Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Steve. We've moved
Speaker 2: the man Cave to Perth tonight. We're in Western Australia
Speaker 2: for the next few days. We'll be doing ourtown here
Speaker 2: on Sunday, Port Headland tomorrow for the show is as
Speaker 2: normal tonight and tomorrow night. The chat out to everyone
Speaker 2: here in w WA. It's great to be here and
Speaker 2: we've got a big show ahead for you tonight, including
Speaker 2: they are the best in the business, the Titans when
Speaker 2: it comes to firing up for their side of politics,
Speaker 2: Team Red and Team Blue. Brom and Bishop Stephen Conry
Speaker 2: are going to be here tonight. Yeah, I'm going to
Speaker 2: have my say about the idiocy that had a band
Speaker 2: served up today where it doesn't know the difference between
Speaker 2: profit and turnover, something that a kid in year nine
Speaker 2: economics would know, but he doesn't care about that, even
Speaker 2: though he wants the kid in year nine to be
Speaker 2: able to vote. And Meghan kelly or joined us tonight
Speaker 2: from the United States because Kamala Harris is doing an interview.
Speaker 2: What are the questions that she would ask the empty pantsuits?
Speaker 2: But first, can you believe that we live in a
Speaker 2: country that has people in it that in the middle
Speaker 2: of the day would assault a baby and potentially scar
Speaker 2: them for life. That's exactly what took place in the
Speaker 2: middle of the day yesterday, but we learned about it today.
Speaker 2: In Brisbane. A baby was with their parents in a park.
Speaker 2: This is what happens with anyone who's ever had a
Speaker 2: kid or a grandkid, or taken care of a little baby.
Speaker 2: At some point in time, you go to the park.
Speaker 2: It should be the safest place in the world. But
Speaker 2: I let Channel nine explain why this wasn't some bastard,
Speaker 2: and I'm sorry to use the language that hard that early,
Speaker 2: but some low life, some bastard, some piece of human garbage,
Speaker 2: decided to.
Speaker 1: Pour a hot coffee over a baby.
Speaker 3: A hospital bed, with his little hand wrapped around mum's
Speaker 3: fingers and a tear rolling down his cheek. This baby
Speaker 3: boy is hurting. We can't show you his face or
Speaker 3: his mum and dad under Queensland law. This little one
Speaker 3: is a victim of crime and cannot be identified, but
Speaker 3: you can see he's suffering serious burns to his face
Speaker 3: and chest, injuries inflicted by a complete stranger.
Speaker 2: A poor little man. The parents, they spoke to Channel
Speaker 2: nine again because of the absurdity of the law because somebody,
Speaker 2: the victim is under the age of eighteen. Everyone's got
Speaker 2: a blur of faces. This is a baby. This was
Speaker 2: their parents talking about the incident tonight in Bruceban's torture.
Speaker 4: And I'm supposed to be his protector and I couldn't
Speaker 4: protect him. Who was sitting in front of me, my
Speaker 4: friend beside me and her little baby, and some guy
Speaker 4: came up behind us and poured a coffee all over
Speaker 4: his head.
Speaker 2: Well, don't blame yourself, darlan. What could anyone do? What
Speaker 2: could anyone do? Why would anyone think that somebody walking
Speaker 2: vaguely near them was a threat like this? Again, the
Speaker 2: parents on Channel nine tonight go.
Speaker 4: Straight up to her apartment and to the shower. The
Speaker 4: ambulance arrives pretty quickly.
Speaker 2: Now, you didn't hear much from a dad because very
Speaker 2: obviously in these moments you let mums speak, But you'll
Speaker 2: hear from dad now.
Speaker 4: Just having flashbacks all the time about what happened. And
Speaker 4: I wish that he had poured the coffee over me.
Speaker 4: I don't know who would think that that is okay
Speaker 4: to harm a little innocent baby, a sick freak.
Speaker 2: How do we live in this place? How have we
Speaker 2: got to this stage where somebody did this? And I
Speaker 2: don't care what inevitably will be the things that are
Speaker 2: said in front of it. Seriously, this is one of
Speaker 2: those real low moments. We said nothing but strength and
Speaker 2: love to that family and to that little human who
Speaker 2: deserves to have nothing but a great life in the
Speaker 2: great state of Queensland and the greatest country of them all.
Speaker 2: I hope that because there was a nurse saw it
Speaker 2: all take place, took care of the bubbaus straight away,
Speaker 2: got it into a shower as fast as possible, that
Speaker 2: the scarring will not be forever. But think about if
Speaker 2: there wasn't that nurse there. Think if that was any
Speaker 2: of us, with any of the little kids that we love,
Speaker 2: going to a freaking park. His police were a little
Speaker 2: more information about what they're trying to look for here
Speaker 2: in the person they think is responsible.
Speaker 5: However, the rest assure that we're doing either than we
Speaker 5: possibly can to find this person.
Speaker 2: Now there is some footage of somebody running away from
Speaker 2: the park. I have to make it very very clear
Speaker 2: that I am not suggesting that this person is the suspect,
Speaker 2: but police want to talk to this person. If there
Speaker 2: is any information that you know about this person, about
Speaker 2: the whereabouts, about the incident, please one one hundred, triple three,
Speaker 2: triple zero is crime stoppers. This person may well be
Speaker 2: able to tell us more about a situation that none
Speaker 2: of us, none of us can get our head around. Tonight,
Speaker 2: let's get to the normal meat and potatoes this show,
Speaker 2: which of course is politics, and the number one issue
Speaker 2: in and around the country is cost of living. Now
Speaker 2: today you will have heard the media echoing that inflation
Speaker 2: is magically getting better.
Speaker 6: Inflation down Australia's the inflation rate is falling.
Speaker 7: It dropped two three and a half percent, down point
Speaker 7: three percent.
Speaker 2: The data says inflation is coming down.
Speaker 5: What they're telling us tonight headline inflation falling to three
Speaker 5: point five percent in July. This is an encouraging result.
Speaker 5: It's a welcome result.
Speaker 2: Energy rebates have helped push the rate of inflation lower.
Speaker 8: The barrage of inflation faced by households is cooling off.
Speaker 2: But just as somebody who wears high heels or platform
Speaker 2: souls that are this big back in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 2: they are not actually tall this is completely artificial. As
Speaker 2: you know, the federal government decided to spend a lot
Speaker 2: of money on a political slogan, not just about too little,
Speaker 2: too late tax cuts, but more importantly the three hundred
Speaker 2: dollars rebate, which works out at twenty five dollars a month,
Speaker 2: which only goes for twelve months to get them through
Speaker 2: an election, and that has artificially pulled things down not
Speaker 2: by a point, not even by half a point, but
Speaker 2: by zero point three percent, all right, so not even
Speaker 2: half of one percent. And if you have a look
Speaker 2: here the reality of the numbers which have come out,
Speaker 2: they are not quarterly, they are monthly numbers, and they
Speaker 2: still show that there are things that are way higher
Speaker 2: than the mid threes. This won't surprise you, but things
Speaker 2: like tobacco, well it's at thirteen point nine percent compared
Speaker 2: to this time last year. In terms of the past month,
Speaker 2: it's gone up. Fruit and veg has gone wild in
Speaker 2: the past month. Now you think about power bills where
Speaker 2: you're not going to notice, you are definitely going to
Speaker 2: notice fruit and vegetables because in the past month they've
Speaker 2: gone up by four points seven point five is well,
Speaker 2: the best part of double the inflation rate that they
Speaker 2: were patting themselves on the back floor. Again, think about
Speaker 2: the person with the highest heels possible or the highest
Speaker 2: possible boots.
Speaker 1: This is a fake result.
Speaker 2: Insurance yep, you can add again the ever growing costs
Speaker 2: their education, health up as well by one point. Bread
Speaker 2: and cereal because you know, why would anyone need to
Speaker 2: eat or drink? Food products generally are also up, and
Speaker 2: food and non alcoholic beverages are all up. Now, this
Speaker 2: isn't just me saying that this is not just even
Speaker 2: a sugar hit. Is the complete fraud of a result
Speaker 2: about inflation, one made to make the government's narrative true,
Speaker 2: not the reality of what we are all facing. Again,
Speaker 2: economists and other people who know way more than I.
Speaker 2: He's from the Daily Mail today about how they again
Speaker 2: point out that this is a fake result. The numbers, yes,
Speaker 2: the numbers are real and not pretending the ABS fiddles
Speaker 2: the numbers. But this is not a natural occurrence. The
Speaker 2: government got involved, spent hundreds of millions of dollars of
Speaker 2: your money, and that is to say that they changed
Speaker 2: it for one month by zero point three of one percent.
Speaker 2: Australia's inflation rate has fallen, but the moderation is only
Speaker 2: likely to be short lived because of it's based on
Speaker 2: taxpayer funded electricity bill reliefs. See told you that was
Speaker 2: the case, Harry Murphy, Cruz and economists with Moodys. Now
Speaker 2: remember Moodys, the ones who turn around and give credit ratings,
Speaker 2: quite often downgrading places like Victoria because of their systemic
Speaker 2: problems inside their economy. They said that the government rebates
Speaker 2: were a major reason behind inflation drop and noting it
Speaker 2: was far from good news. Everyone pay attention. July's inflation
Speaker 2: print is full of smoke and mirrors. While that makes
Speaker 2: the headline infation figure look a whole lot better, prices
Speaker 2: are ultimately unchanged. Governments are on the hook to pick
Speaker 2: up the tab, so we the taxpayer, pay for the
Speaker 2: politicians to be able to say that they are doing
Speaker 2: something about it, when many of the things that are
Speaker 2: the ultimate pressures upon us, like food or insurance or
Speaker 2: something to drink or somewhere to live, is all way
Speaker 2: higher than the average number and is fact even up
Speaker 2: on just last months, Which brings us to the economics
Speaker 2: of the Greens. As you will have heard today that
Speaker 2: the Greens leader Adam band Well he played the ultimate
Speaker 2: home game National Press Club in Canberra.
Speaker 1: A place filled with people who would love.
Speaker 2: To see their version of running the world being the
Speaker 2: way that we run our country. As you will have
Speaker 2: heard by now, the plan is to come up with
Speaker 2: half a tee for trillion dollars in quote unquote robin
Speaker 2: Hood taxes. What does it mean. Well, they're going to
Speaker 2: go after super profits, taxes on people like major corporations.
Speaker 2: Even your local music retailer may well end up being
Speaker 2: one of these. Now I let Adam Band explain what
Speaker 2: he can about this childish idea. Enough is enough.
Speaker 7: It's time to make the big corporations and billionaires pay
Speaker 7: their fair share of tax. This election, the Greens will
Speaker 7: propose a package of Robinhood reforms. The aim is simple,
Speaker 7: to make the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair
Speaker 7: share of tax to make life better for everyone.
Speaker 2: Now again, am I somebody who believes that every company
Speaker 2: should pay the tax that it owes to the country. Absolutely?
Speaker 2: But do I also understand that we have a system
Speaker 2: where the government tells us we have to have superannuation
Speaker 2: taken off the top of our wage or wage plus superannuation,
Speaker 2: which is the way it works in the private sector,
Speaker 2: and much of that money gets invested in the stock market,
Speaker 2: invested in the very companies that this bloke wants to
Speaker 2: go and hit with even harder taxes. Presumably that will
Speaker 2: affect their bottom line, meaning their share price will effectively
Speaker 2: be diminished, meaning the amount of money that you will
Speaker 2: be able to pull out either yourself managed retirement fund
Speaker 2: if you had retired, or when it's time to retire,
Speaker 2: it goes down. But of course all of this doesn't
Speaker 2: matter because they don't care about anyone over the age
Speaker 2: of forty. They think, if you're over the age of
Speaker 2: forty and you vote for them, good luck to you.
Speaker 2: But this is all about everyone under the age of forty,
Speaker 2: and it's all about some sort of occupy Wall Street nonsense.
Speaker 2: Now again, I'm not here to defend companies. They can
Speaker 2: do that for themselves. There are plenty of companies that
Speaker 2: deserve kicks in the backside. I have no problem with
Speaker 2: that whatsoever. But part of the methodology here about what
Speaker 2: companies would have to pay these higher rates of tax. Well,
Speaker 2: it's not actually off the amount of money at the
Speaker 2: end of the year that.
Speaker 1: They have left over that's called profit.
Speaker 2: No, it's in turnover so literally, if you have a
Speaker 2: business that has a certain amount I think it's fifty
Speaker 2: million dollars or more in turnover, then you will be
Speaker 2: taxed as if you had fifty million dollars or more
Speaker 2: in profit. Now again, let's go back to year nine economics.
Speaker 2: I'm sure mister Collie will be very excited that I
Speaker 2: am doing this on television now, but I did remember
Speaker 2: something in between being booted out of the classroom. The
Speaker 2: difference between turnover and profit is substantial. The amount of
Speaker 2: money that comes through the cash register does not mean
Speaker 2: that money goes automatically into anyone's pocket. Of course, anyone
Speaker 2: who's run any sort of business knows that the money
Speaker 2: that comes through the cash register ends up going back
Speaker 2: into purchasing the stock, or making the product, hiring the
Speaker 2: people to do all of those things, and what is
Speaker 2: left over after all of that, that's what profit is.
Speaker 2: So rather than being honest and saying this will be
Speaker 2: a profits based tax where you can have conversations about
Speaker 2: billion dollar profits of things like supermarkets, instead, by going
Speaker 2: over turnover, you are taxing people for money they don't
Speaker 2: actually have, clipping the ticket for money that will will
Speaker 2: go in one door and out the other Again, Adam
Speaker 2: Band today focused the first component.
Speaker 7: It's targeted at big corporations who are making excessive profits
Speaker 7: beyond a normal return to shareholders. It will apply to
Speaker 7: companies with an annual turnover of over one hundred million dollars,
Speaker 7: taxing the excess profits that these companies make.
Speaker 2: My apologies, turn over one hundred million dollars. This is madness.
Speaker 2: This is madness, but it will be very popular with
Speaker 2: the whole bunch of people who say, as long as
Speaker 2: I don't have to pay, shake your local billionaire, and
Speaker 2: then eventually money will fall out to pay for this,
Speaker 2: that and the other. The reality is is that to
Speaker 2: the corporate system in Australia already pays a very significant
Speaker 2: amount of tax, either as corporate tax or payroll tax.
Speaker 2: Let alone the stimulus that they bring to the economy
Speaker 2: by renting office space meaning people have to come in
Speaker 2: and go and they buy a coffee from downstairs. But
Speaker 2: again the Greens don't care. So as they know they
Speaker 2: will never be in government, they will not have seventy
Speaker 2: six seats in the lower House, they will not have
Speaker 2: the majority in the upper House, so they can just
Speaker 2: bank this money knowing that it's not going to actually
Speaker 2: come to fruition. It means they're able to dawn off
Speaker 2: and say that they're able to solve the world's problems
Speaker 2: for the thirty percent of the country that are renters.
Speaker 2: So the pushback here is not just people who want
Speaker 2: to protect the corporate class. It's about people who understand
Speaker 2: that these people will not actually, after the next election,
Speaker 2: be in power, but if there is a minority government,
Speaker 2: they will be as close to power as a non
Speaker 2: governing party possibly can be, meaning that some of this
Speaker 2: garbage may well be the price of admission. If the
Speaker 2: Abernezi government as expected as seen in the polls, requires
Speaker 2: Green support to form government after the next election. Here's
Speaker 2: some of the reaction.
Speaker 9: Well, there's nothing about Green's economic policy which is realistic.
Speaker 5: Their primary task is to make up number and put
Speaker 5: out press releases. We actually have to run the.
Speaker 10: Place, and the Greens have this luxurious position of where
Speaker 10: they don't have to. They can come out with an idea,
Speaker 10: but they never have to implement it.
Speaker 9: The Labor Party is not about doing deals with the Greens.
Speaker 9: We are focused on winning a majority at the next
Speaker 9: election in our own right.
Speaker 10: Well, they never need to worry about how the economy performs.
Speaker 10: They can come out with these kind of thought bubbles
Speaker 10: and never be have to be accountable for it.
Speaker 6: Australia do not want, do not need, cannot afford to
Speaker 6: have a minority government. But quite frankly, Labor haven't exactly
Speaker 6: been the exemplar of good economic management.
Speaker 2: Now watch some of these words very carefully, because while
Speaker 2: they talk about things like majorities and we want a
Speaker 2: majority in our own right, remember the extreme majority of
Speaker 2: Labor MPs are not elected on primary but they need preferences,
Speaker 2: and those preferences come like ninety percent from the Greens.
Speaker 2: So if they're serious, they would move the Greens to
Speaker 2: the bottom of the preference list exactly where the Liberal
Speaker 2: Party should have them at the bottom of the list.
Speaker 2: The Libs should put the Greens last, Labour should put
Speaker 2: the Teals last. Otherwise you end up with the people
Speaker 2: who are able to turn their protest party into a
Speaker 2: permanent position in Parliament, and they're able to go back
Speaker 2: to said populations and come up with wild ideas that
Speaker 2: they will never put in place. But when a government
Speaker 2: as poor as this one, with a backbench as thin
Speaker 2: as this one, is staring right down the barrel of
Speaker 2: a minority parliament, a minority parliament where if the current
Speaker 2: poles are right, it's not going to be one or
Speaker 2: two seats, it's going to be seven or eight seats
Speaker 2: that they're going to need. So it's not just going
Speaker 2: to be Rebecca Sharky Bob Catter. It's not just going
Speaker 2: to be Andrew Wilkie. It's going to be the Greens.
Speaker 2: It's going to be the left wing Teals, which is
Speaker 2: why this election is so damn important. The consequences are absolute.
Speaker 2: The Greens have now told us the price that everyone
Speaker 2: has to pay for them to get as close as
Speaker 2: possible to power without actually being in power. Meantime, I've
Speaker 2: got a little update for you when it comes to
Speaker 2: the aged care situation. I've got so many emails from people,
Speaker 2: and thank you for sending them to Poullotsguydews dot com
Speaker 2: dot au about agecare and about what apparently is the
Speaker 2: deal that may well have been done here between Team
Speaker 2: Blue and Team Red for how much money you are
Speaker 2: going to have to pay on top of what you
Speaker 2: currently pay for aged care. Now we understand here that
Speaker 2: the expectation is that self funded retirees are going to
Speaker 2: end up having to pay an extra forty forty thousand
Speaker 2: dollars extra for nursing homers under user pays. Remember this
Speaker 2: government put in front of the opposition and we don't
Speaker 2: know what the deal is that the caps that exist
Speaker 2: inside an age care home, well, they wouldn't exist if
Speaker 2: you are taking care of yourself at home with a
Speaker 2: home care package. Some self funded retirees, according to the OS,
Speaker 2: entering a nursing home after July next year will face
Speaker 2: an average of forty thousand dollars extra coming out of
Speaker 2: their own pocket if the Abanez's government plan new aged
Speaker 2: care regime adopts the recommendations of a task force for
Speaker 2: greater personal contributions, with uncertainty now cloning the future of
Speaker 2: landmark age care laws after hopes for a bipartisan deal
Speaker 2: were dashed at the eleventh hour. I think that's in
Speaker 2: part because of what we were talking about here. If
Speaker 2: Team Red and Team Blue, we're going to get into
Speaker 2: a scenario where there'll be an even higher cap, like
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars higher cap for age care facilities
Speaker 2: and no cap at home. Maybe that's why they've decided
Speaker 2: to pull out here. But get ready that to your
Speaker 2: accommodation deposit will move to forty nine bucks a day
Speaker 2: or eighteen thousand dollars a year. The additional payments would
Speaker 2: also apply to the fifty five percent of all nursing
Speaker 2: home residents who don't receive government pensions. That's about thirty
Speaker 2: percent of the nation's approximately two hundred thousand age care residents.
Speaker 2: Stand by massive story. Good to see the reporting in
Speaker 2: The Australian today. Also keep an eye on what Philip
Speaker 2: Curley writes, tweets or speaks from the Financial Review. He's
Speaker 2: right across the negotiations. These things matter and we need
Speaker 2: to call people to account about what is the deal
Speaker 2: that is currently being done Because your parents, you, or
Speaker 2: eventually you will be burdened with this system. Now, what
Speaker 2: about the Queensland government, as we know, desperate to try
Speaker 2: to hold onto power, They've come up with every possible
Speaker 2: way of trying to buy people's votes, and one of
Speaker 2: those is the reduction in public transport fares. The public
Speaker 2: transport system has seen an increase in the number of
Speaker 2: people that are using it because apparently will only cost
Speaker 2: fifty cents for you to be able to ride. But
Speaker 2: guess what despite the fact that the fair is just
Speaker 2: fifty cents, the Queensland government is going to spend a
Speaker 2: lot more than fifty cents chasing down anyone who evades
Speaker 2: the fare of fifty cents. Now, this would be literally
Speaker 2: wasting money, chasing bad money. Now, okay, if they eventually
Speaker 2: chase you down and you've got to pay fifty cents back,
Speaker 2: you'll pay it back. But it costs a lot more
Speaker 2: than fifty cents for somebody to chase down the person
Speaker 2: who owes fifty cents. And another example about the political
Speaker 2: trouble that the Queensland Labor Party is in. Yet another
Speaker 2: Labour MP is jumping ship ahead of what is expected
Speaker 2: to be a bruising Queensland election. May it be so?
Speaker 2: May it be so? Curtis Pitt, Speaker of the Parliament,
Speaker 2: he has decided he will not contest the next election.
Speaker 2: But of course it doesn't matter whether it's good news
Speaker 2: or bad news. Stephen Lyles will find a way to
Speaker 2: giggle good, bad or indifferent. Now, there is an interesting
Speaker 2: conversation happening right now around the census. The next census
Speaker 2: is due in the next little while, and of course,
Speaker 2: as you know, the census is literally about the raw
Speaker 2: data that governments go on to make decisions about how
Speaker 2: many people live here, how many people live there, how
Speaker 2: many people with kids are here? Do we need more
Speaker 2: childcare here, more aged care there, more schools, better roads,
Speaker 2: all of that stuff right now. Whether they actually deliver
Speaker 2: on it or not, well, we can all agree that
Speaker 2: that's probably not the case. But also one of the
Speaker 2: things that the Bureau of Statistics collects when it collects
Speaker 2: that census information is there's a whole bunch of other
Speaker 2: information that they're able to extrapolate and turn into different
Speaker 2: reports that bleed out for the next couple of years.
Speaker 2: As a show that almost nightly quotes the Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Speaker 2: I want them to have as much information as possible,
Speaker 2: which brings us to an interesting question. Should someone be
Speaker 2: able to list their gender or their sexuality, how many
Speaker 2: options should there be? Now? The data freak in me says,
Speaker 2: we should have as much information about as many people
Speaker 2: as possible. Now. I know that there have been examples
Speaker 2: in the past when the people who chose not to
Speaker 2: identify as male or female has been a relatively low number,
Speaker 2: and inevitably, if you put in the whole Smaugus board
Speaker 2: of options, those numbers are going to increase. But the
Speaker 2: reality here is that there's nothing to do with morality here.
Speaker 2: You're not going to disappear people of different genders or
Speaker 2: different sexualities by not counting them. So let's actually see
Speaker 2: the data. Let's actually see whether the country is spending
Speaker 2: too much time talking about these issues or whether there
Speaker 2: is a significant number of people who fit into lots
Speaker 2: of different categories. I know you may disagree, but think
Speaker 2: about it from the data perspective. Now, I say all
Speaker 2: of this because for some reason left wing Albanese government,
Speaker 2: putting together the advice through the Bureau of Statistics, has
Speaker 2: decided that they don't want the question at the next
Speaker 2: census about gender and sexuality. Now this has really annoyed
Speaker 2: a bunch of people in the alphabet community, but more importantly,
Speaker 2: it denies us data, real data. I just want the data.
Speaker 2: That's the point right now. Interestingly, the last thing that
Speaker 2: we want, the Deputy Prime Minister says, is the LGBT
Speaker 2: census questions to avoid division. Now again, I understand that
Speaker 2: you may not approve of either lifestyle sexualities or or
Speaker 2: the people who believe that gender is fluid. I'm not
Speaker 2: arguing that tonight, but it's not divisive to actually know
Speaker 2: who's living next door or in the.
Speaker 1: Next street, or in the next suburb.
Speaker 2: When it comes to race finance, how many cars you own,
Speaker 2: whether they have an Internet connection or not, And yes,
Speaker 2: that does for some come down to things like sexuality
Speaker 2: and gender. As I say, the LGBT community is very
Speaker 2: annoyed about this. I think they'll eventually end up with
Speaker 2: a win because the data is what's needed here. And
Speaker 2: I don't believe anyone is truly offended by the question appearing,
Speaker 2: do they really.
Speaker 11: The decision goes against the evidence, and the evidence outweighs
Speaker 11: absolutely the need for the data, and that is what
Speaker 11: we're focused on. It's more than these questions that people
Speaker 11: Some people are upset around the fact of asking questions
Speaker 11: on sex, gender, variations of sex characteristics, and sexual orientation.
Speaker 11: The data that comes from that, it's a life saving data.
Speaker 1: It is about the data.
Speaker 2: It is not about anything else. We get as much
Speaker 2: data as possible, and we should. Can you know what
Speaker 2: you think? Always respond? Ports, Godews, dot com, dot AU
Speaker 2: a couple of massive things out of the United States.
Speaker 2: Now one thing that we absolutely know is that if
Speaker 2: there is or isn't a debate in the first couple
Speaker 2: of weeks of September, around the middle of September, is
Speaker 2: when Donald Trump is going to be sentenced. He may
Speaker 2: well be sentenced to jail, sent to jail before the election.
Speaker 2: This is what is about to happen as the judge sentencing,
Speaker 2: and we know how that judge has at every opportunity
Speaker 2: ruled against Trump, has allowed the most wild and crazy
Speaker 2: stuff into that court case, a court case that they
Speaker 2: were able to somehow get a guilty verdict despite the
Speaker 2: fact that it was all about bookkeeping, but the bookkeeper
Speaker 2: was not actually called to give evidence because the fear
Speaker 2: was that he would exonerate Donald Trump. Well, that's the
Speaker 2: first situation. The second is a blow called Jackson Smith.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith's gone very quiet for a little while, but
Speaker 2: now he's roaring back to life. He's the special counsel,
Speaker 2: the special prosecutor who is going as hard as he
Speaker 2: possibly can against Trump on the documents that were kept
Speaker 2: at mar Lago and trying to criminalize his role in
Speaker 2: and around what happened with January six. Now Fox News
Speaker 2: will explain that this case has had to be changed
Speaker 2: because the Supreme Court said that a president basically is
Speaker 2: immune from prosecution when they do things as the president.
Speaker 2: So the case has been restacked with a little changed
Speaker 2: here and a little change there, and Fox will explain
Speaker 2: why this election matters even more to Donald Trump because
Speaker 2: if he loses, he will have to defend this case
Speaker 2: in court.
Speaker 8: The chargers remain the same for Trump's alleged attempts to
Speaker 8: overturn the twenty twenty election, but Special Counsel Jack Smith
Speaker 8: reframed the endement following the Supreme Court's decision to give
Speaker 8: presidents broad immunity for her official acts made an office.
Speaker 8: One section removed accused Trump of trying to use the
Speaker 8: power of the Justice Department to overturn his loss. Another
Speaker 8: change removed the names of federal officials.
Speaker 12: Whether they did is kept the four charges, and they
Speaker 12: just took out any evidence that clearly would have contradicted
Speaker 12: the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity.
Speaker 2: Meantime, Kamala Harris, one week after the Democratic National Convention,
Speaker 2: is going to come out of hiding. She will in
Speaker 2: the next twenty four hours sit down and tape an
Speaker 2: interview with CNN. The interview will of course be with
Speaker 2: her and her vice presidential running mate, because of course
Speaker 2: making killeses. You can't have a president without the emotional
Speaker 2: support governor. Now, we all know the questions that have
Speaker 2: to be asked. We all know that it's about multiple
Speaker 2: parts here. Firstly, what did you know about Joe Biden?
Speaker 2: When did you start to know that he was going
Speaker 2: the other way? Second, Lea, can you please explain why
Speaker 2: you're flip flopped on this issue? This issue, this issue,
Speaker 2: this issue, and now what do you plan to do
Speaker 2: if you become president of the next four years? That
Speaker 2: should take more than an hour of television, but apparently
Speaker 2: see an m We'll just do an hour of it.
Speaker 2: And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that
Speaker 2: is just walking around metaphorically holding hands rather than asking
Speaker 2: some of those questions. Well, tonight, Meghan Kelly will line
Speaker 2: up the questions that she demands are asked of this
Speaker 2: person who is cruising their way through this campaign, hiding
Speaker 2: in plain sight, pretending that she's not Joe Biden while
Speaker 2: using Biden's basement to find a way to power. He's
Speaker 2: part of Meghan. That'll turn up a bit later tonight,
Speaker 2: and what she would ask Harris.
Speaker 13: Your campaign says you're no longer in favor of a
Speaker 13: fracking band, what specifically changed your mind?
Speaker 1: How?
Speaker 13: And when your campaign says you no longer favor taking
Speaker 13: away everyone's private health insurance and putting them on the
Speaker 13: government plan, the Medicare plan, what specifically changed your mind?
Speaker 13: Your campaign says that you are no longer throw open
Speaker 13: border policies and not enforcing our immigration laws. You now
Speaker 13: want to crack down on the southern brook What specifically
Speaker 13: was it?
Speaker 2: Meghan? In a couple of seconds, but straight after this
Speaker 2: looking forward to a big fire up Stephen Connery. He's
Speaker 2: just here to help.
Speaker 1: Bromwan Bishop, She's.
Speaker 2: Here to tell it like it is. I can't wait.
Speaker 2: We're alive in Perth. Thanks for watching us where you are,
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for watching. I'm in Perth and
Speaker 2: joining us right now from Sydney is none other than
Speaker 2: the wonderful Bromwin Bishop carry out a CHAMPI as always
Speaker 2: on a Wednesday night in Melbourne is Stephen Connery, and
Speaker 2: he's always here to help.
Speaker 1: What a truly national.
Speaker 2: Show we are tonight where we're all united by what
Speaker 2: the hell did Adam Ban serve up today? Now Bromwin again.
Speaker 2: The difference between profferd and turnover and is all very
Speaker 2: serious and it's time to soak the rich. Of course,
Speaker 2: it's easy for them to come up with this source
Speaker 2: of revenue for promises that they'll never have to put
Speaker 2: in place because they won't be the opposition, they won't
Speaker 2: be the government. But but but but they may well
Speaker 2: end up being in a position to help Labor form
Speaker 2: a minority government. And that's why we pay any attention
Speaker 2: lit alone this much attention to it. What did you
Speaker 2: think of Adam Bant's economics lesson today, Well, it's.
Speaker 1: Certainly not a Robin Hood tax.
Speaker 14: It's more like a King John tax, I think. But
Speaker 14: the thing that is important is this that Adam Banter
Speaker 14: has come out and said that he wishes to replace
Speaker 14: Labor as the mainstream left wing party. So he is
Speaker 14: going all out to beat Labor in enough seats that
Speaker 14: he can in fact be the dominant left wing party.
Speaker 14: In doing so, he no doubt is going to take
Speaker 14: money from the CFMU. I think they already take it
Speaker 14: from the Electrical Trades Union. They'll take it from the MUA,
Speaker 14: and they'll take their manpower already got the CFMU coming
Speaker 14: out and saying they're going to destroy the Labor Party
Speaker 14: and they will be running hard to do exactly that.
Speaker 1: So the so called.
Speaker 14: Policy of how they'll run the economy is window dressing
Speaker 14: around what is a thrust and for absolute power. So
Speaker 14: when they say they're going to slug the rich, it
Speaker 14: just becomes a mantra. It honestly sounds like Stalin's five
Speaker 14: year plan. It'll do nothing for the people of Australia,
Speaker 14: nothing to enable people to live decent lives. They are
Speaker 14: the would be autocratic rulers and they have to be
Speaker 14: called out for being a socialist, dreadful party.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Stephen, let's look under the hood here right again,
Speaker 2: there is a difference between profit and turnover. Did I
Speaker 2: get that right? Firstly yes or no? But then secondly,
Speaker 2: let's get to that about what they're going to try
Speaker 2: to do here, about what they're trying to do with you.
Speaker 2: You got half a trillion dollars worth of money that
Speaker 2: you seek to either reallocate or have fake promises. How
Speaker 2: worried are you that the Labor Party suffers when they've
Speaker 2: got half a trillion dollars worth of promises that they
Speaker 2: can just piddle up against the wall.
Speaker 15: Well, look, I think you mentioned your year nine was
Speaker 15: it economics class graduation A plus for Paul Murray on
Speaker 15: first year economics because clearly Adam budd has failed that one.
Speaker 15: But look, in terms of the promises they're going to make,
Speaker 15: they've been somewhere realistic. They're moving so further left they're
Speaker 15: tearing themselves apart. Here in Victoria, the different factions of
Speaker 15: the Greens Party are spelling over the lunatic performance by
Speaker 15: the Housing spokesperson supporting an organization which has been found
Speaker 15: to be riddled with criminal elements. I mean, that's who
Speaker 15: the Greens are hooking up with nowadays. To Bromwick's point,
Speaker 15: I'd be surprised if the administrator is going to be
Speaker 15: start doling out donations for anyone in the next election.
Speaker 15: The whole Union is now in in administration, I think,
Speaker 15: other than maybe the.
Speaker 1: West coast where Paul is.
Speaker 15: But apart from apart from that, you know, this is
Speaker 15: a package that he may, in his fantasies, think is
Speaker 15: his negotiating point. But I don't even need to say
Speaker 15: out loud that Labor will not do it, will not
Speaker 15: agree to it, and it would be political suicide for
Speaker 15: labor to give them one percent of this insanity.
Speaker 2: On the flight on the way over, I was sitting
Speaker 2: next to a wonderful bloke called Brian. He was very
Speaker 2: you know, very giving them a space that then sort
Speaker 2: of wanted to have a chat and I'm like, mate,
Speaker 2: let's go, let's have a chat. And he was very
Speaker 2: kind and he waited. But we took a long time
Speaker 2: on the flight talking because he works in the gold mine,
Speaker 2: so right, he has since then, and he talked about
Speaker 2: this situation of the tailings dam and why the decision. Well,
Speaker 2: you can't just move certain parts of that without serious
Speaker 2: financial or engineering consequences. Now we talk about all of
Speaker 2: this because of course there's this new South Wales gold mine.
Speaker 2: The locals wanted, the state government wants it, the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister apparently wants it, but his Environment minister says no.
Speaker 2: The company says, well sorry unless the tailings dam is there.
Speaker 2: And anyone who's ever watched you know Ossie gold Hunters,
Speaker 2: you know up the road in Calgooley where it's filmed,
Speaker 2: you know the importance of water to the process. Right,
Speaker 2: But we again see the News of Whales premiere doubling down.
Speaker 2: He again is pretty obvious he's pushing for this thing.
Speaker 2: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 7: I'm disappointed by the decision from the Commonwealth Government.
Speaker 2: You disagree with the reversion. Liver said that many times, and.
Speaker 1: So in your view, ten, you're Clevasick using that power.
Speaker 2: Was she was in error? Yes, So Brian made an
Speaker 2: awful lot of sense, which means Bromin goes first. Now, Bromwan,
Speaker 2: how does this work? Everyone agrees except the government that
Speaker 2: is regulating against it, but the boss of that government
Speaker 2: disagrees with the decision. You can't just move the tailings.
Speaker 14: Paul, there is a way out of this situation. Albanez
Speaker 14: he said he wants them a mine. Minsa said he
Speaker 14: wants the mine.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 14: The declaration that is made by Tanya plippershek is a
Speaker 14: disallowable instrument. And on the twentieth of August, Senator Derniam
Speaker 14: moved a disallowance motion which is now before the Senate.
Speaker 14: It's on the notice paper I think for the ninth
Speaker 14: of September. And if it remains on the notice paper
Speaker 14: for fifteen sitting days and the Government doesn't call it
Speaker 14: on and defeat that disallowance motion, then the declaration made
Speaker 14: by Tania Plibisk will be disallowed and the mind you saved,
Speaker 14: and she cannot remake that declaration for six months. So
Speaker 14: there is a very simple way mister Minn should ring
Speaker 14: mister Alberanizi and mister Albersi should tell his senators that
Speaker 14: they should not call on the motion and they should
Speaker 14: not defeat call it on for a vote and they
Speaker 14: should not defeat it. They should simply leave it there
Speaker 14: and let it become disallowed. Then the mind can continue.
Speaker 2: So Stephen, you know the machinations of the Senate, you
Speaker 2: know the machinations of what Robins just said. Is that
Speaker 2: going to be how the Labour Party saves itself from itself?
Speaker 15: Well, look, there's a few extra complications. I mean, what
Speaker 15: Bromins described, I think reasonably accurately is the parliamentary process.
Speaker 15: But there are still these things called laws and judges
Speaker 15: and courts and idea that the minister can just courts judges.
Speaker 15: So Tanya plebisc is guided by actual existing law she
Speaker 15: has to follow. So there's been these arguments if he
Speaker 15: could just be quiet for just two minutes from I'll
Speaker 15: help you. So it is for you, I know, But
Speaker 15: the laws that Tanya has to follow. Tanya has approved
Speaker 15: minds she perhaps at a personal level, doesn't want to
Speaker 15: She's disapproved projects that she perhaps wanted to approve. But
Speaker 15: the minister doesn't get their own personal view on these things.
Speaker 15: The minister is bound by law and must follow the law.
Speaker 15: They must follow proper process and they must follow the
Speaker 15: trail that leads. Because Scott Morrison proved to us, why
Speaker 15: if you just intervene, decide to knock off a proposal,
Speaker 15: it can be challenged in court. He did it, I
Speaker 15: think it's an offshore wind farm and got rolled in
Speaker 15: court for not following proper process.
Speaker 1: Everything the problem that had.
Speaker 2: De session.
Speaker 15: Because I just tried to explain to you, because you
Speaker 15: then will be taking to court and be challenged on
Speaker 15: the basis of the administrative processes. Yes, Brown, Scott Morrison
Speaker 15: actually had it happened to him recently, my minister, when
Speaker 15: he appointed himself one of all of those you know,
Speaker 15: seventy four ministries he appointed himself, he knocked over something
Speaker 15: got taken the course by the unsuccessful bidder. Now in
Speaker 15: this case it would be not the mind people who
Speaker 15: would take them in court, and with the opponents of
Speaker 15: the mind that would take them to court. So you
Speaker 15: can't just as Environment Minister decide I like this one,
Speaker 15: I don't like this one.
Speaker 1: You've actually got to follow the law. Yes, and the
Speaker 1: law says.
Speaker 2: Mate, I love it. All right. Now, let's talk about
Speaker 2: the all guns blazing on Peter Dutton stuff. This is
Speaker 2: designed to distract from all of the problems the government has,
Speaker 2: all right now, Again, I stand by the analogy of
Speaker 2: the high heels or the platform shoes about sort of
Speaker 2: the result that we got today when it came to inflation.
Speaker 2: Jim Chalmers, of course loved the idea that after delivering
Speaker 2: the bomb, he follows up on the bomb after everyone
Speaker 2: reacts to the bomb, and unsurprisingly he stands by the
Speaker 2: bomb that he threw Peter Dutton's way.
Speaker 5: I'm very happy to come to that specific question, but
Speaker 5: before I do, I want to say something about the
Speaker 5: speech that.
Speaker 2: I gave on Monday night.
Speaker 5: Ninety percent of it was about paying tribute to the
Speaker 5: memory of John Curtin and talking overwhelmingly about cost of
Speaker 5: living and the future of our economy. But I don't
Speaker 5: resolve one bit from the remarks that I made about
Speaker 5: Peter Dutton.
Speaker 2: On Monday night.
Speaker 5: Dutton is a divisive figure, and I believe he is
Speaker 5: too divisive to be the prime minister of a great
Speaker 5: country like ours.
Speaker 1: Bro.
Speaker 2: When this pissed off, it must mean that Dutton is
Speaker 2: right over the target.
Speaker 14: You know, you know, when the government's in trouble and
Speaker 14: there's this awful whiff of fear, you can smell it.
Speaker 14: And that speech that mister Chalmers made trying to call
Speaker 14: mister Dutton di visive when he knows damn well that
Speaker 14: it was mister ALBERNIZI, who is the most divisive character
Speaker 14: we've seen with the voice, had that whiff of fear
Speaker 14: about it, and that was reinforced when he made that
Speaker 14: peculiar statement today when he said, look, twenty two pages
Speaker 14: was my speech and I only just spoke about mister
Speaker 14: Dutton with a very small part of it. I was
Speaker 14: really talking about something else and left out, of course
Speaker 14: the word dangerous. Is feeling the pressure very much. He
Speaker 14: knows they're in deep trouble. He knows that they've failed
Speaker 14: on every issue that they have tried to bring forward.
Speaker 14: And when the figures didn't come out today on inflation
Speaker 14: the way he wanted it, well, he felt the pressure
Speaker 14: again and he's going to go on feeling it because
Speaker 14: this is going to be a election and people think
Speaker 14: much closer.
Speaker 2: I think so too. We've got literally less than a
Speaker 2: minute here, Stephens. So again, look, it's a shark. No
Speaker 2: one can add glass jaws, and it's got to have
Speaker 2: sharp elbows. And you're allowed to say whatever you want
Speaker 2: about your opponent, But doesn't it tell you a little
Speaker 2: something about how nervous they are because supposedly they're guaranteed
Speaker 2: the next election, aren't they.
Speaker 15: Every government draws a picture of the leader of the opposition.
Speaker 15: Every government, whether it's John Howard trying to draw a
Speaker 15: picture of Kevin Rudd, whether it was Kevin Rudd trying
Speaker 15: to draw a picture about Tony Abbott, Every government, every
Speaker 15: opposition get into the same arguments. This is absolutely normal politics.
Speaker 15: And what Jim did was simply exposed that Peter Dutton
Speaker 15: is continuing to find his own distractions and just needs
Speaker 15: to actually put some policy on the table. It's not
Speaker 15: policy debates.
Speaker 2: Oh dear, all right, thank you. I'm not far to
Speaker 2: that between now and the election. I got to go, sorry, Bromin,
Speaker 2: because we've got the wonderful Megan Kelly standing by and
Speaker 2: we've got a little satellite de lay between here and there.
Speaker 2: So my apologies, Thank you guys. Talk to you all
Speaker 2: next week. Meghan Kelly, the hard questions for the empty
Speaker 2: pants suit, that is Kamala. Harris next not talking to
Speaker 2: Megan Kelly, but I'm really fired up and borderline pissed
Speaker 2: off tonight, and I know her shows are pretty much
Speaker 2: the same because we've got to talk about Kamala. Kamala
Speaker 2: not even hiding in plain sight, just outright hiding. The
Speaker 2: Great Lady joins us now from the US Meghan, five
Speaker 2: days since the empty pants suit, rather than Obama in
Speaker 2: a pantsuit was out telling us not very much and
Speaker 2: hope and joy and all that crap. Get no way
Speaker 2: to be saying nothing. And as you reported yesterday, as
Speaker 2: NBC has been backing in today, if she does an interview,
Speaker 2: she'll do it with her governor. If the debate happens,
Speaker 2: she'll do it with notes. Now, this is not the
Speaker 2: behavior of a person who is leading. This is the
Speaker 2: stuff of somebody who is scared.
Speaker 13: Nor is it the behavior of anyone with any intellectual depth.
Speaker 1: That's the truth. That's really what's an issue here.
Speaker 13: She is not a very smart person. She can say
Speaker 13: enough to get through a short exchange or memorize note
Speaker 13: cards for a debate, but she does not have any
Speaker 13: intellectual depth. And that I think is what we've been
Speaker 13: perceiving for the last four years. When she tries to
Speaker 13: offer her brand of profundity, where none of us feel
Speaker 13: moved at all. We're actually scratching our heads asking ourselves,
Speaker 13: what did she just say? Why would she say that,
Speaker 13: and why would she think that that would resonate with
Speaker 13: any of us? So she understands she needs a crutch,
Speaker 13: whether it's going to be her emotional support governor in
Speaker 13: an interview or her note cards in a debate. She
Speaker 13: can't perform alone, and she has enough history behind her
Speaker 13: to know that.
Speaker 2: And look, whether this all works or not, who knows.
Speaker 2: I don't have a time machine. We'll all find out
Speaker 2: first week in November. But just instinctively, I think people
Speaker 2: buy the millions don't buy it anymore. They don't buy
Speaker 2: the spin, and they see what's happening in real time.
Speaker 2: They see that this person who is being presented in
Speaker 2: one fashion is really another. But on your show yesterday,
Speaker 2: I loved when you had the examples of the questions
Speaker 2: any and every person who gets the opportunity to ask
Speaker 2: her should ask. They should be basic contrast questions. You
Speaker 2: believe this, now, you believe that? Why over and over
Speaker 2: and over again. If she can make it through that,
Speaker 2: then fine, but we both know she can't.
Speaker 13: It's very simple. And the point I was trying to
Speaker 13: make on my show was not only should it be
Speaker 13: your campaign issued a statement saying that you no longer
Speaker 13: support a ban on fracking?
Speaker 1: Is that true?
Speaker 13: It should be what made you change your mind? Exactly specifically,
Speaker 13: And I was saying, just like they do to Republicans
Speaker 13: who go from being pro choice to pro life, because
Speaker 13: it's still a Republican party in which you can't be
Speaker 13: elected or nominated unless you say your pro life. And
Speaker 13: a lot of journalists who especially those who are you know,
Speaker 13: looking to cause damage to you a Republican or who
Speaker 13: are themselves Republicans, those you know two or three percent
Speaker 13: of reporters who are might ask a question of such
Speaker 13: a man as follows. Used to be per choice, now
Speaker 13: your pro life. What caused the change? What was it
Speaker 13: that flipped that core belief? And typically it'll be well,
Speaker 13: I saw, you know, a fetal heartbeat monitor on my
Speaker 13: wife or on myself when I got pregnant, and that
Speaker 13: can make some sense, those questions should be put to her.
Speaker 13: Your campaign says you're no longer in favor of a
Speaker 13: fracking ban. What specifically changed your mind?
Speaker 1: How?
Speaker 13: And when your campaign says you no longer favor take
Speaker 13: away everyone's private health insurance and putting them on the
Speaker 13: government plan, the Medicare plan. What specifically changed your mind?
Speaker 13: Your campaign says that you are no longer throw open
Speaker 13: border policies and not enforcing our immigration laws. You now
Speaker 13: want to crack down on the southern border. What specifically
Speaker 13: was it? And then the follow up comes, was it
Speaker 13: so okay? You saw what happened with the illegal immigrants
Speaker 13: coming into the country in record droves, when over the
Speaker 13: last four years, because under President Trump we had one third,
Speaker 13: one tenth in some years of what we're seeing under
Speaker 13: your administration, you say now that you weren't the borders are,
Speaker 13: that you were somebody who was just responsible for addressing
Speaker 13: root causes of migration. Why did you fail because we're
Speaker 13: seeing record numbers of illegal immigrants flooding across the southern border.
Speaker 13: Do you admit you failed at that job? Because you
Speaker 13: have not abated the desire of these unlawful migrants to
Speaker 13: cross into our country unlawfully.
Speaker 2: It's not that hard.
Speaker 13: And see if she's got any ability to go even
Speaker 13: too deep.
Speaker 2: Never mind ten one. I know that we've just seen
Speaker 2: your half of the interview. I would love to see
Speaker 2: the other half. Fingers crossed, say what happens now? I
Speaker 2: don't know whether I've got sort of the rose colored
Speaker 2: blonde is on, but it feels like Trump is playing
Speaker 2: a better game than he was the last time we talked.
Speaker 2: You know, his advisor saying Trump on steroids multiple events
Speaker 2: a day. Is this the future of the next couple
Speaker 2: of weeks of the Trump campaign?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think he's getting much more discipline and much
Speaker 13: more endpoint strike targeted. You know, his media strategy lately
Speaker 13: has been to go on these alternative media platforms like
Speaker 13: this interviewer, THEO Vaughn, who's got a very popular podcast,
Speaker 13: and then this week Sean Ryan, former navycal very popular podcast,
Speaker 13: and who listens to Theo? And who listens to Sean?
Speaker 13: Large numbers, in particular of young men, large numbers. Trump
Speaker 13: would love to go on Joe Rogan, but Joe Rogan
Speaker 13: doesn't like Trump. And has said he won't do anything
Speaker 13: to support him. But that's very smart because this election
Speaker 13: really is turning into weirdly and sadly male versus female.
Speaker 13: And I mean, I could make the case all day
Speaker 13: long to my fellow women about why they absolutely should
Speaker 13: not support Kamala Harris. She's not for women. She is
Speaker 13: not for women. But okay, put that to the side.
Speaker 13: He's trying to go to the base he already has
Speaker 13: generally inclined to him and to stimulate their interest and
Speaker 13: their excitement and their determination to get out and vote
Speaker 13: in November. That's very smart, you know. It's similar to
Speaker 13: what we talked about before, where his campaign figured out
Speaker 13: where all of his merch was selling best, and he
Speaker 13: went and doubled down in those areas and tried to
Speaker 13: stimulate turnout in those areas from people who were already
Speaker 13: kind of thinking geek. Trump's interesting. He's on the same
Speaker 13: general plan. He's not really doing what the mainstream media
Speaker 13: wants him to do, which is reach out to those
Speaker 13: middle independents who are you know, Nikki Haley voters who
Speaker 13: may or may not like No, he right now go
Speaker 13: into the core pockets of support and saying get out.
Speaker 1: Don't let them stop you.
Speaker 13: We need you. It's fine if it's male versus female,
Speaker 13: but I need every last male I can find. I
Speaker 13: actually believe his comments about Kamala Harris. Harris's race at
Speaker 13: the NABJ event was a similar reach out to some
Speaker 13: in the black community who've had this kind of feeling
Speaker 13: about her unbeknownst to some of us. And you've heard
Speaker 13: that reflected in many interviews with black voters, especially young
Speaker 13: men who are more Trump and clined black men who
Speaker 13: were like, yeah, you know what, she never did play
Speaker 13: up the black bit. She was always Indian on these
Speaker 13: other you know, whatever they're feeling is so. Trump is
Speaker 13: smart in the way he's targeting different groups, and I
Speaker 13: think that's how you win elections.
Speaker 2: Megan, love to see you. Good to see you.
Speaker 14: Ball