The Hidden Forces Shaping Virginia's Redistricting

Moore To Consider: Welcome to Moore To Consider. It's now April 23. So we are roughly 48 hours out in the Commonwealth of Virginia from this vote that got national attention. I'm here with my friend Charles. Charles, how are you, brother?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm doing right this cell phone.

Moore To Consider: I'm doing good. So this is a ongoing discussion now with some deeper research. I'm finding that the alignment on both sides, Democrat and Republican, to do the very thing that's happened in the last six months to a year, basically a year, was all set in 2023, 2024. It's like, if Trump wins and we you know, cannot regain the house and, and, and can maintain the Senate or gain the Senate, then we've got to start setting in motion what we're going to have to do to try to gerrymander the very thing you see happening in, as it relates to the house. And the Republicans were going in that very thing. We're going to win. Trump wins the popular vote. You know, was it a landslide? People bitch and moan about whether it was a landslide. Given the fact.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: of our last 50 years of history, him winning the popular vote was huge. mean, that's just something Republicans don't do. They have had, and we all know this, they've had some ability to win the electoral college, but not the popular vote and still gain the presidency. But apparently what I'm saying is this was a both sides issue. Both sides were aligning themselves to play with the district maps within states, states that they felt like they had legislative power on their side. to then go in and monkey around with and try to create more seats. So this is now playing out. ⁓ There is the, I think, common view, and I don't think it's off base, is this sort of started with Texas, and it was responded to at first by California. And there's different mechanisms used to get there. But we just had a vote in Virginia, and I wanted to start the show with this. In Virginia,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: On this April 21 to restructure the districts within the Commonwealth of Virginia, 11 seats, 11 House seats. So we have 13 electoral votes, two US senators, 11 US representatives. The vote came down to 1.5 million, 1 million 575,331 for 51.5 % yes. And then 1 million 486,239 making up 48.5 no. If you see the map and many people have, the entire state's red as far as who by county voted no. It's no everywhere except in the urban centers. And the urban centers carry the day, namely up around DC. What's your whole take on it?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, geographically. Yeah, geographically it's Geographically it's red just like the rest of the country. Geographically.

Moore To Consider: Sure. Yeah. Geographically. we're going to get, and I know some assholes going to put again, like they did last time, like, hey, landmass doesn't vote. People do. I get it. I get it. Whoever's going to have that criticism. But what we're saying is the reality of living in Virginia. And then I've made this point before. I saw this after the 2020 census, somebody on good morning, whatever network.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: They showed a population density map and really what was crazy on the East coast from Boston to Virginia Beach is a huge percentage of the people that live on the East coast of Virginia. So you come down 95 and you turn left on 64 and you go down, you know, from Boston to Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore, Baltimore, DC, down to Richmond. When you stay on the interstate, a massive amount of people live on it. So in Virginia, according to this census data that I saw, back here about six years ago or coming out of the 2020 census. Something like 21.x percent of people live in Northern Virginia. Now I think it's more like 23. It's like 23 there. Richmond was in the 21 range and then Hampton Roads, the seven cities of Hampton Roads, Hampton, Newport News on the north side and you know, the Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach on Chesapeake on the south side. That made up another 24-ish. So when you put the math together, 75 % of the people that live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 75 % live along the interstate. So if you go to other parts of Virginia, and I have, I know you have, you drive, there's a bunch of people, I mean, there's very limited people, or a lower number of people, the population density map, it says not very many people over a large amount of space. But in those large amounts of space that make up the more rural areas of Virginia, they're conservative. If you travel through the state, the state could appear to you to somebody that's traveling is a pretty conservative state. You get in the urban areas, you get a different take. I was surprised a little bit that Virginia Beach actually went no slightly. What's your take on this whole thing? Let me go with you. What you got?

Charles Hundley Jnr: So, well, it's something geographically that you're, the point that you brought up about between Boston and Virginia Beach. If you're traveling down 95, once you get south of Richmond, there really isn't any more large metropolitan areas until you get to Jacksonville, Florida. That's it.

Moore To Consider: Wow. Well, yeah, Raleigh's not terribly far off 95, but it's not on it. You're right. It's not on it. Yeah. You're right. Wilson. Yeah, that's a good point.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, route. Exactly. Yeah. So none of that all the way through. Now you could kind of say the Savannah area is Savannah on 95. You know what? I'm going to give it that. That's fine. Savannah is on 95, but still it's still not a very large metropolitan area. The first one you really come to that you would consider a metropolitan area is Jacksonville, Florida. That's a long way. It's a really long way. We're talking.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, it's off of it, but yeah. That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: 500, almost 600 miles with no large population area.

Moore To Consider: That's exactly right. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And well when it comes to Virginia, you're kind of right. There's just the 95-64 corridor and that's about it. Anything west of Richmond, nothing. Anything south of Richmond, nothing. And technically if you think about the look at on the map the peninsulas because there's three upper middle and lower peninsula. There's really not a lot on the upper middle peninsula. That's it. So

Moore To Consider: You're right. It's not.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And I always thought about what happened to the people in Northern Virginia. And I would say they escaped Maryland because that's what they did. Think of it this way. You work in DC in the DC area and to escape the high taxes and regulations, so on and so forth, and still keep your same job. You just move to the other side of the Beltway, which is in Virginia. And that's why we get a lot of those people. They're literally escaping failed state of Maryland. and they're screwing up our electric. That's what they're doing.

Moore To Consider: Yes. Well, you know, one of the things that is brought out is that the five, I want to say the five richest counties, highest per capita income in the United States are the five counties surrounding DC. And I can't remember if it's three on the Maryland side, two on Virginia or vice versa, but you ask yourself, what does Washington DC produce? What do they create? Do they have this highest level of income? You know, they produce as government.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Nothing. Yeah, right. They produce regulations.

Moore To Consider: So you get into, I'm looking at these numbers and this is insane. It really, really is insane. Anyone can go on there and find this online, but I'm looking at county by county or city by city, which vote won and by what percentage point. I'd say it's a good three to one, if not four to one ratio of red in the particular areas. So for example, Akamak, which is on the Eastern shore, they said no by plus 15%. Albemarle, which is Charlottesville, which is the University of Virginia was plus 29.6. Yes. Then you have Allegheny County, 55%. But there was 55 % win. No, Amelia, 52%, Amherst, all parts of kind of the more rural area. Arlington plus 59.8, it won by 59, 60%. So you're going down through this map, but I want you to hear that's, that was 59. ⁓ Loudoun County up 21.3. Northampton County, that's kind of surprising, was actually point, 2.9. But the vast majority of these, Alexandria, Plus 57%, Charlottesville, which is in Albemarle County. That's another thing for people that, because when we broadcast like this, people may not know this. We're in places like Miami's in Dade County, Dallas is in Dallas County, Chicago is in Cook County. ⁓ Charlotte North Carolina is in Mecklenburg County. have all these cities within a county and there's a kind of combined government thing. In Virginia, it's kind of unique because if it's a city and it lies fully within a county, they'll have common courts. They used to even have like separate sheriffs. And I think they've combined the sheriff. So like I live in James City County, Virginia. So there's James City County and then there's the city of Williamsburg. So here's what's interesting. Charlottesville, which lies within Albemarle County, plus 70.9%. They said yes by plus 70. Chesapeake, Virginia, 1.4. Danville was a plus 14. Fairfax City, 33. Falls Church, 61%. Fredericksburg, Virginia, plus 31, which is 50 miles from DC. So when you look at this, Hampton was plus 40.9. Harrisonburg, Virginia, a city, 29.9.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So.

Moore To Consider: Hopewell outside of Richmond 12.5 Lexington, Virginia 23.3. What's their Washington and Lee? ⁓ university Manassas 23.6 also Manassas Park plus 32. So I'm a hitting Petersburg, Virginia plus 73 Richmond city. Give me a guess. What do you think Richmond was?

Charles Hundley Jnr: plus 50 plus 50 ⁓ gosh wow that's crazy

Moore To Consider: The city of Richmond. Plus 65.6. Yeah. Yeah. Williamsburg plus 38.9. So there you go. And the more I look at it, cause I'm kind of getting this lower part, it's all alphabetical. As I get to the lower part, I am seeing more and more jurisdictions, but bottom line is there is a clear break here. So let's address the first part first. ⁓ So there's this argument. that both, when I say both sides, Republican and Democrat, were both after this 2026 election midterm, the house clearly wants control again. They want the speaker. They want to have the votes and what they're going to do without question is impeach Trump. What's that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: The house? The house wants control?

Moore To Consider: I said, the Democrats want the house. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The Democrats want the house and in large part, they want the house back because they're going to repeatedly impeach Trump. You and I have discussed, will there be the votes in the Senate? I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not so sure there's aren't some swing Republicans. How's the Senate going to break down? And we looked at the last time, I think it was 53 to 49 with a couple of people that call themselves. No, that can't be right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, okay, I was just okay. Yes through.

Moore To Consider: That's too many. It's 53, 47 with some couple of people that's in between or whatever. But there is a possibility, one third of the US Senate is always being voted on. So there's going to be some major races probably that are in question. every, every, you know, senators are elected for six years. So one third of them are up for election every two years. So whatever those 33 races are roughly, there might be some places there. The Democrats can regain the Senate. If it's 50-50, you got man's to vote down anything. So, and again, we've talked about, it's going to take the two thirds vote to remove Trump anyway. But I just don't know ⁓ by, you know, like this time next year, 2027, with the House, they're clearly going to impeach him. They're going to impeach him and they're probably going to impeach him repeatedly. And I think this was his move when he came out and said,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: We're going to look into some states and try to redraw some lines and make sure that we can keep ⁓ the House and the Republican side. And that backfired because of what California's response was. And I think it's like up to 10 states that have actually played with these ideas. What's your take on all this?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I think it was a two-prong thing and Congress has let him down because I don't think the redistricting would have been that much of an issue if the SAVE Act was passed. but because the people in Congress didn't do what they were supposed to do. And, you know, think of it this way. The percentages of people in the states who wanted redistricting was much, much, much, much, much lower than the percentages of Americans that wanted the SAVE Act to be passed. But isn't it interesting which one is actually being pushed forward and which one is stalled? Isn't that interesting? So what you're saying that there is a group of people who are in Congress that are essentially saying screw him, we're not going to do anything. Well, they're going to end up screwing themselves. And that's really what's about to happen. If more of these states pass these redistricting rules and it goes in a, to the left, all those Republicans who is sitting in Congress right now who didn't want to pass a save act, you can kiss your office goodbye. and you did it to yourself. More power to them.

Moore To Consider: Okay. What I'm saying is, don't think, I mean, I'm not totally up on legislative, I mean, there's the big, beautiful bill which opened up his presidency, Trump's 2.0. I don't know that he's had, he's signed a lot of executive orders, but I mean, as a percentage of wins versus losses, has he really gotten that much through Congress that he wants?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, that's kind of my point. This one, I don't recall too many issues that it's 80 % of the American people that are saying, yes, this needs to be passed and Congress is saying, yeah, whatever. And they're not doing it. Both sides.

Moore To Consider: Right. Right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Not just with the left, not just with the Democrats. No, the Republicans are doing it too. They're both in the same boat here, which makes you think that, ⁓ maybe the Republicans are benefiting from the illegal votes too. That's why they're not wanting to pass it. Okay, that's fine. But when it comes to the state's redistricting, they're really going to throw it to the left. especially if those people who shouldn't be voting are still voting. And as I just said, those Republicans kiss your office goodbye and you deserve it because you should have done something about 80%, something that 80 % of American people said you needed to do it. Okay, fine.

Moore To Consider: Let's go back to a history where we didn't know as much and we had what we learned ⁓ from Schoolhouse Rock or whatever we learned ⁓ from ABC Saturday morning. ⁓ We learned our grammar and we learned something about politics from watching TV Saturday morning cartoons and things like that. I would say the Hollywood version that we watched in the movies growing up was Presidents often won in the party opposite of the party that was leaving office. I mean, we look at the history. ⁓ Whatever happened with Nixon, mean, Nixon defeats Johnson. Well, I'm sorry, it comes after Johnson, but defeats Hubert Humphrey. He gets thrown into fire at the very end. And George Wallace had a lot to do with skewing those numbers. And Nixon was able to pull out ⁓ a majority in the electoral college and he wins. Then whatever happens, what was the guarantee in 76? Carter's going to go in. What does Carter do? Probably one of the most unpopular presidents ever. So when Reagan goes in, opposite party, you know, he tries to clean up some of the mess. think a lot of people thought it was a pretty good two terms. lot of people, know, historians go back and forth on Reagan, but he wins the two terms and Bush becomes the first two term vice president since I think Martin Van Buren to win.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: Which is another thing that people don't usually take into account is that the quickest way to president historically prior to that was to be a governor. know, FDR was the governor. ⁓ Clinton was a governor. There was a lot of governors. John Kennedy winning it from the Senate was kind of rare, but who was he running against? He was running against the vice president. you know, vice presidents running after.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. Right.

Moore To Consider: The president they served under common, but they didn't always win. So when Bush wins in 1988, that's kind of out of, know, I think it has a lot to do with how happy people were with Reagan and eight years of Reagan. Then he can't keep it together. And we're going to talk about the 92 election and then what happens the Democrats in. Then on the backside of that, you got Gore, who's been a Senator and a vice president running against a governor. Bush 43, Bush 43 wins. However you like it. cut it, decide you might say that it wasn't a fair election, whatever, but he wins. Two terms of that. And then you get Obama. Obama coming from the Senate economy. know the whole story, kind of a total unknown, but where'd go? Republican back to Democrat. Two terms of Democrat, Obama, who many people have thought, okay, he sets the party for the next 30 years in reaction to him. Trump wins as whatever the hell kind of Republican he is. And then we've gone Biden back to Trump.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: My point is no one tends, no party tends to keep the White House for very long. It tends to go back and forth. Other than FDR followed by Truman, that's the greatest amount of time. But what was happening? You were going from World War II, you were going from the depression to World War II to Korea. And then Eisenhower could have run for either party. What does he choose? He chooses a Republican because he felt there needed to be a balance shift. All right. So I say all that to say this. Again, in that schoolhouse rock thing, presidents come in, they come in on fire, they try to push things around, they try to get as much traction as they can following this public wave of love that you generally have coming in. And in about two years, you piss everybody off to some degree and you lose the midterms. we've talked about, you know, that's just, that's just history. When Bush in 2002, following 9-11 didn't lose seats. That was what the first time we looked it up since like, ⁓

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: something like a hundred and some years or something that, that, or no, it's since the American civil war, since the American civil war, no president had maintained the same power in the house and Senate. So that's the given. then incumbents usually win. Carter was one of those that didn't win reelection. Trump was one of those that didn't win reelection, whatever you think of the 2020 election. But historically, a lot of incumbents win. And then you have after your second inauguration, a countdown. It's basically a countdown. I don't want to say you're totally lame duck, but there you are. So all that being said, I think all this has been about Trump in this second term, this push to try to maintain the house and all. It might be to divert the impeachment he knows is coming. But what I'm saying is it also might be to try to get some legislation and well, hell, he's got what he needs now and he can't get anything done. So I don't think there's anything to suggest on the other side of this midterm election. that he's going to be in any better position. So I think he's basically done after this midterm. Cause if the midterm goes the way I think it's going to go, the Democrats are going to win. Regardless of all this battling over the district lines, he's done. And then it's just, wait now, that's why I'm saying that when the impeachment comes, I think there's probably a lot of rank and file Republicans in the U S Senate that might be ready to restructure the party away from Trump. Trump can't run again. And who would you, and I'll ask you this, who would you say are the always Trumpers that are still around to carry the banner of MAGA? Who are they? Well, Hannity's not running for office. I mean, mean, who the hell in the party even gives a shit about him anymore?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Sean Hannity. Oh, you mean as in who's an elected official? ⁓ no, I can't think of anybody.

Moore To Consider: Right. And I heard somebody say the other day, look at what he's doing to Vance by making Vance and Iran in this whole situation about negotiations. know, Iran may be sitting in a situation where like, screw you, where, you know, you've said all the nasty things Trump, so he sends over Vance and Vance is going to have to wear this.

Charles Hundley Jnr: What? Well, see, you know what's so interesting about that is because Vance was against us from the start. Yeah, he was against it. Yeah, Vance, Gabbard and it was one other. were they were against us from the start. OK, so now he's going to send these people out to do what? To do what he couldn't do, because I guess you say these people are better representation as to what

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. That's been said too, yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The vast majority of people want it in the first place, but dude, you've already killed their reputation. Why would anybody believe you?

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah. And like her or not, and you know, I'm no fan. I do think it was ridiculous for Kamala Harris to argue the, I didn't have enough time. Like nobody knew who the hell she was. mean, people knew who she was and she didn't, we all know this. She didn't pull well with the Democrats when she had an opportunity during the whole primary season. Nobody cared. Now she gets put in the position, but what's some of the things she had to wear? She had to wear the border thing.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: She had to wear it because it, you know, and then, then there's all this scrambling around in the media that protects her to say, he never actually made her borders are, you know, and then there's some film of him saying she's in charge and then did you go to the border? And she's like, I didn't go to Europe either. Hey, you know, so she's doing that number. So it's not very popular, but she has to wear that in running in 2024. She's got things that she doesn't want to wear. But of course, a lot of people would say,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Alright.

Moore To Consider: Her biggest bad moment was on the view. So what would you do different than the president? I don't really think I'd do anything any different. What the hell is she gonna say? And Vance is gonna be in the same position.

Charles Hundley Jnr: All right. Yes. Unfortunately.

Moore To Consider: And that's what I'm saying. So the guy that you could maybe say spins off and is somewhat MAGA, maybe somewhat still loyal to Trump and a little bit more removed from its Rubio. Right?

Charles Hundley Jnr: That is true, yes.

Moore To Consider: All right, so do you have any? question, or do you have any, any, any belief? What am I asking here? ⁓ do you think there's any possibility, anything other than a Democrat wins in 2028?

Charles Hundley Jnr: The way that things are going now, that's the only path I can see.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, I see the same. Now there is talk now that they're already aligning themselves to get to Congress, House and Senate, get a president back in office 2028, and they're going to finally nail this thing. Add four more members of the Supreme Court, pack the court, do some other switchy room, you know, move some things around and make sure that they have a permanent, once and for all, they are permanently in charge.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right. Yeah, well, technically who is permanently in charge?

Moore To Consider: If you're going to get into the whole deep state thing, Republicans, Democrats, no different. I don't disagree with you. Yeah, I, I don't get, I don't disagree.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's why I asked that question, because I don't I don't I don't think that they care who's in charge so long as it is that one entity. And there is pretty it's pretty clear that that one entity there's one side of the aisle who was very beholden to that one entity. And regardless of what letter they have behind their name, they're going to support that. They just are.

Moore To Consider: All the more reason why I think that there might be some votes to remove Trump. He's going to get the impeachment. And if you got to get to 67 votes after the midterm election, I don't know. I don't know again, cause I think there are Republicans that want to see him out so they can restructure.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's possible. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah, they can restructure to be even more like the people on the left.

Moore To Consider: go back to the way things used to be.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right. But now, so you were about to bring up the 92 election and I think this is a good segue for that. 92 was Clinton, Bush and Perot. I personally voted for Perot because of principle. That's it.

Moore To Consider: Yes, yes, I know this is what we want to talk about. Bush and Perot.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And then I hear people, especially Republicans say, well, because of that, that's why Clinton won because you didn't vote for Bush. How about this? Maybe Bush didn't give me a reason to vote for him. And just saying that he's not Clinton is not, I'm sorry, it's just not a good enough reason. as I said, I've said before, please explain to me the difference between cyanide and arsenic.

Moore To Consider: All right. OK, so folks, this is where the discussion goes now. I am one of those people that believe that Bush had lost the country and it didn't in some sense have anything to do with Perot totally without question. But I also do think that there's no question that a Perot being involved in pulling the kind of numbers he did probably had more of a negative effect on Bush 41 than it did on Clinton. Is it enough? Cause I'm looking at the numbers right now. ⁓ Clinton gets 370 electoral votes. That's a lot. ⁓ 270 to win. So you have to, know, you'd have to envision some way that the vote goes differently. Now it's true.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: That if there were some, if you went and polled Perot voters and said, if Perot's not in it, what would you, ⁓ you know, would have, I would have bit my tongue and I would have gone ahead or I would have held my whatever the term would be. I would have gone in and voted for, I would have, I don't want Clinton's, I would have voted for Bush. Is that enough in enough States to have swung a hundred votes back, hundred electoral votes back? I don't know. But Perot being in definitely had some effect on the election, but this gets to what we had talked about. ⁓ going into the discussion we were going to have today, it's the age old argument of, ⁓ it's the age old argument of the question. Do you go off the board with your pick that you are your vote out of principle when you have two major parties and you know, we both think the world of or listen to our fans of Dave Smith and Dave Smith voted for Trump last year. And what did he say?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: He said, I'm voting against Kamala Harris and I think Trump will end the foreign baseless wars, cetera. And now he's out there, of course, like a lot of other people like, boy, I got duped on that one. But he was saying he didn't really like what the libertarians were saying either. So he is a libertarian. He's been Dave Smith, ⁓ podcaster, comedian, part of the problem. He has definitely been a big part of, of reshaping the libertarian party.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: And he is a Ron Paul guy, not Rand Paul, the dad, Ron. Ron Paul changed his life. He heard Ron Paul like, I've never heard a guy talk like this before. But here's what I'm saying. He had gotten to the point, like folks, it's a binary choice. I can go off the board and vote libertarian and I'm pissing in the wind. That's just one more vote that could allow a Kamala Harris to be president. We just came off of four years of Biden. I'm not doing this. So as principled as I think he is sometimes to libertarian values, he was like, the reality is we got to keep her out of office. I'll bite my tongue, whatever the term I'm looking for here is. I'll hold, you know, I'll hold my breath, whatever. I got to do this. I got to vote Trump over the alternative because that's all I see is two viable candidates to win. So I do think people do that. But I always, you know, and this is the Republicans generally aimed at libertarian types. You guys are all pie in the sky. You don't understand what it really takes to run government. You guys are reading books and you're philosophers and all that. But the reality is we got to fight the bad Democrats. Every time you vote out a principle for the third party option, you're assuring that the bad party is going to win. I think there's some basis to that. I think there's an argument for that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, I think this is an argument for putting up a terrible candidate. And I'm going to give you an example why. We're talking about the 1992 election. What about the 2000 election? And I just happen to have it in front of me. I'm going to tell you what the votes were for 2000. Bush v Gore. Bush got 50,456,002 votes.

Moore To Consider: Yes. What about it? Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Al Gore got 50,999,897 votes. But you know what I remember hearing the Democrats saying about that election that they lost? They were saying the same thing about Ralph Nader, who got 2,882,000. So that's why I said, it's about you putting up a terrible candidate. Don't try to say, it was the third party that did it. No, it's not. You give the people somebody to vote for, they'll vote for them.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ sure.

Charles Hundley Jnr: But you keep putting up Al Gore, you put up George Bush, H.W. Bush. Sorry, nobody's gonna vote for him. Or should I say nobody? Not enough people gonna vote for him. Don't try to make the third party the scapegoat. Don't try it, because it's not working.

Moore To Consider: All right, I will. And here's how, here's the bottom line. We have fallen into, however this happened, and I think George Washington warned against this. He didn't want this kind of two party, two major parties running everything type of structure. He would have liked to have thought, and he ended up being basically courted by and sort of adhered to the principles of the Federalist party. Hamilton was a great influence on him. It's not like he didn't like Jefferson, but...

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: You know, they weren't really the same. Washington wasn't very political as the argument goes. But what we've fallen into is a two party system we just have. And when we look at the people who end up running for these major parties, the people who run for president or they're nominees of the party, you're like, I don't know that I would vote for that person for dog catcher. I don't think they'd make a good homeowners association president, but they're there. So you have the two people and you have a four, and I really believe that you have a 40 % swath of the country that's going to vote Republican no matter what and Democrat no matter what. And there's 20 % in between. That's kind of what swings every time. So I get when people say in 2008, when McCain becomes the nominee, do let's just take that example. Do you not think in my heart of hearts, there's anybody, there's two men and they were both in that primary. that I would have loved to have voted for. Allen Keyes, who I met three different times, love. He never had a chance to shit at winning. I mean, he didn't. Guy's brilliant. mean, Allen Keyes, my guy, love Allen Keyes. Allen Keyes, if you're listening, God bless you. You were the best. And Ron Paul. And both of them are handing, both of them are handing the slate in the primaries, their ass in the debates. They're smarter men. They got a chance to shit at winning. It's a party thing. So it's going to come out John McCain. And it's going to be McCain and Obama. That's the 08 election. That's what we get. That's 08. So I could go in and I don't discount it. I'm not pissing on it. I'm not saying it's wrong. if one were to say, I think Obama is more of a threat to the long-term health of the country than McCain. don't think that's why I stayed out a lot of this is coin flip. But for the person that says, I don't care. I'm going to vote my principal. I'm writing in Ron Paul. Good for you. He's not winning the Commonwealth of Virginia. He's not winning New Jersey. He's not winning any state that you vote for. But if you come out of the booth saying, damn it, I held my principles and I went off board and voted for a third party, even if the person didn't announce themselves as a third party, or you voted for Ross Perot, Perot wasn't going to win. Perot was not going to win. You knew that when you voted for him, right?

Charles Hundley Jnr: So, this is the thing about this, man. This is the thing. The Democrats are driving us towards the edge of the cliff at 60 miles an hour. The Republicans are driving us towards the edge of the cliff at 40 miles an hour. Okay, fine. 57.6, fine. I choose to at least try to hit the brakes. Call it what you want,

Moore To Consider: 57.6. Whatever. I don't disagree. Yeah, but brother, voting for pro in 92 didn't break anything down. Tell me, tell me how much you think that vote mattered.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, no, listen, listen. It didn't matter for the fact that we still got the same guy. No, but listen what I'm saying. At least I tried. And those who, well, and those who said, it's just, I just couldn't vote for the other guy. Then actually you make a more of an argument not to vote at all. Okay. But they do it. And again, you're voting for the guy that is driving off the cliff at 57.5 miles an hour.

Moore To Consider: Exactly. Yeah. Okay. If you feel good with trying. I agree with that too. I don't disagree. I'll put it that way. I don't disagree. Yeah. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: They're still going in the same direction. Why do people keep voting for the same direction but expecting a different result? No, no, that's called insanity. That's not pragmatic. That's called insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That's insanity.

Moore To Consider: Because of the very thing I'm saying, most people are very pragmatic and when they look at it No, no, I'm not. Look, I'm not the one. I don't have the power individually to have McCain and Obama bullshit. I don't have the power in 08 to have other candidates. Again, I look at 08 and I'm thinking Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, same ticket. How does America not have enough sense to realize those men, especially Ron Paul, with more experience politically? How do we not look at those two men and say that's who we should have as president? But the country doesn't see it that way.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes you do. you Thanks. So, so I'm ⁓ a bad or inferior person because I didn't choose insanity? No, no, no, no. I'm just using it as an example, No, no. But again, listen to what I'm saying. Those of us who choose not to go with insanity should not be looked down upon. If anything is the people who choose to go with insanity who think, ⁓ I'm going to vote for this guy and things are going to be different. Have they been?

Moore To Consider: I never said anything about you being inferior. What I'm saying is the vote didn't make any difference. Look, the- No, we're missing, right. Let me, let me get it back to the argument. Let me get it back to the argument. The argument is, do you vote for the lesser of two evils or do you vote principle? And I think you always vote the lesser of two evils when voting principle has absolute, what's that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No exactly exactly. but it's still evil. The less of two evils is still evil. Then this what you get. This is what you get then. You shouldn't be surprised.

Moore To Consider: So what? I'm not going to discount that. We got that through the nomination process. What third party candidates could

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, dude, call it what you want, Dude, call it. No, no, don't bring the third party, because that's, I'm not bringing a third party. What I'm bringing up is give me a better candidate and I will vote for them.

Moore To Consider: Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's what we're saying. Give us a better candidate because what you keep giving us is the same old same old and they don't deserve our vote.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Well, like I said, I was a guy that for decades stayed out of the elections and didn't vote. I did not vote. I'll be the first one to say it. I didn't vote for years. And the reason I didn't vote for years was because I didn't see a discernible difference. And because I didn't see a discernible difference, like, whatever, let everybody else decide. Honestly.

Charles Hundley Jnr: What does that mean? Whether you vote for a Republican or Democrat, you always end up with John McCain.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, I can't remember who said that line. Who said that line originally? It was a good line, but yeah, it was a quote. I think it was Michael Malice.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't know, but it's very true. And if it's true, if it's very true, then why do people keep doing it?

Moore To Consider: Because that's the choice. Yes, it is the choice. What was the choice last November? Let's know what was the choice last November?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, it's not the choice. You have other choices. No, no, no, no. I'm sorry, man. No, that's BS. That's BS. No, no, we're talking overall, Because again, we were talking about 92.

Moore To Consider: I'm not talking overall. I'm talking about concrete. was it? What was the options last November?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, we're talking about it's initial. We get to we can get to 2024, but we're initially talking about 92 because that's the one that keeps coming up the most 92. Yeah. Who was a terrible president?

Moore To Consider: Okay. You had an incumbent president and you had a governor of Arkansas who decided to throw his hat in the ring when everybody says the craziest thing you can do because old man Bush had a 91 % approval rate. And after the first golf war, then it completely slipped away and parole came in and upset the apple cart.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. And no, no, he didn't upset the apple car. He pointed out that he pointed out the inadequacies of the two candidates. That's what he did. And that's what people need to accept. Cause remember, remember this, no new taxes. And what did he do? The people didn't forget. So why would I vote for this guy? Dude, I could keep going on and on and I could care less about the broccoli thing, but I could keep going on and on and on about you didn't give me a reason to vote for you. Why should I?

Moore To Consider: Bullshit. Okay, and... Yeah, you're right. And he also said he didn't like broccoli. Okay. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And that's all we're asking for. Give me a reasonable vote for you. And I will. But if I know that you're just going to do the same old, same old, you're not getting it. And you don't deserve it. Because that really, you talk about not making a difference. If I know that you're going to just keep doing the same thing over and over again, why should you get my support? Because my vote really doesn't matter. For real now, it doesn't. You're forcing, to use your analogy, what they're doing is forcing you to vote against your own conscience. That's what you're doing. I'm not doing that. Yeah, look, it's all about fear.

Moore To Consider: I don't, I don't think so at all. I think the system is broken. I think it's nasty. And I think that every four years, the two parties put up some real bad candidates for president. So I either sit it out because I don't see anybody I could in good conscience vote for, or I think the evil of one is so great. vote for the other. Charles, we've got shit. Son, or brother, we've gone over this a million times. I totally agree with you.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, they put it really backhanded. because but they're both evil. Okay, but they answer the question, then why do you keep voting for evil?

Moore To Consider: But what I'm saying is the reality is they keep both parties keep cranking out the same defective pieces of shit people. And I'm saying if one of them is dangerous enough, or I think the country's moved in enough dangerous situation or direction, I'll vote for other over that to try to lessen the blow. But I'm not going to go in there and vote for somebody at some sense of principle that has absolutely no positive effect on it at all. Yes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: to. Do less than the blow. So you're going to. So you're going to slow down us getting going off the, but we're still going because you keep voting for somebody that keeps going in the same direction. No, I'm sorry. It's not, man. You keep saying that. It's not, it's not.

Moore To Consider: Yes. I got- because it's the only choice I have, Charles. Charles, Charles on a 10 scale, let's go this. On a 10 scale, you have 10 evil and seven and a half evil running. Okay. We're to call it 10 out of 10 and a seven and a half out of 10. Right. And then we have a guy who's a 10 angel. He's a 10 angel on the other side and 10 angel doesn't have a chance in shit of get winning one state in the country. I can go in and pull the lever for that guy. Or I can say 10 evils a lot worse than seven and a half evil. I want to slow down the evil. That's the choice. And I don't care how you cut it, how you slice it. So I'll go in there and vote for 10 angel. I'm going go in there vote for 10 angel and then he's going to lose. And I'm going to feel better about myself as I watch 10 evil win. Go ahead. Yes, sir.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I'm sorry. Because if I have arsenic, do it. Do it. Do it. it. Do it. So, okay, I got a question for you. How do you feel about suicide?

Moore To Consider: How do I feel about suicide? It's one's taking, I hope this will probably get his ban on YouTube or something if we get enough following on this, but I think it's the taking of human life by oneself.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Is it a sin? No, no, not the definition. How do feel about it?

Moore To Consider: think it's sad.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, but would you not consider it a sin?

Moore To Consider: If we're going to get into theological discussions like that, yes, I think most of them make—my personal opinion is it's not your place, but I do think people—I think, in the Christian faith, I think there are people who are absolutely saved in the Christian sense, and they're absolutely in such a state of despair that I can understand they're taking their own life, and where they square with God in the big picture.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Your personal opinion. Okay, that's fine. That's all I'm asking Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: I know some religions, faced within Christianity or certain denominations or belief systems are going to say, not once you snuff yourself out, you've lost your salvation. Some will say no. just saying it's, it's a, it's a, you asked me the question. So I'm going to say, I don't have a definitive answer as to suicide in eternal life or anything like that. But what I'd say is it's the ultimate of despair.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes.

Moore To Consider: Do I think it's sin? I don't think it's a positive, but ⁓ I'm not here to damn someone's soul to eternity because I don't know the answer. Go.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm- Okay. I hear what you're But if you have no, I'm going to use suicide. The reason I'm sticking with suicide is because you have arsenic, you have cyanide and you have broccoli. I choose broccoli. You choose cyanide or or arsenic. Both of those going to kill you.

Moore To Consider: Come up with something else then. All right, let's stick with suicide, okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And you know it, you know it, but you choose to do it when broccoli is an option. Now you can say, hold on, let me, I'm sorry, too bad. That's what you're doing. Regardless of how you see it, regardless of how you and all the other people say, ⁓ was perro, no. Regardless of how you see it, that's exactly what you're saying to us, because that's what we're hearing. You're saying that I'm going to choose this person because they're not as evil, as evil, but they're still evil. The choice is yours.

Moore To Consider: Charles, I don't see it that way at all. So I'll say no.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do you want to continue going down this path with people that you know where they're going? Hold on, hold on, let me finish. No, let me finish, let me finish. Now you can say that, well, you're eating a broccoli and you're still going to die. That was only because the broccoli was poison and I didn't know it. Because if I knew that it was poison, I wouldn't eat that either. I wouldn't eat it either. But I already know the other two are poison. Why am going to choose them? Please tell me.

Moore To Consider: Charles? Charles? Alright, good.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Please explain to me why would I choose the other two when I know where they're going. They're both going in the same path to drive us off the cliff. Why would the same person choose either one of those? I don't get it, man. And never will. and all those people that say it was, uh, Perot did this. No, Bush did this because he was a terrible candidate.

Moore To Consider: Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Would you agree that one of the major parties nominated, really ran everybody else out of the nomination process and put Joe Biden into office? Would you agree that ever happened in American history?

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ I I don't really care because I know what direction that party's going to. Regardless of who was the candidate, it wouldn't have mattered. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask if you cared. I asked you, do you not agree that that happened? Okay. All right. It happened. Okay. And do you agree that three times the Republican parties have nominated Donald Trump?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, what about it?

Moore To Consider: He ran in 16, 20, and 24. We agree with that. All right. During the midst of COVID, lot of people thought that Trump handled, mishandled it. Of course, I just think it was a creation of the press to create the, everybody's dying because Trump's an idiot, listening to Fauci and all that. And I think his instincts probably told him to dump Fauci, but if he did that, the press would have come out and said, we just got rid of the greatest man of science that never walked the face of the earth. Then he goes out and tries to run on.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah? Yes. All

Moore To Consider: You know, that he's the warp speed guy getting a vaccine out into the public as quickly as possible. But I never once heard him say, I never once heard him say that we could try through what OSHA to say, if you've got employees of a certain number, we're going to force the vaccination. you, if you serve in the United States military, you know, this forced, vaccines are forced jabs.

Charles Hundley Jnr: All Right.

Moore To Consider: Personally affected people's livelihoods and careers. Fair? I never once heard Trump say, I'm mandating it. Now it was in the earlier part of the stage. I heard Nancy Pelosi, you remember this, she was in front of a microphone. I like, well, it's not exactly like we can mandate this. We don't have the authority. Biden said pretty much the same thing. Then there came a point where that guy got on television and told the nation, some of you are dragging your feet on this necessary vaccination.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Okay. Mm-hmm. Right.

Moore To Consider: And our patients, my patients, our patients is running thin. I'm like, really? Really? Your patients is running thin? And I know people who were adversely affected by the government stepping forward. I know people that got the vaccination and have had some issues health-wise. And they're looking at like, yeah, some son of a bitch told me I had to have it or I lost the mortgage on the house. I lost whatever. That's why I'm talking about voting. Trump may not be an angel. Trump may not be perfect.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: But I'm saying, think sometimes when we look at which one of these two people might mandate something, which of these two people might force us into situations of compromising our own personal lives, et cetera, one more than the other. And we can go off the board and take the Ross Perot or the angel in the wing, the third candidate or whatever. But I'm saying sometimes the practice that for me was a defining point for the whole Democrat party. mean, honestly, when I saw them come out and say, no, no, no, no, We're talking, we will kick your ass out of the military. We will kick your ass out of your government job. We will go into your job, not related to the military or not related to government work. And we will eliminate you if you don't go along with this. When the government starts to do that and these people show that side of them, I don't want them in power. I'm sorry. That's where I draw the line.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm. I understand, I drew the line a lot sooner than you did. That's kind of what you're saying.

Moore To Consider: That's fine. But you go keep, you keep going to voting for Ross Perot, you're going to get Joe Biden sometime. That's all I'm saying.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, No, but

Moore To Consider: That's fine. I keep voting the lesser of two weaver Let ask you this, do you see Rubio ever saying mandate a vaccination?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Maybe, but what I hope, no, but again, if you're a single issue voter, then that's fine. If that's what your your line is. OK. Oh, look, look, my single issue vote, my single issue is no new wars.

Moore To Consider: Do you see JD Vance doing it? What, my single issue is whether or not the federal government says I'm gonna put an experimental drug in your body? Yeah. And those that voted for Trump feel like they got screwed in that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. And if you're voting for Biden, you got the same thing. So what's the difference? What's the difference? Okay. So again, your issue is this, mine is that, because they used to say that about the blue-haired people. The blue-haired people issue was the alphabet people, or it was abortion, or whatever it is, whatever your issue is. If you're only going to vote on that one thing, then good luck. Good luck.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Fair enough. Well, let me ask you this. When Biden goes into office and there is the exit from Afghanistan, however you wanted to find it, do you like the way it went down?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm. How about this? No, but, and there's a but here. What they did by just packing up and leaving, I kind of wish we'd do that in the Middle East.

Moore To Consider: All right, so you're given a mixed message on that, I understand. The getting out you're okay with, the fact that 13 American service members died as a result of the haphazard way in which it was done, and the fact that we leave billions of dollars worth of equipment to somebody or two groups of people that God knows how they're gonna be used in the future, it was poorly administrated, fair. That's what you got for a commander in chief in that situation.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Yeah, but we got 13 servicemembers, as far as I know, dead now for a war that has nothing to do with us. So again, what's the difference? What is the difference, man? So to say what Biden did in Afghanistan is any different what Trump is doing now? No, it's the same.

Moore To Consider: I don't, I'm not arguing. Brother, I am not arguing for Trump and Iran, I'm not. Well... I don't know if the execution, think, okay, here's the distinction I make. No, here's the distinction I make. My understanding is that people who wore a lot of stars on their outfit that were around Biden gave certain types of advice as to how to get out. And he half asked all of that. If I'm wrong about that, listen to the military types, but I think there could have been a more orderly exit where they could have done more protection of things, items, and people getting out than just the way it was handled. Fair?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Ha ha Do you think they were actually trying to protect the items?

Moore To Consider: No, as it turns out, no, but it could have been, it could have been, there, could have been, you would agree there could have been a more orderly exit with less American casualties and probably a lot fewer casualties to the people that had supported the U S military that were on ground or in country of the people that were native to the area. Fair. All right. So it was poorly done. Now, if you're comparing that, I think what's happened with Trump,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's always the case. Yes. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: And I'm not, I'm no military expert at all. I'm just kind of, you know, it's like Will Rogers said, is what I read in the papers. It seems his miscalculation is he had no idea that Iran would be this difficult to deal with. Okay. You're giving me the look. what, what part of that did that, what part of that, what I said didn't make sense.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, I have to give you the look because every dude ever for the past several decades, people have been saying the exact same thing that was happening. So if he didn't know, then maybe he's taking advice from what John Bolton or that's his dumb fault.

Moore To Consider: No, I don't disagree. look, look, Charles, when I make a statement like the guy miscalculating, you look at me like, that's the dumbest thing I've heard. No, he miscalculated. You don't think he miscalculated. You don't think this is, you don't think it's genuine that he's perplexed like son of a bitch. I thought that they would fold right up. So what game is he playing then?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Nah, that's not, that's... No, he didn't. He didn't miscalculate. No, I- No. No. Well, the same you just brought this up a few minutes ago when it came to Afghanistan. That's why I asked the question. Were we trying to protect our equipment? No. ⁓

Moore To Consider: No, but I think there's a way to exit without leaving billions of dollars of equipment and arms on the ground. There is no way to leave without doing that. Okay, so you're saying it's done on purpose, what starts to multiply even greater evils?

Charles Hundley Jnr: That was done on purpose. No, no, that was done on purpose. And this is why. you? Do you remember that during, was it 2018, maybe 2019, the military industrial complex was complaining about having more in reserves than they needed? And they need to get some of the stuff as an equipment that they couldn't sell because the government wasn't using it. You don't think what we're dealing with right now

Moore To Consider: Okay. More what in reserves. Right. Yeah. Okay, so this is a financial decision.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Doesn't have something to do with it too?

Moore To Consider: Well, if you wanted to go as far as to say, do I think everything has a financial aspect to it? Absolutely.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, it's not just financial, it's who it's going to. That's why I said...

Moore To Consider: Well, I don't think we have a history where we give two shits about having the same weapons pointed right at us a decade later.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Not so much about that. There's people who, that's their business to sell weapons. If you're not using them, they're not... Okay.

Moore To Consider: Charles, I just said, I think that when these things fall into other hands, we don't seem to give two shits about the fact they may come right back at us.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, I'm not talking about following the other hands. I'm talking about us, us using them. So we have to buy more. That's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Not just us giving them away to other people.

Moore To Consider: Okay. All right. All right. Okay. We're throwing different layers on this. What I'm saying is the average M1A1 American would probably think, the last thing that our government would do is allow through these nefarious sales of arms to enrich the people who are in the arms industry and have a foot in the door at the Pentagon, Congress, and the rest. The last thing I know as Joe Q citizen they'd ever allow though, is that the very arms that we're selling to nefarious arms buyers was to have them turned around and pointed us in another theater of war. And I'm like, they've never given a shit about that because the business is the business. That's what you're saying. The business is the business.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, what I'm saying is the average Joe Cooke wouldn't be able to explain to you the three fifths compromise either. So I don't really care what they don't know. And I'm not going to vote based on what they don't know. It's none of my concern.

Moore To Consider: Well, you can vote all you want with your, and I know you're, you're one of the most educated guys I know and do your own research, but brother, we're in a world that 99.9 % aren't hearing any of this.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, that's fine. That doesn't mean I gotta go along with it, just like the jab.

Moore To Consider: No, no, I don't disagree. All right. This has been a fun like discussion that we often have, because I know we'd like to see the same results in things like that, but we are so far from the constitution. We are so far from a republic. We are so far from the founding of the nation, the founding documents and like it's all a free for all. It's always about power. And I think what

Charles Hundley Jnr: You

Moore To Consider: Eisenhower said on the way out in the, in the farewell address, beware the military industrial complex. Again, January 17th, 1961, he wanted to say beware the military congressional industrial complex and his handlers were, don't take on Congress, but that's, that's what it is. It is a true.

Charles Hundley Jnr: He should have said it. He should have said it. What do you have to lose?

Moore To Consider: Yeah, you could say, did he have to lose? I just think, and I say this in a lot of shows, Eisenhower is a very interesting figure because he's a full Colonel as the war starts. And I think he was one of those guys, as they say, was going to be rifted out. He wasn't going to make Brigadier General. He's a West Point graduate from the middle of his class. The war kicks up and he's kind of one of these guys that is able to organize well. He's not exactly, he's not Patton. He's not the guy in the field, but By the end of war, he's a five-star general. By the end of the war, he's Supreme Commander of Allied Forces. And I was just watching something the other day, which I didn't know. When he was taking on Montgomery, he basically called back to Washington to George Marshall, the of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was like, it's me or Montgomery, make a choice. And then they got into, and Winston Churchill, according to this documentary, was the one that says Montgomery, cool your heels. Shut the hell up. Let Eisenhower run things. That was a coalition. was a tension between Montgomery wanted to be the guy and Eisenhower. Where I'm going with this is he comes out of his Supreme Commander of Allies forces. They give him the fifth star. Then he's Supreme Commander of NATO forces following the war. He's the president of Columbia University, and then he's a two-term president. So he's the guy going out saying, beware the military industrial complex. It's an interesting cat to be doing that. It wasn't Truman who served as what? was a lieutenant in World War I. It's the guy who was a five-star general and a Supreme Commander of Allied forces. So you would think he's kind of the military type. So for him to be given the, Hey, you better watch out what's coming. He, I just always thought he's a very interesting character to be given that warning. And I don't know that anybody heard it so much. Maybe, maybe Kennedy did. Maybe that's why they killed him, but go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, this circles back to the initial reason for this podcast. The vast majority of those people reside around the Beltway of D.C. And they do whatever they can do. And by the way, let's go back to the governor of Virginia. If you remember what they were doing, they were trying to they were trying to ⁓

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: played or took on the heartstrings of the people who were in the federal government that got laid off. You know where the vast majority of those people were, Northern Virginia. Yeah. Because technically it wasn't really the rank and file people who were out in the field that were getting laid off. It was the office people, the people at the headquarters of all of these. ⁓ I'm going to start again. The people at the headquarters of all of these buildings, all these agencies at around the DC area that got laid off. And she's like, we're going to do something for them and so on and so forth. OK, well, what about the people outside of that area? What are we going to do for them? We're not really worried about them. Exactly. You're not. But. When you drive around the Beltway of DC and you see all of these defense contractors who have buildings or headquarters around that area, it's a lot. It's a lot. And you said this earlier. What exactly does DC produce? Nothing. Other than regulations. That's all they produce. And these people are as close to the capital as they can be. And again,

Moore To Consider: Government. Yeah. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: We in Virginia are going to suffer. No, the country is going to suffer for what's going on because the one, the SAVAC not being passed. So you're going to continue allowing the the left to have the same amount of people who shouldn't be voting. You know, and by the way, I'll get to make this really quick about shouldn't be voting. Anybody who says that there's no such thing as voter or election fraud is out of their mind. You just go back to the guy last year, it was early this year, the guy who was the superintendent. of the Des Moines public school system who got arrested. He had been arrested before, but got arrested again, drug charges, I'm not drug charges, gun charges and some other stuff they shouldn't have been doing. Come to find out he was a registered voter in Prince George's County, Maryland. He's voting there too. So again, those people say, it doesn't happen. Okay, either it doesn't happen or it does happen or

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's happening way more than you want to admit. So you just say it doesn't happen.

Moore To Consider: Well, it's nothing, it's nothing new. mean, you know, know, Lyndon Johnson, know, the story, Lyndon Johnson was referred to as landslide Lyndon because in 1948, when he won this seat in the U S said it for the first time, he ends up winning. The story was a, there's a picture of him and John Connolly shot with Kennedy, but you know, it was governor of Texas. That was all his cronies and they're all sitting around. period vehicles from 1948 and they've got a box and they're laughing and it's like box 13. It was like supposed to be 13th precinct. And it was waiting around to find out this was, this was the play. They're waiting around. How many does Lyndon need? And he gets like 201 of 203 votes or something out of this box. And they're, they voted alphabetically.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm. Well.

Moore To Consider: the people that voted in order voted alphabetically. It was a big joke and that's why he got called landslide Linden. Um, 1960, certainly a lot about the Kennedy election, the election to get with Nixon, what happened in Illinois, what happened in West Virginia. And I mean, it was in the news then a lot of people pushed Nixon to challenge the election and he did the, well, it's in the best interest of the country. So what I'm saying is I think a lot of people think 2020 started all this like, was first time we've ever had a question. There's been questions about every vote since the beginning of time.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And you know, don't you find it interesting that there's only one side that has the, we call it the soft spot to say it's in the best interest of the country. No, what's in the best interest of the country is for you to fight for election integrity. That's the, no, no, don't say them. Don't say him. Look at the people in Congress. His own party hasn't done a damn thing.

Moore To Consider: How did that work for Trump? All right. All right. What I meant by that is the guy that had the trigger to push forward into a bigger investigation in 1960 was Nixon and he didn't. He said it was in the best sense of the country to move on, heal and let Kennedy be president. There were people that blew him up for that and said, no, bitch, stand up, you know, be a man and go in there and fight this. Cause you know, as well as I do, he cheated. What would that have turned out to be? What would that have looked like?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, another Republican. Yeah. Don't you think that that would require Congress to do something? Who's control of Congress at the time?

Moore To Consider: Well, apparently I'd have to look at the history, but Charles, when I'm saying it was kind of like he could push forward the mechanisms to challenge and didn't. He made the choice not to challenge. I don't know that he unilaterally had that choice. Maybe the party could have stepped in, but he didn't. And he wore it. He got a lot of criticism for not attacking it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Whoa, but... Don't you think? Don't you think there's a difference between attacking and solving the problem or at least doing something to solve the problem? Because that Nixon situation is completely different than what's going on now. It's completely different now because, okay, so what legislation was proposed to help eliminate the possibility of that happening when Nixon lost the election? Not exactly. That's my whole.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, you're just... I hear what you're... How so? I don't know that it wouldn't have triggered some type of legislation, Charles.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hold on, but the thing is, remember who was in charge of the Congress at the time? It was the people who, thank you, that's the difference here. They didn't propose anything. Now it has been proposed and the people there aren't doing a damn thing about it. That's the difference. They have the ability to do something about it.

Moore To Consider: Democrats. I hear what you're saying. I hear the song that you're singing and I'm hearing it a lot. You think that voter integrity is something that Congress should be addressing if for some particular reason they seem not to care.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Because they're specifically talking about federal elections and the requirements to vote. That's what they're saying. Congress has, again, 80 plus percent of the American public agree with that. the Congress doesn't want to do anything about it. they're supposed to get my vote? I obviously don't care about my vote. So all of those people who clearly don't care about my vote don't deserve it.

Moore To Consider: Supporting it, Okay, so you don't give it to where you get. You think you're getting anybody different in Washington?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why, why should, no, listen to what I'm saying, What they're saying to you is we don't care about your vote because we're not going to ensure that it's actually valid. But you're going to keep doing, dude, call it, at least amount of damage, it's still damage.

Moore To Consider: Again, I just vote for the least amount of damage. I don't vote for people because I think they're going to save my life or fix anything. Just don't screw it up too bad.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Bruh, they don't, what I'm saying to you is they don't deserve it at all.

Moore To Consider: That's fine. All the stuff that we're talking about, from the standpoint where the plot was lost is when in the formation of the Constitution, they talk king, they talk different things, and they came up with an executive branch, member. They talked about seven. They talked about a board of executives. They talked about all these different ways, but they had an executive branch, they had a legislative branch, they had a judicial branch. In the legislative branch, they said, here's the thing. We're going to have dumb ass Farmer Brown from down the street can be voted on by the people. That's the only aspect of democracy we're asking for. I explained this to a guy yesterday who's pretty well educated. And he was saying, you know, that 17th amendment messed up a lot when they took away from the ⁓ states, the authority to the state legislature to select the senators and gave it to the people. like, well, I'll go you one better. They never intended for the people to vote for president. I don't think you're right. said, look at article two. It said, and this is, we got into this discussion. It said that the electorate slate of electors would be selected by the state legislators by whatever means they chose. So he didn't believe this thing was possible where I think Spanberger and Virginia's pushed it, where they're going to try to go to this popular vote electoral college. He goes, they can't do that. sure they can. know, they can, if the, if, article two, if article two, section one says what I think, let's, let me just read that to you just for that point. Article two, United States constitution. Let's look at the exact wording here real quick. All right. Article two, the executive power shall be vested in the president of United States. He shall hold his office during the term of four years. state, here's what it says, each state shall appoint in such manner, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives. I'd say if that says they pass in state legislation to say, regardless of the popular vote in state, they can punt to whoever wins the popular vote. That's what everybody's going after to overcome the electoral college. I don't see anything in that section one of article two that says they can't. It says the state legislature can do it in whichever way they want. If they choose to use, well, they can't do that. I'm like, do you see in the wording I just gave any reason why they couldn't? Each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled. But no senator representative or person holding office or trust or profit on the United States shall be appointed as an elector." So then they say who can be an elector. The elector shall meet in their respective states and vote the ballot out of the two persons. Okay. yeah. All right. All right. Yes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So. So, so hold on. I got to go down a path here. How, how are the states, how are the number of electors? How the number of electors, how are they, should I say, assigned to the state? What is the calculation that's used? OK, so. So.

Moore To Consider: This number of members of the House plus two senators.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm sorry, I'm hearing something outside. So if ⁓ a state decides to start splitting up its electoral votes, like was it Nebraska or Oklahoma? Yeah, exactly. Some do. Right. So.

Moore To Consider: some do. Yeah, Nebraska and I think it's Maine. Is it Maine or New Hampshire? I think it's Maine.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I think it's Maine too, I think. So this is about federal elections though, which are your congressmen and your senators. ⁓ I don't quite understand why the Republicans don't get that they're essentially going to eliminate themselves unless you're already in a red state. a complete red state like Texas. I don't understand why they don't get this point. Because if anybody can vote, pretty much you know who they vote, pretty much. Again, I'm not going say that Republicans don't have some, they don't have any shenanigans when it comes to their elections. I'm not saying that. But what I'm saying is the vast majority of shenanigans are on the other side. We know that. Well, that's because...

Moore To Consider: You lost me on how do they not know they're eliminating themselves.

Charles Hundley Jnr: As I just said here about the ⁓ what's going on in Virginia, there are six Democrat ⁓ representatives and five, right? It's a six, five split. It's going to be if this happens, 10, one. all the rights. that those five or four Republicans not going to have a job. Why? Because anybody's going to be able to vote.

Moore To Consider: Right now it's a six five split. 10-1 is what is expected, yes. Where are you getting though that they're allowing this to happen by not doing it in Congress?

Charles Hundley Jnr: because they won't pass this, yeah, but not not passing the SAVE Act.

Moore To Consider: So you're saying the Republicans in Congress by not passing this, do you really think that would have stopped this gerrymandering?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, it's not the point about stopping it. That's not the issue. The issue is what's going to happen as a result of. That's what I'm talking about. Those guys, not passing the SAVE Act, are allowing people who shouldn't be voting to continue to vote. That's what they're doing.

Moore To Consider: And, but, but okay. I, it's all right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hold on, hold on. Remember what the percentages are in the vast majority of the states. It's general, I shouldn't say vast majority. I'm going to say Virginia. It's razor thin here in Virginia, or it used to be. Imagine if the people who shouldn't have been the left, I should have said Democrat, split. It's okay. Okay.

Moore To Consider: What's razor thin? Yeah, I think that that vote yes, no, it probably shows what the state is. It's about 51 % Democrat and 49 % roughly Republican. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I wonder how many of those people weren't legally eligible to vote in a federal election. I wonder.

Moore To Consider: Well, you know, one other rumor that's come out is one of the one of the precincts that I was just saying in Northern Virginia was mysteriously late in reporting their numbers. If you heard that story.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, no, but I understand that part, but I'm talking about the people who actually cast votes. Were they, that's my whole point. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying about the Republicans not doing anything about the SAVE Act is going to essentially eliminate their position. And they did it to themselves. Yeah. Yeah. So good for them.

Moore To Consider: If you're asking me to send me legal's vote, absolutely. Sure. Okay. I see. Okay. I see how you got there. I see how you got there. Okay. All right. So let's get back to, let's get back. We've gone an hour and we got to wrap this up. We've got an hour and 15 minutes. All right. Let's get back to where we started somewhat. ⁓ in the news right now, again, it's 23 April, 2026. It's roughly 1300 hours, 1330 hours. Okay. So we're at this time on the East coast already. I saw Tazwell Virginia was a circuit court judge who's already made some type, I think, granted some injunctive relief to somebody that raised their hands about this whole new district line referendum that he's attacked it. There are Republicans who have gone forward to, understand, make procedural attacks against it to try to get to the Supreme Court. Now, I understand the Virginia Supreme Court had already ruled that the vote could go forward. So it's maybe highly improbable that they would rule against it, but it is in play. So as soon as the story came out, Virginia 51-5 to 48-5 vote yes. And I did hear the story. Like I said, it was mysterious how it was a kind of a neck and neck and then boom, here comes this avalanche of votes from one of the more advanced areas that you would have thought would have had the vote counted much earlier, but it seemed like, how many do we need? Okay. You're shaking your head. You got the face. I'll just move on.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ No, I'm agreeing with you. Everything is the same, man. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Right. Okay. Right. So anyway, a lot of the news around the state was, but hold your horses. This hasn't been litigated totally. So I think there's like 10 states. Florida is in play right now, but here's the general question. Without getting into all the specifics and all the legal battles that are coming, I'm just asking you brother to brother, American to American. Don't you think the Republicans brought this upon themselves with firing the first shot from Texas that we're going to try to pick up some more? I do too. And that's why all along.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Yeah. But specifically who though? Who was the one that did it? Yep. Sure did. Yep.

Moore To Consider: Yep. Well, it started with Trump apparently, and apparently Abbott was against it. Abbott's like, dude, I think you might be starting a problem that you can't control the avalanche of shit that's going to come on the other side. So let's say that's fair. And you and I, you were telling me you were listening to somebody we listened to the other day and had a discussion with someone that we also know that has had a position pretty high up in the Commonwealth of Virginia government.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Trump.

Moore To Consider: And our sad friend said something to him like, effect, are you meaning to tell me you don't think if the Republicans had been in control of the state government, they wouldn't have done the same thing. If it was Yonkin three years ago and it was the same setup as far as more, I know with this last election, it was a clean sweep of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general. I don't remember, but wasn't it like two years ago, the Senate was split like 2020 and the House of Delegates was pretty close. So let's say though, the premise of the argument that was placed before this person was, do you not think that if Virginia had had like, Yonkin in the governor's mansion and even the slightest bit of Republican control of Senate and House of Delegates, would they not have done the same thing? Would they not have been targeted as one of the states to do this?

Charles Hundley Jnr: something like that. Right. That's the question that was posed. And this guy, ex-governor of Virginia, didn't want to answer the question. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: And I think they would have been. Right, right. I've seen a lot of weeping and ashing of teeth and a lot of people that I know that are Virginia Republican to know I just I can't believe that the Democrats to do this and I'm like Really? Yeah, why wouldn't they have like I didn't think there was anybody really here that had any real position of You know, what am I gonna say here? Nobody was in a position ethically

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why wouldn't you? Yeah, why wouldn't you?

Moore To Consider: to really make any kind of statement about the behavior at all.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So I'm going to use an analogy. ⁓ Would you, if you were about to go to war with someone, would France be one of the allies that you would first try to attract?

Moore To Consider: I know what you want me to say. So just for the hell of it, I'm just going to go ahead and defend. I'm going to defend France. How about that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, I'm gonna say no. ⁓ dang it, man. I can defend France too. I really can. I don't really have an issue with France. I don't. But generally they're known as to be push-overs as of late. As of late. No, I'm saying it. But I think there's a reason for it. But that's another podcast. Yeah, I wouldn't want to rely on them.

Moore To Consider: Ouch, you said that. I didn't.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And for anybody who would say, I can't believe France wouldn't want to fight on your behalf. What history have you been looking at recently? So for any of these Virginia Republicans saying, I can't believe the Democrats would do something like that, they should be saying for their own party, I can't believe the Republicans aren't fighting it. But they're not, because they're not looking in the mirror.

Moore To Consider: Well, I tell you something else that's come out about this vote on the 21st that I think is important. I don't think Republicans at the highest levels, you know, country-wide, know, nationwide did the same amount. They did late a campaign to try to combat it and it worked out pretty good. I think they got a better vote than they thought, but it was too late. So the point I'm making is. When I became really aware that this was going on, the first message I saw was Barack Obama. And he is a rock star within a generation of Democrats, those that love the left. mean, we're closing in on 20 years ago that he ran, you know, that won, over 20 years ago that he gave the speech at the Democrat National Convention. it's all of sudden it's approaching a fifth of a century. All right. So. ⁓

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: The way they spun it was awesome. And he comes out and he goes, Hey, know, we're going to, I'm sorry. I went into Bill Clinton voice. I'm sorry, but it was like, Hey, your democracy is at stake. Trump wants to be a dictator and take over the country. And there's been a lot of analysis of this. You're M1A1 guy and gal sitting there drinking a beer and having beans and Franks or whatever that are watching. Son of a bitch. Trump's a dictator. I've heard this. Okay. Barack's telling us we got to go vote. Yes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: And that's all they left it at was it was an attack on democracy.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I'm saying, yeah, I've heard that. don't know how many times, but who, who do we have to blame for this? And I can tell you who we have to blame for this. Trump. I blame Trump for this. He should have kept his damn mouth closed instead of running around trying to beat his chest and saying, ⁓ well, you know, other States are going to do that so we can get more. What in the world do you think?

Moore To Consider: But the Republicans didn't respond until too late. Tell me who.

Charles Hundley Jnr: the democrat states are going to do. That was so dumb of him to say. Is it? Bruh.

Moore To Consider: I don't disagree. And that was a spot that was run on a lot of the Democrats, ⁓ and these sponsored messages, they showed him in a video. It's always captured, you know, in a short spot, but he's like, they're like, what exactly are you saying? And we're to get about five or six seats in this state. You know, is something of that nature where he talks like it's going to be five seats. Well, his five seats got offset by California real quick.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: And again, my understanding is Abbott wasn't really for it because he saw the backlash and saw what was going to be coming. ⁓ I have a source here that says, effect, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia have all played with some form of this. Drawing new maps. Planned or not yet in fact, Florida. There were unsuccessful attempts in Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yes, lot of people did.

Moore To Consider: Washington state and Wisconsin. And I think the numbers are adding up. It's slightly Democrat ahead right now. Now on that thing you were saying, and for the listener, and I think people know this, when you look at that map and you were just bringing up the military industrial complex, the greater DC area, we've talked about this before because we're ⁓ actually natives of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We know this. When it comes to military presence, Virginia is it. You've got the capital of the United States right there. And then you've got Quantico down along that right off of 95. And you know, for quartermaster, you've got what was formerly known as Fort Lee. I don't know what the hell they're calling it now. I grew up near Fort AP Hill, which is kind of an interesting training ground. But as you move down, you got Langley, you got Ustich, you got Oceania, you got the Norfolk Naval Station. I mean, you got all that right along the interstate.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. It... I think it's...

Moore To Consider: So when you make the comment about the people that vote that have these government jobs working in the military industry, hell, goes all the way to Hampton roads. mean, like what percent of people in Hampton roads work in the military? And, you know, Langley is a big deal and you know, useless is somewhat big deal. And you know that Norfolk, that's the biggest Naval base in the world, if I'm not mistaken and Oceania and Virginia. mean, it's all right there. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yes. A lot. Yeah. Yes. Uh, NATO's North American headquarters is in Norfolk. So we can go, literally can go on and on and on as to the influence that there is, you know, it's, yeah, it's huge. Huge is an understatement actually. You know, there are people that say, well, this, this place has more military installation. Yeah, it's a little poled on place or whatever. Uh, but there's nothing like it is here in this, in this state. There isn't anything. And.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah. It's huge. It's 3rd Infantry Fort Myers. That's actually ver- hmm?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Now, it's Fort Stewart. It's Fort Stewart. Well, 3rd Infantry Regiment is at Fort Myers. The 3rd Infantry Division is at Fort Stewart. Yes, it's a regiment.

Moore To Consider: Right. Okay. So let's take the old guard that works at the cemetery. Are they stationed in Arlington or are they on the DC side? They're actually in Arlington, right? Yeah. Okay. All right. But, for those people, historically, when the district of Columbia was laid out, it was originally 10 by 10. We talked about, you know, that point on the East and that side that was the Virginia side was ceded back to Virginia, I think 1848. And that's where Arlington is.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Yes.

Moore To Consider: So the Northern side on the Northern side of the Potomac that made up that 10 by 10 mile square is what we think of now as Washington DC. But the original District of Columbia fell in the lower part of that diamond on the South side of the Potomac. So when you're in Arlington, you're not in DC, you know, you're in the District of Columbia, I guess still, but you're not in Washington, the city. You are in back into Virginia. yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Bye. So technically it's called the Military District of DC. That's what it's called. That whole area. The entire area pretty much.

Moore To Consider: That's what that installation for Fort Myers is. the entire area within the diamond. Really? Okay. Cause Pentagon's in there too. Pentagon's also Virginia. That's an interesting, yeah. I think it was 1848 though that that side came back to Virginia. Originally it was.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, yeah, pretty much within the diamond. Yeah. Now, yes it is. Yeah, I mean they're... They pretty much the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery pretty much share the same the same. I think they share a boundary just like Fort Myer. Fort Myer. is separated from the Pentagon by like Interstate 395, if I'm not mistaken, Henderson Hall, all of that's on the same facility. Again, I could go on and on on as to all the installations in the area that most people don't even know that there are installations here in Hampton Roads that people don't know exist. They are. But that's another story. It's just the influence. And a lot of those people voted yes, because they want the

Moore To Consider: Yeah, yeah, a lot of them.

Charles Hundley Jnr: industrial complex to continue going down the way it is going. They do. Okay. All right. Whatever, dog. Just don't be surprised when you get something you don't like. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, and actually you are correct. It is Fort Meyer. I don't know if I said Fort Myers, I think I might have said Fort Myers as in the possessive sense. But anyway, yeah, it's Fort Meyer and it's built in 1861.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yeah, real quick, and I know we're trying to end this. If anybody, gets a chance to go and take a tour of Arlington Cemetery, you should. One of the interesting things about the tour is going to the chapel, the old chapel, which is on the Fort Myers side of Arlington Cemetery.

Moore To Consider: Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: because this goes back to one of our previous podcasts when it comes to the birthright citizenship issue. There are gravestones out there that just say citizen. Because that is the oldest part of the cemetery and those people were ex-slaves who they had given, you know, had given citizenship to afterwards.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Right, interesting. Yeah. Right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Just a call back to a previous podcast. Anyway, that's it.

Moore To Consider: and interesting. Yeah, the land Fort Meyer would eventually occupy was part of the Arlington estate, which Mary Ann Acustis Lee, the wife of Robert E. Lee, owned and at which Lee resided when not stationed elsewhere. So the Arlington house, which is right up on the hill above Kennedy's gravesite, China of Kennedy's gravesite, ⁓ looks right back over the Memorial Bridge into DC. That is on the Virginia side. And of course the Union army began to bury their dead there and they pretty much took over the grounds. And I didn't know this until one of the times I was at Arlington, looked, do know the family sued for the home back and won and they won. Then after a few years, those family members, Robert E. Lee died in 1870. So it's grandson or it was some relative, direct relative. ⁓ After a few years having lots of union dead buried in your front yard said, you know what, on second thought, have it back. And they gave it back.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, they got it back. Yep. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: They literally gave it back because it's like, turned it into a cemetery. You did bury your dead out there on our lawn. And, ⁓ on second thought, we don't want it. So I don't know. They probably got some kind of compensation for it. So in closing, we're saying one, there's been monkeying around by both sides as to drawing new district lines. Yay. Okay. You got that. ⁓ we don't know exactly how this is going to play out. ⁓ Virginia's still in play.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: There may be some court decisions coming down and one of the, I did want to cover this really quick. ⁓ let's see language of. April 21 vote, because that's one of the challenges vote in Virginia. I read it because when I went to the ballot box, I read it. I don't remember a whole lot about thinking I was shocked by it, but there are some that are saying that the way, this is, this is what was on the ballot. Should the constitution of Virginia be amended? to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming election, to restore fairness. Now, when you say to restore fairness, I think the implication would be, and I think this is what a court would look at is, who does that sound like they're referring to the fairness being restored to?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't know.

Moore To Consider: I would say the voter of Virginia, not that there's a national interest in combating Texas or Trump, right? Because the way adopt new congressional district to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future ⁓ district lines after the 2030 census. So this is what they write.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Right.

Moore To Consider: Republicans argue that the fairness in the ballot language was misleading, suggesting it favored Democrats by allowing redistricting that could benefit their party. And you and I talked about this yesterday too, it's 2026. The next census is 2030. So you got a 2026 midterm election. You're going to have the 2028 election for the members of Congress and one third of the Senate and the U.S. president. What do you think of the odds? that if this goes through, the democratically controlled state legislature isn't going to let those same 10-1 ride through 2028. They're saying it's temporary because it's a hair on fire emergency. And what do you think is going to happen in 2030? Whatever the census says, it's only going to give the raw numbers. How the lines are drawn, it's still going to be an issue of who's got the political power. And what's pissed off a lot of the Republicans is they had this commission here within the last four or five years.

Charles Hundley Jnr: There you are.

Moore To Consider: to be a bipartisan commission to draw the lines.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right, I hear exactly what you're saying, but the wrong people, I should say the wrong people. The Republicans are doing what they can do, but if you think about it, aren't these congressional districts, they're not state districts that they're voting for?

Moore To Consider: Yeah. And by the way, I'm glad you said that because to all the listeners, I know if you stayed this long hour and a half, we had been horrible, both of us talking about this and a show we did two weeks ago, because we were both kind of like, I mean, you brought up the point, love you, but you kind of brought up the point that I don't know what the Democrats are doing. They've already won everything in the state. Well, that's, this is not about the state. This is not about the state. It's the state people being able to have a greater voice in ousting Trump or overcoming Trump. That's all this is about. but you kind of said it like it was a sore loser thing and I screwed, I missed a plot because I was talking about California and what their state legislature was like. All this is about is in the states that have the proper legislature, given the Republican or Democrat party, those are the ones in the position to have the political power to go in and redraw the lines. But you were right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, right, yeah.

Moore To Consider: The people who get to draw the lines for the congressional elections are the state party in power.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, all of these lines that they're drawing have nothing to do with the representation within the state. It's only about congressional representation. That's it.

Moore To Consider: But it, but, but that's what we, okay. Okay. But that's what they do.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I'm agreeing with you. I'm agreeing with you. But this is what I want the people to understand, that this is solely for federal elections and the people at the federal level, Congress, is not ensuring that those votes are valid. That's why I say that these dudes who in Congress, they're gone and they did it to themselves.

Moore To Consider: No, you're making, you're, you're, you're, yeah, you're, you're making, you're, you're making a great point. If I go to the garage and the guys at the garage can go in and get me to pay hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars to have certain things done on the car. And then another guy says, you know, you're charging this guy a whole lot of money for this work. ⁓ his tires getting ready to come off the axle on the back. That's not our concern. Our concern is getting as much money as we can for this other repair. The fact that the car is going to run off the road on him, we're not concerned with. It's sort of that same thing that what I'm saying is their concerns right now in getting more members of Congress and flipping it from Republican to Democrat in both houses if they can. They're not concerned about this voting issue and whether or not there's illegals voting. As a matter of fact, those that would want this power and to maintain this power in the House level would probably be very much for that. But you brought up an interesting point. Is it not also true that there's probably a lot of Republicans that don't give two shits about it either? Either. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, they are. But again, the vast majority, I should say the vast majority, more than half of the quote unquote illegal voting, we call it allegations, have come from the left. I'm sorry, come from the right against the left.

Moore To Consider: Well, we haven't even... But you remember the, and it was a viral moment. You remember in the 20, was it, was it 2020? guess it was 2020. It was in that time, I think 2019. But when they had the moment where they were point blank, ask this panel of potential nominees for the Democrat party, how many of you would be for like 100 % funding of all medical bills for illegal aliens? know, and every one of them is it was like,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Right.

Moore To Consider: Every, and we'll come now take that back. It wasn't quite, cause like one of them was like, I'll do it. And they're like, well, son of a bitch, I got to say that too. So they were being asked is if people were in country illegally, should the United States taxpayer pay? They were like, yeah. So I don't think it's much of a stretch to say, should they also vote? Hell yeah, they should vote. Should, you know, I mean, that's, that's where they at. Now they're, they're speaking to somebody. They're speaking to a particular audience. Then again.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: You know how it goes. You go through the nomination process, either strong left, right, depending on your party. And then you move to the middle when you campaign. And that's what leaves you in a lot of positions. Did you say that you would actually, no, I didn't. Did I say that? No, I didn't say that. Once you get the nomination, all of a sudden you have amnesia. No, I don't. Did I say that? Not, not quite, or it was in a different context, whatever. So they will say things in trying to get the nomination that are extreme left or right, depending on party. And then they try to move back to the center. to run for the national office. But there's one or two things that's happening clearly, right or left Republican Democrat. They either have a strategic advantage in having people illegally vote or people that are here illegally vote, or they don't care. They have an advantage. I guess there's another one. They have a strategic advantage or they like it. Like, I think there are those people that are think like, You know, no humans illegal on stolen land. mean, you know, they're into that whole mantra. They're like really into it or they're indifferent. I think there are some indifferent, but the ones that gain from it, and that might be the only thing there, there's no moral thing to it. ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Alright. So this is a second reason why I brought up France earlier. I didn't get to this point. France has outlawed voting machines. They're all done on paper and in one day. One day. Our elections seem to get drug out for days, weeks, and sometimes months. They can do it on paper in one day. Why can't we?

Moore To Consider: We could.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, we could, but I don't think there people that want it to be done on paper so it could be manipulated. One other thing though, real quick, one other thing, real quick. If we can put a serial number on every Federal Reserve banknote, why can't we put a serial number on every ballot?

Moore To Consider: No, clearly not. No, and that's hard for me to wrap my head around when you see a pile of- Yeah. You can come up with a million, look, you can come up with a million ideas on how to have a valid election. I get it. You're right. Okay. But that being said, when I have seen the exchanges and I've seen some, and this is back to what I was saying earlier about the battle of two evils, you know, the lesser of two evil battle. There were moments that Biden.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, so. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: had nominees for positions in courts, Article III courts, federal courts and things. And John Kennedy was famous, he created a lot of moments for himself. I think he's a showboat and I also think that Josh Hawley is a showboat, but they have some interesting points. And they're bringing up some of the ideology and some of the statements that were made by people who went to Harvard and Yale Law School that are in these positions. Did you once say that all white men should be killed? You know, I mean, Kennedy, you know, and you got some bat shit crazy leftist, you know, lady in there going, well, yes, but I was an advocate at the time or whatever, but I'm like, okay, they're nominating that person. know, this is who they're nominating. And these are the thoughts that these people have. So I, I say all that to say. We can, we can see the nominees from the two parties that come in and kind of what some of the background stuff they dredge up. And it's not that sometimes it isn't, you know, financial or, ⁓ sexual things they might have in their background. You know, sometimes they're very, very bad people. There's a lot of nasty stuff that comes out. But when I hear people that can promote some of what they have promoted, I don't want them in office or anywhere near the office. And that's kind of why I get back to square one. I sometimes lean towards voting against things than voting for things because I don't think any of these people are necessarily good people. Do I think that there are some good people in Congress? And this is one of those phenomenons too. The member of Congress that I have known for years in my district, I know him well, and he's a nice guy. He really is a good person. I won't mention it by name here, but some people probably figured it out. ⁓ But that's always that saying, many people think their congressperson is a good person. They just think all the other ones are bad. And that's why they keep voting these people back in. So what do you want to say in closing here on all of this?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Just a Pat Buchanan quote, Democrats and Republicans are opposite wings of the same bird of prey and we're the prey. That's all I have to say today. I'm a fan of philosophy and regardless of who's saying it or where it's coming from.

Moore To Consider: You're a fan of Pat Buchanan, aren't you? No, I, I just thought it was interesting that there's been kind of a resurrection with him that he wasn't maybe the bad guy that certain people have been making him out.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, same resurrection is happening about Nixon. Same thing. So for the same reason, strangely enough, it's a miracle.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah. I just think it's interesting what, they're saying about the background of Bob Woodward and how Bob would, the very, yeah. And the very first job he has at the Washington post is going after the United States president, the new guy, 27 years old, the end of the hall. Hey, you you and Bernstein take over this case. That seems a little inside.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, yeah. You mean the naval intelligence officer? Yeah. Right. Yes. Right. ⁓ yeah.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, especially coming from his background. Yeah. So there, there is kind of some questions now about Watergate. What did they want Nixon out for? What did they want Kennedy out for? By the way, I got a show coming up with Gerald Posner, ⁓ you know, the author of Case Closed, probably the biggest JFK assassination guy. ⁓ that's kind of out of the news. There's hasn't been anything else come out about that in some time. So maybe one day we find out what really happened. All right. This has been, yes. Give me that final Charles.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yep. Maybe one day. I know, just maybe one day we will find out. That's all. Yes. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, maybe we'll find out lot of other things too. We are finding out some things, but, ⁓ I don't know that we're ever going to really find out, ⁓ all the things we'd like to know. Like where's Jimmy Hoffa? Right. We're never going to find that one out. All right. This has been Jack and Charles. Like, subscribe, share, tell us how we're crazy in the comments. I won't read them. Charles will. It'll hurt my feelings. So I won't look at it. Charles, my brother, love you. Take care.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Hmm. Love you too. Bye bro. Take it easy. Bye.

Moore To Consider: Garmin talk to soon. Bye.