Bob and Chez Show

The Bob & Chez Show Presented By BubbleGenius.com 11/23/16

putin-trump
Bob and Chez
Written by Bob and Chez

RELM_buttonYoung Online Activists: Hacking the Election; Study shows votes may have been siphoned off Hillary’s totals in Wisconsin; Nazi hackers vow to personal intimidate anti-Trump voices; The Electoral College outlived its usefulness; Trump won’t prosecute Hillary; Ben Carson for HUD; Recount in North Carolina; and more. Brought to you by Bubble Genius, Harry’s Razors, the BobCesca.com Amazon Link and The Bowen Law Group.

SUPPORT THE SHOW ON PATREON!

Listen and subscribe on iTunes (it’s FREE!)
Download the mp3 (56 minutes, 40mb)
RSS Feed
Bob & Chez Show Archive
Listen on your smartphone via Stitcher.com

  • Teaflax

    Guys, please. Yes, polls can be wrong – but *exit* polls are universally seen as a good way to see if an election is legitimate or not, and the exit polls were *also* “wrong” here. As I keep saying; if these circumstances surrounded any other election anywhere else, it would *not* be seen as legitimate.

  • Scopedog

    Why won’t the media talk about Trump and the Russians? Simple–no emails.

    In all seriousness, though…the majority of the press were just awful during the 2016 Election. There were a few honorable exceptions, but…the rest just focused on the email nothingburger while completely (and I’d venture willingly) ignoring the very real corruption on the Trump side.

    And now the press is trying to normalize him, despite the obvious evidence that the Trump transition team is utterly incompetent and that Trump is turning out to be everything they (the MSM and the far Left) claimed Hillary was–corrupt, secretive, too chummy with the elites, and nasty.

  • “…the polls can be wrong…”
    Seems like it’s always in coincidence with a GOP “upset win”, and never the other way.
    It’s a wonderment.

  • “…the polls can be wrong…”
    When did we first start seeing the polls getting it wrong?
    Does it coincide with anything that might be construed as “oddities” in the last several election cycles?

  • Peter James

    I’m sorry but Tulsi Gabbard is NOT a progressive, and barely a Liberal.

    She was advocating sending troops into Syria to deal with Assad ala the Iraq invasion under Bush, and bashed president Obama repeatedly for basically not taking the country into another war.

    How do you get to be a hawk to that degree and then turn around and criticize Hillary for “not being progressive enough”?

    She’s far to the right of probably even Trump on a lot of issues and gets away with it because she’s a veteran, but her views are just as odious.

    AND she was a BernieorBuster, so her getting appointed to serve in Trump’s cabinet will merely be just rewards for being on the same side as him.

  • muselet

    It’s possible election results were selectively tampered with, but attributing Hillary Clinton’s loss to that sounds too much like the rhetoric of the Cold War, when them damn’ Russkies! were three meters tall and covered with hair. I agree there should be a forensic investigation, but it should be narrowly focused, i.e., not intended to overturn the results.

    Having said that, voting must be made more secure from meddling/hacking/monkeywrenching/whatever you want to call it. If it didn’t happen this time, it almost certainly will in future.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” –Carl Sagan (echoing Pierre-Simon Laplace, David Hume and others)

    Pat McCrory’s request for a recount—based on an entirely unsupported claim of voter fraud—reminds me of Norm Coleman refusing for no good reason to concede in 2008 to Al Franken; also, it looks an awful lot like a cynical attempt to send the gubernatorial election to the NC Lege.

    Any lawyers out there, chime in if I’m wrong, but Weev’s statement sounds like a terrorist threat to me.

    I wouldn’t put it past Joe Scarborough to advise Donald Trump without disclosing it. The man is a shameless R shill, after all.

    I go back and forth on the Electoral College. On the one hand, it can—can—function as intended, to put a check on an unqualified candidate and/or the mob. In cynical moments, though, I start muttering H.L. Mencken’s line: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    Bob, the Rs in Congress have been trampling all the unwritten rules and traditions of that institution for years. Trump doing the same to presidential tradition is just more of the same. (Yes, absolutely, it’s alarming and needs to be pointed out as emphatically as possible, as often as possible.)

    Josh Marshall says “conflict of interest” is the wrong term when talking about Trump:

    [Conflict of interest] broadly appl[ies] to people who are trying to accomplish their public roles in good faith but have inherent conflicts which might prevent them from doing so. At a minimum, we use this construct on the assumption that people are acting in good faith and not advancing their private interests with the powers of their office. That’s the problem. The concept simply doesn’t apply well when you are talking is a public official who is by design using their public office for profit. Everything we’ve seen from President-Elect Trump so far suggests this all comes so naturally to him that at some level he doesn’t even see anything wrong with it. Indeed, this shouldn’t be surprising since it matches with his entire career, in which he has used every angle on offer – publicity, stardom, connections with government officials, etc. – to make money or as tools he can leverage to make money for his private businesses.

    No, Bob, Trump is naming cabinet secretaries based on their being even less qualified for their offices than he is (and their personal loyalty to him).

    Have a happy Thanksgiving, guys.

    –alopecia

    • Well thanks for that positivity. You actually may be more cynical than I am. 😉

      • muselet

        I was going to disagree with you, but then I re-read my comment.

        Holy cats, it’s going to be a long four years.

        –alopecia

  • ProudLiberalAlways

    I found the right show on Soundcloud, it was great as usual. I’m sooooooo glad you guys are back!!! You will be truly needed for the next 4 years, sanity is a terrible thing to lose!

  • Badgerite

    I like grapes. Sour and otherwise and I can’t see why the Democrats cannot insist on an audit. It is not the “high road” to be careless with the democratic process.
    If there is anything to this, we need to find out and if there isn’t we need to find out.
    By the time all of the counting is done Hilary Clinton will have won the popular vote by 2.5 million. How badly could a poll be off in a few states when they are so accurate in all the others. It is not a “theory”.
    It is an audit. Nothing more. Nothing less. And the people’s right to choose their representative must be vindicated one way or the other.
    What’s more it raises the issue of the vulnerability of the system and that should be addressed as well as the gerrymander.

    • I’m with you…we should have confidence in our system and right now, I do not. It would not surprise me in the least if Putin messed with the votes. As for Greenwald, he was a libertarian provocateur from the get-go and anyone who claims he is/was a liberal is a naïve wanker.

      /I’ve had a few pints so I have no shits to give right now

      • Badgerite

        Agreed. I’m working so I can’t indulge but have a pint for me while you’re at it.

  • Christopher Brannon

    Trump wants the single most attractive woman on congress in his cabinet? What a surprise. Gabbert better watch her front and back. Trumps looking to grab.

  • Bryan Simpson

    This is the Monday show, not a new one.

    • Badgerite

      Deja Vu all over again. Yogi Berra.

    • If you download the mp3 it is the correct show.

      • Diamond Dale Rio

        Thanks

      • ProudLiberalAlways

        No, it isn’t.

        • Hmmm, that’s strange. The mp3 was the correct one for me but that was yesterday morning. Maybe iTunes has the correct one. Sorry!

  • As an IT professional just because they don’t think they WOULD do it doesn’t mean that they CAN’T. Remember Putin’s last election(s) was observed by international organizations (and I believe they said there was fraud). So you can bet Putin felt like the world was “interfering” in their elections. I mean this is the guy that basically has taken over as a dictator in his own country, invaded and divided Ukraine, took back Crimea and is now openly, purposely bombing civilians and hospitals in Syria–and he’s done it with the entire world knowing exactly what he was doing and the entire world has done absolutely nothing about it. Putin thinks we’re toothless and he’s not entirely wrong. Ultimately I think that Putin wouldn’t hesitate to hack our votes. My only question is ‘what wouldn’t Putin dare to do?’

  • KanaW

    I’m sorry, but that picture just creeps me out. The original, with the pot belly, saggy man-boobs and fatty arms was bad enough, but to double it like that makes my eyes burn!

  • I think Ipecac pointed out that Herr Gropenfuhrer’s statement regarding Hillary could simply be political cover for when Congressional Republicans persuade the attorney general (Sessions, FSM help us) to go after Hillary.