The Ricochet Podcast - Trump to Mexico

Episode Date: September 1, 2016

Let it never be said that this show does not go out of its way to present all points of view on the issues. This week, not one, but two guests from the pro-Trump side of the aisle. First up, Heather Higgins, whose post My Money Is on a Trump Victory has been quoted far and wide. Will she be able to convince the non-Trump supporting podcasters on this show to support the Republican nominee for... Source

FBD doesn't stand for friendly business ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited. trading as FBD Insurance,

is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. North and South American, all the ships at sea, let's go to press. Hello. I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I've ever met. I have one question, Dr.

Frankenstein. That's Frankenstein. What Boehner is angry with is the American people holding him accountable. If I become president, oh, do they have problems. They're going to have such problems. I don't know why that's funny. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lilacs and our guests today are Heather Higgins on Trump and Mark Krikorian on, of course, immigration. Let's have ourselves a podcast. Welcome, everybody. This is indeed the Ricochet Podcast number 318.

We're brought to you by a triptych of fine, fine sponsors. The Great Courses is one. They give you a free month of unlimited access to all of their lectures when you sign up, including effective communication skills. Go to thegreatcoursesplus.com slash ricochet today. And we're brought to you by Casper Mattresses. Try Casper for 100 nights risk-free in your own home. And if you don't love it, they'll pick it up and refund you everything.

Everything. Go to casper.com slash ricochet and use the coupon code. Well, of course, ricochet. And we're brought to you by Harry's Shave. For a great shave at an even greater price, go to harrys.com and enter. What do you think? That's right. You can enter the coupon code ricochet.

You can try to enter Rob Long, but it won't work. However, Rob Long is here to tell you why Ricochet is the thing to which you should subscribe. Well, listen, this podcast and many, many fine other podcasts are brought to you by Ricochet.com. That does cost a little bit of money. The site itself, which is the fastest growing and most civil conversation site on the center right on the web, is there for you. We would love to have you be members of that club. Here's how it works. You play a little money and you get a very clean and ordered and civil conversation space. Talk about anything you like. Check out the new site if you haven't seen it in

a while. Great new features, groups, friends, tagging, lots of stuff. You know how sometimes Facebook is great, then it's not because there's this annoying stuff, like the lefties there posting everything, and then you get into some furious exchanges with strangers. They don't have that on Ricochet. Ricochet is just for the center-right. There's enough disagreement on the center-right to last a lifetime and we need your help we need 1500 new members we don't have them yet

it's very very important we get them and we get them soon I'll just leave it at that so if you've been thinking about joining do it today just put it on your to-do list and please do it today well that would be great because as you know it's good to have a place where you can talk and share certain basic values and ideas and concepts.

On the other hand, David French has a piece in the National Review online this week saying that Fox – maybe it's in the magazine. Fox is one of the reasons that there's an insularity to conservatism, that Fox has led people to believe that this is how the right thinks and this is the truth and they don't get outside and see the rest of the world very much. Peter, what do you think about that? Do you spend a lot of time watching Fox? And if you do, do you find their view of the world to be slightly at odds with yours? I have come to the conclusion that the anti-Fox people spend too much time obsessing about Fox.

On a huge night, Bill O'Reilly gets three million viewers. Fox is for us, for people such as Rob who appears on Red Eye, for people such as me who have friends. I appear on the show every so often myself. I have to say for me the best brief roundup of what's happening in Washington is the Brett Baer panel. So people like us watch it. It matters to us. The idea that a network that draws a million people, a million and a half, three million on a huge night is somehow corralling the entire conservative movement and making it impossible for them to sense the larger reality of the – I simply do not buy that. With all respect to David French, I just don't buy it.

Rob, do you think it's – do you think the talk radio perhaps serves the same function as French is accusing Fox of doing? Well, it's really the problem of scale. He asked provocatively. But also that there's no choices. I mean, if you don't want to watch the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy on television for your TV news, you have to watch Fox. There's no other choice. Talk radio is really just, well, you want to hear something that wasn't sports talk radio. And it turns out that a lot of AM radio listeners were incredibly

receptive to a center-right message or center-right conversation. I mean it isn't – I mean you can't fault the medium for the fact that there's no choices. I mean Fox doesn't sit around trying to crush other competitors. They believe their competitors are CNN and MSNBC, to which they – by the way, they do try to crush those. So I don't really – I mean I understand that maybe the effect of these things is to create a kind of a uniform quality or uniform mindset for the center-right. But look, I have my problems with Fox people who love Rush – I'm sorry, who love Trump. And I've had my problems with Rush before. I think Rush is sort of kind of a wise man right now, the past week he's been. But people who are in the center-right are smart.

We can thread our way through the things we like and things we don't like. And there's nothing better than Brent Baer. So I would – I mean if Fox did nothing but that, I'd be thrilled. Well, Fox was early on the Trump bandwagon, which now is gaining momentum and strange new respect and legitimacy as the pivot unfolds before our very eyes to a more statesman-like Trump. The wall, are we going to get a wall? Is it going to be a virtual wall? Who's going to pay for it? Apparently Mexico said forget about that.

And I never really thought they did. Nobody ever thought they did. Nobody ever thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall. And what I love to hear is the people who said, well, he never meant that. We know he never meant that. We never believed him about that, but yet we support him because basically down deep we know

he's going to do the right thing. Well, what sort of immigration package are we going to look like? And is the presidential Trump going to increase? I'll throw that to Peter. Oh, the presidential Trump. Listen, I am still trying to absorb this event because – so I said it last week that Donald Trump seemed to be staying on message. Now it's been two weeks and a couple of days that he seems to have been staying on message. This event last night dominated the news.

Yes, almost all day yesterday. I suspect it will dominate much of the news today. And Donald Trump – I just don't know how else to say it. There's a kind of solemn, formal setting with the flag of the United States and the flag of Mexico and an electorate at which each man speaks. And there is Donald Trump standing next to a world leader. And Donald Trump looks like a plausible president of the United States. I can hear Rob going into his fetal curl as I say that. But it's just, it's astonishing. And he's softened his position. He hasn't softened his position on NAFTA. Well, he's changed his position on NAFTA. He's no longer against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. But he said very presidential

things about the importance of economic growth in both Mexico and the United States, working together and so forth. And then in Phoenix, he gave a speech in which he slammed immigration all over again. I can't quite figure that, but you've got pictures that make him look presidential and then a speech later that day that plays to his same old base. So there's reason for both me to gloat and Rob to chortle. Well, chortle away and tell me whether or not you think there's a there there, whether that is actually a position to which he will stick. Well, this is a complicated, I was a complicated position because, you know because I would like this race to be as close as possible.

I don't think he's going to win, but I think I'd like it to be close. I don't want it to be a blowout. I don't want to lose the Republican House and Senate, and a blowout would mean that, and I don't want that to happen. I feel – I mean and I think that his actual policies, the NAFTA policies and the trade – those trade policies were insane and irresponsible and I think almost unforgivable for him to use them as a political cudgel when – if he does not know better about how trade benefits – is a net benefit to the country, this country. You heard that, James. Rob said almost unforgivable. Yeah. Well, no, I for for for someone's holding at least a conservative flag of the two candidates is the one closest to a conservative to say that when he should know better. And if he doesn't know better, that he's a fool. And I don't think he's a fool. Thank God. Larry Kudlow is clearly affecting that sort of economic policy. That's separate.

Going to Mexico was a huge, risky gamble, and I think he won big. I think it was a gigantic success for him for all the reasons Peter said, but also for more because I think he had a moment where he could – his problem is not rallying his base. His problem is not rallying his base. His problem is not his believers. His problem are people who say, I don't think that guy could be president. He's too weird. He's too crazy.

He's too nuts. He's too – what's he going to do when he meets a foreign leader? And he said, all right, I'll go meet one. I'll go meet one that has all the incentive in the world to kick me out of the country and yell at me, and I'll meet one. And he went and met one, and I thought that was a home run. But everything this campaign does, mostly because I believe they feel compressed for time, and that is entirely their fault, they had to smother it with a speech to – a red meat speech, which by the way – I mean I am for border security too, but a red-beat speech to his supporters in Phoenix, which the two fires next to each other kind of burned each other out. That was a mistake I think just in political stagecraft. But the impulse behind it was good, more grown-up behavior like that, more strategic behavior to appeal to the middle is the way you win the presidency of the United States, whether you're Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or Donald Duck.

It doesn't matter. That's how you win. And he's going to have to do more of that and not then back it up. I mean the speech itself was great because it was fiery, but let's – you drill down on the topics and it gets a little weird. I mean 5,000 new border police, big applause line. Well, the gang of eight, the hated gang of eight, the hated gang of eight bill,

they had 20,000. So it's a lot about the speech, a lot about the policy, sort of it's just basically gang of eight, but shouted at the top of your lungs, we're going to deport you. Well, we're not, you know, not really. We're going to just deport the ones who

commit crimes. Well, they're already doing that. but the laws that Congress has passed have made it very difficult to get people out of the country within a year. How's he going to change that at his first hour as president? I'm not sure right now. But still, right, still moving in the right direction I think. Peter could be – could have a good night's sleep tonight. He's still going to lose, but let's hope it's a four-point, five-point loss and not a blowout. There. Done. I'm sure – by the way, I'm sure our two guests will disagree with me totally. Let me just say, and for all you people listening to the Ricochet podcast, who I adore, of course, but who complain, oh, you guys are just all a never Trumpers, never Trumpers. How about we've had balance?

This is balance coming up. Balance indeed is coming in. And James, hold on. James, you've been doing a lovely job of asking questions. But what's your view? My view is that, yes, he did. He was what he was wise to go to Mexico. We could rewrite the old cliche. Only Nixon can go to China and was wise to go to Mexico. We could rewrite the old cliche.

Only Nixon can go to China and say only Trump can go to Mexico. He did indeed look presidential. I wasn't – I've never been worried about whether or not he can grip a podium and look serious. It's what's behind it that's interesting and whether or not I believe anything that he says at the moment. I still don't. Now, can he behave in a presidential fashion? Apparently so. Again, that he behave in a presidential fashion? Apparently so. Again, that wasn't a really big surprise.

When Rod says that people were worried whether or not he was going to go crazy on some foreign leader, I never thought he'd go crazy on some foreign leader like some gibbering idiot. He wants the respect. He wants to be admired. So he's going to toady or he's going to bluster depending on what gives him the most satisfaction at the moment. So what I find interesting is how his signature issue, it continues to evolve and mature and to soften. And when Rob said it's complicated, all I could think of was the lyric from Shaft. He's a complicated man and no one understands him.

But his culture. But – OK. So I go back to what Bill McGurn said. I'll go back to this. I'll go back to it very briefly because we have guests who will do the job that needs to be done here. But go back to what Bill McGurn said. And Bill is, of course, eyes wide open about Donald Trump. He has the advantage over the three of us of having interviewed him a couple of times when Trump stopped by the Wall Street Journal offices.

And Bill said, look, he's a businessman. And frankly, he's not that ideological. He's more capable than is Hillary Clinton of adjusting his views as he learns more and to run for president is to start learning things. So – Stop right there. Yes. You just uttered the most horrifying sentence that I've heard this year. To run for president is to start learning things.

That's the problem, especially when you begin with a combination of ignorance and utter confidence in your own vast knowledge. Listen, okay, fine. Yes, you've made that point. Rob has made the point and I agree with the point. I say for the 20,000th time, Donald Trump was not my first, second, third or even 16th choice.

He was my 17th choice among 17 candidates on the GOP side. But the guy is there. He's the one. He's the nominee. And I'm just pointing out that when he modifies his position – let's put it this way. When Bill said he's not as dug into his positions as is Hillary. And when Donald Trump modifies his positions, he does so in a way that pleases me, Bill McGurn. I thought, yes, and in a way that pleases me, Peter Robinson. That's all I'm saying.

Well, good. You know, good. Good for me. Apparently, Trump has mastered the magic of everyday communication where he can talk to people and get them on his side. You have to understand that. You can only learn that one place, James. You can only learn that one place. Well, there was more to that segue, but I guess we've gone there now.

There's a lot more to that segue. As a matter of fact, it was quite substantial and thought out and detailed, but it's been derailed. Sometimes you just put a penny on the track and the train comes and just jumps entirely and goes down the ravine. But of course, we were talking about the great courses. That's one of their courses indeed. Oh, sure.

The magic of everyday communication, which is part of effective communication skills, one of which is knowing when to interrupt and when not. The great courses plus it's a video lecture and you can learn about many different topics. There's video after video they keep adding on things like politics and law, photography, art. You'll get unlimited access to hundreds of topics, 330-minute lectures, and they're presented by award-winning professors. You can watch it anywhere, anytime. Smartphone,

tablet, laptop, TV, doesn't matter. Now, we love the great Courses Plus and want you to try it too. So, we recommend you try watching Effective Communication Skills and learn how you can communicate with others, especially by overcoming the psychological and biological hardwiring that gets in the way sometimes

of agreeing or learning why you don't agree. 24 lectures each, about 30 minutes. Magic of Everyday Communication, the social context that shapes our talk, why somebody sounds like a New Yorker, why somebody sounds like a developer, et cetera. The development of our own sense of self, that is important.

Challenges to effective communication, compassionate confrontation, I love that. That's handy sometimes with relatives. And dealing and healing relationships with dialogue. That's another good one for family gatherings.

So if you sign up to The Great Courses Plus today, you'll get a free month of unlimited access to all the lectures. That's thegreatcoursesplus.com slash ricochet. Remember, thegreatcoursesplus.com slash ricochet. And now, we'll bring our first guest onto the podcast.

Heather Hagen is a longtime Ricochet contributor. Heather is president and CEO of Independent Women's Voice. She served on the boards of the Independent Women's Forum as the chairman and the Philanthropy Roundtable as the vice chairman. You can follow her on Twitter, of course, at at capital T-H-E-R-H-R. Welcome. Heather, this is Peter Robinson, and I am simply going to say that I agree with you, I agree with you, I agree with you, but our friend Rob needs some help. Rob? Hi, Heather.

Hi, Heather. How are you doing? I love Rob, but Rob has a rather dyspeptic, melancholic disposition, and so it's not surprising that he's still where he is. Yes. So just like three minutes ago, Heather R. Higgins, my longtime friend for decades now, tweeted this, about to join Ricochet for their podcast. Apparently Rob Long is a Clinton enabler. Well, that's what I've been told. What does that mean?

Does that mean that I feel like Donald – that I can read – think that Donald Trump is going to lose big, bigger than Mitt Romney and bigger than John McCain? Does that make me a Clinton enabler because I'm actually looking at the numbers and looking at past trends and saying, well, it looks like this guy is going to go down? Which one of the states that Mitt Romney lost will Donald Trump win? More important question to ask is not straight line extrapolation of present trends, which is invariably a mistake and particularly so in this year. But in looking at the dynamic of why people are feeling as they are and what will change between now and the election, and that's what the piece that I did for you all was trying to capture, which is I think that there's a lot of psychological wrestling going on. And Rob, I want to tell you that I feel your pain. No, you don't.

No, you don't. Yes, I do. No one understands me. As Trump himself put it in the art of the deal in describing who he went after, I am clearly so not his target market in any stretch of the word. That is true. And when Trump first was ascendant, I was mildly amused. And I thought, oh, this is just another publicity stunt to save his TV show. And this will disappear when he gets

asked to release his tax returns and financials. But as I watched the thing, actually last July, so over a year ago, I was interested in the phenomenon and I went to, happened to be in Las I said, I think there's a good chance that Trump will be not only the Republican nominee, but that he will win the election. He was not my candidate. And when it became clear that he was going to be the candidate, I was initially really quite horrified and despairing. I was taking him literally on a lot of the stuff he was saying, and I was very worried that we would get into another Smoot-Hawley trade war and that we would get justices who were actually quite liberal. And as I've watched him operate, I've come to believe that those initial assumptions were not correct. And given that I first heard them in Vegas, a Vegas analogy is appropriate here. If you have two betting choices and you know that one of them is going to 100% guaranteed you, give you outcomes on everything that you do not want, and the other one at least has a somewhat chance of giving you outcomes you do want on

some of the things you want then you you really have to take that second bet i'm sorry i didn't mean to leave you stunned stunned pause from rob you you uh you you didn't leave peter. He had it on mute because he's clapping and dancing and playing Sousa Marches in his house. I will grant you all of that. I will grant you almost all of that. Whoa! Why will you grant – never grant me a darn thing. Because Heather, she's done the research.

Boys, boys. I took better than you. Mom always liked you best. I will grant you that, part of that, that he really – he was lying about his trade beliefs, essentially lying about his immigration, draconian immigration laws. It will be much closer to Gang of Eight. Lying at some point in his past about his pro-life, pro-choice beliefs. Or changing. Or changing.

Or not changing, right? Lying about – what do I – I like his tax plan, so I'm not lying about his tax plan. So I get that he's – I get all that, and I get that he's exciting the base. I sort of – I understand that. I mean I'm – So your big concern is that he's – I get all that, and I get that he's exciting the base. I sort of – I understand that. I mean I'm – So your big concern is that he's a liar? No, no, no. My big concern is that he – in running his primary campaign the way he's running, he is behind in at least five states that he has to win, and he is going to lose bigger than McKinney. And if he loses too big, which I don't want – I would like a Republican in the White House. If he loses too big, we lose the House and the Senate, and it's one more lemmings-like jumping off a cliff for Republicans who simply have a hard time electing anyone electable.

It may be time to set be time to stop doing it. When you fail three times, as I think we're going to fail, why bother? Professionally, I run Independent Women's Voice, and one of the things I'm deeply concerned about is maintaining a Republican Senate and House. In fact, that's part of the reason why I would like to see more Republicans and conservatives rally behind Trump, just because there is this historic correlation between the top of the ticket doing well and then then our down ballot race is doing better. And in fact, Democrat, and you're running for Senate, you tend to poll about a point or more ahead of your presidential nominee, whereas if you're a Republican, you tend to poll about two points behind your Republican presidential nominee. So I share your concern about that. But I think that the last couple of nice guys we ran for the Republican nominee, it seemed to me, were much less likely to win. And nice guys didn't win. Trump is not a nice guy. He is fitting the mood of the country quite well. I'm sure he may be quite nice in person and people I know who know him personally. I've heard that. But his persona that he is coming in is, you know, if you've got two bullies facing off against each other, you want the bully who's going to be for you as opposed to working against you. You were talking about lying before. We're talking about, I think, in the Trump case,

instances that are utterly dwarfed by a Hillary Clinton who has, and her husband has, lied to federal officials. He got disbarred for lying. Let us remember that. She, you know, Comey, but for fear of winding up dead himself, basically, I'm going to say what I need to say publicly, but I'm going to do it in a way where I've got deniability. And you all know exactly how much I think that she has lied. They've lied about the Clinton Foundation. They've basically sold the State Department access. She's been blithely indifferent to the requirements of security, the rudimentary security for even people with the most basic clearances have to understand.

Trump is in no way implicated in things like the housing bubble, the recession crisis, the accumulation under both Republican and Democratic administrations of staggering amounts of debt. What is it? Seven times the in in the last or no, it's we've accumulated seven years of national debt more than the previous 230 years of American history, all for 1% economic growth. He did not sell out the country in the Iranian nuclear arms deal. He didn't generate a huge humanitarian crisis in Syria. I mean, there is a very real track record. And part of Hillary Clinton's objective here is to pose the hypothetically horrible Trump against the reality of her actual transgressions. And to me, the reality of actual far beats anything that might potentially possibly occur under a worst case scenario.

Right. Lilacs here. I agree with all of that and i i hillary is would be a wretched president and is guilty of innumerable crimes i grant all of that how did we get here in this country how did we get here anyway i want to set that aside because i don't want the next thing i say to be but i just want to let's put it right there and look at it and then try to find a plastic bag so we can pick it up and put it away. That's hurt. That's it.

So new conversation. What some of us are worried about is what Trump's – well, you want to call them lies. You want to call them evasions. You want to call them evolving positions. The things that he's said have normalized ideas that are dangerous, best not put into the mainstream of conservative thought. Trade, for example. Trade, which used to be one of the things that we were gung-ho about. Trade is now a thing to be scolded.

But then there's Michael Moore-level stuff. Heather, do you believe that George Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq? I believe that Trump talks in hyperbole. And on trade, for example, I was very concerned. But in talking with like Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore and a bunch of other people who've had in-depth conversations with him, I think that part of what moved me to coming around to reconciling myself to the idea that, in fact, it might not be such a bad idea was two things. One was I did a lot of focus groups with people who were Trump supporters as opposed as well as people who were not Hillary supporters, but they could not bring themselves to vote for Trump. And one of the things that was interesting was that nobody in those groups agreed with the more extreme positions that he had, nor were they oblivious to to finish that thought, that he was going to be the sort of person that you needed to break up the Gordian knot that is how Washington now functions. And that it was somebody like that that you didn't want to have around forever.

And I think that might be, in fact, why you have heard him say that he's not interested in doing this on a permanent basis. He just wants to come in and fix it. Well, neither is the Constitution for that matter. Well, there is that too. But temperamentally, one always has a feeling that Obama actually might kind of like a third term and the Clintons would have liked a third term. Not clear that Trump doesn't have a better life to go home to once he's sliced the knot and can move on. But the other thing was going back and rereading Art of the Deal. So much of what he is doing now is just a direct lift from 30 years ago and the things he learned about how you negotiate,

how you position yourself so that you can get the best deal down the road, the hyperbole that you use, the way that you employ media, even if it's bad media to your own ends. It is a hugely instructive how-to manual to a lot of his political campaign and approach. So in other words, the United States lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to get a better deal down the road in which we would believe that we only kind of told a little fib about weapons of mass destruction? I would disagree wholeheartedly with that. I'm not saying by any stretch that one needs to agree with every position he has articulated or even the majority of them. I'm just saying that in the world of politics, the Wall Street Journal had this editorial the other day about how they wanted to vote for neither. Well, that is a nice little indulgence for August. But by the time we get to November, neither is not on the ballot.

And in politics, your choice is between candidate A and candidate B, even if you find both of them somewhat repellent, right? And so you want the less bad choice who's more likely to at least allow incrementally right moves and certainly not cement and amplify the wrong direction. And one of the things I keep trying to explain to people is you're not just voting for a president, you're voting for an administration. And one of the things the left has to explain to people is you're not just voting for a president, you're voting for an administration. And one of the things the left has demonstrated time and again that they are superior at, in part because they like to think about this and we do not, is they think about bureaucracy and they think about process. They think about how they change the game so that even when we get back in power, we can't do anything about it. And a prime example of that is, for example, the 74 Budget Act, which changed the entire language by which we think about our appropriations for next year. It made it so that it builds in a guaranteed massive increase. And if you want to

increase the number less, like on a school lunch program, remember Newt and that little fiasco in 95, you are accused of cutting things, even though you're just increasing them less than what they were. They understand how to use language. They understand how to game the process. And if somebody thinks that Hillary is just going to be a short-term event that we will recover from, they are kidding themselves. In 1974, something about a liberal conservative president. Peter, you had one more before we leave. Oh, I just wanted to observe because – no, I just wanted to – Rob said this lovely dramatic role of, well, yes, he lied about this. He lied about that.

He lied about this. He lied about that. All lies I agree with. I'm glad he lied about this. He lied about that. He lied about this. He lied about that. All lies I agree with. So I'm glad you lied about it. This isn't even really an argument. This is just sort of the way I read. This is why I'm calling it observation. You're loving this, aren't you, Peter?

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying having Heather on this. I just – yes, I'm loving every minute of it. So for me, Rob Long, Brother Rob and Brother James Lilacs, these do not rise to the level of lies really. I don't think of them as lies. He is – this is a guy who's been in politics in a serious fashion for – we're still only counting the months. Again, I wish we had Mark – I wish we had somebody who had experience. We don't. But it seems to me just this is the way I observe it. By comparison with Hillary Clinton, who in 1978 to 1979 magically turned $1,000blooded intentional statements of untruth on the part of the Clintons.

And what you have with Donald Trump is a guy who shoots from the mouth, who's only now getting serious in some way. I say only now, only this year, 18 months ago. To be fair, but also a severely compromised business path. Yes, I don't even disagree with that. All I'm saying is – Yeah, but if he got a call in the middle of the night that an ambassador was having trouble in Benghazi, you can be damn sure that somebody would have gone to help. If I can encourage you here, Rob. polling data that came out yesterday on the underlying reality of Hillary Clinton, which is that she now has two groups that seriously don't like her, men and women. And that's kind

of a high mountain to climb. And so what's going to happen over the next couple of months, as I said in my piece, people are working through the stages of grief on this one. But ultimately, this race is going to be not about voting for somebody that you like. It's going to be about voting for somebody where you still like yourself. And voting for Hillary Clinton will be something where you don't like yourself for having done that. And where the social pressure moves from how can you like him, which is where we are now, to how can you enable her, which is where it will be by October, that's where you're going to see a lot of these states

that are presently being shaded blue shifting to purple and then to red. Heather, a more effective test, if I may, for Rob would be, it's a question of voting for someone who will ensure that Heather still likes you. I was saving that one as we got into September. I was going to start exerting that pressure. I will say this. I've always said that if the election is about Hillary Clinton, Trump wins. If it's about Donald Trump, Hillary wins.

But both candidates seem to be absolutely committed to making it about Donald Trump. Can I challenge that? Yeah. Please. Just a little bit. I think if you go back and you look at a lot of the things that the media says are about Trump, they are less about Trump per se than about sending. There's always a meta message if you look at these things and they are a message to his followers that he can't be cowed by the media. He can't be cowed by the establishment. He is sticking and aligned with them on so many of these things. And I – All of that is true.

All of that is true. She is less hated than he is. She has better numbers across all – except for college-educated white males, all numbers. It is a 50-state election in November. She can lose – I don't know. What can she lose? She can lose North Carolina, Iowa, Maine. She can lose Ohio.

She can lose Florida. She can lose Nevada, and she still wins. He has to turn North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. She's got to turn all those states which are now, if not firmly, fairly firmly in her camp, states, by the way, where she has active and a large get-out-the-vote, on-the-ground operation, and he's got to turn those to him. Meanwhile, Georgia and Arizona – Arizona may be after last night. Who knows? But Georgia is a weak state for him. He'll probably pull it out for sure in South Carolina and Missouri. So I'm not as worried about those states.

But it just – the math gets hard and when – my concern is that September 1 and people on our side and I include everyone on this podcast, are still talking about big movements and making a message to your base and being – I'm with you and I feel like I went to a rally that was really great. At a certain point, it becomes dollars and cents and nuts and bolts, and there are no nuts and there are no bolts. There's no campaign there and no understanding that when you go to Phoenix and give a speech that you're trying to convince people who are now trending away from you, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, to trend towards you. And that is a fundamental error, which makes me – my bedrock belief be even if I agree with everything you're saying about the man and everything you're saying about his potential as a president, he ain't going to make it. Thank you. Drive safely, everybody. It's been the Richest Show Podcast. Hold on.

Hold on. Hold on. I'm going to go out with a Sousa march here. Yes, Peter. This is an observation. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won with 51 percent of the vote. He defeated Jimmy Carter by much more than that sounds like because John Anderson took 6 percent. Right.

Ronald Reagan won with 51 percent of the vote. One week before Election Day, Gallup had Ronald Reagan at 39 percent. It was a 12-point swing in the final week. I am not saying that Donald Trump will do that. I am certainly not saying that Donald Trump is another Ronald Reagan. But movements do happen and they sometimes happen big and they sometimes happen late. I agree. Absolutely true.

I agree. And undercover voters are out there. We've said the same thing before. We said it in 2004 and we said it in 2008. It doesn't mean we're wrong now. It doesn't mean we're wrong now. But the point that Rob was making about the ground game. You've got states

where Hillary has 35 offices and you've got states where Trump has two. Heather, we will talk to you perhaps before the election again, certainly afterwards where you can either gloat over Rob and me. Oh no. Gloating is not my goal, but I do want

to suggest, Rob, that we have a friendly wager. The one of us who loses has to make dinner for the other. That way I win either way. Oh, God. That way I win either way. Absolutely. That's actually the problem with that. Heather, money.

He won't feel it unless it's money. All right. We could do it as a charitable contribution to the charity of the winner's choice. There we go. All right, Heather. Thanks. We'll talk to you again down the road. All right.

Be well. Heather, thanks. Heather, when I say thank you, I mean it. Thank you. I know. You just breathed new life into Peter Robinson. I'm glad. Peter, just stay strong.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't want to be cruel and give her another thing to have to justify, but when you ask who do you want to answer that call at 3 o'clock

in the morning about somebody in Benghazi, what occurs to me in the back of my head is, well, it's entirely possible that he likes ambassadors who don't get themselves killed. To echo another lie,

which was supposedly... That's not fair. You're not supposed to be able to make people laugh about such horrible things, James. Stop that. Not supposed to be able to call up previous comments because they don't matter. Nothing matters. So yes. But if he got that 3 o'clock call, he wouldn't roll over and go to sleep, even if he was on the Casper because it would be tempting.

Oh, wow. Damn. But let me tell you on the Casper, because it'd be tempting. Oh, wow. But let me tell you about the Casper in case you haven't heard before. The mattress industry, as you know, forces you to pay notoriously high markups. But Casper, no. They revolutionized the industry by cutting the cost of dealing with the resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly on to you. Time Magazine, for very good reason, named it one of the best inventions of 2015, and it's an award-winning mattress.

It won't disappoint. It's obsessively engineered at a shockingly fair price. Now, listen to this. Mattresses can often cost well over $1,500, but Casper, $500 for a twin, $600 for a twin XL, $750 for a full, $850 for a queen, $950 for a king. An in-house team of engineers have spent thousands of hours designing this Casper mattress. It combines a springy latex and supportive memory foams to create an award-winning sleep surface with just the right sink and just the right bounce. And it's got a breathable design that sleeps cool to help you regulate your temperature throughout the night.

Now, buying a Casper, it's completely risk-free. They know that you spend a lot of your life on this thing, so just a couple of minutes bouncing up and down in a showroom doesn't tell you. They'll give you free delivery and free returns with a 100-night home trial. And if you don't love it, they'll pick it up and refund you absolutely everything. Best of all, made in America. So get $50 off toward that mattress purchase by visiting casper.com slash ricochet and using the coupon code ricochet. That's casper.com slash ricochet. And now we bring to the podcast, you know, there's a little pause there, almost as if we stopped and did some stuff and talked amongst ourselves.

But no. No. Should we stop and talk amongst ourselves? Everything okay? Everyone's fine? Howdy. You all good? Oh, that's Mark.

Yeah, this is Mark. And there's Mark. I haven't even introduced you yet. Shut up. I'm sorry. Mark Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, the author of the new case against immigration, both legal and illegal. And you can follow him on Twitter at Mark S. Krikorian.

Welcome, sir. We were just talking about the inevitable Trump tsunami once the hidden special undercover voters appear. Immigration being one of his deals, how do you see the way the Trump position on immigration has, as we say, evolved? Well, I mean, I don't actually, I think it evolved back to where it was to begin with, because much of his speech really was just a re-articulation of this policy paper he's had on his website for a year. He just never read it before, I think. But now that he's read it, he, I think, went through a lot of the items that were in that policy paper.

It's just it was put together in a more strategic and coherent way. But, you know, the reason we see it as an evolution or a change is because for the past two weeks, you know, he and other people in the campaign have been meandering all over the place on immigration. Right. You know, where Kellyanne said his position was to be decided. He was using this Jeb Marco terminology about it's not really an amnesty if they pay back taxes. I mean, there was a real problem inside the administration. And in a sense, it was kind of campaign malpractice, regardless of the issue, because if you're going to adapt or, you know, tweak your policy, just do it and get it over with. And right.

I think about it publicly for two weeks. Right. Hey, Mark, it and get it over with instead of talking about it publicly for two weeks. Right. Hey, Mark, it's Rob here. You have been following immigration for a decade? 20 years plus. 20 years. OK. But you and I have been talking about it for a decade at least together.

And every time you brought it up, people would say to you – I mean this is 10, 15 years. It doesn't matter who was in the White House, who was in the House and the Senate. And they would say, you know, hey, it's not that big an issue. The last politician to make it his big issue was Tom Tancredo in Colorado. And you want to know how important immigration is? Ask Governor Tancredo, right? Or President Tancredo. Or President Tancredo, right? Or President Tancredo. Or President Tancredo, right.

But you all along said, you guys are wrong. It's a big issue. It's about national identity. I know those are a load of words, but I mean that in a small eye, right? And the one thing that Trump says over and over again, which I think is extremely effective

and really hard to argue with, he says, hey, we either have a country or we don't. So last night, yesterday, you saw him with the president of Mexico and then you saw him in Phoenix. Do you think that this is a proof that this issue is the single most important issue to American voters? And two, do you think he did it effectively in moving the ball forward? Win or lose, I mean to say. Win or lose in November, do you think that the cause of immigration reform, small arm reform, border security, et cetera, all the things you're in favor of, do you think that's going to be closer to being enacted? Or is he going to toxify the issue if he loses? A lot of questions there. Well, yeah. I mean, the first question is, is this the most important issue for voters? I mean,

voters have a lot of issues, obviously, economics, some education, health, that kind of thing. But what immigration does is two things. First of all, it's a meta issue because it affects everything, security, economics, everything. But the other part of it is that it's almost symbolic. And I don't mean that to kind of denigrate it, but it's symbolic of this disconnect between the ruling class and the public. And this is something Peggy Noonan has written about. Angelo Cotevilla has written about all kinds of people have written about this gap between what public the public wants, what at least want. This is what Brexit was about. This is what a lot of the other tumult in Europe is about. Immigration is kind of the first and most obvious place that it manifests itself. You see what I mean? So it's important in itself, but it's important also as a kind of marker of this democratic failure where our ruling classes don't really see themselves as having a sense of solidarity with the people that they're governing. Right.

And is, you know, has Trump moved the issue forward? I think so, but it's also Trump. You know what I mean? So that does Rob ever. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously Rob does. I know.

And I'm not never Trump. I mean, I'm going to hold vote for the guy and hope for the best in the end. But as far as putting forward a coherent way of thinking about regaining control over immigration, I'd have to say yes. I mean, this speech was probably the best speech from an immigration perspective any major party nominee has ever given. And what's important is that he stepped away from some of his Archie Bunker yelling at the TV stuff. You know, we're not going to be deporting 12 million people in two years with deportation squads, all that nonsense. Never should have said it. They should have cleaned it up the next day.

And I think he effectively focused on what he needs to focus on, which is you fix the problem first. And then the secondary question is, what do you do about the illegals who are still here? I guess that's my follow up question is we wake up in November as President Trump and President Trump faces Congress. It's maybe not as behind him as he wishes. He gets his wall. He gets border security. And the reason that he likes the wall more than the things that you hear Giuliani and Christie and the circuits talking about E-Verify and the drones and the virtual walls is that a wall can't be defunded in two years. Congress passes a law. Fifty law 50 000 drones gonna fly around and arrest everybody uh you know two years later we don't want the drones anymore and nobody even notices they've been defunded so wall stays right that's why he likes the wall but he gets his wall

and everything else is gang of eight everything else is gang of eight except for the wall uh is that a win um well i mean I'm not sure what you mean. In other words, he only gets the wall and he doesn't get the rest? He gets the wall, but the rest of what he wants is basically a version of Gang of Eight. But border security first, right? So it's a pathway to citizenship. It's all that stuff. He doesn't get the touchback, the rule that you have to go back to the country of origin and get in line there before you can come back in.

He doesn't get any of that stuff. He gets nothing really that he – that we couldn't have gotten from Gang of Eight or from the George W. Bush plan, but he does get a wall. Is that a win? I mean it's not much of a win in my opinion because … It's not much of a win in my opinion because – It's not? I mean it's not – if he doesn't – if you're saying that he doesn't get E-Verify, he doesn't get Visa Tracking, all of that stuff, then no. Because I mean if I understood the question – No, no.

No, I said it wrong. I mean he gets – because E-Verify and Visa Tracking was in the Gang of Eight bill, wasn't it? Yeah, but so was this wall stuff. I mean, they stuck it in at the end. Right. I mean, at least very similar to it. So the question is not, does he get a wall, doesn't he get a wall, whatever. I mean, honestly, we've put a lot of effort into the border.

The border is not as bad as it used to be, at least the infrastructure. The problem is the Border Patrol has to be allowed to do its job. The issue here is sequence. Right. Do people get legal status first? The problem is the Border Patrol has to be allowed to do its job. The issue here is sequence. Do people get legal status first? And if that happens, all the incentive to follow through on enforcement evaporates. It immediately disappears, like Jeannie going back into her bottle. It's gone.

And so it never happens. And that was the problem with the Gang of Eight bill, as you saw it? Yeah, that was the problem with Gang of Eight. In addition to the fact that it doubled legal immigration, nobody talked about that. But, yes, as far as the illegal part goes, is that the the legalization happened first. That was the problem with the Bush amnesty bill back in 07. That was the problem with the 86 amnesty, which whose shadow still is on us because it was a trick, and I don't say it was a trick lightly. The people who pushed the amnesty part agreed to the enforcement to get the amnesty. As soon as the amnesty was mostly finished in 1990, Ted Kennedy and the National Council of La Raza jointly tried to kill the enforcement part of the deal. They welshed on the deal.

They knew they were going to do it. We trusted them. They lied. This time they're going to have to trust us. Peter here, I'm trying to – all this is fascinating and I'm just trying – so if I understand Rob's question, he gives you the first part – not you personally. He gives us – he accomplishes what he's saying he wants to accomplish, which is you enforce the law first. So wall, e-verify, whatever else necessary to make sure that there are – well, there's always going to be a little leakiness because we're human beings.

But effectively, you stop illegal immigration. And if I understand Rob's question, he does that, he gets that, but then he goes all soft on deportation and he's willing to absorb the illegals who are already here. Well, let's put it this, instead of, let's just drop whether I'm being faithful to Rob's question and put that as a question to you. Is that a win? You do stop illegal immigration, but then over time you begin coming up with ways to absorb the people who are already here.

Or you're saying if you do the latter, you immediately begin undermining the former. No, in my opinion, that would be a deal I could live with. Yeah, okay, that's what I thought. Okay, okay, thank you. Absolutely, because there's a couple reasons. First of all, the whole point is not what do we do with the illegals here. That's question number two.

Question number one is how do we make sure we don't have 12 million more tomorrow. So if we fix that, then number one, there's going to be fewer illegals anyway because there's always churn. People are leaving the illegal population all the time. In fact, our research shows that of the 11 or 12 million who are here, two to three million have come since Obama was inaugurated, which means two or three million people stopped being illegal aliens. A lot of them left. So my point is, if you stopped the inflow, the number would start decreasing. And at some point, yeah, I can live with amnestying

the people here I don't like it but amnesty is you know we do tax amnesties parking tickets sometimes it's a prudent government measure even if it's kind of the taste is bitter Mark now you and I have to hold our breath after I ask the following question Rob James would that be a deal

would that be a deal you could live with Mark just hold your breath. Well, yeah. Done. There's a wall. Done. Deal. Okay.

I've said this for years. Yes. Wall first. Enforcement first. Then you start to fix what's behind the wall. It doesn't solve everything because you've got the people coming in on visas and overstaying them. Not everybody comes to the Mexican border, for heaven's sakes. But it's a start. I would not – no, I would disagree on that.

I think the visa stuff and everything has to be fixed too because – and this is something people don't get – is that of the thousand illegal aliens a day who settle here today, it's a thousand a day, new illegal aliens. Most of them today are visa overstayers. Most of them come through airports. Yes, or land ports too. I agree with that and that has to be fixed too. I'm just saying that's one of the usual arguments that people make against a wall. People just don't like the idea of border security in a physical form. And so for some reason, that's one of the arguments they usually make and you can do it but i don't think it's an either or either wall or either reform visas or the airports

are the main egress point right no no it has to be both i mean it's not it's not just that it's not either or it can't be either or it has to be both but that's what i said earlier i mean i think that is actually one of trump's most effective political slogans. In fact, I think it's his only one for me is you either have a country or you don't. We do not have an immigration policy. A policy is a course of actions that you choose from among your available options. We do not have the option right now to either open up the borders or close them. We are just simply not doing anything down in the southern border.

We're sort of letting the situation evolve and that is primarily of course as Mark put out because we decided not to fund the things that we said we wanted. So I guess my question to you, Mark, is if the Gang of Eight – the problem with the Gang of Eight bill was really the order, the sequencing, and you get the sequence right, isn't this entire drama, six-act play, shouting and screaming about immigration really about tweaking a bill that was in there? And you could actually pull out the actual language and flip certain clauses and get to what you want. I mean, it doesn't seem like it's that far. Yeah, but that minimizes the political problem. And the reason the sequence exists is that the pro amnesty people don't want the enforcement to happen because they're not just about legalizing the people who are here.

I get that. I mean, I don't like it, but I understand the point of that. And some of those people really are just about legalizing. But the actual actors in Washington, the folks in La Raza and at Luis Gutierrez's office and Chuck Schumer and the rest of them, their goal is not just to legalize. Their goal is essentially to open immigration to any non-terrorist, non-criminal person who chooses to move here. I mean, you know, George W. Bush articulated that message in 2004. He said any willing worker in the world should be able to come here in any number without any kind of numerical or other limitations as long as they're not criminals that is the actual goal that's why the sequencing thing is so obvious but there's so much resistance to it i see and the goal mesh the goal meshes with lots of other goals the people

who want cheap labor your chamber of commerce types as people are always saying uh the people who want just simply opportunity because it's unfair that America has borders and it's unfair that people are born elsewhere. And then there are the people who want as many people as possible to be dependent on the government and the state so that they can embark on this wonderful process of distributing, taking away and distributing what they believe to be the ill-gotten gains of the West. I mean so you've got everybody on all ends of the spectrum. Everybody wins, yeah. That open borders and unlimited immigration is a great thing. And then you've got the country itself, which puts up its hands and says the effect on the wages, the effect on the culture, the effect on the crime, all of these things. No. And it's just...

What you just described is the gang of eight coalition. I mean, it's the name of commerce, tech industry, the political left, the ethnic chauvinist groups, all of the immigration lawyers. All of those are, I mean, that's what you're describing as the coalition. And what's interesting is not that these people are pushing it, but that these efforts have actually been stopped when every major institution in our country, big government, big labor, big business, big media, big religion, big philanthropy, they're all on the same side and yet they haven't been able to get what they want because there is so much resistance to not to amnestying harmless illegal aliens who are here, but to this agenda of basically prying open our

immigration system but there there's different kinds of immigration with different kinds of effect in the culture you said tech and so tech wants the visas that allows them to bring in a lot of smart people from elsewhere to do the work right for a little less for a little less but the cultural impact of that is not the same as saying we're going to replace all the we're going to envision and enable a situation in which all of the people who work at this pork processing plant in Iowa are no longer Iowans of long standing but are immigrants. There's a difference what that does to different communities. There's no question. Nobody worries about the – about a bunch of guys from India coming in to Silicon Valley. Well, look, tech workers in Disney who were all replaced by Indians brought in on visas were worried about.

But, I mean, your basic point is right in some sense. But, like I said, it depends on whose the tech increases would actually have happened relatively easy, regardless of what I think, because the Republicans are for them, the Democrats are for them. It's the pro-amnesty people that held it hostage to amnesty. Luis Gutierrez, who's a congressman from Chicago, probably the squeakiest wheel on this immigration issue, amnesty issue, he actually said at a hearing, I was a witness and there were tech guys there. He said to the tech guys, I'm all for you. I want to give you everything I want, but I have to get what I want as part of the deal. Otherwise, there's no deal. Right.

And it's the same thing with some of these enforcement things like E-Verify. Everybody says they're for E-Verify. It's an obvious thing. It's already working. We use it at my center here. But it's held hostage to amnesty. All of this stuff is being held hostage to legalizing people first. And before – I know we got to let you go.

But before we do, just about that tech issue, the H-1B visas. That's what they are, right? H-1B? I always get H-1B. H-1B visas. That's what they are, right? H-1B? I always get the H-1B. H-1B visas. There's also a lot of people I've spoken to, it's entirely anecdotal, who are on the center right in Silicon Valley, see them also as rife for abuse, that people are sponsoring

guys coming in the country who really are the personal trainers and stuff like that. The second thing is in the past, if you believe in national greatness or national greatness agenda, in the past, the voracious need for engineers and computers – I mean not at that point physical engineers but actually computer engineers for essentially the STEM graduates and STEM workers in industry created a need and a requirement to invest in those students in the country. And so you had normally big tech companies in the 40s and 50s and even 60s investing in universities. That's what Stanford is, this huge investment from industry into a university to try to create the workers they needed to hire rather than hiring them from elsewhere. So if you believe in a national greatness agenda, H1BVs is also – they can be detrimental

to a natural industry pull, right? I mean – Absolutely. What they do is they reduce the incentives for Americans to go into these fields. And so you've got smart kids who may have gone into coding or mechanical or other engineering who, you know, who just who end up getting MBAs instead. And, you know, I mean, no insult to anybody who has an MBA, but, you know, I'm not sure that's the best use of our talent. It allows.

I have an MBA and I'm sure it's not the best use of our talent. I said that on purpose, Peter. I said that before. But the point is our ability to grow our own tech talent atrophies when we let in people from abroad. And they say, well, we're just going to do it as a stopgap while we fix education. But like you said, it eliminates the incentive to fix whatever problems we might have in developing our own talent. I mean, if you look at the largest company, in terms of market cap companies in the country,

that includes Google and Cisco and Facebook and Apple, they have enough money to fund full freight scholarships across the country in STEM fields if they wanted to. I mean, look, it's not even really just a matter of developing the talent, too. In other words, the reason they like these H-1Bs is twofold. One is that they're cheap. Obviously, that's part of the reason. They're cheap labor. And the reason they're cheap is because they're young and they're getting something that American workers aren't getting,

which is access to the United States. But the other thing is these companies own these people. They're indentured servants in a sense. And so who wouldn't want a cheap worker that you own? And in fact, it's even better than slavery because it's not – I'm not saying it's slavery. It's actually better because you don't have to pay for them when they get old. Well, it will all be made by robots and drones. Thanks for being with us today, Mark.

And we'll talk to you again because I don't think the issue is going to be solved before the election or after the election. Let's just hope we've got some progress in a year. Thanks for being on. Glad to be here. Thanks. Mark, a pleasure. Thank you. And I had to tell you, Rob, when you mentioned the STEM, somebody was mentioning the STEM fields.

It's not STEM anymore. It's not called STEM anymore. What is it called? It's called STEAM. STEAM. It's been augmented in order to get arts. No. Science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics to make it appeal more to young women.

That's what it's being called. Of course, arts has nothing to do with it. But STEAM is a little bit more inclusive. Is that somewhere that I can read and then have another heart attack? It'll be my next National Review piece, actually. Oh, no.

I'm depressed. I really do feel like the culture, if we no longer make those kinds of distinctions, the culture is on kind of a razor's edge. We're facing a very close shave as we approach the future. Well, what's interesting is that some people, particularly the young men who are looking at this field, will say no because Steam actually means something completely different for them.

Steam is Valve's sales engine by which they move games. And one of the games this year, this week, got a lot of negative press was something called No Man's Sky. And No Man's Sky is where you literally fly around the entire – all right, for God's sakes, I'll get to it. Stop making those noises. Harry's. We've partnered with Harry's to give you $5 off. You can see where I was going entire unit. All right, for God's sakes, I'll get to it. Stop making those noises. Harry's. We've partnered with Harry's to give you $5 off. You can see where I was going with that. No, I was just – is that really true?

Was it a video game, No Man's Sky? I don't know anything about that. Then I was going to go back from Steam to Steam the Valve sales platform to the kind of Steam that you wipe off your – I just took an Occam's razor. You're interrupting my explanation of the segue. It's a meta thing. Go back to the steam that you wipe off the mirror because you're running the hot water in order to prepare for the act of shaving. By the way, incidentally, shaving, now that we've mentioned and brought this subject up.

What brought that up? If you go to Henrys.com right now and enter the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout, you can get $5 off a really, really great product. You know how these guys are always bringing out the new products. Oh, it's got a new pivot. Oh, it's got 17 blades. Oh, it's got a new lubricating script. Oh, it's a little bit more.

But that's not Harry's. They give you a better improved product and they don't charge upcharging. Prices are exactly the same. Still just $2 a blade compared to the $4 or more you'll pay at the drugstore. Now, Harry's five blade razors now include a softer flex hinge for a more comfortable glide, a trimmer blade to go for those harder reaches places, and a lubricating strip, as we mentioned before,

and a textured handle for more control when it's wet. In the shower, you just don't want to drop the thing. Why Harry's? Well, you know why. Founded by two friends who wanted to give a great shave at a fair price. They got the factory in Germany where they make the blades so they can produce high-quality razors themselves and sell them online for half the price of the drugstore brands.

Quality is always 100% guaranteed. Don't love your shave? Harry's will fully refund every penny. Here's the deal for you. Now, the starter set's a great deal. You get a weighted razor handle of your choice, moist driving shave cream, three precision-injured five-blade cartridges, and a travel cover. I'll just give you $15.

What's that, you say? That's too much. Well, no, it's not. But for a limited time only, there's a special offer for fans of the show where you can get more. Go to harrys.com right now and enter the coupon code RICOSHAY at checkout, and you get $5 off. harrys.com, coupon code RICOSHAY. Do it. Start shaving smarter instantaneously.

Well, we have to leave, but before we do, I want to thank everybody who listened to the Minnesota Red Bull Band on a video that I put up about the state fair. How was the state fair? It's grand, and I'm going back again tonight and I'm going tomorrow for work because I have to do all these videos. I get to do all these videos. But I loved it because

they closed the show with the Star Spang... This band could have spent the entirety of their concert with atonal nonsense sounding like they were feeding porcupines to belt sanders. But if you end with a Sousa march, everyone's happy. And when they started playing, everyone stood up.

And it was just this marvelous Minnesota – well, those who could. Yes, Rob. I'm sure there were a couple of people, Rob, who were sitting down. Nobody was protesting like – No, nobody was. That was kind of the point. It was just fun to see this honest little expression of civic,

basic civic American stuff that you sort of think, is this gone? Is it going away? No, it's not. And of course people will say, that's the old folks. We've lost them. The new folks aren't like that at all. The band was all new and there were lots of kids at this spot and I'd like to think that, no, this is sort of small town little summer traditions like these are – well, what do you tell them? What do you guys think?

You live in – In Badlands? I was going to say syphilitic. These syphilitic communities. That would be Rob's neighborhood. Look, I think the State Fair is beautiful. It's lovely. At the Hollywood Bowl, before every performance, I think every performance, where the Los Angeles Philharmonic is on stage, they play the national anthem.

And people stand and half you know, half the audience is sitting there enjoying a picnic and the other half is sort of in the stalls there and everybody stands and, you know, and they cheer at the end. Now, listen, I'm a purist, so I like to stand and put your hand over your heart and maybe take off your hat. There's not a lot of that but there's some cheerful singing along and then there's a big cheer at the end so that's better than sort of sitting stewing in protest because you're um you're dissatisfied with the way your

nfl quarterback not even starting quarterback uh career is going or whatever that guy's Colin Copernic's problem is. I'm, I'm absolutely dumbfounded. Rob went, he's trying to demonstrate, he's trying to demonstrate that he remains in touch with ordinary America. So for me, I got Northern California. We've got no state fair here though. I'm sure there's a state fair somewhere in California, but as you know, California is about six really different states, county fairs, county fairs, county fairs, county fair here. I'm sure there's a state fair somewhere in California. But as you know, California is about six really quite different states. County fairs here. County fairs, county fairs, county fairs. But what the first football game of the season here,

the college preseason first game here at Stanford is on Friday. And the temperatures dropped a few degrees. It took me years to get used to the idea that you could go to a football game after moving to California. You could go to a football game when it was in the seventies. To me, it's gotta be in the sixties because I grew up back East. All that said, this feels like there's a kind of ordinary underlying ordinary America that does still exist, still loves football and state fairs.

Yep. I can't add a thing to that. Nope. So we won't this podcast is brought to you by the great choruses by Harry's and Casper Mattresses visit the Ricochet store as well and you know this coupon code Ricochet is going to get you discounts everywhere if you enjoy the show do take a minute

to review it on iTunes and your reviews will allow new listeners to discover us which helps keep the show going and the site going and be one of the 1500 be one of the people who signs up and keeps Ricochet going and thriving. And if you are already a member, find somebody in your social circle, you can convert and get them to be one of the 1500 as well.

If we all did it, we'd hit the goal and, and then we just set the bar again a little higher and do it again and plead absolute dire circumstances if we don't. But, you know, well, in this case, it happens to additional benefit of this. It happens to be true. higher and do it again and plead absolute dire circumstances if we don't, but... In this case, the additional benefit of this is it happens to be true, so please do sign up. There you go. Sign up, get your friends

to do so, and we'll see everybody at the comments at the new beautiful, wonderful, redesigned, feature laden, but still beloved and down-to-earth Ricochet 3.0. Next week, fellas. Next week. Don't tell me not to fly I simply got to If someone takes a spill It's me and not you

Who told you you're allowed to rain on my parade I'll march my band out I'll beat my drum And they'll pump band out Your turn at bat, sir At least I didn't fake it hot, sir I guess I didn't make it

but whether I'm the rose of sheer perfection or freckle on the nose of life's complexion the cinder of a shiny apple of its time I gotta fly once, I gotta try once, only can die once, right sir Food life is juicy, juicy and you see

I'm gonna have my bite, sir Get ready for me love, cause I'm a comer I simply gotta march, my heart's a drummer Don't bring around a cloud of rain on my parade. I'm gonna live and live now. Get what I want, I know how. One roll for the whole shebang. One throw, that bell will go clang.

Eye on the target and wham. One shot, one gunshot And bam! Hey, Mr. On Steel Here I am I'll march my band out I'll be My Strong And if I'm

Fanned out You'll turn at bats At least I didn't fake it Guess I didn't make it Get ready for me love Cause I'm a comer I simply gotta march my heart to drum I know what I know

Nobody Is Comer I simply gotta march my heart to drive my nobody, no, nobody is coming. Rain and mire. Ricochet. Join the conversation.