The Darrell McClain show
Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one Planet; nobody's leaving so let’s reason together!! Darrell, McClain is a Military veteran with an abnormal interest in politics, economics, religion, philosophy, science, and literature. He was born and raised in Jacksonville FL, and went to Edward H white High School where he wrestled Under Coach Jermy Smith and The Late Brian Gilbert. He was a team wrestling captain, District champion, and an NHSCA All-American in freestyle Wrestling. He received a wrestling scholarship from Waldorf University in Forest City, Iowa. After a short period, he decided he no longer wanted to cut weight which effectively ended his college wrestling journey. Darrell Mcclain is an Ordained Pastor under The Universal Life Church and is still in good standing, he's a Believer in The Doctrines of Grace Also Known as Calvinism. He joined the United States Navy in 2008 and was A Master At Arms (military police officer) He was awarded several awards while on active duty including an expeditionary combat medal, a Global War on Terror medal, a National Defense Medal, a Korean defense medal, and multiple Navy achievement medals. While In the Navy he was also the assistant wrestling coach at Robert E Lee High School. He's a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu under six six-degree black belt Gustavo Machado, Darrell Trains At Gustavo Machado Norfolk under the 3rd-degree black belt, and Former Marine Professor Mark Sausser. He went to school for psychology at American Military University and for criminal justice at ECPI University.
The Darrell McClain show
Trump and Harris Rallies, Latino Voters, and Global Tensions
Is the American political landscape more divided than ever before? This episode of The Darrell McLean Show tackles this pressing question by dissecting the fiery atmosphere surrounding a Trump rally at Madison Square Garden and the evolving Russia-Ukraine conflict now entwined with North Korean involvement. We navigate the polarized reactions to Trump's rhetoric and the contrasting vision of leadership that champions inclusivity and cooperation. Our exploration includes meaningful dialogue with a surprise guest, shedding light on how robust political conversations can shift perspectives and underscore the essential values that uphold democracy.
As we continue, the spotlight turns to the Latino voter trends and the controversial remarks of Tony Hinchcliffe that triggered public backlash. With comments from influential figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we probe the impact of language in political discourse and its resonance within diverse communities. Diving into the nuances of political campaigns, we examine the intriguing shift in Latino support toward Trump and the authenticity of his outreach efforts. The episode also takes a critical look at Kamala Harris's policy initiatives for Puerto Rican Americans and her strategic alliances, weighing their influence on her political appeal.
Finally, the focus shifts to the intricate dynamics of media ownership and its impact on editorial independence. With major newspapers abstaining from presidential endorsements, questions surface about objectivity and journalistic integrity. We then pivot to the escalating Ukraine crisis, marked by North Korean troops joining Russia's offensive, a development that amplifies geopolitical tensions. With a historical lens, we reflect on the implications of these global conflicts, urging a reminder of the lessons history offers in navigating such precarious times. Join us as we reason together, confronting these complex issues head-on.
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show. I'm your host, darrell McLean, and Independent Media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one planet. Nobody is leaving, so let us reason together. We have a lot to cover today. This episode is going to first cover what I think a lot of people have been hearing about the jokes heard around the world, the response that wasn't that articulate, and some of the replies to it and my thoughts on it. We're then going to talk about the problems that has popped up in the Russia and Ukraine conflict with now we are seeing troops from North Korea on the ground, and we're going to talk about the non-endorsement of some of these historic papers and what I think about that. That is going to be the crux of this episode. Let's get going.
Speaker 2:I don't think anybody has ever seen anything like what happened the other night at Madison Square Garden. She's a fake, a fraud. She's a pretender. Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country.
Speaker 3:In fact, she is the devil. Whoever screamed that out? She is the antichrist. The love, the love, the love in that room.
Speaker 2:It was breathtaking.
Speaker 4:The whole f***ing party a bunch of degenerates, lowlifes, two haters and lowlifes Every one of them.
Speaker 2:It was like a love fest, an absolute love fest, and it was my honor to be involved.
Speaker 3:There's a lot going on like. I don't know if you guys know know this, but there's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah, I think it's called puerto rico.
Speaker 2:Nobody's ever had a crowd like that and I tell you what, right now, nobody's ever had love like that.
Speaker 5:That was love in the room and it was love for our country. We know who Donald Trump is. He is the person who stood at this very spot nearly four years ago and sent an armed mob to the United States Capitol to overturn the will of the people in a free and fair election.
Speaker 2:We won in a landslide this was a landslide. An election that he knew he lost. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen, you don't concede when there's death.
Speaker 5:Americans died as a result of that attack. As a result of that attack, 140 law enforcement officers were injured because of that attack and we fight.
Speaker 2:We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Speaker 5:It is a choice about whether we have a country rooted in freedom for every American or ruled by chaos and division.
Speaker 2:You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
Speaker 5:This is someone who is unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance and out for unchecked power, our fight against the big donors big media, big tech and others is just getting started On day one. If elected, donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list. When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list.
Speaker 2:The weak Republicans. And that's it. I really believe it. I think I'm going to use the term the weak.
Speaker 5:Republicans. Unlike Donald Trump, I don't believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I'll give them a seat at the table.
Speaker 2:Our media is not free. It's not free. It suppresses thought, it suppresses speech and it's become the enemy of the people.
Speaker 5:If you give me the chance to fight on your behalf, there is nothing in the world that will stand in my way.
Speaker 2:Today is not the end, it's just the beginning.
Speaker 5:And while Donald Trump sat in the White House watching as the violence unfolded on television, he was told by his staff that the mob wanted to kill his own vice president. And Donald Trump responded with two words so what America? That's who Donald Trump is and that's who is asking you to give him another four years in the Oval Office. For as long as I can remember, I have always had an instinct to protect. There's something about people being treated unfairly or overlooked that, frankly, just gets to me. I don't like it. It's what my mother instilled in me A drive to hold accountable those who use their wealth or power to take advantage of other people. The drive to protect hardworking Americans who aren't always seen or heard and deserve a voice. And I will tell you that is the kind of president I will be. And look, I'll be honest with you. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes, but here's what I promise you I will always listen to you, even if you don't vote for me. I will always tell you the truth, even if it is difficult to hear. I will work every day to build consensus and reach compromise to get things done and reach compromise to get things done. And if you give me the chance to fight on your behalf. There is nothing in the world that will stand in my way. When I'm elected, donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list. When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list full of priorities of what I will get done for the American people and I will work with everyone Democrats, republicans and independents to help Americans who are working hard and still struggling to get ahead.
Speaker 5:Nearly 250 years ago, america was born when we wrested freedom from a petty tyrant. Across the generations, americans have preserved that freedom, expanded it and, in so doing, proved to the world that a government of by and for the people is strong and can endure. And those who came before us, the patriots at Normandy and Selma, seneca Falls and Stonewall, on farmlands and factory floors? They did not struggle, sacrifice and lay down their lives only to see us seed our fundamental freedoms. They didn't do that only to see us submit to the will of another petty tyrant.
Speaker 6:The president sharing a message of hope with that massive crowd.
Speaker 2:I'm asking you to be excited about the future of our country again. I'm asking you to dream big again. We're going to dream big again. We haven't been dreaming big at all. This will be America's new golden age. It's going to happen quickly too, very quickly. Every problem facing us can be solved, but now the fate of our nation is in your hands.
Speaker 2:Next Tuesday, you have to stand up and you have to tell Kamala Harris that you've done a terrible job. That crooked Joe Biden has done a terrible job. You've destroyed our country. We're not going to take it anymore. Kamala, you're fired, get out, get out. You're fired. You're fired, get out, get out. You're fired. After issue Kamala broke it, but I will fix it. We're going to fix it, but we're just not running against Kamala.
Speaker 2:I think a lot of our politicians here tonight know this. She means nothing. She's purely a vessel To save our country. For the past nine years, we have been fighting against the most sinister and corrupt forces on Earth. With your vote in this election, you could show them once and for all that this nation does not belong to them. This nation belongs to you. It belongs to you. This nation belongs to you. It belongs to you. No city embodies the spirit, energy and potential of the American people more than where we are gathered tonight. We want to win our country, but we also want to win New York and make it safe and strong and beautiful and affordable and vibrant again, and we're going to do that.
Speaker 4:But today, trumpomaniacs, the energy in here is something like I've never felt. The energy of all these Trumpomaniacs is the most powerful force in the universe, and today this is Donald Trump's house brother.
Speaker 3:He's proven to be the strong leader, allies and adversaries alike must respect.
Speaker 4:He's proven. He loves this country so much he's literally put his life on the line for it. As you can see, he's literally put his life on the line for it. As you can see, I'm not just MAGA, I'm Dark Gothic MAGA Well it's. The energy in this room is incredible. What a great group of people. Your money is being wasted and the Department of Government Efficiency is going to fix that.
Speaker 7:We're going to get the government off your back and out of your pocketbook. Our hometown where architectural symbols of strength, courage and unity create a canvas for the world's undisputed capital of industry, where titans of finance, fashion and entertainment convene among an iconic range of superior design structures and artistic accomplishments and American Injury blossoms among determined citizens who race across city streets and between offices, striving for success.
Speaker 1:It is you who are the to be going up against each other for the final day coming next Tuesday. The Trump rally him himself tried to strike a tone of hope and it was in New York, at Madison Square Garden. Kamala Harris chose her final to be at the lectern where President Trump stood when January 6th happened, and there was. They wanted to do a purposeful Jex position. They wanted to do a purposeful juxtaposition. This is actually something that is pretty rare. There are comments that were made at Trump's rally that were some people took issue with and, ironically, it actually was not President Trump who made the comments. So the comment in question came from one of the comedians who is a roaster, and he came out and was, you know, making jabs at the crowd and he said something like which you heard it in one of the beginning of the shows. He said there's a floating pile of trash out there and he said it's called puerto rico or something like that. Even the crowd, when you, when you look at it, didn't really, you know, laugh. They kind of probably thought it was too far. And then he talked about a black guy in the crowd and said you know, what's that going on? What's that on top of your head and then he said I'm sorry, I'm actually just kidding. That's, uh, one of my friends, me and him, carve watermelons together, and so that's just a. That's just a. You know, that's just something that people who are into the dark sense of humor is what they get into, and it was, of course, bait that the media obviously ran with. Of course bait that the media obviously ran with, and so it led to the backlash from the conservative side or the Republican side. Why can't you people take a joke, followed by, you know, a lot of prominent people from Puerto Rico, jennifer Lopez, et cetera, coming out and saying that they would now be endorsing and voting for Kamala Harris. What made this somewhat interesting is you had people like Jon Stewart come out and say we have to admit that it was a joke. It was not meant in maliciousness, it was a joke, and I even saw at the rally for Kamala Harris. Mexican comedian George Lopez said a joke and he said something like they talk about how they want to build the wall. Well, they better build it in one day, because all the tools will be gone, etc. After the night. Now, of course, he's making a joke about mexicans stealing all the tools and again, that was a joke and the hypocrisy of the situation is the media was silent. So of course there was some backlash.
Speaker 1:The congresswoman from New York, alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had something to say. We're going to listen to a bit of that. Later. The former lawyer and Republican talk show, hostgan kelly, had something to say um and and uh, the, the it. It ranged from the this is how they feel about you to. You guys think this is not a big deal. You think this is funny. You have to be more serious. You have to stop the bromance, stop the bro talk. And Nikki Haley uh, the former governor of South Carolina and uh, the Republican candidate for president this year went on and said you are have to understand that the way republicans are starting to speak, they are making women uncomfortable. You are losing women. Somebody said there was a comedian that joked about puerto rico or something, and I have no idea who it was. Never saw, never heard him and don't want to hear of him, but I have no idea. They put a comedian in which everybody does. You throw comedians in, you don't vet them and go crazy. It's nobody's fault.
Speaker 6:But somebody said some bad things. Now what they've done is taken somebody that has nothing to do with the party, has nothing to do with the party, has nothing to do with us, said something and they try and make a big deal. You wish he wasn't there. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if it's a big deal or not, but I don't want anybody making nasty jokes or stupid jokes. I probably shouldn't have been there. Yeah, not a time to have anyone criticize Puerto Rico or Latinos. This is not a time for them to get overly masculine with this bromance thing that they've got going.
Speaker 6:53% of the electorate are women. Women will vote. They care about how they're being talked to and they care about the issues. They need to remember that this is a time of discipline and this is a time of addition. I think it's harmful. I mean, look, this is a time of addition. I think it's harmful. I mean, look, there's no reason to have a comedian at an election campaign event that had so much energy and so many good issues. Why have a comedian that separates people? This is not people being sensitive. I mean Puerto Ricans. That's personal for them. They take that personally, so they were right to denounce the comedian. They need to go and tell Puerto Ricans how much you know they do value them. They need to tell Latinos that. But they also need to look at how they're talking about women. I mean this bromance and this masculinity stuff. I mean it borders on edgy to the point that it's going to make women uncomfortable. It's going to make women uncomfortable.
Speaker 1:And so, of course, that was Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, and I think she got, in several places, 100,000 to 50,000 votes between this one and that one in this state that you don't really need to be alienating the people who would more than likely vote for a Republican, and so I'm thinking what she's trying to say is you don't want to make them feel like they'll just stay at home are because people like Liz Cheney, you know, has given have given them permission that they can vote for the other party. The former host of the show on Fox News that she's now doing her own thing, megyn Kelly, conservative commentator, responded to this as well with a somewhat of a.
Speaker 8:Spectacular event today. He was meeting with what are called angel mums, and these are the mums of people that have been killed by illegals in the country. The ad I showed it a bit earlier in the day was absolutely heart-wrenching. That and his economic message. Well, that's what's going to win it for him, but what do you think he could do to lose it between now and?
Speaker 9:then, yeah, more stuff like the Madison Square Garden thing won't help. I don't know if that would make him lose it between now and then. Yeah, more stuff like the Madison Square Garden thing won't help. I don't know if that would make them lose it. I don't think what happened at MSG will make them lose it either. But you know, to me it reminded me of when I was in college and I dated the captain of the Syracuse lacrosse team, who was a great guy, and we went on a lot of dates double dates with lacrosse players.
Speaker 9:Great times when the lacrosse team would get together and have a party all 70 of them like mostly the guys chilling out, having beers. But I wanted nothing to do with that. That was too much for me as a woman. You know, a bunch of men all together drinking and having a great time and getting rowdy I get it.
Speaker 10:There's a place for that.
Speaker 9:Most women would not want to be in the middle of it. And I had the same feeling watching that MSG rally, Like there is no place for me or women like me who don't like Kamala but don't want to hear her referred to as the antichrist and don't want to have her called out as a potential hooker. I mean, like I don't like the woman, I don't like these kind of talk. This is unnecessary.
Speaker 9:There's a lot of fertile ground if you want to mock Kamala Harris on the stuff she's actually running on, or is this? Stuff is just gratuitous and says something about you, the commentator. So that was a total fail. That that strain of what happened at MSG and took away from what was, in many ways, a very great rally. Trump did great. It wasn't Trump this time, it was the people setting him up. So that was unfortunate. I don't know that that's going to make Trump lose. I think people have already kind of baked in their opinions at this point. You know they're like the left is like people are protesting. Puerto Ricans are protesting and they show the videotape. It's like five people standing outside of a Starbucks. I think we're good, but you don't want to do anything to hurt yourself in the last seven days. So be careful. Like now is the time to be perfect, and I think Trump's other message of I will protect you, while some didn't respond well to it.
Speaker 9:I did because a president does have that power in large measure. A president is the commander in chief, you know. A president can get us involved in international conflicts where my child has to go, either one now, my boys or my girl. A president can help keep illegal immigrants off the streets of America so that little girls like Jocelyn Nangaro do not get murdered in the middle of the night. And a president can encourage a stricter hand in law enforcement and courage at the local level DAs who are not soft on crime, who actually put bad guys in jail and keep them there.
Speaker 9:It's not exactly a federal law enforcement matter, though it could be. So in all those ways, trump can keep us safe, and that's, I think, what he's going with, because the left wants us to believe. Abortion, abortion, abortion that's how women are going to die under Trump and they're completely ignoring. You know, before my, my daughter or anybody's daughter, gets to the point where God forbid they think about an abortion, we need to keep them safe. We need to get them to the age of majority, we need to get them through a robust and happy childhood. And allowing an open border, allowing soft on crime policies, das and so on and laws, doesn't help. I care much more about that than I do about what exactly will be the way in which my daughter could get an abortion when she's 30. So I just think the Democrats have their priorities mixed up on that, and you know then.
Speaker 9:So I just think the Democrats have their priorities mixed up on that and I think the average American, including my swing voter friends, you know in the middle in the Midwest will respond to what Trump's doing right now on safety.
Speaker 8:I've got to say nice little detail. Behind Donald Trump today was his sort of Bob the Builder catchphrase for the end of it. Remember Bob the Builder yes, we'll fix it. Well, it's now. Trump will fix it. Kamala broke it. Trump will fix it. I think that's a very clever final line for him. You were on with Bill Maher in the States over the weekend and, of course, as always, you looked a million bucks. But, more importantly, you slapped him around with a bit of common sense and he says that he's certain Harris is going to win. Did you see some doubt in his eyes?
Speaker 9:I mean he definitely wants Kamala to win. It's real for him. He does not like Donald Trump. His critics would say he has Trump-Therapian Syndrome and he, I think, genuinely believes Kamala can do the job. I mean, we have a serious disagreement on that, but I credit Bill Maher for being one of the last shows in America where both parties will come on. He has, like, strong conservatives not just the ones you can, you know, kick around and make fools out of and, of course, plenty of liberals will go on the show and he has an audience of mostly liberals, but some people who are on the center-right will watch it. So that's a rarity and it's great to be able to go in front of that audience and share some of my ideas and our ideas and the things that matter to people like you and me. So it's a great opportunity and I appreciate Bill giving me the forum.
Speaker 9:Yeah, it was much better between us, I think, on his show than it was on our show. I think he's now settled into the fact that I'm a Trump supporter, which really took him by surprise when he came on my show. He was really unhappy with me and kind of felt, you know, betrayed, I think, in a way, but he's gotten over it and now it's just decided to have a like a meaningful conversation about it and we had a great time backstage. He was very polite, very kind, um, I'm really hoping that maybe some of his audience heard me and heard the nonsense about the fascism that they're being lied to this is bs and heard the stuff about the trans insanity. And some actually came up to me afterwards and said because there was some backstage, you really opened my eyes, so maybe they have something new to think about now.
Speaker 1:So I let that play out just so you can hear a little bit. It is a lot longer than a lot of questions asked. She was on, she being Megan Kelly, was on, like some Australian Sky News and a very, and I just say that I wanted that to be played because of her advice. Advice, because this, this election, is going to come down to people's conscience and their gut, and so I think it's important, when you have the a large part of the electorate, which is women, telling somebody that they plan to vote for this makes me feel uncomfortable, that they have to somewhat step up and pay attention, and I think it's easier to consume, unfortunately, but it is easier to consume when it's coming from someone who is on your team versus someone who you see as different. We're going to go to one last reaction on this before I move on to another topic, and that was from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and this is a somewhat short clip when she reacted to it. Of course, she is the Puerto Rican congresswoman from you know. She represents New York.
Speaker 10:This morning the Trump campaign is playing cleanup, trying to distance the campaign and the candidate from comments made from the stage.
Speaker 3:At his big rally yesterday here in New York, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe was among the warm-up acts to speak and here's what he said I welcome migrants to the United States of America with open arms, and by open arms, I mean, like this these Latinos, they love making babies too. Just know that they do, they do. I don't know if you guys know this, but there's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah, I think it's called Puerto Rico.
Speaker 10:Joining us right now. Democratic congressman from New York, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez. Thanks for being here. You called this out last night. You were hanging out with Tim Walz. You guys were streaming. You called out last night, fresh eyes on it this morning. When you see that remark and you see now that comedian responding to you guys, I'll read a bit of it for you. I know you've seen it, but for everyone out there, these people have no sense of humor, While the vice presidential candidate would take time out of his busy schedule to analyze a joke taken out of context to make it seem racist. I love Puerto Rico and vacation there. I made fun of everyone. Watch the whole set. I'm a comedian. Tim Might be time to change your tampon, is what he ends it with.
Speaker 11:What do you? What does it mean today? What does it do today? You know this, honestly, isn't really about a comedian. This is about the Trump campaign. This, those comments and that individual saying those things on that stage, inciting an entire arena of individuals who have been previously incited to commit attacks like the ones we saw on January 6th by people like Donald Trump.
Speaker 11:None of that was an accident. These campaign events are put together, they are vetted. That language was vetted by the Trump campaign, that that person was approved by the Trump campaign because he is speaking on behalf of the Trump campaign, and I think it's really important that people understand that when we see everything that's happening, what is being transmitted and said about Latinos in the United States is exactly what the Trump campaign means. He believes that Latinos, as we've seen, are an unimportant, unvalued and unnecessary part of the United States of America. And when Stephen Miller comes on and talks about America for Americans, he's not even talking about US citizens as Americans, because Stephen Miller kind of flirts with this idea of taking away US citizenship from people depending on his own personal opinions about what being an American means, and so the Trump campaign is very clearly transmitting who they believe is an American and who they don't not based on citizenship, but based on ethnicity and based on their opinion of Donald Trump.
Speaker 10:When we look back at the numbers and the gains he has made with Latino voters since 2016,. From 2016,. Depending what you're looking at with the numbers now, you see a nine point gain. You've seen Harris getting. I've seen 12 points fewer than Hillary Clinton got in 2016,. Seen some recent gains in some new polling just out yesterday that she's making with Latino voters. How do you explain it? How do you explain that Trump is making ground with Latinos?
Speaker 11:Well, you know, I think, ironically, it's because he realized that he needed to keep his mouth shut with his bigotry for a very long period of time in order to try to make some kind of disingenuous case into to the Latino community.
Speaker 10:But the fact you don't believe him when he speaks to it. You don't, you said disingenuous. You do not think when he speaks to Latino voters, when he speaks to helping them, when he's in Nevada speaking to workers.
Speaker 11:No no, I mean, you don't insinuate that Latinos are un-American or less American, if you actually value them.
Speaker 11:He wants to be president of the United States.
Speaker 11:He'll say what he needs to say.
Speaker 11:But at the end of the day, when you look at what Kamala Harris does, she actually ironically unveiled her platform and plan for Puerto Rico yesterday, before that rally even started, and that plan involves actually addressing the displacement crisis that Puerto Ricans are facing right now the displacement of doctors and teachers, the closures of schools and public facilities, the lack of investment in infrastructure and, as a Puerto Rican American, extremely concerned about people using tax loopholes to displace people in Puerto Rico. She's actually trying to see and solve and create opportunities for Puerto Rican Americans. Create opportunities for Puerto Rican Americans. And you see the contrast of Donald Trump maybe trying to distract from the fact that he has no economic plan for Latinos in general, but also not only that, blaming economic issues for example, our housing crisis on Latinos and on immigrants. Instead of actually coming up with a plan to help lower our cost of rent and mortgages, he's coming out here just trying to blame immigrants for the fact that it's actually his buddies and friends that are driving up the cost of housing in America.
Speaker 10:Speaking of broader campaign, I've seen Trump-aligned PACs. I've seen it on air and I've seen it digitally. Trump-aligned PACs have used you in ads to hit Kamala Harris. To label her San Francisco liberal is the term that they often use again and again. Do you think your support for her hurts her, with moderate voters, which we have very clearly seen in the recent weeks that she's making a direct appeal to?
Speaker 11:I don't think so and I think that that bears out in the data and the evidence, not just a matter of personal opinion. I work very closely alongside many of my colleagues across the House Democratic Caucus and they are of all different kinds of political opinions and frankly, I think moderate voters and everyday people see right through some of these scare tactics for what they are. They see how they are exaggerations, they see that these are kind of just baseless attacks and that's made evident by the fact that I'm proud to be able to support, you know, swing district Democrats and they're not afraid of these attack ads. They're just not landing and they're not effective.
Speaker 10:Flip side of this. She has gone on a whole tour with former Congresswoman, republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney to try to win moderate Republicans. I mean looking back, you and Liz Cheney in the House, you guys butt heads on issues over and over again. She calls Liz Cheney a true patriot when they're campaigning together. Is that hurting Kamala Harris with more progressive voters?
Speaker 11:Well, listen, I think there's plenty of people that aren't happy about that, and I think that is part of the nature of putting together a coalition. I don't love it, but that doesn't mean that we aren't on the same team and we aren't on the same page when it comes to who is unequivocally the better candidate in order to win the presidential election On the issues, her evolution on positions and she's explained the evolution on positions from four years ago fracking, border wall, border security, Medicare for all.
Speaker 10:They have moved from more progressive to more moderate. That's the direction you very clearly see in this election. Do you like that? She is doing that. Do you like that shift?
Speaker 11:I think that my stance on these issues is very clear. I believe that every single American has the right to health care and we should be working to guarantee, to improve and expand Medicare and lower the age of eligibility to zero, and that's my goal. I also believe that we need to have a real plan to document people who wish to come into the United States and contribute to our growing economy and really be part of what is charging the economy, which is, frankly, also what bears out in the data. That's not a matter of personal opinion. The American economy thrives because of our immigrant population. The way that we address the crisis is by actually providing a path to citizenship and documenting people.
Speaker 11:And you know, when it comes to the climate crisis, our time is ticking down. But what I believe is that the Democratic Party is a coalition, and the stronger we make our case and the stronger that we say we need to get big money out of politics. We need to tax these billionaires to the point that they stop manipulating our economy and squeezing the working class. I know what candidate the progressive flank has a fighting chance with, and it's not Donald Trump. It's Kamala Harris.
Speaker 10:Congresswoman, thank you for coming in this morning.
Speaker 1:So this is just going to be kind of light on this. So what makes the matters somewhat funnier is worse and, I guess, predictable. The current president, joe Bideniden, is on a zoom call and he is trying to respond to this specific thing and he and he um, he calls. He kind of says the only garbage I see floating out there is Trump's supporters. Now, of course, what ends up having to happen is they're playing this little game now and they're saying no, no, no, joe Biden did not mean Trump supporters, he meant that particular Trump supporter. There was a comma there. He didn't say supporters, he said supporter.
Speaker 1:And so and I kind of found it somewhat, this thing Biden puts foot in mouth not anything new, and not even in his old age, in his Biden period, so from the age of 29 to now, has been the politician whose foot is regularly in his mouth. Now, I was seeing posts about this everywhere and I just kind of had this take. When it is convenient, we all will say that Joe Biden is a senile old man that shouldn't be taken seriously, that he has dementia, and when he says something outrageous that can be used for political purposes, all of a sudden he's an elder statesman that everyone should respond to, because he speaks for the soul of the Democratic Party. And I was asked I saw you know why did not Kamala Harris come out and denounce us, et cetera, et cetera? And I would just give the clearest answer that I can. The reason why Kamala Harris doesn't trash Biden would be the same reason Trump's vice president, mike Pence, didn't trash him when they were on the ticket together, when they were in power together. I recall the Trump administration and I don't recall, out of all, whatever disagreements Mike Pence, the former vice president, pretends to have now or he may actually have now, pretends to have now or he may actually have now. He never said a mumbling bad word about donald trump while he was his vice president.
Speaker 1:Vice presidents usually don't trash their former boss until they're out of power, and some of them won't even take that step when they're out of power, because once you're actually not in power, then you can point fingers and and act like you're so unique, but while you're normally in power, you play this little game where you point fingers at the other side, so you never have to deal with the consequences and the troubles going on in your own house. Now, once you leave, you leave power. All of a sudden you become a maverick, you become so wise, you become so brave, you no longer care, you're off the cuff. We just have to look at these people and say, I mean, fundamentally they're just not serious. And I'll go back to reaffirm what I said in the beginning this was a joke and it should be seen as a joke, and that's it.
Speaker 1:Was it on the dark sense of humor side, of course? If you know who this guy was, he's the host of Kill Tony. It's a roast type um of a of a show. He is a roast comedian and he was roasting people and roasts are normally harsh and dark senses of humor. So, um, I'll put it this way, that that that's just kind of what you were going to get.
Speaker 1:Now I've seen it said you know, president Obama called us bitter clingers, uh, secretary Clinton called us deplorable, and now Biden calls us garbage, uh, trump calls us patriots. And I kind of laughed a little bit, you know, when I saw that, because I said, wait a minute. Now I've been watching President Trump's campaigns, listening to the speeches, watched him for several hours on the Joe Rogan podcast and watched him on Andrew Schultz's show. He's been calling America a trash can. So what's the difference between garbage and a trash can? Well, there's a trash can and garbage goes in it. So him and Joe Biden are simpatico of this. The eagle has two wings a left side and a right side, and what's going to happen is what normally would happen. If you are on the left and you are already inclined to be with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and AOC, you are going to come up with the worst possible interpretation of what happened, and if you are on the right, you are going to do everything you can to come up with a justification of why it's not a big deal. And that's just how this game is played.
Speaker 1:Now let me tie this in and try to make this somewhat quick. This just blew up the media world. The Washington Post and the LA Times declined to endorse a presidential candidate for the 2024 election. For the better course of the last century, I saw, american newspapers have often offered what amounts to endorsements in major political races, and that, of course, would include the biggest races of them all, which is the race to be the American president. But the big news in the last few days have been two major newspapers, and I mean by two major newspapers, big ones, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, have both announced that they are going to decline to endorse either candidate in the 2024 presidential elections, and they have both indicated that it is that their intention that the papers no longer do any such endorsements, although the question is still open as to whether or not both papers will offer some kind of endorsement when it comes to statewide elections or other local matters.
Speaker 1:But the fact is this this is making big news not only big news, but big waves, giant controversies, and of course, the expectation was that both of those, seen as liberal papers, would endorse the Democratic nominee for the president of the United States, and that would be Kamala Harris. It's actually apparent that Kamala Harris expected both of those editorial boards to offer their endorsement, and one of the first things I want to say is I'm not sure they would have mattered much anyway, but it tells you a lot that these endorsements didn't happen, matter a lot of dominant media classes itself and also the Democratic nominee for president. That's the class that's supposed to stick together, and in this case, not so much. But this raises some massive issues that we got to think about simply because of this controversy? First of all, what about the editorial board endorsement?
Speaker 1:Well, one of the things you need to remember is that the newspaper business as we know it today, insofar as we can still talk about it and call it a newspaper business, is that we still know that today, the historic newspaper business really began with the competitive alternative newspapers. Even in the most single communities, especially of any size, especially the cities, by the time you get to the modern printing press and the modern industrial revolution revolution developments, you also have these big cities. You have rival parties, particularly in places such as Britain and in the United States, but you also had similar developments in nations such as Germany and France. You had opposing political parties and basically you had alternative media sources, especially newspapers connected to all of those specific different parties, sometimes more than one paper for a single party, and so many of these papers actually emerged as well. Just to say, if you look at the British example, these were papers that belonged to the Conservative Party or at least were very tied to the Liberal Party and then later the Socialist Labor Party and so on. No one was surprised when those newspapers had an editorial bias towards one party or the other party. But in the consolidation of the media or the monopolization of the media, particularly the print media, of the media, particularly the print media, that took place in the United States over the course, explicitly over the last 60s or 70 years, that has actually now really started to change. Whereas even in a city like Louisville, for a while you have two newspapers the Courier Journal in the morning and the Louisville Times in the evening, the fact is that they really weren't all that different, since they were owned by one massively wealthy media family. They had separate teams to an extent, but when you have a common owner, guess what? You're in a common business.
Speaker 1:That really gets to another big issue and we need to think and talk about that. Let me just dispense with this issue right now. There are many people who will say you know, this raises huge issues about freedom of the press. Well, wait just a minute. Why would this issue raise such questions? Well, it's because some people are saying look, you have editors who quit in protest. You have writers who say this was a horrible idea. You even have members of the editorial board who are insinuating that they didn't get their way. Why didn't they get their way? Don't we honor the freedom of the press. Well, this is where Americans and many conservatives just don't even get to think about this. This is where Americans need to slow down a moment and recognize that the freedom of the press is indeed a constitutionally protected right Now.
Speaker 1:What does that mean? The freedom of reporters? Well, to a certain extent. The freedom of editors? Well, to a certain extent, it actually means the freedom of those who owns the press. I'm going to say that again. It means the freedom of those who own the press. That is the freedom of the press. I'm going to say that again. It means the freedom of those who own the press. That is the freedom of the press, which is to say that if you own a newspaper, you actually get to decide what's in that newspaper.
Speaker 1:In most situations, those newspapers are commercial enterprises and in most cases, they have been failing, and failing spectacularly in what we call the digital age. Now, that's the reason why it's not the older, established grand family who own the Washington Post. Instead, it's a one person. It's the founder of Amazon, jeff Bezos. And when it comes to the Los Angeles Times, it's not the Chandler family and others who were so important in thinking about the rise of Los Angeles as a major city, that newspaper as a major institution? Nope, it's now owned by a billionaire doctor, single person, billionaire doctor and inventor. It doesn't take very long to realize that Dr Patrick Son-Hsing and Jeff Bezos, the owners of those two papers, respectively the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. The fact is that they have leaned in because they do not want the commercial consequences or the political consequences of having their papers continue in the pattern of political endorsement for, at least at this moment, presidential endorsements.
Speaker 1:But when you look at the argument that was made by the Washington Post, well, it turns out to be really interesting. The announcement was not made by the editorial board. Announcement was not made by the editorial board. Instead, it was made by William Lewis, who was the publisher and chief executive officer at the Washington Post. Saturday's print edition of the Washington Post was in Washington when it landed. And the Washington Post will be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate. It will not in this election, nor in any of the future presidential elections. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing any presidential candidates.
Speaker 1:And they went on after that, to cite a statement made by the paper's editorial board in 1960. Now, just as a historical context. Let's remember the 1960s race pitted the vice president, richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, against Senator John F Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, and the newspaper stated that it was on the grounds that it could be claimed, and guess the word that they used? This is one of the most important elections in American history. Have you heard that now, 2024 from 1960? Listen to that framing. Has anything changed? This is one of the most important elections in American history. But in response, that paper did turn around and remember this paper's entire editorial board. It paper not to make endorsements of presidential or political candidates. As a matter of fact, the Washington Post kept that policy until 1976, when a fairly implacably, the editorial board went on to endorse the former governor, georgia, and the president who became the president, I should say Jimmy Carter. He was the Democratic nominee and of course he would eventually be elected to president of the United States over President Gerald Ford. So I have to simply interject. It's not exactly clear why the paper changed its policy in 1976, but since then it's basically kept to the policy of endorsing at least presidential candidates, to the policy of endorsing at least presidential candidates by the time you get to the Democratic and Republican face-off and the November election and the presidential cycles. They have endorsed candidates. Well, guess what? All the candidates they have endorsed are Democratic candidates.
Speaker 1:The history of the Los Angeles Times on this issue is similarly interesting. But in both cases the big issue is, it doesn't take much investigation to figure out that it is the billionaire owners of these papers who don't want the papers to make a endorsement. Now let's put another footnote in here. An interesting question is just how objective or even honest in reporting can a news organization be? And it makes it a very difficult question if a news organization can be honest in reporting the news if it is in the business of making endorsements in any race or in a race like that. In other words, wouldn't an endorsement, say, let's say, about Kamala Harris, taint all of the news coverage of everything that's connected with the Washington Post? Well, the same thing would be true of the Los Angeles Times. The same thing would be equally true every ways I can think about, if you really back up and look at the issue.
Speaker 1:But the fact is that most of these newspapers would claim that there is an independence when it comes to the editorial board independence when it comes to the news staff. They claim some type of separation. The Wall Street Journal makes that exact same claim, other newspapers make this claim, but the fact is is that if you were owned by one person in the case of Jeffement donor for Republicans, sheldon Adelson If you are owned by one person, then the fact is that these decisions are now going to be very different because they're going to be made at a very different level. Different because they're going to be made at a very different level, and they're going to be made at a time when these papers are not only controversial in the terms of their liberal coverage and bias, or conservative bias, or libertarian bias, or socialist bias, or even marxist bias or anti-establishment bias. They are also controversial because they're suffering in the digital age, with so many people frankly getting their news elsewhere, which is to yet another point.
Speaker 8:And that is.
Speaker 1:This controversy is a hot inside media circles. A hot inside media circles. I don't think the average American cares. Now, the fact that the media class cares so much and the Democratic Party cares so much, well, that tells us something. But what it tells us is that there's far more at stake here than endorsements of these two newspapers, because, as a matter of fact, I don't think it would make a dent in the election whatsoever, but it would dent two other realities. One is any claim of any kind of neutrality, any kind of objectivity, any kind of fairness when it comes to the news coverage and the vast media of the news organizations. Now, I believe that that would otherwise be called transparency, because I think there are just so overwhelmingly liberal, conservative, libertarian, blah, blah, blah media sources, and then no one is actually really surprised if they endorse a Republican or if they endorse a Democrat. No, I think the fact is what it shows us is that these papers are largely self-referential, in the same way that, at both extremes, you look at political parties in this country, that people within those parties and in those polarities become very self-referential. The fact is, however, that is the liberal side that has all the major mass heads, all the major newspapers, all the major legacy media sources, you can, in a sense, start to see exactly why this became a problem, exactly why I'm talking about this when you look at the statement made by the chief executive officer of the Washington Post, who is also the publisher he said, by the way, he went on to say most of all, our job at the newspaper of the capital city, the most important country in the world, is to be independent, and that is what we are all trying to be, and this is what we are and will be. Well, the fact is, let's call it what it is. They may be independent in some sense that they would define it, but just to state the matter as egalitly as I can, as frank as I can, but simply, they are not independent of the guys who own their company. It's an owner. You can be as independent as you like, but it's not your ball.
Speaker 1:The most interesting controversy within these two newspapers, for example at the Los Angeles Times the Los Angeles Times gullet is basically something like a liberal union, according to the Washington Times, issued its own statement saying it was deeply concerned that the paper was not making a choice in the race between the Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and the Republican white former President Donald Trump. President, donald Trump, the statement included these words we are deeply concerned about our owner's decisions to block a planned endorsement in the presidential race. We are even more concerned that he is now unfairly assigning blame to the editorial board members for his decision not to endorse. We are still pressing for answers from newsroom management. Well, press on. But my guess is this If you figured out the answers already.
Speaker 1:And speaking of self referential, there is something quite and nothing quite as self-referential as one newspaper reporting about a newspaper. So just after this announcement, the New York Times ran an article by a paper reporters the headline endorsing presidents in at the post. The story began the Washington Post chief executive told the newsroom on Friday it would no longer endorse presidential candidates, breaking with decades of precedent at the newspaper. So let me just point this thing out. I have to point it out. This breaks with decades of precedent at the Washington Post, but they're deciding to endorse at the time broke decades of precedent. That was set before. So it all depends on which precedent you want to cite. But later we are told questions about whether the Post would endorse a candidate this year has spread for some days.
Speaker 1:Some people speculated, without any proof, that the paper's billionaire owner, jeff Bezos, was being called by basically a perspective of the Trump administration, because his other businesses have many federal government contracts. Well, let's just go to the top and think about Amazon. Undoubtedly this is true and, of course, about Amazon. Undoubtedly this is true and of course, it goes as far beyond the terms of logistics. We probably have many things we don't even know, but the fact is it's not unique to the Washington Post, as similar things are not going to be unique to the Los Angeles Times. The fact is, we are looking at a conglomeration of giant businesses that each have their own interests and that's going to affect their news coverage and their editorial decisions, and that is simply further evidence of how the world works. And if I would say this in any further evidence, it is the evidence of the effect of the fall evidence. It is the evidence of the effect of the fall.
Speaker 1:But my favorite article on the decision of the Washington Post not to endorse a candidate came not on the editorial editorial page but from the front page of the next day's newspaper, that is to say the Washington Post, reporting on wait just a minute. The Washington Post reported this way. The Washington Post, published a Friday, said the paper will not make an endorsement this year in the presidential contest for the first time in 36 years or any future presidential races. Remember this is the new staff of the Washington Post reporting an announcement made by the publisher of the Washington Post. But they also had to report this. The decision announced 11 days before an election. The decision announced 11 days before the election.
Speaker 1:The most poised show. Too close was too close to call immediate and heated condemnation from a wide swath of subscribers, political figures and media commentators. I continue. Robert Cake, a longtime post columnist and editor at large in the opinion department, reside in protest and a group of 11 in Washington Post columnists co-signed an article condemning the decision. Angry readers of the sources flooded email inboxes and numerous staffs with complaints. Similarly, a major editor of the Los Angeles Times resigned in protest after a similar announcement was made on the opposite coast.
Speaker 1:But the New York Times also came back and reported that Washington Post editorial writers had already drafted an endorsement of guess who a vice president kamala harris for president, according to four people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive newsroom matters.
Speaker 1:Almost sounds like they're talking about some kind of moral or sexual affair here, but they're not. They're talking about something that means even more to them and that's their own viewpoint being at least endorsed by their own newspaper or, more precisely, in this case, their outrage because their viewpoint is not being endorsed and they clearly think it should be and that everybody should know about it. Now again, I have to come back to one point, and I think this decision to not endorse a candidate in this election on the part of these two newspapers, the Washington Post and LA Times, not to take anything of their importance or stature from them, but I don't think it's going to make a bit of a difference to any American in any way who actually vote on November the 5th. It does not indicate something about the media class itself, and what it indicates about the media class is that it's just so important we dare not miss it. And here it is.
Speaker 1:When you look at the media class, it considers itself hand in hand with the liberal and the conservative political class, and, in this case, the liberal media class, is bearing a lot of finger pointing for failing the liberal political class, and these resignations and protests are basically public ways of trying to say to the political class it's not our fault, we didn't do it. As I come to bring this show to an end, I want to talk about something that is not being paid attention to, and that is Ukraine, and that is it is turning into a powder keg. And that is. It is turning into a powder keg because the country of North Korea has actually sent 10,000 troops to aid Russia in the war with Ukraine. So, even as me and most Americans are consumed with the final days of the 2024 presidential election we will return to that in another day but the fact is there is a more urgent crisis now that is facing the world and not just the United States. It is right now in Ukraine and in Russia. The big development is the involvement of the 10,000 North Korean troops in Russia's effort to subdue Ukraine.
Speaker 1:Now you remember that this war is now entering basically its third year and we're looking at the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation. That honestly changed the complexion of the world in terms of how you see major powers lining up, and we have looked at the Ukraine fighting back. We have seen Ukraine fighting back very bravely, but we're also looking at the fact that Russia has an overwhelming military force, but Russia has been worn down. But Russia has been worn down and, by the way, that's not fairly new. I'll just say that's one of the lessons history has taught us. An invading army is worn down far faster than the people that they invade. So, and over time, there is a shift in terms of the momentum of war and, even as right now, it is still the case that russia is the invader, holding a lot of ukrainian territory. Ukraine has also invaded russian territory, although it appears to be losing some territory that it has gained. That was largely a symbolic action. The fact is that Russia is a much larger nation.
Speaker 1:Its military is vastly larger than Ukraine and even as Russia has allies, so does Ukraine, but the difference here is that the entry of foreign troops into the front lines in the Russians' effort against Ukraine. This is going to change the entire world picture, and I want us to step back for a moment and just recognize that we're looking at here. We're looking at one of the most evil regimes on the planet, and that is the regime of the North Korean government under communist control. You see the North Korean dictator now linking arms with Russian president, and not only in a symbolic act of solidarity, but in sending troops as well. North Korea had been sending material that is war-wearing for a matter of months, and at least as it's documented by Western authorities and at least as it's documented by Western authorities North Korea has been very involved. Not only is the Russian army being worn down, but Russia is finding itself depleted of its weaponry. It's having to turn to others, and since, of course, russia is not able to turn to Western nations for the sources of their weapons, western nations are basically in solidarity against Russia. Russia is turning to others, and that includes many of the bad guys in bad neighborhoods of the world, one of the worst of those leaders and one of the worst of those neighborhoods is the representatives of this repressive regime of North Korea. Now, this is a very, very dangerous development and I want to speak of this in the context of world history.
Speaker 1:I'm speaking to you from the Commonwealth of Virginia Obviously, I'm from Jacksonville, florida, but I want to talk to you about a place that we call Kansas. Kansas City, missouri, as well as Virginia, has a memorial and monuments for, I'll just say, museums for World War I and World War II. It's a world-class museum if you ever go to have a chance to get to the one in Kansas, but it's the documenting history of the First World War. Of course, it wasn't known at the time as the First World War, even though, in retrospect in this modern sense.
Speaker 1:It was understood at that time to be called the Great War, the war, it was claimed, to end all wars. But we all need to remember it's not only that. It is not the war to end all wars. We do need to remember that a massive power in the world basically all of them backed themselves into what became one of the deadliest wars in all of human history, and there is a danger in the same thing being able to happen now. And as you look at the parallels of World War I and what is going on right now when it comes to Russia's war against Ukraine, you understand that the presence of North Korean and North Korean troops inserted into the battlefield is a game changer, and that game is only turning more dangerous and more deadly. So, as we're looking at this, we need to recognize that the NATO sources have detected the movement of not only the material, that is, weaponry, of equipment, but also of the troops of North Korea, that is, the 10,000 North Korean generals are accompanying the 10,000 troops. And the insertion of those troops as reinforcements on the Russian side means that here's the bottom line we have to keep in mind. It means that Ukraine is now fighting against Russia, now in the positions of facing the likelihood of having North Korea troops on that battlefield. That is to say that in a sense, in a very real sense, ukraine will be at war against not just Russia, but Ukraine is now at war against North Korea.
Speaker 1:Now there's no declared war, but when you have soldiers of one government fighting against the soldiers of another government, you are effectively engaged in war, whether one is declared or not, and that complicates the situations tremendously for the Ukraine and its allies. Those allies would include the United States of America. Now, just to follow the logic, the United States is providing military assistance to Ukraine. So, arguably, the United States is now facing in the terms of at least providing materials, support, ammunition and armaments of military intelligence to Ukraine.
Speaker 1:The United States is now placed in a situation of being at least related to an armed conflict that involves North Korea, which, let's just remind ourselves, is also a nuclear power and a rogue state. Now, honestly, I just have to tell you why this is the most important story of my consideration today. It is because, even as most Americans don't see this yet as a big story, putting the situation in a historical context, we understand that the situation is extremely dangerous. Frankly, it does point out to the November 15th, november 5th, election, in which the American voters are going to be electing a president, but it indicates that this president may immediately face an extremely dangerous situation in which we could face a radical expansion of a war that begun when Russia invaded Ukraine and very quickly you could see how an alignment in a larger world could all of a sudden lead to.