Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. It was a royal
Speaker 1: rumble amongst the Democrat candidates in Nevada last night. We'll
Speaker 1: break down all of the most important moments for you. Also,
Speaker 1: the Nevada caucuses are just a few days away. How
Speaker 1: is this Democrat primary shaken out? And how long is
Speaker 1: Roger Stone going to prison? We'll have that for you
Speaker 1: and much more coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence, magnor mistake. You're a great American
Speaker 1: Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. Remember he's a great guy.
Speaker 1: No hell'scale for all educational opportunity. Wonderful country. We have
Speaker 1: the best known socialists in the country. Happens to be
Speaker 1: a millionaire with three houses. What I miss here, Well,
Speaker 1: you'll list and I work in Washington Housewash the first problem.
Speaker 1: Live in Burley to the house school. That's good And
Speaker 1: like thousands of both Ramontes, I do will have a
Speaker 1: sub account and forget me for that. Where is your home?
Speaker 1: Which tax? Which tax? Haven? New York, New York City?
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, And I pay all my taxes
Speaker 1: and I'm happy to do it. Because I get something
Speaker 1: for it. New York City getting a shout out last night.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being here. Man. The debate, the debate was spicy.
Speaker 1: It was a spicy meat the ball. I enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it that and I wasn't expecting to. So
Speaker 1: you gotta give the Democrats credit. At least they put
Speaker 1: on a show. And I think the ABC News anchors,
Speaker 1: I will tell you I find Lester hole to be
Speaker 1: and I mean this as a high compliment among the
Speaker 1: very least annoying lib ankers in all of the news business.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not even sure I find him annoying
Speaker 1: quite honestly at all. So that which is, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a big compliment. I think I think he did
Speaker 1: a good job. I mean, Chuck Todd's very annoying. He
Speaker 1: was there too. But yeah, it was quite a throwdown.
Speaker 1: And that we started off with that SoundBite was the
Speaker 1: single most interesting exchange for me of the night. Now,
Speaker 1: everyone brings their own biases to this, and when you
Speaker 1: talk about who you thought had the best night, and look,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg did not have a good night, didn't have a
Speaker 1: good night, there's no question, okay, but Bloomberg also would
Speaker 1: probably stand right next to me and if we could
Speaker 1: and we asked them the question what do you think
Speaker 1: about last night? He said, who cares? In a week,
Speaker 1: all people will remember is the ad that they're seeing
Speaker 1: not just on TV, on their smartphone, in their Facebook account,
Speaker 1: on Twitter, in their email box from people talking about
Speaker 1: how great bombergs. So does the debate last night really matter?
Speaker 1: We'll see if there's a big, a big shift in
Speaker 1: the polls. I don't think it will change all that
Speaker 1: much for Bloomberg. I mean, there were two people on
Speaker 1: the stage last night who were really battling it out
Speaker 1: for supremacy in terms of attention. Biden was very I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna yell. I'm just you know, I knew the
Speaker 1: Obamacare and I did this through and I'm just yelling
Speaker 1: and I forget where I am. But I know if
Speaker 1: I keep raising my voice then people might listen. That
Speaker 1: was Biden, I, just as I've said, a third tier
Speaker 1: politician with a fourth tier mind. I also think that
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's best line. Where else have you heard Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: socialist with three houses before? I'm not saying mister Mayor
Speaker 1: listens to this show frequently, but I'm not saying he
Speaker 1: doesn't either. I don't know. I don't know, can either
Speaker 1: confirm nor deny, And I really mean that I have
Speaker 1: absolutely no idea well that it was quite an exchange.
Speaker 1: So the big takeaways, you know, the most fun thing
Speaker 1: to do after these debates, and I didn't do one.
Speaker 1: I didn't do one because, quite honestly, I watched the
Speaker 1: whole debate this morning. I had I had something to
Speaker 1: do last night, so I watched the whole thing this morning,
Speaker 1: which was great because I was, you know, sitting there
Speaker 1: drinking mccoffee, and I didn't want to get any preconceived
Speaker 1: notions going, so I didn't see what anyone I had
Speaker 1: said about the debate. And as I watched the whole
Speaker 1: thing through, I saw that if I were to come
Speaker 1: up with some live tweets, or if I were to
Speaker 1: give you the the pithy freedom Hut style, what you
Speaker 1: need to know. Sanders got hit hard for being a
Speaker 1: socialist that's out of step with most of the country,
Speaker 1: but he still has a political army behind him. Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: It was exactly what we expected, but he did get
Speaker 1: in a good shot on on Bernie Sanders, but the
Speaker 1: stuff with the women and the non disclosure agreements will
Speaker 1: get into all the specifics. So this didn't look good
Speaker 1: for him. But again I think I think it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: I think the people that like Bloomberg won't care. Klobaschar
Speaker 1: comes across as more reasonable and more normal than really
Speaker 1: all the other Democrats on the stage, at least to me.
Speaker 1: And that continued last night although she had she mixed
Speaker 1: it up with may Or Pete on some stuff. Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete was getting feisty with her. And then you had
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, and I saw the jokes on Twitter about
Speaker 1: how you know she brought a tomahawk to a knife fight,
Speaker 1: or that she had her war paint on. I mean,
Speaker 1: people were when the president calls a political candidate pocahonas.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the field is wide open for
Speaker 1: the continuation of those kinds of jokes. I think it's
Speaker 1: worth noting those are jokes at Elizabeth Warren's expense, not
Speaker 1: at the expense of Native American people. But it's it's
Speaker 1: amazing to see how Warren, how predictable it was for
Speaker 1: her to go after for her to go after people
Speaker 1: the way that she did, notably Mike Bloomberg. You see,
Speaker 1: she had in her head going into this debate that
Speaker 1: if she was on offense against Bloomberg would elevate her
Speaker 1: back to being at some degree of perception parody with Sanders,
Speaker 1: who is the class warfare guy. Sanders is the class
Speaker 1: warfare guy. Elizabeth Warren tried to be the more policy
Speaker 1: walk also into the class warfare stuff, but she's she's
Speaker 1: taken a slightly less aggressive approach, and last night that
Speaker 1: all went out of the window. She was going after Sanders,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, going after Bloomberg with everything she's got. Klobe
Speaker 1: shar was going after Sanders on getting rid of healthcare
Speaker 1: healthcare for one hundred and forty nine million people with
Speaker 1: his Medicare for All planned Buddha Judge was going after
Speaker 1: going after Bernie Sanders on thirty trillion dollars of spending,
Speaker 1: only fifteen trillion of which has been explained. And thankfully
Speaker 1: we were spared from having Tom Steyer up there. Like
Speaker 1: climate changes though you know, I only wear one tie
Speaker 1: to lower the CO two emissions from making ties. So
Speaker 1: that was what was going on last night. All right,
Speaker 1: let's let's dig into a bit of the Shelby. I mean,
Speaker 1: the big takeaway is that I think that this is
Speaker 1: now it's a it's a Bernie, It's a Bernie Bloomberg
Speaker 1: fight for this nomination. I think that's the case. Maybe
Speaker 1: we'll see after Super Tuesday that Biden all of a
Speaker 1: sudden surges. But I think this is a democratic party
Speaker 1: that has to choose, and they're choosing between They're choosing
Speaker 1: between polar opposites within the party, which is what's so fascinating.
Speaker 1: These aren't two people usually. I think you would expect
Speaker 1: that at a particular political moment, there'd be two people
Speaker 1: who in a primary, we're really running for the same
Speaker 1: in the same lane, with mostly the same policy ideas,
Speaker 1: and what you have with Biden. I'm sorry with Bloomberg
Speaker 1: and Bernie getting all these bees, Buddha judge, there's too
Speaker 1: many bees in this race. It's a good thing Buck
Speaker 1: isn't in the mix. But then I don't have to
Speaker 1: take them all to school in that debate stage. But
Speaker 1: you have these different candidates, and they are far apart
Speaker 1: on these issues, so far apart that you have to
Speaker 1: wonder if Bloomberg, under other circum stances would even really
Speaker 1: be considered a Democrat or if he's really more of
Speaker 1: an independent who's trying to run as a Democrat in
Speaker 1: order to prevent the victory of Donald Trump. So now
Speaker 1: let's get to it. This is where let's start with
Speaker 1: this one, because going the person who went after Bloomberg
Speaker 1: the hardest, no question, was Elizabeth Warren. Warren was setting
Speaker 1: setting the ambush from the very beginning. And here is
Speaker 1: how she started. This was earlier the debate two. Here's
Speaker 1: how she started out Play five. I'd like to talk
Speaker 1: about who were running against a billionaire who calls women
Speaker 1: fat broads and horse faced lesbians. And no I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg. Democrass
Speaker 1: are not going to win if we have a nominee
Speaker 1: who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of
Speaker 1: harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redline and
Speaker 1: stop and frisk. Look, I'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is,
Speaker 1: but understand this, Democrats take a huge risk if we
Speaker 1: just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. Whoa the range
Speaker 1: is hot rounds getting fired, it's who it's with. Warren
Speaker 1: deciding that she was just going to go after Bloomberg
Speaker 1: and say that he's not really much better than Trump.
Speaker 1: That's certainly the implication. She more or less came out
Speaker 1: and said it. Those things that she rattled off that
Speaker 1: she believes will prevent the Democratic Party from winning. Let's understand,
Speaker 1: if you take a longer view, if you look at
Speaker 1: this from a strategic perspective, redlining, his comments about women
Speaker 1: and stopping frisk, those are all problems for the Democrat base.
Speaker 1: I don't think any of those are going to be
Speaker 1: major issues of concern in the states that if Bloomberg
Speaker 1: were the winner of the primary, he would be facing
Speaker 1: off against Trump in right Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida,
Speaker 1: and whatever else you want to throw in there. I mean, though,
Speaker 1: those main states that you have to look at as
Speaker 1: the determining factor in who's going to be the next
Speaker 1: president United States. I don't know if any of that
Speaker 1: really matters. You can say that, you know, minority turnout
Speaker 1: in those states might be a little bit suppressed for Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: but minority turnout in those states is generally not or
Speaker 1: it all. It depends on which stay we're talking about
Speaker 1: and which minority group. So that's that remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that any of those issues would
Speaker 1: stop a Democrat voter from coming out and voting from
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg. I could be wrong. We are seeing now
Speaker 1: that there's still major concerns among the Democratic establishment that
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is out of the national mainstream. He's not
Speaker 1: out of the Democratic Party mainstream, clearly, but is he
Speaker 1: out of the national mainstream? Do independence do undecided voters
Speaker 1: turn out for a Bernie Sanders radical socialist agenda. That's
Speaker 1: that's the pivotal question. That's what has to be answered
Speaker 1: by these Democrats, and I don't think they're ready for that.
Speaker 1: Let me go back to Bloomberg for a second. Look.
Speaker 1: I hate Bloomberg's policies, but I do think that we
Speaker 1: need to understand who's a bigger threat to the American
Speaker 1: economy and way of life among the Democrats, and I
Speaker 1: believe that Bernie Sanders is a much more It's obvious
Speaker 1: that he's a much more serious threat to many of
Speaker 1: the things that are important to us. So if I
Speaker 1: ever sound like I'm being a little too favorable to Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: you know, full disclosure. You know that I worked for
Speaker 1: the MYPD when Bloomberg was the mayor, and that he
Speaker 1: was relatively well regarded in that role, and he was
Speaker 1: a Republican then. But I also think that Bloomberg on
Speaker 1: climate change and on guns and there's a whole host
Speaker 1: of issues where he is terrible. He's not like a
Speaker 1: little bit bad. He's not a moderate. He's a leftist
Speaker 1: on those issues. So I like to give you that
Speaker 1: context for everything else. I'm going to say, because I'm
Speaker 1: kind of gonna be one of these people right now.
Speaker 1: Everyone's when they're pulling apart this primary, they either are
Speaker 1: bashing Bloomberg and de facto pumping up Bernie a little bit,
Speaker 1: or bashing Bernie and pumping up Bloomerg a little bit.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's even if that's not the intent, that's
Speaker 1: the side effect. So I'm aware that that may be
Speaker 1: what's going on the Indy. Please everyone, I love all
Speaker 1: of you who listen to this show, and I am
Speaker 1: humbled and honored, and I mean that from the bottom
Speaker 1: of my heart. Every day. I don't know how many
Speaker 1: jobs I could say this, though I have no control
Speaker 1: over Bloomberg by ads on our podcast, iHeart does not
Speaker 1: with the company takes political advertisements, and if you take
Speaker 1: political advertisements, which if you're a major media company you
Speaker 1: have to, you can't discriminate against different political parties. So please,
Speaker 1: I love you all. But I keep getting a producer,
Speaker 1: markast to feel that we can get these emails like
Speaker 1: why is Bloomberg by? We can't stop him? There are
Speaker 1: and I would argue that we should be able to
Speaker 1: that this. Uh, these campaign finance laws are ridiculous in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways. But I just wanted to say
Speaker 1: that there's nothing that we can do right now about
Speaker 1: it or with all that. This is where Bloomberg, this
Speaker 1: is where things got rough for him, and he looked
Speaker 1: like he was up there on stage and he's just like, ah,
Speaker 1: do I have to be here? Can I pay someone
Speaker 1: else to be here instead of me? I'm so bored,
Speaker 1: I don't want to be here. I'm tired. I'm worth
Speaker 1: like a hundred bajillion dollars like what? So here is
Speaker 1: where he got himself into a tough spot up on
Speaker 1: that stage. Play one Mark and the Mari comes along
Speaker 1: on His attorney said, I will give you this amount
Speaker 1: of money if you promise you'll never say anything. That's
Speaker 1: how it works. I said, we're not going to get
Speaker 1: to end these agreements because they were made consensually, and
Speaker 1: they have every right to expect that they will stay private.
Speaker 1: If they want to release it, they should be able
Speaker 1: to release themselves. I will say yes, no, the Mayor.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't. By the way, I'm somebody who doesn't like
Speaker 1: the retention of titles things, so I shouldn't we I
Speaker 1: just go with may Or Pete because his last name
Speaker 1: is hard to say like everybody else's. It's not out
Speaker 1: of some strange newfound respect for for Pete Buddha judge,
Speaker 1: but Bloomberg. He is not may Or Bloomberg anymore. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: did not do himself any favors there. But what is
Speaker 1: he really going to say? I don't know what the
Speaker 1: NDAs that were signed. I don't know what the provisions
Speaker 1: are in them and who's involved, And it might be
Speaker 1: people that sued Bloomberg's company for what other managers did,
Speaker 1: and so that then would be he's not in a
Speaker 1: position to just wave it, but no one wants to.
Speaker 1: No one cares about that. All they care about is
Speaker 1: that Bloomberg has NDA's from his company, where he has
Speaker 1: apparently a history of not always speaking very well, you know,
Speaker 1: in front of women and about women, And the Democrats
Speaker 1: must at some level be aware that all their complaints
Speaker 1: about how horrible Trump is when it comes to women,
Speaker 1: that's not going to be as effective a line of
Speaker 1: attack if, in fact, you have a Bloomberg nominee from
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. One thing is interesting Bernie Sanders. You know,
Speaker 1: he's been he's been married a few times. His personal
Speaker 1: life somehow never gets brought up in any of this either.
Speaker 1: I just I think I think that we've reached the
Speaker 1: point now where where divorces and messy divorces and those
Speaker 1: things for political office nobody really cares, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: kids with with one wife and then kids with another
Speaker 1: wife or kids without a wife, or whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: I think that people are increasingly just don't really make
Speaker 1: decisions based on that. I think that's what we're seeing.
Speaker 1: But Bernie Sanders personal life, somehow always have always no
Speaker 1: one brings it up. They did bring up his medical
Speaker 1: records last night and his promise that he'd release them,
Speaker 1: which he has gone back on, but really the the
Speaker 1: entire m last night for Warren and for Bernie, and
Speaker 1: probably for a couple of other candidates. You want to
Speaker 1: throw them in there too. Was it just stop this
Speaker 1: Bloomberg momentum, this juggernaut of financial political this financial political
Speaker 1: onslaught And here is what Warren called for, play too.
Speaker 1: I hope that Michael Bloomberg decides to live by what
Speaker 1: he says. He just wants to see the Democrats beat
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So that's great, Mike Bloomberg, drop out of
Speaker 1: the race, keep putting your money in to help Democrats
Speaker 1: beat Donald Trump, and just take your ego out of this.
Speaker 1: Did you expect him to do differently tonight or better
Speaker 1: than he did? What shocks me is he seems so
Speaker 1: unprepared for the question about the nondisclosure agreements. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about what that says about Mike Bloomberg, that all
Speaker 1: these years he has been sued evidently multiple times for
Speaker 1: discrimination against women and for harassing women. The details we
Speaker 1: don't know, because each time it happens, if he puts
Speaker 1: a chunk of money on the table and then forces
Speaker 1: the woman to agree to wear a muzzle for the
Speaker 1: rest of her life over this issue, well that was
Speaker 1: the that was the main attack against Bloomberg. Last night,
Speaker 1: and it didn't look good and Bloomberg had a bad
Speaker 1: night all in all on the debate stage. But I
Speaker 1: still hold to I don't think. I don't think anyone's
Speaker 1: gonna care. We'll see if I'm writing the polls. You're
Speaker 1: in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show podcast, all right. So that that was the the
Speaker 1: big moments. The big moments last night were about the
Speaker 1: attacks about different candidates on that stage going on offense
Speaker 1: against each other. I think, by the way, I think
Speaker 1: that that's fine. I don't understand why people keep saying
Speaker 1: they should focus on Trump. We all know they hate
Speaker 1: Trump and think that he's the Antichrist, and they're all
Speaker 1: we get that. That doesn't tell us anything. What do
Speaker 1: they think about each other? And how are they different
Speaker 1: from each other? And if you're gonna ask for the
Speaker 1: most powerful job in the world and the nuclear codes,
Speaker 1: you should be able to take people coming at you
Speaker 1: on stage and fund of millions and millions of audience.
Speaker 1: I mean, conservative pundits deal with that all the time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, Sleepy Joe Biden the other day
Speaker 1: had sixty eight people. And now they have a new
Speaker 1: member of the clue, Mini Mic Minim no Boxes. We
Speaker 1: call him No Boxes. And I hear he's getting pounded tonight.
Speaker 1: You know, he's in a debate. I hear that pounding. Year.
Speaker 1: He spent five hundred million dollars so far and I
Speaker 1: think he has fifteen points. It just came out, Hey,
Speaker 1: fake news. How many points does he have right now? Fifteen? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I love when he calls out the fake news in
Speaker 1: the back of the room. You know why, because it
Speaker 1: makes them so mad. Even then they have no sense
Speaker 1: of humor about it at all. They have no sense
Speaker 1: of self deprecation. In the corporate liberal news media, they
Speaker 1: get very touchy about it. So I think that was
Speaker 1: pretty fantastic when he does it. But look, you look
Speaker 1: at the most recent, most recent polling, and you know
Speaker 1: Sanders is at the top, Biden still is doing well,
Speaker 1: although not well enough maybe to be the nominee. And
Speaker 1: Bloomberg has bought himself into this very key spot, this
Speaker 1: key position. What Warren said that she wants his cash
Speaker 1: to be used for to help the Democrats. I could
Speaker 1: see that happening, and that's been my concern all along.
Speaker 1: Imagine a Sanders, let's say a Sanders Klobischar ticket, which
Speaker 1: I think would be a very wise ticket for the
Speaker 1: Democrats from just their perspective of trying to win and
Speaker 1: beat Trump. I think Sanders Klobischar would make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense if Bernie is the nominee, and then with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's checkbook behind it, with some kind of a promise,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe it's behind closed doors between Bernie and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg that Bernie won't go full Bernie. I don't think
Speaker 1: Bernie would make that promise, so I don't know. I
Speaker 1: think that I think that Bloomberg has stepped into this
Speaker 1: race more to defeat Bernie Sanders than to defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That's that's my belief. Now he can't say that because
Speaker 1: it would look like, you know, he's a Republican trojan
Speaker 1: horse going into the Democratic primary. I think it's more
Speaker 1: important to Mike Bloomberg that Bernie Sanders is not the
Speaker 1: Democrat nominee than that Donald Trump is not president for
Speaker 1: four more years. And I think that's pretty sound analysis
Speaker 1: from him. I do not find that all that I
Speaker 1: do not find that to be off at all. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I share that if that is in fact the way
Speaker 1: Bloomberg feels, I think that he's correct in that it's
Speaker 1: a much bigger deal the Democrats can rally after if
Speaker 1: Trump were to beat let's say, Biden in the in
Speaker 1: the next election. But I don't know if the Democrats
Speaker 1: can come back from a socialist as the as their
Speaker 1: primary victor going up in a national election that's going
Speaker 1: to be Unless you think that, then Bernie's movement is
Speaker 1: picked up by Oh, I don't know, AOC play fifteen
Speaker 1: producer Mark. I think there's a couple of reasons. One,
Speaker 1: before people even knew who I was, like five minutes
Speaker 1: after I won my primary, it was the Apocalypse on
Speaker 1: Fox News. And I think it's because our political system
Speaker 1: is not designed for people like us. They're not designed
Speaker 1: for working people to succeed, for young people, for women,
Speaker 1: for people of color. It's not particularly welcoming and historically
Speaker 1: to have someone like that assent, especially when I was
Speaker 1: running against someone who was the antithesis of those things,
Speaker 1: to send so rapidly right, it's it's up ending. But
Speaker 1: also I think it's because our entire political system revolves
Speaker 1: frankly around rich men, and rich men are not the
Speaker 1: center of my universe. Working families are. So she is
Speaker 1: going to be the Democrat nominee at some point. I
Speaker 1: know this is a Now she's thirty. You've got to
Speaker 1: be thirty five to even under the constitution run for president.
Speaker 1: But that I don't know. I guess she wouldn't be
Speaker 1: around for the next cycle. But she'll be at the
Speaker 1: in the next presidential cycle unless a Democrat. Think of
Speaker 1: it this way. If a Democrat wins now in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be you know, AOC would
Speaker 1: certainly try after that Democrat has had his or her
Speaker 1: eight year run to run for president. But if Trump
Speaker 1: wins reelection, which I certainly hope he does, AOC Bernie
Speaker 1: will be I think even Democrats would accept that in
Speaker 1: four more years, at age eighty two, Bernie would be
Speaker 1: too old. Look, I think Bloomberg is too old. I
Speaker 1: think Biden is too old. I don't understand why anyone
Speaker 1: pretends like that's not the case. These people are too
Speaker 1: old for the job. If Trump was eight nine years
Speaker 1: older than he is, I mean, like, you know, I
Speaker 1: think I'm getting up a little too old for the
Speaker 1: job too. I mean, he's just under the wire of
Speaker 1: what I think is feasible for age. But also, and
Speaker 1: I'm biased, of course, but I admit, unlike the other
Speaker 1: unlike the fake news, I admit that I'm a Trump supporter,
Speaker 1: and then I appreciate what the president is doing, and
Speaker 1: I am on board for and advocate for almost all
Speaker 1: of his agenda. I mean, I really pretty much all
Speaker 1: the agenda. I think the Trump has an incredible energy
Speaker 1: and dynamism, and it's apparent all the time. And he
Speaker 1: never looks like Bernie looks like at any moment, you know,
Speaker 1: he's just gonna, like need a nap in a sippy cup.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just the sense you get. Biden is
Speaker 1: like the old guy that I've been trying to get
Speaker 1: him to take a nap and he's yelling about how
Speaker 1: he's not tired yet. You know that That's kind of
Speaker 1: what you get from Joe Biden. These guys are too
Speaker 1: old AOC Buddha Judge, this is the future. This is
Speaker 1: the future of the Democratic Party. I also have to
Speaker 1: wonder if Buddha Judge is gonna leave Indiana and just
Speaker 1: decide he's going to run somewhere else because really what
Speaker 1: he the much safer play him or the much easier
Speaker 1: play for him down the line would be to go
Speaker 1: to a safe blue place, safe blue state and become
Speaker 1: a congressman and then congressman or run for Senate. I mean,
Speaker 1: look at Hillary Clinton did right Once you had that
Speaker 1: level of national recognition, Hillary just showed up in New
Speaker 1: York and became a center from New York. Wasn't a
Speaker 1: New Yorker never, but yeah, it's just made it happen.
Speaker 1: I think you'll see that with Buddha Judge, because he's
Speaker 1: also gonna you know, you're already seeing the future of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is so even if we defeat Bernie
Speaker 1: this time around, unless it is a crushing defeat. That's
Speaker 1: why I think that Bernie against Trump is probably a
Speaker 1: better thing for the country because we can see that
Speaker 1: and have the argument if Bernie loses in the primary
Speaker 1: to i mean Biden or Bloomberg. You got to think
Speaker 1: that the supporters that Sanders have, they're just going to
Speaker 1: think that, and they did get screwed over by the DNC.
Speaker 1: That's a real thing. Once again. The media as well,
Speaker 1: not as supportive of Sanders as they are of other candidates,
Speaker 1: and so at that point they'll just look for a
Speaker 1: new figure to rally around for, you know, for Sandersism,
Speaker 1: you know, for to be a sander Nista. Sanders will
Speaker 1: become the Lenin, if you will, of the American socialist movement,
Speaker 1: and they'll be looking for Stalin. I mean, which shit,
Speaker 1: I would not really stolid you get what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I was just playing out that analogy there. Although I
Speaker 1: will talk to you later in the show about some
Speaker 1: some troubling thoughts I have about wokeism and what our
Speaker 1: future really is as a country. I saw a very
Speaker 1: interesting piece on that one. Let's get to some of
Speaker 1: the other important moment, because I'm gonna spend all data
Speaker 1: down the debate. You didn't if you if you watched it,
Speaker 1: you've already seen a lot of or you already know
Speaker 1: some of what I'm gonna be pointing out to you.
Speaker 1: And I think there are other things to talk about,
Speaker 1: including Roger Stone verdict I'm sorry, sentencing. We already have
Speaker 1: the verdict, obviously, the sentencing of Roger Stone, the verdict
Speaker 1: on his sentence. You could say, here is what I
Speaker 1: think was the single you know the single moment that
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete had where he also went after Sanders and
Speaker 1: was somewhat memorable, and that he's pointing out, like, guys, this,
Speaker 1: this person's a socialist. This is the Democratic Party. You
Speaker 1: got a socialist running for president who's winning. Right now,
Speaker 1: play three. We could wake up two weeks from today,
Speaker 1: the day after Super Tuesday, and the only candidates left
Speaker 1: standing will be Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg, the two
Speaker 1: most polarizing figures on this stage, and most Americans don't
Speaker 1: see where they fit. If they've got to choose between
Speaker 1: a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of
Speaker 1: all evil and a billionaire who thinks that money ought
Speaker 1: to be the root of all power. Let's put forward
Speaker 1: somebody who actually lives and works in a middle class
Speaker 1: neighborhood in an industrial Midwestern city. Let's put forward somebody
Speaker 1: who's actually a Democrat, actually a Democrat. That's a clear
Speaker 1: swype ed Bernie Sanders, and I think it should be
Speaker 1: a more effective one. Except the Democratic Party really now
Speaker 1: is whether they will admit it or not, whether they
Speaker 1: will accept it or not, the Democratic Party is increasingly
Speaker 1: a socialist party. That's where this is now that that's
Speaker 1: where their policies are directed. They are in the business
Speaker 1: of bringing socialism to the United States, and that's where
Speaker 1: I think Bloomberg's strongest points last night were just you
Speaker 1: guys are crazy, right, you will understand that. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, the Sanders Warren Boodha judge on policy, Booda
Speaker 1: judge seems you know, he's very polished and former McKinsey
Speaker 1: consultants and all the rest. He seems like a guy
Speaker 1: that would be reasonable based on tone, based on policy,
Speaker 1: is not even the least bit reasonable. And when he does,
Speaker 1: when he does his Pope Pete routine, I lose my mind.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg was trying to just yell this. I think he's
Speaker 1: trying to do the Democrat. He thinks he's doing the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party a huge favor, if anything, just by stopping
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders from being the nominee. I do believe that
Speaker 1: he if Biden, let's say, we're all kind of counting
Speaker 1: Biden now this one. I've been counting him out all along,
Speaker 1: but I'll just say it is too early, based on
Speaker 1: numbers and based on polling to say Biden's a no
Speaker 1: go there's no doubt in my mind that Bloomberg will
Speaker 1: will put his cash behind a Biden candidacy to help
Speaker 1: defeed Trump. So you got to remember that means that
Speaker 1: Biden's effectively going to be running with an unlimited checkbook,
Speaker 1: and Biden will be able to, you know, the whole
Speaker 1: all the time, spend fundraising everything else. That it's going
Speaker 1: to change the whole game. So we have to take
Speaker 1: very seriously that Donald Trump is going to have some
Speaker 1: real competition here. It's going to be closer than maybe
Speaker 1: we had anticipated, and it was going to and it's
Speaker 1: always going to be close because of the way the
Speaker 1: system currently is in the polarization in our politics. But
Speaker 1: Bloomberg is trying to warn them, you put a socialist
Speaker 1: up there, guys, it's not going to be good play
Speaker 1: for I don't think there's any chance of the senator
Speaker 1: beating President Trump if you don't start out by saying,
Speaker 1: I've got to written sixty million people, I'm going to
Speaker 1: take away the insurance plan that they love. That's just
Speaker 1: not a ways that you go and start building the
Speaker 1: coalition that the Sanders camp thinks that they can do.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any chance whatsoever, and if he
Speaker 1: goes and is the candidate, we will have Donald Trump
Speaker 1: for another four years. I think he's probably right, But
Speaker 1: I know some very smart conservatives who would argue till
Speaker 1: they're blue in the face that Bernie Sanders is the
Speaker 1: only one who will really be able to defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Until you run the experiment, you don't know what the
Speaker 1: results are. I fall in the Bloomberg analysis here on
Speaker 1: that side, I think that he's correct that Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: gets crushed because Americans don't really want a socialist to
Speaker 1: be the president, and Bernie Sanders, unlike much of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, is premised on telling people things when you
Speaker 1: want them to vote for you, and then not really
Speaker 1: believing those things or acting on those things the moment
Speaker 1: that the votes are cast and now they're in power.
Speaker 1: Democrats do a lot of head fakes. They do a
Speaker 1: lot of disingenuous this is who we are outreach when
Speaker 1: it's really not who they are. You know, a lot
Speaker 1: of the ways that they position different candidates, especially in
Speaker 1: states that are that are purple or where there's a
Speaker 1: large base of Republican voters, is to allow them to
Speaker 1: just be close enough to close enough to the mainstream
Speaker 1: that they can get away with an election time and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden they're in lockstep with Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi or in lockstep with Chuck Schumer on all legislative issues.
Speaker 1: That's very very that's a very common theme among among
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Sanders dispenses with that, and he's like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm a socialist, like really an actual capital s oh
Speaker 1: c h. Speaking of having so surely speaking of having
Speaker 1: a difficult time with trivia and spelling and getting things right. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding. Bernie Sanders obviously knows how to spell socialist.
Speaker 1: He is a socialist. He's probably got a tattooed somewhere
Speaker 1: on his you know, on his arm or something. Senator
Speaker 1: klobaschar to Buddha Judge. This was it after Kloba Shar
Speaker 1: forgot in an interview who the President of Mexico was.
Speaker 1: Please play twenty one. But you're staking your candidacy on
Speaker 1: your Washington experience. You're on the committee that oversees border security,
Speaker 1: You're on the committee that does trade. You're literally in
Speaker 1: part of the committee that's overseeing these things. And we're
Speaker 1: not able to speak to literally the first thing about
Speaker 1: the politics of the country ourselves. Are you trying to
Speaker 1: say that I'm dumb? Are you mocking me here? I
Speaker 1: made an error. People sometimes forget names. I am the
Speaker 1: one that has number one, has the experience based on
Speaker 1: passing over one thing. If I could respond, this was
Speaker 1: a pretty big a colligation. He's basically saying that I
Speaker 1: don't have the experience to be president of the United States.
Speaker 1: I have passed over one hundred bills as the lead
Speaker 1: Democrat since being in the US Senate. I am the one,
Speaker 1: not you, that has won statewide in congressional district after
Speaker 1: congressional district. And I will say, when you tried in Indiana,
Speaker 1: Pete to run what happened to you? You lost by
Speaker 1: over twenty points to someone who later lost to my
Speaker 1: friend Joe Donnelly. So don't tell me about experience. The
Speaker 1: gloves came off both sides there, the gloves came off.
Speaker 1: I was surprised Democrat debate made for good viewing. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Heart. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Help you've heard what his defense was, I'd been nice
Speaker 1: to some women. That just doesn't cut it. The mayor
Speaker 1: has to stand up on his record and what we
Speaker 1: need to know is exactly what's lurking out there. He
Speaker 1: has gotten some number of women, dozens who knows, to
Speaker 1: sign non disclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for
Speaker 1: gender discrimination in the workplace. So, mister mayor, are you
Speaker 1: willing to release all of those women from those non
Speaker 1: disclosure agreements so we can hear their side of the story.
Speaker 1: We have a very few non disclosure agreements. How many?
Speaker 1: Let me finish? How many is there? None of them
Speaker 1: accused me of doing anything other than maybe they didn't
Speaker 1: like a joke I told, And let me just put
Speaker 1: and let me put. These agreements between two parties that
Speaker 1: wanted to keep it quiet, and that's up to them.
Speaker 1: They signed those agreements and we'll live with it. So wait, wait,
Speaker 1: media is all over this. I know we got to
Speaker 1: this topic earlier in the hour, but I meant to
Speaker 1: play that sound by free and I skiped over. That
Speaker 1: was where she really that was where she really went
Speaker 1: for it. Yeah, that was where Tomahawk went swinging. She
Speaker 1: decided that she was going to go after Bloomberg there,
Speaker 1: and he didn't sound particularly good at all in the defense.
Speaker 1: No question's like you know, helped people. They signed the agreements.
Speaker 1: And but let's also remember Bloomberg runs a huge company,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of people that work in that company,
Speaker 1: and we know that he's made crude craft chokes. We
Speaker 1: also know that Bernie Sanders wrote some bizarre stuff about
Speaker 1: women back in the day. I just don't know how
Speaker 1: much anyone's really going to care about this. The media
Speaker 1: cares about it tremendously, and they're viewing this as the
Speaker 1: huge achilles heel that was exposed during the debate by Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: During the debate, When it comes from Bloomberg, I think
Speaker 1: that everyone will forget this one in a day or two,
Speaker 1: because that attack really only works on Republicans, you know,
Speaker 1: with mid Romney and his binders full of women. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that it as strong as the Democrat
Speaker 1: media likes to pretend it is, because they're also full
Speaker 1: of political correctness and wokeness and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: I don't think they have a good gauge of what
Speaker 1: the damage is from that. But we'll see. We'll see
Speaker 1: that that was Bloomberg's worst moment, though I wonder if
Speaker 1: that was when it ever Oh everybody, I was wondering
Speaker 1: if Minnie Mike was gonna scurry off stage left, so
Speaker 1: we'll see. Thanks for listening to The bus Essence Show podcasts.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app for
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Roger Stone got forty months
Speaker 1: in federal prison. Three years, four months all together. All right,
Speaker 1: let's let's dive into this one together, my friend. Shall
Speaker 1: We know that the Libs are going to say this
Speaker 1: is not justice, and not because they think that Roger
Speaker 1: Stone is innocent or should get any mercy. They really
Speaker 1: convinced themselves that, you know, he should go to prison
Speaker 1: for like seven eight years federal prison. That's a long
Speaker 1: time to spend in prison. You know, think about your
Speaker 1: own life, go back in time eight years and think
Speaker 1: about everything that's transpired between now and then you spend
Speaker 1: all that in a sell for eight years. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what Blagoyevitch just served. And he is a changed,
Speaker 1: changed man, that is for sure. He has been through
Speaker 1: some stuff. Roger Stone going to prison for over three
Speaker 1: years is in my opinion, which I guess I share
Speaker 1: with you freely because this is an opinion and analysis
Speaker 1: show is really is really a travesty. I mean This
Speaker 1: is a guy who if it weren't for the frenzy
Speaker 1: around Russia collusion and the hatred of Trump and all
Speaker 1: this other crazy stuff, this could have even been deferred prosecution.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, this could have been deferred prosecutions. When
Speaker 1: you go and you meet with the prosecutors, they're like, look,
Speaker 1: we've got you. We know you're guilty, and you're going
Speaker 1: to sign some stuff, but we're not gonna We're not
Speaker 1: gonna go forward with this. But if you do anything else,
Speaker 1: we retain the right to throw this in at you
Speaker 1: and the other thing that you do. So it's essentially
Speaker 1: like a warning. And by the way, I think that
Speaker 1: deferred prosecution for nonviolent offenders should be much more common
Speaker 1: than it is for a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: financial crimes and things like this. I think that especially,
Speaker 1: you know, if you don't have a person who can
Speaker 1: sit in a courtroom and convince you that either he
Speaker 1: or she or you know, their counsel, convince you that
Speaker 1: there's a human being who has really been hurt by
Speaker 1: something that has been done, or the government can't sit
Speaker 1: down and tell you, you know, this was really important
Speaker 1: and this was really bad. This thing that was done
Speaker 1: to the government putting people in prison. You gotta wonder
Speaker 1: why exactly we're doing that. I mean, you got to
Speaker 1: ask yourself what are we doing here? So that's what
Speaker 1: I would say. Roger Stone, whom I've interviewed before and
Speaker 1: I think is a very interesting character, and I feel
Speaker 1: badly too, because you know, he's he's theatrical, and I
Speaker 1: think he got a little ahead of his skis on
Speaker 1: this one and didn't realize quite the viciousness of the
Speaker 1: people that he was dealing with with these special with
Speaker 1: the special counsel prosecutors, who were Democrat operatives, that's what
Speaker 1: they are. I mean, they came into this not looking
Speaker 1: for justice but to destroy Trump and everyone around him.
Speaker 1: And fortunately for Trump, he didn't do anything. And he's
Speaker 1: also the president, so they couldn't get him on anything
Speaker 1: that was a true violation, a true crime, and they
Speaker 1: couldn't even get him on a real process crime. Thankfully,
Speaker 1: the President did not testify to them because they would
Speaker 1: have tried to trip him up on some minor facto
Speaker 1: it And we know there's no sense of balance, there's
Speaker 1: no sense of justice between the left and the right
Speaker 1: anymore on these issues. If you're a Republican and you law,
Speaker 1: you go to prison. It's terrible, It's super important, and
Speaker 1: we should all condemn the person. If you're a Democrat
Speaker 1: and you lie, was it really a lie? Does it
Speaker 1: really matter? Did we really need to hear more about this?
Speaker 1: I think we should just move on, you know, like
Speaker 1: move on dot org an organization started to get us.
Speaker 1: You just move on past Bill Clinton lying under oath
Speaker 1: and being impeached and the whole thing. So you know,
Speaker 1: that's they play the move on game. Meanwhile, we have
Speaker 1: to look at this and say, people keep claiming that
Speaker 1: Trump is an authoritarian, and yet all I see are
Speaker 1: person after person who signed up to help Trump with
Speaker 1: is incredibly effective and an excellent administration, which is what
Speaker 1: I would say we have seen for now going into
Speaker 1: the fourth year of this Trump presidency, that people that
Speaker 1: went in to do that, they get crushed. They are
Speaker 1: put through the ringer, bankrupted, put in prison, prosecuted, investigate
Speaker 1: all these things happen to them. And Democrat after Democrat
Speaker 1: who either separate Trump Russia collusion stuff, breaks the law Hillary,
Speaker 1: or in the course of trying to destroy Trump, broke
Speaker 1: the law, did things that were unethical, did things that
Speaker 1: should be punished. We're told nope, sorry, there's there's some
Speaker 1: interpretation of the statute that's not that's not written in
Speaker 1: the words of the law. But we libs can find
Speaker 1: some way to you know, it's it's in there. It's
Speaker 1: an implied change to the statute because we say so,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what they end up doing. This is
Speaker 1: what they did with Hillary in the emails, Hillary in
Speaker 1: the email situation. There's no way that you can believe
Speaker 1: the word reckless has any meaning when it comes to
Speaker 1: handling classified information and not think the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: using a private, unsecured email account for classified information storage
Speaker 1: and transfer is not reckless. Over one hundred counts or
Speaker 1: one hundred instances of that you cannot make if reckless
Speaker 1: is a word. With meeting that was reckless. But James
Speaker 1: Comey assures us that nobody would have been prosecuted under that.
Speaker 1: I ask you this, who committed a bigger offense, who
Speaker 1: put the country at greater risk, who showed a greater
Speaker 1: willingness to ignore, ignore the gravity of what the government's
Speaker 1: interests were. A sitting secretary of State who sets up
Speaker 1: a private email server allows for the trafficking of some
Speaker 1: very highly classified information on that email server, is sending
Speaker 1: that to other people on their emails, and then tries
Speaker 1: to cover it up, tries to destroy evidence, smashes hard drives, uses,
Speaker 1: these hard drive wipe programs, all of which all this
Speaker 1: information you should have been her subpoena. And that's what
Speaker 1: we found out of Hillary Clinton, that this had all happened.
Speaker 1: Do you look at Roger Stone, what exactly is the
Speaker 1: line to Congress? Which I'm sorry, Why was James Clapper
Speaker 1: able to say that there was no mass surveillance going
Speaker 1: on of a of Americans? How I is he able
Speaker 1: to say that? James Clapper legally could have said when
Speaker 1: asked Congress, I cannot discuss that in this venue, and
Speaker 1: he'd be fine. That's you're allowed to do that. That's
Speaker 1: protecting executive branch equities and classified information in a public forum.
Speaker 1: But are you allowed to lie to Congress because you
Speaker 1: think that you're doing that other thing? Where does that?
Speaker 1: Where does that stop and start? That's what I would
Speaker 1: want to know. Clapper's not getting prosecuted line to Congress.
Speaker 1: That's the charge that they're hitting Roger Stone with and
Speaker 1: witness tampering, you know, Stone was being an idiot. You know,
Speaker 1: it was dumb. It was a dumb thing to First
Speaker 1: of all, he's an idiot because you never put these
Speaker 1: things in writing, all right, Not that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: help you guys with your witness tab break, but you
Speaker 1: never text someone or DM them anything that could, under
Speaker 1: any circumstances be used by a lawyer a prosecutor against you.
Speaker 1: Do it over the phone. Now, that wouldn't have saved Blagoyevich,
Speaker 1: but at least you got a chance. If you're putting it,
Speaker 1: if you're typing it out, then then you're going to
Speaker 1: be in an interrupt spot. But the two tiered justice
Speaker 1: system at work once again here what the Rogerstone sentencing
Speaker 1: is is troubling. And Democrats like this. They're not they
Speaker 1: don't feel icky about any of this. They think that, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's totally fair that Paul Manafort was sentenced to not
Speaker 1: not only a lengthy prison term, but was put in
Speaker 1: solitary confinement by this judge, Amy Amy Berman Jackson, the
Speaker 1: same judge overseeing the Rogerstone trial put Manafort in solitary
Speaker 1: You see, this is where the swamp is a much
Speaker 1: more important part of the story than people realize you
Speaker 1: have in DC some swampy judges, swampy prosecutors, and a
Speaker 1: swampy jury pool. Because Washington, d c. Has become a
Speaker 1: stronghold of the left. It votes ninety five percent Democrat
Speaker 1: in presidential elections. It's not a place where if you're
Speaker 1: associated with Trump, you're gonna get a fair trial and
Speaker 1: anything having to do with the administration. That's where you're
Speaker 1: going to get this trial. And maybe some of it
Speaker 1: will be in the Eastern District of Virginia and Alexandria,
Speaker 1: but you're going to get it in the DC Federal Court.
Speaker 1: So this judge already showed that there's an animus against
Speaker 1: Trump by by putting Rogers, I mean Roger Stone, Paul Menaford,
Speaker 1: and solitary confinement. That's that's crazy, that's crazy. We should
Speaker 1: all be able to recognize that as insane. But she did.
Speaker 1: She did. They also sent remember this, the FBI did
Speaker 1: a no knock pre five am or pre dawn, I
Speaker 1: should say, raid on Manaford's house, the same thing if
Speaker 1: they ended up doing to Roger Stone. Does anyone think
Speaker 1: that that would have happened to any of the Democrats
Speaker 1: that have been involved did anyone show up with long
Speaker 1: guns to James Comey's house or McCabe's house and say,
Speaker 1: you know you're under arrest. Nope, there's a pattern here.
Speaker 1: They say. Trump is the authoritarian, but authoritarians don't allow
Speaker 1: people in their orbit to get destroyed by the government
Speaker 1: that the authoritarian is presiding over because the opposition to
Speaker 1: that authoritarian doesn't like his people. This is the This
Speaker 1: is like saying, oh, you know, Trump is the king
Speaker 1: and he lets all of his courtiers just go get
Speaker 1: thrown in the deepest, darkest dungeon by the royal prosecutor,
Speaker 1: because that makes no sense. Right, If you're the king,
Speaker 1: if you're so powerful and you get whatever you want,
Speaker 1: you're not going to allow the people who work for you,
Speaker 1: who are your close advisors, that you care about, that
Speaker 1: you like, that you have relationship. Now Stone doesn't really
Speaker 1: fit in that category, but he's considered a long time
Speaker 1: Trump advisor. You're not going to let them get destroyed
Speaker 1: by the government that you have power over him. The
Speaker 1: President said that he's the chief law enforcement officer, and
Speaker 1: there was all this hahaha from stupid journalist because journalists
Speaker 1: now journalists and are all all just concerned with virtue signaling, wokeness,
Speaker 1: what their Twitter game is like, and what they look
Speaker 1: like on MSNBC, and you know, that's that's what it's
Speaker 1: all about. What other journalists think of them as the
Speaker 1: prime motivation for what most of their work is. It's
Speaker 1: not being learned, it's not being particularly insightful, or it's
Speaker 1: certainly not being wise. It's a vapid and create a
Speaker 1: vapid profession. And the worst are the TV journalists. I
Speaker 1: mean they're they're actually the worst because most of them
Speaker 1: are just you know, I'm just rating off our prompt ard,
Speaker 1: I don't know anything. A bunch of idiots. So Roger
Speaker 1: Stone's going away. I mean this under the circumstances, I
Speaker 1: think I probably said on the show, although I don't
Speaker 1: want to start saying I've made predictions that I didn't make.
Speaker 1: There are some other radio hosts who do that. I
Speaker 1: try to keep it real. I think that I said
Speaker 1: it would be I've definitely said to other people that
Speaker 1: it would be about three years. Two to three years
Speaker 1: sounded about right to me for what the sentence would be.
Speaker 1: That means he's serving. Remember there's no parole, he's serving
Speaker 1: the full sentence. He's going to go away unless there's
Speaker 1: another possibility here. And you all know where I'm going
Speaker 1: on this one. Who wants to play pardon Roger Stone?
Speaker 1: That could be next. And I think that I think
Speaker 1: that a pardon would be I will say, I think
Speaker 1: a pardon would send the wrong message. You know Stone,
Speaker 1: what he did was buffoonish and um and I you
Speaker 1: know this is where this is where being a real
Speaker 1: human being that cares about other human beings and having
Speaker 1: a sense of justice matters. You know, I don't want
Speaker 1: I don't think Jesse's small Let, for example, despite all
Speaker 1: of his vanity and stupidity and duplicity and everything else.
Speaker 1: All right, people are rust you small. Let you go
Speaker 1: to prison for fifteen years, Jesse small Let should you know,
Speaker 1: probably have to spend you know, two weeks in county
Speaker 1: jail and one hundred thousand dollars fine, but admit his
Speaker 1: guilt and apologize public. I mean, that's that's getting to
Speaker 1: what I think justice would be for the whole thing.
Speaker 1: Oh and of course, pay the whatever the fees were
Speaker 1: that were run up by the City of Chicago for
Speaker 1: the hoaks. You should pay that. Maybe spent a week
Speaker 1: or two in a you know, county lock up. Nothing
Speaker 1: too scary, and you have to admit that he's guilty.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I think would be. That's a
Speaker 1: fair punishment, right, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be
Speaker 1: punished at all. That's a fair punishment. Roger Stone. If
Speaker 1: I were in charge of this and I felt like
Speaker 1: he had to be prosecuted, I would say, Okay, look,
Speaker 1: we're gonna we're gonna ask for no jail time, but
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a felony on your record, and you know,
Speaker 1: don't ever if you do anything else, we're sending you
Speaker 1: away and we're gonna give you We're gonna give you
Speaker 1: the upper end of whatever the guidelines are of that offense,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna take this into account. That seems to
Speaker 1: me to be fair. Nine years is crazy for what
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just I mean, the fact that that
Speaker 1: was even raised by these prosecutors just goes to show
Speaker 1: you their Democrat, their Democrat scalphunters and they're trying to
Speaker 1: take down anybody near Trump. And that was bar. Attorney
Speaker 1: General Barr was absolutely correct to bring to rein that
Speaker 1: in bring that back a bit and Okay, so three
Speaker 1: three plus years. It's harsh. It's you know, it's harsh,
Speaker 1: but it's about what I would have expected under the circumstances.
Speaker 1: He should get a new trial if he wants one,
Speaker 1: because the jury foreman is an anti Trumper. This brings
Speaker 1: you back to the swamp situation of DC, where if
Speaker 1: you're a Trump associate, you can't get a fair trial
Speaker 1: in the People's Republic of Washington, DC. You can't everyone
Speaker 1: in DC. And this is one thing about that place.
Speaker 1: I'll say, you know, I'm here in New York City
Speaker 1: and I'm on the subway four times a day now,
Speaker 1: so I'm spending a lot of time, you know, out
Speaker 1: and about in the city in contact with all kinds
Speaker 1: of folks. And the thing I like about in New
Speaker 1: York is that, yeah, this place is full of Libs,
Speaker 1: but there's some conservatives hiding here and there. It's full
Speaker 1: of Libs, but everyone's just in the hustle trying to
Speaker 1: make money to pay the outrageous rents here and feed
Speaker 1: themselves in their families, and they're focused more on that.
Speaker 1: In DC, it's a lot of you know, what are
Speaker 1: your politics, sir? It's like the first question people will
Speaker 1: ask you. It's much more focused on it for obvious reasons.
Speaker 1: And that also means that people feel very connected to
Speaker 1: their their political affiliation and if they have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to be a hero to their peer group by crushing
Speaker 1: somebody who's even associated with Donald Trump, DC natives love
Speaker 1: to do that. That makes them very happy, very excited.
Speaker 1: And that's why the foreman on the Roger Stone jury
Speaker 1: trial is just an indicative of a broader problem there.
Speaker 1: And Stone should get a new trial, but does he
Speaker 1: want one? Is he really going to get a much
Speaker 1: better sentence from another judge? Does he want to go
Speaker 1: through this again? Does he want to go through the
Speaker 1: expense again? And I don't know, but Judge Jackson here
Speaker 1: just decided to go forward with us. He doesn't care.
Speaker 1: He's like, yeah, we're gonna do the sentencing. We're not
Speaker 1: even going to look into this form in situation. We're
Speaker 1: just going to go forward. So I think that there's
Speaker 1: a clear bias and one of the they talk so
Speaker 1: much on the left about our sacred institutions and our democracy.
Speaker 1: It's a reminder for us that all this stuff, this
Speaker 1: stuff only works. You know, this government we have only
Speaker 1: works if we can agree on some very basic thing,
Speaker 1: is like the plain meaning of language, particularly in statutes,
Speaker 1: but the plain meaning of language that words do have
Speaker 1: meaning that we can all understand that it doesn't change
Speaker 1: just based upon what someone wants it to be, and
Speaker 1: that respecting the system means respecting it when outcomes happen
Speaker 1: that you don't like and still saying, Okay, I didn't
Speaker 1: get what I wanted, but it was within this say,
Speaker 1: within the framework of what our government is supposed to do.
Speaker 1: Libs have abandoned that. They've abandoned it whatever, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: whether it's the electoral College or Supreme Court judges, or
Speaker 1: you name it. If they're not getting what they want,
Speaker 1: they want to change the rules or scrap the whole
Speaker 1: thing and do something else. That's their approach. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Something else that I don't want to leave off the
Speaker 1: table here, my friends, we were told for the last
Speaker 1: week or so that the Attorney General of the United
Speaker 1: States should resolve you must resign, sir. We were told that,
Speaker 1: we were told that he was in Trump's pocket, that
Speaker 1: he was destroying the office of the Attorney General with
Speaker 1: his corruption, and yet this judge, who was no friend
Speaker 1: of Republicans or Trump. Well, that's clear. This judge gave
Speaker 1: a sentence that was right in line with the reduced
Speaker 1: request from the DOJ. So was Attorney General bar right
Speaker 1: all along? Yeah? Yeah he was. But what do you
Speaker 1: think is going to happen now? For all the libs
Speaker 1: out there, all the people in media, look oh the
Speaker 1: Attorney general. Look how he intervened and he did all
Speaker 1: this terrible stuff. So what really happened now that we
Speaker 1: have the full story is the Attorney General had people
Speaker 1: who are his employees at the Department of Justice shift around. Remember,
Speaker 1: the judge can impose whatever sentence she wants, right, the
Speaker 1: judge can say it's more, it's less. This judge just
Speaker 1: happened to give a sentence right in the bullseye of
Speaker 1: the reduced request from DJ. Is that because is a
Speaker 1: Trump bought two or was that realistic? And therefore the
Speaker 1: initial request from the Russia collusion deranged prosecutors that ask
Speaker 1: for seven to nine years was outrageous. Now we know
Speaker 1: the answer. Who looks smarter those of us who supported
Speaker 1: the reduced sentencing request and said that Bill Barr had
Speaker 1: done nothing wrong, or the people that are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: the Republic is in flames because look what they're bailing
Speaker 1: out another Trump Ally, all that noise you heard from
Speaker 1: people in the media, you're just partisan morons. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. I think Internet culture can often be very toxic,
Speaker 1: and whether we are cognizance of it or not, it
Speaker 1: nearly always concentrates on women, people of color, were people,
Speaker 1: and we experience the brunt of it. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that to a certain extent, you know,
Speaker 1: we have to always rejects hate, reject vitriol, and denounce
Speaker 1: that kind of behavior. Also, you know, we also know
Speaker 1: the amount of anonymous activity that happens on the Internet,
Speaker 1: and that simply is difficult. It is difficult to control
Speaker 1: when you have like a you know, a a Twitter
Speaker 1: handle with a bunch of numbers on it, with two
Speaker 1: followers that are lobbying vitriol at you. We don't know
Speaker 1: where that comes from, but I know that it doesn't
Speaker 1: cost on enough paint to try and stop it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think he works very hard. I think we send
Speaker 1: out so we send out messaging emails and you know
Speaker 1: what it's I've been subject to a lot of this
Speaker 1: stuff from all sorts of the all sorts of pockets
Speaker 1: from the Internet. I some CBP officers targeted me on
Speaker 1: Facebook for attacks when I want to visit the border.
Speaker 1: This is aoc on the Bernie bros. Who have been
Speaker 1: getting more attention recently because other Democrats are realizing, Wow,
Speaker 1: Bernie has a lot of psychopath supporters, a lot of them.
Speaker 1: Some of this came out when James O'Keefe did his
Speaker 1: Project Veritas videos and you had people talking about rolling
Speaker 1: out the guillotine and how you know, we're going to
Speaker 1: eat the rich, and that was of course dismissed as
Speaker 1: just the rantings of a few unimportant campaign employees and
Speaker 1: that really, you know, Bernie is all about love and
Speaker 1: rejects hate. This is one of the constant Democrat refrains
Speaker 1: that I find the most troubling because it's so untrue,
Speaker 1: and yet they believe it. They really think that they
Speaker 1: are not hateful, even though they will direct at the
Speaker 1: present of the United States the following accusations that he
Speaker 1: is and you know that I'm not exaggerating any of this.
Speaker 1: This has all been said by prominent voices on the left,
Speaker 1: not repudiated. People don't shout down other Democrats and other
Speaker 1: leftist when they say these things. They've called the president
Speaker 1: a traitor, a white nationalist, a racist, a rapist, demented,
Speaker 1: like actually out of his mind? What am I leaving? Oh,
Speaker 1: of course, corrupt, and all these other things that are lesser.
Speaker 1: But when you're calling people things like a traitor and
Speaker 1: a rapist and you have no evidence for either of
Speaker 1: those things, no evidence to a reasonable person for either
Speaker 1: of those things at all. I mean, if you believe
Speaker 1: like sweat Nick about Kavanaugh, well then you'll believe anything.
Speaker 1: And you're not very bright, and you could believe that,
Speaker 1: you know, I had dinner with Elvis last night. But people,
Speaker 1: unfortunately this country, do believe stuff like that. A lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats do believe things that are quite viously false
Speaker 1: and still think they're very bright and very sophisticated. That's
Speaker 1: a big part of being a Democrat, as you're sophisticated
Speaker 1: and you're thinking, even though you believe that you know
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon and who's that.
Speaker 1: Who's that guy? I was gonna say, Phil Donahue, that's
Speaker 1: an old talk show. Who's the Irish guy on Forgetting?
Speaker 1: They know, stop the hammering? That guy on Stop the
Speaker 1: hammer You know he's the guy from Boston. Anyway, he's
Speaker 1: on MSNBC. I can't remember his name right now. Chris o'donald,
Speaker 1: Lawrence O'Donnell. That's gonna say Chris O'Donnell. He was in
Speaker 1: a very bad Batman movie back in the day. For
Speaker 1: those of you who have seen some of the bad
Speaker 1: Batman movies, they're almost worth watching just because they're so terrible.
Speaker 1: The ones that were in between the Michael Keaton era
Speaker 1: and the Christian Bale era, there were some Batman movies
Speaker 1: that even even they wish they could forget. So they think,
Speaker 1: I know, I got diverted there for a moment. They
Speaker 1: think that the left thinks that they don't don't hate people,
Speaker 1: but they say these things about Trump, and they also
Speaker 1: say that if you support Trump, you are therefore supporting
Speaker 1: these things, and so it's fair to say these things
Speaker 1: about you too. And I mean, I can tell you
Speaker 1: that liberals love to whine about the mean things said
Speaker 1: about them on the Internet, and they claim that it's
Speaker 1: because they fall into marginalized groups whatever, whichever specific marginalized group.
Speaker 1: And I can see and tell you, I mean, the
Speaker 1: things that far left wing people right and say to
Speaker 1: me on the Internet are are beyond appalling. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a combination of disturbing and really sad at the
Speaker 1: same time. And I don't even get the worst of it,
Speaker 1: because I mean, I have I have friends againservative media
Speaker 1: who they just they're numb to all the death threats
Speaker 1: at this point. They're not just death threats against them,
Speaker 1: but death threats against their families and people are completely insane.
Speaker 1: And I think that there should be much more stringent
Speaker 1: enforcement of uh, you know, communicating an interstate threat against somebody,
Speaker 1: and I think that that should be something that's taken
Speaker 1: really seriously. Unfortunately it's not usually taken very seriously. But
Speaker 1: for liberals to claim in the current environment that they
Speaker 1: reject hate, their entire platform right now is really about
Speaker 1: believing that everyone who supports Trump is hateful, and they
Speaker 1: don't see how that is in and of itself a
Speaker 1: hateful position. They don't care that many people that support
Speaker 1: Trump just wanted an end to politicians talking to us
Speaker 1: all like we're robots. They don't care that. A lot
Speaker 1: of people who support Trump just think that we should
Speaker 1: have national sovereignty and a secure border. And the American people,
Speaker 1: as seen through their legislature that does have laws that
Speaker 1: say that this is not okay. The American people should
Speaker 1: have a say in who comes and goes from their country,
Speaker 1: and the laws are the way that you can enact that.
Speaker 1: Enforcing those laws, or that you just want to robust economy,
Speaker 1: or you want someone to stand up to China and trade. No,
Speaker 1: they tell their followers. The Democrat narrative is that if
Speaker 1: you support or Trump, you are in bedwidth effectively a
Speaker 1: white nationalist, a neo Nazi, and they think that there's
Speaker 1: not going to be really severe long term consequences from this.
Speaker 1: They think that they're the ones that reject hate. Here,
Speaker 1: by the way, is how Bernie Sanders responds. He responded
Speaker 1: the last night of the debates age about the Bernie Bros.
Speaker 1: Who are notorious. I mean, for example, the group on
Speaker 1: the internet, the Young Turks. Some of the worst people
Speaker 1: that are in media work for that organization, and they're
Speaker 1: Bernie Bros. I mean, they're they're Bernie people. Some of
Speaker 1: the nastiest libs you'll come across on Twitter are are
Speaker 1: Bernie people. And I don't think that's an accident. I
Speaker 1: think it's because Bernie Sanders appeals to envy and the
Speaker 1: a combination of revolutionary sanctimoniousness and revolutionary nihilism, like tear
Speaker 1: it all down, because we are the saviors we've been
Speaker 1: waiting for, and if you get in a way, we'll
Speaker 1: crush you, because we're going to bring about utopia. That
Speaker 1: standard socialist thinking stretching back for now over one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty years, they've always thought that anybody who wasn't
Speaker 1: with the program was an enemy of the class based
Speaker 1: warfare that they want to engage in, and that so
Speaker 1: that's not really new or different anyway. Bernie Sanders, though,
Speaker 1: in confronted with this, I thought this was really interesting.
Speaker 1: Just shows you the depth of some of the delusions
Speaker 1: that Democrats still hold to, some of the depth of
Speaker 1: the narrative that they still cling to and believe about
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. Here is what Bernie said about his Bernie
Speaker 1: Brows being a bunch of psychos that harass people online.
Speaker 1: Play twelve. Let me say something else about this not
Speaker 1: being too paranoid. All of us remember two thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: and what we meant, what we remember is efforts by
Speaker 1: Russians and others to try to interfere in our election
Speaker 1: and divide us. I'm not saying that's happening, but it
Speaker 1: would not shock me. I saw some of those tweets
Speaker 1: regarding the Culinary Workers Union. I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that the Russians. You know, we're pretending to be my supporters,
Speaker 1: but I'm not saying that this is This is now though,
Speaker 1: the the end result of the media telling everybody for
Speaker 1: three years in this country that the Russians stole the election,
Speaker 1: and you know, the Russian Russian hackers are basically hiding
Speaker 1: under your bed at night. You should be terrified about
Speaker 1: what the Russians are up to all the time. Russians
Speaker 1: are stealing our democracy, Russians are doing this, Russians are
Speaker 1: doing that. Just just shocking stuff for a presidential contender
Speaker 1: to say. But they will continue to say this. They
Speaker 1: will stick to this script because otherwise they'd have to
Speaker 1: deal with is the Democratic Party increasingly embracing hateful politics.
Speaker 1: I know we're a very polarized, very divisive time. But
Speaker 1: the people that I know who are Trump supporters, they're
Speaker 1: strong defenders of Trump, but they want things to continue
Speaker 1: in this country, or they support things that would be
Speaker 1: good for all Americans, you know, that would actually be
Speaker 1: objectively helpful for the American people. I know a lot
Speaker 1: of Libs that think that policies that at least half
Speaker 1: the country dramatically don't agree with should be rammed down
Speaker 1: our throat by the force of government because it's the
Speaker 1: right thing for them to do. They say, that feels
Speaker 1: a little bit different, And I know that this is
Speaker 1: all about you know, where you sit is where you stand,
Speaker 1: and there are differences here of perspective. And maybe if
Speaker 1: I were a leftist, I would think that the right
Speaker 1: was trying to do this. I think that that's just
Speaker 1: not really seeing what has happened where the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Trump has run a presidency that is largely in line
Speaker 1: with his style. Is different, his tone, his messaging, but
Speaker 1: his actual implementation as president has been well in line
Speaker 1: with what you would consider to be traditional GOP norms.
Speaker 1: There's really very little that he's done that is outside
Speaker 1: Remember the secure Fence active I think it was two
Speaker 1: thousand and six was bipartisan. Both parties in Congress said yeah,
Speaker 1: we should build a fence, and then they backed off it.
Speaker 1: Now building a fense makes you, you know what till
Speaker 1: of the hun Amy Klobischer doesn't know who that is,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, now now doing these things
Speaker 1: that used to be considered bipartisan, it makes you a
Speaker 1: terrible person. Well why is that? It's because the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has shifted so far left? Why is James Carville
Speaker 1: going on TV? I mean people say it's because he
Speaker 1: wants to be relevant. I think Carville is happy, you know,
Speaker 1: hanging out in New Orleans and doing whatever he's doing
Speaker 1: down there. But why is he going on TV? And
Speaker 1: the Democratic Parties lost its mind? And Bernie Sanders, as
Speaker 1: a socialist should not be presis the United States? Because
Speaker 1: they have gone they've gone nuts as a party. I
Speaker 1: mean they've they've gone far, far, too too long in
Speaker 1: one direction. And so that's now where where I think
Speaker 1: we need to understand. Countries go through periods where a
Speaker 1: political party, you know, we did. I'm not saying we're
Speaker 1: fighting a civil war now or anything that's gonna happen,
Speaker 1: but I mean we fought a civil war. You look
Speaker 1: in history, countries where there are political parties and you
Speaker 1: think that it's a vibrant democracy, they can go bad,
Speaker 1: and they can go bad quickly. And some political parties
Speaker 1: that you wouldn't have thought that you would if you
Speaker 1: were a betting man, you wouldn't have said, yeah, they're
Speaker 1: going to be running the show there. They end up
Speaker 1: in charge and you know, maybe the country eventually comes
Speaker 1: back to some degree of normalcy, but they can go
Speaker 1: through a very dark, dangerous, destructive period as a result
Speaker 1: of one party losing its way. I think the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has lost its way. I don't think that it's
Speaker 1: safe for America to be entrusted to these people at all.
Speaker 1: I think that they are very destructive. And I wanted
Speaker 1: to share with you there's a letter. I'll get to
Speaker 1: it in a few moments, but I think that they've
Speaker 1: reached a point now where then don't even know how
Speaker 1: to work with the other side on a lot of
Speaker 1: this stuff. And the younger end of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: when you look at Bernie supporters and other the younger
Speaker 1: end of the Democratic Party is where the most fervor is.
Speaker 1: You know, boomers will say what they have to say
Speaker 1: to be that's why you know, Biden and Kolobuscher and
Speaker 1: whoever they'll say. Even though I think Biden is technically
Speaker 1: he's pre booming, is he? I think he's above the
Speaker 1: boomer generation age right or whatever? He's not the greatest general?
Speaker 1: What's between? What's between boomers and the great No, I
Speaker 1: guess boomers come after the greatest generation, So he must
Speaker 1: be a boomer. But he's an old boomer. But they'll
Speaker 1: say what they have to say in order to be
Speaker 1: in good standing with the Democratic Party. The younger end
Speaker 1: of the political spectrum these days is frightening, is frightening,
Speaker 1: and that's why what you see going on with college
Speaker 1: campuses and what you see happening in much of the
Speaker 1: media is I think a harbinger of things to come,
Speaker 1: in a very, very troubling one. So I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you more about what what is the youth
Speaker 1: support of Bertie Sanders and really the youth direction of
Speaker 1: the American left telling us about what our future is
Speaker 1: going to be like in this country because we are
Speaker 1: we are in a new place now. We have not
Speaker 1: seen this before, certainly since the nineteen sixties. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. This is the buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: It's the amount of money that you have can force
Speaker 1: the DNC to change their rules, but the DMC would
Speaker 1: not change their rules for Corey Booker, Julean Castro, Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: That is a that is an actualization of power. And
Speaker 1: we all know how I feel about billionaires. I don't
Speaker 1: think that in a place where sixty percent of Americans
Speaker 1: can't even you know, make more than forty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year, that the presence of a billionaire who largely
Speaker 1: makes their money off of businesses underpaying their workers, like Walmart,
Speaker 1: like Amazon, like so on, should exact she does. She
Speaker 1: has an economics degree and learn nothing. Apparently she does
Speaker 1: not understand how business works. I left out that There
Speaker 1: was a pretty good moment last night when Bloomberg got
Speaker 1: to say, who else on the stage has started their business?
Speaker 1: Of all the Democrat candidates answers, none of them. They're
Speaker 1: all just politicians. They're all completely invested in one thing,
Speaker 1: one thing only, the brand of ME I II MEM.
Speaker 1: That is where those Democrats come down when you look
Speaker 1: at their background, their experience in the private sector. They
Speaker 1: think private sector is be in office for twenty years
Speaker 1: and then if somebody ghost write a book about what
Speaker 1: you did in office for twenty years and go get
Speaker 1: fancy speeches that somebody else wrote for you at one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars a pop. I mean, that's technically the
Speaker 1: private sector, but it doesn't give you any any actual
Speaker 1: knowledge of how to thrive and operate in the private sector.
Speaker 1: And you know, AOC I keep saying, we're going to
Speaker 1: be talking more about the youth of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: or the younger end of it, you know, gen gen Z,
Speaker 1: gen Y, gen X, and millennial millennials. Obviously I left
Speaker 1: millennials out. The younger out of the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: the more radical end, and we would like to believe
Speaker 1: that they as they pay more taxes and learn more,
Speaker 1: as they get older, they'll become at least more moderate,
Speaker 1: if not more conservative. I'm not sure given the way
Speaker 1: that the structure around them is being set up right now.
Speaker 1: The left wing, the left wing takeover of much of
Speaker 1: corporate culture that has gone on now and certainly the
Speaker 1: corporate the left wing takeover of Hollywood and of the
Speaker 1: news media. They're churning out people that are going to
Speaker 1: institutions that you know, I talked people that went to
Speaker 1: my college, for example, you know when it was all male,
Speaker 1: which was as recently as the nineteen eighties, and there
Speaker 1: was still some it was a liberal place. All colleges
Speaker 1: are a little bit liberal whatever, but there was still
Speaker 1: some sense of traditional values and norms that would come across.
Speaker 1: There are more professors that would share those those feelings.
Speaker 1: Now these places, colleges, universities, high schools, public schools, they
Speaker 1: are indoctrination centers for armies of little socialists who mouth
Speaker 1: platitudes like AOC does. That she has no idea. If
Speaker 1: a business just becomes rich by underpaying its workers, then
Speaker 1: all businesses would just underpay all their workers, and you know,
Speaker 1: nobody would have no workers would stay with them, and
Speaker 1: they wouldn't make any money. I mean, she has no
Speaker 1: understanding of wages and what prices are. That prices are
Speaker 1: set by the market by individuals making free choices about
Speaker 1: what they want to do, and that the only information
Speaker 1: we have to understand where those prices should be, you know,
Speaker 1: are set by the market. Otherwise it's just people throwing
Speaker 1: darts at a board with disastrous results. She does not
Speaker 1: understand that, and what's worse, she doesn't care that She
Speaker 1: doesn't understand that, and that's why we've gotten to this
Speaker 1: point where Bernie Sanders is the Democrat front runner. That
Speaker 1: should be deeply troubling to all of us an intellectual
Speaker 1: level as well as a political level. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The bus Esson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: This came across my radar. I want to share it
Speaker 1: with you. It's a piece in the American Conservative called
Speaker 1: Postcard from pre Totalitarian America. That's a you know, kenchy
Speaker 1: kenchy headline. I guess it just got published. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: just published this week. And this is how it goes.
Speaker 1: Last year, I spoke to a Soviet born scholar who
Speaker 1: teaches in an American public university. I'm using a quote
Speaker 1: from our forthcoming from our discussion in my forthcoming book,
Speaker 1: Live Not by Lies. This morning she sent me this email,
Speaker 1: which I reproduce with her permission. I want to read
Speaker 1: to you from this email because it really does get
Speaker 1: at what I'm saying to you, which is, even if
Speaker 1: we defeat Sanders socialism in either the primary or the
Speaker 1: general election, there's something very wrong with the American left,
Speaker 1: particularly among the young today, that the virus of socialist
Speaker 1: authoritarianism has spread in a way that I'm not sure
Speaker 1: this is going to be a one off. I don't
Speaker 1: think that Bernie Sanders as a socialist nominee. This isn't
Speaker 1: the last time we're going to see this. If anything,
Speaker 1: Democratic Party the momentum, but for the last twenty years,
Speaker 1: has been has been consistently pushing in this direction. Certainly
Speaker 1: Obamaism was far lean. Obama, people forget, was the most
Speaker 1: left wing senator in the Democratic Party by voting record
Speaker 1: when he was elected President the United States. So we
Speaker 1: already elected the most left wing guy in the Senate
Speaker 1: by voting record who was a Democrat, and I think
Speaker 1: at the time, technically Bernie Sanders may have been an independent,
Speaker 1: but so he was either number one or number two,
Speaker 1: all right. He was a very far left guy when
Speaker 1: he was a Senator, and then he became president United
Speaker 1: States and did a lot to push forward policies that
Speaker 1: were really bridging mechanisms between the more free market and
Speaker 1: capitalist oriented society we have been living in and an
Speaker 1: increasingly statist and socialist one. This is the letter that
Speaker 1: the Rod Dreyer wrote or that he reprinted rather from
Speaker 1: a Soviet born scholar about what she's seeing among the
Speaker 1: youth on the left today, youth really in general, because
Speaker 1: most of them are leftists. And this gets to also
Speaker 1: to I think the Bernie Brow mentality, where you have
Speaker 1: these twenty five and thirty year olds who are big
Speaker 1: Bernie standers supporters, who are just maniacal about how anybody
Speaker 1: who stands in Bernie's way, even Democrats, to stand in
Speaker 1: Bernie's way. They shouldn't be convinced. They should just be destroyed,
Speaker 1: they should be shoved aside. They're a part of the problem.
Speaker 1: Here is what was written here. I know from your
Speaker 1: blog that the work on your new book is going well,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad, because boy, it is so needed. I'm
Speaker 1: observing some disturbing developments on my campus and we are
Speaker 1: really not one of those Wokester schools for spoiled brats
Speaker 1: one normally associates with this kind of thing. This academic year,
Speaker 1: I've had an opportunity to work with some early career academics.
Speaker 1: These are newly minted PhDs that are in their first
Speaker 1: year on the tenure track. What's really scary is that
Speaker 1: they sincerely believe all the woke dogma. Older people, those
Speaker 1: in their forties, fifties, or sixties, might parrot the woke
Speaker 1: mantras because it's what everybody in academia does and you
Speaker 1: have to survive. But the younger generation actually believes it.
Speaker 1: All transwomen are women. Black students fail calculus because there
Speaker 1: are no calculus professors who quote look like them. Whiteness
Speaker 1: is the most oppressive thing in the world. The US
Speaker 1: is the most evil country in history. Anybody who votes
Speaker 1: Republican is a RACI. Everybody who goes to church is
Speaker 1: a bigot. But the hijab is deeply liberating. I gently
Speaker 1: mocked some of this stuff, like we normally do among
Speaker 1: older academics, and two of the younger academics in the
Speaker 1: group I supervise actually cried because they believe all this
Speaker 1: so deeply, and I'd even say fanatically that they couldn't comprehend.
Speaker 1: Why wasn't taking it seriously? The fanatical glimmer in their
Speaker 1: eyes really scared me. Back in the USSR in the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies and the nineteen eighties, nobody believed the dogma.
Speaker 1: People repeated the ideological mantras for cynical reasons to get
Speaker 1: advanced in their careers or get food packages. Many did
Speaker 1: it just to protect their kids, but nobody sincerely believed it.
Speaker 1: That is what ultimately saved us. As soon as the
Speaker 1: regime weakened a bit, it was doomed because there were
Speaker 1: no since your believers anymore. Everybody who did take the
Speaker 1: dogma seriously belong to the generation of my great grandparents
Speaker 1: in the US, though the generation of the fanatical believers
Speaker 1: is only now growing up and coming into its prime.
Speaker 1: We'll have to wait until their grandkids grow up to
Speaker 1: see a generation that will be so fed up with
Speaker 1: the dogma that it will embrace freedom of thought and expression.
Speaker 1: But that's a long way away in the future. I'm
Speaker 1: mentoring a group of young scholars in the humanities to
Speaker 1: help them do research, and I'm starting to hate this task.
Speaker 1: Young scholars, almost without exception, think that scholarship is entirely
Speaker 1: about repeating woke slogans completely uncritically. Again, this is different
Speaker 1: from the USSR, where scholars peppered their writing with the slogans,
Speaker 1: but always took great pride in trying to sneak in
Speaker 1: some real thinking and real analysis behind the required ideological
Speaker 1: driven every Soviet scholar starting from the nineteen seventies was
Speaker 1: a dissonant at heart because everybody knew that the ideology
Speaker 1: was rotten. All of this is sad and very scary.
Speaker 1: I never thought I'd experience anything worse, anything more intellectually
Speaker 1: stifling than the USSR of its last two decades of existence.
Speaker 1: But now I do see something worse. The book you
Speaker 1: are writing is very important. I hope that many people
Speaker 1: hear your message. So we'll have to have mister dreer
Speaker 1: On to talk about this book Live not by lies.
Speaker 1: It sounds very interesting to me. But for somebody who
Speaker 1: lived for decades in the Soviet Union to come out
Speaker 1: and note this difference, I think this is something a
Speaker 1: lot more people need to hear. That the wokeness that
Speaker 1: I often make fun of and then you understand to
Speaker 1: be intellectual rot and that it is just rivel, and
Speaker 1: that the origins of these ideological points of view are
Speaker 1: always thinking. Our systems that have already been tried and
Speaker 1: failed are beliefs that have been shown to be lacking,
Speaker 1: lacking in terms of nurturing the human spirit, lacking in
Speaker 1: terms of creating good societies that people want to live in.
Speaker 1: This is all rooted in in lies, in untruth, and
Speaker 1: this is now becoming so commonplace among younger people in particular,
Speaker 1: that we have to wonder what the future will really
Speaker 1: look like. Do we think for example, that someone who
Speaker 1: is twenty five or twenty right now, let's say twenty
Speaker 1: for kids who are in college age, that really believes
Speaker 1: some of the things that this professor laid out there,
Speaker 1: like trans women or women. If you if you've gone
Speaker 1: around mouthing that slogan, which is which is absurd, right,
Speaker 1: It's just it's not trans women or trans women that
Speaker 1: could be that you can say is true. You can
Speaker 1: talk about that, fine, but trans women are not just women,
Speaker 1: because then what are women? I mean, you get into
Speaker 1: the definitions here, and you understand that there's an intentional
Speaker 1: perversion of language that's taking place and a changing of
Speaker 1: language to go along with it, whereby now plural pronouns
Speaker 1: are required for individuals and the gender issue by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, conservatives spend a lot of time talking about this,
Speaker 1: and I think now the attack on us for it
Speaker 1: is always why we're picking on this. What is a
Speaker 1: very small group percentage wise of the American population. Very
Speaker 1: small group globally, and there's a sense that because we
Speaker 1: focus on this that we're picking on trans people. I
Speaker 1: would never pick on trans people. They're people just like
Speaker 1: everyone else, and they're deserving of respect and kindness and
Speaker 1: decency just like everyone else. But the leftist ideology behind
Speaker 1: the trans movement is something that we have to be
Speaker 1: able to talk about and discuss. And the way that
Speaker 1: they're co opting, we're changing language to suit their political
Speaker 1: preferences and all of this is really really unsettling, and
Speaker 1: we should all be very aware of that. We should
Speaker 1: start to understand that people who think this in their
Speaker 1: twenties are not going to wake up in their thirties
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden be reasonable constitutionalists who think
Speaker 1: that the rule of law has to mean a respect
Speaker 1: for this system even when you don't like the outcome.
Speaker 1: And liberals, because this appeals right, This appeals to people's
Speaker 1: sense of self righteousness and their emotions. Liberals have created
Speaker 1: a world in which when the rules are in their favor,
Speaker 1: the rules are sacrosanct, and when the rules get in
Speaker 1: their way or don't work out the way they want
Speaker 1: them to, they are to be abandoned or undermined. Discarded
Speaker 1: any of the above. And that's why I thought this
Speaker 1: letter from this former resident of the Soviet Union saying
Speaker 1: that this is really troubling. And remember the point here
Speaker 1: being that people in this Oviet Union in academia. She's
Speaker 1: talking about young PhDs, people that are now. They are
Speaker 1: let's say twenty five, maybe twenty five to thirty in
Speaker 1: that range, young PhDs who think that the that that
Speaker 1: academia shouldn't be about the pursuit of truth, including difficult truths,
Speaker 1: and instead should be about the propagation of ideology, not
Speaker 1: merely because it's useful in the academy, so that's an
Speaker 1: opportunistic belief, but the propagation of ideology because they really
Speaker 1: truly think that this is the way that's not going
Speaker 1: to Those people are not going to change, they're not
Speaker 1: going to grow up. They're not going to start teaching,
Speaker 1: you know, the great classics of literature and stop referring
Speaker 1: to it as a province dominated by dead, dead white males,
Speaker 1: and how that's so not woke. And you know, we
Speaker 1: need to read more literature from cultures that in some
Speaker 1: cases don't have a very long history of literature, and
Speaker 1: not a lot of stuff to read. You know, you
Speaker 1: really get into this. You say, well, where where is
Speaker 1: this going to take us? And I think that it
Speaker 1: takes us to some pretty frightening places very quickly. That
Speaker 1: that's why. Also the Bernie Sanders situation really bothers me.
Speaker 1: It's troubling enough that he's even a front runner right
Speaker 1: now in this Democrat primary. When you listen to what
Speaker 1: he's suggesting, what he's saying, you know, Bernie Sanders is
Speaker 1: going to make sure that if he became president, he's
Speaker 1: going to make sure that this country is less free,
Speaker 1: less prosperous. And with that, let's be honest, let's less happy.
Speaker 1: But as long as we are equally sharing in a
Speaker 1: greater degree of misery, that's that's he's fine with that.
Speaker 1: That outcome is better. He says he's just going to
Speaker 1: pull down billionaires, but in the process, he's going to
Speaker 1: be pulling down people who have worked very very hard
Speaker 1: to try and create more freedom, more options, more security
Speaker 1: for themselves in their families. Because ultimately, he doesn't think
Speaker 1: and this is true of AOC, It's true if Bernie,
Speaker 1: it's true of Warren. He doesn't think that whatever you've
Speaker 1: done to get where you are is something that you
Speaker 1: can claim to have been your own. It's the government
Speaker 1: that allowed all of that. You didn't build that. This
Speaker 1: is the line that Obama said, that was a a
Speaker 1: much greater window into the mind of the contemporary leftist
Speaker 1: than was that certainly them was intended with that line,
Speaker 1: you didn't build that. Well, if you didn't build it,
Speaker 1: if you don't have ownership of your own time, your
Speaker 1: own labor, your own decision making, if the state gets
Speaker 1: to determine all of that, what does that turn into
Speaker 1: for America as a society. You know, already we've allowed
Speaker 1: as a country far too much socialism to creep into
Speaker 1: our system. And the state is a much larger presence
Speaker 1: in our lives, the big s state, the federal government
Speaker 1: is a much bigger presence in our lives than it
Speaker 1: should be. And we have to deal with that all
Speaker 1: the time, and we have to try to find ways
Speaker 1: to push back against it, and it has not been
Speaker 1: very successful. Recently, Donald Trump comes along, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of us feel like this may just be
Speaker 1: a reprieve from the rampant statism of the left. It
Speaker 1: may not be a sweeping victory that changes the trajectory
Speaker 1: of the country. And that's when I look at the
Speaker 1: young people and what they're saying. At the young people.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not I'm thirty. God, I'm thirty eight now,
Speaker 1: Bruce and Mark, I'm almost forty. Man, you realize this.
Speaker 1: I feel like I feel like we could have been
Speaker 1: in high school math class together. And I sit here,
Speaker 1: I look at you, and I'm like, my god, when
Speaker 1: I was in high school math class, you were actually
Speaker 1: in diapers. What year were you in high school math class?
Speaker 1: I mean, let's say I would have been in high
Speaker 1: school in two. Oh, no, in nineteen nineteen ninety six. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was three. Okay, so maybe you're just you're out
Speaker 1: of diapers at three. I don't know how that worked kids.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I'm not a kid guy. Yeah. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not yet either. Um, but yeah you were. You would
Speaker 1: have been very very young. Yeah. So you know when
Speaker 1: I say the youth, though, can you explain to us
Speaker 1: why your your peers, your gens, you're we know you're millennial.
Speaker 1: You're like, you're you're barely a millennial because beard millennials. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you're a no beard millennial. Yes, So can you
Speaker 1: explain why the people of your age are so crazy.
Speaker 1: Maybe something's in the water, you know. Would you say
Speaker 1: most of the most of the of your friends are
Speaker 1: they politically active? Do they care? Or are they just
Speaker 1: running their lives and like this is all a distraction
Speaker 1: to them. I have a few here there that will
Speaker 1: be politically active. I don't really talk politics with my friends.
Speaker 1: I don't want to. This is maybe this is a
Speaker 1: helpful reminder that I feel like when you work in
Speaker 1: politics and you're constantly looking at the ideology, you know,
Speaker 1: I want a country where that's actually the standard, where
Speaker 1: people don't have to think much. We should all think
Speaker 1: about about ethics and about the good life, and about
Speaker 1: what we should do with ourselves and our time, and
Speaker 1: have the freedom to differ in those pursuits. But I
Speaker 1: wish that there was much less of a focus on
Speaker 1: politics as really a form of personal branding, because this
Speaker 1: is what ends up happening. Everyone just sits around them.
Speaker 1: And when I was in DC, people to talk politics
Speaker 1: all the time. I mean, I'm a little different that
Speaker 1: I have to listen to this every day and yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I know I'm propagandizing from the right for producer Mark.
Speaker 1: But before I had this job, I wouldn't go around
Speaker 1: talking politics with my friends. I wasn't as informed because
Speaker 1: I didn't want to be, because I wasn't part of
Speaker 1: my life. Yeah, if that makes sense. Yeah, No, for
Speaker 1: for a lot of people, I think that this becomes
Speaker 1: such a it's become such a part of identity. And
Speaker 1: that's why you have all these Hollywood actors who aren't
Speaker 1: religious and I think are looking for purpose, and they
Speaker 1: latch onto purpose in the guise of climate change, activism
Speaker 1: and all these leftist causes that ultimately I think are
Speaker 1: just are just empty. They fill it with the promise
Speaker 1: of helping the poor, helping the world, helping the downtrodden,
Speaker 1: but they really don't do that. They just mouth these
Speaker 1: these slogans. They just say the things that they believe
Speaker 1: they're supposed to say. And much of it is I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a reason people do virtue, virtue signaling. It's because
Speaker 1: it's a form of self aggrandizement. It's it's look at
Speaker 1: how great I am. And that's behind a lot of
Speaker 1: leftism today, a lot of activism on the left today.
Speaker 1: So young people believe the crazy stuff from the left
Speaker 1: today more than even Soviet scholars. When I see young people,
Speaker 1: young scholars today believing in suppression and censorship as not
Speaker 1: a thing they have to put up with, but a
Speaker 1: thing that is good. And juxtaposing that with what was
Speaker 1: going on in the nineteen seventies and the nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: and Soviet Union. That's that's sobering, my friends. You're in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the wall is being built. You know, we're up to
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty two miles and you think that money.
Speaker 1: That was not easy. But we got the money and
Speaker 1: we're building it, and we want a lot of cases
Speaker 1: in court. We were suthed all the way along the line,
Speaker 1: and we're up to one hundred and twenty two miles.
Speaker 1: In a very short time will be over five hundred miles.
Speaker 1: It's already had a tremendous impact. So the wall is
Speaker 1: moving along. I hope that the wall keeps moving along.
Speaker 1: This is an important promise. I also want to give
Speaker 1: you something a little bit, a little bit upbeat. After
Speaker 1: all that talk about the Soviet mentality overtaking young scholars
Speaker 1: in America in some ways works than the Soviet mentality.
Speaker 1: I feel like we should have a little bit of
Speaker 1: happy time. And so that's where I brought out, brought
Speaker 1: out the Trumpster. And he's incredible what he's been able
Speaker 1: to do so far, and the fact that he's still
Speaker 1: so full of fight and so vigorous in his defense
Speaker 1: not just of the administration, but now of capitalism and
Speaker 1: of American patriotism. He can't escape that. The Democrats really
Speaker 1: come at this with a view of how much America
Speaker 1: needs to be transformed, because America is deficient in so
Speaker 1: many ways. Trump is such a powerful voice out there
Speaker 1: for now. This country is actually amazing, and people who
Speaker 1: live here are lucky, and we want to preserve what
Speaker 1: is best in this country and continue on a path
Speaker 1: of increased prosperity and freedom and individuals being able to
Speaker 1: pursue their destiny. Mean, that's what we really want. And
Speaker 1: Trump gets that done. And I gotta says, it has
Speaker 1: been amazing watching him put up with all the nonsense,
Speaker 1: all the efforts to remove him from office, destroy everybody
Speaker 1: around him, and you see him at these rallies like
Speaker 1: he was last night, and you still get the sense
Speaker 1: that Trump is just loving it. He loves it, he
Speaker 1: loves the fight. Thanks for listening to the bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Team Bugging, it's time
Speaker 1: for roll call, So Team I want to ask you
Speaker 1: all a little favor here. Actually, I want to ask
Speaker 1: you if you could, especially if you're already a podcast listener.
Speaker 1: It turns out that they are doing a a podcast
Speaker 1: of my show on wo R, which is the additional
Speaker 1: fourth hour of radio that I'm now doing every night,
Speaker 1: And you just go to seven two R dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck and you can hear that show. And if
Speaker 1: we show some Team Buck numbers there, that would be
Speaker 1: really helpful. So if you're already, especially if you're already
Speaker 1: a podcast listener, download that one two That show flies by.
Speaker 1: It's only one hour, which means in podcast time because
Speaker 1: there's no we don't have the traditional radio broadcast breaks
Speaker 1: on the podcast side of it, you can get through
Speaker 1: that podcast very quickly, and especially we want to know
Speaker 1: what's going on more in New York City, the New
Speaker 1: York City area. So that's where you go seven TENWR
Speaker 1: dot com, seven one zerowar dot com slash Buck and
Speaker 1: you can go right to the page. It's a nice
Speaker 1: photo of me and you can listen on demand there. Um,
Speaker 1: let's get two DJ, who writes in first on roll Call.
Speaker 1: I keep hearing Bernie say healthcare is a right. Why
Speaker 1: is nobody calling him out? The rights are outlined in
Speaker 1: our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. If Bernie feels
Speaker 1: healthcare is a right, and as long as he has
Speaker 1: been working government, he should know there's a process for
Speaker 1: creating a new right called an amendment. Why is he
Speaker 1: not using the known system instead of trying to force
Speaker 1: what he feels is a right. This tells me he
Speaker 1: knows it would never go through the process to become
Speaker 1: a right. Jesse, Kelly and Fox, etc. Are not on
Speaker 1: this topic of this. Also, why even if he gets elected,
Speaker 1: it will still not be illegal right? It takes an amendment.
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken, Well, DJ, he's you know, I
Speaker 1: see your point. Bernie Sanders is intentionally conflating what he
Speaker 1: thinks of as a right with what is a right
Speaker 1: as a function of law. I mean, no one has
Speaker 1: a When you say you have a right to healthcare,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? What doesn't just think about that
Speaker 1: from what does it mean? So? Do you have a
Speaker 1: right to demand what do you have a right to
Speaker 1: say that you want a you know, let's say I here,
Speaker 1: I'll make this personal. I have a essentially two two
Speaker 1: severed tendons on my right ankle and what's called a
Speaker 1: cable various foot, which means you have a super high arch, which,
Speaker 1: unless you're a ballet answer, is not a good thing.
Speaker 1: It actually creates real instability. It means you're very susceptible
Speaker 1: to catastrophic ankle sprains and breaks. And the surgery for
Speaker 1: it is pretty intense. It's called a calcaneal osteotomy. And
Speaker 1: if I want to have that surgery, okay, so I
Speaker 1: know that's a medically necessary thing. I haven't done it yet.
Speaker 1: Do I get to so healthcare is a right? All right? Now?
Speaker 1: Do I get to walk into the most reputable hospital
Speaker 1: in New York City for this? Some would probably say
Speaker 1: HHS Hospital or h SS rather Hospital for Special Surgery
Speaker 1: and demand that their top surgeon give me a date
Speaker 1: in the next few weeks to do my surgery, and
Speaker 1: they take whatever money my insurance happens to feel like
Speaker 1: giving them. Is that? Is that what it means to
Speaker 1: have a right? Or do I have a right to
Speaker 1: wait three years? And have some doctor who went to
Speaker 1: medical school in French Guiana or something and now is gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, operate on me in between selling sham wows
Speaker 1: on the weekend. I mean, is that my right extends
Speaker 1: to what point if it's not based in free markets
Speaker 1: and individuals coming together and an insurance system that's actually
Speaker 1: insurance instead of what we have, which is just a
Speaker 1: very complicated cross subsidies. Am I able to just walk
Speaker 1: in and demand that the best surgeon in New York
Speaker 1: City operate on my ankle? Why not? I thought it's
Speaker 1: a right? Oh oh no, no, you see, you know
Speaker 1: who's going to answer this question for you? A bunch
Speaker 1: of bureaucrats. That's what Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders wants government
Speaker 1: bureaucrats who are unaccountable to you, who you won't even
Speaker 1: be able to get on the phone, who you can't
Speaker 1: get fired, to come up with policies in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: come up with decisions in Washington, d C. About what
Speaker 1: doctor you can see, how quickly you can see that doctor,
Speaker 1: what services that doctor will cover. And Bernie Sanders wants
Speaker 1: you to believe that's going to be a good outcome
Speaker 1: for you. Do you really think that that's possible. You
Speaker 1: really think that that's true? No one who looks the
Speaker 1: And that's why I made a sort of personal Do
Speaker 1: I think that I'd be able to go get a
Speaker 1: great surgeon to take care of my very messed up ankle?
Speaker 1: Do I think I'd be able to get a great
Speaker 1: surgeon to do that in a Bernie Sanders world where
Speaker 1: we have Medicare for all? Absolutely not, because guess what,
Speaker 1: everybody else who wants to have surgery, you know what
Speaker 1: do you call orthopedic surgery? Everyone else in New York City.
Speaker 1: They can do Google searches too. They know what the
Speaker 1: reputations are of different facilities, different doctors, and they're all
Speaker 1: gonna want to see this doctor. And is he gonna
Speaker 1: get pained enough that he's gonna even want to stay
Speaker 1: in practice and accept the Bernie Sanders Medicare for All?
Speaker 1: Or is he going to say no, I'm only seeing
Speaker 1: patients who pay cash, who run a credit card at
Speaker 1: my front desk, and then and then I'll perform surgery.
Speaker 1: And what if Bernie Sanders administration says that this this
Speaker 1: you know, super whiz doctor only can take reimbursements for
Speaker 1: his procedures at a level that won't cover the overhead
Speaker 1: of his facility, won't cover the insurance that he has
Speaker 1: to pay for malpractice, etc. Etc. Maybe he just shuts down,
Speaker 1: or maybe he goes, you know, elsewhere to practice medicine. Right,
Speaker 1: this is the reality of healthcare. Bernie Sanders is giving
Speaker 1: you a mythology of healthcare. It's never going to be
Speaker 1: what he says it is. You know, he keeps saying
Speaker 1: Medicare for all. It's not Medicare for all. Medicare has
Speaker 1: co pays. Medicare doesn't cover everything. Medicare is something that
Speaker 1: people have paid into. You know, there's a number of things.
Speaker 1: Remember Medicare for all. You're not paying into this over time,
Speaker 1: You're just this is now just the general fund. It's
Speaker 1: more expensive than we already have in. Medicare is already
Speaker 1: too expensive, and doctors don't want to take it. We
Speaker 1: were running this experiment. Bernie Sanders is waging a war
Speaker 1: on history because we've done the things that he wants
Speaker 1: to do and it does not turn out well for us.
Speaker 1: And he just ignores this. He tries to pretend that
Speaker 1: we don't have the information that we do, that we
Speaker 1: don't know what's really going on here anyway. Sorry, I
Speaker 1: know that was a long thing about healthcare, but I
Speaker 1: just feel like when you when you personalize it, and
Speaker 1: as I've said to you, I've this is like when
Speaker 1: I talk about rent control. I've lived in tiny I've
Speaker 1: lived in really tiny, rinky dink apartments in New York City.
Speaker 1: I've had insurance, I've had terrible insurance that I've had
Speaker 1: no insurance and had to deal with doctors under all
Speaker 1: those circumstances. So I can draw, I can draw from
Speaker 1: these these personal experiences to tell you that there's just
Speaker 1: no way what some of these politicians are telling you
Speaker 1: it is true. It's going to be true. And I
Speaker 1: guess for some people they'd rather live with they'd rather
Speaker 1: live with the hope from the fantasy than deal with
Speaker 1: the reality. And that's really what that's at the heart
Speaker 1: of Sanders is m That's what Bernie Sandernista is all about.
Speaker 1: Richard Buck, this debate tonight has been like watching blood Sport.
Speaker 1: Kumid Day, Kumid Day. Prouser Mark, you've seen blood sport,
Speaker 1: get shut the front door. No way, you haven't seen
Speaker 1: blood sport. Do I have to? Well, missus Mark. Let
Speaker 1: you well, missus Mark, let you come over for like
Speaker 1: a movie night one night, like I'll have like about
Speaker 1: brothers over. They love blood Sport too. You gotta watch
Speaker 1: blood Sport, man. I'll bring it any well order, we'll
Speaker 1: order Chinese food gluten free and uh and you know
Speaker 1: we'll sit here and watch. Oh well, you're getting there
Speaker 1: with gluding preachies. Who is good? I will have sure.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear this nonsense from you. Did
Speaker 1: you ever watch martial arts? We ever in the martial
Speaker 1: arts movement? Really, they were a huge thing in the
Speaker 1: eighties and even in the nineties a little bit. But
Speaker 1: then I think people will because here here's my theory
Speaker 1: about this that people realized because of MMA, that training
Speaker 1: to actually be a like, you know, having some ninety
Speaker 1: year old monk who can catch a fly with his
Speaker 1: fingers or something and has like a long silver beard,
Speaker 1: that guy's actually not going to beat twenty dudes in
Speaker 1: a fight like that's not that's not reality at all.
Speaker 1: And the people that actually can fight with their hands
Speaker 1: trained to fight with their hands and are and are
Speaker 1: in very good shape because also being strong and fast
Speaker 1: does matter. You don't just like meditate enough and you're
Speaker 1: a ninja warrior who will defeat everyone. And that was
Speaker 1: kind of you know, or or do a lot of
Speaker 1: spin kicks. Spin kicks and someone's gonna write anything. Someone
Speaker 1: always tols like book I've knocked to go out with
Speaker 1: a spin kick in the street fight. Okay, well, good
Speaker 1: for you. Spin kicks are not a good idea in
Speaker 1: a self defense. Sounds like an accident if you do
Speaker 1: it again. If I did, I'd pull a hammy. Who wouldn't. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got I gotta stretch before it, and my spincake
Speaker 1: would be at like Waiste level, So if that all right? Anyway,
Speaker 1: So he has not seen he's not seen blood Sport.
Speaker 1: It's Van Dam's best movie. Have you seen any Van
Speaker 1: Dam movies? No? Probably not. There is one where there's
Speaker 1: an ice hockey rink. Oh wow, in the background he
Speaker 1: actually fights an ice hockey mascot. So maybe that's the
Speaker 1: one we should start with for you to see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll get on that. There you go. Producer Mark has homework.
Speaker 1: Warren has been Van Dam screaming in slow motion as
Speaker 1: Bloomberg is stunned, sprang cash as he falls down. This
Speaker 1: whole Nda thing is amazing to watch Trump's ladies who
Speaker 1: signed NDA spoke anyways, no repercussions. Why is it that
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg ladies who signed that NDA won't speak. It's
Speaker 1: smacks of the Voldemort whistleblower double standard shields high. You know, Richard,
Speaker 1: I think even if these women, look, I don't believe that.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't believe the Bloomberg. He's honestly, he's
Speaker 1: too too cautious and too tactical. And I think we'd
Speaker 1: all more than that. I think we would know. I
Speaker 1: think we would know if he had done any really
Speaker 1: bad stuff to women in his in his company and
Speaker 1: his employee. You know, he's he's a little crass and
Speaker 1: he makes comments because he's a billionaire. He's used to
Speaker 1: being able to say what he wants. Let's be honest
Speaker 1: on the right, guys, we're kind of used to that now, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, crass billionaire who says what he wants. Let's
Speaker 1: not you know, we're not pearl clutching. It's Democrats who
Speaker 1: were doing all the pearl clutching over this. We're like,
Speaker 1: he said some stuff, he's apologized. You know, it's time
Speaker 1: to move on. It's not like that these nbas were waved,
Speaker 1: you'd find out that Bloomberg was running some you know,
Speaker 1: sex dungeon out of the Bloomberg News offices or something.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm trying to say. That's just not That's
Speaker 1: not this guy. So it's not a game changer either way,
Speaker 1: and I think the media is much more invested in
Speaker 1: this being a big deal than anybody else. Penny, did
Speaker 1: we ever actually hear who won an Eyowa? Yes? Penny
Speaker 1: turned out Mayor Pete Bouddha Judge got the most delegates.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders got the most in raw vote total in Iowa.
Speaker 1: Although I believe Sanders and Buddhajudge are both asking for
Speaker 1: a Reek canvass of a few counties there. So the
Speaker 1: answer is kinda anyway. Bill Rights. Illegal aliens are not
Speaker 1: more American than most Americans, but I can argue that
Speaker 1: many of them are ideologically more American than most lives.
Speaker 1: At least they see this country as somewhere they want
Speaker 1: to be and are willing to work for what they get.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong, I'm not an illegal alien advocate,
Speaker 1: but given a choice, I would happily trade the farm
Speaker 1: workers here in the Central Valley of California for Antifa,
Speaker 1: Bernie Brows and half of Congress. Bill. You know, look,
Speaker 1: I think most illegal aliens that you're going to come across,
Speaker 1: you know, vast majority of the percent of them are
Speaker 1: nice people who are just trying to get a better
Speaker 1: situation for themselves. And I have human sympathy for them,
Speaker 1: There's no question about it. Right they to leave usually
Speaker 1: crappy dysfunctional countries or crappy dysfunctional economies and come to
Speaker 1: a much better one. But we also have to protect
Speaker 1: the economy we have in the country we have, and
Speaker 1: sovereignty is important. We have laws, and also there is
Speaker 1: a small, a very small subset of illegal aliens who
Speaker 1: do commit really terrible crimes here, and we have to
Speaker 1: factor into this that they shouldn't be here at all
Speaker 1: in the first place. So those crimes should not have occurred,
Speaker 1: they shouldn't have been able to occur. So, Bill, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for writing in You're in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast, all our more
Speaker 1: roll call here. Kristen writes in I also saw Parasite,
Speaker 1: and unless you like movies that show people just being
Speaker 1: cruel to others for no reason, other than to make
Speaker 1: themselves happy. You won't like it. I actually walked out
Speaker 1: after forty five minutes. I couldn't take it anymore. By
Speaker 1: the way, way, I love Training to Bussan too. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'll have to watch the trailer for Training to Bussan.
Speaker 1: I have like a little conversation about this. We should
Speaker 1: do like a bucking Mark Mystery Science Theater thing, you know,
Speaker 1: when we watch a movie and do the commentary on it,
Speaker 1: because you know, I'll try to give the movie a
Speaker 1: little bit of credit. Producer Mark will be salty and
Speaker 1: an unimpressed. Don't we need like rights for that and
Speaker 1: stuff we can't? Yeah, it's technically true. Yeah, maybe we're
Speaker 1: back the cooking idea. Then, so I think cooking works
Speaker 1: better because nobody can copyright cooking. Yeah, they can't copyright
Speaker 1: my steak. They better not. They better not try too,
Speaker 1: that would be bad news. Training. Have you haven't seen
Speaker 1: Training to Busan? I'm assuming no. This is that a
Speaker 1: Brandon movie? Yeah, zombies like eating people's faces. They all
Speaker 1: have the same storyline. Zombies come up. I think they
Speaker 1: eat people scary And then you know, give me a
Speaker 1: movie with like a plot. Wow. Yeah, Prucer Prucer brand
Speaker 1: that we gotta get him in here. You can have
Speaker 1: a little discussion about this a little bit. A little
Speaker 1: bit there, I think I think he would want to
Speaker 1: stand up for his horror movie work a little bit.
Speaker 1: Um Andy's next up, Shields High. The Miracle on Ice
Speaker 1: was our amateur college kids beating a de facto Soviet
Speaker 1: professional team. The Olympics jumped the shark after the Cold
Speaker 1: War ended by allowing professional athletes to participate. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was what I said yesterday that they were they
Speaker 1: were we had amateurs playing, so we so we did
Speaker 1: not have NHL players on that miracle team. Right. It
Speaker 1: was a couple of years later, maybe the nine. So
Speaker 1: that was our amateurs and the Soviets were like, we're
Speaker 1: gonna inject them with steroids and pay for everything, right Yeah,
Speaker 1: and Soviet the Russians are still very good hockey. Right.
Speaker 1: I see all these names of hockey players that are
Speaker 1: like the best, and I'm like, that guy came straight
Speaker 1: out of Saint Petersburg. I mean, nobody's gonna be Canada.
Speaker 1: If you're going pros versus pros, Canada almost always wins.
Speaker 1: Really yeah, of course it is the best, really better
Speaker 1: than Canada hockey. No, No, Canada is where hockey was,
Speaker 1: you know, born A. I guess it is kind of
Speaker 1: cold up there, kinda yeah, I've heard stories. I've only
Speaker 1: been to Canada a couple of times. Really, I've been
Speaker 1: to Toronto. Lovely people. I really like Canadians a lot,
Speaker 1: so I feel like I could handle it up there,
Speaker 1: except for the coal, I'm not. I'm not a super
Speaker 1: cold by the person. I said to my wife when
Speaker 1: we went to Toronto's like a clean New York Is
Speaker 1: it really? Yeah? Yeah, people tell me Vancouver is actually amazing.
Speaker 1: I've never been. I would like to go. Yeah, I'd
Speaker 1: like to go. That's the one place in Canada I
Speaker 1: really want to check out. I know people go to
Speaker 1: Montreal for like fun weekends, but I hear that Vancouver
Speaker 1: is actually I mean, the real estate market there is
Speaker 1: is completely nuts. People are spending like a million dollars
Speaker 1: for a you know, tiny little shack by the side
Speaker 1: of the road. All right, eric ky bucket. It must
Speaker 1: be a geographical thing, because I've never heard of anyone
Speaker 1: who hasn't heard of try Tip. No, I've heard of it.
Speaker 1: I just don't know what it is. It's not like
Speaker 1: Amy Klobascher who did not know who the president of
Speaker 1: Mexico is, Lopez Obrador. I'm low here in SoCal Try
Speaker 1: tip is probably the most common and loved cut of
Speaker 1: them all. It's affordable and you can cook it several ways.
Speaker 1: Smoked tip that is seared in butter on a cast
Speaker 1: iron skillet at the end is the best. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you have the restaurant Lucille Smokehouse in New York,
Speaker 1: but they have good try tip. I've never heard of
Speaker 1: that restaurant, but I will take a look. David hey
Speaker 1: Buck love the show. Listen to discuss how the brain
Speaker 1: works with depression and food makes sense. When I'm depressed,
Speaker 1: I go straight to Burger King. While my wife is depressed,
Speaker 1: she chugs chocolate. Food can make you feel better, even
Speaker 1: for a little This works. This is worth looking more into. David. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: Food is very important for a lot of things, including
Speaker 1: I think how we feel and our energy and our
Speaker 1: immune systems, and I think food really does matter. With
Speaker 1: that in mind, I'm gonna go make myself some bacon
Speaker 1: and scrambled eggs as soon as we're done here. Team,
Speaker 1: Please check out The War Show Podcast seven tenwr dot
Speaker 1: com slash Buck Download it so you make Buck look good.
Speaker 1: TUC to you. Tomorrow she'll tie