All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2024 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:30:00
CNN Town Hall Exposes Kamala's Inability To State Beliefs; Democrats' "Trump Is Hitler" Tactic Failing Again

TIMESTAMPS: Intro (0:15) No Real Beliefs (8:44) Dems Cry Hitler (1:00:41) Outro (1:28:22) - - - Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community - - -  Follow Glenn: Twitter Instagram Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, It's Thursday, October 24th.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
As some of you might have noticed, I was not here the last few days, but I am appreciative of Michael Tracy, the intrepid independent journalist who sat in for me one night and our excellent team here at System Update who put together two great shows in my absence so that we weren't off the air even one night.
But I'm very happy to be back.
And tonight we're going to talk about that from the moment Democratic Party elites imposed Kamala Harris on their party and then on the country, the most glaring weakness of her candidacy was manifest from the very beginning.
She has no actual views or policies she's willing or able to express to the point that they actually kept her away from any unscripted interviews.
And her campaign site had no issue positions of any kind for weeks, not even vague banalities.
The campaign strategy could not have been any clearer to replicate Hillary Clinton's 2016 tactic of featuring as the overarching message that you should vote for her for one reason and one reason only, because she's not Donald Trump.
Now, as we said at the time from the very start, it was obvious this strategy was destined to fail.
After the sugar high of having someone younger and different emerge on the scene, of course Americans were eventually going to want to know who this person is and what she believes and what she intends to do before electing her president.
Yet her persistent refusal or inability to just answer the most direct and basic questions about her belief system A failure made far worse by her lack of any political skills that would have enabled her evasiveness to be less obvious predictably started eroding her polling lead and the favorable perceptions that Americans had of her at the start.
Within the last few weeks, even Kamala's campaign has obviously realized that she needs to explain to voters who she is and more importantly what she believes.
That's why they began putting her on multiple shows where she was forced to be interviewed without a script.
And yet somehow each appearance was worse than the next.
And she even managed to be extra bad when they put her in the friendliest possible venues such as The View or Stephen Colbert's program because the questions were so delicate and gentle, leaving her inability to answer all the more obvious.
Now, somehow, with each passing week, she's somehow getting worse with all of this, all culminating in last night's extreme debacle on CNN's town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper.
In response to very direct questions from audience members and a reasonably persistent Cooper, her inability to respond directly to a single question Or at least pretend she was responding.
It was so embarrassing that even Democrats on the CNN panel were admittedly uncomfortable or even horrified.
But Harris's entire campaign has been a vapid exercise in serving the interests of those who fund her.
That's been what her whole career has been, in fact.
She has no fixed or genuine belief system.
And that is why she remains petrified of trying to stake out a view of any kind because there's nothing she actually believes.
So she's constantly calculating what view might be politically harmful, what view might be politically helpful, and she's just paralyzed.
She can't answer questions because she has no views on anything.
She may win the race.
I have no idea what the outcome will be.
But if she does win, it'll be despite all of that.
But if she loses, there's no question that this bizarre and increasingly visible internal emptiness will be a major reason explaining her defeat.
Then, ever since Donald Trump emerged as a viable contender in 2016, Democrats and their liberal media allies have openly called him a fascist and equated him with Adolf Hitler.
Very similar to how they spoke about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney before converting them into noble patriots.
I know no history before 2016 matters or exists, but it actually is true that they speak about Trump now, how they spoke about Bush and Cheney back in 2004.
Now, either because it was part of their grand 2024 plan all along or because they are panicking, getting increasingly desperate, Democrats have decided not only to rejuvenate this tired tactic, but to make it a centerpiece, possibly the centerpiece of their closing messaging possibly the centerpiece of their closing messaging of the 2024 election.
They have worked themselves into such a frenzy over this that it is now commonplace to hear liberal pundits earnestly worrying or predicting That they will be shipped off to concentration camps if Trump wins.
As though he would consider Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid such grave threats to his power that he would demand their immediate banishment into some dungeon somewhere.
Now, one of the primary problems with this tactic, aside from the Democrats' continuous reliance on it since 2015, is that Americans do know Donald Trump very well.
Not just since 2016, when he decided to ran for president, but for many decades prior to that, when he was a major celebrity, a friend of rappers, billionaires, and the Clinton family, He was the star of a major primetime NBC hit show and all that went along with it.
And then, kind of importantly, Trump was already the President of the United States for four full years.
Not decades ago, but quite recently.
So is it really possible to convince Americans other than MSNBC viewers and subscribers to The Atlantic that this Trump is Hitler narrative has any remote basis in reality?
I suppose we'll find out soon enough and with certainty soon enough, but it seems far more likely for the reasons we'll go into that this reeks of desperation rather than the byproduct of any sort of well thought through or reliable or effective strategy.
Now, before we get to all that, a few programming notes.
I'm sure you've missed these, so I'm going to go through them.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you download it, it will work both, both on your smart TV and your telephone.
I actually spent the last few days thinking about this fact.
You know how often I'm amazed by it.
And I actually did a lot of Googling to try and understand how it's possible.
I couldn't find anything.
I spoke to experts.
No one understands it, but I tested it.
It really does work both on your smart TV and your telephone.
No matter which app that you download from Rumble.
And then once you do that, if you follow the programs you most like to watch here on the platform, it means the minute that any of those shows begin broadcasting live on the platform, you will be notified, whether it's by text or email, however you want, that those shows have begun airing.
And then you can just click on the link, begin immediately watching only once they're actually on the air broadcasting.
That really helps the live viewing numbers of each program and therefore the free speech cause of Rumble itself.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program on those platforms, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive after show.
Designed to take your questions and respond to your critiques and hear suggestions for future guests and shows.
That after show is available solely for members of our Locals community.
So if you'd like to join, which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows, but to multiple interactive features we have.
We put a lot of original, exclusive content on the Locals platform that we don't have time to get to here.
It's where we publish our written, professionalized transcripts of every show that we broadcast here.
We publish those on the platform the day after and And most of all, it really is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Before we even get to what Kamala Harris has or has not done in her campaign, it's important to note the context for how this candidacy emerged because it really is a historical it's important to note the context for how this candidacy emerged Usually, in fact...
always in the recent decades of American political history and modern day political history, when someone wants to become president, they first have to try and secure the nomination of their own party.
And to do that, They have to work essentially for a year and a half to convince factions within the party, the public at large, that they are a candidate who can win an election, appeal to voters first within their party and then more broadly.
And in order to do that, they do things like going around giving interviews, giving speeches, campaigning, participating in debates, laying out policy positions.
Over the course of many months, Until the viable contenders who are left, the two or three who are left, are very well known to the public in terms of their personality, their set of personal values and beliefs, and the policies on which they're running.
Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee for president without doing any of that.
She never campaigned for a single vote.
She never was interviewed in her quest to become the Democratic Party nominee.
She never participated in debates.
She never laid out any policy views or any planks of what her campaign would be.
Instead, she was chosen in a proverbial dark room, the kind that we thought we had left behind back in the 1950s and 60s, where a handful, a tiny handful of Democratic Party insiders and elites and donors, people like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and the people like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and the billionaires who fund the Democratic Party, chose Kamala Harris without consulting with the public, without allowing the public to have any say, without any party insiders having
Without any other candidates who obviously wanted to be considered having the ability to run against her in the same exact way that they prevented any primary challengers to Joe Biden in 2024 from challenging him either.
It's an extremely anti-Democratic party.
They just choose who they want and then tinker with the rules to make sure that their chosen candidate wins.
Going back to 2016 when the DNC cheated to make sure that Hillary became the nominee and not Bernie Sanders in 2020 when Barack Obama made a few...
Hey, nice career there.
Sure would be a shame that if something happened to it, if you don't drop out calls that led to Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke and Amy Klobuchar magically dropping out, leaving only Joe Biden to gather all those centrist votes for himself while leaving Liz Warren in the race to divide that part of the vote with Bernie Sanders, making sure that Joe Biden won.
But 2024 was far worse.
And it's not just how they made clear that there'd be no primary challenger to Joe Biden.
It's that once it became obvious that Joe Biden couldn't win the race and Democrats were determined to force him out through threats, overt and implicit, going all the way up to invoking the 25th Amendment if he really refused, making it clear that he had no choice.
They just chose Kamala and imposed her and unveiled her and announced her as the nominee.
So no one knew anything about Kamala Harris of the kind that you normally know about a candidate when they become a nominee for a major party.
Now, the one caveat to that is that Kamala Harris had actually run for president previously.
She ran in 2019 when she sought the 2020 nomination for the Democratic Party that Joe Biden ultimately won.
And the problem with her candidacy, other than the fact that she was such an embarrassment as a candidate, that she was forced to drop out of the race before a single vote was cast.
So in her entire career, Kamala Harris has never received a single vote to become the nominee for president of the Democratic Party, not in 2019, not in 2024.
But aside from that, she actually did advocate a series of policy positions that she made the centerpiece of her campaign.
Because the strategy she had was that she knew she couldn't run as a centrist, mainstream-type Democrat because Joe Biden already had that lane locked up.
And she couldn't run as a far leftist because Bernie was there and he was absolutely going to get those votes.
So she ran in the middle of both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as a left wing alternative to Joe Biden, but not so left wing that she would be like Bernie Sanders and create a perception that she couldn't win.
And so she did there, at least that time, articulate a series of policy views.
She was in favor of a ban on fracking in the name of the environment.
She was in favor of a single-payer health care system.
She had a whole range of views like that that she actually advocated for, that her campaign site promised that she would implement if she won.
And so I guess when there was this unveiling of Kamala as a candidate, Even though she hadn't expressed any policy views herself, there was an assumption, oh well we already know what she stands for because she ran for president just four years ago and she said what she believes in.
But immediately, her campaign renounced all of those views, said she no longer believes in any of those views, any of those views that were to define her in 2019.
Candidacy creating not only void, an emptiness that she represented, but also an obvious distrust that there's a genuine bone in her body since the beliefs that she professed to believe in so strongly in 2019 were ones that now it didn't suit her anymore.
She immediately renounced, not even herself, but through a written campaign spokesperson.
And for a while it worked, because as I said, the polls had repeatedly showed that Americans wanted an alternative to two very relatively older men whom they had seen in their living rooms for many years.
They just wanted something different and she was different.
And that gave her this kind of excitement to her candidacy.
This, as I said, sugar high in polling, but it was so obvious that wasn't going to last.
Because Americans are not going to vote for someone Whose personality and set of values and worldview and policy preferences have been hidden from them, concealed from them, basically on purpose.
And over the weeks, Kamala Harris' excitement and energy around what she was doing, her polling numbers have all started to gradually erode.
I'm not going to say they've collapsed, but they've all started to gradually erode.
And a lot of polling data shows that the main problem she has is that Americans say they just haven't heard enough from her about what she believes.
They don't know who she is or what she stands for.
And despite how obvious it is that that continues to be her main problem, Even as the campaign had tried to adapt to that by putting her in the friendliest confines where she could be interviewed by adoring personalities who obviously were on her side like Stephen Colbert and The View and Howard Stern and the Call Me Daddy podcast.
Somehow, even there, she ended up looking worse than she had previously.
Especially her inability somehow I guess it never occurred to them to plan how to answer this question when she was asked on The View, when she was asked on Stephen Colbert, hey, what would you do differently than Joe Biden?
The Republicans are saying you're nothing but a continuation of this failed and unpopular Biden presidency.
What is it that you would do differently than Joe Biden?
She didn't even have like a bullshit answer.
You know, an answer that didn't answer the question, but at least sounded like it might.
Like, oh, I think times have changed.
I think we need a little more focus on this.
You know, Biden had to save the country from COVID and wasn't able to quite focus on health care or the environment, whatever.
And I think now's the time to focus on those just a little bit more.
At least have like an answer.
And instead, she looked like a deer in headlights, like it had never occurred to her before.
And she would just say, like, you know, nothing occurs to me right now.
I can't identify a single difference between myself and Joe Biden.
And those were in the friendliest context.
And the more they put her in any kind of interview where there's even a little bit of pushback, her refusal and inability to answer basic questions about what she believes...
It becomes glaringly obvious.
It started in the first part of the debate that she had with Donald Trump when the first question was, are Americans better off under your administration or were they better off four years ago under Donald Trump's?
The most basic question in presidential politics and the first thing that came out of her mouth was, I grew up in a middle class family, which you immediately understand is not responsive to the question.
And so that's what Americans started perceiving.
And then she did the Fox interview with Brett Baer, and every time he pressed her on what she believes or what she claimed to believe in the past, she would just absolutely ignore it, refuse to answer, and start talking about Donald Trump.
So yesterday she did a, last night she did a CNN town hall, which obviously CNN is a very friendly forum to her, And somehow, even though it's so obvious this has been the major failure of her campaign, she's regressed.
She's gotten worse in her ability to just make it seem at least like she's answering questions.
Let alone actually answering that.
But I'm not talking about an obscure, ancillary topic where she couldn't anticipate being asked.
I mean, on the most basic political issues that most Americans, even ones not very politically engaged, can tell you what they think.
She can't.
And she's terrible at hiding it because she has no real political skills.
Which is why our campaign in 2019 was such a profound failure despite all the institutional advantages you could possibly want.
So let us show you not only several of these exchanges just to underscore how severe this problem has become, but also how even CNN's panelists, including not just the ones who are supportive of the Democratic Party but pretend they're objective, but even the ones who admit to being Democratic Party cheerleaders, Just couldn't defend her.
It reminded me a lot of the reaction after that first debate with Biden and Trump when even CNN couldn't defend Joe Biden.
So here is one of the exchanges where she was asked that same question.
How can we differentiate your policies and beliefs from those of President Biden?
Here's how she handled that.
Some voters might ask, you've been in the White House for four years, you were vice president, not the president, but why wasn't any of that done for the last four years?
Well, there was a lot that was done, but there's more to do, Anderson.
And I'm pointing out things that need to be done, that haven't been done, but need to be done.
The question was, you keep saying there's all these great ideas that you have, that you want to do, as if you're a newcomer to politics, when in reality you've been in the Biden White House for the last three and a half years, so why didn't you do those things then if those were really priorities?
And she's like, yeah, we did some of them, but not all of them.
There's still more to do.
Like, why not?
Why didn't you do all those things that you believe that the country needs, and how are you going to do it If you win one, you couldn't do it over the last three and a half years.
And it's just this constant ambiguity.
Now, there are answers.
Oh, well, we tried, but we were sabotaged by the Republicans.
And this time along, we're hoping to win a Democratic majority in the House that will help us facilitate whatever.
There's so many obvious answers.
But she just resorts to these ambiguities that are not in any way clever or persuasive.
Let's listen to another one of these exchanges, which is...
I believe here she was asked about...
Anderson Cooper wanted to know, okay, look, you've been in the White House for three and a half years.
Surely you've learned some lessons.
You were pretty new to national politics.
You had only been a U.S. senator for two years when you were picked as Joe Biden's vice president.
So surely there must be things that you consider mistakes that you learn from and will do better in your administration if you win.
And here's how she responds to that.
Is there something you can point to in your life, political life or in your life in the last four years, that you think is a mistake that you have learned from?
I mean, I've made many mistakes.
They range from, you know, if you've ever parented a child, you know you make lots of mistakes, too.
In my role as Vice President, I mean, I've probably worked very hard at making sure that I am well versed on issues, and I think that is very important.
It's a mistake not to be well versed on an issue and feel compelled to answer a question.
Can you believe that?
I mean, anyone who goes in, even for an entry-level job, Is typically prepared for that question like, okay, I see all your strengths.
They're very impressive.
Tell me about your weaknesses.
And people are usually prepared to say, yeah, you know, people tell me that I just work too hard.
I'm too dedicated to my work.
Maybe it would be healthier.
Like, you know, you give an answer that seems like it's a flaw that in reality is actually more praise, but you kind of are capable of framing it that way.
It's just like basic interviewing skills.
She tried like making some lame joke about how as a parent you make mistakes and then cackled a little bit at her own joke.
And then went on to say, you know, look, I'm a person who's extremely prepared.
I'm always very prepared for anything I do, and it would be a mistake not to be, but that's not a mistake I make.
So it was like the opposite of the question that she was asked, and that's to put aside this very dubious claim that she's a parent, she's a stepparent.
There's a component of that, but...
You know, she is not actually a parent.
I mean, Doug Evhoff's kids have parents.
But anyway, that's besides the point.
But I do think it's worth noting, even there, she kind of fudged the truth.
Here again is an audience member with Anderson Cooper kind of pushing trying to understand again like what was her experience like in the White House and what has she learned from it?
And basically an attempt to again ask her like where did you go wrong?
Just like give us a couple places where you regret how you handle something and what you learned from that.
A totally reasonable question that again anyone is capable of answering.
I mean, if you were to ask me, like, hey, what mistakes have you made over the last two and a half years and how you've done the show?
I could give you, like, ten different things off the top of my head.
Because this is, like, a basic byproduct of being just a little bit self-reflective.
Like, realizing you're not perfect, you make mistakes, you learn from those mistakes, and then you see them retroactively, retrospectively.
It's just like the most minimal amount of humility necessary to just admit that.
People want that.
People want to hear that.
It's like a human response to show that you're not just this robotic programmed automaton.
And yet, listen to this exchange.
What weaknesses do you bring to the table and how do you plan to overcome them while you're in office?
That's a great question, Joe.
Well, I am certainly not perfect, so let's start there.
What I love about this so much is that a lot of times when she's like in these very friendly environments, she'll do that thing where she gets nervous and she'll make what she but nobody else but what she regards as a joke.
And then she'll cackle at it.
And oftentimes she'll do it for so long that the other people near her feel compelled to just finally like crack a smile and laugh along because it doesn't seem like she's ever going to stop until you do that.
I think I mentioned before I actually had someone in my life who I knew very well who would be exactly like that.
You would go out to dinner with them and they would make a joke that no one else thought was funny.
But she would start cackling at her own joke and actually start like physically touching you if you weren't laughing, like kind of pulling your arm to make it laughing.
And it was obvious to everyone at the table that There'd be no moving past it until somebody just gave her some positive feedback and pretended to find it humorous.
She just got trained to kind of like chuckle.
But, you know, this is a person who is a voter.
He's taking his role seriously and he wants an answer and didn't even crack a smile at What she said, while she's...
Look, you see that fake, jovial expression on her face.
He's just deadly stone-faced and serious because he really wants an answer.
It was a very genuine question.
Obviously, you say, I'm not perfect.
That's not an answer.
So let's see how the rest of this goes.
I think that...
Perhaps a weakness, some would say, but I actually think it's a strength, is I really do value...
Can you believe that?
So her weakness is something that others may think is a weakness, but she disagrees that she thinks is a strength.
The question was, what are your weaknesses?
And she's like, well, here's something that I do that some people mistakenly think is a mistake, but that I know is actually a strength.
And here's what her weakness is.
I really do value having a team of very smart people around me who bring to my decision-making process different perspectives.
My team will tell you, I am constantly saying, let's kick the tire on that.
Let's kick the tires on it.
Have you ever met, or can you even imagine, someone who would say, oh, that's a weakness?
Hey, like I'm a decision maker and I like to compile and assemble a really smart team, including people who have different views so that I don't just fall into the trap of thinking in one way.
I can see and hear different perspectives.
And her weakness is that she'll say to her team, let's kick the tires on that.
And she's like, yeah, some people think that's a weakness.
Nobody thinks that's a weakness.
Nobody would ever say that's a weakness.
I think what this really is is just like a complete discomfort in your own skin.
A complete lack of confidence to just speak in a normal, honest way.
And that really is what has characterized her as Vice President so much.
And I think the reason for it is because she's so poorly trained for this role.
Her whole life, basically, she's been a criminal prosecutor.
And I've heard her when she speaks about the law, the criminal law, the criminal justice system, prosecutions, trials.
She's very confident in how she speaks about that.
That's her profession.
That's what she's done her whole life.
But she knew virtually, and that's why the only time we really saw her in the Senate was on the Judiciary Committee when she was sort of interrogating in a very lawyer-like way people like Brett Kavanaugh and made a good impression on a lot of liberals because she has courtroom skills.
That's what she's been doing her whole life.
But whenever she's forced to talk about anything, even a little bit outside that, economic policy, immigration, and especially foreign policy, It's like you feel embarrassed for her.
She has no confidence in what she's saying.
She's so afraid of making mistakes because her knowledge on these things is skin deep.
And if you're speaking in front of people and you have very little confidence in your own ability to be politically appealing, to give answers that aren't going to create huge problems for you, you're going to be petrified.
And that being petrified, that state of being petrified will manifest in this way.
Just a complete unwillingness to speak with even an iota of authenticity about herself and about her policy views.
And this is exactly what's been going on.
Alright, here is a different exchange on this, which involves an obviously important question, which is the ongoing war in Israel and U.S. support for it.
And here is, when she was asked about that, What she ended up saying.
It's almost impossible to comprehend, but here it is.
He has said that he's casting himself as a protector of Israel.
Do you believe you would be more pro-Israel than Donald Trump?
I believe that Donald Trump is dangerous.
I believe that when you have a president of the United States who has said to his generals...
Who work for him because he is commander-in-chief.
These conversations, I assume, many of them took place in the Oval Office.
And if the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief, is saying to his generals...
Look, I'm very aware that I pay more attention to political discourse and political issues than the vast majority of people because of what I do, because of my work and my job.
And even before that, I tend to be more politically engaged in terms of just paying more attention.
But is there anybody, just like people who are kind of just trying to be good, decent, civic participants, Who don't pay a lot of attention to politics, but who are trying in the last few weeks of this election to make an informed decision based on their hearing, who don't notice immediately that the words that are coming out of her mouth have absolutely nothing to do with the question that Anderson Cooper asked.
He asked her about Israel and what her posture toward Israel would be in comparison with Trump.
And she just started talking about how his generals say he's unstable and this whole new controversy that we're going to get to about how he expressed admiration for Hitler.
I don't believe that there's anybody incapable of noticing that she just has so little respect for anything.
So much fear of answering basic questions.
That even while she's running for president three weeks out of an election, two and a half weeks out of an election, or two weeks actually, when asked about an ongoing war, she just ignores the question completely.
She has no stock answer for it even.
And she just starts babbling about the things she came prepared to say that have absolutely nothing to do with that topic.
In essence, why can't you be more like Hitler's generals, Anderson?
Come on.
This is a serious, serious issue.
And we know who he is.
He admires dictators sending love letters back and forth with Kim Jong-un.
Talks about the president of Russia and then most recently the reports are that in the height of COVID, when most Americans could not get their hands on a COVID test, Americans were dying by the hundreds a day.
As a reminder, she's been talking now for, I guess, about a minute and 10 seconds.
She's now babbling about COVID. The question was, how would you treat Israel vis-a-vis how Trump would treat Israel?
Would you be tougher than he would be?
Would you be more permissive?
Now she's talking about COVID. He secretly sent COVID tests to the president of Russia for his personal use.
So, again, this election in 13 days is presenting the American people with a very significant decision.
And on the one side, on this issue of who is going to model this, What it means to use the bully pulpit of the President of the United States in a manner that in tone, word, and deed is about lifting up our discourse.
That was not the issue.
She pointed down on this issue, meaning the issue that you asked about, and then she somehow forgot what it was or is pretending that it was like, hey, how are you going to use the bully pulpit?
When the question was about her posture toward Israel, she's talked about pretty much everything else except what she was asked about.
Fighting against hate as opposed to fanning the flames of hate, which Donald Trump does consistently.
I'm gonna tell you, we are an incredible country and we love our country.
Y'all wouldn't be here unless we love our country.
And there are certain things where we've just got to come together and realize that we do believe in the importance of healthy debate on real issues, but there are certain standards we've got to have.
And another point that even John Kelly talked about, I believe, and many have, is January 6th.
I think we've played for you a total of about eight minutes of her speaking uninterrupted from the CNN town hall last night.
They were very representative of how those exchanges went.
And she was incredibly incapable or unwilling to...
Did you learn a single thing she believes?
She was asked very specific questions that prompted that babbling.
And she didn't respond to a single question she was asked.
Or even pretend to.
Now, one of the things she was asked about was her view on Donald Trump's border wall.
On her view of Donald Trump's border wall because she had Like most Democrats in 2019 and 2020 depicted it as an evil policy, as a stupid policy, as one that she thought was beneath the dignity of the American people and American values.
And now, in this campaign, she's pushing a bill, she's arguing for a bill that would provide hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to build Donald Trump's wall.
The thing that Four years ago, she and every other Democrat were claiming made the United States into some sort of fascist, un-American, isolationist prison that made the Statute of Liberty cry.
And now she's advocating that very wall.
And Anderson Cooper does a pretty decent job of confronting her about that.
Is a border wall stupid?
Well, let's talk about Donald Trump and that border wall.
So remember, Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for it?
Come on.
They didn't.
How much of that wall did he build?
I think the last number I saw was about 2%.
And then when it came time for him to do a photo op, you know where he did it?
In the part of the wall that President Obama built.
But you're agreeing to a bill that would earmark $650 million to continue building that wall.
I pledge that I'm going to bring forward that bipartisan bill.
To further strengthen and secure our border.
Yes, I am.
And I'm going to work across the aisle to pass a comprehensive bill that deals with a broken immigration system.
I think Jackson's question, part of it, was to acknowledge that America has always had migration, but there needs to be a legal process for it.
People have to earn it.
And that's the point that I think is the most important point that can be made, which is we need a president who is grounded in common sense and practical outcomes.
Like, let's just fix this thing.
Let's just fix it.
Why is there any ideological perspective on it?
Let's just fix the problem.
To fix the problem, you're doing this compromise bill.
It does call for $650 million that was earmarked under Trump to actually still go to build the wall.
I'm not afraid of good ideas where they occurred.
So you don't think it's stupid anymore?
I think what he did and how he did it did not make much sense because he actually didn't do much of anything.
I just talked about that wall, right?
We just talked about it.
He didn't actually do much of anything.
But you do want to build some wall.
I want to strengthen our border.
I mean, I just, I can't express how frustrating that must be.
I mean, Anderson Cooper is, especially with a Democratic candidate, as polite as it gets.
All he wanted to know was, do you now favor a border wall that you and the Democrats were claiming when Trump wanted to do it and was doing it was this horrific act of anti-American hatred and stupidity and waste.
And First, her critique of the border wall was that Trump didn't build it.
He didn't finish it.
And she's saying, I want to.
So all he wanted to ask her was, do you favor a border wall?
The bill that you're advocating allocates money to a border wall.
Are you now in favor of a border wall?
And he said, okay, look, the only question I'm asking is, do you now favor a border wall?
And she said, I'm in favor of solutions that fix the system.
Again, how can you watch that and not see that she's just a person incapable of or unwilling to answer the most basic questions about the most central policy debates that we have?
Here's what she actually said about a border wall back in 2019 when she was on The View and was running for president.
This issue is about a vanity project for this president.
Right.
And it is a problem of his own making.
Right.
And listen, when I travel this country, folks have plenty enough problems that they need their president to focus on instead of a wall that, by the way, because I was a prosecutor for many years, including the attorney general of California.
I specialize on transnational criminal organizations.
Yeah.
That's that wall.
I go stop them.
No.
Thank God that laugh that cackle.
I try not to comment on it every time, but it's very hard for me.
Do you see what she was saying there?
This is a dumb wall.
It's not going to stop anybody.
It's a vanity project.
And now her criticism is he didn't build enough of it.
And while she has a bill to build it, she can't say that she's in favor of it, so she just won't.
It's just, it reeks of a person who has no respect for the voter, who just won't.
And good politicians evade questions, but don't make it so obvious that they're evading the question.
She's a terrible politician.
And she does it in the most obvious, she almost like boasts of it, like her refusal to answer.
Alright, so after all of this happened, and this went on I think for an out full hour, it was very similar.
We showed you a lot of those clips.
They do what they always do, which is they assemble a panel of I think?
Nobody on this panel was willing to say that that was helpful to Kamala Harris in any way.
Here was David Axelrod, who was a senior advisor to President Obama and a major player in Democratic Party politics.
And you can hear this whole discussion.
When she doesn't want to answer a question, her habit is to kind of go to word salad city and...
And she did that on a couple of answers.
One was on Israel.
Anderson asked a direct question, would you be stronger on Israel than Trump?
And there was a seven-minute answer, but none of it related to the question he was asking.
I mean, that's what I'm saying.
There's no way to not see it and not admit it.
It's so blatant.
Now, just to underscore how much of a problem this has been for her, even going back to the time when she was still polling well and when Americans still saw her favorably, the polling was very clear that this was her main problem, that people have no idea who she is.
Here from the New York Times, September 8th, so at the beginning of last month, this is now six weeks ago, a new poll suggests that Kamala Harris' support has stalled after a euphoric August Almost 30% of voters said they need to learn more about her.
When Ms.
Harris entered the presidential race, she seemed like a candidate with a lot of potential liabilities.
She took many unpopular positions in her 2019 presidential campaign, and she was tied to the Biden administration's immigration policy as well.
In August, it seemed she could glide past all of these issues by running as a, quote, generic Democrat.
She didn't make many gestures to the middle.
She didn't roll out a robust policy platform.
Instead, she mostly stuck to boilerplate Democratic messaging on abortion, strengthening the middle class, prices, democracy, and more.
The advantage of this approach was obvious.
A generic Democrat is often a winning one.
The risk, however, was that Ms. Harris was inevitably going to be defined one way or the other, and that her campaign was mostly forfeiting its opportunity to clearly define her in the eyes of the public.
In this new poll, the risks associated with this strategy are evident.
Despite a month of favorable coverage, voters still don't know enough about her.
28% of voters said they needed to learn more, compared with only 9% who said they did the same thing about Mr. Trump.
More than anything, voters say they want to hear more about where she stands on issues, suggesting her campaign has seemed to struggle to lay those out.
Do you know how much a campaign like Kamala Harris' pays to consultants and operatives to give her advice on how to win elections?
And apparently none of these extremely high-priced consultants, and I'm talking about millions and millions of dollars.
Kamala Harris raised a billion dollars in the last three months.
No one understood that she would have to, sooner or later, tell the American people what her priorities were, what she intended to do for them, and couldn't get away with these banalities and ambiguities and empty, meaningless pronouncements.
It was so obvious.
Hear from The Economist in early September.
Kamala Harris has good vibes.
Time for some good policies.
Quote, Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris seized the Democratic nomination from the shaky hands of President Joe Biden, all the talk of her candidacy has focused on the V word, vibes.
Her campaign has emphasized joy and patriotism in sharp contrast to the D.C. universe darkness of Donald Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance.
But vibes can only take you so far.
Ms.
Ms. Harris and her running mate, Tim Waltz, have been criticized for failing to lay out concrete proposals in the recent television interview.
Over the next nine weeks, Ms. Harris needs to back up the V word with the P word, policy.
She needs proposals that do not just sound like standard Democratic talking points in order to rebut the charge that her vibes are phony that she's just another, quote, San Francisco Democrat.
And this is exactly what even favorable media outlets like The Economist and The New York Times saw weeks ago.
you know There was an incident last week involving 60 Minutes where they asked her a very specific question.
And the answer that she gave, which they published online as kind of a teaser or an ad to get people to watch, was one where they asked her a very specific question, and her answer was exactly like the ones we just showed you, just babbling, nonsensical, as David Axelrod called it, word salad.
And then when the actual interview aired on 60 Minutes, that answer was gone and in its place was something slightly more coherent.
Again, feeding not only the widespread valid perception that these media outlets are doing everything possible to help Kamala Harris get elected, but also that she's just incapable of saying what she believes.
Here from the fact-checking site Snopes in October 11th, which was last week, quote, CBS News aired two different answers to the same question.
From Harris' 60 Minutes interview, quote, former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed the edits constituted a, quote, giant fake news scam and demanded CBS's broadcasting license be revoked.
Since then, she has repeatedly, Kamala Harris has, or CBS has, been asked, okay, just release, this is a controversy, just release the full transcript of the video.
The interview was 35 minutes long.
You only showed 20 minutes of it.
There's a lot of dubious editing, obviously.
This is a person running for president.
Just release the full interview, the full transcript.
And CBS just refuses to do so with no explanation about why.
Why won't they just release the transcript of the full interview?
Here was the before question, the one that CBS touted, and then the one that they decided to replace it with once it got very negative feedback.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
Well, Bill...
The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not...
Okay, so that was the one that they touted, and obviously their reaction was...
Exactly what you would think it would be, which is, what is she even talking about there?
There are actions that were the result of our attempt to encourage certain things that absent our encouragement, like what?
What did you get Israel to refrain from doing that they would otherwise have done?
What did you do to stop that?
It was just a complete, ambiguous, empty answer that was totally void of any information.
And yet when it aired, CBS chose to provide an answer that I guess they thought reflected better on her.
Including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
So, that's why people don't trust the media and they're starting to believe that Kamala Harris is just incapable of actually speaking in any way.
Now, just as a last point, All this began, I think, when you had some sense of what Kamala Harris pretended to believe in when she was running the last time, only for her to completely reverse virtually every one of those views.
The thing that people hate most about politicians.
Hear from CNN in July, right at the start of when she became the candidate, trying to put this in the most delicate way possible.
Quote, Kamala Harris recalibrates her policy stances as she adjusts to the role atop the Democratic ticket.
Quote, as the version in Kamala Harris campaign works behind the scenes to refine its policy platform, the vice president has increasingly found herself clarifying which of her positions have shifted over the years from fracking to single-payer health care.
Which of her positions have shifted over the years from fracking to single-payer health care?
Several cornerstones of her 2020 presidential run, as well as her time as a U.S. senator and California attorney general, now appear at odds with the policies that have crystallized during the Biden-Harris administration and emerged as critical issues in battleground states.
Several cornerstones of her 2020 presidential run, as well as her time as a U.S. Senator and California Attorney General, now appear at odds with the policies that have crystallized during the Biden-Harris administration and emerged as critical issues in battleground states.
But the recent clarifications on her current positions and the speed at which her fledgling campaign moved to make them also demonstrate that Harris' team's need to define the presumptive Democratic nominee lest Republicans beat them to it.
But the recent clarifications on her current positions and the speed at which her fledgling campaign moved to make them also demonstrate that Harris' team's need to define the presumptive Democratic nominee lest Republicans beat them to it.
Even as Harris has emerged, has energized Democrats and boosted the ticket's appeal to black, Latino, and younger voters, more on that in just a second, she is also seeking a running mate who is likely to be a white man with a more centrist persona.
At that same rally, Trump accused Harris of trying to hide her past opposition to fracking, the process of using liquid to free natural gas from rock formations, and the primary mode for extracting gas for energy in Pennsylvania.
A Harris campaign official said Monday she no longer supports a fracking ban.
Harris's campaign also confirmed this week that the vice president no longer supports a single-payer health care system.
In the midst of the nationwide 2020 protests sparked by George Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Harris voiced support for the, quote, defund the police movement, which argues for redirecting funds from law enforcement to social services.
Mitch Landrow, national co-chair for the Harris campaign and former mayor of New Orleans, walked back a, quote, defund the police sentiment voiced by Harris in 2020, saying what she meant is she supports being, quote, tough and smart on crime.
So in 2020, when she was going around saying defund the police, what she meant was let's be tough and smart on crime.
it.
So I think that, and this happened in the Fox interview as well with Brett Baer, but I think we've shown you enough to make the point that so often the Democrats run people who just are machine politicians and Zero willingness to take a position at all.
Out of fear of offending either the voters, but even more so their base of donors that actually rule and control the party.
Kamala Harris' entire career, entire career, has been enabled by her ability to get into high-level circles, starting with her dating of Willie Brown, the then mayor of San Francisco, back in the very early part of her...
Work as a prosecutor.
She then made friends with extremely wealthy people who became believers in her campaign and have funded her all along.
She is a pure status quo perpetuator.
She has no views other than whatever views power senators and her donors want her to make.
And the problem is this campaign has made that so evident.
As I said, every politician wants to evade certain questions and they do.
But most politicians have the minimal skills necessary to pretend they're answering the question while not answering it.
She has no political skills.
It almost seems like at times she wants to make very clear, I know what you're asking me, but I'm not going to answer.
And this has been going on interview after interview after interview after interview.
And the only conclusion that one can reach, and I think a lot of Americans are reaching, it's why her favorability ratings have declined pretty precipitously in just a couple of months.
It's because people perceive that she actually doesn't believe in anything.
She doesn't stand for anything.
She's not even pretending to stand for anything.
And her real only message is, the reason you should vote for me is because Donald Trump is evil and bad.
And that should be enough.
And I guess we'll see whether or not that will be enough.
In times like this, one of the things that is certain, in fact, maybe the only thing that is certain is uncertainties, especially when it comes to financial markets.
I just saw actually a very, very long-time well-respected and sophisticated billionaire, Paul Tudor Jones, appearing on CNBC to say that he no longer believes in investing in We're good to go.
Wars we've seen in Israel and Ukraine, both of which risk destabilizing global markets to the Fed's nonstop money printing to pay for those wars.
It's very hard to feel secure about your financial future looking at all of this.
Since 2020, the U.S. dollar has lost 24% of its buying power.
And with inflation rising still and government debt ballooning, Your hard-earned savings can very much be at risk if you're not investing wisely.
And that is why, as I began to think about alternatives for myself and my family, I turned to Lear Capital to help me understand the benefits of those kind of investments in a much sturdier material Investment vehicle like gold and silver, these are physical assets that hold their value even in times of instability and turbulence.
Lear has educated me on the best ways, the smartest ways to diversify your investment to things like gold that would give me control over my financial security.
And with their helpful guides, it's very educative, you can at least start to understand how to take possession of various high-value metals, store them safely or roll over your IRA or 401k tax and penalty free.
It's very easy to get started.
You can call Lear Capital today at 800-920-8388.
Or you can visit leargreenwald.com for your free wealth protection guide that will just simply enable you to begin to understand the benefits and options for how to do this.
They've got loads of reports to help you comprehend the current political and economic landscape that I really recommend.
And here's a special offer for our show only from my viewers only.
You can get a $500 credit.
Or go to leergreenwald.com.
Just one word for tonight before we get to our next segment which is about this platform which is Rumble and as I think you very well know Rumble is an incredibly important platform for me and I think for anybody who believes in the battle to preserve free speech on the internet and this And sponsorship from Rumble is one that's incredibly important to the survival of its company and therefore its ability to continue that battle.
When Rumble first started in 2013, they built the platform really without any political goals in mind.
It was really for the small creator that YouTube was abandoning.
They didn't censor or have any biases.
They were utterly fair and treated all small creators equally.
That's how they began gradually building their site.
No one thought at the time that platforms would start censoring political conversations or censor opinions on COVID and war and all their political debates, election integrity, but that's exactly what happened.
Facebook admitted they fell to pressure from the Biden and Harris administration to censor all sorts of dissent that the administration didn't like.
Rumble most definitely did not do that.
They held the line.
They continue to do so, and they are attacked daily for giving us all a voice that enables us to speak to you and among each other without fear of being censored.
That's why they're constantly attacking corporate media.
They're attacked by governments like France and threatened there.
They are attacked from brand advertisers who, as a result of negative media coverage, refuse to work with Rumble.
Corporate America is fighting to remove speech, and Rumble is fighting to keep it.
Now, a lot of people always say they like independent media and they want to support independent media, but the problem is that independent media like Rumble cannot survive without a viable monetization model.
They won't survive with brand advertisers because of how the media has driven them away.
They don't get much of it.
And so if you watch our show on Rumble...
It is the most that they can ask from you.
But if you really believe in this fight, and if you have the means, obviously, one major way that you can help Rumble survive is by joining Rumble Premium.
Join the community that believes in the First Amendment and believes in our human right to free speech.
You can get a 10% discount to Rumble Premium with the promo code GLEN. When you purchase an annual subscription, it gives you a lot of benefits, including avoiding ads.
you can go to rumble.com slash premium slash Glenn and use the promo code Glenn like I said if you have the means and believe in the cause now is the time to join Rumble Premium if you don't have the means we are just happy if you continue to watch on Rumble which helps a lot as well that's rumble.com slash premium slash Glenn for 10% off of the annual subscription music music music music
It has been a longtime Democratic Party tactic for as long as I can remember since I've been paying attention to politics to compare their political opponents, their political enemies, even the most generic and sort of unnotable Republicans, comparing them to fascists and even Adolf Hitler.
In fact, After the war on terror really started to take off and the war in Iraq, the invasion of Iraq turned into a failure based on lies and things like Guantanamo and torture and kidnappings and underground CIA dirty sites began emerging.
It was incredibly common for Democrats to call Dick Cheney and George Bush and those who worked for him Nazis or to compare them to Hitler.
And I would actually suggest that at the time you could make a case that there was a much more valid basis for comparing what George Bush and Dick Cheney were doing, things like unprovoked wars of aggression in Iraq to what defines it of Hitler than you could Donald Trump.
Now I don't think the comparison between George Bush and Dick Cheney to Hitler is actually valid.
I'm saying you could make a more valid case for that than you could for comparing Trump to Hitler and yet The idea that Trump is a fascist, that Trump is basically a new Hitler, has been very prevalent in Democratic Party discourse Since he became a viable candidate in 2015 and it's actually become even more intensified,
more central to the Democratic Party messaging as the 2044 election approaches and it's amazing to watch this in part because it would be one thing if no one knew who Donald Trump was or what he intended to do but everyone in the United States paying attention to politics remembers him being president just a few years ago And other than delusional MSNBC viewers or New Yorker readers,
nobody remembers the kinds of things that define Hitler and why we're supposed to regard him as a singular evil, things like concentration camps or genocide, little things like that, wars of aggression and conquest.
So trying to compare and insist that Donald Trump is some sort of protege of or intends to replicate what Hitler did When he was just president four years ago and didn't do any of the things they're now warning he's doing, seems like a bizarre strategy.
Genuinely a bizarre, deranged, unhinged strategy.
And yet, it is clearly One of the tactics on which Democrats are most relying as we approach the election, if not the central one, here in the town hall, the CNN town hall that we were covering is Kamala Harris just obviously making a conscious choice to repeatedly label Donald Trump as a fascist.
Donald Trump at the lead.
You've quoted General Milley calling Donald Trump a fascist.
You yourself have not used that word to describe him.
Let me ask you tonight, do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
And I also believe that the people who know him best on this subject should be trusted.
Again, look at their careers.
These are not people, with the exception, I think of only Mike Pence.
These were not politicians.
These are career people who have served in the highest roles in national security, who have served as generals in our military, who are highly respected, talking about the person who would be commander in chief, not to mention what we know and what they've told us about how he talks about the military.
Now, is it any surprise that Donald Trump ran on a platform of undermining and weakening the deep state, of abandoning bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has gone back decades on which these people's career have depended.
Questioning the central orthodoxies of U.S. foreign policy when it comes to things like NATO and constantly invading other countries and rebuilding them with wars and instead arguing that we should promote our resources and use our resources for the welfare of Americans instead.
Is it any wonder that those people have concluded that Donald Trump shouldn't be president?
For me, watching the military and intelligence community Rebel against Trump and work with the Democrats to try and stop him is a testament to the value of Donald Trump, which is his singular threat.
To status quo politics in the United States to disrupt and undermine it, which is why all of these people most invested in the orthodoxies of foreign policy, like the Cheney family, Bill Kristol, all those neocons, these generals, the people in the CIA, are the ones who have worked most aggressively to sabotage Trump's campaign.
To me, that's a positive.
I would not want to run for president touting Dick Cheney's endorsement.
Now, obviously, one of the people leading the way in trying to compare Trump to Hitler, ironically, is Dick Cheney's daughter, who was around and politically active, a big supporter of her father at the time when Democrats were using that attack about her father.
Here's what she tweeted on October 23rd.
Quote, Imagine being a Cheney.
And sanctimoniously lecturing the entire country, the 50% of the country that supports Donald Trump, as saying you will never get the stain of this dishonor off you no matter what, given all the things that Cheney family has done and supported far, as I said, more aligned with Adolf Hitler and what has defined him and his legacy than anything Donald Trump has done.
Now, what's amazing about this is they're all treating this like this is kind of brand new breaking story.
And apparently General John Kelly was so disturbed by what President Trump said five years ago that he's waited this entire time to...
Unveil this right before the election.
Here from NBC News, October 22nd, quote, Quote, he commented more than once that you know that Hitler did some good things too, Kelly said.
Certainly the former president is in the far right area.
He's certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators.
He has said that, so he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist for sure, Kelly said.
By the way, do you notice how none of these people when they call Trump a fascist, when Kamala did it last night when he's doing it here, ever give a definition of any kind about what Fascist even means, and in what ways Trump is a fascist.
He admires dictators.
The entire foreign policy of the United States in the wake of World War II has been to hug and embrace and partner closely with the most savage dictators in the world, like the regime now in Saudi Arabia or in Egypt, to overthrow democratically elected governments and impose Dictatorial savage tyrannies on huge numbers of people around the world, and they're going to pretend that Donald Trump is the one who admires dictators?
Here from the Atlantic on October 22nd, this is Jeffrey Goldberg.
Who is the person who, based on anonymous sources, claimed the last election that Trump called members of the military losers and suckers, something that Trump vehemently denies for which there's never been any evidence.
Here is the article, quote, titled Trump, I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had.
The Republicans' nominee's preoccupation with dictators and his disdain for the American military is deepening.
Quote, former generals who have worked for Trump say that his sole military virtue he prizes is obedience.
Now let me just stop here and say that the model of American democracy actually is that generals are supposed to obey the orders of the President of the United States.
That's what it means to have civilian control of the military.
The military doesn't operate on its own, isn't free to do what it wants.
It works under the authority, the command, of the elected president who's a civilian.
That's why he's called the commander-in-chief of the military.
Generals are required to carry out his orders.
And so often during the Trump presidency, The media celebrated generals like General Mattis and General Kelly and others for thwarting Trump's policies because the media didn't like his policies such as when he ordered them to remove troops from Syria and they deceived him and played games and refused to do so.
Now, there is an exception, a very rare one, where if Trump gave orders to torture, for example, or to engage in other forms of illegalities, the military not only has the right but the duty to disobey.
But that's not what we're talking about here.
The idea that generals and other people in the military obey the commander-in-chief is fundamental to how our country functions.
And yet they're depicting this as some sort of bizarre fascist aberration that Trump was irritated that often his generals undermined his policies rather than carried them out.
The article goes on, quote, As his presidency drew to a close, and in the years since, he has become more and more interested in the advantages of dictatorship and the absolute control over the military that he believes it would deliver.
Quote, I need the kind of generals that Hitler had, Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this.
Quote, people who were totally loyal to him that follow orders.
This is absolutely false, Alex Pfeiffer wrote in an email.
His spokesman, President Trump, never said that.
So Trump, on the record, is saying he never said that.
You have anonymous sources saying that he did.
Now, this is what is amazing to me.
Although this is being treated as some October surprise, some revelation on the part of General Kelly, who apparently was so disturbed by what Trump said that he waited five years to reveal it right before the election.
In fact, this exact same quote, this exact same claim was made in the run-up to the 2022 election as well.
Here's the Washington Post, August 8th, 2022.
Trump wanted, quote, totally loyal generals like Hitler's generals, a new book said.
This is a resurrection of a baseless and evidence-free claim that was already employed to undermine Republican chances in the 2022 midterms that is now being presented as some new revelation.
And this is all part of this meltdown that we're seeing in democratic and liberal politics as these polls get tighter and tighter in a race that they just believe is their divine entitlement to win by a large margin.
Here's that very same Atlantic Edited by Jeffrey Goldberg, who as we've noted before is the single most casual and destructive and frequent liar at the senior levels of corporate media.
In The Atlantic, which is a magazine funded by or owned by A mega-donor for Kamala Harris, who is Laureen Powell Jobs, who's an heiress who inherited Steve Jobs' multi-billion dollar wealth when he died and now uses it to fund Democratic Party causes and then turn the Atlantic into a DNC output.
Here is Ann Applebaum, who...
Wasn't content to call Trump Hitler or call him Stalin or call him Mussolini.
She wanted to call him all those names at once.
Here is the headline.
It's almost beyond parody.
Quote, Trump is speaking like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.
The former president has brought dehumanizing language to American presidential politics.
"Rhetoric has a history.
The words 'democracy' and 'tyranny' were debated in ancient Greece.
The phrase 'separation of powers' became important in the 17th and 18th century.
The word 'vermin' as a political term dates from the 1930s and 40s when both fascists and communists liked to describe their political enemies as vermin, parasites, and blood infections, as well as insects, weed, dirt, and animals.
the term has been revived and reanimated in an American presidential campaign with Donald Trump's description of his opponents as, quote, radical left thugs who, quote, live like vermin.
This language isn't merely ugly or repellent.
These words belong to a particular tradition.
Adolf Hitler used those kinds of terms often.
Stalin used the same kind of language at about the same time.
This kind of language was not limited to Europe.
Mao also described his political opponents as poisonous weeds.
It goes on to compare him to Pol Pot as well.
Now, if all that those figures did, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, had called their political opponents vermin or dirt or whatever, nobody would...
No one would consider them important historical figures.
What made them historical important figures was not that rhetoric, but what they did in carrying it out.
Trump was president for four years already.
What is it that he did that even remotely compares to any of those people?
Matt Orphalea, who is a fantastic videographer who makes some of the best videos there are, I strongly encourage you to follow him online, created a video montage of Democrats using very similar rhetoric about Donald Trump.
And with his permission, we're going to show you an excerpt of this video.
Trump calls political enemies vermin.
Flashback.
Washington Post calls Trump vermin.
Echoing dictators Hitler and Mussolini.
You know one thing about mass murdering dictators in history, it's that they refer to the people they want to mass murder as vermin.
Washington Post refers to all the Republican rats.
People, they want a mass murder.
Trump's Republican rats.
The USS Trump rats.
Trumpkin rats.
The Republicans, the rat.
Trump rat will tower over Washington.
Here's a pencil sketch of Trump as a rat.
Here's another drawing of Trump as a rat.
Trump surrogates are rats.
Clean rats.
Hillary Clinton is rat poison for Donald Trump, the rat.
Washington Post is saying your political opponents are vermin.
Echoing dictators Hitler and Mussolini.
The rats are finally eating their young is what's going on here.
None of this is so.
All the Republicans these days are treasonous rats.
He really does seem to be trying to get them excited about the possibility of cathartic violence.
Violence.
Mass murdering dictators refer to the people they want to mass murder as vermin, pests, rats, right?
Anything to make their followers see those people as something to be exterminated, not someone you might know.
Violence.
Saying your political opponents are vermin who must be rooted out and crushed to save the country.
Flashback.
The Post said Trumpism must be crushed.
None of this is subtle.
His political opponents are vermin who will be crushed and exterminated.
And by the way, not for nothing, but it isn't Kamala Harris who has been the victim of Cathartic violence, as Rachel Maddow called it, it is actually Donald Trump who has Twice been the target of assassination attempts in just the past three to four months alone.
Now, all of this, too, it's just so ironic because Barack Obama gave a speech this week lamenting the fact that we've become such a divisive country, asking how that happened, while Democrats, including Kamala Harris, go around equating him to Adolf Hitler and to fascism, which means that not just he, but 50% of the country apparently support Hitler, support fascism.
That's the implication of it.
And what they've been doing is talking themselves into this frenzy that they actually are starting to depict themselves as endangered, martyred.
Here from Salon June 11th of this year, quote, yes, I'm worried, Rachel Maddow said, thinking Trump's, quote, massive camps may not just be for migrants.
And she talked about how she really believes that she may be put into a camp.
If Donald Trump wins.
Here from Business Insider, June 6, AOC said she, quote, wouldn't be surprised if Trump threw me in jail if he wins in 2024.
Why did none of these things happen when he was actually the president?
What we're obviously seeing here, and we can spend all night showing you examples of Democrats comparing him to Hitler or Democrats claiming that they are all going to go to concentration camps if they actually end up, if Trump ends up winning.
And here's an example from the New Republic from June of 2024 that just outright, right on their cover, has cover art.
Depicted Donald Trump as Adolf Hitler, had a little Hitler mustache on him.
American fascism, what it would look like.
I mean, is there any wonder that people want to murder Donald Trump if they're feeding on this kind of rhetoric for all of this time?
Now, I think what really is happening here is that there is a grand confusion by Democrats who speak only amongst themselves and for themselves and to themselves.
And they've been telling themselves for eight years that Donald Trump is the epitome of evil and Satan.
And they just, for the life of them, are so frustrated, so confused as to why Americans don't see things the way they see them.
Here in the New York Times, this is from last week, October 17th, a column by David Brooks wondering why the heck isn't Kamala running away with this?
They just can't fathom that the things they're telling Americans to believe, that Trump is Hitler, that Trump is evil, that Trump is threatening American democracy, are the things that apparently they're just not buying into.
And that's why they just can't conceive of what's going on.
They have no concept of why people would vote for Donald Trump, why black people would vote for Donald Trump, why Latinos would vote for Donald Trump, why Arab Americans would vote for Trump or refuse to vote for Kamala Harris.
It's that gigantic gap between how American elites in politics and media see the world and what they care about and how the rest of the country does.
And so, seeing these polls not just being tightened, but getting worse, for Kamala Harris, a very real possibility of what they consider apocalyptic, which would be Donald Trump's re-election, is, I think, driving them, actually, a lot of them crazy.
And they just don't know what to do anymore.
And so, it's like, people understand that on the internet, this has been an understanding for her, Many years that when people just get extremely frustrated and at wit's end on the internet, just extremely angry, no ability to say anything, they just start screaming Hitler and Nazis at people, calling people Nazis and Hitlers.
It was like a joke to the point where a law got invented, Godwin's Law.
That essentially said that eventually every bad faith internet discourse ends with people calling themselves or calling each other Hitler and Nazis.
And this is, I think, where liberal elites are at.
And if you look at polling data about what Americans care about, about the kind of messaging that resonates with them, this is what Hillary Clinton tried to do.
She constantly said Donald Trump is the most dangerous candidate in all of American history.
And even though you don't like me and I may not do much for you and your view, the fact that he's so dangerous means you have to vote for me.
And that's what they were told over and over by these elite institutions that they despise.
And they ended up voting for Donald Trump in large numbers in a way that genuinely traumatized the liberal elite class.
And they feel like they're living in deja vu and are petrified and don't know what to do.
And so instead of learning from their mistakes, instead of trying to offer some positive agenda for what they're going to actually do to improve the lives of people who feel abandoned by the status quo represented by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they're just almost unhinged at this point,
constantly invoking Hitler and fascism and claiming Trump secretly harbors A love of Adolf Hitler, which again might work if Trump were this blank slate to people.
The opposite is true.
Donald Trump has been extremely famous in the United States for five decades.
I remember living in New York City when I went to law school in the late 1980s and early 1990s and he was this gigantic cultural figure.
And he wasn't just a gigantic cultural figure, he was beloved by all elites.
He won an Oprah Winfrey show and she all but encouraged him to run for president.
And here, let's just take a look at how he used to be treated, this Adolf Hitler figure.
Full-page ad in major U.S. newspapers last year criticizing U.S. foreign policy.
What would you do differently, Donald?
I'd make our allies, forgetting about the enemies, the enemies you can't talk to so easily.
I'd make our allies pay their fair share.
We're a debtor nation.
Something's going to happen over the next number of years with this country, because you can't keep going on losing 200 billion, and yet we let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets and everything.
It's not free trade.
If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it, Albert.
Just forget about it.
It's almost impossible.
They don't have laws against it, they just make it impossible.
They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs, they knock the hell out of our companies.
And hey, I have tremendous respect for the Japanese people.
I mean, you can respect somebody that's beaten the hell out of you, but they are beating the hell out of this country.
Kuwait, they live like kings.
The poorest person in Kuwait, they live like kings.
And yet they're not paying.
We make it possible for them to sell their oil.
Why aren't they paying us 25% of what they're making?
It's a joke.
This sounds like Political, presidential talk to me.
And I know people have talked to you about whether or not you want to run.
Would you ever?
Probably not.
But I do get tired of seeing the country ripped off.
Why would you not?
I just don't think I really have the inclination to do it.
I love what I'm doing.
I really like it.
Also, it doesn't pay as well.
No, it doesn't.
But, you know, I just probably wouldn't do it, Oprah.
I probably wouldn't, but I do get tired of seeing what's happening with this country.
And if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally because I really am tired of seeing what's happening with this country, how we're really making other people live like kings and we're not.
So there's the new Adolf Hitler figure chatting it up with an obviously very respectful and admiring Oprah Winfrey all the way back in 1998, which is...
40 years ago.
And this is how Trump has been his entire life until he began running for president.
As Democrats are calling him Hitler, here from Politico this week, a new poll, Trump is getting record levels of support among black and Latino men.
And it describes how there's this huge migration, and we've seen this before, of black and Latino men Toward Donald Trump, sort of a very weird voting pattern for the new Adolf Hitler.
I just want to say, there are these kind of Democratic pundits, these idiots on cable, these incredibly hyper-partisan people who really do talk themselves into the frenzy, but actual Democratic, sophisticated Democratic leaders obviously don't believe this.
Here is from last week.
At that Al Smith dinner that has traditionally been attended by both major party candidates, they kind of roast each other.
Kamala Harris refused to attend, but Trump attended and so did Chuck Schumer.
And here's Chuck Schumer off on the side having a very intimate conversation with Trump, who Schumer has known for years.
Chuck Schumer is a Jewish Democrat and somebody who exercises a lot of power in Washington.
Does this look to you like Chuck Schumer believes that Donald Trump is some sort of Hitler-like figure?
And maybe what's going on here is that Schumer is trying to get into Trump that he should build his concentration camps in the state of New York because of the tax benefits and the jobs it would bring to New York.
But whatever this is, it doesn't seem like Chuck Schumer believes that Donald Trump is a Hitler-like figure.
And to make this narrative central to a campaign that seems to be faltering, that the American people have repeatedly made clear they do not believe, they don't think Donald Trump, even the ones who dislike him, is Adolf Hitler.
Out to put them in concentration camps and murder minorities, many of whom are increasingly going to Trump's campaign.
It just is a sign of the reasons why these institutions are hated, why this gap is growing and growing, and I think why Democrats have no positive agenda.
People know that.
Kamala can't even answer her question.
And so in lieu of that, they're relying on this extreme hysteria that...
As I said, I have no idea who's going to win.
I don't think anyone does.
Kamala might win, but again, if she wins, it will be despite this kind of an issue, and most definitely not because of it.
Alright, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble, on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program there, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rubble, we move to Locals, where we have our live interactive after show.
Tonight being Thursday, that's exactly what we're about to go and do, where we take your questions, respond to your critiques, your suggestions for future guests, and for shows.
That after show is available solely for members of our Locals community.
So if you'd like to join, which gives you access not just to our After Shows, but also to a lot of exclusive original content that we publish solely on Locals.
It's a place where we have interactive features.
We publish daily transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
We publish those there.
But most of all, it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
And as I've been saying, A lot of people like independent journalism but don't necessarily understand that to have independent journalism you need to have a model that sustains it.
And there are several, one of which is to support people whose shows that you enjoy through these kinds of memberships, if you're able, and to receive all the benefits that we try and provide.
You can simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that platform.
For those who have been watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 o'clock p.m.
Eastern Live exclusively here on Rumble.
▲
Export Selection