Speaker 1: From the Sky Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Get overon.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Sharry. Can we go straight to space?
Speaker 1: Like as we speak right now, history is happening, way way, way,
Speaker 1: way way up there there where the first person to
Speaker 1: pay their way not just into the upper atmosphere but
Speaker 1: up and outside, and the first space walk is happening
Speaker 1: as we speak now. Apparently the cost is the best
Speaker 1: part of two hundred million dollars. Now as you can see,
Speaker 1: the camera angles and we're seeing somebody come just back
Speaker 1: in then. But can you believe this that when man
Speaker 1: first walked on the moon, we were all huddled, well
Speaker 1: not me, but we were all huddled around TV and
Speaker 1: radio and the signal had to come via parks. And
Speaker 1: look at where we've come. When now something that isn't NASA,
Speaker 1: people who aren't astronauts, but people who are civilians who
Speaker 1: obviously training, safety, all the rest of it, are abled
Speaker 1: to pay their way to space. And right now as
Speaker 1: we speak, you can see that the hatch is open
Speaker 1: and there are people who are looking out into the
Speaker 1: grape beyond. Now tonight we'll do all the normal stuff
Speaker 1: we're doing, but can we just soak this up for
Speaker 1: a couple of seconds because I just find this incredible.
Speaker 1: You don't know how they do it. It costs an
Speaker 1: awful lot of money, but this is the future for
Speaker 1: those that are going to be able to afford it.
Speaker 1: They're not just going to float around in the upper atmosphere.
Speaker 1: You may well be able to get into space, open
Speaker 1: the door and go for a walk when there's another
Speaker 1: version of somebody doing it, because there are four people
Speaker 1: who will have the opportunity. We'll return to that footage,
Speaker 1: but welcome to the show this Thursday night. There is
Speaker 1: a lot to get to, including yet another attempt of
Speaker 1: this government. It's attempt number two now when it comes
Speaker 1: to trying to censor the Internet. I hate this idea
Speaker 1: and I don't think the second version is any better
Speaker 1: than the first version. Also, it was muck Up Day
Speaker 1: today in the queens Land Parliament, the last time that
Speaker 1: idiot hopefully will be in the parliam as the Premier.
Speaker 1: And Meghan Kelly, we showed you how fired up she
Speaker 1: was yesterday. Well twenty four hours on, she is ready
Speaker 1: to rock and talk everything about that awful debate that
Speaker 1: took place and what should happen in the future. She
Speaker 1: is awesome. But first you know that we have been
Speaker 1: following the bouncing ball from when it was a report,
Speaker 1: to a report that they hid, to a report that
Speaker 1: they put on the table, to a discussion that they
Speaker 1: started to have, to negotiations that have now gone through.
Speaker 1: Today the government says that they have a deal to
Speaker 1: find a way through the Parliament to change how much
Speaker 1: you have to pay for aged care. Now, I know
Speaker 1: that there's a lot of people who are worried about this.
Speaker 1: What is very important is that the Liberals have been
Speaker 1: able to say in this deal that if you're currently
Speaker 1: physically in age care, there will be no changes as
Speaker 1: best as I understand or triple check that. But this
Speaker 1: is all for people who will move into age care
Speaker 1: or need at home care in the next of a while.
Speaker 1: I told you that we followed the excellent Inside Baseball
Speaker 1: reporting here with Philip Coury the whole way through, so
Speaker 1: he deserves the credit and respect for me to tell
Speaker 1: you what his assumption is of things here. He says
Speaker 1: that of the so called richer retirees, they will instead
Speaker 1: be able to age at home, but they would be
Speaker 1: required to pay up to eighty percent of the everyday
Speaker 1: living costs such as cleaning, gardening and food and fifty
Speaker 1: percent of so called independence costs. That's things like somebody
Speaker 1: picking you up, taking you to the doctor. The overall
Speaker 1: which essentially will require part pensioners and self funded retirees
Speaker 1: to contribute more for their care based on their assets.
Speaker 1: Now it's important too, it's not necessarily about your family home,
Speaker 1: but your family home does play a part in this.
Speaker 1: But if you've got things like superannuation shares, other forms
Speaker 1: of income, or you are going to have to pay more.
Speaker 1: I am going to get right into the detail on
Speaker 1: this to give you a little indication of what might
Speaker 1: be happening in July next year. Again, it is weighted
Speaker 1: towards increasing home care costs. Now, remember half of all
Speaker 1: people that are in aged care are not in an
Speaker 1: age care facility. They are at home with an at
Speaker 1: home package. The biggest financial changes are for the people
Speaker 1: who are trying to stay at home for as long
Speaker 1: as you can, for as much as you would all
Speaker 1: want to be in your home for as long as possible. Again,
Speaker 1: Philip Kurry with plenty of information and detail here where
Speaker 1: it says that under the changes which both major parties
Speaker 1: and the sector say are essential to keep the system
Speaker 1: financially sustainable. The maximum amount that you will contribute to
Speaker 1: your care at home or in an aged care system
Speaker 1: is moving from the current cap of seventy nine thousand
Speaker 1: dollars way up to one hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So that is the overall cost is going to be
Speaker 1: a lot more. So let me walk you through this. Okay,
Speaker 1: For people who are in aged care currently they pay
Speaker 1: twenty three thousand dollars. If you're a pensioner but you
Speaker 1: don't have a house, from July one next year, it'll
Speaker 1: be basically the same. For full pensioners, but you own
Speaker 1: a house and the values somewhere around six hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars twenty four thousand dollars, you will be paying another
Speaker 1: for and a bit thousand dollars every single year until
Speaker 1: you have put in one hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: For part pensioners who own a home over a million dollars,
Speaker 1: you're going from the current thirty one thousand up by
Speaker 1: about five thousand dollars to thirty six thousand dollars. Again,
Speaker 1: you keep paying the thirty six thousand dollars until you
Speaker 1: hit one hundred and thirty thousand dollars For part pensioners
Speaker 1: who own a home, say nine hundred thousand dollars, and
Speaker 1: you've got say five hundred thousand dollars super shares or
Speaker 1: something else. This is a big whack. From thirty four
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year, it's way up forty seven thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred dollars. That's a big change for people who
Speaker 1: own a home that could be worth something like one
Speaker 1: point six So many of the suburban homes around Sydney
Speaker 1: would be worth that, certainly for Melbourne and Brucebane as well.
Speaker 1: Plus again you have other assets, super and the rest
Speaker 1: of it. Up to nine hundred thousand houses for a
Speaker 1: whack from forty nine thousand dollars a year. This is
Speaker 1: to be in a facility, it'll go up, so sixty
Speaker 1: two eight hundred dollars. Now, of course that is not
Speaker 1: the total amount that you'll have to spend. There's lots
Speaker 1: of other little ways that age care companies who run
Speaker 1: these homes fine ways to get you. But the overall
Speaker 1: number that the government will help support you is changing,
Speaker 1: and it's changing in pretty big ways. Now there isn't
Speaker 1: a person watching who doesn't want to stay in the
Speaker 1: home for as long as possible. Why because you deserve
Speaker 1: that independence. Why because you've earned that independence, because you
Speaker 1: worked hard to have the home that you live in.
Speaker 1: You love it. It's where the memories are, it's where
Speaker 1: you've spent so much time in the garden renovating the
Speaker 1: memories of the kids, and of course a place where
Speaker 1: grandkids come over. Again. Some changes here. But interestingly, the
Speaker 1: government when it's released the data today and it is
Speaker 1: very complicated to give you exact numbers. Hopefully in the
Speaker 1: next couple of days the news organizations will give you
Speaker 1: the chance to put in all of your details and
Speaker 1: see what the changes are. So I don't have a
Speaker 1: comparison to you how much you currently pay, but this
Speaker 1: is what's going to change. Okay, So if you're a
Speaker 1: full pensioner, you're renting, you've got no other sources of income,
Speaker 1: you're going to pay two four hundred and sixty seven
Speaker 1: dollars a year to stay at home. If you've got
Speaker 1: a part pension, you own your home, plus a little
Speaker 1: bit of super, it'll be eleven and a half thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: The same for self unded retiree. Now the Commonwealth Seniors
Speaker 1: Card comes into play here. If you've got one and
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand dollars in assets, it'll be about eleven
Speaker 1: and a half thousand dollars. And then we start to
Speaker 1: take some big steps. A self funded retiree who does
Speaker 1: have a Commonwealth Seniors Card and as I say, about
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand dollars in assets, that's sixteen thousand and
Speaker 1: the so called rich, the self funded retiree with no
Speaker 1: Commonwealth Seniors Card five hundred thousand dollars in assets, you
Speaker 1: will be paying sixteen thousand, six hundred and fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: a year. Now, at some point we're all going to
Speaker 1: have to deal with the system, which is why I'm
Speaker 1: giving you as much information as possible right now. Now
Speaker 1: this will save the federal budget, but of course it
Speaker 1: will cost people more. These things do not kick in
Speaker 1: until July the first of next year, so don't be
Speaker 1: worried about something happening in the next month or so.
Speaker 1: But this is something that is going to be happening.
Speaker 1: It will pass the Parliament, which is why the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister gave it the full Prime Ministerial Courtyard treatment today
Speaker 1: like he was making history by making you pay more
Speaker 1: for age care at home or somewhere else.
Speaker 2: We know that increasingly as as Australians want to spend
Speaker 2: more time living at home. As a result of the
Speaker 2: reforms that we're announcing today, around one point four million
Speaker 2: Australians will benefit from a new support at home program
Speaker 2: by two thousand and thirty five, helping them remain independent
Speaker 2: in their home and their community for longer.
Speaker 1: Now, again, devil is always in the detail. We'll all
Speaker 1: work through that over the next few days. But I
Speaker 1: know we've been on this journey since December last year
Speaker 1: when this looked like it was what's going to happen
Speaker 1: now again your family home. They say it doesn't really
Speaker 1: count in your calculation of wealth, but clearly you can
Speaker 1: see that there are gradients there about the family home. Now,
Speaker 1: whether that is just the buried lead somewhere, or we'll
Speaker 1: get more clarity as we go through the documents. I'll
Speaker 1: do that for you when we come back and keep
Speaker 1: chatting next week. Remember being here on a Sunday night
Speaker 1: as well, because we get in before everyone else obviously,
Speaker 1: but also we'll have a bit more research on this.
Speaker 1: For his part, Peter duttn't Remember, these laws only happened
Speaker 1: because both of the major parties have agreed.
Speaker 3: He said this, It's no secret that we've been discussing
Speaker 3: age care with the government. I want people to have
Speaker 3: dignity as they age. I want there to be sustainability
Speaker 3: in the age care system. I want people to know
Speaker 3: that when you or dad, a grandma, grandpa going too
Speaker 3: an age care setting, that they're getting the best care provided.
Speaker 3: And so we've been in discussions with the government to
Speaker 3: have a look at what they're proposing, and then we'll
Speaker 3: we'll make a decision as to what our next step
Speaker 3: will be.
Speaker 1: One thing that I certainly hope the opposition does not
Speaker 1: get involved in is another plan that was announced today
Speaker 1: which was another version of censoring the internet. Remember the
Speaker 1: word that was used over and over during the Voice
Speaker 1: campaign when they started to lose, and then they've been
Speaker 1: screaming from the rooftops after sixty percent of the country
Speaker 1: said hell no. Begins with an M. Misinformation, misinformation, misinformation.
Speaker 2: The misinformation which is there some misinformation.
Speaker 1: Now again, we all know what's true, what's not true,
Speaker 1: what's a lie? But misinformation is this new sort of
Speaker 1: somewhat made up middle word of course, it is generally
Speaker 1: interpreted by left wing think tanks and by governments and
Speaker 1: so called fact checkers, which of course is to always
Speaker 1: generally follow whatever the government says is true at the time.
Speaker 1: Now we know that there were many things that were
Speaker 1: ruled misinformation over the past couple of years that turned
Speaker 1: out to be stone cold truth. There was stuff that
Speaker 1: you knew at the absolute time was truth, like say
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden laptop, but it was all declared misinformation
Speaker 1: because the government at that time wanted to hide things
Speaker 1: that left wing of politics wanted to hide. That at
Speaker 1: the last presidential election. But here in Australia again there
Speaker 1: is apparently some great need for social media companies to
Speaker 1: be punished if they host misinformation. Now they tell us
Speaker 1: that media organizations are exempt. But my reading of it
Speaker 1: to this point is that it's about what you broadcast,
Speaker 1: not if somebody posts a link from a media organization
Speaker 1: on social media platform that, again a left wing think
Speaker 1: tank will turn around and suggest to be misinformation because
Speaker 1: it's not the government line. I've got the legislation, seventy
Speaker 1: five pages in length. I will read it in excruciating
Speaker 1: detail and get more advice. Again over the weekend. Be
Speaker 1: here Sunday night. But let's have a look here. The
Speaker 1: Australian newspaper again previewing this today that the second take
Speaker 1: on the Misinformation Bill the censoring of the Internet. I'm
Speaker 1: not calling it the misinformation bill. It is the censoring
Speaker 1: of the Internet. This is not just going after what
Speaker 1: you post on Facebook or Twitter. But if you're somebody
Speaker 1: who likes listening to a certain podcast or a certain
Speaker 1: watch a certain YouTube video and then again you want
Speaker 1: to share those on socials. This is what it's all about.
Speaker 1: Shutting down And as anyone remembers during the COVID times
Speaker 1: that yes, of course there's plenty of sources that just
Speaker 1: didn't tell the truth, even those that are trying to
Speaker 1: turn around and challenge the narrative. But there were plenty
Speaker 1: of people who were challenging the narrative and doing so
Speaker 1: in those formats. So as a free speech guy, this
Speaker 1: has massive concerns for me, because remember, what is misinformation
Speaker 1: is determined by government, by the bureaucracy of government, or
Speaker 1: by the henchmen of the left wings of the parties
Speaker 1: of government. Today, Sky News, which is generally speaking, been
Speaker 1: skeptical of what's been put up here. I don't say
Speaker 1: that as an official position. I'm just saying that of
Speaker 1: many of the articles that we've done as analysis skynews,
Speaker 1: dot com dot Au, they say that it's an attack
Speaker 1: on our freedoms. They of course is we But still
Speaker 1: the government revised Online Misinformation Bill SLAMM is having a
Speaker 1: chilling effect on free speech. Again, i'd say misinformation law,
Speaker 1: I say censoring the Internet, because Australians have a very
Speaker 1: different attitude to censoring the Internet than they do to misinformation.
Speaker 1: I'm not playing by Teal and Green and Radio National
Speaker 1: Talk here. Okay, this is from our article. Like the
Speaker 1: previous draft, the new laws would empower the Australian Communications
Speaker 1: and Media Authority to impose massive fines of up to
Speaker 1: five percent of global revenue on a social media platform
Speaker 1: that fails to adequately crack down on misinformation and disinformation
Speaker 1: on their platforms. Remember, the government decided what was true
Speaker 1: in COVID. The government will turn around and say that
Speaker 1: even when we can find data that pushes back against
Speaker 1: their narrative, that it ain't true and therefore the Minister
Speaker 1: the Communications Authority would have even greater power to shut
Speaker 1: down alternative views and by that men alternative facts, are
Speaker 1: men alternative views to whatever their view is of the day.
Speaker 1: The ACMA will be also given powers to approve enforcibility
Speaker 1: of codes for dealing with misinformation and disinformation. And interestingly,
Speaker 1: here are we talking about codes that are exclusively for
Speaker 1: the Internet or do they extend to the areas they
Speaker 1: currently regulate television radio ACTMA doesn't have play a role
Speaker 1: in things like the Press Council, But does it extend
Speaker 1: again to the opinion piece in the newspaper that someone
Speaker 1: objects to? Again, I think when somebody is wrong, the
Speaker 1: best way to deal with it is to argue why
Speaker 1: they are wrong, not to pretend that they are not
Speaker 1: allowed a voice. For his part, the Home Affairs Minister
Speaker 1: and a free speech advocate, James Patterson, he feels like
Speaker 1: I do. This is not what it seems.
Speaker 4: Well, I think we're going to get ourselves into a
Speaker 4: very dangerous state of affairs if we allow, for example,
Speaker 4: during an election campaign, a American or Chinese headquartered social
Speaker 4: media platform decide what Australians can and cannot hear from
Speaker 4: political candidates and political parties. I think we always have
Speaker 4: to have a strong bias for free speeches.
Speaker 1: On all right now. I don't want anyone to be
Speaker 1: given safe haven for lies, but I think the way
Speaker 1: to combat them is to say this is wrong. Let
Speaker 1: me explain why. If you read an article that you
Speaker 1: see as being wrong, then feel free to write your
Speaker 1: own version of it in anywhere from your sub stack
Speaker 1: to the paper and all in between. There's plenty of
Speaker 1: new ways to push back rather than again people who've
Speaker 1: always hated people of the right using this as a
Speaker 1: way of deliberately trying to shut down the arguments that
Speaker 1: push back against a pretty draconian system which is being
Speaker 1: proposed right now now. Also, political lies apparently are going
Speaker 1: to be captured inside the misinformation regime. Now, remember the
Speaker 1: political lie of the Labor Party of oh, they're planning
Speaker 1: to privatize medicare. Well, they of course said that, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that it clearly was not true, despite the
Speaker 1: fact the government, the opposition of the government at the
Speaker 1: time it said no, no, no, no no. They said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: there's this report somewhere that proves our point. Would things
Speaker 1: like medi scare be banned under this again, you'd have
Speaker 1: a scenario where one side of politics says, well, this
Speaker 1: is your plan, because we've got the piece of paper
Speaker 1: and the other side of politics that says, well, no,
Speaker 1: it's not who adjudicates this is it a bunch of
Speaker 1: again people with loyalties to the party of power at
Speaker 1: any one time. And this affects people on the left
Speaker 1: and the right because we get the governments we like
Speaker 1: and don't like every few years. The Minister has incredible
Speaker 1: powers under this as well to be able to see
Speaker 1: something they personally don't like and to refer it to
Speaker 1: the system to be put through the ringer. This is important. Meantime,
Speaker 1: Another Liberal Party perspective on this comes from James McGrath,
Speaker 1: again belling the cat that this looks like something far
Speaker 1: more benign, but once you actually lift up the hood
Speaker 1: and have a look at censoring the internet, it's not
Speaker 1: a good idea.
Speaker 5: A Liberal National Party will always support freedom of speech.
Speaker 5: We're not going to support any bill that attempts to
Speaker 5: curtail freedom of speech. We're particularly worried about the fact
Speaker 5: that the Minister can direct an investigation into someone's exercise
Speaker 5: of freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: That is so wrong.
Speaker 5: No minister, whether especially a Laber or Green minister, should
Speaker 5: be into hearing with our god given right to express
Speaker 5: our freedom speech in this country.
Speaker 1: Of course, the problem with this is that we don't
Speaker 1: have free speech in Australia. Have the illusion of free
Speaker 1: speech in Australia everything from defamation laws to now potentially
Speaker 1: misinformation or censoring the Internet laws decency standards, which again
Speaker 1: are patrolled by people who want to shut down people
Speaker 1: like Kyle and Jackie Oh, despite the fact that there
Speaker 1: are two million people each and every day who listen
Speaker 1: to them. This is the sickly slope of someone's judgment
Speaker 1: about who can and can't play for obvious reasons. If
Speaker 1: you to fame someone, if you tell an obvious and
Speaker 1: provable lie, then there's consequences. If somebody simply disagrees with
Speaker 1: you or presents our whole collection of information that yes,
Speaker 1: confronts your argument, but if your argument is based in
Speaker 1: something that you can prove to be the data that
Speaker 1: you chose to form your opinion about. To me, I
Speaker 1: don't want the government involved in this whatsoever. We'll see
Speaker 1: what happens in the next couple of days. Now, state
Speaker 1: premiers around the country well as porketting I think once said,
Speaker 1: don't get between them and a bucket of money. Well,
Speaker 1: the bucket of money that exists for the state premiers,
Speaker 1: local government and the federal government is extraordinary. According to
Speaker 1: Bureau of Statistics, in the financial year of twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two to twenty three, the total amount of revenue that
Speaker 1: came to all three levels of government in Australia in
Speaker 1: one year was three quarters of a trillion dollars seven
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty five point eight b four billion dollars. Yet,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that they all collected in three quarters
Speaker 1: of one t four trillion dollars in one year, state
Speaker 1: governments in particular have run things like our health system
Speaker 1: right into the ground now. They make announcements every election
Speaker 1: where they say ten percent more of this, and one
Speaker 1: thousand and more that and fifty five more this than that.
Speaker 1: But the reality of the health system as it exists
Speaker 1: right now and certainly administered by mostly labor governments around
Speaker 1: the country, but it's liberal governments too. Hospital ramping is
Speaker 1: a disgrace. Could somebody tell me how if state federal
Speaker 1: local governments get three quarters of a tee for trillion dollars?
Speaker 1: How in almost every state hospital ramping is the worst
Speaker 1: it's ever been, ever been. Hospital ramping, of course, is
Speaker 1: when you call Triple O, you get into the ambulance,
Speaker 1: the ambulance takes to the hospital, there's no pardon me,
Speaker 1: there's no space in the hospital, which means if you
Speaker 1: call Triple O you mightn't get an ambulance. In places
Speaker 1: like Victoria, we know that when people haven't been able
Speaker 1: to access the Triple O system, thirty three people died,
Speaker 1: but the government got re elected because they lighty about
Speaker 1: how great the system is. You know, we've shown you
Speaker 1: how many stories about people when it comes to hospitals.
Speaker 1: That's just one example of what I think is a
Speaker 1: gaping hole between what comes in and the results that
Speaker 1: come out. But specifically, I also want to talk about
Speaker 1: hospitals here. This was a story that was on seven
Speaker 1: News a couple of days ago in Sydney. It's been
Speaker 1: reheated by the Daily Mail and it is in and
Speaker 1: around the Bankstown Hospital. This was on one of those
Speaker 1: days when there weren't enough beds, which meant there was
Speaker 1: hospital ramping, and when people turned up at the emergency
Speaker 1: room there were so few beds that people were lying
Speaker 1: on the floor in pain. Have a look at this
Speaker 1: image and tell me are we doing something wrong? If
Speaker 1: the federal state and local governments get three quarters of
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars in one year. But this is what
Speaker 1: your fellow Australian may well be met with if they
Speaker 1: end up turning to a hospital in pain. It's a
Speaker 1: disgrace and you should put maximum pressure on anyone currently
Speaker 1: involved in the administration of these hospital systems because they
Speaker 1: are failing. Which brings me to Queensland and yet another
Speaker 1: reason why you should flush this mob in the next
Speaker 1: few weeks. Today was the last of parliamentary sitting before
Speaker 1: the upcoming Queensland election. I hope it is the final
Speaker 1: day that we see this bloke, Stephen Miles as the
Speaker 1: Premier in that chamber. I hope it is the last
Speaker 1: day that we see Shannon Fentaman in that chamber as
Speaker 1: the Health Minister, that a Vet Darth as the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of other people who have absolutely
Speaker 1: screwed Queensland and think that you are so stupid that
Speaker 1: you can be bought off for the whole collection of
Speaker 1: giveaways that are really about setting land mines for an
Speaker 1: incoming LNP government. You see when they do things like
Speaker 1: artificially pushed down things like public transport fares, if they
Speaker 1: inevitably turn up, then Labor will turn around and say
Speaker 1: under the LNP public transport faares have gone up six
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve percent, see with one thousand dollars of
Speaker 1: a credit. When it comes to your power bills, they
Speaker 1: will again turn around and say at the next election,
Speaker 1: should they be coming in from opposition, they will of
Speaker 1: course say your power bills have gone up by seven
Speaker 1: thousand percent under an LMP government. That's the game that's
Speaker 1: being played right here. But I want to show you
Speaker 1: here is the back and forth in the last question
Speaker 1: time and pick who you think should be the Premier
Speaker 1: of Queensland. I think it's David Crucifooley and Daylight.
Speaker 6: Second, will the Premier apologize to all of them? Or
Speaker 6: does the Premier prefer to end this fifty seventh Parliament
Speaker 6: written into the pages of history, always denying any responsibility
Speaker 6: for the youth crime crisis.
Speaker 7: The leader of the Opposition talks about apologies.
Speaker 5: And he hates being held responsible for what Campbell Newman
Speaker 5: and he did, but he has never once apologized.
Speaker 1: He has never.
Speaker 2: Done to the fourteen thousand Queensland as he's signable.
Speaker 1: Seriously, they're still doing the Campbell Newman thing please speaking
Speaker 1: of how good is it? The Kempbell Newman and Anastasia
Speaker 1: Palachet will be here on Queensland election night on the panel.
Speaker 1: How good is that going to be? Looking forward to it?
Speaker 1: And of course this bloke thinks that the traditional media,
Speaker 1: the ones who have actually followed the failures of his government,
Speaker 1: well it's going to report how bad his government's been.
Speaker 1: So let's try and get to the kids via social media.
Speaker 1: Taxpayer thundered, of course, have look at the type of
Speaker 1: garbage that is being shoved down the throats of certain people.
Speaker 1: If your feed happens to accidentally have this bloke turning
Speaker 1: up in it, again, this is what this bloke does
Speaker 1: with his time as the Premiere of Queensland, his ministers
Speaker 1: the same, please please. News out of Sydney today is
Speaker 1: that the electorate of North Sydney, the former seat of
Speaker 1: course of Joe Hockey before that Ted Mack gone, the
Speaker 1: seat will be has been jettisoned, which does mean one
Speaker 1: for you a teal in the Parliament, but the actual
Speaker 1: person may well end up running. Kayla Tink is the
Speaker 1: current MP and today she is saying she is not
Speaker 1: going to run against any of the existing Teals, certainly
Speaker 1: not going up in some I don't know Teal fight
Speaker 1: where Zalie Steger would most likely win and probably hold
Speaker 1: on to the seat of Warringer. I think that's hers
Speaker 1: to lose whenever she chooses at some point in time.
Speaker 1: Alas that Northern Beaches well wow, okay, but she's going
Speaker 1: to run somewhere else. My prediction she'll run in a
Speaker 1: seat called Bradfield. Bradfield is in the north shore of Sydney.
Speaker 1: It's a place that voted yes despite the fact that
Speaker 1: it has a liberal MP. It voted yes at the
Speaker 1: last at the referendum. So watch this place, watch this space.
Speaker 1: Whether the Teal effect means she gets elected or not,
Speaker 1: we'll all find out together. But I think that's where
Speaker 1: she will end up popping up. But you'll have a
Speaker 1: fight with a kind of Teal who lost at the
Speaker 1: last election, but then was so passionate that she actually
Speaker 1: set up like a fake electorate office, like she was
Speaker 1: pretending to be the MP. So bring on the Teal
Speaker 1: on Teal fight. That may well happen there something different
Speaker 1: before we get into American politics and the conversation tonight,
Speaker 1: No Sooksno lefties, I should tell you this Thursday night,
Speaker 1: the beautiful Megan Meghan McCain, Meghan Kelly, which was a
Speaker 1: little bit later. So I love this in the Channel
Speaker 1: nine papers today, which was that they have got their
Speaker 1: hands on some photos which had been taken by a
Speaker 1: collection of tradees who were making their way in and
Speaker 1: a rand Antarctica. Now I'm sure they were doing great work,
Speaker 1: but in between their great work, they took some amazing
Speaker 1: photos like have a look at these. Now. I have
Speaker 1: no plans on going anytime soon, but the idea that
Speaker 1: you can see the Aurora estrallis the Southern lights as
Speaker 1: they call them, the snow that's falling down this wonderful
Speaker 1: frozen soap bubble I think it is. And then anyone
Speaker 1: who's ever been in the snow loves to take this
Speaker 1: photo where you take the boiling water and flip it
Speaker 1: up and it looks like an explosion like that. I
Speaker 1: think that's very cool, very cute. I'll tell you exactly
Speaker 1: where you can find that. A little bit later now
Speaker 1: lefties think that they have killed off finally the dragon
Speaker 1: that is Donald Trump. Of course that's rubbish. We all
Speaker 1: know the debate that took place yesterday. Well, hard to
Speaker 1: tell anyone if you're scoring these things. Of course, Harris
Speaker 1: ended up winning the debate, quote unquote, but we all
Speaker 1: know that it was a very slanted room, that there's
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of people who thought, hey, she was
Speaker 1: too passive aggressive. I think African American men are going
Speaker 1: to be fascinating to watch where they go in the
Speaker 1: next little while, and obviously as soon as Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: getting into dogs and cats and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: And please don't see me in the videos. I've seen them.
Speaker 1: I've read it all. But you get the point, right,
Speaker 1: He doesn't need to win you over. It doesn't need
Speaker 1: to win me over. He needs to win independence over,
Speaker 1: and he needs to win suburban and women over all. Right,
Speaker 1: currently his lead with men is greater than she is
Speaker 1: with females. But we'll get to the magic factor that's
Speaker 1: going to change all of that in a moment or
Speaker 1: two's time. But again, I said, lefties thought that she
Speaker 1: was playing some sort of four D chest doing this
Speaker 1: guy in when of course all she was doing was
Speaker 1: being passive aggressive. She poked the bear and the bear
Speaker 1: swiped back, but he was the analysis of the view.
Speaker 7: Vice President came on that stage, she reached for his.
Speaker 8: Hand and she was almost behind his podium because they
Speaker 8: were clearly not going to meet in the middle. Do
Speaker 8: you think that set the tone for the knafe because
Speaker 8: I thought, well, it was such an amazing roll off.
Speaker 1: Please meantime an opinion piece in the Turnbull Times, well
Speaker 1: it says that if you think anything but Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: just eviscerating, destroying Donald Trump, leaving his carcass behind. If
Speaker 1: you think anything other than that, then apparently shame on you.
Speaker 1: We were realistic about his performance, but we absolutely gave
Speaker 1: it and rightly so in my view, to those moderators
Speaker 1: and how rigged that game ended up being. We'll get
Speaker 1: to Meghan Kelly in a moment or two's time. But
Speaker 1: the Taylor Swift endorsement. Now again this global marketing genius,
Speaker 1: who is a global marketing genius who my daughters love,
Speaker 1: and again worthy person time Person of the Year. But
Speaker 1: she's always kind of been on the left of recent cycles.
Speaker 1: She's never been pro Trump.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she's from Tennessee, but the city bits of Tennessee
Speaker 1: are very different than the rule bits of Tennessee. Anyway,
Speaker 1: This again was NBC in the United States, saying Tita
Speaker 1: is going to change it all, baby, and he won't
Speaker 1: be able to shake it off. See what I did.
Speaker 7: Just moments after the debate.
Speaker 9: It was the Instagram post that ricocheted across the Internet
Speaker 9: and social media.
Speaker 1: Taylor swiftner endors Madam vp kum.
Speaker 9: A left territt pop megastar Taylor Swift telling her two
Speaker 9: hundred and eighty three million followers that after seeing artificial
Speaker 9: intelligence of her falsely endorsing Donald Trump, she felt the
Speaker 9: need to be transparent.
Speaker 1: Rubbish. No, she just was on the bandwagon and she's
Speaker 1: there now. The main power that she has, apart from
Speaker 1: advocating for the candidate, is she does actually tell people
Speaker 1: who are young to get registered. You're allowed to register
Speaker 1: to vote. There's not cheating to tell people to do so,
Speaker 1: so there will be a spike in that. So the poles,
Speaker 1: nothing that comes out in the past twenty four hours
Speaker 1: is credible because of just how fast these things turn around.
Speaker 1: So what do we have to look at betting markets?
Speaker 1: She was down, she's up, but she's not way up. Okay,
Speaker 1: Now again, you'd prefer to be fifty to forty nine,
Speaker 1: but under this model, still people believe that Trump would
Speaker 1: win in Pennsylvania, but the margin is much shorter right
Speaker 1: now and Nevada. If he does both of those, of
Speaker 1: course he's the president. The prediction models, yes, they changed
Speaker 1: as well. However, Trump remains until the debate bump polling
Speaker 1: comes in sixty one percent chance of winning the presidency.
Speaker 1: But as you can see, we really are only talking
Speaker 1: here about a changeover. Just before the start of the month.
Speaker 1: Kennedy dropping out, that's when things started to break away
Speaker 1: and now start to come back together. Nate Silver, who
Speaker 1: puts all of this together, on his podcast today and
Speaker 1: he explained that his expectations are that most likely she
Speaker 1: ends up with a two point bounce. Now that's nationally
Speaker 1: really kind of irrelevant, because it still would mean that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump would most likely win the states that he
Speaker 1: needs to win. But if there's a two point change
Speaker 1: in those states, then obviously she would end up as
Speaker 1: the person to beat. But it's only still not even
Speaker 1: halfway through September. We're going to get all the way
Speaker 1: to the end of September, then all the way through October.
Speaker 1: I can't wait to be in the United States for
Speaker 1: that election and to carry you through with all the
Speaker 1: data between now and then and to talk to my
Speaker 1: wonderful friend Meghan.
Speaker 8: I feel like most men are watching that saying I
Speaker 8: can't wait to vote against her? What man watching the oh?
Speaker 7: And this is my favorite?
Speaker 1: Oh? Please please? Right?
Speaker 8: I feel like most men had their balls busted by
Speaker 8: this kind of a very annoying woman, and probably now
Speaker 8: more than ever, can't wait to to the polls and
Speaker 8: vote against her.
Speaker 7: You tell me, I.
Speaker 1: Think it's I think it's a very fair point. I
Speaker 1: absolutely agree with her. We'll wait and see what happens altogether.
Speaker 1: No sooks, no lefties, quick break back with more here
Speaker 1: on Paul Murray Live. Don't forget there's people floating above
Speaker 1: us right now in space? Cool right, all right, no sooks,
Speaker 1: no lefties. Freyer Leitch is here, and let me get
Speaker 1: a title right from the Mensies Research Center. She's so polite.
Speaker 1: I sit here and say that she's from you know,
Speaker 1: you name it right, She's been polite. She never corrected me,
Speaker 1: so I'm correcting myself the Mensies Research Center. Good on
Speaker 1: your rockstar, And of course from a Doni Media, our
Speaker 1: dear friend legend of Mount Cooper News Times had so
Speaker 1: much more around Brisbane, the wonderful Lisa got Lisa. Awesome
Speaker 1: to see you, so prayer. I'll start with you here.
Speaker 1: Censoring the Internet. I think that's what it is. It's
Speaker 1: not a misinformation bill. It is the censoring of the
Speaker 1: Internet the legislation itself. That's my trick to go and
Speaker 1: read it up Hill down Dale. I want to know
Speaker 1: what the definition of misinformation is. I want to know
Speaker 1: who is going to be policing that, how it works,
Speaker 1: how the complaint system works, What say you about what
Speaker 1: they're planning to do? What have you read?
Speaker 7: It is honestly unbelievable.
Speaker 10: I mean, the first time they tried to put this
Speaker 10: bill forward, it received tens of thousands of submissions from
Speaker 10: concerned public members who.
Speaker 7: Just want to have an opinion.
Speaker 10: There was backlash against this from the whole spectrum of politics,
Speaker 10: everyone from your civil liberties counsels to your law counsel
Speaker 10: to the Human Rights Commission. Even like everyone was against
Speaker 10: this crazy Yeah, yeah, We've never probably never seen something
Speaker 10: so unifying for the whole of politics in Australia as
Speaker 10: our opposition to this bill. So they've tried to rework
Speaker 10: it now, but the fundamental flaws are still there most foundationally,
Speaker 10: they have not been able to get around the core issue,
Speaker 10: which is, how on earth do you define misinformation? Who
Speaker 10: is going to be the arbored of what is true
Speaker 10: and false? They have no answer. They're trying to shift
Speaker 10: it from Akma and to the social media companies. The
Speaker 10: social media companies don't want to be the ones deciding that.
Speaker 10: On Matter's website, they say, we as a private company,
Speaker 10: do not want to decide what is and isn't true.
Speaker 10: That's why they have independent third party fact checkers like
Speaker 10: the r MIT fact Lab that hasn't published a single
Speaker 10: thing since Sky News exposed that it was biased against
Speaker 10: The Voice in August of last year. So this is
Speaker 10: just absolutely riddled with issues. But the fundamental problem that
Speaker 10: no legislation will ever be able to overcome is who
Speaker 10: decides what is the truth?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Hellelujah sing it well done. I mean, look again,
Speaker 1: my advice to anyone who wants to fight this, do
Speaker 1: not call it the misinformation bill. Call it the censoring
Speaker 1: the Internet bill. All right, stop labor censoring the Internet?
Speaker 1: Right that from all the way from the Greens, the
Speaker 1: Victorian socialists, One nation lives whatever, right, if you're opposing
Speaker 1: it's about censoring the Internet. Don't fall in for their terminology. Lisa,
Speaker 1: are we over the top here or do you think
Speaker 1: something is really going on here?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 11: I think you're right, And I think if you listen
Speaker 11: to you tonight talk about censoring the Internet, and you know,
Speaker 11: it's when you start getting sick of saying it, people
Speaker 11: start to hear it. So think about how you're each
Speaker 11: way elbow caught on. Most people don't really understand what
Speaker 11: they're talking about. When you hear someone say misinformation, it's
Speaker 11: one of those words now that the young people today
Speaker 11: are just sounds so old, but yeah, just throwing around randomly.
Speaker 11: They don't really understand what that is. And as Frey
Speaker 11: I said, there is no real definition as to what
Speaker 11: it will be like. We already have deformation in this country.
Speaker 11: You go to court to prove truth. Truth is how
Speaker 11: you stand up against defamation. I don't think we can
Speaker 11: rely on the social media companies to policit themselves. And
Speaker 11: it's terrifying to think that, particularly going into an election,
Speaker 11: you can have some bureaucrat somewhere deciding what should be
Speaker 11: on the Internet or what shouldn't because think about how
Speaker 11: many people now rely on those news feeds on their
Speaker 11: social media to actually understand what is happening in the world.
Speaker 11: They're england enough as it is most of the time.
Speaker 11: So if they're getting you know, if the algorithm itself
Speaker 11: isn't limiting what you're getting, then you're going to have
Speaker 11: these decisions made about what you are allowed to read.
Speaker 7: It's dangerous again.
Speaker 1: You know, they're going to turn around and they're going
Speaker 1: to say, oh, it doesn't affect the media organizations. It's
Speaker 1: not about what's on television, it's not about what's on radio.
Speaker 1: It's about what you see or hear on those places
Speaker 1: and repost right. And also for what I don't like
Speaker 1: is that one of the examples of while we absolutely
Speaker 1: need this is because what people may or may not
Speaker 1: have been tweeting in and around the Bondo stabbings now
Speaker 1: again in real time, government can't get involved in that
Speaker 1: even a couple of days or a week later, they
Speaker 1: can't get involved in in that. And I think that
Speaker 1: that is you know, I'm not going to fall for
Speaker 1: this garbage where they're going to pretend that the reason
Speaker 1: for it is this vague example, rather than turning around
Speaker 1: and saying, okay, last year there were this many parts
Speaker 1: that were misinformation. Here's examples, here's examples, here's examples. They
Speaker 1: didn't do it. I think just what they want to
Speaker 1: do is exactly what happened during the Voice, which is
Speaker 1: anything against the narrative or the sales pitch is defined
Speaker 1: as misinformation because if it was deformation, it'd be off
Speaker 1: to a court. If it was a lie, again, we
Speaker 1: have systems to be able to deal with that. If
Speaker 1: it was discriminatory, we'd be able to go and deal
Speaker 1: with that. It's about giving when all of that fails
Speaker 1: one little thing. It's a little bit like you know
Speaker 1: when cops want to crack down on certain communities, they go, look,
Speaker 1: we can't get you for this, but we'll get you
Speaker 1: for that. Al Capine, we can't get you for this,
Speaker 1: but we'll get you for taxes.
Speaker 7: That's what I reckon, spot on, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 10: I remember during the Voice campaign, I made a bunch
Speaker 10: of tiktoks about why I was voting no. They got
Speaker 10: over six million views and it actually got me onto
Speaker 10: the ABC's Q and A, which is quite an experience.
Speaker 10: I was up against Jed Kearney, who's a Labor member
Speaker 10: of Parliament, and I was the only one on the
Speaker 10: panel that had the balls to actually say why I
Speaker 10: was voting no. And as I'm speaking and articulating what
Speaker 10: we know the majority of Australians believe, she yells out,
Speaker 10: that's misinformation. That shows you exactly what is behind this bill.
Speaker 10: This is an attempt by Labor to silence dissenting opinions.
Speaker 10: They did it in the Voice and now they're rolling
Speaker 10: out the legislation to allow them to legally silence you
Speaker 10: as well.
Speaker 1: I love it, I love it. I can do it
Speaker 1: all night. But there's other things to talk about. Now.
Speaker 1: You've gone through the Queensland local government process, so I
Speaker 1: think a few months ago in Queensland, of course, but
Speaker 1: there is once coming up this weekend in New South
Speaker 1: Wales Victoria and ow Mat Nicholas rees in a few
Speaker 1: weeks after that. But let's get down to something here.
Speaker 1: Let's all be honest. No one has any idea who
Speaker 1: therese people are, all right, literally, like, if you're lucky
Speaker 1: enough to see a poster somewhere, okay, name, I don't
Speaker 1: know who that is, all right? Most people, you know,
Speaker 1: in the olden days, you used to go and double
Speaker 1: check the local paper and you read this sort of
Speaker 1: twenty five word blurb. Nowhere is anyone really going to
Speaker 1: sit around and literally google each and every one of
Speaker 1: the candidates, which means that we have this level of
Speaker 1: government that has strayed from its purpose, where people are
Speaker 1: being elected because people go bang bang bang, sayer, what
Speaker 1: do you think? Yeah, what do you think of that?
Speaker 11: I got recused to vote at the local election? I
Speaker 11: stood the accused to vote at the local election, and
Speaker 11: you're right, it wasn't that long ago here in Brisbane
Speaker 11: and people standing around me. They had no idea who
Speaker 11: they were voting for. They don't understand the difference in
Speaker 11: many of them as to what council is responsible for,
Speaker 11: what state's responsible for, or what even federal is responsible for.
Speaker 11: So no that they don't do the research going in.
Speaker 11: But I can tell you what, and I know you'll
Speaker 11: talk about it later, but the behavior at some of
Speaker 11: those polling booths was just embarrassing and outrageous.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, let's get to that right where again
Speaker 1: the pettiness like and again we all know what it's like,
Speaker 1: whether you've been around the board of a little athletics
Speaker 1: club or your footy clab let alone, all the rest
Speaker 1: of the councils, and you see all these people right
Speaker 1: the bully their way home and say we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about world affairs and all of this rubbish. Okay,
Speaker 1: we know what the main functions are, and there are
Speaker 1: people that are overtly trying to get onto these councils
Speaker 1: that have no interest in those basic functions. And again,
Speaker 1: no disrespect, I don't mind a bit of youth on there.
Speaker 1: But you know, one of the papers was out there
Speaker 1: today saying, look at all these nineteen year olds that
Speaker 1: are running great, but they don't know what it's like
Speaker 1: to drop a kid off at school. They don't know
Speaker 1: what it's like to all the planning decisions that come
Speaker 1: from a life after you're over the age of nineteen.
Speaker 1: But frey again the pettiness of this, the stuff people
Speaker 1: are doing to other people's posters, like smearing the worst
Speaker 1: possible stuff on it. Ideally I'd say that it's voluntary
Speaker 1: voting rather than compulsory for something like this, But how
Speaker 1: does anyone arm themselves with the information to know who
Speaker 1: the hell these people are.
Speaker 10: Yeah, look, I was actually helping out at a pre
Speaker 10: pole booth in Balmain, so the Inner West councils, extremely
Speaker 10: left wing. It was quite the experience. And I was
Speaker 10: out there in my blue Liberal T shirt. I think
Speaker 10: maybe one in ten people actually knew they had to vote.
Speaker 10: Most people just walked past and went, oh, is.
Speaker 7: There an election on? I thought that, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 10: But the behavior of so this is a Greens, Greens
Speaker 10: dominated area and they have been atrocious. There is a
Speaker 10: Jewish candidate in the Inner West who had Zionist scum
Speaker 10: written on her poster. She's been receiving anti Semitic abuse
Speaker 10: for almost ten years now. She's had swastikas drawn on
Speaker 10: her posters before as well, and we think it's members
Speaker 10: of the Greens doing this. It is just appalling behavior.
Speaker 10: But what really gets.
Speaker 1: Me the lawyers we don't know.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's alleged, right.
Speaker 10: But what really gets me is I had a member
Speaker 10: of the Greens come up to me. We had this
Speaker 10: great chat and he was just apologizing for how anti
Speaker 10: semitic the Greens had become, how pro terror they'd become.
Speaker 10: I and I just sat there thinking, why don't you
Speaker 10: say something. This is the problem with the Greens. They
Speaker 10: have gone so so far off the rails as a party.
Speaker 10: But nobody is willing to stand up and call them out.
Speaker 1: Correct, We'll see what happens. I think. Yes, I've got
Speaker 1: a theory about where the moderate Greens may end up.
Speaker 1: I'm working on. All the telling about the next to
Speaker 1: the wall got less than thirty seconds. So give me
Speaker 1: the bumper sticker version of winner or loser of the week, Lisa.
Speaker 11: Winner of the week, whoever was preparing Kamala Harris for
Speaker 11: that debate? That media team behind there did amazing work.
Speaker 11: And losers I'm taking out of context this week. The
Speaker 11: losers are the protesters in Melbourne. They are the pure
Speaker 11: definition of the Australian version of a loser.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 10: I agree with Lisa on the winner, and I think
Speaker 10: the losers are also the Victorian taxpayers who are paying
Speaker 10: for the police.
Speaker 1: Fifteen million barks apparently. Thank you, guys, I do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Adward's nosooks, no lefties, especially with fined up ladies. I
Speaker 1: love it all right. Speaking of Meghan Kelly straight after
Speaker 1: the break here on Palul Murray Life, there is no
Speaker 1: better person in front of a camera and on he
Speaker 1: than the wonderful Meghan Kirey. And she was amazing yesterday
Speaker 1: in her immediate hot take on the debate. Well, we're
Speaker 1: here a day later and it's time to talk to
Speaker 1: her from the United States. Megan, congrats on the way
Speaker 1: you handled it. We played it all on the show
Speaker 1: last night. Your immediate reaction, and you could see your
Speaker 1: rage because you're not like me, like someone who's just watching.
Speaker 1: You've done this, You've hosted these things before, and you
Speaker 1: could see that you were seething with rage because these
Speaker 1: people weren't just not playing fair. They were deliberately trying
Speaker 1: to kill off one of those two candidates.
Speaker 8: Absolutely, it was a three on one pileon. It was
Speaker 8: an ambush, and they went in there prepared to do it.
Speaker 7: Looking back on it now, going.
Speaker 8: Back, and you know, we pulled the transcript and you
Speaker 8: read it, you know all the questions and how it worked.
Speaker 8: And every single time Trump tried to bridge away or
Speaker 8: didn't answer the question and tried to answer either his
Speaker 8: own sort of thoughts, to offer his own thoughts on something,
Speaker 8: or even meander on defending himself against one of her attacks,
Speaker 8: they would bring him back to their difficult question, like
Speaker 8: the question was this. Every time she did that, she
Speaker 8: got a pass. They never never once did that to her.
Speaker 8: Every time he said something they didn't think was true,
Speaker 8: they fact checked him nine times out of ten.
Speaker 7: Their fact check was.
Speaker 8: Bs, it was made up, it was a lie, or
Speaker 8: it was an opinion, which had no place at a
Speaker 8: presidential debate.
Speaker 7: How many fact checks did they do of her? None? None.
Speaker 7: Her lies were all over the place.
Speaker 8: She started the debate by saying, you're going to hear
Speaker 8: a lot of lies tonight, and indeed that was true,
Speaker 8: but they were from her, and then, as if on
Speaker 8: c in order to help ABC News in its attempt
Speaker 8: to stick the stiletto in Trump's jugular, you get CNN's
Speaker 8: Daniel Dale, the official fact checker of CNN, who looks
Speaker 8: at this debate and says he lied thirty three times.
Speaker 7: Kamala Harris won.
Speaker 8: That's what the Republicans are up against in this country.
Speaker 7: I mean, just off the top of my head.
Speaker 8: She lied in the way she kept saying he's responsible
Speaker 8: for twenty twenty five, even though he explicitly said that
Speaker 8: he had nothing to do with it. She lied by
Speaker 8: calling these Trump abortion bands in which he could He
Speaker 8: repeatedly said he doesn't want the federal government to have
Speaker 8: anything to do with this. This is a state's rights issue.
Speaker 8: She knows he has nothing to do with the abortion
Speaker 8: bands in state by state. The good people on both
Speaker 8: sides live about Charlotteesville, the bloodbath lie. There were so
Speaker 8: many that you, as a moderator, if you wanted to
Speaker 8: get into the fact checking business, you absolutely could have
Speaker 8: called her out on that. In my view, would have
Speaker 8: been inappropriate at presidential debate. But if you're going to
Speaker 8: do it to him, you have an obligation to do
Speaker 8: it to her. And as I mentioned, those fact checks
Speaker 8: themselves erroneous, opinion layden and totally out of place. And
Speaker 8: when it's on one side, now it's election interference. Now
Speaker 8: you actually do look like a partisan act. The only
Speaker 8: silver lining to any of this is that I have
Speaker 8: to leave that the viewers at home watching this understood,
Speaker 8: if not explicitly, then on a gut level, this is unfair.
Speaker 8: I can sense when I'm watching an unfair fight. When
Speaker 8: I watch a prize fight between two boxers and the
Speaker 8: ref keeps stepping in when the one starts pummeling the other,
Speaker 8: but not when it goes the other way, I know something.
Speaker 8: I know one person is in an inferior position when
Speaker 8: it comes to a fair contest, and I naturally start
Speaker 8: to feel some empathy for that person and actually at
Speaker 8: the same time disdain for the two pummelers or in
Speaker 8: this case, the three of them. And so ultimately today
Speaker 8: I feel like they could have gone so far that
Speaker 8: the backlash will be against them and Kamala Harris as
Speaker 8: opposed to against Donald Trump, who took the beating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I also think that for a lot of people
Speaker 1: who sit and watch it live, I'm I'm entirely sure
Speaker 1: that everyone sits there forever because these things. I don't
Speaker 1: know why they're on side light. I know, sort of
Speaker 1: prime time differently in different countries, but it feels like
Speaker 1: this thing keeps going so late, and I reckon if
Speaker 1: you're watching the first thirty minutes, I just couldn't help
Speaker 1: but think that this wasn't just the Team Blue World
Speaker 1: versus the Team Red World. I think there was a
Speaker 1: little bit of an idea where like, maybe just as
Speaker 1: a bloke, but I was watching and watching the whole passive,
Speaker 1: aggressive facial nonsense from her, which was all, Oh, he's
Speaker 1: so crazy, he's so unbelievable. Oh really all of that.
Speaker 1: It was like, Man, this is not divorce court, Okay,
Speaker 1: I get it you don't like him, but the idea
Speaker 1: that he's.
Speaker 12: Just such a supercilious, such a supercilious figure.
Speaker 1: That why is he even here.
Speaker 12: Well, he's here because he actually won a nomination, not
Speaker 12: like you, where you and your mates, you know, put
Speaker 12: Biden out of his misery and then you slid in
Speaker 12: and the media's pretended that you're.
Speaker 5: Not who you are.
Speaker 8: Oh, I'm dying to talk to you about this more.
Speaker 8: Because in this contest it's boiled down to male versus female.
Speaker 8: It's not to say Trump does of millions of female
Speaker 8: supporters and she has millions of male supporters too, but
Speaker 8: at the edges, like, what's making the difference in this
Speaker 8: race are the men are going overwhelmingly for Trump by
Speaker 8: some fifteen point margin, and women are going by a
Speaker 8: ten point margin for Kamala Harris. And I was looking
Speaker 8: at this thinking what man is looking at that saying.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I might sit it out.
Speaker 8: On an election day. I might be busy, might be
Speaker 8: too busy to get to the polls. I feel like
Speaker 8: most men are watching that saying I can't wait to
Speaker 8: vote against her? What man watching the Oh? And this
Speaker 8: is my favorite?
Speaker 13: Oh place place right like I feel like most men
Speaker 13: had their balls busted by this kind of a very
Speaker 13: annoying woman, and probably now more than ever can't wait
Speaker 13: to rush to the polls and vote against her.
Speaker 1: You tell me, Megan, we love you. I want everyone
Speaker 1: every day watched the show. You can find it on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Serious ax saying if you got it, eat on an
Speaker 1: eightive VPN in Australia right now. Bit the busses don't
Speaker 1: know that. Megan love you to say you.
Speaker 5: Great.
Speaker 7: To see you too, Paul, see you next week.