June 27, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1: NYC Primary Colors and Chaos
Seg 2: Lost in the Political Wilderness?
Seg 3: The Iran Conundrum Continues
Seg 4: Political Confidence and a Big Stick
Seg 2: Lost in the Political Wilderness?
Seg 3: The Iran Conundrum Continues
Seg 4: Political Confidence and a Big Stick
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No that it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello and welcome to Libty Nation Radio, Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelidis.
On today's edition, we are talking political pathways, who's gotten
lost and who knows where they're going? All that and
a whole lot more. Please do remember Liberty Nation Radio
sponsor by libutination dot com. You can access podcasts, breaking
news analysis, and a range of fighting and brilliant shows
(00:54):
to what your upside freedom and your fondness for the
great American Constitution and nation. Coast to Coast on the
Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Antheli's we're very
fortunate to have with us longtime host of this here
radio show and Libertine Nation senior political analyst, mister Tim Donner,
and for these purposes a New Yorker too. Hi, Tim,
thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Hell oh Mark, good to be here as always.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
So, Tim, I think what we really have to discuss
first and foremost is what happened in New York. We
had the Democratic primary this week just gone, and it
was one by somebody who isn't avowed socialist.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
What happened a democratic socialist, which is the politically acceptable
term for socialist, because that's what he is. He has
stirred up anti Semitic feelings in New York. He is,
as you say, a socialist who wants to basically run
(02:03):
the wealthy and corporations out of New York by raising
taxes to an even more inconceivably high level than the
ones that have already driven a lot of wealthy people
and corporations out of New York. The people who pay
the taxes, the people who you know, carry the burden
(02:24):
for all of the city services that were provided. For example,
as exhibit A, you know millions of illegal aliens who
were shipped there and then housed, fed, and taken care
of at taxpayer's expense. Now you know the Democrats must
(02:44):
have a really short memory. They can't even think back
to last November and what happened when a true progressive
in Kamala Harris, not that different than Mom d the
Muslim who won the Democratic primary, not that different. And
(03:07):
you saw what happened is that people roundly rejected that.
But beyond that, you would have thought they'd think back
to the days of Bill de Blasio, who, by the
time he left office, was at about twenty percent approval.
He was essentially I don't know what they he officially
called himself this or not, but he was a socialist,
(03:29):
quasi Marxist himself. The city went to hell. And that's
why they elected Eric Adams because he was the least
progressive and the most pro police of a field of
Democrats which were predictably progressive from end to end.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
So I should point out, hit Tim that we're not
even considering that New York could have elected a Republican. Oh,
we said they were the least progressive of the Democrats
because they're not going to elect a Republican.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Right, Well, they have in the past, of course, of course,
Julian he was, but Julian it was the only one
who was a real Republican as opposed to a Republican
in name only.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Like Michael Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Bloomberg who was by most accounts a very effective.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Mayor, but he was not a Democrat and Republican.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
You had John Lindsay, who was a disaster as an
extremely liberal Republican. It was basically to the left even
of the Democratic machine in New York.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
So let's let's talk about John Lindsay for a moment. Tim,
So John Lindsay nineteen sixty seven, I think sixty seven,
he's sixty.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Five was when he was first elected, and then he
sought re election in nineteen sixty nine, And I'm glad
you brought that up. I didn't even prompt you, but
I have a remarkable story from that year that involved
John Lindsay.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
If you would like, I'd love to hear it. I'd
love to hear it.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
So my father was pretty heavily involved in Republican and
conservative politics in New York City, which of course is
the expression goes to conservatives could have met in a
phone booth. But nevertheless, there was conservative resistance to a
left wing Democratic policy in New York. And when Lindsey,
(05:27):
who was becoming more and more unpopular, was running John
Lindsay for reelection in nineteen sixty nine. He was challenged
by an obscure Staten Island assemblyman named John Marky. Nobody
gave him any chance, of course, because he was underfunded,
out of the mainstream, and Lindsey was the you know,
(05:50):
it was a pretty boy who had risen to the
to the mayor's office. Long story short, although it's already long.
My father was invited along with me as a fourteen
year old to view the election returns at the candidate's headquarters,
(06:11):
as it turns out, probably a hotel suite.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Recall exactly, but I was there when the shocking result
came in that John Marky had beaten John Lindsey, and
it gave me, for the first and likely last time
in my life, the opportunity to see a candidate in
real time as he won an election, and he looked
(06:36):
as stunned as everybody else. But the point is that
when it came to the general election that November, Lindsey
ran as an independent and John Marky got crushed and
Lindsey got another term, but he did it as an independent,
which simply says that you cannot view in New York
(07:00):
any politics through the lens of national politics because there's
all kinds of crossovers. There's Conservative Party, Liberal party, people
run as independence frequently, as we just discussed, you can
lose a primary with the election and vice versa, so
it's like national politics.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Tim. You know, I'm going to leave our listeners with
the campaign slogan of John Lindin. I think I've got
this right. Before we come back after this short break,
I care about you. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio, our many host
Mark Anshley's we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nation senior
fitzical analyst Tim Don and o Tim earlier and so
we were talking about how New York politics are really
not national politic because you have a breakdown of different
parties and independents and third parties that have historically gotten involved.
(08:08):
And with the results of this last week's Democratic primary
mayoral election with Zohran Ma'amdani, I'm going to try and
get that right. Zochran Mamdani Mark winning on the first round, well,
(08:29):
not quite winning on the first round, but winning enough
votes on the first round to make Andrew Cuomo, a
three time governor, decide he's not going to make it.
As the subsequent rounds of voting come in, It's quite
fascinating that one of Cuomo's aides hinted that mister Cuomo
(08:50):
might just enter as a as an independent candidate or
a third party candidate, which also brings us to incumbent
Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running a third party
independent campaign. So if we end up with those three
gentlemen buying for the mayorship on the left, and naturally
(09:15):
who's fast becoming a perennial in New York polities, yes,
SLUA running for Republicans. With those four men in the race,
really anything could happen in terms of the percentages.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Right, Yes, I mean it's very conceivable that the next
mayor of New York could be elected with little over
one third of the vote. Because there's a case to
be made in some sense for each of these four candidate.
Andrew Cuoma will probably I would expect he is going
to follow through and run as an independent, and of
(09:51):
course he is a former governor and while he's been
hit with all these charges of sexual harassment, it was
forced to resign. He is a guy who's experienced in
the democratic realm, extremely moderate compared to the rest of
the party. Then you've got Mondani, who appeals to progressives
(10:12):
and young people in particular. You've got Eric Adams, who
has the advantages of incumbency in the sense that he's
not a right winger, but he is in his heart,
I think, tough on crime and a fairly no nonsense
guy who just has just not kind of been up
(10:33):
to the job. But I think he's significant enough of
a factor to pick up twenty twenty five percent of
the vote. And then you've got Curtis Sleewah, who would
really need to have the other three split their portion
of the votes in thirds for Curtis Sleewah to be
(10:57):
elected mayor. I don't think a guy that goes around
in a in a red what kind of camp do
you call that?
Speaker 1 (11:04):
That?
Speaker 3 (11:06):
You've obviously been that just a French politician, Tim, because
that is for the French politicians, or at least it
wasn't Charles the gold Well.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
It has been It has been for Curtiss Sleepwhaffer as
long as anybody has seen him on the public stage.
So this is not over yet, but I do think
that it indicates to the rest of the nation that
the Democratic Party has just going completely off the rails.
They don't know, they don't know where they're going. They
(11:38):
are acting as if November didn't happen, that they can
oppose Trump and stop him, even though he is dominating
the news, dominating the headlines, successfully taking on the Iran
nuclear threat and all the rest of it, and they
(12:00):
have no answer. But their answer in New York was
to double down on Kamada Harris. And you know what,
people generally get the leaders they deserve. And if this
man Mondummy is elected mayor, they're really going to know
what it means to get what you deserve, because it
(12:22):
will be I'm not going to say the end of
days for New York, but it will be the end
of days for the New York that those of us
who grew up there and have been related to whose
parents and relatives have lived there for years, not the
(12:42):
same place that we grew up in.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I would say to him that that's part of his
appeal to the young budding socialists, isn't it, Because there's
a certain degree of wanting to burn down the system
build a new so they borrow, you know, one hundred
and fifty year old political theory from.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Comments that's failed every time. It's failed every time they
try it.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Socialists, Hey, let's be fair, you know, I mean not
all of them have ended up digging mass graves, just
the vast majority. All the other ones are just being
miserably poor.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Well, what they try to do with this is to say, no,
we're not socialists on the Cuban model or the Venezuelan model.
We're socialists on the Swedish model, the Northern European model,
where we conscate. They confiscate all your money, but they
don't try to stop you from protesting or doing whatever
(13:46):
it is you feel like doing, because there's so much
limit to it, because of the fact that the confiscatory
tax rate in Western Europe anyway provide no freedom.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
I should point this out that pretty much every leader
of the so called Scandinavian socialist models has denied that
they are actually socialist. They have they have that that's
not what we are. Where there are countries that have
a big free market principles behind them, encouraging business, encouraging wealth, creation.
(14:26):
But at the same time they're they're as you say,
they're confiscating quite a bit of that to create what
they consider a good safety net. But yeah, that they
themselves socialist in any way.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Well, but this might offended by the idea, but it's
quite offended.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Why wouldn't they be Why wouldn't they be offended by them?
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Well, look, it may not be what they call themselves,
but it is what is widely attributed to them, and
which has been adapted and adopted by the likes of
Bernie Sanders to say, yeah, I want the best of
democracy and socialism rolled into what And so what you
(15:12):
wind up with is you know better than me. It's
low growth, high tax economies without incentives for people to
risk take start businesses in the like the government just
dominates everything.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
But from the European perspective, there's something else to that
tim as well that I think maybe our American listeners
will will find quite interesting. So, this swing towards as
you say, high tax, low growth economies, it's quite recent.
It's quite recent. But what was in place before there
was these large infrastructure things. Let's take the United Kingdom
(15:52):
for example, there was the national there still is the
National Health Service. There was a great educational system. There
are all these systems that were in place before the
before it started moving towards this, oh, you know, a
little more socialism, a little more socialism, and now the
National Health Service is really it's crumbling under its own weight.
(16:16):
It's it's difficult to to use as a user unless
you're talking emergency services. Everything else is just for so
many people, just a real struggle. And so what's happening
is as they're moving more towards this idea of hey,
you know, socialism could work a little, the structures and
institutions that were built before it are now crumbling because
(16:39):
they can't be maintained at the level that they were before.
So the they're they're living on the fumes of past
glory and saying, look at what we have in our
ever increasing realms of socialism, and it's just that it's
a con really, it's.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It's it's false glory because I mean, honestly, socialism has
failed every single place it was tried. In the end,
those economies cannot sustain the kind of public spending that
is required to maintain a truly socialist or democratic socialist agenda.
(17:24):
And governance and policies. It just isn't possible. They just
can't stand the idea that, as Winston Churchill once said
about democracies, the same could be said for capitalism. It's
the worst of all systems except for all the others.
They simply can't accept that, for all of its flaws
and the greed that it spawns and the like, that
(17:47):
capitalism is the only way to incentivize human behavior.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
Yeah, well, and of course you are and you know
this as well, You know this very well, that you
are using a term created by the enemies of free
markets by calling it capitalism because well.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Okay, but they don't get to have the unique and
soul use rates for that term, so we can use
it too. And part of the reason people use it
on the right and libertarians is to throw it back
in their faces. You know. It's sort of like the
(18:28):
supporters of Donald Trump who used his mugshot when he
went into prison and put it on T shirts like
back at you in your face.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Absolutely. Right now, we're going to be talking which path
the Democratic Party is following, and also whether the Maga
Party has found its group. We'll be right back after
the shortbreak.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
No that th it was free freedom of.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and red.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangelites, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Andrew back on Libity Nation Radio or Amania. Host Mark
Angeley's we're continuing our long conversation with Tim Dinner, senior
political analyst over at Libitynation dot com. Now, Tim, we
really run a number of subjects already in this show,
but I would like to continue briefly with what we're
talking about free markets and how the term capitalism is
(19:44):
used as it is often used as a negative because
it's created as a negative term. But as you say,
it's being thrown back in the face of those who
generated as an in your face kind of rebuttal that
there's something that I always have to say this, and
I'm sure our listeners will get bored of it eventually,
because I do mention it quite a lot. Is the
(20:05):
thing that has dragged the most people out of poverty
in the history of the world ever, is the free market.
And I think that it's done so because in some
ways it's an uncontrollable beast, and there are negatives that
come with that. I freely acknowledge that. But it's an
(20:27):
uncontrollable beast that can spawn heads like a hydrate, in
a thousand different directions, and the ones that are viable,
the ones that work, the ones that do the most
good for the most people, and therefore the most people
get behind it and thereby create a circuit for its success.
It's dragged, it's dragged people kicking and screaming into the
(20:52):
kitchen where they'll find food, electricity, clean water, and they'll
be healthy whilst doing it. And anything that seeks to
diminish the role of a free market or regulate a
free market does so at the risk of stifling something
that could be the very the most important thing to
(21:14):
bring the next ten million people into the modern world,
into a healthful life, into having food on the table.
So I worry when we end up with the central
planners talking about how they're going to have government administer things.
And this brings me nicely. I think back to the
new Democratic candidate for New York who wants to have
(21:37):
city run, city owned supermarkets tell me it can work to.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
What could go wrong? Mark? What could go wrong? He
also wants to do free transportation on the city's bus system,
and I'll give him this for bluntness and honesty. He said,
I'm going to do this. I'm going to have universal
health care, free passage on buses, and all sorts of
(22:07):
associated socialist style perks. And before you ask how I'm
going to pay for it, I'll tell you I'm going
to tax the rich.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
So at least he's honest.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
At least at least he says exactly what he means.
And you can be sure that you know the people
of means, shall we say, the shakers and movers to
people you know who become wealthy as they live in
New York or already putting into place tentative plans to
(22:42):
move out of there. If this guy is elected mayor,
I can tell you it's you know, there's been an
exodus away from New York and away from California. We
all know it. It's a historical fact to the extent
that there may be a turnover of twelve of congressional
seats from blue to red states if things continue as
(23:06):
they are. When the next census is done in twenty thirty.
That'll tell you more than anything else about the exodus
from blue to red.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Yeah, it's I did some maths on this, and it
would there's obviously the fact that illegal aliens are also
counted in the census, and that is diluted. Now, based
on my math, it works out. I did this unlike
(23:38):
at the back of an envelope, triggering it out, but
I'm fairly sure it's about right. But it works out
for each Lower House seat, it's about seven hundred and
forty ish thousand representatives for each thing, so at least
three seats have been diluted to one part of the
other other, and this mostly benefits the Blue. Now you
(24:01):
say two to three seats in the current Congress, well,
that's hardly anything out of four hundred and thirty five.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Boy, it is.
Speaker 3 (24:08):
It is, especially because it's capped at four hundred and
thirty five, right, there's not like some extra ones. It's
so those ones that are diluted, right, and you've got
what You've got a margin of literally just a couple
of seats between the majorities and minorities. Two to three
seats makes a difference, makes it makes all the difference
in the world. I might say, well, you see.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
That California, in New York and Illinois and Pennsylvania have
already lost electoral votes in congressional districts during in the
twenty twenty census, and Florida and Texas and other red
(24:53):
states have added electoral votes. So with Florida it actually
changes We're off on a bit of a bunny trail,
but what the heck? You know, it actually changes the
whole formulation of how the Democrats have had an electoral
college lock for so long because they start out with
automatic votes in New York, California, and Illinois, which puts
(25:16):
them near halfway home before they even start counting the
swing states. But with Florida now a reliable forty one
is it forty one or I'm saying that's Texas. But
you put Texas and Florida together, with Florida now deep
red and Texas reliably read, those are over seventy electoral votes.
(25:41):
So all of a sudden, there's no automatic Democratic advantage
in the electoral college.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
So let's talk about the Democratic Party for a moment. So,
putting aside what's happened in New York, this last week.
I feel that they're failing to find their mojo in
terms of what do they need to be represented to
become a viable oppositional force against the Republicans, which is
(26:11):
what they should be, right. I mean that there's there's
no good having a UNI party. It's good that there's
there's pushback on both sides, but I feel they're not
really living up to an oppositional party, the one because
they don't know what they want other than to criticize
Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Yes, and I think that.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
That was the other Yes, that's they're just criticize.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well, you ask for a one word answer, there's one
word answer.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Let's go for the longer one.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Now, well, let's use the latest exhibit, your honor. I'll
allow it before the court, which is that you know,
once Trump dropped the big ones on Iran, there were
a few, there were a few Democrats who were willing
(27:03):
to call a spade a spade and say this was
a brilliant military operation. And I really respect those people
because you know, they're going to look at something really
obvious and state the obvious, which it is that it
was an overwhelming success. But instead instead of what the
(27:26):
few did in the Democratic part of the overwhelming majority
reacted by saying it was unauthorized. He should have held
a debate on the House floor about a secret operation
to take out Iran. Sure they would keep that in house,
nothing from that would leak. And now they're trying to
(27:48):
say that.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
Adam Schiff would be having twelve toilet breaks there, I guarantee.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Well. And their spin is that Trump exaggerations the level
of damage because a preliminary report from one defense agency
out of about nineteen with a low confidence rating. I
(28:14):
might add, yes, they said, this is a preliminary finding
with low confidence. We present this report, and yet this
is what they're flying with. Well, all they can do
is pack away. Now, they could have said, for example, Mark,
they could have you know, lauded the mission without ever
(28:35):
mentioning Trump. They could have said, we really, we really
are grateful for patriotic pilots of those B twos that
dropped the Big ones uh and and the Navy and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
head of Scent Coom and all the rest, without ever
(28:58):
mentioning Trump. But instead what they did was they had
to peck away at Trump, which was like you know, Okay,
so they only devastated the Iran nuclear program, they didn't
destroy it. So what's the expression Trump was lying? She
(29:20):
it's the attitude, more than the actual war words that
have put the Democrats in a position where I mean,
they offer nothing to nobody.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I should I should point out I should point out
as well, Tim, that there's a lot of confusion going
around on social media because there's reports from something called
the Atomic Energy Organization and people are just quoting the
Atomic Energy Organization says this that Iran moved the things
(29:54):
weeks in advance and knew this was coming. And everybody
who's putting that out and it really is gained a
lot of traction on social media. Yes, everybody who's putting
that out, they should use the complete name of the organization,
which nobody seems to do. Do you know why, Tim,
It's called the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
That's that's what it is.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
So there's a there's actually there's an atomic I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
That was a trick.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
That was a trick.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Question.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
There's an Atomic Energy Agency which isn't saying this, which
is a big important multi is different. But everybody's quoting
this one and they're all leaving off the last bit
of that organization's name, which is of Iran Iraq.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Right, so we can take we can take believe that
Iranian media state controlled media.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
The good thing about the state controlled media in Iran, though,
is that they can claim that they gained revenge against
the US for the attacks and the nuclear facilities, even
though it was a week showing in response. But nobody's
going to challenge them because there is no competing media
(31:07):
in Iran. There's only a state run media. But you know,
they look very small and petty doing this. And look,
that's not to discount the people who truly are concerned
that this will lead to a wider war. I'm not
saying that because there's people on both sides that are
(31:29):
very concerned about that. But so far it's been contained
to a degree that I think it's really it's quite surprising.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Mark, very much, sir. We're going to be back containing
this conversation. If this show great, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
And you're back for a final segment on Liberty Nation
Radio marc Ansley's We're with Tim Donner. So Tim, there's
there's been a lot of talk about when the Iran
Israel conflict first started, there was a lot of talk
about how Donald Trump shouldn't get involved, even from his
own base, and then he went and dropped the bomb
(32:15):
the bombs, and I wondered if there was a fracture
there within his core Maga Basse and I wonder. I
think Matt Walsh from The Daily Why I had a
pretty good take on this, an interesting take at least,
but it's one that I have seen echo and that's
kind of a if this was a one shot and done.
(32:37):
We did it. We didn't put any troops on the ground,
We've ended the nuclear program. That's it, We're out. Then okay.
You know, I think his base will pretty much stick
with him on this because it was a national security threat.
I mean since I was since I've been born, there's
been rumblings in Iran and rattling of sabers about the
(33:02):
Evil West and how they're going to destroy it since
I was born, and everybody in the international community is
saying Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, but nobody had
a way to do it. And then Trump did it,
and he promised that he'd do it as well. Funnily enough,
he did say, you know, under my watch, Iran can't
have a nuclear weapon. And I think that his base
(33:26):
they'll accept this one deal. It's done. He's disrupted or
destroyed the nuclear programs, but I think any further involvement
might be risking his in built popularity.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Well, oh, to be sure, nothing breeds success like success,
it's been said, and I think you've seen Poles. I'm sure,
like I have mark that a majority of the American
people disapproved of bombing Iran. And you know that the
(33:58):
true mega acolytes Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and some members
of Congress, including most famously the gad fly Thomas Massey,
have spoken out against this yeah happening. They did before
the before Trump's strikes. And look, I think I think
(34:23):
a movement is actually strengthened when there's honest, intellectual debate
about major decisions. I think it's good when a party
doesn't just fall in line because my president says that
I have to automatically not even think about it. I
think that's a healthy thing for a movement, or you know,
(34:44):
for a political party writ large. It is and you know,
you're you're seeing that now. But I think in terms
of the general population that didn't support these strikes and
the base that didn't support these drikes, I think if
they prove to be successful, if they prove to really
(35:07):
lead to the dawn of a new day in the
Middle East, I think those numbers are going to change
dramatically because I think a lot of the disapproval comes
from abject fear of another another Middle Eastern war, and
nobody wants that, least of all, least of all Donald Trump.
(35:29):
But you know, it's really shallow to say that because
you're a peacemaker, you can never use the strength of
your own defenses or your own military. Sometimes peacemakers have
to use the threat of action in order to generate peace.
(35:51):
And this is what Ronald Reagan did. We've seen this
happen repeatedly in history, where the threat of strength leads
to peace. Actually, if you are like Donald Trump, committed
to peace at all costs, including protecting against not just
what's going to happen tomorrow, but in the case of Iran,
what might happen next year or five years or ten
(36:13):
years down the line.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
It's yeah, you're absolutely right. I just reminded jd Vance
basically tried to paraphrase Reagan recently when he was I
think he was at a like a donor's dinner in Idaho,
and I've got the quote in front of me. He said.
What I call the Trump doctrine is quite simple. Number One,
you articulate a clear American interest, and that's in this
(36:38):
case that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Number Two,
you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. Number Three,
when you can't solve it, diplomatically, use overwhelming military power
to solve it, and then you get the hell out
before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Now that's pretty much it.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
That's it, right, that's the whole thing. Yeah. I mean,
I think Reagan said it in twelve words or less,
but that was the quipper for you, the gibber.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
The quipper from the gibber.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
Final thoughts on this, We've seen the Democrats in the
Lower House, the lower Chamber reject in the process of
impeachment over this matter, from which were brought by al Green.
I think just seventy nine people voted alongside al Green.
The rest rejected it. But do you think that now
(37:33):
that the world community, as we saw at the NATO
Alliance meeting, is kind of backing Donald Trump. And this
includes a lot of people who are politically on the left,
backing what Donald Trump did in Iran? Do you think
that he will get a little more leeway back on
the domestic front now that the overseas politicians who allegedly
(37:55):
kept telling Joe Biden that they were glad the adult
was back in charge. Not that therever said it themselves,
just we heard it through jubon final word ones. Do
you think he'll get a little more leeway with foreign
affairs now that he seems to be the big gorilla
in the international room.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Well, I think you know, the difference between Donald Trump's
first NATO meeting in twenty seventeen and the one here
in twenty twenty five is really like night and day.
I mean, at that point, he was a controversial winner
of the election, he lost the popular vote, and he
had become a pariah by basically saying NATO needs to
(38:35):
step up and fulfill their two percent commitment to NATO
of their budget. Now it's up to five percent and
they're willingly doing it, and they're embracing Trump and all
that he did for a simple reason. Mark, he really
saved not just the US in Israel, but he saved
(38:56):
anything from headaches to holocaust for overall other nations, year
Iran in the Arab world.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
Yeah, America doesn't have kings, but he was treated like
one at night. Tim Donner, thanks ever so much for
joining us.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Thank you MARKA.
Speaker 3 (39:13):
What's fun and that's all we have time for on
today's edition of Liberty Nation radio head coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I've been your host, Mark
Angeley's I'd like to thank you our special guest today,
longtime host of this year radio show and Liberty Nations
senior printical analyst, Tim Donner, And of course thank you
the listeners at home each and every week for taking
the time to tune in and join us for some liberty.
(39:33):
You are appreciated. Please do remember the Liberty Nation does
not endorse candidates, campaigns, nor legislation, and this presentation is
no endorsement
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No that it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello and welcome to Libty Nation Radio, Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelidis.
On today's edition, we are talking political pathways, who's gotten
lost and who knows where they're going? All that and
a whole lot more. Please do remember Liberty Nation Radio
sponsor by libutination dot com. You can access podcasts, breaking
news analysis, and a range of fighting and brilliant shows
(00:54):
to what your upside freedom and your fondness for the
great American Constitution and nation. Coast to Coast on the
Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Antheli's we're very
fortunate to have with us longtime host of this here
radio show and Libertine Nation senior political analyst, mister Tim Donner,
and for these purposes a New Yorker too. Hi, Tim,
thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Hell oh Mark, good to be here as always.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
So, Tim, I think what we really have to discuss
first and foremost is what happened in New York. We
had the Democratic primary this week just gone, and it
was one by somebody who isn't avowed socialist.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
What happened a democratic socialist, which is the politically acceptable
term for socialist, because that's what he is. He has
stirred up anti Semitic feelings in New York. He is,
as you say, a socialist who wants to basically run
(02:03):
the wealthy and corporations out of New York by raising
taxes to an even more inconceivably high level than the
ones that have already driven a lot of wealthy people
and corporations out of New York. The people who pay
the taxes, the people who you know, carry the burden
(02:24):
for all of the city services that were provided. For example,
as exhibit A, you know millions of illegal aliens who
were shipped there and then housed, fed, and taken care
of at taxpayer's expense. Now you know the Democrats must
(02:44):
have a really short memory. They can't even think back
to last November and what happened when a true progressive
in Kamala Harris, not that different than Mom d the
Muslim who won the Democratic primary, not that different. And
(03:07):
you saw what happened is that people roundly rejected that.
But beyond that, you would have thought they'd think back
to the days of Bill de Blasio, who, by the
time he left office, was at about twenty percent approval.
He was essentially I don't know what they he officially
called himself this or not, but he was a socialist,
(03:29):
quasi Marxist himself. The city went to hell. And that's
why they elected Eric Adams because he was the least
progressive and the most pro police of a field of
Democrats which were predictably progressive from end to end.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
So I should point out, hit Tim that we're not
even considering that New York could have elected a Republican. Oh,
we said they were the least progressive of the Democrats
because they're not going to elect a Republican.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Right, Well, they have in the past, of course, of course,
Julian he was, but Julian it was the only one
who was a real Republican as opposed to a Republican
in name only.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Like Michael Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Bloomberg who was by most accounts a very effective.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Mayor, but he was not a Democrat and Republican.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
You had John Lindsay, who was a disaster as an
extremely liberal Republican. It was basically to the left even
of the Democratic machine in New York.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
So let's let's talk about John Lindsay for a moment. Tim,
So John Lindsay nineteen sixty seven, I think sixty seven,
he's sixty.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Five was when he was first elected, and then he
sought re election in nineteen sixty nine, And I'm glad
you brought that up. I didn't even prompt you, but
I have a remarkable story from that year that involved
John Lindsay.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
If you would like, I'd love to hear it. I'd
love to hear it.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
So my father was pretty heavily involved in Republican and
conservative politics in New York City, which of course is
the expression goes to conservatives could have met in a
phone booth. But nevertheless, there was conservative resistance to a
left wing Democratic policy in New York. And when Lindsey,
(05:27):
who was becoming more and more unpopular, was running John
Lindsay for reelection in nineteen sixty nine. He was challenged
by an obscure Staten Island assemblyman named John Marky. Nobody
gave him any chance, of course, because he was underfunded,
out of the mainstream, and Lindsey was the you know,
(05:50):
it was a pretty boy who had risen to the
to the mayor's office. Long story short, although it's already long.
My father was invited along with me as a fourteen
year old to view the election returns at the candidate's headquarters,
(06:11):
as it turns out, probably a hotel suite.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Recall exactly, but I was there when the shocking result
came in that John Marky had beaten John Lindsey, and
it gave me, for the first and likely last time
in my life, the opportunity to see a candidate in
real time as he won an election, and he looked
(06:36):
as stunned as everybody else. But the point is that
when it came to the general election that November, Lindsey
ran as an independent and John Marky got crushed and
Lindsey got another term, but he did it as an independent,
which simply says that you cannot view in New York
(07:00):
any politics through the lens of national politics because there's
all kinds of crossovers. There's Conservative Party, Liberal party, people
run as independence frequently, as we just discussed, you can
lose a primary with the election and vice versa, so
it's like national politics.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Tim. You know, I'm going to leave our listeners with
the campaign slogan of John Lindin. I think I've got
this right. Before we come back after this short break,
I care about you. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio, our many host
Mark Anshley's we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nation senior
fitzical analyst Tim Don and o Tim earlier and so
we were talking about how New York politics are really
not national politic because you have a breakdown of different
parties and independents and third parties that have historically gotten involved.
(08:08):
And with the results of this last week's Democratic primary
mayoral election with Zohran Ma'amdani, I'm going to try and
get that right. Zochran Mamdani Mark winning on the first round, well,
(08:29):
not quite winning on the first round, but winning enough
votes on the first round to make Andrew Cuomo, a
three time governor, decide he's not going to make it.
As the subsequent rounds of voting come in, It's quite
fascinating that one of Cuomo's aides hinted that mister Cuomo
(08:50):
might just enter as a as an independent candidate or
a third party candidate, which also brings us to incumbent
Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running a third party
independent campaign. So if we end up with those three
gentlemen buying for the mayorship on the left, and naturally
(09:15):
who's fast becoming a perennial in New York polities, yes,
SLUA running for Republicans. With those four men in the race,
really anything could happen in terms of the percentages.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Right, Yes, I mean it's very conceivable that the next
mayor of New York could be elected with little over
one third of the vote. Because there's a case to
be made in some sense for each of these four candidate.
Andrew Cuoma will probably I would expect he is going
to follow through and run as an independent, and of
(09:51):
course he is a former governor and while he's been
hit with all these charges of sexual harassment, it was
forced to resign. He is a guy who's experienced in
the democratic realm, extremely moderate compared to the rest of
the party. Then you've got Mondani, who appeals to progressives
(10:12):
and young people in particular. You've got Eric Adams, who
has the advantages of incumbency in the sense that he's
not a right winger, but he is in his heart,
I think, tough on crime and a fairly no nonsense
guy who just has just not kind of been up
(10:33):
to the job. But I think he's significant enough of
a factor to pick up twenty twenty five percent of
the vote. And then you've got Curtis Sleewah, who would
really need to have the other three split their portion
of the votes in thirds for Curtis Sleewah to be
(10:57):
elected mayor. I don't think a guy that goes around
in a in a red what kind of camp do
you call that?
Speaker 1 (11:04):
That?
Speaker 3 (11:06):
You've obviously been that just a French politician, Tim, because
that is for the French politicians, or at least it
wasn't Charles the gold Well.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
It has been It has been for Curtiss Sleepwhaffer as
long as anybody has seen him on the public stage.
So this is not over yet, but I do think
that it indicates to the rest of the nation that
the Democratic Party has just going completely off the rails.
They don't know, they don't know where they're going. They
(11:38):
are acting as if November didn't happen, that they can
oppose Trump and stop him, even though he is dominating
the news, dominating the headlines, successfully taking on the Iran
nuclear threat and all the rest of it, and they
(12:00):
have no answer. But their answer in New York was
to double down on Kamada Harris. And you know what,
people generally get the leaders they deserve. And if this
man Mondummy is elected mayor, they're really going to know
what it means to get what you deserve, because it
(12:22):
will be I'm not going to say the end of
days for New York, but it will be the end
of days for the New York that those of us
who grew up there and have been related to whose
parents and relatives have lived there for years, not the
(12:42):
same place that we grew up in.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I would say to him that that's part of his
appeal to the young budding socialists, isn't it, Because there's
a certain degree of wanting to burn down the system
build a new so they borrow, you know, one hundred
and fifty year old political theory from.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Comments that's failed every time. It's failed every time they
try it.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Socialists, Hey, let's be fair, you know, I mean not
all of them have ended up digging mass graves, just
the vast majority. All the other ones are just being
miserably poor.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Well, what they try to do with this is to say, no,
we're not socialists on the Cuban model or the Venezuelan model.
We're socialists on the Swedish model, the Northern European model,
where we conscate. They confiscate all your money, but they
don't try to stop you from protesting or doing whatever
(13:46):
it is you feel like doing, because there's so much
limit to it, because of the fact that the confiscatory
tax rate in Western Europe anyway provide no freedom.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
I should point this out that pretty much every leader
of the so called Scandinavian socialist models has denied that
they are actually socialist. They have they have that that's
not what we are. Where there are countries that have
a big free market principles behind them, encouraging business, encouraging wealth, creation.
(14:26):
But at the same time they're they're as you say,
they're confiscating quite a bit of that to create what
they consider a good safety net. But yeah, that they
themselves socialist in any way.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Well, but this might offended by the idea, but it's
quite offended.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Why wouldn't they be Why wouldn't they be offended by them?
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Well, look, it may not be what they call themselves,
but it is what is widely attributed to them, and
which has been adapted and adopted by the likes of
Bernie Sanders to say, yeah, I want the best of
democracy and socialism rolled into what And so what you
(15:12):
wind up with is you know better than me. It's
low growth, high tax economies without incentives for people to
risk take start businesses in the like the government just
dominates everything.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
But from the European perspective, there's something else to that
tim as well that I think maybe our American listeners
will will find quite interesting. So, this swing towards as
you say, high tax, low growth economies, it's quite recent.
It's quite recent. But what was in place before there
was these large infrastructure things. Let's take the United Kingdom
(15:52):
for example, there was the national there still is the
National Health Service. There was a great educational system. There
are all these systems that were in place before the
before it started moving towards this, oh, you know, a
little more socialism, a little more socialism, and now the
National Health Service is really it's crumbling under its own weight.
(16:16):
It's it's difficult to to use as a user unless
you're talking emergency services. Everything else is just for so
many people, just a real struggle. And so what's happening
is as they're moving more towards this idea of hey,
you know, socialism could work a little, the structures and
institutions that were built before it are now crumbling because
(16:39):
they can't be maintained at the level that they were before.
So the they're they're living on the fumes of past
glory and saying, look at what we have in our
ever increasing realms of socialism, and it's just that it's
a con really, it's.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It's it's false glory because I mean, honestly, socialism has
failed every single place it was tried. In the end,
those economies cannot sustain the kind of public spending that
is required to maintain a truly socialist or democratic socialist agenda.
(17:24):
And governance and policies. It just isn't possible. They just
can't stand the idea that, as Winston Churchill once said
about democracies, the same could be said for capitalism. It's
the worst of all systems except for all the others.
They simply can't accept that, for all of its flaws
and the greed that it spawns and the like, that
(17:47):
capitalism is the only way to incentivize human behavior.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
Yeah, well, and of course you are and you know
this as well, You know this very well, that you
are using a term created by the enemies of free
markets by calling it capitalism because well.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Okay, but they don't get to have the unique and
soul use rates for that term, so we can use
it too. And part of the reason people use it
on the right and libertarians is to throw it back
in their faces. You know. It's sort of like the
(18:28):
supporters of Donald Trump who used his mugshot when he
went into prison and put it on T shirts like
back at you in your face.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Absolutely. Right now, we're going to be talking which path
the Democratic Party is following, and also whether the Maga
Party has found its group. We'll be right back after
the shortbreak.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
No that th it was free freedom of.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and red.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangelites, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Andrew back on Libity Nation Radio or Amania. Host Mark
Angeley's we're continuing our long conversation with Tim Dinner, senior
political analyst over at Libitynation dot com. Now, Tim, we
really run a number of subjects already in this show,
but I would like to continue briefly with what we're
talking about free markets and how the term capitalism is
(19:44):
used as it is often used as a negative because
it's created as a negative term. But as you say,
it's being thrown back in the face of those who
generated as an in your face kind of rebuttal that
there's something that I always have to say this, and
I'm sure our listeners will get bored of it eventually,
because I do mention it quite a lot. Is the
(20:05):
thing that has dragged the most people out of poverty
in the history of the world ever, is the free market.
And I think that it's done so because in some
ways it's an uncontrollable beast, and there are negatives that
come with that. I freely acknowledge that. But it's an
(20:27):
uncontrollable beast that can spawn heads like a hydrate, in
a thousand different directions, and the ones that are viable,
the ones that work, the ones that do the most
good for the most people, and therefore the most people
get behind it and thereby create a circuit for its success.
It's dragged, it's dragged people kicking and screaming into the
(20:52):
kitchen where they'll find food, electricity, clean water, and they'll
be healthy whilst doing it. And anything that seeks to
diminish the role of a free market or regulate a
free market does so at the risk of stifling something
that could be the very the most important thing to
(21:14):
bring the next ten million people into the modern world,
into a healthful life, into having food on the table.
So I worry when we end up with the central
planners talking about how they're going to have government administer things.
And this brings me nicely. I think back to the
new Democratic candidate for New York who wants to have
(21:37):
city run, city owned supermarkets tell me it can work to.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
What could go wrong? Mark? What could go wrong? He
also wants to do free transportation on the city's bus system,
and I'll give him this for bluntness and honesty. He said,
I'm going to do this. I'm going to have universal
health care, free passage on buses, and all sorts of
(22:07):
associated socialist style perks. And before you ask how I'm
going to pay for it, I'll tell you I'm going
to tax the rich.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
So at least he's honest.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
At least at least he says exactly what he means.
And you can be sure that you know the people
of means, shall we say, the shakers and movers to
people you know who become wealthy as they live in
New York or already putting into place tentative plans to
(22:42):
move out of there. If this guy is elected mayor,
I can tell you it's you know, there's been an
exodus away from New York and away from California. We
all know it. It's a historical fact to the extent
that there may be a turnover of twelve of congressional
seats from blue to red states if things continue as
(23:06):
they are. When the next census is done in twenty thirty.
That'll tell you more than anything else about the exodus
from blue to red.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Yeah, it's I did some maths on this, and it
would there's obviously the fact that illegal aliens are also
counted in the census, and that is diluted. Now, based
on my math, it works out. I did this unlike
(23:38):
at the back of an envelope, triggering it out, but
I'm fairly sure it's about right. But it works out
for each Lower House seat, it's about seven hundred and
forty ish thousand representatives for each thing, so at least
three seats have been diluted to one part of the
other other, and this mostly benefits the Blue. Now you
(24:01):
say two to three seats in the current Congress, well,
that's hardly anything out of four hundred and thirty five.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Boy, it is.
Speaker 3 (24:08):
It is, especially because it's capped at four hundred and
thirty five, right, there's not like some extra ones. It's
so those ones that are diluted, right, and you've got
what You've got a margin of literally just a couple
of seats between the majorities and minorities. Two to three
seats makes a difference, makes it makes all the difference
in the world. I might say, well, you see.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
That California, in New York and Illinois and Pennsylvania have
already lost electoral votes in congressional districts during in the
twenty twenty census, and Florida and Texas and other red
(24:53):
states have added electoral votes. So with Florida it actually
changes We're off on a bit of a bunny trail,
but what the heck? You know, it actually changes the
whole formulation of how the Democrats have had an electoral
college lock for so long because they start out with
automatic votes in New York, California, and Illinois, which puts
(25:16):
them near halfway home before they even start counting the
swing states. But with Florida now a reliable forty one
is it forty one or I'm saying that's Texas. But
you put Texas and Florida together, with Florida now deep
red and Texas reliably read, those are over seventy electoral votes.
(25:41):
So all of a sudden, there's no automatic Democratic advantage
in the electoral college.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
So let's talk about the Democratic Party for a moment. So,
putting aside what's happened in New York, this last week.
I feel that they're failing to find their mojo in
terms of what do they need to be represented to
become a viable oppositional force against the Republicans, which is
(26:11):
what they should be, right. I mean that there's there's
no good having a UNI party. It's good that there's
there's pushback on both sides, but I feel they're not
really living up to an oppositional party, the one because
they don't know what they want other than to criticize
Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Yes, and I think that.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
That was the other Yes, that's they're just criticize.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well, you ask for a one word answer, there's one
word answer.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Let's go for the longer one.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Now, well, let's use the latest exhibit, your honor. I'll
allow it before the court, which is that you know,
once Trump dropped the big ones on Iran, there were
a few, there were a few Democrats who were willing
(27:03):
to call a spade a spade and say this was
a brilliant military operation. And I really respect those people
because you know, they're going to look at something really
obvious and state the obvious, which it is that it
was an overwhelming success. But instead instead of what the
(27:26):
few did in the Democratic part of the overwhelming majority
reacted by saying it was unauthorized. He should have held
a debate on the House floor about a secret operation
to take out Iran. Sure they would keep that in house,
nothing from that would leak. And now they're trying to
(27:48):
say that.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
Adam Schiff would be having twelve toilet breaks there, I guarantee.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Well. And their spin is that Trump exaggerations the level
of damage because a preliminary report from one defense agency
out of about nineteen with a low confidence rating. I
(28:14):
might add, yes, they said, this is a preliminary finding
with low confidence. We present this report, and yet this
is what they're flying with. Well, all they can do
is pack away. Now, they could have said, for example, Mark,
they could have you know, lauded the mission without ever
(28:35):
mentioning Trump. They could have said, we really, we really
are grateful for patriotic pilots of those B twos that
dropped the Big ones uh and and the Navy and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
head of Scent Coom and all the rest, without ever
(28:58):
mentioning Trump. But instead what they did was they had
to peck away at Trump, which was like you know, Okay,
so they only devastated the Iran nuclear program, they didn't
destroy it. So what's the expression Trump was lying? She
(29:20):
it's the attitude, more than the actual war words that
have put the Democrats in a position where I mean,
they offer nothing to nobody.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I should I should point out I should point out
as well, Tim, that there's a lot of confusion going
around on social media because there's reports from something called
the Atomic Energy Organization and people are just quoting the
Atomic Energy Organization says this that Iran moved the things
(29:54):
weeks in advance and knew this was coming. And everybody
who's putting that out and it really is gained a
lot of traction on social media. Yes, everybody who's putting
that out, they should use the complete name of the organization,
which nobody seems to do. Do you know why, Tim,
It's called the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
That's that's what it is.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
So there's a there's actually there's an atomic I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
That was a trick.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
That was a trick.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Question.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
There's an Atomic Energy Agency which isn't saying this, which
is a big important multi is different. But everybody's quoting
this one and they're all leaving off the last bit
of that organization's name, which is of Iran Iraq.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Right, so we can take we can take believe that
Iranian media state controlled media.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
The good thing about the state controlled media in Iran, though,
is that they can claim that they gained revenge against
the US for the attacks and the nuclear facilities, even
though it was a week showing in response. But nobody's
going to challenge them because there is no competing media
(31:07):
in Iran. There's only a state run media. But you know,
they look very small and petty doing this. And look,
that's not to discount the people who truly are concerned
that this will lead to a wider war. I'm not
saying that because there's people on both sides that are
(31:29):
very concerned about that. But so far it's been contained
to a degree that I think it's really it's quite surprising.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Mark, very much, sir. We're going to be back containing
this conversation. If this show great, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
And you're back for a final segment on Liberty Nation
Radio marc Ansley's We're with Tim Donner. So Tim, there's
there's been a lot of talk about when the Iran
Israel conflict first started, there was a lot of talk
about how Donald Trump shouldn't get involved, even from his
own base, and then he went and dropped the bomb
(32:15):
the bombs, and I wondered if there was a fracture
there within his core Maga Basse and I wonder. I
think Matt Walsh from The Daily Why I had a
pretty good take on this, an interesting take at least,
but it's one that I have seen echo and that's
kind of a if this was a one shot and done.
(32:37):
We did it. We didn't put any troops on the ground,
We've ended the nuclear program. That's it, We're out. Then okay.
You know, I think his base will pretty much stick
with him on this because it was a national security threat.
I mean since I was since I've been born, there's
been rumblings in Iran and rattling of sabers about the
(33:02):
Evil West and how they're going to destroy it since
I was born, and everybody in the international community is
saying Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, but nobody had
a way to do it. And then Trump did it,
and he promised that he'd do it as well. Funnily enough,
he did say, you know, under my watch, Iran can't
have a nuclear weapon. And I think that his base
(33:26):
they'll accept this one deal. It's done. He's disrupted or
destroyed the nuclear programs, but I think any further involvement
might be risking his in built popularity.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Well, oh, to be sure, nothing breeds success like success,
it's been said, and I think you've seen Poles. I'm sure,
like I have mark that a majority of the American
people disapproved of bombing Iran. And you know that the
(33:58):
true mega acolytes Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and some members
of Congress, including most famously the gad fly Thomas Massey,
have spoken out against this yeah happening. They did before
the before Trump's strikes. And look, I think I think
(34:23):
a movement is actually strengthened when there's honest, intellectual debate
about major decisions. I think it's good when a party
doesn't just fall in line because my president says that
I have to automatically not even think about it. I
think that's a healthy thing for a movement, or you know,
(34:44):
for a political party writ large. It is and you know,
you're you're seeing that now. But I think in terms
of the general population that didn't support these strikes and
the base that didn't support these drikes, I think if
they prove to be successful, if they prove to really
(35:07):
lead to the dawn of a new day in the
Middle East, I think those numbers are going to change
dramatically because I think a lot of the disapproval comes
from abject fear of another another Middle Eastern war, and
nobody wants that, least of all, least of all Donald Trump.
(35:29):
But you know, it's really shallow to say that because
you're a peacemaker, you can never use the strength of
your own defenses or your own military. Sometimes peacemakers have
to use the threat of action in order to generate peace.
(35:51):
And this is what Ronald Reagan did. We've seen this
happen repeatedly in history, where the threat of strength leads
to peace. Actually, if you are like Donald Trump, committed
to peace at all costs, including protecting against not just
what's going to happen tomorrow, but in the case of Iran,
what might happen next year or five years or ten
(36:13):
years down the line.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
It's yeah, you're absolutely right. I just reminded jd Vance
basically tried to paraphrase Reagan recently when he was I
think he was at a like a donor's dinner in Idaho,
and I've got the quote in front of me. He said.
What I call the Trump doctrine is quite simple. Number One,
you articulate a clear American interest, and that's in this
(36:38):
case that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Number Two,
you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. Number Three,
when you can't solve it, diplomatically, use overwhelming military power
to solve it, and then you get the hell out
before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Now that's pretty much it.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
That's it, right, that's the whole thing. Yeah. I mean,
I think Reagan said it in twelve words or less,
but that was the quipper for you, the gibber.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
The quipper from the gibber.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
Final thoughts on this, We've seen the Democrats in the
Lower House, the lower Chamber reject in the process of
impeachment over this matter, from which were brought by al Green.
I think just seventy nine people voted alongside al Green.
The rest rejected it. But do you think that now
(37:33):
that the world community, as we saw at the NATO
Alliance meeting, is kind of backing Donald Trump. And this
includes a lot of people who are politically on the left,
backing what Donald Trump did in Iran? Do you think
that he will get a little more leeway back on
the domestic front now that the overseas politicians who allegedly
(37:55):
kept telling Joe Biden that they were glad the adult
was back in charge. Not that therever said it themselves,
just we heard it through jubon final word ones. Do
you think he'll get a little more leeway with foreign
affairs now that he seems to be the big gorilla
in the international room.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Well, I think you know, the difference between Donald Trump's
first NATO meeting in twenty seventeen and the one here
in twenty twenty five is really like night and day.
I mean, at that point, he was a controversial winner
of the election, he lost the popular vote, and he
had become a pariah by basically saying NATO needs to
(38:35):
step up and fulfill their two percent commitment to NATO
of their budget. Now it's up to five percent and
they're willingly doing it, and they're embracing Trump and all
that he did for a simple reason. Mark, he really
saved not just the US in Israel, but he saved
(38:56):
anything from headaches to holocaust for overall other nations, year
Iran in the Arab world.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
Yeah, America doesn't have kings, but he was treated like
one at night. Tim Donner, thanks ever so much for
joining us.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Thank you MARKA.
Speaker 3 (39:13):
What's fun and that's all we have time for on
today's edition of Liberty Nation radio head coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I've been your host, Mark
Angeley's I'd like to thank you our special guest today,
longtime host of this year radio show and Liberty Nations
senior printical analyst, Tim Donner, And of course thank you
the listeners at home each and every week for taking
the time to tune in and join us for some liberty.
(39:33):
You are appreciated. Please do remember the Liberty Nation does
not endorse candidates, campaigns, nor legislation, and this presentation is
no endorsement
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.