Open, For Now

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yes, welcome to the show. Ready the number one most
listened to podcast on Fluid, So join us now. As
we discussed news, politics, current events, and so much more,
but through the airwaves and strapped in as we.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Do constitution because.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
The Bird broadcasting live from Weapini SAFT Production Studio B.
Welcome to the Ho Host Show and as always I'm
your host, Ho Ho. So, hey, y'all's doing I hope
you're doing good? I really do, because today we've got

(00:46):
We've got a few things to talk about. Holy cow.
We're going to be talking about some recent developments in
the in the Epstein files, you know, that case going on,
some some accusations that the Democrats are made and quickly
deleted these accusations and you know, because it was very

(01:06):
quickly debunked. We're going to be talking about the you
know a little bit about to shut down because that
is now over, but for how long well that remains
to be seen. We're also going to be talking about
some let's see newsome the the Prop fifty that was
voted on November fourth, actually, and also we're going to

(01:30):
be talking about, you know, some the snap benefits and deportations.
Will it fix the housing market and what an organization
said that. I just I don't put much weight behind it.
And we'll get into that. But first, yeah, alls know
how I like to start the show. I like to

(01:53):
start it with a little bit of satire, a little
bit of ha ha, a little bit of funny, little
bit of humor, and of course might go two source
for you know, the satire news is the Babylon Beat
satire with a purpose. Not granted this this article that
I'm going to talk about it, it's nothing to do
with today's show, but it is something that I have

(02:15):
talked about in the past and it just it cracked
me up because I was like, huh, it got me thinking,
I mean, it really did. I had to look something up,
which is kind of normal. You know, whenever I have
a question, whenever I have something that you know, comes
up that's just that gives me a huh kind of
a thing, I generally look it up. I like to

(02:37):
do that. And of which case, if you would like
to follow along with all of the articles that I
will be using in the show, you can head on
over to the hoo Host Show at dot com and
just click on that news feed tab at the upper
right hand portion of the screen and then you'll see
the magazine over there on flipboard. So there you go.
But let's go ahead and get into this because this
cracked me up. From the Babylon Beat headline shoe manufactures

(03:02):
rush to design new nickel loafers. Yeah, and again this
cracked me up because you know, we're talking about how
President Trump has decided that we're no longer going to
be minting producing the penny, and of which case, I'm

(03:23):
all for it, And in all honesty, I would actually
go further with that, you know, I would actually do
the same thing that Canada has done. I mean really,
I mean they're not all bad. I mean they got
some good ideas and this one really does make a
lot of sense, you know, getting rid of the penny,
you know, And but there's there's been a lot of

(03:44):
uproar about this. There really has as far as oh,
what what is this going to mean for people? And
you know, kind of having the mindset that they're just
going to be completely ripped off, and it's like, do
that makes no sense? You know, I'm somebody that you know,
for my job, I'm a truck driver and I used

(04:05):
to go up to Canada on a regular basis. It's
been a while since I've been. You know, I haven't
been back to Canada since before the Covids, but I
used to go on a regular basis. I spent a
lot of time up in Canada. I drove up in
Canada more than I did here in the States. I mean,
that's just just the reality of it. You know, I've
been to five different of the provinces and see, I

(04:26):
was up in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, what's that one, Ontario,
and Quebec. So I've been to those those five provinces
up in Canada. And there's a couple of things about

(04:47):
you know, Canadian currency that I found kind of weird.
You know, they have what's called loonies and Tony's, which
is a one dollar and a two dollars coin, which
I thought was actually kind of entertaining. I mean really, yeah,
I really found it entertaining because you know, Loony and
a Tuny, Looney Tunes. You know, I'm in my mid forties.
That kind of cracked me up. I'm like, dude, they

(05:09):
named their currency after cartoons. I mean really, it just
it cracked me up. Okay, their currency wasn't necessarily paper.
It was actually kind of plastic, and you know, there
were sections of it that were like see through, like
you could totally see through it. I mean, it was
just it was different, different colors for different denominations. I mean,

(05:30):
it was just it was different. I thought it was
rather entertaining. I mean, in a lot honesty. I mean,
you would think that it would be a little bit
cheaper to reproduce that because here in the States we
use a like a cotton paper blend type of thing.
I mean, just it's unique, you know, but it's just different.
I thought it was I thought it was interesting. But

(05:51):
they don't use dollar bills. They used dollar coins, and
they also have a two dollar coin, which I thought
was just it made a lot of sense to me.
I'm just going to be honest, it really did, because,
I mean, dollar bills get a lot of use, and
you really wouldn't think that it would be cost effective
considering how much wear and tear they get, how much

(06:12):
use they get. It just it seems more financially responsible
to turn it into a coin, and that's something that
we've tried here in the States numerous times. But the
size of the coin that they made it just it,
you know, originally at least people just rejected it. But
it's like, dude, look, I mean people will get used

(06:33):
to it, and I'll go up to Canada. I mean,
it's not a big deal. The two dollar coin, the
one dollar coin, it's not a big deal. People use
them all the stinking time. I mean, it's it's and
it just makes more sense. Is more fiscally responsible to
use a type of currency that has longevity to it,

(06:54):
doesn't it. It makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm all for it. I'm all for it. And then
back in May of twenty twelve, Canada did away with pennies,
and that makes even more sense to me, especially whenever
you're take into consideration that pennies is you know, it's
a throwaway currency, it really is. It doesn't make a

(07:17):
lot of sense to use it. I mean, think about
it in your own life, all right. I know. For me,
you know, pennies is something that is it's discarded. You know,
it doesn't have a lot of value to it. Obviously,
is a penny. It's not something that I hold onto

(07:37):
And even if I do get pennies, I mean, if
they don't just wind up in a cup holder or
in a change dish in my vehicle, it goes into
a drawer and it gets forgotten. I mean, it's not
something that I use on the regular. I mean very
seldom do I even pay with pennies. And whenever I
do get pennies, ninety percent of the time because I

(07:58):
just don't want them in my pocket. I only keep
the silver stuff, you know, I'll throw it in the
keep a penny, take a penny tray, I'll throw it
in a little donation jar that's right next to the register.
I mean, that's what I do with pennies. I don't
really use them. And so to see people have an
uproar over no longer having pennies being minted and no

(08:20):
longer being used, It's like, why is that an issue?
I mean, up in Canada, they round it to the
nearest whole dollar or nickel, you know, they round it
to the nearest nickel. I mean, if it's under three cents,
then it's rounded down. If it's if it's three cents
or over, it's rounded up. I mean, how hard is
that to understand? And at the end of the day,

(08:42):
because I've even asked, you know, different cashiers about this.
I mean, because it was like, in the end, does
it balance out or is it really a negative or
a net positive? And the lady was like it, in
all honesty, it balances out. It's very negligible, especially whenever
you take it to a consideration. I mean, how many
people generally pay with cash. I mean, for the most part,

(09:07):
we are a cashlest society. Most people use use plastic
debit cards, credit cards, what have you. I mean, just
most people do that. Why because sometimes carrying a lot
of cash on you when you don't necessarily know how
much you're going to need is kind of a hassle.
So I mean, I get it, it's not a big deal.

(09:27):
It balances out at the end of the day. And
most of the time we're not even paying in cash anyway.
It's not that big of a deal. So I never
really understand the uproar. You know, even way before, there
was talks about, you know, seriously getting rid of the penny,
and like I said, I would like to see that

(09:48):
go further, you know, with getting rid of the dollar
and you know, maybe even reintroducing the two dollars or
just go by the way of Canada and do away
with the one dollar and do away with the two
dollar bill, make it into a coin and get rid
of to get rid of the pennies longevity. It just
makes sense to me. But anyway, I seen that article

(10:09):
and it cracked me up, and you know, and then
I had to ask the question. I'm like, what in
the world, you know, how did the penny loafer even
come about? You know, I mean what I mean, did
it really make any sense whatsoever? I mean, what, what
in the world was the purpose of having a shoe

(10:31):
a loafer that you can put a couple of pennies in.
I mean, it really never made sense to me in
the first place. I just I got to be honest
with you, it never made sense. I mean, don't get
me wrong, all right. My dad, growing up, for the
longest time, he had he had penny loafers, you know,
And in one of his penny loafers he had a
nineteen seventy six penny, and then the other one he

(10:53):
had a nineteen seventy eight penny. You know. That was
the years that you know, my brother and I were born,
So he had those in their sentiment value. But that
was the extent of it. I mean, to me, it
never really made any practical sense. I mean, could you
really make a phone call in a payphone with two cents?
I mean, granted, if you got your penni loafers on,
you could always give somebody your two cents. It just

(11:18):
never made any sense to me. I'm like, what in
the world is the point of a penny loafer? Anyway?
I just you know, that's just my mind, that's how
it works. It cracked me up. Anyway, Let's go ahead
and move on. This next article we're going to talk
about is from the Daily Wire headline will mass deportations
fix the housing market? That's that's a good question, and

(11:41):
this is something that I've talked about numerous times. You know,
with with deportation, that it will fix so many of
the problems that we have in America, with the inflation,
with food market, with with healthcare prices, with the housing market.
You know, that was my original thought process on it was,
of course, it will, you know, I mean, it's the

(12:02):
simple law of supply and demand. You get rid of
the illegal aliens, there's not going to be as much
of a demand on houses. That's going to cause the
price of houses to drop significantly, right, It makes perfect sense. Now.
I definitely see this happening in a lot of different arenas.

(12:27):
You know, I see this happening with the price of fuel.
You know, you get rid of the illegal aliens, there's
not going to be as much of a demand and
that's going to cause prices to go down. I see
the same thing happening whenever it comes to price of
insurances with you know, health, with auto insurance, you know,

(12:48):
I see that happening, with the price of medications. I
see that happening with obviously the price of food. You know,
there's a lot of different things that you're going to
see a wrecked causational effect with it. But the question
is will the mass deportations fix the housing market? And

(13:10):
if I'm being completely honest, I would have to say maybe,
But then again maybe not, you know, not because getting
rid of illegal aliens in the country, is you know,
going to increase the supply, Because I mean that aspect

(13:32):
of it is obvious. But the question is, like in
all honesty is deeper than that, though, it really is.
I mean, I don't know about you, but if I
am completely just given something, it doesn't have as much

(13:52):
meaning as if it's something that I have worked for,
saved for, and then bought on my own. I have
more respect for things that I've bought on my own
versus things that we're just given to me, especially if
it's something that I really don't care about anyway. I mean,
if it's something that I truly want, then maybe, but

(14:15):
if it really isn't, then probably not. And I mean,
for the most part, I think a lot of us
are like this. You know, we all kind of have that.
I mean, regardless of whether we want to have that
kind of an outlook on it, I think most of
us do. I mean, if we're being completely honest with ourselves, yeah,
we kind of have that outlook if it's something that's

(14:36):
given to it's something that we didn't work for and
sacrifice for me, because that's really what it's all about,
it sacrifice. If we didn't sacrifice for it, we're not
going to cherish it. You know, we're not going to
have as much respect for it. We're not really going
to care if it breaks or if it lasts just
a long time. And think about houses, you know, think

(15:05):
about now. Look, I'm not necessarily trying to call out,
you know, the poor among us. That's not the point
of this. You know that that's not the direction of
this conversation. It's just it's trying. It's more or less

(15:26):
understanding a truth, and it is a generalization. Obviously not
everybody is the same. But I mean you can't really
you can't base your life and you can't base statistical
information off of exceptions. You can't do that. I mean,

(15:48):
the rules have to be based off of the statistical probability,
not on the exception. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense
to have a rule based off of an exception whenever
it's not how things are commonly done, right, it just
doesn't make it any sense. If you're going to make
a rule, you got to make it on a statistical probability,
not on the exception. But whenever you look at lower

(16:09):
you know, housing by lower income people versus housing from
you know, middle class and upper class people. And this
goes with neighborhoods as well. You know, it's the more
money you spend on it, the more pride you take
in it, the nicer the community is going to be.
I mean, that's just the way that it is. Like

(16:32):
it or hate it. And like I said, this isn't
to call out any you know, economic class of people.
It really isn't It is not to discourage, discredit, it's
not to diminish demeanor, you know, it's not to do that.
I mean, it's just looking at the statistical probability of

(16:52):
housing based off of your economic standing. If you haven't
worked for your house, sacrificed for your house, or at
least your dwelling, your apartment, whatever, you're not going to
have as much pride in it. You're not going to

(17:13):
care as much with what happens to that property. You're
more apt to have a very run down, very bad
you know, a house that needs a lot of fixing, updates, repairs,
what have you. I mean, that's just the way it happens.

(17:36):
It is. I mean, you know again it's a generalization, absolutely,
But it's a statistical probability. Man. I have a hard
time with that word, I really do, But it is
a statistical probability. Right. So back to this this article
from the Daily Wire, Will mass deportations fix the housing market?
And I say kind of in the immediate I'm going

(17:59):
to say no, because if the statistical probability holds, you
have houses that were given to illegals that they didn't
have to work for, they didn't have to sacrifice for,
they don't have any pride in it. Are they really
going to treat it well? History tells us no, The

(18:21):
human condition tells us no. The generalization and the statistical
probability says no, they're not going to respect that. They're
not going to treat it well. There's going to be damage,
it's not going to be kept up very well, and
it's probably going to need some renovation before anybody else
moves into it. So I mean, in the immediate no,

(18:42):
you're not going to see a fix to the housing market.
Price is dropping and ownership becoming more achievable from our
younger generations, those that are trying to grab hold of
the American dream. You're not going to see that, not

(19:02):
in the immediate Why because these houses that are vacated
by illegal aliens, they're not going to be immediately available.
Is going to require work to get them up.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
Now.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
I mean, granted you may see a bump in you know,
low income housing. It's like, hey, okay, so this house
is is a lot cheaper. It's it's priced very low
because it needs work. If you want to live here,
there's going to be some things that you're going to
want to fix. You're going to want to remodel, You're
going to want to repair some things. In the end,

(19:42):
I think it'll be worth it if you have the
time and money to invest, It'll be worth it absolutely
because you will be able to turn a you know,
you're going to be able to turn a very cheap
home into a very expensive home with just normal you know, fixing,
normal everyday things that needs to be fixed that have

(20:03):
been neglected for however long the person was living there.
I mean, one of the things that I think is
going to be bad. It's like, okay, for instance, all right,
I bought a home not that long ago, a year
and some ago, year and a half ago, maybe I
bought a home, first time home buyer. Right. I was excited.
I was a static But the problem was the price.

(20:27):
The house was priced like not quite double what it
should have been, not quite double what it would have been,
you know, prior to you know, Joe Biden's presidency. But
it was price pretty stick and high, I want to say,
about eighty percent higher than what it should have been.

(20:48):
And I was going to be honest with you, I'm
kind of screwed, right, Because when the housing market finally
levels off, that means the price of my house is
going to go down, it's going to plummet, It's going
to be way closer to what it actually should be.

(21:18):
That's going to make refinancing the house way more difficult.
That's going to make a lot of things way more difficult.
And in that aspect, I think there's a lot of
people out there, especially if you bought, you know, after
Joe Biden's presidency, when the housing market really skyrocketed, right,
I mean, if you purchased beforehand, before all this stuff

(21:40):
took place, and it's not going to be as big
of an issue. I mean, you're going to be relatively
in the same boat you would have been in regardless.
But if you're like me and you bought during the
whole fiasco, then it's bad. I mean, it's it's kind
of one of the things. As soon as I bought
the house, things were about ready to change age and

(22:00):
I was already upside down on my loan. Kind of sucks.
But my point is, is it going to fix the
housing market in a matter of speaking, because low income
housing is going to be more affordable, is going to
be more easily obtainable. The question really is is whether

(22:29):
or not the houses are going, you know, are going
to be able to be sold. How much work is
going to be necessary, how much renovations is going to
be necessary in order to put these houses on the market,
because I mean, you know, there's certain things you got
to do if you're going to put a house on
the market. Very few people actually like project houses. They

(22:50):
just don't why. It requires a lot of time, a
lot of work. Most people, whenever they buy a home,
they want something unless they intend on flipping it. They
want something they can move move into, move in ready.
They don't want something that they may have to wait
a year before they start living in it. I mean,
of course, unless you're somebody that flips houses and it

(23:11):
doesn't matter, then you're you're a static. So in the media,
I'm going to say no, it's not going to fix
the housing market because I mean, there's just too many problems,
too many problems that has gone on for quite some time,
and it's just there's no simple, fast fix for them.
And the long term though, I think it is you know,

(23:36):
another at least five years down the road, maybe even
ten years down the road, you are going to see
significant changes. You know, the availability of housing, the price
of housing is going to be more obtainable for the
younger generation, you know, those that are trying. And I
know I've talked about this briefly during other episodes, but

(23:59):
you know, the America you can dream right now is unobtainable.
I mean, it really is moving out on your own,
starting a family, you know, the two point five kids,
all that other kind of stuff. It's not quite as
achievable as it was during you know, whenever I was

(24:19):
reaching that age, you know, my early twenties, you know, eighteen,
early twenties. I mean, it was way more achievable back then.
And it's no wonder the younger generation is upset, is
take at us? Is no wonder because the American dream

(24:41):
just isn't obtainable. I was reading an article or listening
to a video, I don't remember, you know what it was,
but they were talking about the housing price compared to

(25:04):
you know, the average wages. And you know, thirty forty
years ago, the percentage an average home of your yearly
wages was way lower. In other words, you can buy

(25:25):
a nicer house and not be debted and debted for
as long. You know, in my twenties, the price was
up significantly. You know, the price of a house represented
a larger percentage of your yearly wage. And now it's

(25:47):
freaking ridiculous. The average price of a house represents way
more of your average yearly wage. It is absolutely ridiculous.
That's why the younger generation is taked off about the
the housing market. The price of a new home. Why
because it represents so much of your yearly wages unobtainable.

(26:13):
And look, the illegal aliens isn't the only cause of this.
I mean, there's a lot of different factors that are
involved in this. You know, That's one of the reasons
why I have to be honest and say that no
mass deportations isn't going to fix the housing market, because
it really isn't quite that simple. There's more things that

(26:37):
has affected the housing market than just illegal aliens needing
a place to live or wanting a place to live,
or getting government subsidy money in order to have a
place to live. It's not that simple. But I'm still

(26:57):
going to rest on the idea that in the short term, no,
not as a blanket statement. You know, cheaper housing fixture up,
fixture up homes, you know, project houses, houses for people
that want to flip them. Absolutely, but I think you're

(27:19):
going to see the biggest impact to the housing market
in the next five to ten years. That's where I
think you're going to see your change. And this, of
course is after we get after we get serious about
deporting these people, after President Trump is able to look

(27:43):
these various district federal judges in the eye and say, look,
stay in your lane, shut the hell up. I'm doing
my job, and if you have a problem with it,
get out of the way. If you're not going to
be part of the solution, do not be part of
the problem, because you're to be held accountable for aiding
and abetting these illegal aliens that are committing criminal activity.

(28:07):
They're illegal. Until that happens, you're not going to see
a huge impact. But once these type of things do
end up happening, I think you are going to see
a very meaningful impact that you will see very clearly,
as plain as a nose on my face, as relevant
as the morning sun. You're going to know this within

(28:31):
the next five to ten years, or in the next
between five and ten years. That's just my take on it.
Let me know what you think. What are some of
the things that you have seen as an issue with
the housing market. What is some of your experience have
you tried to move lately? What were the prices like

(28:52):
interest rates? Oh my god, dude, I didn't even get
into interest rates, and I know not that long ago.
President Trump even announced a fifty year mortgage, which to
me is like, oh my god. I mean, granted, I

(29:13):
understand why he did it. I really do. I understand
the why. You know, you you divide a house payment
up and because I got a fift I got a
fifteen year mortgage, right, That's where my mortgage is. Fifteen
year mortgage. I bought a cheap house. You know, it's
a good house, it's solid, and I ain't got any
issues with it. The neighborhood's good, but it was a

(29:36):
cheap house. Fifteen year mortgage definitely obtainable. If you divide
those payments up from a fifteen year to a twenty
to a thirty year mortgage, then you're going to pay

(30:00):
way more in interest. The house is going to cause
you cost you way more at the end of your
at the end of your mortgage. But it is also
going to lower your payments, which for some people, I
mean that's what you need to do, lower your payments.

(30:20):
A fifty year mortgage, you are going to turn yourself
into a slave. You're never going to necessarily own your home.
You're not going to be able to build equity in

(30:40):
your home because the loan is way too you know,
the loan terms is way too long. You're not going
to be able to build equity. Is not going to
be able to, you know, become part of your retirement plan,
you know, as in you sell the house to downsize

(31:03):
and get something more affordable, being able to eliminate your
house payment and just make things easier on yourself. You're
not going to be able to do that. I mean,
it's a more expensive route than renting. You know. Yeah,

(31:25):
you're paying money to something that you will eventually own.
But are you going to be able to I'm like, dude,
me getting a fifty year mortgage, it would be ridiculous.
I'm in my mid forties. If I live to see
fifty more years, that would be very surprising. I'm just

(31:45):
being honest. I would never own that home and over
the years with the you know, because earlier in your
paying off your home. Most of that money goes to
paying interest because the bank wants there first, and you
get what you want last. That's how it works. So
when I die, the house wouldn't be any more paid

(32:09):
off than what it was in the beginning, and the
only in the most the majority of that cause of
the home is going to be reflected in just the
interest rates or just the interest payments. You're not necessarily
building equity anyway. Anyway, moving on talking about illegals deportation.

(32:37):
Before I get into the article, I just want to
make a point. I have a hard time at listening
to criticism from people that are either doing the same
thing that they are chastising me for doing, or are

(32:59):
only one me to do what they want me to
do because it will benefit them in some way, shape
or form. I really have a hard time listening to
those type of people. I really, do you've got something
to gain? Or who the hell are you to chastise
me for doing something that you yourself does? I mean
that's what it amounts to, right. I have a hard

(33:21):
time listening to those kind of people. This article from
The Hill headline Trump borders our says Catholic Church wrong
on mass deportations. Here's why I bring this up. Catholic Church.
Where's that located? Within Rome? Its own sovereign city state

(33:51):
within Rome. I think, technically speaking, it is the smallest
country in the entire world. If I'm not mistaken. It
is a city state. Vatican City has a big old
wall surrounding it with armed guards. It is a sovereign

(34:13):
city state. Do they let people just enter all will
and illy? No, they do not. Now, look, this isn't
to say that they don't have different outreach programs. I
don't know. But what I do know is it is
not like they allow people just to walk into their country,

(34:35):
stay there and be taken care of off of their dime.
They don't allow that. If you happen to sneak in,
they're going to get rid of you, and get rid
of you quick. They do not allow it. So for
them to chastise the United States of America overtaking a
position that is way more laxed than their own rules

(34:59):
and laws re guarding such a thing, I find it
laughable the Pope to say, how dare you? And my
response is, what do you mean? How dare I? I
learned it from watching you You're not the exemption of

(35:20):
whatever rules you want to throw at other people. You're
the example. That's what the Church is supposed to be right,
And it's not like the Catholics are the only ones
that are guilty of this, But just throwing out out there,
I'm not going to take advice. I'm not going to
accept chastising from the Catholic Church on immigration and deportations.

(35:42):
Whenever I know how the Vatican treats people that jump
across the border, jump across the wall, dig under the wall,
I know how they treat it. I'm not going to
accept your criticism. I'm not going to do it. I'm
not going to accept anybody's criticism that does the same

(36:05):
type of thing. I'm not going to accept the criticism
from somebody who has something to gain from me allowing
the or following the of what they want me to do.
I'm not going to do it. The Catholic Church has
no right to tell the United States of America how

(36:25):
they should treat people who illegally cross our southern border
or northern border, whichever border they're crossing. They have no
right to do that. There's calling balls and strikes here anyway.
What is next on the agenda, and of which case,
Like I said before, you can head on over to

(36:46):
the ho Host Show at dot com. Click on that newsfeedtab.
You'll be able to see all the articles that I
have for today's show, and of which case today there's
only fifteen of them, actually a kind of few. I
got one more article before we are going to take
a quick interlood and listen to a little bit of music.

(37:07):
But this article is from just the News. Headline. Rollin
says she plans to make SNAP recipients reapply for benefits
to reduce fraud, and of which case, Okay, on one hand,
I'm all for. On the other hand, I think it's
a complete waste of time, because here's the thing. This
is what it amounts to. If you have restructured your

(37:31):
payment plans, and if you have put in place rules
regulations to cut back on the waste of fraud and
the abuse of the SNAP program, than of which case,
I am all for it, go ahead, force everybody to reapply. However,
if you have yet to solidify these changes and make
the appropriate changes necessary to get rid of the waste

(37:53):
of fraud in yourbute, then all you're doing is wasting time.
You are just virtue signaling for the sake of virtue signal.
You are trying to make yourself look better to your constituents,
and that's all you're doing is political maneuvering. That's it.
So yes, I am all for them forcing SNAP recipients

(38:15):
to reapply in order to reduce fraud. But if you
haven't yet done the work to make sure that you
minimize the fraud as much as you humanly can, which look,
you're never going to get rid of all of the
waste of fraud and the abuse. It's impossible. I don't
care what you're talking about. I don't care if you

(38:36):
are talking about SNAP. I don't care if you're talking
about Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance with auto insurance. I don't care.
I don't care what you're talking about. Voting doesn't matter.
You're never going to get rid of all the waste
of fraud in the abuse. The only thing you can
do is minimize it. The only thing you can do

(38:57):
is make it easier to catch the people committing the
waste of fraud and abuse. That's the only thing you
can do. You're never going to get rid of it. Wholesale.
It ain't going to happen. But all you can do
is make it harder for people to cheat. All you
can do is make it harder for people. You can
make it cost them something, make it to where it's

(39:19):
a sacrifice. Like, dude, if you commit waste fraud in
the abuse, not only are we going to air your
dirty laundry on national TV and on the Internet for
everybody to see, We're going to throw you in jail
for it. It's going to be if it isn't already,
and in most cases it is, it's a crime. We're
going to hold you accountable for it. You're going to
have it's going to cost you something to even attempt

(39:44):
the waste of fraud in the abuse. We're not just
going to chastise you on national TV. We're going to
throw your ass in jail. Make it cost them something,

(40:04):
you know, don't just make it to where they don't
get the benefits of trying to commit fraud. You know,
it's not enough for whenever you catch a thief to
take away the goods that he stole, you gotta make

(40:24):
them pay, You got to lock them up, You got
to enforce the law. It's not enough to just take
the money back from the robber, you know, from the
guy that just committed an armed robbery. It's not enough
just to take his ill begotten gains away from him
and give it back to the bank. No, you gotta
throw the person in jail. You got to make an

(40:44):
example out of him. You got to show other would
be criminals that if you commit crime, you're going to
do the time. You're not just going to be allowed
to benefit from being a criminal. That's something that we
in America we need to remind all criminals all across
the board. I actually seen an article not that long

(41:08):
ago out of California that there are a lot of
businesses out there that for every single item within their store,
it has a new price tag, a new cost associated
with it, and that cost is nine hundred and fifty
one dollars. Why would you ask that they, you know,
did they raise all of the sticker prices to nine

(41:30):
hundred and fifty one dollars. Well, you see, California has
a nice little loophole whenever it comes to theft, that
it is acceptable for you to steal things up to
nine hundred and fifty one dollars. After that, then it's
considered a crime, then the police will do something about it,
and there you go. Now, don't get me wrong, this

(41:50):
nine hundred and fifty one dollars price tag is not
something that customers are expected to pay whenever they get
to the register because they receive a disc out for
being a shopper. But the price on the tag is
still nine hundred and fifty one dollars. So that this way,
regardless of what you steal, you're going to be held accountable.

(42:13):
I seen that and I was like, hh, that sounds
like a good idea. I don't know if it's necessarily
going to work. I have no idea, but it looks
good on paper.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
Right.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
The only way to stop criminals from committing crimes is
to hold them accountable all across the board. I don't
care what the crime is. You need to hold them accountable.
You need to let them know. All criminals whom are
already criminals, and all those that would be criminals, you
need to let them know that regardless of whether you

(42:55):
succeed or whether you fail. You know, that's why it
is criminal, not just for you know, committing murder, but
attempted murder. That's why it's a crime. You gotta let
people know that it's not enough you say sorry, because
then you gotta ask you us a question. What are
you sorry for what you did? Or that you were

(43:16):
dumb enough to get caught? Yeah, we got to make
it painful again, make crime painful again. That's what you
need to do. So we're going to go ahead and
take a quick break, and when I return, we are

(43:38):
going to be talking about oh, Prop fifty. Now, I
got into this a little bit in previous episodes, but
I need to hit home a point. And it looks
to be a fight. A huge fight is brewing between
democrats and Republicans, those who believe in conservatism versus those

(44:05):
who believe in communism and socialism. There's a fight going on.
It's warming up. You've got people taking sides, you got
people throwing punches. It's only a matter of time before
this really hits a breaking point. And it may happen
sooner than we think it really may, so that in

(44:29):
just a few minutes, I'll bear.

Speaker 3 (44:30):
Back Sky's cry, tear dross fallen like a league, Faust keeps.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
On call, Mudy water rise around my.

Speaker 4 (45:00):
Shoes, singing blue.

Speaker 5 (45:05):
Ain't got nothing left to lose.

Speaker 4 (45:10):
Just singing blue.

Speaker 6 (45:16):
Rain, rain, rain, wash my paint wash away, I heard again,
singing in the rains, singing in the rain, gotta make
it through the pouring rain, a part.

Speaker 5 (45:51):
Of wail and a mournful sound. Lost my babe, and
know where to be found? That figger castingasy glue? Where
did she go?

Speaker 4 (46:08):
Lord? I don't know where.

Speaker 2 (46:10):
Did she go?

Speaker 5 (46:12):
Rain, rain, rain, wash my pain wash A heard again,
singing in the rain, singing in the rain, gotta make
it through the ball and rain.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Do you work at any of the myriad of jobs
where you might have to set on your bum all day? Well,
it's so. Maybe you know what it's like to suffer
from the condition known as swamp as well. If so,
have I got the solution for you. It's high monkey
buck powder. That's right, it's high monkey buck powder. You
can use an indoors outdoors, work or play, or on

(47:13):
any occasion when you sit on your bum all day,
don't let your buns get read. Use anti monkey butt
powder instead, available wherever anti friction powder is sold. All right,
and we are backs, So we're going to go ahead
and dive right into the articles in this segment. I
want to start off with Proposition fifty. Now, this is

(47:35):
something that I talked about, you know, shortly after it happened,
and I actually think I talked about a little bit
right before it happened. But for those of you that
do not know, Proposition fifty is something that was put
on the ballot in California for the November fourth, you know,
elections that they had in several different states. And is

(47:57):
what proposition fifty is. It is the Democrats in California's
response to the redistricting that happened in Texas that was
forced by the Supreme Court. Now here's my argument on this,

(48:17):
or at least I want to line up a few
facts for you before we get into that. Fact One,
Texas didn't redistrict just because they were told to by
the Supreme Court. Yeah, they didn't do it all willy nilly.

(48:40):
They were forced to do it by the Supreme Court. Why,
because how Texas had redistrict their map in the past
was found to be unconstitutional. And Gavin Newsom, because in
Texas the Democrats are going to be losing about five seats,

(49:02):
they wanted to respond in kind and arbitrarily redistrict their
map in order to give Democrats five more seats, so
that this well, on the federal level, the Democrat Party
wasn't losing any power. That was the only reason. It
was about power, not about better representing the people in

(49:27):
your state. But it was about power. They did not
want to lose seats on the national level. Now here's
the thing I want to point out to you something
that move is unconstitutional. It really is. This article from

(49:53):
the Washington Examiner. I gotta get to, I gotta get
to where are you at?

Speaker 2 (50:03):
There?

Speaker 1 (50:03):
You are why democrats hard fought redistricting wins may all
be for. Not why because it's unconstitutional. I just said that.
Holy cow, weren't you listening? Please come on, it's unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
You see.

Speaker 1 (50:21):
Here's the thing. Why are you get off of there?
Here's the thing. Okay, you are not supposed to discriminate
by race, by color, by creed, gender, sexuality, what have you.
You are not supposed to discriminate based off of that.

(50:42):
And hello, Dave over there in Rumbleland, good to see it,
he says. I am exhausted with all the redistracting and jerrymandering.
Talk not your fault, just saying we really know how
to be ridiculous about power as opposed to doing what's
right and for all the people. You're right, I mean absolutely,
I mean I agree with you. And like I said,

(51:02):
I mean, if you look up jerry mandering in the dictionary,
you are going to see a district map from Illinois,
because holy shit, I mean, it really is ridiculous, Dad,
it really is. But here's the thing. The Constitution guarantees
a representative republic form of government, not just on the

(51:26):
federal level, but in all fifty states.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
And that.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
Representative republic type of representation doesn't have to do with
your race, color, creed, gender, sexuality, what have you. It
has to do with, at least in today's day and age,
your political affiliation. And look, I mean we can talk

(52:02):
all day, how you know the black culture is underrepresented
and YadA YadA, blah blah. But it's like, dude, okay,
so why are you all hell bent and making sure
that blacks are properly represented whenever you don't give two
shits about Chinese people and you know, just any other
ones you really don't care. And it's not even a

(52:23):
blanket thing across the board. I mean, it's very selective
on how you feel and where you feel this this
demographic representation needs to be upheld. It really doesn't make
any sense to me. But as per the definition of
the time, Oh Dave, but he goes The word I

(52:53):
was looking for is minuti so time consuming and energy wasting. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But the Constitution guarantees a representative republic form of government
on the national scale and in all fifty states. And
what that means simply is you're, at least in modern times,

(53:17):
your party affiliation. You see here in Illinois about thirty
four percent of the population are Republicans, but yet we
only represent about seventeen percent of Congress. That's it. Why,

(53:41):
because of gerrymandering, Because Democrats drew the line in such
a way to give them an advantage and to take
away the voice of Republicans. We do not have a
representative republic in Illinois. And when the Supreme Court directed

(54:01):
Texas to redraw the lines, it was to ensure that
the republic form of government, the representative Republic, was adhere to.
That's why they were like, you can't draw the lines
the way you did. It's discrimination, it's unconstitutional. You need
to redraw the lines in order to better represent the
population of your state. Period in the story. That's what

(54:23):
it was about. They didn't do it all will annilly.
They were told to so that this way, their representative
Republic was actually followed in the way that the Constitution
prescribes it to be followed. And then in Walks, California,
we don't care about what's right, we don't care about

(54:46):
representing our voters. We are playing a political game. So
they redrew the lines. And I really do think you
are going to see way more of this happening all
across the board.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
Now.

Speaker 1 (55:02):
Look, okay, I want it to happen. I'm just going
to be honest with you. I think that the I
think that the Supreme Court really does need to step
in and nip this in the bud. I really do,

(55:23):
because if they don't, you are going to have a
huge fight on your hands. And unfortunately, because Republicans are
very very bad about fighting for, you know, political issues,
they're very very bad about messaging and making themselves look
like they're doing the right thing. And because the Democrats
have such a hold on mainstream news media sources, that

(55:47):
it's really going to be hard for Republicans moving forward,
especially considering that this is a fight that is only
going to spread, especially when you have so much deportation
going on, is going to be harder for Democrats in
order to maintain power, maintain seats all across the board.

(56:08):
This is a dad gum it. This is a fight
that's here. Like it or hate it, it's a fight
that's here. And if the Supreme Court actually adheres to
their mandate, because you know, it is the now. This
is as the Constitution was written prior to the seventeenth Amendment.

(56:33):
You know, the House of Representatives is supposed to represent
the people within their districts. Hence House of Representatives. The
Senate was established to represent the states, you know, which
is why the House of Representatives is based off of
the population of the state and the Senate is only

(56:57):
you know, two for each state, because no state is
going to have more power than any other state. They
were all equal. That's why they did it like that.
That's why the difference Seventeenth Amendment made it to where
the states no longer appointed senators that it was done
by popular vote, which I think was totally stupid and
undermined the very essence of what the Constitution in the

(57:18):
United States of America is. But besides that, the president
is to represent the nation as a whole, because we
are not the nation of people and we are not
a nation of states. We are, in fact a nation
of both, much like the EU. We are a nation

(57:41):
of both, not just people, not just states, but both.
So the President is there to represent the nation. And
then you have the Supreme Court and their duty, their
mandate is to represent the constitution of the United States

(58:02):
of America. So if the Supreme Court actually adheres to
their mandate by representing a constitution without any political bias whatsoever,
which is something that we haven't seen out of the

(58:23):
Supreme Court for quite some time, it is getting better,
which is amazing. I'm all for it. However, it's our
telling how it's going to play out. But it's something
they need to make a decision on because the fight's coming.
The fights already here, and if you don't nip it
in the bud, you're just it's I mean, dude, it's

(58:46):
not going to be pretty. I'm just being honest with
It's not going to be pretty because republican states are
going to respond to democrat states, and democrats states are
going to respond to republican states. And all you're going
to have is a bunch of political, politicized redistricting, and
it's just going to be an ongoing battle. I mean,

(59:08):
that's that's the reality of it. That's what's going to
end up happening. So yeah, the Supreme Court needs a
step in. They need to make a ruling. They need
to say, look, you can't do this. You can't draw
the lines just any your way you want to. I mean,
if it was me, here's what I would like to see. Okay,
this is what I would like to see, because on

(59:30):
the federal level, you have, you know, fifty individual states.
That's how the representation is done. For each state. You
have two senators and you have representatives based off of

(59:53):
the population. I would like to see every single state
institute though very things, and at least in Illinois. I
don't know how it is in your state. I don't.
I mean, I can only assume that they're all basically
the same. I mean, I see, you know, I see
these type of line divisions everywhere. But I know in

(01:00:14):
the state of Illinois we have what's called counties. So
I mean, you should have two representatives from each county
and then or I'm sorry, two senators from each county
and then representatives based off of the population of that county.

(01:00:37):
That to me just makes perfect sense. It's an example
that is already done on the federal level. It makes
perfect sense. And if this is what the Constitution prescribes
as supposed to be done in every single state, then
why isn't it done? I mean, really, that to me
seems like the most obvious question. If this is already

(01:00:59):
the type of government we are supposed to have, if
this is already the blueprint that is found on the
federal level, why isn't it in every single state, Because
that's the way it's supposed to be every public form
of government, and every single of the fifty states, every
single state. The model is in Washington, d C. Yeah,

(01:01:25):
they put in here goes ongoing a new, forever worthy
enemy from within is a waste of time. Yeah, I mean,
you're right, But I mean that's what we're going to have.
I'm like, in in all honesty, on the individual state level,
you're not going to see a lot of changes, you know,

(01:01:45):
because once Illinois turned red, the only thing that Illinois
has done is redrawn the lines based off of where
the population has moved. That's what they've done. You know,
it wasn't huge ifs, you know, to to resemble something

(01:02:06):
that made any common sense whatsoever. And that's really what
you're going to see on a state level, you know.
But like basically for the next you know what next
throughout the rest of Donald Trump's ten year as president
and then the next incoming administration, that's where you're going
to see the fight. I mean, after that, it's it's

(01:02:26):
going to level out. It's not going to be as prominent,
but once things level out. But but I do foresee
this happening in all fifty states at least on some level.
You know, is it going to happen in Illinois? No,
because it's already happened in Illinois. I mean, Republicans represent

(01:02:47):
thirty four percent of the of the population in the state,
we only have seventeen percent of the seats. It's already
been done here in Illinois. That's not to say it
couldn't get worse, but it's all right, been done. But
I think you're going to see this happen more widespread

(01:03:07):
in other states. Those that haven't done this, those that
haven't done the jerrymanderin and I'm completely against jerry bandering.
Let me be clear, because we are supposed to be
represented based off of our political affiliation, or at least
as modern day interpretation, that's the way it supposed to be.

(01:03:34):
Supreme Court needs to make a decision on this because
it's just going to spread, don't get me wrong. And
the end, it ain't going to last very long because
once it's done, is going to be done, and you're
not going to see a lot of shifts happen. I mean,
there's a reason why Proposition fifty past in California because

(01:03:58):
it's a primarily Democrat controlled state. The majority of the
population in California are Democrats. Of course, it was going
to pass us in the democratic process. Of course it was.
Why would it not. Yeah, the Democrats want more power.

(01:04:18):
They don't want to lose power to Republicans. Of course
it makes sense. But that's not the type of government
that we are supposed to have here in the United
States of America. That's not how things are supposed to
be done. Our founding fathers was against democracy because our
founding fathers knew that democracy was nothing more than mob rule.

(01:04:44):
Here in America, we have what is right and what
is wrong. You see, it's wrong to steal from people.
It's wrong to do that. It doesn't if the majority
of the population believes that it is their right to
have and take from you to get it. It doesn't matter.

(01:05:09):
Just because the majority once it doesn't mean they have
the right to take it. Our founding fathers did not
believe in democracy. That is why they formed our form
of government the way that they did, a constitutional republic.
You have what's right, what's wrong. You have God given

(01:05:29):
rights codified within the Constitution itself. You know, we hold
these truths to be self evident. All men are created
equal and dowed by their creator with certain nailable rights,
and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It was codified. They didn't care about what the majority wanted.
It was about what's right and what's wrong. There are

(01:05:52):
immutable facts that are not up for debate. And the
fact that California did this and other states are probably
going to follow suit and do the same thing on
both sides. You know, this isn't a Democrat Republican thing.

(01:06:14):
I mean, they're both going to do it. But the
fact that they did it just tells me that they
have absolutely no idea what the Constitution says, or at
least I mean, look, I'm not somebody whom is just
going to throw a blanket accusation at one party or

(01:06:35):
the other, because I do not believe for one second
that the leadership of either party are idiots. I'm not
going to say that. I mean, granted, I mean there
may be some that are. I mean AOC, I mean,
I don't know, you know that one may be the
exemption of the rule. But I do not think that

(01:06:57):
Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. I do not think that
Schumer is an idiot. I don't think that Bernie Sanders
is an idiot. I mean, these are people that I
do not agree with. These are people that I hate
what they stand for Politically. I think they're wrong, but

(01:07:18):
I don't think that they're idiots. I think they have
done a lot of things to keep their constituents blind
and under the thumb of government. But I don't think
they're stupid. I think they know exactly what they're doing,

(01:07:41):
I really do. But they are trying to rewrite the
Constitution to suit their needs to maintain power, because that's
what this is all about. It's about power. It's about
who's going to be in control of government over the

(01:08:03):
next twenty to thirty years. That's what this is about.
Because if the Democrat Party does not find a way
to hold on to the power that they have, if

(01:08:24):
they don't find a way to oh, how do I
want a word? It is they If they don't find
a way to well, let's just call it what it is, cheat,
then the Democrat Party is going to go by the

(01:08:44):
way of the Whigs. It's going to be a dead party.
They don't want that. They're going to protect it. You
protect power, you do you do? Anyway? What else do
I got here? Oh? Yeah, this article from USA Today,

(01:09:06):
you know, kind of going off of the you know,
the last thing that I said regarding you know, this
is going to spread headline Dad Gimmitt, Why am I
in that screen? Indiana Senate won't meet to redistrict stopping
Trump's Indiana push. And here's why I didn't really get
into this article, but it is very telling that, you know,

(01:09:30):
not everybody agrees that this is something that they should do.
Here's why I say that Republicans don't have a lot
of fight because you know, they're not going to redistrict
just for the sake of redistricting, to respond to California redistricting.
They are doing, in essence what they should be doing.
I don't blame Indiana for saying, no, they're not going

(01:09:51):
to do this. I'm not going to argue with Indiana
for saying no, we're not going to play this game.
And in fact, I I hope that Indiana and other
Republican states don't do this. But at the same time,

(01:10:13):
and can I be honest with you on this, you
need to under Democrats are going to do what democrats
are going to do. Democrats are going to do what

(01:10:36):
democrats are going to do. They're going to do the
gerrymandering thing. They do not want to lose power. That's
just what's going to end up happening. You know, how
does the old adage go? You know, you fire with fire,

(01:10:58):
and principled people have a hard time doing this, you know,
because redistracting for the sake of sticking it to your
enemy isn't necessarily the right thing to do. I get
that it's not and it's not the principled thing to do. However,
here's the thing though, too. You need to understand the
consequences not only to your actions, but you need to

(01:11:22):
understand the consequences of your inactions because the Democrats are
going to do it. And if you choose not to
respond in kind, if you choose not to fight fire
with fire, then that breeds its own series of consequences. Yeah,

(01:11:45):
your state may look good. Yeah, you may be able
to rest on principles and said I did the right thing.
Have you ever watched the Boondock Saints Good Good movie?
It really is. You know. They actually were talking about

(01:12:06):
not even releasing that movie here in the United States
because they did not want vigilantes running the streets and
taking care of business whenever. The criminal justice system just
wasn't enough, so they were very hesitant on even releasing
that movie here in the United States. But one of

(01:12:27):
the underlying themes in the movie the only thing needed
for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing.
I'm butchering that, I absolutely am. I'm paraphrasing it. You know,
I didn't say it the best of way. But the

(01:12:49):
only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good
people to do nothing. That's all that's necessary. Sometimes what
you need to do is be a light bearer they

(01:13:16):
put in here he goes. When I was in the military,
we would often say we may not be smart, but
we're sly and cunning. I think that goes for Pelosi, Sanders,
Schumer and the rest of them. Yeah I can, Yeah, yeah,
yeah I can. I can definitely go with that one.
It'll be again. I mean, like, I just I don't
think that these people don't know what the Constitution says.

(01:13:40):
I just don't think they care. And yeah, I mean,
I do think they are very sly and very cunning,
But I think they know the difference between what they
should be doing according to the Constitution versus what they
are doing, you know. And that's more or less what
I mean by that, you know, I mean, I mean, look,
the Constitution says the Second Amendment, the right of the

(01:14:01):
people to keep in bear arms shall not be in friends.
I think they know exactly what that means. I just
don't think they care. I think they know exactly what
it is it means. I think they know exactly what
it means. I just don't think they care. It's not

(01:14:26):
going to stop them from trying, right, So, regardless of
how Indiana wants to play this out, you know, what
game they want to play, if they want to rest
on rest on principles or responding kind and fight fire

(01:14:47):
with fire. This is just a thing that I think
all Republicans, all conservatives, everybody needs to hear. It's not
just about what you choose to do. It's about what
you choose not to do. And there are going to
be unintended consequences regardless of how you intend on doing it,

(01:15:09):
because if you choose to do nothing like what Indiana
has chosen to do. And again, I don't blame them
for choosing No, I don't blame them for choosing not
to play the game. I really don't. I understand it.
That is a hard position to make when you are
a principled conservative. I get it. But that doesn't mean

(01:15:36):
that there's not going to be consequences to your inaction.
Moving on, all right, So this next article is from
just the News just so you know. The government shutdown

(01:15:59):
is over. Fantastic, right, However, bad news. The next fight
or the next potential shutdown is going to happen in
sometime in January. Yeah, it's true. This isn't going to

(01:16:20):
be an ongoing thing, or at least this isn't going
to be a permanent solution because the funding is only
going to be there until sometime in January. They at
least got the government open to, you know, through the holidays.
I don't know exactly when in January the funding is

(01:16:41):
going to run out. I'm not exactly sure. But one
of the things that absolutely infuriating me was something that
Democrats through in the continuing Resolution that ended up passing
this one absolutely ticked me off. You see, there is

(01:17:05):
a a long time ago. I mean we're talking several
years ago at this point, there was a slush fund
that congressmen had access to, and the whole purpose of
this slush fund was to pay off people who were

(01:17:25):
accusing various congressmen of like sexual assault and different things
of that nature. And part of this slush fund, or
the payout of this slush fund was making it to
where the American people couldn't find out where the money

(01:17:46):
was going and who the money was intended on protecting,
which infuriated me because this is taxpayer money, this is
my money, money that was stolen from me. They put

(01:18:09):
in and goes. They're consumed with gaining and keeping power.
They don't really care about people apso frecolutely, you are
one hundred percent corrector But this ticked me off for
a very simple reason. It's my money. It belongs to

(01:18:32):
the American people. It belongs to you and me. It
doesn't belong to them. They have no right to it.
And since it's my money, I have the right to
know where it went and why. I have the right
to know the accuser. I have the right to know

(01:18:53):
who the accused is and if I think it's hogwashed,
and I have the right to decide whether I'm going
to listen to it or not. The people in their districts,
you know, the very ones who voted these people in
the office in the first place, they have the right
to say I'm not going to elect you in the
next term because you have this accusation on you. So

(01:19:20):
it's bs to me. It infuriates me. It takes me
off to see that, you know, my money is being
used to protect people who may or may not be
guilty of sexual assault to somebody, and you know, paying
off various different things. But I highly doubt that the

(01:19:41):
only thing that was being paid off was you know,
people accusing congressmen of sexual assault. I kind of doubt that,
But at any rate. That was just one of the
main purposes. It stated, it's my money. I have the
right to know where it's going and why, who is
being protected? What were they being accused of, and is

(01:20:03):
the accusation founded, does it hold water? Was there an investigation?
Was the person guilty? I have the right to know
because if I think that these area looks baseless accusations,
then I'm going to ignore it. If I think they
are credible accusations, then this person has no right to

(01:20:27):
be in Congress, or at least I have. I should
have the decision. I should have the authority to make
that decision. That information should not be withheld to me.
So this article from just a News. Do you agree
with the Senate adding new provisions to the continuing resolution

(01:20:51):
that brought an end to the shutdown. There was roughly
eleven pages it was adding to this and the provision
in the Senate spending bill to end the government shut
down includes money for members to sue the government if
their phone records are investigating without their notice. Now here's

(01:21:11):
the thing. This is where I think the Democrats got
really really they got creative, right, because this is where
they I don't want to say this is where they
got the idea for this, But this was the example
that they use in order to justify this type of payout,

(01:21:35):
including money for members to sue the government if their
phone records are investigating without their notice. So the provision
appears to be a response to eight Republican senators who
have their phone records subpoenaed by Justice Department Special counsel
Jack Smith in twenty twenty three as part of his
investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election.

(01:21:58):
You see what they did here. The Democrats threw in
a fund, a spending bill or a fund and the
spending bill to allow senators to sue the government if
the government subpoenaed their phone records, and they used what

(01:22:22):
the Democrats did to Republicans as justification for the necessity
of this money of this slush fund. So let me
get this straight. You want the American taxpayers to be

(01:22:44):
financially responsible and pay for your legal defense because the
Justice Department or the FBI is investigating you, And if
you win this ruling, then taxpayer dollars is going to

(01:23:07):
go to you as part of a payout. And apparently
this is regardless of your guilt or innocence. This just
happens if there is an investigation. This isn't whether or
not any you know, whether or not the investigation into

(01:23:30):
a senator or representative is found to be just or not,
whether it led to criminal charges and a conviction, None
of that is even in there. It's hey, I found
out there's an investigation against me. You subpoened my phone records.
I'm going to sue you. And you see, the Democrats

(01:23:57):
did this to Trump and you know, these eight publican
senators because they really really really didn't want President Trump
becoming president. They wanted to keep him out of office. They
weaponized the justice system. That's what Democrats did. They weaponized

(01:24:20):
the justice system. It wasn't about justice, it wasn't about
answering to your crime. I mean when they didn't find
any crime the President Trump did and others, they just
made something up. They reinterpreted the law to give them

(01:24:41):
what they thought was really good standing. I mean, that's
why in so many different cases where you know, especially
Letitia James, where in the appeals process that President Trump
is winning, it's like, oh, oh, well, you know, maybe

(01:25:02):
you shouldn't have done this all these cases have been
thrown out. Why because there was no standing. There was
no precedent for going after a former president or anybody
for that matter. And is what this truly amounts to
is the Democrats are trying to skate justice. They're trying

(01:25:24):
to avoid it. They're trying to make it as painful
for the government for you know, Trump's Department of Justice
to go after what they claim is political retaliation. I mean,
that's what Letitia James called it. She didn't call it justice,

(01:25:45):
she called it political retaliation against you know, because she
went after Trump. That's not the Republicans or that's not
what we're all about. That's not what we are trying
to do. We're not trying to retaliate. We're not trying
to just say no, don't go after political political adversaries.

(01:26:06):
It's you know, maybe you shouldn't make up crimes whenever
you can't find a crime in the first place. Maybe
you shouldn't weaponize and politicize the Department of Justice, the FBI.
Maybe you shouldn't do that. Maybe you shouldn't have broken
the law in your pursuit to go after Trump and
his supporters. Maybe you shouldn't have done that. Do you

(01:26:29):
think and maybe if you're going to FA you need
to fo. Don't you think that's what this is about?
I mean, that is actually what it's about. This isn't
about retaliation. It's about justice. We have seen the DOJ,

(01:26:58):
the FBI be political sized to benefit one political party
over another. And the Republicans are quite honestly sick of it.
Not just the Republicans in office, but just we the people.
We're sick and tired of it. And this isn't even
a party line thing. I mean, there's a lot of
Democrats that's seen what was going on and was like, dude,

(01:27:18):
this isn't This isn't the America I grew up in.
This isn't the party that my parents supported. This isn't
the JFK Democratic Party. It's changed, it's been weaponized. It
doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about justice,

(01:27:39):
it doesn't care about any of that. All he cares
about is power. When I read this headline, whenever I
heard this story, I was infuriated. I really was. I

(01:28:00):
was like, dude, you got to be kidding me. We
the American taxpayers are on the hook so so for
so much bloated spending. It isn't even funny, it's ridiculous.
And now I am supposed to pay out money for
a lawyer to go after the DOJ to sue them

(01:28:20):
because there's an investigation into something they did or did
not do. It doesn't matter. But you know, we're going
to be on the hook for paying for a lawsuit
against the DOJ. And if they win, then it's the
American taxpayers that are going to be on the hook
for paying that lawsuit out. Are you a freaking kidding me?

(01:28:44):
This is already going on in the Senate, at least
in the Senate, if not the House of Representatives too.
But this is already going on. It's no different. It's sickening,
it's disgusting. It takes me off this type of thing.
Should you want to know what I want to see?
I now, look, I haven't heard anything more about this.

(01:29:10):
I know by this time Saturday, November fifteenth, twenty twenty five,
I know, or at least I'm almost positive. Yeah, the
government shutdown is over at least until January when the
funding drives up, and then we go through this whole

(01:29:31):
thing all over again. At least in some part are
they going to be able to pass twelve appropriation bills
by the time the you know, the government funding ends,
probably not, so we're going to be looking at another
government shutdown. But what I would like to see is

(01:29:57):
kind of something simple, and I don't know, at least
in a funding bill, the legality of this, whether this
is something the President Trump could do, I don't know.
I mean, I know that the president has the you know,
what's called the line item veto that he can take,
you know, a provision and section and say nope, I

(01:30:20):
veto that. And in the case of veto, normally that
if it goes back to vetos are actually kind of
interesting because you know, if you veto a bill, that
means that the bill is done and it has to
get sent back to sorry that it has to get
sent back to Congress. If Congress is in session, they

(01:30:44):
have ten days to vote on the bill, and if
that bill passes by two thirds majority, then that bill
becomes a law, regardless of the President's signature. If it
does not after that ten days, then the bill is
done away with, is gone. So in the case here,

(01:31:05):
if I was President Trump, I would do a line
item veto and say you know, these eleven pages are gone.
You're not getting this funding. The American people is not
going to be on the hook for you wanting to
protect yourself against justice. Ain't going to happen. You're not

(01:31:26):
going to get a payout from the American people. You're
not going to get protected from what you did to
the American people at the expense of the American people.
And ain't going to happen. Why not am veto done?
And if you really really want to get two thirds
to agree with you? I mean, do you really think

(01:31:50):
that such a provision would actually be able to pass
both houses with a two thirds majority? I mean, you see,
you've seen how long it took to open the government
back up, the longest government shut down in history. Does

(01:32:14):
this you know? Is this going to be a hill
that Republicans or Democrats are going to be willing to
die on? I mean, I honestly don't think so. I don't.
I don't think this is going to be a winning proposition.
I really don't. All right, so we're going to go

(01:32:37):
ahead and take a quick break win a return. We're
going to be talking about Epstein because there's been some
new accusations and some new development going on. I'm sorry,
I had a slight whatever going on in my throat.
Oh that was weird. I want to start off by
saying this, whatever accusations they though at Trump, I just

(01:33:00):
honestly do not believe them. That's not to say that
I'm not going to at least hear them out. But
anything I hear is going to be met with immediate skepticism.
And here's why. If the Democrat Party honestly had dirt
on President Trump, let me ask let me ask the

(01:33:24):
googles a quick question. When did when did Epstein get arrested?
So back in twenty nineteen? Oh wow, okay, so this
has been a while ago. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on
July sixth of twenty nineteen on federal charges for sex

(01:33:46):
trafficking of minors in Florida and New York. He was
previously arrested in two thousand and six, but faced lesser
charges at the time. Okay, so the previous arretor see
charges soliciting prostitution from a minor. This led to a
controversial plea a plea deal in two thousand and eight,

(01:34:09):
and then was arrested. You know, eleven years later, rested
again in twenty nineteen. Yeah, YadA blah blah. So yeah,
there you go. Rested in twenty nineteen. So it's been
an ongoing thing right six years, and really has been
going on for almost longer. Has been going on for

(01:34:31):
almost twenty years because his original arrest was back in
July of two thousand and six, so it's been going
on for a while. What I'm saying is if there
was information to be had against President Trump, then they

(01:34:55):
would have released it a long time ago. I mean,
granted President Trump was first elected back in twenty sixteen,
they would have brought this up. If they truly had
information against President Trump in twenty twenty, they would have

(01:35:21):
and they definitely would have used it in twenty twenty four.
And mind you, from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five,
who was the president of the United States of America. Oh,
that's right, Biden was. If they were really serious about

(01:35:42):
releasing the Epstein files, why didn't they do it during
Biden's administration? I mean, aren't these really good questions. We'll
get into that right after this. Ye're back.

Speaker 6 (01:36:09):
Woke up this morning, sun in my.

Speaker 1 (01:36:18):
Reach for my soda.

Speaker 6 (01:36:22):
Tell you no lie.

Speaker 4 (01:36:27):
Soda soda? Where to go? My last can? Now?

Speaker 5 (01:36:35):
I'm so soda sold feeling blue?

Speaker 7 (01:36:41):
What's some man supposed to do?

Speaker 1 (01:36:48):
Fridge is empty wall, it's there.

Speaker 4 (01:36:57):
This ain't living him, This is a seal, So that soldau?
Where to go my last can?

Speaker 2 (01:37:13):
Now?

Speaker 5 (01:37:14):
I'm so so the.

Speaker 7 (01:37:16):
Soul feeling bout what some man supposed to do? You
gotta give myself together, Gotta find a way.

Speaker 4 (01:37:34):
This ain't right, Gotta make it to.

Speaker 1 (01:37:43):
Soa soda? Where'd you go?

Speaker 4 (01:37:48):
My last can? Now?

Speaker 7 (01:37:50):
I'm so soa.

Speaker 1 (01:37:53):
Sua feeling blue?

Speaker 7 (01:37:57):
What some man supposed to do?

Speaker 2 (01:38:17):
So?

Speaker 4 (01:38:22):
Where'd you go?

Speaker 2 (01:38:26):
Sorta salta fem and doom?

Speaker 1 (01:38:41):
Have you ever been so full of it? Your eyes
are brown? You ever sat on the toilet but nothing
comes out? Is a box of frosted shreaded wheat? Just
not doing the trick?

Speaker 2 (01:38:49):
Well?

Speaker 1 (01:38:49):
If I got the ultimate solution for you, tiight pod
bran colon cleans see tight pod bran colon cleans is
that particular product that will break through the sphincter like
the kool Aid man through a Oh yeah, no more irregularity,
no more cramping, just good old nice flow. That's right.
Type pod Brankoli Clint's Police is responsibly and used at home.

(01:39:11):
This is a fast acting product now available in Tropical punch.
All right, and we are back and we are going
to go ahead and dive into this. Now, this entire thing,
this is layered, all right. Can I be honest, This
whole thing is layered, this whole Epstein thing, you know,
because I mean, truth be told. I think that Trump
has handled this this thing very poorly by claiming that

(01:39:35):
it is an absolute you know, claiming it as a hoax.
I mean, granted, you know, Trump isn't saying that the
the what that it is, you know, necessarily a hoax.
That's not really what he's saying. What he is saying
is that the attacks on Trump is the hoax, not

(01:40:00):
these sex trafficking ring and the things that happened Lolita
Island or I'm sorry, Lalita Express and the you know,
the the the Love Island, whatever the hell you want
to call it. You know, that's not what he's saying
is a hoax. What he's saying is a hoax is
the continuing attacks from the Democrats saying that Trump was

(01:40:22):
somehow involved. Now let me give you a little bit
of a history lesson. If it wasn't for Trump's involvement,
there is a huge likelihood that Jeffrey Epstein never would
have been found out, that it would still be going on.

(01:40:47):
You know. Yeah, it's no secret that they ran in
some of the same circles. It's no secret that, you know,
President Trump before he was president, you know, kick Jeffrey
Epstein out of his home in mar A Lago because
Jeffrey Epstein was a creep. I mean, if Jeffrey Epstein,

(01:41:10):
I'm sorry, if President Trump was actually involved in you know,
what Jeffrey Epstein was doing, the very sick, very twisted things,
then would he have kicked him out of mar Lago. No,
that wouldn't have happened. But you know, there are people

(01:41:34):
in the FBI that basically said that without Trump that,
you know, because Trump was the only person whom FBI
approached that was actually willing to talk to them and
provide with as much information as he possibly could to
make sure that Epstein faced justice. Nobody else was willing

(01:41:56):
to do this. Trump did. That's kind of telling. And
he didn't do it asking for immunity. He wasn't saying that, hey,
I'm going to give you this information, but I need
certain securities from you. I want immunity from anything you

(01:42:18):
find out in the investigation in the Jeffrey Epstein that
isn't anything that has ever been put on the record,
And if if it happened again, we would know about it.
Epstein was arrested in July twenty sixteen. If there was
something there there that Democrats would have insisted, demanding and

(01:42:43):
ensured that it came out, That's my point. If there
was something there, we would know about it. So, I
mean that's not to say that any claim that's made
that I'm just going to completely write off. I mean,
I'm not saying that at all. But what I am
saying is every single claim I hear come out of

(01:43:05):
Democrats and mainstream media, any accusation, I'm taking it with
a grain of salt, all right. I'm not just going
to believe it wholesale. I'm going to, you know, read
the information, and I'm going to weigh it within myself.
Does this sound credible? Does it not sound credible? And
before I really make up my mind on it, before

(01:43:29):
I come to any real conclusion, I'm going to wait
for the information to kind of have it have the
ability to you know, go through the ringers, allow that
information to be investigated and allow it to be either
proven accurate if it is, or debunked and if it

(01:43:53):
is a complete lie perpetrated by the Democrat Party. That's
what I'm going to do. I'm not going to accept
the wholesale I'm going to wait for developments. And you know,
in all honesty, that's really what we all should be doing,
regardless of what information is discovered about anybody, and regardless

(01:44:16):
of whether we're talking about you know, Jeffrey Epstein or
anything else. I mean, we should always wait for the
facts to emerge. You know, Dan Bongino during his show
has said many different times hat tip to Dan Bongino
that you know, what he was interested in wasn't being first,
but being right. And this is something that we all

(01:44:41):
should strive for. I mean, not just journalists, not just
people who have shows like my News commentary, not journalists,
but we should all want to be right, not necessarily first,

(01:45:13):
in the realm of you know, being a mechanic. And
I know that there's a lot of different examples that this, uh,
you know this holds true to but you know, you
have it. You know, you can have something cheap, you
can have something done right, and you could have something

(01:45:38):
that is going to be durable, you know, done done
the correct way, done cheap and done done quick right.
But you can only get two of the three. You
can't get all three. If it's right, and if it
is like completely fixed, then it's not going to be cheap.

(01:46:00):
If it's cheap, it's not going to be right. It's
not going to be quick or at least you know,
if you want it cheap and quick, it ain't going
to be done right. If you want it cheap and
done right, it ain't going to be done quick. If
you want it quick and right, it ain't going to
be cheap. You know that you can have two of

(01:46:24):
the three, but you can't have all three. You kind
of got to pick and choose which one you want, right,
So I mean all of everything really needs to be
done based off of this.

Speaker 2 (01:46:36):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:46:36):
It's like dude, I you know, yeah, you can only
have it so quick. But you know, the rumor mills
spread quicker than the truth. I mean, that's just that's
just the fact of the matter. That's the world we
live in. Because before anybody gets facts, before anybody gets truth,
they always get the rumor mills, the assumptions, the things

(01:46:58):
you know that people read between the lines without knowing
anything about anything. I mean, that's just generally how it operates. Right, So,
whenever I heard the story that there was some email
correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump and the accusation,

(01:47:20):
the uh, you know, due to an email that was
sent from one of the two and I don't remember which,
claiming that President Trump spent a couple hours with Jeffrey
Epstein during thanks the Thanksgiving of twenty seventeen or was
it twenty sixteen, twenty sixteen? Maybe that I didn't believe it.

(01:47:43):
I'm just going to be honest with you. It could be,
you know, because here's the thing, dude, Okay, you throw
something out there that this isn't like President Trump is
just a nobody, all right. This isn't like somebody accused
me of being with Jeffrey Epstein and on the you know,
Thanksgiving of twenty sixteen or whenever the hell it was,

(01:48:05):
because that would be hard to verify. Right, I'm a
nobody who the hell cares where I'm at. But President Trump,
he is a public figure. And has been for I mean,
good grief, the majority of my life. He's been a
public figure, especially since he came down the escalator, whenever

(01:48:27):
he announced himself running for the president to be president
United States America. He's been a public figure. There's been
people around him. So mak an accusation of that, to
claim that President Trump was with Jeffrey Epstein, it doesn't
take very long to validate that claim, even from twenty sixteen.

(01:48:57):
It wasn't hard. And this accusations has already been debunked
to the point to where this post that was originally
made over there on x was immediately deleted. I mean,
it did not last very long in the ether at all.
They were like, oh shit, we screwed up. It was
debunked like that, and they were already trying to make

(01:49:26):
it as if they never made the accusation in the
first place. Now here's the thing. They're doing this as
a to distract the American people over the shutdown, over
what Democrats got out of the shutdown, over the fact

(01:49:48):
that it know, come January, we may see another shut
down unless Congress does what Congress is supposed to do.
That's twelve appropriation bills or another continuing resolution as shitty
as that is. This whole thing was to distract us
from what's actually going on. And here's another thing, and

(01:50:14):
this one. I was like, yes, I was happy to
hear about this because President Trump basically announced that he
is going to direct Attorney General Pambondi to investigate, you know,

(01:50:36):
open an investigation into Bill Clinton and other Democrats over
alleged Epstein files or I'm sorry Epstein ties. I'm like, yes,
I'm off for it. Abs freako lutely I am this
article actually because I was reading the headline on this.
This article comes from Fox News headline ag Bondi announces

(01:51:01):
DOJ investigation into Bill Clinton other Democrats over alleged Epstein ties.
Investigation follows release of new emails showing Epstein's connections to
prominent figures. This was published November fourteenth, twenty twenty five.
So in the next post Friday afternoon, Bondi said Jay Clayton,

(01:51:23):
US attorney for the Southern District of New York, will
take the lead on the investigation. Clayton is one of
the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, Bondi
wrote in the post. As with all matters. Department will
pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver andrews to
the American people. The article continues. Now that the Democrats

(01:51:51):
are using the Epstein hoax, involving Democrats and not Republicans
to try and deflect from the disastrous shutdown I said,
and all of their other failures, I will ask. I
will be asking ag Pambondi in the Department of Justice,
together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate

(01:52:12):
Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers,
Reid Hoffman, JP, Morgan Chase, and other people and institutions
to determine what was going on with them and him.
Trump wrote in a truth Social post on Friday, So

(01:52:34):
I'm all for it. You know again, whenever President Trump
refers to this as a hoax, he's not talking about
the overall sex trafficking ring. That's not what he's talking about.
He is talking about the Democrats deflecting the blame and
trying to shadow their own involvement by making it by

(01:52:58):
trying to force the American people to believe that Trump
is somehow just as guilty, if not more guilty than
what Bill Clinton is or any of the other people
that may be caught up in this sex trafficking ring.
That's what President Trump is talking about when he refers

(01:53:19):
to it as a hoax. It's not a hoax. We
all know it happened. We all know that it's the truth.
Let mean go, if it was a hoax, then why
is Maxwell still in prison? Right? Why is she? If
the whole thing was a hoax, if it's a big
old nothing burger, then why is she still in prison?
It's not a hoax, But Trump's involvement in it has

(01:53:44):
been extremely exaggerated because what's going on is you have,
and let's be honest, people on both sides, not just Democrats,
but you know some Republicans as well that are involved
in this that don't want this information to be brought
to light and are trying to say that the reason

(01:54:06):
this hasn't been brought to light and justice has not
been served on the other people that have been involved
in this is because President Trump himself is involved up
to the eyeballs, and that's just not the case. Again,
I don't believe it, because if it was true, the
evidence would have been astounding and it would have came
out long before now. And if the Democrats truly cared

(01:54:30):
about what was going on, then why didn't the information
get released whenever Biden was president. Let's not forget that.
Not that long ago, Congress tried to do a resolution
to force the federal judges to release all of the information,

(01:54:54):
and this measure was blocked by the Democrat Party. They said, no,
we're not doing it. And by the way, prior to that,
you know, they tried to, you know, compel, they try to,
you know, tell the the courts to release the information.
And the court said, no, we're not doing it. Why not.

(01:55:22):
You know, these judges weren't in the pocket of the
Republican Party or the RNC, they were in the pocket
of the Democrats. The Democrat Party had the ability to
release this information during Biden's administration, but they didn't care.
It was never an issue during Biden's presidency. And it

(01:55:45):
was the Republicans that tried to compel the courts to
release the information, and the Democrats said, no, these are
the facts. It happened. You can't dispute it because it happened.

(01:56:11):
There's evidence supporting what I just said. I want all
of the information to be released, and I want those
that are associated with this. There is, you know, a

(01:56:31):
title of a movie that was on.

Speaker 8 (01:56:34):
Netflix, Ted Bundee Netflix movie title, extremely Wicked, shockingly evil,
and vile.

Speaker 1 (01:56:55):
That title of a movie on Netflix about Ted Bundy
is extremely relevant and telling for this whole thing regarding
the sex trafficking, the prostitution ring surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Extremely wicked,

(01:57:23):
shockingly evil, and vile. I want everybody that has anything
to do with this to be brought to justice. I
want the information to be aired out publicly in court.

(01:57:44):
I want arrests, I want trials, I want convictions. I
want justice, justice for the victims, justice for the American people.
Considering the sheer level the you know, the different positions

(01:58:04):
that some people whom are being accused of, you know,
being involved in this, have, we deserve to know. A
point that I've made before and a point that I'm
going to make again. This is the United States of America,
run not by members in Congress, run not by the

(01:58:31):
President of the United States of America, run not by
Supreme Court judges, certainly not district court judges, you know,
federal judges and district courts. You know. No, the first
three words of the Constitution is we the people, not

(01:58:53):
we the politicians, not not we the aristocrats, not not
we the judges, now we the executive, not we the Congress.
It is we the people. We have a right to know.
Government doesn't have a right to shield us from the truth.
They don't have the authority to shield us from the truth.

(01:59:18):
We have a right to know. And I want to
know because I want everybody associated with this extremely wicked,
shockingly evil and vile crime, the sex ring. I want
it all to come out into the open charges jail time.

(01:59:39):
I want these people to be shamed into submission. I
want them to be shamed into oblivion. That's what I want.
And I don't care who's involved, Democrat, Republican Bill Clinton,
or President Trump. If you're involved, then you deserve whatever's

(02:00:02):
coming to you, jail time and the like. It ain't
about right verse left. It's about right verse wrong, and
that whole thing was wrong. This isn't political. This is

(02:00:23):
justice anyway. That's all I got for y'all today. That
is it. I want to thank each and every one
of you for stopping by, for listening to the show,
for making it a part of your day. It really
does mean a lot to me. And if you would
like to support the program, you can head on over
to Stinkpickle dot com that is s t I n

(02:00:44):
k p I k l e dot com and pick
yourself up some merch That is the best way to
support the channel. I got some awesome products over there,
I really do. If nothing else, you know, go over
there and take a look, you know, maybe shared it
over there on the social media's over there on the
inner way and let your friends know. Let your friends
see it. Maybe they will find something they like. Anyway,

(02:01:07):
I greatly appreciate it. You alllys, have yourself a great
one and I will see you as soon as they
go in the next one. This has been the ho
Host Show. For more information, you can head to the
ho Host Show dot com and for the merchandise store,
you can head on over to stink Pickle dot com
that is s T I N K P I k
l e dot com. Until next time,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal: Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Open, For Now

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal: Weekly

All Episodes

Open, For Now

Stuff You Should Know