Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center. This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Happy Wednesday. So much to get to tonight. They are
Speaker 1: about to cut interest rates in the United States, So
Speaker 1: why are we not thinking about it until maybe the
Speaker 1: middle of next year. I want to talk about veterans,
Speaker 1: and rightly so. Today there was quite an embarrassment when
Speaker 1: it came to the government. But there's a bigger issue
Speaker 1: at play than no one's talking me about. And the
Speaker 1: Great Meghan Kelly joins us from the United States. First,
Speaker 1: there is not one, but two major political reasons why
Speaker 1: I continue to talk about the Beloo gas plans, which
Speaker 1: were due to begin in the Northern Territory. It employ
Speaker 1: more than six thousand people, there's five hundred trillion cubic
Speaker 1: meters of gas. This would certainly underscore and secure the
Speaker 1: network of renewables that are starting to be pushed around
Speaker 1: the country. But of course, the two reasons why this
Speaker 1: story is one I've talked about is because two seats
Speaker 1: in the Northern Territory may well be up for grabs
Speaker 1: because of Tanya Plebisec. Tania Plibisec has made the ridiculous
Speaker 1: decision to further delay a project that's supported by both
Speaker 1: sides of politics in the territory that is supported by
Speaker 1: Indigenous groups and is so advanced that there's literally equipment
Speaker 1: on the ground ready to get on with it today.
Speaker 1: But she's decided because they need those Greens preferences or
Speaker 1: they need to hold onto as many Green seats as possible.
Speaker 1: Tenia plibisiqu As I say, has shoved this off into
Speaker 1: yet another inquiry, yet another delay, yet another excuse why
Speaker 1: thousands of jobs in the mining sector may not take place. Well,
Speaker 1: today there was a minerals expo that was in Darwin,
Speaker 1: and I'm not Tania Plibiseq. We actually saw a politician
Speaker 1: worth cheering for. There was protesters at the front of
Speaker 1: this meeting that took place today in Darwin, and they
Speaker 1: did what all these protesters always do. But unlike many
Speaker 1: politicians who simply ignore them or secretly agree with them,
Speaker 1: we have a new political hero on Austra, on the
Speaker 1: Australian political scene right now, Lea Fanukiara, the Chief Minister,
Speaker 1: the brand new chief Minister, the leader of the cop
Speaker 1: the new Chief Minister in the Northern Territory. Now she
Speaker 1: was channeling politicians of many generations ago. But how good
Speaker 1: that in twenty twenty four. Somebody's got the clarity of
Speaker 1: right and wrong for their part of Australia and the
Speaker 1: future of our country that her response to the idiots
Speaker 1: outside was.
Speaker 3: One of the other key things we will do is
Speaker 3: cease funding of the Environmental Defenders Office following the judgment
Speaker 3: in the Santos Barosa case decision. We've been very clear
Speaker 3: on that, very clear on that, and the activist standing
Speaker 3: out the front, you are wasting your time. Go back
Speaker 3: to Victoria or wherever else you want to cause trouble,
Speaker 3: but you are not welcome here.
Speaker 1: Play of the Day, Star of the Week, number one
Speaker 1: on the charts right now our favorite politician in Australia
Speaker 1: right now, Leo for noooki Ao. What a great way
Speaker 1: to make it very clear that what was agreed to
Speaker 1: before an election will happen after an election. That in
Speaker 1: a place like the Northern Territory, mining matters and something
Speaker 1: that has passed every single test over years and years
Speaker 1: and years, that will employ thousands of people and keep
Speaker 1: the lights on is exactly what you should do. So
Speaker 1: I hope that those people do get the message and
Speaker 1: bugger off back to Victoria, where of course the protests
Speaker 1: is on every day because we need a convi whatever,
Speaker 1: go back there. Now. You know I love rugby leading
Speaker 1: my mighty West Tigers. It's been a long time, a
Speaker 1: long time, but still I was alive for the two
Speaker 1: thousand and five premiership. So I'll have to live with
Speaker 1: that for the read my life. But I do love
Speaker 1: rugby league and there was big news today in rugby
Speaker 1: League that another team will be added to the competition.
Speaker 1: Now the expectation is that we won from Perth sometime soon,
Speaker 1: but the massive announcement today was a new team will
Speaker 1: come via Papua New Guinea. Now the players will be
Speaker 1: based in far North Queensland. They'll sort of fly in
Speaker 1: fly out. But this is an area that loves rugby league.
Speaker 1: I mean kids in particular absolutely love rugby league and
Speaker 1: every time a star is up there they go nuts
Speaker 1: for them. So the chance for them to see not
Speaker 1: just a sort of home team from Papua New Guinea
Speaker 1: in the National Rugby League, but all of their favorite
Speaker 1: players is just awesome dream come true. I've got no
Speaker 1: problems with this. I also understand that soft diplomacy means
Speaker 1: that in order to keep places like Papua New Guinea
Speaker 1: on our side and not drag towards the financial control
Speaker 1: of places like China. You need to make sure that
Speaker 1: they have other things to look forward to rather than
Speaker 1: what normally takes place in a place like Papua New Guinea.
Speaker 1: So there is a close relationship between our two countries,
Speaker 1: and regardless of who who their prime minister is or
Speaker 1: our prime minister is, it's always hand in glove, as
Speaker 1: it should be. No one can forget the role of
Speaker 1: Puppety Guinea in World War two, and Australia also conversely
Speaker 1: defending Puppety Guinea in World War two. So congratulations to
Speaker 1: everyone involved. It's a great thing for that sport. The
Speaker 1: thing I wanted to mention though, is how it's all
Speaker 1: coming about. Dollars wise, it's going to cost Australian taxpayers
Speaker 1: more than half a trillion, sorry, half a billion, not
Speaker 1: triviion relas half a billion dollars six hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: or sixty million dollars are year, fourteen years. Is how
Speaker 1: much the Australian taxpayer is going to pay to set
Speaker 1: up this club, to build a stadium, to build the infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Now again I understand what the reasoning behind this is
Speaker 1: going to be about soft power in China, but government
Speaker 1: is also about priorities. Now, this government, by its own
Speaker 1: admission via the Intergenerational Report, is expecting next to you
Speaker 1: to be running a budget deficit. For the next twenty
Speaker 1: five years. Australia will run a budget deficit, meaning we
Speaker 1: will spend more money than the government will get in income.
Speaker 1: Ironically they get income out of a gas field in
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory. But besides the point, so it's about priorities.
Speaker 1: What you do with that money matters. And while people
Speaker 1: will distract by the China of it all, we've got
Speaker 1: a lot of problems here and I'm not entirely sure
Speaker 1: that the taxpayer involvement here wins out the argument about
Speaker 1: a priority for government. You see in Australia, I've told
Speaker 1: you a thousand times, so get ready for one thousand
Speaker 1: and one that three point seven million people last year
Speaker 1: suffered from aything called feod insecurity, where literally they didn't
Speaker 1: know where their meals were going to come from each
Speaker 1: and every day. And that means that there are food
Speaker 1: lineans in almost every capital city in the country right
Speaker 1: now of literally working Australians as well as working poor
Speaker 1: Australians as well as unemployed poor Australians who are literally
Speaker 1: lining up for the benefit of charities to give them food. Now,
Speaker 1: the organizations that do most of this work are certainly
Speaker 1: the most prominent. Of them. Are three courses that I
Speaker 1: talk about regularly and we support on this program, OZ Harvest,
Speaker 1: Second Bite and Food Bank in particular. Well, I went
Speaker 1: back and tried to work out at sixty million dollars
Speaker 1: a year for this football team, how does that compare
Speaker 1: to the amount of money that these organizations ask for
Speaker 1: as a dream number from the federal government to help
Speaker 1: feed a fellow Australians. It won't surprise you, but it's
Speaker 1: less than sixty million dollars a year. Now. This was
Speaker 1: their budget submission for the previous budget of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: but it still stands as their position this year. The
Speaker 1: Food relief sector has requested an annual federal government commitment
Speaker 1: of forty five million dollars per annum. That's fifteen million
Speaker 1: dollars less than is going to go for the Papua
Speaker 1: New Guinea football team to be made available for those
Speaker 1: experiencing food insecurity all year round, and for standby funding
Speaker 1: to assist in natural disasters, preparedness and resilience. I repeat,
Speaker 1: forty five million dollars. That was their dream number. Yet
Speaker 1: the football team in Papua New Guinea gets sixty million dollars.
Speaker 1: Does anyone honestly believe that the soft power game with
Speaker 1: China is of greater benefit to Australia today than feeding
Speaker 1: the people in Australia who cannot be fed. And of
Speaker 1: course government is always about priority. Right now there's a surplus,
Speaker 1: only ever slightly because of things like the Future Fund
Speaker 1: where magically they're allowed to count that now where previous
Speaker 1: governments haven't, And of course the mining sector which would
Speaker 1: also add to their coffers if they let the gas
Speaker 1: field go ahead. In the Northern Territory, are you paying
Speaker 1: attention voters of Solomon and Lingiari, You may well push
Speaker 1: this government into a minority, and not just a minority,
Speaker 1: but a minority so close there's a chance that they
Speaker 1: may not even be able to form it. Now we
Speaker 1: know people in the Northern Territory are able to hold
Speaker 1: their rage. They did so on the territory government, will
Speaker 1: they do so for the federal government? Certainly in and
Speaker 1: around Ala Springs, they of course abandoned you when it
Speaker 1: came to crime. The Prime Minister spent more time flying
Speaker 1: to and from Ala Springs than in Alice Springs, remember
Speaker 1: before he buged off the tennis for three days. These
Speaker 1: are the priorities of government, and the priority here is
Speaker 1: apparently sixty million dollars our year for the next ten
Speaker 1: years for the football team that yes, will do incredible
Speaker 1: good and I fully support its existence and I understand
Speaker 1: its importance to the sport and its value to the
Speaker 1: kids and the wider community Papua New Guinea. But sixty
Speaker 1: million bucks could be spent here on one area alone
Speaker 1: that I've identified, that being helping the charities that feed Australians.
Speaker 1: But when it's other people's money, do they really care?
Speaker 1: Of course not. This is the mob who spends tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of dollars on just one party that Karen
Speaker 1: was throwing as the ambassador in Washington. This is the
Speaker 1: bloke that spent This is the mob that spent twenty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars flying a bloke to India to play the Digerido.
Speaker 1: And this is the mob that have paid four hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million dollars for not one, but two new
Speaker 1: private planes for the Prime minister. Yes, fact checkers ordered
Speaker 1: by the previous government, but not canceled by this one.
Speaker 1: Not to mention four hundred and fifty million dollars on
Speaker 1: a referendum that are just said hell no to by
Speaker 1: sixty percent. And speaking of government money, well we're here
Speaker 1: are other people's money money. Canon two cares the Hobart
Speaker 1: Stadium that will be the home of the Tazzy Tigers
Speaker 1: when they eventually joined the AFL. Again, we can all
Speaker 1: have our views on this, but let's be very clear.
Speaker 1: The Prime minister he thought this was a way to
Speaker 1: help the Labor Party at the last territory, last state election.
Speaker 1: Of course it lost because it was opposed, but then
Speaker 1: backed the stadium. But of course the priorities of government,
Speaker 1: well they were met very directly when this. Protesters said
Speaker 1: what about something else?
Speaker 4: He wouldn't need a stadium. People need a rod on them.
Speaker 5: Let's talk about housing, Prime minister.
Speaker 6: Do you want to Yeah, I think you've had to say.
Speaker 1: But let's be clear. The people of Tasmania knew of
Speaker 1: this issue, knew of this priority, and they returned. Eventually
Speaker 1: the liberal government that is working with the federal gun
Speaker 1: to get this thing to take place. So I'm not
Speaker 1: expecting them to go back on a decision that was
Speaker 1: hard fought, hard won, and is now going to be
Speaker 1: the law of the land. It's going to happen. So
Speaker 1: why am I talking about it tonight? Because guess what
Speaker 1: the cost of the stadium has gone up since they
Speaker 1: first announced it, gone up since the last election. Well, Dounder,
Speaker 1: the ABC for following the paperwork here an application for
Speaker 1: the building of this thing says that it's going to
Speaker 1: cost seven hundred and seventy five million dollars. Now that's
Speaker 1: not these seven hundred and fifteen million dollars that they
Speaker 1: were saying just a couple of months ago. Now I
Speaker 1: need to point out the state government we'll still have
Speaker 1: its cap at three hundred and seventy five million, so
Speaker 1: that it doesn't matter if this thing costs eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine hundred billion dollars. In the end, the most taxpayers
Speaker 1: at this stage three hundred and seventy five, federal government
Speaker 1: two hundred and forty million dollars afl Oh, jeez on,
Speaker 1: they doing a bit at fifteen million dollars. But don't
Speaker 1: forget the devil in the detail here about the Tazzi
Speaker 1: Devils and when they enter the Australian Football League's competition
Speaker 1: in a couple of years time, the taxpayer, just like
Speaker 1: it is in Papua New Guinea, is going to be
Speaker 1: paying for the existence of the club, not just the
Speaker 1: building of the facilities for the club. In fact, again
Speaker 1: let's go back to the data, let's go back to
Speaker 1: the documents, and again thanks to the ABC for doing
Speaker 1: the hard yards for us here. In terms of ongoing funding,
Speaker 1: the Tasmanian government has promised to provide twelve million dollars
Speaker 1: a year for the next twelve years at a total
Speaker 1: of one hundred and forty four million dollars. So it
Speaker 1: is a better deal, I suppose than the Papua New
Speaker 1: Guinea thing one hundred and forty four million for twelve
Speaker 1: years as opposed to six hundred million for ten plus
Speaker 1: sixty million dollars or one years worth of federal government money,
Speaker 1: your money for the Papa Guinea team to build a
Speaker 1: high performance complex. Again, priorities election has been fought on
Speaker 1: this election has been one on this. But the state
Speaker 1: of the books in Tasmania is terrible. Saul Leslake, who
Speaker 1: is of course a a person renowned as an economist,
Speaker 1: used to work with the A and Z Bank, used
Speaker 1: to be on all the time TV and radio are
Speaker 1: talking about interest rates. Well, he is an economist who
Speaker 1: is based in Tasmania and he had a little look
Speaker 1: at the financial future of his home state. He now
Speaker 1: says that it's basically a basket case. But that's a
Speaker 1: basket case that's still got enough there for the AFL
Speaker 1: to dip into or for them to offer up to
Speaker 1: the AFL gods the economists saw Leslake, who reasons reporting
Speaker 1: to his home states finances has been largely rejected by
Speaker 1: the government that commissioned it. Said on Thursday said the
Speaker 1: Thursday's budget was in Tasmania's finances apologies or put the
Speaker 1: glasses on now was on track to be the worst
Speaker 1: of any state or territory. It didn't have to be
Speaker 1: that way, but it is the deterioration of Tasmania's public
Speaker 1: finances since the mid twenty tens, so that's both sides
Speaker 1: of politics. Has been entirely attributable to government decisions about
Speaker 1: increasing spending without any consideration given as to how that
Speaker 1: spending would be paid for. For example, football stadium and
Speaker 1: team to play in football stadium, but that race is
Speaker 1: one and lost when it comes to housing. Let's get
Speaker 1: to this here because big news will happen, most likely
Speaker 1: in the United States in the next twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: As we know, everything is about interest rates here because
Speaker 1: apparently the thirteenth interest rate rise under the Albaneze government
Speaker 1: will be the one Australians won't cop. I'll give you
Speaker 1: the tip they didn't cop the twelfth, the eleventh, and
Speaker 1: tenth or the ninth. As you know, majority of Australians
Speaker 1: blame the federal government for matters to do with inflation,
Speaker 1: not as they would like to try to pretend, Reserve Bank,
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank, Reserve Bank. But interestingly here, as you know,
Speaker 1: there are well some hope of an interest rate cut
Speaker 1: eventually kicking in here in Australia. But as Michelle Bullock
Speaker 1: told us as late as this month, don't express so.
Speaker 7: The board's message following its meeting only a few weeks
Speaker 7: ago was that it's premature to be thinking about rape cuts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she's not planning on that cut happening any time soon.
Speaker 1: In fact, she says that if we start cutting interest
Speaker 1: rates too quickly, we're going to start to head into
Speaker 1: a recession our different. Stephen Conroy disagrees in know that,
Speaker 1: will say so again a little bit later tonight. Meantimes,
Speaker 1: she has turned around and said that any conversation about
Speaker 1: interestrates being cut in Australia would be quote unquote premature. Well,
Speaker 1: right now there is a conversation, of course about to
Speaker 1: take place in the United States, and I'll get to
Speaker 1: that in a second. But when it comes to homes
Speaker 1: right now and the interest rates that are as high
Speaker 1: as they currently are, and people blame the federal government
Speaker 1: for it not. The Reserve Bank mortgage defaults are the
Speaker 1: highest that they have been since the pandemic. In fact,
Speaker 1: it is expected to go higher than when the borders
Speaker 1: were shut and people weren't able to go to work
Speaker 1: and house prices of course started to go through the roof.
Speaker 1: The number of Aussies late on home loan repayments by
Speaker 1: more than a month will shortly beat the pandemic peak.
Speaker 1: High interest rates and stick inflation are continuing to put
Speaker 1: financial stress on the households. The credit ratings agency Moody's
Speaker 1: has said particular problems exist for the self employed, low
Speaker 1: income people, and anyone with high loan valuation ratio mortgages.
Speaker 1: In fact, he's a little chart to show you. The
Speaker 1: one on the left is the peak of the pandemic.
Speaker 1: The one now is what we are living right the second.
Speaker 1: But as I mentioned a couple of times, there is
Speaker 1: a big decision coming from the United States where tonight
Speaker 1: their time, our time, you get anyway, next wenting four hours,
Speaker 1: the United States will probably cut interest rates. There's a
Speaker 1: chance it could be not by half, not by a
Speaker 1: quarter of a present, but by half of a percent.
Speaker 1: Roll the tape on the finance people in the US.
Speaker 8: When the Bella Reserve meets this week, officials are expected
Speaker 8: to mark the end of an era as they cut
Speaker 8: interest rates for the first time and four years and
Speaker 8: chart a course lower for rates over the next two years.
Speaker 1: So why are interest rates coming down in America? But
Speaker 1: they're not coming down? And here because don't we apparently
Speaker 1: have the best economy in the world. We'll debate it,
Speaker 1: Seving Conroy Broman Bishop here in the man Cave and
Speaker 1: in Melbourne in a moment or two time meantime, on
Speaker 1: the subject of cost of living. Some frightening stuff about
Speaker 1: cafes and smaller restaurants that we're hearing about today is
Speaker 1: that business payment defaults are narrator record high, and hospitality
Speaker 1: is the one that is currently in a world of pain. Also,
Speaker 1: if you are somebody who was obsessed with the daily
Speaker 1: coffee or twice daily or three times daily, depending on
Speaker 1: how much stress there is in your life. According to
Speaker 1: Corey mart the day hospitality operators say that coffee is
Speaker 1: about hit seven dollars a cup. Oh but everything's great
Speaker 1: under Ralbow, isn't it. Remember he was the one who
Speaker 1: was promising to make it all better if you've voted
Speaker 1: for him a couple of years ago. As if people
Speaker 1: won't remember this whenever they hold the election. Another one
Speaker 1: we're talking about here is I'll mate Toorney Burke. Now,
Speaker 1: in addition to being the Arts Minister of Australia, he's
Speaker 1: the Home Affairs Ministe. Of course, you remember he was
Speaker 1: the one. He was brought in after clueless Clare O'Neil
Speaker 1: and that idiot Andrew Giles stuffed up everything to do
Speaker 1: with the borders, especially the people who had been released
Speaker 1: by the High Court after the indefinite detention decision. Well, interestingly,
Speaker 1: there's another mess he's going to have to clean up here,
Speaker 1: and it was not of his own making, but it's
Speaker 1: certainly one that his government has stood by. The Australian
Speaker 1: newspaper To Day excellently reports on how Labour fueled security
Speaker 1: fears by scrapping Immigration Direction sixty three. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Labour has quietly scrapped a ministerial direction ordering the deportation
Speaker 1: of bridging visa holders who were charged with an offense
Speaker 1: or placed under investigation promptly in the Coalition to escalate
Speaker 1: its attack on Anthony Aberdez's record on national security. The
Speaker 1: decision was made in January by the previous idiot Immigration Minister.
Speaker 1: But don't worry, the Arts Minister will fix it all up.
Speaker 1: James Patterson is the potential Home Affairs Minister in a
Speaker 1: Dutton government and he smells a rap.
Speaker 9: Just highlights while they should never have been given tourist
Speaker 9: visas in the first place. If they are genuine refugees
Speaker 9: and asylum seekers, they should have been assessed for that
Speaker 9: visa and carefully checked on security grounds before they are
Speaker 9: given visas and before they brought into our country. But
Speaker 9: under the Albaneza government we've had a rushed and risky
Speaker 9: process and I fear that the national security of our
Speaker 9: country is at stake has a result.
Speaker 1: Also in Camper today, the big story was the other
Speaker 1: shoe to drop after the Veterans' Royal Commission, the Veterans
Speaker 1: Affairs Suicide Royal Commission. The media more well and truly
Speaker 1: across this one. The federal government has been forced to
Speaker 1: publicly release a bombshell report that calls for a drastic
Speaker 1: overhaul of the nation's military justice system.
Speaker 9: A report the government kept secret is out.
Speaker 1: How this was leaked well a conversation and of itself,
Speaker 1: which means we'll have an inquiry into how an inquiry
Speaker 1: released the report of an inquiry that we weren't supposed
Speaker 1: to see because the inquiry was only for government. Unsurprisingly,
Speaker 1: Jackie Lamby is going offload the tubob watch.
Speaker 10: You wonder why there's so many cover ups, You wonder
Speaker 10: why we've been a Royal commission for three years. But
Speaker 10: the contempt of what happened yesterday, knowing that we're onto
Speaker 10: this document and then removing that from the website is
Speaker 10: one of the most awful things I have seen come
Speaker 10: from this government. It is absolutely disgusting. There was no
Speaker 10: reason to sit on this. There was no reason to
Speaker 10: sit on this, and quite Frankly, I think the Defense
Speaker 10: Minister has them explaining today, but.
Speaker 1: I'll keep voting with the government and I'll take their
Speaker 1: preferences in the lead up to the next election. The
Speaker 1: actual scandal today isn't necessarily what was reported, although that
Speaker 1: is terrible, no question right, It's let's go back a week.
Speaker 1: Remember when we went through chapter and verse the key
Speaker 1: recommendations of that Royal Commission into veterans suicide. It had
Speaker 1: been taking place for three years. Everyone said it was urgent,
Speaker 1: everyone said it was important. Everyone says they respect the soldiers.
Speaker 6: I pay tribute to all those who've endured a difficult
Speaker 6: day to day in order to make tomorrow better for
Speaker 6: those veterans.
Speaker 1: But a week on from that report being released publicly,
Speaker 1: the government has promised to implement none of it, Not
Speaker 1: one recommendation they have said that they will implement as
Speaker 1: a result of the Royal Commission. Now, sure they may
Speaker 1: not be able to say all one hundred and something
Speaker 1: of them can be implemented today, but surely the government
Speaker 1: a week on from reading this report would agree with
Speaker 1: recommendation for the Defense should take steps to mitigate adverse
Speaker 1: impacts of the posting cycle on members and their families.
Speaker 1: Or Recommendation seven that increases employment opportunities for members of
Speaker 1: the Defense Force who can't be deployed inside the Defense
Speaker 1: Force to work in other areas of the Defense Force.
Speaker 1: Or Recommendation twelve still a week on, nothing to consider
Speaker 1: the emotional intelligence as a performance of people who get
Speaker 1: promoted in the Australian Defense Force. No response. Yes, today,
Speaker 1: the leaking of this stuff was appalling, but equally appalling
Speaker 1: is a week on none of the recommendations are being
Speaker 1: accepted by government. What about Recommendation nineteen to protect victims
Speaker 1: of sexual misconduct from any sort of career disadvantage if
Speaker 1: they report something, they could say they were implementing that
Speaker 1: last week. They still haven't said it. And Recommendation forty
Speaker 1: eight again one of one hundred and something here. They
Speaker 1: could all and in my view all should be implemented,
Speaker 1: but the government is stone cold silent. Recommendation forty eight
Speaker 1: that when a member of the Defense Force dies by
Speaker 1: suicide you appoint a legal officer to represent the interests
Speaker 1: of the decease of the deceased and support the next
Speaker 1: of kin. I eat someone who is paid for to
Speaker 1: help navigate through the process. Yes, the leaking of documents
Speaker 1: is terrible. I'm not pretending it is not a serious issue.
Speaker 1: But if we're going to call press conferences, why not
Speaker 1: call press conferences and say what is their response to
Speaker 1: the report? You've had a week? What things are you doing?
Speaker 1: What things are you ruling out? And where is the
Speaker 1: media who led their news with this report last week
Speaker 1: and the follow up? Instead? Nothing move on now. Of course,
Speaker 1: last week in the AFL there was the welcome to
Speaker 1: country ceremony that seemed to annoy one or two people,
Speaker 1: seemingly no one who was doing inside the ground. But
Speaker 1: still you remember this bloke where we went from forty
Speaker 1: thousand to sixty five thousand to how many years of
Speaker 1: continuous contact with the land.
Speaker 11: It's a ceremony we've been doing for two hundred and
Speaker 11: fifty thousand years plus BC and the BC stands for before.
Speaker 1: Well Paul and Hansen jumped up in the Parliament and
Speaker 1: she didn't miss.
Speaker 7: Have they not to cater to white people? Then why
Speaker 7: are white people constantly subjected to them? These welcomes are
Speaker 7: based on wise that Australia is not our home. So
Speaker 7: many people tell me they are just over it. Welcome
Speaker 7: to country, are just radical racial antagonism disguised as reconciliation
Speaker 7: imposed on children before they even get to school, and
Speaker 7: in school, placing the hands on the ground is indoctrination.
Speaker 1: Now you may have seen that, you've certainly heard interviews
Speaker 1: with Pauline about it. But what about the back and
Speaker 1: forth was happening between Lydia Thorpe, who had to remind
Speaker 1: us that she was still here, and Alexandik who was
Speaker 1: telling her police Enough.
Speaker 9: Many viewers, who in principle wouldn't have had a problem
Speaker 9: with these practices are getting.
Speaker 12: As fed up ANTICI seat, it's a a thought to
Speaker 12: the port of order.
Speaker 1: No, I just want to interrupt this speech. Seriously, Can
Speaker 1: we just two minutes?
Speaker 4: Wope, sports matches, council.
Speaker 12: Antics and visor seat colleagues. We're only asking to listen
Speaker 12: in peace and quiet for two minutes, that's all. It's
Speaker 12: not a big ask.
Speaker 1: Can we just do that?
Speaker 12: Why the galleys full of people watching the behavior here
Speaker 12: is quite childish?
Speaker 1: Order. Now, I told you last time that double dissolution
Speaker 1: election won't be taking place because, apart from anything else,
Speaker 1: that'll improve the number of people that are on the
Speaker 1: back bench and the Senate cross bench, but it would
Speaker 1: be a way of ending her term early, that being
Speaker 1: Lydia Thorpe. Yeah, bring it on minority government and no
Speaker 1: Thorpe in the Senate. Now, I wasn't going to talk
Speaker 1: about American politics tonight to give you a little bit
Speaker 1: of relief, But there is a small amount of news
Speaker 1: that I have to show you, which is there has
Speaker 1: been a change in whom is now considered to be
Speaker 1: leading the race. According to five thirty eight, one of
Speaker 1: the prediction models. They have been hot on Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: for a while, but now they say that she's sixty
Speaker 1: two out of one hundred times more likely to be
Speaker 1: the president than Trump at thirty eight times out of
Speaker 1: one hundred. Nate still still says Trump just but the bookies, well,
Speaker 1: they too are starting to back in Harris.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: So I thought it was important today to show you
Speaker 1: if all of this is correct, the leader of the
Speaker 1: free world speaking from her heart like a normal robot.
Speaker 13: When you are bestowed with a microphone that is that big,
Speaker 13: there is a profound responsibility that comes with that. That
Speaker 13: is an extension of what should not be lost in
Speaker 13: this moment, this concept of the public trust.
Speaker 1: To then.
Speaker 13: Understand what the public trust means. It means that you
Speaker 13: have been invested with trust to be responsible in the
Speaker 13: where you use your word. It's much less how you
Speaker 13: conduct yourself.
Speaker 1: Enjoy that for the next four years. I much prefer this.
Speaker 1: We're gonna chuge him.
Speaker 11: I'm telling you right now, I'm putting a two hundred
Speaker 11: percent tariff on which means they're unsellable. Unsellable in the
Speaker 11: United States. And then you wonder why he gets shut at, right,
Speaker 11: you know, only consequential presidents gets shot at.
Speaker 1: Good stuff. Plenty more to talk about here tonight, we'll
Speaker 1: get to it straight away. Meghan Kelly is our special guest,
Speaker 1: Proble Bishop Steve Conroy, and so much to get to
Speaker 1: between now and then. Thanks for watching. Enjoy the groove.
Speaker 1: It's a perfect place to sit on the couch. Were
Speaker 1: here all night. Thank you very much for watching wherever
Speaker 1: you happen to be, always here to help with Stephen Conray.
Speaker 1: And he's just here to help all right, you know,
Speaker 1: to his soul. It's on his business card. And of
Speaker 1: course the carry over champions always on Wednesday night it's
Speaker 1: none other than Proble a bishop. Can you help me
Speaker 1: out here? Next twenty four hours interest rate's going to
Speaker 1: fall in the United States? Why do they fall there?
Speaker 1: But we're not going to have anything until maybe the
Speaker 1: middle of next year.
Speaker 14: Well, a couple of reasons. We didn't put out up
Speaker 14: as high as they did, and we've did it over
Speaker 14: a lengthier time. But also you have to realize that
Speaker 14: our mortgage situation is different. We don't count mortgage repayments
Speaker 14: in the CPI, right, but we do count rent. But
Speaker 14: most of our people here are on variable interest rates,
Speaker 14: and the people who are on fixed interest rates, it's
Speaker 14: only for a short term then they get to go
Speaker 14: on to variable rates. So there is always a versus
Speaker 14: America where they're on long term fixed rates. So it
Speaker 14: really does make a difference to how it impacts on
Speaker 14: one third of the population, and that also impinges on
Speaker 14: the renters because the cost of housing and mortgages that
Speaker 14: is then rented out feeds.
Speaker 4: Into that as well.
Speaker 1: Stephen, is it also fair to say the inflation rate
Speaker 1: is lower and their growth rate is higher than we are.
Speaker 1: So why is America about to see half a point
Speaker 1: come off? But we're being told if that happens, there'll
Speaker 1: be a recession. Why wouldn't there be one? In America.
Speaker 15: Look, it is mindless.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm actually in shock that you could make
Speaker 2: such a ridiculous statement. The only thing currently stopping the
Speaker 2: country being in recession is government spending into the economy.
Speaker 15: Is racial statement.
Speaker 2: Interest rates, Well, it's just an economic fact. I thought
Speaker 2: we talked about this last week. C plus I plus
Speaker 2: GG equals government. It's actually part of GDP. But to
Speaker 2: the core point, you know, Michelle Bullock told us twelve
Speaker 2: months ago, the problem is a wage price spiral.
Speaker 15: It didn't exist.
Speaker 2: Then it was we're having too many haircuts and the
Speaker 2: price of a haircuts.
Speaker 15: Going up, which is, you know, just so absurd, it's embarrassing.
Speaker 2: And now she's trying to say, if well it interestrates,
Speaker 2: it would cause a recession.
Speaker 15: I mean fair and income.
Speaker 2: They cannot keep their line straight from week to week
Speaker 2: because still and the.
Speaker 15: Reserves it.
Speaker 1: Is wrong.
Speaker 2: Now I've been arguing this, brom and Paul will tell you.
Speaker 2: I've been saying the Reserve Bank got it wrong last year.
Speaker 2: They went too late, they put them up too far,
Speaker 2: and now they won't lower them, and they've driven the
Speaker 2: economy to the verge of a recession.
Speaker 1: Government Almost as long as I've been on about too little,
Speaker 1: too late tax cuts.
Speaker 14: Yeah, but I mean Steven's actually more aggressive in his
Speaker 14: dealing with the issue than mister Chalmers. The snake charmer.
Speaker 15: It's all illusion, you.
Speaker 2: Know, I've been I've been doing it when was there,
Speaker 2: That's what doing since still was there is Stephen.
Speaker 14: The longer the short of it is, if you get
Speaker 14: to pick between the snake charmer and the chair and
Speaker 14: the head of the Reserve Bank, I know most people
Speaker 14: will go with the head of the Reserve Bank, and
Speaker 14: they will put the blame where it belongs on the
Speaker 14: snake charmer who gets up there and says, I've done
Speaker 14: a wonderful job. I've given you two surpluses, but I'm
Speaker 14: giving you twenty five years worth of deficits coming along afterwards.
Speaker 1: And we're counting in.
Speaker 15: Fantasy of your last government.
Speaker 2: No Peti Gastello and John Howard want when they call
Speaker 2: for government to stop spending if they want the economy
Speaker 2: in a recession, so they can quickly flip to say
Speaker 2: no recession, non slabs.
Speaker 5: Try to exactly try and and Costello friend what we've
Speaker 5: got because the joke they tout out they well want
Speaker 5: to enjoy the debate they want the country like you do, Bromwin,
Speaker 5: for the government to stop spending and the economy to
Speaker 5: go into recession.
Speaker 10: So you can run.
Speaker 14: So you've put us the government to stop spending something
Speaker 14: about then we can have then we can.
Speaker 15: Have economy goes into So I'm talking about coincidence.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, when we are talking about government spending,
Speaker 1: let's talk about sport.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 1: Of course Australians love their sport all the rest of it, right,
Speaker 1: and it's a big industry. Right today we learn half
Speaker 1: a billion dollars over teenage soft diplomacy Papa New Guinea,
Speaker 1: seven hundred and seventy five million dollars for the Tasmanian Stadium,
Speaker 1: and yet to gar the debate about what stadium and
Speaker 1: how much should be in and around Brisbane for the
Speaker 1: Olympic Games. So rather than any of those three to
Speaker 1: get into, let's step back government money, taxpayer money and sport.
Speaker 1: Stephen again, I understand why sporting organizations ask for it.
Speaker 1: I have no problem an organization asking for it because
Speaker 1: everyone asks for it. It's about what you allocate, right,
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry again I talk about priorities and I
Speaker 1: just think and I know that you can do this
Speaker 1: with any area of government spending. But when you've got
Speaker 1: a scenario where literally the annual payments for one of
Speaker 1: these things is going to be higher than the entire
Speaker 1: ask of the food charity sectors, when we've got our
Speaker 1: problems here, then it feels like a priority is wrong.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about Olympics. Let's talk about the tazzy
Speaker 1: stadium as well. Is there a limit to what people
Speaker 1: will cop when it comes to their money and sport?
Speaker 2: Now, Paul As, I think you do know, but I
Speaker 2: do have a slight conflict of interest which I have
Speaker 2: to declare before this conversation. I'm the chairman. I'm the
Speaker 2: chair of the Australian Professional Leagues, the A League. So
Speaker 2: the men and the women, you can't spend enough. While
Speaker 2: I so we're not recipients of very much money from
Speaker 2: the federal or state governments. But I mean, you'd have
Speaker 2: to take your hat off to Gilmo Gooughlin the IFL.
Speaker 2: They have absolutely hoodwinked the Tasmanian government. They've put all
Speaker 2: risk on this venture onto the state and federal governments.
Speaker 2: And Peter Velandi's you again, You've got to take your
Speaker 2: hat off. And because he has I know that, but
Speaker 2: he has absolutely taken the government to the cleaners on
Speaker 2: this one.
Speaker 1: He's going to to the to the footy team in
Speaker 1: pop in New Guinea. Do you think that they'd say
Speaker 1: the left is going to go particularly nuts about it now?
Speaker 15: I think.
Speaker 2: I think there's a general understanding that there's a very
Speaker 2: big game at play in the Pacific region where China
Speaker 2: are buying, bribing, cajoling threatening a whole range of Pacific
Speaker 2: island nations.
Speaker 15: Australia is their natural ally and Australia has.
Speaker 1: To use all of the.
Speaker 2: Weapons at its disposal to try and block, blunt and
Speaker 2: stave off China's attempts to buy, bribe, cojole their way
Speaker 2: into the region. It's in our national interest, it's security interest,
Speaker 2: it's in our trade interests, it's in being able.
Speaker 15: To get our goods on and off shore. We're an island.
Speaker 2: We need to be able to protect our trade routes
Speaker 2: and Chinese bases like they're talking about in the Solomon Islands.
Speaker 2: They've been suggesting that they might want to build on
Speaker 2: and pap in New Guinea. So these are the sorts
Speaker 2: of things you have to the soft the soft power
Speaker 2: arguments I think has more cogency than some of the criticism.
Speaker 2: So while I think Peter Flanders has absolutely mugged the
Speaker 2: government on this one because he gets to add another
Speaker 2: team in Perth and then he gets to have a
Speaker 2: bigger TV deal and the World Worlds is frozy.
Speaker 10: Uh.
Speaker 2: Anytime give football, anytime they want to give you a
Speaker 2: few crumbs off the table, the football is going to
Speaker 2: be a good days.
Speaker 15: I'm sure I'm going to be helping soon in some conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's this here to help? Is this here to help?
Speaker 1: All right? So we're seeing saying in Queensland right the
Speaker 1: Olympics coming up twenty thirty two, there is a need
Speaker 1: for greater facilities. I personally think athletics in Karara, you've
Speaker 1: already got a pretty good stadium there. Swimming can take
Speaker 1: place as I think one of the plans may be
Speaker 1: at the old Lane Park, because as we saw in
Speaker 1: the French Games and in the LA Games, that stadiums
Speaker 1: are actually where the Olympic swimming is going to be.
Speaker 1: It's not you don't have to build a thirty thousand
Speaker 1: seat venue for swimming. So there's there's ways around this.
Speaker 1: But the public can be sort of both sides on
Speaker 1: this right, which is, you know, too much support is
Speaker 1: never enough, as we actually would say, which means too
Speaker 1: much money is never enough. And then once you start
Speaker 1: to see the numbers and again in and around that
Speaker 1: Tasmania situation in particular, it does rock some people.
Speaker 14: Well. The Tasmanian situation I think is the worst of
Speaker 14: the three.
Speaker 4: With regard to.
Speaker 14: Queensland, I think the older seeing that that Olympic Games
Speaker 14: and other the Commonwealth Games can be done on a
Speaker 14: much smaller budget. But when it comes to Papua New Guinea,
Speaker 14: I began first went to Papua New Guinea in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 14: I formed good friendships there. I remain friends with Michael
Speaker 14: Samari for many years. I have enormous regard for the
Speaker 14: people of Pupa New Guinea. You can walk literally at
Speaker 14: low tide from a small island at the north of
Speaker 14: Cape York across to Papua New Guinea. People who are
Speaker 14: Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, their cousins are as across
Speaker 14: the way. So it's a very it's a very close relationship.
Speaker 1: So does the soft power thing make sense, Yes, it does.
Speaker 14: It makes an enormous amount of sense to me, because
Speaker 14: they love rugby league, they watch us, they watch our television,
Speaker 14: they send their kids to school here. They're very close
Speaker 14: to us. And yes, I do think now whether or
Speaker 14: not six hundred million was littly as you said, he
Speaker 14: was taken to the cleaners and took the government to
Speaker 14: the cleaners.
Speaker 1: I think that's give me trouble.
Speaker 14: But the long and the short of it is, I
Speaker 14: do think the soft power argument is important and it's
Speaker 14: a very important.
Speaker 4: Nation to us.
Speaker 15: Now.
Speaker 1: A bit of back and forth in the past couple
Speaker 1: of days, and I've got to say that I mentioned
Speaker 1: it on Monday Tuesday. Let me do another version of
Speaker 1: it here. The analysis of an opinion poll in the
Speaker 1: Financial Review I thought was a little too generous to
Speaker 1: the opposition, suggesting that both sides could end up forming
Speaker 1: minority government. Yes, there was a few teals here and
Speaker 1: a bit in westerns Indy there, and a little bit
Speaker 1: here and a little bit there. But one of the
Speaker 1: key things for all that to happen is a significant
Speaker 1: number of seats to flip in Victoria. Now, part of
Speaker 1: the theory behind this Dunton could almost get there and
Speaker 1: be level pegging either in the high sixties or the
Speaker 1: low seventies with Labor again, is that apparently dissatisfaction with
Speaker 1: the state government would bleed into the federal political sphere,
Speaker 1: which would mean that the Victoria Liberal Party would outperform
Speaker 1: clearly the behavior of their own state leader at the moment,
Speaker 1: as we all know, that is bizarre to watch. So
Speaker 1: I'll ask you this year, Stephen as a man who's
Speaker 1: going to tell me no chance will win every seat
Speaker 1: plus fifteen more if the expectation is there's half a
Speaker 1: dozen to be one in four to half a dozen
Speaker 1: to be one in Victoria. Who's pulling whose leg? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Look, I think that while Labor obviously we won the
Speaker 2: asked and bi election, that is going to be a
Speaker 2: very tough seat to hold in a general election. I
Speaker 2: think Peter Dutton and the Victorian Liberals, who are at
Speaker 2: an absolute low point and we run a brilliant campaign,
Speaker 2: fantastic candidate and we took the seat in an incredible historical.
Speaker 1: Win, will be tough to hold.
Speaker 15: There's a couple of other seats that the Liberals keep.
Speaker 2: Talking about, like McEwen and I genuinely scratch my head,
Speaker 2: got a great local member up there who's been through
Speaker 2: the wars, he's won, he's lost by twelve votes, went
Speaker 2: to the High Court, like he knows how to fight
Speaker 2: a marginal seat campaign. So I would not be as
Speaker 2: optimistic as the Libs are. I think, you know the
Speaker 2: Libers are under pressure in a couple of seats there.
Speaker 2: But I mean you just got to say, look, let's
Speaker 2: say we lost two in Victoria. Yeah, I'm just randomly
Speaker 2: picking a number. You could lose two in Western Australia.
Speaker 2: You've got no pressure, as you've described on a couple
Speaker 2: of seats in the Northern Territory. We've just gone from
Speaker 2: seventy eight to seventy two if we were to lose those.
Speaker 2: And I haven't talked about New South Wales where there's
Speaker 2: been a mayhem being caused in the western suburban seats
Speaker 2: by the Muslim matters votes and their campaigns and hangers on.
Speaker 1: You could get to see.
Speaker 2: But I would look, it could be almost labor don't know,
Speaker 2: I said, I'm just that's the word.
Speaker 15: That's the worst case, barring a route, barring a route.
Speaker 5: So there it goes.
Speaker 4: But I think four or five do it?
Speaker 15: Four or five or six? In Victoria's a little.
Speaker 2: Now what I'm saying four, five or six in victoriaste.
Speaker 1: You think that's the other way of looking at all
Speaker 1: of this. I got thirty seconds.
Speaker 14: Well there are clearly Victoria is finally working up to
Speaker 14: the fact that the Labor Party has not served them well.
Speaker 14: And basically that means there are seats up for grabbing Victoria.
Speaker 14: But there are seats for grabs in New South Wales,
Speaker 14: certainly are in Western Australia. There's boothby in South Australia
Speaker 14: is Tasmania as.
Speaker 15: Long as you can remember to nominate, nominate your candidates.
Speaker 14: Yes, that's why we got rid of Don Harwin thinks correct.
Speaker 1: All right, Thank you guys, do appreciate everyone's here to help.
Speaker 1: Perhaps not the host of times, but everyone is here
Speaker 1: to help and that's what we love. Thank you Broman,
Speaker 1: Thank you Steven. Meghan Kelly next, the best in the business.
Speaker 1: On the other side of it, What a week in
Speaker 1: the United States as we get closer to the election,
Speaker 1: but the second time we have to talk about someone
Speaker 1: trying to kill Donald Trump. Megan Kelly is the best
Speaker 1: in the business. The only place you'll see her in
Speaker 1: Australia is on this show, which is the greatest honor
Speaker 1: of our broadcasting time. Lovely to see a rockstar.
Speaker 4: How are you great to be back with your Paul? Unbelievable?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: What a news circle like the.
Speaker 1: Fact that there are people that are still referring to
Speaker 1: it as alleged attempted the downplay the downplay. Right. The
Speaker 1: only reason Donald Trump is still alive is because one
Speaker 1: person saw something rustle. And by the way, even when
Speaker 1: they shot at them, didn't kill the gunman.
Speaker 4: No, no, exactly right, And they're referring to it as
Speaker 4: the incident.
Speaker 16: If you check the papers today, many I mean, I
Speaker 16: have to tell you, I think so far almost all
Speaker 16: are laming this on him. It's too close to the election,
Speaker 16: so they can't just get honest about the danger to
Speaker 16: his life and their role in causing it.
Speaker 4: It's his fault.
Speaker 16: He brought this on himself with his own incendiary rhetoric.
Speaker 16: It's not what they say about him, that he's Hitler esque,
Speaker 16: that he's a threat to democracy. They can't make the
Speaker 16: argument that he's not a great candidate. We don't like him,
Speaker 16: we didn't think he did a good job. Those are
Speaker 16: all fair things to say. If you don't like Donald Trump,
Speaker 16: they always have to take it too. And eleven, he's
Speaker 16: a threat. He must be terminated.
Speaker 4: We have to end him.
Speaker 16: There was somebody on saying he needs a bullet to
Speaker 16: stop him. I mean, truly, this is beyond the pale,
Speaker 16: and it can indeed have the effect of motivating psychos
Speaker 16: like this guy. Now, normally this is a left making
Speaker 16: this argument that some random comment about some random thing
Speaker 16: cause some mass shooting, and we on the writer saying
Speaker 16: that's not true, trying to tie blanket policy statements into the.
Speaker 4: Mind of a madman. This guy does not seem like
Speaker 4: a madman.
Speaker 16: He seems a little wacky, seems a little out there,
Speaker 16: but he doesn't seem to have that sort of schizophrenic
Speaker 16: trigger that we see in these twenty two year old
Speaker 16: young men who unleash carnage on schools and grocery stores
Speaker 16: and so on. This guy's rhetoric is directly in line
Speaker 16: with the messages we've been hearing from Joe Biden, from
Speaker 16: Kamala Harris, from top Democrats about how Donald Trump is
Speaker 16: a threat to democracy, and he'd been identified as a
Speaker 16: threat over and over and over again by American citizens
Speaker 16: speaking with random customs and border patrol officials and others
Speaker 16: within the State Department for the past couple of years
Speaker 16: under the Biden administration as a potentially violent man, as
Speaker 16: the most dangerous man many of them had encountered as
Speaker 16: he tried to amass troops to go help fight in
Speaker 16: Ukraine and appears to have not been on their radar
Speaker 16: at all. And then you get to what happened down
Speaker 16: at mar Alago, well steps from mar Alago, which is
Speaker 16: Trump International golf Course where he went.
Speaker 4: And the Secret Service now ahead of this.
Speaker 16: Thing, now after the other lady got forced out, is
Speaker 16: trying to take a victory laugh today saying, oh, my guys,
Speaker 16: they found the shooter. You know one of my guys
Speaker 16: saw the ship. Yes, okay, to his credit. Good for
Speaker 16: that guy who was guarding the perimeter. They say there
Speaker 16: was somebody. They claim that there was somebody on perimeter patrol.
Speaker 16: How did he miss the shooter who according to the
Speaker 16: FBIFI davit in support of the charges that have been
Speaker 16: brought so in wait for twelve hours. He showed up
Speaker 16: there at two in the morning. He got caught at
Speaker 16: one thirty pm. He'd been there. If they had somebody
Speaker 16: at the perimeter, it wasn't. Somebody was very good. And
Speaker 16: what we heard from the local sheriff is Trump still
Speaker 16: doesn't have the same resources as a sitting president.
Speaker 4: I realize he's not sitting president, but has.
Speaker 16: The sitting president had a near death experience within the
Speaker 16: last two months where he got shot in the head.
Speaker 4: He hasn't.
Speaker 16: It's time to amp it up and take this seriously.
Speaker 16: And the reason they won't is because at best they
Speaker 16: don't care if Donald Trump gets hurt, and realistically, many
Speaker 16: of these Democrats want him.
Speaker 4: They want him to get hurt.
Speaker 1: Now, I'm not stupid enough to ask you the same
Speaker 1: question that no doubt you receive seven to nine times
Speaker 1: via text message every day, which is who's going to win?
Speaker 1: Who's going to win? But let's just do a little
Speaker 1: temperature check on what's happening here. The post debate poles,
Speaker 1: generally speaking, better for Harris. There are some A grade
Speaker 1: poles that are good for Trump. However, one thing that
Speaker 1: can't be spun, which is that she is not doing
Speaker 1: as well as Biden did, and Biden of course only
Speaker 1: one just in the states that matter. What's your sense
Speaker 1: of the race this far out, not the result, but
Speaker 1: your sense of the race about just how neck and
Speaker 1: neck or we are starting to see post debate a
Speaker 1: preference of merge.
Speaker 16: I think the numbers favor Trump, but the get out
Speaker 16: the vote effort favors Harris.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 16: The Republican's ground game is weak. It is compared to
Speaker 16: the Democrats. It's just nowhere near in the same region.
Speaker 16: Right now, we don't exactly know what it is. The
Speaker 16: RNC has basically offloaded it to Turning Point USA. That's
Speaker 16: Charlie Kirk's organization. Charlie's amazing. He's a savant, but he's young.
Speaker 16: I think he's thirty if that, and this is not
Speaker 16: really what he does for a living. He's doing all
Speaker 16: he can. He's mobilizing young people. But who's running this thing?
Speaker 16: Where is the overhaul on how they went wrong four
Speaker 16: years ago? Trump has been saying to be suspicious of
Speaker 16: mail in voting. My god, that's how you win elections.
Speaker 16: You bank all your vote in advance, so that if
Speaker 16: it's really rainy that day or the kid is sick
Speaker 16: that day, your voters still have a vote in the
Speaker 16: ballot box. The Republicans haven't learned that lesson, and I'm
Speaker 16: very worried about that. I just think Trump's going to
Speaker 16: have to win by a lot in order to get
Speaker 16: over that advantage on election Day, and well I think
Speaker 16: Trump is on t back to win. It's not by
Speaker 16: a lot, So unless that changes between now and November,
Speaker 16: it's going to be a nail bier and we'll be there.
Speaker 1: The whole way. Thank you, Megan, the MC and Kelly
Speaker 1: show serious excema on YouTube, but most importantly with us
Speaker 1: each and every week. Thank you Rockstar.
Speaker 4: Great to see your Paul