July 16, 2025 • 44 mins
On this explosive episode of Carnivore Bites, hosts Jeff Sherman and Dr. Eric Lopkin tackle the growing identity crisis within the Democratic Party. From AOC's rumored rise to presidential candidate to the fading influence of traditional liberalism, they dive deep into why voters—especially Gen Z and working Americans—are turning away. The discussion heats up as they analyze the possible consequences of radical leadership in cities like New York, the unraveling of Biden’s legacy, and the Democratic Party’s obsession with optics over results.
With sharp insights, unfiltered humor, and no-nonsense analysis, Sherman and Lopkin dissect the growing divide between elite ideology and everyday reality. Whether you're shaking your head at Kamala Harris or eyeing the entrepreneurial spirit of Gen Z, this episode serves up political reality with a bite.
With sharp insights, unfiltered humor, and no-nonsense analysis, Sherman and Lopkin dissect the growing divide between elite ideology and everyday reality. Whether you're shaking your head at Kamala Harris or eyeing the entrepreneurial spirit of Gen Z, this episode serves up political reality with a bite.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Do you want more success, more growth, more results than
It's time for the Boundless Success Accelerator from the Modern
Observer Group. This isn't your average coaching program. It's where
top performers come to dominate, weekly group sessions, on demand coaching,
a community that's got your back, and a powerpack library
(00:23):
of tools to supercharge your business and career. No more excuses,
no more waiting, Get in, level up and start building
the life you've been dreaming about. Visit us at modern
observer dot com slash Boundless Success to join today. Let's
get you to the next level.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Welcome to another edition of Carnivore by Simon Oh Jeff
Sherman along with doctor Eric Lopkin. I think we're going
to start doctor Lopkin after our review pre recording review
on what we've touched on another podcast. But it just
doesn't go away. And that's the growing irrelevancy. How do
(01:26):
you like that of the Democratic Party and the strengthening
of the wacko communist anti semi wing and the shrinking
of let's just say the normal wing, which is pretty
much Jurassic Park at this point, you actually have Nate
(01:46):
Silver respected Polster basically he's saying that, in his estimation,
AOC will be the Democratic nominee for president, and that's
also juxtaposed with the mont Dave momentum. I think he
will get the nod. That's my prediction. At least things
(02:09):
are not looking good. I mean, if AOC was nominated,
let me ask you, first, doctor Lockin, how many states
would she wins? I have a thought, but I'll let
you answer.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
I'm gonna go with about eight.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
I think I think three.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
I think she'll take California, New York, Illinois. She'll take
Connecticut and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont. That's the eight.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
I'll give you Vermont. I stand corrected on that. I
don't think she'd even get Connecticut, and she may not
get Illinois. But it will be a landslide. Correct.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Oh, it would be because the American people do not
want a communist. Again, New York City has never been
representative of the country, and the country does not want
a socialist. The country does not want a communist. Communists,
(03:19):
but I am I am going to say I disagree
with Nate Silver. I don't think AOC is going to
be the candidate. I think do you think I think
the reason that AOC came up in his polling as
the most likely candidate is that the person that is
(03:39):
going to be the nominee has not come forward yet
and so they can't poll for him or her. Take
a look at virtually every election going back at least
forty or fifty years, the person that got the nominee,
and this is for both parties was not a front
(04:00):
runner this far ahead.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
I will give you that, doctor lopskin, But how do
you like this? And I want your comment on this.
I believe it's a little indicative of what happens at
the midterms. If the Democrats get their ass kicked, which
is a definite possibility, or lose seats at least that
is the same thing as getting your ass kid Giving
(04:26):
how things usually go, then I think they might have
a come to Jesus, you might get someone normal if
things are not dramatic.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
No, no, yeah, I'm not saying that they'll choose somebody normal,
but I think they'll choose somebody that's not in the
spotlight right now.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Okay, no, no, no, no, But I think though, just
listen to this concept. I think if they get an
ass whooping, then they might have. Well, actually, I stand corrected.
They may either gravitate. They will either don't get more polarized,
either still get more normal, or they get more s stup.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Do you agree with that, Well, those are the only
options they have. Either they fix the problem or they
lean into it.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
My prediction would be that they go more left, because
that's all the momentum is.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
That does seem to be what's going on, And the
problem is, I don't think it has so much to
do with age or belief that's pushing the Democratic Party,
you know, this far to the left. I honestly think
(05:37):
it's because the folks that are pushing the left are
the ones that know how to use social media effectively.
So they're reaching their base, but they're not reaching the
moderate Democrats. They're not reaching you know what we used
(05:58):
to call the Reagan Demo Democrats, and the people who
would appeal to more moderate Democrats don't have the slightest
idea how to reach them. I mean, this is an
actual fact that just recently came out. Gen Z, which
is now the youngest voting generation, is more entrepreneurial than
(06:26):
any generation since the Baby Boomers. Now, do you really
think that Gen z wants a communist or a socialist
getting in the way of their entrepreneurial plans.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Of course, I'm not glad you brought that up. I'm
glad you brought that up. I agree with that one
hundred percent. Here's where I think the Democratic constituency is
with young people. They're not the people you're talking about.
They're going in droves to the Republican right where I
think they still have traction. However, is the Ivy League
(07:02):
retards and baby boomers retread, retard and retread. How do
you like that, doctor, There is.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
There is still a large portion of the baby boomers
that are Democrat, but the Democrats are actually losing that
audience as well, partially because of their policies and partially
because father time is removing them. Remember the age of
(07:34):
the baby boomer generation. We're all and and older. Okay,
we're already.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Yeah, I think here, no, here, I think you have
a good point, As always, doctor Lopkin, I think, but
I do think if they're dying off, or they're just
going into nursing homes and not voting, but I do
think they are the two killers, or maybe the strongest
killers of the Democrat I think if I was going
to guess and I like your comments or what are listeners,
(08:04):
I'm sure the two pillars of the Democratic Party I
still stand behind this are baby boomers and IVY League
retards that don't know what's going on, that have never
worked today in their lives and have no plans with
their history degree or affirmative action degrees, have no either
(08:25):
inclination or ability to enter the workforce.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, I think, well there's our history too. There's there's
also a third pillar that will overlap some with baby
boomers and IVY League, but it doesn't necessarily fit within
either one. And we've talked about this group before, and
this is the strongest group that the Democrats currently have,
(08:51):
and that's the awfuls affluent white female liberals. This is
the only reliable base that they still have.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
And why is that, Doctor Lopkin, I'm glad you brought that.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
You know, I wish I could figure that out.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I think I can, Doctor Locket hear me out. And
then your comment, I think it's not going to affect me. Okay,
they're living in rich communities, they're hot, have elitist degrees,
they're a global elitist and I think some of the
psychology is that I'm above the knuckle draggers that are
(09:34):
part of a bag. It's a way of expressing their
elitism and superiority. How do you like this and knowing
shit's never going to hit their fan? How do you
like that? Hopkins?
Speaker 1 (09:45):
I think that's actually a very good analysis it. Thank you.
It's it's what we call the Nimby problem. Not in
my backyard. It's great to vote for these folks when
they're gonna make changes on the other side of the country.
But we saw this with Martha's Vineyard, where all of
these people absolute die hard liberals supporting illegal immigration until
(10:12):
they were placed in Martha's Vineyard, and then we have
to get him out of here immediately.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yes, I thought that was a brilliant DeSantis was brilliant
at that. I have one agree. Now let's proke a
little deeper. We want your insight into the predicament of
a communist who's associated with the Democratic Party taking over
the Big Apple. I think that will be a thorn
(10:39):
in the side of the Democracratic Party, will hurt them
in both the upcoming presidential election as well as the
mid terms. How do you like that because when he
gets in, just hear me out. When he gets in,
he doesn't have to have a muffler. He'll talk, you know,
and to Foda about all the crazy shit that he's into.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
I think he will talk about all of that stuff.
But what has been very obvious with especially a lot
of his policies, is that he does not actually understand
what the job of mayor is. A lot of the
policies that he's there, Well, he's going to have to
(11:27):
once he gets the job, because a lot of the
policies that he's pushing are things the mayor has no
ability to affect. They fall to the city council, they
fall to the governor, they fall to the Congress. You know,
he thinks he's going to go in and do all
of this so as soon as he hits Remember how
(11:48):
six weeks into the Trump term the Democrats were hammering,
well he hasn't fixed all the problems yet the Republicans
are going to do the same thing to this idiot
gonna well, you know, he promised all this stuff. Where
is it. He hasn't been able to do anything. Plus,
I think it's going to.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Be worse than that Doctor Low it's going to be yes, no, no.
Since you're the substance you are right on, the optics
are going to be far worse the people that he's
going to embrace, the people that will have the megaphones.
And also you're comment on this, I think this is critical.
Eventually the Dems are going to have to choose side.
(12:30):
Do they endorse or not endorse? And if they don't endorse,
you think that has no repercussions, it may because then
you alienate the whack job fringe. It's not fringe anymore,
the whack job communists that are increasingly becoming a majority
of the party.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
This this is actually going to be a watershed moment
for the Democrats, and the Republicans will take full advantage
of it by pointing it out, because the Democrats actually
have to make a decision. Are they going to do
what's best for the city or are they going to
do what's best for the party. What's best for the
(13:12):
party is for them to unite behind the nominee, which
is the communist. What's best for the city is to
keep him out of office because and I guarantee you
this will happen if he does win, you are going
to see an exodus from the city that hasn't been
seen since the seventies. It might make.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Diyblical time since that it.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Might make what the White flight of the seventies look
like a trickle. Businesses are going to flee, the affluent
folks are going to flee. Anybody who's actually supporting the
city monetarily Wollte wall Street. I will point out. I
(14:02):
will point out that Nasdak already has offices in Texas.
It would be very easy for them to leave. And
I think, quite frankly, if the governors of New Jersey
and Connecticut have half a brain, they'll start lobbying for
the exchanges to move to their states.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Now. Actually, I think Stamford Stanford would be good. And
also we talked about lot. If Philadelphia had a brain,
they would also all through so many possibilities. I think
behind closed doors, many cities, municipalities that have the infrastructure,
(14:46):
have the setup, are already licking their chops. Connecticut's two
brain dig.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Way, I can guarantee you they are. In fact, a
billboard went up this week in Times Square advertising for
businesses and people to move to Ohio.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
It will be something, And that was and that.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Was, by the way, put up by Vivek Ramaswami, who's
running for governor of Ohio.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Yeah, you're right, I ever recall that now, But don't
you find it interesting? And very very early, doctor Lopkin.
Steve Hilton, he's an author and also a fire a
Fox News show blah blah blah, but very early, but
he's actually pulling ahead. He's a Republican in the California
(15:37):
gubernatorial race. I know it's way early, but it does
say something, does it? Or maybe I'm wrong?
Speaker 1 (15:43):
You tell me, doctor, It does say something because sentiment
among California voters has made a dramatic shift, and just
in the last several weeks as they try to rebuild
after the California wildfires, and the liberal government of California
(16:08):
is putting roadblock after roadblock in their way. I personally
know people who are still staying on friends' couches because
they cannot find anywhere to live in California. These folks
don't want the Liberals in charge anymore. And you are
(16:31):
talking about a major percentage of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Now, let's talk about that though, and we look at
the political landscape. Gavin even mourning Joe I believe is
a moron. But they were talking about how he's you know,
he was in South Carolina blah blah blah whatever. Even
he said who he's basically close to the retargeted level,
said that he's got too much baggage. I don't see
(16:57):
it happening, especially after the while fires. I mean, Gavin's
I'm not going to have a future. What do you think?
Speaker 1 (17:04):
I honestly, again using history as a guide, based on
how early he's campaigning and how early Democrats and Republicans
have campaigned in the past, I think it's a fifty
to fifty shot that he doesn't even make it to
(17:25):
the first primaries.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Why is that, Lopkin.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Because historically the folks that campaigned this early don't have
the legs to do it at this point. In the
twenty twenty presidential election, the front runner as for the
Democrats was Kamala Harris. She was out there campaigning. She
never even made it to the primaries.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think purchased also, go aham, sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I think he is going to be out there campaigning.
He has already made comments saying transgender males should not
be in women's sports, and yet he has done nothing
about it. He has done this several times where he's
(18:20):
made campaign comments that are diametrically opposed to the actions
he's actually taking. And I think when the Democratic debates
start up, he is going to be hammered on that.
And I don't think he's you know, I think there's
a fifty to fifty shot he's not even going to
be able to make it to the first primaries.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Could you help me out, doctor Lopkin, because this does
puzzle me when you have people like Pamala who will
talk about you. Was on some stupid podcast and they
had to put it in the in the can it
was at that and Gavin, what is it? I mean,
I really don't understand because I own things when I
fo Okay, how can you be one of the worst
(19:06):
governors in human history that is Gavin? How can you
be basically a mental midget that's Harris and still think
you are presidential material that is put spot on steroids.
It boggles the mind. It boggles the mind.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
It's it's hutzpa, yes, but it's also the democratic mindset
of entitlement. I don't have to work for this. I'm
entitled to run for president. It doesn't matter if I'm
not a mensa candidate. I'm entitled to be president. That's
how the Democrats have been running their party for decades already.
(19:49):
I mean, remember, unless something dramatic happens, twenty twenty eight
is going to be the first a actual primary that
the Democrats have run since two thousand and eight. Twenty
years they did not have a real primary. They anointed
(20:14):
somebody and put them up. So these are just folks going, well,
you know, this is my turn. I checked the boxes.
I I deserve to get this. And they don't care
about the voters. They don't care about the country. They
(20:34):
care about themselves.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
I would agree, but you don't really disturb. No, he
actually gives me chills. Literally is the thought of Harris
as president. You know, they just is holding in Pennsylvania
with artificial intelligence and getting you know, business leaders, tech
leaders together in Pennsylvania. You know about how are you
going to generate the powers? And I touch to myself,
imagine Mama La was the president. I mean that is
(21:03):
like bone chilling.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Well again, I don't think she's she's well, I don't
even think she's gonna run at this point. I think
she's pretty set on running for governor of California.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
But I think.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Killing oh that it would have been an abject disaster.
You will, and not just for us. You would have
seen NATO coming apart at the scenes. You would have
seen I mean, you thought immigration was bad under Biden,
imagine under Kamala. And you actually have now books coming
(21:40):
out by kamalas staffers who which are saying her own
staffers are saying they were in control because she doesn't
have a brain in her head. This is her people
saying this.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Yeah, I think you're right. I don't think she's gonna run.
I may he may run for governor, but that will
flame out so quick and by the way, selfishly because
I really don't care about California, could care less. I
want her as governor because I would love to have
crisises or you know things that are really she has
(22:17):
to come to the forefront. That would be get popcorn
and get a beer, because it would be probably the
funniest show ever on TV. Imagine her with like a
wildfire or a riot, or a financial problem. It would
be unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Well, they've got a financial problem. California has a billion
dollar deficit now, First of all, that's gonna pretty much
disqualify Governor hairgel As from running for from successfully running
for president, because everyone in the Democratic primary is gonna
(22:55):
hammer hammer him on that, everybody in the report. If
he manages to get then domination, everybody his Republican opponent
will hammer him on that. Could you imagine Harris trying
to answer the question of how she's going to solve
that problem. This is a woman that this is a
woman that lost a billion dollars in one hundred days
(23:15):
on her campaign, and I don't think Harris is ever
going to actually be able to run for office again
unless she magically finds a way to self fund because
donors are burnt. They are not giving her a dollar.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
You know something, everyone should find their true meaning in life.
And her perfect job would be working for a wine
and alcohol distributor in California. Something she's focused on good
at that is drinking and probably in her Baileywick in
terms of IQ, maybe not the IQ part, but the
(23:57):
drinking definitely it would be fun. So now you have
the Democrats looking at at Trump. You have the founder
of Home Depot who did not vote for Trump saying
on a CNBC that's not a conservative, media saying that
(24:21):
he did not vote for Trump, but he's now a
he's now converted, so to speak, that he's now a fan,
and he believes that looking at his first six months,
if he continues with his trajectory, he says that he
could go down. That is Trump as one of the
(24:41):
greatest presidents in the United States. So why do I
mention that? Because you have someone that is, yes, successful,
but not a conservative. Okay, you have look inflation way down,
you have the thoughts of a recession, probability lowest to
five months. And then you with the Democrats, their stick
(25:04):
I'm sure it comes out of a focus group is
to talk about what King Jeffries, who's another men's a
Kennedy talk about affordability. It just these things don't jive. Now.
I know politics is always bull kids, but you have
to have some thread of logic, do you not, doctor Lobkin.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I don't know if logic is the right word or
credibility something. So you have that.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Let's say, if you're talking about the bad economy, there's
gotta be some sign of a bad economy. It might
not be a huge rest inflation, there's gotta be something
there there. You can't just make shit up. Yeah you
can for a while, but eventually, especially with a credibility
factor given the auto Ben, I think it doesn't have
(25:50):
any traction. People can see with their own f and
e's well.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
That's the big thing is, no matter what party you're
running on, you have to have a connection with the voters,
and the Democrats are rapidly losing that connection, and every
poll that comes out has them losing a little more.
(26:15):
And the part of the problem that they're having is
is that one they refuse to accept responsibility for the
Biden debacle.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Okay, where you go on. I agree with you, no,
but I think it deserves further elaboration. How big is
the magnitude of the Biden debacle? I think it deserves
a little bit of Lopkins insight. Go ahead, well it.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
The debacle itself is absolutely massive because they were telling
people day after day, oh, behind closed, Doris, he's a dynamo.
Oh he you know, and everybody saw it. Now you've
got tell All book after tell All book coming out
going yeah, yes, we knew this, this is what actually happened.
(27:03):
But it's more than just the cover up. It is
the entire presidency because Biden was asleep at the switch
and the staffers were running the show. You had the
runaway immigration, you had runaway crime. Well, guess what now
(27:24):
that Trump is in office, crime is down across the
board because they're rounding up the criminals. You had runaway inflation.
Now inflation's not as low as it should be, but
it's two point seven percent year over year, as they're
pretty right, as opposed to nine point eight percent, which
(27:48):
is what it was at its highest during the Biden administration.
But they don't want to accept responsibility for this. They
don't want to say, yes, the Infrastructure Act is what
pushed inflation and affordability out of people's reach. The the
the Inflation.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
And the Infrastructure Act. Was there actually any infrastructure, I'm
just asking the doctor.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
There was an acture, There was actually infrastructure in the bill.
Approximately ten percent of the Infrastructure Act Act actually had
something to do with infrastructure. So it was one thing
after another where the Democrats going, oh, no, no, no,
(28:35):
inflation's not so bad. It's transitory, it'll get better.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Short, oh, terminal cancer.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Right, the border is secure, there's no problem at the border.
That was all of the issues, and nobody within the
Democratic Party seems capable at this point of saying, you
know what we screwed up, we need to fix this,
and the.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Whoa lukin lutkin see what you just said would be
the cure. How do you like that? Yes, it works
on a personal level, and it looked works on a
perfect say, yes, we made some huge mistakes and we
need to correct it. Stop bullshitting. You're one hundred percent correct.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
And you'll notice the only person within the Democratic Party
that has done anything close to this is John Fetterman,
and the party is lamb basting him for.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Hate him, hate him. Yes, very interesting. Now when you
talk about the whole face of the Democratic Party, these
ice raids and the deportations. Again getting on the twenty
percent of an eighty twenty issue, you had uncompanied it's
not funny. Actually, you had unaccompanied minors on a plotfarm
(29:55):
and they're calling it, you know, they're blaming the ice agents,
like what is wrong with that picture? Are you insane?
So you shouldn't have any unaccompanied miners anywhere, and god
forbid on a potfarm. And by the way, the guy
who owns the pot farm is a big Democratic donor.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Oh well, he's yeah. The the owner of the of
the marijuana farm is one a Democratic donor in general,
but also a major donor to Gavin Newsom in particular.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
But more than that, Yes, child labor laws are a
big problem. So let's let's let's say they were legal immigrants.
You still violate child labor laws here, so they should
have gone in. Two, they're illegal. They're here illegally crossing
the border. They were literally smuggled across the border in
(30:47):
some cases. So yes, yet yet another reason for them
to go in. But the biggest one. And I find
it absolutely amazing how little airtime this is getting, even
on Fox. I would expect them to be hammering on this.
Those unaccompanied miners who were working at the marijuana facility.
(31:12):
We're working side by side with people who had criminal
records for pedophilia.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
And child trafficking. Yes, I mean, just how can you
stand on that issue? Because you know what it is.
I think at the heart of it, the Democrat ideology
and mindset is that everyone else is so stupid that
you can say the sky is pumple And of course
(31:43):
I believe because they unwashed masses are a bunch of idiots,
aren't they.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
I think it's even more basic than that. At this point,
the only viewpoint of the Democratic Party goes back to
Orange man bed. If Trump is doing something that's wrong,
we have to fight it. If Trump went out and said,
don't eat dog shit, it's bad for you, the Democrats
would be would be chewing down dog shit.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Maybe that's an angle. Even Mark Cuban said, what you said,
stop focusing on Trump and do something. I'm not a
big Mark Cuban fan, but he's right. I mean, it's
Enough's enough, dude, I mean, come on, it gets it
gets comical after a while.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
And the fact of the matter is that Trump is
not a die hard Republican. No matter what the Democrats
want to you know what they how they want to
paint him, He's not a die hard Republican. He's not
a die hard conservative. If a Democratic congressman or senator
(32:52):
went to Trump with a good idea and said, look,
this is a major problem. I've gotten eye idea to
fix it, not only would he listen, but he would
he would take that under advice. He was like, yeah,
how can we do this, Let's work.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Yeah. I would agree with that. But let me ask
you a deeper question, and I'm not being naive. It's
really what how did this Trump derangement situation happen? Was
it because he beat Hillary? I mean, this is over
this time. They never like, they never liked the Republic
and they didn't like George W George h. Of course
(33:33):
they embraced him after the list goes on. You know
the Ford was a moron, Yeah, like Carter was a genius. Anyway,
what is it the root of this? Because it's it's
almost it looks not almost, it is it defies logic.
How do you like that? It's not normal? Like if
you were obsessed with someone as much as the Democratic
(33:55):
Party is with Orange Man bad. I mean you have
to some kind of you know, therapist or something. If
it was an individual so Bob Jones and you're infatuated
with this person, You've got a problem. Something's wrong your thoughts?
How did it happen? And why can't they get over
that's the real question.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
Well why can't they get over it? I can't answer,
And I've said this in the past. I do honestly
believe that when the DSM six comes out, Now, the
DSM is the Guidebook for psychiatrists and psychologists on diagnosing
(34:39):
mental illness. Right now, the DSM five is the current
version of this, but I honestly believe when the DSM
six comes out, Trump derangement syndrome will be a recognized disorder.
Now how it started, how it started. It started in
(34:59):
twenty six teen when the Democrats had virtually complete control
over the media. You did not have all of the
podcasts that we have now. You did not have, you know,
you did not have essentially an alternative to what the
Democratic story was. And Donald Trump has never been a politician,
(35:26):
so over his entire career he has said and done things.
And the perfect example is the famous Access Hollywood video
that came out during the campaign about how he was
talking about women, and the Democrats played this ad infinitum,
(35:48):
every nasty thing he said, and quite frankly, they made
it worse by taking certain things out of context. I
remember he was talking about the Great Recession and how
very smart people were able to make money during the
Great Recession by understanding how the financial systems work, and
(36:10):
they were he made money off of the people suffering,
And they hit it over and over and over to
the point that people believed what they were saying, and
then when he actually had the audacity to beat Hillary Clinton,
(36:31):
who had been appointed from the Democratic Party as the
next US president, it just sent them out. Yes, it
just sent them into a tailspin. And they've never I
mean I remember very clearly the gasp and sob that
(36:51):
came out of Lester Holt's mouth at three AS on
election night and Trump was declared the winner.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Or you have Martha Raddits literally crying crying on ABC. Yes,
that is correct. I think that's interesting. I definitely do.
Now when we talk about the Democratic and was to
say legacy, you had Joe Biden. I guess he actually
mustered up the energy to have a Cora, a fifteen
or ten minute conversation with The New York Times talking
(37:26):
about how he was fully in charge. And you also
had that with Barack Obama. He was like, oh, actually
his wife's podcast. Maybe he's trying to not just prevent
a divorce. But anyway, it's another issue, but talking about
man and how but you know, trying to be relevant.
The question is I think they're in foot Well, I
don't know Biden's in panic. I think maybe doctor Jill
(37:47):
is in full blown panic because I'm certainly Obama knows
that his legacy is completely in the shitter, and they
do have an infatuation with it, don't they. They do.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
I don't think it's an infatuation. I think it's a
full blown obsession that the Democrats have with legacy. I mean,
remember in twenty sixteen, when Obama was on the campaign
trail for Hillary Clinton. At no time did he ever
say Clinton was the best person for the job. He
(38:22):
was campaigning saying Clinton was the one that would protect
his legacy. That was the only thing he was campaigning on.
And if you take a look, this is something that
is a major driver of the Democrats because if you
take a look, Trump obviously doesn't care what his legacy is.
(38:45):
He's putting himself through all of this. He could have
just retired in twenty twenty, said the hell with all
of this, and you know, made another fortune in real estate.
He doesn't care about his legacy. George W. When was
the last time you heard from George W. He's doing
amazing ever, he's doing amazing things with veterans on his farm,
(39:08):
but you never hear about him because he doesn't care
about his legacy. George hw didn't care about his legacy. Well, Reagan,
we don't know if he cared about it or not.
By the time he left office, he was, you know,
he was suffering from him the run chef.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
But Gerald Ford, no, let means that one thing. I
think if Reagan did not have dementia, he would have
gone on the farm with Nancy and just gone off
into the sie. He might have done a couple of
speaking engagements, but he would not like Obama's actually embarrassing himself,
isn't he. You're trying to You're like the nineteen sixties
(39:48):
rock group that's still touring, just trying to scratch on
to some kind of relevancy. Am I not correct? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (39:56):
I mean that that's basically the impression he gives. He
is out of touch, he's you know, but and you know,
just to defend him a little bit, the Democrats keep
trying to bring him out of retirement and keep bringing
him back through these speeches, through all of this, because
(40:18):
the fact of the matter is he's still the closest
thing the Democrats have to have grown up in the room.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
I think he's the closest thing they have to anyone
that's let's just say somewhat qualified.
Speaker 1 (40:34):
Maybe I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Maybe I'm not.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
I wouldn't. I don't think he was president.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
But yeah, and isn't it true talking about that. Isn't
it true that he's becoming not just because of time,
but because I'm further introspection. His legacy does kind of suck,
doesn't It's a shithole, just like his library.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
His leglegacy has fallen apart. But and this is something
that is just seems to be ingrained in Democrats. I mean,
the Clintons were so obsessed with legacy. That's the only
reason they're still married. I Mean, remember, she wasn't going
to leave him no matter what he did. She was
(41:21):
going to stand by her man, despite the fact that
she was critical of other women that would have done this.
And the only reason she did it is because she
wanted to be president and it was easier with him
on the campaign trail for her.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, I would agree with that. You know, again, coming
a little bit to presidential candidates or potential wall so
see pretty much over because I saw a little clip
of him and his wife, who's literally clinically insane at
some kind of Minnesota rally. Get together. There's no chance
of that happening. Correct, that's no.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
Well, yeah, if Waltz thinks he's running for president in
twenty twenty eight, he's deluding himself again. He can throw
his hat into the ring. If he makes it to
a primary, it'll be a minor miracle. But there's no
way he's going to get the nomination or by any chance,
be able to win the whole thing, because the Democrats
(42:24):
are looking at him going, uh, you got slaughtered by Trump.
Why would we bother with you?
Speaker 2 (42:33):
And one of the reasons he certainly contributed to her demise.
And do you know the reason why she chose him?
She's a genius. One of the big reason she didn't
have enough.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
She didn't have another option. Every Democratic presidential candidate has
chosen a vice president that's dumber than they are and
less capable than they are. Well, when you get Kamala
Harris trying to find some body less capable, you're scraping
the bottom of the barrel.
Speaker 2 (43:04):
You're talking about squirrels, yesip months whatever. Well, anyway, doctor Lopkin,
another great show. I do agree with you about Kamala.
I think she's pretty much done and it'll be interesting
to see how the whole thing unfold. But our listeners,
as always, can contribute to the show, can't they.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
Yes, they can. We'd love to hear from you. Go
to xvadio dot com slash connect let us know what
you're thinking. You can also message us on the Carnivore
Radio Facebook page, and of course you can hear every
episode of Carnivore Bites at the Carnivore Radio website, xvadio
dot com, the Apple Podcasts app, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
(43:51):
Amazon Music, Audible, and other platforms that respect freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Thank you, doctor Lopkin. See you next week.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Will see you then,
Do you want more success, more growth, more results than
It's time for the Boundless Success Accelerator from the Modern
Observer Group. This isn't your average coaching program. It's where
top performers come to dominate, weekly group sessions, on demand coaching,
a community that's got your back, and a powerpack library
(00:23):
of tools to supercharge your business and career. No more excuses,
no more waiting, Get in, level up and start building
the life you've been dreaming about. Visit us at modern
observer dot com slash Boundless Success to join today. Let's
get you to the next level.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Welcome to another edition of Carnivore by Simon Oh Jeff
Sherman along with doctor Eric Lopkin. I think we're going
to start doctor Lopkin after our review pre recording review
on what we've touched on another podcast. But it just
doesn't go away. And that's the growing irrelevancy. How do
(01:26):
you like that of the Democratic Party and the strengthening
of the wacko communist anti semi wing and the shrinking
of let's just say the normal wing, which is pretty
much Jurassic Park at this point, you actually have Nate
(01:46):
Silver respected Polster basically he's saying that, in his estimation,
AOC will be the Democratic nominee for president, and that's
also juxtaposed with the mont Dave momentum. I think he
will get the nod. That's my prediction. At least things
(02:09):
are not looking good. I mean, if AOC was nominated,
let me ask you, first, doctor Lockin, how many states
would she wins? I have a thought, but I'll let
you answer.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
I'm gonna go with about eight.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
I think I think three.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
I think she'll take California, New York, Illinois. She'll take
Connecticut and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont. That's the eight.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
I'll give you Vermont. I stand corrected on that. I
don't think she'd even get Connecticut, and she may not
get Illinois. But it will be a landslide. Correct.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Oh, it would be because the American people do not
want a communist. Again, New York City has never been
representative of the country, and the country does not want
a socialist. The country does not want a communist. Communists,
(03:19):
but I am I am going to say I disagree
with Nate Silver. I don't think AOC is going to
be the candidate. I think do you think I think
the reason that AOC came up in his polling as
the most likely candidate is that the person that is
(03:39):
going to be the nominee has not come forward yet
and so they can't poll for him or her. Take
a look at virtually every election going back at least
forty or fifty years, the person that got the nominee,
and this is for both parties was not a front
(04:00):
runner this far ahead.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
I will give you that, doctor lopskin, But how do
you like this? And I want your comment on this.
I believe it's a little indicative of what happens at
the midterms. If the Democrats get their ass kicked, which
is a definite possibility, or lose seats at least that
is the same thing as getting your ass kid Giving
(04:26):
how things usually go, then I think they might have
a come to Jesus, you might get someone normal if
things are not dramatic.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
No, no, yeah, I'm not saying that they'll choose somebody normal,
but I think they'll choose somebody that's not in the
spotlight right now.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Okay, no, no, no, no, But I think though, just
listen to this concept. I think if they get an
ass whooping, then they might have. Well, actually, I stand corrected.
They may either gravitate. They will either don't get more polarized,
either still get more normal, or they get more s stup.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Do you agree with that, Well, those are the only
options they have. Either they fix the problem or they
lean into it.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
My prediction would be that they go more left, because
that's all the momentum is.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
That does seem to be what's going on, And the
problem is, I don't think it has so much to
do with age or belief that's pushing the Democratic Party,
you know, this far to the left. I honestly think
(05:37):
it's because the folks that are pushing the left are
the ones that know how to use social media effectively.
So they're reaching their base, but they're not reaching the
moderate Democrats. They're not reaching you know what we used
(05:58):
to call the Reagan Demo Democrats, and the people who
would appeal to more moderate Democrats don't have the slightest
idea how to reach them. I mean, this is an
actual fact that just recently came out. Gen Z, which
is now the youngest voting generation, is more entrepreneurial than
(06:26):
any generation since the Baby Boomers. Now, do you really
think that Gen z wants a communist or a socialist
getting in the way of their entrepreneurial plans.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Of course, I'm not glad you brought that up. I'm
glad you brought that up. I agree with that one
hundred percent. Here's where I think the Democratic constituency is
with young people. They're not the people you're talking about.
They're going in droves to the Republican right where I
think they still have traction. However, is the Ivy League
(07:02):
retards and baby boomers retread, retard and retread. How do
you like that, doctor, There is.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
There is still a large portion of the baby boomers
that are Democrat, but the Democrats are actually losing that
audience as well, partially because of their policies and partially
because father time is removing them. Remember the age of
(07:34):
the baby boomer generation. We're all and and older. Okay,
we're already.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Yeah, I think here, no, here, I think you have
a good point, As always, doctor Lopkin, I think, but
I do think if they're dying off, or they're just
going into nursing homes and not voting, but I do
think they are the two killers, or maybe the strongest
killers of the Democrat I think if I was going
to guess and I like your comments or what are listeners,
(08:04):
I'm sure the two pillars of the Democratic Party I
still stand behind this are baby boomers and IVY League
retards that don't know what's going on, that have never
worked today in their lives and have no plans with
their history degree or affirmative action degrees, have no either
(08:25):
inclination or ability to enter the workforce.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, I think, well there's our history too. There's there's
also a third pillar that will overlap some with baby
boomers and IVY League, but it doesn't necessarily fit within
either one. And we've talked about this group before, and
this is the strongest group that the Democrats currently have,
(08:51):
and that's the awfuls affluent white female liberals. This is
the only reliable base that they still have.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
And why is that, Doctor Lopkin, I'm glad you brought that.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
You know, I wish I could figure that out.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I think I can, Doctor Locket hear me out. And
then your comment, I think it's not going to affect me. Okay,
they're living in rich communities, they're hot, have elitist degrees,
they're a global elitist and I think some of the
psychology is that I'm above the knuckle draggers that are
(09:34):
part of a bag. It's a way of expressing their
elitism and superiority. How do you like this and knowing
shit's never going to hit their fan? How do you
like that? Hopkins?
Speaker 1 (09:45):
I think that's actually a very good analysis it. Thank you.
It's it's what we call the Nimby problem. Not in
my backyard. It's great to vote for these folks when
they're gonna make changes on the other side of the country.
But we saw this with Martha's Vineyard, where all of
these people absolute die hard liberals supporting illegal immigration until
(10:12):
they were placed in Martha's Vineyard, and then we have
to get him out of here immediately.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yes, I thought that was a brilliant DeSantis was brilliant
at that. I have one agree. Now let's proke a
little deeper. We want your insight into the predicament of
a communist who's associated with the Democratic Party taking over
the Big Apple. I think that will be a thorn
(10:39):
in the side of the Democracratic Party, will hurt them
in both the upcoming presidential election as well as the
mid terms. How do you like that because when he
gets in, just hear me out. When he gets in,
he doesn't have to have a muffler. He'll talk, you know,
and to Foda about all the crazy shit that he's into.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
I think he will talk about all of that stuff.
But what has been very obvious with especially a lot
of his policies, is that he does not actually understand
what the job of mayor is. A lot of the
policies that he's there, Well, he's going to have to
(11:27):
once he gets the job, because a lot of the
policies that he's pushing are things the mayor has no
ability to affect. They fall to the city council, they
fall to the governor, they fall to the Congress. You know,
he thinks he's going to go in and do all
of this so as soon as he hits Remember how
(11:48):
six weeks into the Trump term the Democrats were hammering,
well he hasn't fixed all the problems yet the Republicans
are going to do the same thing to this idiot
gonna well, you know, he promised all this stuff. Where
is it. He hasn't been able to do anything. Plus,
I think it's going to.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Be worse than that Doctor Low it's going to be yes, no, no.
Since you're the substance you are right on, the optics
are going to be far worse the people that he's
going to embrace, the people that will have the megaphones.
And also you're comment on this, I think this is critical.
Eventually the Dems are going to have to choose side.
(12:30):
Do they endorse or not endorse? And if they don't endorse,
you think that has no repercussions, it may because then
you alienate the whack job fringe. It's not fringe anymore,
the whack job communists that are increasingly becoming a majority
of the party.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
This this is actually going to be a watershed moment
for the Democrats, and the Republicans will take full advantage
of it by pointing it out, because the Democrats actually
have to make a decision. Are they going to do
what's best for the city or are they going to
do what's best for the party. What's best for the
(13:12):
party is for them to unite behind the nominee, which
is the communist. What's best for the city is to
keep him out of office because and I guarantee you
this will happen if he does win, you are going
to see an exodus from the city that hasn't been
seen since the seventies. It might make.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Diyblical time since that it.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Might make what the White flight of the seventies look
like a trickle. Businesses are going to flee, the affluent
folks are going to flee. Anybody who's actually supporting the
city monetarily Wollte wall Street. I will point out. I
(14:02):
will point out that Nasdak already has offices in Texas.
It would be very easy for them to leave. And
I think, quite frankly, if the governors of New Jersey
and Connecticut have half a brain, they'll start lobbying for
the exchanges to move to their states.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Now. Actually, I think Stamford Stanford would be good. And
also we talked about lot. If Philadelphia had a brain,
they would also all through so many possibilities. I think
behind closed doors, many cities, municipalities that have the infrastructure,
(14:46):
have the setup, are already licking their chops. Connecticut's two
brain dig.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Way, I can guarantee you they are. In fact, a
billboard went up this week in Times Square advertising for
businesses and people to move to Ohio.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
It will be something, And that was and that.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Was, by the way, put up by Vivek Ramaswami, who's
running for governor of Ohio.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Yeah, you're right, I ever recall that now, But don't
you find it interesting? And very very early, doctor Lopkin.
Steve Hilton, he's an author and also a fire a
Fox News show blah blah blah, but very early, but
he's actually pulling ahead. He's a Republican in the California
(15:37):
gubernatorial race. I know it's way early, but it does
say something, does it? Or maybe I'm wrong?
Speaker 1 (15:43):
You tell me, doctor, It does say something because sentiment
among California voters has made a dramatic shift, and just
in the last several weeks as they try to rebuild
after the California wildfires, and the liberal government of California
(16:08):
is putting roadblock after roadblock in their way. I personally
know people who are still staying on friends' couches because
they cannot find anywhere to live in California. These folks
don't want the Liberals in charge anymore. And you are
(16:31):
talking about a major percentage of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Now, let's talk about that though, and we look at
the political landscape. Gavin even mourning Joe I believe is
a moron. But they were talking about how he's you know,
he was in South Carolina blah blah blah whatever. Even
he said who he's basically close to the retargeted level,
said that he's got too much baggage. I don't see
(16:57):
it happening, especially after the while fires. I mean, Gavin's
I'm not going to have a future. What do you think?
Speaker 1 (17:04):
I honestly, again using history as a guide, based on
how early he's campaigning and how early Democrats and Republicans
have campaigned in the past, I think it's a fifty
to fifty shot that he doesn't even make it to
(17:25):
the first primaries.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Why is that, Lopkin.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Because historically the folks that campaigned this early don't have
the legs to do it at this point. In the
twenty twenty presidential election, the front runner as for the
Democrats was Kamala Harris. She was out there campaigning. She
never even made it to the primaries.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think purchased also, go aham, sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I think he is going to be out there campaigning.
He has already made comments saying transgender males should not
be in women's sports, and yet he has done nothing
about it. He has done this several times where he's
(18:20):
made campaign comments that are diametrically opposed to the actions
he's actually taking. And I think when the Democratic debates
start up, he is going to be hammered on that.
And I don't think he's you know, I think there's
a fifty to fifty shot he's not even going to
be able to make it to the first primaries.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Could you help me out, doctor Lopkin, because this does
puzzle me when you have people like Pamala who will
talk about you. Was on some stupid podcast and they
had to put it in the in the can it
was at that and Gavin, what is it? I mean,
I really don't understand because I own things when I
fo Okay, how can you be one of the worst
(19:06):
governors in human history that is Gavin? How can you
be basically a mental midget that's Harris and still think
you are presidential material that is put spot on steroids.
It boggles the mind. It boggles the mind.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
It's it's hutzpa, yes, but it's also the democratic mindset
of entitlement. I don't have to work for this. I'm
entitled to run for president. It doesn't matter if I'm
not a mensa candidate. I'm entitled to be president. That's
how the Democrats have been running their party for decades already.
(19:49):
I mean, remember, unless something dramatic happens, twenty twenty eight
is going to be the first a actual primary that
the Democrats have run since two thousand and eight. Twenty
years they did not have a real primary. They anointed
(20:14):
somebody and put them up. So these are just folks going, well,
you know, this is my turn. I checked the boxes.
I I deserve to get this. And they don't care
about the voters. They don't care about the country. They
(20:34):
care about themselves.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
I would agree, but you don't really disturb. No, he
actually gives me chills. Literally is the thought of Harris
as president. You know, they just is holding in Pennsylvania
with artificial intelligence and getting you know, business leaders, tech
leaders together in Pennsylvania. You know about how are you
going to generate the powers? And I touch to myself,
imagine Mama La was the president. I mean that is
(21:03):
like bone chilling.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Well again, I don't think she's she's well, I don't
even think she's gonna run at this point. I think
she's pretty set on running for governor of California.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
But I think.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Killing oh that it would have been an abject disaster.
You will, and not just for us. You would have
seen NATO coming apart at the scenes. You would have
seen I mean, you thought immigration was bad under Biden,
imagine under Kamala. And you actually have now books coming
(21:40):
out by kamalas staffers who which are saying her own
staffers are saying they were in control because she doesn't
have a brain in her head. This is her people
saying this.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Yeah, I think you're right. I don't think she's gonna run.
I may he may run for governor, but that will
flame out so quick and by the way, selfishly because
I really don't care about California, could care less. I
want her as governor because I would love to have
crisises or you know things that are really she has
(22:17):
to come to the forefront. That would be get popcorn
and get a beer, because it would be probably the
funniest show ever on TV. Imagine her with like a
wildfire or a riot, or a financial problem. It would
be unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Well, they've got a financial problem. California has a billion
dollar deficit now, First of all, that's gonna pretty much
disqualify Governor hairgel As from running for from successfully running
for president, because everyone in the Democratic primary is gonna
(22:55):
hammer hammer him on that, everybody in the report. If
he manages to get then domination, everybody his Republican opponent
will hammer him on that. Could you imagine Harris trying
to answer the question of how she's going to solve
that problem. This is a woman that this is a
woman that lost a billion dollars in one hundred days
(23:15):
on her campaign, and I don't think Harris is ever
going to actually be able to run for office again
unless she magically finds a way to self fund because
donors are burnt. They are not giving her a dollar.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
You know something, everyone should find their true meaning in life.
And her perfect job would be working for a wine
and alcohol distributor in California. Something she's focused on good
at that is drinking and probably in her Baileywick in
terms of IQ, maybe not the IQ part, but the
(23:57):
drinking definitely it would be fun. So now you have
the Democrats looking at at Trump. You have the founder
of Home Depot who did not vote for Trump saying
on a CNBC that's not a conservative, media saying that
(24:21):
he did not vote for Trump, but he's now a
he's now converted, so to speak, that he's now a fan,
and he believes that looking at his first six months,
if he continues with his trajectory, he says that he
could go down. That is Trump as one of the
(24:41):
greatest presidents in the United States. So why do I
mention that? Because you have someone that is, yes, successful,
but not a conservative. Okay, you have look inflation way down,
you have the thoughts of a recession, probability lowest to
five months. And then you with the Democrats, their stick
(25:04):
I'm sure it comes out of a focus group is
to talk about what King Jeffries, who's another men's a
Kennedy talk about affordability. It just these things don't jive. Now.
I know politics is always bull kids, but you have
to have some thread of logic, do you not, doctor Lobkin.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I don't know if logic is the right word or
credibility something. So you have that.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Let's say, if you're talking about the bad economy, there's
gotta be some sign of a bad economy. It might
not be a huge rest inflation, there's gotta be something
there there. You can't just make shit up. Yeah you
can for a while, but eventually, especially with a credibility
factor given the auto Ben, I think it doesn't have
(25:50):
any traction. People can see with their own f and
e's well.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
That's the big thing is, no matter what party you're
running on, you have to have a connection with the voters,
and the Democrats are rapidly losing that connection, and every
poll that comes out has them losing a little more.
(26:15):
And the part of the problem that they're having is
is that one they refuse to accept responsibility for the
Biden debacle.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Okay, where you go on. I agree with you, no,
but I think it deserves further elaboration. How big is
the magnitude of the Biden debacle? I think it deserves
a little bit of Lopkins insight. Go ahead, well it.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
The debacle itself is absolutely massive because they were telling
people day after day, oh, behind closed, Doris, he's a dynamo.
Oh he you know, and everybody saw it. Now you've
got tell All book after tell All book coming out
going yeah, yes, we knew this, this is what actually happened.
(27:03):
But it's more than just the cover up. It is
the entire presidency because Biden was asleep at the switch
and the staffers were running the show. You had the
runaway immigration, you had runaway crime. Well, guess what now
(27:24):
that Trump is in office, crime is down across the
board because they're rounding up the criminals. You had runaway inflation.
Now inflation's not as low as it should be, but
it's two point seven percent year over year, as they're
pretty right, as opposed to nine point eight percent, which
(27:48):
is what it was at its highest during the Biden administration.
But they don't want to accept responsibility for this. They
don't want to say, yes, the Infrastructure Act is what
pushed inflation and affordability out of people's reach. The the
the Inflation.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
And the Infrastructure Act. Was there actually any infrastructure, I'm
just asking the doctor.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
There was an acture, There was actually infrastructure in the bill.
Approximately ten percent of the Infrastructure Act Act actually had
something to do with infrastructure. So it was one thing
after another where the Democrats going, oh, no, no, no,
(28:35):
inflation's not so bad. It's transitory, it'll get better.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Short, oh, terminal cancer.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Right, the border is secure, there's no problem at the border.
That was all of the issues, and nobody within the
Democratic Party seems capable at this point of saying, you
know what we screwed up, we need to fix this,
and the.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Whoa lukin lutkin see what you just said would be
the cure. How do you like that? Yes, it works
on a personal level, and it looked works on a
perfect say, yes, we made some huge mistakes and we
need to correct it. Stop bullshitting. You're one hundred percent correct.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
And you'll notice the only person within the Democratic Party
that has done anything close to this is John Fetterman,
and the party is lamb basting him for.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Hate him, hate him. Yes, very interesting. Now when you
talk about the whole face of the Democratic Party, these
ice raids and the deportations. Again getting on the twenty
percent of an eighty twenty issue, you had uncompanied it's
not funny. Actually, you had unaccompanied minors on a plotfarm
(29:55):
and they're calling it, you know, they're blaming the ice agents,
like what is wrong with that picture? Are you insane?
So you shouldn't have any unaccompanied miners anywhere, and god
forbid on a potfarm. And by the way, the guy
who owns the pot farm is a big Democratic donor.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Oh well, he's yeah. The the owner of the of
the marijuana farm is one a Democratic donor in general,
but also a major donor to Gavin Newsom in particular.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
But more than that, Yes, child labor laws are a
big problem. So let's let's let's say they were legal immigrants.
You still violate child labor laws here, so they should
have gone in. Two, they're illegal. They're here illegally crossing
the border. They were literally smuggled across the border in
(30:47):
some cases. So yes, yet yet another reason for them
to go in. But the biggest one. And I find
it absolutely amazing how little airtime this is getting, even
on Fox. I would expect them to be hammering on this.
Those unaccompanied miners who were working at the marijuana facility.
(31:12):
We're working side by side with people who had criminal
records for pedophilia.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
And child trafficking. Yes, I mean, just how can you
stand on that issue? Because you know what it is.
I think at the heart of it, the Democrat ideology
and mindset is that everyone else is so stupid that
you can say the sky is pumple And of course
(31:43):
I believe because they unwashed masses are a bunch of idiots,
aren't they.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
I think it's even more basic than that. At this point,
the only viewpoint of the Democratic Party goes back to
Orange man bed. If Trump is doing something that's wrong,
we have to fight it. If Trump went out and said,
don't eat dog shit, it's bad for you, the Democrats
would be would be chewing down dog shit.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Maybe that's an angle. Even Mark Cuban said, what you said,
stop focusing on Trump and do something. I'm not a
big Mark Cuban fan, but he's right. I mean, it's
Enough's enough, dude, I mean, come on, it gets it
gets comical after a while.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
And the fact of the matter is that Trump is
not a die hard Republican. No matter what the Democrats
want to you know what they how they want to
paint him, He's not a die hard Republican. He's not
a die hard conservative. If a Democratic congressman or senator
(32:52):
went to Trump with a good idea and said, look,
this is a major problem. I've gotten eye idea to
fix it, not only would he listen, but he would
he would take that under advice. He was like, yeah,
how can we do this, Let's work.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Yeah. I would agree with that. But let me ask
you a deeper question, and I'm not being naive. It's
really what how did this Trump derangement situation happen? Was
it because he beat Hillary? I mean, this is over
this time. They never like, they never liked the Republic
and they didn't like George W George h. Of course
(33:33):
they embraced him after the list goes on. You know
the Ford was a moron, Yeah, like Carter was a genius. Anyway,
what is it the root of this? Because it's it's
almost it looks not almost, it is it defies logic.
How do you like that? It's not normal? Like if
you were obsessed with someone as much as the Democratic
(33:55):
Party is with Orange Man bad. I mean you have
to some kind of you know, therapist or something. If
it was an individual so Bob Jones and you're infatuated
with this person, You've got a problem. Something's wrong your thoughts?
How did it happen? And why can't they get over
that's the real question.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
Well why can't they get over it? I can't answer,
And I've said this in the past. I do honestly
believe that when the DSM six comes out, Now, the
DSM is the Guidebook for psychiatrists and psychologists on diagnosing
(34:39):
mental illness. Right now, the DSM five is the current
version of this, but I honestly believe when the DSM
six comes out, Trump derangement syndrome will be a recognized disorder.
Now how it started, how it started. It started in
(34:59):
twenty six teen when the Democrats had virtually complete control
over the media. You did not have all of the
podcasts that we have now. You did not have, you know,
you did not have essentially an alternative to what the
Democratic story was. And Donald Trump has never been a politician,
(35:26):
so over his entire career he has said and done things.
And the perfect example is the famous Access Hollywood video
that came out during the campaign about how he was
talking about women, and the Democrats played this ad infinitum,
(35:48):
every nasty thing he said, and quite frankly, they made
it worse by taking certain things out of context. I
remember he was talking about the Great Recession and how
very smart people were able to make money during the
Great Recession by understanding how the financial systems work, and
(36:10):
they were he made money off of the people suffering,
And they hit it over and over and over to
the point that people believed what they were saying, and
then when he actually had the audacity to beat Hillary Clinton,
(36:31):
who had been appointed from the Democratic Party as the
next US president, it just sent them out. Yes, it
just sent them into a tailspin. And they've never I
mean I remember very clearly the gasp and sob that
(36:51):
came out of Lester Holt's mouth at three AS on
election night and Trump was declared the winner.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Or you have Martha Raddits literally crying crying on ABC. Yes,
that is correct. I think that's interesting. I definitely do.
Now when we talk about the Democratic and was to
say legacy, you had Joe Biden. I guess he actually
mustered up the energy to have a Cora, a fifteen
or ten minute conversation with The New York Times talking
(37:26):
about how he was fully in charge. And you also
had that with Barack Obama. He was like, oh, actually
his wife's podcast. Maybe he's trying to not just prevent
a divorce. But anyway, it's another issue, but talking about
man and how but you know, trying to be relevant.
The question is I think they're in foot Well, I
don't know Biden's in panic. I think maybe doctor Jill
(37:47):
is in full blown panic because I'm certainly Obama knows
that his legacy is completely in the shitter, and they
do have an infatuation with it, don't they. They do.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
I don't think it's an infatuation. I think it's a
full blown obsession that the Democrats have with legacy. I mean,
remember in twenty sixteen, when Obama was on the campaign
trail for Hillary Clinton. At no time did he ever
say Clinton was the best person for the job. He
(38:22):
was campaigning saying Clinton was the one that would protect
his legacy. That was the only thing he was campaigning on.
And if you take a look, this is something that
is a major driver of the Democrats because if you
take a look, Trump obviously doesn't care what his legacy is.
(38:45):
He's putting himself through all of this. He could have
just retired in twenty twenty, said the hell with all
of this, and you know, made another fortune in real estate.
He doesn't care about his legacy. George W. When was
the last time you heard from George W. He's doing
amazing ever, he's doing amazing things with veterans on his farm,
(39:08):
but you never hear about him because he doesn't care
about his legacy. George hw didn't care about his legacy. Well, Reagan,
we don't know if he cared about it or not.
By the time he left office, he was, you know,
he was suffering from him the run chef.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
But Gerald Ford, no, let means that one thing. I
think if Reagan did not have dementia, he would have
gone on the farm with Nancy and just gone off
into the sie. He might have done a couple of
speaking engagements, but he would not like Obama's actually embarrassing himself,
isn't he. You're trying to You're like the nineteen sixties
(39:48):
rock group that's still touring, just trying to scratch on
to some kind of relevancy. Am I not correct? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (39:56):
I mean that that's basically the impression he gives. He
is out of touch, he's you know, but and you know,
just to defend him a little bit, the Democrats keep
trying to bring him out of retirement and keep bringing
him back through these speeches, through all of this, because
(40:18):
the fact of the matter is he's still the closest
thing the Democrats have to have grown up in the room.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
I think he's the closest thing they have to anyone
that's let's just say somewhat qualified.
Speaker 1 (40:34):
Maybe I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Maybe I'm not.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
I wouldn't. I don't think he was president.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
But yeah, and isn't it true talking about that. Isn't
it true that he's becoming not just because of time,
but because I'm further introspection. His legacy does kind of suck,
doesn't It's a shithole, just like his library.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
His leglegacy has fallen apart. But and this is something
that is just seems to be ingrained in Democrats. I mean,
the Clintons were so obsessed with legacy. That's the only
reason they're still married. I Mean, remember, she wasn't going
to leave him no matter what he did. She was
(41:21):
going to stand by her man, despite the fact that
she was critical of other women that would have done this.
And the only reason she did it is because she
wanted to be president and it was easier with him
on the campaign trail for her.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, I would agree with that. You know, again, coming
a little bit to presidential candidates or potential wall so
see pretty much over because I saw a little clip
of him and his wife, who's literally clinically insane at
some kind of Minnesota rally. Get together. There's no chance
of that happening. Correct, that's no.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
Well, yeah, if Waltz thinks he's running for president in
twenty twenty eight, he's deluding himself again. He can throw
his hat into the ring. If he makes it to
a primary, it'll be a minor miracle. But there's no
way he's going to get the nomination or by any chance,
be able to win the whole thing, because the Democrats
(42:24):
are looking at him going, uh, you got slaughtered by Trump.
Why would we bother with you?
Speaker 2 (42:33):
And one of the reasons he certainly contributed to her demise.
And do you know the reason why she chose him?
She's a genius. One of the big reason she didn't
have enough.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
She didn't have another option. Every Democratic presidential candidate has
chosen a vice president that's dumber than they are and
less capable than they are. Well, when you get Kamala
Harris trying to find some body less capable, you're scraping
the bottom of the barrel.
Speaker 2 (43:04):
You're talking about squirrels, yesip months whatever. Well, anyway, doctor Lopkin,
another great show. I do agree with you about Kamala.
I think she's pretty much done and it'll be interesting
to see how the whole thing unfold. But our listeners,
as always, can contribute to the show, can't they.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
Yes, they can. We'd love to hear from you. Go
to xvadio dot com slash connect let us know what
you're thinking. You can also message us on the Carnivore
Radio Facebook page, and of course you can hear every
episode of Carnivore Bites at the Carnivore Radio website, xvadio
dot com, the Apple Podcasts app, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
(43:51):
Amazon Music, Audible, and other platforms that respect freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Thank you, doctor Lopkin. See you next week.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Will see you then,
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.