All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
44:33
THREE AGAINST ONE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep915
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll give you my reaction to the big debate between Trump and Harris and its significance for the two campaigns moving forward.
Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor of Human Events, joins me.
We're going to once again get Jack's evaluation of the debate and also outline some scenarios for the country if Trump wins versus if Harris wins.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble or YouTube or listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy.
In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Hey guys, a lot to talk about today.
I want to begin with a couple of announcements just regarding the new film and book.
The tickets for the new film will go on sale early next week, most likely on Tuesday.
Now, I want to emphasize two points.
One is it's really helpful for you to see this film in the theater.
Well, you'll love it.
The film is made for the theater.
All my films really are.
And so while you can watch them in other formats, the theater is just far and away the most spectacular And we create scenes that are cinematic in that kind of large dimension.
So you'll enjoy the film immensely in the theater.
Go with friends, round up your buddies, your book club, your Republican group.
And the film opens on the 27th of this month, but tickets go on sale early next week.
And again, it's really helpful, just as it's enormously helpful to go see the film right away, meaning opening weekend.
So mark your calendars for September 27th.
28th or 29th.
If you can possibly see the film in that period, it's huge because that is what the entire movie industry is looking for.
How does the film do in opening weekend?
That's going to determine the fate of the film going forward, whether it stays in the theaters a week or two weeks or longer.
All depends upon how it does in the opening weekend.
But a second point I want to make is that buying tickets early is also hugely helpful.
Why?
Because again, the movie industry is looking to see how is this film selling in terms of early ticket sales.
So you can wait until a day before and go, I'll just show up and get my ticket.
And and hey, I'd rather have you do that than not see it.
But on the other hand, if you jump on and order tickets right away, it sends a kind of electric jolt through the movie industry and theaters are like, oh wow, this is selling fast.
Let's pull it into our theater as well.
So we add theaters based upon early sales.
So that's my announcement about the film.
Gear up, if you will, and buy your tickets early next week as soon as it goes on sale.
The website, VindicatingTrump.com.
The book is already getting some very nice action in terms of pre-orders, but it's a great companion piece for the film.
The book is more of a legal argument.
It spells things out.
It makes the case for Trump in a kind of a unique way.
And it does it with some intellectual depth and sophistication.
In fact, you'll see that I connect the problem, the conundrum of Trump To the conundrum of Lincoln's Lyceum speech, a speech that Lincoln gave very early in his career, a speech not as well known as the Gettysburg Address or the First Inaugural.
But Lincoln prophesied something about America, the rise of a tyrannical power that will take over and subvert the constitutional republic that we have.
And the film and the book Investigate the question.
Well, yeah, that is a threat.
Lincoln was prophetic.
That is real.
But where is it coming from?
Is it coming from Trump?
Is it coming from the Biden-Harris regime?
This is, I think, the question at the heart of the 2024 election.
Now, today is also the anniversary of 9-11.
And, wow.
It flashes our minds back, of course, to that fateful day.
But I think, this is a point that Debbie was making a little earlier today, she's like, I wonder if we've forgotten 9-11, not forgotten it in the literal sense, but are we in a sort of 9-10 mentality?
Have we, and this sometimes happens, you know, even when you have a traumatic experience, with the passage of time, the force of that experience begins to erode, begins to diminish, And after a while, you're like, wow, I don't even know.
Did I really have that experience at all?
You did.
And the point is that even after the immediate emotions of that event pass, the lessons of the event shouldn't pass.
So what's the lesson of 9-11?
The lesson of 9-11 is that we are dealing with a serious threat of people, Islamic radicals, who have never given up their project to destroy us.
It's not just about Israel.
Israel may have had its own, you know, version of 9-11 on October 7th of last year.
But nevertheless, Israel is the little Satan.
We remain the great Satan.
Israel is the near enemy.
We are the far enemy.
But many of these Islamic radicals have come to believe that they have to destroy the far enemy in order to defeat the near enemy.
And so, this is an ongoing battle.
It has not been solved.
It has not gone away.
And so, we should not be complacent.
We should have a readiness, if you will, that is commensurate with the threat that we face.
And this is part of a way of saying, we're not going to get this from the Democrats.
I mean, this doesn't even really need too much elaboration.
From their point of view, Israel is the problem.
The United States is the problem.
We solved the problem by giving Iran various kinds of approvals.
Yes, you can kind of go ahead with your nuclear program.
Guys, just keep it peaceful, will ya?
Now, you want some money?
Alright, we'll send you some pallets of cash.
Don't use it for terroristic purposes, will ya?
This is the democratic foreign policy.
It is very dangerous and very troubling.
So with that, let me turn briefly.
I'm going to have Jack Posobiec come on shortly and we're going to try to discuss in some depth Last night's debate.
I watched the debate.
I didn't watch the beginning.
I kind of missed it, but I jumped in and picked it up.
And I was watching the debate for a couple of things.
Well, first of all, Trump's temperament through the debate, which I thought for the most part was pretty good.
I thought that Trump maintained a balance and a kind of equilibrium.
That he didn't have, well, he certainly had it in his recent Biden debate, the one that knocked Biden out, but he didn't have it in one of the key debates of 2020, a debate that I think did not serve him well in the lead up to the 2020 election.
Trump just seemed flustered.
He just seemed irritable, like, why are we even talking about this?
And there was a certain kind of dismissive tone that didn't come across all that well.
In 2020.
So I was just kind of keeping my fingers crossed.
I hope we don't see that Trump last night.
And we didn't.
What we did see was a debate in which you have moderators who go completely rabid.
And it's the rabidity that I think is the issue here, because look, no one with any sense would have thought the moderators are going to be pro-Trump.
No.
The best you could hope for, the moderators will be somewhat fair.
And that was actually the case, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, in the CNN moderator debate with Biden.
But here we got moderators who decided to sort of go unleashed against Trump.
And and as I say, we've seen debates and going back, you know, to the Reagan years.
I mean, go back and watch.
You know, this is a historically just interesting the Reagan-Carter debate, the Reagan-Mondale debate.
You will see that the moderators in subtle ways are clearly biased in favor of the Democrat.
So this is a generational media problem.
But at the same time there are certain instances where the problem is worse than other times.
I think we saw something of the worst of the worst last night.
I was just listening to a clip from Megyn Kelly this morning and she was just raging and fuming.
I think she even used the F word.
She was super mad at what she saw as a complete Not just abridgment, but a jettisoning, a throwing out of journalistic standards.
And my point is, you know, ABC doesn't care about its credibility.
They don't care whether they're following journalistic standards.
This is like asking, is the New York Times concerned with being unbiased?
No.
Is the New York Times concerned with truly printing, quote, all the news that's fit to print?
No.
But the question is not so much whether the media is going to learn its lesson.
They're not.
The question is whether the ordinary American citizen can see quite obviously what's going on.
Because obviously when bias is subtle, it's more difficult to detect.
It looks like the guy is just being skeptical.
He's just asking a tough question.
What's wrong with that?
But when the moderator, in effect, picks up a baseball bat and goes running after Trump and tries to beat him over the head, you would think that even the not-particularly-savvy or lord-absorber can go Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Isn't that guy the moderator?
What the heck is going on?
I've never seen a debate like that.
I think that was, in fact, the picture conveyed by yesterday's debate.
So that's my short take on it, but you'll hear more of my views as well as the views of Jack Posobiec, a very savvy observer of this kind of thing, coming up right after the break.
Consider this.
Without God, can we have a democracy?
And if religion is removed from Washington, who pays the ultimate price?
There's a new movie out called God's Not Dead in God We Trust.
It's the story of a small-town pastor pushed into the political arena to run against a powerful regime forcing faith and religion out of American politics.
There's no better time for this movie in today's divided culture All of this upheaval and yearning for spiritual leadership is America's collective scream to keep God in the forefront.
God's Not Dead challenges mainstream liberals in the battle for spiritual leadership, hope, and faith in America.
Watch it with your family and friends and remember the words of Ronald Reagan, without God, Democracy will not and cannot long endure.
We must remember we are one nation under God.
Don't miss God's Not Dead, In God We Trust, a Pinnacle Peak production in theaters September 12th.
Are you feeling overwhelmed by the increasing cost of health insurance?
Have you had enough of not having control over your healthcare dollars?
Introducing ShareRite.
It's healthcare done the right way.
At ShareRite, you're not just a number, you're part of a caring community.
And forget about paying excessive premiums, which ShareRite you stand to save.
30 to 50% compared to health insurance.
Wow!
So think about what you could do with all those savings.
But it's more than just savings.
ShareRight ensures you have access to the care you deserve precisely when you need it, from routine checkups to unexpected emergencies.
With ShareRight, your healthcare is their top priority.
Empower yourself today by taking control of your healthcare costs.
Visit shareright.org to learn more and see how much you can save.
Visit ShareRight.org slash Dinesh, that's ShareRight.org slash Dinesh for healthcare done the right way.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome back to the podcast our friend Jack Pasobic.
You know Jack, Senior Editor of Human Events.
He also does his own podcast, Human Events Daily, with Jack Pasobic.
You can follow him on X at Jack Pasobic, P-O-S-O-B-I-E-C.
Jack, delighted to have you on the podcast, the big debate last night.
Let's begin kind of at the beginning.
What were your expectations going into the debate?
How did you think Trump would do and how did you think Kamala would do?
This is beforehand.
I guess.
Well, once again, thanks so much for always having me on.
You know, going into the debate, I had tweeted something, a sort of flashback to remind people that one of the debate moderators, Lindsey Davis up there, had actually referred to President Trump as in alignment with the KKK in the past.
And so, I was sort of remembering that, but that I also remembered CNN, the way they conducted themselves.
Denabash and Jake Dapper are two ardent liberals, and yet the way they conducted themselves at the debate was surprisingly fair.
So I didn't know which ones we were going to get.
Were we going to get the ardent liberals going, as we would say in the military, weapons-free?
Or would we get the more in-the-pocket, serious journalists?
And we all know they can do both.
So I was looking for potentially some, um, some chicanery from the moderators.
And then also, look, Kamala Harris, there was the big question of, would she be able to meet the moment?
Would she be able to get knocked off script?
And then as far as President Trump, the question, of course, is he going to be able to be that voice of the forgotten man and woman of this country?
Is he going to bring up stories that the mainstream media didn't talk about?
And so those were the things that I was looking at.
And by the way, when you talk about the bar, Going into this debate, the NPR-Marist poll as well as the New York Times-Siena poll nationally both had Trump up a couple of points nationwide.
Now, this is not a position where Donald Trump has found himself in any of his campaigns.
So, 2016, 2020, he's never been up in national polls.
Swing state, yes, of course, but never nationally and not in liberal polls, liberal corporate media polls like that.
And so she really had a higher bar because she needed to give herself more momentum and she needed to knock it out of the park.
So going into it, that was pretty much how I handicapped things, that Trump had a lot of momentum and she was the one that the onus was on.
Now, thinking to Trump and his debate, of course, with Biden, that was a little bit of a knockout.
I mean, a knockout in the very literal sense that Trump knocked Biden out of the race.
If you remember, Biden's exit from the race was almost directly precipitated by that last debate.
Do you think that that made not only Trump but maybe conservatives a little overconfident that Kamala is an idiot, she's a cackling fool, that this will be an easy romp for Trump?
I remember when I would say things like this, Debbie, my wife, reminds me, she's like, well, you know, I remember the debate that Kamala Harris did with with Mike Pence. This is when Biden of course ran in 2020 and Kamala was kinda mean-spirited and she was hardcore and she hit back and in some ways she kind of dominated Mike Pence. Now dominating Mike Pence may not be the most difficult thing in the world but nevertheless you know Kamala showed up. Insects are able to.
That's right.
I was going to say, may not be the highest bar to climb, but Debbie's point is don't underestimate her.
She's actually a pretty good cut and paste artist.
She's got a pretty good memory.
She's pretty savvy on her feet.
And I do think that she did show those things last night, don't you?
Well, I think she did.
And I think that she spent this week where, remember, she didn't have any real public events this week.
She wasn't out doing interviews.
She doesn't do interviews, other than one CNN interview.
And she sequestered herself in that Omni Hotel out in Pittsburgh in Western Pennsylvania, on the other side of the state from where we were last night.
And she did debate prep.
And we're told that Hillary Clinton played a role in that.
We're told that David Plouffe, Obama's guy, came in and played huge roles in that.
Of course, David Plouffe.
And you hear these You know, Aaron Sorkin-esque, West Wing scripted lines coming out again and again.
Things like, don't lie like that, I'm a gun owner and so is Tim Walz.
Suddenly she's a gun owner now, even though last time again she said that she would confiscate guns, excuse me, mandatory buybacks.
And so to your point, she does have the ability to cram to prepare and show up ready for bear and that's exactly what we saw this and i actually did expect that conservatives going into it were being overconfident of the sense that she would fall on flat on her face because she has shown as as your wife mentioned she has shown the ability to do this before
She's shown the ability to get up there, to be cool under pressure, and of course, when you have a situation where the moderators are completely deflecting any fire that's directed towards you, that are jumping in to save you at any time, what it does, and we can get into that later, but What it does, it creates a situation where you are in a safe space, a protective bubble, like a quarterback when, you know, when the offensive line is protecting him, he's able to sit back, he's able to coolly look for his wide receivers, he's able to get his pass off.
That was Kamala Harris last night with the blocking done by the moderators, whereas when it was President Trump, it was three on one.
Well, a couple of questions jumped to mind about this, Jack.
One is, do you think it was a tactical error for Trump to agree to a debate with this kind of format?
In other words, presumably Trump could have gone in and said, listen, you know, I always get these very biased moderators.
They're openly in the tank for the other guy.
Why don't we have a Two moderators with one being right of center, kind of someone who's a recognized Republican, and the other who's a recognized Democrat.
And that way it's a little bit more like the old CNN crossfire format, where you've got somebody who's sort of Trump-leaning, who's maybe the one who presses Kamala Harris, and then you've got somebody who is sort of Democrat-leaning, who's pressing Trump.
And that would create not only the impression, but the reality of even-handedness.
Now, maybe that wasn't an option on the table, but do you think it was a... is it a tactical blunder for Trump to go into these settings?
Or is Trump right to say, well listen, I don't care who it is, I don't care who the moderators are, I'm gonna be okay even if it's three-on-one?
Well, I can certainly understand where he's coming from, because he always wants to show that he's willing to take whatever fire, he's willing to go into the fray, go step into the lion's den.
A lot of people said, when he went and did a one-on-one with CNN a while back during the primaries, that that would be a bad move.
Remember, they even said that his debate with Joe Biden on CNN would be a bad move, and obviously it ended up being a knockout.
And so, you know, I can certainly understand the calculus for wanting to go in, but just as As someone who you know take off the the labels for a second just someone who's a voter I think that it would have been much better served the American people would have been much better served having a debate as you mentioned or you know perhaps even a moderate up there someone who someone from the Green Party why not as someone who's a moderator.
I'm coming in and actually asking these questions so you do get a wide swath of opinions rather than what we saw from ABC was not just not just one opinion but also an attempt to control what is truth itself and the nature of reality so that when President Trump brings up things like the horrors that we see visited by these These Haitian marauders in the Midwest or the fact that he was nearly killed by an assassin's bullet and David Muir says, oh, excuse me, excuse me.
We have a lot to get to we're not going to be talking about that and they never even follow up a question.
I just don't think that a conservative or even potentially someone who's a member of the populist left would overlook such things because particularly when it comes to
The question of bring that Ohio that's something where guess what those are working class people and an honest populist left member does actually care about the livelihoods of working class people whatever their race whatever their background that's something and I've talked to people on that side many times and this is where Robert F. Kennedy jr and Nicole Shanahan and so many of these people are now coming in because they actually care about the people who live in the middle of this country it's quite a concept and so would we all be better served by a debate where it's sort of a
A rotational moderator?
Of course, I think we would, but it's got to be something where, and I hope that the campaign sits down and says, look, we need to do something different and we need to get out of the box.
By the way, one of the things that I really think that President Trump should go for is town halls.
Go for a town hall, get Kamala Harris in where you have to actually face real people, where you have to answer questions from real voters, something where, you know, I'm not sure which directionality the questions went last night.
Did they provide the debate questions to her or did she provide the debate questions to them?
It certainly seemed like she had a little bit of preparation there, I'll just put it that way.
Let's take a pause.
We'll be right back to talk more about this with Jack Posobiec.
You asked and MyPillow listened.
They're finally bringing you the most requested offer ever.
Right now you can get the queen-size premium MyPillow, the most popular pillow for only $19.98.
MyPillow is made with patented adjustable fill.
It adjusts to your exact individual needs regardless of your sleep position.
It helps keep your neck aligned and holds its shape all night long.
So you get the best sleep of your life.
But that's not all.
Good deals all around.
Get the MyPillow 6-piece kitchen or bath towel sets, just $25.
The brand new mattress topper, as low as $69.98.
And the famous MyPillow bed sheets, as low as $25.
And there's so much more.
Call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227, or go to mypillow.com.
When you use promo code Dinesh, you get big discounts on all the MyPillow products, including the premium queen size MyPillow Only, $19.98.
That's the lowest price ever.
Don't delay order today.
Go to mypillow.com and don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Guys, we're going into the final lap toward the election.
I've got a big movie coming out shortly.
This is a great time to join my local channel and become an annual subscriber.
I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You also get to know me and the family personally.
On Locals, you can interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday.
And no topic is off-limits.
I also have a movie page up on Locals with some of my films and some films by others.
2000 Mules is up there, the film that came out last year, Police State, and the new film will also be up there.
If you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch these movies for free.
They're included with your subscription.
So, check out the channel.
It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
I'm back with Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor of Human Events.
Follow him on X at Jack Posobiec.
Jack, you know, Debbie and I sometimes have this debate about the audience, about the American people, about the kind of working class voters that Trump is going after, and their ability to see through what is clearly a very elaborate song and dance that is being put on, not just by the Democrats, but by the media.
So what you have is a spectacle last night.
It's obviously a sort of three-on-one.
It's like one of those things in the schoolyard where three guys corner you in an alley and try to go after you.
Obviously that is very apparent to anybody who observes that.
And my question is this, do you think that the ordinary voter, and I'm not just talking about like the committed left-winger or right-winger, but the guy in the middle who's like, let me see what this is all about, Isn't it obvious to that kind of voter, hey look, what kind of debate is this where the moderators are jumping into one side?
You know, I mean, they'd notice it if it was world wrestling or if it was a boxing fight.
Do they notice it if it's a political debate or do you think that the ABC was successful in suckering the middle-of-the-road guy into thinking, Kamala's amazing, Trump's God, Trump keeps lying?
Well, you know, I think that's exactly the way to ask the question is if you're a liberal, if you're a committed leftist, a committed Democrat, you loved the debate last night.
You're thinking, oh, they finally put Trump in his place and they fact check him in real time.
This is back to Candy Crowley of 2012, which by the way, we, we had all thought that in 2012 Candy Crowley, this was supposed to be the unwritten rule that the moderators don't get involved in the debate.
And it, Really has kind of been that way for for almost every debate since though I will I would also hold my fire when it comes to Chris Wallace cutting off President Trump when he brought up the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020 and I'm not going to let him walk away from that one.
But when we see this, you know, the question then of course comes back to, and so sure, the liberals love the debate because they see Trump getting beat up.
The conservatives look at it and say, well, wait a minute, you're all just ganging up on him and you're not even fact-checking her at all.
Zero times, by the way, zero fact-checks and zero hard pushbacks or follow-ups from your Lindsay Davis last night.
And then The question, of course, comes down to these undecideds, these middle of the road people, people who are voting with their wallets.
And honestly, for people who are voting with their wallets, I don't think there was much information there for them because they barely talked about the economy.
They barely talked about grocery prices.
They barely talk about any of the gasoline or or job, the job market, the fact.
And Trump, you can hear him, by the way, trying to bring this up.
You know, you lied about the jobs numbers.
You lied about a million jobs coming in.
All of these jobs are going to the illegals.
And then again, He just keeps getting inundated with this this corporate media blanket of sort of a I guess you called a reality distortion filter where the he's he's talking about things that are actually true by the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics coming out and having to revise their numbers by almost a million jobs talking about I thought he had a great line about the He called them bounce-back jobs.
Well, those were bounce-back jobs that you got when you say you created jobs.
No, that was that was the lockdowns took away the jobs.
Those jobs were simply returning to parity.
So he's trying to actually make serious points about the economics.
Thomas Sowell probably would have loved that discussion, but instead they play all these games and completely talk over him.
And so if you're an undecided voter, I would have to say you came away with that being very perplexed and you might say, well, I don't know if anyone won the debate, but, you know, the economy is bad.
And Trump had the best line at the very end, his best line of the entire thing.
I do wish he had said it earlier, but his best line of the entire thing, and I can understand why he didn't, because he's dealing with all of that, was if you can do all of these wonderful things, why don't you do it right now?
Why haven't you done it for the past four years?
And to just say that over and over, that really does fit.
And I think his general righteous indignation and anger with with the state of the country and with her management and her and Biden's management.
That's going to resonate more with those undecided voters who are looking for someone to do something to help them rather than go to her for these these flowery platitudes that are ultimately You know sugar-free and calorie free because there's there's just again.
It's just empty calories.
There's nothing actually there I mean the closing statements to me kind of said it all because essentially Kamala Harris said in effect, I am the candidate of optimism.
The underlying presumption is things are going pretty well.
I'm going to make them go even better.
So if you want a future that resembles the present, vote for me.
Trump is the candidate of the past.
I think in a way Trump embraced that and went, yeah, things actually were better when I was in charge.
So if you're talking about the past in that sense, then I am the candidate of the past.
I'll give you more of what I gave you the last time around.
And Trump also basically said they're destroying our country.
The country is in a mess.
We're in a mess on the domestic front.
We're in a mess on foreign policy.
Look at our place in the world.
It's not where it used to be.
And I was thinking to myself, really, it comes down to that.
I mean, if you agree with Kamala Harris that the country's doing well, the borders are fine, the economy's fine, our foreign policy, we're making steady progress and holding up our ideals gallantly, then you should vote for her.
But on the other hand, if you think that, man, the country is really on the wrong track, things were better under Trump, and we need somebody like Trump to get him back on track, So I think, to me, that framing at the end was probably the way the take-home value for people as they tried to make sense of what you correctly describe as a somewhat all-over-the-place debate.
I think that's right.
And again, you have to wonder which emotion is going to meet the middle-of-the-road voter where they are.
Are you going to meet people who are happy with their current situation, who are saying, oh yeah, things are so great?
Or do you want someone who says, yeah, I want to change things up because my life isn't going very well right now, the direction of the country.
And go look at all the polls, by the way, that say direction of the country.
It's way underwater.
It's absolutely underwater.
And so when you go to Kamala Harris, she's got a huge problem on her hands because so she's on one hand, she's trying to have her cake and eat it too, because on one hand, she's trying to run with the Obama hope and change, but now it's joy and change narrative.
But the problem being that she's currently in office now with Joe Biden.
So this is the actual big lie of the mainstream media that they are allowing and certainly ABC and David Muir are allowed allowed her last night to get away with the big lie again that she isn't actually in office that she is the incumbent.
She was not challenged once on the Uh, management of the Biden-Harris administration might even say the Harris-Biden administration because I think it's clear to all that Joe Biden is not actually in charge right now.
So she was never called to account for, um, you know, even on Afghanistan, she gives her gives her sort of completely nonsensical statement.
It's just a bunch of neoliberal jargon.
And it falls on flat.
But I do think, by the way, there's a huge opportunity on that one, on foreign policy specifically, for the Trump campaign.
Because she did something that you don't really hear very much from a Democrat.
She's promoting Dick Cheney.
She's promoting John McCain, people who the Democrats ran resoundingly against at the national level not that long ago.
And yet she's also parroting these endless war type lines from them.
You mentioned it, that America has to stand up for our ideals.
President Trump is talking, when he talked about the Ukraine war for example, he talked about the toll of human life that was lost on both sides.
Hundreds of thousands of people, civilians caught in the middle of all of this, where she's talking about idealism and essentially it sounds a lot like the spreading democracy rhetoric that we used to hear from the neoconservatives.
And so an incredible campaign ad could be cut from her comments Taking a, you know, one of the old Dick Cheney speeches or a John McCain speech and lining it up with Bill Crystal, maybe even, you know, one of these odious type John Bolton and then just lining it all up with what Kamala Harris said on stage last night.
And I think that you can go and by the way, you can play that all over the place and I have to say it, you know, take her comments on Israel and play that in Michigan as well because I think there's a lot of people there again, thanks to the Democrat policies that will not agree with her.
We'll be right back with Jack Pasobic.
I'm back with Jack Pasobic, Senior Editor of Human Events, also host of the Human Events Daily Podcast with Jack Pasobic.
Follow him on X at Jack Pasobic.
And Jack, you know, when I think about this Ukraine war, it almost to me has a kind of World War One resonance.
By that I mean you had in World War One trench warfare lasts a very long time, a large number of casualties.
And nobody really seems to make any progress.
In other words, the Russians have not been successful in completely defeating Ukraine, but neither has Ukraine been successful in substantially recovering territory from Russia.
And all you get is a kind of, I mean, this is where I think Trump is right, more and more dead men piling up with seemingly no end in sight.
So for Kamala Harris to say, well, our motives are good.
We, quote, want Ukraine to win.
I remember the moderators pressing Trump.
Who do you want to win?
As if Trump's intentions in this matter are more important than what is actually happening on the ground.
Do you agree with that assessment?
I completely agree with that, Susan.
Actually, in that moment, I could feel myself.
I'm not one of those yell at the TV people, but in my head I was yelling at the TV, say, I want America to win.
I want us to win because I'm running for president.
of America. I'm not running for president of Russia and I'm not running for president of Ukraine.
And I understand that they have their issues and each of them has their, you know, set of facts and they have their grievances and they are in a dispute.
But the win for America, which is ultimately the win for the world, and this is what he spoke about, is a peace deal, an end to the killing. And oh, by the way, it is the United States that is backstopping the Ukrainian military.
It is the United States, the military industrial complex, the weapons that are being sold over there. This is the US interest. So, and so you have this interest essentially, which is in, in, uh, yeah, in investing, they would call it moral hazard that.
There is a financial interest to continue to war and continue to exacerbate the the killing and this is where Kamala Harris shook down on and so you can really pan there's so much material here by the way and I will certainly if you follow me on social media I'm going to be making great use of this to say well look it seems like you lost Afghanistan as your money market
And so you moved the war to Ukraine and now the money market and the arms dealers get to go there and so the merchants of death get their percentage out of it and almost immediately remember I think it was only about six months after so August of 21 to February of 22.
Afghanistan ends, Ukraine starts.
And President Trump did, by the way, bring this up.
He said they only invaded because they saw how terrible your withdrawal from Afghanistan was and how weak you look.
And so there's so much material here, by the way, with Kamala Harris going and really embracing this idea that the Democrats are now the war party.
They are the party of endless war.
And this is a huge, huge sea change from where the Republicans were just a couple of cycles ago.
And so, which by the way, you of course have Barack Obama even in 2012 telling Mitt Romney that Russia is a problem of the 1980s, that we don't even need to worry about them anymore.
In the presidential debate!
And so, there's so many different things you can bring up there, but with Kamala Harris, again, she doesn't give you any specifics, she doesn't give you any substance, and if you're a voter out there who does turn to be indecisive, and by the way, don't just take my word for it, go look And guess what the number one issue in the election is?
at CNN's reporting of the undecided voter panels, even Reuters, they said specifically when it came down to people who cared about the economy, they generally sided with Trump.
And guess what the number one issue in the election is?
It's definitely the economy.
You know when you were talking about the war machine and the kind of the dollars that flow out of that, it reminded me that this is one of the great contributions of Trump and the MAGA movement.
It's a reconsideration of the role of the defense industry.
Because when I flashback to the 80s and 90s, by and large, we had a sort of bifurcated view of government.
Government does things terribly, except in the Defense Department.
You know, and I think part of it was we're in a cold war, so who really cares if the Pentagon coffee pots cost $800 a piece, because we got to win this war and we're going to throw money at it.
And so there was a certain conservative blindness to the way in which Raytheon and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, rake tens of millions of dollars, use lobbyists to have captive congressmen under their control.
All of this has been now brought out by Trump and the MAGA movement.
Talk for a minute about Trump's demeanor because, of course, Trump had a very bad debate with Biden in 2020 where he just seemed irritable and petulant from the beginning to the end.
I think this was in the back of everybody's mind.
Are we going to see that Trump or are we going to see the more cool and sort of assured Trump that we saw in the debate against Biden?
It looked to me, by and large, that Trump was under control last night, that he was pretty measured.
There were times, like you say, when he was annoyed, but he wasn't annoyed in a personal sense.
He wasn't annoyed.
He was annoyed out of a kind of righteous indignation over what's happening with the country or the way that Kamala was lying.
And that's quite different from a kind of name-calling petulance, which I think we saw in the Biden debate of 2020.
I think that's right and I think that one of the ways that people characterize that 2020 debate is they said Trump came across like a bully and the difference between that and last night was that Trump was fighting back against a corrupt machine but doing so on behalf of the people every single step of the way.
He was talking about his supporters and going to bat for them.
He talked about Ashley Babbitt.
He talked about the J6ers who have been held without trial, many of whom were completely peaceful and have been locked up for so.
He talked about, again, the people in the Midwest, these Ohio issues that really are being brought to bear because JD Vance is on the ticket, that they have faced an invasion, a government-backed invasion from their own government, hundreds of thousands across the state and other parts of the Midwest from places all over the third world, people that nobody voted to have come in.
And he comes in and actually speaks from the voice of the people, and those people are And so, I've got friends now that are on the ground in Springfield, and they're posting videos up, people through frontlines, and just other influencers and YouTubers are now descending on the town saying, wait a minute, all of the townsfolk disagree with everything that that city manager said, and we agree with President Trump, like him or not.
He's the one telling the truth against... So to be a truth teller against a crooked regime, to be a truth teller in a time of lies, this was the anger that you saw coming out of Trump last night.
It wasn't that sort of, I'm dominating you, I'm a bully type of thing.
This was, I'm a champion for these people and you may not like it, but I'm going to tell you like it is.
Jack, you know, we are in an election where you've got On the Trump side, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
I mean, think about it.
The most famous of the living Kennedys, let's put it that way.
And then you've got Tulsi Gabbard, longtime Democrat.
You've got now Alan Dershowitz swinging over away from the Democratic camp.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have Adam Kinzinger, they have Joe Walsh, they have Dick Cheney, they have Liz Cheney.
And my question is this, you know, I wonder if Trump should grab onto this reshuffle deck And building on what happened last night, going forward, identify, well, let me put it this way.
In the black community, as you know, there's a kind of unified resistance to the man, right?
Who's the man?
It's the system, it's the regime, it's the establishment that is trying to dominate you.
It's the people who tell you lies up and down.
It's the people who have not only the cops in their pocket, but they've got the juries and the judges in their pocket.
So here's my point.
We have something equivalent of that in the political sphere, where the institutions, the intelligence agencies, the media, all gang up on Trump.
So why doesn't Trump embrace that, identify these people, identify them as a regime and as a gang, and run against them collectively?
Yes, and I think that's his strongest argument, to say, I'm not running against Kamala Harris.
I'm running against a system.
I'm running against an establishment that, yeah, they're screwing over me, but more importantly, they're screwing over all of you.
By the way, even Dave Chappelle, who's not a Trump supporter, in a famous SNL monologue talked about this.
He said, look, I knew Trump was going to win because he walked out on the debate stage and said, hey, you know something?
This this system and these politicians, they're screwing you.
And then people are like, what?
What?
No one had ever said it like a billionaire to come out and say such a thing.
And this is almost 10 years ago.
So it's almost baked in in many ways.
By the way, I think a lot of the temperamental stuff is already baked in because Trump's just been a figure in America, the single figure, the singular figure of American politics for a decade at this point.
But also, there's... Then Dave Chappelle followed up by saying, well, how did Trump convince people?
And the way that he convinced people, he came in and said, you know how I know they're screwing you?
Because I used to be part of it and I'm walking away from it.
He just admits it to everybody, that the The things you think are going on behind closed doors are ten times worse and I'm a traitor to my class because I'm going to come down and try to help you.
That is his single strongest and it goes all the way back to 2015 coming down the golden escalator again.
Down the escalator, the symbolism that he's coming from a higher place to be down with the people.
It's almost, uh, it's Promethean in a sense.
I'm bringing the fire of the gods to you.
Now let's raise up and destroy the crooked old gods.
I mean that's fascinating stuff Jack and actually our film on Trump begins with that.
It begins with Trump who is this celebrity.
I didn't know that.
Oh yeah and everybody loves him and then kind of the going down the escalator to me represents not just the joining the people but in a sense also giving up that cultural celebrity and suddenly becoming a pariah.
Yeah, all of it.
I'm literally moving down socially in order to take up the cause of the people.
Great stuff, Jack.
This is fascinating.
Thanks for joining me, guys.
I've been talking to Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor of Human Events.
Jack, always a pleasure.
Thanks so much, Dinesh.
▲
Export Selection