Episode Transcript:
Good morning. It's time to wake up. Donald Trump is a senile old narcissist. Let's talk about the debate.
Hey everybody, it's me and you don't have any idea who I am most likely. But I have been petitioned by a bunch of people on TikTok to create a podcast so that I could speak a little bit more in depth about some of the issues that I've been talking about. Most recently, that has included the election this year, but more pertinently than that, news coverage of the election, and more specifically than that, New York Times coverage. So I'm going to get into that New York Times coverage to some degree here. But before I do that, I really want to give my impression of the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. My impression, as just about with everybody else, is that Kamala Harris won hands down. As she should have, because a lot of people are giving Kamala Harris credit for her preparation or for having been prepped. And people are not recognizing that Kamala Harris is currently vice president of the United States of America. it shouldn't come as a surprise that she was well-prepared for the debate. And people are speaking about her performance as if it's bewildering and shocking that she was able to pull this off. This is really going to be the focus of what I have to discuss today. You know, a lot of the news coverage has really taken the agency away from Vice President Kamala Harris and basically put all of the power on the side of Donald Trump leading up to this debate and In This position is wild to me for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I want to center on Vice President Kamala Harris. So a lot of the news coverage, as I said, has really taken this angle that it's such a surprise and a relief, frankly. Commentators, anyway, are saying it's a relief that Kamala Harris was able to handle Donald Trump as well as she was. And, you know, to be fair, I want to say I can understand that to a certain degree because Hillary Clinton was very well prepared to debate Donald Trump. And Donald Trump did not debate Hillary Clinton so much as not even intimidate her, but sort of perform for the camera. in such a kind of looming, aggressive primate kind of way. Like his body language to me, I have such a, clear mental image of this in my head to this day. You know, Donald Trump just sort of puffed himself up like an ape in the great ape exhibit at the Smithsonian National Zoo and just sort of loomed behind her as if he was potentially going to pounce on her at some moment. She still was said to have dominated him in the debate. Based on policy. That's a really important point. And she got credit for that. But nevertheless, what people remember about the debate is that Donald Trump acted like an insane person. And therefore, everybody talked about Donald Trump after the debate. Donald Trump commanded all of the television attention. Donald Trump talked over her when she spoke during the debates because they left the microphones on. And Donald Trump said things that at that time were very surprising and shocking, such as, quote, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue. and not lose a single supporter, unquote. So all of this was new when Hillary Clinton debated him. And she was not prepared for that, right? And then Joe Biden's debates with Donald Trump. Well, Joe Biden, yes, we all recognize that his performance has been affected by a couple of different things. One, he has never been a great speaker. He's never been an orator. like, for example, Barack Obama. And that's an unfair comparison because Barack Obama is truly one of the greatest speakers alive today. But, you know, Biden even struggled sort of in terms of delivering information in a way that's palatable to people. He even struggled to kind of rise to the level of George W. Bush a lot of the time. They made similar, I hate this word, But they made similar what people call gaffes and stuck their feet in their mouths. But Biden also stutters. He stammers. He loses words. And he's always done that. He has always done that. He has a neurological condition. He has personal challenges in those ways, right? And so between that and yes, probable age-related cognitive decline, which I am going to use a shorthand for that today, senility, because of Suspected senility. He didn't perform very well against Donald Trump. Not to say that Donald Trump performed well at all. but it certainly was a death knell to Joe Biden's candidacy that he was at a loss for words, right? So the reality is the bar for Donald Trump has been low. It's been low for a couple of different reasons. One, his most recent candidate, Joe Biden, just wasn't a great speaker, right? And so because he couldn't get his words out, he wasn't really able to parry you know, in the sense of having a sword fight with Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is all swords and daggers and grenades and any kind of sneak attack he could get, right? We all know that. So But the other part is the surprise attacks, right? And the antics. And Kamala Harris handled him. She handled him. Why should people not have been surprised about that? Well, number one, she's an attorney, right? Joe Biden is not an attorney. Hillary Clinton is an attorney and she's great at debating in terms of policy, but she hasn't been a practicing attorney for a long time. Kamala Harris is a former prosecutor, which a lot of people have mentioned, but district attorney, attorney general, senator, currently the president of the United States Senate. She knows how to handle herself. Kamala Harris also told us, she told us, she made a promise to the public that she knows people like Donald Trump. She has dealt with them her whole career. And she is going to handle him. And she handled him like a professional, like a prosecutor. And then the other part of this is that besides his bizarre smoke and mirrors, Donald Trump also has major, major disadvantages. And this is what goes unsaid all the time. Number one, he doesn't know stuff. Donald Trump doesn't know stuff. He got away with being president of the United States and being intellectually deficient for four years. He said insane things. Yes, insane things, but also things that were so illogical that they transcend insanity and they just cross the line into just straight up dumb. Can we inject bleach? Can we inject chlorine? into our veins. No, Mr. President, we can't do that. And you shouldn't tell people to do that because that will kill people. Well, can we inject ultraviolet light into our veins to cleanse ourselves of COVID-19, of the novel coronavirus? No, Mr. President, because you can't put ultraviolet light into a syringe and inject it through a needle into the bloodstream. That is not a very smart question to ask Mr. President. Ask these questions in private if you must. Don't do it on a stage in front of the entire United States and the entire world. Okay, so he's not smart in that sense, in the sense of facts, in the sense of knowing things and retaining information. and being able to recall that information. Okay, he's also senile. Now, as I said, nobody else will say this. This has been really the nexus of those criticisms that I have mentioned of the New York Times. They go beyond this, my criticisms, but my criticisms are deeply rooted in in the New York Times having waged an absolute... information war on Joe Biden because of Joe Biden's age and because they were telling the world that Joe Biden is senile. They were using a more pleasant term because that is how I'm going to say something bold here. And some people will be alarmed by this and think that I'm extreme by saying this. And other people will fully understand what I'm talking about. When the New York Times says something like, does Joe Biden have cognitive decline, age-related cognitive decline? That is just the New York Times way of being Fox News and saying crazy old man. I have learned by very, very closely and carefully listening to and analyzing both on my own and using artificial intelligence that the New York Times published in fact, has waged either an intentional or possibly unintentional war on both Democratic candidates. They use terms that are always pejorative for the Democrats. That means both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, both of them. collectively and together, the New York Times has consistently referred to both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as weak. That is one of their favorite terms. Unpopular is another one. They use the term, both of those terms, weak and unpopular, to refer to Kamala Harris when Kamala Harris's popularity was surging, surging and surging. when after, they said this after, she had received record donations for any presidential candidate in history, okay? Clear demonstration of popularity among the general public, among voters. But the New York Times consistently and persistently said that she is weak. She is unpopular. and a variety of other criticisms. One of those criticisms made on the New York Times' The Daily Podcast was astonishing to me. And I can get into this in greater detail and with greater specificity later on. But one of the New York Times reporters said, because she has gone unchallenged for the Democratic candidacy. And she went unchallenged for the Democratic candidacy because she is a woman of color. and any would-be challenger would have been a white man. And no white man in the Democratic Party has the courage to challenge a woman of color And therefore, she is weak. Did you follow the logic in that? There is no logic in that. They claimed that she is weak. We saw in the debate yesterday that she was not weak and she has not been weak at any moment over the past four years, really. She's been depicted that way, but she has not But secondly, let's take a moment to actually parse the logic of what this New York Times journalist suggested, that Kamala Harris is weak because no white man had the courage to challenge her. Okay, let's take the racism and the sexism out of that. Kamala Harris is weak. because no one had the courage to challenge her. Now, I ask you logically, does that make Kamala Harris a weak candidate or a strong candidate that nobody had the courage to challenge her? I was asking this question two and a half to three months ago after I heard this on the New York Times, the daily podcast. And it has been clearly evident to me that Kamala Harris is in fact a a strong candidate. She showed us that she is a strong candidate. Now, Let's talk about her opponent for a minute. He is a senile old narcissist. The New York Times and other journalism organizations, other news corporations, if you will, like the New York Times, like CNN, they will not say that about Donald Trump. They will not say that. that Donald Trump is a senile, old narcissist. They won't say he's uninformed. They won't say He clearly demonstrates what the New York Times and other press outlets like to refer to respectfully as they were disrespecting Joe Biden. as age-related cognitive decline. But Donald Trump very clearly demonstrates that. One, One single publication has discussed that at length, while just about every major news publication discussed Joe Biden's cognitive issues. well-being and presumed illness at length. The only publication I have found that has really assessed and analyzed Donald Trump's performance is Stat News. This is a medical news publication. Read by medical professionals, doctors, clinicians, nurses. They assessed his language use, Donald Trump, that is. They assessed Donald Trump's language use and determined that number one, he demonstrates most of the clear hallmark signs that are revealed through language that show cognitive decline caused by aging. These neurologists compared his language usage today, this year in 2024, to his language from the last time he ran for president of the United States. and to eight years ago, the first time he ran for president, and then earlier in his life, through public speaking appearances, through press interviews. He... does not speak in a manner similarly to when he was younger. His speech has been markedly changed by aging and age-related cognitive decline. Like Joe Biden, he can't find words. Unlike Joe Biden, the wrong words come out when he speaks, when he means to say one thing. he not infrequently will replace that word with a sound-alike word or with an entirely unrelated word. Joe Biden sometimes demonstrates tangential speech. That's when a person begins speaking about one given topic and they cannot focus on that topic through the duration of, say, a paragraph or a full sentence. Occasionally, Joe Biden has demonstrated this. Donald Trump demonstrates this in every single public speaking appearance now. He cannot start at A and end at B. If he ever does start at A and end at B, he covers… 18 other miles of terrain and goes underwater and takes a blimp ride on the way to be. And nobody can follow anything that he says. But his fanatics don't care about that, right? And neither do the press, because the press give him favorable treatment to such an extreme degree that I could not remain silent about it any longer. That's how I ended up here. That's how I ended up talking about this. Because when you see something, say something. And I was seeing and hearing so many things. So many examples of this happening with the press either giving him the benefit of the doubt or giving him such favorable treatment that they, in particular, the New York Times, the Daily Podcast, you know, are gunning for his opponents and doing him favors. Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC talked about this at length in, I think, a 17-minute video. that he put up a couple of days ago. I've been talking about this for at least two and a half months, specifically, as Lawrence O'Donnell did, about the New York Times. Lawrence O'Donnell really focused on one specific And that is what he called... crazy washing, I think. Sane washing. He calls it sane washing. And basically, he pointed out... I'm grateful he did this. He pointed out several times in which the New York Times... Instead of printing and then discussing the gibberish speech of Donald Trump, instead, they printed... excerpts, edited excerpts of his insane nonsensical speech. They edited for brevity. They edited to try to clarify the messages that they believed he was trying to communicate. And then they did him... multiple many times over they've done this semi-routinely at this point he speaks gibberish And they print part of the gibberish in an edited form to make it sound better. And then they say, what Mr. Trump meant to say probably was this. And this means this policy. And this could be a viable policy. That's what they're doing at the New York Times over and over and over and over for Donald Trump. And then they tell us that Donald Trump's policy positions are clear, number one.
00:22:44 ArtistLike: And meanwhile, in 2024, Donald Trump speaks primarily in gibberish, both the topical matter of his speeches and his language use itself. Together, they add up to nonsense more often than his language is actually coherent and means something. And Lawrence O'Donnell, a couple of days ago, put up, I think, a 17-minute or so segment picking this apart. just as I have done for the past two and a half months, that the New York Times is giving unfair, favorable treatment to Donald Trump. And they do it by doing this. When he gives a speech, for example, recently he was asked, what will your administration do to secure or provide child care? for parents who cannot afford childcare. And his answer was rambling and nonsensical. He actually didn't say anything. He didn't say anything of any substance. He meandered from gibberish, filler words, to mentioning his daughter, of course, Ivanka, for no good reason. And then he started talking about tariffs. Wynne asked about domestic child care for impoverished parents. Then he talked about tariffs and how other countries are not paying their fair share, and he was going to make them pay their fair share. And then he just kept on meandering. And the New York Times printed an edited excerpt of this speech to make it sound far more coherent than it was, to make it sound far more concise than it was. And then they said, what Mr. Trump meant to say was this. And then they just invented an answer on his behalf, in his favor. they said, and this could be a viable policy. That's what the New York Times is doing for Donald Trump this year. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, the New York Times and other press outlets, but I really am focused on the New York Times here. The New York Times has incessantly told us she has no policy proposals. They wrote up an article saying Kamala Harris has no in-depth policy proposals, right? And that was the headline. That was the headline. That was front page news in the New York Times a few weeks ago. And then buried at the very end of the article, it said, I'm paraphrasing, Of course, she's only been candidate for a few weeks, and every candidate spends the better part of six months writing up their policy proposals. And so she couldn't possibly... have these types of policy proposals. And yet they faulted her for it. They faulted her for it. And Donald Trump speaks in gibberish. And the New York Times does two things. One, they say, well, the people are already familiar with his policy proposals. because he was already president, and therefore everybody knows him. And number two, here's some gibberish that he said, and what he meant to say was this, and within this invented information, are these policies? And these could be good policies. That is literally what the New York Times is doing. And it is truly interesting. alarming. A lot of people this year, and in particular from the time Joe Biden and Donald Trump debated one another, people can see straight through this incredible, Incredible. That means not credible. Unbelievable. Impossible to believe bias on the part of the New York Times against both of the Democratic candidates. This is a shock to me. This has come as a shock to me. It has rocked my world. So, like I said, let's talk about the debate. Specifically, I want to talk about the New York Times, the daily podcast, their take on the debate. Because Okay, I've got a few things to say about it, but first I want to explain why I'm focused on this podcast. Because... The publisher of The New York Times, A.G. Salzberger, has said now on multiple occasions that The New York Times' The Daily Podcast has a larger audience, a greater audience. than the front page of the New York Times itself. Both the website and the print version of the newspaper Combined, that front page headline story The Daily Podcast has a greater audience than that, which means The Daily Podcast is hands down the most influential arm of the New York Times company. in terms of being an information outlet. So we have to focus on it. It has an average of 3 million listeners per day. Probably the majority of those listeners are younger than the actual readers of the newspaper because of the digital format, the podcast format of The Now, I have been documenting kind of ad nauseum for about the past two and a half to three months the various ways, and there are many different varied ways that the New York Times, in my view, has been misrepresenting both Democratic candidates, first Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. They've spoken in really dismissive and overtly derogatory ways about Vice President Harris, and they consistently give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt in a variety of different ways. I talked about one of those ways already that the newspaper itself So in their debate reaction today, The Daily host, Michael Barbaro, and guest journalist, Jonathan Swan, they talked about how Kamala Harris and Donald Trump performed. And Barbaro opened the episode saying, Jonathan, who won last night? And Jonathan Swan said, she did. And Michael Barbaro said, wow, that may be the shortest answer I've ever received in the history of this podcast. And Swan said, well, look, there's no other way. There's no way to spin it. There's no other interpretation. She won him. hands down. Okay, so I give them credit for that. I can't lie. because of the overtness of their bias over the past two and a half to three months, I'm actually surprised they admitted that, but they did admit that. And that is, is part of the reason they retain some perceived credibility. But the credibility is diminishing in the public view. And it's... a tragedy as far as I am concerned. I am not a person. I am not at all a person. who wants to denigrate or suggest that any mainstream news organization should not be trusted. That's dangerous. That is what Donald Trump did. That's one of the things that he did that has significantly contributed to the disintegration of the formerly United States of America. We have to trust our institutions. We have to. And the news is an American institution. The First Amendment exists specifically to give the press, to give journalists the power, the power to report on corruption. in the United States government to prevent corruption, to check corruption, to make sure, even though they don't enforce justice. Their job is to make sure that justice is enforced, right? through bringing things to light that otherwise would not be. We need this. We need it. And so I am not ever I never will be a person who says, He sounded surprised that Kamala Harris did as well as she did in the debate. And as I've discussed, we had every reason to expect her to do as well as she did in the debate. She told us she would. And this is, in fact, Kamala Harris's expertise. Everyone keeps saying they're waiting for her to tell us who she is and what her expertise is. This is it. She's a prosecutor. This is it. Yeah, she's also a policymaker as a senator, but she is a prosecutor. This is her very expertise at work. But they didn't give her any credit for that. What Swan said repeatedly on this podcast episode is that they, whoever they are, prepared her. They prepped her really well for the debate. Okay, she prepared, and she deserves credit for preparing. But what we witnessed was her career-long professional career. expertise at play. This was not because a bunch of men taught her how to outmaneuver Donald Trump on a stage, and that was the clear implication. In fact, Jonathan Swan said midway through the podcast discussing the debate that Kamala Harris, quote, pulled off a coup, unquote. Now, All right. Benefit of the doubt. Pull off a cue. A coup. That is... a figure of speech, granted. It certainly is an uncomfortably ironic figure of speech, given that Kamala Harris was debating Donald Trump, who attempted a coup of the United States and didn't pull it off, right? So he says though, Jonathan Swan says Kamala Harris pulled off a coup in dominating Donald Trump. That shows no confidence, number one, in her ability. Number two, it shows no recognition whatsoever of Donald Trump's, as he would say, tremendous power. failures and weaknesses. He's not a strong debater. He's not a knowledgeable person. And At this point, he is a weary-looking and weary-sounding and weary-acting old, senile man, okay? So, number two shouldn't be that surprising. do not trust the mainstream media. But where we are right now, people really need to learn how to interpret the messages that are being communicated and how those messages are being communicated. Even if the why oftentimes will just have to go unknown. I know this has gotten long. So I want to talk quickly-ish about the couple of things that I picked up on in today's New York Times Daily podcast recap of the election. So Two things in particular. I'm going to be really upfront. I always do this and I always offer that disclaimer. If you care to listen to me, you're going to have to get used to that because I have to be forward about my work. and my expectations. I don't know. I'm inclined to have interpreted this conversation between these two men on the New York Times Daily podcast as... rooted in sexism, potentially both sexism and racism. But it may be partisan political bias. Maybe it isn't sexism. but I do think that it is. So, first of all, Jonathan Swan But number three, my real point of contention is that by saying Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris pulled off a coup, By besting Donald Trump, Jonathan Swan is putting Donald Trump in the center of power. A coup, whether it's a literal coup like Donald Trump attempted or a metaphorical figure of speech. Pulling off a coup means displacing the seat of power. Think about that. Think about that. Donald Trump is not in the seat of power. Donald Trump's ass has been in a seat. in a courtroom and another courtroom, right? He's not in a seat of power. He is backed into a corner already. Nothing to even do with Kamala Harris. He has gotten himself backed into a corner and and he's desperate. So he's not the center of power. She, on the other hand, is current Vice President of the United States. And they don't show any respect for that, but they don't even show recognition of that and what that means. The entire approach, the entire view of Kamala Harris that is communicated through the press like this is so diminishing. It's as if she is like a you know, in a junior debate club. And she just knocked the current president of the United States off of a pedestal. that's not what we're working with. So this is why I say, I can't, I really cannot force myself even to, to pretend like it's anything other than sexism, possibly sexism and racism at play. But also, I have talked at length, at length via my TikTok, which is at artistlike1. I've talked at length for the past two and a half months. about documented how the New York Times has been gunning for Kamala Harris and before her for Joe Biden and really helping Donald Trump. And I can't make sense of it And everybody asks me, not everybody, lots of people ask me in comments and private messages, why is the New York Times doing that? And my answer is always the same. I couldn't say. I don't know. I don't know anybody's motivation. All I know, and other people know, because so many people have come to me and said, I thought I was crazy thinking the New York Times was helping Donald Trump and just mercilessly attacking Kamala Harris until I started listening to your breakdowns of their tactics and their syntax and their approaches, people have said, I thought I was losing my mind. And I'm so glad to see that you and now I see through these comments, so many other people are hearing the same thing that I've been hearing. And And so beyond any perceived sexism or any perceived racism, I'm not going to talk about it now. I'm not going to get into the details, but I have very specific, very, very specific reasons for using those two words specifically for the New York Times, The Daily Podcast. I can talk about that later if anybody cares to hear it. But anyway, besides thinking It just is. It just is blatant sexism. I also can't help thinking it's partisanship. And I don't know. I couldn't possibly get inside of anybody's head or anybody's corporate strategy. Literally the only thing I have found that makes much sense And again, I wouldn't even go so far as to suggest this is it because I just simply don't know. But in 2016, within one month of Donald Trump being elected president of the United States, The New York Times subscriptions grew tenfold. Ten times. Ten times in one month. So, whether this is what is motivating them or not... profit is a clear motive, would be a clear motive for them wanting him to become president again. But then again, you know, you have to imagine that the journalists and the executives at the New York Times truly are primarily very intelligent. and strategic thinkers. And so they must know in the long run that there is no payoff, no payoff in the long run for any party that cozies up to a dictator. And that is what Donald Trump is aiming for. That's clear. He has said so. Everybody is clear on that. Again, whether or not they'll say it, just like whether or not they'll say Donald Trump is senile. whether or not people will say Donald Trump is a narcissist, a likely sociopath or psychopath. I'll say it because it's just true. It's just true. It is hearsay. It is speculation. But I am not a person who engages in conspiracy theory. I am not anti-government, which I know a lot of people who share some of my criticisms are one or all of those things and more. And that isn't me. Just so everybody knows who I am, I am liberal. I'm very liberal. And I am also a contrarian. So even when discussing liberal concepts and liberal policies, excuse me, um, also, you know, at a certain point, you just have to say what is plain in Anyway, we're 40 minutes in and I am going to wrap up now. If anybody has listened to this, I want to say a few brief things. Number one, as I said at the beginning, I truly am only experimenting with a podcast because a lot of people on TikTok asked me to. And I listen to a lot of podcasts. And one thing I know about podcasts, I happen to like long-form podcasts personally. So I know if anybody hears this, they'll probably say, eh, cut it. Cut it down to like 15 minutes. I listen to podcasts on my commutes. I like them longer. This is for me. Okay. This is not an industrial maneuver for me. This is not a moneymaker for me. But number two, for me anyway, I know that I vastly prefer podcasts that are not just one person babbling on, which is yes. Yes, I try to be self-aware and I do realize that is exactly what I have done here. Conversations. conversations are by far the most palatable way to take in information in this audio format. and I want to have conversations with people. I spent probably about 15 years doing variety of different types of freelance writing and interviewing people So this is a skill I have, but I don't have a podcast yet. And so I don't have anybody, I don't have any reason to invite anybody to participate in these conversations with me. But if anybody happens to listen to this, I want to open the door to that. If you know of anybody who might be interested in having thoughtful conversations that are both open-minded and also engage critical thinking. refer them to me or tell me about these people because I would love to have conversations. But to be really clear, I am not a disestablishment person. I am liberal, but I am also contrarian, even to people who share my values. I think there is always value in that. I value talking to people with vastly different points of view. I think it's intellectually engaging and stimulating. And I honestly think it's the only way, the only way to gain real perspective. And so I'm fully open to that. I don't like echo So if you know of anybody who might be interested in a challenging, open-minded conversation that uses, that employs critical thinking about all kinds of things, about politics, about other current events. Yes, about LGBTQ interests. I am a gay man. about race, about gender. I am a white man and I just feel like I must engage in these conversations again. it's the only way to peel back our own blinders. But health, medicine, all kinds of sciences, the arts, creativity, all of these things appeal to me deeply. And I think there can be a lot of really interesting conversations to be had. So this is my first Over long episode. Yes, I'm self-aware. If this doesn't work out, you can, for now anyway, follow me on TikTok if you want, at artistlike1. That's A-R-T-I-S-T-L-I-K-E 1. And just finally... I just want to emphasize again, this is not a money-making endeavor for me at all. And I don't intend for it to become that. This is just simply... Yeah, I just can't be quiet anymore. I'm trying to... trying to get past, as Kamala Harris says, turn the page, get past the stagnant, toxic, horrible, you know, juvenile, unintellectual, Reactive, defensive. Everybody's a victim. Culture that we've been in. You know, it's ridiculous. An 80-year-old billionaire. who has gotten away with crimes his entire life, including serially raping 25 women, or at least those are the allegations, with one being found liable in court. And the others all not being court bound because of statutes of limitations. And he confessed to it. This guy's not a victim. And I just can't take it anymore. I can't take it anymore. We have to speak plainly. Just plainly, he is a senile, old narcissist who is taking aim at this country. And inexplicably, about half of the country supports him. And too many in the press support him. And it's just, we have to talk about it. We have to talk about it. It's the only way to keep from going crazy, number one. And maybe... If we talk through it, we can get through
Wake Up! Let's Talk About the Harris-Trump Debate