Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. What is the Republican
Speaker 1: Party going to do? What does it mean to be
Speaker 1: a Republican today? These are all questions that people are
Speaker 1: posing with some frequency, considering that we've had a rough
Speaker 1: go of a the last few months, haven't we. Let's
Speaker 1: just all say it. It has not been what we
Speaker 1: were planning on. Donald Trump is not president anymore. Democrats
Speaker 1: have control of the House and the Senate, you know
Speaker 1: how this all goes. And we haven't heard from Trump
Speaker 1: in a while, and that is meant that the media
Speaker 1: has been able to construct this narrative of a Republican
Speaker 1: Party that is about to either go into tremendous fracture,
Speaker 1: a GOP civil war as they're calling it, or that
Speaker 1: will just start to fade into irrelevancy. Donald Trump showed
Speaker 1: up at Sepack, I was down there in Florida, and
Speaker 1: and here's what he said about what it means right
Speaker 1: now for the GOP. What is the GOP play sixteen?
Speaker 1: The future of the Republican Party is as a party
Speaker 1: that defends the social economic and cultural interests and values
Speaker 1: of working American families of every race, color, and creed.
Speaker 1: That's why the party is growing so rapidly, and it's
Speaker 1: becoming a different party, and it's becoming a party of love.
Speaker 1: You have to see outside the streets. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: such love the Flags Party of Love. That was Trump
Speaker 1: being Trump. But I do think that that ultimately we
Speaker 1: should start to embrace the idea that the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is about making this country better for all people, and
Speaker 1: that our ideas are in fact rooted in care and
Speaker 1: consideration for our fellow human beings. Right. I want safer
Speaker 1: streets for everybody, want better and cheaper healthcare options for everybody.
Speaker 1: I want things in this country to be working well
Speaker 1: for all the American people. I don't have an US
Speaker 1: versus them mentality. I have a what's best for all
Speaker 1: of us mentality. I think the Republicans shouldn't shy away
Speaker 1: from verbalizing that because the other side says Republicans are racist,
Speaker 1: they're classist, they're evil, they're misogynists, you know, the xenophobic.
Speaker 1: They have all these things they always say, and that's
Speaker 1: actually the opposite of what the Republican Party is all
Speaker 1: about that's the opposite of what it means to be
Speaker 1: a conservative. I also agree with the Great Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: when he says, when he would say this was not
Speaker 1: a one off, that you shouldn't walk away from the
Speaker 1: term republican and only embraced conservative. Conservatism is the belief,
Speaker 1: that's the ideology. But the home, the vessel for conservatism
Speaker 1: in American today is the Republican Party. And if you're wondering,
Speaker 1: what do we say for, what's the point of it all?
Speaker 1: And I get that frustration. I know, we see what's
Speaker 1: going on with Biden, and you know, Hiden Biden, he's
Speaker 1: out of the basement now in the White House, but
Speaker 1: he might as well as be in the basement. No leadership,
Speaker 1: no vision, just a bunch of leftists around him that
Speaker 1: are that are actually pushing the levers and making the
Speaker 1: making the calls that the progressives want him to. And
Speaker 1: we look at all this and you say, what what
Speaker 1: are we here for? Why Why do we we exist?
Speaker 1: Because this country deserves a better future than what the
Speaker 1: Democrats can give it. The Conservatives exist because we look
Speaker 1: at history and we look at what has happened, and
Speaker 1: we make decisions based upon what we think is the
Speaker 1: best and most rational evidence of what will be best
Speaker 1: for all of us, and a simple way to put this.
Speaker 1: But we don't have to get overly eloquent about any
Speaker 1: of this. We're gonna say, somebody's got to stand in
Speaker 1: the way of the crazy. Maybe that's the best way
Speaker 1: to say, somebody's got to tell the other side sorry,
Speaker 1: you're not going to just get to run us off
Speaker 1: the cliff, hitting the accelerator full speed without at least
Speaker 1: some folks telling you, what are you doing? Stop? This
Speaker 1: is a bad idea, This will be destructive. Don't do
Speaker 1: this right, whether it's the absurd, ideologically driven anti science
Speaker 1: attacks on fossil fuel, the continuation of the lockdown mania
Speaker 1: that we've seen, you, complete repudiation from the Democrats of
Speaker 1: so many lessons that we've already learned about what works
Speaker 1: and what doesn't work when it comes to public policy.
Speaker 1: How we can actually make people safer on the streets.
Speaker 1: Here's the answer, Not by blaming cops. That's step one
Speaker 1: is stop blaming the cops. They're not the ones committing
Speaker 1: the crimes. They're not the reason that people are getting
Speaker 1: shot in urban areas of the country at higher rates
Speaker 1: now they have in a long time, and we had
Speaker 1: a huge spike in crime over the last year during
Speaker 1: the pandemic year. Of course, there's so much going on
Speaker 1: right now, and it's it's incumbent upon us. It's Conservative's
Speaker 1: role right now to say, what are you doing, crazy left,
Speaker 1: what are you doing? Stop it? And here's why, here's
Speaker 1: a better way. They may not listen to us, and
Speaker 1: they probably almost certainly won't, but we still have to
Speaker 1: say it. We need it to be clear to people
Speaker 1: there's an alternative because we are going to get control back.
Speaker 1: We are going to be at a better future. It
Speaker 1: will happen. I know. Right now we're at a little
Speaker 1: bit of a low point. Right the Republican Party feels
Speaker 1: like what the heck is going on now. You can
Speaker 1: listen to some people in the GOP who will tell
Speaker 1: you not a single state House got flipped in the
Speaker 1: last election. We gained seats in the House, but Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi still speaker and they still have a majority. We
Speaker 1: are fifty fifty in the Senate. You know, they can
Speaker 1: put a happy face on it, but come on, folks,
Speaker 1: we needed to maintain control of the Senate. It was
Speaker 1: crazy that we lost both those Georgia Senate seats. I mean,
Speaker 1: there were some blunders and we had an incumbent president
Speaker 1: who lost, and we can talk about why and what
Speaker 1: the other side did and everything else. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, Joe Biden's president, Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: not This is disappointing, but it's not the end. It's
Speaker 1: not a moment of panic that we should have. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is, in fact, just the period in which we're
Speaker 1: going to see people coming together. They're talking about GOP
Speaker 1: civil war. I think you're going to see GOOP consolidation. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump said maybe he will run again. He teased
Speaker 1: the idea of running again. He said he might win
Speaker 1: for a third time. But here's what's very clear. Trump
Speaker 1: is engaged, the people around him are engaged, and the
Speaker 1: movement will continue. It's not over. It's not going away.
Speaker 1: This is what I was saying the day after the
Speaker 1: election in November. The ideas continue, the lessons learned from
Speaker 1: the last four years continue. Here's what the former president says.
Speaker 1: Trumpism actually means play eighteen. It means low taxes and
Speaker 1: eliminating job killing regulations. Trumpism it means strong borders, but
Speaker 1: people coming into our country based on a system of merit,
Speaker 1: so they come in and they can help us, as
Speaker 1: opposed to coming here and not being good for us,
Speaker 1: including criminals, of which there are many. It means no
Speaker 1: riots in the streets. It means law enforcement. Those are
Speaker 1: all good things, aren't they. Law enforcement, No riots, and notice,
Speaker 1: no riots. We don't approve of some riots and not others.
Speaker 1: No riots, No use of force for political means. Taking
Speaker 1: into the hands of mobs never acceptable. We have principles.
Speaker 1: Unlike the left, they just have whatever achieves power in
Speaker 1: a short term sense. That's what their focus is. Always on.
Speaker 1: Strong borders, no riots in the streets, low taxes. These
Speaker 1: are all very viable paths for this country. And I
Speaker 1: have to remind everybody that we were in a fluke year,
Speaker 1: and we were in a once in a century pandemic.
Speaker 1: That's just a fact. And the incumbent president lost. Now, yes,
Speaker 1: I believe very strongly that if Donald Trump had run
Speaker 1: for reelection and say the fall of twenty nineteen, based
Speaker 1: on the decisions the actual governance, he would have won.
Speaker 1: But that wasn't the that wasn't the hand we were dealt.
Speaker 1: That's not what we That's not what we had to
Speaker 1: go back into the election cycle with, and so we
Speaker 1: did the best we could with what we had. It
Speaker 1: was a very difficult year in the media lied so
Speaker 1: much about what was going on, and continue too, And
Speaker 1: I'm going to tackle that in a moment, but I'm
Speaker 1: here to just tell you stay in the fight and
Speaker 1: stay focused, being with all those conservatives that see back,
Speaker 1: listening to them, talking to them, hearing those speakers for days,
Speaker 1: and then of course Trump's speech at the very end,
Speaker 1: it was a reminder of what the conservative movement means
Speaker 1: in America, what we're trying to accomplish now, what the
Speaker 1: stakes are, of course, and that there are millions and
Speaker 1: millions of us across the country who don't think that,
Speaker 1: you know, canceling Keystone Excel is a good idea. Don't
Speaker 1: want open borders, don't blame the cops for the crime
Speaker 1: that criminals commit. Don't think that big government and the
Speaker 1: state control of every aspect of your life and every
Speaker 1: aspect of the economy will be good for any of us.
Speaker 1: We're here, folks, and we're just getting We're just getting
Speaker 1: going now. The machinery on our side is mobilizing, and
Speaker 1: the Biden squad. Those folks are all going to have
Speaker 1: to find themselves playing a whole lot of defense and
Speaker 1: it's going to be much more challenging than I think
Speaker 1: they realized when they were popping the champagne corks back
Speaker 1: in November. Trump reminded us of all of that and more.
Speaker 1: Whether he's the nominee or it's someone else in four years,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. This is about conservatism. This is about
Speaker 1: a Trumpian approach or you know, trump tactics in the
Speaker 1: pursuit of conservative policies at how to wage a successful
Speaker 1: opposition for the hearts and minds of the American people
Speaker 1: at this point in time. And we have the tools,
Speaker 1: we have great messengers, we have fantastic results in the
Speaker 1: state of Florida to show, and so now now begins
Speaker 1: that work. Two years the mid terms, It's gonna go
Speaker 1: by in a flash. We do the work of speaking
Speaker 1: the truth about America here every day. We all do it.
Speaker 1: That's our mission, that's our plans. You're in the freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast to
Speaker 1: get the latest from Buck at buck sexton dot com
Speaker 1: and in one of his first official x which was
Speaker 1: incredible because again he talked about energy. He never said
Speaker 1: he was going to do this. He canceled the Keystone
Speaker 1: XEL pipeline, destroying not the eight thousand or the nine thousand,
Speaker 1: or the eleven thousand jobs that you hear, but forty
Speaker 1: two thousand great paying jobs on just about day one. Right.
Speaker 1: He never talked about that during a debate because he
Speaker 1: wouldn't have gotten away with it. Well he would have,
Speaker 1: because they cheated so much, it probably wouldn't have been
Speaker 1: That's just one example of what I've been telling you
Speaker 1: since Biden came into office. Now that they told us
Speaker 1: that it was good old blue collar Joe, the moderate,
Speaker 1: the centrist, you know, no big deal, And what we've gotten,
Speaker 1: of course, is somebody who doesn't really differ all that
Speaker 1: much from what any other Democrat that ran. I mean, remember,
Speaker 1: they had like a cast of thousands running in that
Speaker 1: Democrat primary. They had to have they had have two
Speaker 1: different stages to debate nights for one phase of the
Speaker 1: debate because they had so many people running. And what
Speaker 1: you're getting with Biden is essentially just another doctrinaire left
Speaker 1: wing Democrat. This is not a surprise. There's nothing about
Speaker 1: this that anybody should should have said, wait a second, yeah,
Speaker 1: of course they lied. Of course they presented Joe Biden
Speaker 1: as as the cuddly old Grandpa for America. And that's
Speaker 1: not really who he is. Because it doesn't matter who
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is. He's just a placeholder. He's just the
Speaker 1: trojan horse that unfortunately the horse got into the gates
Speaker 1: and now Troy is burning. But now we'll be okay,
Speaker 1: Well we're gonna rebuild it. It's gonna be fine. Trump
Speaker 1: was really amoring Biden, which is pretty easy to do because,
Speaker 1: as I've said to you, if there were trade offs
Speaker 1: in these Biden policies where there was a very clear,
Speaker 1: very clear benefit for the American people, not for a
Speaker 1: special interest group, not for some ideologically motivated segment of
Speaker 1: the population that writes big checks to Democrats, if there
Speaker 1: was something that was good, you know, but then you
Speaker 1: can see the drawback of it, I would say, so
Speaker 1: so much of what Biden has done, he's just bad
Speaker 1: across the board. And Trump at seapack pointed that out
Speaker 1: play seventeen, his campaign was all lies talked about energy.
Speaker 1: I thought, I said, you know this guy, actually he's
Speaker 1: okay with energy. He wasn't okay with energy, wants to
Speaker 1: put you all out of business. He's not okay with energy.
Speaker 1: It wants windmills, the wind mills, the windmills that don't
Speaker 1: work when you need him. Joe Biden has had the
Speaker 1: most disastrous first month of any president in modern history.
Speaker 1: That's true. Already, the Biden administration has proven that they
Speaker 1: are anti jobs, anti family, anti borders, anti energy, anti women,
Speaker 1: and anti science. In just one short month, we have
Speaker 1: gone from America first to America last, From America first
Speaker 1: to America last. What has the Biden administration done so far?
Speaker 1: Where you'd say, you know what, taking the politics out
Speaker 1: of it, I really see the merit and wisdom in that.
Speaker 1: In fact, you know, the only thing that some people
Speaker 1: might point to you would have been Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: pushing for the minimum wage, even though, as we all know,
Speaker 1: the minimum wage does not work the way that Democrats
Speaker 1: think it does, or does not function in practice the
Speaker 1: way they believe it will in theory. It does cause
Speaker 1: a lot of people to lose their jobs. It does
Speaker 1: cause a lot of people get their hours cut back.
Speaker 1: Some people, see I'm honest about this, Some people do
Speaker 1: benefit from a higher mandatory minimum wage, but other people
Speaker 1: lose jobs, other people lose access to work, is fascinating.
Speaker 1: Some Democrats were even pointing out that this would be
Speaker 1: a hurdle for low wage illegal immigrants. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what do we do if the minimum wage is higher?
Speaker 1: They'll be less desire or less ability, I should say,
Speaker 1: for employers to illegally hire illegal immigrants. That's where Democrats
Speaker 1: heads are not as they always have this concern, this
Speaker 1: concern for illegal immigrants ahead of Americans who are unemployed,
Speaker 1: ahead of what it does to the wage scale. It's
Speaker 1: very straightforward, supply and demand, more workers who can do
Speaker 1: a job, less money you're going to get for those workers.
Speaker 1: It's this is this is a law of basic economics.
Speaker 1: This is this is basic economics in practice. But Democrats
Speaker 1: think that they can get around that, that it doesn't
Speaker 1: really count somehow, there's some other way. But no, Biden,
Speaker 1: everything he's done in the first month and office, you
Speaker 1: look at and you say, who's making these decisions? What's
Speaker 1: the point of, oh, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement. These
Speaker 1: are the things that Democrats come into power in the
Speaker 1: middle of a pandemic. We've got all these idiotic lockdown policies,
Speaker 1: all these mask mania absurdities abounding all over the place.
Speaker 1: People get mad at me when I say that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, I'm sorry. It makes a lot of sense
Speaker 1: that every restaurant I went to in Florida, I had
Speaker 1: to mask up as I walked in and then sit
Speaker 1: down and take my mask off. There's a lot of science.
Speaker 1: People seem to believe there's science behind that, that there's
Speaker 1: some kind of safety reason for it. If you believe
Speaker 1: that that is for your safety, there's no reason why
Speaker 1: the government can't make you do a hundred jumping jacks
Speaker 1: every day whenever you go outside because it's good for
Speaker 1: your heart health. The government can make you do anything,
Speaker 1: no matter how dumb, no matter how ridiculous, that probably
Speaker 1: actually would be good for your heart health overall. But
Speaker 1: I hate jumping jack's. This is absurd. It's absurd. But
Speaker 1: the Biden presidency that we've seen so far is as
Speaker 1: I thought it would be. And now a Trump started
Speaker 1: as speech by saying, and did you miss me? That's
Speaker 1: that's how we started the speech, did you miss me?
Speaker 1: And I think America is going to figure out pretty soon,
Speaker 1: especially here's here's my prediction. They're gonna slow the reopening,
Speaker 1: but as it starts to reopen, then they're really going
Speaker 1: to realize the full extent of the damage of the
Speaker 1: lockdowns and how much spending has gone on, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna hit really rough economic times in the next six
Speaker 1: to twelve months, and then Democrats are going to do
Speaker 1: the opposite of what they did. They're gonna be desperately
Speaker 1: blaming Trump for the economy when Biden's actually making the decisions,
Speaker 1: just like they were desperately trying to give Obama credit
Speaker 1: for Trump's economy. They're gonna do everything they can to
Speaker 1: make the Biden economy the Trump economy. That's my prediction.
Speaker 1: Let's see. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Follow
Speaker 1: Buck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. And I want you
Speaker 1: to know that I'm going to continue to fight right
Speaker 1: by your side. Louie will do what we've done right
Speaker 1: from the beginning, which is to win. We're not starting
Speaker 1: new parties. You know, they kept saying he's going to
Speaker 1: start a brand new party. We have the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: It's going to unite and be stronger than ever before.
Speaker 1: I am not starting a new party. That was fake news,
Speaker 1: fake news. Now wouldn't that be brilliant. Let's start a
Speaker 1: new party and let's divide our vote so that you
Speaker 1: can never win. No, we're not interested in that. No
Speaker 1: new party. United in the Republican Party, and we're going
Speaker 1: to figure it out right now. It's about the movement,
Speaker 1: the ideas and mobilizing. That's where we are as Republicans,
Speaker 1: as conservatives, and Trump is going to be right there
Speaker 1: along with us. It may not be Trump who winds
Speaker 1: up being the standard bearon four years. I know that
Speaker 1: the seed pack straw Pole had him as the overwhelming
Speaker 1: favorite to run again, But then there's also dissantists and
Speaker 1: a gnome being talked about as contenders. And I think
Speaker 1: that the president will see where we are how things go.
Speaker 1: Four years at his age is a long time. That's
Speaker 1: just the truth. I mean, I know you'd say, what
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden. Yeah, Joe Biden's too old for the job, folks.
Speaker 1: He's actually too old to be doing this. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: too old for the job. I'm not gonna do what
Speaker 1: Democrats do and have two sets of standards here. You know,
Speaker 1: Trump is right on the edge, right on the edge
Speaker 1: of just physically, folks. I understand he's got tremendous energy,
Speaker 1: but what time about four years from now, Guys gonna
Speaker 1: be what seventy seven going on seventy eight. It's asking
Speaker 1: a lot. By the way, I hope President Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: lasts another thirty years and you know it is in
Speaker 1: great health and can run for president again in four years.
Speaker 1: And that may very well be the case. But I'm saying,
Speaker 1: we don't know. Nobody's got a crystal ball, and four
Speaker 1: years is a lifetime in politics, the most the most
Speaker 1: cliched phrase you'll everywhere. Oh, it's a lifetime in politics,
Speaker 1: right that It all comes down to turn out on
Speaker 1: election day? Yeah, no kidding. Whoever scores more points on
Speaker 1: the board is gonna win the game. Yes, also true,
Speaker 1: we need to know what we're trying to accomplish now,
Speaker 1: what we're trying to do as a party, that's what matters,
Speaker 1: And we need to be making the argument building platforms.
Speaker 1: There is a rebuilding that needs to go on here.
Speaker 1: We need to make sure that we can't get silenced again.
Speaker 1: Remember they pulled off the silencing in the election. They
Speaker 1: covered for Hunter Biden. They shut down the New York
Speaker 1: Post story an entirely true story about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Speaker 1: They were able to do that and they suffered no consequences.
Speaker 1: We need them to actually, we need the social media
Speaker 1: companies to at least think twice, and then eventually we
Speaker 1: need to break them up, and we need to treat
Speaker 1: them as them monopolies they are. I mean you to
Speaker 1: break them into tiny little pieces. People say, oh no,
Speaker 1: but it won't be as good for consumers. Really, you
Speaker 1: don't think. You don't think anybody else can come up
Speaker 1: with like an email or search engine or you know
Speaker 1: a little chat boxes and things like. You don't think
Speaker 1: anyone else's trust me. It'll be fine, all right, it'll
Speaker 1: be fine. You know the reason that our flat screen
Speaker 1: TVs Right now, I'm maybe gonna get a new flat
Speaker 1: screen because mine has gone crazy. It's like possessed by
Speaker 1: a demon. The reason that you can get a you know,
Speaker 1: fifty five inch flat screen TV for three hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: now that I mean fifteen years ago or ten years ago.
Speaker 1: Would it cost you four grand or ten grand or
Speaker 1: something crazy? The reason is because of competition among many
Speaker 1: different companies. So it works everywhere else, But somehow the
Speaker 1: social media companies have convinced you the best way is
Speaker 1: for them to only be one player. That's the best
Speaker 1: for consumers. Amazon too, that's what's best for you. It's
Speaker 1: clearly not. I wanted to focus for a little bit
Speaker 1: on on the Florida aspect of this because being at Seapack,
Speaker 1: and I would say, first off, I want to thank
Speaker 1: everybody who was there, who was who's at Seapack, and
Speaker 1: who was willing to come up and talk to me
Speaker 1: and say hi. It means a lot. It was great
Speaker 1: to see this. It was great to see people who
Speaker 1: share my beliefs values who in many cases listen to
Speaker 1: this show. So there was a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of Team Buck in the house and that was fantastic.
Speaker 1: But being in Florida was also you could feel that
Speaker 1: there is a sense that this is now a movement
Speaker 1: unto itself, that there are more and more Republicans who
Speaker 1: will be moving to Florida, that there are more and
Speaker 1: more Republicans who are deciding that that's going to be.
Speaker 1: And I hate to say it, because I had some
Speaker 1: some folks from from Austin, Texas who are listening to
Speaker 1: the show listening on KLBJ in Austin. They came up
Speaker 1: to me to talk to me. Texas Governor Abbott has
Speaker 1: really missed an opportunity here. It feels like the leadership
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party is firmly now in the same
Speaker 1: way that California. New York is a close second, but
Speaker 1: California feels like the homeland of the Democrat Party. That's
Speaker 1: what that's what Florida is becoming for the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And now we're as it's not as red as California
Speaker 1: is blue, but I think that's I think that's changing
Speaker 1: a bit. I'll also tell you that I did experience
Speaker 1: at a few of the bars, because you know, they're
Speaker 1: seapac parties and things, a very different attitude there. I mean,
Speaker 1: you walk in, and I'm being honest with you, you
Speaker 1: walk into these places and they will tell you to
Speaker 1: put a mask on, but they're they're generally very polite
Speaker 1: about it. They're generally very nice. Excuse me, could you
Speaker 1: put it? You know, no one's yelling at you and
Speaker 1: acting like you're actually killing grandma because they saw you
Speaker 1: without a mask on. But it's it's fascinating to see
Speaker 1: how people just took them off when they went inside
Speaker 1: and then nobody. There was no anxiety about it because
Speaker 1: people around them, the individuals around them are you know,
Speaker 1: the people around them have not been completely breadwashed into
Speaker 1: into states of terror. They're not feeling like if you breathe,
Speaker 1: if you breathe near them, you're going to kill them.
Speaker 1: And that's the way the whole country should be. So
Speaker 1: it was interesting to see it in Florida specifically. It's
Speaker 1: still stunning to me how many people believe there's a
Speaker 1: sound scientific basis for the no masks while you eat,
Speaker 1: but mask up when you walk in policies that are
Speaker 1: in so many states, including New York where I am now.
Speaker 1: I mean, the willingness of millions to enthusiastically evangelize this
Speaker 1: kind of authoritarian absurdity has really exceeded any and all
Speaker 1: pre COVID expectations. It's no Ah, I don't know. It's
Speaker 1: it's crazy, isn't it. I Mean, that's what we've it's
Speaker 1: turned into. You can't even begin to justify this stuff.
Speaker 1: You can't even begin to make sense of it. But
Speaker 1: this is where we are as a country. And this
Speaker 1: is why when I see things like a south on
Speaker 1: South or no Spirit Airlines or Southwest it's the Spirit Airlines.
Speaker 1: I believe it was. I don't know, one of those airlines,
Speaker 1: one of the kind of budget airlines they kicked off.
Speaker 1: A sorry Frontier. I gotta get it right Frontier Airlines.
Speaker 1: If I'm gonna call them out by name, I gotta
Speaker 1: get it right. Frontier Airlines ejected an Orthodox Jewish family
Speaker 1: from a fly. There's video of it for allegedly, And
Speaker 1: this is the story that's going around failing to mask
Speaker 1: an eighteen month old baby. That's what we've turned into
Speaker 1: now as a country. If you've turned into a country
Speaker 1: where where we're being told you have to mask up
Speaker 1: you're eighteen month old, even though the CDC says masking
Speaker 1: under two years of age is unnecessary. That's the CDC guidance.
Speaker 1: For anyone who cares. Notice that when the CDC guidance
Speaker 1: is what the lockdowners want, it is sacrosanct. But anytime
Speaker 1: they want to go beyond that, anytime they want to
Speaker 1: push for more, that's fine too, even if it's in
Speaker 1: contradiction to the CDC guidance. So when they want it,
Speaker 1: you can't argue with it. But when it's not actually
Speaker 1: supported by the CDC, it's shut up and do what
Speaker 1: you're told. Parents, This is up in Canada. Give you
Speaker 1: an idea of how far this can go. There has
Speaker 1: now been up in Canada a series of guidelines in
Speaker 1: Toronto that have been offered up instructing parents to keep
Speaker 1: any children who have been sent home because they have
Speaker 1: a classmate who tested positive for COVID nineteen isolated in
Speaker 1: a separate room from all other family members for fourteen days.
Speaker 1: That's right, Canada. Now in Toronto is advocating for people
Speaker 1: the Peel Peel region schools. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: Peel is, but apparently it's part of part of Toronto.
Speaker 1: They want you to lock your kid in a separate
Speaker 1: room from the family and I have no contact with
Speaker 1: family for fourteen days because another kid in the class
Speaker 1: had it. You know that the spread of this virus
Speaker 1: is overwhelmingly if someone spreads that, they spent it to
Speaker 1: one person. So there are a lot of people who
Speaker 1: have been around somebody with COVID and they never actually
Speaker 1: even got COVID. They didn't get it from them. It's
Speaker 1: you know, we have fear has overtaken rationality on this
Speaker 1: subject in a way that's really hard to overstate. But
Speaker 1: this is the biggest fight, and you know I've been
Speaker 1: saying it now for a year. The biggest fight in
Speaker 1: this country is the fight to regain our liberty and
Speaker 1: to regain sanity from the lockdown left. We gotta do that.
Speaker 1: You want Donald Trump to win, or another America first
Speaker 1: candidate to win in four years, you want that. You
Speaker 1: need to win this battle now because if the lockdown
Speaker 1: left can get away with this, they can get away
Speaker 1: with anything. And they've conditioned the American people to believe
Speaker 1: that their freedom is just a suggestion that the Constitution
Speaker 1: doesn't actually defend or protect their rights. It's only there
Speaker 1: during good times, not in the bad. That's not the
Speaker 1: way this is supposed to work. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show Podcast. Join the conversations and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: or email Team Bucket iHeartMedia dot com. He may read
Speaker 1: it on the show. So Mitch McConnell says Trump is
Speaker 1: morally responsible for January's capital siege, yet he also says
Speaker 1: he's willing to support him in a twenty twenty four bid.
Speaker 1: Come on, Mitch McConnell's only kissing the ring this week
Speaker 1: because Trump is about to come out of hiding, where
Speaker 1: he'll likely set the stage for that run next cycle. Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: the seditionist ex president a loser, I'll remind you, we'll
Speaker 1: headline the Conservative Political Action Conference SEEPACK. The event that
Speaker 1: started in the early seventies has always been viewed as
Speaker 1: a place for conservatives, some who've gone off the deep
Speaker 1: but at very least it was rooted in ideas. They
Speaker 1: talked about polity policies that could, in their opinion, make
Speaker 1: the country a better place. However, in the last several years,
Speaker 1: the conference has devolved into a cesspool of hatred, bigotry,
Speaker 1: and exclusionary garbage, a place where speakers rail on the
Speaker 1: country's most marginalized for simply striving to attain equal rights.
Speaker 1: I'm not a conservative, but I like conservatives, and I
Speaker 1: respect conservative ideology even if I don't agree with it.
Speaker 1: But if I were a conservative, today's version of Seapack
Speaker 1: would offend me to my core. Not only was blatant
Speaker 1: prejudice on display this week, we also saw Missouri Senator
Speaker 1: Josh Holly bragged to the crowd about his rejection of
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election results, which ultimately gave way to
Speaker 1: the insurrection on Capitol Hill and the deaths of five people.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that you had to hear that, but I
Speaker 1: wanted you to know the kind of things that are
Speaker 1: being said at MSNBC by people who were not at Seapack.
Speaker 1: Don't know what was going on at Seapack, don't care,
Speaker 1: relly what was going on at Seapack, because they just
Speaker 1: view it as, oh, a bunch of conservatives are together.
Speaker 1: Let's call it a quote cesspool of hatred, bigotry, and
Speaker 1: exclusionary garbage. This is just this is idiotic slander, that's all.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of it about se Pack. And there
Speaker 1: are people that only show up think about this, it's
Speaker 1: a political conference. Then there are people who show up
Speaker 1: there who know, who know that their job is to
Speaker 1: try to find one thing. They're there to attack. They're
Speaker 1: not there to report, they're there to attack. I was
Speaker 1: at Spack for the whole conference, pretty much close to
Speaker 1: the whole conference, and all I saw were a lot
Speaker 1: of people being completely polite, friendly, decent to one another,
Speaker 1: excited to see each other, talking about ideas, listening to shows.
Speaker 1: That's all that I saw. That's what was going on.
Speaker 1: And yet, well, beyond that, what have they decide that
Speaker 1: they were going to focus on I mean the media.
Speaker 1: What were the people that are supposed to be reporting
Speaker 1: on this that you can't make this stuff up. That
Speaker 1: SEPACK had a Nazi insignia as a stage. This is
Speaker 1: what they were saying. SEEPAC had it the Odel or
Speaker 1: Othala Rune, according to the Washington Post, which was emblazoned
Speaker 1: on some Nazi uniforms, and the Anti Defamation League has
Speaker 1: classified the insignia as a hate symbol. These these people
Speaker 1: are out of their minds. They're they're out of their minds. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: there is a thing called an I understand that there
Speaker 1: is a symbol, but I had never before seen this,
Speaker 1: was not familiar with this. I'm somebody who reads a
Speaker 1: lot about World War Two. It finds it to be
Speaker 1: a fascinating period in history. So let's just start from
Speaker 1: this premise. Beyond the fact that a SEPAC, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of really prominent Jewish speakers and attendees, and
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is this nuts. I know,
Speaker 1: it's so crazy that it's like where do you start?
Speaker 1: But this is the Washington Post and others reporting on this.
Speaker 1: If they're making a symbol that they want to somehow
Speaker 1: show a an affinity for an allegiance to a certain idea,
Speaker 1: to an ideology here of Nazism or white supremacy or
Speaker 1: whatever is they're gonna say, wouldn't it have to be
Speaker 1: a symbol that somebody, like somebody actually knows what it is.
Speaker 1: Start with that premise. If I don't even know what
Speaker 1: this thing is, and I'm better a red on the
Speaker 1: Second World War than ninety nine percent of the Washington
Speaker 1: Post staff and writers, trust me when I say that
Speaker 1: they're stretching, that they're desperate. I mean, come on, And
Speaker 1: what I really want to know is is if this
Speaker 1: you know, what we need to do now would be
Speaker 1: to find other other designs of stages that look like this.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are plenty of them. Is when you
Speaker 1: look at it, you go, yeah, they're just trying to
Speaker 1: use that space most effectively or as effectively as they can.
Speaker 1: But yes, it's a it's an oodle run. They say, um,
Speaker 1: and why would SPAC do that? Why why would match
Speaker 1: lap and and the other top people running sepack because
Speaker 1: they have a fondness for the naziss Is the allegation,
Speaker 1: How how blanking stupid are the people reporting on this.
Speaker 1: But see this again shows you we want to share
Speaker 1: ideas and we're not even allowed to We're not allowed
Speaker 1: to do. They have to slander, they have to lie,
Speaker 1: they have to misrepresent what we're doing and what we're
Speaker 1: all about with things like this. And there's also part
Speaker 1: of this this we know we shouldn't even have to
Speaker 1: go find other stages that look like this. Is this
Speaker 1: a stage design that's been used at the Highat for
Speaker 1: other things? I'm willing to bet there's plenty of stages
Speaker 1: that have looked just like But see, we're wasting time.
Speaker 1: Then we already know that it's bullcrap, So why do
Speaker 1: we have to it's obviously garbage, So why do we
Speaker 1: have to waste our time then trying to even further
Speaker 1: proof that it's nonsense because they wanted to try to
Speaker 1: pressure high it. You gotta remember this, it's not enough.
Speaker 1: It's not enough for Democrats to have control of the government,
Speaker 1: to have control of the media, to have control of
Speaker 1: social media and Hollywood everything else. They want to make
Speaker 1: it impossible for you to physically gather with fellow conservatives too.
Speaker 1: They want dominance and total control of the digital space,
Speaker 1: and they want dominance and total control of your ability
Speaker 1: to even gather in person, freedom of assembly. I believe
Speaker 1: it is called in this old document that we're all
Speaker 1: supposed to care about a lot as Americans, known as
Speaker 1: the Constitution. All right, I mean, isn't that something that
Speaker 1: we can all at least agree on, you know, it
Speaker 1: isn't that something that we should all at least be
Speaker 1: able to say we can. Nope, they wanted to attack Highant.
Speaker 1: They don't want seapact. You'll meet anywhere these people are.
Speaker 1: These people are authoritarian cowards. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Follow Buck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Now,
Speaker 1: most governors shut down their states. What followed was record unemployment.
Speaker 1: Businesses closed, most schools were shuttered, and communities suffered, and
Speaker 1: the US economy came to an immediate halt. Now let
Speaker 1: me be clear, COVID didn't crush the economy. Government crushed
Speaker 1: the economy. And then just as quickly, government turned around
Speaker 1: and held itself out as the savior. And frankly, the
Speaker 1: Treasury Department can't print money fast enough to keep up
Speaker 1: with Congress's wish list. But not everyone has followed this path.
Speaker 1: For those of you who don't know South Dakota is
Speaker 1: the only state in America that never ordered a single
Speaker 1: bit business or church to close. And yet we're told
Speaker 1: that if only we had listened more to the lockdowners,
Speaker 1: if only these states that had shut down so much
Speaker 1: like California, had had their way even more so, we
Speaker 1: would all be better off. This is absurd. The data
Speaker 1: doesn't support it. But here's what you have to be
Speaker 1: prepared for. There is no future. There will never be
Speaker 1: a time in which it is the case that the
Speaker 1: people that were advocating for demanding I should There was
Speaker 1: an advocacy. It was demand you do this because otherwise
Speaker 1: you're killing grandma. We're making you do this. Do this
Speaker 1: or we shut down your business, lockdown or not only
Speaker 1: will we find you, we will take away your liquor license,
Speaker 1: we will destroy your restaurant's ability to ever open. We'll
Speaker 1: make sure you're done. Lockdown or else. They didn't convince,
Speaker 1: We didn't have a referendum. There wasn't a conversation. It
Speaker 1: was this is an emergency. The house is on fire.
Speaker 1: You have to run. You have to run. We'll hold
Speaker 1: on a second. What maybe we can put the fire out.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't have to abandon my home. No, you
Speaker 1: have to. It's it's an emergency. That's what they did
Speaker 1: to us. Now you're able to look at what's actually
Speaker 1: happened with COVID all across the country, and you realize, oh,
Speaker 1: so they were demanding something that turned out to be
Speaker 1: a terrible idea. If lockdown is so obvious, if this
Speaker 1: is such a clear and effective solution to the problem
Speaker 1: of an Ersli's pandemic virus, why was all of the
Speaker 1: public health guidance before this contradictory to that? Why was
Speaker 1: it the consensus opinion since the Spanish flew of nineteen
Speaker 1: eighteen that we don't do that. We don't shut down society,
Speaker 1: we don't shut down businesses when there is an erslis
Speaker 1: virus that has a high risk for certain groups in circulation. Right,
Speaker 1: they change the consensus and then jumped all over you.
Speaker 1: If you pointed out that a shifting consensus is inherently
Speaker 1: on shaky ground, they didn't care, didn't matter. Look at Florida, Lugg's,
Speaker 1: South Dakota, look at these states. Understand this. They're gonna
Speaker 1: try to line them up. They're gonna line up for
Speaker 1: you now, and there's so much dishonesty right now about it,
Speaker 1: and you need to remember that too. And the dishonesty
Speaker 1: is intentional. I wanted to be clear about that this
Speaker 1: was not something that has just happened sometimes. I mean,
Speaker 1: almost all the lockdown comparisons you'll see online now are
Speaker 1: so immensely sloppy and methodology as to be useless. And
Speaker 1: this is often intentional. But people will realize one day
Speaker 1: that most lockdowns were so haphazard, temporary, and arbitrary as
Speaker 1: to render them useless in the long run, as in,
Speaker 1: there was almost no benefit when you look at this,
Speaker 1: the full scope and scale of the infections across the country.
Speaker 1: Almost no benefit from this whatsoever, if any. And in fact,
Speaker 1: there are some people who argue, quite credibly, could have
Speaker 1: made things worse given the situation of major American cities
Speaker 1: and what was going on. Remember, they talked to us
Speaker 1: like we were going to crush the virus and the
Speaker 1: level would go way, way way down as a result
Speaker 1: of the most extreme stay at home orders. That never happened.
Speaker 1: Nowhere did that happen. What ended up happening was we
Speaker 1: would go into a more extreme lockdown and it would
Speaker 1: take months and it would finally go down where there
Speaker 1: was the extreme lockdown, whether it was New York or
Speaker 1: California or New Jersey or wherever would finally go down,
Speaker 1: and it was going down in other places it didn't
Speaker 1: have the extreme lockdown. You could just observe this and
Speaker 1: see what exactly is the benefit if all those other
Speaker 1: places we're also having massive declines in cases at the
Speaker 1: same time, what's the advantage of going into these self
Speaker 1: induced economic comas, which is what we've been through. There
Speaker 1: was no benefit. There was no benefit. If it was
Speaker 1: saving lots and lots of lives, you'd at least argue
Speaker 1: about what the costs in the drawbit. But they didn't.
Speaker 1: Where we're show me how they saved lives. Remember, they're
Speaker 1: gonna tell you. They'll say, well, you know, Florida and California.
Speaker 1: They'll try to find some comparison of those states. As
Speaker 1: an example. They always give New York New Jersey a
Speaker 1: past They got hit first, Okay, but they got hit
Speaker 1: we all knew it was coming. They'll do a comparison, though,
Speaker 1: and they'll say, well, if you see here, technically this state,
Speaker 1: you know, did better than Florida, and this state had
Speaker 1: lockdowns or something like that. But remember this should be
Speaker 1: this should be an enormous and obvious benefit, right. We
Speaker 1: weren't promised with lockdowns the way they were set up
Speaker 1: in this country and the people like Fauci and all
Speaker 1: the rest of them. We were not promised that it
Speaker 1: would be California that we were supposed to say, oh gee,
Speaker 1: that success. We were promised a situation like New Zealand
Speaker 1: where they have very, very, very low cases. But here's
Speaker 1: the problem with that. New Zealand is a very remote
Speaker 1: island or islands from most of the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: with incredibly sparse population and absolutely hardcore lockdowns. Cannot leave
Speaker 1: your home enforced across the board for months on end.
Speaker 1: That's an actual lockdown. And here's the thing. We weren't
Speaker 1: willing to do that. We weren't going to do that,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't possible for us to do that. So
Speaker 1: guess what we had the worst of all worlds never
Speaker 1: really lockdown and did not stay open in places like California.
Speaker 1: And to what end? To what benefit? Nobody ever seems
Speaker 1: to have to answer that question. How we're supposed to
Speaker 1: just sit around and assume that Fauci and all the
Speaker 1: rest of them knew what they were doing. It's absurd,
Speaker 1: it's absurd. I think that Fauci is the greatest villain
Speaker 1: of the pandemic. The only person who comes close is
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo. But Fauci, I think, is the single person
Speaker 1: most responsible for grotesquely politicizing the entire process and pretending
Speaker 1: that he was doing the opposite of that. The data.
Speaker 1: It's all about the data. And remember this for those
Speaker 1: of you who think that I'm some kind of anti
Speaker 1: masks zealot, and I am. Let's be honest. I hate masks.
Speaker 1: I think it's awful. I think they're wildly, wildly overstated
Speaker 1: as a mechanism for virus control. Look at the infection
Speaker 1: rates among healthcare professionals. I know they're subjected to higher
Speaker 1: degree of risk, but okay, how effective are masks When
Speaker 1: you see that healthcare professionals have an infection rate compared
Speaker 1: to the general population, and that makes you think, okay,
Speaker 1: so I mean they're still they're masking up perfectly professionally,
Speaker 1: and ninety fives and anyway, and again it's not that
Speaker 1: it's zero. I can't say it's zero. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know there's studies that show this and that,
Speaker 1: and that's say, okay, but is it, Yeah, how effective
Speaker 1: we really supposed to be eighty percent? You think you
Speaker 1: think it with proper masking, you reduce viral spread by
Speaker 1: eighty percent. That's that's delusional, given what we've seen going
Speaker 1: on across the country. Delusional. They'll never admit They'll never
Speaker 1: admit it though, because so many of the people that
Speaker 1: push for this stuff, it's become a religion for them.
Speaker 1: And also they really think that they really thought they
Speaker 1: were smarter than everybody else. That's the same thing the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion delusion. People, they thought that they they saw
Speaker 1: that conspiracy, they thought they were smarter than everybody else,
Speaker 1: that Trump was really working with Putin to steal the election.
Speaker 1: And you know, just because they're so smart that they
Speaker 1: believed it. When you can take belief and mix it
Speaker 1: with ego, you have in an impenetrable shield of idiocy
Speaker 1: when you can pull those two when you can pull
Speaker 1: those two things together, you create a belief and then
Speaker 1: you mix it with the ego of that individual that
Speaker 1: I believe this because I'm smart, will never change, will
Speaker 1: never change. You're in the freedom hunt. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the buck Sexton Show podcast. Get the latest from
Speaker 1: Buck at buck Sexton dot com. The CDC will be
Speaker 1: coming out within the next few weeks, maybe even sooner,
Speaker 1: with some guidelines about what people who are vaccinated. And
Speaker 1: I think, and I know you're referring Dana to people
Speaker 1: who are doubly vaccinated fourteen days out, they're protected, they
Speaker 1: have that ninety four to protection. What can they do?
Speaker 1: I'm very certain and we've discussed this, and you're right.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get ahead of the guidelines because
Speaker 1: the ADC wants to do things that are science based.
Speaker 1: If you can't get the science, you've got to maybe
Speaker 1: you as modeling, and in addition to modeling, you use
Speaker 1: good professional, common sense judgment. They'll be coming out with that.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that I think is going
Speaker 1: to become clear that if you have individuals adults who
Speaker 1: are vaccinated, two people that are doubly vaccinated and are protected,
Speaker 1: then you can do things that we weren't talking about before.
Speaker 1: You could have dinner in a home without masks on.
Speaker 1: You could have friends who you know are doubly vaccinated
Speaker 1: and are protected together with you, so you can start
Speaker 1: doing things essentially in the home in a setting where
Speaker 1: you're not out in the community where there are seventy
Speaker 1: thousand new infections per day, and you could start doing
Speaker 1: some of the things that you weren't able to do before.
Speaker 1: I mean, this little tyrant is out of his mind now.
Speaker 1: I'm so happy that people have come to realize that
Speaker 1: I've been right about him all along, and that any
Speaker 1: on all the Foucci worshippers should be embarrassed because they
Speaker 1: were taken in by this Oh, I'm a little grandpa
Speaker 1: follows the data. I want to keep you safe. Nonsense.
Speaker 1: This guy's a little tyrant democrat bureaucrat. Oh, when you're
Speaker 1: doubly vaccinated, you might be able to eat dinner in
Speaker 1: a private home. I mean, does this little jackass not
Speaker 1: know that everyone's been doing that pretty much the whole pandemic.
Speaker 1: Eat dinner in a prayer. Everyone's eating dinner in private
Speaker 1: homes all the time. If you and another you know,
Speaker 1: two adults are vaccinated, and well, what are we talking
Speaker 1: about here? This is like when he said, you know,
Speaker 1: we can't go back to eating in restaurants, and we
Speaker 1: can't go back to two movie theaters even after people
Speaker 1: get even after you're vaccinated, and it's already the restaurants
Speaker 1: are open in most states across the country. At some level,
Speaker 1: we're already doing these things. That just goes to show
Speaker 1: you how out of touch. This little the worst. This
Speaker 1: guy's the worst. All right, he's not he's not impressive,
Speaker 1: he's not smart, he's not wise. His judgment is awful.
Speaker 1: He's a partisan hack, he's a joke. Yeah, after you're
Speaker 1: after you're both doubly vaccine, after you both at ninety
Speaker 1: five percent, uh, you know, ninety five percent chance of
Speaker 1: being Remember, folks, you could do the math on this yourself. Okay,
Speaker 1: So it's ninety five percent, you're fine. Ninety five percent.
Speaker 1: The person you're with is fine for a virus that
Speaker 1: has a ninety nine point you know, seven percent survival
Speaker 1: rate or something that or points, you know, ninety nine
Speaker 1: point seven or ninety nine point eight or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: And we're and you're not gonna You're not gonna live
Speaker 1: your life because of this. This is insane, This is
Speaker 1: not reasonable, it is not rational, It is not okay.
Speaker 1: But the Democrat panic and anxiety machinery can't turn itself off.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I'm like, we gotta listen to Fauci.
Speaker 1: We're gonna listen to Fauci. They don't know what to do.
Speaker 1: They can't handle the fact that they have to go
Speaker 1: back to normal life at some point. They know, my
Speaker 1: goshler's risk. I wanted to stay home and darn food. Ever, no, no,
Speaker 1: we do not live zero risk lives. We've all understood this.
Speaker 1: This is part of functioning, part of being a human being.
Speaker 1: And yet Fauci says things that make you think, what
Speaker 1: the heck is this lunatic talking about? You know, if
Speaker 1: you have vaccinated double and the other person's vaccinated double,
Speaker 1: you can eat indoors without masks on at a private home,
Speaker 1: you know, where you're all, where you're both vaccinated. Did
Speaker 1: he think we need him to tell us that? I'm
Speaker 1: just going to say that, unless you're, you know, a
Speaker 1: an immunocompromise senior citizen, if you need doctor Fauci to
Speaker 1: tell you that you're just not very bright, Okay, unless
Speaker 1: you're somebody that has a really, really specific and high
Speaker 1: risk If you need a doctor Fauct you to say
Speaker 1: that you're you're either not very bright or anxiety has
Speaker 1: completely overtaken your brain. You know, you're not gonna have
Speaker 1: dinner with your your wife, You're not gonna have dinner
Speaker 1: with family members in your immediate family without masks on.
Speaker 1: I mean, as if, as if masking off when you're
Speaker 1: eating dinner even makes any sense, because you know you're unmasking,
Speaker 1: you're breathing all over the place. The whole thing is,
Speaker 1: they know so little really about the transmissibility of this thing.
Speaker 1: That's what's so amazing. They don't really understand even I mean,
Speaker 1: you'll go, you'll see there's some studies that suggest that
Speaker 1: somebody can be really really infectious and it can spread
Speaker 1: through air vents in a building. There are other studies
Speaker 1: that will suggest, you know, you sit around and say, well,
Speaker 1: what well, that's why they're talking about ventilation systems in
Speaker 1: the schools because there are these studies that show that.
Speaker 1: But but they think that where it a mask is
Speaker 1: gonna save you at the you know which one is it.
Speaker 1: This thing can go through the vents in a building
Speaker 1: so that you don't even see a person, you're not
Speaker 1: even within fifty feet of a person, and you might
Speaker 1: be able to get COVID from them. But wearing a
Speaker 1: mask is going to is going to protect you. It
Speaker 1: can't be both those things. Not really hate to break
Speaker 1: into everybody, but there's so many open questions about this,
Speaker 1: So there's so many things that they don't know, but
Speaker 1: they won't admit that, because to admit that is one
Speaker 1: to show everybody that this expert class. Look, the expert
Speaker 1: class when it comes to doctors has lost all public
Speaker 1: health officials, I should say, has lost a lot of credibility,
Speaker 1: a lot of credibility. People are much less impressed with
Speaker 1: what somebody with a stethoscope and a lab coat says
Speaker 1: is good policy than they were before. And that's a
Speaker 1: good thing. But this guidance the CDC's going to come
Speaker 1: out with for vaccated people is going to be pathetic.
Speaker 1: It should be go back to life, go back to
Speaker 1: your normal life. That's what it should be when you're vaccinated.
Speaker 1: Right now, we can even have a whole discussion about
Speaker 1: whether everybody should get vaccinated, but I mean, for those
Speaker 1: who are vaccinated, we're just talking about that. It should
Speaker 1: be go live your life. Okay, that's it. That's reasonable.
Speaker 1: Everything else is unreasonable. But oh but there's a one
Speaker 1: in you know, one and ten thousand chance you might
Speaker 1: get it, and then a one in five thousand chance
Speaker 1: you might give it, and then you know, now we're
Speaker 1: getting we're getting into silly numbers at this point, ridiculous
Speaker 1: numbers at this point. And and that's this is why
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not letting this go. Doctor Fauci here says,
Speaker 1: we're also we're gonna pull back on COVID restrictions one
Speaker 1: day play eleven. Let's look at what history has taught us.
Speaker 1: If you go back and look at the various surges
Speaker 1: whenever we hit a peak and start coming down, understandably,
Speaker 1: totally understandably say well, let's pull back. We're going to
Speaker 1: ultimately be pulling back, but you want to get the
Speaker 1: level of baseline infections per day very low, because if
Speaker 1: you look at that little plateau, particularly in the arena
Speaker 1: of having variants such as we have in California and
Speaker 1: such as we have in New York, it is really
Speaker 1: risky to say it's over, we're on the way out,
Speaker 1: let's pull back, because what we can see is that
Speaker 1: we turn up. It isn't hypothetical data because just look
Speaker 1: historically at the late winter, early spring of twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: of the summer of twenty twenty, when we started to
Speaker 1: pull back prematurely. We saw the rebound. Don't want that
Speaker 1: to happen. I would think it is. I think, I
Speaker 1: think you know, obviously, each individual state and city needs
Speaker 1: to look at the situation in their own in their
Speaker 1: own location where they are, but in general to think,
Speaker 1: just because the cases are coming down on the daily basis,
Speaker 1: take a look at the pattern and just watch over
Speaker 1: the next several days to a week. If we do
Speaker 1: this and start coming up, then we're gonna go right
Speaker 1: back to the road of rebounding. He's been wrong about
Speaker 1: this at every step, at every stage, and what he's
Speaker 1: telling you is total crap. Right now, just for the record, Okay,
Speaker 1: he absolutely cannot tell you that he was saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's gonna We're gonna have a rebate. He had no
Speaker 1: idea up down all around it, no idea what was
Speaker 1: going on with the different spikes making it up as
Speaker 1: he goes along, wrong over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart Radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Senator from Tennessee, and
Speaker 1: she talked to me about big tech and a whole
Speaker 1: range of issues, including how to clean up state elections.
Speaker 1: And here it is for you right now, all right
Speaker 1: here at SEPAK with Senator Marsha Blackburn, Senator. Great to
Speaker 1: see you, thanks for joining to say you and I'm
Speaker 1: delighted to join you. Major focus here so far, and
Speaker 1: I know all through the weekend it's going to be
Speaker 1: big tech, and both from the context of what they're
Speaker 1: doing to us here at home and also what it
Speaker 1: means for big tech in China specifically how they're coming
Speaker 1: after us. But let me start with the big tech
Speaker 1: challenge here in America. It feels like freedom of speech
Speaker 1: is under more threat now from technology companies than at
Speaker 1: any time that I can think of in my lifetime
Speaker 1: at least. Well, absolutely it is under threat. And you've
Speaker 1: got big tech, big media, and the big Left, and
Speaker 1: they are all in cahoots on this to try to
Speaker 1: silence conservatives and what they can't do through legislation, the
Speaker 1: left is trying to have big tech do that work
Speaker 1: for them. And then you've got Democrat legislators this week
Speaker 1: that sent a letter to the FCC and to certain
Speaker 1: streaming organizations, cable companies, media outlets trying to get them
Speaker 1: to drop conservative programming, and they named by name Fox One,
Speaker 1: American News and Newsmax. And the thing they're guilty of
Speaker 1: is giving a balanced point counterpoint opening for robust discussion. So, yes,
Speaker 1: I've got the Virtual You Protection Agenda. We are pushing
Speaker 1: this through. It's going to deal with four things. Online privacy,
Speaker 1: reforming Section to thirty, data security, and also antitrust. Now,
Speaker 1: what are the prospects for getting any actual movement on
Speaker 1: that given the current composition of Congress. Actually, you've got
Speaker 1: privacy online. Privacy has had bipartisan support. I've had that
Speaker 1: bill since twenty twelve, and it does have bipartisan support.
Speaker 1: There is agreement that we should address section two thirty
Speaker 1: and clean up the language so that you remove terms
Speaker 1: like the term otherwise objectionable, which is what big tech
Speaker 1: hides behind when they go in and censure people. And
Speaker 1: there is agreement that there should be a review of
Speaker 1: antitrust provisions in relation to companies like Google. And do
Speaker 1: you think big tech should be broken up? I think
Speaker 1: that it is the worthy discussion to have. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing. If you go in and execute privacy, which
Speaker 1: gives you the ability to say, big Tech, you cannot
Speaker 1: track me follow me, data mind me, or share or
Speaker 1: sell my information without my explicit consent, and you can't
Speaker 1: bump me off your platform. If I don't give that consent,
Speaker 1: then what you do is reduce the number of eyeballs.
Speaker 1: So you want to do that first because that somewhat
Speaker 1: reshapes their marketplace. Then you want to exercise the section
Speaker 1: to thirty reforms that reshapes. You want to define on
Speaker 1: data breach and data security and put a specific amount
Speaker 1: of time on that so they have to tell you
Speaker 1: in like two days, not two weeks or two years
Speaker 1: if they've had a data breach. Then see where that
Speaker 1: gets you, and then move to antitrust as the last
Speaker 1: component if that legislation we're to go through. Are you
Speaker 1: confident that the purge of conservatives from the digital public
Speaker 1: square that has been underway, kicking people quite honestly like
Speaker 1: me off of different platforms at times you're a sitting
Speaker 1: US senator even even more shocking when you think about this,
Speaker 1: are you confident that that will be enough to create
Speaker 1: the free speech grounds that we need this legislation it
Speaker 1: goes a long way in sending a message. And then
Speaker 1: the other thing is we the people have to be
Speaker 1: the people on protecting our rights and if they take
Speaker 1: the first, if the left gets rid of the first Amendment,
Speaker 1: then you know they're coming for the second and right
Speaker 1: on down the list. So it is going to be
Speaker 1: imperative that people start holding to account some of these
Speaker 1: tech platforms. It is going to be imperative that they
Speaker 1: talk about it when they get blocked or throttled or
Speaker 1: shatter band or demonetized or d platform and begin to
Speaker 1: bring that out in the open. You also focus a
Speaker 1: lot on China and the challenge that China poses for
Speaker 1: US on national security, economic trade grounds. Right, what can
Speaker 1: we do now considering that there's a reset underway with
Speaker 1: this Biden administration, What are you pushing for and what
Speaker 1: are your concerns about how US China policy may shift.
Speaker 1: I'm very concerned about it because if you want to
Speaker 1: take it by different stovepipes with China, look at what
Speaker 1: they're doing with Huawei. We have to keep them on
Speaker 1: the Entities List, which blocks them from selling into the USA.
Speaker 1: They embed their technology with spyware. We have to make
Speaker 1: certain that we continue the Trump policies on China. He
Speaker 1: understood China, and he understood they really practice rob replicate
Speaker 1: and replace, which is taking our technology, our intellectual property,
Speaker 1: reverse engineering or producing it, and then driving US companies
Speaker 1: out of the marketplace so that they're the sole source
Speaker 1: for some product that you want. So we need to
Speaker 1: continue Trump's policies in that area. You have to look
Speaker 1: at what is happening with human rights violations with Hong
Speaker 1: Kong and the freedom fighters and the Tibetans and the
Speaker 1: Taiwanese and the South China seas, and then the genocide
Speaker 1: of the weakers that are there, and say to international
Speaker 1: organizations you cannot admit them. The fact that Biden has
Speaker 1: gone back to the who is disgusting. That is something
Speaker 1: that emboldens China. And on the election integrity issue, which
Speaker 1: it feels like hopefully we can begin to speak about
Speaker 1: again without fear of that triggering all kinds of algorithms
Speaker 1: of censorship and cries of outrage. What would you like
Speaker 1: to see at the state level done and at the
Speaker 1: federal level, how do we clean things up so that
Speaker 1: there's greater Because we know all the data, all the
Speaker 1: polling shows confidence in the election is a problem with many, many,
Speaker 1: many millions of Americans. What can we do to change that?
Speaker 1: And that has to be done at the state and
Speaker 1: local level. The federal government cannot do that. And we
Speaker 1: do not want federally controlled elections. The Constitution gives that
Speaker 1: to the state and the subdivisions of the state, so
Speaker 1: we want it to stay there. But I would say
Speaker 1: to every one of your listeners, go to the election
Speaker 1: commission in your county and ask them when it's the
Speaker 1: last time you purged the voter rolls. Do you need help?
Speaker 1: Do you need volunteer years to help check addresses, check deaths,
Speaker 1: check people that have moved out of the county so
Speaker 1: that these roles are clean. Do you need help validating signatures?
Speaker 1: Do you need election day workers? And get involved with that.
Speaker 1: That's how that's how we fix this. You have to
Speaker 1: be sure that the roles are accurate before you mail
Speaker 1: the ballots out or before you open the voter rolls.
Speaker 1: And this year, what happened. You had some houses that
Speaker 1: got five, six, seven ballots. You have some people that
Speaker 1: had moved out of state, been out of Georgia for
Speaker 1: five years, and what happened They got a ballot in
Speaker 1: the mail to their forwarded address. Senator Marshall Blackburn, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for Tom. We appreciate it, get to be
Speaker 1: with you. Thank you. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Join the conversation and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram, or
Speaker 1: email team Bucket iHeartMedia dot com. You read it on
Speaker 1: the show. So I can sporadically sexually harass someone as
Speaker 1: long as I don't go so far as it becomes pervasive. No,
Speaker 1: it is a terrible legal standard, and it has to
Speaker 1: be changed, and it has to be changed now. That
Speaker 1: is the action that the revelation in the exposures dictate
Speaker 1: as the only rational conclusion. You've exposed the wrongdoing. Now
Speaker 1: do something about it. Now do something about it. Governor
Speaker 1: Cuomo talking to you about holding people account of off
Speaker 1: a sexual harassment. Here's the problem, Governor Cuomo now has
Speaker 1: a second accuser who has come forward saying that he
Speaker 1: has sexually harassed her. Oh okay, So when it was
Speaker 1: an opportunity with the cameras on him to be mister
Speaker 1: preening me too, male feminist Cuomo. That was from years ago.
Speaker 1: By the way that that clip, Cuomo was all, what
Speaker 1: do you mean you could only sexually arrass on occasion?
Speaker 1: You can't do it at all. That's not good. Don't
Speaker 1: do it. You should have an accountability here, except now
Speaker 1: he's the guy. He's the guy. But here's my biggest
Speaker 1: takeaway for you, all right, because I know how people
Speaker 1: are going to focus so much on the sexual harassment
Speaker 1: stuff with Cuomo. I see some nefarious stuff going on
Speaker 1: here that I don't think is getting the focus that
Speaker 1: it should. Governor Cuomo in New York is just one
Speaker 1: obvious example of the enormous fraud the media conducted against
Speaker 1: America to defeat Trump in twenty twenty. They turned villains
Speaker 1: into heroes and tyranny into freedom. Cuomo, Fauci, the Lincoln Project,
Speaker 1: school closures, anything was justified to be Trump. Anything, right,
Speaker 1: whatever they had to say, whoever they had to run
Speaker 1: cover for, or whatever they had to do, they were
Speaker 1: willing to do. And I think that you need to
Speaker 1: understand that. And they were even, I mean, they were
Speaker 1: even willing to hold up the Lincoln Project for Heaven's sake,
Speaker 1: as some kind of a group that people should should
Speaker 1: pay attention to and listen to. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's awful when you look deeper in this, it's awful.
Speaker 1: It really is. The Lincoln Project and all these other things.
Speaker 1: But now they're turning around and they're saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna hold Cuomo to account. He served his purpose,
Speaker 1: don't you see. And the bigger scandal is actually the
Speaker 1: nursing home scandal. Oh I know, I know't Buck, but
Speaker 1: this look, he didn't. He didn't actually you know, sexually
Speaker 1: assault anybody. From what we understand right now, he didn't
Speaker 1: do it. He didn't break any criminal laws. But it
Speaker 1: seems that he is a you know, a kind of
Speaker 1: a sexist in the workplace who says inappropriate thing to subordinates.
Speaker 1: And oh no, I'm sorry, no, they're pardon me, I retract.
Speaker 1: There was an allegation that he, you know, tried an
Speaker 1: uninvited uh you know, try to like force himself in
Speaker 1: a kissing way on a subordinate. So I take that
Speaker 1: so he did actually cross that boundary of physical you know,
Speaker 1: making a sort of a physical move. Now I'm sure
Speaker 1: he would say that he thought, you know, And then
Speaker 1: we get into this conversation about all right, I mean,
Speaker 1: sometimes you know, a guy goes in, he thinks that
Speaker 1: he's been given the sign. He's not given the sign.
Speaker 1: But not your boss. It's not supposed to be your boss, right,
Speaker 1: They weren't on a date. They weren't. You know, he
Speaker 1: wasn't handing her a rose after a romantic candle at
Speaker 1: dinner in front of her apartment and thought that. You know,
Speaker 1: he got the ghost sign. This is an employee. So
Speaker 1: Cuomo's got some trouble. He's now said that he's doing
Speaker 1: the usual kind of dance er. He says, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I may have said some things that may have made
Speaker 1: some people uncomfortable. You know that that's basically worries. You know,
Speaker 1: I may I may have said a thing that made
Speaker 1: a person feel bad about a thing he's not saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm a slimy creep. But this guy's had problems with
Speaker 1: women for a very long time. It's been well known.
Speaker 1: And he's a bully and a jerk and nobody likes him.
Speaker 1: But yet Democrats keep voting for him. Hm, isn't that
Speaker 1: so interesting? They want to lecture us on character all
Speaker 1: the time, don't they. Oh, look at Trump and he's
Speaker 1: so bad about this or that, but they keep electing
Speaker 1: people like Cuomo. Really, but I'm sorry, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to take my focus off of what I think is
Speaker 1: still the much, the much bigger look sexually harassing female
Speaker 1: employees who are your subordinates is a bad thing, and
Speaker 1: he shouldn't do it, and he should be held response
Speaker 1: before it. Sending people with COVID nineteen into nursing homes
Speaker 1: with the obvious knowledge that that's going to increase the
Speaker 1: risk of other seniors in the nursing homes when thousands
Speaker 1: of thousands of people are dying from COVID enteen, that's
Speaker 1: a Can we all agree that's a bigger issue? Can
Speaker 1: we all agree that's a more important issue. That's not
Speaker 1: to say it's not an issue the sexual ressment. It's
Speaker 1: a bigger issue. But I'm bringing these things up because
Speaker 1: notice that now the media wants to congratulate itself. I've
Speaker 1: seen something. The media wants to congratulate itself on the
Speaker 1: willingness to report on this. The media wants to congratulate
Speaker 1: itself on their ability to see this and say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're we're actually telling you the truth about Governor Cuomo.
Speaker 1: And to that I just have to say, well, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second here, folks, Hold on a minute.
Speaker 1: This was known that the COVID nineteen disaster with Cuomo
Speaker 1: was known way before this. Uh you know, sexual harassment
Speaker 1: stuff came out and the media covered it up. Why
Speaker 1: did they do that, because, as I've said to you,
Speaker 1: that was that was an even more important story. They
Speaker 1: didn't want to cover that, and it was conservative media
Speaker 1: outlets that were actually pushing these stories. Of course, in
Speaker 1: the election year, Cuomo got loppy. Cuomo got a little
Speaker 1: too full of himself. You know why, because he realized,
Speaker 1: this is what everything he's been doing last year. He
Speaker 1: realized that he was given the anti Trump cloak of
Speaker 1: media invincibility, and he was enjoying it a little too much.
Speaker 1: And that's what the the Emmy and the book and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. He started to believe his press releases,
Speaker 1: you know, he started to believe the bs that he
Speaker 1: was putting out there for everybody else. And you know,
Speaker 1: now there may be finally a reckoning, although I'm not
Speaker 1: confident it will happen. Yeah, Democrats are calling for an
Speaker 1: investigation of this. Cuomo is gonna say, sure, investigate me.
Speaker 1: He's Ultimately if Cuomo says, you know, I said some
Speaker 1: things I probably shouldn't have said a little bit appropriate,
Speaker 1: sorry about that, doesn't resign you think they think that
Speaker 1: anything's gonna happen to him. You think the Democrats would
Speaker 1: even support a primary against the third term governor, I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I don't think that they want to
Speaker 1: get rid of him even now. But just remember this,
Speaker 1: while he was of maximum utility, when he was most
Speaker 1: useful to the Democrats, they protected him at all costs.
Speaker 1: They held him up. He was a villain and they
Speaker 1: made him into a hero. That was their approach. That's
Speaker 1: what they were doing. And I don't think we should
Speaker 1: let that go out. I don't think we should think
Speaker 1: we should allow people to to pretend that isn't what happened,
Speaker 1: because it is what happened. He was a villain, and
Speaker 1: they lied to all of us about an essential area
Speaker 1: of public health and public policy to beat Trump, anything
Speaker 1: to beat Trump. That was the strategy. So they don't
Speaker 1: get any credit now, they don't get any late you know,
Speaker 1: late extra points or anything, because this story is now broken,
Speaker 1: and they're they're acting like they care about you know
Speaker 1: me too stuff and all this other. No, when it
Speaker 1: really mattered, they covered for him when it really could
Speaker 1: have done the maximum amount of public benefit to expose
Speaker 1: what was going on with this guy, they had nothing.
Speaker 1: And then there's also just this this liberal mentality of yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, your governor, you send thousands of people to
Speaker 1: their debts and nursing homes and then lie about it
Speaker 1: and then are tyrant and threatened people who try to
Speaker 1: expose it. Yeah, that's not good, but you know, we
Speaker 1: had to beat Trump. But say the wrong thing to
Speaker 1: a few female employees who come out, you know, then
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden they're outraged beyond words. It
Speaker 1: shows you a lot of their priorities, a lot of
Speaker 1: their priorities. That's for sure, certainly not all the truth.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not getting to the bottom of what's really
Speaker 1: going on here. But Governor Cuomo is finally in. He's
Speaker 1: finally in some hot water, finally not able to just
Speaker 1: get out of this. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Follow fuck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. So what now?
Speaker 1: We heard President Trump tell us his vision for the
Speaker 1: GOP going forward, how he's going to continue to fight,
Speaker 1: what does this look like in practice, and what can
Speaker 1: we all do to be a part of it. We've
Speaker 1: got Pedro Gonzalez with us now. He is an assistant
Speaker 1: editor at American Greatness and a Chronicles magazine contributor. Pedro,
Speaker 1: great to have you back. I was going to be here.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me back on Buck. So tell me
Speaker 1: what do you view as the as the Trump, the
Speaker 1: Trump roadmap, or the Trump Well, actually, let's start with this.
Speaker 1: What is his role going to be in all of this?
Speaker 1: He didn't say he's running. What do you think's happening here? Well,
Speaker 1: I'll start by saying that the most important thing Trump
Speaker 1: did was affecting a change in the way we think
Speaker 1: and talk about certain issues in twenty sixteen. But as
Speaker 1: far as I can tell, Sepack and other recent events,
Speaker 1: Kell's cast doubt on whether he can, he can or
Speaker 1: should carry that torch forward. And I think that his
Speaker 1: ideal role would be as a kingmaker, someone who, with
Speaker 1: the help of people who are truly aligned with the
Speaker 1: concept of America, first working to promote candidates to change
Speaker 1: the Republican Party from the inside, because he's made it
Speaker 1: clear he doesn't support a third party, and he claims
Speaker 1: to want to reform the GOP, which in theory that
Speaker 1: that is a good idea and it's I think the
Speaker 1: thing that Trump could do the most damage with. But
Speaker 1: he's not doing that, and instead he's actually trying to
Speaker 1: do both. It seems he's hinted at a run in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, which I think would be a mistake,
Speaker 1: and he's also he's playing kingmaker, but it's it's not
Speaker 1: really clear. It's well, I should be more frank. His
Speaker 1: endorsements are not good so far, and it actually shows
Speaker 1: that I think he's still very pliable to influence from
Speaker 1: people who are not aligned with America first, people like
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, probably even members of his family like Jared Kushner.
Speaker 1: And I think this comes into view acutely if you
Speaker 1: look at people like Jerry Moran in Kansas and James
Speaker 1: Timkin in Ohio. You know, now I appreciate Payther. You're
Speaker 1: you're giving us an honest assessment of all this because
Speaker 1: I've spoken and including at Seepack, but I've spoken to
Speaker 1: people who with you know, without attribution or off the record,
Speaker 1: depending on who it was, have all given me a
Speaker 1: similar message, which is the top people around Trump, or
Speaker 1: some of the top I should say, some of the
Speaker 1: top people around Trump when he was in office, are
Speaker 1: willing to say now that there were horrible personnel choices
Speaker 1: made at the very highest level and that some of
Speaker 1: those horrible personnel choices did result in failings or failures
Speaker 1: of implementation of the Trump agenda as he ran in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. So so what I'm I'm hopeful going forward
Speaker 1: that we can have a a conversation as conservatives where
Speaker 1: you don't just have people screaming maga in everyone's face,
Speaker 1: as if that solves the issue here, because I want
Speaker 1: to be you know, I'm enthusiastic about the future, or
Speaker 1: I should say I'm optimistic about it, and I agree
Speaker 1: with you about twenty sixteen and what Trump was saying
Speaker 1: then to the degree one can be. But I think
Speaker 1: we also have to be honest about what did not
Speaker 1: work or what did not get done. And also the
Speaker 1: fact that Trump Trump lost this election, right, and I
Speaker 1: think people still have you know, when he stands up
Speaker 1: there and says, you know, I'll beat them again. I
Speaker 1: know he's saying because of the changes and everything goes
Speaker 1: in the fraud, but it was a loss. It still
Speaker 1: goes down in the books as an l right now.
Speaker 1: That has not changed, and we need to understand how
Speaker 1: and why that happened and not just think, oh, the
Speaker 1: next here's here's what I'll say. If we were on
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty playbook again in four years, Trump will
Speaker 1: lose that I'm very confident on I think so. I
Speaker 1: think that's right, and I think the way that I
Speaker 1: have framed this to people who also double down, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump won and it was just fraud. That's the reason
Speaker 1: he's not president right now. The way I'll frame it
Speaker 1: is this, look, if he lost legitimately, he lost. If
Speaker 1: he lost because he did not take precautions ahead of
Speaker 1: the election, although there were all these morning signs the
Speaker 1: same as you. I'm not going to name names, but
Speaker 1: I was in contact with people in the White House
Speaker 1: and I asked them, like, did you guys know that
Speaker 1: that something like this was going to happen? And the
Speaker 1: answer I got was yeah, there were red flags, like
Speaker 1: we were aware that there was something going on, that
Speaker 1: Democrats were changing rules for voting in critical areas and
Speaker 1: things like that. But the view of the administration was
Speaker 1: we're going to win in such a huge landslide that
Speaker 1: we can slam through anything that happens, like we're just
Speaker 1: going to basically brute force break the wall. And obviously
Speaker 1: that didn't happen. So in either case, Trump lost, either
Speaker 1: legitimately or because of a failure of planning and personnel,
Speaker 1: because the people around him also apparently this is like
Speaker 1: how most of them were thinking, like, oh, that's you know,
Speaker 1: this is such an unstoppable machine that, you know, whatever
Speaker 1: they throw it as, we're just going to crush. That
Speaker 1: didn't happen. So another case he lost. And the question
Speaker 1: is did he learn from that? You know, if he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to think that he lost legitimately, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: but does he acknowledge that the people around him mislet him,
Speaker 1: that they gave him the wrong information, that they lulled
Speaker 1: him into a false sense of security. Does he acknowledge that?
Speaker 1: And is he willing to make a fundamental change in
Speaker 1: his personnel philosophy? His endorsements suggests no, and who he's
Speaker 1: aligning him himself with recently also suggests no. Like I
Speaker 1: think that one of the big ones is like Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 1: who he's chosen as like his post presidency wingman, McCarthy
Speaker 1: was instrumental in saving Liz Cheney's hide, who then after
Speaker 1: he saved her, she turns around and basically condemns McCarthy
Speaker 1: for his for his affiliation with Trump. And then you know,
Speaker 1: McConnell does this strange one eighty where he goes from
Speaker 1: basically trying to burn the Trump House down to basically saying,
Speaker 1: I fully support Trump running in twenty twenty four. So
Speaker 1: there's there's some kind of like horse trading that's going
Speaker 1: on beyond behind the scenes, which boils down to Trump
Speaker 1: willing to compromise with people who are like establishment people
Speaker 1: who we otherwise don't really want to have a lot
Speaker 1: of influence over policy going forward. And I worry we're speaking,
Speaker 1: we're speaking of Pedro Gonzalez of American greatness, and Pedro.
Speaker 1: I worried that the the promise of Trump, or the
Speaker 1: the idea of Trump at this stage now might in
Speaker 1: the minds of a lot of people. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: the Sea Pack Straw poll had Trump at like seventy
Speaker 1: percent or something of people want to Trump to run again.
Speaker 1: And I just hope that everyone understands that, you know,
Speaker 1: he didn't win this election, Okay, so we all need
Speaker 1: to stop thinking that, you know, oh, well, he's clearly
Speaker 1: going to win the next one, because he actually won
Speaker 1: this one. When I say he didn't win, I'm saying,
Speaker 1: by the way, people always come back to this. You
Speaker 1: don't think there was. They'll say that you don't think
Speaker 1: there was fraud. I'm like, that's not what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, who is president? Now, Okay, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: That this was a This was a contest between two
Speaker 1: two political candidates. One of them is president, the other
Speaker 1: is not. And the idea that if we just do
Speaker 1: the same kind of thing, or we put the same
Speaker 1: candidate forward with the same I mean, look, I'll say
Speaker 1: this is what he said yesterday. Some of the stuff
Speaker 1: about Biden was good. Some of the things that were said, um,
Speaker 1: you know over the weekend at Sea pack by Trump
Speaker 1: were good. But a lot of it you say, well,
Speaker 1: this is kind of the stump speech he was giving
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. And you know, there's so much a
Speaker 1: seapack was focused on big tech. I see it, and
Speaker 1: I tell people, Okay, Trump had some great tweets about
Speaker 1: big tech, he talked about it. Republicans didn't do a
Speaker 1: damn thing when they could about big tech. We need
Speaker 1: to be honest about that. Yes, that's exactly right. And
Speaker 1: it's difficult, right because we're trying to separate the man
Speaker 1: from the movement or see the two things independent of
Speaker 1: each other. And that's difficult because Trump the man is
Speaker 1: so intimately associated with the movement. But this is this
Speaker 1: is blinding, I think, because you start to lose sight
Speaker 1: of what is really happening and you instead get hyper
Speaker 1: focused on basically just the rhetoric and the tweets. So
Speaker 1: to your point about Trump complaining about tech censorship, Trump
Speaker 1: gave a direct line of communication to Silicon Valley to
Speaker 1: the White House through the Office of American Innovation, like
Speaker 1: Tim Cook, Apple, the CEO of Google. All of these
Speaker 1: people who are now crushing conservatives online were able to
Speaker 1: go in and out of the White House and in
Speaker 1: like consult with people like Avanca Trump over policy. Tim
Speaker 1: Cook was able to actually prevent h ONEB reform in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen by working through the Office of American through
Speaker 1: the OAI with Jared Kushner and like his to and
Speaker 1: they were basically able to convince Trump to not do
Speaker 1: HMB visa reform in twenty seventeen. So to your point, like,
Speaker 1: we have to see things clearly, and Trump could serve
Speaker 1: a really good role by, like I said, giving the
Speaker 1: nod to worthwhile candidates, but instead he's trying to do
Speaker 1: both things, and it doesn't look like he's going to
Speaker 1: do both either thing. Well, yeah, I'm I'm also I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get everyone understand this because you know, even
Speaker 1: early on, I was a critic of the of the
Speaker 1: you can't have your kids in the White House as
Speaker 1: senior advisors thing, and I got a lot of pushback
Speaker 1: from the MAGA faithful about this because they would say, well,
Speaker 1: he needs people he could trust. And I understand the
Speaker 1: desire to want to find a way to not you know,
Speaker 1: people were very excited about Trump and they you know,
Speaker 1: the promise of trumps them and all this stuff. But
Speaker 1: I understood how this would actually work in practice. And
Speaker 1: now again to conversations I had, including at Seepack with
Speaker 1: people whose names everybody listening to this would know, but
Speaker 1: I was speaking them off the record about it and
Speaker 1: the way it worked in practice for everybody understands like
Speaker 1: why I don't have I don't I have no personal
Speaker 1: problem with like Jared Kushner, for example, It's not it's
Speaker 1: I know how these things go. And if you you know,
Speaker 1: disagreed with Jared on criminal justice or form, which by
Speaker 1: the way, was the approach to BLM in the summer
Speaker 1: twenty twenty was a disaster, and Jared had had his
Speaker 1: fingerprints all over that. The Trump white House was trying
Speaker 1: to initially trying to be conciliatory and concede, and there
Speaker 1: was all this that was a disaster. But if you
Speaker 1: if you were a vocal voice saying don't do this, well,
Speaker 1: then Jared just shut you out from the from actual
Speaker 1: access to the president on everything else. There's what people
Speaker 1: who do understand. So he was in a position to say, oh,
Speaker 1: you're not gonna go with me on this thing, well,
Speaker 1: then on you know, your trade agenda, or on or
Speaker 1: on immigration, you don't get to you don't get to
Speaker 1: see the president, you don't have the presidency here, or
Speaker 1: he'll even undermine that person with the president. That's the
Speaker 1: way it was actually working in that White House, right right,
Speaker 1: and this and again, like you said, this is not
Speaker 1: about picking a fight with one individual who happens to
Speaker 1: be Trump's son in law. This is like personnel's policy.
Speaker 1: We say that all the time, but I don't think
Speaker 1: we really appreciate how much like what that actually means.
Speaker 1: And this is the worst case study of that of
Speaker 1: delegating to someone like this who really kind of operated
Speaker 1: like a prime minister, and like I personally knew really
Speaker 1: really good people among the very few who are really
Speaker 1: close to the president, and we're really competent and totally
Speaker 1: aligned with us in terms of America first. And this
Speaker 1: is what they experienced when they would voice oppositions to
Speaker 1: things that Kushner and his associates would want to do,
Speaker 1: Like he would notice that he wouldn't get attached to
Speaker 1: emails anymore, or they wouldn't get called to meetings anymore. Like,
Speaker 1: this is a real thing, and I don't think people
Speaker 1: understand it enough, and if you bring it up, it's
Speaker 1: kind of dismissed. It's like, well, that's a secondary concern. Well, no,
Speaker 1: it's not, because personnel like who you have on staff
Speaker 1: is going to define the agenda in reality, Like forget
Speaker 1: about the rhetoric like the law and order tweets and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. Personnel is going to decide what you'll
Speaker 1: actually get out of an administration, out of a candidate.
Speaker 1: I totally agree. We're speaking of Pedro Gonzalez. He's an
Speaker 1: American greatness. So Pedro, I just I'm trying to find
Speaker 1: a way to speak to people across the country about.
Speaker 1: You know, my hope here is that we will have
Speaker 1: a Trump machinery, Trump machinery ideology, ideas movement, but that
Speaker 1: it isn't all wrapped around what because I mean, I've
Speaker 1: said this, his his age is a real factor here,
Speaker 1: and people I know don't like to hear that, but
Speaker 1: you know, he's going to be Joe Biden's age the
Speaker 1: next time around. And I said Joe Biden was too old,
Speaker 1: and I think he is too old, you know, so
Speaker 1: I think that's a concern. Health can deteruriate very rapidly.
Speaker 1: And I say desuriate, I don't mean anything ter happening,
Speaker 1: but I just mean, you know, you slow down, you
Speaker 1: get more tired. That's what happens when you get close
Speaker 1: to being eighty years old. And I worry that people
Speaker 1: are still so emotionally invested in Trump that nothing else
Speaker 1: will be acceptable to them, and that we'll be leading
Speaker 1: the Republican Party off a cliff essentially unless we kind
Speaker 1: of figure out that's the way is not to put
Speaker 1: out all the eggs in the in the Trump as
Speaker 1: person basket. Right. No, that's exactly right. And I think
Speaker 1: that it's I found that it's often the case that
Speaker 1: when people ask you, well, if not Trump, then who,
Speaker 1: And my answer is someone like the Santis, or Josh
Speaker 1: Holly or even Tom Cotton. These are all people I'm
Speaker 1: critical of. I don't think there is such a thing
Speaker 1: as a perfect political candidate, but I think that there
Speaker 1: are alternatives. But it's often the case that what I'll
Speaker 1: here in response is like, you know, those candidates will
Speaker 1: somehow fall short of Trump, and the argument is always
Speaker 1: Trump's celebrity, like that Trump's celebrity is the most important
Speaker 1: as back to Trump. I don't think that's actually a
Speaker 1: good argument because what you're saying is and often the
Speaker 1: criticisms of like the Santas, Hollycock, whatever whatever criticisms you
Speaker 1: make of them, they can also apply to Trump. And
Speaker 1: so it always boils down to his celebrity. That's not
Speaker 1: good because what you're kind of what you're unwittingly admitting,
Speaker 1: is that it's based exclusively on his personality and nothing like,
Speaker 1: nothing substantive, and that's that's really not a good place
Speaker 1: to be. I hope we can continue to have this
Speaker 1: conversation among Republicans, Conservatives, all the goop faithful out there,
Speaker 1: and everyone realize that it's one that needs to happen, folks,
Speaker 1: because you know, it's I know it's it's kind of
Speaker 1: like a exciting line of people to hear, you know,
Speaker 1: for Trump to say I'll win a third time. He
Speaker 1: didn't win the second time, and we need to figure
Speaker 1: out if he's gonna run again. We got to make
Speaker 1: sure he wins the next time, all right, And and
Speaker 1: that's going to require a lot of preparation, conversation, and
Speaker 1: even a little bit of soul searching with thin the
Speaker 1: goop for what's really going on on here. But let's
Speaker 1: let's make sure we check out American greatness. Our friend
Speaker 1: Pedro Gonzalez writing there. Pedro, thanks so much for joining us,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having you're in the Freedom Height. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get the latest
Speaker 1: from Buck at buck Sexton dot com. Boston Public schools
Speaker 1: suspend advanced academic program due to racial equity concerns. You're
Speaker 1: going to see more of this. Democrats push this idea
Speaker 1: all the time. Now, this was from the College Fixed
Speaker 1: dot com. But it's a story. It's been all over
Speaker 1: the place, a lot of people covering this one last
Speaker 1: few days. The Boston Public school system is getting rid
Speaker 1: of an advanced learning program for four fifth and sixth
Speaker 1: graders because who wants to guess, too many white and
Speaker 1: Asian students, too many white and Asian students. It's not good,
Speaker 1: not allowed, not allowed. It's a problem. This was they're
Speaker 1: telling you. They're saying it's a problem. And this is
Speaker 1: something that comes up in other contexts too. I always
Speaker 1: tell you about the story that happens. Well, it's really
Speaker 1: an ongoing story, but it'll get a bunch of attention
Speaker 1: every couple of years. Where the most elite public school
Speaker 1: in New York City called Stevesant High School, is something
Speaker 1: like seventy percent plus Asian, and there is it's a
Speaker 1: there's a small, a much smaller percentage of the school
Speaker 1: is black and Latino than is representative of the New
Speaker 1: York City population. And so they they say this is
Speaker 1: a problem. But instead of addressing, well, how do we
Speaker 1: work in more work at more predominantly black and Latino
Speaker 1: schools to get more students into into the school, what
Speaker 1: they do is they say, no, the issue is, let's
Speaker 1: just change it at the end. Let's just give the benefits.
Speaker 1: Let's treat everybody as though they've achieved the same degree
Speaker 1: of academic academic excellence when that's clearly not the case.
Speaker 1: That's what equity means. Equity means at the end, it's
Speaker 1: it's equality of result. And increasingly Democrats have transition to that.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a large part because so many
Speaker 1: of their programs meant to address equality issues have been unsuccessful. Right,
Speaker 1: they've been unsuccessful that it hasn't really changed. And so
Speaker 1: what they do is they treat this. They treat merit
Speaker 1: as essentially an identity politics spoils system, you know, So
Speaker 1: merit isn't really a thing. There's just what do different
Speaker 1: groups get and how do we and how can we
Speaker 1: distribute that to make those groups happier and give us
Speaker 1: political power. It's not about what does any individual earn.
Speaker 1: It's not about having principles. It's just, well, we're going
Speaker 1: to have more of a giveaway to this group than
Speaker 1: that group because we want them to vote for us.
Speaker 1: It's very, very damaging for society, and they do this.
Speaker 1: Democrats keep coming up against this in cities across the country.
Speaker 1: They won't address the real issues and real concerns and
Speaker 1: real ways to work with this. Nope, they just want
Speaker 1: to change the numbers around so that they feel good
Speaker 1: about the end result and call it equity. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Chow Podcast. Follow Buck on Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and Twitter. The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll call. Alright, roll call everyone. Let's get into
Speaker 1: it right away here and we've got roll call for sure, Kent. Alright,
Speaker 1: it's Tucker. You are the best courtesy of Mark's joke
Speaker 1: making me choke on my beverage. See Mark, this is
Speaker 1: what you've done. Now now everyone thinks this is so funny.
Speaker 1: Now they keep calling me Tucker. That's fantastic. Did people
Speaker 1: come up to you and see back and do it?
Speaker 1: Because no nobody came. Oh we did somebody. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe the first day I was super I had for
Speaker 1: no apparent reason. The first night I was in Florida,
Speaker 1: I was really happy to be down there. Actually, you know,
Speaker 1: my had I had a comfortable bed, you know, everything
Speaker 1: was fine. I could not sleep a wink. I have
Speaker 1: no idea why. Total complete insombidia my first night down
Speaker 1: in Florida. So I was like walking around. If you
Speaker 1: saw me that first what was it Thursday, folks of Seapack,
Speaker 1: I looked like I was, you know, one foot out
Speaker 1: of the grave because I felt just man. When you
Speaker 1: don't get a night's sleep. The next day you're just
Speaker 1: like man like I was mummy walking around. It was
Speaker 1: not good, and I had to do a show and
Speaker 1: all kinds of interviews and stuff. But I got through
Speaker 1: it because I'm the Buckster. That's how we roll right more. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: even though you're always tired, you still do a good show. Yeah. Thanks,
Speaker 1: that's right. Yeah, So we got through it. But no people,
Speaker 1: people are the Tucker joke. I appreciate it. It's fine, Pablo,
Speaker 1: hey buck. I was thinking about the difference between the
Speaker 1: Trump first one hundred days and the Biden first days.
Speaker 1: Trump was being land based with how racist he is,
Speaker 1: and he was giving billionaires a big tax break. This
Speaker 1: tax break led to many companies giving raises or bonuses
Speaker 1: to their employees. As a small business owner, this was
Speaker 1: welcome and our employees received well deserved raises. Day one.
Speaker 1: Biden has created a large hole in the oil industry,
Speaker 1: causing many high paying jobs to be lost. Living in Alaska,
Speaker 1: we had waited for years to open anwar, but again
Speaker 1: day one of the Biden administration, it was closed so
Speaker 1: much for governing for every American. The actions of President
Speaker 1: did benefit a lot of Americans, or President Trump did
Speaker 1: benefit a lot of Americans. So far, Biden has hurt
Speaker 1: a lot of people, most of whom are either right
Speaker 1: leaning or work in a very right leaning industry. Shields High, Yeah, Pablo,
Speaker 1: That's what I've been saying. It's not even like the
Speaker 1: stuff that Biden is doing. I disagree with, but I
Speaker 1: recognize it's going to be great for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: or it's going to give a really clear, worthwhile benefit
Speaker 1: to the American people. Overall. A lot of what Biden's
Speaker 1: done is very narrow, very self interested for him politically,
Speaker 1: but but for special interests, and that's really what they're
Speaker 1: what their main concern is, that's really what they're most
Speaker 1: focused on. Richard Buck. Do you remember how back of
Speaker 1: the day the commedist Russians would give their female Olympic
Speaker 1: athletes testosterone and steroids to give them the advantage. Sometimes
Speaker 1: the rumors said that the commie woman athletes were really
Speaker 1: men dressed as women. The West, especially America, would denounce
Speaker 1: it and mock the commies. How do we go from
Speaker 1: that to this transgender sports madness of today? Why is
Speaker 1: it not mocked with the same fervor. This is not
Speaker 1: swords that identify as shields high Richard. I do remember
Speaker 1: people talking a lot about and pointing out the clear
Speaker 1: unfairness of I think it was like the East German
Speaker 1: swim team or something in particular. People would say, and
Speaker 1: where they would have athletes, you'd say, is that person
Speaker 1: really female? And there are cases, and it's worth noting
Speaker 1: that there are people who are biologically have some of
Speaker 1: a gender crossover situation, but that's not what transgenderism. Transgenderism
Speaker 1: is a psychological, purely psychological reality. It's not there's no
Speaker 1: physical You do not have to have any physical manifestation
Speaker 1: of anything to be considered transgender. So remember that it's
Speaker 1: a different thing to talk about the rare cases where
Speaker 1: there are some of the reproductive organs of both sexes
Speaker 1: present that can happen. I forge there's a term that
Speaker 1: people use for it what I want, but that's not
Speaker 1: the term people like to use anymore. If there's another,
Speaker 1: I think I think it's intersects might be the way
Speaker 1: they do. I think that's how it's described now properly described.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the reason Richard, to answer your question about
Speaker 1: transgender athletes and why this is not being made fun
Speaker 1: of the way that would have had passed. It's because
Speaker 1: it's now considered part of a civil rights crusade. So
Speaker 1: what the left believes is that if you have a
Speaker 1: problem with transgender this is what the true hardcore left believes.
Speaker 1: If you have a problem with transgender you know, track
Speaker 1: and field, um, you know, athletes, let's say, you are
Speaker 1: really no different, uh than than somebody that had, you know,
Speaker 1: a problem with you know, women, women in the workplace
Speaker 1: or something. I mean, you're you're a bigot, You're somebody
Speaker 1: who was you know. It's it's not that different in
Speaker 1: the left's mind from saying, you know, being opposed to
Speaker 1: interracial marriage even or something. They view this as as
Speaker 1: part of a moral crusade and they're on the right
Speaker 1: side and anybody who is opposed to them is on
Speaker 1: the wrong side. And that's definitely, um, that definitely for them,
Speaker 1: transgender all transgender issues. So just when you when you
Speaker 1: put it in that context, I think you can understand
Speaker 1: much more clearly why the left viewses the way they do,
Speaker 1: even though there'll be obvious manifestations of it. Like a guy,
Speaker 1: you know, a biological male who's much larger, stronger, and
Speaker 1: faster than females comically so, and we've seen examples of
Speaker 1: this already, and we'll win all these different trophies and
Speaker 1: events and things that that that is clear, we can
Speaker 1: all see it. It doesn't matter, it's worth the absurdity
Speaker 1: of it because it's it's a civil rights struggle. That's
Speaker 1: how they see this. And they've used civil rights struggles
Speaker 1: as as on all sort of the same moral plane too.
Speaker 1: They've used civil rights struggles as you know, once it's
Speaker 1: under that banner, it's all the same moral imperative is
Speaker 1: behind it. So just noting that's why I also want
Speaker 1: to take a moment. I really appreciate it and how
Speaker 1: many people came up to me and had really nice
Speaker 1: things to say about the radio show at Seatpack. I
Speaker 1: know that people listening to this on whatever two hundred
Speaker 1: stations something like that across the country and a vast,
Speaker 1: a vast majority probably you know, one in a thousand
Speaker 1: people listening to this. Actually we're at Seapack. But it
Speaker 1: really was nice, Especially these days it feels pretty isolating
Speaker 1: to be a conservative in New York City and to
Speaker 1: be able to see folks who came up to me
Speaker 1: and they wanted to take photos and everything else. It's
Speaker 1: it's really appreciate it, that's all. And I mean that
Speaker 1: I was think it's so funny when people feel a
Speaker 1: little hesitant. They're like, hey, kend of, is it okay?
Speaker 1: Of course you like my radio show. I put my
Speaker 1: I pour my life into this thing. It's like I
Speaker 1: sit here at the radio mic and open a vein
Speaker 1: for three hours every day. So if you're getting utility
Speaker 1: out of it, if it entertains you, if it informs you,
Speaker 1: that's the best. I mean. I love hearing that. So
Speaker 1: and people who also called me and say that this
Speaker 1: is now that I am I am now their favorite
Speaker 1: radio show. And a lot of people said that that
Speaker 1: I am I am now their favorite radio show. You know,
Speaker 1: that was very meaningful. So I appreciated that too, and
Speaker 1: I hope you will help spread the word. Thomas Buck
Speaker 1: love you and listen every day. Thanks for keeping me
Speaker 1: safe and warm at night. Their day, you gave a
Speaker 1: kind of backhanded dismissal of President Trump's tax cuts. Well,
Speaker 1: I understand the point you're making regarding what elle should
Speaker 1: have been accomplished. I do believe downplaying of the tax
Speaker 1: cuts is misleading. Just yesterday you were bragging about the
Speaker 1: economy President Trump passed on to his successor. But the
Speaker 1: very foundation of this economic boom was those tax cuts
Speaker 1: along with the deregulation. Just a thought, please keep up
Speaker 1: the great work, Thomas. I think that's fair. I think
Speaker 1: you understand the context in which I said it. Obviously
Speaker 1: liked and support the tax cuts. But you know, now,
Speaker 1: now I'll come with the other side of this, you know,
Speaker 1: the the other side of the coin. Here, Democrats trying
Speaker 1: to make structural, long term changes to economics, to healthcare, immigration,
Speaker 1: Republicans fiddle with the tax rate. That doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: fiddling with the tax rate is an important it is,
Speaker 1: but it is temporary and so there's always a limitation
Speaker 1: on this that we deal with. And I think that
Speaker 1: Trump on the economy and a lot of ways what
Speaker 1: he actually deregulation was good, although those regulations are coming back,
Speaker 1: but it was just a pro business attitude that he
Speaker 1: was not looking to punish capitalists for doing, you know,
Speaker 1: for running their businesses to make a profit. And you
Speaker 1: look at the Obama administration before them, and yeah, if
Speaker 1: you're big tax I mean they're companies that Democrats favor.
Speaker 1: Big business and big government like each other. They go
Speaker 1: hand in hand. But when you start to look more
Speaker 1: at some of the other things that that Trump could
Speaker 1: have done, I think that there were some missues. Look,
Speaker 1: you know, okay, yeah, the economy was good for now,
Speaker 1: it's not you know, I mean it's and I say
Speaker 1: it's not, I mean weird lockdowns. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: things going on right now that are that are distorting
Speaker 1: the situation. But there needed to be more done than
Speaker 1: just tax cuts. I guess Thomas's and I think you
Speaker 1: know what I was saying on that. But your point
Speaker 1: is fair and that you know, I could say tax
Speaker 1: cuts were not enough, but that's not to say tax
Speaker 1: cuts were not good, and I should be I should
Speaker 1: maintain that balance. Tax cuts were good, but we needed
Speaker 1: more than that. Eric love your show. I find myself
Speaker 1: using your voice imitations when making fun of libs with
Speaker 1: co workers. I'm up in North Idaho where we have
Speaker 1: a mask mandate imposed by some unelected officials at the
Speaker 1: local health department. Very few people comply. The sheriff announced
Speaker 1: that they will not enforce it. I can go anywhere
Speaker 1: that I want except Costco without a mask. We even
Speaker 1: have full restaurants where employees do not wear masks. On
Speaker 1: the flip side, I work across the border in Washington,
Speaker 1: where everything is still more or less shut down. Everyone
Speaker 1: in Washington drives over to Idaho to go to bars
Speaker 1: shop without a mask. We also have better COVID numbers
Speaker 1: than the county in Washington. My son has been in
Speaker 1: preschool this whole time with zero precautions, no kids with masks,
Speaker 1: no teachers with masks, no plexic glass, nothing, zero COVID
Speaker 1: cases at his school. These Blue states are out of
Speaker 1: their mind. I don't know how you do it. Keep
Speaker 1: up the fight, Eric, Yeah, look I pre first, I'll
Speaker 1: appreciate you like the show. And second of all, I'll
Speaker 1: just say that, yeah that the Democrats, this is not
Speaker 1: they're not doing this. It's not a reality based world
Speaker 1: they're living in. This is not rooted in what is best,
Speaker 1: This is not rooted in what is um you know
Speaker 1: the facts driving this. This is politics now. And I
Speaker 1: will say in Florida yet, people they everyone was kind
Speaker 1: of like, all right, yeah, mask mandate, but it was like,
Speaker 1: you know, put it on when you can. We know
Speaker 1: it's not perfect. Don't worry about it. You know they were,
Speaker 1: they're The added was very different and much more sane
Speaker 1: than the attitude that you get in um New York City,
Speaker 1: where where people view you as a moral monster. If
Speaker 1: you've if you're in violation of a mask statute, like
Speaker 1: you're you're putting them I'm being serious with you. You're
Speaker 1: Their attitude, the overwhelming attitude of New York City is
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, you're supposed to have a mask on
Speaker 1: and you don't. You are putting my life at risk.
Speaker 1: That's really what they think. In Florida, even we were
Speaker 1: at Sea Packet Orlando at the Hyatt, and I give
Speaker 1: high credit for not not bending the knee of the
Speaker 1: the outrage mob that came out for them, because that
Speaker 1: did happen too. But you know, we're in in Florida
Speaker 1: and the high it didn't didn't bend the knee, but
Speaker 1: you had people were standing around with mask up, signs
Speaker 1: up and stuff like that. But I'll say that at
Speaker 1: least and a couple of times I was told put
Speaker 1: the pull my mask up because I had to pull
Speaker 1: it down for photos and things. Uh, it just was
Speaker 1: far less intense and just more reasonable maybe people need
Speaker 1: to calm down, but they won't because they won't calm
Speaker 1: down till Fauci tells them it's okay. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show podcast. Join the conversation and message Buck
Speaker 1: on Facebook, Instagram, or email Team Bucket iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 1: He may read it on the show next up, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I was glad to hear your take on the Terminator
Speaker 1: movies the other day. I agree there was only the
Speaker 1: first Terminator and T two. These supposed subsequent movies do
Speaker 1: not need to exist because they were awful and T
Speaker 1: two ended it perfectly. Twenty years later, I still think
Speaker 1: T two is my favorite action movie of all time,
Speaker 1: possibly tied with True Lies. Arnold put out some good
Speaker 1: stuff in his day. Can you have the good work
Speaker 1: on the great movie taste? Well, Ethan, clearly you have
Speaker 1: great movie taste, So let's let's start with that. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for writing in and I A True
Speaker 1: Lies is a little silly, a little too silly for
Speaker 1: me in some parts, like a little too absurd. I
Speaker 1: know it's a kind of action comedy, but you know
Speaker 1: where they had the person on the missile getting fired
Speaker 1: at the other and I'm like, come on do we
Speaker 1: have to Is it really going to be that silly?
Speaker 1: It's it got a little a little crazy meat that
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say. T two is a fantastic A
Speaker 1: plus action movie that definitely belongs in the top ten
Speaker 1: all time, and you could certainly make the case is
Speaker 1: the number. You can make a case it is the
Speaker 1: number one action movie of all time. So I'm with you.
Speaker 1: I'm with you on all that. Producer Mark, have we
Speaker 1: asked if you have a favorite action movie? Huh? I
Speaker 1: probably do, I just off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: It's hard to save the best action movie I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: I've seen a lot of them. Yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of good action movies out there. I feel like as
Speaker 1: a genre, it's died down a little bit. You don't
Speaker 1: have quite the same kind of guys with giant muscles
Speaker 1: running around with machine guns shooting all the bad guys
Speaker 1: movies you used to have. There's still some of that,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot less. Brian, I hope you enjoyed Sepac.
Speaker 1: Really wish I could be there. I work remotely in
Speaker 1: PA and I've been very irate with the handling of
Speaker 1: the pandemic and election. My Governor Tom Wolfe not quite
Speaker 1: as bad as Cuomo New York. Wolf is out at
Speaker 1: the end of next year. If you see your buddy
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell down there, see if you'd throw it down
Speaker 1: his hat in the ring for Pennsylvania governor. We need
Speaker 1: to turn this Pennsylvania back to a Republican run state.
Speaker 1: I know Sean would win well, Brian, I love that idea.
Speaker 1: I would. I would back Sean Parnell for governor with
Speaker 1: everything I had, just like I tried with his congressional seat.
Speaker 1: Sean would be a great governor for the state of Pennsylvania. Actually,
Speaker 1: I'll raise it with him. I don't know Sean. Sean's
Speaker 1: gonna run again for something and he's gonna win, so
Speaker 1: he'll he'll it's just a matter of time before he's
Speaker 1: a a an elected Republican that's pursuing a MAGA agenda
Speaker 1: and doing so as a also a former combat veteran,
Speaker 1: best selling author, etc. And you guys all know Sean's
Speaker 1: a good friend of mine. He's he's a great, great dude,
Speaker 1: and I think he'd be an excellent ex governor, excellent congressman,
Speaker 1: you name it. So I will pass that along all right, Daniel, Hey, oss,
Speaker 1: where is our furry comrade COMMI bear a quick question?
Speaker 1: Can we please start calling Biden uncle Joe? It's a
Speaker 1: perfect nickname for him. I don't think ours is quite
Speaker 1: as communist as the original, but I could see people saying, well,
Speaker 1: certainly uncle Joe doesn't know it's this bad. Added to that,
Speaker 1: ours is imitating the original by clearing the military people
Speaker 1: who are politically undesirable as always, shields high and never forget.
Speaker 1: It's all the reflexes, Daniel, I hear you on commy Bear.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I've thought about trying to bring him back,
Speaker 1: but it's he's he's difficult to work with. It's not
Speaker 1: an easy thing those who are original saturirest Squad. Do
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about? The rest of the
Speaker 1: country's like a buck having some kind of a some
Speaker 1: kind of a psychological break with reality. But I'm definitely
Speaker 1: considering it, Daniel. I've been considering it for years, as
Speaker 1: some people know. But it might happen as for Uncle Joe. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I kind of I kind of think that I see
Speaker 1: you're saying. Not that many people know that Stalin was
Speaker 1: referred to by FDR's Uncle Joe. So I don't know
Speaker 1: if everybody would catch the reference, but I like where
Speaker 1: your head's at on it team. Good to be back
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hut, not on the road. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being here with me. Please do spread the word about
Speaker 1: the podcast Past the Buck. Tell them listen to Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton show Shield's High.