The devil's advocates radio show is broadcast under a time brokerage agreement between devil
radio and civic media ink.
Some portions of this program may be pre-recorded.
Warning!
You're about to listen to the greatest radio show ever, and due to contractual obligations
and to shield our airwaves and corporate licensees from any semblance of liability, responsibility
and gullibility, we must tell you the views represented on this show are not necessarily
those of this station or its management.
This radio show contains differing points of view on current political topics, and due
to the nature of its contents, it should be heard by everyone.
Thank you for listening.
Now live from the civic media studios in Madison, Wisconsin, where the political party is just
beginning, welcome to the devil's advocates radio show.
It's proving it's never personal, only politics.
And now here's your host, Dom and Crout.
Welcome to the devil's advocates radio show, it is the happier, happy hour.
This is Dom Crouty, his off-riches on the board, and you are on the lines, 844-967-2789.
I really love this piece of the new republic, the Achilles heel of Donald Trump, the ridicule.
The ridicule, making him small, we do have some sound we get to that today as well, because
there were some specific references by Kamala Harris on how Donald Trump is an unserious
man.
I've been saying this for a very long time as well, I think a lot of you think that as
well, he's unserious, those that support him are unserious people.
You stand up front of a crowd and talk about the late great Hannibal Lecter, Dr. Hannibal
Lecter pardon me, get the name right, the late great Dr. Hannibal Lecter, don't you
wonder, I wonder, I wonder, don't you tell it from the Midwest, 844-967-2789.
Also, Donald Trump apparently waffling him in his campaign, maybe disagreeing, maybe
agreeing on the terms of the September 10th debate, should the mics be on, should the
mics be off, and there's lots of money in politics, we have some news on that as well.
And we also, this is how we're going to get to beyond some of the highlights and sound
of the DNC, some specifics, some specifics, NBC reporting quote, Harris campaign slams
Trump agenda as a deficit bomb seeking to flip the script on fiscal responsibility,
and the sub headline here, so far, Harris has proposed about $2 trillion in new spending
and $5 trillion in tax revenues, Trump has backed about $5 trillion in tax breaks without paying
for all of it, who, who is the fiscally responsible politician, I would ask, but we have some
college that have been waiting, let's get to him, 844-967-2789, our pal from the left
just coast, Tom, hey, Tom, happy days, was you think of a common speech, was you think
of the DNC, and what he got for us?
I thought it was incredible, we got 74, I think that, you know, we just have to really
get out and vote, we have to make sure our registration, make sure 2025, project 2025
is not coming to a town in your house.
Have a vote, Plantum?
Sure, sure, stop, well, unfortunately my vote doesn't count as much in California, yours
doesn't count, so I would say, please, please don't make a school project 2025, but
no, I think this debate down, I think Lawrence O'Donnell was talking about on his show, they
have the technology and the ability now with AI and all these different things to actually
fact check in real time, and what they would do is they would put it right on the side
of the TV, and you know Donald Trump's not going to save anything new than the way he's
said, he's all he's talking about, border he's talking about, inflation is all he's
talking about.
I don't think Harris should have to waste her time correcting the record every time he
lies.
I think that's the responsibility, just like when we call him to talk shows, it's like,
you know, we shouldn't have to waste our time correcting the lies of the right wing,
we should have some pushback on that, so therefore we can actually talk about our affirmative
position rather than getting in the sandbox with them.
All right, so let me ask you practically, though, Tom, with that, so I'm watching the
debate in this real time fact check is occurring.
So as a consumer of the media, I would see, you know, basically like a stream on the side
of what was factual, what was not, what was that, would the would the would come of
Harris and Donald Trump, would they see this as well, they wouldn't be available to them,
so this is, I just want to be clear, is this specifically only for the audience to say?
It would be for the audience to say, but also I think that the moderators also, when
they hear things like, oh, you know, Democrats want to, you know, kill children after nine
months, come on, everyone knows how to lie, you know, and I'm so sick of some of these
fact checkers where they go, oh, that's mostly true or mostly untrue or what, it's either
true or false.
You know what I mean?
It's like, this is different, that's just ridiculous.
I heard also that, that the Trump campaign saying that they need to go back to talk about
inflation and gas prices and grocery prices in the border, well, we pretty much have solved
all that on the Democratic side, so I don't know what they're going to talk about, except
for life.
All they do is throw whatever they can against the wall and hopefully it sticks.
That's their whole plan.
And again, this all goes back to having a authoritarian dictator over a democracy.
And the Supreme Court has already moved us in that direction.
We need to win the House.
We need to win the Senate and we need to win the presidency so we can actually get the
agenda passed through that is the American people's agenda.
Right on, Tom, I always appreciate a good point, you know, it'd be nice to have some sort
of fact check.
Qualifying statements, I mean, we must be quote, bullet effect, sometimes here on the
show, there can be varying degrees of accuracy, right?
Some things are flat out pants on fire, some things that have some sense of truth, but
you know, are missing a few points.
So not everything I would say is exactly black and white.
I mean, this is a ton of gray in this world time, but that aside, if we can account for
that and have someone, some objective, right?
How are you going to, who's going to be the arbiter of that?
And certainly, whoever moderates the debate, if someone says the late great, you know, Hannibal
Lecter was a doctor in Florida and my best friend and, you know, acts like this fictional
character was like somehow true and has any relevance, certainly an obvious blatant
untruth like that should be called out by those who, quote, unquote, moderating.
You got to, if it's, if it's CBF, if it's CBS, if it's CNN, if it's the devil's advocates,
if you're with us and you're saying some trash, and you call me a six foot four black
band, I'm going to say, you know, that's absolutely false, sir, you know, so the audience
stalls, that's not the case, but there are, there can be some great areas, let's call
it Tom and how that goes handle, I think would be important, but I hear what you're saying,
eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
The Wall Street Journal also had a, an op ed talking about Kamal and what could possibly
happen if she gets elected. Let's get into this just briefly again, eight, four, four, nine,
six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine. This was from three days ago, the Senate takes on
the filibuster. Chuck Schumer says, he'll kill the six-year-old rule of Democrats control
the Senate, and Harris implies that she's on board. And I think to myself, yeah, yeah,
that's Kamal Harris soared over the messy details of policy this week, the gritty tooth was
delivered by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. If Democrats run the election table this
year, he said the 60-boat Senate filibuster rule is a goner. Again, this is the Wall Street
Journal opinion piece here at editorial board. Now, Democrats tried to make exceptions
to the filibuster after they won control of the 50-50 Senate in the 2021 Georgia run-offs.
Schumer's attempt to fell, attempt fell two votes short. The holdoffs being mentioned
and cinema. We got it up to 48. The Democratic leader said that this week, according to NBC,
cinema and mansion voted no. That's why we couldn't change the rules. Well, they're
both gone. Now, the Wall Street Journal editorial board says, yeah, that's for sure. The
pair were run out of the Senate and the Democratic Party for the apostasy of supporting the
filibuster as a barrier against runaway majorities. Oh, is that what it is? A barrier against runaway
majorities? Isn't majorities supposed to make the rules? I'm just wondering. The filibuster
isn't in the Constitution. They just decided to come up with a rule. Oh, I got a rule.
Let's make a new rule. Let's vote on the rule because we don't want the majority swinging
back and forth and back and forth. Okay. Why not? I continue. Schumer says that won't happen
again and looking at Democratic candidates. He's probably right. The Wall Street Journal editorial
board writes, the Democratic majority went up to 51 after the 2022 elections. Manchin,
seat in West Virginia is likely to go Republican this year, but cinema's Arizona is leaning
Democratic and the party's Senate candidate there. Rep. Ruben Gallego favors filibuster reform
and put reform in quotes. In other words, Schumer said, even losing mansion, we still have 50.
Now, they say this should put a chill into Republicans. Independence moderates and swing voters.
Oh, do tell Democrats claim they merely want to end the filibuster to protect abortion. Okay.
And voting rights. Yeah. Yet that would break it for good. The pressure would be immense to
add other exceptions, such as to restructure the Supreme Court. Make Washington DC a state with two
Democratic senators or ban right to work laws. I'm failing to see the downside on the so far
Wall Street board editorial. Ms. Harris gave a hint of where she stands in her Thursday speech
when she said that quote with the selection, we finally have the opportunity to pass the John Lewis
voting rights act and the freedom to vote act. Now, the editorial board goes on to say the only way
those can pass next year is if Democrats break the filibuster, this is the agenda of the Democrats.
Don't want voters to notice. I absolutely disagree editorial board notice. Yes, notice. That's why
you vote for the Democrats so they can get these things done. All this raises the stakes for the Senate
races this year was Virginia aside. Democrats are now leading in every toss up race except for
Montana. And there the incumbent John Tester is barely trailing his GOP challenger businessman Tim
Sheehy. Tester is refusing to endorse Harris to cover his progressive voting record and Schumer
will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to keep that seat. I know with Mr. Trump now trailing
in the presidential race, Senate control may determine how radical a Harris presidency would be
GOP candidates can sound the alarm according to the Wall Street Journal editorial board just a few days
ago. Listen, I don't know why you think this filibuster is so valuable. If a majority wins with a
regular majority, why not implement what the majority wants? And if the implementation, the plans
work and the people appreciate it and continue on with it, then it won't change. And if a bunch of
people come out and say, hey, you know what? We don't want that. That didn't work. Why was you
have to why the 60 and what do you got against the the the the the the Voting Rights Act? You don't
have to say it. I mean, I get that. Oh, yes, they're going to break it for good. They're going to
restructure the Supreme Court. Man, this restructure of Supreme Court guy Thomas his wife was involved
in the J6. Mass you send out emails trying to convince people to state legislatures to overthrow
the election. And dude took like four plus billion dollars and
drives. Oh, I'm sorry, gratuity. Are you kidding me? These guys are on the shake. There's no
reform needed for the Supreme Court Wall Street Journal. Protecting abortion, voting rights act.
Well, I get the abortion part of it. And DC to Democratic Senators doesn't Montana have two
Democratic Senators. They got like one area code. Folks, we have the Devil's Advocates. Your
calls next 844-967-2789.
When they go low, we get high. The Devil's Advocates.
Welcome back to the Devil's Advocates radio show. Happy Monday to us all. Thank you for listening.
We appreciate that. You can join us on the lines at 844-967-2789.
Wall Street Journal editorial boards op-ed from a couple of days ago warning about the dangers
of Kamala Harris and if the Dems take the House and Senate and they run the table,
they'll do away with the filibuster and oh my god, they might, you know, add Washington,
DC as the state with two Senators. And I would say, well, what about like Puerto Rico? But
that's that aside, right? Let's think about this for a minute. Now, my understanding of Washington,
DC as the population is about just under 700,000 people. Maybe I mean, that was from like 2022.
Now, Montana, Montana population, according to the interwebs, about 1.1 million.
All right, so 700, 1.5 million people less. So do they deserve representation in the Senate?
Do they? Yeah, I think they do. You know why? Because you want to talk about the population?
Why all mean? According to the webs, why all mean has about 580,000 people, the entire state.
The Washington, DC has more people than Wyoming. Washington, DC has no Senators,
no representation in federal government. Wyoming has 580,000 people and two Senators.
And apparently, the Wall Street Journal Auditorial Board has a problem with representation.
Why should those folks have some representation? Why not? Because why? Because they're going to be
democratic because it's generally liberal in DC. Is that the only reason? Editorial Board?
And the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, I mean, and doing something about this corrupt
U.S. Supreme Court, corrupt, corrupt to the core. Do it took 4 million dollars and gives
fortuities. Let's just call them bribes. What'd you get for it? Did you get any more
legislation? Decisions? I don't know. How would we know? We didn't even know that he got 4 million
dollars. Pro-publica did some great reporting on that fact. And what are they? We don't need any
sort of ethics rules. While the entire federal judiciary has rules with the exception of the U.S.
Supreme Court, if it's good enough for them, is it good enough for you?
Would they wrote in the Wall Street Journal editorial to me is the exact reason why
to vote for the Dems, to vote for Kamala Harris and vote for Walls? That's why.
Well, when you got against people getting represented, I get it. You're concerned of all the,
oh, you're going to expand the court or add a couple more senators. Yes, yes, things evolve.
And I get it. You know, rich old white men don't like things to evolve. They like things to say
just the way they were because it's good for them. But keeping people from the polls,
having people with no representation in the Senate, citizens of this country, having
having corrupted U.S. Supreme Court justices who can just take bags of money.
Does it matter if it's a if it's a free ride on the on the yacht or if he actually gave them
like the $500,000 it would have caused to have that trip? Do you make a distinction?
They're gold bars in the fridge. You know what I'm saying? Or packets of $100 bills in the gold bag?
Is there a difference? I don't think so.
So if you think that everything's just fine, just the way it is, we got it all figured out.
When we are that's a pinnacle of American democracy, nothing to see here move along.
Well, then then Trump's your guy. Then Megas, your group. What do you think that maybe we need
to continue on this effort? You know, this democracy is the living breathing thing. You know what I'm
saying? It doesn't, it doesn't, it needs to be nourished. It needs to be used and practice and
fermented and pushed and supported. These institutions are institutions. Same thing. They don't
exist outside of our minds, outside of our beliefs. They exist because they need to be supported
by the citizenry. They did, but believed by the citizenry. And when you have the situation of
the US Supreme Court right now, and that's the corruption. I mean, the precedent thing is also
a big problem, big divergence. So when the, when the Wall Street Journal says,
oh, these are things to be scared about. Maybe only if you're, you know, really scared of
old rich white men being able to get away with it and clear stomachs.
844-967-2789. Okay, policy. So policy, let's talk about the policy. Let's stop about the,
what what a majority would do if the filibuster goes away. I'm down with it. I mean, come on.
I don't, I don't know why we have the filibuster. And then we're going to go there. Let's hit the
electoral college as well. Let's, let's, let's reshape this. Let's make it more responsive and
reflective of the wish and the will of the American people. And if the American people change their mind,
then the American people change their mind. Oh, it's a, we don't want a majority swip of things
back and forth. Why? Because you got to work. That thing's really tough. Maybe you should make
sure you pass good bills. Well, there are some policy items that have come out here recently.
And we all, we all hear it. Y'all, what is going on here? It's going to debate when she's going to
put some policies out there. When, when she can do this, when she's going to do that? Well,
there, there are some things out there. And as NBC is reporting, not only are the Dems taking back
the freedom of mantle, reclaiming the flag, saying that values and character matter. Because,
you know, at the end of the day, folks, I don't care what you believe that taxpayers should be 90%
or taxpayers should be 1%. You know, if you, if you have terrible character and no value,
you'll get up and say whatever the hell you want. If there's, if there's no consistency in your
position, if there's no consistency in your argument, there's no consistency in your philosophy,
and you, you just go with the win because, you know, that's where the power is at.
Well, then, then, then you don't have the character. You don't have the consistency. You don't have
the values that you claim you do. They cannot be values. If you discard them at the first sign
of a little chopped up line of power that you can snort and get a little bit more of next time.
Those aren't values. Now, I've been, I've been believing we should be legal since we were in college.
Crew, did I got together, man? One of our, a love of the flower. You know what I'm saying?
And a lot of other folks too, love of the flower should be legal, should be absolutely legal.
There is nothing in this world in the 30 or 40 years I've been consuming this product that would
convince me otherwise. I know if Donald Trump come up, it's a dime. I'll give you a billion dollars.
I want you to come out against weed legalization. I would not take the money.
But apparently, I want to get a price. It was two billion. We'll see what happens. I got to pay taxes
on that. Unless you just give me vacations because then nobody pays taxes. Give me a break.
All right, 844-967-2789. Let's dive into some of the numbers at the NBC piece.
Who is the fiscal conservative? Is it Donald Trump or the Kamala Harris? 844-967-2789.
The Devil's Advocates. So relevant, they have one foot and tomorrow.
Welcome back to the Devil's Advocates. Radio show lines open, going there and it's just a tad.
Be patient. Call us. We will get to you. I promise, I promise, they 444-967-2789. If we
have enough time yet today, I want to play some of the highlights some of my favorite clips from
the convention. But there's been a big pushback from the righties and the mechanism of policy and
what's she going to do? Very vague. In the court of the criticism from Donald Trump, I'd
throw this center as a side. He was, oh, Kamala Harris was telling way too many stories of her
upbringing. I'm thinking, yeah, dude, she's introduced herself to the country. Everyone knows
you were born on third and thought you hit a triple. Come on, man. Everyone knows you, dude.
Everyone knows, and most people have an opinion of you. And I can tell you, mine isn't that great.
What I thought it was, I thought Kamala Harris did a great job and I appreciated the background,
the backstories. Yeah, those things matter, Trump. Some people love their family. I don't remember
you mentioning your mother or your father ever, ever. 844-967-2789 NBC News reporting.
Kamala Harris is endorsing trillions of dollars in new tax revenues to fund her new policy plans
and her campaign is attacking Trump or failing to outline how he'd pay for the multi-trillion
dollar agenda he's campaigning on. Oh, we're going to, it's a pay go. Is that what we're doing now?
Oh, let's read more. Harris campaign's spokesperson James Singer labeled Trump's agenda quote
an inflation and deficit bomb in a statement to NBC News sparking a Trump campaign response
blaming her for a Biden Harris inflation tax. According to nonpartisan estimates,
Harris is proposing to spend about two trillion dollars and raised five trillion in tax revenues
over a decade. Trump is calling for about five trillion in tax breaks and spending
while raising less than three trillion in revenue through tariffs. Hands down VP Harris is being
much more fiscally disciplined than Donald Trump said, Mark Zandee chief economist at Moody's
analytics. You know that lefty Moody's analytics corporation, right? It's a clear signal that
whatever the policies they plan to be fiscally disciplined and that is a bit of a flip historically
being fiscally disciplined and focused on budget deficits have been a Republican rally cry.
Yeah, historically, a Harris campaign spokesperson says she supports the five trillion
in new tax revenues in the White House budget released in March, including a corporate tax rate hike
from 21% to 28% ending the Trump tax cuts for upper earners next year and an array of taxes on
wealthier Americans. Now Harris plans aimed at lowering housing, childcare and prescription drug
prices that would cost about 1.7 trillion, according to the committee for a responsible federal budget,
a research group that calls for cutting red ink. Now Zandee agreed with that estimate saying the
new Harris plans with total 1.5 million to a high end of two trillion before the offset. So at
the very least, she should have about three trillion dollars in deficit reduction over the 10-year
budget horizon. I can't recall a deficit reduction package that plum comes even close to that.
Says the dude from Moody's analytics. Now Harris is seeking to flip the script on fiscal
responsibility and build a permission structure for Trump's skeptical moderate Republicans
and center rate voters to support her candidacy, particularly in key swing states where they could
be decisive, think Wisconsin. She has disavowed some left-wing proposals she endorsed in 2019 as
a presidential candidate, plus she's Medicare for all and a green new deal. Mark Goldwin,
senior policy director for a committee for responsible federal budget caution that the Harris
campaign hasn't earmarked all the three trillion dollars for deficit reduction. They've also
pointed to that they're going to have plans on childcare, long-term care, and paid leave.
And he noted extending Trump's tax cuts for lower earners in 2025 would also offset
for revenue razors. We just haven't seen the poll full plan yet. But we've got a sense, right?
And there's other things there and there that could cost some money. That haven't been
been, you know, equal out yet. But we got a we got a framework at least. That wasn't what about
Trump. Trump and his campaign had been calling for extending the 2017 tax cuts. I would
mention those are unpaid for, as well as eliminating payroll taxes on social security,
nixing tapes on tips, and boosting childcare credit to $5,000. Taking together his plans would
cost about $5 trillion, as Andy said. Now, as Friday and Vegas, how he would pay for the plans,
Trump told reporters, growth, we're going to have tremendous growth. We're going to have
tremendous growth. What can you say at three times in a row, Trump? Does it really happen?
Where's Dr. Evil Secret Layer? Where's Dr. Evil Secret Layer? Where's Dr. Evil Secret Layer?
We come on. Isn't that they're always there? We're going to grow out of it, right? I mean,
that's a trickle down. Oh, I've got a trickle down. He could have tax cuts to the wealthy. And
when a girl is going to expand, we're going to grow our way out of it. What does that ever happen?
Now, Goldway said that is on a serious proposition. Did we mention Trump as an unserious candidate?
Tremendous growth sounds like a great idea. I don't know why we didn't do that in all previous
administrations. But no, you're not going to grow your way out of this.
There we go. Trump's one big proposal to raise revenue for the government is through new taxes
on imported goods, a 10% worldwide tariff and 60% tariff on Chinese imports. Xandia projected
that would bring in as much as 2.5 trillion in revenue. The tax policy center estimated that Trump's
tariffs would raise 2.8 trillion in revenue, slashing imports by 15%. Now, Goldway and add to the
Trump's tariffs and mass deportation policies could shrink growth even as some of his proposed
tax cuts are good for economic growth. Another quote. So as a starting point, if you look at his
whole agenda, the direction isn't even clear. It could be pro growth or anti-grill. But the
magnitude is definitely not going to be such that it's so pro growth that it covers trillions of
trillions and trillions of dollars of spending an additional borrowing. So whoever wins the election
Congress is headed for a major tax debate next year with much of the 2017 Trump tax cuts set
to expire at the end of 2025. It's unclear which parts will be extended.
And finally, Trump's Harris campaign calls Trump's plan an inflation and deficit bomb.
Singer predicted higher deficits under Trump's plan would ultimately be covered by ordinary Americans.
Yeah, think about this. Donald Trump won't pay for his agenda, but the middle class will,
with higher costs, cost of Social Security and Medicare and less economic and opportunity.
Singer said in an email that contrasts Harris will make billionaires and big corporations pay
their first share while she builds up the middle class. In response, Trump campaign spokesperson
person, Caroline Levitt accused the Biden Harris administration of engaging in reckless spending
and saying America faces an inflationary spending problem, not a revenue problem.
That's the one way to look at it. There's two sides of the equation though. Yo,
she indicated that Trump would seek to boost US oil production and exports even.
And they've reached all time highs under the Biden administration. I mean,
drill baby drills already happening. And I, you know, that's great for the climate,
but okay. And Trump's going to do it more because how in what policy exactly,
drill baby drill, oh, don't forget. I mean, dictator for a day is going to bring in tons of money
because we're a dictator for a day. You just go take stuff, right? Because that's what dictators do.
I love it said President Trump will cut wasteful government spending to make America a net
exporter of energy again to help balance our nation's budget pay off our mounting debt.
Trump also means about cutting taxes further on individuals and businesses next year,
which would raise his red ink estimates. Now, Sandy said that Trump 2017 tax cut did lift
growth in terms of corporate investments, but it didn't come close to paying for itself.
And that extending them would add more red ink. There's no way he's going to get that kind of
growth. The deficit finance tax cuts just don't pay for themselves. Sandy from Moody's,
the deficit finance tax cuts just don't pay for themselves. 844-967-2789. So,
we've got a little little samples here of what Trump's thinking to do and what the Harris
presidency would do. What would you do? Where are you at? 844-967-2789. Let's get to some patient
callers. Cam from Appleton, Wisconsin. Thank you, Cam. What do you got for us?
Hey, I think a lot of people unfortunately missed out on 8. I think it was a 12-year-old
was arguing with Mike Lindell in public over. I don't even know what nonsense it was.
It was over-foting like illegal balance in Georgia and Lindell was like, oh, you're
Georgia. You read your newspapers. There's thousands of thousands. You read your newspapers.
And the 12-year-old kid was like, so what, you're convincing me is trust me, bro?
I mean, that's your evidence. Trust me, bro. A 12-year-old, I mean, push back. It was amazing.
Yeah, yeah. And it's hard to recognize Lindell, man. He went incognito. He shaved off the
mustache, put on a hat. He'd be like, crudy without the red hat and the goatee. He wouldn't
recognize the guy. Well, so that was kind of weird, right? Because
Lindell, I don't know if that took place at the DNC or what, but I know Matt Walsh was
crawling around at the DNC and so is Charlie Kirk and a couple of his friends. I don't know how the
distribute credentials for folks like them to go, but I don't know. I don't know why anyone
would give them the time of day. They've done nothing but be irresponsible with the platform.
No doubt, Cam. I totally get that now. Who knows? I don't know how they got them. I mean,
civic media hooked it all up for us. So that's all I know. I don't know how those cats got them,
but you know, I don't object to it necessarily. I mean, if you want to go to the DNC and get lit
up by a 12-year-old Michael Lindell, knock yourself out. Kind of tells you where you're coming from.
Thank you, Cam, for the call 844-967-2789. Mike from St. Paul, Minnesota. Welcome to the show, Mike.
What do you got for us? Hey, yeah, I was thinking about the billbuster and I was thinking about a
population weighted billbuster and basically it would be if California has a, each
senator has a one vote now, but if California has more population, it would be given more
votes based on its population and say North Dakota would be given less votes based on its
population so that the 40% rule, they don't have to get 40% of the centers from that population to
cancel the bill. So that's my question. Yeah, I mean, I, I, I, I, I, I, I like what you're saying,
Mike, I get what you're saying, but wouldn't I just kind of take away from the whole, the value of
the two senators per state? I mean, you know, California is the largest population of
popular state in the states, they get two senators, you know, Montana and Wyoming, you know,
they each get two senators, you know, I'm saying, and DC's got more, more population, and I think
Wyoming does. So I hear what you're saying, I, why not then just have the, have the population,
you know, derived the number of senators you get, you know, I'm saying, this is the way,
this is the way you're getting around the billbuster, but these, well, the why have,
but Mike, why have they fill a buster? I mean, why do you think, are you in favor of keeping
the filibuster? Why not just, you know, 50%, 50%, plus one, 51 votes? Why, why is that a bad thing?
And you're, well, I'm just being pragmatic because then we'll give local water for saying,
you know, majority is writing rough shots, but if the senators from, say, North Dakota has like
a half of votes, consider, you know, and all those, they don't have to get a majority of
small, small population states together to defeat the bill, and then they still, maybe in their
mind, consider that fair at all. Yeah, that's a tough one, Mike. Thanks for the compliment.
I do appreciate it. You know, I mean, I get the sense that, you know, you don't want, you know,
California, Texas and New York determining the laws for all the land. You know what I'm saying?
I mean, if everything was just based on the population, but also I'm not clear why, why the,
the fear of not having the filibuster, the thing is the rule, it wasn't always there,
it's not in the constitution, it could very easily not be there. If the concern is that,
you know, the majority runs roughshod, well, it's 51%, you know, 51, 49, it's a majority.
If you're going to want change in this country to be effective, why you putting up a false barrier
of 60 votes, when I 65, when I 55, you know what I mean? Oh, it's a two third way, we came up well,
oh, you could come up with any number, it's arbitrary. And to me, I would think, like, if it's,
if it's the majority, if it's 51%, 50 plus one, and it's only 100 senators, right? If it's over
50, that's, that's what happens. Those, those people who voted in those senators and those senators,
presumably did the will of the people, and there's 51 or more that want X, Y, or Z done,
welcome to the will of the people. And if, if the next election cycle of the other team gets
ahead and they want to redo something or make a new law or, you know, give some tax breaks or
give some tax cuts, then you know what, then you do it again. Oh, it's going to be up and down,
changing all the time. Yeah, it's government. It's like work. Maybe you wouldn't campaign for
most of the year. You'd have to like show up and do something. And also while we're at the
short in the campaigns, like 30, maybe 90 days, you know, come on. This is by the glorious campaign.
I can't wait for it to be over. Doesn't need to be years long, man. I get it. Trump's never stopped
running. Well, he's always running from the man, but he's not always running to be the man. So
he doesn't have to be caught by the man and do what the man tells him to do. I'm telling you to
call the devil's advocate one more segment for your take 844-967-2789.
For political junkies and freeway.
Thank you for listening to the devil's advocate's radio show last statement of the day. If you
got something to say, hit us up right now, 844-967-2789. Rich will screen the calls and we'll get you
on the air. While the show actually went kind of fast. Rich, thanks for the work. I do want to get
a couple of the sound bites out there. Strong black women, man, Oprah, Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris.
To me, we're the most impactful, I mean, just best speeches I've heard given at a political
at the DNC. I've never seen that before, never heard that before. And I think it's important to
highlight. This is historic, not only historic because of course, Kamala Harris, but these
strong black women getting up on that stage and telling you what it's like, getting stuff done.
I thought it was great. And I want to highlight just a few of them that I really liked.
Rich will start with Oprah cut number four. And I didn't notice when she said this. She was
always, she was an independent. That's kind of assumed she was always a Democrat, but you know,
who knows, using the independent? Let's hear what she had to say, cut four. I'm calling on all
you independence and all you undecideds. You know, this is true. You know, I'm telling you the truth
that values and character matter most of all. Yeah. Yes, they do. Oprah, they matter. They matter.
And it's on the ballot decencies on the ballot. Cut number five, please. Decency and respect
are on the ballot in 2024. Decency, respect, character and values. Are those any attributes that you
would give to Donald Trump? I mean, for real, when you, when you look at Donald Trump, and there's
a, there's an outfit. And I didn't get to this today, maybe tomorrow. I think it was at Rich
Lara from the National Review. God is opinion posted at the New York Times saying like Donald Trump
can win a character. And it's just been, he's just getting his ass handed to on the social media.
It's always the New York Times. Why are you putting this up? But we'll get there tomorrow. Not time
today. Man, I wish we had another hour. Let's keep a couple more from some of my favorite
speeches. Oprah talking about the cat lady cuts six plays. And if the place plays happens to belong
to a childless cat lady. Well, we try to get that cat out too.
I love the cat lady comments. And I think we have one more from Oprah cut number seven. See,
if this reminds you of anybody, cut seven please, Rich. When we stand together, it is impossible to
conquer us. You know, our pal, the very comparable Maggie Don, she signs off talking about
standing together. And I thought, as soon as I heard that I thought I'm Maggie, let's go move on
to Michelle Obama. Hope making a comeback. Don't call it a comeback. It's ready for years, cut nine.
America. Hope is making a comeback. Yeah, Michelle cut talent. Let's keep going.
Kamala Harris is more than ready for this moment. She is one of the most qualified people ever to seek
the office of the presidency. Yeah, you think just start to turn in California,
Attorney General California, largest state in the country, like fifth largest economy in the world.
Elected, Senator, California, vice president. Yeah, that seems pretty qualified. I'll
just keep a couple more. Go vote, cut 11. This election is going to be close. In some states,
just a handful, listen to me, a handful of votes in every precinct could decide the winner.
So we need to vote in numbers that have raised any doubt.
Yes, indeed. And that would be, if this thing is going to be close, but what if it wasn't?
What if it's a blowout? I mean, you got to act like you're losing. You know what I'm saying?
You got to keep in that mentality. But boy, it would really send a signal if it was a blowout.
One more, the best one from the former first lady, cut 12, please.
His limited narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of too hard work
and highly educated, successful people who happen to be black.
I want to know who's going to tell him who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking
might just be one of those black jobs.
That crowd was off the hook. Let's go to some VP Harris. If you would,
Rachel, it might take you a second to pull up. I understand. Take your time. If we get to it,
that's great. When Kamala Harris accepts the nomination, again, the introductions by all the folks,
it was just it was a crowd was into it. There was hope. There was energy. Let's hear the history
of Kamala Harris accepting the nomination. On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written
in the greatest nation on earth. I accept your nomination to be president of the United States of America.
Fantastic. I think we're going to two more if we can't reach the Trump is not serious. Now,
we reference this of a new republic piece, Michael Tomaski saying ridicule them. That's what gets
under his skin, specifically Trump. Let's hear what VP Harris had to say. In many ways,
Donald Trump is an unserious man. But the consequences, but the consequences of putting Donald
Trump back in the White House are extremely serious. And the last one, if you would, please
reach out of their minds. Let's do the longer 21 seconds, please.
Oh, we don't have it. Oh, man. That was the best one. When when Harris is talking about
of the Republicans wanting to what set up a committee to track your track abortions in states,
they are out of their minds. Folks, we are the devil's Africa. Thank you for hanging out with me.
Thank you for listening. Groody back tomorrow. I expect the same from you as well. Have a great
night. We'll see you then.
