Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Federal judges are having
Speaker 1: a call because they're so concerned about Trump. It seems
Speaker 1: we'll get into that and also a reminder of what
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice was like under the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg qualifies with the VATA debate tomorrow. Who's funding
Speaker 1: the socialist The answer may surprise you, and do long
Speaker 1: term criminal offenders have different brain structures? Also, can food
Speaker 1: help battle depression? Stack show coming up? This is the
Speaker 1: bus Sexton Show or the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America,
Speaker 1: Bring here a great American again the buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: Remember the animidty to look at Bill Barr and what
Speaker 1: he's done, and you look at the fact that he
Speaker 1: has started a search and destroy mission against all of
Speaker 1: the president's political perceived political opponents that the president concocted
Speaker 1: when he talked about Barack Obama tapping the phones at
Speaker 1: Trump Tower back in March of twenty seventeen. And he
Speaker 1: is chasing down every conspiracy theory that the President is
Speaker 1: putting forward. At the same time, and more disturbingly, Bill
Speaker 1: Barr is providing aid and comfort to the president's allies.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. That was a morning
Speaker 1: Joe as dishonest and stupid as always on what's going
Speaker 1: on right now with the Department of Justice. They're all
Speaker 1: now switching from a narrative of the DOJ is sacro saying,
Speaker 1: how dare anyone ever question its ability to be fair
Speaker 1: and impartial and highly political cases, to now that you
Speaker 1: have an attorney general who understands what's really going on,
Speaker 1: who has not, because of public pressure, been sidelined as
Speaker 1: was the case with Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now that
Speaker 1: you have an attorney general in bar who wants to
Speaker 1: get answers, and these should be answers that everybody wants.
Speaker 1: Right somehow, this country has been lulled into a false
Speaker 1: sense of normalcy when it comes to a two plus
Speaker 1: year long investigation of a president, a sitting president, for
Speaker 1: betraying his country and cheating in an election and working
Speaker 1: with Russia to do so, and it was all a lie,
Speaker 1: never happened, didn't occur. A special council was convened to
Speaker 1: look into something that did not happen, that there was
Speaker 1: no evidence of happening, and that was all effectively a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory that overtook the media, that
Speaker 1: ran its way all the way up through the intelligence
Speaker 1: community and up the Department of Justice chain of command.
Speaker 1: And now some of us would like answers as to
Speaker 1: how something so colossally stupid and wrong and unfair could happen.
Speaker 1: And what are the Libs doing? And the Libs and
Speaker 1: their lackeys, right, the Libs and the people that do
Speaker 1: whatever they say for the right amount of pay in
Speaker 1: the Libs employ people like Joe Scarborough, among others. I
Speaker 1: don't know how Scarborough honestly gets up in the morning
Speaker 1: and does this. He's already plenty rich. He's married to
Speaker 1: a rich lady. They've got plenty of money. What's the problem.
Speaker 1: Why why do the dance? Oh, that's right, it's personal.
Speaker 1: He was a big booster of Donald Trump's He was
Speaker 1: a big fan of Trump's, as was Miss Bridginsky, his
Speaker 1: now wife. After they left their respective families after hosting
Speaker 1: a show together for a while on TV, they have
Speaker 1: decided that now Trump is the enemy, and so they
Speaker 1: feed a left wing audience at MSNBC a steady diet
Speaker 1: of Trump derangement syndrome gruel every morning, but they do
Speaker 1: it with this air of oh, where the cool kids.
Speaker 1: We're the cool kids. We have all the really connected
Speaker 1: Wall Street insiders and CEOs come sit at our table,
Speaker 1: and people from respected news outlets like The New Yorker
Speaker 1: and the New York Times they'll sit with us too,
Speaker 1: And the show is an intellectual abomination. I mean, just
Speaker 1: start with that. But this is just one of many
Speaker 1: efforts out there right now to make sure that whatever
Speaker 1: truth Bill Barr is able to find about this Department
Speaker 1: of Justice sham. I mean, it's really wrong what has
Speaker 1: gone on here. It's it's a massive political scandal, and
Speaker 1: we should be getting answers. And there have been some
Speaker 1: of these probes. And keep in mind that the the
Speaker 1: initial impetus here for the investigation of Donald Trump by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice was driven by people that we
Speaker 1: now know to be partisans, that we know to be
Speaker 1: deep state operatives who were working behind the scenes and
Speaker 1: abusing their power and discretion for political ends. Comy Bar,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Comy McCabe, struck page, go down the list.
Speaker 1: These are all individuals that we've seen through their text messages,
Speaker 1: through their actions once they've left government employee. We know
Speaker 1: who they really are. Now we have a much better
Speaker 1: sense of what they're really all about. And it looks bad.
Speaker 1: All of it looks bad. It looks like these are
Speaker 1: people that really hated Trump, that hated what Trump represented
Speaker 1: more than anything else, which was a challenge to their
Speaker 1: sense of superiority. Trump was not supposed to be able
Speaker 1: to do these things. And there are all these people
Speaker 1: who had built careers, had burrowed themselves into the existing
Speaker 1: power structure, especially in DC and especially in the Democrat
Speaker 1: corporate media. And Trump comes along and does not show
Speaker 1: them the deference that they demand, does not show them
Speaker 1: respect that they think they're due, and they go completely apoplectic.
Speaker 1: I mean they lose, They lose it on him and
Speaker 1: try to try to find ways to end his presidency
Speaker 1: and to take him down. Now you've got an Attorney
Speaker 1: General bar looking into this, and already they shift their
Speaker 1: narrative to bar Is doing the dirty work. Well, Muller
Speaker 1: was able to find no Russia collusion. And then the
Speaker 1: Muller team, a bunch of Democrat prosecutors as we know,
Speaker 1: came up with this. Well, here are ten counts of
Speaker 1: possible obstruction. We can't say their obstruction though, just as
Speaker 1: slimy and underhanded a lawyer's trick as you could ever
Speaker 1: conceive of. But they found nothing on the impetus for that,
Speaker 1: the initial reason for the whole investigation of Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: They got nothing. And it's worth asking how did the
Speaker 1: top echelon of the federal government's bureaucratic apparatus under the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. What did Obama know, by the way, about this.
Speaker 1: We never get answers on that. They never tell us.
Speaker 1: We're never allowed to find that out. Oh, sure, there
Speaker 1: was all this happening, There was the investigation of the
Speaker 1: Republican presidential campaign, and no one ever briefed Obama on it. No,
Speaker 1: of course, not like we're all supposed to be so stupid.
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough here also does the usual, Oh Trump lied
Speaker 1: about the wire tap on Trump Tower. No, the lie
Speaker 1: was what was told to the FISA court to continue
Speaker 1: to get surveillance under of Carter Page because he was
Speaker 1: a Trump campaign associate. Remember, they weren't surveilling carter Page
Speaker 1: under FISA because they thought the Carter Page had access
Speaker 1: to classify it and was trying to sell it to
Speaker 1: the Russians, that would be a standard espionage investigation. They
Speaker 1: were surveilling Carter Page under the theory that he was
Speaker 1: a go between for the Russians and the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: He was the centerpiece of collusion. That was the theory,
Speaker 1: a theory that an intelligent human being who speaks to
Speaker 1: Carter Page for five minutes would know, or five seconds,
Speaker 1: quite honestly, would know as absolutely absurd carter Page, who
Speaker 1: would helped the FBI with other intelligence related concerns when
Speaker 1: it comes to Russia. And now they're acting like they
Speaker 1: now they hate information about him to make him appear
Speaker 1: to be a trader to the FISA court. All the
Speaker 1: malfeasance that's been done, the leak of top secret information
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post in order to entrap General Flynn.
Speaker 1: Send over some FBI agents member the Kisliak Flynn phone call.
Speaker 1: Somebody would classified leaked that information. That's a felony. So
Speaker 1: when we look at what's gone on here, there's all
Speaker 1: this bad action. We have what the fourteen serious instances
Speaker 1: of PISA abuse, all these different things, all these different
Speaker 1: areas that you can you can add together and say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, there's more than just smoke. We've
Speaker 1: already seen fire, so shouldn't we find the source of it?
Speaker 1: And that's what the Attorney General is trying to do.
Speaker 1: And this is why you're you're already seeing the narrative
Speaker 1: come up now of people who don't want the truth
Speaker 1: about the plot to undo this presidency, which is what
Speaker 1: it was. It was a plot to under the presidency
Speaker 1: to use the Department of Justice and the lib corporate
Speaker 1: media as a bunch of mouthpieces to get rid of
Speaker 1: President Donald J. Trump. So they're now coming up with
Speaker 1: all these these explanations in advance of any facts. Oh,
Speaker 1: Bar is doing Trump's bidding. Bar is a stooge for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. As I've told you many times before, this
Speaker 1: just flies in the face of basic facts. This guy's
Speaker 1: already been Attorney general, longstanding career, well respected by anybody
Speaker 1: who knows anything about the DOJ. Donald Trump has turned him. Well,
Speaker 1: it's like Donald Trump is a vampire and he bit
Speaker 1: Attorney General Barr and now he's a Now he does
Speaker 1: whatever Counterracula tells him too. This is insane, but this
Speaker 1: is what they have to do because they recognize that
Speaker 1: eventually more information is going to come out about how duplicitous,
Speaker 1: how false, how stupid, how incompetent, how dishonest. The origins
Speaker 1: of this whole nere that gripped the country for years,
Speaker 1: The primary news story for more than half of President
Speaker 1: Trump's first term in office was about a left wing
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory bought and paid for, literally bought and paid
Speaker 1: for by the Hillary Clinton d n C. In twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: That was the primary news story in America for almost
Speaker 1: three years, really, and it's still in some ways haunts
Speaker 1: the current administration because it gives the Trump deranged an
Speaker 1: excuse at any point in time for why they hate Trump,
Speaker 1: because they still believe that there was collusion, even though
Speaker 1: there's been proof only to the contrary. So this is
Speaker 1: what gets us now to this two thousand former Department
Speaker 1: of Justice officials who are calling on William Barr to resign.
Speaker 1: These are called Democrats, folks. It's not complicated. This is
Speaker 1: not hard. And the Department of Justice has about one
Speaker 1: hundred and I think it's actually one hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: thousand employees if you add it all in. So to
Speaker 1: have two thousand people who formerly worked at an organization
Speaker 1: that has over one hundred thousand people that doesn't really
Speaker 1: mean anything. Who cares? These are democrats. One of the
Speaker 1: great tricks that the media polls is deciding whose voices
Speaker 1: get magnified as somehow worthy of public public scrutiny, worthy
Speaker 1: of public attention, and who's Don't you know if some
Speaker 1: group of ten doctors comes together, I mean, there's you know,
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of mds in the country, right If
Speaker 1: some group of ten doctors comes together, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you'll see headlines on ABC News Donald Trump unfit for office?
Speaker 1: Say doctors? Okay, well there's ten of you know, who cares?
Speaker 1: Two thousand former DOJ officials? Who cares? This doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: But the media is running with it. They're running with it.
Speaker 1: It's propaganda, folks. This is shaping. This is shaping the
Speaker 1: battlefield of ideas. Before any facts can come out about
Speaker 1: what bars investigation really Derm's investigation, the US attorney up
Speaker 1: in Connecticut of the Russia collusion origins, will be get
Speaker 1: ahead of it, undermine it, destroy it, erase the credibility
Speaker 1: of anything that Barr is doing before we even know
Speaker 1: what he's done. That's their plan all along. There is
Speaker 1: zero proof of any kind that the Attorney General changed
Speaker 1: his mind about Roger Stone because of what Donald Trump tweeted,
Speaker 1: And anyone who looked objectively at what they were doing
Speaker 1: to Roger Stone would say, this is absurd. But you
Speaker 1: can't have a normal conversation. You can't have a rational
Speaker 1: conversation with a Democrat about this, because they'll also tell
Speaker 1: you that it was normal. I've heard people go on
Speaker 1: I mean, CNN is the word defender, CNN is actually
Speaker 1: has actually become insane as an organization. I mean, they've
Speaker 1: completely lost their minds. They have no sense of balance,
Speaker 1: no sense of responsibility. It's really it's really frightening them.
Speaker 1: It's a grotesque place. But they'll put people on TV
Speaker 1: who are supposed to be law enforcement experts. We will say, well,
Speaker 1: of course, of course, you know, thirty men or so
Speaker 1: with long guns had to go into Roger Stone's home
Speaker 1: at five o'clock in the morning to affect that arrest.
Speaker 1: Of course that was necessary. I don't care what expertise
Speaker 1: someone claims to have or how many years in the job.
Speaker 1: That's an idiotic thing to say. Only a moron would
Speaker 1: say that with a straight face. But there are many
Speaker 1: of them out there, and in fact, they're paid to
Speaker 1: say that with a straight face. At every phase of this,
Speaker 1: what I tell you turns out to be true. Our
Speaker 1: analysis here in the Freedom MHUND is correct, and the
Speaker 1: so called legal and law enforcement and political experts such
Speaker 1: as they are that are going on on CNN and
Speaker 1: MSNBC and ABC in these other places are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Speaker 1: They never change any of their analysis, though, and they
Speaker 1: just either lie to their audience or they move on.
Speaker 1: They ignore, they pretend it didn't happen. They're going to
Speaker 1: have to at some point confront the reality of the
Speaker 1: soft coup against the president of the United States that
Speaker 1: they engineered. And they're really just hoping that the American
Speaker 1: people don't see this before we have to cast ballots
Speaker 1: in the November upcoming November election. That's that's really what
Speaker 1: is at issue here. And that's why I when I
Speaker 1: see this, this this breaking news story about the federal
Speaker 1: judges who are going to have a call. I mean,
Speaker 1: no one had even heard about Oh, let's be honest,
Speaker 1: had anyone heard about the Federal Judges Association or whatever
Speaker 1: the whatever the heck they're calling this thing before today. No,
Speaker 1: but they're going to tell you that this is a
Speaker 1: really big deal. They're going to say that the fact
Speaker 1: that federal judges are expressing concern in this way, here
Speaker 1: we go the Federal Judges Association is called an emergency meeting.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. After DOJ intervened in the case of
Speaker 1: Trump ally Roger Stone, DOJ doesn't intervene in this case.
Speaker 1: It's a DOJ case. The people who are prosecuting Stone
Speaker 1: or DJ employees, they are subject to the chain of command,
Speaker 1: the rules and regulations of the DOJ, and they do
Speaker 1: have oversight and there are there are superiors that they
Speaker 1: answer to. And this ultimately comes down to do people
Speaker 1: really think that it was justice to ask for seven
Speaker 1: and nine years for Roger Stone? Well, as we know
Speaker 1: that were one of the guys who was a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Here was a former senior White House counsel to Obama.
Speaker 1: Does anyone think that that guy's not a huge damn
Speaker 1: a huge lib Come on, and then there's another one
Speaker 1: who prosecuted Papadopoulos. I mean, these people are all Trump
Speaker 1: collusion truthers and they're getting a shot at Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: and we know they just want to run the school
Speaker 1: were board up. The more years associated with anyone who's
Speaker 1: in Trump's orbit. The better because then they can run
Speaker 1: this graphic that I've seen before in MSNBC for stupid people.
Speaker 1: Look at all these prosecutions, Look at all the years
Speaker 1: they're getting in prison. Yeah, it's prosecutions for getting jammed
Speaker 1: up in the course of the sham Russia collusion investigation,
Speaker 1: or people who didn't pay their taxes, which has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Russia Trump collusion whatsoever. This is the
Speaker 1: old Democrat plan. Investigate, investigate, investigate. The process is the punishment.
Speaker 1: Put people through hell, and even if you don't care
Speaker 1: what you want at the end, you've put them through hell.
Speaker 1: It sends a message to the political opposition. It tells Republicans,
Speaker 1: It tells the GOP Trump supporters, we may not even
Speaker 1: win in the end, but we'll ruin you in the meantime.
Speaker 1: That is what we are up against in this election.
Speaker 1: It's also what Attorney General bar is up against, with
Speaker 1: these former DOJ employees and the corporate Democrat media and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it trying to band together against
Speaker 1: him to call for him. Who resign? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast and in case you want to know just
Speaker 1: how unhinged things can really get with Democrats. Producer Nick
Speaker 1: just gave me this quote from Maxie Waters. Quote Bill
Speaker 1: Barr should not only be disbarred, but he Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Roger Stone should be sharing a jail cell. End quote.
Speaker 1: Sitting member of Congress Folks Democrat. I mean, you know
Speaker 1: she couldn't. It would be hard to think of somebody
Speaker 1: who would come up with a dumber comment of any
Speaker 1: kind on the spot than this, max Maxine Waters is
Speaker 1: not somebody that I think anybody would turn to for
Speaker 1: legal analysis, or really any analysis for that matter. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: sitting member of Congress Democrat, Trump, Stone and Barr should
Speaker 1: all be in prison. And they say that our side
Speaker 1: isn't nice, They say that our side isn't respectful. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Two thousand former Justice Department officials
Speaker 1: of both political parties calling on Attorney General bar to resign.
Speaker 1: Do you join their calls for his resignation? Absolutely positive.
Speaker 1: This has been the most of the greatest abusive power
Speaker 1: I have ever seen. At the hands of this president
Speaker 1: who has no sense of deceness You're understanding of the
Speaker 1: constitution and bars of facilitating it is beyond my comprehension.
Speaker 1: I've been around a long time, used to chair the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee for years. No president, no president, no president,
Speaker 1: has ever intimidated a general attorney general and abusing power
Speaker 1: as much as this man has custom the worst abuse
Speaker 1: of a president. I mean, did you hear the language
Speaker 1: user in there? This is about how many years Roger
Speaker 1: Stone's going to go to federal prison for for what exactly?
Speaker 1: For being disrespectful of a process that shouldn't have been
Speaker 1: going on anyway. See. See, democrats get to they get
Speaker 1: to you know, they get to sick the DJ like
Speaker 1: a bunch of trained attack dogs. They get to use
Speaker 1: the special counsel, They get to use these different bureaucratic
Speaker 1: apparatus pig or apparatus apparatti, I don't know, apparatus apparatuses.
Speaker 1: How about well go with that one. My grammar school
Speaker 1: Latin is failing me here. But they get to use
Speaker 1: all these different institutions within the bureaucratic system as weapons
Speaker 1: against Trump. And then when it comes out that they're
Speaker 1: using those weapons against Trump and his associates and people
Speaker 1: around him improperly, unfairly, illicitly. Oh well, we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been doing in the first place, but you shouldn't have
Speaker 1: done what you did when we were investigating you. And
Speaker 1: that then brings me to one of my favorite irony
Speaker 1: moments in recent days. Although the irony in politics lately
Speaker 1: has been coming fast and furious, one of my favorite
Speaker 1: irony moments is that Andrew McCabe, the acting FBI director,
Speaker 1: who will face no federal criminal charges for what he
Speaker 1: has done, no federal criminal charges for lying under oath.
Speaker 1: Because if you're a person that democrats like and that
Speaker 1: the media favors, and you come from within the institution,
Speaker 1: that bureaucracy of the government, you know, the unelected fourth
Speaker 1: branch of government, that are civils, that are quote civil servants,
Speaker 1: but really there are overseers, there are bureaucratic overlords. If
Speaker 1: you come from that class, you get away with things,
Speaker 1: You get to lie, you don't have to play by
Speaker 1: the same rules that civilians do. I wonder how many
Speaker 1: times McCabe sat in a room and had to look
Speaker 1: somebody in the eyes whose life he was ruining. For
Speaker 1: a minor process crime lying to the FBI some financial
Speaker 1: impropriety where they could have just asked for restitution with
Speaker 1: the FBI. FBI, you know, one of the problems you
Speaker 1: have with the federal criminal justice system is that there's
Speaker 1: always this pretense that we should treat white collar crimes
Speaker 1: as seriously as other crimes because of any demographic disparity
Speaker 1: and who's committing white collar crimes versus violent crimes, and
Speaker 1: so there's a political pressure to more harshly prosecute sometimes
Speaker 1: white collar criminals just to show that, yeah, that you
Speaker 1: accounting fraud that you committed against the company that cost them,
Speaker 1: you know, one hundred thousand dollars or it could be
Speaker 1: billions of dollars. I know, these things can be vast,
Speaker 1: but you U should go to prison for ten years
Speaker 1: for that man. But then we find out that people
Speaker 1: that walk up to someone on the street and slash
Speaker 1: their face with a razor blade, which but just just
Speaker 1: here in New York on Valentine's Day, right after Valentine's
Speaker 1: Day date, a French tourist was walking around Harlem and
Speaker 1: he was slashed across the neck. Just I mean to say,
Speaker 1: no reason is obvious, right, just he was just walking
Speaker 1: on the street. Someone saw him. French tourist visiting in
Speaker 1: New York, you know, And that's the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that Europeans are going to remember for a long time
Speaker 1: and they'll say, oh, look what happens in America and
Speaker 1: it's unsafe and you know, so there's a ripple effect
Speaker 1: to that too, beyond the horrific act of mutilating someone
Speaker 1: in that way. But it's just disgusting, right. I wonder
Speaker 1: how long that that individual when they finally catch him,
Speaker 1: If they catch him, we'll get in prison. I bet
Speaker 1: you it's not nine years in federal but I mean
Speaker 1: it's not a federal crime. But I bet you it's
Speaker 1: not nine years. M not going to serve nine years.
Speaker 1: Roger Stone should serve nine years. Though, this is the
Speaker 1: world that Democrats want us to live in now. People
Speaker 1: who are vicious and a threat to public safety and
Speaker 1: a menace they they you know, we got to talk
Speaker 1: about criminal justice reform and we have to get into
Speaker 1: whoa what's really going on here with mass incarceration. And
Speaker 1: you know, anyone who commits a violent crime should be
Speaker 1: in my mind treated entire almost in a different sector
Speaker 1: of the justice system from non violent crimes or violence
Speaker 1: against human beings. You know, rape, assault, murder, you know,
Speaker 1: assaulved the deadly weapon, and threats of imminent violence and
Speaker 1: armed robbery. Those are the most serious crimes for good reason,
Speaker 1: and anyone of any background or ethnicity who commits any
Speaker 1: of those crimes should be treated with the utmost harshness.
Speaker 1: Lying under oath, come on, come on, lying under oath
Speaker 1: about something. It's one thing, lying under oath against a
Speaker 1: person who you know that that lie, let's say, is
Speaker 1: going to send someone else to prison or you know,
Speaker 1: these things should be weighed by by the way that
Speaker 1: that also is often not enforced the way that it
Speaker 1: should be. People that lie under oath when they make accusations,
Speaker 1: for example, the Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind. There
Speaker 1: are others they are not punished as severely and they
Speaker 1: should be. But this was a lie. Who is the
Speaker 1: victim here? The government, the Muller team when Roger Stone
Speaker 1: didn't tell them the I'm not saying he should get
Speaker 1: away with it. That's not even the conversation. No one
Speaker 1: saying he's not guilty of this, and you have to
Speaker 1: have sanctions against people for this. But nine years in
Speaker 1: federal prison. Why not fifty years in federal prison? Why
Speaker 1: not a hundred because you realize that's crazy, But yet
Speaker 1: liberals make this argument that this is in agreedious offense.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is calling on the Attorney General to resign
Speaker 1: over this. Let's just really unpack this for a second.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General of the United States should resign, according
Speaker 1: to libs right now because Trump associate and longtime political
Speaker 1: advisor in General and the Republican Party, Roger Stone might
Speaker 1: end up serving two or three years in federal prison.
Speaker 1: This ensing its schedule for Thursday, by the way, two
Speaker 1: or three years in federal prison instead of five or six.
Speaker 1: Attorney General Barr must resign. Who thinks that this is
Speaker 1: a normal thing to think this is an understandable position.
Speaker 1: But there's there's no semblance of proportionality with the Democrats anymore.
Speaker 1: There's no rationality that they've become deranged in the era
Speaker 1: of Trump. And this is insane and it's it's shameful too,
Speaker 1: because it's starting to undermine faith that the rest of
Speaker 1: us have that we can get a fair trial. Right now,
Speaker 1: if you're a Trump associate in the District of Columbia
Speaker 1: and you're being tried for something, You're not getting a
Speaker 1: fair trial. We know this. I don't think if somebody
Speaker 1: associated with Trump was tried in New York City they
Speaker 1: would be getting a fair trial either, because the jury
Speaker 1: pool is so tainted, because the media has done such
Speaker 1: an astonishing job of propagandizing about how Trump is an
Speaker 1: imminent threat and everyone around him is so terrible and
Speaker 1: he's so awful, and I mean, while the country is
Speaker 1: doing better than it's done in my adult lifetime, the
Speaker 1: country's in better shape right now than it has been
Speaker 1: in my adult lifetime and probably in my lifetime period.
Speaker 1: The country is better now that at any point it's
Speaker 1: been in almost forty years, speaking from my own personal experience.
Speaker 1: Do you get any sense of that from the media.
Speaker 1: Do you get any sense of that from the way
Speaker 1: they're reporting on things now? Of course not. Instead they're
Speaker 1: doing they're doing an impersonation. It's a bit like Ben
Speaker 1: Affleck when he is the best thing that Ben Affleck
Speaker 1: I think has ever done, when he did an impersonation
Speaker 1: of Keith Olberman on Saturday Night Live, Miss Precious Perfect,
Speaker 1: when the co op board would not let my cat,
Speaker 1: Miss Precious Perfect stay with me. You know, this whole thing,
Speaker 1: and I kind of complained to Mumsy, you, sir, should resign,
Speaker 1: and you know, Keith Olberman yelling and you know, acting
Speaker 1: like he was a really bad Keith Olberman's whole stick
Speaker 1: was staring into the camera and letting libs believe that
Speaker 1: a guy who sounded like he was doing a bad
Speaker 1: impression of a person doing an impression of a Shakespeare
Speaker 1: actor like it was a few levels remove. You know,
Speaker 1: this is what someone sounds like when they're trying to
Speaker 1: get the role of Keith Olberman steps in that this
Speaker 1: was intellectual and this was worthwhile for anybody. And also
Speaker 1: Keith Olberman has a reputation for being among the worst
Speaker 1: human beings in the media of any political background. But
Speaker 1: the whole thing about it, you should resign. Everyone should resign,
Speaker 1: right Everyone on the right should resign. Anybody that libs
Speaker 1: don't like should resign, lose their job. This is what
Speaker 1: democrats have been reduced to right now, And I mentioned
Speaker 1: that at the top of the show. It's wanting to
Speaker 1: go back to it for a second. You think about
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice under the Obama administration and what
Speaker 1: was allowed to occur. Then the way that Attorney General
Speaker 1: Holder just made sure that there was no accountability at all.
Speaker 1: There was no effort to investigate, there was no oversight
Speaker 1: of the irs targeting Conservatives in an election year. Lois
Speaker 1: Learner admitted this, they did this. This is real. There's
Speaker 1: no question that this happened. The only question was how
Speaker 1: far did it go and who gave the order? They
Speaker 1: just made that go away. Eric Holders like, WHOA, I
Speaker 1: don't we don't want to look into that operation fast
Speaker 1: and furious. Even Democrats, yes, you could say that voting
Speaker 1: to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress is a
Speaker 1: political act fund but even Democrats, and I think it
Speaker 1: was a whole bunch of them, maybe about seventeen of
Speaker 1: them in the House went along with that and said, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: he is this is this is contemptuous. He should not
Speaker 1: do this. The Obama administration was telling gun store owners
Speaker 1: to make illegal sales to individuals that they knew were
Speaker 1: going to then take those weapons and sell them to
Speaker 1: the drug cartel south of the border, and that resulted
Speaker 1: in the deaths of over one hundred people and including
Speaker 1: the murder of Border patrol agent Brian Terry. Do we
Speaker 1: ever find who gave the order for that investigative, that operation,
Speaker 1: we don't know. Yeah, there were some low level people
Speaker 1: that were, oh, you know that their careers were derailed
Speaker 1: or something in the ATF, and but no one ever
Speaker 1: found out. Don't you think that's the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that they would know in DC at the highest level
Speaker 1: that they're doing. It's very risky telling people to break
Speaker 1: firearms laws. It was really an effort to break federal
Speaker 1: firearms laws by the federal government so that then they'd
Speaker 1: have an excuse to enact much stricter firearms laws. See
Speaker 1: all this terrible violence going on with the drug cartels,
Speaker 1: it's because we don't have strict enough gun laws. Even
Speaker 1: though they were breaking their gun laws in the first
Speaker 1: place to get those guns to the drug cartels on
Speaker 1: order of the government. We didn't get to find out
Speaker 1: what happened there. Eric Holder didn't want to get the
Speaker 1: answers the REDDA Lynch never recused herself in the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton email investigation. Just think about that. She never recused herself,
Speaker 1: And not only that, she didn't recuse herself after the
Speaker 1: Tarmac nittee with Bill Clinton, which I know you could
Speaker 1: say the investigation didn't go on that much longer, but
Speaker 1: investigation could have been reopened. She didn't know, and it
Speaker 1: also would at least sent a messers like, yeah, I
Speaker 1: definitely shouldn't have done that. But we all know what
Speaker 1: was going on there. That was behind the scenes collusion
Speaker 1: by powerful Democrats. Of course it was. Yet they want
Speaker 1: to lecture us on the Just Department. The Civil Rights
Speaker 1: Division under Eric Holder was effectively a bunch of community
Speaker 1: organizers and activists who ended up getting overturned by the
Speaker 1: courts numerous times. The Obama DOJ was an activist DJ,
Speaker 1: especially the Civil Rights Division, which was far left and
Speaker 1: trying to enact a social justice agenda in violation of
Speaker 1: law under the guise of implementing the law. That's what
Speaker 1: we had for eight years under the Obama administration. And
Speaker 1: we're supposed to get lectures now about Attorney General Bill Barr. Please, Libs,
Speaker 1: just get ready for what's coming. Get ready for the
Speaker 1: report that Durham is going to put out, and then
Speaker 1: we'll watch as they because they they'll never admit that
Speaker 1: they were wrong, but we will watch some and the
Speaker 1: Democrat corporate apparatus, media apparatus squirm as they try to
Speaker 1: justify the enormous hoax. That was the Russia collusion investigation,
Speaker 1: all meant to help their incredibly weak, dishonest, corrupt cam
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton glide into the White House. You're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. So
Speaker 1: it's November. People who just what just won the election?
Speaker 1: And the current occupant says, no, this is all a hoax.
Speaker 1: The Senate agrees with him. Fox News starts going on
Speaker 1: about it. What does president elect but to just do
Speaker 1: about this? Yeah? What he doesn't want to leave? So well,
Speaker 1: what I said to Bill Mars, this is going to
Speaker 1: be pretty awkward when Chaston and I are moving in
Speaker 1: our furniture. I mean, if he won't leave, I guess
Speaker 1: if he's willing to do chores, we could work something out.
Speaker 1: But what is this this liberal mythology or that this
Speaker 1: liberal fantasy that if Donald Trump doesn't if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: lost the election, he wouldn't leave. This is this is
Speaker 1: amazing for a number reason. One, there's just no evidence
Speaker 1: that this is the case. There's no reason, there's no
Speaker 1: reasonable reason to believe that. But also, we're going through
Speaker 1: so much of what we are as a country right now,
Speaker 1: and the political conversation has really been dominated by one thing,
Speaker 1: and that is Democrats refusal to accept the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election results. So Democrats refused to accept the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election results, spawning a special counsel investigation and countless conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: and all these removed Trump efforts, and quite honestly, the
Speaker 1: impeachment effort and the Senate trial that then acquitted President Trump.
Speaker 1: But they refuse to accept twenty sixteen, and then we
Speaker 1: have to hear from it. And also they refused to
Speaker 1: accept two thousand one Bush beat Gore. And now we
Speaker 1: are told that we should be concerned that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is not going to accept the twenty twenty election results.
Speaker 1: You know, fool me once, as Bush said, can't get
Speaker 1: fooled again. What are they doing here? Why even go there?
Speaker 1: It's also meant to be an insult, I should note,
Speaker 1: and this is another This is a common tactic you
Speaker 1: have against the truly Trump de arranged Democrats. It's a
Speaker 1: way of undermining Trump supporters. It's a way of attacking
Speaker 1: us without having the stomach to actually say what they
Speaker 1: want to say. So they'll make claims that they know
Speaker 1: are only possible, they know could only be true. If
Speaker 1: Trump supporters were willing to go along with it. So
Speaker 1: what I'm saying here is when they claim that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump could do something really horrific right, or Donald Trump
Speaker 1: could just declare martial law, which I've heard libs say,
Speaker 1: or or that he's a dictator. I mean, if he's
Speaker 1: a dictator, he's the worst dictator ever, because all he
Speaker 1: does is go to court and obey the rule of law,
Speaker 1: including when there are lawless judges trying to overrule him
Speaker 1: at the national level with these universal injunctions. But we
Speaker 1: all know that he couldn't do the things that libs
Speaker 1: are worried about him doing if his supporters all of
Speaker 1: a sudden decided that he had overstepped that he was
Speaker 1: no longer in the in the right, and that he
Speaker 1: needed to be removed from power or moved from office. So,
Speaker 1: of course, if Trump loses the election, which would be
Speaker 1: would just be a sad day for America if that
Speaker 1: were to happen, though, those of us who had voted
Speaker 1: for him would say, yeah, he's got to go, And
Speaker 1: if he just pretended that he wasn't going to go,
Speaker 1: then that would be a problem. But even in trying
Speaker 1: to play Kate, libs crazy fantasies. You almost give some
Speaker 1: degree of credibility to it, like we have to explain
Speaker 1: this to them, like, yeah, guys, that's right. If Trump
Speaker 1: really was going to nuke Sweden tomorrow, we would stop him.
Speaker 1: I promise we wouldn't be like, yeah, Trump, go for it.
Speaker 1: You know you don't like IKEA anymore, Go ahead and
Speaker 1: fire off a bunch of ICBMs. Of course, But in
Speaker 1: having to even say this, it's like we give some
Speaker 1: credibility to the absurd assertion in the first place. And
Speaker 1: this is a game they play that with Trump not
Speaker 1: leaving office. Of course, if he loses, he's going to
Speaker 1: leave office, and his supporters wouldn't insist because we believe
Speaker 1: in the rule of law, and we believe that you
Speaker 1: have to obey the rules that everyone agrees to. Only
Speaker 1: Libs think the rules change depending on what they want.
Speaker 1: Only Libs believe that nothing matters when they feel like
Speaker 1: there's something more important and there's nothing that can obstruct
Speaker 1: them in their will to power. So it's troubling. I
Speaker 1: just think this is a dumb thing to have to
Speaker 1: keep hearing. What if Trump doesn't leave, Well, they should
Speaker 1: just think about what happens when Trump wins. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the bus seton show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. But it is not only it is
Speaker 1: not only a rigged economy. It is a corrupt political system.
Speaker 1: It is a system that allows billionaires like Trump to
Speaker 1: get massive amounts of campaign contribution from his billionaire friends.
Speaker 1: It is a system that allows a multi billionaire Mike
Speaker 1: Bloomberg worth sixty billion dollars and I missed Bloomberg, like
Speaker 1: anybody else, has a right to run for president. He
Speaker 1: does not have a right to buy the precedents say.
Speaker 1: It is like somebody was writing a script and they
Speaker 1: were coming up with a way to make Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: seemed like he knew what he was talking about, because
Speaker 1: he is looking like he's going to be running in
Speaker 1: a sense against two billionaires in a Biden. That sounds
Speaker 1: like the worst sitcome ever. Two billionaires in a Biden.
Speaker 1: Oh hello, fellow billionaire, How is that poor fellow mister
Speaker 1: Biden doing today? Perhaps he can get some family members
Speaker 1: on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company to
Speaker 1: help him pay some bills. The poor chap you got
Speaker 1: these two billionaires, Trump and Bloomberg, And let's be honest,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg is like an ultra billionaire. Trump is a billionaire,
Speaker 1: but he's not a fifty million I'm sorry, a fifty
Speaker 1: million fifty times over. He's not a fifty million billionaire.
Speaker 1: He's not a fifty times over billionaire. That's that's special
Speaker 1: territory that Bloomberg is in. One of the wealthiest men
Speaker 1: in the world. And Bernie Sanders loves to talk about
Speaker 1: the billionaires and the oligarchs. And it turns out that
Speaker 1: there are some billionaire oligarchs who are quite powerful in
Speaker 1: this country. But we will get into which side they
Speaker 1: tend to be supporting, which I think is something that
Speaker 1: does not get nearly enough attention. Right, we will often
Speaker 1: be told that the Republican Party, and this is one
Speaker 1: of these enduring myths. I don't know how we can
Speaker 1: get rid of this other than to keep knocking down
Speaker 1: this lie. The lie is that the Republican Party is
Speaker 1: the party of the rich and Wall Street. Meanwhile, if
Speaker 1: you were to look at who for example, and this
Speaker 1: is you know, hat tipped Ted Cruise on this one today.
Speaker 1: Senator Cruz who pointed out that of the ten richest
Speaker 1: men in America, seven of them, Buffett, Bazots, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Page,
Speaker 1: and Bryn are Democrats, and they are funding Democrats to
Speaker 1: include today's Democrat socialists. And then Cruz wrote, not coincidentally,
Speaker 1: massive government power consistently preserves massive wealth and prevents new
Speaker 1: people from acquiring wealth. It is, in fact the Democrat
Speaker 1: party that has the majority of the ultra wealthy supporting it.
Speaker 1: It is now the Democrat Party that has not one,
Speaker 1: but two billionaires running in its primary, Tom Steier and
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg. I think Stier's an interesting character just insofar
Speaker 1: as he's a reminder that you don't have to be
Speaker 1: you don't have to be wise, and you don't have
Speaker 1: to be charming or even seemed to be all really
Speaker 1: that good at anything to be a billionaire. You just
Speaker 1: have to be at the right place at the right
Speaker 1: time and be relentless, and you two can probably become
Speaker 1: a billionaire. Better lucky than good, as I'm fond of saying,
Speaker 1: I've seen that play out in life far too many times,
Speaker 1: in far too many ways. Better lucky than Good's true,
Speaker 1: and conservative media too, by the way, mostly a lot
Speaker 1: of the people that you see who have done very
Speaker 1: well to media in general, but conservative media people that
Speaker 1: you know, happen to be in the right place at
Speaker 1: the right time, got very lucky, got the platform, got
Speaker 1: the opportunity. Because there's so much that goes into being
Speaker 1: successful that it's impossible for just to be merit based
Speaker 1: or just skill base. You gotta get a little lucky too.
Speaker 1: But back to this Ted Cruise tweet ten and richest
Speaker 1: men in America. Seven of them are big Democrat donors Buffett, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: Page Bryn. This is a reminder that the branding that
Speaker 1: the Republican Party has as the party of the elites
Speaker 1: and the rich is merely is one dishonest, it's not true,
Speaker 1: but it's also a deflection from what the modern Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is. The Democratic Party does have a plutocrat problem.
Speaker 1: It does have far too much It does have billionaires
Speaker 1: who have far too much say in what's going to
Speaker 1: happen and what the future of that party will be.
Speaker 1: Here's a perfect example, Bloomberg. I keep trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: hammer this home for people because we've heard in the past, Oh,
Speaker 1: someone's trying to buy their way into an election, and
Speaker 1: usually that meant they had raised a ton of money
Speaker 1: and they could spend a lot of money on a campaign. Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: this is an entirely different situation. I mean, I saw
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrams was standing up for Bloomberg recently. Stacy Abrams
Speaker 1: still pretends that she won an election she lost for
Speaker 1: the governor's race in Georgia, but she had some nice
Speaker 1: words to say about Michael Bloomberg, who's under a lot
Speaker 1: of criticism, a lot of pressure right now as a
Speaker 1: result of his support and implement his implementation of stopping
Speaker 1: frisk policies. But Abrams, as I understand it, you know,
Speaker 1: has received Bloomberg money in the past, you know, in
Speaker 1: her in her bid to be governor of Georgia. I mean,
Speaker 1: think of all the different mayors, for example, that have
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of support Bloomberg funds this you know,
Speaker 1: Mayor's against illegal guns or whatever it's called. The Bloomberg
Speaker 1: anti gun project. Bloomberg's war on the Second Amendment is
Speaker 1: what it really is. But he has more or less
Speaker 1: unlimited funds with which to run that organization or to
Speaker 1: have people running that organization in his name. I think
Speaker 1: of all the mayors, all the politicians, the Democrats side
Speaker 1: that that group has helped by pushing, by pushing their
Speaker 1: candidacy and by attacking their opponents just on the issue
Speaker 1: of guns. You know, it's possible to buy people off
Speaker 1: at the and buy them off in numbers that it
Speaker 1: will matter, because I'm not saying that Bloomberg and either
Speaker 1: technically you can't do this. It's gonna walk around having
Speaker 1: people hand everybody one hundred dollar bill vote for Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Although I'd want to see what the numbers if you're
Speaker 1: only going to remember, I think it was ninety thousand
Speaker 1: votes total that separated Trump from Hillary in a handful
Speaker 1: of states in the Midwest, Right, Wasn't that there? There
Speaker 1: were somewhere ninety thousand votes? Was the was the difference
Speaker 1: maker about roughly called roughly ninety thousand votes? You know,
Speaker 1: it's not that hard to pay off ninety thousand people, right,
Speaker 1: if you've got billions and billions of dollars. But he's
Speaker 1: not going to pay off individual voters. What he does
Speaker 1: is payoff influencers, payoff powerful voices. And there are so
Speaker 1: many ways that that can be done. And now we
Speaker 1: are starting to see is it possible to corrupt the
Speaker 1: political system in this way, or rather, is it possible
Speaker 1: to just write a big enough check that you can
Speaker 1: be president? You can become president of the United States. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody could do this. I think Bloomberg
Speaker 1: is an effective manager. I notice how I'm not as like,
Speaker 1: I'm not as as quick to do what I've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of conservatives doing lately, which is just trash
Speaker 1: everything about Bloomberg because they view him as a as
Speaker 1: a threat to Trump already. I'm not I'm not convinced
Speaker 1: that that's really the case. And I also don't think
Speaker 1: that we should do what Democrats do, which is pretend
Speaker 1: that things that they don't, pretend that things about their
Speaker 1: political opponents are true that aren't, just because it's it's,
Speaker 1: you know, the orange man bad approach. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to orange man bad Mike Bloomberg. Libs do that to Trump,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna do that to Bloomberg. Bloomberg is very
Speaker 1: bad on a number of issues, but he's not dumb,
Speaker 1: and he's not incompetent, and he did do a pretty
Speaker 1: darn good job running a crazy liberal city, all right.
Speaker 1: He's not the governor of San Francisco. I mean the
Speaker 1: governor of gosh, the mayor of San Francisco today, he's
Speaker 1: not build a Blasio, He's not. I think it's Garsetti
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles. I mean, these guys are doing a
Speaker 1: terrible job. So let's be honest about where the criticism
Speaker 1: should be. Do I think that Bloomberg would be as
Speaker 1: good a president as Trump? No, not even close. He's
Speaker 1: horrible on a whole host of issues. And will I
Speaker 1: be absolutely as hard charging for Trump's reelection if it's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg a versus Trump as opposed to any other candidate. Sure,
Speaker 1: but Bernie Sanders is an existential threat to the economy.
Speaker 1: Let's keep it real. Bernie Sanders, it wants to do
Speaker 1: things that no sane person wants to do when it
Speaker 1: comes to economics, when it comes to healthcare, it comes
Speaker 1: to college, when all these things. Bloomberg is actually more
Speaker 1: of what you'd expect to be an establishment Democrat platform,
Speaker 1: which is bad. But we could recover from it. You know,
Speaker 1: we could actually have a Congress that holds him in check.
Speaker 1: And I just think it's fascinating to watch this whole
Speaker 1: thing play out, because now the Democrats who have been
Speaker 1: talking about how Republicans buy elections and all the money
Speaker 1: and politics, and it looks like they might be saved
Speaker 1: from themselves by an ultra billionaire who is doing more
Speaker 1: to buy an election than any human being in the
Speaker 1: history of this country. Who's throwing around money, personal money.
Speaker 1: Remember this is personal money. He's not raising any money.
Speaker 1: He's just writing checks, just writing checks. He's throwing the
Speaker 1: money in a way that nobody's ever seen before, and
Speaker 1: it is amazing. Oh but speaking of the mayor Deblasio,
Speaker 1: Mayor de Blasio, who of course supported his fellow commy
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, de Blasio is a Sandinistas style Commi, whereas
Speaker 1: Bernie is a more old Soviet You know, Bernie is
Speaker 1: he's a purist. He's a Soviet Union style communist, as
Speaker 1: we know from where he spent his honeymoon. But here
Speaker 1: is what the current mayor of New York says about
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Play nine. It's important for people to understand what's
Speaker 1: happening here. Bernie Sanders as creating extraordinary momentum on the ground,
Speaker 1: energy excitement because he represents change. He's been consistent about
Speaker 1: it throughout his life. Michael Bloomberg represents the status quo,
Speaker 1: and it's important to talk about it. He has used
Speaker 1: an innorting the amount of money. We've never seen anything
Speaker 1: like it in the history of the United States. But
Speaker 1: what it is masking is a lifetime of supporting those
Speaker 1: in power. He is the epitome of the power structure
Speaker 1: in this country, and it's important for people to start
Speaker 1: understanding what he's really about, given that he's spending literally
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars to portray only one side
Speaker 1: of the story. I think it's fascinating because you have
Speaker 1: Deblasio here saying this about Bloomberg, and we know New
Speaker 1: York City is and I speak from experience. I'm on
Speaker 1: the subway four times a day here in New York City.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm I'm out there seeing the city, you know,
Speaker 1: up close and personal all the time. I live right
Speaker 1: in the middle of Manhattan. I work in downtown Manhattan,
Speaker 1: constantly on the move. And Deblasio is destroying this place,
Speaker 1: and he's destroying this city because of social justice policies.
Speaker 1: And this is the separation that I want to with
Speaker 1: de Blasio on criminal justice reform and a whole host
Speaker 1: of issues. But bloom Burg offers you Sweden more or less.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a rough approximation. When Bloomberg is saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, you're gonna have nanny state, big government, higher taxes,
Speaker 1: but there's still going to be a private economy that works,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have the trains run on time and
Speaker 1: the streets will be relatively clean, and you've got somebody
Speaker 1: that is not a just a crazy idealogue in charge.
Speaker 1: That's what he offers. That's not good, but it's not Venezuela,
Speaker 1: which is what Bernie Sanders and de Blasio offer you,
Speaker 1: which is the rapid social and economic deterioration that comes
Speaker 1: from instituting more radical Marxist policies, more purely redistributive and
Speaker 1: social justice based laws and regulations that are meant to
Speaker 1: promote radical equality in a society. Radical equality leads to
Speaker 1: ruination because we are not in fact, when it comes
Speaker 1: to our talents, gifts, ability, hard work, etc. We are
Speaker 1: not equal in those regards where equal human beings in
Speaker 1: human dignity and in the eyes of the law. But
Speaker 1: we're not all the same in terms of how much
Speaker 1: stuff we're gonna have and how good we are things
Speaker 1: and the choices we're gonna make and everything else. The
Speaker 1: socialists have a false promise to people that those because
Speaker 1: really the ultimate promise of socialists like Sanders is rooted
Speaker 1: in envy. They won't talk about it this way. They'll
Speaker 1: just say the other guys are so bad because they're
Speaker 1: greedy and all this other stuff. But the impulse that
Speaker 1: they capitalize on is human envy, coveting thy neighbors fill
Speaker 1: in the blank. That's what Sanders does, that's what de
Speaker 1: Blasio does. These are people who rabble roles, who go
Speaker 1: to the darker side of human emotion, who go to
Speaker 1: the recesses of the human brain, that see other people
Speaker 1: that they think are doing. By the way, no one
Speaker 1: even really knows about how happy or truly successful. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know, I know plenty of stories personally of people
Speaker 1: that you look at it and say, oh wow, that person.
Speaker 1: Then you find out that they're struggling with some chronic elments,
Speaker 1: can barely get out of bed in the morning, and
Speaker 1: are thinking about ending at all. And I mean, I
Speaker 1: really mean that people that you'd see are really successful
Speaker 1: and wealthy and attractive, you know, you don't know, but
Speaker 1: socialist Marxist that they don't get that. They look at
Speaker 1: this just from a a very sterile lens of If
Speaker 1: you have more than me, that's a problem. If you're
Speaker 1: better off than me, that's a problem. It's never did
Speaker 1: I make choices? Could I make different choices? Can we
Speaker 1: both be happy? Can we both be prosperous in society
Speaker 1: without Now that that's not the way that it's viewed.
Speaker 1: It's always that there's the evil that exists is the
Speaker 1: fact that the Sanders supporter, the socialist, looks at what
Speaker 1: other people have and says, that's not fair. I should
Speaker 1: have that too, or nobody should have that, which is
Speaker 1: what it turns into, you know, nobody should have what
Speaker 1: that person has. And then eventually this and this is
Speaker 1: this is true. This is the socialist cycle that plays out.
Speaker 1: It's played out in societies all over the world. Eventually,
Speaker 1: the class that implements that radical equality, or that that
Speaker 1: effort at radical equality, elevates itself and becomes what Gilas
Speaker 1: Milo Gilas calls is an excommunist The New Class, which
Speaker 1: is a very worthwhile book, by the way, if you
Speaker 1: ever character read it, about the elevation of the bureaucratic
Speaker 1: elite within communist societies that are supposed to be so
Speaker 1: equal until you realize the people in charge is making
Speaker 1: things equal. They're not equal, they're above. And what Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz was pointing out in his tweet is that the
Speaker 1: ultra rich in a society like that, they want the
Speaker 1: elevation of that bureaucratic class to keep everybody else in check.
Speaker 1: But the ultra rich always find a way to stay
Speaker 1: ultra rich. It's the middle class, it's the strivers, it's
Speaker 1: the builders, it's the people that want to be better off.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that are crushed down. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that Bernie Sanders is going to make life miserable for.
Speaker 1: But the ultra rich and the ultra dependent, they think
Speaker 1: they'll do great in a socialist America. You're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sex and Show Podcast
Speaker 1: Number one. One of the things that this is we
Speaker 1: knew the most difficult when they did all the all
Speaker 1: the all the all the cross the cross tabs. Though,
Speaker 1: one of the foremost difficult states for me to win
Speaker 1: was going to be in Iowa because and they're good people.
Speaker 1: It's all white, it's all Midwestern. It's a lot of
Speaker 1: it farming and it's uh, and it was going to
Speaker 1: be it was going but we did. Okay. If you
Speaker 1: take a look at what happened there, I mean, it
Speaker 1: was kind of unusual thing that I hope doesn't happen
Speaker 1: here in terri of No No. I mean in terms
Speaker 1: of the actual running into the caucus, how how it
Speaker 1: worked out. It really is time for Joe Biden to
Speaker 1: spend time on the pier feeding seagulls with a nice
Speaker 1: comfy blind get across his lap. It's amazing that he's
Speaker 1: still it seems that he's the only person who really
Speaker 1: believes that he's going to be president the United States. Still,
Speaker 1: I think that he would get crushed in a general
Speaker 1: election against Now, when you say crushed the third states
Speaker 1: that are going to go Democrats, I mean you're really
Speaker 1: only talking about a difference in the electoral college that
Speaker 1: will result from a difference of a few hundred thousand
Speaker 1: votes in total. That's how that's how separate, that's how
Speaker 1: polarized the country is. But I think that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: doesn't flip those votes toward him, And I think that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are realizing that this game they're willing to
Speaker 1: play all along, that Joe Biden was something other than
Speaker 1: what he is, which is a deeply, deeply unimpressive politician,
Speaker 1: always has been, always will be, is coming back to
Speaker 1: bite them. And that's where Bloomberg saw his opening. And
Speaker 1: it's also why Bernie Sanders is at least technically here
Speaker 1: right now the front runner. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I don't know what he can do either, but I
Speaker 1: think the challenge is that we can't just settle for
Speaker 1: a speech or a tour of speeches asking for forgiveness.
Speaker 1: There ought to be some effort on his path, on
Speaker 1: his pot rather to say, and therefore, I want to
Speaker 1: try and repair the damage is done by this, some
Speaker 1: kind of criminal justice initiative, some kind of effort for
Speaker 1: those that were scarred. Stopping frisk is being raised as
Speaker 1: the primary objection of the left to vice pres I mean,
Speaker 1: to a presidential contender, Mike Bloomberg, stopping frisk, which is
Speaker 1: an interesting issue, and I've said before I think that
Speaker 1: there's a lot that you can there's a lot of
Speaker 1: discussion around whether stopping frisk is worth it or not.
Speaker 1: The numbers would say, based on when they ended stopping
Speaker 1: frisk that at least in the immediate term, there was
Speaker 1: not a major spike in crime or homicides or shootings.
Speaker 1: But then people might also come back and say, okay,
Speaker 1: but these things take time. And with that change in
Speaker 1: perception among the very small percentage of people who are
Speaker 1: committing most of the serious crimes, almost all of the
Speaker 1: serious crimes in any neighborhood, including minority predominant neighborhoods here
Speaker 1: in New York City, that once they believe they have
Speaker 1: greater freedom, that that criminal element within the broader society
Speaker 1: has greater freedom of movement, greater freedom of action, than
Speaker 1: over time, that results in more crime. And look, it's
Speaker 1: a it is a broad, broad based criminal justice philosophical discussion.
Speaker 1: But I do think it's fascinating that this is the
Speaker 1: way that they're going after Bloomberg, as well as bringing
Speaker 1: up all of his old comments. But the thing about
Speaker 1: the old comments is that Democrats don't care. They really
Speaker 1: that they don't really care about and I'll tell you
Speaker 1: this too. If they believe this is going to be
Speaker 1: such a test of what the principles of the left,
Speaker 1: if there are any what those principles are, because if
Speaker 1: they believe that the only way if the left, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party believes the only way they can stop Trump
Speaker 1: is to get on board with a former Republican liberal
Speaker 1: billionaire from New York City who has issues like stopping
Speaker 1: frisk in his past his mayor, as well as saying,
Speaker 1: I mean he said, he said stuff about women that
Speaker 1: you know would be a problem for a lot of candidates,
Speaker 1: I mean, Trump obviously with it. Please, you don't have
Speaker 1: to tell me. All we ever hear about is Trump's
Speaker 1: crash with women and Trump did this and the Billy
Speaker 1: Bush tape, and I please, I know all about that.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying they would raise this just because Trump
Speaker 1: has gotten attacked, And it doesn't mean other people wouldn't
Speaker 1: get attacked on those issues. But they really think or
Speaker 1: will be willing to forget all about all this. I
Speaker 1: think they're willing to put it all aside if it
Speaker 1: means that they have their best shot to defeat defeat
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I also think it's interesting that Bloomberg doesn't
Speaker 1: really have a home in the in the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: today based on what he thinks he can accomplish or
Speaker 1: what he would want to do that would make people
Speaker 1: have a better life, or whatever I mean here is
Speaker 1: part of Bloomberg's. What I'm trying to illustrate here, and
Speaker 1: these are the nuances of bloomberg Ism, is that the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has ceased to be first and foremost about
Speaker 1: what it used to pretend to be, which was helping
Speaker 1: working class people, poor people, and minorities have better lives.
Speaker 1: Now the Democratic Party has really morphed into an ideologically
Speaker 1: based activist group that seeks to destroy political rivals and
Speaker 1: then wants to foist a far left socialist agenda on
Speaker 1: all of us. That's a different thing than you know, hey,
Speaker 1: I want to have better schools and have a little
Speaker 1: more funding for it. I mean that that was an
Speaker 1: incremental socialism. They've largely abandoned that incremental socialism, which can,
Speaker 1: at least in the short term, look like it's trying
Speaker 1: to address real problems and bring in a revolutionary new
Speaker 1: version of American society under this umbrella of socialism. So
Speaker 1: this is a monumental shift within the Democratic Party, and
Speaker 1: so they're not speaking about things in the way that
Speaker 1: you've heard them in the past, whether they meant it
Speaker 1: or not here is a problem. How do I solve it?
Speaker 1: You know, kids aren't doing well enough in public schools.
Speaker 1: Let's put more money into public schools. Now, that doesn't
Speaker 1: solve the problem, and they're wrong. But the point is
Speaker 1: a can go to b Now. It's kids aren't doing
Speaker 1: well enough in public schools, and let's turn the public
Speaker 1: schools into the only school system that anybody can go to,
Speaker 1: because we're going to it's so hard to actually raise
Speaker 1: any money for raise any money to go to private
Speaker 1: school for yourself, or to send anyone to charter schools.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, these schools are going to
Speaker 1: be indoctrination factories for the little socialists of the future, etc.
Speaker 1: Et cetera, et cetera. Right, I It's just it's a
Speaker 1: different a different tone you could say in the Democrats today.
Speaker 1: And you know, here's, for example, what Bloomberg says about
Speaker 1: his political goals Play thirteen. I've been working on these
Speaker 1: issues of racial equality for years, and in the White House,
Speaker 1: I will bring together a diverse team to double down
Speaker 1: on that work. Everything we've ever tried to do in
Speaker 1: public life comes from one motivation. I've always worked to
Speaker 1: help people live the longest, healthiest, most fulfilling lives they
Speaker 1: possibly can, to make the real promise of freedom and
Speaker 1: equality for everyone in our country, and to help make
Speaker 1: the world a better place for our kids, our grandkids,
Speaker 1: our neighbors, and our community. That's not what Democrat base
Speaker 1: voters really want to hear these days. No, that's that
Speaker 1: sounds at that sounds way too old school politician want
Speaker 1: to help people lead longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives and
Speaker 1: enacting policy that will accomplish those goals. No, no no, it's
Speaker 1: not accomplishing goals, it's what feels good. What feels good
Speaker 1: to Democrats today is saying that there are thirty seven genders,
Speaker 1: that there is no such thing as there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as biological the biological determinism of sex. It doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter. What feels good today is to reject the
Speaker 1: history of socialism destroying economies and pretend that it's never
Speaker 1: really been tried properly and we'll do it better now.
Speaker 1: To tell people, I mean, just just go down the
Speaker 1: list of what gets the climate change is an existential
Speaker 1: threat to the whole world, and no one really is
Speaker 1: going to change their lifestyle, but through government policy that
Speaker 1: ruins the economy will save the world, even though the
Speaker 1: US is twelve percent and of overall CEO two missions.
Speaker 1: We'll get into some of the climate change craziness in
Speaker 1: a few moments. Bloomberg doesn't really have a home in
Speaker 1: that political party. Bloomberg is not somebody who they can
Speaker 1: look to is, but they'll if they got no choice.
Speaker 1: If it's Bloomberg er Trump, will the Bernie Bros. Go along?
Speaker 1: I mean, he's certainly trying to do what he can
Speaker 1: to blunt the attacks on him regarding racism and some
Speaker 1: of the comments he's made in the past. Here's a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg pitch that you would think voters that view politics
Speaker 1: as a transactional exercise of what are you going to
Speaker 1: do for me? You'd think that this might have some residence.
Speaker 1: But in today's Democratic Party, I do not think it
Speaker 1: will at all. Play twelve and we're going to triple
Speaker 1: the wealth of black families to substantially close the racial
Speaker 1: wealth gap. Together. Let me tell you we will get
Speaker 1: it done. I know how to do it. We did
Speaker 1: it in New York City. We can do it here.
Speaker 1: Part of our work will involve helping more black Americans
Speaker 1: get on track to a successful career, and that means
Speaker 1: we will trip with funding for historically back colleges and
Speaker 1: universities like Alabama State, which I visited last weekend and
Speaker 1: Texas Southern just down the road here in Houston. Go Tigers.
Speaker 1: What do you mean, Boo, Go Tiger? Does anyone think
Speaker 1: that that's really gonna work from Bloomberg? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I I doubt it. I doubt it. Bloomberg's not woke
Speaker 1: and you have to at least talk to talk when
Speaker 1: it comes to being woke to be a Democrat in
Speaker 1: good standing, at least a Democrat in good standing with
Speaker 1: the media, with the left. So I don't know if
Speaker 1: anything will work, But I just think it's so interesting
Speaker 1: that he's he's going around saying, Hey, I want to
Speaker 1: make democrat and just Americans, but I want to people's
Speaker 1: lives better through the following initiatives, let's say, and Bertie
Speaker 1: Sanders is just promising, you know, fairy tales and nonsense.
Speaker 1: And somehow how Bernie Sanders, according to the Bernie bros.
Speaker 1: Is the one that's really gonna say, you know, that's
Speaker 1: really going to do the most good for people. It's
Speaker 1: it's crazy, but this is where we are, and I
Speaker 1: think this is how you're going to see this continue
Speaker 1: to play out going forward. So the Bloomberg factor, he's
Speaker 1: on the d oh, I don't even mention he's on
Speaker 1: the debate stage. Tomorrow, He's gonna be on debate stage Mini, Mike,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be up there. It's like, do I really
Speaker 1: have to explain to the fellow Democrats who are kind
Speaker 1: of dumb and very very poor, even Tom sty or
Speaker 1: Tom you're like a baby billionaire. You're not even like
Speaker 1: a real billionaire. You're like barely a billionaire. Look at
Speaker 1: that tie. It's absurd. You know, That's that's what you're
Speaker 1: gonna expect from Bloomberg on the debates. There's no way
Speaker 1: he's gonna light it up. He's saying, now we can't
Speaker 1: have medicare for all. That's crazy, it's not gonna work.
Speaker 1: Why are people he is so stupid on this stage?
Speaker 1: Why do you not? Okay, Klobe Shaw, you're not an
Speaker 1: insane person, but you're like, you know, you remind me
Speaker 1: of like every soccer mom I've ever met. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: he was that a little sexist. Well, I'm Mike Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: I say sexist things like this is this is what
Speaker 1: you're gonna get from Bloomberg on the debate stage. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna be anything that is mind blowing. Will it
Speaker 1: really move the numbers? Who knows. But I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you this, Biden be Biden better be number one or
Speaker 1: number two in Nevada or else. He's done unless he
Speaker 1: clearly wins South Carolina. There's no I don't even know
Speaker 1: if he. I guess he makes his super Tuesdays. He's
Speaker 1: got the money, but he's he's done. Though. This is
Speaker 1: a big one. You're in the freedom hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Now Donald Trump he thinks
Speaker 1: that climate change is hey hoax. Well, I think Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is a hoax. Oh man, feel the burn. I
Speaker 1: think that Donald Trump is a hoax. Oh snap. You know,
Speaker 1: do you remember producer producer Mark Back. I know you
Speaker 1: wouldn't remember because you were like not even a fetus yet.
Speaker 1: I remember when I was growing there was a time
Speaker 1: when when you would say something like that, every would go,
Speaker 1: oh man, ooh that's cold. Do you ever yeah, like
Speaker 1: in school everywhere? Oh yeah, but like that's cold. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know about that's cold. That's what everyone would say.
Speaker 1: You're old. That's what I'm saying. There was a time
Speaker 1: when you say that's cold. There was a time when
Speaker 1: in the common vernacular, people would say, oh, man, that's fat.
Speaker 1: pH At you missed that. I think, yeah, I just
Speaker 1: got called fat. Yeah, but pH at ben that something
Speaker 1: was was cool or hip. And it turns out if
Speaker 1: you ever call something hip, you are not being cool.
Speaker 1: I've since found out. Also now I've I've been I've
Speaker 1: been chatted once or twice for saying saying lit and
Speaker 1: then two letters after it, because apparently there's two letters
Speaker 1: are naughty lit A Oh yes, yes you're not. This
Speaker 1: is a thing. But also if I say lit, now,
Speaker 1: I'm like the guy that's walking around in Dad jeans
Speaker 1: and New Balance sneakers referring to things. Nope, I'm wearing
Speaker 1: duck shoes I have. I do have the Dad New
Speaker 1: Balance sneaker wear them often. I gotta have kids, just
Speaker 1: so I could dress like a dad all the time.
Speaker 1: I only wear New Balances though, so they're very comfortable.
Speaker 1: They're very very comfortable. You gotta have comfortable fee if
Speaker 1: you're gonna be a radio host. This is the truth.
Speaker 1: You have to walk around the city, go to the
Speaker 1: you gotta move all over the place. You gotta sit
Speaker 1: here and do your thing. But anyway, so so Bernie is,
Speaker 1: oh man, he's got that sick burn. See what I
Speaker 1: did there, sick burn against Trump calling him a hoox
Speaker 1: on the climate change thing. I'm never gonna let this go,
Speaker 1: Bill Nye. The so called science guy has an undergraduate
Speaker 1: degree in mechanical engineering. That's it, doesn't have a PhD,
Speaker 1: doesn't have an MD. The science guy is as much
Speaker 1: of a science expert as anybody that has an undergraduate
Speaker 1: degree in math or science field, which is fine, but
Speaker 1: not only that impressive. But he goes on TV and
Speaker 1: because he has a bow tie and people know him
Speaker 1: as the science guy, because he used to play with
Speaker 1: beakers and I know, syringes and whatever else. They don't
Speaker 1: know whatever the stuff is he used to do in
Speaker 1: high school biology class. He goes on TV and he's
Speaker 1: attacking eph chief of staff for her. Well, here, I'll
Speaker 1: let him make his own stupid comments. Play clip aith please.
Speaker 1: The other thing that I find striking about she and
Speaker 1: her husband, Missakara, is they have two kids. They have
Speaker 1: two young kids, and they're going to inherit this earth,
Speaker 1: and they're going to have to interact with their parents
Speaker 1: when their parents have been strong advocates of putting more
Speaker 1: carbon dioxide in there, and what they do, are you
Speaker 1: a common in the environment the people that they have
Speaker 1: hired the Environmental Protection Agency of Way concluding mister Wheeler
Speaker 1: is confused or try to blur the idea that carbon dioxide,
Speaker 1: although not a traditional pollutant, is a problem. Carbon dioxide
Speaker 1: is the problem. Yes, methane is a problem. Some other
Speaker 1: greenhouse gastles are the problem, but because there is so
Speaker 1: much carbon dioxide, it is the main thing that we
Speaker 1: need to address. I promise you there is no there's
Speaker 1: no future in which normal kids will grow up and say, Mom, Dad,
Speaker 1: why didn't you stop all the CO two from happening?
Speaker 1: But this is what the science guy is going on
Speaker 1: TV saying that an EPA senior EPA official is going
Speaker 1: to have to deal with, you know, her kids one
Speaker 1: day looking at her saying how could you not have
Speaker 1: done more to stop all the CO two in the air?
Speaker 1: America is only as I've said, I think it's twelve
Speaker 1: percent now of of global CO two emissions. Put us
Speaker 1: for a moment whether or not the whole climate change
Speaker 1: catastrophism is real based on the science, I tell you
Speaker 1: it's not. And I just point to them being wrong
Speaker 1: all that. They're just wrong all the time. They just
Speaker 1: keep being wrong, keep being wrong, keep being wrong. But
Speaker 1: it's kind of like Democrats about Trump. They they're wrong,
Speaker 1: they're wrong, they're wrong, but none nothing ever changes. I
Speaker 1: can't admits that they're wrong. I can't admit that they're
Speaker 1: really not that smart, not that clever, and certainly not wise.
Speaker 1: That's way, that's way to way too much at this point.
Speaker 1: So that's why you have the same thing with the
Speaker 1: climate catastrophist. They'll keep saying, oh, how you know this
Speaker 1: time around, we've got the all the scientists agree with us. Well,
Speaker 1: but what about this scientist he doesn't agree. Oh, that
Speaker 1: person is paid off by the fossil fuel. It's always
Speaker 1: it's the same routine, all the time. But Bill ny
Speaker 1: is telling you that one day you'll have to stare
Speaker 1: at your kids, and I just wonder if those kids
Speaker 1: will look at you and say, how dare you? How
Speaker 1: dare you? Yeah, because you're responsible for all the co
Speaker 1: two in the world. This is how much how much dumber?
Speaker 1: Can a comment really be And this is why you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but I get I get annoyed every day
Speaker 1: that I have to throw out throw out my garbage
Speaker 1: at home, my apartment here New York City, and I
Speaker 1: have to separate out all this different recycling. Now, it's
Speaker 1: such a waste of time, it's so dumb. It's not
Speaker 1: even good for the environment. It doesn't do anything. I'm
Speaker 1: never gonna let this go. We are we are ruled
Speaker 1: by idiots when it comes to climate change, environmentalism, and
Speaker 1: because of that, we care less about things. We spend
Speaker 1: less time on real issues that affect the environment. You know,
Speaker 1: we spend less time. And what is really in our
Speaker 1: water and some of these urban cities is we know
Speaker 1: we got problems when it comes to clean drinking water,
Speaker 1: but we don't focus on that. And also what's in
Speaker 1: the air never mind CEO two, how about like coronavirus particles.
Speaker 1: You know, there's stuff to be really concerned about and
Speaker 1: where dollars that are going to the scientific community should
Speaker 1: be focused. But instead of focusing on that, what do
Speaker 1: we have? Oh, climate change? Bill Knight. Bill Knight wears
Speaker 1: a bow tie, so clearly he must be really smart.
Speaker 1: Clearly he must know a lot of things. That's you know,
Speaker 1: what he learned from his undergrad degree in engineering. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The bus Essence Show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Team, I have some breaking news here.
Speaker 1: Courtesy of ABC. President Trump is expected to commute the
Speaker 1: sentence of former Illinois Governor Ron Blogoyevich via multiple senior sources.
Speaker 1: They'll have more on this. Look at that. President Trump
Speaker 1: may say that blog may let Rob Blagoevich out. Even remember,
Speaker 1: this is not a pardon. This would be a commutation,
Speaker 1: and a commutation just means that there's a lessening of
Speaker 1: the punishment attached to the sentence. It does not do
Speaker 1: anything to the actual guilty verdict or the sentence and rights.
Speaker 1: Your rights are not fully restored after a commutation. I
Speaker 1: believe maybe maybe the President has the ability to do
Speaker 1: that too, if they if he specifies it. But you really,
Speaker 1: just your sentence is end. That's what tends to happen.
Speaker 1: All right, You've served ten years. You're out now, even
Speaker 1: though you had a twenty years sentence. Bligoyevich has been
Speaker 1: in prison for eight years for you know, interesting circumstances.
Speaker 1: Exactly what was that he was going to sell a
Speaker 1: sentence seat? They said, talking about a quid pro quo. Um,
Speaker 1: But I thought this, this is this is very interesting. Um.
Speaker 1: There doesn't seem to be any good explanation to me
Speaker 1: of why Bligoyevitch should still be in prison much longer.
Speaker 1: It doesn't seem to me. You know, I think the
Speaker 1: guy has suffered enough. The guy's got good hair too.
Speaker 1: I'll put that out there, so well, we might have
Speaker 1: more for you later in the day on this one,
Speaker 1: and I think that that's well. I might not, but
Speaker 1: we'll have more for you on this tomorrow if it
Speaker 1: actually ends up happening. Well that I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to you about something that I just find interesting. I
Speaker 1: thought about going into some detail. I'll hear about the
Speaker 1: latest on all the coronavirus cases, and I just see
Speaker 1: right now you're getting up to seventy thousand confirmed cases.
Speaker 1: People are saying it is considerably more deadly than the flu.
Speaker 1: You know, it's really tough to know if this is
Speaker 1: going to spread well beyond China. I know there are
Speaker 1: cases outside of China right now, or if this will
Speaker 1: be relatively contained, and I don't know how much. I
Speaker 1: don't know how much the policy should change without knowing
Speaker 1: that there's a much greatly enhanced risk parameter from where
Speaker 1: we already are. I think that unfortunately, the media gets
Speaker 1: caught in this game of well, informing people about the
Speaker 1: risks to the maximum degree, you're kind of covering yourself,
Speaker 1: and so that's good. But then also by making the
Speaker 1: risk perhaps seem even greater than it is, there there's
Speaker 1: a bit of an incentive for the media to do
Speaker 1: that because then they can get attention, and there's been media.
Speaker 1: Media likes attention, Media likes people to watch their shows,
Speaker 1: click on their stuff, listen to them. So I do
Speaker 1: think that there's a little bit of a of an
Speaker 1: incentive there that does not necessarily go in the public interest.
Speaker 1: So I don't have much for you on coronavirus today.
Speaker 1: I did have something some thoughts on a couple of
Speaker 1: issues of science hashtag science. We were just talking about
Speaker 1: that before with Bill Nye, the science guy, and Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders and people that really try to abuse science for
Speaker 1: political reasons, which is always troubling, and the scientific community
Speaker 1: is I think increasingly under pressure in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways to go along with cultural fads and go along
Speaker 1: with political dictates instead of this is what it is.
Speaker 1: I mean science. We like to think of science and
Speaker 1: math we really to think of as areas where there
Speaker 1: are answers, there are truths. There's not my truth or
Speaker 1: our truth, there's just truth, which I would say that's
Speaker 1: the case no matter what field we're talking about, but
Speaker 1: certainly with math, right, four plus four what is it
Speaker 1: equal again? Oh, that's right, four plus four equals eight.
Speaker 1: There's only one answer to that question that's not four
Speaker 1: plus four equals two million. And this is that very
Speaker 1: very straightforward statement. If there's a right and there's a
Speaker 1: wrong extends. We'd like that to extend throughout science. But
Speaker 1: it's a lot more complicated than that. That brings me
Speaker 1: to some very interesting studies done out of the UK
Speaker 1: about how long term offenders, so people that have been
Speaker 1: criminal offenders stretching from you know, from childhood all the
Speaker 1: way into adulthood, have different brain structures, observably physically different
Speaker 1: structures in their brain from people who are not long
Speaker 1: term offenders. This has been a field of study that
Speaker 1: has been getting attention for a while. But there's always
Speaker 1: this tension that I will get into a moment about
Speaker 1: how far the science is allowed to go. Oh here,
Speaker 1: but here's just what the uh. This is a study
Speaker 1: done in the UK, and it's you know, they they've
Speaker 1: been they've been looking at whether you should be concerned
Speaker 1: if you have an adolescent particularly we're talking about adolescent
Speaker 1: males here, because it's right men. We're never allowed to
Speaker 1: discuss men and women as different in some areas until
Speaker 1: it comes to things like criminality, where we realize that
Speaker 1: violent crime is essentially overwhelmingly as a problem of public policy.
Speaker 1: Violent crime is a male issue, meaning not that the
Speaker 1: victims are all male, but the people perpetrating violent crimes
Speaker 1: are over ninety percent mail. All right, so men are
Speaker 1: the ones that engage in violent crime, not always, but
Speaker 1: over you know, there are all these shows people love
Speaker 1: to watch, these shows about you know, like you know, women,
Speaker 1: women who kill. There it's like they're always they're always
Speaker 1: poisoning their husbands too, which is really unsettling. That's not
Speaker 1: the way that I'd want to go, like slow poisoning
Speaker 1: or things like that. Or it gets violent when they
Speaker 1: get the the lover involved, you know, and he tries
Speaker 1: to be a part of the whole plot to get
Speaker 1: rid of the husbands. They can get the life insurance money.
Speaker 1: So anyway, the study that they that they're talking about
Speaker 1: here this isn't. The Guardian, which is a left wing
Speaker 1: paper in the UK, looked at this and saw that
Speaker 1: if you are a teenage offender, essentially adolescent males can
Speaker 1: break the law and it's unlikely. You know, it's clear
Speaker 1: that they are much less likely to be criminals into
Speaker 1: adulthood than people who are problems early on in childhood.
Speaker 1: Research will say quote. They find that adults with a
Speaker 1: long history of offenses show striking differences in brain structure
Speaker 1: compared with those who have stuck to the straight and
Speaker 1: narrow or who transgressed only as adolescence. These findings underscore
Speaker 1: prior research that really highlights that there are different types
Speaker 1: of young offenders. They are not all the same, They
Speaker 1: should not all be treated the same. It could well
Speaker 1: have just been that life course persistent group were choosing
Speaker 1: to lead their lives in a difficult way and could
Speaker 1: have chosen differently. I think what we see with this
Speaker 1: data is that they're actually operating under some handicap at
Speaker 1: the level of the brain. She said, adding that while
Speaker 1: such individuals may have committed serious crimes, the study suggested
Speaker 1: a level of compassion was needed. Think about what this
Speaker 1: would do now. By the way, this study only looked
Speaker 1: at white males, which is interesting. They only that was
Speaker 1: the only group they were allowed to study in this way.
Speaker 1: And this is telling us what people who look at
Speaker 1: at this particular part of science, people who look at
Speaker 1: neurology and the functioning of the brain, have been basically
Speaker 1: hinting at for a long time, which is that there
Speaker 1: are differences in brain structure that an for a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of things, including aggression intelligence. How do you measure intelligence?
Speaker 1: Some people measure it as Q, and this thing goes
Speaker 1: into people talking about I Q and the which is
Speaker 1: obviously a different The acronyms don't line up. At the
Speaker 1: point is that there's measurable cognitive ability. And this gets
Speaker 1: into some very interesting public policy areas. You know, we
Speaker 1: somehow understand that we have different physical abilities, right, And
Speaker 1: this is something that I've talked to many of my
Speaker 1: friends about how when I was a kid, I thought, man,
Speaker 1: if I if I just trained hard enough, maybe I
Speaker 1: could be a world class this or a world class athlete.
Speaker 1: I think the answers for most people, that's not true.
Speaker 1: There are some people that do have the physical ability
Speaker 1: and train that hard and therefore and they do become
Speaker 1: world class athletes. But you know, I was never going
Speaker 1: to be an All star NBA player, no matter how
Speaker 1: many jump shots I practice growing up. That was never
Speaker 1: going to happen. I just didn't have the physicality for it.
Speaker 1: It wasn't. So we understand that there's God given gifts,
Speaker 1: God given talents that are physical, that are that are
Speaker 1: actually something that you uh, you know, you inherit it
Speaker 1: from your parents essentially, that that you've gotten lucky genetically
Speaker 1: in this way. But we all also want to we won't.
Speaker 1: We want to believe that brain structure that we all
Speaker 1: kind of start from the same basic you know, basic slate,
Speaker 1: that we're all we all have the same kind of brain,
Speaker 1: all of our brains have equal capacity, and it's just
Speaker 1: how hard you study. That's not true, that that's not
Speaker 1: that doesn't make sense. That would be illogical and it's
Speaker 1: not scientific. And once you start getting into different none
Speaker 1: that's not to say that you know, everybody shouldn't read it.
Speaker 1: You know, this is just like everything else, you want
Speaker 1: to be the healthiest you can be. Some people are
Speaker 1: born and just naturally very healthy. Other people have health
Speaker 1: issues to overcome. But everyone wants to be as healthy
Speaker 1: as they can be. So it doesn't change your approach
Speaker 1: to any of this. But when you look at brainst
Speaker 1: and brain structures start to have associations with specific behaviors,
Speaker 1: notably violence and criminality, people get very uncomfortable even measuring this.
Speaker 1: Looking into this, now, some liberal researchers in this in
Speaker 1: the medical field here are going to take away from
Speaker 1: this that, well, there's there should be greater I mean here,
Speaker 1: here's at the bottom quote. It's true that these researches
Speaker 1: are consistent. Research findings are consistent with the hypothesis that
Speaker 1: life course persistent anti social behavior arises as a result
Speaker 1: of abnormal brain development. Um. But and then there's then
Speaker 1: they get into how there should be greater compassion as
Speaker 1: a result of this. So there is a liberal mentality
Speaker 1: that says, well, if we can measure let's say, violent
Speaker 1: anti When they say anti social behaviors, they mean people
Speaker 1: that are that are causing problems for other people, often
Speaker 1: through violence or or threats of violence. So if we
Speaker 1: can measure violence as a function of brain structure. Then
Speaker 1: then we start to ask the question, Okay, should we
Speaker 1: do that? Do we do that? Dude? Do you start
Speaker 1: to look at this now when you have somebody at
Speaker 1: a young age who's been arrested a few times at
Speaker 1: a very young age, and see if this is and
Speaker 1: what do we do with that information? And do we
Speaker 1: start to collect that information and large enough numbers that
Speaker 1: you have aggregate data and then you start to look
Speaker 1: you know this is This begins to get us toward
Speaker 1: very similar debates about IQ, where now we are we
Speaker 1: are told that really IQ measuring is out of style.
Speaker 1: To say, the least you know to measure IQ is
Speaker 1: to start to trapes around in areas where we are
Speaker 1: told that that's not worth it, and it's wrong and
Speaker 1: it's not exact, and people will be judged based on this.
Speaker 1: There's a lot we could know about the human brain
Speaker 1: and the functioning of the human brain and what it
Speaker 1: means for social policy public policy if we were willing
Speaker 1: to pursue these things and just get the answers. But
Speaker 1: the truth is, there are a lot of reasons why
Speaker 1: we don't just want answers. There are political sensitivities to
Speaker 1: measuring and mapping out brain function that come into play
Speaker 1: very quickly. And some of this has been seen before.
Speaker 1: And as I said, the IQ debate and how that
Speaker 1: turns into IM and just you can listen to it
Speaker 1: was fascinating to listen to a debate on a podcast
Speaker 1: between now I should I don't want to ever give
Speaker 1: this guy a podcast shout Actually he's horrible. But as
Speaker 1: Recline and Sam Harris, who's actually a neuroscientist, and they
Speaker 1: were talking about IQ, and Klein effectively just wants to
Speaker 1: sit there and just say that Harris talking about IQ
Speaker 1: and aggregate population differentials in IQ is racist. And Harris
Speaker 1: is like, I'm an actual scientist and I understand the
Speaker 1: data and I've looked at this and I'm trying to
Speaker 1: have an adult conversation about what the implications are of
Speaker 1: the research of the science that we have, and as
Speaker 1: our clients just sits there and kind of goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, racist.
Speaker 1: And that's this sum total of where that conversation goes.
Speaker 1: And that's just discussing IQ and disparate IQ, disparate IQ
Speaker 1: levels among aggregate groups, among groups in the aggregate. Right,
Speaker 1: So you can imagine. And this also came up with
Speaker 1: with the book The Bell Curve, where even raising the
Speaker 1: issue of IQ and IQ in the mean for different groups,
Speaker 1: I mean, the average for different groups was for all eternity,
Speaker 1: Charles Murray is branded by the left as a racist
Speaker 1: even for it's one chapter in the book The Bell Curve.
Speaker 1: Once you start looking into brain structure and effect on violence,
Speaker 1: everyone becomes very Everyone just becomes very tense about this.
Speaker 1: And you're going to continue to see this. They're just
Speaker 1: going to be areas where do we even want science
Speaker 1: to get us answers? Or would we as a society,
Speaker 1: or you know, would we just rather not know certain things?
Speaker 1: These are these are real questions. I mean when when
Speaker 1: they started looking at this, I mean, imagine if they
Speaker 1: could scan your kid's brain and let you know, at
Speaker 1: you know, age eight, your kid has a propensity for violence.
Speaker 1: Would you want to know that? Would would you want
Speaker 1: to hear that? And what do we do about it?
Speaker 1: And then you get into do you medicate preemptively to
Speaker 1: try to address those brain structures? And there's a there's
Speaker 1: a lot here that once you start to open this up,
Speaker 1: you can see, I mean's fascining the human brain. There's
Speaker 1: so much that we don't know. It's such an amazing system,
Speaker 1: but it's also tissue at the same time, and once
Speaker 1: they're talking about measuring gray matter and the differential and
Speaker 1: behavior from measurable gray matter, you know, thickness of gray
Speaker 1: matter in certain parts of the brain. Fascinating stuff, also
Speaker 1: very combustible stuff. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. And then in the same morning,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting there drinking my coffee as I am known
Speaker 1: to do, and I see and I'm thinking about the
Speaker 1: brain and human brain mapping and all the different implications
Speaker 1: of it, and I see this piece the food that
Speaker 1: helps battle depression. The brain is not very well understood.
Speaker 1: It's it's still something that you know, we we think
Speaker 1: that science really has figured this out. People just assume, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: because we can, Hey, we can map the brain. But
Speaker 1: there's a lot about the brain that we don't understand.
Speaker 1: And there's also a lot of just about food that
Speaker 1: we don't understand. And I'm somebody maybe it's a surprise
Speaker 1: for somebody who's in the conservative media space to be
Speaker 1: as interested in not alternative explanations of health phenomenon that
Speaker 1: currently lack explanation, you know. I mean, there are so
Speaker 1: many different conditions and medical issues you go in for
Speaker 1: and you ask doctors and they may have a way
Speaker 1: to treat it, and then I know what it is,
Speaker 1: but they don't really know what causes it. They don't
Speaker 1: really know how you got to this point. And when
Speaker 1: you get into psychiatry and brain body connection, people who
Speaker 1: work in the field will tell you that it's certainly
Speaker 1: there and everyone knows it, right. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you get really bad news, you'll feel physical manifestations of that.
Speaker 1: Well that that clearly shows that the brain can control.
Speaker 1: You know, you feel it in your gut. You know,
Speaker 1: you feel gut punch when you hear something really bad.
Speaker 1: Food is something that we all have this relationship with
Speaker 1: what we need it. We like it, I mean I
Speaker 1: like it more than most. We need it. We like it.
Speaker 1: We know that it's it tastes or it can taste
Speaker 1: good and you can give us pleasure. We need it
Speaker 1: for sustenance, but it also plays much a much larger
Speaker 1: role in health than I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: don't generally think. Right, it's just oh, I eat enough food,
Speaker 1: I have enough calories, I'm getting enough food. Well, the
Speaker 1: different types of food can affect whether or not you're
Speaker 1: more susceptible to certain diseases. And you know there's all
Speaker 1: these promises. Man, oh, you know, drink like pomegranate juice.
Speaker 1: You'll never have it'll help with your heart. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: not really, that's not how it works. But overall, food
Speaker 1: choices really make a difference. And this food that helps
Speaker 1: battle depression piece I thought was very interesting. They're looking
Speaker 1: more and more into just can changes in diet affect
Speaker 1: the neurochemistry of the brain so that it's an effective
Speaker 1: treatment for people who mean depression is in the brain.
Speaker 1: It is a real thing. People that have never dealt
Speaker 1: with mental illness or been around somebody who has mental illness,
Speaker 1: it can be tough for them to understand this. But
Speaker 1: there's a problem in the machine. It'd be like saying
Speaker 1: my computer has a virus, but that's not really a
Speaker 1: thing because the computer I can still type the keys,
Speaker 1: it still comes on, it still has lights. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: the internal functioning of it, something has gone off, has
Speaker 1: gone wrong. Food maybe an alternative way to at least
Speaker 1: help with depression. And there's certainly no side effects to
Speaker 1: eating healthier food. And basically the article says that something
Speaker 1: along the lines of the Mediterranean diet, which is just
Speaker 1: lots of fruits and vegetables, healthy oils and fats, nuts
Speaker 1: and you know, fish and lean proteins basically, and they
Speaker 1: say whole grains. I can't really have green because the
Speaker 1: Celiac disease. That might help with depression. And we're just
Speaker 1: in the early stages of understanding this too, So I mean,
Speaker 1: eat a cheeseburger, but also maybe have a salad sometime too,
Speaker 1: and see if it helps you feel a little bit better.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the bus sets in show podcasts.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts like Soft Butter on Warm Toast.
Speaker 1: Time to spread some freedom coast to coast. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll Call. Roll Call Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. If you want to
Speaker 1: email us, go to Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 1: Let's keep that roll call box full, my friends, We'll
Speaker 1: get through a lot of it. I got producer Mark
Speaker 1: actually now he's the wrangler of roll Call, so he
Speaker 1: makes sure that we get print outs of it now
Speaker 1: and I get to more of it than I usually would.
Speaker 1: We've also expanded our time because we don't we're not
Speaker 1: taking live calls these days. We do a lot of
Speaker 1: role calls, so your voices can be heard here on
Speaker 1: the show and there we there, we have it. Um,
Speaker 1: let's get to it. Daniel Buck love the show. I've
Speaker 1: been listening since your first Rush Limbaugh fill in. I've
Speaker 1: always thought of you as almost a brother with all
Speaker 1: the office base, Big Trouble, Little China and Diehard references.
Speaker 1: That was until today. How have you not seen Band
Speaker 1: of Brothers? It is on par with, if not better than,
Speaker 1: Saving Private Ryan watching Peaky Blinders and go back and
Speaker 1: watch Band of Brothers. Also, Bernie should hire Commie Bear
Speaker 1: as a campaign manager. Shields, Shields High, and never forget
Speaker 1: it's all in the reflexes, Daniel. To be fair, I
Speaker 1: have seen a couple of episodes of Band of Brothers
Speaker 1: and it is very, very very good. So I have
Speaker 1: not seen all of it. I shouldn't have said I
Speaker 1: haven't seen it. I haven't seen all of it. I've
Speaker 1: seen a couple of episodes. I should go back and
Speaker 1: finish it. It's just it's it has been a while. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Peaky Blinder season five. I'm actually in Narcos right now,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, have you not seen Narcos? Did we already
Speaker 1: talk about this? You've not seen Narcos? Right? I started
Speaker 1: it and I was kind of like boring to me
Speaker 1: at first, so I just wow, stopped. Maybe I only
Speaker 1: saw the first episode or two Ideosmo, you need to
Speaker 1: go back and push through that. Man, I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: it's that it's really good. I have to you know,
Speaker 1: the real story of Pablo Escobar, Like, yeah, of course, Okay,
Speaker 1: looked into it. Yeah, but I'm just saying, like the
Speaker 1: stuff that happens because they stay pretty the first two
Speaker 1: seasons really just about Paulo Lesbar and then they expand
Speaker 1: it out to the overall drug trade with Polly Cartel
Speaker 1: and then Mexico. I think you would like to have
Speaker 1: you seen probably would too. Have you seen The Wire?
Speaker 1: I started that too and never finished it. But that
Speaker 1: was a long time ago. The Wire was when I
Speaker 1: was a child. That's true, but it does hold up
Speaker 1: from what I've heard. Yeah, I would I would recommend. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would say first Narcos because it's a little more current,
Speaker 1: but The Wires are a great show too. What is
Speaker 1: your favorite show of all time? Do you have one?
Speaker 1: I mean, where are we going? Genre like comedy? You know,
Speaker 1: I mean you can't put a sitcom up against the
Speaker 1: dramama drama? Are you like on the Shield guy? Well,
Speaker 1: breaking bad? No? No, we agree on this, Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's the best show of all time. I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: I think it's the best show of all time for
Speaker 1: for a drama. Do you what's your favorite comedy? Seinfeld?
Speaker 1: We talked about this, Yeah, and I'm like, like a
Speaker 1: total savage ipre for friends, which is completely I know,
Speaker 1: it's unacceptable, it's unacceptable, it's unsophisticated. It's a bad thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would agree with you, but yeah, but
Speaker 1: I mean I know. Yeah. So so there's that. Paul
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, I am surprised I've never heard a steak
Speaker 1: aficionado like you mentioned. Try tip. It's hard to find
Speaker 1: outside of the People's Republic of California, but properly done,
Speaker 1: it can hold its own against a porterhouse. Next time
Speaker 1: you're in La, find a good three to four pound one,
Speaker 1: Find a friend with a grill, and follow Bobby Flay's
Speaker 1: grilling instructions, especially the resting time. Not only will it
Speaker 1: be reverse yere tender, but you can do cold sandwiches
Speaker 1: for a week after. Also got to say shields, Hi,
Speaker 1: thank you? All right? Cool? Yeah? Man, I've never have
Speaker 1: you ever had tried tip? I've never heard a tried tip.
Speaker 1: I've heard of it. I don't know if I've had it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I've never had it. I made last night,
Speaker 1: for the first time ever, a red wine sauce, red
Speaker 1: wine pan sauce for yeah. Oh yeah, I made a
Speaker 1: red wine. I was home alone. I figured I got
Speaker 1: a little time. I had some leftover red wine my
Speaker 1: parents over on Sunday, A beautiful meal. I actually could
Speaker 1: so Sunday night I cooked. Am I getting in trouble
Speaker 1: if I said that I ate Veal? I feel like
Speaker 1: people are gonna get mad at me. But I've had
Speaker 1: it right, It's delicious. I'm sorry that it's a baby cow,
Speaker 1: but it is delicious. Maybe I do need to listen
Speaker 1: to the anti milk lobby. So anyway, I had veal piccata,
Speaker 1: So hopefully I'm not going to have Peter throw paint
Speaker 1: on me when I walk out of the studio. Today.
Speaker 1: But it was amazing, man. I mean, Peccata is like,
Speaker 1: when you do it right, that that butter sauce with
Speaker 1: those capers is out of this world. To get the
Speaker 1: fresh herbs. So I made that the form and for
Speaker 1: mom and Dad had a great time, a very very
Speaker 1: lovely company. We had a whole group come together. And
Speaker 1: then I had some leftover stuff and so last night
Speaker 1: I had a steak that I pulled out of the
Speaker 1: freezer and made a little bit of a I guess
Speaker 1: it's a border Les sauce. It's really worth it if
Speaker 1: you get a little bit of red wine and you
Speaker 1: do that sauce properly. It's so easy. You just need shallots,
Speaker 1: red wine, plenty of butter, a little bit of fresh
Speaker 1: herbs and you're good to go. Man, I mean you're
Speaker 1: salt and pepper. I really think this YouTube page is
Speaker 1: going to work. Yeah, and my mom has been saying
Speaker 1: that you really should just start doing like cookie and
Speaker 1: talking about this stuff like is your apartment kitchen big
Speaker 1: enough to get cameras? Yeah. I've actually talked to a
Speaker 1: friend of mine and setting it up. I feel like
Speaker 1: we could do this. But what we do is i'd
Speaker 1: have you over. For example, one if we could get
Speaker 1: the camera set up and I cooked dinner and we
Speaker 1: would talk about things as I'm cooking, and then we
Speaker 1: cut it up and make the show, and I have
Speaker 1: other people from the political world come in and we'd,
Speaker 1: you know, and I'd make them dinner because I have
Speaker 1: a kind of an island, you know, an island kitchen setup, small,
Speaker 1: but it's there's an island, and so someone can sort
Speaker 1: of sit there at a stool while I'm you know,
Speaker 1: making the stuff, and I turn around and anyway, it'd
Speaker 1: be kind of fun. It'd be like every other cooking show,
Speaker 1: except you talk about politics exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true. We talk about politics crushing libs while crushing
Speaker 1: black peppers, all that good stuff. Bill, hey buck, It's
Speaker 1: not Hillary's choice whether or not she'll be Bloomberg's running mate.
Speaker 1: One thing I've learned about the Clintons is they are
Speaker 1: always for sale. If Bloomberg believes she is the one,
Speaker 1: he can definitely afford to pay the price. As a
Speaker 1: side note, the okay yeah memes will be hilarious. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Bill, I do appreciate that. And yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I think that's we're in a different realm of buying
Speaker 1: people off. When we're talking about Bloomberg money, Bloomberg is like,
Speaker 1: do what I want, I'll change your life. Money. That's
Speaker 1: a new thing. That's a different thing. Maureen, Hey, buck
Speaker 1: As always love your show, but I've been scared and
Speaker 1: perplexed by your insistence that you want Bernie to win
Speaker 1: the nomination. AOC backs Bernie, and if her guy wins
Speaker 1: the nomination, that will only empower and embolden her and
Speaker 1: her ilk even more, and their voices will be even
Speaker 1: more strident than they are already. Plus there's always a
Speaker 1: chance he'd actually win. The Dems do cheat, you know.
Speaker 1: So then what for America you scare me with this Bush?
Speaker 1: Please explain Biden would be easier for Trump to beat. Also,
Speaker 1: why do you think Bloomberg will agree to one term?
Speaker 1: I've never heard him say that. And do you honestly
Speaker 1: think Clinton's ego will allow her to accept the number
Speaker 1: two spot? I sure don't. Other than those two rather
Speaker 1: bizarre things, I agree with you in every other way
Speaker 1: about what you think in share with all of us,
Speaker 1: which keeps us safe and warm at night. All right, Maureen,
Speaker 1: Thank you? Maureen's She's fired up on these points. She's
Speaker 1: I don't want to let her down, Okay, I want
Speaker 1: Bernie to win the nomination just because I want because
Speaker 1: I'm very confident that Trump would beat him in a
Speaker 1: general election, and I would I would bet. I would
Speaker 1: bet a pretty large sum of money for me on
Speaker 1: that I know where to go to do that bet.
Speaker 1: So I feel very confident that Trump would be Bernie.
Speaker 1: And I also think that the country should see where
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party really is, and that Bernie Sanders as
Speaker 1: the Democrat nominee as a socialist would finally force us
Speaker 1: to deal with the fact that the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: really a socialist party. As for Bloomberg agreen to one term,
Speaker 1: that's not a I'm just hypothesizing now, that was completely
Speaker 1: That was me doing what I make fun of a
Speaker 1: lot of pundits for doing constantly, I try to do
Speaker 1: it less, which is just speculating, right that he could
Speaker 1: do this Hillary. He could ask Hillary, she could say yes,
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg could say he's going to do one term.
Speaker 1: But you know what it could have should I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if any of that stuff is going
Speaker 1: to happen. So do I think Hillary's ego would let her. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think Hillary would rather be vice president to be
Speaker 1: wandering around the woods drinking chardonnay and thinking about yoga class.
Speaker 1: I think that she would rather be a vice president
Speaker 1: than that. I don't think that she has any interest in,
Speaker 1: you know, just being sort of like a you know,
Speaker 1: hanging out, being a grandma and all that. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I think about that. Ike John Deere is
Speaker 1: high tech information technology. Bloomberg and AOC are completely out
Speaker 1: of touch with where their food comes from. Well, I know, man,
Speaker 1: and it's you know, it was not a strong moment
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg, even though his comments were a little look,
Speaker 1: he's a smug, condescending jerk, but they were a little
Speaker 1: bit misrepresenting his comments and that whole thing so because
Speaker 1: he was really talking about agriculture through human history, and
Speaker 1: agriculture in a thousand BC was not particularly sophisticated. Right.
Speaker 1: It's a different thing now than it was then, but
Speaker 1: you could argue it was sophisticated for its time because
Speaker 1: it was what was feeding people. Earnest Buck, you mentioned
Speaker 1: parasite on the show while your producer was talking about
Speaker 1: trained to bussan. Both are engaging and go far beyond
Speaker 1: the type of film they appear to be on the surface.
Speaker 1: Parasite was translated incredibly well, but what made it great
Speaker 1: were the constant plot twists blended with comedy. I felt
Speaker 1: it was an introspective movie, making you ask yourself whose
Speaker 1: side you're on. Don't want to give it away, all right, Ernest,
Speaker 1: I will check out Parasite for sure. Trained to Busan
Speaker 1: probably not, because I find that really violent, scary movie
Speaker 1: stuff doesn't really sit well with me. Um, I'm not
Speaker 1: a scar I'm not a scary movie guy. No, Producer
Speaker 1: Brandon when he when he comes in here to hang
Speaker 1: out is all about it. You're not You're not a
Speaker 1: horror movie guy either, right, that's not I'm not rucer
Speaker 1: Mark is not all Brandon sitting the seat for three
Speaker 1: days and this is what happens every time with that fail.
Speaker 1: He brings up some horrific Oh yeah, of course, yeah, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: you know he's told me on movies. He's like, he's like, no, Buck,
Speaker 1: I don't think you should watch that movie. And I'm like, uh, whoa, Okay,
Speaker 1: He's like, I've watched this. It's absolutely horrifying. Don't watch it. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: he's in it. He told me that his girlfriend likes
Speaker 1: Dave Matthews a lot and that that was almost a
Speaker 1: deal breaker, which is hilarious because I like Dave Matthews too,
Speaker 1: So I'm glad that he got past that. What's wrong
Speaker 1: with Matthews? He hates Dave Matthews. He's he's an interesting dude. Man.
Speaker 1: He's got you know, he's got a lot of tats.
Speaker 1: He loves guns and roses, and he loves horror movies.
Speaker 1: Like that's kind of you know, you put those things together.
Speaker 1: Person has their thick Yeah. Ever, ever, everyone's got that thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll have to sit here and talk about
Speaker 1: making you know, red wine reductions. So yeah, we got
Speaker 1: we go. While I'm watching sports. Yeah, how is by
Speaker 1: the How is Producer Marks Healthy Diet coming along? Uh?
Speaker 1: Completely down the tube? Oh yeah, well that's what happens
Speaker 1: when you're laid up for a few days. Yeah you
Speaker 1: want ice cream? Yeah. But in general, though, I mean,
Speaker 1: like get back to you know, when I moved a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, I'll have a gym right right in
Speaker 1: the building. You know, Producer Mark's going to be closer
Speaker 1: to the hut, which would be greats you know, that'll
Speaker 1: work everyone. Yeah, exactly is this is gonna be fair.
Speaker 1: We're all gonna be a good boot around here. I
Speaker 1: should have just told you that I was moving. No, No,
Speaker 1: this is great. It's like early Christmas present for me now.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I've been doing I've been actually getting the
Speaker 1: gym war and doing dead lifts. And the problem I
Speaker 1: find is that when you do compound lifts, while they're
Speaker 1: very effective, I am I'm an old man. Now I'm
Speaker 1: tired the next like the next day I'm actually fatigued. Sure,
Speaker 1: it's not really the day of, it's the next day
Speaker 1: that I'm actually I'm tired to lift back to back days. Well,
Speaker 1: no I know, but I'm saying the next day I'm tired,
Speaker 1: like I don't want to do work, I don't want
Speaker 1: do anything. I'm actually I'm not tired, like I'm sore.
Speaker 1: I have no energy. Just get into a routine, then
Speaker 1: you won't be and do cardio in between. We're just
Speaker 1: drinking enough coffee. I just can't be that guy. I
Speaker 1: can't be that guy who's on the elliptical. You can't
Speaker 1: go to the gym and just be on the elliptical
Speaker 1: for a half hour and go home the elliptical guy.
Speaker 1: Are you friends with the elliptical guy. I'm the elliptical guy.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I like it better than the treadmill. All right, fine,
Speaker 1: producer Mark says, okay to the elliptical guy. I feel
Speaker 1: better now, Sarah. All right, Buck, you are awesome, Sarah,
Speaker 1: you are very kind on the coronavirus. Have you listened
Speaker 1: to war Room Pandemic. They've been reporting on the coronavirus
Speaker 1: for almost three weeks. It seems to be pretty bad
Speaker 1: for China, maybe not as bad for the US, but
Speaker 1: I worry about how this will affect the economy. Keep
Speaker 1: being awesome. Yeah, the war Room guys, I mean, I've
Speaker 1: met Steve Bannon once or twice. Obviously, I know Rahim
Speaker 1: Kassam very well. He's a friend of mine, a great guy.
Speaker 1: I have not heard their pandemic podcast, but I will
Speaker 1: check it out. I don't think it's gonna be that
Speaker 1: big of a deal for America, but it's obviously already
Speaker 1: a big deal in China. The guy who runs the
Speaker 1: hospital in Wuhan, which is the center of this whole outbreak,
Speaker 1: he's dead from the virus. So that's troubling. That's one
Speaker 1: part of being a healthcare provider that i've I used
Speaker 1: to think that I wouldn't be okay with being a
Speaker 1: doctor because I wouldn't want to see like the blood
Speaker 1: and the guts stuff. But then I think about how
Speaker 1: someone comes in and they say, oh, and forget about
Speaker 1: coronavirus is in general, if I was a nurse or
Speaker 1: a doctor, I don't know if it's medical tech. The
Speaker 1: person who comes in and takes your readings initially, and
Speaker 1: someone's breathing in their face, who says that they think
Speaker 1: they have the flu, Like, don't they get the flu?
Speaker 1: I mean, aren't they really at risk for getting all
Speaker 1: these I wouldn't like that. I'm a tiny bit of
Speaker 1: a hypochondriac. Not that bad, but I definitely I do
Speaker 1: not like getting sick. That's the most obvious statement ever.
Speaker 1: No one likes getting sick. Good job, Peter. Watch Beetlejuice
Speaker 1: both movie and Broadway show. The Broadway show takes from
Speaker 1: both the movie and the cartoon. It was amazing. Train
Speaker 1: to Bussan was okay better than most zombie movies. In
Speaker 1: my opinion, there are only two good zombie movies, Zombie
Speaker 1: Land and Planet Terror. Zombies are frankly boring and ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Give me a good alien alien invasion or a vampire movie. Well, Peter,
Speaker 1: what's the best alien invasion movie? What's the best vampire movie? Man?
Speaker 1: You can't leave us on the edge like that. And
Speaker 1: I would say that my favorite zombie movie is the
Speaker 1: I think it's the Romero directed where they're all stuck
Speaker 1: in the mall. Do you know what I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark them Dawn. I think it's Dawn of the
Speaker 1: Dead where Ving Raimes is in it and they're stuck
Speaker 1: in a mall. That's a very watchable zombie movie that
Speaker 1: I think is well executed. Twenty eight Days Later is
Speaker 1: also a very good, very terrifying zombie movie. The whole
Speaker 1: innovation of that is what if the zombies run really
Speaker 1: fast instead of going I walked so slowly. I don't
Speaker 1: think they say that when they walk, but I'm on radio,
Speaker 1: so otherwise I was just going to be doing a
Speaker 1: zombie thing with my hands. And unless you're watching this
Speaker 1: on Pluto TV, gosh, Pluto TV channel two forty eight,
Speaker 1: the first you would not have seen my my, my
Speaker 1: zombie impression. Uh yeah, zombies don't talk. Buck, Michael Buck,
Speaker 1: you probably knew this was coming when you said none
Speaker 1: of us can build a computer? Well, what, who exactly
Speaker 1: did you mean? Seeing that I am a graduate student
Speaker 1: researcher in the Electrical and Computer engineering department, I am
Speaker 1: perfectly capable of building a computer, just saying, Also, why
Speaker 1: am I not in the middle of reading a history
Speaker 1: book by the great author Buck Sexton as always shields high. Well, Michael,
Speaker 1: hopefully if we get stuck on the island after a
Speaker 1: three hour tour, you'll be able to make the computer
Speaker 1: out of the coconuts. You know what I mean? You
Speaker 1: got to have a scientist, and I want I'm a
Speaker 1: I was, Yeah, I was always a Merry Anne fan too.
Speaker 1: Forget Ginger, Ginger's trouble, Ginger's high maintenance, Mary Anne was
Speaker 1: Where was that? Did he build a coconut computer? Yeah?
Speaker 1: He would build like a radio radio out of cocon Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like he would build things out of coconuts. I did
Speaker 1: not watch Gillion Island, obviously, you were not not even
Speaker 1: close to a live Yeah, but I saw some of it.
Speaker 1: But you can tell me, you know Ginger or Marry Anne.
Speaker 1: I feel like that tells you a lot about a guy.
Speaker 1: I'm a Merry Anne guy, all right, Ginger's trouble, Ginger's trouble.
Speaker 1: All right. That's gonna be the show for today. If
Speaker 1: you can check out what I'm gonna say on w
Speaker 1: o R seven ten am here in New York City
Speaker 1: Tonight six pm, Shields Hie