The Rod and Greg Show: Dems Need Nanacy; Gen Z's Marriage Fears; Time For Choosing...again

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show on Utah's
Talk Radio one O five nine canter s everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app. I'm citizen Hughes and I'm right Ourkuett.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Good to be with you this afternoon. You know, big
day in Michigan and in Missouri, vote taking place. Voting
taking place in both states. Will the Democratic socialist.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Candidate socialist communist candidate.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yeah whatever you want to call them, yeah, win in Michigan.
And I think most people are expecting that he will
win tonight.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
I hope he does. I really do. I want him
to win. I want the biggest clown show on display
for the November election we can find. Now, look the
lady that's running, she's not far behind this guy being
a clown shown. So it's not like they have any
kind of bench or any kind of you know, real
great candidate out of the two of them. So I'll

(00:51):
take my chances with Mike Rodgers over either one of them.
But is but yeah, I'll say eat and that that
woman with that she must have. I'll smoke twenty packs
a day to get that voice, that gravelly. It is
such a gravelly voice. I want that voice. If I
could just get a little more gravel in my voice.
Wellmoking I should probably is allowed if it's a professional duty.

(01:14):
You know this is a professional No, ain't fly. I
was just trou balloon.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
I was just throwing it out.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Okay, Well, I think I'd sound better if I had
a deeper gravel.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
A lot of people are talking about the disarray within
the Democratic Party right because you've got this emerging socialism
factor within the Democratic Party and the establishment. Right. Yes,
now our next guess, Jason Schaffer's got Former Congressman Fox
Dune's contributor good friend of the show, wrote an op
ed piece today in Fox News talking about Democrats why

(01:46):
they desperately need Nancy Pelosi.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
Now, if we thought that Nancy Pelosi was like worse
than any like I don't know, evil Stepmother or witch
in a in a Disney movie, she is, but she
actually might have been. And what we're getting seeing out
of the Democrats right.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Now, well, Jason is joining us on her Any Hour
Newsmaker line to talk about this. Jayson, Lena ask you,
what did Nancy Pelosi ever do or what did she
have to keep all those Democrats in line?

Speaker 3 (02:14):
You know, I despised her policies. I hated how she
could bring everybody along like Nancy Pelosi was a master.
She's she raised more money than anybody in the history
of Congress. So she had the money. She led out
on the message. She kept him disciplined. She wouldn't let
the crazies like AOC even get a committee assignment unless

(02:34):
they would, you know, kind of fall in line, and
it made it very difficult to, you know, to fight
against them. She was very powerful, even was on the
other side of the aisle. You had to respect how
how much power she wielded within her in her in
her party, but in her absence, I think Democrats are
just flailing and they don't have anybody who can fill

(02:57):
her shoes. They don't they have like literally zero own money.
The message is more and more about being a communist
or a Democratic Socialist of America, and so I think
they're just flailing at every level, and that's because they
lack the leadership, they lack the money, and they lack
the policies. Other than that, things are going for the Democrats.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
So Jason, you do connect the dots in a way,
and it does look that the party is a drift,
and they are stuck trying to appeal to a base
that the normal Americans just don't subscribe to. And it
has been a wonder to me. And I see now
what you're talking about in terms of Nancy Pelosi's heavy
hand and how she kept everyone in line. My question
to you is why give such good advice to I mean,

(03:40):
I don't know that. I mean, you do it on
Fox News, but this seems like it's too good for
Democrats to know. I wouldn't want Jeffries to read your
column here. Don't you worry they're actually going to listen
to you?

Speaker 4 (03:51):
Well?

Speaker 3 (03:52):
I worry that today's Democratic Party is so a drift
to the left that even Nancy Pelosi, if she were
to try to run for speaker, I don't I don't
you know, if they had the majority, I don't think
that she could get from here to there. I just
think it's it's showing the gravitational pull that has happened
over the last twenty years. Where she was more moderate,

(04:12):
if you will, on the Democratic side of the aisle,
and she would take some tough positions that you and I,
the three of us would agree on, But now it's
so out it's so out of control. I mean, Bernie Sanders,
when I first got elected to Congress, let's be honest,
he was kind of a joke of a senator. Nobody
paid attention to him, nobody thought he was serious. But

(04:33):
over the course of time, these communists, these these socialists,
has taken root and they're they're I don't want to
say they're flourishing, because they still think once America looks
at them, they reject them. But even Nancy Pelosi, I
don't think it solved the problem. It's just that out
of control.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
Jason. If the socialist candidate wins tonight in the Democratic
primary in Michigan, and many people expect he will, what
does this do for the movement? Does it slow it
down at all?

Speaker 1 (05:01):
Right now?

Speaker 3 (05:03):
Well, looks historically the party who's not in the White
House will win by big, big margins. By most estimations,
it's a jump ball, and I think Republicans have the
best chance of holding the Senate than that I've ever
seen and holding the House as well. I think America
will reject this. If in Michigan that the socialist gets

(05:25):
his the TSNO nomination, then he's running against guy named
Mike Rogers, who is in Congress when I was in Congress,
and he'll looks so much more reasonable that I think
they'll they'll lose the opportunity in Michigan for Democrats to
maintain that seat. That's a loss for them. Same thing
in Texas. Pall Rico. I mean, Democrats spent twenty million

(05:49):
dollars to figure out what men think and they came
up with pala Rico. Like, seriously, the guy didn't like
beef and he's in Texas that you're so right.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
Hey, I just want to switch gears really quick. There's
Senator John Curtis is making a lot of national news.
There's a big splash he came out yesterday. It looks
like the twenty eleven Utah Compact. It would allow for
states on pilot programs to come up with their own
immigration policy. Maybe help get legal status for those that
have lived in the United States for ten years or more,

(06:22):
Maybe set up their own where it's a federal issue.
Maybe have states have more latitude in the space. It
has gotten a lot of recoil. You have governors like
Governor DeSantis. It's a hard no. One of the points
being brought up is blue states Can you imagine what
they would do? Their refugee programs are already wrought with fraud.
Can you imagine what Blue States would do with pilots
the opportunity to I'm using air quotes pilot programs like this.

(06:46):
But then you had Governor at Cox today come out
with an op ed that does support Governor Curtis's bill.
What am I missing? I would think that today, with
the status of immigration, what we've learned over the last
fifteen years, that the detrimental impact on a lot of
different runs. Jason, I would think someone's not reading the
room very well, or someone's politically tone deaf to even

(07:06):
suggest this in twenty twenty six? Am I wrong?

Speaker 3 (07:11):
I totally reject this. It is amnesty and it should
be rejected at its core. It is fundamentally wrong. Why
do so many people spend time trying to figure out
how people not born in the United States should come
to the United States and work and cheap labor? Like,
why is that the priority? Didn't we talk about affordability

(07:32):
for Utahn's haven't we talked about the two hundred plus
thousand college graduates that are coming out into the workplace
and what are they going to major in. What are
they going to do. Let's spend some time on that.
And affordable housing in Utah is a real issue, and
we want to pour more people into the marketplace. That's
going to drive wages lower. That is not going to

(07:56):
be beneficial to the people of Utah. When I was
in Congress back in twenty eleven, we fought against this.
Unfortunately we knocked it back. And I totally reject this
whole notion top to bottom. Let the markets work, Let
the markets work. You know, there's a proper role of government,

(08:16):
and the proper role of government, I'm telling you they're already. Don't.
A lot of people say, well, we have to fix immigration. Okay,
let's start what Donald Trump has been doing by enforcing
the current law. And I do think there are parts
of immigration reform, but it should be that should be addressed.

(08:38):
But that does not mean introducing new programs to give
people amnesty. That is not that there are more than
ninety different visa programs in the AG sector, in the
high tech sector, in all kinds of sectors, but ninety
different forms of visas. They should simplify that. But I
feel a higher moral obligation to people that are trying

(09:01):
to come here legally and lawfully. And for those people,
we bring in more than a million a year. Take
every other country on the planet combined. We take more
than anybody else and yet that's not enough. Somehow the
Senator and the governor they need more. Why to prioritize
Utahs and Americans? And it's amazing what we can do.

(09:23):
Stop spending all your time prioritizing illegal immigrants, people that
are here illegally, and people that are illegal or not
US citizens outside the United States. It just really bothers
me to my core.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
Jason Jaffers sounding a little wound up on that one,
doesn't he? All Right, more coming up on the Rod
and Gregg Show and Talk Radio one O five to
nine kN R S. All right, welcome back to the
Roden Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one
O five to nine k n RS.

Speaker 1 (09:56):
I'm Rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, just about a week before the presidential election back
in nineteen sixty four, many of you may recall this,
Ronald Reagan delivered what many people consider a powerful speech
political speech. It was called the Time for Choosing Well.
Our next guest Guy Shiraki, who is a political commentator
and a contributor to Real Clear Pennsylvania. Now, Greg says

(10:20):
we've reached that point again. It is time for Americans
to choose guys.

Speaker 1 (10:24):
A deep thinker. He connects the dots better than anyone
I know in terms of not just just culturally, but politically,
and this is I think this is an important topic.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
Well, guy, thanks for joining us tonight. You raised an
interesting question about why the largest political party in this
country hates America. Now, what do you think has happened?

Speaker 4 (10:42):
Yeah, I look, I think you know, we can debate
whether it was purposeful or accidental, or a series of
bad decisions built on each other. But I think squarely
a combination of our education system. As I wrote, I
think where many of us were busy, you know, pursuing
the American dream, raising our kids. I think we didn't
know that gradually over time, over the last generation or two, slowly,

(11:08):
but surely, if you sort of deconstruct what they've been learning,
they've been taught to question their parents, They've been taught
to question the founding fathers, the suggestion that America is
somehow a bigoted, or racist or imperialistic nation that faith
is a bad thing, and that's something that should be
if you have it, it should be sort of kept

(11:29):
in a box and rarely seen. And then we've started
bubble wrapping kids so long. In the short of it is, guys,
is that if for a generation, you take children and
raise them from the age of maybe six to eighteen,
no matter what mom and dad are doing, and mom
and dad in many cases do great things. But if

(11:49):
you until the create a generation of people who are untethered,
who are taught not to trust God, not to trust parents,
and they shouldn't necessarily trust the founding of their nation
or the way that the country is going, you then
have a group of people that are very nervous, very afraid,
very anxious. And when a democratic party or socialist come

(12:11):
along and say the government will protect you, the government
will provide for you, the government will be in essence,
your parents. I think the groundwork was late, and we
can debate whether it was intentional or not. I don't
know that every fourth grade teacher was in on some
sort of conspiracy, but I certainly think that there were
forces at play to deconstruct and as you and I've

(12:32):
discussed in the past, that pull away the pillars of
American society, and I think this is the effect.

Speaker 1 (12:37):
So guy, I'm a little more short term in my
view of politics. So I see the midterms coming up,
I see the disaster that is the Democrats, and I
don't think that the normies, the normal people of America
are going to identify with this socialist slash communist leaning
or lurch that's happened. So I'm like, why interrupt it?
Let it go. But you make a really important argument

(12:58):
in your column that you said, what makes this country
strong is having a legitimate and maybe old school Democrat
party arise, come back. We need the debate, we need
this diversity of thought. So you're arguing for a stronger
or maybe old school Democrat party to a guy like
me who wants to see them if they're killing themselves,
why or they're ruining themselves? Why interrupt it? Why is

(13:19):
it that we need the Democrats of old to maybe
step forward and kick out the most extreme element of
their party.

Speaker 4 (13:27):
Well, I would argue there's a short term and long
term reason. And the short term reason is there are
certain elections, Greg, you know that are the opposite of
what many of yours are in Utah. In other words,
there are a number of races where Democrats are clearly
going to win, and if they continue to nominate people
as we've seen here in Pennsylvania, there will be two

(13:50):
openly socialist members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation after November's election. So,
you know, in the short term, the concern is that,
you know, as we're seeing today in Michigan, I mean,
there's a chance that the Democratic Party in Michigan is
going to nominate and open socialists, perhaps anti American Islamist. Again,

(14:10):
not nothing wrong with practicing the Fay being Muslim, but
when you when you perhaps talk about that America deserve
nine to eleven, I get a little taken aback. So
I guess the short term is, greg is that if
if they're nominating radical socialists, if they're nominating people who
clearly want to tear apart and tear down the United
States and replace it with sort of you know, Cuban

(14:31):
or Venezuela and socialism, that's dangerous because every one of
those folks that goes to the Senator, goes to the House,
pulls the country in a radical direction. And the second
is longer term longer term, what we need is what
Reagan called us to do. We took a generation from
the sixties and seventies and eighties to bring us together

(14:51):
to realize that we thought we had put communism on
you know, as the Reagan said, the ash heap of history.
The way to beat this is not merely at the
ballot box. That's critically important. What's more important is to
build that sort of supermajority. If seventy eighty percent of
Americans that relegate those radical ideas to the sidelines. And again,
if a random borough councilman, you know in Vermont, or

(15:16):
a random member of the state legislature in Oregon as
a socialist, that's unfortunate, but so be it. But it
really will take a super majority of Republicans, Independence and
Democrats to recognize and speak out against the challenge that
this is to the United States, to our way of life,
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So long term,

(15:37):
I don't want crazy people, I don't want socialists elected.
In longer term, it's going to take a super majority
to really relegate it to the back burner and off
to the sidelines and out of mainstream thought.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
Guy, are Republicans taking too much of a Well, we'll
just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
Are they being acting position?

Speaker 2 (15:58):
Are they listening to great much? Should they be more active?
And if so, how should they go about this right now?

Speaker 4 (16:06):
Yeah? Look, I don't think you can never listen to
Greg too too much?

Speaker 2 (16:13):
Well, what about the Republicans right now? What should be doing?

Speaker 1 (16:16):
So?

Speaker 4 (16:18):
Again, I think short term and long term it's important
to speak out. Look, there is a political Look, there's
an old truism in politics. You know, when when your
opponent's committing suicide, get out of the way. When your
opponents you know, falling down, get out of the way.
I understand that. I understand that. But what I think
we need to do is engage on it. Because as

(16:40):
more and more of these socialists win primaries for Congress,
for governor, for the Senate, I think we need to
talk about it, and not simply in the state it happens.
I mean, it's critically important to the folks in Michigan.
If the Democratic Party nominates an open socialist and someone
who thinks that nine to eleven was something we do,

(17:00):
that's an important debate for everybody in Michigan to think about.
But it's a debate for the rest of America because
I think we then need to ask people running for Congress,
people running for the state House, people running for governor,
people running for the Senate in every state in Utah
and Pennsylvania, in Maine and Texas, and say, uh, where
do you stand on this? I mean there's some you know,

(17:21):
in future columns, I'm going as I've done in the past,
We're going to sort of walk through questions we should
ask candidates. So I don't think the answers to walk
away and just let it happen. I do think the
answer is to engage not only in the States but
nationally and elevate the debate and frankly seek out uh
you know, the Rama Manual, the John fetterman. Heck, even
Jim Carvell has signedly decided party film too far, you know,

(17:44):
Bill Maher. I mean again, look as you and I've
talked in the past about sort of my coalition of
common sense. I mean, I think when we find independence
and Democrats that are willing to speak out even if
we don't agree with them wholesale, we have to recognize
when they're in this sort of if I will this
fight to bring politics back to normalcy. So I think,

(18:06):
don't ignore it. I think engage it, nationalize it. Ask
every Democrat up and down the ballot where they stand
on this fight. We can disagree with them on tax rates,
we can disagree with them on the death penalty, we
can disagree with them on school choice. But if we're
fundamentally saying capitalism ought to be thrown out the window,
that our medical system, that our industry, that our energy

(18:28):
ought to be nationalized, that there ought to be fifty
seventy or ninety percent tax rates, that's a debate that
every Democrat running for office should have to answer as
the party goes in that direction. Because I want to
win in twenty six, but I want to win in
twenty eight. More importantly, I want to relegate this to
the sidelines. Look, I think we can be Democrats, whether
they're socialist Democrats or old school Democrats, because I think

(18:50):
ultimately freedom and liberty prevail and common sense prevail. But
we have to engage them, because we have to make
people aware, because not everybody's paying attention right now, and
I think they sometimes will write it off as just
Republicans yelling at Democrats. We have to explain this is different.
And that's why I say this is a time for choosing.
As Ronald Reagan told us a lifetime ago, when communism

(19:13):
was on the march, when Soviet Union was creeping into
our hemisphere, it was a time for choosing. I think
we're at that seminal moment again, and we need a
coalition of Republicans, independence, and Democrats to stand up and
say this is not your typical party fight. This is
about who controls the house. This is about the future
direction of the nation. Are we built on liberty? Are
we built on life, liberty in the pursuit of happiness?

(19:34):
Are we built on socialism? And Karl Marx that's a
radically different vision of America. So I think we need
to engage, put the bright lights of politics on it,
and make sure the voters make an informed choice and
don't simply pick the radical because they're upset about the
price of gas. They have every right to be upset
about the price of gas. The answer is not socialism.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
Guysha rock you joining us on our newsmaker line. Let's
get a news update. Now here's Abby our number two
riding Greg helping you get home. On this Tuesday afternoon.
You're on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Can
arrest live everywhere on the iHeart radio app. Make sure
you downloaded today.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
I'm right, Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
All right, you were saying we were talking about this
earlier before the show today. Greg, you were you in
the legislature when they took on the issue of photocop.

Speaker 1 (20:29):
So I can't remember. I don't know if they passed
a ban on it right when I got there or
just before I got there, but it was still a
hot topic. Oh when I arrived on the scene. And
I'm talking two thousand and three.

Speaker 2 (20:42):
When you arrived.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
Yeah, you were in the legislature back then. Two thousand
and three is my first session. Wow, I ran an
O two. So yeah, don't look so shocked. You know,
you don't have to be that shocked. I did that
that long ago.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
I thought it was like twenty ten or twenty twelve.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
No, I was a veteran number. That that is institution.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
You're there.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
I was there for a while.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah, there for a long time.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
Well, I.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
But I will say whether it was when I was
there or if it was right after I got there,
and we're still talking about it. It was still an issue,
and I was firmly and still I'm on the side
of I'm not big on photocop I'm not. I don't
like it.

Speaker 2 (21:18):
Yeah, well neither do I. And what was the main
argument that you couldn't you couldn't come face to face
with your accuser.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
Yeah, it was that. It was that argument that in
Big Brother like so there was in the early two
thousands and through the two thousands, there was still this
and I think a legitimate argument of privacy and how
much government would know or how much government could surveil.
And this was a this was kind of a heavy
handed nineteen eighty four George orwell, uh, you know narrative

(21:45):
around photocops. There just it's just too much government, you know,
at the intersections, sending you tickets in the mail, maybe
not getting the actual person that committed the infraction because
it'll it'll send it the ticket to the person who
owns the car, all of that. But I think that
that the argument of surveillance and what is called I
don't think we can say that anymore. I think we've

(22:06):
lost all that. I think the cameras, the tablets and
the phones and the cameras. I think it's omnipresent.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
Now.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
I don't think we can so that argument. I whether
we like it or not, I don't think there's a
real argument around the existence of cameras anymore.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Well, everywhere you look, there's a camera looking to you.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Well, here and the thing is look in this building. Yes,
came the government figured out it's much easier to buy
from the private sector who does all this camera recording,
buy their stuff than it is to try to legally
do it as a government. But you can certainly purchase
it or rent it. Here's what I love when you
get a nap and it says we don't sell your
information or what They don't have to sell it. They

(22:44):
rent it. I kid you not. They draw a distinction
between sell and you can subscribe, or you can lease,
or you can they can transact money for that information.
They just won't sell it, meaning they won't lead it,
won't part ways they're going to say, here's our file
and you can have it for a price. They don't
sell it, but it doesn't mean they're not making a

(23:04):
revenue from it.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
Yeah, I did sell it.

Speaker 1 (23:07):
The word does not sell. It's sell or share is
what you better watch on those apps. And I'm telling
you we have signed, we've hit the yes button on
those terms for so many apps that they are sharing
with probably great profit. So much of what we use
our technology for.

Speaker 2 (23:25):
Well, we saw this article today. It was an axios
here in Utah, and apparently the Salt Lake City Council, thanks,
you've got a hearing coming up in September, is going
to look at expanding the use of automatic license plate readers.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
Yes, this is.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
An issue because of the so called FLOCK system I
think that's what it's called. Has stirred some debate around
the country. I'm not sure if this system is not
the FLOCK system, but it is a license plate reader
and it's got some people concerned.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
And I do think that it is a worthy topic
to discuss. And there's still even if we think, and
we know that there's a lot of surveillance already happening,
how much of that do we want the government itself doing?
And how much of that, how much more to that
of that are we going to tolerate, especially that that
we can see and observe. I you know, I know
law enforcement they could they'll take every break they can

(24:16):
get in this world. Is this country soft on crime
right now? So it's not like it's easy for them
to try and fight the bad guys with the system
that we're in and the mindset that people have. So
I understand law enforcement wanting every advantage they can have,
but I think there's some legitimate concerns around the surveillance
of citizenry and these plot cameras well.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
On our newsmaker right now is a law professor from
the University of Utah who studies this type of stuff.
His name is Matthew Tuckson. Professor, Thank you for joining us.
Want to get your input on this. The debate over
these license plate readers and what is the debate that's
going on around the country right now.

Speaker 5 (24:54):
In some of the cities that have installed license plate
reader systems, there's been some pushback from residents who are
worried about privacy issues about sort of being tracked in
terms of their location and wherever they go. In other cities,
it's been less controversial, so it's sort of a mix,
but there are some privacy concerns with a big system

(25:15):
of cameras.

Speaker 1 (25:17):
So that's a is that a perceived a concern or
a real one. I sometimes think with all the modern
technology we have at our dispose, we have our phones,
our tablets, I think there's already a lot of cameras
out there. Frankly, so is this more of a perceived
big brother fear or is it legitimate?

Speaker 5 (25:35):
You're not wrong that there's a ton of cameras out there,
and to some extent, you know, you can have a
license late reader system without there being problems, but there
have been real problems, Like I do think this is
a real fear. The like Flock cameras is a popular
sort of system of licensed lateadar cameras, and there have

(25:56):
been a lot of abuses reported from like flock employees
or police police officers using flock to say track, you know,
their girlfriend or someone they're interested in romantically, and track
their location and things like that. So there are real
abuses here that people might legitimately be worried about.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
How do police feel about them? I would imagine law
enforcements see this as a very valuable tool. Are they
fighting hard in support of this, professor?

Speaker 5 (26:25):
It's a good question. I think they see it as
a valuable tool. There have been places where I think
they have discontinued use of these systems because they haven't
found them that beneficial. I think there are in other
places where they have found them beneficially. I do think
it can be a useful tool, you know, putting a
license late reader on a bridge, you know, or like

(26:46):
a highway or something like that, you might be able
to solve some crimes or apprehend some fugitives that way.
In terms of the really pervasive cameras, I think they're
probably pretty useful. But you know, I haven't seen police
officer are staying there like a crucial tool or making
this their top priority.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Yeah, professor, Are all these license plate readers created the
same because I've heard as you if you mentioned flock
gets a lot of flock, it gets a lot of grief,
people call it out specifically. I don't know that this
is the brand, this is that name of the kind
that they're going to use these license plate readers. Are
they all the same or does is flock a little
more aggressive and maybe do something different.

Speaker 5 (27:28):
I think the difference with flock is that they maybe
have more cameras in a given space. Like my understanding
of flock is they use both public and private cameras
they're using, you know, private surveilance cameras with their software
to identify people's license plates, and I think you just
get a lot more coverage there, so it can get
a little more intimate, a little more privacy invading. You know,

(27:51):
if you have five hundred cameras in a small city,
that you can maybe track people a lot more pervasively
than if you have, like in one case I'm familiar with,
you know, four cameras in a big region just tracking
whoever goes over a key bridge. So I think that's
probably the biggest difference, is just like there's so much
more opportunity for surveillance when you have hundreds of cameras

(28:13):
in a place.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
Yeah, Professor, you mentioned earlier that there are some communities
that have success with this. Are they having success because
of the restrictions they place on these cameras and how
they can be used and who can access them? Is
that important if say Salt Lake City adopts something.

Speaker 5 (28:29):
Like this, it's certainly something that I would recommend if
Saling City wants to have a good experience with an
advanced license late reader system, putting restrictions in place for
who accesses the system, documenting every time they access it,
so that you can prevent abuses or at the very

(28:50):
least detect abuses when they occur. I think if you
can eliminate that part from the system, people are going
to have a much better time with it, and they'll
be less concerned and less political backlass.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
Do all jurisdictions municipalities go through a public hearing process
city council meaning to review and decide whether to use
license plate readers? Or is Salt Lake City maybe adding
a layer of transparency and public input. Is this how
all cities decide to use them? Or can this be
unilaterally decided by a city just to have these kinds

(29:21):
of cameras without any kind of public input.

Speaker 5 (29:25):
I think it's probably a mix where some places probably
just have the police department put these in place without
a public hearing. Maybe they get a public hearing later
if there's a political backlash, but maybe not. And then
other places I've heard of other cities certainly going through
hearings and getting more community involvement before it goes into place.
I think that's a good system to have. You know,

(29:47):
with an advanced surveillance program, you might as well get
community input, because there are cities where I think people
fully support this kind of thing, and having had an
opportunity to sort of way in at the front end
and maybe play some put some restrictions in place, I
think they'll be more popular in the long term.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
I don't know if you were here years ago. I
know Greg and I were both here. There was a
real pushag on speed cameras and Yahoo photo cup, and
eventually I think the legislature passed the legislation preventing the
use of photo cup. Do you expect maybe a public
reaction like this to the license plate cameras.

Speaker 5 (30:27):
Probably not quite as steep. I was just doing some
research on backlash to red light cameras and speed cameras
and people they infuriate people. I've lived in places with
red light cameras, and they can be a bit infuriating,
in part just because they they're so good at catching people,
but they you know, I in part because in part

(30:51):
because it's a lot of money to pay for for
something that you know gets detected so frequently, and there's
other reasons. You know, people want their sort of day
in court or to be caught by a human and
not just a machine. But yeah, the pushback on those
things are really tend to be really severe for a
variety of reasons. I don't think license lely reader cameras

(31:12):
will will likely get as much pushback just because they
don't impact people quite as often and they're not as
annoying to deal with for just the everyday person.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
You have view law professor Matthew Tookson talking about these
license plate reader cameras that Salt Lake City is considering.
Greg and and I want to ask our audience a question.
I mean, I remember the huge outcry when photo cop
came on board, and I think it was West Valley
City that was using it at the time, and there

(31:42):
was an outcry from people saying, don't you dare. But
let's fast forward now when just say that was about
two thousand and.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
Three to two thousands, early two thousand, fast.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
Forward now twenty almost thirty years down the road, and
look at what are we just conditioned now to accept
that people are watching us every minute? I mean, what
is it anymore?

Speaker 1 (32:03):
I think we're conditioned. There was a time where there
was a group that wanted to pay for they wanted
to fund our freeways, and then they wanted to toll
them and get a return. And so they said, look,
if you don't have the money as a state to build,
and they had done it in Texas and there are
some other states they had successfully they were saying they
had successfully done it, and so they were saying, to

(32:23):
enhance your transportation fund and be able to we will
put private money in, but we will ask and then
we'll even do passes for people that live in immediate
proximity of this freeway, so if the off ramp would
be near their home. And so my question as a
young lawmaker was, well, how will you determine the automobiles
that need to be told for driving on it and

(32:43):
those that live close enough that wouldn't be And they said, well,
we put this transponder on their car and then we
would know which one. And I'm going, yeah, I'm not
really into that. So I said no, and we said no.
Is the legislature that idea never flew the toll roads
and having private sector told us for those roads and
how they would you But if you look now my phone,

(33:03):
I don't even have it on my calendar, and it
says it's this amount of minutes to get to iHeart
to the radio station. It tells me exactly where I'm
going to go. Now, it's looking for patterns, and I
get it. But if we think that our our our
technology that we use every day as much as we
use it, it doesn't track where we are where we're going,
we're fooling ourselves. I mean, you can look one of

(33:25):
the things you dot tell me. You go to the
and it's public information. You yourself can look at every square
inch of freeway on I fifteen two fifteen eighty everywhere
and go look at the map and you'll see all
the cameras that you can watch in real time live.
Are you tough freeways? So we I mean we've kind
of the water's kind of gotten hot, it's kind of

(33:46):
so we might hate the concept, but I think we're
living in the very concept we say we don't like.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
Yeah, well do you like it? Eight eight eight five
seven eight zero one zero triple eight five seven o
eight zero one zero on your cell phone dial pound
two fifty or leave it's a mean on our talkback
line by downloading the iHeart radio app. More coming up
on the Rod and Greg Show. Here's news update with
that Mey third hour, Rod and Greg with you on

(34:12):
this Tuesday afternoon here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine, can RS live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
I'm rod Arkt.

Speaker 1 (34:20):
I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (34:21):
All Right, the polls have now closed in Michigan. Everybody's
keeping their eye on that Senate race. I think it's
a foregun conclusion that the socialist candidate is going to win.

Speaker 1 (34:32):
Do you know how much money went against al said
the socialist that he was going to win. I think
it's like, what is it nine to one in terms
of how much money went to the female that's in
that race. Well, I don't remember her name. Yeah, the
gritty talking one. Yeah, yeah, you know she's gonna come
with a little bit of wild she say. Anyway, whatever
she said. I wish I could talk as deep as

(34:53):
she does. I'd have a better radio voice if I did. However,
she's got all the fundraising, I mean all the money.
I mean she's spending. Like I said, it must be
nine to one against him, and he's got the momentum
in the ground game with those because you know, socialists
slash comedies. They don't have a job. It's one of
these they are socialists. They want they want government to
pay everything. Because they don't, they're not gamefully knocking doors

(35:15):
and having a good campaign ground game is just it's
right up their alley because they don't. There's nothing else
going on with them, you know, the game fully employed people,
they're all at work. So anyway, if he wins, and
you know, the people are saying he's going, he's gonna
win it with And usually it's been the rule almost
campaign elections one on one has been that the higher

(35:38):
the more of the money you have, the more money
you have, the more you can afford a good ground
game and get out the vote effort, your your commercials,
your your direct mail, you'll win. You just win. If
you look at how many races are won by the
candidate that has the most fundraising ability or most spends
the most money, they're connected. But not in that race
in Michigan, this guy is gonna win, and he's gonna

(35:58):
win with a fraction of the dollars that the establishment
Democrats pumped in for the other candidate. Doesn't look like
she's gonna Oh. Look, quality of candidates matter, and I
don't think he got great quality with either one of
the other one of them.

Speaker 2 (36:11):
No, you do not, you do not. By the way,
the remember the woman, she's chairman or co chairman of
the Democratic Socialist Party, and she was on It was
Fox News and I think it was Shannon Breen who
listed all the things in their platform. Remember this sound
biten She said, do you believe this? Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (36:31):
Well, someone asked her last night, are you getting any
calls from established Democrats asking can we work something out?
Can we do something? Here's our response to all of this.
She hasn't had one call.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
No, I don't think she won one call. Why would
a Democrat? They see? I mean betterman will have a
very very difficult time keeping the Democrat nomination in his
re election in Pennsylvania because he has spoken up against
the bizarre socialist and anti Semitic all the things that
are going on he has. I don't like how he
votes on issues, but as far as common sense goes

(37:05):
and calling out the absurdity of the extreme left, he's
really the only one that does it. But if you
look at the polls in Pennsylvania, he's suffering amongst Democrats
because of it. They don't like him. So I mean,
you can speak up. But the reason she's not getting
any calls or that I would assume those Democrats are
in office would like to stay in office.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
Well, earlier today we had a chance, Greig and I
did to talk with Utah Senator to Mike Lee about
a number of issues that are out there, and one
of them, of course, is he's trying to convince senators
to join him and trying convincing John Thune not to
call for a recess, even though Thune today said sorry,
we're going to have her recess. But before we learned
of that, we did talk to the Center and we

(37:46):
did ask him about his efforts to stop the recess.

Speaker 6 (37:49):
Yeah, we've got about twenty Republican senators who have agreed
with me that we need to get to work on
the Save America Act. When he'd either passed the Save
America Act itself or alternatively pass something that would accomplish
the same things that it does through budget reconciliation. It
doesn't matter as.

Speaker 4 (38:10):
Much to me.

Speaker 6 (38:12):
Which version of that we undertake, but we've got to
do one of them. And if we haven't done that,
or if it happens in budget reconcilation, if we haven't
made significant progress toward getting the job done. Then there
about twenty of us so far who we're saying that
we will object to August recess unless you're until it

(38:34):
gets done. So again, we can do this either by
enforcing the talking fellow us or that is taking up
the bill, and I now think that we're going to
debate it until it passes. That'll probably take a few weeks,
but I'm confident that that could result in a very
clean victory. Or alternatively, we could we could pass provisions

(38:58):
through a little bit more of a complicated produce known
as budget like coonciliation, something that can take place without
the sixty vote culture standard, even playing a role that
takes a few weeks to complete. But we could complete
the first step of it within the next few days
if we get going on it right away. We are
making significant progress in coming up with different theories on

(39:22):
which we can make this budgetary and therefore passable through
budget reconciliation, just in a different form. And remained resolute
that we have no business just recessing for August until
the core of this is taken care of.

Speaker 1 (39:37):
So Senator congratulations to that number twenty didn't come yesterday.
I've watched this grow from two to seven to eight
to ten, and I think America social media we're watching
you collect the votes through great leadership. So thank you
for your doing. Twenty is the new number today. It
was really eighteen or nineteen yesterday. So you're getting that

(39:57):
kind of momentum with your colleagues. Tell me there was
a time where you were not supportive of, or you
were suspect to, a budget reconciliation approach, and I know
that you have said that you've seen some avenues that
you're more interested in her you think are more viable.
Maybe share with us what's the difference between a clean
vote on the Save America Act versus an approach through

(40:20):
budget reconciliation. And I'm really interested if you have a
Senate Parliamentarian that'll agree with you.

Speaker 6 (40:26):
Yeah, okay, So I have been suspicious of it in
the past. It is still something that is fraught with
some potential pitfalls along the way, because a million things
can come up where we end up finding ourselves at
the mercy of some obscure precedent that is sometimes subjectively
interpreted by the Senate parliamentarian, and that comes out in

(40:48):
the form of advice to the presiding Officer, and the
presiding officer blindly follows it, so there are a lot
of concerns with it. One of the reasons I was
skeptical of it is because I felt like it was dodge,
an effort to dodge what I still think is probably
the cleanest best way to pass this, which is put
on the floor and announced that we're going to debate
it until it passes, just like they did with the

(41:09):
Civil Rights Act of sixty four. Now that that appears
less and less likely, I've been compelled to do a
deeper dive into how we could do this through budget reconciliation.
There are a combination of things we can do with
mandatory funds channel through budget reconciliation that would alter mandatory

(41:30):
outlays and or revenues flowing into the US government that
can be used, primarily through the Department of Homeland Security
to compel compliance with election security priorities that we've identified
in the Save America Act. There are multiple permutations of
that language, and while we're still negotiating it in committee,

(41:51):
not inclined to air each one of those quality but
I can say this, there is a path there that
while still fraught with some potential pit falls, does hold
some promise for what we could get done through reconciliation.
A combination of budget reconciliation and executive action under existing
statutory authority, some of which I've discovered just in the

(42:12):
last week or two has me feeling increasingly optimistic.

Speaker 2 (42:17):
Sender. Let's talk about doctor Fauci. In his appearance last week,
Sender Rick Scott says that he may hopefully get before
his committee tomorrow a vote on possibly holding Anthony Fauci
in contempt of Congress for his refusal to answer any questions.
What's your take on this? Where do you think this
may go?

Speaker 6 (42:35):
Well? You know, Anthony Fauci inflicted a measurable harm on
the American people, all while misleading Congress deliberately as it appears,
about funding for gain of research again of function research
and shaping the narrative against the lab link hypothesis and
directing taxpayer dollars to risky coronavirus experiments. The American people

(42:59):
will forced to go through these endless lockdowns towards vaccination mandates,
isolation from family, missed educational opportunities, and we deserve answers
the American people deserve answers. Meanwhile, Fauchi appeared with an
army of lawyers. One of them couldn't keep his mouth shut,

(43:19):
so we had to be shipped out of the room.
But he's still had an army of lawyers standing behind
him encouraging him not to answer. One hundred and eleven
Fifth Amendment invocations in a single hearing for a man
granted blanket pardon preemptively by President Biden does seem to
stretch the imagination a little bit. Even when my colleague
Josh Holly asked questions like what day of the week

(43:42):
is it today, what color ty are you wearing? What's
the color of the carpet.

Speaker 4 (43:45):
In front of you?

Speaker 6 (43:46):
He pledged the Fifth and he still refused to answer
every single time. So look, he disgraced himself in front
of the United States Senate, and I look forward anxiously
to seeing House Senator Paul and and the rest. The
committee decides to proceed with.

Speaker 2 (44:02):
This one sunder. Does the blanket pardon, though, kind of
shield him from any contempt charges? Or is that a
constitutional question that the courts may have to decide.

Speaker 6 (44:12):
I don't think the blanket shields him from being in
contempt of Congress. Whether or not he could be convicted
of that might turn on whether his invocation of the
Fifth Amendment in any given circumstance was defensible. I suppose
that the best argument that he's got lies in the
fact that a presidential pardon, preemptively or prospectively, it doesn't

(44:36):
immunize him from charges that could be brought in state
court under state authority. And so I have a feeling
that some of this will be driven into that line
of reasoning, and that will end up determining the appropriateness
or lack there of his repeated invocation of the Fifth
But all that said, I still don't understand why he

(44:57):
couldn't answer the question of what color is the carpet
in front of you? There's no planet on which that
answer to that question would prove incriminating.

Speaker 2 (45:06):
Our conversation with Utah Senator Mike Lee talking about a
number of issues. My question was greg as Fauci took
the fifth what one eleven times?

Speaker 1 (45:16):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (45:17):
If he answered one question, would that open the door
for other questions?

Speaker 1 (45:21):
I don't know, I'm legal questions.

Speaker 2 (45:23):
I'm wondering if he just had to say no to everything,
because if he opened a crack to the door, and
I was hoping watching that that someone would actually ask
him his name.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Yeah, he wouldn't answer it.

Speaker 2 (45:35):
He wouldn't answer it. So would that open the door
that they could then ask him other questions and he
could be held in contempt since he answered one but
refuse to answer others. I don't know how it works.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
I don't either, But what's supposed to happen, and Senator
Josh Holly brought this up, is you don't have the right.
The Fifth Amendment is so that you don't self incriminate.
But if you've been pardoned, you I think you're compelled
to testify. There's no consequence. The only reason that you're

(46:05):
allowed to not testify is that you're not You have
a right to not incriminate yourself. Once you've been pardoned,
how can you incriminate yourself? Then? I think you are
compelled to answer honestly because you have been given immunity.
You've been given to pardon. I don't know if these
are if this outlives the pardon, I don't know if
someone thinks that the you know, the autopen pardon isn't

(46:26):
isn't valid. But I haven't seen it. There's been a
lot of autopen pardons. I haven't seen any of them nullified,
So I don't know if you've been given a pardon.
I thought Senator Holly said, you don't have the right
to stay quiet because you're already immune. Legally, you are immune.
You are not incriminating yourself, so you can you There
is no protection against self incrimination if you are enjoying

(46:48):
blank and immunity or from from President Biden.

Speaker 2 (46:52):
Well, how did he get a presumptive pardon presuming that
you would be charged with a crime down the road. Well,
I mean that that sounds see the Tom Cruz movie
Minority Report. Yeah, we're gonna arrest you before you commit
the crime, because we know you're going to commit.

Speaker 1 (47:06):
What the Democrats would say is that that you know,
after committing law fair for four straight years against President Trump.
What they what they say is and they're always guilty
of what they accuse others of doing. They are saying that,
you know, Trump is going to go after his political
enemies and to protect people like Fauci who could be
a political be seen as a political enemy, we're going
to pardon him so that he is not attacked and

(47:27):
that's that's their justification. But you're right, I think it
looks guilty as sin, and it's always been considered. When
you saw the mob guys get up and they'd ask
him questions and they would plead the fifth. Everybody roll
their eyes and go, that's that means it's guilty. But
I guess I don't know. I think I think that
the media protecting or trying to even double down on

(47:48):
Fauci being right or Fauci not being wrong or why,
or trying to make a victim out of him, it
just makes him look worse because I just think his
plain language, his own words, have incriminated him beyond description.
I think it's sure, and so you know, just I
guess the media can keep doing what they're doing, but
they're making our point.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
Coming up on the rud On Greg Show, a lesson
in reading a word salad. That's next don Talk Radio
one five nine knrs. And here's that by with the
news update, which I think your son.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Is he is? He is?

Speaker 6 (48:22):
He is?

Speaker 2 (48:23):
Are not getting married?

Speaker 4 (48:25):
You know what.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
I honestly think that this is a national trend. But
I think we're lucky in Utah. I think we're seeing
these same trends in Utah, but we're not in the
throes of it. I think we still have young people
that are getting you know how, I know this, go
book a reception hall on the weekend. If you hadn't
decided eighteen months ago to get married every weekend and
an entire month has been completely booked, and then you've
got to get married on a Wednesday. So here we are,

(48:46):
h so you know, someone's getting married in the state,
so we have a little I think we're a little
better than maybe the national average there, but we certainly
are seeing that happen here, even on our state here.
And I you know, young people are they're they're they're
becoming more hesitant, maybe even less socially apt at the
art of dating and getting married.

Speaker 2 (49:05):
Well, here's a little tip. It's totally different from what
we're about to talk about, right, i'd someone tell me
weeks ago I learned this. I don't know where. If
you die, have your funeral during the week it's cheaper
than having it on the weekend. Did you know that.

Speaker 1 (49:21):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 2 (49:22):
I did not that either.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
I think I'll have a chilling effect on attendance. You think.

Speaker 2 (49:28):
Apparently undertakers do not like working on Saturday.

Speaker 1 (49:35):
They're just trying to get a little more on the week.

Speaker 2 (49:37):
Yeah. As I get closer to that time.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
I morbid. I'm not planning that.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
Just bringing it up. All right, let's talk about why
gen Zers are not getting married? Joining us? This show
has just been weird today. Uh, probably because of me.

Speaker 4 (49:52):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
Leanna Graham, she is a research assistant in domestic policy
at the Heritage Foundation. She's been looking into this. Leanna,
thank you for joining us. Why is it that gen
z ors are staying single?

Speaker 7 (50:05):
Yeah, I mean it's a very shocking landscape. First of all,
thanks so much for having me on. I write a
lot on marriage and family culture. I myself got married
at the age of twenty one, which was a very
countercultural decision in my age group and cohort, especially given
the kind of narrative that I received a lot growing up,
and that a lot of young women and young men do.

(50:26):
One in three gen z are expected to never marry,
which is I think the lowest projective number in American
history for this age group. So it is truly a
historic time that we are in. But I would say
that there are a lot of factors that have influenced
this sort of marriage skepticism in gen Z, in particular
with young women. I would say that there are a

(50:47):
lot of social media influences that have been consequential. There
was an NBER paper that came out recently that actually
found causal evidence that the iPhone has led to a
decline in fortility, and that's got a lot of people
to start asking, like, what is it about the introduction
of the iPhone that decreased fertility? And I think that

(51:07):
it's twofold number one. The iPhone and the structure of
the technology and social media itself just discourages in person
interactions and crowds those out, so you have fewer opportunities
to meet people in the way that our parents and
our grandparents did, and that naturally is going to lead
to fewer romantic attraction or like meet cutes as they

(51:29):
show in the movies. But secondly, the kind of content
that social media tends to platform is increasingly I've noticed
hostile towards marriage and family. It frames marriage as hostile
to women's flourishing, as this sort of limitation on your
career and your identity, and for that reason, a lot
of women delay marriage, and they find that delayed marriage

(51:52):
often becomes foregone marriage. So a huge reason why we're
seeing this decline in the marriage rate has to do
what it's actually delaying marriage.

Speaker 1 (52:01):
So some there's an argument, it's made in this article
that maybe even financial security. Maybe our youngest generation or
merging generation thinks that you have to be able to
buy a home, there has to be financial security before
you get married, maybe not taking that journey together as
young newlyweds. I guess my question is twofold do you
feel that those financial challenges are playing a factor. And

(52:23):
then second, I've been told that home ownership isn't what
it used to be for young people. Counter to this
argument that people don't see themselves staying in one place
for a thirty year mortgage and so renting may seem
even more viable in some ways. So what is the
economic prospects for young people Generation Z is they're looking
to get married, Is it a chilling effect to get
married or are they taking on different maybe different factors.

Speaker 7 (52:46):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's unquestionable that the affordability
crisis is a problem and that that has had a
negative impact on family formation and marriage rates in general.
But as I noted in the article, it's another factor
that's worthy of consideration here that's more cultural. So, for example,
an economic reality is let's say, for example, the cost

(53:09):
of homes, and that economic reality can shift depending on
policy and different material like economic conditions of society. But
a cultural factor is the assumption that home ownership is
a prerequisite for marriage. Now let's not to say that
home ownership is not relevant. Obviously it's ideal, and it
used to be the case that once a couple got married,

(53:30):
home ownership was not a far out reality, but it
was something that they were working towards together. Because our
society used to hold to more of a capst or
a cornerstone view excuse me, of marriage, which sought as
the foundation of one's life. And so when you got married,
you were embarking on this project together of a shared identity,
a shared future. You are building capital together, and you're

(53:53):
working towards a home together. Obviously it's better for home
ownership to be in the nearer rather than distant future,
but changing cultural standards and narratives have made it such
that home ownership and other more I guess adult career
advancements are considered as prerequisites for marriage, and that's more
of a cultural shift that has to do with a

(54:14):
changing view of what marriage is. So instead of a
cornerstone view which saw marriage is the foundation for your
adult life, we now have more of a capstone view
in modern culture, which sees marriage as this sort of
cherry on top. It's like the last thing that you
consider after checking off all the boxes of your adult life.
You get your degree, you work away at your career,

(54:37):
you get a few promotions, and buy a home, do
all the things, and then and only then should you
consider marriage. So, to answer your question, affordability absolutely matters.
But what's interesting is that cultural changes and changing cultural
norms have made us interpret those changing affordability or economic
realities in a different way than maybe my parents would

(54:59):
or my grandparent and the generations before us, because we
no longer view marriage increasingly as a foundation for your life,
but something that you do after you've achieved all of
these checklist items for your adult career.

Speaker 2 (55:11):
Well, and another factor you bring up is the growing
ideological divide between men and women. So if a guy
is a Trump supporter and wants to marry a woman
who is a Kamala Harris supporter. Should they even try
and get together, Leana Wow?

Speaker 7 (55:28):
I mean according to the if, hey, if marriage and
family is high on your list of priorities, and if
you're dating somebody who doesn't have that high on their
list of priorities, naturally it's not going to be a
great fix. And I think what you're referring to. Yeah,
In the article, I talked about this very famous NBC
poll that was pulling gen z on a number of
different things. But what's interesting is on the question on

(55:49):
marriage and the family. They divided up the men and
the women by their part of the affiliation, and they
found that the Trump voting men voted out of a
list of thirteen they were asked what would to a
successful life. The men voted, the Trump voting men put
having children as number one, and the Harris voting women
put it at I think it was thirteen or twelve

(56:11):
or eleven. It was near the bottom. So there is
a huge ideological divide between men and women. Yes, And
because women are increasingly moving towards the left, and we're
seeing that women on the left of progressive women tend
to view marriage as a limitation on one's life. There
is now this ideological divide, with women moving to the
left and men moving to the right, and marriage and

(56:32):
family now becoming this partisan thing as opposed to I
don't know, like part of the good life for like
every person who wants it. I mean, it's almost as
if most of the generations before us were united that
family is just a good and it's natural for people
to want to be surrounded by relationships with their loved
ones and to get married and to have children. But

(56:53):
increasingly we're seeing that this is more of an ideological
divide now, and that conservatives are the ones having more
children getting married, whereas people on the left tend to
have a lower marriage in fertility. Right, So it's a
really interesting dynamic. But yeah, ideological division between men and
women is certainly I think increasing this hostility and sort

(57:16):
of this risk aversion of gen z and the skepticism
towards marriage more generally.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
Okay, Leanna Graham joining us on any of our news
Maker line talking about gen Z or is not getting married.
But you're right, I think Utah is an outlier of that. Yeah,
because of our strong family and we are on a.

Speaker 1 (57:34):
Little bit of a lag. I think it's coming down here.
I think it's changing here, but not to the extent
we're seeing nashally. And we need to turn it around.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
For yes, we do, all right, More coming up here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine CAN or US.
Here's Abby again with the news updates.