24 Comments

I don’t know if anyone remembers Howard Dean when years ago following a speech he yelled “Yeah” like a hyena and it went viral. Anyway, if the media was fair Walz’ comment about his whereabouts and the look on his face would have been all over the news today.

Mainstream media is so awful!

Expand full comment

If the mainstream media is so awful, why did mainstream media moderators even ask Walz that question?

Expand full comment

Why didn’t they press him to answer in the same way they did Vance?

Expand full comment

Maybe because there was no need: unlike Vance on numerous occasions, Walz actually answered the question.

Expand full comment

The October Suprise has arrived from Jack Smith. Nicole Wallace on MSNBC said that Jack Smith has saved democracy. She said this will cause Donald Trump to be defeated again. One of her guest said DJT will be going to prison. I expect Jack Smith to have a prominent position in the Harris administration. Erick, I do not see how DJT will overcome this release of the J6 documents.

Expand full comment

Yes, All the Dems, Hillary et als want to restrict free speech. Hillary was on interview recently talking about how people posting disinformation should be prosecuted. Need to prosecute her then lying and publicly presenting DT Russian collusion Steel Dossier knowing she DNC paid for it. John Kerry wanting to Change the US Constitution Amendment #1 to prosecute certain free speech. Now Erick what do you think about this meandering AJC article about immigration.? None of it is blamed on JB and Kam.

Why the border crisis has worsened. Key factors explained

Expand full comment

We finally got our October surprise and actually it's no surprise at all.

It's conservative media either screaming "there's nothing to see here" or burying their heads in the sand regarding the mountain of evidence that was just released detailing Trump's months long illegal schemes to end democracy.

OMG - Imagine if the person who behaved like this had a D beside their name (we'd be dusting off our pitchforks right about now). But since the guy pretends to have an R and has a loyal cult of fans, we'll just look the other way and keep pitching an air purifier or something. Seems about right.

Expand full comment

No October surprise. The documents are total BS and nothing but conversationals between Trump and his staff. Nothing in there says anything about overturning anything.

In one of Harris's commercials it warns that Trump will use the DOJ to get revenge on his opponents. And yet this is exactly what the dems are doing. In the end this wont have any affect on the end results of the election. so your hopes and dreams are dashed. Waltz's disastrous debate against Vance will however have a broad affect on the election. If anything this will help Trump. Remember how Trump got a surge in polls and massive donations after the false conviction. Every time they try to use Lawfare Trump benefits. So maybe that's what they are trying to do because 1. I believe Harris does not have as much support as is advertised 2. The dems really do NOT want her to win. Her winning sets up a roadblock for other candidates like Newscum and even Jeffries.

You may be cheering in adulation same as you were with the access hollywood files, but in the end Trump wins.

Expand full comment

If anything I'd be closer to crying than cheering this stuff Chaz. It's yet another reminder that so many of my countryman that fancy themselves a patriots support a guy that tried to overturn the last presidential election to soothe a butthurt ego.

The fact that 80%+ of the GOP wanted this guy to be the nominee after much of this was already known means I think we need to add a new tagline to the GOP - The party of fake patriots.

Also I wasn't that bothered by the access hollywood stuff at the time. I thought it was pretty funny as I too have often moved on women like a bitch.

Expand full comment

Although Erick is right about hate speech being constitutionally protected, lest anyone actually consider yelling fire in a crowded theatre, that would indeed be against the law. You could be charged with disorderly conduct.

Expand full comment

the more I listen to your show the more you remind me of Rush and Paul Harvey. I personally am glad I don't agree with everything you say. who wants that? I want truth in reporting and sir, you are doing a swell job. RL and PH would be proud, thank you. I want a show that makes me think. Great show today!

Expand full comment

Though deeply disappointed by his support for the only President who failed to peacefully surrender power in the entire history of this Republic (which I consider disqualifying), I still think Erickson is both smarter and more principled than Limbaugh ever was. Unlike both Trump and Limbaugh (the latter of which may have done so "tongue in cheek), he makes no pretense at being infallible. So eventually, this fundamentally decent human being is going to wake up (yeah, I said it) and realize the error of supporting anyone so profoundly indecent as Donald Trump.

Expand full comment

these are the people who I listened to. I was also a Walter Cronkite person. I don't look to these people to lead me. I do that just fine. I look to these people for opinions different from myself and make me think. if you find you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room. I find it inexcusable I should tell him to think like me.

Expand full comment
Oct 2·edited Oct 2

To democrats free speach is allowed only when it matches their twisted belief system.

- drag queens reading porn to elementary kids. Free speech.

- throwing paint on a 300 year old painting. Free speech.

- standing in front of an abortion clinic preaching the word of god. Blasphemy, go to jail.

Expand full comment

I'll not comment on your first two examples but you got it wrong on the third example. The problem is not w/ demonstrators standing in front preaching but their physical attacks on the workers and patients as they are entering the clinics. Another example is the Antifa supported peaceful demonstrations after the murder of George Floyd which were infiltrated by elements intent on looting and destruction. The peaceful demonstrators were protected by the First Amendment, those engaged in the active damaging of private property were committing criminal acts.

Expand full comment

Ah yes I remember those infamous “peaceful protests” that seemed to always be on fire and caused billions of dollars in damage 🤡

Expand full comment

Yes, those peaceful protests sometimes became scenes of looting but I was putting it in the context Chaz' claim that the right-wing anti-abortion activists were wrongly-accused peaceniks.

Expand full comment

I don’t think you understand what the word “sometimes” means in context of those protests and I’ve yet to see anti abortion protestors torch anything.

Expand full comment

I guess you wear those figurative virtual-reality blinders that people on both fringes wear to filter out events they don't want to see.

Expand full comment

Oh! Maybe you’re confusing the Janes Revenge folks who threw Molotov cocktails at pregnancy centers?

Or is there some anti abortion protest that caused destruction of property or loss of life etc that I missed that happened within the last 10 years?

Expand full comment

Incorrect. The accusations of violence were falsely created to imprison the peaceful protestors outside those clinics. None of them ever touched anyone. So I got nothing wrong. thank you.

Expand full comment