Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom much Woodward says, once again,
Speaker 1: worse than Watergate, Portland Band's facial recognition, smearing the Sturgis Rally,
Speaker 1: masking nineteen month olds on planes, and why is canceled?
Speaker 1: Netflix trendick. This is the Buck Sexon Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: passionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great American.
Speaker 1: Again the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No, welcome,
Speaker 1: friends to the buck Sexton Show. Great to have you
Speaker 1: here with me as always an honor, a privilege, and
Speaker 1: a pleasure. Bob Woodward famous for Watergate, which was a
Speaker 1: long time ago now, and he likes to appear on
Speaker 1: CNN because the journalists revere this guy. He is their
Speaker 1: patron saint in a sense, even more so than Edward R.
Speaker 1: Murrow or any of the rest. Because Woodward brought down
Speaker 1: a Republican president. Trust me, if he had brought down
Speaker 1: a Democrat, he'd be living in a cabin in the
Speaker 1: wood somewhere under a new name, having grown facial hair
Speaker 1: to obscure his identity. Right. But if you're useful to
Speaker 1: the left, if the Democrats find you to be somebody
Speaker 1: who does their bidding. They will forever honor and take
Speaker 1: care of you as long as you're useful. And Bob Woodward,
Speaker 1: because he has this aura of the president's ender, right,
Speaker 1: he can end a presidency. They like to trot him out.
Speaker 1: But the problem with Woodward right now is that they've
Speaker 1: done this how many times during the Trump presidency. Let's
Speaker 1: just go over for a moment, shall we all the
Speaker 1: reasons why now he's finished? Now Trump is done this time,
Speaker 1: he's gone too far. Well, there was a Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: a lie. The whole thing was a hoax. It was
Speaker 1: a witch hunt. That was true. But there was that,
Speaker 1: And then there was the comments that he made during
Speaker 1: the campaign, Oh, way too far. He's gone too far
Speaker 1: about whether it's Kazir Khan. And then later on when
Speaker 1: he became president, the comments he made at Charlotte'esville. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's all it's worse than what they lied about his
Speaker 1: comments at Charlottes. Well, you're noticing a pattern, aren't you?
Speaker 1: If Trump were so awful, and just just apply reason
Speaker 1: and rationality to this for a moment, If Trump were
Speaker 1: so terrible, why did they have to keep lying about him.
Speaker 1: Isn't that noteworthy? Isn't that something that would come to mind?
Speaker 1: Pretend for a second you don't even support or defend
Speaker 1: Trump in any way, But wouldn't that make you suspicious
Speaker 1: if you had a colleague in the office and someone
Speaker 1: that you worked with was saying that guy he's the worst,
Speaker 1: he's the worst person in the office, and the you know,
Speaker 1: the colleague who's talking the trash kept lying and you
Speaker 1: knew he was lying, wouldn't you start to think maybe
Speaker 1: the guy that's being defamed is not the problem. That's
Speaker 1: certainly what we've seen with Trump in all of this.
Speaker 1: That's the truth of this current situation that if he
Speaker 1: were as bad as they say, well, then obviously we
Speaker 1: wouldn't want him to be president, and he wouldn't be
Speaker 1: in a very strong position already to win reelection. But
Speaker 1: they lie about him, and one of their favorite points
Speaker 1: of attack against him is how much he lies, and
Speaker 1: they don't understand that if you're somebody who has a
Speaker 1: very weak relationship with the truth, which our media and
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party clearly does, people aren't just going to
Speaker 1: take your word for it that somebody else has problems
Speaker 1: with their verac city and then that brings us to
Speaker 1: this Woodward allegation of what we're all being told here?
Speaker 1: Oh well, well, first, what we need to hear it
Speaker 1: from him? Right, we need to hear it from him.
Speaker 1: We need to have Woodward tell us this. We need
Speaker 1: to have Bernstein tell us this. What is it now?
Speaker 1: Play clip fourteen. It is a dereliction of duty recorded
Speaker 1: as no other presidential dereliction of duty has been, even
Speaker 1: more so than the Nixon tapes initi instance. So it's
Speaker 1: going to be very hard to see how this cannot
Speaker 1: be addressed by Republicans in particular and their candidate for
Speaker 1: president of the United States. The last time this happened
Speaker 1: during Nixon's the end of Nixon's presidency, the Republican leadership,
Speaker 1: concluding Barry gold Laying in the nineteen sixty four nominee
Speaker 1: of his party for president, went to the White House
Speaker 1: and told Nixon he had to resign. And the facts
Speaker 1: here are even graver than in Watergate, even graver. What
Speaker 1: we're in bird seeing Baby coming out telling us even
Speaker 1: graver then Watergate. Of course, there you have it. What
Speaker 1: else do you need to know? Oh, my gosh, is here? Well,
Speaker 1: then of course Trump should resign now is that you know,
Speaker 1: they impeached him and it was a joke. They had
Speaker 1: a special counsel against him, and it was preposterous. And
Speaker 1: now they've written a book, one of many. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're every week you can expect another big media bombshell
Speaker 1: about how Trump is worse than Hitler. And the media
Speaker 1: gets even more irate when we look at this and say,
Speaker 1: you can't tell us every week that this is the
Speaker 1: worst thing ever about Trump and expect us to believe
Speaker 1: that you have good judgment, expect us to believe that
Speaker 1: you lib media are sane. We're not going to believe you.
Speaker 1: We're not going to think that your approach to this
Speaker 1: is reasonable. Quite the opposite. But Bernstein's coming out Woodward's book,
Speaker 1: Bernstein's analysis, Oh, it's just like the Nickson era, worse
Speaker 1: than the Watergate tips. How stupid do they think we are? Now, Look,
Speaker 1: there's clearly a benefit for them to do this, because
Speaker 1: they feed this analysis to their own their own side.
Speaker 1: They feed this analysis to the people who are obsessed,
Speaker 1: quite honestly obsessed with an endless diet of anti Trumpism.
Speaker 1: The more the more you can give them that supports
Speaker 1: this theory that Trump is the worst person in history,
Speaker 1: the happier they are. But we're in the election cycle now,
Speaker 1: and ultimately this is all for a purpose, right, and
Speaker 1: the turnout of the extreme left Libs in the blue
Speaker 1: states is pretty much a fate at complea. I mean,
Speaker 1: no one really expects that there's not going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of angry Antifa supporting BLM loving liberal lunatic
Speaker 1: showing up to vote for Biden. But when you're looking
Speaker 1: at those swing states and you're looking at what's going
Speaker 1: to be the difference maker here, none of this is.
Speaker 1: None of this stuff matters. It's not going to change
Speaker 1: any minds or opinions. And part of this is the
Speaker 1: desperation the media has to reassert lost power. They like
Speaker 1: to think that they're at least able to control the
Speaker 1: conversation about a presidency and that if they went all
Speaker 1: in against a president, as they have against Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: they could defeat him. But they can't. At least they
Speaker 1: weren't able to before. They're hoping to be able to
Speaker 1: do it this time. And the desperation is only going
Speaker 1: to grow the closer to this we get. I saw
Speaker 1: the latest polls today, the toss up states, And there's
Speaker 1: so many polls I can't remember which one this was,
Speaker 1: but the toss up states are of Florida, North Carolina.
Speaker 1: Ohio is trending Republican. But there are only a handful
Speaker 1: of states that are really totally up for grabs right
Speaker 1: now that are going to be meaningful in all of this.
Speaker 1: There are a whole lot that are leaning Republican or
Speaker 1: leaning Democrat that obviously could switch. But now it's all
Speaker 1: about the scoreboard, folks. It's all about winning. And I'll
Speaker 1: just say this now, I am certainly not tired of winning.
Speaker 1: I am not tired of it. The President said, at
Speaker 1: some point we'll be there, maybe after four or more years.
Speaker 1: But for right now, we need to batten down the
Speaker 1: hatches and prepare for the onslought of propaganda and lies
Speaker 1: that are coming our way. We have to get ready
Speaker 1: for all of this with our shields high, prepared for
Speaker 1: anything and everything. Because last time they thought cruise Control
Speaker 1: would get it done. Last time theyoomed if only things
Speaker 1: continued as they were, Hillary Clinton Hello, would be president
Speaker 1: of the United States. What happened was she lost this
Speaker 1: time around. They're leaving nothing to chance. They are colluding
Speaker 1: behind the scenes every day where there's quiet every day,
Speaker 1: where you feel like it's kind of a boring news cycle.
Speaker 1: Just remember that thousands and thousands of paid left wing
Speaker 1: activists who call themselves journalists are gathering in newsrooms and
Speaker 1: at different cable news stations and in Hollywood and you
Speaker 1: name it, all the different hubs of communication, taste making,
Speaker 1: and places that are able to engage in propaganda. They're
Speaker 1: they're all all hands on deck, and they're gonna do
Speaker 1: everything that canna defeat this guy. This Woodward book. We
Speaker 1: won't even remember it in a week or two. I
Speaker 1: know they're gonna they're gonna do the drip drip of Oh,
Speaker 1: and then there's another thing that's terrible. Oh, then there's
Speaker 1: anohing that's terrible. We care about how the president has
Speaker 1: done in office. That's where this should actually be fought.
Speaker 1: That's what's really an issue. But instead the focus of
Speaker 1: the anti Trump left is always a thing that someone
Speaker 1: says he said that can't be confirmed, or a thing
Speaker 1: that he did say, in this case, on the record
Speaker 1: and taped that is completely taken out of context. Let's remember,
Speaker 1: let's remember this before we have to continue to defend
Speaker 1: against these unfair spirits. I mean the media pulling clips
Speaker 1: of Trump from February of twenty twenty and presenting them
Speaker 1: out of context to make him look reckless on COVID.
Speaker 1: This is pure election propaganda. You could do this to
Speaker 1: every single public figure who spoke about COVID back then.
Speaker 1: Fouci doctor Fouch said it was like, hey, it's no
Speaker 1: big deal. The seat told us don't wear masks. They
Speaker 1: even told us it was wrong to wear masks because
Speaker 1: we're gonna be taking them from a central frontline workers.
Speaker 1: It's just completely and utterly, transparently dishonest. But you're going
Speaker 1: to see so much of that. And remember this, friends,
Speaker 1: they don't have to win the argument. They just have
Speaker 1: to beat you down with the arguments. They don't have
Speaker 1: to convince you. They just have to overwhelm you. That's
Speaker 1: what's really going on right now. That's the flood, the zone,
Speaker 1: kitchen sink, everything. They've got strategy to defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So don't become demoralized. Don't feel like it can't happen
Speaker 1: or there's just too much, or what do we learn
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. If we stick to our guns, if
Speaker 1: we stay with our convictions, we will get through this
Speaker 1: and you'll have four more years. But man, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be nasty. I mean, this is gonna be a bar
Speaker 1: fight that nobody's going to enjoy, but we gotta win it.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom mud. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. Speaking of doctor Fauci. Not a man
Speaker 1: that you would ever think would rush to the President's
Speaker 1: defense on anything. Not somebody that any intelligent, reasonable human
Speaker 1: being would ever say is a pro Trump partisan. But
Speaker 1: when you're thinking about the fouch, you gotta remember, Oh,
Speaker 1: he's already come out there and said this whole Trump.
Speaker 1: Remember the allegation is that Trump dishonestly downplayed the virus.
Speaker 1: What's the strategy here? No one ever answers that question.
Speaker 1: You're gonna tell everybody, Oh, it's no big deal in
Speaker 1: February and hope they'll notice all the infections and people
Speaker 1: dying in March, at April and May. No, what's a
Speaker 1: realistic explanation for this? The president was trying to avoid
Speaker 1: panicking people while he was taking government action based upon
Speaker 1: the experts that he inherited from our health bureaucracy. But
Speaker 1: there's one health bureaucrat who's at least willing to say that. No. Sorry,
Speaker 1: this whold woodward thing about how he played something down,
Speaker 1: it's not true. Play seven. I don't recall anything different
Speaker 1: than in our discussions that we had with the President,
Speaker 1: that he said things quite similar publicly. So I didn't
Speaker 1: read the book. I didn't really go over any of
Speaker 1: the texts since it just came out. But you know,
Speaker 1: in my discussions and the discussions of other task Force
Speaker 1: members with the President, we're talking about the reality of
Speaker 1: what was going on. And then when we would get
Speaker 1: up in front of the press conferences which were very,
Speaker 1: very common after our discussions with the President, he really
Speaker 1: didn't say anything different than we discussed when we were
Speaker 1: with him. So I may not be tuned in to
Speaker 1: the right thing that they're talking about, but I didn't
Speaker 1: really see any discrepancies between what he told us and
Speaker 1: what we told him and what he ultimately came out
Speaker 1: publicly and said. So did you get a sense that
Speaker 1: he was or wasn't playing this down? No? No, no,
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't get any sense that he was
Speaker 1: distorting anything. I mean, in my discussions with him, they
Speaker 1: were always straightforward about the concerns that we had. We
Speaker 1: related that to him, and when he would go out
Speaker 1: and I'd hear him discussing the same sort of things.
Speaker 1: Was Trump distorting things? Here is the president's chief scientific
Speaker 1: advisor and all of this saying No, he wasn't. So
Speaker 1: what are we even talking about. Shouldn't this be case closed?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't this be what's all the hubbub? Oh? Of course not,
Speaker 1: because this is all for a purpose, and the purpose
Speaker 1: is not the truth. As people have pointed out, including
Speaker 1: the President who pointed out before, isn't it interesting? And
Speaker 1: I got a retweet from the President today just saying,
Speaker 1: but isn't it interesting that Bob Woodward would be willing
Speaker 1: to hold on to all of this, willing to hold
Speaker 1: on to all of this for months and months and
Speaker 1: months to make sure that he could drop it with
Speaker 1: his book sales, you know, to make sure that it
Speaker 1: would benefit him if the President was really that clear
Speaker 1: and president a danger to public health. Wouldn't Woodward, as
Speaker 1: a journal who's supposed to be speaking the truth to
Speaker 1: the public so they can make informed decisions for our democracy.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't a journal have to come forward right away and say, guys,
Speaker 1: I'm the President's lying to you about this virus? And
Speaker 1: he's putting your lives at risk. If you really believe
Speaker 1: that right away, wouldn't you be a moral monster to
Speaker 1: hold on to that information. I think the answer is
Speaker 1: most decidedly yes. And so what does that tell us
Speaker 1: about this? All these books that you see that are
Speaker 1: you know, these anti Trump books, they always have to
Speaker 1: sell them with one or two juicy tidbits. There's always
Speaker 1: one or two things that they'll row in the mix that's, ooh,
Speaker 1: here's the big bombshell revelation. And people buy the book,
Speaker 1: they realize it's slap dash, not that interesting, a lot
Speaker 1: of just trying to fill up space on the pages
Speaker 1: to justify the twenty five twenty five dollar hardcover price.
Speaker 1: And you realize the revelations weren't even really revelations Trump
Speaker 1: way back when I was dealing with Jim Acosta, the
Speaker 1: hostile press corps in the early days of the pandemic.
Speaker 1: And this is what he said about his response to
Speaker 1: this play clip one. What do you say to Americans
Speaker 1: will that you got this wrong? I do want them
Speaker 1: to stay calm, and we are doing a great job.
Speaker 1: If you look at those individual statements, they will true
Speaker 1: stay come, it will go away. You know it. You
Speaker 1: know it is going away, and it will go away,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have a great victory. And it's people
Speaker 1: like you and CNN that say things like that that
Speaker 1: it's why people just don't want to listen to CN anymore.
Speaker 1: You could ask a normal question. The statements I made
Speaker 1: are I want to keep the country calm. I don't
Speaker 1: want panic in the country. I could cause panic much
Speaker 1: better than even you. I could do much. I would
Speaker 1: make you look like a minor league player. But you
Speaker 1: know what, I don't want to do that. I want
Speaker 1: to have our country be calm and strong and fight
Speaker 1: and win, and it will go away. And it is
Speaker 1: incredible the job that all of these people are doing,
Speaker 1: putting them all together, the job that they're doing. I
Speaker 1: am very proud of the job they're doing that. Mike
Speaker 1: Pence is doing that, the Task Force has done that,
Speaker 1: Honeywell and Procter and Gamble and Mike and all of
Speaker 1: these people have done I'm very proud. It's almost a miracle.
Speaker 1: And it is the way it's all come together. And
Speaker 1: instead of asking a nasty, snarky question like that, you
Speaker 1: should ask a real question President making very clear that
Speaker 1: was months and months and months ago. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't want people to panic. It is going to
Speaker 1: go away. What's the alternative too, it's going to go away.
Speaker 1: It's never going to go away. Our society is ruined.
Speaker 1: Civilization as we know it is over. I don't think
Speaker 1: that would be an intelligent thing for Trump to say,
Speaker 1: which is why he didn't, which is why he was
Speaker 1: saying We're gonna win. But Democrats want the country to lose.
Speaker 1: That's the problem. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app or wherever you get your podcasts. And if we're
Speaker 1: gonna play the what were they saying then about COVID game?
Speaker 1: Remember back in February Nancy Pelosi, here's what she had
Speaker 1: to say, Play Cliff two. You should come to Chinatown,
Speaker 1: but cautions have been taken by our city. We know
Speaker 1: that there's a concervative about tourism traveling all throughout the world,
Speaker 1: but we think it's very safe to be a time
Speaker 1: totown and hope that others will come. She's like the
Speaker 1: mayor in Jaws who insists on saying over Fourth of
Speaker 1: July weekend, the beaches will be open. Remember that she's
Speaker 1: just Oh she doesn't care at all. Okay, care that
Speaker 1: dadda to China. Dad, it's Kennedy. My butler says that
Speaker 1: he knows a gardener, who knows a chauffeur who loves
Speaker 1: the lunar New Year Festival. That's great, Nancy, good job,
Speaker 1: good job. Yeah, that's what she was saying. Precautions were taken.
Speaker 1: Do you think precautions were taken? No? No, there were not.
Speaker 1: No masks, no social distancing, no nothing. But nonetheless, this
Speaker 1: is where we are, folks. This is what we are
Speaker 1: being told now. They are really just hoping that they
Speaker 1: can they can convince the ignorant and they can demoralize
Speaker 1: the informed. That's that's the Democrat plan. That's what they're
Speaker 1: hoping to do. And unfortunately, because they have so many,
Speaker 1: so many allies in the media, including the increasingly odious
Speaker 1: and stupid Morning Joe over there playclip three. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: says he didn't want Americans to panic. No, he just
Speaker 1: wanted to sit by and watch them die, hoping the
Speaker 1: Dow Jones Industrial and the S and P would stay
Speaker 1: healthy enough to get him reelected. But Americans got sicker.
Speaker 1: By the day, do you watched your parents die? Trump
Speaker 1: wanted to watch your parents and you die. That's what
Speaker 1: you're being told. That's what you're being told. That's considered
Speaker 1: commentary on a major news channel. The President doesn't care
Speaker 1: about a single single They believe this, by the way.
Speaker 1: I remember on the Bill Marshow in February when I
Speaker 1: was on the panel and was you know, just being
Speaker 1: talked over, and wasn't you know it's it's it's a mess.
Speaker 1: But you can't show them that, You're can't show them
Speaker 1: you're going to back down. I remember when I was
Speaker 1: on that panel and they I kept saying, can we
Speaker 1: all just agree President Trump doesn't want it's no matter
Speaker 1: what you think of him morally as president, he doesn't
Speaker 1: want people to die from this because that hurts his presidency.
Speaker 1: And we're all pretty sure he likes being president, likes
Speaker 1: likes being in charge. And they wouldn't concede that. They're like, no,
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't care, No, No, there was there was no
Speaker 1: willingness to meet me in the middle or just meet
Speaker 1: me in the realm of sanity where I'm declaring that
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't want people to die from this. Chris Hayes
Speaker 1: msn also at MSNBC, just this morning wrote this on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Important to keep in mind that not just McConnell, but
Speaker 1: just about the entire GOP caucus and also all the
Speaker 1: staffers that work for them are also complicit in the
Speaker 1: unnecessary depths of tens of thousands of Americans such weasel
Speaker 1: words right, complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of Americans? How should they be should they be criminally charged?
Speaker 1: What is their level of culpability? And I would want
Speaker 1: to know is every person who got on a subway
Speaker 1: or a bus or went to a restaurant or a
Speaker 1: bar and didn't know they had COVID and coughed on someone,
Speaker 1: are they complicit in an unnecessary death to be held
Speaker 1: morally culpable. That's That's going to be a very large
Speaker 1: list of people, isn't it. How would you ever know?
Speaker 1: How could you ever prove it? You can't. But it's
Speaker 1: about the propaganda. It's not about getting to the truth here.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a whole new line of attack.
Speaker 1: It's not just Trump mismanaged the COVID pandemic, they'll say,
Speaker 1: or that he downplayed the risks from it. Trump is
Speaker 1: equivalent to a mass murderer. You're gonna hear democrats say that.
Speaker 1: In fact, just give it time. That term will emerge
Speaker 1: from the lips of Democrats on television. I would say
Speaker 1: on radio, But who listens to Democrat radio? That's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: They don't care that it's reckless. They don't care that
Speaker 1: it's just a stupid thing to say. In fact, if anything,
Speaker 1: they enjoy being able to abuse the platforms. They have
Speaker 1: to settle personal scores because they view this president. They
Speaker 1: view this president as worthy of destruction at all costs,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what they have to do. That's why you
Speaker 1: have Biden, for example, piling on with the Woodword book. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is gonna rush a collusion, didn't do it. But
Speaker 1: the interviews with Bob Woodward, that's the last that's the
Speaker 1: last straw play nineteen kick him out of office? For
Speaker 1: this one, Biden says, kick him out of office? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that seems fair. That seems fair, doesn't it? That doesn't
Speaker 1: seem completely insane. But what else are they going to say?
Speaker 1: Vote for the elderly loser that nobody thinks is impressive
Speaker 1: in any way. But he's the best we got now
Speaker 1: because of the situation of the Democrat Party. Well, that
Speaker 1: is pretty much what they're telling you. That's what they're
Speaker 1: telling you. And you know, the another thing I want
Speaker 1: you all to be very aware of is the politics,
Speaker 1: the politics surrounding the vaccine. I mean, this is something
Speaker 1: that all of us should be prepared for because this
Speaker 1: is where you'll see that there are no limits to
Speaker 1: the Democrats perfidious conduct. There will be no limits to
Speaker 1: the extent they're willing to go to in order to
Speaker 1: vince people that Donald Trump is responsible for the deaths
Speaker 1: of thousands and thousands of people personally responsible. It's like
Speaker 1: he ordered them into COVID camps or something. That's the
Speaker 1: attitude that's going to be the way that they talk
Speaker 1: about it. You know, they have no shame about this.
Speaker 1: There's there's no part of them that feels even the
Speaker 1: least bit of remorse for making the suggestions that they
Speaker 1: do about this president. They think it's all absolutely fine.
Speaker 1: And so I just want to make sure that we're
Speaker 1: clear they're gonna play dirty on that too. Play for me.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi here, Oh, she's so so sure that there's
Speaker 1: going to be a vaccine, but not sure when right
Speaker 1: doesn't know when it's actually going to happen, and she's
Speaker 1: watching this program like a hawk, because Nancy really knows
Speaker 1: anything about anything. Plate ten. But the fact is, I'm
Speaker 1: very pleased that Astro Seneca has stopped their trial because
Speaker 1: they saw a problem that needs to be investigated. I'm
Speaker 1: so proud that the pharmaceutical companies have said they won't
Speaker 1: market or promote a vaccine unless it is properly approved
Speaker 1: by the independent scientific advisory committee set up for such
Speaker 1: a thing. They I'm glad they're saying that because I
Speaker 1: have concerns about what the president might want to do
Speaker 1: to the timing and politicizing of the research that is there. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. Trump will rush through an unsafe vaccine. That's
Speaker 1: Nancy's position, That's what she really believes. Trump will rush
Speaker 1: through an unsafe vaccine. That's how evil he is. First
Speaker 1: of all, how would he even do that? All you
Speaker 1: would need the drug companies are not going to take
Speaker 1: the liability. The drug companies are not going to take
Speaker 1: the risk of putting forward a drug that, let's say,
Speaker 1: does have adverse reactions in enough people that it shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been approved. They're not going to do that. What
Speaker 1: do you think Trump's gonna have an executive order to
Speaker 1: override the FDA. I mean, then people really would freak
Speaker 1: out about this. But no, what are they doing. They're
Speaker 1: complaining about what Trump will do when no reasonable person
Speaker 1: thinks he's going to do it. This is kind of
Speaker 1: a standard operating procedure for them. This is not a
Speaker 1: new thing. They're trying to tell you, Oh, we should
Speaker 1: criticize him today for what we say he'll do tomorrow,
Speaker 1: even though it's never going to happen. Surgeon General Jerome
Speaker 1: Adams was very clear on this, and you know, there
Speaker 1: are lives at stake are our country needs its life back.
Speaker 1: We need to go back to the way that we
Speaker 1: have existed for a long time before this pandemic and
Speaker 1: will for a long time after. But at this point,
Speaker 1: delay is just unnecessary punishment. At this point, delay is
Speaker 1: making the situation worse. There's no benefit from it. But
Speaker 1: Democrats don't care. Here's Surgeon General Jerome Adams played on.
Speaker 1: Here's what I can tell you as a member of
Speaker 1: the Coronavirus Task Force, there have been no politicization of
Speaker 1: the vaccine process whatsoever. We have a process in place
Speaker 1: that I trust as a doctor, As a dad, I
Speaker 1: get vaccinated every year. I get my family vaccinated every year.
Speaker 1: No politicization, he said. And now, even if you think
Speaker 1: that Trump is so corrupt and ruthless that he would
Speaker 1: try to do something here, what would that be Exactly
Speaker 1: as I said, an executive order to give the vaccine
Speaker 1: to everybody, with the drum company saying it's or with
Speaker 1: the FDA saying it's not ready. It would be disastrous
Speaker 1: for Trump. He knows that. But so what do Democrats
Speaker 1: want to do? Pretend that you know that they want
Speaker 1: to criticize him for something that he has not done,
Speaker 1: and at least make everyone think, oh, I don't know,
Speaker 1: don't don't expect, don't expect that the this project warp
Speaker 1: speed is going to bear fruit. Don't don't get your
Speaker 1: hopes up America. Be depressed, be upset, be worried. Let
Speaker 1: that anxiety just seep through your mind. Let that happen,
Speaker 1: because when people are upset and anxious, what do they
Speaker 1: want change? And what would be away? Just a basic
Speaker 1: human impulse to try to acquire change. That's coming up
Speaker 1: very soon the election, of course, So that's what they're
Speaker 1: going to do push for everyone to be upset because
Speaker 1: then they think they have a better chance of winning,
Speaker 1: and all the suffering that occurs between now and then,
Speaker 1: all the matter, they don't care. And I really mean
Speaker 1: this right they believe because on our side, I think
Speaker 1: that there's always understanding that politicians are imperfect and life
Speaker 1: is hard and there are challenges that you can't always
Speaker 1: meet or succeed in getting past. And on the Democrat
Speaker 1: side of things, it's just defeat Trump because if we don't,
Speaker 1: the country's over. If you don't get rid of Trump,
Speaker 1: everything crumbles and everyone dies. And I know that's hyperbolic
Speaker 1: and insane, but they're hyperbolic and insane. So I'm just
Speaker 1: looking at what they're saying and doing and referring to it.
Speaker 1: I'm just seeing the way things are and having a
Speaker 1: chat about what I think is actually going on with
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. Oh and then of course there's the
Speaker 1: bill that's supposed to bring relief to people in this
Speaker 1: current challenging no climate. Where are the Democrats on that one?
Speaker 1: You may ask, you're in the Freedom und this is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. No it isn't. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for that question, because I hear it a lot,
Speaker 1: and clearly it springs from all the good intentions. We
Speaker 1: all have to help people as soon as we can.
Speaker 1: It does nothing. There are millions of kids who are
Speaker 1: food insecure, millions, maybe fourteen million in our country food insecure.
Speaker 1: He has nothing for that. There are millions of their
Speaker 1: families to be victims of emission evictions because they can't
Speaker 1: pay the rent. They don't care about that. Wait, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. Nancy Pelosi is the one who
Speaker 1: is stopping money from getting to people. Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: the one who has at every stage of the relief
Speaker 1: process played political games. What is a political game, let's
Speaker 1: define it, instead of just dealing with the problem at hand,
Speaker 1: how to get money in the hands of workers who
Speaker 1: have lost their jobs because of government policies that, by
Speaker 1: the way, we're unnecessary and stupid to lock us down
Speaker 1: for months and months. Government has an obligation to help
Speaker 1: those workers. It's not their fault that they don't have
Speaker 1: paychecks anymore. It's not their fault that they are going
Speaker 1: through this economic stress. It is, in fact the government's fault.
Speaker 1: But when the government then is supposed to try to
Speaker 1: make some amends, not that they can fully deal with
Speaker 1: the situation. Pelosi says, Hey, Hi, Hi, want a pony.
Speaker 1: You know there's unreasonable demands. Pelosi's probably got plenty of ponies.
Speaker 1: I'm sure she owns a ranch somewhere. She has to
Speaker 1: help take care of the animals. Of course, Pelosi throws
Speaker 1: all this other stuff in the mix. Miss McConnell sees this.
Speaker 1: He understands what's going on. Play fifteen. At this point,
Speaker 1: it's just silly season on the Democratic side. They've run
Speaker 1: out of excuses not to legislative and even their chief
Speaker 1: shots just backfire in embarrassing ways. Yep, Cocaine. Mitch ain't
Speaker 1: playing no games. He sees what they're doing. What have
Speaker 1: I told you about the make America Miserable Again? Campaign
Speaker 1: of the Democrats. They want people to be unhappy, They
Speaker 1: want them to be unable to pay their bills. They
Speaker 1: want this unease, this anxiety to continue because they benefit
Speaker 1: from it. Because they know that that makes it harder
Speaker 1: for Trump to turn around and say to the American people,
Speaker 1: look at what a great job I've done. Even though
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it, Trump has done a very
Speaker 1: good job as president. Trump is the best Republican president
Speaker 1: we have had since Ronald Reagan. It's just a fact,
Speaker 1: it's just reality. Does that mean he's perfect? Does that
Speaker 1: mean I agree with everything? Of course not, but I
Speaker 1: would never I wouldn't agree with everything Reagan did either.
Speaker 1: Reagan signed an amnesty that was a disaster, and he
Speaker 1: admitted it was a disaster before people say, buck, don't
Speaker 1: Chris size Saint Reagan. Look, no one's perfect, but what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do here couldn't be any more obvious.
Speaker 1: I think the moment that you take a step back
Speaker 1: and say, hold on a second, what's really happening here,
Speaker 1: you can see they're doing everything in their power. They're
Speaker 1: using their power to make people upset and frightened and miserable,
Speaker 1: and to turn us against each other. You know, the
Speaker 1: left's answer is not to stand up and say we
Speaker 1: have a better future for America. They're not telling me
Speaker 1: things are going to be better for me or you. No, Republicans,
Speaker 1: Republicans who earn a paycheck and obey the laws and
Speaker 1: try to live their lives responsibly. No, you haven't done
Speaker 1: enough to help those who don't obey the laws. You
Speaker 1: haven't done enough to subsidize those who don't pay their
Speaker 1: own bills. M They're not telling us you're lucky we
Speaker 1: win because things will get better for you. They're saying
Speaker 1: our constituencies they're very very rich and the very very poor,
Speaker 1: the elites and the dependent class. That's what makes up
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. They they will benefit at the expense
Speaker 1: of everybody else, just like as bostiot Fantastic Book. Bostiat
Speaker 1: wrote in The Law, the lie that people think they
Speaker 1: can live at the expense of every other man central
Speaker 1: to the Democrats. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's hear from an
Speaker 1: unfunny comedian about the situation in this country right now. Oh,
Speaker 1: I got one for you, Seth Myers play clip for
Speaker 1: Plagetti would be Dictator Trump doesn't care about the public
Speaker 1: health response to the pandemic or preventing the deaths of
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of Americans unless it benefits him personally.
Speaker 1: That's why she hawked one mirror coal care after another,
Speaker 1: touted by cable pundits and a pillow salesman and a
Speaker 1: doctor who believes in demons firm. It doesn't matter that
Speaker 1: they're crazier incompetent, just that they praised him. Doesn't care
Speaker 1: about preventing deaths unless it benefits And this is a
Speaker 1: common line. It's not just Seth Myers. Many people will
Speaker 1: say this. Many people will make this claim on the left.
Speaker 1: It's stupid. It's not a thing that intelligent people could say.
Speaker 1: It's not a thing that emotionally healthy people could believe
Speaker 1: is true. Because of course, preventing deaths. Just just take
Speaker 1: their premise and work through it. Preventing deaths dramatically benefits
Speaker 1: the president of the United States. They've created this fiction
Speaker 1: where unless the president directly makes money off of something,
Speaker 1: and I guess that's the only thing that benefits him.
Speaker 1: Unless the president's making money off of something, he doesn't care.
Speaker 1: He's the president, and he was a billionaire before he
Speaker 1: became president. What are they talking about? If he's all
Speaker 1: about power, if he's all about staying up it. This
Speaker 1: is what I tried to explain to the Libs at
Speaker 1: Bill Maher that I mentioned before. Even if you think
Speaker 1: the president is morally sociopathic, which I do not, actually
Speaker 1: think he's a good guy. But let's put that aside.
Speaker 1: Even if you thought that was true, saving your people
Speaker 1: from this virus enormously benefits your election prospects, benefits your power.
Speaker 1: So there, it doesn't even make sense. It's kind of
Speaker 1: like the whole Russia collusion thing. Work that one through
Speaker 1: for a second. Okay, you're going to be in a
Speaker 1: tight election and you're going to work with the Russians,
Speaker 1: exposing yourself to enormous risk and including you know, criminal risk,
Speaker 1: going to prison. You're gonna work with the Russians in
Speaker 1: the hope that they will be able to help you
Speaker 1: change the election result. And then the Russians at best
Speaker 1: will have you in their pocket because they will be
Speaker 1: able to expose this at any point during your presidency.
Speaker 1: It's a terrible idea. It doesn't even make sense. I mean,
Speaker 1: this would be like accusing accusing a bank robber of
Speaker 1: targeting empty storefronts with nothing inside. Why would he do that?
Speaker 1: Even if you think he's a bank robber. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. The plot doesn't hold together. If this
Speaker 1: were a movie, you'd say I'm not buying it. But
Speaker 1: they still say this stuff doesn't care about preventing deaths,
Speaker 1: Hawking fake cures really seth Myers. I know, first class
Speaker 1: doctors decades in their field in New York City at
Speaker 1: elite hospitals, who personally prescribed and or took hydroxy chloroquin themselves. Oh,
Speaker 1: but it's a it's all about the doctor who believes
Speaker 1: in demon sperm and and they, you know, they hate
Speaker 1: Mike Lindell. You know why, because Mike Lindell doesn't play
Speaker 1: their game. They hate Mike Lindell because he will sponsor
Speaker 1: shows on the right even when the left does it's
Speaker 1: little petty, cry baby, boycott crap. Mike doesn't pull his ads.
Speaker 1: That's why they hate him. If we had more Mike
Speaker 1: Lindell's we would have a more robust conservative news media
Speaker 1: that would be able to go, you know, muzzle to muzzle,
Speaker 1: so to speak, with the left. But no, we're out
Speaker 1: numbered ten to one because there aren't enough people like
Speaker 1: Mike Lindell. I mean, there are wonderful sponsors on this
Speaker 1: show who stay with me even when sleeping giants or
Speaker 1: medium matters you know, comes after me. They don't, they
Speaker 1: don't budge. But Mike's company is a huge company and
Speaker 1: he's you know, he's back Fox News shows when the
Speaker 1: boycotts have come after them. So that's why they hate him.
Speaker 1: Do you ever think they talk about his inspiring story?
Speaker 1: The guy was a heroin addict and now he's running
Speaker 1: a company worth I don't know, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: But no, they don't like They don't like that because
Speaker 1: he's not doing what they want him too. So they
Speaker 1: hate him and they sneer at him as if they
Speaker 1: have anything to teach the man, or anyone else for
Speaker 1: that matter. But you have to just when you think
Speaker 1: through these things on your own, when you spend some
Speaker 1: time thinking through what their allegations are and what's really
Speaker 1: going on, you'd say, even if I accept some premises
Speaker 1: that I don't, that Trump is evil, that he's horrible,
Speaker 1: that he's a bad person, their plan is irrational. The
Speaker 1: plan that they attribute to Trump is irrational. The motive
Speaker 1: that they imbute Trump with is absurd. They don't care.
Speaker 1: They'd rather believe it. They'd rather believe it. They'd rather
Speaker 1: believe these things. And they also think that anybody who
Speaker 1: speaks in favor of the president, and anyone who tries
Speaker 1: to back the president up, must also suffer from some
Speaker 1: grave moral defect. Here's a CNN anchor. Wait, I thought
Speaker 1: they were just journos. CNN is the worst. It really
Speaker 1: is the worst place. Here's one of them going off
Speaker 1: on Republican Senator Kennedy, play thirteen number two. Let me
Speaker 1: say a word about about this infatuation in Washington with
Speaker 1: who said what to them? I learned pretty quickly up here, Senator.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you do this. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is I understand there's so much politics right now.
Speaker 1: We're two months away from an election, but this is
Speaker 1: life and death. You have five thousand people that have
Speaker 1: died in in Louisiana from coronavirus. Republicans are reluctant as
Speaker 1: you are now to ever criticize this president. But as
Speaker 1: a human being, how can you be okay with us? Well,
Speaker 1: if I could finish my answer, I have learned in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. I'm sort of existential or sarsery in about
Speaker 1: Washington DC. To be is to act. You learn pretty
Speaker 1: quickly not to judge people up here by what they say.
Speaker 1: You have to judge them by what they do. And
Speaker 1: all I can tell you, Pamela, is what my personal
Speaker 1: experience has been and that is that this administration has
Speaker 1: been very responsive early on. We were the first ones
Speaker 1: hit after New York, both to the coronavirus and to
Speaker 1: the damage that we've done to our economy. Now I
Speaker 1: understand some people disagree with that, but that's honestly my experience.
Speaker 1: Why you moral monster, won't you play the game that
Speaker 1: we insist you play at CNN care about lives? You
Speaker 1: should trash Trump because that's what that's all they do
Speaker 1: at CNN all day long. It's unhealthy. It's unhealthy. This fixation.
Speaker 1: It really is like like OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder, rumination
Speaker 1: all around Donald Trump. That's why the Libs are suffering
Speaker 1: from what you'd have to see as a mental illness.
Speaker 1: There's something wrong with them. Trump arrangement syndrome of we
Speaker 1: should actually clinically designate this, we should have people study this.
Speaker 1: It's just not that interesting. Okay. The President hasn't ruined
Speaker 1: all the lives of all these Democrats. The COVID virus
Speaker 1: has gone all over the world. People have had it
Speaker 1: all over the world. That's killed more people per capita
Speaker 1: in many large industrial countries compared to the United States.
Speaker 1: So this isn't not not everyone here has died from COVID,
Speaker 1: despite what the Libs want to believe, because Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is so evil and mean and bad. But they won't
Speaker 1: They won't see what is reasonable, they won't see what's true.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they even can. It feels like
Speaker 1: there's some misfiring of the synapses inside their cortex, you know.
Speaker 1: It feels like there's something going on that's just not
Speaker 1: adding up for them, and that in that sense, I
Speaker 1: do worry. I do have concerns about whether the left
Speaker 1: is emotionally healthy enough to withstand. I mean, they're not
Speaker 1: going to take it gracefully. They're going to try to cheat.
Speaker 1: They might even try a coup of some kind. They've
Speaker 1: already tried soft coup attempts against the president. But I
Speaker 1: wonder what they're going to do. I wonder how many
Speaker 1: of them think that they really are, maybe this time
Speaker 1: going to flee to Canada. They always promised to, they
Speaker 1: never do. Can they handle living in Trump's America for
Speaker 1: four more years? If it bothers them so much, why
Speaker 1: not just tune it out and let governors like Newsom
Speaker 1: and Cuomo actually ruin their day to day lives by
Speaker 1: making sure there's not an all electricity. The taxes are
Speaker 1: too high, the streets are too dirty, the cops are undermined.
Speaker 1: You know, that's all not from Trump, that's from Democrats
Speaker 1: that Democrats are electing. We want to talk about ruining
Speaker 1: your day to day and putting you in real jeopardy
Speaker 1: and hurting your future, making your current existence less safe,
Speaker 1: less prosperous, and less joyful than it could be. Look
Speaker 1: to the state level, look to these blue governed hell
Speaker 1: holes that are hemorrhaging people. And those of you listening
Speaker 1: to this right now in Texas and Florida and Tennessee
Speaker 1: and from what I'm told North Carolina and Montana, this
Speaker 1: is your problem too, because guess where all the hemorrhaging
Speaker 1: is flowing to. You're in the freedom. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show podcast. The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally was
Speaker 1: a super spreader event, they say, a super spreader event.
Speaker 1: This was in South Dakota back in August, and there
Speaker 1: are stories out there that are now claiming two hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty six thousand, seven hundred ninety six cases of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen are directly attributable to the Sturgis Motorcycle rally
Speaker 1: in South Dakota. Yahoo News here says it's a super
Speaker 1: spread er event. Worst case scenarios at rally could link
Speaker 1: event just two hundred and sixty six thousand cases. Study
Speaker 1: finds that was in the Washington Post. Lots of these stories,
Speaker 1: lots of these stories. But guess what, it's all crap.
Speaker 1: It's all nonsense. It's a bunch of economists libs who
Speaker 1: got together and figured, well, let's just assume that anywhere
Speaker 1: where these people traveled where there was more COVID are
Speaker 1: is where there was more COVID, not individual infections that
Speaker 1: they can actually trace. Just you know, if you went
Speaker 1: back to such and such a place and then there
Speaker 1: were more COVID infections happening there, they just added it
Speaker 1: all up. It is completely outrageous. But it's it's useful
Speaker 1: too that they do this, because they show us what
Speaker 1: a bunch of frauds they are. The libs in the
Speaker 1: expert class, in this case economist who if you want
Speaker 1: to find out something that's useless, asking economist a question,
Speaker 1: twelve point two billion dollars, they say, at costs in
Speaker 1: public health. So this this motorcycle rally, which you know
Speaker 1: it's motorcycles. I'm assuming it's mostly outdoors. This caused enormous damage,
Speaker 1: but it didn't. And in fact, even some Libs have
Speaker 1: had to admit, yeah, we're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to make this one stick. We're not going to be
Speaker 1: able to continue with this one. You know, they'd like.
Speaker 1: This is back in August seventh, and they're saying that
Speaker 1: because of all these attendees, they a working paper by
Speaker 1: economists devolved Dave and his colleagues says that this led
Speaker 1: to two hundred and sixty six, seven hundred ninety six
Speaker 1: new cases. First of all, the specificity of that number
Speaker 1: on its face is laughable. They have no idea how
Speaker 1: many cases. There's no way they could trace this, but
Speaker 1: they claim it. It was a staggering nineteen percent of
Speaker 1: these cases over a four week period after the event.
Speaker 1: And as I said, it cost twelve billion dollars based
Speaker 1: on the estimate of treating a COVID patient. Okay, a
Speaker 1: lot of social media naming and blaming over this one, right,
Speaker 1: a lot of Libs saying, see those big, smelly, evil
Speaker 1: motorcycle Trump supportermen were just spreading the COVID. They were
Speaker 1: probably drinking their beer and waving their American flags on
Speaker 1: their Harley Davidsons and just spitting COVID at each other
Speaker 1: like like barbarians. That's pretty much what the Libs are saying.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much their view of all of this. But
Speaker 1: there's a big problem with it. It is really hard,
Speaker 1: basically impossible to accurately model the spread of this virus when,
Speaker 1: first of all, most people only spread it to one person,
Speaker 1: and if you spread it to more than one person,
Speaker 1: that's a very high our number. When they look at
Speaker 1: transmissions of this, if they could that accurately describe it, well,
Speaker 1: tell me how many people in America got infected because
Speaker 1: of Chinese nationals arriving here. Do we have a number
Speaker 1: for that? No, we don't have a No, we have
Speaker 1: no idea. We have no idea. They also don't account
Speaker 1: for things like school reopening. They also don't account I mean, look,
Speaker 1: they account for basically nothing, nothing going on here. I
Speaker 1: mean even in Slate, say even Slate, which is left wing,
Speaker 1: says it relies on strongest sumptions that rarely hold in
Speaker 1: the real world. For one thing, there are many other
Speaker 1: differences between counties full of bike rally fans versus those
Speaker 1: with none, and therein lies the challenge of creating a
Speaker 1: good counterfactual for the implied experiment. How to compare trends
Speaker 1: and counties that are different on many geographic, social, and
Speaker 1: economic dimensions. The parallel trends assumption assumes that every county
Speaker 1: was on a similar trajectory and the only difference was
Speaker 1: the number of attendees sent to the Sturgis rally. When
Speaker 1: this parallel trends assumption is violated, the resulting estimates are
Speaker 1: not just off by a little, they can be completely wrong.
Speaker 1: The burden of proof for these assumptions is very high.
Speaker 1: More critically, the paper assumes the noise in COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: cases from different counties averages out over time, and thus
Speaker 1: comparing the trends is valid. We all probably know by
Speaker 1: now that epidemic curves are not predictable and are heavily
Speaker 1: dependent on the luck of floating wildfire embers, so to speak.
Speaker 1: This approach may work for changes in the uptake of
Speaker 1: state benefits or other out comes traditionally analyzed by difference
Speaker 1: indifference designs, but not for the outcomes that are serially correlated,
Speaker 1: like wildfire, wildfires or epidemics. Thus, this idea that even
Speaker 1: if the parallel trends assumption held, differences in COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: cases across counties are fully attributable to the rally. It's
Speaker 1: a strong ask. The reality is that somewhere between zero
Speaker 1: and four hundred and fifty thousand infections may have resulted.
Speaker 1: But that's not a good headline end quote. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is a giant guess from a bunch of economists. There
Speaker 1: are no crap. And to say that there are assumptions,
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just this is just plugging. This is
Speaker 1: garbage in, garbage out, plugging in a bunch of numbers
Speaker 1: that they plug in. Okay, they're all these attendees, and
Speaker 1: oh gosh, look in the whole area around North Dakota.
Speaker 1: There's been a whole lot of COVID cases in the
Speaker 1: month after this. Well was it at the beginning of
Speaker 1: a surgeon cases in the state anyway. I mean to
Speaker 1: call this sloppy analysis is an insult to loppiness. And
Speaker 1: everybody at some level kind of knows it. But it
Speaker 1: was too delicious for the media to ask any questions.
Speaker 1: They say, oh, we're just reporting on it, man, it's
Speaker 1: just a study. Yeah, absolute crap, absolute nonsense, But it
Speaker 1: was reported by the largest news outlets in the country.
Speaker 1: Why is that? And then there's the other part of
Speaker 1: this too. Oh so the sturgist rally can spread COVID,
Speaker 1: but BLM protests can't. Huh Did these economists run their
Speaker 1: model on the BLM protests that have been going on
Speaker 1: for months all across the country. No, they didn't. Why
Speaker 1: is that? Oh gosh, I don't know. Maybe because they're
Speaker 1: a bunch of libs luxuriating in confirmation bias. Unbelievable, unbelievable. Oh,
Speaker 1: but they just wanted to. They wanted to come up
Speaker 1: with some explanation for this. They say they found the
Speaker 1: cases increased by three point six at three point nine
Speaker 1: per one thousand and South Dakota and the three weeks
Speaker 1: after the rally. To put this number in perspective, New
Speaker 1: York State has recorded as many cases in the last week.
Speaker 1: Even with its lockdown rules, South Dakota still has the
Speaker 1: among the lowest per capita death rates in the country
Speaker 1: and fewer deaths and cases per capita than its neighbors
Speaker 1: Nebraska and North Dakota. Folks, this whole thing, the entire
Speaker 1: study is a preposterous joke. That any intelligent person sees
Speaker 1: and rips apart. But the libs all reported on it
Speaker 1: because they liked it. Thanks for listening to the Busts
Speaker 1: and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Cancel Netflix.
Speaker 1: It's trending on social media. It's become a major national conversation.
Speaker 1: What did Netflix do? For most of us? It's been
Speaker 1: what we watch while we stuff all kinds of chicken
Speaker 1: tenders and mac and cheese and ice cream to excess
Speaker 1: in our mouths during this COVID pandemic. But they make
Speaker 1: all kinds of programming decisions, and sometimes those decisions, well,
Speaker 1: to call it inexplicable might be far too generous. Other words,
Speaker 1: you could certainly use. Tiana Lowe is with us now
Speaker 1: to discuss. She is a commentary writer at The Washington Examiner. Tianna,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining. What is qtis on Netflix? And why
Speaker 1: is everyone on the right, at least including me shocked?
Speaker 1: So I watched quts so that you all don't have to,
Speaker 1: and fuck, what I can tell you is they currently
Speaker 1: need a lobotany at his zanex it was easily the
Speaker 1: most disgusting piece of pop culture. I have ever seen.
Speaker 1: What is it? Folks don't even necessarily know. Tell them, well,
Speaker 1: what are you seeing? So it won the Best Director
Speaker 1: word at sun Dance. It's a French film, directed and
Speaker 1: written and about a French Muslim girl of Senegalese origin.
Speaker 1: And it is the sort of French godless leftist dichotomy
Speaker 1: of a hyper sacred religious extremist form of sexism and
Speaker 1: then also a secular anti religious form of sexism. It
Speaker 1: is about this girl group. They're all eleven year old girls,
Speaker 1: prepuvescent girls who form a dance team. But this is
Speaker 1: not a it's not ballet, it's not jazz. This is
Speaker 1: the kind of torking and outfits that would not look
Speaker 1: out of place in a Cardi B music video. And
Speaker 1: basically the plot is that religion is bad and sexist
Speaker 1: and that it's empowering to be eleven dancing sexually for adults.
Speaker 1: Now it's all over social media, so if you go
Speaker 1: on now on Twitter, for example, for the folks listening,
Speaker 1: you'll probably see some of these clips. And I've got
Speaker 1: to say, the dance moves, I actually think that that
Speaker 1: much considerably older women in a dance program for example,
Speaker 1: like high school age girls would be told you can't
Speaker 1: do this, these girls are eleven. Yeah, they're eleven. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think that we'd used to seeing coming
Speaker 1: of age stories where you have sixteen year olds who
Speaker 1: are actually portrayed by eighteen year olds or twenty year olds,
Speaker 1: and in a way that makes some of these movies
Speaker 1: less uncomfortable. You have stuffed like Game of Thrones where
Speaker 1: they try and accurately depict sexual objectification or rape, and
Speaker 1: they came under a lot of fire for that. The
Speaker 1: thing that makes this film so creepy and weird is
Speaker 1: that there is this tacit acknowledgement that they're pushing the line,
Speaker 1: but they're luxuriating and doing it. You know, there have
Speaker 1: been plenty of good films that have come out about
Speaker 1: the very real problem with childhood sexual assault. But the
Speaker 1: way that this is filmed, it does not treat it
Speaker 1: like objectification is a bad thing. But I think it's
Speaker 1: the acknowledgement that they Oh, no, I'm sorry, I was
Speaker 1: just gonna say, and this is a who's watching this?
Speaker 1: I don't mean the Netflix show because obviously you people
Speaker 1: are watching it now to understand what's being promoted within
Speaker 1: our culture. But there are adults. I mean, I'm assuming
Speaker 1: are their parents showing up to these things or how
Speaker 1: does that piece of this dance troop work? So okay,
Speaker 1: mind you, this movie has a ninety percent fresh reading
Speaker 1: on Rotten Tomatoes from critics. It has five percent from users,
Speaker 1: So there's just a mat And you know the New
Speaker 1: York Arona piece where they called this movie revelatory and
Speaker 1: they were lauding it for this directorial debut, saying that, oh,
Speaker 1: the right is triggered because they cannot handle the idea
Speaker 1: of women of color reclaiming the narrative of what it
Speaker 1: means to be French. No, we can't stand this because
Speaker 1: it's about two and a half degrees away from being
Speaker 1: softcore child pornography. I mean, is this tantamount to like
Speaker 1: a pedophile's you know, entry level video? I mean, how
Speaker 1: bad is the stuff you see in the movie. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's it's pretty close to that. I would say. It's
Speaker 1: not just the dance scenes. There are scenes where you're
Speaker 1: watching eleven year old girls view stuff that involves nudity
Speaker 1: and borders on actual pornography. And just like the deliciousness
Speaker 1: with which it's done. There have been plenty of movies
Speaker 1: depicting childhood romances and all and coming of age. This
Speaker 1: is not that this is performative and it's meant for adults.
Speaker 1: This is not a movie that has meant for children. Now,
Speaker 1: why do you think, and we're speaking of Tin Aloe
Speaker 1: of the Washington Examiner, why do you think, Tina, that
Speaker 1: the critics what do they see? Because I just saw
Speaker 1: some of the clips on Twitter that people are sending
Speaker 1: around and saying, look at how grosses is, and I like, look,
Speaker 1: I watch Game of Thrones. I like to think that
Speaker 1: I'm not a I'm not one of the more prudish
Speaker 1: conservatives that that does this for a living, you know, commentary.
Speaker 1: I saw this stuff on the video clips and I
Speaker 1: was like, this is this is some weirdo, unacceptable stuff
Speaker 1: going on here? Why do the critics like it? So?
Speaker 1: Mind you, there is a pretty long tradition in French
Speaker 1: cinema and art, I mean in living memory. Simone de
Speaker 1: Beauvoir and Jean Paul Soft they all signed letters petitioning
Speaker 1: the French government to not raise the age of consent
Speaker 1: so that way fourteen year olds can't have sex with adults.
Speaker 1: It is a long tradition in the French intelligencia to
Speaker 1: sexualized children as some sort of part of postliberal world order.
Speaker 1: So that is largely, thank god, been purged from a
Speaker 1: lot of the cinematic world. And for instance, a film
Speaker 1: like like Louis Mel's Pretty Baby, which was Brooke Shields's debut,
Speaker 1: in which he depicted a twelve year old prostitute who
Speaker 1: had very explicit sex scenes. Something like that I don't
Speaker 1: think would be ever made state side today. But still
Speaker 1: there is an elite fascination with the idea that children
Speaker 1: are I mean, we're seeing this in California where they
Speaker 1: have a state Senate bill trying to make it so
Speaker 1: that way if a man has a same sex sexual
Speaker 1: encounter with a child, so long as they're within ten
Speaker 1: years of age between each other, it doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be tried as an outright statutory rate. So this is
Speaker 1: still sort of persisting. This is the quiet part of
Speaker 1: the meet too movement that doesn't get said out loud
Speaker 1: because children cannot vouch for those elves. People have been
Speaker 1: complaining on the right about drag Queen Story Hour for
Speaker 1: a while now, going back and think a couple of years,
Speaker 1: and they say, it's a slippery slope. Guys. When you
Speaker 1: got Drag Queen Story Hour with little kids, you know,
Speaker 1: little kids are being exposed to things that they can
Speaker 1: understand that they should be protected from. Is there now
Speaker 1: just you think an effort underway? You know, And it's
Speaker 1: tough to say when you're talking about things like an effort,
Speaker 1: who's responsible for it? Well, we're seeing things like this movie,
Speaker 1: like this movie that we're talking or is there a show,
Speaker 1: movie whatever that we're talking about. It's a movie, Get
Speaker 1: One Sundance. Are they trying to normalize underage sexuality? Is that?
Speaker 1: Is that what the left is doing? What's the goal
Speaker 1: as you see it? I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: a new push so much as it is the Internet
Speaker 1: has made it a lot easier to expose these things
Speaker 1: when they happen. If anything, it's probably clear that we're
Speaker 1: making a lot of cultural progress with regards to cultural
Speaker 1: American values and Hollywood. We are seeing, finally a pretty
Speaker 1: popular projection of Disney's Mulan, which was filmed in Xinjiang
Speaker 1: and which openly capitalized on the oppression of leader Muslims.
Speaker 1: With regards to the Drag Queen Story Hour, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we're probably making a lot more progress when
Speaker 1: it comes to stigmatizing the sexualization of children from thirty
Speaker 1: forty years ago. But we just now the Internet where
Speaker 1: everything is fast and it is free, So we are
Speaker 1: a lot and maybe it's bad to call it progress,
Speaker 1: but it is what it is. It's probably now more
Speaker 1: stigmatized now to accept some of these cultural acts, and
Speaker 1: it was previously the main concern now really just comes
Speaker 1: to parenting. How do you ensure that your children when
Speaker 1: they have a phone, they have access to the world.
Speaker 1: How do you parent? Right? So? Wait, they aren't exposed
Speaker 1: to this? Do you gonna low at the Washington Examiner?
Speaker 1: T you know you're writing on this right? Yes? I
Speaker 1: am peace will be yet today? Check it out Washington
Speaker 1: Examiner dot com. Also, she's a contributor to the first DNA.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. Thanks back. You're in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Why would
Speaker 1: Portland ban facial recognition? Anybody want to take a guess
Speaker 1: at that? Well, why would the city of Portland say
Speaker 1: no facial recognition allowed for people in public? Facial recognition
Speaker 1: software and are using technology for this? Does that seem
Speaker 1: pretty bizarre to you. If you're out in public, you're
Speaker 1: already being videotaped constantly, right, there's a there's there are
Speaker 1: cameras all over the place. And if you're in public,
Speaker 1: you have no x dictation of privacy at least for
Speaker 1: your presence, so people can videotape you. And if they
Speaker 1: say there could be audio surveillance as well, there's you know,
Speaker 1: signs for that. You can even have that going on.
Speaker 1: So what the heck is going on here? Why would
Speaker 1: and they're calling it on on foxnews dot com. The
Speaker 1: first in the nation facial recognition ban for Portland, barring
Speaker 1: the public use of this so law enforcement can't do this.
Speaker 1: I see two immediate applications of this. It's effectively two
Speaker 1: applications that are not allowed as a result of this,
Speaker 1: that are clearly showing you what the left's priorities are.
Speaker 1: For one, why would Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler the city
Speaker 1: council there are a bunch of leftist lunatics. Why would
Speaker 1: they take it upon themselves to ban facial recognition technology
Speaker 1: usage by the authorities? Oh? Because you see the reason
Speaker 1: the mob also known as Democrat and Biden voters. The
Speaker 1: reason the mob feels so safe doing what they do, destroying, attacking, burning,
Speaker 1: looting is because when they're in this big group, especially
Speaker 1: if they have masks on and they're all dressed in
Speaker 1: black because they're Antifa and they're in black block tactic
Speaker 1: and whatever, they feel like they're not going to get caught.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna get caught. How can you when you've
Speaker 1: got a video of somebody with a face fully covered
Speaker 1: and running around, that seems right, that seems very hard
Speaker 1: to do. But sometimes they show up and in fact
Speaker 1: they don't have face coverings on, so you can use
Speaker 1: facial recognition. So why wouldn't you allow the authorities to
Speaker 1: do that? Because even still, you know, if you have
Speaker 1: people out there riding and looting and doing these things,
Speaker 1: and even if they just pull their mask down just
Speaker 1: for a moment, right, you can get that facial recognition,
Speaker 1: you can track them down, you can hold them accountable
Speaker 1: for this left wing political activity. The law could be
Speaker 1: brought to bear. They don't want that to happen. They
Speaker 1: do not want the usage of facial recognition technology because
Speaker 1: then you don't have to have people, Oh, we're going
Speaker 1: to do a lineup, and how do we find this
Speaker 1: person and where are they and all this other stuff
Speaker 1: we need witnesses. No, you just have a video of
Speaker 1: the scene, people looting and burning and doing stuff. And
Speaker 1: anyone whose mask comes down or isn't wearing a mask,
Speaker 1: guess what. You run them through your database. If they've
Speaker 1: been arrested before, Pingo, one more Antifa thug, you can
Speaker 1: take off the streets. They don't like that. They don't
Speaker 1: like this unacceptable to them. Oh, why is that you're
Speaker 1: in a public place. Why isn't the government allowed to
Speaker 1: think about this? The same government authorities that want to
Speaker 1: make sure that you are, as in my case, going
Speaker 1: through a mandatory quarantine, getting text messages from the trace
Speaker 1: authorities telling you that you can't leave your home, making
Speaker 1: all these demands of you, those same people are worried
Speaker 1: about your right to not have anyone know your face
Speaker 1: who you are in public while you're looting and breaking stuff.
Speaker 1: The rioters right to privacy? Who knew? Who knew this
Speaker 1: was such a thing. Portland I swear a place that
Speaker 1: really could be so charming and could be so lovely,
Speaker 1: But it turns out it's got more than its fair
Speaker 1: share of looney libs. But then there's also the ban on.
Speaker 1: This is from Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and City Commissioner
Speaker 1: Joe Anne Hardesty. They've announced this ban all city agencies
Speaker 1: effective right now and we'll be effective January first. For
Speaker 1: private businesses, why would private businesses want to use facial
Speaker 1: recognition technology. Well, I've got a guess. I've got an
Speaker 1: idea about this. My local grocery store. Right I go
Speaker 1: into the grocery store. You know what you can see
Speaker 1: if you just are at the right angle and you're
Speaker 1: really looking, you can see behind the MA encounter a
Speaker 1: number of photos of people who are known shoplifters, people
Speaker 1: who come into the store and steal stuff. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you've seen this in other stores as well. Now, think
Speaker 1: about what it would do for a business if someone
Speaker 1: is caught on camera stealing and they don't necessarily have
Speaker 1: to stop that person in and you know, wrestle them
Speaker 1: to the ground and deal with all that and oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, citizens arrest what are they doing? It can't
Speaker 1: do that, right, all this you have to deal with that,
Speaker 1: But at least then you know the next time the
Speaker 1: person comes in, you could get an alert on your
Speaker 1: system that you have a shoplifter. And that's a very
Speaker 1: that changes the dynamic a lot, doesn't it. Or even better,
Speaker 1: it's one thing to tell the police, hey we got
Speaker 1: a guy shoplifting. We got them on video. Here's his photo.
Speaker 1: Remember the police can't use facial recognition either. But it's
Speaker 1: another thing to say, hey, we ran this person in
Speaker 1: our software. This is the this is the individual, according
Speaker 1: to our software, who stole from us today. Here's here's
Speaker 1: their name. You know you can find their address and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it, right, Or we have a match,
Speaker 1: even we don't know the name, but we have a
Speaker 1: match to the person who stole a week ago. And
Speaker 1: then the police can start to They don't want accountability
Speaker 1: for this. You see, they're on the side of criminality.
Speaker 1: Once again. The Left has developed a very clear sympathy
Speaker 1: for criminal behavior, for breaking the laws, for predatory acts
Speaker 1: against our fellow Americans by people that think that the
Speaker 1: rules don't apply to them. I can't even go into
Speaker 1: the drug store in my corner and get any product
Speaker 1: that's worthwhile. It feels like I mean anything. If I
Speaker 1: want laundry detergent, if I want chocolate, I'm not kidding you, chocolate,
Speaker 1: it's under lock and key in the store. I have
Speaker 1: to get someone to come over and open it up
Speaker 1: so I can get my you know, lint, chocolate squares,
Speaker 1: if I want razor blades, if I want any number
Speaker 1: of medicine, lock and key, lock and key. You know
Speaker 1: they don't put the paper towel under lock and key yet. Right,
Speaker 1: there's some things that are bulky and not worth stealing
Speaker 1: in the same way, I guess. But think about what
Speaker 1: it would mean if everybody who comes in their nose,
Speaker 1: if you steal, they're gonna have your face on the
Speaker 1: system and they'll know if you come back. Portland doesn't
Speaker 1: want that. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. How bad could it get
Speaker 1: if Trump wins and Democrats just refuse to accept it.
Speaker 1: People going to start to throw around the word coup?
Speaker 1: Is that possible? Is that going to happen? We've got
Speaker 1: our friend David Reeboy in the mix right now. He's
Speaker 1: going to address that and more with us. He's a
Speaker 1: political commentator. David. Good to have you back on the show.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you. So you know, there was
Speaker 1: this piece what was it a Michael Lanton piece, The
Speaker 1: Coming Coup. Take us through this thinking, what are what
Speaker 1: are people political analysts, commentators on the right seeing as
Speaker 1: a possibility? What do you see as a possibility if
Speaker 1: Democrats lose this election? Sure, I think the seeds of
Speaker 1: this were really planted several months ago, you may even
Speaker 1: say several years ago, with something as seemingly innocent and
Speaker 1: absurd as Stacy Abrams refusing to concede in Georgia in
Speaker 1: the Georgia gubernatorial race, and many of us thought, hey,
Speaker 1: this is crazy. This is someone who's untethered from reality.
Speaker 1: But the purpose that little kind of mini campaign was
Speaker 1: to alert Democrat partisans that, you know, hey, look, the
Speaker 1: Republicans are disenfranchising minority voters, and they're doing it in
Speaker 1: a systematic way to the point where you can have
Speaker 1: an ill you know, where you can have many people
Speaker 1: establishment kind of legitimate people believing that there was actually
Speaker 1: stolen election in the state of Georgia. We saw it
Speaker 1: from the very top of Democrats, Democrat politicians all the
Speaker 1: way to comment haters, and it's just been conventional wisdom.
Speaker 1: So that that idea with Stacey Adans was to sort
Speaker 1: of implanted into the minds of people that yes, Republicans
Speaker 1: want to disenfranchise, Republicans want to steal your votes. Fast
Speaker 1: forward to now when after the virus, they Democrats and
Speaker 1: never Trumpers and really the left sat down and they said,
Speaker 1: you know what, We're going to concentrate fully on making
Speaker 1: sure that we have mail in ballots and mail in
Speaker 1: voting is in. Everyone who is not, you know, a
Speaker 1: total Democrat partisan will tell you that that mail in
Speaker 1: voting is kind of an invitation to fraud. Had they
Speaker 1: been really serious about being I think it's serious about
Speaker 1: wanting to come up with a system in which people
Speaker 1: who are concerned about the virus and older folks who
Speaker 1: didn't want to go out to the polls vote, then
Speaker 1: they could have launched a campaign saying, hey, make sure
Speaker 1: that you get a legitimate absentee ballot and vote that way.
Speaker 1: But they didn't want to do that. Instead, they want
Speaker 1: to do fraud. So which brings us to the coup
Speaker 1: and Anton's great kind of viral essay that has been
Speaker 1: all around the Internet for the last couple of days
Speaker 1: in which he kind of lays out a pattern and
Speaker 1: it's a it's a really sobering pattern of Democrats at
Speaker 1: the highest levels basically saying, you know what, We're not
Speaker 1: going to concede no matter what happens on election day.
Speaker 1: And you'll already have you already have a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrat Party messaging going out and saying that, you know what,
Speaker 1: Trump could win in a landslide on election night, but
Speaker 1: don't worry, he will certainly lose. You know, there will
Speaker 1: be a red mirage that will disappear within a few
Speaker 1: days or weeks based on based on the result of
Speaker 1: the mail and voting. So they're gaming out scenarios in
Speaker 1: which there's no way that Trump will win. And they're
Speaker 1: also gaming out scenarios in which there's no way that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden will concede even if he loses, even if
Speaker 1: he loses legitimately. So we're going into a really dark
Speaker 1: period in American history right now. And I think the
Speaker 1: more people talk about it in advance of it happening,
Speaker 1: the better, because we really don't want to be caught
Speaker 1: flatfooted here. Speaking of David Reboys, political commentators down in
Speaker 1: Florida joining us now, speaking of that, David, how is
Speaker 1: Florida looking these days? I see, obviously, and most of
Speaker 1: the polling it's considered a toss up, but you're on
Speaker 1: the ground, there any idea how you think it's currently trending.
Speaker 1: So I definitely think it's trending. Read I think I
Speaker 1: said on Twitter that I was not at all surprised
Speaker 1: when the new polling is out, saying that the Trump
Speaker 1: is doing very very well in Dade County here in
Speaker 1: Miami with Hispanic voters, UM and Latina voters in general.
Speaker 1: And I think that's that has a lot to do
Speaker 1: with I don't think it has to do with the
Speaker 1: Cuban population and socialism and and things like that. Um.
Speaker 1: I think it has more to do with the law
Speaker 1: and order message of the Trump campaign and the fact
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are very clearly against cops, very clearly
Speaker 1: against law enforcement, and a lot of folks down here
Speaker 1: who are in law enforcement are Hispanic and Latino. It's
Speaker 1: just a very um it's it's a kind of very
Speaker 1: popular profession down here. And as soon as a political
Speaker 1: party is seen as going after cops and going after
Speaker 1: law enforcement the way the Democrats have, then I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: You're going to lose a lot of support from these people.
Speaker 1: What do you see as the back to that coup point.
Speaker 1: For a second, I want to ask you this, what
Speaker 1: do you see as a worst case scenario Democrat plan
Speaker 1: of action? If sure enough election night, Biden loses and
Speaker 1: let's say, what a week passes and there's not some
Speaker 1: avalanche of mail in ballots that they can point to,
Speaker 1: how do you think that plays out? If they just
Speaker 1: go to from resistance to obstinacy in transigence, We're just
Speaker 1: not going to accept this. I mean, I think their
Speaker 1: plan is to follow a color revolution plan. And there
Speaker 1: have been a couple pieces in Revolver or The New
Speaker 1: the New Site that kind of trace the lineage of
Speaker 1: what color revolutions are usually in UM, usually in Eastern
Speaker 1: Europe and other parts of the world. And what really
Speaker 1: what that means is it's a tactic by way of
Speaker 1: delegitimizing a government that is said to the authoritarian. So
Speaker 1: they say, you guys are authoritarians. So we're now to
Speaker 1: put people into the streets. We're going to UM, We're
Speaker 1: going to tell everybody that you have in fact stolen
Speaker 1: the vote. And the other thing is we're going to
Speaker 1: showcase police brutality. So this is exactly the playbook that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are U have undertaken over the last over
Speaker 1: the last year. Really M Whether or not it's going
Speaker 1: to work, I'm not sure. I happen to think that
Speaker 1: they're overplaying their hand right now. UM. I think that
Speaker 1: as Trump is gaining in the polls, it is a
Speaker 1: reaction to um, the the the riots, the inability of
Speaker 1: Democrats to um uh, you know, to to rain in
Speaker 1: their most hardcore and and and violence supporters on one hand.
Speaker 1: On the other hand is really I mean, the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is the party of the radical left, and the
Speaker 1: people who want to tear down statutes, those people aren't
Speaker 1: voting Republican. And I just like we saw in the
Speaker 1: UK last year, when given a choice between patriots and
Speaker 1: anti patriots, Americans, just like the British chow will will,
Speaker 1: we'll choose, We'll choose the patriots. Um. And I also
Speaker 1: think that by then, after the election, no matter what happens,
Speaker 1: people will have you know, the patience of most Americans
Speaker 1: has um. I mean, nobody wants the riots anymore. Nobody
Speaker 1: wants the street action. Nobody is thrilled by you know,
Speaker 1: BLM protesters burning down cities. That's you know, whatever spasm
Speaker 1: of guilt that that that happened in America after the
Speaker 1: killing of George Floyd. And and you know, throughout the summer,
Speaker 1: all that has gone, All the sympathy is gone, and
Speaker 1: people no longer want to hear it. And and no
Speaker 1: matter how much the Democrats that's hate Trump, and how
Speaker 1: matter how much they're they're they're willing to burn the
Speaker 1: country to the ground if he wins again. I really
Speaker 1: don't think that the American people will will stand behind them.
Speaker 1: I think they've kind of lost the sympathy of most Americans.
Speaker 1: David Reeboy follow him on social media and look for
Speaker 1: his next magnum opus online. David, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining man. We appreciate it. It's my pleasure. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hut. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. To mask or not to mask? That
Speaker 1: is the question, is it not? Well, now we're told
Speaker 1: we have to mask. It's it's irresponsible not to. Okay,
Speaker 1: when who, for how long? Under what circumstances? All of
Speaker 1: that stuff. Okay, well, let's take a step let's take
Speaker 1: a step back for a minute. S let's take a
Speaker 1: step back. You might be able to convince me that
Speaker 1: masking indoors when there's high risk people around. I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe it maybe it works pretty well fine, okay outside,
Speaker 1: still never see in any real evidence that it works.
Speaker 1: All right, But what about for a little tiny babies?
Speaker 1: Should we should we force masks on little I mean little,
Speaker 1: any bitty babies. You had a video though and viral
Speaker 1: yesterday and the U from the UK of a family
Speaker 1: I believe, a South South Asian family of British citizenship,
Speaker 1: and they were being hounded by police officers because they
Speaker 1: could not get their nineteen month old baby to mask
Speaker 1: up on a plane. Now let's let's let's play. Oh,
Speaker 1: and they result not only did they threaten the family
Speaker 1: and say sorry, these are the rules, but you have
Speaker 1: to get off the plane or else, you know, if
Speaker 1: you don't mask him. And I'm not sure if they
Speaker 1: threatened prison jail for them, but they definitely were you know,
Speaker 1: you do this or it was an orl situation. Mask up.
Speaker 1: You're nineteen you're nineteen month old. I don't know that
Speaker 1: much about kids because I don't have any, but I
Speaker 1: know when you're nineteen months you're like a little you know,
Speaker 1: a little squishy thing that wears a onesie. Right, you're
Speaker 1: a tiny, tiny kid. I don't think you walk or anything.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know how old nineteen months
Speaker 1: olds are, but that's little and kind of sound like
Speaker 1: one of these like the old uncle Bachelor who's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, a kid just nineteen months he's you know,
Speaker 1: he's probably old enough to drive, right. I don't know anything,
Speaker 1: but when you're nineteen months old, I know it's tough
Speaker 1: to get you to wear a mask. I also know
Speaker 1: that you're basically no risk by the science whatsoever to
Speaker 1: transmit COVID to anybody. And if you get COVID, you're
Speaker 1: also at effectively zero risk, effective zero risk. Right, Okay,
Speaker 1: and now we get to what happened. They shut down
Speaker 1: the whole flight. They told everybody off the plane, the
Speaker 1: nineteen month old baby is not masking up. And I say, okay,
Speaker 1: let's take this apart from a minutecause I just flew
Speaker 1: a few times. I was on four flights in the
Speaker 1: last week, so I know the deal. I know the
Speaker 1: process that brings me to this. Explain to me, Please
Speaker 1: explain to me why it is that you have to
Speaker 1: have a nineteen month old baby masked up. But you
Speaker 1: can sit there as many people do with a Coca
Speaker 1: Cola in your hand and your mask pulled down for
Speaker 1: as long as you feel like and that's fine. Think
Speaker 1: about what these rules are really telling you. And I
Speaker 1: know people are sick of a mask talking everything else?
Speaker 1: Well okay? Or are we sick of stupid tyrants running
Speaker 1: our lives and sometimes ruining them? Because I'm sick of
Speaker 1: that mask up? Or else? Put a mask on your baby.
Speaker 1: If you don't put a mask on your baby, you're
Speaker 1: a bad person. There's somebody who cannot be trusted. You
Speaker 1: have to be kicked off the plane. Well, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I refuse to see the absurdity here and not take action.
Speaker 1: I refuse to see the situation and not call it out.
Speaker 1: The fellow named Yunan Weiss who has a thread on
Speaker 1: Twitter that I wanted to share with you about masks,
Speaker 1: and he just he's just presenting evidence because people might say, book,
Speaker 1: why do you? I try to be very fact and
Speaker 1: evidence based and all of my observations and conclusions, and
Speaker 1: I like to present you with why I think the
Speaker 1: way I do, which where I'm a skeptic that masks
Speaker 1: are worth the trade off. I am. I'm skeptical that
Speaker 1: they're worth. I'm not saying they do nothing, but I'm skeptical.
Speaker 1: And science as it actually was practiced in studies until
Speaker 1: about four months ago would have agreed with me in
Speaker 1: that position. But okay, here's what now, it's all changed.
Speaker 1: Now you're you're a troglodyte if you don't, if you
Speaker 1: don't agree with the newly formed consensus on this. Here's
Speaker 1: Yann Weiss's Twitter thread in science Observations drive conclusion in politics,
Speaker 1: conclusions drive observations a threat about masks. This is not
Speaker 1: advice not to wear a mask. It is simply sharing information.
Speaker 1: Share it before Twitter censors it. Okay, he says, the
Speaker 1: politics of masks. There's this matrix he shared, and it
Speaker 1: has masks required cases up. It worked, We told you so.
Speaker 1: New York, Texas. I'm sorry cases down rather mask required
Speaker 1: cases up. It worked. It would have been much worse
Speaker 1: without masks, Hawaii and Illinois. He sites here, masks not
Speaker 1: required cases down, Georgia, Sweden. Ignore this. This is all
Speaker 1: the politics of masks and masks not required cases up.
Speaker 1: That's what happens with no masks, of course, all right,
Speaker 1: that's what we're all supposed to believe and that's what's
Speaker 1: really happened here. So Yanan goes on to say, nobody
Speaker 1: wants unnecessary debts. Wearing a face covering isn't that hard
Speaker 1: to do, So what's the big deal? Why are we
Speaker 1: so or divided? Yan Weiss goes on, for one, it's
Speaker 1: hard to know who to trust. Many officials wear masks
Speaker 1: when they think the cameras are on them, but then
Speaker 1: take them off when they think the cameras are off.
Speaker 1: Doctor Fauci has been caught doing this multiple times. Chicago's
Speaker 1: mayor and the media were all caught taking off their
Speaker 1: masks and violating social distancing as soon as their press
Speaker 1: conference ended and they thought that cameras were off. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've seen other people do this in the White House
Speaker 1: press s coops keeps happening. Some politicians and health officials
Speaker 1: are so desperate to make people believe in masks that
Speaker 1: they doctor up charts to make their case, even when
Speaker 1: their own data actually undermines them. It's no wonder people
Speaker 1: lose trust in some health officials. And he notes that
Speaker 1: Kansas Democrats put forward a COVID chart that was just false.
Speaker 1: Just the state health secretary juced the numbers to make
Speaker 1: the governor's mask mandate look successful. So they're lying to you,
Speaker 1: and you should always be concerned when public officials are
Speaker 1: lying to you. So what is the actual science you
Speaker 1: known rights behind masks. Let's look at some of the
Speaker 1: hard research and perhaps Twitter won't censor me for sharing
Speaker 1: scientific studies. The Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford
Speaker 1: summarize six international studies which show that masks alone have
Speaker 1: no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or
Speaker 1: influence wenza in the general population nor in healthcare workers.
Speaker 1: Very large study out of a super fringe place called
Speaker 1: Oxford University, Okay. Oxford went on to say that despite
Speaker 1: two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as
Speaker 1: to the value of wearing masks, wearying that this has
Speaker 1: left the field wide open for the play of opinions,
Speaker 1: radical views, and political influence. A study of healthcare workers
Speaker 1: in over sixteen hundred hospitals showed that cloth masks only
Speaker 1: filtered out three percent of particles. An article in the
Speaker 1: New England Journal of Medicine stated wearing a mask outside
Speaker 1: healthcare facilities offers little, if any protection from infection, and
Speaker 1: the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to
Speaker 1: anxiety over a pandemic. And then he lists from Cambridge
Speaker 1: UH and in the National the NCBI, the National Institute
Speaker 1: of Health, all studies saying the same thing. Studies do
Speaker 1: show masks and can help in the case of direct
Speaker 1: respiratory droplets, which would matter if somebody's coughing, breathing or
Speaker 1: sneezing directly on you in a confined space, but do
Speaker 1: not help an aerosols. Gee that's the end quote there,
Speaker 1: But gee you don't say thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Team Bugging,
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Roll call everyone, everybody, Roll call.
Speaker 1: Let's get it, crack lack it. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us to this point in the show. Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck Sex and Team buck at iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: dot com. If you want to email and remember and
Speaker 1: go on Spotify, you can go on the iHeartRadio app
Speaker 1: and the Apple podcast You can always download the show
Speaker 1: watch I'll listen to it and please do so. So
Speaker 1: with that, now let's get to what we got in
Speaker 1: the row. Call Joseph, Hey, buck, I've listened to you
Speaker 1: since twenty fifteen. Wow, and must say congratulations on your
Speaker 1: success thus far in your career informing citizens like me
Speaker 1: with facts and nuance. And I've certainly learned more from
Speaker 1: you than from my public school education. This message is
Speaker 1: mainly due to your horrible experience with the barbecue you've
Speaker 1: recently had. In North Carolina. You're gonna be hard pressed
Speaker 1: to find good barbecue at all at any large restaurant.
Speaker 1: But we'll find delicious vinegar and pepper based barbecue at
Speaker 1: one of our many hog cookings around the state, where
Speaker 1: the real homegrown natives cook for pride, not money, and
Speaker 1: they know their pork will be judged harshly. Joseph sounds great. Man,
Speaker 1: invite me to a hog cooking at some point. That
Speaker 1: sounds sounds like there's delicious. I mean pork. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I like beef so much because of steak and burgers,
Speaker 1: but pork is definitely my second favorite meat, and it
Speaker 1: might even be my favorite meat because it's so versatile.
Speaker 1: There's so many different things you get from pork. Bacon,
Speaker 1: pork chops, pulled pork, pork and beans. I don't know,
Speaker 1: you could have stopped it. Bacon, Yeah, I know that.
Speaker 1: You know, pork. Maybe if I could only have one
Speaker 1: meat for the rest of my life, is it? Producer Mark?
Speaker 1: Do you go with beef and do you go with pork?
Speaker 1: Out of those two? Probably pork. But I mean, chicken's
Speaker 1: got to be in the mix there somewhere too, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, chicken is like the is like the vanilla
Speaker 1: ice cream of meats. It's always good, and it's useful
Speaker 1: for a lot of things. But do you really get
Speaker 1: that excited about it? That's a good point, I'll give
Speaker 1: you that. But it's the most versatile meat, is most
Speaker 1: verse at all. Yeah, if the one I eat the most,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you know it's probably the healthiest. Yeah. Man,
Speaker 1: I'm getting hungry just thinking about it. Let me make
Speaker 1: myself a burger as burger time. Kyle Buck, you brought
Speaker 1: up the peaceful ninety three percent? How about this comparison
Speaker 1: by asking a simple question, which has the higher percentage
Speaker 1: of wrongful violence? BLM protests or police interactions with unarmed
Speaker 1: black men. I have to wonder if the body count
Speaker 1: from the former actually outnumbers the latter. In twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: I bet my money that it does BLM protests or
Speaker 1: police interactions on arm back. Oh yeah, what's you're saying,
Speaker 1: Kyle that if you were to look, I mean, the
Speaker 1: number of police interactions across the country is in the
Speaker 1: millions every year. I think it might even stretch into
Speaker 1: the tens of millions of police interactions with civilians every
Speaker 1: year in this country. So it's like twenty you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know the actual number, but
Speaker 1: it would be you know, twenty or thirty million a
Speaker 1: year interactions with cops, and it may even be higher
Speaker 1: than that. And you have certainly less than a hundred,
Speaker 1: usually less than fifty, and as low as about a
Speaker 1: dozen unarmed black men killed by cops every year in America.
Speaker 1: I can't do the math on that up top by head,
Speaker 1: but it is very, very small. And as I've pointed
Speaker 1: out to you more, this is just a this is
Speaker 1: a a straight statistical analysis. There are more people killed
Speaker 1: by lightning in America every year than there are unarmed
Speaker 1: black men killed by police in America every year. And
Speaker 1: you know, we have that phrase, you know, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: struck by lightning, because it's like the most random occurrence,
Speaker 1: and what could you ever do? More people struck by
Speaker 1: lightning than unarmed black men killed by police. So I
Speaker 1: think that puts it into some context as to how
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean. If someone gets struck by lightning and dies,
Speaker 1: that's horrible, right. The family is shattered, and that's a
Speaker 1: terrible thing. If an unarmed black man gets killed by
Speaker 1: police and he wasn't attacking cops or doing something illegal,
Speaker 1: that's terrible and they should be punished the full extent
Speaker 1: of the law. But it's not indicative of our entire
Speaker 1: police system at all, not even close, and it's delusional
Speaker 1: to claim that it is. But that's the central premise
Speaker 1: of the BLM movement, absolutely central to it. Jammie, Hello,
Speaker 1: I am writing from Switzerland. I just wanted to say
Speaker 1: that I listen almost every day. I appreciate yours and
Speaker 1: producer Mark's hard work, along with anyone else working with
Speaker 1: you guys Shields High. Oh, and I love to Lula Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Jam Wait, it probably is, Jamie, right, yeah, Jamie, Yes, Jemmy,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put on my Jamie's and go to bed.
Speaker 1: Jam Sorry, Jamie, obviously obviously, Buck, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for writing in and yeah, I love to Lula two.
Speaker 1: She was looking very cute yesterday. I took some photos
Speaker 1: of her, which is why you should follow me on
Speaker 1: Instagram if you don't already. Yeah, yeah, all right, Erica.
Speaker 1: I had to laugh about your comments on the name Ethel.
Speaker 1: I run a dog boarding kennel and I have had
Speaker 1: an Ethel and a unis Leroy, Rufus and Otto as well.
Speaker 1: People love to use old fashion out of popularity names
Speaker 1: for their pets. I could see that. I could see
Speaker 1: that Otto is a cool name. You don't hear a
Speaker 1: lot of people named Otto. Otto's a cool name for
Speaker 1: a dog. I think it's a cool name. Otto von Bismarck.
Speaker 1: Come on, it's a cool name. Ethel Eunice Dolores. I
Speaker 1: feel like you never hear anyone named Dolores anymore, you know.
Speaker 1: I think there's a good reason for that, and there's
Speaker 1: an entire Seinfeld episode about it. Are you serious? I
Speaker 1: didn't know that, m really, I don't think I can
Speaker 1: explain why correctly on the air without getting an FCC violation. Esther,
Speaker 1: as producer Nick points out, another one that's a that's
Speaker 1: another name you don't hear a lot of these days.
Speaker 1: Let me think what else is in the mix for
Speaker 1: that one Archibald. I feel like you don't meet guys
Speaker 1: named Archibald anymore, or maybe you do because they're called
Speaker 1: Archie Archie name. Yeah, true, Well I'll have to see anyway, Erica,
Speaker 1: I'm sure the dog name Ethel is very very cute. Somebody,
Speaker 1: some famous person is named there's like a young celebrity
Speaker 1: kid I think named to Lula. Now someone named their
Speaker 1: kid to Lula. I forget who it is, but it's
Speaker 1: definitely a thing that happened out there. I thought you
Speaker 1: were going to say a fan of this show named
Speaker 1: there kid to Lula. It's a great name. There was
Speaker 1: to Lulah Bankhead, who was an actress, and that's why
Speaker 1: my parents got the name, I believe. So that's I
Speaker 1: wonder if there's gonna be any children bucks now, are
Speaker 1: you there should be? Just saying it's a great name,
Speaker 1: great name, very very masculine name. It is not not
Speaker 1: a lot of people named for a member of the
Speaker 1: animal kingdom. You know, you don't have a lot of that.
Speaker 1: You don't have a lot of people walking around named
Speaker 1: coyote or I guess there is wolf, So there's wolf.
Speaker 1: That's a name that people will have, but it's not
Speaker 1: short for a wolfgang or not always. There are other animals.
Speaker 1: You know, you can name your kid. Oh, Bruce Willis's daughter,
Speaker 1: producer and producer Nick says to Lula Willis, to Lula
Speaker 1: Bell Willis, cool name. Gotta say, cool name. All right,
Speaker 1: what do we have here next? Clifford? You asked today,
Speaker 1: where do we go? Tennessee? Baby, Clifford. I think if
Speaker 1: I were to go to Tennessee, it would be Williamson County.
Speaker 1: I think it's called just south of Nashville, very beautiful,
Speaker 1: very red, close enough to Nashville that you can go
Speaker 1: in for the shows and the food. But it's a
Speaker 1: rhetor area. So I think Williamson County sounds pretty nice
Speaker 1: to me. And Tennessee's a great I've only been in
Speaker 1: Nashville once. I love Tennessee. I thought it was a
Speaker 1: great state, really enjoyed it. Richard Buck, Happy Hoosier, hellos
Speaker 1: I hope you wrote a moose across a beaver dam
Speaker 1: while juggling hatchets to impress snow princess, because that's what
Speaker 1: people in Montana do, right, All kidding aside. I have
Speaker 1: a question for you. How many Steve Schmidts are there
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party today? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: But Steve Schmidt helped orchestrate the demise of the McCain campaign.
Speaker 1: He helps Sarah Palin go from a folksy conservative to
Speaker 1: an absolutely idiotic crazy woman. Then he was rewarded with
Speaker 1: that job at MSNBC. And it how is it that
Speaker 1: he gets to have a Northwest Northwestern totum in his
Speaker 1: living room Shields High. Well, Richard, you know a lot
Speaker 1: more about Steve Schmidt than I do. I certainly haven't
Speaker 1: seen this living room set up that he must have
Speaker 1: for his TV. It's how many stupid Republican consultants are there?
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer, but I know it's far
Speaker 1: too many. I know that there's no shortage of dumb
Speaker 1: asses taking money to pretend they know more about politics
Speaker 1: than they do. So there's that. I think we all
Speaker 1: have to remember that. I think that's important. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for right again. You're in the Freedom Hud.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast Team more roll
Speaker 1: Call coming your way now, Linda, Aloha, Buck Listen to
Speaker 1: the show today. Loved it as always want to let
Speaker 1: you know. Hawaii as a state is completely shut down
Speaker 1: again and Honolulu wants a thriving tourism hub is closed
Speaker 1: stay at home orders again. Articles are saying it could
Speaker 1: be ten years before it comes back. And just when
Speaker 1: things couldn't get any dumber, the Mayor Kirk called well said,
Speaker 1: now it's okay to go swimming and hiking by yourself,
Speaker 1: but not with anyone else in your household. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I didn't know that. That is one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: things I've ever heard. Swimming and hiking alone has never
Speaker 1: been a good idea. Earlier this summer they closed the
Speaker 1: beach but left restaurants and gym's open. Now it's all closed.
Speaker 1: Could go on and on with the backwardness of the state,
Speaker 1: but it would be pointless. Very sorry for all the
Speaker 1: military members and retirees there. Morale is way down as
Speaker 1: the military is suffering through these insane mandates as well.
Speaker 1: It's all self inflicted at this point. We should just
Speaker 1: open up, folks, open it all up, let people go
Speaker 1: back to living their lives. That's what should happen. I
Speaker 1: know there would be cases and bad things would happen,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna be cases, and bad things are gonna
Speaker 1: happen anyway. What are we doing? Protect the vulnerable, make precautions,
Speaker 1: put precautions in place, make the necessary arrangements for people
Speaker 1: who are at high risk. That would be a same
Speaker 1: response to all of this, That would be a reasonable
Speaker 1: approach to all of this. But that's certainly not what
Speaker 1: we're going to have, Stephen, great show. The White House
Speaker 1: Press Corps was particularly vicious and apoplectic. Today they smell
Speaker 1: blood in the political water with the Woodward Book. Cayley
Speaker 1: handled them with her usual a plumb and grace. She
Speaker 1: is so much smarter than them. Yes, Stephen Cayley is
Speaker 1: indeed much smarter than the members of the White House
Speaker 1: Press Corps. But there are many more of them than
Speaker 1: there are her, So that's always a challenge. That's always
Speaker 1: a difficult, a difficult situation. And indeed, let's see what
Speaker 1: we got here. We have some more coming in this
Speaker 1: via Instagram. Via Instagram, we have franc who writes Buenos
Speaker 1: Dias from sunny South Florida, bucking producer Mark Trump is
Speaker 1: winning the Latino vote down here, bank on it. Trump
Speaker 1: flags are everywhere, No Way, Cubans and Venezuelans are voting
Speaker 1: for socialism. No Way shields high Frank, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for riding in. That would be great. If Trump
Speaker 1: wins the Latino vote in Florida, that would be such
Speaker 1: a beautiful repudiation of the Democrats disgusting tactics and all
Speaker 1: of this. Producer marthe d Town is Naples where you're
Speaker 1: gonna go in Florida when you move down there? Is
Speaker 1: that the move? What's the move? I think more south
Speaker 1: maybe like the Delray Beach general area for Lauderdale. Delray Beach,
Speaker 1: Delray Beach sunnice like it so much. Is West Palm nice?
Speaker 1: That's kind of in the same area. Yeah, West Palm
Speaker 1: for Lauderdale of the general same general area. I know,
Speaker 1: Palm Beach is very nice. But unless you've been stealing
Speaker 1: a cartel drug lord and stashing away cash for years,
Speaker 1: the beach front real estate there, Producer Mark is pretty expensive. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe you're thinking of Boca. That's the very expensive area. Well,
Speaker 1: Palm Beach is very well, Palm Beach County in general. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: Palm Beach is very expensive. Boca is very expensive. That
Speaker 1: sounds nice. Jupiter is supposed to be very nice too.
Speaker 1: I love watching these shows that have the rest of
Speaker 1: the country where people buy the house. They're like, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: like Timmy and Sally need to buy a house. They've
Speaker 1: got a budget of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, eh TV. When I used to have cable
Speaker 1: at the time, I love it. I love watching those shows.
Speaker 1: And there was a house I still remember. There was
Speaker 1: a house that somebody bought in Richmond. I mean it
Speaker 1: was pretty pricey. It was like a four hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars house. I think maybe three fifty, but it was
Speaker 1: an old colonial on land close to downtown. And I
Speaker 1: was just like, this is amazing. You can't even buy
Speaker 1: a studio apartment in Manhattan for three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars one room. Can't even do it. Yeah, you'll
Speaker 1: basically get a closet for that much money. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: if you go to Richmond, oh, get the most. Anywhere else,
Speaker 1: get a beautiful palace. I know when I was in
Speaker 1: North Carolina, the folks there where I was saying, if
Speaker 1: I moved in North Carolina, what would be the They
Speaker 1: kept saying, Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina. Say it's on the beach.
Speaker 1: Beautiful town, great weather, great people. You know. Uh. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's son, Eric's wife is actually from there, and she's
Speaker 1: she's there. She's the proud daughter of the city of Wilmington,
Speaker 1: North Carolina. Not to be confused with Wilmington, Delaware, because
Speaker 1: then you're in Delaware, which is not quite as exciting.
Speaker 1: Although the Delaware beaches are kind of a hidden gem
Speaker 1: on the East coast. They're very nice. People who don't
Speaker 1: know don't know, But those Delaware beaches are actually the
Speaker 1: actual beach. Put aside the whether you like the specific
Speaker 1: town or not, the beach is quite lovely. I've heard
Speaker 1: good things about like Rhobeth Beach gets called or a
Speaker 1: hope of its beautiful. I don't beautiful beach, Yeah for sure.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Frank, I hope you're right, and I hope
Speaker 1: that Trump does win the Latino vote, because oh, it
Speaker 1: would be amazing just to watch the Libs heads explode.
Speaker 1: So Fernando rights, what's up, Brosiff. So doctor Fauci wants
Speaker 1: us to know that folks tend to be stupid and
Speaker 1: careless over the holidays, So mind the mitigation. That's right,
Speaker 1: you gotta mind a mitigation. You gotta do what everything
Speaker 1: you can. You gotta make sure that you're doing enough mitigating,
Speaker 1: You're doing enough of all the of all the mitigation things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: keeping a mitigation stuff like that. Unless you're gonna be
Speaker 1: on the cover of a magazine, then you know you
Speaker 1: gotta do what you gotta do. Gotta mind mitigation. All right, everybody,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be the show for today. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us, for writing in, for hanging out.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. As always, please do pass the buck
Speaker 1: and if you can get us to the younger generation,
Speaker 1: in particular, if you've got kids that are teenagers, are older,
Speaker 1: tell them to check out this guy Buck Sexton. We
Speaker 1: can't just have everybody listening to, you know, random comedian podcast.
Speaker 1: We need some substance like here, all right, everybody shields
Speaker 1: I