Episode 217: Fox in the Henhouse...How Lawyers Control Your Healthcare

Here are the facts:

• New Mexico needs 200 more primary care physicians right now. That may sound smaller than Texas or Arizona’s numbers, but proportionally our shortage is far worse. If Texas faced what we’re facing, they’d need nearly 3,000 doctors—three times their actual need.
• We rank 7th in the nation for malpractice claims per 100,000 people. That makes malpractice insurance costs skyrocket, driving doctors to other states.
• Trial lawyers are funding shadow groups like New Mexico Safety Over Profits to block reforms. Over 74% of their donors are tied to the Trial Lawyers Association.
• Earlier this year, a bill that would have capped attorney fees and brought relief for doctors failed by just one vote. That’s how powerful the trial lawyer lobby really is.

This isn’t about politics—it’s about people. Cancer patients can’t wait months for care. Families shouldn’t have to drive out of state to find a doctor. Retirees shouldn’t have to question whether they can grow old here safely.

The bottom line: until we reform malpractice laws and stand up to trial lawyers, New Mexico will keep losing doctors—and patients will pay the price.

👉 Listen to the full episode on YouTube or your favorite podcast platform to hear the full story.

But that’s not all we cover this week:

• The surprising rise in Republican support for Ukraine aid.
• Why younger Americans are drinking and smoking less than ever before.
• A lively debate on the NFL’s decision to add male cheerleaders to 12 team rosters.
• Plus, some stunning wildlife footage from our mountain cameras that you won’t want to miss.

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

Episode Transcript

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Okay, we're coming at you on a Sunday, sunday late, I
guess you'd call it late.
I don't know when you'll bewatching this, but trust us,
this stuff's evergreen.
It's not going anywhere.
It's going to be delicious, nomatter when you consume it.
Okay, okay, all right, allright.
So a couple of quick things,yes, and then we'll get going.
We have to start off quite adeep dive on health care, and

(00:30):
there was a journal editorialtoday, and it truly was done by
the fox who is feasting in thehen house and explaining to
everybody how we're going to fixhealth care in the state of New
Mexico.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
He's learning everybody.
He's learning everybody, he is.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
He is, and his name is Brian Egoff.
He's former speaker of the NewMexico house, attorney.

Speaker 4 (00:52):
Very unbiased, oh no, no.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
This was a good one, and the reason we bring this up
is because this is such a acrossthe party lines crisis in the
state of New Mexico.
Healthcare is a complete andutter red blinking light in this
state.
It's devastating.
Everybody knows it.
You can't get the care you needand there's a very everybody
knows why.
But our friend, mr Egoff, triedto pull the old switcheroo and I

(01:18):
wish there was a more extremeterm for the word gaslighting,
because that's what it should beSome sort of I don't even know
some sort of nuclear option,because that's what this is.
So we want to explain this,explain some numbers, and if you
just look at a couple of quicknumbers I just did a little
number work on this I'm just ahumble meteorologist.
I do not.

(01:38):
I am no expert on numbers.
I'm no expert on medical careor the litigious nature of our
society, no expert on any ofthat stuff.
But I do need health care.
You need health care, our girlsneed health care, everybody
across the state needs healthcare, and so this is a huge
issue, obviously.
So we're going to talk aboutthat.
We're talking about Trump andthe Russia deal in Alaska some

(02:01):
of it interesting and again,that's going to continue to work
through this week becauseZelensky's headed to the White
House.
It's just interesting stuff andvery meaningful, so we'll touch
on that.
We're going to touch on alittle bit of NFL work here, but
actually the cheerleaders.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Oh, I know.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
It's unbelievable.

Speaker 3 (02:19):
I know You're kind of put off by all this, so we will
wait for that.
Let's just tease people thatwe've got some video and then
people can take it.
Make a decision between if theyagree with your views or not?

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Right, right, right, right.
And my views are even going tobe based on on the business of
the NFL, Right, but anyway, uh,and then we'll.
We'll do some game camera stuffand some other interesting
stuff as well, Sunday game dayeverybody.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
Yes, it is Sunday game day.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
We've got some game camera action.

Speaker 3 (02:45):
Yeah, Mark's very excited about that.
All right, well, let's diveinto this editorial.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yeah, here it is right off the top and it says
putting patients providers first, a plan for New Mexico health
care.
Now, this affects every singleone of us.
So I want to start and justhave you read a little bit of
where former Speaker Egoff goeswith this and what he tries to
do.
Okay, and he tries to pull alittle switcheroo here because
we all know we don't have enoughhealthcare professionals.

(03:10):
They have been absolutelyfleeing the state and we'll go
and back up the numbers here onwhat I say.
But basically what we have inthe state of New Mexico is that
we have an environment thatfavors lawyers over doctors.
It just does.
And so when you favor lawyersover doctors, you get more
lawyers and fewer doctors.
That's how it works and itturns out doctors are needed in

(03:30):
every state.
So if we don't want them orwe're going to make their lives
difficult, they're going to say,hmm, I think I'll go somewhere
else.
Okay, but Mr Egoff cannot havethat as the playing field here,
so he tries to switch it allaround here.
So let's go ahead and juststart with this article a little
bit and what he has to say.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
And keeping in mind he is an attorney.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
He is an attorney as well.
He is.
He is, from my understanding, apretty good one.
Oh, okay, so there we go.
All right, let's go.

Speaker 3 (03:56):
New Mexico's healthcare system is in crisis
and corporate profiteering isthe root cause of the problem
that threatens the health andsafety of hundreds of thousands
of our fellow New Mexicans.
Families across our state waitweeks for basic primary care
appointments, patients are beinginjured at some of the highest
rates in the country, anddoctors are being targeted by
out-of-state private equitybehemoths set on bankrupting

(04:18):
their practices and restrictingtheir ability to care for
patients.
Fortunately, there are severalcommon sense ideas to improve
health care, protect patientsand protect doctors.

Speaker 2 (04:28):
Okay.
So if you don't have the factson your side, what you have to
do is change the focus of theargument a little bit.
What he's really talking abouthere is, in some cases, some of
these bigger hospitals coming inand trying to stomp out smaller
doctors and things of thatnature.
That's not why we have a doctorshortage.
It's just not okay.

(04:49):
And he's not wrong in the factthat there are definitely some
private doctors here who havefound it tougher to operate.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is the fact that theycannot afford to practice in
this state because it's solitigious, and because it's so
litigious they go other places.
But he doesn't want to addressthat issue.
So he takes a couple of otherissues, straw man issues pivots
it and just focuses on those.
So he creates this boogeyman,this boogeyman of big we'll call

(05:12):
it a big medical big medicalscoming in.
We've got to stop big medicalright Now.
It's ridiculous.
Of course, it's not why we havethe problem that we have.
Problem that we have issomething that was actually
enshrined into law about six orseven years ago, and he sort of
makes a little reference to thatin the next paragraph.

Speaker 3 (05:30):
As Speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives
in 2021, I worked withcolleagues across the aisle,
governor Michelle Lujan Grisham,insurance companies, patients
and attorneys who representvictims of malpractice to
negotiate a complete reform ofour medical malpractice laws.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
Okay, hold on.
Why did they need to do areform in 2021?
Because they passed such ahorrendous law a couple years
earlier that we would it raisethe caps.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
The same group, by the way.
The same group of people, thesame legislators.
There is no coordination withRepublicans.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
They don't have to and they don't.
And Brian Egoff was legendaryfor not caring if Republicans
showed up or not.
He was not seeking Republicaninput on this.
He's never cared because hedidn't need to, because they had
basically what closely amountedto a supermajority Right he
just didn't care.
So him then saying I workedacross the aisle, like this guy
wouldn't be accused of workingacross the aisle in any way,

(06:22):
shape or form.
We all know this.
It's a joke, right.
But the reason he says this isbecause, literally, they passed
a law that was so bad, thatraised the cap so high On
malpractice On malpractice oractually which you could be
awarded, right and that raisedthe malpractice insurance rates,
right.

Speaker 3 (06:38):
Which the doctors could no longer afford, by the
way, could no longer afford andliterally we're seeing people
flee the state.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
They had to stop down and stop their own law.
It was that bad.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
Well, because doctors couldn't even get insurance
anymore to cover them againstthis crazy cap that this state
legislator group and thegovernor had signed into law.

Speaker 2 (06:54):
And so they had to Crazy.
Yes, I mean, it was a red alertdisaster.
So then he goes and makes itlook like he put a hand across
the aisle.
Let's work together on this.
It's not true and it treatspeople like they're stupid.
Okay, so we have this situationwhere we are so far under on
doctors we don't have.
They haven't come back afterthey did this.

(07:15):
It's still a very difficultstate to operate in, and the
problem is that it isn't just ina vacuum, it isn't just, you
know, you can't just say, oh mygosh, these lawyers are getting
rich.
Okay, they're getting rich Someof them anyway but they're also
getting rich at the expense ofyour healthcare and the fact
that when your family membergets cancer and they have a long

(07:35):
wait to get into a doctor, thataffects you and your family.
It's devastating.
So them lining their pockets isone thing, but don't kid
yourself, they're lining theirpockets and they're also taking
away your health care and that'sdevastating.
So another little thing we'reunder on doctors, right?
Ok, so I want to show you aspecific example of what he does

(07:57):
with numbers to try to pull thewool over your eyes, and how
it's deceptive.

Speaker 3 (08:01):
The Legislative Finance Committee's recent
report makes the challengeconcrete and how it's deceptive.
The Legislative FinanceCommittee's recent report makes
the challenge concrete.
New Mexico needs about 200additional primary care
physicians to erase federalshortage designation statewide
Significant but notinsurmountable.
Far fewer than Texas they need885.
And Arizona, who needs 493,among others.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
Okay.
So when you look at thosenumbers and you're like, oh,
we're not doing as bad as Texasand Arizona, until you realize
let's take the actualpopulations of those states into
account and as you look at thenumbers and again, I'm just a
simple guy who came up with acouple of quick graphs, okay,
but if you look and you say, howmany primary care physicians do
we need in the state of NewMexico per 100,000 people, we

(08:46):
need far more than Texas andArizona and it isn't close.
Okay, we need nine doctors per100,000 people.
Arizona needs roughly six andTexas needs 2.83,.
Okay, In case that numberdoesn't make sense, let's look
at it this way.
Let's then look at this and takethis as a graph of primary care

(09:08):
physicians needed Okay, Actual,All right.
Versus if you had equalpopulations.
So, in other words, if you takeour rate of how much we need
doctors and you apply that rateto the population of Texas, they
would need nearly 3000 newdoctors just primary care.
That is, of course, more thanthree times what they would need
.
Nearly 3,000 new doctors justprimary care.
That is, of course, more thanthree times what they actually

(09:29):
need.
Okay, so Texas is in nearly asbad a spot as we are.
Same thing with Arizona.
By the way, their numbersaren't as egregious, but still
Arizona would need somewhere inthe neighborhood of what 712
doctors?
They need 493.
So he takes those numbers andcooks them.
He cooks them because hefigures no one's going to look
at this.

Speaker 3 (09:49):
Nobody's going to look at it, nobody's going to do
the comparison, nobody's goingto draw the map like that.
Yeah, Right.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
And so the next thing he has to do is he has to cook
up some numbers, because heknows that everybody realizes
how litigious and how theenvironment in this state just
is so difficult for doctors tooperate in.
So he knows he has to cook upsome fresh numbers on this and
make you think, oh, that's notso bad.
Right.
And he does it in the nextparagraph.

Speaker 3 (10:11):
And though our average compensation for medical
harm is in the bottom third ofthe national average, we're 16th
out of 50 states we have amongthe highest rate of successful
claims per capita.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
OK, so hold on.
So what he's really sayingthere is hey look, I mean we're
16th out of 50.
We don't pay that much out,it's not that big a deal.
We're in the bottom third ofthese compensation numbers.
Okay, that again is not thepoint.
But keep on going.
I'll give you some numbersright after.

Speaker 3 (10:39):
Put simply, new Mexicans are being hurt by a
healthcare system run bycorporations, and they're
winning their cases more oftenthan anywhere else.
That doesn't mean too manypeople are suing.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
I love that line.
That doesn't mean too manypeople are suing.
Stop, don't ever do that.

Speaker 3 (10:52):
It means too many people are being harmed by
private equity, run hospitalsthat care about one thing more
than anything else Cutting coststo increase profits, even if it
means patients get harmed as aresult.
Instead of making it harder forpeople to speak up by closing
courthouse doors, we shouldfocus on making care safer,
better, safer and more available.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Okay.
So what he's really advocatingthere is make it more difficult
for hospitals and otherbusinesses to come in and do
work in the state of New Mexico.
Make it even harder, okay, andthat will mean fewer and fewer
people coming in.
So he's basically saying thepeople that want to come in,
they're the problem.
They're the problem.

Speaker 3 (11:27):
Not the attorneys that have signed all this into
law, basically.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
Into law and have taken advantage of it right,
right, and have taken advantageof it Just keep in mind there's
a lot of attorneys that are onour state legislature.
There's no question.
There's no question.

Speaker 3 (11:39):
Including our governor, who's a former
attorney.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
She is a former attorney.
But yeah, yeah, yeah, no doubt.
But.
But as you look at all this,you just say, okay, well, what
are we really looking at?
Well, again, I just did somequick numbers here.
Okay, Total number of caseswhen do we go?
And he says we're in the bottomthird.
Okay, here are the actualnumbers malpractice claims per
100,000 people we are seventh inthe country.

(12:02):
We are seventh in the countryper capita.
We sue like crazy in the statebecause we've made it easier to
do.
It doesn't mean that peopleshouldn't get some payout when
something goes wrong.
There's no question they should.
But we have to start cappingwhat attorneys can make, Because
if we don't, this will continue.
But he will do anything to makesure that the attorneys keep on

(12:26):
rolling with the big bucks atthe expense of your health care.
And the problem is it's azero-sum game.
It is one or the other.
You either make it easier to bea doctor in the state or you
continue to allow lawyers tomake sure that our health care
is near dead last, if not deadlast in the country.
This is devastating.
We are seventh in the countrywhen it is devastating.
We are seventh in the countrywhen it comes to these rates.

Speaker 3 (12:47):
And keep in mind.
This really hurt.
I remember this very vividlywhen you were running, that a
lot of rural doctors would comeand talk to you and talk and
really share about how difficultall of this was becoming on
them.
You know, not only are weadding these malpractice
limitate, you know these limits,that they couldn't afford.

Speaker 2 (13:03):
I mean they're higher , they're higher right.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
So they're way beyond a normal state limit, basically
.
And then adding in things liketaxing GRT.
You know how they had GRT taxes.
They have state income tax ontop of it.
They had all these other taxeson top of it.
That was what was making thisso difficult.
You add in the crime rate andyou add in the poor education
rates and you combine all of itand it is just a tornado.
It is a disastrous element.

(13:27):
No mention of that in thisarticle, by the way.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
No, he does mention a couple of things that need to
be done.
Okay, and there's a real quickone here.
It's, it's fine.
He's right, we need to bring inmore doctors, we need to pay
for their education, we need todo things that that needs to be
done.
I think we can absolutely get alot of bipartisan agreement on
that.
So let's go to clip 10, wherehe continues to add the cherry
on top to the coup de grace onan incredible article.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
And finally, we must defeat legislation that tilts
the playing field in favor ofcorporations at the expense of
patients.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
Okay, hold on, that is his way of saying.
Continue to let lawyers keepdoctors out of the state.
But that's a lawyer's way ofsaying that.
I got to admit it's a prettyclever way to say it but it's
still garbage.

Speaker 3 (14:05):
It's garbage when politicians limit victims'
ability to seek justice.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
Okay, hold on when politicians limit victims'
ability to seek justice.
I mean, and I'm sorry, let'sjust finish this.
I'm sorry for jumping ahead ofyou.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Tie the hands of their attorneys or take power
away from juries.
They're not improving care.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
They're covering for abuse, okay.
Again, this is ludicrous.
What he is saying here is letus get as much money as we can.
There will be no consequences.
That's a lie.
Okay, we do not live in avacuum.
If you continue to make it easyfor attorneys and hard for
doctors, they leave.
And what Brian Egoff isadvocating for is he's saying
let us keep doing this, let usdo more of it?
Okay, and by doing that, itaffects you and your family.

(14:47):
There is no bigger issue wherethe elites stick it to us than
this.
These guys sit down and say letus continue to line our pockets
because you know what?
We don't care if you don't getcare.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
Right, and the thing that's missing.
I mean I get that this is aneditorial piece, but really I
mean we need to be talking tomore doctors.
Why are you leaving what'schallenging to you?

Speaker 2 (15:08):
Oh, it's been clear, it's been everywhere.

Speaker 3 (15:10):
Well, it's been clear , but I don't think the public
still has their minds around itas much.
And so I just think that thevoice of doctors and it's hard
because some of these doctorsare scared to come out and talk
about it.
I mean, we've had those issueswhere they'll tell us stuff
behind closed doors but theydon't necessarily want to put
their face out there publiclybecause they don't want to be
targets for anything, which weunderstand and we respect that.
So we're trying very hard tomake sure that people understand

(15:33):
just how difficult we're makingit for doctors to stay in the
state.
Then you see people that are.
We were supposed to be one ofthe best states to retire in.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
We should be.

Speaker 3 (15:42):
And as you get older, you need more healthcare, it
turns out.
That's right, you can't do it.
So it's crazy how we're notdriving our retirees out of
state to get healthcare Anytimeyou need a specialist.
I've had to travel out of thestate.
I know lots of friends that aredealing with cancer issues.
they're traveling out of stateand I'm not saying that all of
our doctors here are bad by anymeans.

(16:03):
It's just that our resourcesare going down.
And I'm not saying that all ofour doctors here are bad by any
means.
It's just that our resourcesare going down.
Our numbers are going down asfar as availability for doctors
and our wait times haveincreased to such a degree that
sometimes you're on a wait listfor eight, nine months to get in
to see somebody, and if youdon't have that kind of time to
wait, it's too dangerous.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
It's devastating.
There's nothing more central tothe good of the people of your
state than being able to gethealthcare when they need it.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
And what bothers me even more is when folks can't
afford to travel out of thestate to get the healthcare,
Most can't I mean.
I would say 60% of our stateprobably cannot travel out to
get maybe even higher.

Speaker 6 (16:38):
It's higher than that Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (16:40):
And the fact that you see Brian Egoff writing this
and trying to blame it onsomething else.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
Well, no, it's like yeah, don't believe your lying
eyes.
You know the problem isPresbyterian.

Speaker 1 (16:49):
The problem is loveless.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
The problem is this and that, and that it's not the
lawyers.
I mean it absolutely is.
We all clearly know that thatis what's driving up costs.
And at the very end he sayswhen we negotiated the
malpractice compromise fouryears ago.
Again again, you lit the stateon fire and then you came in to
fight it with a garden hose.
Ok, thank you.
Thank you so much, sir.

(17:11):
Thank you for your service.
We found common ground becausethe discussion centered around
data and dignity.
No, the discussion centeredaround the fact that you would
lit the house on fire and whenthe house is on fire, everyone
stepped in, includingRepublicans, to try to make it
better.
Ok, but this is ridiculous.
Ok, and you start to say Ihaven't heard much in the public
realm from Brian Egoff in awhile.

(17:32):
Why would this happen now?
Why would he write this articleright now?
Let me take you back 10 daysago.
Daniel Chacon writes this, andit was in the Albuquerque
Journal as well.
Records say that trial lawyersfunded group against New Mexico
medical malpractice reform.
Oh, my goodness, you've got tobe kidding.
Turns out that a bunch of trialattorneys have been pouring

(17:56):
millions of dollars intoconvincing our legislature not
to touch the law so they cancontinue to do what they do.
That's why he's coming on thislittle misdirection, because the
State Ethics Commission wentafter these guys because they
tried to keep their donorsprivate so that no one knew.
Turns out we now know who theywere and they're all trial
attorneys, many of them righthere in the good old state of

(18:18):
New Mexico.
So here's a couple quick littlequotes from this article.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
A special interest group that campaigned against
changes to New Mexico's medicalmalpractice law was funded
primarily by high-powered triallawyers and law firms.
Recent filings reveal the StateEthics Commission raised the
curtain on New Mexico.
Safety over profits.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
Listen to that they gaslit even in their name, their
name, which again they'retrying to stop, basically
expanding healthcare andimproving healthcare in the
state by calling themselves theNew Mexico.
Safety Over Profits.
I mean ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (18:51):
Oh, it's just so shady, deep-pocketed donors
under a settlement with theorganization that also included
a maximum allowable $5,000 fineafter the group refused to
disclose its donors.
Disclose its donors, yes.
Goes on to say a review ofdonors by Think New Mexico,
which is a Santa Fe-based thinktank that has advocated for
revamping the state's medicalmalpractice law, including
capping attorney speeds.

Speaker 2 (19:12):
Bingo.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
Found, all of the group's donors were trial
lawyers and law firms, plus aparalegal, oh a paralegal.
The review also revealed morethan 74% of donors are current
board members or past presidentsof the New Mexico Trial Lawyers
Association.

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Okay, I'm sorry that number again.
74% of the money given Go backto that.
74% of the money given arecurrent board members or past
presidents of the New MexicoTrial Lawyers Association.
If you do not see where thelines are being drawn here, that
could not make it any moreclear.
And here's what Fred Nathan hadto say, or at least the group

(19:51):
had to say.

Speaker 3 (19:52):
NMSOP didn't want the public to know this because
they were trying to presentthemselves as a grassroots group
of regular New Mexicans whoopposed medical malpractice
reform.
Think New Mexico, wrote in anemail.
It goes on to say medicalmalpractice has been an ongoing
source of consternation in NewMexico.
Amid a shortage of doctors andcomplaints, the cost of
malpractice insurance is makingit difficult for healthcare

(20:14):
professionals to do business inthe state.
During the 60-day legislativesession earlier this year, an
effort to overhaul the state'smedical malpractice law,
including capping attorney'sfees, died in committee on a 5-4
vote.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
What a shock.
Yeah, there it is.
This is why there is no singlebigger issue than every
independent Republican andDemocrat should call their
legislator and say get on this.
We are at a crisis point.
We have the powerful and theelites writing letters telling
you no, no, no, don't worryabout this, Let us keep raking
the system at your expense.

(20:48):
That's what this whole thing is, and we're getting ripped off.

Speaker 3 (20:52):
And people in the meantime.
I mean, we all have friends outthere.
I'm sure people that arelistening now that are leaving
the state because they know thatthey're getting, you know,
either going to have a greaterneed for health care as we're
getting older, and why sitaround and wait if they don't
think it's going to change?
So if you, you know, if you'resitting there saying, well,
let's just continue to vote thesame state reps and I would
check out for my first thingwould be are they an attorney?

(21:13):
I mean, no, I mean, but that'sthe point right.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
when you know these issues are coming up and and we
need to do a better job ofbringing them up when they
happen when you know a bill'scoming up that's going to start
to deal with these things, it'sgo time.
It's time for everybody tostand up and push their
legislator.
I don't care what politicalparty you're in, it doesn't
matter.
When you go and get anappointment with a doctor and
you can't get it for eightmonths, you're going to be like,
well, at least I got the trialattorneys on my side.

(21:43):
Okay well, you're not going toof thing, it's like oh, it's up
as up as down, and down as up.
There's no doubt.

Speaker 3 (21:49):
Don't, don't overthink this.
We've got it all managed foryou.
I mean so again, we're thesmartest people in the room.
Just trust us.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yes, we're the elites and we handle things and,
believe me, every one of theserich trial attorneys who
supported this group and doesn'twant fair change, they got the
money to go wherever they want.
Don't kid yourself If things gobad for them or their family,
they're not going to sit aroundand not get care.
Right, Like you and I like.
They're just not going to dothat, right, right, so exactly.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
Anyway, that.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
I saw that all come out and I just it was
infuriating.

Speaker 3 (22:20):
So, anyway, that's how we jumped in and I think
it's important just because youknow people understand.
I think it's important justbecause people understand.
I think in general they'refrustrated with the lack of
doctors.
I think that's a pretty commonthing.
People write us all the timeabout it.
Can you talk more about thefact that we can't get doctors,
we can't get health care, andjust so you know we have talked
to several doctors and got a lotof background information.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
Oh, hospitals I've talked to the head of all the
biggest hospitals in the state,all right, as well as
independent.
Yeah, believe me, there is nodoubt about what's happening
here, right, and there are a fewdifferent solutions on ways to
go about it, but there is nodoubt of what's happening here
and you're just getting somemisdirection from our friend Mr
Egoff.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
Yeah, thank you, mr Egoff, for your service.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Thank you, sir, for your service.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
All right.

Speaker 2 (23:02):
Let's get into what's going on with this whole Russia
deal Met with Russia and Alaskaand Trump and Putin sit down
and everybody's saying Trump gotsmoked in this whole thing and
it gave Putin all you know allthis more power whichever,
whatever that means.
So Marco Rubio went on themorning shows on Sunday and
started to push back.
There's going to be a huge weekon this story because Zelensky

(23:23):
is coming to the White House.
The Europeans are coming to theWhite House to say, ok, can we
somehow find a solution to thisdeal, right, right?
And so here's Rubio talking toMartha Raddatz about what's
going on here, and MarthaRaddatz acting as if Putin is,
you know, the president ofLiechtenstein and no one's ever
heard of him.
And so, therefore, trump isplatforming him on a red carpet

(23:46):
as if nobody's just ever heardof Putin.
And it turns out Marco well,pushes back pretty effectively.

Speaker 6 (23:52):
President Trump will say the pomp and circumstances,
the pomp and circumstance, thered carpet, the warm handshake
that President Trump simply lost, that that Putin gained there
just by being on the world stageand walking down a red carpet
with the president.
Your reaction to that?

Speaker 4 (24:10):
Well, I mean, critics of President Trump are always
going to find something tocriticize.
You don't even pay attention toit anymore.
But I will tell you this Putinis already on the world stage.
He's already on the world stage.
The guy's conducting afull-scale war in Ukraine.
He's already on the world stage.
He has the world's largesttactical nuclear arsenal in the
world and the second largeststrategic nuclear arsenal in the
world.
He's already on the world stage.

(24:30):
When I hear people say that, oh, it elevates him.
Well, all we do is talk aboutPutin all the time.
All the media has done is talkabout Putin all the time for the
last four or five years.
That doesn't mean he's rightabout the war.
That doesn't mean he'sjustified about the war.
Put all that aside.
It means you're not going tohave a peace agreement between
Russia and Ukraine.
You're not going to end a warbetween Russia and Ukraine
without dealing with Putin.

(24:50):
That's not.
That's just common sense.
I shouldn't have to say it sopeople can say whatever they
want.
Ultimately, at the end of theday, we have to get the Russian
side to agree to things thatthey don't want to agree to if
we're going to have peace.
If not, there'll just be a war.
They'll keep killing each otherand life will go on in America
and in the rest of the world,but not for Ukraine.
So the president has invested alot of time in trying to bring

(25:12):
an end to this war.
He deserves credit for doingthat.
He gets criticism for doingthat.
He could have just let this wargo on.
The president could have justsaid this is Biden's war.
It started under him.
We'll do what we can forUkraine, but we're going to
focus on other things.

Speaker 6 (25:24):
He could have easily said that but he's the only
leader in the world that can getput into a meeting to talk
about serious things.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
I think it's true.
I mean, and I think Trump'sgenuine aversion to war is real,
right and I think he'sdemonstrated that.

Speaker 3 (25:37):
Well, and I think it was funny because last week, you
know he talked, he was, theywere.
You know.
Somebody asked him in the medialike well, what do you think
you're the guy that can get thisdeal done?
And he said you know, listen,I'm not telling you, I'm going
to be the one that's going to.
You know, bring the end of thiswar.
That's up to Putin and Zelenskyto do that.
It's their war.
My job is to try to broker adeal.
They're like well, how do you,why do you think you're the one

(25:58):
that can broker deals dues?
It's a pretty solid answer.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Well, also we thought we, we are a huge supplier to
arms right to ukraine.
So that does give us some senseof telling putin you know, the
underrated part of this in theunderreported part really not
underrated, but underreportedpart of this is the fact that we
are basically conducting aproxy war against russia.

(26:21):
We see what they do, all of itright.
So we, we have an idea of howthey operate in a way that we
didn't in the past 20 yearsleading up to this.
So I think, I would think, fromPutin's perspective, it's not
something you necessarily wantto keep doing simply because
you're sapping your own country,you're bleeding them dry of
your, your treasure, and you'rein your, in the blood of your

(26:43):
young people who you're losing,you know, and so I don't know,
we'll see how it shakes out, butanyway, he wasn't done with
Martha.

Speaker 3 (26:51):
No, I love Marco Rubio, I can listen to this guy
answer questions all day long.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yeah, he's great.

Speaker 3 (26:57):
We clipped another one of our favorites from this
morning.

Speaker 6 (26:58):
Can you name any concessions that Vladimir Putin
made during this meeting?
Have any concessions been asked.

Speaker 4 (27:06):
I wouldn't name him on your program.
Why would I do that?

Speaker 6 (27:08):
Where is the pressure ?

Speaker 4 (27:10):
Because you can't have a peace agreement.
No, you can't have a peaceagreement unless both sides give
and get.
You can't have a peaceagreement unless both sides make
concessions.
That's a fact.
That's true in virtually anynegotiation.
If not, it's just calledsurrender and neither side is
going to surrender.
So both sides are going to haveto make concessions.
So of course concessions wereasked.
But what utility would there beof me going on a program and

(27:31):
tell you we've wagged our fingerat Putin and told him you must
do this and you must do that.
It's only going to make itharder and less likely that
they're going to agree to thesethings.
So these negotiations as muchas everyone would love it to be
a live pay-per-view event, thesediscussions only work best when
they are conducted privately.
In serious negotiations inwhich people who have to go back

(27:53):
and respond to constituenciesbecause even authoritarian
governments have constituenciesthey have to respond to people
have to go back and defend theseagreements that they make and
figure out a way to explain themto people, to people.
So we need to create space forconcessions to be made.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
But of course concessions were asked yeah, so
that's negotiation 101 withmarco rubio and martha.

Speaker 3 (28:13):
He's like you're like you're the dumbest person I
mean it's like he just makes youfeel like an idiot for saying
well he did that to margaretbrennan too.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
We didn't pull the cbs stuff, but he did that to
Margaret Brennan as well.
He's like come on, this is likehe just kept hammering away.
So it is funny to watch him goout there and ragdoll whoever,
whoever's interviewing him andjust say, listen, this is
ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
And I think what's interesting too is I didn't see
a lot of the morning shows todaytalking about the fact I mean,
the times did put it in theirarticle, but the fact that Putin
actually said during this wholething that he would not have
gone to war if Trump had beenpresident, I think that's an
interesting thing.
Maybe it's a lie, Maybe it'she's buttering up Trump.
I have no idea.
I don't know either.
But the fact that they don'teven mention that really on the
morning shows today.
I you know, I just thought thatwas kind of an interesting

(28:54):
thing, like they're not going togive anything to Trump that
they don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
Well, I mean, that's obviously, yeah, absolutely they
won't.
But even at the same time, nowit becomes a much bigger issue
in the respect that, okay, canhe really put a stop to this?
Can he broker some peace tothis?
We'll see what happens thisweek because again, zelensky
comes in on Monday, I think withthe Europeans to talk about
what's doable and what's not.
Most people say the dividingline here is that Russia keeps

(29:21):
Crimea which again not entitledto, but they got it and the
Donbass right, and then theybasically stop there, and then
they work some sort of dealaround that, and then there are
security guarantees for Ukraine,meaning we would guarantee some
of their security, europe wouldas well, so that Russia cannot
move beyond that line.
It's probably not ideal forZelensky, but the question is

(29:41):
you don't know where he is inthis whole thing.
So interesting stuff, butwhat's also interesting is the
way that you know people.
As trump came into office,there was thought that, oh man,
you know zolinski had that badmeeting with zolinski.
What was it?

Speaker 3 (29:54):
in february trump had the bad meeting.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Yeah, trump had a bad meeting was.
It was like oh my gosh, theukraine.
You know, ukraine republicansdon't like it.
Not so fast, my friend.

Speaker 3 (30:02):
Yeah, harry Eaton showed us a new poll where it
shows that Republicans are kindof shifting their favorability,
or at least their openness, tosupporting Ukraine.
So take a look at this.

Speaker 9 (30:13):
Yeah, what a big change from where we were at the
beginning of the Trumpadministration.
Gop the US gives too muchsupport to Ukraine.
Back in February, the plurality47 percent said yes, the US in
fact gives too much support toUkraine.
Back in February, the plurality47 percent said yes, the US in
fact gives too much support toUkraine.
Republicans did not like that,but look at where we are now.
Look at this.
No, takes the cake at 46percent.
We have had an inverse of thepositions.

(30:35):
The Republican Party hasshifted at least a little bit on
Ukraine and now, all of asudden, they don't believe that
in fact, the US gives too muchsupport to Ukraine, which is
very much unlike what we saw inFebruary Rarely do I see people
like this?
You read the blogosphere, youread X, you might think that
Republicans think that we're waytoo much in Ukraine's camp.

(30:55):
But Republicans at large nolonger believe that.

Speaker 7 (30:58):
And on the issue that is a big topic of debate,
especially early on in theadministration, supplying
weapons continued support for.
Ukraine in that regard.
Where are they?

Speaker 9 (31:07):
Yeah, this is an even bigger shift.
I mean my goodness.
Harry agrees.
Us should give Ukraine morearms and military supplies.
Look at this again amongRepublicans in March it was just
30 percent.
Hello, we're now up to 51percent.
The majority of Republicans, ofRepublicans and certainly
majority of Americans at largebelieve that the US should give
more arms to Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (31:26):
OK, we can start right there.
What that tells you is that, ifyou think it's just about Trump
, you know acquiescing to Putinit's not.
His own party is moved andthey've moved because Trump has
moved, by the way, and you knowwho may have moved Trump,
melania.

Speaker 3 (31:40):
Oh, interesting.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
Yeah, she does a lot of talk.

Speaker 3 (31:57):
There's a bunch of leaks going back a couple months
saying that Trump would get offthe phone with Putin and be
like you know, we had a reallygood discussion and then Melania
would turn to him and say andhe's going show any of his
polling numbers to like theproducers.
He's like I'm just gonna goahead and just have this on this
little disc drive and I'm gonnastick it in here, because
basically they talk all day longabout what, what the stories
are of the day right and then heputs all these polling numbers
up that shows like, hey, this isnot what americans want to hear

(32:17):
about, just so you know, justso you know, like everything
you've just blathered aboutreally is of inconsequence.
Well, it's funny.

Speaker 2 (32:22):
We do use a lot of his stuff and I like it because,
first of all, he always has newpolling data coming out.
I think it's fascinating.
I like to track stuff as itgoes, and then some of it too
you're right, he's not, he isn'tby to me is unbiased, as you
can get on ES or sorry, cnn, andyou know what you know.
Obviously we use a lot of ScottJennings as well which?
we'll get to him in a second,but just one other quick thing

(32:42):
on this.
Oh, I know I got to show this.
This is hilarious.
So Trump is walking with Putinon the red carpet and, in
classic Trump fashion, there's aflyover of a B2, which
basically is telling Putin likelisten, brother, you're lucky
I'm not dropping this on youright now, just so you know what
we could do and watch.
So what you'll see here isthey're they're walking here and

(33:04):
you can even turn up the audiojust a little else, because
you'll hear it so you can see itlooks like an F-22 and F-35
there, but then up there's theB-2 going right over Putin and
then watch this.

Speaker 3 (33:21):
Putin will look at it and Trump will look at it as
well, like hey, just kidding man, just joking on that, don't
worry about it.
I can only imagine theconversation that Trump had with
his team to say hey, we need tofly.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
And they're probably like really, and he's like yeah,
no, no, no, trust me.
Trust me, It'll be great.
You're going to love it, okay.

Speaker 3 (33:36):
So another poll, we just pulled out for.
Harry back because this one wasa little different.
This is about the fact that youand I kind of talked a little
bit about this, because, youknow, sending your kid to
college, you have to have thatdrinking conversation, right?
I mean, and even though we sentour kid to a pretty
conservative school, we're alsonot morons in thinking that,
like, oh no, it's a Christianschool and there's no drinking.

(33:58):
You know, please give me abreak, it's going to happen, no
matter where, right.
However, the shift really ischanging in the drinking and
smoking and even sex, right.
So this new polling, let's takea look at this because it's an
interesting thing, it's aninteresting shift to see the
youth today really changing thescope compared to, say, 40 years

(34:19):
ago.

Speaker 9 (34:21):
I mean, my goodness gracious, this is a huge decline
Americans who drink alcohol.
We are looking at the lowestlevel since the 1930s.
What are we talking about?
Just 54% on occasion, americanssay that they drink alcohol.
That's down from four pointslast year.
That's down from 62% in 2023.
And it is way down from therecord high the last year that
that happened, when it was 71%back in 1978.

(34:45):
This record low is being drivenby younger folks and
Republicans as well, as theyincreasingly view the idea of
drinking as an unhealthy habit.
The poll also asked aboutsmoking.
What does that show?
Yeah, same exact idea Turns out.
We're giving up our vices alittle bit.
What are we talking about?
Smoked a cigarette in the lastweek.
Look at this, 2025, just 11percent.

(35:07):
A decade ago it was 19 percent.
Two decades ago, 25 percent.
You look back, 1974, about 50years ago, it was 40 percent.
What is that?
That's one fourth the level, mygoodness gracious.
And again, younger folks arethe ones who are saying that
they are smoking less, and evenwhen you combine in e-cigarettes
, we're still looking atconsiderably lower levels than

(35:28):
we have in past decades.

Speaker 7 (35:29):
And people watching are also going to see this tab.
And are you?
You're saying that people aregiving advices and you think sex
is a vice.

Speaker 9 (35:36):
I'm not saying that sex is a vice.
According to some people.
Perhaps it's a vice.
It is not a vice according tothe Harry Enten School of
Thought.
But bow, chicky, wow, wow,going down.
What are we talking about?
No sex at all in the last year.
As Kate's off on the sidelaughing it up, I don't know
what I'm doing.
I'm not laughing.

Speaker 7 (35:54):
She's doing something .
She's not even sure I'mblushing under all of this
makeup.

Speaker 9 (35:58):
She's blushing there we go In the 1990s, among all
adults, no sex at all in thelast year was 18% in 2024.
Look at that no sex at all.
Up again 10 points.
Look at here those 18 to 21.
Look at that 24% in the 1990s.
It's the younger folks who aregetting up sex.
Look at that percentage.
Doubled, doubled, no sex in thelast year.
Maybe they do need a little bitof alcohol.

(36:20):
Maybe those two are related.

Speaker 2 (36:22):
Well, leaving that aside.

Speaker 3 (36:23):
Yeah, I mean it's interesting because I think you
know, we covered something acouple of weeks ago where we
were talking about the youngergeneration.
You know, the 18 to 25 yearolds really are shifting back
towards more traditional values,wanting to get married, wanting
to have kids, the guysespecially right.
We just kind of share thatinformation.
So when things like this comeout, I'm wondering, I'm thinking

(36:45):
like is sex down becausethey're not married yet?
And maybe we're going back towaiting, waiting for marriage?
No, okay, so what's your theory?

Speaker 2 (36:52):
My theory on that one is that you're seeing less.
Uh, you're seeing less, I thinkconscious effort to date.
Yes For men and women to date.
Yeah, I think that's what Ithink you're seeing.
They're more siloed and they'renot as and a date.
Yeah, I think that's what Ithink you're seeing.
They're more siloed and they'renot as.
There's not as much interest, Ithink, in trying to form those
relationships at that point.

Speaker 3 (37:10):
Yeah, I mean, I would hope that technology is the
driving factor.

Speaker 2 (37:14):
I think to some degree.
I think it is and, and I don'tknow I mean what?
What do you think this is sortof your it's closing in on your
generation.

Speaker 8 (37:21):
Uh, yeah, I I think a couple of things.
I don't have an opinion on thesex one at all, that's good,
let's not have an opinion onthat.

Speaker 2 (37:27):
I agree, let's not have an opinion on that.

Speaker 8 (37:29):
I'm going to applaud that I think that the smoking
and the drinking thing couldjust be a.
I think that some generationsare seeing like a reflection of
the negative impacts of smokingand drinking in their own
parents and their siblings andtheir own lives, but I think
that they don't really want torepeat that cycle.
Um, I think that there's a lotof like kids that see their

(37:51):
parents grew up smoking and thenthey see how their parents end
up or end up drinking, and theythey just don't want to fall
into that same cycle.
But why didn't that happen in?

Speaker 2 (37:58):
my generation, cause we saw it all.

Speaker 3 (38:00):
Yeah, but I feel like , oh, I feel like the health
market though you could get outto keep in mind.
I mean, think about it when wewere kids and when we were
growing up, I mean, smoking wasin the movies still, it was on
TV still.
Now it's just not, it's noteven allowed anymore.

Speaker 8 (38:11):
I would say though that vaping is super popular
Like.
I know a ton of people thatvape.

Speaker 2 (38:15):
Like I think vaping is really we're going to need a
list.

Speaker 8 (38:21):
Yeah, popular than like smoking a cigarette.

Speaker 3 (38:23):
It is, but it's just as dangerous, by the way.
So I mean that's kind ofinteresting.

Speaker 8 (38:27):
I don't know how their numbers would look,
because I think that vaping isjust as popular.

Speaker 3 (38:31):
Well he counted electronic cigarettes.
Is that different than vaping?

Speaker 8 (38:34):
I'm so clueless on this.
No, they're kind of the same.

Speaker 3 (38:37):
Okay, so you said the numbers are going down on
electronic cigarettes too, forthe smoking thing.
So it is interesting just tosee and I think there's a lot of
validity to what you're sayingthat I think our younger
generation are more concernedabout health.
Yeah, and looks and everythingwe were definitely part of the
health you know the boom of likeJane Fonda workout and Kathy

(38:57):
Smith and all that.
I think we were, we were, wecame in.
On that, at least I did, I didall those videos?
Yeah, I know you've seen thevideos.
But anyway, um, but now ourkids, I think, um, I mean, I
don't know, I think we, I thinkshe's right, I think you see the
ramifications of too muchsmoking or too much drinking, or
or maybe just how, I don't know, I don't know, it's hard for me
to tell.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
Well, it's amazing, even in our own lives, like we
do not, like we've over the pastthree years, I think we don't,
we just don't drink.

Speaker 8 (39:25):
I just don't think that like people want to feel
like crap.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
Like they don't want to like, they don't want to like
drink a bunch.
No, you're right, it's so true.
It's so true, like it's yeah.
No, I think you're right.
I mean to be honest as a woman,um, you know, in the uh, post
menopause stage, which is whereI am at.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
I on, but the truth of the matter is, is alcohol now
, as women get older, can reallyinterrupt your sleep pattern?

Speaker 6 (39:51):
Oh, absolutely.

Speaker 3 (39:52):
Now it's like you have a drink at, say, six
o'clock and that blood sugardrops and you'll wake up at like
2 am and sleep is hard enoughafter a certain age for women,
especially that I'm like thelast thing I want to do is lose
any more sleep.
So if I'm going to have like aglass of wine or something to
drink, I push it way earlier inthe day.

Speaker 2 (40:13):
Right, so like at 9am , for instance, a bottle of
Boone's farm is how you startthe day, which is amazing.

Speaker 3 (40:17):
I have to.
I will ask myself if I have abig thing the next day.
I'm, there's no way I'mtouching.
So you and and I definitely wejust kind of gave up alcohol
really five, six years ago, foryou know, I mean not gave it up
yeah, we still have a drink hereand there, but it's just not
part of a regular routineanymore, right on any level.
I also.

Speaker 8 (40:35):
I also agree with what you said that it like I
think people are so likeobsessed now with like looks and
like the way that things look,and I've seen so much stuff on
social media of like, oh, mygrandma smoked for this long and
this is how she looks now, yeah.
And then you're like, oh, Idon't want to look like that.
So you know, you know you don'twant to gain like the freshman
15 because you don't want todrink much like you just don't
want to look bad ever, which isa good thing, yeah, right.

(40:57):
So what I wonder about this?
It's not a great thing.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
Yeah, is this a good thing or not?
So you look at, you look atthis, the.
The drinking thing, I get it.
There's nothing particularlyredeeming about drinking and
smoking.
I realize that.
But in the sex thing too, likethe premarital sex thing, I
don't advocate for right.
But are we looking at a?
Should we feel good about thisin the respect that fewer people
that probably are not marriedare having sex?

(41:19):
That's an overall, I think, asocietal positive per se.
But at the same time, or doesthis really indicate that we're
seeing fewer and fewerrelationships that the people
are trying to engage in, to thepoint where we should be
concerned with this, becausefewer and fewer men and women
are are making it a priority tosay I'm going to find someone I
can spend time with.

Speaker 3 (41:40):
Yeah, that's.
I wish I had an answer on that.
I think it's a good thing.
I don't think it's a good thingthat it's going down.

Speaker 8 (41:45):
I would think it's a good thing, I also, you don't
think it's at all about likepeople like being Christian now.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
You don't think at all.
I don't Not in those numbers.

Speaker 8 (41:52):
I think that the younger generations are more
like serious about their faith.

Speaker 2 (41:55):
I agree with you to some degree.

Speaker 3 (41:57):
We shared that information not very long ago.

Speaker 2 (41:58):
No, no, I agree with you to some degree, but you're
seeing a doubling of it.
I'm sorry, that's a massivenumber.
One out of every two peoplefrom the age of 18 to 24 has not
engaged in sex in the past year.
That is a big number and Idon't think that's a faith-based
.
I mean it could be getting somehelp and I hope it is.
I hope that's the whole number.
Believe me, I do.
But I worry more that you'rejust not seeing that time spent

(42:24):
trying to find somebody that youcan spend time with or is
meaningful to you.
Now, on the positive side, thatmeans there's less of a hookup
culture.
I mean that's really good forthe pride and the self-esteem of
both men and women.

Speaker 8 (42:36):
Right, or maybe it's just more popular now to not
want to get married and to besingle.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
I feel like it's more popular.

Speaker 8 (42:43):
But that's bad for society.
Well sure, I'm not saying Iagree with it.
But I'm just saying like now,like especially like millennials
are, so like I don't have toget married, I don't have to
have kids, Like.
I think that that could alsolike, but I agree with that.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
but that scares me because that's a self-focus.
That is I am me, my truth, andyou know I don't have to do this
and I can be the focus of mylife.
You absolutely can be, andthere's no doubt.
I just think broadly that's nothow God created us.
So these numbers are a littletricky because obviously what
you're talking about here isyou're looking at a number that

(43:14):
includes a significant sincomponent to it on the sex
portion of it.
So it's hard for me to be liketrying those things out.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
I think it's interesting to see, like older
adults in our lives and I'm notgoing to name any names, but
older adults in our lives thathave approached our girls
privately and said so you reallyare partying behind your
parents' backs, right?
And our girls are both like, no, we're not.
And I think that they're soshocked, like because it's this
assumption that everybodyparties, everybody goes out this

(43:42):
whole, like I think thatculture has really shifted and I
think that's what we're tryingto see, and I think that's a
broad, that's a broad positive.

Speaker 6 (43:49):
Yeah, absolutely, as a parent, I think the drinking.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
I think the drinking and the and the smoking thing is
clear.
The sex is a little trickier tome.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
I just think in general just because it could.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
There could be something else underlying that
is less positive, you know,positive than it appears to
people like us, who, whoconsider you know fewer people
not married, having sex being avery good thing.

Speaker 3 (44:09):
Right.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
I can see that.

Speaker 3 (44:11):
Yeah, you're right, okay, okay.
So, uh, let's, let's start,let's move on.
So, you, you take us to thenext one.

Speaker 2 (44:17):
No, no, no, no.
Just a quick thing.
We we spent a lot of time lastepisode talking about what was
going on in Washington DC, andthey continue, they're continued
to be coming in and the mayorfiring back and they're firing
back and protests and everythingelse.
This is clip 21 and it and wejust want to show we always like
to have Scott Jennings on whenwe can to steal one of his clips
from CNN and you know thiscontinues where you see these

(44:38):
little protests and stuff likethat.
But overall, again another oneof these issues we constantly
talk about on the show the 80,20 issues.
I think you've got another oneof these issues we constantly
talk about on the show the 80-20issues.
I think you've got another oneof those 80-20 issues right now
going and that is bringing theNational Guard into DC.
I think it's broadly consideredthe right thing to do, I think
mostly by people in DC who arereally being honest about this
and not people who are justpolitical and trying to make a

(45:00):
political point.
And so when you have those80-20 issues, once again it's
Trump just stands there on the80 and looks around and on the
other side they continue to pushfor something that is untenable
.
And Scott does a really goodjob of boiling it down in under
a minute.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
What about the idea that this is?
Even if one supports thiseffort, it's a Band-Aid right.
It's not like hiring 500additional cops in DC, and I
think they do have a staffingshortage in the DC police
department.
They need to fix that.
I don't know what'sauthoritarian about putting some
extra eyes and ears on thestreet, getting criminals off
the street to keep people frombeing murdered and carjacked.

(45:36):
Nobody in their right mindbelieves Washington DC is safe.
And to say the president istrying to help us keep people
from getting murdered andcarjacked and we have to stop
this authoritarian push.
Help us keep people fromgetting murdered and carjacked
and we have to stop thisauthoritarian push.
It's just sort of ridiculousrhetoric.
These Democrats don't know whatto do with themselves.
Every time Donald Trump diestries to do something, they
reflexively feel the need tooppose it without thinking
through the politicalimplications for themselves.

(45:56):
You think Democrats are takingthe bait?
Well, I think they're actinglike idiots here.
The city is crime ridden.
I saw a guy get murdered inUnion Station in February at
four in the afternoon.
I saw the body hit the floor atthe bottom of the escalator on
the second floor, and soeverybody who visits there,
everybody who lives there knowsit's a serious problem.
You have extra eyes and ears.

(46:17):
They've arrested criminals.
They're getting illegal gunsoff the street.
People feel safer.
Tourists feel safer.
What is the?

Speaker 2 (46:23):
problem safer.
Tourists feel safer.
What is the problem?
Right and it's funny becauseJake Tapper says they're taking
the bait as if Trump has thisMachiavellian plan to trick
Democrats into something he'snot even doing, that he didn't
even deserve that credit.
He's looking at the situationand going this is what we got to
do.

Speaker 3 (46:37):
Right, and I think the argument of saying, like,
well, what is National Guardreally doing?
I mean, we're even getting someof that pushback here in our
state of you know what are theyreally doing?
Well, I do think it's extraeyes and extra ears on, you know
, for people listening to folksAlso.
Additionally, on top of that,it is being able to allow police
to be more freed up to focus oncatching those criminals.
So I do think that there issome positivity to this just

(47:00):
having more eyes and ears outthere to be listening to what's
going on, you know, being ableto support the police that are
on staff.
I don't know how this is anegative.
I mean it's.
It's not martial law out therewhere you know these guys are
going in and arresting people intheir homes and all this big
fear driven rhetoric that comesout.
I think people need to saylisten, what?
Why is deterring crime a badthing?

(47:22):
I don't want to support?

Speaker 2 (47:30):
Yeah, well, that's, but that's been that way for for
for years now.
That's been where they've beenfor years and it's an untenable
position.
It's how you lose elections andagain it's a very easy thing to
pivot, to just pivot back, tobe like, yeah, okay, we, we
believe in actually keepingpeople safe too, and you can hop
on that too.
I mean, you know again the factthat they think that they have
to be the opposition party onevery single thing is crazy.
It's so silly, it just doesn'twork.

(47:51):
It doesn't work, all right.
All right, here we go.
Okay, so I, this is crazy town.

Speaker 8 (47:53):
Okay, I also have an opinion on this one.
Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (47:57):
Oh, this, this story here, okay, Let me start with a
tweet from complex sports.
There's a bunch of differenttweets on this, but else let's
go with this tweet to start.
It says NFL teams are facingbacklash as the following 12
franchises prepare to includemale cheerleaders for the 2025
season.
And here are the 12 teams theVikings, ravens, rams, saints,
eagles, 49ers, patriots, titans,colts, chiefs, buccaneers and

(48:21):
Panthers.
Now I want to draw a quickdistinction here.
If you watch a major collegefootball, especially in the SEC,
we're not talking about this.
Okay, there are a lot of malecheerleaders who this is part of
a super athletic effort by youknow.
So these guys are, you know,chucking cheerleaders in the air
, catching them doing all sortsof.
It's amazing.

(48:41):
These guys are great athletes.
That's different than whatwe're talking about.
So I want to show you a videofrom the Patriots, okay, and
they had a video where they cameout with all their cheerleaders
and they kind of individuallyfeatured each cheerleader doing
some dancing.
I don't have all thecheerleaders, but then they had
a cheerleader who came out andhe's the first male and here's

(49:04):
what.
Here's what he did, okay, sohe's just dancing as if, as if
he's a normal cheerleader womanon the team.

Speaker 3 (49:15):
He's definitely doing the cheerleading dance.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
Yes, that every other woman on the team would do.

Speaker 3 (49:20):
Right.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
Okay, okay.
And then the Vikings put out avideo.
So let's just start this videofor a second.
Ella, no sound on this, justbecause I don't want to get Okay
.
So look at this sign, stopright here, I'll just pause it.
And it says oh sorry, go backif you don't mind.
I know that's a little tricky.
So what it says is on the video.
It says these two girls aregetting ready to introduce

(49:43):
something and say here it sayswait, where are the boys?
Yeah, yeah, the boys areplaying in the game.
Okay, the boys aren't, I mean.
And so then they bring it.
These are two.
This is not a parody, thislooks like a parody it does look
like a saturday night.

Speaker 3 (49:59):
It's a parody.

Speaker 2 (50:00):
It's a.
Are we joking here?
I mean n.
I mean these dudes are outdancing like they're, like
they're women.

Speaker 8 (50:09):
Yeah, wow, yeah, that is a trend that like oh, like
where?

Speaker 6 (50:13):
are the guys so well?

Speaker 8 (50:14):
so usually the trend is like oh, where are the guys?
They're like there's a ring ofFinn.
They're usually like two guyslike joking, like wearing girls
outfits, a joke, but they're notokay, this is okay, this is
helpful, this is serious.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
So right, right, but wait.
So where the boys is like athing okay.

Speaker 8 (50:30):
So it's like no, it's like oh, like it's not like
where the boys.
It's like oh, where you couldsay it about anybody okay, where
the girls where the guys sureand then usually girls, like as
a joke, put their boyfriends in,like their dresses as a joke
but, like usually they're notactually so that.
So the first half of this videoI was like, oh, like they're
just kidding, like it's just ajoke, and then they get on the
field no, they're on the field,they're doing this.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
This is just.
But here's what bugs me, andagain I'll say this at the
expense of our listeners andviewers laughing at me.
But we watch the americasweethearts things with the
cowboys yeah, the cheerleadersshow the cowboy stuff.
By the way, the cowboycheerleaders, on a level like
the dance, like the performancelevel of the cowboy cheerleaders
is above anything else you seein the nfl, like if you'll go to
a bunch of nfl cheerleadingsquads, it skews it a little

(51:14):
different direction.
They're trying to appeal tosomething a little different
than the cowboys are.
I will say that, okay, peoplecan think that's weird, but it's
not.
It's just that they're reallytalented dancers.
We watched all this stuff.
It's.
It's amazing.

Speaker 3 (51:24):
So these people coming in guys coming in,
they're taking women's spots,they are Well, and I think
what's interesting is, you know,cause one of my best friends is
a former Denver Broncocheerleader and we dance
together and perform togetherfor years and then she made the
squad and she was on the squadfor years and what was
interesting that she saw overthe dynamic is just the shift.

(51:45):
You know, are the cheerleadersthemselves going to be
eliminated because of kind ofthe hashtag Me Too movement?
During that time frame, therewas all this discussion of do we
end all the cheerleading squadsbecause they're too sexist or
it's too whatever.
So I see this and I'm thinking,gosh, is this what the answer

(52:06):
is by the NFL?

Speaker 2 (52:06):
Are they oh, like put men in there.
Yeah, Like are they trying it'snot, Jerry's not doing that.

Speaker 3 (52:13):
Well, I know Jerry's not doing that, but is this some
sort of and I don't know, Idon't know the answer to this, I
have no idea but is this somesort of answer to making it less
sexist and appeal to morepeople?
I mean, I look at those ladies.
I watched that AmericanSweethearts.
I loved the show, I thought itwas great and I was like these
girls can kick their legs totheir forehead.

Speaker 2 (52:33):
They're very talented .

Speaker 3 (52:33):
I couldn't touch my own toes.
So I'm like no, no, no, I agreewith you on that.
I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
What I'm what I'm trying to say is what I'm trying
to say in that, with the NFL,your whole audience is men, okay
, and what I'm saying is thecheerleaders themselves.
You're right, they, they, Ithink, in a lot of cases are
role models for women.
No doubt, cause a lot of themare professionals and they're
super talented.
Like you can't be an NFLcheerleader especially what we

(52:58):
saw with the Cowboys unless youwere a top notch dancer.
Like this isn't.
Like you know, these girls wentto college to do this.
Like this is not some, you know, let me go figure out a few
routines in the garage and gogive it a shot.
Like that's not what this is.
So they're super talented, butin the, at the end of the day,
if you bring men out there ascheerleaders in this way, not

(53:18):
not, you know, again, again ifyou want to have the men as part
of the athletic endeavor, likecollege.

Speaker 3 (53:23):
Yes, you want to do that that's like okay, now I get
.

Speaker 2 (53:26):
What you're doing totally makes sense, because
people would watch it and belike holy god, you see how high
they chuck that right.
Or or just wait one quicksecond.
So the only other thing is thatif you're a guy watching the
game or you're you're, it makesyou uncomfortable yeah, well,
I'm not.

Speaker 3 (53:39):
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm totally.
No, I think here's thedifference.
I think it's kind of like okay,okay, it's going to go one of
two ways, right, I would.
I would prefer personally tosee cause I have plenty of guys
that I know that are greatdancers, right, that they're
really good.
So if they just put guys outthere and let them be on the
cheer squad and dance like guys,not trying to imitate a
femininity, how in the world.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
Would you do that?

Speaker 3 (53:59):
Well, I don't know, I don't.
I'm not a choreographer, but Ihave danced with plenty of guys
in shows.
When I was on shows that didn'tlook like chicks dancing, they
looked like guys dancing andthey were good dancers, right.
So if you could have guys thatare, I think it's.
I love to watch people dance,though I love to watch couples
dance.
I watch all those little reelsthat come out.
I'm fascinated by that.
So I think it would beinteresting if I got if they

(54:22):
allowed men to act moremasculine in the dancing, and
that would be differentchoreography, I think to some
degree it might be more flips.

Speaker 2 (54:29):
It's like they're trying to imitate women.

Speaker 3 (54:31):
That's the turnoff.
I think I think that's wherethe turnoff is becoming, is that
part, and I just think so itcould go like this could be a
Mulvaney thing all over again.
It really could.
It could be like, hey, we'retrying this, we're going could.
It could be like, hey, we'retrying this, we're gonna put
some dudes out there that aretrying to look like what do you
think the reaction is gonna belike?

Speaker 2 (54:48):
do you think they'll be booing, like if you?

Speaker 3 (54:51):
well, look at the cities they're in.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
That's what I was just analyzing well, I think it
would have to do with the ownersmore than the cities.

Speaker 3 (54:56):
But yeah, I mean I don't know.
I mean I can't believe theeagles fans are gonna be like go
, I want this.
I mean, though, that's a brutalaudience as it is.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
It is a brutal audience.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
So those guys I just think it's going to be
interesting to see Are the menthat show up to watch the
Philadelphia Eagles play.
Are they going to be like?
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Yeah, I love that.
Hey, good job, Ricky.

Speaker 3 (55:15):
Ricky, good job.
I mean it's just.
I think it would be.
I don't know, maybe we're oldfashioned.
I know and I love to watch guysthat can dance.
I think it's a great quality, Imean gosh.
But this is a different style.

Speaker 2 (55:26):
All right, ella, what , what do you got?

Speaker 8 (55:31):
All right.
Well, I've been trying to talkfor the past like 10 minutes but
everybody keeps talking over me.
No, I think, like you said,like I think that sorry.

Speaker 2 (55:36):
You're not allowed to say like I can't do it.

Speaker 8 (55:40):
I think, okay.
Okay, I think cheerleaders inthe NFL were originally created
for that purpose that you saidbefore.
I think they're no longer for,like, men's appeal.
I think it's a really.
You still have to be talentedLike even though the
cheerleaders at the DallasCowboys probably require more,
I'm sure any of thosecheerleaders.
It's very difficult.

Speaker 6 (55:59):
Yeah absolutely yeah.

Speaker 8 (56:01):
But I think if the guys were there.
But this type of cheerleadingisn't tumbling, it isn't
building like towers, it's likemore dance related cheerleading.
So I don't think the men needto be there at all and I don't
think that there needs to be amasculine dance for men.
I honestly I don't even knowhow you do that, because they're
basically running the wholetime Right, and the whole yeah.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
Yeah, I don't know how you have a song where the
dude's like yeah, and they'relike always whipping their hair
around like it's.

Speaker 8 (56:28):
It's not a men's thing.

Speaker 3 (56:29):
I would say that you would need different
choreography for the guycheerleaders.
If you're gonna do this, and doit well in my opinion you
cannot over feminize the men,because that's what doesn't work
.
That's when it becomes morelike a drag show and right then,
what you're wanting to see, uh,a cheerleading squad.
I agree, okay that's good.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
Look at you guys killing it.
Yeah, you guys are all right.
So a couple of quick things.
We're running out of time, soI've got to do my cams real
quick here.
It is Sunday game day, and thiswas what we found on the Mark
versus the Mountain lot a coupleof days ago.
There's the house we'rebuilding behind it, but then the
elk just come on in and theywere feeding right in and along
the mountain side, and I believe, ella and I, we dumped the

(57:08):
grass seed right there.

Speaker 3 (57:09):
That's us.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
That's our grass seed that we put in.
We did plant grass seed and theresult worked out pretty well,
and now they're going to go eatit all.
Well, it's funny because youstart to see this time of year
the difference is you get a tonmore elk.
So this is another spot that wehave a camera and there are a
bunch of elk coming through hereas well, just feeding.
These were about five or sixcows.
A few are back just a littlebit further.
And then you and I went andreplaced the battery and a

(57:33):
camera yesterday.
It was on Saturday, so wefinished doing this.
I get back to the car, we getdown to the bottom of the
mountain and then I get an alerton my phone and the camera that
we just traded out.

Speaker 3 (57:44):
This guy comes through, literally seconds
before, like right after we left, and I'm so glad we were trying
to be loud, I mean we had.

Speaker 2 (57:51):
Scout.

Speaker 3 (57:51):
You were yelling.
We were trying to be loud.
The last thing I want to see isthis bear.

Speaker 1 (57:55):
Yeah, he looks great though.

Speaker 3 (57:56):
It's fine.
If he wants to be there, that'sfine, it's his land.
I just don't want to be thereat the same time that he's there
.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
I got it, so we're done.

Speaker 3 (58:04):
That's the deal, okay , well, thanks you guys for
spending some time with us.
We appreciate it.
Keep those comments coming in.
Please like and subscribe onour YouTube channel, and we
appreciate all the comments thatyou can give to us.
Take care, have a great startto your week and we will see you
on Wednesday.

Speaker 5 (58:18):
You've been listening to the no doubt about it
podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it Podcast.

Speaker 1 (58:36):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 5 (58:39):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
There is no doubt about it.