, she's not very good
(49:40):
from anything, right but whenyou see people that truly have
real talent, whether it be inmusic or acting or or whatever
business, whatever, whatever awoman you see that has this
talent, you appreciate that muchmore than than purely their,
their looks and and using yourlooks to to to sell things to
young people.
Agreed, but it does happen andI think that we are a society
that does appreciate that.
And it is the world we live inand it is one that I don't think
is necessarily bad all the time.
But I agree, I found some of thestuff she saw and I actually
(50:01):
didn't pull a couple of the onesthat were a little more racy
and I was pretty uncomfortablewith it too.
So I think her deal and herwhole shtick.
I'm not a huge fan of it either, but I don't think it's
something to be proud of and Idon't think it's something
necessarily that is great.
(50:23):
But I also think it's a freecountry and I don't want to be
the country despite my spiritualbeliefs.
I don't want to be the countrythat's this or in and acts as
the morality police all the time.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
Well, it sounds weird to say but no, and I also just
think that what we've seen inadvertising the last five years
has gotten very far away fromthis ad.
Okay, so we have gone adifferent route.
We have shown all differentkinds of looks and feels for
that is true, you're right.
Speaker 2 (50:51):
We're not getting the sexcapades on these ads very
often, right?
That's true.
Speaker 3 (50:55):
It is coming back a little bit more to what worked
in the 70s and the 80s and the90s.
That's what they're tryingagain and I just think you know,
at the end of the day, there'scertain products that are going
to be more appealing.
If somebody that has got, asyou said, assets in those jeans,
right, then then uh, then otherthings, so like they're still
marketing a product, their jobis to still sell something,
(51:17):
right, whether you agree withthat or disagree with that.
Hopefully, I mean, we've taughtthe girls like no midriffs, you
gotta.
Speaker 5 (51:23):
You can't show your bra straps, like we had all
these rules of them growing upthat we held the line.
Speaker 3 (51:28):
I don't care what's in the advertising, I'm just
defending the fact that thatthis is an ad that is not
racially motivated, we agree.
Speaker 6 (51:37):
That is what the argument is.
I would say we have to.
No, you're right, you're right,that's what I'm arguing about.
Yeah, that's true, we agree.
I would clarify my position onelast time and just say I think
we need to go back toappreciating beauty in
advertisements versus glorifyinglust.
Those are very different things.
I think in this ad it's very,it's lustful and that grosses me
out.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
Okay, I think it's different if she's in the ad and
she's like I'm wearing jeans,but that's not what's happening,
okay.
Well, that's a fair assessment.
That's fair, that's a very fairassessment.
Okay, ava, good job.
Thanks, seriously Nice.
Speaker 3 (52:09):
Way to bring the juice today You're in the bull.
I have an opinion on theSweeney story.
We're like okay come on in.
Speaker 2 (52:14):
It looks like we just got it right between the eyes.
Speaker 3 (52:16):
Okay, well, that is it for us today.
Thank you so much for tuning inagain you guys.
Please just like and subscribeon our YouTube channel.
It really does a lot for us.
If you're worried about notgetting the videos for some
reason, like you think it'smaybe getting stomped down or
something sign up for thoseemails.
We only send you two emails aweek with a link to each show
and we kind of keep you up todate on any news that is going
(52:38):
on with Mark and I.
So thanks you guys so much forjoining us.
We appreciate all the feedback.
Keep those comments coming andhave a great rest of your week.
Speaker 5 (52:45):
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.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it Podcastis a Choose Adventure Media
(53:08):
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
There is no doubt about it.
All right, we've got a little problem here on the
Wednesday Thursday edition ofthe no Doubt About it podcast.
Many of you who are marriedknow this that when you have a
wardrobe situation where you arewearing the warm wardrobe, your
wife is wearing the coldwardrobe, there's a massive
problem.
The warm wardrobe, your wife iswearing the cold wardrobe
(00:27):
there's a massive problem.
Summer wardrobe.
See, the problem is this I needthe air down to about 48 in
here because I somehow got intomy Winter wear.
Yeah, it's not even winter wear, but yeah, no, I'm with you.
I'm with you and you aredressed appropriately.
Yes, I am, and therefore I havecontrol of the studio nest.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Yeah, not cool, I went and turned it up because it
was freezing in here and I gotit back up to like 72 for a
minute, just because I hope thatit gets us back to like I don't
know 64 in here, right?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
right.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Meanwhile you come in here and crank it back down.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
It's like we're going to be blue, I'm going to have
blue lips.
I'm going to black out fromheat stroke if I don't keep it
low.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Well, here's a fresh tip Dress for the season guy.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I know, I know that's a problem.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I mean wearing a thermal hoodie.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Okay, before you tell everybody what's going to
happen here on the no DoubtAbout it today, a couple quick
breaking news things, justbecause I want to throw them out
there.
And is first we got the KamalaHarris saying she's not going to
run for governor of California.
I know you were dying to knowthat news, Mark.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Edge of my seat.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
It literally just broke, so I just want to make
sure everybody's aware.
I don't know what her big plansare, but it is not to run for
the governor of California.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
And then the Federal Reserve.
We were all kind of waiting tosee if they're going to cut
their interest rates or not.
That also just came down andsaid that they are actually not
going to cut it right now andthat they have made no decisions
about September yet.
So it'll be interesting to kindof see where that ends up going
, if it's going to One of some alittle thing here.
I saw on X just as we werestarting the show.
(01:57):
It says stressed that thecurrent policy stance leaves
them well positioned.
Growth is moderating, mostlydue to weaker consumer spending.
Inflation remains somewhatelevated, the housing market is
weak and tariffs are starting topush up prices on specific
goods.
Powell also pointed out thatconsumers and retailers take on
most of the tariff burden, soI'm not really sure about that.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, okay, well, actually growth looks very good.
We'll get into that in a second.
I'm not an economist, but thisis just strange that they were
cutting rates at the end of theBiden administration toward the
election, and then now theysuddenly are like, oh no, we got
to watch out for all this.
Yeah, if he had been thatconcerned about inflation when
Biden was president, maybe wewouldn't be in the spot that
(02:40):
we're in.
But guess what?
He had no clue, had no idea itwas coming.
It's hard to take some of theseguys sometimes, and I know
Jerome Powell has expertisebeyond anything I've ever
studied.
So I don't pretend to know whatJerome Powell knows, but I do
know that far too often what hehas said is going to happen
never happens.
And when he says you know wedon't, we're okay on inflation,
(03:01):
it's transitory, you couldn'thave been more wrong, I mean.
And it cost millions ofamericans a ton of money and
we're still making up for it.
Now.
We still have interest ratesthat are sky high, that had to
be raised the way they were todeal with that inflation because
he was wrong.
And now he won't cut the rates.
(03:22):
Okay, I don't get it and Iunderstand some of Trump's
frustration with this, and thehousing market is slowing down.
That's a reason to cut rates,not to not cut rates.
I guess I don't know.
I'm just a simple meteorologist, I don't know these things.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
You are a homeowner and we have thought about moving
.
And we can't seem to even thinkabout that because interest
rates are still so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
I mean, you get less house for your money.
Go look at the number of houseson market Now.
Albuquerque is a little bitdifferent, but still there are
still more and more housescoming online.
People can't afford it, Right?
I mean, you got more and morepeople moving into apartments
because they have these.
The rates are so high, thegovernment debts and other thing
nobody talks about, but we'repaying massive amounts on debt
(04:07):
because they continue to keeprates high.
So I don't know.
I just think it's crazy.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Okay, well, I mean, it wasn't even a story today.
No, I know, I guess we'remaking it a quick story.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
I just found his little comment like I'm not
going to cut rates because thehousing market's softening.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I'm like that seems like a reason to cut rates.
But it's just things he'swatching.
He said it wasn't a directquote by him saying the housing
market was softening.
He just it was.
It's led to believe that hethat's some of what people are
thinking he's doing is they'retrying to guess why he keeps
holding onto that.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
No, he's tough to guess.
I mean, he's captain transitory.
I mean I don't know if hisphilosophy is transitory or just
our money becomes transitory tosomebody else because we
continue to just outlay it here,but whatever.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Okay, why don't you give us a quick rundown of what
we're going to see on today'sshow?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Yeah, so right out of the shoot here, this whole
redistricting thing andgerrymandering thing that we
talked about last show, yeah,the last episode.
It's not going anywhere.
This is crazy.
So so actually, a Texasdelegation has come to New
Mexico, which I am ready.
I am going to compliment thesepeople.
By the way, democrats fromTexas have come to New Mexico to
(05:13):
meet with Michelle LujanGrisham and I have a compliment
for them on the way, and a bigone at that.
No, I'm serious about that.
Then Melanie Stansbury isjumping in.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
She's talking about the issue hey, you know how we
feel about Mel.
We love listening to all herviral videos.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
There's nothing.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
I want to listen to more in Stansberry talking to
people on X with her littleviral videos.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Listen, she is once again the performative efforts
and the dulcet tones of MelanieStansberry hit us again, so
we'll talk about that Great.
We're also going to talk abouta Ivy league school which
actually put together a websitewhich said which States are the
most severely gerrymandered,meaning which States have
congressional cutouts so thatone party wins over the other.
(05:55):
I wonder where New Mexico rings.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
We'll see.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
We'll see what happens with that.
We'll have some of coursefeedback from our erstwhile
viewers.
Deb Holland.
Yeah, we have some of coursefeedback from our erstwhile
viewers.
Deb holland.
Yeah, we got problems for got alittle ding.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
She got a little ding , got a little ding.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
We'll see what happens a setback for deb with
showboat sam.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Yeah, and the showboat's high stepping it oh
yeah, he's excited, he's got hishat on.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Yes you know it, you know it, and we, he may have a
different costume on after thisendorsement.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Oh, I think so, please don't please, sam, do not
put on this costume because youwill get ridiculed.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
No, no, no he doesn't , he doesn't care, he's going to
put it on, all right.
So, by the way, the US economy,has it grown Well?
According to Powell, maybe not,but actually we have some
numbers to say otherwise.
And then we'll get into the EUdeal on tariffs, which was a big
, big win for Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
And we'll tell you why.
We'll explain a bit why thattrade deal is so good.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, very true.
And there's a mediaorganization that is going belly
up and then we're going to hitthe Sidney Sweeney controversy.
Oh, yeah, okay.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
A new gene ad.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
A new gene ad, so we should really care about that.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Everybody's getting all well it is.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
People are talking about it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
It is ridiculous, so we have to put our two cents
into it.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Of course we do.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Okay, so the gerrymandering episode blew up.
People were very interested inthe last episode because the
hypocrisy that was flying out ofthese New Mexico leaders
telling other states how toavoid gerrymandering in their
states, so the democratic partydoesn't lose some strength in
(07:26):
those states.
We really hit that on the lastepisode.
It took off, but unbelievablyso.
We have a fresh story for you.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, no, so Texas, which is right now fighting
gerrymandering.
So what did Texas decide to do?
Texas Democrats got in thesuburban, they left Texas and
they came to New Mexico to meetwith none other than Michelle
Lujan Grisham.
And let me tell you somethingthis is amazing.
These Texas Democrats are likewait a minute.
(07:54):
If we're going to understandhow gerrymandering works, we're
going to go to the MichaelJordan of gerrymandering, and
that is Michelle Lujan Grisham,and I give them credit for that,
if you're trying to find outhow gerrymandering and that is
Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Igive him credit for that.
If you're trying to find out howgerrymandering works, go to the
person who gerrymandered theliving heck out of her own state
.
So you're like hey champ, whatdo we do?
(08:15):
How does this work?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
And then how do we get a hundred percent
representation by one party?
How do?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
we eliminate the other party.
How do we do?
Speaker 3 (08:21):
this how do we do that?
By drawing, or how do?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
we fight this, the party that's trying to eliminate
us.
Give us some background.
So here is how it all brokedown.
Okay, so this is some quote.
First quote from the journalarticle from Dan Boyd, by the
way.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Okay, a delegation of seven Texas house Democrats met
with Michelle Lujan Grisham formore than an hour MJ Grisham.
Oh yeah, mj.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
MJ, mj, mlg.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
MJ.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
MJ, mj, mlg.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yes, okay, mj MLG.
Yes.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
For more than an hour amid a redistricting fight
that's drawn national headlines.
After emerging from the closeddoor meeting, the Democrats said
they're trying to buildalliances with high profile
quote friends around the nationwho support their cause.
Okay, Okay, Going on.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Yeah, keep going.
That doesn't mean anything, butgo ahead.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
With Republicans holding a comfortable majority
in both legislative chambers inTexas, Democrats have limited
options when it comes to tryingto block the redistricting
proposal.
Meanwhile, the Tuesday sit-downwith Lujan Grisham took place
after Texas Democrats heldsimilar meetings in recent days
with none other than CaliforniaGovernor Gavin Newsom, also a
(09:24):
fellow gerrymanderer and theMagic Johnson of gerrymandering.
Speaker 6 (09:28):
Governor.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
JB Pritzker.
Oh yes, that's the Bill Russellof gerrymandering.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
So yes, these guys are fantastic.
All the coaches get together,All the teams.
They're like pulling in all theplayers.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
The best players of all time, this is what you do.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
This is how you do it .
This is how you manipulate thevote in your state.
This is how you do it.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I mean this is I give these Texas politicians credit.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah, because they knew where to go they knew where
to go.
Yeah, they don't come to us foreducation.
They don't come with us on howdo you fight crime, hell.
No, they don't come to us onhow do you build more jobs in
your state.
Don't you dare how tomanipulate the state so it's
their party, unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Here comes Magic Johnson.
Let's ask Magic Johnson,newsome what to do.
And, honestly, larry Bird,pritzker I mean all of them,
whatever they're the best, okay,keep going.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Okay, but here's the thing.
Then they just said they'regoing to have this press
conference.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yes, I love it.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
So this is what really did crack me up, because
she'll meet with him, right, butthen she won't have a press
conference about it.
She's not going to attend thepress conference, ok well, this
is what she says yeah, go ahead.
Because this is her playing hercards, right Right.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Lujan Grisham did not attend the news conference
alongside the Texas Democrats,but said in a statement she
supports their efforts.
Quote After meeting with Texaslawmakers today, I share their
concerns about redistricting andthe assault on fair
representation.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Rich coming from her.
She cares about that now.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
Quote yeah, these dedicated state legislators are
understandably doing everythingpossible to remind states
everywhere that this isn't howdemocracy is supposed to work.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
What the threat to democracy is back, unless it's
her, and I'm sorry you've doneit in our state.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
I mean, what is?
You have 100% representation onthe Democratic side in our
state, on a national.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
She signed it.
She worked with the legislatureto do it.
They worked hand in glove,right, okay, they worked hand in
glove and she did it.
And then she turns around andsays everybody's too stupid to
know this, but I'm just going togo ahead and shoot it back.
But I will say this about herthis is why there are different
levels of politicians, okay, andthere are different levels of
leaders, and I know this isn'tgoing to make me popular with
(11:33):
our listeners, but Michelle LuanGrisham is not the same level
as Melanie Stansberry, teresaLedger Fernandez or the other
Joker down South.
Okay, because you didn't make avideo on it.
Yes, she didn't show up at thepress conference because she's
not a moron.
Yeah, like she just was.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
Like, I'm not gonna do that I mean, but I'm gonna
put up this ridiculous of course, the statement's ridiculous,
but she doesn't care yeah,nobody's reading that.
Yeah, she's hoping nobody,actually nobody's paying any
attention.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
So she's being supportive, but not being a
total hypocritical.
You know nutbag who's like wellyou.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
It'd be fascinating, though, is if she, if if any of
our press members here locallycould just go ahead and respond
back to her and ask her aboutthis statement, and maybe just
call her, put her on the spotand say are you kidding me?
Speaker 2 (12:14):
This is a very fair point and I was talking to a
friend of mine today about thisand saying where are our news
stations, where are ourtelevision stations?
Going to every one of thesepeople saying what are you
talking about?
Look at what you have done,look at what you signed on for
and look how you're speaking now, you hypocritical fool.
(12:34):
But none of them are doing it.
None of them.
So don't tell me that.
Believe me, if we had done thesame thing and if a Republican
had done the same thing and itwas a similar issue of some kind
, they would be getting eatenalive right now.
Every day.
They'd commence.
Well, we don't have answers onthis.
We're going to keep chasingthis down and they don't say a
darn thing.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Well, you know, what would be a fascinating viral
campaign for this potentially isif we could get the Republicans
in our state like the vetheralds of the world.
Those folks make the responseback videos of these and be like
this is how gerrymandering workand I know it worked because I
lost my seat because of it andhave her explain the map that
way is a direct contradiction towhat these yo-hos are going
(13:13):
into other states and talkingabout what they should be doing
in their states.
Let's just look at this primeexample by Ms Stansberry,
because it's excellent.
She's over there telling peoplein Missouri what they should be
doing in their state.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Well, and she's.
She's just so you know thevideo.
She's talking to RepresentativeWesley Bell, who is a
representative, I think, fromsuburban St Louis, ish, or maybe
right in St Louis.
So he's the one standing inwith her and they're laying it
down.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Why would they go after Missouri?
Speaker 7 (13:44):
and they're laying it down.
Why would they go afterMissouri?
Well, missouri is a right.
Now our legislature has alreadybeen gerrymandered to where
there's a supermajority in ourhouse, in the House, senate, and
obviously in the governor'soffice.
And so, and when you look atKansas City, if you were trying
(14:04):
to gerrymander, considering it'ssurrounded by what are
historically, more recently,been Republican, Republican
districts, it could conceivablyhappen.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
It could conceivably happen.
By the way, you can see howcareful he's being why?
Because it's probably not goingto happen and he knows this,
but he said it anyway.
But listen to what he saidthere.
They have gerrymanderedMissouri to the point where they
have a super majority, or anear super majority.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
That's New Mexico too, believeit or not?
And in fact, when you look atwhere we were and where we are,
(14:43):
it's ridiculous.
So just one more littlereminder, like this is the map
from before the censusAlbuquerque is CD1.
The southern part of New Mexicois CD2.
And the northern part of NewMexico is CD3.
And then the legislature saidwe will never let that happen
again.
We are going to make sureRepublicans don't get any
(15:04):
representation.
So this is map two, the mapwhich splits southeastern New
Mexico into three differentcongressional districts, so they
can disenfranchise Republicanvoters.
Remember, michelle did this.
All the Democrats in the stateof New Mexico signed on for this
.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Ok, so to listen to them speak about it, and it was
held up by judges.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
And it absolutely, because, again, the Supreme
Court of the State of New Mexicois a rubber stamp, so you do
not have representation.
And again, here's what I wouldsay on this.
I say it all the time the stateis not served well by one party
in complete and total control.
It isn't worked.
We're number one in crime, wein total control.
It hasn't worked.
We're number one in crime.
(15:46):
We're last in qualityhealthcare, we're last in
education.
It's devastating.
And it's devastating becausethere's no accountability and
bad ideas get to just run likewildfire.
And that's exactly where we are.
And we're not the only ones whothink this.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
No, so there was a little report card put together,
um about uh, from PrincetonOkay, which talks about what
states have gerrymandered themost or the best, I guess, or
however who's?
The professional gerrymanderswho is the professional
gerrymanders of their state, ina way to do this right guess who
is the top dog?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
well, I don't know we're top, are we top dog?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
well, we're pretty top dog.
I mean look at this report card.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Okay, we are right there we got a D or an F, it
looks like.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Yeah, D or an F.
That means that we basicallydon't have an equal playing
field in our state.
If you want to run for bothparties, it is not even close to
being equal.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
And I want to show you something here that's kind
of interesting.
Go ahead and leave that up, ava, for a second.
Okay, and I think what aboutthis is that you have certain
states that don't do this sortof thing.
Okay, they don't do this, andyou know why they don't do.
It is because they tend to havea little more of a balanced
representation.
You understand what I mean.
Like, when you don't have abalanced representation, you
(16:56):
have one party that controlseverything, it can lead to these
sorts of things, and it isn'tjust a democratic problem.
Texas has been beengerrymandered absolutely, and it
is a republican state.
Florida has been gerrymanderedto some degree, and it is a
republican state.
Now, there are plenty of otherdemocratic states that have been
gerrymandered as well.
Oregon's a great example aswell.
(17:16):
But point being in all this newmexico well, if you take our
individual report card, theworst grade we get is for we,
how we break down thecongressional seats, and that's
where we get the big old D weget a D.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
We get a D Now, but go back to that first one.
I wanted to throw in somethingthere, ava.
So what's interesting islooking at California being
yellow, it says better thanaverage, with some bias.
Okay, jd Vance tweeted today.
Today he says the gerrymanderin California is outrageous.
Of their 52 congressionaldistricts, nine of them are
Republicans.
That means 17% of theirdelegation is Republican.
(17:51):
When Republicans regularly win40% of the vote in that state,
how can this possibly be?
Speaker 2 (17:56):
less than half Right, and that's the point Ledger
Fernandez was making when wetalked about last week, those
numbers.
And so, and he's absolutelyright, and, by the way, this,
this Princeton study, it skewsleft.
By the way, if you start todive into the numbers it
actually skews really far left.
And in fact they give us in NewMexico a B for our house
breakdown of our individualstate house seats.
(18:18):
That deserves an F.
By the way, senate's not quiteas bad.
Senate probably deserves a Cand they gave it an A.
So you know again, we're notsaying this Princeton thing is
right down the middle, but eventhe Princeton study says yeah,
congressionally you get a D.
Yeah, Because you absolutelydid everything you could to
eliminate the other party.
So, again that that made for alot of reaction in the show we
(18:41):
did on.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Oh, reaction in the show we did on Sunday.
Oh my gosh, we got so manycomments.
I mean we appreciate all ofthem.
I couldn't take the time toread all of them in, but I did
pull a few today just becausethis ties into this furthering
of the story a little bit.
So Kathleen wrote in thanks somuch for your explanation of the
gerrymandering that has gone onin New Mexico.
As a relatively new residenthere, I had some understanding
of this, but the map andspecifics were elucidating.
I so appreciate your podcastand hope that your audience
grows even more.
All New Mexicans can benefitfrom the takes that you two have
.
As an independent voter and anindependent thinker, I salute
(19:10):
you.
So thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
We love notes like that, because the last thing we
want to be is a honk, for, youknow, conservatives or
Republicans or whatever you know.
Anytime we can give youinformation, and sometimes it's
stuff we don't even like saying.
By the way, we're going to haveone of those things here in a
second.
But.
But we always want to be honestwith you and I think there's a
terrible idea floating out thereby Republicans and we're going
to get to it in just a second.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Yeah, and, by the way , mark and I don't always agree
ourselves on the same topics, sowe have no problem.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Yeah, you're not right, oh by the way, anyway.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Okay, so the atomic mom she wrote a very long one
and I did save this one becauseI thought this was interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
It definitely furthers the story only atomic
mom okay, I know she, but shewas thorough and she did some
investigative work and I, likeshe does great she's great okay,
she says about thegerrymandering in 2020, when
nevette harold beat um socialtour is small
Speaker 3 (20:08):
thank you.
The then speaker of the newmexico house, briangoff, was
quoted in the Santa Fe NewMexican that the Democrats would
make sure that no Republicanwould ever win CD2 again.
He walked it back the next day,but still he said it.
Then came 2020 and the census,which then allowed the state to
redistrict.
The Democrats did exactly whatthey said, that they were going
to do gerrymander so that aRepublican could never win that
(20:29):
district again, could never winthat district again.
Not many people also rememberback in 2010-2011, when Susana
Martinez was governor, theDemocrats tried a similar stunt
with redistricting.
For example, house District 43,los Alamos County was going to
be split off into threedifferent house districts, the
center of which were in Rio RibaCounty, santa Fe County and
Sandoval County.
Talk about taxation withoutrepresentation.
(20:51):
Back then, los Alamos was seenas a center-right stronghold.
Thankfully, our representativeat the time, jim Hall, fought to
keep District 43 together.
Governor Martinez eventuallyvetoed this effort, saying that
the map the Democrats had comeup with was going to
unnecessarily divide communitiesand pit communities against
each other.
And, as you said, the nextgovernor is going to be very
important if we ever want to tryand humpty dumpty back out of
(21:13):
this again.
And this is she out of this.
Here's the exact quote fromBrian Egoff in the Santa Fe New
Mexican on gerrymandering.
It said quote after RepublicanCongresswoman elect Yvette
Harrell's blowout victory overDemocrat Thank you.
In New Mexico's secondcongressional district,
democratic Speaker of the HouseBrian Egoff has already begun
(21:33):
his power grab.
He announced that he will tryto turn the tides in his favor
by heavily gerrymandering thedistricts to help the Democrats
in.
Yeah.
So I mean, I just we've done it.
We, they did it, they saidthey're going to do it.
They did it and now they'releading um press, you know press
events and meetings behindclosed doors to teach other
states how to try to do this.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Well, and so I think it's very clear, and this is why
representation in the state,whether it be your governor,
your legislature, everybodybeing of one party, it does not
serve you well.
It hasn't served the state verywell at all over the past 80
years.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
It just hasn't.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
Yeah, we don't have anything to really buy about.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Yeah, when you have two different parties fighting
it out and holding each otheraccountable, you just get better
government.
You do, you do, and you justdon't see that here now, and so
we'll see how it all shakes out.
But it is definitely somethingthat is getting a lot of
attention and I think it's goingto continue to grab a lot of
attention.
I just think our leaders owe usenough respect.
(22:27):
Just, I get, you've done whatyou've done.
There's no reason to go out andrub people's faces.
In the fact that you go and tryto lecture people and wag your
finger, you just end up lookinglike a phony and so and maybe
they don't care, and I thinkthey probably don't.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
They don't care.
They also think that peoplewon't know.
And again, you got to keep inmind Teresa Fernandez, ledger,
ledger Fernandez, melanieStansbury.
They're all just looking fortheir next election.
So they're trying to stayvibrant and on the videos and
they want to be relevant andthey're trying to keep their
face and their image out there.
Meanwhile, they're hopingyou're so dumb that you didn't
figure out what they did.
(23:01):
They were part of thisthemselves in 2021.
So again, it's like wake up,people and remember what
happened in 2021.
Pay attention to what thesepeople are actually trying to
get you to.
I guess not believe or not notbelieve your own eyes, something
like that.
Okay, so Deb Holland not notgoing uh, not going quite the
way that she had thought, Ithink with this more most recent
(23:24):
endorsement.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Well, we'll see what happens.
This is from Axios and andwe'll just read you one of the
quotes here Deb Holland has lostan endorsement from a Native
American tribe, the Sandia tribein northern Albuquerque.
They are a significant tribebut not in numbers.
There are not many Sandiamembers, there are 500 or so.
They don't matter electorallyin the respective number of
(23:48):
people, but obviously it's amassive juggernaut financially
because they have the mostlucrative casino in the States
and they have decided that theyare going to endorse.
Sam Bregman.
Showboat has gotten himself anendorsement here.
Now it's pretty early on and Ithink he'll get some more.
To be honest with you, and thethought process here and first
(24:10):
of all Axios, I think kind ofincorrectly assesses the
situation here.
But I'll say that the tribesacross New Mexico are varied in
their approaches.
There are conservative tribeswho will endorse not only
conservative Democrats butRepublicans, and that will help
Republicans and some will onlyhelp Democrats, like it just
(24:30):
depends and you would expectthat that they have different
interests, they have differentchallenges in many ways, and so
this is something that forHolland, being a member of the
Laguna Pueblo, is this somethingthat hurts her greatly?
I don't think it necessarilydoes.
I'm not a believer thatendorsements mean much.
Usually they usually don't, youknow, sometimes they can, but
(24:54):
but an endorsement like this Idon't think is going to be a
game changer.
But is this a little somethingthat makes you say Deb Holland
is a, could be a paper tiger,and we've said that from the
very beginning, that that shecould totally collapse.
It could absolutely happen andshowboat could walk in?
Um, I still don't think it'sgoing to happen, but I do think
that it's interesting and if I'mDeb Holland I'm probably
(25:15):
concerned about this.
But we'll just have to wait andsee.
But they did issue a prettystrong statement and I think
that's the most interesting partis how strong the statement was
from Sandia.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
It says.
At a time when Native Americansacross the country are
demanding justice andrepresentation, Sam is the only
candidate who has consistentlyshown up and delivered.
That was said by chavez in astatement to axios.
I might disagree with him onthat, but okay, yeah um, but
yeah so anyway, they made afairly strong statement, so
we'll see I think this is kindof a reach by axios, one of
these bullets I just want tomention it says it's also a
(25:50):
state where native americanvoters can swing a close
election, I mean maybe in aprimary, depending on what that
turnout looks like.
But I, yeah, I feel like that'sa little bit of an overreach on
that on that.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Well, I guess it depends on how close the
election is.
I mean, yeah, is it like?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
is it like 20 votes?
Speaker 2 (26:04):
yeah, absolutely no no, it's you know, and that's
that's one of the things.
That's that's always beentricky, I think, for both
parties to figure out.
How can you motivate a lot ofthe Native American vote to get
out and not only support you butthen advocate for their own
causes with you and to stayengaged and to make sure that
you can do what needs to be doneto better their lives?
(26:26):
And sometimes there's somefrustration because, you know,
especially on sides of manytribes who say, wait a minute,
you know you, especially on onsides of of many tribes who say,
wait a minute, you know youguys show up during election
season.
You don't show up any othertime.
You know, how do you expectpeople to believe in you if we
never see you?
So that's a fair.
So there is a a kind of amiddle ground in there that
needs to be reached to continueto engage native Americans.
(26:47):
Are they a big swing vote inthe state?
No, they're not.
So Axios' line there isprobably a throwaway line.
They just thought it was seemslike it should be true.
But I think over time if youdid engage more and more Native
American voters, you saw some ofthose voters shift right, no
question in the lastpresidential election.
Speaker 5 (27:05):
They did.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
That's just a fact.
You can look it up, and so thisis something to think about and
to engage them more, but we'llsee what happens with this.
This will not be the only tribethat endorses Bregman.
They're not going to be theonly tribe but again you know we
have a lot of Pueblos andtribes in the state, so I don't
think this tells you much yet.
But when it comes into and JeffTucker sent me this from the
(27:27):
journal and he's like so youready to pay up?
Speaker 3 (27:30):
Oh yeah, Cause he thinks he's going to be.
We had Jeff Tucker on the showand you guys got into it.
He thinks Bregman will get theprimary candidate.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Yeah and you're like, no, it's not going to happen,
but still, yeah, okay.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Yeah, all right, let's talk a little bit about
the economy, because obviouslywe led at the very beginning of
the show, was saying the federalreserve is not going to slash
interest rates at this point.
But you know, and the wholething is, people are questioning
well, it's because the economyis a little slow or whatever.
Actually, the US economy isgrowing faster than expected.
If you look at some of thesenumbers, this is incredibly
impressive.
(28:01):
Yeah, it says US economy grew atthree percent rate in Q2, a
better than expected pace, evenas Trump's tariffs hit.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
And listen to the poll quote on this.
The USs economy grew at a muchbetter than expected pace in the
second quarter, powered by aturnaround in the trade balance
hello, that's tariffs, by theway in renewed consumer strength
.
The commerce departmentreported wednesday gross
domestic product the sum ofgoods and services activity
(28:27):
across the sprawling us economyeconomy jumped 3% from April
through the June period.
According to figures adjustedfor seasonality and inflation,
this was much higher than peopleexpected.
Ok.
So now, this isn't to say thatthe tariffs aren't going to have
some sort of impact.
They may well, ok, but this isone of those situations that's
(28:48):
interesting in the respect thatmore money is going to be coming
into the coffers of the UnitedStates government.
We're reorienting trade Again.
Here we go again with thePowell stuff about being wrong
about everything.
All these economists are justlike well, this is going to be
devastating.
I mean, we're going to seethings.
Prices are going to take offeverywhere has not happened yet.
Now, not to say that therearen't some small price
(29:10):
increases in places.
There may well be.
There's a difference, though,between a one-time price
increase to adjust for a tariffand inflation which continues to
climb and compound upon itselfand create huge problems, right,
they're just two differentthings, and so we'll see what
ends up happening with it.
But all the experts who arelike oh, here comes recession.
(29:30):
Right, we got that.
We got that when all this stuffhappened.
Here comes a recession.
We're in real trouble.
None of it happened.
Now, I'm not saying there'sgoing to be nothing difficult.
That could be part of this.
You have to understand that ifwe are going to give countries
access to our market, we deserveto be able to take advantage of
some of that.
And when you get access to thebroadest, deepest, most wealthy
(29:53):
market in the world, that cancome with an entry price.
It's okay.
Sometimes that entry price isequal what we pay you.
Sometimes you'll pay us alittle bit more because you're
flooding a lot of your goods inhere, but they're not signing
this deal Like, for example, theEU and everything else which
we'll get into.
They don't sign that dealbecause it doesn't work for them
.
They sign it because it doesRight.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
It was a win and so let's jump right into that.
It says here how the EUsuccumbed to Trump's tariff
steamroller.
And you get in here.
This is from coming in from theTelegraph.
It says US cars and energy toflood Europe as Trump strikes
trade deal US president confirmsthat there will be a 15% tariff
(30:37):
on all EU goods.
The deal is the quote biggestin the world, says Trump, and it
was secured ahead of hismeeting with Starmer Um, that
guy, it's got off.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
It was pure.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
Starmer yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
From from the UK, who we already cut a deal with the
UK and then they're separatefrom the EU, right Cause it's
different.
This is different, but noquestion.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
What Surprising is.
When you started putting allthese clips in here, I was like
holy cow, look at this.
These media people have to eata little crow and actually talk
a little bit about the fact.
Guess what?
Some of these Trump tariffplans that he's been freaking
out over actually are prettygood deals.
So let's take just a littlelisten to some of these clips
that you've put together.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
Reviews are in on the new trade deal announced with
the European Union.
The Financial Times says thedeal marks a victory for Trump.
Is this a fantastic deal, then,struck by Donald Trump?
Speaker 5 (31:18):
Absolutely a victory on behalf of the Trump
administration.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
The bottom line is this is the biggest trade deal
in President Trump's effort toeffectively reshape the global
trading order.
On this deal, the EuropeanUnion.
This is a big win for the US.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
The bigger picture is that Trump is still very much
pursuing his longer term goal ofachieving what he perceives to
be fairness for America.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
It's a triumph of a lot of things.
Certainly, the president oughtto take a victory lap.
I think it's.
I think it ends up being goodfor the European Union.
It's a blow against theconventional.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah, it is a blow him against the conventional
wisdom that once again was wrongagain, and that is.
It is disheartening becauseevery time there is this and I
don't know whether it is thiswhole just opposition to Trump,
that you know, just anything hesuggests just can't possibly
that does dominate in the mediaand does dominate even in just
(32:13):
conversation on social mediawith people.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
If you do not like Trump, you do not want to
believe that any of his ideaswill actually work.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
And he's got to be frustrating the heck out of them
.
I mean, they're like oops itworked, oops, it worked, oops,
it worked, you're like no, we'regonna talk about something else
.
We're going to find somethingelse that he's going to say
that's why being a purelyoppositional party does not work
, especially when most of youropposition is on the 20% of
issues that nobody wants to beon.
I mean, that's why so much ofthis is going to be interesting
going into the midterms, becauseI still think it's going to be
(32:41):
an uphill battle for Republicans.
It just is.
There's just no way around that.
However, because things and ifthey continue to go well, and
because things have been just soclear in the opposition from
the other side, instead ofcoming up with alternatives or
saying, here and there, you knowwhat Trump did, that right, you
got that right.
We need to, we need to cometogether on that here.
That's not going to hurt you asa party.
(33:02):
You don't have to do that oneverything, but you can do it on
a few things, but when youdon't and you decide, we're
going to be the oppositionalparty, no matter what you just
look like the boy who cried wolfevery time and you're wrong.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
This is gonna cause kids to die mark.
Oh, that's right, people aregoing to die.
I mean, I sure this eu tradedeal people are gonna die well,
I know that.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
And the bbb, I mean the big beautiful bill.
People are dying in the streets.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Yeah, people are gonna die.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, no, I know they are, I know I know, I know, I
know it's absolutely true, butbut it is interesting.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Children's just read a children's book called People
Are Going to Die People.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Are Going to Die Kids .
Speaker 3 (33:36):
And the moral of the story is the Big Bad Wolf story
all over again, right?
But it was modernize it.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
One other thing on the economy that I want to run
by you in a great, great carrierof a message, and that's Josh
Hawley.
He's from Missouri.
I like him so much I bought acar in Missouri the other day.
Okay.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Just, I'm just saying I'm just telling you so anyway,
but that's not the point ofthis story, we'll see what state
you buy the next car from,cause.
This one will last about 20seconds.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Okay, let's let's not let's not open up the wounds of
our marriage to our listeners.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
So, josh, the only thing that's going to be the
demise of our marriage.
We divorced each other from carshopping, Remember we did.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Yeah, I know that on the show.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
a couple of shows about that.
You buy your cars, I buy mine.
I'm out.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
You stay out of my lane, I stay out of your lane.
No pun intended, but so this isyour purchase.
I know and I should I wouldlove to do a segment on the show
, by the way on, on car buyingand how it works now and I was
infuriated.
I went into a dealership in NewMexico and I kind of lost it on
them.
Oh, I lost it on them becausethey were trying to rip me off
and I was.
I've done this enough, like.
(34:50):
I know that I am like a cardealer Like I know the deal
right and they were trying torip me off and I was like what
would have happened if I hadbeen somebody who didn't know
what they were doing out here?
You would have taken an extra$20,000.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Yeah, welcome to the car.
It's off.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
It's not always that way, but anyway I'm sorry to
just take us down a ridiculousrabbit hole.
Go back to Okay.
So, josh, I think, is reallygreat.
However, he has come out andsuggested recently that there be
a $600 rebate check to everyAmerican because of how much
money we're getting from tariffs.
(35:26):
Okay, listen, I totallyunderstand what he's trying to
say, but this is a terrible idea.
We are in $37 trillion of debt.
We have to pay that off.
We have to pay that money backdown.
It's like the credit card okay.
This is the equivalent ofsaying mom and dad are in a
million dollars of debt.
We have an extra $50,000 that'scome in.
Let's go give the kids each 10grand.
(35:48):
You're like no, hey, kids,guess what?
We've been living too large asit is.
So take that money and pay downthe debt.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Okay, so again, just one of those things that he's
putting this up as a bill thatwill be voted on.
Is that right?
That's the latest Cause I knowit would have it would have to
be okay, you can't not.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
you know Trump just can't scratch that check to
people.
You have to pass that through.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
This isn't Trump's idea.
This is Josh Hawley, for therecord.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Trump suggested some willingness that he kind of
likes it.
This is kind of a Trump thing.
Trump would like this sort ofthing.
I just think we cannot affordto do this sort of thing.
We've got to pay down the debtgoing forward.
We owe it to our kids, we oweit to our grandkids.
Our leaders have beencompletely and totally
irresponsible.
I don't think this isirresponsible.
I just think we have to do whatwe have to do to pay down the
(36:33):
debt.
I don't love that.
Believe me, if we were in thestate of New Mexico with our
financial situation in thisstate, then I'm all for it,
because we don't have debt Right.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
That's why we don't have debt.
That's why we're in favor ofrebate checks for New Mexicans
right.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Or taking the income tax and suspending it because
you do not need the money rightnow.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
Right, because we have such a big budget.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Yes, and individually .
Not only we have big budget, wehave the money to pay it and we
have a big surplus.
So because we have that surplus, working in New Mexicans, a 5%
raise for every working NewMexican and we can absolutely
afford it.
How could you not do that?
Right, that should be done.
But this is different thefederal government's $37
trillion in debt pay it down.
(37:11):
So just one of those thingsthat when you hear about this, I
don't like it, and I know it'seasy for all Republicans to try
to get on the same page of this.
Don't do it, it's not smart.
Pay down the debt.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Yeah, okay, yeah, all right.
So I lived in LA for about 10years and I was pretty sucked in
, especially when you and Ifirst got married to all of
Hollywood and all of them.
I mean I had Oscar partiesevery year.
I had a subscription to UsWeekly for a while.
I did cancel that once I hadkids because I thought I should
not be spending my money on thisanymore.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Maybe a little pride Hello.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
No, I was interested in it.
I lived this life.
I represented celebrities, allthat kind of fun stuff.
So it was fun for a while itlasted.
But here's kind of a little bitof a news E News, which is a
pretty significant network, isshuttering their doors.
So basically this, what they'recalling, this golden error of
covering celebrity life on airanyway, is coming to an end.
(38:00):
So here's a little bit of, uh,what they had to say.
The demise of e-news, which willair its final TV broadcast on
September 25th, marks the latestnail in the cable TV's coffin.
But for a generation raised onthe daily cable shows addictive
formula of breaking Hollywoodheadlines and marathon red
carpet remotes, it signifiessomething much more it's the end
of the golden age for celebritynews.
(38:20):
Quote these are sadly just sodifferent these days because of
how television has shifted.
Notes Jason Kennedy, one of E'snew, longest tenured anchors,
having shared the desk withJulian Aranek from 2012 to 2019.
Not a lot of people come homeand watch news anymore,
especially on cable, becausethey can get it on social media.
Now they do watch news on cable, but they don't watch
necessarily celebrity news asmuch on cable anymore, because
(38:43):
you do, you can kind of get itin your Instagram feed.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
You kind of just see it, you know about it as quickly
as he does.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
Oh, I know.
I mean you know, we know whereTom Cruise was yesterday.
Yeah, because they put it out,you know bright and early.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
He was in Woodstock, Vermont.
I know he was in Vermont.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
Mark was very excited about that little piece of news
.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
But anyway.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Okay, some more entertainment news today.
I mean Ava's going to jump inon this a little bit too.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Yeah, we are going to talk about this and I, kind of
Ava, I have this in a, so Ithink the best thing we should
do.
So we're going to talk aboutthe Sydney Sweeney story.
Speaker 6 (39:13):
You want to play the ad first?
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Yeah, I think.
So I think we'll play a littlebit of the ad first, and so
there's a few different ads, oneI really actually like and then
the other one's just kind ofdifferent.
But let's start with clip 24,ava.
So this is the big debate here.
Sydney Sweeney is an actresswho I think you could fairly say
(39:38):
she's not somebody who takes onsuper you know, she's not
somebody who's taking on superdeep roles.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
She's not Meryl Streep, right, she's not Meryl
Streep.
She is a iconic model, likebeauty that is in shows like
white Lotus very popular.
Speaker 6 (39:51):
She got really.
She got really popular oneuphoria, where she's naked
every single episode, by the way.
Speaker 2 (39:57):
Okay, okay, well, yeah, there's no doubt she
definitely plays up um certainparts of of her assets, um, you
know, um.
So let's go with a couple ofthe ads first.
Okay, these are a few of themsort of linked up back to back
here, and this is for americaneagle.
Yes, is that right?
Okay, it's for american eaglewho makes clothing, I assume.
Okay, these are a few of themsort of linked up back to back
here, and this is for AmericanEagle.
Yes, is that right?
Okay, this is for AmericanEagle who makes clothing, I
(40:19):
assume.
Speaker 3 (40:19):
Yeah, your daughters love the store they're like
American Eagle, it's just astandard.
Speaker 6 (40:23):
They're owned by the same people who do Aerie, Banana
Republic, those kind of things.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
Okay, all right, good , so let's listen to Sydney
Sweeney.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
Parents to offspring, often determining traits like
hair color, personality and eveneye color.
Speaker 3 (40:42):
My jeans are blue.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
Sydney Sweeney has very jeans.
I'm not here to tell you to buyAmerican Eagle jeans, and I
definitely won't say thatthey're the most comfortable
jeans I've ever worn or thatthey make your butt look amazing
.
Speaker 5 (40:59):
Why would I need to do that?
But if you said that you wantto, buy the jeans.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
I'm not going to stop you, but just so we're clear,
this is not me telling you tobuy American Eagle jeans.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
Sydney Sweeney Hasbro jeans.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
You see what I did there, right?
Okay, let's stop right here,Eve, and we'll do one more, and
let's do clip 25, which isactually my favorite, which I
don't think she even speaks inthis one.
Speaker 7 (41:26):
It's the car, the car in it, is pretty amazing.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
So let's just hear this one too.
So let's just hear this one too.
If you can't see this, she'sjust getting into, I believe, a
Mustang.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
No, which is beautiful?
Speaker 2 (41:58):
OK, so let's talk about the controversy behind
this.
So we need to go back to yeah,we want you to see what the.
So those are the ads, basically, and they say sydney sweeney
has great jeans and and in someway she's talking about you know
, she's crossing different genes, she mentions her own like.
Speaker 6 (42:09):
She's beautiful, but she's also wearing good jeans
her dna and also her clothingher clothing right
Speaker 3 (42:14):
the play on jeans.
Speaker 6 (42:15):
Right, that's what they went with yes, and they do
spell it jeans, like the pantsyes, like they don't spell it
jeans like g-e-n-e-s, let's,let's watch this uh, good
morning america.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
Because they're happy to jump all over this story of
what happens.
And it shows where she's, on abillboard and she is scratching
out that her name says sydney shas good genes.
G-e-n-e-s scratches it out andspells jeans like what you like,
dungarees like what you wear.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Time to check the polls.
We begin with the backlash overa new ad campaign featuring
actress Sydney Sweeney.
Speaker 4 (42:48):
The ads are for American Eagle and the tagline
is Sydney Sweeney has greatgenes American Eagle and the
tagline is Sydney Sweeney hasgreat genes.
Now, in one ad, the blondehaired, blue eyed actress talks
about genes, as in DNA, beingpassed down from her parents.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
The play on words is being compared to Nazi
propaganda with racialundertones.
The pun good genes activates atroubling historical
associations for this country.
The American eugenics movement,in its prime between like 1900
and 1940, weaponized the idea ofgood genes just to justify
(43:25):
white supremacism.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
Despite that backlash , American Eagle stock has been
soaring.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
Okay, I love American Eagle stock has been soaring.
Okay, here's the thing aboutthis.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
Okay.
So it's not just the today showor a good morning America that
threw this out.
There's other commentators nowthat are all like basically
calling Sweeney and I guess, thebrand a supremacist, white
supremacist.
Right, like, how dare shepromote her jeans Cause she's
white, blue eyed and blonde hair?
(43:55):
Right, like heaven forbid.
We're supposed to forget thesepeople, me being one of them,
although I have green eyes.
But we're still supposed toforget us, right, like we're
forgotten, right, because we'renot popular.
In the last five years We'vekind of been shunned and so,
basically, this, this marketingapproach is hey, we're going to
bring back somebody that is in alot of the top hit shows right
now, that is known as being avery attractive person, a model
(44:16):
like quality, and putting her injeans that we want teenage
girls to go out and to buy.
Right, that's what they'redoing.
They're trying to find exactlywhat every advertiser used to do
Find somebody that teenagerswant to go by.
Now, it has nothing to do withthe fact that she's white.
I'm sorry, this is ridiculous.
She's not.
She's not a white supremacist.
Just because she's white andshe's beautiful doesn't mean
(44:39):
that she's it.
All she thinks about is allbeauty is just coming from being
white and blonde haired.
I am sorry.
I think this is ridiculous, thefact that they connected those
things to Nazi Germany or NaziWell look, this is a professor
from Keene University.
Oh my gosh.
Talk about a reach and tryingto find some sort of bridge.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Oh, and it's a lot of people doing it.
Oh, I know there's a lot ofpeople doing it.
Speaker 3 (45:01):
And I'm just like I'm sorry I guess this just falls
really short with me, cause I'mlike American Eagle has used
plenty of beautiful models ofall colors, all colors right In
their all colors, right in theirads, right this isn't like hey,
we're promoting her becauseshe's a white girl like that.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
Sorry that has nothing to do.
Speaker 6 (45:18):
Okay, okay, ava.
Okay, a couple things that Iwould.
First.
One thing that I want to add isralph lauren uh, published an
ad at the same time as thisamerican eagle ad.
So a lot of the time that this,that this controversy is
happening, ralph lorenz ad isall black people and it's like
this really new beautiful lineof clothing they're doing, but
everyone in the ad commercialsis black.
People are saying like, oh,this is what they were supposed
to do.
That's why this American Eaglead is so white supremacist
(45:40):
because they put it out at thesame time as the Ralph Lauren ad
.
I think that's stupid.
I don't think this is whitesupremacy.
I think it's dumb to call itthat and I think it minimizes
the issue.
The real issue, I would say, iswe should not not be advertising
to teenage girls like this.
It does two things itencourages boys to view girls
this way, in this like deeplysexual, objectifying manner.
I don't appreciate it.
I think it's gross, I'mdisturbed.
(46:04):
And it encourages teenage girlsto view themselves like this,
as objects to be desiredsexually.
That disturbs me to no end,especially because Sydney
Sweeney got famous playing a 16year old in high school who is
like so out about her sexualityand it's disgusting, it's
disturbing.
She's done ads like this forbody wash.
I don't like that.
I don't like when we advertiseto women like this, where we say
, first of all, it also showscompanies, you can make a lot of
(46:25):
money If you hire a woman whowill overtly parade herself as
some object of sexual desire andpeople will buy your clothes.
I think that's gross.
People complain that kidsaren't being kids anymore.
This is why it's exactly partof the reason why we advertise
to young people and tell them toover-sexualize themselves.
I think it's gross, I think it'sdisturbing, I think that's what
(46:47):
she should be facing backlashfor, and I think she should be
ashamed of herself.
Oh whoa.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
Okay, I mean, did you see her dr squash ad?
Like no, okay, ave.
Here's the thing about thisparticular let's stay in the
same lane.
Okay, she's not being crucifiedfor being overly sexualized
sometimes, but no, that's notwhat.
Not with this particular ad,okay, this controversy is not
about her sexuality.
This is about her being a whitegirl and putting in, doing the
(47:13):
play on jeans and and trying toconnect that to some sort of
Nazi regime messaging which isdumb, which we don't have to
give it, okay.
But I would say like, listen, I,I, I hate to burst your bubble,
but the sexy bombshell icon hasbeen around in advertising
since the beginning of time.
Okay, and we are humans who dofind attractiveness.
(47:35):
I mean, there is a certain kindof beauty.
It's not based on skin tone,it's like, and I, and obviously
I was not born a model.
I know everybody thinks youknow, I know you think I was bad
, but I'm just kidding, I'm justsaying beauty comes in all
forms, okay.
Speaker 4 (47:49):
That's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 3 (47:50):
It comes in all forms , but this, this classical
beauty, like you know, like yourface, is angular, I don't know
there's all these rules rightAbout, like model beauty, like
Cindy Crawford's of the day andBrooke Shields.
There's a reason that thosepeople have been put in ads over
and over and over.
And so I think coming at thisgirl, this young girl, and
calling her Nazi or calling thebrand, whatever related to that,
(48:14):
is a massive overreach andmissing the whole point of she's
a beautiful girl and she'sselling some jeans.
Speaker 6 (48:22):
No, she's not a beautiful girl selling some
jeans.
She's a beautiful girlmarketing herself as a sex
object to sell jeans.
We have models who wear jeans,who are beautiful.
That's different than beinglike buy my jeans, my boobs are
big.
That's stupid.
Whoa, whoa, everybody.
Now we're going to get off intothe.
It makes me really mad.
It makes me really angry.
Speaker 2 (48:42):
I don't appreciate it .
No, ava, I, uh, I think so.
Here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
So, ava, as I'm listening toyour moral outrage, I am I start
realizing that my position onthis was going to be untenable
following yours.
So I'm going to say I agree,ava, let's stop this garbage
right now.
(49:02):
We don't need women playing uptheir sexuality to sell things.
Speaker 6 (49:08):
So I am with you, I'm supporting you.
I genuinely do believe that.
Speaker 2 (49:13):
No, ava, I think it's an interesting case and I like
that you made it and you made itvery well and I would say that
I think for the most part here.
I think when you see somethinglike that, I agree and, believe
me, the older you get actually,the more you realize.
When you see real talent andI'm not talking about Sydney
Sweeney, I don't know her fromanything, she's not very good
(49:40):
from anything, right but whenyou see people that truly have
real talent, whether it be inmusic or acting or or whatever
business, whatever, whatever awoman you see that has this
talent, you appreciate that muchmore than than purely their,
their looks and and using yourlooks to to to sell things to
young people.
Agreed, but it does happen andI think that we are a society
that does appreciate that.
And it is the world we live inand it is one that I don't think
is necessarily bad all the time.
But I agree, I found some of thestuff she saw and I actually
(50:01):
didn't pull a couple of the onesthat were a little more racy
and I was pretty uncomfortablewith it too.
So I think her deal and herwhole shtick.
I'm not a huge fan of it either, but I don't think it's
something to be proud of and Idon't think it's something
necessarily that is great.
(50:23):
But I also think it's a freecountry and I don't want to be
the country despite my spiritualbeliefs.
I don't want to be the countrythat's this or in and acts as
the morality police all the time.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
Well, it sounds weird to say but no, and I also just
think that what we've seen inadvertising the last five years
has gotten very far away fromthis ad.
Okay, so we have gone adifferent route.
We have shown all differentkinds of looks and feels for
that is true, you're right.
Speaker 2 (50:51):
We're not getting the sexcapades on these ads very
often, right?
That's true.
Speaker 3 (50:55):
It is coming back a little bit more to what worked
in the 70s and the 80s and the90s.
That's what they're tryingagain and I just think you know,
at the end of the day, there'scertain products that are going
to be more appealing.
If somebody that has got, asyou said, assets in those jeans,
right, then then uh, then otherthings, so like they're still
marketing a product, their jobis to still sell something,
(51:17):
right, whether you agree withthat or disagree with that.
Hopefully, I mean, we've taughtthe girls like no midriffs, you
gotta.
Speaker 5 (51:23):
You can't show your bra straps, like we had all
these rules of them growing upthat we held the line.
Speaker 3 (51:28):
I don't care what's in the advertising, I'm just
defending the fact that thatthis is an ad that is not
racially motivated, we agree.
Speaker 6 (51:37):
That is what the argument is.
I would say we have to.
No, you're right, you're right,that's what I'm arguing about.
Yeah, that's true, we agree.
I would clarify my position onelast time and just say I think
we need to go back toappreciating beauty in
advertisements versus glorifyinglust.
Those are very different things.
I think in this ad it's very,it's lustful and that grosses me
out.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
Okay, I think it's different if she's in the ad and
she's like I'm wearing jeans,but that's not what's happening,
okay.
Well, that's a fair assessment.
That's fair, that's a very fairassessment.
Okay, ava, good job.
Thanks, seriously Nice.
Speaker 3 (52:09):
Way to bring the juice today You're in the bull.
I have an opinion on theSweeney story.
We're like okay come on in.
Speaker 2 (52:14):
It looks like we just got it right between the eyes.
Speaker 3 (52:16):
Okay, well, that is it for us today.
Thank you so much for tuning inagain you guys.
Please just like and subscribeon our YouTube channel.
It really does a lot for us.
If you're worried about notgetting the videos for some
reason, like you think it'smaybe getting stomped down or
something sign up for thoseemails.
We only send you two emails aweek with a link to each show
and we kind of keep you up todate on any news that is going
(52:38):
on with Mark and I.
So thanks you guys so much forjoining us.
We appreciate all the feedback.
Keep those comments coming andhave a great rest of your week.
Speaker 5 (52:45):
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.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it Podcastis a Choose Adventure Media
(53:08):
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!