Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. I thought we were supposed
Speaker 1: to be unified. I thought they were going to bring
Speaker 1: us all together, that we were entering a new phase
Speaker 1: in the history of the country, or at least in
Speaker 1: the recent history, where we were all supposed to be
Speaker 1: buddies united, coming together in this new, technocratic, competent, calm
Speaker 1: Biden administration. Right, that was the promise. And now what
Speaker 1: you're already seeing is that the Biden people aren't as
Speaker 1: smart as they told you they would be, don't give
Speaker 1: a crap about unity, and are actually ideologues driven by
Speaker 1: their desire to play kate the fringe interests that have
Speaker 1: so much control within the Democrat Party, whether it's on
Speaker 1: identity politics, environmental issues, social justice, all these things. It's
Speaker 1: not the presidency they said we'd get. But if you
Speaker 1: knew that was the case, it was always a lie.
Speaker 1: It was always meant to convince medium to low information
Speaker 1: suburban voters in some key states. You'll just have a
Speaker 1: return to normalcy, that's what they said, a return to normalcy. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that's not what we're getting. What we're
Speaker 1: getting is the return of the Obama administration. That's what's
Speaker 1: really happening here. That's the reality of what has now
Speaker 1: taken power. And you see this with every decision being
Speaker 1: made so far, and also all the people who are
Speaker 1: in charge, the people that are making the decisions right now,
Speaker 1: who are making the calls about everything that's happening, are
Speaker 1: very similar in some cases the same as those who
Speaker 1: were doing it during the Obama years. You remember the
Speaker 1: Obama years. Was there a lot of national healing? Did
Speaker 1: it really bring us all together? There were race riots
Speaker 1: during the Obama Obama presidency, as you remember the BLM
Speaker 1: protests started. Then, there were there was economic malaise at best,
Speaker 1: the slowest recovery out of a recession since the Great Depression.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of unnecessary government regulation and harassment
Speaker 1: of people in their day to day lives. There was
Speaker 1: oppression of religious freedom, there was suppression of free speech.
Speaker 1: You're getting all that just coming back under a different name,
Speaker 1: but the same idea. And this is why I think
Speaker 1: it's so interesting that they want to continue to fixate
Speaker 1: on the Trump presidency, because I think that They never
Speaker 1: really thought beyond what happens when there's no longer the
Speaker 1: Trump boogeyman for everyone to be terrified of what happens
Speaker 1: at that phase, at that point when you can't just well,
Speaker 1: they're not letting it go. That's why you have this
Speaker 1: impeachment that they're going to do after a Trump presidency
Speaker 1: has already ended. Joe Biden I was gonna say, for
Speaker 1: better or for worse, it's for worse is now the
Speaker 1: president United States. This is an absurd spectacle. We all
Speaker 1: understand this. I mean, you could have replaced Joe Biden
Speaker 1: with forty other sub mediocre Democrat politicians. It'd be basically
Speaker 1: the same thing, just anybody. But Trump was what they
Speaker 1: ran with and that's what they were able to pull off.
Speaker 1: And now we see what they're really going to be doing,
Speaker 1: and now we see what the actual decision making will
Speaker 1: be like. And that's why with this impeachment situation, they're
Speaker 1: they're making it clear for everybody who's watching exactly what's
Speaker 1: going on. You can see it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 1: They're keeping thousands and thousands of National Guard soldiers in
Speaker 1: DC for the entirety of the impeachment Democrats to actually
Speaker 1: get Trump convicted would need seventeen Republicans to go along
Speaker 1: with this. But I think the even more important, the
Speaker 1: even more important situation here is that there's a for me,
Speaker 1: a clear there's there's a clear decision that has been
Speaker 1: made that they want all these troops in DC because
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe that there's still a threat of
Speaker 1: a coup. They want everyone terrified, they want everyone worried
Speaker 1: about the possibility of you know, the Trump supporters storming
Speaker 1: the gates and stopping the Senate impeachment trial or whatever.
Speaker 1: This is hysteria, but it's important for their power grab.
Speaker 1: Or if you look throughout history, whenever there are authoritarians,
Speaker 1: whenever there are people that are taking more power than
Speaker 1: they are legally, constitutionally or otherwise supposed to be granted
Speaker 1: in government, whatever that happens, they have an excuse, They
Speaker 1: have some rational it's always the other guys, we're going
Speaker 1: to do this first, or if we didn't do this,
Speaker 1: you know, this terrible thing was going to happen. They
Speaker 1: don't just say, yeah, we're we're despots. We're seizing all
Speaker 1: authority and power into our hand because we like it.
Speaker 1: Because we think we're better than you because we think
Speaker 1: we know better than you, and you're not allowed to complain.
Speaker 1: That's not the pitch. That's not the way they justify
Speaker 1: their actions, even when that's exactly what they're doing. So here,
Speaker 1: what they've decided to do is that they take it
Speaker 1: upon themselves to be the people ordering thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of National Guard to be deployed all throughout DC because
Speaker 1: of the threat of Trump supporters. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this is absurd. We're really supposed to think that that
Speaker 1: Trump supporters are going to do? What will they protest
Speaker 1: in DC? Abe? But a are we to think that
Speaker 1: they're gonna violently try to overthrow the Senate or do
Speaker 1: something along those lines. I know what they would say.
Speaker 1: I know the Democrat response would be, they tried it
Speaker 1: that one time, on that one day. All right. It
Speaker 1: was a disaster. It wasn't a coup. It was a riot.
Speaker 1: And anybody who has any sense at all understands that
Speaker 1: it was the worst possible thing from a purely political standpoint.
Speaker 1: It was the worst possible thing that a Trump supporter
Speaker 1: could have done on that day at that time. It
Speaker 1: played right, It played right into the Democrats hands put
Speaker 1: aside the illegality and immorality of it for a moment.
Speaker 1: It played right into the Democrats hands. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: believe it, that's gonna happen again. No, but they want
Speaker 1: thousands and thousands of troops deployed so that this can
Speaker 1: be the way that the hysterical Democrats, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the Trump supporters can continue to play this game while
Speaker 1: they show everybody while during this transition period, not the
Speaker 1: official presidential transition that's already happened, but this change into
Speaker 1: the new regime. We don't really pay attention to what
Speaker 1: Biden's doing. We don't pay attention to the actions he's
Speaker 1: taking because the media will just be focused on one,
Speaker 1: how amazing Biden. Do you know that his son went
Speaker 1: bagel shopping with him on Sunday after going to church.
Speaker 1: It's disgusting, the throne shining, the foot rubbing, the Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's so amazing. Stuff you're seeing from the media
Speaker 1: is there. They're an embarrassment, but this is their business model,
Speaker 1: telling Democrats, telling the brainwashed left, how incredible this this
Speaker 1: clown Joe Biden is. I mean, really, we're all supposed
Speaker 1: to think that he's some great leaders, some great mind.
Speaker 1: Nobody believes that, but they're all acting like it's true.
Speaker 1: This is the emperor having no clothes on, except the
Speaker 1: emperor is almost eighty years old, and you do worry
Speaker 1: that he actually doesn't remember where pants. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: where we are with this situation. But oh, we need
Speaker 1: thousands of National Guard deployed. And they're even asking, they're
Speaker 1: raising the question themselves, why are we on the streets
Speaker 1: of DC exactly? What are we doing here? What's the mission?
Speaker 1: What's the real threat? You know what the threat is.
Speaker 1: They're gonna tell you. They're gonna tell you that it's
Speaker 1: Trump voters trying to overthrow the Senator, some crazy nonsense
Speaker 1: like that. But the real problem is that they don't
Speaker 1: know how to keep their rage filled base happy without
Speaker 1: Donald Trump as the ultimate political pinata. And they also
Speaker 1: don't want people to start to see that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is really an incompetent and that the people running this
Speaker 1: administration are the Democrat members of the establishment and the
Speaker 1: apparatus the left in general, who have decided what the
Speaker 1: policies will be, what the decision making will be. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is just the vessel otherwise. Explain why he's getting
Speaker 1: rid of the Keystone XL pipeline. Explain why he thinks
Speaker 1: men should be able to compete in women's sports, biological
Speaker 1: males competing against biological females. Look at the whole list
Speaker 1: of executive orders. It was all divisive and bad policy.
Speaker 1: These were objectively bad decisions for the country. But it's
Speaker 1: what the left demands. You're gonna see a whole lot
Speaker 1: more of it. They didn't. They didn't wait very long,
Speaker 1: did they. They didn't wait at all. Because this is
Speaker 1: the presidency we're dealing with. They can tell you as
Speaker 1: much as they want about how there's other plans and
Speaker 1: other things, and just wait one day, we'll get there.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, it's the continuation of the three
Speaker 1: ring circus around Donald Trump, and oh my gosh, the
Speaker 1: Republic will fall unless we have thousands and thousands of
Speaker 1: soldiers deployed to stop those big, bad, mean Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: all seventy five million of them. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show podcast. Follow Buck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
Speaker 1: What's the number one change of notice between from President
Speaker 1: Biden to President Biden from President Trump. It was very clear, George,
Speaker 1: and it was articulated multiple times. The President has said
Speaker 1: it publicly, but in a private session just sitting down
Speaker 1: with him and with the medical team, he's very serious.
Speaker 1: He says science is going to rule. We're gonna go
Speaker 1: by the facts. We're gonna go by the evidence. We're
Speaker 1: gonna go by the data. If something is wrong, like
Speaker 1: I just said, we're gonna just try and fix it,
Speaker 1: then we're gonna pull out all the stops to get
Speaker 1: our arms around this. Getting the vaccine situation on track
Speaker 1: is his highest priority. So I mean the idea that
Speaker 1: the president himself sits down with you and says, I
Speaker 1: want science to rule. Go out there and do everything
Speaker 1: we need to do to get it done. Just as
Speaker 1: really very refreshing. Science will rule is a terrifying slogan
Speaker 1: for anybody who knows history to hear science will rule.
Speaker 1: I thought we the people rule through our elected representatives.
Speaker 1: But now now all of a sudden, there's some high
Speaker 1: priesthood of the hashtag science variety that's going to be
Speaker 1: making really important policy decisions for us. You know who
Speaker 1: also thinks that science will rule? This is true Marxists.
Speaker 1: They always believe that all the social sciences, which aren't
Speaker 1: really science, as you know, but that there was a
Speaker 1: fact and evidence based way to order a society that
Speaker 1: was irrefutable and must be true, is always true, even
Speaker 1: when the results suck. That science is all you need,
Speaker 1: you see, to reorder humankind so that we can all
Speaker 1: have everything we need. And this is a fundamental tenet
Speaker 1: of Marxism is to treat it as though they're running
Speaker 1: a lab experiment on how to grow the fastest petunias,
Speaker 1: except we're talking about human beings. We're talking about the
Speaker 1: complexities and the moral questions that face the human race.
Speaker 1: But the Marxists believe that with science, that's all you need,
Speaker 1: and their science was really a pseudoscience of Marxism. That's
Speaker 1: the whole point, you see. It's the answer to everything.
Speaker 1: This is why it really is all a religious belief,
Speaker 1: you see. And Fauci is going to be for anybody
Speaker 1: who's watching and being honest about this, is going to
Speaker 1: be proven to be essentially a giant fraud in this
Speaker 1: whole process. He's been wrong. He's been wrong numerous times.
Speaker 1: Here's a fact for you, Doctor Fauci lied to the
Speaker 1: American people about masks by his own admission, because he
Speaker 1: thought that that was a better thing for us to
Speaker 1: go through when he said don't wear masks and then said, oh,
Speaker 1: it's because I thought we'd run out of masks, Okay,
Speaker 1: so he lied. This guy's a liar. This is the
Speaker 1: whole the Truth and Science administration. This guy deceived the
Speaker 1: American public. But really the truth is that he didn't
Speaker 1: deceive the American public the way he said. It's that
Speaker 1: all of science, until about five minutes ago, thought that
Speaker 1: wearing a mask and a pandemic like this wasn't going
Speaker 1: to have the kind of beneficial result. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: no benefit, but wouldn't have the kind of beneficial results
Speaker 1: we keep being led to believe mask mandates will because
Speaker 1: it's become part of the religion. Now, that's not to
Speaker 1: say there's no truth to it. That's not to say
Speaker 1: that I'm telling you that they don't work at all
Speaker 1: or no. N ninety five masks and a clinical setting
Speaker 1: absolutely help with respiratory infections a disease, no question, and
Speaker 1: in some situations maybe a cloth mask would also have
Speaker 1: not the same benefit, but some benefit, but as a
Speaker 1: means of stopping the pandemic. Has it worked? Look around you.
Speaker 1: I'm in mask central here in New York City. Has
Speaker 1: it stopped the virus? Has it stopped the pandemic or
Speaker 1: even come close to it? No, we're setting all time records,
Speaker 1: but we didn't do it enough. That's why you're seeing.
Speaker 1: You can find them yourself to two or three articles
Speaker 1: now coming out last last week from the New York
Speaker 1: Times alone time a double mask, gotta I'm not making
Speaker 1: this up. Got a double mask. Well, you can see
Speaker 1: if you go back on my Twitter account, just to
Speaker 1: give you a sense. Somehow I can tell what's coming.
Speaker 1: Somehow I know what's going to happen here. But you
Speaker 1: go back in my Twitter account and you see that
Speaker 1: I said on December tenth. Here we are now. It
Speaker 1: is January twenty fifth, I tweeted on December tenth. Sometime
Speaker 1: in about mid January, when cases are still very high,
Speaker 1: despite all the painful lockdown insanity, there will be an
Speaker 1: n ninety five. Masks are actually far more effective. We
Speaker 1: should have advocated for those all along. Moment of recognition
Speaker 1: from the experts. Well, I shared yesterday a story from
Speaker 1: from CNN that says that Germany has mandated only medical
Speaker 1: grade masks. Why, because those homemade cloth masks that are
Speaker 1: so effective at blocking COVID, they're like, well, actually they
Speaker 1: don't look like they're that effective. And one large German state, Bavaria,
Speaker 1: has mandated N ninety five masks only. So now it's
Speaker 1: if you're not wearing an N ninety five mask, you
Speaker 1: can't even get on mass transit. You can't go into
Speaker 1: public places, not even one of those medical grade you know,
Speaker 1: two ply fabric masks gotta be N ninety five. Why
Speaker 1: did I know this was going to happen. I'm not
Speaker 1: a doctor, I'm not a Blue check MD. I'm not
Speaker 1: one of these these pandemic epidemiologists they keep putting on
Speaker 1: CNN every five minutes. Why did I know this was
Speaker 1: going to happen? Because I know what the arguments are here,
Speaker 1: and I know that they keep on being wrong and
Speaker 1: ignoring it and saying, shut up, wear your mask. It's
Speaker 1: gonna save us. Okay, hasn't saved us yet, has it?
Speaker 1: So what do they do? They change the argument, and
Speaker 1: then if you question them, you're the problem. Doctor Fauci
Speaker 1: was the beginning of this. He said, don't wear the mask,
Speaker 1: and then people said, Hold on a second. You know
Speaker 1: you now say wear them, and he says, well, I
Speaker 1: had to lie to you for your own good. An
Speaker 1: administration is that is ruled by science. That's what he said,
Speaker 1: ruled by science. You don't think that Fauci's a power
Speaker 1: mad little maniac. Now you know. He's the highest paid
Speaker 1: employee in the federal government, makes more than a four
Speaker 1: star general, makes more than the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: He's making over four hundred thousand dollars a year. It's
Speaker 1: a great gig to have, basically unfireable. He's been sitting
Speaker 1: there for decades. It's going to lots of meetings making
Speaker 1: bad policy decisions under the guise of the rule of science.
Speaker 1: The CDC with this whole thing, has been a disaster,
Speaker 1: a disaster, and it's because it's a decades long, decades
Speaker 1: long in the making, federal bureaucratic screw up, because there's
Speaker 1: no accountability, because you don't want government in charge of
Speaker 1: things because they don't do a good job. But oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, we'll be ruled by science, he says, as
Speaker 1: if that's all that's all that has to be said.
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, we're supposed to just be quiet
Speaker 1: and listen. Do as you're told. Oh, okay, we'll get
Speaker 1: into Gavin Newsom all of a sudden is going to
Speaker 1: open up California. Are the cases so different? There? Is
Speaker 1: it such a different situation? And if we're going to
Speaker 1: be ruled by the science, explain to me the science
Speaker 1: of not allowing the Keystone XL pipeline, which Biden just
Speaker 1: shot down. The whole project is now scrapped by executive
Speaker 1: FIAT not allowing the Keystone XEL pipeline when the State
Speaker 1: Department's analysis under the Obama administration was that blocking Keystone
Speaker 1: would increase CO two emissions. That's right, increase by blocking.
Speaker 1: But they're doing it anyway, ruled by science. They say, sure,
Speaker 1: you're in the freedom hunt. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Buckston Show podcast to get the latest from Buck at
Speaker 1: buck Sexton dot com. Well, I mean, obviously it was
Speaker 1: it was not an easy situation. I always did speak
Speaker 1: based on the data and the science, but obviously there
Speaker 1: was pressure about messaging that. And you know, I have
Speaker 1: I took no pleasure in having to sometimes publicly, even
Speaker 1: with the President there, to contradict what he was saying.
Speaker 1: But I felt as a scientist. I had to be
Speaker 1: true to myself and true to the science to make
Speaker 1: sure that where there were things that I thought might
Speaker 1: be misinformation, that I would have to correct that. And
Speaker 1: there were a number of instances of that. That is
Speaker 1: not a comfortable situation, you know. It also was in
Speaker 1: a comfortable situation for doctor Fauci is being in the
Speaker 1: position that you're supposed to have been preparing for your
Speaker 1: whole life and just being a disaster, having no real plan,
Speaker 1: no answers, just being a political megaphone of fear. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm hearing people now who say, yes, buck, you know what,
Speaker 1: This is what democrats will tell you. Sure, some of
Speaker 1: the pandemic theater that we go through is idiotic. Sure,
Speaker 1: some of the things that we're being told to do
Speaker 1: make no sense, won't change anything, and it's absurd. But
Speaker 1: it's about conditioning the public to respond to health commands
Speaker 1: like this. Oh so it's Pavlovian. It's like we're all
Speaker 1: a bunch of dogs getting our treat from the government.
Speaker 1: Maybe we get patted on the head afterwards. This is
Speaker 1: what democrats who are being honest will openly tell you. Now, well,
Speaker 1: it's really sure, Maybe what you're doing makes no sense.
Speaker 1: But if everybody does something nonsensical about COVID, then there
Speaker 1: might be some benefit that comes from it. That's worth
Speaker 1: all the nonsense. For you. Tell that to the people
Speaker 1: who have lost their jobs, you know, Tell that to
Speaker 1: the people who are losing family members to severe depression
Speaker 1: and to suicide, to the kids who are losing developmental
Speaker 1: time in school that will never be able to get
Speaker 1: back all the costs that we're willing to take on apparently,
Speaker 1: or are we, because now all of a sudden, some
Speaker 1: Blue states are saying, you know what, we might have
Speaker 1: to reopen soon. Oh we'll get into that in a moment,
Speaker 1: because I first want to start with the ruled by
Speaker 1: science bullcrap here when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Speaker 1: Just as a quick review, the enviral wackos have decided
Speaker 1: this is this is gonna be like Waterloo for the
Speaker 1: fossil fuel industry. They think this is the single most
Speaker 1: important battle they can wage. And they're all celebrating now,
Speaker 1: and they got you know, Native American groups in on this,
Speaker 1: and all all the left wing virtue signaling nonsense piled
Speaker 1: together here to stop the Keystone XCEL pipeline. By way
Speaker 1: of quick review, the Keystone Xcel pipeline would take the
Speaker 1: oil sands from the from the from Canada, from Alberta
Speaker 1: and take them all the way down to the US
Speaker 1: Gulf Coast. That's what that's the whole thing, right, And
Speaker 1: it's a pipeline. And the truth is that this would
Speaker 1: have just been a very efficient way because we refine
Speaker 1: it so we would have a refinery agreement with them,
Speaker 1: and then we'd be able to distribute it to the
Speaker 1: whole world. This would be a very effective and efficient
Speaker 1: way to get the oil to market. And despite the
Speaker 1: Left's best intentions otherwise, we have become America has become
Speaker 1: because of fracking, an energy a true energy superpower. We're
Speaker 1: really the world's global preeminent energy superpower. You don't hear
Speaker 1: about that because about half the country Democrats are so
Speaker 1: brainwashed that they think that's not something to be proud of.
Speaker 1: It absolutely is. It's the reason we have so much productivity.
Speaker 1: The fossil fuel industry is used in the creation fifty
Speaker 1: percent of oil, for example, and fossil fuel is used
Speaker 1: for products and is used in the distribution of products,
Speaker 1: you know, distribution of things like vaccine, that's right. Want
Speaker 1: you want an effective vaccination distribution program, you need a
Speaker 1: lot of energy for logistics. You need a lot of
Speaker 1: energy in order to keep that temperature at negative whatever
Speaker 1: it is, a degree celsius so that the vaccine can
Speaker 1: stay viable. And you need money for all of this,
Speaker 1: and it becomes more expensive when oil and fossil fuels
Speaker 1: are more expensive. They are fighting the modern economy itself,
Speaker 1: which is an absurdity, and they pretend that they're doing
Speaker 1: in the name of science, which is laughable. Do you
Speaker 1: know what the net CO two benefit of blocking the
Speaker 1: Keystone XL pipeline. According to multiple full State Department reviews,
Speaker 1: Because it is an international deal, the State Department got
Speaker 1: to review it, including under the Obama administration, the net
Speaker 1: CO two change is either negligible to zero or negative,
Speaker 1: meaning that this oil is still going to come out
Speaker 1: of the ground. It's just going to be taken in
Speaker 1: tankers and trucks to market instead of with a pipeline,
Speaker 1: which is far more efficient and far more cost effective
Speaker 1: and also less likely eutherapy leakage and spills which affect
Speaker 1: the environment. The Keystone XL pipeline blockage is worse for
Speaker 1: everyone in every way. It is worse for the environment,
Speaker 1: It is worse for business, It is worse for you
Speaker 1: because of what it means for jobs, for the economy,
Speaker 1: and for energy costs. But Democrats are blocking it anyway.
Speaker 1: Why because they can, Because the envirol wackos have convinced
Speaker 1: themselves that this is a battle they have to win.
Speaker 1: They have to show that they have the power even
Speaker 1: when all science and reason are against them, even when
Speaker 1: there is no data to support their point of view.
Speaker 1: They have to find a situation like this where they
Speaker 1: can rally together and get the government to shut down
Speaker 1: something because they don't like it. Oil is ikey, fossil
Speaker 1: fuel bad. Shut it down. It's childish, it's destructive, it's stupid,
Speaker 1: and it's the first thing that Biden does day one
Speaker 1: in office, signs an executive order on this to stop
Speaker 1: the Keystone XIL pipeline. There's no good faith argument about
Speaker 1: why to shut this thing down compared to the alternatives,
Speaker 1: if it's really about the environment, unless you're gonna say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's because there would definitely be some kind of an
Speaker 1: oil disaster. They don't know that, and pipelines are far
Speaker 1: less likely to have spills and disasters than other forms
Speaker 1: of transport. Yeah, how many horrible oil pipeline disasters have
Speaker 1: you heard. You've heard of tankard disasters, right, transit point
Speaker 1: disasters when it involves vehicles. But how many pipeline disasters
Speaker 1: have you heard about in the United States recently? Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: But this was the left flexing the environmentalist left, and
Speaker 1: they're a religious group. You have to understand that the
Speaker 1: climate change activists, the anti pipeline activists, this is a
Speaker 1: religious group of people who think they're too smart for religion,
Speaker 1: and so for them, it's just all about the victory.
Speaker 1: It's all about enforcing their will on the rest of
Speaker 1: the American people and establishing that they have the power
Speaker 1: to do that, even if it just means that the
Speaker 1: outcomes are negative for everyone involved, which they are. This somehow,
Speaker 1: just like the BLM movement, which I said to you
Speaker 1: last summer, makes everything worse for everyone. There is no improvement.
Speaker 1: It makes nothing better for people, doesn't make things better
Speaker 1: for minorities, doesn't make things better for the police, doesn't
Speaker 1: make things better for just Americans. Blocking the Keystone XIL
Speaker 1: pipeline is the same thing for the left. But it
Speaker 1: shows you the mentality. This is just going to make
Speaker 1: energy costs higher. This is going to cost lots of jobs,
Speaker 1: and it won't even if you believe that CO two
Speaker 1: is going to melt the planet over time or whatever,
Speaker 1: if you're a climate change alarmist alarmist, this does not
Speaker 1: stop the oil sands of Alberta from producing fossil fuels
Speaker 1: that will make it to the global market. So it's
Speaker 1: the same either way. In fact that the distribution of
Speaker 1: that oil sand now will require more fossil fuel. Therefore
Speaker 1: there'll be more CO two in the air. But they're
Speaker 1: doing it anyway because they're fixated on it, because they
Speaker 1: want to wield power, because we said, we don't like it.
Speaker 1: She's the ruled by science people, right, we don't like it,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna stop. It doesn't make any sense. And
Speaker 1: it's not the do you think, doctor Fouch it's gonna say.
Speaker 1: You know, turns out if you look at the data
Speaker 1: and all the you know, and all the scientists that
Speaker 1: look at the Keystone XCEL and the CEO two, you know,
Speaker 1: if you look at it, No, he's not, of course,
Speaker 1: not for the same reason that Fauci won't say, open
Speaker 1: up all the schools for the same reason that Fauci
Speaker 1: won't say that wearing masks outside is the mandating outdoor
Speaker 1: mask wearing is dumb and counterproductive. He won't say that
Speaker 1: because he exists as a kind of you know, little
Speaker 1: a little genie of left wing democrat science demagoguery, you know,
Speaker 1: rub the lamp and Fauci appears to tell the Democrats
Speaker 1: exactly what they want to hear about science, never tells
Speaker 1: them what they don't want to hear. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show podcast. Join the conversation and message Buck
Speaker 1: on Facebook, Instagram, or email Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 1: He may read it on the show. These channels are
Speaker 1: more antidemocrat than they are pro Trump. And the Biden
Speaker 1: bashing has been turned up to eleven and twelve and thirteen.
Speaker 1: So has the media bashing. By the way, take a
Speaker 1: look at us some of the banners from Fox's air
Speaker 1: in the past few days. Fox a huge member of
Speaker 1: the national news media, pretending like it's not a member
Speaker 1: of the media at all, claiming that the media is
Speaker 1: out to praise Biden, fawn over Biden. He's the media's messiah,
Speaker 1: every hour, every day. That's the narrative, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: be like this for the next four years. So Biden
Speaker 1: can talk about politics not needing to be a raging fire,
Speaker 1: that the fire doesn't have to be raging, but it is.
Speaker 1: It is today, and it was yesterday and it will
Speaker 1: be tomorrow. On these shows that millions of people watch.
Speaker 1: Unity is impossible, Okay. The United States is living in
Speaker 1: this parallel there's parallel universes within the United States. Unity
Speaker 1: is not feasible. It's not. But can the temperature be
Speaker 1: lowered just two or three degrees? Wouldn't that help? Isn't
Speaker 1: that possible? Would it be better if you just gave
Speaker 1: up all the things that you want to need and
Speaker 1: add submit to the rule of science at CTED? The
Speaker 1: rule of science at CNN has a good rig to it,
Speaker 1: doesn't it? Yes, it does. Why are you saying that
Speaker 1: the media is so nice? Debided? We're super hard at bided. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Noticed that the problem is just that there's one channel
Speaker 1: that is pointing out that all the other channels are
Speaker 1: giving Biden a BackRub on air constantly. There's one but
Speaker 1: one channel saying, look what these other channels are doing
Speaker 1: that's not allowed. Should there be any opposition media whatsoever
Speaker 1: under a bid administration? Really ask yourself that question. The
Speaker 1: journals in this country are so pathetic. There's such little
Speaker 1: quizzlings that they seem to think that the real service
Speaker 1: they can provide is to be cheerleaders for a administration
Speaker 1: that has ninety five percent of the information purveyors out
Speaker 1: there in media, news and journalism to be completely on
Speaker 1: their team. That's what we're told, that's the way it
Speaker 1: should be. That's a that's a better way forward. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is laughable. This is what they do, this is
Speaker 1: what they demand, absolutely absurd. So with that, I also
Speaker 1: want to point out that now they're having these Trump
Speaker 1: is gone, let's have the high priests and priestesses of
Speaker 1: the science bureaucracies come forward to speak to us about
Speaker 1: what's really happening in the country, including doctor Deborah Burke's
Speaker 1: best known I think for wearing colorful scarves at the
Speaker 1: at the meetings that she was a frequent participant in
Speaker 1: the early days of the COVID pandemic. Here she is
Speaker 1: play play play six. Did you ever consider quitting? Always?
Speaker 1: I mean, why would you want to put yourself through that?
Speaker 1: Every day? Colleagues of mine that I'd known for decades,
Speaker 1: decades in that one experience, because I was in the
Speaker 1: White House, decided that I had become this political person,
Speaker 1: even though they had known me forever. I had to
Speaker 1: ask myself every morning, is there something that I think
Speaker 1: I can do that would be helpful in responding to
Speaker 1: this pandemic? And it's something I asked myself every night.
Speaker 1: And when it became a point where I wasn't getting anywhere,
Speaker 1: and that was like right before the election, I wrote
Speaker 1: a very detailed communication plan of what needed to happen
Speaker 1: the day after the election and how that needed to
Speaker 1: be executed, and there was a lot of promise that
Speaker 1: would happen. You knew at that point that the election
Speaker 1: was a factor in communication about the virus. Yes, did
Speaker 1: you ever withhold information yourself? No, of course the election
Speaker 1: was a factor in the way the virus is being
Speaker 1: described the entire media. I mean, CNN made its coronavirus
Speaker 1: death counter go away when Joe Biden came into office.
Speaker 1: You can see this, this is real, this happened, And
Speaker 1: that's just one indicator. There are so many others. But
Speaker 1: but now you know, doctor Burke's all this stuff they're
Speaker 1: saying about the Trump administration. The Trump administration listened to
Speaker 1: Fauci and Burkes. They pushed for the fifteen days to
Speaker 1: slow the spread, which was obviously preposterous now in retrospect,
Speaker 1: because it was really, you know, five months to slow
Speaker 1: the spread and then now we're back to another five
Speaker 1: months to slow the spread. It it was never just
Speaker 1: fifteen days, but that's how they sold it. It was dishonest.
Speaker 1: They were never going to let us reopen after fifteen days.
Speaker 1: But now now you're starting to see, oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's in charge. Is everything better all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: has the virus gone away way force? Not? In fact,
Speaker 1: it's it has been the worst that it's ever been recently.
Speaker 1: And yet Burks is out there because look, they want
Speaker 1: to be liked by the establishment. Every the establishment is
Speaker 1: so powerful. It's money, it's prestige, it's how people treat you. Right,
Speaker 1: you want the establishment on your side if you can
Speaker 1: have it. If you're one of these public health officials,
Speaker 1: I get it. I understand same things true in media.
Speaker 1: By the way, do you know any more options I
Speaker 1: would have with my career right now? If I just
Speaker 1: became a kind of even a sort of moderate controlled
Speaker 1: opposition Republican. Yeah, I say with the Democrats, I kind
Speaker 1: of talk them sometimes, but I say what the Democrats
Speaker 1: mostly want me to say, go on so many more channels,
Speaker 1: and you know, you get a bigger book deal and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. Burks knows that, and that's why she's
Speaker 1: got to come out now and say all this stuff.
Speaker 1: When she and Fauci were failures with a big f
Speaker 1: failures in the way they came up with a response
Speaker 1: to the pandemic. Everything about it, it was, it was absurd.
Speaker 1: Here she is talking about the parallel data Play five.
Speaker 1: Do you think President Trump appreciated the gravity of the
Speaker 1: health crisis you were describing. I think the President appreciated
Speaker 1: the gravity. In March, it took a while after I
Speaker 1: wrapped in the White House to remove all of the
Speaker 1: answer Larry data that was coming in. I mean, there
Speaker 1: was parallel data stream coming into the White House that
Speaker 1: were not transparently utilized, and I needed to stop that.
Speaker 1: Where apew mean outside advisors, outside advisors coming to inside advisors.
Speaker 1: And to this day, I mean until the day I left,
Speaker 1: I am I'm convinced they were parallel data streams because
Speaker 1: I disinformation I saw the President presenting graphs that I
Speaker 1: never made, so I know that someone or someone out
Speaker 1: here or someone inside was creating a parallel set of
Speaker 1: data and graphics that were shown to the president. I
Speaker 1: know what I sent up, and I know that what
Speaker 1: was in his hands was different from that Who name
Speaker 1: names doctor Burkes, won't you? This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Follow Buck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. I'm
Speaker 1: hopeful that members are going to be open minded, that
Speaker 1: they are going to when they raise their hand and
Speaker 1: take that oath, that they're going to view the evidence
Speaker 1: that is presented to them, and that they're going to
Speaker 1: do the right thing. I cannot be moved by the
Speaker 1: mascinations of politics that are going on in the interim
Speaker 1: while we're trying to put this together. I think that
Speaker 1: you know, we're going to be speaking to all one
Speaker 1: hundred centers. We're not going to be speaking to one
Speaker 1: group or the other. And I'm hopeful that they're going
Speaker 1: to do what's necessary to truly unify this country, and
Speaker 1: that unification can happen until there was a reckoning for
Speaker 1: crimes against it, unify by having one side purge the
Speaker 1: other of its most recent president. Unify by benning the
Speaker 1: knee and surrendering and promising that you'll be a meek
Speaker 1: and mild and submissive Republican party going forward. That's the
Speaker 1: pathway to unity. And as Chuck Schumer now said, a
Speaker 1: majority leader, good God, as he says it, that's the
Speaker 1: only way also to have accountability. Play that clip. Everyone
Speaker 1: wants to put this awful chapter in American history behind us,
Speaker 1: but sweeping it under the rug will not bring healing.
Speaker 1: The only way to bring healing is to actually have
Speaker 1: real accountability, which this trial affords. And so we will
Speaker 1: move forward with the trial. It will be fair, but
Speaker 1: it will move at a relatively fast pace. Unity through
Speaker 1: your side being further humiliated. Isn't it amazing? Everybody wants
Speaker 1: to put this in their rear view mirror, but let's
Speaker 1: all focus on it for the next few weeks. This
Speaker 1: is what they're telling you. Would it be like saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I know, you've been out in the sun
Speaker 1: too long and you're burning, but stay out for another
Speaker 1: two hours because that's the best way to handle it.
Speaker 1: This is insane. This is what they're telling you. They've
Speaker 1: got to justify this somehow, and they've got a problem here,
Speaker 1: because anybody who's looking at what's happening with a reasonable
Speaker 1: eye would say, hold on unity. Unity for our purposes
Speaker 1: here is going to mean doing the most divisive thing
Speaker 1: that can possibly do at this stage, to go after
Speaker 1: a former president. This is because they want to bar
Speaker 1: him from office. This is not because justice demands it.
Speaker 1: This is not because they want that Trump died. They
Speaker 1: want Trump to be the first president in history, in
Speaker 1: history to be convicted by a Senate trial as part
Speaker 1: of the impeachment process and to be barred from running
Speaker 1: for future office. That's because they want to destroy the
Speaker 1: Trump movement right now, and they know that if they
Speaker 1: get this against the father, than any of his children,
Speaker 1: anyone else in the Trump world that wants to run
Speaker 1: will have to deal with this. Now. Perhaps it'll backfire.
Speaker 1: I know some of you would make that argument that
Speaker 1: this would then catapult Ivanka or Don Junior or somebody
Speaker 1: else to the front of the line for the GOP.
Speaker 1: I'm not confident that that's the case, and I think
Speaker 1: that there's I think that the political skills that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump Senior has are not necessarily transferable through pure genetics
Speaker 1: to whoever else comes along with the name Trump, but
Speaker 1: I could be wrong on that. Well, no, I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm wrong on that, but I'm open to seeing
Speaker 1: how this plays out. That all said, they want to
Speaker 1: make sure that Donald Trump can't run again because they
Speaker 1: know he can win again. And we know that that's
Speaker 1: a possibility too, And this is why they're doing everything
Speaker 1: they can to tell you something that you know as
Speaker 1: soon as it said to you is bs. You know
Speaker 1: that what they're saying as a false narrative, but they
Speaker 1: have no way around it. Let's all come together here
Speaker 1: through a divisive process. Let's lower the temperature by turning
Speaker 1: the temperature up. That's what post presidency conviction would be here.
Speaker 1: And this is what they offer up. This is their
Speaker 1: their promise to all of us. And it's not only
Speaker 1: it's not only the Democrats who are saying stuff. I
Speaker 1: mean there are different levels among the Republicans. You've got Romney,
Speaker 1: who who's now effectively a Democrat. I mean Romney has
Speaker 1: made his bed now we should sleep in. And Romney
Speaker 1: as a Democrat. He's a moderate Democrat. That's what this
Speaker 1: guy has become. Marches with BLM, turns on it. I mean,
Speaker 1: remember he voted he would have more credibility with me
Speaker 1: now if he had had enough sense to not vote
Speaker 1: to impeach Trump and remove Trump the first time around
Speaker 1: over the Ukraine phone call, which was absurd. That was
Speaker 1: just the whole problem. It was entirely bonkers, unserious stuff.
Speaker 1: But that is what Romney went for. Here he is
Speaker 1: telling us again, he's parroting the Chuck Schumer lines. It's
Speaker 1: like Chuck Schumer's handing him the script, Romney saying that
Speaker 1: the way to bring us all together is to spit
Speaker 1: in the face of seventy five million Trump voters. Yeah,
Speaker 1: play eleven. Well, we're certainly going to have a trial.
Speaker 1: I wish that weren't necessary. The president's conduct with regards
Speaker 1: to the call the Secretary of State Raffensburger in Georgia,
Speaker 1: as well as the incitation towards the insurrection that led
Speaker 1: to the attack on the Capitol calls for a trial.
Speaker 1: And you know, if we're going to have a unity
Speaker 1: in our country, I think it's important to recognize the
Speaker 1: need for accountability, for truth and justice. So I think
Speaker 1: there will be a trial, and I hope it goes
Speaker 1: as quickly as possible, But that's up to the Council
Speaker 1: on both sides. Yeah, there will be a trial. Unity, accountability.
Speaker 1: These are the words you're going to hear. What about
Speaker 1: the old president that we have of You don't go
Speaker 1: back and look for prosecutions of the former administration. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump could could have pushed for and his doj could
Speaker 1: have gotten a criminal trial brought against Hillary Clinton for example,
Speaker 1: and I know locker up chat and everything. Some people
Speaker 1: wanted that, but they didn't do it. Maybe disappointed a
Speaker 1: lot of Trump voters, but they didn't do it. Why
Speaker 1: because it sets a terrible precedent for politics in this
Speaker 1: country to even have the even have the perception, the
Speaker 1: belief to be out there that that one side is
Speaker 1: weaponizing the prosecutorial apparatus against the other for political reasons.
Speaker 1: This completely devolves a democracy. This destroys a republic. This
Speaker 1: ruins everything because it means that you establish a winner
Speaker 1: takeoff philosophy in politics that then becomes corrosive of everything.
Speaker 1: It's not a temporary, peaceful transfer of power based upon
Speaker 1: the will of the people. It's how do we make
Speaker 1: sure we stay in charge because otherwise the other side
Speaker 1: is going to throw us into prison. Once that becomes
Speaker 1: the mentality It's no longer about our sacred democracy and
Speaker 1: who's count you know, who's who's getting to vote and
Speaker 1: have a say in their future. It's this is just
Speaker 1: winner take all, bare knuckle power struggle. And that's why
Speaker 1: we haven't done that in the past. That's why there's
Speaker 1: you know, you even you even look at the approach
Speaker 1: taken in in situations where there have been, uh, there
Speaker 1: has been misconduct by politicians where you know they were
Speaker 1: the president, and you look at Nixon, I mean the
Speaker 1: pardon of Nixon by Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Ford and Johnson,
Speaker 1: you know, gurgling with Gurgan. I kind of missed that guy.
Speaker 1: But you look at all the things that go on
Speaker 1: and you say to yourself, there's a there's a bigger
Speaker 1: picture here that we have to keep in mind. There
Speaker 1: are broader themes and issues at work, and that's what
Speaker 1: is being completely cast aside now, and very conveniently, I
Speaker 1: would add, by Democrats just pushed aside. They don't care.
Speaker 1: They simply don't care. They think they have more important
Speaker 1: things to do, like destroying this president. Marco Rubio takes
Speaker 1: a kind of middle pathway here, and there's already new
Speaker 1: stories out about how Ivanka is going to run for
Speaker 1: his seat, so you know, he's he's trying to hold
Speaker 1: on in Florida. He's looking for his place in the
Speaker 1: future of the party. Margot plays his cards right. He
Speaker 1: could be a name that really carries some sway among
Speaker 1: Republicans in the future. You don't know, you know, he
Speaker 1: could have a second act here. But even he sees
Speaker 1: that while it might be in his immediate interests to
Speaker 1: turn on the Trump dynasty because of the challenge that
Speaker 1: Ivanka would bring to him in Florida, even with that
Speaker 1: going on, he understands that this impeachment is just a
Speaker 1: terrible idea. Play fourteen. I think the president bears responsibility
Speaker 1: for some of what had happened. It was most certainly
Speaker 1: a foreseeable consequence of everything that was going on, and
Speaker 1: I think that's widely understood. It maybe even better understood
Speaker 1: with the perspective of time. I think that's separate from
Speaker 1: the notion of let's revisit this all and stir it
Speaker 1: up again. It's not. You know, the stories are still
Speaker 1: going to be written, and there's criminal justice, investigations are
Speaker 1: going to continue to move forward. All these things are
Speaker 1: still going to happen. All I'm arguing is we have
Speaker 1: some really important things to work on. You want to
Speaker 1: really kind of bring the country together and remember once
Speaker 1: again how we can get things done. It isn't by
Speaker 1: uniformity on all the issues. It's about working through a
Speaker 1: process that allows people with different points of view to
Speaker 1: debate all that and get to a solution for the country.
Speaker 1: All that we're just gonna go. We're gonna jump right
Speaker 1: back into what we've been going through the last five
Speaker 1: years and stirring it up again with the trial, and
Speaker 1: it's just going to be bad for the country. It
Speaker 1: really is. It absolutely is, and anybody who anybody who's
Speaker 1: being honest can see that. But for Democrats, this isn't
Speaker 1: about what's best for the country. We know that they're
Speaker 1: bitter still about Trump. The media is by and large
Speaker 1: angry still because of what Donald Trump said about them,
Speaker 1: did to them, the way he used his Twitter account
Speaker 1: to slap them down. They haven't forgotten that they want payback.
Speaker 1: This is all about payback now for a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 1: For others is also payback plus control of the future
Speaker 1: and making sure that Donald Trump is unable to run
Speaker 1: for office ever again and think about the stain that
Speaker 1: would leave on the Republican Party too. We'd be the
Speaker 1: only party that has a president, given everything we've seen
Speaker 1: in the two hundred plus year history of this country,
Speaker 1: would be the only political party to have a president
Speaker 1: who not only is impeached after leaving office, but is
Speaker 1: impeached and loses in a Senate trial. By the way,
Speaker 1: I don't think that he will lose in this Senate trial,
Speaker 1: but in the attempt, then all they get is further division.
Speaker 1: I think that the Republicans know that if Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: knows this, if they go for it and they fail,
Speaker 1: come at the King, you best not miss and the
Speaker 1: Trumpster does not forget You're in the freedom hunt. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get the
Speaker 1: latest from Buck at buck Sexton dot com. I don't
Speaker 1: there's any question that what the whole country needs to
Speaker 1: needs to focus on in terms of our elections is
Speaker 1: making sure that we have some effective electoral reform. Nobody
Speaker 1: wants to wait a week or two weeks or three weeks,
Speaker 1: which happened to some of the House races to get
Speaker 1: election results. We need to work on that and make
Speaker 1: the system better for twenty twenty two. But this election
Speaker 1: was not stolen. All of the facts point in that direction.
Speaker 1: And I'm a former prosecutor, George. I make decisions based
Speaker 1: upon evidence, not based upon feelings or partisanship or loyalty.
Speaker 1: You make those decisions based upon evidence, and the evidence
Speaker 1: here has shown right from the beginning that while every
Speaker 1: election has some irregularities, and I'm sure this one did too,
Speaker 1: there were no type of irregularities that would have changed
Speaker 1: the result in any one state, let alone the four
Speaker 1: states that would need to have been changed for the
Speaker 1: result of the election have been changed. And folks in
Speaker 1: my party who are doing that, quite frankly, are just
Speaker 1: trying to make political points with those people who the
Speaker 1: President and others lied to about this over the course
Speaker 1: of the ten weeks to the election, and it's shameful
Speaker 1: that they're doing it now. Chris Christie is one of
Speaker 1: those guys who I think wants to establish control over
Speaker 1: the GOP as well. I think I think he's going
Speaker 1: to run. I think he sees himself as a national
Speaker 1: level figure. I think he sees himself as a kind
Speaker 1: of anti Trump, and he also has a personal animus
Speaker 1: here because based on everything that has been both reported
Speaker 1: on this and that I've even heard from people in
Speaker 1: and around the White House. Chris Christie was going to
Speaker 1: be an important member of the Trump administration. But then
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner. Remember that it was Christie that prosecuted his dad.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna tell you, you know, even if my
Speaker 1: dad had had broken the law, fire in a position
Speaker 1: to feel like I was going to get even be
Speaker 1: very it would take a very ethical, very honorable person
Speaker 1: to say that they would let bygones be bygones and
Speaker 1: work closely with somebody who would put their father in prison. Right,
Speaker 1: a very ethical person. I you know, I'm very loyal
Speaker 1: to my family, so I can understand how that would
Speaker 1: be an issue. But Chris Christie, clearly, Chris Christie clearly
Speaker 1: didn't forget about this, that Jared Kushner essentially pushed him
Speaker 1: out of the White House when Trump won, And so
Speaker 1: now he thinks that there's a vulnerability. Now there's this
Speaker 1: opportunity for a kind of payback, and I think that's
Speaker 1: what Chris Christie's angling for. But a couple of things
Speaker 1: I wanted to note here. One is that the whole
Speaker 1: notion of proportionality in an election. We're supposed to be
Speaker 1: the honest and good people who will say, yes there
Speaker 1: were irregularities, Yes there were irregularities, but it wasn't enough
Speaker 1: to overturn the election. So far, based on the evidence
Speaker 1: that we have that has been provided in court, that
Speaker 1: has been tested in court, which is very little, I know,
Speaker 1: because of all of the standing issues with the courts,
Speaker 1: but based on what has been presented in a court
Speaker 1: so far, that what Christie is saying is true and
Speaker 1: we need to understand that what he is saying it's true. However,
Speaker 1: two things. One, the Democrats never did that with Russia collusion. Right,
Speaker 1: they pretended that, oh, one hundred thousand dollars of Facebook ads.
Speaker 1: I know people who are spending believe it or not,
Speaker 1: this is true, one hundred thousand dollars a month to
Speaker 1: push their podcast via Facebook. You know a lot of
Speaker 1: these people that have these big podcasts, huge money going
Speaker 1: into the advertising online of their podcast, so they can
Speaker 1: have these high numbers even though they have them. You know,
Speaker 1: their audiences, it's mostly based on people clicking and listening
Speaker 1: for thirty seconds or a minute and then that's considered audience.
Speaker 1: I mean I've got people listen to this show. They
Speaker 1: listen to all three hours of the show. You know,
Speaker 1: if you listen on podcasts only, it's almost two hours.
Speaker 1: People listen the whole thing. So thank you for that.
Speaker 1: But there's this whole game that's being played now. Because
Speaker 1: you get more advertisers, more downloads, you spend more money
Speaker 1: to push the podcast online anyway, But just to give
Speaker 1: you a sense of scale, one hundred thousand dollars on
Speaker 1: Facebook is nothing. That's nothing for a presidential election. As
Speaker 1: I've said all along, it would be like pouring a bucket.
Speaker 1: You'd be like pouring a cup of hot tea into
Speaker 1: the ocean and saying I've just affected the temperature of
Speaker 1: the ocean. I mean, in a sense you could make
Speaker 1: that argument, but not really, not in a measurable way.
Speaker 1: But so we have to be honest and fair minded
Speaker 1: about that. They don't. And that's a very that's a
Speaker 1: very fundamental difference in the approach here. Right, We're going
Speaker 1: to move past this based on where the based on
Speaker 1: the evidence that we have that we could present in court.
Speaker 1: Democrats never did that. So don't feel at all like
Speaker 1: you should be lectured by Democrats who have newly discovered
Speaker 1: principles when it comes to the rules of evidence and
Speaker 1: legal procedure and election integrity and security. Democrats don't want
Speaker 1: election integrity. They don't want it at every action. I'm
Speaker 1: not just talking to this election. I'm saying in general,
Speaker 1: every action they take, whether it's voter ID purging the
Speaker 1: voter roles of people that don't live in the state anymore,
Speaker 1: every action they take is intended to allow a greater
Speaker 1: number of illegitimate ballots. Because Democrats, with their you know,
Speaker 1: with their community organizers and activists and everything, believe that
Speaker 1: they will always that a more lax voting system will
Speaker 1: benefit them, that a greater number of the more the
Speaker 1: irregularities that exist, the better chance they are of the
Speaker 1: better chance they have of winning. That is the Democrat
Speaker 1: viewpoint on this. And Chris Christie is very dismissive about this,
Speaker 1: is very quick to say, oh, you know Trump, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Trump went too far that I tell you that other
Speaker 1: people don't. And they're just trying to drive up their
Speaker 1: audience and drive up their numbers right now because they have,
Speaker 1: you know, they have no integrity. So they'll still say that,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump didn't you know he was true, and
Speaker 1: everything he said was right. It's not true. Trump went
Speaker 1: too far. He said things that he could not prove,
Speaker 1: that he did not have the evidence for, and he
Speaker 1: might have cost us the Senate in Georgia as well
Speaker 1: with all these shenanigans. I think that's also a fair
Speaker 1: argument to make. It's just the truth, friends. It's the
Speaker 1: same way that we're now dealing with. Okay, what are Trump?
Speaker 1: What were the real accomplishments? Supreme Court? Yes, judges, yes, regulations, taxes,
Speaker 1: let's say goodbye to those. Those are gone already. Right,
Speaker 1: So they were stylistic and rhetorical advantages. But we need
Speaker 1: to be very clear eyed. We need to be very
Speaker 1: honest about what has gone on here with the last
Speaker 1: election and what's going to go on to the next election.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Join the conversation
Speaker 1: and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram, or email Team Bucket
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. He may read it on the show.
Speaker 1: What's going on inside the Beltway with all this political
Speaker 1: back and forth? We got our man in DC joining
Speaker 1: us now, Harlan Hill. He is the principal at Logan
Speaker 1: Circle Logan Circle Group. He's a political consultant and somebody
Speaker 1: who knows what's going on in that town and how
Speaker 1: it to the rest of the country. Harl And great
Speaker 1: to have you back. What's what's the feel like these days? Uh,
Speaker 1: within within GOP circles about the continuation of a National
Speaker 1: Guard deployment to coincide with what's happening now with this
Speaker 1: impeachment farce. Yeah, I mean I could tell you I
Speaker 1: just got back into Washington yesterday and there's still a
Speaker 1: presence on the streets here. I mean, it's really unprecedented.
Speaker 1: And the transfer of power which went off. You know,
Speaker 1: obviously we have that insurrection at the capital, the so
Speaker 1: called insurrection of the capital. But yeah, there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of Abuba's acting stupid and breaking the law. The response
Speaker 1: to that since then has been draconian. You know, putting
Speaker 1: that the nation's capital under total military occupation is uh
Speaker 1: the wrong message to send, not just to Americans but
Speaker 1: to the world. Um, you know, we look like fools.
Speaker 1: Well tell us what what are some of the things
Speaker 1: you've had to deal with. I mean, there's there's like
Speaker 1: a zone own right, I mean, they and you have
Speaker 1: to present special documents to prove your residence. I mean,
Speaker 1: for people that don't live in DC. This it's been
Speaker 1: really weird for folks like you, right, I mean, the
Speaker 1: new Schumer Pelosi Biden regime here is saying, you know,
Speaker 1: papers please. Absolutely, they've they've curved a little bit of
Speaker 1: that now, but for well over a week up until
Speaker 1: just about a day ago. In order to access your
Speaker 1: your place of business or your home if it was
Speaker 1: in a side of what they called the green zone,
Speaker 1: borrowing that term from Baghdad, you know, which is that
Speaker 1: was the official term they used, by the way, to
Speaker 1: describe the security zone in downtown Washington, DC, you had
Speaker 1: to present either a copy of your lease with your
Speaker 1: name on it or your mortgage. If you had a
Speaker 1: car that was parked in a parking garage in downtown DC,
Speaker 1: you were not able to get it out. You were stuck.
Speaker 1: There was no trash pick up, there was no mail
Speaker 1: deliver I mean, it's just crazy. This is the nation's capital.
Speaker 1: This is the nation's capital, and uh, you know it,
Speaker 1: it's a full bone military occupation. I mean if if
Speaker 1: if a Republican administration had done this, I cannot I
Speaker 1: cannot imagine the militarmatic outrage that would have transpired on
Speaker 1: on on CNN and MSNBC, right, we'd still be talking
Speaker 1: about it. What do you make, Harlotte of the the
Speaker 1: the very consistent now uh talking point from Democrats and
Speaker 1: some Republicans out there. But you have people like um,
Speaker 1: you have people out there like uh, Chuck Schumer and
Speaker 1: even Mitt Romney saying that unity will be achieved through
Speaker 1: this highly divisive process of impeaching a former president. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and and now I'll add to that, you have
Speaker 1: sitting Republican US senators who are announcing that they are
Speaker 1: not sure how they're going to vote in an impeachment
Speaker 1: trial in the US Senate, but they know that they're
Speaker 1: not running for re election in twenty twenty two. This
Speaker 1: just came out of Ohio with Rob Portman, Republican senator
Speaker 1: from Ohio. He literally said that, he says, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how I'm gonna vote. I'm gonna see, I'm gonna see,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna wait to see how the cases presented, but
Speaker 1: i know that I'm not going to vote. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to stand for re election in twenty two. So
Speaker 1: that tells me everything I need to know. He's going
Speaker 1: to vote to impeach President Trump. So really the problem,
Speaker 1: this divisiveness and the lack of willing its to turn
Speaker 1: the page on this and to start healing as a
Speaker 1: nation and as a party, really originates within the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: I mean, there wouldn't even be a credible discussion about
Speaker 1: whether the president could be the formal president could be
Speaker 1: convicted if it wasn't for Mitch McConnell, Meant Romney, all
Speaker 1: these other establishment Republicans standing up and saying that they're
Speaker 1: considering supporting it. Talking to Harland Hill, he's a principle
Speaker 1: at Logan Circle Group, a political consultancy advisory down in DC. Harlan,
Speaker 1: do you do you think they're going to have You know,
Speaker 1: you're in contact with Hill folks. You know what's going
Speaker 1: on down there. Do you think they're gonna have the
Speaker 1: what is it, seventeen Republican votes they would need for conviction?
Speaker 1: You know, I don't think so. I know that. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's a considerable portion of the Republican caucus in
Speaker 1: the Senate that I think um would support it. Now,
Speaker 1: whether or not they end up coming out and supporting
Speaker 1: it in the end will entirely depend on whether they
Speaker 1: hit that number right. So, it's either going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of people stay silent. Maybe a few people
Speaker 1: like Admit Romney take a take take a vote out
Speaker 1: of you know what they call their conscience. UM. But
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think we're going to see them
Speaker 1: come up, you know, four or five votes short. Either
Speaker 1: they're going to hit the number or they're going to
Speaker 1: be well short of it. Um And uh I from
Speaker 1: what I'm here, they don't have it right now. They
Speaker 1: don't have it. And I think that that's why it's
Speaker 1: important that president former President Trump um stays away from
Speaker 1: this notion of creating a new party. That's a really
Speaker 1: hard thing to do. I mean, and let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been some reporting about a about a
Speaker 1: positive thing that the Patriot Party a third party. Where
Speaker 1: does that stand? And what are we hearing about that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm hearing that the former president Trump is back off
Speaker 1: on that idea. I'm a pretty well placed actually the
Speaker 1: source on that the Trump has backed up on that idea,
Speaker 1: that he understands that he has to transform the party
Speaker 1: from within, and that he can do that by continuing
Speaker 1: to be a fundraising machine. UM. To build that a
Speaker 1: political apparatus that can support UM loyal candidates to primary
Speaker 1: Republicans that are not favorable to President Trump's agenda. UM
Speaker 1: and and apparently that is the strategy that they're going take.
Speaker 1: Looking forward, and you saw today Sarah Hackby Sanders. Now
Speaker 1: since she's running for governor Knox, Arkansas. You know, so
Speaker 1: you're starting to see some loyalists that are credible, not
Speaker 1: some like fringe wackos. But Sarah could be. Sanders is
Speaker 1: a credible person, you know, she really is. She comes
Speaker 1: from a great political family, She's a nice person. She
Speaker 1: was an effective a soldier for for President Trump at
Speaker 1: the White House. Um and, uh, you know, she's the
Speaker 1: first one. But from what I know, I can't go
Speaker 1: into it on air, but I know many other names
Speaker 1: that are sort of her same pedigree that are being
Speaker 1: slotted into races around the country. You think that members
Speaker 1: of the Trump family, there's all these stories about Ivanka
Speaker 1: against Rubio and Florida. What do you make of that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know if that's gonna if
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen. You know, I'm sure that members of
Speaker 1: the Trump family are going to run. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: obviously it's been floated the idea of Laura Trump, Eric
Speaker 1: Trump's wife and a senior advisor on the campaign in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty UM that she would run for office in
Speaker 1: her home state of North Carolina. I think that's probable,
Speaker 1: you know, I put my money on that. UM. Whether
Speaker 1: Ivanka decides to run against Rubio at this point, I
Speaker 1: think that that might be something that is that has
Speaker 1: floated in order to UM influence Rubio's loyalty, both of
Speaker 1: this impeachment process and through through some others UM, and
Speaker 1: so far, I think it's it's mostly worked. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's an effective tool that the threat of primary
Speaker 1: being primary by Trump. I mean that that could be devastating,
Speaker 1: depending on what state and what race you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Then the national money that that machine can bring to
Speaker 1: their along with the the influence of UH for up
Speaker 1: President Trump, which I don't think has waned with the
Speaker 1: Republican primary electorate, it's huge. It's huge, you know. And
Speaker 1: now whether or not those candidates that the president supports
Speaker 1: will win general elections, you know, we'll have to see
Speaker 1: how that plays out. But in terms of winning primaries,
Speaker 1: I think the Presence Coalition, if they execute this right
Speaker 1: they build the organization right, it'll be immense Harlan. What
Speaker 1: happens if they do, in fact convict the president, I mean,
Speaker 1: what happens within the GOP right we know me that
Speaker 1: Trump can't run again. Then what do you see as
Speaker 1: the fallout? Well, I think it's devastating. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's a complete civil war. I'm starting to see
Speaker 1: it sort of play out a little bit privately. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of internal squabbling between people in the establishment,
Speaker 1: people in Magaworld, and then people in Magaworld and other
Speaker 1: people in Magwarred. There's a lot of infighting right now, Bob.
Speaker 1: You know, if they do convict the president, which will
Speaker 1: require a significant level of support from the Republican caucus
Speaker 1: in the Senate, you know, I fear that that will
Speaker 1: turn off an important segment of the electorate for Republicans
Speaker 1: to such a degree that they might stay home. We
Speaker 1: already got a taste of that with Georgia. We gotta
Speaker 1: taste that this this idea that oh it's rigged. The
Speaker 1: Republican leadership in George is terrible. Just stay home, don't
Speaker 1: even vote. And you know what, I don't know that
Speaker 1: I don't know that it was you know, ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen percent the potential vote. But we do know that
Speaker 1: that the turnout was wasn't what it was on election day. Um,
Speaker 1: and you know that that message may have resonated with
Speaker 1: some people and it may have impacted the results of
Speaker 1: that election, the runoff election in Georgia. So you know,
Speaker 1: we got to keep the coalition together, you know. And
Speaker 1: and and um, you know when we were talking, Democrats
Speaker 1: are talking about unity, they don't mean it. But we
Speaker 1: can talk about unity with our within our party and
Speaker 1: we better mean it or you know, we're gonna spend
Speaker 1: a lot of time in the wilderness and we can't
Speaker 1: for it because we already see what the result of
Speaker 1: that is when Democrats control the House of Senate and
Speaker 1: the White House is devastating. Do you think that the
Speaker 1: geo we're speaking of, Harlan Hill, he is a principal
Speaker 1: at Logan Circle, Logan Circle Group in DC. And I
Speaker 1: mean Harlan's involved in actual campaigns and understands that the
Speaker 1: machinery here of what goes on inside the Beltway that
Speaker 1: that affects, of course the rest of the country through
Speaker 1: through these these elections. And and Harlan, do you think
Speaker 1: that the GOP, assuming for a second for our purposes
Speaker 1: of discussion, that there is no conviction of Trump by
Speaker 1: the Senate, have we has the GOP had the necessary
Speaker 1: discussions and learned the necessary lessons at this stage to
Speaker 1: begin that process of putting in place a winning strategy
Speaker 1: for twenty twenty two Or do you feel like the
Speaker 1: tough conversations within the family, so to speak, of the
Speaker 1: GOP haven't really been had yet. I think they are
Speaker 1: happening right now where they're starting to happen, and I
Speaker 1: don't I don't mean to go back to it. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna quickly reference it, the the the the y
Speaker 1: in the road, the fourth in the road. Here is
Speaker 1: what the party decides to do about this impeachment process,
Speaker 1: right that that that is what will put a wedge
Speaker 1: in in within our party to basically create a party divorce,
Speaker 1: a civil war. It will have to be resolved. Um
Speaker 1: and and it's and and a lot of egos are
Speaker 1: going to be hurt in the process. A lot of
Speaker 1: people's brands are gonna be damaged in the process. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be in the liberal media will love it. They
Speaker 1: will love it. You know, it'll make twenty sixteen, the
Speaker 1: primary in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen within the Republican Party
Speaker 1: look like a cake walk. Okay, so um, you know,
Speaker 1: those conversations are starting to happen. But I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people buck are waiting to see how that
Speaker 1: turns out, because that will determine, you know, where the part,
Speaker 1: how much the party values the Trump wing of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, and whether they're going to tell him to
Speaker 1: you know, shut up and get in line, um or
Speaker 1: you know, hey, we're we're all in the same te
Speaker 1: run a fight for each other, um. And and that's
Speaker 1: what the Republican Party should do, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: we are we are We have become a big tent party.
Speaker 1: I mean this party has fundamentally changed under under Trump,
Speaker 1: which is why I I long resisted the notion of
Speaker 1: creating a new party because you know, he already executed
Speaker 1: your hostile to take over it and introduced all these
Speaker 1: new ideas, grew the party, made it a more of
Speaker 1: a working class party. UM expanded its reach and support
Speaker 1: within minority communities. But with the Presims, it was kind
Speaker 1: of amazing. It's kind of amazing. We love and or
Speaker 1: hate him. It was you know, it's a it's a's
Speaker 1: huge transformational um and you know, we have to see
Speaker 1: whether the whether the the the establishment ruling elites in
Speaker 1: Washington down there at the Republican National Committee UM are
Speaker 1: willing to cast that thirty five percent of the party
Speaker 1: aside or or or keep them in the fold. And
Speaker 1: for me, that's a no brainer. I know which way
Speaker 1: they should go. Harlan Hill follow him on social media.
Speaker 1: He is a principal at the Logan Circle. Logan Circle Group. Harlan,
Speaker 1: my friend, keep the GOP from imploding in the meantime. Okay,
Speaker 1: do your best. I'm trying. Thanks one man, talk to
Speaker 1: you soon. You're listening to the Fuck Sexton Show podcast,
Speaker 1: make sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app or wherever you get your podcasts. Was their election
Speaker 1: fraud that still needs to be looked at, that needs
Speaker 1: to be presented in court. You know, this is the
Speaker 1: big question that still remains out there. As much as
Speaker 1: Democrats say there is no question, as much as we
Speaker 1: had Chris Christie before saying there was no question. I
Speaker 1: want to play for you. This is a pretty lengthy
Speaker 1: exchange here, but you need to hear it. And it's
Speaker 1: between one of my favorite senators. And he's not a
Speaker 1: warm and fuzzy guy, but I think he's a principled
Speaker 1: guy and a smart guy. You know. Not great at
Speaker 1: retail politics, not great at kissing babies and shaking hands,
Speaker 1: but he's smart. And I think he believes in in
Speaker 1: in the constant two individual liberty, and that's rand Paul.
Speaker 1: You know, I've always I've always thought Rampaul was was solid.
Speaker 1: Here he is going toe to toe with pundit aka
Speaker 1: journalist George Stephanopolis on the election fraud question. I want
Speaker 1: to play this for you so you can really hear
Speaker 1: this exchange. Go for it. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I'm not willing just to sit here and say, oh,
Speaker 1: everybody in the Republican side is a liar and there
Speaker 1: is no fraud. No, there were lots of problems, and
Speaker 1: there were secretaries of the state who illegally change the law,
Speaker 1: and that needs to be fixed, and I'm gonna work
Speaker 1: hard to fix it. And I won't be cowed by
Speaker 1: people saying, oh, you're a liar. That's the problem with
Speaker 1: the media today, as they say all Republicans are liars,
Speaker 1: and everything we say is a lie. There are two
Speaker 1: sides to every story. Interview somebody on the other side,
Speaker 1: but don't insert yourself into the story to say we're
Speaker 1: all liars, because they are not. They are not two.
Speaker 1: There are not two sides of the story. This has
Speaker 1: been looked at in every single state. Yees are to
Speaker 1: fight every sides to every story. George, you're forgetting who
Speaker 1: you are. You're forgetting who you are as a journalist.
Speaker 1: If you think there's only one side, you're inserting yourself
Speaker 1: into the story to say I'm a liar because I
Speaker 1: want to look at election fraud and I want to
Speaker 1: look at secretaries of state who illegally change the voter
Speaker 1: laws without the permission of their state legislatures. That is incontrovertible.
Speaker 1: It happened, and you can't just sweep that under the
Speaker 1: rug and say, oh, nothing to see here, and everybody's
Speaker 1: a liar and you're a fool. If you bring this up,
Speaker 1: you're inserting yourself into the story. A journalist would hear
Speaker 1: both sides, and there are two sides of this. I'm
Speaker 1: standing by facts. There are not two sides to facts.
Speaker 1: I did not say that this was a perfect election.
Speaker 1: I said it was the results were certified. I said
Speaker 1: it was not stolen. Are liars? You're saying people are
Speaker 1: liars if they want to investigate what happened in the election.
Speaker 1: Should what I said? In fact, the tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of absentee ballots did not have addresses on them and
Speaker 1: normally were disqualified, but this time they were counted. Should
Speaker 1: we examine that. I don't know whether it affected the
Speaker 1: election or not, but I have an open mind. And
Speaker 1: if we actually examined this we found out it didn't,
Speaker 1: that's fine, but it still should be fixed. Still should
Speaker 1: be fixed. Democrats want to just that they want this
Speaker 1: thing sign sealed, delivered, no discussion, no discussion. It's how
Speaker 1: they wanted to be. Can't talk about it anymore, said
Speaker 1: a Rampaul. Very smart guy, and he's saying, oh, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, this is these are part of the
Speaker 1: allegations of the questions were about things that are real.
Speaker 1: You know, they did in the state of Pennsylvania. They
Speaker 1: did decide to just change the way the election was
Speaker 1: being run in a way that certainly seems unconstitutional. They
Speaker 1: did make that decision. Do we ever, do we ever
Speaker 1: get to have a full hearing on that? Do we
Speaker 1: ever get to have that discussion. Ram Paul says, yes,
Speaker 1: I say Rampaul's right. This is the Fuck Sexton Show Podcast.
Speaker 1: Follow Fuck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Got back from
Speaker 1: a weekend in Florida, WIOD, w FLA. So many of
Speaker 1: our wonderful stations down there in Florida. Um, and you know,
Speaker 1: producer Mark and I talk a lot now about how
Speaker 1: maybe the Freedom Hunt needs to head south, not just
Speaker 1: for the winter, but permanently we're down there. I was
Speaker 1: down there in Florida, and yet again I have a
Speaker 1: situation here where I just I want someone to explain
Speaker 1: to me what the benefit is, How anyone can make
Speaker 1: the argument right now that there are that there, there
Speaker 1: has been better governance, and we've handled things better here
Speaker 1: than we did than they are in Florida. But when
Speaker 1: I say here, I'm in New York. Look at New York,
Speaker 1: look at California, look at Florida. What is the upside
Speaker 1: of the extreme lockdown approach? Now, let me just say
Speaker 1: there are some very dumb rules at the local level
Speaker 1: in Florida. I mean I was in Miami and I yes,
Speaker 1: I was at the beach and I had to go
Speaker 1: at one point and go up to the one of
Speaker 1: they have these these huts on the beach where you
Speaker 1: get towels. And I said, all right, So I go
Speaker 1: up to the hut, to the towel, not the freedom hut,
Speaker 1: of course, and the woman there, and I'm about ten
Speaker 1: feet away from her at least. I'm just saying, hey,
Speaker 1: can I get myself because their towels are out in
Speaker 1: a bind. I'm like, hey, can I get a towel?
Speaker 1: And she says, sir, can you put a mask on? Please?
Speaker 1: And I'm looking at her. I'm like, we're outside. We're
Speaker 1: both outside. There's nothing indoor here. She's in an open
Speaker 1: air hut. I'm I'm in the open air. Everyone walking
Speaker 1: around doesn't have a mask on, okay, But to talk
Speaker 1: to her from ten feet away, I'm supposed to put
Speaker 1: a mask on because my non existent COVID virus is
Speaker 1: going to fly out of my mouth like a heat
Speaker 1: seeking missile and go right into hers in open air
Speaker 1: from ten feet away. Now, I don't blame this woman
Speaker 1: for saying, sir, can you put on a mask? But
Speaker 1: I blame the stupidity of the people who are instituting
Speaker 1: these rules, even in Florida, because they think this is
Speaker 1: what the smart people do. They're so convinced, so dug
Speaker 1: in that this is the right way to go, and
Speaker 1: it's just not. It's just not. And then you look
Speaker 1: at what's happening in California. Actually, I'm not done with Florida.
Speaker 1: I'm not done with Florida. Before I go to California,
Speaker 1: I'm what Governor Newsom's doing there. In Florida. They have
Speaker 1: businesses open, they have stores open, people are living life.
Speaker 1: And it's increasingly hard, I think, to make a serious
Speaker 1: case as to why anybody would want to stay in
Speaker 1: one of these insane blue states when they could be
Speaker 1: in a mostly open, red state. And I do think
Speaker 1: it's one of the disconnects that I've had as a
Speaker 1: New Yorker talking to people across the country. And you know,
Speaker 1: there are other shows Sean Hannity show, he's a New Yorker,
Speaker 1: his shows out of New York. You know, there are
Speaker 1: a lot a lot of people that do shows out
Speaker 1: of blue states that are broadcast all across the rest
Speaker 1: of the country. But as somebody who's who's in that position,
Speaker 1: I know that my experience with lockdown has been far
Speaker 1: more onerous than a lot of you listening in redder
Speaker 1: states across the country, So that's certainly affected my judgment.
Speaker 1: So while it's annoying to you, and certainly the federal
Speaker 1: policies affect you, you haven't been put through quite the
Speaker 1: same lunacy. Although Texas has not been great in how
Speaker 1: it is. I'm just gonna say, at Texas, and you
Speaker 1: know our KOBJ Austin Fam and our KPRC Houston Fam.
Speaker 1: I mean, you guys have been through a pretty tough
Speaker 1: situation with your governor and with the way that your
Speaker 1: state authorities have handled this situation. Florida has been better,
Speaker 1: has been better at dealing with this, and I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people. I think there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people who were currently seeing fleeing these
Speaker 1: these big blue states to places like Florida. I think
Speaker 1: you're going to see a lot more of it. What's
Speaker 1: the upside? And continue to be in a place where
Speaker 1: you see that those in charge, they will bow to
Speaker 1: the dictates of political correctness and to the left at
Speaker 1: the expense of millions of businesses and millions of people's
Speaker 1: lives and livelihoods. For what Then that brings me to
Speaker 1: California and I think this is I think this is
Speaker 1: a fascinating situation right now because in the great state
Speaker 1: of California, you have something very interesting happening right now.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is letting restaurants open for indoor dining again. Now,
Speaker 1: why are they doing? Those cases are still very, very high.
Speaker 1: We have not flattened the curve. The policies they've had
Speaker 1: in place have not had the intended effect. The mandates,
Speaker 1: the lockdowns have not worked the way we were told
Speaker 1: they would. That's just a fact. They can try to
Speaker 1: argue this, but it's ridiculous. We can all see it,
Speaker 1: all right. The numbers speak for themselves. But here we go.
Speaker 1: As of January twenty fourth, California has three million, one
Speaker 1: hundred and nine, one hundred and fifty one confirmed cases
Speaker 1: of COVID nineteen volting in thirty six thousand, seven hundred
Speaker 1: ninety deaths. The number of COVID related deaths increased by
Speaker 1: one point two percent from the prior day total of
Speaker 1: thirty six thousand, three hundred and sixty one. So you've
Speaker 1: got three point one million cases, twenty four thousand new cases,
Speaker 1: thirty six thousand, seven hundred ninety deaths, four hundred plus
Speaker 1: a day in California, and they're running over three hundred
Speaker 1: thousand tests a day in California. Why right now, why
Speaker 1: right now is Gavin Newsom about to lift these stay
Speaker 1: at home orders and allow indoor dining to reopen? Why
Speaker 1: is that occurring? Why is that happening? And the answer is, well,
Speaker 1: a number of factors. On the one hand, you have,
Speaker 1: I think the recognition among a lot of people out
Speaker 1: there that this idea that we could just lock down
Speaker 1: through the whole wind and do these extreme stay at
Speaker 1: home orders and stuff, even while the public sees that
Speaker 1: it doesn't stop the virus, which it has not done.
Speaker 1: It has not stopped the virus. That is a that
Speaker 1: is an obvious fact. So to put people through all
Speaker 1: this suffering and misery for an entire winter period when
Speaker 1: they're not seeing the actual benefits of the misery, that
Speaker 1: is a problem. That is a political liability. After a while,
Speaker 1: so they've started to see that you do have to
Speaker 1: make adult decisions about this. You do have to rationally
Speaker 1: look at what is gained and what is lost through
Speaker 1: the process here of you know, what is gained and
Speaker 1: what is lost through the process of deciding that if
Speaker 1: it just if it might save not even if it
Speaker 1: saves if it might save one life, whatever economic and
Speaker 1: societal cost we have to bear is acceptable. That that
Speaker 1: was under the Trump administration, the approach that California and
Speaker 1: other big loose states were taken, right, that's something that
Speaker 1: we have to remember. Now all of a sudden that
Speaker 1: seems to be changing. As I said, there's the political
Speaker 1: liability of keeping people locked in their homes, of preventing
Speaker 1: people from being able to live their lives. And they're
Speaker 1: not seeing because the numbers are obvious, the benefits that
Speaker 1: were promised. That's one part of it. And then on
Speaker 1: another side of it, what about the reopening of America
Speaker 1: as it is a political benefit to Joe Biden? How
Speaker 1: does that factor into all of this getting things going
Speaker 1: again so that Joe Biden can be the big hero here.
Speaker 1: You've already seen this with the vaccination program and how
Speaker 1: Biden's whole one hundred million vaccinations in one hundred days. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're doing about a million a day right now. So
Speaker 1: Biden's great contribution really to the vaccine program so far
Speaker 1: has been largely in terms of numbers, the perpetuation of
Speaker 1: the status quo. But for Joe Biden. If you perpetuate
Speaker 1: the status quo, you're a hero because they're all just
Speaker 1: going to clap for him and say how Grady is
Speaker 1: no matter what. But sure enough, California is thinking about reopening.
Speaker 1: New York under Governor Cuomo recently had had an open discussion,
Speaker 1: you know, began to muse publicly about how reopening could
Speaker 1: happen and how we can't wait until the virus has
Speaker 1: totally gone. I've been saying this all along. This has
Speaker 1: been my position that we can't just shut down. We
Speaker 1: can't just take this to take this as a given
Speaker 1: that by having these extreme lockdown orders and shutdowns, we're
Speaker 1: making the right decision. There's a lot of back and
Speaker 1: forth over there. There's a lot of reason to believe
Speaker 1: that we're not getting the benefits were told. The data
Speaker 1: does not support it, and so what we just have
Speaker 1: is a lot of misery. What we just have is
Speaker 1: compounding the problem. But because of the political benefits of
Speaker 1: the Biden administration being able to take credit for the reopen,
Speaker 1: now all of a sudden, you see it's politicized in
Speaker 1: the other direction for the first time. Now it starts
Speaker 1: to be they still want the control. It's at their
Speaker 1: say so, and they still want you to maybe double
Speaker 1: mask now, and they want you all these other stupid things,
Speaker 1: but they're at least thinking about in some areas letting
Speaker 1: it up, letting people have more of their lives back,
Speaker 1: and then the Biden administration can take credit, and maybe
Speaker 1: then people will forget that it has been a Democrat mentality,
Speaker 1: a Democrat demand that we have extreme, extreme lockdowns in place.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Join the conversation
Speaker 1: and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram, or email Team bucket
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. He may read it on the show.
Speaker 1: First of all, it made me so angry to see
Speaker 1: all of these different images coming from National Guard soldiers
Speaker 1: really posting the reality of the situation that they were in,
Speaker 1: being shoved into the parking garage that's freezing cold, all
Speaker 1: strewn about, lying on the ground, really being discarded as
Speaker 1: though they don't even matter. Meanwhile, as you said, our troops,
Speaker 1: National Guard soldiers, some of whom I've served with, you know,
Speaker 1: two hundred came from Hawaii, went to Washington, DC, answered
Speaker 1: that call to serve like everybody else, only to be
Speaker 1: mistreated in this way. No to answer your question, the
Speaker 1: militarization of our nation's capital was not only unnecessary, Yes,
Speaker 1: we need to make sure that this transition of power
Speaker 1: happens peacefully and safely, but to send that message both
Speaker 1: to the American people and to the world that somehow
Speaker 1: our nation's capital is under attack and threat of a
Speaker 1: siege of taking over, I just don't think that's the
Speaker 1: message that we want to send to the American people
Speaker 1: and to the world, especially as we conduct this peaceful
Speaker 1: transition of power. Send it all along on the problem
Speaker 1: that Tulsi Gabbert has as a Democrat is that she's
Speaker 1: not vicious and hateful and nasty enough to be a Democrats.
Speaker 1: She's very left wing and her policies, but she doesn't
Speaker 1: hate Republicans and she loves the military. And if you
Speaker 1: don't hate Republicans and you actually love the military, you
Speaker 1: add those two things together. Very hard to be a
Speaker 1: Democrat in good standing with the left wing apparatus. Very hard,
Speaker 1: basically impossible. This is why they come after Tulsie say, oh,
Speaker 1: she's an Assad apologist, all this stuff. And remember on policy,
Speaker 1: she's very left wing. I know that, but she doesn't
Speaker 1: hate her opponents. And that's not really allowed these days.
Speaker 1: You have to hate, you have to hate your opponents,
Speaker 1: and then you also if they're Republicans that you also
Speaker 1: have her pointing out that the the whole positioning here
Speaker 1: of this thing with the National Guard where they're sleeping
Speaker 1: on the floor in the Capitol, or the photos of it,
Speaker 1: this was all orchestrated by Democrats because they really live
Speaker 1: in this constant state of hysteria and they want they
Speaker 1: want people to live in a state of hysteria. I
Speaker 1: mean that the Democrat view of the world is that
Speaker 1: there should be a domestic counter terrorism fight against Trump's
Speaker 1: supporters because they're such a threat, because the white nationalists
Speaker 1: are going to storm the White House at any moment
Speaker 1: and take it over and all this other stuff. They say,
Speaker 1: that's just not true. But if you can create a world,
Speaker 1: if you can create an environment where enough people believe that,
Speaker 1: well there's a lot of political advantage in it, you see,
Speaker 1: because why do you have to treat your opponents with
Speaker 1: decency and kindness and respect. Why would you do any
Speaker 1: of that if, in fact you didn't think that they
Speaker 1: were people worthy of those things, because they're a party
Speaker 1: of neo Nazis, white nationalists all these things. I mean
Speaker 1: that the big lies they're telling here about the right,
Speaker 1: about conservatives, about the Republican Party, the lies they tell,
Speaker 1: the exaggerations they rely on, are useful to them. Do not,
Speaker 1: do not, do not. Forget that. And you are gonna
Speaker 1: be bombarded with lies from the press for the next
Speaker 1: four years because they're gonna say whatever they have to
Speaker 1: say to back up this Biden administration. That's never gonna change.
Speaker 1: What's funny about this, of course, you've got Smarmye Smurf.
Speaker 1: You guys, remember if you listen to the show years
Speaker 1: ago and we had Smarmie Smurf, Jay Carty. Hey have
Speaker 1: Jay Carty Sparbie Spurf. He sounds a little bit like
Speaker 1: Brian Stelter, But we don't need to we don't need
Speaker 1: to compare bucks impersonations of the two. Stelter's a little
Speaker 1: bit dad here, s Barbie Smurf is more up here.
Speaker 1: But you had Jake Carty saying, how how bide this
Speaker 1: Biden administration? It's gonna be all about the honesty, all
Speaker 1: about the integrity play it. The administration telegraph very early, Uh,
Speaker 1: this is how they were going to be honest and
Speaker 1: truthful instead of spinning about it's you know, today Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's president, tomorrow COVID's you know, the beginning of the
Speaker 1: end is near. They've been very clear that it's going
Speaker 1: to get worse before it gets better. And I think
Speaker 1: you begin to make deposits in the integrity bank when
Speaker 1: you when you're honest with the press and therefore the
Speaker 1: people and I and I was glad to see that,
Speaker 1: and I know we're going to see more of it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just going to be all all truthy stuff from
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Sure, a lot of truth stuff coming out
Speaker 1: from the Biden administration. You're also seeing that Jensaki is
Speaker 1: good at this job. Why exactly how is she a
Speaker 1: particularly effective communicator? Um, that's that's what I would That's
Speaker 1: what I would say. How is she an effective communicator?
Speaker 1: I would ask that question. And how is the Biden
Speaker 1: administration going to handle the continued influence of the left
Speaker 1: during all of this, I mean the real left, the
Speaker 1: socialist left. Remember that the socialist left that it still
Speaker 1: has big designs what they want to do for the country. Well,
Speaker 1: here's what Bernie Sanders is saying about how the agenda
Speaker 1: is in fact, very much. It's still alive for Democrats
Speaker 1: on the socialists left, and they've even got a plan
Speaker 1: for how they're going to do some of this. Play eight. Well,
Speaker 1: the devil is in the details about what we want
Speaker 1: to do and when we want to do it, and
Speaker 1: when we have to do it. What we are talking about,
Speaker 1: by the way, are two separate reconciliation packages. Number one,
Speaker 1: the emergency one right now, right get direct checks. Get
Speaker 1: those checks into people's pockets right now so they can
Speaker 1: feed their families and make sure that people are not
Speaker 1: evicted from their own to make sure that states have
Speaker 1: the funds they need to get vaccines into people's lives.
Speaker 1: That's what we've got to do right now. And then
Speaker 1: as soon as that is done, we have to rebuild
Speaker 1: this economy. Unemployment is much much too high, wages are
Speaker 1: much much too low. There are structural problems that we
Speaker 1: have had, we have ignored for years. Climate change is
Speaker 1: a really you're okay doing all of that through this
Speaker 1: process that you criticize for Republicans for using. These are
Speaker 1: major policy changes. These are major policy changes. But the
Speaker 1: devil is in the details, and I criticize Republicans, yeah,
Speaker 1: for using reconciliation to give tax breaks to billionaires to
Speaker 1: create a situation with large profitable corporations now pay zero
Speaker 1: in federal income taxes. Yes, I did criticize them for that.
Speaker 1: And if they want to criticize me for helping to
Speaker 1: feed children who are hungry, was seeing the citizens in
Speaker 1: this country are isolated and alone and don't have enough food,
Speaker 1: they can criticize me. I think it's the appropriate step forward.
Speaker 1: Whatever I need to do, I'm going to do. They
Speaker 1: could criticize me for trying to feed children. Go ahead,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, that's right, Bernie. The only problem we
Speaker 1: have we just don't want socialist Bernie feeding the children.
Speaker 1: What do I always tell you, what's one of bucks
Speaker 1: rules or politicians. Never trust a politician when they say
Speaker 1: it's for your safety or it's for the children, don't
Speaker 1: trust them. It's a rule one you should not, one
Speaker 1: you should not. Let's slip out of your mind easily.
Speaker 1: It's an important rule anytime they say it's for your
Speaker 1: safety or it's for your children, for the children, not
Speaker 1: even your children, because you know more about your children
Speaker 1: than they do for the children in general, the collective.
Speaker 1: But Bernie, Bernie's gonna see openings here and more radical
Speaker 1: socialist policy is gonna happen through this bid administration. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna come up with ways to call it different things.
Speaker 1: They're they're gonna have, you know, preferred socialist nomenclature shifting right.
Speaker 1: They're gonna say it's something else. This is a oh,
Speaker 1: we're not redistributing wealth, we're just making adjustments against the
Speaker 1: super rich or something. They're gonna come up with ways
Speaker 1: to make it sound like they're not doing what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Get ready for it. You can guarant I can guarantee
Speaker 1: you this is gonna happen. You're listening to the Fuck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show podcast. Make sure you subscribe to the podcast
Speaker 1: on the iHeart Radio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll Call. I feel like
Speaker 1: our role call. Spruce and Mark have more of a
Speaker 1: almost like a zoot suit riot kind of feel. You
Speaker 1: remember the unity that was probably before your time, but
Speaker 1: I get what you mean. There's definitely a different feeling. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, but there was that period where where swing
Speaker 1: dance kind of came back into into focus and people
Speaker 1: were all excited about that. So, yeah, that's something that
Speaker 1: I'm hearing a little bit of of our tunes. Why
Speaker 1: don't you tell everybody before we hear it, before we
Speaker 1: dive into the roll call? How is the producer Mark Weekend?
Speaker 1: How is the football watching? It was very good, two
Speaker 1: very good conference championship teams. I think we'll have a
Speaker 1: fine super Bowl. Who is in the Super Bowl? You
Speaker 1: don't have a clue, do you? Nope, it's the Buccaneers
Speaker 1: and the Chiefs. So the legendary old quarterback and the
Speaker 1: legendary new quarterback facing I actually might watch the Super Bowl. Then.
Speaker 1: That sounds like an interesting story. Tom Brady the greatest
Speaker 1: quarterback of his generation? Is there really any argument about
Speaker 1: that at this point? No, he's the greatest quarterback of
Speaker 1: all time. I think we can safely say that at
Speaker 1: this point. Wow, number one all time. Before him, it
Speaker 1: would have probably been what Joe Montana? Yeah, probably Montana,
Speaker 1: And the argument can still be made, But I mean
Speaker 1: this would be I think his seventh super Bowl. He's
Speaker 1: made forty percent of Super bowls since he entered the league.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty astounding stat Yeah. How good were the
Speaker 1: Bucks before they got Brady? I mean they had a
Speaker 1: decent surrounding team. They just didn't have a quarterback. He's
Speaker 1: the difference. So the piece here to like Tom Brady
Speaker 1: was clearly it's not like he came onto a you know,
Speaker 1: a super team. See. I hate when they do that
Speaker 1: in basketball. I do know enough about basketball that you
Speaker 1: know Lebron going to the Lakers. It's like, no, you know,
Speaker 1: it's cool when you stay at the Cleveland Cavaliers and
Speaker 1: you build a dynasty and a franchise and you're you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. I don't in the end, BA,
Speaker 1: they people love the top players, love to join other
Speaker 1: top players to create these super teams. I just don't
Speaker 1: think that's as interesting. Yeah, I don't. That's one of
Speaker 1: my groups with the NBA has always been as there's
Speaker 1: like five teams that could win the championship and nobody
Speaker 1: cares about the rest of them. Yeah. Yeah, So anyway,
Speaker 1: so it was a good game though. That's good. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there were two good games. I enjoyed my weekend. How
Speaker 1: was Florida, Oh, producer Mark I got sun. I had fun.
Speaker 1: I was walking around in flip flops. It was very nice.
Speaker 1: It sounds lovely. Florida is a very nice place. I
Speaker 1: gotta say it's a thing we should consider setting up,
Speaker 1: setting up for you know, big time. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's the new that's where
Speaker 1: the that's where the conservative movement that's leaving the Blue
Speaker 1: States is also gonna do. People are just gonna pile
Speaker 1: into it because you got great weather, no state income tax,
Speaker 1: great gun laws. I mean, not quite as good as
Speaker 1: maybe a last gun a few other but really so,
Speaker 1: but really pretty solid solid gun laws. Easy you get
Speaker 1: a concealed carry permit. Uh, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of upside. I would love us too. I would love
Speaker 1: conservatives that to take over what's essentially a major city there,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's Tampa or Jacksonville, and make it
Speaker 1: make it a kind of red state mecca, you know,
Speaker 1: make it a gathering point for the for people that
Speaker 1: that view the world away that that conservatives do, and
Speaker 1: show what that would mean for an actual city, because
Speaker 1: we have no cities on no cities on the right
Speaker 1: right now. It's just not not a good scene anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Florida was great. Food was great. Are you a Cevich guy?
Speaker 1: Is that rough fish? Yeah? No, I'm not a rough
Speaker 1: fish guy. Didn't think so. I had such good Cevich.
Speaker 1: I'm the guy who goes to a sushi place and
Speaker 1: only orders the cooked rolls. Yeah, yep, yep, yep. Man.
Speaker 1: Now the food and florid food and Florida was great,
Speaker 1: people were great. Nothing but nothing but upside down there
Speaker 1: with the snow princess. So I got, I got umbrella drinks,
Speaker 1: bikini's warm weather freedom. It was amazing. What kind of
Speaker 1: bikini were you wearing? Well, wouldn't you like to know?
Speaker 1: All right? Tj um, I'm actually I'm a what do
Speaker 1: you call it? Um? I? One day I'll have to
Speaker 1: rock the speedo. You know that, you know those things.
Speaker 1: That's a terrible mental image. I see a few, a
Speaker 1: few guys on the beach still do it. It's occasional,
Speaker 1: but you will see it. You know. They're also half
Speaker 1: your age. Yeah, also true, but bold. It's a bold move.
Speaker 1: It is a bold move to go with the speedo. Hey,
Speaker 1: if I had the body to rock one, I would,
Speaker 1: But I don't, so I wouldn't. I'm more of a
Speaker 1: I'm more of a like I wish I could wear,
Speaker 1: you know, oversized boxers to go swimming in. You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? That would be nice something to basically
Speaker 1: what stim swim trunks are. Yeah, I guess pretty much. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I never liked the mesh lining. I'm always I'm not.
Speaker 1: I don't like the mesh lining, but you know I
Speaker 1: get it, all right, t J. Kicking us off here,
Speaker 1: getting us from talking about am I allowed to say
Speaker 1: banana hammock on the radio? You just did? And yes, listen,
Speaker 1: those are two appropriate words. I believe I can say that.
Speaker 1: That's an I believe that is a slang term for
Speaker 1: a speedo or that form of bathing suit. Oh no,
Speaker 1: that is an extreme banana hammock is a lot different.
Speaker 1: Is it? Just google it? I can't explain. There's a
Speaker 1: character from the TV show Scrubs on forgetting his name
Speaker 1: off the top of my head, but he only wore
Speaker 1: banana hammocks is like a running gag and eventually ABC
Speaker 1: made him stop doing it because it was so much
Speaker 1: a decent exposure. So it's like, actually a form of
Speaker 1: it's a real thing. No, it's a real thing, but
Speaker 1: it is a it is not something for the prude
Speaker 1: kind of person. I learned something new every day on
Speaker 1: this show, all right, t J. Block Conservatives ought to
Speaker 1: implement a strategy of Catholic guilt for the next four years.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but nothing gets at me
Speaker 1: worse than when something I believe in or think to
Speaker 1: be true contradicts the Catholic faith. The media has no
Speaker 1: problem put in Joe's Catholic faith front and center when
Speaker 1: it suits them. We should return the favor and keep
Speaker 1: it front front and center. Every policy decision, every bill
Speaker 1: he signs ought to be looked at through the prism
Speaker 1: of a Catholic faith and whether or not it aligns
Speaker 1: with the faith. I don't believe we should have a
Speaker 1: theocratic ruler, but the left has no problem telling us
Speaker 1: how good of a Catholic Joe is, so we can
Speaker 1: respond in kind. However, I think this is why devout
Speaker 1: Catholics don't make for good politicians, but excellent judges. Not
Speaker 1: saying Joe's at about Catholic, but considering he's getting up
Speaker 1: there in age. I imagine the Catholic guilt weighs heavily
Speaker 1: on his soul at times, and we ought to remind
Speaker 1: him of it. TJ. Sounds like you think the dogma
Speaker 1: may live meekly within Joe Biden, not loudly, and that
Speaker 1: is certainly the case. Look, American Catholics, of which I
Speaker 1: would have to I would call myself one. I am
Speaker 1: a Catholic, and Catholics are a strange group politically speaking,
Speaker 1: because so many of them really believe that they're living
Speaker 1: their Catholic faith and that they support Catholic causes, and
Speaker 1: then they go vote for Democrats who are very obviously
Speaker 1: contrary to not not minor, but to core Catholic beliefs.
Speaker 1: So that's that's something that I you know, they have
Speaker 1: other reasons for doing it, but I do think it's
Speaker 1: interesting as that continues to play out. And yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean Catholic Gilford. But the thing is it's not going
Speaker 1: to work on Biden TJ. That's the problem. Biden doesn't care.
Speaker 1: Biden cares about power. Biden cares about what works and
Speaker 1: how he wins, and everything else is just just noise,
Speaker 1: just a distraction. Dave. Next up, Beer, Hey Buck. I
Speaker 1: have a customer in Fredericksburg that runs a retired greyhound program.
Speaker 1: They don't like to call them rescues, they prefer retired.
Speaker 1: The first time I was at their home, they had
Speaker 1: about ten of them in their living room on bean bags.
Speaker 1: One of the craziest things I've ever seen. Apparently there's
Speaker 1: a retired greyhound community that basically babysit them for each
Speaker 1: other because they prefer to be around other greyhounds, and
Speaker 1: they have been competing against each other. They had a
Speaker 1: fenced in backyard. When she opened the back door, they
Speaker 1: all ran out and started a race around the backyard.
Speaker 1: It was awesome. Just like horses, they're athletes and they
Speaker 1: definitely understand competition and naturally want to win. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: thought you'd enjoy that. Dogs are the best, love the show,
Speaker 1: keep up the grind, you're a pro. Well, Dave, thanks
Speaker 1: so much, and yeah, that's that's cool. I didn't know
Speaker 1: that's what they call them, retired retired greyhound. I just
Speaker 1: just something. I just see. There's a future in my
Speaker 1: head where Producer Mark is like chomping on a coheba
Speaker 1: with a what do you call those those hats, a
Speaker 1: fedora with a coheba and one of those sort of
Speaker 1: havana shirts on at the race track with a big
Speaker 1: fruity drink in his hand, living the floor to life.
Speaker 1: You know, Producer Mark, I see that for you down
Speaker 1: the line. I mean I could see all of that,
Speaker 1: but without the greyhound track. Why why I could have
Speaker 1: a pool in my backyard. Yeah, but you know you
Speaker 1: want to you want to bet on the ponies, bet
Speaker 1: on the bet on the doggies. No, no, I would
Speaker 1: adopt one, not bating race. There we see Mark Mark
Speaker 1: Why Mark doesn't want to play bets and he wants
Speaker 1: to help retire one of them. Exactly. Greyhounds are sweet
Speaker 1: dogs too. They're really really they're they're they're amazing creatures.
Speaker 1: It just it shows you. Yeah, they're well, you know,
Speaker 1: they make many ones too, make like it don't come
Speaker 1: out of a factory. They they they breed and raise
Speaker 1: very small greyhounds as well. But the full size racing
Speaker 1: greyhounds are You're right, they're large. They're large. They're not heavy,
Speaker 1: but they're big. Yeah, they're lanky, they're like tall and lanky. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well there's I said, there's one that lives on my floor.
Speaker 1: Beautiful dog, beautiful dog in a total sweetheart and yeah,
Speaker 1: look I love dogs. I'll say one thing about being
Speaker 1: in Florida was that I missed my parents dog to
Speaker 1: Lula the Frenchiet because I didn't have her anymore, because
Speaker 1: I gave them back while I was gone. But My
Speaker 1: two brothers both have dogs. My brother Mason has a
Speaker 1: Pomeranian that's a rescue. The Pomeranian he was old, was
Speaker 1: found in an alleyway in Austin, Texas. So he's a
Speaker 1: he's a Texas dog and he's a Pomeranian. And my
Speaker 1: other brother just got from Salt Lake City, Utah. What's up,
Speaker 1: knrs salt Lake City From Salt Lake City, Utah. My
Speaker 1: brother just picked up a member of his family. My
Speaker 1: brother Keats, like the poet, not Keith. Everyone always gets
Speaker 1: it confused. My brother Keats got a a multi poo,
Speaker 1: which is a multi smix with a miniature poodle, and
Speaker 1: her name is Lila And I got to play with
Speaker 1: both of them down in Florida a lot. And Lilah
Speaker 1: is two months old and absolutely adorable, absolutely amazing. And
Speaker 1: producer Mark, you're like this. So I'm out to dinner
Speaker 1: with my brothers and my brother's fiance and you know,
Speaker 1: my brother's girlfriend, and I'm sitting there and it's me
Speaker 1: the snow Princess, and we're hanging out and my brothers.
Speaker 1: My little brother's fiance says, watch this, and she pulls
Speaker 1: up her phone. They have like a doggye cam up
Speaker 1: where she can speak to the dog, and the dog
Speaker 1: record nises her voice, so she says, you know, hey,
Speaker 1: Lilah and the dog. He gets all excited for a second,
Speaker 1: and then she fires off with a button a treat
Speaker 1: that comes out of like a little treat dispenser for
Speaker 1: the puppy once she's gone. Yeah, I've seen those. One
Speaker 1: of the best inventions ever. It's amazing. Yeah, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like firing off treats, you know, so
Speaker 1: the dog feels like it's got a little more interaction
Speaker 1: and you don't have to worry about it the same way.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm just saying I think it's cool. All right,
Speaker 1: back into a back into the mix here, Nathan, Hey
Speaker 1: Buck love the show, Nathan, the show loves you. Are
Speaker 1: we sure we want term limits for the right reasons.
Speaker 1: We all want the career politicians out, but what about ours?
Speaker 1: Or we want their career politicians out, but what about ours?
Speaker 1: That means no more Ted Cruise, no more Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 1: We'd basically be saying you're getting fired no matter what
Speaker 1: you do, do whatever you want. We wouldn't have anyone's
Speaker 1: any more voting records to look at and keep the
Speaker 1: ones we like and the votes out. Wait, sorry, we
Speaker 1: would to look at and keep the one we like
Speaker 1: and vote out the ones we don't. You're an inspiration
Speaker 1: of wartime conservatism. Shield side well, Nathan, I try man.
Speaker 1: I'm doing my absolute best here, and thank you so
Speaker 1: much for the kind words. And as for as for
Speaker 1: career politicians, you know, I think I think if we
Speaker 1: could have you know, three or four terms of Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: I think that's enough. Even for Ted Cruz, I think
Speaker 1: we you know, three three terms of Mitch McConnell. I
Speaker 1: think twenty years, you're good. That's a whole career. Right,
Speaker 1: Some people work twenty years in retire, although not these
Speaker 1: days anymore. Um. Maybe if you're in a really really
Speaker 1: strong union, right, producer Mark, if you're in a really
Speaker 1: good union, maybe you're twenty and done. Yeah that's about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: really well in the stock market maybe bitcoin you're not
Speaker 1: done after twenty But at twenty years is basically a career.
Speaker 1: So I think that, you know, the same way you
Speaker 1: have age limits which are kind of arbitrary for hire all.
Speaker 1: I know they're in the constitution, but they were arbitrary
Speaker 1: choices made when they're put in the Constitution. Also at
Speaker 1: a time when human life expectancy was much lower than
Speaker 1: it is right now. Overall, I think you could also
Speaker 1: have you could also have put in place term limits
Speaker 1: that would allow people to have a long and productive
Speaker 1: career in politics, but not have a lifetime in politics.
Speaker 1: I mean, Joe Biden has been in politics too long.
Speaker 1: And that's just the Mottom line. We could talk about
Speaker 1: this stuff as much as want. He's been in politics
Speaker 1: too long. It's time for fresh blood. It's time for younger,
Speaker 1: younger people who have a different approach. And that's true
Speaker 1: a lot. It's true, Nancy Pelosi. Maybe it's true. Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 1: You know, I mean, see this, and you know to
Speaker 1: term limits, there's a lot of arbitrary in this because
Speaker 1: if you look at term limits, well what about terms
Speaker 1: in the first place. Why is a congressional term too,
Speaker 1: but a Senate term six? I know it's in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: but I'm saying those were just decisions made by the
Speaker 1: founder that are by their very nature. It's like the
Speaker 1: borders between US states. There's an arbitrary they just sort
Speaker 1: of have to draw a line, so they draw a line.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's that strange for us to
Speaker 1: push term limits. I think we could do it in
Speaker 1: a way that would be really productive. But I'm also
Speaker 1: a realist, and I know that the people who would
Speaker 1: have to vote for term limits are the people who
Speaker 1: don't want them because they want to stay in office
Speaker 1: as long as they want to stay in office. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Follow Buck on Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and Twitter. All right, more roll called here? Jim next up? Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck and Mark. Just wondering what happens to hard working
Speaker 1: Americans like me when the minimum wage is fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: an hour. I'm a medical laboratory scientist, which is a
Speaker 1: job that has a lot of schooling and license requirements,
Speaker 1: and I make twenty eight dollars an hour. When the
Speaker 1: minimum wage goes to fifteen dollars an hour and everything
Speaker 1: gets more expensive, what happens to people like me? I
Speaker 1: know we aren't going to get a raise to equalize
Speaker 1: the wage and cost of living. Shield high fellow patriots. Yeah, well, Jim,
Speaker 1: that's the problem is all the unintended consequences. I understand
Speaker 1: the emotional appeal, and I agree with the sentiment that
Speaker 1: people who show up and you a job that you know,
Speaker 1: a job that adds value, should be paid well. I
Speaker 1: want workers paid well. I like people to be taken
Speaker 1: care of by their employer, by their their business, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be. But I know that there are limits. Right.
Speaker 1: As much as it would be fun to say everyone
Speaker 1: makes one hundred dollars an hour, you'd bankrupt the vast
Speaker 1: majority of businesses all across the country. I mean probably
Speaker 1: almost all of them. So you can't have that. So
Speaker 1: what is really going on here? What happens when you
Speaker 1: raise the minimum wage? There are those unintended consequences. You
Speaker 1: see that there's a cutback in hours for people. You
Speaker 1: see they'll be jobs lost, and yes, there'll be more
Speaker 1: expensive products. You know that fifteen dollar minimum wage in
Speaker 1: national restaurant chains, for example, would mean that you're you're
Speaker 1: a happy meal. How much is a happy meal right now,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, I can never eat this stuff because of
Speaker 1: my celiac disease. How much is a happy meal? Roughly?
Speaker 1: I guess around five bucks, around five bush, yeah, five
Speaker 1: six bucks. Your happy meal is going to be eight, nine,
Speaker 1: ten dollars. That's what's gonna happen with a fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: if you're going to keep the same number of employees,
Speaker 1: that's just supplying demand. Basic economics. So what was the
Speaker 1: last time you had a happy meal? I don't know,
Speaker 1: probably when I was nine. Oh wow long oh yeah,
Speaker 1: the happy meals for the kids, right, I'm just thinking, yeah,
Speaker 1: I was, maybebe I should have asked you, like about
Speaker 1: like a number three or like a whopper with whatever.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. Those are probably like
Speaker 1: eight nine bucks. Yeah, okay, so whatever, So maybe those
Speaker 1: are eight or nine bucks, so the point being they'd
Speaker 1: be more like twelve now. But yeah, I can't. Fast
Speaker 1: food is very very tough for me because even the
Speaker 1: French fries they use a glutinous a glutinous oil, So
Speaker 1: I can't even have the French fries, which is sad
Speaker 1: for me, but it is what it is. Pen writes,
Speaker 1: I can't stop laughing at your Jen Saki impression, except
Speaker 1: for the fact that it sounds like Jack Black as
Speaker 1: much as it does Jensaki. Great show, great job, love
Speaker 1: your show. Pen, Thanks so much, man. We'd like to
Speaker 1: really appreciate that, like, thank you, Pan, Jen Saki, sans
Speaker 1: you like a total high five and you're the best
Speaker 1: that's gonna be for today, folks. She'll time