 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had this snarky message for voters unhappy about their choices at the ballot box this November. Let's watch. But it's Biden versus Trump. And we know that. Yes, it is. It is. What do you say to voters who are upset that those are the two choices? Get over yourself, those are the two choices. Yeah, I love that. And, you know, it's kind of like one is old and effective and compassionate, has a heart and really cares about people. And one is old and has been charged with 91 felonies. Yeah, OK. I mean. OK, interesting. Meanwhile, over the view, actress Kira Sedgwick told poor Americans to put their concerns about the economy aside, suck it up, and vote for Joe Biden. We are better off than we were four years ago. Many of us in many different ways. Yes, I know certain things, you know, inflation are still like an issue for people. 100%. But we've got some serious issues on the line here. No surprises there. A member of Hollywood wants you to hold your nose and vote for Biden. And Hillary Clinton delivering, I think, a very textbook answer for her, then almost evincing, I would say, a kind of contempt for Americans. You hear her say about the election, I guess we have to have an election. I guess we have to, like, ostensibly on paper let people choose some option other than Joe Biden if they're so inclined, but she clearly doesn't like that. She is just so detestable in so many ways, truly. Yes. For her to tell other people to get over themselves when she has been completely unable to get over herself for the past, what is it, eight years now is truly hysterical. And this, of course, is the woman who called Americans deplorables when they didn't want to vote for her. So it's not surprising to see her take this attitude towards them. And still. And a woman who called the 2016 election illegitimate said Trump was an illegitimate president, which I'm trying to remind people of now. I wrote about it in my newsletter this week, because they have made denying the election, the mainstream media now treats denying the election like a capital offense. Ronald McDaniel not ultimately going to be on cable news because Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough and everyone else revolted against her getting a job on MSNBC because of the things she said about the election. I do think many of the things she said about the election were bad takes, were bad opinions, just like many of the takes offered all the time on cable news are bad takes. But when they take this position that that is beyond the pale, they have to reckon with the fact that would they not give Hillary Clinton a position? And I'm not saying Hillary Clinton did not do the same things as Donald Trump, but she did express the same sentiment at least as Ronald McDaniel and then some. Well, and she literally hired an opposition research firm that was getting Russian misinformation, which is like the Democrats' biggest fear in the world against her political opponent and then workshopped it to the FBI, who then leaked it to the media, who then used the media stories to spy on Trump officials in the campaign and in the White House. I mean, it's just craziness to hear them have this double standard so openly. I mean, there are Democrats who still don't accept the results of the 2000 election. You had Stacey Abrams create a nonprofit out of the idea that her gubernatorial election in Georgia was stolen from her. And I think it's great that we have these two clips together because you hear Hillary Clinton say what she said about Americans after denying her loss in 2016. And then Kira Sedgwick, of course, is alluding to these bigger issues beyond the economy, which is the whole move from the left in this election is to paint Trump as this unique threat to democracy. That's sort of the bigger issue that she's alluding to. Yeah, and it's clearly just not working because if you poll Americans right now on a whole number of issues, Donald Trump is actually beating Joe Biden. So trying to focus on the election part of the threat to democracy isn't working. And I think it's frankly not persuasive because then they have to contend with the fact that this is not like coming from Joe Biden himself but Democratic leading judges, judicial system tried to keep Trump off the ballot. They're saying democracy's at stake, but on some level I think they come across as the side who is trying to prevent you from even having the other person to vote for. And I say the other person, even though unlike what Hillary Clinton said in her opening remarks, there will not be just two people on the ballot. There will be RFK Junior as well. There will be a Green Party candidate. There will be a Libertarian Party candidate. There will be some other candidates. And I don't think Americans should feel like they actually have to suck it up and vote for one of the two major party candidates if they're not inclined to. And she's kind of trying to write off people's dissatisfaction even within the parties. Like there are a lot of Republicans who wanted someone else than Donald Trump this time who think that he's a hard sell because they've looked at the polling to moderate and swing voters in a bunch of the middle ground states. And there are a ton of Democrats who think Joe Biden is just way too old to be president again, even if they liked him to begin with or like his policies. And there's a contingent of progressives which within the Democratic Party that voted uncommitted in the primary in the goal of having a protest vote against the administration's policy in Israel and Gaza. And there's a New York Times poll that really short up your point about democracy and how it cuts both ways because they found that it was basically barely a top five issue for voters. But most importantly, it was pretty split between whether voters trusted Trump or Joe Biden more on the quote unquote issue of democracy. So when they're running on preserving or protecting democracy, that means different things to different people. It's not just reflexively when you say, oh, protecting democracy, that means saving it from the fascist orange man. But it also means protecting Americans from an overreaching DOJ or protecting Americans from big tech in government in bed with one another or major corporations, perhaps working directly with the government to reduce regulations on them or change regulations in a way that benefit them against the American people. So there's all of these other elements to it. You're gonna reduce all those regulations. Not selectively. I know you do. Yes. Oh, all at once. Yeah, we're gonna follow them. Not favoring a specific firm. Well, hey, Trump was great on reducing regulation. Sure. Well, and that's why the economy was pretty great back then. And Kira Sedgwick alludes to that saying, things are not perfect because of inflation or whatever, but you gotta remember how much better you are today than you were four years ago. Well, I'm sorry. In four years ago, we were in the middle of an awful pandemic where all of society had been destabilized and you had supply chain issues and people like four years ago, people were still working from home and majorly impacted by COVID. Am I doing my timeline right four years ago? It was like before this is at the start of COVID, right? That's right. We're about to go through this whole thing. So to compare that to just saying like, Joe Biden fixed what a series of totally, once in a century pandemic created. So he doesn't, I don't think he gets credit for, we're now like not as bad off as we were then. Obviously we were eventually going to overcome this. The question really is, are we as good as we were back when business was really humming in the, in the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 period and inflation was way down and unemployment was down. And that's gonna be, that question is gonna be on voters mind. It's not really, are you better off now than you were gripping literally death, staring it down the face? Well, and frankly also it should be a comparison between what would have happened with what Biden did when he took office for the economy versus what would have happened if he had done nothing. And I think there's a legitimate argument that things would be better if he had done nothing because he continued to inject billions and trillions of dollars into an economy that was already set to suffer from massive inflation. I think there's an argument to be made that his pushing for the Inflation Reduction Act and these infrastructure bills actually made things much worse. Yeah, I should say, I don't know that Trump's economic plans are gonna be all that great either. Unfortunately there's major continuity between the two on some of their trade policies and protectionism and building, wanting to build microchip factories here that can't even get off the ground because there's way too many like DEI requirements and actually having to build the factory and the labor shortage and all the rest. Like we have not reduced these regulations and I don't know that Trump is up to the task of doing that. Yeah, maybe not. You're right, he does wanna continue the trade war, although I'm sure we disagree on whether or not that's a good thing. I think we should make microchips here for national security reasons. Well, I think it'd be a great idea to make them here but are we willing to like make it cost effective to actually build them here beyond just, we wanna subsidize it but it's still impossible to do it because there's all the environmental regulations and the labor regulations and everything else. I think it'd be great, yes, for national security reasons if they can be built cheaply elsewhere or maybe not even America, just like somewhere else in a friendly part of the world. That's not China. Fine, but are we willing as policy makers, as a people, to have the policies that would actually foster that instead of just like, oh, we'll write them a check and then they'll build them here and then there's so much red tape they still can't do it. Yeah, no, I agree with that. Definitely reducing regulations would be a great way to bring some of these businesses home, reducing their tax burden especially and then at the same time, our government still purchases, I think 90% of their chips from these Chinese or Taiwanese companies that of course are probably under the thumb of China in the first place. So one of the bills that Trump was supposed to pass and didn't and I think was what Biden actually ended up trying to pass and then turned it into this DEI monster nightmare was the government should actually have to purchase its chips from Made in America factories which would help incentivize companies bringing those chips back here. All right, we'll continue to debate that at a later date. More of the show right after this.