All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
55:24
3364 Why Donald Trump Is Different | Bill Mitchell and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody.
This is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I am pleased to have on the line, and if you're watching this on YouTube, in your face, Bill Mitchell.
He is the host and creator of Your Voice Radio, currently the number one political talk show on Spreaker.com.
And according to a recent MIT study, Mitchell is the single most influential non-candidate in social media this election cycle.
Over 62,000 Twitter followers and over 2 million impressions daily, Bill.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing today?
Thank you.
It's great to be here.
Man, who wrote that?
That sounded good.
It did.
It did.
I don't know, but I'm going to believe whatever they have to say.
Because, you know, it's on the internet.
It has to be true.
It's got to be true.
It's got to be true.
So we're just coming out of the DNC convention, or I guess just in the process of the DNC convention going on.
What have your impressions been so far of what's been going down in the leftist harmony paradise going on?
You know what it reminds me of, Stephan, is that back around the turn of the century, when the steam locomotives and all this thing were so popular, not the turn of the century, actually before that, and people, there was a train wreck between two trains, and it was filmed, and the people loved the film so much that they actually started to stage train wrecks between two locomotives coming at each other and sell tickets to it.
And it was a completely sold-out event.
The only problem was when the trains came together and they hit each other, they exploded and killed a bunch of people, you know?
And this kind of reminds me of what we're seeing at the DNC. It's like this huge train wreck.
But very slow, you know, very slow.
It's like every time you look back, the trains are a little closer together, there's a bit of crumpling, and then suddenly people are flying out through the windows.
I mean, that's the first convention I mean, I guess it's part of the New Age tech situation.
It's the first convention that I can think of where this massive collusion has been revealed between the DNC and Hillary Clinton and between the DNC and the media to push Hillary Clinton and to push DNC's agenda right before the convention.
That is really a surprising thing.
And the fact that it didn't really seem to show up at all is not too surprising.
But it's like they're living in this bubble where it's like they're naked, but they think...
It's like when kids play hide-and-go-seek and they say...
You can't see me because I can't see you.
It's like they're living in this bubble and they don't know what everyone's talking about outside.
Yeah, they don't get it.
This is the biggest advantage that the Trump camp and Trump supporters have is that, you know, the Democrats can't identify the problem.
They don't understand us.
They don't understand what makes us tick, so they don't know how to discourage us from voting Trump.
And, you know, like, for instance, the first night of the convention, I thought it was incredibly ironic that after being against the fence and against the wall, they had this huge metal fence outside, you know, keeping everybody out.
And on the inside, surrounding the stage, they erected a blue fence because they were afraid that all the Bernie Sanders voters were going to charge the stage.
So, you know, they've got walls everywhere.
Well, you see, the wall is an ideology that doesn't exist for the Democrats.
All the Democrats focus on is that which enhances Democrat power and stability and security.
So the wall around the candidates or the wall around the speakers and the wall around the actual convention, that preserves and protects Democrat power.
The wall that might be erected along the southern border of the U.S. will keep out people who will come in and vote Democrat.
So that wall impedes the growth of Democrat power, whereas the wall is in.
So the consistency is that which helps Democrat power.
It has nothing to do with the wall as an abstract consideration.
Yeah, you know, Seven, I... No, exactly where you're coming from on that, and I've talked about this on my radio show, and I've talked about this on Twitter, is that people always ask me, how can progressives tell the lies they do and sleep at night?
I mean, these are normal people that have wives and kids, and they get up in the morning, they go to bed at night, and they live their lives.
How can they live with themselves?
And what I explain to folks is that progressives view the world differently than we do.
We view the world through the lens of factual evidence.
If there's something to be true, it has to be backed up by the facts.
But our progressive views the world to the lens that progressivism is the ultimate truth.
And anything that serves progressivism is therefore true, whether it's factual or not.
Well, this is the Robin Hood split, I think, between the Republicans and the Democrats.
So the king views Robin Hood as a thief and an outlaw and wants to throw him in jail and so on.
Robin Hood views himself as a liberator of unjustly stolen wealth to redistribute it back to the poor serfs and the poor farmers and so on.
who've been so unjustly pillaged by the powers that be.
And because the Democrats come from a socialist, if not downright communist background, they view the amount of money in the world as fixed.
God hath ordained that there is X amount of money in the world.
And so if some people have more, they must have taken it from other people.
And we must even it out.
And so when they talk about redistribution of income, it's the re part that's the clue, because they think it was somehow magically distributed beforehand rather than, say, earned by hard work and the deferral of gratification.
So for the Robin Hood does not view the property rights of the king as sacrosanct because he is redistributing that which was unjustly stolen from everyone else.
And so his abstract principles of ethics don't really count.
And I think because they view themselves as stealing from the unjust and fascistic rich and giving to the innocent and deserving poor, the transfer of wealth through which they buy votes, that's their consideration.
There are no abstract moral principles that I think stand in their way.
It's all the pragmatism of redistribution from unjust to a just pile.
Right, exactly.
And the problem with the Robin Hood model is that it works as long as Robin Hood's there.
But as soon as you take Robin Hood away, the people haven't gotten any better.
They haven't learned any skills.
They haven't learned to be self-sufficient.
They haven't created businesses because they're dependent upon Robin Hood.
And, you know, people think that after the Revolutionary War, that royalty was defeated in America.
Royalty as a way of life was defeated in America.
But actually, that's not true.
The royals weren't chased away.
They just became Democrats.
And the way they view the world is that they should be the leaders, they should be the elite and get all the goodies and take, what, $90 million worth of vacations like the Obamas did, and that we are the serfs, you know, that we are the servants in the field, and that we have to come to the castle door if we want to be protected, if we want health care, if we want to eat, if we want to have, you know, lives and be safe, but we'll never be anything more than serfs.
And this is why Democrat policies can't possibly result in individual prosperity because if they made individuals prosperous, we would no longer have to go to the castle door.
We could take care of ourselves.
And so this is why the Democrats, when they say, oh, well, we want prosperity for you, they can't because nobody is going to propose policies that will eradicate their entire movement.
And if America became prosperous and individually prosperous and successful, who wouldn't need liberals anymore?
You know, who would need government largesse anymore?
We wouldn't.
So that's why even though they talk, it never results in the individual prosperity because it can't.
You know, and this is why under Obama, even though Obama is a black man, why the financial status of blacks in this country has actually decreased under him because that's what he wants.
That's how he keeps them coming to the castle door.
That's how he keeps the votes coming in.
Because if he actually made them prosperous, they'd start thinking, man, I'm paying too much in taxes, you know?
And they would become Republicans.
So that's the way it works.
Well, that's just the wonderful diamond and silk two ladies who've been on my show a couple of times talk about the Democrat plantation that you give people just enough that they can kind of survive and just enough that they're tempted and often succumb to the temptation to make really, really bad life decisions like having a bunch of children by a bunch of different men who may or really bad life decisions like having a bunch of children by a bunch of different men who may or may not be
And so if you can get people to make bad decisions to the point where they're kind of cornered and now dependent on the state, because, you know, privately, churches and other kinds of charities used to really work to discourage bad decisions like single motherhood by choice and so on.
But the state will give you just enough that you fall into that pit of making really bad decisions.
And at that point, it's really hard to start making good decisions.
You might have three or four kids by five different guys or whatever.
And so they get you on that dependency and then they'll give you just enough to keep you there, which, again, guarantees you votes.
You know, the conflict of interest of people who are dependent on the state voting and supposedly objectively for whether the state should spend more or less is so ridiculous.
That would never be allowed in the private sector.
You know, you have to put out conflict of interest.
If you talk about a stock and you're a financial writer, you say, oh, I've got nine stocks in this company.
I'm going to put that at the bottom to make sure everyone knows the conflict of interest.
Or maybe you won't even write about that particular company.
But when it comes to the state, people whose life, as they perceive it, depends on general increases in state spending are supposed to go to the polls, supposed to vote, Objectively, according to some abstract moral principle, when they are, in fact, completely dependent, as they see it, on state spending.
And this kind of conflict of interest is something that the Democrats don't just ignore, but fundamentally rely upon.
Yeah, wasn't it Margaret Thatcher that said that socialism is a great idea until you run out of money?
Well, you run out of other people's money, to be more precise, but yeah.
Yeah, it's crazy.
You know, the thing that really struck me We're good to go.
He's a guy that's a strategist.
His brain lives in the future.
And he thinks in terms of results and then works back from there.
So all of these policies that he's presenting to us are not just to get votes, are not just to pass some ideological purity test, are not just to be right on the front end or tell people what they want to hear, but they are going to...
In terms of, I plan on getting results for these things.
I plan on something actually happening with these things.
And the media responded to him and says, oh, his speech was so dark.
You know?
It was such a dark speech, and the media hated it.
Meanwhile, CNN did a flash poll, and we know that CNN always oversamples the Democrats in these flash polls, and yet 70% of the people love the speech.
Well, you know, if you can't hit them on facts and math, hit them with adjectives because, you know, facts and math are tough.
But, you know, calling something dark, it's dark, it's gloomy, it's negative.
It's like, do you have any facts?
No, but I got a big bag full of adjectives.
Does that count?
No, it really, really doesn't.
Ideology, of course, builds nothing.
And there's sort of two people in politics that come to mind.
Of course, Ron Paul, who was a doctor for many years, delivered umpteen thousands of babies.
And Donald Trump and these two people are people who've had a market-facing career where they've actually had to get things done.
Ideology, words, manipulation, sophistry builds nothing.
Donald Trump has had to build buildings that have to go from the bottom and reach the top and stay up and function and are appealing to people.
You can't do that through the manipulation of language.
You can't do that by race-baiting.
Race-baiting builds no buildings.
Hatred of cops builds no buildings.
Calling something institutional sexism, provoking resentment about the mythical wage gap builds you nothing in the real world.
Now, it may get you the tide of money sloshing back and forth through state power and politics.
But Donald Trump is used to making speeches in order to get things done because that's his job.
It's only in the government that not getting anything done and doing a whole bunch of generalized windbaggery can get you money.
In the free market, it tends not to.
And so I think people are just not used to having such a pragmatically driven, results-oriented person who uses language to get things done rather than uses language to befuddle and thieve from.
Yeah, I agree.
You know, the typical Republican and the typical Democrat, if they were building a building, they would spend years shouting at the hole in the ground and wondering why a building wasn't springing up.
Whereas Donald is like getting contractors and buying the bricks and buying the steel and getting the electrical set up.
I mean, the Democrats and Republicans are still arguing over the blueprints when Donald Trump is finishing off the penthouse.
And he's like, okay, you know, you can move in now.
And the Democrats and the Republicans, they look at that and they're like, how did he do that?
He must have ripped somebody off.
It's like, no, he just knows how to build stuff, you know?
It's like with Donald Trump, there's a beginning, a middle, and an end.
And with these other people, these other politicians, there's basically just a beginning over and over and over again.
Well, in the free market, as you know, if you fail, you lose.
Whereas in the state, if you fail, you get a bigger budget next year because the reason you must have failed is you didn't have enough money.
And if you have more money, boy, you'll be able to succeed like crazy.
And so it is the complete opposite kind of animal that has entered into the American political landscape.
And I had completely given up on political action as a solution because it just felt like there was this endless revolving door of largely vacuous, empty speaking heads who'd never had a job in the real world who were saying stuff people might want to hear and then failing to deliver.
And particularly on things like free market reforms or immigration, all the stuff that the Republicans have been begging and crying out like a fox lost in the wilderness for many, many years.
But when Trump came along, you know, a wise man will change his opinions when he has new data.
A fool sticks to his perspective no matter what.
And seeing that a new animal had come into the American political landscape got my attention, you know, as August of last year.
I was like, wow, this is a big deal.
This guy is going to go the distance, which I guess puts me in the.001% of people who kind of got what was going on Early on, because a number of pundits who think that their language-based wish fulfillment is somehow going to bend reality to their fantasies.
Well, he's not going to file his financials.
He's not really going to run.
It's just a publicity stunt.
It's like, no, no, no.
That's what you want it to be.
That doesn't mean that's what it is.
And seeing the degree of wish fulfillment on the part of pundits, on both the left and the right, and seeing how they still have a job, which just blows my mind, is one of the remarkable things about watching America over the last year.
Yeah, it really is remarkable.
I mean, these are people that are paid millions of dollars a year to be smarter than we are.
And here's the amazing thing, that we live in a country where we elect presidents with 52% of the vote.
I mean, it's almost impossible in life to be 100% of anything.
I don't care how smart you are.
And yet, these pundits who get paid millions of dollars a year to be smarter than we are have managed over an entire year to literally be wrong 100% of the time.
Always, always wrong.
And the reason why, a lot of people don't realize this, the reason why the pun and treat initially came out against Trump had nothing to do with his political philosophy, had nothing to do with his personality, but it was because he wasn't hiring any of their friends to run his campaign.
Yeah.
You know, these guys are thick as thieves, and these guys get paid these million-dollar contracts.
What was it that the campaign manager for Bush made something like $15 million, something completely out of control like that?
To get 3% of the vote.
So Donald Trump wasn't hiring these people.
And before the Republican convention began, all the talking heads on the liberal media were complaining about how, you know, in previous conventions, it was the lobbyists that ran the convention, and that how all the lobbyists were eschewing Trump on this, and they weren't going to have any part of it, and they were ashamed of him, and, you know, and Trump wasn't going to have any lobbyists.
And I'm sitting there thinking, is this a bad thing at some level?
Why should I want the lobbyists running the convention?
So to me, it was a wonderful thing.
They just don't get it.
We all know how politics worked, BT, right?
Before Trump.
Politics worked in that the lobbyists and the media net the anchovies of the American public and feed them to the giant evil dolphins of special interest groups.
Everybody knows that that's how it works.
Why do people get the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to run a political campaign when Well, it's an investment by companies to get benefits from the government in one form or another.
Some market distorting, future destroying, selling the unborn, the Chinese banksters nonsense.
Something is going on wherein you're going to get the short end of the stick unless you're inside the political biosphere of power.
So everybody knows that that was going on.
Now, Trump comes along, doesn't need the lobbyists, can fund his own stuff, is actually getting great enthusiasm from the people, and he's not hiring the advertisers.
Everybody knows that That Donald Trump does not need to spend much money on advertising because he goes out and speaks his mind.
Everybody goes insane and broadcasts it like it's some terrible thing and a lot of people go, hey, that actually makes quite a bit of sense to me.
I'm really interested in that.
I'm going to go find out more.
So you're right.
There was this giant hole in an entire market of lobbyists and advertisers and political strategists and so on who were all out there doing polls and putting their hand up the ass of the politician moving his mouth in various directions.
Hoping to fool people, but he's going out and telling the truth as he sees it.
All those people are out of a job.
And so, yeah, I can understand that.
I mean, if some guy is going to come along and destroy my entire career, I might have something to say about it, too.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, he's just he's just upsetting, you know, the party vote completely.
And I think the reason why this is possible, I don't think that and Donald Trump has got amazing, amazing timing, because I don't think a Donald Trump candidacy could have worked before now.
Because of the effect, the equalizing effect of social media.
How, you know, when people hear, for instance, they spent $70 million on ads against Trump in the primaries, and it did no good at all.
Why is that?
When people hear an ad over the radio, whereas they used to think, oh, that's the radio, that's news, okay, that must be true, I'll listen to that.
Now they doubt it, because they can go on social media and right after they hear that ad, get it completely debunked by them, by people that are experts in the field.
You know?
So it's like when you hear that ad, all of a sudden you start to think, well, maybe I'm being lied to with this.
Maybe I shouldn't trust this.
So it doesn't have the same effect.
And that's one thing that social media does that people don't talk about that much, is not only is it replacing traditional media and traditional advertising, but it's hamstringing it.
It's hamstringing its effectiveness.
So what's delicious about all of this stuff, Bill, is the degree to which the media used to have this monopoly.
Like, I'm old enough that I remember growing up in England with, like, three channels, ooh, three channels, and newspapers, and there really wasn't much in terms of fact-checking.
You had to rely on the, you know, the police of information to police themselves, which is always a challenge, who watches the watchers.
Now, what's amazing, and I don't think that the mainstream media is getting this, at least at the, I don't know, elderly cryptkeeper managerial level, they don't get that there's a ticket tape on the bottom of all of their broadcasts with fact checkers going on.
People popping up, people tweeting, while they're doing stuff live, while they're doing speeches, while they're doing TV shows or whatever.
There's people got their Twitter open on their cell phone while they're watching, I don't know, the last people who watch cable.
I think there's four left.
And they don't understand that there's a ticker tape scrolling along underneath with people fact-checking what they're saying, that their narrative, often their propaganda is being deconstructed in real time.
I don't think the media quite gets that yet because they keep doing it no matter what.
And the wonderful thing is not only does that help people who are gravitating towards more original candidates, but it also helps drive down that trust in the media.
What is it down at now?
Six percent.
And they seem to be just aiming to auger it down to five, four, three, two, one, and zero.
And that is something that is an amazing thing.
So it benefits Trump and it also, which is more important to me, reduces people's trust in the mainstream media, which certainly helps people like you or I, who I think tell just a little bit more of the truth.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, I spent a brief stint in my life back when the stock market was first booming and doing some, you know, dabbling in some day trading because it's like, I should be able to do this.
This can't be that hard.
And I joined clubs and we talked online about various stocks and so on and so forth.
And it never failed that in every club, there was always that one guy, that one trader, who was literally wrong about everything all the time.
And we called them a contrarian indicator.
So that whatever he said to do, if you did the opposite, you were going to make money.
So really what's happened is the media has really achieved contrarian indicator status.
That no matter what their meme is, no matter what their agenda is, you can pretty much just assume that the opposite is going to take place.
And you looked at even Fox News, which was supposed to be the bastion of conservatism, and they came out.
I mean, you couldn't turn Fox News on during the primary when they were just ripping Donald Trump to shreds.
And I, you know, I was, you know, on Twitter, I'd say, you got to stop poking the bear.
You're just poking the bear.
You're just pissing us off.
You're just making us vote harder, you know.
And they thought they'd be turning us off to Trump.
But it's like, I'm like, guys, you're a contrarian indicator.
We don't believe what you tell us.
As a matter of fact, you prove yourself so often to be liars that when you tell us something, we're so sure that you're lying, we internally think the opposite is true.
And you're actually helping Trump by attacking him all the time.
Wasn't that the great revelation of Fox News over the last year?
The great revolution, at least a revelation for me with regards to Fox News, was that they do not represent the Republican voter.
they represent the Republican establishment.
They represent the established Republican Party apparatus, which was as threatened by Trump, and you could really argue more threatened by Trump than threatened by Hillary or Bernie Sanders.
Because, of course, if the Democrats get in, then the Republican media has a big battle on their hands and they have their enemy and they have, can you believe she did this?
Or can you believe that Bernie Sanders did this?
And they get the whole rabble-rousing thing going.
But if Trump gets in, then a lot of the apparatus of the existing Republican machinery, the political apparatus, and all of the media that shadows it, is in trouble because he's not going to be playing the games that they've spent decades setting themselves up to do.
Yeah, you know, the problem is, a guy like Trump is, he's going to actually go in and solve the problems.
And these guys make a living off the problems.
You know, the Republicans may have made a living on being the opposition to the problems, but not actually fixing them.
And Donald Trump comes up with these solutions that are actually going to solve the problem.
And the media freaks out, especially the, you know, quote, quote, conservative media, because it's like, well, if there aren't permanent problems, then, you know, what are we going to do?
Who's going to keep needing us?
It's kind of like the opposite or the flip side of what the liberals do, where they're like, well, if people become prosperous, then who's going to need us anymore?
So what happens with government is that instead of focusing on actually helping the citizen, which as a representative government they're supposed to do, they focus on perpetuating their existence in that role.
Well, the people who sell the cures won't invest in prevention.
People who give you a pill to cure your migraine are not going to spend billions of dollars investing in a pill to prevent migraines because they've got an existing business model.
I think everyone basically We're good to go.
I mean, if you could find some way to educate children with fewer teachers, well, you run into the teachers' union.
You know, if you can find some way to get people off welfare, then you're going to have to start cutting back on the welfare administration, and then those people are going to get really upset.
So it's really important on the Republican side, pre-Trump, to talk about all of the things that you want to solve, but how many people, you know, Scott Walker accepted.
I mean, he took on some public sector unions and I think paid a relatively heavy price, but his career survived.
Right.
But there are very few people who say, I really want to solve these problems because they know that there's a huge backlash when you do solve government problems because when you solve problems in the government, there's less need for government spending, there's less need for government employees, and then you start laying people off and there's a huge backlash.
So it's much more comfortable to talk about solving problems than to actually go in and solve them, but Donald Trump has this bizarre Kevlar soul armor that allows him to just keep marching forward.
And he has reminded me so many times of that old saying that I was a kid, which I think we have to live by if we're in the public sphere, but we sometimes forget.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
And they've discharged every bolt.
I think they're out of ammo when it comes to Trump.
And I think that's why there were relatively few protests at the Republican Congress recently in Cleveland, because they're out.
Like they've expended racism arrows.
They've expended the sexism arrows.
They've expended every conceivable arrow, the misogyny.
I'm sure they have a couple of homophobe and all that.
I think they're out of ammo.
And that is really a remarkable thing to see that they've expended everything they can at him.
And he's bigger and stronger than he was at the beginning.
Yeah, it is remarkable.
It reminds me of the scene from Pirates of the Caribbean where the opposing ship had run out of cannonballs and they started loading the cannons with silverware, you know?
And they started shooting the silverware.
And at this point, here we are still four months from the general election and the Democrats are down to shooting the silverware.
I mean, and the thing that's got to be so frustrating for them is that none of the old tricks that worked with the Romneys and the McCains work with Trump.
Because Romney and McCain both wanted so badly to be liked by the media and to be approved of by the media.
And Donald Trump does not care.
As a matter of fact, I think he gets a thrill off the media giving him a hard time and attacking him because he sees it.
Donald Trump practices what I call political judo, where he uses the force of the opponent's attack as just another way to throw them even further.
And so that's what he loves when the media comes after him because he can use the force of their attack against them and to push himself even further ahead.
So it's just...
Go ahead.
Well, the media, of course, lives in the lefty world in general.
What is it, like 90%, 95% of reporters in Washington, D.C. are liberals or Democrats or whatever.
So they swim in those circles where the media makes or breaks people.
I think what the media doesn't understand, Bill, is the degree to which outside of that echo chamber, outside of that biosphere, outside of that bubble, people really hate the media.
The 6% thing, people aren't kidding.
So when when the media speaks badly of Donald Trump and then Donald Trump fires back and says, you know, they're he's not talking about all the media.
But, you know, when he's talking about the reporters are liars, they're fundamentally dishonest people.
They're manipulative.
And he calls upon the camera people at his rallies saying, turn the camera around.
Show the number of people in the audience.
Don't just show, you know, me and my little podium and.
and a few heads in front, show there's 10,000, 20,000 or more people here and the cameras don't move?
You'd think that would be newsworthy, that the guy's filling stadiums of that size.
I mean, he's not bono, but they won't do it.
And so the degree to which when Donald Trump calls the media dishonest, when he pulls the press credentials of the Washington Post, oh, and by the way, then the Washington Post shows up in the WikiLeaks thing as having colluded with the Democrats.
People are like, yeah, you get them.
We hate those guys too.
But the people in the media who are used to making or breaking people and used to dominating and bossing around and bullying all of the, I want approval from daddy media Republicans, they don't understand the degree to which when Donald Trump says the media is dishonest, a lot of reporters are liars, they're manipulators, and people are like, yeah, we got Twitter too.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, I tell you what, this is something we talk about on Twitter, we've talked about on my radio show, is that this is actually, as amazing as Donald Trump is, this is bigger than Donald Trump.
This is a tsunami.
A wave has a trough and a crest, and it crashes on the shore, and then it's done.
It can do some damage, but then it's done.
A tsunami is where the entire ocean has lifted up.
It's coming ashore.
And it's not just a wave, but it is a wall of water that's thousands of miles long.
And that's why when you have a tsunami, it can be a tremendous event.
And that's what we've got right now.
There's an old saying that people change when the pain of remaining the same becomes greater than the pain of changing.
And I think after giving Republicans the House and then giving Republicans the Senate and we saw that nothing improved, we finally got to the point where the pain of remaining the same is greater than the pain of changing.
We are finally fed up.
And Donald Trump is in the right place at the right time and a results-oriented guy when America is just ready for results.
We don't want all the ideology.
We've heard it all.
We've heard all the conservative talking points.
We've heard all the liberal talking points.
We don't want all that.
We don't care.
We just want something to get done.
And one of the things that we talked about on Twitter is that America is basically about 20% far right, 20% far left, and 60% that just want America to be great again.
And I think that Donald Trump is really tracking in to that 60%.
And all those people that didn't come out and vote for Romney, like the white middle class workers or blue collar workers, and you know, these groups like this are kind of come out in droves for Trump.
I think that most of the polls now, when they have a likely voter model, they have no idea who the likely voter is.
If they're basing it on who the likely voter was in 2012, those polls are underestimated by 5 or 10 points.
Let me spin out a scenario for you, Bill.
And this is for my listeners as well, because some people are confused about why I'm interested in Trump and what's going on.
Let me give you just a very brief scenario of what I think is possible, what dominoes could fall down and actually make things better in the West as a whole.
We just talk about America.
So if Donald Trump gets in, and let's say that he starts enforcing U.S. immigration law, Shocking.
Law on books, which lots of people want to enforce, might actually be enforced.
We don't even need to enforce.
Just enforce the ones we've got.
Yeah.
And people think that it's going to be roundup and mass deportations, and that's not the case at all.
I mean, when I finish my bath and I pull out the plug, I don't have to push every atom of water down.
It's just, you know, there's self-deportation.
That's what happened under...
The rest sort of got which way the wind was blowing.
And then they can go back and fix Mexico because all the smart people are leaving Mexico.
All the entrepreneurial and intelligent and driven people are leaving Mexico, which means that Mexico is turning into a complete hellhole.
So go back and fix Mexico, which I think would be better in the long run for everyone concerned.
So what that's going to do is that's going to take millions and millions of pretend voters off the rolls for the Democrats.
And so what that means is that rather than the Democrats relying on third world immigration to prop up their votes, they're actually going to have to start to make a case to the American people based on reason and evidence, based on rhetoric.
I don't care if it's based on bird droppings or tea leaf reading.
I don't care.
But they won't be able to put their finger on the scale and stuff the ballot with third world immigration.
So with that...
It becomes more of a democracy when you have to make a case.
In fact, it becomes a bit more of a republic when you have to make the case.
You can't rely on those voters.
So that means that the quality of the media reporting is going to have to improve because they're actually going to have to start making arguments and evidence.
That means that all of the rhetoricians and the sophists and the liars are either going to have to change or they're going to be replaced.
And the quality of public discourse is going to go up considerably.
Donald Trump has talked about reducing the amount of student loans going into academia because, of course, there's the Democratic Party, there is the illegal immigrants and how much they support the Democratic Party, and there is, of course, academia.
Now, academia is sitting on, as you know, a trillion-dollar-plus student loan bubble that's going to have to collapse at some point.
Right now, they can say whatever nonsense they want because they're not market-facing.
facing.
They're just being pumped up by stolen, borrowed and printed dollars from the Fed and from local governments.
So my sort of fantasy is that if this were to pass, then the quality of public discourse improves, reporting improves, which only helps those of us who've dedicated our lives to reason and evidence in the first place.
And the socialist Marxist bubble of pestilent academia could collapse, which means that there will actually be room for market facing academics who care about the people, about good arguments, about reason and evidence.
And that trifecta of academia, the media, and third world immigration, if that is reduced, we can start to have a civil discourse based upon reason and evidence.
That's a lot to hope for, but that's sort of some of the dominoes that I see going down the road.
Yeah, it's kind of like a giant game of sociological Jenga, you know, where you pull out enough pieces and all of a sudden the whole thing comes crashing down.
You mentioned something about Mr.
Trump's immigration plan, and this is how I think that it's going to roll out, and I agree with you completely.
I think that the first thing he'll do is he'll start building the wall.
Immediately.
Start building the wall.
And then also, I think that he will immediately deport the criminal aliens, all the ones that Obama released into our communities.
He'll round those up and deport them.
You know, whenever you're going to start with a new policy, you always start with the most popular parts first so that people can get on board and you can get momentum with it.
So he'll do those, the wall and the criminals.
And then he'll pass economic measures that makes it financially impossible to For the other illegals to remain here as an illegal, where you cut off the ability for them to send money home to Mexico.
You cut off any government welfare.
You cut off Medicaid to them.
And this is where the self-deportation comes in.
These people still have national pride in Mexico, and would they rather go back to Mexico, to their home country, or starve in America?
Well, and sorry, just so people know the scope of this, that Mexico gets more revenue from remittances from America I think that's true.
A subsidy or foreign aid to the Mexican government.
I don't think that's where a lot of hardworking American taxpayers really want their money to be going.
So if you cut off the remittances or find other ways to diminish that, that is going to be a huge disincentive for people to cross or even to stay.
And this is one of the things, Stephen, when the media are linear thinkers, they don't understand the way a strategic thinker thinks.
And so the media says, well, Mexico's never going to pay for the wall.
And their idea of paying for the wall is that the president of Mexico will write a check to America to pay for the wall.
And I'm like, no, that's not what he means.
He doesn't mean that Mexico's going to write us a check, but he means it's going to come out of their pocket.
And that's how they're going to pay for it, by cutting off these remittances.
You know, illegal immigration, what's the number one export of Mexico?
What's the number one industry of Mexico?
Illegal immigration.
I mean, they get more money from illegal immigration and us sending people here, sending their money back to Mexico than they get from any other industry they've got.
It's, you know, it's amazing.
So I think that this immigration plan is really going to work.
And this whole thing about, you know, rounding up families and, you know, throwing them in boxcars and shipping them back home, I don't think we'll ever even have to see that.
Well, there's so many things that can be done ahead of time.
That are softer, that are more preventive, that are appeals to incentives and so on.
There are so many things that can be done ahead of time.
Of course, I've had economists on talking about in this show that one of the primary drivers for something like Obamacare is illegal immigration or even legal immigration because people are coming across and can't afford the premiums for their family for the regular semi-socialist healthcare system like more than 50 cents of every dollar in America is spent by the government on healthcare.
It's not exactly a free market paradise.
But that's another reason for Obamacare.
The important thing to remember is that The Democrats are addicts to political power.
And there have been studies that have been done that show that addiction to power, addiction to political power, I'm not talking about voluntary economic power, but coercive political power, that is an addiction that is stronger, more deeply rooted in the brain than cocaine.
And we know coke addicts will, like, they'll destroy their lives.
They'll sell their children's kidneys.
They'll end up face down in a ditch with bodies all around them just to get the next hit.
So the Democrats want power.
Since the fall of the socialist and communist ideal, this is all the way back to Khrushchev and his denunciation of Stalin's cult of personality and all of that, they've been unable to win the intellectual argument, which is why in the 60s when they lost the intellectual argument after Joseph McCarthy and after Khrushchev and so on, they started importing third world immigrants because they generally tend to vote.
I think we're good to go.
I think we're good to go.
And interfere with the Democrat relationship to political power, they turn, like all addicts, with torrents of verbal abuse and manipulation and all the stuff that we saw endlessly during the speeches at the DNC, or at least I saw.
And that's the important thing to remember.
But it is a kind thing to take the addict's substance of choice out of his hands.
It is a kind thing, even for those on the left, for them to have to start making better arguments and Yeah,
I completely agree.
And you know, one of the things that the Democrats attack Donald Trump over is his...
Ego.
You know, they used to call it narcissism, but people don't understand what narcissism is.
Narcissism is not just cockiness or arrogance.
Narcissism is where you see yourself as the only real person in your environment.
Everybody else is just a piece on your chessboard or just a player in your play.
And you look at Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is a guy who has led a lifetime of selflessness and kindness to people, and helping people, and even as Newt Gingrich said, asking not to have it mentioned that he helped.
These are not the acts of a narcissist, but Donald Trump does have a strong self-esteem, and he does have a healthy ego, and people say, oh, he's got too big of an ego, he can't be president.
Donald Trump, when he becomes president of the United States, will not allow himself This is a man who has succeeded 99.9% of the time.
You know, people say, well, he had four casinos fail.
He has 550 businesses.
Four out of 550 is like 99.8% success rate.
And if you want to become a billionaire in America today, succeed 99.8% of the time in business, And you'll make it.
So this is a guy whose ego and self-esteem are not going to allow him to get into office and back away from all these promises.
I mean, he's going to do this stuff and he's going to work 18 hours a day to do it.
What people don't understand about being in the free market, and you can always tell people who don't understand being in the free market, generally because they're not in the free market, and I don't view the media as the free market these days.
Again, it's pandering so much to political points that are propagandized.
It's pandering to people who've been programmed by government schools and government universities.
Not really free market, more of a confirmation bias echo chamber for the left.
But people out here on the Wild West, on the hinterland, on the interstellar depths of the internet, we actually have to appeal to what is valuable to people.
Now, that means sometimes telling them stuff they like to hear, but it also sometimes means telling them stuff they don't like to hear because we're not out here to be popular.
We're out here to do good and hopefully be popular at the same time because it's certainly for me a moral mission.
And so what people don't understand, just to talk about Donald Trump, he spent his life in the free market, more or less.
I mean, obviously there's no perfect free market in the West, but he's certainly out there further than people like Ted Cruz with his government-granted monopoly license in law and so on.
So with Donald Trump, he has to please people.
The idea that he's in it just for his ego is ridiculous.
I mean, if you go to a town where everyone's a vegetarian and you want to open up a steak restaurant, you're going to fail.
I mean, unless your steaks are so good they convert people or something, you're going to fail.
You have to give the people what they want.
What that means is you – and you know this.
You spent 30 years in sales.
You have to surrender your ego to the point where the other person gets that you're genuinely concerned about their life getting better, that you're looking for a win-win solution.
And the fundamental fact of the free market is people, A, don't have to be there.
You have to get them to spend time with you.
I mean there's six million podcasts and media and shows and movies and games and tablets and all that.
We've got to find some way that people want to spend time with us rather than the eight billion things they could otherwise be doing.
Number one, they don't have to be there.
Of course that means they can leave at any time.
And number two, they have to somehow be better off after their interaction with you than they were before.
It has to be something in which they've, you know, hopefully in this conversation with us, Bill, they've gained some knowledge, some wisdom, maybe just some vapid entertainment and strange analogies for me.
I'm fine with that.
As long as they get something beneficial out of our conversation, that's the win-win.
Now, if you and I were just in it to preen and show everyone how smart we were, that would come across immediately.
People would not find benefit in spending time with us and they would never show up or if they showed up, they'd stay for about eight seconds and leave.
So the idea that he's all about the ego, that's only possible with things like central planning, where Obama and Gruber and all of these madmen think that they know how health care should be organized for 300 million people plus.
In the most complex, technologically advanced health care, research intensive health care environment on the entire planet throughout all of human history, these couple of guys at the top with their thousands of pages of regulations and legislation, they know how everyone's health care should be provided, what should be on the list, how much it should cost, who should they know how everyone's health care should be provided, what should be on the list, how much it should cost, That's all they know that a few people.
Now, that is megalomaniacal.
That, to me, is textbook narcissism.
The idea that you put things out in the free market and hope that people like it, that is ego-less.
That is not a manifestation of selfishness.
That is in the service of other people for win-win situations.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, one of the things that I have noticed in this campaign that you notice actually throughout American history is something called synchronicity.
And I'll put that in layman's terms.
We call it lucky breaks.
When you're kind of in the right place at the right time, things just kind of fall into your lap.
And if you look throughout the early American history, I mean, there was battle after battle after battle during the Revolutionary War where we had no business winning.
And all of a sudden, it almost seemed like some act of God would just fall in our laps and would...
Come together for us and we would win.
During the Battle of 1812, when the British attacked Washington DC and they had burned the White House, they were getting ready to basically take our country back over and a freak hurricane blew ashore and tornadoes came in and put out the fire and killed most of the British troops.
You're just like, what?
You know, so during the Trump campaign, There have been, over and over again, moments of what I call synchronicity, where it seems like destiny is in his favor, where he will come out with a position, and the media will say, oh, that's crazy, that can't happen.
And then all of a sudden, some world event will happen that proves exactly what he was saying.
And also, it seems to be, of course, that Obama says the exact opposite.
And the events keep piling up.
I call it sort of conveyor belt of evidence to just keep streaming up and streaming up.
At some point, people are going to get, if you keep predicting stuff that the conveyor belt of evidence keeps pushing into view, at some point you're going to gain enough credibility.
And I think people are there with Trump.
Yeah, and you know, the thing is that people are very attracted to true leadership.
I remember I was watching this old Star Trek episode, and it's the one where Picard and...
I think Crusher was the name of the doctor, right?
Yeah, Crusher.
And they're both sent to this planet together, and they've got some sort of alien bug or something where they can actually read each other's minds.
And they're walking along, and they're lost, okay?
And they're going along, and Crusher says to Picard, she goes, which direction should we go?
And Picard very boldly points, and he says, this way.
And then she pauses, and she goes, wait a minute.
You know, you're always so bold with your leadership.
I always figured that you really understand, but you have no idea, do you?
You're just guessing.
And he goes, yeah.
And she goes, but people follow you because you just are strong in your leadership.
And he goes, yeah.
And I usually end up being right, you know?
And it kind of reminds me of this, is the fact that Trump sticks to his guns no matter what.
After a while, it seems obnoxious at first, but after a while, people start to think, man, This guy is right a lot.
Maybe I should follow him.
And so what happens is you start getting a lot of people that were the fence-sitters that start coming over to Trump because they're just attracted to his leadership style.
Well, and competence.
Competence.
I mean, to worship competence is a fundamentally positive thing.
You know, when people have spent 70 years on the planet and have achieved, you know, he's got number one bestselling book in business, fantastic success in his business ventures and top TV shows.
And now he's just, hey, I think I'm going to wander into politics and secure the Republican nomination.
I mean, that's an astounding level of competence.
He has high intellect and he does, according to his sort of tests that he used to get into college and so on, he tests obviously significantly high in the genius category.
So the fact that he's a genius, and the fact that he has this extraordinary ability to connect to the common people, and I hate even using the term common people.
It sounds so elitist, you know, the people who you throw your breadcrumbs off your window at Versailles, and they scurry down there and get things.
But the fact that he can connect to average people And he can translate what he feels is important, what is the abstract policy decisions that are good.
He can translate that into language that hits the masses in the solar plexus so that they get it and they understand it.
And then people say, oh, well, you know, he's not giving you all of these refined policy decisions.
Like, well, first of all, go find out because he's probably got them written.
But he is communicating to people that government education have dumbed down to the point where if you assign something like Moby Dick in class these days, people would view it as having been written in Mandarin or something.
They wouldn't be able to follow it that much.
There has been a dumbing down of the American population as government education and control of education has gotten more and more.
So not only is he incredibly smart, but he has the common touch and the ability to connect It's
amazing.
And, you know, at the end of the convention, he came out with a statement, I am your voice.
And, you know, we wanted to send him a thank you letter for that because a month and a half earlier, we had decided to name our radio station Your Voice Radio.
It's like, thanks!
Thanks, Donald.
We appreciate that.
You know, I'm talking to all my co-hosts.
It's like, wow, can you believe he said that?
But this is the point that I was making on Twitter all along, is that Donald Trump is saying out loud what millions of Americans have been screaming at their television sets for 30 years.
And that's why they connect.
That he is becoming their voice.
The silent majority is no longer silent when it comes to Donald Trump.
He speaks to power in ways that these people are not in a position to speak to power.
And so that's why a blue-collar worker with a high school education can look at a multi-billionaire that went to an Ivy League school like Trump and relate to him and say, yeah, he speaks for me.
But they couldn't relate to a guy like Romney that was a rich guy because they just didn't connect with him that way.
And so the fact that people connect with Trump on such a basic level, such a self-actualization level, you know, in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the highest need level is self-actualization.
And with Donald Trump, people get a sense of self-actualization because it's like, yeah, okay, I have a voice now.
Okay, I'm somebody.
When I watch Donald Trump speak, I feel like I'm somebody because he's saying what I think, and he's somebody.
Does that make sense?
Well, yeah, no, and all of the imaginary arrows of social disapproval that bounce off Trump is transferring that courage to other people, and that, I wouldn't say is maybe his most significant achievement, but the fact that not only he's standing, but he's revealing the degree to which his ideas and his approaches This opposition, as he talked about with Megyn Kelly at Fox News at the very beginning, we don't have time for political correctness.
This idea that you watch everything you say for fear of being misinterpreted or miscast in some negative light.
Not only because of his success, but the fact that there is this silent majority.
We are always defeated when we feel most alone.
And it is our connections, our horizontal connections that make us strong.
Courage to me is to some degree an individual commitment, but it is also a collective echo.
And the fact that Donald Trump has switched the light on and people have said, wait, everyone else is saying a lot of the same stuff, but the media never let it out.
And people were afraid to talk about it with me.
Now the fault lines are clear.
To some degree, your friends and enemies have become clear.
And the fact that there's a person speaking truth to power, and by that I mean not just to political power, but to the media power and to academic power and so on.
And not only is he surviving, but he's flourishing.
That exposes not just his courage, but the connection horizontally that truth-tellers can have with each other.
That is a great gift that has been given to the West.
Yeah, I agree.
And, you know, I think that the fact that Donald Trump has had, you know, I'll say this politely, but the fact that he's had go-to-hell money for so long, I've heard it referred in a slightly different context, but I think it's the same.
I gave you the PG version, yeah.
Anyway, he's had go-to-hell money for so long that he's just kind of got that as a habit.
One of the things that we talked about on my show was that there are four levels of confidence.
There's unconscious incompetence where you're so incompetent that you don't even know you're incompetent.
And then there's conscious incompetence, where you've learned a little bit about a subject, and just enough to know that you have no idea what you're doing, but you're aware of the fact that you have no idea what you're doing.
And then there's conscious competence, where most people live, and that's where you're competent, but you have to think about it to do it.
It takes actual thought and concentration to do it.
But the highest level, and this is the level where all the champions live, the top salespeople, the top leaders, all the top athletes live, is Unconscious competence.
And this is where you've mastered something at such a high level and you've done it over and over again so many times that you can do it at the most champion level and you don't even have to think about it.
You know, when a great hitter watches a pitch coming in, they don't have to sit there and think, oh, is that a curveball?
Is that a slider?
Is that a fastball?
They just react.
And this is what Donald Trump does.
This is why he amazes people, is that he has been a strategic thinker and a results thinker for so long Quite often, he does things in a very strategic way, and I don't think he even thinks about it.
It just comes naturally to him.
And that's why it's like, why does everything just kind of work out for Trump?
It's because he is unconsciously competent from a strategic standpoint.
He doesn't have to sit there and plan it.
He doesn't have to work it out.
But when his mind says, do this, it's just going to work out because his mind thinks strategically.
I think there's strong instincts.
Of course, instincts can be to some degree you're born with them, but I think as you have developed skills, they sort of become instinctual.
As you say, the batter or the tennis player or whatever, they just work instinctively.
In fact, when you reach that level of competence, overthinking is usually something that gets in the way of your natural instincts for success.
Let's close it off.
It's a great conversation.
We could talk all day, but let's… Give a taste out to the people and see what they like.
I just wanted to remind people, Bill Mitchell, the host and creator of Your Voice Radio, the number one political talk show on Spreaker, S-P-R-E-A-K-E-R.com.
And 62,000 Twitter followers will put the link to these below.
You can go to yourvoiceradio.com and to twitter.com slash Mitchell V-I-I. What's that?
Mitchell VII in Roman, if I remember correctly.
So thanks a lot, Bill.
I hope we can talk again.
A very, very enjoyable chat and really, really remind people to go and check out Bill's show.
It's a real treat.
Okay, thank you very much.
And we'll remind everybody to see your show, too.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection