Speaker 1: On scoring leaves Australia. This is the Wider Panalty Show.
Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome to the Rita Panety Show. Coming
Speaker 2: up tonight. Do the Liberals need to be a broad
Speaker 2: church or should they embrace the culture wars. Adam Crichton
Speaker 2: will be here to cover the day's top headlines, including
Speaker 2: the dangers of premature celebration. We've got footage of the
Speaker 2: Teals in Goldstein celebrating heart before reality set in. I'll
Speaker 2: speak to Rachel Wong about the behavior of some AEC
Speaker 2: staff threatening to call the police on a candidate talking
Speaker 2: about her late term abortion policy. The wonderful Matilga Sagon
Speaker 2: has the latest from the US and the equally eloquent
Speaker 2: Ralph Sholhammer. We'll explain a new threat to democracy in
Speaker 2: Germany with efforts to ban the right wing AfD Party
Speaker 2: and lefties losing it. Shows democrats love illegal immigrants so
Speaker 2: much that they an't care if they are murdered by one.
Speaker 3: If I get murdered by an undocumented immigrant, please tell
Speaker 3: my children I did not care that they were undocumented.
Speaker 2: But first, the seat of Goldstein in Victoria has been
Speaker 2: returned to the Liberals after Zoe Daniel claimed it for
Speaker 2: the Tills in the twenty twenty two election, with Tim
Speaker 2: Wilson becoming the first MP to reclaim a Till seat. Now,
Speaker 2: Zoey Daniel is being widely mocked online for indulging in
Speaker 2: premature celebrations on the weekend, claiming a seat that was
Speaker 2: no longer.
Speaker 4: Hers right.
Speaker 2: Being Goldstein.
Speaker 1: Hope Winds.
Speaker 5: The Liberal Party threw everything out us guys, and we
Speaker 5: are standing here to celebrate it.
Speaker 2: Naane response to her loss, though Daniel remains stoic, some
Speaker 2: might say, remains in denial, writing on Instagram that while
Speaker 2: the media has called the result in Goldstein, I will
Speaker 2: wait for further counting out of respect for my scrutinyars
Speaker 2: and the democratic process. Joining me now for more on
Speaker 2: this is senior fellow and chief Economists at the IPA,
Speaker 2: Adam crist And Adam. If she wasn't such a uniquely
Speaker 2: terrible MP, and she's my local MP, I may have
Speaker 2: a little sympathy here, but you never go the early
Speaker 2: crow amateur mistake now.
Speaker 6: Book, I think the mockery was very justified. It's so embarrassing.
Speaker 6: I mean, on a human level, I do feel sorry
Speaker 6: for her a little bit but it shocks me that
Speaker 6: amongst all those supporters and staff, all the political stuff,
Speaker 6: someone didn't say, hang on, a second's kind of close,
Speaker 6: and there's a lot of prepole of voting still to
Speaker 6: be counted. The same with Kuong, same thing they celebrated
Speaker 6: as well, and you know, Ryan may lose that seat too.
Speaker 6: But I think the broader point here is why do
Speaker 6: we still.
Speaker 4: Not know who's won on a Wednesday night.
Speaker 6: Surely the AEC can hire a funeral people to count
Speaker 6: these votes.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know this isn't India.
Speaker 6: You know these aren't tens or hundreds or millions of votes.
Speaker 6: They should be counted in India have actually count them
Speaker 6: very well. Yeah, so I kind of don't understand while
Speaker 6: we're waiting so long, because this changes the whole political narrative.
Speaker 6: Of course, if we had have known on Saturday night
Speaker 6: or even Sunday that these two seats were close to
Speaker 6: these two till seats, I think it would have changed
Speaker 6: the narrative for the Liberal Party, which of course is
Speaker 6: a very bad narrative.
Speaker 4: They've been flow.
Speaker 2: But if we have a landslide regardless, but perhaps a
Speaker 2: just a slightly less.
Speaker 6: Yeah, look, I just said that we should no sooner
Speaker 6: and surely it wouldn't cost the AEC too much.
Speaker 4: More More, I think.
Speaker 2: You've got to take into account mail in ballots, and
Speaker 2: if they're waiting for Australia Post to deliver mail that
Speaker 2: was perhaps posted Friday, then I think that one can
Speaker 2: understand that the number of people who are voting early
Speaker 2: these days, it's all is, it's a lot. It used
Speaker 2: to be something that you would just do if for
Speaker 2: some real reason you couldn't vote on Saturday. But that
Speaker 2: brings me to an important point being told that members
Speaker 2: of the Jewish community, particularly the more devout members who
Speaker 2: observe Sabbath, they don't vote on Saturday. They do tend
Speaker 2: to be overrepresented in the mailing votes early votes, and
Speaker 2: perhaps this is part of the reason why we are
Speaker 2: seeing this swing that got Tim Wilson over the line
Speaker 2: and may still get merely a Hamer over the line
Speaker 2: in q On.
Speaker 4: There's also preferences too.
Speaker 6: I think the big point for this election is that
Speaker 6: preferences really matter now more than ever.
Speaker 4: I mean, of course it was a huge win.
Speaker 6: For Labor, but actually their primary vote was lower than
Speaker 6: what Julia Gillard got in twenty ten when she just
Speaker 6: scraped in. So I'm just talking about first preference votes.
Speaker 6: So it's all about preferences. Now, preferences really matter. I
Speaker 6: think going forward, people need to understand that what they
Speaker 6: do on their head a vote card really matters.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Now to the so called more it libs or
Speaker 2: the bedwetters as they're also known, well, they've lost their
Speaker 2: collective minds about the so called Trump factor. In the election,
Speaker 2: news dot com dot aus reporting that in the final
Speaker 2: days of the election, Peter Dutton's inner circle was blaming
Speaker 2: Donald Trump for the coalition's looming collapse. A senior Liberal
Speaker 2: MP told the site, Honestly, easily, the single biggest factor
Speaker 2: is Trump, Adam, that sounds like a rather convenient excuse.
Speaker 2: It's almost like labor blaming Russia for high energy costs. Locally,
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton lost because he was weak, had weak policies.
Speaker 2: No one could remember the policies, no one really understood
Speaker 2: what they were had they differentiated from labor. He was
Speaker 2: about as Trumpian as Adam Batt.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Look, I have to completely agree with you there.
Speaker 6: I think Trump was a factor in the election, and
Speaker 6: it certainly hurt the coalition factor.
Speaker 4: Robert Media yeah, yes, he.
Speaker 6: Has certainly been factor with the media. You know, Trump
Speaker 6: is not popular here. We can have to recognize that,
Speaker 6: and that's due to the media, I would say, but
Speaker 6: it certainly doesn't explain the scale of this loss, which
Speaker 6: is absolutely historic. And I think it's largely down to
Speaker 6: the leadership. The leader, Peter Duttan, as much as I
Speaker 6: like him personally, was just not an appealing character for
Speaker 6: a large sway of Australian society and I think that
Speaker 6: was hard. It was just to change. And then the policies,
Speaker 6: as you say, were also terrible. I mean, for me,
Speaker 6: the two that really stuck out was trying to fix
Speaker 6: a permanent cost of living crisis with two temporary policies.
Speaker 4: The fuel excise cut only last twelve months.
Speaker 6: After twelve months goes back up again, and the twelve
Speaker 6: hundred dollars cash rebate.
Speaker 4: That just felt like a handout, which it.
Speaker 2: Was, which it was. As a Senator alex Antiks Thatt
Speaker 2: on Outsiders on Sunday, some of the policies look like
Speaker 2: mobile phone contracts where you get something for twelve months
Speaker 2: and then it's taken away. I mean, really, that's not
Speaker 2: how you fix the country. You mentioned that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is not popular in this country and the media is
Speaker 2: to blame. We're are going to get to the infighting
Speaker 2: within the Libs and the leadership battle, but first I
Speaker 2: just want to play this utterly unhinged, ill informed rant
Speaker 2: on Trump in the Australian media. This is an example
Speaker 2: of what people on FM radio are hearing. This is
Speaker 2: just so asinine. This is Gold FM heard on multiple
Speaker 2: markets including Sydney and Melbourne.
Speaker 7: Do I read something yesterday that said, that's a thing
Speaker 7: that said Trump officially has entered the psychotic emperor phase.
Speaker 7: He's not coming back the Pope image?
Speaker 3: Was it?
Speaker 7: That was the line? He's crossed it and he's just
Speaker 7: kept walking. He's not trolling anymore. This is clinical delusion.
Speaker 7: The tariffs on movies, reopening Alcatraz, so these aren't policies.
Speaker 4: This is a man.
Speaker 2: Wants to reopen Alcatraz as a federal prison.
Speaker 4: Right Okay?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 7: So and he said they say here, look, this is
Speaker 7: what the same thing went on to say. Margat is
Speaker 7: clapping along like it's a church revival. No one is
Speaker 7: driving the bus anymore.
Speaker 2: Jonesy and Amanda sounds like radio for people with room
Speaker 2: temperature IQ. The pope, which is what's center over the edge.
Speaker 2: It was a joke. I mean they seriously think Noald
Speaker 2: Trump wants to be the next pope. I mean I
Speaker 2: think it sounds like that's what they believe. But what's
Speaker 2: your reaction? Because it's not isolated. You do hear commentary
Speaker 2: on US politics in this country that is so comically
Speaker 2: ill informed that you dismiss it. But then people who
Speaker 2: aren't that much into politics hear that and believe it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Look, I think the Australian liberal media here or left
Speaker 6: wing media here, they read the US leftic media and
Speaker 6: then they filter it once again with the left wing slants,
Speaker 6: and by the time it gets to Australians it's just
Speaker 6: completely unhinged.
Speaker 4: And I think this is a classic example of that.
Speaker 6: It's just regurgitating the standard bland slogans and sound.
Speaker 2: We'll even get on as ABC that is so undt
Speaker 2: that the ladies of the view would make maybe born Also.
Speaker 6: It's just ridiculous because if these people deeply care about Christianity,
Speaker 6: I mean, they're just making up the fact that they
Speaker 6: feel offended from the pope em engine.
Speaker 2: I don't think like listening to that, she seemed to
Speaker 2: think it was some sort of a line that was
Speaker 2: cross and it wasn't actually offensive because it was a
Speaker 2: bad joke that I think she seems to think he
Speaker 2: wants to be No.
Speaker 4: I think so.
Speaker 6: Look, Trump's the first president where we've had it really
Speaker 6: so and he's decided to use it in an amusing way.
Speaker 6: It never used to exist, but it's a new thing,
Speaker 6: and he's obviously a funny It's funny.
Speaker 4: I mean I find it funny.
Speaker 2: Who doesn't it's funny?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it's hard not to find it funny.
Speaker 4: I think, clearly not trying to be pope. No.
Speaker 2: And if you want to find things to be genuinely
Speaker 2: aghast about, I'm sure you can find them if it'd
Speaker 2: be bothered reading for five minutes, but picking things like that.
Speaker 2: And then they had the most absurd discussion about this
Speaker 2: new tariff on films that are made outside of the US,
Speaker 2: again not realizing that every argument that we're making is
Speaker 2: precisely the reason why he's introducing this tariff, because it's
Speaker 2: an America first policy. It's not supposed to help Australia,
Speaker 2: it's not supposed to help Canada. It's supposed to help
Speaker 2: American filmmaking. Let's get back to the wets in the
Speaker 2: Liberal Party pushing for a more moderate leadership ticket, which
Speaker 2: would include Susan Lay as leader and Ted O'Brien as
Speaker 2: shadow treasurer. Adam there are accusations flying all over the
Speaker 2: place about who is white, anting who, and there are
Speaker 2: certainly fingers being pointed at Susan Lay. She's been accused
Speaker 2: of consistently undermining the leader and the party.
Speaker 6: Well look, I don't know the internals of the Liberal Party,
Speaker 6: of the factions and all that sort of squabbling, but
Speaker 6: the accusation that it was a far right.
Speaker 4: Campaign is kind of absurd. I don't see how they
Speaker 4: could they could possibly become more moderate. I mean, if
Speaker 4: you just look at the fiscal outlooks.
Speaker 6: I mean, the coalition released their own fiscal outlook just
Speaker 6: a few days before the election, and it was exactly
Speaker 6: the same, if not worse than Labors in terms of
Speaker 6: debt and deficit.
Speaker 4: So you know, it was basically a labor like campaign,
Speaker 4: you know.
Speaker 6: So the argument that, oh, gosh, they were too far
Speaker 6: right is just complete nonsense. I think, you know, if
Speaker 6: they lost, because you know, I mean, if you want
Speaker 6: to say it was the policy platform that lost in
Speaker 6: the election. It was because they were too much like labor,
Speaker 6: not the other way around. So I think that's a
Speaker 6: lesson that has to be learned.
Speaker 2: This is the lesson that is never learned though, whenever
Speaker 2: the Liberals do go moderate and they become labor light
Speaker 2: there less and they lose invariably when they do that,
Speaker 2: the lesson is, oh, we need to go more left.
Speaker 2: We were too scary and right wing and too wrapped
Speaker 2: up in the culture wars. And we've seen that in Victoria,
Speaker 2: we've seen it in WA and I do fear it's
Speaker 2: going to happen federally because they always listen to the
Speaker 2: worst advice imaginable.
Speaker 6: But I mean, obviously, whoever becomes leader, I mean it's
Speaker 6: basically who wants to lose the next election kind of thing.
Speaker 4: It's a hospital class, isn't it.
Speaker 8: Really.
Speaker 4: It's so I do sympathize with.
Speaker 6: You know, some of the rumors are that certain people
Speaker 6: aren't going to run, and that's probably why.
Speaker 2: But it's going to be a long and hard rebuild.
Speaker 2: So you do need to make this next decision right.
Speaker 2: You can't just write off the next couple of years.
Speaker 2: You need to start the work now, and that's where
Speaker 2: they faulted. And that's what we've been saying on this
Speaker 2: program all year. They just haven't done the work to
Speaker 2: be ready for this election. Before you go, there's already
Speaker 2: power plays happening within the newly re elected Labor government.
Speaker 2: The powerful environmental wing of the party is pushing the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister to adopt eight seventy plus percent emission reduction
Speaker 2: target by twenty thirty five, and they also want to
Speaker 2: pass the so called Nature Positive laws within a year. Adam,
Speaker 2: this would be disastrous for the nation on so many
Speaker 2: different fronts. The Nature Positive proposal just in itself would
Speaker 2: frustrate just a add every major development, from mining projects
Speaker 2: to large scale building developments, hospitals, newer states, everything.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Look, we really have to hope that sensible voices in
Speaker 6: the Labor Party prevail on these issues. It's certainly a
Speaker 6: much expanded party room. I don't know whether the new
Speaker 6: Labor MPs are more kind of centrist or left. I'm
Speaker 6: still I'm still yet to read analysis on that. Hopefully
Speaker 6: more centrists and they want to keep their seats the
Speaker 6: next election, and so that actually could be a.
Speaker 4: Moderator force on the Labor Party.
Speaker 6: All of these new MPs there will be in seats
Speaker 6: that could change back next time. They won't want to
Speaker 6: do anything too extreme. I think that's a good thing, but.
Speaker 2: That sounds like wish for thinking.
Speaker 4: Well, but just ontin thermissions.
Speaker 6: Very briefly, look, I mean if they legislate seventy it's
Speaker 6: not going to happen anyway.
Speaker 4: The forty three is not going to happen. They've actually
Speaker 4: only already will.
Speaker 2: Back up the country trying to get there. That's the fear.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's not going to happen. But how much
Speaker 2: that's true.
Speaker 4: They will do it a lot as a long the
Speaker 4: way that is.
Speaker 2: True, Adam christ And thanks for your time. Thanks Joining
Speaker 2: me now is Women's Forum Australian CEO Rachel Wong. Rachel,
Speaker 2: let's start reports that Labor and the Greens in New
Speaker 2: South Wales are rushing through legislation introduced by Greens MLC
Speaker 2: doctor Amanda Cone to expand access to abortion in New
Speaker 2: South Wales. A rally protesting the move was held earlier
Speaker 2: this evening. What do you make of this bill and
Speaker 2: the push to get it through the New South Wales
Speaker 2: Parliament within the next week or so. Why is there
Speaker 2: such a need for this urgency.
Speaker 10: There is no genuine need or level of urgency whatsoever.
Speaker 10: This is not a necessary.
Speaker 1: Piece of legislation. Quite the opposite. We already have abortion for.
Speaker 10: Any stage, for any reason in New South Wales, and
Speaker 10: I'm quite frankly, really confused as to why the New
Speaker 10: South Wales Labor government finds it necessary to align with
Speaker 10: the Greens and support the Greens on such a radical
Speaker 10: piece of legislation.
Speaker 2: Well, what will be the changes if this goes through?
Speaker 2: If their abortion is already available at every stage of
Speaker 2: pregnancy and readily available, what is this legislation going to do?
Speaker 10: So, the big thing that this bill will do is
Speaker 10: make doctors and hospitals who are opposed to abortion for medical,
Speaker 10: ethical or religious reasons, it will force them to violate
Speaker 10: their conscience and be involved in ensuring abortion in New
Speaker 10: South Wales, ensuring access to abortion, and so that aspect
Speaker 10: of the bill has been talked about quite a lot.
Speaker 10: The free of conscience issue, which is a big one
Speaker 10: because obviously freedom is a very different right for Australians
Speaker 10: and we shouldn't be forced to do things that we
Speaker 10: believer are morally or ethically wrong. Another aspect of the
Speaker 10: bill that hasn't been talked about quite so much is
Speaker 10: the way that it will put women at grave risk.
Speaker 10: So at the moment in New South Wales, medical abortions
Speaker 10: can be performed, but they need to be performed by
Speaker 10: a doctor. This bill will expand the legislation to allow
Speaker 10: nurses and midwives and other unnamed health practitioners to perform
Speaker 10: medical abortions. And the idea that Colin has is that
Speaker 10: this will allow women in regional and rural areas to
Speaker 10: have better access. But the reality is these women that
Speaker 10: Colin wants to help are the women who are going
Speaker 10: to be most at risk from this legislation, because these
Speaker 10: are the women who have less access to medical support
Speaker 10: and help if they have adverse complications following a medical abortion.
Speaker 10: And as we saw come out of the US last week,
Speaker 10: the biggest study of medical abortion to date has shown
Speaker 10: that women more than one in ten women experience adverse reactions,
Speaker 10: serious adverse events, including life threatening events, following medical abortion,
Speaker 10: and this just has not been something that's communicated to
Speaker 10: women the way it should be in terms of the
Speaker 10: rest involved, and expanding abortion in this way is extremely
Speaker 10: dangerous and responsible.
Speaker 2: Now Rachel. Worrying vision has emerged of Australian Electoral Commission
Speaker 2: officials instructing Family First candidate Ray Ramsey to stop promoting
Speaker 2: her anti late term abortion policy out of Victorian polling booth.
Speaker 2: They say that they had complaints that had three complaints.
Speaker 2: So one of the video shows, let's have a look
Speaker 2: at a couple of these interactions.
Speaker 9: You have had a number of complaints that you have
Speaker 9: been using disruptive rhetoric. Talking about killing babies was the
Speaker 9: one that came to me. I am just here to
Speaker 9: ask you to tone it down. If you do not
Speaker 9: and we continue to see received complaints, we're going to
Speaker 9: have you again. You've had at least three complaints.
Speaker 1: Did I talk about late JOm abortion, ma'am.
Speaker 9: I am not here to get into politics. I am
Speaker 9: just here to give you a warning.
Speaker 4: I'm not a candidate. I'm allowed to shame of policies.
Speaker 9: If we continue to get complaints, I will have to
Speaker 9: take further.
Speaker 1: Actually, that's all I'm saying to me. We will have
Speaker 1: to call the police.
Speaker 9: You're going to call the police on me if it's
Speaker 9: continuous keep.
Speaker 8: Mentioning my late chamb abortion polishish.
Speaker 1: If you can disrupt voters.
Speaker 4: Do you understand I understand what you're shamed, but I
Speaker 4: don't think you have that power.
Speaker 6: I definitely do just that point before now if I
Speaker 6: can please.
Speaker 1: Ask, can I shay that?
Speaker 5: What can I say our publishing else, every every other
Speaker 5: of you.
Speaker 2: I'm not allowed to mention abortion.
Speaker 11: Just for now.
Speaker 5: I've had some complaints and I just want to run
Speaker 5: it up the team.
Speaker 2: Okay, you wouldn't I thank you, Rachel. That's one of
Speaker 2: her policies. Is she not allowed to talk about it
Speaker 2: because two or three people have complained? Can I go
Speaker 2: and complain that I don't want Green's candidates talking to
Speaker 2: people because they're global warming scare mongering is upsetting the
Speaker 2: children a bit. It seems absurd that a candidate can
Speaker 2: be silenced in that.
Speaker 10: Way, Absolutely insane, reta and honestly quite terrifying for Australia.
Speaker 10: And as you point out, there is one hundred percent
Speaker 10: a double standard here. This is literally one of the
Speaker 10: bodies that has been tasked as safeguarding our democracy and
Speaker 10: to see them shutting down a candidate's freedom of speech
Speaker 10: during the federal election, I think is just absolutely atrocious
Speaker 10: and of course Australians are free to oppose her views
Speaker 10: and they're free not to vote for her, and they
Speaker 10: could have done that or not done that, as the
Speaker 10: case may be inside the polling booth. But you know,
Speaker 10: latein abortion, this is not a fringish. We had bombshow
Speaker 10: revelations coming out of South Australia last year in Queensland
Speaker 10: as well about how babies are being left to die
Speaker 10: after Latin abortions, to the degree that there was a
Speaker 10: bill put forward in South Australia which only lost by
Speaker 10: one vote, to protect babies born after twenty eight weeks.
Speaker 10: And there've been horrific stories by midwives who have you
Speaker 10: had to see babies being left to die after these abortions,
Speaker 10: and so this is this is a genuine, you know,
Speaker 10: policy that has obviously put forward in good faith to
Speaker 10: deal with a genuine issue that we're having in our society.
Speaker 10: And you know, it's just it's not acceptable for these
Speaker 10: Electoral Commission staffers to have shut this woman down. I
Speaker 10: think there needs to be an investigation and into this
Speaker 10: kind of thing happening during especially during elections, and you know,
Speaker 10: look that's saladsing clearly something that is reflective of a
Speaker 10: broader issue. In our culture and our institutions when it
Speaker 10: comes to censorship.
Speaker 2: And just before you go, Rachel, I want to play
Speaker 2: you this footage of Till mp ZO Daniel or former
Speaker 2: til MPZO and Daniel. You can add her to the
Speaker 2: long list of supposed women rights campaigners who can't tell
Speaker 2: you what a woman is.
Speaker 4: I think I've done a lot of stuff for women.
Speaker 12: Is that right?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 5: And general equality was one of my central issues at
Speaker 5: the last campaign.
Speaker 4: What is a woman?
Speaker 13: Though?
Speaker 14: Can you define it?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I think anyway done it.
Speaker 2: They continue to treat it like it's a gotcha question.
Speaker 2: Rachel Wong, thank you so much for your time tonight.
Speaker 2: Thanks Mia still to come left he is losing it.
Speaker 2: Plus a bombshell story revealing how the FBI books it's
Speaker 2: investigation of the congressional baseball shooting downplaying the gunman's anti
Speaker 2: Trump motives. Batti Junga sa Gone joins me. Next, you're
Speaker 2: watching the Reader Panny Show and it's time for lefties
Speaker 2: are losing it and it's time to checking again on
Speaker 2: the Lunatic Asylum masquerading as a news network known as MSNBC,
Speaker 2: And let's listen to this hot take from Joe Scarborough.
Speaker 15: AOC may be more progressive than a lot of people.
Speaker 15: I also understand that she's one of the most articulate,
Speaker 15: exciting people in the democratic fields. He goes out with
Speaker 15: Bernie and yeah, she just draws so many People's very good,
Speaker 15: very effective in hearings.
Speaker 16: They need somebody young like AOC. And again it's not
Speaker 16: about ideology, you know.
Speaker 12: They she can carry the message forward for a Democratic party.
Speaker 16: That really needs to reach out the younger Americans.
Speaker 2: Yes, let's have a look at just how articulate and
Speaker 2: impressive IOC is prepared to be dazzled by her red
Speaker 2: genius even as a waitress. If any of you.
Speaker 8: All else have gotten gone like completely mad, like like
Speaker 8: whatever you know and like or whatever, like just like
Speaker 8: it's like like it's like this like like like what
Speaker 8: people are starting to see, at least in the occupation
Speaker 8: of Palestine.
Speaker 10: You use the term the occupation of Palestine.
Speaker 2: What did you mean by that?
Speaker 12: Oh?
Speaker 8: I think what I meant is like the settlements that
Speaker 8: are increasing in some of these areas, in places where
Speaker 8: or Palestinians are experiencing difficulty and access to their housing
Speaker 8: and homes.
Speaker 6: Do you think you can expand on that.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean I think i'd also just I am
Speaker 8: not the expert gio politics on this issue, you.
Speaker 2: Know, Oh dear, that's AOC over the years. She really
Speaker 2: is the future. Please make her the leader because I
Speaker 2: think she'll make Krmala look like a visionary. Now, Joe
Speaker 2: Scarborough has form for saying spectacular stupid things. It's a
Speaker 2: requirement of all the MSNBC anchors to say silly things
Speaker 2: or just lie to their audience. Remember when he said
Speaker 2: this not long before Joe Biden was forced to announce
Speaker 2: the end of his re election campaign.
Speaker 16: I've said it for years now.
Speaker 15: He's cogent, but I undersold him when I said he
Speaker 15: was cogent. He's far beyond cogent. In fact, I think
Speaker 15: he's better than he's ever been intellectually analytically, because he's
Speaker 15: been around.
Speaker 4: For fifty years.
Speaker 15: Start your tape right now, because I'm about to tell
Speaker 15: you the truth and FU if you can't handle the truth.
Speaker 15: This version of Biden intellectually analytically is the best Biden ever,
Speaker 15: not a close second.
Speaker 4: And I've known him for years.
Speaker 15: The Brazinskis have known him for fifty years. If it
Speaker 15: weren't the truth, I wouldn't say.
Speaker 2: It best, Biden. Evan f you if you can't handle
Speaker 2: the truth, dear, dear, Now, Joe Scarbrough was telling the
Speaker 2: dem witted MSNBC audience long after that that Kamala had
Speaker 2: it in the bag. She was going to beat Trump.
Speaker 16: When you start seeing numbers, real numbers, like what's going
Speaker 16: on in Georgia, suddenly you feel like telling Democrats that
Speaker 16: are bitching and moaning about what the Harris campaign's doing.
Speaker 12: Hey, calm down, you know what. Victory is in sight
Speaker 12: in less than three weeks. If you go out, work hard,
Speaker 12: and do your job.
Speaker 15: The opponent is imploding and Harris is doing better than ever.
Speaker 2: Victory is in sight. Sadly it wasn't. It was a
Speaker 2: landslide loss that was in sight. But you know what,
Speaker 2: we never got any apologies for those truths. But we
Speaker 2: did get an apology in recent days from MSNBC after
Speaker 2: they aired this bit of fake news.
Speaker 11: What do you make of that that he's just been
Speaker 11: a little less visible than I think a lot of
Speaker 11: people Trump observers expected he would be.
Speaker 15: Yeah, well, reportedly has been visible at nightclubs far more
Speaker 15: than he has been on the seventh floor of the
Speaker 15: Hoover Building.
Speaker 2: Oh really, it wasn't long before we got this correction.
Speaker 11: Circle back to a segment from Friday Show. Frankfort Gluesy
Speaker 11: was on that morning during this hour discussing the work
Speaker 11: of administration officials.
Speaker 1: At the end of that.
Speaker 11: Segment, for Glucy said the FBI director Cash Pttel has
Speaker 11: reportedly been more visible at nightclubs than at his office
Speaker 11: at FBI headquarters. This was a misstatement. We have not
Speaker 11: verified that claim.
Speaker 2: And here is another MSNBC favorite, this time appearing on
Speaker 2: another platform. This is Ellie miss stew And this lefty
Speaker 2: losing it loves illegal immigration so much he doesn't even
Speaker 2: care if an illegal immigrant kills him. He wants you
Speaker 2: to know that.
Speaker 3: Why do I care what their status was when they
Speaker 3: committed the crime, if you can prove they committed a crime.
Speaker 3: I say in the book, if I get shot, if
Speaker 3: I get murdered by an undocumented immigrant, please tell my
Speaker 3: children I did not care that they were undocumented.
Speaker 2: Right now, to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who
Speaker 2: was elected on a platform of getting Donald Trump, and
Speaker 2: he was facing serious investigations over alleged mortgage fraud. Well,
Speaker 2: she's on the war path.
Speaker 14: You want me to sit in my seat and stand
Speaker 14: idly by and allow this craziness to happen. You could
Speaker 14: come after me if you want, But you elected me
Speaker 14: to stand up.
Speaker 2: You elected me to.
Speaker 7: Use the law.
Speaker 2: You elected me to go to court.
Speaker 17: You elected me.
Speaker 14: To continue to challenge this administration. You elected me to
Speaker 14: stand up for the least of God's children. You elected
Speaker 14: me to continue fighting on Wow.
Speaker 2: Joining me now is journalist and author Batia Ungasagan Battia
Speaker 2: Letitia James. She's facing a serious investigation, but she's at
Speaker 2: the moment leading a coalition of twenty states ensuing the
Speaker 2: Trump administration over its cuts to the Department of Health
Speaker 2: and Human Services.
Speaker 17: It's so amazing how the defenders of democrat see you know, trademark,
Speaker 17: you know, are always out here accusing Trump of not
Speaker 17: believing in you know, the three branches of government and
Speaker 17: not believing in our democracy, when it is they who
Speaker 17: believe that the executive should effectively have zero power. I mean,
Speaker 17: what law has he broken by suggesting that he wants
Speaker 17: to limit the staff of the federal government. The whole
Speaker 17: thing is ridiculous, and it just shows once again how
Speaker 17: the Democrats have no platform. They have no agenda. It
Speaker 17: is all just performance art, and in let Teacha James's case,
Speaker 17: she's obviously trying to distract from the fact that she
Speaker 17: got caught out doing the exact crimes that she pretended
Speaker 17: Donald Trump was doing when she went after him. He
Speaker 17: was not actually committing any crimes. But she has been
Speaker 17: accused very credibly of mortgage fraud, as you say, and
Speaker 17: so you know, performance art distraction. This is the name
Speaker 17: of the game when it comes to the Democrats today.
Speaker 17: That's really all they have at this point.
Speaker 2: The law fed that we're using it before the election campaign,
Speaker 2: and since the landslide victory, it seems to be all
Speaker 2: they have is just trying to obstruct Trump through the courts,
Speaker 2: going to the most activist judges they can find to
Speaker 2: try to frustrate the agenda. Is it working though, Is
Speaker 2: it causing this chaos that is frustrating the Trump administration?
Speaker 17: I don't think it's working at all, Rita. And the
Speaker 17: reason I say that is because most of their efforts
Speaker 17: with the law have been around the issue of immigration.
Speaker 17: That's the one area where Donald Trump's numbers are still very,
Speaker 17: very good. The American people are with him on immigration.
Speaker 17: He is winning on that issue, despite the fact that
Speaker 17: the Democrats have gone overboard trying to protect all of
Speaker 17: these gang bangers that Trump is so eager to get
Speaker 17: out of the country.
Speaker 2: This is a bombshell story. Let's look at the New
Speaker 2: York Post report on this. The FBI botched its investigation
Speaker 2: of the twenty seventeen congressional baseball shooting, downplaying the government's
Speaker 2: anti GOP the anti Republican motives. Despite having handwritten evidence,
Speaker 2: they wrongly claimed that it was a suicide by copp attack.
Speaker 2: This is the findings of a report by the House
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight
Speaker 2: and Investigation. They come through around three three thousand case
Speaker 2: file documents on this attack that wounded six people, including
Speaker 2: the current House Majority Leader Steve Scalese, who was very
Speaker 2: lucky to survive that shooting. Let's hear from him.
Speaker 18: They ultimately let us know what their conclusion was, and
Speaker 18: that's when they said it was class his suicide by
Speaker 18: cop And I'll tell you I was offended. I think
Speaker 18: all of us there were highly offended that that was
Speaker 18: the conclusion that the FBI in twenty seventeen came to
Speaker 18: because it wasn't what happened on the baseball field. He
Speaker 18: went there with the intention of killing all of us
Speaker 18: on the baseball field, and he had a list in
Speaker 18: his pocket of other Republicans he wanted to kill. It
Speaker 18: was very politically motivated and it was clear they suppressed
Speaker 18: a lot of facts and what the FBI report that
Speaker 18: cash Ptel's FBI came out with today shows they suppressed
Speaker 18: factual evidence to reach a different conclusion.
Speaker 2: Patilla, this is just a shocking, shocking example of why
Speaker 2: the FBI needs reform, why has become so mistrusted by
Speaker 2: huge segments of the community. This man went there to
Speaker 2: kill Republicans.
Speaker 17: Yeah, you know, it's so funny because there there's this
Speaker 17: canard in the United States that's promulgated by the left
Speaker 17: that political violence is something that happens on the right.
Speaker 17: And the reason that they are able to get away
Speaker 17: with this lie is because it is the right that
Speaker 17: is heavily armed in America. But the vast majority of
Speaker 17: the political violence in this country comes from the political left,
Speaker 17: the vast majority, and this is a perfect example of that.
Speaker 17: To where the FBI itself was engaged in this alleged
Speaker 17: cover up of left wing anti conservative political violence because
Speaker 17: it doesn't fit the narrative that they have been pushing
Speaker 17: to smear Republicans and smear Conservatives as being violent when
Speaker 17: these are people who own a lot of guns and
Speaker 17: never ever use them in a political manner.
Speaker 2: Well, the examples of left wing violence in America just
Speaker 2: in recent years are enormous. We saw those BLM riots
Speaker 2: that destroyed neighborhood cities, around two billion dollars worth of damage,
Speaker 2: around twenty people killed, dozens more seriously injured. We have
Speaker 2: they heard had any condemnation of that, and yet the
Speaker 2: Democrats went on about the January sixth riots for five years.
Speaker 2: It's all we've been hearing about since it occurred. The
Speaker 2: Antifa riots. Right now, we're seeing Tesla dealerships and individuals
Speaker 2: who are in Tesla's having their property vandalize. The examples
Speaker 2: of us not to mention the campus protests, and let's
Speaker 2: talk about the campus protests, because there's been some consequences
Speaker 2: to that. Columbia University is going to have to cut
Speaker 2: around one hundred and eighty staff members because the Trump
Speaker 2: administration has announced it's canceling four hundred million dollars in
Speaker 2: federal funding. The Columbia University announced these cuts overnight. The
Speaker 2: Ivy League school was targeted for these cuts because of
Speaker 2: its failure to protect Jewish students from anti Semitic harassment.
Speaker 2: I'm having a trouble feeling sorry for Columbia here.
Speaker 17: Yeah, that's absolutely right. The things that the Trump administration
Speaker 17: is asking from these universities are things that they already
Speaker 17: owe their students in exchange for federal funding. We have
Speaker 17: civil rights laws that they are expected to follow, which
Speaker 17: they really failed to do in the case of Jewish students.
Speaker 17: I'm not one who felt that Jewish students were actually unsafe.
Speaker 17: I don't like that language. I think it diminishes the
Speaker 17: power that we have in our community. I don't think
Speaker 17: they were physically unsafe. But what they worried or was
Speaker 17: they were discriminated against buy administration that treats all of
Speaker 17: its students one way and its Jewish students another way,
Speaker 17: and it expected them to just eat the harassment that
Speaker 17: they were facing. And that is discriminatory. And as a result,
Speaker 17: the Trump administration is withdrawn it's funding. It's such an
Speaker 17: amazing moment. I mean, you know, as a Jewish American
Speaker 17: to see the President standing up from my rights. It's
Speaker 17: a really, really wonderful thing that's happening. Unfortunately, many many
Speaker 17: Jews in America are on the left and are Democrats,
Speaker 17: about two thirds to three quarters of the community, and
Speaker 17: so they don't really recognize what a gift this is.
Speaker 17: That does not diminish the fact that the Trump administration
Speaker 17: is standing up for our community in a very unique
Speaker 17: and unprecedented way, and I am very grateful for it.
Speaker 2: Well, the Trump administration has stood up for the Jewish
Speaker 2: community in America in an unprecedented way, but also for
Speaker 2: the State of Israel that the support has given Israel
Speaker 2: during the first Trump administration and continues to get. And yet,
Speaker 2: as you mentioned there but here, the majority of Jewish
Speaker 2: Americans vote left, and they still did even after all
Speaker 2: the violence we saw on campuses or the left wing violence.
Speaker 2: The fact that Kamala Harris did not pick the best
Speaker 2: VP candidate, Shapiro because his Jewish you served in the IDEF,
Speaker 2: and she thought that was going to cause us some problems,
Speaker 2: despite the fact it was the governor of Pennsylvania, crucial
Speaker 2: swing state. I could go on, what is it going
Speaker 2: to take for the Jewish community to break that you'd
Speaker 2: call it a toxic relationship with the Democrats. The Democrats
Speaker 2: have got deep seated anti Semitic issues within the party.
Speaker 17: So I'm so glad you asked me that because I'm
Speaker 17: currently writing my third book on this exact topic, why
Speaker 17: Jews are Democrats and why the Left is turning on
Speaker 17: the Jews. The reason that Jewish Americans are overwhelmingly Democrat
Speaker 17: is the same reason any group in America is overwhelmingly Democrat,
Speaker 17: which is they A lot of American Jews have a
Speaker 17: college degree. So about thirty percent of Americans have a
Speaker 17: college degree. Sixty percent of American Jews have a college degree.
Speaker 17: So what you would expect from that college being the
Speaker 17: number one predictor for Democrat politics would be that the
Speaker 17: community would be twice as likely to vote for the Democrats.
Speaker 17: And that's exactly the numbers you see. However, this is
Speaker 17: all changing because my community, the Orthodox community, is a
Speaker 17: lot less beholden to the woke ideology in the universities.
Speaker 17: The ultra Orthodox community doesn't go to college at all
Speaker 17: and is much more likely to be conservative. Of course,
Speaker 17: we have conservative social values, and so you know, in
Speaker 17: thirty years and forty years, most American Jews will be
Speaker 17: Republicans just because the Orthodox have so many more children,
Speaker 17: and a lot of the non Orthodox marry out and
Speaker 17: their children are not Jewish at all. So the community
Speaker 17: is really rapidly changing.
Speaker 2: Right now, Let's get back to that law fare we
Speaker 2: were speaking about and attempts to obstruct the Trump Administration's policies.
Speaker 2: That Trump administration has had some good news this week
Speaker 2: with a Supreme Court yesterday siding with the with Trump
Speaker 2: in lifting a lower court order this is going to
Speaker 2: that was pausing the transgender military ban from taking effect.
Speaker 2: This means Trump's orders will proceed. Tell me about this
Speaker 2: decision and why this policy was introduced in the first place.
Speaker 17: This is one of those issues where the administration just
Speaker 17: has the support of eighty percent of Americans. I think
Speaker 17: there is a feeling that transgender individuals are on a
Speaker 17: lot of medications. There is the question of gender dysphoria,
Speaker 17: which is a mental illness, and many trans people that
Speaker 17: is how they describe what it means to be transgender.
Speaker 17: And these are just things that you don't necessarily want
Speaker 17: to have to be thinking about in a military context
Speaker 17: of heightened security, intense emotions, intense physicality. Men, I think
Speaker 17: very much are are trained to be protectors. If they're
Speaker 17: in a situation, a combat situation and their fellow soldier
Speaker 17: is a woman or looks like a woman and could
Speaker 17: be mistaken for a woman, you know, this is authorny situation.
Speaker 17: And I think right now the military is sort of
Speaker 17: re orienting itself under the guidance of Trump and Pete
Speaker 17: hegseth to be more traditional in its values and its
Speaker 17: approach and its esthetic and in terms of recruitment, giving
Speaker 17: men a feeling of pride and being protectors and being
Speaker 17: part of the military. So I think that the Trump
Speaker 17: administration politically is on very solid ground. This is not
Speaker 17: like saying you can't be gay in the military. It's
Speaker 17: very different because it's a very There's this feeling among
Speaker 17: the Democrats the left they think of LGBT as one thing,
Speaker 17: but normal people, like regular middle class, working class people,
Speaker 17: they really don't see it that way. They see gay as,
Speaker 17: you know, being totally consistent with all their other conservative values.
Speaker 17: They know gay people, they go to church with gay people,
Speaker 17: and they see trands in a very different light, especially
Speaker 17: when it comes to things like transgender people in women's
Speaker 17: sports or in women's bathrooms or talking to their children
Speaker 17: or in the military.
Speaker 2: There is and there is a separation happening within that community.
Speaker 2: Some would like it to be a more profound separation,
Speaker 2: but certainly there are plenty of people who are the
Speaker 2: LGBs end of the spectrum who have no time for
Speaker 2: the rest of the letters and their activism. Buttel Gasagon,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you,
Speaker 2: Rita god Brush still to come. A threat to democracy
Speaker 2: in Germany amid efforts to ban the right wing AfD party.
Speaker 2: Ralph Solhammer has the details welcome back. Now we hear
Speaker 2: about threats to democracy, Well, here is a real example
Speaker 2: the growing efforts in Germany to ban the AfD party.
Speaker 2: The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, a
Speaker 2: German intelligence agency, has released a statement saying that following
Speaker 2: an investigation, they now classify the AfD as a confirmed
Speaker 2: right wing extremist endeavor and a racist and anti Muslim organization.
Speaker 2: The Germans by agency claims central to our assessment is
Speaker 2: the ethnically and ancestrally defined concept of the people that
Speaker 2: shapes the AfD, which devalues entire segments of the population
Speaker 2: in Germany. And via relates their human dignity. It aims
Speaker 2: to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society,
Speaker 2: subject them to unconstitutional discrimination, and thus assign them a
Speaker 2: legally devalued status. Joining me now is lecturer, commentator, podcaster,
Speaker 2: the head of the Center of History at the Matthias
Speaker 2: Corvinus College in Budapest, Ralph Scholhammer, Ralph. That sounds like
Speaker 2: a very politically charged description. They're not something you would
Speaker 2: expect from an intelligence agency. What is your response to
Speaker 2: those claims from the Federal Office for the Protection of
Speaker 2: the Constitution.
Speaker 1: What I think the most remarking remarkable thing is that
Speaker 1: all of this is based on a one thousand page
Speaker 1: report that they refuse to publish. So you have this
Speaker 1: odd situation. Imagine yourself being a member of the AfD
Speaker 1: or the head of the AfD, and somebody comes to
Speaker 1: you and says, we now have the legal rights to
Speaker 1: spy on you, to cut funding to why atape your communications?
Speaker 1: And you say, but based on which grounds? And then
Speaker 1: they say, unfortunately, we cannot tell you because that is
Speaker 1: not for public knowledge. It's a very odd that would say,
Speaker 1: an almost studinesque approach, and it shows you as We
Speaker 1: have discussed in your show many times that very often
Speaker 1: those who constantly talk about threats to democracy are themselves
Speaker 1: the greatest threat to democracy. It's a very serious case
Speaker 1: of projection.
Speaker 13: I would say, oh, absolutely, what are the grounds they've given,
Speaker 13: What explanations are there for keeping this eleven hundred page
Speaker 13: intelligence report secret.
Speaker 2: Surely the public is entitled to know why they've come
Speaker 2: up with this assessment that the AfD is an extremist organization.
Speaker 1: Well, the problem is that in order to band the AfD,
Speaker 1: which is where they want to go, you would have
Speaker 1: to prove that the AfD in fact wants to overthrow
Speaker 1: the democratic system in Germany. Unfortunately for them and fortunately
Speaker 1: for the supports of the AfD, there is no indication
Speaker 1: that these are the plans of the AfD, like there
Speaker 1: are no statements, there is nothing in the party plan.
Speaker 1: You can say they are far right, extreme right, ultra
Speaker 1: megamaga rite, whatever the term is. But all of this
Speaker 1: is permitted under the constitution. The problem would only be
Speaker 1: if they would say, we want to change the democratic
Speaker 1: system in Germany and create the dictatorship, but in a
Speaker 1: re erect a fascist state, whatever it is. But they
Speaker 1: don't so what they come up with is, and you
Speaker 1: already alluded to this in your introduction, is that they
Speaker 1: define Germany or being German as an ethnic concept. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not entirely new, and you see this all around
Speaker 1: the world. But the argument of the AfD has been
Speaker 1: that being German, just like being Australian, is more than
Speaker 1: having a German or Australian or Austrian or you name it,
Speaker 1: passport right. They believe that loyalty, commitment, cultural integration is
Speaker 1: a long term process. You might disagree with this approach.
Speaker 1: You might agree with this approach, but it's definitely not illegal,
Speaker 1: and it's definitely not the constitutional. And the other thing
Speaker 1: is which I find quite odd given the events, and
Speaker 1: we also have discussed in a show in the past
Speaker 1: what happened in Germany over the last couple of years,
Speaker 1: of what happened in Europe over the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: To be critical of mass migration from Muslim countries, that's
Speaker 1: a majority opinion, and I think there are very good
Speaker 1: grounds to be critical of it, because the social cohesion
Speaker 1: trust in society, the burden on the social systems, on schools,
Speaker 1: on educational systems due to that kind of migration has
Speaker 1: been enormous and this is what the AfD is against. Again,
Speaker 1: you can share the view, you can disagree with the view,
Speaker 1: but all of it is within the constitutional bounce.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean, this is the top issue in Europe, arguably,
Speaker 2: the mass migration that's changed the face of so many
Speaker 2: places across the continent. And if the people can't have
Speaker 2: a say on whether they support this mass migration, whether
Speaker 2: they want to see more of it, then really, what
Speaker 2: is the point of the democratic process right now? What
Speaker 2: is the day's support in Germany? They certainly did well
Speaker 2: at the recent elections. Are they amongst the most popular parties?
Speaker 1: Well, according to the most recent tolls we have, they
Speaker 1: are the most popular party. I mean they currently come
Speaker 1: in the polls at around twenty six twenty seven percent,
Speaker 1: about three percentage points ahead of the Conservative Party. Maybe
Speaker 1: we have time to talk a little bit about Freedich
Speaker 1: metsis the future chancellor's massive disaster yesterday in German Parliament
Speaker 1: where he could not secure a majority to become chancellor
Speaker 1: in the first round of voting, something that has never
Speaker 1: happened in the history of Germany since nineteen forty five.
Speaker 1: And what we can see here and that's a trend,
Speaker 1: and not just in Germany. We see it in France,
Speaker 1: we saw it in Romania, we see it in the UK.
Speaker 1: We saw it with Donald Trump before his election November
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty four. There is an attempt to weaponize
Speaker 1: the legal system, the judicial system, anything at the disposal
Speaker 1: of the status coaldes to prevent alternatives to come to
Speaker 1: power by legal means. And this is a real problem
Speaker 1: because my big issues always want, which is that if
Speaker 1: you prevent people to vote in alternatives. It's kind of
Speaker 1: funny that the German name is the alternative and for Germany,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't matter if it's Trump, Lupen Faraj, you
Speaker 1: name it, because at some point people say, if the
Speaker 1: system does not allow me to affect change within the system,
Speaker 1: then we need a new system. So again, as I
Speaker 1: said before, those who pretend to protect democracy have become
Speaker 1: its biggest threats because people are increasingly frustrated and there
Speaker 1: is nothing more dangerous to democracy than if a growing
Speaker 1: number of people feels that the vote makes no difference.
Speaker 1: And this is the direction which we're going.
Speaker 2: Well, you mentioned some examples there, from North America to Romania,
Speaker 2: France and Germany, what is next for Germany? What is
Speaker 2: their government going to look like? And what are the
Speaker 2: chances that the most popular party is going to be
Speaker 2: labeled an extremist organization. I guess next step is that
Speaker 2: may be excluded from the democratic process. They may not
Speaker 2: be allowed to run in elections, and we've seen candidates
Speaker 2: be excluded in countries like Romania.
Speaker 1: Well. Lenin once said that if the Germans want to
Speaker 1: storm a train station, the first buy a ticket. And
Speaker 1: what he wants to say about what he meant by
Speaker 1: this is that the Germans are not pre sae revolutionary people, right,
Speaker 1: and this has been a strength of them. They are
Speaker 1: usually they play by the rules, but if they get
Speaker 1: angry and if they explode, as we know historical clear right,
Speaker 1: it can get very very nasty. And we sometimes underestimate
Speaker 1: how quickly societies can be pushed to the brink. I'm
Speaker 1: sure that maybe some of your viewers and listeners are
Speaker 1: familiar with David Beatts is a British strategist at King's College,
Speaker 1: and he makes this claim that many European societies are
Speaker 1: probably much closer to the brink of civil undrest and
Speaker 1: civil war than we realize. And I think this is true.
Speaker 1: For now. People are still holding back because a crucial
Speaker 1: number still believe that their votes does in fact make
Speaker 1: a difference, that the democratic process is in fact working.
Speaker 1: But Germany is a great example. If you try to
Speaker 1: outlaw the most popular party, you're basically disenfranchising almost one
Speaker 1: third of the people or one third of the voters
Speaker 1: that cannot just blow over. There's this odd idea within
Speaker 1: the traditional parties in Germany. They sincerely believe that, they
Speaker 1: say this in interviews, that if we band the AfD,
Speaker 1: all those voters are just come back to us. But
Speaker 1: they left you because they no longer trust you for
Speaker 1: good reasons, like mister Mertz, if you make promises, did
Speaker 1: you forget twenty minutes after the last polling station has closed?
Speaker 1: But people will not just come back to you. First,
Speaker 1: they will retreat from the political process. Then they will
Speaker 1: get angry, and if they don't have an alternative the
Speaker 1: voting booth, they will try to, let's say, voice their
Speaker 1: dissatisfaction in other ways. And yes, of course this could
Speaker 1: get violent at some point.
Speaker 2: Ralph Schulhammer, appreciate your insights, Thanks so much for your
Speaker 2: time tonight. That's it from May app next is news,
Speaker 2: not a see you at eleven tomorrow night.