Plot

Dave Smith and co-host Robbie "The Fire" Bernstein discuss the first night of the DNC, covering topics like Biden's speech, the week's schedule, celebrity appearances, and economic issues like undercutting and price gouging.

Dave Smith and "The Fire" Robbie Bernstein discuss the Democratic National Convention, focusing on President Biden's unusual early speaking slot and Kamala Harris's strategic maneuvering within the party. They critique the superficial support for Biden, contrasting it with the genuine followings of politicians like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The duo also examines how Harris secured her position by balancing public support for Biden with private moves to replace him. They touch on the declining influence of figures like Bill Clinton and highlight the broader political landscape, including the ineffectiveness of price controls and the economic consequences of government policies. The conversation ends with reflections on how economic principles are often misunderstood in political discourse.—J. Spurlin

The video begins with Dave Smith welcoming viewers to a new episode of "Part Of The Problem." He is joined by his co-host, Robbie "The Fire" Bernstein. The two share some light banter about increasing their show schedule to five days a week. Robbie humorously resists the idea, preferring to stick with four days until they have everything running smoothly.

Robbie then mentions an upcoming event at the OGG porch, featuring a lineup of comedians, a live concert by The Shed cast boys, and a potential live podcast where he might discuss a book he's been working on. Dave expresses excitement about the idea, praising the comedic potential of the project. They both agree it could be a fun and entertaining segment.

The conversation shifts to their upcoming tour dates, with Dave listing several cities where they will be performing, including Fort Worth, Dallas, Casper, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Detroit, Kansas City, Poughkeepsie, Philadelphia, and Bozeman. He mentions that this will be his first time visiting Montana, and he's looking forward to the experience.

The discussion turns to the first night of the Democratic National Convention. Dave describes the event as strange and bizarre, noting that he has never seen anything quite like it. He mentions that President Biden's speech was delivered on the first night, which is unusual for a sitting president.

Dave and Robbie discuss how unusual it was for President Biden to give his speech on the first night of the Democratic National Convention. Dave finds it strange that the Republican convention, which was heavily focused on attacking a candidate who is no longer running, now seems like a wasted effort. The conversation touches on how bizarre it was that the Republicans held such a significant event, only for the candidate they targeted to no longer be relevant. Robbie compares it to a band that was once popular but has since faded into obscurity.

They continue to express disbelief that the Democrats seriously considered running Biden as their candidate just a few weeks ago. Dave emphasizes that this is not a partisan observation -- regardless of one's political leanings, it's clear that Biden is no longer fit for the job. He reflects on how close the Democrats were to going through with his candidacy, particularly if Donald Trump had refused to participate in the debate that led to Biden's downfall. Dave points out that Trump could have easily declined, given the unusual debate conditions, and had he done so, Biden might still be the nominee.

The discussion shifts to Biden's speech, which Dave describes as a reminder of how fortunate the Democrats were that the debate exposed Biden's weaknesses. Although Biden managed to deliver the speech without completely collapsing, it was still a painful experience to watch. Dave notes that Biden's cognitive decline is evident, as he often resorts to shouting to compensate for his weaknesses. This tactic, however, only highlights his frailty, making him seem like "an old man yelling at clouds."

Dave and Robbie discuss how Biden's speech at the Democratic National Convention had an almost bizarre quality, as if he were drugged but had reached the point where the effect made him more irritable and aggressive. Robbie compares it to encountering angry drunks or people who become hostile when using certain substances. He suggests that this might explain why Biden was not drugged during the debate -- it may have led to a similar outburst. The duo notes how the crowd, which had been engaged and enthusiastic throughout the evening, seemed to lose interest during Biden's angry and disconnected rant.

The conversation highlights how Biden's speech started with references to the Charlottesville incident, a topic that Dave finds outdated and irrelevant. He recalls how Biden's first presidential ad in 2019 also focused on Charlottesville, which was already considered old news back then. The pair mock the absurdity of returning to this incident, given the many more pressing issues facing the country, such as inflation, immigration, and international conflicts. Robbie humorously notes that the response to Charlottesville -- throwing cups of urine -- was enough to scare the participants away, making the event feel even more trivial in retrospect.

Dave continues to criticize the Democrats' focus on Charlottesville, arguing that it's an ineffective strategy to paint their opposition as aligned with a small group of extremists from years ago. He points out that there are far more significant problems today, such as regional conflicts in the Middle East, the proxy war involving Russia, and economic issues like price inflation and national debt. The return to Charlottesville, in his view, is a weak attempt to distract from these more relevant challenges.

The discussion shifts to the disrespect shown to President Biden by having him speak on the first night of the convention. Dave notes that it's unusual for the sitting president to be scheduled so early in the event, especially when Kamala Harris is set to speak on Thursday. Typically, the most important speakers are reserved for the final two days, making this a clear slight against Biden. Robbie finds humor in the situation, remarking on the indignity of the timing.

Dave and Robbie comment on how telling it is that both Biden and Hillary Clinton were scheduled to speak on the first night of the Democratic National Convention. It seems the party wanted to fulfill an obligation by including them but hoped that by the end of the convention, people would forget they were even there. Dave notes that Clinton is infamous for losing to Donald Trump, while Biden is someone the party would rather people forget, as he embodies the recent past that the Democrats want to move on from.

The duo discusses how Biden's presence is a stark reminder of the recent past that many Democrats would prefer to ignore. Dave points out that just weeks ago, Biden was the candidate everyone was expected to support, and those who criticized him were dismissed. Now, seeing Biden up on stage only underscores how much the party -- and the media -- was willing to overlook his obvious decline. Robbie humorously notes that Biden is unlikely to even remember the slight of being scheduled on the first night, given his cognitive state.

Dave delves into the broader implications of Biden's situation, highlighting how the media and political machine have tried to keep him in the background because his decline is impossible to ignore. He argues that it's illogical to believe Biden is too old to run for president but somehow still fit to serve as president until January. This contradiction reveals deeper flaws in the system and the way certain candidates are propped up by the political establishment.

The conversation shifts to how the power of certain media figures, like Tucker Carlson, comes from their genuine fan base, while others, like Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo, derive their influence from the media machine itself. Dave explains that Carlson's popularity increased after leaving Fox News, while Lemon and Cuomo became less relevant after being fired from CNN. This contrast illustrates how some personalities rely on the institutional platform, while others have a following that extends beyond it.

Dave and Robbie discuss how the support for Biden is more akin to the loyalty shown to a TV network rather than to a specific host. Just as viewers of a news network will continue watching regardless of who is on screen, Biden's support is not based on his personal appeal but rather on the system that props him up. Dave compares this to how easily Biden could be replaced by Kamala Harris, with the same people who supported him quickly shifting their support to her. This contrasts with figures like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump, who have genuine followings that wouldn't easily transfer to another candidate.

Dave recalls how, during the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Bernie Sanders supporters were vocal about their refusal to back Hillary Clinton, showing their loyalty to Sanders' ideas rather than the party. He contrasts this with the current situation, where Biden's support is so superficial that it would seamlessly transfer to Harris if she replaced him. Dave argues that this lack of genuine, organic support for Biden reveals how artificial his political backing has been all along.

The conversation continues with Dave pointing out that, while Harris is doing slightly better in polls than Biden, the difference is minimal, suggesting that their support is almost interchangeable. He emphasizes that this isn't the case for politicians with real grassroots support, like Trump or Sanders. Dave questions if there's even a single person in America who would refuse to support Harris after backing Biden, illustrating how devoid of true loyalty Biden's base is.

Dave concludes that this phenomenon speaks to the artificiality of Biden's support. He suggests that, while some might defend this as supporting a system rather than an individual, it still highlights the lack of true, organic backing for Biden. This contrasts sharply with figures who command genuine, dedicated followings, further emphasizing how hollow Biden's political support really is.

Dave and Robbie discuss how the enthusiasm for Kamala Harris among Democrats seems to stem more from relief than genuine support. Dave suggests that much of the excitement is rooted in the fact that Democrats no longer have to contend with the problem of Biden's evident decline. Robbie likens the situation to a mindset of indoctrination and compliance, where Democrats simply fall in line with whoever is presented as their leader. The conversation hints that Harris is seen as a more viable candidate, which brings a sense of relief to those who previously had to support Biden.

After discussing Harris's potential as a candidate, Dave and Robbie take a moment to mention their sponsor, Monetary Metals. They explain how the company offers an opportunity to earn a 12% return on silver, emphasizing its benefits as a tangible asset and a way to diversify an investment portfolio.

Returning to the discussion, Dave mentions that Barack Obama is scheduled to speak on the second night of the convention, receiving a better speaking slot than Biden. He speculates whether Biden will even show up for the remaining nights, considering his age and fatigue. Robbie finds it ironic that Hillary Clinton recently mocked Trump for falling asleep in court, highlighting the soullessness of the political figures who publicly attack others while privately holding different beliefs.

Dave reflects on how, if Biden drops out and is replaced by a much younger candidate, Trump would suddenly become the "old guy" in the race, which could shift public perception. Despite this, he notes that Trump, who is also in his late 70s, seems to defy the typical limitations of age, jokingly referring to him as a "city cockroach" who just keeps going. Dave humorously shares how Trump's lifestyle choices have become his excuse for avoiding healthier habits, despite acknowledging that 83 is too old to be president.

Dave and Robbie continue their discussion on age in politics, agreeing that 83 is too old to be the CEO of a major company, let alone president. They humorously speculate on how Donald Trump's lifestyle might influence how he ages, noting that empirical evidence is being gathered in real-time. The conversation shifts to how quickly the Democratic Party pivoted from defending Biden's age to subtly highlighting Trump's age once Biden was sidelined. Dave concludes that Biden likely won't appear for the rest of the convention because the party wants to minimize his presence and avoid associating him with the final memory of the event.

Dave reflects on the awkwardness of Biden's situation, comparing it to an episode of "House of Cards." He describes how Kamala Harris, who once seemed to support Biden, is now positioned as the party's future, occupying the presidential box during the convention while Biden fades into the background. Dave shares an anecdote about Harris's calculated shift on the issue of a ceasefire in Gaza, illustrating her tendency to change her stance based on political convenience.

Dave praises Harris's strategic maneuvering, noting that she managed to secure her position as the Democratic nominee by first publicly supporting Biden, even as he began to falter. When the media started speculating about potential replacements for Biden, Harris ensured that she wasn't overlooked by criticizing the speculation and asserting her claim to the nomination. Dave admires the political skill involved in her actions, acknowledging that Harris has proven herself to be a crafty and ambitious figure within the party.

Dave and Robbie discuss how Kamala Harris secured the Democratic nomination by strategically positioning herself as indispensable. By publicly supporting Biden while privately preparing to have him removed through the 25th Amendment, Harris managed to ensure that she couldn't be bypassed when the time came to replace Biden. Dave notes that this was a brilliant political move, whether orchestrated by Harris herself or her advisors. He also points out the irony that the Democrats initially chose Harris to add historical significance to Biden's campaign, only for her to leverage that position to secure her own future.

The conversation turns to the lineup of speakers at the Democratic National Convention. Dave observes that the party clearly views Biden and Hillary Clinton as liabilities, which is why they were scheduled on the first night. In contrast, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are considered assets, with Obama speaking on the second night and Clinton following. Dave explains that Obama's speech is separated from Harris's to avoid overshadowing her, as Obama is widely recognized as an exceptional public speaker.

Dave admits his interest in watching the speeches, particularly those of Obama and Clinton. Although Clinton was once a phenomenal public speaker, Dave believes his charisma has faded, possibly due to past drug use and the effects of aging. He humorously notes that Clinton's transformation from being chubby when young to thin in old age may have contributed to his current appearance, arguing that it's unnatural and has left him with a "skeletal" look.

Dave and Robbie discuss how the primary strength of politicians is their popularity with the public, which grants them power and influence. However, they argue that Bill Clinton's past, particularly his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and the numerous sexual assault allegations against him, makes him a significant liability for the Democratic Party. While Clinton was never convicted, the accusations and his connections to unsavory figures have tarnished his reputation, leading Dave and Robbie to question why the party continues to feature him as a speaker.

The conversation highlights how the left has shifted its stance on issues like the #MeToo movement, noting that the mantra "believe all women" has faded. Despite this shift, the presence of multiple allegations against Clinton should still be concerning, especially since similar accusations have led to severe consequences for others. Dave and Robbie find it odd that Clinton remains a prominent figure at the Democratic National Convention, despite the damaging accusations against him.

Dave suggests that Barack Obama is the only remaining "rock star" for the Democrats, noting how the Republicans have distanced themselves from figures like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and even Mitt Romney. The discussion contrasts the Republican approach with the Democrats' continued reliance on figures like Clinton. While Clinton's presidency is often remembered fondly, particularly in comparison to what followed, the reputations of Bush and Cheney have not aged well, especially given the long-term consequences of their policies.

Dave reflects on the public's nostalgia for the 1990s, a period often associated with peace and prosperity, despite the underlying boom-bust cycle. He notes that while the Obama years are still cherished by Democrats, the Bush years are indefensible due to the catastrophic events and policies that defined his presidency. The conversation underscores how the different legacies of these political figures influence their continued presence in their respective parties.

Dave and Robbie discuss how the legacies of political figures like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have made them unwelcome at Republican conventions, even if Trump were not the nominee. They argue that the disastrous outcomes of their policies have left no room for nostalgia or positive reflection. Dave suggests that if a neoconservative like Lindsey Graham were the nominee, figures like Bush and Cheney might be welcomed back, but that scenario is highly unlikely due to the Republican base's rejection of their policies.

The conversation shifts to how recent Republican primary candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, and Chris Christie, who ran on neoconservative platforms, have all failed to gain significant support. Dave sees this as a positive development, as it signals the Republican base's rejection of neoconservatism. Robbie agrees, acknowledging that while the party still has issues, this shift is a "small miracle."

The duo then pauses to acknowledge another sponsor, My Patriot Supply, before returning to the discussion. They review the lineup of speakers for the remaining nights of the Democratic National Convention, including Barack Obama, Tim Walz, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. They note how the convention features various political figures and celebrities, including Steve Kerr, who spoke the previous night.

Robbie dismisses Kerr's involvement in the convention, questioning the relevance of a basketball coach in political discourse. He finds it amusing how the types of celebrities who align with Democrats, like Kerr, differ from those who support Republicans, such as Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan. Robbie concludes that appearing at the DNC as a celebrity suggests a lack of genuine political conviction and a desire to align with the establishment.

Robbie humorously speculates about why certain celebrities, like Steve Kerr, would speak at the Democratic National Convention, joking that they might be coerced due to some secret scandal. He contrasts this with how Republicans get celebrities like Kid Rock, implying that Republican figures are more genuine in their affiliations.

Dave shares his thoughts on the remaining days of the convention, particularly looking forward to Kamala Harris's speech, which he believes could have a significant impact. He predicts that her speech will focus on familiar themes, such as threats to democracy and attacking Donald Trump, and that she will likely perform well, given her ability to read from a teleprompter.

Dave then reflects on a recent Twitter feud regarding whether it's appropriate to label Harris a communist or Marxist. He criticizes Donald Trump for sharing an image depicting Harris with a hammer and sickle flag, arguing that it's bad politics and comes off as conspiratorial. Dave believes this approach is not grounded in reality and could alienate voters by making Trump sound out of touch.

Dave further explains that labeling Harris as a Marxist is inaccurate, as neither she nor Biden are likely to take actions that harm big business. He dismisses the idea that the current political climate represents a Marxist revolution, arguing instead that it reflects a form of corporatism that has been present in the U.S. since the Progressive Era. He compares this to the evolution of communist countries like China, where market reforms were introduced to alleviate poverty while maintaining state control.

Dave discusses how modern political systems, including those in the U.S., have evolved into a hybrid model combining market operations with heavy government intervention and regulation. He acknowledges that while some might label this neomarxism, it is more accurate to recognize it as a shared model across many political figures, including Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and others. Dave argues that using the term "Marxist" to describe Harris diminishes its impact, as it could apply to many U.S. leaders across the political spectrum.

Dave continues by explaining that labeling Harris as a tool of the establishment and big business would be a more effective criticism. He notes that this approach would resonate with both the left and the right, as it reflects a more accurate portrayal of her actions. He highlights how vaccine mandates, for example, were less about ushering in a Marxist agenda and more about securing profits for pharmaceutical companies. Dave believes that focusing on these concrete examples would be more persuasive than vague accusations of communism.

Robbie adds that even Harris's proposals for price controls, which might seem socialist, don't equate to a Marxist agenda. He argues that while price controls are likely to fail, leading to rationing or a decline in quality, they do not involve nationalizing industries or taking over production, which would be necessary for a truly Marxist policy. Robbie suspects that these proposals are more likely empty campaign promises rather than serious policy initiatives.

Robbie shares his curiosity about how voters perceive price control policies. He notes that while such policies may sound appealing to some, they often fail to address the underlying issues, such as government actions that limit competition and drive up prices. He mentions his intent to gauge public opinion on this topic, especially among voters who might be attracted to the idea of government-imposed price controls.

Dave discusses how economic discussions, particularly on the left, often drift into unrealistic territory, where people express what they wish economics could achieve rather than what is possible. He compares this to wishing away the laws of nature, emphasizing that economic principles operate based on logic rather than personal desires. Dave criticizes the idea of price controls, pointing out that they are fundamentally flawed because they ignore basic economic logic.

Dave explains that price controls are economically unsound because they lead to shortages. He uses a reductio ad absurdum argument, suggesting that if price controls are good, then making everything free would be even better, highlighting the absurdity of the idea. He points out that businesses would stop selling products if forced to sell at a loss, which would lead to the very problems price controls aim to solve.

Dave further illustrates his point by discussing how competition prevents businesses from overcharging for goods, like milk. If one store tried to charge $1,000 for milk, another would quickly undercut that price. This competition ensures that prices remain reasonable, driven by businesses' desire to make money. He argues that price controls would disrupt this natural market process, ultimately making things worse.

Dave concludes by blaming the government's excessive money printing for the current high prices. He explains that the government flooded the economy with money to mask the pain of lockdowns and later to create the illusion of economic recovery, which has led to the inflation we see today.

Dave and Robbie discuss the incoherence of Kamala Harris's stance on price controls, noting that even the left recognizes it as a bad policy. Robbie predicts that Harris will likely backtrack on this issue, especially during debates, by shifting her argument to focus on preventing "illegal price gouging." They both critique the vagueness of terms like "price gouging," pointing out that there is no objective way to determine what constitutes an unfair price.

Robbie humorously compares price gouging complaints to stockholders who refuse to sell their tech stocks at lower prices, illustrating the emotional basis of such arguments. He notes that the concept of price gouging is subjective, depending entirely on what people are willing to pay. Dave expands on this by comparing it to union complaints about non-union workers undercutting wages, highlighting the inconsistency in these arguments.

Dave emphasizes that the real issue behind rising prices is the government's debasement of currency, not price gouging. He argues that if the government stopped inflating the money supply, prices would stabilize naturally. The show concludes with Dave stating that they will continue to cover the Democratic National Convention and keep listeners informed if anything significant happens.