Trump, Reagan & the Soul of the GOP: Inside America's Political Identity Crisis

Moore To Consider: Welcome to another edition of Moore to Consider. This is Jack, and you are

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm Charles today. I'm doing all right.

Moore To Consider: Charles, how are you, brother? All right, we got hot and bothered there. I did. We got we got I got a little worked up there at the the end of the last show and we got into an issue that we have discussed, and now we're going to do it openly on Mike to talk about this. I'm really kind of wondering the whole Trump phenomenon. I mean, it's a huge phenomenon historically for me as someone of my age, been 60 plus years on this ⁓ earth. ⁓ you know, I had the view I had growing up of the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, what all that meant. And I mean, let's let's go ahead and say it that ⁓ by the time I'm a kid, as I'm growing up in the 60s, you thought Democrat Union, you thought certain religious groups, you thought minorities, and the Republicans you kind of thought stiff, conservative, white. Fair enough. I mean, it's kind of it. But also the farmland, flaw, ⁓ you know, Kansas or something like that. Out in the Midwest, you thought Republicans, and then that was kind of the birthplace of the party, abolitionist, ⁓ you know, some ⁓ almost what 175 years ago. So all these things shift, but here's what we're gonna get into. ⁓ 10 years ago, 10 years ago when I was a college professor.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: I was somewhere, I'll just say, I was in a professional setting. I'll put it that way. I was in a I was a college professor and I was in someone's office. I don't want to get too much into these facts, but it was somewhere in ⁓ in America. And I'm in this guy's office. And given the fact I'm teaching criminal justice, it would make a lot of sense to get this excuse me, this guy to come by as a visitor, maybe to lecture a class on his experiences in his field. And we're hitting I don't Think I've turned this guy off yet. I know I'm abrasive. I can be an asshole, whatever, but I don't think I've done anything really bad yet. And ⁓ I follow him back to an office from an event we had been at. And ⁓ and he goes, Yeah, let me let me give you my business card and all. So we go in the office and he has a bust. This is this is the setup. He has a bust of Ronald Reagan. And I looked over and I said, Hey, Ronald Reagan, 40th president. And I'm thinking this guy's probably too young to remember pretty good years for me. The Redskins were winning Super Bowls. It's also coincides pretty much with the Joe Gibbs years. And I'm like, it's a good time, you know. And we were watching, you know, we mentioned today the Cosby show was on then. You know, it was it was pop culture, Prince, you know, ⁓ you know, I'm I'm going to see purple rain. It's my wheelhouse, it's my twenties, it's the perfect time. But I'm like, yeah, I love some Reagan. And then we take some steps towards the door to exit and go, by the way.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: By the way, this is spring of 2016. That Donald Trump is really making some noise, isn't he? And this guy's face drops. Anger like enters his face. That son of the bitch is not a part of the Republican Party. My parents fought. I mean, he's just like, and I was like, ⁓ shit. Like, okay. So I give him the card. We make the exchange. I never hear from him again. Like, I never hear from him again. And and I I say that story like.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: He identified as Republican clearly as like almost a religious aspect of his life. And I said Trump and it tripped a wire with him. It was obvious it tripped a wire. I'm saying it like, hey, you like Toronto Reagan. I'm guessing you're Republican, right? Kind of Republican icon. How about that Donald Trump thing going on right now? Because it's March. It's March of 2016. So think about the timeframe. They're in the middle of the primaries, they're into the debates.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: And this guy visibly gets upset when I mentioned. And I think he assumes I mean that Donald Trump is up, you know, because he's one by one picking off all the establishment candidates. And he's made the comment about McCain probably by that time. So I thought, like, man, this is really an emotional thing for people. And I thought there's no chance in hell he was going to win, much less be nominated. Then as the summer went on, I'm like, ⁓ shit, he might, he might get the nomination. Then he does. The night of the election, I'm like, no, we went. Son of a bitch, he did. So we know that whole history. We've lived it 10 years of our life. Now, as we've gone into 2022, 2023, I'm like, he might end up in prison. He might end up shot at again, which that's 2024. But I'm kind of like, I don't see this guy winning again. And then yes, the Biden administration is further going down. Biden, let's face it, that debate, the night that everybody's like, ⁓ yeah, he really can think on his feet. He's really done. All right. So that's out. And then I see an opening that Trump could win again. And from the moment he was inaugurated for the second time in January of 2025, the countdown started. So the whole premise of this show, based upon what I opened with, there's a guy who loses his mind over the mention of Trump. What I've been saying to you, and I don't think you disagree, there's a groundswell of people that want their party back. And what they did was bend over and kiss his ass when he took over the party. And think about the Rubios, the Cruzes, he insults Cruz's wife. He calls them little, you know, Marco and all this. He was insulting people left and right. They sure came around on his side once he became president. Now, in this second term, there are all these defections. And you would say in the second term, the 2024 election, some of those appeared to be far more loyalists than the never Trumpers that came on board in 2017. These people were in the game and they were on the team.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ Okay.

Moore To Consider: And now they're leaving. So my whole point has been, I think, and again, in the last show I talked about, I think this is an alignment where he could be impeached and removed. Because I think there's people in the Republican Party that want him done now as quickly as possible. Let JD take his chances in the last two years, let him finish out the term. Let's reconstruct the party and never hear from Trump again. Talk to me. What do you think about all that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, that I think the party's done, honestly. I don't yes. No, I think the party's done. And the reason I think the party's done is because what they don't the the old timers are old timers and they don't understand that the reason that Trump just blew through those primaries is because the people no longer want to support support the old timers. And and

Moore To Consider: You think the party's done or do you think Trump's done in the party? Okay. Exactly. I agree with that totally.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And if they think that they're just gonna go back to that that time before Trump, that's fine. You can. You'll be relegated to what the the Republican Party was in the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties. And nineties, pretty much. Whereas, yeah, we may vote for you as a as the president, but you'll never see ⁓ control of Congress again. Good luck. Good luck. And as a matter of fact, and now I honestly, in in this case,

Moore To Consider: I think you're absolutely right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't think they're gonna see ⁓ r ⁓ control of the ⁓ White House for quite some time again. And the reason being is they want to all they're doing is looking back in the past. That whole thing about just the the term conservative essentially just means put the brakes on. Well, you haven't really put the brakes on. As a matter of fact, you're going just almost as fast as other people are going. So the people

Moore To Consider: I think it's possible. Boring. You're running us off the cliff a little bit slower.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah yes, you run us off the cliff a little slower. And if you think about it, the people who have left, they've left for philosophical reasons. And a lot of them came to the Republican Party or Trump supporters for philosophical reasons. They weren't party members. W

Moore To Consider: That's right. That's exactly right. It wasn't practical reasons, it was it was ph philosophical, right? Well it may be practical, but like you said, they're moved by emotion or a movement.

Charles Hundley Jnr: W ⁓ They weren't moved by party affiliation. That's what that's what got them away from where they were in the first place. And all those guys or people in the Republican Party saying, we need to bring it back like it was, like it was during Ronald Reagan's term. Who was in control of Congress during Ronald Reagan's term? The Democrats were. Exactly.

Moore To Consider: Exactly. Yes. Yes. That's right. It was it was the Democrats all through 40s, 50s, 60s. It wasn't until the Gingrich Congress in ninety four with the contract on America, as some would call it. That was like a broke of 40 year now in 82, in the midterm, I want to say the Republicans took over the Senate for the first time in forever. There was a bump. Now, and I've heard Thomas Sowell talk about this too. Do you know in March of 1984?

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's yeah. Okay, once in forty years.

Moore To Consider: Reagan looked like he was gonna lose. Like bad. The the right the poll. He's he well, he gets the numbers. And then the upturn of the economy, based upon some of the monetary policies that they'd had, starts to uptick. ⁓ Summer of 84 gets pretty good. But the the reason I make that point is he won by a landslide. So in six months, the economy turned enough to get him reelected. There was no guarantee. So that's how pivotal few moments are.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, I've I I've heard that one. Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Because we see him as a two-term president, a monumental figure. Hell, if he's voted out in eighty-four, he's an afterthought. So he becomes this big hero to Republican types of certain ages.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, but really, think about w what you just said, he's a hero to Republicans types. How many other heroes of Republican types during that time period do you know of? None. Exactly. There's only one. Well and the Republicans need to understand that you need to have more than one. You need to have more than the presidency. Because if that's all you have, d you talked about the the economy during Ronald Reagan's ⁓ term. He couldn't pass, he couldn't sign any bills that the Democrats weren't passing.

Moore To Consider: Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So he d I don't know why people give him all the credit for this.

Moore To Consider: Well he and Tip O'Neill famo well he and Tip O'Neill famously worked out a b a bunch of deals. Speaker of the House.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ understood, but I don't know why they just give him all the credit for it. He didn't deserve it. He signed the bill. ⁓ did he have in some influence on it? But hold on, hold on, hold on.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ all right. ⁓ yeah, he did. He was making proposals for budgets, et cetera, yes. He cut taxes is what he did.

Charles Hundley Jnr: But my whole point is they want to go. No, no, the Democrats cut the taxes. He didn't get credit for this. No, they were the ones that signed, they were the ones that proposed all the bills and in in in ⁓ in committees and so on and so forth, he signed the bill. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. This is why I say they want to go back to this Ronald Reagan t time or whatever, this fantasy land or whatever. Good luck. Your party's done. Done.

Moore To Consider: If you want to say they voted for it, yes. I I I I I will I will do go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And sorry, we don't like Trump or whatever. What these clowns need to understand is philosophy is what brings people from the other side to your side. That's how you win people, not by ⁓ well, we're Republicans and they're Democrats. Okay, w but what about your philosophy? That's why Tulsi Gabbard came over. That's why RFK came over. I could go on and on and on as to all the people who didn't When it came to party affiliation, did not agree with Republicans, but it came over for philosophical reasons. If these clowns want to go back to that that that period or whatever, they're they're honestly, as Trump would say, you're nothing but a loser

Moore To Consider: Okay. Yeah, okay. in nineteen eighty one, Ronald Reagan, placed before Congress, proposed significant tax cuts. He said cut the personal income tax from seventy to fifty percent highest personal interest rates, reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from fourteen to eleven, decrease the highest capital gains tax from twenty eight to twenty. Now I get it the semantics, you're right. A president can propose legislation. If it's not voted on by an opposition party, I get it. It gets tied up. But to say the Democrats were sitting around and don't how the sausage is made, he and Tip O'Neill were working out deals. And some of it was probably to pad the pockets of the Democrats in some area. But historically, Reagan is looked at as a tax cutter as a president. But to say he's not, it was all Congress. I don't think if if Jimmy Carter had been re-elected in 1980, the same tax cuts would have been made. Would you agree with that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Probably not.

Moore To Consider: Right. So it would be fair to say the Democrats still in control in 1981 after the 80 election wouldn't have been like, you know, let's go ahead and propose those tax cuts that Reagan talked about when he was campaigning. They'd been like, screw Reagan, he didn't win. So, whatever credit Reagan should be given, it was a time in which ther certain things happened that people look back fondly as being better economic times. I don't know how much credit he should be given. People can piss and moan and fight over that. He had the tax reform act of nineteen eighty-six. He sought to simplify the tax code. Again, he's still go ahead. Hmm. 86.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And hold on, what year was that? What year was that that he pro 86? I I I gotta gotta interrupt real quick. You know the whole Gallison, Texas Social Security story? Okay. Gallison, Texas, well, the law stated, the federal law stated that an entire municipality could opt their citizens out of Social Security. So

Moore To Consider: Tell me more. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: What Galveston, Texas, did was just that. But what they did in this opting out, they required all the people who opted out of Social Security to put their money into an interest-bearing account at the same rate or percentage as they would have in Social Security. Now, and this was probably now 20 years ago that Neil Boris was talking about this. The average

Moore To Consider: Uh-huh.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Person in Galvison County, Texas receives this is twenty years ago, sixty eight hundred dollars a month from soci from their retirement. Yes, exactly. And they can pass it on to their children. Do you know when that loophole was closed? Nineteen eighty three.

Moore To Consider: Everybody else is getting two grand. Mm, okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: nineteen eighty three. So again, all this of ⁓ Reagan did this for taxes and blah blah blah. I'm being fair. No, what I what I'm saying is I think it's a a it's a it's a ploy to give him credit for something when technically what ended up happening was ⁓ we gave you a tax cut, but then we o we closed the loophole on you being able to actually

Moore To Consider: Now are you blaming that clo are you are you w no no no no no be fair, Charles. Are you blaming that on Ronald Reagan? Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait wait a minute, wait a minute. All all right, all right. All right. Okay, Charles. I don't know that I'm right on this, but I can imagine this. I can imagine I take the oath, January twenty, nineteen eighty-one, I have run on, I'm going to cut taxes. I go to Congress, I cut I you know, we make the sausage, I do whatever I have to do to get tax cuts. Meanwhile, down in Texas, they're doing this thing which is making Galveston, Texas citizens better off.

Charles Hundley Jnr: actually do something with that money.

Moore To Consider: And I don't know if Reagan has some, you know, maniacal laughties in the White House and he goes, We gotta stop those people. Okay, you get on the horn. Or do you think it might have been some Democrats that did that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No no. No. Yeah, ex that's my whole point. Is in is

Moore To Consider: All right, so you don't want to give Reagan, wait, you don't want to give Reagan, who proposed tax cuts, any type of credit for tax cuts, because he had nothing to do with it. But during his administration, they screwed the people in Galveston, whoever they is.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, they didn't screw just screw the ⁓ no no, they didn't just screw the people in Galveston. They screw because this was a this was part of the federal law that anybody could do this. They closed the they changed the law in eighty three.

Moore To Consider: I understand. I I got it. So if nobody else was doing it yet, who did it most screw?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well technically it's not about who they ⁓ who it most screwed.

Moore To Consider: It's screwed everybody, but d did it not unravel what Galveston had already started. Galveston had already started. Did it undo that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: They no no they didn't start it. No, no, no. They didn't start it. It w it had been that way the entire time.

Moore To Consider: God, Charles, I just said you said it had been there, but Galveston started to use it, the loophole. They didn't?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No no. No. Galveston was the I guess you say Galveston was the most ⁓ successful use of it.

Moore To Consider: They were doing it. They no Charles, Charles, you're the one that brought up the story. No, no, what you get off of Reagan for a minute. We'll get back to Reagan. We'll get back to Reagan. What I'm saying is, would you not agree that Galveston was utilizing this that was offered in the loophole until they couldn't?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, call call it what you want, man. Call it what you want. I'm not giving R I'm not giving Ronald dude, I'm not giving Ronald Reagan c credit for this for the fact that but he did Yes. ⁓ they they weren't the only ones. That's what I'm saying. It's not like Galvin said was the only one.

Moore To Consider: All right, okay, they it though. They were j all right, okay, okay. But would you not agree that the people that got most screwed by whatever Congress did to close the loophole were those who had already started this? Did they have to That's all my point. That's all my point. How much of a how much of a part in that do you think Ronald Reagan played in sh in in shutting down that loophole or or create how much?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, ex exactly. Yes, that's what I'm saying. And Hold on, hold on. What if I was Ronald Reagan and I was really a tax cutter or whatever they that people give him credit for, I would have said, ⁓ no, you need to leave that loophole open. But he didn't.

Moore To Consider: Did he have the apart authority to do it unilaterally?

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ but the thing is, you wanna give ⁓ credit for t cutting taxes. You need to give ⁓ credit for not for allowing them not to do that. Yes?

Moore To Consider: No, no, I Charles, I Charles, no, Charles, we're adults here talking here. We're adults. I said the son of a bitch ran on I'm gonna cut taxes and propose. If Congress didn't vote for it, he never gets credit for tax cuts because it didn't go through. That's all I said. I know that he doesn't unil he doesn't unilaterally pass the tax cuts.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Th but my point is he gets all this he my point is he gets all this credit for being this quote unquote tax cutter when technically he had no responsibility in any of it.

Moore To Consider: But he's he's but he Cause he proposed it. I wouldn't say that. I d I don't think that. If if if if you're a president prop Yes. No, he proposed the tax cuts. They gotta go do all the machinations and whatever they gotta

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ does he propose the tax bills? No, no he doesn't. He doesn't have the authority. That comes from the House. So again, he g he can it this is like Trump. This is this is no different than Trump. It because this is no different from Trump. I'm gonna propose all the stuff, blah blah blah blah and and technically you don't have any power to do any of it.

Moore To Consider: All right. Okay. Okay. ⁓ okay. So you would agree that in nineteen ninety-one-ish or whatever, well, no, actually it was 88, wasn't it? Or was it running for re-election or was it eight? I guess it had to be running again for 92. So when George Bush 41 said, Read my lips, no new taxes, I should have said, George Baby, I'm still voting for you because you don't have the horsepower to do shit with the whole tax structure anyway. So I shouldn't look at you disparagingly.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Technically, yes.

Moore To Consider: for doing that and then turning around and proposing to Congress to raise taxes, I should never do that because Reagan never got any kind of credit for cutting the taxes. So I'd damn sure get to your ass for raising taxes because you didn't have any kind of authority to propose a tax increase anyway, right?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Give me just a second. ⁓ and I'm gonna answer that question.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, answer that question. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm gonna answer that question, man.

Moore To Consider: Go ahead answer that question. All right, we have to fill time here, but yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I just I'm I just want to make sure. Okay, here we go. line item veto was effectively abolished June twenty fifth, nineteen ninety-eight. So ⁓ so technically George Bush and Ronald Reagan had the ability to strike that out, these tax cut these tax ⁓ increases out of the budget, they didn't do it. They didn't do it.

Moore To Consider: So when did the tax increases go through during the Reagan time?

Charles Hundley Jnr: It was how how about this? It was before nineteen ninety eight.

Moore To Consider: No, no, no, no. But I'm saying identifying what tax increases are you talking about.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, it is you don't consider closing a loophole when it comes to social security a tax increase? Yeah.

Moore To Consider: So you're saying that that wasn't a regulatory thing done. It was a it was a law change. What you're saying is Congress had the horsepower to go in there and close that loop in the regs, which then in effect became the law. I don't know, was it a regulatory thing or was it a law thing? Okay. And so what you're saying is Reagan Reagan would have clearly there wasn't enough there wasn't enough votes in the Congress to overcome a veto. You don't know that he vetoed that part of it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. It was a law thing. They and and Congress

Moore To Consider: And it was overcome with with the congressional vote. You don't know that, but you're you're just suggesting that if he cared that much about the American people. You're you're talking about sac you're talking about social security, and I would think if he was a true believer in certain economic reforms, he would have been with that. But that's not a tax increase, would you agree?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, g it's not a tax increase, but the thing is, I look, I'm this is just my opinion when it comes to this. It was, yeah, Ronald, we're gonna give you this quote unquote tax cut or whatever. But to ensure that this money keeps coming into the coffers, we're gonna close this tax loophole, if you want to call it a loophole. Or should I say, we're gonna close this portion of the tax code that allows people to have more control over their retirement.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: We're gonna do that to ensure that the money keeps coming in. So in in if you kinda look at it, that's a tax increase. Kinda sorter.

Moore To Consider: I would just say, and I think I'm being I think I'm being transparent. I was a fan of Reagan. ⁓ I'm maybe again, it just seemed like a good time in my coming off of Carter. I thought I thought Reagan, and I think it showed up in the movies. It's been talked about. By the way, real quick, let me just cover that. Read my lips, no new taxes was eighty-eight. He said it in eighty-eight, then he raised taxes, or he proposed tax increases, and that was brought back to bite him in the ass in ninety-two. So that does make sense chronologically. But Read my lips, no new taxes. What you're saying is, and I don't disagree with it from a constitutional standpoint, that son of a bitch, you should have been raising your hand like, hey, hey, hey, Mr. Bush, I don't care what you promised, you don't have the authority to raise taxes or not. That's a congressional thing. You don't write the budgets. So shut up about no new taxes. In in political jargon or kind of political settings of speeches being made at conventions, presidents talk that way.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And Whoa.

Moore To Consider: If you want to say technically he didn't have the authority, he has no more authority than to pass the bill, sign the bill after it's been passed, sign the bill, or veto the bill.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And ⁓ not just not just campaign on it, but when you have the ability to strike that out of the bill because you have a line item veto and you don't. You don't.

Moore To Consider: Okay. So what you're saying is Ronald Reagan was given bills by the Congress in periods when he was president from eighty one to eighty nine, where they were trying to raise taxes and he didn't veto.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Exactly. That's exactly what he did. Cause he had the ability to do it.

Moore To Consider: I don't really remember how many times it was raised. What I do know that there were movements to lower taxes. And that that clearly happened. So there was decreases in taxes. And that's when the Democrats said the world would end because we can't fund all the government stuff we need to. So I d I don't remember. I don't remember, but I'm sure some of those years there were probably bounce backs where they did increase taxes. But I don't I don't know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well remember though, the the the president at the time did not have the power to propose, or should I say, put anything into a bill. All they could do is strike things out of it. So if the ⁓ if hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, man. Dude, let me finish, man. Dude, man, come on. Dude, can you please let me finish, man? Man.

Moore To Consider: No, I think that's the history. All right, so you would say too, Lyndon Johnson No no no. Answer me this. Lyndon Johnson being the author of the Great Society is bullshit. All the Great Society stuff Lyndon Johnson had all right, finish, finish. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. Finish, finish, finish.

Charles Hundley Jnr: G if you let me finish I'll I'll explain it to you and if damn it I done lost my train of thought now, man.

Moore To Consider: What what you're saying is all the president can do is strike things from a bill. That's what you were saying. You said he can't propose shit. That's what you said.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, he can't propose anything, okay? If he can't pro ⁓ in unless the people who are in charge of the the Congress put it into the bill, if they decide if they decide that they want to lower the taxes, he can sign the bill. If they the h dude, man, come on, man. Come on, man.

Moore To Consider: Okay, I got ya. I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree. This is what I've been saying all along, but what I'm saying is the reason that people's names as president all right, I know what you're saying, Charles, and it's frustrating 'cause I'm trying to make my point here that you're not on things seeing. All right, finish, finish, make the point.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do ⁓ but let me f let me finish making my point, man. If the P

Moore To Consider: You're saying presidents can't propose bills.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Presidents can't propose what goes into the bill. ⁓ mind you, this is prior to nineteen ninety eight when they struck down the line on a veto, where they had to sign all the bill or none of it, or to veto the bill. Okay. If that's the case and Ronald Reagan has this in the bill, where they Congress decides to close this quote unquote loophole for Social Security and he's this tax guy, he should have struck that part of the bill out, but he didn't.

Moore To Consider: That's right. I get it. Well, all we're gonna have to do some research. No, we're gonna have to do some research on how that came about. All right. So you can tell me what the congressional vote was on that, who proposed it and everything else. And that Reagan didn't veto it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: When it comes to No, I already did. Dude, it was in it they have to submit a budget every year. Okay? They have to submit a budget.

Moore To Consider: I understand that. But what you're saying is they changed the mechanics of how the people could use this kind of loophole, as you said, to invest their money instead of putting it into Social Security, investing it outside of Social Security. Fair? And you said they closed the loophole. So what I want you to, what you're telling me is that went to Congress. They passed the law. It reached Reagan's desk. He had every opportunity to veto it and did not. You know that for a fact.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And they closed the loophole in nineteen eighty three. Yes. And did not. Cause it passed.

Moore To Consider: All right, let's say he vetoed it and they overrode it with their vote. Is that possible? It was overridden with the vote. Do you know that that didn't happen?

Charles Hundley Jnr: It it's possible. Yeah, it's possible. Or d d I hate to s

Moore To Consider: I don't know 'cause I I wouldn't say one way or the other. I don't know. I don't know the answer. We can we c we can

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ we can ⁓ trust me, we can find out exactly what the ⁓ what the vote was for that bill.

Moore To Consider: Okay. But would you not agree with me that if Reagan was supposed to be the president of tax cuts, that is not exactly I mean it could have been a trade-off, but that's not exactly a tax cut. Unless you if if you want to say that the tax cut was social security is they got to redirect the money somewhere else, it's still being taken out of their payroll. Fair?

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ say it again.

Moore To Consider: Is there is the money not being taken out of their paycheck?

Charles Hundley Jnr: The money was taken out of was still being taken out of a paycheck going to a an account that that individual owned.

Moore To Consider: Exactly. But it was still coming out. So what you're saying is they no longer okay. They no longer had the choice of having it taken out into account. It had to go back into the general government fund. It goes in

Charles Hundley Jnr: Not the government owned. Not back into it had to go into the general fund. Yes.

Moore To Consider: Well, I say back into it because there was a time before this when that wasn't being utilized.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I understand what you're saying, man, but the whole point is that they close the loophole. That's what I'm saying.

Moore To Consider: Okay. All right, so what you're saying too is when people historians shorthand and say, Lyndon Johnson, author of The Great Society, they're absolutely full of shit because he had nothing to do with any of the legislation through the sixties.

Charles Hundley Jnr: yeah, 'cause all all spending bills originate with with

Moore To Consider: That's fair. So he there so nobody should say Great Society. Great society and all the civil rights bills and the rest had Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with because he wasn't a member of Congress during that period. That would be the historical take on that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ It is a case of hook I'm still I'm trying to get this information for you to see if

Moore To Consider: Yeah, we're still alive, kind of getting here going. So I mean, so okay. I mean, I think it's one of those things we might want to research and come back to. I mean, it's gonna be I think it's gonna be hard on the fly here to sit there and try to figure out whether or not ⁓ the bill was passed by whatever vote and whether Reagan vetoed it or didn't or or something like that. But are you agreeing with me that when historians say Lyndon Johnson's name gets placed on the Great Society, that's absolutely inaccurate.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's fine. ⁓ Mm. What that is this is this is interesting. I mean he signed the bill but he didn't actually pro I mean, he didn't have any i really any control

Moore To Consider: Right. So yeah, he did he did not go to anybody in Congress and say, here's my proposal for some legislation. He didn't do that. That's all presidents do.

Charles Hundley Jnr: He could have. Yeah, okay.

Moore To Consider: Presidents propose legislation. And then the parties can bicker over it, goes to committees, they sit there and they b they you know, they they hammer out what the bill's gonna be. But when I say Reagan claimed to be a tax cutter, what he was effects saying is, I'm gonna use my political forces or whoever these people are that align with him to propose legislation in Congress to cut taxes. And if

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do this I agree with you, man. ⁓ I agree.

Moore To Consider: But but you're s but you're saying he's not the tax cutter because he wasn't a member member of Congress. All he could do is either veto the bill, line item veto whatever he wanted to do, maybe have a veto over what?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No no. No no. What I'm saying he wasn't a tax cutter because he could have struck that portion of the bill out and he didn't.

Moore To Consider: So that's so this is what we're gonna have to do. If you're if you're taking away the whole moniker that he's kind of worn historically as being the great tax cutter, you're gonna knock all that out because of a social security change where the people didn't get taxed anymore. They just didn't have control of where the money went after that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So what I'm saying is what ended up happening was they just shuffled. They shuffled the money.

Moore To Consider: But you're saying he's not a tax cutter. And I'm saying that seems like the same percentage of money was being taken out of the paycheck. J they didn't have personal control of it anymore. It went back into a general government fund that everybody had to work out of.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So essentially what happened to those people they got a fifteen percent tax increase. That's what happened to them. Yeah, yeah.

Moore To Consider: I don't think so. No, they got it though, they got a fifteen percent loss in what income they had potentially at retirement.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No no no no no no no no no no Social Security is fifteen percent of your paycheck. You play you pay seven and a half percent, your employers say pay seven and a half percent. The difference is what happened before nineteen eighty three, if you were in that s that opt out program, that was your money. That wasn't the government's money. So it tac essentially what ended up happening to those people was was what was they got a fifteen percent tax increase.

Moore To Consider: Right. I hear okay. I hear what you're saying, but either way, fifteen percent was taken out of your paycheck.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do it g but the ⁓ so are you trying are are you trying to equate are you trying to equate

Moore To Consider: Charles, the difference is is whether or not that no, no, no. God Charles, the difference is is whether you had control over or whether the government maintained control, but it but you couldn't go in and say, I tell you what, I'm keeping a hundred percent of my check government and I'm gonna do whatever that no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Fifteen percent's gonna be taken out. Either you're gonna put it

Charles Hundley Jnr: So are you are you trying to equate me putting money into a an account with my name on it with the g me giving fifteen percent to the government? Are you trying to say that that's the same thing?

Moore To Consider: No. No, the difference is all right. So, Charles, what you're saying is in the opt-out strategy, what you're saying is the government said if you want to spend one hundred percent of your check, you want to get drunk every night, run around, get hookers, whatever, we're not going to force you to remove fifteen percent from your overall gross of your income to be put into a some kind of a program for your old age and for your retirement. You're saying you had a hundred percent do whatever the hell you wanted to. That's what you're saying.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, what it was you had you had to put that money into a interest bearing account. W ⁓ listen listen man. Fifteen percent with your name on it. That's the difference.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ How much? What percent? What percent? I understand that. Now you're just talking about the result. Charles, the difference is the difference is what happens with the 15%. Either way, 15%'s coming out of your paycheck. I would rather you have control of what happens to the 15%, but you're talking as if there was an increase. What you're talking about is there was a decrease in the benefit to you in the long run because the government got involved and confiscated the 15%. They're either forcing you to put the fifteen percent in some kind of interest bearing thing that belongs to you. And I get it that that's doesn't get that doesn't come from you. But they're always telling you that even in that scenario, you had to take fifteen percent out and do something the government directed you to do.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: You didn't you didn't have a choice to not invest the money in 15% of your money, correct? But don't get me wrong, I like that better, but they're still forcing you to do something to 15% of your check. So out of every hundred dollars you made, you had 85 to spend. Well, that's not true because you're gonna get paying other taxes, but but but of the of Yeah, right. So yeah, so the to the bottom line. I get what you're saying, but I don't see that as a criticism of Reagan, even if you're right about that, that that was a tax.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I understand the concept. The premise. I get it.

Moore To Consider: potential tax decrease, or it was a tax increase.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So I'm going to give you something here that's awfully interesting because you actually brought this up earlier.

Moore To Consider: Yes. Yes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do you know what the breakdown was for the Senate versus the House of Representatives when it comes to Democrat versus Republican? Let's just start with the House of Representatives. I w I'm because you do this to me all the time. What do you think the percentage of House seats were that were Democrats?

Moore To Consider: Win. When?

Charles Hundley Jnr: In nineteen eighty three. Sorry about that. Didn't say. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: In nineteen eighty three, I would say it was probably sixty percent Democrat.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yep, sixty one point five Democrat. What do you think the the percentage of Democrats ⁓ were in the Senate?

Moore To Consider: In nineteen eighty three, I think the Republicans, that's when they actually took control. So I think it was like fifty one, forty nine Republican.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Exactly. It was it's it ⁓ it was fifty three forty six.

Moore To Consider: All right, there you go. But it was still I remember that the eighty two was the time that after the Reagan first ⁓ two years, they they actually gained some traction in the Senate, yes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So they had even more leverage not to let that BS pass, but they didn't.

Moore To Consider: Right. But but again, Reagan probably made a lot of mistakes. I know he did. He was human, et cetera. You're identifying this whole social security thing as a tax increase. And if you're saying the net effect of it acted like a tax increase, okay, that's another example. I've heard people say, well, every time inflation goes up, it's a tax increase. And people go, well, technically, well, your dollar's worth less. That's true. But we getting we're we're all we're doing is we're splitting hairs over definitions. I don't think.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: That move that you say that they they made on Social Security is a tax increase. But if you're saying the net overall effect is the American lost control of that 15% of their gross income, which they could have done better with, I agree with you. And if you're wanting to say that Ronald Reagan's a piece of shit for not doing more about stopping that, that's fine. That's a good take. All I'm saying is he carries this historical moniker of like the great tax cut guy. And I think it's because he got through Congress through proposed co congressional measures, he got through Congress the type of tax cuts that made a difference during that period. If if if you want to hate on him and say, well, shit, he wasn't a member of Congress, he didn't vote in Congress, he didn't have anything to do with it, all he could do is veto. If that's your take on it, fine. But then I said you'd have to agree then too that people that are considered ⁓ you know, large in certain types of ⁓ areas of legislative law like Johnson with the Great Society, then that doesn't count either.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, yeah, it doesn't count. Yeah. I'm being I'm being consistent. It doesn't count.

Moore To Consider: Okay. That's an interesting that's an is interesting historical take because presidents have been so what did Kennedy call his administration? The new frontier. The new frontier. The what? I I I I heard some okay, the new front Well, yeah, that was Jackie after the assassination. She didn't want him to be forgotten. Okay, but what I'm saying is we have these attachments to presidents.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Camelot? I don't know. Okay. I s I say Camelot. I don't know.

Moore To Consider: Being the leaders of their party to some degree, maybe having some sway over the Congress. And you're right, I understand the mechanics of it. They don't vote in Congress. They don't. They don't go in there and actually, but they can write proposed legislation. They have their runners that go over there. They have the people they try to influence to get laws done. And that's why people have a lot of warm and fuzzies about him and Tip O'Neill. They were both trading. They were both, you know, politicians. And they would sit and Tip O'Neill goes, Hey, you give me a little bit of this, Reagan. I tell you what, Reagan, I'll give you those tax cuts if you give me some of this. Okay, we can work this out, brother. You're a Democrat, I'm a Republican, and we're considered on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we can make these things work. Okay. Yeah, give me some tax cuts, but give me something that hey, Ronald, give me some stuff. You give me some stuff on your side. That's how the whole politics of that works. And that was a time w well, and and so the same kind of thing happened in '94. After some people thought Clinton went too far with. liberal policies. He got shown up in the 1994 midterms. Newt Gingrich comes in and they worked out a lot of deals. Gingrich was the Speaker of the House. Bill Clinton was clearly the president. He made a lot of concessions on a lot of things he would have proposed that happened and worked with Gingrich because the idea was they worked together because Clinton got his ass handed to him in the 94 midterms. That's just politics, but

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, if you want to get down the nuts and bolts of if I ever anybody ever says they identify legislation of a period of time in American history, ⁓ FDR, stop saying it's the New Deal. Why? Well, he didn't have anything to do with passing the legislation. He just sat up there and vetoed or signed the bill. Well, that's kind of he made proposals. Yep, doesn't count. He's not a member of Congress. Again, these are shorthand terms for presidents making proposals over a period of time in their administration. on what they want to see passed in Congress. That's it. That's all I'm saying. But this all started with Reagan was not the the great tax cutter or whatever, but okay. All right. But

Charles Hundley Jnr: I I get it. I I I perfectly understand. No. Honestly, I've never I was never really a Reagan fan. I never was. 'Cause and having and just to know and I know w well we're way over time now. Just just to to I remember being in the eleventh grade, maybe the tenth grade, and we're watching the Iran Contra ⁓ hearings and ⁓ looking at Oliver North up there.

Moore To Consider: I know I can tell. I can tell. And I get it. We're way over time. Hearings, yeah. Uh-huh.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And he's like, Yeah, I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. And then Reagan's saying the same thing. I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall. And I don't know if this is looping back to what we were saying about in another podcast, Trump and the people that he had around him. There's this meme of ⁓ Oliver North essentially, you know, they're like, Yeah, this guy literally broke the law.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: was involved in breaking the law by selling r arms to Iran. ⁓ and now he's being used as some sort of ⁓ what do you call it, ⁓ He is a a ⁓ person of ⁓ authority or you know, in-depth knowledge on world affairs today. ⁓ these are the people that we should not be listening to, honestly. And

Moore To Consider: Yeah, I mean I think there's some question. I mean, you know, North wasn't an Annapolis graduate. He was a Vietnam veteran. And I think he probably has some kind of grasp of the world. If you want to say he's a nefarious guy and all that, I think he's probably as qualified to know what goes on in the world as a lot of people in the Senate. He ran for the Senate. He didn't win. Right, but I mean, taking shots at North as being less than ⁓ capable, or what am I saying, ⁓ he does he doesn't have the chops to like make kind comments.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I don't have any faith in them either. ⁓ no no, not not tr not chops, trustworthy.

Moore To Consider: Have the people ⁓ that's a different lane. Okay. I thought you were saying like ⁓ okay ⁓ okay. Well then, you know, but what is MSNBC? Wasn't it MSNBC that brought a certain former FBI agent that was doing all the behind the scenes trying to destroy Trump and they got him on there, you know, talking about ⁓ his service and struck servicing the FBI? I was like, wow, that guy got pretty much got his pants pulled down in Congress and it was pretty much revealed exactly what he was doing behind the scenes, you know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: During all this kind of stuff that they're doing against Trump. And it and then they're, you know, and you know, other members of US intelligence agencies who have kind of been looked at as being a little bit compromised on the aspect of credibility. And they get spots on MSNBC and CB or CBS or NBC or whoever the hell it is all the time. All right, we we gotta close this loop. I know we're long, we're gonna close down in a few minutes, but we we we got, and that's my fault. I always accept the blame.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. I agree. No, mine too went.

Moore To Consider: No, but we got but we got way off on the whole R Reagan argument, but where we were going, and I think it's better than to start another whole show, but where we were going is ⁓ this very thing of I don't see, and I you said what I think is absolutely true at the start of the show before we went off on Reagan, and you're right. There's not enough young people who've now identified as Republican, in large part because following Trump, let's face it, they followed Trump. There's not enough of them. That would go back in time to be Mitchell McConnell or something like that. They're not that. They're not that anymore. Right. And so if that part of the party that hated Trump, that wanted, you know, this ruffian and he's not one of us and he's that club is dying off. And he he removed a lot of them during his term. But what I'm saying is, though, I think that MAGA, quote unquote, could reinvent itself somehow. But the problem with Trump.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No. Nope.

Moore To Consider: And being the figure he's been, he has no heir apparent. He's not the guy that has a guy that he kind of leads into. Hey, buddy, when this is over, you take over. He's not that guy. He doesn't have a takeover guy. He is the he is the party. But I do believe when he gets neutered after this midterm, I think people are going to start quickly falling away. And I think he's going to have less and less influence on elections.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, he doesn't. Yeah. Yeah. They

Moore To Consider: Now you brought up this point too, and I think it's a great point to make. Everybody keeps saying, like, yeah, Trump is thirty whatever, and you know, ⁓ or something in all these primaries. Yeah, he's in the primaries getting people knocked off that he doesn't want in the primary, but then they're getting their ass handed to him in the general. Fair enough. I mean, it's yeah. Yeah. So so th yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yep, that's exactly what's happening. Yep. Yeah. Peep there's a whole bunch of seats, man, that have flipped blue that went red last time. A whole bunch.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. I don't know exactly what those numbers are. It's worth looking into, but that that is two different things. The fact that Trump could claim a victory on ousting massing, okay, you got your guy in, but that doesn't mean he's going to win the general. And I made this point to you the other day, and I think it's true. Okay. Take a hundred percent of the hole, 100% of the hole, and you go, that's 40% Republican, 40% Democrat, squishy middle in the middle. Well, now you got to believe that in that 40% that made up 100% of the Republican primary.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Nope.

Moore To Consider: 100% of the Republican primary, the declared Republicans or the registered Republicans go in to vote. You got about 48, 49% of pissed-off people that voted in the primary. And they're either not going to go vote in the general, or I think they might even vote against this guy because they're pissed about how massey. Like, what percent of that 48% of the 40, that 48% that voted for Massey of the 40% that called themselves Republicans.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yep.

Moore To Consider: How many of those do you think are diehard Massey fans? 20%, 40%? It's gonna be a number, and I'm saying there's gonna be a number of people that think that Massey got railroaded, and it might be enough of them to really make noise to up. That's why I think this Galrain, I don't think he's got a prayer. I don't know. I don't know, but I I think that's gonna be enough to unseat him. Or not unseat him, because he's not in the seat, but yeah, he's gonna lose.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't either. I don't either. Yes. And how about this? Even I've thought about this too. Even if he did win his election, he's not gonna have any power in Congress Congress because they're gonna be run by ⁓ Democrats.

Moore To Consider: Well, I don't know though, 'cause I think he might have some power because I think he's he might side with some of them. I don't know that he'll be that yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And if that's the case well it depends. It depend is he gonna side with them philosophically? No, actually I don't think he's gonna do that. I don't. No, he that's why Massey Well, yeah, I mean, we're spitballing here, but yeah.

Moore To Consider: Probably not. I take that statement but I have no idea what he do. Yeah, I don't have Yeah, right. We we're spitballing, but yeah, I don't have any reason to think yeah, that he's gonna side with Republicans. If yeah, go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I this is the thing that really gets me about Republicans and conservatives. They say if you don't agree with us a hundred percent, then you're just bad. Well, the Democrats say the same thing too. But the if you really think about it, wouldn't you want somebody who is calling himself a Republican who sides with somebody on the left who's actually doing something constitutional?

Moore To Consider: Okay. Absolutely.

Charles Hundley Jnr: They don't care about that. That doesn't even matter to them.

Moore To Consider: If you have a if you have someone that you say can si k it leans can to the left to the center of the political spectrum and they're doing something constitutional, wake me up and tell me when you see that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm okay. All right.

Moore To Consider: And my example might have been anti the in whatever the hell we call the action in Iran. That might be because there were definitely Democrats that spoke out against that. Now, I don't think they gave two shits about Article I, Section Eight. They just don't like Trump. But if they aligned themselves and said, and I think some of them did, Congress needs more authority in reigning in the president's power to do these things. Look at the Constitution. But they're not usually good at

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Yes. All the Democrats who were against the Pfizer, all of them, which is clearly unconstitutional.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And Thomas Massey was one of them. So take one of the Republicans, yes. Take, take out, if you just remove the letter from behind these people's names and looked at what they supported, I guarantee a lot of people who consider themselves conservative would have a hard time telling the difference between the two. I I really believe it. If you took

Moore To Consider: Well he was one of the Republicans. Yeah, right, right, right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: if you just remove the letter from behind people's names and looked at what they supported, I guarantee a lot of people who consider themselves conservative would have a hard time telling the difference between the two.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Say that one more time.

Charles Hundley Jnr: the letter from behind the the ⁓ the representatives names, representatives names, and you just looked at what they supported, I guarantee the conservatives will have a hard time telling the difference between actual Democrats and Republicans.

Moore To Consider: Candidate's name? Right, representative, yeah. Right. Right. Probably more so than you would imagine, yeah. I agree, yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's the problem. So

Moore To Consider: So what do you think happens? Let's fast forward to say twenty thirty, it's two years after this next president's elected. Do you think there'll still be two parties?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes, I think there'll be two parties. It's something else that I'm a little more y yeah, it'd still be two parties. Yes, I do. But

Moore To Consider: You still think it'll be the two prominent parties will be Republican and Democrat?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes, but I d I think at least the Republican Party will be unrecognizable from what we know now in thirty years. But I think I really believe

Moore To Consider: Right. Right. And no no no when I didn't say thirty years, I said twenty thirty.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Tw ⁓ twenty thirty, just you know, four years. ⁓ I'm sorry, I thought you said thirty years. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Yeah, in twenty thirty. I said two years after the next president's elected. Two years in no, no, no. ⁓ God knows what we'll see then.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. ⁓ yeah, we'll still have the Democrats and Republicans. We we will. I I I I just I think what we need to be concerned about is in just my personal opinion, I I think hyperinflation's coming. I do. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: We'll be around to see too, but yeah. ⁓ I I hear calls all the time for absolute economic disaster. I don't know. I mean the people that call for that, I mean, they probably know more n well, I know they know more than I do, but you know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. ⁓ my reason solely is the petrol dollar collapsing. And once that collapses it's a it's a rap. Yep, it's a rap. We we get get into that Weimar Republic, you know, situation where

Moore To Consider: All the dollars go with it. Going around with yeah, with bar ⁓ wheelbarrel full of cash so you can buy a loaf of bread. Or just wallpaper your yeah, wallpaper with it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yep. Yep. Exactly. It it won't be the two hundred and fifty dollar bill you were talking about earlier. It'll be the two hundred and fifty thousand dollar bill. And it w No he ⁓ he won't. He won't. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Does Trump get his two hundred and fifty dollar bill? Well, again, I've already heard that it's against the law, but he's looking for Congress to massage it in some way to get himself is that true he's trying to get on the two hundred fifty dollar bill or create a not on the two hundred fifty dollar bill, create a two hundred fifty dollar bill.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I I I wouldn't I wouldn't doubt it, but it w actually It w remember it's against the law for Mattis to be the Secretary of ⁓ Defense, but they changed the law for that. So I they can change the law for whatever they want. Doesn't matter.

Moore To Consider: For who to be?

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ General Mattis. He w he ha actually had to be out of the Marine Corps a certain amount of time. And they just decided that, hey, don't worry about it. We'll change we'll we'll let him slide. And that's how he ended up the Secretary of Defense. So yeah, they can say it's against the law for a living person to be on a on a ⁓ a bill, a federal reserve note if you want to call it that. ⁓ yeah, okay. All right, whatever.

Moore To Consider: Right. Okay, for a certain period of time. Right. You know, I think that somebody serving in a position they're not supposed to serve is probably a lot easier to pull off than a regulation that just simply says the mint, the printing the the printing of currency cannot be done of a person still alive. That's what they said it was. It wasn't like not against Trump, not against it, just said all people on dollar bill or on mu on currency. And I think it has something to do with the fact that they are living and it's Is there gonna be a likeness issue or they're gonna go, hey, you're using my likeness on there? I get a percentage or something. Like it's who the hell knows? They might be thinking like lawyers like that. But it's always been tradition, but also codified, can't have a living person on the bill.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm. Well, hey, it's a private organization. They can do what they want, right?

Moore To Consider: True. It's good.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yes.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ man, you just brought up another that's another show. This has been more to consider with Jack and Chuck. Chuck, give me your final thoughts.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I just wish people would pay more attention, really. Not just in what we're saying, but everything. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: I like that. I al I also think though I listen to a lot of the people say stop paying so much attention to everything, you'd live better. And you did some of that. You said that you got better you felt better when you kinda start ignoring a lot of the news and now you're right back immersed in it and it's not it's probably not helping you.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yep, that's true. No, I'm still I'm still not really caring too much, but you know.

Moore To Consider: I gotcha. We gotta stay up enough though to have some kind of intelligent conversations. And we'll let we'll let everybody so please like, subscribe, share, and make comments about just how stupid we sound. Or or maybe or yeah, please do. All right, brother. Take care.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That is true. Yes, please do. Marvin, you too.