Back to episode — Episode 2569 CWSA 08/17/24
Context —
aiming is ordinary for him, is that an overclaim? It doesn't feel like it. It really doesn't feel like an overclaim. I think he could reduce energy costs by 50 percent. Supply and demand. Why does Trump's plan look as aggressive as it is? Why does it look like it could work and probably would work? Because it properly understands the free market. It properly understands the free market. That's it…
← Previous segment →ns, first we're going to get the dangerous criminals to the extent we can identify them. So we'll do the dangerous people first. And then our second wave will be anybody who voted illegally because we can't have that disruption in our system.
I think America would say all right well maybe we like or don't like the deportations but if you're going to do it in that order that does make sense. So you might not like the whole thing but the order of it would make sense. Get rid of the violent ones first and then the ones who voted. Now I think you could take the risk of them voting down to not important. You know it wouldn't change any swing state. But the risk of having ballots that they could have voted and having hundreds of thousands of them in one swing state, that's the whole election right there.
So I don't know if the attorney generals are doing something that would have an impact on the availability of the ballots but that's the whole game I think. It's not whether they actually vote.
All right, the House Oversight Committee — oh this is Comer. I knew Comer was in the news. The House Oversight Committee led by Comer is investigating all the ties that Walz has to communist China. Daily Wire is reporting that. Do you think that's fair and legitimate and good that the government is investigating Walz because of his many connections to China? I have a bit of a mixed feeling about that. On one hand it raises every red flag in the world and certainly you don't want to elect somebody who's number two who's owned by China. So yes it's important. But it looks a little like looking for a crime. Are you okay with that? Are you okay with your government not seeing a crime but if they dig around enough they might find one? Are you okay with that? Because that's not a standard you want to apply to you. I've got a little problem with it.
Now it seems to me that if there's any kind of an investigation it should be done by — wouldn't it be the FBI? If the FBI thought that there was foreign influence on an American politician, isn't that their job to look into it? Now if the FBI were looking into it because it's just an obvious thing you'd look into and they just sort of
Context —
do their behind the scenes investigation to see if there's anything to worry about, I feel like that's more legitimate. Because to me that does sound like what their job is. It's like oh we've got a suspicion of the worst thing that could happen, you know Chinese influence over an American potential president. And sure they should look into it. But I don't know if anybody else should. I'm a little…
Next segment → →