The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Huffington Post Writers and Godfrey

Episode Date: August 31, 2016

Huffington Post Writers and Godfrey

You're listening to The Comedy Cellar, live from the table, on the Riotcast Network, riotcast.com. Okay, so good evening everybody, welcome to The Comedy Cellar show here on XM Channel 99, The Comedy Channel. It smells... I was going to say, how do you have gum again? I'm sorry. We're here with, of course, Mr. Dan Natterman, Krista Montella. We are doing our political section. Yes, sir. I just Natterman, Krista Montella. We are doing our political section.

Yes, sir. I just want to say that Krista Montella just ordered food, and it smells like foot. Sorry. She didn't order here. No, because our kitchen is under construction. She didn't order here because the kitchen is under construction. It will be finished in short order, I'm told, by September. We can look forward to a new kitchen.

Meanwhile, I don't know what on earth Montella won't have to order foot food anymore. Montella ordered. All right. And what dumpster she took it from. I want to say that although Dan... And you guys know Dan is a famous comedian. Well, he's not famous. He almost won America's Got Talent. He was in the semifinals, and I'm not famous.

But Dan, for some reason, doesn't understand that the same people who are very interested in comedy are also aware that there's a presidential election going on and that it's quite interesting to everybody all over the world. Right, but they can certainly get their fill of it in many other

channels. But not with my insights. Oh, okay. Now we've come down to it. Noam is under the impression that he brings particular insight into it, which is fair if true. I can introduce these guys, but I want to tell you the comedy seller is obsessed with politics. The comedians, when they're sitting at the table, all we talk about is politics. Sometimes they talk about sports and I leave the table and I don't know what happened there so much. But other than that, it's all about politics. Well, that's sports and I leave the table and I don't know what happened there so much. But other than that,

it's all about politics. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. To say that all we talk about is politics, or even that most of what we talk about is politics. Well, when I'm there, they are. Oh, well, when you're there you precipitate the conversation. And of course the tough crowd, the Colin Quinn show on Comedy Central, tough crowd, was inspired

by the political conversations at this very table in the Comedy Cellar. So it is very much a part of our DNA here. So we're joined by Tyler Kincaid, senior editor-reporter at the Huffington Post. Tyler, would you like to... Which one is

Tyler? I don't know. No, it's me. Oh, I should have known that. Here's his picture. He's the whiter of the two. I mean, if anybody's going to be a Tyler Kincaid, it's this guy. Do I look like a Tyler Kincaid? Well, more so than the other fellow, who looks more like... Let's just start off with a racist remark, Dan.

I like that... Well, you assume it's racist because I'm acknowledging our gorgeous diversity? No, I don't. If he said to me, well, you look sort of like a Yitzhak... Perlman. I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but I couldn't say it was racist. All right. And the second guest is Oliver Darcy, who is politics editor at Business Insider.

Business Insider is actually a website that has come into my radar in the last year, and they're making quite a name for themselves. A lot of Business Insider-like viral articles and stuff like that, so whatever you guys are doing, you're breaking through, and it can't be easy. So you guys must be proud about that. Yeah, and a lot of it, I think, has to do with the fact that this election is so viral, right? It's everything that Donald Trump says is going crazy on the Internet, and we're trying to take advantage of that.

So let's start with, I thought from the very beginning that the explanation of Trump is that he's a vulgar guy with no filter. So a handicapped guy makes fun of him. He comes back with handicap. Rosie O'Donnell makes fun of him. He comes back with you're a pig. But people always try to universalize it. Like, oh, he's misogynist. Oh, he hates handy guys. I never saw any of that. He makes fun of Rand Paul's hair.

It's just whatever vulgar thought he has just comes out of his mouth. Even the Muslim ban, I wonder if he even thought of that five seconds before it came out of his mouth. You know, he just, whatever blurts out. So now this joke about the judges, you know, like at the table, I could see somebody making that joke right here. Well, except

the Second Amendment. And we'd all laugh and know that the guy didn't mean anything by it. It's kind of a funny connection in your brain and kind of a gallows humor joke. But you can't say that as presidential candidate. And then, when they were comparing him to Hitler, I'm like, no, you're not giving Hitler enough credit.

I mean, Hitler was dedicated. He was planning. And I thought I was vindicated because the Hitler thing has basically faded away. When was the last time you heard anybody comparing him to Hitler? But if you really believe somebody's Hitler, that's kind of a criticism that doesn't fade away, right? Like, you know, like, he's Hitler, he's Hitler, he's Hitler,

but did you hear what he said about Hitler? No, if you think somebody's Hitler, then that stays as the main, like, nothing should be able to push that off the main criticism if you really think somebody's Hitler. So, I don't know, what do you guys think about what I'm saying? Well, I think talking about the Second Amendment comment that he made, I think it was clearly a joke, right?

I mean, he wasn't actually saying that people should come up in arms against the government but i think that the joke still alarmed a lot of people who are telling him hey you need to calm the rhetoric down it's it's already tense enough and now you're making jokes about the second amendment people coming in and possibly stopping clinton from nominating these judges which i think was the sort of the problem it just shows what a jackass he is, right? Does it show more than that? I think the voters have to decide do they want the crazy uncle jackass as president or do they want a steady hand?

It might be entertaining for a little bit to watch the crazy uncle throw out these insults and you laugh a little bit, but then it comes down to November when you're casting your vote. Is it fair to say that the question comes down to a fast move versus a slow groove? Okay.

What do you mean by that? That's just a Pointed Sisters song. It's not a fast move, but a slow groove. It's like a Tourette's thing. He said a steady hand versus out. So I related it to the Pointed Sisters song. I thought that would be funny. So Tyler, you agree with that?

Because I just feel like the press hates him. They do. And they're always trying to make him... To me, it's enough that you're a jackass and vulgar. You should not be president. Nothing is good if that's the way you are. That's the kind of comment that I think in another election, if a Senate candidate had made it,

it would have become national news. And that would have probably characterized their whole campaign and would have been beaten over their head for months. Like when Hillary made the Bobby Kennedy remark, which people took to mean kind of could encourage somebody to assassinate Obama. Remember that? I mean, like you do remember that. Yeah. So so that. But but You do remember that? Yeah. So that? But it's like... That was allowed?

But with Donald Trump, something else is going to come out tomorrow. No, but I'm saying, would it really characterize somebody? Because Hillary made a similar remark. I mean, it wasn't a joke, but it was news for a while, and then it faded away.

Everybody knew she didn't mean anything by it, or at least, I don't think she meant anything by it. Again, she made a connection in her head. I'm sure at the time, they were asking, why are you staying in the race? And I'm sure behind closed doors, they were saying, listen, you don't get out of the race

because anything could happen. And here's a few examples. So she just blurts it out. Well, Bobby Kennedy got shot. I don't know. I just, and I see you doing it now. I think you guys are always trying to pile on. I'm not supporting Trump. I just always find myself, like, there was an article

in the Times about the front page of the New York Times about this joke he made about the baby. When I read it, I laughed out loud. Then I realized, oh, wait, this is a bad thing he did. Like, really? This is front page news in the New York Times? A joke that my father would have made the same joke at a meeting of the staff, and everybody would have laughed.

He just doesn't know. It doesn't play the same way to the audience of the electorate. Right. Well, I mean, like, I think people still remember what Barack Obama said in 2008 when he was campaigning ahead of the Pennsylvania primary and saying that people who are like their guns and their religion, they get bitter and they cling to their guns and their religion. Uh, you know, people still remember that, but with Donald Trump, there's so many things that are just thrown out

the wall constantly that anything that, you know, a comment like this about people potentially using the second amendment. Um, I think it goes away pretty quickly by whatever else he's going to say tomorrow or next week but we we also need to stop you you mentioned that the press is constantly out to get donald trump this is exactly what he wants right this is he's saying these things because he wants to generate controversy because he knows controversy sells giving them too much credit and uh it's not like he attacks the media but without the media he would have no actual campaign because he's not, he spent exactly $0 on campaigning

at this entire general election season. Whereas Hillary Clinton, I think, has spent like $52 million or something like that. He wants the media to cover these controversies, and he's willing to say controversial things that he can get away with after a few days and move on to something else. And this is exactly

what he wants. So whether he attacks the media as dishonest, he can say that all he wants, but he revels in the controversy. I don't think you're right because I think you're giving him first of all credit for being too much credit for being calculated and at the same time calling him stupid

because there's not a single vote to be had by making this kind of joke about Hillary. He definitely wants to be covered and wants the attention but if he sits there and says, well this will be a good way to get attention,

you would think he would do it in some way like maybe you could make that argument about the Muslim ban or the Mexican remark because there's a big constituency that reverberates to those issues. But not the Hillary assassination. There's no votes there.

I think he does go on these unhinged sort of like, and he just makes these off-the-cuff remarks. But there is a calculated sense to it. The Taco Bell tweet that he tweeted a while ago or the Frozen tweet, he knows these things are going to cause huge controversy among the media and it's going to be outrage, and it's going to dominate the cycle for a long time. Him saying the Republican Party has never been as

united right after Ted Cruz gets booed off stage, he knows these things are controversial and he wants it. He wants these headlines. Yeah, I'm not saying in all examples he doesn't. Like the Taco Bell tweet, clearly he got the dish. He's a troll.

Well, I mean, it was clearly they spent some time getting the picture, the thing. So obviously that couldn't have been off the top of his head. And in that tweet, maybe he is stupid because maybe did he really think that was going to be received well by Hispanics? I don't know. That's a mystery to me. I mean, what did he think? It's possible he did, right? Just like Hillary talks in a southern accent or talks about how much she loves whatever sports team she claims she loves.

I mean, these politicians are sometimes just ridiculous about what they think will work. And here's one other quick point on the media bias. He constantly attacks the failing New York Times and the dishonest Washington Post, but if you talk to any reporter, they will tell you that he only talks to those papers. He talks to Maggie Aberman of the New York Times. He won't really talk to anyone else. He talks to Robert Acosta of the Washington

Post. If he thinks these people are so dishonest, why doesn't he talk to anyone else? I see him talking to everybody. I mean, I don't know about... He talks to about five reporters and anchors on television at this point in time. And that's really it. And if he hates New York Times so much, why does he give them

so much access? Well, he also even likes Maureen Dowd, and even though she was a little critical of him, he actually said, well, she kind of gets me. Which I kind of find endearing. I mean, I don't know these reporters in the Times. I don't know if they've written things about him that he found. Like I have to tell you as,

as a guy, like there was that French page front page article at times about the way he treats women and that he called one girl Han. And, and I just thought this is just ridiculous. Like what? To me, I was like,

this guy has been a playboy millionaire, often married, but still play living a list, hanging out with celebrities, the Hamptons, with Puff Daddy, whatever it is. The worst thing is. And this is all they could find on this guy? I mean, to me, this guy must be kind of okay, you know, because I know people with much less access to him,

much less access to money. If you were to dredge up every experience with him, you would have much worse accusations, you know? Nobody, I mean, didn't you think that? Well, there were some of them that also came out that were quoted, but then defended him as well after that. Well, what does that tell you? I mean, I think that there are these ideas that are put forward about how to characterize him.

And then some outlets want to go dig deep and see if they can contextualize that and find out what happened in the past. He's also someone, though, that I don't think that the press really understands how to dig and vet in the way that other candidates are. The other candidates, you go look through their resume and see what they've been doing. Trump's resume is basically, I'm Trump. I've been Donald Trump for a few decades, at least in the public eye, the Donald Trump of the public. And so, you know, that's basically what they have to follow. I thought it was more interesting when the Washington Post

dug up some of the old audio of him pretending to be his own spokesperson that he denies he was doing that, even though it was pretty clearly he was. Yeah, that doesn't bother me. One thing, that was so many media cycles away ago, I forgot that that even happened for a brief second. But the other thing is, I think you would be wrong to deny that there is media bias, but I think you'd also be wrong to say that Trump does not egg this on himself and he wants it. So there is always going to be, I think, some sort of inherent media bias towards Republican candidates. The media is typically centered in New York City, D.C., and doesn't understand the middle America, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa voter. But there's also the fact that Trump is, Missouri, Iowa voter.

But there's also the fact that Trump is just bringing this on himself. Like this is not something that would be an issue as much if Mitt Romney were running or Paul Ryan were running. It's something that's unique to Trump because he courts the controversy. Yeah, I agree. And I think that's why he's not qualified to be president, actually. And that's enough for me. He just brings all this stuff on himself to the point where it's self-destructive.

It's almost a trite example. He had this very, what I thought was a very good speech at the convention. He had a few lines in that speech where he said, I speak for you, which I think rose to the level of historically memorable lines. And that was a moment that really stuck with me.

Yamba, and I speak for you. Then he had the thing with Cruz, and he handled it kind of magnanimously. And you think, oh. And then the next morning, he's talking about how Cruz's father killed Kennedy, and the National Enquirer wouldn't lie because they're a credible newsmaker.

And you say, this guy is truly, truly self-destructive. I mean, could he have thought? Like, that to me is the interesting thing. What did he think? Does he think that, like, do you have any insight into his personality? Like, what was he thinking other than he's just got no filter and he's a jackass?

I don't think it's more complicated than that. I think we're all confused because we're so used to politicians that do have all these strategists around them and telling them what how to say what they want to say in a sanitized way. And he doesn't have that. He doesn't want to pay attention to them. There's been a lot of articles about him when he does start doing the work to talk to donors or make those fundraising phone calls. He gets bored after three calls and just hangs up. Or there was a Washington Post interview recently that they published, and they kept noting within the text that he would stop and look over at the TV and notice himself on TV. And I think in a way, it's sort of like the

roadrunner of getting distracted by the mirror. And I think that's a bit like how Donald Trump operates day to day. And it's just kind of whatever seems to be jiving with the audience. He thinks that that'll play on TV and that'll work for him. And that's what he bounces around off of. And then the media bounces off of what is controversial. We like conflict. I mean, that's what the media is biased towards. Aside from the debate about what political leaning there is, the media is undoubtedly biased towards conflict and we're going to chase that over and over.

That's why the stories about the Republicans opposing their GOP nominee give so much more play than a lot of the more substantive questions about the policies being put forward. By the way, you guys are really so unfair to him. Even this whole

article about, did you read the article in the to him. Even this whole, this whole article about, did you read the article in the New Yorker, was it New Yorker by the Anthony, what's his name, the ghost writer? Oh yeah,

that was New Yorker. Jane Meyer had the interview with the ghost writer from The Art of the Deal. Jane Meyer, she the one who wrote about terrorism? Well,

she's done a lot of the work on the Koch brothers. So, first of all, they call him a ghostwriter. But his name is on the book. So that's not a ghostwriter, is it? I thought a ghostwriter was a ghost, like it's behind the scenes. When you're a co-writer listed on the cover of a book,

when was that ever referred to as a ghostwriter before? I think the idea is that people think of the art of the deal being written by Donald Trump and he's the one who who's saying I did most of the writing. Donald Trump has pushed back and said no you didn't do most of the writing. Whatever. I'm just saying ghostwriter has a meaning and immediately I'm looking at him

like this doesn't seem so. Already they're out to get him because they chose a word and twisted the meaning of that word to make a point that they already want to make. And he's not a ghostwriter. A ghostwriter is somebody who's not credited, isn't it? Generally speaking, you are correct. I've never heard the word ghostwriter for a co-author before.

Ever. Ever, ever. But, you know, oftentimes a co-author is sort of forgotten and not even noticed. That's fine. That's fine. But you could, a co-writer or a co-credited writer could still be the one who wrote the whole book and the article would still be interesting. The point is that if Trump didn't write it, if the other guy wrote it, that's newsworthy. But as soon as I see them kind of putting their finger on the scale by calling him a

ghostwriter, I already lost interest in him. I mean, I already lost credibility in the article. And then, it said, like, you guys both read the article? Remember this? It says, well, I told him how much money I wanted, and, you know, Trump was supposed to be a great negotiator, he gave me what I

asked for. You remember that line? And I'm like, well, if you could just see them spinning it the other way, if Trump had tried to negotiate him down, and be like, in typical fashion, Trump tried to negotiate me. Like even when Trump was like out of the opposite of what you think, he's like, OK, I'll give you what you asked for, which normally would be spun as a good thing. A guy who was accommodating and easy to do business with. They spun that as if Trump was being a jackass for giving him what he asked for. So there was no way

there was nothing going to come out that it was going to win. So I found, I just didn't believe anything in the article. And I read The Art of the Deal and I Did you read The Art of the Deal? I haven't. Did you read The Art of the Deal? No, I haven't. Dude, it's your journal. You've got to read The Art of the Deal. You're a journalist. How can you not comment on it? I always wonder about

people who, this is primary source material. You've got to read The Art of the Deal or just read some of it. There are so many details and he talks about certain deals and simultaneous situations that are going on that he kind of works out to make an eventual deal. Clearly, this was not made up by this ghostwriter.

These are the real things that were going on. And then we also do see the hotel and the casino and the rink and all the things which are real accomplishments that he did. So just none of it seems believable to me. And this all works to Trump's favor. Noam, are you, did you see a video of this guy in Atlantic City

who, he was like a window contractor and he said that Trump didn't pay him? That's another one. Go ahead. Well, I was wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Well, okay, just so happens we're doing some contracting here and today I was on the phone saying, listen, we may have to go to court about this because we're really getting screwed. And then I was another restaurant guy

who was sitting next to me. He says, you know, he's a chef. He's been involved in a lot of restaurants. He says, you know what? I have never seen a contractor do the right thing by a client. And that's been my experience too. So when I hear these stories about Trump,

I say to myself, you know what, I've done maybe 10 renovations in my career. There was grounds to take all 10 of those contractors to court. Now, I never did. You settle whatever it is. But having experienced contractors

and everybody who's ever done contracting knows how difficult it is to deal with contractors. I'm not ready to say that this poor window guy deserved to get paid or that there wasn't something he might have. At least according to him, Trump had no beef with the job that he did. He simply said, look. According to him, yeah.

Okay, well. He's not going to come out and say he did. But I was wondering if even the argument that he made you felt was, assuming what he says is true, if you felt that. Yeah, assuming what he says is true, I think that that... Yeah, assuming what he says is true, I think that Trump, that would be a mark against his character. I think the Trump University stuff,

to the extent that he knew about it or looked the other way when he ought to have known about it, it was reprehensible and can't be defended. I thought the Bertha thing, the Bertha thing was absolutely, when he implied that they were finding things out, but now we know he was lying about it, that was reprehensible. I mean, there's enough to get the guy on, which is real and indisputable. I do think you're making a point here, and this comes up a lot, is there is enough to go after Trump on these legitimate issues

that I do kind of find it perplexing when the media focuses on the baby being ejected or these smaller issues that are attempted to turn into these large controversies that there might not be. He's hysterical. Trump was making up a video about Iran and cash last week. That's a big thing. He repeated it twice and he campaign admitted the video doesn't exist.

And we're focusing on the baby for like half the time, which is kind of perplexing to me. But I think it also has to do with the fact that the media is also looking for something new to refresh every eight hours because CNN needs something new to discuss with their giant 12 people panels. Now, I want to ask you

a question. Don't get mad. Go for it. What was up with the Huffington Post refusing to cover Trump on their politics page? So the way that that worked was that it would still be some politics reporters writing about him. It would just be we pick what's the primary vertical, and then you can cross-post and whatever.

The primary vertical? What does that mean? Yeah, it's like it's insidery stuff. But we just said entertainment's the main vertical. So if you go through it through search or whatever, it's going to say entertainment at the main vertical so if you go through it on through search or whatever it's going to say entertainment at the top and rather than politics and it was a way early on to say you know this is a this is an entertainer who's made his name in the in the modern public as a as a reality tv show host um it got to a point where where it changed and that the senior management said okay we're going to put him back in the politics page.

Once he got the nomination. Well, it was a little before that. Once he was winning the primaries. Well, it was the Muslim ban that really caused us to make that switch. And it was decisions made with, you know, top brass. Not like, you know, the entire staff got together and said, this is what we're going to do and not going to do.

Do you guys spend any time discussing the philosophy of journalism, journalistic ethics? Because it seems to me that that decision, however it was made, it cannot be justified. If a man is running for president and you put him on the entertainment page

at the expense of everyone else who's running for president, even people who have no shot at all, you're making a mockery of him, which is not journalism. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's editorial, but it's not journalism. And so I can't imagine a professor at Columbia University Journalism School telling you the exception where it's okay to do that. And I'm just wondering, in the new age,

where there's so much, anybody's essentially a journalist now, and everybody's online, is that just all lost? Is there no longer any talk about ethics behind the scenes? I don't know who wants to take that. I mean, we still talk about ethics. I mean, we still have to put out things that are accurate and truthful. To call an entertainment section when not politics is not accurate. Never was.

Well, it was what the label was. It wasn't that any of the content within the article was inaccurate or wrong. Go ahead. It seemed like a publicity stunt. I don't work at the Huffington Post and it just seemed like a big publicity stunt to say we're going to classify Trump as not politics. He's not a serious candidate. We're going to put him in entertainment.

But I do think the question of whether ethics is discussed has been discussed maybe more this election than any other time. I mean, there's always discussion on is it ethical to put in a headline what Trump said if he's suggesting a conspiracy theory? Is that ethical to cover it just because Trump said it? And isn't that what he wants us to do to have him go on stage or have his surrogate go on stage and say something conspiratorial and then have the media cover it? What are the ethics on that?

Where do we draw the line? When do you say that? What's your answer? I can't tell you. I don't know. I'm torn on it every day. And I think that he's causing these discussions in editorial meetings. And it's something that a lot of journalists haven't confronted

because we've never seen a modern-day candidate make things up from the stage and deny reality so adamantly. You've seen CNN and MSNBC and their chyrons fact-check them live. Then that's something new where they say Trump is talking about a video and then it says in parentheses that doesn't exist. That's never happened before. But that's ethical. That's fine. Who can say that's not ethical? But that's still a discussion in the newsroom do you fact

check him in the car on and if you fact check him in the car on once do you do it to Clinton how often do you do it it would be unethical probably to only do that to one person but it's certainly I don't think I think it's fair game to do it

unless it's not. Like, it wasn't in Candy Crowley in the debate, way back, was that 2012, where she corrected, wrongly corrected Mitt Romney about Obama's terrorism thing. I thought that was reprehensible. And she was wrong. That didn't seem ethical to me. But if you are going to set up a fact checker and they're charged with the job of fact checking, you know, everything in real time, I don't see why.

Do we need to do a station identification? Yeah, we're on the channel. This is common. Serious. By the way, I don't know if you're under pressure, home team pressure to still kind of back up that HuffPost decision. But I got to tell you, as a guy who has no stake in it, they should just come out and say, in the same way Trump should say he was wrong about the Mexican rapist comment, you guys should just say, listen,

we were wrong. We shouldn't have done that. And we won't do it again. Move over, Godfrey. Well, all I'll say is I think that broadly the media is becoming more of an environment where it's more similar to where it was

a hundred years ago with the penny papers and you had more transparent about what kind of biases you were coming from. It's like the old Hearst newspaper. It's talking about Trump. Exactly. This is God for you. Hey, what's up? Can I plug something? Yeah, sure. My Showtime special, August

12th, 10pm. Thank you. Are you going to talk about Trump? I'll talk about Trump. Well, I mean. Do you have a take on Trump? Yeah, I have a take on Trump. I believe he's going to win. I don't know why.

Oh, no. I just believe he's going to win. I think he's going to be real dirty and evil. It's just going to get real dirty and real. I just think it's going to happen. I think he's going to win. I don't know why. I'm not voting for him. But I just think he's going to win for some reason.

I think he's more likely to drop out than he is to win. I think he's more likely to get assassinated than anything. Are you inciting that? No. It's a dying art form. Assassination? And I think people say, well, I was just talking to somebody earlier. They said, well, you want someone like that?

I was on Sirius. And they were like, yo, you want somebody like that controlling the nuclear I said first of all they're not going to let him do a lot First off let's say he won't Just like they don't let Obama do a lot I'm kidding This is the conspiratorial But they did stop Obama from doing a lot

Who's they? White people White men Which white men? The ones that are in Congress. The old, angry, racist ones. Okay. Can we get to...

He's going somewhere good. Go on. Nothing. I want to hear what you... Let him finish his thought. Okay. So I just think, I don't know. I just think, and you know, we're comedians, and I don't know, Trump winning would...

That's a lot of good shit. You're rooting for Trump on your career. That's a lot of good shit would that's a lot of good shit you're rooting for Trump that's a lot of good material I think first of all if Trump let's say Trump won teeth I mean news programs are gonna be amazing I mean they're gonna be amazing they're good cuz I mean when Bush was in office they I mean it was so much good shit man do

you do Trump I do sometimes I do things are beautiful better America I just, you know, Kaylee Clinton she's a loser, look at her that's not bad I've actually never heard you do a bad impression yeah, you know I remember

I'm not bad at doing white guys, which is pretty good I do, no, because a lot of black guys will do the black dudes. You do Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, Richard Bradley, blah, blah, blah. But I do a Trump. Jesus. You can do any, but you've done Esty. I did do Esty.

Have you ever heard him do Esty? They don't know Esty. You know what I'm saying? Who's that? I do David Tell. Do you guys think there's any? Do a Tell, a little bit just for. Oh, damn. Dan does it, too. You do it, too, Dan? Yeah. Do you guys think there's any... Do a tell, a little bit, just for... Oh, damn.

Dan does it, too. You do it, too, Dan? Yeah. Do it, Dan. Do it, Dan. I just do that part. Do it. Oh, man.

That sounds like you. No. I'm not going to tell you. He was insecure about doing it at the beginning. This New York boy. Oh, Dan is awesome. So do you guys think there's any chance that he's going to drop out? No, he's not dropping out.

Trump, no. Trump drop out? I have learned this election season never to predict anything because you'll eat your own words. No, not predict it.

Not predict it. There's a chance that anything will happen. There's a chance he'll drop out. There's a chance to win. What makes you think he's going to drop out?

Where is that coming from? I don't think he's going to drop out. I see. Listen, he's saying I think it's becoming pretty clear, like Peggy Noonan wrote that column the week that everybody decided he was crazy. It's becoming pretty clear that he's not up to this task of running for president. And then today he makes a remark about Hillary getting assassinated. He's really crazy. And I can see the scenario where if finally a few key Republican leaders

jump ship and refuse to support him anymore, if they rebuke him, and behind closed doors, people close and say, listen, you're going to lose 49, you're going to be the next George McGovern. That he would rather find a pretext to pull out than be a loser because Trump does not want to be a loser. I hear you on that. It was rigged. I'm sick.

I have a cough. But no, the rigged, I think he's trying to set the precedent for what he's going to use if he does lose. Like, it's the same thing with what he did when he gave those nicknames to Ted Cruz and calling him Lion Ted so that no one would believe what he's challenging him. Well, if he loses by a couple percentage points,

people might buy that. But if he gets blown out, the rigged thing is just not going to fly. It's just not. And that's a possibility with Clinton saying today that she's going to be playing in Arizona, Georgia. These states are solid red theoretically, and if she's going to be making plays in them, it's insane.

So, I mean, put it another way. It would make sense for him, if this goes on another couple weeks, it would be the smart move to get out. And, you know, he could create some sort of way to do it. I'm not saying... I give him a 15% chance. That's what I said. I think he's more likely to pull out than he is to win

because I give him a 5% chance of winning. But he said he's going to definitely do the debates, which are very late in the contest. That's going to be fun. So that's really late. I didn't think of that. You're right. Are you telling me the debates?

Do you know the ratings that the debates are going to really I didn't think of that you're right are you telling me the debates do you know the ratings that the debates are going to have with Donald Trump I mean I watched the Republican I watched the debates

with the Republicans I never pay attention to them because of Trump I was like oh this is going to be fun and the first thing he said

Rand Paul said oh all you're going to do is you're just going to give people money he goes didn't I give you money? Anyway.

It was great, right? I was like, I'm watching this. I said, it's going to be like this playground chatter. I wouldn't count him out, but I do also think that whatever moderators are chosen, which he doesn't get to choose, it's going to be the presidential debate commission choosing. It really is going to be lopsided against him. It's going to be Hillary and the debate monitor trying to check him on a lot of things. I don't think that you can act like there's not going to be bias into trying. Well, Trump is already talking about stuff being rigged, so I think he's going to prepare himself for it.

He might, he, and Trump will probably say something like, I just hope things rigged. The monitor doesn't like me. Whatever. You know you planned it, Hillary. Calm down. Those moderators are. First of all, I didn't like Megyn Kelly's question. The first question, who here will take a pledge to, and I'm wondering what you guys think.

Who here will take a pledge to support the nominee? First of all, that was just a way of getting at Trump, right? Second of all, it's not a debate question. It's not, I don't like these, I want to hear them debate an issue. That means you got to ask them something that there can be two sides. But remember in 2012, they were asking in some of those debates, what would be your theme song or what would be your Secret Service nickname? I mean, but at least that's just cutesy,

but this is really, really to try to put Trump on the spot where everybody can essentially debate Trump. But then here's the thing. He was the only one who didn't take the pledge. Everybody was shocked. How could he not take it? But the other people were so much more honorable

for taking the pledge. And now that it's come around, the pressure is on them. Don't honor the pledge. And so there's no principle behind it. At the time that Trump wouldn't take the pledge, they blasted him for that. And now the people who are honoring the pledge are being blasted for that. So it's just whatever works to get Trump, right?

We have to keep in mind, though, that when they... Why should they take a pledge? When they did take the pledge, and it's tough, but Trump has said so much since he took that, since that moment on stage. It's hard to conceive that these candidates even knew that some of this stuff was going to be talked about. Like, it's unfathomable the amount of positions Trump has taken. So when they took the pledge, he was sort of like the maybe far-right Republican candidate

that they could swallow and they were like, we'll support this guy. But afterward, it just like, this is pre-Megan Kelly stuff. This is like, he's done a lot since the pledge. I agree with you. There's got to be a breaking point, right? They were worried about him running third party

and they were trying to shame him out of running third party. I'm just saying it was a, it's not a question which told the nation anything. It was a question to put Trump on the spot. It didn't inform us as voters. And if it informed us as anything in retrospect, it was that the guys who took the pledge were lying and Trump was actually the one who said, listen, I'm not going to, I can't predict what the reality is 10 months from now. So why would I take a pledge? You know, uh, I, I just the notion of putting party, I now, so why would I take a pledge? Just the

notion of putting party... I wouldn't take... I'd say, listen, I expect her to support the nominee, but I can't predict what may or may not happen. If that's anybody who doesn't give that answer, it's lying. You expect to, but you don't know what would happen. If he turns out to be a criminal, no, I'm not going to support him. Turns out to be Richard Nixon. Turns out to be lying to the FBI. I don't know. You might not support him. What if he's an amazing president?

What if he just, you're like, what? What if he just, no, it's what if. So, I mean, it's what if. What if he just was like an amazing president? I used to think that was possible. I mean, I'm just saying, it's 50-50. We don't know anything. We can talk and talk and talk. It's all like sports.

You know how sports people talk before the actual game starts? Until it happens, then you can go from there. Cinderella story. You know what I mean? I don't know. I just think it's... I think they give the president way too much credit for the health of the economy anyway. I'm not sure any president...

There's much correlation between the president and the economy. I don't even know how people can even want to be president. There are 50 states, man. They should have a president for like 10. One person gets 10, the other person gets five presidents. Just divide it up. Because think about it. There's 50 states.

You know there's a couple states you're not trying to even care about. They say, yo, there's a flood in Wyoming. Eh, I don't want to go there. You're right. No, you know what I mean? So it's 50 states. That's like they should have five presidents. You know what I mean?

You get elected. Or maybe just one for the south and one for the north. Or something. I'm a racial president. I'm a racial president. I'm a black president, Latin president. What about the Persian president? You guys weren't happy about it. By the way, do you think Trump is a racist?

I mean, you know, I'm sure he is to a certain point, yeah. Most white guys are. What? True. are what true not not but not I think most white guys are but not like not meaning that they're they're doing it to harm anybody I think some don't even know how racist they can be because of entitlement sometimes I'm just it's not white privilege white privilege is what I'm saying so sometimes they can just be racist by not knowing any better sometimes they may say things they don't

know I'm not saying there's different types of races but but I don't think, you know, there's some white dudes that, you know, they'll be like, I hate black people, I hate whatever, I hate Latin people and want to harm them. Then there's ones that, well, I don't necessarily live around them. There's those. Then there's some that, you know, I don't think they should have more than me. That kind of thing.

Then there's some that say, they'll say things out of pocket where they don't know any better, you know. Well, do you people do this? That kind of thing. I think most white dudes are racist. Is he more or less racist than I am? Who? Trump.

Oh, you're horrible. I'm just kidding. More or less racist than Natterman. Natterman's not racist. Natterman don't like anybody. So Trump is more racist than Natterman. Natterman, I don't feel any racism from Natterman at all. I don't feel that.

You, I might feel that a little bit. A little bit. There's no racism you would feel for me if you would just come on time, Godfrey. Trust me. I know what you're referring to. What? No, what? I'm kidding. Shut up. Anyway.

Do you guys think Trump is a racist? I think to a certain point. It's hard to say whether he's a racist or exploiting racist feelings in the country. I would agree with that. I have a hard time imagining that Trump's like, you know, you're black. I don't like you. I'm not going to hang out with you. I don't think that's the case at all. But I do think that he understands that there might be people who are supporting him who, you know, would be, I think.

What if his daughter liked a black dude? What do you think would happen? That's a true test of racism. All you do is have a black dude date one of your daughters. That's the truth. What do you think he would say? I feel like he'd be more concerned about what his job is and what his income is. I think he would lose his shit. No, I can argue with Tyler.

What if she's like, I brought a black dude to come about me? I think with Tiffany, he would be more inclined to let it slide. Because Tiffany is clearly his less favored daughter. With Ivanka, his precious Ivanka. Right, right, with Ivanka. I'm talking about Ivanka's life. Yes, I think he would be upset about that. With Tiffany, he'd be like, yeah, well, that's, what do you expect?

Because he already thinks, you know, I think that she's lesser. I have no, I don't feel that he's a racist. I'm not even sure he's exploiting racial themes. I think he's racist to a point not where it's like you can't hang out with the guy. You know what I mean? I just think, like when he says, I're going to have the Mexicans build the wall. But I think part of the division is like there's people in the quote-unquote flyover states, like my home state, Iowa,

who don't really interact with a lot of people from different ethnicities. No. It's shocking. I know. But, you know, we're the first in the nation. But so he comes out and says, we're going to build a wall and says all these things about how we're going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.

There's a lot of people out there who don't interact with those kind of people or those communities that would be affected by that kind of language. So they just registered as, yeah, sure. I mean, that's in the abstract for me. So that makes sense. I'm going to vote for the guy who wants to get rid of someone. But if you're a candidate, and I know there's some holes in it, but if you're a candidate who appeals

to people who have the black experience in the inner cities and you know what reverberates with them and you play to those issues, nobody accuses you of racism. But if you target the white, aggrieved, working class that can't make a living with their hands anymore,

who feels displaced by trade deals and illegal immigrants, and you want to take up their cause, there's almost no way to do that without being called racist. Now, Trump, the obvious hole is that he makes his case much weaker by some of his rhetoric. But I think just the appeal itself would get him called a racist. I think that it would be naive to say that neither party plays to these racial elements on both sides. I think probably the Democrats do it all the time and the Republicans do it. I think Trump is doing it in a different manner. He wants that coffee. He needs to get out.

Oh, yeah. I got to go. Got to go. Showtime special, August 12th, 10 p.m. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much. It's called Regular Black.

We're going to wrap it up. Finish your thought, though. Finish your thought. I kind of finished it. But I think both parties look at racial things and I think the Democrats do this all the time, and I think that Trump is doing it in a more blatant and blunt manner than previously has been done. It's not as subtle.

And when he goes on national television and he's asked about the KKK leader, David Duke, for some reason, I blanked on his name, and he says that he can't hear the earpiece. It just seems kind of odd. That was pathetic, right? That strikes. Well, it seemed like he could hear the conversation, what was going on, and he didn't denounce right away, right? And then he comes in and says he's denounced 100 times before,

which he had. He had denounced him. But on Sunday program, it's a little different, right? And so there are these weird things that happen. And then the Muslim ban, right? And the big, we're going to make Mexico pay for the wall. We're going to deport everyone. There are a lot of these blunt and blatant and brazen

racials for themes in this campaign that we just haven't seen before. Are you Muslim? You don't have to tell me. I'm not Muslim, no. But members of my family on my dad's side are. I asked you obviously because I'm not Muslim, no, but members of my family on my dad's side are. I ask you obviously because I'm wondering

if his Muslim thing, if you feel personal. Here's the weird thing on that, and just, this is for my family. By the way, if you don't want to talk about that, we can just cut it out. No, no, no. A lot of Persians, at least, and a lot of Middle Eastern people are kind of in support

of the Muslim ban, which is the big spin in this whole campaign, right? I was just talking about it today. It's typical of white, young liberals that they are way to the left on so many things. I know a lot of Arabic people, and almost all of them are like, well, I don't know about the Muslims, but there really is a problem. And as a matter of fact, for every one European who gets killed by a Muslim Islamist, there's like a thousand Arabs who are getting killed by some suicide bombing. So they don't feel like, oh, this is a problem in Europe. They're suffering, and even more so from the same problem that we're trying to grapple with. They're worried about their kids being radicalized.

The disproportionate outrage as when someone gets attacked in France compared to Afghanistan is what you're talking about. No, what I'm saying is that they understand. They're not offended necessarily when Trump's like, well, we have a problem with radical Islam. Because, yeah, we have a problem with radical Islam, too. But the left will have them not even mention it not talk about it and I think a lot of

like particularly I'm Persian so a lot of the people in the Persian community they're very pro-west and they've come here and they've immigrated to the US

and they've assimilated and they're very pro-west and they're like a lot of these people that Trump is talking about might not be the most pro-western culture sort of people you want in the country.

And I think, I don't know, maybe it's because they've seen it personally and firsthand. A lot of them will support the Muslim ban. I'm not quite sure what it is. It seems weird, but that's sort of... For the record, I don't support the Muslim ban. But I do think that he hit a nerve. Like, when they were talking about,

I think three refugees already committed violence in Germany. they were talking about I think three refugees already committed violence in Germany, is that right? I think three of the three and I mean there's a problem here and I think they circle the wagons around this problem and the way to make any talk about it considered to be bigoted or whatever

and it's not, it's a real problem and it has to be spoken about with sensitivity which Trump doesn't have, and with care to know that it can lead to bigotry and it can lead to things. But to pretend that there's not a problem in the world when every 86 hours or something is, I think... And he's kind of, Trump's backed off. Like, there is no Muslim ban anymore.

He's gone to the Ted Cruz position of, we're not going to allow immigration from hot spots of terror. The Muslim ban doesn't exist. It was something that Trump used, and you could say he used it to rile up a Republican primary, racial sort of base.

Now that we're in general election mode, he's kind of cut back and he's really reverted his position. There's no Muslim ban. I think he created the Muslim ban five seconds before he said it. Like Charles Krauthammer at a comedy called them barstool eruptions. I thought that was perfect. Like just... Well, Trump didn't say the Muslim ban at first.

He put out a statement. It was really bizarre. He put out a statement and then he read the statement from the podium. So there was some thought that went into it. It wasn't like he was on the podium and said, we want to ban all Muslims. No, he put out a legitimate formal statement that's come back to bite him quite a bit, and then

he went on stage and announced the Muslim ban. It was a thought-out effort. What a jackass. He really is. Anything else you guys want to add about the scene? He looks like he's upset with some of my politics, but I would expect nothing less from a Huffington Post reporter.

He has business in his resume, so he's a little bit more sympathetic. I think every day we're just apoplectic in the newsroom about what is happening and what are we going to cover today, just based on what is forced out in these rallies. You know what I wish you guys would cover? Tell me. The fucking Democratic Party. Everything they do is bad for business and bad for employment, bad for investment. I'm telling you as a businessman.

And they have no idea. Everybody needs to go home and read. I've spoken to them a million times. He needs to go home and read the column that George McGovern wrote in the Wall Street Journal after he left the Senate, where he spent a year and a half in private sector. And he essentially wrote a column about, oh, my God, I had no idea. If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for all these things. And he went bankrupt. And it's just shocking to me.

Just shocking to me. And you guys don shocking to me. Just shocking to me. And you guys don't cover it. Some reporters should embed themselves in a small business, in a restaurant for like two months. And see what they go. And then report it to the world because you guys have no fucking idea. And a bunch of kids who barely took economics don't let you guys write about it. And to someone like me, it's like, by the way, similar to Barack Obama for a long time. What is this guy thinking?

He's just going to release a website and never beta test it? No concept. I actually wholeheartedly agree. I think that, so my uncle runs a small business and my mother manages a lot of it. And there are crazy amounts of regulation and weird things that I don't think anyone actually, if you don't run a business, understands.

I think the problem with what you're saying as far as embedding a reporter or two, that costs a lot of money. And newsrooms right now in the 21st century, in 2016, are built on Trump said this thing that's crazy. Let's get a post on it. And then you can do 10 more posts today. Whereas embedding inside a small business for two or three weeks to really understand what's going on, and it might even take longer, costs a lot of money, is not going to get a lot of read, a lot of clicks, a lot of readership, and a lot of it might not agree with the politics of the newsroom.

It depends where you're at. Like, the Wall Street Journal might do that, but it's going to, I don't know, it's costly. Why is it so hard for a newsroom to strive to be objective? Why are they so... I read the Times and the Wall Street Journal, and I'll tell you... And I point it out to him with some regularity. You'll see the same article covered in the Times and the Wall Street Journal,

and the Wall Street Journal will choose less judgmental words. Their adjectives are more straight down the line. Well, the New York Times, it's like they cannot help themselves. And it's shocking. And I say, well, if I was the editor, even if I agreed, I'd say, no. That's transparent. Adjectives, I think that's

actually a really smart observation. That's something that I catch when we're reviewing our own drafts. Small things like putting the word only or even can really, like, you know, taint the entire article and swing it one way or the other.

There was one article in the Times that said, they were setting Trump and Hillary against each other, and they said, Trump has been caught lying, I think that were, or what was it,

I think it was lying or some prevaricating or something, and Hillary has had inaccuracies as well. Now, inaccuracies is like, it's not lying, inaccuracies, you know? And the choice of words, inaccuracies for Hillary and lying for Trump, just astounded me that some editor didn't say, wait a second, you know, use the same word for both. The thing about The Times that I keep in mind is that when they write something, they're writing with authority. The Times feels like they are the authority, so they will add some sort of flair to their saying things are unprecedented or just, you know, out of bounds.

Whereas the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or Reuters, these wires, are going to be a lot more straight with the news. I like Breitbart. No, I'm kidding. That's a joke. They write some weird fictional right-wing universe. We're going to end. By the way, did you see that? Wait, wait. I'll save it for after the thing.

Listen, it's my joy in life to be able to talk to political journalists. I really want to thank you guys for coming on. And Sirius is going to be doing this section on politics before the election. And hopefully we can run this interview at that time as well. And maybe even have you guys back on for some roundtables. Huffington Post, Business Insider, two of the best places to read about politics. Good night, everybody.

Good night.