Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Sherry Weller, the man k. There is a lot to
Speaker 1: get to tonight. CLIVEE. Palmer is now in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five election. This is huge news. His preferences, what
Speaker 1: is the plan for the advertising, all of that. Our
Speaker 1: team spoke with him earlier today. I'll show you his
Speaker 1: comments in long form in a moment or two's time.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister yet again spinning lies about the economy.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you the truth after another set of economic
Speaker 1: data came out today that nobody really wants to talk
Speaker 1: about because of course it doesn't fit the narrative that
Speaker 1: everything is behind us. Wage growth not pretty in Australia
Speaker 1: and our dear friend Meghan Kelly exclusive the only place
Speaker 1: you see on Aussie TV is here every Wednesday night.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go, Paul Marie, let's do this thing. Disagree, disagree.
Speaker 2: That's her, that's her personality. She always sounds drunk.
Speaker 1: She's an idiot. Who could we be speaking of We we
Speaker 1: get to it in a moment or two's time. So
Speaker 1: the biggest story in politics today is that Clive Palmer
Speaker 1: is getting back into the race. The United Australia Party,
Speaker 1: which he has led over a couple of elections, will
Speaker 1: not be the name. Instead, a new name will be
Speaker 1: coming forward. We'll talk about that in a moment or
Speaker 1: two's time, but I want to talk about a few
Speaker 1: things as the trumpet of Patriots is the new name
Speaker 1: of the party. Fascinating imagery. Of course he sponsored Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson coming out here, very strong message to a bunch
Speaker 1: of people who do not like the offering that is
Speaker 1: currently there for the major parties. But which of the
Speaker 1: major parties will be the recipients of the preferences? This
Speaker 1: matters because I want to have a look at the
Speaker 1: performance of the parting United Party or its previous names,
Speaker 1: but basically the impact of the Clive Palmer teams in
Speaker 1: multiple elects. Now the biggest response for Clyde Palmer in
Speaker 1: terms of a number of people are into the Senate
Speaker 1: and himself into the Lower House was in twenty and thirteen.
Speaker 1: Now these are national numbers. The total number of people
Speaker 1: who voted in the Lower House for the Parmi United
Speaker 1: Party or its other names seven hundred and nine twenty
Speaker 1: thirteen basically didn't exist in twenty sixteen, twenty nineteen four
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty eight thousand votes in the Lower House
Speaker 1: and they had their second best performance of all time
Speaker 1: at the most recent election. As you can see, the
Speaker 1: same is there when it comes to the Senate, where
Speaker 1: even though the number of actual votes in the Lower
Speaker 1: and the Upper House was lower because it was in
Speaker 1: smaller population areas, he was able to get multiple people
Speaker 1: up at that election. Things went a little bit backwards
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen as more center right votes went to
Speaker 1: Scott Morrison and the Liberal Party, hence the quote unquote
Speaker 1: miracle victory Welsaw coming. And then when it was bugg
Speaker 1: of them all, well the number started to creep up
Speaker 1: over half a million. All of that a huge impact
Speaker 1: on Australian politics. Now, I can't stand, can't stand when
Speaker 1: people want to turn around and say, well, this much
Speaker 1: money for only this many seats. The reality is the
Speaker 1: money matters. Also, preferences matter. If you've got anywhere between
Speaker 1: you know, half a million to seven hundred thousand people
Speaker 1: in the Lower House voting one for the Trumpet Party,
Speaker 1: well what are they going to do with the number two?
Speaker 1: If they decide to go everywhere and then eventually make
Speaker 1: a decision between Labor and Liberal. The Liberals will not
Speaker 1: get anywhere close to minority government. Instead, it will end
Speaker 1: up being a scenario where most likely at the Labor
Speaker 1: Party will get returned. It will still be a minority government.
Speaker 1: But preferences matter. Now. There have been times in the
Speaker 1: past where Clyp Palmer has made it very clear about
Speaker 1: how he feels about the major parties. And perhaps the
Speaker 1: single biggest impact that Clide Palmer will have with his
Speaker 1: efforts here is the sheer weight of advertising. His ads
Speaker 1: Let's be honest, are often much better than the major
Speaker 1: party ads. They are much they hit a lot harder,
Speaker 1: a lot more straight shooting, and a lot of people. When,
Speaker 1: as we're showing you before, there's a frustration with the
Speaker 1: offering that is around right now, when the ads are
Speaker 1: as tight and as clearly defined as they have been
Speaker 1: in the past, well we know what's going to happen here.
Speaker 1: But remember, preferences matter. So in twenty nineteen, a lot
Speaker 1: of the people who backed in the part of the
Speaker 1: United Party, they gave their preference to Scott Morrison, and
Speaker 1: I'll be straight up, those preferences and one nation preferences
Speaker 1: were the reason that Bill Shorden was not the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister of Australia. This was his position when it came
Speaker 1: to preferences. However, in twenty twenty two, by not directing
Speaker 1: anything towards the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, it
Speaker 1: meant that people were able to frankly exhaust their votes
Speaker 1: before they got to the major parties and a chance
Speaker 1: of the twenty nineteen repeat was not going to happen.
Speaker 1: Here is what he said in fact to us in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: We're preferencing all of the Freedom parties and others. There's
Speaker 3: no preferences at all given to the Liberal, Labor or
Speaker 3: the Greens.
Speaker 1: Now I mentioned that advertising spend now sometimes sixty million,
Speaker 1: sometimes eighty million, one hundred million dollars. It's his money.
Speaker 1: He can do what he wants with it. I'm tired
Speaker 1: of this idea in Australian politics about good billionaires who
Speaker 1: back in the teals, bad billionaires who want to shake
Speaker 1: things up and make sure that a certain type of
Speaker 1: Australian voter is represented in the ballot. Now you know
Speaker 1: that I've had an up and down relationship and it
Speaker 1: is way more positive of recent years than it was
Speaker 1: in the past with Clyde Palmer, because perhaps our views
Speaker 1: have now aligned about the future of the country. Now,
Speaker 1: this is the advertising that was seen everywhere when he
Speaker 1: was going hard against Bill Shordan and against labor rollin.
Speaker 1: Takee Bill Shorten doesn't care about you.
Speaker 3: He wants to destroy jobs, close coal industry, increase power prices,
Speaker 3: increase taxes.
Speaker 1: Now again that amount of very clear messaging, it moved votes,
Speaker 1: and it changed the election result from the one that
Speaker 1: all of the camera people thought was inevitable to the
Speaker 1: one that we knew was resonating on the ground that
Speaker 1: Bill Shorten was not going to be the Prime minister.
Speaker 1: The effect of those ads is really important. The effect
Speaker 1: of those preferences, including one nation ones deeply important to
Speaker 1: this being a tighter contest and one where a liberal
Speaker 1: party could maybe make its way towards its own version
Speaker 1: of a minority government. If not, then we are essentially
Speaker 1: talking about what I believe to be the more likely outcome.
Speaker 1: If there is not such a spend and is not
Speaker 1: such a preference discipline, that most likely Albanezi finds a
Speaker 1: way to hold on to minority government, not because I
Speaker 1: want him to, but because that's just the reality of
Speaker 1: things as we see now. Our team had a chance
Speaker 1: to Clyde Palmer after his announcement today and there's a
Speaker 1: few issues here about what he is trying to achieve
Speaker 1: by putting the machine back together again.
Speaker 3: I think the excessive waste that goes on in government,
Speaker 3: and I'm a taxpayer too, and I'm one of the
Speaker 3: largest taxpayers in the country, and seeing that Donald Trump's
Speaker 3: tremendous victory in the United States and the revealing things
Speaker 3: that Musk has found when he's done the review that
Speaker 3: the nearly four trillion dollars of government EXPANSI is being
Speaker 3: wasted every year. Being a former member of Parliament, I
Speaker 3: know that's true in Australia too. I had endless lobbyists
Speaker 3: coming to see me every time I was a member.
Speaker 1: Nearly all day my Kalander was made up a lobbyist.
Speaker 3: I think it's the same for all of the parties,
Speaker 3: and the uniparty we have the Liberal and Labor Party
Speaker 3: just work together and we get the same old thing
Speaker 3: happening every year. We've got to change this country and
Speaker 3: we've got to cut back on government expense. We have
Speaker 3: common sense solution for things.
Speaker 1: So about bureaucracy and about what examples he would suggest.
Speaker 1: He told our team this, well, I.
Speaker 3: Think everywhere there's thirty six thousand public servants that Alban
Speaker 3: EASi has put on. At the same time, our standard
Speaker 3: living has dropped in each half of each year. So
Speaker 3: you really have to set priorities with your expenditure and
Speaker 3: say I can't exceed that expenditure. This is how much
Speaker 3: money the government should have every year. This is how
Speaker 3: much money will spend, and they just don't do that.
Speaker 3: They keep on spending money to their mates in the unions,
Speaker 3: the Labor Party in particular, and the Liberals spend money
Speaker 3: with consultants. So I mean it's not spent on you.
Speaker 1: So preferences. Has he made that early decision or are
Speaker 1: we going to all have to wait? I think we
Speaker 1: all know what the answer is going to be.
Speaker 3: We haven't decided the preferences. And it's a democratic party.
Speaker 3: The trumpets for patriots, so I think we've got to
Speaker 3: wait and see. They'll be announced in the coming weeks.
Speaker 3: We're still deciding here will preference. But one thing I'll
Speaker 3: tell you, We've just done a poll that will be
Speaker 3: out next week. Trump's policies are popular in Australia. People
Speaker 3: want change and they want us to come together and
Speaker 3: do that, and we'll be doing that. We're looking forward
Speaker 3: to a great campaign. It's a chance for me to
Speaker 3: spend some more money making people have the public debate
Speaker 3: in Australias means that the Liberal Party can spend ninety
Speaker 3: million dollars a year, the Labor Party can spend ninety
Speaker 3: million dollars a year, but so can other people, so
Speaker 3: that there's a purity of ideas. Australians need a real choice.
Speaker 1: I agree be fascinating to see that preference discussion will
Speaker 1: determine whether Peter Dutton is a chance or no chance
Speaker 1: at this coming upcoming election. We'll wait, We'll all see
Speaker 1: and I'll keep talking to Clive. We'll look forward to
Speaker 1: maybe him and other people joining us around the country
Speaker 1: as we do our pub tests. Remember the first of those,
Speaker 1: it is going to be in the razor thin seat
Speaker 1: of Gilmour on the south coast of New South Wales
Speaker 1: on Monday night. After we've celebrated the good people of
Speaker 1: Bateman's Bay fighting back after the fires and there's so
Speaker 1: many things to celebrate. We'll do that on Sunday and
Speaker 1: then we're off to Vegas. Baby. Now let's deal with
Speaker 1: the Prime minister. This bloke lied his way into office.
Speaker 1: That's the truth. We all know two hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: five dollars power that never happened. We also know that
Speaker 1: a labor government will lo The cost of living was
Speaker 1: a lie. Why because by any and all metrics, we
Speaker 1: know what the reality was. That's their promise. This is
Speaker 1: the reality since they became the government. Your health costs
Speaker 1: are up by thirteen percent, your petrol's up by about
Speaker 1: fifteen percent, food is up by about seventeen percent, housing
Speaker 1: is up by about eighteen percent, and insurance is on
Speaker 1: its way towards nineteen percent. Not to mention how much
Speaker 1: people have had to pay extra on top of the
Speaker 1: home loans you've had to pay anywhere. If you were
Speaker 1: at say four hundred thousand, it's fourteen nine hundred and
Speaker 1: forty dollars extra a year that you've been paying since
Speaker 1: this bloke became the Prime minister. Or if you've got
Speaker 1: one point two or more, it's forty four thousand, eight
Speaker 1: hundred dollars. Yet the same people who lied that the
Speaker 1: cost of living was going to get better under them
Speaker 1: are now lying that Apparently everything will get worse under
Speaker 1: Peter Dunton. Talk about projection. That's lie number one. Line
Speaker 1: number two revolves around the Prime Minister, and of course
Speaker 1: the man who will desperately love to lead the Labor
Speaker 1: Party sooner rather than later, he will have his champions
Speaker 1: to do so after the next election, should the minority
Speaker 1: government be the one that is put in place, And then,
Speaker 1: of course is I'll make grim Jim charmers well. Line
Speaker 1: number two. They have tried to tell you that the
Speaker 1: economy is growing, all is fine, nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: The word recession, it just is, is nowhere in the books.
Speaker 4: Inflation is down, wages are up, unemployment is low, and
Speaker 4: one point one million jobs have been created during the
Speaker 4: course of this alban Ezi labor government.
Speaker 1: But the reality of Australia's growth is that, at best
Speaker 1: you could describe it as a car that's out of tune,
Speaker 1: idling at the lights and slightly moving forward. As you
Speaker 1: can see from September in twenty two to September quarter
Speaker 1: in twenty four, the past four quarters zero point two
Speaker 1: percent growth, zero point two percent growth, zero point two
Speaker 1: percent growth, zero point three percent growth. Remember, as soon
Speaker 1: as it's under zero for two quarters in a row
Speaker 1: than we are in recession. So we are only just
Speaker 1: and I mean just out of one and principally that's
Speaker 1: because of state and federal government spending. The employment of
Speaker 1: a football stadium full of staffers and people working in
Speaker 1: and around the public service is the reason why we
Speaker 1: are not in recession. But of course the reality is
Speaker 1: that the average Australium is in a recession. Have a
Speaker 1: look at this graph. This is actually a symbol of
Speaker 1: just how far growth has fallen off since when they
Speaker 1: took office. Worse and worse and worse until basically it is,
Speaker 1: as I said, the car that's out of tune, that
Speaker 1: is idling. That's the reality. So when they talk about
Speaker 1: economic growth, they are talking about bugger all of it.
Speaker 1: And that of course means that while the government is
Speaker 1: technically keeping its head above water, we borrowed money and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it, the average Australian is going backwards.
Speaker 1: Why because the cost of everything see what I mentioned
Speaker 1: about thirty seconds ago versus the wages that you have,
Speaker 1: let alone the pay rises you are not getting means
Speaker 1: you are going backwards. You are in a per capital
Speaker 1: recession that's gone on for about two years now. Today
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Statistics told us that we are the
Speaker 1: lowest wage growth since twenty twenty two. That's the reality
Speaker 1: of what is happening right now, the longest per capita
Speaker 1: recession on record. The national economic figure is not a
Speaker 1: pretty picture. But that doesn't mean that Albo and charmers
Speaker 1: won't continue trying to tell you that everything is awesome
Speaker 1: when you know what the reality actually is, which brings
Speaker 1: us to economic lie number three. They love pretending that
Speaker 1: everyone's got a pay rise in the past three years.
Speaker 1: What's the word they say, over and over again.
Speaker 5: Wages, wages, wages, wages, pages, wages, wages, wages.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well guess what with the wages scenario being one
Speaker 1: where as I said, we have had as little growth
Speaker 1: as since twenty twenty two, we're in a world of
Speaker 1: trouble here. This is just the reality now, sure the
Speaker 1: public service gets pay rise and living standards back to
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties. A detailed look at what the Reserve
Speaker 1: Bank actually had to say while they made the decision
Speaker 1: to cut rates by four fifths of bug rule. Yesterday
Speaker 1: in the Australian newspaper said, calculating the real household disposable
Speaker 1: income per capita was around one percent lower than prior
Speaker 1: to the pandemic, So we're back before before all of
Speaker 1: the savings that happened in the pandemic. The RBA said
Speaker 1: recent years had been among the weakest periods in growth
Speaker 1: in real income since the nine in sixties, as families
Speaker 1: budgets were slugged with high rate hikes and a surge
Speaker 1: in income tax. So they lie, they lie, they lie, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're not in a recession. Well you are. But the
Speaker 1: government gets to say that just puttering along because in
Speaker 1: part they hire tens of thousands of people, and they
Speaker 1: gave those people endless pay rises, not to mention themselves
Speaker 1: as politicians, where they gave themselves three pay rises. The
Speaker 1: public servants got their biggest pay rise in a decade.
Speaker 1: You go backwards. Lie, lie, lie. We'll keep talking about
Speaker 1: it between now and the election. So speaking of latest poll,
Speaker 1: and I think this one's probably a little closer to
Speaker 1: reality and important to set expectations here where we know
Speaker 1: that there has been much speculation there's a minority government
Speaker 1: that's almost definitely on its way, whom will have the
Speaker 1: most number of seats to form that minority. Well, according
Speaker 1: to some it may well be a toss up. We
Speaker 1: know that recent polling had very strong suggestions that Peter
Speaker 1: Dunn's team could get seventy three seats in the Parliament,
Speaker 1: Labour could be pushed down to sixty six. Well, today
Speaker 1: new poll. I want to get to which is the
Speaker 1: freshwater pole. This one is in the Financial Review and
Speaker 1: I think this one might be slightly more realistic in
Speaker 1: terms of where we sit before the election is called.
Speaker 1: Of course, anything can change, nothing is inevitable in all directions.
Speaker 1: Fifty one forty nine in terms of the primary vote. Finally,
Speaker 1: the Liberal and National Party has a four in front
Speaker 1: of it that should traditionally be able to win an election.
Speaker 1: But that big number of fifteen is basically with the
Speaker 1: exception of the Parmer effort, which we will see in
Speaker 1: the next of the While and One Nation. Basically the
Speaker 1: rest of that is center left vote center left vote,
Speaker 1: particularly with local independence that are backed in or by
Speaker 1: the Teel money. As for the preferred prime minister bang
Speaker 1: on forty three percent each, look at the prime minister's
Speaker 1: precipitous fall since becoming the prime minister. Look at the
Speaker 1: gains that Peter Dutton has made but also look thirteen
Speaker 1: percent of people who still haven't made their mind up. Now,
Speaker 1: as always I say, look at that number, split it
Speaker 1: in half. Well what ends up happening then? Obviously it's
Speaker 1: not going to split fifty to fifty. It'll break in
Speaker 1: one way or the other towards the election and that
Speaker 1: will give us an indication of where we are going.
Speaker 1: But again, Albo and how much of a pong he
Speaker 1: gives the Australian people have look at that from whence
Speaker 1: he became the Prime Minister to where he sits today
Speaker 1: with more people disapproving of his job performance than approving
Speaker 1: of his performance. So what is the seat prediction? On Sunday?
Speaker 1: We were looking about seventy three seats as the best
Speaker 1: case scenario when it came to the Liberal National Party,
Speaker 1: and I told you that that seemed a little generous.
Speaker 1: So the suggestion now is that it will be Labor
Speaker 1: on seventy one seats. They will have more seats than
Speaker 1: the coalition at sixty seven now ten seats, massive massive
Speaker 1: change puts in a very competitive position potentially for three
Speaker 1: years down the train. And at seventy one seats, you
Speaker 1: would imagine that we're going to get something of a
Speaker 1: replica of the twenty ten election that we know was
Speaker 1: a massive thumping for Labor just three years later. But
Speaker 1: pay attention watch on here. Obviously Labor would be able to,
Speaker 1: in my view, get the five crossbenches mixture of left
Speaker 1: wing teals and I think the Victorian teals in particular,
Speaker 1: we're back in labor. I think that people like Helen
Speaker 1: Haynes will back in labor. And then of course there
Speaker 1: is a scenario of people like Rebecca Shark you who
Speaker 1: have always said whoever has the most number of seats
Speaker 1: gets the negotiation first. So yes, even more polling, even
Speaker 1: more data, even more indication that yes we're headed towards
Speaker 1: a minority, but whom we don't know. But we're going
Speaker 1: to have to play whack a mole with the lies
Speaker 1: and the misrepresentations in the media will put up between
Speaker 1: now and that all important election. Hence why the advertising
Speaker 1: of people like Clyde Palmer really matters because it comes
Speaker 1: up and over the top awful star already in Tasmania
Speaker 1: today with one hundred and fifty whales that have become
Speaker 1: stranded on a beach in Tasmania. This is what we
Speaker 1: understand as to why and what happened.
Speaker 6: One hundred and fifty seven of what appear to be
Speaker 6: false killer whales are stuck on the sand near Arthur
Speaker 6: River in the state's northwest. It's believed one hundred and
Speaker 6: thirty six of them are still alive as authorities race
Speaker 6: to save for the others.
Speaker 1: Poor buggers to the people that are trying to keep
Speaker 1: as many of them alive as possible. They're doing their
Speaker 1: work throughout the night, but sadly it does not look
Speaker 1: good for their future. But why did it happen?
Speaker 7: Unable to navigate? There might be some geographical thing that
Speaker 7: stopped them then run them aground the studden maybe deep
Speaker 7: to shallow. There could also be a sick individual which
Speaker 7: has led ashore the others and they've all gone, oh,
Speaker 7: we're going this way. And then while are they strand
Speaker 7: acoustic awareness or acoustic sounds that might have spooked the animals.
Speaker 7: There could be killer whales in the area and maybe
Speaker 7: they've gone, oh, let's get out of here. I don't know,
Speaker 7: or maybe there's so many different things.
Speaker 1: Moreri IFO about that is light to returns tomorrow. Pete
Speaker 1: Stefanovik with First edition here on Sky News. Now let's
Speaker 1: talk about bushfires. Now, I know that there have been
Speaker 1: some in multiple regions around the country. Compared to the
Speaker 1: worst predictions that were put up for this summer, we
Speaker 1: have not got anywhere near those fingers crossed. That remains
Speaker 1: the case for the rest of this summer. But obviously,
Speaker 1: as things like the US California fires, even when you
Speaker 1: get into cold weather, those winds are around, it's going
Speaker 1: to be trouble. But guess what. A former CSIO Forestry
Speaker 1: chief agrees with the common sense view that you actually
Speaker 1: have to do more control burning. You have to do
Speaker 1: more cleaning of the forests to make sure that if
Speaker 1: a fire starts that it will not turn into a rager.
Speaker 1: Writing in the latest edition of The Weekly Times, this
Speaker 1: doctor said that fuel reduction burning was an essential tool
Speaker 1: in bush fire management. Burning a mild intensity increases the
Speaker 1: opportunity for safe for a more successful firefight. When bush
Speaker 1: fires occur in fuel reduced areas, they are reduced in severity,
Speaker 1: generate less embers and release less emissions of smoke and carbon.
Speaker 1: So even a bloke who was around the CSAR agrees
Speaker 1: with the common sense here and that it is essential
Speaker 1: the land management practice in Victoria's fire prone environment. We
Speaker 1: need more mild fire in the landscape, not less. And
Speaker 1: today the first interview was done with Sean Hannity with
Speaker 1: the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and he's
Speaker 1: very energetic offsider in Elon Musk. This is a fascinating
Speaker 1: conversation because you were able to watch the body language
Speaker 1: and clearly they're very friendly, right, So forget all that
Speaker 1: garbage that you know one is secretly jealous of the other,
Speaker 1: or one's trying to take power off the other. That's
Speaker 1: just rubbish, right. They look like two blokes who were
Speaker 1: very happy to be in each other's company. Now, there
Speaker 1: were a couple of moments from this that I wanted
Speaker 1: to show you though, which was Elon Musk talking about
Speaker 1: the concept of accountability that one of the things that
Speaker 1: he is able to do, who is to make sure
Speaker 1: that when Trump tells the government to do something, they
Speaker 1: actually do it.
Speaker 8: What we're doing here is one of the biggest functions
Speaker 8: of the Doors team is just making sure that the
Speaker 8: presidential executive orders are actually carried out. And this is
Speaker 8: I just want to plant this is a very important
Speaker 8: thing because the president is the elected representative of the people.
Speaker 8: So it's representing the will of the people. And if
Speaker 8: the bureaucracy is fighting the will of the people and
Speaker 8: preventing the present the president from implementing what the people want,
Speaker 8: then what we live in is a bureaucracy and not
Speaker 8: a democracy.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent absolutely important, I mean how often and
Speaker 1: they make this point right. So in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Where most of the bureaucrats for the federal government are
Speaker 1: or in the adjoining areas, ninety three percent of them
Speaker 1: would have voted for Harris not Trump. Therefore, if they
Speaker 1: could go slow, if they could challenge, if they could ignore,
Speaker 1: if they could wait it out, which is pretty much
Speaker 1: what I were able to do in the first four years,
Speaker 1: well then they would be able to deny Trump the
Speaker 1: ability to actually do what people elected him to do.
Speaker 1: But one of the good things about what Musk is
Speaker 1: trying to do is that he's following the hammer. And
Speaker 1: obviously Congress at some point in time has to step
Speaker 1: in and turn many of the executive orders into the
Speaker 1: actual law of the land and see how many Democrats
Speaker 1: would be willing to it. One day vote against some
Speaker 1: of these things all part of the strategy of the
Speaker 1: midterm elections in a couple of years time, and of
Speaker 1: course the presidential the best part of four years away.
Speaker 1: Mask also talks about the Trump derangement syndrome that he
Speaker 1: saw with his own eyes.
Speaker 8: They call it like Trump duration syndrome. And you don't
Speaker 8: realize how real this is until like it's you count
Speaker 8: reason with people. So like I was at a friend's
Speaker 8: birthday party and aligis birthday dinner and it was like
Speaker 8: a nice quiet dinner and everything was everyone was behaving normally,
Speaker 8: and they happened to mention, this is before the election,
Speaker 8: like a month or two before, appen to mention the
Speaker 8: president's name, and it was like they got shot with
Speaker 8: a dirt and the juggular that contained like the metha,
Speaker 8: fhatamine and rabies. Okay, wow, I'm like, what is Guys
Speaker 8: like you can't have like a normal conversation and it's
Speaker 8: like it's like that to become completely irrational.
Speaker 1: And also about the types of things that he is finding.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it be amazing if somebody was willing to be
Speaker 1: able to put the writer road through the Austradinian system
Speaker 1: and find things like these.
Speaker 5: They signed a contract and a government agency and it
Speaker 5: has three months and the guy leaves that signed the
Speaker 5: contract and nobody else is there and they paid the
Speaker 5: contract for ten years. Yeah, so the guy is getting
Speaker 5: checks for years and years and years, and he's telling
Speaker 5: his family. Obviously maybe it was crooked, maybe paid to
Speaker 5: get the contract, or may be paid that they didn't
Speaker 5: terminate it. But you know, we have contracts that go forever,
Speaker 5: and they've been going for years, and they're supposed to
Speaker 5: end in three months or five months or two years
Speaker 5: or something, and they go forever.
Speaker 1: So the guy is.
Speaker 5: Either crooked, you know where he knew this was going
Speaker 5: to happen, or he's crooked because he's getting payments and
Speaker 5: he knows he shouldn't be getting it.
Speaker 1: Fascinating stuff. By the way. Bit of breaking news, which
Speaker 1: is just dropped on the Sydney Morning Herald's website is
Speaker 1: that Chinese naval ships have been spotted one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty nautical miles from Sydney. Now they are apparently steadily
Speaker 1: moving their way down the East coast, and they had
Speaker 1: been doing so for the past couple of days. Why
Speaker 1: are we learning about this via the media. Why is
Speaker 1: the federal government not calling our attention to this. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. China wouldn't want to upset them, would you.
Speaker 1: Defense have revealed that the Chinese flotilla was spotted off
Speaker 1: the north coast of Queensland and there was an Australian
Speaker 1: military plane that apparently knew about this last week. There's
Speaker 1: also a scenario here where the Australian military plane was
Speaker 1: involved in a dangerous incident apparently with the Chinese People's
Speaker 1: Liberation Army in the South China Sea at the same time.
Speaker 1: So let's see what happens here. There's going to be
Speaker 1: plenty more news on that by the time we reconvene
Speaker 1: tomorrow night. But that's the reporting over on the Channel
Speaker 1: line websites tonight. Now let's get to the let's get
Speaker 1: to the pub test. We're on Monday. If you would
Speaker 1: like to join us in the seat of Gilmore in
Speaker 1: Bateman's Bay four politics on the Telly Politics Paul Murray style,
Speaker 1: send me an email pop test at skyonies dot com. A.
Speaker 1: If you've got a question for the candidates, that would
Speaker 1: be great as well. But if you just like to
Speaker 1: be there, pup test at skinies dot com. A you
Speaker 1: we've got a full house for our town. So the overflow.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to to come and see how TV
Speaker 1: is made and done right, you send me an email
Speaker 1: for Monday night pup test at Skyies dot com dot
Speaker 1: A you all right, quick break back with more. We've
Speaker 1: got all killer, no filler tonight, Meghan Kelly in a
Speaker 1: moment or two his time, Conroy versus Bishop, both in
Speaker 1: the man cave, more in a sect, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for watching in the man cave
Speaker 1: yet again has the voice recovered? He's just here to help,
Speaker 1: of course labor who is bootstraps more than the great
Speaker 1: Stephen Conroy, the carry out a chair, bronwin Bishop, and
Speaker 1: we've got a big chunk of time to go at
Speaker 1: it tonight. Hello to both of you. All right, So
Speaker 1: Palmer's back in the game now. As I explained, look
Speaker 1: what sets he wins. Good luck to him. But preferences matter.
Speaker 1: Preference discipline from the right helped Morrison win, in fact
Speaker 1: got Morrison to win in twenty nineteen when the preferences
Speaker 1: were not flowing in twenty two well, the result went
Speaker 1: the way that it did, and also the weight of
Speaker 1: the advertising. I mean you remember the Blitzkreig that was
Speaker 1: coming against Bill Shorten helped Morrison in nineteen they barg
Speaker 1: of them all message, well, help do the me in
Speaker 1: in twenty two so Bromwell Palmer, Yeah.
Speaker 9: Well he's a force to be reckoned with. He really is,
Speaker 9: and people who underestimate him are foolish. Yes, so I
Speaker 9: agree with all the analysis that you've done with but
Speaker 9: there are two other things I'd add. He's already come
Speaker 9: out and said there only two sexes. And the most
Speaker 9: successful ad that the Republicans ran the one that says
Speaker 9: there about they and them, where about you?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was great.
Speaker 9: It was a very powerful ad, and the liberal parties
Speaker 9: the data hasn't gone there. The second thing is that
Speaker 9: his determination on waste is also resonates with people, and
Speaker 9: the other one that resonates, of course is immigration. So
Speaker 9: he's got a lot to play with and he won't
Speaker 9: be playing soft, he won't be pulling back, He'll be
Speaker 9: full on.
Speaker 1: Well, so.
Speaker 9: It's going to affect, in my view, the way that
Speaker 9: the Coalition is going to have to couch its policies.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: And also Steve and I mean look in the conversation
Speaker 1: that our team had with him today, what he said
Speaker 1: publicly today. Look, he might be on a journey towards
Speaker 1: that greater preference discipline of twenty nineteen because a lot
Speaker 1: of the issues that he's having a crack at obviously
Speaker 1: are anti where the government is. However, part of the
Speaker 1: Trump of it all is bugger them all. So whether
Speaker 1: he repeats the same preference situation in twenty two, which was, look,
Speaker 1: you only need six numbers, so we're going to list
Speaker 1: basically US plus five. But what's your thought of this
Speaker 1: and what's your caution to labor people going who cares?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 10: No, you shouldn't say who cares? I mean, he's a
Speaker 10: proven electoral force. In twenty nineteen, he destroyed Bill Shortened
Speaker 10: with his advertising campaign. He wasn't that successful in terms
Speaker 10: of his electoral wins, just like in twenty two, but
Speaker 10: he destroyed Shorten with that campaign. But I think Brombin's
Speaker 10: points were spot on. The differences with what Trump's been
Speaker 10: successful in doing in the US are that on the
Speaker 10: sort of trans issues in particular them argument that you
Speaker 10: just highlighted. The Liberals are closer to Labor on it
Speaker 10: than they are to Trump slash Parma. So it's going
Speaker 10: to be very hard to say vote for Dutton because
Speaker 10: he'll be better on this, because they're about the same,
Speaker 10: just like Labor on refugees. To take Robin's other points,
Speaker 10: Labor has had to tack to the center and essentially
Speaker 10: still keeping place most of what Scott Morrison and Tony
Speaker 10: Abbott did.
Speaker 11: No, that's not true.
Speaker 1: Well, it's only two of the three leaks, still not insignificant.
Speaker 1: The tripod.
Speaker 10: Coming in and landing, so at the moment you might
Speaker 10: not like it, but the boats haven't really on mass
Speaker 10: And I lived when the boats came on MATS.
Speaker 1: I was in cabinet.
Speaker 10: This was a disastrous that's not quite so I'm not
Speaker 10: saying no boats have turned up and be saying in
Speaker 10: the public consciousness that migration issue is not as potent
Speaker 10: because Labour's tactles deliberals trans issues.
Speaker 11: It's becoming libered tractor.
Speaker 9: With regard to the anti semitism, No, it's making it more.
Speaker 10: I am with you. One hundred percent of the anti
Speaker 10: semitism issue is Chris Men's. We talked about it Ryan
Speaker 10: Parks last week playing blinders. Sometimes the FEDS are a
Speaker 10: little clunkier in terms of their respond.
Speaker 11: They're not just clunky there so damn weak, But.
Speaker 10: I don't think it's broken the dam to become a
Speaker 10: full on migration stylish. I accept there's a good argument
Speaker 10: taking place about what's the role of multiculturalism.
Speaker 9: If something doesn't happen happening, if something doesn't happen soon.
Speaker 9: With charges being brought against those two nurses, it is
Speaker 9: going to really heat up.
Speaker 11: Why are they not charged?
Speaker 9: And by the way, whatever happened to the person who
Speaker 9: stabbed the Christian bishop in the eye?
Speaker 11: Well, has he been charged?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I remember roughly at the time that
Speaker 1: I believe charges were. But I'll go and double check
Speaker 1: for you gladly and get back to you next time.
Speaker 1: But that's it. Can I talk about again the way
Speaker 1: the media kind of treats good billionaire bad billionaire, right,
Speaker 1: Like I just, I just it is so naked, right,
Speaker 1: which is that you know, taxpayer and lefty media. You know,
Speaker 1: if you want to give money to a teal, good billionaire, right,
Speaker 1: if you want to go and are as it is
Speaker 1: bad billionaire about the advertising to try to stand up
Speaker 1: and try to challenge the system. But also can we
Speaker 1: also tell the truth here too, which is all of
Speaker 1: that song and dance about the system changing. All of
Speaker 1: that doesn't apply to this election. That applies to the
Speaker 1: next elections. All that theater of the Teals blowing up
Speaker 1: at the government was garbage. So perhaps also the reality
Speaker 1: with Palming here too is that he knows the laws
Speaker 1: have changed, so this is the last chance to do
Speaker 1: what he has done in the past. Those changes, Steven,
Speaker 1: are worth talking.
Speaker 10: No, absolutely, I mean I couldn't agree with you more
Speaker 10: that the Teals theater last week. It doesn't come into
Speaker 10: four so settle down. But more importantly, both parties want
Speaker 10: to make sure that neither of the billionaires involved in
Speaker 10: this game can absolutely dominate an election in the way
Speaker 10: Parimat did in nineteen and so both parties have an
Speaker 10: interest in making sure that the billionaires can't buy elections.
Speaker 10: Is a good position for both parties to take, and
Speaker 10: I commend Dutton and the Liberal Party for showing leadership
Speaker 10: and going no, we're not interested in anyone being able
Speaker 10: to buy.
Speaker 1: We'll all do the hard work.
Speaker 10: Where you and I will probably disagree, Paul, as we
Speaker 10: usually do, are funding. But this is a better place
Speaker 10: to be than a Teal billionaire or a Partmer billionaire
Speaker 10: buying election.
Speaker 1: But also where I do blob. Sorry Broum, we're not
Speaker 1: jumping in a second, and then plus jump to where
Speaker 1: you want to go where I am on this right.
Speaker 1: The thing I hate about these electoral reforms as well
Speaker 1: is that unions are independent. Unions are literally in the
Speaker 1: constitution of the Labor Party, literally fifty percent every MP
Speaker 1: must be a member. They control votes, they decide who
Speaker 1: is in the ministry or not on it. But they're
Speaker 1: completely independent. So basically every party gets out spent ten
Speaker 1: to one if the individual individual unions decide to line
Speaker 1: up against them. That's a nice little quirk of the brain.
Speaker 9: Absolutely, and there have been attempts to fight it. In fact,
Speaker 9: there was a high court decision when someone took took
Speaker 9: a case and I'm successful. So I've often wondered why
Speaker 9: the Liberal Party doesn't form a union and it can
Speaker 9: then have all the money funnel through there, just like
Speaker 9: the Labor Party does.
Speaker 1: They can start with the super Innuation Fund.
Speaker 11: That was done to give money to the Labor Party membership.
Speaker 1: It's just never happened.
Speaker 10: I remember Andrew Robb, the National Farmers Federation, made an
Speaker 10: article in the bulletin in nineteen ninety eight, after all
Speaker 10: these rules of passes. I'm looking forward to seeing the
Speaker 10: disclosures after the nineteen ninety eight election to see how
Speaker 10: much money these super funds have given to labor and
Speaker 10: you announce what none never happen.
Speaker 11: I've been through. I've been through a few of the
Speaker 11: trust trusts that.
Speaker 9: Run those super fund we're talking about it, and you
Speaker 9: will find the directors the money is paid director union.
Speaker 1: To be the third party, to be the third party
Speaker 1: hammer for the Labor Party.
Speaker 10: But isis the weakness in your argument is that unions
Speaker 10: have been donating to more than the Labor Party for
Speaker 10: many years. Okay, they've given money to the Greens, They've
Speaker 10: given the ETU. This is my point for meus a
Speaker 10: whole bunch of unions have given money to the Greens.
Speaker 10: Some have given it to Brian Harrodine over.
Speaker 9: The years, the vast majority of it and on those
Speaker 9: super funds, the money for the directors has paid straight
Speaker 9: to the union and it's in their account.
Speaker 10: So let me explain to you what happens if the
Speaker 10: union official takes the annual fee. Everyone attacks the UNI
Speaker 10: officials are getting double dipping. So they go, okay, we
Speaker 10: won't take the money, just give it to the union.
Speaker 10: Everyone attack them secretly funneling money into the Who.
Speaker 9: Actually takes the money is Wayne Swan, of.
Speaker 1: Course independent chair and he does a lot of work
Speaker 1: the president of the party President.
Speaker 10: And when when the former head Peter Collins share former former.
Speaker 11: Leader party, the.
Speaker 10: Parliamentary leader party he was chairing, I guess what, he
Speaker 10: took the money as well, and.
Speaker 9: A thousand dollars and he gets to pay.
Speaker 1: Can we talk about Wayala because not only are we
Speaker 1: in a scenario where the South Australian governor has now
Speaker 1: forced it into administration, but something's going to happen tomorrow
Speaker 1: because both the Premier and the Prime Minister are going
Speaker 1: to Whaler. Now we did an outtown from Wayala, so
Speaker 1: I know how important it literally is to the town
Speaker 1: and we don't want those jobs to disappear. But Bromman,
Speaker 1: what does this little moment in time tell you?
Speaker 9: Well, first of all, well if you look at Wyaler
Speaker 9: and what's happened, it is the icon of everything is
Speaker 9: wrong with green policies. Everything has gone wrong for a
Speaker 9: whiler from the moment they blew up the coal fired
Speaker 9: power station to now being thieves in the night taking
Speaker 9: electricity from Victoria nor state cut it off?
Speaker 1: What should just get up there? And the extension.
Speaker 9: Cost absolutely Then you think you've got sixty three million
Speaker 9: dollars being played by mister Bowen out of some off
Speaker 9: budget entergy over here, which allows them to have a.
Speaker 11: Surplus of course.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow as well.
Speaker 9: From what I read, and it seems to me that
Speaker 9: we're going to have a nationalization policy on the sly, Well,
Speaker 9: this is the so.
Speaker 1: I mean, what we've seen as opposed to nuclear reactors
Speaker 1: nationalization policy. But is that what we're going to see.
Speaker 1: We're going to is the sense here that we're not
Speaker 1: just going to have government support, We're going to have
Speaker 1: some form of government ownership of this.
Speaker 10: I think there is enough private sector interest that it
Speaker 10: will ultimately end up in private hands. I think the
Speaker 10: government are going through a transition to get it from
Speaker 10: Gupta to like bluescoping in the papers today saying well
Speaker 10: on the economics of it, we would look at it
Speaker 10: the government putting five hundred million. I've never had a
Speaker 10: private company turned down five hundred mil. But there are
Speaker 10: other suitors I think that want those assets.
Speaker 1: With your agree to disagree with.
Speaker 10: It's green energy style, still or it's more blue scope.
Speaker 9: They have to stick in gas and then they're already
Speaker 9: saying that they were.
Speaker 10: It will be gas until if green hydrogen turns up,
Speaker 10: So it's going to be run on gas and no
Speaker 10: one we're good on Malanowskas for taking just like your
Speaker 10: government here in New South Wales, min said, I'm not
Speaker 10: care about the ideology. We're keeping the power going. We're
Speaker 10: going to play to get some of these coal fire
Speaker 10: pire stations going, unlikely your party which is closing them
Speaker 10: down under.
Speaker 11: You mean, mister, it's now deserted and going to you.
Speaker 10: It's still can't carrying to you e spelling. Bromwin did
Speaker 10: the motion up on your Advent Committee?
Speaker 1: All right, So look it'll be fascinating to what happens
Speaker 1: there tomorrow. But also I just want to I've got
Speaker 1: a about a minute here Douglas Murray at the Art
Speaker 1: conference in the UK. Go and find the full speech.
Speaker 1: It was amazing. He's part of it.
Speaker 12: The idea that in order to welcome people into our societies,
Speaker 12: we effectively have to pretend that we are uninteresting places,
Speaker 12: unimportant places, until migration makes us interesting.
Speaker 1: Bromwin, how did it inspire you?
Speaker 9: Well, it was a fabulous speech, and that it was
Speaker 9: a call to say be proud of our background. He
Speaker 9: is called for reconstruction of the West narrative in the
Speaker 9: West admiration for its own history. I think it's time
Speaker 9: for a second renaissance that enlightened, that followed the Enlightenment followed,
Speaker 9: and I think his words and the way he phrased
Speaker 9: it is an inspiration to be followed.
Speaker 1: I make sure a pas it up on our socials.
Speaker 1: Otherwise you can see versions of it at skyiwes dot
Speaker 1: com dot au. Lad lady, thank you very much. We'll
Speaker 1: talk again shortly. Meghan Kelly from the United States. She
Speaker 1: is in fine form. Next, it's our favorite time of
Speaker 1: the week to talk to our favorite person in the world,
Speaker 1: the one and only and wonderful Meghan Kelly. There is
Speaker 1: so much happening as always, but I want to go
Speaker 1: back a couple of days so we can deal with
Speaker 1: the German politicians who were literally crying after Vice President JD.
Speaker 1: Vance gave them a speech telling them to pick up
Speaker 1: their game.
Speaker 13: Let me conclude, and this becomes difficult.
Speaker 11: It's amazing.
Speaker 2: I wish so much i'd been in the audience as
Speaker 2: a member of the press, where I could have just said,
Speaker 2: excuse me, sir, sir on behalf of the world, where
Speaker 2: are your balls asking? At least for America, but I
Speaker 2: think my friends in Australia too. Yeah, we're just wondering
Speaker 2: where they are. It's perfect, It's really actually kind of
Speaker 2: perfect when you think about what's happened in Germany, which
Speaker 2: is really one of the main perpetrators of the terrible
Speaker 2: crackdown on free speech. England has given them a good
Speaker 2: run for their money. France is not so great either,
Speaker 2: but I mean Germany I think is the worst. And
Speaker 2: that's saying something in Europe where yeah, they used to
Speaker 2: be known as like these hardcore authoritarian people, and now
Speaker 2: it's if you insult a politician, you can be arrested
Speaker 2: an insult, forget quote hate speech, which I mean, one
Speaker 2: of the things I love about America is you can
Speaker 2: hate speech is fine, it's totally constitutional, it's legal. You
Speaker 2: can't arrest somebody for hate speech. You then speak louder
Speaker 2: and persuade people that if that other person is wrong.
Speaker 2: That's really one of the fundamental bedrocks of our country.
Speaker 2: But in Germany you can get arrested, not only for
Speaker 2: so called hate speech, but for insulting someone. And they
Speaker 2: justified that in this long sixty minutes piece where they
Speaker 2: were saying, oh yeah, I mean especially on the Internet,
Speaker 2: because that lives forever. Oh, Paul, you mean someone can
Speaker 2: say something hurtful about you on the Internet and people
Speaker 2: could find it at any point in time, like in
Speaker 2: the future, when you've moved on past the contract, what
Speaker 2: would you grow a pair like? Of course they're crying
Speaker 2: over Elon and his tough talk. Of course, that's what
Speaker 2: they're doing when they read insults about themselves online. That's
Speaker 2: what they're doing. When they used to read Compact Magazine,
Speaker 2: which they closed because it was too in support of
Speaker 2: the party that wants to crack down on the border issue.
Speaker 2: They just it's like the kid who covers his ears
Speaker 2: and he's like, I can't hear it, I can't hear it,
Speaker 2: and it's like, no, you will hear me. No more
Speaker 2: ice cream. So the tears are the perfect metaphor for
Speaker 2: what's happening in that country.
Speaker 1: Now we're birth of an era where the oscars used
Speaker 1: to mean something because it was sort of one of
Speaker 1: those big showbies events and the Saturn Law fifty year
Speaker 1: reunion was sort of the closest thing to an award show.
Speaker 1: But then, rather than just celebrating a take VI show
Speaker 1: that you may have locked, or loved or not really
Speaker 1: cared about for much of the past fifty years, they
Speaker 1: decided to very overtly do a screen you to half
Speaker 1: the country. Tom Hanks was involved in a skit where
Speaker 1: you just mocked Megaviters, and I couldn't help but think why.
Speaker 2: You know what it reminded me of. I used to
Speaker 2: do a lot of stories on domestic violence, and I
Speaker 2: got to know a lot about how it works, and
Speaker 2: it reminded me of an abuser who goes back to
Speaker 2: a woman and puts on the mask. I'm charming, I'm
Speaker 2: totally loving, I will never hurt you. You can trust me.
Speaker 11: I get you.
Speaker 2: We're together, we're a partnership. But then as soon as
Speaker 2: the woman does something that could be anything to set
Speaker 2: them off, the veil comes down and you realize this
Speaker 2: has been someone pretending. This is this whole thing that's
Speaker 2: been wooing me in has been an act, And oh
Speaker 2: my god, I was almost fooled, you know, thank god,
Speaker 2: I saw the moment of reality. That's what that thing
Speaker 2: was to me because Saturday Night Live hates conservatives. NBC
Speaker 2: hates conservatives. They've been doing programming that is anti conservative,
Speaker 2: anti Trump, pro leftist causes in the open now for
Speaker 2: twelve years and beyond, I mean, I haven't really watched
Speaker 2: it with a political eye longer than that. And that
Speaker 2: on Sunday Night, they tried to reel us in by
Speaker 2: just doing regular comedy that could appeal to anybody, like, see,
Speaker 2: we're so fun. We've got all these big stars, so
Speaker 2: we're towing the line and we're going to make everybody
Speaker 2: love us and you can trust us. We're not going
Speaker 2: to be too political. We're going to be the kind
Speaker 2: of product that everyone can consume. And then the veil slipped,
Speaker 2: and it slipped because that's who they really are, and
Speaker 2: no one there thought there'd be a problem with that
Speaker 2: skit with Tom Hanks. No one said, oh God, is
Speaker 2: this beyond like should we not? Because it's all the
Speaker 2: same left wing echo chambers. So they decided to take
Speaker 2: one of the most beloved, most popular American actors ever,
Speaker 2: Tom Hanks, and put him in a Trump Maga hat
Speaker 2: and put him down at the end on what they
Speaker 2: called Black Jeopardy which is kind of like a joke
Speaker 2: that black people don't watch normal Jeopardy, and so it's
Speaker 2: kind of like white Jeopardy. And he comes on Black
Speaker 2: Jeopardy and the black host comes over to shake his hand,
Speaker 2: and he recoils at the thought of touching a black
Speaker 2: man and doesn't want to shake the hand and only
Speaker 2: does it when he's forced to by the very gracious
Speaker 2: black host.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, hey.
Speaker 10: Now speaking to church, can I say something.
Speaker 5: If more folks weren't to church, we wouldn't be in
Speaker 5: this mess we're in now.
Speaker 1: You know what, I agree with what you doug. I'd
Speaker 1: like to shake your hand, sir. Here we go. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: wrong that it's just a handshake. You welcome to Black
Speaker 1: Jepardy anytime.
Speaker 13: Thank you.
Speaker 2: The veil was down, and we saw what they really
Speaker 2: think of all of us, not just MAGA but anybody
Speaker 2: on the right. They think you're a racist, they think
Speaker 2: you're all the ists for all sorts of psychological reasons
Speaker 2: that we've gone into and don't need to hear. But
Speaker 2: there was that piece of it, and then there was
Speaker 2: how deeply offensive it was for Tom Hanks in particular
Speaker 2: to participate in this skit Tom Hanks, who started off
Speaker 2: on this stupid show called Bosom Buddies, which I mean
Speaker 2: maybe it was ahead of its time because it was
Speaker 2: about two men who dressed as women in order to
Speaker 2: get the living arrangements they wanted. So it was guys dressed,
Speaker 2: you know, and sort of a drag and he was
Speaker 2: hilarious and he was in nobody and it was a
Speaker 2: stupid show that made us fall in love with him
Speaker 2: because he was so funny and bumbling, and then parlay
Speaker 2: that new a film career with great films like Sleepless
Speaker 2: in Seattle where he was a romantic lead, and Big
Speaker 2: where he was a kid in an adult's body, and
Speaker 2: Philadelphia where he was a big time lawyer suffering from
Speaker 2: HIV aids, like all these amazing Forrest Gump, which was
Speaker 2: seen around the world and everyone said the same thing,
Speaker 2: I love Tom Hanks. I love Tom Hanks, and in
Speaker 2: thanks to a nation to it of audiences that included
Speaker 2: those guys who look like that with the T shirt
Speaker 2: without the sleeves that are maybe a little rough around
Speaker 2: the edges, who aren't as quaffed as he is, with
Speaker 2: the perfect three quarter zip you know, sweater with their
Speaker 2: maga hat On and yeah, Tom Hanks, their southern rural accent.
Speaker 2: You absolute effing snob went to your movies and made
Speaker 2: you a billionaire, and your thanks to them is to
Speaker 2: mock and belittle them. In the two minutes you had
Speaker 2: to portray what they might be like. Shame on you.
Speaker 1: Now, did you say the stuff of Kamala Harris? She's
Speaker 1: just wandering around styge. I think a broad wide plog.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest. I was respectful when she was the
Speaker 1: vice president is but now she's just a free agent.
Speaker 1: She was pieced, she was drunk because I know she's,
Speaker 1: you know, not the brightest bulb, but she was offered
Speaker 1: when she's talking to people.
Speaker 13: And it doesn't mean we don't see the beauty and everything, right,
Speaker 13: these things all coexist. But I believe we fight for something,
Speaker 13: not against it.
Speaker 10: And that's where.
Speaker 2: You all right, let's go, Paul Marie, Let's do this thing. Disagree, disagree.
Speaker 2: That's her, that's her personality. She always sounds drunk.
Speaker 1: She's an idiot.
Speaker 2: That's the way she talks.
Speaker 1: She says absolutely nothing.
Speaker 14: She tries to make it so really phoned. She's scaring
Speaker 14: a weary waves hoking. She sounds drunk a lot. She says,
Speaker 14: just reality and duality and just like something hates a vacuum.
Speaker 11: Take care.
Speaker 2: That's who she is. So no, I don't think any
Speaker 2: alcohol is involved. I think it's her and I.
Speaker 1: Love to disagreeing with her.
Speaker 11: I can't.
Speaker 1: She always turned me around. Ulmays winds, Damn, how amazing
Speaker 1: she is making Cayley the only place you'll say here
Speaker 1: of Scottish Polmrie live on Wednesday nights. That's a show
Speaker 1: for the night. Say tomorrow.