Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein critique state overreach, analyzing UFC leg kicks and defending Rand Paul against George Stephanopoulos's biased dismissal of Wisconsin absentee ballot irregularities. They expose the corporate press as a propaganda machine suppressing election fraud claims while mocking Democratic governors Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom for politically motivated lockdowns that undermined Trump's economic arguments. Ultimately, the episode argues that media narratives and government actions serve to enforce a specific political reality rather than address systemic integrity or genuine public health data. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Political Correctness vs Connor Poirier00:14:04
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, James Smith.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is the king of the caulks, survivor of the war on Optimum.
I won't say Victor, but he lives to fight another day.
Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
What's up, my brother?
How you living?
They're a tough and worthy adversary.
Yeah, they are.
You don't fight wars against people who don't, you know, don't rise to the occasion.
You're not a bully.
You take on a big multi-you know, national conglomeration, right?
Is that the right?
Yeah.
Also, I'm here for the long haul.
I will get my platter of sandwiches.
60, 70, 80 years, maybe my descendants, it will happen.
Your descendants now?
That's like your great-grandchildren.
All right.
Hey, victory is victory.
Well, I hope you had a good weekend.
Did you watch the fights?
Oh, did I watch those fights?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Interesting, interesting fights.
I was, I was, uh, I didn't think it would go like that, but I was telling people for a while that people were sleeping on Poirier.
He's a, that's a bad dude, man.
And every Connor McGregor, it's this weird thing where like that he is an incredible fighter.
Did not have a great performance, but he is an incredible fighter.
But he has become such a superstar that a lot of people who don't really follow the sport are like, oh, well, he's going to destroy this guy.
And especially the fact that he beat him before, but he beat him like seven years ago.
And Connor didn't look great.
Connor came in.
He did not look great.
He did not, his footwork didn't look as good.
He wasn't as light on his feet as he usually is.
And Dustin Poirier chewed his leg up and then he got him up against the cage and he went off and knocked him right out.
Anyway, Poirier is not.
It really seemed like that fight was a war of inches where it almost looked like in the first round, Connor put him out, but then, you know, he was just those leg kicks you saw when it got to the fourth or fifth one.
You're like, all right, you can't take too many more of those.
Yeah, you could tell they were hurting him.
And he was, and then he started.
I thought, I was surprised right away.
Like the first minute of the fight, I didn't think Connor was moving that good.
I didn't think he looked as good.
His movement is usually much better.
And then after taking a few of the leg kicks, he really wasn't moving good.
And that's a bad place.
That's a bad place to be early in the second round against Dustin Poirier and already not be moving good.
That's that's really tough because Dustin Poirier will go.
You know, he's got cardio for days, so he'll keep going.
And but I didn't, I didn't expect him to get knocked out that quickly.
But, you know, it's the fight game.
It happens.
Anyway, it was that was a lot of fun.
That was a good one.
The whole card was good.
Those ladies in the clinch just clubbing each other in the face.
The fight before that, I forgot what it was, but it was fun too.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, the thing with Connor McGregor, that's tough, and this has been a thing forever in fighting, but it's like sometimes once you make so much money and you're so famous and you have so many things going on, how does that not take an inch off, you know, your motivation to be, you know, fighting is like one of these things where like you have to be completely obsessed with it.
They're, they live this shit.
They train all the time.
And, you know, Connor's got, you know, probably over 100 mil in the bank now.
And, you know, he's making tons of money.
His that proper 12 whiskey shit is huge.
It's everywhere, dude.
He just started this little whiskey company.
It's like a major thing.
And so, you know, I think where the UFC kind of these guys is that if you want to fight, you can get a lot of fights.
You can fight every three to four months if you're not injured.
If you want to get paid well to fight, it takes a year or two to get these fights booked because of all the negotiations.
So if you're a guy like McGregor, you end up with these huge gaps between fights are not as active.
I think that's what really kills these highest levels.
Well, he was over, he was off for over a year.
And then before that fight, he was off for I think a couple years because he was the Mayweather shit really doesn't count because he's just working his boxing.
You know, it's like, you don't have that leverage when you want to fight.
That happens to Ferguson, too, all these guys.
It's like, if you really want to show up and fight, they'll give you a fight.
It's when you want to hold out for a money fight that all of a sudden you realize you've been on the shelf for 18 months.
Yeah.
And on the other hand, Dustin Poirier has just been fighting everyone, fighting the best guys in the world.
So, you know, yeah, anyway, it was a good fight.
It was entertaining as the UFC always is.
Okay.
So before we get into the show, a couple things that I wanted to plug.
My debate on the Lions of Liberty against Eric Brakely just came out.
Break him?
Huh?
No.
Break him?
No, no.
I was.
No, he's, I wouldn't say that, but it was, I thought it was a very good debate.
And it seems to have a mixed response of who people thought won or made better arguments.
He was great.
He made some really interesting points, made me think about a lot of things.
And I recommend people go check it out.
It's up on the Lions of Liberty podcast.
This was not like the other debates.
This was against a very formidable adversary who is a really good dude.
And we just had a difference of opinions about what party libertarians should join.
And that I've not listened to this yet, but that shows just how much of a loser those losers are.
Because look, I guess if someone's a formidable opponent, you're willing to come on here and say that guy was pretty good.
Yeah, well, I think it also kind of goes to my to a point that I've made many times, which is that, you know, those other losers could learn something from this guy and realize that you actually have a much better chance of persuading people to your position if you just don't conduct yourself like an abhorrent human being.
Like that's that's a good starting point.
And so, you know, anyway, so no, I have nothing but respect for Eric.
He uh, he's he's a badass libertarian.
Uh, he's a really smart guy.
He's put in a lot of work for the cause.
I mean, this guy was the um the main director of Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.
He's been working for a long time.
And, you know, we just have a disagreement about what the best strategy is right now at this at this particular moment.
But I thought it was a really interesting back and forth, a good conversation.
So go check that out over at the Lines of Liberty.
And thanks to Mark Clare for hosting another one.
Thanks to Eric for participating.
And yeah, we don't even have to, you know, disintegrate into name calling and stuff like that.
It's a it's a it's a nice change of pace.
I promise my next one will be against someone calling me a Nazi.
We'll go back to that right away.
We won't spend too long on these substantive debates.
The other thing I wanted to let people know if they haven't checked it out already, I was on Hotep Jesus's channel the other day.
We did a live stream, which is up there now on YouTube.
And I'm not sure what other platforms he puts it out on, but go check that out if you haven't already.
I had a great time, really enjoyed it.
I think that dude is really interesting.
And I really enjoyed the conversation.
So I tried to pitch him on joining the Libertarian Party, which I'm going to follow up with him again.
I'm happy to have him on this show sometime.
And then the loser brigade was going crazy about how I'm trying to recruit another bigot or something like that, which I did.
I just found really entertaining.
Not that, look, I'm not trying to be an identitarian to like counter the dumb identity politics of the left that all these guys like to be involved in.
But it is really interesting that the loser brigade is like this group of all white guys, like all these dorks in the LP who are now calling this like black power guy a bigot.
And they don't want him to come into the party either.
Like they're all the their whole argument against us this whole time has been that like we're going to make it hard to recruit, you know, minorities.
If we're seen as racist, then this is going to turn people off.
And then as soon as I'm like pushing like some black dude with a huge audience to, hey, why don't you join up with us and we can do some things together?
We have a lot of like common interests here.
We both believe in liberty.
And then they're like, no, that's the wrong type.
We don't want him in.
And anyway.
Let's cry at the next LP event.
We can do a bigot boat and it'll be a boat ride.
I'll be the guy talking out against the Jews.
He can be on there.
You know, everyone.
Well, it's also, I'll tell you, one of the things that they've been, they've been like spam posting some comments he made like four years ago or something like that.
And they're like, look, he's an anti-Semite.
So that's the road that they're going with now.
I guess they can't accuse him of hating black people.
So they just go to the next one over that he hates Jews.
And another, you know, point that I've kind of noticed that none of these guys are Jews.
I am and you are.
And yet they're kind of here telling us that Jews should be offended.
So it's like, it does kind of feel like, can I make up my own mind about whether I think I should be offended by something or not?
Again, it just, it's like when you start playing these woke games, they go into the most absurd corners where you have like some white guy yelling at a Jew and a black guy having a conversation about how they're both racist.
And you're like, what?
Like if neither of us are having a problem with this, maybe you should re-examine whether there's anything here.
And the quotes they pulled, like that, that I saw them, it was like, I don't know, like four years ago, he was asking questions about like Jewish power and Jewish influence over like banking and media and foreign policy and things like this.
And I just, I don't know.
People are allowed to ask these questions.
They're allowed to bring up these topics.
And that doesn't mean that when they do, they get everything 100% accurate.
But I just hate, I hate playing this game of like shrieking and being offended because someone brought up a topic that you're not allowed to mention.
I'll tell you, like, look, I'm Jewish.
My whole family is Jewish.
Rob's Jewish.
His whole family is Jewish.
I'm not offended by someone asking about Jewish influence over power.
I think you have every right to bring that up.
I think it's a, I think it actually is better that these questions get brought up and get discussed.
I don't have any problem with that whatsoever.
I've never, this is one of the things that I've been critical of other Jews about is that I hate falling into this victim complex shit.
And I think they do it too much.
I actually, I remember when me and you were at Porkfest, was that two years ago or something?
Sounds right, yeah.
About two years ago, we went up there.
And there was one woman who asked me, like we were hanging out after the show with like a group of people, you know, just like shooting the shit.
And one woman asked me about what I thought about the problem of anti-Semitism on college campuses in America.
And I was like, what?
I don't, I don't know.
I have no thoughts on it.
Like, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Where has there been anti-Semitism?
And they were like, well, she was like, well, there was this one report of someone who said something nasty to a Jew at this one college.
And I'm like, well, I mean, okay, I guess that wasn't cool, but it's a big country.
You're going to like, we're going to get someone who says something.
Like, is that the news?
In a country of 300 million people, someone was a jerk somewhere.
Like, okay, I don't know.
And I said to her, I, I, uh, I said at one point, I go, look, and she's Jewish, you know, obviously.
And so am I.
And so were you, who was there with me that day?
And I said, look, I go, we're doing great in this country.
Jews are doing very well.
We're succeeding here.
What are we complaining about?
Well, why do we have to like put ourselves out there as the victims?
Like, there's, oh my God, someone said something.
Okay, they shouldn't have said that, perhaps.
But like, if you look at it this way, like I do, like Jews were in lots of situations in the world where they were legitimately held down and oppressed by different governments and societies.
And now we're here in one where everything's going really good.
You know, like by every metric, Jews are succeeding.
So let's not pretend that we're still being oppressed.
Like, let's be like, oh, this is awesome.
We're doing good here.
Like, I just don't like, that's always what my mentality is.
And I've dealt with people, like, when I've had conversations with certain people on the alt-right, where you could tell that their fan base like didn't like Jews.
And even when I said something that I think was like a good point, even if they, they'd be like, oh, he's only making that good point because he's a Jew and he's trying to deceive us or something like that.
And with those people, ultimately, my reaction was like, yeah, fuck them and fuck their audience.
I don't know.
Like, if that's, if that's the case, then there's no point in having a conversation, right?
Because if that, then it's just like, well, no matter what I say, you're going to think I'm Jew wizardry.
Yeah, exactly.
So that then fine.
But I literally, I got, we had nothing but a great conversation with Hotep Jesus.
His audience was very embracing of the things I was saying.
So you know what?
I'd say to the people who are like, but he said this one thing about Jews four years ago or whatever.
Okay, you know what?
What?
Let me make the judgment call on this one since this is, since that's me and I'm the one having a conversation, I think it's fine.
And the truth is, right?
Blue Light Glasses Sponsor Break00:03:57
And this is one of these things, there's many things that the political correct impulse ends up burying a lot of conversations.
And then they don't get brought up to the surface and they don't get resolved.
But the truth is that there are a lot of people in the black community who have a little bit of hostility toward Jews and vice versa.
And I think those things are worth talking about because if there are any inaccurate gripes, then maybe they can get cleared up through conversation.
You know, the truth is that in, and I know this in New York City, I mean, I grew up in Brooklyn, like about a mile, maybe two miles outside of Crown Heights, where there were like straight up really serious tensions between the blacks and the Jews.
And there's, you know, those things, those tensions still persist.
And these conversations are still being had.
And I'd rather them, you know, be had more often.
I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Part of the reason that there's some tensions is that in a lot of these black neighborhoods, there's a disproportionate amount of Jewish landlords.
So the person who you're paying money to every month and the person who, you know, is threatening you when you fall behind on your money and all that shit is often a Jew.
And then the person who's like, you know, struggling to make the payments is oftentimes a black person.
And so this, you know, leads to certain tensions.
Now, I'm not talking like some commie here.
I got nothing against landlords.
I'm just saying that there's lots of different factors in that this whole thing of like, you said no, no words.
You need to shut up now is bullshit.
I completely reject it.
I had a great time on Hotep Jesus's show.
Happy to have him on ours.
Happy to welcome him into the Libertarian Party.
Got more important things to deal with than that.
So, anyway, just wanted to mention that quickly.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Blue Blocks, Blue Light Glasses.
If you've ever found yourself feeling tired, not getting good sleep, just not feeling like yourself, feeling generally terrible after a long day, it might be because you're taking in too much screen time.
It's the blue light damage from looking at your phone all day, looking at the computer screen all day, looking at your tablet.
If you've been spending all day looking at the screen and you're not feeling great about yourself, and let's be honest, during this pandemic, who hasn't been getting a little bit too much screen time?
If you're getting headaches or you're not feeling like yourself, your energy is low, you're having trouble sleeping, Blue Blocks is here to help.
Blue Blox created these incredible blue light glasses that block the blue light coming off your screen.
That's what's causing your eye strain.
The founders of Blue Blox were not happy with the quality and the lack of science behind the leading blue light blocking glasses, so they decided to make their own.
Blue Blox has over 40 frames to choose from.
They're all made from high-quality lenses designed to get more work done during the day and better sleep at night.
They also look really cool, they're really stylish glasses.
I just got a pair.
I love them.
So, if you want to stop feeling terrible after looking at your computer all day, Blue Blox Blue Light Glasses are available in prescription, non-prescription, and readers.
So, they have frames for every need.
And for every pair you buy, Blue Blox will donate a pair of reading glasses to someone in need.
So, you can feel better yourself and feel better about yourself just from buying a pair of Blue Blocks glasses.
So, go get your energy back, sleep better, block out the unhealthy effects of blue light from your computer, phone, and TV with Blue Blox Blue Light Glasses.
Get free shipping worldwide and 15% off if you go to blueblocks.com/slash problem.
That's B-L-U-B-L-O-X dot com/slash problem for 15% off, or just use the promo code problem when you check out blueblocks.com/slash problem.
The Objective Election Narrative00:15:49
All right.
So, for today's show, here's something that me and you both wanted to jump into.
Our boy Rand Paul was on ABC, what's it called, this week or whatever, whatever their Sunday show is with George Sturopoulos, Stephanopoulos, Stully Lolly Lapiop Tatas.
And of course, former Clinton staffer and all-around awful corporate press propagandist.
But I thought this was an interesting little segment that ended up getting like weirdly.
It was supposed to be Rand Paul and Amy Klobuchar, I believe, in like some type of face-off.
But then Amy Klobuchar had like some technical issues.
So, George Stephanopoulos just subs in for her and becomes the Democrat against Rand Paul.
It was kind of fascinating to watch, you know, how that works.
Like, theoretically, this was being set up as Democrat senator, Republican senator, objective journalist.
The Democrat senator has some tech problems, falls out, and the objective journalist just goes, Well, I'll play Democrat.
I mean, I am a lifelong Democrat.
This is pretty easy.
So, let's jump into it.
I want to play this whole thing and kind of break it down.
Here is Rand Paul on ABC.
Let's bring in two senators who will serve as jurors for Donald Trump's second impeachment trial: Democrat A.B. Klobuchar, Republican Rand Paul.
Senator Klobuchar, let me begin with you.
And we just heard John Carl say that there is some hope, Senator Klobuchar, that there will be some bipartisan support for the president's bill.
Do you believe that, or will Democrats have to go it alone?
Hey guys, I'm Dalon Benkee.
I didn't even.
Sorry, Senator Klovich, are you there?
Okay, let's start with Senator Rand Paul.
The nation's finest, nearly president.
Where's the court on this thing?
Question for you.
This election was not stolen.
Do you accept that fact?
Well, what I would say is that the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur, we never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence.
Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question.
There were several states in which the law was changed by the Secretary of State and not the state legislature.
To me, those are clearly unconstitutional.
And I think there's still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court.
Courts traditionally and historically don't like to hear election questions.
But yes, were there people who voted twice?
Were there dead people who voted?
Were there illegal aliens who voted?
Yes, and we should get to the bottom of it.
I'll give you an example.
In my state, when we had a Democrat Secretary of State, she refused, even under federal order, to purge the roles of illegal voters.
We got a Republican Secretary of State, and he purged the roles.
Senator Paul.
I have to stop you there.
No election is perfect, but there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court.
All were dismissed.
Every state certified the results after not for count.
After investigations and recounts.
All right, let's pause it right here.
Department of Justice.
Because I just want to, okay, so I find this all fascinating.
And if you really look at it the right way, it's really revealing of the corporate press playbook and how they operate.
So first of all, they do this thing where they hide behind kind of asking a question, but they're not really asking you a question.
George Stephanopoulos starts off by saying, Rand Paul, the election wasn't stolen.
Do you accept that fact?
That's the question that he asks him right away.
So right away, it's going like, listen, you have to come on here.
The first thing I'm demanding you do is repeat after me.
This election was not stolen.
Donald Trump was a liar.
This whole thing was bullshit.
And Rand Paul gives a fairly, I think, reasonable and thoughtful response, which is like, well, I mean, the accusation of there being fraud, there certainly is fraud.
We never really looked into this.
I think it was these laws were unfair.
I think we should have a review and an investigation of this whole system.
And then gives an example of how this happened in Kentucky, where illegal voters were purged off the records.
Everything about that, completely fair.
But what George Stephanopoulos was looking for wasn't a real discussion about this.
He was looking for you to bend the knee.
Come on here right now and admit your party's wrong.
This whole thing was wrong.
Donald Trump, the president you supported, was wrong.
And I'll tell you, I think it's really good that he didn't.
Like, even there, there's been situations like for me personally where even things that I agree with, when someone demands that I say them, I refuse to.
You know, a lot of that depends on whether the person is coming in good faith or not.
Like if they're just asking an honest question or not, you know, like I think if George Stephanopoulos wasn't who he is and was just asking, you know, a more fair question, like if he were to say, well, look, I mean, there is some degree of fraud in every election, but wouldn't you acknowledge that we haven't had investigations that determined that there was enough fraud to steal this election?
So if we haven't, we should probably err on the side of thinking that it wasn't or something like that.
He might have gotten an answer out of Rand Paul, but he's demanding that he bend the knee.
You know, like I had this interaction the other day with some dude, one of the loser brigade types from the Libertarian Party who was demanding I condemn bigotry.
And he was like, it's real easy, Dave.
Just condemn bigotry right now.
If you won't, then obviously there's a problem.
And I was like, hey, you know what else is easy?
Telling you to blow me.
That's pretty easy too.
And sometimes when someone's being hostile and demanding you say something, it just makes your response like, no, because I'm not a bitch.
You know, like, I don't know.
And so I thought that was a lot of what was going on here.
Like, we're just going to, before we even get into this segment, I want you to be my bitch and just tell me what I want to hear right now.
And so good for Rand Paul for not for not going along with it.
I also thought it was very telling that the second on ABC, Rand Paul's giving a very decent explanation for, hey, here's why we need to look into it.
George immediately needs to talk over him because the way propaganda works, they don't even want people to be aware of this information.
They're not reporting on information.
They're trying to stick to a very specific narrative.
And so there's a war going on here where George is going to be talking about, hey, we have yet to prove a like.
They're having two different conversations where Rand is going, well, this is something that we need to look into.
And I promise you, just mark this note in your head of this conversation that happened right now.
Two years from now, the Democrats will be talking about how we need to make sure that there isn't election fraud, how we need to change the rules.
There will be a conversation about it.
They don't want to have that conversation any capacity close this last election because then they will be admitting that there was a problem, which there was.
Because right now, right now, the conversation that they want to have is that Donald Trump was clinging to a lie.
He lost and he's claiming he didn't lose, which is bullshit.
And that's what led to the Capitol riots.
And that's what led to this attempted insurrection and yada, yada, yada.
And that's why we need to crack down on all of this stuff.
That is their narrative.
That is their talking point that they've been hanging on to right now.
This is all that's being talked about on the corporate press right now.
So they can't give up on that.
Actually, Brian, bring it back a little bit, like just a few seconds, because I want to go back to when he interrupts Rand Paul to just prove Robbie's point a little bit more and to listen to what he says carefully, what he's interrupting him with.
Okay.
Let's let's play that.
Challenges filed by President Paul.
Pull it back a little bit more.
Yeah, right here.
It's perfect.
Secretary of State and he purged the roles.
Senator Paul.
I have to stop you there.
No election is perfect, but there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court all were dismissed.
Every state certified the results after investigation.
Not for investigations and recounts.
The Department of Justice, led by William Barr, said there's no widespread evidence of fraud.
Can't you?
So pause it right there.
So just to be clear, when he says, I have to interrupt you here, and then goes off on this rant.
He's interrupting him and saying things that have nothing to do with what Rand Paul said.
He's using these rhetorical tricks where you say things that sound like you're making a compelling case.
Like, listen, every single state certified their elections.
Like, what?
What does that have to do with anything that Rand Paul just said?
Yeah, Joe Biden's the president right now.
We're all aware of that.
He wouldn't be if the states hadn't certified their election results.
Yes, obviously they were certified.
And obviously, as Rand Paul already acknowledged, that there was no case that was heard and determined that there was fraud.
Like all of that, that has nothing to do with what Rand Paul was saying.
In fact, Rand Paul addressed that.
And then he mentions the case that that bar said that there was no widespread evidence of voter fraud.
But again, that doesn't address Rand Paul's case because Rand Paul is saying that there needs to be more investigation into this and that the whole system of voting has been set up in a way that is not secure.
That's not saying Donald Trump should be president right now, but the point is that George Stephanopoulos has to, as in his words, has to interrupt Rand Paul to kind of just veer the conversation back to what the narrative is supposed to be.
All right, let's keep playing.
I would suggest is what I would suggest is that if we want greater confidence in our elections, and 75% of Republicans agree with me, is that we do need to look at election integrity and we do need to see if we can restore confidence in the elections.
Well, 75% of Republicans agree with you because they were fed a big lie by President Trump and his supporters who say the election was stolen.
Why can't you say that?
I think where you make a mistake and hey, George, George, George, where you make a mistake is that people coming from the liberal side like you, you immediately say everything's a lie instead of saying there are two sides to everything.
Historically, what would happen is if I said that I thought there was fraud, you would interview someone else who said there wasn't.
But now you insert yourself in the middle and say the absolute fact is that everything I'm saying is a lie.
Well, but Senator, I said what the president said was a lie because he said, hold on a second.
He said the election was stolen.
This election was not stolen.
The results were certified in every single state.
You're separate after counts and recounts.
You're still, this is where they're having two different conversations.
Rand Paul is saying that we need to do a full investigation to actually see what happened here and make sure that we have better election laws.
Two years from now, I promise you, George is going to be reporting the exact same thing that we need new election laws.
That will be universal.
They can't have that conversation now.
So what George is just pivoting back to is, yeah, but Trump lied and there's no evidence.
And yeah, Rand Paul's like, sure, that's why we need to take a look at this.
Well, what's interesting to me is what Rand Paul said.
That, of course, as you're absolutely right, that they're having two different conversations.
And Stephanopoulos is not even attempting to deal with Rand Paul's conversation.
Because if you actually listen to what Rand Paul said, I think he made a very wise point.
So he said, he goes, if we want to have more general confidence in our elections, we need to demonstrate that we've checked all of these boxes.
We need to demonstrate that we, now he's making the point that whether you like it or not, and then he mentions 75% of Republicans believe that there was fraud in this election.
Now, that's 75% of one of the two major parties.
That's like no small chunk of the population.
So he's saying, hey, if you want to have conf if you want people to have confidence in the elections, then what you need to do is demonstrate that this has all been checked out.
This has all been thoroughly investigated.
We know that these are legitimate elections.
Then George Stephanopoulos, who is again playing objective journalist here, right?
I host one of the Sunday shows, right?
He says the reason that those 75% of people believe the election was stolen was because Donald Trump lied.
Now, that is so far from an objective take.
That is, there's layers and layers and layers of opinion that is being put into that and then presented as the objective fact.
And this is why Rand Paul calls him out as a liberal.
He goes, yeah, no, you're a liberal and you see it this way.
You won't acknowledge that there's two sides to this story.
You're just saying this is the way it is and everybody over here is a liar.
And that's why Rand Paul starts saying, you're calling me a liar and going into this area.
And then George starts kind of, you know, backing off that and being like, no, no, no, I'm calling the president a liar.
But here's my point, right?
Number one, to say that the president is lying is already, or the former president at this point, is already, you know, that's taking, that's not just reporting objective facts.
If you were to say Donald Trump claims that the election was stolen, even though it has not been conclusively proven that it was, I would grant that that's a thing that an objective journalist could say.
But to say that he's lying is like, well, you don't really know that.
You don't know for a fact whether or not he's lying or whether the fact he's even wrong.
What you could say is that I do not see evidence to back up his claim.
Saying he's lying adds a whole nother layer of assumptions on top of it.
Now you're talking about what's in his head, what is true in actuality that none of us know.
So that's just in itself a very loaded statement.
But then to say the reason the 75% of Americans believe there was fraud in this election is because Donald Trump is lying is adding a whole new layer of completely biased opinion on top of this.
Okay.
There are many reasons why the 75% of Republicans might believe this election was bullshit.
Many different reasons.
Okay.
I'll rattle off some right now that are not just that the president was lying to them.
There's lots of other reasons.
Number one, we're in a white hot culture war right now.
The same way that a large percentage of Democrats were willing to believe that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, a lot of Republicans are willing to believe that the election was rigged.
Number two, the entire media class has been against Donald Trump for his entire presidency.
Number three, he was framed for treason, and that turned out to be a big lie.
So now when you say the election was legitimate, that might be a big lie too.
It leads more people to believe that.
Number four, we completely overhauled the way we do an election right before the re-election of the most vilified president in history by the corporate press and the deep state and both parties' establishments.
Those are major, major reasons to be suspicious about the election.
But to just brush all of that aside and go, nope, it's because he lied.
That's the reason.
That's why 75% of Republicans don't believe this election was legitimate.
Wisconsin Vote Certification Tactics00:11:21
That is not, I'm sorry, by no stretch is that objective journalism.
Just take the last one.
Forget even all the other stuff that Donald Trump was completely framed and completely demonized by the press and all this other stuff, right?
The fact that we overhauled this election, the fact that we made it a vote by mail system, that every single state changed the way that we do elections in this country, guaranteed, guaranteed that whoever lost the election would hit their base would be suspicious about the outcome of it.
You cannot tell me that if Donald Trump had won this, that there wouldn't have been suspicions from the Democrats about how legitimate the election was.
So that alone disproves George Stephanopoulos and his incredibly simplistic agenda-driven point that the reason people have suspicion is because the president lied.
So I'm just saying, by the way, it's a really, it's just interesting that the tactics that they use.
It comes out as just one statement.
Oh, the president lied and that's why they believe it.
But there's so much in there that is being ignored or intentionally manipulated.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, brand new sponsor for fans over the age of 21.
Let me tell you about it, Fully Loaded Chew.
I know a lot of my fans are either still smoking cigarettes or hitting those vape pens like me, and we're all trying to get off of it.
Now, nicotine is an addictive chemical.
So we're not suggesting that to any new users, you should go try this.
But if you're like me and you're addicted to nicotine, you've got to try fully loaded chew.
Here's why lifelong dippers are switching to fully loaded.
This is the only chew with tobacco-free nicotine.
Tobacco-free nicotine means less of the bad stuff in your mouth.
Fully loaded's motto is save a lip.
And they've got a new line of flavors too: wintergreen, mint, bourbon, and peach.
Fully loaded chew comes at different nicotine levels.
Full strength is the same nicotine as any other chew.
And if you're looking to cut back on your nicotine, you can wean yourself off the nicotine by having the less strong, you know, full-flavored chew with no nicotine at all.
So once more, if you're a dipper or if you vape or you smoke, go try fully loaded shoe.
This might be the tool that'll allow you to finally quit.
Believe me, I know how difficult quitting can be.
It's something I've struggled with for a long time.
This is a new tool for you guys.
I have talked to a lot of people who it's helped quit.
The team at Gas and Fully Loaded worked to put together a killer promotional offer for you guys.
If you go to fullyloadedchew.com and use the promo code free gas, you're going to get a free tin and free shipping.
Once more, that's fullyloadedchew.com.
Promo code free gas for a free tin and free shipping.
Check it out.
Try it.
This might really help you get off the stuff or at least do it in a more healthy way.
Save a lip at fullyloadedchew.com.
All right, let's get back into it.
So anyway, let's keep playing.
There's no fraud and it's all been investigated.
That's just not true.
It's not what I said, sir.
I said the Department of Justice found no evidence.
Let me finish my point.
You said something is not true.
You say we're all liars.
You're just simply saying we're all liars.
And I said it was a lie that the election was stolen.
You're right and we're wrong.
Well, no, let's talk about the specifics of it.
In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on them and no address.
Historically, those were thrown out.
This time they weren't.
They made special accommodations because they said, oh, it's a pandemic and people forgot what their address was.
So they changed the law after the fact.
That is wrong.
That's unconstitutional.
And I plan on spending the next two years going around state to state and fixing these problems.
And I won't be cowed by liberals in the media who say, there's no evidence here and you're a liar if you talk about election fraud.
No, let's have an open debate.
It's a free country.
There is no widespread evidence of election fraud that overcomes.
Pause it.
Pause it right there.
Now, that one's a little bit more obvious, isn't it?
So what's here, very specific example in Wisconsin where there were no addresses on the mail-in ballots.
And normally that would lead to them being thrown out.
This case, it wasn't because of the pandemic.
And there's no reason why the pandemic would make people not know what their address is.
So I'm going to, and Rand Paul, to his credit, I mean, I really admire that he said this.
He's like, no, we're going to have an open and honest conversation about this.
I don't care if some liberal is going to try to bully me.
And then, you know, he says this is a free country, which I don't know how much Rand Paul's checked the country lately.
We're not actually that free, but I really like what he did there.
And what does George Stephanopoulos respond immediately?
There's been no widespread evidence of voter fraud.
They fall right back to their talking points when they cannot deal with the specific example that you just gave to them.
Isn't it great?
You're a journalist and hey, look, there's a prominent Republican senator who just gave you some evidence.
So yeah, you better change the reporting here.
Right, right.
Yeah, it seems like if you were a real journalist, you'd go, oh, that's an interesting story.
Maybe we'll send a guy out on that, you know?
But that's not the role at all.
It's like, no, We've already made up our minds.
We've already determined.
Now everybody repeat in unison, there was no evidence of widespread fraud, you know?
No, so this is the propaganda machine is that, you know, they have their talking points and slogans.
They did not even want to get stuck in this conversation or give airwaves to Rand Paul to be able to make these claims.
So now they have to immediately circle it back to Trump lying.
There is no evidence so that if you're at home watching this, there's still the, you know, there's still the strict talking point where you walk away and go, oh, I guess just Rand Paul's lying.
Right.
And that's can't give it any space in reality that there's a reason to look into this.
Understand that the way this, and this is why I pointed out at the beginning, what's really interesting about this is that the way this segment was set up, and this is, look, this is just a corporate press tactic.
And it's all over the place, by the way.
Fox News does it just as much as ABC does.
Like they, you know, if you, if you look at a show like The Five on Fox News, right?
They have one Democrat sitting around three or four Republicans.
And the one Democrat says something, and then all the Republicans laugh.
And then they all disagree with him.
And it's designed to create this impression that it's like, oh, I mean, this, everyone's laughing at this guy.
This, what this guy's saying is crazy.
Look, four people think this one guy is wrong.
And so the way this segment was set up was to be Amy Klobuchar versus Rand Paul with George Stephanopoulos as the referee.
But he'd be a referee who was cheating.
So every question would be led for Amy to.
So then you create this image that like, well, look, here's two people having a disagreement and here's the referee and the referee is calling every goal for Amy Klobuchar.
So you're left with the impression that obviously Rand Paul is just lying and she's right.
That's how this dumb game is played.
And if you watch, you know, cable news, this is almost every segment is like this.
It's just, it's all a rigged game to enforce their agenda.
But Amy Klobuchar's fucking, you know, mic cut out or whatever.
So now he's got to jump in and go hard against Rand Paul to try to make the segment still work for their narrative.
And so he's now got to be, he really can't just be asking Rand Paul questions and letting him get his opinions out there.
That's not allowed.
So he's got to cut him off right away and repeat the lines, these like silly lines that have nothing to do with what Rand Paul is saying.
All right, let's keep playing.
By the Department of Justice, led by President Trump's Attorney General.
In Wisconsin, there were counts and re-even.
Tara said that, but there was, yes, he said that.
Yes, that was a pronouncement.
There has been no examination, thorough examination of all the states to see what problems we had and see if they could fix them.
Now, let me say, to be clear, I voted to certify the state electors because I think it would be wrong for Congress to overturn that.
But at the same time, I'm not willing just to sit here and say, oh, everybody on the Republican side is a liar and there is no fraud.
No, there were lots of problems and there were secretaries of state who illegally changed the law and that needs to be fixed.
And I'm going to work hard to fix it.
And I won't be cowed by people saying, oh, you're a liar.
That's the problem with the media today is they say all Republicans are liars and everything we say is a lie.
There are two sides to every story.
Interview somebody on the other side, but don't insert yourself into the story to say we're all liars because we certainly are.
There are not two sides of the story.
This has been looked at in every single state.
Oh, sure, there are certified states.
There are two sides to every story.
George, you're forgetting who you are.
You're forgetting who you are as a journalist.
If you think there's only one inserting yourself.
Pause it.
Okay.
So this is great that he goes, there are not two sides to every story.
The votes have been certified in every state.
Like, again, he's just, they've decided.
This is him blatantly telling you, we've decided what the story is.
I don't care that a huge portion of the country is saying, no, no, no, look at this stuff.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
And why?
I don't know.
Fall back to talking point.
The votes have been certified.
As if now that would make sense, right?
To say, no, there aren't two sides.
The votes had been certified.
What would that be an appropriate response to?
That would be an appropriate response to Rand Paul saying the votes haven't been certified.
If Rand Paul came on there and said the votes have not been certified, and he could say, no, no, no, the votes have been certified.
That's a fact.
And look, here is when they were certified on the state level, and here is when the Senate voted them in and all of this shit, right?
Like that would be, but that's not what he's saying.
If you actually listen to the back and forth exchange after Rand Paul said the thing about Wisconsin, where they didn't throw out all of these votes that didn't have addresses attached to them.
And he was like, normally they would be, and they weren't thrown out because of the pandemic.
And that doesn't make any sense.
And George Stephanopoulos responded with, the votes were counted and there was a recount.
Right.
But they recounted those same ballots that didn't have addresses attached to them.
So that has nothing to do with what he's saying.
It's just a tactic to be like, well, let me say a thing that kind of sounds like it's dismissing what you're saying.
And to the average person who doesn't pay too much attention to that, they could listen to that and go, oh, they were counted and recounted.
Oh, okay.
So this isn't really a thing.
But that has nothing to do with what Rand Paul was saying.
It doesn't matter if they were counted and recounted.
It doesn't matter if they were recounted 100,000 times.
Did they ever throw out those ballots that didn't have an address attached to them?
No.
So it doesn't matter.
This doesn't address his point.
And then Rand Paul even adds, he's like, look, I voted, I voted to authorize this in the Senate because I go, I don't know, what are you going to do?
Throw out an entire election?
That doesn't seem right either.
But all of this should be investigated.
The position that Rand Paul is taking here is actually the most reasonable, almost impossible to argue against position.
Lockdowns and Governor Retreats00:16:06
He's like, look, Joe Biden's president.
I voted to let this whole process go through, but we need to investigate this to make sure it's cleaned up in the future.
That's pretty tough to argue against.
And George Stephanopoulos is left, you know, just retreating to these talking points, which don't address what he's saying at all.
I think it's more than just retreating to talking points.
I think you're watching the propaganda machine where they don't want any, they don't want any part of reality that you can digest or get information about the fact that maybe there was fraud here.
They don't want that talked about on the airwaves.
They immediately need to stop that out.
We don't, that, that's not even a thing.
We don't even address that.
What are you talking about?
That's not a thing.
That's essentially what he's saying.
Hey, no one, we're not allowed to talk about that here because it was certified.
Yeah.
And so there, and once again, like I said, two years from now, George will be reporting on, hey, we need election reform.
They all agree on this.
They just don't want to have the conversation now.
Well, and sometimes you can figure out these things in your head by just like running the counterfactual, you know, so like, well, what if they did allow that to be said?
Well, what happens, right?
So if you allow it to be addressed that, yeah, there were a lot of problems.
And yeah, we don't really know how legitimate this election was.
And yeah, we did kind of overhaul the system without having the proper checks and balances in place.
Well, then all of a sudden, Donald Trump's not so evil for saying what he said.
Then you understand where the protesters and the rioters were coming from a little bit more.
And it just, it, it destroys their core of their agenda.
So they have to have this perspective when talking about the election.
God forbid we actually grant that there might be something to what a lot of these Republicans are saying.
That would really mess things up for ABC News.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Cushy Dreams.
Cushy Dreams offers a full lineup of premium smokable CBD.
They specialize in extraordinary CBD-rich hemp flour, also known as bud, in cans and pre-roll CBD joints.
I love this stuff.
It's incredible.
Before I found out about Cushy Dreams, I never knew you could just smoke CBD, just like the way you smoke weed.
And to me, that's the best way to enjoy it.
If you're familiar with marijuana, if you get a can of the Cushy Dream stuff, it looks, tastes, smells like the best pot you've ever smoked, but it's CBD.
It's under 0.3% THC.
It's not going to get you high.
Just relaxes you, helps with all the problems that CBD is known to help with.
Inflammation, anxiety, insomnia, all that stuff.
It ships directly to you, and it's legal in all 50 states.
Join the men and women who are sick of vapes and gummies and want to smoke their CBD.
Cushy Dreams, smoke your CBD.
Now at cushydreams.com, you can build your own ounce.
They have different flavors and different specific indica sativa blends like relax, dream, energy, hustle, peace.
Relax is my joint, just to let you know.
So go to cushydreams.com.
That's K-U-S-H-Y-D-R-E-A-M-S dot com.
And at checkout, use the promo code P-O-T-P for 20% off your next order.
Free shipping on all orders over $20.
Smoke your CBD.
Go to cushydreams.com, use promo code P-O-T-P, get 20% off today.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, let's keep playing.
I want to look at election fraud, and I want to look at secretaries of state who illegally changed the voter laws without the permission of their state legislatures.
That is incontrovertible.
It happened.
And you can't just sweep that under the rug and say, oh, nothing to see here.
And everybody's a liar.
And you're a fool if you bring this up.
You're inserting yourself into the story.
A journalist would hear both sides and there are two sides of this.
I'm standing by facts.
There are not two sides to facts.
I did not say that this was a perfect election.
I said the results were certified.
I said it was not stolen.
It is people are liars.
You're saying people are liars if they want to investigate what happened in the election.
Shouldn't the fact that tens of thousands of absentee ballots did not have addresses on them and normally were disqualified, but this time they were counted.
Should we examine that?
I don't know whether it affected the election or not, but I have an open mind.
And if we actually examine this and we find out it didn't, that's fine, but it still should be fixed.
There can be more investigations.
The investigations that have taken place have shown there is not enough fraud to change the results of this election.
That has been certified by every state.
It was stated by the Justice Department and the Attorney General.
And I think there are certifications, but it doesn't mean that I think that there wasn't fraud and that there weren't problems that have to be investigated.
And it doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken.
I believe in Pennsylvania they broke the law.
And I believe that that ever would get a real hearing of the Supreme Court.
It was denied for standing.
It wasn't actually taken up.
If it were taken up, I do believe that the Supreme Court would overrule and say that they did break the law illegally.
I asked you a very simple question.
Was the election stolen or not?
I think there was a great deal of evidence of fraud and changing of the election laws illegally.
And I think a thorough investigation is warranted.
Senator Paul, thanks for your time this morning.
All right.
So again, I really did.
I thought this was a great segment and really revealing if you know what to look for.
So again, when Rand Paul, in that last little portion that we just played, Rand Paul says straight up, he goes, okay, do you think that these ballots that weren't thrown out that should have been deserves to be investigated?
And of course, George Stephanopoulos can't answer that question with the obvious, yeah, sure, we should look into that.
Like, what, how, how do you even make the argument that that's, yeah, okay, we should look into what happened there if you're a journalist who believes in democracy and believes in this whole system.
Would your argument be?
So he just retreats back to talking points.
It's been investigated the same things he's been repeating the whole time, it's been certified, it's been investigated, and it's like yeah, but Rand Paul just pointed out one very specific thing that wasn't investigated, that has nothing to do with the certifications.
And then what's he gonna like try to reduce this whole thing back to?
Are you saying this election was stolen?
That now you have to answer yes or no to this question?
I thought Rand Paul did a good job.
Where he just goes, I don't know.
I think there was evidence of fraud and I think the whole thing should be investigated.
Now, Rand Paul even says at one point, I mean, Rand Paul basically takes, I think, what me and your position has been on this, which is like, I don't know.
I don't know if that it would have made the difference one way or the other if we got down to the bottom of all of these things.
But there's a lot of things that we should get down to the bottom of.
It seems like a very reasonable position.
And as you were kind of pointing out and I was pointing out as well, it's like they really don't want to present that as a reasonable position.
But I think I tend to agree that you're right.
I think in time it will become more obvious that this is a very reasonable position to just say like, yeah, this, we kind of, we have a system of voting in this last presidential election that is, that, that needs to be looked at for us to actually know whether or not these votes are legitimate.
And I say this as somebody who's not a big fan of democracy, but to everybody else who's claiming, you know, it's funny because like I don't believe in democracy.
I just believe in liberty.
Like I don't care if 30% of people vote for liberty or 90% of people vote for liberty.
I'm still for it.
That doesn't change anything to me.
But for all these people who claim so much to believe in democracy, you'd think the onus would be stronger on them to make sure the process works.
Because if everything you believe in is all centered around this God democracy, you'd think you need to really make sure that you're getting the accurate democratic results.
But they don't seem too interested in that.
And I think it's obvious for anyone with a brain that George Stephanopoulos is much more interested in just presenting the claim that there could be fraud or that the election could have been swayed by these results as lying, batshit crazy and evil.
And I'm sure at this point, inciting violence.
Anyway, somewhere, Amy Klobuchar was sitting in a chair, probably just listening to all of that, unable to talk.
So that's kind of a nice thought to go out on.
Any other thoughts on that on that segment, Rob?
No, I really, when I came across it, I guess it was last night.
I got real fired up and I was like, man, this is some golden propaganda at work.
Yeah, I missed it live and you sent me the video and immediately I was like, oh yeah, that's good.
We're going to have to play.
We got to go down to Kentucky, hang out with Rand and Thomas Massey.
Every time I see them on the news, it gets me, gives me a big old Kentucky boner.
Yeah, there you go.
Kentucky.
That's the place to move to.
I'm probably not going to move to Kentucky, but I do like Massey and forget moving.
Let's just tour some of those distilleries, drink some bourbons.
All right.
You're selling me.
Yeah, they got bourbon.
They got Massey.
They got Rand Paul.
Not bad.
Not a bad, not a bad state you guys got going for yourself there, Kentucky.
Okay, so one other thing that I wanted to mention before we wrap up here is that it does seem, we've been talking about now for a couple of weeks how there seems to be this move from some of these blue governors who have been champions of lockdowns backing away slowly and in some cases, not so slowly from the lockdown position.
Cuomo came out and said a whole thing about how we can't stay locked down.
It's going to destroy these businesses.
Their, you know, Newsweek ran that study about how lockdowns have really not been shown to make any significant difference over voluntary compliance.
Most recently, uh, Governor Gavin Newsom lifted the stay-at-home order.
Um, I think that just happened this morning, or perhaps it was yesterday.
But so, there's something going on here, right?
And um, I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.
That there's there's definitely seems to be a change in the attitude of Democratic governors toward lockdowns.
I don't know what could have happened that would make them change their mind.
It was somewhere around January 20th that they all started taking this different approach.
So, I don't know what that's related to, but I'm curious if you had any thoughts on this.
Here, let me just read this and then I'll let you get in here.
Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to announce today, Monday, that the stay-at-home order will be lifted in all regions of the state, according to a letter from California Restaurant Associations to its members.
All right.
So, what do you think?
I think these people have no compassion for human life when they don't care about you or your business and anything that they can do for any ounce of power they'll go for.
And now that they're in power and they want government to run efficiently again and not just be a burden to everybody, they're willing to come forward and say, Hey, and like, hey, we got to move on with our lives.
But here's the craziness: look at how much power these people really have.
That if the governors were, you know, preaching it's too dangerous, it's too dangerous, right?
People were willing to comply just because some guy's claiming it's too dangerous for you to show up to your own business.
Yeah, it's um, so right.
So, I agree with all of that, and it's it's really something to see the narrative change.
But I got to say, I'm almost a little bit torn on this issue where I want to be almost tactical.
Um, and that I, you know, like the easy thing to jump on right away is you go like, oh, this is all such bullshit.
As soon as the presidential election's over and your guys in there, now all of a sudden, you understand what we've all been saying for, you know, for all this time, that this is destroying people's lives.
However, I really just want this to go back to being a somewhat free country.
And so, I almost feel like just going like, yeah, you guys make a really good point.
Yeah, totally.
I mean, I think you're absolutely, you know, like you almost just want to pat them on the head.
It's at least encouraging to see that they're moving in this direction of accepting that maybe, you know, this is the case.
But it's also hard to ignore that there were a lot of people.
We certainly speculated about it.
Not that I had a, you know, a decisive take one way or the other, but a lot of people speculated that part of the reason why so many governors were so gung-ho on lockdowns was that they wanted to take Donald Trump's number one talking point away from him going into an election year, which was that we have this white hot economy.
Now, putting aside the validity of that statement, I do think that there is no question that if this election was held a year earlier, Donald Trump is looking at a second term.
The truth is that when the economy is destroyed, it makes it a lot tougher for the incumbent.
And when the economy is good, it makes it a lot easier for the incumbent.
And to see these guys switching around right after Joe Biden gets in does seem to validate that point to some degree.
I think they're, I mean, it's not going to happen, but if you look at the impact of the laws that they enacted, their feet really should be held to the fire of what specifically has changed.
And if you made a bad decision six months ago, there should be some sort of accountability for that.
Like imagine if they said, hey, you can't go outside.
There's no air outside, right?
There's no air outside.
You can't go outside.
And then suddenly they went, well, you can go outside now.
Well, what specifically changed now that it's okay that it was not okay six months ago?
What data?
What specifically are you seeing now?
Now, they might be able to, I guess, point to the vaccine, but I don't know that the distribution is widespread enough that you could claim that, especially when they're saying there's no evidence that you can't, you know.
Yeah, well, they're saying that you can still possibly spread it and you still need a mask up and social distance.
So that's not it right there.
I mean, look, I'm sure they can go.
They'll find a way to look at some variable and go, oh, this is the reason why we're doing this.
But look, you're absolutely right.
There seems to be no logical reasoning for why now, all of a sudden, Democrat governors like Cuomo and Newsome would be saying we're pulling back from these lockdowns.
There just does not, the only answer that is apparent to me is the political one.
And this is the truth is that they, I think, realize that they can't keep the economy destroyed for too much longer or it's going to reflect poorly on them.
And so there's there is a silver lining in here, which is that, okay, at least it looks like they're going to start pulling back and giving, you know, pulling back a little bit of the government totalitarianism that is known popularly as lockdowns or stay-at-home orders.
So anyway, it's it's it's positive to me, it's a positive to see it going in this direction.
And I hope it continues.
But yeah, I, you know, I'm a little bit torn.
Like I'm just happy.
I just want the lockdowns to fucking end already.
But I agree with you that it's like there has to be some type of accountability if people are just going to, for pure political calculations, just say, oh, no, we're done with the totalitarianism now.
Accountability for Totalitarianism00:00:41
Now you're allowed to live your life.
And also, you know, the wreckage is going to be felt for years.
So let's maybe there'll be some pushes for.
And by the way, if there isn't a public hanging, which I'm going to call for, I think we need to be hanging more governors.
Let's say after a trial and also that everything on this podcast is satirical, just in case feds are listening.
Go ahead.
Yep, just satirical.
Not really advocating anything.
There we go.
All right.
There we go.
That's our show for today, everybody.
Thank you guys very much for listening.
Go check out Rob's podcast, Run Your Mouth.
Follow him on Twitter at Robbie the Fire.
Thank you guys very much.
We'll be back on Wednesday with a brand new episode.