November 16, 2025 • 47 mins
Two hosts, no video, and a stack of candid emails set the tone for a fast, unscripted ride through local politics, national economics, and the way message discipline can make or break a campaign. We open the mailbag to tackle donation histories, residency rules, and the hard math of winning a GOP primary in a deep-blue state. The throughline is turnout: if the base isn’t convinced you’re one of them, you won’t get to the general—no matter how many crossover voters you imagine.
From there, we separate clouds from conspiracies. Our meteorology breakdown explains why most “chemtrails” are just contrails expanding under moist, cold air aloft, and why serious climate interventions would target the stratosphere, not standard cruising altitude. That commitment to evidence carries into Albuquerque’s mayoral runoff, where one ad pounds crime and homelessness while the other nationalizes the race with a Trump proxy fight. We assess fit, facts, and why endorsements can both help and confuse when rhetoric clashes with reality.
The economy segment dives into a notable White House pivot: blame the price spike on the last administration, then pitch practical relief—drug costs, energy supply, and faster housing approvals. We analyze inflation’s stickiness, why tariffs complicated early optics, and how “America first” hiring paired with H‑1B enforcement reframes jobs without losing needed expertise. Along the way, we reflect on a rare moment of bipartisan decency after Senator Fetterman’s injury and consider a Gallup stat showing many young women say they’d rather live abroad—part wanderlust, part politics, all signal that leaders must make staying feel like a winning bet.
If you’re here for clear thinking and straight talk—on ads, prices, contrails, primaries, and persuasion—hit play. Then subscribe, leave a review, and tell us what topic you want us to tackle next.
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_03 (00:09):
Well, we're all hoping I'm actually on right
now.
Uh, we're doing this show veryblindly today because Mark is
actually in the northern uh NewMexico Mountains.
I'm in our studio.
Um, I can't see Mark or video,and Ella can't see me or video.
So, Mark, uh, tell us you'rethere.
SPEAKER_05 (00:27):
Just uh I am here, and uh let me just go.
We'll go to the gallery shot soeveryone can see both of us.
Everyone can see both of us.
Just trust me on that.
SPEAKER_03 (00:37):
We're putting a lot of faith in you today, Mark, to
make sure that you do this well.
SPEAKER_05 (00:40):
Yeah, that's probably misplaced, but we'll
we'll give it a shot anyway.
So it's gonna be a differentkind of show, actually.
So the reason why is because wegot a lot of really good
feedback from you guys, andwe're gonna start on that.
Some of it kind of pushes backon some of the stuff we're
doing, and we kind of picked outthe various emails where we
thought we're kind of pushingback a little bit because we
(01:01):
want to discuss that, and welove the fact that you do it.
SPEAKER_03 (01:04):
Yeah, absolutely.
Give us a quick uh just quickupdate on what we're gonna talk
about today.
Just a quick question.
Yeah, we're gonna have somequestions about yeah, quick one,
quick one.
SPEAKER_05 (01:12):
So we'll do some of the viewer comments, uh, talking
about some of the governor'srace stuff, also talking about
some of the chemtrail stuff thatwe that we talked about last
week.
We're gonna check in on themayor's race.
Both candidates have a new adout.
So we'll go through that andwhat that's all about.
And then we're gonna talk a deepdive on the economy.
The Trump administration haspivoted their messaging.
(01:34):
We talked about it last weekthat that messaging was not
good.
Well, what we're seeing now is asignificant pivot, and it's not
gonna be an easy pivotnecessarily, but we'll talk
about it.
We'll check in on our guyFetterman, and of course, we've
got Sunday game day.
SPEAKER_03 (01:49):
Okay.
All right.
So let's jump in uh real quickand let's start with some of the
mail that we got in from youguys.
We number one, we appreciate allthe comments that you guys make.
If you want to make furthercomments, go to our website at
no doubtaboutitpodcast.com anddrop us an email.
You can also make a donationthere.
We've gotten those requests aswell.
Like, where do we donate?
Go there as well.
Or you can simply uh like andsubscribe on our YouTube channel
(02:12):
and make comments on our YouTubechannel as well.
But you do have to be asubscriber for those comments to
come into us.
So just a heads up on that one.
Okay, let's start with stuff I'mstuff I make, I guess.
Okay.
Uh this one says, I find it verydisingenuous of you to bring up
the cannabis king issue whileignoring that Darren White was a
lobbyist for legalizing it anddonated the max amount to MLG
(02:36):
when he was trying to get itlegalized in the legislature
because he knew it wouldn't passby sending it to the public for
a public vote.
I want to say really quicklybefore I hand this off to you,
Mark, that uh for this person,uh, thank you so much, first of
all, for making a comment.
Number two, we have actuallydrilled Darren White about both
of those things on our previousshows multiple times.
(02:56):
So if you have not watched ourshows about Darren White, we
absolutely discussed both ofthose things with him.
The biggest difference I see isyes, he donated to MLG.
Talk about somebody who wasn'thappy about that.
It's me.
But he also did donate to Markand other Republican candidates.
So, Mark, I'm gonna toss thatover to you and you can um
continue on that one.
SPEAKER_05 (03:16):
Yeah, no, I I think that a couple things on this.
I think it's a fair thing tobring up, but but I think some
of what Chrissy says isabsolutely true.
When we got in the governor'srace, one of the first calls I
got was from Darren Whitesaying, What can I do to help
you?
What do you need to do?
Darren White has also been aRepublican candidate for
Congress.
He ran against Martin Heinrich.
He's been a Republican for aslong as I've known him here.
(03:37):
And so that's a huge part ofthis.
And when you look at someone'sdonation history, the reason we
talk about that is it's onething to say, uh, you know, both
sides is them sort of thing.
I gave to both sides.
And I think you can makesomewhat that case with Darren.
My problem is when you look atDuke, what we talked about is in
relation to Republicanprimaries, we brought up three
(03:58):
things that he's gonna strugglewith.
Why do we do that?
Because we want to give you thetruth, and that's the truth.
He is gonna struggle with that.
And we'll get into another emailon it here in just a second.
But I think part of the issuewith Duke is the fact that Duke
did not give to any majorRepublican.
He hasn't.
He's given to a few smallercandidates in some small races,
people that probably supportsome of the stuff he supports.
(04:21):
Have I ever heard from Duke whenI ran?
No.
Has any other major Republican?
Not that I can tell.
So again, that's the differencehere.
And we're always going to tellyou the truth.
Now, at the end of the day,could Duke still be successful?
Yeah, he could be if things workout the right way for him.
But the reality of the situationis when you step in to a
Republican primary with a lot ofprincipled voters, and you stand
(04:44):
up and say, Well, you know, I'mI'm Trump.
I can do what I want, or I canplay both sides or whatever.
Okay, that's all well and good,but it's one thing to play both
sides.
It's another to give maximumdonations to people like Raul
Torres, who sues Donald Trumpand MLG.
Okay, it's just different.
Okay, now could he get away withit?
(05:06):
I don't know if he gets awaywith it or not.
We'll see what ends up happeninghere.
But at the end of the day, wehave brought Darren on this
show.
We have questioned him for whathe's done.
And then beyond that, we haveobviously gotten Darren's
support when we have run andbeen in the middle of the fight.
And Darren has been in themiddle of the fight for more
than a decade here.
So that's why I don't think it'sfair to compare the two of them
(05:27):
at all.
But again, no problem with theemail kind of questioning that.
It's a good discussion.
SPEAKER_03 (05:32):
Okay.
Well, you're jumping in and ahat and answering like some of
these other ones, Mark.
But um, uh, so this next onecomes in from Bandicoot Nerd.
Uh it says the thing aboutDuke's donation history is that
if he donated to any GOPerswhatsoever, he can just use the
Trump's 2015 answer of quote, Ido business, I donate to
everyone.
SPEAKER_05 (05:50):
Okay, hold on.
Can I jump in right there justreal quickly?
SPEAKER_03 (05:52):
No, just wait.
SPEAKER_05 (05:54):
Just let's take it piece by piece.
Because if you read the wholething, it's hard to do.
So, so no, that's not true.
He you you don't get to do that.
You can say that, and you couldsay, well, I donated to, you
know, a you know, state Senatecandidate in Roswell.
So therefore I'm a Republican.
Nope, it doesn't work that way.
You can say that, and you cansay, Oh, it's no big deal.
(06:14):
It's both sides is them.
It doesn't work that way,especially if you have somebody
running against you who has somemeans to push back.
SPEAKER_03 (06:22):
Okay.
So it goes uh the comment goeson and says, whether that goes
over or not with primary votersor not, we'll see.
The whole quote, does he live inthe state thing was something
Nella faced, and it ended up notbeing a big deal.
SPEAKER_05 (06:33):
Okay, hold on, hold on on that real quick.
Okay, first of all, to run forgovernor, that's a different
deal altogether.
It's not the same race as aSenate race, number one.
And we're talking about a legalissue here.
It's not a personal thing wheredo I think they're here enough?
Do I think Duke is here enough?
Nothing to do with that at all.
Our point was if it gets down toMaggie Toulouse-Oliver and
(06:56):
saying, wait a minute, you'renot an actual resident of the
state of New Mexico, that's aproblem.
This is a legal issue.
It is not an issue of NellaDominici having multiple homes
and running for the UnitedStates Senate.
It is different for governor,and this is a legal issue.
It has nothing to do with ithurting him with voters, it has
to do with him beingdisqualified legally.
(07:16):
Keep going.
SPEAKER_03 (07:17):
Okay.
And this is as far as thecannabis thing goes, does
anything say New MexicoRepublican more than a guy who
worked for and is endorsed byGary Johnson and made millions
selling weed?
Especially with semi-openprimaries.
If being a weed mogulsignificantly hurt his chances,
I doubt he'd be running forgovernor in the first place.
Now, could Mark or SusanaMartinez beat him?
Yeah.
Ain't no way Greg Hull or SteveLanier are beating Duke.
(07:40):
Hence, why if the pool doesn'tgrow, he'd be the front runner?
Okay, so why don't you take onthe whole Gary Johnson semi-open
primaries?
Because we've had lots ofdiscussion about this with
people who come up and talk tous about these open primaries
and an endorsement by GaryJohnson.
SPEAKER_05 (07:54):
Yeah, well, I look, I love Gary Johnson.
He endorsed me.
I like him a lot.
I don't think it's it's not anendorsement that you know wins
you a primary, especially aRepublican primary, but he's a
great guy.
And I think when you can get hisendorsement, you should.
So that's good.
I think this is actually areally smart comment at the end
here as well.
I like the whole comment ingeneral because I think it's a
(08:14):
good discussion.
But I think that the biggestissue with this whole deal is
especially with what we'retalking about with the semi-open
primaries.
We've just started with this.
There have been literallythousands of candidates who
think they can get people tocross over and vote for them and
everything else.
It doesn't work.
You never get enough people thatends up swinging the election.
(08:35):
Now, every year can bedifferent, and it may help them
a little bit, but it would helpon the margins.
It's not gonna help as some bigswell of voters in the middle
that are gonna come in and say,you know, we're we're gonna
support one candidate oranother.
It's the same reason we've saidthat Sam Bregman is not gonna be
successful running as a centristin the Democratic primary.
He has to get more left-wingvotes.
(08:56):
He just has to.
That's where all the numbersare.
You can't run as a centrist inthese primaries anymore.
It's very difficult to win.
And just like a Republicancouldn't come in and say, I'm
gonna be the centrist in allthis because hardcore
Republicans and hardcoreDemocrats are who drive this
process here.
So Duke doing that won't work.
Now, as far as Hull goes and asfar as Steve Lanier goes, you
(09:17):
may well be right on this.
They may not be able to getenough support, enough money to
be able to overwhelm Duke.
And I think you're also right, awell-known Republican would
trounce Duke.
But when you look at the factthat we have a couple
Republicans in the race rightnow who aren't as well known, I
think it's a fair point.
I you know what, Chrissy, when Iread all these comments and when
(09:38):
you sent them over, I justswelled with pride at our
audience because it's reallygood.
I mean, this stuff is reallyinteresting.
And I think it's reallyinteresting.
SPEAKER_03 (09:46):
Let me add this one too.
I haven't actually told youabout this one, but I on Twitter
too, I also went to our X.
I also went to there, andthere's kind of some back and
forth there as well about well,if you know, if we're gonna be
so basically picky, I mean, I'mdefinitely summarizing the
comments, but we're so picky asthe GOP to put up the right, you
know, this perfect nomination,we're never gonna find somebody
(10:07):
decent to run.
And this is why there's notenough people to run the bench
uh for the Republican side.
And and my argument on that is,and I'll let you jump in on this
as well.
My argument is there'sabsolutely the right candidates
out there that could jump in asa Republican.
But number one, I think theyhave to be a Republican.
They have to show that they havebeen an actual Republican, have
backed Republicans, I think, andthat they live and love New
(10:29):
Mexico.
I think that's very important,something that we personally
have experience with.
I think it's an uphill battle inwhat, a 10 plus Democratic state
right now, um, 10 points plus.
Um, so it's an uphill battle forany Republican that gets in, but
it makes it even, you know,something that we have to take
incredibly seriously, becausenot only do you need to be um a
(10:51):
Republican, live in the state,you know, be proud of New
Mexico, you have to be able tobe well known across a statewide
race for a primary, especially.
And you have to have the abilityto raise significant funds,
significant.
We're talking multi-milliondollars to be able to compete
against the Democraticnomination.
So I just think, you know, whileit, you know, it might seem
(11:14):
hopeless, it's not hopeless.
There's candidates that can dothis.
I think Mark, I'm just gonnaspeak for Mark because he's not
gonna, I mean, this is not whatMark does.
He doesn't toot his own horn.
He never has.
But I will tell you that Markcame incredibly close.
He came within 44,000 votes ofwinning a statewide election.
That's that's really hard for uhto do in this climate.
(11:36):
We don't have the swing votersthat we once did under somebody
like a Susanna Martinez.
That doesn't exist anymore.
So you have a very dividedpolitical climate in this state.
And the fact of the matter is,and this is what I said so much
out there during the governor'srace and right after the
governor's race, which I get.
And Mark always says, you know,who cares about the second place
winner, right?
In a governor's race.
But I hold back on looking atthe data of stuff.
(11:58):
And I think it's fascinating tosee that how close Mark actually
came, you know, and and I thinkthat what's what gets lost on re
uh on us sometimes is we losehope in that.
We lose hope in the fact that wecan actually get very close, if
not win this.
It's winnable.
It's not like it's not.
So anyway, okay, I've gone onmy.
SPEAKER_05 (12:18):
But uh did you stop with our campaign?
Would you just stop that rightnow?
I we're we're not we're not inthe middle of this right now.
We're not it's it's ridiculous.
But I'm talking about the factthat here's the issue, and I and
I want to get a little part ofyour thing.
I do appreciate your defense.
That's why I love you.
But I I I will say though, uh Ithink one of the things that's
interesting, and you sort ofalluded to it, and it is the
(12:40):
fact that to win a race now, apolitical race of any kind, you
have to turn out your voters,okay?
And I think one of the problemsyou have, and and I totally
understand the logic of we can'tbe too picky, I do get that.
I think that makes a lot ofsense because when you go into
certain political environments,there is no perfect candidate.
There's no question.
But the problem is in this dayand age, turning out your voters
(13:04):
is critical.
And if you have a lack ofenthusiasm by your most ardent
supporters, the people that arethe backbone of your party, you
have a problem.
It's the reason that when Trumpwins and when Trump w runs, you
get a lot more turnout, right?
And obviously presidentialelections get more turnout and
everything else.
But Trump has been able tomobilize a base because the
(13:25):
Republican base now is much moreof a base of not voting as
often, but when they do vote,they turn out big numbers and it
can change things.
So overall, I think what'sinteresting here is if you get
someone like Duke, what you riskis you risk a big portion of the
base going, eh, you're notreally one of us.
Okay.
And now there's the one thingDuke can do, and that is prove
(13:48):
that you are.
You know, stand up, have, youknow, sit down with people and
say, here's who I am, here'swhat I'm all about, here's why
I've only given to one side,basically, and it's not your
side.
And he explains it.
I don't know.
Maybe you can do it.
SPEAKER_03 (14:00):
Okay, I'm gonna cut you off because we got to keep
my guy.
SPEAKER_05 (14:02):
I can't believe you're cutting me off.
I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_03 (14:04):
I just feel like we got to get to the actual uh a
lot of stories today.
And I we just want to hit acouple more comments really
quickly, so I'm gonna transitionus really quickly back to that
story that we talked about withthe Kim Trails, the Tucker
Carlson um interview.
So this one came in.
I'm not even gonna try to saywho this person is because it's
a very complicated email.
But the comment says if KimTrails and Dane Wiggington are
(14:26):
just quote conspiracy theories,Mark, then why are the EPA has a
number to report them now?
Maybe you need to get up tospeed.
SPEAKER_05 (14:39):
Okay, sorry, you cut out there slightly uh on our
internet connection.
So he says, Mark, then why areTrump, Lee Zeldin, and the EPA,
RFK Jr.
investigating chemtrails?
Okay, first of all, I didn'tcall it conspiracy theory,
number one.
I I want to just briefly playfor you the video that we're
talking about here, and and Iwon't play it all the way
through.
Ella, we're just gonna play itreally quickly here.
(15:01):
A portion of this.
This is Dean Wiggington here,and what what he's gonna talk
about here is totally ludicrousand bonkers.
And so let's just listen to thisreal quickly, and then Els, I'll
tell you when to cut it off.
SPEAKER_08 (15:14):
How did meteorologists know seven days
in advance that Hurricane Harveywas going to go where it went
and sit there for three days?
How could they possibly knowthat?
These people are readingscripts, Tucker.
They're literally readingscripts passed down to them by
Raytheon.
Okay, Raytheon right there.
SPEAKER_05 (15:31):
Let's just cut him, let's just cut him right there
because uh he saysmeteorologists are reading
scripts from Raytheon.
It my point was don't listen topeople that are bonkers, okay?
Now, whether you want to, youknow, talk about what happens
with with chemtrails andeverything else, and and again,
there are a lot of people whosay, hey, this could be alter
trying to alter our weather andcool the planet and everything
(15:51):
else.
Okay, look, meteorologically,there's a lot of stuff here that
doesn't add up to me.
Okay, first of all, if you weregoing to try to cool the planet
and things of that nature, youwouldn't do it at 30,000 feet in
the troposphere where you flyairplanes.
You do it at 60 to 80,000 feetup in the stratosphere, where
you could theoretically try tomimic what happens with a
(16:13):
volcano.
Okay, for example, if we're justtaking that small little thing.
So whether I, you know, whetherI think of it or not think of
it, I have some doubts on it.
But again, I'm willing to beeducated down the road, no
question.
All I'm saying is, and this showis all about the fact that we're
gonna tell you the truth.
This guy's bonkers.
So when you listen to him and hesays stupid things, I don't want
(16:34):
people to go grab this guy andsay, well, you know, there's
some other things he says thatare really smart.
Well, if you and I pull up nextto each other at a gas station
and I'm like, by the way, that'snot gasoline you're putting in
your car.
That's actually uh unicorn hornsthat they ground up and made a
liquid out of.
You know, that's what's reallyrunning your car.
You'd be like, you're crazy,dude.
And so all I'm telling you isthis guy's over the line and
(16:55):
ridiculous.
That's all.
Just make sure that you listento good sources here, and we're
never gonna back off fromtelling you what we actually
think.
SPEAKER_03 (17:05):
Okay, one more comment on that is uh from
Serenity, and she says,geoengineering weather
modification.
She puts a quote in here quote,it lays the predicate and
foundation for the developmentof a weather satellite that will
permit man to determine theworld's cloud layer and
ultimately to control theweather.
And he controls the weather,will control the world.
That's a quote from VicePresident Johnson at Southwest
Texas State.
Her comment goes on to say, ifyou don't think that decades
(17:27):
later the globalists haveaccomplished this, you are
kidding yourselves.
Wake up, it's a real thing.
Did you want to say anything tothat?
SPEAKER_05 (17:34):
Yeah, I think meteorologically, it turns out
that the conditions when allthis stuff happens with the
expansion of a cirrus cloudlayer, that happens at a time
when we have additional moisturein the upper troposphere.
Like that, that's what happens.
So again, you could say it, andI understand the point here,
which is if you add morehigh-layer clouds or high-level
(17:54):
clouds, you can reduce theamount of solar insulation.
That can happen.
Okay.
But I'm just saying, and again,I don't know where all of this
goes.
I'm just telling you along theway here that when people that
are bonkers say bonkers things,don't listen to them.
SPEAKER_03 (18:09):
Okay.
And last, I'm not gonna read thewhole comment, but Mark, it was
really funny.
One woman wrote in and shenoticed you weren't wearing your
wedding ring.
SPEAKER_05 (18:16):
Yeah.
Well, Christy and I have beenstruggling, and I just, oh no,
no.
Actually, yeah, here it is,right here.
But I have a new wedding ring.
So here's what happened (18:22):
I slam my finger with an excavator on
the Mark versus the Mountainshow we're working on.
The old ring that I had was atungsten ring.
And for those of you who knowtungsten, you you can't get it
off your finger if you breakyour finger.
And I came real close tobreaking this finger and this
finger.
So it made me think I cannotwear a tungsten ring anymore.
So now I ordered a uh rubberring.
(18:45):
That's the explanation.
SPEAKER_03 (18:46):
Okay.
I mean, those are some eagleeyes that caught that one.
Okay, let's dive into thestories and then we got today.
First up, we've got this mayor'srunoff heating up, right?
The runoff is December 9th.
So we are just a few couple, youknow, what, couple, a little
over two and a half weeks awayfrom that.
And we've got new ads.
So why don't we talk a littlebit about this first?
SPEAKER_05 (19:04):
Yeah, Darren's got an ad out, and so does Tim
Keller.
So we want to play both ads.
One is very interesting, and theother uh is uh Tim Keller.
So let's go ahead and we willfirst here is here is Darren's
ad that he has up right now.
SPEAKER_06 (19:20):
Tim Keller's record, over 750 homicides, homeless 10
cities everywhere.
We need change now.
Darren White for mayor, veteranof the elite, 82nd airborne,
two-term sheriff, tough oncrime.
I'm running for mayor to getserious about crime.
And the tent encampments theycome down on day one.
(19:41):
Darren White for mayor.
I'm Darren White, and I approvethis message because it's time
for a change.
SPEAKER_05 (19:50):
Okay, fairly fairly clean, right?
Yeah, he's definitely goingafter Tim Keller.
Yeah, and I think the obviouslythe two issues that are most
important, right, for voters,which we know 60 plus percent of
voters want to deal withhomelessness and they want to
deal with crime.
SPEAKER_03 (20:07):
So pretty clean, pretty clean situation there.
Yeah.
And this is not gonna surpriseanybody about what Keller
decides to do with his ad,right?
Because we've been talking aboutit.
SPEAKER_05 (20:16):
Yeah, yeah.
And we knew that Keller would gotry to run against Donald Trump.
It's his best chance to win.
So he's gonna try to create thisfake race where he's running
against Donald Trump when it'sactually a mayoral race in
Albuquerque, which is ludicrous,but here's the ad.
SPEAKER_07 (20:34):
Do you want this in Albuquerque?
Darren White would let DonaldTrump round up innocent people.
Ice will come in and they willlook at everybody instead of
police.
Darren White's chaos led toshootings of innocent people,
costing taxpayers millions tostain on APD.
He was forced to resign.
And the homeless I said I'lltake the gloves off.
(20:57):
It's illegal and cruel.
It's all why the police endorsedTim Keller, approved by Tim
Kellard.
SPEAKER_05 (21:05):
Okay.
First of all, there is a line inthere which is I I am shocked
that the APOA, the AlbuquerquePolice Officers Association,
endorsed Tim Keller.
I have no idea why.
I like Sean Willoughby.
We've had him on the show.
I reached out to him.
I haven't heard back from himyet on why they did this.
Um, because in that ad, if youlisten very carefully at the
(21:26):
beginning, he says innocentpeople were shot by APD.
Innocent people.
APD is gunning down people inthe streets?
Like, what are they talkingabout?
What is Keller talking about?
I mean, that is, I can't believethe stations let him air it and
let him say it because it's nottrue.
And it's a stain on policeofficers in Albuquerque.
(21:48):
So that part of it is shocking.
And then, you know, look, allhe's trying to do is muddy up
the waters here, and APOA'sendorsement is letting him do
that.
SPEAKER_03 (21:58):
Yeah, it's it's unfortunate.
And it's it's weird.
I mean, have we seen any factchecking on either one of these
ads yet?
SPEAKER_05 (22:04):
Yes, and actually, there was some fact checking.
Yeah, there was.
And a lot of the fact checkingis has come out, you know, very
strongly in support of whereDarren is on this.
So he did get some support fromthe networks on that.
SPEAKER_03 (22:15):
Okay, well, that's at least that's good.
So, okay, again, you guys, thatuh that early voting starts on
December 1st, I believe.
So we'll keep you guys posted onon how that is starting to shake
out.
But again, that's gonna be a uha heated race, I believe.
So all right, let's talk alittle bit, let's shift a little
bit more to some national news.
Obviously, you you know, we'vegot the shutdown now is over,
(22:37):
thank goodness.
But the big thing that we'vebeen talking about is that can
Trump help us, like can he getbring back some messaging and
some actual strategy to help uswith the economy?
SPEAKER_05 (22:49):
Yeah, and and I think what you saw this week,
and this is why we want to takea deep dive on this, and I'll
try to move it quickly becauseI've already been scolded for
not moving fast enough.
So we I want to move, babe, Iwant to move kind of quickly on
this, but I want to have youtalk about an article from the
Wall Street Journal, and thenwe're gonna have about three or
four different stories here thatshow a complete pivot from what
(23:09):
you saw last week.
Remember, our issue last weekwas Trump was saying, you know,
look, the economy is better thanyou think.
If things are going well, thingsare going well.
You don't hear that right nowfrom the administration.
And I think you can start to seea real change here.
SPEAKER_03 (23:22):
Okay, so this is coming out from the Wall Street
Journal.
The headline says White Househunts for ways to lower the cost
of living.
Aside from reducing tariffs,Trump has a limited ability to
bring down prices.
And a couple of poll quotes weuh came from came out of this.
It says President Trump and hisadvisors are rushing to try to
lower prices for U.S.
consumers after voters sent awarning shot to Republicans this
(23:44):
month over the high cost ofliving.
Following the recent election,Trump's aides have urged the
president to focus onaffordability, and they are
drawing up plans to attempt toaddress voters' frustrations,
according to administrationofficials.
The president's team isdiscussing more deals with
pharmaceutical companies to makeprescription drugs cheaper,
approvals for new offshoredrilling projects, and new
(24:07):
health care proposals, theofficial said.
The president has also orderedup new ideas to address the high
cost of living.
However, uh, this is gonna maybeprove to be a little bit more
difficult uh to lower thoseprices so quickly.
So it goes on to say it won't beeasy to lower prices in a way
that satisfies voters who havesignaled in polls that they want
far-reaching changes that willmake everyday life more
(24:29):
affordable.
Most prices are dictated bymarket forces that are beyond
the president's control.
Interest rates are set by theindependent Federal Reserve,
which has so far resistedTrump's pressure campaign.
The president would needcongressional approval to issue
direct payments to Americans.
So here's a little bit of thereality.
It's like this final quote fromthe story.
Quote, it's not Trump's fault.
(24:50):
It wasn't going to get that muchbetter after 10 months of a
presidency set of GOP pollster.
Quote, but when people are thisticked off, they don't have a
patience butt button.
SPEAKER_05 (25:01):
Yeah.
So this, okay, so this tells youexactly what we talked about,
which is okay, this isdifficult.
It's not going to be easy tomove things.
It's not, it does, once pricesgo up, it's very hard to move
them back down again.
And so that's an issue.
So what are they gonna do todeal with this?
Well, I think what you'restarting to see here, and I'm
surprised you didn't see itbefore this, but you're seeing
(25:21):
it now, is I think a one-twopunch.
Punch number one is right out ofthe Obama playbook, which he did
when he took over a difficulteconomy in 2008 for George W.
Bush.
He relentlessly blamed George W.
Bush, okay?
And so that's exactly what Trumpis starting to do with Biden.
And then they're trying to do apivot.
So they're trying to do theblame and pivot.
(25:41):
So the blame goes to Biden andthen the pivot goes to the
solution.
And so that's what you'll seehere.
So let's start with Peter Duceyfrom Fox News, who talks about
the comparison between the firstyear of the Biden administration
and the first year of the secondTrump administration.
And watch the messaging in whichthey gave Deucey here, and he
dutifully reports it.
SPEAKER_09 (26:04):
Overall inflation for the first year of Trump
versus Biden.
Uh Biden, overall inflation wasup 4.3%, higher than Trump, just
up to 1.6%.
Groceries under Biden in thattime, up 3.8%.
With Trump, up 1.3%.
And then when it comes to gas,this is crazy.
Biden up 24.4% with Trump, it isactually down 5.4%.
(26:29):
That is where the biggestdifference is.
And we heard from the HUDsecretary, Scott Turner, this
afternoon, they are racing tocut red tape for construction
projects because the the beliefamong officials here is that if
housing is the number one placewhere people are getting killed
when it comes to affordability,if people are uh cutting red
tape and able to build morehouses and apartments, then the
(26:52):
prices will come down.
Pretty basic supply and demandin play.
Will.
SPEAKER_05 (26:58):
Good numbers.
Okay.
So you see it there, Christy,right?
You see the blame pivot, blamepivot and housing, though, as
you well know, that's not gonnaturn quickly.
SPEAKER_03 (27:07):
Yeah, it definitely will not turn quickly.
I think it's interesting though,that just trying to get a hold
of the message, right?
Because so far, all you haveDemocrats talking about are the
prices, prices, prices, prices,which is always interesting.
You get on X and people arelike, Where were you during the
Biden administration when theseprices were even higher?
So, you know, it's aninteresting dynamic that I, you
know, like what you said.
(27:28):
I'm not sure why Trump hasn't,you know, didn't I I kind of
feel like, I don't know, maybeTrump isn't the, hey, let me get
in here and just start blamingeverything.
And so instead he was liketrying to focus on how, you
know, his programs would makeAmerica great again.
I mean, honestly, to sound ascorny as that sounds, I think
that could be what his motivewas at the beginning of coming
in as he's making all thesechanges, instead of really
(27:49):
worrying about let me blame theother guy on this and and then
kind of toot my own horn aboutwhat we're doing effectively.
But that doesn't work greatbecause you have to get that
message out to people that, hey,prices are actually going down
in most of these areas comparedto where we've been um under the
Biden administration.
So I think that was kind ofinteresting.
SPEAKER_05 (28:09):
They aren't they aren't, but a problem is, yeah,
on energy and things like that,they are they are going down.
But the problem is withinflation is that they're not
going down overall, right?
So they're not going up at therate they were under Biden, but
they're not going down, right?
So that's part of the problemwith a lot of these things, meat
and uh all different sorts ofproducts that you're paying more
and more for, with the exceptionof energy.
(28:31):
And I get energy because energyis connected to everything.
If energy is cheaper, everythingelse is cheaper.
I know they're working on that,but let's go to the National
Economic Council director, KevinHassett.
Very similar here too.
Watch what he does.
He'll stick blame and then he'llpivot.
SPEAKER_00 (28:46):
Well, first of all, like if you look at the history
of inflation, right?
What happened was that there wasretail Democrat spending in Joe
Biden's term, and we gotinflation up almost to 10%, it
averaged 5% over the four years.
And that has created a situationwhere, for example, mortgage
rates went up, and so thetypical uh payment for a monthly
(29:08):
mortgage payment almost doubled.
Uh the a bag of groceries wasthat cost$400 a month when
President Trump left office is$500 or$515 when President Trump
came back this time.
And so that there's this reallybig hole that's been dug.
And then the question you couldalso ask as an economist is
like, how do I summarize allthose different prices and
(29:30):
everything?
And one of the ways you could doit is just look at purchasing
power, the real wage.
Purchasing power, I'll justfinish this and then I'll get
back to you.
The purchasing power dropped byabout$3,000 under Joe Biden
because the wages didn't keep upwith prices under President
Trump.
It's already gone up by about1,200.
We understand that people stillfeel the pain of the high
prices, but we're we're closingthe gap and filling the gap
(29:52):
fast.
SPEAKER_05 (29:52):
I don't want to get it.
Okay.
So the so again, what they'retrying to get to, you got to
grow your way out of it,basically.
Is the point in a lot of thesethings.
And I think when we look back,the damage that was done, it
really was unprecedented.
When you look at what happenedwith inflation and interest
rates, those two together weredevastating.
And I think it's why Trump ispresident again.
(30:14):
There's no question.
And so dealing with all thesethings, I think part of the
problem, Christy, is that someof the Trump focus was not laser
beam on this stuff right fromthe beginning to say, we are, I
mean, we are on this like crazy.
And so that's been the problemhere.
And I think people do understandyou can't flip a switch and
prices are going to drop 20%.
(30:35):
You can't do it.
But what you can do is givepeople the impression that every
waking moment, that's whatyou're most concerned about.
SPEAKER_03 (30:42):
Right, exactly.
And I think that that's what Iwas kind of trying to allude to
before that clip was just thefact that his focus was on other
things, um, you know, trying tohandle some foreign policy
issues, definitely focusing onthe tariffs, you know, and kind
of, you know, I think he kind ofthought in his own, you know,
I'm I I shouldn't think try tothink for Trump because
obviously I don't, but I do, Ido believe that the economy,
(31:05):
because he is a business guy,has always been part, you know,
a top of mind for him.
It's what he campaigned on,right?
So I just think that themessaging to the American people
is what was lacking, notnecessarily what he's been
trying to do.
SPEAKER_05 (31:19):
Well, I think that's but I think it's also, yeah, no,
I think you're absolutely right.
But one other thing on this isthe tariffs, I don't think you
could afford to do the tariffswhen he did them, right?
So, in other words, you reallydo, and I understand the point
of hey, we may need to reorderthe economy and everything else.
But when you look at wherevoters were, and then you decide
right out of the shoot you'regoing tariffs, I think they may
(31:41):
have misread where they were.
And so, because they misreadwhere they were, they thought
they could plow ahead withtariffs, get some leeway from
people to try to reorder theeconomy.
When they found out veryquickly, people said, no, we're
we are struggling right now.
And so adding on to that, andagain, tariffs didn't do as much
to raise prices as a lot ofpeople said they would, but they
(32:02):
still have raised prices in somein some various categories, no
question.
So that makes it harder.
So interesting stuff there, andand I think it's gonna be
interesting to continue to watchhere.
But so then the other thing,Chrissy, that you have to get to
is hope.
SPEAKER_03 (32:16):
Right, absolutely.
Which you have Scott Besson, hewas on Fox News as well, and
he's basically saying, hey,people, just be patient because
2026 things will be better.
So here's a little uh snippetfrom him.
Hey.
SPEAKER_04 (32:30):
I I think we are going to see a substantial
acceleration in the economy inthe first, second quarter.
And I think we are also we'realready sent seeing on many
prices, uh, as uh as I said,we're bending that curve down,
and the increase in realincomes, I think Americans are
(32:50):
gonna feel it in the firstquarter, second quarter.
I think 2026, thanks toPresident Trump's signature
plans, is gonna be a great yearfor working Americans, for the
markets.
You know, I talk I call itparallel prosperity.
Main Street and Wall Street canboth do great, but I think Main
Street's gonna have a great yearin 2026.
SPEAKER_05 (33:10):
Okay, super interesting.
And this is smart too, becauseagain, think back.
If we, you know, if we'relooking at an election and an
inauguration in the third weekof January, and all of a sudden
you saw this messaging right outof the shoot.
Here we come, here we come,here's what we're doing.
You know, you got to give ussome time.
We'll we'll fix this in placingthe political blame, which
(33:31):
happens all the time, and thensaying there's hope it's gonna
get better, that would have madea lot more sense.
It would have put them in a lotbetter position than I think
that they're in.
And there's one little part ofthis as well, after your
thoughts on it.
SPEAKER_03 (33:45):
Sorry.
All right, yeah, go ahead andlead into this one.
SPEAKER_05 (33:48):
Okay, okay.
So so my my only thought onthis, and I want to add just one
more thing on this deep dive,and that is from Lori uh Chavez
Dremmer, who is the U.S.
labor secretary.
So last week Trump had a I thinknot a great moment with Laura
Ingram when he said basically wedo need to bring more people in.
Some of our people can't do someof these high-tech jobs, and
(34:09):
there are plenty of Americanswho are like, what?
Yes, we can.
I think that was a messagingproblem for the Trump
administration.
So I want you to see.
So this all pairs with theeconomic message, which
basically says, America first.
We've got to get as manyAmericans and good jobs as we
possibly can.
And so listen to the change inher approach here.
(34:29):
And it's it's a deft littlechange.
She does a good job deliveringthe message here of basically
saying we need to give good jobsto Americans first, and we may
need to bring some other peoplein as well, but it's America
first.
SPEAKER_02 (34:42):
Thank you for bringing up Project Firewall.
Uh, almost 200 investigationsnow have been brought forward.
And what's important torecognize is that there are
companies who are using the H1visa program who are abusing the
program.
What we want to make sure iswe're always protecting the
American worker.
The president is absolutelycorrect.
(35:04):
Um, and not all things are andor, they can be together.
And what we want to make sure isthat we're providing the skilled
workforce so that Americans havethese jobs first and foremost.
If that is not the case, andthese businesses need to apply
for the H1B visa program, wewant to make sure that they're
following the law and notabusing and depressing American
(35:26):
wages uh with foreign labor.
That is not the goal of theprogram.
We want integrity.
I want to work with theDepartment of Homeland to make
sure that they have that.
So, Project Firewall, it is thefirst time in history that the
Secretary will use all thetools, and I have been able to
sign personally some of theseinvestigations.
We will clamp down on thesecompanies who are abusing and
(35:47):
depressing wages and notprotecting the American worker
first.
SPEAKER_05 (35:53):
Yeah, definitely clarifying that up.
Yeah, yeah.
And she says, she says basicallythere's some abuse here, and we
have to be able to fix thatabuse.
Notice the vast majority of thatmessaging was America first.
SPEAKER_03 (36:06):
Right, right.
Because he definitely wasgetting hit back from the fact
that you're talking about, youknow, bringing bringing chip
manufacturing and things backhere that we're not prepared to
do that.
And so you have to bring in somefolks that are experts in this
industry to come over here toAmerica to teach us, right?
And there, he definitely gotsome hits on that one because
people are like, listen, duringWorld War II, we stepped up to
(36:28):
the plate and learned how to dotechnologies.
You know, we had women infactories that were doing things
that had no idea how to do thatbefore they were called to do
that.
And I think what Trump, again,is trying to say is, well, we
could do it faster if we bringin people that know how to do
this first and teach Americanshow to do that.
And then, and then those thoseexperts basically press on out
of here.
SPEAKER_05 (36:48):
It's kind of what I'm yeah, Lori Drummer was not
saying anything any differentthan Trump did.
But what she did was, sorry, Igot a little call there, jumped
out.
Uh, what she did say though wasshe focused it differently,
right?
She focused it on America firstand then said, yes, there are
times we need to bring peoplein.
This is a messaging thing.
And Trump got himself, I think,into some difficulty with Laura
(37:09):
Ingram on a few differentmessaging points.
This week, what you'll see is Ithink further movement from the
White House on trying to keepthis message on the economy and
to keep it disciplined.
And I think, you know, part ofworking with the Trump
administration sometimes is uhcleanup on aisle six, no doubt.
SPEAKER_03 (37:26):
Yeah, definitely just clarifying his message.
Okay, so last week we broughtyou this kind of crazy story of
Senator Fetterman really talkingabout how how many like personal
hits he's taking from his ownparty or for the from the
extremists in his party, youknow, really trying to kind of
attack him for saying, listen, Ithink we should open up the
government and trying to, youknow, basically just get things
(37:48):
back to being able to paypeople.
And he took a lot of hits onthat.
And we were just talking aboutthat last week.
Well, then unfortunately, hefell this past week.
Um, as many of you probably havealready heard.
Um, he had to get 20 stitches.
And uh, you know, when you hearabout that, you think, well,
what happened?
You know, obviously he had anissue.
I believe he has a pacemaker, sosomething went off with that.
(38:10):
Uh and for us, I felt bad forthe guy because you don't want
you don't want him to getinjured.
You don't want anything to beinjured.
And here is a tweet that the uhPennsylvania GOP put out.
We wanted to share this becausewe thought actually it was it
was the right thing to do.
It's the right messaging to beputting out there, and it's the
right thing to be praying andhoping for Senator Fetterman's
health, right?
So he says, praying for JohnFetterman.
(38:31):
Senator Fetterman recentlysuffered a fall and was
transported to the hospital inPittsburgh.
We were thinking of him, hiswife, and their entire family as
he makes his recovery.
So I just think that is what weneed to do, and kind of what
we've talked about last week isthat these personal attacks
towards people have to stop.
Like you can disagree on policyall day long.
But when you the the hurtfulthings that his own party,
(38:54):
people in his own party aresaying to him and attacking him
on are over the line.
And again, so here's just aquick picture of him after the
accident.
Definitely took a shot.
I mean, you can see his face,but he, you know, I think he
wants to come back out and say,hey, listen, I'm still here.
SPEAKER_05 (39:10):
And um, you know, I mean, the thing is about about
that message, it, you know, itshouldn't be unusual or strange
that the Republican Party ofPennsylvania says, we're praying
for you.
We hope you're okay.
But when you go back and look atwhere we are with some of the
violence going on and some ofthe people cheering on violence
or misfortune from other people,that's the kind of thing where
(39:32):
you say, What is happening here?
And so I think when you watchthat little tweet from the
Pennsylvania GOP, you say thankyou.
Like, and that's how we allshould be in these situations.
And when there's violenceperpetrated against people in
this country, you should standup and stand against it and not
cheer it on, which we've seenfar too often.
And so I hope we get to a placewhere this stuff doesn't happen
(39:54):
anymore.
But with Fetterman, obviously,wish him the best, praying for
him, because I think he is, andI said it last week, he's one of
the most principled, gutsiestpeople in the United States
Senate.
SPEAKER_03 (40:04):
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, we're gonna we're gonnaend with this story, which I
think is kind of interesting.
A new GOP poll came out, ourGallup poll came out, and it was
talking about how there's a risein women ages 15 to 44 who would
like to leave the U.S.
permanently.
So I'm gonna play this clip andthen we'll discuss it a little
(40:25):
bit.
SPEAKER_01 (40:26):
And say they want to leave the country permanently.
This is according to a newGallup poll.
20% of people say they want tolive somewhere else.
That's one in five.
And the shift is mainly drivenby young women ages 15 to 44.
40% of them say that they wantto go.
And Martha and I texted aboutthis last night because I'm
thinking we've had anopportunity to travel many
(40:48):
places around the world.
To me, there is no better placein America.
If you were born here, GeorgeBush used to say, you won life's
great lottery.
If you're an American woman,you're taking you write it
yourself, but people want toleave.
SPEAKER_11 (41:02):
Yeah.
You know, I think it's true.
When you travel other places,which we both love to do, it's
always fascinating, but thenyou're always glad to come home
and you always appreciate thegreat things about this country.
There's a lot of parallels inthis group between the vote that
we saw on Tuesday in New Jerseyand in Virginia when you look at
the age range.
The other thing is that itdoesn't ask, are you going to
leave?
(41:23):
It just says, basically, it'slike at a cocktail party, would
you say, I really want to getout of here, I really want to
leave the country, but they'renot actually leaving the
country.
So it's just you're complaining.
And there's a lot of Trumpderangements to do it.
SPEAKER_01 (41:35):
You don't want to be Emily in Paris.
SPEAKER_11 (41:36):
Oh, yeah, but they want and I think it's Emily in
New York.
It's a protest vote against thepresident, I think, because it
traces right back to when he wasnominated, you know?
And so while you have so manyyoung women at these turning
point events and the other sideis all is thriving in a huge
way, this group uh likes to, atleast at codel parties, say that
they want out.
(41:56):
But I don't think they're goinganywhere.
SPEAKER_03 (41:58):
Yeah, I thought this was interesting, Mark, just
because uh so just to phrase thequestion really quickly, I put
this in here that the theparticipants were asked this
question.
They were asked, ideally, if youhave the opportunity, would you
like to move permanently toanother country or would you
prefer to continue living inthis country?
And I wanted to clarify thatquestion just because I thought
it was interesting.
I think a couple of things thatstood out to me about this is so
(42:20):
a couple of years ago, this wasactually even higher.
So it has dropped a little bit,but it's interesting that this
is the first time they say thatthis gap between the men in the
same age bracket and the womenin this age bracket have
differed so much.
And I, you know, I think anotheranother little note that I
pulled from this Gallup surveywas that the number one places
(42:42):
that these young women want tomove is Canada.
Okay.
And then it comes in with uhlike Japan, New Zealand, I think
is the other one.
And so I just also think theother thing I would add on this
is the the youth, the likeputting a 15-year-old and a
44-year-old in the same categoryis interesting to me because I
(43:03):
think what 15-year-old, I mean,I'm sorry, when I was graduating
college, I was like, oh, I'mgonna go teach English in
Prague.
Like, I'm gonna go travel theworld, I'm gonna go see the
sites.
I think the younger mindset isnot necessarily politically
motivated to leave the country.
It's more like, I want to go outand see the world.
So I think it would have beenbetter for Gallup to maybe break
(43:24):
this down a little bit, maybelike a 30 to 44-year-old, once
you have a career, once you'remaking money.
And, you know, are you stilllike, hey, this, I gotta leave?
And I I would argue, obviously,I believe that there's so many
opportunities for women here inAmerica, and we are treated so
so unbelievably well in Americathat I think you're not if
(43:45):
you're just like, yeah, I'drather go someplace else.
I I would challenge where do youwant to go that you think is
life is so much greener on theother side.
I mean, that's that'd be what mythoughts were.
SPEAKER_05 (43:55):
Okay.
All right.
Well, good stuff.
All right.
Well, I've got two more.
SPEAKER_03 (43:58):
You got you got nothing?
You got nothing to add to that?
SPEAKER_05 (44:01):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's I think it's a I
think it's an inane question,and and it's just it's okay,
then go.
I mean, I don't know.
See you later.
Don't don't let the door hit youor the good lord split you.
I whatever.
So I I I think it's I yeah, Ithink some of it's a political
statement, and some of it may beexactly what you're talking
about, and that's probably areally good point.
Like some of what you're saying,that the age bracket, and then
(44:23):
also, you know, maybe some ofit's political, which Martha
McCowl made that point.
So I yeah, uh it's aninteresting story, though.
It is interesting, and it and Ithink it does reveal a little
more.
You mentioned it morespecifically, the split between
men and women.
I'm worried about the splitbetween men and women in
general.
I just think that we have thesetwo separate groups now that
that seem to be just goingfurther apart when I think the
(44:45):
way God intended it was for usto come together and and make a
great society.
So I I or a great planet too.
I just think it's so importantand I worry about those
relationships.
But you know, all right, nowlet's get to something that's
really important.
I got two quick game day shots.
The first one, a good lookingbuck right here.
I mean, right out of the shoot.
(45:06):
This guy is good.
Let's see if we can get him.
Hold on.
Let me see if I got him here.
Hold on.
Sorry, Ella.
I screwed up our thing.
Here we go.
Okay, let's do it again, Else.
Here we go.
Look at this buck here, babe.
I mean, go ahead and put him in.
Look at that.
SPEAKER_03 (45:18):
Oh, yeah.
Now, do you think he's the sameguy that we had last week?
Are you angry?
SPEAKER_05 (45:21):
I don't know, but he is, I mean, he is top notch.
I mean, if you just I mean, andobviously got through a good
portion of hunting season, sohe's feeling good.
Now, I was thinking that wasgonna be my only Sunday game
day.
Turns out no.
Look at this.
This morning, this morning, Igot bailed out by the Bobcat who
comes running through.
Look at him.
That's this morning at 9 28 a.m.
(45:42):
There were there it goes, Ella.
Good job.
Oh, he's cute, actually.
I mean, he looks good.
So she's gonna be a good one.
I don't want to work intoBobcat, but yeah, we see we see
him in the bigger guy.
There's a bigger one than him.
One more, Ella.
Let's give him a little more.
Uh we see him a little, uh, youknow, he's a little smaller than
the other big guy that comesthrough.
So so there we go.
That's uh that's where we get.
SPEAKER_03 (46:02):
All right, so they didn't tell you, they haven't
let you down once yet, Mark.
I know.
SPEAKER_05 (46:05):
You're gonna feel good.
SPEAKER_03 (46:06):
I know your fellows keep showing up for you.
I know.
All right, you guys, thanks somuch for spending a little bit
of your day with us.
We appreciate it.
Remember, if you are interestedin finding out more about No
Doubt About It, go to ourwebsite, no
doubtaboutitpodcast.com.
You can sign up for an emailthere.
It has our donation tab if youwant to make a donation.
And the most important thing youcould do for us right now is
subscribe on our YouTubechannel.
(46:27):
That's vitally important to us.
So if you can continue to likeand subscribe, we appreciate it.
You guys have a great start toyour work week, and we will see
you back here on Wednesday.
Take care and God bless.
SPEAKER_10 (46:36):
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 the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at No Doubt About ItPodcast.
SPEAKER_05 (46:53):
No doubt about it.
SPEAKER_10 (46:56):
The No Doubt About It Podcast is a choose adventure
media production.
See you next time on No DoubtAbout It.
SPEAKER_05 (47:03):
There is no doubt about it.
Well, we're all hoping I'm actually on right
now.
Uh, we're doing this show veryblindly today because Mark is
actually in the northern uh NewMexico Mountains.
I'm in our studio.
Um, I can't see Mark or video,and Ella can't see me or video.
So, Mark, uh, tell us you'rethere.
SPEAKER_05 (00:27):
Just uh I am here, and uh let me just go.
We'll go to the gallery shot soeveryone can see both of us.
Everyone can see both of us.
Just trust me on that.
SPEAKER_03 (00:37):
We're putting a lot of faith in you today, Mark, to
make sure that you do this well.
SPEAKER_05 (00:40):
Yeah, that's probably misplaced, but we'll
we'll give it a shot anyway.
So it's gonna be a differentkind of show, actually.
So the reason why is because wegot a lot of really good
feedback from you guys, andwe're gonna start on that.
Some of it kind of pushes backon some of the stuff we're
doing, and we kind of picked outthe various emails where we
thought we're kind of pushingback a little bit because we
(01:01):
want to discuss that, and welove the fact that you do it.
SPEAKER_03 (01:04):
Yeah, absolutely.
Give us a quick uh just quickupdate on what we're gonna talk
about today.
Just a quick question.
Yeah, we're gonna have somequestions about yeah, quick one,
quick one.
SPEAKER_05 (01:12):
So we'll do some of the viewer comments, uh, talking
about some of the governor'srace stuff, also talking about
some of the chemtrail stuff thatwe that we talked about last
week.
We're gonna check in on themayor's race.
Both candidates have a new adout.
So we'll go through that andwhat that's all about.
And then we're gonna talk a deepdive on the economy.
The Trump administration haspivoted their messaging.
(01:34):
We talked about it last weekthat that messaging was not
good.
Well, what we're seeing now is asignificant pivot, and it's not
gonna be an easy pivotnecessarily, but we'll talk
about it.
We'll check in on our guyFetterman, and of course, we've
got Sunday game day.
SPEAKER_03 (01:49):
Okay.
All right.
So let's jump in uh real quickand let's start with some of the
mail that we got in from youguys.
We number one, we appreciate allthe comments that you guys make.
If you want to make furthercomments, go to our website at
no doubtaboutitpodcast.com anddrop us an email.
You can also make a donationthere.
We've gotten those requests aswell.
Like, where do we donate?
Go there as well.
Or you can simply uh like andsubscribe on our YouTube channel
(02:12):
and make comments on our YouTubechannel as well.
But you do have to be asubscriber for those comments to
come into us.
So just a heads up on that one.
Okay, let's start with stuff I'mstuff I make, I guess.
Okay.
Uh this one says, I find it verydisingenuous of you to bring up
the cannabis king issue whileignoring that Darren White was a
lobbyist for legalizing it anddonated the max amount to MLG
(02:36):
when he was trying to get itlegalized in the legislature
because he knew it wouldn't passby sending it to the public for
a public vote.
I want to say really quicklybefore I hand this off to you,
Mark, that uh for this person,uh, thank you so much, first of
all, for making a comment.
Number two, we have actuallydrilled Darren White about both
of those things on our previousshows multiple times.
(02:56):
So if you have not watched ourshows about Darren White, we
absolutely discussed both ofthose things with him.
The biggest difference I see isyes, he donated to MLG.
Talk about somebody who wasn'thappy about that.
It's me.
But he also did donate to Markand other Republican candidates.
So, Mark, I'm gonna toss thatover to you and you can um
continue on that one.
SPEAKER_05 (03:16):
Yeah, no, I I think that a couple things on this.
I think it's a fair thing tobring up, but but I think some
of what Chrissy says isabsolutely true.
When we got in the governor'srace, one of the first calls I
got was from Darren Whitesaying, What can I do to help
you?
What do you need to do?
Darren White has also been aRepublican candidate for
Congress.
He ran against Martin Heinrich.
He's been a Republican for aslong as I've known him here.
(03:37):
And so that's a huge part ofthis.
And when you look at someone'sdonation history, the reason we
talk about that is it's onething to say, uh, you know, both
sides is them sort of thing.
I gave to both sides.
And I think you can makesomewhat that case with Darren.
My problem is when you look atDuke, what we talked about is in
relation to Republicanprimaries, we brought up three
(03:58):
things that he's gonna strugglewith.
Why do we do that?
Because we want to give you thetruth, and that's the truth.
He is gonna struggle with that.
And we'll get into another emailon it here in just a second.
But I think part of the issuewith Duke is the fact that Duke
did not give to any majorRepublican.
He hasn't.
He's given to a few smallercandidates in some small races,
people that probably supportsome of the stuff he supports.
(04:21):
Have I ever heard from Duke whenI ran?
No.
Has any other major Republican?
Not that I can tell.
So again, that's the differencehere.
And we're always going to tellyou the truth.
Now, at the end of the day,could Duke still be successful?
Yeah, he could be if things workout the right way for him.
But the reality of the situationis when you step in to a
Republican primary with a lot ofprincipled voters, and you stand
(04:44):
up and say, Well, you know, I'mI'm Trump.
I can do what I want, or I canplay both sides or whatever.
Okay, that's all well and good,but it's one thing to play both
sides.
It's another to give maximumdonations to people like Raul
Torres, who sues Donald Trumpand MLG.
Okay, it's just different.
Okay, now could he get away withit?
(05:06):
I don't know if he gets awaywith it or not.
We'll see what ends up happeninghere.
But at the end of the day, wehave brought Darren on this
show.
We have questioned him for whathe's done.
And then beyond that, we haveobviously gotten Darren's
support when we have run andbeen in the middle of the fight.
And Darren has been in themiddle of the fight for more
than a decade here.
So that's why I don't think it'sfair to compare the two of them
(05:27):
at all.
But again, no problem with theemail kind of questioning that.
It's a good discussion.
SPEAKER_03 (05:32):
Okay.
Well, you're jumping in and ahat and answering like some of
these other ones, Mark.
But um, uh, so this next onecomes in from Bandicoot Nerd.
Uh it says the thing aboutDuke's donation history is that
if he donated to any GOPerswhatsoever, he can just use the
Trump's 2015 answer of quote, Ido business, I donate to
everyone.
SPEAKER_05 (05:50):
Okay, hold on.
Can I jump in right there justreal quickly?
SPEAKER_03 (05:52):
No, just wait.
SPEAKER_05 (05:54):
Just let's take it piece by piece.
Because if you read the wholething, it's hard to do.
So, so no, that's not true.
He you you don't get to do that.
You can say that, and you couldsay, well, I donated to, you
know, a you know, state Senatecandidate in Roswell.
So therefore I'm a Republican.
Nope, it doesn't work that way.
You can say that, and you cansay, Oh, it's no big deal.
(06:14):
It's both sides is them.
It doesn't work that way,especially if you have somebody
running against you who has somemeans to push back.
SPEAKER_03 (06:22):
Okay.
So it goes uh the comment goeson and says, whether that goes
over or not with primary votersor not, we'll see.
The whole quote, does he live inthe state thing was something
Nella faced, and it ended up notbeing a big deal.
SPEAKER_05 (06:33):
Okay, hold on, hold on on that real quick.
Okay, first of all, to run forgovernor, that's a different
deal altogether.
It's not the same race as aSenate race, number one.
And we're talking about a legalissue here.
It's not a personal thing wheredo I think they're here enough?
Do I think Duke is here enough?
Nothing to do with that at all.
Our point was if it gets down toMaggie Toulouse-Oliver and
(06:56):
saying, wait a minute, you'renot an actual resident of the
state of New Mexico, that's aproblem.
This is a legal issue.
It is not an issue of NellaDominici having multiple homes
and running for the UnitedStates Senate.
It is different for governor,and this is a legal issue.
It has nothing to do with ithurting him with voters, it has
to do with him beingdisqualified legally.
(07:16):
Keep going.
SPEAKER_03 (07:17):
Okay.
And this is as far as thecannabis thing goes, does
anything say New MexicoRepublican more than a guy who
worked for and is endorsed byGary Johnson and made millions
selling weed?
Especially with semi-openprimaries.
If being a weed mogulsignificantly hurt his chances,
I doubt he'd be running forgovernor in the first place.
Now, could Mark or SusanaMartinez beat him?
Yeah.
Ain't no way Greg Hull or SteveLanier are beating Duke.
(07:40):
Hence, why if the pool doesn'tgrow, he'd be the front runner?
Okay, so why don't you take onthe whole Gary Johnson semi-open
primaries?
Because we've had lots ofdiscussion about this with
people who come up and talk tous about these open primaries
and an endorsement by GaryJohnson.
SPEAKER_05 (07:54):
Yeah, well, I look, I love Gary Johnson.
He endorsed me.
I like him a lot.
I don't think it's it's not anendorsement that you know wins
you a primary, especially aRepublican primary, but he's a
great guy.
And I think when you can get hisendorsement, you should.
So that's good.
I think this is actually areally smart comment at the end
here as well.
I like the whole comment ingeneral because I think it's a
(08:14):
good discussion.
But I think that the biggestissue with this whole deal is
especially with what we'retalking about with the semi-open
primaries.
We've just started with this.
There have been literallythousands of candidates who
think they can get people tocross over and vote for them and
everything else.
It doesn't work.
You never get enough people thatends up swinging the election.
(08:35):
Now, every year can bedifferent, and it may help them
a little bit, but it would helpon the margins.
It's not gonna help as some bigswell of voters in the middle
that are gonna come in and say,you know, we're we're gonna
support one candidate oranother.
It's the same reason we've saidthat Sam Bregman is not gonna be
successful running as a centristin the Democratic primary.
He has to get more left-wingvotes.
(08:56):
He just has to.
That's where all the numbersare.
You can't run as a centrist inthese primaries anymore.
It's very difficult to win.
And just like a Republicancouldn't come in and say, I'm
gonna be the centrist in allthis because hardcore
Republicans and hardcoreDemocrats are who drive this
process here.
So Duke doing that won't work.
Now, as far as Hull goes and asfar as Steve Lanier goes, you
(09:17):
may well be right on this.
They may not be able to getenough support, enough money to
be able to overwhelm Duke.
And I think you're also right, awell-known Republican would
trounce Duke.
But when you look at the factthat we have a couple
Republicans in the race rightnow who aren't as well known, I
think it's a fair point.
I you know what, Chrissy, when Iread all these comments and when
(09:38):
you sent them over, I justswelled with pride at our
audience because it's reallygood.
I mean, this stuff is reallyinteresting.
And I think it's reallyinteresting.
SPEAKER_03 (09:46):
Let me add this one too.
I haven't actually told youabout this one, but I on Twitter
too, I also went to our X.
I also went to there, andthere's kind of some back and
forth there as well about well,if you know, if we're gonna be
so basically picky, I mean, I'mdefinitely summarizing the
comments, but we're so picky asthe GOP to put up the right, you
know, this perfect nomination,we're never gonna find somebody
(10:07):
decent to run.
And this is why there's notenough people to run the bench
uh for the Republican side.
And and my argument on that is,and I'll let you jump in on this
as well.
My argument is there'sabsolutely the right candidates
out there that could jump in asa Republican.
But number one, I think theyhave to be a Republican.
They have to show that they havebeen an actual Republican, have
backed Republicans, I think, andthat they live and love New
(10:29):
Mexico.
I think that's very important,something that we personally
have experience with.
I think it's an uphill battle inwhat, a 10 plus Democratic state
right now, um, 10 points plus.
Um, so it's an uphill battle forany Republican that gets in, but
it makes it even, you know,something that we have to take
incredibly seriously, becausenot only do you need to be um a
(10:51):
Republican, live in the state,you know, be proud of New
Mexico, you have to be able tobe well known across a statewide
race for a primary, especially.
And you have to have the abilityto raise significant funds,
significant.
We're talking multi-milliondollars to be able to compete
against the Democraticnomination.
So I just think, you know, whileit, you know, it might seem
(11:14):
hopeless, it's not hopeless.
There's candidates that can dothis.
I think Mark, I'm just gonnaspeak for Mark because he's not
gonna, I mean, this is not whatMark does.
He doesn't toot his own horn.
He never has.
But I will tell you that Markcame incredibly close.
He came within 44,000 votes ofwinning a statewide election.
That's that's really hard for uhto do in this climate.
(11:36):
We don't have the swing votersthat we once did under somebody
like a Susanna Martinez.
That doesn't exist anymore.
So you have a very dividedpolitical climate in this state.
And the fact of the matter is,and this is what I said so much
out there during the governor'srace and right after the
governor's race, which I get.
And Mark always says, you know,who cares about the second place
winner, right?
In a governor's race.
But I hold back on looking atthe data of stuff.
(11:58):
And I think it's fascinating tosee that how close Mark actually
came, you know, and and I thinkthat what's what gets lost on re
uh on us sometimes is we losehope in that.
We lose hope in the fact that wecan actually get very close, if
not win this.
It's winnable.
It's not like it's not.
So anyway, okay, I've gone onmy.
SPEAKER_05 (12:18):
But uh did you stop with our campaign?
Would you just stop that rightnow?
I we're we're not we're not inthe middle of this right now.
We're not it's it's ridiculous.
But I'm talking about the factthat here's the issue, and I and
I want to get a little part ofyour thing.
I do appreciate your defense.
That's why I love you.
But I I I will say though, uh Ithink one of the things that's
interesting, and you sort ofalluded to it, and it is the
(12:40):
fact that to win a race now, apolitical race of any kind, you
have to turn out your voters,okay?
And I think one of the problemsyou have, and and I totally
understand the logic of we can'tbe too picky, I do get that.
I think that makes a lot ofsense because when you go into
certain political environments,there is no perfect candidate.
There's no question.
But the problem is in this dayand age, turning out your voters
(13:04):
is critical.
And if you have a lack ofenthusiasm by your most ardent
supporters, the people that arethe backbone of your party, you
have a problem.
It's the reason that when Trumpwins and when Trump w runs, you
get a lot more turnout, right?
And obviously presidentialelections get more turnout and
everything else.
But Trump has been able tomobilize a base because the
(13:25):
Republican base now is much moreof a base of not voting as
often, but when they do vote,they turn out big numbers and it
can change things.
So overall, I think what'sinteresting here is if you get
someone like Duke, what you riskis you risk a big portion of the
base going, eh, you're notreally one of us.
Okay.
And now there's the one thingDuke can do, and that is prove
(13:48):
that you are.
You know, stand up, have, youknow, sit down with people and
say, here's who I am, here'swhat I'm all about, here's why
I've only given to one side,basically, and it's not your
side.
And he explains it.
I don't know.
Maybe you can do it.
SPEAKER_03 (14:00):
Okay, I'm gonna cut you off because we got to keep
my guy.
SPEAKER_05 (14:02):
I can't believe you're cutting me off.
I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_03 (14:04):
I just feel like we got to get to the actual uh a
lot of stories today.
And I we just want to hit acouple more comments really
quickly, so I'm gonna transitionus really quickly back to that
story that we talked about withthe Kim Trails, the Tucker
Carlson um interview.
So this one came in.
I'm not even gonna try to saywho this person is because it's
a very complicated email.
But the comment says if KimTrails and Dane Wiggington are
(14:26):
just quote conspiracy theories,Mark, then why are the EPA has a
number to report them now?
Maybe you need to get up tospeed.
SPEAKER_05 (14:39):
Okay, sorry, you cut out there slightly uh on our
internet connection.
So he says, Mark, then why areTrump, Lee Zeldin, and the EPA,
RFK Jr.
investigating chemtrails?
Okay, first of all, I didn'tcall it conspiracy theory,
number one.
I I want to just briefly playfor you the video that we're
talking about here, and and Iwon't play it all the way
through.
Ella, we're just gonna play itreally quickly here.
(15:01):
A portion of this.
This is Dean Wiggington here,and what what he's gonna talk
about here is totally ludicrousand bonkers.
And so let's just listen to thisreal quickly, and then Els, I'll
tell you when to cut it off.
SPEAKER_08 (15:14):
How did meteorologists know seven days
in advance that Hurricane Harveywas going to go where it went
and sit there for three days?
How could they possibly knowthat?
These people are readingscripts, Tucker.
They're literally readingscripts passed down to them by
Raytheon.
Okay, Raytheon right there.
SPEAKER_05 (15:31):
Let's just cut him, let's just cut him right there
because uh he saysmeteorologists are reading
scripts from Raytheon.
It my point was don't listen topeople that are bonkers, okay?
Now, whether you want to, youknow, talk about what happens
with with chemtrails andeverything else, and and again,
there are a lot of people whosay, hey, this could be alter
trying to alter our weather andcool the planet and everything
(15:51):
else.
Okay, look, meteorologically,there's a lot of stuff here that
doesn't add up to me.
Okay, first of all, if you weregoing to try to cool the planet
and things of that nature, youwouldn't do it at 30,000 feet in
the troposphere where you flyairplanes.
You do it at 60 to 80,000 feetup in the stratosphere, where
you could theoretically try tomimic what happens with a
(16:13):
volcano.
Okay, for example, if we're justtaking that small little thing.
So whether I, you know, whetherI think of it or not think of
it, I have some doubts on it.
But again, I'm willing to beeducated down the road, no
question.
All I'm saying is, and this showis all about the fact that we're
gonna tell you the truth.
This guy's bonkers.
So when you listen to him and hesays stupid things, I don't want
(16:34):
people to go grab this guy andsay, well, you know, there's
some other things he says thatare really smart.
Well, if you and I pull up nextto each other at a gas station
and I'm like, by the way, that'snot gasoline you're putting in
your car.
That's actually uh unicorn hornsthat they ground up and made a
liquid out of.
You know, that's what's reallyrunning your car.
You'd be like, you're crazy,dude.
And so all I'm telling you isthis guy's over the line and
(16:55):
ridiculous.
That's all.
Just make sure that you listento good sources here, and we're
never gonna back off fromtelling you what we actually
think.
SPEAKER_03 (17:05):
Okay, one more comment on that is uh from
Serenity, and she says,geoengineering weather
modification.
She puts a quote in here quote,it lays the predicate and
foundation for the developmentof a weather satellite that will
permit man to determine theworld's cloud layer and
ultimately to control theweather.
And he controls the weather,will control the world.
That's a quote from VicePresident Johnson at Southwest
Texas State.
Her comment goes on to say, ifyou don't think that decades
(17:27):
later the globalists haveaccomplished this, you are
kidding yourselves.
Wake up, it's a real thing.
Did you want to say anything tothat?
SPEAKER_05 (17:34):
Yeah, I think meteorologically, it turns out
that the conditions when allthis stuff happens with the
expansion of a cirrus cloudlayer, that happens at a time
when we have additional moisturein the upper troposphere.
Like that, that's what happens.
So again, you could say it, andI understand the point here,
which is if you add morehigh-layer clouds or high-level
(17:54):
clouds, you can reduce theamount of solar insulation.
That can happen.
Okay.
But I'm just saying, and again,I don't know where all of this
goes.
I'm just telling you along theway here that when people that
are bonkers say bonkers things,don't listen to them.
SPEAKER_03 (18:09):
Okay.
And last, I'm not gonna read thewhole comment, but Mark, it was
really funny.
One woman wrote in and shenoticed you weren't wearing your
wedding ring.
SPEAKER_05 (18:16):
Yeah.
Well, Christy and I have beenstruggling, and I just, oh no,
no.
Actually, yeah, here it is,right here.
But I have a new wedding ring.
So here's what happened (18:22):
I slam my finger with an excavator on
the Mark versus the Mountainshow we're working on.
The old ring that I had was atungsten ring.
And for those of you who knowtungsten, you you can't get it
off your finger if you breakyour finger.
And I came real close tobreaking this finger and this
finger.
So it made me think I cannotwear a tungsten ring anymore.
So now I ordered a uh rubberring.
(18:45):
That's the explanation.
SPEAKER_03 (18:46):
Okay.
I mean, those are some eagleeyes that caught that one.
Okay, let's dive into thestories and then we got today.
First up, we've got this mayor'srunoff heating up, right?
The runoff is December 9th.
So we are just a few couple, youknow, what, couple, a little
over two and a half weeks awayfrom that.
And we've got new ads.
So why don't we talk a littlebit about this first?
SPEAKER_05 (19:04):
Yeah, Darren's got an ad out, and so does Tim
Keller.
So we want to play both ads.
One is very interesting, and theother uh is uh Tim Keller.
So let's go ahead and we willfirst here is here is Darren's
ad that he has up right now.
SPEAKER_06 (19:20):
Tim Keller's record, over 750 homicides, homeless 10
cities everywhere.
We need change now.
Darren White for mayor, veteranof the elite, 82nd airborne,
two-term sheriff, tough oncrime.
I'm running for mayor to getserious about crime.
And the tent encampments theycome down on day one.
(19:41):
Darren White for mayor.
I'm Darren White, and I approvethis message because it's time
for a change.
SPEAKER_05 (19:50):
Okay, fairly fairly clean, right?
Yeah, he's definitely goingafter Tim Keller.
Yeah, and I think the obviouslythe two issues that are most
important, right, for voters,which we know 60 plus percent of
voters want to deal withhomelessness and they want to
deal with crime.
SPEAKER_03 (20:07):
So pretty clean, pretty clean situation there.
Yeah.
And this is not gonna surpriseanybody about what Keller
decides to do with his ad,right?
Because we've been talking aboutit.
SPEAKER_05 (20:16):
Yeah, yeah.
And we knew that Keller would gotry to run against Donald Trump.
It's his best chance to win.
So he's gonna try to create thisfake race where he's running
against Donald Trump when it'sactually a mayoral race in
Albuquerque, which is ludicrous,but here's the ad.
SPEAKER_07 (20:34):
Do you want this in Albuquerque?
Darren White would let DonaldTrump round up innocent people.
Ice will come in and they willlook at everybody instead of
police.
Darren White's chaos led toshootings of innocent people,
costing taxpayers millions tostain on APD.
He was forced to resign.
And the homeless I said I'lltake the gloves off.
(20:57):
It's illegal and cruel.
It's all why the police endorsedTim Keller, approved by Tim
Kellard.
SPEAKER_05 (21:05):
Okay.
First of all, there is a line inthere which is I I am shocked
that the APOA, the AlbuquerquePolice Officers Association,
endorsed Tim Keller.
I have no idea why.
I like Sean Willoughby.
We've had him on the show.
I reached out to him.
I haven't heard back from himyet on why they did this.
Um, because in that ad, if youlisten very carefully at the
(21:26):
beginning, he says innocentpeople were shot by APD.
Innocent people.
APD is gunning down people inthe streets?
Like, what are they talkingabout?
What is Keller talking about?
I mean, that is, I can't believethe stations let him air it and
let him say it because it's nottrue.
And it's a stain on policeofficers in Albuquerque.
(21:48):
So that part of it is shocking.
And then, you know, look, allhe's trying to do is muddy up
the waters here, and APOA'sendorsement is letting him do
that.
SPEAKER_03 (21:58):
Yeah, it's it's unfortunate.
And it's it's weird.
I mean, have we seen any factchecking on either one of these
ads yet?
SPEAKER_05 (22:04):
Yes, and actually, there was some fact checking.
Yeah, there was.
And a lot of the fact checkingis has come out, you know, very
strongly in support of whereDarren is on this.
So he did get some support fromthe networks on that.
SPEAKER_03 (22:15):
Okay, well, that's at least that's good.
So, okay, again, you guys, thatuh that early voting starts on
December 1st, I believe.
So we'll keep you guys posted onon how that is starting to shake
out.
But again, that's gonna be a uha heated race, I believe.
So all right, let's talk alittle bit, let's shift a little
bit more to some national news.
Obviously, you you know, we'vegot the shutdown now is over,
(22:37):
thank goodness.
But the big thing that we'vebeen talking about is that can
Trump help us, like can he getbring back some messaging and
some actual strategy to help uswith the economy?
SPEAKER_05 (22:49):
Yeah, and and I think what you saw this week,
and this is why we want to takea deep dive on this, and I'll
try to move it quickly becauseI've already been scolded for
not moving fast enough.
So we I want to move, babe, Iwant to move kind of quickly on
this, but I want to have youtalk about an article from the
Wall Street Journal, and thenwe're gonna have about three or
four different stories here thatshow a complete pivot from what
(23:09):
you saw last week.
Remember, our issue last weekwas Trump was saying, you know,
look, the economy is better thanyou think.
If things are going well, thingsare going well.
You don't hear that right nowfrom the administration.
And I think you can start to seea real change here.
SPEAKER_03 (23:22):
Okay, so this is coming out from the Wall Street
Journal.
The headline says White Househunts for ways to lower the cost
of living.
Aside from reducing tariffs,Trump has a limited ability to
bring down prices.
And a couple of poll quotes weuh came from came out of this.
It says President Trump and hisadvisors are rushing to try to
lower prices for U.S.
consumers after voters sent awarning shot to Republicans this
(23:44):
month over the high cost ofliving.
Following the recent election,Trump's aides have urged the
president to focus onaffordability, and they are
drawing up plans to attempt toaddress voters' frustrations,
according to administrationofficials.
The president's team isdiscussing more deals with
pharmaceutical companies to makeprescription drugs cheaper,
approvals for new offshoredrilling projects, and new
(24:07):
health care proposals, theofficial said.
The president has also orderedup new ideas to address the high
cost of living.
However, uh, this is gonna maybeprove to be a little bit more
difficult uh to lower thoseprices so quickly.
So it goes on to say it won't beeasy to lower prices in a way
that satisfies voters who havesignaled in polls that they want
far-reaching changes that willmake everyday life more
(24:29):
affordable.
Most prices are dictated bymarket forces that are beyond
the president's control.
Interest rates are set by theindependent Federal Reserve,
which has so far resistedTrump's pressure campaign.
The president would needcongressional approval to issue
direct payments to Americans.
So here's a little bit of thereality.
It's like this final quote fromthe story.
Quote, it's not Trump's fault.
(24:50):
It wasn't going to get that muchbetter after 10 months of a
presidency set of GOP pollster.
Quote, but when people are thisticked off, they don't have a
patience butt button.
SPEAKER_05 (25:01):
Yeah.
So this, okay, so this tells youexactly what we talked about,
which is okay, this isdifficult.
It's not going to be easy tomove things.
It's not, it does, once pricesgo up, it's very hard to move
them back down again.
And so that's an issue.
So what are they gonna do todeal with this?
Well, I think what you'restarting to see here, and I'm
surprised you didn't see itbefore this, but you're seeing
(25:21):
it now, is I think a one-twopunch.
Punch number one is right out ofthe Obama playbook, which he did
when he took over a difficulteconomy in 2008 for George W.
Bush.
He relentlessly blamed George W.
Bush, okay?
And so that's exactly what Trumpis starting to do with Biden.
And then they're trying to do apivot.
So they're trying to do theblame and pivot.
(25:41):
So the blame goes to Biden andthen the pivot goes to the
solution.
And so that's what you'll seehere.
So let's start with Peter Duceyfrom Fox News, who talks about
the comparison between the firstyear of the Biden administration
and the first year of the secondTrump administration.
And watch the messaging in whichthey gave Deucey here, and he
dutifully reports it.
SPEAKER_09 (26:04):
Overall inflation for the first year of Trump
versus Biden.
Uh Biden, overall inflation wasup 4.3%, higher than Trump, just
up to 1.6%.
Groceries under Biden in thattime, up 3.8%.
With Trump, up 1.3%.
And then when it comes to gas,this is crazy.
Biden up 24.4% with Trump, it isactually down 5.4%.
(26:29):
That is where the biggestdifference is.
And we heard from the HUDsecretary, Scott Turner, this
afternoon, they are racing tocut red tape for construction
projects because the the beliefamong officials here is that if
housing is the number one placewhere people are getting killed
when it comes to affordability,if people are uh cutting red
tape and able to build morehouses and apartments, then the
(26:52):
prices will come down.
Pretty basic supply and demandin play.
Will.
SPEAKER_05 (26:58):
Good numbers.
Okay.
So you see it there, Christy,right?
You see the blame pivot, blamepivot and housing, though, as
you well know, that's not gonnaturn quickly.
SPEAKER_03 (27:07):
Yeah, it definitely will not turn quickly.
I think it's interesting though,that just trying to get a hold
of the message, right?
Because so far, all you haveDemocrats talking about are the
prices, prices, prices, prices,which is always interesting.
You get on X and people arelike, Where were you during the
Biden administration when theseprices were even higher?
So, you know, it's aninteresting dynamic that I, you
know, like what you said.
(27:28):
I'm not sure why Trump hasn't,you know, didn't I I kind of
feel like, I don't know, maybeTrump isn't the, hey, let me get
in here and just start blamingeverything.
And so instead he was liketrying to focus on how, you
know, his programs would makeAmerica great again.
I mean, honestly, to sound ascorny as that sounds, I think
that could be what his motivewas at the beginning of coming
in as he's making all thesechanges, instead of really
(27:49):
worrying about let me blame theother guy on this and and then
kind of toot my own horn aboutwhat we're doing effectively.
But that doesn't work greatbecause you have to get that
message out to people that, hey,prices are actually going down
in most of these areas comparedto where we've been um under the
Biden administration.
So I think that was kind ofinteresting.
SPEAKER_05 (28:09):
They aren't they aren't, but a problem is, yeah,
on energy and things like that,they are they are going down.
But the problem is withinflation is that they're not
going down overall, right?
So they're not going up at therate they were under Biden, but
they're not going down, right?
So that's part of the problemwith a lot of these things, meat
and uh all different sorts ofproducts that you're paying more
and more for, with the exceptionof energy.
(28:31):
And I get energy because energyis connected to everything.
If energy is cheaper, everythingelse is cheaper.
I know they're working on that,but let's go to the National
Economic Council director, KevinHassett.
Very similar here too.
Watch what he does.
He'll stick blame and then he'llpivot.
SPEAKER_00 (28:46):
Well, first of all, like if you look at the history
of inflation, right?
What happened was that there wasretail Democrat spending in Joe
Biden's term, and we gotinflation up almost to 10%, it
averaged 5% over the four years.
And that has created a situationwhere, for example, mortgage
rates went up, and so thetypical uh payment for a monthly
(29:08):
mortgage payment almost doubled.
Uh the a bag of groceries wasthat cost$400 a month when
President Trump left office is$500 or$515 when President Trump
came back this time.
And so that there's this reallybig hole that's been dug.
And then the question you couldalso ask as an economist is
like, how do I summarize allthose different prices and
(29:30):
everything?
And one of the ways you could doit is just look at purchasing
power, the real wage.
Purchasing power, I'll justfinish this and then I'll get
back to you.
The purchasing power dropped byabout$3,000 under Joe Biden
because the wages didn't keep upwith prices under President
Trump.
It's already gone up by about1,200.
We understand that people stillfeel the pain of the high
prices, but we're we're closingthe gap and filling the gap
(29:52):
fast.
SPEAKER_05 (29:52):
I don't want to get it.
Okay.
So the so again, what they'retrying to get to, you got to
grow your way out of it,basically.
Is the point in a lot of thesethings.
And I think when we look back,the damage that was done, it
really was unprecedented.
When you look at what happenedwith inflation and interest
rates, those two together weredevastating.
And I think it's why Trump ispresident again.
(30:14):
There's no question.
And so dealing with all thesethings, I think part of the
problem, Christy, is that someof the Trump focus was not laser
beam on this stuff right fromthe beginning to say, we are, I
mean, we are on this like crazy.
And so that's been the problemhere.
And I think people do understandyou can't flip a switch and
prices are going to drop 20%.
(30:35):
You can't do it.
But what you can do is givepeople the impression that every
waking moment, that's whatyou're most concerned about.
SPEAKER_03 (30:42):
Right, exactly.
And I think that that's what Iwas kind of trying to allude to
before that clip was just thefact that his focus was on other
things, um, you know, trying tohandle some foreign policy
issues, definitely focusing onthe tariffs, you know, and kind
of, you know, I think he kind ofthought in his own, you know,
I'm I I shouldn't think try tothink for Trump because
obviously I don't, but I do, Ido believe that the economy,
(31:05):
because he is a business guy,has always been part, you know,
a top of mind for him.
It's what he campaigned on,right?
So I just think that themessaging to the American people
is what was lacking, notnecessarily what he's been
trying to do.
SPEAKER_05 (31:19):
Well, I think that's but I think it's also, yeah, no,
I think you're absolutely right.
But one other thing on this isthe tariffs, I don't think you
could afford to do the tariffswhen he did them, right?
So, in other words, you reallydo, and I understand the point
of hey, we may need to reorderthe economy and everything else.
But when you look at wherevoters were, and then you decide
right out of the shoot you'regoing tariffs, I think they may
(31:41):
have misread where they were.
And so, because they misreadwhere they were, they thought
they could plow ahead withtariffs, get some leeway from
people to try to reorder theeconomy.
When they found out veryquickly, people said, no, we're
we are struggling right now.
And so adding on to that, andagain, tariffs didn't do as much
to raise prices as a lot ofpeople said they would, but they
(32:02):
still have raised prices in somein some various categories, no
question.
So that makes it harder.
So interesting stuff there, andand I think it's gonna be
interesting to continue to watchhere.
But so then the other thing,Chrissy, that you have to get to
is hope.
SPEAKER_03 (32:16):
Right, absolutely.
Which you have Scott Besson, hewas on Fox News as well, and
he's basically saying, hey,people, just be patient because
2026 things will be better.
So here's a little uh snippetfrom him.
Hey.
SPEAKER_04 (32:30):
I I think we are going to see a substantial
acceleration in the economy inthe first, second quarter.
And I think we are also we'realready sent seeing on many
prices, uh, as uh as I said,we're bending that curve down,
and the increase in realincomes, I think Americans are
(32:50):
gonna feel it in the firstquarter, second quarter.
I think 2026, thanks toPresident Trump's signature
plans, is gonna be a great yearfor working Americans, for the
markets.
You know, I talk I call itparallel prosperity.
Main Street and Wall Street canboth do great, but I think Main
Street's gonna have a great yearin 2026.
SPEAKER_05 (33:10):
Okay, super interesting.
And this is smart too, becauseagain, think back.
If we, you know, if we'relooking at an election and an
inauguration in the third weekof January, and all of a sudden
you saw this messaging right outof the shoot.
Here we come, here we come,here's what we're doing.
You know, you got to give ussome time.
We'll we'll fix this in placingthe political blame, which
(33:31):
happens all the time, and thensaying there's hope it's gonna
get better, that would have madea lot more sense.
It would have put them in a lotbetter position than I think
that they're in.
And there's one little part ofthis as well, after your
thoughts on it.
SPEAKER_03 (33:45):
Sorry.
All right, yeah, go ahead andlead into this one.
SPEAKER_05 (33:48):
Okay, okay.
So so my my only thought onthis, and I want to add just one
more thing on this deep dive,and that is from Lori uh Chavez
Dremmer, who is the U.S.
labor secretary.
So last week Trump had a I thinknot a great moment with Laura
Ingram when he said basically wedo need to bring more people in.
Some of our people can't do someof these high-tech jobs, and
(34:09):
there are plenty of Americanswho are like, what?
Yes, we can.
I think that was a messagingproblem for the Trump
administration.
So I want you to see.
So this all pairs with theeconomic message, which
basically says, America first.
We've got to get as manyAmericans and good jobs as we
possibly can.
And so listen to the change inher approach here.
(34:29):
And it's it's a deft littlechange.
She does a good job deliveringthe message here of basically
saying we need to give good jobsto Americans first, and we may
need to bring some other peoplein as well, but it's America
first.
SPEAKER_02 (34:42):
Thank you for bringing up Project Firewall.
Uh, almost 200 investigationsnow have been brought forward.
And what's important torecognize is that there are
companies who are using the H1visa program who are abusing the
program.
What we want to make sure iswe're always protecting the
American worker.
The president is absolutelycorrect.
(35:04):
Um, and not all things are andor, they can be together.
And what we want to make sure isthat we're providing the skilled
workforce so that Americans havethese jobs first and foremost.
If that is not the case, andthese businesses need to apply
for the H1B visa program, wewant to make sure that they're
following the law and notabusing and depressing American
(35:26):
wages uh with foreign labor.
That is not the goal of theprogram.
We want integrity.
I want to work with theDepartment of Homeland to make
sure that they have that.
So, Project Firewall, it is thefirst time in history that the
Secretary will use all thetools, and I have been able to
sign personally some of theseinvestigations.
We will clamp down on thesecompanies who are abusing and
(35:47):
depressing wages and notprotecting the American worker
first.
SPEAKER_05 (35:53):
Yeah, definitely clarifying that up.
Yeah, yeah.
And she says, she says basicallythere's some abuse here, and we
have to be able to fix thatabuse.
Notice the vast majority of thatmessaging was America first.
SPEAKER_03 (36:06):
Right, right.
Because he definitely wasgetting hit back from the fact
that you're talking about, youknow, bringing bringing chip
manufacturing and things backhere that we're not prepared to
do that.
And so you have to bring in somefolks that are experts in this
industry to come over here toAmerica to teach us, right?
And there, he definitely gotsome hits on that one because
people are like, listen, duringWorld War II, we stepped up to
(36:28):
the plate and learned how to dotechnologies.
You know, we had women infactories that were doing things
that had no idea how to do thatbefore they were called to do
that.
And I think what Trump, again,is trying to say is, well, we
could do it faster if we bringin people that know how to do
this first and teach Americanshow to do that.
And then, and then those thoseexperts basically press on out
of here.
SPEAKER_05 (36:48):
It's kind of what I'm yeah, Lori Drummer was not
saying anything any differentthan Trump did.
But what she did was, sorry, Igot a little call there, jumped
out.
Uh, what she did say though wasshe focused it differently,
right?
She focused it on America firstand then said, yes, there are
times we need to bring peoplein.
This is a messaging thing.
And Trump got himself, I think,into some difficulty with Laura
(37:09):
Ingram on a few differentmessaging points.
This week, what you'll see is Ithink further movement from the
White House on trying to keepthis message on the economy and
to keep it disciplined.
And I think, you know, part ofworking with the Trump
administration sometimes is uhcleanup on aisle six, no doubt.
SPEAKER_03 (37:26):
Yeah, definitely just clarifying his message.
Okay, so last week we broughtyou this kind of crazy story of
Senator Fetterman really talkingabout how how many like personal
hits he's taking from his ownparty or for the from the
extremists in his party, youknow, really trying to kind of
attack him for saying, listen, Ithink we should open up the
government and trying to, youknow, basically just get things
(37:48):
back to being able to paypeople.
And he took a lot of hits onthat.
And we were just talking aboutthat last week.
Well, then unfortunately, hefell this past week.
Um, as many of you probably havealready heard.
Um, he had to get 20 stitches.
And uh, you know, when you hearabout that, you think, well,
what happened?
You know, obviously he had anissue.
I believe he has a pacemaker, sosomething went off with that.
(38:10):
Uh and for us, I felt bad forthe guy because you don't want
you don't want him to getinjured.
You don't want anything to beinjured.
And here is a tweet that the uhPennsylvania GOP put out.
We wanted to share this becausewe thought actually it was it
was the right thing to do.
It's the right messaging to beputting out there, and it's the
right thing to be praying andhoping for Senator Fetterman's
health, right?
So he says, praying for JohnFetterman.
(38:31):
Senator Fetterman recentlysuffered a fall and was
transported to the hospital inPittsburgh.
We were thinking of him, hiswife, and their entire family as
he makes his recovery.
So I just think that is what weneed to do, and kind of what
we've talked about last week isthat these personal attacks
towards people have to stop.
Like you can disagree on policyall day long.
But when you the the hurtfulthings that his own party,
(38:54):
people in his own party aresaying to him and attacking him
on are over the line.
And again, so here's just aquick picture of him after the
accident.
Definitely took a shot.
I mean, you can see his face,but he, you know, I think he
wants to come back out and say,hey, listen, I'm still here.
SPEAKER_05 (39:10):
And um, you know, I mean, the thing is about about
that message, it, you know, itshouldn't be unusual or strange
that the Republican Party ofPennsylvania says, we're praying
for you.
We hope you're okay.
But when you go back and look atwhere we are with some of the
violence going on and some ofthe people cheering on violence
or misfortune from other people,that's the kind of thing where
(39:32):
you say, What is happening here?
And so I think when you watchthat little tweet from the
Pennsylvania GOP, you say thankyou.
Like, and that's how we allshould be in these situations.
And when there's violenceperpetrated against people in
this country, you should standup and stand against it and not
cheer it on, which we've seenfar too often.
And so I hope we get to a placewhere this stuff doesn't happen
(39:54):
anymore.
But with Fetterman, obviously,wish him the best, praying for
him, because I think he is, andI said it last week, he's one of
the most principled, gutsiestpeople in the United States
Senate.
SPEAKER_03 (40:04):
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, we're gonna we're gonnaend with this story, which I
think is kind of interesting.
A new GOP poll came out, ourGallup poll came out, and it was
talking about how there's a risein women ages 15 to 44 who would
like to leave the U.S.
permanently.
So I'm gonna play this clip andthen we'll discuss it a little
(40:25):
bit.
SPEAKER_01 (40:26):
And say they want to leave the country permanently.
This is according to a newGallup poll.
20% of people say they want tolive somewhere else.
That's one in five.
And the shift is mainly drivenby young women ages 15 to 44.
40% of them say that they wantto go.
And Martha and I texted aboutthis last night because I'm
thinking we've had anopportunity to travel many
(40:48):
places around the world.
To me, there is no better placein America.
If you were born here, GeorgeBush used to say, you won life's
great lottery.
If you're an American woman,you're taking you write it
yourself, but people want toleave.
SPEAKER_11 (41:02):
Yeah.
You know, I think it's true.
When you travel other places,which we both love to do, it's
always fascinating, but thenyou're always glad to come home
and you always appreciate thegreat things about this country.
There's a lot of parallels inthis group between the vote that
we saw on Tuesday in New Jerseyand in Virginia when you look at
the age range.
The other thing is that itdoesn't ask, are you going to
leave?
(41:23):
It just says, basically, it'slike at a cocktail party, would
you say, I really want to getout of here, I really want to
leave the country, but they'renot actually leaving the
country.
So it's just you're complaining.
And there's a lot of Trumpderangements to do it.
SPEAKER_01 (41:35):
You don't want to be Emily in Paris.
SPEAKER_11 (41:36):
Oh, yeah, but they want and I think it's Emily in
New York.
It's a protest vote against thepresident, I think, because it
traces right back to when he wasnominated, you know?
And so while you have so manyyoung women at these turning
point events and the other sideis all is thriving in a huge
way, this group uh likes to, atleast at codel parties, say that
they want out.
(41:56):
But I don't think they're goinganywhere.
SPEAKER_03 (41:58):
Yeah, I thought this was interesting, Mark, just
because uh so just to phrase thequestion really quickly, I put
this in here that the theparticipants were asked this
question.
They were asked, ideally, if youhave the opportunity, would you
like to move permanently toanother country or would you
prefer to continue living inthis country?
And I wanted to clarify thatquestion just because I thought
it was interesting.
I think a couple of things thatstood out to me about this is so
(42:20):
a couple of years ago, this wasactually even higher.
So it has dropped a little bit,but it's interesting that this
is the first time they say thatthis gap between the men in the
same age bracket and the womenin this age bracket have
differed so much.
And I, you know, I think anotheranother little note that I
pulled from this Gallup surveywas that the number one places
(42:42):
that these young women want tomove is Canada.
Okay.
And then it comes in with uhlike Japan, New Zealand, I think
is the other one.
And so I just also think theother thing I would add on this
is the the youth, the likeputting a 15-year-old and a
44-year-old in the same categoryis interesting to me because I
(43:03):
think what 15-year-old, I mean,I'm sorry, when I was graduating
college, I was like, oh, I'mgonna go teach English in
Prague.
Like, I'm gonna go travel theworld, I'm gonna go see the
sites.
I think the younger mindset isnot necessarily politically
motivated to leave the country.
It's more like, I want to go outand see the world.
So I think it would have beenbetter for Gallup to maybe break
(43:24):
this down a little bit, maybelike a 30 to 44-year-old, once
you have a career, once you'remaking money.
And, you know, are you stilllike, hey, this, I gotta leave?
And I I would argue, obviously,I believe that there's so many
opportunities for women here inAmerica, and we are treated so
so unbelievably well in Americathat I think you're not if
(43:45):
you're just like, yeah, I'drather go someplace else.
I I would challenge where do youwant to go that you think is
life is so much greener on theother side.
I mean, that's that'd be what mythoughts were.
SPEAKER_05 (43:55):
Okay.
All right.
Well, good stuff.
All right.
Well, I've got two more.
SPEAKER_03 (43:58):
You got you got nothing?
You got nothing to add to that?
SPEAKER_05 (44:01):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's I think it's a I
think it's an inane question,and and it's just it's okay,
then go.
I mean, I don't know.
See you later.
Don't don't let the door hit youor the good lord split you.
I whatever.
So I I I think it's I yeah, Ithink some of it's a political
statement, and some of it may beexactly what you're talking
about, and that's probably areally good point.
Like some of what you're saying,that the age bracket, and then
(44:23):
also, you know, maybe some ofit's political, which Martha
McCowl made that point.
So I yeah, uh it's aninteresting story, though.
It is interesting, and it and Ithink it does reveal a little
more.
You mentioned it morespecifically, the split between
men and women.
I'm worried about the splitbetween men and women in
general.
I just think that we have thesetwo separate groups now that
that seem to be just goingfurther apart when I think the
(44:45):
way God intended it was for usto come together and and make a
great society.
So I I or a great planet too.
I just think it's so importantand I worry about those
relationships.
But you know, all right, nowlet's get to something that's
really important.
I got two quick game day shots.
The first one, a good lookingbuck right here.
I mean, right out of the shoot.
(45:06):
This guy is good.
Let's see if we can get him.
Hold on.
Let me see if I got him here.
Hold on.
Sorry, Ella.
I screwed up our thing.
Here we go.
Okay, let's do it again, Else.
Here we go.
Look at this buck here, babe.
I mean, go ahead and put him in.
Look at that.
SPEAKER_03 (45:18):
Oh, yeah.
Now, do you think he's the sameguy that we had last week?
Are you angry?
SPEAKER_05 (45:21):
I don't know, but he is, I mean, he is top notch.
I mean, if you just I mean, andobviously got through a good
portion of hunting season, sohe's feeling good.
Now, I was thinking that wasgonna be my only Sunday game
day.
Turns out no.
Look at this.
This morning, this morning, Igot bailed out by the Bobcat who
comes running through.
Look at him.
That's this morning at 9 28 a.m.
(45:42):
There were there it goes, Ella.
Good job.
Oh, he's cute, actually.
I mean, he looks good.
So she's gonna be a good one.
I don't want to work intoBobcat, but yeah, we see we see
him in the bigger guy.
There's a bigger one than him.
One more, Ella.
Let's give him a little more.
Uh we see him a little, uh, youknow, he's a little smaller than
the other big guy that comesthrough.
So so there we go.
That's uh that's where we get.
SPEAKER_03 (46:02):
All right, so they didn't tell you, they haven't
let you down once yet, Mark.
I know.
SPEAKER_05 (46:05):
You're gonna feel good.
SPEAKER_03 (46:06):
I know your fellows keep showing up for you.
I know.
All right, you guys, thanks somuch for spending a little bit
of your day with us.
We appreciate it.
Remember, if you are interestedin finding out more about No
Doubt About It, go to ourwebsite, no
doubtaboutitpodcast.com.
You can sign up for an emailthere.
It has our donation tab if youwant to make a donation.
And the most important thing youcould do for us right now is
subscribe on our YouTubechannel.
(46:27):
That's vitally important to us.
So if you can continue to likeand subscribe, we appreciate it.
You guys have a great start toyour work week, and we will see
you back here on Wednesday.
Take care and God bless.
SPEAKER_10 (46:36):
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 the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at No Doubt About ItPodcast.
SPEAKER_05 (46:53):
No doubt about it.
SPEAKER_10 (46:56):
The No Doubt About It Podcast is a choose adventure
media production.
See you next time on No DoubtAbout It.
SPEAKER_05 (47:03):
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.