November 5, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- A Peanut the squirrel update
- Laws on going to the polls!
- The damage the media is doing to itself
- Trump votes!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong's Joe Getty arm Strong.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
And Getty and he.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Armstrong and Yetty these poles. This is not a leap.
There are only two choices.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
You have a fifty percent chance of being right. It's
not like you picked the trifecta at the Belmont States.
There's no magic involved. It's heads or tails. At the
end of this, the pollsters were wrong will quietly disappear.
The other ones will be like I told you one percent.
What did you tell us? You called eight hundred losers
who didn't have enough sense to not answer an unknown call.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
That's all you did. The results of the polls on
family feud are more.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Scientific than survey, says oh Bra RFK Junior, Donald Trump R.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Nobody knows everything. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
I was in this conversation with some of the other
day and the age old conversation of have.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
You ever been pulled? I've never been polled. I don't
know anybody who's ever been pulled.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
I mean, it's amazing how many people are in that situation.
It does make you wonder about all the polls that
are constantly coming out. It's not like I get called
every other day by some major poll. I never have
been called by a major poll.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Right, But there's three hundred and forty million people in
the country and a major poll polls eleven hundred.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
People, right. I mean that's really, really thorough.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
And as we pointed out yesterday, the posters would tell you,
we never claimed.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
To be that accurate. It doesn't exist.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
There's an expectation in America for something that doesn't and
can't exist. That's an accurate polling about presidential elections.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
It's not a thing well, right, And.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
They're not to blame. It's the media that's to blame.
This constantly saying a one point move, it appears Trump
is really gabblyzed on Harris's gas.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
You're absolutely right. And when any polster would tell you no, no, no, no,
forty nine to forty seven is a tie statistically, it
says so right in our look at our graph, plus
our mind is to say somebody's ahead is ridiculous. But
they do it all the time. Move one point and
it's a headline. So yeah, you trained people to think
(02:29):
it's a science. It's like putting a thermometer in your
mouth and figuring out one degree in your temperature, which
you know is a.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Deal, but polling is not.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
No, no, indeed more important than that's certainly a peanut.
The squirrel update.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I was late to this story. I saw all the headlines.
Speaker 5 (02:49):
I did not grasp the significance of the peanut the
squirrel story, and I am late to being outraged, where
some of you have been outraged now for quite a while.
It's freaking, yeah, unbelievable that this happened.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah, in a in a country, in particularly a state,
a blue state where lawlessness is running anock.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
Yeah, boy, you put into the context of current society,
and it's extra outrageous.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
And the authorities raid this couple's house. They're there for
five hours, grilling the woman about our immigration status.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
They order you out of the house and you're sitting
on the curb while feds go through all your stuff
because you got a squirrel in your home.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And you can't pee unless they come with you to
keep you from hiding evidence of what squirrel trafficking and
and so. And then they take away these people's pets
because they could be dangerous and euthanize them even though
they've been living with them for years. Just it's it's
the sort of brutality by bureaucrat. Yeah, that and that's
(03:49):
that's that's the importance of it. It is unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats with powers far beyond what you think they have.
And please the New York State Anti squirrel Police, I
don't know, Wildlife Commission, whatever they are, their.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Powers are are are are ants.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Compared to the EPA, for instance, the Department of Energy,
you know in cal Unicorny. I just read an outrageous
couple of stories about the Air Resources Board, which.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Is just running a muck anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, it's it's it's the oppression of the bureaucracy that
it's all about.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Now here's the twist, Jack, What I.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
Was gonna say. I came across some mem yesterday I
thought was really good. There's a Babylon Bee headline.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Yeah, do do everything you got before I get to
the twist, because once I hit you with the twist,
it's gonna go down that.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Road at one hundred miles.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
Fron, Well, this is not about the squirrel thing specifically,
but the word you just used. Babylon Bee's headline was
If Trump wins, it will win bureaucracy as we know it,
which uh uh you know is what Elon musk goal
is to end bureaucracy as we know it.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That I am all on board for. Yeah, I love
that idea, all right?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So who rated out the long goes that's the family and.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
You rat out a squirrel? Is that does that work
that way? Three?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
That is probably an unfortunate metaphor choice of words. Anyway,
who ratted out the squirrel?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
And why the squirrel was nationally famous? Right? I have
been following Stagram TikTok famous squirrel.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
I do not follow uh influencer rodents on Instagram like
many of you do.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Well, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
In the pantheon of famous squirrels, Peanut sets in the
highest highest stratch.
Speaker 5 (05:49):
So if you had a mount rushmore of park animals
with Instagram pages, oh yes, peanut.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
The squirrel would be on it.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Oh yeah yeah, domesticated common rodents, the peanut is their
king anyway, So the couple believes that their financial success
partly fueled by Peanut and his extremely big Instagram slash.
I think TikTok presence may have made people jealous of
them because they become very wealthy through Peanut and the
(06:22):
and the really neglected.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Mister X.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
In this scenario, which was the raccoon, yes name, I
do not recall Skippy.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
They had Jimmy MASKI yes, Katie, who is the raccoon?
Speaker 6 (06:38):
It's Fred the raccoon and Fred a big deal influencing people. Also,
Fred and Peanut both big. Actually have been following Peanut
and Fred for a while. Peanut wears cowboy hat. It's
a great show. Yeah, oh interesting. So you were pre
this blowing up. You were into Fred the raccoon and
Peanut the squirrel. Yes, okay, there you go.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
And they would dress up finding this out.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
Yes, and you should be working the Peanut desh. So
tell us so before Jill ruins the whole story as
eal and I will.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
What was the appeal?
Speaker 5 (07:11):
And I'm not mocking it because I like a good funny,
you know, break from life myself.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
It was just life with a squirrel and he would
sit the guy, the owner would sit there and eat breakfast,
and Peanut would sit on the table holding a little
post it note that had a sign on it.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Yeah, it was it was just fun. It sounds charming
till the federal government killed Peanut.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
The squirrel tragic or the state anyway. So why are
people jealous of these people in their money? Well, not
only have they made a hell of a lot of
money off of Peanut, but they've used at least a
little bit Peanut and his friend Fred to promote their
only fans site. This young, good looking couple has sex
(07:54):
online and made eight hundred thousand dollars in one months?
Whoa posting their sections?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Now the squirrel of you?
Speaker 5 (08:07):
Peanut and Fred aren't involved. Are There is no bestiality
going on?
Speaker 1 (08:10):
No, no, no, no, they're merely at times promotional partners
for the adult Fair.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
There's a letterman nuts joke there somewhere.
Speaker 5 (08:20):
Yeah, no kidding, huh okay, Well that's an interesting twist.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I don't think it ruins it for me. No, No, Indeed.
Speaker 5 (08:30):
The bureaucracy's overstepping their bounds or making big deals out
of nothing. I mean, god, dang it, you have me,
I would have been I would have probably ended up arrested. Like,
for real, You're gonna make me sit on the curb
outside my house and go through all my stuff and
I'm not allowed to go into my own home. Well,
they are freaking heroin addicts with loose pit bulls over
(08:52):
there in the park, and people can smash open any
window and steal anything. And my car's been broken into
three times and all that.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
But I'm sitting here on.
Speaker 5 (09:00):
The curb with the the the officers of the law
inside my home and I'm not allowed to go in.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
I would have been insanely angry.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
And I get laws that say you can't keep wild
animals in the suburbs, for instance, But the idea that
you're gonna come to my house because theoretically my squirrel
might be dangerous and you're going to kill it to
protect me, not to mention poor Fred the raccoon.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
While all this other stuff is going on, Yeah exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
There have been how many murders on subways in New
York City, for instance, in the last couple of years.
It's a shocking number women being clubbed in the face
at random by junkies illegal streets, right, Yeah, Venezuelan gangs,
millions of illegal immigrants flooding the streets and the schools
and the hospitals and the rest of it.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
And they frog march.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
This another unfortunate animal metaphor frog march this man and
his wife out onto the street, make him sit on
the curb for hours while they murder his pets.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
So somebody rat keep the big government. Somebody ran it out.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
The guy who was frog marched out to get to
his squirrel and raccoon.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Okay, right, And so many Americans have their head and
the sandling an ostrich over the whole thing.
Speaker 5 (10:10):
And are we ignoring the elephant in the room, That's
what I wonder.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I don't think we are now.
Speaker 5 (10:17):
Actually, that sort of thing makes me so insanely angry,
like I practically can't think about it, or I can't
handle life seriously, because I've run into it a couple
of times in my life. I used the example yesterday
just to explain it a little more. Where we were
looking into on our farm with all our goats of
make of either selling goat milk or making goat soap,
(10:37):
and we got informed by various people who had done
that and run afoul of whatever state regulations and had
their homes raided or fined or whatever. With all the
crack that's going you have the homeless population in the
countries in California doing whatever the hell they want, But
you're gonna using my taxpayer money, come sue me or
(10:58):
put me up against the wall while you go through
my home because I might have a legal goat soap,
I mean, makes me insane.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yeah, I would agree, I would agree. But America is
a generous country, Jack And a go fund to me
page set up for Peanut is raised more than one
hundred and thirty two thousand.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
To do what.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
You know what I would like to say, see one
of those big elaborate like not what do you call it,
like a little mini mausoleum slash giant gravestone for peanuts?
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Do you want?
Speaker 5 (11:33):
You want like what they got in Red Squirrel, like
what they got in Red Square for Lennon?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
You want that sort of thing? Yeah, that sort of thing.
Maybe you have them lie in state. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
This'll probably go to some sort of loss suit or
legal something or other. But seriously, these people make millions
of dollars doing porn. They don't need your twenty dollars
in the memory of their squirrel.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
Well, okay, that's a decent point. Yeah, why are you
sending them ten bucks when they made eight or one
thousand dollars a month doing important. The fact that they
do horn though, doesn't change the story at all for me.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
No, not at all.
Speaker 5 (12:05):
I'm sure he got quite attached to the squirrel based
on some of the videos I've seen over a period
of time, and the idea of the government coming in
ordering you out of your own home and going in
and killing your pet. WHOA, well again with everything else
that's going on, violent gangs running the streets?
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Are you kidding me? Illegals? By the way, Violent gangs
of illegals running the streets. Oh, that will make you.
That will make you nuts, yeah, and make you a
little militant. Maybe.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
Ah, I don't want wild animals in my home. Squirrel,
I would be a little concerned about me. No way,
I'm having a freaking raccoon in my house. I would
think you're just just waiting for the day that it loses.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Its s and claws your eyes out right? Right?
Speaker 1 (12:51):
But come on, it's not like they had a tiger
no now.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Or a bobcat. They didn't have that one of those either. Wow.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Okay, and Kamala Harris on stage, we believe in freedom. Now,
all you believe in is abortion. You don't believe in
property rights? You don't believe in You don't believe in
any freedom except the freedom to abort a baby and
the freedom to show porn to kids in school.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
That might your own damn business.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
That is absolutely true, and I wish the Republican side
could have made a better argument about that. One thing
I'm noticing on all the cable news panels. That's not
a shock. Among other things we've got coming up, stay tuned.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
I was thirty years old before I could vote. I
was born in nineteen thirty five. Civil rights movement was
high when I was about thirty thirty five years Oh,
I had seen so many young men and women die
because of a right to vote.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
And I said, I've got a vote.
Speaker 7 (13:56):
That people have to realize the price that was paid
for them to vote.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
I've been driving Lyft for nine years.
Speaker 7 (14:01):
Even when I drive locals, I ask him, maybe he
registered the vote.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
A lot of them say, my vote doesn't count. Oh. Yes,
one voat can change.
Speaker 7 (14:09):
A conversation, one vote can change a whole society.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
That is a good, true, and uplifting a little speech
about voting. I wish the majority of our media and
certainly our politicians, cared about democracy near as much as
that guy or people.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Who say that sort of thing, Hey, I would agree.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
They don't, and I've got some examples of that coming
up next segment.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
More significantly, that's an eighty nine year old lift driver.
Can we keep our lift drivers? I don't know, seventy
five or younger? Well, he can general. He sounds pretty
sharp and he could be really sharp.
Speaker 5 (14:44):
But if I got in my lift and he happened
the driver happens to mention he's eighty nine, I would think, Wow,
I probably ought to be ready to grab the wheel
if I need to.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Eighty nine is old. That's getting up to I love this,
love his attitude though maybe yeah, I know what you're saying.
Yeah I do so.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
I found this very very interesting. The good folks that
fire the Foundation for Individual Rights, and what is the
E stand for now that it's not education anymore, I
can't remember. They're the free speech people and they do wonderful,
wonderful work. They talk about, you know, various laws having
to do with going to the polls. Can you wear
a mega hat, a Harris Walls T shirt? Is it
(15:26):
legal to have a no campaigning zone? All sorts of
different issues that are complicated because of very.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
State by state. But is it anima? Probably not. Pardon
me the E for enema. I doubt it.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Yeah, can you take ballot selfies? There are a number
of states around the country, including some of my faves,
where it is prohibited that you take a selfie of
yourself at the in the voting boost because to say, hey,
I voted, because.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
I don't know exactly.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
I'm sure I've read it more than once in my
life and forgotten it because it's not very interesting. They
just don't want detailed maps of the voting places for
people to commit.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Fraud or something.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
But there are also quite a few states where you
can absolutely take a ballot selfie, and the good folks
at Fire point out that the laws banning ballot selfie
stand on very shaky constitutional ground, and Fire is indeed
currently challenging North Carolina's selfie ban in court.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
I like Fire a lot.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
I just don't know if this is the best use
of your resources going after this one.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Is it?
Speaker 1 (16:35):
I think it's more about the broad principles than the
specifics of it.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
It's probably no photography inside the polling place, which I
can understand why you'd want that.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Yeah, I think and again I'm half tempted to read
up on the issue, probably not tempted enough actually do it.
But the idea is, you are restricting my freedom without
a sound rationale for it.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
We're not going to put up with that. Fight it
everywhere all the time.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
One of the many reasons this was such a depressing
election coming up.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
If you want to be depressed, who tuned into that?
Who tune into that? Nice job? Yeah, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 8 (17:20):
If we don't show up tomorrow, it is entirely possible
that we will not have the opportunity to ever cast
a ballot again.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
That is either dumb or incredibly irresponsible.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
From open ruined free last night at a Kamala Harris rally,
It's just ridiculous to stay stuff like that. And I
know Trump is saying the same stuff, but all the
surguates don't need to jump on board with the candidates
and claim that the other side is Hitler or a
fascist or a communist or democracy ends if the other
side wins.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
It's just it's why how could we not be better
than that?
Speaker 5 (18:00):
As I quoted someone earlier, when people say this is
the most divided we've ever been, that's wrong.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
But the most.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
Divided and stupid we've ever been definitely true, which is
very disappoint.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
I'm so aghast at what Oakpriss said. I just there
ought to be and this is probably an incursion against
the First Amendment.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
But if somebody says something like that, there.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Should be heavy, heavy fines when they inevitably turn out
to be completely wrong, I'm not serious with that proposal.
But you can say crap like that. You can have
people stirred up to violence and insanity and never pay
a price for it.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
That's a little frustrating, but right, what are you gonna do?
Speaker 5 (18:47):
David Birds, who we regularly quote from his Twitter feed,
said love him.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
I have to chuckle.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
How all these cable news channels that have spent the
last thirty years pumping insane hysteria take a quick break
election day to tape up some patriotic bunting and talk
about quaint Dixville, Notch and bell Weather, Ohio and whatnot.
That is true, After just all the nutty, crazy, over
the top stuff everybody says on election day, you put
up some red, white and blue crape paper and good
(19:16):
old time.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
He put on a straw hat.
Speaker 5 (19:18):
Right, but more importantly, so I was, I wish I
could just grab the clip and play it of Charles C. W.
Cook on the National Review podcast yesterday. Now we're having
a conversation about where you are on the election, or
how you feel after election day or whatever, and and
(19:38):
his take was, how incredibly sad he is just for
the civic health of the country, no matter what, based
around all of the insanely over the top misleading stories
the mainstream media has gone with in the last week,
really in the last you know, on the entire Trump era,
(20:01):
but in the last several days, our most important institutional
media sources, whether it's CBS News, Washington Post, New York
Times or whatever, you know, talking heads that people respect,
acting like Trump threatened the life of Liz Cheney or
(20:23):
good for instance, being willing to play the abbreviated clip
of there will be a blood bath or whatever, which
and utterly unforgiven.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
And Charles C. W.
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Cook could not hate Trump more. I mean, he is
an anti he's absolutely man is not fit for the office.
But as he says, our civic health we have none.
If if Trump is not the sort of person that
you can with real quotes and real statistics and real
arguments defeat and you're gonna just go with lies. You're
(20:57):
just gonna make up crap and so as he said,
and this is true. And this is a situation we've
been in. So you end up where Trump supporters believe
none of the stuff that people put out there because
so much of it is untrue, and Trump haters believe
all of it because enough of it from Trump is
(21:18):
true because he does say and do crazy stuff. And
that's just that's no way to run a country, or
a society or a national conversation, certainly.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
And neither side has any interest in hearing from respectful
dissent about a story or.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
What have you. Right, you know what.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And we've discussed this question of intelligence versus wisdom and
several contexts already today. But the fact that the people
of the left, including the media, don't understand the damage
they're doing to their own influence right by for instance,
the Liz Cheney thing or the there's going to be
(21:56):
a blood bath thing. I mean, you give away your creditbility.
Well there was the excenta javiny, but you.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Brought this one up yesterday over the weekend.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
At some point I didn't follow all his rallies, he
says I should have stayed in the White House or whatever.
He was talking about the open borders and how out
of control immigration had gotten, and basically just saying I
should have stayed, you know, to control the border. He
wasn't making an argument for why on January sixth he
shouldn't have left the White House, but they used that
little clip and then portrayed it with January six So.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Constantly misleading people.
Speaker 5 (22:32):
Does way more damage than either you're recognizing or I
don't even know what. I don't know, like I've been
saying now for years, I don't know if they actually
believe it, if they're so into Trump derangement syndrome that.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
I don't I don't even even know.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
But you're helping Trump get elected with that sort of stuff,
and more importantly, again the civic health of the country
where nobody believes anything because you all make crap up
all the time.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Yeah, But in a media environment, keeping in mind that
they as we are, in a for profit business, I
think probably very smart people have looked at the numbers
and decided that pandering is clearly the model that works.
You get a small ish but loyal audience and you
tell them what they want to hear, over and over
(23:20):
and over again. And that's the way to survive in
the current media environment because competition is so intense.
Speaker 5 (23:25):
Well, we're at a new level though, or into a
new era or something. I watch all Mark Halprin's podcasts
with all the different strategists and everything like that, and
he tries as hard as anybody I've seen to be nonpartisan.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
But he said that coverage of the Liz Cheney story.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Was the most egregious, over the top, especially in the
final days of an election, of any media coverage he's
ever seen in his lifetime. To claim that Donald Trump
was talking about lining Liz Cheney up against the wall
and executing her the way CBS News did, the way
the Washington Post did.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I mean, your organizations is just what do you even
do with that?
Speaker 1 (24:06):
It's abandoning even the pretense of uh, honestly honesty. I mean,
you could use fancy journalistic terms about it, but when
you either knowingly say something you know to be one
hundred and eighty degrees misleading, or you are so crazed
with your own ideology that you can't even recognize that anymore. Yeah,
(24:27):
you're in a You're in a hell of a spot
as a as a media landscape, and as a country,
as a people.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
It is disturbing. It's beyond annoying, right.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
And I'm not talking about the partisan advantage the Democrats
get for being, you know, practically uniformly biased, because I'm
used to that and that's just the landscape we live in.
I cherish the First Amendment. And if you want to
use the First Amendment to pretend to be one thing
and do another, there's nothing I can do about it
except be better at the game than you. But it's
just disturbing on a human level that anybody would be
(25:02):
that dishonest, and then people would either not notice it
or not care.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Democracy can't work, No, not like that. It can't.
Speaker 5 (25:12):
And so do we have the ability as a nation
to turn the tide back toward you know, I don't
know major influencers, news sources, gatekeepers who are willing to
call balls and strikes somewhat fairly, or as we head
into the world of AI and even more siloed information,
(25:34):
is it just over? Are we just doomed to have
no ability to figure out what is a true story
and what is not probably that one.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, there are some examples, including us of people doing
pretty well trying to call balls of strikes.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
I mean, we certainly have our point of view.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
But when Trump says something stupid or does something stupid,
we say, boy, Trump did something or said something stupid.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
It's not that hard major media, You'll get used to it.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Here.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
I can come up with them off the top of
my head. He should definitely not up said over the weekend,
if you try to shoot me, shoot through the media
to get me or something like that. I mean, just
the the former president, quite possibly about to be elected
next president.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Should not talk about shooting the media.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
No, and tens thousands who knows of suburban women who
were thinking, you know, the open border, the inflation, you
know what I am going to vote for Trump heard
that and put their ballots in a shredder. They just
too much, too much. Yeah, for instance, so way frustrating.
Love this on a much lighter note. Latinos have been
(26:35):
abandoning Kamala Harris and now we have some clues as
to why, quoting the free press. They don't want to
be called Latinxes. So for a few years it was
necessary the Democrats call Latino people Latinxes, despite clear and
persistent protests. Why because Latino and Latina are gendered words
and binary ones to boot, and the Dems needed a
(26:57):
non binary way to speak about this population in case
any Latinxes use they them pronouns or something. Well, plus,
the whole postmodern thing, neo Marxist thing, denies that there
are any binaries. It's stupid and ridiculous. The fact that
anybody falls for it is amazing. But our entire university
system is infected in this. But anyway, literally the whole
(27:19):
group was supposed to accept being renamed for the sake
of any they them Latino people.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Needless to say, it didn't work.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
So there's a big serious study out of Harvard University
about how it being called Latinx made Latinos turn to Trump,
and they go into a bunch of detail, but it's
it's a significant effect that it's had on the Latino vote.
(27:47):
The exposure to it was enough. You can imagine scenarios
that might do it. One white guy with a man
bun says something about ola my LATINX brothers and all
who hear it suddenly decide they must absolutely vote for Trump.
That very day, You'd think whoever came up with LATINX
must feel like whoever forgot to lock the door at
the Wuhan Institute of Virology upon seeing this study, here's
(28:10):
the punchline.
Speaker 5 (28:11):
I still hear LATINX on NBR. Here, friends, is the punchline.
Do you think the authors of this study about why
Latinxes are going to Trump would now recommend LATINX be retired?
Speaker 2 (28:26):
No? No, The conclusion is we need to shame.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
The Latinxes until they accept the term. The studies co
author Marcel Roman, an assistant professor of government.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
At HAVAD, wrote this about the finding.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Quote, we should still be using gender inclusive language. The
problem for Democrats is that segments of the Latino community
that are queer phobic and would otherwise support them are
less likely to do so if queerness is made salient
through inclusive language. So, yes, call them Latinxes, but add
that they're queer phobic. That'll bring them over, shame them
(29:01):
into using the term. That's what Harvard says.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
So that's that whole intersectionality where you have to rank
various groups, and apparently they've ranked the people who don't
believe in gender above people with brown skin, or at least.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
The brownskinned people are the evil doers until they conform
to the white grad students orders for what they should
call themselves.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Wow, that is something that's from Harvard. Please shut Harvard down.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
Breaking news before we take a break. Trump is voting
in Florida. He has walked into the polling place with
his wife at his side, who looks like a model,
and is leaving her sunglasses on. How do we feel
about leaving your sunglasses on in the polling place? She
has a model, so as they give you some leeway
for leaving your sunglasses on?
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Just seems like an odd look.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Are they prescription? I wear prescription sunglasses and be walking
through a grocery store with my sunglasses on.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
She's just standing there with Trump while he talks. Do
you honestly care about that? I mean, I think it's
a little I don't think it's a good look. Maybe
it's the flashbulbs. Maybe she doesn't like the flash.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Ball I think that's a good look for her to
leave her sunglasses on while he's standing taking questions.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
For well host overly adamant insults online. That's all you
can do these days.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Yeah, he looks way older than her. Is that because
he is that's got to be part of it. So
maybe the most interesting actual stat not like conjecture, but
actual stat about voting that is out about Pennsylvania could
be huge. And I don't know what the explanation for
it is that, among other things on the way stay tuned, Armstrong, look, look.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Regrets, you always have regrets.
Speaker 9 (30:53):
I can't think of any to be honest, to use
her expression, I can't think of any.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Look. I red great campaign.
Speaker 9 (31:00):
I think it was maybe the best of the three.
We did great in the first one. We did much
better in the second one, but something happened and this.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Was the best. I would say this was the best
campaign in the man.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
So interesting Trump at the polling place, voting and then
to answer in a few questions with his sunglassed wife
standing next to him like expressionless. Maybe that's why draws
attention to it. She's got sunglasses on as like standing
like a statue while we talk.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
So I just I don't know what's going on there.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
I have believed since twenty fifteen that she hates him
being in politics. Could she signed on to be the
trophy wife of a very rich real estate developer, go
to n alrash rights and responsibilities thereof.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5 (31:44):
You fly around on a plane, you go to cool places,
nice restaurants, wonderful vacations.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
You don't not constantly scrutinized political family.
Speaker 5 (31:53):
I could believe that absolutely anyway. So that was Trump
whyle him play that first.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Part to get I thought that was pretty funny.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
Look, regrets, you always have regrets.
Speaker 9 (32:03):
I can't think of any to be honest, to use
her expression, I can't think of any.
Speaker 5 (32:10):
To use her expression. I can't think of any any
differences between you and Biden.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
I can't think of any.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
That was one of the most idiotic and inexplicable political
answers in the history of journalism from Kamala and I'm
calling Kamala and I'm calling the view journalists in this scenario,
which is odd. But not seeing that question coming and
not having an answer for it, that is, it boggles
the mind.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
Even if you didn't see it coming, to not be
able to come up with something other than I can't
think of.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Any and nothing comes to mind. Trump was asked another question.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
The possibility that you and Vice President Harris both might
not get to two hundred and seventy electoral votes by
the end of tonight.
Speaker 9 (32:55):
It should never happen. A thing like that should never happen.
This election should be over. They spend all this money
and machines, and frankly, if they'd use paper ballots, it
would be over by ten o'clock. And by the way,
the paper ballots would cost eight percent, would be eight
percent of the cost. If they would use paper ballots,
voter ID, proof of citizenship and.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
One day voting, it would all be over by ten
o'clock in the evening.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
I don't know about that.
Speaker 5 (33:22):
So this is a stat that a lot of Democrats
are worried because of and Republicans are hopeful because of it.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
And it's been holding up for a while.
Speaker 5 (33:33):
In Pennsylvania, the number of early votes turned in, remembering
Biden won the state by less than one hundred thousand
votes in twenty twenty, so Democrats in twenty twenty went
into election day with over a million vote lead because
of early voting. The latest numbers out as of this
(33:53):
morning today, the Democrats go in with a four hundred
thousand vote lead, so six hundred thousand thousand votes less
than twenty twenty for the Democrats while the Republicans increased
theirs a little bit.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
How do you explain that?
Speaker 5 (34:07):
As Mark Alprin said in his podcast this morning, he
said he finds it very difficult to see how Kamala
Harris wins Pennsylvania with those numbers. I mean, what's your
explanation why Democrat votes dropped off that much while Republican
votes increased a little bit. That doesn't include Trump running
away with the state.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
That's a real head scratcher.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
I mean, the Republicans increasing I could explain, but that's
precipitous drop in the Democrat votes. That's just unless there's
some sort of unbelievable groundswell of working class America moving
to the right more than even we've been talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
I don't know. That's just crazy. You'd have to come up.
Speaker 5 (34:45):
You'd have to believe that a whole bunch of Democrats
that voted by mail last time because of COVID maybe
are going to go to the polls in person today.
But I mean a lot, and Democrats are the party
of voting early, So I don't know, I don't know
if that means anything or not, but it's certainly good.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, the delightful aspect of all of this is that
sooner or later, all of these questions will be answered.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I just hope it's sooner rather than later. Longer it goes,
the more insane of this country will be.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (35:13):
I do want to talk a little bit about what
we will learn from this either tomorrow or a week
or so from now. But there's a whole bunch we're
going to learn from this election that could be damned interesting,
like our realignment, like we haven't seen.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
That conversation, and more in the next hour. If you
don't get the next hour, grab the podcast Armstrong e
Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Subscribe Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong's Joe Getty arm Strong.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
And Getty and he.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Armstrong and Yetty these poles. This is not a leap.
There are only two choices.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
You have a fifty percent chance of being right. It's
not like you picked the trifecta at the Belmont States.
There's no magic involved. It's heads or tails. At the
end of this, the pollsters were wrong will quietly disappear.
The other ones will be like I told you one percent.
What did you tell us? You called eight hundred losers
who didn't have enough sense to not answer an unknown call.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
That's all you did. The results of the polls on
family feud are more.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Scientific than survey, says oh Bra RFK Junior, Donald Trump R.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Nobody knows everything. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
I was in this conversation with some of the other
day and the age old conversation of have.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
You ever been pulled? I've never been polled. I don't
know anybody who's ever been pulled.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
I mean, it's amazing how many people are in that situation.
It does make you wonder about all the polls that
are constantly coming out. It's not like I get called
every other day by some major poll. I never have
been called by a major poll.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Right, But there's three hundred and forty million people in
the country and a major poll polls eleven hundred.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
People, right. I mean that's really, really thorough.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
And as we pointed out yesterday, the posters would tell you,
we never claimed.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
To be that accurate. It doesn't exist.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
There's an expectation in America for something that doesn't and
can't exist. That's an accurate polling about presidential elections.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
It's not a thing well, right, And.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
They're not to blame. It's the media that's to blame.
This constantly saying a one point move, it appears Trump
is really gabblyzed on Harris's gas.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
You're absolutely right. And when any polster would tell you no, no, no, no,
forty nine to forty seven is a tie statistically, it
says so right in our look at our graph, plus
our mind is to say somebody's ahead is ridiculous. But
they do it all the time. Move one point and
it's a headline. So yeah, you trained people to think
(02:29):
it's a science. It's like putting a thermometer in your
mouth and figuring out one degree in your temperature, which
you know is a.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Deal, but polling is not.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
No, no, indeed more important than that's certainly a peanut.
The squirrel update.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I was late to this story. I saw all the headlines.
Speaker 5 (02:49):
I did not grasp the significance of the peanut the
squirrel story, and I am late to being outraged, where
some of you have been outraged now for quite a while.
It's freaking, yeah, unbelievable that this happened.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah, in a in a country, in particularly a state,
a blue state where lawlessness is running anock.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
Yeah, boy, you put into the context of current society,
and it's extra outrageous.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
And the authorities raid this couple's house. They're there for
five hours, grilling the woman about our immigration status.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
They order you out of the house and you're sitting
on the curb while feds go through all your stuff
because you got a squirrel in your home.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And you can't pee unless they come with you to
keep you from hiding evidence of what squirrel trafficking and
and so. And then they take away these people's pets
because they could be dangerous and euthanize them even though
they've been living with them for years. Just it's it's
the sort of brutality by bureaucrat. Yeah, that and that's
(03:49):
that's that's the importance of it. It is unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats with powers far beyond what you think they have.
And please the New York State Anti squirrel Police, I
don't know, Wildlife Commission, whatever they are, their.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Powers are are are are ants.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Compared to the EPA, for instance, the Department of Energy,
you know in cal Unicorny. I just read an outrageous
couple of stories about the Air Resources Board, which.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Is just running a muck anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, it's it's it's the oppression of the bureaucracy that
it's all about.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Now here's the twist, Jack, What I.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
Was gonna say. I came across some mem yesterday I
thought was really good. There's a Babylon Bee headline.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Yeah, do do everything you got before I get to
the twist, because once I hit you with the twist,
it's gonna go down that.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Road at one hundred miles.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
Fron, Well, this is not about the squirrel thing specifically,
but the word you just used. Babylon Bee's headline was
If Trump wins, it will win bureaucracy as we know it,
which uh uh you know is what Elon musk goal
is to end bureaucracy as we know it.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That I am all on board for. Yeah, I love
that idea, all right?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So who rated out the long goes that's the family and.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
You rat out a squirrel? Is that does that work
that way? Three?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
That is probably an unfortunate metaphor choice of words. Anyway,
who ratted out the squirrel?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
And why the squirrel was nationally famous? Right? I have
been following Stagram TikTok famous squirrel.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
I do not follow uh influencer rodents on Instagram like
many of you do.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Well, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
In the pantheon of famous squirrels, Peanut sets in the
highest highest stratch.
Speaker 5 (05:49):
So if you had a mount rushmore of park animals
with Instagram pages, oh yes, peanut.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
The squirrel would be on it.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Oh yeah yeah, domesticated common rodents, the peanut is their
king anyway, So the couple believes that their financial success
partly fueled by Peanut and his extremely big Instagram slash.
I think TikTok presence may have made people jealous of
them because they become very wealthy through Peanut and the
(06:22):
and the really neglected.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Mister X.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
In this scenario, which was the raccoon, yes name, I
do not recall Skippy.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
They had Jimmy MASKI yes, Katie, who is the raccoon?
Speaker 6 (06:38):
It's Fred the raccoon and Fred a big deal influencing people. Also,
Fred and Peanut both big. Actually have been following Peanut
and Fred for a while. Peanut wears cowboy hat. It's
a great show. Yeah, oh interesting. So you were pre
this blowing up. You were into Fred the raccoon and
Peanut the squirrel. Yes, okay, there you go.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
And they would dress up finding this out.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
Yes, and you should be working the Peanut desh. So
tell us so before Jill ruins the whole story as
eal and I will.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
What was the appeal?
Speaker 5 (07:11):
And I'm not mocking it because I like a good funny,
you know, break from life myself.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
It was just life with a squirrel and he would
sit the guy, the owner would sit there and eat breakfast,
and Peanut would sit on the table holding a little
post it note that had a sign on it.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Yeah, it was it was just fun. It sounds charming
till the federal government killed Peanut.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
The squirrel tragic or the state anyway. So why are
people jealous of these people in their money? Well, not
only have they made a hell of a lot of
money off of Peanut, but they've used at least a
little bit Peanut and his friend Fred to promote their
only fans site. This young, good looking couple has sex
(07:54):
online and made eight hundred thousand dollars in one months?
Whoa posting their sections?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Now the squirrel of you?
Speaker 5 (08:07):
Peanut and Fred aren't involved. Are There is no bestiality
going on?
Speaker 1 (08:10):
No, no, no, no, they're merely at times promotional partners
for the adult Fair.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
There's a letterman nuts joke there somewhere.
Speaker 5 (08:20):
Yeah, no kidding, huh okay, Well that's an interesting twist.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I don't think it ruins it for me. No, No, Indeed.
Speaker 5 (08:30):
The bureaucracy's overstepping their bounds or making big deals out
of nothing. I mean, god, dang it, you have me,
I would have been I would have probably ended up arrested. Like,
for real, You're gonna make me sit on the curb
outside my house and go through all my stuff and
I'm not allowed to go into my own home. Well,
they are freaking heroin addicts with loose pit bulls over
(08:52):
there in the park, and people can smash open any
window and steal anything. And my car's been broken into
three times and all that.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
But I'm sitting here on.
Speaker 5 (09:00):
The curb with the the the officers of the law
inside my home and I'm not allowed to go in.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
I would have been insanely angry.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
And I get laws that say you can't keep wild
animals in the suburbs, for instance, But the idea that
you're gonna come to my house because theoretically my squirrel
might be dangerous and you're going to kill it to
protect me, not to mention poor Fred the raccoon.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
While all this other stuff is going on, Yeah exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
There have been how many murders on subways in New
York City, for instance, in the last couple of years.
It's a shocking number women being clubbed in the face
at random by junkies illegal streets, right, Yeah, Venezuelan gangs,
millions of illegal immigrants flooding the streets and the schools
and the hospitals and the rest of it.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
And they frog march.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
This another unfortunate animal metaphor frog march this man and
his wife out onto the street, make him sit on
the curb for hours while they murder his pets.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
So somebody rat keep the big government. Somebody ran it out.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
The guy who was frog marched out to get to
his squirrel and raccoon.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Okay, right, And so many Americans have their head and
the sandling an ostrich over the whole thing.
Speaker 5 (10:10):
And are we ignoring the elephant in the room, That's
what I wonder.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I don't think we are now.
Speaker 5 (10:17):
Actually, that sort of thing makes me so insanely angry,
like I practically can't think about it, or I can't
handle life seriously, because I've run into it a couple
of times in my life. I used the example yesterday
just to explain it a little more. Where we were
looking into on our farm with all our goats of
make of either selling goat milk or making goat soap,
(10:37):
and we got informed by various people who had done
that and run afoul of whatever state regulations and had
their homes raided or fined or whatever. With all the
crack that's going you have the homeless population in the
countries in California doing whatever the hell they want, But
you're gonna using my taxpayer money, come sue me or
(10:58):
put me up against the wall while you go through
my home because I might have a legal goat soap,
I mean, makes me insane.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yeah, I would agree, I would agree. But America is
a generous country, Jack And a go fund to me
page set up for Peanut is raised more than one
hundred and thirty two thousand.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
To do what.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
You know what I would like to say, see one
of those big elaborate like not what do you call it,
like a little mini mausoleum slash giant gravestone for peanuts?
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Do you want?
Speaker 5 (11:33):
You want like what they got in Red Squirrel, like
what they got in Red Square for Lennon?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
You want that sort of thing? Yeah, that sort of thing.
Maybe you have them lie in state. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
This'll probably go to some sort of loss suit or
legal something or other. But seriously, these people make millions
of dollars doing porn. They don't need your twenty dollars
in the memory of their squirrel.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
Well, okay, that's a decent point. Yeah, why are you
sending them ten bucks when they made eight or one
thousand dollars a month doing important. The fact that they
do horn though, doesn't change the story at all for me.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
No, not at all.
Speaker 5 (12:05):
I'm sure he got quite attached to the squirrel based
on some of the videos I've seen over a period
of time, and the idea of the government coming in
ordering you out of your own home and going in
and killing your pet. WHOA, well again with everything else
that's going on, violent gangs running the streets?
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Are you kidding me? Illegals? By the way, Violent gangs
of illegals running the streets. Oh, that will make you.
That will make you nuts, yeah, and make you a
little militant. Maybe.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
Ah, I don't want wild animals in my home. Squirrel,
I would be a little concerned about me. No way,
I'm having a freaking raccoon in my house. I would
think you're just just waiting for the day that it loses.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Its s and claws your eyes out right? Right?
Speaker 1 (12:51):
But come on, it's not like they had a tiger
no now.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Or a bobcat. They didn't have that one of those either. Wow.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Okay, and Kamala Harris on stage, we believe in freedom. Now,
all you believe in is abortion. You don't believe in
property rights? You don't believe in You don't believe in
any freedom except the freedom to abort a baby and
the freedom to show porn to kids in school.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
That might your own damn business.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
That is absolutely true, and I wish the Republican side
could have made a better argument about that. One thing
I'm noticing on all the cable news panels. That's not
a shock. Among other things we've got coming up, stay tuned.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
I was thirty years old before I could vote. I
was born in nineteen thirty five. Civil rights movement was
high when I was about thirty thirty five years Oh,
I had seen so many young men and women die
because of a right to vote.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
And I said, I've got a vote.
Speaker 7 (13:56):
That people have to realize the price that was paid
for them to vote.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
I've been driving Lyft for nine years.
Speaker 7 (14:01):
Even when I drive locals, I ask him, maybe he
registered the vote.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
A lot of them say, my vote doesn't count. Oh. Yes,
one voat can change.
Speaker 7 (14:09):
A conversation, one vote can change a whole society.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
That is a good, true, and uplifting a little speech
about voting. I wish the majority of our media and
certainly our politicians, cared about democracy near as much as
that guy or people.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Who say that sort of thing, Hey, I would agree.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
They don't, and I've got some examples of that coming
up next segment.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
More significantly, that's an eighty nine year old lift driver.
Can we keep our lift drivers? I don't know, seventy
five or younger? Well, he can general. He sounds pretty
sharp and he could be really sharp.
Speaker 5 (14:44):
But if I got in my lift and he happened
the driver happens to mention he's eighty nine, I would think, Wow,
I probably ought to be ready to grab the wheel
if I need to.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Eighty nine is old. That's getting up to I love this,
love his attitude though maybe yeah, I know what you're saying.
Yeah I do so.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
I found this very very interesting. The good folks that
fire the Foundation for Individual Rights, and what is the
E stand for now that it's not education anymore, I
can't remember. They're the free speech people and they do wonderful,
wonderful work. They talk about, you know, various laws having
to do with going to the polls. Can you wear
a mega hat, a Harris Walls T shirt? Is it
(15:26):
legal to have a no campaigning zone? All sorts of
different issues that are complicated because of very.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
State by state. But is it anima? Probably not. Pardon
me the E for enema. I doubt it.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Yeah, can you take ballot selfies? There are a number
of states around the country, including some of my faves,
where it is prohibited that you take a selfie of
yourself at the in the voting boost because to say, hey,
I voted, because.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
I don't know exactly.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
I'm sure I've read it more than once in my
life and forgotten it because it's not very interesting. They
just don't want detailed maps of the voting places for
people to commit.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Fraud or something.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
But there are also quite a few states where you
can absolutely take a ballot selfie, and the good folks
at Fire point out that the laws banning ballot selfie
stand on very shaky constitutional ground, and Fire is indeed
currently challenging North Carolina's selfie ban in court.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
I like Fire a lot.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
I just don't know if this is the best use
of your resources going after this one.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Is it?
Speaker 1 (16:35):
I think it's more about the broad principles than the
specifics of it.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
It's probably no photography inside the polling place, which I
can understand why you'd want that.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Yeah, I think and again I'm half tempted to read
up on the issue, probably not tempted enough actually do it.
But the idea is, you are restricting my freedom without
a sound rationale for it.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
We're not going to put up with that. Fight it
everywhere all the time.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
One of the many reasons this was such a depressing
election coming up.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
If you want to be depressed, who tuned into that?
Who tune into that? Nice job? Yeah, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 8 (17:20):
If we don't show up tomorrow, it is entirely possible
that we will not have the opportunity to ever cast
a ballot again.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
That is either dumb or incredibly irresponsible.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
From open ruined free last night at a Kamala Harris rally,
It's just ridiculous to stay stuff like that. And I
know Trump is saying the same stuff, but all the
surguates don't need to jump on board with the candidates
and claim that the other side is Hitler or a
fascist or a communist or democracy ends if the other
side wins.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
It's just it's why how could we not be better
than that?
Speaker 5 (18:00):
As I quoted someone earlier, when people say this is
the most divided we've ever been, that's wrong.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
But the most.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
Divided and stupid we've ever been definitely true, which is
very disappoint.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
I'm so aghast at what Oakpriss said. I just there
ought to be and this is probably an incursion against
the First Amendment.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
But if somebody says something like that, there.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Should be heavy, heavy fines when they inevitably turn out
to be completely wrong, I'm not serious with that proposal.
But you can say crap like that. You can have
people stirred up to violence and insanity and never pay
a price for it.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
That's a little frustrating, but right, what are you gonna do?
Speaker 5 (18:47):
David Birds, who we regularly quote from his Twitter feed,
said love him.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
I have to chuckle.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
How all these cable news channels that have spent the
last thirty years pumping insane hysteria take a quick break
election day to tape up some patriotic bunting and talk
about quaint Dixville, Notch and bell Weather, Ohio and whatnot.
That is true, After just all the nutty, crazy, over
the top stuff everybody says on election day, you put
up some red, white and blue crape paper and good
(19:16):
old time.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
He put on a straw hat.
Speaker 5 (19:18):
Right, but more importantly, so I was, I wish I
could just grab the clip and play it of Charles C. W.
Cook on the National Review podcast yesterday. Now we're having
a conversation about where you are on the election, or
how you feel after election day or whatever, and and
(19:38):
his take was, how incredibly sad he is just for
the civic health of the country, no matter what, based
around all of the insanely over the top misleading stories
the mainstream media has gone with in the last week,
really in the last you know, on the entire Trump era,
(20:01):
but in the last several days, our most important institutional
media sources, whether it's CBS News, Washington Post, New York
Times or whatever, you know, talking heads that people respect,
acting like Trump threatened the life of Liz Cheney or
(20:23):
good for instance, being willing to play the abbreviated clip
of there will be a blood bath or whatever, which
and utterly unforgiven.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
And Charles C. W.
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Cook could not hate Trump more. I mean, he is
an anti he's absolutely man is not fit for the office.
But as he says, our civic health we have none.
If if Trump is not the sort of person that
you can with real quotes and real statistics and real
arguments defeat and you're gonna just go with lies. You're
(20:57):
just gonna make up crap and so as he said,
and this is true. And this is a situation we've
been in. So you end up where Trump supporters believe
none of the stuff that people put out there because
so much of it is untrue, and Trump haters believe
all of it because enough of it from Trump is
(21:18):
true because he does say and do crazy stuff. And
that's just that's no way to run a country, or
a society or a national conversation, certainly.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
And neither side has any interest in hearing from respectful
dissent about a story or.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
What have you. Right, you know what.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And we've discussed this question of intelligence versus wisdom and
several contexts already today. But the fact that the people
of the left, including the media, don't understand the damage
they're doing to their own influence right by for instance,
the Liz Cheney thing or the there's going to be
(21:56):
a blood bath thing. I mean, you give away your creditbility.
Well there was the excenta javiny, but you.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Brought this one up yesterday over the weekend.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
At some point I didn't follow all his rallies, he
says I should have stayed in the White House or whatever.
He was talking about the open borders and how out
of control immigration had gotten, and basically just saying I
should have stayed, you know, to control the border. He
wasn't making an argument for why on January sixth he
shouldn't have left the White House, but they used that
little clip and then portrayed it with January six So.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Constantly misleading people.
Speaker 5 (22:32):
Does way more damage than either you're recognizing or I
don't even know what. I don't know, like I've been
saying now for years, I don't know if they actually
believe it, if they're so into Trump derangement syndrome that.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
I don't I don't even even know.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
But you're helping Trump get elected with that sort of stuff,
and more importantly, again the civic health of the country
where nobody believes anything because you all make crap up
all the time.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Yeah, But in a media environment, keeping in mind that
they as we are, in a for profit business, I
think probably very smart people have looked at the numbers
and decided that pandering is clearly the model that works.
You get a small ish but loyal audience and you
tell them what they want to hear, over and over
(23:20):
and over again. And that's the way to survive in
the current media environment because competition is so intense.
Speaker 5 (23:25):
Well, we're at a new level though, or into a
new era or something. I watch all Mark Halprin's podcasts
with all the different strategists and everything like that, and
he tries as hard as anybody I've seen to be nonpartisan.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
But he said that coverage of the Liz Cheney story.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Was the most egregious, over the top, especially in the
final days of an election, of any media coverage he's
ever seen in his lifetime. To claim that Donald Trump
was talking about lining Liz Cheney up against the wall
and executing her the way CBS News did, the way
the Washington Post did.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I mean, your organizations is just what do you even
do with that?
Speaker 1 (24:06):
It's abandoning even the pretense of uh, honestly honesty. I mean,
you could use fancy journalistic terms about it, but when
you either knowingly say something you know to be one
hundred and eighty degrees misleading, or you are so crazed
with your own ideology that you can't even recognize that anymore. Yeah,
(24:27):
you're in a You're in a hell of a spot
as a as a media landscape, and as a country,
as a people.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
It is disturbing. It's beyond annoying, right.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
And I'm not talking about the partisan advantage the Democrats
get for being, you know, practically uniformly biased, because I'm
used to that and that's just the landscape we live in.
I cherish the First Amendment. And if you want to
use the First Amendment to pretend to be one thing
and do another, there's nothing I can do about it
except be better at the game than you. But it's
just disturbing on a human level that anybody would be
(25:02):
that dishonest, and then people would either not notice it
or not care.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Democracy can't work, No, not like that. It can't.
Speaker 5 (25:12):
And so do we have the ability as a nation
to turn the tide back toward you know, I don't
know major influencers, news sources, gatekeepers who are willing to
call balls and strikes somewhat fairly, or as we head
into the world of AI and even more siloed information,
(25:34):
is it just over? Are we just doomed to have
no ability to figure out what is a true story
and what is not probably that one.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, there are some examples, including us of people doing
pretty well trying to call balls of strikes.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
I mean, we certainly have our point of view.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
But when Trump says something stupid or does something stupid,
we say, boy, Trump did something or said something stupid.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
It's not that hard major media, You'll get used to it.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Here.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
I can come up with them off the top of
my head. He should definitely not up said over the weekend,
if you try to shoot me, shoot through the media
to get me or something like that. I mean, just
the the former president, quite possibly about to be elected
next president.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Should not talk about shooting the media.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
No, and tens thousands who knows of suburban women who
were thinking, you know, the open border, the inflation, you
know what I am going to vote for Trump heard
that and put their ballots in a shredder. They just
too much, too much. Yeah, for instance, so way frustrating.
Love this on a much lighter note. Latinos have been
(26:35):
abandoning Kamala Harris and now we have some clues as
to why, quoting the free press. They don't want to
be called Latinxes. So for a few years it was
necessary the Democrats call Latino people Latinxes, despite clear and
persistent protests. Why because Latino and Latina are gendered words
and binary ones to boot, and the Dems needed a
(26:57):
non binary way to speak about this population in case
any Latinxes use they them pronouns or something. Well, plus,
the whole postmodern thing, neo Marxist thing, denies that there
are any binaries. It's stupid and ridiculous. The fact that
anybody falls for it is amazing. But our entire university
system is infected in this. But anyway, literally the whole
(27:19):
group was supposed to accept being renamed for the sake
of any they them Latino people.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Needless to say, it didn't work.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
So there's a big serious study out of Harvard University
about how it being called Latinx made Latinos turn to Trump,
and they go into a bunch of detail, but it's
it's a significant effect that it's had on the Latino vote.
(27:47):
The exposure to it was enough. You can imagine scenarios
that might do it. One white guy with a man
bun says something about ola my LATINX brothers and all
who hear it suddenly decide they must absolutely vote for Trump.
That very day, You'd think whoever came up with LATINX
must feel like whoever forgot to lock the door at
the Wuhan Institute of Virology upon seeing this study, here's
(28:10):
the punchline.
Speaker 5 (28:11):
I still hear LATINX on NBR. Here, friends, is the punchline.
Do you think the authors of this study about why
Latinxes are going to Trump would now recommend LATINX be retired?
Speaker 2 (28:26):
No? No, The conclusion is we need to shame.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
The Latinxes until they accept the term. The studies co
author Marcel Roman, an assistant professor of government.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
At HAVAD, wrote this about the finding.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Quote, we should still be using gender inclusive language. The
problem for Democrats is that segments of the Latino community
that are queer phobic and would otherwise support them are
less likely to do so if queerness is made salient
through inclusive language. So, yes, call them Latinxes, but add
that they're queer phobic. That'll bring them over, shame them
(29:01):
into using the term. That's what Harvard says.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
So that's that whole intersectionality where you have to rank
various groups, and apparently they've ranked the people who don't
believe in gender above people with brown skin, or at least.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
The brownskinned people are the evil doers until they conform
to the white grad students orders for what they should
call themselves.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Wow, that is something that's from Harvard. Please shut Harvard down.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
Breaking news before we take a break. Trump is voting
in Florida. He has walked into the polling place with
his wife at his side, who looks like a model,
and is leaving her sunglasses on. How do we feel
about leaving your sunglasses on in the polling place? She
has a model, so as they give you some leeway
for leaving your sunglasses on?
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Just seems like an odd look.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Are they prescription? I wear prescription sunglasses and be walking
through a grocery store with my sunglasses on.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
She's just standing there with Trump while he talks. Do
you honestly care about that? I mean, I think it's
a little I don't think it's a good look. Maybe
it's the flashbulbs. Maybe she doesn't like the flash.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Ball I think that's a good look for her to
leave her sunglasses on while he's standing taking questions.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
For well host overly adamant insults online. That's all you
can do these days.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Yeah, he looks way older than her. Is that because
he is that's got to be part of it. So
maybe the most interesting actual stat not like conjecture, but
actual stat about voting that is out about Pennsylvania could
be huge. And I don't know what the explanation for
it is that, among other things on the way stay tuned, Armstrong, look, look.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Regrets, you always have regrets.
Speaker 9 (30:53):
I can't think of any to be honest, to use
her expression, I can't think of any.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Look. I red great campaign.
Speaker 9 (31:00):
I think it was maybe the best of the three.
We did great in the first one. We did much
better in the second one, but something happened and this.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Was the best. I would say this was the best
campaign in the man.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
So interesting Trump at the polling place, voting and then
to answer in a few questions with his sunglassed wife
standing next to him like expressionless. Maybe that's why draws
attention to it. She's got sunglasses on as like standing
like a statue while we talk.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
So I just I don't know what's going on there.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
I have believed since twenty fifteen that she hates him
being in politics. Could she signed on to be the
trophy wife of a very rich real estate developer, go
to n alrash rights and responsibilities thereof.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5 (31:44):
You fly around on a plane, you go to cool places,
nice restaurants, wonderful vacations.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
You don't not constantly scrutinized political family.
Speaker 5 (31:53):
I could believe that absolutely anyway. So that was Trump
whyle him play that first.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Part to get I thought that was pretty funny.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
Look, regrets, you always have regrets.
Speaker 9 (32:03):
I can't think of any to be honest, to use
her expression, I can't think of any.
Speaker 5 (32:10):
To use her expression. I can't think of any any
differences between you and Biden.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
I can't think of any.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
That was one of the most idiotic and inexplicable political
answers in the history of journalism from Kamala and I'm
calling Kamala and I'm calling the view journalists in this scenario,
which is odd. But not seeing that question coming and
not having an answer for it, that is, it boggles
the mind.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
Even if you didn't see it coming, to not be
able to come up with something other than I can't
think of.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Any and nothing comes to mind. Trump was asked another question.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
The possibility that you and Vice President Harris both might
not get to two hundred and seventy electoral votes by
the end of tonight.
Speaker 9 (32:55):
It should never happen. A thing like that should never happen.
This election should be over. They spend all this money
and machines, and frankly, if they'd use paper ballots, it
would be over by ten o'clock. And by the way,
the paper ballots would cost eight percent, would be eight
percent of the cost. If they would use paper ballots,
voter ID, proof of citizenship and.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
One day voting, it would all be over by ten
o'clock in the evening.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
I don't know about that.
Speaker 5 (33:22):
So this is a stat that a lot of Democrats
are worried because of and Republicans are hopeful because of it.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
And it's been holding up for a while.
Speaker 5 (33:33):
In Pennsylvania, the number of early votes turned in, remembering
Biden won the state by less than one hundred thousand
votes in twenty twenty, so Democrats in twenty twenty went
into election day with over a million vote lead because
of early voting. The latest numbers out as of this
(33:53):
morning today, the Democrats go in with a four hundred
thousand vote lead, so six hundred thousand thousand votes less
than twenty twenty for the Democrats while the Republicans increased
theirs a little bit.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
How do you explain that?
Speaker 5 (34:07):
As Mark Alprin said in his podcast this morning, he
said he finds it very difficult to see how Kamala
Harris wins Pennsylvania with those numbers. I mean, what's your
explanation why Democrat votes dropped off that much while Republican
votes increased a little bit. That doesn't include Trump running
away with the state.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
That's a real head scratcher.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
I mean, the Republicans increasing I could explain, but that's
precipitous drop in the Democrat votes. That's just unless there's
some sort of unbelievable groundswell of working class America moving
to the right more than even we've been talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
I don't know. That's just crazy. You'd have to come up.
Speaker 5 (34:45):
You'd have to believe that a whole bunch of Democrats
that voted by mail last time because of COVID maybe
are going to go to the polls in person today.
But I mean a lot, and Democrats are the party
of voting early, So I don't know, I don't know
if that means anything or not, but it's certainly good.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, the delightful aspect of all of this is that
sooner or later, all of these questions will be answered.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I just hope it's sooner rather than later. Longer it goes,
the more insane of this country will be.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (35:13):
I do want to talk a little bit about what
we will learn from this either tomorrow or a week
or so from now. But there's a whole bunch we're
going to learn from this election that could be damned interesting,
like our realignment, like we haven't seen.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
That conversation, and more in the next hour. If you
don't get the next hour, grab the podcast Armstrong e
Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Subscribe Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.