July 30, 2025 • 17 mins
Will there ever be jail time for politicians who lie and distort elections and laws? Will our political parties ever agree to the obvious truth even when given proper evidence?
If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is no, the answer has always been no, and probably will be no well into the future.
Free speech and secure election integrity seem like the best path for our country.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is no, the answer has always been no, and probably will be no well into the future.
Free speech and secure election integrity seem like the best path for our country.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Julie
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
I'm not going to test and this is not worthy
of a podcast, So we're just spending a few minutes
helping me get a grip on a topic that's almost
in the news but not quite, and that is what
are the underlying issues of several of these big reveals.
For example, to start with this, Jeff Epstein, that's the
(00:40):
biggest one, and it's easy to neglect what's underneath it
because what's on the surface is pedophilia, which everyone's interested
in exposing and prosecuting pedophilia. But I want to know
what are the issues that go along with that that
are out of our awareness because that was going So
(01:00):
let me just mention the others. This stuff that they're
exposing with Barack Obama and the Russia Gate and the
impeachments and the lawfare, all that stuff, they aren't telling
me anything. We didn't know. Everybody knew that Barack Obama
had to be behind all that bullshit with Trump right
after the election. You know that, I didn't know that well,
(01:22):
I'm saying we all suspected it. It was always worthy
of looking at it. So now it's a big thing.
You know, everyone's making a big deal about it. I
want to go deeper than that. I mean, we know
they are not going to throw Barack Obama in jail.
They are not going to throw the heads of the
CIA and FBI. Those guys are not going to go
to jail like they deserve. That's not going to happen.
(01:43):
But I do want to know what all did they do?
If they did that, what else did they do? And
then the thing with well if.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
They did that, now, well, what else is there to do?
That's kind of like that, Well that's that's high crime
and treason.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Well that's part of what I want to know. I
think that if they're doing that, the other thing that
we're really vulnerable to is when the people in power
collude with big business. So I accept that no one's
going to go to jail. That's not the way our
government works. We only throw people in jail if they
have lost a war, Like the Nazi The Nazis lost
(02:20):
a war, so their war criminals went to jail. Everybody
else nobody goes to jail unless it's a war that
you lost. These Middle Eastern guys, they lose a war. Shit,
their dead.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
The punishment is the exposure.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Well, I'm just saying, at least I want the exposure,
and with exposure and especially if there could be admission
on both sides of what the truth is, then that's
all I expect.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
That's a lot to expect, It is a lot to experience.
What we're seeing now is the other side. The other
team has no capacity for insight. There's not anybody that's
going to say, maybe Fetterman, but there's not anybody that's
going to say, wow, we did a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Oh No, They're busy playing the game. Yeah, they have
found little links between Jeff Epstein and Trump, and they're
playing that up as much as they possibly can. And
they know better than that. There's no way Trump.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
I disagree that they know better. I think they're psychologically impaired.
I think they're heard instinct keeps them from reality.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Well, of course, projected Epstein. The Epstein thing has been
around for a decade. If they had had anything on
Trump connected to Epstein, they would have done it when
they were throwing everything else in the book at him.
I mean, they were lying and saying that he was
busy being in beds with prostitutes in Russia and everything.
It was crazy what they were lying about. So if
(03:47):
they had any connection to Epstein, they would have been
going for it because that's pedophilia. In fact, they even
found pictures of Trump with his daughter where it looks
a little creepy and with those goddamn things. Is if
he had a sexual relationship with his daughter. That was
so creepy, It was so shitty.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
But the point that I'm making is that you can't
ask right now. The level of pathology in the country
is so high. If we were to expose the truth,
the other side is not going to accept it. I
don't know exactly. It's kind of like their addicts, okay,
and they have to hit bottom before they can get better.
(04:28):
I used to think it was both teams. There's some
self deception that goes on in our team, but not
to the level that's going on in the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Okay, let me review that. Ideally, in order to correct
the system, we would expose the truth and prosecute the
people who participated in the illegal activity. That's not going to.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Happen, so is it illegal?
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Well, okay, but that's getting into the detail of it.
But that's part of what needs to be discovered. I
don't know. I'm just saying these things are worthy of investigation.
But I accept that no one's going to go to jail.
That's not going to happen. So the next thing level
of discovery would be if the truth is exposed and
(05:11):
both sides can accept Yes, that is the truth. And
you're saying that ain't going to happen either.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
You're not saying that.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
You're not saying that.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I'm saying that the Democrats can't accept the truth.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Do you think the Democrats have accepted that X revealed
illusion between government and industry? Do you think the left accepts.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
That now that's the performance sell X. Who are you
saying to do I think X expose the corruption between
government and industry.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, and we know they exposed it. I'm asking do
you think both sides of the political spectrum now accept
that as truth? You think the left still doesn't accept.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
I think I'm confused by your question. The fascism in
the country, the military industrial complex. You're asking me if
I think the Democrats accept that there's collusion between government
and the industrial complexes.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Well, that's a bigger issue.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I'm not bringing up the issue. I'm trying to understand
your question, okay.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
But the way you worded it is bigger. I'm just
looking at Okay, did the fbon Paul Google and say
we don't want you publishing anything that is positive about Trump?
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I know we're talking about the Twitter files. The Twitter files, Yeah,
Mike Schellenberger and Raddy No, I don't think they. I mean,
from what I see in these congressional hearings, I don't
see the Democrats processing reality.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Okay. So you're saying even that as exposed as it.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Was, anything, it's just anything. There wasn't a single vote
for the legislative bill to reduce taxes.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Okay. Let me jump to another one.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Okay, completely embedded in their group mentality.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Okay, I understand. So on Twitter, you're saying you're doubtful
that they are accepting that. Okay. Let me pick another example.
The fifty intelligence agents that signed off on the Hunter
Biden laptop Russian propaganda being Russian propaganda. We know that
that was a lie, and we know those fifty men lied,
(07:22):
and we know that had a big impact on the election.
There really isn't much doubt about that being true. Do
you think the left accepts that in any way?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I think they do accept that the fifty guys lied
on their testimony, and I think they do accept that,
and I think they say nothing about it.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Well, it sounds like what you're saying is they accept
that that was a lie, but they do not accept
that it affected the election. They do not accept that.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Anything subjective that they can deny they're going to Denye, Okay,
that's what I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
In that case, I'm going to have to be satisfied
with just exposing the truth, you know, with as much
objective data as we can and promoting it as much
as we can.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
The only people in play are the independent voters. Thirty
percent of the population is voting heard mentality democratic no
matter how bad it's going to get.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
So I just don't know if they can't accept it,
I don't know that there's any.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
The only hope is in the next generation that we're
trying to influence the youth vote. We're not trying to
influence the people in Congress.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
They're lost, well, politicians are lost.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
That's my point. Yeah, some of the Republicans are lost too, Yes,
they are. That brings up the question is once corrupted,
is it corruption forever? Once your mind is raped and
you no longer think logically or factually, is there any
hope for you at all? Politically? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Well, of course, the question for me is what is
the path to decent quality country. If we cannot accept
that that was election in appearance, then what hope do
we have of having a decent election in the future.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Just what I said, the independent of the young people
that can still be open minded and logical, the fact
that was based on certain principles.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Okay, well you're saying the independent vote, those people will
become doubtful about the statements from the Liberals or whoever
is spounding falsehoods. The independent vote people can will start
to become doubtful because they accepted all that shit. I
mean I did too. I didn't quite know what the
truth was when they were talking about Russia Gate, and we.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Didn't know what to believe because we didn't have any facts.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
You know, when Biden said that about fifty intelligence agents, shit,
I thought that must be true. God damn, he said
that on national television.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
That's the thing that's peculiar is how you can get
fifty intelligence and you know, it's hard not to believe
that when fifty agents agree to something that sounds air tight,
doesn't it. Yeah, but that's the level of corruption in
our country that we didn't know about. I think those
guys ought to go to jail.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Oh well, yeah, true, but they aren't. Of course they're
not going to go to nobody's going to go to daid. Well.
I won't get into the Russia collusion. I want to
get to what my mind has concluded from what we
just talked about. It's all about journalism. Journalism should have
exposed every one of these things that we talked about.
Journalism should have exposed it. And journalism was colluding with
(10:30):
industry and government at that time and was not responsive
to their profession.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Yeah, we didn't have any journalists. We didn't have we
had media people. When they started getting in bed with
government and industry, we lost journalism for several years. And
now I think journalism is waking up again through the Internet.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Independent journalists are filling the gap for real journalism, and
of course Trump is helping that enormously.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Oh yeah, he's calling it out.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
But called it out.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
But he's a politician. He can't really quite do it.
It's the journalists that have to.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
We get all these great independent journalists like Megan Kelly in.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
She is great. It's unbelievable that Joe Rogan he is
as an interviewer. He doesn't even pretend to be a journalist.
But just because he has an interviewer and he's good
at asking the next question, all kinds of stuff gets
revealed by that guy that journalists have been avoid.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Well, as long as you're just detection system, any detection system,
it's not journalism, it's a detection system.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
So Joe Rogan's a great detection system because he's so
open to new information and because it's so interesting. What
he does.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
I've heard people say this, and I perceive this to
be true. Is he consents when someone didn't quite tell
him the whole truth, and he knows how to maneuver,
maneuver and zero in on that without being disrespectful. Hey,
why don't you expand on that a little bit? I'm
quite getting that you know that.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Yeah, he selects his interviewees very carefully apparently too, because
they're all interesting and they all have something to say,
and they're all willing to say.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
It right, and they now know, Hey, I'm on the
Joe Rogan Show. This is my opportunity to say but
I haven't been able to get out into the public before.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Yeah, he goes for truth, but he makes it interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Yeah. Tucker Carlson is almost as good. Of course, Megan
Kelly is terrific.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Who's a green Wall?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
And you get people like Green Green. I don't follow
show undergre very much, but Greenwall is terrific.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
You get who's the guy on just the news? But
you get all this independent journalists on now that you couldn't.
People gave up. I mean the big conglomerates are crashing, yeah,
I mean people are more and more like, I'm going
to follow the independent journalists and they're making money doing it.
I mean, the journalism is in its old state. It's gone. Yeah,
(13:01):
and that's good because it became corrupted so badly.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
And it's so great to watch some of these media
personalities think that they can jump on into podcasting and
make it and here they are making millions of dollars
a year. When they leave the network and try to
go to podcasting and they can't do shit. Because they
are not interested suck when Okay, So I want to
(13:26):
restate it. To have true reform, we would need to
be able to expose the truth, expose illegal players, and
put them in jail. That would be the real path,
the direct path to correcting our system. And I know
that's not going to happen.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
There's an alternative, okay, is to expose the corruption and
have the population really understand it fully what's happened.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
And this dialogue has helped me accept and understand that
we don't have to have total acceptance of what we
think the truth is. We just have to have a
majority of voters, specifically the.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Well, that's what happened with the election of Trump is
a slim majority of voters got fed up with what
was going on, and there was enough detection systems going
on in the swing states that the vote couldn't be manipulated.
I do think they tried.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
We still have to have true elections. That's still important
and that's still under question.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Yeah, I mean that's we.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Can expose as much truth as we.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Want to give it.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
If they've got control of the computer voting booths.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
We go, yeah, Or if they're mailing in a bunch
of fake ballots or however, there dozens of ways they did.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah, that's another problem that needs to be solved. But
I'm accepting what you're saying is that as much as
I would love it if we could prosecute people who
are deceiving us, I accept that the realistic strategy is
to have ind journalists who expose the truth and having
(15:03):
the Internet out there that isn't blocked and is able
to get the word out so that independent voters can
make the difference. And then we have to have election integrity.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
So I think yeah, because that addresses the underlying pathology
in the country, is that we have a lot of
brain dead people that are still just accepting what they're
told to believe. We have to have an environment where
the voter is truly informed as to what's going on.
I mean, you cannot have liberty without that kind of
freedom of information.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Yeah, and it seems to be going that direction. I'm
kind of optimistic about that.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
You're optimistic, Yeah, I am. I can't believe that.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
I am. I was pessimistic when government and industry was
controlling what was being said on Twitter and Google and Facebook.
I mean that was depressing to watch big industry controlling
what we could hear.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Yeah, well the Twitter investigation expose that there's all. There's it.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
By the way, Elon Musk, what a hero. He did
that on his own. He did that on his own,
you know, at great cost.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Well he's got money to burn.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Yeah, but boy, that took guts.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Yeah, no kidding. That took passion and guts and an
understanding of the principle of freedom of information.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, oh no, he understands. So I'm happy with what
we've talked about. We've revolved around the issue enough to
understand that we have to have election integrity. Well, that's
the next step. Like the question good system, the.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Question is how is this all going to come out?
That's the question you're answering. It's like, what are the
variables to make this continue to work right?
Speaker 2 (16:43):
To make this a positive society when it's so off.
It's about freedom of information and election integrity in our country.
It's about election integrity so that once the information gets out,
the voters can accept or reject the information it's out there, and.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Well freedom of information and also the type of information,
quality of information, because the voters need to understand what
the information means there's some education. I think it's got
to be necessary to people don't understand everything.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
A lot of people still think the New York Times
is the source of good information. In the Wall Street Journal,
I used to think that they were terrific, and they
went off the reels.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
And mostly self interest.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Well, I don't know exactly what's happening with the Wall
Street Turn.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Yeah, well we're in time, but they're not.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
A reliable source of the truth.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Just like Bob Dylan says, the times they're changing.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Times are changing. I'll leave it at that.
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Julie
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
I'm not going to test and this is not worthy
of a podcast, So we're just spending a few minutes
helping me get a grip on a topic that's almost
in the news but not quite, and that is what
are the underlying issues of several of these big reveals.
For example, to start with this, Jeff Epstein, that's the
(00:40):
biggest one, and it's easy to neglect what's underneath it
because what's on the surface is pedophilia, which everyone's interested
in exposing and prosecuting pedophilia. But I want to know
what are the issues that go along with that that
are out of our awareness because that was going So
(01:00):
let me just mention the others. This stuff that they're
exposing with Barack Obama and the Russia Gate and the
impeachments and the lawfare, all that stuff, they aren't telling
me anything. We didn't know. Everybody knew that Barack Obama
had to be behind all that bullshit with Trump right
after the election. You know that, I didn't know that well,
(01:22):
I'm saying we all suspected it. It was always worthy
of looking at it. So now it's a big thing.
You know, everyone's making a big deal about it. I
want to go deeper than that. I mean, we know
they are not going to throw Barack Obama in jail.
They are not going to throw the heads of the
CIA and FBI. Those guys are not going to go
to jail like they deserve. That's not going to happen.
(01:43):
But I do want to know what all did they do?
If they did that, what else did they do? And
then the thing with well if.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
They did that, now, well, what else is there to do?
That's kind of like that, Well that's that's high crime
and treason.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Well that's part of what I want to know. I
think that if they're doing that, the other thing that
we're really vulnerable to is when the people in power
collude with big business. So I accept that no one's
going to go to jail. That's not the way our
government works. We only throw people in jail if they
have lost a war, Like the Nazi The Nazis lost
(02:20):
a war, so their war criminals went to jail. Everybody
else nobody goes to jail unless it's a war that
you lost. These Middle Eastern guys, they lose a war. Shit,
their dead.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
The punishment is the exposure.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Well, I'm just saying, at least I want the exposure,
and with exposure and especially if there could be admission
on both sides of what the truth is, then that's
all I expect.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
That's a lot to expect, It is a lot to experience.
What we're seeing now is the other side. The other
team has no capacity for insight. There's not anybody that's
going to say, maybe Fetterman, but there's not anybody that's
going to say, wow, we did a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Oh No, They're busy playing the game. Yeah, they have
found little links between Jeff Epstein and Trump, and they're
playing that up as much as they possibly can. And
they know better than that. There's no way Trump.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
I disagree that they know better. I think they're psychologically impaired.
I think they're heard instinct keeps them from reality.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Well, of course, projected Epstein. The Epstein thing has been
around for a decade. If they had had anything on
Trump connected to Epstein, they would have done it when
they were throwing everything else in the book at him.
I mean, they were lying and saying that he was
busy being in beds with prostitutes in Russia and everything.
It was crazy what they were lying about. So if
(03:47):
they had any connection to Epstein, they would have been
going for it because that's pedophilia. In fact, they even
found pictures of Trump with his daughter where it looks
a little creepy and with those goddamn things. Is if
he had a sexual relationship with his daughter. That was
so creepy, It was so shitty.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
But the point that I'm making is that you can't
ask right now. The level of pathology in the country
is so high. If we were to expose the truth,
the other side is not going to accept it. I
don't know exactly. It's kind of like their addicts, okay,
and they have to hit bottom before they can get better.
(04:28):
I used to think it was both teams. There's some
self deception that goes on in our team, but not
to the level that's going on in the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Okay, let me review that. Ideally, in order to correct
the system, we would expose the truth and prosecute the
people who participated in the illegal activity. That's not going to.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Happen, so is it illegal?
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Well, okay, but that's getting into the detail of it.
But that's part of what needs to be discovered. I
don't know. I'm just saying these things are worthy of investigation.
But I accept that no one's going to go to jail.
That's not going to happen. So the next thing level
of discovery would be if the truth is exposed and
(05:11):
both sides can accept Yes, that is the truth. And
you're saying that ain't going to happen either.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
You're not saying that.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
You're not saying that.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I'm saying that the Democrats can't accept the truth.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Do you think the Democrats have accepted that X revealed
illusion between government and industry? Do you think the left accepts.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
That now that's the performance sell X. Who are you
saying to do I think X expose the corruption between
government and industry.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, and we know they exposed it. I'm asking do
you think both sides of the political spectrum now accept
that as truth? You think the left still doesn't accept.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
I think I'm confused by your question. The fascism in
the country, the military industrial complex. You're asking me if
I think the Democrats accept that there's collusion between government
and the industrial complexes.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Well, that's a bigger issue.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I'm not bringing up the issue. I'm trying to understand
your question, okay.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
But the way you worded it is bigger. I'm just
looking at Okay, did the fbon Paul Google and say
we don't want you publishing anything that is positive about Trump?
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I know we're talking about the Twitter files. The Twitter files, Yeah,
Mike Schellenberger and Raddy No, I don't think they. I mean,
from what I see in these congressional hearings, I don't
see the Democrats processing reality.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Okay. So you're saying even that as exposed as it.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Was, anything, it's just anything. There wasn't a single vote
for the legislative bill to reduce taxes.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Okay. Let me jump to another one.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Okay, completely embedded in their group mentality.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Okay, I understand. So on Twitter, you're saying you're doubtful
that they are accepting that. Okay. Let me pick another example.
The fifty intelligence agents that signed off on the Hunter
Biden laptop Russian propaganda being Russian propaganda. We know that
that was a lie, and we know those fifty men lied,
(07:22):
and we know that had a big impact on the election.
There really isn't much doubt about that being true. Do
you think the left accepts that in any way?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I think they do accept that the fifty guys lied
on their testimony, and I think they do accept that,
and I think they say nothing about it.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Well, it sounds like what you're saying is they accept
that that was a lie, but they do not accept
that it affected the election. They do not accept that.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Anything subjective that they can deny they're going to Denye, Okay,
that's what I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
In that case, I'm going to have to be satisfied
with just exposing the truth, you know, with as much
objective data as we can and promoting it as much
as we can.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
The only people in play are the independent voters. Thirty
percent of the population is voting heard mentality democratic no
matter how bad it's going to get.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
So I just don't know if they can't accept it,
I don't know that there's any.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
The only hope is in the next generation that we're
trying to influence the youth vote. We're not trying to
influence the people in Congress.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
They're lost, well, politicians are lost.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
That's my point. Yeah, some of the Republicans are lost too, Yes,
they are. That brings up the question is once corrupted,
is it corruption forever? Once your mind is raped and
you no longer think logically or factually, is there any
hope for you at all? Politically? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Well, of course, the question for me is what is
the path to decent quality country. If we cannot accept
that that was election in appearance, then what hope do
we have of having a decent election in the future.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Just what I said, the independent of the young people
that can still be open minded and logical, the fact
that was based on certain principles.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Okay, well you're saying the independent vote, those people will
become doubtful about the statements from the Liberals or whoever
is spounding falsehoods. The independent vote people can will start
to become doubtful because they accepted all that shit. I
mean I did too. I didn't quite know what the
truth was when they were talking about Russia Gate, and we.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Didn't know what to believe because we didn't have any facts.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
You know, when Biden said that about fifty intelligence agents, shit,
I thought that must be true. God damn, he said
that on national television.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
That's the thing that's peculiar is how you can get
fifty intelligence and you know, it's hard not to believe
that when fifty agents agree to something that sounds air tight,
doesn't it. Yeah, but that's the level of corruption in
our country that we didn't know about. I think those
guys ought to go to jail.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Oh well, yeah, true, but they aren't. Of course they're
not going to go to nobody's going to go to daid. Well.
I won't get into the Russia collusion. I want to
get to what my mind has concluded from what we
just talked about. It's all about journalism. Journalism should have
exposed every one of these things that we talked about.
Journalism should have exposed it. And journalism was colluding with
(10:30):
industry and government at that time and was not responsive
to their profession.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Yeah, we didn't have any journalists. We didn't have we
had media people. When they started getting in bed with
government and industry, we lost journalism for several years. And
now I think journalism is waking up again through the Internet.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Independent journalists are filling the gap for real journalism, and
of course Trump is helping that enormously.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Oh yeah, he's calling it out.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
But called it out.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
But he's a politician. He can't really quite do it.
It's the journalists that have to.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
We get all these great independent journalists like Megan Kelly in.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
She is great. It's unbelievable that Joe Rogan he is
as an interviewer. He doesn't even pretend to be a journalist.
But just because he has an interviewer and he's good
at asking the next question, all kinds of stuff gets
revealed by that guy that journalists have been avoid.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Well, as long as you're just detection system, any detection system,
it's not journalism, it's a detection system.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
So Joe Rogan's a great detection system because he's so
open to new information and because it's so interesting. What
he does.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
I've heard people say this, and I perceive this to
be true. Is he consents when someone didn't quite tell
him the whole truth, and he knows how to maneuver,
maneuver and zero in on that without being disrespectful. Hey,
why don't you expand on that a little bit? I'm
quite getting that you know that.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Yeah, he selects his interviewees very carefully apparently too, because
they're all interesting and they all have something to say,
and they're all willing to say.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
It right, and they now know, Hey, I'm on the
Joe Rogan Show. This is my opportunity to say but
I haven't been able to get out into the public before.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Yeah, he goes for truth, but he makes it interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Yeah. Tucker Carlson is almost as good. Of course, Megan
Kelly is terrific.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Who's a green Wall?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
And you get people like Green Green. I don't follow
show undergre very much, but Greenwall is terrific.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
You get who's the guy on just the news? But
you get all this independent journalists on now that you couldn't.
People gave up. I mean the big conglomerates are crashing, yeah,
I mean people are more and more like, I'm going
to follow the independent journalists and they're making money doing it.
I mean, the journalism is in its old state. It's gone. Yeah,
(13:01):
and that's good because it became corrupted so badly.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
And it's so great to watch some of these media
personalities think that they can jump on into podcasting and
make it and here they are making millions of dollars
a year. When they leave the network and try to
go to podcasting and they can't do shit. Because they
are not interested suck when Okay, So I want to
(13:26):
restate it. To have true reform, we would need to
be able to expose the truth, expose illegal players, and
put them in jail. That would be the real path,
the direct path to correcting our system. And I know
that's not going to happen.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
There's an alternative, okay, is to expose the corruption and
have the population really understand it fully what's happened.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
And this dialogue has helped me accept and understand that
we don't have to have total acceptance of what we
think the truth is. We just have to have a
majority of voters, specifically the.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Well, that's what happened with the election of Trump is
a slim majority of voters got fed up with what
was going on, and there was enough detection systems going
on in the swing states that the vote couldn't be manipulated.
I do think they tried.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
We still have to have true elections. That's still important
and that's still under question.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Yeah, I mean that's we.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Can expose as much truth as we.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Want to give it.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
If they've got control of the computer voting booths.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
We go, yeah, Or if they're mailing in a bunch
of fake ballots or however, there dozens of ways they did.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah, that's another problem that needs to be solved. But
I'm accepting what you're saying is that as much as
I would love it if we could prosecute people who
are deceiving us, I accept that the realistic strategy is
to have ind journalists who expose the truth and having
(15:03):
the Internet out there that isn't blocked and is able
to get the word out so that independent voters can
make the difference. And then we have to have election integrity.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
So I think yeah, because that addresses the underlying pathology
in the country, is that we have a lot of
brain dead people that are still just accepting what they're
told to believe. We have to have an environment where
the voter is truly informed as to what's going on.
I mean, you cannot have liberty without that kind of
freedom of information.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Yeah, and it seems to be going that direction. I'm
kind of optimistic about that.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
You're optimistic, Yeah, I am. I can't believe that.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
I am. I was pessimistic when government and industry was
controlling what was being said on Twitter and Google and Facebook.
I mean that was depressing to watch big industry controlling
what we could hear.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Yeah, well the Twitter investigation expose that there's all. There's it.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
By the way, Elon Musk, what a hero. He did
that on his own. He did that on his own,
you know, at great cost.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Well he's got money to burn.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Yeah, but boy, that took guts.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Yeah, no kidding. That took passion and guts and an
understanding of the principle of freedom of information.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, oh no, he understands. So I'm happy with what
we've talked about. We've revolved around the issue enough to
understand that we have to have election integrity. Well, that's
the next step. Like the question good system, the.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Question is how is this all going to come out?
That's the question you're answering. It's like, what are the
variables to make this continue to work right?
Speaker 2 (16:43):
To make this a positive society when it's so off.
It's about freedom of information and election integrity in our country.
It's about election integrity so that once the information gets out,
the voters can accept or reject the information it's out there, and.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Well freedom of information and also the type of information,
quality of information, because the voters need to understand what
the information means there's some education. I think it's got
to be necessary to people don't understand everything.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
A lot of people still think the New York Times
is the source of good information. In the Wall Street Journal,
I used to think that they were terrific, and they
went off the reels.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
And mostly self interest.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Well, I don't know exactly what's happening with the Wall
Street Turn.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Yeah, well we're in time, but they're not.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
A reliable source of the truth.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Just like Bob Dylan says, the times they're changing.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Times are changing. I'll leave it at that.
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.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com