All Episodes
Previous Next
June 7, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
June 7, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Buck Sexton here filling in for Rush.
Thank you so much for joining or for staying with me if you've been listening for a little bit.
Very much appreciated.
Follow me on Facebook at facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
I'm checking in as I can throughout the show and certainly will respond to messages after the show.
So we've got to talk about the judge, right?
I see now CNN.com main headline story, huge photo, angry-looking Paul Ryan.
Ryan slams Trump's racist comment.
You've got a whole lot of the never Trump crew out there saying, I told you, better step away now.
Better step away before it's too late.
And I kind of want to ask, okay, step away and then what?
Even if we, we being the royal we, however you want to describe, we step away and then Hillary wins?
Or no, there's something else?
Gary Johnson wins?
That's going to make conservatives happy.
Someone needs to explain to me, step away and then what?
I want to know what the answer.
Maybe there'll be an answer.
I haven't heard it yet.
But there are people out there saying step away.
And a lot of talk about Trump's racist comment.
I will get into that.
Let me just say before we dissect the Trump commentary on Judge Curiel, let's first just be clear on one thing.
The Clinton campaign has, for months now, or as soon as they realized that they were going to be facing off against Trump, the narrative was going to be Trump is a sexist and Trump is a racist.
And it didn't matter if Trump did change and all of a sudden became more presidential and did all the things that people want him to do.
And quite honestly, even people like me think that it would be nice if he sort of took a, just was a little, just a little, just like take it down on the amp from like an 11 to like a nine.
You know, just drop it spinal tap style.
Just don't go to, don't go to 11.
Just give me a little less, you know, go to like a nine on the Trump scale or an eight on the Trump scale.
I know some supporters would say, but then he won't beat Trump.
And I say, I mean, isn't there such a thing as like three quarter speed Trump, maybe?
Anyway, but I would like that.
And I know many others have been calling for that as well.
But even if he did it, my point here is that he's going to be called a sexist and a racist.
And that drumbeat will get louder and louder and more and more in the media, especially those who have been trying to seem like, oh, I'm an objective.
I'm an objective news person.
I'm very down the middle, straight shooter, called like I see it.
All the people that take that person, I should say all of them, a lot of people who take that perspective, pardon me, not all of them, are going to, as we get closer and closer, be like, well, I mean, I'm objective, but Trump is a huge racist, and anybody who supports him, probably a racist, too.
You'll hear that.
That will start to come out.
And that was going to happen no matter what Trump said.
At this point, when I say no matter what he said, forget about during the primary, I mean, once it was clear he was the nominee.
Had he even taken a much more conciliatory, moderate, even tone, which doesn't mean a moderate tone, it means more moderate, right?
It means a little less Trumpified.
He was still going to be hit with he's a racist and he's a misogynist.
And that's going to be really, that was going to be the largest, you know, the sort of, or the loudest, I should say, talking points you'd hear from the Trump campaign.
I think that's, I think that's been obvious all along.
That all said, it does not help when Trump says something like this that a normal person could hear and be like, ooh, no, that's not really, that's not, that's not how that should have been said.
Not good, not helpful.
And people say, oh, well, look, he has, for example, let's just step back for a second.
I know some of you, this is like walking around on the, you know, walking around on the ledge being like, some of you are like, no, some of you are like, yes.
Actually, probably all of you are like, no, no.
Nonetheless, because I don't even know which side of this, which side of this he may be on.
When he talked about the Muslim ban, such as it was, now he's walked that back a bit.
Be like, no, I would consider it.
He's walked it back a bit.
He hasn't repudiated it, but he's sort of changed his approach, his tone, however you want to put it, right?
So even Trump realizes sometimes Trump will walk things back.
On the issue of this judge, saying, as Trump did, just saying he's Mexican, and then implying that that alone means that he can't be fair in this case is a blunder.
Not good.
Not good.
But when you look, so there you have it.
I think it's a blunder.
You can disagree.
I think that that's not a calling it unwise is being perhaps too gentle.
It's not a smart way of putting it.
It, it sounds to people like he is impugning someone for specifically their background ethnicity.
Okay, that said, comma, now here we go into the merits of this.
And by the way, I'm annoyed that we even have to spend all this time because now the Trump campaign is on as much as it ever is, and you could say that maybe it never really plays defense, but it's somewhat on defense on this issue.
I mean, you've got Paul Ryan coming out and saying this now, which, you know, saying that it's a racist comment, just straight up saying it's racist.
Okay.
The GOP is coming out and saying it's racist.
A lot of GOP establishment, Never Trump is the Never Trump movement.
Really, it's more of it's an idea.
I don't know if it's ever going to be sort of organized into what we would call a movement, but just people are like, look, I'm never voting for Trump.
Those who have platforms are saying, I told you so, and you should step back away from this now before you are consumed by the Trump catastrophe.
But all that out there now.
You look at the background of the let's even step further back than that.
The judiciary in general, there are countless examples that you can point to and talk about of judges, of lawyers, of jurors, people that make up the justice system in this country, where their proclivities, their political organizations, their activities, all the rest of it are fair game to discuss because we want the fairest possible verdicts under the law.
This happens all the time.
I'm old enough to remember when people wanted Justice Antonin Scalia, may he rest in peace, they wanted him to recuse himself from a case because he went duck hunting once with Dick Cheney.
Now, look, I know that's not a racial issue, but I'm just saying that people are very, you know, this is people talk about this stuff.
It's fair game to discuss affiliations.
What I find so interesting is that there are some affiliations, identity essentially.
If you have a judge who has been part of an identity group, an activist identity group in the past, meaning that there's, you know, it's about people who come from a certain perspective.
Sort of to take the heat out of this for a second, let's make it about, I don't know, I can't even, any group that I pull out of thin air right now will be perhaps won't really take the heat out of this that I want to.
Let's say you're part of an Irish affinity group.
I'll go with partial part of my heritage here, right?
You're part of an Irish affinity group and you want there to be more people of Irish heritage pushed forth into positions as lawyers, and really you also are part of groups that want just more and more Irish immigration in this country.
If you were then to be on a case where you're deciding that whether, for example, Irish people who are here in violation of a law should be legalized or not, one could understand why there would be some questions about the objectivity there, right?
And that would be a, and in this case, also, you're like, yeah, we could talk about that.
The moment, though, you change, and the moment it becomes about different identity groups, now all of a sudden people get very scared because we live in an era where the wrong comment, even a comment that doesn't express one's true feelings or intentions, but just trying to discuss some of these issues can get you fired, can end your career, can get you death threats, can get you punched in the face outside of a rally.
And as I say this to you, I think to myself, we are stumbling upon one of the reasons that people like Trump so much.
And by the way, despite what, as Paul Ryan claims or says is a racist comment, and as I've told you, is not a smart comment, was not the way he should have said it.
Despite all of that, I think there are a lot of people who just at this point, they've just had enough.
They're sick of having to constantly walk around and be like, oh, gosh, oh, gosh, am I saying the wrong thing?
When they just want to have an open and honest discussion about things that matter.
The judiciary certainly matters.
The courts certainly matter to people.
And we're all tired of it.
We are all tired of the political correctness, except for those who use it as a weapon, those on the left, progressives.
They think it's great.
And they're really right now, you could say they've sort of reached their moment in time where they have the media fully behind them.
And we're going to get into how far they've sort of jumped the shark shortly.
But they're now at a point where they're getting their way over and over again, and they're not just winning.
They're like running around.
And they haven't just won the battle.
They're metaphorically speaking bayonetting the survivors.
I mean, they are going all out, maximum position, taking the maximum position on all these issues.
So it's in that environment, in that context, that people have this willingness to at least let Trump give Trump more leeway.
Those who support him, and I know as many of you listening don't or do very cautiously.
It's in that environment where a comment like this is made, and people might even say, yeah, yeah, that's racist.
But you know what?
They don't actually think Trump is a racist, and they will still vote for him over Hillary, if nothing else, because at least he's willing to talk about things that other people can't talk about, and everyone's sick of it.
Everyone's sick of the restraints and the constant fear and the, oh, I might lose my job.
And having a presidential candidate who is at least willing to go after some of those issues has a value.
Then we get into, so we know that you can speak about a judge's business and sort of commercial interests in something, and there's the possibility of recusal there.
And it's left up to judges to recuse themselves, right?
Which is interesting, isn't it?
It's sort of like, well, is this corrupt or not?
I'll be the decider on that one.
I'll decide for everyone else.
In this particular case of Judge Curiel, who is an Obama appointee to the federal court, you have somebody who is a member of a group.
And I wanted to do some research on this.
And Mr. Snerdley was quick on the spot with some of the stuff helping me out.
So we know Judge Curiel is a member of La Raza San Diego.
And he's a member of that group.
What's interesting is that La Raza San Diego is also listed on the Hispanic National Bar Association website as a sort of affiliate group.
So this judge is involved with the group that's involved with a group that did call for a boycott of Trump, all Trump properties and Trump's businesses because of his comments.
This is just last year, because of his comments on illegal immigration and more specifically, illegal Mexican immigration.
And so they called for a boycott.
Now, whether you think the comment was racist or not, whether you believe Trump is a racist or not, there is certainly ample room to have a discussion about whether a judge, apart from the comment, whether a judge that is tied to a group that is openly advocating, and this is in the case of La Raza San Diego, for individuals, yes, to be more, for Hispanic individuals, specifically.
So they're making a racial distinction here.
They're saying, well, we're advocating for more Hispanic people to be involved in the legal processes and the legal system, but also gets tied in with groups that have very political and very partisan positions on things like immigration.
When you have a presidential candidate whose biggest sort of lightning rod issue and the thing that vaulted him to the front of the GOP line is in fact an immigration-related issue that ties very directly into specifically Hispanic and Latino immigration, is he allowed to bring that up?
The way he brought it up was wrong, but is he allowed to have some, he's certainly allowed to, I mean, from a legal perspective, but are we really going to shut him down for even thinking about this?
It's one thing to say that he said it wrong.
It's another thing to say that he is also wrong on all of the merits.
And I'm looking at associations.
Look, saying that Judge Curiel is Mexican, therefore he can't rule in the case, that's wrong, shouldn't have said it.
But is Judge Curiel tied to organizations and groups that if you were in Trump's situation, you would think would give you some pause, meaning that is he tied to activist groups here that have taken explicitly political positions that would put them at odds with Trump?
That's fair game, right?
So it's a, or at least I think it should be, that should be fair game.
And we talk about these things with just with judges and justices all the time.
You know, you've had, I believe Elena Kagan had to, what, she had to recuse herself in Oberkfell because she had been a part of the Obama administration and had been openly advocating as part of the Obama administration for a gay marriage.
If memory serves, I could be off on that, but I'm doing this on the fly.
So you have people that will recuse themselves because of previously stated political positions, for example.
If you've been sort of an advocate for one political position and then you're a judge, that can be an issue.
So that's where I am on this.
That was kind of a nuanced tightrope walk, I think, right?
Maybe not nuanced enough.
Let's see what's set on the lines.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
I'm sure you have some thoughts on this one.
Be back in a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
You can direct all your thoughts, critiques, hair on fire, screaming to me at facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
Go for it.
Light it up.
Let's take Addie in Oregon.
Addy, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're speaking to Buck.
Okay, I just wanted to give you a little information, a little background on the RAFA.
The word RAFA does mean race.
I am a Mexican-American, and I was born and raised in California.
My brother is born and raised in California, but he was a professor of sociology way back in the 60s.
And he used to talk to me about this group that he had started, that they had formed.
And they said their goal was to take California back and give it to Mexico.
This was way back in the 60s.
I was a teenager at that time.
And of course, I wasn't that interested in politics, but he was.
And he was, like I said, a professor of sociology and a liberal.
And I think that the people at the GOP owe Trump an apology because he's right.
He just didn't explain himself right.
The purpose of this group is to give California back to Mexico.
And they're already very well on their way.
And not only that, but this group has access to the White House.
And I think, like I said before, that the GOP owes Obama, I mean, Trump, an apology for calling him a racist.
He's not a racist.
What he's saying is true.
This judge needs to step down because he does belong to that La Raza group, whatever group he belongs to.
And his goal is totally the opposite of what Trump wants.
So he should step down because the judge would be biased in this case.
Right.
This started way back in the 60s when I was a teenager.
Like I said, my brother started it.
One of the people that started it was a professor of sociology in one of the colleges in Southern California.
that's all i know about the background but i think that the gop just goes just oh um trump an apology because he's never going to get an apology from the gop that That much I can promise you.
But Addie from Oregon, thank you for that background and sharing your opinion and thoughts on this one.
Look, you know, we're in a very interesting place right now where the future direction of the country, when you look at the demographics and just how much illegal immigration, if there is a mass legalization, could tip the political scales, it's something that really needs thought.
People need to spend more time, I think, on this issue than a lot of the others that we waste time on.
Because what does that mean going forward?
And you have rallies happening right now where there are people who are protesting Trump, but they're waving.
And this was at the rally that we saw last week, or was it on Friday?
And people are waving Mexican.
There's violence going on, people punching, but they're just anti-Trump, right?
They don't support anybody.
They're just anti-Trump.
There's waving of Mexican flags at the rallies.
That just seems to be, what is the point that's being made there?
I'm...
I'm sort of confused by that.
I'd like a greater degree of clarity on why you have Trump protesters who, instead of just saying, I don't like this guy, he's a jerk, and I'm an American just like everybody else, they're waving Mexican flags.
That seems to be a strange decision to me under the circumstances.
And I think that the Democrats are realizing that people can see this stuff because it's live streams.
Whether the media talks about it or not, a lot of Americans are seeing this and thinking, what's that all about?
So we'll take some more calls on this because very interesting issue.
And then we'll talk about, oh, the transgender rights issue as well.
More coming up.
Yes, Buck is here on the EIB.
If you want to talk about the Trump stuff and you're on hold, stay.
We can still take it.
But I want to move on to another story so I can get it in today because, wow, you see the extent of the left's incoherence, really.
And we can get into the motivations behind this sort of thing as well.
Obviously, the bathroom bill and other fights that states are now having with the federal government.
And there's lawsuits going on now about whether a student who claims to be ⁇ and claims is the proper word.
There's no medical sort of arbitration that goes on here.
There's no medical certification of the transgender status.
It's just somebody says I'm transgender and then they fall under the federal government now deciding that under Title with Title IX to pressure schools into obeying, they have to open up women's restroom locker room showers to men and vice versa.
But this is something that is also getting some attention because you have the Georgia ACLU director.
This was from The head of Georgia's ACLU chapter said that she has resigned because of all the hostility she met with when she questioned the ACLU stance on their transgender policy.
And she said that she risked being branded a homophobe, even by raising her critique.
She said, quote, there are real concerns about the safety of women and girls in regards to this bathroom debate.
It seems to me that instead of stifling the dialogue, we want to encourage a robust debate to come up with an effective solution.
And this is because Ms. Smith here had had her kids in a restroom in Oakland, California, when three transgender, I mean, the three transgender, they're saying three transgender women in the piece.
I mean, these are three men who are transgendered with audibly deep voices.
They're obviously men to these young girls in the bathroom.
They could figure it out.
They knew.
And they were frightened by this.
She says, quote, my kids were visibly frightened, and I was scared, and I was ill-prepared to answer their questions.
I've been asking those same questions, and I want to have an honest conversation about them.
Her colleagues turned on her.
No surprise there.
And people will say that, you know, this is now, if you are in any way opposed to this, this is going to become the new frontier for, because they're looking for more civil rights struggles to have.
They're saying this is sort of the new frontier of civil rights struggles.
And therefore, if you're on the wrong side of this, to borrow from Obama, you're on the wrong side of history.
You are a bigot.
You're vile.
You're evil.
You're a bad person.
Now, we could sit and just discuss how seemingly insane it is to me.
And I don't know.
I'm a strange fellow, I suppose, because I wouldn't want, I don't have children, but I wouldn't want my teenage daughter having to share a shower with a teenage boy who believes he'd become a woman just because you'd feel unsafe.
And then you also get into the issues of people who will abuse this law.
Oh, nobody will.
Yeah, there are no sickos out there who will pretend to be transgender in order to use women's facilities and bathrooms.
I mean, what do they have to do?
There's no standard for this.
People say, oh, well, they'll put on a wig.
Maybe not.
Maybe they'll just say, no, I consider myself to be transgender.
What's the it's just up to choice.
And it's interesting because Title IX, which is now being used to enforce this by sort of administration diktat, they're just deciding this is the way it's going to be.
Title IX is supposed to protect women.
And as we see now, well, what's the how does one distinguish officially under law?
Maybe this is an easy way to clarify this point, or not to clarify, but to take it to its logical lens.
Some of us have said in recent months on this issue: well, I mean, look, are they really going to have what's next?
You're going to have guys who say that they are gals, men who claim to be women, teenage boys who say that they're teenage girls, whatever the case may be.
Are they going to be allowed to compete in gender-segregated sports?
Have we really lost our minds that much, or not us, but has the federal government and the progressive left lost their minds that much that they think that that's normal?
Or rather, that's right, I should say.
Better word than normal.
And the answer is yes, they do believe that.
This piece on theblaze.com from just last week, you have up in Alaska an 18-year-old senior at Haynes High School who's competing in a girls' track meet.
And no surprise, doing very well at the girls' track meet.
Now, he identifies as female.
This is a psychological distinction, right?
It's a psychological distinction somebody claims to be female.
But physically, there's still every single cell, right?
XX chromosome, XY chromosome.
We know there are differences and distinctions here.
We know that in the aggregate, and people say, what about, and they'll say, what about, and they'll name some supremely gifted female athlete, and they'll say, well, some guy behind a desk, she's faster than you.
It's like, well, that's not really the point, is it?
The reason we segregate men and women on the athletic field is because, generally speaking, there is a vast difference in the musculature of men and women because of genetics and because of, again, chromosomes, XX, X, Y. And that has not changed one bit.
That has not changed in this process at all.
So you now have, if you're going to take the Obama administration at its word, the threat of removing millions of dollars of funding for schools, if boys can't use the women's locker room, and even beyond that, they can't compete on women's sports teams.
It's one of these things where you start to think to yourself, what do they really hope to accomplish here?
Is this really just meant to force people who have a not even conservative, just sort of a, you could say a traditional point of view and a scientifically based one, I might add, about gender distinction, about how this is a very straightforward process?
All right.
I've even, you know, you see this and you see people talking about this.
You say, how is this hard?
What are they not, how is this hard to understand?
Okay, even if we want to make accommodations, and there's a difference between being unkind to somebody who's transgender or being unwilling to help or to make certain accommodations for that person and saying they're going to compete on women's sports teams, right?
No one's saying be unkind to people.
No one's saying be unfeeling or unsympathetic or unwilling to even make some accommodations for a person that has this belief, a deep-seated belief.
And people say that it's biochemical, I guess, insofar as it's psychological, but it's not physically manifested in these cases.
It's psychologically manifested.
And this is, of course, you're not a doctor.
You're not scientific.
Well, neither is Barack Obama.
Neither are all the people that are making these decisions about how the policy will be enforced.
So I just want to know at what point does the madness actually become so incoherent and, in fact, so dangerous that either the progressive left will back off or Democrats will pay a price or a combination thereof will occur?
I said recently on my own show, I said, you know, there's got to come a point here where we all recognize that this is just not, this is not okay, right?
I mean, for example, I mentioned the MMA mixed martial arts, which I'm sure some of you watch, some of you probably do a little MMA yourself, know very well.
Are we going to draw the line there where you can't say, well, I'm transgender, so I'm going to be an MMA fighter who has entirely male anatomy and cells and musculature fighting against females?
And I was like, well, at least we'll draw the line.
We understand that, right?
You're not going to be able to be a guy and get into a women's guy and get into a woman's boxing ring.
I was wrong.
There, in fact, already is an MMA fighter, who is transgender and has fought women.
And one of them was, from what I read, very seriously injured, more so than you usually get even an MMA fight.
No surprise there.
Because these are differences.
These are scientific, biological differences that the left is trying to erase.
And we're all forced to sort of surround and ask, why?
What purpose do they really think that this serves?
Other than, I have to say, to rub it in the faces of people who are conservative, traditional, I don't know, Christian, go down the line, to just force them to bend the knee because they can.
I mean, you really get the sense that culturally, because they've won so many battles at this point, the left is just drunk with its own power and needs another issue to force those who aren't part of the progressive movement, who aren't left, to force them to go along.
Why?
Because they can.
Who does this really help?
And how does this not devolve into incoherence?
How is the federal government going to make these distinctions, by the way?
As I've said before, you know, there are some institutions of higher learning.
Oh, this is a big secret I know for people.
Not really a big secret, but where there are a lot more men than women.
This is just a fact.
There are a lot more men than women at some of the institutions that have, or I should say, a lot more men than that's actually not even correct.
They have many more male than female applicants, better way of putting it.
And you have a much better chance of getting in if you are female because they want some degree of parity.
And what exactly?
Yeah, I wanted to give you the numbers of this in case I was challenged on this.
I just did a quick Google search.
But, you know, MIT has 55% male, 45% female.
They try to achieve parity.
You just statistically have a much better shot of getting in if you're female.
Are you allowed to now check that box on college applications?
Because it might make it easier for you.
It depends on the institution, but it might make it easier for you.
And if that's the case, and this is the question the left really doesn't want to answer, if gender is fluid and subject to whims, to psychological considerations alone, if gender can just be a psychological construct, why can't race?
And if race is a psychological construct, why can't you apply to college as whatever you want as a Native American?
Oh, we know somebody who's already done that, who of dubious, of dubious Native American origin.
Why can't you do that?
The left has no answer.
So now if you're a high school senior and you want to try to use affirmative action to your benefit or you want to try to use the system for your benefit, it's wide open to you.
And I would challenge any leftist to explain to me how that is not the case.
On what basis do they make these distinctions when they're unwilling to make even the most basic distinctions, male versus female.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton In for Rush, back in a few.
Buck Sexton here, InforRush Limbaugh.
Facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
Send me your commentary there.
Keep it clean.
I mean, whenever I say that, it's just like the expletives just more and more of them pile up.
About how awesome I am, obviously.
Let's take Diane in Florida.
Diane, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck.
How's it going?
Good.
How are you?
Good.
I've been listening to you, and you're making a lot of great salient points about the egregious examples of liberal progressive policies and how harmful they are to our country.
And I totally, totally agree with that.
And I wanted to know, because earlier in the program, you're talking about the Donald and that you kind of like sort of softening up to him, but he continues down a certain payoff and says things that you might not like, you might spit the election out.
And I thought, how do you reconcile that with not thinking that that's a vote to Hillary and a continuation of harmful policies and Alinskyite tactics?
And that's just you.
I'm not just picking on you.
I'm just wondering how, you know, people like with that kind of a mindset can't just, and I know this sounds obnoxious, just put their big boy pants on and just say, I'm going to hold my nose and I'm going to vote for him because not voting for whoever the nomination is.
Diana, I think you're maybe overemphasizing one part of what I said at the expense of the rest of what I said because I had said that I was never Hillary.
I've been never Hillary for months.
I've said it on CNN very loudly.
I also was a cruise supporter, as I said to you, so I'm open about that.
But I, at this point, take Trump over Hillary for all the reasons you said.
I'm also not ⁇ I mean, if Trump ⁇ and when I said that if he, when I say he's going down, I'm not saying if he goes down, if he keeps doing exactly what he's doing, I'm not going to vote for him.
But there certainly are scenarios.
I mean, if Trump in a month said, you know what, I was wrong about all that wall stuff, and I'm, you know, after the convention, I'd say, I was wrong about all that wall stuff, and, you know, I'm not actually going to stand up for America, you know, abroad or whatever, if he reversed, and he has reversed himself on many things, so this wouldn't be inconceivable.
If he reversed himself on some of the core tenets of his campaign, then yeah, then maybe, you know, and I don't think that's likely to happen, but I'm just saying I won't blind.
I'm not going to support Trump under any circumstances.
I just right now would support him over Hillary.
So I think you're focusing in on sort of a black swan event in the sense that I'm not saying I think that's likely, but I also am not.
I'm not going to vote for Trump no matter what he says or does.
And I think that that should be, I think the Trump campaign should be aware.
There are a lot of people out there who I think take my position on this, which is, okay, some good stuff here, some not so great stuff, better than Hillary, and just please don't do anything too crazy.
I think that's kind of the summary position.
Okay.
But still fitting it out and not voting at all is voting for Hillary, or am I crazy by thinking that?
Well, no, I mean, voting for Hillary is voting for Hillary.
And also, I live in New York, so quite honestly, my casting a vote at all is pretty much kind of a waste of time.
It's an irrational act, right?
I get that.
So let's start there.
So any individual, for a lot of us, and this is why I understand some of where, or a lot of where the Never Trump movement comes from, voting is an act of conscience.
It's an act of principle, right?
It's not actually, unless you live in certain states, your individual vote does not matter.
That is true.
So, you know, me sitting out of New York, I mean, Hillary's going to, actually, some people say Trump.
I think that's crazy.
Hillary's going to win New York, so it doesn't really matter either way.
But for me, as much as I can engage in the political process, my vote's all I have, and I'm not going to give it to somebody if he totally goes off the rails.
But I think I got to leave it there, Diane.
I got to go into a break.
But thank you very much for your thoughtful question.
I appreciate it.
I have to go into a break, but Buck will be right back.
Buck Sexton here, Infor Rush, today.
You can send me your thoughts and comments on the show at facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
You can also download my daily podcast, Monday through Friday at theblaze.com slash Buck Sexton.
Please do, because the show continues in its ends, even when I'm off in that I can hear your comments, read them, and all the rest.
So that's a fun way for us to keep the conversation going.
I know there were a lot of calls we weren't able to get to today where people had all sorts of thoughts on the Trump Judge situation.
Good news for me is I get to come back here on Friday, which is very exciting, and can continue to talk, because I'm sure the media's going to be talking about this all week, talk a bit about that, and also get into some national security and some counterterrorism stuff, some of the things from my former CIA analyst background that I think would be of interest to.
to you and to all of us, things that I didn't have a chance to hit today.
So I'll be back Friday, 12 to 3.
Well, you know what the time is.
I'll be back Friday here.
And as always, I thank Rush and the team for throwing me the keys to the EIB Ferrari.
It's always fun to go for a spin in it.
So thank you very much for that.
Buck Sexton here, closing it out.
Thank you very much for joining.
▲
Export Selection