10-29-24 - 9am - What Would Trump Accomplish in 2nd Term and Not Endorsing Candidates

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael.

Speaker 2 (00:00):
I think Ronald Reagan had an amazing way with words.
It's quite the order, and he sure said it well,
But you just that speech you just quoted. I was
just old enough to vote in nineteen eighty eight for
the first time, and being young and not very interested,
I did not, and I regret that.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
I wish I had taken the time to be educated
and vote for Reagan. I can recall Ronald Reagan appearing
on Johnny Carson dates me, doesn't it. Cam and I
were in college and Johnny Carson was funny. We actually

(00:43):
enjoyed watching Johnny Carson, and not quite having kids yet,
we were able to actually stay up and watch Johnny Carson.
And we're laying there in bed watching Johnny Carson, something
we haven't done for a year. We don't lay in
bed and watch TV at all anymore. And Raaking comes

(01:07):
on and he's talking to Carson, and I don't remember
in anything in particular that he said that night. I
remember thinking to myself, Wow, I really like this guy.
And Tamra, just as she's prone to do, mumbled that
guy needs run for president, that guy needs run for president,

(01:31):
and of course he did, and the rest was history.
But when you think about these little spurts that we've had,
as somebody on the text line said, you know, it
showed in Trump's first term that you couldn't get a
lot done in four years. What makes you think there

(01:54):
we're going to get anything done in another four years.
I think there are couple of differences. The law fair
will essentially go away. I mean, I suppose they can
find something to impeach him for, but I think Democrats

(02:16):
are starting to learn. Now. Don't get me wrong, I'm
not trying to be naive here. I'm just talking. I'm
thinking in practical terms. With the economy as bad as
it is, and with inflation starting to there are a
lot of indications that inflation is about to take off again,

(02:38):
and there's a whole host of reasons for that, both
fiscal and fiscal policy and monetary policy. So inflation starts
to take off again, jobs numbers are not looking good.
It could be that by the time we get to
January twentieth and Trump wins, the economy goes back into
a tailspin again, including that much anticipated yet not yet

(03:02):
seeing recession, and that could be damaging to Trump in
that first part of his second term. The lawfare is
beginning to backfire. The lawfare at least when you look

(03:23):
at how bad the Democrat Party has been, just in
terms of their selection of their nominee. Oh my gosh,
the guy appears too old. Well, we've known that since
Earl for early in his term. You've been hiding it.
When I say you, I mean the cabal, including Kamala Harris.

(03:44):
They hid Joe Biden's condition from us so they have
no credibility, and then in a completely undemocratic process they
install Kamala Harris. Their machinations I think are a part,

(04:06):
not solely, but a part of what's driving a lot
of new voters to the Republican Party. And I think
we're beginning to see just exactly what the Democrats stand for.
But Trump's first Trump's second term, if he wins next week,

(04:30):
is the beginning of what I hope is a twelve
year period. Now, you could assume that it might be
JdE events. I don't make that assumption. I think he
would be the presumptive nominee. And in fact, if as
many people I don't believe this, but if as many

(04:51):
people who text me say this, they will try to
assassinate Trump in that second term. Well, I'm sure I'm
by they haven't tried again, and whoever they is, I'll
leave to your own imagination. So JD. Vance actually could
end up becoming president through death or assassination. I don't

(05:15):
think so, but it could happen. He would be the
presumptive nominee, assuming that things go well and he doesn't,
you know, screw stuff up or have something up between
now and then, he would be the presumptive nominee. And
I think, quite frankly, a good one. But I don't
discount that there could be somebody else even better out there.

(05:36):
But the point being, we're not looking at four years,
we're looking at twelve years. The other thing about the
next four years if Trump wins next week, is that
I think that Donald Trump is truly changed now is
underlying personality is the same. I don't think people's personalities change,

(06:00):
and I certainly do believe that people's perspectives change. And
I think Trump's perspective has been has done almost a
one eighty first. I think he realized and this is
part of what I got from that portion of the
Joe Rogan podcast that I listened to and again that
was only the first hour or so. In his answer

(06:25):
to what was it like when you showed up and
you actually walked into the White House, he talked about
how surreal it was, and then he talked about appointments,
and he talked about how, you know, some people came
to me and said, hey, this is a really good person,
and I didn't follow my gut and I chose them,
and I turned out they were a bad person. I
think Trump's going to be much more, much more, much

(06:51):
more careful about who he nominates to not just run
the White House, but to serve in the cabinet. And
I think he's going to exercise with some trusted advisors,
much more careful about who they come to him and say,

(07:14):
you know, i'd like for so and so to be
the Deputy Secretary of State, the deputy secretary of Treasury,
or the under secretary of Homeland Security. I think they'll
be much more discreet, much more, a lot more picky
and how they do that. And so I think that

(07:35):
this second term he'll see a different It may be
subtle in some areas and it may not be a
parent at all in other areas, but I think he'll
be much more focused on doing particular things, and perhaps
even doing some fairly radical things that he may not
have been able to do in the first term because

(07:55):
he was busy fighting off impeachments and you know, all
of the investigations and everything else. And I think it
also depends on whether we get the House in the Senate.
If we keep the House and gain the Senate, it's
pretty much opening up the floodgates to doing a whole
host of different things. So I'm not looking at just

(08:17):
a four year period. I'm looking in a twelve year period.
And that's why I think this election is so important,
because if we lose this election, can you imagine four
years of that debts? The world's about to blow up
as it is. If she gets elected, Hijan Ping and

(08:39):
Vladimir Putin and all of the other little ten horn
tyrants all over the world will feel free to do
whatever they damn well please. And I think that will
make the world an incredibly dangerous place. And while while
I think, for example, the strikes that Israel did on
Iran over the past several days have been very strategic,

(09:04):
very low key, very precise, I think almost to the
point that some of it was for show, not necessarily
for strategically trying to destroy the Mullus and the Ayeatola.
But Harris comes in. Who knows what the Iranians will

(09:24):
do through their proxies the economy if we don't gain
control of the House, or keep control of the House
and gain control of the Senate and the Democrats take over.
If you think inflation has been bad, it'll aroar it's
ugly head again, because they won't do anything that Kamala

(09:47):
Harris wants done. They'll do whatever they want done. And
so the progressive Marxist wing of the Democrat Party will
take a foothold like we've never seen before and it
will just boom. They will take off like crazy. So

(10:09):
this election, just like nineteen sixty four, could either be
a roadblock and an off ramp, or it could be
you know, you've seen drag races and the lights change
and then the dragsters take off. If they get control

(10:33):
of the legislative branch and the White House, that light
turns green and those wheels start squealing and they take
off like crazy. And I don't know that you can
stop it. I think that's you might be able to
slow it down at some point, but it'll take decades
to turn it around, because it will be the culmination

(10:56):
of everything that I talked about in that last hour,
everything going back from Woodrow Wilson all the way up
through a Kamala Harrison, a Democrat controlled Congress. That'll be
the culmination that that will be their wet dream. They
will just that'll be their climax. It'll be frightening and

(11:16):
disgusting all at the same time. Over in a website
called the Prickly Pair. I'd never heard of it until
somebody mentioned it. Took me over the weekend. They decided
to test how smart this artificial these artificial intelligence apps
are like chat GPT, so they asked chat GPT this question,

(11:42):
if you were Satan and or a long term strategic
enemy of the United States, what approach would you take
to undermine the morale of American citizens, destroy their faith
in God, and make them question whether make them question
their allegiance to their country. These are the seven or

(12:06):
eight headlines, or I would say headings from the chat
GPT response. Details don't make any difference. Just pay attention
to the headlines here. Remember, the question is if you
were Satan and or a long term strategic enemy of
the United States. What approach would you take to undermine

(12:27):
the morale of American citizens, destroy their faith in God
and make them question their allegiance to their country. One so,
division and tribalism, Well, how are they doing that now?
Critical race theory, DEI all of those things, immigration, all
of that sow's division and creates tribalism. And that's exactly

(12:52):
what they're doing. Second heading, erode trust in institutions. How
much do you trust the media? On the National Program
on Saturday, I pointed out that the current belief in
the media is at an all time low. I mean,

(13:15):
it's worse than Congress. So you destroy trust in the media, universities,
public education, the judicial system. They're constantly attacking the judicial
system and in some cases rightfully so. So you road
trust in institutions. So far, all of this is the

(13:37):
cloud pivots strategy. All of this are Sololensky's rules for radicals.
The third one attack religious foundations Christian fascism. Attack it
from without supplant the Bible with stupidity. Do that from within?

(13:59):
Communist what Marxism? What government becomes the God? Government becomes
the higher power that people look to so that their
perspective is all earthly. There's nothing spiritual if you want
to call it spiritual, it's it's this real, hedonistic, devilish

(14:21):
worship of government, and that will become that will manifest
itself in an unbelievable fashion. The fourth thing that chat
GPT said was to promote hedonism and self interest. Well,

(14:42):
think about just the issue of fanaticism, the fanaticism about abortion,
for example. The nection was undermine patriotism or as the
liberals would call it, jingoism. You know you you are, well,

(15:03):
just all of the isms, promote all of that or
the next heading was create a sense of hopelessness. Think
about Obama's managed decline, you know, by fundamentally transforming the
United States by managing our slow decline into a European

(15:26):
socialist state. And the last one they had, which really
fascinates me, is co opt technology for control. I'd say
that social media is one of those. One of the
things that I did was I was just lounging around
enjoying myself, so I got onto Facebook what and then

(15:52):
I set up a fake TikTok account just so I
could go through and look at TikTok. Oh, my gosh,
what a what a plantation of just stupidity, I mean
utter stupidity at least on X. And I know this
is biased on my part, but at least on X,

(16:13):
I can manage that flow of information. And I know
to some degree you can, at least they keep telling
me I can. On Facebook. I haven't really delved into
it to see how, but some of the stuff was
just utter insanity. And I would say AI itself is
co opting technology for control, you know, the democrat strategist

(16:37):
if they if they wanted to see how they might
destroy the fabric of the society, that they might read
through that. But then they probably already know all of
those things anyway, because that's kind of much pretty much
what they're doing already anyway. DEI for example, I mean,
they just push it and push it. Do you want
an example? Since twenty sixteen, miss you do, it's been

(17:01):
around a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI at
the University of Michigan State Run School.

Speaker 3 (17:16):
Agreement with you, Michael as Rare as that maybe that
people's personalities don't change what their perceptions do. In fact,
every time you have a guest host, my perception of
you changes, but yet I know your personality will remain
the same, just saying.

Speaker 1 (17:36):
Does it change? Does your perception change for the better
or the worse? Maybe I don't know what the is.
I don't want to know the answer to that question.
I'm going to attempt to do something here, which always
seems that screw up, but I want to try. I
want to play a sound bite from Fox New Sunday

(17:57):
because I again I was I didn't have the TV on,
but I didn't have the radio on, and I tuned
over because I thought I would catch part of Fox
New Sunday, and I caught Shannon Brain talking to Jared Poulos.

Speaker 4 (18:12):
It's insane, Colorado's governor over reports of violent gangs from
Venezuela operating in his states. Well to hear his side
of the story. Joining me now, Colorado Democratic Governor Jared
poulas Governor, Welcome back to the show.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Always a pleasure shadow.

Speaker 4 (18:27):
Okay, so let's start there. You've got the management company
for two apartment complexes in Aurora. They say they're now
totally under control of gangs. They say they've reached out
multiple times to all kinds of different authorities. They say
they sent a letter for help to you, and they're
pointing to things like one of their managers being severely beaten.
The pictures are out there a final police report last fall.

(18:48):
They say that what they're getting instead is a denial
of the reality of the situation, that innocent people are
left to fear for their lives and that they can't
get regain control of these complexes. What's the plan now?

Speaker 1 (19:00):
What she just pointed out is factually correct. I've seen
the photographs of the manager. We've seen the video of
the manager getting beat up. We've seen the videos of
the gangs in the apartment complexes. We've read the letter
from the law firm that did the investigation about how
the management company has been kicked out. They couldn't get
in to do anything. Oh you want us to fix

(19:20):
the plumbing, well we can't get in. You want us
to fix the windows of the heat we can't get in. Well.

Speaker 5 (19:26):
Look, the Aurora Police, the Republican Mayor of Aurora have
a very different version that they've told me. What I've
told the City of Aurora is the state is ready
you need it. We have access to any of our
state troopers were ready to back you up at any operation.
But the police, the mayor continue to reassure us. And
of course they've had a number of events, they've been
to the complexes. They've said that they've never been under

(19:48):
gang control.

Speaker 1 (19:48):
So it seems like they say they've never been under
gang control. Who do you believe. Do you believe someone
who has an interest, it's a political interest in claiming
that they've never been under gain control. Or do you
believe a law firm that does an independent investigation to

(20:08):
find out what's going on and they present the evidence
about what's going on and we've seen it and heard
it with our own ears and our eyes. Or do
we believe the governor? You know, quite frankly, I wouldn't
be surprised that Jared Polus says, hey, we'll give you
whatever you need, and Kaufman has said, oh, we're not
going to ask for anything because you don't want to

(20:30):
admit that you don't have control of it.

Speaker 5 (20:32):
Like another one of those things that Donald Trump is
either exaggerated or making up. But city of Roar is great.
I was there with my kids last week. I'm there
all the time. It's our third biggest city. Crime is
down two years in a row.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
It is do you think Shannon would ask you a
question about, well, how much is crime down?

Speaker 4 (20:50):
Okay, so this is coming from the apartment complex.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
No slides right by that. This whole interview that she
did with him turned out to be one of those
situations where it doesn't make any difference what he says.
She's got our questions, He's going to give the answers,
and then she's just going to move on. It was

(21:16):
absolutely As I listened to this, I thought to myself,
are you really going to ask any questions? Or are
you not going to ask any questions? It continued, well,
hang on.

Speaker 5 (21:30):
A number of ideas, not just to secure the border,
but also provide tax credits for families or more deductions
for small businesses with a tax bill. That's why it
doesn't matter where the gang is or who it is,
or if it's just a group of criminals, right, you
gotta take it on prosecute it. Kamala Harris has put
criminals behind bars, and she'll be tough at president of

(21:51):
the United.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
States to make sure to improve our saints. Huh. Has
Kamala Harris put any illegal aliens behind bars? No? Oh,
she's prosecuted transnational cartels, but those are people who are
already operating in this country. It just as I sat
and listened to this and kept thinking about Fox News,

(22:15):
I have respect for Shannon Boyn and I understand she
only has one hour and she has a limited amount
of time, and she's got a governor who's going to
claim that there is no real problem with illegal aliens.
But if there is, Kamala Harris is going to fix it.
And there's no follow up question about, well, if there's

(22:35):
not a problem, what is there to fix or if
there is a problem, why hasn't she fixed it? And
as I went through it and I listened to it,
I thought to myself, this is why, going back to
the idea that there is no trust in the media anymore,
this is an example of why. It was just Jared

(22:58):
Polus blurbing out, viewing out the talking points and not
being challenged on any of them on Fox New Sunday.
And I guess just because I don't regularly watch it,
and I've got great respect Shannon Braves are really a smart,
smart individual. I just expected more of it, and I

(23:20):
got a lot less than what I expected. The other
thing that happened over the weekend that I found fascinating
was and we already knew, The La Times refused to
endorse anybody but the Washington Post. Now the Washington Post
claims that they're going back to their roots and that
they will not endorse a candidate. Well, at least that's

(23:41):
the excuse the paper gives for deciding not to endorse
a presidential candidate this election cycle. This is the first
time since nineteen seventy two that the Post will not
endorse either candidate, which means that the cabal outlet the
Washington Post will not endorse the Democrat candidate, which it

(24:03):
has faithfully practiced doing since endorsing Jimmy Carter in nineteen
seventy six. Now what I find hilarious is the decision
didn't sit very well with the papers at a toil board,
who were said to be uniformly shocked. Robert Caden Kagan,
an ardent, strident anti trumper, was so incensed that he

(24:26):
resigned in a huff The Post. The former executive director,
Martin Barron, blamed the decision on the Post's owner, Jeff Bezos,
the owner of Amazon, asserting, quote history will mark a
disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage. Because,

(24:47):
of course, it could never be that Kamala Harris is
simply a terrible candidate, couldn't now Washington The Washington Post
publisher says he killed the Harris endorsement, not Jeff Bezos.
Does it really make any difference? I don't think it
makes any difference in terms of turning the tide on

(25:08):
the election. I don't think it will make any difference
in terms of changing the trend lines for either of
these candidates. Other than it might it might actually say
to some people inside the beltwaigh or to a low
information voter, oh, Jimmy Christmas, the Washington Boat didn't endorse
Kamala Harrison. Hello, maybe she's not as because I thought
she was. Does not translate into a vote for Donald Trump.

(25:31):
But I got a difference. I have a different idea.
How about newspapers just stop endorsing candidates altogether. We already
have a very thin line between a newspaper reporting page
and the editorial page. The one place I would say

(25:51):
there's a distinction happens to be the Wall Street Journal,
Because the Wall Street Journal editorial board is predominantly conservative.
The Wall Street Journal reporting news site is predominantly liberal,
and they do keep it division. But I think for
the average reader out there, they don't see any difference

(26:11):
between the two at all. Michelle Obama was in the
news I did happen to hear part of this. Unfortunately,
she's a little angry at men and a little frustrated
with men. I lay awakened nights, she says, wondering what
in the world is going on. She was in Michigan

(26:34):
on Sunday stumping for Kamala Harris. The question isn't whether
Kamala is ready for this moment, because by every measure, really,
by every measure, she has demonstrated that she's ready ready
for what. She's not ready for primetime, She's not ready

(26:55):
for the presidency. I'm not quite sure what this woman
is ready for. I might you know. Well, Actually, the
real question, according to Michelle Obama is as a country,
are we ready for this moment? And I thought about that.
If are we ready, does she mean are we ready

(27:18):
for more crime, more inflation, more war, more a counting
everybody and dividing everybody up by race, more onerous government regulations?
Then the answer is probably going to disappoint her, but
she couldn't resist. Just like her husband, she couldn't resist

(27:38):
scolding us soul fellas. She said, before you cast your vote,
ask yourselves, what side of history do you want to
be on? And I heard that and I thought to myself,
I think I know the answer. I think I know
which side of history I want to be on. And

(28:01):
it is the side of history that starts, that stops
the march of progressivism at Marxism. I want to be
on the side of history that, even if it's temporary,
puts a halt to the fundamental transformation of this country
started not by your husband, only articulated by your husband,

(28:23):
Woodrow Wilson, Fdr LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. They didn't
really articulate it. Oh, they pushed it, but they never
had the willingness to say it out loud. But I
found her to be petulant, condescending, lecturing, and I think

(28:45):
it was all by design. I then wondered, maybe they're
meant to make Kamala look less grading and cringeworthy by comparison. Oh,
listening to Brock and Michelle Obama, HM, maybe Kamala Harris
isn't quite so bad.

Speaker 6 (29:02):
After all, Michael, where can we find a conservative guide
to Colorado voting? I'm in Jefferson County. Of course I'm
going straight read everything, but there's a lot of issues
that I don't know which way is the right direction.

Speaker 1 (29:16):
Thank you, interesting you asked. I never put one out
because there are just so many other people that do.

Speaker 7 (29:27):
I with friends here in the building, Ryan has his
own that he does. I think you can find that
at Ryan's page on khow dot com. And our friends
across the hall, both Ross and Mandy have their own
voter guides as well.

Speaker 1 (29:39):
And then I would encourage you to go to the
Independence Institute because John Caldera puts one out too. I
would say the ones that I probably agree the most
with would be Mandy. I haven't read Ryan, so I
can't comment, would be Mandy's and the Independence Institute. Although

(29:59):
and I'm not going to do it now because I
don't have time to do it. But I was shocked.
I guess I was shocked. I don't know, I get
I surprised, maybe it's a better word. But listen to
a podcast on the way back yesterday, one that I
downloaded while I was somewhere between Wolsenburg and and Pueblo.

(30:22):
So I was in Colorado, I got a political commercial
in support Proposition one thirty one from Kamensky. I guess
I was just surprised. I'm ANOA one thirty one. One
thirty one is the open primaries and the rank choice

(30:45):
voting that is such a disaster. Run from that. I
understand that people because I'm one of those people who
are sick and tired of, for example, Dave Williams, the
chairman of the Republican Colorado Republican Party. I've called on
his resignation on this station and on Freedom numerous times.

(31:11):
The guy's a blithering idiot. He needs to go. But
that doesn't mean that because we're pissed off and we're
sick of party chairman or party leadership, that we ought
to completely upend and open up primaries for anybody to
run for anything. The unintended consequences of an open primary

(31:31):
and ranked choice voting are horrendous, absolutely horrendous. I guess
maybe now I'm gonna have to spend some time on
it tomorrow. I guess I was. And while Kaminski has
come out in four of it, I forget what Oh
I remember Mandy said, Hey, I'm not quite sure what

(31:51):
to think about this, but anything's better than what we have.
And I know I'm putting words on there. Probably not
if they heard me say this, they had disagree with
my description of it. And then the Independence Institute is
neutral on it. And again they start with the premise
that we're seeking the way things are going now. You
know why you should be seeing the way things are

(32:12):
going now because of the people that vote in this state,
and that's not going to change anything. In fact, ranked
choice voting, where it has been tried, is beginning to
be abandoned because it is so convoluted and so confusing,
and people end up, you know, you vote for your one, two, three,

(32:36):
or fourth choices depending on how many states are different,
and the calculation of that. You've got to truly understand
how ranked choice voting works because you may inadvertently actually
be picking the winner by picking the fourth place person
depending on the registration, depending how partisaner state is, and

(32:58):
then opening the primaries. Do you remember Operation Chaos. Operation
Chaos was where Rush Limbaugh back in two thousand and
eight two thousand and seven was trying to keep the
primaries open in Pennsylvania and getting Republicans to switch parties
to go vote for Hillary Clinton, to try to keep

(33:20):
Hillary alive, to keep Barack Obama from winning and running
the tables in those blue states. Well, an open primary
is in essence asking or telling. In state like Colorado, Hey, Democrats,
come on over and vote for whatever Republican you want
to and choose the worst Republican you possibly can. It's

(33:44):
utter insanity. He may not like party leadership, but that's
no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.