Rush Limbaugh Program - April 20, 2015, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

34:47

April 20, 2015, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, I put it off as long as I can.
	Folks, it's it's time now to get to the Hillary news of the day and of the weekend.
	We have to do it.
	We have to do it, try to make as interesting as we can out there, but as you well know, I am bored silly.
	By Mrs. Clinton, I cannot.
	And this honestly, I I cannot see her being elected president.
	I understand, I know where the country is.
	If Obama can be elected, so can she.
	I understand all that.
	I just can't see it.
	And I can't see it because she's got no reason to run other than it's her turn.
	Other than it's time Hillary be paid back, but I don't even think the Democrat Party really wants her.
	But I'll tell you the main reason why she can't get, I don't care how bad it gets, there's a reason that she can't get out.
	And it was revealed over the weekend.
	By the way, greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, executing a signed host duties flawlessly, utilizing talent on loan from God.
	800 two eight two two eight eight two.
	New book by Peter Schweitzer, our old buddy from the Hoover Institute.
	Schweitzer has uh done numerous exposes of liberals, leftists, uh the Clintons in the past.
	He's got a new book called Clinton Cash.
	It's not out yet, comes out on uh the 5th of May.
	But the New York Times had a very, very, very concerned and worried write-up of the book.
	In yesterday's editions.
	The book does not hit shelves until May 5, and already.
	The Republican Rand Paul has called its findings big news that'll shock people and make voters question the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
	Has always note this.
	Any bad news for Hillary has to be reported merely as fodder for the Republicans.
	So, okay, you've got a book here that is devastating in what it does.
	It reveals the donors to the Clinton Foundation and how much money and what they're expecting for it.
	And naturally, this is not good news for Mrs. Clinton, but the New York Times gets hold of this, and of course it's reported simply as fodder for the Republicans, who the Times says in the story will, of course, overreach and blow it.
	It's never just news.
	It can never be bad news about the Clintons isn't just bad news.
	Oh no.
	It isn't anything but fodder for the Republicans.
	Clinton Cash, the untold story of how and why foreign governments and businesses helped make Bill and Hillary rich.
	That's the title of the book by Peter Schweitzer.
	Is a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities, and it's proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle in its infancy.
	Feared by the media anyway, maybe feared by Hillary.
	The book, a copy of which was obtained by the New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees, received favors from Mrs. Clinton's State Department in return.
	We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the money.
	Schweitzer writes.
	His examples include a free trade agreement in Columbia that benefited a major foundation donor's natural resource investments in uh in Columbia, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010,
	and more than a million get this, more than a million dollars in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
	So here you have one million dollar payment to Clinton by a Canadian bank That was a major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline at the time Keystone XL was being debated in the State Department.
	Obviously, this bank paid Clinton a million dollars to influence Hillary to try to influence Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
	The book is filled with details and answers like that.
	Not to mention, by the way, the just uncovered news that the Clinton family slush funds large, the Clinton family foundation, largest individual investor was allowed to violate the sanctions against Iran during Hillary's watch at the State Department.
	Did you know that?
	The largest individual donor to the Clinton Family Foundation was allowed to violate the sanctions against Iran while Hillary was at the State Department.
	Clinton Cash, back to the New York Times here.
	Clinton Cash is potentially unsettling because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations, including the Times, the Washington Post, and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the storylines found in the book.
	And from Newsweek, Hillary Clinton's big benefactor has trade links with Iran.
	Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that one of the biggest benefactors to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran and may be in breach of U.S. sanctions imposed on the country.
	Now, it's a good thing you have me to tell you what this Newsweek article says, because this is almost journalistic malpractice the way this is written.
	It is confusing to the point that readers probably will give up on it.
	It's hard to make sense of what this is, but let me just give you a clue by rereading to you the lead.
	Enemies, here we have a story.
	Let's put it we have a story that the biggest donor to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran in violation of the sanctions against Iran.
	The biggest donor.
	Now here's how Newsweek leads that.
	Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So Newsweek clearly thinks that the only real significance of this story is that Hillary's enemies will try to use it against her.
	They don't report that Hillary has a problem.
	They don't report that Hillary took money and the Clinton Foundation took money, biggest donor from somebody allowed to violate the sanctions against Iran.
	They can't just report that.
	They have to refer to it as enemies of Mrs. Clinton will likely try to make hay out of this.
	In other words, they're going to exaggerate it, they're going to overreach, they're going to make some things up.
	They just don't report on the fact that the news is the news here, that Mrs. Clinton looked the other way and took money.
	The largest donor whatsoever to the Clinton family slush fund was allowed with impunity to violate sanctions on Iran as they gin up their nuclear weapons program.
	This is stunning.
	This is in Newsweek to boot, and they can only write about it within the framework that Mrs. Clinton's enemies are likely to jump all over this.
	Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk 54 has courted the Clintons for nine years Earlier this year, Victor Pinchuk, 54, was confirmed as the largest individual contributor to the Clinton Foundation, the fourth richest man in Ukraine.
	Pinchuk owns Interpipe Group, a Cyprus Incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors.
	This guy was furnishing the pipes, that much of the necessary ingredients would flow through for the Iranian nuclear program.
	But the point was it's it's in violation of the sanctions.
	And Schweitzer's book is filled with example after example of this.
	Not it's, you know, Schweitzer has done the job that the drive-by media used to do and still does on Republican candidates.
	If this were Mitt Romney, you wouldn't have it written about as enemies of Mitt Romney will likely be what you would have the Times already writing about how Romney's disqualified Romney may have engaged in criminal activity.
	We demand investigations, we're going to conduct our own investigation into the Romney Foundation to find out how in the world he engineered the biggest donor to violate whatever sanctions in a stunning.
	Now this leads me to a thought.
	No matter how bad the news gets for Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, and believe me, the latest bad news is Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses help make Bill and Hillary rich.
	She can't even think of dropping out, folks.
	She has taken too much money from too many foreign countries, and too many foreign rich and wealthy individuals, and Wall Street billionaires who are expecting a lot of payback for that money.
	If she walks out, if it were to get so bad, and I'm not suggesting that that this is imminent, I'm suggesting it's not an option.
	No matter how bad things are, she can't drop out of this because she has collected money.
	She and her husband have collected billions of dollars on the cum.
	They have been out soliciting for the Clinton Family Foundation billions of dollars with the implied promise that there will be payback once Mrs. Clinton and Bill are back in the White House.
	And it is tons of money.
	And she's made too many promises.
	In fact, I'll even go further.
	I would venture to guess that her candidacy is the reason that this foundation is flush with cash.
	Her candidacy is the only reason this foundation has as much money as it does.
	And the focus is on foreign.
	Now there's plenty of Wall Street money in it, too.
	The Clinton Family Foundation, you talk about a roundabout way of donating to a candidate without any concern for limits, without any concern for FEC laws.
	A foundation's a charitable donation to boot.
	You get some of it back on the tax deduction.
	You talk about a slick maneuver.
	They set up the Clinton Family Foundation as essentially a money laundering operation where all these foreign entities are going to want favors.
	They're buying access to power with a donation to Clinton Foundation.
	There's no other reason to give all of this money to the Clinton.
	Say they may be loved and adored by these reprobates out there, but not this much.
	You don't give this kind of money just because you like somebody.
	You don't give Bill Clinton this amount of money or Hillary because you like the way he makes mince meat out of Ken Star.
	You do not give people this kind of money without expecting something back for it.
	Every political donation comes with expectations.
	But this hundreds of millions of dollars from people who were allowed to violate our sanctions on Iran and help them with their nuclear plan.
	And you got people from Columbia who want to be able to do things in that country above or actually below board, and they're going to need powerful interest in the United States to look the other way while they do it.
	So they've been out, it's it's been revealed here that Mrs. Clinton, just on her speech income, is one of the top ten, if she were a CEO, top ten highest paid CEOs in the country, giving speeches for crying out loud.
	This is why she can't dare drop out of this.
	Now, I know nobody's suggesting that she's going to, and it's I'm not suggesting that it's imminent.
	I'm just telling you.
	If Mrs. Clinton, if if if if it ever begins to look like she doesn't have a prayer, she cannot drop out.
	She, if she wants out, she's going to have to make it look like she has been defeated fair and square in the Democrat primaries, or at least fair and square by a Republican opponent.
	But I'm telling you, this is this is almost they they have bought her presidency before she's gotten elected.
	And if she doesn't ever achieve a position of power where she can utilize, let me put it a different way.
	If she doesn't achieve a position of power where she can pay back all this money, I mean it could be a problem.
	Because the money's not given because they love the Clintons.
	The money wasn't given because Bill's a good old boy and helps them find babes when they're here to UN.
	That's not why they're giving the money.
	There are major expectations.
	She has to stay in.
	But in the process, the more this stuff becomes known, her candidacy could seriously damage the Democrat Party.
	If if her these shenanigans of hers selling access, what now we know why she deleted all these emails to keep this stuff under wraps.
	The idea that she had to keep secret whatever the hell she was doing with yoga.
	As we first postulated a couple of weeks ago when this whole thing, maybe a month ago by now when this came out.
	This is uh I think shaping up is serious stuff.
	I really do.
	Okay, Liz in Richmond, Virginia.
	I'm glad that you waited.
	I really appreciate it.
	Welcome to the program.
	It's great to have you here.
	Oh man, it's so cool to talk to you.
	How are you doing, Russ?
	I'm very well, thank you.
	Cool.
	Uh no, I'm just gonna say that you know, the candidates have been, you know, keep getting asked, do you believe that people are born gay?
	And there's such a simple answer, and this is what people really want to hear.
	They can just say, well, the prevailing science, because the American Psychiatric Association, if you go to their website, they literally say that no one knows what causes it.
	And there's quotes that says, you know, today there's no replicated scientific study supporting any specific biological ideology for homosexuality.
	So they can just go with the science instead of giving their opinion.
	Now, wait, now I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
	Are you saying, I'm gonna use my own words here.
	Are you s are you saying that science has not discovered a gay gene, for example?
	Yeah, they're saying they literally the quote is no one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
	So I know there's a lot of people on the left who are claiming that Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	I've got to take a break here, and I don't want you to go away.
	Are you nobody nobody knows what causes heterosexuality?
	I'm just saying that's what the American Psychiatric Association says on their website.
	Okay, right on.
	Yeah.
	Okay, we're back now with Liz in Richmond, Virginia.
	So I just want to get your point is that the psychological, whatever you talked about, association, psychiatric association, they're claiming they don't, they can't scientifically pinpoint any reason for any sexuality.
	That's right.
	And that's about the American Psychiatric Association.
	So you would I mean I assume that people would think that they're a credible authority on things like this.
	I would assume.
	Wait, you you would they are a credible author.
	Well uh not all people would, by the way, this the American Psychiatry is psych psychiatric association.
	I mean, like any other scientific outfit that can be bought.
	Yeah, what hasn't been politicized these days is is my point.
	Well, what's your your real point here?
	The the reason she's calling two hours after the fact we mentioned that the let me mention this.
	The National Institutes of Health has so far spent 400 grand surveying the satisfaction levels of first time African American adolescent males' homosexual experiences.
	They want to find how enjoyable the first time was.
	There's 400 grand spent so far.
	And then we had a soundbite with Rubio being asked when he thinks if if he thinks that homosexuality is a choice in a setup question.
	So Liz here is calling to react to that.
	And your point is that this credible group of people, American Psychiatric Association, cannot give a scientific reason for homosexuality, heterosexuality, bestiology.
	They can't give a scientific reason for any sexuality, right?
	That's exactly right.
	Okay, so what's the point?
	So the point is they don't need when they're asked this question, they don't have to rely on their opinion.
	They can go to the prevailing, you know, left people on the left are always saying go to science.
	Oh, I get it.
	So you're saying you're saying that they're conveniently not finding a scientific reason, thereby allowing people to say, I didn't choose this.
	So you exactly.
	And there's times uh listen on social media all the time, there's people who consistently say this this is a choice, it's a choice.
	Uh that it's not a choice.
	They say it's not a choice that I want to.
	So you you think they're choosing it.
	You know, I'm saying I'm saying I have my opinion.
	Rubio might have his opinion, but the bottom line is the prevailing scientific organizations who study that say, yeah, we've been trying to find out what does but we can't.
	So it might be a choice that might not.
	They're not going to be put into the case.
	Are you saying you want to throw Ruby all overboard because he answered that way?
	No, I'm not.
	I'm just saying that they it's if they don't want to sit into a corner, they can use the I think we got to the bottom of this.
	And uh we go back to the phones.
	This oh, by the way, I'm I mentioned at the top of the program, and I'm gonna be weighing in on a corker bill.
	Something has happened in that since the program began that now causes me to require it to be studied even further.
	What I was originally gonna well, take it take me too long to get into it.
	Uh the corker bill uh would appear to be a very, very bad thing, not good.
	It's being portrayed as something that can block Obama from doing something unilaterally with Iran and needing congressional approval for it.
	But in truth, that appears to not be the case at all.
	Uh in the case of a treaty, President goes out and negotiates a treaty with somebody, in this case Iran and a new nuclear deal.
	The Constitution is clear.
	Sixty-seven Senators have to agree.
	The president is required to get sixty-seven votes.
	That's what is required to ratify a treaty.
	Well, the corker bill does not place the pressure on Obama to get sixty-seven votes to support what he's doing.
	It's the opposite.
	It gives the Senate 30 days and 67 votes to oppose Obama, which isn't gonna happen.
	I in other words, it it turns what should be a treaty into a piece of legislation requiring a veto.
	Uh uh enough to override a veto, which isn't gonna happen.
	But it's gotten a little bit more complicated than that.
	So I need to delay my explanation to you on it until I've had a chance after the program today to delve more deeply into this.
	In the meantime, Cheryl in Cleveland, it's great to have you on the program with us.
	Hello.
	Hi, Rush, how are you?
	Fine and dandy, thank you.
	You know, I couldn't be more disgusted by this uh NIH study.
	Uh half a million dollars on the uh on on um examining what young adolescent boys are experiencing um during their first sexual encounter with all of the problems that beset the black community, especially black male adolescents to spend this kind of money on this study is astonishing to me.
	I mean, why not put that money to just trying to determine why 73% of black men abandon their children?
	Why not attempt to discover why there is such a rampant?
	We don't need a wait, wait, wait, let me take these one by one.
	We don't need a study for that, because the federal government, Under the aegis of the Democrat Party has come in willingly and happily agreeing to be the husband.
	Of course they have, and we see what the result of that is on black people, on black children especially.
	My point is uh look, I know that this is all part of the grand liberal manipulation.
	What I would like other people to see though is that really liberals care nothing about the state of black America.
	If they did, they wouldn't waste money on this kind of nonsense, but they really would sort of look at these issues or try to look at these issues that affect the lives and deaths of black children.
	Cheryl.
	Every time I get a yes.
	Are you African American?
	Yes, I am.
	You are.
	Okay.
	I just I just I I didn't know.
	I just wanted to get that out there because you're you're you're talking about the dissolution of the black family.
	You know, and white people can't talk about that.
	I understand.
	I understand.
	I have been black all my life and hope very much to die that way.
	Well, the odds are good.
	And have been a happy conservative since I discovered you about twenty years ago.
	Um, and you completely changed my thinking on everything, and I do thank you from the bottom of my heart.
	Thank you very much.
	So let me guess where you're going with this.
	You think that this study that is measuring the satisfaction levels of the first time gay sexual experience of young African American men is what?
	You think that this is an effort in the long term to convince part uh no, I think it's part of a larger um effort at you know, the one thing that blacks remain is more conservative on the issue of homosexuality than other groups.
	So there's been this big push lately to make sure that black Americans know how wonderful the gift of homosexuality is.
	Oh, there's nothing more wonderful than two men having sex.
	It's up there with curing cancer.
	So we have shows like Empire.
	And the whole point of empire is to blend, you know, homosexuality with rap music and bring it into our living rooms and let us all see how great it is.
	Well, now I have to I have to say that you've got a point about that that she's talking about the TV show Empire, and it is I I I get your point here.
	You think there's an there's a long term effort being made here to dissolve the natural opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage in the black community and to turn that into support.
	Of course.
	I don't think I know.
	I know uh wholeheartedly that that's what's going on.
	And this study, I do want to bring to your attention one thing in this study, Rush.
	Okay.
	Uh, because I went and I looked at the study after uh after you mentioned it.
	Uh one thing that it says really caught my attention.
	It says the study will also examine why some young African American gay men seek out older partners, finding that older partners had, quote, emotional maturity, unquote, could expose them to quote more life experiences, unquote, and help young men sort through, quote, sexual position and how to perform in relationships, unquote.
	Now, I'm going to let you in on a really closely held secret about black America Rush.
	Uh I grew up in a housing project, and in that housing project, and in just about every poor uh black community in this country, everyone in the community always knew who the older black men were who were plying these young fatherless boys with gifts, with candy, with money, with toys, you name it.
	This has always happened.
	I mean, I haven't lived in that particular lifestyle for a very, very long time.
	I've been very fortunate to um to be very successful in this country, but I know that that lifestyle still exists.
	You have a bunch of poor fatherless boys and a bunch of older men who prey upon those boys.
	Now it used to be a bad thing.
	It used to be called pedophilia, but apparently now it's called uh giving them emotional maturity.
	You know, this is a study to me that is dangerous in many ways.
	Because it's one thing to say, you know, homosexuality is great, it's the best thing since life's sliced bread.
	It's another thing to say older men who prey on young adolescent boys, and an adolescent is still underage, are no longer doing something bad, but they're doing something great.
	They're helping shepherd them on this journey into homosexuality.
	That's a crop.
	And I'm not buying it, and I hope that there are other intelligent people who are not buying it either.
	Well, I don't think anybody knew that until you mentioned it.
	I didn't, I didn't I don't know conditions in housing projects to that extent.
	Believe me, it's not just housing projects.
	It's in black neighborhoods generally.
	And it's and it's quite understandable when you think about it.
	No, wait, are you so I just want to be perfect?
	Are you saying that these the the elderly black men you're talking about are gay?
	Not not elderly, but adult.
	And what I'm saying is this.
	Yes, they are gay.
	There's there's there's a big distinction though within within black communities that again, a lot of white people don't know about.
	It's the down low phenomenon, which is black men who are who engage in sex with other men for years and years and years, but refuse to call themselves gay.
	Um it's uh it's it's a closeted behavior that I guess with the change in societal norms, maybe they'll be coming out of the closet to some degree, but they it you know there's lots of books have been written about it, but but we don't need the books because those of us who've lived it know it.
	You know, these are men who engage in sex with other men, and who again, my big concern, I don't care what tooth consenting adults do, but I've seen the effect that these men have on young, poor, fatherless boys who want nothing more than to have some of the material things that they see that other people and sounds like you're describing after a fashion, a form of recruitment.
	Of course I am.
	That's exactly what it is.
	Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
	I'm not trying to lead you, but that's what it sounds like to me.
	You're not leaving me.
	That's exactly what it is.
	And again, there isn't a black person within the sound of my voice who doesn't know that what I'm saying to you is absolutely true.
	One hundred percent true.
	And it's something that's still covered up.
	And and and and with the way that things are going now, though, which Well now wait a minute, I got one more qu if that's true, where does this uh I mean I'm of the impression, and you mentioned it that homosexuality in the black communities frowned on.
	It's not cool.
	So and yet you describe this thing that this this circumstance that happens that every black person in the sound of your voice knows of that's going to be.
	They they know that it goes on.
	They know that what I'm talking about goes on and goes on to a very large degree.
	It is it is frowned upon, hence the down the the development of the down low syndrome.
	It's frowned upon, and so these people, these men don't let their actual you know, sexual predolition.
	You mean this is what on the down low really means?
	Now, Rush, do you not know what it is?
	No, I thought on the down low meant just, you know, clandestine, secret.
	No, it means a lot of things.
	But, again, within the black community, people know exactly what it means.
	And people know exactly what has been going on for a very, very long time.
	I thought on the down low meant you just weren't down for the struggle or anything like that.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Oh, Rush, for the stories I could tell you.
	See, I'm so naive about this stuff.
	I'm just but this is but what for me again I can't, I I can't let this go without mentioning what I think is the most important thing, and again, that is the condition of black children in this country.
	They are living in terror zones, they are living in gangland war zones, and if anybody wants to spend a half million dollars, spend it on that.
	Amen.
	I could not agree with you more on that.
	I appreciate the call, Cheryl.
	Uh, love you're right.
	Great, great, great caller, and we will take a break and be right back.
	Don't go away.
	It's not that I didn't believe our caller.
	Cheryl, but I still wanted to look it up.
	So I went to the urban dictionary, right?
	There it is.
	Down low refers to when closeted black men leading mostly heterosexual lives seek other men for sex that is often anonymous and unprotected.
	And then they offer a quote, typical usage.
	I'm a black man who likes other men, but because of the stigma in the black community about being gay, I will only have sex on the down low.
	I've been using that phrase because I like it on the down low to describe people doing things uh secretly, privately, which is halfway right.
	Anyway, let's try Kate Carson City, Nevada.
	Welcome to the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Hello, Rush.
	How are you doing?
	Fine and dandy.
	Good.
	Hey, listen, I just wanted to call in.
	And Cheryl was just awesome.
	I'm she was just amazing.
	But anyway, I kind of can dovetail with that.
	I'm wondering if Bob Sheffer going after Marco Rubio on the homosexual question might not backfire on the mainstream media who are just the press release folks for the Democratic Party, because when you look at what happened with Memories Pizza,
	when you look at what happened with the Florist in Washington, when you see the support for those folks, I don't think the support for the homosexual agenda is going to be as successful as, say, the war on women or even attacking pro-lifers or any of that.
	I think they may be making a tactical error here, and I'm wondering what your head is.
	See, I I I don't think in this case it's comparable to the memories pizza, because nobody, if if I hadn't told you what happened on Bob Schaefer's show, you might not know.
	You may have watched it.
	I don't know.
	But most people didn't.
	And Rubio didn't act offended and and all that.
	If there's a backfire, it'll be quiet.
	It won't be something that anybody knows.
	It'll just show up on election day as one of the reasons why people did it or did not vote a certain way.
	As to the uh homosexual agenda, gay marriage or whatever you might say, uh backfiring compared to war on women or what have you.
	It's too soon to uh to tell.
	And I I it I don't think that that's gonna have any impact on it being tried anyway.
	I don't think Bob Schaefer will come up with that question.
	I've been thinking about that.
	I think I think the question some producer gave him.
	Bob Schaefer's not, he's too old, he doesn't think that way.
	I know he's a lib leftist and all that that kind of thing, but that's just that question is just too planted.
	It's just it's too stock.
	Do you think homosexuality is chosen?
	It came out of nowhere.
	Discussing gay marriage?
	What did that not did nothing to do with anything?
	It's a trap question.
	It's a gotcha question.
	It's baseless, senseless, it's so transparent.
	And to the extent that people in the audience who did see the show saw it that way, yeah, it won't work.
	Uh but it could have worked depending on Rubio's answer, is the point.
	They're just waiting for one of these Republicans to say, no, I don't believe it is ch I think it is chosen.
	They're just waiting for one Republican to say it's chosen, and the whole party's gonna get tarred and feathered.
	It's a bunch of anti-gay bigots.
	You wait.
	All it's gonna take is one answer like that.
	Yes, I think it's chosen.
	Who wouldn't?
	You know, I mean, it's it's it's a setup, and they're gonna try it again.
	Rubio just got it first.
	Next up, George Stephanopoulos will try his version of it on somebody.
	You mark my words.
	I'm gonna save the audio of the Republicans going after Hillary in New Hampshire for tomorrow, and also explain why college students are for Hillary.

▲