Speaker 1: Lateens General, Welcome to the Late Bay.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks for joining us on the Late Debate.
Speaker 3: James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming up
Speaker 3: an unbelievable Joe Biden gaff where he forgets to introduce
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister of India though he's seated right behind him.
Speaker 2: Will show you that a little later.
Speaker 3: Plus we'll look at what's making news tomorrow. Queensland police
Speaker 3: wanting the ability to pursue stolen vehicles, and police in
Speaker 3: the Northern Territory confirm that they regularly clean homeless indigenous
Speaker 3: people off the streets before politicians arrive to visit.
Speaker 2: Get to that a little later, But.
Speaker 3: First to the extraordinary claims that US authorities are aware
Speaker 3: of five assassination teams currently in the United States dedicated
Speaker 3: to killing Donald Trump, and even more extraordinary, they were
Speaker 3: aware of these killed teams before last week's second assassination
Speaker 3: attempt on Trump, and yet did nothing to increase his security.
Speaker 3: The claims were made over the weekend by Republican Congressman
Speaker 3: Matt Gates.
Speaker 2: Have listened to what he said.
Speaker 4: I had a senior official from the Department of Homeland
Speaker 4: Security in my office before the second assassination attempt, saying
Speaker 4: that what he has assessed is that there are five
Speaker 4: known assassination teams in the United States, three inspired by
Speaker 4: other governments, two that are here that are known domestic
Speaker 4: assassination teams. And with that, this individual was coming to
Speaker 4: me concerned that the force protection around President Trump, even
Speaker 4: prior to that second assassination attempt, was not sufficient for.
Speaker 2: What it needed to be.
Speaker 4: And the coordination at that level, at the dignitary protection level,
Speaker 4: is like the bare minimum that we have to do
Speaker 4: to keep our presidents, our presidential candidates safe all there
Speaker 4: on the trail.
Speaker 3: So Calvin, Liz, this is an extraordinary claim. Asassination teams
Speaker 3: three helped by foreign governments Iran, Pakistan, and Ukraine, I
Speaker 3: should point out a Pakistan and Ukraine allies of the
Speaker 3: United States, and then two other assassination squads that are
Speaker 3: apparently domestic. So this raises a huge number of questions, Liz,
Speaker 3: where do we start with this?
Speaker 5: Like we needed further proof that the bodies who are
Speaker 5: responsible for protecting Donald Trump aren't doing their job. Now
Speaker 5: you can speculate till ac counts come home, whether this
Speaker 5: is deliberate or whether this is not but so many
Speaker 5: questions still remain regarding Matthew Krooks. The first would be
Speaker 5: assassin and the second assassin. Also, so many question marks
Speaker 5: remain unanswered.
Speaker 6: Nobody's seen. It's like getting.
Speaker 5: Blood out of a stone, where regardless of whether you're
Speaker 5: talking to the Special Service, the Secret Service, i should say,
Speaker 5: or some of the other levels of what is so
Speaker 5: post be protection around a presidential candidate, it's simply not happening.
Speaker 5: And these the fact that the Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 5: knows about this. Gates is talking about the upper echelons
Speaker 5: of those who are supposed to be charged with the
Speaker 5: responsibility of ensuring that guy not only makes it to
Speaker 5: the election, but long after the election remains alive.
Speaker 6: And yet we just seem to be coming up trumps
Speaker 6: no pun intended.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you wouldn't trust the FBI or the
Speaker 1: Secret Service to boil the billy to CWA meeting right now,
Speaker 1: would you? Seriously? Given what we've seen over the last
Speaker 1: couple of months. But I have to say though, it
Speaker 1: kind of indicates the guy you ought to be voting for.
Speaker 1: When foreign governments want to take the guy out, all right,
Speaker 1: you know, Iran, Ukraine, Pakistan, countries of course, that have
Speaker 1: all gone through and are going through periods of great
Speaker 1: oppression themselves or their people going through periods of great oppression.
Speaker 1: Why would they partend actually not want a guy who
Speaker 1: would come in and not allow his country to be
Speaker 1: walked over, not allow his country to be used as
Speaker 1: a pawn, or to take shed loads of money for
Speaker 1: particular political purposes. That's why they want to get rid
Speaker 1: of him, right, And of course Iran has had beef
Speaker 1: with Trump for a long time, and we know that
Speaker 1: the money that has been received from the Biden administration
Speaker 1: to it like of course they wouldn't want Trump to
Speaker 1: be president. And there are these groups that is alleged
Speaker 1: wandering around the United States, sorry right now, that want
Speaker 1: to take out the former president potential next president of
Speaker 1: the United States forty fifth wants to be the forty seventh.
Speaker 1: And what we just meant to believe, it's all hunky dory,
Speaker 1: It's all fine.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Look, I suspect that Joe Biden now would like to
Speaker 1: see Trump have a little more protection, but we know
Speaker 1: that Biden ain't really in charge. There are other people
Speaker 1: who are quite happy to see Trump not have the
Speaker 1: level of protection he ought to have, because, as I
Speaker 1: have said before, even if they come out and say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's political violence, it's very bad. In their
Speaker 1: heart of hearts, they would actually prefer to see him
Speaker 1: dead than winning in November again.
Speaker 5: And you've got to respect the gonads on this guy,
Speaker 5: because Donald Trump knows better than anyone in this world.
Speaker 6: Right now, every single time he.
Speaker 5: Steps foot outside of his home, he is potentially risking
Speaker 5: his life. But what has he always said, They're not
Speaker 5: trying to get to me, They're trying to get to you.
Speaker 6: I'm just in the way.
Speaker 5: It's been a great weekend for the Trump campaign because
Speaker 5: not only has this come out from repmat.
Speaker 6: Gates, but also he seems to be.
Speaker 5: Ever more vindicated when it comes to the charges surrounding
Speaker 5: January sixth. New revelations reveal that he instructed the Pentagon
Speaker 5: to keep every every one safe, to deploy the best
Speaker 5: that they had, including the National Guard, to ensure January
Speaker 5: six didn't dissolve into violence.
Speaker 6: And he was promptly ignored.
Speaker 5: Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk,
Speaker 5: responding to these revelations, that is the committee that uncovered
Speaker 5: this inconvenient truth, says the Pentagon leadership prioritize concerns of
Speaker 5: optics over their duty to protect lives. President Trump met
Speaker 5: with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to make sure
Speaker 5: any events on January sixth, twenty twenty one, worse safe.
Speaker 5: It is very concerning that these senior Pentagon officials ignored
Speaker 5: President's Trump's guidance and misled Congressional leaders to believe they
Speaker 5: were doing their job when they were not. The DoD's
Speaker 5: IG report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions
Speaker 5: from the interviews they conduct, but pushes a narrative to
Speaker 5: keep their hands clean.
Speaker 6: We have many questions for them, and.
Speaker 5: We will continue to dig until we are satisfied the
Speaker 5: American people know the truth.
Speaker 6: Strength to your arm, louder Milk.
Speaker 5: As of January this year, prosecutors had taken to task
Speaker 5: over twelve hundred and sixty five riots. Many of them
Speaker 5: have got jail time. Over four hundred and sixty have
Speaker 5: gotten jail time. And if you want a glimpse at
Speaker 5: just how ridiculous some of these sentences are, look up
Speaker 5: the case of Rebecca Laurence. She's a seventy four year
Speaker 5: old lady. You should see the photos of her. She's
Speaker 5: sweet as pie. She was in the Capitol building on
Speaker 5: January six for just ten minutes. She was praying. She's
Speaker 5: been given a twelve month probation. Six months of those
Speaker 5: she'll be under house arrest with zero zero internet.
Speaker 6: She can't use the internet. She won't be allowed any access,
Speaker 6: so she can't.
Speaker 5: Tell people what's happening to her, how she's going, or
Speaker 5: raise money for her defense because she intends to appeal.
Speaker 5: She's also been given a fine of one hundred and
Speaker 5: three thousand dollars.
Speaker 6: Her lawyers advise.
Speaker 5: Her that this is the largest misdemeanor fine in American history.
Speaker 5: That's how over the top they've come when they're prosecuting
Speaker 5: January six rioters. Now, Trump has said, if elected, he
Speaker 5: will pardon most of them. Obviously, he's not referring to
Speaker 5: the ones that injured officers on the day.
Speaker 6: There were one hundred and.
Speaker 5: Forty police people who said that they'd been hurt in
Speaker 5: some way, shape or farms, some worse than others, obviously,
Speaker 5: but he's just saying, I recognize that the way in
Speaker 5: which these people have been prosecuted is utterly.
Speaker 6: Ridiculous and I'll just be parting handing out pardons Leverrit
Speaker 6: and Zenner.
Speaker 3: So these transcripts revealed that prior to January sixth, Trump
Speaker 3: went to the Pentagon and said, we're going to have
Speaker 3: this event.
Speaker 2: We need it to be peaceful.
Speaker 3: And he actually says to them, use the National Guard,
Speaker 3: use active soldiers, whatever it takes, quote unquote, and he
Speaker 3: believed they would do that. Then they promptly ignored him
Speaker 3: because they didn't like the optics of having soldiers guarding
Speaker 3: the Capitol building. And then on the day of January sixth,
Speaker 3: when the riot began and Capitol police felt like we
Speaker 3: are being overwhelmed here, they said we need the National Guard,
Speaker 3: and that message was delayed, being passed on for at
Speaker 3: least two hours until things were well and truly out
Speaker 3: of control, and only then were they released to try
Speaker 3: and get control back. So the whole thing clearly has
Speaker 3: been staged to make Trump look like someone who is
Speaker 3: inciting violence and is a threat to democracy, which has
Speaker 3: then become the entire democratic campaign.
Speaker 1: Correct, And it's not just become the entire democratic campaign,
Speaker 1: it's become a point on which they have tried to
Speaker 1: prosecute him. And that is the real point here, right.
Speaker 1: I mean that they were worried about the optics. Seriously,
Speaker 1: bugger the optics. The only thing that matters is defending
Speaker 1: the capital in such a case. But of course it
Speaker 1: was about the optics, not only the optics of having
Speaker 1: the National Guard there, but the optics ultimately of Trump.
Speaker 1: And that is where we have led to here. That
Speaker 1: is what they wanted. They wanted something on which they
Speaker 1: could get him that might actually send him to jail,
Speaker 1: because he's no in a hush money whatever. This is
Speaker 1: all just fringe stuff, right. What they really wanted was
Speaker 1: something on which they could get him, that could say
Speaker 1: this man is a threat to democracy, that he has
Speaker 1: tried to run an insurrection, that he's tried to overturn
Speaker 1: a democratically elected president, etc. Etc. And they have pushed
Speaker 1: that as hard as they possibly can. Now anyone who's
Speaker 1: seen the footage from January sixth at the Capitol, right,
Speaker 1: you know you've got people walking through, shaking hands with coppers,
Speaker 1: fist bumps, all sorts of stuff being allowed to shown
Speaker 1: through the building.
Speaker 7: Riot.
Speaker 5: By the way, they're inside the Capitol building. This is
Speaker 5: January sixth. Look at these vicious, malicious violence protested.
Speaker 1: It is disgusting.
Speaker 6: Right, I've got a Trump flag. This is unbelieved.
Speaker 1: And there were obviously people there on the day who
Speaker 1: were violent, but the vast majority were not. And the
Speaker 1: story you've been continually told is that the work of
Speaker 1: the minority was the work of the majority. It wasn't.
Speaker 1: That's how they make this an insurrection as opposed to
Speaker 1: a few deranged nutters walking into the Capitol building and
Speaker 1: trying to carry on. But they will stop at nothing
Speaker 1: to get Donald Trump. By the way, the federal government
Speaker 1: will stop at nothing to take your money away. We
Speaker 1: know they do that via tax all the time, but
Speaker 1: they also divert what is meant to be should be
Speaker 1: your take home pay into superannuation because they hope that
Speaker 1: one day you won't be relying on them for a pension. Well,
Speaker 1: increasingly people are spending their super money their money, by
Speaker 1: the way, on things such as health care, because of
Speaker 1: course they can't afford to pay for the health care
Speaker 1: that they desperately need. Numbers that have just been released
Speaker 1: show the increase that we've seen in people pulling out
Speaker 1: their super And we'll show you a few graphs here,
Speaker 1: just general medical expenses. For instance, back in the twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen nineteen financial year, you know thirty nine thousand applications,
Speaker 1: twenty six thousand were allowed. That came to three hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty nine million. Well you're fast forward to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two to twenty three, You've had nearly fifty eight
Speaker 1: thousand applications, thirty nine and a half thousand of those
Speaker 1: have been accepted, to a whopping seven hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: million dollars. It goes on for dental three hundred odd
Speaker 1: million dollars, up from sixty six million dollars in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen nineteen. IVF has gone from thirty six point two
Speaker 1: million dollars to forty seven point nine million dollars. And look,
Speaker 1: it's all good and well. It is your money. You
Speaker 1: ought to have access to it. But of course the
Speaker 1: question is why are people all of a sudden dipping
Speaker 1: into their super in such large quantities, such large amounts
Speaker 1: of money as well to pay for their medical fees.
Speaker 1: Well it's twofold. Of course, we're in a cost of
Speaker 1: living crisis, so people have less savings than they did
Speaker 1: a few years ago, and they have to go to
Speaker 1: things like super to get money. But also if you
Speaker 1: have tried to get a private health insurance policy recently,
Speaker 1: you will know what a rip off it is in
Speaker 1: this country now. The rules under which they operate and
Speaker 1: the services they are providing, which are regulated by the
Speaker 1: federal government are terrible. You look at the money that
Speaker 1: you've got to put up for a private health insurance
Speaker 1: policy now, and most people, particularly young people, it's cheaper
Speaker 1: when you're younger. The older you try to get into, you're.
Speaker 6: Complaining about it.
Speaker 1: Twenty five even I look at it knowing that if
Speaker 1: I get in the system now, I'm going to be
Speaker 1: much better off later on. I look at what they
Speaker 1: want in terms of premiums, going my god, like, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to use that. And then when I actually
Speaker 1: got to try and make her claim, nine times out
Speaker 1: of ten they knock your back. So people are having
Speaker 1: to go to their super because it's the only thing left.
Speaker 1: The government is shooting itself in the foot. If they
Speaker 1: simply reformed the private health sector, perhaps had a slightly
Speaker 1: better public health sector, they wouldn't have to go dipping
Speaker 1: into their superannuation, which of cause is money that will
Speaker 1: then later be paid to you in the pension because
Speaker 1: you've got no money.
Speaker 2: In your super exactly.
Speaker 3: And when you talk about the health funds not exactly
Speaker 3: doing anybody any favors, I had to smile at doctor
Speaker 3: Rachel David, who's the CEO of Private Healthcare Australia. She's
Speaker 3: really concerned about people dipping into their super to pay
Speaker 3: their medical bills because quote unquote this is robbing people
Speaker 3: of their retirement savings and it's driving up the cost
Speaker 3: of care for all Australians. Well, if the private health
Speaker 3: funds weren't ripping everybody off, we wouldn't have to dip
Speaker 3: into our super. Interestingly, the three most common procedures or
Speaker 3: medical facilities that people were after were weight loss, dental
Speaker 3: fees was a massive one, and IVF. And just on
Speaker 3: the IVF, I can understand people dipping into their super
Speaker 3: to pay for IVF because there's no point waiting until
Speaker 3: you turn sixty no for the IVF treatment.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: Well, I've always said that super is such a raught
Speaker 5: as it is. You talk about what I wrought the
Speaker 5: private healthcare. I mean, those guys are making big bugs
Speaker 5: of us, but is our system is so ridiculous and
Speaker 5: so broken. We are the only country in the world
Speaker 5: that mandatorially forces people to put almost twelve percent of
Speaker 5: their income into the stock market, which most people don't
Speaker 5: have the.
Speaker 6: First clue about stocks. What are you doing with my money?
Speaker 6: I'll tell you what.
Speaker 5: They're all clipping to the ticket, to the tune of
Speaker 5: over forty billion dollars a year. They're making money off
Speaker 5: your money while you can't make money off your money.
Speaker 5: And this is catastrophic, especially for low income earners, because
Speaker 5: those people are the ones who could do with it
Speaker 5: earlier on put it into a down payment on a house.
Speaker 6: And who among.
Speaker 5: Us when we've got that much, talk about a dog
Speaker 5: in the fight. We're going to make more money. We're
Speaker 5: going to make our own money work harder for us
Speaker 5: than these flogs who are making it work very hard
Speaker 5: for themselves for as long as they've got it. It
Speaker 5: seems like such a ridiculous system.
Speaker 6: I do not know why we have it.
Speaker 5: New Zealand actually has an incredible system, and it's simply
Speaker 5: just a pension office and they pay more out in
Speaker 5: the pension. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor,
Speaker 5: you all get the same amount. It's just Fair's fair,
Speaker 5: that's the deal. And yes, it would mean more. We'd
Speaker 5: have to pay more into government in order to get
Speaker 5: the pension, but it'd be much fairer pension, which we're
Speaker 5: constantly told even a dog couldn't live on. Nowadays, it
Speaker 5: is a broken system. We've got over fifty five thousand
Speaker 5: people employed in this superannuation type sector, whereas these countries
Speaker 5: that have a simple pension have one office with however
Speaker 5: many people in it, not many, about fifty simply processing
Speaker 5: the pension four pensioners, as opposed to this raughten system
Speaker 5: where they're making more of us than we are off
Speaker 5: our own money.
Speaker 1: The bridge are the same. But very quickly, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you why we have the superannuation scheme that we do
Speaker 1: the system we do in this country. It's because Paul
Speaker 1: Keating set it up as a favor to the unions
Speaker 1: because instead of having a government run he said to
Speaker 1: the union as well, you can have your big industry
Speaker 1: super funds. So they have shared loads of money swimming
Speaker 1: around in these super funds. Exactly, they get to choose
Speaker 1: where they invested. They invested in all sorts of weird
Speaker 1: different things, like media companies like the New Daily. It
Speaker 1: was just the biggest hand out the unions ever got.
Speaker 3: All the upset about people withdrawing their super to pay
Speaker 3: their medical bills. Are people really concerned about people's retirement
Speaker 3: savings or is it the fact that over the last
Speaker 3: five years, it's over seven hundred million dollars has been
Speaker 3: taken out of these super funds to pay for people's
Speaker 3: dental work and they're just upset they're missing some of
Speaker 3: their investments.
Speaker 5: And is this surprising in the middle of a cost
Speaker 5: of living crisis? According to the ABS, food has gone
Speaker 5: up by seventeen percent since March twenty twenty.
Speaker 6: Let's not get started on petrol.
Speaker 5: Prices, power prices. If you've got a mortgage, thirteen rate
Speaker 5: rises later, you're gasping for air. Rents have gone up
Speaker 5: to the tune of almost forty percent in certain areas.
Speaker 6: Is it any wonder.
Speaker 5: People when they're facing a health malady.
Speaker 6: Like this, like, I don't know where else I'm going
Speaker 6: to get the money. It's got to be my super.
Speaker 5: But speaking of New Zealand's awesome pension fund scheme instead
Speaker 5: of jolly superannuation, turns out they've done something pretty good.
Speaker 5: This new government is actually turning out to be far
Speaker 5: more conservative than the last, although that's not a very.
Speaker 6: High bar, is it.
Speaker 5: With stunning speed, New Zealand's right wing coalition government has repealed, removed,
Speaker 5: or reversed around a dozen of what it calls race
Speaker 5: based policies that enshrine the special stat status of Maori
Speaker 5: people in national life.
Speaker 6: Of course, the Maoris don't like this at all.
Speaker 5: Quoting this article, an analysis by the Ministry of Justice said,
Speaker 5: the proposal, which is what the government is looking at doing,
Speaker 5: reduces Indigenous rights to a set of ordinary rights that
Speaker 5: could be exercised by any group of citizens.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's called equality. Isn't equality awesome? Don't you love equality?
Speaker 8: Oh wait, you want special rights. You want superiority, not equality.
Speaker 8: That's what you're edging for. We see what you're doing.
Speaker 5: Here's Mari mp Terretti Moxin back in May saying, well,
Speaker 5: this is just tragic. We want more than the average citizens' rights,
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Well, the point is that a lot of people in
Speaker 9: our country are very concerned about the policies and the
Speaker 9: fast track policies of this government that are and appear
Speaker 9: to be very anti Mardy. And it wouldn't be so
Speaker 9: bad if this didn't concern marty and in the name
Speaker 9: of all New Zealanders. But unfortunately this has been something
Speaker 9: that has continued since the one hundred Day planned the
Speaker 9: government put in in its infancy when it best first began,
Speaker 9: and for us that.
Speaker 6: Is just not on.
Speaker 5: You heard it here first, Equal rights is anti Mauri?
Speaker 5: Where have we heard similar to narrative before? This is
Speaker 5: kind of funny, right because the amount of times our
Speaker 5: Australian labor government has told us all the New Zealanders
Speaker 5: are doing amazing. They've got this treaty, they've started this project,
Speaker 5: they're building such and such, all in the name of
Speaker 5: specializing the indigenous peoples there, telling us that we've got
Speaker 5: to live up to our neighbor across the ditch. The
Speaker 5: new government comes in and be like, we've repealed a
Speaker 5: heap around a dozen we've repealed, removed, reverse, We're just
Speaker 5: chucking it all out the window. Because this is race
Speaker 5: based legislation and we're all New Zealanders.
Speaker 3: The claim that this legislation is anti Maory is ironic
Speaker 3: because the changes are being led by Maori politicians within
Speaker 3: the coalition. David Seymour of the Act Party in Winston
Speaker 3: Peters from New Zealand first. They were the ones that
Speaker 3: pressured Luxton to make these changes. So it's Maori politicians
Speaker 3: who are leading the charge for equality for everybody.
Speaker 5: Much like al Just Enterprise, Warren More and others who
Speaker 5: were doing the same during Good War.
Speaker 3: Well suddenly they're not Maori because they believe inequality.
Speaker 1: Some of the things the wrong kind of maury you,
Speaker 1: you must say, some would say. Anyways, some of the.
Speaker 3: Things they're proposing that they will scrap the rights of
Speaker 3: Maor's to have a special veto on environmental questions.
Speaker 2: They will help Maori kids in.
Speaker 3: State care to access safety and care over concerns about
Speaker 3: cultural connection, which is an issue that we face here
Speaker 3: in Australia with Indigenous affairs. They've allowed the public service
Speaker 3: to get rid of Maori language, where when you go
Speaker 3: to New Zealand there's double up on signs everywhere because
Speaker 3: as a government policy, you had to use Maori language.
Speaker 2: They're getting rid of that.
Speaker 3: They've abolished the Maori Health Authority, saying we just need
Speaker 3: one health system for everybody, and criticism. If I can
Speaker 3: go back to this idea that children in state care
Speaker 3: should be looked after regardless of cultural affiliation, that should
Speaker 3: not be the first concern. Safety must be the first concern.
Speaker 3: That's been heavily criticized by maori's and yet that proposal
Speaker 3: is being led by the Minister for Maori Development, who
Speaker 3: is himself a Maori. So to call these policies racist
Speaker 3: or anti Maori is entirely ideological. It's not based in
Speaker 3: fact at all, because, as I said, it's key Maori
Speaker 3: politicians stepping up and saying we just want one country,
Speaker 3: not a divided country.
Speaker 1: Well, well, what I mean these policies are themselves a
Speaker 1: form of veiled racism, the idea that you would have
Speaker 1: a separate health authority, you would have special veto powers
Speaker 1: for environment whatever. And then the Maoris who criticize other
Speaker 1: Maoris for saying maybe we should just be one country
Speaker 1: and all one people and say, well that's anti marry.
Speaker 1: That is also a form of racism themselves. And what
Speaker 1: they are essentially suggesting is a bit like when I
Speaker 1: think it was Marsha Langton said of Warren Mundine and
Speaker 1: you enterprised that you know, they were the hired help
Speaker 1: of the white man, essentially right, That is what they
Speaker 1: are getting at, that you're just the puppet with the
Speaker 1: white man's hand up your sleeve, doing what they tell
Speaker 1: you to do. And I talked to some expat we
Speaker 1: mates of mine who go back every now and again,
Speaker 1: and they can't believe how the country has changed in
Speaker 1: terms of the control that has been given to Mari
Speaker 1: people over there. And it's all good and well to say, well, yes,
Speaker 1: we think that Indigenous people ought to have a certain
Speaker 1: level of involvement in governance, decision making whatever. When you
Speaker 1: go to the point, and these are the stories I've
Speaker 1: been told that you know, in some areas they essentially
Speaker 1: have control of the waterways and can decide when you
Speaker 1: can and cannot fish, and the areas in which you
Speaker 1: can cannot fish, I know, on the basis of your
Speaker 1: race as opposed to anything else, that is just not fair.
Speaker 1: If you're born in New Zealand, like I'm born in
Speaker 1: New Zealand, it doesn't matter whether you come from Indian
Speaker 1: ancestry or Marie ancestry or well whatever, you know, your
Speaker 1: New Zealander right, surely you should have access to exactly
Speaker 1: the same provision of services. And thank god there is
Speaker 1: a government that is actually standing up and saying it.
Speaker 1: And I'm afraid to wind these things back and let's
Speaker 1: hope Peter Dutton is paying attention. Of course we've seen
Speaker 1: him today, so that he'd get rid of our first
Speaker 1: nation's ambassador overseas, which ade a bad start. But this
Speaker 1: sort of stuff has to be wound back.
Speaker 3: Could you imagine five six years ago, if we'd be
Speaker 3: sitting here saying, chie if only we had a government
Speaker 3: like New Zealand's.
Speaker 2: That we would have said that miracles do have. Our
Speaker 2: government is an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 3: And if you needed any proof that our government was
Speaker 3: intent on suppressing your right to freedom of speech, look
Speaker 3: no further. Just consider the fact that they've given the
Speaker 3: public just one week to make submissions on their dystopian
Speaker 3: miss and disinformation. Bill mat Canavan absolutely nailed it in
Speaker 3: this tweet. He wrote, the Labor Party is giving people
Speaker 3: just a week to make a submission on their plans
Speaker 3: to censor the Australian people. True to form, they're trying
Speaker 3: to silence people even before they have the powers to
Speaker 3: do so. His mat Canavan speaking on Sky News about
Speaker 3: this legislation and the need for Australians to get in
Speaker 3: and oppose it while they've got an opportunity to do so.
Speaker 10: There's been a remarkable reaction on social media to some
Speaker 10: of the things I've been doing and others have been
Speaker 10: doing on this bill. So we need your help too.
Speaker 10: It's not just a don't just rely on politicians to
Speaker 10: save you. That's not a winning strategy in my experience.
Speaker 3: I love that talk about stating the obvious, don't rely
Speaker 3: on politicians to save you. Thank you, But that is
Speaker 3: absolutely ridiculous on such controversial legislation. Yes, that the government
Speaker 3: would roll this out firstly that they've got the hide
Speaker 3: to suggest this legislation, and then to tell everybody you've
Speaker 3: got one week to get your submissions in, like they
Speaker 3: really want.
Speaker 2: To hear from us.
Speaker 5: Oh, and are they running ads? Are they saying, look,
Speaker 5: this is going to change your way of life forever,
Speaker 5: so get in quick while you can have your say.
Speaker 5: I mean, I don't know how many submission processes are
Speaker 5: only one week long. Like this is ridiculous, because in
Speaker 5: terms of budding.
Speaker 6: Legislation, which is what bills.
Speaker 5: Are, there's organizations that get involved, they take weeks to
Speaker 5: put together very comprehensive, detailed submissions, and here you've just
Speaker 5: thrown it out there being like one week Australian public.
Speaker 5: And how many Australians do you think are actually following
Speaker 5: the political process even know about this bill today? Of
Speaker 5: course you do because you watch Sky News. You've got
Speaker 5: until the thirtieth of September jump online get it done,
Speaker 5: because once this is in force, god forbid, it never is.
Speaker 5: But like I keep saying about this bill, even if
Speaker 5: it doesn't get up, the fact that they tried, the
Speaker 5: fact that they tried, the fact that they wanted this
Speaker 5: tells you everything that you need to know. And they'll
Speaker 5: get it one way or the other. Because, as we've
Speaker 5: been talking about, even if this bill doesn't get the
Speaker 5: support that it needs to get up, the States are
Speaker 5: already taking up the cause and the UN is breathing
Speaker 5: down our next with all sorts of global surveillance like
Speaker 5: the pact we discussed just last week.
Speaker 1: This is what governments call consultation, isn't isn't it good
Speaker 1: that to stay with it? They ask us what we
Speaker 1: think of sense, usually after they've already made decisions. I
Speaker 1: did the story last night on the Sunday showed out
Speaker 1: of at Anley Counsel in Adelaide where they moved their
Speaker 1: Australia Day ceremonies to January the twenty fifth. Then they
Speaker 1: did a survey of the residency and the residents sixty
Speaker 1: percent of whom said no, send it back to Australia Day.
Speaker 1: That's what they call consultation. Make the decision, ask questions later. Now,
Speaker 1: if you are anything like me, you are an avid
Speaker 1: consumer of the ABC. I can't get enough of their stuff,
Speaker 1: particularly when I get to open up my computer and
Speaker 1: read absolute gems like I read today. Here is one
Speaker 1: for you, best story the ABC has ever published, I
Speaker 1: promised you. Headline reads from Challenges to Bridgeton. These are
Speaker 1: TV shows. Bisexuals are often stereotypes on screen. Some shows
Speaker 1: flip the script. Well I was drawn in. I said, yes,
Speaker 1: I want to know about the bisexuals on television, and well,
Speaker 1: aren't I glad I read it. Listen to this see
Speaker 1: if you can make any sense of this. It says
Speaker 1: the world of entertainment feels vehemently bisexual in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: does it? I love you. I'm learning this for the
Speaker 1: first time. I'm going to the ABC is here to
Speaker 1: tell me about this stuff. It goes on with some
Speaker 1: of the biggest TV shows and films focusing on bi
Speaker 1: plus characters think sexy tennis romp challengers, and what the
Speaker 1: hell is a sexy tennis rop anyway?
Speaker 6: All that changes anytime.
Speaker 1: I know doesn't say like Wimbledon to me or that
Speaker 1: kiss in House of the Dragon. It goes on. But
Speaker 1: even though bisexual people make up a large part of
Speaker 1: the queer community, when it comes to the television world,
Speaker 1: we account for just twenty four percent of LGBTQIA plus rippers.
Speaker 1: Spare of thought. Not only that bisexual representation has decreased
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four. My god,
Speaker 1: it says bisexual stories are often limited to bedroom scenes
Speaker 1: where characters suddenly shed their straight identities in fantastical threesome
Speaker 1: scenarios and into a murkier unknown territory. I mean, what
Speaker 1: on earth is the ABC publishing? For heaven's sake, Who
Speaker 1: gives a rats Whether there are fewer bisexual characters on
Speaker 1: television in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four than
Speaker 1: there were in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: I couldn't particularly give two hoots. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I had to look up what a biplus was right
Speaker 1: understand the concept of bisexual. It means you're into men
Speaker 1: and you're into women.
Speaker 2: Wait wait, wait, are you saying there's only two genders?
Speaker 6: Now, this is what I'm getting to.
Speaker 1: This is what I'm getting to because by of course
Speaker 1: suggests to buy no re men and women. Bi plus
Speaker 1: apparently came into being in about twenty seventeen because they
Speaker 1: decided that they needed a term that related to people
Speaker 1: who were attracted to more than one gender, but those
Speaker 1: genders weren't necessarily male and female, so they came up
Speaker 1: with biplus. Now I can't really understand that because they
Speaker 1: kept the by bit the binary bit and then said,
Speaker 1: but it includes all these other genders anywhere.
Speaker 5: Well, you're attracted to anyone in everyone you are belin.
Speaker 3: This article was published by the ABC because I don't
Speaker 3: know if you're aware of this, but we've got a
Speaker 3: couple of hours left to celebrate. Today is Bisexual Visibility Day.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: I thought that meant you've got to watch out for
Speaker 3: bisexuals crossing the road because they can come from literally
Speaker 3: any direction they go each way, But apparently it's to
Speaker 3: celebrate the fact that we need more bisexuals represented in
Speaker 3: the media and so on. I'm just wondering when will
Speaker 3: the ABC do a story on Heterosexual Visibility Day and
Speaker 3: having heterosexuals represented vehemently presented.
Speaker 2: In the media.
Speaker 5: Ladies and gentlemen, this is your daily reminder that if
Speaker 5: you need to normalize something, maybe it's not normal. Also,
Speaker 5: how much more do they want because LGBTQ plus is
Speaker 5: only getting longer. The buys already have twenty four percent.
Speaker 5: That seems like more than their fair share.
Speaker 1: Well, we've just got to be vehement about this stuff.
Speaker 1: Speaking of vehement, I vehemently believe that every time someone says,
Speaker 1: you know, Sydney is an international city or Melbourne is
Speaker 1: an international city, that they must never have left this country.
Speaker 1: You go to the big cities around the world. Look
Speaker 1: the mean think of New York City, the city that
Speaker 1: doesn't sleep. And we here like to think, in our
Speaker 1: country of twenty seven million, as we hit last year,
Speaker 1: that we have some of the greatest cities in the world.
Speaker 1: And yes, they are great to live in, but let's
Speaker 1: be honest, if you try to go anywhere after ten pm,
Speaker 1: you don't have much luck finding anything. And in the
Speaker 1: modern world, we're moving to a twenty four hour world.
Speaker 1: Number of shift workers is increasing by the day, and
Speaker 1: these people are realizing, as are now governments that you know,
Speaker 1: they can't get a meal during the night, they can't
Speaker 1: get a coffee during the night, They've got no public
Speaker 1: transport during the night. So how do we possibly expect
Speaker 1: as a country that we're going to be able to
Speaker 1: operate on the world stage if we don't service these people.
Speaker 1: The new South Wales government thankfully is waking up to this.
Speaker 1: They last year appointed a twenty four hour Economy Commissioner.
Speaker 1: They also have a nighttime economy Minister. Well, the twenty
Speaker 1: four hour Economy Commissioner, Michael rod Riggers has come out
Speaker 1: and look, bear with me for a second here because
Speaker 1: some of this language is a bit all over the shop,
Speaker 1: but you'll get the gist of what he's say. He
Speaker 1: says to be a world class state that provides equity
Speaker 1: of amenity to its citizens. I don't know why public
Speaker 1: service people talking public service speak, but I'll persist equity
Speaker 1: of amenity to its citizens irrespective of the hours they
Speaker 1: choose or are compelled to work. We need to optimize
Speaker 1: our regulatory system and the way the many participants in
Speaker 1: that ecosystem operate. We're twenty four our economy thinking in mind. Now,
Speaker 1: yes it sounds like a bunch of gobbledygoog, but I'll
Speaker 1: translated for you. What he is saying is that we
Speaker 1: should allow businesses to operate twenty four to seven if
Speaker 1: they want to. And to that, I say, ha lolula.
Speaker 1: Remove the regulations and the stipulations that stop businesses from
Speaker 1: being able to conduct business when they want to. And
Speaker 1: we see this in terms of shop trading out. I
Speaker 1: mean for him to say, I'm from South Australia, where
Speaker 1: until about five minutes ago a shop could not open
Speaker 1: until eleven am on a Sunday. Right, that is how
Speaker 1: far back we were going, so everyone could go to
Speaker 1: church on Sunday. City of churches layups unbelievable, right, But
Speaker 1: we should just de regulate the whole market and say, look,
Speaker 1: if you want to open twenty four hours a day,
Speaker 1: if you want to open between the hours of ten
Speaker 1: pm and two go for your life. Market will ultimately
Speaker 1: decide if they can't get workers, or they can't get
Speaker 1: people who actually go in the shop to make it
Speaker 1: viable being open, then they simply won't open.
Speaker 2: So what you've said makes perfect sense. Simple, just do it.
Speaker 3: And so I went to the government's twenty four hour
Speaker 3: Economy strategy.
Speaker 2: Just don't figure. They've got a minister out, they've got
Speaker 2: a commissioner.
Speaker 3: They've even got a strategy you can download online. What
Speaker 3: you've described is very simple. But listen to I go online,
Speaker 3: I start reading their strategy because they're going to deregulate things,
Speaker 3: are going to free up the market.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: It begins with this enriching the twenty four hour economy
Speaker 3: with First Nations storytelling. There is an opportunity for the
Speaker 3: twenty four hour economy to acknowledge Indigenous storytelling within our
Speaker 3: time landscapes. It's a responsibility of governments and business to
Speaker 3: ensure Indigenous stories are told as we open up the
Speaker 3: twenty four hour economy. That's the introduction to their strategy.
Speaker 3: So everything you've said makes sense. But do you reckon
Speaker 3: they're going to get around to doing this or do
Speaker 3: you reckon they'll be completely distracted with a whole bunch
Speaker 3: of woke ideology. And all we want is the ability
Speaker 3: to buy coffee at three am on their way home.
Speaker 1: Give me freedom.
Speaker 2: I want you.
Speaker 6: I'm so excited. I live in New South Wales.
Speaker 5: Tell me about your plan A blitz krieg of utter words, salad, nonsense.
Speaker 6: Thank you New South Wales Parliament. Well done.
Speaker 5: I'm surprised, like you are, especially if you live in
Speaker 5: New South Wales, that we even have a nighttime economy.
Speaker 5: Minister John Graham never heard of you, but this sounds exciting,
Speaker 5: He says.
Speaker 11: Our goal is to highlight our state as a safe
Speaker 11: and exciting nighttime destination, not just for people looking for
Speaker 11: a great night out, but for the people working hard
Speaker 11: to keep our state running at night.
Speaker 6: Okay, so how are you going to do that?
Speaker 5: Conveniently leaves that part out Everyone living in Sydney knows.
Speaker 6: Most people don't even know that you ditch.
Speaker 5: The lockout laws because if you're out on a Saturday night,
Speaker 5: it feels like they're still in place. It's like ten pm,
Speaker 5: last call for drinks, twelve pm if you're lucky, twelve
Speaker 5: am if you're lucky.
Speaker 1: Pm. I'm packing up and going to another country that's
Speaker 1: not allowed.
Speaker 5: No, but it's hard to find a place, even on
Speaker 5: a Friday or Saturday night that is open longer than that.
Speaker 6: It's nonsense.
Speaker 3: Here you go, hey, before we go to a break, Liz,
Speaker 3: I don't know if you'll be interested in this, but Caleb,
Speaker 3: you will be anxious to.
Speaker 2: Know breaking news.
Speaker 3: The Brownlow Medal has been decided and Patrick Cripps of
Speaker 3: the Carlton Football he's the captain. He is the twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four Brownlow medallists.
Speaker 2: So there you go.
Speaker 3: They GWS not interested in the finals, but their captain
Speaker 3: is the winner of the Charlie. We're going to go
Speaker 3: to a break. When we come back, we look at
Speaker 3: what else is making news tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow. We'll
Speaker 3: start with the Adelaide Advertiser, which have got a story
Speaker 3: being covered by most of the papers. As you could imagine,
Speaker 3: prices are not down down, it's the headline. Consumer Watchdog
Speaker 3: says Coals and Woolies discounts on hundreds of grocery items
Speaker 3: are illusionary. Coals and Woolworth's are facing blockbuster legal action,
Speaker 3: accused of promoting fake discounts on hundreds of items, the
Speaker 3: prices of which that actually increased before the special offers.
Speaker 3: The article goes on to explain how the discounted prices
Speaker 3: were lower than the price rises, but often higher than
Speaker 3: the original prices. Just a couple of months earlier. Now
Speaker 3: Coals have said that they will defend the A Triple
Speaker 3: C action in court, while Woolies have taken a more
Speaker 3: circumspect approach. They said they're going to look into these allegations.
Speaker 1: Are we really that surprised, No, it's as plain as
Speaker 1: the nose on your face. I think anyone who's been
Speaker 1: a super packet recently could tell you that I'm glad
Speaker 1: to see the A Triple C's actually doing something about it, though,
Speaker 1: because you know, we often say, look, the market should
Speaker 1: be as free as possible. But when you see obvious
Speaker 1: cases of price gouging and what, in some cases you know,
Speaker 1: appears to be almost collusionary behavior between big companies, whether
Speaker 1: it be supermarkets or petrol companies or whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: the prices all go up and down at the same time,
Speaker 1: and you get, dang on, is there something going on here?
Speaker 1: Are they perhaps working in tandem? They deserve to be
Speaker 1: looked into, and I hope the HC puts them through
Speaker 1: the ringer. I know that they operate on reasonably low
Speaker 1: profit margins. The idea that the supermarkets you know, price
Speaker 1: gouging on a grand scale is not correct, as is
Speaker 1: often said. But where there are obvious cases where they've
Speaker 1: jacked up the price of a product and then tried
Speaker 1: to sell it back to you at a discounted rate.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, we can see through it.
Speaker 5: But the big question is the one that you just
Speaker 5: raise their How do they both know to pull the
Speaker 5: exact same scam at the exact same time? And, as
Speaker 5: Senator Malcolm Rod raised today, could it be because they
Speaker 5: have the same multinational corporate owners Black Rock, Vanguard, State
Speaker 5: Street Look it up, those are the guys who actually
Speaker 5: own our Australian not really duopoly. To the front page
Speaker 5: of the cans Post now calls for chase policy overhaul
Speaker 5: after group hunts thieves.
Speaker 6: In pursuit of change.
Speaker 5: The big splash reads canned civilians hunting down their mates
Speaker 5: second stolen car in six weeks have brought into focused
Speaker 5: police calls for an urgent review of a pursuit policy
Speaker 5: that's leaving officers powerless and pushing victims to take matters
Speaker 5: into their own hands to locate the vehicles. The article
Speaker 5: goes on to stay that last Thursday, an old mate
Speaker 5: was at his work when a woman snuck in and
Speaker 5: stole his recently bought Toyota High Luks. Six weeks earlier,
Speaker 5: the farmer had lost his miss in the Vara, which
Speaker 5: was also stolen while he was sleeping. So can you
Speaker 5: blame these civilians to just go, you know what, zob there,
Speaker 5: so you guys might never get my property back. This
Speaker 5: reminds me of the mum who managed to actually successfully
Speaker 5: track down the people who had stolen her son's.
Speaker 6: Motorbike months ago.
Speaker 5: But there was this coalition of mums that got together
Speaker 5: and hunted the guy down and found the bike.
Speaker 6: Well, maybe it is more effective.
Speaker 2: I sympathized.
Speaker 3: When we lived in towns Well, twice we had incidents.
Speaker 3: One was I was working in the middle of the
Speaker 3: night to find a group of six guys backing my
Speaker 3: car out of the driveway, at which point I yelled
Speaker 3: out the window and thank god they dropped everything in
Speaker 3: ran because I had nothing after OI. That was But
Speaker 3: then the second occasion, I hear a man's voice in
Speaker 3: our house in the middle of the night, and so
Speaker 3: I jump up, I go, I opened the bedroom door
Speaker 3: and there's a police officer shining a light, stretened my
Speaker 3: face and he says police, to which my son calls
Speaker 3: from his bedroom.
Speaker 2: Has Daddy done something? Wrong. Our car had been taken
Speaker 2: from our driveway.
Speaker 3: They'd spotted it down the road and it's it's a
Speaker 3: huge frustration for people in North Queensland because cars are
Speaker 3: being stolen all the time.
Speaker 2: Police aren't allowed.
Speaker 3: To pursue and so in township we had a Facebook
Speaker 3: group that was started by people who would go looking
Speaker 3: around the neighborhood trying to find people stolen cars, and
Speaker 3: often that was more effective than the police.
Speaker 1: So can I just name it? How did the police
Speaker 1: officer get into your house?
Speaker 3: The door was open because people had broken into our home.
Speaker 3: It was already hole in the trees, taken the car.
Speaker 3: Police saw the car got dole in the keys.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: If they stole that's a hell of an effort. All
Speaker 1: I can well, actually I could say a couple of things.
Speaker 1: One is that you can't blame these people. I mean,
Speaker 1: for Heaven's sake, Look, the bloke was lucky. You got
Speaker 1: to upgrade from a Nissa Nevara to a Toyota Ilax,
Speaker 1: but the Dilucs barely lasted six weeks and it was
Speaker 1: gone again. You can't blame these people when when there
Speaker 1: is inaction from the police, and that's not necessarily always
Speaker 1: the police has followed. I mean, they're so overrun with
Speaker 1: these bloody cases at the moment that they can't possibly
Speaker 1: keep on top of them. But you can't blame them
Speaker 1: when they're not seeing any action, you know, wanting to
Speaker 1: go after them themselves. But I have to say that
Speaker 1: I'm glad the coppers have never busted into my joint
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night because I sleep in
Speaker 1: the nutty and if I jumped up out of the
Speaker 1: why if I jumped.
Speaker 5: Door, well, you.
Speaker 1: Know, I'm just saying that it put me in a
Speaker 1: precarious position. I might if I move to Townsville or
Speaker 1: cans I promise you I'll start wearing pajamas. Let's go
Speaker 1: to the Australian tomorrow where a serious story police cleaned
Speaker 1: Aboriginal people off the streets before VIP visits.
Speaker 2: Can you believe it?
Speaker 1: Actually you can. Aboriginal police officers have confirmed a practice
Speaker 1: long denied by the Northern Territory Police Force of cleaning
Speaker 1: up the streets quote unquote removing homeless Indigenous people from
Speaker 1: public areas in dwe and Alla Springs when political leaders
Speaker 1: such as Anthony Albanezi visit the cities and you know,
Speaker 1: we have obviously previously criticized Kamala Harris as Vice president
Speaker 1: when she was the borders are going down to the border,
Speaker 1: and they went through and moved on all of the
Speaker 1: illegals hanging around the border, so it looked good when
Speaker 1: she got there. Well, they're doing exactly the same thing
Speaker 1: in this country. The situation we know with Aboriginal people,
Speaker 1: whether they be using substances such as fuel or glue
Speaker 1: or alcohol or whatever, and the crime that comes along
Speaker 1: with it is a massive problem in the Northern territory.
Speaker 1: And instead of showing the reality of that to political
Speaker 1: leaders or the rest of the country, when political leaders
Speaker 1: moved through places like Darwin on their television screens, we'll
Speaker 1: just sweep that over there for the minute, put them
Speaker 1: away for the night in the cells or whatever it
Speaker 1: might be, and then when albows come through or anyone
Speaker 1: else of any other political persuasion for that matter, we'll
Speaker 1: just let them back out on the street again. Forget
Speaker 1: about the problem actually being.
Speaker 2: And you nailed it. That's what it is.
Speaker 3: That they don't want national television coverage and not do
Speaker 3: politicians want to be asked an awkward question because there's
Speaker 3: a whole lot of stuff happening behind them on the
Speaker 3: TV cameras so cynical, but it happens.
Speaker 2: All around the world.
Speaker 3: I mean they do it in New York when the
Speaker 3: United Nations meets and so on.
Speaker 1: Indeed, and some sad news today before we go to
Speaker 1: the break. Champion jumps horse Karazi has died peacefully today
Speaker 1: at Karazi Park, which is of course named for him.
Speaker 1: Is the only Australian jumps horse to have made it
Speaker 1: into the Australian Hall of Fame Racing Hall of Fame,
Speaker 1: I should say. He won the naki Ama Grand Jump
Speaker 1: in Japan three years in a row, which until a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago was a record. So my thoughts
Speaker 1: go out to his trainer, Eric Musgrove and all of
Speaker 1: his staff, particularly Belinda Simpson who was his groom over
Speaker 1: in Japan, and the rest of the connections. He was
Speaker 1: a great champion jumps horse in this country and we'll
Speaker 1: probably never see another unlike it.
Speaker 2: And I know how much you love your jumps.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break stick around because
Speaker 3: you've got to see the latest Joe Biden gaff where
Speaker 3: he forgets to introduce the Prime.
Speaker 2: Minister sitting right behind him. It's coming up in just
Speaker 2: a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: When jd Vance was announced as Donald Trump's running mate,
Speaker 3: the Democrats had to work out how are we going
Speaker 3: to attack him?
Speaker 2: And they came up with a line. They said jd
Speaker 2: Vance is weird.
Speaker 3: And they repeated this ad nauseum while a reporter from
Speaker 3: Turning Point USA decided to go out on the street
Speaker 3: and interview Democrat voters as to why they believed conservatives
Speaker 3: are so weird, and they found a Democrat voter.
Speaker 2: With absolutely no sense of self awareness.
Speaker 1: What is something weird about conservatives?
Speaker 7: There is a almost a cultish vibe. I feel the
Speaker 7: way they operate within themselves. They refuse to listen to
Speaker 7: outside people. You know, they're refusing to learn, essentially. I
Speaker 7: think that is a large part of it.
Speaker 3: Of all the people talk about weirdness and cultish behavior,
Speaker 3: I would never have thought that guy would be the
Speaker 3: one to criticize talk about projection.
Speaker 1: I mean, for heaven's sake, people like that. I know
Speaker 1: you can't actually, but people like that shouldn't be allowed
Speaker 1: to vote. I mean they should be sectioned off somewhere. Surely,
Speaker 1: if you're wronging around public with that sort of face
Speaker 1: makeup on. It's like facial tattoos. Like those people should
Speaker 1: just be sent to the gulag, never to be seen again.
Speaker 6: But see, now, you're just proving him right.
Speaker 5: That's exactly what conservative they don't want to hear outside opinion.
Speaker 6: They just want everybody else to go away. You've just
Speaker 6: proved him right.
Speaker 1: I'm more than happy to hear other people's opinions. I
Speaker 1: just prefer that they come from people who don't have
Speaker 1: their face done up like the Joker. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think he.
Speaker 6: Looks like a band member from Kiss. I think that's
Speaker 6: what it was going. Kenny nailed us so bad.
Speaker 1: Speaking is so bad. Even though Joe Barden, of course,
Speaker 1: is no longer the Democratic candidate for president, he is
Speaker 1: still actually the president of the United States. And you
Speaker 1: might ask the question, Will if he's not log, he's
Speaker 1: not there enough to be the candidate, how could he
Speaker 1: possibly still be running the country. Well, not a day
Speaker 1: goes by where we're not reminded of this in some way,
Speaker 1: including over the weekend where world leaders, including our Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Anthony Albanesi, were in the US for a meeting
Speaker 1: of the Quad and of course, India is also involved
Speaker 1: in the quad, so it was up to mister Biden
Speaker 1: to introduce the Prime Minister of India or Indra Modi
Speaker 1: at a press conference, and he couldn't even manage that.
Speaker 2: I want to thank you all for being here, and
Speaker 2: now who am I introducing next?
Speaker 12: Who's next, distinguished guests, the Prime Minister of the Republic
Speaker 12: of India.
Speaker 1: Who's next? I mean, it's like here in the tech
Speaker 1: shop line at school, isn't it? Who's next? Look, I've
Speaker 1: done a lot of pantomime. All I can say to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is he's behind you. I mean, for heaven
Speaker 1: could he not even know that?
Speaker 3: And Anthony Albaneze came back and assured us, all, no, no,
Speaker 3: he's in fine force. Really well, it's from us stick around.
Speaker 3: Coming up is the Reader Penney Show.