Back to episode — Episode 3016 CWSA 11/12/25
Context —
give the Democrats advice, you know, be it accidental, but I'm going to give you some persuasion lessons here, and if any of them are listening, maybe they'll learn something, but I doubt it. So a lot of people on the Democrat side are saying that what the Democrats need is a fighter. You've heard that, right? Every time they talk, it's like, no, we need a fighter. A fighter. We got to fight. Do…
← Previous segment →now what you're talking about. Policies? Never heard of them. Fight, fight, fight. You got to fight, fight, fight.
And whoever does the best acting job of being a fighter will be the standard bearer for the Democrats probably. They're so not on the right page. The right page is not to do a theatrical rendition of a play that you call the fighter. That's not what anybody's asking for. They actually want some health care, a budget that makes sense and doesn't break the bank, you know, like to protect that border, get the crime down.
Yeah. You know, it's another thing that I hate is when somebody chews up airtime like I just did, listing the things that you could have listed yourself. How much do you hate that? You'll be watching the show and somebody will go, "I think the Democrats they need to work on health care," and then you're like, don't list all the things that they need to work on. Got to work on the crime. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. We know what the list is. Got to make sure the border is secure. Stop it. Stop it. You're wasting my time.
All right. That's what kind of a day it is.
I would also say that whoever came up with that fighter thing, I don't know if that's a professional, that may have grown organically, but I'll tell you what does look like professional work is you may have seen Hakeem Jeffries. He did a little video in which he said that the entire Republican power structure is corrupt and then he went through and he was asked about that and he said that the Republican Congress is corrupt, the president is corrupt and then he said the Supreme Court is corrupt. But what he really meant was when asked about it is that Justice Thomas and Alito in his opinion crossed some kind of ethical boundary by at least in one case accepting a trip with one of his best friends. Like he went on one of his billionaire best friends' boat and the billionaire paid for the vacation which is sort of just what your billionaire friend is going to do anyway. So you could argue whether that should or should not happen, but how do you tell a Supreme Court guy he can't hang out with his best friend? They weren't strangers. It was actually one of his best friends.
So anyway, my point is that when corruption was chosen, that looks like professional work of a persuader. And what I mean by that is that when you see them pick things like dark, remember in the Hillary Clinton race, she goes, "Oh, everything Trump says is dark." The reason that works so well for them is that you don't have to do much thinking. You can take everything that Trump says, just everything, go, "Well, that was a dark take." Even if it isn't, it doesn't even matter if it's a dark take. You just call everything dark.
Corruption is one of those things too because you can't really prove it in any given moment, but you can just throw those accusations out there and everything sticks. I'll bet you can't even think of a certain topic, any topic that you couldn't at least throw into the corruption pile. Maybe abortion is an exception. But everything else you could say, "Oh, he just wants to make his cronies richer. Oh, tax policy. Oh, that's about his cronies. Oh, the Supreme Court. We need to pack it. That's the reason we need to pack it with 13 because otherwise they'll be corrupt and they'll be taking vacations with their friends and everything."
I mean there's a slippery slope situation. If you let Justice Thomas take a vacation with one of his best friends and his best friend helps pay for it because he happens to be a billionaire. If you let that happen, where's it going to end up? Well, obviously they're gonna take two vacations per year. Start with one, you're like, test the water. Next thing you know, two vacations. Now, the republic might survive a Supreme Court member taking one vacation with his friend per year. But people, how would we ever survive if he took two? And do you realize how quickly it could go from one to two? That's only one more than one. This is a real danger. And I think Hakeem Jeffries needs to warn us about it some more. There's going to be some corruption. Some corruption.
You know, I have this bad habit of casting people in movies that don't exist. And whenever I see Hakeem, I want him to play the part of death in a movie. You know death always wears the black robe and has the whatever that thing is for cutting grass. Scythe. Scythe. Because you can imagine death walking into the room in this movie and the face is ent
Context —
irely concealed by the shadows. Notice how I avoided saying black so it didn't sound racist. And then he takes down the hood and his face and you're like, "Ah, grim reaper. The grim reaper. He would be the best grim reaper ever." All right. Well, as you know, Turning Point USA had an event in Berkeley, UC Berkeley, and there was some dusting up and some people got roughed up and there was a littl…
Next segment → →